What you wish someone would have told you ...

[YodaMan 3D]

11 hours ago, Unknown1598 said:

The game definitely does not allow griefing since i already gotten a player banned because he camped at the butcher and killed me causing me to lose my pelts. Do you remember when you created your account and it had you read the code of conduct? yeah well everyone has to follow those rules. Doesn't matter what rockstar allows its what Microsoft allows that matters. rockstar could tell you that swearing and being racist is okay yeah well guess what? Microsoft can still ban you because you are following THEIR rules not rockstars. All rockstar can do is make and enforce more rules.

That isn't completely true.  Depending on the topic and who can be blamed for it happening.  Many times Microsoft or Sony will say that discipline falls onto the game manufacturer and not the console guys.  My personal experience comes most recently from Microsoft and Ubisoft when The Division griefing and cheating in the game.  Microsoft and Sony sent it's complainers to Ubisoft, who would say that if there was an issue that it was upto the Console guys to enforce.  Neither side did anything and left the game as is and allowed those who wanted to grief or cheat to do as they wished with a few bans here or there by all parties just so they could state they was trying to fix the issue.  GTA Online also did this, if it is allowed in the game, they will always blame some one else.  So if Rockstar doesn't do anything about this, eventually it will be ignored.  

The rules are there so they can ban on occassions and have rules to cover their butts legally.

[Unknown1598]

47 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

That isn't completely true.  Depending on the topic and who can be blamed for it happening.  Many times Microsoft or Sony will say that discipline falls onto the game manufacturer and not the console guys.  My personal experience comes most recently from Microsoft and Ubisoft when The Division griefing and cheating in the game.  Microsoft and Sony sent it's complainers to Ubisoft, who would say that if there was an issue that it was upto the Console guys to enforce.  Neither side did anything and left the game as is and allowed those who wanted to grief or cheat to do as they wished with a few bans here or there by all parties just so they could state they was trying to fix the issue.  GTA Online also did this, if it is allowed in the game, they will always blame some one else.  So if Rockstar doesn't do anything about this, eventually it will be ignored.  

The rules are there so they can ban on occassions and have rules to cover their butts legally.

Doesnt matter what rockstar does doesn't matter if they get banned the point is griefing on xbox is against the code of conduct and btw if a person gets enough reports for the same reason then that guy will definitely be banned.

Know your rules i bet you didnt even read the rules you just clicked accept and went on your way.

 

Btw please stop saying that Microsoft doesnt enforce their rules. Microsoft is probably one of the strictest gaming companys. Sony on the other hand probably does nothing.

 

[YodaMan 3D]

11 minutes ago, Unknown1598 said:

Doesnt matter what rockstar does doesn't matter if they get banned the point is griefing on xbox is against the code of conduct and btw if a person gets enough reports for the same reason then that guy will definitely be banned.

Know your rules i bet you didnt even read the rules you just clicked accept and went on your way.

 

Btw please stop saying that Microsoft doesnt enforce their rules. Microsoft is probably one of the strictest gaming companys. Sony on the other hand probably does nothing.

 

I read the rules each time and for your info in future debates.  Microsoft doesn't always enforce their rules, especially if they can pass the buck to someone else.  Yes Sony is the same way.   It is also known fact that in the gaming industry no one wants to be the bad guy and be the one that cost the companies customers, even if they are detrimental to their business.  They would rather set back and let things blow over.  I experiences with these things have proven this to me time and time again.

[Netnow66]

13 hours ago, Unknown1598 said:

The game definitely does not allow griefing since i already gotten a player banned because he camped at the butcher and killed me causing me to lose my pelts. Do you remember when you created your account and it had you read the code of conduct? yeah well everyone has to follow those rules. Doesn't matter what rockstar allows its what Microsoft allows that matters. rockstar could tell you that swearing and being racist is okay yeah well guess what? Microsoft can still ban you because you are following THEIR rules not rockstars. All rockstar can do is make and enforce more rules.

Then I sure wish Microsoft would take an official stance on this. This would be worth me buying it on my Microsoft box. The fact that they might lose the ability to play, even through Xbox Live, is more of a deterrent than anything I've seen from Rockstar at this point.

Has anyone else reported players and gotten similar results?

[YodaMan 3D]

1 hour ago, Netnow66 said:

Then I sure wish Microsoft would take an official stance on this. This would be worth me buying it on my Microsoft box. The fact that they might lose the ability to play, even through Xbox Live, is more of a deterrent than anything I've seen from Rockstar at this point.

Has anyone else reported players and gotten similar results?

They won't.  Griefing is allowed by the game design.  There is a chance that both Rockstar and / or microsoft or sony may hit a player or 2 here or there, but they don't want to be the bad guys.  That could cost customers.  Thing is if someone does get banned it has to have you dead to rights.  I know players have been banned in other games, while others do the exact same thing and got reported and still played for months or years without consequences.  

[Unknown1598]

3 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:

They won't.  Griefing is allowed by the game design.  There is a chance that both Rockstar and / or microsoft or sony may hit a player or 2 here or there, but they don't want to be the bad guys.  That could cost customers.  Thing is if someone does get banned it has to have you dead to rights.  I know players have been banned in other games, while others do the exact same thing and got reported and still played for months or years without consequences.  

I highly doubt a company said you could harass and ruin someone elses experience.

You "i know players have been banned in other games, while others do the exact same thing and got reported and still played for months or years without any consequences"

Okay, the zodiac killer murdered a lot of people and was never caught the police dont even know what he looks like.

That happened over 50 years ago and was never punished... There ya go ladies and gentlemen murder is now LEGAL according to this guy.

[Kean_1]

5 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:

They won't.  Griefing is allowed by the game design.  

You're absolutely right.  "Griefing" is also a term that is a real grey area in a game mode like RDO's Free Roam.  ....and again, it's because doesn't define the boundaries between PvP and PvE.  ....and that is by design.  They want that constant threat there for players in free roam just like in GTAVO.   

[YodaMan 3D]

13 hours ago, Unknown1598 said:

I highly doubt a company said you could harass and ruin someone elses experience.

You "i know players have been banned in other games, while others do the exact same thing and got reported and still played for months or years without any consequences"

Okay, the zodiac killer murdered a lot of people and was never caught the police dont even know what he looks like.

That happened over 50 years ago and was never punished... There ya go ladies and gentlemen murder is now LEGAL according to this guy.

No it isn't, but if it is never enforced.  Then to many it is legal, cause there is no one stopping them.  Rockstar isn't.  Microsoft  isn't.  Sony isn't.   A company or companies not doing anything to many is the same as allowing.  Glitches and cheats in a game get abused everyday.  They do things rarely, punish a few hoping word gets out, yet they let other do it non-stop.  The issue with having to be the heavy or the bad guy that enforces the rules.  You have to be the bad guy, if not players will walk over you, knowing you won't do a thing about.

If you have rules, that MUST BE ENFORCED.  ToS is nothing but legal mumbo jumbo that they use to their advantage, not ours.  As long as you have players saying it's a gray area, that translates into they ain't doing dang thing about it.  

I am all for them enforcing the rules.  You got players on this form admitting to that they use cheats or glitches, that it is a gray area.  Those things are against the ToS.  Yet unless someone enforces it, it gets ignored.  

To say that Xbox, Sony, or Rockstar will JUST ban someone because we say so is bull.  They have process and there are times that takes months for them to filter not hours and not days and not weeks.  Months.  Seriously, what if you or I are just bad at a game and their great.  It may look like they are cheating.  What if it's lag?

Edited December 13, 2018 by YodaMan 3D

[Unknown1598]

4 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:

No it isn't, but if it is never enforced.  Then to many it is legal, cause there is no one stopping them.  Rockstar isn't.  Microsoft  isn't.  Sony isn't.   A company or companies not doing anything to many is the same as allowing.  Glitches and cheats in a game get abused everyday.  They do things rarely, punish a few hoping word gets out, yet they let other do it non-stop.  The issue with having to be the heavy or the bad guy that enforces the rules.  You have to be the bad guy, if not players will walk over you, knowing you won't do a thing about.

If you have rules, that MUST BE ENFORCED.  ToS is nothing but legal mumbo jumbo that they use to their advantage, not ours.  As long as you have players saying it's a gray area, that translates into they ain't doing dang thing about it.  

I am all for them enforcing the rules.  You got players on this form admitting to that they use cheats or glitches, that it is a gray area.  Those things are against the ToS.  Yet unless someone enforces it, it gets ignored.  

To say that Xbox, Sony, or Rockstar will JUST ban someone because we say so is bull.  They have process and there are times that takes months for them to filter not hours and not days and not weeks.  Months.  Seriously, what if you or I are just bad at a game and their great.  It may look like they are cheating.  What if it's lag?

I never said rockstar bans anyone we tell them too and i highly doubt lag causes people to be griefed.

Look all im saying is griefing is against the code of conduct why are you even arguing with me?

All you need to do is go to anyones profile hell even yours go to report and then down to unsporting behavior and griefing is listed as one of the rules you can break.

 

[YodaMan 3D]

1 hour ago, Unknown1598 said:

I never said rockstar bans anyone we tell them too and i highly doubt lag causes people to be griefed.

Look all im saying is griefing is against the code of conduct why are you even arguing with me?

All you need to do is go to anyones profile hell even yours go to report and then down to unsporting behavior and griefing is listed as one of the rules you can break.

 

I am trying to clarify, griefing is bad but only if whoever makes the rules enforces them.  There is too many that can grief and some may or may not get punished regardless if anyone reports them and then it can be a lengthy process for anything to get it done then.  

Part of that process is finding proof that the person is even guilty.  Like you said you can go report me, but then it needs proven, cause if they ban the wrong person.  There can be legal issues.

[BropolloCreed79]

1 minute ago, YodaMan 3D said:

There can be legal issues.

Going to have to disagree with you on that one.  Online services are subject to Terms of Service.  Gaming companies and developers employ armies of attorneys, both in-house and outside counsel to protect the company from risk exposure and lawsuits.

A common form of protection has been a trend away from calling an online experience a "game" and defining it as a "service".  When you read the terms and conditions that usually get glossed over, part of the ToS is that you don't actually own the game, you're paying an access fee, or license, to use the content/service.  There are arbitration clauses embedded into most of these agreements that people agree to when they select "I agree" prior to playing.

Guess who gets to pick the arbitrator? (hint: it's not the customer).  Even if a claim against a company has merit (although when it comes to these things, 99% of claims do not), you're still looking at an arbitration process that will result in finding of no fault against the company and a paltry reward (if any).  Now, you're saddled with extensive legal fees, which you won't be able to repay, since the arbitration clause probably prohibits the recovery of attorney's fees (meanwhile, in-house counsel or outside counsel on retainer speaks on behalf of the gaming company, costing them almost nothing by compairson).

And even if somehow, by some MIRACLE you are able to get a gaming company into court, they will throw MILLIONS of dollars into the case to win.  Why?  Because it sets precedent.  If one claimant prevails, it opens the floodgates for similar claims.  Hell, a smart attorney acting on behalf of the claimant would probably seek class status at the onset on behalf of all players similarly situated (it may or may not help the client, but it WILL significantly increase the firm's payout), and at that point you're looking at at least five to ten years of litigation, appeals, attorney's fees, subpoenas, discovery, motions.... 

At worst, the company may run afoul of some sort of regulatory body possibly paying a fine, but in terms of legal ramifications for not banning players?  

I have a better shot of beating LeBron James in a game of one-on-one.

[YodaMan 3D]

48 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:

Going to have to disagree with you on that one.  Online services are subject to Terms of Service.  Gaming companies and developers employ armies of attorneys, both in-house and outside counsel to protect the company from risk exposure and lawsuits.

A common form of protection has been a trend away from calling an online experience a "game" and defining it as a "service".  When you read the terms and conditions that usually get glossed over, part of the ToS is that you don't actually own the game, you're paying an access fee, or license, to use the content/service.  There are arbitration clauses embedded into most of these agreements that people agree to when they select "I agree" prior to playing.

Guess who gets to pick the arbitrator? (hint: it's not the customer).  Even if a claim against a company has merit (although when it comes to these things, 99% of claims do not), you're still looking at an arbitration process that will result in finding of no fault against the company and a paltry reward (if any).  Now, you're saddled with extensive legal fees, which you won't be able to repay, since the arbitration clause probably prohibits the recovery of attorney's fees (meanwhile, in-house counsel or outside counsel on retainer speaks on behalf of the gaming company, costing them almost nothing by compairson).

And even if somehow, by some MIRACLE you are able to get a gaming company into court, they will throw MILLIONS of dollars into the case to win.  Why?  Because it sets precedent.  If one claimant prevails, it opens the floodgates for similar claims.  Hell, a smart attorney acting on behalf of the claimant would probably seek class status at the onset on behalf of all players similarly situated (it may or may not help the client, but it WILL significantly increase the firm's payout), and at that point you're looking at at least five to ten years of litigation, appeals, attorney's fees, subpoenas, discovery, motions.... 

At worst, the company may run afoul of some sort of regulatory body possibly paying a fine, but in terms of legal ramifications for not banning players?  

I have a better shot of beating LeBron James in a game of one-on-one.

Yes, but all of that is where the legal issues comes to play.  ToS is their of covering all that.  All software is pretty much covered by some form of ToS or the escape clause as I like to call it so that they can win almost every case.  Even if you can get it to court and win.  They probably got some sort of escape plan not to pay.

Edited December 13, 2018 by YodaMan 3D

[Kormath]

On 12/10/2018 at 10:54 AM, Unknown1598 said:

Yeah i mean just because you get killed doesn't mean they are griefers. I was trying to sell my pelts and this players killed me lost all my pelts and continued to kill me and everyone around for a good 10 minutes. I reported him to Microsoft for griefing and the next day i got a message from Microsoft telling me he is banned. 

 

So griefing is definitely not allowed. 

I would like to see that message, since MS (or anyone for that matter) is not supposed to tell you the outcome.  And why would you report them to MS for a Rockstar game?  🤔

[Unknown1598]

45 minutes ago, Kormath said:

I would like to see that message, since MS (or anyone for that matter) is not supposed to tell you the outcome.  And why would you report them to MS for a Rockstar game?  🤔

Why would i report to MS and not rockstar? Because im on xbox and everyone has to follow Microsofts rules in every game.

I hardly report people so when i get a message telling me they took action on my report i know exactly who they are talking about.

[Unknown1598]

1 hour ago, YodaMan 3D said:

Yes, but all of that is where the legal issues comes to play.  ToS is their of covering all that.  All software is pretty much covered by some form of ToS or the escape clause as I like to call it so that they can win almost every case.  Even if you can get it to court and win.  They probably got some sort of escape plan not to pay.

You agreed to the rules when you signed up. Cant sue someone for something you agreed to lol.

[Kean_1]

1 hour ago, Kormath said:

I would like to see that message, since MS (or anyone for that matter) is not supposed to tell you the outcome.  And why would you report them to MS for a Rockstar game?  🤔

You can still report people to MS and Sony for violating their code of conduct since you are using their service (e.g. XB LIve and PS Plus) to play online.  However, as you can imagine, the CoC for each is very broad and covers what you might expect like piracy, exploits, hacking, questionable content, cheats, etc.   ......and yes, harassing behavior usually in the form of abusive language, threats, racism, etc.  However, I don't see anything in the MS CoC that would specifically cover what it is allowed in RDO (like ambushing other players) as a violation of this code.

https://www.xbox.com/en-US/legal/codeofconduct

To be honest, Free Roam is a PvP environment that gives you the ability to do this and (like it or not) it is by design.  Now, If someone were to use a mechanic in the game to gain an unfair advantage over other players in such a way it was not intended (an exploit), that's a different story.

IMO, the best way to stop a lot of this is to continue to send feedback to R* via their website during the beta.  Report exploits as you discover them.  Let them know we are unhappy with the unchecked trolling that is allowed in the game, the lack of session options for PvE players, etc.

https://www.rockstargames.com/reddeadredemption2/online/feedback?step=addb2b0b

Let them know we don't want RDO to turn into just another GTAO experience. 

[Kormath]

58 minutes ago, Unknown1598 said:

Why would i report to MS and not rockstar? Because im on xbox and everyone has to follow Microsofts rules in every game.

I hardly report people so when i get a message telling me they took action on my report i know exactly who they are talking about.

 

9 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:

You can still report people to MS and Sony for violating their code of conduct since you are using their service (e.g. XB LIve and PS Plus) to play online.  However, as you can imagine, the CoC for each is very broad and covers what you might expect like piracy, exploits, hacking, questionable content, cheats, etc.   ......and yes, harassing behavior usually in the form of abusive language, threats, racism, etc.  However, I don't see anything in the MS CoC that would specifically cover what it is allowed in RDO (like ambushing other players) as a violation of this code.

https://www.xbox.com/en-US/legal/codeofconduct

To be honest, Free Roam is a PvP environment that gives you the ability to do this and (like it or not) it is by design.  Now, If someone were to use a mechanic in the game to gain an unfair advantage over other players in such a way it was not intended (an exploit), that's a different story.

IMO, the best way to stop a lot of this is to continue to send feedback to R* via their website during the beta.  Report exploits as you discover them.  Let them know we are unhappy with the unchecked trolling that is allowed in the game, the lack of session options for PvE players, etc.

https://www.rockstargames.com/reddeadredemption2/online/feedback?step=addb2b0b

Let them know we don't want RDO to turn into just another GTAO experience. 

thanks guys!  i've never had to report anyone so this is all new to me   Hopefully won't need to use it either.

[Poggy]

I think this raises an interesting ethical conundrum.  Is it right to ban someone from ever playing a game they paid for, simply for one time griefing another player?

[Unknown1598]

4 hours ago, Poggy said:

I think this raises an interesting ethical conundrum.  Is it right to ban someone from ever playing a game they paid for, simply for one time griefing another player?

Is it okay to ban someone for breaking rules they agreed to? Yes

Btw they dont get permanent bans

[Poggy]

Ah, I thought it was a permanent ban.