Valve update Team Fortress 2 to deal with bots and chat abuse

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: gabberNow let me get this straight: You shoot, burn and blow up others. But how dare you call them a nasty word, that's too much. That's "hate-speech" and "toxic".

The one is virtual - a bunch of pixels is killed.
The other is real - an actual person is insulted.

It's not even that. I don't think they allow people to talk shit at martial arts tournaments, either, even full contact ones where they're going to beat the stuffing out of each other. You're competing, violently, because everyone involved wants to, but that's no reason not to treat each other with respect. Pro MMA has some trash-talking, which I find vulgar and annoying, but even there you don't see them going "You (sexual orientation) mother****er" yadda yadda yadda. They set limits. There's no reason sportsmanlike conduct shouldn't extend to computer games.

I do wonder about people who feel compelled to do that kind of crap.

There are fighting stances where provocation is not only permitted but incentivized, it's part of the game, you have even given a good example with Pro MMA. Words, when not a part of "clear and present danger" like in a threat or shouting fire in a crowded theater, are not violence.

Did I say they were violence? Lots of repugnant things aren't violence. If someone could teleport shit into my lap while I'm playing a game, that wouldn't be violence either, and I would be perfectly capable of making an effort of will and ignoring it while playing on. So, if that were possible should it be allowed? I'm thinking not.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 18 June 2020 at 7:44 am UTC

Quoting: TheSHEEEPThe problem is that nowadays everything can be called "hate-speech" and get the perpetually offended raging, calling for mommy (aka whoever runs the game) to restrict others so they can have their completely opposition-and-adversity-free safe space.

I've noticed that the people who love their gratuitous kaka-language insults get tremendously offended and thin-skinned whenever they're confronted with someone who considers it juvenile stupidity. Buncha snowflakes.

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: gabberNow let me get this straight: You shoot, burn and blow up others. But how dare you call them a nasty word, that's too much. That's "hate-speech" and "toxic".

The one is virtual - a bunch of pixels is killed.
The other is real - an actual person is insulted.

Ok, your avatar, your representation in a virtual world is shred to pieces in a graphical manner and with sophisticated animations, 3D graphics and sounds, but still words which are as virtual as any graphics are worse? So the words unambiguously affect the person, they could not be "protected" by these nasty words like, you know, not giving a f* about them instead of asking for censorship?

Words are incredibly important after all. Probably not the ones under discussion, to be honest, but you sound like you're saying "They're just words" which would be a really stupid thing to say. All really big atrocities have the way to them paved by words. All really big achievements are first envisioned in words. Words run the friggin' world (Graphics do not). It would be a better place if they were used with a bit more care, instead of, say, the most powerful country in the world being run on Twitter.

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: TheSHEEEPThe problem is that nowadays everything can be called "hate-speech" and get the perpetually offended raging, calling for mommy (aka whoever runs the game) to restrict others so they can have their completely opposition-and-adversity-free safe space.

I've noticed that the people who love their gratuitous kaka-language insults get tremendously offended and thin-skinned whenever they're confronted with someone who considers it juvenile stupidity. Buncha snowflakes.

They sure do.
Just a month ago or so, I was playing some Mordhau and chat was especially active with beautifully infantile insults.
My "What's going on here? School's out early?" was met with just the right amount of upset kiddies and ROFLing adults.

Wouldn't want to have it any other way.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 18 June 2020 at 8:54 am UTC

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: gabberNow let me get this straight: You shoot, burn and blow up others. But how dare you call them a nasty word, that's too much. That's "hate-speech" and "toxic".

The one is virtual - a bunch of pixels is killed.
The other is real - an actual person is insulted.

It's not even that. I don't think they allow people to talk shit at martial arts tournaments, either, even full contact ones where they're going to beat the stuffing out of each other. You're competing, violently, because everyone involved wants to, but that's no reason not to treat each other with respect. Pro MMA has some trash-talking, which I find vulgar and annoying, but even there you don't see them going "You (sexual orientation) mother****er" yadda yadda yadda. They set limits. There's no reason sportsmanlike conduct shouldn't extend to computer games.

I do wonder about people who feel compelled to do that kind of crap.

There are fighting stances where provocation is not only permitted but incentivized, it's part of the game, you have even given a good example with Pro MMA. Words, when not a part of "clear and present danger" like in a threat or shouting fire in a crowded theater, are not violence.

Did I say they were violence? Lots of repugnant things aren't violence. If someone could teleport shit into my lap while I'm playing a game, that wouldn't be violence either, and I would be perfectly capable of making an effort of will and ignoring it while playing on. So, if that were possible should it be allowed? I'm thinking not.

I disagree, the "shit into your lap" is very much the definition of violence. Might not hurt, but it causes direct, clear damage. Violence: "Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something:.

No, shit in my lap would not hurt, damage or kill me. It would be gratuitously nasty, but not violent. Much like shit-talking.
But words are actually more dangerous. You're Brazilian, are you not? How many people are likely to die in the next few years because of Bolsonaro shit-talking about various groups? Not, mind you, because he ordered troops to do anything, just because he set a tone that made various shitheads and interest groups feel like some people are fair game. How many other people will repeat what he says, creating a climate of dehumanization?
It's believed by many investigators that the massacres in Rwanda were to a fair extent enabled by media like talk radio routinely calling the other ethnic group various stuff like cockroaches and whatnot, dehumanizing them and making it psychologically "OK" to kill them. Not that there wasn't other stuff going on, but that had a big impact.

I was bullied in school. A lot. I was chased around and beaten up routinely by groups of 4 to 6, although not that thoroughly 'cause it wasn't that tough a school (and often they failed to catch me 'cause I ran fast). And I was insulted constantly and socially ostracized. I gave as good as I got there. So as someone with extensive experience of the physical and the verbal side . . . if you could have somehow subtracted one entirely, just leaving the other, well, I won't say it's an easy or slam-dunk choice but I'd probably get rid of the verbal rather than the physical. So I don't find people convincing when they say words are nothing and should just be ignored. Or that verbal abuse is fun.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyIt's believed by many investigators that the massacres in Rwanda were to a fair extent enabled by media like talk radio routinely calling the other ethnic group various stuff like cockroaches and whatnot, dehumanizing them and making it psychologically "OK" to kill them. Not that there wasn't other stuff going on, but that had a big impact.

Are you aware the topic is some random insults in heated moments in online game chats, not real hate-speech, systemic persecution or actual calls to violence, etc.?
The latter things have always been forbidden and people who did that have always been quickly banned, at least as far back as I remember (back when Counter-Strike was new).
And the former has never lead to the latter ones, as it is always some infantile venting while the latter ones require an actual motivation and ideology behind them.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI was bullied in school. A lot. I was chased around and beaten up routinely by groups of 4 to 6, although not that thoroughly 'cause it wasn't that tough a school (and often they failed to catch me 'cause I ran fast). And I was insulted constantly and socially ostracized. I gave as good as I got there. So as someone with extensive experience of the physical and the verbal side . . . if you could have somehow subtracted one entirely, just leaving the other, well, I won't say it's an easy or slam-dunk choice but I'd probably get rid of the verbal rather than the physical. So I don't find people convincing when they say words are nothing and should just be ignored. Or that verbal abuse is fun.

Well, kids and teens can be cruel, that's not exactly news.
But what does bullying at school, which is always very focused on a few unlucky individuals which happen to have the wrong face/color/name/body/accent/whatever, have to do with forbidding people to vent and sling some insults in an online chat?
If someone would be followed around by the same group of people online, with them constantly harassing that person, that would be a comparable case. But given the nature of matchmaking in these games, that isn't something that could even happen.

Sucks for you that your experience makes you unable to deal with even the slightest forms of verbal abuse in the form of "kaka-language", but this isn't true for most people who actually play these games and there is therefore no need to censor anything or restrict anyone playing these games.
If some real racists, etc. turn up in these games and start letting their nonsensical views loose, they are generally identified and dealt with quickly, but some frustrated venting or spicy banter has nothing to do with that.

Quoting: PatolaFinally, one curiosity/question I have. You just said his words have negative consequences. You never even touched the merit of whether they are true or not. Doesn't it matter? If he says something that is absolutely true but it has "likely negative consequences" according to your take on the subject, must Brazil's president should also be censored/cancelled/deplatformed? And we're talking about one of the most powerful persons of a culture you don't even belong to, imagine what you want to do with the little joes of your own culture.

Snipped the quote down to the important bit, but you really did go for all the right-wing keywords in your post, didn't you? :D


Your point about the "truth" of his words is more than a bit disingenuous. As you said yourself, we're talking about ideology here, not easily verifiable statements. Policies are true if their effects pan out as claimed. Nobody can accurately feel the truth, no matter what certain public figures say.

Let's see, what are Bolsonaro's policies again? Loosening up gun control to increase security? Doesn't really seem to work that way, the US serving as a prime example. Working against efforts to legalize abortion? Well I guess the only goal here is to make certain Christian groups happy, so I guess this pans out, no matter the negative consequences. Privatizing state-owned companies and essential services to boost the economy? Sure, this has pretty much never been a net positive for the general population but it might push up the GNP I suppose, and make the rich even richer. And how about denying deforestation and climate change, getting out of the Paris agreement? To an outsider, this one looks like just another favour to rich landowners and businesses at the expense of Brazilians and the world for generations to come. But at least he thinks people should all carry guns so they can fight the law when they decide they don't like it. Freedom to fail spectacularly, amiright?


Go ahead, cry "fake news" on anything and everything you disagree with, regardless of merit. It will make all reasoned debate impossible, but that ship has sailed I suppose.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPSucks for you that your experience makes you unable to deal with even the slightest forms of verbal abuse in the form of "kaka-language", but this isn't true for most people who actually play these games and there is therefore no need to censor anything or restrict anyone playing these games.
If some real racists, etc. turn up in these games and start letting their nonsensical views loose, they are generally identified and dealt with quickly, but some frustrated venting or spicy banter has nothing to do with that.

Ignoring the rest of the discussion (and your thinly veiled insult right here), does restricting chat abuse make the game experience significantly worse for anyone? Does it make the game less approachable for their target market? If not, I don't see why Valve should care. If this "spicy banter" isn't what makes the game enjoyable for the general player base and attracts new players, this move is a good one.

You don't need to play this game if you just want to trade insults. The Internet is full of venues for that sort of thing.

Quoting: tuubidoes restricting chat abuse make the game experience significantly worse for anyone? Does it make the game less approachable for their target market? If not, I don't see why Valve should care. If this "spicy banter" isn't what makes the game enjoyable for the general player base and attracts new players, this move is a good one.

The problem is that censorship generally starts out as something "innocent" and well-meaning. But never stays that way.
At the beginning, people might only want to censor some generally accepted racist (accepted as in, yes, everyone agrees this is racist) terms.
But then, slowly, or faster (who knows), more and more censorship will seep in as soon as anyone gets their precious feefees hurt by whatever "evil word" offends them for whatever reasons on any given day.
Fast forward, and you'll get words banned that are in no way offensive to any majority of the userbase and soon the only words being allowed in chat are "flower" and "love", but only if you kindly ask everyone's permission beforehand. At this point, why even have a chat?
A tiny minority, which isn't even playing the game, just raising a stink on Twitter etc., ends up dictating a majority of the actual playerbase what they can or cannot say. Doesn't sound very reasonable or logical to me.

Just look at the recent nonsense happening with Github renaming "master" to whatever, because apparently the word master itself cannot be said anymore, no matter the context (bad news for anyone who has a master's degree like my GF, their degree is now racist, or who accomplished mastery of some skill)...
Or that desaster in Visual Studio Code when the Santa symbol was removed from an innocent celebration of Christmas time, because a single user found it offensive for the most absurd reasons with which barely anyone agreed.
Again, a tiny minority dictating the majority what is or isn't acceptable.

In this climate, I wouldn't trust anyone, least of all people in the PR or media business, to make any reasonable decision in the matter. Because currently, the name of the game is bend to knee to whoever is crying the loudest about being offended on social media - except for the actual userbase.
Better to not even let them gain a single foot in the door whenever it can be avoided. Even if that means having to defend stupid insults.
I rather have stupid insults than a thought and word police.

Quoting: tuubiYou don't need to play this game if you just want to trade insults. The Internet is full of venues for that sort of thing.

Banter is part of the game, believe it or not.
If someone doesn't want it, they can disable the chat, just like what you can do with voice chats.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 19 June 2020 at 11:23 am UTC

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: tuubidoes restricting chat abuse make the game experience significantly worse for anyone? Does it make the game less approachable for their target market? If not, I don't see why Valve should care. If this "spicy banter" isn't what makes the game enjoyable for the general player base and attracts new players, this move is a good one.

The problem is that censorship generally starts out as something "innocent" and well-meaning. But never stays that way.

All slopes are slippery?

Quoting: TheSHEEEPJust look at the recent nonsense happening with Github renaming "master" to whatever, because apparently the word master itself cannot be said anymore, no matter the context (bad news for anyone who has a master's degree like my GF, their degree is now racist, or who accomplished mastery of some skill)...

Agreed. Master isn't an offensive term in a context where there's no concept of slaves, like git branches or academic degrees.