Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
Ez a téma zárolásra került 
Hozzászólási szabályok és irányelvek
Hozzászólás jelentése
Look up the definition of 'fact' and you will find zero mention of what you claim.
Could not agree more.
"You have these ideas about what constitutes "trifling" or "legitimate", but they're not facts, they're part of your personal way of thinking".
Strangely, you are conveniently dodging the provided example. I described a scenario in detail, and now you are tossing out more of this "new thing" with "popular opinion".
The subject is not something so abstract as "what the best game ever might be". This whole discussion started about real human behavior and interactions and how some react (or overreact) to it.
Do you agree that someone can "over-react"? Have you ever done so? It is hard to imagine a person who could honestly say no to either question.
As adults, we are qualified and entitled - by society and law - to judge the behavior of others, situations we are a part of, and may be called to render testimony on such. This makes our statements, our thoughts, our views = factual and truthful. They have weight and meaning. And they can have real consequences.
Again, the point is that where you live and your life experiences directly influence what is and is not acceptable talk and I hasten to add that what is not acceptable has an extremely low level of tolerance now. "Toxic" is not some set standard and is in the eye of the beholder, we used to call it flaming but flaming actually means being nasty and that is not adequate for the people who are so easily offended these days from certain parts of certain countries.
If you want proof of this just look at how many Chinese or Russian moderators Steam has working for them that actually live in those places, almost all our western tech companies are moderated by people who all think the same and live in the same places. We don't live in a worldwide society, we live in a society where the rules are made in California and other extremely liberal western cities and they rule over everyone else online. You have a worldwide service where the moral standards of the dominant culture of a set number of cities over-rule all the others, that's a fact. If some word is really offensive to people in California it will be banned, if it has some different meaning in the rest of the world it's still banned.
Online is basically a brand new western imperialist culture, they dominate and demand the world follows its culture or they are silenced, this kind of behavior the christian church used to promote across the world and is still being done by a different group of people today. They are exactly the same as the missionaries that went and told the "savages" how to behave and how to be decent around western peoples.
If you went to Chinese Steam you would steam things that would require you to have counseling, if you went to a Russian forum the same would happen. Toxic is a word made up on twitter by people who live in those liberal cities. All these buzzworlds to make people behave how they want them to behave are.
The moderators have the best of intentions in making the forums "nicer" but people don't reach a point where they will ever be satisfied, you will never reach nirvana. All you will do is make the people who are offended more sensitive and angry about lesser and lesser slights. The more you moderate the more sensitive people become and the more reports you get and the more moderation you have to do. Until the majority just stop using the service, because they can't say anything to offend anyone anymore.
Dark souls will be sanitized the same as CSGO was, it's just a matter of time. As a company wants to become more mainstream they will attack their own fanbase as toxic and sanitize them so more people from a wider array of backgrounds can be assimilated into the fanbase.
You will see "get good" become bannable as toxic, you will see "praise the sun" be labeled as some form of hate speech. It is coming.
Fromsoft won't do this, Activision will and they have already teamed up with them to control the western market for their last big game, they will even start making these games easier for western markets.
Whatever fanbase you are in, the company will want more mainstream audiences to make more money. When that happens you get a wider variety of people and a lot of them will be easily offended, when they become offended the current fanbase get silenced and demonized
Ok: https://thelawdictionary.org/fact/
Fact is actual, fact is truth, fact is agreed-to principles of conduct within society. Perhaps you are merely uncomfortable with the use of "fact" within social constructs and application of law, where the terms are often used interchangeably? You may prefer a scientific usage?
Oh please. The topic of the thread is garbage behaviour by gamers, specifically on forums, and your 'examples' have so far been nothing to do with that. Bit rich to criticise me for not following your preferred talking points when they're stuff like, um, being called in as a witness by legal authorities? As if the link to that tangent isn't abstract?
I'm not here to indulge your preference to discuss these ideas in terms of anything but the actual topic. The "my views are factual and representative of the millions of people that make up my country" posturing rings a bit hollow if that doesn't even give you the confidence to apply those views to the topic of gamer toxicity. I mean they're your posts, so you do what you like, but in terms of what I'm interested in engaging in, I'm a bit "put up or shut up" at this point regarding 'examples'.
Yes, I understand the concept of overreaction. It remains a subjective idea - we will each draw the line in slightly different places. What you consider an overreaction I may not, and vice versa. That was the point of the "best game in the world" comparison. We each have an understanding of what the phrase means, but that doesn't guarantee that our results of applying it will be the same.
Nicely expressed. I certainly agree that the bar of "acceptable behavior" is getting steadily lower.
This is far less disconcerting to me than the constant assault to reduce our civil liberties and further economic division. Some of your post contains what seems to be strong critical undertone against "liberalism" and "liberal thinking". Without getting into a deep political discussion, I would submit that this is vastly preferable to domination by the political right.
While the discussion has been mostly interesting, we are not going to find common ground. You expect me to engage every scenario you toss out and accept that you are entirely dismissive of any counter? How very disappointing.
You clearly do not agree with observations about a portion of younger people in our country, and changes over 10-15 years. Ok, well ... you don't live here. You never mentioned otherwise, so it's rather unlikely that you ever did.
You did express that my experiences, views and observations are nothing more than my personal opinion. We interpret the import and meaning of that phrase rather differently. To me, "mere personal opinion" do not hold weight or value. There is no obligation to acknowledge or care about personal opinion.
You may not like the use of "fact"? Ok fine, but mere personal subjective opinion certainly does not cut it.
A society has SHARED VALUE SYSTEMS that are reinforced by laws. You may CHOOSE to assert, as you seem to, that such notions are merely expressions of "popular opinions". I consider this a rather belittling position regarding the reality that creates and reinforces REAL constraints around us, what we may do, how we express ourselves, with associated consequences.
You have now expressed that you are only interested in discussing things entirely on your terms. This obviates any point in further discussion.
Again, if I thought phrases like "nothing more than" were constructive, I would use them. I do not.
And no, I absolutely did not express that your experiences are opinions. You experienced the occurrence of particular events, that's fine; you're the authority on your life, not me. As I've already said, it's your thoughts about those experiences that are your opinions.
As long as we've reached the understanding that you feeling this way about opinions doesn't mean I do, and as such, when I categorise something as your opinion I am not belittling it.
Anyway, yeah, pretty sure I've said my piece on all that now. Apologies to others for draining the oxygen temporarily.
I miss the real toxicity we had twenty years ago as now modern gamers can't even handle a tiny fraction of it
Don't be a part of the problem.
Being socially inept, emotionally inept, these are not good or cool things. They are emblematic of bad parents, bad diet, bad life, lousy state, poor rearing, poor education, people hating their parents, people abusing others. You think toxic people are not associated with child abuse and spousal abuse? Ruined lives? It's literally gamers escaping the world because they hate their life, or gamers who have not developed emotionally or normally because they play so many video games. There is no way this is normal, or desirable. You only go this path as a social reject of sort, or someone with a life like a gang banger, a criminal, a someone in a disrespectful group. Compare in contrast Phil Spencer, he is always well spoken.