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: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 12 2018, @10:46PM (12 children)
Yell back at someone up in my face? Absolutely. Honestly, I'd probably just toss a rosin bag in his face and stomp kick his knee into an unfriendly angle while he was distracted. I am not a pussy who needs others to settle my disputes for me.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @11:18PM (9 children)
But you are a criminal who would commit felony assault over loud mean words?
You're more like The Mighty Baby! Growing up is hard, but better late than never.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 13 2018, @03:31AM (8 children)
Learn your shit [cornell.edu]. That aside, I'm not a kid anymore and I don't shrug off injury or heal as quickly nowadays. If I think you're about to start a fight with me, I'm going to cripple you (very likely permanently) so that you can't as fast as I can. Trading punches is for school kids.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2018, @03:47AM (5 children)
The 'fighting words' thing is something our authoritarian courts created out of thin air. Naturally, the first amendment contains no such exception. Regardless of how offensive someone else's words are, that does not give you the right to assault them.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 13 2018, @10:29AM (4 children)
You're not very bright, apparently. Taking offense has nothing to do with "fighting words". Try reading the link again. Slowly. Several times.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @02:00AM (3 children)
I'm brighter than you, since I can read the first amendment and clearly see that no such exceptions exist. Really, quote the part in the first amendment that lists such an exception. I won't bother waiting, though, because it doesn't exist anywhere except in authoritarian judges' delusional minds.
They don't use the term "offense" specifically, but that's what it ultimately amounts to. There are no words that can, by themselves, "inflict injury". As for 'inciting an immediate breach of the peace', that is impossible unless others choose to take actions that cause such a thing to happen in response to your speech, which is entirely their fault for doing so. To make this travesty worse, they even used completely subjective terms such as "order" and "morality". These courts do not believe in personal responsibility.
The notion that "fighting words" are somehow unprotected by the first amendment is laughable.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 15 2018, @02:50AM (2 children)
It absolutely is unprotected by the first amendment, as is plainly evidenced by it being a valid defense in a court of law. Amendments do not and can not protect your rights. The only thing that protects the rights of the American people is the fact that at any moment we decide to, we could violently overthrow our government. Amendments are ink on paper. They have no more real power than your third grade daughter's homework that is hanging on your fridge.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2018, @10:06PM (1 child)
So you're going that route, now? Why even bother discussing what is and is not unconstitutional, then? It seems you've shifted the goalposts.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 15 2018, @10:36PM
Oh I agree in sentiment. I'm a realist though. The amendments and the rest of the constitution are not the law of the land. They've been roundly ignored by both all three branches of the government. The set of rules we either live under or revolt over are not the ones written by the founders and have not been in quite a while.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2018, @05:54PM (1 child)
Heh, nice bit of evasion there to escape the obvious conclusion that you're a loudmouth braggart who is either truly a coward or an idiot that would almost undoubtedly go to jail.
The case from 92 said fighting words are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." This unless the person yelling in your face was saying some truly horrifying and threatening things, kneecapping or permanently disabling them when they haven't assaulted you first is very likely to land you in prison.
Go ahead, keep spewing that hot air, we all believe you're a manly man who won't take shit from anyone! lol
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday April 14 2018, @11:27AM
Believe what you like but I'd advise discretion for offline interaction with people you don't know. Any one of them could be more than capable of and willing to put you in a world of hurt for getting in their face.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Friday April 13 2018, @08:20AM (1 child)
The point is that in an online setting, you cannot stomp kick their knee. People yelling verbal abuse do so safe in the knowledge that you can't counter it with physical violence. Hence me explicitly stating in the bowling tournament scenario you are unable to interfere with the person screaming in your face, you have 2 choices, try to ignore it, or yell back. God forbid you might use violence to censor them, take away their right to free speech.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 13 2018, @10:32AM
Did I say it did? That was Mr. Bad Analogy's idea to take it from online to off. Online you are perfectly capable of either shit talking back, ignoring them, or any number of other approaches. You are not a victim if you have the means to overcome something, even if you choose not to.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.