This has been aired on international news on the television. Because especially one of these situations of fishy banning was so systematical they got banned from like 7+ media platforms, including ones they never even posted anything on. And they've done nothing legally wrong, nor the others who got the ban hammer after. And other people got their live podcasts forcibly shut down for even talking about it on air. You missed this if you don't follow news at all, or you cherry pick your news and shut down the tv the minute twitter is mentioned, which is unfortunate. But ignorance is bliss I guess.

 

How would the alternative be worse? We haven't had these line in the TOS before, theyre new (correct me if I'm wrong) and I'm pretty sure we haven't had religious or political propaganda airing in SWTOR 24/7 before we had these rules. Apart from the occasional troll, and no matter how many more rules you write, there will always be the occasional troll. I play PVP most times I'm on and I haven't had any Jihadists trying to recruit hutballers even once. You're imagining worse case scenarios which are easily avoidable by pressing the ignore button. You're not as hopeless as you think you are. Not every corner of the internet needs to be a "safe place" where opinions of any kind are not allowed for they might trigger some poor soul.

 

Also I'm not sure why you are repeating things I already stated in my comment. Maybe you didn't finish reading it.

You realize I'm not your enemy? There's no need to be so hostile. In fact, I think we share many concerns when it comes to freedom of speech. You may wish to calm down instead of hurling accusations left and right. I don't regularly read some news site every day, and perhaps I have missed this incident you're referring to. I also repeat some things to show that yes, we agree in them. I'm sorry if you found it condecending, I didn't mean it come off like that.

Where we disagree, however, is if companies should be allowed to remove customers who cause disturbance to other customers. I do think they should be allowed to do that. It should be fair, though, and I don't agree with punishing people who have a certain political agenda more harshly than those who have a different one - - and I know some sites are not exactly fair in that. Sites like youtube and twitter, which actually are used as platforms for sharing information and political discussion, mayhaps should also be held to a different standard than sites that are not used to that - - like SWTOR's chat.

You accuse me of making up worst case scenarios, but exactly how often are you having serious, level headed political debates in SWTOR? Only people I see having them are trolls spamming in general chat and people who get baited by them. It seems to me that this addition, if it indeed is an addition, doesn't change much at all, and neither would removing it. You remove it and someone might one day find a way to troll in a way that is technically permitted, you leave it there and someone might one day have a political debate in the chat and get a warning for saying something considered insensitive by people with opposite views. Neither would exactly be the end of the world.

As for whether or not it's new - - I don't know, as I don't remember the old TOS word for word, but I'd be awfully surprised if there was nothing about vulgar language, racism or religious comments there. If there was not, It's likely that people being excessive about things like that were punished by considering that behavior harassment or trolling. You're making a big deal out of this, but I don't think anything will change. Terms of Service on pretty much every site is open to interpretation so they can punish pretty much everyone they like who happens to be causing other customers to leave.

I admire your passion for free speech, but not all battles are worth fighting. Besides, this forum has far more censorship than the new TOS with political and religious conversation banned completely, and you seem to be posting just fine here.

You realize I'm not your enemy? There's no need to be so hostile. In fact, I think we share many concerns when it comes to freedom of speech. You may wish to calm down instead of hurling accusations left and right. I don't regularly read some news site every day, and perhaps I have missed this incident you're referring to. I also repeat some things to show that yes, we agree in them. I'm sorry if you found it condecending, I didn't mean it come off like that.

Hold on there for a second. I know you're not my enemy, I'm having a discussion here. I'm not sure why you think I think that. I don't get mad, I just don't constantly say "sorry" for saying my opinions and views. If that makes me look hostile, well... excuse me if I don't consider sharing opinions (mine or yours) something that should be apologized for.

Can you quote me doing an accusation please?

Because I'm pretty sure everything I said was theorycrafting on "you missed X news because Y or Z because none of this info had to be especially sought out when it was tooted literally everywhere". The followups you had to do research on and wouldn't blame you for not caring to look into if you ain't interested.

Where we disagree, however, is if companies should be allowed to remove customers who cause disturbance to other customers. I do think they should be allowed to do that. It should be fair, though, and I don't agree with punishing people who have a certain political agenda more harshly than those who have a different one - - and I know some sites are not exactly fair in that. Sites like youtube and twitter, which actually are used as platforms for sharing information and political discussion, mayhaps should also be held to a different standard than sites that are not used to that - - like SWTOR's chat.

We agree on this. Doesn't change the fact that trying to regulate users based on various political morals with this broad outlining is a fools errand. Swtor chat is far easier to regulate though, only playing customers get to post and the amount of people doing that is a minuscule fraction of other social media platform views. Would this be facebook they would have gotten about 10thousand flagged posts within one day. It's a decision they can make by all means- doesn't mean its a smart one, which also unnecessarily limits conversation.

You accuse me of making up worst case scenarios, but exactly how often are you having serious, level headed political debates in SWTOR? Only people I see having them are trolls spamming in general chat and people who get baited by them. It seems to me that this addition, if it indeed is addition, doesn't change much at all, and neither would removing it. You remove it and someone might one day find a way to troll in a way that is technically permitted, you leave it there and someone might one day have a political debate in the chat and get a warning for saying something considered in sensitive by people with opposite views.

I've met quite a few political minds on SWTOR. We don't debate ingame anymore- most of us dont even play anymore. We who liked various political and philosophical views actually ended up shading skype account and discuss news currently there. And our views differ greatly. We have conservatives, far leftists, right wingers, liberals, non-aligning... All we're really missing from the group is some highly religious views. And we disagree on maaaaany things with this bunch. But it's good to have differing view points instead of just sticking to your safe-space faction where no debate ever happens. We enjoy civil debate and discussion even if no middle ground is ever found.

And we met trough Swtor, or other MMO games, by just posting recent news and conversation sparked. You absolutely can have political discussions on swtor, even if the conversation doesn't remain there and moves elsewhere from disturbing guild chat.

These discussion will not ever happen however if theres a threat of getting you banned if your political view is different from the platforms one and freely bans anything it doesn't like. That kind of environment is too one-sided to have any real unapologetic discussion on.

Hence my great distaste for banning people anywhere based on opinion- no matter how ridiculous I personally think those opinions would be.

As for whether or not it's new - - I don't know, as I don't remember the old TOS word for word, but I'd be awfully surprised if there was nothing about vulgar language, racism or religious comments there. If there was not, It's likely people being excessive about things like that were punished by considering that behavior harassment. You're making a big deal out of this, but I don't think anything will change. Terms of Service on pretty much every site are open to interpretation so they can punish pretty much everyone they like who happens to be causing other customers to leave.

 

I admire your passion for free speech, but not all battles are worth fighting. Besides, this forum has far more censorship than the new TOS with political and religious conversation banned completely, and you seem to be posting just fine here.

Am I really making a big deal out of this though? I only made one statement and even joked after, which sprouted out like 5 replies from different people. Are you sure it's not you guys who made a big deal out of my two-line long statement?

If I get a reply that's five times the size of my initial post I tend to join the conversation.

If you decide to join that conversation too, cool, lets have a conversation! But joining in and then halfway trough stating "you're making too big deal out of this", well you know, two people are needed to have a conversation. So what to that I reply "you mean we both are, right?"

Hold on there for a second. I know you're not my enemy, I'm having a discussion here. I'm not sure why you think I think that. I don't get mad, I just don't constantly say "sorry" for saying my opinions and views. If that makes me look hostile, well... excuse me if I don't consider sharing opinions (mine or yours) something that should be apologized for.

 

Can you quote me doing an accusation please?

Because I'm pretty sure everything I said was theorycrafting on "you missed X news because Y or Z because none of this info had to be especially sought out when it was tooted literally everywhere". The followups you had to do research on and wouldn't blame you for not caring to look into if you ain't interested.

Maybe you didn't mean it that way or maybe I took it wrong, but comments about not being as hopeless as I think I am and not needing a safe place did come off to me as you trying to paint me as some triggered, weak person who needs protection. ^^' I get most of my news related to twitter/youtube bans etc. from a first hand source (I'm subscribed on youtube to some people who have been demonetized, and videos about bans and whatnot tend to show up in my recommendation list even though I'm not watching that many people who are affected anymore), so I'm surprised I've missed something like that. Though, I suppose I could have seen it and just thought it's nothing new.

We agree on this. Doesn't change the fact that trying to regulate users based on various political morals with this broad outlining is a fools errand. Swtor chat is far easier to regulate though, only playing customers get to post and the amount of people doing that is a minuscule fraction of other social media platform views. Would this be facebook they would have gotten about 10thousand flagged posts within one day. It's a decision they can make by all means- doesn't mean its a smart one, which also unnecessarily limits conversation.

As you say, SWTOR's chat is not facebook. In facebook, it would be impossible to regulate. In SWTOR's chat, there's not much actual political discussion anyway, not to mention there's less people, which means less people reporting. I doubt they'll be drowning in reports. Unfortunately, every rule made to make sure people can't troll without consequences has the potential to limit discussion. I'd go even further and say there's no difference in behavior of a troll spamming about controversial things, and of someone who feels a strong need to spread their controversial views. Every time you start banning trolls, you're also limiting discussion in some way.

I've met quite a few political minds on SWTOR. We don't debate ingame anymore- most of us dont even play anymore. We who liked various political and philosophical views actually ended up shading skype account and discuss news currently there. And our views differ greatly. We have conservatives, far leftists, right wingers, liberals, non-aligning... All we're really missing from the group is some highly religious views. And we disagree on maaaaany things with this bunch. But it's good to have differing view points instead of just sticking to your safe-space faction where no debate ever happens. We enjoy civil debate and discussion even if no middle ground is ever found.

And we met trough Swtor, or other MMO games, by just posting recent news and conversation sparked. You absolutely can have political discussions on swtor, even if the conversation doesn't remain there and moves elsewhere from disturbing guild chat.

 

These discussion will not ever happen however if theres a threat of getting you banned if your political view is different from the platforms one and freely bans anything it doesn't like. That kind on environment is too one-sided to have any real unapologetic discussion on.

If this has been your experience, I can understand why the change would worry you. I hope you can continue finding more level headed people to debate, and I can understand why experiences with youtube and twitter might make you fear this won't be possible anymore. ^^ I'd hope these rules are used to push out trolls and people who use religious or political terms to harass someone and not those who are looking for a discussion, but I understand there is potential for abuse there. I'd be sad to see someone banned for a calm conversation, but if Bioware feels they need a rule like that to cover their rear against trolls who claim it's not trolling they do, it's just their religious beliefs... Well, I can see why that rule would be needed. And if they feel allowing certain statements would give them bad PR and drive away customers, I can understand wishing to "censor" them, too.

Am I really making a big deal out of this though? I only made one statement and even joked after, which sprouted out like 5 replies from different people. Are you sure it's not you guys who made a big deal out of my two-line long statement?

If I get a reply that's five times the size of my initial post I tend to join the conversation.

If you decide to join that conversation too, cool, lets have a conversation! But joining in and then halfway trough stating "you're making too big deal out of this", well you know, two people are needed to have a conversation. So what to that I reply "you mean we both are, right?"

Ah, I suppose this is the danger of the internet discussion, since there's no tone of voice. I did not read your messages as lighthearted, but as you being genuinely upset about this change. ^^'

I always write long responses though. I just like to ramble I guess.

Maybe you didn't mean it that way or maybe I took it wrong, but comments about not being as hopeless as I think I am and not needing a safe place did come off to me as you trying to paint me as some triggered, weak person who needs protection. ^^' I get most of my news related to twitter/youtube bans etc. from a first hand source (I'm subscribed on youtube to some people who have been demonetized, and videos about bans and whatnot tend to show up in my recommendation list even though I'm not watching that many people who are affected anymore), so I'm surprised I've missed something like that. Though, I suppose I could have seen it and just thought it's nothing new.

The safe-space comments were generalized and not pointed at anyone directly. A lot of people who don't often join political or philosophical discussions tend to sick to their own faction safe space quarters and somehow think if they just ignore and censor the opposition hard enough they'll magically go away.

The way you portrayed the not being able to eat your food in peace, really did sound like you though making the company ban controversial opinions or vulgarity was the only way to protect yourself from loudmouths- which is false and you give yourself too little credit if you think having a big company watch your surroundings for you is the only way to protect yourself. I have no doubt since you play MMOs you have met many annoying people and you didn't need to call BW to get them off your tail/ chat window. Even the worst clingy trolls (and believe me i get some sore wisp-stalkers because i like debates) will eventually evaporate without needing to call big brother.

Some people who cant handle a debate plain mute me because I refused to change my stance (and its ok to disagree), which I find just silly behavior. I still haven't blocked anyone here during the entire 7+ years I've played swtor, because I wan't to hear their opinions. I don't feel the need to protect myself from views I don't agree with. The only people I mute consistently are usually ingame salty pvp trolls who log on all alts just to swear at you.

As you say, SWTOR's chat is not facebook. In facebook, it would be impossible to regulate. In SWTOR's chat, there's not much actual political discussion anyway, not to mention there's less people, which means less people reporting. I doubt they'll be drowning in reports. Unfortunately, every rule made to make sure people can't troll without consequences has the potential to limit discussion. I'd go even further and say there's no difference in behavior of a troll spamming about controversial things, and of someone who feels a strong need to spread their controversial views. Every time you start banning trolls, you're also limiting discussion in some way.

Yet facebook does this all the time, and it IS impossible for them to regulate. They cherry pick their content they want to remove, and give a vague reason that would apply to 1000 other pages/posts too, but surprise surprise those dont get muted because they're more leftist view than the right wing view they just banned under some obscure reason that in reality should affect all the others too. It's a sad state of affairs to see a platform that advertised itself as place for free speech, continuously muting views of opposing political parties. It's only free if you agree with them!

I will always have a distaste for any platform that limits freedom of speech in any form. Doesn't matter if its large or tiny. If anyone needs to fear getting banned for their views, it's a terrible thing. I don't care if it's supposed to keep trolls at bay, all forms of limiting speech have been universally taken advantage of in every single country that enforces them. And I would rather have a troll shouting profanity at the street (which is legal btw) than to risk getting a critical-thinker deplatformed because their views weren't "nice enough".

If this has been your experience, I can understand why the change would worry you. I hope you can continue finding more level headed people to debate, and I can understand why experiences with youtube and twitter might make you fear this won't be possible anymore. ^^ I'd hope these rules are used to push out trolls and people who use religious or political terms to harass someone and not those who are looking for a discussion, but I understand there is potential for abuse there. I'd be sad to see someone banned for a calm conversation, but if Bioware feels they need a rule like that to cover their rear against trolls who claim it's not trolling they do, it's just their religious beliefs... Well, I can see why that rule would be needed. And if they feel allowing certain statements would give them bad PR and drive away customers, I can understand wishing to "censor" them, too.

 

Ah, I suppose this is the danger of the internet discussion, since there's no tone of voice. I did not read your messages as lighthearted, but as you being genuinely upset about this change. ^^'

 

I always write long responses though. I just like to ramble I guess.

No no you were right, I am genuinely upset about this change. It's a terrible change. Doesn't mean I can't crack a joke about it. Not like EA is listening to some randos opinion on a videogame forum anyway

If I'd be fuming here with a pitchfork and torch my tone would likely be a lot more vulgar.

But I settled for facepalm and a snarky comment.

The safe-space comments were generalized and not pointed at anyone directly. A lot of people who don't often join political or philosophical discussions tend to sick to their own faction safe space quarters and somehow think if they just ignore and censor the opposition hard enough they'll magically go away.

The way you portrayed the not being able to eat your food in peace, really did sound like you though making the company ban controversial opinions or vulgarity was the only way to protect yourself from loudmouths- which is false and you give yourself too little credit if you think having a big company watch your surroundings for you is the only way to protect yourself. I have no doubt since you play MMOs you have met many annoying people and you didn't need to call BW to get them off your tail/ chat window. Even the worst clingy trolls (and believe me i get some sore wisp-stalkers because i like debates) will eventually evaporate without needing to call big brother.

 

Some people who cant handle a debate plain mute me because I refused to change my stance (and its ok to disagree), which I find just silly behavior. I still haven't blocked anyone here during the entire 7+ years I've played swtor, because I wan't to hear their opinions. I don't feel the need to protect myself from views I don't agree with. The only people I mute consistently are usually ingame salty pvp trolls who log on all alts just to swear at you.

My examples about wishing to eat or shop in peace had less to do with me being unable to protect myself from annoying people, and more to do with why I feel companies need to have the ability to remove people if they so choose. It doesn't matter if I can handle someone who's being disruptive in some way, since I'd rather not have to. If I go to a store and there's someone who's using it as a place to preach their agenda and the staff is not doing anything about it...I'm likely to go to a different store next time, some place where I don't have to deal with that. If companies don't have the tools to limit freedom of speech when necessary, people like that could essentially ruin a business by driving away their customers.

Yet facebook does this all the time, and it IS impossible for them to regulate. They cherry pick their content they want to remove, and give a vague reason that would apply to 1000 other pages/posts too, but surprise surprise those dont get muted because they're more leftist view than the right wing view they just banned under some obscure reason that in reality should affect all the others too. It's a sad state of affairs to see a platform that advertised itself as place for free speech, continuously muting views of opposing political parties. It's only free if you agree with them!

 

I will always have a distaste for any platform that limits freedom of speech in any form. Doesn't matter if its large or tiny. If anyone needs to fear getting banned for their views, it's a terrible thing. I don't care if it's supposed to keep trolls at bay, all forms of limiting speech have been universally taken advantage of in every single country that enforces them. And I would rather have a troll shouting profanity at the street (which is legal btw) than to risk getting a critical-thinker deplatformed because their views weren't "nice enough".

I don't know much about facebook, but I take your word on it. I agree that freedom of speech should be protected and nothing should be above debate, but I feel social rules, so to speak, need to be respected, too. There's a time and place for all discussion, but not every time and place is appropriate for every discussion. While I'm sad if this change means all political discussion in SWTOR will be impossible or dangerous for people with differing views, I can understand if Bioware feels general chat should not be the appropriate time and place for heated political debates, and while I wouldn't necessarily mind it (unless I'm trying to find an ops group and they're making it difficult), I do think a lot of their customers would agree on that.

No no you were right, I am genuinely upset about this change. It's a terrible change. Doesn't mean I can't crack a joke about it. Not like EA is listening to some randos opinion on a videogame forum anyway

If I'd be fuming here with a pitchfork and torch my tone would likely be a lot more vulgar.

But I settled for facepalm and a snarky comment.

Well, I genuinely feel this won't change a thing. This seems to be more of a response towards the cheating/hacking thing they're taking a more hard stance on anyway. If they wanted to ban people talking about politics, I'm sure they could have done it with the old ToS, too.

ToS are less for protecting the consumer or using it as a weapon against a dissenting opinion than they are to protect the company from being sued. That's all ToS are--to protect them at all costs, from all angles, from lawsuits, both frivolous and substantial. They're protecting themselves from pearl-clutching, overprotective, easily-offended, SJW "snowflakes" just as much as they are against any troll that might come back at them about "their rights" to be the opposite.

And like it or not, many states and countries have made it ILLEGAL to do a lot of the things they're listing as bannable offenses. They're not going to draft a separate ToS for each individual state/country just to appease people who like antagonizing and discriminating in those places where it's still legal to do those things with impunity.

Again, it's about covering their bases from all sides from being sued, and again, like it or not, it's going to heavily favor the "safe" and "legal" opinions and actions over the deliberately provocative and widely-held "illegal" ones.

ToS are less for protecting the consumer or using it as a weapon against a dissenting opinion than they are to protect the company from being sued.

If there is no breaking the law happening they won't be getting sued over any user discussion, don't you worry. It should go without saying you are not allowed to break the law even on a videogame forum.

Some points certainly enforce the law and their copyrights, but all of them? No. Rest of them are whatever rules they want them to be.

My examples about wishing to eat or shop in peace had less to do with me being unable to protect myself from annoying people, and more to do with why I feel companies need to have the ability to remove people if they so choose. It doesn't matter if I can handle someone who's being disruptive in some way, since I'd rather not have to. If I go to a store and there's someone who's using it as a place to preach their agenda and the staff is not doing anything about it...I'm likely to go to a different store next time, some place where I don't have to deal with that. If companies don't have the tools to limit freedom of speech when necessary, people like that could essentially ruin a business by driving away their customers.

And it is your right to not go to a store you didn't like because there was a preacher about. As it is mine to not use facebook because I strongly disagree with their censor and information fishing. It is all about personal preference. Maybe you want to boycott the store because they gave someone a permission to preach there (you need a permission to preach in public place, this is in the law), maybe I want to boycott a social media platform for boycotting speech.

But by choosing to be fine with limiting speech for your convenience, you are fine with censorship, which is where i strongly disagree with you. I fill fight for your right to disagree with anyone, anywhere.

It is common decency to not start randomly swearing and preaching on the street; if you do it anyway you're a poohead and wont have many friends, but being a poohead should not be reason enough to start a strike on speech over.

I don't know much about facebook, but I take your word on it. I agree that freedom of speech should be protected and nothing should be above debate, but I feel social rules, so to speak, need to be respected, too. There's a time and place for all discussion, but not every time and place is appropriate for every discussion. While I'm sad if this change means all political discussion in SWTOR will be impossible or dangerous for people with differing views, I can understand if Bioware feels general chat should not be the appropriate time and place for heated political debates, and while I wouldn't necessarily mind it (unless I'm trying to find an ops group and they're making it difficult), I do think a lot of their customers would agree on that.

 

Well, I genuinely feel this won't change a thing. This seems to be more of a response towards the cheating/hacking thing they're taking a more hard stance on anyway. If they wanted to ban people talking about politics, I'm sure they could have done it with the old ToS, too.

Thing is according to their rules you don't even need to have political conversation to violate their TOS. The entire line was so broad basically any opinion on anything, could be deemed a violation. I take issue when there is a strict rule like this written in such broad terms you can make anything sound like violation of these rules.

While you can feel all you wan't that nothing will change -to you nothing probably will as you're likely not one to discuss global news openly anyway (since the possibility of political discussion in an mmo came as a surprise to you) so you don't have anything to fear. It's unfortunate when people cant see the long term effects of such decisions, or cant even imagine how they might affect anyone who isn't them.

I have no beef with their hacker rules, I don't think I mentioned having issue with it anywhere.

And it is your right to not go to a store you didn't like because there was a preacher about. As it is mine to not use facebook because I strongly disagree with their censor and information fishing. It is all about personal preference. Maybe you want to boycott the store because they gave someone a permission to preach there (you need a permission to preach in public place, this is in the law), maybe I want to boycott a social media platform for boycotting speech.

But by choosing to be fine with limiting speech for your convenience, you are fine with censorship, which is where i strongly disagree with you. I fill fight for your right to disagree with anyone, anywhere.

It is common decency to not start randomly swearing and preaching on the street; if you do it anyway you're a poohead and wont have many friends, but being a poohead should not be reason enough to start a strike on speech over.

Let me get this straight -- you agree that companies should have the power to remove a customer that is disruptive to other customers, as long as you can boycott that company if you so choose? Because if that's it, then congratulations, you have that already. If that's not your argument, then I'm lost at what it is.

Yes, I'm fine with some amount of "censorship", as you like to call it, and so is every reasonable person in this planet. Most of us would limit one's freedom to walk to an elementary school and start describing explicit sexual acts to children. At the end, it's just what amount of censorship is needed or wished vs. what amount is too much or not hoped. Protection vs. freedom. You feel there shouldn't be any protection to those who wish to log into SWTOR to have a good time playing a game and not be greeted with people spamming chat with controversial political topics, other people feel you don't need the freedom to have a political discussion in a MMO if it means they don't have to tolerate trolling and insensitive comments.

We don't disagree in the "right to disagree"-subject, as you seem to think. I agree that if one has the right to agree, someone else needs to have the right to disagree. However, I feel you don't need to always have the "right to bring it up", so to speak. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with it, then -- if it's not deemed a suitable subject for whatever reason, be it because of social norms (there are subjects you wouldn't bring up in a funeral, in example) or because of written rules (company banning certain behaviors or discussions because they deem it's bad for them or their product), you may get asked to not bring it up, and if you continue to do so, you may be removed from the area. In this case, the game.

Thing is according to their rules you don't even need to have political conversation to violate their TOS. The entire line was so broad basically any opinion on anything, could be deemed a violation. I take issue when there is a strict rule like this written in such broad terms you can make anything sound like violation of these rules.

 

While you can feel all you wan't that nothing will change -to you nothing probably will as you're likely not one to discuss global news openly anyway (since the possibility of political discussion in an mmo came as a surprise to you) so you don't have anything to fear. It's unfortunate when people cant see the long term effects of such decisions, or cant even imagine how they might affect anyone who isn't them.

 

I have no beef with their hacker rules, I don't think I mentioned having issue with it anywhere.

I wouldn't mind if there was a clarification of these rules, but really -- what would you have done if you, or someone you like to have discussions with, had been given a warning due to using terms or bringing up ideas the company didn't deem appropriate before the rule change? And how would that be different from what you would do now? I find it somewhat naive to think TOS would protect you if the company finds your behavior to be something that might hurt their margins.

You think people can't imagine how things affect other people than them, but you're wrong. Most people are capable of feeling empathy, and therefore can imagine that. The difference is whether they care or not. People who wish Bioware to have a hard stance on people causing disruptions in chat by trolling likely do not care for your hopes to have political discussions, just like you don't care about their feelings, showcased by your comments about "safe spaces" and whatnot. Pot, kettle, black, you know the drill.

And no, I was not surprised to hear there's potential of political discussion in MMOs. Everyone who knows how people and chats work know there's potential of political discussion in pretty much everywhere. It was merely my personal experience that in all these years of playing SWTOR, I had not seen any.

I think people are getting a little too upset too quickly over this- firstly, if you're not doing the things listed, which are harassment, trolling, bullying, and generally making a jerk of yourself, then you have nothing to worry about, regardless of your political opinions.

If you are polite, calm and decent while discussing said opinions, no harm should be able to come to your account- note that it's also against the TOS to wrongfully flag someone who's not deliberately causing disruption and chaos. If you're mature and responsible with your discussions, you should have no problems and there should be no issue.

That aside, it looks like a lot of folks have an interesting idea of what "free speech" means, and what it entails. Firstly, the US laws regarding free speech simply mean that the government can't arrest you for what you say (unless, of course, you are legitimately physically threatening someone). This does not mean that anyone else is required to listen to you, and "free speech" does not protect you from disagreement, criticism, or the social consequences of what you choose to say.

If you find that you've been removed from a space, ostracized by a group, muted by a mod, or anything else regarding the rules of social interaction in different places and under different company rules, your free speech rights are not being violated. It's just that the people who have been listening to what you've had to say have decided they aren't interested in listening to you, and they're exercising their own rights, as they are equally free to do.

You are not being censored if people tell you to leave for saying disruptive, inappropriate, rude, or otherwise inflammatory things. You are still absolutely free to have your opinions, speak your opinions, and not be arrested for it. However (and more importantly), you are not free to be aggressive, harass people, or make others feel unwelcome or unsafe for no reason other than their existing. For any true freedom to exist, we need to understand that it's not a total lack of any boundaries. That's anarchy. Freedom is built upon self-control, responsibility, and the wisdom to know that our freedoms end where someone else's begin.

Now, if your flavour is to have intelligent and thoughtful political discussion, that's great! If you really are having a decent conversation, then you should never have an issue, because you are not going out of your way to harass or be hostile to anyone.

The TOS isn't meant to enforce a political agenda. It's meant to ensure everyone conducts themselves like mature persons who can respect others. That's all.

Let me get this straight -- you agree that companies should have the power to remove a customer that is disruptive to other customers, as long as you can boycott that company if you so choose? Because if that's it, then congratulations, you have that already. If that's not your argument, then I'm lost at what it is.

 

Yes, I'm fine with some amount of "censorship", as you like to call it, and so is every reasonable person in this planet. Most of us would limit one's freedom to walk to an elementary school and start describing explicit sexual acts to children. At the end, it's just what amount of censorship is needed or wished vs. what amount is too much or not hoped. Protection vs. freedom. You feel there shouldn't be any protection to those who wish to log into SWTOR to have a good time playing a game and not be greeted with people spamming chat with controversial political topics, other people feel you don't need the freedom to have a political discussion in a MMO if it means they don't have to tolerate trolling and insensitive comments.

You have to be more accurate than that.

Are we talking about a one time removal of a person or an outright ban of a person?

And under what circumstances is this happening? Are we at a place or at web? Public or private?

You need a permission to preach at any public lot, this is enforced by law. If you don't have that permission and go to preach anyway, yes you absolutely can and should be removed.

Schools are private lots where only staff and customers should be allowed. If this person was not given permission to come tell sexual stories to children at the school, yes they should be removed. This is enforced by the law.

Places such as public parks are public areas where anyone can enter unlike private areas where access is limited, you will need permission to advertise or preach at these public lots by the city (if the lot is owned by the city, usually public lots are). If you protest or preach there without permission, you should be removed, this is enforced by the law.

ALL of these people should be removed, as ordered by the law, without looking what or why they were preaching, no matter if it is a kk klan parade or a charity fundraiser event. Laws do not cherry pick who to remove if they do not have a permit. Nor will they remove you, if you do.

When we have companies have rules beyond laws, cherry-picking who to ban and who not to under the same exact circumstances however, this is not enforced by the justice system nor comparable to it, but by whatever biased regulations the company has. This is what the big news huuhaa has been about too.

While they can do this under current laws protecting private companies, this is slowly getting out of hand new laws are already being discussed to regulate the regulations, because the law doesn't cover deplatforming. Which is silly, when it does state that hiring by these companies should be unbiased, but apparently limiting speech on their platform can be as biased as ever. A bit of a downsight there.

Though social media is still a rather new thing and we haven't quite grasped how influential it actually is... which is dangerous, because we're already growing a generation of young soon-to-be voting adults who have never lived without social media, yet we have no laws covering it whatsoever. It's all in the companies hands, and they can feed the new generation whatever views they want... while still stating they're advocates of free speech, which at this point is a complete lie for most popular platforms. But since the law doesn't care about this form of lying, they keep on going. Hence the trouble with loose-rules enabling this behavior.

We don't disagree in the "right to disagree"-subject, as you seem to think. I agree that if one has the right to agree, someone else needs to have the right to disagree. However, I feel you don't need to always have the "right to bring it up", so to speak. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with it, then -- if it's not deemed a suitable subject for whatever reason, be it because of social norms (there are subjects you wouldn't bring up in a funeral, in example) or because of written rules (company banning certain behaviors or discussions because they deem it's bad for them or their product), you may get asked to not bring it up, and if you continue to do so, you may be removed from the area. In this case, the game.

Why would anyone now have the right to bring something up? What kind of force is or should be stopping a person from "binging up" something? And who gets to decide what can be "brought up" and what doesn't?

I disagree. You absolutely have and should have the right to bring anything up at any place. People make awkward jokes and remarks at funerals all the time.

Should you bring up something bad at a funeral? Probably not.

Can you bring something bad up at a funeral? Totally.

Does it make you a jerk to bring up something bad at a funeral? Yes it does.

But it doesn't make you a criminal, nor should it. Unless you were trespassing at the funeral, which would be criminal.

I wouldn't mind if there was a clarification of these rules, but really -- what would you have done if you, or someone you like to have discussions with, had been given a warning due to using terms or bringing up ideas the company didn't deem appropriate before the rule change? And how would that be different from what you would do now? I find it somewhat naive to think TOS would protect you if the company finds your behavior to be something that might hurt their margins.

What would have I done? What could I have done. Nothing. You can't sue these companies for censorship under the current rule. That's exactly why I think we need to be vocal and talk about it, it's the only way to change a company's mind. That and money. I could always bribe them, I wouldn't even get in trouble for it. Or I could stop bringing them market, which I frequently do. The problem with the latter is, you need to be sub to talk anywhere here. So by unsubbing I'm basically giving up the fight for they wont even know why they lost that market. Quite the conundrum.

You think people can't imagine how things affect other people than them, but you're wrong. Most people are capable of feeling empathy, and therefore can imagine that. The difference is whether they care or not. People who wish Bioware to have a hard stance on people causing disruptions in chat by trolling likely do not care for your hopes to have political discussions, just like you don't care about their feelings, showcased by your comments about "safe spaces" and whatnot. Pot, kettle, black, you know the drill.

True. It could be that they can't see. Or that they don't care. I'm quite empathetic and I would much rather fight for everyone's rights, not just mine. Statements like "I dont't think anything will change", when you literally just got a new strict rule outlining a change, is short sighted. The forums are already being modded quite heavily, as any little conversation with negative tones can be removed without the ability to appeal. It's just gone. Puff. To the wind. And you wouldn't even know about it if you weren't following the conversation. Sneaky.

And no, I was not surprised to hear there's potential of political discussion in MMOs. Everyone who knows how people and chats work know there's potential of political discussion in pretty much everywhere. It was merely my personal experience that in all these years of playing SWTOR, I had not seen any.

If you were't surprised and you knew they could happen, why even question if they might have happened, if you knew the answer already. Were you just unable to imagine anyone ever going trough such conversations? That still wouldn't make sense if you knew they happen all the time. Odd.

If you find that you've been removed from a space, ostracized by a group, muted by a mod, or anything else regarding the rules of social interaction in different places and under different company rules, your free speech rights are not being violated.

Nobody is claiming tos violates our freedom of speech given by law. We're saying, that it is dumb and unnecessary limitation of speech which makes us unhappy. You can agree or disagree, as we're already doing here. Simply enough put to follow?

Nobody is claiming tos violates our freedom of speech given by law. We're saying, that it is dumb and unnecessary limitation of speech which makes us unhappy.

Well, that's not your call to make. If you don't like the house rules, then I don't know what else to say to you- you agreed to them when you signed up. Even besides, if you were really just interested in polite discussion amongst like-minded people, the rules wouldn't have any reason to offend you because you wouldn't be in violation of them.

I'm confused why you'd change your tune now, seeing as the past couple pages have been comprised of walls of text about your right to free speech and how the TOS was impinging it.

Simply enough put to follow?

And since you had to add that little dig at the end there, I think I'll be exercising my freedom to not listen to any more you've got to say, seeing as you clearly feel the need to be rude, and I am not obligated to entertain you.

If this is your idea of "polite discussion", maybe it makes sense why you're upset about the rules. Discussing politics in the same manner you're approaching this conversation is bound to cause upset.

You have to be more accurate than that.

Are we talking about a one time removal of a person or an outright ban of a person?

And under what circumstances is this happening? Are we at a place or at web? Public or private?

 

You need a permission to preach at any public lot, this is enforced by law. If you don't have that permission and go to preach anyway, yes you absolutely can and should be removed.

Schools are private lots where only staff and customers should be allowed. If this person was not given permission to come tell sexual stories to children at the school, yes they should be removed. This is enforced by the law.

Places such as public parks are public areas where anyone can enter unlike private areas where access is limited, you will need permission to advertise or preach at these public lots by the city (if the lot is owned by the city, usually public lots are). If you protest or preach there without permission, you should be removed, this is enforced by the law.

ALL of these people should be removed, as ordered by the law, without looking what or why they were preaching, no matter if it is a kk klan parade or a charity fundraiser event. Laws do not cherry pick who to remove if they do not have a permit. Nor will they remove you, if you do.

 

When we have companies have rules beyond laws, cherry-picking who to ban and who not to under the same exact circumstances however, this is not enforced by the justice system nor comparable to it, but by whatever biased regulations the company has. This is what the big news huuhaa has been about too.

While they can do this under current laws protecting private companies, this is slowly getting out of hand new laws are already being discussed to regulate the regulations, because the law doesn't cover deplatforming. Which is silly, when it does state that hiring by these companies should be unbiased, but apparently limiting speech on their platform can be as biased as ever. A bit of a downsight there.

Though social media is still a rather new thing and we haven't quite grasped how influential it actually is... which is dangerous, because we're already growing a generation of young soon-to-be voting adults who have never lived without social media, yet we have no laws covering it whatsoever. It's all in the companies hands, and they can feed the new generation whatever views they want... while still stating they're advocates of free speech, which at this point is a complete lie for most popular platforms. But since the law doesn't care about this form of lying, they keep on going. Hence the trouble with loose-rules enabling this behavior.

You failed to answer my question. What is your argument? Earlier you said you agreed with me, companies should have the power to remove someone who's being disruptive. Now, you seem to be backing down on that, saying that they should not have that power if the disruptive person is doing something that can be considered political, not unless what they are doing is outright illegal. And just to clarify myself -- I did not use the word "preach" in the literal meaning of the word, but rather in the more loose meaning of "earnestly advocate".

Why would anyone now have the right to bring something up? What kind of force is or should be stopping a person from "binging up" something? And who gets to decide what can be "brought up" and what doesn't?

I'm glad you asked!

In a public place, such as a park, it is the job of the state, the town or some other government entity to decide what sort of behaviors and ways of talking are appropriate. As you mentioned yourself, some things such as literal preaching is prohibited unless given a special permission, but mostly public places are pretty free. This is because of freedom of speech, which means the government won't stop you from expressing yourself, apart from some exceptions written in law.

In a place of business, the control to what is prohibited behavior falls to the owner of the place -- or the staff following the owner's guidelines. This needs to be, not only so people can shop, eat and so on in peace, but also because someone acting in a manner that drives away customers can affect the business negatively. You can have a heated argument in a park, shout at someone and have them shout back at you, but you can't have it in a restaurant. Some guarantees should be made to make sure business' aren't discriminatory, but they do have the right to remove you from the place of business, and if you constantly return to cause even more commotion, they get to decide not to allow you in at all.

In a private place, such as home, the owner decides what sort of things should be discussed and in what manner. We can pretty much throw people out of our houses for whatever reason.

I disagree. You absolutely have and should have the right to bring anything up at any place. People make awkward jokes and remarks at funerals all the time.

Should you bring up something bad at a funeral? Probably not.

Can you bring something bad up at a funeral? Totally.

Does it make you a jerk to bring up something bad at a funeral? Yes it does.

But it doesn't make you a criminal, nor should it. Unless you were trespassing at the funeral, which would be criminal.

If you constantly make inappropriate remarks in a funeral, despite getting asked to stop, you will be removed from the funeral. You have not committed any crime, and therefore don't need to face any legal action.

If you constantly get into a shouting match in a restaurant, despite getting asked to stop, you will be removed from the restaurant. You have not committed any crime, and therefore don't need to face any legal action.

If you constantly troll a chat or a forum, despite getting asked to stop, you will be removed from the chat or the forum. You have not committed any crime, and therefore don't need to face any legal action.

What would have I done? What could I have done. Nothing. You can't sue these companies for censorship under the current rule. That's exactly why I think we need to be vocal and talk about it, it's the only way to change a company's mind. That and money. I could always bribe them, I wouldn't even get in trouble for it. Or I could stop bringing them market, which I frequently do. The problem with the latter is, you need to be sub to talk anywhere here. So by unsubbing I'm basically giving up the fight for they wont even know why they lost that market. Quite the conundrum.

So basically you could have done nothing before and could do nothing now. Nothing has changed.

True. It could be that they can't see. Or that they don't care. I'm quite empathetic and I would much rather fight for everyone's rights, not just mine. Statements like "I dont't think anything will change", when you literally just got a new strict rule outlining a change, is short sighted. The forums are already being modded quite heavily, as any little conversation with negative tones can be removed without the ability to appeal. It's just gone. Puff. To the wind. And you wouldn't even know about it if you weren't following the conversation. Sneaky.

No, I don't think anything will change. That's because I'm cynical and feel Bioware already had the power to ban whoever they like before this, and still has the same power after this. TOS doesn't protect you. You seem to feel this will change a lot, while at the same time admitting you're not sure it's even a new rule. This rule may have been added now, a year ago or it might have been there since the launch, but it will surely be a big change?

You would rather fight for everyone's right to have political conversations in general chat, but not everyone wants that right. Instead, they want protection, and would happily fight for you to have that protection, too. Can you be empathetic enough to see what makes them to think this way and try to find some sort of compromise? Or are you only empathetic enough to wish they would all just agree with you?

If you were't surprised and you knew they could happen, why even question if they might have happened, if you knew the answer already. Were you just unable to imagine anyone ever going trough such conversations? That still wouldn't make sense if you knew they happen all the time. Odd.

You're telling me you would be surprised to hear a troll has spammed religious things into a warzone chat? If not, why would you need to tell me you haven't ever seen one.

Well, that's not your call to make. If you don't like the house rules, then I don't know what else to say to you- you agreed to them when you signed up. Even besides, if you were really just interested in polite discussion amongst like-minded people, the rules wouldn't have any reason to offend you because you wouldn't be in violation of them.

I'm confused why you'd change your tune now, seeing as the past couple pages have been comprised of walls of text about your right to free speech and how the TOS was impinging it.

Who said it was my call to make? I didn't. I'm still able to protest and give out my opinions, aren't I? So are you.

What is your argument here?

You failed to answer my question. What is your argument? Earlier you said you agreed with me, companies should have the power to remove someone who's being disruptive. Now, you seem to be backing down on that, saying that they should not have that power if the disruptive person is doing something that can be considered political, not unless what they are doing is outright illegal. And just to clarify myself -- I did not use the word "preach" in the literal meaning of the word, but rather in the more loose meaning of "earnestly advocate".

I failed to answer your question because I asked for clarification. Literally first few lines of the post. Care to give it so I can reply?

If you think all possible scenarios must be the same so clarification isn't needed, I must respectfully disagree.

Your very next school example was something enforced by law already, so I replied to that as it was pretty clear situation.

I took Preaching literally as you gave no other mental image. And the facts still stand based on that image. Also I'm not sure what sort of "earnest avocation" would happen at a grocery store that would be so disturbing you would not return to said store. All I can think are those little political tents at some marketplaces with muffins, takeaway pins and conversation for those who want it. Not exactly my idea of disturbing the peace at a market.

I'm glad you asked!

In a public place, such as a park, it is the job of the state, the town or some other government entity to decide what sort of behaviors and ways of talking are appropriate. As you mentioned yourself, some things such as literal preaching is prohibited unless given a special permission, but mostly public places are pretty free. This is because of freedom of speech, which means the government won't stop you from expressing yourself, apart from some exceptions written in law.

 

In a place of business, the control to what is prohibited behavior falls to the owner of the place -- or the staff following the owner's guidelines. This needs to be, not only so people can shop, eat and so on in peace, but also because someone acting in a manner that drives away customers can affect the business negatively. You can have a heated argument in a park, shout at someone and have them shout back at you, but you can't have it in a restaurant. Some guarantees should be made to make sure business' aren't discriminatory, but they do have the right to remove you from the place of business, and if you constantly return to cause even more commotion, they get to decide not to allow you in at all.

 

In a private place, such as home, the owner decides what sort of things should be discussed and in what manner. We can pretty much throw people out of our houses for whatever reason.

I don't remember asking any of these things. But these are correct anyway. Why was this a point of further discussion? I must have missed whatever part you were replying to.

If you constantly make inappropriate remarks in a funeral, despite getting asked to stop, you will be removed from the funeral. You have not committed any crime, and therefore don't need to face any legal action.

 

If you constantly get into a shouting match in a restaurant, despite getting asked to stop, you will be removed from the restaurant. You have not committed any crime, and therefore don't need to face any legal action.

 

If you constantly troll a chat or a forum, despite getting asked to stop, you will be removed from the chat or the forum. You have not committed any crime, and therefore don't need to face any legal action.

 

So basically you could have done nothing before and could do nothing now. Nothing has changed.

What you are talking about it continued disruptive behavior and not at all what I am talking about.

If you talk to the brother of the deceased about their departed siblings gambling problems, you're not being disruptive. I'm not talking about stealing the mic and dancing on the coffin here.

If you sit at a restaurant table with your partner and debate whether Trump is genius or not, you will absolutely not be removed. Shouting is where the problem lies, not speech.

What is it you consider trolling though? Going trough the threads posting only swears? Yes they're not conversing at a place meant for conversing and should be removed. Just like libraries are not meant to practice your guitar riffs at.

These thinly veiled attempts to call me unemphatic and short sighted simply because I disagree with you do show your empathetic side! Really.

No, I don't anything will change. That's because I'm cynical and feel Bioware already had the power to ban whoever they like before this, and still has the same power after this. TOS doesn't protect you. You seem to feel this will change a lot, while at the same time admitting you're not sure it's even a new rule. This rule may have been added now, a year ago or it might have been there since the launch, but it will surely be a big change?

*sigh* since when is calling myself a thing also a double meaning for calling yourself an anti-thing? Stop trying to over-analyze everything I say like it'd have a hidden meaning. I stated what I do. And nothing else.

This is a good example of how easy it is see anything you want as an attack of some sort.

You can't have a conversation if everything you say has a hidden double meaning you need to second-guess. It's bad for any conversation.

You would rather fight for everyone's right to have political conversations in general chat, but not everyone wants that right. Instead, they want protection, and would happily fight for you to have that protection, too. Can you be empathetic enough to see what makes them to think this way and try to find some sort of compromise? Or are you only empathetic enough to wish they would all just agree with you?

 

You're telling me you would be surprised to hear a troll has spammed religious things into a warzone chat? If not, why would you need to tell me you haven't ever seen one.

Protection is not the same as a right. When your protection is limiting someones right, its the opposite.

If you want men and women to wear same uniforms at a work place to protect women from getting harrassed, you are limiting everyone's right to dress as they want. Protection and right don't go hand in hand. One or the other has to go, or compromise. Rights are a lot more clear area to universally defend, than a protection, because you get crazy "protection" regulations like "you can't look at your co-host on tv for more than 5 second in the eyes because it could be seen as sexual" (actual rule in effect right now on some outlets). So there is a lot more nonsensical "protection" rules I cannot subscribe to, but rights in most cases are no-nonsense lines.

There are exceptions ofcourse, all rights don't walk hand in hand with other rights either. Which in my opinion is a more worthy discussion than "is looking someone in the eyes for less than 5 seconds protecting anyone".

Trolling? Not surprising. Actual serious religious recruitment? Yes, surprising. I haven't seen political recruitment either, just opinions. Recruitment takes a lot of organizing.

You can usually tell the trolls apart because they have no idea what their supposed bible is saying and hit the mute button with no remorse

I failed to answer your question because I asked for clarification. Literally first few lines of the post. Care to give it so I can reply?

If you think all possible scenarios must be the same so clarification isn't needed, I must respectfully disagree.

 

Your very next school example was something enforced by law already, so I replied to that as it was pretty clear situation.

I took Preaching literally as you gave no other mental image. And the facts still stand based on that image. Also I'm not sure what sort of "earnest avocation" would happen at a grocery store that would be so disturbing you would not return to said store. All I can think are those little political tents at some marketplaces with muffins, takeaway pins and conversation for those who want it. Not exactly my idea of disturbing the peace at a market.

What I was thinking about when it comes to potential disruptive behavior would be something like having a constant monologue, or attempting to constantly start a dialogue with strangers, about the subject of your choosing. Talking to yourself, loudly, is not illegal, and neither is attempting to talk to other people in public, yet something like this could be grounds to removing you from the store.

My school example was simply to point out there are times when freedom of speech is limited and everyone agrees it should be limited.

I don't remember asking any of these things. But these are correct anyway. Why was this a point of further discussion? I must have missed whatever part you were replying to.

 

What you are talking about it continued disruptive behavior and not at all what I am talking about.

If you talk to the brother of the deceased about their departed siblings gambling problems, you're not being disruptive. I'm not talking about stealing the mic and dancing on the coffin here.

 

If you sit at a restaurant table with your partner and debate whether Trump is genius or not, you will absolutely not be removed. Shouting is where the problem lies, not speech.

Well, continued disruptive behavior is very much what I'm talking about. After all, that's how it would work in swtor, too. First you get a warning that your behavior is considered disruptive. If you continue it, you'd get another warning, perhaps a more severe one in a form of a temporary ban. If you still haven't learned your lesson, you might get permanently banned. If you're not bothering everyone, you're simply talking about Trump in a group chat or once made a bad joke in general, there's no need to have any action taken against you. I also feel if you're having a level headed debate in general chat, it should be allowed to be there, but others may disagree. However, if you're being disruptive and having an internet shouting match with insults and such, talking about politics should not make you untouchable.

What is it you consider trolling though? Going trough the threads posting only swears? Yes they're not conversing at a place meant for conversing and should be removed. Just like libraries are not meant to practice your guitar riffs at.

"Trolling" I'm referring to right now is bringing up controversial topics in a controversial way in an attempt to amuse yourself by making someone else loose their cool. But since you mentioned libraries and guitar riffs, that's exactly how some people feel about certain political topics: they're not meant for general chat. Just like guitar riffs are not meant to be practiced in a library since it would be disturbing other customers, heated debates about controversial political issues don't belong in MMO chat. You may wish to disagree, but if the majority feels that way, you may need to tone it down.

*sigh* since when is calling myself a thing also a double meaning for calling yourself an anti-thing? Stop trying to over-analyze everything I say like it'd have a hidden meaning. I stated what I do. And nothing else.

 

This is a good example of how easy it is see anything you want as an attack of some sort.

You can't have a conversation if everything you say has a hidden double meaning you need to second-guess. It's bad for any conversation.

I got carried away a bit, later realized it was uncalled for, and did remove that part. My apologies.

Protection is not the same as a right. When your protection is limiting someones right, its the opposite.

If you want men and women to wear same uniforms at a work place to protect women from getting harrassed, you are limiting everyone's right to dress as they want. Protection and right don't go hand in hand. One or the other has to go, or compromise. Rights are a lot more clear area to universally defend, than a protection, because you get crazy "protection" regulations like "you can't look at your co-host on tv for more than 5 second in the eyes because it could be seen as sexual" (actual rule in effect right now on some outlets). So there is a lot more nonsensical "protection" rules I cannot subscribe to, but rights in most cases are no-nonsense lines.

There are exceptions ofcourse, all rights don't walk hand in hand with other rights either. Which in my opinion is a more worthy discussion than "is looking someone in the eyes for less than 5 seconds protecting anyone".

Yes, that is very much the argument I was making. Protection is not right -- in fact, in this (and many other cases), it's the opposite. However, when you wish you had the right, there is someone who wishes to have the opposite -- the protection -- and at that point, you often do need to compromise. You can't just tell them "hey, how about you have this cool right instead?" if that's not what they're interested in.

What I was thinking about when it comes to potential disruptive behavior would be something like having a constant monologue, or attempting to constantly start a dialogue with strangers, about the subject of your choosing. Talking to yourself, loudly, is not illegal, and neither is attempting to talk to other people in public, yet something like this could be grounds to removing you from the store.

Hmm. This would basically be like seeking interviews then, which are considered disturbance. So you and the store keeper have all the right to tell them to take it outside. They'd probably need a permit to interview and/or to keep stopping people at the middle of their business. If they got the permit to stop people in the lobby though (which you can naturally ignore and just say no and walk past) I see no issue.

My school example was simply to point out there are times when freedom of speech is limited and everyone agrees it should be limited.

Except you example didn't actually point that out.. If they trespassed without permission they're already breaking the law before getting out a word. If they got the permission to come and give this speech though... I see no issue. This sounds like a situation the school would have to ask parents permission to let children on this class (depending on age). Much like in a lot of countries parents are asked if their kid should participate in religious classes rather than just automatically putting them there because it was on the schedule. This differs between countries.

Well, continued disruptive behavior is very much what I'm talking about. After all, that's how it would work in swtor, too. First you get a warning that your behavior is considered disruptive. If you continue it, you'd get another warning, perhaps a more severe one in a form of a temporary ban. If you still haven't learned your lesson, you might get permanently banned. If you're not bothering everyone, you're simply talking about Trump in a group chat or once made a bad joke in general, there's no need to have any action taken against you. I also feel if you're having a level headed debate in general chat, it should be allowed to be there, but others may disagree. However, if you're being disruptive and having an internet shouting match with insults and such, talking about politics should not make you untouchable.

I never meant to speak about continuous behavior. Maybe I should have clarified that. Though actual speech limitation laws limit even your first offense, if you get off with a warning you can conciser yourself lucky.

Though, if you ask me you you should be free to discuss Kardashians whenever you want with whoever you want. And they're free to flick you off and ignore you. But if we take this to the extreme and say that you want to talk about Kardashians to everyone in the guild personally and you insist getting everyone's opinion for the entire day, yeah that's overkill and disruptive.

What I was thinking was a lot more mellow conversing, like posting news title in guild char every now and then and have whatever conversation spark to life, or not spark if literally nobody cares about it or just don't wanna get involved right now (happens ).

A decent human being whos news article didn't get interest would drop it and brush it off, a troll would keep posting it insisting to get attention, and a speech law abuser would point at the article and yell "this article says X is terrible and the person who linked it must be enforcing hate-speech because they brought it up! banbanban"

"Trolling" I'm referring to right now is bringing up controversial topics in a controversial way in an attempt to amuse yourself by making someone else loose their cool. But since you mentioned libraries and guitar riffs, that's exactly how some people feel about certain political topics: they're not meant for general chat. Just like guitar riffs are not meant to be practiced in a library since it would be disturbing other customers, heated debates about controversial political issues don't belong in MMO chat. You may wish to disagree, but if the majority feels that way, you may need to tone it down.

Chartoom is a place for conversing though. That's literally it's purpose. Why would it not be a place to have a chat at whatever the topic? I constantly see people arguing over movies in general chat that are not related to swtor in any way. How is their right so have an argument about movies more valuable than someone's political debate? I don't understand this cherry picking. Conversation is a conversation, no matter if its about Spiderman or a debate whether anime dubs or subs are better. I'm really not looking to ban you from talking about rodents even if i personally think reptiles are superior. Chances are I'm not even interested in talking about mice, and I'll just ignore whatever is being discussed on fleet as usual.

Cherry-picking what you choose to hear is very different from cherry-picking what is allowed to say, and far less damning.

I got carried away a bit, later realized it was uncalled for, and did remove that part. My apologies.

Oh. Caught it just in time then I appreciate you realizing that even after I already managed to already palm my face over it. I'll pretend that never happened.

Yes, that is very much the argument I was making. Protection is not right -- in fact, in this (and many other cases), it's the opposite. However, when you wish you had the right, there is someone who wishes to have the opposite -- the protection -- and at that point, you often do need to compromise. You can't just tell them "hey, how about you have this cool right instead?" if that's not what they're interested in.

Yes and so far our compromise has been the mute button and profanity filter, and it's been working fine (for me anyway). Making a ruling over it is excessive and I don't think we need it in any way. It's just inviting abusers.

Anyway, when EA comes and tells us we cant have longer than 5 seconds conversation with someone to protect flooding the chat window, I'm gonna grab that pitch fork and torch in a very immature vulgar manner.

Yes, I can play the worst-case scenario game too

Hmm. This would basically be like seeking interviews then, which are considered disturbance. So you and the store keeper have all the right to tell them to take it outside. They'd probably need a permit to interview and/or to keep stopping people at the middle of their business. If they got the permit to stop people in the lobby though (which you can naturally ignore and just say no and walk past) I see no issue.

Naturally, if you get a permit, then you're allowed to do it.

Except you example didn't actually point that out.. If they trespassed without permission they're already breaking the law before getting out a word. If they got the permission to come and give this speech though... I see no issue. This sounds like a situation the school would have to ask parents permission to let children on this class (depending on age). Much like in a lot of countries parents are asked if their kid should participate in religious classes rather than just automatically putting them there because it was on the schedule. This differs between countries.

This really comes off as you arguing semantics. If that person had the permission to be on the school grounds but not to talk to these kids in this way, would it somehow make it better? Or if this happened in a park where the kids were playing but where other people are also allowed to be in?

I never meant to speak about continuous behavior. Maybe I should have clarified that. Though actual speech limitation laws limit even your first offense, if you get off with a warning you can conciser yourself lucky.

Though, if you ask me you you should be free to discuss Kardashians whenever you want with whoever you want. And they're free to flick you off and ignore you. But if we take this to the extreme and say that you want to talk about Kardashians to everyone in the guild personally and you insist getting everyone's opinion for the entire day, yeah that's overkill and disruptive.

What I was thinking was a lot more mellow conversing, like posting news title in guild char every now and then and have whatever conversation spark to life, or not spark if literally nobody cares about it or just don't wanna get involved right now (happens ).

A decent human being whos news article didn't get interest would drop it and brush it off, a troll would keep posting it insisting to get attention, and a speech law abuser would point at the article and yell "this article says X is terrible and the person who linked it must be enforcing hate-speech because they brought it up! banbanban"

I wouldn't have any problems with someone linking a news article and letting it drop if no one's interested, I wouldn't consider it to be disrupting in any way. Especially if you would be willing to stop if other people would consider it to be insensitive and asks you to stop -- if, let's say, you'd want to talk about a mass murder that happened, but a guildie had a loved one die in there and asks if the conversation about it could be kept to a minimum, as they would rather not think about it.

Chartoom is a place for conversing though. That's literally it's purpose. Why would it not be a place to have a chat at whatever the topic? I constantly see people arguing over movies in general chat that are not related to swtor in any way. How is their right so have an argument about movies more valuable than someone's political debate? I don't understand this cherry picking. Conversation is a conversation, no matter if its about Spiderman or a debate whether anime dubs or subs are better. I'm really not looking to ban you from talking about rodents even if i personally think reptiles are superior. Chances are I'm not even interested in talking about mice, and I'll just ignore whatever is being discussed on fleet as usual.

Cherry-picking what you choose to hear is very different from cherry-picking what is allowed to say, and far less damning.

I feel political conversation should be held to a same standard as all other conversation, but for the sake of the argument: the reason people feel certain topics, such as politics and religion, need to be cherry picked is because they have a bad habit to get really vicious, really fast. These beliefs are something people hold very dear, and they often go as far as seeing the other side of the discussion immoral. That's why these discussions often turn into arguments where people throw all sorts of horrible insults at each other, and that's why some people avoid them altogether.

Personally, I can understand putting an end to a political discussion when it gets vicious -- and putting an end to a discussion about dogs when it's less about dogs and more about who's committing animal cruelty because they feed their dog different food than the other person. And I'd also understand prohibiting certain statements relating to dogs and movies if Bioware feels they're probably not going to lead to civil discussion, such as someone feeling anyone who owns a Labrador is subhuman who should be executed, or someone thinking anyone who enjoys Batman movies is mentally ill and needs to seek treatment. If those are beliefs someone holds, they should be allowed to discuss them somewhere -- but that somewhere doesn't need to be in general chat, where poor Labrador owners and Batman fans are trying to find a group to complete GF ops with.

Yes and so far our compromise has been the mute button and profanity filter, and it's been working fine (for me anyway). Making a ruling over it is excessive and I don't think we need it in any way. It's just inviting abusers.

 

Anyway, when EA comes and tells us we cant have longer than 5 seconds conversation with someone to protect flooding the chat window, I'm gonna grab that pitch fork and torch in a very immature vulgar manner.

Yes, I can play the worst-case scenario game too

Haha. We both play on Darth Malgus, though -- I remember a thread months back where people from Satele Shan and Star Forge were saying they were having problems with trolls spamming about political topics and trying to bait people, to the point this was actually a common issue.

This really comes off as you arguing semantics. If that person had the permission to be on the school grounds but not to talk to these kids in this way, would it somehow make it better? Or if this happened in a park where the kids were playing but where other people are also allowed to be in?

Absolutely it makes it better. Scientists do experimental teaching methods all the time, and attending is voluntary. If you think talking about sex could be beneficial for you kid, I don't see why you should not be allowed to let your kid attend. I'd rather send my kids to hear sex stories than have them not get any sex education at all (some counties you are not allowed to teach any at all, and imo its more harmful having teens go bang around with no knowledge of what that entails, than speaking about sex and/or sex education and letting them make an educated decision before jumping in bed blindly. Having education is universally proven to improve protection, not reduce it).

Randomly stopping kids at a park to talk about sex would be considered disruption and would get the person removed under current rule, as they should be.

I wouldn't have any problems with someone linking a news article and letting it drop if no one's interested, I wouldn't consider it to be disrupting in any way. Especially if you would be willing to stop if other people would consider it to be insensitive and asks you to stop -- if, let's say, you'd want to talk about a mass murder that happened, but a guildie had a loved one die in there and asks if the conversation about it could be kept to a minimum, as they would rather not think about it.

I'm glad you wouldn't. But under his broad rule you could be banned just for linking a controversial article, which I am not in agreement with. I think I already told you about the podcast that got removed off air for even daring to talk about a controversial media figure. I take issue limiting people's speech in this manner. Nobody was forced to listen to this show, everyone came voluntarily, yet the platform decided they were justified to stop the show just because. This is censorship and bad and I will argue till the end of the earth that it will remain a bad policy.

No talking about a mass murder because it's sensitive to someone shouldn't be reason enough to get them removed or silenced. Would talking about it anyway make you insensitive poohead? yes. Criminal? no. If we start banning every bit of speech that might me insensitive to someone we might as well ban free speech, because I can guarantee you everyone will wind something insensitive to complain about in any thread they simply don't wasnt discussed and have it censored because they claim it is insensitive. This happens all the time in social media platforms and is not a worst case scenario, its a common scenario. People will and always has abused victim culture, and it's terrible for the actual victims, because people who just want a thread banned will cater to the victimization culture with no remorse in order to get their way if given the oppoturnity. This is already happening in the real world, and should absolutely be combated.

I have a personal take on this, I was at a middle of a real world tragedy almost fifteen years ago, and talking about it makes me uncomfortable for sure, i was pretty young. But I will absolutely not demand the ban hammer for people wanting to simply talk about it. I'll just leave the room if I can't handle it. And again, if they run after me and insist on getting an interview they're disrupting. If it just happened to be a topic of discussion at work I have no issue, I see no reason to enforce any speech laws just because the conversation made me feel bad. They're entitled to their opinion as am I.

I feel political conversation should be held to a same standard as all other conversation, but for the sake of the argument: the reason people feel certain topics, such as politics and religion, need to be cherry picked is because they have a bad habit to get really vicious, really fast. These beliefs are something people hold very dear, and they often go as far as seeing the other side of the discussion immoral. That's why these discussions often turn into arguments where people throw all sorts of horrible insults at each other, and that's why some people avoid them altogether.

 

Personally, I can understand putting an end to a political discussion when it gets vicious -- and putting an end to a discussion about dogs when it's less about dogs and more about who's committing animal cruelty because they feed their dog different food than the other person. And I'd also understand prohibiting certain statements relating to dogs and movies if Bioware feels they're probably not going to lead to civil discussion, such as someone feeling anyone who owns a Labrador is subhuman who should be executed, or someone thinking anyone who enjoys Batman movies is mentally ill and needs to seek treatment. If those are beliefs someone holds, they should be allowed to discuss them somewhere -- but that somewhere doesn't need to be in general chat, where poor Labrador owners and Batman fans are trying to find a group to complete GF ops with.

This is where we have to agree to disagree. Just because there is a possibility of a conversation turning into a rogue shouting match is not something I see any reason to ban before it has even happened. There was a shooting in my country where a individual got so angry over losing a card game they went and fired on people. Should we ban all card games because the end result might be absolutely horrifying (and was in this case)? No, of-course not. That's silly. We cant protect everyone from every possible scenario, because most of these cases you would have never seen it coming anyway, so it's useless.

If you think it's highly possible a political figure might get assaulted before entering a debate hall or the audience might riot, you hire security. You don't ban the figure for from not coming, you hire security to keep things orderly.

Haha. We both play on Darth Malgus, though -- I remember a thread months back where people from Satele Shan and Star Forge were saying they were having problems with trolls spamming about political topics and trying to bait people, to the point this was actually a common issue.

I remember the satire usernames shouting propaganda, satire or not. Personally i just ignored them, just like I ignore pretty much all movie conversations because I just don't care about it. I see no reason to ban either when i can solve the issue myself by pressing the mute button. Sure it's annoying inconvenience to press an extra button. It's not a big deal though, I already know how to clear my chat window from that, I don't need big brother helping me press a button, and I don't think anyone else needs either.

If they're too impulsive and literally get baited every time... well it's their personal problem really. Nothing EA should be kept accountable for.

Absolutely it makes it better. Scientists do experimental teaching methods all the time, and attending is voluntary. If you think talking about sex could be beneficial for you kid, I don't see why you should not be allowed to let your kid attend. I'd rather send my kids to hear sex stories than have them not get any sex education at all (some counties you are not allowed to teach any at all, and imo its more harmful having teens go bang around with no knowledge of what that entails, than speaking about sex and/or sex education and letting them make an educated decision before jumping in bed blindly. Having education is universally proven to improve protection, not reduce it).

 

Randomly stopping kids at a park to talk about sex would be considered disruption and would get the person removed under current rule, as they should be.

You're adding all sorts of new parameters to my examples, such as "voluntary" and "with permission". Of course the situation is different when you add those in.

I'm glad you wouldn't. But under his broad rule you could be banned just for linking a controversial article, which I am not in agreement with. I think I already told you about the podcast that got removed off air for even daring to talk about a controversial media figure. I take issue limiting people's speech in this manner. Nobody was forced to listen to this show, everyone came voluntarily, yet the platform decided they were justified to stop the show just because. This is censorship and bad and I will argue till the end of the earth that it will remain a bad policy.

Podcast is vastly different to a chatroom, though -- especially chatroom of a MMORPG, not a chatroom that's actually meant for political discussion. People who listen to a podcast have actively chosen to seek out this podcast and continue listen to it. People playing this game didn't sign up for that, they didn't seek out a podcast or a place to have a political discussion, they just wanted to play a game.

No talking about a mass murder because it's sensitive to someone shouldn't be reason enough to get them removed or silenced. Would talking about it anyway make you insensitive poohead? yes. Criminal? no. If we start banning every bit of speech that might me insensitive to someone we might as well ban free speech, because I can guarantee you everyone will wind something insensitive to complain about in any thread they simply don't wasnt discussed and have it censored because they claim it is insensitive. This happens all the time in social media platforms and is not a worst case scenario, its a common scenario. People will and always has abused victim culture, and it's terrible for the actual victims, because people who just want a thread banned will cater to the victimization culture with no remorse in order to get their way if given the oppoturnity. This is already happening in the real world, and should absolutely be combated.

 

I have a personal take on this, I was at a middle of a real world tragedy almost fifteen years ago, and talking about it makes me uncomfortable for sure, i was pretty young. But I will absolutely not demand the ban hammer for people wanting to simply talk about it. I'll just leave the room if I can't handle it. And again, if they run after me and insist on getting an interview they're disrupting. If it just happened to be a topic of discussion at work I have no issue, I see no reason to enforce any speech laws just because the conversation made me feel bad. They're entitled to their opinion as am I.

 

This is where we have to agree to disagree. Just because there is a possibility of a conversation turning into a rogue shouting match is not something I see any reason to ban before it has even happened. There was a shooting in my country where a individual got so angry over losing a card game they went and fired on people. Should we ban all card games because the end result might be absolutely horrifying (and was in this case)? No, of-course not. That's silly. We cant protect everyone from every possible scenario, because most of these cases you would have never seen it coming anyway, so it's useless.

If you think it's highly possible a political figure might get assaulted before entering a debate hall or the audience might riot, you hire security. You don't ban the figure for from not coming, you hire security to keep things orderly.

Very well, I'm willing to agree to disagree. I'm of a firm belief that if there's 20 people in a room and one person feels the need to talk about something 19 people don't wish to talk about, it's the one person who needs to remove him or herself from the room if they can't change the subject or simply be quiet. Not the 19. This, naturally, does not apply to every location everywhere, as I also believe there's a time and place for every discussion -- including controversial, unpopular opinions. In a semi-public place like general chat, you can't personally ask everyone online whether or not they're comfortable with a subject of discussion, so the person owning the place needs to make a call on what they find to be the reasonable limit to moderating actions. People can then make their choice on whether to participate in the conversation or not. I don't see a problem with this unless the moderation rules are discriminatory -- if a person with a certain political leaning can make insensitive comments but a person of another one can't, there's a problem, and that is truly a problem in many social media platforms.

I remember the satire usernames shouting propaganda, satire or not. Personally i just ignored them, just like I ignore pretty much all movie conversations because I just don't care about it. I see no reason to ban either when i can solve the issue myself by pressing the mute button. Sure it's annoying inconvenience to press an extra button. It's not a big deal though, I already know how to clear my chat window from that, I don't need big brother helping me press a button, and I don't think anyone else needs either.

If they're too impulsive and literally get baited every time... well it's their personal problem really. Nothing EA should be kept accountable for.

I only managed to catch two of them, and can see why they would cause a disruption, as new people would arrive to the fleet and take the bait, and suddenly I have my chat again filled with arguments once again. If there's loads of them around in the prime time with new ones and new people getting baited arriving all the time... I don't want to imagine what that would look like.

You're adding all sorts of new parameters to my examples, such as "voluntary" and "with permission". Of course the situation is different when you add those in.

Well you asked if having permission to talk at the grounds would somehow make it better. Yes it would. Did that not answer the question? Maybe you need to reform it if I missed the point.

Podcast is vastly different to a chatroom, though -- especially chatroom of a MMORPG, not a chatroom that's actually meant for political discussion. People who listen to a podcast have actively chosen to seek out this podcast and continue listen to it. People playing this game didn't sign up for that, they didn't seek out a podcast or a place to have a political discussion, they just wanted to play a game.

And people who go open chat rooms are openly seeking for conversation. What's the difference? You're arguing the difference is that you couldn't talk about anything beyond the theme of the platform, which already isn't happening in swtor and I don't see anyone complaining about it. There was a OW world cup discussion on fleet just yesterday, that doesn't have anything to do with swtor. Why aren't you protesting to get that speech out of the platform as well then, if you think all speech is equal? Because some threads turn angry more easily? Trust me there is plenty of angry people about Korea dominating OW (and most games) already. There is no difference between discussing angrily over politics or OW. So why should one be bannable and not the other? Is it just because you personally don't want to see politics but are fine with OW so it should get special treatment?

See, when we start cherry picking what form of speech is allowed, we need actual rules what is allowed and what isn't. Otherwise it will always end up in "what if" argument, which has no end. Who gets to decide what is banned and what isn't. When the tos says "anything hateful", we ask, well what is hateful? It is not clear, it is not stated. Someone might think endorsing Trump is hateful, someone else might think you thinking them endorsing Trump is hateful. If you attach a sob story to one side of the conversation, does that make it more hateful for their opposition? Are they both hateful, or are neither hateful? We need clarification. If you don't want politics, just type "no politics allowed here", there clear and simple, we all know what they don't want talked about. What is "no offensive speech" in their tos supposed to mean, when you can take offense to literally anything. There is no regulating this rule.

Very well, I'm willing to agree to disagree. I'm of a firm belief that if there's 20 people in a room and one person feels the need to talk about something 19 people don't wish to talk about, it's the one person who needs to remove him or herself from the room if they can't change the subject or simply be quiet. Not the 19. This, naturally, does not apply to every location everywhere, as I also believe there's a time and place for every discussion -- including controversial, unpopular opinions. In a semi-public place like general chat, you can't personally ask everyone online whether or not they're comfortable with a subject of discussion, so the person owning the place needs to make a call on what they find to be the reasonable limit to moderating actions. People can then make their choice on whether to participate in the conversation or not. I don't see a problem with this unless the moderation rules are discriminatory -- if a person with a certain political leaning can make insensitive comments but a person of another one can't, there's a problem, and that is truly a problem in many social media platforms.

Well you turned my example completely upside down. If my co-workers want to have a chat about something i'm not comfortable with, I can and I'll leave. So the 19 people are already discussing it in the break room, and I don't want to: I won't call the boss to remove the 19 people from the break room, I will let them continue and remove myself. This sounds like common sense to me.

I only managed to catch two of them, and can see why they would cause a disruption, as new people would arrive to the fleet and take the bait, and suddenly I have my chat again filled with arguments once again. If there's loads of them around in the prime time with new ones and new people getting baited arriving all the time... I don't want to imagine what that would look like.

Again, this is people's personal issues, not EAs. It's not their job to teach people manners or self control, people should have that already. If they don't, they're personally lacking on social skills and EA is not to blame for their inabilities. You can want all you want to not see people with low social skills, you're still gonna see them because we're not born equal.

You can want to not see cat videos on youtube all you want, they're still gonna appear on your suggested feed whether you like it or not. You can want to not see cat-person comments on your dog videos all you want, but you're still gonna find them if you seek to read a public comments section.

Just because you personally don't want to see something, should not warrant a law outright banning whatever is against your interest.

Well you asked if having permission to talk at the grounds would somehow make it better. Yes it would. Did that not answer the question? Maybe you need to reform it if I missed the point.

I asked if permission to be on the grounds would somehow make it better. Not if permission to talk about it would. That is literally how my question was phrased.

And people who go open chat rooms are openly seeking for conversation. What's the difference? You're arguing the difference is that you couldn't talk about anything beyond the theme of the platform, which already isn't happening in swtor and I don't see anyone complaining about it. There was a OW world cup discussion on fleet just yesterday, that doesn't have anything to do with swtor. Why aren't you protesting to get that speech out of the platform as well then, if you think all speech is equal? Because some threads turn angry more easily? Trust me there is plenty of angry people about Korea dominating OW (and most games) already. There is no difference between discussing angrily over politics or OW. So why should one be bannable and not the other? Is it just because you personally don't want to see politics but are fine with OW so it should get special treatment?

 

See, when we start cherry picking what form of speech is allowed, we need actual rules what is allowed and what isn't. Otherwise it will always end up in "what if" argument, which has no end. Who gets to decide what is banned and what isn't. When the tos says "anything hateful", we ask, well what is hateful? It is not clear, it is not stated. Someone might think endorsing Trump is hateful, someone else might think you thinking them endorsing Trump is hateful. If you attach a sob story to one side of the conversation, does that make it more hateful for their opposition? Are they both hateful, or are neither hateful? We need clarification. If you don't want politics, just type "no politics allowed here", there clear and simple, we all know what they don't want talked about. What is "no offensive speech" in their tos supposed to mean, when you can take offense to literally anything. There is no regulating this rule.

I already told my position in where I stand when it comes to discussions, political or otherwise -- and speculated on why other people might feel differently. I don't feel the need to repeat myself. It would be nice if companies would make clearly defined rules to exactly what is allowed and what is not, but for most sites, I'm too cynical to believe that would ever happen. TOS is not meant to protect the customer, it's meant to protect the company. It would be nice if it was otherwise. And world peace would be nice, too.

Well you turned my example completely upside down. If my co-workers want to have a chat about something i'm not comfortable with, I can and I'll leave. So the 19 people are already discussing it in the break room, and I don't want to: I won't call the boss to remove the 19 people from the break room, I will let them continue and remove myself. This sounds like common sense to me.

Yet if 2 people in a chatroom wish to have a discussion about a controversial subject with arguing and insults, and 100 other people in there wish they weren't having it, you feel 100 people need to either just ignore it or remove themselves from the chatroom, so the 2 people can have their full freedom of speech, anywhere, anytime?

Again, this is people's personal issues, not EAs. It's not their job to teach people manners or self control, people should have that already. If they don't, they're personally lacking on social skills and EA is not to blame for their inabilities. You can want all you want to not see people with low social skills, you're still gonna see them because we're not born equal.

You can want to not see cat videos on youtube all you want, they're still gonna appear on your suggested feed whether you like it or not. You can want to not see cat-person comments on your dog videos all you want, but you're still gonna find them if you seek to read a public comments section.

Just because you personally don't want to see something, should not warrant a law outright banning whatever is against your interest.

EA is not to blame for people with poor social skills, but it can still do things to minimize the damage to it's customers. Whether or not it should, is up to EA and needs to be up to EA. If it's not up to EA, then EA could lose customers because of these people and not be able to do anything about it, and no one would want to run a company in a world like that.

I asked if permission to be on the grounds would somehow make it better. Not if permission to talk about it would. That is literally how my question was phrased.

Allright. School-grounds content is still regulated by the establishment. Is it better to have person with permit on ground than not? Naturally. Is it better or worse to have a person talk propaganda inside the perimeters with a permit or outside of it without one? There is no difference. The impact of speech would be the same no matter were you inside a class room or outside it's window. The only difference would be is the school enabling it with a permit or not. You can and should be asked to leave the grounds if you're disrupting the class or staff, no matter if you got permit or not. Freedom of speech is part of kids rights too. It's no different if a random person talks to them about whatever, versus kids talking them about whatever.

I already told my position in where I stand when it comes to discussions, political or otherwise -- and speculated on why other people might feel differently. I don't feel the need to repeat myself. It would be nice if companies would make clearly defined rules to exactly what is allowed and what is not, but for most sites, I'm too cynical to believe that would ever happen. TOS is not meant to protect the customer, it's meant to protect the company. It would be nice if it was otherwise. And world peace would be nice, too.

But you were talking about protecting yourself from loudmouth, not protecting EA from loudmouths? More accurately, you're talking about EA protecting you from loudmouths.

You were also arguing that certain speech would get more heated and therefor should get regulated more. What justifies one heated argument to be displayed over another? This wasn't explained. Unless the explanation was to cherry-pick, in which case yes we disagree.

Yet if 2 people in a chatroom wish to have a discussion about a controversial subject with arguing and insults, and 100 other people in there wish they weren't having it, you feel 100 people need to either just ignore it or remove themselves from the chatroom, so the 2 people can have their full freedom of speech, anywhere, anytime?

No. The 100 other people can press mute twice and their problems of not wanting to see the 2 people arguing is solved.

Yes, you should have all the right to discuss anything anywhere. If you were hired to speak about Social Media to a class, but ended up talking about world hunger all lecture, you won't be invited back and your salary might get suspended of fined for not doing your job.

If you march to a vegan protest you're allowed speak for meat at their event. They won't invite you to the microphone nor is it their duty, but you can absolutely debate anyone in the crowd would they be willing to debate you back.

Or just have a shout competition, that happens a lot at protests and is tolerated.

What you are not allowed to do, nor should you be, is to keep people from getting to their destination by blocking a street. You're not allowed to assault anyone, nor threaten anyone.

Insults are allowed. Using them makes you a jerk, and rightfully so.

Sometimes it is not possible to dispatch a disturbance when a mob takes over the class to shout their own agenda to silence a lecturer they disagreed with (see McMaster University) even if they should be. And I hope everyone who forcefully brought the lecture to a halt got consequences for their actions later.

See, this issue you are having is about disruption, and I am not defending it.

I am defending everyone's right to talk about Milo on school forums for and against, I am not defending Milo conversationalists going out harrassing everyone at the locker room who dislike their idol. If two people talking about Russia at the bus stop is enough to disturb you so much you want them banned from the bus stop, you should also be protesting any other kind of conversation from taking place at the bus stop to keep your stance consistent. When it's just the Russia they shouldn't be talking about, but Italy is a fine topic to for the two to discuss, you have effectively cherry-picked rights of speech based on topic. This kind of double-standard I am against.

EA is not to blame for people with poor social skills, but it can still do things to minimize the damage to it's customers. Whether or not it should, is up to EA and needs to be up to EA. If it's not up to EA, then EA could lose customers because of these people and not be able to do anything about it, and no one would want to run a company in a world like that.

And it is their right to make whatever cherry-picked rules they want to cater to anyone. Doesn't mean they're smart, necessary or helping them in any way. Twitter's popularity went down hill the minute they took a political stance. I'm sure their side of the political party was very pleased though. But picking a side is often not the good nor healthy choice, as their quick number decline pretty clearly told us.

They have all the right to make a bad decision. And I have all the right to protest against it. Untill they decide they don't like your opinion and ban you for holding different morals, where the issue lies.

//EDIT: Thanks for the skype chat @Seireeni. Always pleasant to get a convo going live when snail-posts stops doing you any favors. Good talking to you!

Freedom of speech is not protected in private business. You play by their rules. If you don't like them, the only thing a customer can do is not give them money. Don't agree with their rules? Don't give them money. But your speech is not protected on FB, social media or any other private service. Freedom of speech is protected from the govt interfering.

End thread.

Freedom of speech is not protected in private business. You play by their rules. If you don't like them, the only thing a customer can do is not give them money. Don't agree with their rules? Don't give them money. But your speech is not protected on FB, social media or any other private service. Freedom of speech is protected from the govt interfering.

 

End thread.

This is all true. And nobody was claiming otherwise.