Proposal for Expanding Moderation Features to Ensure Safe Spaces in VRChat
やがて捨てられる補助輪
- Background and Current Issues (Risks to be Resolved)
Under the current specifications of VRChat (such as the Group Public instance system), there is a critical blind spot that prevents world creators and administrators from stopping organized and malicious harassment by bad actors (trolls).
No matter how strictly a world administration enforces moderation (such as bans) within their own instances, trolls can deliberately create a lawless environment out of the administrators' reach simply by "launching their own separate Group Public instances for that same world." The following severe damages are actually occurring as a result:
Indiscriminate full-screen projection of sexually explicit videos (forced visual harassment).
The use of avatars and gimmicks that generate disruptive noise or cause the application to crash
Placement and drawing of hate speech, discriminatory language, and symbols.
Defamation and dissemination of false information targeting specific individuals or organizations.
Organized swarming and verbal abuse directed at world creators and administrators.
Two Major Risks to Platform Operations
Contradiction with the "Zero-Tolerance Policy" When the aforementioned acts are committed in spaces accessible to an unspecified number of general users, such as Public or Group Public instances, unrelated third parties become victims. If minors are exposed to this, it directly contradicts VRChat’s own core policy of "zero tolerance for child sexual exploitation and abuse."
Negative Impact on BtoB Strategy and Corporate Participation An environment where such harassment and violations of public order are easily left unchecked significantly hinders the participation of corporations, governments, and educational institutions (the expansion of the metaverse business). This leads to a degradation of the entire platform's brand image and creates a breeding ground for economic loss.
- Proposed Solutions: Devolution of Authority to World Creators (Three New Features)
To address the current reality where official moderation cannot keep up, we propose granting world creators a "graduated authority to restrict instance creation," enabling rapid and flexible responses.
(1) "Default Instance Configuration" Specification for Worlds
A feature that allows world creators (or their official groups) to specify and restrict the baseline instance settings allowed for their world. By implementing this across multiple worlds, creators can share a common ban list (moderation data from trusted groups) to stop trolls at the threshold.
(2) "Allowed Groups (Whitelist)" Setting for Worlds
A mechanism that grants the authority to create and use instances only to groups whose safety has been verified and who comply with the world's regulations and guidelines.
(3) "Banned Groups (Blacklist / BAN Group)" Setting for Worlds
A feature that allows world creators to designate specific malicious groups that act as breeding grounds for harassment, completely prohibiting them from creating any instances for that specific world.
- Benefits and Expected Effects of This Proposal
Reduction of the Burden on Official Operations (Decentralized Autonomous Moderation) Communities will be able to respond swiftly without waiting for official moderation intervention. Furthermore, this reduces the need for VRChat moderation to intervene in or arbitrate interpersonal disputes, leading to a direct reduction in operational costs.
Advanced Balancing of "Diversity" and "Safety" This proposal does not restrict user freedom. Even with these restrictions in place, private and semi-private instances such as Invite(+), Friend(+), and Group(+) can still be created freely. It does not block access to the world itself; it merely controls access privileges to spaces where an unspecified number of unrelated players could be dragged into harmful situations.
Conclusion
This proposal represents the most realistic and optimal solution to maximize the balance between "the freedom of the platform" and "the safety and dignity of general users."
To realize a metaverse environment where creators can provide content with peace of mind and general players can spend their time safely with their dignity protected, we sincerely urge you to consider implementing these features.
Log In
Jockey_Strapper
There most definitly needs to be at least some organized action taken against the users of the h/e/x/e/d/./c/c/ client. It is becoming a more obvious problem and this same client service is also selling stolen vrc accounts and grabbing very sensitive information off other users. They even can defeat attempts to block them. it's become a nuisance just hearing about them daily.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Jockey_Strapper
Yes, the Canny proposal here can serve as an effective countermeasure against the recent large-scale automated bot issue and its associated risks.
I believe this is essential for users to be able to enjoy VRChat with peace of mind.
Even if you block someone, simply sharing the same instance allows them to scrape data such as avatars, voice data, and geographic location. Having features like this permanently implemented provides a viable option to "prevent unauthorized entry into instances" in the first place.
I consider this a crucial defensive measure to bridge the gap until the official VRChat team implements a definitive solution.
Jarnefeldt
I’ve got a variety of concerns about this proposal, mainly around how these new powers could be misused and how they fit with VRChat’s existing moderation system.
- What stops people from abusing this?
How do you plan to prevent users from banning others with no real rhyme or reason? This includes banning based on race, ethnicity, religion or other protected traits?
- “Doesn’t restrict user freedom” really? I think you're being a little dishonest here.
The proposal says it doesn't restrict freedom, but when you give world creators the ability to share huge ban lists that block people from tons of worlds that is absolutely a restriction.
- VRChat already has moderation, is it not enough?
VRChat already has a reporting system for rule-breaking.
Is it working or is it failing? Do you have issue with this system?
If so what specifically needs to be improved?
It's confusing why world creators should be the one acting as Judge, Jury, and Executioner instead of the VRChat trained moderation staff.
- VRChat already enforces zero tolerance
VRChat has shown to enforce their zero-tolerance policy relatively consistently. For example, VRChat is quite favourable to Japanese users, but despite that a user who put that he was 7-8 years old in their profile was permanently banned. Many users tried to help him get unbanned but VRChat seemingly stuck to their policy.
So if VRChat already takes actions when possible minors are involved, why is extra creator-level enforcement needed?
- The proposal itself raises new risks
The issues listed like trolls making their own Group Public instances, harassment, disruptive avatars, they are problems in their own right.
But your proposal introduces new issues namely:
- Shared ban lists can be weaponised.
- Whitelists can become cliques.
- Blacklists can be used to silence communities.
- Trusted groups is vague and can quickly become exclusionary if not handled correctly.
I dont believe world creators should have moderation power. An impartial outside entity should have this power. Which is why VRChat developers do not have the ability to ban users and its solely entrusted to their moderation team.
You claim to balance freedom and safety whilst giving moderation powers to world creators. So why should world creators who aren't bound by any professional standard be giving this level of authority instead of VRChat's actual moderation team?
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Jarnefeldt
First and foremost, I deeply value both the safety of users and the rights and dignity of world creators.
Furthermore, I still remember your past actions—how you disrespected the rights and dignity of mio, an incredible avatar creator, and cornered her.
It is with that in mind that I am providing my response.
Regarding your concerns numbered 1 through 5, I have already addressed them in my previous exchanges with others.
Please re-read those posts.
If you still do not understand, feel free to ask again.
However, if you do, please explicitly state which specific parts you failed to understand.
I have no intention of spending an unlimited amount of time on what comes across as harassing complaints.
VRChat is a platform that highly values creativity.
World creators are creators as well.
Why is it that, despite being a secondary consumer and someone who free-rides rather than creates, you repeatedly attempt to usurp authority over creators?
Why do you place your own desires above the dignity of creators and try to justify it with plausible-sounding rhetoric?
It deeply pains me that mio stopped releasing her avatars.
I am profoundly saddened that a wonderful creator was forced to step away from her activities.
And I feel genuine indignation toward you for driving her to that point over a prolonged period.
It appears to me that you are trying to repeat the exact same pattern here.
Who is your activity really for?
What is its purpose?
What I am seeking is a platform and options where both creators and users can operate with peace of mind.
What about you?
If your argument simply boils down to "Don't restrict me because I want to do whatever I please," then please just say so directly.
My answer to that will simply be "No."
Jarnefeldt
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Your passive aggressive tone does not help your case and further shows the lack of tact. I'll keep the answers to the accusations to myself short.
We've worked with EXTENSION, Keenoo, Paryi, Fujiyama, VisionTokyo, VRSuya, Triturbo, Killnya, SKYMYworkshop, Cluehour Studio, and many others.
We have our own dedicated advertisement team.
We have 3d Modellers who worked on 3D avatars made for Hololive, developers who work in the games industry, and vtuber artists who work on various solo vtubers too such as Sauri and Zentreya.
We are setting up group collaborations with Sara Club and a few other club owners.
We're a seasoned veteran who's worked with nearly every large BOOTH creator in some sort of capacity.
I'm also friends with some VRChat staff members though this is strictly a personal friend related relationship. I wont elaborate more on that.
And due to the free market, my audience which is primarily Japanese heavily support my activities. Which is how I've expanded so much.
Mio3io and Hajime Idei entered a lawsuit on their own accord aiming to take down my shop over false copyright claims which BOOTH changed their own TOS due to the malicious behaviour exhibited by Mio3io. Which many BOOTH creators thanked me for.
With that out of the way, i think its safe to see by the broader English speaking public that you dont actually want to use these features to protect children. It seems like you want to exclude people from entering worlds by creating a generalised blacklist from people you dislike.
People like me am I right?
You can be honest. Afterall VRChat staff is going to reading this and with it your intentions.
With that said on your Twitter it seems you think that blocking users from entering worlds will stop avatar ripping. Well, the users entering these worlds are doing so to get your name. With your name they can then rip your avatar without being in your instance. Once they have a database of names they no longer need to be in your world.
Your idea does nothing for safety and is a thinly veiled action of exclusion under the idea of child safety.
All i can see is giving moderation tools to world creators because the assumption is that VRChat staff are useless?
Or am i wrong?
Please be aware i read all your comments, your Twitter posts and your NOTE. I wrote these questions because they weren't answered.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Jarnefeldt
(1/n)
To clarify, I would like to confirm the main points of criticism or counterarguments you raised against this Canny proposal from your latest reply. Are they as follows?
That I believe this Canny proposal will completely stop avatar ripping (i.e., that it is a silver bullet/foolproof solution).
That I am requesting moderation tools simply because I view the official VRChat staff as useless/unnecessary.
That I intend to use these features merely to exclude people I personally dislike.
First, regarding your first point: The features requested in this Canny proposal are by no means intended solely as a countermeasure against avatar ripping.
Our primary objective is to prevent damages caused by various forms of trolling, harassment, or individuals who cause disruptions without even realizing they are being a nuisance. Expecting a degree of effectiveness against automated bots, as mentioned on X (formerly Twitter), is merely a secondary benefit.
Furthermore, I have already explicitly acknowledged the limitations of this feature myself, recognizing that bad actors can bypass certain restrictions by methods such as creating new accounts.
Even so, we believe this remains a useful and rational countermeasure for protecting people from immediate harm right in front of them. The fact that it is not a complete, silver-bullet fix for avatar ripping does not render it meaningless or worthless.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Jarnefeldt
(2/n)
Next, regarding the official VRChat staff: I do not consider them useless by any means.
However, I do believe that official operations are struggling to keep up with the current reality.
And that is unavoidable.
Trolls are overwhelming in number, and they repeatedly engage in disruptive behavior using brand-new accounts.
There are also individuals whose communication style causes constant discomfort to others, even if they do not strictly break the TOS.
Moreover, communities have diverse levels of tolerance. Some people prefer a quiet and peaceful environment, while others enjoy chaotic energy.
It is simply unrealistic to regulate all of this under a single, rigid set of rules or standards.
There is a spectrum—a nuance—to how spaces are enjoyed.
To address these nuanced spaces flexibly and with immediate responsiveness, I believe a decentralized moderation model is the most suitable approach.
This operates as zoning, allowing different values to exist in spaces appropriate for them, thereby protecting diversity.
If this system functions properly, those who get excluded will be those who refuse to respect that diversity and attempt to infringe upon different values, those who intentionally cause trouble for others, or those who unintentionally cause persistent discomfort to those around them.
Entrusting a portion of this control to the community will ultimately help official staff allocate their limited resources toward more severe and urgent issues.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Jarnefeldt
(3/n)
Regarding your assumption that I intend to use these features simply to exclude people I dislike, that is unequivocally incorrect.
I evaluate actions.
My judgments are based on intent, repetitiveness, indiscriminateness, and the severity or magnitude of the harm caused.
Unfortunately for your argument, someone cannot end up on a ban list simply because I dislike them, or because they dislike me.
I place the utmost importance on whether an individual has engaged in disruptive behavior toward general users, or whether there is a clear risk of them doing so.
I do not view those with opposing views as targets for immediate exclusion. It is only natural for diverse opinions to exist.
With those specific points answered:
You claimed to be fully aware of all my posts. If that is true, you should be able to see that concerns similar or identical to points 1 through 5 you initially raised have already been thoroughly discussed in earlier exchanges.
I previously stated: "If there are parts you still do not understand, please point them out specifically."
My point was not that I refused to answer, but rather that the answers were already written there.
If you have truly read everything, you should already possess the necessary information and explanations.
If you still do not understand, I encourage you to re-read those comments. They have been addressed repeatedly in the comment section of this Canny post.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Jarnefeldt
(4/4)
Finally, thank you for your lengthy self-justification regarding the mio situation, the elaborate showcasing of your achievements, and your subtle hints regarding personal connections with official VRChat staff.
I must ask you: What was the purpose of displaying your achievements and standing to me?
Did you expect me to feel intimidated and fall silent because of them?
Regrettably, I have no intention of stepping onto that stage.
My focus remains steadfast: ensuring that users, creators, and the platform as a whole can enjoy this world safely without being threatened by force or intimidation.
And through that, I hope to see the VRChat platform and its community continue to thrive.
We all operate on top of VRChat as a platform.
Various creators exist here, including world creators and avatar creators.
Clothing creators, in turn, exist on the foundation provided by avatar creators.
Avatars are not born for the sake of clothing, nor was the platform created solely for avatars or worlds. That fundamental order does not reverse.
Of course, they are mutually essential to each other's growth and development.
That is precisely why mutual respect and consideration are desirable, and it is unacceptable for derivative/secondary creators to unfairly usurp rights from primary creators.
Whose interests—and what—does your argument serve to protect?
My goal in proposing this Canny has consistently been to empower users, creators, and the platform with options to protect their peace and safety.
What about you?
Jarnefeldt
やがて捨てられる補助輪
I'll be honest i read the first few lines and you didn't answer my question again but then i noticed there's like 4 comments that are massive and there's no way i'm reading all that.
I'm happy for you though, or i'm sorry that happened.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Jarnefeldt
If you have no intention of reading a lengthy explanation, you are simply not qualified to engage in a discussion here in the first place.
The questions 1 through 5 you initially raised have already been repeatedly addressed in previous exchanges with others, and because they require detailed explanations, the responses naturally become lengthy.
Reproducing those explanations just for you—when you clearly have no intention of properly reading and understanding them—does nothing but force me to waste useless effort and exhaust myself. It is nothing more than harassment.
That is precisely why I wrote what I did at the beginning:
"These have already been answered in past comments, so please read them. If you still do not understand, please ask specific questions. I have no intention of spending an unlimited amount of time on harassing complaints."
I wrote that because I fully anticipated this exact outcome.
I was essentially telling you in advance, "Don't resort to your usual tactics."
Regrettably, you went ahead and did it anyway.
Let me state this simply once more:
Go back and read what has already been written.
If there is something you still do not understand, ask a specific question about what exactly you failed to comprehend.
This is Canny—a space meant for discussing feature proposals—not a stage for you to show off your achievements and engage in self-justification.
Understanding and accepting this basic premise is the absolute starting point for any meaningful discussion.
Jarnefeldt
やがて捨てられる補助輪
I took the liberty to read your message since it wasn't as long.
You're on a English forum for feedback, with English developers, directing information in English that is not catering to an English audience or their social norms.
You are bringing up sensitive topics and painting it in a way that alienates the very people you are talking to.
Your post is being shared in various English speaking Discord communities of how you're being xenophobic, controlling, and weaponising systems for your own benefit. You don't know that the largest demographic of users who use Mio3io's avatars are not Japanese.
You have not answered my questions because you do not understand English nor the nuance of such questions because you have the reading and writing comprehension of a Plasticine potato.
---
Subnote not on topic.
I listed my accomplishments to show that I’ve worked successfully with many businesses and creators. It wasn’t bragging or being intimidating, it was proof that the claim that I “put my own desires above the dignity of creators” is false. If that were true, I wouldn’t have ongoing collaborations or partnerships. If you spoke English you would've understood this social cue.
You also said Mio3io stepped away from creating because of me. I didn’t start the copyright claim, Mio3io and Hajime Idei did. Mio3io had every chance to withdraw early, but instead continued with threats to permanently shut down my shop and take away my livelihood which left me no choice but to continue.
Only Mio3io is "putting his own desires above the dignity of creators". To the point he feels that destroying others businesses and livelihoods is a justifiable reason.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Jarnefeldt
As I am not a native English speaker and use AI to translate, read, and post replies, I would appreciate it if you could clarify something for me.
In your response posted about 20 hours ago, which specific part corresponds to a concrete question regarding this Canny proposal? I would be grateful if you could point that out.
By the way, this is Canny—a space meant for discussing feature proposals—not a stage for you to show off your achievements and engage in self-justification. I am more than willing to engage in constructive discussion regarding this Canny proposal.
I am a Japanese user, and I created this Canny proposal simply because I want an option that allows the VRChat platform, the creators active within it, and the users who enjoy it to spend their time with peace of mind.
If there was a clause stating that non-native English speakers are not allowed to participate, I apologize, as I must have overlooked it.
With that said, please go ahead with your specific questions.
zephyrblaze
Jarnefeldt "VRChat already has moderation" Then how come the vote kick never fucking works? How come I have to go to the official website every time I wanna report any of these losers for their behavior?
Jarnefeldt
zephyrblaze
Firstly you're misunderstanding what i'm saying. Vote kick is user moderation, and you're assuming Vote kick is VRChat moderation. Vote kick fucking sucks in public lobbies and my claim implies that moderation tools can be improved. Secondly your claim isn't true. It depends on the report option. If the data can't be verified through simple means of course it would need to be redirected to the website where you can upload that information.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
I'm a little busy this week but i'll write a detailed reply when i can.
Photo Viewer
View photos in a modal
Jarnefeldt
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Sorry for the late reply, this week hundreds of businesses, banks and other systems were getting hacked and i couldnt access the VRChat website due to a PHP exploit. Busy week... Now that the new VRChat Terms of Service (effective 23 October 2026) have been published, along with additional information regarding the various bot farm incidents, I feel I can more accurately explain my position and the concerns I have.
Please remember that this clarification is based on both your recent Twitter posts and the events that have unfolded over the past few weeks. I also have fairly extensive knowledge of the situation and the discussions surrounding it since I've been monitoring it quitely.
At the core, my concern is how should this proposal pass when it's at odds with VRChat own TOS and how to prevent abuse should it pass?
The questions I believe need clear answers are:
- How do we prevent ban lists from being weaponised?
- How do we prevent whitelists from evolving into exclusive cliques?
- How do we prevent blacklists from being used to silence communities or individuals?
Below is my thought process and why i'm asking these questions.
Jarnefeldt
Criticism and disagreement are completely acceptable. Harassment is not. How do we differentiate from this? This is why the report feature exists. A Block list removes that verification entirely.
I also believe the concept of "trusted groups" is currently too vague. World creators are not inherently trustworthy people. And i know the creator of Poppy Street would find great thrill in having me banned from that world. (It's a world i frequently hang out in with my japanese and international friends).
I believe world creators shouldnt have moderation powers at all. And it should be exclusive to VRChat staff. Please be aware the very nature of a shared block list or moderation tools for world creators is impossible to pass since VRChat own staff members do not have these powers out of fear of abuse.
Additionally my Japanese friends tell me that shared block lists are often distributed amongst japanese users in more "dangerous forum places" to silence unfavourable opinions or users they simply dont like. A good example is FC2 Wiki. I see a lot of peoples names on that place and such information being consistently untrue.
VRChat own TOS also has conflictions to this concern in Section 13.2(d) of the Terms of Service, which prohibits users from:
Posting, uploading, or distributing content that is unlawful, defamatory, inaccurate, objectionable, harassing, threatening, embarrassing, hateful, or otherwise inappropriate.
The important point here is that tools such as community-driven blacklist or moderation systems could themselves become objectionable, threatening, embarrassing, hateful, or otherwise inappropriate if misused.
This is why moderation tools are exclusive to staff members only as impartial judges. Even VRChat developers do not have moderation powers. If VRChat own staff do not have moderation powers, why should world creators?
From my perspective, any proposal that introduces additional moderation mechanisms should first demonstrate how it prevents these forms of abuse before it is considered appropriate for wider adoption.
Jarnefeldt
This is a subtext based on your argument on Twitter. You mention that creating this list would stop the bots. I saw a recent post of 15 accounts you found.
In my findings there is roughly 2000 accounts that are scraping data and more than 2 million avatars have been ripped. The bots are currently amassing a list of names to always rip new avatars from accounts. Recently these bots have found exploits to enter friend only and private worlds. Please see the attached image.
It's also very easy for this bot farm to create accounts on mass. I believe they can have hundreds of bots ready in 5-10 minutes. A shared Block List would become irrelevant in a couple of minutes.
The main concern is stopping avatar ripping, but considering the malicious actors and the recent rise in AI cybersecurity tools ripping through the internet, these problems will only get much worse. Moderation will not fix it. An overhaul of the cybersecurity systems in VRChat has to be done.
As Zephyr asked, he wants better moderation. My previous discussion talks about the poor moderation features of VRChat. VRChat moderation has many layers of friction. Imagine reporting a user and a snapshot from your viewpoint is automatically sent to VRChat team. It stops users from having to go to the website as much.
Sorry for the long text. I split the long text intentionally from the main text. This is supplementary information and not necessary for the main discussion.
Photo Viewer
View photos in a modal
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Jarnefeldt
(1/n)
First, thank you for providing these specific questions.
Regarding the recent TOS updates, my impression is that they now more strongly emphasize and address harassment and trolling. I believe this actually reinforces the rationality and usefulness of my proposal. That said, let me first address the specific questions you raised:
How do we prevent ban lists from being weaponised?
How do we prevent whitelists from evolving into exclusive cliques?
How do we prevent blacklists from being used to silence communities or individuals?
There is a common point that applies to all three of these questions. In your statement, you mentioned:"Additionally my Japanese friends tell me that shared block lists are often distributed amongst japanese users in more "dangerous forum places" to silence unfavourable opinions or users they simply dont like. A good example is FC2 Wiki. I see a lot of peoples names on that place and such information being consistently untrue."
This effectively proves that these issues are already occurring under the existing Group system, completely independent of whether my proposal is implemented or not.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Jarnefeldt
(2/n)
If that is the case, as I have suggested previously in response to similar questions, wouldn't a proper solution be to advocate for strengthening the appeal process within the Group feature itself, as well as enhancing reporting and enforcement against inappropriate moderation?
While it is admittedly difficult to monitor or control actions taking place on external SNS or third-party tools, I believe this is a reasonable and practical measure for VRChat to implement within its own platform.
These concerns exist regardless of whether my proposal is adopted, and should be addressed separately. Furthermore, if measures against misuse are integrated into the core Group features, my proposed tool could simply inherit those same protections. Therefore, if you genuinely view these points as critical flaws, it would be best to open a separate Canny ticket dedicated to improving Group feature oversight.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Jarnefeldt
(3/n)
As a supplementary note regarding the section of the TOS you cited:
"Posting, uploading, or distributing content that is unlawful, defamatory, inaccurate, objectionable, harassing, threatening, embarrassing, hateful, or otherwise inappropriate."
This exact clause highlights an ongoing issue that currently lacks effective enforcement.
I personally have had my worlds targeted by groups of trolls, leading to instances where users were indiscriminately subjected to harassment and sexually malicious behavior. Although I submitted reports accompanied by clear evidence, the vast majority of these cases resulted in no action being taken—despite explicit defamation, personal attacks, and discriminatory language being used.
It is precisely because the platform struggles to respond to such deliberate, coordinated harassment that I am advocating for this feature: to give world creators a necessary "choice" and tool to protect their own dignity and the safety of the communities visiting their worlds. This proposal is built directly upon real, lived experiences of harm.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Jarnefeldt
(4/4)
Furthermore, as I have stated repeatedly, official support staff have limited resources.
Utilizing decentralized moderation to free up official staff resources—so they can focus on large-scale issues like the recent bot account incidents—is a completely logical and practical approach.
Expecting a comprehensive cybersecurity overhaul or system-wide refresh without first managing existing operational strain is unrealistic. You cannot draw water from a dried-up lake. We must first reduce the outflow of water to allow the reservoir to recover.
Lastly, regarding zephyrblaze's comment: what they are expressing is frustration with the current moderation mechanisms (such as vote kicks) being dysfunctional and the friction of having to report users through the official website. That is the core message that should be accurately understood from their feedback.
Jarnefeldt
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Our experiences are different enough that I don't think either of us can confidently claim they're representative of the norm. I'll explain my perspective, as it's largely the opposite of yours.
Broadly speaking, VRChat's Terms of Service are far more specific than they used to be. There are clearer expectations around what users can and cannot do, partly due to regulatory requirements such as UK Ofcom rules regarding adult content and graphic material. The reasons behind those changes are interesting, but they aren't particularly relevant to this discussion.
It's also important to separate VRChat's rules from the rules individual groups choose to enforce. Groups are allowed to create their own policies, but those policies must remain fair, reasonable, and consistent with VRChat's Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. They cannot override VRChat's core rules.
We've already seen VRChat take action against discriminatory or hateful communities. A good example is the "I Hate Maya" group. I think you can see why. The FC2-related wiki pages I mentioned exist outside VRChat's jurisdiction, so their continued presence makes sense. At the same time, VRChat has historically taken action against users for content posted on public social media or activity involving paid NSFW content. It's generally understood that publicly mixing VRChat with NSFW content can attract moderation attention.
My main problem is the difference in scale between groups and worlds. A group misuse issue typically affects a limited audience, Usually 5 - 100 people at most. Worlds are different. Popular worlds can attract millions of visitors. Popcorn Palace, for example, has accumulated an enormous number of visits. If a world creator were given moderation powers that allowed them to exclude users based on personal disagreements rather than genuine misconduct, those users could effectively lose access to large sections of the platform's social ecosystem. For example losing Access to "Fujiyama", "JP Tutorial", or other open spaces would be largely damaging for a user. They essentially cant play VRChat anymore.
That is why I think giving world creators greater moderation authority creates a different set of risks. I agree that VRChat's current harassment enforcement tools are rubbish, but expanding creator-controlled moderation may introduce significant problems.
Jarnefeldt
When I mentioned having a friend who works at VRChat, it wasn't intended as a flex or intimidation. I was trying to hint at something important: VRChat developers do pay attention to specific types of feedback.
I can't go into too much detail but let me try to summerise.
If someone can create a Canny proposal that genuinely improves moderation and reporting systems, clearly explains the benefits, and demonstrates that it won't harm the wider community, there's a good chance the developers will consider it. The key is presentation.
In my experience, VRChat tends to favour concise, practical proposals over long discussions full of nuance. Feedback is usually evaluated on feasibility, implementation cost, and how clearly the benefits can be demonstrated. Images, presentations, and real-world examples can significantly increase the chances of a proposal being tracked.
I frequently sit in Poppy Street, i know how annoying it is to see nuisance users and you cant kick them. zephyrblaze and many English users want better tools but in my case i and my Japanese friends turn up my safety settings so its largely not a problem for me. But, not everyone is me and everyone has different tolerances.
Be aware I'm talking from a perspective where VRChat has been extremely good to me regarding reports and player moderation, i am biased because of my good experience and i think that shows in my text but i'm trying to see your own perspective and see how to improve it the best I can.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Jarnefeldt
(1/n)
Yes, as you mentioned, everyone’s experiences are different, and so are their needs and expectations.
That is precisely why the purpose of this proposal is to increase options—creating spaces where peace of mind is preserved for people who seek them, such as myself and the users who visit my worlds.
First of all, thank you for your advice regarding Canny proposals.
Since this current proposal has already received a certain number of votes, throwing it away to start from scratch would invalidate the support of those users. Therefore, for any future proposals, I will keep your points in mind and aim for concise, practical descriptions paired with effective visual presentations, such as diagrams or images.
Regarding the recent TOS updates and the boundaries of what is or isn't explicitly defined, while they may not be directly connected, I view them as an indication of how difficult it is for official administration to set a single, uniform standard for everything.
If rules are made too strict or rigid, any case that doesn't fit the exact mold becomes a violation, while simultaneously exposing loopholes that malicious users can easily exploit. Furthermore, spelling out an exhaustive list of criteria is neither realistic nor likely to be effectively communicated to the user base.
I believe these factors actually support the necessity of a decentralized moderation approach.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Jarnefeldt
(2/2)
I fully understand your primary concern—that expanding group features to the world level could risk cutting off access to the general Public environment.
However, if a world creator applies bans or moderation in an unfair or arbitrary manner, users will naturally push back and choose not to visit that space. As a result, that world will lose its demand and users will migrate to healthier, more welcoming environments. I believe this market-like evaluation mechanism will force world managers to carefully balance their moderation practices, even if this proposal is adopted.
Additionally, as I have previously discussed with another user as a way to ease these concerns, we could consider an optional interface design:"By default, only the designated instance type (Group) is shown, but an optional button—such as [Show Public Instances]—is added to ensure a clear pathway for anyone who wishes to access 'non-banned Public' instances."
(I hope this nuance conveys well.)
For me, the most important objective is ensuring that "dangerous instances are not forced as the primary, default choice." Therefore, even with a compromise of this kind, the core purpose of the proposal can still be largely achieved.
Ultimately, the key difference between adopting this proposal (even in part) and keeping the status quo comes down to this:
"Continuously relying on uncertain vote-kicks against recurring trolls in every single session" versus "Preventing repeated misconduct by allowing group-level bans."
Jarnefeldt
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Regarding the new TOS, the extensive list of permitted and prohibited behaviours is largely due to the previous version being too lax and not fully aligned with regulatory requirements from organisations such as the UK's OFCOM and similar bodies in other countries. Had VRChat failed to comply with these requirements, it likely would have faced significant regulatory challenges.
The language is also intentionally broad enough to cover a wide range of issues. From what I've read, this appears to be a fairly standard TOS realignment in response to evolving online safety regulations, particularly around R18 content and age-restricted spaces. This follows developments such as the UK's Online Safety Act and similar digital safety initiatives in other regions.
This is somewhat off-topic, but I think it adds useful context.
Group moderation systems have faced criticism on other platforms. Roblox, for example, has been criticised for situations where group structures were allegedly used to manipulate or pressure minors into inappropriate activities. VRChat has also faced criticism over cases where community groups and social structures were reportedly used in organised harassment campaigns, contributing to severe mental health consequences and eventually sucide for some individuals .
This is partially where my perspective on moderation tools comes from. I don't think it would necessarily change your stance, but I wanted to provide that context.
I also wanted to point out that vote counts do not determine whether VRChat investigates or tracks a topic. For example, I submitted an animation synchronisation bug last year that received only 5-10 votes, yet it was acknowledged and tracked the following day. Meanwhile, there are topics with over 1,000 votes that remain untracked. In my experience, the deciding factor is whether an issue is presented in a way that clearly communicates its impact and technical relevance to VRChat's developers.
There is certainly some bias in what gets tracked, but that's a separate discussion.
I think your intentions are good, but you also need to demonstrate to VRChat that the proposed tools cannot be easily abused by bad actors. In an ideal world I would probably agree with you, but unfortunately systems need to be designed with the assumption that some people are simply evil.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Jarnefeldt
(1/n)
Yes, as you mentioned, there are indeed updates made to align with requirements in the UK and Europe.
However, I interpret the practical substance of these changes as mostly structural adjustments regarding "what to disclose and what to withhold"—such as the partial disclosure and revision of moderation criteria, partial disclosure of monitored content, and shifting the responsibility of photo and video recording onto the users themselves.
I believe these revisions were made so that VRChat can comply with UK and European regulations, rather than meaning the platform is adopting UK or European philosophy as its core principles.
Because of this, the platform is forced to rely on vague and comprehensive wording, which inevitably leaves a gap where subtle friction and misunderstandings between different countries and cultures fall through.
A nuanced, decentralized moderation model is precisely what can address these gaps.
While the cultures and values of every race and nation should be respected, we must not forget that allowing an outside culture the freedom to threaten another can infringe upon the dignity of those being threatened.
Otherwise, we risk creating a world where the freedom championed by the powerful is allowed to trample upon the freedom of the vulnerable.
Regarding the risks inherent to group structures, these can indeed occur on any platform.
This is true not just for games or SNS, but also for general communication tools, where similar issues arise and can lead to bullying among students and children.
However, the problem lies not in the group structure itself, but in the people who misuse it.
If we want to prevent or mitigate these issues, establishing reporting channels from the inside to external moderators, supported by an effective review mechanism, is the most impactful approach.
Furthermore, since VRChat already has a feature to report groups, ensuring that this system functions correctly is the key path forward to resolving or alleviating these problems.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Jarnefeldt
(2/n)
Additionally, if such controlled environments do not exist, malicious manipulation and pressure will simply take place in public instances instead.
The fact that these issues are currently left unaddressed in public spaces ends up demonstrating that VRChat’s official moderation system is "unable to take necessary action."
This may be due to the difficulty of drawing clear boundaries, as mentioned earlier, or perhaps due to a lack of resources.
The proposal I have presented is designed to supplement both of these shortcomings.
Do we leave an influx of malice to run wild in public spaces under the guise of tolerance—unaddressed due to a lack of resources and an inability to draw lines?
Or do we grant users a certain level of administrative authority and responsibility, allowing them to conduct checks at the group level to solve problems efficiently, thereby building a foundation to protect users from malice while using limited resources effectively?
For the abuse risks currently foreseeable, we can simply build in appropriate countermeasures in advance.
I have continuously hoped that we could discuss these countermeasures and constructive improvements together. Unfortunately, almost all of the discussion has remained limited to myself continuously proposing, "Then how about we do it this way?"
I want to move this discussion forward.
Even if this specific proposal is not adopted, I sincerely hope that these concepts can serve as a reference to create better moderation systems and safer spaces as available options—for the sake of well-meaning users and well-meaning creators alike.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Jarnefeldt
(3/3)
As a side note, what I prioritize is not the sheer number of votes, but rather not letting the intentions of those who voted be treated as if they didn't exist.
I fully understand that a high vote count alone does not guarantee adoption.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful advice.
るいざ・しゃーろっと
(English)
I would like to leave a comment regarding this proposal.
I generally support the overall goal of creating safer spaces and protecting minors. For that reason, I can understand the idea of allowing world creators to define default instance settings for their worlds.
However, I cannot support allowing worlds to define “Allowed Groups” or “Banned Groups.”
I am concerned that community-level mutual blocking would create irreversible divisions through excessive exclusion. More importantly, a “Banned Groups” feature could easily be abused by discriminatory world creators to exclude groups representing minorities, such as LGBTQ+ communities or people of specific nationalities. For example, if a creator simply designated an LGBTQ+ group as a banned group, the system would effectively become a tool for excluding people based on their identity rather than their behavior.
This is why I am deeply concerned about introducing a design that could facilitate discrimination.
As the saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” I believe this proposal is motivated by good intentions, but I would hate to see those same good intentions turned into a powerful tool for malicious actors.
I believe the better approach is to strengthen moderation over public spaces without creating mechanisms that enable community-wide exclusion based on group affiliation.
⸻
(日本語)
この提案についてコメントさせていただきます。
私は、安全な空間の確保や未成年保護という目的には大枠として賛同しています。そのため、ワールド制作者がワールドごとのデフォルト・インスタンス設定を指定できるという考え方については理解できます。
しかし、ワールドごとに「利用可能グループ(Allowed Groups)」や「利用禁止グループ(Banned Groups)」を設定できる仕組みには賛成できません。
コミュニティ同士の相互ブロックは、過剰な排除によって修復困難な分断を生み出すことを懸念しています。さらに、「利用禁止グループ」という仕組みは、差別的なワールド制作者によって悪用される危険性があります。例えば、LGBTQ+コミュニティや特定の国籍の人々が参加するグループを利用禁止グループに指定すれば、その人自身の行動ではなく、所属や属性だけを理由として排除できる仕組みになってしまいます。
私は、このような差別を助長しかねない設計には強い懸念を抱いています。
「地獄への道は善意で舗装されている」という言葉があります。この提案は善意から出発したものだと信じています。しかし、その善意によって作られた仕組みが、悪意を持つ人々にとって強力な道具となってしまうことを、私は望みません。
私は、グループへの所属を理由としたコミュニティ全体の排除を可能にする仕組みを導入するのではなく、Public空間におけるモデレーションをより強化する方向で改善を進めるべきだと考えています。
やがて捨てられる補助輪
るいざ・しゃーろっと
(EN)1/2
As for why I included the choices of white-listing and black-listing, how we should ideally deal with their abuse, and how I view market principles, user-driven arbitration, or moderation of Groups themselves—all of these points have already been repeatedly explained in my previous responses to others.
The "abuse of the system for discrimination" that you mentioned is ultimately an issue with the bad actors themselves. I believe it is preferable to address this by updating the moderation framework on the Group-feature side so that appropriate measures can be taken. Whether or not we expand these permissions to Public spaces, the exact same concerns can already be fully realized within the current features and mechanisms. This is fundamentally a challenge inherent to the Group feature itself, a point I have made time and time again.
Now, what exactly do you mean by "strengthening moderation over Public spaces"? It is an undeniable fact that official moderation is currently unable to keep up. Simply saying "the administration should do more" changes nothing. Furthermore, because official intervention cannot easily navigate the delicate, individual boundaries of community dynamics, a nuanced, grayscale response is impossible through centralized moderation alone. Yet, malicious actors are realistically infiltrating those spaces right now. With what specific methods do you propose we solve this reality? I prefer constructive debate.
For the sake of argument, let us take your idea of "only allowing default instance settings" and expand upon it. Let us imagine a setup where, by default, only instances belonging to the designated group are displayed, and a separate "Show Other Public Instances" button must be pressed to reveal other Public or Group Public instances.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(EN)2/2
Under this method, the instances people naturally visit would be limited to those defined as the default, while still allowing users the freedom to selectively look for other Public instances. This could indeed serve as a partial solution for Public spaces. However... it does absolutely nothing to prevent the creation of malicious Group Public instances or spaces explicitly designed for harassment. If an unaware third party simply chooses one of those instances because "it has a high player count," the risk of them becoming a victim remains completely unchecked. And we still cannot rule out the possibility of minors being among them. This approach only achieves a "certain level" of protection, and whether that provides enough strength to claim a "zero-tolerance" policy is ultimately for the administration to judge.
As a side note, you cited the maxim, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" I wonder, did you recognize that this very phrase could apply to your own argument? My view is that through the "good intention" of trying to protect freedom and rights, malicious actors are consequently being shielded and left unchecked—effectively "paving the road to hell." What are your thoughts on this perspective?
I believe that maxims are not convenient weapons to efficiently suppress the opinions of others, but rather tools to refine one's own thinking. In my view, they are best used for self-reflection.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(JP)
なぜホワイトリストとブラックリストという選択肢を加えたか。それらの悪用にはどのような対処が望ましいか。市場原理やユーザーの選択による裁定機能や、Group自体へのモデレーションについてどう捉えているかは、これまで繰り返し他の方々にも説明した通りです。
仰るような「仕組みを差別のために悪用する」というのは悪用者の問題であり、それはGroup機能の側でのモデレーション体制を更新して、適切に措置を取れるように進めるのが好ましいと考えています。
Publicにこの権限を拡大しようとしまいと、現状の機能と仕組みでその懸念は充分実現できるものですから。
そしてそもそもこれはGroup機能そのものの課題であり、わたしはこの点についても繰り返し説明しています。
さて、Public空間におけるモデレーションの強化とは具体的にどのようなことを指すのでしょうか。
現実として公式のモデレーションが追いついていないのは事実です。
ここで「公式がもっと動けばいい」と言うだけでは何も変わりません。
また、繊細な個々のラインは公式が介入できるものではないため、公式モデレーションだけではグラデーションある対応は不可能です。
しかしそこに、現実として悪意ある行為者は入り込んでいます。
この現実を、あなたはどのような具体的手法で解決すべきであると考えますか?
わたしは建設的な議論を好みます。
仮に、あなたの言うように「デフォルトインスタンスを設定出来るだけ」という部分のみを採用し、更にそれを拡張したアイディアを出してみましょう。
基本的にデフォルトとして設定されたグループのインスタンスだけが表示されるようにして、それとは別に「ほかのパブリックインスタンスを表示」というボタンを押すことで、他のパブリックやグループパブリックが表示されるようにしてみましょう。
この方法であれば、人々が基本的に訪れることができるのはデフォルトと規定されたインスタンスとなり、ユーザーは自由に、選択的に他のパブリックインスタンスを探すことも出来ます。
この方法であればパブリックの対策としては一定の問題解決にはなります。
しかし、ですが……悪意あるグループパブリックを作ること、嫌がらせのための場所を作ることを、何ら防ぐことはできません。
第三者がインスタンスを精査せず、ただ「人が多い場所」としてそれらを選んだが合い、彼らが被害を受けるリスクは依然として残っています。
そしてそこに未成年者が含まれる可能性は依然として否定できません。
あくまで実現されるのは「一定のレベル」であり、これが「ゼロトレランス」を主張できるだけの強度を持った根拠になるかは、公式の判断するところになると思います。
ここからは余談ですが、あなたは格言に従い「地獄への道は善意で舗装されている」という言葉を提示しました。
では、あなたはそれが自身の主張にも適用されると認識していたでしょうか。
「自由と権利を守るためという【善意】によって、結果的に悪意ある行為者が守られ、野放しになっているという【地獄への道が舗装】されている」という観点をわたしは持ちますが、いかがでしょうか。
格言と言うものは、他者の意見を効率的に抑圧するための武器ではなく、自身の考えを磨くためのものであるとわたしは考えています。
それらは自戒として用いるのが望ましいというのが私の考えです。
蒼井 拓凪
(EN)
I'm neither supporting nor opposing this proposal as a whole. That said, I'd like to point out that the three requested features differ significantly in scope and impact, and I suggest they be evaluated separately rather than as a bundle.
- Setting a designated group's public as the default instance.
This changes only the default value of auto-created instances, not the permission model. Users who just press "Join" land in a moderated space, while anyone remains free to create their own instances as before. Of the three, this seems the most feasible and the least disruptive to existing design.
- Allowing only designated groups to create public instances.
This shifts instance-creation authority from instance owners to world creators — a structural change to the current model, where the world author owns the world but each instance is governed by whoever created it. It would also affect groups that operate without a home world and roam across various worlds as their core style; assessing the impact on such groups is another reason this feature deserves separate discussion from feature 1.
- Preventing designated groups from creating public instances.
This appears to conflict with the existing Creator Guidelines provision against preemptive, blocklist-based moderation. Implementing it would therefore require a policy change, not just a feature addition — a different layer of review from the other two.
Given that VRChat announced on June 24 that it is actively working on harmful behavior in public instances, with details coming in July, it may be worth evaluating this proposal in light of that upcoming announcement, and ideally splitting it so each feature can be voted on and reviewed on its own merits.
蒼井 拓凪
(JP)
この提案全体への賛成・反対の表明ではありません。ただし、要望されている3つの機能は影響の範囲と性質が大きく異なるため、一括ではなく個別に検討されることを提案したいと思います。
- 指定グループのパブリックを標準インスタンスに設定する機能
これは自動生成インスタンスの初期値を変えるだけで、権限モデル自体には手を加えません。「Join」を押しただけのユーザーは管理された空間に入り、一方で誰もが従来通り自分でインスタンスを立てられます。3つの中では最も実現可能性が高く、既存設計への影響も最小であると考えます。
- 指定グループのみがパブリックを作成できる機能
これはインスタンス作成の権限を、インスタンスオーナーからワールド制作者へ移す構造変更です。現行の「ワールドの作者はワールドを所有し、各インスタンスはそれを立てた者が管理する」というモデルに対して、ワールド制作者が他者のインスタンス作成への拒否権を持つべきかどうかは、機能1とは切り離して議論されるべき論点です。また、固有のワールドを持たず様々なワールドを巡回する運営形態のグループも存在するため、そうしたグループへの影響評価も、この機能を個別に検討すべき理由の一つではないかと考えます。
- 指定グループがパブリックを作成できなくなる機能
これは、先制的なブロックリストによるモデレーションを禁じる現行のCreator Guidelinesの規定と衝突するように見えます。したがって実装には機能追加ではなくポリシー変更が必要となり、他の2つとは審査のレイヤーが異なります。
VRChatは6月24日に、パブリックインスタンスにおける有害行為への対策に取り組んでおり、詳細を7月に公開すると告知しています。本提案はその発表内容と照らして評価されるのが望ましく、可能であれば機能ごとに分割し、それぞれが独立に投票・検討される形が理想だと私は考えます。
やがて捨てられる補助輪
蒼井 拓凪
(EN)1/1
Thank you for your feedback. I believe your points are highly accurate and well-taken. As you pointed out, while all three features revolve around "world-level permissions for Group Public instances," they each possess distinctly different characteristics and impacts.
The reason I presented them together as a single bundled proposal is as follows:
- Setting a designated group's public instance as the default
As you mentioned, this is the most manageable and highly feasible approach. However, from the perspective of "disallowing anything else," it carries the downside of eliminating options like "wanting to use the world for a specific event," and risks drawing criticism for being too authoritarian or dictatorial.
- Allowing only designated groups (The Middle Ground)
This serves as an intermediate solution. By allowing world creators to approve specific groups, it leaves room for flexibility, such as hosting events.
On the flip side, moderation would rely entirely on each permitted group's internal enforcement. This introduces the risk of malicious actors slipping through by moving across multiple approved groups. However, it does offer a safety net/recourse for users; even if they are banned from one specific group, they aren't necessarily locked out of all Group Public instances.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
2/2
- Preventing designated groups (The Most Targeted Approach)
This is the most localized permission and acts as a targeted remedy against malicious groups engaging in "coordinated, targeted harassment against specific worlds." However, it only blocks "specific designated groups." If bad actors use other unrelated public groups as a shield or foothold, it could turn into a game of whack-a-mole.
Conversely, this approach maximizes basic user freedom, ensuring standard users can enjoy the world without disruption, barring those explicitly flagged.
Conclusion
By offering these options as a package, my goal is to provide a "gradation of options" for world creators. Rather than an all-or-nothing approach ("ban everything" vs. "allow everything"), this leaves room for the VRChat team to evaluate the pros and cons of each model, potentially allowing for partial implementation based on the level of discretion required by different creators and worlds.
Your analysis regarding technical feasibility and how these features intersect with existing guidelines is incredibly valuable for this discussion. I truly hope the VRChat team takes those exact concerns into consideration when reviewing this proposal.
Lastly, I am also closely monitoring the upcoming updates regarding harmful behavior in public instances. If the official measures can fundamentally improve the current situation, that would be the best possible outcome.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(JP)
ありがとうございます、ご指摘の内容は適切であると考えております。
仰る通り、同じ「ワールドでのグループパブリックに関する権限」でありながら、3つの案はそれぞれに異なる性質を持っています。
同時に、今回これらを一つの案にまとめて投稿したのには、以下の理由があります。
1.指定グループのパブリックを標準インスタンスに設定する場合
仰る通り最も管理が行いやすく実現可能性が高いと考えられますが、同時に「それ以外を認めない」という観点から、「イベントで使いたい」等の選択肢を除外することになるデメリットや、「独裁的である」という批判が起こり得るリスクなどがあります。
2.これは中間案となり、制作者が認めるグループを許可することで、イベントでの使用などを行える余地も存在します。
反面、管理運営については許可したグループ内でのモデレーションに依存するため、一定の迷惑行為者が入り込む(複数グループを横断する等)リスクが存在します。
この選択の場合、特定グループをBANされたとしても、必ずしも全てのグループパブリックを利用できなくなるわけではない。という救済余地もあります。
3.もっとも限定的な権限であり、特に悪質なグループ「ワールド狙い撃ちによる集団加害」に対しての特効薬的な案ではありますが、あくまで防げるのは「特定のグループ」のみであり、迷惑行為者がパブリックグループを隠れ蓑にした場合、無関係なグループが加害の足場として利用されるリスクがあります。
ただし、その反面基本的な利用者の自由は確保され、「特に問題ありもの」を除けば一定の自由が確保されます。
こうした観点から、ワールド制作者のグラデーションある対応を可能にすることで、「全て駄目」「全て許す」ではなく、ワールドやクリエイター毎の裁量を可能にするという目的と、部分的採用の場合のメリットとデメリットを含めて公式側に検討していただければという余地を残したものとなっております。
あなたがご指摘くださった内容は、実現可能性や既存のルールとどのように関わるかという観点などを含む、検討する上で非常に大切なご指摘となっております。
その懸念点も含めて、公式にこの内容をご検討いただければわたしとしても幸いです。
なお、パブリックインスタンスにおける有害行為への対策については、わたしも注視しております。
そこで何か現在の状況を変え得る対策が取られるのであれば、それに越したことはありません。
蒼井 拓凪
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(EN)
Thank you for the detailed response. Before anything else, I’d like to confirm the intended behavior of feature 1, as the supplementary comment and the main text appear to describe it differently.
The supplementary comment describes feature 1 as: auto-generated instances become the designated group’s Group Public instead of Public — i.e., a change to the default value only. Under that reading, other users and groups could still manually create Public or Group Public instances for the world, and use cases like events would be unaffected.
The main text, however, describes it as the ability to “specify and restrict the baseline instance settings allowed,” and the section on preserved rights lists only Invite(+), Friend(+), and Group(+). Your reply above also describes feature 1 as “not permitting anything else.” Under that reading, feature 1 would place the public tier under the exclusive control of a single designated group — arguably making it the most restrictive of the three features rather than the least.
Could you clarify which is intended?
(a) Default change only — other groups and users can still manually create (Group) Public instances for the world.
(b) Public-tier restriction — only the designated group can create Public/Group Public instances for the world.
Since votes are being cast on the proposal as written, making this distinction explicit would benefit both reviewers and voters.
蒼井 拓凪
(JP)
ご丁寧な返信をありがとうございます。まず機能1の意図された挙動について確認させてください。補足コメントと本文とで、記述が異なっているように見えるためです。
補足コメントでは、機能1は「自動的に生成されるインスタンスが、パブリックである代わりに指定グループのグループパブリックに設定される」──つまり初期値のみの変更と説明されています。この読解では、他のユーザーやグループは従来通り手動でPublicやGroup Publicインスタンスを作成でき、イベント等の利用も影響を受けません。
一方、本文では「基本のインスタンス設定を指定・制限できる機能」とされ、制限後も残る権利としてはInvite(+)、Friend(+)、Group(+)のみが列挙されています。上のご返信でも、機能1は「それ以外を認めない」ものとして説明されています。この読解では、機能1はパブリック帯を単一の指定グループの独占下に置くことになり、3機能の中で最も制限的なものになり得ます。
意図された仕様は次のどちらでしょうか。
(a) 初期値のみの変更──他のグループやユーザーも引き続き手動で(グループ)パブリックを作成できる
(b) パブリック帯の制限──指定グループのみが当該ワールドでPublic/Group Publicを作成できる
本提案は現在の記述のまま投票が行われているため、この区別を明確にすることは、審査側と投票者の双方にとって有益だと考えます。
やがて捨てられる補助輪
蒼井 拓凪
(EN)
I apologize for the confusion; that was due to my poor phrasing in the follow-up comment.
My original intention is exactly as defined in the main text: specification (b), which means "only the designated group's Group Public instances will be generated by default, and the creation of any other Public or Group Public instances will be restricted."
My intention with the follow-up was simply to add concrete details, as I felt the phrase "a feature to specify and restrict instance settings" was too abstract. Therefore, I was trying to specifically explain that "the automatically generated (default) instance will become the specified Group Public instance."
I am very sorry for causing confusion by failing to clarify which specific part of the text I was expanding upon.
(JP)
これは、わたしの補足の仕方が悪かったです、申し訳ありません。
本来の意図では本文で規定した通り、(b)の「指定グループのGroup Publicのみが標準で生成され、それ以外のPublic及びGroup Publicを制限される機能」を想定しています。
補足の意図は「インスタンス設定を指定・制限できる機能」という表記だけでは具体性に欠けると思い、該当部分を具体的に「自動的に生成される(デフォルトの)インスタンスが、指定されたGroup Publicのインスタンスになる」という説明でした。
「どの部分に対する補足か」という表記が不足しており、かえって混乱を招いてしまったことをお詫びいたします。
蒼井 拓凪
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(EN)
Thank you — that fully answers my question.
One small suggestion, if I may. The earlier supplementary comment (which is also quoted in the “補足” section of the explanatory note) could, as it stands, still lead readers to the “default-value-only” interpretation — in fact, I myself had misread the specification as (a) until this exchange.
After the clarification, I also went back and reread the description of feature 1 in the note’s main text. The phrasing “a feature to specify and restrict the baseline instance settings” does not explicitly state what is being restricted (i.e., the creation of Public / Group Public instances by anyone other than the designated group), so I found it difficult to arrive at specification (b) from that sentence alone.
For these reasons, it might be worth adding a brief clarification — reflecting this exchange — to both the supplementary comment and the feature 1 description in the main text, and mentioning it in a post on X or elsewhere. That way, voters — especially those arriving via the Japanese article — can evaluate the proposal under the intended specification (b).
No response needed. Thank you for the constructive exchange.
蒼井 拓凪
(JP)
ありがとうございます。質問への回答として十分です。
一点だけ提案させてください。先の補足コメント(解説noteの「補足」欄にも引用されているもの)は、現状のままだと「初期値のみの変更」という読解に読者を導く可能性が残ります。実際、私自身も今回のやり取りまでは仕様(a)と誤認していました。
確認後にあらためてnote本文の機能①の説明を読み直したのですが、「基本のインスタンス設定を指定・制限できる」という記述は、制限の対象(指定グループ以外によるPublic/Group Publicの作成)が明示されていないため、この文のみからは仕様(b)を読み取ることが難しいように感じました。
そのため、補足コメントおよび本文①の説明に、今回のやり取りを踏まえた補記を加え、Xなどでその旨をポストすることをご検討いただければと思います。特に日本語の記事経由で来られる投票者の方々が、意図された仕様(b)を前提に提案を評価できるようになるかと思います。
ご返信には及びません。建設的なやり取りをありがとうございました。
やがて捨てられる補助輪
蒼井 拓凪
(EN)
Although you mentioned that no reply was necessary, I would just like to provide a brief update.
Since the main text cannot be edited, I have corrected the supplementary comment and archived the outdated content in a separate new comment below. Additionally, I have updated the note article accordingly and announced these changes on X.
Thanks to your sincere feedback, I was able to recognize the flaw in my description. I would like to express my deepest gratitude once again. I am truly glad that we could have such a constructive dialogue.
Thank you very much indeed.
(JP)
返信には及びませんということでしたが、ご報告だけさせていただきます。
本文は編集ができないため、補足コメントを訂正し、別途古い内容をアーカイブとして新たにスレッドへコメントしました。
また、併せてnoteの内容を同様に更新し、Xにてそれらの対応を告知いたしました。
真摯なご指摘により問題点に気付くことができました。
改めて、心より感謝申し上げます。
建設的なやりとりができたことを嬉しく思います。
本当にありがとうございました。
Hipօgrifօ
(EN)1/3
I have serious concerns about this Canny proposal.
I'd like to raise a different perspective from many of the comments here.
First, VRChat includes a category of game worlds, many of which are designed around multiplayer experiences. These worlds have a strong network effect: people naturally gather where other people are already playing.
Because of this, Group Public instances provide significant value by allowing users who don't already know a community to join easily. Many game communities rely on Group Public instances to attract new players, grow their communities, and keep them active.
If this proposal allows world creators to freely decide whether Group Public instances can be used, then a single decision by a world creator could effectively prevent certain groups from attracting new members.
This is not simply a change to how instances are published. For game worlds, it directly affects community growth, event organization, and the ability to welcome new players, making it a substantial practical restriction.
While this may not be a problem if every decision is made fairly, world creators cannot always be expected to make impartial and appropriate decisions. Although this feature is intended to improve safety, it also grants world creators the power to arbitrarily exclude specific groups from popular worlds.
My primary concern is governance.
This proposal grants new authority to world creators, yet it does not explain how those decisions would be reviewed, how misuse would be corrected, or how arbitrary enforcement would be prevented.
For example, what criteria determine whether a group is "malicious"? Is there an appeal process if a decision is made incorrectly? How will transparency be ensured?
Whenever new authority is introduced, the systems needed to ensure that authority is exercised fairly should be designed at the same time. Otherwise, the proposal depends entirely on good faith.
Hipօgrifօ
(EN)2/3
Some people have argued that these concerns belong to the Group system rather than this proposal itself.
However, this proposal is based on the assumption that VRChat staff cannot respond quickly enough, and therefore additional authority should be delegated to world creators.
If that is the case, does VRChat currently have sufficient moderation resources to continuously investigate whether groups are operating in accordance with the Terms of Service?
Given the current difficulty of dealing with malicious users and organized troll groups, it is difficult to believe that enough resources already exist to perform ongoing investigations and evaluations at the group level.
For that reason, simply saying "this is a Group system issue" does not resolve the new risks introduced by this proposal, nor does it present an alternative solution.
I also question the argument that "this feature is optional, so there is no problem."
If the goal of this proposal is to improve safety across VRChat, malicious users could simply move to worlds that do not use this feature.
As a result, worlds that choose not to enable it could become increasingly attractive targets for harassment, eventually forcing their creators to adopt the feature simply to protect their communities.
Although the system would technically be optional, if choosing not to use it creates a significant disadvantage, it effectively becomes mandatory.
Hipօgrifօ
(EN)3/3
I fully support stronger measures against harassment.
However, this proposal is not only about combating malicious groups. It also grants world creators significant new authority.
If such authority is introduced, it should be accompanied by mechanisms that ensure fairness, transparency, and meaningful ways to correct mistaken decisions.
Improving safety is important. However, if doing so creates new concentrations of power or opportunities for arbitrary enforcement, it could introduce an entirely different set of problems from the ones this proposal is trying to solve.
For that reason, I believe this proposal should be evaluated not only for the feature itself, but also for its governance model, the design of its authority, and the safeguards needed to ensure that authority is exercised fairly and responsibly.
Hipօgrifօ
(JP)
私はこのCannyに対して深い懸念を抱いています。
私からは、他の方とは少し異なる観点から指摘させていただきます。
まず前提として、VRChatにはゲームワールドというジャンルが存在し、多くは複数人で遊ぶことを前提としています。そしてゲームワールドは、「人が集まる場所にさらに人が集まる」という性質が非常に強いコンテンツです。
そのため、グループパブリックインスタンスには、グループを知らないユーザーでも気軽に参加できるという大きな価値があります。実際、多くのゲームコミュニティはグループパブリックを利用することで新規参加者を集め、コミュニティを維持・発展させています。
この提案が実装され、ワールド制作者がグループパブリックの利用可否を自由に決定できるようになると、ワールド制作者の判断一つで特定のグループが事実上新規参加者を集められなくなる可能性があります。
これは単にインスタンスの公開方法が変わるという話ではありません。ゲームワールドでは、新規参加者の獲得、コミュニティ形成、イベント開催などにも直接影響するため、実質的に非常に大きな制約となり得ます。
もちろん、その判断が適切に運用されるのであれば問題は少ないでしょう。しかし、ワールド制作者が常に公平かつ適切な判断を行うとは限りません。この機能は、安全性向上のための仕組みである一方で、人気ワールドから特定グループを恣意的に排除できる強力な権限にもなり得ます。
ここで私が特に懸念しているのは、ガバナンスの問題です。
この提案では、ワールド制作者へ新たな権限が与えられますが、その権限をどのように監査し、誤った運用や恣意的な運用をどのように是正するのかが示されていません。
例えば、「悪質グループ」と判断する基準は何なのか、その判断に誤りがあった場合に異議申し立てを行えるのか、透明性をどのように確保するのか、といった制度設計が現時点では見当たりません。
権限を追加する場合、その権限が適切に運用されるための仕組みも同時に設計されなければ、善意の運用だけを前提とした制度になってしまいます。
---
これに対して、「それはグループ機能側の問題であり、この提案自体の問題ではない」という意見も見受けられました。
しかし、この提案の前提は「VRChat公式の対応には時間がかかるため、ワールド制作者へ権限を委譲するべきだ」という考え方です。
もしそうであるならば、今度は「グループが利用規約に従って運営されているか」をVRChat運営が十分に調査・判断できるだけの体制があるのでしょうか。
現在でも悪質ユーザーや悪質グループへの対応が十分とは言い難い状況を見る限り、グループ単位で継続的な調査や判断を行えるだけの運営リソースが十分にあるとは考えにくいと思います。
そのため、「これはグループ機能側の問題である」という指摘だけでは、この提案によって生じる新たなリスクへの解決策にはなっておらず、代替案も示されていないように感じます。
---
また、「この機能はワールド制作者が任意で利用するだけなので問題ない」という意見にも疑問があります。
この提案がVRChat全体の安全性向上を目的としているのであれば、悪質ユーザーは単にこの機能を利用していないワールドへ移動するだけではないでしょうか。
その結果、機能を利用していないワールドほど荒らしの被害を受けやすくなり、最終的にはワールド制作者が自衛のために導入せざるを得なくなる可能性があります。
制度上は任意であっても、実際には導入しなければ不利益を受けるのであれば、それは実質的な強制に近い状態となります。
さらに、この仕組みが広く普及した場合、「人気ワールドの門番化」が起こる可能性も懸念しています。
ゲームワールドは利用者が多いほどさらに利用者が集まる傾向があり、人気ワールドほどコミュニティへの影響力を持ちます。そのようなワールドが特定のグループの利用を制限するようになれば、その判断は単なる一ワールドの運営方針ではなく、事実上の基準として受け止められる可能性があります。
結果として、他のコミュニティやワールド制作者も同様の対応を取るようになり、「あのワールドが禁止しているのだから、こちらも禁止しよう」という判断が連鎖的に広がることも考えられます。
このような状況では、人気ワールドの制作者は単なるコンテンツ提供者ではなく、特定のグループの活動範囲を左右できる存在となり、小規模なプラットフォーム運営者のような役割を持つことになります。
その結果、「参加させる側」と「参加を認められる側」という立場が固定化し、一部の人気ワールドへ影響力が集中する、実質的な寡占構造が生まれる可能性も否定できません。
もちろん、すべてのワールド制作者がそのような運用を行うとは考えていません。しかし、この提案はそのような権力構造を生み出し得る制度でもあるため、機能の有用性だけでなく、長期的なコミュニティ全体への影響も含めて検討する必要があると考えます。
---
私は荒らし対策そのものには賛成です。
しかし、この提案は悪質グループへの対策だけでなく、ワールド制作者へ非常に強い権限を与える制度でもあります。
権限を追加するのであれば、その権限が公平かつ透明に運用されるための仕組みや、誤った判断を是正できる制度まで含めて設計されるべきです。
安全性の向上は重要ですが、そのために新たな権力構造や恣意的な運用の余地を生み出してしまっては、本来解決したかった問題とは別の問題を生み出す可能性があります。
そのため、この提案は機能の是非だけでなく、権限の設計、ガバナンス、そしてコミュニティ全体への長期的な影響まで含めて慎重に検討されるべきだと考えます。
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Hipօgrifօ
(EN)1/2
Thank you for your thoughtful and precise counter-arguments, Hipogrifo. You have raised excellent points, particularly regarding game worlds and governance, which have helped me refine my perspective.
- The Reality of Game Worlds and the Blacklist Approach
I completely acknowledge your point regarding game worlds. Unlike general hangout worlds, game worlds rely heavily on explicit rules and the network effect to gather players, making it difficult to host them elsewhere. If this feature is implemented, a "Blacklist approach" (allowing everything by default, but blocking only verified malicious groups) would indeed be the most appropriate and practical method, rather than a restrictive Whitelist.
If a world creator enforces excessively strict boundaries, their world will naturally lose players and wither away. Striking this balance would be the responsibility of the creator, driven by market dynamics.
- The Issue of Governance and Existing Group ToS
Regarding governance, the current Group system already grants significant, unchecked authority to group owners, and VRChat’s ToS inherently tolerates a certain degree of "arbitrary management" within those user-owned spaces. Demanding a unique, flawless governance model only for this proposal would cause unnecessary complication. If such transparency or appeal windows are required, they should be implemented into the core Group system as a whole.
Furthermore, there is currently a critical blind spot: we lack a proper "Report" category for malicious behavior conducted specifically via Group Public instances. This lack of data makes the current Group system a black box, which is an issue VRChat should address independently.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(EN)2/2
- Natural Purification (Market Selection) and Zoning
Ultimately, whether a world creator's enforcement is "fair" or "tyrannical" will be judged by the players. Users will either choose to stay or abandon the world entirely. This natural check-and-balance—akin to supply and demand—occurs with or without this system.
Regarding the concern that trolls will simply migrate to other worlds: if many worlds end up adopting this feature to protect themselves, it paradoxically proves that such a feature was fundamentally necessary. If trolls migrate to worlds that actively tolerate "chaos," that simply results in a form of zoning and respect for diversity. The current issue is that all worlds, regardless of their concept, are left completely defenseless against unprovoked, organized attacks.
- Moderation Resource Efficiency
Lastly, regarding VRChat staff resources: investigating the systemic behavior and legitimacy of an entire Group (examining their public rules, logs, and moderation history) requires significantly fewer resources than investigating thousands of individual, isolated player disputes. Group-level moderation provides clear, aggregate data, making it a much more realistic target for official evaluation than individual-level policing.
Conclusion:
Your concerns about the weaponization of popularity and division are highly realistic risks. However, by introducing proper report categories for malicious groups, VRChat can establish a pathway to judge "the group itself." I believe this proposal remains a vital stepping stone toward decentralized safety.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(JP)
ご丁寧な意見をいただきありがとうございます。
拝読いたしました。
ゲームワールドという観点においては、確かにわたしの視点からは欠けておりました、ご指摘に感謝致します。
一般的なワールドであれば、Groupは許されたワールドで新規の参加者を集めることが出来、そしてGroup(+)などのインスタンスを用いることが出来ると考えていましたが、確かにゲームワールドは「そのワールドのみ適用されるゲームルール」があるため、他のワールドでその参加者を募ることは難しくなりますね。
そうした観点でいくと、本案が採用されてワールド制作者がこれを利用した場合は、Group運営者がワールド制作者に「ホワイトリスト枠」として利用の許可を交渉する形になるかと思います。
この部分の判断および窓口や門をどれだけ開くかは、ワールド制作者側の裁量に委ねられるかとは思いますが、反面ゲームワールドであまり規律を厳しくすれば、人が集まらなくなり自然と廃れていくと考えられるため、このバランスはワールド制作者自身が考える必要が生じそうです。
現実的に捉えると、特に指定しなければ通常通りパブリックもGroup Publicも開放されているので、不適切なGroupのみ排除するブラックリスト方式を用いるのが適切なように思います。
ガバナンスの問題については、現状のGroup機能自体が同様の問題を抱えていると同時に、規約にて一定の許容が行われている部分でもあります。
これを本案の場合のみに特別に変化を求めるのはかえって混乱を招くものであり、必要であればGroup機能そのものに異議申し立て窓口設営の強制や、透明性の強制を行う必要が生じてくるように思います。
また、現状Groupに関しては事実としてブラックボックス化している面もあると考えています。
これは、管理されているグループもありますが、自由に解放されたグループでは、悪意あるプレイヤーが入り込み、このグループのGroup Publicを悪用するという実例があることからも明らかですが、そうした悪用されるようなインスタンスでの振る舞いについては現在通報の項目が無いため、ここはGroup機能として改善すべき点であるとは考えております。
いずれにせよこれらは「ユーザーが選ぶ」か「ユーザーが見放す」か。
その結果をもってワールド制作者の是非が問われることになるため、最終的にはユーザー側に委ねられた自由な選択によって、公平に公正に裁定が下されることになると思います。
これは仕組みがあろうと無かろうと起こり得る、需要と供給に似たコミュニティによる自浄と裁定の作用だと考えております。
懸念されている「迷惑行為者が他のワールドに流れるだけではないか」という点ですが、その可能性は充分に考えられます。
その場合、他のワールドでも同様にこうした機能を採用するということであれば、逆説的に「こういった機能は必要だった」という証明になるかと思います。
また、ワールドによってはそうしたカオスを許容している場所もあるため、そういった場所に迷惑行為者が流れ着き、それを望まない場所から居なくなるというのは、一種のゾーニングや多様性の尊重として成り立つものであるとわたしは考えます。
むしろ、どういったコンセプトのワールドであれ無差別な攻撃に無防備である現状が問題であるとわたしは思っています。
人気ワールドの定番化や権威化については、仰る通り懸念があります。
例えばそのワールドの制作者が人々を扇動し、囲い込みのような形で他のワールドや他のグループの関係者を排除した場合、ここには深刻な分断と権威による支配構造が生じます。
これについては大衆の心理を考えるに現実として起こり得るリスクであると考えています。
対策があるとすれば、前述したように「問題あるグループへの通報」という機能が現状不完全であるため、そこを項目として設けることで「グループ自体への裁定」というルートを設けることでしょうか。
ここは課題であると考えます。
なお、公式モデレーションのリソースの問題についてですが。
一人ひとりのユーザーを細かく調査や審査するリソースに比べれば、グループ自体の振る舞いや正当性について調査や審査することの方が、比較的負担は少ないのではないかと思います。
個人間であれば個人間トラブルなどの可能性も考慮しなければなりませんが、グループが適切に運用されているかどうかは、グループ内のルールの明示やモデレーション対応含む情報の展開内容などから、一定の合理性や正当性は量れるのではないかと思いますので。
ぎふます
Measures against harassment and abuse are necessary. If serious abuse occurs in spaces open to the public, the harm can affect random visitors and minors as well as the direct targets.
But, this proposal gives world creators a strong power of judgment. An allowlist or restriction list for groups would let the world creator decide which groups may create Group Public instances for that world. If handled badly, this can become a tool for excluding disliked communities rather than preventing abuse.
A world creator is not automatically a fair judge. A creator may already be in conflict with a communit. Even if the creator has been harmed by trolls, that does not guarantee neutral judgment afterward. The stronger the past damage, the easier it becomes to restrict broadly on suspicion alone.
A world is the creator’s work, but once it is published as a public world, it also has a public-facing role. Managing one’s own instance is not the same as controlling whether other groups can create public instances of the same world. The latter affects a major route of access. Even if useful in some abuse cases, a design that depends only on the creator’s judgment is risky.
Another concern is the burden placed on world creators. Many creators maintain multiple worlds, which can already be difficult to manage. Expecting creators to also act as moderators for group access decisions may place too much responsibility on them.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
ぎふます
You are absolutely right. If mishandled, this could indeed turn into a tool for emotional, subjective judgment, and extending this to the world level naturally carries a risk of "arbitrary exclusion." I completely agree with your realistic concern that not everyone can act as a "fair judge," and that emotional exclusion is a genuine risk.
However, I believe this system can ultimately achieve a fair balance due to the following two factors:
Private Instances Remain Unaffected: This proposal does not block access to the world entirely. Therefore, even if a user is restricted from a specific Group Public instance, they are not completely banned from the world itself and can still enjoy the content in other instances.
Market Dynamics (User Judgment): Once published, a world is subject to community consensus. If a world author abuses this feature and enforces autocratic exclusion, users will naturally pushes back and choose not to visit that world. Consequently, poorly managed spaces will lose their audience and fail. This dynamic acts as a strong, organic check and balance on the creator's authority.
Regarding the burden on creators, the same logic applies: this is strictly proposed as an optional "feature" (opt-in), not a forced "duty." Creators who do not wish to bear the administrative burden retain the full choice to simply not use this feature.
Your point about affecting the access route is spot on. However, I believe this has two sides. While the negative side is the impact on user traffic as you mentioned, the positive side is that by disrupting the route that malicious trolls use to cruise through public spaces, we can effectively prevent the escalation of harassment.
I completely agree that the most ideal solution would be one that fully respects the freedom of innocent users while strictly targeting malicious trolls. This proposal is my attempt to present the most reasonable and balanced compromise between that ideal and the harsh realities we face in public spaces.
nozomu365
I support this Canny :)
That's because these features aren't mandatory, and players who don't like these moderation measures have the option not to visit that world.
私はこのCannyを支持します。
これらの機能は支配的ではなく、これらのモデレーションが嫌なプレイヤーはそのワールドに行かないという選択が可能だからです。
venn02_ヴェン
(EN)Do you understand that VRChat’s Terms of Service and Community Guidelines take precedence above all else?
If you want that level of control, you should simply make the world private and open an instance that isn’t set to “Group Public.”
As long as you’ve uploaded the world as “Public,” you do not have the authority to restrict how users use it.
(JP)最優先されるべきはVRChatの規約、ないしはコミュニティガイドラインということを理解していますか?
もしそこまでの権限が欲しいなら、プライベートワールドにしてグループパブリック以外でインスタンスを開けばいい話です。
パブリック扱いでワールドをアップロードしている以上、使用方法を制限する権限はユーザーにはありません。
やがて捨てられる補助輪
venn02_ヴェン
(EN)1.If you argue that the Terms of Service and Community Guidelines take precedence above all else, then we must respect the absolute first and most important principle written within them: "Don't do things that will hurt or harm other people. Don't act in ways that would upset people, cause them trouble, or disturb them."
It is precisely in accordance with this principle that I created this Canny post, as I see a severe issue with individuals who intentionally violate this rule being left unchecked in public spaces.
2.As stated above, this proposal is strictly about mitigating harmful behavior occurring in public spaces. Telling creators to "just make it a private world" contributes absolutely nothing to resolving the core issue. Please understand that such an approach merely forces other public worlds and general users to endure the exact same damage permanently.
3.Fundamentally, the "Feature Requests" category on Canny exists for the very purpose of allowing users who have concerns or dissatisfaction with the current status quo to officially propose improvements. Dismissing a proposal by simply stating, "That is not how the current rules work," is, in my opinion, a complete denial of the very purpose of having a feedback forum.
(JP)1.規約が全て、コミュニティガイドラインが全てと仰るのであれば、冒頭に書かれた最も重要である「他人を傷つけたり傷つけたりするようなことはしないでください。人を不快にさせたり、迷惑をかけたり、迷惑をかけたりするような行動を取らないでください。」という内容をあなたは最も重んじなければならないと思います。
わたしはこの原則に従い、これらを意図的に反する人々がパブリックに放置されていることを問題視して、このCannyを立ち上げました。
2.上記の通り「パブリックで行われる問題行為」についての内容となっており「プライベートワールドにすればいい」というのは問題の本質的解決に一切寄与していません。
他のパブリックが同様の被害を永続的に受け続けるだけであることをご理解ください。
3.そもそもCannyのFeature Requestsというのは、「現在の状況に不満や懸念を持つ人が、公式に提案や要望を送る」という目的のための項目です。
「現状それはありません」と断じることは、この項目自体への否定であるとわたしは考えます。
venn02_ヴェン
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(EN)
While you must adhere to those guidelines, you also need to understand that you are a VRChat user yourself.
You’re not ignoring the argument that this would give world creators more power than users, are you?
It’s true that there are no measures in place to address problematic behavior occurring in public instances, but the current Community Guidelines don’t allow us to ban all of that.
Demanding, “Ban all of that! Give world creators more authority!” is essentially the same as saying, “Revise the Community Guidelines or the Terms of Service!”
If you absolutely want to manage everything under the current system, you should simply make it a private world and operate it only within the scope of your own supervision.
That will resolve everything you want to do.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
(JP)
その項目を守らないといけないと同時に、あなたもVRChatユーザーであることを理解しなければいけません。
ワールド制作者がユーザー以上の権利を得ることに繋がるという意見を無視しているわけではありませんよね?
確かに、パブリックインスタンスで行われる問題行為に関して何も対策はありませんが、現在のコミュニティガイドラインでは、それを全て禁止できるわけではありません。
それを全て禁止させろ!ワールド制作者の権限を上げろ!というのは、コミュニティガイドライン、ないしは規約を改定しろ!と言っているようなものなのです。
どうしても現状の状態で全てを管理したいのであれば、プライベートワールドにして、自分の目が届く範囲のみで運用すればいい話なのです。
それで貴方のやりたいことは全て解決します。
やがて捨てられる補助輪
venn02_ヴェン
(EN)
To begin with, world creators already possess certain authorities under the current guidelines. They hold capabilities such as kicking players, forcing microphone mutes, and issuing warnings, even within public instances. In that sense, I believe it is simply a fact that world creators have always had more authority within their own worlds compared to regular users.
Do you understand the purpose of Canny's 【Feature Requests】? As I understand it, it is a form for suggesting features—a place to propose ideas for areas that currently do not exist or are lacking. If a proposal happens to conflict with current guidelines or terms of service, the final decision to adapt or reject it lies entirely with VRChat official management. For a third-party user to demand that someone "should not post anything that conflicts with existing guidelines" is nothing short of suppression and silencing that completely ignores the very purpose of Canny.
Regarding your suggestion that I "should just make it a private world," as I have already stated in my previous reply, would that actually eliminate the trolling behavior happening across the public instances as a whole? No, it would not. The targets would simply change, and the behavior would repeat. In those spaces, there are clearly general users being hurt by indiscriminate harassment. There are creators who might abandon their creative activities due to such griefing. At times, it even creates underage victims who are forced into sexually abusive interactions.
I have been highlighting these issues from the very beginning. This is not about self-protection, nor is it a desire to become part of some ruling class by gaining power. I simply want to protect people from the indiscriminate trolling that occurs in public instances, and I hope for a method to achieve that.
I cannot agree with the stance that "it is acceptable for this harm to continue happening." And "protecting only my own world from harm" is not what I want to do.
I hope for a constructive exchange of ideas rather than emotional dismissal. If you have a better alternative idea, I would sincerely welcome it.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(JP)
そもそもワールド制作者は、ガイドラインでも一定の権限を元々持っています。
また、マイクの強制ミュート、警告やキックなどの権限についても、Public含め有しています。
そういった意味では、元々ワールド制作者は自身のワールドにおいてユーザー以上の権限を得ているというのが事実だとわたしは考えています。
Cannyの【Feature Requests】の意義はご理解されていますでしょうか。
「機能の要望」であり、「現状存在しないあるいは不足している部分に対しての提案のためのフォーム」だとわたしは理解しています。
結果その提案がガイドラインや規約に抵触し得るのであれば、それを含めて最終的に決定するのはVRChat公式側であり、「ガイドラインや規約に抵触するものを投稿するな」と第三者のユーザーが強要することは、Cannyの意義を無視した抑圧ないし封殺であると考えます。
「プライベートワールドにすればいい」という指摘に関しては、既に先の返答でも行っていますが、それでパブリック全体で行われるトロール行為が無くなるでしょうか。
いいえ、無くなりません。
標的を変えて繰り返されるだけです。
そこには明確に、無差別な加害によって傷つく一般ユーザーたちが居ます。
嫌がらせで創作活動をやめてしまうかもしれないクリエイターたちが居ます。
時に、性的加害を強制されてしまう未成年の被害者を生むことがあります。
わたしは最初からずっと、それを問題視しています。
わたし自身の保身や、権限の獲得による支配階級になりたいといった願望ではありません。
パブリックで行われる無差別なトロール行為から、人々を守りたい、その方法が欲しいと願っています。
「このまま被害が起こり続けていい」という意見には賛同いたしかねます。
そして「自分のワールドだけを被害から守る」ということは「わたしのやりたいこと」ではありません。
感情的な否定ではなく、建設的な意見交換が出来ることを願います。
より良いアイディアをお持ちでしたら、わたしはそれを歓迎いたしますので。
venn02_ヴェン
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(EN)
If you set it to a private world, malicious public instances won’t be created. This is an absolute specification that has remained unchanged from the past to the present.
Additionally, even in public worlds, there are instances where the Creator Economy feature is being used to expand functionality and rooms.
As long as functionality can be restricted through these methods, we are not addressing “aspects that currently do not exist or are lacking.”
Furthermore, while you’re looking at this from the perspective of general users, as long as you’re using VRChat as a platform for your activities, it’s simply impossible to control every single user.
If you have such a broad perspective, you should just create a new space outside of VRChat and manage it yourself. There, you’ll be able to do everything you want without anyone complaining.
You state, “I cannot agree with the opinion that ‘it’s acceptable for harm to continue as it is.’” However, I cannot endorse this Canny post because I cannot shake my concerns regarding the indiscriminate banning taking place in the worlds you manage, as well as the world administrators’ abuse of power, which goes beyond what is currently acceptable.
To put it in your own words, perhaps I should say, “I cannot agree with actions that hinder those who are running their worlds properly.”
You are the one who isn’t engaging in a constructive exchange of opinions.
If you’re seeking an exchange of opinions, I ask for suggestions that would address my concerns regarding world administrators overstepping their authority even more than they already do.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
(JP)
プライベートワールドにすれば、悪質なパブリックインスタンスは立ちません。これは過去から今まででずっと変更されていない、絶対的な仕様です。
また、パブリックワールドでもCreator Economy機能を用いて、機能の拡張や部屋の拡張を行っている所も存在します。
現状、これらの方法で機能を制限出来る以上、「現状存在しないあるいは不足している部分」には届いていないのです。
また、一般ユーザーに対しての視点を見ていますが、あなたがVRChatと言う場を借りて活動している以上、全てのユーザーを制御するのは無理な話です。
そこまで大きな視点を持っているなら、新しい場をVRChat外に作って、そこを自分で管理していればいい話です。そこなら、誰にも文句を言われることもなく、自分のやりたいことを全てやることができるでしょう。
『「このまま被害が起こり続けていい」という意見には賛同いたしかねます。』と言っていますが、あなたが運営しているワールドで行われている、無差別なBAN行為や、ワールド管理者の今以上の越権行為に対しての懸念点が拭えないため、このCannyに賛同することができないのです。
同じ言葉で返すなら、「まともにワールドを運営している方々の足を引っ張るような行為には賛同いたしかねます。」でしょうか。
建設的な意見交換を行っていないのは貴方です。
もし意見交換を求めるのならば、ワールド管理者の今以上の越権行為に対する懸念点を払拭するような意見を求めます。
やがて捨てられる補助輪
venn02_ヴェン
(EN)1/2
To reiterate, your suggestion would merely cause the trolls to change their target from one public world to another; it does not offer a fundamental solution.
If left as it is, the trolls will simply move on to harass the next public world they lay their eyes on.
Unless you understand that the core issue I am addressing is this "state where repeated harassment is tolerated," we will not be able to have a constructive discussion.
Furthermore, regarding your comment about "world administrators overstepping their authority" and your point that some worlds are expanding their functionality using the Creator Economy feature: I am personally not aware of such specific cases. Therefore, I would highly appreciate it if you could provide concrete examples of how that feature contributes to moderation.
Sharing such insights is precisely what constitutes a constructive exchange of opinions and ideas.
Regarding your accusation of "indiscriminate banning taking place in the worlds you manage," I must point out that my world and group have clearly stated rules. In addition, users can only enter the world after clicking a button to "promise to adhere to the rules."
Taking action, such as issuing a BAN, against acts of harassment committed despite that promise is not indiscriminate; it is a legitimate procedure executed based on a mutual agreement.
All BAN actions are carried out consistently based on established criteria according to the situation.
Furthermore, we do not reject appeals. If individuals contact me directly via DM or other private channels, I address them on a case-by-case basis, re-explaining the specific reason for the BAN.
The "indiscriminate banning" you speak of is likely nothing more than speculation based on false information spread by trolls—individuals who deliberately hide the fact that they committed harassment and falsely claim they were banned unfairly.
Please understand that validating such false information means justifying troll behavior and the perpetrators themselves, which ultimately condones and encourages further nuisance behavior in public spaces.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(EN)2/2
Now, let me ask you the most fundamental questions:
Do you genuinely believe that a state where unrelated third parties can be subjected to indiscriminate harassment and left unprotected in a public environment is "the correct and ideal situation"?
Do you believe that "the freedom to behave disruptively at the expense of others" should be prioritized over "the freedom to spend time in peace and safety"?
Do you believe that such a stance aligns with the zero-tolerance policy held by VRChat official?
I respect the core principle stated at the very beginning of the Community Guidelines: "Don't do things that will hurt or harm other people. Don't act in ways that would upset people, cause them trouble, or disturb them."
I respect the right of users to "be able to choose a safe environment where they can enjoy interacting without fearing malicious harm from trolls."
I respect "changing the current situation that contradicts zero-tolerance—where sexual abuse against minors can occur—and ensuring that the zero-tolerance policy is properly enforced and realized."
What is the core philosophy underlying your beliefs?
I look forward to your response based on logical reasoning, rather than emotional denial.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(JP)
繰り返しになりますが、それはあくまでパブリックワールドの標的が一つ消えるだけに過ぎず、根本的な解決になっていません。
そのままでは、トロールたちが次に目を付けたパブリックワールドがまた同様の嫌がらせを受けるだけです。
その「繰り返される加害が許容された状態」を問題視しているということをご理解いただけないと、建設的な議論にはならなくなります。
また、「ワールドの越権行為」と仰いますが、Creator Economy機能を用いて拡張を行っているという点について、わたしは具体例を存じないのですが、具体例としてモデレーションに寄与するような内容があれば、それをご提示いただければ幸いです。
それこそが建設的な議論やアイディアとなります。
「あなたが運営しているワールドで行われている、無差別なBAN行為」というご指摘ですが、わたしのワールドとグループではルールをしっかりと明示し、ワールドでは「内容を遵守すると約束する」というボタンを押していただいての入室をいただいています。
その上で行われた迷惑行為をBAN等で対応するのは無差別ではなく、正当な手続きと約束の上で行われているものです。
全てのBAN対応は、状況に応じて一定の基準の上に行っています。
そして、異議申し立てについては拒絶するのではなく、DMや個別の連絡をいただけばその都度BAN理由を再度説明等の対応をしています。
あなたが言う「無差別なBAN」とは、そうした中で加害をしたことを伏せて不当なBANだと拡散するトロールたちによる虚偽の情報に基づいた憶測ではないでしょうか。
その虚偽の情報を正当化することは、トロール行為とその行為者を正当化することであり、パブリックでの迷惑行為を後押しすることに繋がるとご理解いただきたいです。
さて、もっとも本質的な質問をします。
あなたは、パブリック環境で無関係の第三者が巻き込まれ得る無差別な迷惑行為が行われ、放置されている状態を「正しいあるべき状況だ」と考えていますか。
「安心して過ごす自由」よりも「それらを侵してでも好き勝手振舞う自由」を優先すべきだと考えていますか。
それらはVRChat公式側が掲げているゼロトレランスという姿勢に合致していると考えていますか。
わたしは、「他人を傷つけたり傷つけたりするようなことはしないでください。人を不快にさせたり、迷惑をかけたり、迷惑をかけたりするような行動を取らないでください。」というガイドラインの冒頭に掲げられている内容を尊重しています。
わたしは「トロールからの悪意ある加害を防ぐことで、人々が安心して交流を楽しめるような環境を選択できること」を尊重しています。
わたしは「未成年者への性的加害が起こり得る、ゼロトレランスに反する状況を変え、きちんとゼロトレランスという姿勢が実現されるかたち」を尊重しています。
あなたの理念の根底にあるものは何ですか?
感情的な否定ではなく、論理の上での思考からの回答を願います。
venn02_ヴェン
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(EN)
If you are seeking a response while ignoring my question, I will consider this exchange concluded and will no longer reply.
I’ll ask again.
“I am seeking opinions that would dispel concerns regarding the World Administrator’s current overstepping of authority.”
This is the central point of the current controversy, and nothing will change unless this issue is resolved.
Please provide a logical response.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
(JP)
私の質問を無視しての回答を求めるのであれば、これ以上の意見交換は出来ない物と見て返信を終了させて頂きます。
もう1度聞きます。
「ワールド管理者の今以上の越権行為に対する懸念点を払拭するような意見を求めます。」
今論争になっている大きなポイントはここであり、この問題を解決出来ない限り、何も変わりません。
論理的で、正確な回答をお願いします。
やがて捨てられる補助輪
venn02_ヴェン
(EN)
First, please specify exactly what you mean by 'opinions that would dispel concerns regarding the World Administrator’s current overstepping of authority.'
As for the issue of my points, questions, and answers being completely ignored, we can address that afterward.
(JP)
それではまず、あなたの言う「ワールド管理者の今以上の越権行為に対する懸念点を払拭するような意見を求めます。」という部分が具体的に何を指すか、明確にお答えください。
わたしの指摘や質問、回答が一切無視されている問題についてはその後でも構いません。
venn02_ヴェン
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(EN)
That’s a question you should answer, not me. After all, that’s the crux of the matter right now.
You’re the one completely ignoring the questions and the text.
We—and you—are merely guests on VRChat. I understand that we can’t ignore lawless behavior occurring in a public space, but we’re just guests here. We’re not the operators.
It’s true that we need to consider such lawless behavior, but history shows that it’s impossible to prevent it all. You remember how social media platforms that tried to prevent such behavior by censoring everything ultimately failed, don’t you?
What you’re trying to do is precisely the first step toward that kind of behavior.
Unless you clearly outline a way to address these concerns, the solution will simply boil down to effectively distinguishing between public and private spaces or relying on the Creator Economy features.
I’ll say it again: you are not the administrators; please do not try to protect everything.
Since you failed to answer my question, no further replies are necessary.
After all, you ignored what I took the trouble to write twice. Let’s try to have a more logical conversation.
(JP)
それは貴方が答えるべきであり、私が答えることではありません。今、論点になっているポイントがそこなのですから。
質問や文章を丸々無視しているのは貴方です。
VRChatと言う場を間借りしているのは我々であり、貴方です。パブリックな場で行われる無法行為を無視出来ないのはわかりますが、我々は間借りしている立場なのです。我々は運営ではありません。
確かに、そういった無法行為については我々も考えなければなりませんが、それを全て防ぐのは無理だということを歴史が物語っています。それを防ぐために、全てを検閲したSNSが失敗していったのを覚えていますよね?
貴方がやろうとしていることは、まさにそういった行為の入口なのです。
この懸念点を払拭する手段を明記しない限り、パブリックな場とプライベートな場を効果的に使い分けたり、Creator Economy機能の利用で済む話になってしまいます。
再度言いますが、貴方は運営ではありません、全てを守ろうとしないでください。
質問に答えられなかったため、これ以上の返信は不要です。
わざわざ2回書いたものを無視されましたからね。もっと論理的に対話出来るように努めましょう。
やがて捨てられる補助輪
venn02_ヴェン
(EN)"First, I would like to confirm our premise.
When you say, 'I am seeking opinions that would dispel concerns regarding the World Administrator’s current overstepping of authority,' are you referring specifically to the following part of your comment?
'We—and you—are merely guests on VRChat. I understand that we can’t ignore lawless behavior occurring in a public space, but we’re just guests here. We’re not the operators. It’s true that we need to consider such lawless behavior, but history shows that it’s impossible to prevent it all. You remember how social media platforms that tried to prevent such behavior by censoring everything ultimately failed, don’t you? What you’re trying to do is precisely the first step toward that kind of behavior.'
Is this correct?
I am fully willing to answer your questions, and I am trying to align our premises so that we can move this discussion forward.
(JP)
まずは前提を確認したいと思います。
あなたの言う「ワールド管理者の今以上の越権行為に対する懸念点を払拭するような意見を求めます。」というのは、「VRChatと言う場を間借りしているのは我々であり、貴方です。パブリックな場で行われる無法行為を無視出来ないのはわかりますが、我々は間借りしている立場なのです。我々は運営ではありません。
確かに、そういった無法行為については我々も考えなければなりませんが、それを全て防ぐのは無理だということを歴史が物語っています。それを防ぐために、全てを検閲したSNSが失敗していったのを覚えていますよね?
貴方がやろうとしていることは、まさにそういった行為の入口なのです。」という部分で間違いありませんか?
わたしは回答する意思があり、議論を進めるために前提を擦り合わせようと考えています。
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(EN)1/2
Since I have not received a reply, I will proceed with my response based on the assumption that the premise we attempted to align earlier is indeed what you meant.
First, I agree with your interpretation that both we as users and creators are merely renting a space within the VRChat service. Furthermore, current terms of service and guidelines do exist there. It is true that we have no choice but to protect ourselves within the scope of the authority and features currently granted to us. That is entirely correct.
However, there are inevitably areas where that is simply not enough. That is precisely why Canny exists, and why the 'Feature Requests' section is provided. Whether the contents posted here conflict with or align with current terms and guidelines, the ultimate decision rests with the management team. I am merely a proposer, and you are a counter-arguer to that proposal; neither of us is in a position to deny the very purpose of Canny's Feature Requests. This platform function is a legitimate right and mechanism granted to users and creators, and I am exercising it properly.
Even if it is currently impossible to prevent everything, if there are actions we can take, and if there are conceivable methods available, then proposing them holds both meaning and significance. Even if we do not know whether a proposal will be adopted, conveying that 'such opinions exist,' 'such difficulties are being faced,' and 'such requests are being made' carries immense value.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(EN)2/2
Additionally, regarding your statement, 'You remember how social media platforms that tried to prevent such behavior by censoring everything ultimately failed, don’t you?'—I apologize, but no specific examples come to mind, so I would appreciate it if you could provide concrete instances. As for the 'utilization of Creator Economy features,' I am still unable to comprehend your point as no specific examples have been provided.
However, though the format differs, Discord serves as an easily understandable example of successful decentralized moderation. While it may not solve every single problem, wouldn’t you agree that it stands as a solid model case for a platform utilizing decentralized moderation?
To reiterate, we are currently communicating within a forum meant for 'feature requests to the management.' We are not members of the official team ourselves, but we are exchanging thoughts here to 'deliver a message to the management.' I hope you can understand that arguing 'do not speak up because you are not the management' fundamentally threatens to negate the existence of this very forum.
While I do not expect you to address my previous answers, points, and questions, should you choose to respond in the future, I sincerely hope you will do so with integrity. I remain fully willing to engage in constructive discussion.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(JP)
回答が得られないので、先のすり合わせの内容を前提と仮定して回答だけ行います。
まず、我々ユーザーもクリエイターもVRChatというサービスの一角を間借りしているという解釈にはわたしも同意です。
そして、そこには現行の規約やガイドラインというものが存在します。
わたしたちは、自分たちに許された権限や機能の中で自衛を行うしかありません。
それはその通りです。
しかし、それでは足りない部分がどうしても存在します。
そのためのCannyであり、Feature Requestsという項目です。
この中に投稿された内容については、現行の規約やガイドラインに抵触するにせよしないにせよ、運営側の判断が行われます。
わたしはただの提案者であり、あなたはその提案への反論者であり、CannyのFeature Requestsの意義を否定できる立場ではありません。
そして、この機能もまたユーザーやクリエイターに許された権利であり仕組みであるため、わたしはこれを正当に利用しています。
全てを防ぐことが現状不可能であっても、それに対して出来るアクションがあるなら。
考えられる手段があるなら、それを提案することに意味も意義もあります。
採用されるかは分からなくとも、「こうした意見がある」「こうした悩みがある」「こうした要望がある」と伝えることには、大きな意味があります。
なお、「全てを検閲したSNSが失敗していったのを覚えていますよね?」とのことですが、すみませんがわたしには具体的に思いつく事例が無いので、具体例を提示していただければ助かります。
「Creator Economy機能の利用」についても、未だ具体例がないのでわたしにはわかりかねます。
ただ、形は違えど分散型モデレーションの成功例として分かりやすいのがDiscordです。
全ての問題を解決しているかは別ですが、分散型モデレーションのSNSとして、一定のモデルケースたり得るのではないでしょうか。
繰り返しになりますが、我々は今「公式への機能要望」のフォームでのやりとりをしています。
わたしたちは公式の人間ではありませんが、「公式へ届けるためのメッセージ」をここでやりとりしているものです。
「公式ではないから声を上げるな」というのは、こうした場そのものへの否定になり得るという問題をご理解いただければ幸いです。
わたしからの回答や指摘、質問については回答を望めないとは思いますが、もしも今後回答されるのであればその点についても誠実にお答えいただくことを願います。
わたしは建設的な議論をする意思がありますので。
Lumoshar
(EN)I wish to express my deep concern regarding やがて捨てられる補助輪's proposal: especially based on chapter4 to 6 in にゃ~の♪'s feedback. I agree with the gist of this proposal, however it fails to consider checks and remedies for autocratic moderation by instance owners. It effectively allows an instance owner to arbitrarily control relationships and experience between other users.
(JP)やがて捨てられる補助輪氏の提案に対して、にゃ~の♪氏のフィードバックの第4~6章に基づき深い憂慮を覚えます。本件提案の趣旨には同意できますが、インスタンスオーナーによる強権的なモデレーションに対するチェック機能や救済措置を考慮しておらず、インスタンスオーナーが事実上、ほかのユーザー間の人間関係やプレイ体験を恣意的にコントロールすることを可能にするものです。
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Lumoshar
(EN)Thank you for agreeing with the gist of the proposal.
This post is strictly a proposal asking: "Is it beneficial to create an option that extends existing Group features to the world-public level to mitigate harm occurring in public spaces?"
Whether or not we should extend this as an "option" to the world level is indeed a crucial and valid point to discuss. However, the concerns you have raised feel more directed at the structural flaws of the Group feature itself, rather than being unique to this proposal.
The issues surrounding an instance owner's moderation, the lack of remedy processes, and the need for a system of checks and balances are ultimately problems tied to the baseline Group function. Therefore, I believe it would be far more constructive for you to separately submit a new feedback post on Canny addressing the "concerns and necessity for appeal mechanisms in the Group feature itself," rather than using it as a reason to object to this extension. What are your thoughts?
(JP)本案はあくまで「パブリックで行われる加害に対してGroup機能をワールドパブリックまで拡張する選択肢を作るのはどうか」という内容となっております。
ワールド自体に「選択肢」として拡張することへの是非というのは大切な論点だと思いますが、ご指摘の内容はGroup機能そのものに対するものであるように感じられます。
オーナーにおけるモデレーションや救済措置、それらへのチェック体制や機能の問題は、そもそもGroup機能自体の問題となっておりますので、別途「Group機能の法的リスク・懸念点」といった内容の要望をご自身で作られるのが建設的であるように思います。
Lumoshar
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(EN)
It is my honour to receive your reply.
I say my opinion about your question clearly, it is not beneficial. The Group function is provided to us for managing groups, not for controlling worlds, to say nothing for controlling other users encounters. And its lack of remedy processes is only permissible because its scope is limited to a specific group I think. I believe that extending Group function to public spaces is problematic from the perspective of fairness and equality. While the world is the creator's private property, it is simultaneously a public space. The creator's rules should be respected, but they are not absolute in a public setting.
Furthermore, regarding the opinion that it would be more constructive for me to provide new feedback, I must say that view is misguided. My comments were made in direct relation to the proposal at hand; my point was that certain "issues"—which might have been acceptable within the limited scope of a "group"—should not simply be carried over into the much broader public. I do not believe there are any significant issues with the group feature itself.
And we have to read Terms of Service and Community Guideline with care. The foundational principle of the CG is "VRChat is a platform and community where you can be anyone, create anything, and interact with people from all walks of life." It means this principle is the framework for interpretation.
(JP)
ご返信をいただきありがとうございます。
「パブリックで行われる加害に対してGroup機能をワールドパブリックまで拡張する選択肢を作るのはどうか」という問いに対しては、それは有益なことではないと考えます。Group機能はグループの管理のために用意されているものであり、グループという限られた範囲の中で用いられるが故に、救済措置の欠如が認められているのではないでしょうか。Group機能をパブリックインスタンスにまで拡張することは、より広範に影響を及ぼすことになるため、公正性と平等の観点から問題があると考えます。
ワールドは作者の私有地的なものではありますが、同時に公共空間でもあります。作者のルールはもちろん尊重され遵守すべきものですが、公共空間においてそれが常に絶対視されるものではありません。
また、私がフィードバックを行う方が建設的とのご意見ですが、失当と言わざるを得ません。私のコメントは、グループという狭い範囲に効果があることから許されていたある種の「問題」を、パブリックという広い範囲にそのまま拡張するべきではないという意見であり、本提案に関連付けられるものです。グループ機能そのものには特段の問題はないと考えています。
なにより、利用規約やコミュニティガイドラインは慎重に読まれるべきものです。コミュニティガイドラインの冒頭に書かれていることは「VRChatは、誰でもなりきることができ、何でも創造でき、あらゆる分野の人々と交流できるプラットフォームでありコミュニティです。」であり、この条項は解釈の基準として参考にされるべきものであるはずです。
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Lumoshar
(EN)Thank you for your reply.
I agree that discussing this from the perspective of bringing specific features or authorities into public spaces (the expansion of privileges) is highly beneficial. I, too, constantly believe that we must carefully consider the potential for malicious exploitation regarding this matter.
However, considering that users are ultimately given the freedom to choose which worlds and groups they want to engage with, I believe a fair judgment will naturally be left to the users themselves—if a world is deemed 'inappropriate,' people will stop visiting, and if it is deemed 'appropriate,' it will continue to be utilized.
That being said, under the current specifications, the "Group Public" feature is already provided, meaning the core nature of group instances has already been brought into the public domain.
The only difference between the current status quo and this proposal is whether "anyone can create a Group Public instance" or "only designated groups can create a Group Public instance."
Furthermore, even with these restrictions in place, the right to create private or semi-private instances such as Group(+) remains completely intact. Therefore, it does not result in the total exclusion of users from the "world" as content itself.
I believe this can actually function as a form of zoning to prevent individuals with different values and ethics from infringing upon one another, thereby serving as a mechanism to protect true diversity.
Ultimately, the primary issue I am raising and targeting with this proposal is the presence of "bad actors who engage in indiscriminate harassment within public spaces." I believe that the complete lack of means to suppress or prevent such behavior, no matter how malicious it gets, is an issue where the platform's own responsibility could be called into question.
Their actions directly disrupt the very core objective of "interacting with people from all walks of life," while causing severe damage and infringement to both creators and their creations.
While there is a "freedom to associate and interact," the "freedom to infringe upon others" is something that is clearly denied across most parts of the Terms of Service.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Lumoshar
(JP)
ご返答いただきありがとうございます。
機能や性質がパブリックに持ち込まれる(権限拡大)という観点での議論は有益だと感じます。
わたしもそこについては、悪意ある運用の可能性を考慮する必要があると常々考えております。
しかしながら、ユーザー側にワールド及びグループを選択する自由が委ねられていることを鑑みれば、「不適切」と判断されれば利用されなくなり、「適切」と判断されれば利用されるという、公平な裁定をユーザーに委ねるかたちになると考えています。
現状、既にGroup Publicという機能が提供されている以上は、そのインスタンスの性質はPublicへ持ち出されています。
本案との違いがあるとすれば、「誰でもGroup Publicを作成できる」か「決められたGroupのみGroup Publicを作れるか」という違いになってきます。
また、それでもまだGroup(+)等のインスタンスを作る権利は残されており、完全に「ワールド」というコンテンツからの排除が行われるわけではありません。
これは、お互いに異なる価値観や倫理観の人々が、お互いを侵害し合うことを防ぐためのゾーニングや、多様性の保護としても機能し得ると考えています。
なお、現状わたしが特に問題視して提案している対象は「Publicで無差別な迷惑行為を行う人々」となっており、どれだけ悪質であってもそれらを抑制あるいは防止する手段が無いというのは、プラットフォーム側の責任を求められ得るものであると考えております。
そして彼らの行いは、「あらゆる分野の人々と交流」という目的を阻害し、創造者及び創造物を毀損し、その活動を侵害し得る深刻な問題です。
「交流の自由」はあっても、「侵害の自由」というのは規約の多くの部分で否定されているものだと考えています。
Lumoshar
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(EN)Thank you for your reply.
While I have various thoughts on the matter, others have already commented very clearly on the points I wished to raise. I would simply like to add one final observation: restrictions on rights should not be determined by market forces alone. Even if the aim is to prevent "bad actors who engage in indiscriminate harassment within public spaces," we ought to avoid vigilante-style measures that risk victimizing innocent users. With that, I will take my leave.
(JP)ご返答にお礼申し上げます。
色々考えるところはありますが、他の方々が私の言いたいことを非常に分かりやすくコメントしておられました。もう一点、権利の制限は市場原理で判断されるべきものではなく、たとえ「無差別な迷惑行為を行う人々」を防止するためのものとはいえ、無実のユーザーの犠牲を伴いうる私刑的な手段は避けるべきではないか、という意見を付け加えて、私はこの辺で失礼しようと思います。
やがて捨てられる補助輪
Lumoshar
(EN)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
When you mention the potential for "sacrificing innocent users," I understand your point to be about the risk of false positives or wrongful bans. In this regard, the same risk already exists under the current Group functions. I believe the best approach is to operate the system with the utmost care to prevent such situations, or to handle them through a re-evaluation process via DMs or other channels upon receiving an appeal.
However, based on my experience managing moderation for nearly two years, those who claim they were "banned for doing absolutely nothing" often deliberately conceal what they actually did, or downplay the facts to make their actions seem trivial. Furthermore, I have observed many trolls who, despite having clearly engaged in vandalism, spread narratives like "unjust dictatorship is occurring" using these exact claims—and sadly, many people rashly and easily buy into their agitation.
Leaving this current situation unchecked means allowing malicious individuals to go unpunished, while abandoning creators who try to build their own works and spaces, along with their users, to endless intrusion. They spread the false image that "unjust bans are rampant," and on top of that, they create Group Public instances to engage in griefing, deliberately manufacturing an image that "this is a place full of trolls."
Is this really a culture that benefits creators, users, or ultimately, the platform itself? I firmly believe this is what we need to change.
I completely understand and accept your wish to conclude this exchange. Even after our conversation ends, however, I would be glad if this could serve as an opportunity to reflect on those who are truly innocent yet forced to suffer one-sided harm.
やがて捨てられる補助輪
(JP)
ご意見いただきありがとうございました。
「無実のユーザーの犠牲を伴い得る」というのは、冤罪が起こり得るという観点かと思います。
この点においては、現状のGroup機能でも同様に起こり得るものであり、可能な限りそうした状況が無いように運用するか、あるいはDMなどで意見を受けて再審査という対応を行うのが望ましいと思っています。
ただし、わたしがこの2年近くモデレーション運用を行ってきた上での体験でお話しますと、「何もしていないのにBANされた」と言う人には「行ったことを意図的に伏せている」ケースや、「事実を矮小化して自身の行為を軽微なものと思わせる」といったケースが少なくないこと。
また、明らかに荒らし行為を行ったにも関わらず、上記のような内容をもって「不当な独裁が起きている」と吹聴しているトロールが多く、その扇動に浅慮にも同調してしまう人々が多いのを確認しています。
そうした現状をそのままにしておいては、悪意を持って侵害したものが許され、自身の作品や場所を作ろうとしたクリエイター、そしてそれらの利用者が際限なく侵略されるという環境を野放しにすることになります。
「冤罪による不当なBANが横行している」というイメージを拡散され、そのうえグループパブリックを作成して荒らし行為を行い、「荒らしの多い場所だ」というイメージを作られる。
それはクリエイターやユーザー、延いてはプラットフォームのためになる文化となっているでしょうか?
わたしは、ここを変えていくべきであると考えています。
やりとりの終了については了解いたしました。
ただ、対話が終わった後でも、そうした「無実なのに被害を一方的に受ける人々」のことを考えるきっかけとなってくれれば幸いです。
にゃ~の♪
(EN) It is highly recommended that the author of this Canny proposal, its voters, and most importantly, VRChat management, thoroughly consider the concerns detailed in the attached PDF to prevent potential legal risks and excessive moderation.
(JP) 潜在的な法的リスクや過剰なモデレーションを防ぐためにも、このCanny提案の提出者、投票者(賛同者)、 tenderそして何よりもVRChat運営陣が、添付したPDFの懸念事項を徹底的に考慮することを強く推奨します。
やがて捨てられる補助輪
にゃ~の♪
(EN)Thank you for your feedback.
First and foremost, this proposal focuses on "applying and linking the existing Group features to the management of world publics." Therefore, the baseline rules and regulations are those already established for the current Group system.
As such, the risks of over-moderation and autocratic control you highlighted appear to be criticisms directed at the structural flaws of the "current Group feature as a whole," rather than risks unique to this specific proposal.
This post is strictly a proposal asking: "Is it beneficial to create an option that extends existing Group features to the world-public level to mitigate harm occurring in public spaces?"
I understand the need for checks, balances, and auditing mechanisms for the Group feature itself. However, rather than using that as a reason to dismiss this proposal, I believe it would be far more constructive for you to separately raise those concerns as a new, independent proposal for improving the Group function itself on Canny. What are your thoughts on this?
(JP)まず、本案は既存のGroup機能をワールドのパブリック管理にまで適用するという提案となっております。
そのため、ベースとなる規定は既にGroup機能に対して規約やルールが設定されています。
あなたの指摘は、そもそもそうしたGroup機能自体への意見となっており、これは本件に限らず「Group機能の問題点」として、別途監視や監査の機構などを提案されるのが建設的であるとわたしは考えます。
本案はあくまで「パブリックで行われる加害に対してGroup機能をワールドパブリックまで拡張する選択肢を作るのはどうか」という内容となっております。
Group機能そのものの問題点はGroup機能そのものの問題点として、あなた自身が提起するというのはいかがでしょうか。
Load More
→