Toxic chat - democracy, feedback, redemption

[mouse of war]

I was asked by a moderator to post this idea about bad language and toxic behaviour here in General Discussions because he thought it worth a topic of its own.

 

There has been a lot of talk about online 'toxic' chat and how it should be dealt with (or even if it should be dealt with at all)

 

I think there's a way that we can let the community itself decide what is and what is not 'toxic' chat:

1. If you think someone is being 'toxic' you block them in chat.

2. The number of blocks an offender has received is displayed in their interface so that they understand the consequences of their actions

3. If they receive a certain number they deface some punishment - but a humble apology could perhaps fix that.

 

So we could avoid using up moderator time over endless discussions about what is toxic and what is not.

It's a democratic way to let the community police itself and we would also be steering a middle course between excess authoritarianism and being overwhelmed by foul language.

 

Personally speaking, you can call me what you want. Water off a duck's back. Sticks and stones etc.

BUT I would block / vote against an offender for the sake of the community itself. 

 

regards

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

 

Everyone always thinks they want Democracy, right up until it gets abused by coordinated attacks.  Let's say your guild doesn't like someone, you simply post in your forums "make sure to block Henry whenever you see him, his ship is the wrong shade of blue".  Next thing you know, Henry faces punishment for nothing more than having a ship in a particular shade of blue that he fancies.  Either the number of reports has to be so high to prevent abuse that it is meaningless, or people are getting punished left and right for private quarrels.

 

We have a number of moderators who themselves are overseen by Admin, we have a report function, my personal opinion is that things are working as intended right now.   

[Prater]

The problem with this is, toxic players can use ignore too.  When you call someone out for an inappropriate response, you get an instant ignore.  Which, btw, ignore does not facilitate teamwork, which is what this game is all about, and my opinion is often the sign of someone who is not a team player.

[StaleMemes]

My big worry is that if a player is unpopular with a certain group of people he could get into endless trouble without every doing anything of real consequence.

[Grim DeGrim]

I think the recommendation is note worthy, with tweaking. The number of ignores could be an indicator that an adjudicator could look at in considering a case... But it is liable for abuse even as is (Henry has it right).

[Capitaine LaFleur]

Hail,

 

I am sure none of us can say they have not been frustrated and lashed out, however in my opinion it is a pretty good indication it is time to take a break. I think ignore and mute are great options, if someone is being disruptive then a reporting function that captures the last 20-25 lines of chat would be a good idea.

 

At the end of the day, deciding as a team that you will not bash people is a good place to start. I think it safe to say "The Auld Alliance" would support any fair gaming, conduct agreements and already are participating in the "AUSL".

 

S!

[Guest raat]

Ignoring someone doesn't prevent them from spewing toxicity over everyone else.  Furthermore, if say that person was just having a bad day, now you'll never be able to see their comments again for them to apologize.  If you were to have a battle with them again, you wouldn't be able to communicate tactics so more than likely you're just hurting yourself by ignoring them.

 

Ignore is not the solution.  It hurts the ignorer as much as the ignoree.

[Grim DeGrim]

Hail,

I am sure none of us can say they have not been frustrated and lashed out, however in my opinion it is a pretty good indication it is time to take a break. I think ignore and mute are great options, if someone is being disruptive then a reporting function that captures the last 20-25 lines of chat would be a good idea.

At the end of the day, deciding as a team that you will not bash people is a good place to start. I think it safe to say "The Auld Alliance" would support any fair gaming, conduct agreements and already are participating in the "AUSL".

S!

Well said Capitaine LaFleur. Well said.

[ThePandanator2]

I think for a more temporary solution, we could make ignores temporary. Perhaps for 24 hours. This way, if someone is just having a bad day and perhaps venting in game, they still have a chance to apologize and make amends with anyone who might have been annoyed or offended by them.

 

Another possibility of this is if you ignore someone 3 times, or some number, it becomes permanent, like it is now. 

 

We can block the consistently bad players while also overlooking one time offenses of the actually good players.

Edited March 11, 2015 by ThePandanator2

[Jade Talon]

I think the current system needs to be allowed to continue for a while. Mostly it seems that any toxic comments can be addressed by other players, kind of a peer intervention. The good thing about this is that it is done almost immediately following the bad comments or behavior. No time for things to be forgotten.

 

Once we start allowing people to report others anonamously, or have popular opinion hold power...  it becomes less of a community and more like a unfeeling machine.

[Elysion]

Im suspicious of elaborate policing schemes for newly minted buzzwords, myself.

[Joe]

I don't mind the ability to "mute" or block someone who rubs you the wrong way but community shaming could seriously backfire on everyone. As others have mentioned the voting to block someone could be used by large groups, socs, guilds etc to silence a whole group of people they don't like.

I hope that this board doesn't degenerate down to the level of the POTBS board which was truly awful but I also don't like the possibilty of being censored by a group who doesn't like me based on any number of things that have nothing to do with the game.

[Sin Khan]

This game is about to be open world. All this "Toxic" behavior is completely moot at that point. Are you going to complain when a french ship hails you to trade and then open fires on you full broadside? Well guess what, that may be allowed. Are you going to tribunal the first pirate player that attacks you? What kind of game do you think this is? This is not going to be the happy little lets all get along world. This is going to be a fighting world, and kind of a no holds barred one at that. This is not a sailing race game.

 

So, i recommend people just continue to play the game and put forth good testing information and stop trying to boot other paying players from the game for actions done in a testing environment. How is the teamwork system going to work in open world anyway? No one really knows do they? So your having tribunals against players for actions that may be allowed (firing on allies) as soon as this game goes open world? Where is the sense in that?

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

In game actions within the boundaries of the mechanics are welcome and expected.  By all means, find the enemy, and sink, burn, or take her a prize any way you lawfully can.  People creating a toxic environment of hate and extreme rudeness towards other players will not be tolerated.  Everyone has paid their money, and everyone deserves to be treated with a basic level of respect by their fellow players.

[GrapeShot]

My opinion is that to try to rewire human nature is a fool's errand. The game and forums will be full of all manner or people - some pleasant, some neutral, some annoying. We likely won't all agree on which category any individual falls. No reason to sic a mob on them. An ignore button is enough for me.

For those cases where a player is extremely abusive and/or disruptive I say let the game owners deal with banning them or whatever.

If they automate anything it should be bot and spammers blocking IMHO.

Edited March 11, 2015 by GrapeShot
Edited "mod" to "mob" per OP's instructions.

[Sir Darric Vandhelm]

In my experience is bad behaviour needs to be dealt with quickly, professionally and robustly. If you ignore it, it will never go away, but instead will get worse. Not all people are nice, and I think having a badge "number of ignores" would just appeal to the anti social achievement seekers.

[Brigand]

Just like @mouse of war, I do believe in the power on numbers. Tracking the number of ignores a player get can be a good metric. If used in conjunction with other metrics, it gets a lot better. For example you can provide a 'mark offensive behaviour' flag, you can track friendly fire, you can track the running average of the number of lines in chat, just to name a few (statistics will be collected regardless, why not make them work for you?)
 
Analysing those numbers can be done by automated processes. If, for example friendly fire is detected, the number lines in chat spike seconds later, followed by several /ignores and one or two offensive behaviour flags, you can be pretty sure the event requires moderator attention. The accuracy of such statistical analysis algorithms can be frightening effective: they minimize the workload of the community managers, while maximizing the chances of toxic behaviour being caught and dealt with.
 
Can people abuse the system? they can try. Ignoring a player is of course not an offence, raising a false flag should not be an offence either. Raising several false flag can result in a moderator sending you a friendly message. Yet, when for example, a group of players which have a recorded history of playing together all raise a false flag, the statistical analysis algorithms will notice a possible sactionable action and a moderator can check out what happened.
 
Automated reporting and tracking of /ignore in chat is not the solution all by itself. But if you combine this data with other data, you will get a very practical system which will go a long way in helping moderators responding very timely to bad behaviour.
 
~Brigand

[BlouBulle]

I agree with the idea of tracking bad post, however at the end of the day admin and only admin can deal with bad posts. We have a report button!

[Technopiper]

Who needs democracy when we can shut anyone up? Use the mute.

[One-Eyed Willy]

I'm probably going to get scolded for saying this but.. this community scares me more & more each & every day. I fear this "trying to make the community a better place" stuff will end up making me not wanting to play & regretting my purchase. Actually, that's already started happening. I really, really do not trust/have no faith in community 'police' for the lack of a better term. I'm faaaaar more trusting of a official 'policing' program than I am a community based one.

 

Just say NO! to democracy!

[ObiQuiet]

There are better terms than "policing" and "democracy". Maybe "positive peer pressure" or "social contract" which allow a community to grow and flourish.

Each of these is bad if done badly, no argument about that.

There is evidence that a thoughtfully designed online system can influence the tenor (character) of the community that uses it.

Communities usually need a mix of authority, social, and individual responsibility. How much of each varies a lot, but I don't think "zero" is a good choice for any of them.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Lt. Obiquiet

[Brigand]

I'm probably going to get scolded for saying this but.. this community scares me more & more each & every day. I fear this "trying to make the community a better place" stuff will end up making me not wanting to play & regretting my purchase. Actually, that's already started happening. I really, really do not trust/have no faith in community 'police' for the lack of a better term. I'm faaaaar more trusting of a official 'policing' program than I am a community based one.

 

Just say NO! to democracy!

 

What do you feel is the bad/worst part of the current system (I'm not bashing you, I actually want to know: without feedback, we can't improve the system).

~Brigand

[Elysion]

Yeah, it would seem like people interested in this sort of setting would be a little more pragmatic about the world and a little less sensitive to people typing things at them.

 

I agree that spam and direct harassment are a problem, but honestly if someone is really bothering you just mute them.

[Saintduiex]

Actually, that's already started happening. I really, really do not trust/have no faith in community 'police' for the lack of a better term. I'm faaaaar more trusting of a official 'policing' program than I am a community based one.

Just say NO! to democracy!

Please do not kid youself into believing this community is "run" via Democracy. This is not a Democracy, it is a benevolent Dictatorship, with a significant difference between the two.

While this community of players does a fabulous job of "self policing" by discussing and modeling the behaviour that is acceptable to the community at large, there is no grey area.

The rules have been laid out by the Admin, and myself and the other moderators have no issue in enforcing them as stringently as required for the situation. So, while we have strong community activity of self policing, this site is run by the admin and their policies are enforced by the moderators.

So, you have the best of both

AUSL authored Community Code of Conduct: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/4431-naval-action-player-code-of-conduct-submitted-by-the-ausl/

The NA rules:http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/2346-forum-and-sea-trials-rules/

[SYN_Bloody-Bandy]

Some mature, and some rather naive, posts in this thread. 

 

Yes, we've all likely lashed out at one time or another, in one game or another; so people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?  The 'choice' moments I've spewed were because I was aware there were no consequences, that it was faceless and I could get away with it.

 

Anti-social behaviour is rampant in MP games precisely because there are no consequences, and it is 'teaching' the wrong behaviour to the young that they can get away with it, if not that it's OK, or should just be expected as part of the game environment.  This is the wrong message.

 

There eventually will be a heck of a lot of young players in NA, and the tone is going to change significantly.  Simply muting them out is not the answer because it will erode interaction.

 

Complaint's about how a group could all gang-up to ban someone are ridiculous since I assume all in-game chat is logged.  If a gang of bullies tries some ban-hate tactic like that it will backfire and ensure discipline on that group instead!  I have no better suggestions on how to improve the OP's system other than introduce a way for someone to challenge the discipline afterward by going to the chat logs to prove their innocence.

Edited March 15, 2015 by SYN_Bloody-Bandy