Do player reports for verbal abuse actually get reviewed? How do consequences work?

[Archisian]

You know, this entire issue would be easily solved if BGA just allowed a player to disable the chat.

Wait what? How is that a solution? It's as if you told someone "You don't want to be mugged? You can just stay at home. Problem solved".

It's not up to the people who want to chat to stop chatting just because some abusive people exist. It's up to the abusive people to change their behavior.

I don’t think that’s an accurate analogy. I’m not suggesting that people who enjoy chatting should stop chatting. I’m suggesting that players who don’t want chat should have the option to disable it for themselves.

A closer analogy would be muting direct messages on a social media platform. Other people are still free to send messages, but you choose not to receive them.

Of course abusive behavior should be punished. Those aren’t mutually exclusive solutions. Every large online platform has moderation tools and user-controlled privacy tools because moderation can’t prevent every unpleasant interaction before it happens.

Chess.com is a good example. Players who enjoy chatting can leave it enabled, while those who don’t can disable it. Both groups get what they want. I’m simply asking why BGA shouldn’t offer the same choice.

[tbhp]

I don’t think that’s an accurate analogy. I’m not suggesting that people who enjoy chatting should stop chatting. I’m suggesting that players who don’t want chat should have the option to disable it for themselves.

But the topic is not about people who don't want to chat at all, it's about the people who may want to chat in general but also understandably don't want to run into rude or aggressive people. You seem to be saying that those people should consider your hypothetical feature an acceptable situation to their problem, when it's not acceptable at all. It's the wrongdoers who should be behaving better, not everyone else who should be accommodating and limiting their usage of things they enjoy because those people exist.

Chess.com is a good example. Players who enjoy chatting can leave it enabled, while those who don’t can disable it. Both groups get what they want. I’m simply asking why BGA shouldn’t offer the same choice.

Probably because like I said, they don't want to settle for something that doesn't solve the core problem. It would be like letting for abusers win.

Now, granted, I guess there may be people who just don't want to have anyone be able to talk to them. Those people could benefit from your suggestion. But for everyone who otherwise would enjoy chatting but would choose to use the feature just to avoid abusers, that would just be sad, I think.

[Archisian]

But the topic is not about people who don't want to chat at all, it's about the people who may want to chat in general but also understandably don't want to run into rude or aggressive people. You seem to be saying that those people should consider your hypothetical feature an acceptable situation to their problem, when it's not acceptable at all. It's the wrongdoers who should be behaving better, not everyone else who should be accommodating and limiting their usage of things they enjoy because those people exist.

Sorry to reply late. Had a vacation on the weekend. To respond to your points:

I think we're talking past each other a bit because I don't see these as mutually exclusive.

I agree that abusive players should be dealt with. They should be reported, moderated, and punished. I never argued otherwise.

What I'm saying is that moderation and user controls serve different purposes. Moderation addresses the person causing the problem. A mute or disable-chat option lets individual users decide how they want to experience the platform while moderation does its job.

Probably because like I said, they don't want to settle for something that doesn't solve the core problem. It would be like letting for abusers win.

Now, granted, I guess there may be people who just don't want to have anyone be able to talk to them. Those people could benefit from your suggestion. But for everyone who otherwise would enjoy chatting but would choose to use the feature just to avoid abusers, that would just be sad, I think.

I don't think giving users more control means "letting the abusers win." By that logic, every platform that allows you to block or mute someone is letting abusers win. I don't see it that way. I see it as giving users the ability to avoid unwanted interactions while bad actors are still dealt with separately.

You also acknowledged that some people simply don't want chat at all, and that they'd benefit from the feature. If that's true, then the feature already has value. The only remaining question is whether offering that option harms everyone else. I don't think it does, because nobody who enjoys chatting would be required to disable it.