Should Steam take over moderation on Game Forums?

[Archform]

Don't you think that would allow for more impartial discussion? As some game forums simply focus on promoting positive content and pushing down negative content.

[Archform]

引用自 KillahInstinct：

1 and 2. So you're saying this thread is moot as it's already doing what you're asking?
3. Steam cares about it's customers, most of what it does is based on feedback. A happy customer will return, an unhappy one won't.
4. No, Steam doesn't sell your data. They've no reason to. Unlike FB, you aren't the product - but a customer.

I think that's where your assumption was wrong and you were making comparisons that I had trouble understanding.

1 and 2. But they aren't I still see game dev mods.
3. Just saying other posters say otherwise.
4. So if I buy a game on steam, I won't see game related ads while I traverse the web? I kinda don't buy it. Some one is leaking my activity.

I am still keeping the assumption, tech companies regularly lie and are proven liars on that one. Call it common sense cynicism.

[KillahInstinct]

引用自 Archform：

引用自 KillahInstinct：

1 and 2. So you're saying this thread is moot as it's already doing what you're asking?
3. Steam cares about it's customers, most of what it does is based on feedback. A happy customer will return, an unhappy one won't.
4. No, Steam doesn't sell your data. They've no reason to. Unlike FB, you aren't the product - but a customer.

I think that's where your assumption was wrong and you were making comparisons that I had trouble understanding.

1 and 2. But they aren't I still see game dev mods.
3. Just saying other posters say otherwise.
4. So if I buy a game on steam, I won't see game related ads while I traverse the web? I kinda don't buy it. Some one is leaking my activity.

I am still keeping the assumption, tech companies regularly lie and are proven liars on that one. Call it common sense cynicism.

1.2. Again, a question you missed - what exactly is the problem? Most of your interaction where with Steam moderators and Steam Support. So what is the problem with the quality of moderation?


3. Some people will always be unhappy with a product, it's simply not possibly to keep everyone happy. For example, some people want more censorship (like.. bad words), some people don't want any censorship. Result: Some people will be unhappy.
4. That's fair, but breaking the is a big no go. Besides, Steam has no reason to sell your data. That's not their main product.I know noone reads them, but laywers do and if a company doesn't actually do as they say - they're screwed, bigtime.[store.steampowered.com]

[Archform]

引用自 KillahInstinct：

1.2. Again, a question you missed - what exactly is the problem? Most of your interaction where with Steam moderators and Steam Support. So what is the problem with the quality of moderation?


3. Some people will always be unhappy with a product, it's simply not possibly to keep everyone happy. For example, some people want more censorship (like.. bad words), some people don't want any censorship. Result: Some people will be unhappy.
4. That's fair, but breaking the url=https://store.steampowered.com/privacy_agreement/Privacy Policy is a big no go. Besides, Steam has no reason to sell your data. That's not their main product.

I know noone reads them, but laywers do and if a company doesn't actually do as they say - they're screwed, bigtime.

I believe as is my OP implies, impartial moderation would lead to higher quality forums, which game dev mods cannot provide as a major conflict of interest.

[Brian9824]

引用自 Archform：

引用自 KillahInstinct：

1.2. Again, a question you missed - what exactly is the problem? Most of your interaction where with Steam moderators and Steam Support. So what is the problem with the quality of moderation?


3. Some people will always be unhappy with a product, it's simply not possibly to keep everyone happy. For example, some people want more censorship (like.. bad words), some people don't want any censorship. Result: Some people will be unhappy.
4. That's fair, but breaking the url=https://store.steampowered.com/privacy_agreement/Privacy Policy is a big no go. Besides, Steam has no reason to sell your data. That's not their main product.

I know noone reads them, but laywers do and if a company doesn't actually do as they say - they're screwed, bigtime.

I believe as is my OP implies, impartial moderation would lead to higher quality forums, which game dev mods cannot provide as a major conflict of interest.

No one can provide impartial moderation, everyone has a bias and people accuse steam moderators of bias all the time. Afterall game dev's are steam's customers, so people accuse them of covering up for bad games since the more copies of a game sells the more steam makes.

You have a misconception that Steam moderation is magic, and everyone would just love it.

Your also ignoring the fact that steam spending a few hundred million on moderation that 99% of the userbase doesn't care about would be a smart move on their part.

[KillahInstinct]

引用自 Archform：

引用自 KillahInstinct：

1.2. Again, a question you missed - what exactly is the problem? Most of your interaction where with Steam moderators and Steam Support. So what is the problem with the quality of moderation?


3. Some people will always be unhappy with a product, it's simply not possibly to keep everyone happy. For example, some people want more censorship (like.. bad words), some people don't want any censorship. Result: Some people will be unhappy.
4. That's fair, but breaking the url=https://store.steampowered.com/privacy_agreement/Privacy Policy is a big no go. Besides, Steam has no reason to sell your data. That's not their main product.

I know noone reads them, but laywers do and if a company doesn't actually do as they say - they're screwed, bigtime.

I believe as is my OP implies, impartial moderation would lead to higher quality forums, which game dev mods cannot provide as a major conflict of interest.

As said, most of your posts that required moderation where by Steam moderators and Steam Support, so as impartial as it gets.

Sure, there is an argument to be made that a developer will be less impartial, but that's only rarely so, and generally who else is gonna be helping you better than someone that knows the product in and out?

For example, what might look like complete gibberish to me and a Steam Support employee (who often don't game), might simply be a chapter of a game. Result a warning/ban for spam, whereas the post is completely fine.

There is a level where the QoL of moderation is simply not gonna improve much. But it's pretty moot, when you consider my first point ;) If you've a problem with Steam Support moderators, that's another story - but perhaps it's simply a misunderstanding of the rules?

[Archform]

引用自 brian9824：

引用自 Archform：

I believe as is my OP implies, impartial moderation would lead to higher quality forums, which game dev mods cannot provide as a major conflict of interest.

No one can provide impartial moderation, everyone has a bias and people accuse steam moderators of bias all the time. Afterall game dev's are steam's customers, so people accuse them of covering up for bad games since the more copies of a game sells the more steam makes.

You have a misconception that Steam moderation is magic, and everyone would just love it.

Your also ignoring the fact that steam spending a few hundred million on moderation that 99% of the userbase doesn't care about would be a smart move on their part.

1. if impartiality doesn't exist then all court systems that claim it are lying.
2. I doubt it, unless the game is a AAA game with massive marketing campaigns there isn't usually much benefit to being biased.
3. The rest aren't new points or worth responding to.

[KillahInstinct]

I have news for you. Even Courts aren't impartial.. It's just the best mechanism we have.

[Archform]

引用自 KillahInstinct：

引用自 Archform：

I believe as is my OP implies, impartial moderation would lead to higher quality forums, which game dev mods cannot provide as a major conflict of interest.

As said, most of your posts that required moderation where by Steam moderators and Steam Support, so as impartial as it gets.

Sure, there is an argument to be made that a developer will be less impartial, but that's only rarely so, and generally who else is gonna be helping you better than someone that knows the product in and out?

For example, what might look like complete gibberish to me and a Steam Support employee (who often don't game), might simply be a chapter of a game. Result a warning/ban for spam, whereas the post is completely fine.

There is a level where the QoL of moderation is simply not gonna improve much. But it's pretty moot, when you consider my first point ;) If you've a problem with Steam Support moderators, that's another story - but perhaps it's simply a misunderstanding of the rules?

Sounds like you need cultural training, you should be well-versed in gaming culture. As such more investment in forums sounds even more beneficial. Also more moderators wouldn't be a bad thing if quality of moderators was invested into as well.

[Brian9824]

引用自 Archform：

引用自 brian9824：

No one can provide impartial moderation, everyone has a bias and people accuse steam moderators of bias all the time. Afterall game dev's are steam's customers, so people accuse them of covering up for bad games since the more copies of a game sells the more steam makes.

You have a misconception that Steam moderation is magic, and everyone would just love it.

Your also ignoring the fact that steam spending a few hundred million on moderation that 99% of the userbase doesn't care about would be a smart move on their part.

1. if impartiality doesn't exist then all court systems that claim it are lying.
2. I doubt it, unless the game is a AAA game with massive marketing campaigns there isn't usually much benefit to being biased.
3. The rest isn't really aren't new points or worth responding to.

1. Courts know that bias exists, they try to limit it as much as possible but EVERYONE is biased by their past, their pre-concieved notions, etc
2. You doubting it doesn't change the facts
3. So translation, you cant refute it so you want to ignore it because it doesn't fit into your pre-concieved bias.

Here is a free eductation for you. Steam would have to hire at minimum an extra 5000 employees (probably far more) to moderate all their forums.

Assume a low salary of 30,000 a year, thats 150 million a year they are spending to moderate forums that less then 1% of steam's userbase really use with any frequency, and of that 1% using it most do not have any issues with moderators.

Literally .0001% of steam users would have any issues with moderation so there are far better uses for that money.

[Brian9824]

Well either way this feels like having an argument with my 5 year old so i'm unsubbing.

OP wants more moderation, every other person says no.

[Archform]

引用自 KillahInstinct：

I have news for you. Even Courts aren't impartial.. It's just the best mechanism we have.

I disagree. If you can find ignorant people who couldn't care less, you found impartial people. Now it is another issue hardly anyone with power over courts want that impartiality.

[KillahInstinct]

引用自 Archform：

引用自 KillahInstinct：

As said, most of your posts that required moderation where by Steam moderators and Steam Support, so as impartial as it gets.

Sure, there is an argument to be made that a developer will be less impartial, but that's only rarely so, and generally who else is gonna be helping you better than someone that knows the product in and out?

For example, what might look like complete gibberish to me and a Steam Support employee (who often don't game), might simply be a chapter of a game. Result a warning/ban for spam, whereas the post is completely fine.

There is a level where the QoL of moderation is simply not gonna improve much. But it's pretty moot, when you consider my first point ;) If you've a problem with Steam Support moderators, that's another story - but perhaps it's simply a misunderstanding of the rules?

Sounds like you need cultural training, you should be well-versed in gaming culture. As such more investment in forums sounds even more beneficial. Also more moderators wouldn't be a bad thing if quality of moderators was invested into as well.

Cultural training? For 30000+ games? I hope you realize that you're already unrealistic (and existing requests) are.

Again, I feel the issue here is with your understanding of the rules, not so much with the moderators or the moderation.

[KillahInstinct]

引用自 Archform：

引用自 KillahInstinct：

I have news for you. Even Courts aren't impartial.. It's just the best mechanism we have.

I disagree. If you can find ignorant people who couldn't care less, you found impartial people. Now it is another issue hardly anyone with power over courts want that impartiality.

Humans are never entirely impartial. That's just a given..

Anyway, again drifting/ignoring the main point.

No, they can't hire 5000 employees. And no they can't train all of them in the nuances of every possible game out there either.

But, your problem seems to be with Steam (Support) moderators and the rules. So what is it, that makes you think the quality is bad? Do you think you should be able to call people names?

[Archform]

引用自 brian9824：

引用自 Archform：

1. if impartiality doesn't exist then all court systems that claim it are lying.
2. I doubt it, unless the game is a AAA game with massive marketing campaigns there isn't usually much benefit to being biased.
3. The rest isn't really aren't new points or worth responding to.

1. Courts know that bias exists, they try to limit it as much as possible but EVERYONE is biased by their past, their pre-concieved notions, etc
2. You doubting it doesn't change the facts
3. So translation, you cant refute it so you want to ignore it because it doesn't fit into your pre-concieved bias.

Here is a free eductation for you. Steam would have to hire at minimum an extra 5000 employees (probably far more) to moderate all their forums.

Assume a low salary of 30,000 a year, thats 150 million a year they are spending to moderate forums that less then 1% of steam's userbase really use with any frequency, and of that 1% using it most do not have any issues with moderators.

Literally .0001% of steam users would have any issues with moderation so there are far better uses for that money.

Again repeated points which would have me repeating mine.
Also what kinda free education involves self admission of inaccuracy? Your not very persuasive.

[Archform]

引用自 KillahInstinct：

引用自 Archform：

I disagree. If you can find ignorant people who couldn't care less, you found impartial people. Now it is another issue hardly anyone with power over courts want that impartiality.

Humans are never entirely impartial. That's just a given..

Anyway, again drifting/ignoring the main point.

No, they can't hire 5000 employees. And no they can't train all of them in the nuances of every possible game out there either.

But, your problem seems to be with Steam (Support) moderators and the rules. So what is it, that makes you think the quality is bad? Do you think you should be able to call people names?

Is a safe space for common banality so bad? Don't you alienate your more banal users by not creating space for them? However that is another issue altogether, the main focus of this thread is the bias of game devs which have a greater stake in their game's success.