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

[Logwyn]

Yes? Why not I do all the things anyway.

[arkanon]

It's a opportunity to start weeding out toxicity. Of course I clicked accept and then re-upped my 6-month sub. It's about time they took the community more seriously and put a plan in motion to expunge people who have no clue how to act to other players.

What new opportunity has this contract created?

[Yakut]

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.

100% that. People trot out "freedom of speech" when they do things that are absolutely intended to be as vitriolic and toxic to others as possible. Freedom of speech does not protect you from yelling "Fire" in a movie theater (yes, that's a crime if there's not actually any fire).

Non-government entities can censor irresponsible speech as they so choose (and they give you a general definition of that in terms of service/acceptable use/code of conduct). Use of their service indicates you accept this service - in the event they do not otherwise provide a "Agree" button that would otherwise disconnect you from said service.

When people fail the constitutional freedom of speech argument, they shift to the idea of "freedom of speech" in a general sense. This is because, obviously, the constitutional argument was and is dead in the water at that point. This is an example of "moving the goalpost." Somehow they will try, in vain, to link their cause back to a general idea. But, when you have to move the goalpost of your argument, it was not possible to win and shouldn't have been started.

I suspect this entity (Goatfish), based on what I see of his posts, falls under the "moving the goalpost" mentality. When logic fails, shift the focus so that he can try to be intellectually or morally superior. But, that falls on its face because if the argument was strong enough, you wouldn't need to shift it.

[KOUNTERPARTS]

I don't think even Blizzard believes this social contract is an actual fix to the problem. It comes off to me as a "just get something out there" approach.


It's one thing to know that ahead of time, but still believing a positive impact will happen once implemented could help them choose what kind of path to take forward to tackle the problem.


They have a significant tone deafness to good PR.

[OMGTwitchTV]

What new opportunity has this contract created?

Well, it should seem obvious. It is a reinforced version of the SLA we all agreed to when installing and playing for the first time in the game. Now, players can report others for toxic and ridiculous behavior and language, and Blizz agrees to actually act on actionable intelligence in the reporting system. The report window is far more dynamic and customizable when reporting an issue. It's a fresh look at enforcing the Code of Conduct we all agree to, but certain individuals continue to violate. I'm certain once they reach the "Knock it off or we are banning this account forever and you can say goodbye to all your gold, mounts, achievements, etc" these people will either shape up or be gone for good. It will be nice to have some power over help to rid the game of toxic jerks and those who simply seek to troll and ruin someone else's experience.

[Linkedblade]

100% that. People trot out "freedom of speech" when they do things that are absolutely intended to be as vitriolic and toxic to others as possible. Freedom of speech does not protect you from yelling "Fire" in a movie theater (yes, that's a crime if there's not actually any fire).

Non-government entities can censor irresponsible speech as they so choose (and they give you a general definition of that in terms of service/acceptable use/code of conduct). Use of their service indicates you accept this service - in the event they do not otherwise provide a "Agree" button that would otherwise disconnect you from said service.

When people fail the constitutional freedom of speech argument, they shift to the idea of "freedom of speech" in a general sense. This is because, obviously, the constitutional argument was and is dead in the water at that point. This is an example of "moving the goalpost." Somehow they will try, in vain, to link their cause back to a general idea. But, when you have to move the goalpost of your argument, it was not possible to win and shouldn't have been started.

I suspect this entity (Goatfish), based on what I see of his posts, falls under the "moving the goalpost" mentality. When logic fails, shift the focus so that he can try to be intellectually or morally superior. But, that falls on its face because if the argument was strong enough, you wouldn't need to shift it.

You're not allowed to talk about freedom of speech. That's political and not allowed in this thread.

The problem is ambiguity of the terms. Who determines what hate speech is? They give examples, but how am I supposed to know what others find offensive?

What if I'm rping and say "fuck these stupid orcs?" Am I being racist or ablist? How do I know if there are people out there that identify as stupid orcs?

[Goatfish]

Freedom of speech does not protect you from yelling "Fire" in a movie theater (yes, that's a crime if there's not actually any fire).

Non-government entities can censor irresponsible speech as they so choose

I suspect this entity (Goatfish), based on what I see of his posts, falls under the "moving the goalpost" mentality. When logic fails, shift the focus so that he can try to be intellectually or morally superior. But, that falls on its face because if the argument was strong enough, you wouldn't need to shift it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

I never once made the claim that it's because of the constitution says so, as if the constitution is something like a religious document that mandates how we ought to live. I highly suggest you educate yourself a little more on these topics before trying to shame other people about them. My arguments have been clearly outlined already and it should be obvious that my only argument that falls under freedom of speech is to allow people to express themselves so that they may be properly judged as players you want to play with or not.

Would you be making this same argument and showing the same support if they instead chose to ban any talk of Feminism or Pride?

As far as the "fire in a crowded theater" claim, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...lation/621151/. It was first used by Supreme Justice Holmes as an analogy for the justification of censoring people speaking out against the military draft in 1917 and was revised and overturned in 1969 to limit it to speech used to purposefully incite imminent lawless action (such as a riot). Here's a Law Firm explaining this myth.

But it’s just always been interesting to me that this quote, which is just dicta, it’s not the holding of the case, it’s not really the law of the land, and it’s not Justice Holmes saying that’s what the law of the land should be, has somehow withstood the test of time and is still, to this day, if you watch news reports on First Amendment issues, or you read newspaper articles on First Amendment issues, you’ll invariably run into somebody that talks about, “Well, we all know you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” That’s not the law. It really never has been the law. And it’s from a case that got overturned some 60 plus years ago.

[shane brannigan]

I will probably say yes. But I mean this ain't gonna do shit.

Reducing toxicity is about fixing underline problems, and reducing player frustration.
Like mythic key leavers, people get pissed off when some ass clown decides to leave for no reason, wasting the run and lowering your key.
Small fixes like a system to stop that would be a step toward detoxification. because it makes people slightly less pissed off. Fixing war mode would also probably do more to curb toxicity like you know those 3 raids gank armies that show up and lock down a zone for an hour, those really piss people off. Then they get all pissy and are more likely to break ToS.

Then you got games like league where they love toxicity and they actively monetise it, with shit like the "wtf bro you suck emotes".

[arkanon]

Well, it should seem obvious. It is a reinforced version of the SLA we all agreed to when installing and playing for the first time in the game. Now, players can report others for toxic and ridiculous behavior and language, and Blizz agrees to actually act on actionable intelligence in the reporting system. The report window is far more dynamic and customizable when reporting an issue. It's a fresh look at enforcing the Code of Conduct we all agree to, but certain individuals continue to violate. I'm certain once they reach the "Knock it off or we are banning this account forever and you can say goodbye to all your gold, mounts, achievements, etc" these people will either shape up or be gone for good. It will be nice to have some power over help to rid the game of toxic jerks and those who simply seek to troll and ruin someone else's experience.

So.....nothing has changed? They already had all that power under the previous iteration. I'm really surprised by the number of people who genuinely think this is going to turn the game into some safe space.

[OMGTwitchTV]

So.....nothing has changed? They already had all that power under the previous iteration. I'm really surprised by the number of people who genuinely think this is going to turn the game into some safe space.

I honestly think you just enjoy fighting. Personally, there are 3 people missing from Proudmoore who were always in General Chat and have not been heard from for days. Anecdotal sure... but it gives me hope I can help eliminate every jerkwad who just wants to act like an asshat til we get back to having few anonymous keyboard cowboys who like to fight, troll, and tell everyone else their words and ideas are the only correct ones. I'm not a fan of passive/aggressive conversation.

[Sinyc]

The Colorado court of appeals disagrees with you in a very public case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master...hts_Commission.

Did I really need to put a note that you obviously can't discriminate against someone???? Really?

[CalamityHeart]

how am I supposed to know what others find offensive?

Uh, common sense? That would be more than sufficient for you to navigate the majority of the "things I probably shouldn't say" landmines. I'm pretty sure you're perfectly aware that saying 'fuck these stupid orcs' in-character in an RP setting is not one of those landmines, so I'm not sure why you're trying to paint it like you're afraid it could be.

[pahbi]

My main worry is folks abusing the report system; I can already see myself getting time off because some trigger happy millennial reports me for calling him a dingleberry

I'm American, when I hear other Americans use the word fuck, it almost always just sounds foul to me.

By contrast, when I hear Brits, Irish or Scottish folks say fuck, its just hysterical. It doesn't sound no where near as foul as when Americans say it, its almost lighthearted the way they use it.

I guess its good they will be on UK servers so our American triggered generation X can't report them as well.

[Yakut]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

I stopped here because I already knew that the summary of your response was going to be as ludicrous as the source. In no legal profession teaching institution or court would they accept Wikipedia as the source of literally any legal precedent, interpretation, or analysis. It is fraught with errors. Some subtle, many not. Offhand, I know of at least two glaring ones in the field of mathematics that still exist there today.

In the end, it ended up being another deflection from you. I wasn't surprised. You claim freedom of speech, but it does not apply in this context, no matter how much you attempt to contort it. What matters in a legal sense is the rule of law. You won't find any major landmark cases against Blizzard on that particular front. What they do in their offices, well, that's another story and another context entirely - but still divorced from the in-game speech argument.

We own nothing in the game. We have only the rights they have agreed to provide us in their agreements which we sign electronically in every expansion. In addition to the OP's reference to the new social contract (which, if we're honest, isn't really new as such but it does define more examples of inappropriate conduct). We agree to this in order to play the game. Claiming free speech applies when it literally doesn't is at best a lie and at worst disingeuous. If you have a formidable intellect, try arguing a more salient point because you have yet to do so. This one was DOA.

[uuuhname]

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

try reading the post you were replying to and feel even a little bit embarrassed by this comment.

[Linkedblade]

Uh, common sense? That would be more than sufficient for you to navigate the majority of the "things I probably shouldn't say" landmines. I'm pretty sure you're perfectly aware that saying 'fuck these stupid orcs' in-character in an RP setting is not one of those landmines, so I'm not sure why you're trying to paint it like you're afraid it could be.

Exactly, but you don't know who's listening and what people find offensive. And like I've said a dozen times already: there are topics in game that people find offensive already, and if you talk about them you could hurt someone's sensitivities. It's not about saying inflammatory things, that's a red herring. It's about being able to talk about literally anything.

[Mysterymask]

Exactly, but you don't know who's listening and what people find offensive. And like I've said a dozen times already: there are topics in game that people find offensive already, and if you talk about them you could hurt someone's sensitivities. It's not about saying inflammatory things, that's a red herring. It's about being able to talk about literally anything.

I mean maybe not talk about sensitive stuff in public chat?

Like I wanna talk about politics stuff and my opinions are spicy!

Trade? Probably not
Group chat with friends? Yes!
Group chat with randos? No
Guild? Maybe
LFR? No
Raid chat with guild? Maybe

[Goatfish]

I stopped here because I already knew that the summary of your response was going to be as ludicrous as the source.

This coming from someone who falsely claimed that "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is against the law, this is pretty rich. You do understand there is a difference between ideology and law don't you?

No one here is making a legal argument, you're just using it as a strawman defense.

[arkanon]

I honestly think you just enjoy fighting. Personally, there are 3 people missing from Proudmoore who were always in General Chat and have not been heard from for days. Anecdotal sure... but it gives me hope I can help eliminate every jerkwad who just wants to act like an asshat til we get back to having few anonymous keyboard cowboys who like to fight, troll, and tell everyone else their words and ideas are the only correct ones. I'm not a fan of passive/aggressive conversation.

So you don't like other people demanding others adhere to their personal preferences, but have made it clear you want to control who does and does not play the game based on your personal preferences?

- - - Updated - - -

I mean maybe not talk about sensitive stuff in public chat?

Like I wanna talk about politics stuff and my opinions are spicy!

Trade? Probably not
Group chat with friends? Yes!
Group chat with randos? No
Guild? Maybe
LFR? No
Raid chat with guild? Maybe

Is it ok to talk about genocide and murder?

[WaltherLeopold]

Why would I ever expose myself to you people on WoW, ofcourse i'll accept the social contract because 99.99% of my interaction with/regarding WoW is on discord or literally any other medium than WoW itself.