Jump to content


Photo

Proposal to Amend BattleChat Abuse Evidence Submissions


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,225 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 29 April 2019 - 04:47 PM

I would like to ask the MT to open a discussion amongst themselves, and then perhaps the community, on the proposal for amending their current protocol when adjudicating cases of BattleChat abuse.

 

Currently, any forum member may submit screenshots of the BattleChat from any of their matches in which they encounter abusive messages. It does not matter whether the offending party is or is not a member of the forum, as any offender should be reported regardless of status. Forum members enjoy the privilege of being able to turn to the MT for help in such matters, and thus, do have a tremendous advantage because of this privilege.

 

Here is my proposal for an amendment and why:

 

I would like the MT to amend their criteria for submission of evidence, specifically regarding BattleChat abuse, that the entire exchange between both parties from start to finish must be presented. If the player filing the complaint is only willing to “cherry pick” the abuse launched against them, and actively not volunteer any dialogue that they may have contributed to the exchange, then I feel this works against their credibility–an honest player has nothing to hide.

 

All players are surely entitled to receive justice for any offensive and abusive encounter they may have experienced, (even if they have a checkered past, or may even be known as a bit of a troublemaker now), but if any player is doing anything to encourage a poor environment in their match, then they, too, must be held accountable for their actions.

 

For me, it is an automatic RED FLAG when I see evidence of BattleChat abuse, but only a third or half of the exchange is submitted…why wasn’t the entire dialogue presented? One immediate benefit I see to the MT is that any player provoking their opponent to commit some kind of abuse will not want to file a complaint, thus, lowering the number of such cases to be dealt with by the MT.

 

Thank you for your consideration.


  • GaryLShelton, Nortrom, Fairway and 2 others like this

#2 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 29 April 2019 - 06:38 PM

You've presented the idea well, KMC. The idea of having the entire conversation required has indeed come up in conversations inside the MT before. Nortrom, in particular, especially favored this when he was here.

It's not whether I agree, which I somewhat do, but I wonder if this requirement would set the bar too high perhaps for the reason that a victim may not be taking screenshots at the beginning of the conversation because at that time things were all right.

It seems to me this requirement will only be 100% satisfied when the programmers provided this option for every game. You know, click this link and send it to the MT. Something like that.

As things are, I know it is often desirable to view deeper into certain conversations; it is, so I somewhat do agree with you. But I think for me personally I can't see letting someone off the hook for his foul and abusive language just because the victim failed to provide the entire conversation. That aspect of this would feel like a technicality, in many cases, I think. Sometimes the language is horrible and nothing the victim could have said would clear the accused to my way of thinking.

Other times it might. What distinguishes the two might be good to discuss.

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#3 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,225 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 29 April 2019 - 08:25 PM

Although I understand your concern, unless the opponent disconnects, the BattleChat does not disappear until there is a surrender, or a flag capture, or whatever it takes to end the match. Please...no disrespect for your reasoning, but it simply does not hold water.

 

The first thing anyone, who is a forum member, does, when receiving abusive chat is to start taking screenshots...as easy as pie. It is not any difficulty to scroll back to the beginning of a conversation. ON THE OTHER HAND...if the player making the report chatted something less than polite, there is every incentive to hide it. Besides, anyone using BattleChat already can get a strong feeling if the opponent is going to engage in a polite conversation or not. If you start by typing "GL HF" and there is no answer, chances are most likely going to be either:

 

1) Zero chat activity from the opponent

2) Something rude

3) Possibly a polite reply

 

Gary, you are suggesting that it would be problematic to capture an entire chat because the...

 

victim may not be taking screenshots at the beginning of the conversation because at that time things were all right.

 

That makes zero sense. It is very, VERY easy to scroll back to the start and take a screenshot, and then move towards the end...I've done it many times...and in fact, if you recall, a case I reported INCLUDED a few choice remarks I made which got me a warning letter for the less than acceptable dialogue.

 

No, Gary...it behooves the MT to update and upgrade its standard. I was not going to use this recent posting as it is an ongoing case, but it is a perfect example of why RED FLAGS can be raised:

 

theon posted:

http://forum.strateg...-2019/?p=475825

 

to which NebojsaN962 replied:

http://forum.strateg...-2019/?p=475830

 

The player posting the complaint has every right to do so, but only posts the insults...a full matching scroll of comments was made between these two BEFORE the culmination of insults. theon asks why the whole conversation was not posted. This is a good question, but notice the answer...NebojsaN962 does not say, "...  things were all right... at the beginning of the conversation." NO...immediately, N962 is offended and defensive. It is only my opinion that this player may or may not be hiding something.

 

Again, though I understand your idea, it is NOT solid, nor is it in any way convincing, Gary...with all due respect.

 

I think that it would not hurt to impose a test trial to garner more precise data to either support your argument, or to support the amendment proposal. Scheduling 90 days to do so will not hurt anyone...except those that are intentionally provoking opponents into a rage to get nasty BattleChats.



#4 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 29 April 2019 - 09:29 PM

I'm not so sure it's as easy as you say, Robert, to scroll back but I understand your point. You're right that that option would be there, at least ideally, but then you're awfully good at it and using editing tools and all. All I mean is that I think sometimes computers can be flaky. Also, our very simple requirements for draw refusal are often not met so this might not be either.

But for now I'll accept your description of things as doable. Fine and good. Nonetheless, if things did work as proper, and complete conversations were made mandatory, another objection to requiring these complete conversations would be that there could easily be a lot of screenshots for some complaints. This could possibly then be an undue requirement on someone who honestly got skewered by a foul-mouthed opponent. Right?

Although I get your point about all this, for me, there are clear times when my feeling is that nothing the victim could have said would ameliorate the vileness of some of what we often see.

At those times, the showerings of such sweet-smelling words on the victim should be punishable hard, no matter what the victim said to incite them, at least that's how I feel. Disallowing a complaint on the technical grounds that part of a conversation wasn't produced would not then feel right.

But I tell you what. Here's what I'm thinking. What if we had the requirement to produce the entire conversation, as you wish, for complainants who make 3 or more such complaints a month?

Take josephwhite, rgillis783, Napoleons1+2, TheOptician, yourself, and at least a dozen others. If you guys post something that is from a vile opponent, I personally don't doubt it. I am not interested in asking for all the folderol of the complete conversation to prove it. Certain of you have earned a little privilege of respect that is borne by your continued posting here which shows your nature to me sufficiently where that should not be required.

But lest that sound like favoritism, I would apply the same 3 per month rule on you guys. Since I don't expect you guys will complain 3+ times a month, that will mean, ergo, that only those who do complain often (3+times/month) will have to produce this complete conversation evidence you are requesting.

What do you think? 3 is a purely arbitrary number. Should it be 2? 4? 5?

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#5 R u Mocking Me ?

R u Mocking Me ?

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 74 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 29 April 2019 - 09:29 PM

Although I understand your concern, unless the opponent disconnects, the BattleChat does not disappear until there is a surrender, or a flag capture, or whatever it takes to end the match. Please...no disrespect for your reasoning, but it simply does not hold water.

 

The first thing anyone, who is a forum member, does, when receiving abusive chat is to start taking screenshots...as easy as pie. It is not any difficulty to scroll back to the beginning of a conversation. ON THE OTHER HAND...if the player making the report chatted something less than polite, there is every incentive to hide it. Besides, anyone using BattleChat already can get a strong feeling if the opponent is going to engage in a polite conversation or not. If you start by typing "GL HF" and there is no answer, chances are most likely going to be either:

 

1) Zero chat activity from the opponent

2) Something rude

3) Possibly a polite reply

 

Gary, you are suggesting that it would be problematic to capture an entire chat because the...

 

 

That makes zero sense. It is very, VERY easy to scroll back to the start and take a screenshot, and then move towards the end...I've done it many times...and in fact, if you recall, a case I reported INCLUDED a few choice remarks I made which got me a warning letter for the less than acceptable dialogue.

 

No, Gary...it behooves the MT to update and upgrade its standard. I was not going to use this recent posting as it is an ongoing case, but it is a perfect example of why RED FLAGS can be raised:

 

theon posted:

http://forum.strateg...-2019/?p=475825

 

to which NebojsaN962 replied:

http://forum.strateg...-2019/?p=475830

 

The player posting the complaint has every right to do so, but only posts the insults...a full matching scroll of comments was made between these two BEFORE the culmination of insults. theon asks why the whole conversation was not posted. This is a good question, but notice the answer...NebojsaN962 does not say, "...  things were all right... at the beginning of the conversation." NO...immediately, N962 is offended and defensive. It is only my opinion that this player may or may not be hiding something.

 

Again, though I understand your idea, it is NOT solid, nor is it in any way convincing, Gary...with all due respect.

 

I think that it would not hurt to impose a test trial to garner more precise data to either support your argument, or to support the amendment proposal. Scheduling 90 days to do so will not hurt anyone...except those that are intentionally provoking opponents into a rage to get nasty BattleChats.

The player KMC does make good points. Myself I would like to see a time date stamp so this could not be held over another players head--as they say. Maybe a certain amount of time to make a claim/report ! Just an idea .


  • GaryLShelton likes this

#6 theon

theon

    New Recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 30 April 2019 - 01:23 AM

I totally agree with KMC he is representing 100% my thoughts

#7 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,225 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 30 April 2019 - 09:29 AM

I'm not so sure it's as easy as you say, Robert, to scroll back but I understand your point. 

 

When playing on computer, it’s a piece o’ cake…quick, simple, easy…done.

 

(GaryLShelton)...you're awfully good at it and using editing tools and all. 

Not especially. No doubt there are others here with far more skill and highly developed know-how than I possess.

 

 

(GaryLShelton)All I mean is that I think sometimes computers can be flaky.

Does not matter…if the computer functions and the person can take screenshots of the offending material, then they can take screenshots of anything leading up to and/or after said chat.

 

 

(GaryLShelton)...our very simple requirements for draw refusal are often not met so this might not be either.

Irrelevant–simple criteria… “ALL BattleChat must be submitted as evidence for review by the MT.” This is far less daunting than any draw refusal case submission and only asks players filing complaints to collect and submit only the immediate evidence…that from BattleChat…if they can take one single screenshot, then there is no excuse or reason why they cannot include all of that BattleChat exchange.

 

Computers are not flaky…people are flaky.

 

 

...another objection to requiring these complete conversations would be that there could easily be a lot of screenshots for some complaints. This could possibly then be an undue requirement on someone who honestly got skewered by a foul-mouthed opponent. Right?

 

This is a good point, Gary. On the other hand, if one is so enraged by the abuse that they wish to file, then they must present a complete case. No one told them to open the BattleChat…that is purely an option. There have been many games I have played in the last few months where someone went off on an awful rant, but for me, when I receive a single nasty comment, I close the chat and refuse to even think about it.

 

If a player feels so strongly that they want to punish their foul-mouthed opponent, then the burden of proof is theirs, plus they must also prove that they are beyond this level of behavior. NebojsaN962’s volatile reaction to theon raises questions for me. It would come as no surprise if he had made a single retort to his foul-mouthed opponent’s ugly chat messages, but then he should be more than willing to accept his role in the exchange.

 

I am no hypocrite, Gary, and you know that I had submitted cases with complete BattleChat, even when I knew in one instance that it would have some blow-back on me–I still submitted the material…do you recall? My opponent was found guilty, but for my few comments, MT thought to send me a warning letter. Again…an honest player has nothing to hide.

 

 

(GaryLShelton) Although I get your point about all this, for me, there are clear times when my feeling is that nothing the victim could have said would ameliorate the vileness of some of what we often see.

In a court of law, all evidence pertinent to a case must be submitted for review by the judicial authority. Obfuscating any evidence (withholding facts, taking things out of context, etc…) is against the law, and although it happens all of the time in court, legal professionals have a way of getting facts out into the open…not 100% of the time as that is the nature of court, but that is the goal. Judges do take into consideration how much provocation is endured by one party, and based upon context can render a decision taking that into account…this is something the MT currently does too; so yes, if a victim is pushed so hard that they call their opponent a nasty name, based upon the initial attack, the victim is giving back an understandable reply. If, however, the so-called victim is helping to escalate a situation, then they must be held accountable for that action.

 

 

(GaryLShelton) At those times, the showerings of such sweet-smelling words on the victim should be punishable hard, no matter what the victim said to incite them, at least that's how I feel. 

The person filing the complaint must trust in the MT’s ability to read a case, such as you described. If the player filing a complaint will not trust the MT to do so, then they have already put their credibility into question and doubt.

 

 

(GaryLShelton) Disallowing a complaint on the technical grounds that part of a conversation wasn't produced would not then feel right.

I disagree–“cherry-picking” evidence is a complete manipulation of the process, and that by far, not only does not feel right…it is categorically WRONG.

 

 

(GaryLShelton) But I tell you what. Here's what I'm thinking. What if we had the requirement to produce the entire conversation, as you wish, for complainants who make 3 or more such complaints a month?

No reason to scoreboard to this one, Gary. It complicates things and defeats the whole purpose. Players willing to file a complaint against another player must trust the MT to be able to do its job, and if they did succumb to chatting a rude message back, then they must trust that the MT will take the circumstances into account when rendering a verdict. 

 

 

Take josephwhite, rgillis783, Napoleons1+2, TheOptician, yourself, and at least a dozen others. If you guys post something that is from a vile opponent, I personally don't doubt it. I am not interested in asking for all the folderol of the complete conversation to prove it. Certain of you have earned a little privilege of respect that is borne by your continued posting here which shows your nature to me sufficiently where that should not be required.

 

I believe all of the above mentioned players would still adhere to the rules and would follow procedure…none of us need any special license to take a shortcut to justice. No…even if our credibility is fully intact, and our integrity is beyond question, further demonstration of the consistent nature of our honor is always a welcome exercise.

 

 

IBut lest that sound like favoritism, I would apply the same 3 per month rule on you guys. Since I don't expect you guys will complain 3+ times a month, that will mean, ergo, that only those who do complain often (3+times/month) will have to produce this complete conversation evidence you are requesting.

What do you think? 3 is a purely arbitrary number. Should it be 2? 4? 5?

 

Zero. All complaints require complete BattleChat. All players obey the same rules and observe the same criteria as everyone else, 24/7.


Edited by KissMyCookie, 30 April 2019 - 09:32 AM.

  • GaryLShelton likes this

#8 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 30 April 2019 - 08:29 PM

You give a great rebuttal, Robert. It's logical and simple. Your suggestion would provide complete information to the MT in all cases of AB and would naturally reduce the number of AB cases we see. Whether that's a good thing I question as it seems like it sweeps with too broad a brush but that's my opinion.

Restating my counter points, they are that I still believe:

1) There could be computer difficulties that are very much real. Requiring this "scroll back" might be problematic for some valid complaints. You feel no.

2) There are examples of BattleChat speech that are so vile they are beyond blame of the victim to have brought them on, and complaints of such horrible abuse shouldn't be ignored just because an entire BattleChat conversation was not produced. You feel that there are no examples of sufficiently bad language to make this exception.

3) I suggested a way to distinguish cases in a compromise fashion where we didn't worry about the first two complaints of a person but require full conversational evidence in the 3rd and future complaints from that person. You feel that every case every time should be presented with full conversation evidence.

---------
We could do a trial on this matter as you suggest, KMC. But I suggest we do a poll first to see how many might feel as strongly about your side of this issue as you do. If we draw up a rule as fully as you want, I believe we will inevitably be screening out some to many valid cases.

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#9 Sgt. Blkdog

Sgt. Blkdog

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 426 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 22 May 2019 - 01:38 PM

IMHO reported abusive chat, provoked or not should be penalized. it  really doesn't matter what was said prior. If you said it, you said it.

if you don't want to get penalized, don't engage.


  • GaryLShelton likes this

Wuf!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users