Like I told someone else in another thread, the narrowness of perspective of an individual is not my problem. I can see that you might not see a use for it for yourself, but I cannot see how you would decide no one has a use for it, especially with so many threads and posts asking for it back and explaining why they want it back even if only as a toggle. There is no reason to support taking choice away from others if you can choose not to be affected by it without limiting their choices. You're describing a singleplayer game with that analogy, though. This is a multiplayer game.
I find this to be an incredibly hollow argument. For one, the difference between group 1 and group 2 is group one isn't demanding everyone do things the way they want. Group 1 is saying let them have the option to make their own decisions. Group 2 is demanding everyone do things how they want them to. What this poll indicates at this point is group 2, contrary to what they seemed to believe, is the vocal minority trying to force their views on the majority. Even more so because the first group is also advocating the option to ignore it entirely as a personal decision, you know, like a mature person is supposed to do in life. And to present that everyone who voted in favor of making it optional just wants to be able to troll you in real time is incredibly disingenuous, and you have to willfully ignore for one all the people who said they want it because they miss Orks on chat and secondly that's not how an optional mute works. I do not accept that as a valid veiwpoint. Especially since bE staff will have to deal with reports anyways, as I've said the worst experience I had with chat came from my own team on voice coms, so the enemy never could have heard it at anytime, global chat or not. Your preferences on banter are your own, the problem is you're telling everyone else they aren't allowed to enjoy banter as part of their game experience, your side is therefore trying to dictate what people are supposed to enjoy about the game. Lastly, censorship is a privilege, not a right. If you live somewhere whete it's a right then that's a really backwards country, if you believe that you don't just have a childish worldview, it's downright dangerous. It's also a false analogy, because a movie is a singular sequence of events, a game is an interaction. If you hosted a TT game and had a house rule that nobody is allowed to talk it would be your privilege of being the owner of that establishment to do so, biut I don't think your game night would be very popular, as I'd think most people would consider you a killjoy. As for your movie analogy, if it were closer to the reality of this game, it would be more like if every seat had a headphone jack and noise canceling headphones, but you want the jack deactivated and an usher to patrol the isles and eject anyone who even whispers to eachother. So yeah, I think you missed a significant amount of points.
I mean really the toggle option should be fine. If anyone is actually bothered by mean words online, they can just turn it off, right? There's no reason to try and take a multiplayer experience from everyone just because they can't handle it.
Thanks for the feedback, I think It is really constructive conversation as opposed to some it the other pretty brief statements. I think claiming censorship is a bit of a stretch. It is the dev's product, they can do with it as they want. That's not censorship. No one has a right to use someone else's product in a manner the orignal owner deems inappropriate (I am sure there are exceptions, but I think that is the general idea of Fair Use and various intellectual property laws). The devs said the chat was not being used for its intended purpose, so they disabled it. It's not censorship, but controlling one's product. I still think the analogy holds. I can see that some people find interaction to be part of the experience, and I respect that. I do concur with it at a certain level. But I also still think that just as in the example of someone talking during a movie distracts those around them, the devs got enough feedback to determine that what was going on in global chat was too distracting to continue. I can't speak for others, but when I play, and I have the spare brain bytes, I check when messages pop up. Was it useful comm? Nope, just someone calling me a clown and accusing my entire team of cheesing. Fantastic. Toggling the chat might be a solution. However, someone new to the game might not get the memo that global chat is the Wild West where only the thick skin live. They then either have to be told to just toggle off chat, or they inevitably submit an abuse report (if they are of the thin skinned fortitude), and the EC staff have to deal with it.
Aside from the rest of the post, your constant need to defend this as "not-censorship" made me curious. So I found this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship "Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions" emphasis mine. You can stop beating that dead horse now. Also, this blanket statement: Is wildly overreaching and inaccurate. You need to be careful with your usage of terms. First off, you're saying "product" when you mean "service". If it was a product, then what the original owner deems appropriate stops mattering as soon as they accept money for their product. With an ongoing service (the ability to connect to the game servers, for example), they can decide what they want within certain limits. Second, Fair Use and copyright laws have no bearing here, as the customers are not creating legally distinct derivative works by using the chat system.
I don't get why people are acting like global chat will get rid of all of this, instead they'll focus on teammates they feel caused them a loss. Instead of Mr xxx420slayerweedsterxxx calling an enemy a "piece of shit who doesn't deserve to win", he's not going to suddenly become a better person. He's going to find a teammate to lash out on instead, and that'll actually hurt the player being attacked even more since it's one of his perceived allies.
Then you didn't read any of this thread. The chief benefit of being able to talk to everyone playing the game with you is fun. Shocking concept, I know.
Well if he lashes out on his teammate, his teammates can mute him, right? As his teammate you can vote kick him, right? Communication with your team is a must in a team game. Can we say the same with communication with the enemy?
