I'll be honest, I don't actually know how bans previously worked on Steam for third-party games, but Valve recently announced they will be handing the power to ban "disruptive" players to the developers themselves. The original post, found here, has been quoted below for your convenience:

What is Game Ban?

Banned by Game Developer (Game Ban)

Because nobody likes playing with cheaters.

Playing games should be fun. In order to ensure the best possible online multiplayer experience, Valve allows developers to implement their own systems that detect and permanently ban any disruptive players, such as those using cheats.

Game developers inform Valve when a disruptive player has been detected in their game, and Valve applies the game ban to the account. The game developer is solely responsible for the decision to apply a game ban. Valve only enforces the game ban as instructed by the game developer.

For more information about a game ban in a specific game, please contact the developer of that game.

The implication is that if a dev determines you're a disruptive player (for whatever reason), your name will be fired off to Valve at which point a presumably automated system will issue a game-ban to your Steam account, preventing you from accessing online play. While concerns have been raised over the vagueness of what may or may not be considered "disruptive", I would assume that no one has a more vested interest in preserving the integrity of an online community than the developers themselves. Given the insane backlash over the recent experiment with paid mods in Skyrim, I'm curious to see how the internet reacts to this one.

As far as I know, bans have always been handled automatically through whatever anti-cheat system (Steam VAC, or third party) the developer has implemented into their game. The potential problem with this new feature is that it appears to go beyond just cheating, as the "disruptive players" description would infer. Meaning that a developer can now ban any player for any reason, not just hacking/cheating. However, many third-party anti-cheat systems probably already have a feature like this. So this is probably just something new for those using just steamworks in their games.

@icyeyes: Thanks, I'll edit the OP to reflect that.

@icyeyes: Is that a real problem though? Yes it could be abused but I think disruptive is a great reason to ban someone. If you are an asshole in League and you get X number of complaints, you can get banned. Has nothing to do with cheating. You seem to be saying that cheating is the only good reason to ban someone...which... I don't agree with at all and am happy Valve doesn't either.

As a developer, the ability to ban people (either permanently or temporarily) for being awful racists or what have you and in general just ruining other people's time sounds awesome. 100% You should still have your own systems in place so that you aren't acting on anecdotal evidence (again complaint systems, etc) or just following your own bias.

Generally speaking devs want as many people as possible playing their game, so I can't imagine why they would be trigger happy with the feature, especially knowing how loud those who get banned can be.

@geraltitude: I was not trying to say that this was a negative thing. Developers should have full control over their game, especially the online component. By "potential problem" I mean that this could lead to another classic internet controversy if lots of players start getting banned for reasons they deem invalid and decide to get on the rage train or make a petition to stop it, etc. etc.

I don't have any problem with this, really but due to some recent experience in CS:GO I have reason to believe that some players are pretty compliant happy and are willing to send reports for pretty dumb reasons. If the 3rd party options are totally computer automized I can see this causing some problems.

It seems like it would work well for games like DayZ where cheating is pretty rampant. If some developer decided to start banning people for no good reason, then that's more an issue with that developer rather than the policy.

I have no real issues with this, so long as all of the complaints about users being disruptive get properly vetted. Some may not mind overly aggressive, sexist, racist, all around nasty people in their games, whether on the same team or as an opponent, but the less people I have in contact with like that in my daily life, the better. I would certainly use features to report people being disruptive to the game devs. People shouldn't have carte blanche to be jerks just because they can be jerks.

Sounds great to me. I've never been banned and I never will be banned because I act like a reasonable human being in games online. Most people who complain about being banned from a game usually deserved it.

Does it only ban on a game-level, unlike a VAC ban? If so then I guess it's whatever, though I've always been a person who thought that banning for anything other than cheating was dumb. I find it incredibly easy to just ignore someone who's being an ass.

I'm hoping that if this does get implemented they do their thorough research before outright banning someone from a game. I've read some cases on game forums where a group of people associated with one another would conspire together just to get someone banned.

Hopefully with all this it will just lead to more civility online and makes people second guess before they do something dumb.

I think I speak for many when I say that having to witness all sorts of bigotry and general shitiness is a big part of why I avoid many multiplayer games with a chat, voice, or even some sort of direct messaging system. Knowing that a dev was being personally proactive to remove those people from the experience would go a long way towards making me more interested in those games.

Kudos to Valve for giving devs more individual control!

If that sort of thing bothers you, mute all voice chat, put tape over your screen where the chatbox is, and never go outside. The beautiful, ridiculous chaos of the silly, stupid things you see, hear, and read in online games is one of the only few reasons I go into games without my friends any more. It can be much more fun to chat with other players and make fun of morons crying in about "hax" and stuff than playing an online game properly, especially if it's an MMO you've been playing for years.

If I'm cheating, VAC will detect it, and I hope won't ban me for using my gaming mouse/keyboard drivers and/or writing AutoHotKey scripts when games won't let me remap keys how I like. If I'm just typing shit, then fuck off, especially if it's an M-rated game. If I'm shooting people in the face and wholesale massacring my fellow man in-game during regular gameplay, then who cares if someone calls me a punk bitch? I sure's hell don't, and if you do, you probably shouldn't be playing online to begin with.

If, say, and admin doesn't like me making political jokes or socioeconomic comments in his TF2 server, sure, he can give me a warning -- and also get that stick out of his ass. But a game-wide ban for something as vague (and/or bullshit) as "disruptive" behavior? That's complete crap, and a good reason to not pay for that game.

@1337w422102: If a dev banning players for being racist/sexist/homophobic makes you not want to play their games, I'm guessing you probably won't be missed either.

Makes me wonder if we'll see devs of shitty/copycat early access/greenlight games ban players just for calling them out on it or leaving a negative review or something. Ideally you wouldn't want them to be able to ban anyone without a valid reason/proof of misconduct.

Great news. There needs to be more consequences for shitty behaviour.

These bans are on a per game basis. I don't think Valve trusts any other developer/publisher enough to grant them the power to do a system-wide ban across all Steam games.

@ajamafalous: I 100% agree it is easy as heck to just ignore jerks, but if you don't teach them a lesson, why would they ever learn? on GB we don't ignore assholes. We ban them. I'm sure the mods do their research, give them a chance, etc. But why would someone ever change how they act or realize it's wrong if no one tells them? And shit even if they don't learn that 1 time isn't A Reaction better than No Reaction?

@1337w422102: there's a huge difference between off color comments, jokes, challenging each other, vulgarity, sexually explicit comments, and actual UGLY SHIT. Most of everything you referenced is just childish, and not worth banning people over. The mute button was invented for that. Someone who is constantly, systemically, spewing hate speech and is reported about consistently can just be wiped from the face of the game permanently. Fuck those people.

It's not even a game-level ban as I understand it, it's a game multiplayer ban. You can still play offline / singleplayer.

@icyeyes: oh then you are *very right* - no DOUBT it will lead to internet controversy. Now's the time for peeps to come out of the woodwork to defend their right to be funny jerks and Oh Gosh Corrupt Devs etc. Unfortunately there will be some wrongful bannings but really I just can't imagine most game devs going out of their to ban people. It's a lot of effort and time to research how valid it is and I think in the end this will probably help the bigger games more than the small ones. Games where they have good reporting systems can now act faster than needing to report to Valve, that's the big gain I think.

I'm not saying I do that sorta stuff myself, just that the presence of it isn't in and of itself a problem. It's a part of the unbridled chaos of online gaming, and that Wild West attitude is part of what makes gaming such a unique and exciting medium. It's always fun to jump into global chat and, with a bunch of other players, make fun of asshats who accuse others of being hacking African-American homosexuals, and other such tomfoolery.

Furthermore, it's not necessarily racist/sexist/homophobic at all. Context matters. If someone calls me a lucky cunt for dodging a rocket while pulling some ridiculous car stunt and surviving, or a friend tells me not be a bitch for dodging instead of countering (etc.), there's nothing wrong with that, especially given the context of the game in question. There might be a lot more vile crap in an M-rated game than you'd find in run-of-the-mill trash talk that doesn't have to be in bad nature, even if it might be in bad taste.

Also, what does "disruptive" mean, exactly? Am I going to get banned for "feeding" in Dota, or for trading paint in iRacing? Know what I mean?

The human factor is what keeps games interesting. If you're going to interact with other people, take the good with the bad, or use the tools at your disposal to hide the bad from you (mute all mics, hide the chatbox, etc.), even at the risk of hindering your own gameplay experience (not being able to communicate with your teammates, for example). There's always botmatching if you don't want human interaction.

A player getting warnings when other players report them, or when they are using cheating software, sure. That makes sense. Banning for something as vague and grey as "disruptive" behaviour doesn't.

This was my concern as well. I hope there is some burden of proof for a developer to ban someone (a screenshot or game log would be great). I'm all for banning people who don't know how to respectfully interact with other people, but simply writing a negative review is not disruptive.

Wow. Just the threat of that kind of thing happening and it's already hypothetically keeping away folks with attitudes that I'd rather not play with. Thanks Valve!

I discussed this in the other thread about this news:

This kind of thing doesn't open up a bunch of new shady possibilities, we've already seen this kind of stupid Steam censoring happen. Devs already have control of deleting any posts for any reason in their game's message boards on Steam. Some have abused that, and surprise... people took screenshots of all the stuff that they've tried to delete and those devs were made a public mockery of.

Coming from a year where harassment in the video game sphere reached an all-time disgusting high. Valve giving devs the power to personally and expediently keep their in game experience free from that shit is something to be celebrated.

That Kotaku article's Fox news-esque fear mongery question of, "But will every game developer use its newfound permabanning powers responsibly?", has a clear answer. No. Some of them will abuse it because they're idiots. But as soon as they do, everyone will know about it.

There is one benefit to the dangerous mob mentality that the internet fosters... folks just can't get away with that shit anymore.

Again, not what I mean. What, exactly, is being "disruptive"? If it's just a matter of language, that doesn't really matter when there are ignore/mute/report commands and/or a game is rated M and full of coarse language in the first place. But if isn't just language, does that include playing the game "wrong"? Projectile spam in a fighting game? Taking too long in a turn-based game?

Also, there's a lot of room for abuse, here. Say I put up a review of the game that isn't favourable, or someone does a livestream and makes fun of it. Say the devs don't like that. Say they see that sort of thing as "disruptive" and ban us that way. That ain't right.

the people you interact with online are people and being a jerk online should have consequneces.

people fighting to keep every part of the itnernet as the wild west need to get over it.

I believe in a free internet. and that means companies or websites doing what they want in their communities. if people dont like it go someone else

shitty people is a big reason why I dont play online. this is great news

@joshwent: We'll see. Not every game or developer is going to have Jim Sterling taking them to task about their behaviour. I know deleting comments has already happened but A) That's quite different from permabanning someone from playing your game and B) None of that addresses the inherent problem with this system. Accountability.

A lot has been said about ways to increase accountability online, this system is not a very good example of it.

I hear ya, duder, but couldn't those people have been banned through normal, in-game means, anyway? That's why there are reporting menus in games. A "game ban," which I assume would make you unable to even launch the game at all, just sounds beyond reasonable.

I see this as ripe for abuse. "That guy gave us a negative Steam review -- ban him!" "That dude a Steam discussion about a crippling issue -- ban him!" Know what I mean?

Actually as far I understand the rules, game devs can only ban you from their multiplayer. You can still play the game offline and in singleplayer. That's why as much I do agree there is potential for abuse, it would be a bit odd to use it for vengeance, you know what I mean? Once you buy a game on Steam, you are entitled to play it, even after a multiplayer ban. Now if the game is only multiplayer then yeah that's a huuuge bummer. So I see where you are coming from but I think the vast majority of developers want as many players as possible, both small devs and big devs. If devs are abusing it, I find it hard to believe that in this day and age the issue won't come to the surface - as @joshwent pointed out, corrupt devs have already had the spotlight shone on them for something as "innocent" as deleting review comments. Banning someone for nothing seems like asking for the internet to light you up. Definitely I think we'll get some edge cases "should they have been banned?" but you'd assume/hope devs are just going after the extreme cases. I don't know about the details of the banning system in terms of permanence, but I'd also assume/hope it can be timed, as many ban systems are.

I agree with you about the Wild West of Games, but I don't see this as a Police to fight that.

Currently when you are reported through in-game systems the results go to the Developer. Then they need to take all of that and go to Valve and ask for a ban for that person, for their game. This system is a shortcut, which will allow the Developer to make the decision on their own. The only difference here is Valve doesn't need to act as the "Final Signature".

Edit: I guess the question for me is, What does a developer have to gain by banning someone for no reason other than an ego trip? I don't think it's impossible, and I think it will happen, but there is some good to this system too.

@hassun is right about accountability, but I'd ask: was there *more* accountability before this system? Is Valve best positioned in terms of resources, technology and experience to make all final decisions about banning people based on their behavior in and around Steam games?

Ignore/mute options are only reactive, not preventative. I'm happy for you if you're easily able to ignore certain speech in multiplayer games. You've probably had a lot more fun online than I've been able to. But some things I can't "ignore" and the onus should never be on me or others to have to proactively avoid bigotry. If I'm playing a game and constantly called "fucking faggot", blocking that person doesn't solve that situation. It's just me doing more work to postpone the inevitable shit I see all the time.

As for play style, I'm completely fine with "disruptive" players getting banned. Trolling is widely celebrated online, but it fucking sucks when you're the butt of the joke. I agree that disruptive playing is very subjective, and ideally devs will make effective appeal processes or some system of warnings. But if there are folks who are playing a game with me to just piss everyone off for their own amusement, get them the fuck out.

Also, there's a lot of room for abuse, here. Say I put up a review of the game that isn't favourable, or someone does a livestream and makes fun of it. Say the devs don't like that. Say they see that sort of thing as "disruptive" and ban us that way. That ain't right.

I agree 100%. And it could totally happen, and probably will. But that won't end well for those devs.

See my reply to Hassun above.

I'm not really sure what you mean. Accountability for the players or the devs? Could you elaborate?

Of course not, unless the dev is a major idiot because anyone with half a brain knows that the backlash for that sort of abuse would be massive. You're making a pretty big leap, going from additional flexibility for devs to protect their online communities to Orwellian dystopia.

And because you mentioned it in a reply to someone else, to my knowledge this style of game ban only applies to playing online. I could be mistaken but that's my understanding.

EDIT:

Furthermore, it's not necessarily racist/sexist/homophobic at all. Context matters. If someone calls me a lucky cunt for dodging a rocket while pulling some ridiculous car stunt and surviving, or a friend tells me not be a bitch for dodging instead of countering (etc.), there's nothing wrong with that, especially given the context of the game in question. There might be a lot more vile crap in an M-rated game than you'd find in run-of-the-mill trash talk that doesn't have to be in bad nature, even if it might be in bad taste.

To be clear, are you arguing that we shouldn't ban anyone for being racist/sexist/homophobic because we might accidentally ban someone who was only being racist/sexist/homophobic by accident? And are you basing this on the assumption that the dev would just blanket ban anyone the instant they said anything even potentially of that nature without taking any intermediary steps?

Yeah I'm all for this. What the cheaters get out of playing like this I don't know.

Fun and enjoyment if I had to wager a guess.

EDIT: Maybe a grim satisfaction?

@geraltitude:I think they could have a lot to gain by banning someone. Shutting down dissent before the it spreads, like the people banned from the Five Nights at Freddy's Steam forums for discussing the rapid release of the games in that series. I could also see it as a publicity thing. "This guy on youtube called our protagonist a bitch; that means he hates women so we're banning him!" Granted, those might be exaggerations. I just hope they remain exaggerations.

As for devs doing the right thing, I really don't have faith in that. Just look at Early Access and Greenlight and the plethora of hot garbage there, you know? Of course there's good stuff there and there is still good in people, but I wouldn't be surprised if some little outfit whose game isn't fit for Newgrounds tries to silence people by banning negative reviewers from the forums and possibly in-game.

@joshwent: I hear you, man, and I'm not trying to be a dick, but I think the key word is "inevitable." How are the devs supposed to know the guy called you a "fucking [MOD EDIT - this language is not allowed in any context on GB]" if you don't report him? And it's going to take people reporting annoying dudes for this system to work at all, otherwise it's just going to keep happening. It's inevitable.

And there's nothing wrong with some good old-fashioned trolling, when/if done right. Be proactive: if you see people having fun and doesn't line up with your idea of fun, jump sessions, find another room, and/or just play with your friends, so you guys will have a good time together, know what I mean? Sometimes playing a game "wrong," or finding alternate ways to have fun can be way more fun than just playing the game properly. It's not every race where people drive the wrong way, or every match where people teamkill, you know?

An example: my friends and I have been playing APB for about 4 or 5 years now (I know, I know...), and sometimes, to get away from the often-repetitive PvP-focused gameplay, we race around the open world in heavy-hitting garbage trucks. Each world holds up to 100 players, so naturally, other players find themselves on the wrong end of four heavy industrial vehicles redlining it down the main, and sometimes, other players (some of them possibly on missions) get killed by us during our races. Sometimes, players use the world's stunt ramps to jump cars onto buildings and drive around in challenging rooftop races. Again, sometimes other players get killed in the process. Is this disruptive, or just members of the community finding unconventional ways to have fun in the game world? Besides, whenever I'm in a session and see other players racing dump trucks and don't want to risk them interfering with my playing the game "right," all I have to do is join another session, you know?

I just don't see the need for this Game Ban system. Any game worth its salt already HAS a system in place for reporting, suspending, and banning users.

Hey cool, I've stopped playing most PC multi-player games because of people I would call disruptive, people being pricks either through chat(text or microphone) grief or game-play grief

So this seems like a step in the right direction

I don't see the problem with this. Don't be a dick online and you won't be banned. It isn't that hard.

Or don't write a negative review of a product put out by a hack developer.

Niceness should be encouraged, but discouraging meanness is a satisfactory stopgap.

@starvinggamer: I'm hoping there are intermediate steps, but that's the thing. Are there Steam Game Suspensions? Steam Game Warnings? Probably not, because they aren't needed, because online games already have reporting systems, and temporary suspensions, and banning of players in-game in the first place. Why is this needed at a Steam-level?

I think I'm missing something. This system allows a dev contact to Valve and that prevents said user from being able to launch a game... I think? Why is that necessary, as a would already have a player-reporting system in-game, and ways to ban players? Unless we assume it to be deeper than than just the game, but the Steam ecosystem as a whole. We've heard the stories of posts and threads vanishing from Steam forums by devs trying to prevent negative discussions about their game. Could this extend to a Game Ban, by saying that "such and such a user is disruptive by trying to discredit us," or something of that nature?

Sure, I'm dwelling on the bad side, but that's because games already have the means to suspend and ban players for cheating, violating the TOS, and other valid reasons. Why is this Game Ban thing even a thing?

I am eagerly all for these systems existing, I just also hope there are systems in place for challenging the bans. I imagine there will be, considering even League of Legends has that, and that player-base is possibly more hideously toxic than the worst-of-the-worst from Tumblr, Twitter and the various *chans combined.

Developers definitely have the right to control their content, true, but consumers deserve full communication on what will initiate a ban. The EULA and the TOS can be written vaguely enough to ban anyone for anything. I think for this system to work you would need a specific outline of what would go into getting you banned, how the system would work, before you make a purchase, and clear indication of how close you are to getting banned if you've bought the game.

this is the right move. it's how most non-steam games operate by necessity anyway (see: world of warcraft or starcraft 2 or League)- don't be a jerk and you'll be fine.

"disruptive" is a huge grey area. That being said, developers will only ban people from playing online in extreme circumstances because it's not in their best interest to depopulate the userbase for online games. They will straight up lose money by laying down blanket bans, so I'm confident that only the legitimately disruptive people will get booted off. "disruptive" meaning that you're either spouting racist/homophobic/sexist trash, griefing everybody and cheating.

Whenever I think of "old-fashioned trolling", I think of the most mean-spirited 4chan-influenced 14 year old kid parroting off some seriously racist terms or just spamming the chatbox with swastikas. Yes, there is something wrong with that and it's not funny. If anything I just take pity on those people for being adults and still "trolling" people on the internet. Grow up.

@korwin: Think about it. If a developer did that, it would be a PR nightmare. Nothing is a secret on the internet anymore. It would be the top post any gaming subreddit: "I got banned from 'X' game because I wrote a negative review." There goes your entire potential audience to purchase your game.

That's not what I meant and even provided a paragraph-length example of what I meant.

Only those in-the-know enough would know about that. For other people, it might be, "Hey, here's an Early Access game that sounds promising and I'm certain will be regularly updated and eventually finished! Look at all those features they plan on adding! Why, yes, I WILL buy the four-pack!"

The roots of trolling are inherently disgusting and intensely dehumanizing. Speaking as someone who witnessed and, with much shame these days, once took part in 'trolling events', the people who speak of 'good old fashioned trolling' either have no idea what its history really is or are actually disgusting humans. So yeah, YOU mean just silly goofs and misdirection to make people look foolish. But old-school trolling was sending pictures of dead teenagers to their parents. Old trolling was sharing videos of guys who killed themselves for Bjork. Old trolling was filling threads with Japanese crush videos of small animals.

Not even 4chan does 'Old fashioned trolling' anymore. That's some Deep Web shit. So go ahead and use Trolling in the common vernacular, but don't append the modifier 'old fashioned' unless you really, desperately desire to be misinterpreted.

Yeah, I read it and it was just you making up excuses for why you should have permission to grief people and if they don't like it, they should leave the room.

You're exactly the type of person I just described. One of the types of people who still thinks the internet is the wild west and that there should be no consequences for being a dick. Hopefully you'll be at the mercy of a disruptive player ban in the future.

Yep, there will always be those consumers. There will also be those consumers that will always pre-order. I think consumers like that don't mind being burned all the time by developers, so there is nothing that can be done to change their mind. I think more and more people are willing to do five minutes of research on a game before purchasing, especially in this day of video coverage.

@geraltitude: That's an easy question to answer: No there wasn't more accountability before this system. But this system doesn't really address it.

Developers have been looking for ways to keep their communities healthy for a long time now. Multiplayer-focused games are obviously especially vulnerable to being negatively impacted by assholes. I have no problem with Valve giving developers more options to keep the scumbags out. I'm just not entirely convinced that giving developers carte blanche is the best solution.

We've all known for a while now that Valve intends decrease its own responsibility in these matters but that is a delicate process.

@joshwent: Everyone. People in general. Doesn't matter if you're a developer or not.

@crembaw:I meant "classic bait-and-switch" type stuff, like making Counter-Strike sprays that looked like enemy characters, or ones specifically to distract.

@456nto: When a game is an online playground of chaos (as is the case in games like APB, as mentioned above, or Just Cause 2 Multiplayer, or GTA Online, or Planetside 2, Dust 514, etc.), you have to expect the unexpected. There's nothing wrong with unconventional gameplay, like APB rooftop races, or Planetside 2 stunts. Again, if you don't want the random, human factor, just play with a group of friends. If other people are finding new ways to enjoy a game, you don't have to be a part of that, and that's fine, too. And you have the freedom to leave the room and should always make use of that. Say it's a map you don't like, or a game mode you don't like, or people of much higher skill than you -- all valid reasons to leave a room. If I jump into a random public GTA Online session and see three helicopters and a few tanks, I might leave, too, at risk of getting blown up. If the helicopter pilots want to just fly around blowing stuff up, it's their business, and that's totally all right. But if I don't want to be a part of that, no problem. I'll just go to another session, or even better, create a private session and just play with friends or clanmates.

@brandondryrock: I understand what you mean, and I hope you're right. I just don't see the need for this as games already have Terms of Services and suspend/ban people all the time, and this seems like it could abused.

@1337w422102: I think it might be an issue based on the information on this thread, but the Game Ban is mainly designed for cheaters, not those spouting nonsense on the internet. The major game that this system is being used for is currently Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, which has a internal "overwatch" system where users can ban players who are suspected of cheating. This system is supposed to get the most obvious of cheaters, and it takes multiple reports, and many reviews by users to get overwatch banned.

Players in CS:GO in very rare instances do get overwatch banned for being "majorily disruptive," (ie griefing/racism/etc) but those players have not received the Game Bans on their steam profile like those who were overwatch banned for cheating. This Game Ban system is primarily aimed at those who blatantly cheat and can't get picked up on VAC, not the scum of the internet.

Ultimately, most developers look at the online aspect of their game as a service they are providing, and thus can deny you that service if you fail to meet the standards set forth in the EULA. I'm glad Steam is doing this, as it makes it easier to spot out the assholes on the internet.

Let's break this down.

You use the euphemisms "unconventional gameplay" and "new ways to enjoy a game" for "griefing". If people don't like your griefing, they should leave and create a private session.

Let me ask you this question - why don't you create a private session right off the bat with all of your griefer buddies and not subject random people to your bad behaviour? I'll answer the question for you - "griefing friends isn't funny, griefing strangers and getting a reaction out of them is".

By all means, go ahead and continue being a dick on multiplayer games. Just don't cry about it when you finally get held accountable for it.