Remove the god forsaken trial system

[MysticMismagius]

Will you people stop bitching about whether GT or Harassment is more important? They're both things that need to be dealt with. This whole "Harassment is a joke!" "Throwing is just a game!" nonsense helps no one.

Fair enough. Discussions like this just bring out the most toxic and awful people anyway. So, probably best to put out the fires before those continue.

Someone should probably lock this thread before it continues.

I don't think the thread needs to be locked, since talking about the state of Trial System is an important discussion to have.
It's just that the specific argument over whether GT or HS/H is more important to people is dumb and doesn't matter on the grander scale that is Trial System, its merits, and its problems.

[MysticMismagius]

You think the system is fine, and some people agree with you, but others don't. There's a reason OP made this post in the first place, and I've seen a lot of posts on Reddit and the forums along the lines of "reports are useless" throughout my time playing. Trial System has some major issues, despite being overall a decent system.
A good chunk of these issues have been outlined in this thread already.

[Brilliand]

2. The system is set up so that the community, essentially, can officiate reports. Which is fair. If it was just the higher-ups doing everything, it would likely be biased. But, here, other players who have to play with people who commit the 'crimes' in the reports, it's only fair that they get to determine their fate.

I'm not sure this is the case. With the penalty for voting "the wrong way" on reports, ultimately culminating in losing your voting privileges if you do it often... there's a certain pressure to vote the way the judges will decide. As I read the situation, the trial jurors are just there to help the judges filter reports; they aren't actually in a position to perform jury nullification.

[MysticMismagius]

2. The system is set up so that the community, essentially, can officiate reports. Which is fair. If it was just the higher-ups doing everything, it would likely be biased. But, here, other players who have to play with people who commit the 'crimes' in the reports, it's only fair that they get to determine their fate.

I'm not sure this is the case. With the penalty for voting "the wrong way" on reports, ultimately culminating in losing your voting privileges if you do it often... there's a certain pressure to vote the way the judges will decide. As I read the situation, the trial jurors are just there to help the judges filter reports; they aren't actually in a position to perform jury nullification.

ALL of this. I think Jurors can do jury nullification on the inno side, but there is still pressure to vote "correctly", according to the wording of the rulebook.

[Shyyster]

2. The system is set up so that the community, essentially, can officiate reports. Which is fair. If it was just the higher-ups doing everything, it would likely be biased. But, here, other players who have to play with people who commit the 'crimes' in the reports, it's only fair that they get to determine their fate.

I'm not sure this is the case. With the penalty for voting "the wrong way" on reports, ultimately culminating in losing your voting privileges if you do it often... there's a certain pressure to vote the way the judges will decide. As I read the situation, the trial jurors are just there to help the judges filter reports; they aren't actually in a position to perform jury nullification.

No active jurors fear losing their voting privileges on reports. For that to even be possible a juror would have to purposely vote guilty on innocent reports and guilty on innocent reports to get their voting privileges revoked. If you're doing reports and doing them how you're suppose to do, then you won't ever face this kind of issue.

Only thing I would agree on is pressure to vote a certain way depending on which Judge is active and judging reports because each Judge has their own standards of leniency or what should be guilty which results in inconsistencies that confuse jurors.

As I read the situation, the trial jurors are just there to help the judges filter reports; they aren't actually in a position to perform jury nullification.

Jurors can perform "jury nullification" by voting innocent on reports. I have seen and voted innocent on a lot of reports where the person should had been guilty because of what the rulebook/Judges say because the offensive wasn't that serious or to cut the person some slack because of what happened in the game. Other jurors usually follow suit and don't just mindlessly vote guilty/innocent because of rulebook/Judges.

[Cordain]

The cold truth is that speech should not be restricted, no matter how much it could hurt someone's personal feelings. You start with banning racial slurs, move on to homophobic ones, death threats, targeted harassment (which is reasonable, of course), but then the goal post keeps moving and you end up with a hyper-sensitive PC culture. There are limits to what "hate speech" actually is, same as "inappropriate name" (I have some personal experience with that one, sheesh), and from my experience with the game, those limits have really pushed past what is considered reasonable.

A little background for me, if anyone cares . I lived my whole life in a former communist country, and I actually got to live through the transition - meaning, I saw both what a socialist society is like and what the capitalist freedom of speech knee-jerk reaction is like.

I can tell you this much about our former socialist regime - a lot of harm was done to a lot of people in the name of social justice (that's literally the translation of what it was called, in my country ) for the right reasons. People were encouraged to report on their neighbors on crimes such as speaking against the party, speaking against the agenda, speaking against colectivism, and in return, they would gain status and protection within the party itself .

To be honest, a lot of times, I feel the same way playing ToS. I feel like I need to watch what I say, and stay savvy as to what is considered acceptable these days to say or not, otherwise, I'll be banned. I'll be 32 years old in a couple days and don't have a lot of time to keep up . Every time I log on, I feel this consistent fear of being reported for making the slightest joke (I suspect others feel the same), so I have to behave like a robot with people which I suspect are half my age and indoctrinated in PC culture.

I don't think that's normal. Yes, harassment should be punished in some way, but restricting an already decaying player base based on political bias is suicide to the game. I've played the game on and off for like 5 years or possibly more, I've seen what it used to be, it used to be much more active and lively .

Users like shyyster and tailslover13 should be wary, since you folks are pushing a political agenda without even realizing it.

I know I'll be called a troll for this or a "right wing" or whatever for these opinions , but I urge you to consider my words. I'm not saying it should be a lawless wasteland, I hate toxic communities. But better solutions should be employed and the rules should be re-examined.

And yes, people abuse the hell out of that game-throwing report.

[Shyyster]

Users like shyyster and tailslover13 should be wary, since you folks are pushing a political agenda without even realizing it.

Imagine actually saying that people are pushing a political agenda by not condoning racism and sexist speech, since when is wanting people to act like decent humans being political?

Next time don't add your 2 cents to a thread that is no longer active.

[Cordain]

Imagine actually saying that people are pushing a political agenda by not condoning racism and sexist speech, since when is wanting people to act like decent humans being political?

Next time don't add your 2 cents to a thread that is no longer active.

As I explained at length in my post, there's nothing wrong with that as long as the goal post isn't being moved constantly, which it is, in my opinion.

But apparently, my opinion is not welcome. I guess I'm not allowed, in your opinion, to voice my concerns. Which is exactly the type of narrow-minded thinking I was alluding to earlier.

*edit: by the way, this was the top thread on the "feedback" section, I read it all and yeah, I figured I'd comment, since the subject intrigues me. Didn't realize I wasn't allowed to, you know, give feedback on a feedback section.

**edit 2: I actually work in a public institution as a legal representative, so I can tell you a thing or two about what is acceptable to say in public and what not, and what the limits of free speech are. Feel free to PM me for a discussion on this subject, if you're interested.

[Shyyster]

As I explained at length in my post, there's nothing wrong with that as long as the goal post isn't being moved constantly, which it is, in my opinion.

The goal posts of what is acceptable speech and isn't, isn't moving constantly. You only get banned for speech, which is racist, sexist, or overly sexual. For harassment, it's when you target someone for multiple phases in a game. Other than that minor cussing or tanturms are voted innocent by the people who vote on reports.I suggest you actually take the time and do Trial System to see what get punished by the community and what doesn't or better yet go read the Appeal section of the forums and see the type of offenses that get people banned.

But apparently, my opinion is not welcome. I guess I'm not allowed, in your opinion, to voice my concerns. Which is exactly the type of narrow-minded thinking I was alluding to earlier.

You can have an opinion all you want, but don't have an opinion on a topic that hasn't been talked about since July. Make a new thread and voice your concerns there, don't bump a thread that is inactive.

edit 2: I actually work in a public institution as a legal representative, so I can tell you a thing or two about what is acceptable to say in public and what not, and what the limits of free speech are. Feel free to PM me for a discussion on this subject, if you're interested.

Is Town of Salem a public place? No, it's an online game. You do not have freedom of speech on an online game or any social platform that is ran by a private business. If you can't understand the nuances of free speech, then no I wouldn't want to have a discussion on it.

[Cordain]

Ahhhh yes, the typical "we shouldn't have a black list of words in the game, people should be able to drop all the N-words they want" post. I felt like we were due for one.

Racist terms, homophobic terms, anti-semetic terms and any comments about pedophilia have no place in this game, like it or not. It's not being "PC", it's about preventing assholes who love to go into games and spam "LYNCH ALL N-WORDS" or "Hitler was right, gas the Jews!" in chat or have similar terms as their names from doing so. Town of Salem is not the only game who treats stuff like this so severely. Many other online games will go and ban you if they find out you are posting the same shit. Also, the game's rated T for Teen, the N-word is in 18+ territory. It has absolutely no place in this game at all, blacklisted or not, same with a certain homophobic slur.

Sorry if our standards are not as low as you want them to be.

I see my post has been taken out of context severely. I'm not saying incitement to violence or race hatred shouldn't be punished - if it's punishable in a public space, it should be punishable in a video game as well, as technically, it could be considered a "public" space, even if it's bound by whatever terms of service the company makes.

Let me clarify with a concrete example - I had a discussion with a moderator who told me that the name "Donald Trump" was considered to be forbidden, in the context where the name "Kim Jong Un" is allowed.

I find that absurd - the names of real people should not be forbidden, no matter the historical implications. By that logic, the names "Genghis Khan" or "Julius Caesar" should be forbidden also, as they were pro-slavery and, in their name, millions of people were murdered.

I also heard, though I can't provide any concrete evidence (it might be hearsay, I admit), that the names of school shooters were bannable?

At the same time, making a gay joke or an asian joke or something of the like should NOT be considered hate speech (unless, like it was pointed out, can be considered harassment due to repetition!).

But I suppose I'll stop posting now, as I'm being labelled and ostracized for having an opinion contrary to what seems to be the norm, instead of having a proper discussion!

[Shyyster]

Let me clarify with a concrete example - I had a discussion with a moderator who told me that the name "Donald Trump" was considered to be forbidden, in the context where the name "Kim Jong Un" is allowed.

You had a discussion with a ToS moderator that said this? I highly doubt so and sounds like something you made up out of your ass.

I find that absurd - the names of real people should not be forbidden, no matter the historical implications. By that logic, the names "Genghis Khan" or "Julius Caesar" should be forbidden also, as they were pro-slavery and, in their name, millions of people were murdered.

We censor names of real life people when their names are used to promote themes which are against our rules. Like for example Adolf Hitler, who name is usually used by players making jokes about putting Jews in the oven and Holocaust jokes. If the name Genghis Khan was used frequently to make jokes about raping people, then Genghis Khan would be a name that wouldn't be allowed and would result in a punishment, but it isn't so it's free to use, same as Julius Caesar or the Founding Fathers of the United States, who were slave owners.

But I suppose I'll stop posting now, as I'm being labelled and ostracized for having an opinion contrary to what seems to be the norm, instead of having a proper discussion!

Nothing you said is the "norm" of what this game community would agree with. If it was then this discussion wouldn't be happening in the first place.

[Cordain]

For clarification, it was a "trial system judge", not a moderator. I wont give their name but the statement was "the name trump is being used to incite hate towards mexicans so it might get filtered". Furthermore, they said it would be weird since the word trump has many meanings, so they werent on board with it. It was a while ago so I had to look it up and I'm at work atm.

For the record, as I previously stated, I'm more than familiar with free speech laws, and I agree with them for the most part. In my particular constitution, "free speech may not infringe on someone's honor, dignity and free thought". So it kind of goes both ways. The limiting factor is actually inciting hatred, and in my opinion, a simple name cant hurt anyone.

I am just concerned that sooner or later pedantic things will get banned because of the actions or a few misguides individuals (like the ok sign, facepalm)

[SantanaTheSmall]

I actually work in a public institution as a legal representative, so I can tell you a thing or two about what is acceptable to say in public and what not, and what the limits of free speech are. Feel free to PM me for a discussion on this subject, if you're interested.

I don’t know why you brought this up. I’m an expert in first amendment law and media law. Freedom of speech applies to the government only. It does not apply to a private company.

[contraindicated]

Read through this whole thing because I recently came back to the game and tried trial system again too. In this thread people suggest that if you want to see change, participate in the trial system. Spent a couple of hours yesterday going through reports. Most of the ones I guiltied for inappropriate username or language were innoed anyway. I'm confused about this -- are names like "a n a l b r e w" or "PennisMonster" or "suckadick" okay? Or homophobic/anti-semitic slurs? Or talking about pedophilia? Right now I feel that it's not worth to even try participating in the trial system; was total waste of time if toxic players are innoed anyway.

[LevinSnakesRise]

I feel like this thread has since ran it's course. It was revived, and while it was still on-topic, there was no real reason to do so, and now it's come to asking questions about what's innocent and what's guilty, so I'm gonna lock this.