Halo 4 Sexism Earns You a Lifetime Ban

ArnRand

New member
Mar 29, 2012
180
0
0
AuronFtw said:
Karloff said:
"When Microsoft created 343 Industries to take over Halo," Ross said, "I was given first choice to run the studio because I had proven myself. My gender played no part in it."
Er... doing what, exactly? I've never heard of that person before, so evidently she didn't prove herself very well. Was there any massive game-improving changes she inspired or was directly responsible for? Are there even any good games with her name on them?
She's worked on quite a few microsoft games, acording to IMDB, as head of the art department. Apparantly she was credited on gears of war and mass effect. Not sure as what.

Google is a hell of a thing.
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
Bashfluff said:
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."

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.


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.

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.

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.

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

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.
No points for passive aggressive sarcasm. Please stop. It demeans us both.

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

But in the context of the dinner party it ISNT rediculous. Thats a blanket statement there and you still havnt given a good answer to the scenario that doesnt involve:

Ejecting someone for using offensive language to offend

Accepting that in real life you would honestly do nothing to stop them attending future parties (ie permenant banning from said parties)

A third option that compromises both than im genuinely interested to hear.

I assert that there are some scenarios in which the permanent suppression of speech based purely on offensive language to a certain audience is not only perfectly fine but commonly practiced today by almost everyone. If your statement is true the behavioral expectations are irrelevant. There is offensive speech offending someone you dont want to get offended. You would remove that person. Therefor suppression based on offence. If its always ridiculous the context shouldnt matter.

The idea that gaming has one whole unified "social etiquette" is absurd. Whats the social etiquette for "dining" or "talking"? Such variation depending on expectation, like you stated. And yet you talk of gaming like a single unified thing. The idea im putting forward is that it isnt wrong to expect different etiquette in different places. Such places, like in my dining example, arose because people saw the niche in the market for those who prefer such etiquette and made rules to ensure thats what they would get. I see no complaint there, as such i dont understand the complaint here.

Debating is organised and structured arguing. Arguing, when done in a totally unstructured way usually involves a degree of trash talking or personal insults, i mean hell THIS argument had you passively aggressively insult me a few times. Yet the idea of debating as a structured activity results in better discussion because clear rules are set up. You get a better experience than totally unregulated jabbering (I mean look at 4chan then look here)

You used an example where it was wrong to deny the anti semetic the chance to be anti semetic. If i displayed openly anti semetic speech on this site or racist speech id be banned. Do you accept its right to ban that speech here now? Or do you wish to boycott the escapist? The question still stands.

If you can prove that i actively seek to make your experience less enjoyable by offending you then ill agree you have a point. Show me where i offended you and justify the idea that my intent was to offend. Ill concede intent is important. Where microsoft DO ban intent is obvious. Honestly we may be arguing about different perceived outcomes to this. The way i see it this change is targeting obvious abuse like this:

http://fatuglyorslutty.com/

Where intent is blatently malicious and with no hint of humor or simple "trash talking". Its just a constant wave of attacks from different people. That to me should be tackled more harshly.

People can handle interaction in the gaming community. They just want to redefine what that interaction means and should be.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
Helmholtz Watson said:
runic knight said:
Helmholtz Watson said:
Rainboq said:
Helmholtz Watson said:
Rainboq said:
Helmholtz Watson said:
Rainboq said:
That's freedom of speech

I'm sorry, but not all of us live in 'merica [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI]. In Canada, we have laws the put exceptions for hate speech in our freedom of speech legislation.
True, not everybody is American but you know who is an American company? Microsoft and 343 Industries. So your comment about Canadian law is nothing more than a red herring about how American companies should regulate their products to Americans.
If you want to sell a product or service in a country, that product or service must comply with that countries laws.
Great, so that's what they will do with Canadian players, but it doesn't mean that they have to do it with American users.
Why shouldn't they? Freedom of speech does not protect it.
Yes it does, they have the right to say crude sexist things on Xboxlive.
Freedom of speech does not mean you are allowed to use other people's property to send out your message.
Use of xbox live is using the service of a company, who in turn can set the terms of the use of the service. If they say you can't be racist on their product, they have that right. It in no way denies you the freedom to say racist things THROUGH YOUR OWN PROPERTY, rather it protects them from having their service be tied down to ideals they do not agree to.
Go back and look at the conversation that I was having, it was in regards to whether Canadian law would force Microsoft to not allow people to spew sexist speech, to which I replied that an American company doesn't have to worry about what Canadian laws say when determining if its legally allowed for American Xbox users to say things that Canada has deemed illegal to say.
My initial post was more on the general idea of things. Many people protest the change in policy under the idea that it violates their right to free speeh. It doesn't, at all.
This (microsoft's policy change to perma-ban people) was never an issue of rights of speech to begin with. It is in no way an issue of legality, but of contract. Terms of service contracts over national borders might be a bit odd, but the company still has the right to impose restrictions on how their product is used, even by members of other nations. Kinda how multinational mmo's are able to work.

As for national laws affecting companies in return, that depends. They could, theoretically, deny the company access to their markets in they do not obey the laws of the nation they offer service in. Thus, they could possibly "force" microsoft to obey their hate speech laws by denying them service if they don't comply, or imposing fines or what not.
 

Kevin7557

New member
May 31, 2008
124
0
0
To those that have claimed I don't know what Freedom Of Speech I have two things to inform you of.

First the Constitution is defined by the defendant not the government. Hence my definition of Freedom of Speech giving me universal right to say whatever I please is the exact definition of Freedom of Speech. The Constitution also says any laws written that violate the Constitution shall be acted upon as if never passed so you can't pass a law saying I'm wrong.

Second Freedom of Speech is not invalidated if what I say hurts your feelings or makes you feel like a lesser being. It is universal and inviolable.


Now an argument that would have been valid would have been the old adage just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Then again look at your decaying society. None of you are hardly in a place to lecture me on principles and rights that you yourselves seem to not value nor understand.
 

EvilRoy

The face I make when I see unguarded pie.
Legacy
Jan 9, 2011
1,773
459
88
Zachary Amaranth said:
shrekfan246 said:
"Go fix the car/sink/toilet"?
Pssssh. Guys LIKE that sort of thing.

>.>

<.<

Please don't kill me, lads!
Being a janitor wasn't my favourite job, but I maintain that it made me into a better human being. Also: I learned the real difference between boys and girls after cleaning the bathrooms for a few months.

Boys are slobs. Girls are gross.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Zombiefish said:
Hey im the female that the insults would be directed at, not the one insulting. Im just pointing out that many females are oversensitive and would take things meant innocently the wrong way. I dont think this is acting outside a social context when men joke online, maybe they are just acting friendly.

Also some girls are quite manipulative and would report these guys just to piss them off. Girls can be dicks too. I would never do this but I know some girls that would.

Maybe there wont be a problem at all and this will be handled excellently. Like I said im curious about how its all going to work out. Just considering the implications of having a lifetime ban for first offense.

I'm using "you" in the generic sense, to clarify. "You" meaning"people don't this." If you don't fit that, there's nothing to worry about.

As for the "some females" who are oversensitive, that still goes to my point. If you're going to be playing in public where those "some females" might be, don't act in a way that will incur their wrath. Abide by the code of conduct where you play online. You, them, everyone. It's not a specifically difficult concept. If you're worried about your friends, tell them about this to keep them from getting banned. If they can't behave even knowing that, then I'm sorry but they deserve a ban.

As far as "manipulative women," yes. Women can be dicks, too. The problem is, you probably shouldn't be playing with people who would get you suspended in the first place to "piss you off," since if they're going to do that, they'll probably eventually nail you for harassment and get you banned, regardless. And since they don't tell you who got you suspended....

Well, it's kind of moot. The possible "implications" here are kind of meaningless
 

simple64

New member
Sep 14, 2011
45
0
0
Kevin7557 said:
To those that have claimed I don't know what Freedom Of Speech I have two things to inform you of.

First the Constitution is defined by the defendant not the government. Hence my definition of Freedom of Speech giving me universal right to say whatever I please is the exact definition of Freedom of Speech. The Constitution also says any laws written that violate the Constitution shall be acted upon as if never passed so you can't pass a law saying I'm wrong.

Second Freedom of Speech is not invalidated if what I say hurts your feelings or makes you feel like a lesser being. It is universal and inviolable.


Now an argument that would have been valid would have been the old adage just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Then again look at your decaying society. None of you are hardly in a place to lecture me on principles and rights that you yourselves seem to not value nor understand.
Then you should know that any given business or residence has the irrevocable right to not only have you removed from their premise, but to not do business with you. You understand that, right? Nobody said anything about Freedom of Speech not giving you the right to hurt feelings. What was stated is that companies and private business owners such as the devs (and escapist forums) has the right to kick you off of their network and suspend your service indefinitely.

And while you are close in stating that freedom of speech is defined by the defendant, that does not mean your definition overrides that of others. Also, Congress will not be allowed to pass a law limiting your speech. Private businesses can make whatever rules they want, and if you disobey, you are not allowed to partake in their services.
 

Kevin7557

New member
May 31, 2008
124
0
0
simple64 said:
Kevin7557 said:
To those that have claimed I don't know what Freedom Of Speech I have two things to inform you of.

First the Constitution is defined by the defendant not the government. Hence my definition of Freedom of Speech giving me universal right to say whatever I please is the exact definition of Freedom of Speech. The Constitution also says any laws written that violate the Constitution shall be acted upon as if never passed so you can't pass a law saying I'm wrong.

Second Freedom of Speech is not invalidated if what I say hurts your feelings or makes you feel like a lesser being. It is universal and inviolable.


Now an argument that would have been valid would have been the old adage just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Then again look at your decaying society. None of you are hardly in a place to lecture me on principles and rights that you yourselves seem to not value nor understand.
Then you should know that any given business or residence has the irrevocable right to not only have you removed from their premise, but to not do business with you. You understand that, right? Nobody said anything about Freedom of Speech not giving you the right to hurt feelings. What was stated is that companies and private business owners such as the devs (and escapist forums) has the right to kick you off of their network and suspend your service indefinitely.

And while you are close in stating that freedom of speech is defined by the defendant, that does not mean your definition overrides that of others. Also, Congress will not be allowed to pass a law limiting your speech. Private businesses can make whatever rules they want, and if you disobey, you are not allowed to partake in their services.
That's property law (also protected under the constitution) and is a completely different legal matter entirely. Still there are several things that will leave them open to lawsuits over banning. Also is this really a move they want to make considering they want gamers to invest confidence in 343. Banning to many members is simply bad for business.

Good time to point this out. You are all adults people say stupid things, get over it. Are you all so immature that your first thought when someone says something stupid is "we have to outlaw this". Hence back to my statement about you people not understanding let alone valuing these principles and rights.
 

simple64

New member
Sep 14, 2011
45
0
0
Kevin7557 said:
simple64 said:
Kevin7557 said:
To those that have claimed I don't know what Freedom Of Speech I have two things to inform you of.

First the Constitution is defined by the defendant not the government. Hence my definition of Freedom of Speech giving me universal right to say whatever I please is the exact definition of Freedom of Speech. The Constitution also says any laws written that violate the Constitution shall be acted upon as if never passed so you can't pass a law saying I'm wrong.

Second Freedom of Speech is not invalidated if what I say hurts your feelings or makes you feel like a lesser being. It is universal and inviolable.-


Now an argument that would have been valid would have been the old adage just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Then again look at your decaying society. None of you are hardly in a place to lecture me on principles and rights that you yourselves seem to not value nor understand.
Then you should know that any given business or residence has the irrevocable right to not only have you removed from their premise, but to not do business with you. You understand that, right? Nobody said anything about Freedom of Speech not giving you the right to hurt feelings. What was stated is that companies and private business owners such as the devs (and escapist forums) has the right to kick you off of their network and suspend your service indefinitely.

And while you are close in stating that freedom of speech is defined by the defendant, that does not mean your definition overrides that of others. Also, Congress will not be allowed to pass a law limiting your speech. Private businesses can make whatever rules they want, and if you disobey, you are not allowed to partake in their services.
That's property law (also protected under the constitution) and is a completely different legal matter entirely. Still there are several things that will leave them open to lawsuits over banning.
Hence why arguing that one's Freedom of Speech is being "infringed upon" has no bearing whatsoever in this situation at all, and shows a gross misunderstanding of the legalities of Freedom of Speech.

At the same time, I doubt they will fear many lawsuits. It is right in the agreed upon ToS that they not only posses to right to change their rules without a moments notice, but they can technically ban you for whatever offense you may have committed at their leisure, and they have the final say.

EDIT: We do understand our principles, and our rights, hence respecting the fact that they have the right to change their terms at any time, that we have agreed on upon buying the game/going on Live and clicking "I Agree". We also respect the right that we posses to refuse their services if it doesn't meet our standards that we are allowed to have.

You,and a few like you, do not respect the devs right to run their game lobby as they see fit, which is something you have to have agreed on in order to use their service. You want them to alter their product in a way that suits you as if your rights override their own.
 

ReinWeisserRitter

New member
Nov 15, 2011
749
0
0
Really like how you made it about sexism when that wasn't all that's punishable by a ban, in an effort to get peoples' attention because it's the current thing to get your underwear in a twist about these days. That's classy journalism, right there.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
Kevin7557 said:
That's property law (also protected under the constitution) and is a completely different legal matter entirely.
Actually, it is the only aspect of "law" that is involved in this discussion. Freedom of speech is not and never has been infringed by a company not wanting to offer you their service because you want to use it to spout off things they disagree with. What is being discussed here is a company's policy for providing a service and a change in the rules for agreement in order to use their service. To put it simply, you always have your right to speech. You do not have a right to use someone else's property against their wishes to do it though. An example:

1. you can stand in a public park and protest.
2. You can't use a can of spray paint to write your message on your neighbor's house.

Still there are several things that will leave them open to lawsuits over banning.
Ahahahahhahah
Wait? you're serious?
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAH

ok...ok, I think I got that out of my system. Let me explain why that is hilariously wrong. They have a terms of service agreement that you opt into in order to use their service. This means, they set the terms under which you are allowed to use their service and reserve the right to deny you the use of that service if you violate the rules. This can, and will, include banning people for being harassing assholes or even just because they use discriminatory slurs. It is their company and their service and thus it is their right to set the rules for the use of their service. NONE of that is a threat to your freedom of speech (no one is saying you can not speak your mind, only that you can't use their property to do so). Thus lawsuits...yeaaaahh.... no. Not gonna happen on that. The courts will laugh your ass right out the door if you tried. Do you even know how much of a nuclear bomb that would be if service providers couldn't moderate their own rules for the service they provide?


Also is this really a move they want to make considering they want gamers to invest confidence in 343. Banning to many members is simply bad for business.
Good valid point here. Though, on the flip side, too many asshats running rampant is also bad for business and company image. If they strike the right balance, which may be their goal, they will be much better off then now. Kinda depends how they go with things.

Good time to point this out. You are all adults, people say stupid things, get over it. Are you all so immature that your first thought when someone says something stupid is "we have to outlaw this". Hence back to my statement about you people not understanding let alone valuing these principles and rights.
irrelevant. Yeah, people are asshats, so what? Doesn't mean companies can't set the rules for their services to be used by if it impedes people being asshats. And no, this is not a case of "law" at all, so please stop misunderstanding. This is a company changing the policy in which it offers its service. It is a private contract, NOT a law, and as such your "we have to outlaw this" comment is not just out of place, but outright reveals either a misconception revealing you don't know half of what you are talking about or a willingness to be deceptive and intellectually dishonest in order to win the argument. Neither is very good.

Your rights end when they interfere with another's rights. When you are trying to say that the company can't do this, here is what you are ACTUALLY saying.
"My right to say what I want overrides your right to property and to sell one's service and your right to decide how to handle that property and service in a way you see fit. If I or anyone else wants to use it to say anything offensive, derogatory, damaging or unliked by anyone, then you have to still provide up the service anyways, even if such actions can and probably will damage your bottom line, your company image or your own right to maintain and control your property and ability to provide a service."
In saying it is against the law, you are really just tryng to impose your right over that of the company to sell the service in the manner they see fit. So why don't you learn a little more about how to apply those principles and rights before spouting off about them being in violation.
 

socialistmath

New member
Jun 13, 2012
11
0
0
Kevin7557 said:
To those that have claimed I don't know what Freedom Of Speech I have two things to inform you of.

First the Constitution is defined by the defendant not the government. Hence my definition of Freedom of Speech giving me universal right to say whatever I please is the exact definition of Freedom of Speech. The Constitution also says any laws written that violate the Constitution shall be acted upon as if never passed so you can't pass a law saying I'm wrong.

Second Freedom of Speech is not invalidated if what I say hurts your feelings or makes you feel like a lesser being. It is universal and inviolable.


Now an argument that would have been valid would have been the old adage just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Then again look at your decaying society. None of you are hardly in a place to lecture me on principles and rights that you yourselves seem to not value nor understand.
Kevin7557: U.S. Constitution scholar. Also lol at "decaying society". Please, tell us more about how society is "decaying".

I don't care about Halo or Xbox stuff, but this is great news.
 

Bashfluff

New member
Jan 28, 2012
106
0
0
BiscuitTrouser said:
Bashfluff said:
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."

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.


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.

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.

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.

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

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.
No points for passive aggressive sarcasm. Please stop. It demeans us both.

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

But in the context of the dinner party it ISNT rediculous. Thats a blanket statement there and you still havnt given a good answer to the scenario that doesnt involve:

Ejecting someone for using offensive language to offend

Accepting that in real life you would honestly do nothing to stop them attending future parties (ie permenant banning from said parties)

A third option that compromises both than im genuinely interested to hear.

I assert that there are some scenarios in which the permanent suppression of speech based purely on offensive language to a certain audience is not only perfectly fine but commonly practiced today by almost everyone. If your statement is true the behavioral expectations are irrelevant. There is offensive speech offending someone you dont want to get offended. You would remove that person. Therefor suppression based on offence. If its always ridiculous the context shouldnt matter.

The idea that gaming has one whole unified "social etiquette" is absurd. Whats the social etiquette for "dining" or "talking"? Such variation depending on expectation, like you stated. And yet you talk of gaming like a single unified thing. The idea im putting forward is that it isnt wrong to expect different etiquette in different places. Such places, like in my dining example, arose because people saw the niche in the market for those who prefer such etiquette and made rules to ensure thats what they would get. I see no complaint there, as such i dont understand the complaint here.

Debating is organised and structured arguing. Arguing, when done in a totally unstructured way usually involves a degree of trash talking or personal insults, i mean hell THIS argument had you passively aggressively insult me a few times. Yet the idea of debating as a structured activity results in better discussion because clear rules are set up. You get a better experience than totally unregulated jabbering (I mean look at 4chan then look here)

You used an example where it was wrong to deny the anti semetic the chance to be anti semetic. If i displayed openly anti semetic speech on this site or racist speech id be banned. Do you accept its right to ban that speech here now? Or do you wish to boycott the escapist? The question still stands.

If you can prove that i actively seek to make your experience less enjoyable by offending you then ill agree you have a point. Show me where i offended you and justify the idea that my intent was to offend. Ill concede intent is important. Where microsoft DO ban intent is obvious. Honestly we may be arguing about different perceived outcomes to this. The way i see it this change is targeting obvious abuse like this:

http://fatuglyorslutty.com/

Where intent is blatently malicious and with no hint of humor or simple "trash talking". Its just a constant wave of attacks from different people. That to me should be tackled more harshly.

People can handle interaction in the gaming community. They just want to redefine what that interaction means and should be.
"But in the context of the dinner party it ISNT rediculous. Thats a blanket statement there and you still havnt given a good answer to the scenario that doesnt involve:

Ejecting someone for using offensive language to offend

Accepting that in real life you would honestly do nothing to stop them attending future parties (ie permenant banning from said parties)

A third option that compromises both than im genuinely interested to hear."

I do think it is ridiculous that if someone said one offensive thing about your wife, you would instantly kick them out of your house and ban them from ever coming back. If they keep doing it after being told to stop, it becomes harassment, and at that point, yeah, kick them out. As I have said before, harassment is not okay with me.

"I assert that there are some scenarios in which the permanent suppression of speech based purely on offensive language to a certain audience is not only perfectly fine but commonly practiced today by almost everyone."

Name them.

"If your statement is true the behavioral expectations are irrelevant. There is offensive speech offending someone you dont want to get offended. You would remove that person. Therefor suppression based on offence. If its always ridiculous the context shouldnt matter."

No. In your scenario, someone is insulting my husband repeatedly. This isn't them saying something that could be taken offensively, or them making a joke at his expense, but insulting him and then continuing to do so. It's not just because they're offensive.

"The idea that gaming has one whole unified "social etiquette" is absurd. Whats the social etiquette for "dining" or "talking"?"

When you talk, it's socially acceptable that you not punch someone in the face, for instance. When you dine, you do not talk on your phone unless there is an emergency. There are loose rules, but there are rules. As you get more and more focused, the social etiquette is more firmly established, sure, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't always exist to some degree.

"The idea im putting forward is that it isnt wrong to expect different etiquette in different places. "

That's my point as well.

"Such places, like in my dining example, arose because people saw the niche in the market for those who prefer such etiquette and made rules to ensure thats what they would get. "

But they didn't do this at the detriment of another established market.

"You used an example where it was wrong to deny the anti semetic the chance to be anti semetic. If i displayed openly anti semetic speech on this site or racist speech id be banned. Do you accept its right to ban that speech here now? Or do you wish to boycott the escapist? The question still stands."

No. I said that in Speech and Debate, it was viewed as more important to let the person who was speaking say whatever it was they had to say, provided it wasn't incredibly vulgar. It is not a blanket statement about what I do or do not find acceptable. Please read my posts.

" If i displayed openly anti semetic speech on this site or racist speech id be banned."

Would you now? I remember someone freely espousing anti-gay speech on the R&P board not a few weeks ago without any repercussions.

"If you can prove that i actively seek to make your experience less enjoyable by offending you then ill agree you have a point. Show me where i offended you and justify the idea that my intent was to offend. Ill concede intent is important. Where microsoft DO ban intent is obvious. Honestly we may be arguing about different perceived outcomes to this. The way i see it this change is targeting obvious abuse like this:"

Your statement being to say that offending people isn't hard, I have a point already.

" Where microsoft DO ban intent is obvious."

No. A zero-tolerance policy toward any discriminatory remarks does NOT factor in intent.

" That to me should be tackled more harshly."

I agree.

"People can handle interaction in the gaming community. They just want to redefine what that interaction means and should be."

If you have to change that interaction, no, you can't handle that interaction.
 

repeating integers

New member
Mar 17, 2010
3,315
0
0
Bashfluff said:
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.
Define "trash talk" here. From my experience it's usually just unimaginative insults directed at the opposing team by butthurt players who were just killed. That's certainly common, but it's not fun and shouldn't be part of gaming culture.
 

Poetic Nova

Pulvis Et Umbra Sumus
Jan 24, 2012
1,974
0
0
While i'm more for a 3 strikes your out system, hearing this might actually mean that I will be playing multiplayer for the first time online.
 

mjcabooseblu

New member
Apr 29, 2011
459
0
0
Dexter111 said:
I'd rather companies do not prevent or censor free speech or in other ways superimpose their "company rules" on their customers. And I'm hoping this "sexism" scare-phase ends sooner rather than later, but then I've never played on Xbox Live and never intend to. But some of the funniest experiences I had in regards to voice-enabled were in games like Counter Strike: Source (where it's handled on a server by server basis by admins) when people flipped out and started blabbering inane gibberish, as well as in games like WarCraft 3 or League of Legends based on text.

e.g. I'm not much of a fan of "Your rights end where my feelings begin", it leads to an atmosphere devoid of fun where people can't really relax and constantly have to tip-toe around inane rules.
Nobody is taking this stance, and assuming that is childish. The approach is, and always should be, "Your rights end where infringement on mine begins." Creating a system that mediates peoples' rights, keeping them as free as possible while regulating what is simply not allowed, is the role of a governing body, and considering the kind of interactions people face on XBOX Live, it's clear that such a governing body is desperately needed.