64
Xbox introduces new strike system to curtail bad behavior
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
64 points (94.4% liked)
Games
16407 readers
1702 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Because you argue with someone on xbox live and they report you and you now have a strike, it's been proven they will strike you over the smallest shit imaginable. Not having social features in X games is shit but okay but no multiplayer?
There is no reason to argue 1:1 about a video game. Simply don't respond / start anything.
You get in a lot of arguments on XBL?
They have it recorded. If they're repeatedly upholding reports through appeals, you probably deserve to be reported.
And yes, you absolutely should lose access to multiplayer period if they're forced to ban you. The idea that just losing chat access is a suitable punishment for repeatedly being a shitbag is fucking absurd.
I don't play on xbox because I don't support trillion dollar companies who's founders were friendly with epstein. But I have friends who do and I've seen threads on reddit about the subject. I doubt they are trying very hard with the appeal system. Imagine a game banning you for being toxic and then steam banning you from all multiplayer games. Boggles the mind.
If Valve had the staff and Valve was the one handling bans from games, that's exactly how it should work.
People who aren't consistently making the experience of everyone around them worse don't routinely get banned, and a proper appeals system is more than enough. Being online doesn't mean that there aren't real people on the other end that you're harassing and treating like shit and ruining their gaming experience. "If you make an alt and go online, you lose offline access too" wouldn't be an overreach. It would just be good policy. You don't have a right to harass people with impunity.
You can get banned from forums or the game itself by the gamedevs and you can get banned for breaking no rules I don't see any advantage to such a system. People would literally get baited into arguments in games and end up getting banned because they argued with someones throwaway account or banned by a non involved third party just because they through the argument was toxic even if it wasn't and wasn't even directed at them. This is infinitely worse than community servers now you have another layer of useless abstraction with dubious quality removing access to all your games. If only people who harass people with impunity didn't already get banned in games and were the only people banned in games.
You're conflating two things. This isn't developers. It's Microsoft.
If Valve was in charge of bans, a literal lifetime ban for you as a human being would be entirely justifiable and fair as a punishment for inappropriate conduct in interactions with other players.