|
On April 24 2015 03:50 Ansibled wrote:
The way I see it is this...
If you start talking about intent, then it seems like you can basically start flipping a coin about what kind of sharing is allowed and what isn't.
not necessarily. Intent can be shown by circumstantial evidence like past and present behavior, what happens when links are posted, the wording of the tweet, etc...
Intent isn't some nebulous catchall excuse. We have no problem finding intent for crimes without having to have explicit statements. you look at the circumstances to find intent. same thing can be done here
|
It still adds a bunch of weird restrictions to what you are allowed to share, when Reddit specify that you're allowed to share Reddit posts with friends.
What's the difference between 'look at this cool thing link' and 'haha look at this stupid thing link'? I don't think either should count as vote manipulation.
|
This is just me personally, but I think that a link saying "look at how cool this is" and a link saying "look at how dumb this is" are of equal value.
|
On April 24 2015 07:17 Ansibled wrote:
It still adds a bunch of weird restrictions to what you are allowed to share, when Reddit specify that you're allowed to share Reddit posts with friends.
What's the difference between 'look at this cool thing link' and 'haha look at this stupid thing link'? I don't think either should count as vote manipulation.
On its face? Nothing. But circumstance is everything.
You can't just look at a statement in isolation. You have to look at everything. If a famous person says look at this trash article, you can bet their followers will go downvote it. Likewise if they say it's great, followers will upvote. that by itself is probably fine. But when the person has a long history of harassment and is known to be highly critical of opposing views and has done vote brigading in the past, it's probably fair to assume he has ulterior motives beyond just sharing a link.
Here's an analogy. If a mob boss hands a gun to an underling and says Bob is really really pissing me off, then Bob turns up dead, you're not going to let the mob boss off the hook simply because he didn't say the exact words "go kill Bob"
|
Think of it this way. Say I know, for a fact, that when I share a link, if my accompanying message is positive my followers will up vote it and they will down vote when the message is negative. If I use that fact to my advantage by only sharing links I want up or down voted, wouldn't that constitute vote brigading even if I don't explicitly say the words?
Whether I'm saying the link is cool or trash is irrelevant. What is relevant is my intentions and the fact that I know that my actions will cause a specific result.
|
On April 24 2015 07:28 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 07:17 Ansibled wrote:
It still adds a bunch of weird restrictions to what you are allowed to share, when Reddit specify that you're allowed to share Reddit posts with friends.
What's the difference between 'look at this cool thing link' and 'haha look at this stupid thing link'? I don't think either should count as vote manipulation. On its face? Nothing. But circumstance is everything. You can't just look at a statement in isolation. You have to look at everything. If a famous person says look at this trash article, you can bet their followers will go downvote it. Likewise if they say it's great, followers will upvote. that by itself is probably fine. But when the person has a long history of harassment and is known to be highly critical of opposing views and has done vote brigading in the past, it's probably fair to assume he has ulterior motives beyond just sharing a link. Here's an analogy. If a mob boss hands a gun to an underling and says Bob is really really pissing me off, then Bob turns up dead, you're not going to let the mob boss off the hook simply because he didn't say the exact words "go kill Bob"
I'm pretty sure that's how it works in the legal system.
|
On April 24 2015 07:34 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 07:28 Ryuu314 wrote:On April 24 2015 07:17 Ansibled wrote:
It still adds a bunch of weird restrictions to what you are allowed to share, when Reddit specify that you're allowed to share Reddit posts with friends.
What's the difference between 'look at this cool thing link' and 'haha look at this stupid thing link'? I don't think either should count as vote manipulation. On its face? Nothing. But circumstance is everything. You can't just look at a statement in isolation. You have to look at everything. If a famous person says look at this trash article, you can bet their followers will go downvote it. Likewise if they say it's great, followers will upvote. that by itself is probably fine. But when the person has a long history of harassment and is known to be highly critical of opposing views and has done vote brigading in the past, it's probably fair to assume he has ulterior motives beyond just sharing a link. Here's an analogy. If a mob boss hands a gun to an underling and says Bob is really really pissing me off, then Bob turns up dead, you're not going to let the mob boss off the hook simply because he didn't say the exact words "go kill Bob" I'm pretty sure that's how it works in the legal system.
if you can bring enough proof showing that the mob boss knew what would happen then he would also be culpable. The problem occurs when you don't have enough proof to convince a jury he knew what would happen beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'll admit, it's a shit analogy because criminal law requires a whole different standard of proof than everything else.
|
On April 24 2015 07:33 Ryuu314 wrote:
Think of it this way. Say I know, for a fact, that when I share a link, if my accompanying message is positive my followers will up vote it and they will down vote when the message is negative. If I use that fact to my advantage by only sharing links I want up or down voted, wouldn't that constitute vote brigading even if I don't explicitly say the words?
Whether I'm saying the link is cool or trash is irrelevant. What is relevant is my intentions and the fact that I know that my actions will cause a specific result.
I actually agree with this statement, I just think that that means the definition of vote brigading is so broad that it ceases to be a useful metric. Any person with significant social media presence under this definition is banned from linking to reddit if they editorialize alongside the link. And then we get the RLewis/Totalbiscuit situation where a person who mods already don't like engages in the conduct they can just go and say "look at this vote brigading" whereas if a mod himself links, or someone who they like or agree with (Lyte, that Gamergate lady) does it they ignore it.
Its very similar, to me, as the Barry Bonds conviction that just got thrown out on appeal where the prosecutor said he committed Obstruction of Justice because he gave a meandering non-answer to his question initially, but then answered the question a minute later. The best statement in that case was his attorney describing the case, "if you're asked a question on page 78 and you digress before you answer it directly on page 81, you're a federal felon." Except, in this case, there was no rational appeals court to tell the prosecutors they were applying a statute in a way that makes anyone who testifies a felon.
|
On April 24 2015 07:34 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 07:28 Ryuu314 wrote:On April 24 2015 07:17 Ansibled wrote:
It still adds a bunch of weird restrictions to what you are allowed to share, when Reddit specify that you're allowed to share Reddit posts with friends.
What's the difference between 'look at this cool thing link' and 'haha look at this stupid thing link'? I don't think either should count as vote manipulation. On its face? Nothing. But circumstance is everything. You can't just look at a statement in isolation. You have to look at everything. If a famous person says look at this trash article, you can bet their followers will go downvote it. Likewise if they say it's great, followers will upvote. that by itself is probably fine. But when the person has a long history of harassment and is known to be highly critical of opposing views and has done vote brigading in the past, it's probably fair to assume he has ulterior motives beyond just sharing a link. Here's an analogy. If a mob boss hands a gun to an underling and says Bob is really really pissing me off, then Bob turns up dead, you're not going to let the mob boss off the hook simply because he didn't say the exact words "go kill Bob" I'm pretty sure that's how it works in the legal system.
No, that's reasonable evidence. As long as you can establish,
1) This is not hearsay (aka, the evidence for this scenario is legally admissible),
2) This heavily implies a order to kill, (fairly simple just by providing the context),
3) The underling took it as an order to kill (if you can establish 2, this is reasonable to establish) and
4) The underling was involved in the murder,
Then you absolutely have a case.
|
On April 24 2015 07:53 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 07:33 Ryuu314 wrote:
Think of it this way. Say I know, for a fact, that when I share a link, if my accompanying message is positive my followers will up vote it and they will down vote when the message is negative. If I use that fact to my advantage by only sharing links I want up or down voted, wouldn't that constitute vote brigading even if I don't explicitly say the words?
Whether I'm saying the link is cool or trash is irrelevant. What is relevant is my intentions and the fact that I know that my actions will cause a specific result. I actually agree with this statement, I just think that that means the definition of vote brigading is so broad that it ceases to be a useful metric. Any person with significant social media presence under this definition is banned from linking to reddit if they editorialize alongside the link. And then we get the RLewis/Totalbiscuit situation where a person who mods already don't like engages in the conduct they can just go and say "look at this vote brigading" whereas if a mod himself links, or someone who they like or agree with (Lyte, that Gamergate lady) does it they ignore it. Its very similar, to me, as the Barry Bonds conviction that just got thrown out on appeal where the prosecutor said he committed Obstruction of Justice because he gave a meandering non-answer to his question initially, but then answered the question a minute later. The best statement in that case was his attorney describing the case, "if you're asked a question on page 78 and you digress before you answer it directly on page 81, you're a federal felon." Except, in this case, there was no rational appeals court to tell the prosecutors they were applying a statute in a way that makes anyone who testifies a felon.
I mean, I completely agree that it does seem quite unfair for public figures with a large following. It's far too easy for people to think they intended to vote brigade when they didn't. (Although in this particular situation, I personally think RL 100% knew what he was doing and 100% wanted his followers to down vote stuff he doesn't agree with.)
However, being a public figure comes with both benefits and burdens. Perhaps public figures simply have to be more conscious of what they do. Is that so bad?
Or perhaps public figures just have to be more careful. I think in this situation, it's easy to jump to the conclusion that RL is acting with ulterior motives because a) he's a known asshole and b) he only ever posts links to comments critical of his works. I have literally never seen RL react to a critical comment with anything but vitriol, which makes his actions seem scummy. On the other hand, people like Monte or even Thorin, while outspoken and have strong opinions, actually attempt to engage the other side of the argument rather than dismissing it with vitriol. If they do what RL did, I don't think the mods would be as willing to label it vote brigading.
I do also agree that given the little amount of real oversight over the mods, this approach gives the mods a lot of influence. But that's simply the downside of having a community-run forum. Even if we assume for the sake of the argument that the mods are malicious, the alternative, in my opinion, is not necessarily better. Why is it "better" to let select public figures control the narrative than to let community volunteers control the narrative?
|
Ultimately, the reason why I'm supportive of the r/lol mod's decision to just flat out ban RL's content is because
1) They tried just banning RL from posting and it didn't work
2) RL has a history of being an asshole
3) All of this could've been avoided if RL just stopped acting like a child.
Did the mods overreact? Maybe. But the one indisputable aspect of this whole shitshow is that RL acted like a fucking child from beginning to end.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On April 24 2015 07:34 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 07:28 Ryuu314 wrote:On April 24 2015 07:17 Ansibled wrote:
It still adds a bunch of weird restrictions to what you are allowed to share, when Reddit specify that you're allowed to share Reddit posts with friends.
What's the difference between 'look at this cool thing link' and 'haha look at this stupid thing link'? I don't think either should count as vote manipulation. On its face? Nothing. But circumstance is everything. You can't just look at a statement in isolation. You have to look at everything. If a famous person says look at this trash article, you can bet their followers will go downvote it. Likewise if they say it's great, followers will upvote. that by itself is probably fine. But when the person has a long history of harassment and is known to be highly critical of opposing views and has done vote brigading in the past, it's probably fair to assume he has ulterior motives beyond just sharing a link. Here's an analogy. If a mob boss hands a gun to an underling and says Bob is really really pissing me off, then Bob turns up dead, you're not going to let the mob boss off the hook simply because he didn't say the exact words "go kill Bob" I'm pretty sure that's how it works in the legal system.
I really hope you're agreeing with Ryuu314, because otherwise you would be one hilarious defense attorney. You'd probably also think that cops can't lie if you ask them if they're a cop or else it's entrapment.
|
On April 24 2015 07:33 Ryuu314 wrote:
Think of it this way. Say I know, for a fact, that when I share a link, if my accompanying message is positive my followers will up vote it and they will down vote when the message is negative. If I use that fact to my advantage by only sharing links I want up or down voted, wouldn't that constitute vote brigading even if I don't explicitly say the words?
Yet you're assuming that it is what he wants. You have no proof of that.
By the same logic, every piece exposing the flaws of an organisation or someone's fraudulent behaviour would be categorized as which hunting, even if it were true, documented and did not call for any action, just doing what journalists do : reporting. Oh, wait, that's exactly what mods of this subbreddit have done in mutliple occasions...
Oh, and by the way this ruling about banning Richard's content is straight out stupid : he won't stop him to continue to do it if he wants about others people's content. Are they gonna ban other people's content because Richard is linking stupid comments on his twitter ? How is that addressing the problem in any way ? Thats just spitefull retaliation.
So this ruling (about banning the content) is not only not called for but also totally inefficient in what it is supposed to address. Plain stupid.
|
If there is no Richard Lewis content on Reddit, then he's unlikely to link individual comments in order to brigade them anymore.
And since a lot of the subreddit dislikes him anyway I sincerely doubt there'll be any groundswell to let him back in. And even if they did let it back in, a lot of people dislike him already and would downvote it into oblivion anyways (which is not how Reddit is supposed to work ideally but hey).
Whatever happens after this point, ultimately, is kind of irrelevant. Until another site becomes a more prominent aggregator of LoL content, his content and the content on r/leagueoflegends is going to go its separate ways.
I for one won't miss it. Sometimes he comes off interesting but he has this bizarre grudge against Riot and now, I guess, against the r/leagueoflegends mods. It's not a good look.
|
My first impression of this whole drama upon glancing at the situation: Good riddance Richard Lewis.
|
On April 24 2015 08:06 Ryuu314 wrote:
Ultimately, the reason why I'm supportive of the r/lol mod's decision to just flat out ban RL's content is because
1) They tried just banning RL from posting and it didn't work
2) RL has a history of being an asshole
3) All of this could've been avoided if RL just stopped acting like a child.
Did the mods overreact? Maybe. But the one indisputable aspect of this whole shitshow is that RL acted like a fucking child from beginning to end.
Come on, dude. People aren't nice on the Internet. Every time anyone posts anything there'll be shitters in the comment section acting shit. Obviously RL should have acted calmly and collectedly about it and ignored that. Unfortunately, that's not who RL is. So he's a dickbag on the Internet, like so many others.
If r/lol mods wants to ban him for being a dickbag, very well. They've got rules against that and it's quite alright. Banning RL content (his livelihood) on the other hand is something else.
The greater issue here is that r/lol rules suck. They're vague, and the punishments aren't in the rules, they're arbitrarily decided by moderators. RL was banned for brigading and being a dick. Both of these offenses are so vaguely defined that, if a moderator wanted to, he could likely make them stick on over half the reddit userbase.
So why stick them on RL?
If r/lol mods want to come out of this without looking like powertripping assholes mad over some NDA article (I'm not saying that without a doubt that's what they are, it's what it looks like), they should've created a less vague set of rules years ago. With set punishments and rigid and objective rule wordings.
Don't act like r/lol isn't big or important enough to not have this. Having your article there can feed your family. For that matter, I agree with RL that r/lol is big and important enough for its moderators to be publicly accountable, just like anyone who writes journalism is.
|
I honestly side with Richard in this. I've only been following it on the sidelines, but even back when Thorin had issues with reddit moderators and the site he worked for was banned because of it, it just doesn't seem fair the way the moderators behave.
It's pretty simple honestly: there should be clear moderating rules and each moderator should back any action they take up against those rules.
If a user is an asshole in the comments, then ban him, but content as such should never be banned just because the same person or website produced it.
On another note I have been banned on reddit apparently and I have no idea why as I wasn't very active. I think i've linked to Thorin once and commented a few places, but I have no idea why, but I'm assuming I have like something related to Richard and that's the reason. Pretty scary mod behaviour.
|
On another note I have been banned on reddit apparently
Banned from the subreddit, or banned from reddit? There's a difference. Maybe if you have too few posts they suspected you might just be a fake account for posting people's content.
Honestly I fully back Richard's account getting banned on Reddit, he antagonized himself through his behavior (I remember seeing his account posting some heavily downvoted abusive comments, he didn't argue nicely, he liked to insult people along with his sometimes questionable form of rationalizing), and that's what happens. The ban on his content is another issue. Initially I supported the subreddit's decision, but the more I read into it, the more I understood that it was a pretty questionable decision. It's basically a boycott in response to his opinions posted on Twitter, and well it's not really about rational decision making, it's all gone into a very grey area, and the whole argument is based on people's opinion. His account suspension was justified, but content ban is a show of force.
However, I can understand where the mods were coming from. He's a bit on the childish side when it comes to talking with other people, and when he feels hurt he lashes out, it's not very professional at all. Some of Richard Lewis's fan base are pretty crazy fanatics, and take this topic way too serious. They see this as a form of corruption, and oppression of the free, and Riot conspiracy, blah blah, and they start scheming stuff. Reddit is not a government, they're not living under a dictatorship, if they want to boycott the subreddit then fine, there's some smaller subreddits people have opened up where Riot has no influence, and you can post RL articles, the downside is they're much, much smaller.
|
Interestingly the League Reddit removed a report from TheScore about Helios which was just reporting on Richard's Daily Dot article, so I think the content ban is getting even more absurd.
|
And now the mod team want people to link to their subbreddit with no participation links (source : reworked rules draft).
This is getting ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
