Spoiler Halo Mega Thread

If I had a username of something popular and you sent me a reference to it in a PM, I wouldn't feel harassed.

Like if I was called Master Chief and you sent me "cod is better than Halo", I would just ignore you unless I was like 12 - in which case I would report you because such a wrong statement would trigger me.

It doesn't matter if you feel harassed or not. We're not arguing whether or not the user was justified in being harassed (even though under most legal definitions, they were). We're arguing whether the comment constituted a harassment charge under the legal definition. Which it did.

i would describe jono's message as rude, abusive, instigatory, and perhaps inflammatory, but not harassment—but even then, in thinking about it, all of those terms are pretty tenuous as well

harassment has to be a repeated or prolonged interaction beyond reason, otherwise any simple insult posted on the internet could be considered harassment, which would be silly

not defending him, but that's the only thing harassment should be considered to be

then again, it just hit me that you guys are probably just doing this to fuck with jono, because he's fun to fuck with

have at it then i guess, even though that might qualify as harassment in and of itself

then again, it just hit me that you guys are probably just doing this to fuck with jono, because he's fun to fuck with

have at it then i guess, even though that might qualify as harassment in and of itself

it does qualify as harassment imo, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be punished

MS likely uses the legal definition of harassment in their own guidelines, which say nothing about harassment needing multiple attempts or anything like that

and even then, the definition i posted is still what i consider to be the best one

i don't know

if this ariana grande person said something like "please leave me alone," and jono continued to message them, that would definitely be harassment and worth terminating his account over

one little shit-talky message, i don't think so—you could argue it's unnecessary and abusive, though

also, if you have the ability to block people on XBL, i think that should automatically raise the bar for what should be considered banworthy, because you're already given all the tools necessary to prevent people from fucking with you

It's not a harassment.

It is harassment. I already stated the best legal definition of harassment: anything that is known or reasonably ought to be known to be unwanted. Jono's comment fits this bill.

It's literally the worst definition of harassment.

"Harassment, under the laws of the United States, is defined as any repeated or continuing un-consented contact that serves no useful purpose beyond creating alarm, annoyance, or emotional distress."

Even if you subscribe to this definition, Jono's intent was to annoy the other player. So yes, it's harassment.

No, it's not. First of all, Jono did not repeat his message repetetally. Second, what Jono wrote has a useful purpose, since Jono at the very least acknowledged musician that opponent has as the name, as well as the song. Third, if you are already picking your nickname as someone's musician name, you are automatically give people reason to react in positive or negative way.

It's not a harassment.

If we take what Jono said as true, Jono only stated that "God is not a woman" and he did it only once. It's him voicing his perception of God, be it for joke or not, be it truth or not. There is nothing harassing about it.

1. "God is not a woman" is a comment intended to annoy.
2. Number of harassment attempts has no bearing on whether something is harassment, by your own definition.

1. "God is not a woman" is also aknowledging song, so it wasn't only intended to annoy.
2. Well, plot twist: because it's not a harassment.. And it's not my definition, it's USA law.
Of course, Microsoft or Bungie can define their definition of harassment, after all it's their game, but my point is that no way I would treat that as harassment, because it creates an example, a standart upon which you can ban anyone who literally just references other player name or says that God is not a woman, or not a man, or w/e.

It's not a harassment.

If you take Jono's statement as a harassment, then you can take your and chally's comedic responses or genuine arguments to Deci as a harassment too as well as this response.

Chally does harass Deci. It's also completely irrelevant to this conversation.

This response is not harassment, because it is reasonably thought to be consented to by your own initiation of the conversation, and its sole intention is not to annoy, create alarm or emotional distress.

And that's why your definition of harassment is literally the worst, because anything under it can be interpreted as a harassment, because even my response can be taken as a provocation, an attempt to gain a moral ground over you and by your definition you can ban people just because they say something unwanted to you, which is ridiculous.

then again, it just hit me that you guys are probably just doing this to fuck with jono, because he's fun to fuck with

have at it then i guess, even though that might qualify as harassment in and of itself

it does qualify as harassment imo, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be punished

Most of people don't qualify this as harassment, it's just qualifies as being offensive or/and annoying. If you meant that, then I agree that Jono might be offensive and annoying, but in no way thats harassment.

It's literally the worst definition of harassment.

It's a perfectly good definition. Canada has been using it for years in courts of law.

No, it's not. First of all, Jono did not repeat his message repetetally.

Repeatedly*

If we take what Jono said as true, Jono only stated that "God is not a woman" and he did it only once. It's him voicing his perception of God, be it for joke or not, be it truth or not. There is nothing harassing about it.

He went out of his way to message the person after the fact. I'd say that's the second attempt.

Second, what Jono wrote has a useful purpose, since Jono at the very least acknowledged musician that opponent has as the name, as well as the song.

Acknowledging an artist is not a useful purpose (or a regular purpose, I don't think you know what the word means), it's the method he chose to annoy the person. The purpose was to annoy, and he did that by acknowedging the artist.

Third, if you are already picking your nickname as someone's musician name, you are automatically give people reason to react in positive or negative way.

This is what we call "victim blaming." Don't do it.

1. "God is not a woman" is also aknowledging song, so it wasn't only intended to annoy.

You can acknowledge a song with an intention to annoy. They're not mutually exclusive, and even then, the primary purpose was still to annoy the player.

2. Well, plot twist: because it's not a harassment.. And it's not my definition, it's USA law.

Yeah, because American law is supremely just and absolutely flawless.

Canada is just America, but better in everyway, and this is no exception.

Also you're not American so I don't know why you resort to that definition.

Of course, Microsoft or Bungie can define their definition of harassment, after all it's their game, but my point is that no way I would treat that as harassment, because it creates an example, a standart upon which you can ban anyone who literally just references other player name or says that God is not a woman, or not a man, or w/e.

I don't care what you would treat as harassment. You cannot ban anyone who says "god is not a woman" because context is important. If I'm having a philosophical conversation with a friend about the gender of God, I'm not going to get banned if I message him, "I conclude that God isn't a woman." However, the intention of Jono's message to Ariana Grande was to incicte some kind of negative reaction, therefore, it is harassment. End of story.

And that's why your definition of harassment is literally the worst, because anything under it can be interpreted as a harassment,

...what? How does "something that is REASONABLY ought to be known" = "anything could be harassment."

It's reasonable that Jono would know his message was going to illicit some kind of response (it was literally his intention), therefore it is harassment. This is where a thing called rule of law and context come into play.

because even my response can be taken as a provocation, an attempt to gain a moral ground over you and by your definition you can ban people just because they say something unwanted to you, which is ridiculous.

It could be taken as provocation, sure, but it is clearly not unwanted because I keep responding to you and consenting to the argument. You can only be banned for saying unwanted things to people that they obviously do not want to hear. Randomly saying something I disagree with isn't going to get you banned. Going out of your way to say something I do not want to hear when you know I don't want to hear it is harassment, and should get you banned.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Look you fucking retards unless there are more options now on the Xbone the only way to file a complaint against unwanted messages was file a complaint and select message and harassment or hostile or whatever. This isn't a court of law and I also wouldn't put it past Jono to keep messaging this person.

But he didn't.

I like how the biggest fucking bully on this website is trying to call harrasment on Jono for a mundane stretch of an "insult" that wouldn't even get someone warned in Club Penguin.

What's goin on in this thre-

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

I like how the biggest fucking bully on this website is trying to call harrasment on Jono for a mundane stretch of an "insult" that wouldn't even get someone warned in Club Penguin.

What Challenger does has literally no bearing on whether this is harassment or not. It's completely irrelevant. I can murder 10 people and still call Eric Harris a murderer, because he is, regardless of what I am.

It's literally the worst definition of harassment.

It's a perfectly good definition. Canada has been using it for years in courts of law.

OK, so let's find definition of harassment in Canada. "Harassment is a form of discrimination. It involves any unwanted physical or verbal behaviour that offends or humiliates you. Generally, harassment is a behaviour that persists over time. Serious one-time incidents can also sometimes be considered harassment." So, Jono's offenses doesn't persist over time, if what he told us is true. Ok, so lets talk about wherever it is serious incident or not and of course we gonna stumble here, because what is treated as serious?

Ok, so let's take a context. Jono tried to poke person's nickname, not the person behind it and even if with reason to annoy or offend, this is an offense, not a harassment.

If we take what Jono said as true, Jono only stated that "God is not a woman" and he did it only once. It's him voicing his perception of God, be it for joke or not, be it truth or not. There is nothing harassing about it.

He went out of his way to message the person after the fact. I'd say that's the second attempt.

Ok then, where the first one? I'm not defending Jono, I'm saying only if all provided from Jono is true and there was no other messages except this one, then it's not a harassment.

Third, if you are already picking your nickname as someone's musician name, you are automatically give people reason to react in positive or negative way.

This is what we call "victim blaming." Don't do it.

Fair enough.

Second, what Jono wrote has a useful purpose, since Jono at the very least acknowledged musician that opponent has as the name, as well as the song.

Acknowledging an artist is not a useful purpose (or a regular purpose, I don't think you know what the word means), it's the method he chose to annoy the person. The purpose was to annoy, and he did that by acknowedging the artist.

1. "God is not a woman" is also aknowledging song, so it wasn't only intended to annoy.

You can acknowledge a song with an intention to annoy. They're not mutually exclusive, and even then, the primary purpose was still to annoy the player.

No, primary intention was to make fun of the nickname. I don't think such issues can be judged on intention, it must be judged on action, because I don't think whoever was handling a ban can look into people's mind and say what their intention was. Intentions doesn't mean that much, because even with good intentions anyone can do something bad (as for example, create atomic bomb), so intention doesn't have that much weight as action.

Action itself was Jono sending person message "God isn't a woman". Context suggests that it was directed on person's nickname rather than on person itself. Even if it was with intent to annoy and even if message would clearly offended person instead, it's still not a harassment, because it's not a continuos behaviour and I don't think it's serious either. There is no definition in CHRC of "serious" and only thing I can do is to provide my opinion.

2. Well, plot twist: because it's not a harassment.. And it's not my definition, it's USA law.

Yeah, because American law is supremely just and absolutely flawless.

Canada is just America, but better in everyway, and this is no exception.

Also you're not American so I don't know why you resort to that definition.

It's because Bungie resides in USA, and Bungie doesn't provide definition of harassment, so I use USA definition. Both laws are flawed, but USA provides clear definition of harassment whether Canada doesn't. I also think that elaborating on laws in gaming thread is bad, we can just create another thread somewhere else and have a discussion about them.

And that's why your definition of harassment is literally the worst, because anything under it can be interpreted as a harassment,

...what? How does "something that is REASONABLY ought to be known" = "anything could be harassment."

It's reasonable that Jono would know his message was going to illicit some kind of response (it was literally his intention), therefore it is harassment. This is where a thing called rule of law and context come into play.

"Harassment is a form of discrimination. It involves any unwanted physical or verbal behaviour that offends or humiliates you. Generally, harassment is a behaviour that persists over time. Serious one-time incidents can also sometimes be considered harassment." What is treated as "serious one-time incident"? Is Jono's case a "serious one-time incident"? Without definition of what is "serious", everyone will judge what is "serious" based on their values and the context of the situation, but the problem is that it's dependent on a person, and people are biased.

because even my response can be taken as a provocation, an attempt to gain a moral ground over you and by your definition you can ban people just because they say something unwanted to you, which is ridiculous.

It could be taken as provocation, sure, but it is clearly not unwanted because I keep responding to you and consenting to the argument. You can only be banned for saying unwanted things to people that they obviously do not want to hear. Randomly saying something I disagree with isn't going to get you banned. Going out of your way to say something I do not want to hear when you know I don't want to hear it is harassment, and should get you banned.

Well, my problem is that your definition is not precise and allows different interpretations. For example, "unwanted things to people that they obviously do not want to hear" not only refers to offensive behaviour, it refers for example to doctor saying to people that close to them person died. I cannot perceieve whether you treat my response as unwanted or not either, because I can't look into your brain and read your thoughts, so best course of action to me then is to stop talking to you and never talk to you again to not be banned.

Also if you gonna really hold to this definition, since I don't like to act disrespectful, I neither message you nor quote you at all, because I don't want to offend harass you in any way possible. Otherwise I think it will be great opportunity to test and reinform our views on this topic, although I think it's better to have another thread for this.

so halo huh

so halo huh

What's that?

It wasn't harassment

https://xboxdvr.com/gamer/boomdeyadah/video/57252665
Has this ever happened to anyone else before

What happened here?

XXX Bill Clinton XXX joined the game

"Hey BC, I like banging interns too!"

H A R A S S E D

https://xboxdvr.com/gamer/boomdeyadah/video/57252665
Has this ever happened to anyone else before

What happened here?

The guy on my team changed team colours. blue -> red

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

XXX Bill Clinton XXX joined the game

"Hey BC, I like banging interns too!"

H A R A S S E D

Yeah dude making a joke with someone through your mic when they join the game is totally the same as sending somebody an unwanted message out of the blue.

Well we can see what type of members are all agreeing with each other here, I'll leave it at that.

Could be sent in a message too.

XXX Bill Clinton XXX joined the game

"Hey BC, I like banging interns too!"

H A R A S S E D

Alright first of all, in the second instance it's less harassment and more of you being a dumb redneck who goes out of their way to try and be funny on something they themselves only think about. It's not like XXX Bill Clinton XXX chose the name just because he likes banging interns.

Second of all, the reason it's less harassment is 'cause in the second example, it's about a man. Double standards do exist. If a woman has sex with a young boy vs if a man has sex with a little girl, there's a difference. I'm not getting into that too much right now, but if you're a retard and think both are equally wrong or equally right, then tell me, 'cause you're seriously aching for an awakening.

Now the way Jono's case and your imaginary one are different is that Jono sent a message to some random person about the name of their profile picture's song lyrics where she says that god is a woman, and the one where the guy says "I like fucking interns too" is said to XXX Bill Clinton XXX. Bill is a man. If you attack him with unprovoked shit in an attempt to be funny you're seen as a dumbass. If you do the same shit but to a guy or a girl with an idol's name who's a woman, you're attacking someone weaker. You try that shit with ariana grande and that's seen as a creep move. What Jono did was a creep move, not a dumbass redneck move.

I like how the biggest fucking bully on this website is trying to call harrasment on Jono for a mundane stretch of an "insult" that wouldn't even get someone warned in Club Penguin.

I'm a bully because I laugh at Deci like literally everybody else here? lmao

Are you stupid? Do you think that it's okay to bully someone just because everyone else is doing it? Let's just start here. What you're saying here is straight up stupidity, and I want you to acknowledge that. Just because you join a gang of killers doesn't mean it's okay; you're a killer too.

Also don't try to blend in with the crowd. You're the one making fun of deci the most; the one who riles everyone up about him even more. Now me, you see, I don't have a problem with that, 'cause I call germans nazi just for the fun of it, but you, you can't claim you're alright when you're actually a bully, y'know? Don't lie to yourself is all I'm saying.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Does anybody actually read anything Desty posts?

I only really skim them, they're just kind of there for me.

Does anybody actually read anything Desty posts?

I only really skim them, they're just kind of there for me.

I feel the same way about yours, ngl.

Does anybody actually read anything Desty posts?

I'll make a tl;dr version next time just for your kind

Leave Jono alone