I understand the "hypothetical" scenario you lay out actually did happen... and they are still talking about it today. I'm thinking PvP "Player A" would want an epic battle in his name, not a forgotten parade.
"One the Bards shall sing about for generations to come."
All that's lacking is Player A's "hypothetical" Friends, missed the opportunity to attach his in game NAME to the event.
Hah, I remeber that vid and the storm that followed it. Those guys were aholes but it was on a PvP server and they broke no rules, why would a gm stop it? Thats the beauty of an MMO. The unexpected events and the clashes in the social sphere of the game often provide the highlights and infamous tales that are so remembered. If all the players are quartered into their safe spaces and only permitted social interactions are allowed then I think you loose that spark that is unique to an MMO.
Drull said:Hah, I remeber that vid and the storm that followed it. Those guys were aholes but it was on a PvP server and they broke no rules, why would a gm stop it? Thats the beauty of an MMO. The unexpected events and the clashes in the social sphere of the game often provide the highlights and infamous tales that are so remembered. If all the players are quartered into their safe spaces and only permitted social interactions are allowed then I think you loose that spark that is unique to an MMO.
We did it in EQ2 just never thought it was worth recording which is a shame because most of my force totaled over 800 kills per person with the recent list going through recycle so many times due to zerging.
But it was also a zone where a contested mob was spawned and we wouldnt of wanted them to get funny idea's over raid mobs we owned
On PC filtering in moderation/GM admin/chat - in your chat window controls in any MMO ever made, there is an option to turn off any channel you please. The very first thing I do after I arrange my UI to my tastes is turn off /general, /shout, /yell, /trade and /ooc...or whatever spam/nonsense channels that particular game comes with. I only care about /group, /raid, /tell/whisper, and maybe /system or whatever if you only know about money/loot/skill ups/etc from the chat window.
Ignoring people in MMOs is sooooooooo easy, I have no idea why people think censoring at the dev/admin level is better or easier than simply turning off the knuckleheads with any of the available methods to do so.
On stuff like player behavior in game as it relates to a meta event like a funeral/wedding/etc - if you don't want it griefed, don't hold it where griefers have the ability to operate. Holding a funeral procession in a FFA PVP area for a real life person who died is literally begging, on both knees with head bowed, BEGGING to get griefed. That's people going out of their way to achieve a result that leaves them shocked and offended. Griefers grief. That's what they do. The bigger the possible grief they can inflict, the bigger their desire to do so. Hello...EVE gate campers in lowsec? Sims Online protection rackets?
Again, there are myriad ways to ignore the bad actors of the MMO world. There doesn't have to be dev/admin/GM involvement to make everyone comfy and warm in their safe space. It's a virtual world where 90-100% of your advancement and achievement is based on violence. Kinda hard to lay down a meta rule about how all the folks playing this "violence wins" ruleset must be sweethearts to each other.
Seriously...how hard is it to simply ignore people? I haven't heard a peep from anyone not on in my group/raid/friends list in an MMO in over a decade. Takes 20 seconds to make that happen.
Drull said:Hah, I remeber that vid and the storm that followed it. Those guys were aholes but it was on a PvP server and they broke no rules, why would a gm stop it? Thats the beauty of an MMO. The unexpected events and the clashes in the social sphere of the game often provide the highlights and infamous tales that are so remembered. If all the players are quartered into their safe spaces and only permitted social interactions are allowed then I think you loose that spark that is unique to an MMO.
/agree. It defeats the purpose of open world PVP servers to enforce rules and policies about playing nice. My goal in an open world PVP environment is to discourage, defeat and hopefully annihilate my enemy. Red is dead. Period.
Kilsin said:Reposting my reply from the first page for those who missed it, as this discussion seems to be running around in circles with no end in sight and we have already addressed this in roundtables and in replies.
"I would like to point out that this is also highly dependent on the maturity of our community, our community is a lot less toxic than most others out there and while we will still see incidents like this occur, it is reasonable to assume that it would be uncommon and would usually result in the community /ignoring the person and taking note of their name for future reference or if it is completely disrupting the server, a GM would intervene and resolve the issue rather quickly, I wouldn't worry too much about our game, it is what the community makes it to be and from what I have seen over the last 2 years, I think with VR and the community working together, we will be fine ;)"
I don't see this discussion as fruitless. I belong to several forums, and a discussion similar to this one is being had in one of them. I have found the responses here to be particularly insightful in comparison. Even if the topic here has been resolved from an administrative point of view, I can still learn from further discussion. I think we all can. However, I also respect the development team's allocation of resources elsewhere - so long as the majority of the community agrees.
Respectfully, as a woman, I would like to hear your argument as to how Gamergate was based on lies and hyperbole - and whether that is VR's opinion as well. I heard a story when it happened, and it offended me, but I am open to hearing other accounts. However, these accounts will have to include links to reputable sources in response to the NPR article. This is the currency of argumentation. As a female gamer, I am very much interested in how Pantheon's moderation team perceives female gamers and women's issues. I had thought the gaming community had moved past Gamergate since the facts had been posted. However, since it was brought up, now I will need to know VR's opinion. The seventeen female gamers I am about to recommend this game to will want to know as well.
Absolutely no disrespect intended, but every private forum and every game company assures users that "problems will be taken care of." That's vague, and it's part of the reason (i.e. problem with modern games) why I'm here looking at Pantheon.
In light of the issues raised here, I am eagerly awaiting VR's response.
@AlannaTheFair
To investigate, and attempt to understand 'GamerGate', is a herculean task. Since it was/is a divisive arguement, reporting on it is generally leaning one way or another. It would take me hours to find and list all the citations needed for this, and further arguements. However, I include a link to a post about GamerGate that attempts to explain it without being too biased one way or another. At least the journalist of the piece starts by admitting their bias and attempts to be 'rational' about it. It may look like a long piece, but it is the shortest piece you are likely to find without being reduced to a 3 word answer.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/6/6901013/whats-happening-in-gamergate
However, points to take away : (Idiots guide)
1. The 'real' debate was about gaming journalism 'ethics' i.e. Some Game publishers being in bed with journalists (in a few cases, literally).
2. In the mud-slinging that followed, lots of people acted like 5 year-olds.
3. Right in the middle of this, CelebGate happened (nude photos of actors/actresses hacked) which generated real media attention. Some poeple decided to capitalise on this free publicity for their own causes. Enter more people acting like 5 year olds ... including the celebs..
4. E.g. : Anita Sarkesian became a (rich) 'star' on the basis of her videos which go out of their way to suggest games (in general) are mysoginistic ('women hating') and have been shown (by numerous YouTube gamer/game-player channels) to be skewed (at best) or down right (and purposefully) misleading in order to generate 'drama'.
In reality:
1. There is no 'problem' with modern games.
Game producers design for their 'market'. Look at MUDs/MMOs. In 1980-2000 this was 95% men, aged 16-25. Post 2005, this has shifted slightly, but still not appreciably. Production companies will aim their games at the people likely to buy them. If you write a tank game, you are aiming at people who like tanks - so you better have great tank models! The undercurrent of GameGate was to look at the internecine behaviour of 'poacher turned gamekeeper' types in the Games Journalism sphere. But was this any different from paid product placement, ultimately?
2. There is no 'bias' in modern games
Both men and women avatars are protrayed as 'ideals', so the players can imagine themselves as a fantasy character in a fantasy world. Whether it is Conan or Red Sonja who is made to look 'appealing' is immaterial. Both are generally used to attract players. Both are unrealistic body shapes (for 99% of people, myself included). But (most) men would rather have an atavar that looks like George Clooney than Mr.Bean.
If you want a 'negative', I would have to say it is the lack of 'more realistic' character options. This is improving (compare games from 2000 vs 2010) but games still use 'stereotypes' (BDO uses a 'gandalf' look for the male wizzie) and still have few body shapes to choose from (Consider options in WoW). It would be nice to have options somewhere between Conan and Mr. Bean !
Please do not take Anita Sarkesian as your 'method of insight' into the gaming world. She openly admitted (in an interview) that she knew nothing about gaming/gamers when she first started her video series on 'how bad the gaming industry is for women'. Her work has since been debunked by countless people, countless times. I mention her as she is the most vocal figurehead of the game detractors.
3. There is no 'harassment' problem in games
The perception of harrassment in games is greater than the actual levels of harassment (by any measure/measure/poll/study - check any of them!). Since many people spend more time on public 'social media' outlets than inside closed cgame environments, it is hardly surprising that the perception is greater than reality. The move from 'subscription' to 'Free to Play' as a game model did not help this at all. Instead of looking in the phone book for 'Mr P.Enis' and phoning him, now they can join a free game with a character called 'Mr P.Enis' and troll people! No study has shown a level of harrassment or bullying in games that exceeds any study of bullying or harrassment in schools. If you think you find one, I will find you a study from a school with more - I guarantee it.
TLDR:
Kilsin is correct when he says it was 'based on lies and hyperbole'. Gaming is as 'safe' for women as it is for men. You will no more trouble/hassle than anyone else. The subscription will eliminate many of the 'pain-in-ass players', where it applies, and a game with a strong emphasis on the character's 'reputation' (i.e. Pantheon) will eliminate all but the most egregious of idiots. Those can be swatted by VR when they rear their ugly heads.
Of course there will be a few 12 year old boys calling themselves 'suxxors to be joo' running about the newbie yard screaming 'boobies, boobies, boobies' in OOC chat. 'Ignore' them. They are a tiny, tiny minority and will be dealt with. Eventually they will grow up and face-palm every time they think about how they acted then!
Zorkon said:There seems to be a misunderstanding about the first amendment.. it reads..
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.
The first amedment protects us against the government "MAKING A LAW" restricting free speach... it does not say "Visionary Realms shall make no rule" it has absolutely no jurisdiction here.
I doubt if the First Amendment or any amendment would apply here, being that people playing this game will be INTERNATIONAL playing on VR's Servers. VR will decide what applies and what their EULA will contain, according to the advice of their lawyers.. Freedom of speech in any case, doesn't mean you get to say or do anything hateful to another person. Your "freedom" leaves off where mine begins. A little respect for each other goes a long way. I've seen far too many trolls (this seems to be some sort of fad in recent years) to put it down as "freedom of speech" its more like were they born in a cave and do their knuckles drag on the ground when they walk? :P
Kalgore said:So hypthetical question
Player A dies IRL and he plays on a PVP server. Lets say that faction decides to hold a funeral march that takes them across an open PVP zone. Player B who doesnt care decides that he cant allow an 8x of players to roam free so he gathers a 3x or 4x of his best guildies and they fly in and kill the 8x for the next hour.
Does a GM zone in and freeze everyone or does the slaughter keep going unti Player B is bored.
Kalgore, this exact scenario happened in GW2 in WvWvW, except I think it was a peace march. I know it happened because I was there, and it was on my server. That week, it was one server (Yak's Bend, I think) vs Sanctum of Rall vs Tarnshied Coast (the server I was on at the time). An RP guild wanted to host a peace march through WvWvW, which is a PvP area segregated from the PvE area. They knew the risks, but held their peace march through the valley of the shadow of death. There were guilds representing both YB and TC doing the march, while others played WvWvW as normal. Then the call went out that Sanctum of Rall attacked the peace march. SoR had some of the best PvP guilds in our tier and would usually finish first if we were matched against them.
But then it began: From all corners of the worlds in Yak's Bend and Tarnished Coast, news spread about the attack on the peace march. People queued up to get one of the precious available open spots in WvWvW to avenge the destruction of the peace march. Within the hour, Sanctum of Rall was wiped off the face of all four WvWvW zones. They didn't hold a single target for the rest of the week when the servers reset and the teams were rematched. It was an incredible triumph of the little guys standing up for themselves and overpowering the schoolyard bully.
And everyone still talks about it to this day. We would not have had the tales of victory and triumph over adversity if it weren't for the attack on the peace march (which was perfectly within the rules of PvP).
Please don't take this away from us.
Venjenz said:I have no idea why people think censoring at the dev/admin level is better or easier than simply turning off the knuckleheads with any of the available methods to do so.
Because it's blaming the victim. If someone gets offended by having hateful speech spewed across their screen it's their own fault for not having ignored them? Why is it not the fault of the person generating the offensive content?
Aena said:Venjenz said:I have no idea why people think censoring at the dev/admin level is better or easier than simply turning off the knuckleheads with any of the available methods to do so.
Because it's blaming the victim. If someone gets offended by having hateful speech spewed across their screen it's their own fault for not having ignored them? Why is it not the fault of the person generating the offensive content?
Because what is offensive is subjective. Being as such, it cannot be labeled as right or wrong. Each player much choose what he or she would like to be exposed to in game. It cannot and should not be up to anyone else to deem what is offensive.
But this is really moot. As said before, VR will provide standard filtering options such as ignore and will investigate true harassment. Which I applaud. We all should take responsibility for ourselves instead of relying on others to "protect" us from what we deem as "bad".
Evoras said:In reality:
1. There is no 'problem' with modern games.
Game producers design for their 'market'. Look at MUDs/MMOs. In 1980-2000 this was 95% men, aged 16-25. Post 2005, this has shifted slightly, but still not appreciably. Production companies will aim their games at the people likely to buy them. If you write a tank game, you are aiming at people who like tanks - so you better have great tank models! The undercurrent of GameGate was to look at the internecine behaviour of 'poacher turned gamekeeper' types in the Games Journalism sphere. But was this any different from paid product placement, ultimately?
2. There is no 'bias' in modern games
Both men and women avatars are protrayed as 'ideals', so the players can imagine themselves as a fantasy character in a fantasy world. Whether it is Conan or Red Sonja who is made to look 'appealing' is immaterial. Both are generally used to attract players. Both are unrealistic body shapes (for 99% of people, myself included). But (most) men would rather have an atavar that looks like George Clooney than Mr.Bean.
If you want a 'negative', I would have to say it is the lack of 'more realistic' character options. This is improving (compare games from 2000 vs 2010) but games still use 'stereotypes' (BDO uses a 'gandalf' look for the male wizzie) and still have few body shapes to choose from (Consider options in WoW). It would be nice to have options somewhere between Conan and Mr. Bean !
Please do not take Anita Sarkesian as your 'method of insight' into the gaming world. She openly admitted (in an interview) that she knew nothing about gaming/gamers when she first started her video series on 'how bad the gaming industry is for women'. Her work has since been debunked by countless people, countless times. I mention her as she is the most vocal figurehead of the game detractors.
3. There is no 'harassment' problem in games
The perception of harrassment in games is greater than the actual levels of harassment (by any measure/measure/poll/study - check any of them!). Since many people spend more time on public 'social media' outlets than inside closed cgame environments, it is hardly surprising that the perception is greater than reality. The move from 'subscription' to 'Free to Play' as a game model did not help this at all. Instead of looking in the phone book for 'Mr P.Enis' and phoning him, now they can join a free game with a character called 'Mr P.Enis' and troll people! No study has shown a level of harrassment or bullying in games that exceeds any study of bullying or harrassment in schools. If you think you find one, I will find you a study from a school with more - I guarantee it.
Normally I enjoy reading your posts, but this one is frankly presumptuous. Nowhere else in the world have I experienced more unwanted behaviors than online. Not in school, not in other countries, nowhere - and the best person to know my experience is me - not a study. I am not a hardcore gamer or anywhere close. I am an extrovert who loves the outdoors and spending time with folks including strangers in the real world, because I think the real world is the best world. The online world is a very occasional foray for me.
That harassment doesn't exist - I've been sent whispers in some games that I should kill myself, or stop playing because I'm a woman or that women don't play games and therefore I must be a man. It happens a lot. That's harassment. Unfortunately in some gaming communities, stating that you are a woman is a bad thing. I'm not sure you've done that. I don't care about Mr. P.Enis - I never report him!
Additionally, my problem with Gamergate is not the celebrities or any specific person. Rather, I found the criticisms based in circular reasoning. Of course gaming companies target demographics. The result is a male-dominated gaming community where many women may not feel welcome and so don't try. I'm in STEM, and a lot professors are voicing analogous concerns about STEM careers. A lot of women, myself included, saw this defence as dismissiveness and an irrational fear that women will somehow ruin the gaming community. I don't think so - we just want some acknowledgement and respect - especially when it comes to people who whispers us ugly nothings.
I must admit I was disappointed by Kilsin's response. Gamergate is still controversial in some circles (we are debating it right now as well). I appreciate that you provided links - my thoughts were just from a completely different angle!
I still have reasonably high hopes that people of a nasty caliber are going to be sifted out in Pantheon. And based on the responses on this thread, I already have a list of people including you who I would love to play with. It's just that Gamergate and trolls are my berserk buttons. I ain't tanking for trolls.
I don't mean to be a downer but expecting this type of behavior to be properly moderated is pretty unrealistic. It's up to you to build your own bubble and insulate yourself if that is the experience you want; don't expect others to do it for you.
ESRB Notice: Game Experience May Change During Online Play
My post was meant to read that many of the links were hyperbole for clickbait/advertising etc. and not associated with Pantheon but I was trying to keep it brief, sorry if it did not come across clearly, it was late at night and I wanted to try to deflate the topic before I went to bed as it just continues to drag on, going around in circles over the same topics and ideas/suggestions that have already been covered and replied to many times on these forums.
I am a huge supporter of equality for all humans and have publicly shown that in some of my previous posts, a large portion of Gamergate was hyperbole and riding an internet/media/meme/soapbox wave which unfortunately covered up a lot of the actual issues in gaming for both males and females which included but were not limited to depression, bullying, racial hate, threats and intimidation, sexism etc. but this topic is much too large and in depth to discuss simply in this thread about moderation in-game, so I ask that we please stay on the topic which asks if we (Visionary Realms) will provide in-game moderation - to which I have replied.
Quote from first page:
"I would like to point out that this is also highly dependent on the maturity of our community, our community is a lot less toxic than most others out there and while we will still see incidents like this occur, it is reasonable to assume that it would be uncommon and would usually result in the community /ignoring the person and taking note of their name for future reference or if it is completely disrupting the server, a GM would intervene and resolve the issue rather quickly, I wouldn't worry too much about our game, it is what the community makes it to be and from what I have seen over the last 2 years, I think with VR and the community working together, we will be fine ;)"
/hums and strolls by singing..
This is the thread that doesn't end...
yes it goes on and on my friend...
some people starting posting here not knowing what it was...
and they'll keep on posting here forever just because ..
This is the thread that doesn't end...
/walks away humming softly
Was it DeTocqeville? or Voltaire? "I disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it"
This may not change the behavior of the person that said it. Subjectively- to the recipient it may be like the nature of porn or sexual harasement- once you see it, you cannot unsee it, likewise once you hear/read it you cannot unread it.
Is the issue how one handles offence? as that, I think, is an easier issue to deal with and thankfully has alot of people involved dare I say a majority. Sadly it does not stop the pain but at least has like minded people sympathizing to try to uplift/cheer on for as long as they can although it may not be long enough to the offended- interstingly the Jewish traditions (*starts singing*) have a defined point- you might remember the dog in "The men in black" asking if the downtrodden character was "sitting Shiva"- that specifies a time that one is allowed to feel bad or mourn, and after that- to stop. Not only for the mourner but also to those sympathizing.
But if the issue is changing the behavior of one that said it - through the screen? That's a tough one. Hmm, get some hackers maybe to get IP addresses and then send over medical techs to administer shock treatment (that has just come back into vogue) for behavior modification therapy. Or get the hackers to provide the information to a local church/religious organization to get a prayer group together without telling them and see what happens to the persons demeanor in a few weeks?
I thinik the Soviets durring the U.S.S.R. days had a way to deal with that- political officers I think they called them, neighbors turning in neighbors for incorrect thinking/statements. Maybe something to learn from?
I dont know, I am just thinking outloud. It's a tough one, I dont have the answers. But I believe in the community and yes I have had some instances of being offended and griefed in game. I used the tools available, and found solace in like-minded people. I was able to choose what I shared and what I kept inside but it did not remove my perception of the taint on the game and wondering if I would run into another like that, or the trepidation I felt whenever I ran into the person again in game although nothing was said between us. However that run-in did give me an opportunity to share with whom I was with why I wanted to leave and little by little, each time, leached out the offence from me. Took a while, I wish it occured faster. Maybe that is the benefit of having a defined time limit.