Unfair use of moderator permissions

[Skuzzy]

Seeing as it really is none of your business as to what transpires with another player, then a warning or mute would be appropriate as the question only serves to stir the pot, as it were.

Try calling me and asking what happened with any player.  You will not get very far.

[Traveler]

Seeing as it really is none of your business as to what transpires with another player, then a warning or mute would be appropriate as the question only serves to stir the pot, as it were.

Try calling me and asking what happened with any player.  You will not get very far.

as I or my squad never use 200  it will never happen, however my squad does police squad member conduct and we follow our own guideline where misconduct is concerned.  Because we are discussing policy exactly were does one find the policy or rules that govern contact or attempted contact with a MOD? I don't recall seeing anything, ever.

[Peanut1]

as I or my squad never use 200  it will never happen, however my squad does police squad member conduct and we follow our own guideline where misconduct is concerned.  Because we are discussing policy exactly were does one find the policy or rules that govern contact or attempted contact with a MOD? I don't recall seeing anything, ever.

Your not looking close enough Traveler, he says it in this very thread!!! "Moderators are under strict orders to instantly mute anyone who makes any attempt to confront them."

[Traveler]

Your not looking close enough Traveler, he says it in this very thread!!! "Moderators are under strict orders to instantly mute anyone who makes any attempt to confront them."

and where is that policy published for new customers to review? 

[Traveler]

Not a bad idea.

But having mods directly communicate with the mutee IS a bad idea.  It quickly degenerates into a "no I didn't," "yes you did" Monty Python argument.  And as we've seen on these boards for years, mutees never let it drop, they take it as a personal insult on the level of "your mom swims out to the troop ships."

- oldman

That's not what my suggestion was about.  The mutee deserved to be muted.  This suggestion was about the mutee's squad mate that typed in text "way was squad mate X muted?"  That text published in the open on 200 was I guess considered a question to the "moderator"  and resulted in his own mute.  I just suggested that the Moderator should have an additional tool available to allow a pre-canned message to be delivered instead of only have the mute tool to use.

[Skuzzy]

and where is that policy published for new customers to review?

Behavioral issues are rarely quantified, in writing, by any company.   It is generally accepted, any behavior which can negatively impact a businesses primary function is not acceptable.

Go to a restaurant and start throwing food at others.  No sign says it is not allowed, anywhere.

By pressing an issue, which is no ones business but the person who was directly impacted and the moderator, it simply stirs the pot and creates a situation where more people get wound up about it.  Nothing good comes of it.

[Traveler]

Go to a restaurant and start throwing food at others.  No sign says it is not allowed, anywhere.

By pressing an issue, which is no ones business but the person who was directly impacted and the moderator, it simply stirs the pot and creates a situation where more people get wound up about it.  Nothing good comes of it.

First, it isn't necessary for a restaurant to publish signs telling people not to throw food at other people because it's a common law in the United States code, its called "Assault" but a very common sign posted in many stores is "NO shirt,  NO service."  used to tell the public its rule for receiving service.  NO shirt NO service is a commonly quantified behavioral rule stated in writing.

I'm not sure how a person directly communicates with an HTC moderator.  No one knows who the moderator is?  There is no method/tool provided to direct a text to a Moderator.  The only tool is text buffer that just parrots back whatever anyone types in text for everyone to read.  For clarity how would the following text be ruled:
"haven't heard from member x in a bit, wonder if he was muted, does anyone know?"  Would that get a paying customer muted?  I'm asking because it appears that HTC wants everyone to abide by a set of rules that HTC will not publish. My point is that a customer could without knowing it, press an issue without even knowing that there was an issue. 

An interesting case is coming before our highest court that involved guess what, the internet and a gaming company and an in game text buffer.  The gaming company is appealing a lower court ruling that because the gaming company didn't publish a set of guidelines and rules for use, perhaps they must have felt like you "Behavioral issues are rarely quantified, in writing, by any company.   It is generally accepted, any behavior which can negatively impact a businesses primary function is not acceptable."  Seems that a lower court ruled that because the gaming company didn't publish a set of rules that text published in a game is "protected speech" under our constitution.

[Guppy35]

Traveler, as far as I can tell all you are advocating is for more ways for people who should not have to be moderated, to complain and make excuses for acting like three year olds. 

Acting like an adult and taking a second before typing something stupid is just not that hard.  Quit playing arena lawyer and let it go will ya?

[Zoney]

Nevermind, why bother.

[Ack-Ack]

Seeing as it really is none of your business as to what transpires with another player, then a warning or mute would be appropriate as the question only serves to stir the pot, as it were.

Try calling me and asking what happened with any player.  You will not get very far.

It is also in violation of a few consumer privacy laws of a few states to tell a 3rd party what actions have been taken on another person's account not immediately related (i.e. parent and child).

In the case that spurred this thread, HTC would have been wrong to tell the squadron mate asking why his buddy was muted.

[bustr]

An interesting case is coming before our highest court that involved guess what, the internet and a gaming company and an in game text buffer.  The gaming company is appealing a lower court ruling that because the gaming company didn't publish a set of guidelines and rules for use, perhaps they must have felt like you "Behavioral issues are rarely quantified, in writing, by any company.   It is generally accepted, any behavior which can negatively impact a businesses primary function is not acceptable."  Seems that a lower court ruled that because the gaming company didn't publish a set of rules that text published in a game is "protected speech" under our constitution.

Finally the other shoe drops and the reason for Traveler's sudden back bone in picking this fight and dragging it out forcing repeated written responses from an HTC representative. A referenced legal action against another game company for exactly what you want to harangue HTC about. That is some fancy dancing on the bleeding edge.

Is there an end game if you don't get your way? Are you the person suing the other game company in the case you have finally made everyone privy to? Or are you simply trying to satisfy your self over past disgruntlements with HTC?

You should post a link to this leverage you have decided to roll your dice with.

[Ack-Ack]

A referenced legal action against another game company for exactly what you want to harangue HTC about.

I'm curious to what case Traveler is referencing.  IIRC, the only US SC ruling in regards to video games in the last 4 years (Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association) was the ruling that video games are protected speech and any legislative measure to ban or limit access is in violation of the Constitution.  Similar case is currently working its way through Florida's supreme court (Ace Games v. State of Florida).

[bustr]

Ack Ack, took me a little while to run this obscure case down.

Here Traveler is this the case you are referencing? I cannot find any other Internet cases about in game communication protected under the 1st amendment co-joined with a specific reference to in game moderators and their conduct violating that right. I went back to 2009 to find this one. Or is it farther back, should I search back in the 90's also?

http://gamepolitics.com/2009/07/21/lawsuit-banned-resistance-player-alleges-sony-violated-free-speech-and-stole-his-money/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A PlayStation 3 gamer has filed suit in U.S. District Court in California, alleging that SCEA suppressed his free speech rights and caused him pain and suffering by banning his account on the PlayStation Network.

In a complaint filed on July 6th, Erik Estavillo of San Jose writes that he his disabled by a variety of disorders; among these are agoraphobia, a fear of crowds:

The pain and suffering was caused by the defendant, Sony, banning the plaintiff’s account on the PlayStation 3 Network, in which the plaintiff relies on to socialize with other people, since it’s the only way the plaintiff can truly socialize since he also suffers from Agoraphobia…

Estavillo’s issues with SCEA apparently stem from his play of the PS3 hit Resistance: Fall of Man:

The ban is supposedly due to the behavior of the plaintiff when he plays the video game "Resistance: Fall of Man," which Sony owns and employs moderators for its online play. These moderators kick and ban players that they feel are deserving; though their biases to a player seem to be what determines the kick or ban…

The plaintiff was exercising his First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech in the game’s public forum when he was banned from, not only [Resistance], but also banned from playing all other games online via the PlayStation Network…

Estavillo also claims that the PSN ban amounts to a theft of his pre-paid points:

The plaintiff…cannot access [his] money when a moderator from Resistance and Sony gives a player a arbitrary wide-range ban… which in essence, is stealing money from the player…

Estavillo also argues that the EULA for online play of Resistance is ineffective in blocking players under the game’s recommended age of 17, although it’s unclear how this fits into his claim.

In his request to the court, Estavillo, who appears to be unrepresented, asks that SCEA be enjoined from banning players. He also seeks $55,000 in punitive damages.

To date, SCEA has not filed a response with the Court. GamePolitics has requested comment on the lawsuit from SCEA.

[bustr]

This article sounds exactly like our forum and how these things go down. Seems the kid got three warnings and his defense is that everyone acts like he does in this game. I'm still hunting for either a notification of a settlement or some resolution.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/the-scene/shopping/SJ-Gamer-Sues-Sony-over-First-Amendment.html?corder=&pg=1

------------------------------------------------------------------------
What happens when you take away someone’s video games? You might get sued.

A San Jose, Calif., man is suing Sony, claiming the company violated his first amendment rights when they banned him from playing the PlayStation 3 game "Resistance" for something he may have said while communicating with other players.

Erik Estavillo, who says he suffers from agoraphobia, a fear of crowds and public places, depends completely on the PlayStation game for social interaction.

But Sony occasionally bans users from the on line gaming system when they engage in inappropriate behavior. Estavillo admits that he was doing some “trash talking” while playing "Resistance," but says that virtually everyone who plays the game participates in the same language and he is unsure as to why he was singled out.
 
Estavillo was issued three warnings before having his account permanently locked. He says he can't remember exactly what he said to set off the Sony banners the final time, although he encourages those interested to visit his YouTube page where he discusses his ailments with Sony in detail.

“I can’t really go outside,” said Estavillo. “On the game, I met a lot of people I liked, and a lot of people that liked me. When they cut me off, I couldn’t talk to those friends anymore.”  One of those friends is gamer BarbieGirl, who Estavillo says he views as a sister.

Estavillo, 29, cited a number of mental disorders in his filed complaint against Sony on July 6, which claimed the ban "has caused pain and suffering to an already disabled plaintiff."

“[Because of my health], I need all the support I can get. This game is how I communicate with people,” he said.

He is suing on four counts of unlawful behavior, one being the violation of his first amendment rights and another on counts of theft. Estavillo claims he has money in the videogame’s store, which is inaccessible to banned users.

Estavillo is demanding $55,000 in punitive damages as well as "pain and suffering damages."

Sony has yet to respond to the suit.

Published at 8:05 AM PDT on Jul 22, 2009

[Ack-Ack]

I forgot about Estavillo vs. SCEA, he lost that case in any event and it never reached the US SC.