Code of Conduct Changes - Do better at least for optics

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

The true, dictionary definition, of censorship doesnt apply to what we are discussing. We get it, the blocking or disallowment of speech is indeed a censor by any measures, it just doeant apply here appropriately. So while you are technically correct it doesn't matter.

I'll agree to the dictionary definition of censorship if we agree that ANY entity that uses the threat of physical or digital removal to enforce rules is a government.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

You illustrated my point.

GGG could allow all those things, but they censor it.

That still makes it "censorship", it's not because we agree with it that it somehow get's removed out of the definition of censorship.

Just like how age restrictions work on certain content, which are also censorship.

It's not like china is not allowed to censor for example, wether we agree or disagree with the things censored has nothing to do with calling the act "censorship".

The differentiation you were trying to imply by making a distinction between censorship and a CoC are non existent.
A CoC is a form of censorship, a country enforcing it or a company is irrelevant to calling the action what it is.

Peace,

-Boem-

Not really. Typically only a Sith deals in absolutes, but you gone ahead and done it yourself here. Obviously context matters in order to have an intelligent debate. Otherwise we are debating semantics to to debate semantics.

By your account everything we do and say in everyday life is censored to some degree. Whether by ourselves(me not telling the chick in front of me at Subway that her ass looks amazing in leggings, is self censorship), or a kid telling his teacher to fuck off because she assigned homework on Friday. Not allowing, or having basically societal rules, cheapens true issues of govt censorship and oppression, which are real problems, and shouldn't be conflated.

The true, dictionary definition, of censorship doesnt apply to what we are discussing. We get it, the blocking or disallowment of speech is indeed a censor by any measures, it just doeant apply here appropriately. So while you are technically correct it doesn't matter.

"

Boem wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

You illustrated my point.

GGG could allow all those things, but they censor it.

That still makes it "censorship", it's not because we agree with it that it somehow get's removed out of the definition of censorship.

Just like how age restrictions work on certain content, which are also censorship.

It's not like china is not allowed to censor for example, wether we agree or disagree with the things censored has nothing to do with calling the act "censorship".

The differentiation you were trying to imply by making a distinction between censorship and a CoC are non existent.
A CoC is a form of censorship, a country enforcing it or a company is irrelevant to calling the action what it is.

Peace,

-Boem-

Not really. Typically only a Sith deals in absolutes, but you gone ahead and done it yourself here. Obviously context matters in order to have an intelligent debate. Otherwise we are debating semantics to to debate semantics.

By your account everything we do and say in everyday life is censored to some degree. Whether by ourselves(me not telling the chick in front of me at Subway that her ass looks amazing in leggings, is self censorship), or a kid telling his teacher to fuck off because she assigned homework on Friday. Not allowing, or having basically societal rules, cheapens true issues of govt censorship and oppression, which are real problems, and shouldn't be conflated.

The true, dictionary definition, of censorship doesnt apply to what we are discussing. We get it, the blocking or disallowment of speech is indeed a censor by any measures, it just doeant apply here appropriately. So while you are technically correct it doesn't matter.

I hope you don't expect me to agree that self-agency and enforced external agency are somehow comparable or can be used as interchangeable arguments?

As for why i posted, i was interested in why you felt the need to differentiate censorship and a CoC, when a CoC is a form of censorship.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

The CoC isn't censorship, the enforcement of the CoC is. (Or how its applied, which is why I have a problem with its vagueness)

Same goes for personal conduct and society norms. Can you violate them? Sure but there can be consequences.

Basically we agree some censorship is needed yes? Like we cant go around threating people, and then claim censorship if someone tells us its inappropriate (or worse)

And if that's true (hopefully) then where are the lines drawn and by whom? Doesnt that get into self agency and external agency? (In the case of this arguement GGG is self censoring through the CoC by allowing or not allowing what is displayed or conveyed on its product)

Edit: I guess my point is I'm not sure exactly what you are suggesting. That GGG just put up a disclaimer that the thoughts and statements in game or on the forums dont represent GGG and then let it be a free for all? If not then we all have to abide by some sort of censorship through moderation. (I just dont like their parameters or how they want to execute their CoC as stated)

"

Boem wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

The CoC isn't censorship, the enforcement of the CoC is. (Or how its applied, which is why I have a problem with its vagueness)

Same goes for personal conduct and society norms. Can you violate them? Sure but there can be consequences.

Basically we agree some censorship is needed yes? Like we cant go around threating people, and then claim censorship if someone tells us its inappropriate (or worse)

And if that's true (hopefully) then where are the lines drawn and by whom? Doesnt that get into self agency and external agency? (In the case of this arguement GGG is self censoring through the CoC by allowing or not allowing what is displayed or conveyed on its product)

Edit: I guess my point is I'm not sure exactly what you are suggesting. That GGG just put up a disclaimer that the thoughts and statements in game or on the forums dont represent GGG and then let it be a free for all? If not then we all have to abide by some sort of censorship through moderation. (I just dont like their parameters or how they want to execute their CoC as stated)

If you wanna go around treating people i'm fine with that ski.

On a more serious note, i believe self-agency in a social and cultural context is always superior to external agency.
In your example a case could be made that that girl her day would be made if somebody told her her ass looked fine.(if the context and signaling was appropriate that she desired this)
External agency cannot account for these discrepancy's from the norm and norms can change over time.

It's like telling a racist joke to your immigrant mate, an extremely complex social situation that allows for this divergence of the norm.

As for GGG, i don't have an issue with what they are doing, i have an issue with off-topic being a thing and falling under those rules.
Their action makes perfect sense for every other part of the forums and for the in-game chat since it reflects their product.

A section on the forum dedicated to "anything not related to path of exile", not so much.
And it's hard to make a busines case for why this should apply on this section. I'd much rather we get an additional loading screen before entering off-topic saying "this part of our forums is not moderated fully and only our don't be a dick CoC policy's apply here".

Most arguments in this thread make sense if we exclude off-topic, not so much once it enters the stage, which it does.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Is Support following all this? Are they learning anything? ='[.]'=

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

As far as semantics go, I define censorship as "a law against certain types of speech;" I define a law as "a rule backed by the credible threat of punitive action," and I define a government as "an entity that makes and enforces laws." So to me it's tautological that only governments censor.

However, where my view differs significantly from most is that I recognize far more governments than the "monotheistic" Godverment most people make of their national bureaucracy. I view myself as a government determining the rules of my house, and companies as having similar sovereignty over their own property — and neither of these governments are covered by the First Amendment.

I am very critical of the type of mindset that says certain bad things are only possible by government and thus private individuals or business entities cannot be perpetrators. Anarchocapitalists in particular often use such arguments, but in doing so they make government something quasi-mystical, as if a Constitution is somehow necessary to threaten other people into obeying a set of rules. A private corporation is more than capable of creating and enforcing law — this thread's topic is proof of concept.

Don't kid yourself into thinking the First Amendment effectively prohibits censorship in the US. All it does is prevent it at a federal and state level, passing that power down (in a manner similar to the 10th Amendment) to the thousands of (usually) smaller governments below them. The pressing issue here is that the Big Tech firms are starting to rival our elected government in terms of the very real political power they wield. Censorship is only the beginning.

"

Turtledove wrote:

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