SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ubisoft is cracking down on "Toxic Players" in the game "Rainbow Six: Siege". I was somewhat surprised to see that they hadn't implemented a mute option to begin with as well.
Players will also soon have the ability to mute either or both of the text and voice chat for other players in their matches, giving more "direct control over communication channels."
I left the world of FPS Multiplayer games nearly 10 years ago, because of the toxic environment. Then again, that may have mostly just been staying away from certain games (Call of Duty) that appealed to the demographic (10 year old kids who can more or less say whatever they feel like) I didn't want to associate with. It's one thing to have the occasional being "cursed at" by a teenager / adult, because something went belly up for them. It's another to have a string of profanity that you've never heard the like being uttered by a 10 year old kid as a standard part of the game.
Apparently their parents don't know where they are / what they're doing, don't believe in parenting, don't think that verbal abuse is a thing, or some various mixture thereof. I'm not generally in favor of censorship, but at some point someone needs to step-in. At one point that was the parents, but that doesn't seem to be happening nearly as much as it used to.
The core of the changes centers around players using "racial or homophobic slurs, or hate speech," defined by the game's Code of Conduct as language that's "illegal, dangerous, threatening, abusive, obscene, vulgar, defamatory, hateful, racist, sexist, ethically offensive, or constituting harassment."
TL;DR
Game company banning toxic players. It's about time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @08:22PM (1 child)
The "scary" scenarios are exactly what should convince you. Libel can truly ruin lives and destroy businesses, having legal recourse against such liars is 100% necessary. The fact that you can't grasp that simple idea speaks volumes about you. Should we repeal laws against murder since that is yet another repressive restriction upon your freedom?
Yes I give extreme examples, but those are generally where such laws are put to use. 100% freedom would be anarchy, and we've spent thousands of years clawing out of such barbarism. It is amusing that you libertards think you're so enlightened after benefiting from the millennia of societal evolution that you can then totally toss out that progress. Stunning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2018, @03:56AM
Why is that? Because people believe things without evidence and then take actions which are harmful to the subject of the lies; they did not have to believe the lies or take the harmful actions, so the fault for those things lies with them.
I fully grasp it. I just value freedom over safety. You seem to have concocted some sort of straw man version of me, or perhaps have difficulty comprehending how someone could possibly value freedom over security.
Non sequitur. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything being discussed. It does not follow from anything that I've said. It's one thing to disagree with me, and another to spew forth such blatant logical fallacies.