Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Xbox One Reputation System Penalizes Gamers Who Behave Badly

Soulskill posted about 7 months ago | from the good-news-for-everyone's-mothers dept.

Microsoft 183

New submitter DroidJason1 writes: "Microsoft has added new 'player reputation scores' to each Xbox Live member's Gamercard. The scores are represented by icons consisting of the colors green, yellow, and red. The more hours you play fairly online without being reported as abusive by other players, the better your reputation will be. Good players are given a green color, while those that 'need work' are yellow and those that need to be avoided are red. Microsoft says, 'If players do not heed warnings and continue to have a negative impact on other players and the Xbox Live community, they will begin to experience penalties. For example, people with an “Avoid Me” rating will have reduced matchmaking pairings and may be unable to use certain privileges such as Twitch broadcasting.' They add that the system will adjust for false reports."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Bullying (5, Insightful)

ruir (2709173) | about 7 months ago | (#46591099)

A new form of teen bullying, giving bad scores to the classmate you do not like...

OMG FAG LOL (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591117)

And not to mention anyone who beats you in-game is CLEARLY cheating.

Have you seen any alternatives to moderation/meta-moderation schemes that exclude this? It seems like the only real alternatives to actual dilligent curation (which works but is labor intensive) is either living with bullying and chilling effects ala reddit or accepting that the SNR is higher from trolls ala 4chan.

How do you overcome this for an automated service? Is this like asking "How do you cure cancer?"

Re:OMG FAG LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591137)

Meh, big data is the answer obviously, they already have plenty of data of their players, should be easy enough to crunch some numbers and figure out who's an asshole.

Re:OMG FAG LOL (4, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | about 7 months ago | (#46592361)

It's even simpler than that. All you need to to separate them by age. Put all the 13-years-olds on their own server (separated from the under 20s and over-20s servers).

Re:OMG FAG LOL (5, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 7 months ago | (#46591163)

I'm not too worried about trolls, but I've seen plenty of abuse and accusations of cheating hurled at "skillers", in games like BF4. All to easy to hit the "report" button in frustration after the same guy headshoots you for the 6th time in a round. And the crowdsourcing effect will not work here to filter out abuse; I expect strong players to consistently attract such reports against them in online games.

One way to counter this to some degree is to spot-check reports, and apply heavy penalties to players making false accusations. It still is a lot of work, and I doubt whether an operator could make the distinction between a rage-report and an inaccurate report made in good faith.

Re:OMG FAG LOL (5, Informative)

Sneftel (15416) | about 7 months ago | (#46591181)

They're not basing the reputation system on reports of cheating, though. As you pointed out, it's difficult, and hopelessly subjective, to tell the difference between a really good player and a cheater, so expert oversight is necessary to interpret those flags. (The good news is, automated analytics are getting remarkably good at telling the difference. It's an arms race, of course, but not as lopsided as it once was.) Rather, this system is for tagging griefers.

Re:OMG FAG LOL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591349)

It's actually extremely easy to tell the difference between a good player and a cheater. It's just hard to tell the difference between two good players, one of which is cheating. A bad player who scores highly thanks to cheats is very easy to spot.

Lame players (1)

Etherwalk (681268) | about 7 months ago | (#46591743)

It's actually extremely easy to tell the difference between a good player and a cheater. It's just hard to tell the difference between two good players, one of which is cheating. A bad player who scores highly thanks to cheats is very easy to spot.

You've also got lame players who aren't cheating. Campers in a first-person shooter and the like.

Re:OMG FAG LOL (4, Informative)

Frobnicator (565869) | about 7 months ago | (#46591505)

The system is not about cheating. The system is primarily about profanity and abuse.

They have been tinkering with it since it came out.

Also they haven't released what specific metrics they are using, but they have already mentioned factors: account playing statistics, complaints per hour played, positive feedback messages, friend requests, negative feedback messages, "Avoid This Player" marks, gamercard mutes, gamercard blocked communications, and filed complaints and reports. Couple all of them together and you will likely see some patterns quickly. They also mention that it will have human involvement and you will not be dinged for being skilled, nor will you be dinged for people targeting you. The last two seem to imply some human involvement.

My guess is that they start with simple statistical analysis to identify players trending downward with a steady stream of "block communications", "avoid this player", and "mute" flags. All of these are specifically mentioned on their site [xbox.com] . After algorithmic identification, I'm guessing one of their army of community managers (real live human beings who are employed to listen to the vitriol and enforce the rules) would probably get a notice to monitor the chat when the player starts play. If they hear a profanity stream click the check box marked "profanity". If they hear taunting, harassment, or other abuse, pick the check box that corresponds. With a real live human involved they can nicely handle people who were wrongly accused.

Re:OMG FAG LOL (0)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 7 months ago | (#46591807)

With a real live human involved they can nicely handle people who were wrongly accused.

That's the theory, but in practice there are far too few moderators to properly investigate the tidal wave of complains that roll in.

I know someone who had their internet connection go on the fritz for a month. First Capcom marked them as a "rage quitter" and now only pairs them up with other rage quitters. After a while he started getting warnings about complains from other players from Microsoft, so had to stop playing online until he was sure the problem was fixed. Even now there is no appeal process or consideration given, no way to remove the black marks from his name.

There was a story in a news a while back about an autistic kid who was banned because he "cheated" by loading his friend's save game to unlock stuff he couldn't access. His mother contacted Microsoft but they told her to fuck off and buy a new console. To be honest I might have done that myself because in the past I couldn't be bothered to unlock every god damn thing on Tekken Tag Tournament just to play the bowling mini-game either, but now it isn't about fun it's about leaderboards and rankings.

Buy a new console? (2)

twocows (1216842) | about 7 months ago | (#46592007)

Yeah, I think I would have bought a new console, too. Not a Microsoft one, though.

Re:OMG FAG LOL (2)

cbhacking (979169) | about 7 months ago | (#46592013)

The inter-player Gamerscore ranking system is one of the attractions of the Xbox Live system for a significant portion of the playerbase. Even the mom of the autostic kid in question eventually admitted they'd lied and the kid had just flat-out been trying to game the system, in violation of the rules. Their system, their rules. If you don't like it, don't buy into it. *You* may not like what MS did, but quite a lot of their customers do. The system works as designed.

Re: OMG FAG LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46592295)

I never, ever, access the leaderboards in games. That keeps it simple. I play for the moment, for fun, really. And being able to say in the chat channel that "no, I have never looked at the leaderboard" validates the way I play.

Re:OMG FAG LOL (1)

PPalmgren (1009823) | about 7 months ago | (#46591735)

While I haven't seen the reporting function work well in any environment, DotA 2 does a decent job with the reverse for positive reputation. They implemented commendations you give out at the end of a game, and you get a limited number for a set time period. The options are Teamwork, Forgiving, Leadership, and Friendly (I think). All of these are more focused on cooperation than skill. It serves as some incentive and gives some a positive reputation.

Of course, this doesn't counteract greifing/harassment and the dota 2 report system is useless given you can make a new steam account and its free to play, but at least it solves part of the problem.

Re:OMG FAG LOL (1)

Knightman (142928) | about 7 months ago | (#46591185)

If you had read the article they specifically said that reporting people of higher skill because you are a "sore loser" will be handled, OTOH we will have to see if the system will be able to handle all the ways "grief-reporting" can be done.

I do think this kind of system is a step in the right direction because so many people playing multiplayer games are total douches and they need to be dealt with somehow.

Re:OMG FAG LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591369)

Yes, it will magically "be handled", do you not recognize marketspeak when you see it?

Re:OMG FAG LOL (2)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 7 months ago | (#46591451)

because so many people playing multiplayer games are total douches and they need to be dealt with somehow.

I prefer to just do not play online. I've tried a few times and concluded that it is not worth.

Offline matchmaking (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46592133)

I prefer to just do not play online.

So how should someone go about finding other players in the same city who are willing to play offline multiplayer with him? The offline multiplayer scene in the 1990s relied on after-school play dates, but the kids who did that have since grown up.

Re: Offline matchmaking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46592299)

Facebook? Social networking? Oh wait, forgot all the nerds here are against that...

Re:Offline matchmaking (2)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 7 months ago | (#46592301)

Explaining better: I do not play any games that requires multiplayer. For me it's a hassle, there's no fun in trying to play with punks who view the game as a obsessive and savage competition rather than simple entertainment.

Thankyou for calling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591193)

and I doubt whether an operator could make the distinction between a rage-report and an inaccurate report made in good faith.

Me too. Especially if the operator is yet another well-meaning but overworked indian call-center guy who doesn't fully grasp the culture of the persons involved.

So the real alternative is to suck it up and deal with trolls ala 4chan? I find the idea appealing because it ceases to try to use technology to fix human problems just like humans should not be used to fix technical problems.

Re:OMG FAG LOL (1, Troll)

pla (258480) | about 7 months ago | (#46591773)

All to easy to hit the "report" button in frustration after the same guy headshoots you for the 6th time in a round.

Clearly you missed the intent of this, then.

Shooting people, even in-game, naturally counts as antisocial behavior. In order to keep a positive rating, you need to all sit around the battlefield and sing Kumba-Ya. You can expect a Mario-clone as MS's next big hit.

Of course, I think Microsoft underestimates their user base - As the real outcome of this rating system, people will compete for the worst ratings possible. Go ahead and refuse to play with 95% of the userbase - Which rating will end up with reduced matchmaking possibilities?

Animal Crossing (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46592179)

Shooting people, even in-game, naturally counts as antisocial behavior. In order to keep a positive rating, you need to all sit around the battlefield and sing Kumba-Ya. You can expect a Mario-clone as MS's next big hit.

I wouldn't think so, as Super Mario Bros. is insanely violent. Goombas were living peacefully until the Toads invaded. Goombas hired Koopa Troop to freeze the invaders in blocks and detain the princess of the Toads who has the antidote. Terrorist Mario squashes the innocent Goombas.

For nonviolent gaming, you need to look at something more similar to The Sims or Animal Crossing or Harvest Moon. Microsoft tried that under the name Viva Pinata.

Re:OMG FAG LOL (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | about 7 months ago | (#46591821)

If the guy is headshotting you 6x in a row, on a normal everyday server (console), then yeah he should be. He's abusing the system/newbs whether cheating or not. The way BF4 handles netcode and lag among players is horrendous and if someone's abusing that then they should be kicked. Sorry, it just makes for a better game for everyone and Dice should do a better job of balancing teams and weapons. (Pistol beats a full auto machine gun, wha?)

I play BF4 some (unfortunately). If I start getting tagged by the same guy over and over, and he's taking out multiples at a time when they are shooting him w/ a gun/tank/whatever, you can sure bet I'll be the one "abusing the system" by reporting them. Whether his fault or Dice's or MS's, if enough do it then hopefully some attention will be brought to the issue.

Value the reports (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591223)

Increase and decrease the value of reports, depending on metadata:
+ Person has been reported by others
+ reporter is an ally
-- reporter is an opponent
-- reporter reports often (multiple players every game)
+/- whatever else they can think of based on a LOT of experience

Remember: they are not going to block players or anything like that. It's probably mostly feedback to the player self that their behavior is not appreciated by the community.

Re:Value the reports (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591377)

reporter reports often (multiple players every game)

This one is likely to solve most of the problems with some adaptation.
There is a saying that goes along the lines of "If you meet an asshole you met an asshole, if you meet assholes all the time you are the asshole."
A thing that could work is if the reported and the reporter are treated equally. If you report someone you get a mark and the reported person gets a mark.
Just a few marks is irrelevant, everyone is going to piss someone off. If you meet someone who is a dick you report them if you think they are bad enough to get a mark over.
This also means that it will be OK to joke around without having to fear overly sensitive people.

Still doesn't prevent bullying if many assholes decides to gang up on one person and report them into oblivion.

Re:OMG FAG LOL (2)

Wootery (1087023) | about 7 months ago | (#46591423)

I wonder if a machine-learning approach could be used. Train the system to align with curators' assessments of abusive behaviour by gamers.

Or just add a bunch of heuristics. Speech-to-text to pick out homophobic insults would go a long way. Sure, gamers could 'get wise', but if the end-result is morons politely insulting each other, that still sounds like a win.

Re:OMG FAG LOL (2)

arth1 (260657) | about 7 months ago | (#46591541)

or accepting that the SNR is higher from trolls ala 4chan.

If the signal to noise ratio is high, it means there's far more signal than noise.
Either say "lower", or use "noise ratio".

Re:OMG FAG LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591871)

I don't know how they implemented it, but I would leave aimbot reports out of the reputation. The reputation score seems to be a score that says "Is this kid a douche or not?", not "Does this kid use hacks or not?". The two can be mutually exclusive.

Besides, Microsoft runs the anti-cheat system on XBox. Surely their perfect system catches all attempts to use hacks. /s

Assuming the cheat detection worked flawlessly, the *only* aimbot report that should matter is from the cheat detection system, not the individual players who have no idea. Steam on PC already does this. Their cheat detection is know as VAC(Valve Anti-Cheat), and if it catches you using hacks on one game, it can affect you on other games, and it will be visible in your player profile.

Re:OMG FAG LOL (1)

phishen (1044934) | about 7 months ago | (#46591881)

And not to mention anyone who beats you in-game is CLEARLY cheating.

Preface: I know that was a joke =) +1 funny

However, I am primarily a PC gamer, but I have a PS3 for Final Fantasy, etc (never shooters, I just prefer those on PC). I have always wondered, how does one actually cheat on a console? You can't install auto-aim programs or anything else like you can on PC, or am I mistaken?

Re:OMG FAG LOL (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about 7 months ago | (#46592059)

Leaving aside "hacked" consoles (where yes, you can do this, although things like "wallhacks" with partially-transparent textures are also possible), you can (or perhaps could, before they started putting more encryption in the way?) intercept the network traffic between the console and the router. There's also controller "hacks" (although those are more of a grey area on permissibility) which can do things like send repeated trigger pulls faster than any human ever could or have macros for perfect rocket jumps or the like.

Re:Bullying (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 7 months ago | (#46591133)

and uh wtf twitch broadcasting a privilige?

sure, twitch could ban broadcasters.. but fuck.. what's next, can't view youtube with an account that 10 of your classmates decided to give bad ratings to??

I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591173)

I agree. Xbox Live is one of the most abusive social media platforms in existence.

What's to stop people from abusing this just like they abuse everything else?

Re:Bullying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591189)

You mean like on reddit? Downvote people or opinions you don't like?

Re:Bullying (4, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 7 months ago | (#46591287)

You mean like on reddit? Downvote people or opinions you don't like?

You mean like on slashdot?

Re:Bullying (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591329)

Sorry, I would mod you down if I could...

Re:Bullying (5, Interesting)

Swistak (899225) | about 7 months ago | (#46591235)

I see this point brought up every time I discuss the reputation system. There's quite a bit of game theory behind it but it can be done. And actually there are systems that implement it (LoL for example, Stack Overflow, Quora - in non-gaming world).

When creating these systems you don't simply ban someone after one or few reports. The way most of them work are: Calculate a trust in player reporting T. New players have this set very low, later the more acurate reports were the higher the trust, addintionally usually the more reports user sends the less they "weight" (this basically makes assholes who report for "feeding" everyone with negative k/d ratio meaningless and is a reason i was never banned ;))
Once the number of reports * trust outweight player karma (which he usually collects by small amount for each game where he's not reported, and for each accurate report he makes), then he gets banned.
That's a bit simplified and in reality you build a neural network with feedback (that's how most of these systems are implemented), initially you hire people to "teach" a network, eliminate initial threat, and build "trust" on group of players. After you have big enough group of trusted players, they themselves are used to further train the network and detect new usefull players and ban bad ones. A lot depends on the initial training phase, but I've personally seen one Community Manager turn her community into self-moderating machine, after a year she didn't even had to do much banning herself, each message that didn't conform to standards was almost immidietly met with polite response that explained why it's inapropriate and request not to continue the topic! By users tehmselves!
So yes, these systems do work (At least good ones), and no reports do not become your personal moderation/harrasment tool, smart people already thought of that

Re:Bullying (5, Interesting)

Swistak (899225) | about 7 months ago | (#46591419)

I'd like to extend above answer a little. The systems in games like Smite and Lol actually got so good that amount of false negatives are so low that they are almost non-existent and can be handled throughly on case-by-case basis. I play Smite a lot in my free time, and I see how the system works from outside, I cannot count how many times I was thretened to be reported, and even if half of these threats were followed through I probably earened over 100 "Intentional feeding" reports by now, and I'm still playing without even one temporary ban. At the same time I've seen number of players disapear from leaderboard after I've reported them for harrasment (there was actuall harrasment, mother calling, death threats even), it didn't happen after my report, but few days later after few more matches all of haters sooner or later got permaban.

So the reputation systems came a long long way from where they used to be, false positives are no longer big problem, the biggest issue is now reaction time (time between player starting spewin vitriol to the moment he's prevented from playing), ideally it should not be few days (as it's now in most cases), someone having bad day shouldn't mean a bad day to all person he's teamed up with

One of the solutions might be "incremental" baning, by disabling some of the futures - which some games already do (and Microsoft is doing in this case). One of better examples is voice chat muting, I cannot recall which game id doing it. They way it works is the more people mute asshole, the more likelly he is to start muted in first place, his teammates might decide to unmute him, but there's no longer risk of "Beter not fuck up morons i need this win" welcoming you to the match.

I'm looking forward to further advancements in these systems, as playing team games on internet is still quite annoying these days, especially since you often get matched with people who don't speak english and/or you cannot just smack for beeing an idiot like you'd if you played football together.

Re:Bullying (-1, Troll)

Lumpy (12016) | about 7 months ago | (#46591521)

You are expecting that Microsoft programmers are competent and actually can figure out something that complex. They are doing a simple - system. no positives and all negatives, and you crater quickly when someone mods you down because they disagree or suck at a game and are whiny babies.

Re:Bullying (1)

Thruen (753567) | about 7 months ago | (#46591607)

As a former Live subscriber, I don't believe Microsoft has taken such care with their system. The reputation system already existed before, it wasn't as obvious and didn't penalize you as much, but it existed. I was a big fan of the Halo series, I played them online until maybe a year ago. I wasn't always the best player but I wasn't the worst either. I played to enjoy it, I wasn't running around trolling and talking smack (save a couple excited moments) and I didn't leave games if I could avoid it. When I first saw my reputation score, I had 80% negative feedback. 80%. According to the description, the remaining 20% was either good feedback or no feedback at all. Meaning that according to Microsoft, 80% of the players I'd played with in the years from Halo 2 to Halo 4 had not only submitted feedback about me, a player who doesn't really stand out as good or bad, but they'd submitted negative feedback. I'm to believe that only 20% of the many thousands (at least, I played a lot for a while) of people I played with didn't submit negative feedback about me? I find it hard to believe that even the most annoying trolls manage to provoke 80% of other players into taking the time to submit negative feedback, let alone someone just trying to play the game.

Is the current reputation system just as bad? I don't know, I hope not. But I'm not willing to risk losing access to things I pay for based on a system like this. I'm certainly never going to agree to any terms of service that suggest my ability to fully use the service depends on what other users think of me. It reminds me a bit of DRM, the trolls are going to have no trouble getting around this by changing accounts when their rep gets bad or just using trial accounts, the people who suffer will be regular players like us who aren't gaming the system.

compared to forums (5, Interesting)

kevlar_rat (995996) | about 7 months ago | (#46591801)

This is fascinating. I run a website [squte.com] that applies a user reputation system to Usenet - a medium notorius for flame-wars (it's where the words 'troll' and 'flame' come from, after all) - so I'm aware of some of the theory, but it seems games have gone further than forums.
The algorithm I use is much simpler, the 'trust' metric is identical to the user Karma, presuming that users who act sensibly will also moderate sensibly. It works very well and filters out >95% of flames and trolls.
To those who ask how to stop reporting being abused, it's actually simple:
* weight reports by the number of reports. If a user only reports one other person per thousand the reports carry more weight than if they report every other user.
* as you said, have a 'trust' factor that weights the reports. In the case of my site, this is just their Karma score - if they get reported a lot as an arse, they are more likely to be an arse in the way they themselves report.
* Make reporting really easy. The more data you have from legit users, the more your algorithm can work on.

Re:compared to forums (2)

Swistak (899225) | about 7 months ago | (#46592283)

I talked with her a lot about this and she mentioned that while coleration between good users and good moderators is quite high, there's large number of users who she calls "cryptohaters" and i call hypocrits, in public the'll advocate peace and understanding, but given anonymous medium liek down/up votes, or power (liek mod rights), will hate, downwote, silence their oponents with post removals etc. That's why I think separate "trust" metric makes sense.

Re:Bullying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591815)

give me gold or i will report you?

I've seen that happening elsewhere...

Re:Bullying (1)

ErroneousBee (611028) | about 7 months ago | (#46591245)

Its not bullying, its just the meta-game.

just a small problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591255)

I like this one: "the system will adjust for false reports." As if that's just a petty little detail, something the engineers can work out.

Re:Bullying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591283)

Everywhere I see a Report button, I hit it. I fake report all the time and even use multiple-accounts to fake report too.
 
No not really. I don't really do that but I know trolls who do. I have seen many of my comments deleted and sometimes even my account gets banned. Somehow being anti-Arabic is good but being anti-semite earns you a ban. Go figure!
 
Will Microsoft stop their dumbassery? Or will they say we have sophisticated system which can detect fraudulent reporting,i.e. all reports they get are legit!

Re:Bullying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591321)

It is actually a way of allowing bullied classmates give bad scores to the bully. Usually when 20 people complain about 1 person, it's the single person that is an asshole, not the other way around.

Re:Bullying (1)

Millennium (2451) | about 7 months ago | (#46591591)

I don't actually know if I'd go that far. Your heuristic will pick out a single bully in a class of victims, but it will also pick out a single victim in a class of bullies, and I'd argue that the latter is by far the more common case.

Re:Bullying (5, Interesting)

pehrs (690959) | about 7 months ago | (#46591361)

Having been involved of the design of a similar system a few years back, I found this remarkably easy to handle.

What you do is that you cluster people based on their opinions, and add a fading of old opinions. People who share good opinion about each other are in the same cluster. People who dislike each other are in different clusters. So, what happens in the end is that the "nice" people end up in a few big "nice people" clusters, and you get lots of small clusters of jerks. In the system we designed we actually provided individualised feedback to the users, as in "From the perspective of your cluster, this person has good/neutral/bad standing". In practice it didn't take long before people with good behaviour were efficiently separated from the rest.

Giving bad score to lots of people needlessly quickly gets you kicked out of the "good people" cluster. Congratulations, you now get to play with the rest of bullies.

Of course, this is just basic computer science and statistics...

Re:Bullying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591441)

A new form of teen bullying, giving bad scores to the classmate you do not like...

Or, if the damn thing were to actually work properly, a new form of punishment that creates a better gaming community.

Yeah, yeah I know...we all thought the Internet was going to be like Disneyland too, a magical place. I don't know what Microsoft was thinking either...this will be hacked in a week.

Re:Bullying (1)

Chas (5144) | about 7 months ago | (#46591533)

Exactly.

These type of rep systems exist already.

Pretty much NONE of them work as intended, and devolve into griefing tools.

Re:Bullying (1)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | about 7 months ago | (#46591855)

MeowMeowBeenz [wikipedia.org] now available on Xbox One.

Hm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591101)

Sounds fucked up to me.

Obligatory.. (-1, Troll)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 7 months ago | (#46591103)

Moderation systems are stupid!

+1 if you agree

Re:Obligatory.. (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 7 months ago | (#46591129)

-1

(just because I can...)

Re:Obligatory.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591247)

-1

(just because I can...)

Look at the mod points coming in to reward this guy for being a dick.

When did Slashdot become Reddit?

Re:Obligatory.. (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 7 months ago | (#46591299)

-1 irrelevant.

Re:Obligatory.. (1)

fellip_nectar (777092) | about 7 months ago | (#46591139)

I agree, they're completely pointless and I'd mod you up if I had points...

Re:Obligatory.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591191)

Moderation systems are stupid!

+1 if you agree

You're joking, but moderation systems *only* work when most of the community aren't assholes.

Taking a random survey of Xbox Live, I'm not sure you'd conclude it meets that criteria.

Karma? (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about 7 months ago | (#46591143)

They just added karma to xbox accounts?

Re:Karma? (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | about 7 months ago | (#46591149)

Xbox One Colourful Karma.

Re:Karma? (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | about 7 months ago | (#46591213)

There's been a "karma" system for Xbox Live accounts pretty much since the launch of the 360. You look at somebody's gamer card and they have a star rating out of 5 clearly viewable. The change here is that, for the first time, they're making it have actual consequences.

A lot of the posts in this thread so far are about the potential for abuse. I've played on on Xbox Live on and off since the days of the original Xbox and have seen the old "consequence free" system in operation for a while. By and large, my experience so far has been that it tends to average out reasonably well over time. I'm sat on a reputation of around 4.7/5.0 and most people on my friends list are in similar positions. The only guy who is significantly lower (just under 3.5) plays a lot of Call of Duty. My experience is that spending any significant amount of time playing the big spunkgargleweewee games is a good way to get karma-bombed even if you are the most charming player in the world, due to the general level of anger and immaturity in the communities for those games.

Re: Karma? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591339)

I don't play online, do not have an active account to play online, and have a 3 out of 5 star rating. I should be thankful I haven't been banned. How much do they charge for each of those stars?

Re: Karma? (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | about 7 months ago | (#46591515)

3 out of 5 is the default - I strongly suspect it just means you have no ratings, either positive or negative.

Re:Karma? (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about 7 months ago | (#46591263)

"They just added karma to xbox accounts?"

Yes. If thieves and rogues steal too much from Paladins, they get a record.

No way soar losers will abuse his... (2)

captainpanic (1173915) | about 7 months ago | (#46591151)

There is absolutely no way that soar losers will totally abuse this.

Also, there is no way that people will get upset buying an expensive gaming system, and subsequently being unable to play with the 'green' accounts because of some highly subjective moderation system.

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (3, Interesting)

captainpanic (1173915) | about 7 months ago | (#46591159)

Also: I get the feeling that European English speaking people swear a lot more than in the USA, and I wonder if this will be reflected in the moderation.

Re:No way sore losers will abuse his... (2)

fey000 (1374173) | about 7 months ago | (#46591177)

Also: I get the feeling that European English speaking people swear a lot more than in the USA, and I wonder if this will be reflected in the moderation.

I too %*&!#$! wonder if this will be *(@&#$&%@ reflected in the @$&!%(#!%$&! moderation.

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591201)

Also: I get the feeling that European English speaking people swear a lot more than in the USA, and I wonder if this will be reflected in the moderation.

I have no idea where you got that impression.

Also, those are two massive generalizations about two entire continents worth of people. I'm guess what I'm saying is, umm, what?

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 7 months ago | (#46591697)

An Italian can swear at you in Italian all day and never repeat himself.

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591241)

I'm guessing it stems from the absence of bleeps whenever someone on TV refers to a body part or a vaguely defined swear word, Europeans just aren't that afraid of bodily functions or the full range of the language. How's that for grand sweeping generalization?

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591257)

I'm guessing it stems from the absence of bleeps whenever someone on TV refers to a body part or a vaguely defined swear word, Europeans just aren't that afraid of bodily functions or the full range of the language. How's that for grand sweeping generalization?

You think American TV standards (which are decided by very few people based on threat of lawsuits from a few other people) are representative of the culture? I think that's downright ridiculous.

First of all, it's not as if people in coastal California even have the same culture as people in rural Indiana. They might as well be different countries.

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591427)

woooosh

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 7 months ago | (#46591603)

You think American TV standards (which are decided by very few people based on threat of lawsuits from a few other people) are representative of the culture? I think that's downright ridiculous.

Yes, I think so, and I live here. I believe media reflects society, which to a large part consists of bigoted people who wants everything to be neatly classified as black or white, refusing to see that everything really is a shade of grey, themselves included.
Thus you get concepts like banned words and zero tolerance.
Of course it is ridiculous. But it's the way people here want things.

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 7 months ago | (#46591639)

The media reflects society, and society reflects the media.

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about 7 months ago | (#46591477)

Really? The Brits use "bullocks, bugger, bloody" vs the US using "bullshit, fuck, fucking." And what, exactly is a swear word? Which do you rate worse, cocksucker or knob-gobbler?

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 7 months ago | (#46591535)

Which do you rate worse, cocksucker or knob-gobbler?

Obviously, I live a sheltered life, since I have never heard "knob-gobbler" before...

That said, knob-gobbler is too funny to be a swear word, and I think everyone should use it instead of cocksucker.

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 7 months ago | (#46592277)

Obviously, I live a sheltered life, since I have never heard "knob-gobbler" before...

Yes, yes you do ... I think I've known of that one for at least 30 years.

That said, knob-gobbler is too funny to be a swear word, and I think everyone should use it instead of cocksucker.

And Tits [segall.net] , wow. Tits doesn't even belong on the list, you know. It's such a friendly sounding word.

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591563)

>US vs UK language
To-may-toe, to-mah-toe; po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe; cunt, cunt. It's all the same.

Also, I believe you mean "bollocks". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollocks [wikipedia.org]

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46592237)

no one says po-tah-toe

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46592045)

the brits use "bollocks, bugger, bloody, bullshit, fuck and fucking" as well as many more colourful and wonderful swear words.

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591771)

Have you *used* Xbox Live lately?

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (4, Funny)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 7 months ago | (#46591847)

I was playing Phantasy Star years ago and chatting away, eating from crisps (potato chips in American). Someone asked me what all the noise was and I said I was masticating. The guy went ape-shit, ranting on about how children play the game and so forth. I had to call him a wanker and mute him after that.

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 7 months ago | (#46591273)

I would expect it wouldn't rate every complaint equally.
If you account for factors such as the number of complaints from a user vs their score. And say you find a trend of complaints vs being beaten and complaints when you played well. You can correlate the bad users and weigh their complaints accordingly.

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (5, Funny)

korbulon (2792438) | about 7 months ago | (#46591425)

Soar losers won't give a flying fuck.

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591633)

Soar losers won't give a flying fuck.

I see what you did there.

Re:No way soar losers will abuse his... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591833)

soar losers... are those that have their heads in the clouds?

Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591337)

Finally a relevant game publisher adopts an obvious idea that has been standard in sites like eBay (or Slashdot, for that matter) for over a decade.

I have to say I'm a bit surprised it was Microsoft, I've been expecting Valve to add something like this to Steam for the past four or five years. I don't expect companies like Blizzard, CCP or Arena Net to ever adopt this, because they are notorious for their internal policies designed to protect jerks and cheaters (including some of their own employees), but Valve has always made their bans public, Gabe Newell has talked about rewarding well-liked players, etc..

For those saying it will be abused, the same goes for eBay's reputation system. It still works in 99% of cases, and greatly reduces other types of abuse. It's not hard to attribute each vote a "confidence level", or to take action only when enough different (and reliable) ratings have been given.

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591351)

Fuck the gamers with horrible attitudes.

So it's a little different to Steam then? (2)

dohzer (867770) | about 7 months ago | (#46591363)

You mean I can't join a game of Counter Strike: Source, team flash someone for 27 rounds until an admin shows up, then quit, change my name, rejoin and repeat? What's the point of playing then?

Re:So it's a little different to Steam then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591529)

If you think changing your name somehow reverts bans, you don't have a clue how Steam works.

Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591469)

I have some experience in this area, not as admin, but as a gamer a few years ago (mainly Quake) I've seen my share of bots and folks who were so good they looked like cheaters though one could not dismiss the possibility they weren't.

I expect this service to have the same quality as other products they offer like Windows and Office.

Of course, nothing close to the excellent system we have here at /. which works flawlessly.

(preemptively whoosh!)

Oh this wont be abused.... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 7 months ago | (#46591503)

Good players will get ganged up on by the fricking kiddies and smeared. It's why I refuse to play any public multi player stuff anymore.
Last time I did any of that was back when Modern Warfare was released. 2 friends of mine and I were utterly owning maps by using real tactics. all three of us were hit with complaints by the kiddies that want to be tubers or camper.

I only do private games with friends anymore, tired of the utter scum that is the public gaming crowd on Xbox.

Re:Oh this wont be abused.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591557)

Nothing of value was lost.

It's about time... (4, Insightful)

egarland (120202) | about 7 months ago | (#46591593)

XBox has long been known as the most potent example of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [penny-arcade.com] . Adding a bit of accountability for being a horrible person is overdue.

Gee! Why is it so difficult? (0)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 7 months ago | (#46591619)

Where do the revenue to sustain the gaming industry come from? Mostly from people overloaded with testosterone, with an urge feel the thrill of killing, maiming and engaging in wanton destruction. Most games award points for what would be considered "bad" behavior in real life. Cheating, hitting other cars, forming secret coteries and trick other gamers, betrayal etc etc.

Is it any wonder the gamers extend the "boundaries" of the game to include the entire gaming infrastructure? The gaming companies say, "these are the games, Here you can get hit other cars, or trick another user into losing they cyberberries. But this part is not a game, and you should behave honestly". The gamers see it holistically, they would steal the game from the gaming companies if they can, they will steal the cybergoodies from the companies if they can, they will run the game under virtual machines and use software to change the game state and cheat.

After encouraging and rewarding such behavior "inside the game", trying to discourage it "outside the game" is not going to work. The gamers do not agree with the gaming companies on what "inside" and "outside" of the game are.

The usual problems with such a system... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46591673)

Problem is that griefer type players will quickly figure out how to abuse it to attack other players.
Such a system should NOT be made automatic and should require proof (recording of something built into the mechanism)
And since that then usually requires manual judgement to review the evidence, additional company dollars then need to be paid to hire employees to do THAT (which they are loath to do so either there will be too few or none at all)

Such problems are hard to have a proper solution and the troublemakers always will figure out how to abuse a weak system.

behavior modification (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 7 months ago | (#46591695)

When I read the headline, I was kind of hoping the XBone reputation system was going to give little electroshocks to kids when they act out in front of company, pick on their sister or don't lift the toilet seat.

Giving "The Bully" Another Tool (3, Interesting)

EXTomar (78739) | about 7 months ago | (#46592177)

It is all well and good to give users com controls to their com features but trying to enforce a reputation system like this is just another tool for bad guys to behave like bad guys. If a group of 4 bullies wants to make someone's day miserable, they form up and join a game and focus on one player using all tools available where a reputation system like this is just the thing they need: One player getting 4 warnings is more serious than 4 different players getting warnings from one player.

What they and successful systems do instead is establish a "trust relation". If you are matched in a team with some complete stranger, then neither of you have "trust" and neither should do "trusted" actions with each other. If you form a party, you automatically trust them more than a stranger and access more "trusted" features. If another player is in your "friends" list and formed a party with you then you have a high level of "trust" with that player and should be allowed a lot of "trusted" features with them.

There does need to be moderation tools and they should be as automatic as possible but "reputation" systems seem to be built upon a flawed premise that complete strangers can judge each other fairly when it turns out there is little reason to trust what either have them have to say about the other.

Revenue Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46592329)

If you see this as anything other than a revenue source, you're a fool. Good players have always been good, but now they have a "legitimate" way to force people to open new Live Gold accounts. They can always ban the worst offenders and hackers, but now, for those who are a nuisance but not bannable, they can simply degrade your matchmaking and access to services to a point where you'll pay for a new account.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?