SOE Will Ban Players For Out-of-Game Offenses

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
SOE Will Ban Players For Out-of-Game Offenses



Sony Online Entertainment's Linda Carlson says the company takes harassment "seriously" whether in-game or over Twitter.

We've all heard the stories. A studio or game developer does or says something gamers don't like and things go bonkers. In July, for instance, Treyarch design director David Vonderhaar found himself and his family the subject of <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/126301-Call-of-Duty-Developer-Gets-Death-Threats-After-New-Patch>violent threats following tweaks to the gameplay of Call of Duty: Black Ops 2. As ridiculous as the situation was, it's something some could easily see happening again. That in mind, some companies take a hard line with gamers who cross the lines of common decency.

Sony Online Entertainment, the publisher behind games like Everquest Next and PlanetSide 2, for instance, has recently affirmed its willingness to ban players not just for in-game abuses, but also for actions they take out of character. "If we know who you are and you're abusing somebody on Twitter, we will ban your game account and we will not accept you as a customer ever again," said Linda Carlson, director of global community relations at SOE. "It's not always possible to identify people [in that way], but we take that seriously." According to Carlson, "We do not need those individuals as customers."

Far from just trying to protect staff members from abuse, Carlson believes this firm stance is necessary to try and maintain a fun and positive experience for players as well. "99.5 percent plus of the player base are tremendous individuals," she said. In turn, she sees it as the job of game makers to do what they can to defend against the often vitriolic noise of the other .5 percent and maintain the good atmosphere that most gamers and developers are looking for. "I don't believe anybody needs to put up with that stuff," she said.

Source: <a href=http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-09-19-sony-online-entertainment-trolls-and-tribulations>GamesIndustry International


Permalink
 

Alfredo Jones

New member
Jul 1, 2013
181
0
0
Good on ya Sony, I say. Just be prepared to make sure your banning the right people and that you fix any mistaken bannings.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
inb4 OMG INVASION OF PRIVACY ;_____;!!!!

I don't approve, but I don't disapprove either. I anticipate the launch so we can find out if it works out.
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
And once again we have Sony trying to be some sort of international police force. Just like they tried to do when they prosecuted people who had modified their PS3s.

I, for one, would be much happier playing MMOs without all the douche canoes. But Sony really has no legal or moral responsibility to track down and ban in-game customers based on threats from non-corporate sources.

Prosecuting people who make online threats is a job for local, state, national and ACTUAL international law enforcement agencies.
 

Boris Goodenough

New member
Jul 15, 2009
1,428
0
0
99.5 percent plus of the player base are tremendous individuals," she said. In turn, she sees it as the job of game makers to do what they can to defend against the often vitriolic noise of the other .05 percent and maintain the good atmosphere that most gamers and developers are looking for.
So what about the last 0.45%, are they just mediocre?
 

TiberiusEsuriens

New member
Jun 24, 2010
834
0
0
T-Shirt Turtle said:
Good on ya Sony, I say. Just be prepared to make sure your banning the right people and that you fix any mistaken bannings.
That was my thought. They're sure to butthurt a few people, but the biggest problem I see is IRL griefing. The internet being what it is, it's certain that people like Lulzsec will start framing people.
 

Lunar Templar

New member
Sep 20, 2009
8,225
0
0
>.>

<.<

I'm ok with this. God knows the gaming community needs to be cleaned up anyway, better late then never to start dumping the bleach into the pool
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,147
0
0
MinionJoe said:
And once again we have Sony trying to be some sort of international police force. Just like they tried to do when they prosecuted people who had modified their PS3s.

I, for one, would be much happier playing MMOs without all the douche canoes. But Sony really has no legal or moral responsibility to track down and ban in-game customers based on threats from non-corporate sources.

Prosecuting people who make online threats is a job for local, state, national and ACTUAL international law enforcement agencies.
If someone is threatening their employees and/or other players then yes Sony has the right to ban their account and tell them to piss off. Part of the EULA says that they can ban you for abusive behaviour and doing it on twitter if caught would fall under this clause, esp if they update it.
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
I don't see any issues at all with doing this. Real world repercussions are what's needed to quell this sort of behaviour.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
11,527
970
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
On one hand, I'm entirely in favor of this sort of thing. It's the lack of repercussions for being a jackhole that's the underlying cause for it being so prevalent in the Internet.

On the other hand, I would hope there's some sort of appeals system just so you don't lose a lot of paid-for stuff due to some moderator's bad day.
 

Whoracle

New member
Jan 7, 2008
241
0
0
I approve of this, but I don't think it'll work. I give it one class action suit from pissed off teens with too much money and one hacked twitter account, and the policy'll be gone. Nice try, though.
 

Infernal Lawyer

New member
Jan 28, 2013
611
0
0
As long as you can apply to a reconsideration or cry foul if your account got hacked or something, I'm okay with this. Send a hard message to people that if you want to abuse the developers, no more game you paid good money for and spent good time on for you. Keep it constructive if you're unhappy, or GTFO.
 

evilneko

New member
Jun 16, 2011
2,155
0
0
MinionJoe said:
And once again we have Sony trying to be some sort of international police force. Just like they tried to do when they prosecuted people who had modified their PS3s.

I, for one, would be much happier playing MMOs without all the douche canoes. But Sony really has no legal or moral responsibility to track down and ban in-game customers based on threats from non-corporate sources.

Prosecuting people who make online threats is a job for local, state, national and ACTUAL international law enforcement agencies.
Perhaps you should read the article. No one said anything about prosecution.

Sony has every right to fire their customers for any reason or no reason at all. I think threatening tweets are a fair enough reason to fire a customer.
 

Genocidicles

New member
Sep 13, 2012
1,747
0
0
It just means people won't be linking their twitter accounts to their PSN accounts any more. Nothing will change.
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
RicoADF said:
If someone is threatening their employees and/or other players then yes Sony has the right to ban their account and tell them to piss off.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Fair enough, but not always the case (as I detail below).

If someone is actually threatening Sony employees, Sony has the right to report all relevant details to law enforcement authorities and to press charges through legal channels.

evilneko said:
Sony has every right to fire their customers for any reason or no reason at all.
For one, customers cannot be "fired". And Sony cannot "fire" a customer for any reason they want.

Can Sony refuse service to a customer for being black? Or a woman? Or Christian?

If so, that's awesome. Because I've always wanted to start an online dating service and refuse to provide services to gay men and women.

Except eHarmony already tried that. And they lost their lawsuit.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-12-12/news/36870076_1_eharmony-compatible-partners-gay-users

So here's the question: Where do we draw the line?

If Sony is allowed to rebuke customers based on perceived threats made from non-Sony sites (instead of allowing law enforcement agencies pursue those threats), what's to stop them from refusing service to anyone who simply speaks out against the company in general?

(Addendum: Anyone making threats ON Sony's site can certainly be acted upon. I've no issue with that. It'd be the same situation as a drunk walking into Denny's at 3am and harassing the wait staff. That person can be legally ejected. But that person can't be barred from Denny's because of comments they made while down at Waffle House.)
 

CriticalMiss

New member
Jan 18, 2013
2,024
0
0
So all people need to do to abuse Sony employees is make a new email account and set up a new twitter account? Personally I don't think they should ban people, they should just modify their account so that they have a huge handicap whilst playing. Like having them show up on radar/maps constantly or give them weapons that fire pretty sparkles instead of bullets. Or subtle things like increasing their hitbox and lowering the accuracy of their weapons. If they complain then ask if they want to publically apologise for being a twat, or whether they would rather be banned permanently.
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
Since BuzzCutpsycho left planetside 2 of boredom and the Enclave is gone, the system is worthless now. Not that it ever worked. Way too late to fix any real issue. The damage has been done. Him and his crew broke a whole server from his bullcrap and was the most toxic AND the most POWERFUL (politically) player planetside has to offer.

Even when he broke the in game rules on his own stream, they didn't do anything. Even when he practically broke the game for his own benefit. On video.

He even was on tape when he gave orders to his gigantic outfit (clan) to teamkill another friendly outfit (was also a huge outfit) in the area and blow their mobile spawner (sunderer) because Buzz wanted to do easy xp farming with his own sunderer.

A toxic, racist, and misogynist player. The most famous player in the entire game right next to "Scourge of the server." With a legion of lackies that helps him exploit the game month after month on a live stream and destroy anyone else's fun.

Its just more puffering on SOE's part. Like when he said we will "track you hackers down." Yeah, that went no where. SOE does absolutely nothing for punishments. They never actually took care of any real problem the game has.

If they want to help their games they can start by not letting toxic players becoming so powerful they practically own an entire server in the first place and actually enforcing their rules than just sitting around doing nothing. Instead of acting tough to get brownie points from people who don't play their games.
 

JarinArenos

New member
Jan 31, 2012
556
0
0
I am hesitantly okay with this. As always, everything depends on implementation of the policy, though, not the policy itself.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
I was ready to be outraged, but reading over the article itself, the basis sounds pretty reasonable. I do wonder how effective it will be against anyone who takes even the most basic preventative measures to keep their online personae separate from one another, and I hope that there's a reasonable appeal system in place (I don't want to see anyone banned for writing non-approved fan-fiction of game universes, for example.) But all in all, I approve of there being consequences for extreme antisocial behavior.
 

MysticSlayer

New member
Apr 14, 2013
2,405
0
0
This seems rather excessive, honestly. A lot of these people are teenagers who haven't fully matured yet, and permanently banning them and saying "we never want you as a customer again" seems like a harsh punishment to deal out to people who are likely going to grow out of that phase in a few years. Personally, I'm generally for increasingly lengthy suspensions as opposed to permanently banning the person.
 

drthmik

New member
Jul 29, 2011
142
0
0
Just from the title I was worried
then I read the article

Good idea Sony

lacktheknack said:
inb4 OMG INVASION OF PRIVACY ;_____;!!!!

I don't approve, but I don't disapprove either. I anticipate the launch so we can find out if it works out.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic but...
How is Twitter (the online equivalent of yelling at the top of your lungs in a crowded public park) in any way private?
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
i not only support sony in this but think ever publisher and game service should get on board with this. if people wont act with basic decency then they need to face the consequences of their actions and keep things fun for the rest of the community
 

Frost27

Good news everyone!
Jun 3, 2011
504
0
0
Now if they could just extend this fervor to actually doing something about people that commit offenses IN game (cheating, hacking etc.) then Planetside might be a playable game.
 

evilneko

New member
Jun 16, 2011
2,155
0
0
MinionJoe said:
evilneko said:
Sony has every right to fire their customers for any reason or no reason at all.
For one, customers cannot be "fired". And Sony cannot "fire" a customer for any reason they want.
You're getting hung up on a turn of phrase? Ridiculous.



Can Sony refuse service to a customer for being black? Or a woman? Or Christian?
Alright, so "almost" any reason they want. Or rather, any reason they want, protected classes aside. Or again, for no reason at all.

So here's the question: Where do we draw the line?

If Sony is allowed to rebuke customers based on perceived threats made from non-Sony sites (instead of allowing law enforcement agencies pursue those threats), what's to stop them from refusing service to anyone who simply speaks out against the company in general?

(Addendum: Anyone making threats ON Sony's site can certainly be acted upon. I've no issue with that. It'd be the same situation as a drunk walking into Denny's at 3am and harassing the wait staff. That person can be legally ejected. But that person can't be barred from Denny's because of comments they made while down at Waffle House.)
What of it? Sony could refuse service to people who eat their toast butter side down if they wanted to. It might not make sense, but nothing would stop them. They might change their minds and decide butter side downers are A-Okay, it's the vegetarians who are the real menace, and again nothing would stop them. It's their prerogative who they do business with...protected classes excepted.

"Nothing" meaning they would violate no laws. Certainly Sony's stockholders might have something to say about such decisions. Were Sony a privately-held company, nothing would stop Richard Garriot-level crazy so long as it stayed within the law.

At least until it went out of business, I mean.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
drthmik said:
Just from the title I was worried
then I read the article

Good idea Sony

lacktheknack said:
inb4 OMG INVASION OF PRIVACY ;_____;!!!!

I don't approve, but I don't disapprove either. I anticipate the launch so we can find out if it works out.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic but...
How is Twitter (the online equivalent of yelling at the top of your lungs in a crowded public park) in any way private?
"inb4" typically denotes derision and sarcasm, yes. :p
 

Kevlar Eater

New member
Sep 27, 2009
1,933
0
0
I guess Sony and I are on the same page. I'm neither a troll nor troublemaker, but if they're going this route I see absolutely no reason to touch their products. Not like it matters, since there's millions more taking my place.
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
MysticSlayer said:
This seems rather excessive, honestly. A lot of these people are teenagers who haven't fully matured yet, and permanently banning them and saying "we never want you as a customer again" seems like a harsh punishment to deal out to people who are likely going to grow out of that phase in a few years. Personally, I'm generally for increasingly lengthy suspensions as opposed to permanently banning the person.
Teenagers brains are definitely different.. which is exactly why such harsh punishments are required.

Neurostudies have shown that teen's brains, especially when they think they're being observed by their peers, literally activate in such a way as to minimize risks in their judgment. And while I doubt that was informing Sony's policy in this, it's interesting to note that because of that it takes the threat of an extremely harsh punishment to get through.
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,147
0
0
MinionJoe said:
RicoADF said:
If someone is threatening their employees and/or other players then yes Sony has the right to ban their account and tell them to piss off.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Fair enough, but not always the case (as I detail below).

If someone is actually threatening Sony employees, Sony has the right to report all relevant details to law enforcement authorities and to press charges through legal channels.

evilneko said:
Sony has every right to fire their customers for any reason or no reason at all.
For one, customers cannot be "fired". And Sony cannot "fire" a customer for any reason they want.

Can Sony refuse service to a customer for being black? Or a woman? Or Christian?

If so, that's awesome. Because I've always wanted to start an online dating service and refuse to provide services to gay men and women.

Except eHarmony already tried that. And they lost their lawsuit.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-12-12/news/36870076_1_eharmony-compatible-partners-gay-users

So here's the question: Where do we draw the line?

If Sony is allowed to rebuke customers based on perceived threats made from non-Sony sites (instead of allowing law enforcement agencies pursue those threats), what's to stop them from refusing service to anyone who simply speaks out against the company in general?

(Addendum: Anyone making threats ON Sony's site can certainly be acted upon. I've no issue with that. It'd be the same situation as a drunk walking into Denny's at 3am and harassing the wait staff. That person can be legally ejected. But that person can't be barred from Denny's because of comments they made while down at Waffle House.)
Refusing service due to threatening players and employees of Sony and refusing service due to discrimination or opinions of the company/game are 2 different things. Not to mention they would have to know about the threats/abuse which would mean that it had become an issue. You may not agree with it, but legally they would be in the right. If someone challenges it in court then it'd come down to a judge as usual.
 

MeChaNiZ3D

New member
Aug 30, 2011
3,104
0
0
Which is stupid, but I don't run the company so they don't have to follow my morals.
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
1) Is it only harassment towards developers, or to players, or to anyone? I mean, I don't think if you're tweeting someone raging at them about a movie you saw Sony will ban you from Planetside 2... but they make no distinction.

2) How sure will they be an individual is who Sony thinks they are?

3) How strict will this be? Let's say, for instance, someone tweets "SOE must have balanced the latest patch while drunk" (not at SOE). Is that harassment? Does all language now have to be neutered when speaking about anything Sony is doing lest someone who works there be offended?

It's a good idea, IMO, to remove toxic players from the environment. However, searcing for people on Twitter or Facebook who say thins you might not like would be taking this policy way too far, should it come to that.
 

rednose1

New member
Oct 11, 2009
346
0
0
Hard to say how I feel about this. On the one hand, a third party punishing you for something you did completely outside of your dealings with them feels weird to me.

On the other hand, Sony has the right to refuse to do business with anyone they please, as all businesses do (as long as the reasoning doesn't involve an -ism).


It's not Sony's job to enforce proper behavior. When you start making threats against someone's life, that's when criminal charges start applying. Since you can't really force someone to take your money, and they're specifically going after the serious offenders, think I'll be ok with this in the end. Still feels kinda wrong in a way, but 65% good idea is still overall a good idea.
 

Ravinoff

Senior Member
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
295
14
23
Country
Canada
Developers need to start focusing on games and stop focusing on PR, community policing and advertising, that's all I've got to say. The system should be set up to be self-governing, not moderated by Sony employees.
 

MysticSlayer

New member
Apr 14, 2013
2,405
0
0
Kwil said:
MysticSlayer said:
This seems rather excessive, honestly. A lot of these people are teenagers who haven't fully matured yet, and permanently banning them and saying "we never want you as a customer again" seems like a harsh punishment to deal out to people who are likely going to grow out of that phase in a few years. Personally, I'm generally for increasingly lengthy suspensions as opposed to permanently banning the person.
Teenagers brains are definitely different.. which is exactly why such harsh punishments are required.

Neurostudies have shown that teen's brains, especially when they think they're being observed by their peers, literally activate in such a way as to minimize risks in their judgment. And while I doubt that was informing Sony's policy in this, it's interesting to note that because of that it takes the threat of an extremely harsh punishment to get through.
1. We don't know if teenagers will actually feel like they are being watched by their peers, considering the Internet carries with it such incredibly anonymity that they may feel they are safe from being figured out, rendering this useless.

2. Assuming they do have that feeling, then what benefit does permanently banning them have over lengthy suspensions? If anything the lengthy suspensions would be enough, as the longer they get the more it will register with the teenager that they are being watched and, therefore, are less likely to act in such a horrible manner without undergoing a punishment this strict, one that will carry with them even after they've developed out of this phase.
 

Icehearted

New member
Jul 14, 2009
2,081
0
0
I like the idea. I think we've seen it proven to even this day that John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, though not an absolute, is a majority. Countermeasures like this that might help curb the fuckwads are welcome, and even encourage me to participate more in social gaming rather than my being automatically turned off to it, and I know I can't be alone in feeling this way. Blizzard's "let the community police itself" was a lazy and irresponsible approach with a game like World Of Warcraft, and a more moderated approach, or whatever it takes to curb harassment, racism, sexism, indeed most prejudicial and abusive nastiness might just make the internet a nicer place to me.
 

MammothBlade

It's not that I LIKE you b-baka!
Oct 12, 2011
5,246
0
0
This is a tad intrusive, but good riddance to certain scumbags who like to make death threats towards developers, reviewers, etc over anything they don't like. If the link between their PSN and their twitter persona is obvious, then go for it.

I'm sick of these vermin making gaming toxic and generally unpleasant.
 

DerangedHobo

New member
Jan 11, 2012
231
0
0
If they don't want to take my money for some comments I made outside of their game, fuck them.
Although I have to question, what if it's deserved? Or if I was incited by someone else?
And not to sound cliche but the internet is a pretty toxic place, they are well within their right to ban you for abusing other people I mean it's their prerogative and right as business owners to do so but are they new to the internet or something? That's one of the things I love about the internet, the 'freedom' of it so why they are banning you for your conduct outside of their games and services I have no clue unless it was against Sony staff or other players of course.
Buzz kills.
 

Draconalis

New member
Sep 11, 2008
1,586
0
0
MinionJoe said:
But that person can't be barred from Denny's because of comments they made while down at Waffle House.)
But... they can.

If you have a reputation for causing trouble in one business, and another doesn't want a repeat happening in their shop, they can refuse you service.
 

Nemusus

New member
Jun 10, 2013
68
0
0
Kevlar Eater said:
I guess Sony and I are on the same page. I'm neither a troll nor troublemaker, but if they're going this route I see absolutely no reason to touch their products. Not like it matters, since there's millions more taking my place.
Why would you leave though? At best, this gets rid of any trolls who use the same email for PSN and twitter. At worst, they don't enforce it at all. If they went overly ban-happy, the outcry would almost certainly force them to start unbanning. So given all that... why would you want to leave? Is it an invasion of privacy thing? Because you'd hardly need to be Sherlock Holmes to see if the email on the abusive twitter account is in your database as a PSN user- its a simple matter of cross-referencing public data with your own data base.
 

Mylinkay Asdara

Waiting watcher
Nov 28, 2010
934
0
0
As long as there are channels of appeal I appreciate my game environments being policed to some extent. I've had harassment issues in an MMO that had to be referred to GMs eventually, and I was glad that FFXI didn't shy away from using the ban stick when someone was totally out of hand and getting scary towards others.
 

Machine Man 1992

New member
Jul 4, 2011
785
0
0
"First they came for the trolls, but I didn't speak out because I wasn't a troll.

They came for the twelve year olds, but I didn't speak out, because I wasn't twelve.

They came for the dudebros, but I didn't speak out because I wasn't a dudebro.

They came for the power gamers, but I didn't speak out, because I wasn't a power gamer.

They came for those who shouted into headsets, but I didn't speak out because I didn't have a headset.

Then they came for me, but by then, there was no one left to speak out for me."





An extreme hyperbole, obviously, but it's still really fucking creepy that they're going to ban people over offline activity. That smacks of serious stepping outside of jurisdiction, there.
 

AuronFtw

New member
Nov 29, 2010
514
0
0
Machine Man 1992 said:
An extreme hyperbole, obviously, but it's still really fucking creepy that they're going to ban people over offline activity.
While I understand the point of your post, you're oversimplifying the situation into meaninglessness. They aren't banning people for standing on the corner after school talking about how everquest sucks, they're banning people who use social media to send death threats and similar vitriol to developers.

Please tell me you're capable of understanding the crucial difference there.
 

blazinghell666

New member
Jul 30, 2012
2
0
0
Just to point this out Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) is just a subside of Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE). Just wanted to point this out before everyone goes ballistic thinking this is the word of there parent company.
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
CriticalMiss said:
So all people need to do to abuse Sony employees is make a new email account and set up a new twitter account? Personally I don't think they should ban people, they should just modify their account so that they have a huge handicap whilst playing. Like having them show up on radar/maps constantly or give them weapons that fire pretty sparkles instead of bullets. Or subtle things like increasing their hitbox and lowering the accuracy of their weapons. If they complain then ask if they want to publically apologise for being a twat, or whether they would rather be banned permanently.
I love it, I want this system implemented in all games now!

OT: I would really like to get behind this, but I can see this being abused. On the one hand, I don't like dealing with those types personally, on the other hand though, I can see some roguish puck types being plucked from the databases as offenders to be banned, while the actual bridge dwellers are making alt accounts en masse to avoid punishment. If they do this, they need to ensure they are doing it right. Unfortunately I don't know what the right way actually is for this scenario.
 

xPixelatedx

New member
Jan 19, 2011
1,316
0
0
Not planning on making any threats or anything, but this is kind of BS.

Sony has no right to play nanny to the world. Luckily I don't have twitters or anything associated with my PSN account; nor will I buy into the social media garbage the PS4 is trying to sell. I just play video games, and what I do and say in my own time is my right.
Machine Man 1992 said:
"First they came for the trolls, but I didn't speak out because I wasn't a troll.

They came for the twelve year olds, but I didn't speak out, because I wasn't twelve.

They came for the dudebros, but I didn't speak out because I wasn't a dudebro.

They came for the power gamers, but I didn't speak out, because I wasn't a power gamer.

They came for those who shouted into headsets, but I didn't speak out because I didn't have a headset.

Then they came for me, but by then, there was no one left to speak out for me."





An extreme hyperbole, obviously, but it's still really fucking creepy that they're going to ban people over offline activity. That smacks of serious stepping outside of jurisdiction, there.
Yeah, pretty much this.
 

Matthewmagic

New member
Feb 13, 2010
169
0
0
What can I say. As a long time avoid-er of Online Multi player because of abusive, hyper competitive shit bags I am excited too see the kind of community this brings.

I do pray for the day when playing a game online brings the same kind of social fun that one can have sitting on the floor playing a bored game with friends and strangers alike. I know video games are just not there yet but, with this recognition from the companies that certain people are keeping their games from being as fun as they could be, that day may be coming sooner than I thought.
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
MysticSlayer said:
1. We don't know if teenagers will actually feel like they are being watched by their peers, considering the Internet carries with it such incredibly anonymity that they may feel they are safe from being figured out, rendering this useless.
Yes, because it's well known that teenagers always make sure that their friends don't follow their twitter accounts or play online games with them..

Oh wait.. the opposite of that.

Odds are pretty damned good that what they're doing is being done with at least a subconscious awareness that it will be found by their peers.

2. Assuming they do have that feeling, then what benefit does permanently banning them have over lengthy suspensions? If anything the lengthy suspensions would be enough, as the longer they get the more it will register with the teenager that they are being watched and, therefore, are less likely to act in such a horrible manner without undergoing a punishment this strict, one that will carry with them even after they've developed out of this phase.
And if Sony wanted only to punish the action, not to prevent it in the first place, that idea would make sense.

I'm betting they'd rather it didn't happen at all. So they make the punishments draconian enough that it actually means something.. even to these teenagers.
 

Glaice

New member
Mar 18, 2013
577
0
0
When is it their business to muck around policing users outside of their game? Unless the authorities get involved, they have no right.
 

wulfgar_red

New member
Mar 15, 2013
51
0
0
who the f%$# they think they are? (soe)

i bet in few years this post will get me banned from some game if i post it in wrong place. Slippery slope. just wait. behavior similar to angry joe in his rome 2 review will become abusive. he will get away with it because he is popular, but when small fish will try to do similar honest review... bam, your banned for abusive behavior. you think whey wont do it? well for how many years no one thought that you can remove or demand payment from lets plays on YT?
 

Whispering Cynic

New member
Nov 11, 2009
356
0
0
An efficient measure, but acceptable only if implemented absolutely flawlessly. Once they ban someone for actions of someone else, it's going to blow up in their face. Big time.
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
Glad to hear it. If they enforce this kind of thing I will be very pleased. If all developers and websites had this kind of attitude then we'd start seeing a whole lot less abuse online. It's nice to see companies seeing preventing abuse online as more important than simply raking in the profits, they will no doubt lose customers over this either from bans or people who don't like being told they can't be nasty without consequences.

It's not really that much different from moderation on websites such as these. If a person sent private abusive messages to people they'd be banned from the forums even if that wasn't where they were being abusive.

The only difference is that people paid money for it. Even then that's not really an argument against it. If you went to a cinema and started hurling abuse at other customers and were banned, that doesn't entitle you to a refund, and nor should it.

That said, this only applies if they enforce it only against those who are threatening and abusive to players or situations where the person actually deserves it. If it happens because people say something that Sony "doesn't like" then that is another issue entirely. For example if a person tweeted "Sony sucks" to their friends account, but to be honest I sincerely doubt that was what they were talking about.
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
No one's going to get banned for death-threats.

They're just going to pick off people criticising the game, much like they did at the Tortanic forums.
 

Arnoxthe1

New member
Dec 25, 2010
3,374
0
0
Nope, that's stretching too far for a company. What makes them fit to judge whether a person really deserves something that's out of their system? I mean, what exactly are they gonna do to keep this enforced and properly? How far are they gonna take this? Are they going to demand that users now have to link all their accounts to theirs so they can monitor them?

Now, do they have the right to refuse my business for whatever reason? Yeah, they do. Does that make me want to do business with them if they're refusing business because of something they might have seen or heard and out of context as well? No, it doesn't.

In the end, it's just bad business.
 

Albino Boo

New member
Jun 14, 2010
4,667
0
0
MinionJoe said:
And once again we have Sony trying to be some sort of international police force. Just like they tried to do when they prosecuted people who had modified their PS3s.

I, for one, would be much happier playing MMOs without all the douche canoes. But Sony really has no legal or moral responsibility to track down and ban in-game customers based on threats from non-corporate sources.

Prosecuting people who make online threats is a job for local, state, national and ACTUAL international law enforcement agencies.
If you make death threats against bar staff you get banned from the bar, regardless of whatever legal action is taken against you. Just because something is online, why is it different?


Arnoxthe1 said:
Nope, that's stretching too far for a company. What makes them fit to judge whether a person really deserves something that's out of their system? I mean, what exactly are they gonna do to keep this enforced and properly? How far are they gonna take this? Are they going to demand that users now have to link all their accounts to theirs so they can monitor them?

Now, do they have the right to refuse my business for whatever reason? Yeah, they do. Does that make me want to do business with them if they're refusing business because of something they might have seen or heard and out of context as well? No, it doesn't.

In the end, it's just bad business.
If you are abusive towards staff working in a shop you get banned from the shop. What's the difference. Businesses are under a legal duty to protect staff from abusive behavior regardless if its in person or online. Its also bad business to lose long serving staff because they have quit over abusive behavior.
 

Pinky's Brain

New member
Mar 2, 2011
290
0
0
I don't think this is a problem when done in addition to taking it to the police, but when it's done in isolation you get into the problem of identification ... it's trivial to impersonate people on the internet. The police can request IP logs from Twitter, but Sony can't.
 

Elijin

Elite Member
Legacy
May 10, 2020
1,695
474
88
SOE banned my account months ago when I tried to play Planetside 2 on my work PC which had a VPN on it. They refused to lift the ban.

So....while this isnt terrible, them banning over whatever they feel like isnt exactly news.
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
Lovely concept that I would wholeheartedly support, but I don't trust them to not pervert it.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
Elijin said:
SOE banned my account months ago when I tried to play Planetside 2 on my work PC which had a VPN on it. They refused to lift the ban.

So....while this isnt terrible, them banning over whatever they feel like isnt exactly news.
Maybe you should do work at work then? Seems logical unless you're in an industry where playing games is a part of work...

Really though folks you want to cry out against people for being assholes, and say "This is why I don't play consoles" then the assholes get filtered out and you cry "OMG Orwellian tactics, fuck that company!"
First world problems...
 

Elijin

Elite Member
Legacy
May 10, 2020
1,695
474
88
amaranth_dru said:
Elijin said:
SOE banned my account months ago when I tried to play Planetside 2 on my work PC which had a VPN on it. They refused to lift the ban.

So....while this isnt terrible, them banning over whatever they feel like isnt exactly news.
Maybe you should do work at work then? Seems logical unless you're in an industry where playing games is a part of work...

Really though folks you want to cry out against people for being assholes, and say "This is why I don't play consoles" then the assholes get filtered out and you cry "OMG Orwellian tactics, fuck that company!"
First world problems...
I said work PC, not at work. As in, a laptop which I'd taken home to finish something up.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
Elijin said:
amaranth_dru said:
Elijin said:
SOE banned my account months ago when I tried to play Planetside 2 on my work PC which had a VPN on it. They refused to lift the ban.

So....while this isnt terrible, them banning over whatever they feel like isnt exactly news.
Maybe you should do work at work then? Seems logical unless you're in an industry where playing games is a part of work...

Really though folks you want to cry out against people for being assholes, and say "This is why I don't play consoles" then the assholes get filtered out and you cry "OMG Orwellian tactics, fuck that company!"
First world problems...
I said work PC, not at work. As in, a laptop which I'd taken home to finish something up.
You didn't specify, therefore confusion is imminent. Work PC usually means PC at work not "Laptop from work I took home"
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
MinionJoe said:
But Sony really has no legal or moral responsibility to track down and ban in-game customers based on threats from non-corporate sources.
It's their social obligation. In fact, it's your social obligation too. It's everybody's job to shit on assholes until they shape up. Have you ever listened to the racist tree? You don't get vitrolic asshats to shut their faces by only asking them to stop if they personally attack you. You get them to stop by as many people as is plossible shunning them and constantly reminding them what a worthless pile of shit they are for attacking people the way they do.
It's attitudes like yours-- the "only the police should be helping people!" attitude that lets communities like ours become as fucked up as they are. By telling people that they shouldn't be doing their part is shame-mongering on these belligerent assholes, you're enabling them and helping to condone a culture of protectionism for these shitbags, and we don't need that
 

AuronFtw

New member
Nov 29, 2010
514
0
0
Deshara said:
MinionJoe said:
But Sony really has no legal or moral responsibility to track down and ban in-game customers based on threats from non-corporate sources.
It's their social obligation. In fact, it's your social obligation too. It's everybody's job to shit on assholes until they shape up. Have you ever listened to the racist tree? You don't get vitrolic asshats to shut their faces by only asking them to stop if they personally attack you. You get them to stop by as many people as is plossible shunning them and constantly reminding them what a worthless pile of shit they are for attacking people the way they do.
It's attitudes like yours-- the "only the police should be helping people!" attitude that lets communities like ours become as fucked up as they are. By telling people that they shouldn't be doing their part is shame-mongering on these belligerent assholes, you're enabling them and helping to condone a culture of protectionism for these shitbags, and we don't need that
This. You know those people? The bigots, the racists, the tards who send death threats? They represent you. Every time someone in the general public sees them or hears about them, they think "wow, gamers are some really fucked up people." Is that really the message you want to be sending? Don't you think that you have at least a little responsibility to do what you can, when you can, to reduce that negative image? Even if it's only something small, like telling a friend to cut it out or calling a single person out on their bullshit, you are making a difference. If everyone did that, the problem would be much smaller than it is. Those people with those idiotic tendencies would live in fear of the gamer crowd instead of trying to spew bullshit pretending to represent the gamer crowd.

It's up to people like us; just normal, average, everyday gamers to keep the message spreading. It's not the cops' job to tell every dipshit on the internet to stop being a dipshit. Their job is to hand out speeding tickets and eat donuts catch criminals. There's plenty of vitriolic, nasty behavior that *we can stop*. But it won't stop; it won't stop if you just sit on the sidelines and wait for someone else to do it. You have to take charge, stand up to the racists, the bigots, and the idiots and tell them to shut the fuck up, because their delusional bullshit is not representative of gamers as a whole.

That is your job. Not the job of the police.
 

Machine Man 1992

New member
Jul 4, 2011
785
0
0
AuronFtw said:
Machine Man 1992 said:
An extreme hyperbole, obviously, but it's still really fucking creepy that they're going to ban people over offline activity.
While I understand the point of your post, you're oversimplifying the situation into meaninglessness. They aren't banning people for standing on the corner after school talking about how everquest sucks, they're banning people who use social media to send death threats and similar vitriol to developers.

Please tell me you're capable of understanding the crucial difference there.
I do.

I also understand that this has HUGE potential for abuse.

What if Sony releases a game, and a segment of their fans complain about it? What if the game is so shitty it causes ME3 style backlashes?

What's to keep Sony from banning those people out of spite?

What if someone gets into a twitter debate with one of the developers, and that developer gets that guy banned?

You see where I'm going with this?
 

MysticSlayer

New member
Apr 14, 2013
2,405
0
0
Kwil said:
MysticSlayer said:
1. We don't know if teenagers will actually feel like they are being watched by their peers, considering the Internet carries with it such incredibly anonymity that they may feel they are safe from being figured out, rendering this useless.
Yes, because it's well known that teenagers always make sure that their friends don't follow their twitter accounts or play online games with them..

Oh wait.. the opposite of that.

Odds are pretty damned good that what they're doing is being done with at least a subconscious awareness that it will be found by their peers.
And it isn't helping things now. Placing the threat of penalty on them won't change anything.

2. Assuming they do have that feeling, then what benefit does permanently banning them have over lengthy suspensions? If anything the lengthy suspensions would be enough, as the longer they get the more it will register with the teenager that they are being watched and, therefore, are less likely to act in such a horrible manner without undergoing a punishment this strict, one that will carry with them even after they've developed out of this phase.
And if Sony wanted only to punish the action, not to prevent it in the first place, that idea would make sense.

I'm betting they'd rather it didn't happen at all. So they make the punishments draconian enough that it actually means something.. even to these teenagers.
But it is stupid to think that you can prevent it. How many people continue to say stupid stuff online even with all the stories of people being fired for saying similar things on Facebook and Twitter? How many people continue to act horribly in games even though they face potential penalties, up to being banned, for harassing other players? How many people continue to act like jerks on forums even as they are surrounded by people who have been banned for those very actions? Or, on a more real-life example, how many people continue to murder even when there is the threat of the death penalty (assuming it is there), or continue to commit crimes in general regardless of all the prison stories we have, including the absolutely horrifying ones.

The thing is, people do stupid stuff regardless of the penalties they may face, and this is only increased on the Internet where anonymity is more prevalent than in real life. Banning someone won't prevent these things from happening again, potentially even by the same person, so if their reasoning behind banning over suspensions is to prevent the actions, then their reasoning is highly flawed.
 

Muspelheim

New member
Apr 7, 2011
2,023
0
0
Hurray for consequences! Even if acting outside the range of your game might be taking it too far.

It is a big fat commitment, though. It can't be done half-arsed, I certainly hope they know exactly how huge their undertaking really is. And how unpleasant it would be to end up having to deal with the big, flaming fallout from cocking it up.

They will have to be prepared to handle appeals and compaints, as well as clean up any unavoidable mistakes. And probably the most difficult of it all, make sure it isn't abused.

It's like some kind of doomed balloon voyage, though. Either disaster or success, it's going to be interesting.
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
MysticSlayer said:
But it is stupid to think that you can prevent it. How many people continue to say stupid stuff online even with all the stories of people being fired for saying similar things on Facebook and Twitter? How many people continue to act horribly in games even though they face potential penalties, up to being banned, for harassing other players? How many people continue to act like jerks on forums even as they are surrounded by people who have been banned for those very actions? Or, on a more real-life example, how many people continue to murder even when there is the threat of the death penalty (assuming it is there), or continue to commit crimes in general regardless of all the prison stories we have, including the absolutely horrifying ones.

The thing is, people do stupid stuff regardless of the penalties they may face, and this is only increased on the Internet where anonymity is more prevalent than in real life. Banning someone won't prevent these things from happening again, potentially even by the same person, so if their reasoning behind banning over suspensions is to prevent the actions, then their reasoning is highly flawed.
Hey yeah! Even though we have laws against murder, people still do it. Obviously we need to just ease up on it.

God, I hate that argument. If enforcement/prevention isn't perfect, it's useless. That's so much crap.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,846
1
3
Country
United States
I like the concept of this, but it really is something I'm going to have to sit and wait to see how it turns out. On one hand this could go wrong, on the other hand unwanted bile in online games is a massive problem that we've been ignoring for too long. Fingers crossed.
 

Boris Goodenough

New member
Jul 15, 2009
1,428
0
0
Blizzard already has done something similar, when bad mouthing them on other sites you could get banned on the official forums.
 

MysticSlayer

New member
Apr 14, 2013
2,405
0
0
Kwil said:
MysticSlayer said:
But it is stupid to think that you can prevent it. How many people continue to say stupid stuff online even with all the stories of people being fired for saying similar things on Facebook and Twitter? How many people continue to act horribly in games even though they face potential penalties, up to being banned, for harassing other players? How many people continue to act like jerks on forums even as they are surrounded by people who have been banned for those very actions? Or, on a more real-life example, how many people continue to murder even when there is the threat of the death penalty (assuming it is there), or continue to commit crimes in general regardless of all the prison stories we have, including the absolutely horrifying ones.

The thing is, people do stupid stuff regardless of the penalties they may face, and this is only increased on the Internet where anonymity is more prevalent than in real life. Banning someone won't prevent these things from happening again, potentially even by the same person, so if their reasoning behind banning over suspensions is to prevent the actions, then their reasoning is highly flawed.
Hey yeah! Even though we have laws against murder, people still do it. Obviously we need to just ease up on it.

God, I hate that argument. If enforcement/prevention isn't perfect, it's useless. That's so much crap.
Where did I ever say that we should ease up on murder because we can't prevent it? Nowhere. If you read my past posts, which I know you did because you responded to them, then you would have seen that I'm for a penalty, just not this penalty. The point I made was that it is ridiculous to expect a highly draconian penalty to automatically prevent a negative action, and if prevention is your motivation for taking that draconian stance, then your reasoning for taking that draconian stance over a more lenient penalty is highly flawed.
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
I can only be against this practice. I'm sorry but last I checked a HOBBY should never be held to the same standards as a JOB. Also one has to question where exactly is that "line" because thanks to a recent "lesson" of sexual harassment by state standards apparently what is deemed harassment is easy to abuse. Because it isn't the actual action but the INTERPRETATION or FEELING or THOUGHT that ANY person perceives it to be. In other words as long as a person thinks the act is sexual and disapproves of the act then it is considered harassment regardless of the action.

Not everyone is going to get along. That is normal and healthy. Some people just don't get along for a multitude of reasons and it is fine to even tell them to fuck off.

But what this all has to come down to is what I've been saying lately about this moral religious movement from the video game industry in the same vein that the GOP does with morality in the USA. People are quite literally oppressing their own morality and standards onto others and that has to stop. For the last couple of years I have seen nothing but from some of the biggest games become designed more in favor of either being anti-social or empowering a player base to freely report others without any sort of consequence. That isn't healthy for the video game industry in the long term nor is it healthy for the image for people who have video games as a hobby.

The only standards that video game companies should be enforcing is the actual law. People who decide to play video games should honestly ask themselves if said actions taken upon them should be seriously considered and reported or if it really comes down to just two players having a simple conflict by playing a game that is meant to be extremely competitive and stressful because they are losing or even winning.

Because given the course the only thing I see is that video game developers decided to expand the same problem the USA has with incarceration rates. More focus on the negative and trying to solve that negativity by simply throwing everyone behind bars. Yes that really helps everyone look good in the end doesn't it?

The only thing that you can say is that video game companies are great at marketing turning some of the worst practices into sounding better than sliced bread. But the reality is you ever wonder why Riot Games still has their game with such a shitty image? Because they bought into their own rhetoric and consistently endorsed solutions focused on the negative where even a simple disagreement with another playing in a match is now considered against "the summoner's code" because one playing didn't do what another player wanted.

I'm sorry but video game companies should not try to act like some sort of parent or enforce their morality unto others especially when their consumers are often just getting off from their 8-5 job already having to put the stick up their own ass and just want to go home and enjoy their hobby their way.
 

otakon17

New member
Jun 21, 2010
1,338
0
0
Sony, keep it to in-game would you? You have no right to enforce rules anywhere else. That is up to the people running that site. Now if you just bring this stuff up to said owners of those sites I wouldn't have any issue for it. But the point is this is the kind of shit that got that one kid 8 months in prison for a Facebook comment. Honestly its NONE of their damn business how I conduct myself outside their environment.
 

Reincarnatedwolfgod

New member
Jan 17, 2011
1,002
0
0
On paper it could work and it sounds like a decent idea. Although how well it works depends on the implementation. I am not abusive on the internet so it should not affect unless me(it horribly implemented) and I rarely even use sites like Facebook. I give very few shits how it affects other people.
 

Lucane

New member
Mar 24, 2008
1,491
0
0
MinionJoe said:
And once again we have Sony trying to be some sort of international police force. Just like they tried to do when they prosecuted people who had modified their PS3s.

I, for one, would be much happier playing MMOs without all the douche canoes. But Sony really has no legal or moral responsibility to track down and ban in-game customers based on threats from non-corporate sources.

Prosecuting people who make online threats is a job for local, state, national and ACTUAL international law enforcement agencies.
Well I would hope that threats like that aren't too common to where this would be like a monthly thing for them and only ones that either get a lot of media attention or happen to target one of their personal departments being picked up on there radar for a cross check of accounts would likely be minimal though of course not being a class a jerk would be the best bet.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
As a company Sony has the right to dictate the terms of service to use their product. If that includes no sass talk about them or whatever else, fine. However, because of the nature of the service and the pay wall before entering that service, I expect a number of lawsuits to pop up in protest, not because the people banned in question aren't assholes, but given that the product they bought for a couple hundred dollars now may not work as intended (being banned so no multiplayer?), the purpose of the console is nil and people will want their money back for the product. How this may work in court, I do not know yet, but as the systems become increasingly online, and therefore the user accounts increasingly more important, I can't imagine how much shit will be raised the day some upset 12 year old on facebook blurts "your system sucks" and gets banned for it. We shall see.

Meanwhile, gonna stick with my good old pc for now.
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
MysticSlayer said:
Kwil said:
MysticSlayer said:
But it is stupid to think that you can prevent it. How many people continue to say stupid stuff online even with all the stories of people being fired for saying similar things on Facebook and Twitter? How many people continue to act horribly in games even though they face potential penalties, up to being banned, for harassing other players? How many people continue to act like jerks on forums even as they are surrounded by people who have been banned for those very actions? Or, on a more real-life example, how many people continue to murder even when there is the threat of the death penalty (assuming it is there), or continue to commit crimes in general regardless of all the prison stories we have, including the absolutely horrifying ones.

The thing is, people do stupid stuff regardless of the penalties they may face, and this is only increased on the Internet where anonymity is more prevalent than in real life. Banning someone won't prevent these things from happening again, potentially even by the same person, so if their reasoning behind banning over suspensions is to prevent the actions, then their reasoning is highly flawed.
Hey yeah! Even though we have laws against murder, people still do it. Obviously we need to just ease up on it.

God, I hate that argument. If enforcement/prevention isn't perfect, it's useless. That's so much crap.
Where did I ever say that we should ease up on murder because we can't prevent it? Nowhere. If you read my past posts, which I know you did because you responded to them, then you would have seen that I'm for a penalty, just not this penalty. The point I made was that it is ridiculous to expect a highly draconian penalty to automatically prevent a negative action, and if prevention is your motivation for taking that draconian stance, then your reasoning for taking that draconian stance over a more lenient penalty is highly flawed.
So if that's not what you're saying, then why does it matter that "banning someone won't prevent these things from happening?" Either you wrote that to support your point that we shouldn't ban people for these kind of things.. or it's irrelevant and you wrote it for no reason at all. If the former, then that same logic applies to the penalties for any and all crimes yes? In which case, it's the old saw about prevention not being perfect, the penalty obviously isn't correct.

Choose.
 

Aramis Night

New member
Mar 31, 2013
535
0
0
Congratulations Sony. You have talked me out of purchasing a PS4. And no, It isn't because you're taking away my ability to be a jerk to others online. No rather, it's because you have chosen to wave a huge red flag in front of a red bull and i don't want to be in it's path when they come in and hack your network yet again. It will be really entertaining when you compile your little user account database with as much linked data as you can manage to grab on your individual users, only to have them come in and take all your hard work AGAIN, and have even more of their personal data compromised than the previous times. Yeah, I'll sit this one out.
 

V da Mighty Taco

New member
Apr 9, 2011
890
0
0
I can't help but wonder how things like this can be abused whenever they show up. While I get banning people who make death threats against Sony employees, I could also see it being used to silence criticism (ala EA's Origin) or even unfavorable groups. For example, as much as I dislike groups like the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church, I wouldn't exactly be keen with someone getting banned and losing what they've legally paid for just because they're openly apart of these groups.

Yeah, I get the whole "can ban for any reason" clause that's always existed. Doesn't make it right, however, and Sony depriving someone of something they've legally paid for due to disagreeing with legal (<- keyword here) displays of free speech not being done on Sony services should be illegal if it isn't already, imho.
 

Realitycrash

New member
Dec 12, 2010
2,779
0
0
I approve. I know that there might be some collateral damage, and that someone might be unfairly treated, and I hope there will be an appeal-system for this, but honestly? I don't care. Worth. It. This isn't about personal freedoms, about government control. It's about a game, and you being an asshole. So yes, bring on the draconian methods. In this case, I'm all for "if you got nothing to hide, there's no reason to be afraid".
 

MysticSlayer

New member
Apr 14, 2013
2,405
0
0
Kwil said:
MysticSlayer said:
Kwil said:
Hey yeah! Even though we have laws against murder, people still do it. Obviously we need to just ease up on it.

God, I hate that argument. If enforcement/prevention isn't perfect, it's useless. That's so much crap.
Where did I ever say that we should ease up on murder because we can't prevent it? Nowhere. If you read my past posts, which I know you did because you responded to them, then you would have seen that I'm for a penalty, just not this penalty. The point I made was that it is ridiculous to expect a highly draconian penalty to automatically prevent a negative action, and if prevention is your motivation for taking that draconian stance, then your reasoning for taking that draconian stance over a more lenient penalty is highly flawed.
So if that's not what you're saying, then why does it matter that "banning someone won't prevent these things from happening?" Either you wrote that to support your point that we shouldn't ban people for these kind of things.. or it's irrelevant and you wrote it for no reason at all. If the former, then that same logic applies to the penalties for any and all crimes yes? In which case, it's the old saw about prevention not being perfect, the penalty obviously isn't correct.

Choose.
My approach isn't meant to be preventative, and my comments were meant to point out that banning has no preventative advantage to suspensions. Suspensions are meant to punish the behavior and, hopefully, get them to think about what they've done. While banning can do the same thing, my issue with it is that it lasts permanently, well beyond the point at which the person fully matures out of it. The point is to find the most suitable set of punishments (i.e. ones that get the message across) and taking the one that has the most lenient repercussions, and suspensions fit this much better than banning does. Like I said, the major advantage of suspensions is that you can keep giving them out for each new infraction, increasing the time for each new infraction. This will eventually allow you to find the point at which their punishment has carried enough weight to make them reconsider what they're doing. For some, that might require an effective ban, even if it comes in the form of an incredibly lengthy suspension. For others, a single one week suspension might be all it takes, and banning that person would be going ridiculously overboard.
 

wetnap

New member
Sep 1, 2011
107
0
0
Beyond it being stasi like behavior, its ripe for abuse, and not the type of corporate behavior anyone should encourage.


A precedent should not be set.

It should not be normalized.


Thought police that literally follow you around should only exist in repressive regimes like china. That sony even thought it was a good idea to bring this into our world is mind boggling.

An atheist is a troll to any religion, just remember that.

And as I've said before, people who were quick to jump on the sony ps4 bandwagon just forgot sonys long track record, its the company that installed rootkits on pc's after all. Don't be so quick to claim a corporation as your savior.
 

Sectan

New member
Aug 7, 2011
591
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
Since BuzzCutpsycho left planetside 2 of boredom and the Enclave is gone, the system is worthless now. Not that it ever worked. Way too late to fix any real issue. The damage has been done. Him and his crew broke a whole server from his bullcrap and was the most toxic AND the most POWERFUL (politically) player planetside has to offer.

Even when he broke the in game rules on his own stream, they didn't do anything. Even when he practically broke the game for his own benefit. On video.

He even was on tape when he gave orders to his gigantic outfit (clan) to teamkill another friendly outfit (was also a huge outfit) in the area and blow their mobile spawner (sunderer) because Buzz wanted to do easy xp farming with his own sunderer.

A toxic, racist, and misogynist player. The most famous player in the entire game right next to "Scourge of the server." With a legion of lackies that helps him exploit the game month after month on a live stream and destroy anyone else's fun.
I played with this guy when he transferred to The Venture Co. on WoW. If you looked at his WoW profile he had his character doing a (idk what it's actually called) Sieg Heil salute. He would constantly post harrasing things on his guild website, track down IRL pictures of other players and post them on the guild website and just shit talk them for months. Just a horrible person all around. I'm surprised he was never banned from either game.
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
Sectan said:
Ultratwinkie said:
Since BuzzCutpsycho left planetside 2 of boredom and the Enclave is gone, the system is worthless now. Not that it ever worked. Way too late to fix any real issue. The damage has been done. Him and his crew broke a whole server from his bullcrap and was the most toxic AND the most POWERFUL (politically) player planetside has to offer.

Even when he broke the in game rules on his own stream, they didn't do anything. Even when he practically broke the game for his own benefit. On video.

He even was on tape when he gave orders to his gigantic outfit (clan) to teamkill another friendly outfit (was also a huge outfit) in the area and blow their mobile spawner (sunderer) because Buzz wanted to do easy xp farming with his own sunderer.

A toxic, racist, and misogynist player. The most famous player in the entire game right next to "Scourge of the server." With a legion of lackies that helps him exploit the game month after month on a live stream and destroy anyone else's fun.
I played with this guy when he transferred to The Venture Co. on WoW. If you looked at his WoW profile he had his character doing a (idk what it's actually called) Sieg Heil salute. He would constantly post harrasing things on his guild website, track down IRL pictures of other players and post them on the guild website and just shit talk them for months. Just a horrible person all around. I'm surprised he was never banned from either game.
he's on WOW too? Wow. Thought he would be banned for sure.

How the hell can he get away with so much? In multiple games no less? How the hell does he get anyone to follow him with the way he treats them? I even remember when he had his entire outfit BUY overpowered weapons just to troll every other player in the game. I remember the video when they spammed lock on striker launchers and decimated a whole counter offensive. With zerg spamming. So the opposing side just got farmed instead of having fun shooting each other, and people lost all reason to play it anymore.

How SOE could tolerate a man who is the very reason one of their servers died and shot the balance and population ratio to hell is beyond me.
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
Pointless. Well meaning but pointless. All people have to do is well, not allow Sony to track them outside the games. Believe it or not, you don't have to have your game linked to your twitter or facebook page and newsflash... you can create multiple facebook and twitter accounts for the purpose of harassment.


Really. The best thing to do is to allow players to maintain a black list of sorts. Somebody being a dick to them, add to blacklist thusly ensuring they never wind up in the same game. This fixes the problem from 3 angles. People who are generally dicks will over time find themselves effectively locked out of games since basically every game lobby has about 3 people that's blacklisted them.

Secondly, people who basically just like to spam complaints about anything will find themselves in the same boat because if you have that many people on your blacklist you won't get matched into any games.


Thirdly, in MMO type games, , it can be used to more or less function as a pre-emptive gag. Or if the devs are really smart. Essentially render blacklisted players invisible to the people who black list them and vice versa. So a douche Everquest Player could find over time that it starts looking like he's the only one on the server...good luck finding a raiding party.
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
MysticSlayer said:
My approach isn't meant to be preventative.
And that's both the problem and why you can't understand it.

Incidentally, suggesting that harsher punishments have no preventative value is complete bollocks, and there are *reams* of statistical and psychological studies that back this up. While there must always be a balance struck between likelihood of deterrence and the amount of liberty removed from a person, you arguing that this punishment is too harsh is simply asinine, as a person is losing absolutely no liberty whatsoever. They can always, as you yourself pointed out, find another way onto the system. What they are losing here is simply an identity -- a gathering of statistics and peers that they have to remake. Sony's position is very clear..identities that choose to be ass-hats on their system are not welcome, and will be eliminated.

Sony is not, and should not, be in the position of teaching basic ethics and good social behavior to people.. they are in the business, first and foremost, of providing a good customer experience to the bulk of their customers. By allowing an offender to return.. especially if that person re-offends, the impression Sony gives out to the vast majority of their customers who aren't asshats is that Sony really doesn't care if you are or not. (After all, someone not showing up for a few weeks/month isn't evidence of disciplinary action, it's simply evidence of absence, which could have been completely voluntary). On the other hand, if asshats disappear forever, then even if the person behind returns under a new name, people understand that Sony is at least trying.
 

MysticSlayer

New member
Apr 14, 2013
2,405
0
0
Kwil said:
MysticSlayer said:
My approach isn't meant to be preventative.
And that's both the problem and why you can't understand it.

Incidentally, suggesting that harsher punishments have no preventative value is complete bollocks, and there are *reams* of statistical and psychological studies that back this up.
While my point isn't to be a preventative measure, in that I'm under no delusion that this will actually prevent incidents like this from happening, I understand that any form of punishment carries with it preventative potential for the individual affected and those who know that person. The point is, as you said, striking a balance, and going for the ban right away seems ridiculously harsh. As I've already said, it might work up to an effective ban, but it also understands that different people respond differently to punishment, and for some a simple one-week suspension would be all it takes. Others might work up to the effective ban, but automatically reaching for the harshest of punishments without giving them an opportunity to at least change their ways after more lenient punishment isn't being smart. It's being reactionary.

By allowing an offender to return.. especially if that person re-offends, the impression Sony gives out to the vast majority of their customers who aren't asshats is that Sony really doesn't care if you are or not. (After all, someone not showing up for a few weeks/month isn't evidence of disciplinary action, it's simply evidence of absence, which could have been completely voluntary). On the other hand, if asshats disappear forever, then even if the person behind returns under a new name, people understand that Sony is at least trying.
We all know of ways in which you can send the message that the person is suspended, not just on vacation. Labeling their account as suspended is a starting point, though it certainly isn't the only thing you can do.

Also, it doesn't send the message that they don't care. It sends the message that they are watching and there are consequences for such behavior. What the person does with that knowledge is completely out of Sony's hands. If Sony stops there or never gets any harsher as time goes on, then yes, they are sending a "we don't care" message. However, if they keep up the penalties, making them harsher as time goes on, then it does begin to send the message that such behavior is not tolerated. Again, I'm not against avoiding a harsh penalty all together, but there has to be penalties leading up to it.
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
Hold on, this is only if the person abuses someone associated with the production/upkeep/publishing of their games, right? For that reason I can understand issuing bans and such.

However, to do this to someone who is nasty to someone else on Twitter is just open to all forms of abuse.

"Someone said something I construed as being offensive on a social medium. I know they play Planetside 2 and have actually spent a bit of money on it. I'm going to report them to SOE so they lose all that they invested. Hah! I am a well-rounded individual, capable of handling my own emotions."

Or am I reading this wrong?
 

wetnap

New member
Sep 1, 2011
107
0
0
BigTuk said:
Pointless. Well meaning but pointless. All people have to do is well, not allow Sony to track them outside the games. Believe it or not, you don't have to have your game linked to your twitter or facebook page and newsflash... you can create multiple facebook and twitter accounts for the purpose of harassment.


Really. The best thing to do is to allow players to maintain a black list of sorts. Somebody being a dick to them, add to blacklist thusly ensuring they never wind up in the same game. This fixes the problem from 3 angles. People who are generally dicks will over time find themselves effectively locked out of games since basically every game lobby has about 3 people that's blacklisted them.

Secondly, people who basically just like to spam complaints about anything will find themselves in the same boat because if you have that many people on your blacklist you won't get matched into any games.


Thirdly, in MMO type games, , it can be used to more or less function as a pre-emptive gag. Or if the devs are really smart. Essentially render blacklisted players invisible to the people who black list them and vice versa. So a douche Everquest Player could find over time that it starts looking like he's the only one on the server...good luck finding a raiding party.
methods of tracking people would scare you s**tless if you looked into it.
http://qz.com/125470/google-can-track-you-without-cookies/
https://panopticlick.eff.org/
there are flash cookies and the rest, and the more you block, the more unique you become anyways, and there are further methods i'm sure. You just can't practically avoid this stuff, and its not reasonable to expect people to have to try jumping through hoops to avoid a corporation tracking them this way for the purposes of banning in games.
 

Diablo1099_v1legacy

Doom needs Yoghurt, Badly
Dec 12, 2009
9,732
0
0
As one of the FB Commenters said: "Freedom of Speech: Yes. Freedom of Responsibility: No."

As long as they are clear about what can get you banned, I don't mind and I think getting some of those people who threaten to kill and rape people over their video game offline would be good.
It's just the Gaming Version of not letting the mental soccer fans knock the shite out of each other over a Football game
 

ThunderCavalier

New member
Nov 21, 2009
1,475
0
0
This is a good idea as long as Sony clearly outlines what they define as "irresponsible" or "abusive" behavior and they, at least, allow people to appeal what they've been banned for.

Otherwise this is just a free pass for Sony to start dropping customers they don't like or speak out against them.
 

stabnex

New member
Jun 30, 2009
1,039
0
0
On one hand I think I can almost understand where they're coming from. But on all 7 others......

People with their Twitters tied to PSN are now going to be living in fear of a power tripping admin taking every. single. thing they say out of context. This seems more like a Microsoft power play, Sony. Take that to heart. I'll be in further contact.

EDIT: I thought it important to note that after reading this article I felt the powerful need to start listening to The Dayton Family [https://www.facebook.com/thedaytonfamily].
 

ReleGamer

New member
Sep 24, 2013
11
0
0
Perhaps this is an overzealous approach to dealing with the recently highlighted problems in gaming social media. However, it is good to see action being taken, even if it may not have any noticable results. I think this is a positive move to try and get people to behave like human beings on the internet...perhaps that is asking too much
 

Tsaba

reconnoiter
Oct 6, 2009
1,435
0
0
I somehow doubt that Sony is going to start spying on people and that this is just a way for them to deal with "extreme" cases of over the top individuals or as I like to think of this as covering their butts.
 

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
MysticSlayer said:
Again, I'm not against avoiding a harsh penalty all together, but there has to be penalties leading up to it.
Why?
You've failed to give any clear reason as to why there needs to be this other than your heart bleeds for the poor asshats.