Yeah, like talking to reporters about these funny papers at the Pentagon, or funding and expenditure oddities at CREEP...Matt_LRR said:
Remember, "ways they otherwise wouldn't" is not always a bad thing.
View From the Road: Where Everybody Knows Your Name
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Remember, "ways they otherwise wouldn't" is not always a bad thing.
I disagree.. From the Blizzard Privacy Policy:John Funk said:
I believe that Facebook is doing something similar. There's no "opt-out" of this; you have to assume that Blizzard is mining Facebook's data on you (and that Facebook is doing the same). RealID just makes it easier for both cases.
Yes, there is an opt-out. You need to call them or write them a letter.werelord said:
And "merge the personal information collected at a Blizzard site with data from third parties" is essentially exactly what the RealID-Facebook connection already is. Maybe they'll add an armory app to Facebook or whatever.
One line in a privacy policy is hardly proof, no matter what conspiracy-minded people might argue.
To begin with, I'd like to thank You for making this article after all, it is good that You decided to go with it.John Funk said:
I agree with the fact that accountability for actions should be somehow enforced even on the internet, but I am also quite sure there are better ways. For those that do not see forums only as a place to wage flame-wars or wave their e-peens, however the change offered very little. All You would know is how the troll that started given thread is called, and if You don't know him it is not much different from having just his level 1 alt name.
The effect of posting under real names is disproportional across the sides of the 'conflict'. The jerks and trolls get another weapon in their arsenal of insults, they can now use Your name against You, while the normal, calm part of community just still can only watch as the temperature raises, and still can't even look those people up in-game, which is what the whole deal with level 1 alts is about. The whole idea had very little value to both the honest community and moderators.
I can't also agree with the concept. You seem to read it as purely an attempt of Blizzzard taking action to finally make their forums a more pleasant and enjoyable part of their network. From my point of view it is however just a test. They wanted to see how far they can go in their plan to built a social network based on Battle.Net 2.0.
Even despite the Real Names on Forums idea not passing through there is plenty of changes that managed to slip under the radar of wider discussion that may soon become problematic.
I can't just ignore the fact that the dreaded system of post rating will be a part of forums, which means now organized groups of trolls could easily rank down valuable threads whenever they would feel like. It is yet another very dangerous experiment on Blizzard side, one that already failed in past on many of community forums.
Another issue is supposed optionality of the RealID in game. I played WoW for long time, been in few guilds, all of which I considered great and made many friends there, I keep contact with even after all this time I don't play the game. But even then, every so often I wanted to hide from everyone, chill out on my alt that wasn't guiled, get some slack instead being nagged to heal a heroic run or craft some gems. Sometimes I wanted to have fun on my 19 lvl twink when my guild was raiding, because I needed a break from the high-end content.
I had the luck of having rather mature and understanding guilds that allowed me such actions, but now I am hearing form my still playing friends, that many more raid-focused guilds enforce use of RealID for their members. Pretty much it comes down to "If You want to raid, You have to opt-in and add us as friends so we can keep tabs on You". I don't like the sound of it. It's like we are willingly accepting Orwell's 1984, where every our action is carefully monitored by peers. So far it is only the concern with few pro guilds and some over zealous 'hardcore' guilds but it may become common practice soon.
My final issue is the forcing of community networks into games. I understand that sites like Facebook managed to gather unbelievable amounts of users and are easy way of both luring new customers as well as providing additional service to current ones, but is it really what gamers want? For years we managed with e-mails or IMs, being able to freely choose who and when we want to contact with. Allowing us to hide from eyes of others whenever we felt like being 'alone among the crowds'.
I can't get rid of the feeling that this decision was highly influenced by Activision and their view on the 'casual' market they hope to take a bite at and can only wish it won't turn out as bad as I see it.
Now that's an argument I would stand for.rembrandtqeinstein said:
True freedom is brutal and beautiful.
"Hey, 2ch." (All arguments about the negative aspects of anonymity invalidated)
History lesson: 4chan didn't just pop out of nowhere. It was based on a very popular japanese site by the name 2ch. Functionally, they're identical. Users are allowed to post whatever they want under any name they want or completely anonymously. 2ch is all the best qualities of the internet, 4chan is all the worst. Which means the problem isn't intrinsic to anonymity, its the people posting. But issues are easier to discuss once they're labeled, so lets act like anonymity is the reason people are stupid.
Trolling is a concept as old as the internet. Its definition has always been very, very loose. Like most old internet vernacular, its metaphorical link is "fishing." Dragging a long, strong line behind a boat to catch the larger, lower strata fish or bottom feeders of a body of water. At the core, the purpose is to "catch" posts/threads longer than anything you could ever want to write. Which means its inextricably linked to all forms of internet communication. The only real difference is an implication of the "troller" is... lazy. Instead of doing his/her best to create real discussion, s/he'd post inflammatory or purposefully incorrect information for the sake of generating quick response. "Vs" threads are the most readily apparent example of this... and some of the oldest ones are still active (on usenet).
Eventually, people ignorant of that particular type of fishing (Eternal September, maybe earlier), took the definition to mean the mythological creature who ate goats trying to cross a bridge. Thus, the "modern" definition of troll was born. "Someone I don't like." Its a little more complicated than that, but because of the natural confirmation bias present in every person, its extremely hard to argue that isn't what it boils down to.
The idea that someone is posting specifically to make you respond angrily (or at all) is pretty much self-reinforcing delusion is based upon and reinforces the act of believing only what you want to believe.
The ideals behind 2ch/anonymity aren't about accountability. Its about removing the desperate need to be polite. Neutering our social directives. You act a certain way because you want people to like you. If you can't know anyone, theres no point to this. So you begin acting the way you would naturally. Western culture creates people who are blank spaces defined only by the limitations around them. Freed of those limitations, they reveal themselves to be shallow, stupid, ignorant, lazy, and all those other negative aspects of humanity we excusingly refer to as "human nature." When in reality, they're as intrinsic all the "positive" aspects of humanity. Which is to say, not at all.
The ideals behind etiquette are about making everyone as comfortable as possible. If you aren't comfortable being anonymous, to say, comfortable removed from the need to make everyone as comfortable as possible in order to produce sane, productive social interaction... get the fuck off the fucking internet. Stop trying to argue things should be changed to suit you.
History lesson: 4chan didn't just pop out of nowhere. It was based on a very popular japanese site by the name 2ch. Functionally, they're identical. Users are allowed to post whatever they want under any name they want or completely anonymously. 2ch is all the best qualities of the internet, 4chan is all the worst. Which means the problem isn't intrinsic to anonymity, its the people posting. But issues are easier to discuss once they're labeled, so lets act like anonymity is the reason people are stupid.
Trolling is a concept as old as the internet. Its definition has always been very, very loose. Like most old internet vernacular, its metaphorical link is "fishing." Dragging a long, strong line behind a boat to catch the larger, lower strata fish or bottom feeders of a body of water. At the core, the purpose is to "catch" posts/threads longer than anything you could ever want to write. Which means its inextricably linked to all forms of internet communication. The only real difference is an implication of the "troller" is... lazy. Instead of doing his/her best to create real discussion, s/he'd post inflammatory or purposefully incorrect information for the sake of generating quick response. "Vs" threads are the most readily apparent example of this... and some of the oldest ones are still active (on usenet).
Eventually, people ignorant of that particular type of fishing (Eternal September, maybe earlier), took the definition to mean the mythological creature who ate goats trying to cross a bridge. Thus, the "modern" definition of troll was born. "Someone I don't like." Its a little more complicated than that, but because of the natural confirmation bias present in every person, its extremely hard to argue that isn't what it boils down to.
The idea that someone is posting specifically to make you respond angrily (or at all) is pretty much self-reinforcing delusion is based upon and reinforces the act of believing only what you want to believe.
The ideals behind 2ch/anonymity aren't about accountability. Its about removing the desperate need to be polite. Neutering our social directives. You act a certain way because you want people to like you. If you can't know anyone, theres no point to this. So you begin acting the way you would naturally. Western culture creates people who are blank spaces defined only by the limitations around them. Freed of those limitations, they reveal themselves to be shallow, stupid, ignorant, lazy, and all those other negative aspects of humanity we excusingly refer to as "human nature." When in reality, they're as intrinsic all the "positive" aspects of humanity. Which is to say, not at all.
The ideals behind etiquette are about making everyone as comfortable as possible. If you aren't comfortable being anonymous, to say, comfortable removed from the need to make everyone as comfortable as possible in order to produce sane, productive social interaction... get the fuck off the fucking internet. Stop trying to argue things should be changed to suit you.
Where does control step out of the users hands in the implementation of RealID?Tenmar said:
In games, you control who has access to your real name, if anyone - as ingame realID is optional.
whether you link your realID to facebook is up to you.
whether you choose to participate in a forum community that requires use of your real name is also up to you.
and in so doing, whether you link that name back to your in-game characters is also up to you.
The system was set up such that you had control of the information being made public at every turn - so how is that in any way out of your control?
-m
Matt the problem is, as in most of aspect of human life, in so called peer pressure.Matt_LRR said:
When you are into the game, not just on the casual level, but actually interested in at least being among the servers top3-5 guilds, because you like the competitive aspect of MMOs you have chance of Guild Leaders requiring you to opt-in for the RealID if you want to get on the epixxx.
On many runs, especially by the end of the instance, when you just have 1 last boss to learn and execute, people start to drop off suddenly, they are not interested in farming the content they wont benefit from. Excuses appear like "I'm going out tonight" or "My cat just jumped of the window" while most of time they log on their alts to just enjoy themselves. It's very human such behavior.
It is the question of how really optional the optionality is, when to fully experience the game you are pressured to opt-in for the greater good.
Security was never an issue for me when it came to all of this. I was far more concerned with being robbed of my virtual identity thanks to said system. I've spent the last 4 1/2 years playing WoW on and off under the same character name. When I post, I post as that character and so and so forth. No, I'm not a prominent community figure by a very wide margin but on the servers I played on I had a reputation all the same.
When I post on the forums I want that reputation to follow me, not be some footnote to my actual identity. The same way here on the escapist I go by KeyMaster45 is what I go by when I step into the persona I've adopted for playing WoW. Being told that I was no longer able to post under an identity that I and those I played with had become quite accustomed to was an outrage because they were in fact robbing me of an identity. Why should the value of my feedback on the game be based upon whether or not I post under my actual identity? That my opinions somehow become invalid based upon the name I wish attached to my posts.
Too many it seems silly that I'd be so protective over a name that holds no bearing in the real world. While I can't deny it does seem rather odd that I do, all I can answer with is that my whatever name I'm using at the time, be it virtual or actual, represents who I am in that particular community.
When I post on the forums I want that reputation to follow me, not be some footnote to my actual identity. The same way here on the escapist I go by KeyMaster45 is what I go by when I step into the persona I've adopted for playing WoW. Being told that I was no longer able to post under an identity that I and those I played with had become quite accustomed to was an outrage because they were in fact robbing me of an identity. Why should the value of my feedback on the game be based upon whether or not I post under my actual identity? That my opinions somehow become invalid based upon the name I wish attached to my posts.
Too many it seems silly that I'd be so protective over a name that holds no bearing in the real world. While I can't deny it does seem rather odd that I do, all I can answer with is that my whatever name I'm using at the time, be it virtual or actual, represents who I am in that particular community.
I've been there. I've been in a server top-10 progression guild. And I've been on a real-name basis with members of that guild.Keava said:
As is, many endgame guilds require that you provide a cell number or other out of game means of instant contact so that if you fail to loging for a scheduled raid, they can get in touch.
The fact of the matter is, that it's still your choice. You're choosing to forgo endgame to protect your identity. that's your choice to make.
That said, if the policy went in, there would have been guilds bucking the trend of requiring realID just to recruit players who didn't want to use their real names.
Supply/demand afterall.
-m
Yes, the same 2ch that got a director at Gainax fired over an episode of an anime?Cynical skeptic said:
Are you Japanese? Do you post on 2ch regularly? From what my friends in Japan tell me, it and its brother 2chan are ... better than 4chan, yes, but they're still anonymous boards.
Dicks should be accountable for the things they do and say that are harmful.
What exactly does "held accountable" mean?John Funk said:
Do you believe girls deserve to be stalked because they are girls? Do you believe people should be threatened or have their property vandalized because they have the same name as a child molester?
Or more directly related to the discussion do you believe nobody can contribute to a World of Warcraft forum discussion unless they are max level, have a 2k+ arena rating, have gear score > x? Because that is the "accountability" that currently exists in the WoW forums. Post on an alt and a lot of the responses are "post on your main". Post on your main and it is "lol 1200". (or whatever the hell those numbers mean now, haven't played since BC)
So what does accountability mean other than maybe you will scare off the maybe 5% of the most timid trolls and 100% of the girls?
You can already ignore people whose comments you don't think contribute. I do it all the time. If the presence of a troll derails a thread then that thread couldn't have been that meaningful to begin with.
...it means exactly what I said. If someone says something racist, if someone says something creepy (in your example about stalking girls, a "tits or gtfo," for instance), if somebody just says "lol 1200," then you know who they are. They have to accept responsibility for what they say.rembrandtqeinstein said:
If Blizzard had no objection to the number of subscriptions they would have lost, I think the points here are valid and I agree it would have been an interesting experiment.
Me, I would buy StarCraft 2 regardless, and even if I had to play under my real name I still probably would--though would fear my boss ever Googling my multiplayer rank and seeing how bad I suck.
I'm still sitting on the fence with Cataclysm, we'll see how that goes, but Blizzard attitudes about privacy wouldn't help sway my feelings in favor.
Me, I would buy StarCraft 2 regardless, and even if I had to play under my real name I still probably would--though would fear my boss ever Googling my multiplayer rank and seeing how bad I suck.
I'm still sitting on the fence with Cataclysm, we'll see how that goes, but Blizzard attitudes about privacy wouldn't help sway my feelings in favor.
From the metacritic article you linked... I have to say that I know people in real life who sometimes use racist slang. Not often enough for most of their friends to notice, but they still say a few racist things from time to time... Enough that I wonder if they aren't a closet racist.
I also have friends... well, people who are friends of my friends and I hang out with... who will use "gay" freely yet think they're not homophobic or that they're not doing anything wrong. I've even seen one of them use the word "woman" as an insult (with their girlfriends present), which got some small reaction, but still no serious repercussions. They're hardly held accountable a fraction of the time, and when they are, there's no serious repercussions for their behavior. I've talked to several friends, and they've noticed these things too... the problem is, no one cares or feels strongly enough to do anything about it. I think there's a huge problem with certain types of gamers, who are otherwise decent people, but can still use words like "gay" or "rape". I've even seen people with abusive pasts use "rape" as if it were a perfectly acceptable word to describe something as mundane (by comparison to it's effect on your life...) as a video game.
Even if people are held accountable for their actions, they also need more serious ramifications. The internet is not free domain, it's simply ignored much like a black market might stay hidden; all laws regarding harassment and the like still apply, so if you really wanted, it's technically possible to press charges for something someone said over a video game chat. Too bad the internet is "anonymous".
As for the main article, I think it was really good, and it *would* make a great experiment, but probably would cause a lot of harm for a lot of people. Blizzard should just take some of their profits and hire some more moderators, and bring down the ban-hammer on the forums. That or just wipe the forums altogether aside from official posts and restart the whole thing.
I also have friends... well, people who are friends of my friends and I hang out with... who will use "gay" freely yet think they're not homophobic or that they're not doing anything wrong. I've even seen one of them use the word "woman" as an insult (with their girlfriends present), which got some small reaction, but still no serious repercussions. They're hardly held accountable a fraction of the time, and when they are, there's no serious repercussions for their behavior. I've talked to several friends, and they've noticed these things too... the problem is, no one cares or feels strongly enough to do anything about it. I think there's a huge problem with certain types of gamers, who are otherwise decent people, but can still use words like "gay" or "rape". I've even seen people with abusive pasts use "rape" as if it were a perfectly acceptable word to describe something as mundane (by comparison to it's effect on your life...) as a video game.
Even if people are held accountable for their actions, they also need more serious ramifications. The internet is not free domain, it's simply ignored much like a black market might stay hidden; all laws regarding harassment and the like still apply, so if you really wanted, it's technically possible to press charges for something someone said over a video game chat. Too bad the internet is "anonymous".
As for the main article, I think it was really good, and it *would* make a great experiment, but probably would cause a lot of harm for a lot of people. Blizzard should just take some of their profits and hire some more moderators, and bring down the ban-hammer on the forums. That or just wipe the forums altogether aside from official posts and restart the whole thing.
