Zainstaluj Steam
zaloguj się
|
język
简体中文 (chiński uproszczony)
繁體中文 (chiński tradycyjny)
日本語 (japoński)
한국어 (koreański)
ไทย (tajski)
български (bułgarski)
Čeština (czeski)
Dansk (duński)
Deutsch (niemiecki)
English (angielski)
Español – España (hiszpański)
Español – Latinoamérica (hiszpański latynoamerykański)
Ελληνικά (grecki)
Français (francuski)
Italiano (włoski)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonezyjski)
Magyar (węgierski)
Nederlands (niderlandzki)
Norsk (norweski)
Português (portugalski – Portugalia)
Português – Brasil (portugalski brazylijski)
Română (rumuński)
Русский (rosyjski)
Suomi (fiński)
Svenska (szwedzki)
Türkçe (turecki)
Tiếng Việt (wietnamski)
Українська (ukraiński)
Zgłoś problem z tłumaczeniem
Ten wątek został zamknięty 
Zasady dyskusji i wytyczne
Zgłoś ten post
They aren't exceptions. Language barriers and anecdotes in meta threads are both irrelevant to how the jester is used in regular posting.
The name, appearance and description of the award tells you everything you need to know about them. Someone not understanding this because of a communicative fault would occur regardless of whether it was inherent. The jester is an insult award, and this remains true even if someone doesn't know it.
The jester award was made to insult people by calling them clowns. It's obvious how they're used and will continue to be used.
Things become invalidated retroactively, not in advance. If someone reveals themselves to be a troll, their input on everything is discarded without further thought. Being "bitter and pitty" towards bitter and petty people who spam insult awards anonymously isn't a major concern.
No, it's the revealing criteria. The jester award they spam in isolation doesn't matter, but it revealing their character does. So them spamming it is convenient because it means they've exposed their true colours, and communication with them can be blocked.
Agreed upon by who? Forum quality isn't a matter of feeling; it's a matter of the integrity and structure of the posts in it, which are objective metrics that don't change regardless of how others perceive it.
I never mentioned anything about how it was used, but it doesn't inherently represent a penis, no. The jester is an inherent insult, but the eggplant can only be perceived by some as a metaphor for a penis. Unlike the jester, it can be used to actually represent an eggplant.
Misuse of English isn't actual English. If you use "woke" to mean anything other than its actual definition (past tense of wake), then you're just misusing it, nothing more.
Yes they do. Words are constructed with a meaning in mind, and have been since society evolved from primitive apes making random sounds and vocalisations. Misuse of language isn't a change in language, it's misuse.
Blocking someone isn't "punishing" then. It only affects their interaction with the user who blocked them, minimally at that.
It's easy to tell who a troll is, but public jester reveals would give people one more way of finding out who they are.
Ignoring trolling and rampant forum quality decline isn't a solution, it's just asserting that the status quo is fine. It absolutely isn't in this case, especially for people who don't care for a meagre amount of points.
You keep saying this and so I'm awful tempted to ask. What constitutes 'quality discource' to you and how does one 'objectively' gauge forum quality?
Fun fact the original phrase "stay woke" has its own history of which you can learn from OED if you're curious. Additionally, the term "woke" as we know it today can be found in every general purpose dictionary.
Judging by some of the things I've seen you say on these forums, you seem a bit too overzealous about preserving the sanctity of 'real' English. I'm curious, is the way people generally express themselves in online spaces (including the Steam community awards) something you're often bothered by?
There's a noticeable difference between using acronyms like "lol" which are commonly understood to have one meaning for decades; and randomly trying to butcher words like "cringe" by using them as an adjective, or trying to ruin verbs like "woke" by prescribing idiotic political tribalism to them. All of these examples of misuse are designed to lower the standards of language.
Except language evolves.
'woke' can and does mean both things. Just because you claim it isn't 'real English' doesn't suddenly mean it isn't. English as a languages evolves with time. We literally have other examples of words changing definition as time goes on.
"Woke" is a verb and past-tense of "wake", that's it. Any attempts to morph it into political jargon (because there isn't enough of that, apparently) are worthless and promptly discarded by anyone capable of basic communication.
That's a non-answer I'm afraid.
So to make things clear a certain word is not 'real' English because it's relatively new?
Oh and just in case, woke has been added to OED in 2017:
https://public.oed.com/blog/june-2017-update-new-words-notes/
General purpose dicties:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/woke
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woke
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/woke_2
https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=woke
Which authority on English do you recognize?
Adding non-words to the dictionary for the sake of appeasing the whims of the cabals at the top is not proper procedure.
Oh, that's how it is.
Well, glad we now know there's not point continuing this conversation.
- When the award is given as part of a meta discussion about awards.
- When the award is given by someone who is unaware of what you believe is inherent to the award, possibly due to a language barrier.
These are YOUR examples, not mine. I could easily add several more contexts:
- When you're appreciating someone's sense of humor.
- When you're gently poking fun at a friend.
- When you give it just because it's cute.
We can't make an exhaustive list because the possibilities are as endless as people's individual intentions can be.
Then you're literally saying they're exceptions. You're saying their exist contexts in which the Jester is not used as an insult, but that those contexts don't count. You can't have it both ways.
And none of that implies an insult. YOU are assigning that value. Someone not agreeing with your conclusion doesn't mean they don't understand. It just means that you are not the authority on what the Jester can mean.
You've repeated this many times but it's nothing but a baseless (and profoundly illogical) assumption on your part, that you are unable to back up in any way.
Neither of those make sense. Things are rendered invalidated when they exhibit characteristics that invalidate them.
That's just looking for an excuse to dismiss someone because they hurt your feelings (or, to be more accurate, because you chose to let them hurt your feelings). Again: If their actions didn't merit the troll label until you discovered they gave you Jesters, then applying the "troll" label after the fact is arbitrary and petty.
Those who established the standards. Just like a random guy can't take a diamond and decide upon his own criteria for determining its value, we can't have every random forum user claiming to have their own objective measure of "forum quality". That's literally the opposite of how objectivity works.
That's literally all it is. It can't be otherwise.
Put another way: If it were objective, we could develop an AI algorithm to scan a message forum and give you a measure of its "quality". Obviously, such a thing is impossible because there is no way to measure "forum quality" outside the context of how its individual users are affected by it, and that can't be anything but subjective.
"Integrity" and "structure" are not objectively measurable criteria. They aren't even objectively definable criteria.
How would you even express your "objective" evaluation? "This forum has an integrity rating of 7.6, with a structural variation of +/- 2.4"? How did you come to your conclusion? Measuring what variables using what tools in what units? Can somebody else follow your methodology and come to the same conclusion? If not, then you're not being objective. You're just expressing what you feel about the level of "forum quality".
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "objectivity" is and how it works.
It's the same thing. They're both symbols that people have chosen to use to mean a particular thing. NEITHER of them have "inherent" meaning.
It honestly could not matter less that you think certain words in certain contexts is "misuse". Words mean whatever we decide they mean. That's how language works. There has never existed a word whose meaning was inherent to the word. Words are ALL made up, we decided what they mean, and those meanings change with time. That's just how language works.
Except that the people hearing it understand what's being said. That's successful communication. Again, you labelling it "misuse" means nothing.
Go look up "objective" and then consider that in the context of this statement. Look up "hypocritical", while you're at it.
By that standard, a huge chunk (if not all) of the words we use are "misuse" and have been for decades, if not centuries. This is a child's view of language that profoundly misunderstands how languages actually work in reality. Every word in the English language has its own etymological history, its own evolutionary path where it underwent several changes through time.
It is to you! You described it as "consequences for their actions"!
it very much is. Trolls feed off attention and bothering people. Your solution is to admit to them that you're really, really bothered, giving them all the power. My solution is to deny them their power so they can't "lower the quality" of the forum.
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling with this statement. Do you honestly believe that YOU assigning a label of "misuse" somehow negates the commonly-understood modern usage of the word? Are you honestly suggesting that it doesn't matter that, for all practical purposes, the meaning of the word has been officially changed and now has a different set of connotations, because YOU deem it "misuse"? Do you really think you have the power to say everybody who understands the word being used as it is currently being used is wrong and irrelevant?
I'm sorry that you are offended by the inherent malleability of language. I'm sorry that change makes you uncomfortable. But your conspiracy theories are beyond absurd and have no place in rational discourse.
I wonder if he still uses 'f*g' to mean a cigarette if he's British? Or 'queer' to mean weird or quirky?
After all, by his logic, using them in different ways is not real English.
No, you're saying they're exceptions. I'm stating factually that these scenarios are not legitimate.
All of it implies an insult. I don't need to be an authority on what it means if what it means is obvious. It's a basic observation that it's an insulting troll award.
I've backed it up in every single comment repeatedly. If you used the forum for about a minute you'd come to the same realisation I have.
Which is precisely what occurs when someone reveals themselves to be a jester-troll.
Straw manning? I never once mentioned my feelings; I only mentioned forum quality. Those are separate concepts. A troll will always be a troll, regardless of how they attempt to hide it or obfuscate it.
So nobody then, alright. The standards aren't set by anyone. Forum quality is an objective variable which has been demonstrated to be of importance time and time again.
It absolutely isn't. AI isn't advanced enough yet to scan messages for quality, as bot moderation sometimes messes up with objective rule enforcement. Nothing stopping it doing so in a few years. Some sentence combinations and even words in isolation can reveal the quality of a comment.
Nothing is "definable criteria" when you dilute it enough. Integrity and structure of a post can be measured with things as simple as formatting and lingo, to say nothing of other variables like how appropriate or on-topic it is, or how specific it is to a subject.
False. An eggplant literally represents just an eggplant in isolation, which is an inanimate object. "Jester" means to call the person behind the comment a clown.
There is no eggplant award here to begin with, so not sure what you're even on about.
True, because misuse is misuse. I don't dictate what it is, it just *is*. If you use a word incorrectly, you'll be using it incorrectly regardless of how many of your peers (who also use it incorrectly) try and back you up.
Words follow the laws of language, and need to prescribe to them to be valid and functional. Misuse of language is not change, it's misuse.
People also understand that screeching incoherently means someone is upset, but that isn't a word. "Successful communication" means that a word fills a niche and can be used to intelligently communicate a point without compromising the language, not that some random enclave can circlejerk it to stardom.
Do it yourself. I've demonstrated to understand the meaning of words more than well enough, which is more than I can say for trying to pass of the jester trolling as subjective.
Not at all, because the majority of modern English follows linguistic standards, and fulfils a niche. A lack of understanding of lexical categories is the opposite, which is just plain stupidity. People should understand lexical categories before daring to have the gall to say that they are "evolving language" with idiotic misuse of it.
Because you were stating about how the poor trolls would be affected by this apparent miscarriage of justice in blocking them for jester spamming? "Consequences for their actions" still holds unless you backtrack on that rhetoric.
They also feed of trolling tools and maintaining regular contact with other users. You seem to think I give a damn about troll welfare or whatever, I don't. This is about how the user curbs any sort of contact with trolls, not how the trolls feel.
"Denying them their power" = Giving them tools to troll with???
Alright.
I don't assign anything. Misuse of language is objective. You don't have the authority to say you "changed the meaning of the word" when you obviously haven't, and when it obviously isn't recognised by any reputable linguistic catalogue. "Woke" has the singular meaning of being a past-tense for "wake", any other forceful attempt to create another meaning for it doesn't prescribe to linguistic law, and is discarded.
No, I understand the purpose of dictionaries. They aren't there to describe every possible context and attempt to enforce a meaning to any given combination of letters, otherwise everything in the Urban Dictionary would be properly recognised language.
Rational discourse is backed up by rational language. Irrational language takes the forum of spammy new-age internet slang and misunderstanding of lexical categories. If you don't like that there are basic standards to English, and that you can't throw any combination of buzzwords out while daring to put them on the same level as someone who can communicate properly, that's your own fault.
I have a thought I wanna share, lemme know to which degree you concur:
Someone's ability to speak """well""" shouldn't govern our perception of their worth as a person. Going out of one's way to make someone miserable on a public forum simply because of the way they articulate their thoughts and their perceived "level of intelligence" — is a much more egregious 'offense' than slapping a cute lil clown on someone's post.
Our post history is public btw
Even a 5 years old will see it as a clown, It is a clown award.
Well if you want worthless points from people awarding you the "clown" award that's on you, I personally and many other people don't appreciate free worthless points from people anonymously insulting me as a "clown", everyone has their preferred taste in attitude.
I mean not like anyone will lose anything if they changed the award to something else, or showed who gave them away, people want it to be anonymous to just harass people with it and insult them directly, I can easily see it being an important matter for people who abuse the award for the insulting matter more than actually using it for a proper usage.
If anyone want to call someone funny, you can use the Hilarious award for example, but people want it to be anonymous to keep abusing it, and when someone complains about how obnoxious it is, and how you would like to know who is the troll trying to award you jester/clown awards, people lose their cool about it and yell "NO!".
I was just going to take up if jester is a harassment. I tend to just down vote troll like reviews.
I very much agree that at the very least Steam should be keeping stats.
I don't know why they are anonymous as while I don't mind giving awards without people knowing it was me on the other hand if part of the goal is to encourage appreciating each other making the reviews and forums a better place the effect of contagion of desired behaviour might be aided if people knew who it was.
Plus if people are using jester to spam then if this is a big enough issue it would help to both be able to block people or at the very least bulk pester Steam about this use of them
While I didn't view jester as an insult so much as there are games so horrible the most polite thing to do is joke about how terrible it is although I have never used it just in case,
I don't think I have ever gotten any but we live in an age of tldr and I am more of a super comprehensive type reviewer and in the comments.
I'd for sure agree that if the bulk of users see it as a negative then it is not having the desired effect and should be eliminated as saucy covers the clever and funny category without being insulting.
While in theory no one knowing who gave them a positive reward without Steam keeping stats so at the very least those who do a lot to reward others could be tied to an account achievement
I hope they do something about the jester award given it's unique attributes seem to work against the goals of giving awards. Goals some news sites have so every so often I lapse into what it the CBC site had steam like awards.