Public pressure through social media is wrapped as morality, isn't it?
No.
What is it then?
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
It's a bit dangerous to become a self-proclaimed law enforcer. I agree with the comments above that correlate the penalty strictly with breach of rules INGAME only; otherwise we are treading on a slippery slope. What WOULD be justifiable, however, is Youtube imposing sanctions on the streamer in breach of their rules.
It's not like Jagex banned them from the entire internet, just from their game. If they believe they do not want such a person interacting within the community they created and support via the operation of their game, that's entirely within their rights.
They ain't raiding his house to take away his PC. Let's have some perspective.
Companies do not care about morals or w/e, they just care whether the pressure is strong enough to affect their profits/public image.
They do not go out and enforce theirs or some others moral standards.
Yeah that's what I meant - customer/public pressure has a moral wrap, they are forcing the companies to become the moral police. And this is happening through viral posts on social platforms.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
It's not like Jagex banned them from the entire internet, just from their game. If they believe they do not want such a person interacting within the community they created and support via the operation of their game, that's entirely within their rights.
They ain't raiding his house to take away his PC. Let's have some perspective.
The news that is not newsworthy is that the streamer during his stream did something extremely stupid, probably punishable by law depending on where you live. For that his channel was terminated (effectively he was fired).
The game he was not playing while the incident occurred, should have been irrelevant. He should have lost his streaming rights regardless of the game that was playing in the background, regardless of whether there anything playing in the background.
Yet here we are looking at a gaming company making a bad customer PR move that only looks good for the game activism journalism, which is to terminate service for an incident that occurred in a platform and space irrelevant to the actual game. With one action they both associated their game with that evil individual and his action and made their customers feel unsafe for the longevity of their accounts.
We give those barely old enough to vote (if even that old) the ability to share their views with all, we make celebrities out of them and then when we see how immature they are we throw up our hands in despair. We don't question the system just the person involved.
Well expect more like this, it is absurd to have those with such immature views become role models and we will keep paying a price for that.
We give those barely old enough to vote (if even that old) the ability to share their views with all, we make celebrities out of them and then when we see how immature they are we throw up our hands in despair. We don't question the system just the person involved.
Well expect more like this, it is absurd to have those with such immature views become role models and we will keep paying a price for that.
There is a very clear difference between biological maturity and intellectual maturity, yet this fact is ignored when convenient.
The game he was not playing while the incident occurred ... the game that was playing in the background,
You already seem to have lost the value in your claim. If the game was up in the background, showing that he plays that game, then he was/is part of that game's community.
He showed on a stream the kind of behavior he is capable of, and that lends itself to the very valid question of "Do I want that kind of person affecting my product?"
That is perfectly rational for Jagex to consider. If he literally calls a person on the phone to say something like that to them, then what kind of stuff might he say over the anonymity provided by a random username in the MMO he chooses to play?
He showed his (lack of) character, and he showed a community in which that (lack of) character could affect others. What part of that seems far-fetched to you? The game is irrelevant to Twitch and the law. It is not irrelevant to Jagex who was made aware of a person of dubious morals within their game's community, and the desire to isolate such a person from their community seems pretty logical.
Did he talk to that girl through the phone or he messaged her through the game? If it's the former, why the phone company did not terminate his subscription. If it's the former, why is the game's TOS relevant?
He's streaming in the runescape directory with runescape running in the background while he is doing this, thus the user content and content standards policy are applicable. What the phone company does is completely irrelevant to what happened to his game account or his actions, they have their own standards. This is completely on Jagex's user content rules, which because he's in that directory he has to uphold or they can terminate his account.
You are reverting back to my Netflix argument. Either he was acting in the game, which would make the ban justifiable, or he wasn't.
Let me put it this way, if there was no stream, would Runescape would be justified in their ban?
Nope .. if he wasnt streaming, noone would have linked his actions to Runescape in any way and Runescape had no ground to do anything against him (nor any reason)..
but he was. The moment you stream (Even when its just inactive on the background) and have viewers (Mostly watching for the specific game), you represent the game youre streaming and especialy streamers known for specific games have great influence over their viewers.
Runescape had no choice but to make an example out of him to make sure people wouldnt get the idea that it is acceptable to perform these kind of things while representing their game and broadcasting to (mostly) their players.
The game he was not playing while the incident occurred ... the game that was playing in the background,
You already seem to have lost the value in your claim. If the game was up in the background, showing that he plays that game, then he was/is part of that game's community.
He showed on a stream the kind of behavior he is capable of, and that lends itself to the very valid question of "Do I want that kind of person affecting my product?"
That is perfectly rational for Jagex to consider. If he literally calls a person on the phone to say something like that to them, then what kind of stuff might he say over the anonymity provided by a random username in the MMO he chooses to play?
He showed his (lack of) character, and he showed a community in which that (lack of) character could affect others. What part of that seems far-fetched to you? The game is irrelevant to Twitch and the law. It is not irrelevant to Jagex who was made aware of a person of dubious morals within their game's community, and the desire to isolate such a person from their community seems pretty logical.
Is that not a bit too one sided, lets be honest here, the guy could also be seen to be the victim. Has anyone even given a thought to the person who doxed the vulnerable individual by giving a stranger their phone number and directing someone to call them, was the twitch streamers behaviour somehow different from his usual behaviour, if so perhaps they could be forgiven, maybe. Instead i would suggest that the facts are instead that a twitch streamer with a history of 'bad behaviour' was given someones phone number to call, which he may well have considered to be a prank of some kind and likely something that had been done similarly in previous twitch streams, in which case the results were likely entirely predictable. So what became of the person who placed the vulnerable person in this position, they get away without any kind of condemnation? could they not be guilty of malicious intent at the very least?
Did he talk to that girl through the phone or he messaged her through the game? If it's the former, why the phone company did not terminate his subscription. If it's the former, why is the game's TOS relevant?
He's streaming in the runescape directory with runescape running in the background while he is doing this, thus the user content and content standards policy are applicable. What the phone company does is completely irrelevant to what happened to his game account or his actions, they have their own standards. This is completely on Jagex's user content rules, which because he's in that directory he has to uphold or they can terminate his account.
You are reverting back to my Netflix argument. Either he was acting in the game, which would make the ban justifiable, or he wasn't.
Let me put it this way, if there was no stream, would Runescape would be justified in their ban?
Nope .. if he wasnt streaming, noone would have linked his actions to Runescape in any way and Runescape had no ground to do anything against him (nor any reason)..
but he was. The moment you stream (Even when its just inactive on the background) and have viewers (Mostly watching for the specific game), you represent the game youre streaming and especialy streamers known for specific games have great influence over their viewers.
Runescape had no choice but to make an example out of him to make sure people wouldnt get the idea that it is acceptable to perform these kind of things while representing their game and broadcasting to (mostly) their players.
Even outside that, you have the case that it being on in the background informs Jagex of a user of it's game who behaves in a questionable manner. Even without the streaming "representative" factor Jagex is still posed with an ethical question.
"Is that the kind of person we want playing our game(s)?"
Obviously, they decided he was not. They had video evidence and reason to believe that he could and possibly has acted detrimentally towards the well-being of the game's community given his behavior on his live stream. Preventing such behavior from impacting their title in the future is a rational measure.
Did he talk to that girl through the phone or he messaged her through the game? If it's the former, why the phone company did not terminate his subscription. If it's the former, why is the game's TOS relevant?
He's streaming in the runescape directory with runescape running in the background while he is doing this, thus the user content and content standards policy are applicable. What the phone company does is completely irrelevant to what happened to his game account or his actions, they have their own standards. This is completely on Jagex's user content rules, which because he's in that directory he has to uphold or they can terminate his account.
You are reverting back to my Netflix argument. Either he was acting in the game, which would make the ban justifiable, or he wasn't.
Let me put it this way, if there was no stream, would Runescape would be justified in their ban?
Nope .. if he wasnt streaming, noone would have linked his actions to Runescape in any way and Runescape had no ground to do anything against him (nor any reason)..
but he was. The moment you stream (Even when its just inactive on the background) and have viewers (Mostly watching for the specific game), you represent the game youre streaming and especialy streamers known for specific games have great influence over their viewers.
Runescape had no choice but to make an example out of him to make sure people wouldnt get the idea that it is acceptable to perform these kind of things while representing their game and broadcasting to (mostly) their players.
Even outside that, you have the case that it being on in the background informs Jagex of a user of it's game who behaves in a questionable manner. Even without the streaming "representative" factor Jagex is still posed with an ethical question.
"Is that the kind of person we want playing our game(s)?"
Obviously, they decided he was not. They had video evidence and reason to believe that he could and possibly has acted detrimentally towards the well-being of the game's community given his behavior on his live stream. Preventing such behavior from impacting their title in the future is a rational measure.
Or an extremely bigotted one, depending on your point of view. Funny isn't it how so many egregious things are somehow excuseable if they are put forward as being rational and preventive of harm to undefined persons in the future. That path leads nowhere good.
Did he talk to that girl through the phone or he messaged her through the game? If it's the former, why the phone company did not terminate his subscription. If it's the former, why is the game's TOS relevant?
He's streaming in the runescape directory with runescape running in the background while he is doing this, thus the user content and content standards policy are applicable. What the phone company does is completely irrelevant to what happened to his game account or his actions, they have their own standards. This is completely on Jagex's user content rules, which because he's in that directory he has to uphold or they can terminate his account.
You are reverting back to my Netflix argument. Either he was acting in the game, which would make the ban justifiable, or he wasn't.
Let me put it this way, if there was no stream, would Runescape would be justified in their ban?
Nope .. if he wasnt streaming, noone would have linked his actions to Runescape in any way and Runescape had no ground to do anything against him (nor any reason)..
but he was. The moment you stream (Even when its just inactive on the background) and have viewers (Mostly watching for the specific game), you represent the game youre streaming and especialy streamers known for specific games have great influence over their viewers.
Runescape had no choice but to make an example out of him to make sure people wouldnt get the idea that it is acceptable to perform these kind of things while representing their game and broadcasting to (mostly) their players.
Even outside that, you have the case that it being on in the background informs Jagex of a user of it's game who behaves in a questionable manner. Even without the streaming "representative" factor Jagex is still posed with an ethical question.
"Is that the kind of person we want playing our game(s)?"
Obviously, they decided he was not. They had video evidence and reason to believe that he could and possibly has acted detrimentally towards the well-being of the game's community given his behavior on his live stream. Preventing such behavior from impacting their title in the future is a rational measure.
Or an extremely bigotted one, depending on your point of view. Funny isn't it how so many egregious things are somehow excuseable if they are put forward as being rational and preventive of harm to undefined persons in the future. That path leads nowhere good.
Can you explain how it's egregious to you?
They aren't banning that person from the internet or anything dramatic. They are banning them from property the company owns. Something that is well within their right to do if they consider him a liability towards the health of their product.
Are they somehow affecting this person's life in some way other than "now I can't play this game"? Is he unable to hop on his computer and play any number of other games at his own discretion without so much as a blink?
What of Jagex's actions are so "outstandingly bad" or "shocking" for them to not want someone with a clear penchant to disregard the wellbeing of others from affecting their product, game, or community?
What bad path do you think a company being responsible for it's own property is leading to?
This is a lot of vague ominous argument and not a lot of substance for me to work with right now.
The game he was not playing while the incident occurred ... the game that was playing in the background,
You already seem to have lost the value in your claim. If the game was up in the background, showing that he plays that game, then he was/is part of that game's community.
He showed on a stream the kind of behavior he is capable of, and that lends itself to the very valid question of "Do I want that kind of person affecting my product?"
That is perfectly rational for Jagex to consider. If he literally calls a person on the phone to say something like that to them, then what kind of stuff might he say over the anonymity provided by a random username in the MMO he chooses to play?
He showed his (lack of) character, and he showed a community in which that (lack of) character could affect others. What part of that seems far-fetched to you? The game is irrelevant to Twitch and the law. It is not irrelevant to Jagex who was made aware of a person of dubious morals within their game's community, and the desire to isolate such a person from their community seems pretty logical.
Is that not a bit too one sided, lets be honest here, the guy could also be seen to be the victim. Has anyone even given a thought to the person who doxed the vulnerable individual by giving a stranger their phone number and directing someone to call them, was the twitch streamers behaviour somehow different from his usual behaviour, if so perhaps they could be forgiven, maybe. Instead i would suggest that the facts are instead that a twitch streamer with a history of 'bad behaviour' was given someones phone number to call, which he may well have considered to be a prank of some kind and likely something that had been done similarly in previous twitch streams, in which case the results were likely entirely predictable. So what became of the person who placed the vulnerable person in this position, they get away without any kind of condemnation? could they not be guilty of malicious intent at the very least?
This is itself a sidegrade.
Sure, the "other person" could be responsible, for their part in what happened.
For the part where some guy when on a live stream and did something in poor taste, that person on the stream remains responsible for their actions.
Unless you have a person just off screen holding a gun or something, you're not really presenting much of an argument to defend them or otherwise.
And to that end, it remains the consideration that Jagex would have to consider since this behavior is the kind of thing that bleeds across media. If he's willing to prank someone on the phone like that, then what's stopping him from doing the same or worse again from the anonmity of an avatar in their game(s) of choice?
Protecting the standards of your product and protecting it's stability from users that might negatively affect the community, and therefore success of the game, is the direct reaction to seeing someone behave in a manner showing poor judgement and self control.
Are we given any reason to assume they will behave differently while playing a game than they do live?
What exactly is the "what if" that you'd evoke to say they did not just show they were a liability?
Did he talk to that girl through the phone or he messaged her through the game? If it's the former, why the phone company did not terminate his subscription. If it's the former, why is the game's TOS relevant?
He's streaming in the runescape directory with runescape running in the background while he is doing this, thus the user content and content standards policy are applicable. What the phone company does is completely irrelevant to what happened to his game account or his actions, they have their own standards. This is completely on Jagex's user content rules, which because he's in that directory he has to uphold or they can terminate his account.
You are reverting back to my Netflix argument. Either he was acting in the game, which would make the ban justifiable, or he wasn't.
Let me put it this way, if there was no stream, would Runescape would be justified in their ban?
Nope .. if he wasnt streaming, noone would have linked his actions to Runescape in any way and Runescape had no ground to do anything against him (nor any reason)..
but he was. The moment you stream (Even when its just inactive on the background) and have viewers (Mostly watching for the specific game), you represent the game youre streaming and especialy streamers known for specific games have great influence over their viewers.
Runescape had no choice but to make an example out of him to make sure people wouldnt get the idea that it is acceptable to perform these kind of things while representing their game and broadcasting to (mostly) their players.
Even outside that, you have the case that it being on in the background informs Jagex of a user of it's game who behaves in a questionable manner. Even without the streaming "representative" factor Jagex is still posed with an ethical question.
"Is that the kind of person we want playing our game(s)?"
Obviously, they decided he was not. They had video evidence and reason to believe that he could and possibly has acted detrimentally towards the well-being of the game's community given his behavior on his live stream. Preventing such behavior from impacting their title in the future is a rational measure.
Or an extremely bigotted one, depending on your point of view. Funny isn't it how so many egregious things are somehow excuseable if they are put forward as being rational and preventive of harm to undefined persons in the future. That path leads nowhere good.
Can you explain how it's egregious to you?
They aren't banning that person from the internet or anything dramatic. They are banning them from property the company owns. Something that is well within their right to do if they consider him a liability towards the health of their product.
Are they somehow affecting this person's life in some way other than "now I can't play this game"? Is he unable to hop on his computer and play any number of other games at his own discretion without so much as a blink?
What of Jagex's actions are so "outstandingly bad" or "shocking" for them to not want someone with a clear penchant to disregard the wellbeing of others from affecting their product, game, or community?
What bad path do you think a company being responsible for it's own property is leading to?
This is a lot of vague ominous argument and not a lot of substance for me to work with right now.
I am more concerned that you feel i should have to explain why its egregious to me, i suspect that if you cannot even see my point of view, that you are too narrowly focused to appreciate why this is so. That Jagex decided this course of action is their own affair, they are a private company and can do as they wish, no matter how detrimental it may end up being. No, the path i was eluding to was none but your own, i am after all entirely unconcerned with Jagex's future. Its an easy path to fall into and one i have mistakenly tread myself, nothing good ever comes of it and unfortunately the only advice i can give you is to be open minded, its not great advice honestly, but if it helps i find that Jordan Petersons works do help, although i wish i understood him more, the guy is far more intelligent than i could ever hope to be.
I'm a bit late to the show and only skipped over the first 3 pages of the thread so if it has been said before I apologize. However, while I have no sympathy for this man we have to point this out for fairness:
"When doing this I had my phone's microphone muted because I never intended to try and put her or anyone at risk."
He did not actually tell her to kill herself, he only made it seem so as a really sick joke on his stream.
Did he talk to that girl through the phone or he messaged her through the game? If it's the former, why the phone company did not terminate his subscription. If it's the former, why is the game's TOS relevant?
He's streaming in the runescape directory with runescape running in the background while he is doing this, thus the user content and content standards policy are applicable. What the phone company does is completely irrelevant to what happened to his game account or his actions, they have their own standards. This is completely on Jagex's user content rules, which because he's in that directory he has to uphold or they can terminate his account.
You are reverting back to my Netflix argument. Either he was acting in the game, which would make the ban justifiable, or he wasn't.
Let me put it this way, if there was no stream, would Runescape would be justified in their ban?
Nope .. if he wasnt streaming, noone would have linked his actions to Runescape in any way and Runescape had no ground to do anything against him (nor any reason)..
but he was. The moment you stream (Even when its just inactive on the background) and have viewers (Mostly watching for the specific game), you represent the game youre streaming and especialy streamers known for specific games have great influence over their viewers.
Runescape had no choice but to make an example out of him to make sure people wouldnt get the idea that it is acceptable to perform these kind of things while representing their game and broadcasting to (mostly) their players.
Even outside that, you have the case that it being on in the background informs Jagex of a user of it's game who behaves in a questionable manner. Even without the streaming "representative" factor Jagex is still posed with an ethical question.
"Is that the kind of person we want playing our game(s)?"
Obviously, they decided he was not. They had video evidence and reason to believe that he could and possibly has acted detrimentally towards the well-being of the game's community given his behavior on his live stream. Preventing such behavior from impacting their title in the future is a rational measure.
Or an extremely bigotted one, depending on your point of view. Funny isn't it how so many egregious things are somehow excuseable if they are put forward as being rational and preventive of harm to undefined persons in the future. That path leads nowhere good.
Can you explain how it's egregious to you?
They aren't banning that person from the internet or anything dramatic. They are banning them from property the company owns. Something that is well within their right to do if they consider him a liability towards the health of their product.
Are they somehow affecting this person's life in some way other than "now I can't play this game"? Is he unable to hop on his computer and play any number of other games at his own discretion without so much as a blink?
What of Jagex's actions are so "outstandingly bad" or "shocking" for them to not want someone with a clear penchant to disregard the wellbeing of others from affecting their product, game, or community?
What bad path do you think a company being responsible for it's own property is leading to?
This is a lot of vague ominous argument and not a lot of substance for me to work with right now.
I am more concerned that you feel i should have to explain why its egregious to me, i suspect that if you cannot even see my point of view, that you are too narrowly focused to appreciate why this is so. That Jagex decided this course of action is their own affair, they are a private company and can do as they wish, no matter how detrimental it may end up being. No, the path i was eluding to was none but your own, i am after all entirely unconcerned with Jagex's future. Its an easy path to fall into and one i have mistakenly tread myself, nothing good ever comes of it and unfortunately the only advice i can give you is to be open minded, its not great advice honestly, but if it helps i find that Jordan Petersons works do help, although i wish i understood him more, the guy is far more intelligent than i could ever hope to be.
Why would it be concerning that one would ask for a reason or logic to support their claim?
If you do not express your point of view, then I cannot see it. If you do not give the rationale behind a statement, then there will never be understanding of it.
Being open minded is certainly all well and good. All people should strive for it as all people should always seek out unknown variables and gaps in knowledge.
That fails to address the point, however.
You can speculate as much as you want, but provided evidence, you have to make a conclusion on what you do know. It's not like I or anyone else is saying that as an ultimatum. If new information changes a circumstance, then it should be accounted for.
But when someone does wrong, and they present themselves as a liability or threat to the well-being of a community, or product, how is it egregious for the company that owns that product and curates that community to defend itself?
Am I calling for that person to be punished? No. I'm not even considering Jagex's actions from the perspective of a punishment.
And I don't really care about Jordan Peterson or any other self-help guru. That is again tangential to the subject.
You keep drawing correlations to things you are very simply not explaining, and moreover choosing to not explain if I am to take your post correctly. It just means yet more vague and ominous words without substance.
Why should I take any of your statements to have any merit if you are unwilling to justify them? What is the purpose of your comments if that is to be the case? Just to stir argument?
Did he talk to that girl through the phone or he messaged her through the game? If it's the former, why the phone company did not terminate his subscription. If it's the former, why is the game's TOS relevant?
He's streaming in the runescape directory with runescape running in the background while he is doing this, thus the user content and content standards policy are applicable. What the phone company does is completely irrelevant to what happened to his game account or his actions, they have their own standards. This is completely on Jagex's user content rules, which because he's in that directory he has to uphold or they can terminate his account.
You are reverting back to my Netflix argument. Either he was acting in the game, which would make the ban justifiable, or he wasn't.
Let me put it this way, if there was no stream, would Runescape would be justified in their ban?
Nope .. if he wasnt streaming, noone would have linked his actions to Runescape in any way and Runescape had no ground to do anything against him (nor any reason)..
but he was. The moment you stream (Even when its just inactive on the background) and have viewers (Mostly watching for the specific game), you represent the game youre streaming and especialy streamers known for specific games have great influence over their viewers.
Runescape had no choice but to make an example out of him to make sure people wouldnt get the idea that it is acceptable to perform these kind of things while representing their game and broadcasting to (mostly) their players.
How can a streamer possibly represent the game he's streaming? There is zero entry barrier into streaming. Anybody can stream any game they like. Are you seriously arguing that a game, say WoW, should police all streamers because by the mere act of playing the game, they represent the company and it's values? And since anybody can stream, they must police their entire playerbase?
If you listen to his YT apology, he says the woman didn't remember him saying that but, honestly, it doesn't matter. His behavior on the stream, his uproarious laughter at a fragile person's expense is outrageous. He earned his bans from RuneScape and Twitch. Guy seriously needs to get his shit together.
Comments
yeah, its irrelevant. Take the suicide rates of transgenders, 48% currently, be convenient if we could blame that on twitch streamers wouldn't it.
...just sayin'
Companies do not care about morals or w/e, they just care whether the pressure is strong enough to affect their profits/public image.
They do not go out and enforce theirs or some others moral standards.
They ain't raiding his house to take away his PC. Let's have some perspective.
The game he was not playing while the incident occurred, should have been irrelevant. He should have lost his streaming rights regardless of the game that was playing in the background, regardless of whether there anything playing in the background.
Yet here we are looking at a gaming company making a bad customer PR move that only looks good for the game activism journalism, which is to terminate service for an incident that occurred in a platform and space irrelevant to the actual game. With one action they both associated their game with that evil individual and his action and made their customers feel unsafe for the longevity of their accounts.
Seriously, publicise the issue not the person.
Well expect more like this, it is absurd to have those with such immature views become role models and we will keep paying a price for that.
He showed on a stream the kind of behavior he is capable of, and that lends itself to the very valid question of "Do I want that kind of person affecting my product?"
That is perfectly rational for Jagex to consider. If he literally calls a person on the phone to say something like that to them, then what kind of stuff might he say over the anonymity provided by a random username in the MMO he chooses to play?
He showed his (lack of) character, and he showed a community in which that (lack of) character could affect others. What part of that seems far-fetched to you? The game is irrelevant to Twitch and the law. It is not irrelevant to Jagex who was made aware of a person of dubious morals within their game's community, and the desire to isolate such a person from their community seems pretty logical.
Nope .. if he wasnt streaming, noone would have linked his actions to Runescape in any way and Runescape had no ground to do anything against him (nor any reason)..
but he was. The moment you stream (Even when its just inactive on the background) and have viewers (Mostly watching for the specific game), you represent the game youre streaming and especialy streamers known for specific games have great influence over their viewers.
Runescape had no choice but to make an example out of him to make sure people wouldnt get the idea that it is acceptable to perform these kind of things while representing their game and broadcasting to (mostly) their players.
https://ashesofcreation.com/r/Y4U3PQCASUPJ5SED
"Is that the kind of person we want playing our game(s)?"
Obviously, they decided he was not. They had video evidence and reason to believe that he could and possibly has acted detrimentally towards the well-being of the game's community given his behavior on his live stream. Preventing such behavior from impacting their title in the future is a rational measure.
They aren't banning that person from the internet or anything dramatic. They are banning them from property the company owns. Something that is well within their right to do if they consider him a liability towards the health of their product.
Are they somehow affecting this person's life in some way other than "now I can't play this game"? Is he unable to hop on his computer and play any number of other games at his own discretion without so much as a blink?
What of Jagex's actions are so "outstandingly bad" or "shocking" for them to not want someone with a clear penchant to disregard the wellbeing of others from affecting their product, game, or community?
What bad path do you think a company being responsible for it's own property is leading to?
This is a lot of vague ominous argument and not a lot of substance for me to work with right now.
Sure, the "other person" could be responsible, for their part in what happened.
For the part where some guy when on a live stream and did something in poor taste, that person on the stream remains responsible for their actions.
Unless you have a person just off screen holding a gun or something, you're not really presenting much of an argument to defend them or otherwise.
And to that end, it remains the consideration that Jagex would have to consider since this behavior is the kind of thing that bleeds across media. If he's willing to prank someone on the phone like that, then what's stopping him from doing the same or worse again from the anonmity of an avatar in their game(s) of choice?
Protecting the standards of your product and protecting it's stability from users that might negatively affect the community, and therefore success of the game, is the direct reaction to seeing someone behave in a manner showing poor judgement and self control.
Are we given any reason to assume they will behave differently while playing a game than they do live?
What exactly is the "what if" that you'd evoke to say they did not just show they were a liability?
That Jagex decided this course of action is their own affair, they are a private company and can do as they wish, no matter how detrimental it may end up being.
No, the path i was eluding to was none but your own, i am after all entirely unconcerned with Jagex's future.
Its an easy path to fall into and one i have mistakenly tread myself, nothing good ever comes of it and unfortunately the only advice i can give you is to be open minded, its not great advice honestly, but if it helps i find that Jordan Petersons works do help, although i wish i understood him more, the guy is far more intelligent than i could ever hope to be.
However, while I have no sympathy for this man we have to point this out for fairness:
"When doing this I had my phone's microphone muted because I never intended to try and put her or anyone at risk."
He did not actually tell her to kill herself, he only made it seem so as a really sick joke on his stream.
If you do not express your point of view, then I cannot see it. If you do not give the rationale behind a statement, then there will never be understanding of it.
Being open minded is certainly all well and good. All people should strive for it as all people should always seek out unknown variables and gaps in knowledge.
That fails to address the point, however.
You can speculate as much as you want, but provided evidence, you have to make a conclusion on what you do know. It's not like I or anyone else is saying that as an ultimatum. If new information changes a circumstance, then it should be accounted for.
But when someone does wrong, and they present themselves as a liability or threat to the well-being of a community, or product, how is it egregious for the company that owns that product and curates that community to defend itself?
Am I calling for that person to be punished? No. I'm not even considering Jagex's actions from the perspective of a punishment.
And I don't really care about Jordan Peterson or any other self-help guru. That is again tangential to the subject.
You keep drawing correlations to things you are very simply not explaining, and moreover choosing to not explain if I am to take your post correctly. It just means yet more vague and ominous words without substance.
Why should I take any of your statements to have any merit if you are unwilling to justify them? What is the purpose of your comments if that is to be the case? Just to stir argument?