Halo 4 Sexism Earns You a Lifetime Ban

Salad Is Murder

New member
Oct 27, 2007
520
0
0
GunsmithKitten said:
So if I own a bar/resturant/ect...and someone is constantly yelling "n!gger, c!nt," ect...at my patrons, Free Speech forbids me to throw him out of my establishment? You really think that's how it works?
It's not so much a free speech issue as it is a private property thing. You have the right to enforce certain rules of conduct on your business...maybe that's not the best way to say it. They don't have to act the way you want them to, but you are well within your rights to have them leave your property.

My family used to own a bookstore, and it was pretty much: as long as you're not doing it for discriminatory reasons, you can throw anyone out for anything.
 

Bashfluff

New member
Jan 28, 2012
106
0
0
BiscuitTrouser said:
Bashfluff said:
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.
If you look at the context of the quote, you'd be seeing that I was arguing about what free speech in law covers (offensive language), using that as a benchmark for what the rules should cover--not that free speech laws actually apply here. As a fellow debater. I'm appalled by the poor reasoning and critical analysis skills shown here.

I assert that the suppression of speech solely based on offense is ridiculous. People certainly have the right to kick you out of formal events for yelling and being vulgar. But I do remember a lot of offensive language-not swears, but generally offensive things--that was protected by my speech coach and by tournaments because they valued the freedom of students to say what they felt--provided it wasn't highly vulgar--instead of valuing the "right to not be offended". There was a bill my friend wrote for student congress my last year there. It made it mandatory to place three copies of Mein Kampf to be in every school library. While delivering the affirmation speech, he went off into a two minute anti semetic tangent, deadpan. People were angry. People got up and tore him apart solely for his racist comments. The chair was a Jew. But no one stopped him from talking. They let him say his piece, no matter how offended they were. Because we in speech and debate value the freedom of speech and expression. That's the way it goes.

Xbox live is not my work place. It's not a formal environment. I do not think that trash talk should be so looked down upon in that community because it's a part of gaming culture. Trash talk is common. Trash talk is something that is part of the fun. Sure, you have your assholes who take it too far and start harassing people, but that doesn't mean you have to be over-reactionary and suppress trash talk altogether. What this is going to do is create an environment of fear, where people are too focused on offending others than cutting loose and having a good time. The studio has the right to shape their online environment that way, sure, but I hope that people who care about the freedom of speech refrain from purchasing the game and that their sales plummet.
 

simple64

New member
Sep 14, 2011
45
0
0
Dexter111 said:
simple64 said:
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.
1) I'm not using Xbox or Xbox Live, this is about the 5th time I have to say this.

2) Nobody said it does and Microsoft has full control of their office spaces and premises, people keep bringing up "throwing someone out of your house/establishment for reason X", but they fail to understand that that is another law entirely, and people can be thrown out of private property for basically ANY reason whatsoever including not liking the color of their shirt, doesn't mean that they can't continue with reason X as soon as they are right outside.
They can be denied entry for any reason in the first place, including them being too short, not liking their hair color or the tone of their voice.

3) I gave some examples where freedom of speech overruled both strict Code of Conduct rules as well as hateful messages via a social network, with links and everything. A telephone company can't clip your wire because they dislike what you say. Someone would just have to stand up for their rights. We are also talking different jurisdictions here, in Europe for instance EULAs and Terms of Services can oftentimes be voided for various reasons.
1) I wasn't assuming that you do, I was just throwing that out there as a general reference, many Live users tend to say things similar to you.

2) I am glad that you understand this, as it is something I neglected to mention, I think. However, it fully applies here. Not only can you be thrown out of private property, but you can be denied private services. Nobody is trying to stop this behavior in general, as you stated, people are allowed to carry on with their business outside the...business, but that extends to privately own online businesses, as well as private forums and the such. As you stated, private companies are allowed to throw people out for breaking their terms.

3) Those two examples you have given do not properly apply to this particular situation. The first one that you gave dealt with a government run building, which specifically hinged on personal rights. Since it is run by the Gov (so to speak), they cannot do that.

As for the second, it is also not a good example. If Twitter themselves declared his behavior to be against their terms of use, then so be it. But that is not the case. As it turns out, a user took the case against another user outside of Twitter themselves. They took it upon themselves to settle this.

I can't speak for the law in Europe, because here, this is in no way a case of Amendment infringement.
 

simple64

New member
Sep 14, 2011
45
0
0
Bashfluff said:
Nobody is speaking out against Trash Talk. They are speaking out on abuse of terms. There is trash talk, and then there is harassment, and making the community a sorry place to be in. It is because people cannot simply "cut loose" without swearing all sorts of racist, homophobic things in the mic. While you can mute them, they are still breaking their agreed upon terms.

In short, if you can't have fun without harassing others, well, that's on you, and that is not the type of people wanted here.
 

simple64

New member
Sep 14, 2011
45
0
0
trty00 said:
Salad Is Murder said:
trty00 said:
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.
Actually, no, that's not how it works. If someone chooses to punch you out because you said something they didn't like, too bad. If you get shut down because you said something dumb, too bad. Your rights end as soon as you say something. You can't be arrested for voicing an opinion, but you can sure as fuck be told to shut up.
Physical violence is not allowed at all. You can tell them to STFU, you can't punch them out.

EDIT: On another point, Salad is Murder is completely right in his scenario. Without protection, Free Speech isn't really free. Though, in his case, free speech must be used responsibly. You cannot use it to start a fight. While the offender of the violence (i.e, the puncher) will get punished, so will the person starting the fight. Hence why you cannot go to to a bar and taunt a guy.

That doesn't mean that others must look out for your "free speech" and provide a place for you to speak your mind, so to speak.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Though now I'm curious as to what the equivalent of "make me a sammich" is.
"Go fix the car/sink/toilet"?

I don't really have much to add to this thread, blatantly offensive and sexist comments are bad and since I don't have Xbox Live anyway, this won't be effecting me at all. Also, 17 pages of sexism talk. I've got too much of a cold to read through all of that.
 

DanDeFool

Elite Member
Aug 19, 2009
1,891
0
41
DVS BSTrD said:
As much as I think Xbox live badly needs to reigned in, I hope they're not ovary vindictive with the enforcement.
It's the risk you run with any kind of law enforcement. How do you walk the line between being too lax and letting too many wrongdoers get away, and being too rigorous and punishing people who don't really deserve it?

If there's one thing XBLA has going for it in this regard is that most of the sexism and bigotry on the service is both blatant and shameless; no need to worry about the gray area initially.

One thing's for sure, there are going to be a whole lot more banned 360 consoles on the market in the next few months.
 

Dark_Reaction

New member
Apr 14, 2010
45
0
0
simple64 said:
Bashfluff said:
Nobody is speaking out against Trash Talk. They are speaking out on abuse of terms. There is trash talk, and then there is harassment, and making the community a sorry place to be in. It is because people cannot simply "cut loose" without swearing all sorts of racist, homophobic things in the mic. While you can mute them, they are still breaking their agreed upon terms.
What's amusing is that you genuinely believe that first bit.

See, the problem with 'Trash Talk', as you put it, is that what is mild trash-talking to you may well be verbal harassment to another - you just don't know, because there's such a vast variance in terms of how people define these vague concepts.
So, YES, people ARE speaking out against trash talk, depending on what your definition of 'trash talk' actually is and whether or not you find it offensive/discriminatory/sexist/derogatory/etc.
I should note here that I DO tend to find most forms of 'trash talk' offensive to some degree and, if given the opportunity, I likely WOULD utilize avenues to eliminate it - and those who partake in it - from the community; however, I don't believe I (or any other player) should have that sort of power in the first place, as I don't support the idea of one person being able to eliminate another from the community for taking offense at their opinions/statements.

I can see where you're coming from though - if rules are clearly stated and you violate those rules, you should be subject to the consequences and have no real position to argue against it.
And that would be the case if 'the rules' were something that could be easily, clearly and universally defined - which, in the case of offensive statements, let alone something as vague as 'sexist comments', just isn't the reality.
There is trash talk, and there is harassment, and the two are in no way mutually exclusive in all instances and/or from all perspectives.

And, frankly, if you think the community is a sorry place to be in due to the few jerks therein, you need to wake the hell up - go out to a public place and actually interact with people, and realize that its not nearly as bad as you seem to think it is in comparison to the rest of reality.

Can you get thrown out of a bar/restaurant/shop for swearing or harassing another?
Yes, you CAN, but that certainly doesn't mean that you WILL - far more likely, you would be asked to keep quiet (ie, muted), because you are a paying customer and they want your business.
The only reason these devs feel they can get away with permabanning you in this scenario is because YOU'VE ALREADY PAID, and thus they really have nothing more to gain from you (and even if they did, you as an individual are such a small drop in the pond as to be insignificant to their concerns) - in fact, they may actually make MORE money from your expulsion, by forcing you to purchase a new avenue to access multiplayer content.


Look, the world is full of scenarios where we as individuals are required to deal with people who act, speak or behave in ways that we may personally find objectionable, but we have to deal with the circumstances ourselves because there isn't a babysitter standing off to the side to come and hold our hand while berating the offender - and that's a good thing, not a bad.

If you're the type of person who is 'scared off' of multi-player video games because the other people MIGHT be mean to you, to the point where you won't even take part in the game despite being able to mute (that is, effectively ignore entirely) anyone who offends you even remotely, then you really need to get some counseling because that's psychological dysfunction on the verge of a anxiety disorder - and others catering to your dysfunction is NOT going to help you in the least.

Compare this to a real-world scenario - if you're afraid to enter a store or bar or restaurant because you're afraid the people therein might say something offensive to you and the management might not back you up, then you're going to miss out on a lot and you have nothing to blame but your own cowardice in the face of adversity.

I'm certainly not blaming the 'victims' for their own harassment, but I am blaming them for their inability to deal with such meager forms of harassment (far removed and easily ignored).

I hate to be quite so harsh, but the fact is that society should not cater to political correctness and neither should a free community - if you don't have the self-confidence to defend yourself against those that would attempt to offend or berate you (or don't have the basic psychological fortitude to ignore things you don't like and move on when given the option) then you are unlikely to be a particularly valuable asset to the community, to ANY community, and giving you disproportionate power to control the discourse of others is not a step in the right direction.

In short, if you can't have fun without harassing others, well, that's on you, and that is not the type of people wanted here.
I suppose that's your opinion, however, I don't personally share it and I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment.

From my perspective, if you can't have fun without harassing others, then you should be denied the ability to do so - relatively easy given the technology at hand, several rational aveneues of undertaking such measures having already having been laid out in this very thread - NOT denied the ability to participate altogether

And, beyond that, if you are so overcome with entitlement issues that you can't enjoy a game due to a few jerks in the community - who you are fully capable of effectively eliminating from your experience - then that's on you, and you really aren't the type of person I want to have anything to do with, online or in-person, as you are a prime example of everything I dislike about the modern politcally correct culture that feels they have the right to police the lives of the many to protect the feelings of a few weak-willed individuals who refuse/are unable to ignore the occasional encounter with offensive material.
 

Salad Is Murder

New member
Oct 27, 2007
520
0
0
GunsmithKitten said:
Salad Is Murder said:
GunsmithKitten said:
So if I own a bar/resturant/ect...and someone is constantly yelling "n!gger, c!nt," ect...at my patrons, Free Speech forbids me to throw him out of my establishment? You really think that's how it works?
It's not so much a free speech issue as it is a private property thing. You have the right to enforce certain rules of conduct on your business...maybe that's not the best way to say it. They don't have to act the way you want them to, but you are well within your rights to have them leave your property.

My family used to own a bookstore, and it was pretty much: as long as you're not doing it for discriminatory reasons, you can throw anyone out for anything.
Well, guess what; those servers are private property as well. You're using it for as long as MS thinks you're abiding by their rules.
I don't know if I'm reading your tone right, but I'm pretty sure we're on the same side of the argument here.
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
Bashfluff said:
If you look at the context of the quote, you'd be seeing that I was arguing about what free speech in law covers (offensive language), using that as a benchmark for what the rules should cover--not that free speech laws actually apply here. As a fellow debater. I'm appalled by the poor reasoning and critical analysis skills shown here.

I assert that the suppression of speech solely based on offense is ridiculous.

Xbox live is not my work place. It's not a formal environment. I do not think that trash talk should be so looked down upon in that community because it's a part of gaming culture. Trash talk is common. Trash talk is something that is part of the fun. Sure, you have your assholes who take it too far and start harassing people, but that doesn't mean you have to be over-reactionary and suppress trash talk altogether. What this is going to do is create an environment of fear, where people are too focused on offending others than cutting loose and having a good time. The studio has the right to shape their online environment that way, sure, but I hope that people who care about the freedom of speech refrain from purchasing the game and that their sales plummet.
Ill ignore the first insult and respond that if you read carefully i was attacking the idea that its even bad to try and have control over what speech occurs in your owned arena, be that an arena of debate or an arena of halo. Your comment, which you repeated in the second paragraph, is totally ludicrous because this occurs all the time and is totally acceptable under certain circumstances. I think those circumstances cover a persons designed game where they own the arena of play. Youre posting this on a forum where accusing you of being a troll or bashing you would see me banned, thus suppressing my speech. I ask why you dont follow your own advice stated in your last paragraph and abstain from using a service using the same concepts you are arguing against. I cannot be racist on this forum. And yet you use it. Despite saying that a boycott is the ideal answer to institutions that suppress speech in this way. Forgive me if i am confused.

For your second paragraph the situation can be different to justify different responses. In your example letting him finish speaking seemed understandable. However i imagine that if i was, returning to my previous example, insulting your wife at a dinner party you would be very happy to kick me out were you the host if i did so repeatedly. This would be suppressing my ability to insult your wife based on the fact that it was offending her. The defense that all OTHER dinner parties ive been to were like this and insulting wives is just part of the dinner party culture just doesnt stand up. Youre the host. You decide what the party is.

Which brings me on to tackling your third paragraph. The host has total control over what the party is and should be. The host dictates the dress, the atmosphere, the behavior and the goal of the party. In the case of an actual party the host can decide that he doesnt want assholes there to ruin it for the other guests. He/She accepts they will lose the interest of assholes but does so anyway because they want to retain the intended atmosphere. Even if the assholes are a majority it changes nothing. Restaurants focused on fine dining do so to target a minority of people seeking a specific experience. Likewise this Halo game is trying to provide an experience outside the conventional and very common atmosphere of everyone being totally unpleasant all the time. I can understand why, if you enjoy such an atmosphere, you would boycot the game. Thats understandable.

Last time I went to a restaurant there was an atmosphere of total fear and suppression where no one was enjoying themselves. Likewise at the debating finals. Ludicrous isnt it? Both events where trash talking is disbared, the latter being almost the sole arena of trash talking (arguments) but conducted in a way totally designed to remove it. The ability to be a douche is secondary to the primary function of providing a fun main experience. The dining, the structured arguing and in this case the gameplay. People understand the social etiquette very well for how to behave in restaurants and formal competitions. I fail to understand why they are as stupid as you imply they are, being totally unable to distinguish between obvious abuse and casual conversation with the people you are playing with. If people were totally unable to tell if what they were saying was offensive we would never see any polite conversation. How can i converse with my girlfriends mother if i offend so easily? And yet i find it beyond simple not to say anything that could offend. Am i special? Do i possess a super power? I doubt it, i am not so arrogant as to think so.

If your argument, as shown by the first sentence of your last paragraph, boils down to, "Trash talking occurs everywhere therefor it should occur here too" then youre basically making an argument from tradition which doesnt stand on any sort of logical basis at all, you could similarly argue that eating food with your hands is part of the fun and that removing it from polite dining is suppressing the fun but that's obviously insane. Providing the same monotonous experience of inter player conversation as every other game isnt an ideal goal. A range of experience from constant abuse to polite play is admirable in an industry. Just like you have McDonalds and expensive Italian Restaurants. A range of atmospheres is good.

Honestly in my perfect scenario it would work like this: There is an option in the match maker. You pick total rash talk or no trash talk. You are then in two separate match makers. One can be an an anarchy where abuse over microphone is totally acceptable. Another can have stricter but clearly outlined rules where abuse is punished with banning from that separate match maker made for people who want a different atmosphere of play. Banned people are welcome in the anarchy match maker. That to me seems ideal. I feel that encompasses the best of both worlds but is definitely not the most efficient in terms of coding and match making.
 

simple64

New member
Sep 14, 2011
45
0
0
Dark_Reaction said:
Ok, now he's some fact on the matter.

First off, you are right on one thing; what is trash talk to one may be offensive to another. However, one thing you've decided to gloss over (or rather address and gloss over) is that, even then, the terms of what counted as truly offensive material was always laid out right there, in black or white letters, in the exact same way the Terms of Agreement was laid out here. So no, they are not talking about trash talk unless your definition of the term revolves around sexist, racist or homophobic remarks. That is laid out in the rules as well. The final say is up to the moderators, which, by the way, it has always been. People always had the ability to report, and bans have been given place to extreme offenders, showing that yes, people take their trash talk too far.

In other words, it's up to the mods to give the final say on whether it's a bannable offense, but you wouldn't be in that position unless the player reported first, something they always had the ability too. The only way it can be considered as such is if the player reports. If they don't , then it's apparently cool. And nobody said that the player has the ability to eliminate another. That right is solely up to the mod.

I can see where you're coming from though - if rules are clearly stated and you violate those rules, you should be subject to the consequences and have no real position to argue against it.
And that would be the case if 'the rules' were something that could be easily, clearly and universally defined - which, in the case of offensive statements, let alone something as vague as 'sexist comments', just isn't the reality.
There is trash talk, and there is harassment, and the two are in no way mutually exclusive in all instances and/or from all perspectives.

As it turns out, they mention right in the ToS that they have, and always had the final say in what counts as harassment. They never bothered to enforce it before, but they always had that right. If you're having trouble with what may violate the Terms, contact them and find out. That is your right to have the terms clarified.

And frankly, they have even given examples as to what is not acceptable behavior. Extreme behavior, such as hate mail and constant sexist and/or racial attacks are not allowed, and if reported enough,will be dealt with as the rules state.


And, frankly, if you think the community is a sorry place to be in due to the few jerks therein, you need to wake the hell up - go out to a public place and actually interact with people, and realize that its not nearly as bad as you seem to think it is in comparison to the rest of reality.

Can you get thrown out of a bar/restaurant/shop for swearing or harassing another?
Yes, you CAN, but that certainly doesn't mean that you WILL - far more likely, you would be asked to keep quiet (ie, muted), because you are a paying customer and they want your business.
The only reason these devs feel they can get away with permabanning you in this scenario is because YOU'VE ALREADY PAID, and thus they really have nothing more to gain from you (and even if they did, you as an individual are such a small drop in the pond as to be insignificant to their concerns) - in fact, they may actually make MORE money from your expulsion, by forcing you to purchase a new avenue to access multiplayer content.
Quite honestly, this sounds stupid, and nothing more than whining on your part. I interact with people on a daily basis. As it turns out, people aren't as rude as those on Live! Wow! Hate speech that goes on there isn't tolerated outside, bar certain areas. If you really think that people routinely behave like this, then it is you that needs to get out and experience the real world. Go to college, go to work, such behavior is frowned upon. As a guy who live in the real world, and as a guy who surfs the internet, I can tell you where most of the crap comes from. In a restaurant, people know how to behave, and they are, as you stated, told to quiet down, or removed. Perma-bans aren't uncommon. The fact that you would try to equate a play area online to behavior IRL, where your behavior is not in person, proves that your priorities aren't straight. That some people don't get thrown out of bars for rowdy behavior means little.

They can get away with perma-banning because they work at an online venture. This site can also do the exact same thing. Like it or not, they routinely moderate users, remove comments, and ban offenders. Where is your moral outrage here?

Look, the world is full of scenarios where we as individuals are required to deal with people who act, speak or behave in ways that we may personally find objectionable, but we have to deal with the circumstances ourselves because there isn't a babysitter standing off to the side to come and hold our hand while berating the offender - and that's a good thing, not a bad.

If you're the type of person who is 'scared off' of multi-player video games because the other people MIGHT be mean to you, to the point where you won't even take part in the game despite being able to mute (that is, effectively ignore entirely) anyone who offends you even remotely, then you really need to get some counseling because that's psychological dysfunction on the verge of a anxiety disorder - and others catering to your dysfunction is NOT going to help you in the least.
Yes, the world is full of people that force you to deal with people that you do not like. That said, there are also environments where you are not required to deal with people who like to ruin fun for others. In gyms, in bars, and yes, in restaurants and such, you do not have to put up with undesirable behavior. And even if you do, the one thing you tend to ignore is the fact that you are on an online, anonymous environment. Whereas IRL, you can confront the offender directly, you cannot do that here. It is the fact that you are not protected by an unknown face is what allows the behavior online; hence why people are much more opinionated here than there. And the devs do not want to create an environment where people must mute entire lobbies simply to protect the rights of those not even follwing their rules.

That is why people are "scared off" multi-player. It's an annoying hassle to deal with. Such hate speech can be directly confronted IRL, but not online. Muting is an option, but those that are breaking the rules are still breaking the rules. Therefore, they face the consequences.
 

simple64

New member
Sep 14, 2011
45
0
0
Dark_Reaction said:
Compare this to a real-world scenario - if you're afraid to enter a store or bar or restaurant because you're afraid the people therein might say something offensive to you and the management might not back you up, then you're going to miss out on a lot and you have nothing to blame but your own cowardice in the face of adversity.

I'm certainly not blaming the 'victims' for their own harassment, but I am blaming them for their inability to deal with such meager forms of harassment (far removed and easily ignored).

I hate to be quite so harsh, but the fact is that society should not cater to political correctness and neither should a free community - if you don't have the self-confidence to defend yourself against those that would attempt to offend or berate you (or don't have the basic psychological fortitude to ignore things you don't like and move on when given the option) then you are unlikely to be a particularly valuable asset to the community, to ANY community, and giving you disproportionate power to control the discourse of others is not a step in the right direction.
Again, trying to compare a real life to an anonymous internet environment does not mesh well together at all. If I am afraid of entering a store because people "might be mean to me", then that would mean I must have a fear for my life one way or another. Getting heckled in real life can definitely lead to violence, which I may want to avoid. That is why the management would interfere, and why I would avoid a store that doesn't. Unlike an anonymous environment, where all you have are words.


I suppose that's your opinion, however, I don't personally share it and I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment.

From my perspective, if you can't have fun without harassing others, then you should be denied the ability to do so - relatively easy given the technology at hand, several rational aveneues of undertaking such measures having already having been laid out in this very thread - NOT denied the ability to participate altogether

And, beyond that, if you are so overcome with entitlement issues that you can't enjoy a game due to a few jerks in the community - who you are fully capable of effectively eliminating from your experience - then that's on you, and you really aren't the type of person I want to have anything to do with, online or in-person, as you are a prime example of everything I dislike about the modern politcally correct culture that feels they have the right to police the lives of the many to protect the feelings of a few weak-willed individuals who refuse/are unable to ignore the occasional encounter with offensive material.
With all due respect (and no, this isn't a cheap Mass Effect way of saying kiss my @#$, if you played that game, I really mean with all due respect), the only one with entitlement issue here is you, or guys that share this opinion of yours. This is not a breeding ground for people to spew bile, and it isn't fair that you demand (not you in particular) devs to alter their rules to suit you. This was never a place to do that, to be purposefully offensive. I didn't ask for the devs to change the rules for my benifit, they did that out of their own accord. Some don't agree and act as if they have any say in the matter. Who sounds entitled here?
 

simple64

New member
Sep 14, 2011
45
0
0
GunsmithKitten said:
Dark_Reaction said:
And, frankly, if you think the community is a sorry place to be in due to the few jerks therein, you need to wake the hell up - go out to a public place and actually interact with people, and realize that its not nearly as bad as you seem to think it is in comparison to the rest of reality.
I've been to plenty of bars, resturants, and nightclubs, and the people there would throw you to the bouncers for HALF the garbage that goes on the internet.

Don't believe me? Go into a place and adubily talk like you're posting on 4chan. See how long you last.

And, beyond that, if you are so overcome with entitlement issues that you can't enjoy a game due to a few jerks in the community - who you are fully capable of effectively eliminating from your experience - then that's on you, and you really aren't the type of person I want to have anything to do with, online or in-person, as you are a prime example of everything I dislike about the modern politcally correct culture that feels they have the right to police the lives of the many to protect the feelings of a few weak-willed individuals who refuse/are unable to ignore the occasional encounter with offensive material.
Again, why do people NOT have the right to police their own property and what goes on in it?
He stated it perfectly, and is the reason why real world comparisons do not work. In real life, I have a multitude of options I can take to avoid the harasser. Online, I do not. In real life, there are no rules (other than laws and rules of the current establishment that you are partaking) that you must subscribe too. Online, there often is, which is why it is moderated. Online communities can control the environment that you can partake in. IRL, you cannot. No, that's a lie, you absolutely can.
 

Bashfluff

New member
Jan 28, 2012
106
0
0
BiscuitTrouser said:
Bashfluff said:
If you look at the context of the quote, you'd be seeing that I was arguing about what free speech in law covers (offensive language), using that as a benchmark for what the rules should cover--not that free speech laws actually apply here. As a fellow debater. I'm appalled by the poor reasoning and critical analysis skills shown here.

I assert that the suppression of speech solely based on offense is ridiculous.

Xbox live is not my work place. It's not a formal environment. I do not think that trash talk should be so looked down upon in that community because it's a part of gaming culture. Trash talk is common. Trash talk is something that is part of the fun. Sure, you have your assholes who take it too far and start harassing people, but that doesn't mean you have to be over-reactionary and suppress trash talk altogether. What this is going to do is create an environment of fear, where people are too focused on offending others than cutting loose and having a good time. The studio has the right to shape their online environment that way, sure, but I hope that people who care about the freedom of speech refrain from purchasing the game and that their sales plummet.
Ill ignore the first insult and respond that if you read carefully i was attacking the idea that its even bad to try and have control over what speech occurs in your owned arena, be that an arena of debate or an arena of halo. Your comment, which you repeated in the second paragraph, is totally ludicrous because this occurs all the time and is totally acceptable under certain circumstances. I think those circumstances cover a persons designed game where they own the arena of play. Youre posting this on a forum where accusing you of being a troll or bashing you would see me banned, thus suppressing my speech. I ask why you dont follow your own advice stated in your last paragraph and abstain from using a service using the same concepts you are arguing against. I cannot be racist on this forum. And yet you use it. Despite saying that a boycott is the ideal answer to institutions that suppress speech in this way. Forgive me if i am confused.

For your second paragraph the situation can be different to justify different responses. In your example letting him finish speaking seemed understandable. However i imagine that if i was, returning to my previous example, insulting your wife at a dinner party you would be very happy to kick me out were you the host if i did so repeatedly. This would be suppressing my ability to insult your wife based on the fact that it was offending her. The defense that all OTHER dinner parties ive been to were like this and insulting wives is just part of the dinner party culture just doesnt stand up. Youre the host. You decide what the party is.

Which brings me on to tackling your third paragraph. The host has total control over what the party is and should be. The host dictates the dress, the atmosphere, the behavior and the goal of the party. In the case of an actual party the host can decide that he doesnt want assholes there to ruin it for the other guests. He/She accepts they will lose the interest of assholes but does so anyway because they want to retain the intended atmosphere. Even if the assholes are a majority it changes nothing. Restaurants focused on fine dining do so to target a minority of people seeking a specific experience. Likewise this Halo game is trying to provide an experience outside the conventional and very common atmosphere of everyone being totally unpleasant all the time. I can understand why, if you enjoy such an atmosphere, you would boycot the game. Thats understandable.

Last time I went to a restaurant there was an atmosphere of total fear and suppression where no one was enjoying themselves. Likewise at the debating finals. Ludicrous isnt it? Both events where trash talking is disbared, the latter being almost the sole arena of trash talking (arguments) but conducted in a way totally designed to remove it. The ability to be a douche is secondary to the primary function of providing a fun main experience. The dining, the structured arguing and in this case the gameplay. People understand the social etiquette very well for how to behave in restaurants and formal competitions. I fail to understand why they are as stupid as you imply they are, being totally unable to distinguish between obvious abuse and casual conversation with the people you are playing with. If people were totally unable to tell if what they were saying was offensive we would never see any polite conversation. How can i converse with my girlfriends mother if i offend so easily? And yet i find it beyond simple not to say anything that could offend. Am i special? Do i possess a super power? I doubt it, i am not so arrogant as to think so.

If your argument, as shown by the first sentence of your last paragraph, boils down to, "Trash talking occurs everywhere therefor it should occur here too" then youre basically making an argument from tradition which doesnt stand on any sort of logical basis at all, you could similarly argue that eating food with your hands is part of the fun and that removing it from polite dining is suppressing the fun but that's obviously insane. Providing the same monotonous experience of inter player conversation as every other game isnt an ideal goal. A range of experience from constant abuse to polite play is admirable in an industry. Just like you have McDonalds and expensive Italian Restaurants. A range of atmospheres is good.

Honestly in my perfect scenario it would work like this: There is an option in the match maker. You pick total rash talk or no trash talk. You are then in two separate match makers. One can be an an anarchy where abuse over microphone is totally acceptable. Another can have stricter but clearly outlined rules where abuse is punished with banning from that separate match maker made for people who want a different atmosphere of play. Banned people are welcome in the anarchy match maker. That to me seems ideal. I feel that encompasses the best of both worlds but is definitely not the most efficient in terms of coding and match making.

My argument does not boil down to that. say what my position is right here: "I assert that the suppression of speech solely based on offense is ridiculous." Likewise, my argument does not boil down to, "the idea that its even bad to try and have control over what speech occurs in your owned arena." It's very important in a debate to actually debate positions your opponents actually hold. As a debater, I'm shocked that you don't seem to realize this.

"oure posting this on a forum where accusing you of being a troll or bashing you would see me banned, thus suppressing my speech. I ask why you dont follow your own advice stated in your last paragraph and abstain from using a service using the same concepts you are arguing against."

Because my position is about the permanent suppression of speech based purely on offensive language.

I do not understand how you can realize this: "People understand the social etiquette very well for how to behave in restaurants and formal competitions."

And not realize that gaming has a different social etiquette.

"This would be suppressing my ability to insult your wife based on the fact that it was offending her. The defense that all OTHER dinner parties ive been to were like this and insulting wives is just part of the dinner party culture just doesnt stand up. Youre the host. You decide what the party is."

Once again, no. Dinner parties have a different culture surrounding them with a different set of behavioral expectations. If dinner parties had that culture, it would be unreasonable for me to be upset, because I set up the dinner party knowing what would likely happen at one.

"Last time I went to a restaurant there was an atmosphere of total fear and suppression where no one was enjoying themselves. Likewise at the debating finals. Ludicrous isnt it? Both events where trash talking is disbared, the latter being almost the sole arena of trash talking (arguments) but conducted in a way totally designed to remove it. The ability to be a douche is secondary to the primary function of providing a fun main experience. "

For starters, debating is not trash talking. Argument is not the arena of trash talking. You're comparing different environments with different expectations. It's a meaningless comparison. It's be like saying that you should be okay with prayer in schools because you can pray in a Church and have it be acceptable. They are different environments with different expectations.

"I fail to understand why they are as stupid as you imply they are, being totally unable to distinguish between obvious abuse and casual conversation with the people you are playing with."

Because there's a gray area there. It's not "obvious abuse" and everything else. I believe that actually IS a fallacy to argue what you just did.

" And yet i find it beyond simple not to say anything that could offend. "

You've offended me countless times with your post. Guess it's not that simple, is it?

"A range of experience from constant abuse to polite play is admirable in an industry. Just like you have McDonalds and expensive Italian Restaurants. A range of atmospheres is good.

Honestly in my perfect scenario it would work like this: There is an option in the match maker. You pick total rash talk or no trash talk. You are then in two separate match makers. One can be an an anarchy where abuse over microphone is totally acceptable. Another can have stricter but clearly outlined rules where abuse is punished with banning from that separate match maker made for people who want a different atmosphere of play. Banned people are welcome in the anarchy match maker. That to me seems ideal. I feel that encompasses the best of both worlds but is definitely not the most efficient in terms of coding and match making."

Abuse is not good, but trash talking is not abuse. If you want to have a special server for people who cannot handle interaction in the gaming community, fine. I would rather not have to play with these people anyway.