Some people are definitely here mainly to fight (debate agressively) than to exchange viewpoints, learn and contribute.
What i find shocking is what looks like the moderators almost complete apathy towards enforcing constructive debates and instead only dealing with the most extreme cases of troublemaking or stepping in when a thread has gone completely off the rails.
I won’t lie, i am guilty myself of being a d*ck here. And the main reason for that is apathy. Why should i care if nobody else cares? If the mods don’t even care?
Anyways, i think im gonna be more of a d*ck from now on. I put way too much effort into being nice and it’s just wasted effort. Especially since there won’t be any consequences for misbehaving.
Some topics are more important in the larger picture and the health of the game and its community, hiding behind mommy’s skirt (mods) is how the bullies react when there’s push-back on their BS.
The moderators if anything should intervene less, they are weaponized by the Lawful Evil types and said bullies to shut down conversations that ruffle their feathers, hurt their egos and shine a light on their gaslighting.
It’s a 30+ year old cheap tactic, but tried and true so it keeps being abused, and quite frankly moderators in all social platforms should know better, but I guess there’s always a turnover so the old guard moves on and the younglings don’t catch on. It goes hand-in-hand with brigading and alt accounts.
Spewing nonsense and lies is not civility even when done with a smile and skirting the “rules”. Some people need to grow a thicker skin and be more confrontational both here and IRL, push-back on BS, otherwise you have the empty-drum vocal minority calling the shots.
Not to make excuses for either side, but something to consider generally:
Those calling for balance are often calling for nerfs specifically, and they often feel like they’re shouting into the void without response. Furthermore, the topic of calling for nerfs is a contentious sentiment at the best of times and they know it, so, by necessity, they often have to steel themselves for possible confrontation going in, and that’s reflected in the tone and extent of the argument.
Conversely, those who are opposed to nerfs find it tedious at best because it seems never-ending, like those that are calling for nerfs are never satisfied. Which is also compounded by looking back at FatShark’s heavy-handed history with nerfs and how it tends to be an over-correction at best and takes months to un-fück up. So to those opposed to nerfs, those calling for nerfs are often seen as people wanting to take away from those who are happy with what they have and had to suffer to get.
The end result is that regardless of the merit of any position, both sides have their backs up and are on the defensive, because they have years of unpleasant experience to exacerbate the feeling.
I’m deliberately speaking in very broad terms and without taking a position on either side. So, unfortunately, no such discussion can ever really happen in a vacuum.
“Censorship” is always my favorite excuse for people who got caught being an ass and punished for it. If it were censorship, we wouldn’t be talking about it, or be able to see the nuked thread at all, and Big Brother would be telling you that it was a gas leak and to move along.
What happened is that Tanner Lindberg got involved, and even though he tends to be right, he’s not polite about it, which is just a perfect recipe for starting a flame war.
What exactly is FS censoring? Like, there’s plenty of genuine shade to throw at Fatshark, but it’s all allowed to be thrown here, and I’m not quite sure what they’re covering up or for here.
They locked the flamer vs toothpick thread or something, not sure why.
Things always get weird and stupid when “streamers” get involved, but still, it didn’t warrant a lock? I only skimmed because streamers.
Funny thing is the streamer fanboys tend to distort and gaslight as much if not more than said streamers.
Moderators are generally not required - or, more significantly, paid - to be around enough to fully enforce the rules.
So … I agree. Personally, I’d be willing to roll the dice and replace insufficient moderation with no moderation. We’ll all duke it out.
OTOH, I think it easy to understand why FS would prefer the usual sort of forum rather risk their site getting brigaded and turned into something the FBI takes notes about.
Quite. Moderators often don’t step in when a rule is broken, but rather when a thread has completely degenerated - which generally requires someone defending themself. Alas, what they might be defending themself against is others rightfully pointing out how toxic they are.
I’ve often said that civility is over-rated. Going broad here … Online and off, civility is quite often placed above the truth. We’re told to just walk away.
We should be civil, but not at the cost of allowing disinformation to proliferate.
If you would make a man a monster, first tell him lies.