As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Blizzard's Real ID - What isn't being said.

PolynomialsPolynomials Registered User regular
edited July 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
You can view this post I put on the WoW General Discussion Forums here.
It will probably be deleted, lol.


So. PR meltdown, Real ID, real names, trolls and such.

I've read a lot of articles from the gaming community, journalists, and bloggers now about Real ID, and the consequences of attaching one's real name to activity in WoW, SC II. The consensus, with which I agree, is that, on the Internet, putting someone's real name- or anything that can negate total anonymity- in the public arena is bad. Really bad.

Now, yes there are trolls, yes the forums are places where people act ignorant and hinder opportunities for meaningful discussion about the game. People who want to get away from the trolls go to other forums, such as Elitist Jerks.

But trolls are not what I wanna talk about. It's what Blizzard wants to talk about because it draws attention away from the thing they don't want to talk about: WoW is populated by people from the Internet.

I will reveal something to you that will make you /gasp. In real life, I am a black person. Yes, black people play WoW, too. I was running ICC 10 in a pug. Someone sprung a trap in the Plagueworks, causing the geists (Vengeful Fleshreapers) to spawn. Someone in vent said, "Oh wait, we have to kill the Mexicans." I thought that I had misheard him. On Dreamwalker, the same person said when the Suppressor geists spawned, "There are n*****s on the left." This person clearly made a habit of using racial slurs to refer to Suppressors.

My friend and I regularly simply /leave the trade channel due to the amount of racism, sexism, and just plain garbage that it is filled with. I used to report them. But there were so many to report at times that there was no way to continue playing and report all of them. So now I just put them on ignore, but my ignore list is regularly brimming over to the point that it requires regular culling of players whose offenses I cannot remember. Now, I only do this for the grand prize of ignorami because it happens too often for me to address. If I say anything about it in-game, there is no response, other players call me a whiner, or (and this is the most common response) it simply encourages the behavior further.

Blizzard can't admit, for obvious reasons, that the worst thing about WoW is the other players; I have believed this for a long time. Most people are not idiots. But plenty of them are too immature or ill-adjusted to stfu. The amount of casual or "joking" racism, sexism, religious hate, and homophobia in the gaming community, with the most popular MMO in the world as no exception, is something that is not really being addressed except by the occasional pissed-off player him or herself. Someone at Blizzard knows this and decided the best way to "solve" this problem would be to create what is essentially a new product, conveniently has a lot of profitability for them in the future, while still allowing Blizzard to Pontius Pilate with the whole problem as they have been for a while now. Very clever.

But If you want to stop trolling, and you want to make forums a more fruitful environment for discussion, you need better in- and out-of-game moderation. Way, way better. It's not that WoW or any other game needs to be a Pixar movie in order to be enjoyable. Nor am I claiming that I am innocent of the casual inappropriate comment because occasionally, it actually can be funny, we all know that. But I'm talking about the big picture: women, minorities, the religious, and gays feel harassed constantly while playing this game.

The attitude toward it is way too casual for a company, that even below as I write this post, claims that "harassing or discriminatory language" "will not be tolerated." Staking out a piece of Facebook and profiting off of this newfangled social networking shindig. This RealID thing, its a get rich quick scheme. Putting people's real names on the Internet will worsen trolling, and pave new avenues for the parade of ignorance to march down with brass band blaring. It doesn't address at all the problem of harassment and discrimination in gaming at large. Even with Blizzard's recent supposed concession (which I would invite people to examine more closely, a la today's Penny Arcade), now it feels like on of those Pixar movies- oh it's so pretty and nice, but things and people just aren't that nice, are they?

Blizzard, I know you've sunk a lot of money into this, but you're not doing what needs to be done. Elitist Jerks, for example, does not have many trolls and idiots because they aggressively enforce conduct policies, and are more restrictive in who is allowed to post. Link forum bans to in-game bans and vice versa. Hire no less than a writhing legion of forum and in-game moderators. We know you have the money. And for the love of-... do not do anything to compromise privacy and security, ever! If you insist on speak $$$, that means lawsuits. You can't escape all of them. Someone will have a good lawyer, and you're gonna lose a lot of gold.

This whole firestorm has drawn serious attention to the fact that you have been closing your ears and saying "la-la-la" to the above issues, and the ones I haven't even touched on, for a while now. But maybe you don't care as long as we keep paying our 14.99/mo. Just so you know though, I am reconsider doing that every time I see what I see.

Polynomials on
«13456717

Posts

  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    a) That's very sad, and I have to regrettably admit I most likely engaged in some of what you term "casual" bigotry. Not that I really believed in any of it, but what 90s teenager didn't throw the term "faggot" out there a million times? I'm not saying that makes it okay. In fact, that makes it worse. I didn't have much awareness back then, especially as a member of the privileged class. Now that I do, it makes me balk to think back and how terribly bigoted some of my childhood communications have been.

    b) I agree with you about how to fix the problem. Unfortunately, it's totally a matter of bean counting. It's easy to make huge, general, sweeping rules that cost the company next to nothing to implement and much harder to actually enforce good behavior in an appropriate way. I mean, look at how they framed the post indicating they were going to back off from the RealID forum thing:
    Hello everyone,

    I'd like to take some time to speak with all of you regarding our desire to make the Blizzard forums a better place for players to discuss our games. We've been constantly monitoring the feedback you've given us, as well as internally discussing your concerns about the use of real names on our forums. As a result of those discussions, we've decided at this time that real names will not be required for posting on official Blizzard forums.

    Their very first sentence, after their salutation, is a reiteration that they desire to make the forums a better place. It's almost as though they are clucking their tongues at everyone for the criticism against the new policy, as if they tried to implement a fix for that situation and we yanked it away from them and so they'll wash their hands of the responsibility.

    It's some very deft PR work there, but that's what it is. They can still enforce some proper moderation, including better channels for people to complain through. Pay more moderators. Devise some stricter and more explicit rules about how verbal bigotry and racism are tolerated. Post some explicit methods individuals such as yourself (or others witnessing the hate speech) can go through to report the situation with assurances that the matters will be dealt with in an official, above-the-table capacity.

    But they won't do that because (a) it's more costly to hire people to moderate than it is to changing some forum code in a one-time expenditure, (b) it's less PR-flashy to implement new rules to "fix" something like human behavior, and (c) because being openly restrictive towards bigotry will, in fact, put off these trolls that Blizzard relies on for revenue.

    Like I said before - it's sad.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Are people going to care that a bigot from a videogame has been outed on the internet? A videogame is recreation, not related to livelihood or well-being, so I can't see people getting worked up over a blacklist of names of players who made rude or hurtful comments.

    "Girls can't join my guild. Go QQ more."

    emnmnme on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Doesn't Steam moderate its own forums by maintaining a vast army of volunteer moderators? And as such some of its sub-forums are better than others, but it all sort of works out anyway?

    I mean, where Blizzard wants to go with this is Facebookily connecting all of its services and try to monetize its monopoly on that, so this probably isn't sufficient. But it does reduce forum trolling.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I really like the idea of non-anonymity. The more complete a lack of anonymity, the more duty and self-interest coincide.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    You realize that the bigots are paying just as much as you are to play, right? And that Blizzard has no reason to do anything about them as long as they're paying, and you're paying. So, what you have to do is decide what is more important to you: not subsidizing a hateful community, or playing WoW.

    It's that simple.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I really like the idea of non-anonymity. The more complete a lack of anonymity, the more duty and self-interest coincide.

    How so? Self-interest only works here if punishment for failing a duty exists, no? But many people are hard to act against even if their identities are known.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2010
    Wow. Someone is complaining about online bigotry in D&D and isn't being dismissed or talked down to. Its like a whole new world!

    I've been following this a bit in chat, and I'm honestly bewildered at the number of people who are ok with what was done. Even leaving aside the class of people who aren't particularly vulnerable to bigoted attacks and who don't care about being internet-findable, there are so many practical problems, from the dude who's brother was playing under an account linked to his own name (and think about how many young WoW players must have subscriptions paid for by parents), to the massive boost this gives identity thieves. I just don't see any logical rationale for making the change.

    And anyone who's arguing that less anonymity = more responsible and nicer conduct clearly must not be familiar with politics.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I mean I know a LOT of people who are openly racist and bigoted in real life. They seem to feel that they are entitled to be bigoted. It's really bizarre. I don't know many people who seem both bigoted and ashamed by their bigotry. Most people drop the bigotry once they are actually ashamed about it.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I think the system we have here, at least the part where posts meriting infractions are forever linked from your profile, is the best method of transparency. It does require moderator effort, but if it's utilized on face, that is, people can look at the posts to judge for themselves whether or not they were infraction worthy, and perhaps bring them up in the context of current communication, then perhaps it can become mostly community regulated, if not totally independent from authority.

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    I really like the idea of non-anonymity. The more complete a lack of anonymity, the more duty and self-interest coincide.

    How so? Self-interest only works here if punishment for failing a duty exists, no? But many people are hard to act against even if their identities are known.

    The more is known about someone, the easier it is to act against them. Social pressures are often sufficient to keep people in line, and turning out hidden people to society allows those pressures to act on them.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    I really like the idea of non-anonymity. The more complete a lack of anonymity, the more duty and self-interest coincide.

    How so? Self-interest only works here if punishment for failing a duty exists, no? But many people are hard to act against even if their identities are known.

    The more is known about someone, the easier it is to act against them. Social pressures are often sufficient to keep people in line, and turning out hidden people to society allows those pressures to act on them.

    Except the problem with the internet is you can remain anonymous and still READ everything.

    The people who harass others IRL don't need to reveal who they are to do so.

    shryke on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    I really like the idea of non-anonymity. The more complete a lack of anonymity, the more duty and self-interest coincide.

    How so? Self-interest only works here if punishment for failing a duty exists, no? But many people are hard to act against even if their identities are known.

    The more is known about someone, the easier it is to act against them. Social pressures are often sufficient to keep people in line, and turning out hidden people to society allows those pressures to act on them.

    This is a wonderful thing and absolutely never empowers bigots to do even worse things to people in ways they formerly couldn't!

    You're being incredibly naive here.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    I really like the idea of non-anonymity. The more complete a lack of anonymity, the more duty and self-interest coincide.

    How so? Self-interest only works here if punishment for failing a duty exists, no? But many people are hard to act against even if their identities are known.

    The more is known about someone, the easier it is to act against them. Social pressures are often sufficient to keep people in line, and turning out hidden people to society allows those pressures to act on them.

    Social pressures? You mean, like: "girls should post tits or gtfo"? Or "fags should shut up and stop whining"?

    Unfortunately the "easier to act against them" bit cuts both ways here, and there's no way to selectively expose the identities of bigots.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    There are no direct social pressures with online interaction, even with full names. You can't punch someone on another continent in the face, even if you do know their name, and people won't be going "there goes that chap that talks shit on WoW forums, shunnnnnn!"

    On the other hand, the potential for abuse is enormous.

    Glal on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2010
    I also find the "but stalking laws are pretty good now, you'll get justice" line to be veering very wide of the point. I don't care how good the danged laws are, I don't want to be stalked in the first place! And when someone tries to force me into a situation that raises the odds of that happening considerably, I. Do. Not. Appreciate. That.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Thanatos wrote: »
    You realize that the bigots are paying just as much as you are to play, right? And that Blizzard has no reason to do anything about them as long as they're paying, and you're paying. So, what you have to do is decide what is more important to you: not subsidizing a hateful community, or playing WoW.

    It's that simple.

    That's not practical. Any community of anything beyond a dozen people is bound to include racists/bigots. Why should it be the OP's responsibility to avoid bigotry? I don't see how he is suddenly obligated to avoid for-pay communities simply because bigots exist in the community.

    I mean I'm not sure what your point is. No, Blizzard is under no legal obligation to cater to people who don't want to have slurs hurled against them constantly, but as the gatekeepers for a gigantic community, don't they kind of have a responsibility to? Don't they have an ethical responsibility to guide the community in a hateless direction, to spend some of that money toward proper moderation? To me, they have a responsibility to do so, and they have a responsibility to do so in a responsible way, which this RealID nonsense certainly wasn't.

    ronya wrote: »
    I really like the idea of non-anonymity. The more complete a lack of anonymity, the more duty and self-interest coincide.

    How so? Self-interest only works here if punishment for failing a duty exists, no? But many people are hard to act against even if their identities are known.

    The more is known about someone, the easier it is to act against them. Social pressures are often sufficient to keep people in line, and turning out hidden people to society allows those pressures to act on them.

    People certainly don't have a right to be bigoted, but:

    a) People do have a right to privacy. Not everyone looking to retain their privacy is a bigot. In fact, I'd say most of them aren't.

    b) Even considering the bigots, do you really think the threat of being tracked down in real life is a good way to enforce less hatefulness? Even if it is effective, is that really a good way to go about it? I find it extremely irresponsible, and also comes at the expense of all the people I mentioned in point (a).

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    You realize that the bigots are paying just as much as you are to play, right? And that Blizzard has no reason to do anything about them as long as they're paying, and you're paying. So, what you have to do is decide what is more important to you: not subsidizing a hateful community, or playing WoW.

    It's that simple.

    That's not practical. Any community of anything beyond a dozen people is bound to include racists/bigots. Why should it be the OP's responsibility to avoid bigotry? I don't see how he is suddenly obligated to avoid for-pay communities simply because bigots exist in the community.

    I mean I'm not sure what your point is. No, Blizzard is under no legal obligation to cater to people who don't want to have slurs hurled against them constantly, but as the gatekeepers for a gigantic community, don't they kind of have a responsibility to? Don't they have an ethical responsibility to guide the community in a hateless direction, to spend some of that money toward proper moderation? To me, they have a responsibility to do so, and they have a responsibility to do so in a responsible way, which this RealID nonsense certainly wasn't.

    I'd say the main problem with this line of argument is that Than's fallen into the trap of using the rhetoric of 'corporations as people'. Treating a business as though it is a life, an entity trying to survive, inevitably leads to all kinds of horrible fuckery, because arguing that a corporation-person shouldn't act in its own interest is like arguing that a person should stop eating. Or playing videogames, or something.

    Unfortunately, that framing is difficult to escape.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    WassermeloneWassermelone Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I feel like Blizzard is in search of a solution for a problem that was already solved a long time ago. Moderators. Sure you'll get some duds. But then you police THEM. Then you only have to police 200 people instead of millions.

    Wassermelone on
  • Options
    admanbadmanb unionize your workplace Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    You realize that the bigots are paying just as much as you are to play, right? And that Blizzard has no reason to do anything about them as long as they're paying, and you're paying. So, what you have to do is decide what is more important to you: not subsidizing a hateful community, or playing WoW.

    It's that simple.

    That's not practical. Any community of anything beyond a dozen people is bound to include racists/bigots. Why should it be the OP's responsibility to avoid bigotry? I don't see how he is suddenly obligated to avoid for-pay communities simply because bigots exist in the community.

    I mean I'm not sure what your point is. No, Blizzard is under no legal obligation to cater to people who don't want to have slurs hurled against them constantly, but as the gatekeepers for a gigantic community, don't they kind of have a responsibility to? Don't they have an ethical responsibility to guide the community in a hateless direction, to spend some of that money toward proper moderation? To me, they have a responsibility to do so, and they have a responsibility to do so in a responsible way, which this RealID nonsense certainly wasn't.

    I believe all Thanatos is saying is that Blizzard has no financial reason to dramatically shift their moderation policies. As long as the good people are willing to pay for a game in which the bad people exist, Blizzard has no reason to mass-ban the bad people.

    admanb on
  • Options
    CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I really like the idea of non-anonymity. The more complete a lack of anonymity, the more duty and self-interest coincide.

    Also, it totally makes it easier to stalk and harass people, just what you want out of your MMO.

    Corvus on
    :so_raven:
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    I really like the idea of non-anonymity. The more complete a lack of anonymity, the more duty and self-interest coincide.

    How so? Self-interest only works here if punishment for failing a duty exists, no? But many people are hard to act against even if their identities are known.

    The more is known about someone, the easier it is to act against them. Social pressures are often sufficient to keep people in line, and turning out hidden people to society allows those pressures to act on them.

    This is a wonderful thing and absolutely never empowers bigots to do even worse things to people in ways they formerly couldn't!

    You're being incredibly naive here.

    That's... kind of missing the point. There was assumed privacy and it was broken. If there are no expectations of privacy that that's not a situation that is going to occur. A better example would have been Octavia Nasr, who was let go after she Tweeted her respect for a Hezbollah member after he passed away. That is a case of an institution being hypocritical and politically motivated, and I believe that this is a small tributary of CNN's fading influence.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    admanb wrote: »
    I believe all Thanatos is saying is that Blizzard has no financial reason to dramatically shift their moderation policies. As long as the good people are willing to pay for a game in which the bad people exist, Blizzard has no reason to mass-ban the bad people.

    Lots of companies act for non-financial reasons, especially if their own employees have misgivings over some policy.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    admanb wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    You realize that the bigots are paying just as much as you are to play, right? And that Blizzard has no reason to do anything about them as long as they're paying, and you're paying. So, what you have to do is decide what is more important to you: not subsidizing a hateful community, or playing WoW.

    It's that simple.

    That's not practical. Any community of anything beyond a dozen people is bound to include racists/bigots. Why should it be the OP's responsibility to avoid bigotry? I don't see how he is suddenly obligated to avoid for-pay communities simply because bigots exist in the community.

    I mean I'm not sure what your point is. No, Blizzard is under no legal obligation to cater to people who don't want to have slurs hurled against them constantly, but as the gatekeepers for a gigantic community, don't they kind of have a responsibility to? Don't they have an ethical responsibility to guide the community in a hateless direction, to spend some of that money toward proper moderation? To me, they have a responsibility to do so, and they have a responsibility to do so in a responsible way, which this RealID nonsense certainly wasn't.

    I believe all Thanatos is saying is that Blizzard has no financial reason to dramatically shift their moderation policies. As long as the good people are willing to pay for a game in which the bad people exist, Blizzard has no reason to mass-ban the bad people.

    Okay, but that's just isn't acceptable.

    I'd rather direct my "social pressure" toward Blizzard since it really is their ethical responsibility to moderate properly, even if it requires them to dig into their coffers. I can certainly understand why a business wouldn't want to spend revenue on something that isn't going to make them money, but it's the kind of thing that they really should do since their communities grew to the size it has.

    I mean read my first post in this thread. The whole thing is a bit of handwaving. I'm going to cut through their PR bullshit and translate it to brass tack English. This is what Blizzard did:

    Blizzard: "Here's some really haphazard rule we're going to put in place. If you want to be an asshole, you're going to have to do it under your real name. Maybe being afraid of each other will keep you in line."

    Everyone in the world: "No, Blizzard, that is dumb. Go fuck yourself."

    Blizzard: "Okay, fine, we REALLY wanted to implement this thing that doesn't cost us anything and places the responsibility for pressuring each other into acting nicely toward each other at your feet but you wouldn't let us. We just want to make sure you understand that we're wiping our hands of the responsibility of governing this massive community our product is responsible for spawning. But we're not going to do it proper, so instead we're going to issue you this backhanded comment about you all not accepting our desire to 'make the forums a better place' and go back to sitting around with our thumbs up our asses."

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    I really like the idea of non-anonymity. The more complete a lack of anonymity, the more duty and self-interest coincide.

    How so? Self-interest only works here if punishment for failing a duty exists, no? But many people are hard to act against even if their identities are known.

    The more is known about someone, the easier it is to act against them. Social pressures are often sufficient to keep people in line, and turning out hidden people to society allows those pressures to act on them.

    Social pressures? You mean, like: "girls should post tits or gtfo"? Or "fags should shut up and stop whining"?

    Unfortunately the "easier to act against them" bit cuts both ways here, and there's no way to selectively expose the identities of bigots.

    My original post, and the thread itself, is concerning a blanket IDing of a group of users. You seem to be interested in something completely different.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    The problem is you have some strange idea about why this was implemented.

    This wasn't about forum moderation. It was about Blizzard (or more likely Activision) importing social networking into Blizzard products.

    shryke on
  • Options
    LoklarLoklar Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    admanb wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    You realize that the bigots are paying just as much as you are to play, right? And that Blizzard has no reason to do anything about them as long as they're paying, and you're paying. So, what you have to do is decide what is more important to you: not subsidizing a hateful community, or playing WoW.

    It's that simple.

    That's not practical. Any community of anything beyond a dozen people is bound to include racists/bigots. Why should it be the OP's responsibility to avoid bigotry? I don't see how he is suddenly obligated to avoid for-pay communities simply because bigots exist in the community.

    I mean I'm not sure what your point is. No, Blizzard is under no legal obligation to cater to people who don't want to have slurs hurled against them constantly, but as the gatekeepers for a gigantic community, don't they kind of have a responsibility to? Don't they have an ethical responsibility to guide the community in a hateless direction, to spend some of that money toward proper moderation? To me, they have a responsibility to do so, and they have a responsibility to do so in a responsible way, which this RealID nonsense certainly wasn't.

    I believe all Thanatos is saying is that Blizzard has no financial reason to dramatically shift their moderation policies. As long as the good people are willing to pay for a game in which the bad people exist, Blizzard has no reason to mass-ban the bad people.

    I wonder how much "internet racism" is part of the culture of the internets. There's a 4chan thread up right now, where people are defending 4chan as a sort of "place where zany stuff happens." Which is probably a little kind to that place.

    I think it's a matter of picking your poisons. I think anonymous people, or changable usernames, will always lead to people saying stuff just for the lols; stuff they don't neccessarily believe. I don't have trouble self-moderating my wow-time to be away from the truely disgusting people. But I also don't get hurt by more casual forms of racism.

    I'd rather anonymity be preserved... but I've got the world's biggest invisible backpack though.

    Loklar on
  • Options
    SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I would never play any MMO that is non anymous. Because playing MMO's is my escapism, and I want to be the sole person who gets to decide who I tell what I do for my hobbies. Because people think badly about spending loads of time killing internet dragons.

    In fact, I'm annoyed enough with A-B's policy to reserve the right to sell all your information to whoever they damn please.

    SanderJK on
    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    I really like the idea of non-anonymity. The more complete a lack of anonymity, the more duty and self-interest coincide.

    How so? Self-interest only works here if punishment for failing a duty exists, no? But many people are hard to act against even if their identities are known.

    The more is known about someone, the easier it is to act against them. Social pressures are often sufficient to keep people in line, and turning out hidden people to society allows those pressures to act on them.

    Social pressures? You mean, like: "girls should post tits or gtfo"? Or "fags should shut up and stop whining"?

    Unfortunately the "easier to act against them" bit cuts both ways here, and there's no way to selectively expose the identities of bigots.

    My original post, and the thread itself, is concerning a blanket IDing of a group of users. You seem to be interested in something completely different.

    Okay, I'll make it simpler for you. How do you know that the resulting prevailing social pressures from non-anonymity will be non-bigots pressuring bigots to shut up rather than vice versa?

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    The problem is you have some strange idea about why this was implemented.

    This wasn't about forum moderation. It was about Blizzard (or more likely Activision) importing social networking into Blizzard products.

    Which is also stupid. If I played WoW, I wouldn't want it bugging my other friends to pick up my habit. I actually really hate that obsessive cross-linking thing people are doing with social networks. Do these people not compartmentalise their lives at all?

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Let me ask this:

    I don't think there's any regulation or law requiring a certain level of phone support for businesses (but please correct me if I'm wrong).

    Maintaining a customer service staff beyond some dude in billing with a billing@company.com account costs money to the company. Should no company ever be obligated to spend money on proper customer service, regardless of how big it becomes?

    I mean, Apple products are extremely popular. I am assuming they aren't legally obligated to maintain a customer service presence over the phone. If they decided to drop that and just go to an email-only support system, would that be cool?

    My opinion is that the success of a company - and everything borne of that success - is the responsibility of the company. The nature of WoW is that it is a social game. Naturally, a community grew from the game, and the more successful and popular WoW became, the more that community grew. That success is Blizzard's responsibility, so whatever ailments arise from that success are also their responsibility. It certainly isn' the responsibility of Joe Shmoe to avoid giving Blizzard money just because they refuse to spend some of it to maintain a proper level of customer care, which in this case is "preventing blatant racism and bigotry."

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    I really like the idea of non-anonymity. The more complete a lack of anonymity, the more duty and self-interest coincide.

    How so? Self-interest only works here if punishment for failing a duty exists, no? But many people are hard to act against even if their identities are known.

    The more is known about someone, the easier it is to act against them. Social pressures are often sufficient to keep people in line, and turning out hidden people to society allows those pressures to act on them.

    This is a wonderful thing and absolutely never empowers bigots to do even worse things to people in ways they formerly couldn't!

    You're being incredibly naive here.

    That's... kind of missing the point. There was assumed privacy and it was broken. If there are no expectations of privacy that that's not a situation that is going to occur. A better example would have been Octavia Nasr, who was let go after she Tweeted her respect for a Hezbollah member after he passed away. That is a case of an institution being hypocritical and politically motivated, and I believe that this is a small tributary of CNN's fading influence.

    Not really. You're arguing against such private conversations being allowed to be private in the first place. You want them linked to real names and out in public so 'social pressure' can keep people from saying bad things. With no real definition of 'bad things', I might add. In order to be consistent in your arguments thus far, you should be cheering on whoever outed that list and got someone fired. But you know that's a shitty thing to do.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    The problem is you have some strange idea about why this was implemented.

    This wasn't about forum moderation. It was about Blizzard (or more likely Activision) importing social networking into Blizzard products.

    Blizzard sold it as a method to improve forum moderation:
    The official forums have always been a great place to discuss the latest info on our games, offer ideas and suggestions, and share experiences with other players — however, the forums have also earned a reputation as a place where flame wars, trolling, and other unpleasantness run wild. Removing the veil of anonymity typical to online dialogue will contribute to a more positive forum environment, promote constructive conversations, and connect the Blizzard community in ways they haven’t been connected before.

    It's likely that Blizzard's underlying motive was, yes, importing and eventually monetizing social networking, but we should at least engage with Blizzard's claimed motive in good faith.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The problem is you have some strange idea about why this was implemented.

    This wasn't about forum moderation. It was about Blizzard (or more likely Activision) importing social networking into Blizzard products.

    Which is also stupid. If I played WoW, I wouldn't want it bugging my other friends to pick up my habit. I actually really hate that obsessive cross-linking thing people are doing with social networks. Do these people not compartmentalise their lives at all?

    Then you don't have to participate.

    But some people like the idea of being able to see if their buddy is playing SC2 right now while they are playing WoW so they can be like "Hey, let's play something together!". Or maybe they just wanna chat.

    It's no different then Steam ... except they wanna use your real name for some stupid reason (possibly related to their recent deal with Facebook).
    ronya wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The problem is you have some strange idea about why this was implemented.

    This wasn't about forum moderation. It was about Blizzard (or more likely Activision) importing social networking into Blizzard products.

    Blizzard sold it as a method to improve forum moderation:
    The official forums have always been a great place to discuss the latest info on our games, offer ideas and suggestions, and share experiences with other players — however, the forums have also earned a reputation as a place where flame wars, trolling, and other unpleasantness run wild. Removing the veil of anonymity typical to online dialogue will contribute to a more positive forum environment, promote constructive conversations, and connect the Blizzard community in ways they haven’t been connected before.

    It's likely that Blizzard's underlying motive was, yes, importing and eventually monetizing social networking, but we should at least engage with Blizzard's claimed motive in good faith.

    Why when it's obvious from the previous use of RealID that it's for a completely different purpose?

    shryke on
  • Options
    LoklarLoklar Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Okay, I'll make it simpler for you. How do you know that the resulting prevailing social pressures from non-anonymity will be non-bigots pressuring bigots to shut up rather than vice versa?

    This is so weird. It seems obvious doesn't it?

    If someone wouldn't say something in real life, but would say it anonymously... well take away their anonymity and they'll probably stop saying it.

    Loklar on
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The problem is you have some strange idea about why this was implemented.

    This wasn't about forum moderation. It was about Blizzard (or more likely Activision) importing social networking into Blizzard products.

    Which is also stupid. If I played WoW, I wouldn't want it bugging my other friends to pick up my habit. I actually really hate that obsessive cross-linking thing people are doing with social networks. Do these people not compartmentalise their lives at all?

    Thank you. I think it's ridiculous. I love Facebook, and I don't hide the fact that I'm a gamer, but I also don't need to spew all my gaming shit all over Facebook either.

    It's like the Penny Arcade comic about Live Anywhere:
    215547119_n8Q6A-L-2.jpg

    Hell, one of my female friends today posted about getting sand in her high heels while having sex on the beach. She has over 800 friends. I'm no conservative, but what the fuck. I don't get why people need to inform everyone on Facebook every single thing they are doing. I've even seen this annoying "checked in" thing pop up lately, where people automatically (I think) check into certain bars/hotels/whatever with their Android phone. That's just bizarre to me. I'd rather not even have a phone.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Again, there are actual sane uses for shit like this. Like with Steam.

    Just, you know, not with people's real names.


    Drez wrote: »
    Hell, one of my female friends today posted about getting sand in her high heels while having sex on the beach. She has over 800 friends. I'm no conservative, but what the fuck. I don't get why people need to inform everyone on Facebook every single thing they are doing. I've even seen this annoying "checked in" thing pop up lately, where people automatically (I think) check into certain bars/hotels/whatever with their Android phone. That's just bizarre to me. I'd rather not even have a phone.

    Because Privacy is dead. And it wasn't taken from us, most people just gave it up willingly.

    shryke on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Okay, I'll make it simpler for you. How do you know that the resulting prevailing social pressures from non-anonymity will be non-bigots pressuring bigots to shut up rather than vice versa?

    This is so weird. It seems obvious doesn't it?

    If someone wouldn't say something in real life, but would say it anonymously... well take away their anonymity and they'll probably stop saying it.

    Here is Loklar, someone who has never been hated on for who he is rather than what he said

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    SE++ is being hilarious on-topic with this Edit:
    2154994888pszrl2.jpg

    SanderJK on
    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The problem is you have some strange idea about why this was implemented.

    This wasn't about forum moderation. It was about Blizzard (or more likely Activision) importing social networking into Blizzard products.

    Which is also stupid. If I played WoW, I wouldn't want it bugging my other friends to pick up my habit. I actually really hate that obsessive cross-linking thing people are doing with social networks. Do these people not compartmentalise their lives at all?

    Then you don't have to participate.

    Sure we do. We have to read about people playing WoW on Facebook. I not only don't want to tell people when I'm playing WoW, I also frankly don't want to read about it either.

    That may sound selfish, and it is, and I'm kind of exaggerating my real feelings on the matter, but Facebook isn't compartmentalized either. It has, more or less, one big body. So if companies like Blizzard keep pushing stuff like this, and people keep participating in it, more people will be forced to "participate" because social networking is half the information YOU share and half the information people share WITH you.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    EchoEcho ski-bap ba-dapModerator mod
    edited July 2010
    The more is known about someone, the easier it is to act against them. Social pressures are often sufficient to keep people in line, and turning out hidden people to society allows those pressures to act on them.

    Kind of like the study that found that people in Germany were less likely to talk to doctors and psychologists about stuff after their mass wiretapping laws were introduced. Yep, that keeps them in line.

    Echo on
Sign In or Register to comment.