Jump to content


The most ridiculous chatban story you'll ever read... [Chatban System Needs a Rework]

Chatban Rework

  • Please log in to reply
144 replies to this topic

PervyPastryPuffer #101 Posted 08 November 2018 - 03:33 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 31185 battles
  • 2,189
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

View PostRati_Festa, on 08 November 2018 - 03:29 PM, said:

From my perspective it would be useful that they tell me what has triggered the bans.

 

This.

 

If I knew the exact word that was not allowed, I'd remember what to not say.



jabster #102 Posted 08 November 2018 - 05:21 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12555 battles
  • 23,729
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostJOHN_691, on 08 November 2018 - 02:18 PM, said:

I got chatbanned few days ago, and i still don't know why....well, i know that using inappropriate language in the chat is not always a good thing, but in the past i used far worse words, i wished lllnesses to some players , while since a year i've just limited myself to "common bad words" that people use everyday.

I can't figure it out why did i get chatbanned only last week and not in 2016-2017, when my words were significantly worse.

 

So you do know why you got chat banned then, you broke the rules. It seems to me that your real complaint is that WG are getting better at enforcing the rules not that you got banned.

jabster #103 Posted 08 November 2018 - 05:36 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12555 battles
  • 23,729
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostThinGun, on 08 November 2018 - 02:00 PM, said:

 

It's a fair point.  Too many people demand 'freedom of speech' without acknowledging that it's a privilege and not a right.  And privileges come with responsibilities.

 

Personally I do consider it a right, at least if you want a functioning democratic society, the problem is people that think freedom of speech is the right to be an obnoxious arse just because they can even in a private sphere.

vorlontank #104 Posted 08 November 2018 - 06:09 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 23910 battles
  • 585
  • Member since:
    05-29-2011

Hello everyone, 

I locked this thread by applying this forum rule : 

Block Quote

1. Etiquette:
Do not discuss moderation and sanctions

 

 

Sorry to cut your discussion like this, and thank you for your understanding :)
Jahpero

 

so how come some can and some cant?



Bracciano_gatto #105 Posted 08 November 2018 - 06:24 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 989 battles
  • 85
  • Member since:
    09-07-2018

Was it your thread that was locked ?

 

Maybe it is because as a member of the First Ones your words carry extra weight and you should be careful in the way you use them ?



PervyPastryPuffer #106 Posted 08 November 2018 - 06:43 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 31185 battles
  • 2,189
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

View Postvorlontank, on 08 November 2018 - 06:09 PM, said:

Hello everyone, 

I locked this thread by applying this forum rule : 

 

Sorry to cut your discussion like this, and thank you for your understanding :)
Jahpero

 

so how come some can and some cant?

 

This thread is not about forum moderation, it is about an in-game chatban. :facepalm:

 

Understand it now?



vorlontank #107 Posted 08 November 2018 - 08:21 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 23910 battles
  • 585
  • Member since:
    05-29-2011

View PostPervyPastryPuffer, on 08 November 2018 - 06:43 PM, said:

 

This thread is not about forum moderation, it is about an in-game chatban. :facepalm:

 

Understand it now?

1. Etiquette:
Do not discuss moderation and sanctions,                     is a chat ban not a sanction then?



Maruk_tankista #108 Posted 08 November 2018 - 10:03 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 11609 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    11-13-2016

View PostGepard_PH, on 08 November 2018 - 02:51 PM, said:

 

When you keep throwing insults whenever you play then you get chat-banned. If you're sure that you didn't use chat, make sure no one else can use your account by changing the password. Also keep in mind that a new day starts at midnight, so if you were playing on the night 4th/5th then everything after 00:00 counts as 5th.

We're not banning people for 10 days immediately because we want to give everybody a chance to fix their behavior. However if you keep breaking the rules (and you do) then all subsequent bans will just get longer.

 

 

Well i don't think you understood what i was saying. 1) how can i fix my behavior when my ban keeps going on after it finishes? 2) how could I keep breaking the rules when i was banned and could not write a single word?

I know what new day means, however it says specifically on what time i "broke the rules" :)



Dorander #109 Posted 09 November 2018 - 12:41 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18584 battles
  • 3,043
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostRati_Festa, on 08 November 2018 - 02:29 PM, said:


From my perspective it would be useful that they tell me what has triggered the bans.

 

I tried figuring that out for a few days but never got anything other than the copy-pasta.

 

If I were less of a cynic I'd suggest it's because they want people to err on the side of caution but a more cynical minded person might think it's because they don't actually have that information available.

 

View PostStrappster, on 08 November 2018 - 09:08 AM, said:

 

Running the chat logs through a text parser counting up the naughty swears would be pretty trivial but could provide enough data to confirm an automated ban while avoiding the UC problem. Or failing that, you get an intern to look through the logs manually. Either is enough to say you've researched the reason for the ban.

 

The intern looking manually would be research yes, but the automated system as you describe it is very poor research as linguistic meaning is conveyed through context, not by talling words. Cursing reflects a demeanour much more than a specific set of vocabulary, even though I am well aware that most people focus on the vocabulary anyway. The sad part about that is that it is in many cases possible to call people all kinds of things that don't trigger people's anti-cursing responses but nonetheless are offensive. An easy example of this would be how people in forum conversations refer to the Dunning-Kruger effect as a veiled way of calling somebody an idiot. The main thing that gets stimulated by censoring words rather than attitudes, is the euphemism-treadmill.



Strappster #110 Posted 09 November 2018 - 12:55 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 24868 battles
  • 9,601
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostDorander, on 08 November 2018 - 11:41 PM, said:

The intern looking manually would be research yes, but the automated system as you describe it is very poor research as linguistic meaning is conveyed through context, not by talling words. Cursing reflects a demeanour much more than a specific set of vocabulary, even though I am well aware that most people focus on the vocabulary anyway. The sad part about that is that it is in many cases possible to call people all kinds of things that don't trigger people's anti-cursing responses but nonetheless are offensive.

 

You don't need a sophisticated system monitoring context, you only need to see certain trigger words to +1 on the swear counter. Way back in the early days of the internet, I remember seeing stories about how the town of Scunthorpe (in Lincolnshire, UK) was having trouble getting search results displayed because software such as Net Nanny was blocking it thanks to letters 2-5 of its name. Put those letters together in the same order with a space on either side and you can ignore context, it's a swear word.

 

The rule is to avoid bad language, not to avoid bad language unless it's to your close personal friend with whom you talk like that whenever you're face-to-face. Context is irrelevant, the bad word is the trigger and you can give people an allowance of bad words to allow for slips or contextual swearing or maybe you only add +0.25 to the counter if it's in platoon chat and +0.5 if it's clan chat.

 

This isn't rocket science and it doesn't need an AI capable of understanding the subtleties of human communication to monitor it. If you're a habitual potty-mouth then eventually you're going to have to sit in the time-out corner.

 

View PostDorander, on 08 November 2018 - 11:41 PM, said:

An easy example of this would be how people in forum conversations refer to the Dunning-Kruger effect as a veiled way of calling somebody an idiot. The main thing that gets stimulated by censoring words rather than attitudes, is the euphemism-treadmill.

 

That's just an easy go-to that people use to make themselves sound clever and dismiss an argument without addressing it, which is ironic really because they're usually not PhD psychology candidates, they're simply parroting something they read on the internet. Probably because someone threw it at them sometime in the past.



chessstud #111 Posted 09 November 2018 - 04:21 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 9802 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    11-22-2011
Whoever is in charge of discipline in the game has the complete wrong priorities. I complained about a bot a month ago and submitted a ticket to Wargaming. I complained again two weeks ago. I go look at his profile 5 minutes ago and this is what I see. They just don't care.

Attached Files

  • Attached File   recent stats.png   85.71K

Edited by chessstud, 09 November 2018 - 04:21 AM.


Rati_Festa #112 Posted 09 November 2018 - 12:33 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 43665 battles
  • 1,503
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012

View PostDorander, on 09 November 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:

 

I tried figuring that out for a few days but never got anything other than the copy-pasta.

 

If I were less of a cynic I'd suggest it's because they want people to err on the side of caution but a more cynical minded person might think it's because they don't actually have that information available.

 

 

 

It would be a good start if they a. posted the person you were "talking" too and b. informed you of both the sanctions for both if any.

 

The reason I say this, I can guess why I was banned for one of my chats, but my language was far less toxic than the other side, mine was basic you are a sick **** his was describing a sex act on a person he wished dead. Now I can only assume he has also received a ban, hopefully, a lengthy one. Really he should be banned from game not just chat but I know WG won't risk losing any cash so that ain't gonna happen.

 

They should just put a barometer on the chat showing how close you are to getting a ban, basically a yellow card/red card system. It would resolve the issue instantly if you can see you are on the cusp of going over you would naturally not do it.

 

 



Strappster #113 Posted 09 November 2018 - 12:57 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 24868 battles
  • 9,601
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View Postchessstud, on 09 November 2018 - 03:21 AM, said:

Whoever is in charge of discipline in the game has the complete wrong priorities. I complained about a bot a month ago and submitted a ticket to Wargaming. I complained again two weeks ago. I go look at his profile 5 minutes ago and this is what I see. They just don't care.

 

Have you considered that the account was investigated and it was concluded that the player simply isn't very good? Not everyone can be a potential blunicum.

UrQuan #114 Posted 09 November 2018 - 01:32 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19755 battles
  • 6,356
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostPervyPastryPuffer, on 08 November 2018 - 03:33 PM, said:

 

This.

 

If I knew the exact word that was not allowed, I'd remember what to not say.

 

Here's a tip; have you tried not swearing? So the exact word not to use, is any word that falls in the swearing/insult category.

It's already pretty much in the rules, swearing/insulting people isn't allowed. When you really feel the need to do it, either realize the game has pushed you to the limits & quit for the day/take a small break. Or accept the possible consequences.

Note, I'm not immune to it either (sadly), but either I call it a day/take a break then. Or I accept my temporary ban (I haven't got one so far, but when I do, I'll know why & accept the consequence of it)



Lycopersicon #115 Posted 09 November 2018 - 04:02 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 10610 battles
  • 3,570
  • Member since:
    07-30-2014
I have never managed to get a chat ban, despite being quite liberal with expletives. Given the general atmosphere in chat, it must be pretty much impossible to get one. Congratulations for this achievment.

Edited by Lycopersicon, 09 November 2018 - 04:05 PM.


Dorander #116 Posted 09 November 2018 - 04:24 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18584 battles
  • 3,043
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostRati_Festa, on 09 November 2018 - 11:33 AM, said:

 

It would be a good start if they a. posted the person you were "talking" too and b. informed you of both the sanctions for both if any.

 

The reason I say this, I can guess why I was banned for one of my chats, but my language was far less toxic than the other side, mine was basic you are a sick **** his was describing a sex act on a person he wished dead. Now I can only assume he has also received a ban, hopefully, a lengthy one. Really he should be banned from game not just chat but I know WG won't risk losing any cash so that ain't gonna happen.

 

They should just put a barometer on the chat showing how close you are to getting a ban, basically a yellow card/red card system. It would resolve the issue instantly if you can see you are on the cusp of going over you would naturally not do it.

 

 

Not sure I agree there. It might feel nice to know that the person who aggravated you got punished as well but at the end of the day we don't really need to know, it has no bearing on whether or not we break rules. That's strictly our own domain. The punishment system doesn't exist to make us feel better, it exists to prevent people from making us feel worse.

 

The barometer idea has both merits and drawbacks. The obvious drawback is that you can game the system. The merits are that you can immediately see the impact of your behaviour and can use it as a tool to keep yourself in check. The real problem relies in coding the thing. Honestly it'd be far simpler if they just made the rules more strict, banned cursing altogether rather than allowing some unspecified leeway, and gave out warnings before actual bans. I'd also avoid the issue of context.

 

View PostStrappster, on 08 November 2018 - 11:55 PM, said:

 

You don't need a sophisticated system monitoring context, you only need to see certain trigger words to +1 on the swear counter. Way back in the early days of the internet, I remember seeing stories about how the town of Scunthorpe (in Lincolnshire, UK) was having trouble getting search results displayed because software such as Net Nanny was blocking it thanks to letters 2-5 of its name. Put those letters together in the same order with a space on either side and you can ignore context, it's a swear word.

 

The rule is to avoid bad language, not to avoid bad language unless it's to your close personal friend with whom you talk like that whenever you're face-to-face. Context is irrelevant, the bad word is the trigger and you can give people an allowance of bad words to allow for slips or contextual swearing or maybe you only add +0.25 to the counter if it's in platoon chat and +0.5 if it's clan chat.

 

This isn't rocket science and it doesn't need an AI capable of understanding the subtleties of human communication to monitor it. If you're a habitual potty-mouth then eventually you're going to have to sit in the time-out corner.

 

 

The problem is that it does require understanding of context, because the rule requires it: to act within the rules you have to understand what "excessive" means in Wargaming's judgement.

 

Swearing is not so simple as simply talling words from a specified word list. Not only does your own example of Scunthorpe illustrate that problem already, it's conversely possible to veil cursewords to circumvent the system. For example, under such a tallying system I could call everyone "forking can'ts" all day, it wouldn't trigger, but the reference is obvious. I simply shifted the euphemism and replaced the "naughty" words with common language, you couldn't put this in the system either 'cause it'd trigger for everyone who ever wrote "fork" or "can't".

 

A further problem occurs when you consider context and intensity. Let's take a sample of 100 games, half of these are won. Person A sighs at the end of each loss, "Ah *edited* guys, we lost again,*edited* happens."  Person B only speaks for 20 games but vents frustration towards his team, when a battle goes badly (whether this ended up winning or losing), B writes something along the lines of "You *edited*, why do you *edited* *edited* instead of *edited* *edited* again?" Pick any two cursewords suitable in place of the "*edited*".

 

Both person A and person B wrote 100 cursewords, but person A used them to express frustration at bad luck and regret, person B used them to verbally assault other players. Would you honestly say these situations are in any way equal?



Strappster #117 Posted 09 November 2018 - 04:36 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 24868 battles
  • 9,601
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostDorander, on 09 November 2018 - 03:24 PM, said:

The problem is that it does require understanding of context, because the rule requires it: to act within the rules you have to understand what "excessive" means in Wargaming's judgement.

 

Nope, it's excessive if WG say it's excessive - their house, their rules. Excessive might mean you're given a pass after being griefed to death by a troll who doesn't like the tank you're playing, it might mean saying, "darn" when you drive over a rock and end up on your roof gets you banned. Those are extreme examples but the point stands - you don't get to determine what you think should be considered excessive.

 

If you're having trouble with that concept and feel you have a right to know where the line is, chances are you're already aware that you're using bad language excessively.

 

View PostDorander, on 09 November 2018 - 03:24 PM, said:

Swearing is not so simple as simply talling words from a specified word list. Not only does your own example of Scunthorpe illustrate that problem already, it's conversely possible to veil cursewords to circumvent the system. For example, under such a tallying system I could call everyone "forking can'ts" all day, it wouldn't trigger, but the reference is obvious. I simply shifted the euphemism and replaced the "naughty" words with common language, you couldn't put this in the system either 'cause it'd trigger for everyone who ever wrote "fork" or "can't".

 

If you call everyone, "forking cants" all day and get reported for it, you can be pretty sure that "forking" and "cant" will be added to the list of bad words. Good luck convincing Support to reverse your ensuing chat ban by claiming to have been referring to hypocritical and sanctimonious talk, typically of a moral, religious, or political nature (cant - it's a real word) and not attempting to circumvent sanctions.

 

View PostDorander, on 09 November 2018 - 03:24 PM, said:

A further problem occurs when you consider context and intensity. Let's take a sample of 100 games, half of these are won. Person A sighs at the end of each loss, "Ah *edited* guys, we lost again,*edited* happens."  Person B only speaks for 20 games but vents frustration towards his team, when a battle goes badly (whether this ended up winning or losing), B writes something along the lines of "You *edited*, why do you *edited* *edited* instead of *edited* *edited* again?" Pick any two cursewords suitable in place of the "*edited*".

 

Both person A and person B wrote 100 cursewords, but person A used them to express frustration at bad luck and regret, person B used them to verbally assault other players. Would you honestly say these situations are in any way equal?

 

Irrelevant. If the rule says, "don't say bad words", it means you shouldn't say bad words. There isn't any leeway, there isn't an allowance to swear like a docker who's just discovered his wife in bed with his best mate because your pixel tank went boom, no cursing means no cursing. Why is that so difficult for you to accept?



TacticusMK2 #118 Posted 09 November 2018 - 04:38 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 17562 battles
  • 709
  • [DUAL] DUAL
  • Member since:
    02-09-2014

I take any oppertunity to chat rage. Got a chat ban the other day, possibly for expressing my thoughts about certain people. It was followed by my best 24h in WoT to date. Although ofcourse I still had plenty of reasons to rage, I didnt have the oppertunity to chat during combat, so i could focus completely on the game itself. Can't wait for that next chat ban! 

 

Not being able to communicate with teammates in random's isnt a punishment.. its a blessing. 


Edited by TacticusMK2, 09 November 2018 - 04:38 PM.


WoT_RU_Doing #119 Posted 09 November 2018 - 04:38 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 47220 battles
  • 1,348
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    07-20-2013

View Postchessstud, on 09 November 2018 - 03:21 AM, said:

Whoever is in charge of discipline in the game has the complete wrong priorities. I complained about a bot a month ago and submitted a ticket to Wargaming. I complained again two weeks ago. I go look at his profile 5 minutes ago and this is what I see. They just don't care.

 

The picture you paste shows a gradual improvement over the recent 30 days. While their stats are incredibly bad, that does rather suggest that they're not a bot. Edit: As a side note, I'm not aware of a bot function that caps a base, and yet this player has Cap points.


 

 

 

Meanwhile, I think they should add "Barbie" and "Tetris" to the forbidden words list, as that will reduce the number of insults significantly.

Edited by WoT_RU_Doing, 09 November 2018 - 04:43 PM.


TacticusMK2 #120 Posted 09 November 2018 - 04:43 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 17562 battles
  • 709
  • [DUAL] DUAL
  • Member since:
    02-09-2014

View PostThinGun, on 08 November 2018 - 03:00 PM, said:

 

It's a fair point.  Too many people demand 'freedom of speech' without acknowledging that it's a privilege and not a right.  And privileges come with responsibilities.

 

Not sure where you got this load of horse pie from. It's not a privilege, its a right. 

 

Next time look up facts before you spout more nonsense on the internet. 

 

Block Quote

 Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[2]

https://en.wikipedia...eedom_of_speech

 


Edited by TacticusMK2, 09 November 2018 - 04:44 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users