I will leave this here as some updated info to what we know about this situation. Interesting to say the least.
The key word there is âhelpâ.
The players do not determine what is âacceptableâ for the game as a whole. As you continually point out when you want to support one of your desires, Blizzard makes the calls, NOT the players.
Individual players can determine what is âacceptableâ to them, but that is the extent of their power.
Not with the silence system in place. They have more power then.
1 Like
Uh huh. Yet itâs possible to go on one server and have barrens chat be accepted as the norm. You know. Full of the proverbial thick skins. Then go onto another server, say chuck Norris and get reported.
I donât know. I kind of like the idea of them being straight up what does determine. So, maybe during Classic, players can determine what other players are acceptable for Classic. We can just have huge server-wide reports to remove people we donât like from the server. ![:stuck_out_tongue:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/stuck_out_tongue.png?v=6" ":stuck_out_tongue:")
âWe have determined you unacceptable behavior!â
âWhat does that mean!?â
I have no doubt that Blizzard can determine if reports multiple originated from the same IP, iF they dig deep enough.
The question is how far are they going to dig, especially on a regular basis?
Are they going to do a full, deep investigation on every squelch to determine if more than on of those reports cam from the same IP, if more than one of the those submitting reports were in the same guild, if any of those submitting reports had ever submitted reports against the same player previously, if any number of those submitting reports have a history of filing reports against a single player at the same time even on alts, etc.?
I should have more clear. I was referring to the power to âmake policyâ.
Yes, players have the power to collude with their friends and guild mates auto squelch any other player at any time for every little slight they think they had to suffer. That is why I oppose any form of player imposed punishment tied to the report system.
Having said that, Johnny and his friends colluding to squelch every player that tells a Chuck Norris joke does not mean that Blizzard will change their policy to include Chuck Norris jokes in the âunacceptableâ category. Even if 90% of the server reports every player that tells a Chuck Norris joke, Blizzard still has the final call.
As I said:
Yes, players have the power to collude with their friends and guild mates auto squelch any other player at any time for every little slight they think they had to suffer. That is why I oppose any form of player imposed punishment tied to the report system.
Having said that, Johnny and his friends colluding to squelch every player that tells a Chuck Norris joke does not mean that Blizzard will change their policy to include Chuck Norris jokes in the âunacceptableâ category. Even if 90% of the server reports every player that tells a Chuck Norris joke, Blizzard still has the final call.
If Blizzard overturns the squelches for every one of those players whoâs only âoffenseâ was telling those Chuck Norris jokes, those players didnât determine what was acceptable, did they?
3 Likes
Ziryus try and keep up with the conversation. The only one promoting a narrative is you. The people against click to report + Squelch are trying to compromise. You would be wise to keep up and learn that âSQUELCHâ is toxic to the Classic Experience. This is what we have been trying to tell you, but you insist on trolling us with your nonsense.
That right there is exactly why the GM should be the one to review the ticket / click to report and the one to make executive action; because not all server communities are mature enough to make fair choices.
Just because one server is mature enough to not report ridiculous things like Chuck Norris Jokes, Some guy looking for more to fill his dungeon group, or even some guy in trade chat looking for buyers; does not mean another is capable of making the distinction that âThis is how things areâ and instead would report as spam or some sort of thing.
This is why the click to report function side of it is ok, but the the toxic âSquelchâ should not be included.
I do hope this illustrates why.
2 Likes
Whether or not auto-squelch is bad or good for the game (itâs bad, btw) seems irrelevant at this point. My big takeaway from yesterday is that Activision-Blizzard doesnât view Classic as a major project. Theyâre not going to allocate extra resources for customer support after they just gutted customer support. Especially for a game in which that they donât see high profit potential So I expect auto-squelch, loot trading, and whatever other automated processes they can come up with to save a few bucks.
The systems will be abused and trolled horribly, of course, and the community will suffer as a result. But it is what it is.
3 Likes
Consider that Auto Squelch costs just as much as if you donât have that feature because if a player gets squelched they will likely complain and there for garner actual customer service from the generic crew that exists now.
Either way the same number of GM support actions are taken, itâs just from the inverse action side.
So with that in mind you can simply eliminate the âSquelchâ component and then place an emphasis on the âreported playerâ by the number of actual âclick to reportâ actions taken by the player base.
As the number increases the time to get action is reduced because the status of the complaint is escalated. Then the GM who would review the action any way can do so based on severity of the offense.
Obviously this system will not please the easily offended, but theyâre impossible to please any way. The net positive side to doing it this way is the community remains intact rather than fractured into a warring system of reportâs and squelch in addition to the Activison sponsored defacto DDOS attacks that will take place.
4 Likes
I hope youâre not offended by the squelch system, because it will be in the game regardless. With this new development, I bet they even put in guild banks to keep as much CS pressure off as they can. Works for me!
1 Like
You know that youâre posting that nonsense just to rile people up. Please stop; if you have actual contributions to the conversation then thatâs awesome but if you donât then refrain from inflaming the community with such nonsense.
2 Likes
Iâm not trying to rile anybody up. If anything, Iâm hoping to calm this conversation down and end it now that we have a resolution. There will be little to no hands-on GMing for classic, so we will most likely see more automated tools in the communityâs hands such as loot trading, squelch, and guild banks. Sucks that means that they wonât likely give us new or reimagined content, but at least we will have some tools to disempower the toxic neckbeards!
but if you donât then refrain from inflaming the community with such nonsense.
Williams
I get your passionâŚbut be aware she may very well be right.
You make a good point here, however earlier you werenât so welcoming. You were very hostile. While I understand your point, my rebuttal is Iâm not going to stop trying. And I very much accept the fate. I have seen years of complaints, that actually managed to pull through.
The PvP Servers, Personal Loot, ML only available in Mythics, etc. IK about agreeing to the right things, and I never advocated for these changes, BTW. Because I never had any issues 'cause IK how to read the loot distribution system/server environment.
That aside, this automated system isnât cut and dry. And Iâm not sure how to avoid being Silenced, when the community doesnât let me know, what I did.
I understand Aehlâs perspective, and what heâll report for. Itâs not very clear with others. Which is why Iâm not in full alignment with this system. Again, Iâll most likely keep to myself because I canât deal with petty individuals (not saying anyone is, Iâm just saying in a hypothetical sense).
Iâm merely responded to a thread that initiated the concern. I really donât create that many threads. Iâm just here to talk.
Meliga, a few days ago Id have been more certain about which way they will jump with Classic.
Now?
I have no idea. None.
1 Like
This thread is longer than the Bible.
Iâm actually kind of optimistic about it. I guess because I feel we have no chance in changing their minds on it, Iâve tried to look at it in a better light.
The COC rule does explicitly state âfalsely reporting another player with the sole intent of restricting their gameplay is also unacceptable and will result in penalties to your account.â. So, I am going to hope that people who do abuse it wont just lose their ability to flag/silence, but actually receive real suspensions and if continue to abuse, a permanent ban.
Thus, while at the start abuse may be rampant to get an advantage over other players in the race for #1, I believe/hope in time, abuse of the system will be very rare. As, players wont want to take a chance at losing their account.
How does Blizzard prove a âfalse reportâ when so much of the report system if subjective?
Letâs go back to Johnny getting his cronies to squelch Johnnyâs competitor, Billy. Johnnyâs cronies report Billy for âspamâ because Billy is posting a similar message in chat once every three four minutes.
Johnnyâs cronies abused the system to squelch Johnnyâs competitor, Billy. How does Blizzard prove that those reports were âfalseâ, let alone submitted with the intent to squelch Billy and remove Johnnyâs competition? How does Blizzard prove that those reports were not made in good faith based upon a different definition of âspamâ than Blizzard uses?
Weâve already seen at least one person that believes that anything more frequent than once every 5 minutes is âspamâ.
1 Like