If that were the case, Funcom wouldn’t actively own any servers if they didn’t care. They’re providing a service for those that wish to not be subjected to private servers or pay for them. Regardless, my opinion is my own. No need to try to sway me. I think it’s a harsh punishment. As @DeaconElie mentioned, people don’t learn from their mistakes if they’re not given an opportunity to do so. That’s how I see it. You may see it differently, and that’s ok. I’m merely providing a different perspective for those that may not see it at all. If they still disagree, so be it. That’s their decision.
I’m just stating facts. The title of the servers say G-portal, not Funcom. Funcom sets the rules on them and enforces them as G-portal doesn’t moderate servers. But at the end of the day, they are advertisements for server hosting.
1 Like
Yeah…. I was never arguing about who actually owned them. 
Whether it’s Funcom or Gportal or someone else, they were put up for a reason. This is an argument for moderation, not semantics over who’s in charge and who’s getting money for hosting. My only point was, they need money to make things happen. Turning away players over lapse in judgement with no opportunity for redemption doesn’t pay those bills. People talk, they tell their own narratives over why Funcom sucks (or whoever upset them and banned them), and their friends and others listen. No one will give a second thought as to WHY. They only see the people doling out punishment as abusing their power. We’ve seen it every time someone comes here to complain about private servers. Private server owners aren’t trying to turn a buck for player population, Funcom—and gportal—are in this to make a profitable business. They can’t afford bad publicity. That’s why I say temporary suspension is a better option. Repeat offenders don’t make the game better for anyone, and those are the ones that get the boot permanently.
My logic is actually very simple: because the administrative means of these prohibitions are flawed, they are only clauses used to oppress others, so this prohibition should not exist. People should not be guilty of their language.
1 Like
If you watch the latest livestream, you’ll see that they aren’t worried about numbers.
That’s fine… still doesn’t change my point of view that it’s a harsh punishment.
I support your viewpoint. What I advocate and what I do is just to see more players who love Conan’s game on the official server. So even if I am not hindered by any ban, I must speak up for them. The punishment is too severe.
1 Like
Again, staying on the actual topic – whether Funcom should or should not tolerate these behaviors on their server – would be much appreciated.
2 Likes
You should place this not after the vote 
. Sorry @CodeMage, morning coffee i accidentally voted the temporary suspension first, sorry 
. I thought hate speech was an argument that lost control between 2 players and became “hate speech”. No these people that you mention are the definition of toxicity and they have no place nowhere!
Bonjour à tous.
Il peut parfois arriver que, sous une forte émotion ou une colère (plus ou moins légitime ou justifie) nos paroles pour faire briller notre pensée.
Nous regrettons ces mots par la suite ou le comportement execif, mais le mal est fait et nous avons fait souffrir une personne inutilement ou injustement.
Face à un éparation certainement offensante ou provocante Nous devons être fermes dans la punition.
Comme on dit si bien que @deaconelie est trop sévère dans certains cas, cela ne permettra pas à l’auteur des faits de comprendre où il a commis la faute et où il est puni pour toujours, mais une certaine inconduite ne laisse pas simplement le droit à la tolérance ou à la pédagogie.
Nous partageons tous ici un espace disponible par Funcom pour jouer, nous amuser, vivre des aventures ensemble, passer un bon moment.
À ne pas manquer par la triste réalité que nous rencontrons parfois IRL.
Tout comportement toxique, nocif et primaire doit être puni rapidement pour éviter une dégradation de notre environnement ludique (parce que Conan Exile est avant tout un jeu), une situation qui, si elle ne s’est pas rapidement co-sore Ferras en fuyant les joueurs, elle ne restera que des personnes toxiques.
C’est vrai pour certains, au travail, à l’école ou à la maison, pour ne pas sanctionner, pour ne rien dire Ammene a un fait plus sérieux, de nombreux exemples historiques le prouvent
.I ask you to forgive my bad English, it is not my mother tongue and the automatic translator makes his. good day to all
No need to apologize 
You can always change your vote by clicking on “Show vote” and picking something else.
And even if you picked that option because you believed in it, you still wouldn’t have to apologize 
1 Like
These actions must stay away from on line gaming. The “miracle” of online gaming is that everybody is welcome, no matter the phobias, the looks, the skills, the race, the sex, the age, the condition ! I happened to play with many people that their “issues” in real life could place (idiotic) moral barricades so i wouldn’t even say something more than a hello. Online gamimg helped me “open my eyes” and break taboos. I can guarantee that online gaming works to make me a better person, more open minded and to this i apply my gratitude often to funcom and Conan exiles. In this game i have the largest amount of my online gaming from all the rest games together. Good times and bad, like every human being i made mistakes to that hurt other people, but never harass, never toxicity, never. Did i cross lines playing pvp? I did! But never fail to apologize too and finally laugh with my opponent like good buddy!
I believe that people can do mistakes and they must have second chances, but some mistakes are irreversible and they belong to the list you mention.
So even if it sounds cruel not to give a second chance, the cruelty applied from these actions don’t deserve a second chance.
2 Likes
I’m fine with that… while everybody is all big on freedom of speech in general and sure enough throughout history there have been moments (and still are today) where those freedoms were downright oppressed etc…
However… we sort of fell off on the other side of the horse… to where the “responsibility of general decency” gets thrown under the bus instead…
People also need to learn when to shut up… and sadly enough some people are just not bright enough to decide for themselves when they should exercise that ability 
As such, when they cross lines they should not have… I’m perfectly fine with somebody else making that decision for them…
We’re not talking about oppression here… we’re talking about entertainment… a video game in a privately owned space… potentially getting rid of human garbage 
and when people behave like that, it’s not exactly rocket science to make that call and create a better environment by weeding out the garden a bit…
5 Likes
I couldn’t say it better!
They should be! We have to understand and respect that there are people out there who cannot defend them self for several reasons. Unfortunately life can be more cruel than death sometimes and no matter how strong you were to be on your knees now. So for all these people who cannot defend them self for several reasons, gaming companies should take actions and defend them!
2 Likes
From a personal point of view I would say: ban them after a warning because such hatefull toxicity is spreading across servers like cancer if people and devs do not take action in time. There needs to be boundaries when people play on community servers.
I believe or at least want to believe that people can change when given the chance.
Banning people away is only a short time solution for a much bigger social problem we face. As long as the person does not understand that what he is doing is wrong he won´t stop. Often times its the surroundings they are grew up with that makes them become this person.
4 Likes
I’m also a firm advocate for freedom of speech, but that doesn’t cover insults.
Let me give you an extreme example.
In your real life, you can say you don’t like blacks/whites, gays/heteros, men/women. It makes you a terrible person, but you are expressing your personal preferences.
What you can’t say is that any of these groups is bad. Why? Because those aren’t your preferences any longer. You’re casting aspersions on a group based on them and that is no longer acceptable.
As it’s virtually impossible to make these fine distictions when moderating a public space, you have to be a little stricter and avoid what’s called hate speech. In the last case, even if your preferences are like those cited in the first case, they are inflammatory and have a high chance of leading to the second. Because of that, you shouldn’t be allowed to express such things in a public space, even if you are allowed to think them. IMO, that wouldn’t make you a person I would like to meet, but you have the right to freedom of thought until the point you act upon it. So, there’s a slight, but important distinction, that is made more important the less extreme are the cases.
My opinion is that in a game, the conversation should be about the game. Politics aren’t off limits, but they should be avoided because people tend to react too strongly about political preferences. The same goes for religion and sexuality. We should keep those talks restricted to private chat. Nobody should care if you’re hetero/gay or whatever. This isn’t Tinder. Such topics should be left for private conversations. The general chat should be game related with occasional benign detours.
1 Like
I dont think people who do these kinds of things in chat will ever reform (or in real life either) until theyve had real consequences.
4 Likes
The fun thing about “public” servers is that they aren’t actually public.
They are private with general and unmonetized access.
In short, no admission fee.
They are called “public” due to that, and a general lack of initial curation on who is allowed in.
This one has lived many years, and phrases that were once considered neutral, or even on the more respectful side, are now verboten. Living languages do that.
On the one side, the host determines what one is allowed to say and remain a welcomed guest.
On the other side, in case someone was under a rock adjacent to this one’s quarry for the past few decades, this one would suggest a pointed notation that certain terms and phrases are no longer fit for use in these venues. That being the warning suspension.
That whole never assume malice when ignorance is as likely.
Even if we are going to venture into entertaining Freedom of Speech as a principle that could ever apply to private enterprises (as opposed to government regulation), it is not Freedom from consequences.
There are many… persons… who have belaboured this one with their Freedom of Speech to such a point that this one has had to exercise their Freedom of Association, and inform them that they are never welcome in a location that this one has say over, and if they try to further exercise their Free Speech in this one’s demense, they will receive a very educational lesson on how Castle Laws worked in the state this one had resided in at the time.
Fortunately, where this one currently lives, people are either polite or cowards. It is much more peaceful with far less need to do the disciplining someone’s parents failed to.
5 Likes
I actually have seen this problem emerge across a few games with almost the same player type, which having known 2 that cannot help themselves when it comes to toxic talk, let me just preface with the bar I have seen be super low with funcom seeing someone get baited into calling someone a name for a cat for example resulting in bans, but that also delves into the toxic report culture that this thread isn’t about.
so now onto the meat of what I think.
I don’t think you should be banned from a game for what you say beyond what goes into the criminal (using the game to dox people etc), emotions run high for some, but at the same time no one should be subjected to that, it’s why I think you should get what’s called a “Socials ban”.
Because the Game is a game, the socials are a platform that can be abused I think all players have a right to play, but not spew across the platform whatever garbage they wish.
First temporary, then permanent, it would basically limit you only to clan chat, no global chat, no voice chat.
I would also like to add that a socials ban is better for the players who wish to avoid this hateful conduct.
A perma ban will incentivise players to just buy a new cheap barebones copy to play with their friends, as I have also seen this, this means they can be toxic ingame again and means they are less likely to purchase DLC in the future, something I don’t believe they would do merely to talk trash.
so a game implementing a game ban without a price point on the scale of Diablo 4 is going to run into maintaining a toxic cycle because there is little to no incentive for them to stop.
1 Like