SOE Will Ban Players For Out-of-Game Offenses

[Mylinkay Asdara]

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]

"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]

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.

 

[Ftaghn To You Too]

How about you fix your game before acting as the Internet Police?

 

[blazinghell666]

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]

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]

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.

"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]

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.

 

[Glaice]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

Lovely concept that I would wholeheartedly support, but I don't trust them to not pervert it.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

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...