Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the swearing-like-drunken-sailors dept.

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.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/04/ubisoft-cracking-down-on-hate-speech-team-killing-in-rainbow-six-siege

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @07:08PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @07:08PM (#666109)

    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?

    Yes. Do your own research.

    Perhaps your simplistic "truths" don't actually work in reality and there are real reasons why libel laws exist.

    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.

    Also, how would you go about researching whether H.C. eats babies?

    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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @08:17PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @08:17PM (#666141)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2018, @03:51AM (#666329)

      Ah yes, the magical "personal responsibility" trope which does not work in reality.

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2018, @06:24PM (#666572)

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @10:01PM (#667395)

          Total freedom is bad, full stop.

          This is too vague for me to agree or disagree with it.

          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?

          Would I like it? No. Do I think that it should be illegal? No.

          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.

          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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @08:22PM (#666144)

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2018, @03:56AM (#666330)

      Libel can truly ruin lives and destroy businesses

      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.

      The fact that you can't grasp that simple idea speaks volumes about you.

      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.

      Should we repeal laws against murder since that is yet another repressive restriction upon your freedom?

      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.