Blue wrote on Jun 24, 2022, 17:34:
I'm sorry you feel we are letting you down, being inconsistent, or acting with anything but pure intent.

You run the best website on the internet. You have a fair policy. The simpler the rules the better. Some people are just high maintenance and can't accept that certain gray areas will exist and it's not your job to have to constantly use nuance on whether to moderate posts. How exhausting that would be.

All relative, be a terrorist to nazis, and you'll be a good boy.

Be neither, but the immaculate SCOTUS majority of heartless pricks, kowtowing to their religious sponsors and clearing the way for the looming gloriously Evangelic Talibanate.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jun 24, 2022, 17:30:
So we're cool with calling people Nazis and terrorists.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

This is going well.

Moderation is a thankless and difficult task. Our goal here is to allow people to express themselves and keep things civil without turning into the thought police. I'm sorry you feel we are letting you down, being inconsistent, or acting with anything but pure intent.

So we're cool with calling people Nazis and terrorists.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jun 24, 2022, 13:57:
That's my gripe. Either apply the rule or don't. Don't half-ass it. If that means more of my posts get whacked because they are seen as too inflammatory or hyperbolic, fine. I can take that. So long as the rule is applied evenly.

The rule against using certain words is applied 100% evenly.

The term "intolerance" is not used to explain the removal of a post for being intolerant. It's shorthand for our rule against certain intolerant terms. "Intolerance (Rule 2)" links to the rule saying: "No ethnic slurs, sexism, homophobic language, or other forms of intolerance." It is specifically meant to curb, for lack of a better term, "hate speech." If the way the wording refers to "other forms of intolerance" is confusing things, then that needs to be changed.

In any event, the call for someone to moderate each post to guard against being "too inflammatory or hyperbolic" is asking for something that we cannot do, and I can't imagine many people want.

Blue wrote on Jun 24, 2022, 12:56:
I get it, it's irritating having your posts removed. But let's be clear what happened. We've got a rule against using certain derogatory words here. Your post broke that rule. It's not about the sentiment, it's specific language.

So in return you point to another post that doesn't use the forbidden terms, but you (and I for that matter) find objectionable. So is your proposed solution to finding our mild degree of censorship of specific terms that we should censor more posts based on their content as well? We all want to be able to speak our minds, we've just tried to stop that involving insulting minorities.

You are not being treated any differently than anyone else would. If your post called your enemies Qanon terrorists and Cutter's called his libtards, his post would have been the one that's deleted. I hope that's clear and the logic is acceptable.

Blue, I am very clear about what happened. I don't care that my posts got whacked. It happens.

What I care about is the application of the intolerance rule. It is uneven. If there are developmentally disabled people who are using this site and find the term "r*tard" offensive, I apologize. Seriously.

But I do take issue with people being allowed to randomly call folks "terrorists" for having a different ideological belief and that not being considered intolerant. Are you going to seriously posit that calling someone you disagree with politically a person seeking to cause death or fear by means of violence is "tolerant"? And in the same thread inferring that those same folks are Nazis? This is "tolerance" to you?

That's my gripe. Either apply the rule or don't. Don't half-ass it. If that means more of my posts get whacked because they are seen as too inflammatory or hyperbolic, fine. I can take that. So long as the rule is applied evenly.

Thanks for your stellar job in moderating the wild bunch !
*stop your blatant sucking up you twat*
*it's not*
*it is ... *
*just testing the limits*

LOL cheers.

Verno wrote on Jun 24, 2022, 13:18:

RedEye9 wrote on Jun 24, 2022, 13:12:
It makes sense but I don’t think it applies here.
I edit most of my posts multiple times trying to accomplish edits in the 10 minute edit window and this particular post was edited with the intent to remove all instances of the disallowed word.
The post was deleted over an hour later.
If you still have access to my final edit, Did I get rid of all instances of the disallowed word?
I’ve been known to make mistakes.

Your last edit did yeah, I see it now in the removed comment but obviously did not at the time, it had the terms in it and that's why we left the message indicating why it was being removed. Anyways I don't know, perhaps just a browser cache issue on our end or a misunderstanding.

In the future though, I suggest just not engaging with posts that you think have a high potential to be moderated or leaving the quote out entirely if you choose to do so. If there has to be a thread clean up it just creates more work and potential for confusion.

Ok
Thought I was going nuts, and that’s a short trip.

RedEye9 wrote on Jun 24, 2022, 13:12:
It makes sense but I don’t think it applies here.
I edit most of my posts multiple times trying to accomplish edits in the 10 minute edit window and this particular post was edited with the intent to remove all instances of the disallowed word.
The post was deleted over an hour later.
If you still have access to my final edit, Did I get rid of all instances of the disallowed word?
I’ve been known to make mistakes.

Your last edit did yeah, I see it now in the removed comment but obviously did not at the time, it had the terms in it and that's why we left the message indicating why it was being removed. Anyways I don't know, perhaps just a browser cache issue on our end or a misunderstanding.

In the future though, I suggest just not engaging with posts that you think have a high potential to be moderated or leaving the quote out entirely if you choose to do so. If there has to be a thread clean up it just creates more work and potential for confusion. Failing that just edit it out before it goes "live" so to speak.

Anyways I'm back to work, everyone have a great weekend!

Verno wrote on Jun 24, 2022, 13:04:

RedEye9 wrote on Jun 24, 2022, 12:45:
I was aware of the disallowed word and would swear that I had edited the two instances (both Q portmanteaus) that I noticed from BoP’s post using * REMOVED * in place of it. Hence my confusion.
Must have missed one?

See your edited post for an example.

Your initial post had the terms in his quote, I assume like me you often click and quote someone's whole response, then sometimes touch it up a bit later on. You then edited them out separately at a later timestamp but we had removed the post before refreshing the page so we did not see the updated edit. This is very difficult to explain so I hope that makes sense.

It makes sense but I don’t think it applies here.
If it is a case of moderating a post hours later it might be best to refresh the page.
I edit most of my posts multiple times trying to accomplish edits in the 10 minute edit window and this particular post was edited with the intent to remove all instances of the disallowed word.
The post was deleted over an hour later.
If you still have access to my final edit, Did I get rid of all instances of the disallowed word?
I’ve been known to make mistakes.

Example
I’ve already edited this post 3x and by my clock I have 4 more minutes to change things.

RedEye9 wrote on Jun 24, 2022, 12:45:
I was aware of the disallowed word and would swear that I had edited the two instances (both Q portmanteaus) that I noticed from BoP’s post using * REMOVED * in place of it. Hence my confusion.
Must have missed one?

See your edited post for an example.

Your initial post had the terms in his quote, I assume like me you often click and quote someone's whole response, then sometimes touch it up a bit later on. You then edited them out separately at a later timestamp but we had removed the post before refreshing the page so we did not see the updated edit. This is very difficult to explain so I hope that makes sense.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jun 24, 2022, 11:45:
But calling folks "liberal terrorists" which is, you know, an actual definition of someone committed to causing violence, fear, and death just with a political adjective upfront is completely tolerant and A-OK.

Like here for example.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

/s

I get it, it's irritating having your posts removed. But let's be clear what happened. We've got a rule against using certain derogatory words here. Your post broke that rule. It's not about the sentiment, it's specific language.

So in return you point to another post that doesn't use the forbidden terms, but you (and I for that matter) find objectionable. So is your proposed solution to finding our mild degree of censorship of specific terms that we should censor more posts based on their content as well? We all want to be able to speak our minds, we've just tried to stop that involving insulting minorities.

You are not being treated any differently than anyone else would. If your post called your enemies Qanon terrorists and Cutter's called his libtards, his post would have been the one that's deleted. I hope that's clear and the logic is acceptable.

Blue wrote on Jun 24, 2022, 09:55:

RedEye9 wrote on Jun 23, 2022, 19:24:
* REMOVED *

This comment was deleted on Jun 23, 2022, 21:19. Reason: Quoted removed post

There appears to be confusion over the deletion here. To clarify, the use of the term "retard" is disallowed as part of our intolerance of intolerance. Related portmanteaus like lib* REMOVED * and Q* REMOVED * are, likewise, a no-go. Hopefully this will not stand in the way of anyone being able to properly express themselves.

I was aware of the disallowed word and would swear that I had edited the two instances (both Q portmanteaus) that I noticed from BoP’s post using * REMOVED * in place of it. Hence my confusion.
Must have missed one?

See your edited post for an example.

BoP, in that particular camp I cheer and hope whenever posts get sensible sometimes -yeah, come on, you can do it !-, only to relapse into over the top aggression later

Also get the abusing of a term for innocent discapacitated persons that so many times brave their situation with more grace and soul than those that choose a hateful outlook.

This comment was edited on Jun 24, 2022, 12:46.

But calling folks "liberal terrorists" which is, you know, an actual definition of someone committed to causing violence, fear, and death just with a political adjective upfront is completely tolerant and A-OK.

Like here for example.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

/s

Just an addendum to what Blue said - if you quote content that is in violation of a rule then we will likely remove your post as well. It is a lot of work to edit quotes, nested quotes and so on. Time is better spent on other things and people have a pretty good of idea of what's allowable here. For those that have posts removed in this regard, nothing personal but you quoted something offside and we'll mark it as such in the removal message.

RedEye9 wrote on Jun 23, 2022, 19:24:
* REMOVED *

This comment was deleted on Jun 23, 2022, 21:19. Reason: Quoted removed post

There appears to be confusion over the deletion here. To clarify, the use of the term "retard" is disallowed as part of our intolerance of intolerance. Related portmanteaus like libtard and Qtard are, likewise, a no-go. Hopefully this will not stand in the way of anyone being able to properly express themselves.

GaianElite wrote on Jun 24, 2022, 09:12:
I actually did/used to read them, reviews are different depending on the game. Some games do have better insights from users opposed to others.

I don't know, I find most games on Steam have useful reviews and Steam has by far the easiest review filtering interface. You can filter and sub-filter by several different methods. Most of the time I don't even need to bother, I find Steam is pretty good at giving me pro/con reviews on the "front page" of reviews for various games.

Someone else mentioned watching Youtube videos and that's fine too but I find the written word allows for a lot more detail about mechanics and other information. I find many video reviews that Youtube returns as search results to be generic and short, largely because they have to be for favorable placement in it's algorithm. I do have a few more detailed video reviewers I follow though.

Verno wrote on Jun 23, 2022, 13:44:
I've always found user reviews to be helpful. It is remarkably easy to filter reviews on Steam anyway and no one cares about review bombing. It's not like anyone reads a "BLAH 1 STAR!!!" review and was swayed by that opinion. I was reading up on Warhammer 40k: Daemonhunters today and the Steam reviews were informative and helpful in making a purchase decision. When people say user reviews are useless I have to shake my head and wonder if they bothered reading any. I can pretty much pick any game from my wishlist and probably find some useful reviews. There is no real counter argument to them existing either, they just potentially add value and don't really detract from anything if people want to ignore them.

Epic's approach is interesting but has a number of deficiencies, not the least of which is that it seems to too friendly to devs and publishers who already have several mechanisms to influence public opinion. The whole criticism from the Epic crowd here was that Steam is "too closed", well open this up too then. No RNG for selecting people and if you're going to do that, publish the algorithm that selects them so that we know the users are truly randomly selected and not just people who leave a lot of favorable reviews.

Anyways nice to see the Epic store finally taking itself a bit seriously and making an effort.

I actually did/used to read them, reviews are different depending on the game. Some games do have better insights from users opposed to others.