Discussion in 'Archive' started by Panterraa, Mar 15, 2019.
since you would only discussion one for the other thread, what is consider mass mailing?
My apologies, I did not mean to overlook that.
Mass mailing is sending unsolicited messages in game, to multiple players. This can be a tribe wide message or to a number of other players in the game.
Commercial spamming is one such infraction. Creating tribe chats when asked not to do so can be another. Repeatedly inviting players to multi-person chats they do not wish to be in, can be another. The important thing is that players are being added to chats against their will, where they are subjected to unsolicited and undesired messages.
This specifically does not apply to tribe messages created by tribe leaders, for information about or discussion of tribal business. It is assumed that players should be interested in the communications of tribal leaders, and that players joining a tribe give consent for the leaders to contact them this way.
We generally go through the same type of steps determining if mass mailings are worth sanctioning, as we do with harassment. I will spare you a repeat of that process.
so what are you going to do about the bug in game that when a player leave and you keep talking to the other player it adds them back?
Multiple players are sent a pm.
One player isn't happy about being there.
This player can choose to a. Speak up and let the message creator know that they are leaving (or ask to be removed if on mobile) or b. Leave without saying a word. Choosing option b makes it hard for anyone to know that the player prefers not to be in messages. It also leaves the message creator and participants vulnerable to the game glitch. You know, the one where players get out back into messages they've left or been removed from... Randomly. Btw, that's rather frustrating and should be looked into.
And since we're talking harassment... Unless there is some form of duress (like your boss or some authority figure is doing the harassing) it should be expected for the "injured party" to state their displeasure. Even in legal issues, you must be informed that the attention/action is unwanted before it becomes true harassment. Again, informed unless the person making contact could be considered to have power in the situation.
Example: I receive messages regularly here in Tw2 land. Many are from folks I am not currently associated with. None of these are harassment, even tho a few are less than friendly. But, I did get a message from someone that went a lil far. I Informed the player that I did not appreciate his views or language, and would prefer that he not contact me further. If he had continued to message beyond acknowledging my request, it would then be considered harassment. Luckily for him, he did not.
Just my 2 cents... I'm not a mod or anything. Just a logical being with half a brain ❤️
this is actually what i was made to believe in the past it was done. which is why im asking my question here. glad to know other think the same way. that add back glitches is annoying and should be fix 100 Percent before reporting players as well. even know i do know some players that do add people back for the kicks. which i can understand that players point of view.
First, we greatly prefer that people take care of their own issues. So I appreciate that you did so. Less work for support is always good.
But this is the part where many people get confused... your understanding of how harassment works is not correct. A harassment victim is simply not to blame if they do not choose to confront their harasser. Yet they still deserve relief.
Paraphrasing what I stated in the earlier thread, "Silence is NOT the same as consenting to be harassed." The act of making a harassment report is the only objection that need be made. Whether the alleged victim has been silent or not, support still needs to objectively assess whether or not harassment actually occurred, based solely on the evidence presented.
We are aware that perfectly nice people can unintentionally be abusive, and that they are often blindsided (and sometimes, apparently, maybe even a little angry ) about being accused of harassment. But that is exactly why we generally start with warnings for first offenders, with no penalties attached. It is quite possible that someone is not aware of how they are being perceived. We want to give unintentional harassers a chance to change their ways without suspensions, while putting intentional harassers on notice.
based solely on the evidence presented
do you ask the other side for evidence?
that is a nice wordly you did there. how do you determine this? again everyone in this game is different. also this thread was made so you can make the TW2 family aware of how this happens. also how do you know if a player is unhappy or just trashing talking? when they in the future trash talked theirself.
If you can't see how your warning system is going to open a gigantic can of worms, you might need to take a step back and look again. If a player isn't capable of simply stating their preference to not be contacted, there's always the option of the mod team doing so for them. But to call this a warning is offensive (at best... I'm really really trying to be polite about this, can ya tell?). Change what you call it, maybe?
The term warning indicates that a rule was broken. However, as the player has no way of knowing that they're engaging in harassment (see why there needs to be an "inform action" yet?), then they're not actually breaking a rule. You can't harass unaware. Sending a message is not harassment. Participating in a message you're added to is also not harassment. It Only becomes harassment if you do so knowing that it is unwanted, do so from a position of power, or do so in an obviously over the top fashion (like multiple mails in a short period of time, or using inappropriate language or comments that are against rules).
Plus, you stayed 1st time offenders... Well, what happens when player a has already been "warned" while the evidence clearly shows that player b chose to use the mod team as their inform action? Think about it. Player b is causing the mod tea to become their personal harassment tool... Hit that report button whenever someone messages them without their consent, and everyone involved gets a warning on their account. That's going to add up. Again, calling these warnings is offensive. Be honest and call it informing, and move on to a warning if it continues. This gives player b the ability to inform player a without having to suffer acting like an adult (still tryi g to be nice, I swear), and player a gets the ability to know the interaction was undesired without having a nasty warning flag on their account. Plus, the mod team isn't going to become a weapon. Everyone wins. Yay and stuff
Agaian this is how it was done in the past. so now im confuse ^^ it seems lke another know what this was like as well
I never thought I'd feel the need to point out where there are situations that warrant the "silence isn't consent" (being female, and not exactly physically intimidating... I absolutely get there are times when speaking up may be difficult, uncomfortable or simply a bad plan)...and there are situations where the complaining party is using the system to harass others. We're talking about an online game. I'm failing to see where intimidation is likely... Heck, blackmail is legit allowed in Tw2 for goodness sake. But expecting folks to say "don't message me further" is too much? Really?
Did I stutter?
1) I have stated that we prefer people to take care of their own problems.
2) I also firmly state, there is no such requirement.
Hmm... Had you stuttered I doubt it would be in evidence via words on the screen.
1. We have responded to this, as we would also prefer it. However, we also requested you consider your current solutions terminology, as issuing "warnings" is both offensive and could easily be considered harassment.
2. While you've stated there is no requirement, I'm stating that there should be. Whether it's by the player who feels harassed or the mod team, the player accused deserves to be informed before being warned. I didn't stutter there, in case you didn't notice.
"Oh, look! A great report of harassment! Twenty seven screen shots of the most horrible language imaginable! But too bad, you didn't tell that guy to leave you alone. Case dismissed, no harassment found."
The evidence is what matters. Harassers have no right to expect warning.
If someone is worried that they might be treading on the line of harassing someone, and are worried that they might get reported without knowing about it? I have a novel (but possibly entirely hypothetical) thought:
Try being civil.
I'm always civil. Even when arguing a point. Reading comprehension is necessary when having an online discussion. Not all harassment is obvious. Not all occurs Cesare either. Example : player a creates a message with players b-k. Player g feels harassed, but says nothing. Stays in the message. Players c, d, e and f know players g is in the message. The rest don't notice. All players talk to each other, except player, who still says nothing. Those players aren't harassing player g. They don't even realize player g is reading what's being said. And yet, from what you've said here, they could receive a warni g for harassment. See what I've been saying yet? Situations involving people are rarely black and white. Especially if you add in history, as player g has a long history ofttash talking and doing so openly on forums and in messages just like the one they were in for this example. Knowing this, one could assume that players c and e thought this was just another trash talk message (really quite common... I've received many of them), and wouldn't know it was harassment unless they were told. Yep, gray really is the world we live in.
Obviously all hypothetical.
I agree, Elphame. You are quite civil in the conversations you have had, with me.
I have understood your point from the very beginning. The world is indeed gray.
What you aren't acknowledging is that multiple experienced people looked at the evidence dispassionately, using protocols designed to protect both accuser and accused, and then agreed that the offense occurred. You ignore that those people then levied the lightest possible warning. And after appeal, and looking over the evidence again, that decision was upheld.
Support's decision at that point, is final.
With that, gentleman, we are getting to close to naming names, in ways that should not be done. I think this discussion should stop without going there.
I am going to bed. Goodnight to all.
No naming names. I'm speaking hypothetical only. Just don't want to see this become the next big thing certain folks use to gain an edge. Which is always a possibility. I've been around long enough to have seen something as simple as a village name (one that was not foul language, or inappropriate in any real way) become a major bone of contention for folks... And it lasted nearly a month. Never forget that you're working with devious humans, many of which breathe manipulation.
Bed? Sleep is overrated. Hope ya have a really good co op lolz
Capt C just gave everyone his Off time. rookie move kid.
All were doing is asking question and give you reply’s based on examples. No reason to bring any names into this. I have a lot of players now wondering were the line is drawn for trash talk and harassment. (Which I open a thread for the mods to answer to keep that topic there) with the bug and players not letting it know.. that’s some bad management from support. Either fix an issues are deal with all the support tickets and player questions them. Cause base on above there will prolly be a lot of them.
Separate names with a comma.