There's people like this

WoW Classic WoW Classic General Discussion
108

That would be why I suggested a blend of the old and the new.

Retain the player imposed punishment (squelch), but raise the target report number significantly, say to 100 reports.

Set the current target report number to trigger a flag on the reported account for review ASAP. Implement a system of escalating priority based upon the total number of tickets received.

Example:

10 reports triggers a level 10 ticket for review
20 reports bumps that ticket to a level 9
30 reports, level 8
40 reports, level 7
50 reports, level 6
60 reports, level 5
70 reports, level 4
80 reports, level 3
90 reports, level 2
100 reports triggers the player imposed auto squelch and a level 1 ticket for review.

A higher priority ticket should be reviewed before a lower priority ticket, even if that lower priority ticket ticket was generated first.

I also believe that everyone should be held accountable for their actions. If a squelched player has that squelch overturned because there was no violation, the reports that triggered that squelch were false reports, IMO. IMO, EVERY player submitted one of those false reports that contributed to that squelch should be punished.

IMO, if the number of reports required to trigger a player imposed punishment is low (say 10) and the system can easily be abused, then every player that submits a report that results in a squelch that is not upheld should be punished for submitting a false report. I believe that punishing every player that submits a false report would go along way toward curbing abuse.

If the number of reports required to trigger that player imposed punishment is high (let’s say 100) and it is significantly harder to abuse the system, then some leeway for tickets that are not upheld would be appropriate, IMO.

109

In that situation, someone could go to a less populated area and cause whatever trouble they want as long as there’s not 100 people around. It’s still abusable in much the same way as the old system was abusable.

110

Every system is abusable. But what would you prefer? Innocent until proven guilty? Or Guilty until proven innocent?

7 Likes
111

I think we should do away with the whole Vote to squelch idea all together. I used to run 300v300 serverwide events back before sharding. I cant imagine what would happen if the entire enemy faction figured out they could just vote ban me away lol.

2 Likes
112

Please do not attempt to play the #nochanges card. This is a background change that you would only know the existence of if you cannot manage to control what you type into general chat channels.

3 Likes
113

A handful of posters (including obvious alt accounts) making a thread reach 3000 posts does not equate to a groundswell of revolt.

2 Likes
114

I prefer a system where, if a person is causing trouble, that something actually be done. Something the old system did not address very well.
The argument isn’t so simple as guilty until proven innocent versus innocent until proven guilty.

2 Likes
115

Define causing trouble. Because being a random troll in trade chat and saying things you don’t like isn’t necessarily against the ToS. You are literally advocating for a system that can be abused to punish people, who have literally broken no rules and done nothing wrong, simply because some people didn’t agree with some things they said.

Every time your feels are hurt doesn’t mean the person who hurt them did anything worth punishing. My freedom doesn’t end where your feelings begin. Does this mean some people will be jerks? Yes. But regardless of which system you chose there will always be jerks.

I’d rather have a system where someone can say what they want, and their bad ideas can be exposed for being bad ideas and they can be persuaded to change their bad ideas.

3 Likes
116

You’re playing the card that assumes if you don’t want the feature then you must be plotting months in advance all the toxicity there is to bring to chat. Report. With. A. Detailed. Report. Not that hard to comprehend my stance. Stop twisting words. Can’t even take you seriously with your avatar lo.

3 Likes
117

No.

Classic/Vanilla IS a social game. An MMORPG, that is based around coordination, competition, and community. Forcing players to work together in a social environment. This change is not a “background change” and effects the entirety of the game because it effects said social environment.

Yes because 3000 comments are wrong and you the 1 person are correct after not reading a single one.

I as someone who actually came from classic at a young age and actually met the scum of the earth pedophiles racists and such in the time of Vanilla can completely confirm that they were dealt with accordingly. With a Permanent Ban.

4 Likes
118

Then leave the target report number low but send the message that abuse will NOT be tolerated by harshly punishing EVERY person that submits a false report (report submitted when there is no violation) that leads to a squelch that is ultimately overturned because there was no violation.

What many seem to want is a system that players can easily abuse to squelch any player at any time for every little slight they think they had to suffer, while ensuring that the abusers have little or no threat of repercussions or being held accountable for their actions.

2 Likes
119

You shouldn’t be afraid to talk in trade, but perhaps stick to actual trade related talk there. If you want to chant your own name, maybe do that in guild, or a party of friends. If your chat is considered as spam by the denizens of your realm they will report it as such. Sorry.

1 Like
120

I would prefer that the player imposed punishment be removed entirely for Classic.

I am simply offering suggestions as to how they can retain that player imposed punishment, while making it harder to abuse, in case Blizzard decides that the player imposed punishment absolutely MUST be retained.

1 Like
121

I’m talking about clear violations of blizzard policies that interfere with people’s ability to play the game. You are the one trying to boil this down to people being crybabies when that’s not the case.

But where is that number? Blizz already has a number they use. I don’t support the system being abused. I fully support harsh punishments for people abusing the system.

I came from early BC and I can tell you that was not always the case. Those people would come by a few days later and spout the same copy pasted thing over and over until they either decided to leave or they got another temp ban.

122

First blizzard reply in that thread literally refutes your point.

2 Likes
123

And the followup blue post that includes the following IS the point:

With that said, and to reiterate what the GM told you, each chat channel is designed for the purpose of the title of the channel. So Trade Chat taking place in the Trade channel is the suggested use of that channel. If you are discussing other subjects in the channel, other players on your realm can consider those unwanted messages as spam. They may report it as such and therefore the penalties associated with spam may be applied to the person reported.

1 Like
124

Someone made a joke in trade chat. I didn’t like it. Better report them for spam…

2 Likes
125

I am sorry that blue posts trouble you such that you feel the need to stamp your virtual feet and lash out.

126

Troubled by blue posts? Not really. Troubled by the fact that you see it as a legit thing to get someone squelched because they made a joke in trade chat and other people didn’t like it.

2 Likes
127

If you insist on disrupting public channels that were created for a specific purpose, sleep in the squelch you made for yourself.

2 Likes