Code of Conduct Changes - Do better at least for optics

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

pneuma wrote:

"

Anonymous1749704 wrote:

[Removed by Support]

[Removed by Support]

If you're a fan of censorship instead of discussion, then maybe you shouldn't be a part of any online communities. Internet would be a better place without your presence.

What I said to Anon got censored by a moderator. Should moderators be a part of online communities? Would the internet be a better place without them?

Personally, I don't think it's wrong to draw a little safe space and say "your kind aren't welcome here," because there's still plenty of other places to be welcomed in. But when people try to expand the boundaries of that "safe space" until they have an empire that stretches across more than half the Internet, that's when there's a problem. It's one thing to chase the shitpoaters out, and another to seek their extinction.

Censorship is an often misunderstood and misused term. When applied by the government and/or public media agencies regarding expression and speech this can be quite alarming.

However Code of Conduct and value based rules at private companies are fairly common if not to preclude from legal complaints or damaging marketing exposure. Sure "it's the right thing to do" comes into play a bit, but in large part ToS and EULA are more protections than steps to silence people. I know it hurts some peoples egos, but in most cases nobody really cares what you think.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

Censorship is an often misunderstood and misused term.

I think the term gets redefined a lot. You and Charan have both done it just now. It's just protection, it's just regulation...

Blocking people for what they say is censorship, full stop. There's the kind we generally agree on as "for good", and then there's the kind that ought to be looked down on. It's an extreme measure and should be used sparingly.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

However Code of Conduct and value based rules at private companies are fairly common if not to preclude from legal complaints or damaging marketing exposure. Sure "it's the right thing to do" comes into play a bit, but in large part ToS and EULA are more protections than steps to silence people.

All censorship is steps to silence people, the argument is if they deserve to be silenced. Like I said before, it's fashionable for businesses to distrust their communities. Just because it's common doesn't mean it's good.

This forum is a bunch of PoE and GGG enthusiasts that have been shooting the shit with each other for like 8 years. These changes aren't for us, we haven't changed, it's for GGG at our expense. They made that pretty clear themselves, it's about "their support staff's mental health".

I have a hard time buying it, and I'm increasingly in the camp that thinks it's purely for Chinese business dealings.

---

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

What I said to Anon got censored by a moderator. Should moderators be a part of online communities? Would the internet be a better place without them?

If I had my druthers, I'd only censor the things that are actually illegal (CP, direct calls to violence), spam/advertising, and then possibly NSFW things, depending on the community.

I feel like your second question is rhetorical but I'll answer it anyway. The internet is an actively worse place with everyone and their dog wagging their finger and saying "oh no no, don't talk about that, we can't have discussion about that". It's sterile and boring and humorless and just fucking awful.

And for the record, I'm certainly not saying that GGG (or any other private forum owner) can't do such a thing, only that they shouldn't. They have all the power and control to shoot themselves in the foot and nobody should stop them from doing so if they so wish.

Making a rule against political discussion is not silencing anyone. If you'd like to discuss politics then here's an article about that. It gives what the author considers the 4 best places and guess what? None of them are this forum.

What is the best political forum online?

edit: Here's another with a perhaps better description of the first pick of the above. The folks complaining most might find this article better.
What is a good forum online for political junkies?

I fail to see what is so controversial about letting people discuss things freely on a video game forum.

Yeah, everyone knows that there are other places for discussion. What if I wanted to have a discussion with Scrotie and Turtledove and all the other hundred people that I've been cheerily posting with for years?

Everyone is inflamed by something, and some people can't handle certain topics. Nothing forces engagement on those topics, especially when they're well-marked. To quote an irremovable forum-goer, you know where the door is.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Would the internet be a better place without them?

[re: moderation]

No need for such a rhetorical question, when we have history of an internet with forums (Usenet) that was unmoderated (except for the largest groups like rec/soc/talk ). They worked (and worked extremely well) because no one owned them and no one was responsible for anything on them.

As much as we have adjusted to the liberty GGG gave us in off topic, to my mind their entire site it is still primarily a game company, not a social forum, so GGG does not owe us any freedom of speech. I don't care for the changes, and the changes do lessen my esteem for PoE as a whole. This isn't because I expect a game company to allow volatile discussions, but because IMO, GGG allowing such conversations put them above and beyond other game companies.

From GGG's standpoint there aren't a lot of players actively participating in OT. Depending on how vociferously they apply the new standards to chat, they could lose a small chunk of players who get tired of being told they have to watch their words in an "adult" game.

Like Dominus casting the exiles out of Theopolis for offending his strict sensibilities, GGG is exiling the free thinkers from OT. We will find another path.

"

pneuma wrote:

I fail to see what is so controversial about letting people discuss things freely on a video game forum.

Yeah, everyone knows that there are other places for discussion. What if I wanted to have a discussion with Scrotie and Turtledove and all the other hundred people that I've been cheerily posting with for years?

Everyone is inflamed by something, and some people can't handle certain topics. Nothing forces engagement on those topics, especially when they're well-marked. To quote an irremovable forum-goer, you know where the door is.

Here's a bit of my personal philosophy. Change in general is good, not always but usually. This is a change that was well within GGG's right to make. If it was solely up to me, I likely would not have made this change. Is this change bad? I don't know, although if I was in GGG's shoes I can see making/approving/agreeing-with/encouraging this change. I'm not in GGG's shoes, all I can do is adapt and make do. I'm sure that we will all be okay with this change in the longer run.




_______________________________________________________________
edit: Perhaps this is part of the sadness with this change? Who gets future bragging rights? If orange-face gets re-elected by a landslide in 2020 then we can agree that you won bragging rights and if orange-face loses in 2020 and faces criminal charges then the reverse. We just won't be able to exercise those bragging rights. :-D

I will adapt for sure.

But I'm gonna start contacting support more often if there's some sort of picking on what moderation happens.

it's okay to call others "braindead" but it's not okay when someone uses "get gud".. only if it's the "right" person.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Making a rule against political discussion is not silencing anyone.

That's like saying pointing a gun at someone and saying you need money isn't robbing someone.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

the changes do lessen my esteem for PoE as a whole. This isn't because I expect a game company to allow volatile discussions, but because IMO, GGG allowing such conversations put them above and beyond other game companies.

You're contradicting yourself; if one removes the thing that puts one above, the result is a lowering. What I think you mean to say is that, despite a drop in your appreciation for GGG, you still find them acceptable considering their competition.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Like Dominus casting the exiles out of Theopolis for offending his strict sensibilities, GGG is exiling the free thinkers from OT. We will find another path.

Balderdash, K. Implying those who stay or are comfortable with the new regulation aren't free thinkers. You know better than that. And you know that there's a huge fucking gap between 'free thinking' and 'free speaking' in terms of a forum. We do not need to know each others' stances on religion and politics to interact here even on some pretty deep, meaningful levels. And if you disagree, then I'd suggest you review your idea of deep and meaningful, because the controversies of religion and politics are barely a gateway to 'free thinking'. If anything, they are temporal, facile topics convenient for sowing division and conflict, a shortcut to a facsimile of free thinking that precludes the idea of maybe everyone's right, and maybe everyone's wrong. Maybe we have no idea. THAT is the start of free thinking, not choosing a side and going to hypothetical war over it.

In fact, were it an attack on free thinking, they wouldn't be excising discussion of certain topics regardless of the position. They'd be pushing one side or another. Far left, far right, fundamentalist this or moderate that...they just don't want to see *any* of that discussed personally here.

In other words: The belief that all the major positions have something right and something wrong — in other words, the basis of critical thinking — is also the basis of free thinking. Therefore, it's okay to not allow you to speak ill of one side or another, because you're failing to demonstrate your commitment to free thought.

I've better practiced what you preach than you have, friend. But I don't consider critical thinking and free thinking to have the same basis. You should have the freedom to think and speak uncritically, not be forced into the dogma of having every thought purity-checked for criticality. As someone who tries with some diligence to follow that dogma myself, I obviously believe you should do it anyway, without being forced — at least for most of the time.

I disagree with your concept of free thinking. While you see it as a synonym for critical thinking, I view free thinking as one meta-level more abstract. Is critical thinking the best approach? Are other modes of thought sometimes superior? Free thinking applies critical analysis to critical thinking itself, and questions it. In doing so, a free thinker tries on alternative modes of thinking from time to time, as one might try on clothes, never fully satisfied with the certainty that critical thinking is the best way at all times. Free thinking is a lot less judgmental of alternative forms of thinking and a lot less sure of itself.

Dalai's is right. Increased censorship that hits "both sides" of issues is not the calling card of free thinkers. It's the calling card of rigid, critical thinkers who will not brook thoughts unlike their own.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Here's a bit of my personal philosophy. Change in general is good, not always but usually.

Then why does the affirmative side have the burden of proof in debate? Because there are limited number of ways to make something better, but there are infinite ways to make something worse. Change for change's sake is a path to ruin, because change in general is bad — not always, but usually.

In terms of changes actually implemented: there is a phrase, "bad times create hard men, hard men create good times, good times create soft men, soft men create bad times." The hard men are those who know from experience that change is usually bad. The soft men are those who see the changes hard men have brought, but don't understand the reasoning beneath them.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Making a rule against political discussion is not silencing anyone.

That's like saying pointing a gun at someone and saying you need money isn't robbing someone.

You couldn't have put much thought into that Scrotie, absolutely NOT!

It's more like Target stores making a rule that people are not able to stand outside their doors and preach the gospel.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Here's a bit of my personal philosophy. Change in general is good, not always but usually.

Then why does the affirmative side have the burden of proof in debate? Because there are limited number of ways to make something better, but there are infinite ways to make something worse. Change for change's sake is a path to ruin, because change in general is bad — not always, but usually.

I guess you think that humanity is worse off now than 30,000 years ago then?

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Making a rule against political discussion is not silencing anyone.

That's like saying pointing a gun at someone and saying you need money isn't robbing someone.

You couldn't have put much thought into that Scrotie, absolutely NOT!

It's more like Target stores making a rule that people are not able to stand outside their doors and preach the gospel.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Here's a bit of my personal philosophy. Change in general is good, not always but usually.

Then why does the affirmative side have the burden of proof in debate? Because there are limited number of ways to make something better, but there are infinite ways to make something worse. Change for change's sake is a path to ruin, because change in general is bad — not always, but usually.

I guess you think that humanity is worse off now than 30,000 years ago then?

Well we are much more capable of killing ourselves and everything else on the planet that's for sure.

Times were simpler hunting mammoths with spears.