Revisiting harrassment policy, possible change to it?

[Soulbreak]

I messaged either Boomland or Anarcho about this some time ago and wanted to see what UOSA as a whole thought.
After reading Taboo crazy post I figured I'd try and start a constructive one.

For this argument, I am only referring to harassment as in game chat. I don't think these rules/suggestions should apply to IRC chat. You join IRC of your own free will, and you can close the window and it doesn't effect your gameplay in the slightest. That's just my opinion.

Onto the argument:

In my opinion, the current harassment policy for in-game chat needs to be revisited.

On OSI, for example, I called my real life, white friend, white character in-game, a "cracker" and was banned. Not jailed, not emailed, not suspended, I was banned. The GM told me someone at the bank reported me.

Do I think UOSA should have this strict of a policy? No.

But do I think I should have to read someone calling me a "two time gangbanging faggot who sucks cock for crack rocks." No.

My suggestion. Evidence would have to be presented to GMs for enforcement. RPV videos for example. Screenshots could be altered (no idea if they can be, I'm not a wiz with that stuff)

Have tier system of warnings:
1st Offense - GM visit, w/warning
2nd Offense - GM Jailing character for 12 hours
3rd Offense - 24 hour suspension
4th Offense and beyond - 48 hour suspension

OR:
Have a computer guy look at the ignore filter built into UO. Currently if you ignore a player it also ignores their magery spells / power words. So if you ignore someone you have no idea what they are casting in pvp. I've attempted to add words for filtering as suggested by the GMs, but you would be surprised at what is said.

Also, I don't think its right as a server to have a policy that is to the advantage of the perpetrator. The "victim" is supposed to leave, ignore, remove themselves, but I have to say, when Apoc pops a blood vessel on Brit Bank roof, is everyone there supposed to leave if they don't want to read his nonsense?

There has to be some middle ground between cracker and Chubb's cockgobbling suck boy, right?

[Nickodemuse]

#secondage is the main irc channel for all players, new or old. New players can ask questions, get answers or get pointed in the right direction rather than searching through the multiple pages in the guide section. I think there should be 2 diff channels, one to assist new players and one for everyone else. I understand your reasoning they can just x out of the screen if they feel they are being harrassed but for new players IRC is the quickest route for them to get their questions answered.

[Syphilis_Jack]

Not likely to happen. The staff here don't give two shits about someone being an ass in game. You can call someone every vile name in the book, and staff doesn't care. They will instaban spammers at the bank in a heartbeat, but call someone the n-word or tell them to eff themselves and their grandmother, it's all good.

[Soulbreak]

Not likely to happen. The staff here don't give two shits about someone being an ass in game. You can call someone every vile name in the book, and staff doesn't care. They will instaban spammers at the bank in a heartbeat, but call someone the n-word or tell them to eff themselves and their grandmother, it's all good.

I agree a little bit with what you said, but lets at least let the GMs address the thread and provide some feedback. Who knows perhaps something will change, or we can get an explanation on why things are the way they are and why the won't be changed.

Try to look at it from both sides is all I am asking for this thread.

[Kaivan]

Fun fact: There haven't been any threads before now in this sub-forum discussing the harassment policy and any possible changes to it.

I'll offer my input once more time has passed for discussion.

[Capitalist]

I don't think I could play here if they had trammy UOR rules.

[Millerisfuntoplay]

There are two people on UOSA the players and the staff. I'm sure when they were making the server or asked to help with the server that they had certain standards that they would go off of. The Internet is one of the easiest places to be a d bag to people and not get punched in the face for it. Let the staff make the rules and deal with (Their) server the way they see fit. They are busy people with jobs and lives too. I'm sure they don't patrol the game for hurt feelings and name callers. The best thing people can do is ignore d bag players or plot against them. This is a Internet video game not a soap opera!

[Soulbreak]

There are two people on UOSA the players and the staff. I'm sure when they were making the server or asked to help with the server that they had certain standards that they would go off of. The Internet is one of the easiest places to be a d bag to people and not get punched in the face for it. Let the staff make the rules and deal with (Their) server the way they see fit. They are busy people with jobs and lives too. I'm sure they don't patrol the game for hurt feelings and name callers. The best thing people can do is ignore d bag players or plot against them. This is a Internet video game not a soap opera!

While I agree with everything you say, there is only one problem with your argument. You can't 'stop' or 'unread' in game chat.

[Nickodemuse]

Not likely to happen. The staff here don't give two shits about someone being an ass in game. You can call someone every vile name in the book, and staff doesn't care. They will instaban spammers at the bank in a heartbeat, but call someone the n-word or tell them to eff themselves and their grandmother, it's all good.

Being an ass isnt against the rules so they probably dont care. As for the rest I've never witnessed vile name calling in-game or spamming at bank...

[Soulbreak]

So because of the Taboo thread here.

I decided to do a little research and just see what the community thought about it.

Currently IRC is governed by these rules here. In there it states:

* Absolutely no flaming and bashing of other users in the channel. This is what #uosecondagetears is for, as well as private messaging, your own channel, and the trash talk forums.

Derrick also follows up at the end with this:
If you have been banned in our main IRC channel, you are welcome to make your own IRC channel, or use the #secondagepvp channel.

IRC bans are simply IRC channel bans and have no effect on your ability to play on UOSA; however direct abuse of staffmembers in IRC or elsewhere for any reason can have an impact our your game account status.

So to me there appears to be clear limitations to users using the IRC channel, I know bans have been handed out, and this policy has been enforced.

Currently the forums are governed by the ruleset found here and here.

Similar to IRC, but written a different way:
* It is specifically noteworthy that Slander and Fraud are bannable (and possibly illegal) offenses on these boards, whether done in public or private context. You may also not harass or intimidate other users outside of a role-play (read as in-game) context.

We will take any offenses to this TOS seriously.

Couple of noteworthy things before speaking about in game harassment and issues. IRC harassment policy was updated in 2013. The forums are run by the ppbhb group so its my understanding they are the end all be all about what happens on their platform.

Our in game harassment policy is found here.

There is a list of appropriate actions before raising the issue with a GM. They are as follows:

You have asked the player to "please stop", and they have continued to repeat the offending behavior.
You have tried to remove yourself from the situation, for example, by recalling away or moving several screens.
You have done nothing to instigate or further encourage the harassment.
You have added the player to your ignore list, which is located in your UO options, under Filter Options.
Your account information is up to date, including a current email address.

This data is pretty much a copy/paste from this website here.

However I'd like to point out the first paragraph of the harassment policy because it clearly defines a zero tolerance policy.

* Behavior that is always considered harassment includes derogatory and/or hateful comments that are sexual, racist, religious, or related to gender or creed. Origin has a zero tolerance policy towards harassment of this kind, as stated in our Terms of Service, and violation of the above can result in immediate and permanent account suspension on the first offense.

So how OSI looked at harassment was in a multitude of ways. Now, for example if the harassment claim didn't fall under this zero tolerance policy they had another way of dealing with the issue. This post here explains how maybe the "victim" isn't really the victim, perhaps it was mutual harassment. Better yet, maybe there isn't a harassment claim at all.

I think the in game portion of our rules could be tweaked a little to give more potential authority to the GMs to make a case-by-case judgement call on harassment.

I also don't accept other player's responses of the love it or leave it mentality. UOSA is a great game, with a great game set, fun pvp, awesome community. If you love something, you work to make it better.


On a separate note I would like some clarification on.
Elk Eater mentions he could write a third party app that would work better that the built in ignore system, however it would be deemed illegal. Elk's Post

Would that be considered illegal?
In a post here.

It just states this:
* We allow unattended macroing with Razor only(dl)
* No other software may be used for repetitive tasks.

So would it be viewed more as a UOAM type of program instead of a macro type program?

[Kaivan]

I'd like to point out that the forum rules that are linked from Boomland's thread are only treated as a general guideline. The specific forum rules which aren't on his post for some reason, can be found here.

[Soulbreak]

I'd like to point out that the forum rules that are linked from Boomland's thread are only treated as a general guideline. The specific forum rules which aren't on his post for some reason, can be found here.

Thank you I knew I read them somewhere, but couldn't find the link. I'll add them.

[Boomland Jenkins]

I've been saying (mostly internally) since I became staff that we need to address in-game racism and harassment I can't think of any decent online community that embraces or allows the type of harassment that we allow on UOSA. Having an opinion is fine, but learning how to verbally communicate your opinion is important. If people quit because they can't call someone a racial slur, I'd say we're better off without them. When I brought the concept up in the past, I was told "We need a policy" but the person making that statement has not taken the time to write a policy that meets their needs and I know if I write it, it's going to turn into a month+ long debate on specifics.

I'd like to point out that the forum rules that are linked from Boomland's thread are only treated as a general guideline. The specific forum rules which aren't on his post for some reason, can be found here.

I was merging Derrick's global announcements and I guess that our forum rules are only listed on a single sub-board, go figure. I've updated my global topic/announcement to include that information now.

[Capitalist]

I noticed you added the word "decent" in there, which is relative at best. The only games I've played have been de-modded almost entirely and the community works things out by themselves. UO is the only game, and with failure contingent to it, where staff interacts heavily with the player base about social issues. Your opinion on the matter may be strong, but it's a fact that almost every successful online gaming and otherwise community has controlled their own fate, that being without administrative interruption.

[morgan1109]

I’m a “grow a thicker skin” guy, so I see your point Cap. However, when you let the community govern itself, it is at your own peril. The strongest personalities tend to drive the direction. That’s well and good if the strongest personalities are voices of reason. If those voices are toxic, then you run a high risk of creating a toxic shard. Nobody should want that as that shard will die eventually.

I like this shard too much to promote a free reign policy. There should be some level of intervention. However the intervention should be a “light touch” with clearly defined parameters. The case by case basis stuff just leaves to much room for problems to arise and personal bias to influence the sentence. Actions should be scaled with the third action resulting in a small ban. This gives time to adjust behavior. After the third strike things can get serious with long term bans, etc.

The key is having clearly defined lines of what is acceptable and what is not.
1.Using the “n” word could be a hard line definition. If you use it, know the hammer can come down if someone reports you.
2.Specific references or acts emoting rape (which seems to be a common complaint) in game could very well be a hard rule.
3.Actively defrauding players over XXX gold using the forums should be a hard rule.
4.We could easily build a list of 10-15 things that should be bannable offenses (on the third strike).

The point here is the rules are clear as day. The sentences are clear as day. There can be no confusion. Five people can look at the situation and come to the same conclusion. If you can’t build a hard rule around it, then it probably shouldn’t be employed. The hard rules let everyone know where the line is drawn. If you cross it, you can pay a price. This also makes life easy on the GM’s as they don’t have to interpret anything, or judge intent, etc.

It won’t eliminate all bad behavior as every child likes to constantly test the line and we have more than a few children on here. People will see how close they can get without crossing the line, etc. The main thing is that you limit the crossing of the line which makes the interactions tolerable.