Apply forum rules and bans to the in-game chat?
I think the forum rules regarding social behavior is great! It's clear, concise and straight to the point. Could you please apply a similar framework to the post-game chat? I think more readily available information on the guidelines of communication in addition to some profanity filter would go a long way.
A suggestion is to ban the player from using the chat for a period of time as a first measure.
Comments
Press that button. Close the chat box. Save your sanity. Also remember to make it so that people (that's not your friends) cannot leave comments on your Steam profile.
you can report people who are abusive. chat logs are saved automatically so if someone has actually said something explicitly bad (a racial slur for example) action can be taken
no idea what kind of action, but it is something we're encouraged to do
Tanks for the advice! I already knew about the collapsing feature. This doesn't really address the core issue, though.
If BHVRs stance on bad behavior is more known from inside of the game, it could make post-game harassment less frequent. Today there are no readily available guidelines unless you actually visit the forums.
Edit: In response to @se05239
Just report and ignore. Report and ignore. Either they'll realize that being ######### is neither funny nor socially acceptable, or they'll move on to another game that will ban them as well.
@miaasma This is a great feature indeed, but I stand by my point that the system is reactive, rather than proactive. If you engage the players directly with the guidelines and potential consequences, at least they know where BHVR draws the line before walking over it. This could make players think twice before abusing the communication.
Research shows that neither the severity nor the knowledge of punishment serve as deterrents to crime. Only the perception that you'll get caught does. I'm guessing breaking a game's rules follows more or less the same trend.
@Orion I'm not gonna stop reporting. But wouldn't it be nice if players know where BHVR draws the line before they step over it? This means that the player actively breaks aBHVR rule, from a legal point of view.
@Orion Source on that please. I've studied some behavioural science and this doesn't resonate with what I have read.
I don't have research but I can provide you a great example:
Several Asian countries will chop your hand off if you steal. This doesn't stop people from stealing, as there are criminals who are missing both hands.
Punishment doesn't really deter anyone. That's one of the reasons America is slowly getting rid of the death penalty, because there isn't evidence to suggest it actually does anything.
All it does it possibly kill innocent people.
Seriously, just think about it for a second. If punishment worked as a deterrent, why are there so many prisoners per capita in the USA, which boasts ######### like Guantanamo Bay?
I am not talking about punishment, so I don' see how your point or example is applicable here.
To clarify: I'm suggesting precautionary measures to help players make the right decision from the get go.
@Orion But I am not talking about punishment. I'm talking about precautionary measures (in terms of information) to help players make the right decision.
The filter (and chat-ban) is not about correcting the wrong-doers, but to protect the other players.
Everyone knows about laws (i.e.: they have information), police, and sentences. They still commit crimes. The same principle applies here.
And come on, do you really think people don't know that sending death threats isn't OK? They just don't care because they don't think anything will happen to them (see the link I gave you).
@Orion I understand you reasoning, but I also feel you are building your arguments on very loose grounds. The article you are referring to does not validate that we can, in fact, transfer the psychological framework of individuals who commit crimes, on to individuals who are performing a social interaction. You are essentially cherry-picking very complex fields of studies to make it fit your agenda. The psychology of a 15-year old who has been humiliated in front of their friends, are not inherently the same as a person committing a crime because of, say, a person stealing because they are desperate.
The post-game chat has a variety of different kinds of nasty. It ranges from sprinkles of salt to death threats and other serious offends. While you are mentioning the big ones, i.e., death threats and serious harassment, I'm talking about the entire range. My solution will not deter those who really want to send death threats, I have never claimed that, but it can deter those who are acting in affect without better knowledge. It's all about FACILITATING good behavior. Read about Nudging (Richard Thaler) if you are interested in knowing more on this.
Also, you can know there are laws, but that means nothing if you don't know what the law stipulates - which is the information I'm after here. I know I can't harass - but do I know what counts as harassment?
I just posted a long response that vanished. I'll address your key points again.
"Everyone knows about laws (i.e.: they have information), police, and sentences. They still commit crimes. The same principle applies here."
Knowing about laws isn't the same as knowing what the law stipulates. In other words, I can know that communicative abuse is wrong, but still be in the dark as to what it entails. Do you see the difference here?
"And come on, do you really think people don't know that sending death threats isn't OK? They just don't care because they don't think anything will happen to them (see the link I gave you)."
I believe there is a range of different kinds of communicative abuse. The solution in my original post serves to address the entire range, where sending death threats would be in the outer range of the scale. Naturally, some people may be inclined to still break the rules, but I firmly believe that a bunch will not. There is a huge difference between a 15-year-old who has been humiliated in a game, and a person who commits crime because they are desperate (or whatever reasoning they may have).
Again, what I propose is a system to help facilitate GOOD behavior by nudging players in the right direction. It is not about punishing players.
Additionally, the temporary chat-ban provides BHVR with an additional, softer, measure against players who doesn't go into the extremes, but still abuse communications. This doesn't affect the player's ability to engage in the game, just their ability to engage with other players.
@Orion
Please don't. I like to read the childish silly rants of dead survivors, they make me laugh. I want to read them as they write them, without filther. Read that is half the fun I get from this game XD
Would we really miss end game chat?
The good natured people who give congrats, really would go on being positive, they would just shrug it off. Where as the jerks who feel the need to flame everything would be able to go on fuming keeping the negativity to themselves.
Its a win win. But for some reason people defend having that end game chat like I asked them to kill their dog or something.And always bringing up that you can just shut it off.
I wish they would just add the end chat as a setting I can set to off. Having to close the chat manually every time I play is a hassle. The setting would help, of course I usually get resistance from the forums for even asking for that.