But this post by Stanley Woo indicates that his ban was due to users reporting him and not due to a text parser.aries100 said:And I'm more and more sure that it is the use of the word 'gay' that did get him banned as this word could is probably flagged as 'profanity' by the text parser at EA.
He did, after all, call the guy who insulted him a retard. I think what happened was that the guy who insulted him first got banned and then this guy in turn reported v_ware. Or the report user button was abused in v_ware's other thread.Stanley Woo said:2. EA Community bans come down from a different department and are the result of someone hitting the REPORT POST button. These bans can affect access to your game and/or DLC.
It also unlikely that "gay" is on the profanity filter, given the fact that the word is pretty much embraced by the LBGT community in North America.
I respectfully disagree. A lot of people don't take forums or other forms of communication over the internet seriously and behave in a way they would never do in real life (and really, behavior in multiplayer games and forums should not be that much different from each other). And this is largely due to the complete lack of consequences for being a dick on the net. In this particular case the reaction was overzealous, but I definitely agree with the intentions.aries100 said:As for banning people from playing (or in this case activating!) their game, is not cool, not at least because this did happen because of a forum post made by the user. In multiplayer games, where you communicate over the net, it is something else entirely.
I agree, internet censorship by governments can become a serious problem. However, I think that communities on the net should have the right to police themselves or not at all, if they so choose. Government should only come in as a guarantee for a minimum of rights. So, that cyber stalking and personal threats can be dealt with accordingly.aries100 said:As for text parters, think in the broader perspective: What if goverments had access to this? (oh - wait - they do!). This would mean that each government in the world would be able to monitor every webpage in the world, flagging every word that deemed to be dangerous. Just like EA apparently reserves the right to be doing as for their Terms Of Service. On a more general perspective, it seems that big corporations like EA slowly are undermining the consumer's legal rights by making customers i.e. gamers agree to EA's terms if they wish to play a game published by EA.
As far as I know most EULAs have already been in conflict with EU consumer protection laws for the last few years, though I am no lawyer. But gamers as a whole are just not the kind of people to organize to change this. So far, experience, for example the recent World of Starcraft mod debacle, has shown that when a controversial issue comes up, the internet backlash is usually strong enough to make publishers and developers back down. However, it becomes problematic when a valid concern lacks media penetration. This seems to be the case here.
The customer definitely needs better protection, but corporations should not be stripped of the possibility of harsh penalties, either. It is a debatable issue. And in the end I think corporations will win, mainly because today's generation never learned to fight for their rights. But I don't think this will be the end of the world; video games are rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
Regarding DA2, the game itself:
From what I heard and read of Kirkwall I am getting a strong G.R.R. Martin vibe. Especially from the cities Daenerys Targaryen visits and conquers. Is this accurate, is Kirkwall inspired by these cities or am I just imagining things?
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2011
- Messages
- 101