Recent Developments of TOS Actions Taken

[Melichoir]

Why make it clear cut? So assholes can toe the line of being a jerk to other players then say "Oh, but I didn't break any rules"? That's an awful idea. The spirit of the rule is far more important than the letter; if someone is being an asshole and either harassing or inciting harassment, they gotta go. It's really, REALLY not that hard to not be a jerk to other people, and if you're really frustrated, it's not that hard to not name and shame. Just kick, vent if needed, and move on.

Theres give an take. The give is that people shouldnt be a jerk, but the take is that there has to be a line. You cant set a line, have someone toe it, and then punish them arbitrarily with the caveat of there being an exception as to why. For example, if the rules say you cant harass or disparage someone in a racist way, you can call someone a jerk and be done with it but you cant call them a racist word. Both are technically being mean to the person, but there is a line to what goes to far.

Or if were gonna consider extreme exceptions like Arthars case - He wouldve been fine talking about someone without giving a description or name or any pertinent information to identify that person, but crossed the line when he made sure to make the name known. The line is identifying the person and then going to town on them verbally. It gets more damning cause personally I think he knew the rules but went to do it on Twitch specifically to get around the exact wording or precedent of the rules, while fully understanding the rules were intended to stop the very thing he was doing. the spirit of the rules was anti harassment/naming-and-shaming, so he tried to be clever by doing it on twitch. In the full literal sense, he didnt violate any ToS or precedent directly, but it was clear he was using a loophole to do exactly what the rules were meant to prevent.

[KalinOrthos]

Theres give an take. The give is that people shouldnt be a jerk, but the take is that there has to be a line. You cant set a line, have someone toe it, and then punish them arbitrarily with the caveat of there being an exception as to why. For example, if the rules say you cant harass or disparage someone in a racist way, you can call someone a jerk and be done with it but you cant call them a racist word. Both are technically being mean to the person, but there is a line to what goes to far.

Or if were gonna consider extreme exceptions like Arthars case - He wouldve been fine talking about someone without giving a description or name or any pertinent information to identify that person, but crossed the line when he made sure to make the name known. The line is identifying the person and then going to town on them verbally. It gets more damning cause personally I think he knew the rules but went to do it on Twitch specifically to get around the exact wording or precedent of the rules, while fully understanding the rules were intended to stop the very thing he was doing. the spirit of the rules was anti harassment/naming-and-shaming, so he tried to be clever by doing it on twitch. In the full literal sense, he didnt violate any ToS or precedent directly, but it was clear he was using a loophole to do exactly what the rules were meant to prevent.

When I imply a clear cut line, I mean the company saying "These are the exact circumstances that will warrant a ban" in their ToS, which is what Angus was implying. What we have now of the general "Don't be a jerk to others" works because it's broad and nondescript enough to encompass most forms of assholery, and most people are aware enough to know when they're about to be an asshole. I don't think the onus is on SE to specifically outline what it means to be a jerk to others; the vast majority of us know how to be civil, even if we have the occasional arguments, and if you don't, SE sitting you down and saying "If you keep this up, we don't want you in our game" by banning you is enough of a punishment and a wake-up call to weed out the people who can't act like a person, and I can't believe I'm saying this unironically, in a society.

[Melichoir]

snippity snap.

I think to be more clear, the point is that there has to be some level of exactness to what is a bannable offense, while giving flexibility to address new or different issues that may not be outlined in the ToS. It shouldnt be to exact or too open ended. As a point, the blanket "Dont be a jerk" is fairly subjective and what defines civility is no different. For some, the mere act of berating someone for being incompetent (regardless of how polite its done) is uncivil. For others, incivility is only a thing when you venture into racial slurs or other like commentary and everything up to that line is fair game. This is why simply saying "Everyone knows how to be civil and and not be a jerk" is not great because everyone has different thresh holds. This gets more complicated because the argument that you need know how to act in a society is misleading - societal norms are not inherently the best. Itd be better to let people behave the way they want, broadly, and give other players the tools and means to choose whom they interact with. It's an understanding that not only are you responsible for what you say, but also in sticking up for yourself. But I digress.

In broader terms, yes SE should more or less outline the exacts of what gets a ban and enforce generally along those lines but also build in flexibility for people not being banned for breaking the ToS but also giving them the ability to ban people for doing things that dont explicitly break the ToS. An example would be using the n-word. Among some people and friends, its used as more of a friendly term. Doesnt matter who agrees if it should be or not, but it is what it is. It would be stupid for SE to straight up ban someone for using the n-word towards a friend theyre hyper familiar with just because the ToS says you cant say it. Even in public chat, a warning or suspension might be necessary but not a straight up ban. For the latter, Arthars situation outlines that. He didnt break any rules directly, but his actions were done as a means to get around the rules and were not innocuous. He wanted to name and shame a particular player and make their life hard but not get in trouble for it, so he went after them off platform to his fan base. SE needs the flexibility to address that issue and were (IMO) in the right to do so.