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

shishx_who_is_rosa #61 Posted 01 November 2018 - 11:43 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 884 battles
  • 69
  • [MEME] MEME
  • Member since:
    03-20-2018
Replay or it didn't happen.

pathed91 #62 Posted 01 November 2018 - 12:31 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18138 battles
  • 239
  • Member since:
    03-09-2014

View Postarthurwellsley, on 01 November 2018 - 11:37 AM, said:

 

In the UK Common Law Assault and Battery could be committed by words alone as far back as the nineteenth century.

 

In more modern UK law the Public Order Act 1986 (passed when a right wing government under Margaret Thatcher was in power) covers three offences of "threatening, abusive or insulting" language in a public place.

The least serious is under section 5. Here it is an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words within the hearing of someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by them. So the prosecution have to show only that there was someone else present who might have been caused harassment, alarm or distress, not that anyone actually was.

 

 

Wait, so by law issuing threats is equal to insulting someone? And no one need to actually feel threatened for it to be a crime, just that it was a possibility of it beeing threatening?

 

That is absolutely retarded. That would mean that you could accuse someone of saying abusive or insulting words to a third party, who might not even think a crime has been commited and woulden't press charges themselves. It would be a victimless crime, because the person getting abused/insulted would not themselves feel that they been abused (otherwise they would have pressed charges themselves). The law seems way too broadly defined if everything from threats to insults fall under the same category.

 



Dorander #63 Posted 01 November 2018 - 12:50 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18584 battles
  • 3,041
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View Postpathed91, on 01 November 2018 - 11:31 AM, said:

 

Wait, so by law issuing threats is equal to insulting someone? And no one need to actually feel threatened for it to be a crime, just that it was a possibility of it beeing threatening?

 

That is absolutely retarded. That would mean that you could accuse someone of saying abusive or insulting words to a third party, who might not even think a crime has been commited and woulden't press charges themselves. It would be a victimless crime, because the person getting abused/insulted would not themselves feel that they been abused (otherwise they would have pressed charges themselves). The law seems way too broadly defined if everything from threats to insults fall under the same category.

 

 

This is why judges and sollicitors exist, and case law is used to determine to what extent a law applies to a given situation. If this scenario even happened the supposed offended party would be called upon to make a statement, if it ever makes it to court (I doubt it), to testify.


Laws such as these are broadly defined on purpose, that purpose being to avoid generating situations in which a legal defense can be used that it the violating act wasn't specified by the law in question, which in case of laws that are that discrete is a valid defense as everything is by definition legal unless it is specified under law as illegal.



jabster #64 Posted 01 November 2018 - 01:03 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12555 battles
  • 23,721
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostDorander, on 01 November 2018 - 11:50 AM, said:

 

This is why judges and sollicitors exist, and case law is used to determine to what extent a law applies to a given situation. If this scenario even happened the supposed offended party would be called upon to make a statement, if it ever makes it to court (I doubt it), to testify.


Laws such as these are broadly defined on purpose, that purpose being to avoid generating situations in which a legal defense can be used that it the violating act wasn't specified by the law in question, which in case of laws that are that discrete is a valid defense as everything is by definition legal unless it is specified under law as illegal.

 

An interesting case of why swearing at the police isn’t necessarily illegal.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8902770/Swearing-at-police-is-not-a-crime-judge-rules.html



VeryRisky #65 Posted 01 November 2018 - 01:12 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 17655 battles
  • 8,643
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-11-2012
Have you ever bumped into another tank on your team?  

pathed91 #66 Posted 01 November 2018 - 01:30 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18138 battles
  • 239
  • Member since:
    03-09-2014

View PostDorander, on 01 November 2018 - 12:50 PM, said:

 

This is why judges and sollicitors exist, and case law is used to determine to what extent a law applies to a given situation. If this scenario even happened the supposed offended party would be called upon to make a statement, if it ever makes it to court (I doubt it), to testify.


Laws such as these are broadly defined on purpose, that purpose being to avoid generating situations in which a legal defense can be used that it the violating act wasn't specified by the law in question, which in case of laws that are that discrete is a valid defense as everything is by definition legal unless it is specified under law as illegal.

 

The law seems to equate threats to insults. They have no way near the same impact on someone.

 

In the case of Mark Meechan who posted a video of an edgy nazi joke the judge ruled "that the video you posted, using a public communications network, was grossly offensive and contained menacing, antisemitic and racist material".

 

The video wasn't directed at any singular person, and he said in the start of the video that it was all a joke. The judge had to ignore the context to come to the conclusion that the video was menacing. These laws are being abused to incarerate people who has done nothing morally objectionable. The laws are too broadly defined if things like this happens.

 

https://www.theguard...i-salutes-fined

 

 



Strappster #67 Posted 01 November 2018 - 01:36 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 24868 battles
  • 9,599
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostDorander, on 01 November 2018 - 09:24 AM, said:

No I would not expect Support to tell me "stupid" is a bad word. I would expect them to tell me "You shouldn't call anyone stupid under our rules." It is correct that chat issues can be a personal thing, so I'm inquiring what the personal perspective of Support is in this matter which is the entire point of the tickets. Specifically sections 2.01 and 2.06 are open to interpretation. It is not unreasonable to ask clarification from the authority that makes the rules about how and why those rules actually apply. They say I've said something that violates their rules and I'm simply asking what it was. They could quote my statements back to me, that'd be fine.

 

As for the numbers looking good, not sure to whom. Every time they close my ticket I get a survey form where I can specify why I'm giving negative feedback.

 

I think you misunderstand what I'm taking seriously and why I'm disinclined to spend any money. I'm not unhappy about the chatban, I'm unhappy about Customer Support, which are two different things. As for playing a game I enjoy, I am, in fact, I'm playing two now. One in which I drive tanks, which you apparently assumed I quit doing during this but didn't, and one in which I'm providing Customer Support with systematic feedback. :)

 

Pretty sure that not insulting other players is one of the tips that pops up on the loading screen after you click into battle. Even if it's not covered specifically, it's not a massive leap of faith to make the connection yourself.

 

The numbers I refer to are how many tickets have been closed in particular time periods. That's an important metric for any Support centre and is usually unrelated to any subsequent feedback, negative or not. You're not getting the result you want from the tickets you've raised so why would you think anyone's taking your negative feedback into account?

 

I don't misunderstand your motivation in questioning the reason for your chat ban, nor did I assume you'd quit playing even briefly. I don't understand why you consider it worth pursuing when it's a two-day ban and your questions are being closed with copy/paste answers. You're clearly not an idiot so the only assumption I've made is that you've got a pretty good idea of what you said that triggered the ban. Continuing to query the responses you're getting strikes me as a waste of your's and Support's time, that's time you could be using to play (or do something else entirely).

 

Put it this way - how many tickets do you think Support receive each day, serious or not, and why would they consider your's as anything more than another huffy response because your initial ticket wasn't given the answer you wanted?



Dorander #68 Posted 01 November 2018 - 02:35 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18584 battles
  • 3,041
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostStrappster, on 01 November 2018 - 12:36 PM, said:

 

Pretty sure that not insulting other players is one of the tips that pops up on the loading screen after you click into battle. Even if it's not covered specifically, it's not a massive leap of faith to make the connection yourself.

 

The numbers I refer to are how many tickets have been closed in particular time periods. That's an important metric for any Support centre and is usually unrelated to any subsequent feedback, negative or not. You're not getting the result you want from the tickets you've raised so why would you think anyone's taking your negative feedback into account?

 

I don't misunderstand your motivation in questioning the reason for your chat ban, nor did I assume you'd quit playing even briefly. I don't understand why you consider it worth pursuing when it's a two-day ban and your questions are being closed with copy/paste answers. You're clearly not an idiot so the only assumption I've made is that you've got a pretty good idea of what you said that triggered the ban. Continuing to query the responses you're getting strikes me as a waste of your's and Support's time, that's time you could be using to play (or do something else entirely).

 

Put it this way - how many tickets do you think Support receive each day, serious or not, and why would they consider your's as anything more than another huffy response because your initial ticket wasn't given the answer you wanted?

 

It actually is a leap, but I can imagine why you wouldn't want to take my word for it. I did not have a ragemoment. I have not changed by behaviour in-game recently (or even overall, if anything I got calmer as I got older). Given the posts in this thread however, there was a chat-banwave two days ago, that doesn't strike you as curious? I've used the occasional curseword but not *at* people, only at situations. If that suddenly gets people banned because something changed two days ago, I'd really like to know, because I'd really like to know if the interpretation of the rules we're being judged by (specifically 2.01 and 2.06) have changed. Those two rules contain the word "excessive". Cursing is allowed, but not excessively. Spamming is allowed, but not excessively. I can guarantee you we all have our own ideas, as does Wargaming, of what constitutes "excessiveness" and I'm wondering where that line currently is.

 

I am not discriminating in a type of feedback Support gets. While it is possible they ignore one kind of feedback (despite their claims) in favour of another, they're not analysing, they're deluding themselves to give themselves a pat on the back. It's possible they do that but if they're already patting themselves on the back for something they didn't do well, what I do doesn't really matter. If they had no tickets to close, they'd be patting themselves on the back for having such a great product they never receive requests for support.

 

The reasons I think it's worth persuing are twofold: for one, if they've increased their level of strictness in interpretation this may happen again, and two, I am curious to see how this functions. Regarding the waste of time, I frequently read or write on the forum, or in this case to Customer Support, during 30 second countdowns. Can't do anything else with that time anyway. It being a waste of their time... well since they just close with a canned response I doubt they're wasting much but I don't consider that my problem. I'm asking a legitimate question. It's not huffy. In fact, the tickets have been very polite, only the third has a single paragraph where it'd sound like I'm rolling my eyes (since I was at that point).

 

It's an interesting point to raise though and lies at the root of the problem: they'd consider the tickets as something else than a huffy response, if they'd read it. Instead, it appears that anything in this support section gets automatically closed with the canned response regardless of its content, or alternatively that's the way that Support employee functions. But then why have the support section at all? If I'm not allowed to ask a simple question regarding a simple event, then do away with the pretense, if I am then my decision to make use of the service they claim to offer is a legitimate choice.

 

View Postjabster, on 01 November 2018 - 12:03 PM, said:

 

An interesting case of why swearing at the police isn’t necessarily illegal.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8902770/Swearing-at-police-is-not-a-crime-judge-rules.html

 

Huh, that's an interesting ruling. I'm not sure how that ties in with the law arthurwellesley posted earlier but the ruling seems a little problematic in that context. The judge essentially classified police officers as a different kind of people for when this law applies.

 

It seems to me that it should not be this simple and that motivation and intent matters. A guy using expletives around policemen should not be an issue. A guy using expletives *at* policemen should be. Threat isn't just a matter of one thing or one type of action, it's an overall demeanour that reflects an intent a person has. I can state cursewords without being threatening. I can be threatening without using cursewords. The focus on the words used seems a bit strange. It has the additional effect of stimulating the euphemism-threadmill in which "acceptable" words replace the "unacceptable" ones, until the "acceptable" words become the "unacceptable" ones, ad infinitum.



Strappster #69 Posted 01 November 2018 - 03:07 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 24868 battles
  • 9,599
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostDorander, on 01 November 2018 - 01:35 PM, said:

Given the posts in this thread however, there was a chat-banwave two days ago, that doesn't strike you as curious?

 

WG implement mod-based bans in a block rather than dealing with cases individually so the fact that a few people have been hit with the chat-ban hammer at the same time isn't the slightest bit surprising. It's probably policy to make a big splash than a constant drip, though both approaches have merits and drawbacks.

 

View PostDorander, on 01 November 2018 - 01:35 PM, said:

I've used the occasional curseword but not *at* people, only at situations. If that suddenly gets people banned because something changed two days ago, I'd really like to know, because I'd really like to know if the interpretation of the rules we're being judged by (specifically 2.01 and 2.06) have changed. Those two rules contain the word "excessive". Cursing is allowed, but not excessively. Spamming is allowed, but not excessively. I can guarantee you we all have our own ideas, as does Wargaming, of what constitutes "excessiveness" and I'm wondering where that line currently is.

 

You said earlier that you could understand why they wouldn't engage in this discussion over cheats so why is it such a surprise that they don't want to tell you where the line is for cursing? Wondering where that line is reads as though you're hoping to find out how extreme your cursing can be before you get banned and they're not telling you for exactly the same reason.

 

View PostDorander, on 01 November 2018 - 01:35 PM, said:

I am not discriminating in a type of feedback Support gets. While it is possible they ignore one kind of feedback (despite their claims) in favour of another, they're not analysing, they're deluding themselves to give themselves a pat on the back. It's possible they do that but if they're already patting themselves on the back for something they didn't do well, what I do doesn't really matter. If they had no tickets to close, they'd be patting themselves on the back for having such a great product they never receive requests for support.

 

That reads as though you don't know how Support teams work. Your post-ticket feedback isn't part of the consideration when the standard metric is "close xxx tickets in yyy hours, have zzz tickets open" - those are performance targets, not self-congratulatory pats on the back. The only way they'd satisfy your requests is to give you the specific information on how extreme your cursing can be before you'd be punished and as we've already discussed, out of context that's pretty meaningless and doesn't account for the personal views of the person applying the ban (which is probably a rotating role, not one specific person).

 

Your particular post-ticket responses are irrelevant, no matter how much importance you're attaching to them. You're simply another number in the long list of people submitting tickets on any one day - you haven't been singled out for special treatment and you're not going to get it by filing repeated tickets, no matter how reasonable you think you're being.

 

View PostDorander, on 01 November 2018 - 01:35 PM, said:

It's an interesting point to raise though and lies at the root of the problem: they'd consider the tickets as something else than a huffy response, if they'd read it. Instead, it appears that anything in this support section gets automatically closed with the canned response regardless of its content, or alternatively that's the way that Support employee functions. But then why have the support section at all? If I'm not allowed to ask a simple question regarding a simple event, then do away with the pretense, if I am then my decision to make use of the service they claim to offer is a legitimate choice.

 

You thinking they're not reading the ticket is nothing more than a variation of the regular argument you see on here; "you don't agree because you don't understand". Consider this - they're sending you copy/paste responses because they've read your ticket and think it doesn't warrant more attention than that. If you're allowed to ask the question, they're allowed to give you a copy/paste response when your question is simply rewording your previous question and they can't or won't give you a specific example for the reasons earlier in this post.



Dorander #70 Posted 01 November 2018 - 04:24 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18584 battles
  • 3,041
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostStrappster, on 01 November 2018 - 02:07 PM, said:

 

WG implement mod-based bans in a block rather than dealing with cases individually so the fact that a few people have been hit with the chat-ban hammer at the same time isn't the slightest bit surprising. It's probably policy to make a big splash than a constant drip, though both approaches have merits and drawbacks.

 

 

Possibly. However it doesn't matter for my inquiries and it does not match how they've previously handled chatbans to the best of my knowledge.

 

View PostStrappster, on 01 November 2018 - 02:07 PM, said:

 

You said earlier that you could understand why they wouldn't engage in this discussion over cheats so why is it such a surprise that they don't want to tell you where the line is for cursing? Wondering where that line is reads as though you're hoping to find out how extreme your cursing can be before you get banned and they're not telling you for exactly the same reason.

 

 

The only thing that the rules against cheating and the rules for chat behaviour have in common is that they result in a punishment that belong to the same type of "ban". Beyond that, they're entirely different rules with different levels of impact as well as different justifications for existing. The reason that they don't list specific cheats which are illegal is supposedly so they don't point them out for people to find. No such reasoning applies when it comes to chat. I'm not wondering where that line is because my cursing needs to somehow get more extreme, I'm wondering where that line is because it hasn't gotten more extreme.

 

For some reason you seem to find it unreasonable to want to know what their definition of the words in the rules actually is, even if it's merely private examples of personal behaviour. By their own rules, Wargaming allows cursing, so why is it so objectionable to you that people then curse within the legal limits of the rules?

 

View PostStrappster, on 01 November 2018 - 02:07 PM, said:

 

 

That reads as though you don't know how Support teams work. Your post-ticket feedback isn't part of the consideration when the standard metric is "close xxx tickets in yyy hours, have zzz tickets open" - those are performance targets, not self-congratulatory pats on the back. The only way they'd satisfy your requests is to give you the specific information on how extreme your cursing can be before you'd be punished and as we've already discussed, out of context that's pretty meaningless and doesn't account for the personal views of the person applying the ban (which is probably a rotating role, not one specific person).

 

Your particular post-ticket responses are irrelevant, no matter how much importance you're attaching to them. You're simply another number in the long list of people submitting tickets on any one day - you haven't been singled out for special treatment and you're not going to get it by filing repeated tickets, no matter how reasonable you think you're being.

 

 

I'm aware of performance targets. They're a metric, not the only metric. I have worked in customer support environments and how you close tickets actually matters. How your customers rate your service as an employee actually matters. Neither metric is the be-all-end-all of customer service nor is either irrelevant.

 

If Wargaming doesn't have standards to determine what's acceptable and what's not, then rules are being applied arbitrarily. In reality they most likely are to lesser or greater extent. However that does not mean that I should find this acceptable, or that the only reasonable thing to do is take up a jaded position about it. Neither am I asking for any kind of special treatment, I'm asking for the most basic treatment: to have two questions answered I posed to Customer Support. Your reply reads as if "how Support teams work" is "Support exists to dismiss customer's concerns". That's not even my experience with this game's Customer Support, let alone any other.

 

View PostStrappster, on 01 November 2018 - 02:07 PM, said:

You thinking they're not reading the ticket is nothing more than a variation of the regular argument you see on here; "you don't agree because you don't understand". Consider this - they're sending you copy/paste responses because they've read your ticket and think it doesn't warrant more attention than that. If you're allowed to ask the question, they're allowed to give you a copy/paste response when your question is simply rewording your previous question and they can't or won't give you a specific example for the reasons earlier in this post.

 

You have an interesting perspective on what you actually think my tickets contain. What do you think I actually asked? Why do you think I'm demanding some special treatment? You don't think somehow that it's Support's job to actually answer a customer's questions regarding their product?

 

The argument of "You don't agree because you don't understand" is inherently neither wrong or right. All variations of the statement are possibly true and you actually require knowledge of the context to determine which is the case. Consider equally that they did NOT understand the questions posed, or that they did understand and are nonetheless avoiding answering the questions by replying with a copy/pasted message.



Strappster #71 Posted 01 November 2018 - 04:52 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 24868 battles
  • 9,599
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostDorander, on 01 November 2018 - 03:24 PM, said:

Possibly. However it doesn't matter for my inquiries and it does not match how they've previously handled chatbans to the best of my knowledge.

 

The only thing that the rules against cheating and the rules for chat behaviour have in common is that they result in a punishment that belong to the same type of "ban". Beyond that, they're entirely different rules with different levels of impact as well as different justifications for existing. The reason that they don't list specific cheats which are illegal is supposedly so they don't point them out for people to find. No such reasoning applies when it comes to chat. I'm not wondering where that line is because my cursing needs to somehow get more extreme, I'm wondering where that line is because it hasn't gotten more extreme.

 

You know how people say the tank meta changes all the time ... why can't that also apply to chat? I'm not saying you're wrong to be curious about where the line is, I'm saying it's a wasted effort on the basis of a two-day ban.

 

View PostDorander, on 01 November 2018 - 03:24 PM, said:

For some reason you seem to find it unreasonable to want to know what their definition of the words in the rules actually is, even if it's merely private examples of personal behaviour. By their own rules, Wargaming allows cursing, so why is it so objectionable to you that people then curse within the legal limits of the rules?

 

Where did I say that I find the language objectionable? I swear like a childish idiot quite often - I haven't been chat-banned yet but if I was to be, I'm fully aware why I would have deserved it. Likewise, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know if there's a list of trigger words, I said that it's unreasonable to expect them to provide you with their definitive list. That's regardless of whether there really is such a list or how it's interpreted by whoever's job it is to implement chat bans on a particular day.

 

View PostDorander, on 01 November 2018 - 03:24 PM, said:

If Wargaming doesn't have standards to determine what's acceptable and what's not, then rules are being applied arbitrarily. In reality they most likely are to lesser or greater extent. However that does not mean that I should find this acceptable, or that the only reasonable thing to do is take up a jaded position about it. Neither am I asking for any kind of special treatment, I'm asking for the most basic treatment: to have two questions answered I posed to Customer Support.

 

It doesn't matter whether you think the rules are acceptable or not - their game, their rules. You can object to how the rules have been applied in your particular circumstance but if their only reply is to say, "them's the rules", you're going to be out of luck. And yes, you are asking for special treatment as you've requested specific information about a ban you've received multiple times.

 

View PostDorander, on 01 November 2018 - 03:24 PM, said:

Your reply reads as if "how Support teams work" is "Support exists to dismiss customer's concerns". That's not even my experience with this game's Customer Support, let alone any other.

 

I'm not saying anything about how Support deals with customer concerns. The error here is that you appear to think you deserve a specific response - your questions are simply another ticket that needs to be closed.

 

View PostDorander, on 01 November 2018 - 03:24 PM, said:

You have an interesting perspective on what you actually think my tickets contain. What do you think I actually asked? Why do you think I'm demanding some special treatment? You don't think somehow that it's Support's job to actually answer a customer's questions regarding their product?

 

No, you have an interesting perspective on what you think your tickets contain. You seem to think that you're challenging the man by sticking it to them with hard questions that they're struggling to deal with where in reality you're doing little more than repeatedly whining about how your two-day chat ban is unfair.

 

View PostDorander, on 01 November 2018 - 03:24 PM, said:

The argument of "You don't agree because you don't understand" is inherently neither wrong or right. All variations of the statement are possibly true and you actually require knowledge of the context to determine which is the case. Consider equally that they did NOT understand the questions posed, or that they did understand and are nonetheless avoiding answering the questions by replying with a copy/pasted message.

 

I'm not pretending that the argument is right or wrong, I'm saying that it's a worthless argument advanced by people who can't back up their case. If you're convinced that I don't understand it, explain it to me in a way I can understand. Writing off queries about your argument as a lack of understanding only shows how weak your argument was in the first place.

 

Your insistence that they don't understand your questions or are avoiding them ignores a third possibility - they're not bothering to answer because they've already told you once and they're not engaging further no matter how hard you stamp your little feet.



Dorander #72 Posted 01 November 2018 - 05:32 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18584 battles
  • 3,041
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostStrappster, on 01 November 2018 - 03:52 PM, said:

 

You know how people say the tank meta changes all the time ... why can't that also apply to chat? I'm not saying you're wrong to be curious about where the line is, I'm saying it's a wasted effort on the basis of a two-day ban.

 

 

It's not about the two-day ban, it's about understanding the rules so I don't break them (again, apparently). Either way I understand where you're coming from but it's my "effort" to waste.

 

View PostStrappster, on 01 November 2018 - 03:52 PM, said:

 

Where did I say that I find the language objectionable? I swear like a childish idiot quite often - I haven't been chat-banned yet but if I was to be, I'm fully aware why I would have deserved it. Likewise, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know if there's a list of trigger words, I said that it's unreasonable to expect them to provide you with their definitive list. That's regardless of whether there really is such a list or how it's interpreted by whoever's job it is to implement chat bans on a particular day.

 

 

I'm not asking them for a definitive list. I'm asking them about my actual statements. Let's say it is unacceptable to WG to combine the words "grandparents" and "mammothskulls" in the same sentence but it's perfectly acceptable to use them seperately, not something I'd typically expect so I mention at some point that my grandparents were the most amazing mammothskullcollectors. I'm confused, 'cause I've talked about grandparents and mammothskulls before. I don't need to know about other family members or types of skulls, but I would like to know that I shouldn't have talked about grandparents and mammothskulls in the same sentence so I don't do it again.

 

View PostStrappster, on 01 November 2018 - 03:52 PM, said:

 

It doesn't matter whether you think the rules are acceptable or not - their game, their rules. You can object to how the rules have been applied in your particular circumstance but if their only reply is to say, "them's the rules", you're going to be out of luck. And yes, you are asking for special treatment as you've requested specific information about a ban you've received multiple times.

 

I'm not talking about whether the rules are acceptable or not, as you say, their game their rules. I'm asking to tell me how their rules applied in my case. I'm not objecting THAT it did, I'm asking HOW it did. Asking to have a question that was not answered to actually be answered is not asking for special treatment. It is not special treatment to not want to have your inquiries ignored through an answer that does not answer what you were asking. The link to the rules page is as informative as a rule that states you can stick some spoons in the pudding but not too large spoons. I've stuck a few spoons in of various sizes, not expecting any of them to be too large. Apparently one was and I'd simply like to know which one it was so I can discard the spoon, it doesn't answer the question to restate that there's a rule against too large spoons.

 

View PostStrappster, on 01 November 2018 - 03:52 PM, said:

 

I'm not saying anything about how Support deals with customer concerns. The error here is that you appear to think you deserve a specific response - your questions are simply another ticket that needs to be closed.

 

 

You're right to some extent, I do expect a specific response: an answer to my questions. The function of Customer Support is not closing tickets, that's its functionality. Its function is to provide answers for customer concerns. I'd even find it acceptable if they flat out said "We can't tell you", but they don't. If I ask "Can I know this?" then both "yes" and "no" are acceptable answers to the question even if I like one better than the other, but answering "look at the birdie" isn't.

 

View PostStrappster, on 01 November 2018 - 03:52 PM, said:

 

No, you have an interesting perspective on what you think your tickets contain. You seem to think that you're challenging the man by sticking it to them with hard questions that they're struggling to deal with where in reality you're doing little more than repeatedly whining about how your two-day chat ban is unfair.

 

It's quite interesting to claim that because the second sentence of the first ticket literally stated "I do not contest the ban." I've also repeatedly stated that in this thread. Oversimplifying the situation by dismissing inherent differences is still a strawman. Since it's their game and their rules, should they not have the ability to answer two basic questions about the rules? Their apparent struggle to answer two very simple questions does not change why I wrote the tickets, nor is this somehow my fault. My "sticking it to the man" is because their customer support is poor, not because I can't talk in chat for two days.

 

View PostStrappster, on 01 November 2018 - 03:52 PM, said:

 

I'm not pretending that the argument is right or wrong, I'm saying that it's a worthless argument advanced by people who can't back up their case. If you're convinced that I don't understand it, explain it to me in a way I can understand. Writing off queries about your argument as a lack of understanding only shows how weak your argument was in the first place.

 

Your insistence that they don't understand your questions or are avoiding them ignores a third possibility - they're not bothering to answer because they've already told you once and they're not engaging further no matter how hard you stamp your little feet.

 

They're not "engaging" at all. Also my feet are quite sizable, I'll have you know :P. The answer to any question of "How" is not answered by "did", it is answered by "this." Let's use an anecdote moving away a little from the topic of cursing to illustrate.

 

In this game, according to the rules, we're allowed to haul some quantum woo, but we're not allowed to haul excessive amounts of quantum woo. Additionally we're not allowed to haul quantum woo that is blue, weightless or round.

 

Subsequently I get a message, "Hey Dorander, you've violated our quantum woo rules, so now you can't haul any for two days. Also here's a link to support if you have any questions."

 

"Euh, yeah, I have questions..." so I go to the Support site and find the closest matching category to ask questions in, about quantum woo bans. "Hai Woomeisters, I just got this message that I can't haul quantum woo for a while. I've been hauling roughly the same amount of quantum woo for six years and I haven't ever carried any that is blue, weightless or round. Can you tell me in which situation I exceeded the quantum woo limit? That way I can ensure I don't repeat that situation and I should not exceed the quantum woo limit again."

 

Shortly after I get a reply. "Hey Dorander, you've violated our quantum woo rules. Here you can read that you can't haul excessive amounts of woo, or any woo that is blue, weightless or round. Have a nice day!"

 

 

So how exactly does informing me that I can't carry excessive woo or certain types of woo inform me how I broke their rules, when I know I have never carried blue, weightless or round woo and that I have not carried more woo lately than before? Just because they've provided an answer that contains some relevant words (as it happens to be about woo), does not mean my actual question was answered, it was merely replied to with irrelevant information.



Strappster #73 Posted 01 November 2018 - 05:38 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 24868 battles
  • 9,599
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostDorander, on 01 November 2018 - 04:32 PM, said:

You're right to some extent, I do expect a specific response: an answer to my questions. The function of Customer Support is not closing tickets, that's its functionality. Its function is to provide answers for customer concerns. I'd even find it acceptable if they flat out said "We can't tell you", but they don't. If I ask "Can I know this?" then both "yes" and "no" are acceptable answers to the question even if I like one better than the other, but answering "look at the birdie" isn't.

 

You've got answers. Your issue is that you don't like those answers. I'm not going to continue a spurious discussion based on supposition and conjecture. You're welcome to waste your time however you see fit and so am I, so I'm going to waste mine doing something else. :honoring:



jabster #74 Posted 01 November 2018 - 05:44 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12555 battles
  • 23,721
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostDorander, on 01 November 2018 - 01:35 PM, said:

 

It actually is a leap, but I can imagine why you wouldn't want to take my word for it. I did not have a ragemoment. I have not changed by behaviour in-game recently (or even overall, if anything I got calmer as I got older). Given the posts in this thread however, there was a chat-banwave two days ago, that doesn't strike you as curious? I've used the occasional curseword but not *at* people, only at situations. If that suddenly gets people banned because something changed two days ago, I'd really like to know, because I'd really like to know if the interpretation of the rules we're being judged by (specifically 2.01 and 2.06) have changed. Those two rules contain the word "excessive". Cursing is allowed, but not excessively. Spamming is allowed, but not excessively. I can guarantee you we all have our own ideas, as does Wargaming, of what constitutes "excessiveness" and I'm wondering where that line currently is.

 

I am not discriminating in a type of feedback Support gets. While it is possible they ignore one kind of feedback (despite their claims) in favour of another, they're not analysing, they're deluding themselves to give themselves a pat on the back. It's possible they do that but if they're already patting themselves on the back for something they didn't do well, what I do doesn't really matter. If they had no tickets to close, they'd be patting themselves on the back for having such a great product they never receive requests for support.

 

The reasons I think it's worth persuing are twofold: for one, if they've increased their level of strictness in interpretation this may happen again, and two, I am curious to see how this functions. Regarding the waste of time, I frequently read or write on the forum, or in this case to Customer Support, during 30 second countdowns. Can't do anything else with that time anyway. It being a waste of their time... well since they just close with a canned response I doubt they're wasting much but I don't consider that my problem. I'm asking a legitimate question. It's not huffy. In fact, the tickets have been very polite, only the third has a single paragraph where it'd sound like I'm rolling my eyes (since I was at that point).

 

It's an interesting point to raise though and lies at the root of the problem: they'd consider the tickets as something else than a huffy response, if they'd read it. Instead, it appears that anything in this support section gets automatically closed with the canned response regardless of its content, or alternatively that's the way that Support employee functions. But then why have the support section at all? If I'm not allowed to ask a simple question regarding a simple event, then do away with the pretense, if I am then my decision to make use of the service they claim to offer is a legitimate choice.

 

 

Huh, that's an interesting ruling. I'm not sure how that ties in with the law arthurwellesley posted earlier but the ruling seems a little problematic in that context. The judge essentially classified police officers as a different kind of people for when this law applies.

 

It seems to me that it should not be this simple and that motivation and intent matters. A guy using expletives around policemen should not be an issue. A guy using expletives *at* policemen should be. Threat isn't just a matter of one thing or one type of action, it's an overall demeanour that reflects an intent a person has. I can state cursewords without being threatening. I can be threatening without using cursewords. The focus on the words used seems a bit strange. It has the additional effect of stimulating the euphemism-threadmill in which "acceptable" words replace the "unacceptable" ones, until the "acceptable" words become the "unacceptable" ones, ad infinitum.

 

The context, no legal expert here, is a judge ruling how the law that AW quoted should be applied. I seriously doubt a copper is going to feel threatened just because someone swears at them. Truncheons and falling down the stairs may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

cragarion #75 Posted 01 November 2018 - 05:46 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 44292 battles
  • 2,609
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

When will you people learn it does not matter why you break the rules,

the fact is YOU BROKE THE RULES,

break the rules get punished simple as that,

there are people out there who deliberately goad people into breaking the rules,

just treat them like you would any immature little child throwing a tantrum IGNORE THEM,

they want you to break the rules so they can report you and get you banned,

ignore them and send your replay into support to get them banned.



arthurwellsley #76 Posted 01 November 2018 - 06:37 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 51955 battles
  • 3,089
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View Postjabster, on 01 November 2018 - 04:44 PM, said:

 

The context, no legal expert here, is a judge ruling how the law that AW quoted should be applied. I seriously doubt a copper is going to feel threatened just because someone swears at them. Truncheons and falling down the stairs may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

 

I was aware of the police as a class exception to the Sections 4, 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

But see also;

In DPP v Orum [1989] 1 WLR 88, [1988] 3 All ER 449, [1989] 88 Cr App R 261 the Divisional Court confirmed that Police Officers are not unable to be victims of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 caused by swearing and other abusive/threatening behaviour


Glidewell LJ said:

I find nothing in the context of the Act of 1986 to persuade me that a police officer may not be a person who is caused harassment, alarm or distress by the various kinds of words and conduct to which section 5(1) applies. I would therefore answer the question in the affirmative, that a police officer can be a person likely to be caused harassment and so on. However, that is not to say that the opposite is necessarily the case, namely, it is not to say that every police officer in this situation is to be assumed to be a person who is caused harassment. Very frequently words and behaviour with which police officers will be wearily familiar will have little emotional impact on them save that of boredom. It may well be that, in appropriate circumstances, justices will decide (indeed they might decide in the present case) as a question of fact that the words and behaviour were not likely in all the circumstances to cause harassment, alarm or distress to either of the police officers. That is a question of fact for the justices to be decided in all the circumstances, the time, the place, the nature of the words used, who the police officers are, and so on.

In Southard v DPP [2006] EWHC 3449 (Admin), [2006] All ER (D) 101, Fulford J. said "I see no basis for the original written argument that this criminal provision is not available when police officers alone are the likely audience or target."

 

Link below on how to apply to become a magistrate in the UK. HMCTS is trying to get younger magistrates and applicants from a more diverse set of backgrounds, so if anyone wishes to volunteer for some unpaid community work, click on the link;

 

https://www.gov.uk/b...be-a-magistrate

 

Also reminds me of a story I was once told, I am not sure if it was true, might be an urban myth. But here goes- The metropolitan police commissioner in the nineteen seventies is showing Lord Diplock around a new police station that the judge has just opened. They go to the cells which the commissioner is inordinately proud of as each cell has a destruction proof toliet in it. At the end of the tour the Met Commissioner asks the judge if he has any questions, to which Lord Diplock replies "where are the stairs?", Met Commissioner "what stairs my lord", Lord Diplock in reply "the stairs that the defendants have fallen down when their faces are bruised when they get into the dock in my Court" ..


Edited by arthurwellsley, 01 November 2018 - 06:45 PM.


Dorander #77 Posted 01 November 2018 - 08:17 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18584 battles
  • 3,041
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostStrappster, on 01 November 2018 - 04:38 PM, said:

 

You've got answers. Your issue is that you don't like those answers. I'm not going to continue a spurious discussion based on supposition and conjecture. You're welcome to waste your time however you see fit and so am I, so I'm going to waste mine doing something else. :honoring:

 

Fair enough, thanks for the discussion :)

 

View Postarthurwellsley, on 01 November 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

 

I was aware of the police as a class exception to the Sections 4, 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

But see also;

In DPP v Orum [1989] 1 WLR 88, [1988] 3 All ER 449, [1989] 88 Cr App R 261 the Divisional Court confirmed that Police Officers are not unable to be victims of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 caused by swearing and other abusive/threatening behaviour


Glidewell LJ said:

I find nothing in the context of the Act of 1986 to persuade me that a police officer may not be a person who is caused harassment, alarm or distress by the various kinds of words and conduct to which section 5(1) applies. I would therefore answer the question in the affirmative, that a police officer can be a person likely to be caused harassment and so on. However, that is not to say that the opposite is necessarily the case, namely, it is not to say that every police officer in this situation is to be assumed to be a person who is caused harassment. Very frequently words and behaviour with which police officers will be wearily familiar will have little emotional impact on them save that of boredom. It may well be that, in appropriate circumstances, justices will decide (indeed they might decide in the present case) as a question of fact that the words and behaviour were not likely in all the circumstances to cause harassment, alarm or distress to either of the police officers. That is a question of fact for the justices to be decided in all the circumstances, the time, the place, the nature of the words used, who the police officers are, and so on.

In Southard v DPP [2006] EWHC 3449 (Admin), [2006] All ER (D) 101, Fulford J. said "I see no basis for the original written argument that this criminal provision is not available when police officers alone are the likely audience or target."

 

Link below on how to apply to become a magistrate in the UK. HMCTS is trying to get younger magistrates and applicants from a more diverse set of backgrounds, so if anyone wishes to volunteer for some unpaid community work, click on the link;

 

https://www.gov.uk/b...be-a-magistrate

 

Also reminds me of a story I was once told, I am not sure if it was true, might be an urban myth. But here goes- The metropolitan police commissioner in the nineteen seventies is showing Lord Diplock around a new police station that the judge has just opened. They go to the cells which the commissioner is inordinately proud of as each cell has a destruction proof toliet in it. At the end of the tour the Met Commissioner asks the judge if he has any questions, to which Lord Diplock replies "where are the stairs?", Met Commissioner "what stairs my lord", Lord Diplock in reply "the stairs that the defendants have fallen down when their faces are bruised when they get into the dock in my Court" ..

 

That story is hilarious and should be told more often.

 

Also basically you have like semi-permanent jury duty in the UK? That's quite interesting, might've signed up for that if I lived there though unsure if I'd have been willing to commit to five years of it... then again, it's only 13 days a year.

 

View Postjabster, on 01 November 2018 - 04:44 PM, said:

 

The context, no legal expert here, is a judge ruling how the law that AW quoted should be applied. I seriously doubt a copper is going to feel threatened just because someone swears at them. Truncheons and falling down the stairs may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

 

Well that chairmen of the Metropolitan Police Federation didn't seem so optimistic... it's always the question of drawing lines in a grey area, if it had zero effect, it wouldn't be an issue worth making a statement about.

m1x_angelico #78 Posted 01 November 2018 - 09:52 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22847 battles
  • 867
  • [-VETO] -VETO
  • Member since:
    01-04-2015

View PostPervyPastryPuffer, on 31 October 2018 - 06:29 PM, said:

So I don't have the right to be angry after such an unfortunate series of events? No report about foul language even gets checked to see why there even was foul language? The guy who bumps me, effectively killing me indirectly with the enemy T57 gets away unscathed while my right to speak in chat, even with my own friends, gets revoked??

 

The sense of entitlement will be the death of the modern civilization.

 

Lets look at it from other peoples' perspective e.g. my perspective. I come home from work (stressful job), enter the game to relax a bit, talk with clanmates, friends, only to find some wanker raging because he got killed or because other people are not playing as he thinks they should, etc. I enter another game only to find another self-entitled wanker raging. 

 

So, my question for you is - why the F*** should anyone in the game be forced to listen to your raging or to turn of the chat so they don' see it, only because you have a bad day or whatever your reason is? As far as I'm concerned, you can rage and brake your entire apartment, though I think your neighbors might have a word or two to say about that.

 

If you decided not to be a savage and not to live in total isolation, but instead to live in a society with other people, then learn to control yourself and take into consideration the fact that the sun does not revolve around you. No one in a civilized society should be forced to listen or view you behaving like an animal. 



DorsVenabiIi #79 Posted 02 November 2018 - 02:27 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 24774 battles
  • 938
  • [BIBLE] BIBLE
  • Member since:
    03-31-2015
It's refreshing to not be able to chat and be toxic. I might ask WG for perma chatban, we will see.

Edited by DorsVenabiIi, 02 November 2018 - 02:27 AM.


Dorander #80 Posted 02 November 2018 - 07:55 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18584 battles
  • 3,041
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostDorsVenabiIi, on 02 November 2018 - 01:27 AM, said:

It's refreshing to not be able to chat and be toxic. I might ask WG for perma chatban, we will see.

 

You realize you can turn it off in the settings, right?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users