James Ennever said:
Today I turned coats and ventured into PA to wach the weekly Extra credits, and there I realised something. That Jim sterling Knows more about the online gaming scene than the three of them combined.
Yes sexism in Xbox live is unacceptable and yes verbal jousting does cross the line, But If we followed the suggestions they say, it would be the death of free speech. Where is the line between sexism, racism and bullying and at what point does it leave the realms of hate speech and into just having a different opinion?
Jim sterling?s theory of immaturity being a good way to deal with unlikable people is what happens online 60% of the time. Here is an example of how jims logic works.
In the end, you both have the ability to silence each other through the use of mute, and fragging them is always the best option. Every time I hear A racist 12 year old from Indonesia, I (1) mute them (2) frag them (3) unmute them to see if they will act civil now(4) if not mute then warn my teammates, no need to ban anyone just ignore them or If they are to young to be playing the game mock them about there age and how they should ?really get of their mom?s computer? ??.simple
Edit 1
I like EC it is just that yesterdays episode contridivted jims earlier video.
EC is not "pretentous" It is sometimes biased but not uninteligable.
Right, maybe this has been addressed in the subsequent 6 pages, but I felt like I should make a note of something:
EC did not, nor has it ever, challenged the notion of Free Speech. They advocate it, if anything. The recent episode wanted to get one thing out there, and that is FREE SPEECH does not mean NO LIABILITY. The consequence of free speech (or freedom in general) is culpability. Speaking your mind is all well and good, but expecting no consequence is naieve and ultimately foolish in the real world. Why should public gaming be any different?
Even when you speak with the best interest of others in mind, you must take on the consequences of your words, especially if there is an opposition to them. Words have power, and, to be cliched, with power comes responsibility. Unfortunatey some people don't think this applies to them. I think that needs to be corrected. What EC is putting forward, is some sort of structured "punishment" for ignorants and shit talkers, not free thinkers (hopefully), adding an unbiased platform for consequence and culpability to an enviroment that lacks it.
What they suggest is very similar to The Escapists forum health bar. Do you feel repressed because you can't regurgitate bile onto the page, or advocate your most debased fetish, or promote criminal activity? Do you feel repressed because people expect common courtesy and politeness from others? No, because you're a level headed, polite and civil person... or at least you should be, when stepping into a social enviroment.
Death of free speech? No. The concept of "DEATH TO FREE SPEEH" is ridiculous... how can you kill the freedom to speak your mind? You can't, but as I said above words have power, power requires responsibility and responsibility means liability. ECs idea adds penalties to actions taken by people who don't think before they shit out their mouth (or fail at empathy, either will do).
I like both EC and Jim. They both offer a different view AND alternate solutions to the same problems. Unfortunately Jims solution to this relies on personal initiative and even skill to address abusive problems, rather then punishing the culprits. Why should I have to endure shit talkers in the first place? Shouldn't they be held accountable for their actions, be put on record or flagged like people who act like this in the real world? I mean, do you think a person who delibirately offends people in a public place, like a restaraunt or a pub, should be allowed to do it and not suffer penalties for it?
Should we form posses or vigilante groups to tackle the scum of the net? We can, but a CIVIL and FAIR system needs to be in place, one that doesn't let personal bias sway it's decisions. A system as suggested by EC, imposed by the services WE PAY FOR/INVEST IN, is what's needed... not half arsed moderation, or blunt banhammmering. Something consistant.
EDIT: The thing you should concerned about is not freedom of speech, but freedom of information and the transparency of that information. That's where our futures balls lie, and that is what is being tugged at for that last few years. They will have it by the balls soon enough, if we let them. Anyway, a comment for another post altogether. Move along.