Slashdot Mirror
Xbox One Reputation System Penalizes Gamers Who Behave Badly
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."
A new form of teen bullying, giving bad scores to the classmate you do not like...
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?"
-1
(just because I can...)
No sig today...
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.
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.
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?
XBox has long been known as the most potent example of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. Adding a bit of accountability for being a horrible person is overdue.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
This is fascinating. I run a website 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.
Moderated Usenet
Yeah, I think I would have bought a new console, too. Not a Microsoft one, though.
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.
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.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
-- reporter is an opponent
Counter-example: in League of Legends, harassment and complaints happen more often towards people in the same team than to people in the opposing team. That's because, in a way, inexperienced and unskilled team mates are 'opponents' too, by stealing kills, bounties and buffs, by not assisting the team member when they are being pursued, and by not understanding champion synergy, roles, and overall strategy, all things that can potentially cause the team as a whole and players individually to lose.
Should have saved this for April 1st to go with "Dice holdings apologizes for beta and promises to deploy IPv6"
"The system also adjusts for false reports from people that might intentionally report someone of greater skill or for other griefing purposes."
Well then nothing to worry about. I suppose this system also implements RFC3514 on every game packet to ensure fair play.
Then find a counterstrategy to camping. Or is camping so dominant that the game is broken?
You've also got lame players who aren't cheating. Campers in a first-person shooter and the like.
I hear you... but I always considered "lame" tactics (like camping) as either failures of the game's design or a failure of other opposing players to adapt to counter the lame tactic properly. For example in most well-made FPS games there are ways to counter or completely avoid a camper, but it can require a significant adaption, which many players aren't willing to do, so they just complain about the camper instead. If there really is no way to counter a lame tactic then that's on the developers for poor game design and I probably won't be playing said game much longer.