Steam moderation does not encourage anything pleasant.

[Alasdair]

The moderation here is bad and unproductive none of it creates a situation that furthers kind discussion what it does further is a game of chicken where people go as far as they can insulting the other person or being as offensive as is allowed with out going over the board or breaking any rules in spirit, then report the other person when they are upset. if you aren't going to moderate the bad actors don't moderate at all.

Not a single bit of the conversation here has been any more productive than else where if anything it's worse and the meta is about getting someone else banned, rather than discussing ideas. there are infinitely more trolls here because there are moderators that ban for the slightest infraction. The mods are rewarding it. They are rewarding this behaviour.

Companies should not be in control of the hubs about their games, they should recuse themselves of such things, it's such an obvious bias, of course they'd censor people to protect their bottom line. censoring people for insults is completely silly, no other website does this. I've gotten banned for the most stupid things, and it doesn't say if it's done by a steam moderator or a company. so it's making valve look bad. Steam is giving company's the ability to make them look bad essentially to the ideas of people who care to post about things, that's a bad idea.

Just because someone can do something and has the right to doesn't mean they should. every time someone makes a thread about censorship someone makes a "um acthually." rant about it being their right, and freedom of association and property. as if that's in contest. they can do it, and I can call them out on doing it, and they can suffer consequences for having done ideally like losing their 230 decency protections, or my business and the business of people who find censorship repulsive.

after you get banned you can't report the other person so even if they broke the rules you are more than likely to have forgot about it by the time you are unbanned, so it rewards people for breaking the rules to chicken someone else into doing it as well, then they can report them. it's not productive.

This is costing steam money paying for moderators to make their company look bad. The brand image of valve should be freedom and it should be about the end user expressing itself freely on the platform not this closed locked down archaic elder abomination of forums full of petty tyrants. You didn't provide any argument to even justify the ban at all. you provided nothing.

You can say they have a right to do it all they want and they have a right to accept the consquences of their actions which is people caling it bad, and critisizing it. it does not foster good behaviour out of their users. I find this moderation method repulsive and I can't believe steam is apparently paying for it. paid janitors worse than free ones.

[Thermal Lance]

I'm really confused about what exactly you are trying to accomplish. You are not the first person doing that on these forums. And you won't be the last.

[Alasdair]

no no no you don't get it 's a private company and not the state so that means it's ok. Something being legal or not here isn't in contest, my original post breaks down why I think it's a bad idea, why I think it does nothing to prevent bad faith or hostile discussion and why it alienates and upsets users of the platform. the moderation is 100% done the wrong way.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

https://imgur.com/a/OEmeCpc

Might wanna read that...........

[Alasdair]

not a single time have I brought up the first amendment nor have I brought into question if they could or legally could not do something. they can do it and I can say it's wrong to have done so, and that they shouldn't do it.

I'm saying it's unproductive, it's not reaching the goal it's done for and it's more harmful than it is good for the platform because it's encouraging worse behaviour than they'd have on a completely unmoderated platform.

[Runkel]

Originally posted by Thermal Lance:

I'm really confused about what exactly you are trying to accomplish. You are not the first person doing that on these forums. And you won't be the last.

I mean his ridiculous and uninformed statements (especially the last few comments) show that he's obviously trolling.

[Thermal Lance]

Originally posted by Runkel:

Originally posted by Thermal Lance:

I'm really confused about what exactly you are trying to accomplish. You are not the first person doing that on these forums. And you won't be the last.

I mean his ridiculous and uninformed statements (especially the last few comments) show that he's obviously trolling.

I don't know man. The whole world is going insane.

[Mad Scientist]

Originally posted by Alasdair:

a platform is not the same thing as a physical location. these are incomparable.

They're comparable;
Individual misbehaves on forum or in store; individual receives consequences.

Originally posted by Alasdair:

walmart does not have protections from lawsuits. You can sue a company if they didn't protect you on their property

They have protections just like everybody does unless they do wrong to someone, but anyone silly enough to take on a company that actively defends itself with bad-faith lawsuits would find themselves drowning in debt when losing a bad-faith frivolous lawsuit. Being on their property for example, wouldn't justify a lawsuit if one began to do things worthy of being trespassed or arrested.

Originally posted by Alasdair:

You can sue a company if they didn't protect you on their property

Only if something they directly did resulted in what happened.
If a criminal came in and did criminal actions to others, they are not obligated to protect anyone inside or take risks, other than things like evacuations or calling in an emergency which people tend to do.

Originally posted by Alasdair:

companies have no obligation to censor anyone legally in the same way private companies have an obligation to keep their customers safe from bad actors.

It's still not censorship, but here's the overly important part which is another recognition of what happened and why it happened

Originally posted by Alasdair:

private companies have an obligation to keep their customers safe from bad actors.

That's what they do with their Moderation team. Though once someone has been hit by Steam Support, it's safe to say they should stop or risk privileges being revoked.

Originally posted by Alasdair:

there's no risk of bodily harm for people speaking freely online. and if they censor people selectively they stop being a platform and become a publisher and should be sued into oblivion for the speech on the platform they didn't properly censor that violates libel laws or copyright laws.

They have no obligation to host anything especially if they do not want it; uncivil behavior is clearly unwelcome per their guidelines.

They're a store. Forums are optional; extra, not part of their core function of business, they can do as they like and their guidelines are entirely reasonable.

Originally posted by Runkel:

Originally posted by Thermal Lance:

I'm really confused about what exactly you are trying to accomplish. You are not the first person doing that on these forums. And you won't be the last.

I mean his ridiculous and uninformed statements (especially the last few comments) show that he's obviously trolling.

Possibly, though there are individuals that have that sort of thinking.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

Originally posted by Thermal Lance:

I'm really confused about what exactly you are trying to accomplish. You are not the first person doing that on these forums. And you won't be the last.

lol It's soo funny that they routinely do this now. Back when the Vmods were here, if you made these threads, you got another ban.

Ban complaint threads do absolutely nothing.

[Alasdair]

Originally posted by Mad Scientist:

Originally posted by Alasdair:

a platform is not the same thing as a physical location. these are incomparable.

They're comparable;
Individual misbehaves on forum or in store; individual receives consequences.

They are not comparable because the way someone acts on a store is the stores responsibility because it endangers their customers. These platforms have state protections from lawsuits from individuals. So that is not an issue, one thing for necessity, there is not necessity for censorship.

[Alasdair]

Originally posted by Mad Scientist:

They have no obligation to host anything especially if they do not want it; uncivil behavior is clearly unwelcome per their guidelines.

Then they are publishers not a platform and should be open to being sued by other companies and people for hosting potential libel. I hope this company gets completely destroyed over the next year when this goes into effect or is forced to have open debate and discussion on the platform as intended by the section 230.

[Mad Scientist]

Originally posted by Alasdair:

(snip)

Forum, store, other places;
People misbehaving tends to result in consequences.

[Komarimaru]

Originally posted by Alasdair:

Originally posted by Mad Scientist:

They're comparable;
Individual misbehaves on forum or in store; individual receives consequences.

They are not comparable because the way someone acts on a store is the stores responsibility because it endangers their customers. These platforms have state protections from lawsuits from individuals. So that is not an issue, one thing for necessity, there is not necessity for censorship.

You mean section 230 of the communications act?

Protects from liability
Section 230 generally prevents online platforms from being held liable for user-posted content. This means that platforms are not treated as publishers of third-party content.

Protects removal of content
Section 230 also protects platforms from liability for removing certain categories of content.

You mean the section 230, that says they have every right to moderate content?

[Alasdair]

Originally posted by Mad Scientist:

It's still not censorship, but here's the overly important part which is another recognition of what happened and why it happened

if it's a suppression of speech, it is censorship, censorship is not just the supposedly just suppression of speech, it is just suppression of speech.

[Komarimaru]

Originally posted by Alasdair:

Originally posted by Mad Scientist:

It's still not censorship, but here's the overly important part which is another recognition of what happened and why it happened

if it's a suppression of speech, it is censorship, censorship is not just the supposedly just suppression of speech, it is just suppression of speech.

Originally posted by Alasdair:

not a single time have I brought up the first amendment nor have I brought into question if they could or legally could not do something. they can do it and I can say it's wrong to have done so, and that they shouldn't do it.

I'm saying it's unproductive, it's not reaching the goal it's done for and it's more harmful than it is good for the platform because it's encouraging worse behaviour than they'd have on a completely unmoderated platform.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

Originally posted by Alasdair:

Originally posted by Mad Scientist:

They have no obligation to host anything especially if they do not want it; uncivil behavior is clearly unwelcome per their guidelines.

Then they are publishers not a platform and should be open to being sued by other companies and people for hosting potential libel. I hope this company gets completely destroyed over the next year when this goes into effect or is forced to have open debate and discussion on the platform as intended by the section 230.

Nowhere is the word guidelnes only used:

https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/6862-8119-C23E-EA7B

Rules.