Teabagging is in danger

[Mr Jt (Gog is king)]

Well maybe you will get in trouble with teabagging in the future…..

A debate sparks among gamers about whether the act of 'teabagging' can be considered sexual assault given its context in online gaming.

In online gaming, there are more than a few ways in which players can mess with their opponent. One of the most common ways a player can jokingly troll their opponent is through "teabagging." For the uninitiated "teabagging" is a gaming term that involves one player, usually in an FPS or fighting game, rapidly crouching over their defeated opponent. It is assumed that the practice began somewhere around the era of Quake or Counter-Strike in 1999, but "teabagging" truly spread across the gaming community with the release of Halo: Combat Evolved.

Now, over 20 years since "teabagging" began as a practice, some gamers are debating whether it should be considered a controversial action. Specifically, some believe that "teabagging" counts as sexual assault. To some, "teabagging" has been seen as a controversial act, and it was banned from a Killer Instinct tournament in 2017.

The conversation was sparked on Discord, when one user joked about being a "serial offender" when it came to "teabagging." Some found this joke to be unfunny and to be making light of a serious issue like sexual assault. Since screenshots of the Discord conversation broke out online, gamers all over social media have been weighing in with their thoughts. Some big names, like popular streamer MoistCr1TiKaL, have decided that "teabagging" does not count as sexual assault.

alt="call of duty 4 key art"
Others are firmly in the belief that the act should not be used in games and at the very least counts as sexual harassment, if not full assault. Still, "teabagging" is a practice that will likely remain prevalent in gaming. Even outside of video games, it seems that "teabagging" is considered more of a celebratory move than it is a controversial one. In late 2021, an NFL player was seen celebrating after a sack with a "teabag." So, unless the internet was to unilaterally decide against the act of pressing the crouch button repeatedly after killing an opponent, it seems that "teabagging" will stick around.

In the world of gaming, developers have even promoted "teabagging." Call of Duty: Warzone revealed a "teabag" finisher move back in 2021, and following a nerf to the act in Overwatch, that saw players unable to stand over their opponent after they were hit with Ana's Sleep Dart, the developers at Blizzard quickly changed the ability so that players could once again "teabag" at their own discretion.

https://gamerant.com/video-game-teabagging-sexual-assault/amp/

[Your_White_Knight]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Lemonfed:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Thermal Lance:

Teabagging someone in a videogame is not a crime.

nah , I'd totally see the FBI kicking a Door down and handcuffing a twitch streaming for Teabagging inside the game. :cocochan2:

totally make sense.

FBI OPEN UP , drop the mouse , drop the keyboard , DROP IT , STOP THE TEABAG OR I SHOOT. xD

that would be funny... if it's only in jest...

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von permanent name:

...
Perhaps the larger issue is with how society handles bullying, which is to basically just ignore it.

Oh, they're not ignoring it, they're just empowering the bullied, & anyone alleging to be bullied, to become extremely dangerous "bullies" & criminals themselves, with the law to validate and support them, even if they're lying about the harms committed.

You know, fight fire with fire & all that, then wonder why the entire building is burning down, as well as, all of the rest of the buildings on the block too...

Ursprünglich geschrieben von permanent name:

...
Yeah I suspect a statistically significant number of SWATing related issues lead back to teabagging in games and trolling communities.

So maybe it should be a crime.
...

I think that attempting to enforce criminalization of free-expression (instead of just handling / censoring it on the publishing / moderation level) should become a criminal act... oh wait...

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+unconstitutional

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+the+first+amendment

[ṼṏẌṏḭḊ]

Imagine playing an MP match.

Your team mate gets shot and falls over by a corner.

You rush to the corner and crouch before peeking around.

Your character warps a certain distance away from your dead companions head, just so you don't accidentally sexually assault them.

You get shot.

[permanent name]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von permanent name:

...
Perhaps the larger issue is with how society handles bullying, which is to basically just ignore it.

Oh, they're not ignoring it, they're just empowering the bullied, & anyone alleging to be bullied, to become extremely dangerous "bullies" & criminals themselves, with the law to validate and support them, even if they're lying about the harms committed.

You know, fight fire with fire & all that, then wonder why the entire building is burning down, as well as, all of the rest of the buildings on the block too...

Ursprünglich geschrieben von permanent name:

...
Yeah I suspect a statistically significant number of SWATing related issues lead back to teabagging in games and trolling communities.

So maybe it should be a crime.
...

I think that attempting to enforce criminalization of free-expression (instead of just handling / censoring it on the publishing / moderation level) should become a criminal act... oh wait...

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+unconstitutional

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+the+first+amendment


:anywaycircleoffire: :anywaycircleoffire: :anywaycircleoffire: :anywaycircleoffire: :anywaycircleoffire:

There’s no criminal punishment for unconstitutional behavior. Rather, there are a handful of unrelated laws which are theoretically supposed to enforce it but cannot.

Judges and moderators bear the burden of enforcing rules which don’t exist.

Anyway, I think ignoring bullying is a part of the first step of perpetuating the cycle of abuse. People have to be allowed to get away with it in order for the victim’s resentment to build. Until finally they can unleash it on their preferred victim: a bully.

The supportive legislation comes after that first principle of ignorance.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ṼṏẌṏḭḊ:

Imagine playing an MP match.

Your team mate gets shot and falls over by a corner.

You rush to the corner and crouch before peeking around.

Your character warps a certain distance away from your dead companions head, just so you don't accidentally sexually assault them.

You get shot.

I think people should trip over corpses in games and be able to build corpse walls.

[Thermal Lance]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ṼṏẌṏḭḊ:

Imagine playing an MP match.

Your team mate gets shot and falls over by a corner.

You rush to the corner and crouch before peeking around.

Your character warps a certain distance away from your dead companions head, just so you don't accidentally sexually assault them.

You get shot.

That’s it! We got this! The only solution to this problem is to ban crouching from videogames.

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mr Jt (Feck Drm):

Well maybe you will get in trouble with teabagging in the future…..

A debate sparks among gamers about whether the act of 'teabagging' can be considered sexual assault given its context in online gaming.
...

Ursprünglich geschrieben von permanent name:

... Until finally they can unleash it on their preferred victim: a bully. ...

I believe that this is unrealistically optimistic, as there are plenty of examples in life which demonstrate collateral damage and also examples where the targeted people of an abused person that retaliated towards society, were not the same people who had abused them or, in many cases, even abusers themselves.

...and all of this is implying that the escalation of harms caused by bullying ONLY comes as a result of retaliation by the bullied, when in fact, it also comes as a result of malicious third-party actors feigning victimhood and then exploiting retaliatory litigation options (which are needlessly aggressive ways of combating alleged bullying) in order to ruin the lives of others - whether this be through murder by proxy (such as SWATing someone) or more official means of claiming to be "sexually assaulted" by an action that does not meet the statute and may have not even occurred.

For anyone who believes that if the whole thing was recorded in some way, police can just check footage : often, they won't. ...however, they will often proceed with enforcement of the claim anyways, as long as there's an accusation of criminal behavior.

---

People can put down the game, or block the person engaging in such conduct, or report the person engaging in such conduct TO THE GAME MODERATOR OR DEVELOPER, or petition the developer to censor it, (any of those previously mentioned items would be a civil & respectable way to combat vulgarity).

Anyone who would try to criminalize poor sportsmanship and rude behavior in a video-game, instead of just responding with one of the actions mentioned in the list in previous sentence, is a reprehensible human-being who brings shame & dishonor to the demographics of gamers & humanity. Additionally, responding with such a retaliatory action is the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a fire.

...and that's without even getting into how this becomes a very slippery-slope.

[permanent name]

I don’t disagree.

The bullied often perceive anyone and everyone as potential threats, owing to the damage to their nervous system they experienced from their trauma.

As such they wind up perceiving all people as bullies, and thus valid targets for their aggression.

Maybe they even deal with their trauma in a mostly-harmless way by teabagging in a game. And threatening to take it away would be yet another instance of bullying.

There’s no simple answer, as moderators are just as likely to be arbitrary and careless as police are. Maybe they’re even abusers, and will further exacerbate the trauma the teabagget was trying to deal with.

Maybe false actors would even go out of their way to target vulnerable people, desperately trying to fill the yawning hole in their ass. Maybe a lack of reasonable laws or rules would even make this easier for them.

I don’t know what the answer is, but the issue seems to be much deeper than an implied ballsack or two.

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von permanent name:

... moderators are just as likely to be arbitrary and careless as police are ...

The difference being that moderators only ruin people's days, not their lives.

...plus, people still have the option to just... put the game down... and take a break.
Maybe watch a nice sunset (that's hopefully actually a sunset and not actually radioactive fallout), and maybe play a different game that doesn't have toxic & childish competition.

It's perfectly reasonable to just lower your controller, if you don't like what's happening in the game. Far more reasonable than persuading someone with a gun, who may be trigger happy, to show up at someone's house because they upset someone.

[nx]

Losing hope in humanity

[permanent name]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von permanent name:

... moderators are just as likely to be arbitrary and careless as police are ...

The difference being that moderators only ruin people's days, not their lives. :thepro:

...plus, people still have the option to just... put the game down... and take a break.
Maybe watch a nice sunset (that's hopefully actually a sunset and not actually radioactive fallout), and maybe play a different game that doesn't have toxic & childish competition.

It's perfectly reasonable to just lower your controller, if you don't like what's happening in the game. Far more reasonable than persuading someone with a gun, who may be trigger happy, to show up at someone's house because they upset someone. :spazdunno: :ycircle:

If a mod ruins the wrong person’s day that person could easily ruin somebody else’s life. I think there were many SWATing incidents on Reddit where this happened.

And actually most computers and consoles have ubiquitous backdoors in order to facilitate spying, so putting down the controller might not be enough. If someone really put their mind to it they could essentially force you to stop gaming altogether.

It isn’t as harmless as it looks.

[TwisterCat]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at:

I understand the point you're making & Valve has something similar written in its Steamworks documentation for forum moderation - however, I'm still not seeing the problem if such a rule is implemented up-front and clearly communicated in a place where you can see it before playing a match, and where you can see it before even buying the game.

A dev could make a rule that anyone who says "quack" gets a 1 day ban if they really wanted and as long as I see that rule before starting the game, that's the agreement that I know I am signing up for. :mallard: :denied: :tryagain:

Banning someone for breaking an up-front & clearly communicated rule, communicated in detail so as to leave no ambiguity, no matter how silly that rule is, is actually a fairly reasonable consequence, especially compared to the dozens of "nuclear consequences" that a people could go with which I prioritize as more significant issues.

If it's something they don't want people doing, then I do think that they should attempt to resolve it on the code-level, rather than issuing bans or doing something worse but... I am, however, okay with drawing the line of acceptability at allowing moderators and developers to ban for arbitrarily chosen rules, so long as those rules are not arbitrary in their definitions and are clearly communicated, in full detail, from the very first moment that you touch the service.

That's not the developer's job, it's the server manager's job. I completely agree that somebody who manages a server has full rights to ban somebody from said server for absolutely anything they want, but the developer, especially if there's no private servers, should not completely ban somebody for such things. We're not talking slurs or death threats here, it's only crouching on somebody's playermodel.

That would be like Dead by Daylight developers banning somebody for hook camping, even if they warned them not to. It's an absurdity, specifically because it's built into the game. It's not like random deathmatch on an RP server, this is rewarded behaviour. Banter is also completely fine, while threats, etc, are not, because it's not disturbing to all parties involved and isn't a personal attack.

If anybody tried to ban something like this openly, their game would be dead. If anybody tried to ban something like this covertly or under the guise of another rule, it would anti-consumer, and immoral.

[Der tüddelige Fußgänger]

Does teabagging even exist now?
Don't you do your Fortnite dances instead?

[Sir Dookface McFerretballs]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von The Xenoblade X guy:

Does teabagging even exist now?
Don't you do your Fortnite dances instead?

Hey, as long as there is a crouch button, there will be teabagging.

[crunchyfrog]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Your_White_Knight:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von crunchyfrog:

Except that's a dodge.

Your evidence was WRONG.

You asserted that this was outrage culoture ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, and everything you ashowed in that link was down to REGULATION AND RATINGS changes BEFORE release.

So again, how can people have got outraged by something they didn't know about BEFORE release?

It's impossible.

It was leaked and the Twitter Mob / Facebook Mob got a hold of it... just like most things that get changed before "release"

And yes my evidence is CORRECT.

To even prove it's false "but you're offending / excluding people" and "it's not good for business" the Developers did this on their own.

The First Person Shooter Call of Duty Ghosts sold 28.98 million copies worldwide... on ads like this:

https://youtu.be/gMjE-E78cFA

It's not a "dodge" strawman all you want... the Developers have t-bagging in their commercials and made bank off it... it's a fact, this is their own ad they themselves made.

Edit:

if you have to swear, you've already lost your argument, you're using feelings not facts / logic

And things cannot change when society does?

Again none of this demonstrates what you wish.

[////]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von crunchyfrog:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Your_White_Knight:

It was leaked and the Twitter Mob / Facebook Mob got a hold of it... just like most things that get changed before "release"

And yes my evidence is CORRECT.

To even prove it's false "but you're offending / excluding people" and "it's not good for business" the Developers did this on their own.

The First Person Shooter Call of Duty Ghosts sold 28.98 million copies worldwide... on ads like this:

https://youtu.be/gMjE-E78cFA

It's not a "dodge" strawman all you want... the Developers have t-bagging in their commercials and made bank off it... it's a fact, this is their own ad they themselves made.

Edit:

if you have to swear, you've already lost your argument, you're using feelings not facts / logic

And things cannot change when society does?

Again none of this demonstrates what you wish.

>society

if we would combine top most played games and their player bases, that would be tiny part of entire human population.