False reporting and automated ban

Fesz-cenarius · February 18, 2019, 6:39pm

Malfosa:

Mellga:

I still don’t agree with an Auto-Silence, but I agree communication is key to reaching a compromise.

Point of Fact: There is no such thing as an “Auto-Silence”.

What you are referring to is called a Squelch. This was a system developed Pre-MoP when gold selling and character leveling “services” were running rampant. All public chat channels would be flooded with advertisement spam. They even wrote bot programs that would kill their characters in Stormwind/Org in such a way that the skeletons would spell out a URL.

This would go on and on and on until one of the 1,000s of tickets opened to report the person reached a GM who would intervene. Sometimes it took minutes, but most of the time it took longer. This meant General, LocalDefense, and Trade chats were all unusable until then and those two cities would be very laggy for a lot of players.

So Blizzard implemented the squelch system so that, after an undisclosed but high number of reports are received, the system places a squelch on the character. It defaults to 24 hours to prevent the account from doing anymore damage. A GM will lift it if the reports are unfounded and place the punishment Silence on the account if they are not unfounded.

As for the topic of abuse, which people seem to imagine happening on a rampant basis, there are two mechanisms in place to handle that. First is the aforementioned high threshold of reports it takes to trigger a squelch. People claim it is a low number, but since none of them work for Blizzard, they’re just pulling that “fact” out of their rear ends.

The second mechanism is actually built into the Code of Conduct and Terms of Service we all agree to abide by every time Blizzard sends a major patch down the pipe. In them is a specific thing about abusing the reporting system in order to disrupt someone else’s game play for malicious reasons. So, should you be squelched and a GM finds that somehow the system was gamed, the GM is then empowered to actually punish the people who reported you .

We don’t know what the threshold is to trigger an auto squelch, let alone that it is a “high threshold”. You can claim that it is a high number, but since you don’t work for Blizzard, you are just pulling that “fat” out of your rear end.

I have suggested that if the player imposed punishment must be retained, that the target number to trigger an auto squelch be set at 100 reports received from different accounts. That apparently is not good enough for many of those that want to have the option to conspire to squelch any other player at any time for every little slight they think they had to suffer.

We’ve got at least one poster who insists that they have the option to conspire to deny any other player access to at least individual chat channels at any time. That couldn’t possibly have anything to do with that poster’s pet peeve of /trade being used for things other than the buying or selling of goods or services (even though Blizzard has repeatedly shown that doing so is not a violation), could it?

We’ve got at least one poster who wants to have the option to conspire to squelch any other player at any time for every little slight they think they had to suffer that claims that Blizzard’s response time is “interminable” without the player imposed punishment, but thinks it is perfectly fine for a player so suffer an unwarranted player imposed punishment for the same amount of time.

Gnocci-emerald-dream · February 18, 2019, 6:44pm

We also have one poster who insists that since blizzard has not cracked down on abuse of the intended function of a specific subject public channel, that blizzard is perfectly fine with said abuse. That one poster insists that despite the channel clearly being named “trade”, that blizzard condones it being used as a general discussion channel.

Inaction is not proof of acceptance.

Fesz-cenarius · February 18, 2019, 6:46pm

Gnocci:

Fesz:

We’ve got at least one poster who insists that they have the option to conspire to deny any other player access to at least individual chat channels at any time. That couldn’t possibly have anything to do with that poster’s pet peeve of /trade being used for things other than the buying or selling of goods or services (even though Blizzard has repeatedly shown that doing so is not a violation), could it?

We also have one poster who insists that since blizzard has not cracked down on abuse of the intended function of a specific subject public channel, that blizzard is perfectly fine with said abuse. That one poster insists that despite the channel clearly being named “trade”, that blizzard condones it being used as a general discussion channel.

Inaction is not proof of acceptance.

Case in point right here, folks.

Gnocci-emerald-dream · February 18, 2019, 6:47pm

I wasn’t aware I was hiding it. Fairly certain the “folks” already know my stance by now.

Good job Scooby Doo. Have a scooby snack!

Inaction is not proof of acceptance/approval.

Mellga-area-52 · February 18, 2019, 6:56pm

Blizz not “cracking down” on abusers doesn’t equate them being OK with abuse. There just needs to be proof. No such thing was said about Blizz being OK with abusers. Please don’t put that out there.

And Blizz has no such rule that “Trade Chat” is for Trade Goods, only.

Also, it’s interesting how you’re talking about another poster’s actions to Fesz, instead of the Poster in question

I do not believe anyone said “Blizz is OK with abusers”. The only thing that was said was “it takes evidence/proof to take them down.”

Fesz-cenarius · February 18, 2019, 7:08pm

Gnocci:

Fesz:

We’ve got at least one poster who insists that they have the option to conspire to deny any other player access to at least individual chat channels at any time. That couldn’t possibly have anything to do with that poster’s pet peeve of /trade being used for things other than the buying or selling of goods or services (even though Blizzard has repeatedly shown that doing so is not a violation), could it?

We also have one poster who insists that since blizzard has not cracked down on abuse of the intended function of a specific subject public channel, that blizzard is perfectly fine with said abuse. That one poster insists that despite the channel clearly being named “trade”, that blizzard condones it being used as a general discussion channel.

Inaction is not proof of acceptance.

IMO, if Blizzard is not actively trying to stop the use of /trade for things other than the buying or selling of goods or services, they are at least passively condoning such use of the /trade channel.

Do you really expect us to believe that in 14 years reports have not been submitted for using /trade for things other than the buying or selling of goods or services? If there have been tickets submitted for using /trade for things other than the buying or selling of goods or services and Blizzard reviewed those tickets and took no action (for whatever reason), they are doing more than just “passively condoning” such action. They are actively condoning such action.

Of course, you can continue to ignore facts and scream "I don;t care what Blizzard has done over the past 14 years. I don’ t like /trade being used for anything other than the buying and selling of goods or services, so obviously that must be an egregious violation and should be punished. Blizzard must also see using /trade for anything other than the buying and selling of goods or services as an egregious violation, despite the fact that their actions, electing not punishing those who do so, have repeatedly shown that they do not consider it a violation. ‘Inaction is not proof of acceptance.’ ".

Fesz-cenarius · February 18, 2019, 7:10pm

I would say that 14 years of not taking action against those who violate your pet peeve certainly shows acceptance.

Mellga-area-52 · February 18, 2019, 7:11pm

Ah, you’re saying this. Got it. Makes sense, now.

Gnocci-emerald-dream · February 18, 2019, 7:11pm

That is ironic coming from someone who attempted to shout down a direct quote from blizzard because it was 6 years old.

As has been cited in this thread in the past, blizzard allows players to decide what is acceptable. Once I resub, I will be one of those players.

Fesz-cenarius · February 18, 2019, 7:12pm

I hope that you enjoy seeing your “advertisements” pushed out of the chat window by those who are committing no violation while they are using /trade for general discussion.

Gnocci-emerald-dream · February 18, 2019, 7:16pm

Case in point right here, folks.
Nice kneejerk deflection by the way. Do you play futbol?

Fesz-cenarius · February 18, 2019, 7:21pm

What?

That I do not want to punish players that are committing no violation and that I do not want players that have committed no violation to be punished?

I have never hidden that.

I’m not the one who wants to punish players for having the audacity to do something I don’t like, even though they are committing no violation.

Gnocci-emerald-dream · February 18, 2019, 7:25pm

Scroll back up.
You ed on a cited quote from blizzard because it was 6 years old, yet you are going to toss 14 years of historic inaction at me? And then you are going to attempt to paint blizzard as wrong for deciding (remains to be seen) to use a tool of their design and choosing that would perhaps deal with some of the crap like trade being used as a general channel?

Dude, you are all over the place.

I truly wonder, if blizzard suddenly came in and stated that they would be adding a LFG public channel to classic, and that both it and trade channels would be off limits to general discussion, if they actually made it a rule, if you would accept it.

Mellga-area-52 · February 18, 2019, 7:29pm

Fesz, don’t get heated. Your buttons are being pushed, to see how negative you can become. Which leaves an opening to commit a CoC error, so you can be Silenced. Don’t fall for it.

For someone preaching the rules, surely bypasses them to still break them, in some of form

That being said, I think this has been derailed, enough.

Fesz-cenarius · February 18, 2019, 7:33pm

Allow me to quote that entire post, not just the portion you chose to cherry pick out of context:

Fesz:

Gnocci:

Fesz:

We’ve got at least one poster who insists that they have the option to conspire to deny any other player access to at least individual chat channels at any time. That couldn’t possibly have anything to do with that poster’s pet peeve of /trade being used for things other than the buying or selling of goods or services (even though Blizzard has repeatedly shown that doing so is not a violation), could it?

We also have one poster who insists that since blizzard has not cracked down on abuse of the intended function of a specific subject public channel, that blizzard is perfectly fine with said abuse. That one poster insists that despite the channel clearly being named “trade”, that blizzard condones it being used as a general discussion channel.

Inaction is not proof of acceptance.

IMO, if Blizzard is not actively trying to stop the use of /trade for things other than the buying or selling of goods or services, they are at least passively condoning such use of the /trade channel.

Do you really expect us to believe that in 14 years reports have not been submitted for using /trade for things other than the buying or selling of goods or services? If there have been tickets submitted for using /trade for things other than the buying or selling of goods or services and Blizzard reviewed those tickets and took no action (for whatever reason), they are doing more than just “passively condoning” such action. They are actively condoning such action.

Of course, you can continue to ignore facts and scream "I don;t care what Blizzard has done over the past 14 years. I don’ t like /trade being used for anything other than the buying and selling of goods or services, so obviously that must be an egregious violation and should be punished. Blizzard must also see using /trade for anything other than the buying and selling of goods or services as an egregious violation, despite the fact that their actions, electing not punishing those who do so, have repeatedly shown that they do not consider it a violation. ‘Inaction is not proof of acceptance.’ ".

Please provide a source for your claim that “blizzard allows players to decide what is acceptable” and not just provide input as to what they find acceptable (help determine what is acceptable) with the final decision resting in Blizzard’s hands.

Gnocci-emerald-dream · February 18, 2019, 7:35pm

The cited quote was in this thread earlier. Have at it.

Fesz-cenarius · February 18, 2019, 7:35pm

If they actually stated that rule in writing and definitive terms, I would accept it.

To the best of my knowledge, they have never done so, though.

Gnocci-emerald-dream · February 18, 2019, 7:37pm

Disrupting trade communication by filling the trade channel with general chat is simply something “not liked”?

Fesz-cenarius · February 18, 2019, 7:38pm

I was not aware that expressing sincere hope that a player can enjoy something that is, in all likelihood, going to occur in Classic was “getting heated”.

Fesz-cenarius · February 18, 2019, 7:40pm

I may be wrong, but I believe that they actually said (and I will paraphrase here) HELP determine what is acceptable, not make the actual final decision.

If I am wrong, and Blizzard has said that the final determination is up to the players, please provide that quote.