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.

[Alasdair]

The fact you can be community banned if your are banned in multiple hubs at once is absurd, getting a two week ban for speech alone is insane. no other platform gives someone a site wide ban for being banned in two places at once. these companies could share a ban list and slowly ban you two hubs at a time and keep your account permently locked. makes no sense. it allows for the worst forms of moderation possible, and doesn't encourage any pleasant or open discussion at all which is the point of moderation to remove bad actors and allow good actors to post freely.

[Alasdair]

as both a user and a customer there is no recourse here, you shouldn't even have a "make ticket button." if the moderator will just lie or the rules or so subjective it doesn't even matter. rules that are so subjective they can apply to any post are the most dishonest slimey silly billy form of forum moderation and it's the reason why people quit using forums, at least be honest it's just censorship rather wrapping it up in a pretty bow of lies.

[Alasdair]

There is no good outcome of this we don't see the website prospering with great healthy debate, and speech, it's just as toxic as anywhere else on the internet if not worse because of the way moderation is handled. if anything I'd argue this moderation encourages people to be the worst version of themselves possible, because it's not about ideas it's about playing a game of chicken to get the other person banned.

[AmsterdamHeavy]

Oh, awesome. Another meltdown thread stemming from a lack of self-control.

[Rin]

Anyone with an agenda will want to enforce said agenda. Even power harassment is an agenda.

[Alasdair]

"it's not on me if you refuse to address my argument or present it properly, you either don't understand it which is likely, or you refuse to honestly interpret it neither make you look good.

You've had two pages worth of commentary to read and see my position at this point you are just being willfully ignorant and refusing to present my position honestly.

The truth is on my side here and at this point I feel bad for having taken such an easy position to defend, and seeing people scramble to find vapid justifications for why a corporations has the right to have power over the end user.

I could spend all day boiling down my positions to something so easy a child could understand it if you refuse to do so and refuse to debate you should have no place in the discussion or forum because you are trying to get a reaction out of me to get me banned after you report me which people like you have already done showing how little you care about freedom.

You don't care about the freedom of the user, you don't care about the freedom of other's speech, but suddenly you care about the freedom of a company to restrict freedom, makes a lot of sense.

I have no idea why people online insist on being boot licking corporate shills like this is it makes no sense how people have positions they got against their self interests like this."

ban reason

"This post contains content that is combative, argumentative, and is likely to derail the discussion. This type of content is not allowed on the Steam Community."

I can't control the moderation that uses extremely subjective rules to censor anyone they want. that's how the forum rules were established to be subjective so there is no recourse or objectivity they can just operate however they want.

Gas lighting someone who broke no rules, to justify censoring them is bad behaviour that should be called out. if you want to censor someone I think that's better to be open about rather than gaslighting them they broke a rule when they didn't I can't change my behhaviour to match the guidelines of someone who just wants to censor me. that's a vault you can't jump over because it doesn't exist.

if someone's chosen to censor you, and the rules are so subjective and open to interpretation they can mean almost anything there's nothing that can be done to prevent it in your behaviour. The least they could do is just admit the rules are silly billy nonsense and just admit it's just censorship. You see this on twitch, you see this on twitter, you see this here.

The task to change your behaviour to fit rules that are so broad they can mean anything is impossible.

[Mad Scientist]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Alasdair:

I have no idea why people online insist on being boot licking corporate shills like this is it makes no sense how people have positions they got against their self interests like this."

ban reason

"This post contains content that is combative, argumentative, and is likely to derail the discussion. This type of content is not allowed on the Steam Community."

I can't control the moderation that uses extremely subjective rules to censor anyone they want. that's how the forum rules were established to be subjective so there is no recourse or objectivity they can just operate however they want.

That ban reason was entirely correct given the self-admitted material that caused them to act.

Name-calling/insulting is something that goes against the guidelines, choosing to break them is exactly that; a choice. Moderation made the right judgment call yet-again.

[ShelLuser]

Meanwhile I've outed some seriously critical comments over the years, at one time even politically related (which I am not a fan of) and lo and behold... I never ran into problems.

The key to all this isn't so much the message, but the way in which you relay it. Your essay already tells me that you don't seem to know how to clearly relay something without turning it into a huge mess.

As for reporting other people: you don't own this place, so you have no "right" to anything. Report, block and ignore, that will keep you out of a lot of trouble. Don't bother yourself with what other people are doing, instead: focus on minding your own business.

As always.... two wrongs don't make a right. And if you happen to be part of the first, you can land into trouble. Maybe not go there in the first place?

[Alasdair]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Mad Scientist:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Alasdair:

I have no idea why people online insist on being boot licking corporate shills like this is it makes no sense how people have positions they got against their self interests like this."

ban reason

"This post contains content that is combative, argumentative, and is likely to derail the discussion. This type of content is not allowed on the Steam Community."

I can't control the moderation that uses extremely subjective rules to censor anyone they want. that's how the forum rules were established to be subjective so there is no recourse or objectivity they can just operate however they want.

That ban reason was entirely correct given the self-admitted material that caused them to act.

Name-calling/insulting is something that goes against the guidelines, choosing to break them is exactly that; a choice. Moderation made the right judgment call yet-again.

Name a single mainstream platform that bans for insults. absurd standard. there are several insults they allow and methods of insulting me we see in this thread. I've called people dishonest, or liars multiple times. but it's a step to far to call someone a "shill" or a "boot licker." that's extremely subjective. like I said you can't avoid things like this because it's the moderators who choose that not me. when rules are this subjective they mean nothing and you have to be a mind reader, there isn't even a single concrete idea where that crosses the line within valve moderation. so no. it's a completely impossible task.

[PootisMayo]

Whining about getting a correct ban needs to warrant a permanent community ban.

[Alasdair]

Oprindeligt skrevet af ShelLuser:

you don't own this place, so you have no "right" to anything.

They don't operation outside of the privileges provided to them by the state, this is a platform. not a publisher. This isn't about freedom of association or their property rights, this is about whether or not they should do it not if they can. they can, and there are consequences for if they do.

pro-censorship people only talk about accountability of the poster, but not of the censor, I'm looking forward to petty tyrants and censorship industry to get utterly dismantled when companies start to lose their 230 protections and get sued into oblivion or have their platform's become completely unusable if they refuse to allow people to speak freely. zero sympathy.

if in the next 3-6 months trumps anti-censorship campaign got steam shut down and everyone lost their games. I would celebrate because the free speech is worth more than the games I've put into it. I would be happy. I do not care about this company's interests. I care about my ability to speak freely, ie my interests.

This idea these company's are completely free private platforms is just wrong, they aren't they would be subject to lawsuits for the posts users made if they were not, and they would not be able to be ran at all. they operate under the state's permission, and I have zero sympathy for their rights or interests when they have none for mine.

[Alasdair]

Oprindeligt skrevet af ShelLuser:

As always.... two wrongs don't make a right. And if you happen to be part of the first, you can land into trouble. Maybe not go there in the first place?

You didn't even read this is a part of my argument, you can insult someone, then report them when they insult you back, and then they will banned and unable to ban you. So you have a meta that incentives bad behaviour. this is a criticism of not being able to report people post ban, and the way it's handled. it's handled badly and it doesn't encourage people to argue nicely. It's not good moderation, the only moderation should be a better blocking system and shadow banning people ie blocking those people from the person who reported so they think they got that person banned. but that person is still posting.

[Mad Scientist]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Alasdair:

Name a single mainstream platform that bans for insults. absurd standard.

Twitter pre-elon, facebook, reddit, youtube, tumblr, twitch, majority of online forums where uncivil/unwelcome behavior results in warnings/bans or being shown the door. Loads of places punish people for behaving poorly on their platform especially when the intention is clearly not good.

When people are an issue, and remain an issue, they tend to get into more trouble and eventually the number of chances come to an end.

This site is also for all ages including minors, the guidelines are for civility to have discussions not arguments/fighting as it's catered for gaming, not for unwelcome behavior. Thus, the platform is for enjoyment, and uncivil/unwelcome behavior has consequences.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Alasdair:

I've called people dishonest

Allowed. Not uncivil or an insult or to cause fighting, typically used to note a pattern of behavior from an individual.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Alasdair:

or liars multiple times.

That can get people hit, depending on the context, but it's what you say and how you say it.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Alasdair:

but it's a step to far to call someone a "shill" or a "boot licker." that's extremely subjective.

Objectively it's used to attack people for having different opinions and meant to insult/attack a user, so it's unwelcome behavior.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Alasdair:

like I said you can't avoid things like this because it's the moderators who choose that not me. when rules are this subjective they mean nothing and you have to be a mind reader, there isn't even a single concrete idea where that crosses the line within valve moderation. so no. it's a completely impossible task.

Read them.
From there it's a personal choice to violate them or to follow them. Disagreements does not mean it's ok to attack/insult/name-call other users.

So as stated, Moderation made the right call yet-again.

[Zefar]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Alasdair:

Oprindeligt skrevet af ShelLuser:

As always.... two wrongs don't make a right. And if you happen to be part of the first, you can land into trouble. Maybe not go there in the first place?

You didn't even read this is a part of my argument, you can insult someone, then report them when they insult you back, and then they will banned and unable to ban you. So you have a meta that incentives bad behaviour. this is a criticism of not being able to report people post ban, and the way it's handled. it's handled badly and it doesn't encourage people to argue nicely. It's not good moderation, the only moderation should be a better blocking system and shadow banning people ie blocking those people from the person who reported so they think they got that person banned. but that person is still posting.

That won't always work. If someone reports your posts you'll end up banned as well.

[Alasdair]

No. I've been using forums for over a decade and a half, that's not the reality. the reality is these rules are written so open ended they can ban people for anything. they are only there are a defense for censorship if someone's chosen to censor you they will censors you. You can't change behaviour to suit to things in the mind of a moderator who wants to censor you. literally every response I got in my thread was "unwelcoming behaviour" meant to shut down my speech. literally every response. subjective moderation is worse than no moderation.