Halo 4 Sexism Earns You a Lifetime Ban

[LiquidGrape]

Unequivocally a good thing. Their ballpark, their rules.

 

[Doom972]

Why only sexism? Why not give bans for racism, anti-LGBT, etc? If one can get you banned, shouldn't the rest get you banned?

'

It will, the article says that they're be cracking down on discriminatory comments in general.

You're right, this part confused me: "That's why there's a zero tolerance policy for sexist or discriminatory comments on Xbox Live". I don't see why sexism must get a special mention, but as long as all discriminatory comments are treated the same in practice (we'll see about that), I don't find it as objectionable. I wonder how will Halo 4 multiplayer would be like, now that people are forced to be nice to each other.

I never played any Halo game myself and I never used X-Box live, but I learned back in my Counter-Strike 1.5 days to disable all microphones from my end. People out there have some serious issues, and I don't care about what they have to say.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

And if you don't understand that freedom of speech also includes the ability to say things other people find offensive, then you need to do more research still. They most certainly have the right to do this, sure. But I think that trampling on the freedom of others to speak because someone was offended by that speech is A Very Bad Idea.

Sorry but no. Nope nope nope. Nope. Freedom of speech only applies to a public forum with NO regulatory control owned by no one and facilitated by no one but yourself. Heres an example.

I used to be part of a debate team. We used to go to London and take part in debates. This was paid for and run by the school. For SOME REASON i wasnt allowed to scream "ASS PUSSY!" at the opposing team or id be ejected! VIOLATION OF MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH?! MY FREEDOMS WERE TRAMPLED! By your logic at this debate competition run, funded and organised by someone else who invited my there under the condition i behaved appropriately i should be allowed to say whatever i damn well please without consequence. I should have been allowed to stand up, and just scream racial hatred for 3 minutes without interruption. I should have been allowed to continue to participate no matter how often i did this and no one should be able to eject me or stop me from doing this. The judges should have sat in silence and listened to my 3 minutes of constant swearing and all other participants should be forced to listen or be made to leave.

See how absurd that is? How beyond stupid that sounds? Freedom of speech DOESNT APPLY when you are doing something on the condition that you DONT SAY CERTAIN THINGS that you agreed to. If i invite you into my house and say, clearly, "If you say ****** you will be asked to leave" and then you say it and you are asked to leave that isnt violating your freedom of speech. Its my house. My rules, i TOLD you those rules and you willingly broke them. Just because microsoft was too lazy to enforce rules clearly outlined previously and now they start doesnt make this wrong.

This isnt a violation of freedom of speech at all. Get over it. If youre in someone elses house, or server, on the condition you follow their rules or get out. You dont break said rules and tell everyone else to get out because they dont like it. Its not even a bad idea. its a very GOOD idea.

If it REALLY is protected speech then if you invite me over and then try and kick me out for calling your wife a "FAT TRAMP!" for a few hours i can sue your ass for violating free speech laws. Damn fucking right. By your own admission if you kicked me out it would be a bad idea. You would instantly be a hypocrit if you kicked me out of your house for verbally abusing your wife.

 

[Equality]

Does this mean Elmo's going to get banned?


Even if we get rid of all the -ist abuse ... what about the swearing? How many people are offended by that?

 

[Kyogissun]

I gotta be honest in saying I can see this ending really badly, like someone abusing this.

I'm not one who goes online and really does a lot of multiplayer, but I'm REALLY hopeful in the fact that 343 will be very careful with how they do this. This should be something reserved for repeat/mass reported/been banned or suspended before players.

I figure the ones who need to be dealt with will be obvious and we won't have people using this system maliciously to get people permabanned for the sake of their amusement.

 

[lostlevel]

I don't think saying anything will make a difference, online multiplayer is filled with hate speech. Quite how they'll police this I don't really see anything changing that much. After all the Racists are still on Xbox live and I don't like it but the reporting system is flawed and often misused. So they will have to find a smarter way to police things or they can just make statements to make everyone feel included and do nothing in reality.

If I don't like the trash talk or people send hateful messages I mute or block communications.

 

[SidheKnight]

I agree with having a zero-tolerance policy against sexism and discrimination.

I don't agree with the auto-permaban thing.

I'd rather have a three-strike policy followed by a permaban so that the offenders have an opportunity to rectify their behaviour and become positive members of the community.



P.S: I've never played with an X-Box, is XBL really as bad as they say?

 

[Salad Is Murder]

Ugh! I cannot believe people are seriously spouting the "free speech" thing AGAIN!

Listen up, freedom of speech gives you the right to SPEAK! It protects you from exactly ZERO consequences of said speaking, and hateful things ARE NOT PROTECTED! My god, why does every one seem to forget this!?

While I'm sure the laws will vary from state to state, and there certainly are things that can be said that are not protected by the first amendment (libel, slander, fightin' words, etc. though I think hate speech is actually protected) and while it will not protect you the consequences of your speech, we do have other laws that cover that. If you call someone a jerk and they punch you (though maybe a jerk is you) you'd better believe there are laws that protect you (or at least punish the offender in this case) from that. What free speech would there be if there wasn't protection? If someone could just beat you up to keep you from speaking your mind because they disagreed with it? That's no free speech at all.

That aside...

One of things that's important to keep in mind in regards to the Xbox user agreement and first amendment issues is this: Xbox Live doesn't have to let you say whatever you want over it's network. If you do and say things on the Xbox Live network that your user agreement specifically prohibits, then yes, they are well within their rights to enforce the contract that you agreed to and terminate your use of it.

It's really not complicated, though I do think it's a "swat a fly with a hammer" reaction, I think it reflects more on the community that they think this is a necessary tactic to make people not behave like jerks.

 

[SecondPrize]

LoL this is laughable. how the heck can she say "That's why there's a zero tolerance policy for sexist or discriminatory comments on Xbox Live"

I have heard more foul sh*t on the xbox than anywhere else. unless they disable ingame communications completely or have moderators in every public match, I'm gonna have to call bullsh*t on this one.

Uh, they're saying that they're GOING to have this policy with Halo 4 when it comes out.

Actually no, no they are not. These women say that sexism is bad, then without quotes, there is a sentence about how xbox live policy contains a provision to permaban for racism/sexism etc. This is an already existing policy. Nowhere in the article does it say that 343 will be enforcing behavior on live themselves. Nowhere in the article does it say that xbox live will be ramping up enforcement when halo4 releases or will be looking at that game in particular.
I wouldn't be upset if they did, because halo matchmaking has always been a cesspit.

 

[Stu35]

A) car fixing abilities are considered pretty awesome in our society, sandwich making is considered lame/derogatory

What crazy society do you live in?

My fianceés sandwich making abilities are one of the things I hold in highest regard about her. I also take pride in my own sandwich making abilities (I make a ploughmans fit for the royal family of all ploughmen).

Sandwiches are important. Never forget that.

 

[Salad Is Murder]

My husband almost always cooks 'cause he is WAY better at it, he's like "it's an Italian thing" and turns disparate ingredients into delicious dinners.

 

[simple64]

Hrm. It's been said, so I'll say it again.

Your Freedom of Speech is not being taken away. To say that is insulting to the men (and women) killed in the act of defending it. You have the freedom to say what you want, when you want WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. That means you will not get manhandled by the police simply for stating that you dislike the president. That is your right as an American citizen.

That DOES NOT EXTEND to privately owned businesses or private residential areas. Simply put, you still have the right to say what you want, when you want, but they have the right to terminate your services for it. The same way you have the right to remove a man from your house simply for being a filthy Mets fan. Nobody is forced to give you a soapbox to speak, nor do they have the responsibility to make sure your word gets out, unless that was agreed upon. As such, it is your right to refuse their terms, refuse their service, and either find a service to your satisfaction, or make one of your own. If you truly support the First Amendment, you should not demand that this business should subvert their rights and bend according to your whims.

That is what Freedom of Speech is. It is not them giving you support to say what you want, and they have full right to take away your service for breaking their Code of Conduct.

Speaking of which, you have willingly, willfully agreed to their rules, a.k.a the Terms of Use. It clearly states what is, and what isn't allowed. It mentions the consequences for breaking such rules, including banning. You clicked "I Agree". Therefore, by definition, you have no problem with what they are doing. If you disagree, then you should not have clicked "I Agree". It is your right, as previously stated, to refuse their services and to spend your money elsewhere. You do not have the right to use their service how you see fit, over how they decide.

And while we are on the subject of Live, it should be said that it was never a place that upheld your "freedoms of speech". Those terms, limitations and such have always been there. The only difference between then and now is that they have never fully enforced it. It gave you the illusion that Live was meant to be a soapbox, fit to spew whatever is on your mind. According to the Terms of Agreement (ToA), they had to right to not uphold their rules, and to change how they uphold them whenever they see fit, and without warning. You agreed to this when you hit "I Agree". It was your right to not use their service if you had a moral objection to this, but I suppose the need to game overrode your sense of morals then.

And on a side note, I would like to address those who would like to tell those to "just mute the offenders". Do you know why such drastic measures are being taken place now? It is because the developers of Halo 4 do not want an environment in which everyone must be on mute in the first place. The people doing the harassing aren't even following their rules to begin with, so why in the Eight Divines (I'm no heretic) should steps be taken to make the game more enjoyable to those breaking their terms? Because they payed for the game? Cool, they can still play the game offline, it's still usable. However, you broke the rules for online play, in which you've agreed to the consequence. Sure, we can just mute the offenders. But the devs don't want the offenders here in the first place.

So that's that. What I am saying isn't only my opinion, but backed up by fact that you can find, sans the last paragraph before this.

tl;dr Cry sum moar, trolls!

 

[CanuckWithSideburns]

Hrm. It's been said, so I'll say it again.

Your Freedom of Speech is not being taken away. To say that is insulting to the men (and women) killed in the act of defending it. You have the freedom to say what you want, when you want WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. That means you will not get manhandled by the police simply for stating that you dislike the president. That is your right as an American citizen.

That DOES NOT EXTEND to privately owned businesses or private residential areas. Simply put, you still have the right to say what you want, when you want, but they have the right to terminate your services for it. The same way you have the right to remove a man from your house simply for being a filthy Mets fan. Nobody is forced to give you a soapbox to speak, nor do they have the responsibility to make sure your word gets out, unless that was agreed upon. As such, it is your right to refuse their terms, refuse their service, and either find a service to your satisfaction, or make one of your own. If you truly support the First Amendment, you should not demand that this business should subvert their rights and bend according to your whims.

That is what Freedom of Speech is. It is not them giving you support to say what you want, and they have full right to take away your service for breaking their Code of Conduct.

Speaking of which, you have willingly, willfully agreed to their rules, a.k.a the Terms of Use. It clearly states what is, and what isn't allowed. It mentions the consequences for breaking such rules, including banning. You clicked "I Agree". Therefore, by definition, you have no problem with what they are doing. If you disagree, then you should not have clicked "I Agree". It is your right, as previously stated, to refuse their services and to spend your money elsewhere. You do not have the right to use their service how you see fit, over how they decide.

And while we are on the subject of Live, it should be said that it was never a place that upheld your "freedoms of speech". Those terms, limitations and such have always been there. The only difference between then and now is that they have never fully enforced it. It gave you the illusion that Live was meant to be a soapbox, fit to spew whatever is on your mind. According to the Terms of Agreement (ToA), they had to right to not uphold their rules, and to change how they uphold them whenever they see fit, and without warning. You agreed to this when you hit "I Agree". It was your right to not use their service if you had a moral objection to this, but I suppose the need to game overrode your sense of morals then.

And on a side note, I would like to address those who would like to tell those to "just mute the offenders". Do you know why such drastic measures are being taken place now? It is because the developers of Halo 4 do not want an environment in which everyone must be on mute in the first place. The people doing the harassing aren't even following their rules to begin with, so why in the Eight Divines (I'm no heretic) should steps be taken to make the game more enjoyable to those breaking their terms? Because they payed for the game? Cool, they can still play the game offline, it's still usable. However, you broke the rules for online play, in which you've agreed to the consequence. Sure, we can just mute the offenders. But the devs don't want the offenders here in the first place.

So that's that. What I am saying isn't only my opinion, but backed up by fact that you can find, sans the last paragraph before this.

tl;dr Cry sum moar, trolls!

Thank you!

 

[mattttherman3]

Honestly, this is not the main problem, the problem is those jack holes that just blare their shitty music into the damn headset, that is 90% of my mutes, nothing more distracting then that. As for using headsets, well, mine keep breaking, I sat on my 60$ wireless one and broke it , not to mention literally no one listens to strategy, OH LETS SPRINT UP TO THE DUDE WITH A SHOTGUN INSTEAD OF CROUCHING AND FLANKING. The only game I used it for strategy? Halo Wars, ODST behind your lines baby! Plus, I swear alot when I die or lose so I do not use it much anymore.

 

[simple64]

"Free speech?" Uh... no. Free speech laws don't protect you when you say downright hateful garbage.

Actually, yes they do. They protect the freedom to say anything that isn't directly inciting to violence, and there are a few more exceptions. Since the freedom to be able to say those things weighs more than the feelings of the "offended" people.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=668543

"On this cluster of interrelated topics, there appears to be a strong international consensus that the principles of freedom of expression are either overridden or irrelevant when what is being expressed is racial, ethnic, or religious hatred. ... In contrast to this international consensus that various forms of hate speech need to be prohibited by law and that such prohibition creates no or few free speech issues, the United States remains steadfastly committed to the opposite view. ... In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one's legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment, but in the United States, all such speech remains constitutionally protected."

In fact, in the US there have been several cases where for instance certain institutions like universities tried to restrict free speech and they lost in court since their code of conduct proved to be unconstitutional and impeding free speech so it got overruled, for instance: http://staging.thefire.org/article/9014.html

"Every time campus speech codes have been challenged in court, they have failed. Yet unconstitutional speech codes remain the rule?not the exception?at universities across the country," Lukianoff said. "Look for many more of these challenges in the future as FIRE continues our fight to end speech codes nationwide. Repressive speech codes have no place at our nation's colleges and universities."

It can of course be argued that Microsoft has total control over their "service" and can do what they want, but it sets a bad precedent and at some point when millions of people can get together and talk to each other, creating what are basically public spaces there need to be other considerations weighed against each other than the company line.

There are similar cases for instance for Twitter "fights": http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/twitter-stalking-is-protected-free-speech-judge-rules/

Ultimately freedom of speech is a boon that should be held very highly, one of the very base fundamental rights humans have and not a matter that should be trifled with over simple matters like "offending someone's feelings", and people will only know what they have lost when they unfortunately come into the situation that they have no free speech anymore. Let me tell you, it's not a great thing and there are still large parts of the world in the Middle East, North Korea, Africa etc. where it doesn't exist.

Freedom of speech, in the way you understand it, does NOT override the right to run a private business, so long as that business does not break a few constitutional laws themselves. At the same time, as I painstakingly typed above, none of your rights are being infringed upon. Those "millions of people" do not make their private functions into a public space. If you feel your rights were being loss, if you disagree with their policies, you should not have agreed to give them that right, and you should have refused that service.

It is amazing how many people think that Live was always a place meant to speak as they please. It was not. You were always under the watch of "Big Brother", so to speak. Don't get upset because you're just realizing what that meant.