So the other week some idiot asked Stephen Toulouse, director of policy and enforcement for Xbox Live, if he could use a swastika as his personal insignia in Call of Duty: Black Ops. To which Toulouse replied “No, of course you can’t, we’ll ban you.”
 
I find that interesting. Oh, not because of the swastika’s thousand-year history outside Nazi dogma as a religious symbol used by Hindus, Christians, Native Americans, blah blah blah...I dismiss such arguments as stupid. "Swastika" means "Nazi" and all that connotes. You’re not gonna reclaim that one, pal. Maybe you’ve also noticed a lack of people named Adolf in the last 70 years.

BANNED!

No, it’s interesting to me because of the swiftness and surety of Toulouse’s response...and the unexplored issues it raises. Issues, like the swastika query itself, that wouldn’t come up if Live’s policy and enforcement had two things it desperately needs: consistency and teeth.

After all, we’ve played as Nazis in games before, and we nearly played as Taliban fighters in the recent Medal of Honor reboot. But it’s one thing to play a defined role at an emotional remove and quite another to openly advocate for those groups.
 
So how far do we go? The Xbox Live Terms of Service say it's a violation to;

"Publish, post, upload, distribute or disseminate any topic, name, material or information that incites discrimination, hate or violence towards one person or a group because of their belonging to a race, a religion or a nation, or that insults the victims of crimes against humanity by contesting the existence of those crimes."

 Do we ban the flags of Sudan and Bosnia, whose governments orchestrated genocide against ethnic minorities? Probably not. Those symbols mean nothing to me. Joseph Stalin killed more people than Hitler, and China’s human rights violations are legion, so do we ban Russian and Chinese symbols? Probably not. Uncle Joe’s dead, and we want to do business in China.
 
But then, gamertags with “420” and other drug references aren’t tough to find despite rules against any "unlawful topic, name, material or information." That’s pretty lax enforcement for a policy specific enough to target Holocaust deniers. If Microsoft’s content to ignore some violations, gamers will ignore some rules. Eventually, everything becomes a grey area.
 
I’m not suggesting Microsoft should go wild with the banhammer. I am suggesting the whole system is automated where it should be personal and personal when it should be impartial.

A wretched hive of scum and villiany.

Want examples? An automated sweep bounced Bitmob’s own Andrew Hiscock because he used his real name...not in his gamertag, mind you, but in his account information. Last February, moderators banned some kid from Xbox Live until the year 9999 for waving his three-piece set in front of the camera instead of just saying “Uno.”

That's actually pretty funny, but it’s also representative of a slapdash approach. For every underage exhibitionist locked out until the 10,000th Century, several hundred swastika-bearing players (courtesy of a dozen YouTube how-to videos) roam Black Ops multiplayer. They're not worried about bans. Why should they be? Over 23 million people use Live, operating 24/7 in multiple languages. That’s a tough population to keep track of and an easy place to hide.

I don't doubt Toulouse and his moderators would ban those jerks in a heartbeat, but first they have to find said jerks. And for the most part, they're not really looking.
 
Monitoring systems automatically tag and suspend accounts containing a preset list of words -- like Hiscock, Gaylord, or Asscherick -- whether or not they're legitimate uses. For issues like images and behavior, the onus is on gamers to report violations. Patrolling moderators can't cover everything, and that's led to overdependence on the community to police itself.
 
Only gamers aren’t on Live to play cops.

Yep, this guy looks pretty banned to me.

We should take responsibility for the community we want, but really, we're just trying to have a good time. Things must escalate way too far to prompt any action and then...nothing happens. Moderators read the report hours or days later and maybe act on it, but you'll never know. Even when the system's effective, it feels ineffective.

So if Toulouse honestly wants his division to be as decisive as he sounds, it's time to stop screwing around. Instead of random patrols, make it possible to summon a moderator to a troubled match. In addition to timed bans, add permanent, game-specific lockouts to the arsenal. Have a dedicated, substantive vetting and arbitration process for auto-tagged offenders. And if you really want to do something about the kiddies using language a lot bigger than they are, start contacting the account's credit card holder to explain the ban.

We're paying for this service. We absolutely have a role to play, but it shouldn't be entirely up to us to correct gross moderator mistakes or to do their job. Or if it is, then Toulouse should stop issuing such absolute proclamations, because it's not his call anymore. We'll decide what is and isn't acceptable.

Authority goes to those who take responsibility. So everyone...anyone...step up or shut up.