After Game Toxicity

LIKES TO PÅRTY·Mar 21, 2018·7 votes·637 views

Why do we still have to see the awful comments made by people we have muted in game in the after-game chat?

11 Comments

Kei143Mar 21, 20184 votes

Technical answer: the game and the client are separate programs and currently don't communicate with each other.

It can be programmed for them to communicate with each other, but the real question is whether their time is well spent to develop this feature as opposed to other features.

webstar1995Mar 21, 20182 votes

Just hit "play again" it is not that hard.

JustCallMeSPEDMar 21, 20181 votes

I really don't understand this ever-growing mindset of "I have the right not to hear you say things I don't like".

And you're not in the middle of a game you will be penalized for leaving, you're in the post-game screen and can leave any time you like.

IfnethMar 21, 20184 votes

It’s simple: your freedom to speak ends at my freedom to ignore.

Since there’s only one chat bar, we all have to share it, and so if I want to ignore you in chat, then the fact is that I’ll have to make your comments invisible to me.

JustCallMeSPEDMar 21, 20181 votes

Freedom of speech as a concept in America is not conditional on whether or not you like hearing what people have to say. You ARE free to leave the post-screen window. You can friend request the person you actually WANT to talk to so that you can leave the raging guy alone on the post-game screen. It'd be the equivalent to wanting to talk to someone but someone nearby is shouting and yelling at everyone near him, so you walk somewhere else.

Grilled PenguinMar 21, 20181 votes

Very appropriate name considering that freedom of speech doesn't apply to what you type in a privately owned video game.

IfnethMar 21, 20181 votes

(Hey, easy on the all-caps. It reads like you’re raising your voice at me.)

If you want to get technical, then the freedom of speech is limited by time, place, manner, and purpose; that it does not protect the use of speech for malicious purposes; and that the reaction of private actors to speech is not only permitted but protected.

The practical consequence of these principles is that a private establishment need not accommodate any patron who uses speech to irritate or harass the other patrons, and that the establishment may take reasonable measures to prevent any such person from doing so.

Returning to principle, muting someone does not restrict their right to free speech. Everyone else who has not muted them can still hear them. To say otherwise is to imply, even if unknowingly and unintentionally, that the person being muted has the right to make the person who would otherwise just mute them have to listen or leave the chat.

Our being free to leave the post-game chat if someone else makes it unbearable does not mean that we should have to, or that we should have to let anyone make it unpleasant. Frankly, many flamers will seize their inability to be muted during the post-game chat to resume flaming anyone who muted them. That behavior is why continuity-of-muting is being requested.

Does this seem reasonable?

Telephone BoothMar 21, 20181 votes

{quoted}

I really don't understand this ever-growing mindset of "I have the right not to hear you say things I don't like".

And you're not in the middle of a game you will be penalized for leaving, you're in the post-game screen and can leave any time you like.

Well I agree with the sentiment, but to be fair, in the context of what he's saying, they're already muted so why not stay muted on post game chat? Keep it simple dude. This ain't real life. Kei gave the right answer.