Patch 9.2.5 PTR - Build 43630

[LordVargK]

ignore them or turn off /yell? each party involved has an option some have more than one. to cast blame on one is not logical. him having a conversation in a chat channel whether it be /2,/4,/yell,/guild is in no way a banable offense. unless of course the system of reporting is abused...... should his conversation took place in /yell, prob not, as there are other means to communicate with others. is it his fault you cant ignore him or leave the channel no one ever uses, no its not his fault.

Report is my /ignore, because it not only prevents me from getting annoyed but potentially others. And if I would be the only one being annoyed, then no ban would be applied, but since the player in question got a ban it shows that his behavior annoyed enough people, meaning reporting it was a service to the community overall. Not my problem that Blizzard doesn't have a simple public chat ban option for those cases. But if you spam public chats, or advertise in trade chat or RGF, you'll get reported.

Honestly, this entire discussion is more of a "I can't be as much of an ass as I want" helpgroup than anything else. The overwhelming majority of players never get reported, because they are not little shits who try to break the rules and then argue "But technically I did nothing wrong". No, technically you maybe didn't. But you were a nuissance on society and deserve the punishment you got, because your behavior annoyed enough players.

The system is working fine in those cases. Getting punished after being reported by many individuals is the correct way of handling automated reports. The only possible way to abuse the system is if many people coordinate to report specific players. Which also should be a punishable offense. But those are fringe cases, because who (outside of a few streaming assholes and their followers and Classic PvP groups) would go through the hassle of coordinating such a thing?

[Vakna]

This is largely irrelevant to me, I haven't spoken in an in game chat in years, we all just use Discord.

[Hablion]

Umm the TOS are a binding contract in the eyes of the law and a big enough offense can lead to prosecution if needed.

It's why those people who we found after DDoSing blizzard in 2020 were sent to 5 years jail time.

Ddosing is a FEDERAL offense not a ToS thing really. In fact in most cases a ToS is not legally binding in the eyes of the law.

[Woggmer]

So what you are telling me that someone that was purposefully gaming the system was surprised that the system was gamed?

If a message get reported by a lot of people at once of course they would receive a instant silence. Asmons gamed the automated system and was angry that it worked as intended. That result was entirely expected and it is follishness to pretend otherwise.

Now If your argument is that it should be reviewed by a human I 100% agree. But some degree of automation will probably always be necessary.

Complaining about the social contract is pointless. In one way or another, every game has one of these.

WoW was the outlier. And this one is kinda soft still. Being sligthly rude in FFXIV will get your ass banned real fast.

To those that are afraid of being banned, just don't be a dick.

No. I'm telling you is that you can get suspended for say ANYTHING even if it isn't remotely bad so long as you have enough people to get the AI's attention. It's not the matter of, "Oh it works" It's that the AI can't tell the difference between something harmless or something offensive. Which is why having a human moderator is more beneficial to at least fact check everything BEFORE they make the decision to suspend someone's account.

Otherwise, people are gonna abuse the system in so many ways, from either reporting a player for being "bad at the game" or just to prank someone. The social contract is just there to let people know to "play nice" but the real fear is the report system and if it can tell the difference between a legitimate report and a fake one. Now that it has more options, means people can report someone for more than just saying a bad word or being rude (even if they never done anything to warrant that)

[Sluvs]

No. I'm telling you is that you can get suspended for say ANYTHING even if it isn't remotely bad so long as you have enough people to get the AI's attention. It's not the matter of, "Oh it works" It's that the AI can't tell the difference between something harmless or something offensive. Which is why having a human moderator is more beneficial to at least fact check everything BEFORE they make the decision to suspend someone's account.

Otherwise, people are gonna abuse the system in so many ways, from either reporting a player for being "bad at the game" or just to prank someone. The social contract is just there to let people know to "play nice" but the real fear is the report system and if it can tell the difference between a legitimate report and a fake one. Now that it has more options, means people can report someone for more than just saying a bad word or being rude (even if they never done anything to warrant that)

To the best of my knowledge there is literally no game that has an AI that can identify if somethign is offensive or not. In fact, i dont think there is any AI that can do that reliably. You ask for something that cant be done.

The automated system works well enough to what it was designed to do. Just because some streamer can purposefully break it, it does not mean that it is a bad system. Most of the time, if you are being reported by 30 people you have done something wrong.

Again, I believe they should have some human oversight (They probably got it tbh). But automated systems will probably always be a part of moderating a game as huge as WoW.

[Apexis]

I mean, anyone who did not see this Social Contract coming after more than a decade of people bullying the heck out of one another and Blizzard going through the BS they found themselves in over that decade as a company has not been living in the land of reality. I am surprised it had to take Blizzard to go through its internal BS for them to come to some sense of reality. Not only did the company create a toxic environment inside the company. That toxicity spilled over to its games as well. It is sad it had to take a lawsuit to understand all of this. 18 years is a bit late for something like this. The unrepairable damage that was allowed to take place ruined the community. It was not just the content that did so.

[ThatsOurEric]

Do this new New Social Contract mean you cant call people ''Noob'' ''bad'' etc anymore?

Like someone asked, who or what gives you the right to call others bad or noobs?

Better and more experienced player.

Unsurprisingly, only elitists or straight up assholes think that experience or being better somehow gives them the right to be shitty towards others.

Reality check : it doesn't. Please get off your high horse.

Not allowed to call players bad? Thats so spastic. There are many bad players especially in pugs, should be able to tell them they are.

There's an infinitely better way to do so without being an asshole about it. If you aren't capable of restraining yourself from doing so, you shouldn't be playing anything multiplayer oriented.

tl;dr: accept, don't care, grow thicker skin

Then here's a better tldr; don't tell people to grow thicker skin, just don't act like an asshole. See? Easy.

When did people get so soft and weak? It's called "/ignore

So just ignore the one person so they can then go and not get punished for being a tool? Fuck that. There's no excuse for people being shitty. The only ones who are soft and weak are the players who act this way to begin with. And you sure as shit know that those players are the ones who cry the loudest when they get banned and then blame shit like "wokeness", "white-knighting", "liberals" and all that other shit when really, it's because they never faced consequences for being a douche before, and now they can't man up and face that them being one got them in trouble for once.

I'll accept, but I won't follow.

Cool, you're one of the people who don't deserve to play. Lookin forward to reading your inevitable rage post about getting banned.

Some cultures have negative views on women imbedded in their religion and societies. So if someone in games says negative things about women in the trade chat and I defend them will I get banned for harassing someone based on their culture or religion?

If you're going to defend such shitty people, yes, you 100% deserve the ban (and much worse if we're being honest).

[Utrrabbit]

Ddosing is a FEDERAL offense not a ToS thing really. In fact in most cases a ToS is not legally binding in the eyes of the law.

Actually you are very incorrect. TOS are legal binding contracts and always have been.

[Eazy]

Unsurprisingly, only elitists or straight up assholes think that experience or being better somehow gives them the right to be shitty towards others.

Reality check : it doesn't. Please get off your high horse.

Reality check: calling someone a noob doesn't mean being shitty towards them. It's actually telling them they're too unexperienced to actually do the content that requires skill they lack.

[xuros]

-Snip-

I guess they have every right to call someone a Noob if you have the right to call people "straight up assholes" and "Elitists" . Either you can or you can't. You don't get to have it both ways.

[Clbull]

Blizzard: (Introduces social contract)

WoW Community: "That sign won't stop me cause I can't read!"

Rules don't mean shit if they're not enforced. Unless Blizzard get off their lazy butts, de-automate their report systems and finally police a game that players are paying $14.99 a month for the privilege of playing, this social contract won't change a thing.

[ThatsOurEric]

Reality check: calling someone a noob doesn't mean being shitty towards them. It's actually telling them they're too unexperienced to actually do the content that requires skill they lack.

I mean, you could also just tell them that without calling them a noob. Like I said, get off the high horse.

[Alkizon]

Sluvs
To the best of my knowledge there is literally no game that has an AI that can identify if somethign is offensive or not.

And it's for this reason, that I insist on using not automat system (it's not AI, not even close), but a full-fledged filtering system and chat settings, this is why I insist on using "individual/personal" (= reasonable and moderated) protection, rather than giving everyone right to active and potentially dangerous "actions" , that is why I insist on return of status quo of full-fledged "internal" social regulation, rather than selfish individualization cultivated by "automatic-feeder" (even if only simply because it's deprivation of full will, and hence awareness and responsibility), game's internal problems can and should be solved without going beyond its world.

"Automat" isn't good in itself, it's good only for and in those hands that are engaged in setting up and managing it, and only personally for them, which means that all that "public machine" have right to do is reading and applying individual settings of users to their "personal" locale and collecting statistics and evidence in case of need for a full-fledged "public" moderation of conflict. Under no circumstances should it make any decisions or allow players to directly abuse system, with good or bad intentions, it doesn't matter.

In this particular case, social contract itself doesn't (shouldn't) have full-fledged legitimate force (there is no true, complete and recognized by majority definition/meaning of "good" and "bad"), only carry wish/warning to maintain level of morality and self-awareness, since non-compliance with it can ultimately lead to response actions by both players (if we return to the old social regulation) and devs (if you carelessly go beyond allowed rules when cheating and abuse the system), that's all.

ps. Automatic system has been and will continue to be good only in those places where you need to make "accurate" decisions, but not in those where you need to make "right" ones.

[Ihavewaffles]

Like someone asked, who or what gives you the right to call others bad or noobs?



Unsurprisingly, only elitists or straight up assholes think that experience or being better somehow gives them the right to be shitty towards others.

Reality check : it doesn't. Please get off your high horse.



There's an infinitely better way to do so without being an asshole about it. If you aren't capable of restraining yourself from doing so, you shouldn't be playing anything multiplayer oriented.



Then here's a better tldr; don't tell people to grow thicker skin, just don't act like an asshole. See? Easy.



So just ignore the one person so they can then go and not get punished for being a tool? Fuck that. There's no excuse for people being shitty. The only ones who are soft and weak are the players who act this way to begin with. And you sure as shit know that those players are the ones who cry the loudest when they get banned and then blame shit like "wokeness", "white-knighting", "liberals" and all that other shit when really, it's because they never faced consequences for being a douche before, and now they can't man up and face that them being one got them in trouble for once.



Cool, you're one of the people who don't deserve to play. Lookin forward to reading your inevitable rage post about getting banned.



If you're going to defend such shitty people, yes, you 100% deserve the ban (and much worse if we're being honest).

You realize under the new rules, ur post would have broken them, several times over?

[Soikona]

Like someone asked, who or what gives you the right to call others bad or noobs?



Unsurprisingly, only elitists or straight up assholes think that experience or being better somehow gives them the right to be shitty towards others.

Reality check : it doesn't. Please get off your high horse.



There's an infinitely better way to do so without being an asshole about it. If you aren't capable of restraining yourself from doing so, you shouldn't be playing anything multiplayer oriented.



Then here's a better tldr; don't tell people to grow thicker skin, just don't act like an asshole. See? Easy.



So just ignore the one person so they can then go and not get punished for being a tool? Fuck that. There's no excuse for people being shitty. The only ones who are soft and weak are the players who act this way to begin with. And you sure as shit know that those players are the ones who cry the loudest when they get banned and then blame shit like "wokeness", "white-knighting", "liberals" and all that other shit when really, it's because they never faced consequences for being a douche before, and now they can't man up and face that them being one got them in trouble for once.



Cool, you're one of the people who don't deserve to play. Lookin forward to reading your inevitable rage post about getting banned.



If you're going to defend such shitty people, yes, you 100% deserve the ban (and much worse if we're being honest).

Your attitude is very entitled, and condescending towards those that think differently. You have broke the contract, as well as your own advice.

[Eazy]

I mean, you could also just tell them that without calling them a noob. Like I said, get off the high horse.

I certainly won't, as long as people who are underskilled and unexperienced are trying to do the content they shouldn't. A few good years ago it was "I check out the guides/videos and then do [something]", right now it's "I am going to try my luck and join that group and learn the [content] from playing". Although it's a good thing, it shouldn't be used on timed content and where people just make the same mistake 5 times in a row...

[ElDoorO]

Actually you are very incorrect. TOS are legal binding contracts and always have been.

I'm only here to say that no, they aren't always legally binding, as AutoDESK has learned. Just because you click "I agree" doesn't mean all terms are legally binding. Some rights cannot give up, full stop. Like carny rides - just because you pinky promise not to sue doesn't mean you can't, no matter what you sign.

TOS's are a legal grey area that, thus far, have really been restricted to "is it reasonable?" for the most part.

One of the reasons listed by Judges has been that getting your money back is non-trivial to (practically) impossible if you don't agree with the EULA or TOS. Changing terms, significantly - as is what's going on now, viewed by some, also makes the waters muddier.

If you don't agree to the "Social Contract" - is Blizzard going to give you a full refund for the game you purchased? No? So they aren't offering anything in exchange for this new contract? Then, likely, it's not going to remain legally binding if push comes to shove as a person will have "no choice" - as in they can either agree or lose their money on a contract they didn't know was coming.

So now, you're just plain wrong.

Of course overall most people just take people like Blizzard to small claims, get their few coins when Acti-Blizz doesn't show up when they tell the Judge "I just want my money back if they want to do this" and you'll never heard of it because it's small claims and not a juicy story.

AutoDesk learned you can't just do certain things. One of which is you can't force someone to do something or they lose it all because fuck'em. That agreement means nothing at that point. For there to be an agreement the company has to offer something in exchange, usually.

In AutoDesk's case - they tried the "we sold you just a license, not the actual product, and we're revoking that license" and they were told to fuck on outta here because it was bought at a brick and mortar store and presented as a physical product, ergo, you cannot revoke that.

It also didn't help that they had no solid, and good, process for people who declined the license after they bought the product - which "forced" people to agree anyways and deal with any consequences later.

EUAL's and TOS's are not the end-all-be-all of law. Contract disputes are EXTREMELY common because of this. You don't get to say "you signed, so whatever" or "you clicked agree, so whatever" because that's just plain not how the real world works.

In this case, if Blizzard abuses their banning power - it could end up quite spectacularly blowing up in their faces. Usually companies avoid going to court over EULA's and TOS issues specifically because they don't want that gray water to be cleared up - because it may not be in their favor. This is why you see companies handling things quietly, more often than not, if you see or hear about it at all.

[Violent]

Like someone asked, who or what gives you the right to call others bad or noobs?

Facist says "What"?

How about the fact that someone else has a Voice? That = You can't silence it. Who or What gives you the right to tell someone else what they can or cannot say?
See how that works? Simple 6th grade logic, thrown right back at you.. What can you do about it? Let me guess, your appeal to authority?
Nice, let me pre-empt that with my own, "God gave me a Voice to use, and I used it." God is bigger than your Corporate censorship .
(I'm 110% Athiest, I just had to point out how dumb your argument is)

[panda040]

Remember everyone, in the online role playing fantasy world you ARE NOT allowed to hate. lmfao

[CaptainV]

Remember everyone, in the online role playing fantasy world you ARE NOT allowed to hate. lmfao

Correction, in an MMO fantasy roleplaying game thats entire premise is two factions at WAR with each other.

Yeah, apparently hate is bad in a world thats setting is full of it lol.