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: 5, Insightful) by Revek on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:47PM (12 children)
It amazes me how some people can't just ignore these people. Laugh at them every chance you get. I find that humor at their ignorance will make them rage quit.
Of course I mute them if the game has that option. Usually right after I mute them I say to the rest of the players "If you mute someone do they really still exist.
More than half of the time the offender quits the game.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @01:32PM
That is not always true. I was playing CS:GO some months ago and there is one person who just started picking on me, first doing mimicry, then abusing my whole family, then just playing shock songs with his own narration. I ignored him and hence he quite. Then he started playing shitty and just waited for me to make a mistake, after he vote-kicked me and obviously other people agreed. That's the thing - a rotten tomato rots the whole basket. Not all abusers and bullies are 10-year old kids, many of them are older. And online FPS just attracts people who felt powerless and just want to feel some power back in their life. I don't judge them by calling them 'toxic', but you can't deal with them by patience - you have to be brutal. Or you can quit. I quit CS:GO.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @02:32PM
> It amazes me how some people can't just ignore these people.
After an entire day of dealing with assholes IRL, that's just what a tired person looking for a bit of fun and escapism needs: dealing with more assholes. At some point, you break and go on a shooting spree, and then the people are all "it's all those computer games, I'm telling ya, they rot your brain".
Which is why *I*, the smart person that I am, play only single player.
> Of course I mute them if the game has that option.
Well, the main point of the article is "they implemented mute", so that's something you weren't able to do before in this particular game.
> More than half of the time the offender quits the game.
It's the other half that is the problem :/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @04:29PM (9 children)
When I encounter such tools in games I don't get angry at the personal attacks. I do get angry about those assholes ruining the game by 1) not playing properly 2) distracting everyone 3) spewing negativity that affects team morale.
Some people like to watch the world burn, and I am 100% OK with measures to remove those people until they grow up.
On a side note, do you think we should repeal libel laws?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 12 2018, @05:23PM (8 children)
Yes. Whatever happened to doing a bit of damn research?
"Hillary Clinton eats babies"
"Well, some rando online said it so it must be true!"
People lie. This shouldn't be fucking news to anyone.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @05:39PM (7 children)
So when some rich person gets a bug up their ass about you and hires a private investigator to find your hometown and then rents ad space EVERYWHERE calling you a pedo then that should be OK?
Perhaps your simplistic "truths" don't actually work in reality and there are real reasons why libel laws exist. Also, how would you go about researching whether H.C. eats babies? Thus why courts became a thing, the two people go argue their case and the one with the most convincing argument / evidence wins! In this case the burden would be on the libelous person to prove H.C. eats babies, if they have no evidence they get slapped with libel. If you can't comprehend the necessity of libel laws then do some, uh, what was the word? Oh yeah, RESEARCH!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @07:08PM (6 children)
Yes. Do your own research.
You haven't explained why it wouldn't work. You just provided a 'scary' scenario, which didn't convince me of anything. Does it somehow violate the laws of physics to not have libel laws? No. The reality is that not having libel laws would likely have some consequences (people being morons who believe anything), but as a free speech absolutist, I will accept those consequences in the name of freedom. There is no "necessity" here; it depends on your values.
I do not believe things of which there is no good evidence. It's the same reason why I don't believe in god. Apply this standard to other aspects of your life and you will be fooled far less often.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @08:17PM (3 children)
Ah yes, the magical "personal responsibility" trope which does not work in reality. Stop being a libtard with naive expectations of humanity and then we can have a real discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2018, @03:51AM (2 children)
I didn't mention any such thing. In fact, I said that even if getting rid of libel laws has consequences, we should accept them in the name of freedom. It's about values, and I value freedom. You don't value the same freedoms that I do, and I get that. But don't pretend that there is some kind of outside force that mandates that we have libel laws; it's entirely possible for us to not have them, even if it would have consequences.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2018, @06:24PM (1 child)
The "does not work in reality" part is referring to the effects upon society. Total freedom is bad, full stop. I wish it wasn't like that, but humans often have very bad impulses and we've found out it is better to have laws against many specific things. No murder, no child abuse, no theft, etc.
We could argue about the value of libel laws, maybe take up the discussion with TMB and argue about his "fighting words" loophole that he thinks would let him cave someone's head in. For a libertarian he sure does pick and choose the societal regulations he thinks are "OK".
Would you like for some rich asshole to put out ads saying you're cheating on your significant other and then use the fancy new face swapping tech to make pictures and mail to them? You really want that to be legal? Court cases offer some measure of recompense in these situations, but without laws you'll be at the mercy of public opinion and history shows that being accused is often all it takes to ruin a reputation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @10:01PM
This is too vague for me to agree or disagree with it.
Would I like it? No. Do I think that it should be illegal? No.
Too bad. I support free speech more than safety. And while this may not be the case, I would hope that as it becomes more and more possible to easily saturate the world with falsehoods (i.e. more people get hit by false accusations), people wise up to this tactic and stop believing everything they hear. But with people as stupid as they are, that may well never come to pass.
(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.