The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[PATV] Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - Extra Credits Season 4, Ep. 11: Harassment
Dog
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
This week, we tackle the rampant bullying, misogyny and hate speech that occurs within the gaming community.<br /> Ask Microsoft Support for the tools we need to stop harassment <a href="https://help.xbox.com/default.aspx?productkey=xbox360live&mkt=en-us&st=1&wfxredirect=1" target="_blank">here</a>!<br /> Come discuss this topic in the <a href="http://extra-credits.net/episodes/harassment/#discuss" target="_blank">forums</a>!
Dog on
0
Posts
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
The main problem was that the community defended him, instead of making him into the pariah he should be.
Conveniently, that is happening as of a few days ago. Check out http://GamersAgainstBigotry.org, sign the pledge, and let us know how we can improve it!
Speaking as someone who's seen a LOT of harassment, believing in "the power of community" is rather naive when the playerbase of a lot of games resembles a boy's treehouse/locker room...
edit:OOOH! I got one, track average number of times the words rape, slut, cunt, and bitch are used in a player's message and infract players whose average goes over 1.
And also...
@deathkitten, it is true that it does seem to be that way, but honestly, i also have learned throughout my gaming career, it is also the game itself that very much depends. When i play Bioshock II online, i don't get that kind of treatment, and its the same when i play some other MMO's, but when i play Call of Duty...dear lord, it comes in HORDES. The people who play Call of Duty games in particular seem to be the worst, because they're either 12, or total douche bags.
As you stated, these aren't little kids running their mouth off, these are adults and grown men and women saying hateful things to one another. While mean spirited, people have the freedom to express their opinions to one another in the most common case rage as shown on this episode. Its part of human nature as a whole, it just doesn't feel right to forceably police the voices and actions of a few despite how bad they are.
The main thing that seams to empower people to feel they can express their true feelings without using the regular social filter in other medium like letters, television or physical interaction is as you've pointed out the feeling of protection behind a computer screen. If games online made an attempt towards being more intimately social it would be much more difficult to express the things people say when you can physically see the reaction of the other person.
The cross assault dispute is tough to swallow but its hard to really point fingers and individuals as an outsider looking in. The mute feature is a powerful feature and your idea for auto mute is probably the best feature you've suggest since people can just choose to unmute them, anything after that borders the extreme. Using in game mechanics to purposely censor people into their actions is a grey area, much like the political system in tera, which I assume you were suggesting.
However choosing to ignore the ignorance or rage to others works wonderfully, you can proudly reply to those sending hateful messages to you the same way I prefer to, you tell them you are honored to receive their rage, wear it like a badge.
TLDR Version - Mute idea is good, heavy policing is negative and its too hard to point out individuals as being in the wrong or justified, nothing extreme, ignoring hateful comments works beautifully, you should feel honored your interaction with another person was able to incite such strong emotions most commonly rage.
Just my 2 cents, thanks for the input as always extra credits, keep up the good work.
void autoMuteJerks(PlayerJoinEvent *e) { if (e->player->muteCount > MUTE_LIMIT) { e->player->mute(); } } game->addEventListener(autoMuteJerks);Yep, that's it. The trouble is that such a feature was probably either never suggested to people who had the power to implement it, or never given the go-ahead. It's entirely possible the idea was discussed and then discarded due to some reason. Insufficient time to properly test it. Concern that it might produce some sort of backlash. Who knows. Publishing a game is tricky business. Code, at least this kind of code, not so much.Kudos to them.
I would also like to point out that some trash talk in competitive play is to be expected. I am not defending it, or saying that it doesn't cross a line, but some mind games or taunting is part of the game, that does not include personal attacks or gender specific comments, but taunts about bad plays, poor decisions etc.
You see it even happening in other competitive sports, celebrating goals or mocking competitors when they get dribbled past. Games should add other ways of toying with the competitors and some games actually do.
This is an issue created outside the community, and rather than making a system where people get rated for bad behavior etc, they should rather create user options, let the players themselves have options that only friends can send them messages. That users themselves get to decide if they join a game and all people stat of muted etc. People should be able to control themselves what they want of a community
Bullies absolutely should be controlled. I shouldn't have to restrict myself to my friends list, or turn off chat entirely, just to avoid them.
Perhaps the most worthwhile things viewers on this page here can do is share the video with their friends and respective communities outside of this site to spread awareness and get others thinking.
For those of you who don't know, previously in League of Legends, as with most games, the only way to give feedback for player behavior was to report them. This is fine but only fights half of the battle. Now, at the end of a game, players not only have the option to report negative players, but also to honor positive ones based on Teamwork, Helpfulness, and Friendliness if they're on your team, and Honorable Opponent if they're on the other. People who amass enough honor are given a ribbon next to their profile to show off "hey look I'm a good person." The most common one by far is Honorable Opponent - I would argue a little TOO common, but apparently they judge your worth not based on how much honor you have, but how much you have compared to the rest of the playerbase. That means that people playing when the system was first introduced got their ribbons pretty easily, which would explain why most of my friends who play regularly have it.
Also, this lends itself to a permanent form of punishment that doesn't hinder play: removal of honor. If you get banned for a day, or a week, you just play something else. But if you lose your honor, you have to earn it back by being a more positive person. A system in it's infancy, but definitely a step in the right direction.
I imagine it's at least in part to the fact that people are probably less likely to buy games they get banned from playing. However with the various player bases becoming more and more diverse this consideration is probably becoming less financially sound since players are also less likely to play games they're verbally abused in.
Then there's just plain old boy's club stuff. Being a developer/publisher doesn't give a person any particularly keen insight into what is and isn't terrible behavior. I'm sure more than a few consider the abuse "trash talk" and therefore a feature.
what is wrong with the cross assault clip is not the way they were behaving, it's that they continued doing it. i heard maranda ask them to stop and call it creepy at least 4 times, that is not ok. this kind of behavior and humor is perfectly fine so long as everyone is ok with it but these ass... jerks continued long after the welcome had worn away and its end was requested and ignored. our group is guilty of this and we worked to change it but found we still pissed people off, so one day we resigned to offering a disclaimer before we conversed with a potential fellow xbl friend or foe; be straight with us and we'll be fine, we're not used to other people hearing us for who we are at home so we're not great and knowing if we've offended, so if we offend you please tell us that will give us a future "do not cross" line. and you know what it worked wonders by telling players we converse with to be honest when we've offend them we saved ourselves a whole lot of headaches, and with the listeners drawing the line we've managed to clean up our image. so if you tend to share the same brand of humor next time you start talking with someone new just tell them up front that you dont censor much so honesty is welcomed when you've offended them, if we all strive for this small compromise im sure our community as a whole will be seen in a better and more respectful light
I disagree. That was a professional environment and, regardless of any perceived informality based on the content, it is the responsibility of professionals in the environment (i.e. the coach making the comments) to behave like professionals. I think she has a strong case for a sexual harassment law suit and I'd be really happy if she pursued that. But the idea that someone has to tell someone that inappropriate behavior is inappropriate and that it's excusable before that is absurd. Sure, sometimes people cross the line and it's good to say something, but it's not everyone else's job to teach a person how to behave in a socially acceptable manner around a female or in general. If she had been casually making fun of the asian guy's race, you wouldn't say 'Yeah, it was okay until he asked her to stop then she should have stopped.' We expect people to know better and as well we should.
It's a fine distinction, but it's a very important one because making other people responsible for drawing lines is so frequently an excuse for people crossing lines and it seems there's no end to how much more clearly this mode of thought expects lines to be drawn. You may say, 'She said not to', but someone else can look at it and say 'Well, I didn't think it was clear.' In the same way, people have in the past said rape was not rape because a person didn't state clearly 'No, do not have sex with me.'