I don’t see what’s objectionable here. This isn’t them saying they’re going to start scanning every private chat you have to look for anything mildly controversial to take action against. This is saying that when you use their public-facing service and get reported for being an obnoxious douche to other users who are matched with you when trying to play their games, they have a standardized process so you know where you stand.
Because you argue with someone on xbox live and they report you and you now have a strike, it’s been proven they will strike you over the smallest shit imaginable. Not having social features in X games is shit but okay but no multiplayer?
They have it recorded. If they’re repeatedly upholding reports through appeals, you probably deserve to be reported.
And yes, you absolutely should lose access to multiplayer period if they’re forced to ban you. The idea that just losing chat access is a suitable punishment for repeatedly being a shitbag is fucking absurd.
I don’t play on xbox because I don’t support trillion dollar companies who’s founders were friendly with epstein. But I have friends who do and I’ve seen threads on reddit about the subject. I doubt they are trying very hard with the appeal system. Imagine a game banning you for being toxic and then steam banning you from all multiplayer games. Boggles the mind.
Imagine a game banning you for being toxic and then steam banning you from all multiplayer games. Boggles the mind.
If Valve had the staff and Valve was the one handling bans from games, that’s exactly how it should work.
People who aren’t consistently making the experience of everyone around them worse don’t routinely get banned, and a proper appeals system is more than enough. Being online doesn’t mean that there aren’t real people on the other end that you’re harassing and treating like shit and ruining their gaming experience. “If you make an alt and go online, you lose offline access too” wouldn’t be an overreach. It would just be good policy. You don’t have a right to harass people with impunity.
You can get banned from forums or the game itself by the gamedevs and you can get banned for breaking no rules I don’t see any advantage to such a system. People would literally get baited into arguments in games and end up getting banned because they argued with someones throwaway account or banned by a non involved third party just because they through the argument was toxic even if it wasn’t and wasn’t even directed at them. This is infinitely worse than community servers now you have another layer of useless abstraction with dubious quality removing access to all your games. If only people who harass people with impunity didn’t already get banned in games and were the only people banned in games.
You’re conflating two things. This isn’t developers. It’s Microsoft.
If Valve was in charge of bans, a literal lifetime ban for you as a human being would be entirely justifiable and fair as a punishment for inappropriate conduct in interactions with other players.
I don’t see what’s objectionable here. This isn’t them saying they’re going to start scanning every private chat you have to look for anything mildly controversial to take action against. This is saying that when you use their public-facing service and get reported for being an obnoxious douche to other users who are matched with you when trying to play their games, they have a standardized process so you know where you stand.
Because you argue with someone on xbox live and they report you and you now have a strike, it’s been proven they will strike you over the smallest shit imaginable. Not having social features in X games is shit but okay but no multiplayer?
There is no reason to argue 1:1 about a video game. Simply don’t respond / start anything.
They have it recorded. If they’re repeatedly upholding reports through appeals, you probably deserve to be reported.
And yes, you absolutely should lose access to multiplayer period if they’re forced to ban you. The idea that just losing chat access is a suitable punishment for repeatedly being a shitbag is fucking absurd.
I don’t play on xbox because I don’t support trillion dollar companies who’s founders were friendly with epstein. But I have friends who do and I’ve seen threads on reddit about the subject. I doubt they are trying very hard with the appeal system. Imagine a game banning you for being toxic and then steam banning you from all multiplayer games. Boggles the mind.
If Valve had the staff and Valve was the one handling bans from games, that’s exactly how it should work.
People who aren’t consistently making the experience of everyone around them worse don’t routinely get banned, and a proper appeals system is more than enough. Being online doesn’t mean that there aren’t real people on the other end that you’re harassing and treating like shit and ruining their gaming experience. “If you make an alt and go online, you lose offline access too” wouldn’t be an overreach. It would just be good policy. You don’t have a right to harass people with impunity.
You can get banned from forums or the game itself by the gamedevs and you can get banned for breaking no rules I don’t see any advantage to such a system. People would literally get baited into arguments in games and end up getting banned because they argued with someones throwaway account or banned by a non involved third party just because they through the argument was toxic even if it wasn’t and wasn’t even directed at them. This is infinitely worse than community servers now you have another layer of useless abstraction with dubious quality removing access to all your games. If only people who harass people with impunity didn’t already get banned in games and were the only people banned in games.
You’re conflating two things. This isn’t developers. It’s Microsoft.
If Valve was in charge of bans, a literal lifetime ban for you as a human being would be entirely justifiable and fair as a punishment for inappropriate conduct in interactions with other players.