Jump to content


Do you think that the "naming and shaming" rule should be removed?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
21 replies to this topic

Darlomidge #1 Posted 08 August 2012 - 11:10 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1855 battles
  • 277
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011
Hey guys,

I dont know about you, but I'm getting incredibly sick and tired of people stating that you cant mention someones name publicly on the forums due to the current "naming and shaming" rule.

Now, it just so happens that this subject matter occured on a topic where a number of the administrators were actively viewing and engaging in the topic. As a result, I openely questioned this rule on the topic. But, to my disgust instead of simply answering my question, they locked the topic instead. And so, I PM'ed the administrator who locked the topic:

Posted Image


And then came this reply....


Posted Image


And here was my reply...

Posted Image


No suprise as I never recieved anything back after that.


As I stated in my last PM to Drvo and BigBadVuk, I dont think it's right that those that break the rules should be protected in the way they currently are. The community should be allowed to make their own stand against the constant TK'ers and Botters that are ruining our games, because the sheer consistency in the amount of these that I'm seeing in my battles, clearly indicates that WG are not doing enough to prevent these people from playing. Therefore I propose that the community should be allowed to publicly name and shame those who break the rules.

What do you guys think about this rule? Do you agree with it? Or would you too like to see it removed?

Thanks for reading
Darlomidge
:Smile_honoring:

beermonster1972 #2 Posted 08 August 2012 - 11:12 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13610 battles
  • 250
  • [4Q2] 4Q2
  • Member since:
    10-24-2011
yeah i agree and iv`e noticed its always the same mod who welds the ban hammer not naming names

Edited by beermonster1972, 08 August 2012 - 11:13 PM.


2alertred #3 Posted 08 August 2012 - 11:28 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17571 battles
  • 2,040
  • Member since:
    08-04-2011
Well the best thing is too find a *special* forum and name and shame there or make your own 1.


I know a few places that are dedicated for wow... zero for wot however.

Oh yeah there are some sites dedicated for this but they want your money so dont bother.... better to get yourself a free forum.

Darlomidge #4 Posted 08 August 2012 - 11:32 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1855 battles
  • 277
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View Post2alertred, on 08 August 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

Well the best thing is too find a *special* forum and name and shame there or make your own 1.


I know a few places that are dedicated for wow... zero for wot however.

Oh yeah there are some sites dedicated for this but they want your money so dont bother.... better to get yourself a free forum.

But why should we have to? The people that I'm talking about are breaking WG rules. Why should I be the one that has to go elsewhere, when I follow the rules and play as I'm supposed to? What does this rule actually do? What purpose does it serve? To cover WarGaming's lazyness in not dealing with rulebreakers properly?

beermonster1972 #5 Posted 08 August 2012 - 11:40 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13610 battles
  • 250
  • [4Q2] 4Q2
  • Member since:
    10-24-2011
mate your not gonna win this youll probley end up with a ro at least i know from experience whatever you say will fall on deaf ears apart from the mod who shall be not named

BanzaiBonsai #6 Posted 09 August 2012 - 12:17 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12445 battles
  • 373
  • [TITAN] TITAN
  • Member since:
    02-14-2011
The best way to shame someone is to post a replay where he does the things that he should be ashamed of (though I got my topic closed when I did that by the same mod). You don't name anyone, the problem is most people are too lazy to watch anyway. Otherwise you can always describe what happenend without naming and tell them to PM you if someone wants the name. I really like to have some free space, makes it easier to read my posts...
Theres always the option of posting it in cleartext and giving a hint.
The rule should be removed, of course only when you provide evidence that he really did the things (basecamping in T10, tking on purpose, blocking etc.). However WG does not think that way, so it will never happen. Mods will tell you to send a ticket to support or something, then support writes some nice words for you but that's all that'll ever happen. No ban or anything for the guys, just take a look at.... oh right.. no naming and shaming.....
But this cleartext thing really makes you paranoid, I will now check the whole forum for cleartext posts x_x
BTW, BBV, if you read this, if font size abuse is possible, what about transparent color abuse?

Grand_Moff_Tano #7 Posted 09 August 2012 - 10:00 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1760 battles
  • 10,693
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011
I think the naming and shaming rule shouldn't be abolished for many good reasons

Yag0 #8 Posted 09 August 2012 - 11:04 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 3168 battles
  • 3,420
  • Member since:
    04-24-2012
If they allow name and shame , then they leave themselves open for legal action against WG for libel .
In essance the "player in question" is being publicly accused in writing .
Without solid legal evidence to back this up , the written accusation does qualify as libel , as there is no solid evidence to prove cheating then WG has no legal leg to stand on , and thus the accused will win compensation from WG (in small claims court) .
So in other words , if cheating was handling in the public eye , then WG would have to operate within the law of each country their game is published in .

DingIsHere #9 Posted 09 August 2012 - 11:45 AM

    Colonel

  • Clan Commander
  • 15970 battles
  • 3,784
  • [4Q2] 4Q2
  • Member since:
    12-22-2011

View PostYag0, on 09 August 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

If they allow name and shame , then they leave themselves open for legal action against WG for libel .
In essance the "player in question" is being publicly accused in writing .
Without solid legal evidence to back this up , the written accusation does qualify as libel , as there is no solid evidence to prove cheating then WG has no legal leg to stand on , and thus the accused will win compensation from WG (in small claims court) .
So in other words , if cheating was handling in the public eye , then WG would have to operate within the law of each country their game is published in .

not really...
my italics to highlight.... they cop out of anything said on here... it would be the individual liable not WG.

Quote

1.3 Responsibility
Wargaming.net is not responsible for any user messages posted. Wargaming.net does not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and is not responsible for the contents of any message. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this board. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact the support staff or moderators immediately. Wargaming.net employees and community moderators have the ability to remove objectionable messages and will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time limit, if it is found that removal is necessary. Users agree, through the use of this service, that they will not use this forum to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. Users agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by said user or by this board.


ogse2k1 #10 Posted 09 August 2012 - 12:54 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 930 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    04-24-2012
In the past I had some legal dealing with a very large gaming company , and in my discussions with the DTI and Trading Standards , I found out that a EULA does not override national laws .

I am saying that WG would be responsible for publishing libel , the same as a newspaper is , even when they are only quoting someone .

DingIsHere #11 Posted 09 August 2012 - 01:13 PM

    Colonel

  • Clan Commander
  • 15970 battles
  • 3,784
  • [4Q2] 4Q2
  • Member since:
    12-22-2011
The EULA does not override local laws, correct.

but... quoting other sources, and attributing the comments to that other source does get them out of it.

Newspapers are a different case because they "actively publish", this is "passive publishing" and is treated accordingly.

Take Pirate bay for example... the Govt had to actively change the law to prevent ISP's allowing access.
The Pirate Bay have just published another website which is not on the proscribed list, ISPs do not have to ban the new pages, bypassing the law.

ogse2k1 #12 Posted 09 August 2012 - 01:39 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 930 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    04-24-2012

View PostDingIsHere, on 09 August 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

The EULA does not override local laws, correct.

but... quoting other sources, and attributing the comments to that other source does get them out of it.

Newspapers are a different case because they "actively publish", this is "passive publishing" and is treated accordingly.

Take Pirate bay for example... the Govt had to actively change the law to prevent ISP's allowing access.
The Pirate Bay have just published another website which is not on the proscribed list, ISPs do not have to ban the new pages, bypassing the law.

"Passive publishing"
Never heard of that one Ding , will look into it ! :)

Darlomidge #13 Posted 09 August 2012 - 06:33 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1855 battles
  • 277
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostYag0, on 09 August 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

If they allow name and shame , then they leave themselves open for legal action against WG for libel .
In essance the "player in question" is being publicly accused in writing .
Without solid legal evidence to back this up , the written accusation does qualify as libel , as there is no solid evidence to prove cheating then WG has no legal leg to stand on , and thus the accused will win compensation from WG (in small claims court) .
So in other words , if cheating was handling in the public eye , then WG would have to operate within the law of each country their game is published in .

I dont think actual "legal evidence" is required. A simple video/replay of a player breaking the rules should suffice. The point I'm trying to make here, is that the current "naming and shaming" rule, as far as I see it, isnt serving a sufficient purpose. I am yet to find an explanation from WG as to why this rule is currently in place. Due to the sheer amount of topics I see the "naming and shaming" rule being enforced, I'm suprised an explanation has not already been given.

If a player has broken the rules, why cant he be named publicly? Provided sufficient evidence is given of course. What exactly are WG trying to achieve with this rule?

Yag0 #14 Posted 09 August 2012 - 06:36 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 3168 battles
  • 3,420
  • Member since:
    04-24-2012

View Postogse2k1, on 09 August 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

"Passive publishing"
Never heard of that one Ding , will look into it ! :)

I got a question about this point !
If they allow you to name and shame suspected cheats , then they are actively publishing this info !
Do you see what I mean ?

DingIsHere #15 Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:45 PM

    Colonel

  • Clan Commander
  • 15970 battles
  • 3,784
  • [4Q2] 4Q2
  • Member since:
    12-22-2011

View PostYag0, on 09 August 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

I got a question about this point !
If they allow you to name and shame suspected cheats , then they are actively publishing this info !
Do you see what I mean ?

No... "they" are not putting the libel on the forum, "you" are. The disclaimers cop them out of it... look at any "public" comments on newspaper websites, twitter etc... "they" are not responsible,, "you" are...

Yag0 #16 Posted 11 August 2012 - 12:28 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 3168 battles
  • 3,420
  • Member since:
    04-24-2012

View PostDingIsHere, on 10 August 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

No... "they" are not putting the libel on the forum, "you" are. The disclaimers cop them out of it... look at any "public" comments on newspaper websites, twitter etc... "they" are not responsible,, "you" are...

Ah that is not true !
Well from the legal cases that I read , that is .
Even if you are publishing the words of another , you the publisher have to meet the required measures to ensue that the "commentator" has not committed libel .
If you do not , you are legally responsible .

DingIsHere #17 Posted 14 August 2012 - 10:39 AM

    Colonel

  • Clan Commander
  • 15970 battles
  • 3,784
  • [4Q2] 4Q2
  • Member since:
    12-22-2011
The difference is that WG are not actually publishing in those terms, this is a forum for people to put their own point of view across and therefore does not count.

Take Twitter for example, has anyone prosecuted Twitter for collusion in the London riots last year?
No.

Has anyone quoted any actual laws or given legal precedents in order to prosecute twitter for publishing the messages?
No.

Has anyone prosecuted Facebook over their involvement?
No.

Has anyone prosecuted twitter or facebook for the cyber-bullying that happens on those sites?
No.



As for meeting the "required measures", again, only up to a point.
  • If I say "YYY is a criminal", I get prosecuted.
  • If I say that "xxx person says yyy is a criminal", I might get prosecuted, but the case will probably fail, so long as XXX did actually said that.
  • If XXX did not say those words, I could be prosecuted by XXX successfully , but YYY might/might not struggle to prosecute.
  • If I say that "xxx person alleges yyy is a criminal", I would not get prosecuted.

However, all these versions of events dont really count on here, because XXX (ie Wargaming) is not accusing anyone, in the same way as twitter and facebook.

Havock #18 Posted 16 August 2012 - 03:12 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16641 battles
  • 54
  • [BBGEU] BBGEU
  • Member since:
    10-12-2010
Seriously? Any sane judge would no like 'lolno' over someone who

View PostYag0, on 11 August 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Ah that is not true !
Well from the legal cases that I read , that is .
Even if you are publishing the words of another , you the publisher have to meet the required measures to ensue that the "commentator" has not committed libel .
If you do not , you are legally responsible .

Except that it would not be libel.

If someone posts a screenshot or a replay in which the perpetrator's name is visible, it is like showing a warning to other players.
If someone shouts 'herpaderp teamkilled me!' without any proof most players are like /care anyway and it would be whining or just lying.

Of course WG is responsible for their forums, but they cannot by sued for libel by proxy becausean anonymous user accused another anonymous user (nicknames, nicknames!)

That and the average teamkiller is (near-)retarded anyway, and I am willing to bet money on that 99% of them never even heard of those laws. Also, there is no damage done -notice the discussion on intellectual property and its worth on the internet? This is even more vague!-

Is it your account? Prove it.

And that is after "you are sueing people because they named you after you killed their virtual tanks on the same team?"
Such a case would get thrown the fuck out before it even got near a court.

Yag0 #19 Posted 16 August 2012 - 05:50 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 3168 battles
  • 3,420
  • Member since:
    04-24-2012
Cool enough then Ding , I see the distinction .
Havock , yes , but often threads about players misbehaving do include insults too .

I can still see change on the horizon , I'll bet it is not too long before FaceBook gets a kick in the proverbial in the UK courts .
Look at the law of "reasonable force" , not so long back , if you caught a burglar in your house and knocked him out , you would be prosecuted .
Then a UK judge* caught a burglar in his house , shot the guy dead , and all of a sudden it is legal to kill a burglar if you state "I felt my life was threatened" .
That statement did not work before the judge himself flexed his influence .

So , some nasty slander or personal photos of some prominent MP/law lord daughter posted on FaceBook and overnight the site won't know what hit it .

*Judge/ MP can't remember now .

Also the law is evolving to include virtual identity and "property" all over the globe .... again who knows what the not too distant future will hold in this respect .

Not being stubborn here guys , I do concede to the points you make , I am playing a little devils advocate now .

Havock #20 Posted 17 August 2012 - 12:34 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16641 battles
  • 54
  • [BBGEU] BBGEU
  • Member since:
    10-12-2010
There is no 'on facebook', there are profiles on facebook which can say and show many things.

Not unlike a forum. And Facebook is unmoderated aside from some extremes.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users