What are you going to press when the social contract pops up?

[Stickiler]

as I referenced earlier by someone who got a 14 day silence for saying "the government turned the frogs gay" as a joke. We probably won't ever know the actual stats on who got banned for what, or why.

How do you know that's what got them banned?

[Ringthane]

I mean the first amendment is based on a 2500+ year old idea, just bringing up freedom of speech does not mean it necessarily comes to the first US amendment. It's perfectly possible to argue for it from a philosophical and a practical viewpoint.

I've been pretty clear that I think there should probably be some restrictions, but the current implementation goes too far imo. Everyone likes to pretend it's only about direct and continuous harassment, but it's obviously not as I referenced earlier by someone who got a 14 day silence for saying "the government turned the frogs gay" as a joke. We probably won't ever know the actual stats on who got banned for what, or why. The biggest part I dislike about the contract is the lack of transparency and the vagueness of terminology.

It's not my fault if people can't actually operate on that level and insist on building strawmen of the most extreme and obvious cases when I'm arguing on the edges.

- - - Updated - - -



By "tons of definitions"... you mean 4? That's less definitions than the word "bark" or "fire". I'm not sure what you think metaphorical means, but maybe you should cross check your language with the dictionary a bit more. If you want we can just use the first definition of Tyranny which is "Oppressive power" and it would fit closely enough, but the third definition fit more closely and should probably be assumed by the context of how I wrote.

The first amendment relates to free speech against the government. Period. it's not "based" on anything. It's a statement that you can freely speak against your government, and the government cannot retaliate against you. It has nothing to do with private companies or businesses or anything.

[munkeyinorbit]

Exit game, companies that want to control freedom of speech is sick!
Gaming was build on people being able to be or do anything they want in a fake world well guess the wierdo mommy's are now in charge of blizzard (well woke blizzard 2022 what is not the same company anymore)

This might be a surprise to you but Blizzard has been trying to control what you say since the rise of multiplayer games. Where was your "outrage" then?

- - - Updated - - -

I mean I can easily tell you why. I don't see begin aggressive as out of place in a virtual environment about death,killing ,and genocide. I find it more bizzare that people would not just desire but expect that everyone would need be forced to speak kindly to them.

I find an edge lord speed running every racial slur less annoying then the would be hall monitor.

- - - Updated - - -



Again everyone understands that some just don't find a corporations boot all that more tasty then the governments.

A racist not having a problem with other racists? Who would have guessed?

I also would like to know what this "boot" you speak of is supposedly doing? You're the consumer and you're the one with the power. Use your power and move on. Just don't expect people to agree with someone who admits they prefer people to be racist than not.

[DeltrusDisc]

Lmao ok. Bye kid.

Did you not see the /s ?
That meant "sarcasm" - welcome to the internet!

I would like to know... will this contract go so far as to stop me, an Alliance player, from calling a Horde player "Horde filth/scum/dog"?? If so, that's really stupid, considering the NPCs will throw such slurs around. It's all in fun anyways, we call each other names like that because it also spurs on more of the fun PVP type stuff. I know what this contract is mainly aimed at, but I could totally see them using it against that - too.

[munkeyinorbit]

You do not really know what and how freedom of speech works, do you?

I think a more important issue is why it also doesn't apply to massive corporations too. I get that FoS is supposed to protect us from tyranny of the government but there are some corporations out there that have the power of small nations. They have the power to crush people just as well as a government does. I'm not American but I think it's probably a bit dated and needs to be updated.

[Goatfish]

you're just mad I don't give a fuck about your "elder" status when your opinions on this subject are so dramatic and out of touch with reality.

basically your entire argument here is to side with abusers and berate the victims who grow enough of a spine to not tolerate it anymore.

If that's what you think my argument is, then you are way beyond bad faith here. I'd love to hear why you think my opinions are "dramatic" or "out of touch with reality". Whatever you may think, I honestly want to hear other stances on this, but I'm just not going to engage if you continue to strawman and insult my character without evidence. When you can learn to give me at least a little bit of respect we can continue if that's what you want.

How do you know that's what got them banned?

The problem is that there is no transparency so there is no way to know outside of anecdotal reports. I'm pretty heavily against secrecy in rule/law enforcement regardless of where it is. I can say I've never seen the person in question ever be abusive in chats, even by pretty strict standards. I have more reason to believe they got muted for 2 weeks based on overzealous reporting than that they are secretly abusive in chat to other players. From what I understand WoW moderation is largely an automated process anymore, I'm unsure if these reports even get verified before punishment is dealt.

The first amendment relates to free speech against the government. Period. it's not "based" on anything. It's a statement that you can freely speak against your government, and the government cannot retaliate against you. It has nothing to do with private companies or businesses or anything.

I'm actually shocked that you would post this in response while quoting me saying that freedom of speech is an ancient philosophical idea that was around for literally thousands of years before the US was an idea. I never used the first amendment as a reason, because that is about governmental regulation as you say, but the philosophy behind it (which is the same philosophy behind Democracy period) is indeed a potential factor. If you can't separate those two ideas in your head then I'm not sure how I can help you understand it better. What do you even think my argument is? I've clearly stated it so it should be obvious, but I'm really curious how much of it you absorbed or understood.

[uuuhname]

If that's what you think my argument is, then you are way beyond bad faith here. I'd love to hear why you think my opinions are "dramatic" or "out of touch with reality". Whatever you may think, I honestly want to hear other stances on this, but I'm just not going to engage if you continue to strawman and insult my character without evidence. When you can learn to give me at least a little bit of respect we can continue if that's what you want.

I called it the first day this thread was open, that (to you) free speech means (you) get to say and do whatever you wants towards me, and if I (or anyone else for that matter) makes the absolutely totally justifiable choice of just not wanting to engage with you, means I'm taking your free speech away, FROM YOU.

prove me wrong, go ahead.

and no? again this idea that you, some random person who I know nothing about beyond what you post on here thinks you deserve my respect? when I'm pretty sure you have little to none to give me? seeing as you assume I even care enough about you to label you a monster or whatever... for the dire crimes of disagreeing with me

[hambone2626]

I called it the first day this thread was open, that (to you) free speech means (you) get to say and do whatever you wants towards me, and if I (or anyone else for that matter) makes the absolutely totally justifiable choice of just not wanting to engage with you, means I'm taking your free speech away, FROM YOU.

prove me wrong, go ahead.

and no? again this idea that you, some random person who I know nothing about beyond what you post on here thinks you deserve my respect? when I'm pretty sure you have little to none to give me? seeing as you assume I even care enough about you to label you a monster or whatever... for the dire crimes of disagreeing with me

The thing is tho if its not directed at anyone can you not simply ignore and move on with your life or is your skin not thick enough?

[uuuhname]

The thing is tho if its not directed at anyone can you not simply ignore and move on with your life or is your skin not thick enough?

tell me more about how I need to placate myself to abusers, to appease you.

[Goatfish]

I called it the first day this thread was open, that (to you) free speech means (you) get to say and do whatever you wants towards me, and if I (or anyone else for that matter) makes the absolutely totally justifiable choice of just not wanting to engage with you, means I'm taking your free speech away, FROM YOU.

prove me wrong, go ahead.

I just can't even imagine the sheer hubris of wanting to control how someone else speaks and expresses themselves until it falls under the level of harassment. The issue is that these soft people think a single message qualifies as harassment and that they somehow can get traumatized by a few words a stranger on the internet says. This whole narcissistic thought process of "I'm not going to listen to you because you need to educate yourself and I'm not going to do it." Ya'll would rather remove people from society than try to understand or teach your fellow man.

I've actually thoroughly supported the use of the blacklist since our first interaction:

Coming from the side of diversity and tolerance. Then you wonder why people call you out for being bigoted.

Edit: It's unendingly amusing to me how the side of tolerance and acceptance are the people who want to ban people from the game. I've never heard of an elitist jerk actually wanting other people to quit playing, they just don't want to play with the shitters. Maybe you can take a page from their book and just make use of the block function supplied to you to curate the kind of people you want to play with. Just a thought.

I've also been completely supportive of people finding communities they want to be around, and always recommend that if people want to play in their completely respectful and affirming G rated community, more power to them. If they want to join the RWF guild that will call them a shitter and bench them for a single mistake, more power to them too. I've also made it clear in multiple posts that I am not a free speech absolutist, most of this contract is probably fine, but you're obsessed with trying to portray me as a monster who wants to abuse everyone ad nauseum when I've clearly made the case otherwise on multiple occasions.

You have to risk being offensive in order to think. You've had no issue being extremely aggressive and offensive towards me in pursuit of your goal, but you take issue with anyone else doing the same? You should change your username to Cathy Newman at this point

[ellieg]

Imo, if you think hearing words or seeing text in a videogame that you don't like / agree with makes you a "victim", you are the problem. Unless there is an immediate and real threat to you, just close your eyes lol

[The Dark One]

/snip

Look Goatfish, your walls of text are not helpful in getting your points across, you would benefit from being much more succinct in your answers.

I've read your comments from start to finish, and once I cut out all the fluff, it seems your arguments boil down to just a few points:

1. You feel that the wording of the social contact is not specific enough, leaving too many loopholes that could be used to catch edge cases out when they haven't really done anything wrong.

2. You feel that too many people are too soft, and will reach for the report button before trying to understand or work with other people.

3. You personally feel that people should be allowed to express themselves however they want, because that's how people get to know each other.

4. The block feature already exists, so the social contract is a step to far.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong. But not too wordy in your response. I've spent enough time reading your commentary today.

The reason I'm trying to pin you down, is so that I can engage with you properly. You're having so many discussions at once, I don't know where to begin with answering you.

[hambone2626]

tell me more about how I need to placate myself to abusers, to appease you.

Oh lord did you really call people saying things you don't like as abusers, Ike turner would be so proud.

[Zoopy]

I'm not even a free speech absolutist, but when someone is going to claim that my speech is violence and that I should be removed because calling someone bad is immoral... you can bet your bottom dollar that I'm going to speak up. What it comes down to is that none of these changes are substantiated by anything, it's just morality policing people based off ideology. The primary argument for this kind of policy Blizzard implemented is that some speech is harmful and therefore the freedom of speech must be limited, and you can see that clearly reflected in the arguments of most people protecting this policy.

No, the primary argument is that people don't want to deal with assholes while they're trying to relax. Toxic assholes are bad for business in the long run.

I wonder if you guys who are so loud-mouthed about this also consider it "safe space" policing when other businesses have a code of conduct? Because you won't be allowed to be a toxic asshole at your local indoor football. You won't be allowed to be a toxic asshole at the local bar. You won't be allowed to be a toxic asshole at a restaurant. You won't be allowed to be a toxic asshole at a hotel. At the point where you're starting to bother other customers, you'll be asked to leave.

And again, Blizzard isn't going to ban you if you and 4 friends in a dungeon make off-color jokes in the chat. Moderation is dependent on reports. If you won't go up to a complete stranger in a nightclub and start whinging about how much you hate "the gays", then don't do it around strangers in WoW. WoW is a videogame. It is not a soapbox for people to start spouting off their political opinions. If you really need to get it off your chest how much you don't like transgender people, find a forum more suitable to that. It's that simple.

This might be a surprise to you but Blizzard has been trying to control what you say since the rise of multiplayer games. Where was your "outrage" then?

And again, this. There's nothing new in the social contract that wasn't part of the ToS already. The right time to whinge about "muh freeze peach" in WoW was almost two decades ago.

The absolute worst part of this whole fiasco is knowing that none of the loud-mouthed defenders of toxicity are actually going to quit the game. It would be paradise if they actually did.

[Raisei]

I mean the first amendment is based on a 2500+ year old idea, just bringing up freedom of speech does not mean it necessarily comes to the first US amendment. It's perfectly possible to argue for it from a philosophical and a practical viewpoint.

Especially since the idea of it was to go against religious opression and oppression by an unelected monarch. It has nothing to do with being an asshole in an online game. I am not even american, but I know the Founding Fathers would be rotating in their graves reading this Tucker Carlson-esque take on free speech.

[Aucald]

This diversion about the First Amendment and politics has no place in this subforum - take it to PM's or the Politics subforum, instead. Let's pivot back to the actual topic of this thread, the new social contract in WoW.

[Goatfish]

Look Goatfish, your walls of text are not helpful in getting your points across, you would benefit from being much more succinct in your answers.

I've read your comments from start to finish, and once I cut out all the fluff, it seems your arguments boil down to just a few points:

1. You feel that the wording of the social contact is not specific enough, leaving too many loopholes that could be used to catch edge cases out when they haven't really done anything wrong.

2. You feel that too many people are too soft, and will reach for the report button before trying to understand or work with other people.

3. You personally feel that people should be allowed to express themselves however they want, because that's how people get to know each other.

4. The block feature already exists, so the social contract is a step to far.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong. But not too wordy in your response. I've spent enough time reading your commentary today.

The reason I'm trying to pin you down, is so that I can engage with you properly. You're having so many discussions at once, I don't know where to begin with answering you.

I don't think you understand what a wall of text is. If you want me to limit replies to be Twitter length then you're better off not engaging with me. I will use as many words as I feel is necessary to get my point across, and I can engage with however many people I want to.

You are close on the points though with some minor changes:
1: The wording is vague so that it allows them to ban anyone for anything at any time, which means any part that is more direct turns into useless feel good marketing. It's a common and intentionally designed loophole in contract law that when taken in good faith is used to set later precedent, without transparency no precedent can be recognized though.

2: People are soft, but I think that's a different issue than people choosing to report instead of use the blacklist or attempt diplomatic discussion.

3: Pretty spot on. You have to let people act freely if you want to know who they are.

4: The point you listed is covered by points 1 and 2 already. Instead I would add that encountering these frustrating, challenging, or offensive people from time to time is actually beneficial. Especially since it's easy to ignore or escape it, and if someone circumvents those blocks you have an easy case for harassment.

It's not a comprehensive list but it's close enough. Unlike the pro-contract side, I don't think top down social engineering is the way to form a healthy community. Really all I want is transparency and to give people the tools to moderate their own communities because I don't trust Blizzard and their automated system to do it effectively or fairly outside of bots and advertisers.

[The Dark One]

@Goatfish - Great, now we are on the same page.

Before I respond, I don't want you to think that I was trying to curtail your posting. It's just that I was trying to express that after an hour of reading your posts specifically, it was still hard for me to distill your arguments. It was more of a suggestion

1. Yes, I too think there is room for discussion on what could/should be considered reportable harassment/bad behavior. It would be helpful for them to list out some examples, as they have done in the past with advertising. I guess it's hard to define though, was everyone has a different level of what is acceptable. For example, I'm fine with swearing, and anal jokes - Less so when they become racial or sexist. Also, I'm fine with some anti opposing faction sentiment/hatred, but am not a fan AT ALL of full blown real world political discussion happening in trade chat. That's not the place for that. I personally game to escape the real world and relax.

2. My feelings on this are pretty simple. There is not right/normal way for a personal to be. They can be as tough/stoic or as soft/liberal as they like - I'll happily engage with all types. For me at least, I'll reach for the report button, when I have asked someone to stop whatever it is they are doing that makes me uncomfortable, and they don't listen. Now hold up with your tough guy replies to this. I'm all for giving people chances, and any report I send is circumstantial. I'm not going to list every example ever out. But it would be more than swearing or Ninja looting. If it's a group situation, I'd sooner leave group and block than report. However, if someone is on a homophobic tear or a political tirade in trade chat, then yeah, I'm going to hit that report button, and feel no guilt. This is more about wanting to enjoy my game time without RL drama.

3. My feelings on three are spelt out above. If I have not enjoyed my time with someone, I'm going to block them, and they cease to exist for me. I'm happy with that. I don't game to debate with people or give them chances. I'm all about the fun times and good vibes.

4. I'm curious to know how encountering frustrating/challenging/offensive people in game is beneficial to me? Sounds like a waste of my time (and god knows I have very little of that).

I think the most interesting thing in your reply though is in your last sentence. "I don't trust Blizzard and their automated system to do it effectively or fairly outside of bots and advertisers." - I mean yeah. That's a far comment based on the last decade of in game moderation... Still I'm willing to give them a chance before I write off the social contract. Maybe you should too? What's the worst outcome? You come back here and write a thread going haha, I was right all along?

[Goatfish]

<snip>
4. I'm curious to know how encountering frustrating/challenging/offensive people in game is beneficial to me? Sounds like a waste of my time (and god knows I have very little of that).

I think the most interesting thing in your reply though is in your last sentence. "I don't trust Blizzard and their automated system to do it effectively or fairly outside of bots and advertisers." - I mean yeah. That's a far comment based on the last decade of in game moderation... Still I'm willing to give them a chance before I write off the social contract. Maybe you should too?

I think that's all a pretty fair stance, which I guess leads me to just two questions.

Why would you report people for talking about something you disagree with instead of just block them if the result is effectively the same to you?

Why would I choose to trust them now when you admit the last decade of moderation has been spurious? Keeping in mind these same rules have been around in the ToS for a while afaik, they are just being highlighted now.

As far as how it's beneficial, it builds resiliency and introduces you to different types of thought and people. Stronger mental fortitude is highly correlated to better life satisfaction. I'm not saying that anyone should be forced to engage for their health or anything (at least not in WoW), but frustration is good for you in moderation. I also lean into Taoist philosophy on this issue, summed up by the proverb "Nothing is so bad in which there is not something good".

Edit: I thought about this after the fact, but do you think trade/world chats should be free of any real world discussion or just that which you find negative? I think most people can agree on banning sexism or racism with more clear definitions, but how about things like Feminism or Pride talk?

[Sinyc]

I think a more important issue is why it also doesn't apply to massive corporations too.

Because they aren't the government?

Any business is welcome to deny you access to their business/service. YOU have no RIGHT to a private citizens services/business. Not entirely sure what's so confusing there. Same concept for private businesses.

Believe it or not you don't need to use Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. Unless you enjoy contributing to the downfall of society.