SOE Will Ban Players For Out-of-Game Offenses

[MysticSlayer]

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]

Just from the title I was worried
then I read the article

Good idea Sony

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?

 

[Frost27]

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]

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]

Just from the title I was worried
then I read the article

Good idea Sony

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.

 

[Kevlar Eater]

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.

 

[RicoADF]

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.

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]

Which is stupid, but I don't run the company so they don't have to follow my morals.

 

[Weaver]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

hmmm, not sure if i think this is good or bad

 

[Icehearted]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.