Tisaac wrote: ↑08 October 2021, 16:04
Ze Monstah wrote: ↑08 October 2021, 09:50
BGA should just eliminate game chatting, 'cause anything can be offensive & moderation-worthy.
It'd also be better for them: less work, less stress.
(..) less than 0.01%, then this is ok IMO.
Also, i dont think the comparison between croissant and gg makes sense because for gg, you will also get players that are offending if their opponent is NOT saying gg at the end of game, so that makes it even harder to deal with.
I don't understand how you come up with 0.01%... and I don't agree with your logic entirely (perhaps I fail to understand it in the way you write it).
You are just saying these things, because I suppose you have never felt injustice on BGA, without being able to do anything or talk about it.
My comparison was to say that any player, as I see it, has the
right to be offended by anything (even something so trivial as seeing "gg" everytime - then post here), considering the
WIDE limits of the words (context or not) some of the players are moderated for ("croissant" or "hindu" or "heh" or "no" or whatever).
Simple as that.
If it was me to govern over moderations, the limits would be more narrow and more concise, but as BGA is putting it... you should accept these repeated forum posts and not make fun of them, like that player from above with the "gg" or others who said "these people/posts should be put in a different category" or something
(interesting none of you ever criticise these people for mocking... only the arguably more annoying half).
Also, no mention about how Robert twisted that player's text, above, to make it something else; cool...
No, they are very ok to be in "Discussions" - these posts, as anything else, as long as they're not offensive (the "j*rk" word used in the OP is bad); and you have the power of ignorance on your side, it shouldn't affect you.
Of course "gg" will not be moderation-worthy in most of contexts (if not all), while "hindu", "croiss.", "no", "heh" or others, would.
The point was on
Hyper-sensitivity, not "moderation-worthy".
As for your 0.01%... Someone once brough a comparison between moderation on BGA and the Justice System in the real world.
Let's say a Judge has most of cases solved uncontestably well, but ~0.01%, let's say he/she mistakenly put people on the Death Row (0.01% cases in trial, compared to the "heh" case someone was moderated for).
Or a surgeon, who saved a lot of lives but ~0.01%, he/she didn't save, because even though he/she could, (s)he was burnt out; and later admitted.
Will people remember the majority of cases or the <0.01?
I would remeber the 2nd., perhaps i'm pessimistic.
Again, i don't know how you came up with 0.01, and I am aware that the 3 situations are extremely different.
I am just counter-arguing what people say, with their arguments.
The thing is... I also think that Moderators do a good job in most cases, but
"a player shouldn't be considered guilty if there's ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT" is just a myth, and there are obviously
more details and criteria about report-solving, than what is shown to us.
And the minority of cases they don't manage well, for me that stain is bigger (pessimism and personal opinion).
There have been a lot of shadows of a doubt who were simply ignored, even after explaining.
*
there could be a function DISABLE CHAT - i would use that... i think exclusively by default, turning chats off in all games A-Z.
Or there could be other ways of chatting (group chat or I don't know), disabling game-chats in chat-independent games (I am aware that cooperation games need game chat).
Peace and love.
Let's say a Judge has most of cases solved uncontestably well, but ~0.01%, let's say he/she mistakenly put people on the Death Row (0.01% cases in trial, compared to the "heh" case someone was moderated for).