It is annoying but I can see the issue from both sides of the fence. Developers need a way to be able to remove truly abusive and repugnant comments from their pages but of course, some devs who can't handle anything but fawning adoration will take advantage of the system to shape the discussion to give the impression everyone loves their game.

One solution would be to add a flag button (similar to the 'Report for inappropriate content' button in the forums) to each comment and limit the developer, and users alike, to that recourse. The problem there would be that it'd place more work on Valve's shoulders and they're not a big fan of moderating the Greenlight pages as it stands.

It can be frustrating. Recently I saw a Greenlight Concepts page with game art from an existing commercial product. I mentioned that they may want to replace the artwork they'd taken from another game and they promptly did... with about 30 pieces of artwork taken from DeviantArt site instead.

They're getting a lot of positive feedback about their concept art (the real creators of the artwork are very talented - they'd probably be very happy with the compliments, if they actually knew about them. Less so about having their artwork stolen, of course). Any questions and comments that I and others have made about the nature of the concept artwork have all been quickly deleted without response.

I would be fine with a flag button, or a voting system for comments

There are a few issues, mainly both the trolls and the hypercritical(I would call myself quite critical)
Personally, I believe I should be able to post my views on a Greenlight item, the authors are coming to me with a product, asking that I buy/invest/back their project. I should be able to post what I want as long as it is relevant.
And sometimes you do need to get a little mean(such as RPG maker games with a kickstarter for $50,000)

Originally posted by Graeme- Coarse Gentleman:

I should be able to post what I want as long as it is relevant.

...and fits within the rules of conduct for the Steam Community, of course.

Originally posted by -Z-:

Originally posted by Graeme- Coarse Gentleman:

I should be able to post what I want as long as it is relevant.

...and fits within the rules of conduct for the Steam Community, of course.

Well of course.

Originally posted by Graeme- Coarse Gentleman:

Originally posted by -Z-:

...and fits within the rules of conduct for the Steam Community, of course.

Well of course.

It needed to be pointed out, because some have complained about their posts being deleted when said posts did, in fact, violate said rules of conduct.

I think perhaps the simplest and most elegant (technical) solution would be to have a counter on each project that shows how many comments (including total lost by deleting discussion threads) that can be neither be edited nor hid by the owner, and persists from submission to resubmission.

Simple, incontrovertible, and requires no moderation or administration overhead. Users can make of the number what they will. House cleaning or heavy-handed moderation.

It still is a problem if you have only one user who is constantly writing rage comments. The number can go pretty high and people will suspect anything.
Maybe it would help if the removed comments and threads would still be accesible. Kind of an additional tab: Removed comments. Developers could keep the actual comment section clean while those skeptical could check if there really is no negative feedback. The removed commens section would not be open for more comments from users but the developer could mark comments and explain why he removed them. Would probably be complicated for technical implemantion (is that written correct?).

Originally posted by Adelion:

The removed commens section would not be open for more comments from users but the developer could mark comments and explain why he removed them. Would probably be complicated for technical implemantion (is that written correct?).

Yes that seems correctly written, apart from the odd comma. As for the difficulty aspect it's certainly not outwith the ability of the people they hire. In fact given the frequency of minor updates and patches they come up with, it's a very plausible idea.

This highlights, yet again, the need for a voting system. What is profound is the desire of greenlit "devs" to bat in a bigger league but cannot take part and parcel what comes with that added status. Potential buyers need more protection, (especially with the new and confusing concept of paid early access alpha) which should come in the form of unmuted ratings and reviews.

I like the ideas being discussed here, some stuff I didn't think of.
And Chris1980, you're totally right, we do need to do our best to vent our concerns and issues with projects, as a measure for protection of those without the information.

Originally posted by Graeme- Coarse Gentleman:

I like the ideas being discussed here, some stuff I didn't think of.
And Chris1980, you're totally right, we do need to do our best to vent our concerns and issues with projects, as a measure for protection of those without the information.

There are some that would prefer stiffling the voices they don't agree with. Whilst thats possible at the moment on Steam, there are other forums such as Gamespot where honest opinions are available. However not too many games from here make it onto Gamespot. Shame.

Originally posted by Graeme- Coarse Gentleman:

I like the ideas being discussed here, some stuff I didn't think of.
And Chris1980, you're totally right, we do need to do our best to vent our concerns and issues with projects, as a measure for protection of those without the information.

Chris1980's Steam group is made with the expressed purpose of harassing game devs... He is (theoretically) an example of the kind of people that can't be allowed total freedom to do what they want, as it encroaches too much on the freedom of others.

Originally posted by GorlomSwe:

Originally posted by Graeme- Coarse Gentleman:

I like the ideas being discussed here, some stuff I didn't think of.
And Chris1980, you're totally right, we do need to do our best to vent our concerns and issues with projects, as a measure for protection of those without the information.

Chris1980's Steam group is made with the expressed purpose of harassing game devs... He is (theoretically) an example of the kind of people that can't be allowed total freedom to do what they want, as it encroaches too much on the freedom of others.

Actually just went through it- they say no to games that include
Early Access Fraud.
Broken "Alpha", aka malware.
Refunds, to put pressure on Greenlight developers to issue refunds.
General Greenlight rubbish that should never see the light of day.

Doesn't seem all that bad. It's quite annoying when lazy/fraud devs get on, while good devs don't...

Originally posted by Graeme- Coarse Gentleman:

Actually just went through it- they say no to games that include
Early Access Fraud.
Broken "Alpha", aka malware.
Refunds, to put pressure on Greenlight developers to issue refunds.
General Greenlight rubbish that should never see the light of day.

Doesn't seem all that bad. It's quite annoying when lazy/fraud devs get on, while good devs don't...

Except, to Chris, everything Early Access is "Fraud," he has already thoroughly demonstrated that he doesn't understand what "malware" is (flawed coding is not it), and they're dedicated to mass harassment, which is against the rules of Steam conduct. Further, Chris is of the mind that anything that is not of interest to him, personally, is rubbish that shouldn't see the light of day made by lazy/fraud devs...which is everything in Greenlight.