New Forum Policy: No Hateful Posts

"

robmafia wrote:

...attacked? WITH WORDS?

Slightly off-topic. I'll share it with this thread nonetheless.

Steven Bonnell, commonly known as Destiny, was part of the Starcraft 2 streaming community. In the middle of a match against an Asian player, he used a racist slur that is intended against Asians. After being released from compLexity Gaming, an online news aggregator said that the racist was fired. The distinctions to note is that the news aggregator used the term racist instead of "person that used racist remarks" or other variables and the term fired instead of quit or released.
What ensued: Bonnell's followers (Twitter's sense of the word henceforth) attacked the news aggregator with words because the news aggregator used words (with negative connotations) against Bonnell. Why would words have to be defended? They're just words after all, right? If Bonnell was "just using words", so was the news aggregator. So, then, why was Bonnell's followers, including his mother, so angry about the use of words? After all, isn't Bonnell use of the racial slur (starting with a g) just a word?

If words are just words, everybody can just spew words at one another. If my words are just words, and your words are just words, how can either be offensive? They're just words. I don't get why somebody would be upset over words... unless they're not just words. And that's where objectivity comes in. If you state that "words are just words", that would be an absolute dictim that you impose on yourself. It should then be applicable at all times for yourself and any source directed at you.

However, this is something that you cannot impose on others. Words are derived from concepts. Each with its own distinct abstraction and etymology. They have meaning. If Martin Luther King, Jr. was alive today, he would be outraged at his ethnicity/race and their "it's just a word" excuse for their use of the N-word (with an letter a modifier). Mr. King, calm down—it's just a word!

Source Link
The term You is not directed at the quoted person, a generic You (Plural) is used.
English equivalent of 他 would be a good replacement.
Ethnicity/race referring to biological and/or social identities.

what are you talking about? how was that an attack? did they verb the journalist to death?

and are you actually trying to compare journalists/reporters to people on a gaming forum? if i was getting paid to post on here, i can assure you that my posts would be of higher quality.

your comparison isn't exactly... comparable.

"

If words are just words, everybody can just spew words at one another

what world are you living in? you CAN spew words at anyone, just as anyone CAN spew words at you.

for example: go outside. say words to people you encounter. you CAN!

"

robmafia wrote:

"

SkyCore wrote:

This statement is simply untrue. 'objectivity'. i dont know how to state this without insulting you. so frankly, i dont think you have any grasp of the meaning of 'objectivity'. precisely where in my posts do you find 'antagonistic behavior'?

since you want to know...

"

words OBVIOUSLY have meaning, but in the context of a gory arpg for adults

"

SkyCore wrote:

Adults should know better than to senselessly attack one another.

- italics, indicating that i'm not an adult... and an implied accusation of senseless attack.

It implied nothing of the sort. I was responding to your comment which included the word 'adults'. And 'insults' was referring to 'hateful posts', the reason being that it is the topic we are posting in. I was assuming of course that your posts in this thread were in fact related to the topic of discussion. Again, perhaps the fault is mine for assuming things. And again, perhaps if your posts were more perspicuous, there would be fewer misunderstandings.

"

SkyCore wrote:

If this game were really 'hardcore' as you seem to wish, i should be able to kill you as soon as i see you.

"

robmafia wrote:

- yeah, i got nuthin. i have no idea how this was supposed to make sense/be relevant. but you should be able to kill me on sight! what?

So if we go back to the original posts: your premise was originally that because PoE was attempting to be a hardcore game, that hateful posts should be allowed. I was expanding on the concept of hardcore and taking it to ridiculous lengths in order to show you the folly of your logic. Reductio ad absurdum.
Now if we examine your recent posts, i could use your own logic against you yet again. YOUR premise was wrong, and thus it invalidates EVERYTHING you have said in this entire thread. "and yes, it DID invalidate your argument. YOUR PREMISE WAS WRONG. why do you think that an argument based on falsehood would have merit? the premise being incorrect rendered everything based on said premise to be moot." "wtf? can you just once... read my post and take it for what it is/says, instead of inserting your own crap into it?" And your inability to understand what i mean is not my fault but yours. "wait, wait, wait... let me get this straight - you're claiming it's MY fault that you jumped to bizarro conclusions/misinterpreted my posts?"

"

robmafia wrote:

what world are you living in? you CAN spew words at anyone, just as anyone CAN spew words at you.

for example: go outside. say words to people you encounter. you CAN!

I would argue that you CAN say anything you want in the forum as well! You just have to live with the consequences, which includes probation and possible banning. Just as in real life you have to deal the consequences which may include physical violence or jail.
I find it impossible that you can not see this. So in conclusion i find that your posts are merely an attempt to stir up trouble, and that you: submit a deliberately provocative posting to an online message board with the aim of inciting an angry response(the definition of troll)... with NOTHING constructive to add to this or any discussion.

I will cease to further respond to your posts in hopes to reduce the negativity and clutter of this forum.

There was no comparison being made as I did not allude to nor compare that scenario with this forum or any other forums. I've stated before-hand that it was, to some extent, an off-topic post.

We're all living on Earth. Unnecessary rhetorical questions aside; The quote you quoted is out of context with the whole of my post. The sentence after it questions the consequence of that action. As examples, employing the use of information manipulation, false accusations, and rumor spreading are morally unpreferable behaviors involving the use of words. Any rational person will agree that children in verbally abusive families correlates to increased psychological problems. So, yes, you can attack with words. I'm sure an attack is not restricted to bodily harm or death.
[M-W, TFD, Ref, Wiki]

If you feel I have made a mistake somewhere, I would appreciate if you would help point it out.

Edit 1: Link to my original post here.
Back on topic: We are all playing inside Grinding Gear Games' virtual house. You can do anything you want, but don't be shocked if they deny you entry to their house. See the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy that you agreed to upon entering their house. Like any other house, the guests should comply with the homeowner's requests. If you disagree with the homeowner's requests, let the homeowner know your feedback without throwing vases and/or shouting.

"

Deathstar2x wrote:

There was no comparison being made

*facepalm*

"

Deathstar2x wrote:

as I did not allude to nor compare that scenario with this forum or any other forums. I've stated before-hand that it was, to some extent, an off-topic post.

which brings the question of why you intentionally thought it was worth posting, if you knew it wasn't relevant, from the start?

"

Deathstar2x wrote:

We're all living on Earth. Unnecessary rhetorical questions aside; The quote you quoted is out of context with the whole of my post.

no, we REALLY CAN "spew" words. how is that out of context? you said we CAN'T. that's false. we CAN. obviously. i don't know what your point is supposed to be.

"

Deathstar2x wrote:

The sentence after it questions the consequence of that action. As examples, employing the use of information manipulation, false accusations, and rumor spreading are morally unpreferable behaviors involving the use of words. Any rational person will agree that children in verbally abusive families correlates to increased psychological problems. So, yes, you can attack with words. I'm sure an attack is not restricted to bodily harm or death.


If you feel I have made a mistake somewhere, I would appreciate if you would help point it out.

your argument does not follow your premise.

yes, actions have consequences. and? no one said they couldn't/didn't have consequences. that hardly means that one CAN'T "spew words."

"

Deathstar2x wrote:

Back on topic: We are all playing inside Grinding Gear Games' virtual house. You can do anything you want, but don't be shocked if they deny you entry to their house. See the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy that you agreed to upon entering their house. Like any other house, the guests should comply with the homeowner's requests. If you disagree with the homeowner's requests, let the homeowner know your feedback without throwing vases and/or shouting.

who said anything about throwing vases and shouting? i voiced displeasure... and my point was quickly affirmed by censoring, anyway. it's as if they went out of their way to help prove me right...

as for the TOS, much of it is actually illegal in most countries. well, assuming one purchased microtransactions, that is. if someone purchases tokens/micros from ggg and then ggg restricts access without cause... well, that's called "fraud."

"

SkyCore wrote:

paraphrased: evasion. nothing but evasion

i have no idea why you even quoted me again... to not respond to anything. and even say that you're not going to reply to me again... literally AS YOU REPLIED TO ME, AGAIN.

le sigh.

"

So if we go back to the original posts: your premise was originally that because PoE was attempting to be a hardcore game, that hateful posts should be allowed.

but holy crap, you managed to make the SAME mistake... AGAIN?! after literally pointing out each of them, previously... you STILL managed to try to tell me what my premise is... and stating something that i never said, never implied, and never thought?

no, i never said that hateful posts should be allowed because poe was attempting to be a hardcore game.

i said: "not sure what you're doing, ggg. you explicitly stated that this is by hardcore-gamers for hardcore-gamers, and now it's censorship and kids' gloves. this is quite a turnaround, and makes little sense in a game that's literally only about killing, gore, and naked tentacle monsters."

and then i expanded upon that by mentioning censorship of criticism, censorship's role in stifling creativity/positivity, etc and etc - and that we're supposedly adults and shouldn't need shelter from words. censorship requires action/effort, and for what? something needless, at best...

the fact that i was quickly censored; without using any slurs, hateful speech, attacks, etc and etc - only further proved my point. it didn't take long for the policy to be abused/subjectively implemented.

"

robmafia wrote:

you said we CAN'T. that's false. we CAN. obviously.

"

robmafia wrote:

yes, actions have consequences. and? no one said they couldn't/didn't have consequences. that hardly means that one CAN'T "spew words."

I did not say that. Can you quote where I have said that?
I will amend it if it's logically contradictory.

Not comparing my anecdote to the gaming forum(s) does not make my post irrelevant. It served as just that — an anecdote — to lay out the rest of the post which is related to the originial poster's discussion here. As is, my initial post stands. If you have any further corrections or refutations, feel free to share them.

Judging by a cursory glance of your posts, it seems you do agree with my initial post. I suggest you lay out your concerns in a single, in-depth post of its own since your opening post in this thread lacks elaboration. Personally, the inclusion of this forum rule does not concern me as I have made zero hateful posts, and have zero bans, mutes, mod-edits and whathaveyou. As I said, I see it as Grinding Gear Games' house. If you or any others would like to make the case against Grinding Gear Games' censorship, go for it. (I'll be waiting)

"

Deathstar2x wrote:

I did not say that. Can you quote where I have said that?
I will amend it if it's logically contradictory.

umm... ok. it was quoted at the top of this page, but whatever...

"

Deathstar2x wrote:

If words are just words, everybody can just spew words at one another. If my words are just words, and your words are just words, how can either be offensive? They're just words. I don't get why somebody would be upset over words... unless they're not just words. And that's where objectivity comes in.

were you not suggesting that words "aren't just" words, thereby refuting your premise (ie: refuting that we "can just spew words at one another")?

your anecdote suggests that was your aim.

"

Deathstar2x wrote:

Not comparing my anecdote to the gaming forum(s) does not make my post irrelevant.

...yeah, it actually does. it literally makes your anecdote irrelevant. not that anecdotes are particularly effective, anyway.

even you admitted it was off-topic. i don't know how you can think it's off-topic and relevant.

"

Deathstar2x wrote:

Judging by a cursory glance of your posts, it seems you do agree with my initial post. I suggest you lay out your concerns in a single, in-depth post of its own since your opening post in this thread lacks elaboration. Personally, the inclusion of this forum rule does not concern me as I have made zero hateful posts, and have zero bans, mutes, mod-edits and whathaveyou. As I said, I see it as Grinding Gear Games' house. If you or any others would like to make the case against Grinding Gear Games' censorship, go for it. (I'll be waiting)

...did you READ the last 2 pages? i didn't have any hateful posts, either - and yet... censoring and a temp ban happened, anyway.

Iv had a few posts censored, it made me feel bad for about 2 minutes, then I carried on and thought of something more constructive to say.

So I applaud this decision and especially agree within the context of the mental health of the devs that have to read and receive the opinions from a bunch of random people, whom they also hope will enjoy the game. They have to sort out opinions like the wheat from the chaff, the bollocks from the dog and heaven from hell, so I think you, GGG, are doing a good job :)