@captainfuriosa
I made the error of assuming American, in my experience way to many Americans think that their free speech applies everywhere. Your macron example applies to us and our President as well, but some people like to believe that Freedom of Speech applies to Private non-governmental agencies as well. I won't speak for French Law, but for the US, Freedom of speech only applies for government involved censorship, not private entities like Rare.
Rare Needs to Address the Controversy Surrounding a Certain Streamer
@blaizent said in A Certain Streamer Should Not Have Been Immortalized in Sea of Thieves:
@aglasgowthing Hate to be the one to break it to you, but saying “lol, ok” isn’t an argument; if anything, it’s a lack of argument. If this isn’t going to be an intelligent conversation, I’m not going to be involved
it isn't an argument at all
@closinghare208 @mr-dragon-raaar @Tre-Oni @Chronodusk For sure, with a nice bow emote behind paywall. All the money made with the sales of this item will go to charity for poor streamers. By using it on the right place, customers will unlock a fresh, legendary and exclusive achievement called Legend of Braindead.
@rod-runner-67 said in A Certain Streamer Should Not Have Been Immortalized in Sea of Thieves:
@closinghare208 @mr-dragon-raaar For sure, with a nice bow emote behind paywall. All the money made with the sales of this item will go to charity for poor streamers. By using it on the right place, customers will unlock a fresh, legendary and exclusive achievement called Legend of Braindead.
yep
@nabberwar said in A Certain Streamer Should Not Have Been Immortalized in Sea of Thieves:
@realstyli
As an American, I can confidently say that Americans don't understand what Free Speech means. I won't pretend to understand UK laws when I am not one, but I found that it was key to point out the claim on American law.No harm no foul.
I'm not from the UK either, I'm from Ireland (Éire), but a lot of our laws were inherited from the UK when we got independence.
My understanding of US law probably stems from the political ads over there where they are allowed to pretty much say what they want without evidence, it seems anyway. That sort of thing is very much illegal here.
But this is getting a little off topic so, to bring it back, the way I see it this person is like anyone else, we all make mistakes and have bad days and look for something to blame.
Unfortunately, their bad days snowballed into a situation where they were hounded and they became more hostile about it than they should have. But, from my limited time seeing them play in crews with streamers I know, they are not the worst person in the world, and certainly not the worst person playing this game.
Should these back channels have existed? No, they should not, but it comes back to who allowed that as an official means of reporting?
I can understand that being used for reporting bugs and exploits in the game, as streamers do usually have good video evidence and it's clearer to see how something occurs, but it should never have been used as it was, because it was too easy to get misreported. Stream-sniping is a problem but it should always be backed up with actual evidence.
As others have said, the easter egg existed before all this controversy and we should be able to move past it all as long as lessons are learned.
@realstyli said in A Certain Streamer Should Not Have Been Immortalized in Sea of Thieves:
@nabberwar said in A Certain Streamer Should Not Have Been Immortalized in Sea of Thieves:
@realstyli
As an American, I can confidently say that Americans don't understand what Free Speech means. I won't pretend to understand UK laws when I am not one, but I found that it was key to point out the claim on American law.No harm no foul.
I'm not from the UK either, I'm from Ireland (Éire), but a lot of our laws were inherited from the UK when we got independence.
My understanding of US law probably stems from the political ads over there where they are allowed to pretty much say what they want without evidence, it seems anyway. That sort of thing is very much illegal here.
But this is getting a little off topic so, to bring it back, the way I see it this person is like anyone else, we all make mistakes and have bad days and look for something to blame.
Unfortunately, their bad days snowballed into a situation where they were hounded and they became more hostile about it than they should have. But, from my limited time seeing them play in crews with streamers I know, they are not the worst person in the world, and certainly not the worst person playing this game.
Should these back channels have existed? No, they should not, but it comes back to who allowed that as an official means of reporting?
I can understand that being used for reporting bugs and exploits in the game, as streamers do usually have good video evidence and it's clearer to see how something occurs, but it should never have been used as it was, because it was too easy to get misreported. Stream-sniping is a problem but it should always be backed up with actual evidence.
As others have said, the easter egg existed before all this controversy and we should be able to move past it all as long as lessons are learned.
aye
@nabberwar said in A Certain Streamer Should Not Have Been Immortalized in Sea of Thieves:
With respect James, that isn't how reality works. Compare it to this real life thing, Filing a False Police Report. Their actions (The Streamer) in this case led to consequences for someone, who was not allowed any form of due process. While certainly the ones who took action are at fault, but that doesn't mean the accusers hands are clean.
Ok I will compare it to reality. She wasnt filing a false report she was filing an inaccurate report. Far as I'm aware person in question genuinely thought she'd witnessed cheating and was not trying lie to get someone banned. Intent matters.
Citizens reporting crimes aren't required to be legal experts. Policemen are. If grandma reports those punk kids for loitering then its on the police to shut her down. If the police shoot the kids then it damn sure better be the policeman going to jail not the dumb-but-well-intentioned Grandma
However you swing it, Rare were in the wrong on this one
Hi @captainfuriosa,
Negative callouts and witch hunting is not allowed against any player it is not restricted to streamers. This is not the platform to air grievances with another person. If you have an issue with another user please bring it up with our support team and they can investigate.
Thanks!
Ok I will compare it to reality. She wasnt filing a false report she was filing an inaccurate report. Far as I'm aware person in question genuinely thought she'd witnessed cheating and was not trying lie to get someone banned. Intent matters.
I will say this, do we actually know the intent behind this? Could the streamer in question believe that they were being sniped? Maybe, but it also might have been malicious intent.
What about this, something I think we can both agree on. Had the streamer in question used this abuse of power to get a ban on player out of pure malicious intent, their hands aren't clean of this. Had it been done in believing that due process would be followed, their hands are clean. Does this sound fair?
I think its key to point out, I am not denying Rare is wrong on this one, but I happen to think its more than just them on this that is a fault. I firmly believe that the Accuser knew exactly what they were doing, while knowing exactly what kind of power they could pull.
@nabberwar No more than we "know" anyone's intention behind anything. But the clip I saw showed someone who looked sincerely salty at a player they thought was stream sniping.
@theunionjames
Did you happen to see the clip the day after of which the accuser was bragging about "Thanos Snapping" them?@nabberwar No. does it prove she did it specifically to ban someone who didn't do anything wrong or was it just bragging that she had the ability to get people banned if she thought they were cheating?
Edit: actually it doesn't matter. Rare is still a way bigger villain in this story for giving her that power in the first place. Had they not, everything she did or didn't do/say could have been ignored and forgotten
@captainfuriosa said in A Certain Streamer Should Not Have Been Immortalized in Sea of Thieves:
@cokney-charmer Don't worry man I know forums, been moderating on forums my whole teenager years. And you're right, signing the agreement to use these forums can mean going agains't freespeech in order to keep the forums calm. I just think witch hunting is a matter of interpretation and can be unfair sometimes. :)
It is not a matter of "going against freedom of speech"....you signed away that right when you agreed to follow the TOS of your Sea of Thieves/MS account to use these forums.
That is something you fail to understand, when you sign any agreement to sign up to anything, you are agreeing to go by their terms and rules, freedom of speech has nothing to do with it.
Cancel culture is complete nonsense.
The streamer was a bad sport in some ways, but that's on her. She's the one whose reputation has taken a hit.
The easter egg is unrelated to her sportsmanship.
I think we should all just move on. Bad things happened, words were said, but no amount of discussing it is going to make the past unhappen. Let's look to the future. Rare's silence on this kind of points to a certain level of embarassment about the back door shenanigans. Let's allow everyone to walk shamefully away.
@boxcar-squidy said in Rare Needs to Address the Controversy Surrounding a Certain Streamer:
Cancel culture is complete nonsense.
The streamer was a bad sport in some ways, but that's on her. She's the one whose reputation has taken a hit.
The easter egg is unrelated to her sportsmanship.
I think we should all just move on. Bad things happened, words were said, but no amount of discussing it is going to make the past unhappen. Let's look to the future. Rare's silence on this kind of points to a certain level of embarassment about the back door shenanigans. Let's allow everyone to walk shamefully away.
aye
@boxcar-squidy Actually, in this instance, bringing it up again and again could actually do some good. If Rare actually acknowledges what happened, those people who got their profiles falsely banned would get their accounts back. So sorry if “cancel culture” bothers you, but I’m not gonna shut up just because it’s an old topic. This is more than just sportsmanship; I thought that much was obvious
In a few replies in this thread, I have stated things such as "I will not remain silent". I realize that this may imply that I plan on starting a huge, full-on protest in response to these events. Even if I feel these events are hard to excuse, I do not have the time or commitment to do something like that for a week or more. In a sense, this post was mainly meant as a formal complaint about the issue; the thread that resulted is just a side effect of that.
I agree. This is highly immoral on Rares part. They are using streamers as free advertising, which is why they are endorsing them and giving them immunity and support. But only the ones that have an established following.
I myself, am also a streamer trying to build my following, however because I don't have one yet, my feedback is ignored. There's a hierarchy in this game and it translates to money. The first signs were the pirate emporium. Sea of Thieves is not a game, a product. It is a paid for service, which is why it is on the Xbos Game pass. Rare gets a percentage of that, which was never disclosed. They use their so called "transparency" to not raise any eyebrows.@blaizent Ahoy there! Due to our long-standing policy, we do not address disciplinary actions in public, especially with regards to third parties. Action is taken against accounts when Rare have sufficient evidence to do so, and it is not something done arbitrarily. Parties who have been banned are always welcome to raise a support ticket to have a situation reexamined, as is also a long-standing policy for us. Hope that helps make things a little clearer!
@lady-aijou With all due respect, few if not none of the situations I've read up on have had any form of due process or processing of evidence; the players were reported, then they were banned. Many if not all attempts at support were met harsh, unprofessional responses, sometimes including direct insults. I completely understand the desire to keep unsightly things such as bans under wraps; however, in an instance such as this, where there is significant evidence to show Rare's support team forming a brick wall to appeals in the case of things like stream sniping, it is absolutely necessary to confirm the state of this matter as a means to resolve tension in the community and, more importantly, as a means to fix negative reputation.
I do find it questionable how "stream sniiping" is an in-game offense for which someone could be banned. Isn't this a matter for Twitch or whatever streaming platform and not an in-game matter?
The context of which I understand "stream sniping" is taking advantage of someone streaming to locate them / gain an advantage etc. And while possibly unsavory, this is just one of the realities of streaming anything in a multiplayer environment. I've had people do stuff to this to me in various competitive multiplayer games- is this the fault of the players or the fault of me streaming? I enable this behavior by being a streamer and I have ways to mitigate it.
So unless a different context of the term is meant, I don't know what the fuss is about. I think any sort of interaction with a stream or streamer is a streaming service issue not a developer-of-the-game issue.
@lady-aijou said in Rare Needs to Address the Controversy Surrounding a Certain Streamer:
@blaizent Ahoy there! Due to our long-standing policy, we do not address disciplinary actions in public, especially with regards to third parties. Action is taken against accounts when Rare have sufficient evidence to do so, and it is not something done arbitrarily. Parties who have been banned are always welcome to raise a support ticket to have a situation reexamined, as is also a long-standing policy for us. Hope that helps make things a little clearer!
I don't think anyone actually expects you to comment on specific circumstances, however perhaps you need to clarify what sorts of things are against the rules. The Pirate's Code covers a lot, but this is a pretty unusual situation. Is taking advantage of a streamer making their ingame actions public really a bannable offense?
Sorry about this man but no that really didn't clear things up at all.
Rare has remained silent ever since the controversy happened and remains to do so while immortalizing this "Sea of Thieves Partner" with it's negative stigma around it.
The controversy also keeps returning every few months on either this forum, social media and/or reddit. It's foolish at best.Maybe a community manager can manage the community by either going down on one knee and saying 'my bad' in a professional manner if it was an incorrect decision, or "after a detailed investigation we have concluded that the actions taken against the players involved of harassing/stream sniping player X were not a mistake and will not be reverted. We hope this addresses any questions you may have had regarding this controversy. In the future we will communicate better regarding hot-topics within the community. Reminder of pirate code yadayada"
At least communicate. We care, we listen etc.
You don't let something this simple grow and grow until it turns into a 'streamer benefits vs normal players' discussion (which has happened and is happening again)
It's just a thought. I don't know, I only did 12 years of customer support so far in life.Stream sniping shouldn't be ban-able in a pvp game lol. Who's the idiot at Rare that decided this should be a thing. First it's a pvp game and the streamer is doing it by choice. So she got killed by some people, who cares. Not to mention that the streamer herself is a mediocre player at best. What's even worse is most of the times, there is no way to prove someone is actually stream sniping. I don't even understand why Rare is even getting involved in such things to begin with.
The person who came up with this rule should be given multiple lashes with a banana 😂
Hey folks,
Here to clarify a few things as I feel this thread is going around in circles at this point.
Bans: I'll re-iterate what the other Community Managers have already said - our policy is clear in that we do not address disciplinary actions in public, and if the parties involved would like to dispute those actions then they are welcome to do so through the correct channels.
However, I will stress that Rare does not take actions against accounts unless there is significant evidence or cause to do so, and we are not in any way liable to divulge the details or information of individual investigations openly with the community or with parties not involved in the incident as this also violates various data protection laws.
Stream Sniping: We have made it clear in our community code of conduct that repeated stream sniping, in which an individual or group intentionally target a streamer on an ongoing basis solely to ruin their in-game experience, is considered a form of harassment. As such, appropriate action will be taken against users who do this at Rare's discretion if the evidence points to it.
Overall, we take targeted harrassment of our players seriously regardless of who they are. If we hear reports of harassment then we will look into it accordingly and are confident in the fact that we only take further action when we are sure that the evidence holds enough weight.
I want to also reassure you that ultimately the decision as to whether or not a player is banned rests solely on Rare and Rare alone, and player reports of inappropriate conduct are used as guidance to point us in the right direction. While we can't discuss individual incidents, I hope this makes sense in the context of where this debate has come from.
@takuboto There is significant evidence to suggest that, in certain instances (particularly stream sniping), Rare does not only ban if there is significant evidence. I am not saying that they never ban without evidence; in fact, I’d be surprise if this were the case. However, as I have been told Rare takes great pride in their customer support, I believe that an issue as foul as this should not be ignored.
@TakuBoto I would like to reiterate that I do not intend this thread as a call to “witch hunt” against the streamer in question, or Rare for that matter. Up until I made the original post, for whatever reason, I was unaware that there are official channels for complaints such as this. If I had a time machine, (minus the paradoxes) I would definitely go back and make an official complaint instead of a public one
94 out of 100
