General Chat

[Limariko]

Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc are rampant on any server in general chat, but more so on the imperial side. Most of it starts off by the same certain people to troll chat, then others get involved, then the real bigots jump in because they see they have an audience.

.

 

Interesting as my experience has been the absolute worst stuff to the degree I actually stop playing and scroll chat back to make sure I actually saw what I thought I saw has been on Republic side. I'm talking the sort of stuff like the one guy on Republic Fleet who was advocating a return to old style Eugenics with "sterilizing the unfit" complete with links to sites that would probably put anyone on a governmental watchlist to back up his argument.

 

Giving us improved report options would likely be the best way to handle this rather than the ignore option which does have a cap on how many can be ignored. I've lost count how many times I've seen someone spouting stuff that makes me wonder if I'm seeing a final manifesto before the spree killings end up on the news that when I go to report, I can only choose 'Report Spam'. I don't see how the devs can't set up a series of filters to look for specific word combinations in a reported comment to have it automatically act with that player getting an email stating why they're probated/banned with an option to rebuttal along with forwarding a report to a team for further investigation if it doesn't hit the word combinations in the filter.

 

For the argument that there's no money in policing the in game chats, there is an argument towards providing an environment conducive to the playerbase. If they lose enough paying players due to out of control chat, that's still lost money when they can ill afford it.

[psandak]

No, Bioware has a responsibility to police the in-game chat channels because it's their product that is impacted by moronic twits trying to get a rise outta people. They simply need to do it. They've created a far worse situation by ignoring it and its impact on their customers.

 

Blizzard does not do it in WoW and they have the funding to be able to. How do you expect BW to "police" the chat without funding?

[TUXs]

Blizzard does not do it in WoW and they have the funding to be able to. How do you expect BW to "police" the chat without funding?

Hire 3 interns and give them all tablets. If someone is reported, a log should be being generated and sent for inspection. If the intern gets 3 pings from logs in a few minutes, they need to investigate and take action.

[casirabit]

Rampant? I very rarely see any of what you've listed, and I've been playing for 4 years, mostly on BC and Harby. I reckon you are just over exaggerating, just like everyone else who loves to use the "sexist/racist/homophobic" cards when they're in a situation that "offends" them. Have you been on every server to know that "it is rampant on any server"? Seriously...and if these "bigots" were so bad....if everyone that gets "offended" uses the ignore command.....then the problem is solved. Those who are hurt easily won't see the "bigots" and those who don't care will have a laugh and continue playing the game, as it should be. The ignore command is there for a reason.

 

You all are making this a bigger deal than it has to be, stop acting like children, use the ignore tool if necessary and/or toughen up a bit.

 

Actually on Ebon Hawk since the Christmas holidays it has gotten worse on Drumond Kaas. Normally it would be a few and they would be ignore but I noticed since the holidays it has actually got worse. I put that as children out for the holidays and looking for attention.

[dr_mike]

Hire 3 interns and give them all tablets. If someone is reported, a log should be being generated and sent for inspection. If the intern gets 3 pings from logs in a few minutes, they need to investigate and take action.

 

Courts are ruling unpaid interns are now illegal here in the US.

[DarthSpuds]

Reminds me of freedom of speech and how people think it applies everywhere.

 

Either it does apply everywhere or it isn't free.

 

I believe in absolute freedom of speech.

But then I am also what I call a "responsible consequentialist" - I believe that I, and only I, am responsible for the consequences of my actions.

 

Anyone and everyone is free to say exactly whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want - as long as they are prepared to live with the consequences. And if I genuinely feel that something needs to be said I will say it, and be happy to live with the consequences.

 

Sure such an outlook in life gets me a few punches in the mouth now and then, but it also means I do know the friends that I do have will back me up all the way, and they know I will do the same for them.

 

All The Best

[curulz]

Either it does apply everywhere or it isn't free.

 

It doesn't in the game though. The First Amendment grants freedom of speech meaning the government cannot restrict it. BW most certainly can. assuming BW enforces their own policies and someone gets sanctioned, the Freedom of Speech argument will not hold water. BW is not the government, they can restrict whatever they like in their game. It is not a platform for anyone to speak their mind.

 

Freedom of Speech can be defined broadly and perhaps that is what the FFs had in mind, but that is not how it works in practice. I get where you're coming from though, and I tend to agree with the idea of "speech is free, but the consequences aren't". But in this scenario, it just doesn't apply.

[casirabit]

Either it does apply everywhere or it isn't free.

 

 

We actually discussed this in my law class when I was getting my paralegal degree and there are limitations depending on how it is used.

 

Example: If you run into a theater and cry fire and someone is injured because of what you say, you can't use Freedom of Speech as a excuse why you are not liable for that person or person(s) injuries.

[Eshvara]

Either it does apply everywhere or it isn't free.

 

I believe in absolute freedom of speech.

But then I am also what I call a "responsible consequentialist" - I believe that I, and only I, am responsible for the consequences of my actions.

 

Anyone and everyone is free to say exactly whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want - as long as they are prepared to live with the consequences. And if I genuinely feel that something needs to be said I will say it, and be happy to live with the consequences.

 

Sure such an outlook in life gets me a few punches in the mouth now and then, but it also means I do know the friends that I do have will back me up all the way, and they know I will do the same for them.

 

All The Best

 

You believing that doesn't change the definition of what it means though.

 

I don't believe everything should be allowed to be said, words can be very powerful and the propaganda that Hitler was shouting should be more than enough proof of that.

[GirlKiss]

You believing that doesn't change the definition of what it means though.

 

I don't believe everything should be allowed to be said, words can be very powerful and the propaganda that Hitler was shouting should be more than enough proof of that.

 

Leave Hitler alone girl

[MollyDresden]

I also use ignore. And I have gen chat off most of the time. That stuff doesn't bother me if I don't see it. Granted, people shouldn't be talking that way, but I don't really want BW to spend resources being some kind of thought police either. Because where's the line? Sure, some stuff is blatantly offensive. But there are things which some find offensive only because they're opinions those people disagree with, and that kind of thing shouldn't be banned. So I'd really say if it bothers you that much, just close the chat window. And as for those other people who were there and silent, they were probably busy actually playing the game or talking to other people directly, and they may have had gen chat closed (or were ignoring it) anyway. The world's full of this kind of stuff. For your own sanity, you have to learn to ignore it where you can.

[Eshvara]

Leave Hitler alone girl

No!! He's the perfect example of why you shouldn't be able to say Everything.

I really have to question the wisdom of people who think otherwise.

[Kawiki]

You believing that doesn't change the definition of what it means though.

 

I don't believe everything should be allowed to be said, words can be very powerful and the propaganda that Hitler was shouting should be more than enough proof of that.

 

The question always comes down to where do we draw the line and who decides?

[dr_mike]

I also use ignore.

 

Can't use ignore when it's maxed out.

 

Yes, there's that many lovely folks on Shadowlands.

 

Want to hear the latest. It involves Carrie and her mom and how they were getting on together all this time. Someone feel free to explain to me why I should have to read that in graphic detail.

Edited December 29, 2016 by dr_mike

[psandak]

Regarding the 1st amendment. The exact wording is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

Please show me where any of that applies to private companies and their communication interfaces.

 

The 1st amendment was written to prevent the United States government from passing laws designed to censor its citizens, nothing more nothing less. The 1st amendment was NOT written to allow anyone to say or write anything they want anywhere they choose.

Edited December 29, 2016 by psandak

[GirlKiss]

No!! He's the perfect example of why you shouldn't be able to say Everything.

I really have to question the wisdom of people who think otherwise.

 

Wouldn't you say that about Stalin or Zedong?

Maybe it is not the wisdom you should question, but their ideology, philosophy, word view, religion, culture etc.

Edited December 29, 2016 by GirlKiss

[Eshvara]

The question always comes down to where do we draw the line and who decides?

 

If you have nothing constructive to say, say nothing at all?

If I see a gay man outside, should I go and call him the F word because of "Freedom of speech" and I should be allowed to say anything I want for the sake of being able to? It doesn't help anyone.

 

If there's a line, treat people the way you want to be treated, you can hardly go wrong with that one.

But that doesn't mean you can't have different opinions and go into heated discussions.

 

 

Wouldn't you say that about Stalin or Zedong?

Maybe it is not the wisdom you should question, but their ideology, philosophy, word view, religion, culture etc.

If you think Everything should be said, you can't be a very wise person. I can take this to a deeper level but I honestly don't feel like it.

It's just too serious for a Thursday evening.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Eshvara

[Tsillah]

No!! He's the perfect example of why you shouldn't be able to say Everything.

I really have to question the wisdom of people who think otherwise.

 

I don't think that's the actual problem. The question is why did people not think him ridiculous instead of following him? I honestly don't think a lot of people realised what he was about or didn't care. There was a big crisis, people had little to eat and someone promised them a scapegoat and a way out. I've felt for a long time that principles are something you have to be able to afford. When you're starving, it's very hard to be principled about not stealing food for example.

 

The biggest issue is not legislation but how a community does or does not address issues. Also I think back then a thing like internet trolling didn't really have an equivalent. Hitler clearly had an agenda, but these trolls just want a reaction. That's why I think the comparison doesn't quite work here.

 

If you forbid people to say certain things, all you do is push them in hiding where you can't see them. They dig in and there is no more discussion about what's ok and what isn't... not from a legal point of view but a moral point of view. So where to put trolls? They don't actually believe or mean the stuff the spout over the general chat. They are just saying anything to rile people up. I think policing them isn't the answer. I think the community ignoring them instead of feeding them is the only thing that has a chance of working. A debate on how bad the content is, isn't helpful because they don't actually believe it. They know it's bad but they only use it to get a reaction.

[Kawiki]

Regarding the 1st amendment. The exact wording is:

 

 

Please show me where any of that applies to private companies and their communication interfaces.

 

The 1st amendment was written to prevent the United States government from passing laws designed to censor its citizens, nothing more nothing less. The 1st amendment was NOT written to allow anyone to say or write anything they want anywhere they choose.

 

That is not accurate, the amendment is far more encompassing then just restricting the government.

[aerockyul]

Interesting as my experience has been the absolute worst stuff to the degree I actually stop playing and scroll chat back to make sure I actually saw what I thought I saw has been on Republic side. I'm talking the sort of stuff like the one guy on Republic Fleet who was advocating a return to old style Eugenics with "sterilizing the unfit" complete with links to sites that would probably put anyone on a governmental watchlist to back up his argument.

 

Giving us improved report options would likely be the best way to handle this rather than the ignore option which does have a cap on how many can be ignored. I've lost count how many times I've seen someone spouting stuff that makes me wonder if I'm seeing a final manifesto before the spree killings end up on the news that when I go to report, I can only choose 'Report Spam'. I don't see how the devs can't set up a series of filters to look for specific word combinations in a reported comment to have it automatically act with that player getting an email stating why they're probated/banned with an option to rebuttal along with forwarding a report to a team for further investigation if it doesn't hit the word combinations in the filter.

 

For the argument that there's no money in policing the in game chats, there is an argument towards providing an environment conducive to the playerbase. If they lose enough paying players due to out of control chat, that's still lost money when they can ill afford it.

 

That's really all I hope Bioware gets out of this thread when/if they read it. They need to let us report using the same filters whether the person is standing next to us or on the other side of the planet/fleet. I can't fathom where the idea came up to only let you report certain things depending on your physical location to the offender. Like that person is any less offensive if you're 1000m away vs. 100m.

 

At the least, the "ignore" feature ignores (sorry) the person regardless of where they are.

 

Oh, another thing Bioware should do is either uncap or raise the limit on the ignore list. There are far too many gold spammers and trolls (on Harbinger, anyway) and it makes the current cap laughable. Another sort of baffling idea in my mind...is the goal so you don't have the one person in the game who would literally ignore every single other person--who cares? If I reach the cap at 100 (or whatever it actually is, I haven't counted it) why does Bioware think I shouldn't be able to ignore 101? Is that 101st person less a spammer or troll?

 

If Bioware doesn't want to police their own ToS, that's fine, just make the tools better for us to use. Expand the report function regardless of proximity, and uncap or vastly raise the limit we can put on our ignore list.

[Kawiki]

If you have nothing constructive to say, say nothing at all?

If I see a gay man outside, should I go and call him the F word because of "Freedom of speech" and I should be allowed to say anything I want for the sake of being able to? It doesn't help anyone.

 

If there's a line, treat people the way you want to be treated, you can hardly go wrong with that one.

But that doesn't mean you can't have different opinions and go into heated discussions.

 

 

 

If you think Everything should be said, you can't be a very wise person. I can take this to a deeper level but I honestly don't feel like it.

It's just too serious for a Thursday evening.

 

I don't disagree. However it is not that simple. I think the perfect example is the Cleveland Indians. They have received pressure to change the name now for years and by most accounts only a small % of American Indians have an issue with the name. It becomes a problem when a very small % of people force change on every one else.

[GirlKiss]

If you have nothing constructive to say, say nothing at all?

If I see a gay man outside, should I go and call him the F word because of "Freedom of speech" and I should be allowed to say anything I want for the sake of being able to? It doesn't help anyone.

 

If there's a line, treat people the way you want to be treated, you can hardly go wrong with that one.

But that doesn't mean you can't have different opinions and go into heated discussions.

 

 

 

If you think Everything should be said, you can't be a very wise person. I can take this to a deeper level but I honestly don't feel like it.

It's just too serious for a Thursday evening.

 

I get it, so if everything shouldn't be said let's ban political correctness, because it's full of the real racist, full of minority who says what the majority should/shoudnt, is allowed/isnt allowed to say or what to do.

Edited December 29, 2016 by GirlKiss

[DarthSpuds]

We actually discussed this in my law class when I was getting my paralegal degree and there are limitations depending on how it is used.

 

Example: If you run into a theater and cry fire and someone is injured because of what you say, you can't use Freedom of Speech as a excuse why you are not liable for that person or person(s) injuries.

 

Which is why I said I was a "responsible consequentialist".

 

I could still EXERCISE freedom of speech by shouting "fire" in that crowded theatre.

 

All The Best

[RodneyMcNeely]

Ignore cannot and must not be the only option. We hear hate-speech and all we're supposed to do is stick our fingers in our ears and shout 'la-la-la I can't hear you'? Your argument seems to be that so long as you can no longer hear it, then it's no longer a problem (" I really don't care as along as I can block them and don't see it anymore.").

That's actually EXACTLY what you're supposed to do if you don't want to engage.

 

In countries that value free speech, people get to say what they want. If you don't like it, you can do one of two things: you can ignore them, or you can fight back with speech of your own. But you don't get to take away their right to say it.

 

I usually fire back with the second option. I don't want bigots thinking they can get away with saying stupid crap unopposed, trolling or not.

 

Now, I understand SWTOR is a private entity and rules of conduct apply here. But we have too many problems with Generation Snowflake expecting the rest of the world to eliminate the merest possibility that they might be uncomfortable somewhere along the way.

 

Grow up and deal. You can do that in SWTOR with the "Ignore" function, by turning off Gen Chat completely, or - as I choose to do - engaging in the arena of ideas.

 

[Eshvara]

I don't think that's the actual problem. The question is why did people not think him ridiculous instead of following him? I honestly don't think a lot of people realised what he was about or didn't care. There was a big crisis, people had little to eat and someone promised them a scapegoat and a way out. I've felt for a long time that principles are something you have to be able to afford. When you're starving, it's very hard to be principled about not stealing food for example.

 

The biggest issue is not legislation but how a community does or does not address issues. Also I think back then a thing like internet trolling didn't really have an equivalent. Hitler clearly had an agenda, but these trolls just want a reaction. That's why I think the comparison doesn't quite work here.

 

If you forbid people to say certain things, all you do is push them in hiding where you can't see them. They dig in and there is no more discussion about what's ok and what isn't... not from a legal point of view but a moral point of view. So where to put trolls? They don't actually believe or mean the stuff the spout over the general chat. They are just saying anything to rile people up. I think policing them isn't the answer. I think the community ignoring them instead of feeding them is the only thing that has a chance of working. A debate on how bad the content is, isn't helpful because they don't actually believe it. They know it's bad but they only use it to get a reaction.

 

The reason why people followed Hitler was because they lacked critical thinking. I feel the same way about religion. Believing everything something or someone says without question in my eyes can't really point towards anything other than that. Imo.

Sorry if that offends anyone, obviously I'm not stopping those who are religious to stop believing in whatever they believe in. My opinion is just what is it.

 

I don't disagree. However it is not that simple. I think the perfect example is the Cleveland Indians. They have received pressure to change the name now for years and by most accounts only a small % of American Indians have an issue with the name. It becomes a problem when a very small % of people force change on every one else.

 

I'm not familiar with the Cleveland Indians and the history behind it so I'm not sure what to say. There wont ever be perfection and you can't make everyone equally happy. From my uninformed point of view, I don't see why a small group of people shouldn't be allowed to keep their name, but then again I don't know much about it.

 

I get it, so if everything shouldn't be said let's ban political correctness, because it's full of the real racist, full of minority who says what the majority should/shoudnt, is allowed/isnt allowed to say or what to do.

 

This really does not make any sense to me, I don't know where you're going with this.

 

___

 

I always regret going into such lengthy serious discussions, but I always end up doing it. Someone ring a bell and call shame please.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Eshvara