@BHVR - Stop calling it "Body Blocking"

Dude I'm just throwing out a term that makes the most sense. "Soft lock" is when you can't play the game but the game continues to function, as opposed to a "hard lock" where the game just ceases to work.

The entire point of this thread is to say "we need a specific word for this action that is bannable" because calling it "body blocking" is not working.

And it doesn't matter if body blocking is part of the definition of a soft lock, because a soft lock is a specific kind of body blocking. Again refer to my manslaughter V murder explanation. The difference is subtle but VERY important. If I use the term "body blocking" to describe a soft lock that doesn't mean it's acceptable to call it a body block, because it's not that. It's a certain type of that. Same with holding the game hostage as there are several ways that can be done. Therefore soft lock is a combination of body block and holding the game hostage. It's not immediately meant to be considered body blocking, it's meant to deter people from using the words "body block" in the context of a bannable offense, because those words can refer to several things.

And I mention we could add the word "intentional" or "malicious" in front of soft lock to distinguish it from soft lock bugs where no one is at fault. If you get stuck in a locker, me as killer is not responsible for that and therefore you can't report me. If I stand so that when you exit the locker you can't move, THAT is what is bannable.

We are going in circles here. You are looking way to hard at this for a reason to not use a new term when the reason to use a new term is simple; SPECIFICITY. That is all I have left to say.

"A survivor holding another survivor in the corner for example is classed as Body Blocking, this would be punishable as they are preventing active gameplay, they are not however taking the game hostage cos the game can still end due to EndGame Collapse." - MandyTalk (see above)

So even if the game can end, the act of preventing another player from playing the game is still bannable. If you do it for 10 seconds you're not really impeding someone's ability to play the game. If you do it for 10 minutes though, then you definitely are.

I picked "soft lock" because it most accurately describes the situation, and doesn't use the words "body block" because in doing so you just create confusion. It needs it's own term.

If any of you have a better term please post it. Otherwise stop with the "it's not REAL soft locking" stuff because it doesn't do anything to solve the underlying issue.

I don't see why it matters that you have to explain soft locking as a form of body blocking. The specific type that is bannable.

If I have 2 sports cars, and one is a Porsche, I still have to use the term "sports car" to describe them both. But I only use the word "Porsche" to describe a specific one.

It's pretty simple. If you body block such that the player can't play the game it's a soft lock. If they can still play, it's just a regular body block. One is bannable the other is not. You don't need to explain this to people that have been playing the game because they know, only now they just have to start using a new term for this specific type of bannable body blocking.

And there is a point to change it now because people still argue over what is and is not bannable body blocking, and the game is still gaining new players.

Also technically speaking, a survivor body blocking a killer carrying a survivor or an injured survivor is a "protection hit". But the need for a specific term is less necessary here because it's allowed. The only kind of body blocking terminology that actually matters is the kind that is bannable; soft locking.

I'm not, but you can't just append the word/phrase to include more words. This is basically how the rule is written currently which is the problem in the first place. If you want to give an entirely unique term, go for it. But calling it "body blocking with extra steps" is proven to not work.

Which you explain as "this specific model of Porsche, see how it's different". Now when you say 911 people know exactly which you are referring, and if you always refer to it as the 911 then say Porsche people will know you likely don't mean the 911.

If we begin to refer to bannable body blocking as "soft lock" or whatever else we come up with, then when someone that DOES NOT know the rules hears it they won't conflate it with normal body blocking.

Therefore I can be in a conversation with someone and say "I will body block for you" then later say "killer soft locked me" and they won't assume the first is also the second. But if you use "body block" for both, well now in the second part the person that doesn't know the rules will be confused because apparently one is okay and one is not, they will assume both are not okay.

This is how people think man. I did behavioral research during my capstone in college. Splitting the terms this way would make a significant difference in understanding of the circumstances for most people.

Again this is more or less how it is currently written and there is still confusion and disagreement about the rule. Giving it an entirely new term, even if the definition is just a longer explanation of something that already exists, would go a long way in resolving these problems.

"If a person won't read the rules and is misinformed then why would a name change for an action make them suddenly do so?"

Because then they don't conflate one thing that is permitted with another thing that is bannable, when they are very similar but distinctly different.

If we assume no one reads the rules, if you use body block in both instances, it can lead to someone wrongly believing either both are allowed or both are bannable. This is evidenced by how often these threads pop up where someone cites the rules as saying "body blocking". Several people have done so in this exact thread. If they were two separate things, even if they share a mechanic, there would be less of this.

"I'll give an example."

You examples are flawed because we are not talking about a sweeping change to the entire concept of body blocking. We are talking about giving this specific instance of body blocking, the one that is banned, it's own term.

"All I am saying is the term soft lock isn't very logical to use as imo its a very generic term which had very broad meanings and would take a lot of time to educate people into using and then those that know the term start to use it for all glitches and bugs causing more confusion."

Again it's not about educating people. That is a different problem altogether. This is about preventing cross contamination if you could call it that. It's for those players that do not know the exact rules that may hear about body blocking and bannable offenses from unreliable sources. All the rules need to state is "soft locking is bannable". If the rule says "body blocking is bannable" that leads to people automatically assuming any form of body blocking is bannable.

"Look I get you like the idea and are very invested in it but I won't agree."

You don't have to agree with the name, I've said this. But it's clear you don't seem to understand the concept. You claim you do, but if you did you wouldn't be arguing with me. This is a very straightforward and simple idea that isn't at all about what you argue it's about. It's about the separation of one act from another. Hence my murder V manslaughter point. In either case you are still killing another person, but the context in which is happens makes a huge difference.

Your gaming experience and DBD experience is irrelevant here, because I'm referring to how often someone comes to this forum and says something to the extent of "a survivor body blocked me as I was carrying another survivor, please ban them". Hence why I point out your low forum post count because you likely haven't been here long enough to see how often this issue pops up.

Furthermore your entire argument is irrelevant because we are not talking about whether or not trapping someone in a corner is bannable. It is. The rules say this. The devs have said this. A mod said this in this exact thread. The point of this thread is as I state above; to clarify the specific instance of what is exactly bannable by giving it it's own term that cannot be confused with similar actions that are NOT bannable.

Possibly. I don't have the game open, and it may be worded this way on the report screen, but I definitely recall the devs making these exact statements elsewhere and it doesn't help. We need a separate term to define the bannable form of body blocking so that there is 0 way for someone to assume permitted body blocking is also bannable.

Possibly, but we can literally side step all of this by using a new term for specifically this action. Essentially, if you replace the words "body blocking" with "soft locking" or whatever new term we come up with that IMMEDIATELY negates a large chunk of false complaints because someone won't see doing X as the same as doing Y. Worst case scenario is someone doesn't know what "soft lock" means and looks it up as it relates to DBD. They will be less likely to make a false report, either intentionally or unintentionally, because we avoid using the blanket term "body block".

See but that's still not specific enough. If the killer happens to stand at a pallet or window such that the survivor can't use it, people would just assume that is bannable.

This is why I say it's just easier to give it it's own term. Less confusion with what is allowed (since most body blocking is allowed). "Soft lock" suggests being stuck in a place, which is really the main requirement for body blocking to go from allowed to banned. It honestly just makes life easier if you can refer to the entire situation in a single term, instead of explaining the entire situation each time. Simple is better, and having the whole explanation doesn't seem simple to me.

Semantics are very important with stuff like this when the line for what is and is not acceptable is paper thin. Again, refer to my murder V manslaughter argument. At the end of the day you killed someone. Period. But how exactly it happened changes a lot.