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 (since the NDA article from RL still definitively tried to paint it in the worst possible light).
No, its not "technically". Consideration is a legal term, without which the contract isn't legally binding. GI is an attorney, knows this, and not stating this fact would mislead people, so it had to be pointed out.
Moreover, the implication does not create an incentive for mods to be biased in favor of Riot is deceptive as well. Its likely they have great access to Riot compared to the average community member, we know they have received gifts from Riot (not a big deal really), and I think I recall at least one former admin being employed by Riot. Its the same cabal-type psychological effect I was having earlier where they sense a feeling of obligation and inclusion by being the "chosen few" who have been blessed with this information.
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 (since the NDA article from RL still definitively tried to paint it in the worst possible light).
Moreover, the implication does not create an incentive for mods to be biased in favor of Riot is deceptive as well. Its likely they have great access to Riot compared to the average community member, we know they have received gifts from Riot (not a big deal really), and I think I recall at least one former admin being employed by Riot. Its the same cabal-type psychological effect I was having earlier where they sense a feeling of obligation and inclusion by being the "chosen few" who have been blessed with this information.
Out of a standard NDA agreement where they get advance notice of server status updates and the like.
ok
I would be more concerned that they've gone mad with power from moderating one of the largest subreddits.
Again, while by itself I'd find the article useful and enlightening, context.
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 (since the NDA article from RL still definitively tried to paint it in the worst possible light).
No, its not "technically". Consideration is a legal term, without which the contract isn't legally binding. GI is an attorney, knows this, and not stating this fact would mislead people, so it had to be pointed out.
Moreover, the implication does not create an incentive for mods to be biased in favor of Riot is deceptive as well. Its likely they have great access to Riot compared to the average community member, we know they have received gifts from Riot (not a big deal really), and I think I recall at least one former admin being employed by Riot. Its the same cabal-type psychological effect I was having earlier where they sense a feeling of obligation and inclusion by being the "chosen few" who have been blessed with this information.
Whether consideration was given by Riot when the mods signed the NDA cannot be determined by the information that has been made public (at least the info I'm aware of).
While yes, access to information is technically consideration, it may not be adequate consideration. What constitutes adequate consideration is highly context-dependent. Without knowing the specifics of the NDA and exactly what transpires in the Riot-r/lol mods IRC you can't definitively say that there was consideration given.
For example, you can very easily make the argument that the consideration given by Riot is illusory since (as far as I'm aware) Riot is not binding themselves to any agreement that they must tell the r/lol mods anything. Promises to give information "when [Riot] feels like it" is almost universally rejected as adequate consideration and that's what (again, as far as I'm aware) the "agreement" between the r/lol mods and Riot sounds like.
You could make that argument, but you would be wrong. It would just be a contract subject to a condition precedent wherein the condition is Riot's first disclosure of NDA-related information.
I'm inclined to think that the NDA is not a contract. While yes, you could argue that it's a contract subject to a condition, the text of the NDA suggests to me otherwise. Riot is explicitly releasing themselves from any contractual obligation, which to me sounds like there's no real consideration. That disclaimer also suggests to me that there is no mutual intent to be bound, which is another requirement for a legally binding contract. On top of that, Californian courts are very hesitant when it comes to enforcing NDAs.
If they can enforce it, its a contract. Their contractual obligations are completed when they disclose the information. Its just a contract with a condition precedent, where the condition is Riot's consideration under the contract. Its like if you said, "I'll mow your lawn for $5" and I gave you $5 and said "Ok Mow the law". My obligation is complete.
But this as actually more than that, because it governs future iterations. While riot does not have to provide any information under the contract, any information they do give out is subject to the NDA unless it is changed, so its like an ongoing agreement where we say "$5 is the price to mow my lawn" and every time I call you up and ask "Hey can you mow the lawn today" we know the price is $5 until we change it.
I do want to point out that just because a promise is enforceable doesn't make it a contract. You can enforce promises that aren't contracts using equitable remedies.
Riot isn't obligated to actually give any information. Whether there's actually consideration in this case is therefore debatable, and it's a common trap for people who draft NDAs. (See, e.g., the difference between signing an NDA after receiving a job offer, and signing an NDA in order to receive the offer. The former might be unenforceable.)
In any event you're taking my post out of context. There's no consideration that would cause a moderator to show bias towards Riot, which is what RL implied by including that paragraph. The chain of logic just doesn't exist:
* Riot wants to control moderators * Riot asks moderators to sign an optional NDA * Moderators don't listen to Riot * Riot ... can do nothing, and goes home and cries because its master Machivellian plan for taking over a subreddit was fucking retarded
On May 13 2015 09:32 cLutZ wrote: Moreover, the implication does not create an incentive for mods to be biased in favor of Riot is deceptive as well. Its likely they have great access to Riot compared to the average community member, we know they have received gifts from Riot (not a big deal really), and I think I recall at least one former admin being employed by Riot. Its the same cabal-type psychological effect I was having earlier where they sense a feeling of obligation and inclusion by being the "chosen few" who have been blessed with this information.
I dunno man, I've signed a few dozen NDAs in my life. I signed an NDA to playtest boardgames, and still shit on them in reviews after release. I signed an NDA when I toured Valve, but I didn't buy things on Steam this past sale. You're starting to pull at straws here when you talk about this "chosen few" concept, or that moderators are swayed by the $5 plushies that Riot literally throws into the crowds en masse at every esports event.
I don't disagree that the mods probably like Riot. Fuck, I love Riot. You know why? Because they make my favorite game in the world. Because they've given me thousands of hours of entertainment and didn't ask me to pay anything. And if I loved the game so much I was willing to put up with 600K+ mouthbreathing retards spamming inane shit on a subreddit, I must love Riot even more.
But that doesn't mean they're corrupt, and the easiest way to tell is that there are Riot complaint posts with thousands of upvotes every week that aren't removed. If Riot is trying to corrupt the mods it's doing a fucking awful job.
Do remember that he's an incredibly junior attorney. A lot of what he writes is accurate, but a shocking amount is inaccurate, and if he had interviewed with us I would certainly never have recommended him at OCI.
On May 13 2015 13:31 GrandInquisitor wrote: Riot isn't obligated to actually give any information. Whether there's actually consideration in this case is therefore debatable, and it's a common trap for people who draft NDAs. (See, e.g., the difference between signing an NDA after receiving an offer, and signing an NDA in order to receive the offer. The former might be unenforceable.)
In any event you're taking my post out of context. There's no consideration that would cause a moderator to show bias towards Riot, which is what RL implied by including that paragraph. The chain of logic just doesn't exist:
* Riot wants to control moderators * Riot asks moderators to sign an optional NDA * Moderators don't listen to Riot * Riot ... can do nothing, and goes home and cries because its master Machivellian plan for taking over a subreddit was fucking retarded
Wait, what? I mean, that could have been Riot's master plan (probably not), but if it was, it worked because step 3 happened the opposite of what you said. So apparantly the master plan succeeded and they are able to control mods? I don't get this part of the post.
On May 13 2015 09:32 cLutZ wrote: Moreover, the implication does not create an incentive for mods to be biased in favor of Riot is deceptive as well. Its likely they have great access to Riot compared to the average community member, we know they have received gifts from Riot (not a big deal really), and I think I recall at least one former admin being employed by Riot. Its the same cabal-type psychological effect I was having earlier where they sense a feeling of obligation and inclusion by being the "chosen few" who have been blessed with this information.
I dunno man, I've signed a few dozen NDAs in my life. I signed an NDA to playtest boardgames, and still shit on them in reviews after release. I signed an NDA when I toured Valve, but I didn't buy things on Steam this past sale. You're starting to pull at straws here when you talk about this "chosen few" concept, or that moderators are swayed by the $5 plushies that Riot literally throws into the crowds en masse at every esports event.
Thats why I said the gifts are not a big deal. Its not the NDA that I said is the issue, its the NDA + Anonymous mods. Plus, specifically with Richard Lewis, that there is significant evidence that Riot itself does not like Richard Lewis and him scooping LolEsports stories. So, its a logical conclusion to believe that Riot has communicated, through these protected means, their agreement and encouragement with the RLewis content ban. Mods can't disclose this, because they have an NDA signed, mods also can't disclose if other mods have personal biases against RLewis because the other mods could easily strip back their anonymity. Thus, silence is the default for moderators.
It reminds me of the Tom Brady thing if they didn't have the texting records. Of course the ball boys aren't going to willingly sell Tommy down the river unless they know we have proof of it. Also, most moderator statements appear to be incomplete/lies, from a logical point of view. So the conspiracy theories actually are more plausible than the benign explanations.
On May 13 2015 13:31 GrandInquisitor wrote: Do remember that he's an incredibly junior attorney. A lot of what he writes is accurate, but a shocking amount is inaccurate, and if he had interviewed with us I would certainly never have recommended him at OCI.
Hahaha, the drama at reddit! Bunch of whiner and/or dense (possibly) human beings whine about some kind of mod abuse. Serves them right. Aside from some cult-like subreddits, and the occasional brigading in others, r/lol is among the worst communities I've seen there.
And as for the Richard Lewis ban... I did not read through this thread, but I'm probably in the big minority who think banning him and his content was a good idea, or, at least I'm happy about it. Now, I never really liked Richard; the first time I saw him was on that SC show which became famous of Thoorin's statements about the polish, and all this idiot did during the show was trying to make some """funny""" oneliners while drunk as F. I knew straight away he was a quality guy, BUT, I have to give it to him, that he does manage to break some pretty huge news, so there's that. r/lol However didn't have much to lose with banning his content as well. Why?
First of all, it was a lose-lose situation. If they let that idiot stay, they were essentially letting the biggest bullcrap conspiracy theories to flood THEIR subreddit. It's like inviting someone over to spit on your face and call you names. It's weak, and all Richard cared about was revenge and publicity. On the other hand, every time he breaks big news, people have to go around his source, and eventually reigniting the flame of "OMG, THESE MODS ARE HITLER!!".
With this decision, they can still make threads about the news, but you have to follow R. Lewis if you want some r/lol mods or Riot bashing. My brain is already bleeding from the qq about chromas, tsm, reverse-tsm, mods etc., but at least I'm not seeing "r/mods are illuminati - says Richard Lewis" posts on the frontpage. That's something!
I sure hope they won't come around. They only have to stand their ground now, when the circlejerk is at its' highest, and with time, it will become a mere meme that R. Lewis is not allowed there, with the occasional "can we have a civil discussion now about blahblah" threads. No, you can not, and the mods are not there to invite you into their decisions and reasonings. You are just a mere consumer, who will keep eating at r/lol, no matter who is banned from there or how are they moderating.
On May 13 2015 09:32 cLutZ wrote: Moreover, the implication does not create an incentive for mods to be biased in favor of Riot is deceptive as well. Its likely they have great access to Riot compared to the average community member, we know they have received gifts from Riot (not a big deal really), and I think I recall at least one former admin being employed by Riot. Its the same cabal-type psychological effect I was having earlier where they sense a feeling of obligation and inclusion by being the "chosen few" who have been blessed with this information.
I dunno man, I've signed a few dozen NDAs in my life. I signed an NDA to playtest boardgames, and still shit on them in reviews after release. I signed an NDA when I toured Valve, but I didn't buy things on Steam this past sale. You're starting to pull at straws here when you talk about this "chosen few" concept, or that moderators are swayed by the $5 plushies that Riot literally throws into the crowds en masse at every esports event.
Thats why I said the gifts are not a big deal. Its not the NDA that I said is the issue, its the NDA + Anonymous mods. Plus, specifically with Richard Lewis, that there is significant evidence that Riot itself does not like Richard Lewis and him scooping LolEsports stories. So, its a logical conclusion to believe that Riot has communicated, through these protected means, their agreement and encouragement with the RLewis content ban. Mods can't disclose this, because they have an NDA signed, mods also can't disclose if other mods have personal biases against RLewis because the other mods could easily strip back their anonymity. Thus, silence is the default for moderators.
It reminds me of the Tom Brady thing if they didn't have the texting records. Of course the ball boys aren't going to willingly sell Tommy down the river unless they know we have proof of it. Also, most moderator statements appear to be incomplete/lies, from a logical point of view. So the conspiracy theories actually are more plausible than the benign explanations.
Damn...conspiracy theory much? Silence is the default of moderators because no matter what you say, there will always be a shitstorm. Every large subreddit's mods' go-to stance is silence.
What exactly is the "significant evidence" that Riot does not like RL and his scooping of lolesports stories?
The only one where Riot and RL directly clashed was the Deman story, in which case RL was 110% in the wrong. RL tried to spin the story off as Riot promising RL he could break the story first and Riot broke that promise, which was untrue, at least according to Carmac. According to him, ESL told Riot RL knew of Deman's (and Joe) departure from Riot for ESL. At which point Riot decided to publish their story because quite frankly it's entirely their right to considering that Deman was Riot's employee at the time. Riot and RL never had any agreement that RL could publish first. I highly doubt Riot published first out of spite - it's far more likely that they would rather prefer to be the ones announcing Deman's departure since he's a Riot employee. If any party is to blame for RL not being able to break that story, it's ESL.
If you have other evidence I'm happy to read it. Because all I've seen is RL scooping roster swaps, which Riot could give 2 shits about since it doesn't really affect them. Sure, RL has written a shitton of anti-Riot articles, but from what I know, outside of the SpectateFaker fiasco Riot has never really responded or retaliated. Simply being anti-Riot doesn't get you blacklisted either; Monte is one of the harshest Riot criticizers but he regularly gets invited to cast.
On May 13 2015 09:32 cLutZ wrote: Moreover, the implication does not create an incentive for mods to be biased in favor of Riot is deceptive as well. Its likely they have great access to Riot compared to the average community member, we know they have received gifts from Riot (not a big deal really), and I think I recall at least one former admin being employed by Riot. Its the same cabal-type psychological effect I was having earlier where they sense a feeling of obligation and inclusion by being the "chosen few" who have been blessed with this information.
I dunno man, I've signed a few dozen NDAs in my life. I signed an NDA to playtest boardgames, and still shit on them in reviews after release. I signed an NDA when I toured Valve, but I didn't buy things on Steam this past sale. You're starting to pull at straws here when you talk about this "chosen few" concept, or that moderators are swayed by the $5 plushies that Riot literally throws into the crowds en masse at every esports event.
Thats why I said the gifts are not a big deal. Its not the NDA that I said is the issue, its the NDA + Anonymous mods. Plus, specifically with Richard Lewis, that there is significant evidence that Riot itself does not like Richard Lewis and him scooping LolEsports stories. So, its a logical conclusion to believe that Riot has communicated, through these protected means, their agreement and encouragement with the RLewis content ban. Mods can't disclose this, because they have an NDA signed, mods also can't disclose if other mods have personal biases against RLewis because the other mods could easily strip back their anonymity. Thus, silence is the default for moderators.
It reminds me of the Tom Brady thing if they didn't have the texting records. Of course the ball boys aren't going to willingly sell Tommy down the river unless they know we have proof of it. Also, most moderator statements appear to be incomplete/lies, from a logical point of view. So the conspiracy theories actually are more plausible than the benign explanations.
You really are kind of down the deep end here, especially when you say things like "conspiracy theories actually are more plausible" or "most moderator statements appear to be incomplete/lies". Do you hear yourself? You are so deep in the Ekko chamber you are literally drowning in confirmation bias.
Remember that the NDA actually specifically outlines what the confidential information is. And RL's source agrees that the confidential information protected by the NDA is server info etc. So you have zero basis for this speculation that the NDA somehow covers Riot's censorship requests, much less any evidence that these censorship requests ever existed in the first place. Like I said earlier: RL's ultimate thesis is that Riot is behind the RL content ban, but the truth is that Riot probably doesn't even care enough about RL to do such a thing.
In situations like these we can ask the most important critical thinking question: What evidence, if true, would cause you to change your mind? If you respond "no evidence" then you are arguing from faith and not rationality.
I'll start. I will change my mind if anyone provides any evidence of Riot promising something to a moderator in exchange for certain moderator actions that they would not have otherwise performed. I haven't seen anything of the sort.
I think there are some considerations for TheEnigmaBlade who is actively seeking a job at Riot. But honestly that's really minor.
But the NDA article was bullshit and I want to see RL answer the questions about his misinterpretation of the NDA beyond arguments like "other subreddits did not sign it"
Its actually quite simple. It would them taking active steps (not things like not censoring, which if they do too much would not be in their self interest as it would foment enough real discontent that it would lessen their power) that run opposite the perceived biases.
So you take the current trend: Mods discussing banning leaks > Deleting RLewis content before his official ban > WTFast post deletion > RLewis Ban > Incarnation reports fiasco. If they are reasonable, unbiased, etc, its likely they would have had a public feud with Riot already, but now that they clearly have stepped up moderation activity it is unavoidably true that they will have one in the future. If I'm wrong.
That sort of assumes the conclusion, though, doesn't it? Remember that through this whole ordeal Riot hasn't actually been involved. The subreddit banning RL, having the whole content ban issue, the WTFast issue -- none of these things involve Riot in any way. So I don't see why the subreddit moderator team is destined to have any kind of feud with Riot, because that assumes that Riot is involved in the subreddit in the first place.
You say that "not censoring" isn't enough, because if they "do it too much" it wouldn't be in their self interest. But there's no evidence that they're doing any censoring at all. Go through /r/undelete and I don't think you can find any examples of anti-Riot threads that shouldn't have been deleted. There's a lot of server status bitching threads and "EDIT: FRONTPAGE!" type threads that were removed, but nothing that would lead a reasonable person to suspect that the moderators are doing any censoring, especially considering the sheer volume of anti-Riot threads on the subreddit anyway. Literally right now, two of the top three posts on the subreddit right now are bitching about Riot.
That's what's so funny about this whole scandal. You're arguing that there's an implausible mechanism by which Riot is causing harm, except that that harm doesn't even exist.
On May 13 2015 23:57 Sufficiency wrote: I think there are some considerations for TheEnigmaBlade who is actively seeking a job at Riot. But honestly that's really minor.
I agree that this can cause bias. On the other hand I'm not sure what Riot can do about it. Make a blanket rule that they'll never hire anyone who ever managed a community group? That seems unnecessarily harsh. And let's be honest: if you showed up to Riot with your primary qualification as "I deleted a bunch of anti-Riot posts on a forum" I doubt that is going to get you far.
the best outcome right now would be for RL to make conciliatory moves and change his behavior. once that conciliatory process gets going there would be more substantial discussion fodder. right now it's just a case of justified moderation with overly broad/harsh measures.
more pressing issue is getting RL out of commentating cs matches.
On May 14 2015 00:41 GrandInquisitor wrote: That sort of assumes the conclusion, though, doesn't it? Remember that through this whole ordeal Riot hasn't actually been involved. The subreddit banning RL, having the whole content ban issue, the WTFast issue -- none of these things involve Riot in any way. So I don't see why the subreddit moderator team is destined to have any kind of feud with Riot, because that assumes that Riot is involved in the subreddit in the first place.
You say that "not censoring" isn't enough, because if they "do it too much" it wouldn't be in their self interest. But there's no evidence that they're doing any censoring at all. Go through /r/undelete and I don't think you can find any examples of anti-Riot threads that shouldn't have been deleted. There's a lot of server status bitching threads and "EDIT: FRONTPAGE!" type threads that were removed, but nothing that would lead a reasonable person to suspect that the moderators are doing any censoring, especially considering the sheer volume of anti-Riot threads on the subreddit anyway. Literally right now, two of the top three posts on the subreddit right now are bitching about Riot.
That's what's so funny about this whole scandal. You're arguing that there's an implausible mechanism by which Riot is causing harm, except that that harm doesn't even exist.
Well, I mean, there is the equally plausible situation of them being biased only against RLewis. The implausible situation to me is that they are unbiased and made the decision they made based on the evidence they presented (without issuing several other content bans simultaneously).
On May 14 2015 00:45 oneofthem wrote: the best outcome right now would be for RL to make conciliatory moves and change his behavior. once that conciliatory process gets going there would be more substantial discussion fodder. right now it's just a case of justified moderation with overly broad/harsh measures.
I don't think Richard has to do anything, this ban is not even a month old and the masses are clearly on his side. Nobody disputes his ban from getting baited into childish argument who shitposted in each of his threads but but censorship and content ban is dumb and it will be fun to see how much longer the mod can keep up with the shitstorm if even more premier e-sports organisaitons apart from c9 decide to work with him.
that's just the thing, i don't think the 'masses' should be allowed to dictate a change in reddit policy without RL making substantial changes to his own behavior.
On May 14 2015 00:54 oneofthem wrote: that's just the thing, i don't think the 'masses' should be allowed to dictate a change in reddit policy without RL making substantial changes to his own behavior.
I definitely would like to see richard just producing his content and only express his opinions in his youtube videos and talkshows. I never understood why he went into each reddit thread and responded to people that were 50% trolling and 50% hating him to begin with.
While you're right, I also feel like the mods shouldn't be allowed to, either. But that's technically incorrect since with the way reddit is build the mods own the subreddit so I guess they can do whatever they want even if the majority of 600.000 people disagree.
I wouldn't ever expect an apology Richard Lewis in this matter since he doesn't feel like he did something wrong. (afaik he apologized to deman when he obviously fucked up) The mods will prolly lift the ban in the next few months although it will probably take longer than I personally think because there are definitely some powerhungry people among that bunch. (Korean terran was one, enigmablade and sarahbots 2 of the current ones that seem to have a personal vendetta here)
EPT
