-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
i got banned (from an admin I found out) for 'trolling a political party' (aka republicans in this case) so i wouldn't be surprised if it were the same person.
OP
OP
I got one advertation point or something, for laughing at one reply that bannon is leninist, for trolling and driveby post.
Even If i explained in a reply Just after that.
But to say BS is ok It seems.
Whatever...
Even If i explained in a reply Just after that.
But to say BS is ok It seems.
Whatever...
Last edited:
Zero warnings ever. Zero PMs from anyone. Zero communication from the staff. Suddenly I found out that I've been banned from ever making any threads and I had to contact the staff to figure what was going on. Apparently some of the admins don't like the threads I make because of the way I frame them - even though it's literally just copy-paste headlines and text from the articles I post. This is coming from the higher levels of the staff apparently, and they feel that my threads criticizing either the political aspects of games (work conditions, diversity, corporate white-washing) or US imperialism/environmentalism/capitalism/failure of democracy are not genuine and only aimed to create controversy. They do not realize that whatever controversy is generated from me highlighting a political issue should be an indication of how hegemony works - that those who are offended by simply *talking* about e.g. representation or work conditions or capitalism or US imperialism want to shut the conversation or the topic down. To me it has never been about generating controversy, but to bring those conversations and topics that are usually excluded or marginalized to the surface and make aware to enthusiasts & liberals of what's going on beyond trivial "what's your favorite weapon in Z?" or "X game has sold Y amount of units to the benefit of this publisher" or "Can you believe Trump did X/Y/Z today?!?!" discussions - besides, if anyone ever felt offended by a thread on e.g. the representation of fatness in games, they could simply just ignore it, so I'm not sure where the specific admin is coming from.
Finally, from a procedural point of view, the staff could've warned me or told me that some were considering removing my thread privileges, so that I could've adjusted or paid heed to some of their complaints about what I post. But I received absolutely nothing and I've never received any warnings before. Which tells me that it was someone looking for an excuse to ban me. And now my ability to make threads is pretty much gone (first time in 10 years), to the joy of those far-right people who stalk and harass those of us who criticize the status quo. I guess the function of this action by the staff is to "keep politics out of games", so to speak, and it saddens me that the staff aren't aware of what signals they're sending and whose feelings they are prioritizing (i.e. the feelings of those who are offended that anyone dares to talk about representation in games, work conditions in the industry, US imperialism, environmentalism, etc.) .
Anyway, it's just a forum, no big deal, and my time should be spent better elsewhere than here, but I'd say that this place is a bit more conservative and right-winged than I imagined it to be.
OP
OP
I haven't noticed a particular rightward shift but I also don't pay attention to a lot of forum drama. If anything I thought the reputation of Resetera was that it has a heavy hand moderation policy when right wing opinions start to pop up*, at least regarding gender issues. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean anything about economic views.
*TBF regressive social views pretty are of deserving of a ban anyway. What an awful SJW I am!
*TBF regressive social views pretty are of deserving of a ban anyway. What an awful SJW I am!
Hello Lime. It's a little strange to see these comments here when you already asked us about this and received polite and clear answers – we believed the matter settled and you had even expressed that you were "fine" with the decision. We agreed with you completely that there had been a lapse in communication that we will work to address in the future. We were clear that while there is no process in place right now, the possibility existed that you might regain your thread posting privileges.
For you to then turn around and direct this kind of vitriol towards the staff in public, as if you had not already concluded a cordial exchange in private, is frankly bewildering and troubling. I'm afraid I also have to be clear that it is not acceptable in any shape or form.
If anyone has any questions about our moderation you are welcome to contact us directly. We do read, and we do respond. Thank you.
Is there an acceptable method of criticizing or disagreeing with moderation behavior or policy on the forum, outside of private discussion with you? This is an honest question which I think begs clarification. Moderation on internet forums is prone to abuse. Notoriously so. This community's legacy is one that includes a great familiarity with that. I don't think it's safe for any of us to assume that Era will be some how immune from this, no matter what mechanisms or level of transparency you folks put in place.
Now, if this isn't the place to be discussing this, feel free to tell me. But despite losing their thread posting privileges, I don't see a whole lot of vitriol in Lime's posts. In fact, they've concluded with the fact that this shouldn't matter too much to them and that they are disappointed with level of discourse on the forum. Maybe it's because I have similar views, but I don't think there's anything vitriolic about that. I mean, it seems like you agree a mistake was made by your moderation team, which is great! But now Lime is the person who has the deal with that, after 10 years of being a part of this community. And they're left only with a small consolation that there may in the future be some process to restore that privilege. That's pretty rough and, I think, legitimate grounds for venting. Nobody is calling for any violation of forum policy here.
So along with dismissiveness you're adding sarcasm to your responses to my posts.
He didnt created a New thread to question the mods (he cant), he only wanted to talk about his frustations about his ban here, with people that share similar POV.
Then everyone Talked about a similar situation, and discussed It. This is looking more to a therapy group than a critic direct to the mods or to"bring Down the mods" "revolution in resetera" "you have nothing to lose but your chains".
We cant discuss about our problems with the forum?
One of the factors this forum was also created it's because we couldnt criticize that evil asshole, we couldnt discuss the subject.
But since this is not the case, whats the problem to talk about this?
I know modetation is a ungrateful Job, but any kind of censor Will be criticized, and should, If you cant critic and talk openly the administration, then It becomes authoritarian.
To be clear since internet you cant express emotions, im not angry or nothing.
Then everyone Talked about a similar situation, and discussed It. This is looking more to a therapy group than a critic direct to the mods or to"bring Down the mods" "revolution in resetera" "you have nothing to lose but your chains".
We cant discuss about our problems with the forum?
One of the factors this forum was also created it's because we couldnt criticize that evil asshole, we couldnt discuss the subject.
But since this is not the case, whats the problem to talk about this?
I know modetation is a ungrateful Job, but any kind of censor Will be criticized, and should, If you cant critic and talk openly the administration, then It becomes authoritarian.
To be clear since internet you cant express emotions, im not angry or nothing.
This is very unfortunate. I liked your threads a lot even though I didn't post in them all that often. You provided interesting perspectives that needed to be heard. I agree with you that the fact that others got outraged with your threads is outside of your control and should not weigh on you. If things really went down this way, I'd be very concerned. That said, we're only getting one side of the story here, so I wish staff would respond publicly about what you did wrong. That said again, access to your account is locked so I can't see if any of your recent threads went over the line.
I realize that y'all don't like Lime bringing up private discussions of yours publicly, and that you may feel that everything is settled between you and Lime. That said, the rest of us who have seen Lime's threads and perspectives as very interesting would really benefit from seeing your thinking on this one. Because from where I stand, there has been nothing wrong with their threads. This whole thing is making the moderation look really bad. Again, you may have been perfectly justified but there is no way for me to know that that is the case unless y'all share your perspective on this, following the ERA principle of transparent and accountable modding. Thank you.
I apologize if anyone on the staff feels personally attacked or hurt by this - that was not my intention. And I didn't get from our very short conversation that the staff agreed there was a "lapse in communication" or about the process in which the staff decided that my threads should be removed entirely from Era. The conversation that I've had *after* suddenly being juniored out of nowhere was hardly explanatory in the issues I brought up to you and I didn't get clarification or answer to my worries about the implication of this junioring, nor the fact that the accusation that I was framing them wrongly didn't make sense, since I was literally copy-pasting headlines from the articles themselves. I've written three long messages on the implications and the background for why a specific contingent of posters are upset by my threads, as well as the fact that there are literally people stalking and harassing posters like me who are outspoken. The people who are happy with the staff's decision are the ones who are disgusted when they see any conversation on anti-capitalism, feminism, anti-racism, environmentalism, US imperialism, etc., especially in regards to "their" video games, and they're the same ones who are doxxing and threatening people here. So why should we take their feelings into account because I share articles they would like to censor? And why do it in a way that completely blindsides me and tells me that someone on the mod team would rather forego protocol and warnings in order to entirely remove my thread-making privileges when I've had a complete clean record? And like I said, it's fine if this is what the admins desired, but I worry about where their priorities lie and whose feelings are being protected in this scenario - it tells me that bringing up socialist and feminist perspectives on here is less tolerated than those who would rather have such removed - so the narrative of this being a progressive community seems flawed if those are the feelings that are considered. I might have arrived at a different conclusion if someone had warned or reprimanded me beforehand, instead of this power-move to entirely shut down any threads related to the politics that I find interesting and important to bring up. But all of this could've been avoided if anyone would've PM'ed or warned me.
In any case, it is what it is and there's not much to do about it. I figured it was okay to share my experience with others here on Era and perhaps let other people remember the importance of marginalized topics, but I didn't intend for anyone to feel personally attacked - for that I of course apologize.
Last edited:
To be clear, thread making privileges have never been tied to warnings or bans, but strictly to thread making history. No protocols were foregone -- every other poster who lost their privileges were handled in the same manner. If your grievance is with our process, we agree that there is always room for improvement. If your grievance is that you feel you have been treated differently, rest assured that is not the case.
We appreciate that.
To the thread at large, we have in the past had to explain to other Hangouts that using their threads to complain about moderation is not appropriate. This thread cannot be an exception. If you have further questions feel free to reach out by PM. Thank you.
Thanks for all the replies RE: stock market investments. I'll avoid corporations that profit directly from private prisons.
The Baffler wrote a response.
Noah Hurowitz - State of the Unions
Arguments pitting white-collar against blue-collar unions are full of holes
The Baffler wrote a response.
Noah Hurowitz - State of the Unions
Arguments pitting white-collar against blue-collar unions are full of holes
OP
OP
This is a good response. I did find the idea of journalists feeling more secure in their position to be a strange claim. I wasn't aware (though Im not surprised) that places like Vox attempted to squash unionization.
User was warned: Trolling
if you are not confortable here the right thing to do is leave,best whishes
This is a pretty good response, although I don't think its entirely consistent with itself. But largely I think its more right than the Atlantic piece was about the disparities.
What edgy Guy, are you lurking here to harass commies or to talk?
Then I apologise.
Coming from the poster that pulled the "if you don't like get out" card.
OP
OP
Nice. I'm not too familiar with the socialist movement in Indonesia after the mass killings in the 60s but its good to see its still around and kicking in some form.
Oh boy he really got you there!
I'm not sure how you can go on now.
sphagnum, I might be a syndicalist now... Don't necessarily believe in the liberation of workers and I'm still pro market but I can see myself becoming very much a fellow traveller in the free association movement, and I am also sympathetic to this idea of mutually supportive human organizations that devote resources to making "bad work" both more enjoyable and also equitably distributed among voluntary members.
OP
OP
OP
OP
I've been figured out! I can't lie, I have Stalin everywhere!
I've been figured out! I can't lie, I have Stalin everywhere!
You dont need to be agressive sphagnum
This is more on the nose than you think. Most of the views I have don't come out of any concern for others but out of pure misanthropy for the rich and powerful.
How does Communism and Socialism exist without Capitalsim? Maybe go reread Marx.
Wow I just noticed that this thread is a perfect microcosm of why leftist movements everywhere fall apart and fail
OP
OP
Ain't nothing wrong with that. Socialism isn't necessarily about love and peaches any more than liberal democracy is; for my part my belief in democracy has more it do with it, properly applied, preventing centralization of power in a few individuals, and that same principle applies to socialism.
The bourgeoisie exists purely through exploiting everyone else. They deserve to be opposed, and their position as masters of society deserves to be overturned.
I prefer to think of it as a marketplace of ideas, ironically.
Or a place to stay sharp by arguing with House of Lightning.
I think my starting place is, besides the fact that everyone deserves the right to experience poverty and we should bring our billionaire friends back into the noble flock, that a single centralized state is really the source of most if not all major tragedies and oppressions in human history and is a primitive construct unfit for modern, civilized, industrialized society. Practically every other facet of life benefits from independent compartmentalization and free association so it makes sense that so would the business of governance, which should be abolished and replaced with the notion of (part-time) administration.
Also, human society has in modern times been single mindedly focused on the tautology that we should be productive now so that we should be productive in the future. This doesn't make sense when designing a society for people who live around sixty to eighty years of age, nor does it make sense when designing a society which is meant to last for a hundred millennia.
And also, that there is no reason to assume prima facie the existence of political parties, or national boundaries, or even regional police forces. People have to sacrifice their political beliefs every day because of the single chokepoint of the regional representative to government; in a direct democracy no ever needs to sacrifice one facet of their belief system in favor of another. Just as my choice of coffee never, ever affects my choice of music, your position on abortion should never affect your position on climate change, etc. And certainly there not need be any fixed number of positions, either. In our system there always exists two malformed and heavily compromised positions. For any particular situation, it is conceivable that an expert department (like a council of scientists) can determine how many positions there ought to be at all through expert predigestion, and present those to the public in a ranked election. Now extend that idea to the globe. There is no reason for me not to be part of a healthcare cooperative that has 500,000 members in China, 3 million in France, and 200,000 in the city of Las Vegas, especially given I can communicate with any part of the globe in approximately 500 milliseconds or less. Etc.
He's the only redeeming part, actually.
OP
OP
You sound like a right Marxist!
I thought we had something special. >:[
Then why does every other Marxist end up with tanks, nukes, and a ban on Rock music?
Besides, while I'm not here to debate the principles of socialism (that would be rude to the thread), I will say I adore the obliterating quality of coercive capitalism; that people who refuse to produce anything other people actually want or don't find themselves a place in society end up starving to death or at best becoming tramps and paupers. But like I said, if people want to freely associate into a mutualistic society (that is embeddable in a capitalistic one by interacting through the outside as a market unit) then they should, and I would probably join them.
Oh sphagnumi and memeballs, you know you're one of my favorites, on multiple forums :^)
OP
OP
The USSR pursued a capture-the-state approach which subsequently subsumed it to the logic of state maintenance. Lenin, though a really smart dude, had a number of authoritarian traits and then Stalin went whole hog on crushing his opponents because he believed he was the only one standing in the way of reaction. The USSR then went on to build the socialist world in its image.
It's like if Napoleon hadn't been defeated but went on to spread his empire across half the world proclaiming he had freed everyone from the tyranny of the old aristocracy. To the victors go the spoils.
Actually I could just say it's no different than how the US was founded on principles of freedom and democracy and then kept on enslaving black people, subjugatng women, and later on propping up fascist dictatorships and other military juntas - the ruling class of the state feels the need to protect its existence. Marx kind of wavered between wanting to seize the state apparatus and not wanting the workers to be subsumed to a state but it's obvious his end goal was to do away with states as well as capitalism. Unfortunately for the more spontaneously inclined, the Bolsheviks were more organized.
See I'm not...exactly sold on this. Diffuse and organic organization seems to work well when everyone is close neighbors. What we think of as contemporary life requires the organization of people and resources on a massive scale that I do not trust to flat structures, frankly. You can say that that's precisely the problem with contemporary life and maybe you'd be right, but we should at least recognize that this then requires, basically, the complete reversal of every trend towards urbanization going on around the globe and that seems challenging. That's not just a shift in who controls labor, but a complete rearchitecting of every spatial and social configuration
What would you cite as examples of facets of life benefiting from independent compartmentalization and free association? My obvious counters would be the relative efficiency of public vs private run services such as postal services and healthcare, and more generally how the internet is proving firsthand how pure free association fosters fascism and bigotry, but I'm curious what you actually have in mind
I used to think I supported syndicalism. Now I'm not so sure.
Last edited: