|
I literally don't understand how -anyone- could side with Reddit in this situation unless the reason is because they hate RL.
No one is saying you have to like RL, no one is saying your not allowed to dislike RL, if you want, you can HATE RL, as I have said before, and will (seemingly) have to say again. THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW POPULAR RL IS!
PLEASE STOP BRINGING IT UP, IT IS SIMPLY NOT RELEVANT.
Imagine there is a debate going on between Bush and Obama, about global warming. Everyone is trying to talk about the topic that matters (global warming) and some people just keep shouting:
"BUT I THINK OBAMA IS A LOSER THEREFORE I AGREE WITH ANYTHING BUSH SAYS!"
We dont care if you think Obama is a loser, we dont care if you dont like RL's content. It simply, -is not relevant- to the important topic which is:
Do you think a company should be able to brag about being a community run platform while censoring content from its members?
That is the question, at no point does you thinking RL is biased come into this, at no point does some other guy thinking RL is awesome come into this. All that should be on your mind, is that question.
If it helps, imagine it isn't RL that this has happened to, imagine sky, sivHD or some other LoL content creator you like has had their -content- banned because of a personal dispute between them and some mods.
|
https://www.reddit.com/about/values/
2. Give people voices
Create a safe space to encourage participation.
Embrace diversity of viewpoints.
Allow freedom of expression.
Be stewards, not dictators. The community owns itself.
stay classy /r/lol mods.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On May 13 2015 05:16 Raneth wrote:
I dont know what your problem is Grandinquisitor, but from what I can tell, you really hate RL. This is not even -ABOUT- RL it is about a for profit organisation acting hypocritically, and throwing its weight around.
EDIT: Like seriously, you dont like him we get it /clap. Bring up as many points as you like about how much of a douche he is, it doesn't matter, he has been banned for that, and no one is objecting to him being banned -no one- so you can stop trying to persuade people his ban was justified -we agree-
This is about an organisation censoring content. An organisation that is meant to let its users decide what content is good or bad. Further to that point -it doesnt matter if you like his content or not, that is not the god damn point!- the point is -the community should decide- not the reddit mods, and not you.
Did you miss the part where I once criticized on Reddit some small thing he wrote, and he went and publicly posted screenshots of my Facebook account to mock me? That's pretty good grounds to dislike someone, no? And why is it OK for you to suck his dick but not for me to point out his repeated offensive behavior?
So excuse me if I feel the need to correct people like yourself on fundamental misunderstandings, because not only are you ignorant of what's going on, you feel the need to constantly repeat the same mantra and possibly confuse others with your ignorance as well. I'll try one more time, though every other time I posted you just ignored what I wrote and continued to post the same generalized bullshit.
Please tell me which of the below paragraphs you disagree with.
1) The League subreddit is a content aggregator with some rules. If I posted freshly leaked Kate Upton nudes to the subreddit, it'd get huge numbers of upvotes, but it doesn't belong on the subreddit. If I posted image macros bitching about elo hell, those would get huge numbers of upvotes as well, but they don't belong on the subreddit. Your argument that "the community should decide" what content belongs on the subreddit is therefore obviously flawed. When you visit the subreddit, you are viewing the most upvoted content, as filtered by the subreddit's moderation policy.
2) This is generally true across Reddit as a whole. Each subreddit's moderation policy can be whatever the fuck it wants to be. You can be fatpeoplehate and restrict it to only mocking fat people. You can be AskHistorians and restrict it to only quality submissions. You can be /r/politics and ban all submissions from Gawker. If you don't like a subreddit's moderation policy, tough cookies. Go to another subreddit.
3) In this case, the subreddit was forced to revise its moderation policy because RL was a gigantic dick. He broke the rules of the subreddit personally and earned a personal ban. He then broke the rules of the subreddit by proxy through his Twitter whenever his content was featured on the subreddit.
4) The moderation staff concluded that the best way to deal with this issue was to ban his content from the subreddit. This is something within their power and previously done by other subreddits. It was an extreme punishment for an extreme individual. As per (2) above, this is within their purview. They can do whatever the fuck they want. They are generally pretty good about it, which is why the subreddit stays popular and RiotFreeLoL had 15 comments on the MSI final.
5) Some % of people in the community disagree with this decision. Some people agree with it, and some people don't care about it. There isn't any way to quantify these %s, nor is there any point to, because it's not a democracy. But if you felt the need to quantify it, you could look at RiotFreeLoL and see that approximately 0.6% of the userbase even subscribed. For context, more people are subscribed to /r/vikingsgonewild. You are stretching at straws to think that a significant portion of the userbase actually cares about RL's content being banned.
So I don't see the issue here. RL isn't being oppressed. He bit the hand that feeds and now he's hungry. He set up an alternate subreddit to host his content and a statistically insignificant number of people signed up.
|
On May 13 2015 06:49 Raneth wrote:
I literally don't understand how -anyone- could side with Reddit in this situation unless the reason is because they hate RL.
No one is saying you have to like RL, no one is saying your not allowed to dislike RL, if you want, you can HATE RL, as I have said before, and will (seemingly) have to say again. THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW POPULAR RL IS!
PLEASE STOP BRINGING IT UP, IT IS SIMPLY NOT RELEVANT.
Imagine there is a debate going on between Bush and Obama, about global warming. Everyone is trying to talk about the topic that matters (global warming) and some people just keep shouting:
"BUT I THINK OBAMA IS A LOSER THEREFORE I AGREE WITH ANYTHING BUSH SAYS!"
We dont care if you think Obama is a loser, we dont care if you dont like RL's content. It simply, -is not relevant- to the important topic which is:
Do you think a company should be able to brag about being a community run platform while censoring content from its members?
That is the question, at no point does you thinking RL is biased come into this, at no point does some other guy thinking RL is awesome come into this. All that should be on your mind, is that question.
If it helps, imagine it isn't RL that this has happened to, imagine sky, sivHD or some other LoL content creator you like has had their -content- banned because of a personal dispute between them and some mods.
One of the biggest concerns here is that RL seemingly has some sensitive information of the reddit mods. One mod already resigned, the rest were probably concerned too. RL said he didn't dox, while at the same time said mods' information are fair game (he even said it here).
So, as Reddit, they have the obligation to protect the mods when the mods feel threatened. It is the right thing to do. It would be an epic failure from Reddit if they did nothing.
|
I don't think we live in a world where the name you use on your Twitter account is sensitive information.
|
On May 13 2015 06:59 GrandInquisitor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 05:16 Raneth wrote:
I dont know what your problem is Grandinquisitor, but from what I can tell, you really hate RL. This is not even -ABOUT- RL it is about a for profit organisation acting hypocritically, and throwing its weight around.
EDIT: Like seriously, you dont like him we get it /clap. Bring up as many points as you like about how much of a douche he is, it doesn't matter, he has been banned for that, and no one is objecting to him being banned -no one- so you can stop trying to persuade people his ban was justified -we agree-
This is about an organisation censoring content. An organisation that is meant to let its users decide what content is good or bad. Further to that point -it doesnt matter if you like his content or not, that is not the god damn point!- the point is -the community should decide- not the reddit mods, and not you. Did you miss the part where I once criticized on Reddit some small thing he wrote, and he went and publicly posted screenshots of my Facebook account to mock me? That's pretty good grounds to dislike someone, no? And why is it OK for you to suck his dick but not for me to point out his repeated offensive behavior?
Quote me a single instance of me saying something positive about RL let alone me "sucking his dick" and i will answer your questions.
EDIT: You have personal bias and it is making you miss the point
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
Also, let's be clear here:
REDDIT
is distinct from
the leagueoflegends subreddit
REDDIT is a company. It lets you host subreddits. It's kind of like Geocities letting you host your own websites.
The leagueoflegends subreddit is a site that a few people set up years ago. They aren't a company, they don't market themselves, they don't work for Reddit.
So posts like these:
On May 13 2015 06:57 wei2coolman wrote:https://www.reddit.com/about/values/Show nested quote +2. Give people voices
Create a safe space to encourage participation.
Embrace diversity of viewpoints.
Allow freedom of expression.
Be stewards, not dictators. The community owns itself. stay classy /r/lol mods.
and these
On May 13 2015 06:49 Raneth wrote:
Do you think a company should be able to brag about being a community run platform while censoring content from its members?
betray a total lack of understanding of what's going on here.
EDIT:
On May 13 2015 07:03 Raneth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 06:59 GrandInquisitor wrote:On May 13 2015 05:16 Raneth wrote:
I dont know what your problem is Grandinquisitor, but from what I can tell, you really hate RL. This is not even -ABOUT- RL it is about a for profit organisation acting hypocritically, and throwing its weight around.
EDIT: Like seriously, you dont like him we get it /clap. Bring up as many points as you like about how much of a douche he is, it doesn't matter, he has been banned for that, and no one is objecting to him being banned -no one- so you can stop trying to persuade people his ban was justified -we agree-
This is about an organisation censoring content. An organisation that is meant to let its users decide what content is good or bad. Further to that point -it doesnt matter if you like his content or not, that is not the god damn point!- the point is -the community should decide- not the reddit mods, and not you. Did you miss the part where I once criticized on Reddit some small thing he wrote, and he went and publicly posted screenshots of my Facebook account to mock me? That's pretty good grounds to dislike someone, no? And why is it OK for you to suck his dick but not for me to point out his repeated offensive behavior? Quote me a single instance of me saying something positive about RL let alone me "sucking his dick" and i will answer your questions. EDIT: You have personal bias and it is making you miss the point
Cool, I try to engage you on the issues, write out a few paragraphs of reasoning, you decide not to answer and skip by all of it. I expect to see you post again in a few pages: GUYS THIS IS ABOUT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION NOT WHETHER RL IS A GOOD GUY OR NOT. I did call it in my initial post, after all.
|
On May 13 2015 07:04 GrandInquisitor wrote:Also, let's be clear here: REDDIT is distinct from the leagueoflegends subreddit REDDIT is a company. It lets you host subreddits. It's kind of like Geocities letting you host your own websites. The leagueoflegends subreddit is a site that a few people set up years ago. They aren't a company, they don't market themselves, they don't work for Reddit. So posts like these: Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 06:57 wei2coolman wrote:https://www.reddit.com/about/values/2. Give people voices
Create a safe space to encourage participation.
Embrace diversity of viewpoints.
Allow freedom of expression.
Be stewards, not dictators. The community owns itself. stay classy /r/lol mods. and these Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 06:49 Raneth wrote:
Do you think a company should be able to brag about being a community run platform while censoring content from its members? betray a total lack of understanding of what's going on here. EDIT: Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 07:03 Raneth wrote:On May 13 2015 06:59 GrandInquisitor wrote:On May 13 2015 05:16 Raneth wrote:
I dont know what your problem is Grandinquisitor, but from what I can tell, you really hate RL. This is not even -ABOUT- RL it is about a for profit organisation acting hypocritically, and throwing its weight around.
EDIT: Like seriously, you dont like him we get it /clap. Bring up as many points as you like about how much of a douche he is, it doesn't matter, he has been banned for that, and no one is objecting to him being banned -no one- so you can stop trying to persuade people his ban was justified -we agree-
This is about an organisation censoring content. An organisation that is meant to let its users decide what content is good or bad. Further to that point -it doesnt matter if you like his content or not, that is not the god damn point!- the point is -the community should decide- not the reddit mods, and not you. Did you miss the part where I once criticized on Reddit some small thing he wrote, and he went and publicly posted screenshots of my Facebook account to mock me? That's pretty good grounds to dislike someone, no? And why is it OK for you to suck his dick but not for me to point out his repeated offensive behavior? Quote me a single instance of me saying something positive about RL let alone me "sucking his dick" and i will answer your questions. EDIT: You have personal bias and it is making you miss the point Cool, I try to engage you on the issues, write out a few paragraphs of reasoning, you decide not to answer and skip by all of it. I expect to see you post again in a few pages: GUYS THIS IS ABOUT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION NOT WHETHER RL IS A GOOD GUY OR NOT. I did call it in my initial post, after all.
I will respond, I was just reading throguh the rest of your post, in the mean time, I expect you to quote me where you found me doing either of those things
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
I thought this wasn't about whether we liked RL or not, as you reminded us many times ;-)
In any event I apologize -- I mixed you up with Ansibled, who I see posting on Reddit a lot in RL's defense.
|
On May 13 2015 07:00 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 06:49 Raneth wrote:
I literally don't understand how -anyone- could side with Reddit in this situation unless the reason is because they hate RL.
No one is saying you have to like RL, no one is saying your not allowed to dislike RL, if you want, you can HATE RL, as I have said before, and will (seemingly) have to say again. THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW POPULAR RL IS!
PLEASE STOP BRINGING IT UP, IT IS SIMPLY NOT RELEVANT.
Imagine there is a debate going on between Bush and Obama, about global warming. Everyone is trying to talk about the topic that matters (global warming) and some people just keep shouting:
"BUT I THINK OBAMA IS A LOSER THEREFORE I AGREE WITH ANYTHING BUSH SAYS!"
We dont care if you think Obama is a loser, we dont care if you dont like RL's content. It simply, -is not relevant- to the important topic which is:
Do you think a company should be able to brag about being a community run platform while censoring content from its members?
That is the question, at no point does you thinking RL is biased come into this, at no point does some other guy thinking RL is awesome come into this. All that should be on your mind, is that question.
If it helps, imagine it isn't RL that this has happened to, imagine sky, sivHD or some other LoL content creator you like has had their -content- banned because of a personal dispute between them and some mods. One of the biggest concerns here is that RL seemingly has some sensitive information of the reddit mods. One mod already resigned, the rest were probably concerned too. RL said he didn't dox, while at the same time said mods' information are fair game (he even said it here). So, as Reddit, they have the obligation to protect the mods when the mods feel threatened. It is the right thing to do. It would be an epic failure from Reddit if they did nothing.
i don't think anyone disagrees with RL's accounts being banned, but content ban is pretty fucking silly, especially considering what flies as "content" in front page of /r/lol.
|
On May 13 2015 07:10 GrandInquisitor wrote:
I thought this wasn't about whether we liked RL or not, as you reminded us many times ;-)
In any event I apologize -- I mixed you up with Ansibled, who I see posting on Reddit a lot in RL's defense.
OK, quote me on it then.
|
1) Yes, keeping content relevant is one of the roles of the mods, RL's content is clearly relevant so I do not see how this is an issue.
2) You can be "/fatpeoplehate", but you are unlikely to get many subscribers, the issue here is that /lol is advertised as "come here for all your LoL content and discussion needs" and is then acting against that. Even so, this might not be a problem on "/fatpeoplehate" because its a tiny little reddit with no impact, however, once things hit a large scale, you often find that things which were not a problem early on, start to become a problem. Once again, no one is saying that banning his content is -illegal- but it is certainly going to harm him, and the company he represents. Do you think an internet forum moderator should have that kind of power? With no credentials? This is a topic we could have some interesting discussion around, this would be a relevant topic for discussion.
3) This seems to be about the "is linking to a thread vote brigading" idea, (and you're assuming it does) This is another area where discussion could be had! Intuitively, I dont think it does, although interestingly, probably for the same reasons you think that (2) is ok. I dont think that just becuase someone becomes more popular, they should lose the right to link to things, seems weird, but I would be happy to explore my intuitions there with you, especially seeing as on the different topics, we seem to each be having a different intuition about when the rules need to change!
4) see (1)/(2)
5) It might not be a democracy! But it paints itself as one, this is in my opinion, the core issue, although the others you raised are also interesting and important in their own right. I dont know why you keep bringing up /riotfreelol, that seems once again to be more about RL than any of the core issues, and we could bounce evidence of support for/against him all day, it seems pointless and like it wouldn't go anywhere, which is why I've been trying to seperate the important discussion points from arguments like this one.
It would be nice if we could keep the conversation civil, and tone it down a touch, I will admit I -somewhat- started it by asking what was wrong with you, but at the same time you seemed to be completely ignoring me at the time. So lets try to start again!
EDIT: Apology accepted!
|
On May 13 2015 06:49 Raneth wrote:
Do you think a company should be able to brag about being a community run platform while censoring content from its members?
It is entirely consistent for the moderators to ban Richard Lewis from r/leagueoflegends, in the same way that r/fatpeoplehate is allowed to exist.
If it really bothered the community that much, you would see r/riotfreelol take off. The fact that it hasn't means that most people just don't care.
If you want to talk about if it's ok that r/leagueoflegends has such control over content creation even though it is merely a form of content aggregation, or how catering to the most casual users leads quickly to the decline of quality within a community, or even if content aggregation is healthy for the unimpeded growth of the internet, those too are "simply not relevant."
|
On May 13 2015 07:11 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 07:00 Sufficiency wrote:On May 13 2015 06:49 Raneth wrote:
I literally don't understand how -anyone- could side with Reddit in this situation unless the reason is because they hate RL.
No one is saying you have to like RL, no one is saying your not allowed to dislike RL, if you want, you can HATE RL, as I have said before, and will (seemingly) have to say again. THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW POPULAR RL IS!
PLEASE STOP BRINGING IT UP, IT IS SIMPLY NOT RELEVANT.
Imagine there is a debate going on between Bush and Obama, about global warming. Everyone is trying to talk about the topic that matters (global warming) and some people just keep shouting:
"BUT I THINK OBAMA IS A LOSER THEREFORE I AGREE WITH ANYTHING BUSH SAYS!"
We dont care if you think Obama is a loser, we dont care if you dont like RL's content. It simply, -is not relevant- to the important topic which is:
Do you think a company should be able to brag about being a community run platform while censoring content from its members?
That is the question, at no point does you thinking RL is biased come into this, at no point does some other guy thinking RL is awesome come into this. All that should be on your mind, is that question.
If it helps, imagine it isn't RL that this has happened to, imagine sky, sivHD or some other LoL content creator you like has had their -content- banned because of a personal dispute between them and some mods. One of the biggest concerns here is that RL seemingly has some sensitive information of the reddit mods. One mod already resigned, the rest were probably concerned too. RL said he didn't dox, while at the same time said mods' information are fair game (he even said it here). So, as Reddit, they have the obligation to protect the mods when the mods feel threatened. It is the right thing to do. It would be an epic failure from Reddit if they did nothing. i don't think anyone disagrees with RL's accounts being banned, but content ban is pretty fucking silly, especially considering what flies as "content" in front page of /r/lol.
Yes, they threw books at RL. It was pretty extreme, but perfectly within their rights to do so.
|
On May 13 2015 07:38 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 07:11 wei2coolman wrote:On May 13 2015 07:00 Sufficiency wrote:On May 13 2015 06:49 Raneth wrote:
I literally don't understand how -anyone- could side with Reddit in this situation unless the reason is because they hate RL.
No one is saying you have to like RL, no one is saying your not allowed to dislike RL, if you want, you can HATE RL, as I have said before, and will (seemingly) have to say again. THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW POPULAR RL IS!
PLEASE STOP BRINGING IT UP, IT IS SIMPLY NOT RELEVANT.
Imagine there is a debate going on between Bush and Obama, about global warming. Everyone is trying to talk about the topic that matters (global warming) and some people just keep shouting:
"BUT I THINK OBAMA IS A LOSER THEREFORE I AGREE WITH ANYTHING BUSH SAYS!"
We dont care if you think Obama is a loser, we dont care if you dont like RL's content. It simply, -is not relevant- to the important topic which is:
Do you think a company should be able to brag about being a community run platform while censoring content from its members?
That is the question, at no point does you thinking RL is biased come into this, at no point does some other guy thinking RL is awesome come into this. All that should be on your mind, is that question.
If it helps, imagine it isn't RL that this has happened to, imagine sky, sivHD or some other LoL content creator you like has had their -content- banned because of a personal dispute between them and some mods. One of the biggest concerns here is that RL seemingly has some sensitive information of the reddit mods. One mod already resigned, the rest were probably concerned too. RL said he didn't dox, while at the same time said mods' information are fair game (he even said it here). So, as Reddit, they have the obligation to protect the mods when the mods feel threatened. It is the right thing to do. It would be an epic failure from Reddit if they did nothing. i don't think anyone disagrees with RL's accounts being banned, but content ban is pretty fucking silly, especially considering what flies as "content" in front page of /r/lol. Yes, they threw books at RL. It was pretty extreme, but perfectly within their rights to do so.
This is a strawman, no one is saying it is not "within their rights" people are asking if it is -right-
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On May 13 2015 07:27 Raneth wrote:
1) Yes, keeping content relevant is one of the roles of the mods, RL's content is clearly relevant so I do not see how this is an issue.
Image macros are also "relevant" but also banned. It's not just relevance that the mods are filtering for, it's anything that they don't want on the subreddit. They get to decide what they want. /r/truetrueTF2/ bans any submission that isn't about hats.
2) You can be "/fatpeoplehate", but you are unlikely to get many subscribers, the issue here is that /lol is advertised as "come here for all your LoL content and discussion needs" and is then acting against that. Even so, this might not be a problem on "/fatpeoplehate" because its a tiny little reddit with no impact, however, once things hit a large scale, you often find that things which were not a problem early on, start to become a problem. Once again, no one is saying that banning his content is -illegal- but it is certainly going to harm him, and the company he represents. Do you think an internet forum moderator should have that kind of power? With no credentials? This is a topic we could have some interesting discussion around, this would be a relevant topic for discussion.
Sure it harms him. So? It's their right to do so. The New York Times chooses what it wants to put on its frontpage and it has no obligation to anyone. It harms me because it doesn't advertise my penis enlargement business on its front page every day, but it's not violating my rights. It doesn't owe me anything. And especially not if I continuously threaten, harass, and antagonize its staff.
I think this is the crux of the issue. You feel as though a sufficiently large content aggregator has obligations to treat every content creator fairly. I disagree with you three times here: I disagree that such obligations exist, I disagree that leagueoflegends would be large enough to qualify, and I disagree that they broke that obligation (if it existed) (i.e., I believe they treated him fairly).
3) This seems to be about the "is linking to a thread vote brigading" idea, (and you're assuming it does) This is another area where discussion could be had! Intuitively, I dont think it does, although interestingly, probably for the same reasons you think that (2) is ok. I dont think that just becuase someone becomes more popular, they should lose the right to link to things, seems weird, but I would be happy to explore my intuitions there with you, especially seeing as on the different topics, we seem to each be having a different intuition about when the rules need to change!
Let's be fair. He's not just "linking" to things. From what I understand, he's linking to ongoing arguments and flamewars about him. And even if he isn't deliberately trying to vote brigade, he's clearly having that effect, and refuses to stop even when asked to do so. I agree that not every instance of linking is vote brigading, but if this isn't, nothing is.
5) It might not be a democracy! But it paints itself as one, this is in my opinion, the core issue, although the others you raised are also interesting and important in their own right. I dont know why you keep bringing up /riotfreelol, that seems once again to be more about RL than any of the core issues, and we could bounce evidence of support for/against him all day, it seems pointless and like it wouldn't go anywhere, which is why I've been trying to seperate the important discussion points from arguments like this one.
The league of legends subreddit is not a democracy. It doesn't advertise itself as a democracy. If you think it is a democracy you are misled and mistaken. What you think of as democracy is really anarchy: a subreddit with no rules except maybe for relevance. And then you get huge steaming piles of shit subreddits filled with image macros and unfunny memes.
Now, Reddit (not the subreddit) advertises itself as a democracy insofar as anyone can create their own subreddits. That's how riotfreelol was created. And democracy happened: no one went there.
|
Subreddits have never been democratic or advertised themselves as democratic.
The best subreddits are ruled by mods with an iron fist. Anything less than that allows an endless cesspool of irrelevant shitpostery through, especially in a subreddit as large as r/lol. Look at how r/askSocialScience is run; with constant mod vetting of every top level response to make sure they're up to standards. Anything less than cited (academic) sources, or responses from redditors who have been vetted by the mods to have credentials in the field are removed to keep the quality of responses up. Sure, they censor any imgur or gif linking content, but w/e.
On topic, the issue is not whether or not they can content ban RL (because as mods they totally have the power to do so), but whether they should. Anyone who disputes the RL account bans should really see some of the bile he's written when flaming detractors (I mean seriously, googling someone or going into their reddit posting history to find personal shit to fling at someone?). I mean, the fact he engages in flame wars is damning enough, but ffs, there are lines you don't cross (unless you're an esports journalist i guess).
The question is whether or not his behavior post-ban warrants a full-on content ban, which is extreme and leads to amusing moderation decisions. Honestly, I'm ambivalent on the issue, but given his past posting record on r/lol in addition to a long history of deliberately antagonizing the mods, I'm not opposed to it. I would prefer it if they'd lift it conditional on good behavior (hah), but otherwise, eh.
|
On May 13 2015 03:12 GrandInquisitor wrote:It bothers me that you say you don't editorialize when you really do, just in a slimy and underhanded fashion. It happens in all of your anti-Riot/anti-Reddit posts, but let's look at this post in particular: Show nested quote +In a bid to keep the site impartial and free from corporate influence, the site restricts moderators from forming agreements with outside entities. “You may not enter into any form of agreement on behalf of reddit, or the subreddit which you moderate, without our written approval,” the Reddit user agreement reads. As phrased, this is clearly intended to imply that the moderators' NDAs violate the Reddit TOS and make them no longer "impartial / free from corporate influence". And had the mods signed a contract, where there's monetary compensation promised in exchange for certain actions, does implicate those concerns. But as you surely know, an NDA doesn't, because there is no consideration. There's no money promised in exchange for anything, just an agreement on behalf of the moderators not to divulge confidential information. It's literally not possible for me to be biased in favor of Riot Games because of an NDA, because the NDA doesn't provide any reason for me to be biased in their favor. And this is pretty much what the Reddit admin wrote in response. So right off the bat, if you know what an NDA is, you already know this is irrelevant. But to those who don't know what an NDA is, or who are easily intimidated by acronyms (the typical Richard Lewis audience?), adding that introductory clause confuses the issue and implies some sort of control that Riot can exert over the moderators. If you actually wrote that, even your editor would laugh you out of the room, and yet you can write articles like these and claim that you didn't actually make these accusations - you just implied it. Which suggests that you have as low an opinion of your readership as I do.
Oh no, GI you know better. There is consideration for the NDAs and that consideration is access to information. That you even said this saddens me.
|
|
|
On May 13 2015 09:02 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 03:12 GrandInquisitor wrote:It bothers me that you say you don't editorialize when you really do, just in a slimy and underhanded fashion. It happens in all of your anti-Riot/anti-Reddit posts, but let's look at this post in particular: In a bid to keep the site impartial and free from corporate influence, the site restricts moderators from forming agreements with outside entities. “You may not enter into any form of agreement on behalf of reddit, or the subreddit which you moderate, without our written approval,” the Reddit user agreement reads. As phrased, this is clearly intended to imply that the moderators' NDAs violate the Reddit TOS and make them no longer "impartial / free from corporate influence". And had the mods signed a contract, where there's monetary compensation promised in exchange for certain actions, does implicate those concerns. But as you surely know, an NDA doesn't, because there is no consideration. There's no money promised in exchange for anything, just an agreement on behalf of the moderators not to divulge confidential information. It's literally not possible for me to be biased in favor of Riot Games because of an NDA, because the NDA doesn't provide any reason for me to be biased in their favor. And this is pretty much what the Reddit admin wrote in response. So right off the bat, if you know what an NDA is, you already know this is irrelevant. But to those who don't know what an NDA is, or who are easily intimidated by acronyms (the typical Richard Lewis audience?), adding that introductory clause confuses the issue and implies some sort of control that Riot can exert over the moderators. If you actually wrote that, even your editor would laugh you out of the room, and yet you can write articles like these and claim that you didn't actually make these accusations - you just implied it. Which suggests that you have as low an opinion of your readership as I do. Oh no, GI you know better. There is consideration for the NDAs and that consideration is access to information. That you even said this saddens me.
While technically yes, it was part of a long chain of articles and comments aimed at inciting a witch-hunt against the mods, as well as doxxing threats that the mods received from RL.
Without the context of his anti-reddit mod crusade, I would hesitantly agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
