Richard Lewis, and all his content was banned from Reddit for, uhm, reasons? I can't really find an explanation from Reddit mods anywhere, if anyone can provide it, I'll add it to this post
He's posted a long rant in his defence:
I don't really know what's going on here.
Hokay I found something to quote, from the LoL subreddit mods:
[...]However, as time went on, it was clear that Richard was intent on using twitter to send brigades to the subreddit to disrupt and cheat the vote system by downvoting negative views of Richard and upvoting positive views.
Because of these two things, we have escalated our initial account ban to a ban on all Richard Lewis content. His youtube channel, his articles, his twitch, and his twitter are no longer welcome in this subreddit. We will also not allow any rehosted content from this individual. If we see users making a habit of trying to work around this ban, we will ban them. Fair warning.
On April 23 2015 13:32 Raneth wrote: Having just watched this video: What... The... Fuck. Like seriously, is it not getting to a point where he can sue for liable?
On April 23 2015 13:32 Raneth wrote: Having just watched this video: What... The... Fuck. Like seriously, is it not getting to a point where he can sue for liable?
no. not even close
All he needs to show is financial harm based on unfounded damage to reputation surely?
On April 23 2015 13:32 Raneth wrote: Having just watched this video: What... The... Fuck. Like seriously, is it not getting to a point where he can sue for liable?
no. not even close
All he needs to show is financial harm based on unfounded damage to reputation surely?
EDIT: spelling I meant Libel
it's not that simple.
How is he going to do that? He damaged his own reputation with his actions. Here's a compilation of all his doxxing threats. If you do some digging you can find several compilations of his harassment of other users. Plus, all the things the mods are accusing him of are easily proven since he uses his own twitter account to vote brigade and shit.
On top of that, Reddit (and its subreddits) are well within their rights to ban content from a particular source. There is no right to have your content disseminated on private websites.
So, RL would have to show that the r/lol mods in fact damaged his reputation. Then on top of that, he has to show that that damage caused him financial harm, not the removal of his content from Reddit.
If anything, the r/lol mods can sue him for invasion of privacy and harassment.
I can see why you would ban him and all of his accounts but I don't understand a sweeping ban on all of his content. He has been pretty big in the roster swap leaking game and they would ban that because he as a person isn't nice to them? He's providing a service to the community. If people want to discuss his stuff on a subreddit where it is relevant I don't see why they shouldn't be able to.
Basically reddit is using the nuclear option against Richard Lewis. I don't see anything wrong with it - they are perfectly within their rights to do so.
On April 23 2015 15:44 Sufficiency wrote: Basically reddit is using the nuclear option against Richard Lewis. I don't see anything wrong with it - they are perfectly within their rights to do so.
I guess it's sort of like this. Apple Inc, pretty much has a list of companies and reviewers that they let in for early access to their products. With the caveat that the reviewers and companies aren't allowed to leave any negative reviews on their products, otherwise they black list these reviewers and companies from future early hands-on product testing and various other Apple functions. Sure, Apple is well within it's rights to do so, but guess who gets hurt by all this? the future consumers, who are reading the reviews on Apple products.
Now obviously this isn't a perfect fit, but in the context of what's going on. I know personally I really like RL's articles and what he bring forward as news to the LoL community, and that not having easy access to it via /r/lol subreddit, will hurt the community as a whole. Similarly I was equally sad when Ongamers got completely buttfucked by the mod team a while back.
On April 23 2015 13:32 Raneth wrote: Having just watched this video: What... The... Fuck. Like seriously, is it not getting to a point where he can sue for liable?
no. not even close
All he needs to show is financial harm based on unfounded damage to reputation surely?
EDIT: spelling I meant Libel
it's not that simple.
How is he going to do that? He damaged his own reputation with his actions. Here's a compilation of all his doxxing threats. If you do some digging you can find several compilations of his harassment of other users. Plus, all the things the mods are accusing him of are easily proven since he uses his own twitter account to vote brigade and shit.
On top of that, Reddit (and its subreddits) are well within their rights to ban content from a particular source. There is no right to have your content disseminated on private websites.
So, RL would have to show that the r/lol mods in fact damaged his reputation. Then on top of that, he has to show that that damage caused him financial harm, not the removal of his content from Reddit.
If anything, the r/lol mods can sue him for invasion of privacy and harassment.
I could go on, but RL's history is long and colorful.
The NDA article is particularly interesting. Bryce used to work with Richard Lewis and had an appearance on First Blood. But I guess Bryce decided to go "fuck it" and pointed out that RL's article is totally bogus.
The entire thing about that NDA was just a distraction from some of the more important things at hands - the subreddit has too much traffic and there is too much money involved for a bunch of volunteer to moderate. Are there under the table deals on that subreddit? Honestly I would not be surprised at all. But there is no evidence whatsoever that Riot is involved in it or that Riot is even remotely interested (since they have more to lose if they are found out).
On April 23 2015 15:44 Sufficiency wrote: Basically reddit is using the nuclear option against Richard Lewis. I don't see anything wrong with it - they are perfectly within their rights to do so.
I guess it's sort of like this. Apple Inc, pretty much has a list of companies and reviewers that they let in for early access to their products. With the caveat that the reviewers and companies aren't allowed to leave any negative reviews on their products, otherwise they black list these reviewers and companies from future early hands-on product testing and various other Apple functions. Sure, Apple is well within it's rights to do so, but guess who gets hurt by all this? the future consumers, who are reading the reviews on Apple products.
Now obviously this isn't a perfect fit, but in the context of what's going on. I know personally I really like RL's articles and what he bring forward as news to the LoL community, and that not having easy access to it via /r/lol subreddit, will hurt the community as a whole. Similarly I was equally sad when Ongamers got completely buttfucked by the mod team a while back.
You are absolutely correct. So unless you can come up with an alternative to reddit, reddit can do whatever they want.
That being said, RL is hardly a sympathetic figure.
As far as vote brigading goes, there's no evidence at all they he actively encouraged people to downvote anyone. On the other hand, he is posting links to reddit comments that he finds distasteful on his twitter and he should have an idea what his followers will do with that information. Especially since he cites the TotalBiscuit incident. So I'd say that's a rather grey area.
In any event, it's hardly libel. No one is going to stop reading his work because he vote brigaded.
On April 23 2015 15:44 Sufficiency wrote: Basically reddit is using the nuclear option against Richard Lewis. I don't see anything wrong with it - they are perfectly within their rights to do so.
I guess it's sort of like this. Apple Inc, pretty much has a list of companies and reviewers that they let in for early access to their products. With the caveat that the reviewers and companies aren't allowed to leave any negative reviews on their products, otherwise they black list these reviewers and companies from future early hands-on product testing and various other Apple functions. Sure, Apple is well within it's rights to do so, but guess who gets hurt by all this? the future consumers, who are reading the reviews on Apple products.
Now obviously this isn't a perfect fit, but in the context of what's going on. I know personally I really like RL's articles and what he bring forward as news to the LoL community, and that not having easy access to it via /r/lol subreddit, will hurt the community as a whole. Similarly I was equally sad when Ongamers got completely buttfucked by the mod team a while back.
IIRC Ongamers didn't get screwed by the mod team. Ongamers got screwed by Reddit admins because they were manipulating votes, which is a Reddit site-wide no-no.
Honestly, the only thing RL has put out lately that I even bother to read are his leaks of roster swaps. His pieces on Riot, r/lol, or quite frankly anyone who criticizes him (I still find it fuckin hilarious that he's so childish he had to go and write an "expose" on ESEX after they wrote a satire piece on him) are so incredibly biased it's like reading Fox News or NBC - no matter how accurate or thought provoking the article, it's almost unreadable.
On April 23 2015 16:10 Sonnington wrote: As far as vote brigading goes, there's no evidence at all they he actively encouraged people to downvote anyone. On the other hand, he is posting links to reddit comments that he finds distasteful on his twitter and he should have an idea what his followers will do with that information. Especially since he cites the TotalBiscuit incident. So I'd say that's a rather grey area.
In any event, it's hardly libel. No one is going to stop reading his work because he vote brigaded.
Just because you don't say the words "downvote this" doesn't mean it's not vote brigading.
Intent matters. RL knows very well what he's doing when he links very specific posts on his twitter.
On April 23 2015 15:44 Sufficiency wrote: Basically reddit is using the nuclear option against Richard Lewis. I don't see anything wrong with it - they are perfectly within their rights to do so.
I guess it's sort of like this. Apple Inc, pretty much has a list of companies and reviewers that they let in for early access to their products. With the caveat that the reviewers and companies aren't allowed to leave any negative reviews on their products, otherwise they black list these reviewers and companies from future early hands-on product testing and various other Apple functions. Sure, Apple is well within it's rights to do so, but guess who gets hurt by all this? the future consumers, who are reading the reviews on Apple products.
Now obviously this isn't a perfect fit, but in the context of what's going on. I know personally I really like RL's articles and what he bring forward as news to the LoL community, and that not having easy access to it via /r/lol subreddit, will hurt the community as a whole. Similarly I was equally sad when Ongamers got completely buttfucked by the mod team a while back.
You are absolutely correct. So unless you can come up with an alternative to reddit, reddit can do whatever they want.
That being said, RL is hardly a sympathetic figure.
Or-or-or they could just do something simpler, like... Ban RLewis's Reddit account, and just let his content allowed to be posted by other users, much like how a lot of content on r/lol works.
On April 23 2015 15:44 Sufficiency wrote: Basically reddit is using the nuclear option against Richard Lewis. I don't see anything wrong with it - they are perfectly within their rights to do so.
I guess it's sort of like this. Apple Inc, pretty much has a list of companies and reviewers that they let in for early access to their products. With the caveat that the reviewers and companies aren't allowed to leave any negative reviews on their products, otherwise they black list these reviewers and companies from future early hands-on product testing and various other Apple functions. Sure, Apple is well within it's rights to do so, but guess who gets hurt by all this? the future consumers, who are reading the reviews on Apple products.
Now obviously this isn't a perfect fit, but in the context of what's going on. I know personally I really like RL's articles and what he bring forward as news to the LoL community, and that not having easy access to it via /r/lol subreddit, will hurt the community as a whole. Similarly I was equally sad when Ongamers got completely buttfucked by the mod team a while back.
You are absolutely correct. So unless you can come up with an alternative to reddit, reddit can do whatever they want.
That being said, RL is hardly a sympathetic figure.
Or-or-or they could just do something simpler, like... Ban RLewis's Reddit account, and just let his content allowed to be posted by other users, much like how a lot of content on r/lol works.
They did that a long time ago. It didn't solve the problem, hence the escalation to a content ban.
A lot of people are acting as tho r/lol should've just banned RL from posting. The problem is that they already did that months ago. RL didn't get the message.
I'm just annoyed they went to the extent of banning his content, because I use reddit as my main LoL news hub.
I'm seldom interested in the rest of the stuff that's on Dailydot so RSS Feed-ing the website is a no-go, and while for a good couple of months I was following RL on twitter, his angsty twitter spam got so heavy I just gave up and unfollowed him.
It's RL right to spam his twitter however he likes; just that I initially followed him to get updates on new articles, argumentative retweets and tweets. Also in the reddit mods' right to govern the subreddit however they like, just that initially I subscribed to r/lol just to scan for interesting articles and news.
On April 23 2015 13:32 Raneth wrote: Having just watched this video: What... The... Fuck. Like seriously, is it not getting to a point where he can sue for liable?
no. not even close
All he needs to show is financial harm based on unfounded damage to reputation surely?
EDIT: spelling I meant Libel
it's not that simple.
How is he going to do that? He damaged his own reputation with his actions. Here's a compilation of all his doxxing threats. If you do some digging you can find several compilations of his harassment of other users. Plus, all the things the mods are accusing him of are easily proven since he uses his own twitter account to vote brigade and shit.
On top of that, Reddit (and its subreddits) are well within their rights to ban content from a particular source. There is no right to have your content disseminated on private websites.
So, RL would have to show that the r/lol mods in fact damaged his reputation. Then on top of that, he has to show that that damage caused him financial harm, not the removal of his content from Reddit.
If anything, the r/lol mods can sue him for invasion of privacy and harassment.
noone is saying RL is a saint, but i enjoy his content and my trust for the r/lol mods is below zero. its evident for me that they abuse their power in seeking their own interest, and act like they own this diverese community of hundreds of thousand people and telling blatant lies to defend themselves.
nothing will change though. a few people will switch to r/riotfreelol but the majority will stay, even if they disagree with baning RL's content. which is quite a pity.
On April 23 2015 13:32 Raneth wrote: Having just watched this video: What... The... Fuck. Like seriously, is it not getting to a point where he can sue for liable?
no. not even close
All he needs to show is financial harm based on unfounded damage to reputation surely?
EDIT: spelling I meant Libel
it's not that simple.
How is he going to do that? He damaged his own reputation with his actions. Here's a compilation of all his doxxing threats. If you do some digging you can find several compilations of his harassment of other users. Plus, all the things the mods are accusing him of are easily proven since he uses his own twitter account to vote brigade and shit.
On top of that, Reddit (and its subreddits) are well within their rights to ban content from a particular source. There is no right to have your content disseminated on private websites.
So, RL would have to show that the r/lol mods in fact damaged his reputation. Then on top of that, he has to show that that damage caused him financial harm, not the removal of his content from Reddit.
If anything, the r/lol mods can sue him for invasion of privacy and harassment.
On April 23 2015 18:23 tmv23 wrote: noone is saying RL is a saint, but i enjoy his content and my trust for the r/lol mods is below zero. its evident for me that they abuse their power in seeking their own interest, and act like they own this diverese community of hundreds of thousand people and telling blatant lies to defend themselves.
nothing will change though. a few people will switch to r/riotfreelol but the majority will stay, even if they disagree with baning RL's content. which is quite a pity.
/r/riotfreelol is banned
No it's not, I'm looking at it right now. Right here.
Personally I'll just use both. It adds a whole 10 seconds to my day. Also, Richard Lewis is a manchild who has no concept of how to behave professionally. If this had happened to Thorin or one of the other so-called "No Men", there might be reason for people to be upset, but everything that has happened to Richard Lewis is 100% the fault of Richard Lewis the person, not his journalism or anything he would have you believe.
The only tragedy here is that he's abandoned his excellent investigative reporting in favor of his more recent smear campaign.
The scandal mostly derives from people trying to be outraged. People love to be angry. They want to believe that they're oppressed. They want to be Che. They want conspiracies to exist, conspiring against them, because it makes them feel relevant and distracts them from their humdrum lives.
The truth is, none of that exists. There are probably a few downvote Skype groups out there, but RL is on a crusade against imaginary grand conspiracies that don't exist. He's doing it for the attention, but his followers are just doing it because they want to be mad about something.
On April 23 2015 18:23 tmv23 wrote: noone is saying RL is a saint, but i enjoy his content and my trust for the r/lol mods is below zero. its evident for me that they abuse their power in seeking their own interest, and act like they own this diverese community of hundreds of thousand people and telling blatant lies to defend themselves.
nothing will change though. a few people will switch to r/riotfreelol but the majority will stay, even if they disagree with baning RL's content. which is quite a pity.
See, I don't understand posts like these. What exactly are the r/lol mods doing? Remember that after RL got banned, he spent weeks investigating them, and the best he came up with is that they signed an NDA with Riot and they sometimes communicated with Riot to update the sidebar and stuff. Neither of those things are remotely scandalous, but it's the worst dirt he found on them.
The real problem with the RL thesis is that there's no real evidence of incentives. For example, if he came up with evidence that the moderators upvoted/promoted someone's YouTube content in exchange for monetary kickbacks, that makes sense. If he showed that the moderators were promised jobs at Riot if they deleted posts critical of Riot, that also makes sense.
But his arguments end up being a lot like those of the conspiracy theorists and Holocaust denialists: a lot of random aberrations, without any overarching framework of Why or How, and which crumble as soon as you try to test the theory. Moderators signed an NDA ... but that's evil why? If the moderators are being paid by Riot, why do you constantly see Riot-critical posts on the front page? All he's done is point out random things taken out of context, and can't describe the reason why anyone would supposedly do these things.
Well with that kind of attitude I guess we shouldn't have anyone report anything ever. He just reports information he finds, people see Richard Lewis as a Riot hater and attach that opinion onto his work.
Here is the article, it's contains fairly interesting information about the league subreddit.
What arguments are you seeing like conspiary theories and holocast denials? That's such an absurd comparison. He deserved to be banned from Reddit, but his content should still be allowed.
Umm...Doxxing in the way that the mods allege, in this case, would have been linking somone's name with their handle. That's not a crime, and honestly, it should be a requirement for mods of a sub as large as /r/lol
On April 24 2015 00:52 oneofthem wrote: id ont know about you but a 'journalist' threatening to doxx people should get disbarred or something. like come on.
On April 24 2015 00:32 Ansibled wrote: Well with that kind of attitude I guess we shouldn't have anyone report anything ever. He just reports information he finds, people see Richard Lewis as a Riot hater and attach that opinion onto his work.
Here is the article, it's contains fairly interesting information about the league subreddit.
What arguments are you seeing like conspiary theories and holocast denials? That's such an absurd comparison. He deserved to be banned from Reddit, but his content should still be allowed.
Under the assumption that you're interested in a rational and logical discussion -- the comparison I'm drawing is that RL's "exposes" follows the same format a typical conspiracy theorist's. Get together a lot of little weird data points, make it sound scary, but fail to extend things to their logical conclusion.
That article is exactly what I'm talking about. Find me something, anything in there that you think is actually concerning. I guess we should also be defining "concerning". To me, I would be concerned if my content provider was favoring one particular viewpoint or otherwise presenting me biased views.
So -- the fact that moderators signed an optional NDA with Riot is of zero concern to me. I've signed hundreds of NDA's in my life. They are standard operating procedure in the business world. It's about as relevant as being told that the moderators play League of Legends in their free time. I'm missing the logical link of -- "Because lol moderators have an NDA, they are corrupting the subreddit". What's the danger? How does that translate to "moderators suppressing anti-Riot sentiment"?
Let's put it this way. What evidence would convince you to change your mind, that the moderators are doing the right thing? I'll tell you what evidence would convince me to change my mind: if there's any evidence that they were promised financial or other rewards in exchange for performing certain actions. I haven't seen anything yet.
Again, you're avoiding the main point -- why is it newsworthy? What does it tend to show about the moderators that is bad?
On April 24 2015 02:21 Ansibled wrote: Where does he make it sound scary in the article?
The article is framed to suggest that the NDA represents a conflict of interest for the moderators. For example:
In a bid to keep the site impartial and free from corporate influence, the site restricts moderators from forming agreements with outside entities.
This implies that the moderators are violating Reddit's TOS and thus no longer impartial and free from corporate influence. It doesn't actually violate the Reddit TOS, but more importantly, an NDA doesn't actually create a conflict of interest or "corporate influence", not unless you have no understanding of what an NDA is.
On April 24 2015 00:32 Ansibled wrote: Well with that kind of attitude I guess we shouldn't have anyone report anything ever. He just reports information he finds, people see Richard Lewis as a Riot hater and attach that opinion onto his work.
Here is the article, it's contains fairly interesting information about the league subreddit.
What arguments are you seeing like conspiary theories and holocast denials? That's such an absurd comparison. He deserved to be banned from Reddit, but his content should still be allowed.
Under the assumption that you're interested in a rational and logical discussion -- the comparison I'm drawing is that RL's "exposes" follows the same format a typical conspiracy theorist's. Get together a lot of little weird data points, make it sound scary, but fail to extend things to their logical conclusion.
That article is exactly what I'm talking about. Find me something, anything in there that you think is actually concerning. I guess we should also be defining "concerning". To me, I would be concerned if my content provider was favoring one particular viewpoint or otherwise presenting me biased views.
So -- the fact that moderators signed an optional NDA with Riot is of zero concern to me. I've signed hundreds of NDA's in my life. They are standard operating procedure in the business world. It's about as relevant as being told that the moderators play League of Legends in their free time. I'm missing the logical link of -- "Because lol moderators have an NDA, they are corrupting the subreddit". What's the danger? How does that translate to "moderators suppressing anti-Riot sentiment"?
Let's put it this way. What evidence would convince you to change your mind, that the moderators are doing the right thing? I'll tell you what evidence would convince me to change my mind: if there's any evidence that they were promised financial or other rewards in exchange for performing certain actions. I haven't seen anything yet.
Well, for one, thats exactly the same kind of evidence they used in banning Richard Lewis: Look at this tweet, look how that post got downvoted.
See, the issue with the logic of "the NDA is not a big deal" is if its not, you disclose it up front. I've read them, I'm an attorney, I understand they are fairly benign, thats not the issue. The only reason the NDA story is interesting is that they banned RLewis following it, indicating that they are extremely thin-skinned.
For me to change my mind and say, "the Richard Lewis decision is sound" I'd like several, if not all, of the mods out themselves ala Andy "Reginald" Dihn, release actual evidence of threats of some sort of illegal activity by RLewis, and establish an official banlist with stated reasons for the each ban.
Right now the ban just appears, on its face, to be a series of excuses to try and prevent the /r/lol userbase from seeing articles from RLewis in the future, articles that they think will be detrimental to them. That explanation is the simplest and most logical reason for the ban given the evidence we have.
On April 24 2015 00:32 Ansibled wrote: Well with that kind of attitude I guess we shouldn't have anyone report anything ever. He just reports information he finds, people see Richard Lewis as a Riot hater and attach that opinion onto his work.
Here is the article, it's contains fairly interesting information about the league subreddit.
What arguments are you seeing like conspiary theories and holocast denials? That's such an absurd comparison. He deserved to be banned from Reddit, but his content should still be allowed.
Under the assumption that you're interested in a rational and logical discussion -- the comparison I'm drawing is that RL's "exposes" follows the same format a typical conspiracy theorist's. Get together a lot of little weird data points, make it sound scary, but fail to extend things to their logical conclusion.
That article is exactly what I'm talking about. Find me something, anything in there that you think is actually concerning. I guess we should also be defining "concerning". To me, I would be concerned if my content provider was favoring one particular viewpoint or otherwise presenting me biased views.
So -- the fact that moderators signed an optional NDA with Riot is of zero concern to me. I've signed hundreds of NDA's in my life. They are standard operating procedure in the business world. It's about as relevant as being told that the moderators play League of Legends in their free time. I'm missing the logical link of -- "Because lol moderators have an NDA, they are corrupting the subreddit". What's the danger? How does that translate to "moderators suppressing anti-Riot sentiment"?
Let's put it this way. What evidence would convince you to change your mind, that the moderators are doing the right thing? I'll tell you what evidence would convince me to change my mind: if there's any evidence that they were promised financial or other rewards in exchange for performing certain actions. I haven't seen anything yet.
Well, for one, thats exactly the same kind of evidence they used in banning Richard Lewis: Look at this tweet, look how that post got downvoted.
Here's the difference. RL has a vested interest in what he's doing. He is drawing attention to himself, building his brand, and getting financially compensated for it. He has every reason in the world to be creating drama, be it real or fake. The evidence from the moderators fits into an overall framework. His evidence does not.
See, the issue with the logic of "the NDA is not a big deal" is if its not, you disclose it up front. I've read them, I'm an attorney, I understand they are fairly benign, thats not the issue. The only reason the NDA story is interesting is that they banned RLewis following it, indicating that they are extremely thin-skinned.
You realize they banned RL before that, right? It even says it right in RL's article. He was banned from the subreddit for extremely abusive and toxic behavior. This was obvious to anyone who's ever been in a RL article thread before. These articles were the result of his ban, not the reason.
For me to change my mind and say, "the Richard Lewis decision is sound" I'd like several, if not all, of the mods out themselves ala Andy "Reginald" Dihn, release actual evidence of threats of some sort of illegal activity by RLewis, and establish an official banlist with stated reasons for the each ban.
Why do they have to out themselves? Didn't they post pictures of RL harassing them on Facebook? Didn't they post evidence of RL brigading discussion topics? Isn't that a reasonable justification for a ban given Reddit's sidewide policies?
Right now the ban just appears, on its face, to be a series of excuses to try and prevent the /r/lol userbase from seeing articles from RLewis in the future, articles that they think will be detrimental to them. That explanation is the simplest and most logical reason for the ban given the evidence we have.
I agree it's a potential reason. I disagree that it's the simplest and most logical reason, given that RL's big moderator expose has come and gone. You would think that if that was their goal, they wouldn't announce the ban so publicly. Moreover, it seems as though it's a decision with approval from reddit administrators, suggesting that it implicated issues beyond just covering their ass. Finally, they've also given a fairly compelling alternative suggestion for their decision, which is his continued harassment of Reddit users and moderators. Those seem like good reasons to disassociate the subreddit from him, given that a full ban on his account was insufficient.
Bryce, who works as a lawyer in the US, already gave his opinion on that NDA. That NDA has almost NOTHING in it. It's just standard procedure when a company wants to create a channel to talk to outside individuals. It's really not a big deal, yet RL make it sound like it is.
I can give you another examples of RL's biases, on this article:
Riot’s initiatives to combat in-game hacking have been mostly ineffective.
A one-liner attack on Riot without any evidence or research whatsoever. Similar to the NDA issue. Sure, I think some of his other articles are fine, but when the topic has to do with Riot Games it becomes a shitshow.
At the end of the day, I find that Richard Lewis's contents often have huge conflict of interests, usually with his perceived grudge against Riot Games. This is pretty ironic, considering he does accuse other people of conflict of interests a lot while waving his flag of journalistic integrity. For example, did you know that he accused esports express of conflict of interests? Apparently, it was due to HOT_BID working on a satirical news site while simultaneously be a "retired" staff member on Teamliquid.
I'm actually aware of the ban/content ban distinction. I guess I just don't see any of the "evidence" people are talking about in the actual "decision" post. 100% of what they based the decision on should be in the post, or linked to therein. For instance, I've never seen these Facebook pictures you are talking about, they aren't in the decision post. There is 1 twitter of him complaining about them removing a post of his (totally reasonable act), a series of twitter posts by RLewis calling people clowns that had suspect voting histories. If this is vote manipulation, linking to reddit posts on twitter is banned (not in reddit rules).
That is the sum of the post. All other things brought to light were basically brought up by Lewis himself saying "I did this, because X and I went Y far."
At the end of the day though, the only person at fault for Richard Lewis' ban is Richard Lewis.
I dunno if this has been brought up here yet, but the biggest thing I've seen RL's defenders fail to address is RL using twitter to brigade posts on Reddit despite his ban. That appears to have been what forced the mods' hand, and there's precedent for it being against Reddit's sitewide rules here.
In case anyone is wondering, that deleted account the admin is admonishing is TotalBiscuit.
Forgive me if I'm not too sympathetic to him here. He's had his chance, and I think the subreddit is better off without him or his "valuable esports journalism".
PS: It will probably not surprise you that he's chat restricted in League and bitches about Elo hell.
On April 24 2015 00:52 oneofthem wrote: id ont know about you but a 'journalist' threatening to doxx people should get disbarred or something. like come on.
I watched the video. It's a whole bunch of nothing.
The only interesting part from that video, IMO, is that one of the reddit mods, BuckeyeSundae, seems to have tried to make amendments to Richard Lewis in a series of PMs BuckeyeSundae sent. In my eyes, BuckeyeSundae was sincere. Then Richard Lewis takes them out and used BuckeyeSundae's words for his own agenda.
Forgive me if I'm not too sympathetic to him here. He's had his chance, and I think the subreddit is better off without him or his "valuable esports journalism".
PS: It will probably not surprise you that he's chat restricted in League and bitches about Elo hell.
Someone needs to make a "Best of Richard Lewis" compilation. These are gold.
These are things that should be in the official post. If they were, I would be ~ 50% towards agreeing with their decision. Right now, given the official positions (which is what we have to go on) I am 15%.
Also, like I said, they need to put in the official rules that linking to reddit posts on twitter/facebook constitutes vote brigading if you want that to be a justification, because referencing a post on an obscure subreddit (once again, not even in the official ruling) is not putting people on notice. It seems like a stupid rule to me, but if its a rule it should be stated explicitly. It seems to me that a lot of people on twitter do this outside of esports with no issues.
Not necessary, but I would be interested in official responses from Reddit admins and Riot regarding when they knew, what they knew, and whether they agree with the decision.
OK, congratulations on establishing Richard Lewis is a dick in Reddit comments. I didn't realise this was a contentious issue though. He should be banned from Reddit, his content shouldn't. Linking to things on Twitter isn't vote brigading, and if it was Riot content would be banned too.
It doesn't matter. I believe, without a shadow of doubt, that he tried to influence reddit mods by threaten to dox them. That's the whole reason behind banning his content and it was fair play by reddit.
On April 24 2015 03:26 Ansibled wrote: OK, congratulations on establishing Richard Lewis is a dick in Reddit comments. I didn't realise this was a contentious issue though. He should be banned from Reddit, his content shouldn't. Linking to things on Twitter isn't vote brigading, and if it was Riot content would be banned too.
It doesn't matter whether or not his content has merit for the /r/lol community, he was breaking, if not the letter, then at least the spirit of reddit's sitewide rules.
Just so we're clear, RLewis called Annsibled a friend/shouted out his work (not sure which it was) on an episode of First Blood so he's clearly biased and there's no reason to argue with him :>
don't really care about the reddit 'community' but it's a site with some substantive rules about the mode of participation in posting articles etc. the basic issue as i see it is that lewis' use of the twitter brigade just totally compromises the reddit upvote ideal. whether this ideal is stable is very doubtful but what lewis has consistently done flies in the face of whatever reddit rules there are. the twitter brigade and lewis' consistent pattern of manipulative conduct taints all instances of his content until his behavior ceases
anyway i don't see anything irreplaceable with what lewis is doing. someone has to be connected to the news sources, and this does not have to be him. his analysis is also of very poor quality and often or consistently guided by personal bias.
On April 24 2015 03:26 Ansibled wrote: OK, congratulations on establishing Richard Lewis is a dick in Reddit comments. I didn't realise this was a contentious issue though. He should be banned from Reddit, his content shouldn't. Linking to things on Twitter isn't vote brigading, and if it was Riot content would be banned too.
Do you think these articles, on the whole, have no merits for the /r/leagueoflegends community?
They did ban just him, though. They banned him for that like a month ago. And since then he's just been downvote brigading random threads that are critical of him through Twitter. Maybe you don't think of it as downvote brigading, but Reddit thinks it is. It's basically the same as that Skype group everyone was up in arms about.
I went through your list of articles. I didn't really think that much of them. If you really loved them, and if there was a way for him to post articles to Reddit and literally never get involved in the comments, I think that's the ideal solution. And that's what they tried, but it didn't work.
Personally it looks like most of his articles are tabloid-style rumors; I don't read Perez Hilton and I wouldn't want to see them on the subreddit. A lot of them are also Riot-slams, because Riot is the only thing RL hates more than lol mods. The remainder are mildly interesting, but hey, whatever, there are loads of "mildly interesting" articles out there that I don't read. Losing these is worth not having him on the subreddit.
Finally, you're sort of setting a false dichotomy. I don't need to prove that there is literally no merit to these articles. He could have pooped on a rag and people would think that's meritorious. He's just delivering non-essential content in a horribly abusive and rules-violating way, so who gives a shit about him? League will continue to survive without him, and I think that's what galls him the most: the fact that in the end, he's just a failed journalist, while the gaming company he hates is becoming the biggest and most successful esports company in the world.
On April 24 2015 03:26 Ansibled wrote: OK, congratulations on establishing Richard Lewis is a dick in Reddit comments. I didn't realise this was a contentious issue though. He should be banned from Reddit, his content shouldn't. Linking to things on Twitter isn't vote brigading, and if it was Riot content would be banned too.
It doesn't matter whether or not his content has merit for the /r/lol community, he was breaking, if not the letter, then at least the spirit of reddit's sitewide rules.
TotalBiscuit's case was that his Reddit account was going to get banned, not that his content was going to get banned. Right?
I find it absurd that linking to posts on Twitter can be considered vote manipulation. The Reddit rules even say that sharing links is ok.
On April 24 2015 03:30 AlterKot wrote: Just so we're clear, RLewis called Annsibled a friend/shouted out his work (not sure which it was) on an episode of First Blood so he's clearly biased and there's no reason to argue with him :>
He mentioned the blog about the LPL thing I wrote on First Blood.
On April 24 2015 03:36 Ansibled wrote: I find it absurd that linking to posts on Twitter can be considered vote manipulation. The Reddit rules even say that sharing links is ok.
The point of that post was to disprove your thesis, that linking to posts is not vote manipulation. The fact that TB ultimately was banned in a different way is not essential to the argument.
It's all in the intent. RL's brand is "I'm always under attack by The Man!" His fans believe he's always being persecuted. So when he posts a link "what a dumbfuck" or whatever, that's the message he's passing on: "Look at this guy attacking me, and by proxy, you! Get revenge on him!"
If RL just posts a status like this: "Here's my latest article", that's probably not a big deal. And if Marc Merrill had posted a status linking to someone criticizing Riot saying "what a dumbfuck", you'd better believe that's vote manipulation.
marc merrill is a guy involved in that particular 'controversy', so what he says has newsworthy status by virtue of his status as a primary source. he probably only linked the reddit comment to further the discussion rather than highlight his pageviews. it's not the same as a writer promoting the article by linking, at least the theorized potential harm/neutrality breach isn't there.
On April 24 2015 03:26 Ansibled wrote: OK, congratulations on establishing Richard Lewis is a dick in Reddit comments. I didn't realise this was a contentious issue though. He should be banned from Reddit, his content shouldn't. Linking to things on Twitter isn't vote brigading, and if it was Riot content would be banned too.
It doesn't matter whether or not his content has merit for the /r/lol community, he was breaking, if not the letter, then at least the spirit of reddit's sitewide rules.
TotalBiscuit's case was that his Reddit account was going to get banned, not that his content was going to get banned. Right?
I find it absurd that linking to posts on Twitter can be considered vote manipulation. The Reddit rules even say that sharing links is ok.
On April 24 2015 03:30 AlterKot wrote: Just so we're clear, RLewis called Annsibled a friend/shouted out his work (not sure which it was) on an episode of First Blood so he's clearly biased and there's no reason to argue with him :>
He mentioned the blog about the LPL thing I wrote on First Blood.
TB cleaned his act up after this post, but I'm pretty sure if he kept with the twitter brigading, they would have banned his content like they did ongamers'. What RL did was brigading, plain and simple. In this case, it just so happened that /r/lol acted before the admins did.
If you allow people to share Reddit threads and comments in the first place, then people shouldn't be punished for sharing Reddit threads/comments.
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.
Are comments like this vote manipulation?
Sure there are examples where you can say the message definitely is negative towards a Reddit comment.
I just don't really see what the problem with sharing this kind of thing is.
If you're allowed to share Reddit posts, but the people you share it with aren't allowed to do anything it seems to defeat the point of sharing.
Maybe after a certain number of Twitter followers you're not allowed to share it anymore? The way I interpret the Reddit rules, or the way that makes the most sense to me, is that you can share links, but you can't tell people to vote on them. I think you're still allowed to offer comment on what you link to. Reddit is of course free to do whatever it wants though.
Ongamers sent instructions to people telling them when to post and with what title and then sent people to upvote it, the situation is far from similar.
On April 24 2015 03:50 Ansibled wrote: The way I see it is this.
If you allow people to share Reddit threads and comments in the first place, then people shouldn't be punished for sharing Reddit threads/comments.
Ongamers sent instructions to people telling them when to post and with what title and then sent people to upvote it, the situation is far from similar.
Are you not reading what the admin said to TB?
What TB did is extremely relevant to RL's situation, because it's the exact same thing. And the admin specifically called him out and said "stop fucking doing this".
I'm pretty sure I'm not going to change your mind, though, whether it's due to your connection to RL or whatever other reason you have, so I think we may just have to agree to disagree.
This is a question that comes up often in legal philosophy. How do you set a boundary line, when the boundaries are often blurred? Where can you plant your flag and say "Anything from here on out is proscribed?"
You often can't. But that's how case law works: we define the line not by trying to create magically comprehensive a priori rules, but by examining individual cases. So the real question before us now, is which side of that hypothetical line is RL's behavior is on. And while reasonable people may disagree as to where exactly the line should be drawn in another case, RL's behavior is pretty blatantly on the wrong side in this case.
On April 24 2015 03:50 Ansibled wrote: The way I see it is this.
If you allow people to share Reddit threads and comments in the first place, then people shouldn't be punished for sharing Reddit threads/comments.
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.
it's not only about intent though, it's also about RL's past behavior and current behavior, specifically his mobilization of the forces of social media in this grand conflict of proving he's right on the internet.
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.
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 07:17 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 07:17 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 07:17 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,
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.
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.
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.
The np thing is kind of stupid since it doesn't do anything to subscribers and like 95% of people who get linked lol content who want to read it are going to be subscribed.
On May 07 2015 01:45 Ansibled wrote: The np thing is kind of stupid since it doesn't do anything to subscribers and like 95% of people who get linked lol content who want to read it are going to be subscribed.
That's not true, many people use reddit as their gateway to LoL content. I know I was until I realized that the subreddit is filtered. Ongamers lost a lot of viewer base from their content ban, because people don't make the effort to bookmark stuff and check everything, they like it on one page, and reading the comments on reddit.
NEVER post personal information. If including screenshots, personal information must be obscured. Posting personal information of people can be EXTREMELY HARMFUL and is prohibited. Personal Information includes:
Full names (first and/or last name) Addresses Skype accounts Social Media accounts (facebook, twitter, instagram, linkedin, etc) that are not publicly available* Phone Numbers Pictures of people who haven't connected their name to their face Images hosted by private accounts (whether facebook, twitter, etc) Summoner names
Am I the only one who thinks many of these restrictions are unreasonable? In particular, full names and summoner names probably need to be posted for all moderators, and all content creators. If the other things can be extrapolated from those 2 things using publicly available information, that it the modern world.
How is he going to do that? He damaged his own reputation with his actions. Here's a compilation of all his doxxing threats.
That's a compilation of people complaining about the same "doxxing" threats from over a year ago, with no evidence provided but the public tweets from that time. Hardly conclusive is it.
If you do some digging you can find several compilations of his harassment of other users. Plus, all the things the mods are accusing him of are easily proven since he uses his own twitter account to vote brigade and shit.
I've never harassed another user. I've verbally berated plenty but only after they've said something stupid and/or false about me, my work and my motivations.
I've NEVER vote-brigaded through Twitter.
So, RL would have to show that the r/lol mods in fact damaged his reputation. Then on top of that, he has to show that that damage caused him financial harm, not the removal of his content from Reddit.
These are not examples of my "behaviour." These are, again, examples of other people accusing me of things. I've never mocked anyone for suicidal tendancies. I've mocked someone for telling me to grow up while complaining about how he lived with his parents. This is fairly easy to prove.
This is a really stupid summary of what I do for a living, especially about ESEX. I wasn't "trying to hurt them." I even helped back their SC2 kickstarter.
NEVER post personal information. If including screenshots, personal information must be obscured. Posting personal information of people can be EXTREMELY HARMFUL and is prohibited. Personal Information includes:
Full names (first and/or last name) Addresses Skype accounts Social Media accounts (facebook, twitter, instagram, linkedin, etc) that are not publicly available* Phone Numbers Pictures of people who haven't connected their name to their face Images hosted by private accounts (whether facebook, twitter, etc) Summoner names
Am I the only one who thinks many of these restrictions are unreasonable? In particular, full names and summoner names probably need to be posted for all moderators, and all content creators. If the other things can be extrapolated from those 2 things using publicly available information, that it the modern world.
It's done because there are crazy people on the internet who go on a witchhunt after people they don't like. You'd be surprised how easy it is to find where a person lives, or their phone number just from some other information you wouldn't think was sensitive, Google is a stalkers friend.
Ex: Someone gets called out for flaming in lobby, screenshots posted on reddit. Dozens of people add that person and flame them back, thinking they're justified. That's a nice example, on more serious subjects people have been caught calling with death threats. It only takes one idiot to traumatize another.
You said mods should post full names, and that's a big no-no in my books. RL might criticize in a very condescending tone, but there are people who go way further than that. Even summoner names, they'd be getting a dozen friend requests every day of people who want to berate them on their job, or just flame. Content creators are different because they willingly expose themselves to the public, and are generally not targets for abuse unless something very negative is found out about them.
On May 07 2015 01:45 Ansibled wrote: The np thing is kind of stupid since it doesn't do anything to subscribers and like 95% of people who get linked lol content who want to read it are going to be subscribed.
That's not true, many people use reddit as their gateway to LoL content. I know I was until I realized that the subreddit is filtered. Ongamers lost a lot of viewer base from their content ban, because people don't make the effort to bookmark stuff and check everything, they like it on one page, and reading the comments on reddit.
I mean subscribers of the subreddit. I figure the people clicking /r/leagueoflegends links on Twitter who have Reddit accounts to vote in the first place are already going to be subscribed to /r/leagueoflegends, and np doesn't do anything if you're linked to a subreddit you subscribe to.
NEVER post personal information. If including screenshots, personal information must be obscured. Posting personal information of people can be EXTREMELY HARMFUL and is prohibited. Personal Information includes:
Full names (first and/or last name) Addresses Skype accounts Social Media accounts (facebook, twitter, instagram, linkedin, etc) that are not publicly available* Phone Numbers Pictures of people who haven't connected their name to their face Images hosted by private accounts (whether facebook, twitter, etc) Summoner names
Am I the only one who thinks many of these restrictions are unreasonable? In particular, full names and summoner names probably need to be posted for all moderators, and all content creators. If the other things can be extrapolated from those 2 things using publicly available information, that it the modern world.
It's done because there are crazy people on the internet who go on a witchhunt after people they don't like. You'd be surprised how easy it is to find where a person lives, or their phone number just from some other information you wouldn't think was sensitive, Google is a stalkers friend.
Ex: Someone gets called out for flaming in lobby, screenshots posted on reddit. Dozens of people add that person and flame them back, thinking they're justified. That's a nice example, on more serious subjects people have been caught calling with death threats. It only takes one idiot to traumatize another.
You said mods should post full names, and that's a big no-no in my books. RL might criticize in a very condescending tone, but there are people who go way further than that. Even summoner names, they'd be getting a dozen friend requests every day of people who want to berate them on their job, or just flame. Content creators are different because they willingly expose themselves to the public, and are generally not targets for abuse unless something very negative is found out about them.
I think that this is theoretically fine for people with no influence, but my experiences on the D2 US East "Whitelist" indicates that such a system is unworkable once anonymous people have any real power. At one point a guy stole over $10k (conservative eBay value) in items during a trade he was supposed to be moderating. In terms of the LoL subreddit, that kind of money is peanuts.
Also the problem with an anonymous network like this is it creates, more or less, a "cabal" wherein minor abuses that people know about from within the system are covered up because the other mods know your information (most likely) and if you expose their corruption (even using their anonymous name) they can retaliate with that "proprietary" information so it creates several perverse incentives within the power structure.
For most of this I can't be assed to care about reddit because it's not the best news medium there is, it's just a popular memefactory that also has relevant news. Nothing you couldn't get without RSSing the popular league news sites.
HOWEVER the concept of calling out Richard for vote brigading on Twitter is very interesting. I don't think it's definitive that what he did was necessarily vote brigading without breaching his own right to post reddit news to his twitterbase. Essentially people are saying that he KNOWS that people will enforce his viewpoint and essentially extend his reach into reddit with a large amount of votes in his favor (be it up or down). So is this the case if someone with 1 Twitter follower does the same exact thing, are they then vote brigading? If not (and I suspect that's not the case) there's a definitive line in the sand that once you reach x amount of popularity, you're no longer allowed to share your viewpoints on certain reddit articles on Twitter anymore. Does anyone see this as a problem? It's reddit mods controlling a completely different (if intertwined) aspect of social media and that seems more fucked up than RL just being a gigantic dickbag to a whole bunch of people. That said he does get absolutely way more circumstantial evidence or just straight up rumors attributed to him that may not even be true simply because he's pissed off a large amount of people.
How is he going to do that? He damaged his own reputation with his actions. Here's a compilation of all his doxxing threats.
That's a compilation of people complaining about the same "doxxing" threats from over a year ago, with no evidence provided but the public tweets from that time. Hardly conclusive is it.
If you do some digging you can find several compilations of his harassment of other users. Plus, all the things the mods are accusing him of are easily proven since he uses his own twitter account to vote brigade and shit.
I've never harassed another user. I've verbally berated plenty but only after they've said something stupid and/or false about me, my work and my motivations.
So, RL would have to show that the r/lol mods in fact damaged his reputation. Then on top of that, he has to show that that damage caused him financial harm, not the removal of his content from Reddit.
These are not examples of my "behaviour." These are, again, examples of other people accusing me of things. I've never mocked anyone for suicidal tendancies. I've mocked someone for telling me to grow up while complaining about how he lived with his parents. This is fairly easy to prove.
This is a really stupid summary of what I do for a living, especially about ESEX. I wasn't "trying to hurt them." I even helped back their SC2 kickstarter.
Hi Richard,
On reddit, you managed to belittle someone by talking about a video he made in highschool. Apparently you found this video on his Facebook. I am pretty impressed, since you must have gotten his real name and other sensitive information via a reddit handle. I am curious as to how you did it.
Secondly, on the video you posted, you showed a screenshot of your Linkdin being examined by a reddit mod. I am curious how you found out that's a reddit mod. Since you chose to blur out the names, I can only assume this isn't some publically available information. You must have figured out that person's real name somehow.
Of course you could just be doing all of this for your own research purposes (not doxing), but it does seem to me that you are very good at digging up information from the internet. It's like you carrying a loaded gun and not afraid to tell other people that you have a loaded gun; you can shoot people with it, but you insist that you won't do it. So at this point it's a matter of whether or not we can trust you with the loaded gun.
But lately, especially with the Deman email leak, this trust has been pretty shakey. I find it pretty reasonable to believe that you did dox the mods regardless of how much you deny it. It's really easy to connect the dots since you have the information and you have done it in the past.
Maybe the Deman email wasn't your best choice you've made, but I just want to point out that with great power comes great responsibility. You really should consider what you are doing and not get involved in petty arguments.
How is he going to do that? He damaged his own reputation with his actions. Here's a compilation of all his doxxing threats.
That's a compilation of people complaining about the same "doxxing" threats from over a year ago, with no evidence provided but the public tweets from that time. Hardly conclusive is it.
If you do some digging you can find several compilations of his harassment of other users. Plus, all the things the mods are accusing him of are easily proven since he uses his own twitter account to vote brigade and shit.
I've never harassed another user. I've verbally berated plenty but only after they've said something stupid and/or false about me, my work and my motivations.
I've NEVER vote-brigaded through Twitter.
So, RL would have to show that the r/lol mods in fact damaged his reputation. Then on top of that, he has to show that that damage caused him financial harm, not the removal of his content from Reddit.
These are not examples of my "behaviour." These are, again, examples of other people accusing me of things. I've never mocked anyone for suicidal tendancies. I've mocked someone for telling me to grow up while complaining about how he lived with his parents. This is fairly easy to prove.
This is a really stupid summary of what I do for a living, especially about ESEX. I wasn't "trying to hurt them." I even helped back their SC2 kickstarter.
Hi Richard,
On reddit, you managed to belittle someone by talking about a video he made in highschool. Apparently you found this video on his Facebook. I am pretty impressed, since you must have gotten his real name and other sensitive information via a reddit handle. I am curious as to how you did it.
Secondly, on the video you posted, you showed a screenshot of your Linkdin being examined by a reddit mod. I am curious how you found out that's a reddit mod. Since you chose to blur out the names, I can only assume this isn't some publically available information. You must have figured out that person's real name somehow.
Of course you could just be doing all of this for your own research purposes (not doxing), but it does seem to me that you are very good at digging up information from the internet. It's like you carrying a loaded gun and not afraid to tell other people that you have a loaded gun; you can shoot people with it, but you insist that you won't do it. So at this point it's a matter of whether or not we can trust you with the loaded gun.
But lately, especially with the Deman email leak, this trust has been pretty shakey. I find it pretty reasonable to believe that you did dox the mods regardless of how much you deny it. It's really easy to connect the dots since you have the information and you have done it in the past.
Maybe the Deman email wasn't your best choice you've made, but I just want to point out that with great power comes great responsibility. You really should consider what you are doing and not get involved in petty arguments.
It's not that difficult to find people's real names on the internet, it's hardly some super advanced "doxxing" that requires "leet haxx0rs." I can probably find your real name right now just based on the information you've divulged on the forums by using Google + 10 minutes of my time. It's hardly some "threat" since people in this day and age should not have an expectation of anonymity if they divulge personal information, however minor they think it might be.
Sure, hypothetically you may be able to find out who I am or find out about any user, but you don't start the argument by first dig in and find some personal information as a source for attack.
The way RL does it suggests to me that he is good at it. Now, this may simply be due to his training and experience from his job, but it is a little concerning how willing he is to show off how much he can dig up.
I'm struggling to make the connection between him finding out user's information via things they themselves willingly post, and him needing to have all of his content banned. If he's never doxxed a mod before then what is it to you if he finds out their information? You equate having his knowledge to having a loaded weapon, when really I just think it's very basic information that someone had willingly put up on the Internet. Just because you're online doesn't give you full privacy rights if you then proceed to talk about your personal life online. Just my two cents, but I don't see how you came to whatever conclusion you've gotten to.
I guess in the Internet age circumstantial evidence is rock solid evidence, because I have never seen damning proof of him doing anything besides being a dickwad to people who disagree with him or insult him. And I've spent time actually reading the RL drama threads.
On May 08 2015 00:01 Zdrastochye wrote: I guess in the Internet age circumstantial evidence is rock solid evidence, because I have never seen damning proof of him doing anything besides being a dickwad to people who disagree with him or insult him. And I've spent time actually reading the RL drama threads.
I think one of the issues he mentioned is that mods are public figures and thus do not have rights to a lot of their privacy (at least according to US laws).
So, my understanding is that if we follow this logic, then any information is fair game.
Reddit (the website as a whole) has vast interests in protecting subreddit mods from real and perceived harms. After all, subreddit mods essentially work for reddit for free.
In RL's case, /r/lol's mods probably feel threatened by RL and raised the issue with Reddit. Reddit decided to throw the books at RL (which they are totally allowed to do) by banning his content and hurts him financially.
On May 08 2015 00:22 Sufficiency wrote: Reddit (the website as a whole) has vast interests in protecting subreddit mods from real and perceived harms. After all, subreddit mods essentially work for reddit for free.
In RL's case, /r/lol's mods probably feel threatened by RL and raised the issue with Reddit. Reddit decided to throw the books at RL (which they are totally allowed to do) by banning his content and hurts him financially.
I understand it from Reddit's POV, but really the problem is they have created this money bottleneck because access to the frontpage of /r/lol is very lucrative. Instead of paying a moderator, they have forced the moderators to go rent-seeking, and they have.
On May 08 2015 00:22 Sufficiency wrote: Reddit (the website as a whole) has vast interests in protecting subreddit mods from real and perceived harms. After all, subreddit mods essentially work for reddit for free.
In RL's case, /r/lol's mods probably feel threatened by RL and raised the issue with Reddit. Reddit decided to throw the books at RL (which they are totally allowed to do) by banning his content and hurts him financially.
I understand it from Reddit's POV, but really the problem is they have created this money bottleneck because access to the frontpage of /r/lol is very lucrative. Instead of paying a moderator, they have forced the moderators to go rent-seeking, and they have.
Here's how I look at it.
You, the content creator, is a pan-handler on the street. Reddit is this upper-class passby and your potential benefactor. If you want to make money, you better ask your benefactor nicely and don't break any rules. This, by itself, feels reasonable. I also think Reddit as a for-profit organization as done OK for themselves so far despite some of the drama (like fappening, etc.).
But I do agree that some of the subreddit (/r/politcs, /r/lol, etc.) may have a bit too much traffic and volunteer moderation may be unsustainable. It's not clear to me how this can be solved.
On May 08 2015 00:22 Sufficiency wrote: Reddit (the website as a whole) has vast interests in protecting subreddit mods from real and perceived harms. After all, subreddit mods essentially work for reddit for free.
In RL's case, /r/lol's mods probably feel threatened by RL and raised the issue with Reddit. Reddit decided to throw the books at RL (which they are totally allowed to do) by banning his content and hurts him financially.
I understand it from Reddit's POV, but really the problem is they have created this money bottleneck because access to the frontpage of /r/lol is very lucrative. Instead of paying a moderator, they have forced the moderators to go rent-seeking, and they have.
Here's how I look at it.
You, the content creator, is a pan-handler on the street. Reddit is this upper-class passby and your potential benefactor. If you want to make money, you better ask your benefactor nicely and don't break any rules. This, by itself, feels reasonable. I also think Reddit as a for-profit organization as done OK for themselves so far despite some of the drama (like fappening, etc.).
But I do agree that some of the subreddit (/r/politcs, /r/lol, etc.) may have a bit too much traffic and volunteer moderation may be unsustainable. It's not clear to me how this can be solved.
Well its clear how it can be solved: They pay a moderator to moderate the sub, and the contract would give him a fiduciary duty to reddit rather than his own whims. I do know reddit is having trouble monetizing, so that might not be feasible. If that is the case then the next best option is for moderators of large subs to have to be public figures.
Like I said, its not reddit as an entity that is the issue, its individual moderators' financial interests, and the group dynamic created by anonymity that is.
On May 08 2015 23:08 Chexx wrote: well they just stick to the rule that they delete every Richard Lewis article.
It's not just that they were deleting Richard Lewis articles, they deleted posts which reported the news with no mention of Richard Lewis for about 30 minutes.
Looks like it's one of those situations where an org decided to cooperate and let the dailydot be the first to break the news (considering the quotes and images in the article) but you can't post it on r/lol because rlewis so hillarity ensues. Checking r/riotfreelol when I don't know what's going on starts to be a good practice.
Yea, I was on the side of the mods initially due to RL being such a twatwaffle, but holy crap this is getting ridiculous.
I think there can be a clear line drawn where you don't allow links to the content, but you can allow discussion of said content. Clearly /r/lol disagrees.
yeah just ban content from one of the most well known and prolific esports journalists out there I'm sure that won't cause any complications for a massive community that's interested in reading league news
On reddit, you managed to belittle someone by talking about a video he made in highschool. Apparently you found this video on his Facebook. I am pretty impressed, since you must have gotten his real name and other sensitive information via a reddit handle. I am curious as to how you did it.
Googled his username. It linked to an account on another website where he posted his video. I posted video. He said it was his. Elite level doxxing obviously.
Secondly, on the video you posted, you showed a screenshot of your Linkdin being examined by a reddit mod. I am curious how you found out that's a reddit mod. Since you chose to blur out the names, I can only assume this isn't some publically available information. You must have figured out that person's real name somehow.
I do know the names of the mods. Found that out over a year ago, as I said I would on Twitter. I still don't understand why it's OK for them to gun after people's jobs - keep in mind they already made William Turton quit after smearing him in public and stating he'd reported inaccurate information, which was accurate - but their real names are somehow sacrosanct.
Of course you could just be doing all of this for your own research purposes (not doxing), but it does seem to me that you are very good at digging up information from the internet. It's like you carrying a loaded gun and not afraid to tell other people that you have a loaded gun; you can shoot people with it, but you insist that you won't do it. So at this point it's a matter of whether or not we can trust you with the loaded gun.
I believe people who have power over people's livelihoods should not be able to hide behind anonymous usernames and exert their influence without any potential reprisals. I think most people agree this is sensible. Ironically, the moderators are effectively proving the arguments that are used about trolls - that anonymity will make people behave in unreasonable ways they wouldn't if their identity was on display.
I'm not against anonymity to level the playing field against oppressive governments or other noble causes. Hiding behind an alias for the sole purpose of not wanting to be held accountable when you fuck with people's lives is far from noble. I don't even use a gamer alias these days because I believe that as someone who reports on things I need to be transparent too.
Richard Lewis suits the lol community so much that behind all the fighting everyone knows that they belong together.
While all parties involved seem to hate all the fighting deep inside everyone enjoys the tension and drama.
Like in the move "the wrestler". You fight in front of the audience and experience some pain and suffering. But in the end you love beeing in the spotlight. Beeing the guy that causes all these emotions from all these people. Starting storms that might turn into something no one can controll.
On reddit, you managed to belittle someone by talking about a video he made in highschool. Apparently you found this video on his Facebook. I am pretty impressed, since you must have gotten his real name and other sensitive information via a reddit handle. I am curious as to how you did it.
Googled his username. It linked to an account on another website where he posted his video. I posted video. He said it was his. Elite level doxxing obviously.
Secondly, on the video you posted, you showed a screenshot of your Linkdin being examined by a reddit mod. I am curious how you found out that's a reddit mod. Since you chose to blur out the names, I can only assume this isn't some publically available information. You must have figured out that person's real name somehow.
I do know the names of the mods. Found that out over a year ago, as I said I would on Twitter. I still don't understand why it's OK for them to gun after people's jobs - keep in mind they already made William Turton quit after smearing him in public and stating he'd reported inaccurate information, which was accurate - but their real names are somehow sacrosanct.
Of course you could just be doing all of this for your own research purposes (not doxing), but it does seem to me that you are very good at digging up information from the internet. It's like you carrying a loaded gun and not afraid to tell other people that you have a loaded gun; you can shoot people with it, but you insist that you won't do it. So at this point it's a matter of whether or not we can trust you with the loaded gun.
I believe people who have power over people's livelihoods should not be able to hide behind anonymous usernames and exert their influence without any potential reprisals. I think most people agree this is sensible. Ironically, the moderators are effectively proving the arguments that are used about trolls - that anonymity will make people behave in unreasonable ways they wouldn't if their identity was on display.
I'm not against anonymity to level the playing field against oppressive governments or other noble causes. Hiding behind an alias for the sole purpose of not wanting to be held accountable when you fuck with people's lives is far from noble. I don't even use a gamer alias these days because I believe that as someone who reports on things I need to be transparent too.
So I have two issues with this.
1. I don't think it's up to you to decide whose anonymity is appropriate. In the US, "public figures" have almost no protection on their privacy, but the laws may be different elsewhere and it's not even clear if the mods are considered public figures in the US.
2. Reddit is a for-profit platform; your usage of it is a privilege, not a right. This is the same with Teamliquid or anywhere else. They can technically exclude you for any reasons or no reasons at all. They can technically kick you out for having short hair, wearing glasses, or because your last name starts with letter L. Reddit is not a public government service and they have no obligation to include you.
That being said, I am not denying that there is a problem. The /r/lol reddit is too big and too inclusive. While I will strongly disagree with you that there is any tangible "Riot influence" on the /r/lol mods, I am definitely concerned with other third-party influences. For example, if I run theScore, can I give 10K dollars to the mods so /r/lol will ban contents from one of my competitors (e.g. DailyDot)?
That was just a hypothetical question, of course, but my bigger concern with /r/lol is that not all mods know what are banned and what are not banned.A few months back I complained really loudly about this "secret blacklist" of banned domains on /r/lol, and my impression after talking to several mods is that the blacklist is so complicated that only a few mods know what it is and who are on it (I can tell you for sure that my blog was blacklisted on /r/lol and it was definitely not due to the things /u/Tjonke mentioned). This makes it super easy for a third-party organization to bribe a single mod to modify the "secret blacklist" - and no other mods will ever know about it.
1. I don't think it's up to you to decide whose anonymity is appropriate. In the US, "public figures" have almost no protection on their privacy, but the laws may be different elsewhere and it's not even clear if the mods are considered public figures in the US.
For me it's fairly clear cut and I don't see you offering a counter-argument to the point, which is that if you have powers that can have a genuine impact on someone's life and livelihood then there has to be accountability put in place. Given that there is no recourse through Reddit - there is a tacit understanding that mods can behave as badly as they want and abuse their position because otherwise how do you incentivise a volunteer role - it seems that there is no way to discourage such activities.
Let's assess what has happened to me, all of which is done to achieve the goal of driving me out the business or have me fired. After being consistently pestered to jump through hoops just to have my content find its audience, my content was banned for no other reason than to apply pressure to my employers. On top of that, if you search my name the first thing that comes up is a "Subreddit ruling" about me and my work that not only contains false information and judgements about me but also flaunts Reddit's claims to privacy as well. My Reddit "activities" have not only been shared with the public but also Riot staff. Odd given how upset they are when their behaviour is dragged into public view. I didn't sign an agreement to observe user privacy as I'm not a moderator on a sub. Of course, these agreements and modiquette in general is never enforced for the reason I mentioned above.
If you think that people should be able to do this behind an alias because moderating an internet forum affords them some sort of special protected rights, I think you are very wrong.
2. Reddit is a for-profit platform; your usage of it is a privilege, not a right. This is the same with Teamliquid or anywhere else. They can technically exclude you for any reasons or no reasons at all. They can technically kick you out for having short hair, wearing glasses, or because your last name starts with letter L. Reddit is not a public government service and they have no obligation to include you.
Which is right. So Reddit need to say it instead of pretending to be an open platform. Reddit staff publicly talk about how Reddit is all about communities. They declared themselves to be a government and that they have a moral obligation not to abuse their power. (http://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/2foivo/every_man_is_responsible_for_his_own_soul/). The mods won't even add the fact my content is banned to the official rules because they know when written down for all to see it's absurd.
Keep in mind the furore when the r/politics sub banned Mother Jones on the ground it was "blogspam" when it's a Pulitzer prize winning publication. Why did they do this? Most mods had political leanings far removed from that of the staff at Mother Jones so they just out and out censored it, and other publications, for reasons that were a complete fiction. The story made national news and the decision had to be retracted. That's because Reddit does have huge power. It's in the top ten websites on the internet in terms of traffic. They either stick to their values or they admit they were all a sham. No half measures. I'm indifferent to what they choose as long as they are honest and consistent.
That being said, I am not denying that there is a problem. The /r/lol reddit is too big and too inclusive. While I will strongly disagree with you that there is any tangible "Riot influence" on the /r/lol mods, I am definitely concerned with other third-party influences. For example, if I run theScore, can I give 10K dollars to the mods so /r/lol will ban contents from one of my competitors (e.g. DailyDot)?
Again, smoke and mirrors deployed on this issue by those in the wrong. I think it is absolutely news-worthy, in e-sports terms, to report that LoL mods have entered into contracts (NDAs) with Riot Games. Not one other sub I have contacted, be it gaming or otherwise, engages in such activities. Yet it has been passed off as harmless and somehow necessary because 1) Riot insist everyone sign NDAs (yeah, look at the other companies that operate that way) so it's obviously benign and 2) It helps the mods deliver a better service because they can communicate about server outages. Yet I know that the mods have contacted Riot about users other than myself and their Reddit behaviour and suggest this is acceptable. The key thing was Riot and the mods smeared me publicly so people were too busy focusing on me "being an asshole" to actually want an answer to a very important question - "why are NDAs happening at all when everyone else manages not to do it?"
That was just a hypothetical question, of course, my bigger concern with /r/lol is that not all mods know what are banned and what are not banned. A few months back I complained really loudly about this "secret blacklist" of banned domains on /r/lol, and my impression is that because the blacklist is so complicated that only a few mods know what it is and who are on it (I can tell you for sure that my blog was banned on /r/lol and it was definitely not due to the things /u/Tjonke mentioned. This makes it super easy for a third-party organization to bribe a single mod to modify the "secret blacklist" - and no other mods will ever know about it.
Absolutely and of course stuff like this goes on all the time on other subs but the LoL sub is ripe for it. It's the biggest non-default sub, one of the biggest on the whole of Reddit. Riot have reached out to other subs and ask they sign NDAs too, like r/summonerschool, so where does that tie into the "providing a better service" party line? It is of course about one thing - control.
Blacklists like that should be public for the same reasons mods should be publicly accountable. Sadly Reddit has positioned itself as too powerful to operate on premises that made sense when it was small.
I thought it has already been established by your good friend Bryce that the NDA the mod signed was mostly harmless? That NDA is almost entirely unenforceable for a number of reasons. Also, from all levels of analysis the NDA seems to be for sharing Riot's server status information; when it comes to sharing information with third-party entities, NDAs are very standard practices. I also saw no indication that a /r/lol HAVE to sign the NDA - although I don't deny the possibility of political pressure on the issue.
In any case, IMO third-party influences are far more damaging than Riot's perceived or real influence over /r/lol. Riot has a lot of influence over /r/lol regardless if there was an NDA or not and it's not going to magically go away. At the end of the day, it's a forum for discussion of the game they made and they have a huge amount of influence simply by doing nothing. Third-party influence is a different story. For example, DailyDot and theScore are essentially competitors and we all know theScore has a LOT of money invested. What if, in a hypothetical scenario, theScore bribes a /r/lol mod with 10K dollars and bans the DailyDot domains because of "Twitter brigade" or <insert arbitrary reason here>? The amount of damage that can cause to the community is mind-boggling.
On reddit, you managed to belittle someone by talking about a video he made in highschool. Apparently you found this video on his Facebook. I am pretty impressed, since you must have gotten his real name and other sensitive information via a reddit handle. I am curious as to how you did it.
Googled his username. It linked to an account on another website where he posted his video. I posted video. He said it was his. Elite level doxxing obviously.
Secondly, on the video you posted, you showed a screenshot of your Linkdin being examined by a reddit mod. I am curious how you found out that's a reddit mod. Since you chose to blur out the names, I can only assume this isn't some publically available information. You must have figured out that person's real name somehow.
I do know the names of the mods. Found that out over a year ago, as I said I would on Twitter. I still don't understand why it's OK for them to gun after people's jobs - keep in mind they already made William Turton quit after smearing him in public and stating he'd reported inaccurate information, which was accurate - but their real names are somehow sacrosanct.
Of course you could just be doing all of this for your own research purposes (not doxing), but it does seem to me that you are very good at digging up information from the internet. It's like you carrying a loaded gun and not afraid to tell other people that you have a loaded gun; you can shoot people with it, but you insist that you won't do it. So at this point it's a matter of whether or not we can trust you with the loaded gun.
I believe people who have power over people's livelihoods should not be able to hide behind anonymous usernames and exert their influence without any potential reprisals. I think most people agree this is sensible. Ironically, the moderators are effectively proving the arguments that are used about trolls - that anonymity will make people behave in unreasonable ways they wouldn't if their identity was on display.
I'm not against anonymity to level the playing field against oppressive governments or other noble causes. Hiding behind an alias for the sole purpose of not wanting to be held accountable when you fuck with people's lives is far from noble. I don't even use a gamer alias these days because I believe that as someone who reports on things I need to be transparent too.
To put it simply, if someone harms you, you can hold them liable. Of course most people don't understand how the court system works, and choose to use the administrative side where they often lose.
Also given the type of users that reddit attracts (especially "mods"), people shouldn't be surprised they want to create giant blacklists and harm people.
On May 11 2015 01:58 Sufficiency wrote: 1. I don't think it's up to you to decide whose anonymity is appropriate. In the US, "public figures" have almost no protection on their privacy, but the laws may be different elsewhere and it's not even clear if the mods are considered public figures in the US.
For something, or someone to be public, there must only be a single iota of publicness. If you step out of your house for a second, you are a public figure.
Reddit doesn't harm a content creator by banning his content, because using Reddit is a privilege, not a right. There is no 'harm' when your usage of Reddit is not a right.
I will use the same analogy. You as a content creator is like a beggar on the street and Reddit is a potential benefactor. You ask your benefactor nicely and he might give you some money; if you don't get the money, you can't run around pointing fingers at your benefactor accusing him of ruining your life.
On May 11 2015 01:58 Sufficiency wrote: 1. I don't think it's up to you to decide whose anonymity is appropriate. In the US, "public figures" have almost no protection on their privacy, but the laws may be different elsewhere and it's not even clear if the mods are considered public figures in the US.
For something, or someone to be public, there must only be a single iota of publicness. If you step out of your house for a second, you are a public figure.
Please don't spout off about legal issues when you clearly have no understanding whatsoever about what a "public figure" is in American law.
You are our guests. We will make all attempts to treat everyone with due respect and to accommodate everyone's wishes as far as reasonably possible. But, this is a private site. We are not a "for profit" enterprise. We are not funded by any governments. This means we run the site the way we see fit. We are not obligated to observe anyone's notions of "free speech" or even "fairness." We try of course, and that's why we're consistently considered one of the best gaming sites on the web, and you are always free to give us suggestions (Website Feedback Forum). But, we have our limits. If we don't like you, we simply IP ban you. If we're really pissed off, then we IP ban you AND nuke every single post you've uploaded to the site - ever. It will be as if you had never existed here. This is our house. You've been warned.
You pissed off Reddit, and they banned you. Heck, they did much more than they needed to. They could have banned you on sight for no particular reason at all, but they tried to reason with you. It didn't work out, so now all your stuff is banned, and you get to think about biting the hand that feeds.
Reddit has zero moral obligation towards anyone. It got to where it is because people respect it as a source of information. If the moderators made enough bad decisions, like banning all content creators who are gay, then people will vote with their feet and go somewhere else. It's happened to websites as a whole (Myspace, Digg), and it's happened to various subreddits (/r/gaming, /r/games).
The fact that RiotFreeLoL has 0.6% the subscribers that leagueoflegends does, plus the fact that its "gameday thread" has exactly 16 comments on the MSI final, suggests to me that people have made their choice and it's not in favor of RL.
Yeah, it's a little unfair. Life sucks. And it sucks even harder when you're a complete dick for no reason to a lot of different people.
On May 11 2015 22:59 GrandInquisitor wrote: The fact that RiotFreeLoL has exactly 0.6% the subscribers that leagueoflegends does, plus the fact that its "gameday thread" has exactly 16 comments on the MSI final, suggests to me that people have made their choice and it's not in favor of RL.
That's not really a good point because it is not really a choice. It's more like the betamax vs vhs choice at a moment when everyone has vhs players already.
On May 11 2015 22:59 GrandInquisitor wrote: The fact that RiotFreeLoL has exactly 0.6% the subscribers that leagueoflegends does, plus the fact that its "gameday thread" has exactly 16 comments on the MSI final, suggests to me that people have made their choice and it's not in favor of RL.
That's not really a good point because it is not really a choice. It's more like the betamax vs vhs choice at a moment when everyone has vhs players already.
Inaction is a choice, to not change is a choice; regardless of whether one is consciously making the decision or not.
In this case, the 99.4% chose comfort/familiarity.
Also, there's two separate issues here that are being conflated:
1) Are the leagueoflegends mods unjustifiably mean to RL and his content? 2) Are the leagueoflegends mods corrupt and/or controlled by Riot?
They're two very different questions. To RL and the creators of riotfreelol, they are one and the same, obviously, but I think (1) is maybe 20% correct and (2) is at most 5% correct. RL's ultimate thesis seems to imply that it's Riot behind this conspiracy to keep him down, and I think we can all agree that that's total hogwash. I'm sure Riot isn't devastated over the subreddit's decision, but I think it's implausible to suggest that they had any role in it.
On May 11 2015 22:59 GrandInquisitor wrote: The fact that RiotFreeLoL has exactly 0.6% the subscribers that leagueoflegends does, plus the fact that its "gameday thread" has exactly 16 comments on the MSI final, suggests to me that people have made their choice and it's not in favor of RL.
That's not really a good point because it is not really a choice. It's more like the betamax vs vhs choice at a moment when everyone has vhs players already.
How is it like betamax vs VHS? People left Myspace, Digg, Friendster, Yahoo, Hotmail, and tons of other sites with significantly stronger network effects than a subreddit.
A good example is the xkcd subreddit. The xkcd subreddit was taken over by truly corrupt mods (Holocaust denialists and racists who imposed all sorts of gag rules on the subreddit), and so the community en masse moved to the xkcd_comic subreddit. Recently the main xkcd subreddit was "taken back", and so everyone moved back.
On May 11 2015 22:59 GrandInquisitor wrote: The fact that RiotFreeLoL has exactly 0.6% the subscribers that leagueoflegends does, plus the fact that its "gameday thread" has exactly 16 comments on the MSI final, suggests to me that people have made their choice and it's not in favor of RL.
That's not really a good point because it is not really a choice. It's more like the betamax vs vhs choice at a moment when everyone has vhs players already.
How is it like betamax vs VHS? People left Myspace, Digg, Friendster, Yahoo, Hotmail, and tons of other sites with significantly stronger network effects than a subreddit.
A good example is the xkcd subreddit. The xkcd subreddit was taken over by truly corrupt mods (Holocaust denialists and racists who imposed all sorts of gag rules on the subreddit), and so the community en masse moved to the xkcd_comic subreddit. Recently the main xkcd subreddit was "taken back", and so everyone moved back.
On May 11 2015 22:59 GrandInquisitor wrote: The fact that RiotFreeLoL has exactly 0.6% the subscribers that leagueoflegends does, plus the fact that its "gameday thread" has exactly 16 comments on the MSI final, suggests to me that people have made their choice and it's not in favor of RL.
That's not really a good point because it is not really a choice. It's more like the betamax vs vhs choice at a moment when everyone has vhs players already.
How is it like betamax vs VHS? People left Myspace, Digg, Friendster, Yahoo, Hotmail, and tons of other sites with significantly stronger network effects than a subreddit.
They could have also left VHS for betamax. But network effects just make the cost of switching a lot higher. In the cases you cited other sites just overcompensated this cost.
To give an obvious, far-fetched example: I won't switch to TL alternatives (that are less frequented) simply because a user left tl for an alternative. However, I would switch to a TL alternative if TL was cluttered with ads and the alternatives were not, but had the same userbase.
In a sense there is still choice. But the cards are heavily stacked in one favour.
Oh I agree, it's hard to switch. Which is why I think that it's a little unfair. But I don't think it's terribly unfair, partially because it's happened before given sufficiently extreme circumstances, and partially because it's not like there's a pattern of subjugation going on here - RL's the only one that's ever had this type of ban levied against him.
On May 11 2015 23:36 GrandInquisitor wrote: Oh I agree, it's hard to switch. Which is why I think that it's a little unfair. But I don't think it's terribly unfair, partially because it's happened before given sufficiently extreme circumstances, and partially because it's not like there's a pattern of subjugation going on here - RL's the only one that's ever had this type of ban levied against him.
Nope. Ongamers was also banned because of the actions of 1 of their jounalists. The ban didn't last long, but still...
This is not the 1st time they ban content the users want from the subbreddit. This should not happen. I trully don't car about Richard's ban, but I want to be able to find is content on the subbreddit if I want to.
As far as I know RL is the only person that leagueoflegends has ever banned.
Him and, you know, everyone who dared mention his name on the subreddit. I think all attempts at logically defending r/lol in this situation evaporates when confronted with the fact that they actually banned people for daring to say Richard Lewis or mentioning r/riotfreelol or any other number of "infractions."
I assume what's actually happening is that the RL cesspool commenters get banned for being, you know, terrible, and then they declare to all who will listen that they are but martyrs at the stake, pilloried for merely mentioning The Forbidden One, when in actuality they were just shitposting and getting rightfully banned for it. These are true shitposters and one of the reasons I mostly stay on TL is because we are totally strict about kicking them the fuck out. It's sad that the subreddit can't do the same without people bitching about corruption.
As far as I know RL is the only person that leagueoflegends has ever banned.
Him and, you know, everyone who dared mention his name on the subreddit. I think all attempts at logically defending r/lol in this situation evaporates when confronted with the fact that they actually banned people for daring to say Richard Lewis or mentioning r/riotfreelol or any other number of "infractions."
Are you sure about this? I've seen many mentions of his name, "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named", Lichard Rewis, and other references to RL left up with no action taken against the users. Often they're heavily upvoted comments, too, so it's not like they are sneaking under the radar.
On May 12 2015 00:24 GrandInquisitor wrote: These are true shitposters and one of the reasons I mostly stay on TL is because we are totally strict about kicking them the fuck out. It's sad that the subreddit can't do the same without people bitching about corruption.
The delicious irony of it is, TL is paid by Riot. We have way more monetary incentive to toe the Rito party line here than /r/lol does.
I've seen plenty of normal posts just mentioning RL get banned/deleted upon a page refresh, especially in the early days of the thread. It eventually got to a point where public backlash was so great that every post was "Lichard Rewis," at which point I think the mods realized it was a bad idea and gave up.
They remove posts that try and talk about the content ban or posts which ask for or give the source of the information in the thread. They also removed comments linking to /r/riotfreelol or /r/lolesports or any other subreddit to discuss news.
They spent some time removing news with no mention of Richard Lewis because Richard Lewis reported it first, even if the post contains no link to any other website or if it has been reported by someone else.
Yeah that to me falls under the category of shitposting and should all get deleted. These posts aren't deleted "just for mentioning RL" -- there are lots of RL posts that aren't deleted, and they wouldn't show up in this image -- they're deleted because they're useless and don't contribute. (Of course the authors of those posts tell everyone that they got banned/their posts deleted because they were pro-RL.) Just imagine posting that shit on TL, how long would you last?
To be clear -- lots of the posts that are left are garbage too, and should also be deleted, but that doesn't excuse these posts. Note that some of the deleted posts are also pro-moderators/anti-RL.
I just find it ironic that TL members are up in arms about this, when the whole reason TL exists today is because it was notorious for incredibly strict moderation standards. That's what you have to do to keep a forum healthy. Discussion forums go downhill when shitposting is tolerated instead of ruthlessly excised.
On May 12 2015 00:43 GrandInquisitor wrote: Yeah that to me falls under the category of shitposting and should all get deleted. These posts aren't deleted "just for mentioning RL" -- there are lots of RL posts that aren't deleted, and they wouldn't show up in this image -- they're deleted because they're useless and don't contribute. (Of course the authors of those posts tell everyone that they got banned/their posts deleted because they were pro-RL.) Just imagine posting that shit on TL, how long would you last?
To be clear -- lots of the posts that are left are garbage too, and should also be deleted, but that doesn't excuse these posts. Note that some of the deleted posts are also pro-moderators/anti-RL.
It's about posting standards. Reddit doesn't moderate posts except in rare occasions, and "low content" posting is the norm there. The difference between the posts that got deleted and the ones that got left up is basically only RL/Daily Dot/riotfreelol. All else being equal it's easy to see that's why those posts were deleted/the users banned.
On May 12 2015 00:43 GrandInquisitor wrote: I just find it ironic that TL members are up in arms about this, when the whole reason TL exists today is because it was notorious for incredibly strict moderation standards.
I think we can all agree that we are all for that. Emphasis on "standarts".
On May 12 2015 00:43 GrandInquisitor wrote: Yeah that to me falls under the category of shitposting and should all get deleted. These posts aren't deleted "just for mentioning RL" -- there are lots of RL posts that aren't deleted, and they wouldn't show up in this image -- they're deleted because they're useless and don't contribute. (Of course the authors of those posts tell everyone that they got banned/their posts deleted because they were pro-RL.) Just imagine posting that shit on TL, how long would you last?
To be clear -- lots of the posts that are left are garbage too, and should also be deleted, but that doesn't excuse these posts. Note that some of the deleted posts are also pro-moderators/anti-RL.
It's about posting standards. Reddit doesn't moderate posts except in rare occasions, and "low content" posting is the norm there. The difference between the posts that got deleted and the ones that got left up is basically only RL/Daily Dot/riotfreelol. All else being equal it's easy to see that's why those posts were deleted/the users banned.
I don't understand -- I literally just linked you an entire page of RL/Daily Dot/riotfreelol spam posts that are still alive days after being posted. Your claim that "users are banned for merely mentioning RL" is therefore obviously untrue.
More to the point though, are you saying those shouldn't be deleted? Because they totally should be, and in many cases they aren't. Reddit moderation standards are way too low, I agree, but that doesn't mean we shit on them for making it better.
On May 12 2015 00:43 GrandInquisitor wrote: I just find it ironic that TL members are up in arms about this, when the whole reason TL exists today is because it was notorious for incredibly strict moderation standards. That's what you have to do to keep a forum healthy. Discussion forums go downhill when shitposting is tolerated instead of ruthlessly excised.
I'm not up in arms about strict moderation standards (nor am I really up in arms or legs or any other limbs), but I think r/lol mods should be called out on their specious reasoning. The issue here is obviously not moderation standards/shitposting/etc., If they straight up said "I don't like RL I'm gonna ban him and anyone who mentions him" then sure, at least they're being upfront about it - their site their rules and I can respect that. r/lol mods instead keep changing their story/stance/reasoning every other post and hide behind the shield of "moderation standards" or some other silly reason when that's obviously not what this is about.
On May 12 2015 00:43 GrandInquisitor wrote: Yeah that to me falls under the category of shitposting and should all get deleted. These posts aren't deleted "just for mentioning RL" -- there are lots of RL posts that aren't deleted, and they wouldn't show up in this image -- they're deleted because they're useless and don't contribute. (Of course the authors of those posts tell everyone that they got banned/their posts deleted because they were pro-RL.) Just imagine posting that shit on TL, how long would you last?
To be clear -- lots of the posts that are left are garbage too, and should also be deleted, but that doesn't excuse these posts. Note that some of the deleted posts are also pro-moderators/anti-RL.
It's about posting standards. Reddit doesn't moderate posts except in rare occasions, and "low content" posting is the norm there. The difference between the posts that got deleted and the ones that got left up is basically only RL/Daily Dot/riotfreelol. All else being equal it's easy to see that's why those posts were deleted/the users banned.
I don't understand -- I literally just linked you an entire page of RL/Daily Dot/riotfreelol spam posts that are still alive days after being posted. Your claim that "users are banned for merely mentioning RL" is therefore obviously untrue.
More to the point though, are you saying those shouldn't be deleted? Because they totally should be, and in many cases they aren't. Reddit moderation standards are way too low, I agree, but that doesn't mean we shit on them for making it better.
As I said - they started banning but stopped when they realized the public backlash was too strong and they can't delete 5,000 posts every 10 minutes.
I have had no interaction with RL content before this fiasco, but I cannot believe people are defending the reddit mods. This is a clear abuse of power even if it is legal for them to ban him and his content at any time for any reason, that doesn't make it -right-
Also, to clear something up no one is saying that RL being -banned- is him being harmed in an illegal sense (and if they are they are wrong), although it would certainly harm any content creator.
The "harm" that is being discussed is the harm to his reputation based on their statements about him, such as doxxing threat etc, which he has shown to be false; that is unfounded damage to reputation. This is giving him a negative reputation among users who were not aware of the situation. That is harm to reputation, which is illegal.
Whether you like RL or not, that is not what this is about, this is about: An organisation which claims a moral high ground, boasting itself as a platform for free discussion in order to make a profit, literally censoring someone because some mods had a fallout with someone.
Legal or not, if the hypocrisy of that does not anger you, I don't know what will.
Once again, this is not about if you like RL or not, this is not about if you think RL deserved a ban or not, this is about a self professed platform for discussion where the "community" decides what is good and what is not good. Policing what content is allowed to even be given a platform, based on personal bias, while claiming otherwise.
EDIT: Also, comparisons to TL are completely unfounded, TL is not advertising itself in the same way as reddit. Part of the draw to TL is that the mods not only police posts and content, but that they do it well. Reddit runs the guise of a community driven environment and is acting against that by dictating content that the community is allowed to interact with. TL's ten commandments set the tone.
On May 12 2015 00:43 GrandInquisitor wrote: I just find it ironic that TL members are up in arms about this, when the whole reason TL exists today is because it was notorious for incredibly strict moderation standards. That's what you have to do to keep a forum healthy. Discussion forums go downhill when shitposting is tolerated instead of ruthlessly excised.
I'm not up in arms about strict moderation standards (nor am I really up in arms or legs or any other limbs), but I think r/lol mods should be called out on their specious reasoning. The issue here is obviously not moderation standards/shitposting/etc., If they straight up said "I don't like RL I'm gonna ban him and anyone who mentions him" then sure, at least they're being upfront about it - their site their rules and I can respect that. r/lol mods instead keep changing their story/stance/reasoning every other post and hide behind the shield of "moderation standards" or some other silly reason when that's obviously not what this is about.
But they did do that. They said, we're banning all of RL's content and discussion related to that content is offtopic. I don't see where their story is changing, or what specious reasoning they're using. Don't claim that you would respect them for this, because they did exactly that and you obviously just disagree with their action.
On May 12 2015 01:10 Raneth wrote: Once again, this is not about if you like RL or not, this is not about if you think RL deserved a ban or not, this is about a self professed platform for discussion where the "community" decides what is good and what is not good. Policing what content is allowed to even be given a platform, based on personal bias, while claiming otherwise.
I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the situation. RL was banned from the subreddit before he picked a fight with the mods. He then got others to submit his work, and then engaged in a ton of fighting and feuding by proxy in the comments by having his twitter followers brigade the comment sections of each of his articles. Under the circumstances banning his content is both justified and reasonable. He brought it on himself. It's a little weird that this pseudo-democratic content aggregator now no longer features content from this one person, but honestly, it makes for a better environment, and the cost is well worth the benefit.
Reddit is a community-driven environment, and it's the community that has chosen to reject RL. True, there wasn't a vote held or anything like that, but if the community actually cared about RL material that much, they'd go to RiotFreeLoL. The fact that they don't means that it doesn't matter to them enough. It's a community-driven environment run by some dictators, and yet everyone chooses to stay. And they choose to stay because that's the only way these community-driven environments are viable. The best subreddits on LoL (AskScience, AskHistorians) are ruled with an iron fist, and I wish leagueoflegends was more like them.
Reddit is a community-driven environment, and it's the community that has chosen to reject RL. True, there wasn't a vote held or anything like that, but if the community actually cared about RL material that much, they'd go to RiotFreeLoL. The fact that they don't means that it doesn't matter to them enough. It's a community-driven environment run by some dictators, and yet everyone chooses to stay. And they choose to stay because that's the only way these community-driven environments are viable. The best subreddits on LoL (AskScience, AskHistorians) are ruled with an iron fist, and I wish leagueoflegends was more like them.
What a ridiculous false dichotomy. The community is literally speaking up against the decision, but because they don't want to move from the current monopoly holder to a clearly inferior alternative they don't care? Are you seriously suggesting that?
Reddit is a community-driven environment, and it's the community that has chosen to reject RL. True, there wasn't a vote held or anything like that, but if the community actually cared about RL material that much, they'd go to RiotFreeLoL. The fact that they don't means that it doesn't matter to them enough. It's a community-driven environment run by some dictators, and yet everyone chooses to stay. And they choose to stay because that's the only way these community-driven environments are viable. The best subreddits on LoL (AskScience, AskHistorians) are ruled with an iron fist, and I wish leagueoflegends was more like them.
What a ridiculous false dichotomy. The community is literally speaking up against the decision, but because they don't want to move from the current monopoly holder to a clearly inferior alternative they don't care? Are you seriously suggesting that?
Are they actually speaking up, or are you just focusing on the posts that are complaining? You can't just conflate a few members of the RL twitter brigade with the community as a whole.
Subscribing to RiotFreeLoL is easy and doesn't implicate network effects at all: it's literally just a button that says, "If this becomes a thing, I want to see posts from it." You don't have to unsub from the main subreddit: if you cared even one iota about RL, you could just sign up and continue using leagueoflegends. And yet despite months of spam and advertisement via Reddit and Twitter and Facebook, a frankly pathetic number of people have chosen to subscribe. That's how little most people care about RL or his content being banned.
That's what I mean when I say the community chose to reject RL. As I described earlier, the xkcd subreddit chose to reject its moderators and moved to the hugely successful xkcdcomic subreddit instead. That was in a subreddit with literally automatic rules to permanently ban anyone that mentioned the xkcdcomic subreddit (or even the word "sidebar", since the sidebar included links to 9/11 trutherism and theredpill). So it's possible, it's just that people don't care to do it here because honestly, RL doesn't matter.
On May 12 2015 01:33 GrandInquisitor wrote: But they did do that. They said, we're banning all of RL's content and discussion related to that content is offtopic. I don't see where their story is changing, or what specious reasoning they're using.
However, as time went on, it was clear that Richard was intent on using twitter to send brigades to the subreddit to disrupt and cheat the vote system by downvoting negative views of Richard and upvoting positive views.
He has also specifically targeted several individual moderators and redditors in an attempt to harass them, leading at least one redditor to delete his account shortly after having his comment brigaded
Already they're giving mixed messages - are they banning RL because he's "disrupting the voting system" (a la Ongamers) or are they banning him because he's harassing mods? OK, fine, maybe it's both, you can have two reasons, nothing wrong with that. But there was never any evidence provided of RL's supposed vote brigading beyond what is frequently done by many other prominent community members (linking on Twitter). If you want to ban people from linking to comments on Twitter, go for it, but instead it appears to be allowed for everyone except for this one guy who you just happen to not get along with. This accusation is obviously meant to try to link the RL ban to the Ongamers ban to drum up sympathy, since that ban is generally agreed to be proper.
The ban is 100% because RL attacked some r/lol mods and the mods got scared. He was already personally banned on the subreddit for being abusive towards community members, which had no effect on his content. The content ban is retribution for RL's attack of some moderators.
Again, this would be fine if this is what they opened with, but they tried to hide behind some pretense of vote brigading to try to justify the ban.
We will also not allow any rehosted content from this individual. If we see users making a habit of trying to work around this ban, we will ban them. Fair warning.
This, and many other comments, definitely do not fall under "users making a habit of trying to work around this ban." In addition, the mods are wildly inconsistent with their enforcement of this "policy," which entails banning posts that mention RL, r/riotfreelol, or even jus tasking for a source, but then stopping when the public backlash becomes too great.
Don't claim that you would respect them for this, because they did exactly that and you obviously just disagree with their action.
I don't see how you could possibly know that since that is not what they did. I obviously disagree with the action but it's not on the ground of some moral outrage or fervent support of RL, but I do think it's important for the r/lol moderators to be called out on their duplicity. If you think the r/lol mods are blameless in thir then I have nothing left to say, that was the extent of my point anyways and if you disagree I doubt I can change your mind on it. I think r/lol has huge issues as a community in terms of identity, moderation, and influence, and I think it's important to point those out whenever the opportunity arises.
This whole conversation is redundant. The issue is:
(1) They market themselves as a forum for discussion where the community decides what is good/bad. With up/down votes. (If the community "chooses" there is content they don't want to see, they will down vote it.) This is unique from the more common system of moderation. (2) The mod team has decided to take it upon themselves to choose -for- the community by simply removing the content, any discussion about the content, or any discussion about if the removal of the content was just. (3) While there is nothing illegal about (2) it is in direct contradiction of (1)
If the mod team wishes to enforce (2) it must accept that (1) is false and lose credibility as a result, rather than trying to censor content while maintaining some sort of air of supreme objectivity in an argument based on personal preference of some Mods. This is the issue.
I think the ban has 99% to do with RL threatening to release private information and maybe 1% with vote brigade.
I mean RL already said in this thread that the mods' info are fair game because they hold considerable power. Reddit has an obligation to protect the mods' interests and decided to ban RL.
But it would be difficult to justify a ban based on perceived threats of releasing information (it might even be libel). So Reddit picked brigading instead.
On May 12 2015 02:00 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Already they're giving mixed messages - are they banning RL because he's "disrupting the voting system" (a la Ongamers) or are they banning him because he's harassing mods? OK, fine, maybe it's both, you can have two reasons, nothing wrong with that. But there was never any evidence provided of RL's supposed vote brigading beyond what is frequently done by many other prominent community members (linking on Twitter). If you want to ban people from linking to comments on Twitter, go for it, but instead it appears to be allowed for everyone except for this one guy who you just happen to not get along with. This accusation is obviously meant to try to link the RL ban to the Ongamers ban to drum up sympathy, since that ban is generally agreed to be proper.
The ban is 100% because RL attacked some r/lol mods and the mods got scared. He was already personally banned on the subreddit for being abusive towards community members, which had no effect on his content. The content ban is retribution for RL's attack of some moderators.
Again, this would be fine if this is what they opened with, but they tried to hide behind some pretense of vote brigading to try to justify the ban.
See here, you're saying:
They didn't give any good reasons Actually they sort of did but I don't agree with those reasons Since they didn't give any reasons it's just retribution for his attacks
Their reasons are pretty solid. He linked a bunch of comments and each time caused lots of downvote brigades. It happened over and over again, and he didn't explicitly tell them to do anything, but it seems clear he did it intending them to do it, and knowing they would do it. Other people do it, but none to the same extent, and more importantly, none that cause the same kinds of behavior. He was asked not to do it, and refused.
Now you might not agree with those reasons, and think it's weird, but let's say Louis CK was petty enough to read the comments of all his posts in a certain subreddit, and then post to twitter certain flamewars between his fans and people who hate him, such that all of his posts ended up being giant shitshows where his fans mass upvote/downvote stuff, and that Louis CK did this over and over and over again, then that subreddit's moderators would probably have to take action too. RL is only "singled out" because he's the only person to have done this, apparently.
It's kind of a weird arbitrary line, I agree, but life and law are full of weird arbitrary lines. Most of the time people can link to reddit discussions and be fine. Sometimes people abuse the system, and then they get punished for it, and then they'll point to unpunished similar behavior, and you have no perfect way to distinguish the two situations sometimes except for the "I know it when I see it" rule.
I'm just not that troubled by that. It happens all the time in the justice system. That's the point of case law. You don't know where exactly the line should be drawn, but you do know that this particular case is over the line.
We will also not allow any rehosted content from this individual. If we see users making a habit of trying to work around this ban, we will ban them. Fair warning.
This, and many other comments, definitely do not fall under "users making a habit of trying to work around this ban." In addition, the mods are wildly inconsistent with their enforcement of this "policy," which entails banning posts that mention RL, r/riotfreelol, or even jus tasking for a source, but then stopping when the public backlash becomes too great.
I agree these aren't "users making a habit of trying to work around this ban", but aren't there other reasons to delete posts? These seem to be justifiably deleted under the no-relation-to-lol rule. One of those posts is even pro-moderators and got deleted.
On May 12 2015 02:36 Sufficiency wrote: I think the ban has 99% to do with RL threatening to release private information and maybe 1% with vote brigade.
I mean RL already said in this thread that the mods' info are fair game because they hold considerable power. Reddit has an obligation to protect the mods' interests and decided to ban RL.
But it would be difficult to justify a ban based on perceived threats of releasing information (it might even be libel). So Reddit picked brigading instead.
Now I'm the one confused. Are we discussing RL's ban by Reddit as a whole, or by the leagueoflegends subreddit? I'm pretty sure Reddit as a whole didn't ban RL, as evidenced by RiotFreeLoL.
As for the threatening to release moderator personal information, that surely does not help matters. Do you all think that that's a more justifiable reason to ban his content, or less justifiable? Or does it just meld together into a totality-of-the-circumstances thing?
On May 12 2015 02:22 Raneth wrote: This whole conversation is redundant. The issue is:
(1) They market themselves as a forum for discussion where the community decides what is good/bad. With up/down votes. (If the community "chooses" there is content they don't want to see, they will down vote it.) This is unique from the more common system of moderation. (2) The mod team has decided to take it upon themselves to choose -for- the community by simply removing the content, any discussion about the content, or any discussion about if the removal of the content was just. (3) While there is nothing illegal about (2) it is in direct contradiction of (1)
If the mod team wishes to enforce (2) it must accept that (1) is false and lose credibility as a result, rather than trying to censor content while maintaining some sort of air of supreme objectivity in an argument based on personal preference of some Mods. This is the issue.
If Richard Lewis is smart he changes his name and alias and starts posting stuff under another name. Mabye new haircut and some minor face changes and he can again post on reddit.
On May 12 2015 02:22 Raneth wrote: This whole conversation is redundant. The issue is:
(1) They market themselves as a forum for discussion where the community decides what is good/bad. With up/down votes. (If the community "chooses" there is content they don't want to see, they will down vote it.) This is unique from the more common system of moderation. (2) The mod team has decided to take it upon themselves to choose -for- the community by simply removing the content, any discussion about the content, or any discussion about if the removal of the content was just. (3) While there is nothing illegal about (2) it is in direct contradiction of (1)
If the mod team wishes to enforce (2) it must accept that (1) is false and lose credibility as a result, rather than trying to censor content while maintaining some sort of air of supreme objectivity in an argument based on personal preference of some Mods. This is the issue.
I have the exact same view.
Upvotes/downvotes just doesn't work as a system by itself. The best subreddits are heavily moderated subreddits like AskHistorians or AskScience. Under your theory, moderators shouldn't even exist. What if I just post porn to leagueoflegends, and let the community decide? Less extreme example, what if I just post image macros? You'd have a front page of a ton of garbage -- or rather, garbage even more garbagey than what's there now.
I guess my point is, a whole lot of content is already censored from your view. Adding one more, because its author is a big dickhole to the moderators and the community, isn't that big a deal to me. A truly free, democratic content aggregator is a pretty shitty thing.
On May 12 2015 02:22 Raneth wrote: This whole conversation is redundant. The issue is:
(1) They market themselves as a forum for discussion where the community decides what is good/bad. With up/down votes. (If the community "chooses" there is content they don't want to see, they will down vote it.) This is unique from the more common system of moderation. (2) The mod team has decided to take it upon themselves to choose -for- the community by simply removing the content, any discussion about the content, or any discussion about if the removal of the content was just. (3) While there is nothing illegal about (2) it is in direct contradiction of (1)
If the mod team wishes to enforce (2) it must accept that (1) is false and lose credibility as a result, rather than trying to censor content while maintaining some sort of air of supreme objectivity in an argument based on personal preference of some Mods. This is the issue.
I have the exact same view.
Upvotes/downvotes just doesn't work as a system by itself. The best subreddits are heavily moderated subreddits like AskHistorians or AskScience. Under your theory, moderators shouldn't even exist. What if I just post porn to leagueoflegends, and let the community decide? Less extreme example, what if I just post image macros? You'd have a front page of a ton of garbage -- or rather, garbage even more garbagey than what's there now.
I guess my point is, a whole lot of content is already censored from your view. Adding one more, because its author is a big dickhole to the moderators and the community, isn't that big a deal to me. A truly free, democratic content aggregator is a pretty shitty thing.
Our point still stands if you say you are community driven and deletes thread which are apparently consumed by the community then it contradicts with your statement. It also doesnt make sense that you can link to post for sharing but can't share them on social media.
On May 12 2015 02:22 Raneth wrote: This whole conversation is redundant. The issue is:
(1) They market themselves as a forum for discussion where the community decides what is good/bad. With up/down votes. (If the community "chooses" there is content they don't want to see, they will down vote it.) This is unique from the more common system of moderation. (2) The mod team has decided to take it upon themselves to choose -for- the community by simply removing the content, any discussion about the content, or any discussion about if the removal of the content was just. (3) While there is nothing illegal about (2) it is in direct contradiction of (1)
If the mod team wishes to enforce (2) it must accept that (1) is false and lose credibility as a result, rather than trying to censor content while maintaining some sort of air of supreme objectivity in an argument based on personal preference of some Mods. This is the issue.
I have the exact same view.
Upvotes/downvotes just doesn't work as a system by itself. The best subreddits are heavily moderated subreddits like AskHistorians or AskScience. Under your theory, moderators shouldn't even exist. What if I just post porn to leagueoflegends, and let the community decide? Less extreme example, what if I just post image macros? You'd have a front page of a ton of garbage -- or rather, garbage even more garbagey than what's there now.
I guess my point is, a whole lot of content is already censored from your view. Adding one more, because its author is a big dickhole to the moderators and the community, isn't that big a deal to me. A truly free, democratic content aggregator is a pretty shitty thing.
It's different if he's one of the biggest news reporters on the LoL scene. He posted the article on DD about Incarnat0n taking mid lane for C9, and you must've seen the shitshow with all the topics being banned and then reinstated once they dropped ties to DD and RL. It's just awkward for no real reason, because RL can still pick out reddit posts on social media and have his fans downvote them anyways, so their solution doesn't even fix one of the major two problems that they decided to ban his content for anyways. Banning RL for being a dick was totally reasonable, banning his content because of personal issues that arose between him and the moderators is criminally stupid.
On May 12 2015 00:43 GrandInquisitor wrote: Yeah that to me falls under the category of shitposting and should all get deleted. These posts aren't deleted "just for mentioning RL" -- there are lots of RL posts that aren't deleted, and they wouldn't show up in this image -- they're deleted because they're useless and don't contribute. (Of course the authors of those posts tell everyone that they got banned/their posts deleted because they were pro-RL.) Just imagine posting that shit on TL, how long would you last?
To be clear -- lots of the posts that are left are garbage too, and should also be deleted, but that doesn't excuse these posts. Note that some of the deleted posts are also pro-moderators/anti-RL.
It's about posting standards. Reddit doesn't moderate posts except in rare occasions, and "low content" posting is the norm there. The difference between the posts that got deleted and the ones that got left up is basically only RL/Daily Dot/riotfreelol. All else being equal it's easy to see that's why those posts were deleted/the users banned.
I don't understand -- I literally just linked you an entire page of RL/Daily Dot/riotfreelol spam posts that are still alive days after being posted. Your claim that "users are banned for merely mentioning RL" is therefore obviously untrue.
More to the point though, are you saying those shouldn't be deleted? Because they totally should be, and in many cases they aren't. Reddit moderation standards are way too low, I agree, but that doesn't mean we shit on them for making it better.
I think the point of reddit is that moderation standards are low :-/ Some subreddits have strict rules, but within them people have much freedom, and outside of them things get immediately shut down. The /r/lol problem is that even before the content ban, they had an unwritten set of rules that read "unless you are RLewis". Then they sprung that invisible ruleset in the content ban announcement.
On May 12 2015 02:00 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Already they're giving mixed messages - are they banning RL because he's "disrupting the voting system" (a la Ongamers) or are they banning him because he's harassing mods? OK, fine, maybe it's both, you can have two reasons, nothing wrong with that. But there was never any evidence provided of RL's supposed vote brigading beyond what is frequently done by many other prominent community members (linking on Twitter). If you want to ban people from linking to comments on Twitter, go for it, but instead it appears to be allowed for everyone except for this one guy who you just happen to not get along with. This accusation is obviously meant to try to link the RL ban to the Ongamers ban to drum up sympathy, since that ban is generally agreed to be proper.
The ban is 100% because RL attacked some r/lol mods and the mods got scared. He was already personally banned on the subreddit for being abusive towards community members, which had no effect on his content. The content ban is retribution for RL's attack of some moderators.
Again, this would be fine if this is what they opened with, but they tried to hide behind some pretense of vote brigading to try to justify the ban.
See here, you're saying:
They didn't give any good reasons Actually they sort of did but I don't agree with those reasons Since they didn't give any reasons it's just retribution for his attacks
Their reasons are pretty solid. He linked a bunch of comments and each time caused lots of downvote brigades. It happened over and over again, and he didn't explicitly tell them to do anything, but it seems clear he did it intending them to do it, and knowing they would do it. Other people do it, but none to the same extent, and more importantly, none that cause the same kinds of behavior. He was asked not to do it, and refused.
Now you might not agree with those reasons, and think it's weird, but let's say Louis CK was petty enough to read the comments of all his posts in a certain subreddit, and then post to twitter certain flamewars between his fans and people who hate him, such that all of his posts ended up being giant shitshows where his fans mass upvote/downvote stuff, and that Louis CK did this over and over and over again, then that subreddit's moderators would probably have to take action too. RL is only "singled out" because he's the only person to have done this, apparently.
It's kind of a weird arbitrary line, I agree, but life and law are full of weird arbitrary lines. Most of the time people can link to reddit discussions and be fine. Sometimes people abuse the system, and then they get punished for it, and then they'll point to unpunished similar behavior, and you have no perfect way to distinguish the two situations sometimes except for the "I know it when I see it" rule.
I'm just not that troubled by that. It happens all the time in the justice system. That's the point of case law. You don't know where exactly the line should be drawn, but you do know that this particular case is over the line.
We will also not allow any rehosted content from this individual. If we see users making a habit of trying to work around this ban, we will ban them. Fair warning.
This, and many other comments, definitely do not fall under "users making a habit of trying to work around this ban." In addition, the mods are wildly inconsistent with their enforcement of this "policy," which entails banning posts that mention RL, r/riotfreelol, or even jus tasking for a source, but then stopping when the public backlash becomes too great.
I agree these aren't "users making a habit of trying to work around this ban", but aren't there other reasons to delete posts? These seem to be justifiably deleted under the no-relation-to-lol rule. One of those posts is even pro-moderators and got deleted.
On May 12 2015 02:36 Sufficiency wrote: I think the ban has 99% to do with RL threatening to release private information and maybe 1% with vote brigade.
I mean RL already said in this thread that the mods' info are fair game because they hold considerable power. Reddit has an obligation to protect the mods' interests and decided to ban RL.
But it would be difficult to justify a ban based on perceived threats of releasing information (it might even be libel). So Reddit picked brigading instead.
Now I'm the one confused. Are we discussing RL's ban by Reddit as a whole, or by the leagueoflegends subreddit? I'm pretty sure Reddit as a whole didn't ban RL, as evidenced by RiotFreeLoL.
As for the threatening to release moderator personal information, that surely does not help matters. Do you all think that that's a more justifiable reason to ban his content, or less justifiable? Or does it just meld together into a totality-of-the-circumstances thing?
I believe the content ban of RL on /r/lol is sanctioned by reddit admins. You can see several interaction of him and RL on RL's video.
On May 11 2015 05:15 Chexx wrote: I still think the main reason why the Subreddit didnt receive your NDA message was that you weaved together the news and your opinion.
I think it would have been better to separate it
News, why its unusual (no other subreddit does it) etc
My opinion: your thoughts here why its bad etc
There was zero editorialising in the article but circlejerks are gonna circle.
On May 11 2015 05:15 Chexx wrote: I still think the main reason why the Subreddit didnt receive your NDA message was that you weaved together the news and your opinion.
I think it would have been better to separate it
News, why its unusual (no other subreddit does it) etc
My opinion: your thoughts here why its bad etc
There was zero editorialising in the article but circlejerks are gonna circle.
yeah I agree. I just read the article again probably got comments from you on the topic mixed up
On May 11 2015 05:15 Chexx wrote: I still think the main reason why the Subreddit didnt receive your NDA message was that you weaved together the news and your opinion.
I think it would have been better to separate it
News, why its unusual (no other subreddit does it) etc
My opinion: your thoughts here why its bad etc
There was zero editorialising in the article but circlejerks are gonna circle.
I think you have to consider that while you may be correct, the average reader is unlikely to be keen enough to make these subtle distinctions. For the average Redditor, "RLewis" is a conflation of your officially published articles, tweets, offhand remakes, and replies. I don't think this is a good situation, but if you want to be active in this field you have to be cognizant of these realities.
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.
Disclaimer: The author of this story was banned from the League of Legends subreddit shortly before this article's publication.
It's cute that you didn't mention why you were banned, so that your readers could think that your ban was due to your article, rather than the other way around. I guess you look less sympathetic when you write "Disclaimer: The author of this story was recently banned from the League of Legends subreddit for mocking a user's suicidal tendencies after having been repeatedly warned for abusive behavior."
I like RL's articles on roster swaps, but when it comes to Riot-related stuff it's hard to not take a huge grain of salt. Seeing the well known conflict between RL and Riot, it's not hard to see the conflict of interest when RL reports an event related to Riot.
Putting the NDA aside (which has been analyzed to death already and even Bryce says it's not a concern), I remember that was a RL article about several people's hard drives getting deleted due to some sort of LoL hack's malicious code. In that article, RL wrote a line that says something along the line of "Riot's past initiatives against hacks were largely ineffective". To me, that's just a line of pure comedy - since there is absolutely no way RL can know about the effectiveness one way or another. It was written just to take a jab at Riot Games.
Sure, I think RL can be biased against Riot due to their past relationships, but it gets ironic sometimes especially when RL does talk about journalistic integrity a lot.
On May 13 2015 03:14 Sufficiency wrote: I like RL's articles on roster swaps, but when it comes to Riot-related stuff it's hard to not take a huge grain of salt. Seeing the well known conflict between RL and Riot, it's not hard to see the conflict of interest when RL reports an event related to Riot. ... Sure, I think RL can be biased against Riot due to their past relationships, but it does get comedic sometimes especially when RL does talk about journalistic integrity a lot.
Do you remember the ESL/Deman controversy? Where RL wrote articles blaming Riot for something that ESL did, desperate to stay on good terms with ESL? To me that was the most potent example of RL's "journalistic integrity" in action. (Also, as Deman learned, exactly how much RL cares about his friends.)
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.
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.
A lot of people don't like RL on reddit. Some of the hatred is understandable, IMO, although a lot of it is also unfair for RL.
Don't automatically assume his work is automatically loved and accepted by the community. His roster swap articles are awesome, but when Riot gets involved it becomes a shitfest. In fact, I feel that his report on the reddit mods, especially on the NDA, heavily damaged the community. To this day I do not know why KoreanTerran quitted modding except that he was apparently threatened by RL.
On May 13 2015 05:16 Raneth wrote: the point is -the community should decide- not the reddit mods, and CERTAINLY not you.
That's really what this boils down to. I added a word for emphasis as well. I'm pretty sure every point in this debate has been established, and really one side won't make the other feel any better about their standing. It's a shame that two very important things in the League of Legends following (yes reddit and RL are both significantly important) have to clash in an unproductive way but such is life.
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.
A lot of people don't like RL on reddit. Some of the hatred is understandable, IMO, although a lot of it is also unfair for RL.
Don't automatically assume his work is automatically loved and accepted by the community. His roster swap articles are awesome, but when Riot gets involved it becomes a shitfest. In fact, I feel that his report on the reddit mods, especially on the NDA, heavily damaged the community. To this day I do not know why KoreanTerran quitted modding except that he was apparently threatened by RL.
Where did I assume his work is loved? Re-read what I said, and stop trying to make this an argument about who does, or does not, like RL or his work THAT IS NOT WHAT THE DEBATE IS ABOUT
The idea the community has decided in favor of r/lol mods and against RL is obviously not true, as evidenced by threads like this that pop up every day lol -
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.
A lot of people don't like RL on reddit. Some of the hatred is understandable, IMO, although a lot of it is also unfair for RL.
Don't automatically assume his work is automatically loved and accepted by the community. His roster swap articles are awesome, but when Riot gets involved it becomes a shitfest. In fact, I feel that his report on the reddit mods, especially on the NDA, heavily damaged the community. To this day I do not know why KoreanTerran quitted modding except that he was apparently threatened by RL.
Where did I assume his work is loved? Re-read what I said, and stop trying to make this an argument about who does, or does not, like RL or his work THAT IS NOT WHAT THE DEBATE IS ABOUT
First of all, not everyone likes RL's contents. I, for one, don't like his Riot related material because I find them too biased. I am not the only one out there. You know this. It's a very politically charged topic.
Secondly, the community doesn't decide what is allowed and what is not allowed. If the community decides, we will get rule34 material on the front page 24/7. There are also other examples of good subreddits with strong moderation and subreddits going to shit due to bad moderation. The moderators should be allowed to decide what are and what are not allowed on the subreddit.
The user decides what are good and what are bad within the material in a subreddit that complies to subreddit rules.
On May 13 2015 06:16 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: The idea the community has decided in favor of r/lol mods and against RL is obviously not true, as evidenced by threads like this that pop up every day lol -
Remove all discussions about relevant news or about the content ban within minutes, allow Richard Lewis spam for 30. They're reaching the front page faster now though it seems.
Also to the people talking about comment standards and the amount of shitposting, I may have misunderstood but I thought that was the point of Reddit.
On May 13 2015 06:16 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: The idea the community has decided in favor of r/lol mods and against RL is obviously not true, as evidenced by threads like this that pop up every day lol -
On May 13 2015 06:16 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: The idea the community has decided in favor of r/lol mods and against RL is obviously not true, as evidenced by threads like this that pop up every day lol -
On May 13 2015 06:16 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: The idea the community has decided in favor of r/lol mods and against RL is obviously not true, as evidenced by threads like this that pop up every day lol -
On May 13 2015 06:16 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: The idea the community has decided in favor of r/lol mods and against RL is obviously not true, as evidenced by threads like this that pop up every day lol -
It shows that some people like him, sure. But like I said, it's a political mess at the moment and RL also has tons of anti-fans.
The easiest way to deal with this kind of issues is to ban the topic outright so no one can discuss it. GD has some of these blacklisted topics too.
TL doesn't market itself as a free discourse platform like Reddit does is the difference.
Actually reddit is still very free.
Unlike a forum, I can make my own subreddit in many shapes and forms and run it so long as it is within the rules of the site. If you don't think it's free your definition of it is too narrow.
On May 13 2015 06:16 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: The idea the community has decided in favor of r/lol mods and against RL is obviously not true, as evidenced by threads like this that pop up every day lol -
It shows that some people like him, sure. But like I said, it's a political mess at the moment and RL also has tons of anti-fans.
The easiest way to deal with this kind of issues is to ban the topic outright so no one can discuss it. GD has some of these blacklisted topics too.
TL doesn't market itself as a free discourse platform like Reddit does is the difference.
Actually reddit is still very free.
Unlike a forum, I can make my own subreddit in many shapes and forms and run it so long as it is within the rules of the site. If you don't think it's free your definition of it is too narrow.
The LoL subreddit has like 700,000 people subscribed and gets millions of hits per day. It's not as simple as make your own one because they are the default discussion board for league of legends.
On May 13 2015 06:16 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: The idea the community has decided in favor of r/lol mods and against RL is obviously not true, as evidenced by threads like this that pop up every day lol -
It shows that some people like him, sure. But like I said, it's a political mess at the moment and RL also has tons of anti-fans.
The easiest way to deal with this kind of issues is to ban the topic outright so no one can discuss it. GD has some of these blacklisted topics too.
TL doesn't market itself as a free discourse platform like Reddit does is the difference.
Actually reddit is still very free.
Unlike a forum, I can make my own subreddit in many shapes and forms and run it so long as it is within the rules of the site. If you don't think it's free your definition of it is too narrow.
The LoL subreddit has like 700,000 people subscribed and gets millions of hits in traffic. It's not as simple as make your own one because they are the default discussion board for league of legends.
That's definitely an issue IMO. I've said this many times already. But that has nothing to do with 'freeness' of reddit.
/r/RiotFreeLoL is still there. You can use that as the alternative if you want to.
On May 13 2015 06:16 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: The idea the community has decided in favor of r/lol mods and against RL is obviously not true, as evidenced by threads like this that pop up every day lol -
It shows that some people like him, sure. But like I said, it's a political mess at the moment and RL also has tons of anti-fans.
The easiest way to deal with this kind of issues is to ban the topic outright so no one can discuss it. GD has some of these blacklisted topics too.
TL doesn't market itself as a free discourse platform like Reddit does is the difference.
Actually reddit is still very free.
Unlike a forum, I can make my own subreddit in many shapes and forms and run it so long as it is within the rules of the site. If you don't think it's free your definition of it is too narrow.
The LoL subreddit has like 700,000 people subscribed and gets millions of hits in traffic. It's not as simple as make your own one because they are the default discussion board for league of legends.
That's definitely an issue IMO. I've said this many times already. But that has nothing to do with 'freeness' of reddit.
/r/RiotFreeLoL is still there. You can use that as the alternative if you want to.
Sure you can, but that's not really the issue. The /r/leagueoflegends moderators have the ability to deny significant amounts of traffic/revenue to people because they feel like it, and it's not just Richard Lewis who gets affected.
The best thing about this situation is the amount of shitposting/'vote brigading'/whatever has only increased from their decision to ban content. There are multiple threads that reach the front page with thousands of upvotes complaining about the moderation and they get removed. Then they remove new articles constantly for 30 minutes until they finally allow one to stay at which point the comments are a complete shitfest about why the other threads all got removed.
I don't see how they could think keeping the content ban in effect is going to help anything, because it's already pretty evident it made the situation a lot worse.
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.
Create a safe space to encourage participation. Embrace diversity of viewpoints. Allow freedom of expression. Be stewards, not dictators. The community owns itself.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Create a safe space to encourage participation. Embrace diversity of viewpoints. Allow freedom of expression. Be stewards, not dictators. The community owns itself.
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.
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
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.
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!
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 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 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-
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:
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 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.
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)
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).
Bias is a loaded word. I agree that they are "biased" insofar as they don't like RL and like Riot. I disagree that they are "biased" insofar as you are suggesting that their decision was unjustified, unreasonable, or outside their jurisdiction.
You seem to suggest that if RL's content deserved a ban, so did others. I'm curious to know what other content creator rose to RL's level. If SivHD called everyone retards and Trick2G tweeted links to arguments involving him and nightslut3 mocked a user's suicidal tendencies, and then continued to disrupt the subreddit after they were banned, then yeah their content should be banned too. RL is singled out for punishment, but it's not unfair: it's just because he's the only one who's such an asshole.
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)
i dont know what to say about reddit mods' behavior because i don't know enough about that process, but also because i dont know if RL's behavior is just how he is or there's some design to it.
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).
Bias is a loaded word. I agree that they are "biased" insofar as they don't like RL and like Riot. I disagree that they are "biased" insofar as you are suggesting that their decision was unjustified, unreasonable, or outside their jurisdiction.
You seem to suggest that if RL's content deserved a ban, so did others. I'm curious to know what other content creator rose to RL's level. If SivHD called everyone retards and Trick2G tweeted links to arguments involving him and nightslut3 mocked a user's suicidal tendencies, and then continued to disrupt the subreddit after they were banned, then yeah their content should be banned too. RL is singled out for punishment, but it's not unfair: it's just because he's the only one who's such an asshole.
Well, it will be interesting to see how they handle the youtube vote brigade thing. If they do.
Wells, as far as I know, the r/lol mods don't have to do anything. Vote manipulation is a violation of Reddit's (the entire site) ToS. I would not be surprised if Reddit itself blacklisted those youtubers. I personally haven't seen any of those youtubers' videos lately.
Personally, I do think the moderators are biased against RL - I think there is plenty of evidence for that. I don't think they are censoring to gain favor with Riot; that may be effect of the RL censorship, but that's just incidental. However, I do think any bias the mods have against RL is fully justified. RL is a dick and has personally threatened the mods. They are fully justified to ban him. The problem is when RL continues to be a dick after he's banned from the subreddit.
I have yet to see a single plausible suggestion from anybody on how else the mods could've dealt with RL. They've tried banning him from the site and it literally did nothing. At this point they can either just let him continue to harass them or they escalate. They chose the latter and personally, I would've done the exact same thing.
And now if he decides to still have his fans downvote things that he finds annoying/stupid? The solution does nothing to solve the problem it's trying to solve. Stopping his content from being on r/lol hurts him financially but it doesn't stop the things that he's doing that are bothering the moderating team. He can still harass them via social media.
Sure, but it at least sends a message to RL. You have to look at it from the perspective of the mods. If some asshole was harassing you, you're going to want to do something about it. You're not just going to sit there and take it. Perhaps this step won't actually do anything, but it's better than just doing nothing. You've already tried banning him; you've tried talking to him; now it's time to try to hurt his bottom line to get him to stop. If this does hurt RL's bottom line then he'll either have to change his behavior or accept less income.
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.
Damn, reddit sheeps are currently on his side. It must give some real headaches to the mods! Not sure if they can yawningly wait that one more week, when the flock moves to something else, like why is Ekko broken, or Riot should totally do [insert some dota2 feature here].
Masses mean nothing, it's all about how long before the fanaticizers gets bored with their free karma. They know damn well, that those misguided users just want to be relevant, and announcing some kind of holy crusade against the mods and in support of Rlewis sounds BIG, so people just hop on the bandwagon, and upvote the shit out of everything related.
I sure hope mods will not back down, because that sub is already pretty ridiculous, the last thing needed there is to make people believe their zombie voice means something there.
On May 14 2015 04:36 Ryuu314 wrote: Sure, but it at least sends a message to RL. You have to look at it from the perspective of the mods. If some asshole was harassing you, you're going to want to do something about it. You're not just going to sit there and take it. Perhaps this step won't actually do anything, but it's better than just doing nothing. You've already tried banning him; you've tried talking to him; now it's time to try to hurt his bottom line to get him to stop. If this does hurt RL's bottom line then he'll either have to change his behavior or accept less income.
Dude, if someone can not understand this, then they are either - delusional - Rlewis fans (serves them right, lol) - spent so much time interacting in r/lol that they became one of them, and right now, the collective mind of r/lols vocal barbarians is pro Rlewis, so you gotta stand in line
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.
Damn, reddit sheeps are currently on his side. It must give some real headaches to the mods! Not sure if they can yawningly wait that one more week, when the flock moves to something else, like why is Ekko broken, or Riot should totally do [insert some dota2 feature here].
Masses mean nothing, it's all about how long before the fanaticizers gets bored with their free karma. They know damn well, that those misguided users just want to be relevant, and announcing some kind of holy crusade against the mods and in support of Rlewis sounds BIG, so people just hop on the bandwagon, and upvote the shit out of everything related.
I sure hope mods will not back down, because that sub is already pretty ridiculous, the last thing needed there is to make people believe their zombie voice means something there.
yeah, god forbid mods give the community a voice or outlet on a community driven website.
On May 14 2015 04:36 Ryuu314 wrote: Sure, but it at least sends a message to RL. You have to look at it from the perspective of the mods. If some asshole was harassing you, you're going to want to do something about it. You're not just going to sit there and take it. Perhaps this step won't actually do anything, but it's better than just doing nothing. You've already tried banning him; you've tried talking to him; now it's time to try to hurt his bottom line to get him to stop. If this does hurt RL's bottom line then he'll either have to change his behavior or accept less income.
So they come up with a solution that doesn't solve the problem, and instead the community is left worse off for it because RL breaks some of the largest League news, which is now a bannable offense to link to the news until a slower news site than DD posts their interpretation of RL's piece? It sounds ass-backwards and designed by children.
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.
Damn, reddit sheeps are currently on his side. It must give some real headaches to the mods! Not sure if they can yawningly wait that one more week, when the flock moves to something else, like why is Ekko broken, or Riot should totally do [insert some dota2 feature here].
Masses mean nothing, it's all about how long before the fanaticizers gets bored with their free karma. They know damn well, that those misguided users just want to be relevant, and announcing some kind of holy crusade against the mods and in support of Rlewis sounds BIG, so people just hop on the bandwagon, and upvote the shit out of everything related.
I sure hope mods will not back down, because that sub is already pretty ridiculous, the last thing needed there is to make people believe their zombie voice means something there.
It's going to get the same response every time news that people want to discuss comes up is ham-fistedly removed, especially if organisations give statements to Richard Lewis for the announcement like C9 did.
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.
Damn, reddit sheeps are currently on his side. It must give some real headaches to the mods! Not sure if they can yawningly wait that one more week, when the flock moves to something else, like why is Ekko broken, or Riot should totally do [insert some dota2 feature here].
Masses mean nothing, it's all about how long before the fanaticizers gets bored with their free karma. They know damn well, that those misguided users just want to be relevant, and announcing some kind of holy crusade against the mods and in support of Rlewis sounds BIG, so people just hop on the bandwagon, and upvote the shit out of everything related.
I sure hope mods will not back down, because that sub is already pretty ridiculous, the last thing needed there is to make people believe their zombie voice means something there.
yeah, god forbid mods give the community a voice or outlet on a community driven website.
If you'd let that community drive your website, I have pretty bad news for you. But a good advice as well: don't try to make a website.
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.
Damn, reddit sheeps are currently on his side. It must give some real headaches to the mods! Not sure if they can yawningly wait that one more week, when the flock moves to something else, like why is Ekko broken, or Riot should totally do [insert some dota2 feature here].
Masses mean nothing, it's all about how long before the fanaticizers gets bored with their free karma. They know damn well, that those misguided users just want to be relevant, and announcing some kind of holy crusade against the mods and in support of Rlewis sounds BIG, so people just hop on the bandwagon, and upvote the shit out of everything related.
I sure hope mods will not back down, because that sub is already pretty ridiculous, the last thing needed there is to make people believe their zombie voice means something there.
It's going to get the same response every time news that people want to discuss comes up is ham-fistedly removed, especially if organisations give statements to Richard Lewis for the announcement like C9 did.
No, it's going to be degenerate into memes, like you know who, and etc. People won't rage nearly as much as now without someone guiding them.
On May 14 2015 04:36 Ryuu314 wrote: Sure, but it at least sends a message to RL. You have to look at it from the perspective of the mods. If some asshole was harassing you, you're going to want to do something about it. You're not just going to sit there and take it. Perhaps this step won't actually do anything, but it's better than just doing nothing. You've already tried banning him; you've tried talking to him; now it's time to try to hurt his bottom line to get him to stop. If this does hurt RL's bottom line then he'll either have to change his behavior or accept less income.
So they come up with a solution that doesn't solve the problem, and instead the community is left worse off for it because RL breaks some of the largest League news, which is now a bannable offense to link to the news until a slower news site than DD posts their interpretation of RL's piece? It sounds ass-backwards and designed by children.
The alternative is let someone shit in on your face 365 days a year. That sure sounds like an adult response.
Because RL being banned from posting on r/lol is shitting on the face of every member of r/lol, if you want to continue on with your comparison. I don't think it's totally accurate, and if they end up lifting the RL content ban then your comment sure would look a bit silly, no?
I mean, the question comes down to. Is which r/lol is better? /r/lol with RLewis in his full glory. /r/lol without RLewis, but still has his content /r/lol without He-who-shall-not-be-named.
I'm pretty sure the 2nd scenario is what most people would advocate, his articles were still pretty darn good.
On May 14 2015 05:26 Zdrastochye wrote: Because RL being banned from posting on r/lol is shitting on the face of every member of r/lol, if you want to continue on with your comparison. I don't think it's totally accurate, and if they end up lifting the RL content ban then your comment sure would look a bit silly, no?
No, I already said it's a lose-lose. Mods can not win in this battle. They either lose their integrity along with their dignity, and the community will nag them even harder than they do with Riot. Basically mods become the tools of this community which - if it was a real person - would manage to ignite themselves, then pour oil on them instead of water. Whether it's because they lift the Rlewis content ban, or because they would've kept letting Rlewis constantly talk shit about them in their own website.
Or they keep him and his content banned, and they will be called nazi mods, and "omg, where is my free speech" (from people, mind you, who were so happy when the mods slapped Rlewis in the face for the first time, but oh well, it was cool to support the mods then, so it's K), then keep posting and upvoting some of the most retarded thread I've ever seen on reddit.
The only victory is forcing Rlewis to make some kind of an apology, and for him to stop giving shit to the lol mods. We got it Lewis, you are angry at them, amazing, but enough now.
On May 14 2015 05:31 wei2coolman wrote: I mean, the question comes down to. Is which r/lol is better? /r/lol with RLewis in his full glory. /r/lol without RLewis, but still has his content /r/lol without He-who-shall-not-be-named.
I'm pretty sure the 2nd scenario is what most people would advocate, his articles were still pretty darn good.
His content surface eventually, people find a way, so the news reach r/lol. Option 3, and if Rlewis hads enough, he can always make amends. Or not swallow his pride, and keep up with this eternal fight.
On May 14 2015 05:31 wei2coolman wrote: I mean, the question comes down to. Is which r/lol is better? /r/lol with RLewis in his full glory. /r/lol without RLewis, but still has his content /r/lol without He-who-shall-not-be-named.
I'm pretty sure the 2nd scenario is what most people would advocate, his articles were still pretty darn good.
Which is absolutely the correct scenario. The r/lol mods who are in fear over their lives of him stalking them are being equal parts paranoid and naive. He's not posting their address online or stealing their SSNs. Allow his content but not him.
To Volband: The RL content ban won't stick, we both know it. Not permanently, it will have to get lifted. So all they're doing in the mean time is growing the force that opposes their decisions. The amount of people supporting them for standing up to the "tyranny" of RL is becoming fewer than the amount of people who would just rather be done with the inconvenience of not being able to respond to RL news when he inevitably posts something that's VERY League related. I agree they don't have a winning way out of this, so why the fuck continue the charade?
On May 14 2015 05:31 wei2coolman wrote: I mean, the question comes down to. Is which r/lol is better? /r/lol with RLewis in his full glory. /r/lol without RLewis, but still has his content /r/lol without He-who-shall-not-be-named.
I'm pretty sure the 2nd scenario is what most people would advocate, his articles were still pretty darn good.
Which is absolutely the correct scenario. The r/lol mods who are in fear over their lives of him stalking them are being equal parts paranoid and naive. He's not posting their address online or stealing their SSNs. Allow his content but not him.
I so want his ban lifted now, and at least 3 articles coming out and voted to the front page, discussing some of the mods dirty laundry. Without irl names and adresses, of course! Must be fun.
To your edit: Remember that the last week(s) was high-time for Rlewis. There are really not much nasty content within such a short time as during the roster changes periods.
So you think that since they've weathered the storm of roster swaps now they've escaped the worst time for them to have RL's content banned, so now it can remain for the rest of time? I will wager any amount of money that his content will end up unbanned after a period of time. If that unbanning is going to happen at some point, what is the benefit to the r/lol community in them continuing it?
On May 14 2015 05:42 Zdrastochye wrote: So you think that since they've weathered the storm of roster swaps now they've escaped the worst time for them to have RL's content banned, so now it can remain for the rest of time? I will wager any amount of money that his content will end up unbanned after a period of time. If that unbanning is going to happen at some point, what is the benefit to the r/lol community in them continuing it?
I definitely won't take on a bet where I'm going against "after a period of time.", hah!
But your example makes the whole ban pointless in the first place. Why ban his content, when you KNOW you are going to lift it. "Hey, we just wanted to let you guys know that we are not afraid to make you think we are actually serious, even though we are totally not!"
On May 14 2015 05:31 wei2coolman wrote: I mean, the question comes down to. Is which r/lol is better? /r/lol with RLewis in his full glory. /r/lol without RLewis, but still has his content /r/lol without He-who-shall-not-be-named.
I'm pretty sure the 2nd scenario is what most people would advocate, his articles were still pretty darn good.
Which is absolutely the correct scenario. The r/lol mods who are in fear over their lives of him stalking them are being equal parts paranoid and naive. He's not posting their address online or stealing their SSNs. Allow his content but not him.
How is it paranoid and naive? They aren't afraid that their lives are in danger - they're afraid that RL will invade their privacy.
There was a SC2 mod who talked about how RL tracked him down on his private FB to harass him. He's also made very public tweets threatening to doxx them. It's retarded to say the mods are entitled to less privacy simply because they're a volunteer for a subreddit. It's equally retarded to say the mods shouldn't do anything until it's too late. If someone is invading my privacy or threatening to invade my privacy you can bet I'm going to take affirmative action before my information is posted for the world to see. This is especially true when you know he has the ability to do it (and has done it in the past).
Here's the other thing I don't think people fully understand. RL has been banned from r/lol for many months now and, from the mod's perspective, absolutely nothing has changed. He's still a dick; he still vote brigades posts; he still harasses the mods. If you want to get him to stop, you have to do something.
What the fuck would you do? Don't say "ban him" because they already did that and it didn't work.
On May 14 2015 05:42 Zdrastochye wrote: So you think that since they've weathered the storm of roster swaps now they've escaped the worst time for them to have RL's content banned, so now it can remain for the rest of time? I will wager any amount of money that his content will end up unbanned after a period of time. If that unbanning is going to happen at some point, what is the benefit to the r/lol community in them continuing it?
I definitely won't take on a bet where I'm going against "after a period of time.", hah!
But your example makes the whole ban pointless in the first place. Why ban his content, when you KNOW you are going to lift it. "Hey, we just wanted to let you guys know that we are not afraid to make you think we are actually serious, even though we are totally not!"
Now I absolutely think we're getting to a point here, the discussion has borne some fruit. Yes, the content ban is useless because it will be lifted. It was an immature decision made by people with personal biases against RL (for good reason, I'm not arguing his dickish ways of treating people) that eventually will be overturned once people settle down and the passing of time fades the anger a bit. Maybe that's the usefulness of the ban? I don't know, I can't defend either side, RL or the moderators. Both sides are poking each other in the eye and blaming each other for it.
On May 14 2015 05:31 wei2coolman wrote: I mean, the question comes down to. Is which r/lol is better? /r/lol with RLewis in his full glory. /r/lol without RLewis, but still has his content /r/lol without He-who-shall-not-be-named.
I'm pretty sure the 2nd scenario is what most people would advocate, his articles were still pretty darn good.
Which is absolutely the correct scenario. The r/lol mods who are in fear over their lives of him stalking them are being equal parts paranoid and naive. He's not posting their address online or stealing their SSNs. Allow his content but not him.
How is it paranoid and naive? They aren't afraid that their lives are in danger - they're afraid that RL will invade their privacy.
There was a SC2 mod who talked about how RL tracked him down on his private FB to harass him. He's also made very public tweets threatening to doxx them. It's retarded to say the mods are entitled to less privacy simply because they're a volunteer for a subreddit. It's equally retarded to say the mods shouldn't do anything until it's too late. If someone is invading my privacy or threatening to invade my privacy you can bet I'm going to take affirmative action before my information is posted for the world to see. This is especially true when you know he has the ability to do it (and has done it in the past).
Here's the other thing I don't think people fully understand. RL has been banned from r/lol for many months now and, from the mod's perspective, absolutely nothing has changed. He's still a dick; he still vote brigades posts; he still harasses the mods. If you want to get him to stop, you have to do something.
What the fuck would you do? Don't say "ban him" because they already did that and it didn't work.
Truly saddens me, that we reached the point, where even on a TL sister-site we have to argue with people ignoring things like these, and only focusing on the part which makes the mods look like the enemy of free speech, or some bully who want to hurt poor Richie.
Makes me hard to keep back the more personal slashes on him and his followers, who apparently became like this. There are not even upvotes to urge us to come up with the most persuading shitposts ever, and making others think less about this debate, and just follow the crowd. And still...
If you post things on the Internet it really isn't private anymore. If you've filled out something that displays to people who you are and where you live and ways to contact you, anyone can find that information out. The means they use to find this out don't have to be illegal, and you don't have the right to decide who knows that stuff. Sorry.
On May 14 2015 05:42 Zdrastochye wrote: So you think that since they've weathered the storm of roster swaps now they've escaped the worst time for them to have RL's content banned, so now it can remain for the rest of time? I will wager any amount of money that his content will end up unbanned after a period of time. If that unbanning is going to happen at some point, what is the benefit to the r/lol community in them continuing it?
I definitely won't take on a bet where I'm going against "after a period of time.", hah!
But your example makes the whole ban pointless in the first place. Why ban his content, when you KNOW you are going to lift it. "Hey, we just wanted to let you guys know that we are not afraid to make you think we are actually serious, even though we are totally not!"
Now I absolutely think we're getting to a point here, the discussion has borne some fruit. Yes, the content ban is useless because it will be lifted. It was an immature decision made by people with personal biases against RL (for good reason, I'm not arguing his dickish ways of treating people) that eventually will be overturned once people settle down and the passing of time fades the anger a bit. Maybe that's the usefulness of the ban? I don't know, I can't defend either side, RL or the moderators. Both sides are poking each other in the eye and blaming each other for it.
And why do you think standing for what you believe is right is stupid and unnecessary? And don't come with that poor r/lol will get the news 1 hour later, or that it's not ethical to ban someone's content just because his a dick. I get that we can give all kinds of shit to the mods if we act like good christians.
You base everything on your assumption that r/lol can not survive an Rlewis content ban. Sure they can. Just compare it to the amount of shit Riot got for the chroma packs for example. Half of the playerbase left, right? No. People got bitchy over their own shortcomings (Riot never said it would be ip only; no1 cares if they don't want to pay that much or at all for Chromas). For weeks I had to avoid r/lol because it made me twitch to just read the headlines. I was like holy shit, I even give you money you homeless ****, just shut up already, I don't care! Don't buy it! Jeez! Why is it in the front page with 5 almost the same threads as well? If someone would not know about lol and would just read that subreddit, he'd think Riot will go bankrupt in a month. No, it was just the same ol' pattern of the most bitchy people igniting the flock's desire to be salty about something. Anything.
Now Rlewis is chromapacks. Yes, with every new chroma pack, at least one thread will make it to the front page titled "guys, can we discuss chroma packs now, srsly? I think it's time for a reduction, blahblah, I don't want to work, ty". And? And nothing.
Really? So you're (Zdrastochye) basically saying anyone with a Facebook page has 0 right to privacy. If you made a gmail account with your personal info or phone number you have 0 right to privacy. If you have a Skype account you have 0 right to privacy.
If that's really your conception of internet privacy that's fine, but your conception of privacy is in by far the vast minority.
Just because something can legally be found, doesn't mean it's not private. Just because information is public record does not give you license to splatter that information to the masses.
On May 14 2015 05:58 Zdrastochye wrote: If you post things on the Internet it really isn't private anymore. If you've filled out something that displays to people who you are and where you live and ways to contact you, anyone can find that information out. The means they use to find this out don't have to be illegal, and you don't have the right to decide who knows that stuff. Sorry.
It sure is not illegal to follow you every day and post about everything you do, hopefully I could get a glimpse of some private stuff as well. Oooh, who's that other girl? Ooh, did you just pick your nose? Oh, don't mind me, it's legal, why are you out on the streets fella? Don't hate me for ridiculing you on the internet. What, you call the cops? Let me gather around my fellow people and reach the conclusion that you are stupid for not wanting me invading your private life. You silly, you see these in my hands? Yeah, reddit golds, so I'm pretty right, and you are pretty wrong. Now call off the cops and I might let you call me master.
... we are reaching some all time low here when someone so casually discards the fact that Rlewis hunts after people. God forbid he sees a young woman with a short skirt.... you know what's coming to her.
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.
Damn, reddit sheeps are currently on his side. It must give some real headaches to the mods! Not sure if they can yawningly wait that one more week, when the flock moves to something else, like why is Ekko broken, or Riot should totally do [insert some dota2 feature here].
Masses mean nothing, it's all about how long before the fanaticizers gets bored with their free karma. They know damn well, that those misguided users just want to be relevant, and announcing some kind of holy crusade against the mods and in support of Rlewis sounds BIG, so people just hop on the bandwagon, and upvote the shit out of everything related.
I sure hope mods will not back down, because that sub is already pretty ridiculous, the last thing needed there is to make people believe their zombie voice means something there.
yeah, god forbid mods give the community a voice or outlet on a community driven website.
The community already has a voice, but everyone likes to rage against nazi mods anyways, because hey. It's not like there aren't subreddits that have tried no moderation experiments before, and let the community actually try to up/downvote things properly.
As always, the relationship between moderation strictness and subreddit quality is positively correlated. Just look at an r/askhistorians thread before mod review.
On May 14 2015 05:58 Zdrastochye wrote: If you post things on the Internet it really isn't private anymore. If you've filled out something that displays to people who you are and where you live and ways to contact you, anyone can find that information out. The means they use to find this out don't have to be illegal, and you don't have the right to decide who knows that stuff. Sorry.
It sure is not illegal to follow you every day and post about everything you do, hopefully I could get a glimpse of some private stuff as well. Oooh, who's that other girl? Ooh, did you just pick your nose? Oh, don't mind me, it's legal, why are you out on the streets fella? Don't hate me for ridiculing you on the internet. What, you call the cops? Let me gather around my fellow people and reach the conclusion that you are stupid for not wanting me invading your private life. You silly, you see these in my hands? Yeah, reddit golds, so I'm pretty right, and you are pretty wrong. Now call off the cops and I might let you call me master.
... we are reaching some all time low here when someone so casually discards the fact that Rlewis hunts after people. God forbid he sees a young woman with a short skirt.... you know what's coming to her.
Given how he responds to criticism on reddit of all things. I mean, bringing irrelevant, but personal and deeply hurtful things into a comment war against basically nobodies? Really? I'm shocked by the maturity.
On May 14 2015 05:58 Zdrastochye wrote: If you post things on the Internet it really isn't private anymore. If you've filled out something that displays to people who you are and where you live and ways to contact you, anyone can find that information out. The means they use to find this out don't have to be illegal, and you don't have the right to decide who knows that stuff. Sorry.
... we are reaching some all time low here when someone so casually discards the fact that Rlewis hunts after people. God forbid he sees a young woman with a short skirt.... you know what's coming to her.
Did I actually just read that? LOL.
EDIT: Thought I would add something useful. I personally don't think stalking in real life is comparable to online stalking.
This is one of the main reasons I gave up on Reddit. The moderation team is inconsistent and incompetent, and it's lost its identity as a free discussion forum, and instead turned into a business.
- Free speech, Rlewis! Free speech, Rlewis! Free-- - Hey dude, I don't think it's that black and white, becau-- - FREE SPEECH. RLEWIS! FREE SPEE... oh, wow, Ekko is out. Wtf is that?? Holy shit the numbers. What, invulnerable? That's just op, Riot fucked up again, good job. Good fucking job, another imbalanced shit. Escaping silver this month? Hell no, Ekko's gonna ruin my games. - Wow, he is indeed revealed. But I wanted to discuss Rlewis with you. So-- - ELEMETS ROSTER IS OUT!! Where's Zorozero?? Oh, brb, gotta flame the shit out of everyone who were so confident he would join Ele. Man, without Zoro Ele is shit, I'm telling you. Still, looking forward to the next split, gonna be juicyyyyy! - Interesting! Aaaanyway, so as you know, Rlewis-- - WOW, DID YOU SEE WHAT EKKO CAN DO?! HOW IS THAT NOT BROKEN? - No, I did no-- - Aaaand the patch is out. Fuck this patch, ruined everything. Another shit patch, thanks riot, no more rp to you ,this time I'm serious. I'm not supporting a company which releases a patch like this. Very bad. - Could we get back to-- - Gg, I'm done. Link is an animal! I really hate Doublelift now. I'm 100% confident he is the reason CLG is failing, he is a shit person. I bet he beats puppies. What an ass. Wors adc NA for sure. - About Richard Lewis... - Who?! - You know, the guy, who-- - Explain yourself, Doublelift! Explain yourself, Doublelift!
Yeah, such a wasteland without Rlewis. Not sure how much longer the mods can hold out!
On May 14 2015 05:58 Zdrastochye wrote: If you post things on the Internet it really isn't private anymore. If you've filled out something that displays to people who you are and where you live and ways to contact you, anyone can find that information out. The means they use to find this out don't have to be illegal, and you don't have the right to decide who knows that stuff. Sorry.
... we are reaching some all time low here when someone so casually discards the fact that Rlewis hunts after people. God forbid he sees a young woman with a short skirt.... you know what's coming to her.
Did I actually just read that? LOL.
EDIT: Thought I would add something useful. I personally don't think stalking in real life is comparable to online stalking.
You can't add anything useful, because online stalking (with today's technology*) is still fucked up and violating. You can "LOL" that real stalking is much more serious (of course, it is), but that doesn't make Rlewis any less of a prick. Once you do violating stuff like that, the whole case stops being a minor back-and-forth game between two sides and becomes something much more serious.
*Even long long years ago I was surprised when someone got personal informations about me (and some other folks) and tried to used it against me. It was pretty scary as well because I did not know how long can he reach into my pockets. MInd you, it was just a bunch of teens who did not like each other in an online MMO game. If Rlewis wants to tear your online clothes off ofyou, he can, and he will - he already proved that.
There's no "LOL" here, and cyberbullying has already had some major irl consequences, not to mention that suicide case.
On May 14 2015 13:06 I N V I C T U S wrote: This is one of the main reasons I gave up on Reddit. The moderation team is inconsistent and incompetent, and it's lost its identity as a free discussion forum, and instead turned into a business.
I don't think there's a Reddit. Subreddits are like different countries in the continent of reddit. You can not label them all, and even when people are saying reddit is that, or reddit is this, it's been the same shit ever since online anonymity. The biggestdiffernce is brigading, where a whole army can step on your dick if they want to, even if you did nothing wrong. But once again, every subreddit and thus their mods are different.
Are r/lol mods inconsistent? Sure, let's set the record straight and finally clarify why "gif no1 cares about" can make it to the front page, and why "gif no1 cares about either" gets deleted. Personally I don't care, but I really can't defend the mods there. If they had some consistency, this whole Richard drama would be much easier on them.
But to give them a break, managing such a huge and childish community as r/lol is not an easy task, and let's not be delusional: if you are not hated by at least ~15% of the community you are doing something wrong.
(It was actually a post in a reddit thread, which had some quality summary about admins and monds in any community sites, and how it's one of the shittiest "job" out there.)
On May 14 2015 17:12 Volband wrote: Oh look at r/lol right now, haha:
- Free speech, Rlewis! Free speech, Rlewis! Free-- - Hey dude, I don't think it's that black and white, becau-- - FREE SPEECH. RLEWIS! FREE SPEE... oh, wow, Ekko is out. Wtf is that?? Holy shit the numbers. What, invulnerable? That's just op, Riot fucked up again, good job. Good fucking job, another imbalanced shit. Escaping silver this month? Hell no, Ekko's gonna ruin my games. - Wow, he is indeed revealed. But I wanted to discuss Rlewis with you. So-- - ELEMETS ROSTER IS OUT!! Where's Zorozero?? Oh, brb, gotta flame the shit out of everyone who were so confident he would join Ele. Man, without Zoro Ele is shit, I'm telling you. Still, looking forward to the next split, gonna be juicyyyyy! - Interesting! Aaaanyway, so as you know, Rlewis-- - WOW, DID YOU SEE WHAT EKKO CAN DO?! HOW IS THAT NOT BROKEN? - No, I did no-- - Aaaand the patch is out. Fuck this patch, ruined everything. Another shit patch, thanks riot, no more rp to you ,this time I'm serious. I'm not supporting a company which releases a patch like this. Very bad. - Could we get back to-- - Gg, I'm done. Link is an animal! I really hate Doublelift now. I'm 100% confident he is the reason CLG is failing, he is a shit person. I bet he beats puppies. What an ass. Wors adc NA for sure. - About Richard Lewis... - Who?! - You know, the guy, who-- - Explain yourself, Doublelift! Explain yourself, Doublelift!
Yeah, such a wasteland without Rlewis. Not sure how much longer the mods can hold out!
On May 14 2015 05:58 Zdrastochye wrote: If you post things on the Internet it really isn't private anymore. If you've filled out something that displays to people who you are and where you live and ways to contact you, anyone can find that information out. The means they use to find this out don't have to be illegal, and you don't have the right to decide who knows that stuff. Sorry.
... we are reaching some all time low here when someone so casually discards the fact that Rlewis hunts after people. God forbid he sees a young woman with a short skirt.... you know what's coming to her.
Did I actually just read that? LOL.
EDIT: Thought I would add something useful. I personally don't think stalking in real life is comparable to online stalking.
You can't add anything useful, because online stalking (with today's technology*) is still fucked up and violating. You can "LOL" that real stalking is much more serious (of course, it is), but that doesn't make Rlewis any less of a prick. Once you do violating stuff like that, the whole case stops being a minor back-and-forth game between two sides and becomes something much more serious.
*Even long long years before I was surprised when someone got personal informations about me (and some other folks) and tried to used it against me. It was pretty scary as well because I did not know how long can he reach into my pockets. MInd you, it was just a bunch of teens who did not like each other in an online MMO game. If Rlewis wants to tear your online clothes off ofyou, he can, and he will - he already proved that.
There's no "LOL" here, and cyberbullying has already had some major irl consequences, not to mention that suicide case.
On May 14 2015 13:06 I N V I C T U S wrote: This is one of the main reasons I gave up on Reddit. The moderation team is inconsistent and incompetent, and it's lost its identity as a free discussion forum, and instead turned into a business.
I don't think there's a Reddit. Subreddits are like different countries in the continent of reddit. You can not label them all, and even when people are saying reddit is that, or reddit is this, it's been the same shit ever since online anonymity. The biggestdiffernce is brigading, where a whole army can step on your dick if they want to, even if you did nothing wrong. But once again, every subreddit and thus their mods are different.
Are r/lol mods inconsistent? Sure, let's set the record straight and finally clarify why "gif no1 cares about" can make it to the front page, and why "gif no1 cares about either" gets deleted. Personally I don't care, but I really can't defend the mods there. If they had some consistency, this whole Richard drama would be much easier on them.
But to give them a break, managing such a huge and childish community as r/lol is not an easy task, and let's not be delusional: if you are not hated by at least ~15% of the community you are doing something wrong.
(It was actually a post in a reddit thread, which had some quality summary about admins and monds in any community sites, and how it's one of the shittiest "job" out there.)
On May 14 2015 17:12 Volband wrote: Oh look at r/lol right now, haha:
- Free speech, Rlewis! Free speech, Rlewis! Free-- - Hey dude, I don't think it's that black and white, becau-- - FREE SPEECH. RLEWIS! FREE SPEE... oh, wow, Ekko is out. Wtf is that?? Holy shit the numbers. What, invulnerable? That's just op, Riot fucked up again, good job. Good fucking job, another imbalanced shit. Escaping silver this month? Hell no, Ekko's gonna ruin my games. - Wow, he is indeed revealed. But I wanted to discuss Rlewis with you. So-- - ELEMETS ROSTER IS OUT!! Where's Zorozero?? Oh, brb, gotta flame the shit out of everyone who were so confident he would join Ele. Man, without Zoro Ele is shit, I'm telling you. Still, looking forward to the next split, gonna be juicyyyyy! - Interesting! Aaaanyway, so as you know, Rlewis-- - WOW, DID YOU SEE WHAT EKKO CAN DO?! HOW IS THAT NOT BROKEN? - No, I did no-- - Aaaand the patch is out. Fuck this patch, ruined everything. Another shit patch, thanks riot, no more rp to you ,this time I'm serious. I'm not supporting a company which releases a patch like this. Very bad. - Could we get back to-- - Gg, I'm done. Link is an animal! I really hate Doublelift now. I'm 100% confident he is the reason CLG is failing, he is a shit person. I bet he beats puppies. What an ass. Wors adc NA for sure. - About Richard Lewis... - Who?! - You know, the guy, who-- - Explain yourself, Doublelift! Explain yourself, Doublelift!
Yeah, such a wasteland without Rlewis. Not sure how much longer the mods can hold out!
On May 14 2015 12:05 ZataN wrote:
On May 14 2015 06:13 Volband wrote:
On May 14 2015 05:58 Zdrastochye wrote: If you post things on the Internet it really isn't private anymore. If you've filled out something that displays to people who you are and where you live and ways to contact you, anyone can find that information out. The means they use to find this out don't have to be illegal, and you don't have the right to decide who knows that stuff. Sorry.
... we are reaching some all time low here when someone so casually discards the fact that Rlewis hunts after people. God forbid he sees a young woman with a short skirt.... you know what's coming to her.
Did I actually just read that? LOL.
EDIT: Thought I would add something useful. I personally don't think stalking in real life is comparable to online stalking.
You can't add anything useful, because online stalking (with today's technology*) is still fucked up and violating. You can "LOL" that real stalking is much more serious (of course, it is), but that doesn't make Rlewis any less of a prick. Once you do violating stuff like that, the whole case stops being a minor back-and-forth game between two sides and becomes something much more serious.
*Even long long years before I was surprised when someone got personal informations about me (and some other folks) and tried to used it against me. It was pretty scary as well because I did not know how long can he reach into my pockets. MInd you, it was just a bunch of teens who did not like each other in an online MMO game. If Rlewis wants to tear your online clothes off ofyou, he can, and he will - he already proved that.
There's no "LOL" here, and cyberbullying has already had some major irl consequences, not to mention that suicide case.
On May 14 2015 13:06 I N V I C T U S wrote: This is one of the main reasons I gave up on Reddit. The moderation team is inconsistent and incompetent, and it's lost its identity as a free discussion forum, and instead turned into a business.
I don't think there's a Reddit. Subreddits are like different countries in the continent of reddit. You can not label them all, and even when people are saying reddit is that, or reddit is this, it's been the same shit ever since online anonymity. The biggestdiffernce is brigading, where a whole army can step on your dick if they want to, even if you did nothing wrong. But once again, every subreddit and thus their mods are different.
Are r/lol mods inconsistent? Sure, let's set the record straight and finally clarify why "gif no1 cares about" can make it to the front page, and why "gif no1 cares about either" gets deleted. Personally I don't care, but I really can't defend the mods there. If they had some consistency, this whole Richard drama would be much easier on them.
But to give them a break, managing such a huge and childish community as r/lol is not an easy task, and let's not be delusional: if you are not hated by at least ~15% of the community you are doing something wrong.
(It was actually a post in a reddit thread, which had some quality summary about admins and monds in any community sites, and how it's one of the shittiest "job" out there.)
it's a reddit wide problem, and the users are pretty pissed at it.
I'm pretty sure people are not getting shadowbanned for no good reason at r/trees, but it is indeed trouble at some other subs. Brigading is stupid as well, but r/lol is not a noteworthy case. It's much more serious in world news, or whenever men's or women's right comes up. People make some seriously painful blows to perfectly normal responses, just because they reflect their hate on that.
And reading the other concerns, nothing is r/lol exclusive. r/lol users biggest pet peeve is that the lol mods are inconsistent in what they delete and what not. There are rules, but they mean nothing, and that's what the users would like the mods to be transparent about. Everything else which makes r/lol cancerous is the community itself (and the size of it).
Edit: I should add that I'm not aware how many shadowbans are given out in r/lol, but frankly, the whole concept of shadowbanning - without constant monitoring whether it can be lifted or not - is just stupid.
No sane definition of vote brigading? You're a fucking lawyer, you know how the case law system works. Is there a sane definition of negligence? Of proximate cause? Of intent? None of these are clearly defined, and yet we are pretty OK sending people to jail because of them. So I think we can ban someone from a subreddit, for engaging in actions he knows will lead to a significant influx of upvotes/downvotes and disrupting a conversation, and more importantly, refusing to stop when told it is vote brigading.
It doesn't matter how precisely you try to draw the line, someone's always gonna bitch about clarity in the rules. This is why it's something to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis with overarching guidelines. Otherwise idiots will continue to make isolated demands for rigor, like a defendant who comes to court and says "Guys there's just no sane definition of negligence. How am I supposed to know I was being negligent when not every conceivable scenario is spelled out explicitly in the Law of Negligence?"
There's a recurring pattern in this topic, where cLutZ or whomever will make one snide post ("GI is misleading people about consideration!" "No sane definition of vote brigading!"), others deconstruct them and call them out on their shit, and they just rope-a-dope to the next one-liner post, completely refusing to engage on the issues ("Guys this isn't about whether you like RL or not." "It's a community driven site." "CENSORSHIP" "Really guys both sides are in the wrong here"). I almost find it insulting because it makes me think that you aren't really interested in having a discourse, but just trying to nitpick at isolated points.
I didn't say it can't, I said it doesn't. Your definition is fine, except the refusing to stop when told part, because that just opens it up to the kind of personal biases that the mods are accused of having.
There is one other thing I do disagree with, which may or may not be tangential which is the totalbiscuit "precedent" which is pretty bs, because I had never heard of it before this case and it's essentially one post within a thread which isn't linked to in the rules.
I think it's just a fundamental difference in philosophy here where you prefer a long leash, while i see discretion as a negative (for instance, prosecutorial discretion in the law is just usually an indication to me of an unjust law or a corrupt prosecutor).
On May 15 2015 00:09 cLutZ wrote: I didn't say it can't, I said it doesn't. Your definition is fine, except the refusing to stop when told part, because that just opens it up to the kind of personal biases that the mods are accused of having.
There is one other thing I do disagree with, which may or may not be tangential which is the totalbiscuit "precedent" which is pretty bs, because I had never heard of it before this case and it's essentially one post within a thread which isn't linked to in the rules.
I think it's just a fundamental difference in philosophy here where you prefer a long leash, while i see discretion as a negative (for instance, prosecutorial discretion in the law is just usually an indication to me of an unjust law or a corrupt prosecutor).
Don't try to weasel out of this by suggesting that we're just on opposite sides of a philosophical conundrum. I too loathe prosecutorial discretion, which is the selective enforcement of laws. But that's not at issue here. As I offered earlier: please find me another example of someone engaging in RL's behavior here to demonstrate that the mods are unfairly singling out RL. People link leagueoflegends posts on Twitter all the time, but no one else does so in a consistent, systematic, and disruptive manner, and certainly no one else has flouted repeated warnings about it.
I mean, think through your proposed definition here. You're basically suggesting that vote brigading only happens when you explicitly ask people to upvote or downvote something, and that there is zero room to deviate from this definition. Not only is the choice of definition not up to you (moderators can define vote brigading however they want), your definition is obviously completely unworkable and easily skirted.
That's the reason why subreddits have very strict rules about linking to other subreddits. /r/bestof is only allowed to link to other subreddits through the no-participation filter, because the mere act of linking always introduces a flood of new votes, even though these aren't links telling people to vote up or down, and even though /r/bestof has always asked its users not to upvote or downvote. And it's particularly egregious when the flood of new votes is brought there with a link that has preconditioned them to interpret a situation in a particular way.
But even giving RL the most charitable possible interpretation, which is that he was completely ignorant that this will happen, and is basically just an innocent party, he still has mens rea because he was explicitly told not to do this any more because it led to vote brigading. I don't see why there's an issue of personal bias here: the subreddit moderators have chosen to define vote brigading to include what he was doing (which, remember, they can define in any way they want, but this happened to be a decision grounded in precedent both from TotalBiscuit as well as reddit's internal cross-linking rules), and they told him about it, and he wouldn't listen.
So the moderators decided that since he was already banned, the only other action within their power was to ban his content. This has the double effect of both being a personal punishment as well as getting rid of the most egregious vote brigading, because RL was of course primarily interested in soliciting votes in topics related to himself.
Obviously RL can continue to vote brigade whatever topics he wants, and the moderators can't really do much about that because they don't control Twitter. According to Zdrastochye this basically means the moderators are dumb because if they can't completely eliminate a problem, they shouldn't try to address it at all. A more reasonable interpretation is that the moderators eliminated RL's petulant vote brigading to the extent that they are able to, and RL continuing to be a child is just part of life, like gravity.
On May 15 2015 00:09 cLutZ wrote: I didn't say it can't, I said it doesn't. Your definition is fine, except the refusing to stop when told part, because that just opens it up to the kind of personal biases that the mods are accused of having.
There is one other thing I do disagree with, which may or may not be tangential which is the totalbiscuit "precedent" which is pretty bs, because I had never heard of it before this case and it's essentially one post within a thread which isn't linked to in the rules.
I think it's just a fundamental difference in philosophy here where you prefer a long leash, while i see discretion as a negative (for instance, prosecutorial discretion in the law is just usually an indication to me of an unjust law or a corrupt prosecutor).
That's the reason why subreddits have very strict rules about linking to other subreddits. /r/bestof is only allowed to link to other subreddits through the no-participation filter, because the mere act of linking always introduces a flood of new votes, even though these aren't links telling people to vote up or down, and even though /r/bestof has always asked its users not to upvote or downvote. And it's particularly egregious when the flood of new votes is brought there with a link that has preconditioned them to interpret a situation in a particular way.
Yup, I clearly just don't understand why reddit does either of these things, so I guess, that's what it is.
Free Richard Lewis! We will be reviewing the ban in about three months from the start of the ban. If his behavior has significantly improved by that point, we will consider removing the ban. This has always been our intention.
I distincly remember a moderator saying they would not go back on the ban...
Free Richard Lewis! We will be reviewing the ban in about three months from the start of the ban. If his behavior has significantly improved by that point, we will consider removing the ban. This has always been our intention.
I distincly remember a moderator saying they would not go back on the ban...
What a silly gambit. It's like the NYC cops who tried to stop issuing traffic and parking tickets. If they stopped moderating RLewis content, no one would complain. Instead, they are going full bore and hoping /r/lol gets filled with Kardashian posts or some bs. Which is like cops not policing muggings and saying, "see, stop complaining about your parking tickets."
As it should be! And 3 months is reasonable enough for a review, still shows they are committed, and still forces Richard to be a bitch; something that does not go well with his ego.
What an interesting moral fight! Starting to really love these r/mods.
Edit: ahaha, just reading the sheep comments now. "No-no, please, still do your job, which is cleaning after us, we just meant that you should do it in a way that pleases us. Like, see this thread?! This was my low effort shitpost, but you deleted it. Don't do that, but keep deleting the other guys. Peace!"
Ah, a bunch of wankers. Serves them right - if they were actually a smart community, they would flood r/lol with quality content for a whole week, now THAT would be an immense burn to the mods. But, as always, they are just crying.
You must be the guy who bets on 1.00000000001 odds and announce that you were indeed, right again. No one believed RL will be still banned for sure in 2070, but for that, he has to bow, while his content is still being banned for at least a quarter of a year, which is huge, especially compared to some naive sentiment here, which imagined it might be lifted within the week people started crying (again).
I was, however, wrong that it's a lose-lose situation to the mods, and as I said, I adore their solution, where it's actually a win-win, unless Richard outwits them. So exciting!
For some reason you thought Reddit could go years without RL content. All I said was that it was not going to last long. In my opinion 3 months isn't that long, to you it is. I think you underestimate how much reddit wants RL content to be allowed, but that's just my opinion.
On May 19 2015 05:24 Volband wrote: You must be the guy who bets on 1.00000000001 odds and announce that you were indeed, right again. No one believed RL will be still banned for sure in 2070, but for that, he has to bow, while his content is still being banned for at least a quarter of a year, which is huge, especially compared to some naive sentiment here, which imagined it might be lifted within the week people started crying (again).
I was, however, wrong that it's a lose-lose situation to the mods, and as I said, I adore their solution, where it's actually a win-win, unless Richard outwits them. So exciting!
I'm very confused how they have outwitted him. Like I said, they are like cops who decide to allow firebombings because people are complaining about civil rights abuses. Its what petulant children do, which RLewis has basically already called them out on:
Finally, in light of the LoL mods announcing their week long vacation (during which time they will be moderating any way, just not in a visible fashion), I saw people propose to spam their sub with threads supporting me or deriding them. I’d ask you to please not do that. It’s actually what they want, to show that they are indispensable, that they are the adults to your incorrigible children. I have no doubt that some external communities will facilitate that. I wouldn’t put it past some sympathetic communities to do it for them if the experiment doesn’t go the way they hope. If they want a pity party that’s their prerogative. Leave them to it. Either way, don’t let it be this group that get involved in that childishness. There’s been enough of that to last a lifetime.
I still believe reddit could go for years without RL content, the mods really don't care, the news will surface every time anyway. The mods passed the ball on RLs court, and they can just lay back now. If RL keeps bitching and witch hunting, then fine by them, ban his content for another 3 months. Then another. They can go on forever, people will eventually tire of qqing about it, they already do. It surely is an annoyance for them, the pesky RL supporters, but now they can always point fingers at Richard, that he was given a chance, and will be given again, and again, but until he does not act likea good puppy, their hands are tied. (Which is not ture, but what an awesome PR!)
And look at the trianwreck called r/lol with their newest aberration, the reddit team. They managed to make a not so funny joke into a complete meltdown. Remember when I said these guys would pour gasoline on themselves instead of water if they ever caught fire? I wish I was exaggerating. Oh, and one of the top comments in the mod thread regarding this whole reddit team? "PSA is not allowed in the titles, but the mods just used it!". Damn these tyrant mods, meanwhile some 14 years old is being essentially robbed.
Trust me, that subreddit could go on without many things, possibly even oxygen.
On May 19 2015 05:24 Volband wrote: You must be the guy who bets on 1.00000000001 odds and announce that you were indeed, right again. No one believed RL will be still banned for sure in 2070, but for that, he has to bow, while his content is still being banned for at least a quarter of a year, which is huge, especially compared to some naive sentiment here, which imagined it might be lifted within the week people started crying (again).
I was, however, wrong that it's a lose-lose situation to the mods, and as I said, I adore their solution, where it's actually a win-win, unless Richard outwits them. So exciting!
I'm very confused how they have outwitted him. Like I said, they are like cops who decide to allow firebombings because people are complaining about civil rights abuses. Its what petulant children do, which RLewis has basically already called them out on:
Finally, in light of the LoL mods announcing their week long vacation (during which time they will be moderating any way, just not in a visible fashion), I saw people propose to spam their sub with threads supporting me or deriding them. I’d ask you to please not do that. It’s actually what they want, to show that they are indispensable, that they are the adults to your incorrigible children. I have no doubt that some external communities will facilitate that. I wouldn’t put it past some sympathetic communities to do it for them if the experiment doesn’t go the way they hope. If they want a pity party that’s their prerogative. Leave them to it. Either way, don’t let it be this group that get involved in that childishness. There’s been enough of that to last a lifetime.
Banning his content made an awful situation for them. On hand, it was necessary, because Richard is growing on their head, but they either a.) never ever reviewed the case, which could bite them in the ass b.) just lift the ban and admit defeat. The way they passed the ball to Richard allows them to have a more understandable explanation if they want to keep his content banned, while lifting it essentially says "all right, Richard became a good puppy, let's see if he can behave with the ban lifted as well". It's pretty solid.
As for the alleged no-mod week, it's good for many reasons. One very obvious is to show the sub what a mess it would become without them. You can compare it to some mass murder, but the difference is that they can do it without major consequences, unlike the police. This community does not understand the value of moderation, these are children. Yes, some of them see through it, already calling them out, but so what, the majority of the people will be fed up with all the trash during that week. Suddenly "omg, they deleted my totally quality post!!!" people will decrease. And yeah, it could also unleash the dogs of Richard. Richard is a shitty person and his most devoted followers are more or less the same, otherwise they wouldn't have participated in his manhunts so willingly. Allowing them to show their rotten teeth would just create sympathy towards the mods. "Oh, so these are the people being kept away from us... yeah, I don't think we need them."
Is it ethycal? Will they earn a Nobel peace prize? Hardly, but I am all for fighting fire with fire, at least in a case like this. I have empathy, I can't stand when anyone takes advantage on the weaker, it even makes me depressed, but when guys like Richard getting the fist up in their butt gives me a sense of justice. Something, that could not be done in real life, because you obviously don't risk real lifes just to prove your point, but the mods have the luxury of not gambling with real lifes. My sympathy to the people who will suffer as collateral damage, and can't post their painstaking work, because it might not even reach the front page, even though it should, but some kids were asking for a lesson for a very long time on that subreddit, and now they got it.
In this topic, literally the same people who mocked the moderators and said that upvotes/downvotes should determine the quality of content on the community-driven site, are now mocking the moderators for actually calling them on their bluff and offering to step aside and let upvotes/downvotes determine what is on the front page.
Personally I think this whole thing is unnecessary and kind of stupid. It doesn't really placate anyone, and it won't change the minds of the stubborn and stupid (remember, most of the denizens of RiotFreeLoL are people too stupid to know what an NDA is, so they're hardly bastions of critical thinking waiting with open minds). It's basically stooping to their level.
Right now the subreddit is a moderated firehose with stupid stuff removed, including all of RL's content because his ego is so large he can't help but get Twitter followers to help him win upvote popularity contests. If he has any sense at all, he just won't get involved during mod-free week, when the full firehose is unleashed. So I'm not sure what relevance it has.
The problem is, some people here wash everything together.
First of all, those who might as well tattoo R. L. on their forehead are really hard to take seriously. It's fine to love his content, or his persona, or the whole package, but the ignorance is just anger-inducing. With Clutz as the comrade-general (just digging up my Red Alert 2 knowledge) of the TL RL army. Now, we could argue whether my approach of just straight out hate that imbecile leech (talking about RL), or clutz's approach of ignoring everything and comparing a 1 week mod less week to some kind of systematic genocide from the real life authorities is better or worse. There is one thing neutral parties should agree upon. The mod team had every right to ban Lewis' content as well, and Lewis has every right to be mad about it. There is no right or wrong here, so all that facade and C-category acting class material posts of some people here (And the r/lol sheeps, but let's have higher standards here, shall we?), which tried to make the mod team look like some evil tyrannts who block free speech and what not is just crazy. BS. If someone can't see further than this without making some good arguments about why that multiple offender, e-stalker, brigader, fake conspiracy theorist, god knows what else guy did not have that coming, then they should just post on r/lol. Some people will call them out on their bs, but the horde will upvote you guys so no worries.
The second thing is, that the mod team is indeed not perfect. Now, some people made real good efforts to wash these together, like "these mods made a mistake, and they banned RL, therefore the banning of RL was a mistake too, FACT!". Yeah, uh, no. The mods are struggling with the 700k subscribers, but before we label them incompetent and what not, let's not fall into that trap we, or at least I, did when we were 14 and registered on our first discussion board. Oooh, these mod guys must earn some serious money, and they must sit here all day long, and they are justice itself, and they should be our role models! ... Then after a dozen more boards and/or games where people have extra power (like game masters), you realize that no one is perfect or not corrupt. Even the smartest, kindest guy with the best intentions uses his power for something else. Maybe it's just a minor thingy, but power abuse is power abuse! Then not to mention people struggled to manage to keep a few hundreds people in line, let alone 700k. The latter is simply impossible; borrow a history book and skim-read it. Nothing new here. Inconsistent bans, inconsistent moderation, and xy mod is an ass. Damn. These guys sound like... I don't know, your average mod team. Sure, keep improving, let's sort it out, etc. etc, but honestly. Honestly. Really honestly... Who cares? I mean, if I'm paid good money per day to be a wolf and be on their trail I would do the exact same thing. "Omg, double standard, KILL THEM!". Not hard, no one can manage so many people without making a few angry. Look at the new craze, where even Tryndamere posted. Is it a good idea? It is. Will people still bitch the same amount after that? Possibly. But possibly even more. "He was banned for THAT?" - oooh, you already know it's coming. You can be as transparent as humanly possible, won't help if the average IQ of that subreddit is closer to 0 than 100, then add the hounds of RL to the equation and you basically arrive to Hell.
And thirdly, people enjoy this. Something is happening, it's like a revolution, like the ones you read about in the books. When the peasants gathered and achieved big things! - Mom, get the camera, my witty one-liner about mod-abuse got 1000 karma! Mom, check this out! - Awww sweetey, who's mamma's hero if not YOU? - I am indeed! Look, now I'm upvoting these "free Richard Lewis'" posts, helping out my comrades! - Aww, that's awfully nice of you! Who is this guy and why he needs to be freed? - I really couldn't bother to read about it in details, but these good folks here said his content is good, and you know mom, every revolution we learned about, had some important political figures being freed. I mean, we gotta free someone, it's just cool. - Mmmm, okay. And what now? - Well, mom, you can clearly see we are like 10 million people here, so now we are going to take over and banish these assholes. - Assholes?! - Yeah mom, these guys are like... I don't know, they have highs and lows, and personalities, what's the word... - People? - Yeah! - All right, so soon you are in charge! How exciting. Whatcha gonna do little boy? - Well, we not yet settled this. Charles wants to promote more funny memes, but Troy thinks we should evolve the subreddit into a more serious e-sports portal, but me and Jason already have a plan to blackmail Troy with her sister's stolen nudes, and then we can totally make this subreddit the world's biggest league of legends gif portal!! - And what about Richard? - We all agreed we are going to fucking ban him again, because he's dangerous and an ass. - People might not like what you are about to do, young fella! - Doesn't matter, we'll close the complaining the threads. Can't you remember? I just showed you my 1000 karma post. These guys obviously like me and thinks I'm a great thinker. - Yes, you are my great thinker boy! If you finished voting up your friends' comments, would you please learn for your test so at least there'll be one class you won't fail this year? - I'll try mom, but there are so many dank memes, it'll take a while to upvote them all.
People crave for this. Show them anything they can feel important in, and they will gladly jump in the middle of it.
I'm looking forward to that no mod week. Even with moderation r/lol was on a very good way to make the news with that reddit team catastrophe, I seriously can't wait if they need 2 or 3 days to somehow suffocate in their own drool.
I like how this is becoming death note in your mind.
I actually admitted earlier that I don't even understand reddit rules vis-à-vis brigading and linking because they are stupid.
Also, I'm not all about RLewis, I'm just generally pro asshole (see my comments on riot's toxicity bs). Actually, that's one of the reasons they seem so connected is because of the childish stance on bullying/toxicity.
On May 19 2015 10:51 cLutZ wrote: I like how this is becoming death note in your mind.
I actually admitted earlier that I don't even understand reddit rules vis-à-vis brigading and linking because they are stupid.
Also, I'm not all about RLewis, I'm just generally pro asshole (see my comments on riot's toxicity bs). Actually, that's one of the reasons they seem so connected is because of the childish stance on bullying/toxicity.
I mean. It's pretty hilarious that r/lol took an extra day to get the misfit quas poaching story up in frontpage because people were scared of getting banned, so all we got was this shitty selfpost with almost no information for the frontpage news. Meanwhile there's a perfectly well sourced well written article on the dailydot with all the information regarding the story that's being completely unused in the biggest lol community site, because of automatic content ban.
Just to clarify: I both think that sometimes assholishness is correlated(possibly causal) with doing good work (Jordan, James Cameron, Varian Wyrnn, every President since Carter), and that it is entertaining in its own right so spaces are better with assholes (particularly if they are good, like Chris Rock).
On May 19 2015 10:51 cLutZ wrote: I like how this is becoming death note in your mind.
I actually admitted earlier that I don't even understand reddit rules vis-à-vis brigading and linking because they are stupid.
Also, I'm not all about RLewis, I'm just generally pro asshole (see my comments on riot's toxicity bs). Actually, that's one of the reasons they seem so connected is because of the childish stance on bullying/toxicity.
I mean. It's pretty hilarious that r/lol took an extra day to get the misfit quas poaching story up in frontpage because people were scared of getting banned, so all we got was this shitty selfpost with almost no information for the frontpage news. Meanwhile there's a perfectly well sourced well written article on the dailydot with all the information regarding the story that's being completely unused in the biggest lol community site, because of automatic content ban.
It is indeed shitty that Lewis did everything he could to achieve this mess.
Gotta love your point of view, where if someone with any value (good sportsman, actor, musician) is getting jailed for manslaughter or domestic abuse or whatever, it's the authorities' fault. "Great, now my favorite player sits in prison. Sure, he killed his wife, but fuck the police, why can't they let out for the games at least??"
Though it sounds like a good comedy sketch, where everyone has to "forget" part of a story and talk about it that way.
On May 19 2015 11:21 cLutZ wrote: Just to clarify: I both think that sometimes assholishness is correlated(possibly causal) with doing good work (Jordan, James Cameron, Varian Wyrnn, every President since Carter), and that it is entertaining in its own right so spaces are better with assholes (particularly if they are good, like Chris Rock).
Thoorin is an asshole with the common sense to not shit in his own bed*. Assholes are fine, I'm an asshole as well, but even I managed to learn that just because I could get away with things due to people finding my assholeness entertaining, that kind of protection does not exist when I switch gears and make a personal vendetta against the authorities of the place.
It's like when mean jokes get out of hand. And it did.
Edit: * well, let's just say at least he tries when it happens
Vol, I have to say, the raw bias shining off of your posts is pretty much enough to single handedly make me want to support RL. Its like you have a compulsive need to reject any possible defence of him outright. Like american politics. Its stopped being about the debate, and its just a shit throwing contest.
You seem unable to talk about the issues themselves without remembering that if you dare agree with something someone says, you might be endorsing RL.
I've been away for a few days, so I appologise GI from not responding, I'll try to catch up to the thread properly when I next get a desire to procrastinate my research (probably soon? ) Really though Vol, I just thought I should let you know. Your unrelenting refusal to compromise ideas or points is really pushing me the other way I know you are not single handedly representative of all those in support of r/lol But it paints a picture of those against him being against him for the wrong reasons, that is, personal reasons.
EDIT: I mean, im sorry Vol, but honestly, that is the impression I get. Im not trying to insult you (although I can very much see how this could be taken that way) I'm trying to point out to you that I think you might be a bit too emotionally involved and perhaps not looking at this topic quite as objectively as you might hope you were. (even if you were pretending to be objective it would give your points more weight!)
EDIT AGAIN: To clarify a bit: When you take a stance (like yours seems to be) that 100% of the blame rests with one party and 0% with the other, its becomes a very dubious position, and in reality that is very rarely the case.
So even if in the end it turns out that RL -is- mostly to blame (I would be open to this conclusion) the fact that -your- position is one where he is entirely to blame and the mods are faultless beacons of moral standards just makes it impossible for me to agree with most of what you say.
While im sure some people are doing the opposite aswell (100% mods fault) they're either far less vocal than you, or I'm seeing their posts less. As at least most if not all people have accepted that RL -was- being a jerk and deserved to be banned, but then taking the debate further about the justification for the level of penalisation. I don't know who is right yet, but i'll tell you one thing, I -do- think that the r/lol mods have been behaving poorly as mods, or at least -not optimally- and that makes agreeing with your position very very very challenging
EDIT AGAIN AGAIN: Imagine you were reading a poster who just refused that RL was in anyway to blame for anything that has happened, imagine how stupid and biased you would think that person was, would you ever be convinced by anything they said?
On May 19 2015 22:59 Raneth wrote: Vol, I have to say, the raw bias shining off of your posts is pretty much enough to single handedly make me want to support RL. Its like you have a compulsive need to reject any possible defence of him outright. Like american politics. Its stopped being about the debate, and its just a shit throwing contest.
You seem unable to talk about the issues themselves without remembering that if you dare agree with something someone says, you might be endorsing RL.
I've been away for a few days, so I appologise GI from not responding, I'll try to catch up to the thread properly when I next get a desire to procrastinate my research (probably soon? ) Really though Vol, I just thought I should let you know. Your unrelenting refusal to compromise ideas or points is really pushing me the other way I know you are not single handedly representative of all those in support of r/lol But it paints a picture of those being against him being against him for the wrong reasons, that is personal reasons.
I agree, I made myself vulnerable to attacks like these, so no surprise here that someone eventually slammed don the many balls I threw in the air. Indeed, I am biased*, and if I wouldn't find this whole thing ridiculous in the first place, I could've given a shit to present myself better. Shame on me, and even though r/lol community is just as shitty as I described, it's still not nice to keep calling stupid people stupid. I deserve a spanking and a soap in my mouth.
All right, now that we settled that Richard is not the only asshole in this world, let's see what good defence you, or really, anyone besides Clutz brought up. Let me see. Let me zoom in on this page. Right, still nothing, just the same ol': - Wei2cool is still trying to twist this around, and he's basically saying Roman Polanski's work outweighs the fact he raped an underage girl, and if the authorities would dare to touch him, he'd totally flip out. Now, I'm willing to compromise that it worths a debate. It's still fucked up, but there you go. - The guy with the Yorick picture said it just can't last forever. He was kinda right, because the mods just announced a chance to Richard - something they already did months ago as well regarding his account ban, which he did not give a single fuck about, just kept attacking with full force. All right, I guess it's settled. - You point out that I'm a meanie. Maybe I am. I guess it wouldn't be fair to call you out for saying nothing as well in the defence of Rchard, because you are still reading through the posts, so I'm giving you the benefit of doubt that you will bring up some strong arguments that will shake me, or at least someone more on the neutral side. I definitely don't envy you, because you have to merge down into some deep shit, but I wish you luck. - And ClutZ, who is trying, still ignores some important stuff, and I am having an absolute hard time coming to terms with his police analogy regarding the no mod week. Way over-dramatized, and he is ignoring Richard's acts just because he's an ass, and ass people always generate drama, and we all love drama. Just come to terms with the fact that he and his content was not banned because of his personality. Richard did painstaking work to create his own downward spiral and he got many warnings, because in the end, even the mods best interest to have a Richard around (they can live without him, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be better to have his content in the normal way), but he just promoted himself into God, and wanted to tear r/lol apart in his anger. Turned out he's not God, and now people freaked out that there's an actual line when you get bitchslapped. Reminds of that video, where the guy keeps telling the security that this is a free country and they can not stop him going to... I don't know where. The guards warn him many times to back off. He goes Richard Lewis, then the guards shoot him with that electric gun. Some people just need to know their place.
*I hope you realize I'm hardly the sole biased person here, but whatever.
Edit: Damn. Well, I'm off to work, but when I'm there, and if I still find the idea funny enough to put work into it, I'll make a sugarcoated version just for you. Not a promise, though, but I'm already having bright ideas - and it's also a good showcase, that presentation counts, and the less the individual thinks, the more your presentation counts rather than its' content or validity. "Well, he might be right, but I don't like this guy, so I guess he's wrong." I mainly refer to the hive minds of many subreddits. I'm also open to the idea to be surprised with an edit which has some legit argument for Richard. Is this the point where I put "" at the end of my sentence? I think it was.
Volband, I think the issue with your argumentative style is that you equate the acts that RL has done with murder or rape. If you think him googling people's person information is on the same level with those actions, as you've stated in the quoted texts below, then it really does end the discussion. You can't reason with someone who has that slanted of a view of the situation.
On May 19 2015 17:06 Volband wrote:Gotta love your point of view, where if someone with any value (good sportsman, actor, musician) is getting jailed for manslaughter or domestic abuse or whatever, it's the authorities' fault. "Great, now my favorite player sits in prison. Sure, he killed his wife, but fuck the police, why can't they let out for the games at least??"
On May 14 2015 06:13 Volband wrote: ... we are reaching some all time low here when someone so casually discards the fact that Rlewis hunts after people. God forbid he sees a young woman with a short skirt.... you know what's coming to her.
Now if you admit those are extreme examples and are not on par with what RL has or hasn't done in regards to the reddit community then we might get somewhere and stop having baseless conversation that devolves into circular arguments about what is or isn't condoned on r/lol. I don't even know why this thread still draws me in because I could hardly care less about either party in this discussion.
- And ClutZ, who is trying, still ignores some important stuff, and I am having an absolute hard time coming to terms with his police analogy regarding the no mod week. Way over-dramatized, and he is ignoring Richard's acts just because he's an ass, and ass people always generate drama, and we all love drama. Just come to terms with the fact that he and his content was not banned because of his personality. Richard did painstaking work to create his own downward spiral and he got many warnings, because in the end, even the mods best interest to have a Richard around (they can live without him, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be better to have his content in the normal way), but he just promoted himself into God, and wanted to tear r/lol apart in his anger. Turned out he's not God, and now people freaked out that there's an actual line when you get bitchslapped. Reminds of that video, where the guy keeps telling the security that this is a free country and they can not stop him going to... I don't know where. The guards warn him many times to back off. He goes Richard Lewis, then the guards shoot him with that electric gun. Some people just need to know their place.
I only made the police analogy because its the same childish mindset/it was fresh in my mind because the NYC police tried doing it on the small stuff(and only the mayor freaked out, because revenues).
I guess its like your neighbor who mows his lawn at 6 AM and wakes you up. Then when you ask him to please stop mowing when your are asleep, he just lets his yard turn into a jungle out of spite.
Also, I readily admit I don't understand these lines of Reddit. Someone informed me that some subs ban people from up/downvoting content they see linked from other subs. Very bizarre.
On May 19 2015 23:50 Zdrastochye wrote: Volband, I think the issue with your argumentative style is that you equate the acts that RL has done with murder or rape. If you think him googling people's person information is on the same level with those actions, as you've stated in the quoted texts below, then it really does end the discussion. You can't reason with someone who has that slanted of a view of the situation.
On May 19 2015 17:06 Volband wrote:Gotta love your point of view, where if someone with any value (good sportsman, actor, musician) is getting jailed for manslaughter or domestic abuse or whatever, it's the authorities' fault. "Great, now my favorite player sits in prison. Sure, he killed his wife, but fuck the police, why can't they let out for the games at least??"
On May 14 2015 06:13 Volband wrote: ... we are reaching some all time low here when someone so casually discards the fact that Rlewis hunts after people. God forbid he sees a young woman with a short skirt.... you know what's coming to her.
Now if you admit those are extreme examples and are not on par with what RL has or hasn't done in regards to the reddit community then we might get somewhere and stop having baseless conversation that devolves into circular arguments about what is or isn't condoned on r/lol. I don't even know why this thread still draws me in because I could hardly care less about either party in this discussion.
Why do I have to explain everything? I admit that when I go on long rants, I have some random train thoughts which come from nowhere, or even lead to nowhere, so that's understandable if it's not a 100% clear, but do I have to spell out that I don't really mean Rlewis basically raped someone?
While I still expect some kind of an answer to my question, I will spell it out in advance: you can bring up the discussion of how much are you allowed to "break the law" if you are important/smart/handsome/etc., but it is a very very serious topic, and I expect some very thorough posts from those, who go there. Not one liners about how shitty it is that Rlewis' content arrives late and in a bad shape. Zero effort whatsoever.
Edit: oh, and people are surprised if I just laugh around some of these responses... if someone is incapable to bring anything to the table for the tenth time in a row, it's hard to make a serious response. Probably pointless as well.
- And ClutZ, who is trying, still ignores some important stuff, and I am having an absolute hard time coming to terms with his police analogy regarding the no mod week. Way over-dramatized, and he is ignoring Richard's acts just because he's an ass, and ass people always generate drama, and we all love drama. Just come to terms with the fact that he and his content was not banned because of his personality. Richard did painstaking work to create his own downward spiral and he got many warnings, because in the end, even the mods best interest to have a Richard around (they can live without him, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be better to have his content in the normal way), but he just promoted himself into God, and wanted to tear r/lol apart in his anger. Turned out he's not God, and now people freaked out that there's an actual line when you get bitchslapped. Reminds of that video, where the guy keeps telling the security that this is a free country and they can not stop him going to... I don't know where. The guards warn him many times to back off. He goes Richard Lewis, then the guards shoot him with that electric gun. Some people just need to know their place.
I only made the police analogy because its the same childish mindset/it was fresh in my mind because the NYC police tried doing it on the small stuff(and only the mayor freaked out, because revenues).
I guess its like your neighbor who mows his lawn at 6 AM and wakes you up. Then when you ask him to please stop mowing when your are asleep, he just lets his yard turn into a jungle out of spite.
Also, I readily admit I don't understand these lines of Reddit. Someone informed me that some subs ban people from up/downvoting content they see linked from other subs. Very bizarre.
Yes, that example is better, but too black and white for me. What if the neighbour only have time to mow the lawn at 6 am? What if the complaining neighbour said the lawn only needs to be mowned once a year? Suddenly it just became complicated, and now it's not just about a petty neighbour.
And yes, as I said, every sub is different. There are subs with naming and shaming (shit reddit says is probably the worst), and if you don't agree with humiliating those people, you are banned in an instant. Their subreddit, their rules. You think it's funny to post a picture about a dog in r/cats? It's deleted and you are banned (or is it cats standing up? not sure). Or try to promote consoles on pcmasterrace, go ahead.
There is a sub about aborted children in blood and everything, I only lasted a few seconds on their frontpage, did not even click anything, but feel free to test the waters. Maybe the mod team there is nice, I don't know.
I believe the subreddit about dead, underage girls has only been deleted a few weeks/months ago, and not because reddit thought it's too much, but because the media interfered, and basically forced reddit to act all nice.
Don't try to find logic between subreddits. The mere fact r/lol allows some sort of complaining about their moderation already puts them above a lot of other subreddits, where they just instaban you, if you even try.
As for me, I already have to re-read my post 3 times if I want to comment on askwomen. Not that I post too much there, because I've seen enough people getting lynched there. It's like a minefield, and threads are constantly brigaded by bitter virgins or angry feminists.
So my initial feeling on the ban was to side with the Reddit mods. But the more I've learned about their systems and specifically those reddit threads yesterday where the mod from a 500,000 user forum suggests a public banned user/content thread and a mod from another reddit forum gives a bunch of ridiculous bullshit reasons why they can't.
I dunno, the whole thing is putting a bad taste in my mouth.
it's a bit different with reddit because they are not managing users per se but maintaining a (stupidly idealistic) mode of mediation/prsentation of content creators and the like. it's not a simple forum
On May 20 2015 11:20 Sonnington wrote: So my initial feeling on the ban was to side with the Reddit mods. But the more I've learned about their systems and specifically those reddit threads yesterday where the mod from a 500,000 user forum suggests a public banned user/content thread and a mod from another reddit forum gives a bunch of ridiculous bullshit reasons why they can't.
I dunno, the whole thing is putting a bad taste in my mouth.
Tell me again, how exactly it would be a great idea? Instead of complaining about why ban xy, they will complain about why ban xy for that, and people will be all worked up over half of the cases, because they won't bother to read the lines "repeated offender" and such. I'm not saying it's very bad, but it's nothing special.
And why is a mod's opinion with 500k subscriber's more valuable than one with EIGHT MILLION? The only difference is the latter mod is telling the harsh, kinda boring truth, while the former is all "let's all love each other, love will change everything!" No, it won't. Once again, not a terrible idea, but he should've known better these people will try to make it their new holy grail, especially Tryndamere put the horse under them. The same Tryndamere who is responsible the shameful spectatefaker fiasco, mind you.
Though, honestly, the fact that a thread like the first one could born and it needed a second one to put it in its' place is just another thing to laugh at. I'm legit cringing at how these people just can't lay the fuck back and discuss lol or whatever, instead of trying to find the solution to world peace.
On May 20 2015 11:20 Sonnington wrote: So my initial feeling on the ban was to side with the Reddit mods. But the more I've learned about their systems and specifically those reddit threads yesterday where the mod from a 500,000 user forum suggests a public banned user/content thread and a mod from another reddit forum gives a bunch of ridiculous bullshit reasons why they can't.
I dunno, the whole thing is putting a bad taste in my mouth.
Tell me again, how exactly it would be a great idea? Instead of complaining about why ban xy, they will complain about why ban xy for that, and people will be all worked up over half of the cases, because they won't bother to read the lines "repeated offender" and such. I'm not saying it's very bad, but it's nothing special.
And why is a mod's opinion with 500k subscriber's more valuable than one with EIGHT MILLION? The only difference is the latter mod is telling the harsh, kinda boring truth, while the former is all "let's all love each other, love will change everything!" No, it won't. Once again, not a terrible idea, but he should've known better these people will try to make it their new holy grail, especially Tryndamere put the horse under them. The same Tryndamere who is responsible the shameful spectatefaker fiasco, mind you.
Though, honestly, the fact that a thread like the first one could born and it needed a second one to put it in its' place is just another thing to laugh at. I'm legit cringing at how these people just can't lay the fuck back and discuss lol or whatever, instead of trying to find the solution to world peace.
What? Am I being trolled? Do you work for reddit? Are you a reddit mod? You can't lie about it either. It's like if I ask an undercover cop if he's a cop. You have to tell the truth!
People have a problem with the way the mods do their job. They don't like the fact that everything is secretive and they don't understand the motives behind why threads are removed. So to solve the problem, it's been suggested to have a thread with all deleted and banned content in one place with the reason for why it was banned there.
The reasons to not have it were erroneous. Reasons like child porn, deleted threads like doxxing, and potentially mods being doxxed because they were the ones who banned the content. All of those things are super simple problems that you can circumvent. He gave no reasons why it wasn't feasible to set up the suggested thread.
I agree though, it is kinda funny that he felt compelled to come to the subreddit to defend reddit mods' ability to work in secrecy. It's really rather distasteful to me.
On May 20 2015 15:26 419 wrote: I can't think of a single quality subreddit / forum that functions without borderline-oppressive / oppressive moderators.
In fact, complaints about moderation is A+ metric for whether they are doing a good job.
I don't think anyone is arguing over the subreddit being too stringent. People are questioning the mods for bias and inconsistency.
On May 20 2015 11:20 Sonnington wrote: So my initial feeling on the ban was to side with the Reddit mods. But the more I've learned about their systems and specifically those reddit threads yesterday where the mod from a 500,000 user forum suggests a public banned user/content thread and a mod from another reddit forum gives a bunch of ridiculous bullshit reasons why they can't.
I dunno, the whole thing is putting a bad taste in my mouth.
Tell me again, how exactly it would be a great idea? Instead of complaining about why ban xy, they will complain about why ban xy for that, and people will be all worked up over half of the cases, because they won't bother to read the lines "repeated offender" and such. I'm not saying it's very bad, but it's nothing special.
And why is a mod's opinion with 500k subscriber's more valuable than one with EIGHT MILLION? The only difference is the latter mod is telling the harsh, kinda boring truth, while the former is all "let's all love each other, love will change everything!" No, it won't. Once again, not a terrible idea, but he should've known better these people will try to make it their new holy grail, especially Tryndamere put the horse under them. The same Tryndamere who is responsible the shameful spectatefaker fiasco, mind you.
Though, honestly, the fact that a thread like the first one could born and it needed a second one to put it in its' place is just another thing to laugh at. I'm legit cringing at how these people just can't lay the fuck back and discuss lol or whatever, instead of trying to find the solution to world peace.
What? Am I being trolled? Do you work for reddit? Are you a reddit mod? You can't lie about it either. It's like if I ask an undercover cop if he's a cop. You have to tell the truth!
People have a problem with the way the mods do their job. They don't like the fact that everything is secretive and they don't understand the motives behind why threads are removed. So to solve the problem, it's been suggested to have a thread with all deleted and banned content in one place with the reason for why it was banned there.
The reasons to not have it were erroneous. Reasons like child porn, deleted threads like doxxing, and potentially mods being doxxed because they were the ones who banned the content. All of those things are super simple problems that you can circumvent. He gave no reasons why it wasn't feasible to set up the suggested thread.
I agree though, it is kinda funny that he felt compelled to come to the subreddit to defend reddit mods' ability to work in secrecy. It's really rather distasteful to me.
I wanted to make some funny remark about how you must be from the USA with this "FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE" mindset, then I actually went back to check it out. Not sure if it's actually a thing there, or I just got dead lucky (most of TLers are from the US).
Anyway, let me take on a stereotype as well, the Eastern-European one. Any time I hear lines like "we deserve it" "you can't lie about it", "no secrets!!" it's like interacting with extraterrestrial species. My country's most celebrated acts here are revolutions which we lost, then got punished pretty badly for them. We literally dress up to remember every time we tried to be heroes and bring equality and just to our lives, but pretty much just ruined everything. I could go on, but you get the picture: it's sad. No glorious victories over opressive powers whatsoever.
You see, I'd like full transparency on everything, and I'd like honest politicians, I'd like a democracy where we can sit down and talk about things instead of being in a race of which party can manipulate those who are either uneducated, or undecided. I'd like if every discussion board and community site on the internet would have mods and admins who do their job just as down to earth and in a nice way as the police would in this utopystic world. I'd really like all of this, and even more!
Then I wake up, gather my experience (I had this fight a million times now, being on the "good" side), and reach the conclusion that you will either become a clown, and ask for everything you just did, or learn to swallow and make realistic demands. People have all the power in their own site, and subreddits are basically whole different sites using the same layout. If you really want these people to be the avatar of righteousness and justice, you might as well paint your face white and find a big red nose for you to put on. To make an example, politicians steal. Not necessarily in a literal way, but come on, we all know friends win tenders and such. Is it ethical? No. Is it nice? No. But personally, I learned to accept it, because after all, that money is nothing compared to the impact some of their decision may have to a country's entire population. Give me a decent salary, a decent chance to get a job, give me healthcare, give me a way to plan my future, and I couldn't care less that your already rich friend got richer. So what. So what if a reddit mod licks Riot's ass because he wants to be a Rioter? So what is that sarah gal is an asshole? So what if among the thousands of threads some (rather low impact ones, like funny gifs) gets deleted, even though the rules kinda allow it? Seriously now, what then?
And let me launch another approach while some of you guys might still be in shock that I just told you how things work without warning you with a spoiler alert. Why are these mods even allow things like: - People constantly trying to tell Riot how X and Y should work, despite at least 50% of these suggestions are utter shit. Holly molly, those days when literally half of the front page's threads started with "Riot,...". - People riding Richard's conspiracy theory. - Keep giving Richard Lewis a second, third fourth, etc chance just because he's Richard Lewis. Any "common" people could've been happy if they got at least one warning before being cut down. - People writing huge ass essays about how Riot is dumb, and stupid, and greedy because Chroma packs cost RP. No one ever said they wouldn't. No one. Even r/lol got fucking tired of the chroma shitposts and actually started defending Riot and calling out people on their BS. - People turning a joke (reddit team) into something with SERIOUS weight and consequences, and the possibility of scamming tens of thousands of people. It's like what the boston marathon killer hunting was for reddit. A complete shame which should have never reached it's boiling point. - Kinda the opposite here: I loved how despite their rules against witch hunting, they showed the way for the community as to how to post the contents exposing that LoL youtuber club. I believe the original gnarsies video got deleted due to rule violations, but even that stayed there for hours, at least from what I remember. Anyway, it was definitely not oppressed, unlike the discussions about Rlewis.
Let me give you a third ball to juggle: how much do you think these mods earn? I mean money. Personally, I'm not even sure if they earn any. Anyway, if we'll get an answer (even if just a good guess), think about whether it's worth cleaning up toilets after ~700,000 people, and whether they would die to slave away for another ~2hours a day just to keep a thread updated with "jimmy got banned for spam.". With the added extra of eventually threads will start to appear, because if you delete hundreds of threads and warn/ban dozens of people each day (because that must be the average for such a huge community, even if you are a saint mod), people will find something to nag them about. Then threads like "X got banned for spam after 3 comments, but Y only after 2. r/lol mods are illuminati?". Then you either delete them, because the last thing you need is to cater for someone who is clearly bored and decided to play the justice warrior for a day, or get into some kind of ridiculous argument.
Like it or not, r/lol works, and well within the boundaries of your "average corruption". Everyone bashes r/funny, it still has 8.5 million subscribers, so I guess it's OK? (Yes, it makes you autosubscribe, but come on, two clicks and you are unsubscribed if you don't like it). You can learn to enjoy it, or you can keep fighting a war which has not yet been won in the history of mankind.
But you know what? Let's root the mods will make a banned content thread, now I'm genuinely curious. Some people - like you - are over the roof about this idea, but I'm fairly confident that it would a.) change nothing b.) just breed more controversy. Either way, both a.) and b.) results in the same thing: someone will come with a new craze, like mods should make a stickied thread with their faces in it, because "a good mod should not be ashamed of his/her face" or something stupid like that, and people will be "wow, THIS is it! Our last effort was a total goofball, but this will bring justice and real transparency and I will feel safer in this sub!"
I also don't think a banned thread would solve the problems I have, because the problem isn't lack of documentation, its lack of consistency. I am sure that the thread, had it existed, would not have convinced them they were being hypocrites, it would just make the case levied against the mods stronger/weaker based on the evidence contained therein. I guess its useful in that it makes that less of a conspiracy theory thing.
What I gathered from your little country tangent is that you like anonymity so you don't die during a failed revolution? Which is a strange analogy because the mods are the incumbent government in this analogy.
On May 21 2015 01:57 cLutZ wrote: I also don't think a banned thread would solve the problems I have, because the problem isn't lack of documentation, its lack of consistency. I am sure that the thread, had it existed, would not have convinced them they were being hypocrites, it would just make the case levied against the mods stronger/weaker based on the evidence contained therein. I guess its useful in that it makes that less of a conspiracy theory thing.
What I gathered from your little country tangent is that you like anonymity so you don't die during a failed revolution? Which is a strange analogy because the mods are the incumbent government in this analogy.
That's the idea of a ban thread. It gives users proof that the mods are inconsistent with their decisions.
@Volband That's an interesting piece of Hungarian history. I don't agree with the premise of letting things slip out of fear that those in power will make things worse out of punishment.
On May 21 2015 01:57 cLutZ wrote: I also don't think a banned thread would solve the problems I have, because the problem isn't lack of documentation, its lack of consistency. I am sure that the thread, had it existed, would not have convinced them they were being hypocrites, it would just make the case levied against the mods stronger/weaker based on the evidence contained therein. I guess its useful in that it makes that less of a conspiracy theory thing.
What I gathered from your little country tangent is that you like anonymity so you don't die during a failed revolution? Which is a strange analogy because the mods are the incumbent government in this analogy.
I believe in not wasting efforts, and being conservative when and how I play out the "hero" card. I like putting my eggs in one basket, so if I grab a pitchfork, I want to be sure I'm fighting the good fight, and not one which might make me look like some nice and honorable fella, but my intentions and demands are unreal. It's easy to paint a perfect picture about yourself and gain the equivalent of karma in real life, but I rather achieve something instead of just polishing my dick. Sure, the good fight is subjective, and I bound to misjudge certain cases; or maybe fail to realize something is not black and white, and attacking side A or B with full force is futile and silly.
I'm not saying I never get worked up over a storm in a cup of water, quite the opposite, but it has to have something which offends my moral code - or call it whatever you'd like! And no, mods being lousy in a huge ass community site is hardly something which makes me flip over.
But credit where it's due, maybe these futile outroars are necessary to keep the higher powers at bay? You will never banish corruption, but if the people with power see that you are willing to raise your voice even for the tiniest shit, they will think twice whether or not they will actually do something outrageous. I dunno, I always think about this when I see protesters at the street. The government obviously doesn't give a crap about them, but maybe these are still not worthless?
I'm definitely guilty of thinking it's pointless, even if I happen to be right.
On May 21 2015 02:27 TitusVI wrote: I love how much work people invest into discussing this issue lol
It's quite a fascinating topic. Not Lewis, but the discussion about moderators around the internet.
On May 21 2015 01:57 cLutZ wrote: I also don't think a banned thread would solve the problems I have, because the problem isn't lack of documentation, its lack of consistency. I am sure that the thread, had it existed, would not have convinced them they were being hypocrites, it would just make the case levied against the mods stronger/weaker based on the evidence contained therein. I guess its useful in that it makes that less of a conspiracy theory thing.
What I gathered from your little country tangent is that you like anonymity so you don't die during a failed revolution? Which is a strange analogy because the mods are the incumbent government in this analogy.
That's the idea of a ban thread. It gives users proof that the mods are inconsistent with their decisions.
@Volband That's an interesting piece of Hungarian history. I don't agree with the premise of letting things slip out of fear that those in power will make things worse out of punishment.
So a thread by these inconsistent mods where they can dress up their decision whichever way they want will suddenly change things. You do know people who cheat out money, steal government money, launder money, etc. have papers which prove their innocence? The only way you can get actual proof if you create a body which sole purpose is to monitor the moderator's activity and make reports on a week to week basis. Everything else is just circus from both sides.
And do you agree with running naked into 100 soldiers with military weapons, whenever you are right and they are not? Don't wage war just for the thrill of it; funny video thead no1 was deleted while funny video thread no2 (with the same video) did not. Sure, it's not right, but don't try to blow it up into something huge. Ask the mods if they could adress this problem, maybe make a survey about it, and cross your fingers that they will listen. And if they not? Well, unless you would complain in someone else's house about their rules in their house (however ridiculous said rule might be), let it go~~ Unless you feel that in memoriam funny video thread no1 you should participate in a riot.
Edit: Oh, and meanwhile... www.reddit.com I bet China would've let funny video thread no1 stay!!
Edit 2: And I would have no problem people trying their best to somehow force Riot to come up with a solution so this could not happen even, even fi the chances are 0.00000000000000000000000%. This is something I would never ever consider stupid to rage against, because it's corruption at its' worst. Fighting things like these also takes some balls comparing to nagging some mod on his OWN community site for being inconsistent and for the grass being green.
I don't really see what there is to argue about. He's being a bitch to the mods, ignore their warnings on other stuff, and they ban him. There isn't really any defense to be had.
I think the whole 'mods abusing their power' argument is complete bullshit. If you don't like it, why don't you try modding? I sure as hell don't want to even if they paid me to do it. Fuck that shit and everything that comes with it. I would go as far as to say let them abuse their power a little bit if someone's being a constant nagging jackass on twitter.
On May 21 2015 06:56 North2 wrote: I don't really see what there is to argue about. He's being a bitch to the mods, ignore their warnings on other stuff, and they ban him. There isn't really any defense to be had.
I think the whole 'mods abusing their power' argument is complete bullshit. If you don't like it, why don't you try modding? I sure as hell don't want to even if they paid me to do it. Fuck that shit and everything that comes with it. I would go as far as to say let them abuse their power a little bit if someone's being a constant nagging jackass on twitter.
it's not about banning him, i don' think anyone disagrees with that, it's the content ban.
On May 21 2015 06:56 North2 wrote: I don't really see what there is to argue about. He's being a bitch to the mods, ignore their warnings on other stuff, and they ban him. There isn't really any defense to be had.
I think the whole 'mods abusing their power' argument is complete bullshit. If you don't like it, why don't you try modding? I sure as hell don't want to even if they paid me to do it. Fuck that shit and everything that comes with it. I would go as far as to say let them abuse their power a little bit if someone's being a constant nagging jackass on twitter.
its not about banning his account but his content.
On May 21 2015 06:56 North2 wrote: I don't really see what there is to argue about. He's being a bitch to the mods, ignore their warnings on other stuff, and they ban him. There isn't really any defense to be had.
I think the whole 'mods abusing their power' argument is complete bullshit. If you don't like it, why don't you try modding? I sure as hell don't want to even if they paid me to do it. Fuck that shit and everything that comes with it. I would go as far as to say let them abuse their power a little bit if someone's being a constant nagging jackass on twitter.
Whether there is or isn't something to argue about, we have one whole man who more or less tried to argue Richard's content ban, and that's it.The rest of the people are just holding a "free Richard" sign because it was cool for the first couple of weeks.
We actually started discussing the mods and moderation instead, because the average argument for uplifting Rlewis' content ban, or not issuing it in the first place are as deep as the two replies after your comment.
And you are absolutely right about what you just said about being a moderator.
oic. That is a little difficult then, considering RL can 'brigade' any thread he wants from twitter even if the guy that posted it has no affiliation with RL.
On May 21 2015 08:29 North2 wrote: oic. That is a little difficult then, considering RL can 'brigade' any thread he wants from twitter even if the guy that posted it has no affiliation with RL.
Whatevs, I don't care.
RL's brigade is about as silly as when Suff posts a reddit link in TL thread regarding one of his statistic/data mining projects regarding LoL
RL deserves whatever rough handling he gets. i don't really care for reddit's idea of 'neutrality' and there is definitely personal flavor to their handling of lewis, but the bigger asshole here is not the reddit mods.
On May 21 2015 08:29 North2 wrote: oic. That is a little difficult then, considering RL can 'brigade' any thread he wants from twitter even if the guy that posted it has no affiliation with RL.
Whatevs, I don't care.
RL's brigade is about as silly as when Suff posts a reddit link in TL thread regarding one of his statistic/data mining projects regarding LoL
Tears falling from one of my eye by just thinking about that you think a link in liquidlegends has the same power as Richard basically manipulating the subreddit with his goons. My other eye is tearing up that it sounds like you think a bening link here could be considered as brigading.
Here, I saved you the trouble: www.reddit.com 2nd find in the first page of the Google search.
While it can be a volatile thing to judge, when someone tweets stuff like this twitter.com, with such a follower base, their intention is clear as day to everyone but the blind.
On May 21 2015 08:29 North2 wrote: oic. That is a little difficult then, considering RL can 'brigade' any thread he wants from twitter even if the guy that posted it has no affiliation with RL.
Whatevs, I don't care.
It's a message. A statement. They are putting their feet down, showing him that while they do not have the manpower to completely ban him and his content out (not that they'd really want that, mind you), they are willing to strike back and they are serious when they demand him to back the fuck off.
On May 21 2015 10:17 oneofthem wrote: RL deserves whatever rough handling he gets. i don't really care for reddit's idea of 'neutrality' and there is definitely personal flavor to their handling of lewis, but the bigger asshole here is not the reddit mods.
Something almost everyone, but wei2 managed to comprehend. I should watch some of the guy's vlogs, maybe it has some brainwashing effect?
Do you really think the /r/lol community is better with or without RLewis content? I'd argue it's better, despite his personal squabbles with the /r/lol mods
On May 21 2015 11:43 wei2coolman wrote: Do you really think the /r/lol community is better with or without RLewis content? I'd argue it's better, despite his personal squabbles with the /r/lol mods
No, it's not.
Do you think it's the mods fault that Richard kept pumping out shitposts about them (which they even tolerated for a pretty long time), went as far as creating a whole conspiracy theory, just because the mods banned his account which has been warned for a million times before the sanction?
On May 21 2015 08:29 North2 wrote: oic. That is a little difficult then, considering RL can 'brigade' any thread he wants from twitter even if the guy that posted it has no affiliation with RL.
Whatevs, I don't care.
RL's brigade is about as silly as when Suff posts a reddit link in TL thread regarding one of his statistic/data mining projects regarding LoL
Tears falling from one of my eye by just thinking about that you think a link in liquidlegends has the same power as Richard basically manipulating the subreddit with his goons. My other eye is tearing up that it sounds like you think a bening link here could be considered as brigading.
Here, I saved you the trouble: www.reddit.com 2nd find in the first page of the Google search.
While it can be a volatile thing to judge, when someone tweets stuff like this twitter.com, with such a follower base, their intention is clear as day to everyone but the blind.
On May 21 2015 08:29 North2 wrote: oic. That is a little difficult then, considering RL can 'brigade' any thread he wants from twitter even if the guy that posted it has no affiliation with RL.
Whatevs, I don't care.
It's a message. A statement. They are putting their feet down, showing him that while they do not have the manpower to completely ban him and his content out (not that they'd really want that, mind you), they are willing to strike back and they are serious when they demand him to back the fuck off.
On May 21 2015 10:17 oneofthem wrote: RL deserves whatever rough handling he gets. i don't really care for reddit's idea of 'neutrality' and there is definitely personal flavor to their handling of lewis, but the bigger asshole here is not the reddit mods.
Something almost everyone, but wei2 managed to comprehend. I should watch some of the guy's vlogs, maybe it has some brainwashing effect?
You don't even need a link. Do you think when people like Travis, Rlews, Thorin etc would tweet stuff like "just submitted my newest content to reddit. I hope it will be well received" on Twitter people wouldnt look for it? The rule is stupid and banning content is stupid too. Banning content per se while claiming the community decides what they would like to see on the Front Page is hypocritical.
Until it is shown there are other journalists in the league scene doing investigative work on the level of the whole Move Your Mothers incident, I personally hold the opinion that the merits of RL's content outweighs any benefits a blanket ban on his or related content bring. Plus, he appears to be the only person interested in discussing the organisation/management side of things (I'm referring to things like the GG agency thing, the push-pull between tournament organisers, teams and riot, NDAs and so on here, not player transfers).
However, I acknowledge that /r/lol is what /r/lol is and RL is what he is. Each party has their own vested interest, and are very staunch in their respective positions. Now that things have come to such a severe state I really don't see any compromise from either side in the works. Whether or not the the content-ban is right is besides the point, and will have little impact on any decisions.
Ultimately it's a shame because I now lack an RSS feed of sorts for League-related news/discussion. (I liked using reddit as my newsfeed and not twitter precisely because I want the content and the content only -- there are a number of individuals whose content I enjoy but personalities I might not).
Why not subscribe to DailyDot and r/lol and get both pieces of content? If anything this whole incident has shown that people believe r/lol is the only way to find the news they need. There are a lot of league related news sites out there that r/lol hasn't content banned and then your RL articles can be found at DailyDot. It's very minimal time investment to go to a second website for League news if the first source disallows that content. I guess people are lazy.
On May 21 2015 08:29 North2 wrote: oic. That is a little difficult then, considering RL can 'brigade' any thread he wants from twitter even if the guy that posted it has no affiliation with RL.
Whatevs, I don't care.
RL's brigade is about as silly as when Suff posts a reddit link in TL thread regarding one of his statistic/data mining projects regarding LoL
Tears falling from one of my eye by just thinking about that you think a link in liquidlegends has the same power as Richard basically manipulating the subreddit with his goons. My other eye is tearing up that it sounds like you think a bening link here could be considered as brigading.
Here, I saved you the trouble: www.reddit.com 2nd find in the first page of the Google search.
While it can be a volatile thing to judge, when someone tweets stuff like this twitter.com, with such a follower base, their intention is clear as day to everyone but the blind.
On May 21 2015 08:29 North2 wrote: oic. That is a little difficult then, considering RL can 'brigade' any thread he wants from twitter even if the guy that posted it has no affiliation with RL.
Whatevs, I don't care.
It's a message. A statement. They are putting their feet down, showing him that while they do not have the manpower to completely ban him and his content out (not that they'd really want that, mind you), they are willing to strike back and they are serious when they demand him to back the fuck off.
On May 21 2015 10:17 oneofthem wrote: RL deserves whatever rough handling he gets. i don't really care for reddit's idea of 'neutrality' and there is definitely personal flavor to their handling of lewis, but the bigger asshole here is not the reddit mods.
Something almost everyone, but wei2 managed to comprehend. I should watch some of the guy's vlogs, maybe it has some brainwashing effect?
You don't even need a link. Do you think when people like Travis, Rlews, Thorin etc would tweet stuff like "just submitted my newest content to reddit. I hope it will be well received" on Twitter people wouldnt look for it? The rule is stupid and banning content is stupid too. Banning content per se while claiming the community decides what they would like to see on the Front Page is hypocritical.
The rule is a rubber one, but did those people have tweets where they degraded other redditors and just left a link to their (to the ones' attacked) thread, so that their followers could overrun it? It's the exact example in which I absolutely support inconsistency. In the thread where mods revealed their decision about the content ban, none of the tweets from RL which they showed us was about simply linking to his own stuff.
Banning content is around the same stupidity level of what Richard did previously to provoke it. But you are the administrator here, so here's a question! What would you do, if one of your liquidlegends writers, who usually makes pretty entertaining write-ups, constantly calls you and the rest of the liquidlegends team out? Ie. he writes something great about an e-sports event, then his next write-up discusses how incompetent some of you are, and that he just can't stand this amateur hour of his colleges. The ratio would be 3:1 in favor of the good articles. And of course, some of the most nasty stuff would be entirely made up, just because he got into a private argument with some of you, and telling you "fuck you" would not be enough, he'd need to tune the readers against you. Then he would either get into heated arguments with those who does not agree with some of his writings, or simply just edit his article, putting links to the users' profiles and certain posts under the label of "these are the retarded imbeciles this time who thinks they are smarter than me". He'd have a big and loyal follower base, so they would just keep following the guy and give him shit, ganginging him up and whatnot. (Edit: note that he would never say directly to attack them)
If you'd decide to suspend him, at least for a while, then people would make a thread discussing how stupid it was from you, that you do not allow this guy to release his articles here, and you can't just do that. Then whenever you'd try to make them understand that they should look at the big picture, and not just talking about your very last decision, they'd be like "yeah-yeah, whatever, he MIGHT did some questionable things... but still, you can't ban his content!"
And don't tell me it's different. The biggest difference is that Richard is not an r/lol employee, so if you fire your guy, it would create less controversy. But the rest is almost the same: a man with some good qualities and a loving fan base shitting where he'd expect to eat.
On May 21 2015 22:22 Zdrastochye wrote: Why not subscribe to DailyDot and r/lol and get both pieces of content? If anything this whole incident has shown that people believe r/lol is the only way to find the news they need. There are a lot of league related news sites out there that r/lol hasn't content banned and then your RL articles can be found at DailyDot. It's very minimal time investment to go to a second website for League news if the first source disallows that content. I guess people are lazy.
I've been wondering about this as well. RL got a huuuuuge marketing out of this, everyone was asking around about the drama, so most of the people know where to find him.
On May 21 2015 21:54 ShootAnonymous wrote: Until it is shown there are other journalists in the league scene doing investigative work on the level of the whole Move Your Mothers incident, I personally hold the opinion that the merits of RL's content outweighs any benefits a blanket ban on his or related content bring. Plus, he appears to be the only person interested in discussing the organisation/management side of things (I'm referring to things like the GG agency thing, the push-pull between tournament organisers, teams and riot, NDAs and so on here, not player transfers).
However, I acknowledge that /r/lol is what /r/lol is and RL is what he is. Each party has their own vested interest, and are very staunch in their respective positions. Now that things have come to such a severe state I really don't see any compromise from either side in the works. Whether or not the the content-ban is right is besides the point, and will have little impact on any decisions.
Ultimately it's a shame because I now lack an RSS feed of sorts for League-related news/discussion. (I liked using reddit as my newsfeed and not twitter precisely because I want the content and the content only -- there are a number of individuals whose content I enjoy but personalities I might not).
Yay, the second guy who mans up to his opinion that certain qualities should outweight their "criminal record". I won't say I necessarily agree with this or not, it's pretty hard to judge, and in the end, it's totally subjective, but at least it gives some talking points. (edit: and the reason I do not try to attempt to discuss it now, because you describe the sitation pretty well in your next paragraphs, showing that you understand what's going on, and it's not a simple case of evil mods hammering away at poor, innocent, baby Richard )
But repeatedly saying that banning someone's content is not nice leads nowhere and just approaches the very end of this war between the two parties with completely ignoring the context.
On May 21 2015 22:22 Zdrastochye wrote: Why not subscribe to DailyDot and r/lol and get both pieces of content? If anything this whole incident has shown that people believe r/lol is the only way to find the news they need. There are a lot of league related news sites out there that r/lol hasn't content banned and then your RL articles can be found at DailyDot. It's very minimal time investment to go to a second website for League news if the first source disallows that content. I guess people are lazy.
Yes, that's exactly what people are. /r/lol is the gateway to the League community, people who are new to the scene will most likely end up there. That is why you hear stories about vote manipulation and people trying to get their posts to the top: the amount of exposure is pretty much unparalleled in the LoL scene. And that is why Richard's content ban is questionable and should be discussed: just how much influence are the mods allowed to have on the subreddit? How much influence is Riot allowed? The RL situation is one that seems to stem from personal grudge, and is based on individual opinions, not because the content he posted (the articles, not his twitter) were not aggressive content directed at hurting the mods.
On May 21 2015 22:22 Zdrastochye wrote: Why not subscribe to DailyDot and r/lol and get both pieces of content? If anything this whole incident has shown that people believe r/lol is the only way to find the news they need. There are a lot of league related news sites out there that r/lol hasn't content banned and then your RL articles can be found at DailyDot. It's very minimal time investment to go to a second website for League news if the first source disallows that content. I guess people are lazy.
just how much influence are the mods allowed to have on the subreddit?.
Well, how much influence are you allowed to have on your own site?
Lol get rekt, he probably is guilty in all the charges. The competition on reddit is fierce and resorting to this kind of behavior doesn't seem unnatural to me. I hope he'll never get in again, he better stay rekt.
Well then as long as r/lol doesn't pitch itself as an open forum to discuss league related material then we should be all good to go. As long as everyone is aware that moderator's personal grudges can result in a ban of a person's content that they create on a different site then I think the conversation is over. If r/lol is attempting to be a place to discuss league related materials then RL content is exactly that. If you've seen the recent drama with them now attempting to say "ok fine we won't moderate anything just to show you what's what" then you can clearly observe that the r/lol moderators are just as childish as RL is. It's a thankless volunteer job that gets them a lot of flak, but as with most things in life it's not about what happens to you it's about how you react to those things that really define what type of a person you are. Both parties equally guilty and sentenced to tongue kissing each other until they die of asphyxiation.
I don't know why I bother posting in this topic any more. There's a slew of people who just basically ignore everything I talk about and just repeatedly post:
"It's about the content ban" / "It's hypocritical" / "It's an open forum"
Even though I specifically called out that this would happen like 5+ pages ago. It seems like there's a bunch of people here just to shovel ideology and aren't interested in critical thinking.
I'm here both because I think RL is a cuntwaffle but also because I think this touches on a lot of fascinating sociological issues. If you're interested in a rational discussion about this very interesting subject, quote some of my posts and start one. Here, I'll get you started with an easy bit:
Everyone seems to agree that RL's behavior justifies a personal ban, but people don't like the RL content ban, and have suggested that it was because they were paid off by Riot or exercising a personal vendetta.
But let's simplify the issue tremendously (avoiding any discussion of vote-brigading) and just frame the issue as follows:
1) Whether intentionally or not, RL's Twitter links were seriously disrupting comment threads; 2) RL was asked to stop and refused; 3) Such disruption was both primarily limited to and almost always found in discussions of RL's content, requiring constant moderator intervention; 4) The moderators believed that this disruption needed to be addressed in some way.
What alternative solution would you suggest for solving the issue? Alternatively, which of these four premises do you not agree with?
But let's simplify the issue tremendously (avoiding any discussion of vote-brigading) and just frame the issue as follows:
1) Whether intentionally or not, RL's Twitter links were seriously disrupting comment threads; 2) RL was asked to stop and refused; 3) Such disruption was both primarily limited to and almost always found in discussions of RL's content, requiring constant moderator intervention; 4) The moderators believed that this disruption needed to be addressed in some way.
What alternative solution would you suggest for solving the issue? Alternatively, which of these four premises do you not agree with?
Is the proposed solution not: Create a transparent and comprehensive rule which can be used to determine when and why someone can be found guilty of vote brigading (or abandon the term, and find when/why someone's linking to reddit can be moderated against for having a negative impact on the boards) such that they need to be -completely- removed from the reddit so that all room for suspicion of personal bias is removed?
If there was a clear rule that was being breached, the consequence of which was being censored from the reddit that the mods could point to and go "look, he broke that rule, this is the consequence" It would help them, and (hopefully) end the discussion.
Would it not be in everyone's best interest to take this oppertunity to create a rule which can be applied accross the board, and to clean up this currently very messy (and perhaps unhelpful) notion of "vote brigading"?
EDIT: Even if they just took this opportunity to implement some sort of - 1) warning 2) Temp Ban 3) Ban 4) Complete removal
Policy that they can apply across the board (even if no one else merits this treatment for another 10 years or something) it would clear up a lot of transparancy issues, and "THEY HATE RLEWIS THIS IS BIASED HE IS INNOCENT" stuff.
On May 22 2015 23:15 GrandInquisitor wrote: 1) Whether intentionally or not, RL's Twitter links were seriously disrupting comment threads; 2) RL was asked to stop and refused; 3) Such disruption was both primarily limited to and almost always found in discussions of RL's content, requiring constant moderator intervention; 4) The moderators believed that this disruption needed to be addressed in some way.
What alternative solution would you suggest for solving the issue? Alternatively, which of these four premises do you not agree with?
I don't agree with how they dealt with the fourth point. Banning his content doesn't stop him from doing his vote brigading (I won't continue it further but just wanted to say it's the problem they're trying to fix) and given his reputation of not backing down from confrontations I'd say it encourages him to disparage those in charge more.
I think the real failing on the r/lol moderation team was in number two though. RL is a dickbag but he's not a 100% unreasonable dickbag. I'm sure there's a way for the negotiations to go that would make him re-evaluate how he promotes (or demotes) posts on his social media accounts. I wasn't having the discussion with him so the particulars are unknown to me but I'm not sure that the conversation really did help more than it did hurt the issue. To that point you could make the counter argument, "What do the r/lol moderators owe RL to have to pander to him to get him to stop shitting over the r/lol community?" and the very obvious answer to this question is nothing. There is no reason for the r/lol staff to show RL any ounce of kindness or to handle him with care that would be accorded to a respectable social figure. The problem with this assumption though is that we know what it ended up creating because they didn't handle with the utmost care.
For better or worse the League community has very little founded journalism and even though compared to journalists RL is probably a hack, he's definitely better than all of the others and has more connection and accessibility in the professional scene then most wanna-be journalists do. Given the small size of the community, whether r/lol moderators like it or not RL is a prominent member of the community and is likely to be the person reporting some of the biggest news of the happenings of the scene. Obstructing that content on the basis of RL being a dickbag to people is actually a perfectly reasonable response to want to do, but in actuality it's not the best way to deal with the situation. By banning his content you're certainly denying his articles viewers and therefore revenue so you're hurting him financially in the short term; however given the circlejerk-y nature of reddit you're also having people discuss him all the time and actually increasing his notoriety. Given human nature the more restricted you make something the more of it they want, and I think that's the scenario that's playing out currently. Short term costing him money but continually building a collection of people who are forced to have an opinion on someone when he gets more mentions now then he did before his content was banned.
But let's simplify the issue tremendously (avoiding any discussion of vote-brigading) and just frame the issue as follows:
1) Whether intentionally or not, RL's Twitter links were seriously disrupting comment threads; 2) RL was asked to stop and refused; 3) Such disruption was both primarily limited to and almost always found in discussions of RL's content, requiring constant moderator intervention; 4) The moderators believed that this disruption needed to be addressed in some way.
What alternative solution would you suggest for solving the issue? Alternatively, which of these four premises do you not agree with?
Is the proposed solution not: Create a transparent and comprehensive rule which can be used to determine when and why someone can be found guilty of vote brigading (or abandon the term, and find when/why someone's linking to reddit can be moderated against for having a negative impact on the boards) such that they need to be -completely- removed from the reddit so that all room for suspicion of personal bias is removed?
If there was a clear rule that was being breached, the consequence of which was being censored from the reddit that the mods could point to and go "look, he broke that rule, this is the consequence" It would help them, and (hopefully) end the discussion.
Would it not be in everyone's best interest to take this oppertunity to create a rule which can be applied accross the board, and to clean up this currently very messy (and perhaps unhelpful) notion of "vote brigading"?
EDIT: Even if they just took this opportunity to implement some sort of - 1) warning 2) Temp Ban 3) Ban 4) Complete removal
Policy that they can apply across the board (even if no one else merits this treatment for another 10 years or something) it would clear up a lot of transparancy issues, and "THEY HATE RLEWIS THIS IS BIASED HE IS INNOCENT" stuff.
It's a lot easier to say: "Create a transparent and comprehensive rule", than it is to actually create one. There's a reason why every justice system in the world relies on judges to interpret laws, instead of just trying to define every aspect of human behavior.
Here vote brigading is an amorphous concept. Numerous other subreddits have failed to come to an agreement on what vote brigading is. Instead, the vast majority of subreddits simply require the no-participation filter when crosslinking to another subreddit.
Go ahead, come up with a rule that doesn't have loopholes and doesn't require interpretation. Unless you define vote brigading so narrowly that it covers only explicit requests for votes, you'll always require subjective judgment of intent.
I agree that they should have made stronger efforts to delineate their punishment. I disagree that they are obligated to do so, that it would have eliminated complaints and accusations of bias, or that their ultimate decision was unclear.
More generally, remember that this doesn't have to relate to vote brigading. The moderators felt that the subreddit is being disturbed in some way, and have taken steps to reduce that disruption. Whether you call it vote brigading or whatever, it's still their house and their rules.
On May 22 2015 23:15 GrandInquisitor wrote: 1) Whether intentionally or not, RL's Twitter links were seriously disrupting comment threads; 2) RL was asked to stop and refused; 3) Such disruption was both primarily limited to and almost always found in discussions of RL's content, requiring constant moderator intervention; 4) The moderators believed that this disruption needed to be addressed in some way.
What alternative solution would you suggest for solving the issue? Alternatively, which of these four premises do you not agree with?
I don't agree with how they dealt with the fourth point. Banning his content doesn't stop him from doing his vote brigading (I won't continue it further but just wanted to say it's the problem they're trying to fix) and given his reputation of not backing down from confrontations I'd say it encourages him to disparage those in charge more.
It doesn't stop vote brigading in the sense that his Twitter account wasn't banned, but it does severely curtail it, because the whole point of the vote brigading was to make himself look better in internet arguments. Just because you can't completely solve a problem doesn't mean that solving 95% of it is considered a failure.
I think the real failing on the r/lol moderation team was in number two though. RL is a dickbag but he's not a 100% unreasonable dickbag. I'm sure there's a way for the negotiations to go that would make him re-evaluate how he promotes (or demotes) posts on his social media accounts. I wasn't having the discussion with him so the particulars are unknown to me but I'm not sure that the conversation really did help more than it did hurt the issue. To that point you could make the counter argument, "What do the r/lol moderators owe RL to have to pander to him to get him to stop shitting over the r/lol community?" and the very obvious answer to this question is nothing. There is no reason for the r/lol staff to show RL any ounce of kindness or to handle him with care that would be accorded to a respectable social figure. The problem with this assumption though is that we know what it ended up creating because they didn't handle with the utmost care.
You obviously have never tried to disagree with RL. I assure you that based on what we know of how he interacts with people, there was zero chance the moderators could have gotten him to stop.
For better or worse the League community has very little founded journalism and even though compared to journalists RL is probably a hack, he's definitely better than all of the others and has more connection and accessibility in the professional scene then most wanna-be journalists do. Given the small size of the community, whether r/lol moderators like it or not RL is a prominent member of the community and is likely to be the person reporting some of the biggest news of the happenings of the scene. Obstructing that content on the basis of RL being a dickbag to people is actually a perfectly reasonable response to want to do, but in actuality it's not the best way to deal with the situation. By banning his content you're certainly denying his articles viewers and therefore revenue so you're hurting him financially in the short term; however given the circlejerk-y nature of reddit you're also having people discuss him all the time and actually increasing his notoriety. Given human nature the more restricted you make something the more of it they want, and I think that's the scenario that's playing out currently. Short term costing him money but continually building a collection of people who are forced to have an opinion on someone when he gets more mentions now then he did before his content was banned.
I strongly disagree with just about everything here. There's no evidence suggesting that the moderators banned RL to hurt him financially, they did so because his articles was the site of all the disruption. RL is not an invaluable journalist; he mostly publishes roster leaks and clickbait. The scene is fine without him, and making people forget about him by excluding his material from the most important content aggregator for the scene is the best way for us to all be rid of this pathetic and disgusting human being.
That's honestly what I consider the most disappointing aspect of this saga. It lionizes wholly undeserving individuals as RL and esportslaw who are really pretty sub-standard at their professions and would be laughed out of professional journalism / legal practice, except that esports has no standards.
But let's simplify the issue tremendously (avoiding any discussion of vote-brigading) and just frame the issue as follows:
1) Whether intentionally or not, RL's Twitter links were seriously disrupting comment threads; 2) RL was asked to stop and refused; 3) Such disruption was both primarily limited to and almost always found in discussions of RL's content, requiring constant moderator intervention; 4) The moderators believed that this disruption needed to be addressed in some way.
What alternative solution would you suggest for solving the issue? Alternatively, which of these four premises do you not agree with?
Is the proposed solution not: Create a transparent and comprehensive rule which can be used to determine when and why someone can be found guilty of vote brigading (or abandon the term, and find when/why someone's linking to reddit can be moderated against for having a negative impact on the boards) such that they need to be -completely- removed from the reddit so that all room for suspicion of personal bias is removed?
If there was a clear rule that was being breached, the consequence of which was being censored from the reddit that the mods could point to and go "look, he broke that rule, this is the consequence" It would help them, and (hopefully) end the discussion.
Would it not be in everyone's best interest to take this oppertunity to create a rule which can be applied accross the board, and to clean up this currently very messy (and perhaps unhelpful) notion of "vote brigading"?
EDIT: Even if they just took this opportunity to implement some sort of - 1) warning 2) Temp Ban 3) Ban 4) Complete removal
Policy that they can apply across the board (even if no one else merits this treatment for another 10 years or something) it would clear up a lot of transparancy issues, and "THEY HATE RLEWIS THIS IS BIASED HE IS INNOCENT" stuff.
It's a lot easier to say: "Create a transparent and comprehensive rule", than it is to actually create one. There's a reason why every justice system in the world relies on judges to interpret laws, instead of just trying to define every aspect of human behavior.
Here vote brigading is an amorphous concept. Numerous other subreddits have failed to come to an agreement on what vote brigading is. Instead, the vast majority of subreddits simply require the no-participation filter when crosslinking to another subreddit.
Go ahead, come up with a rule that doesn't have loopholes and doesn't require interpretation. Unless you define vote brigading so narrowly that it covers only explicit requests for votes, you'll always require subjective judgment of intent.
I agree that they should have made stronger efforts to delineate their punishment. I disagree that they are obligated to do so, that it would have eliminated complaints and accusations of bias, or that their ultimate decision was unclear.
More generally, remember that this doesn't have to relate to vote brigading. The moderators felt that the subreddit is being disturbed in some way, and have taken steps to reduce that disruption. Whether you call it vote brigading or whatever, it's still their house and their rules.
Its really not that hard to define rules in uncomplicated ways. e.g. "Content creators may not post links to threads about themselves or their content."
You might think that rule too inclusive perhaps? Well, im sure with very little effort we could have a discussion which would yield a decent and clear rule, thats how we get definitions of vague things in philosophy!
Also, I didn't say they were obligated, I said it was in their benefit, and that it would be a better solution, which is what you asked for
EDIT: So that most vauge part of that is "Content creators" Which could be open to debate (she made a video 2 years ago therefore..) but if the job of the rule is to prevent people with large followings from mobbing threads, there are plenty of ways to go about wording it!
They're literally banning for using their website... so yeah, I don't think these vote manipulation rules are a particularly useful thing. I don't even know what I did.
But let's simplify the issue tremendously (avoiding any discussion of vote-brigading) and just frame the issue as follows:
1) Whether intentionally or not, RL's Twitter links were seriously disrupting comment threads; 2) RL was asked to stop and refused; 3) Such disruption was both primarily limited to and almost always found in discussions of RL's content, requiring constant moderator intervention; 4) The moderators believed that this disruption needed to be addressed in some way.
What alternative solution would you suggest for solving the issue? Alternatively, which of these four premises do you not agree with?
Is the proposed solution not: Create a transparent and comprehensive rule which can be used to determine when and why someone can be found guilty of vote brigading (or abandon the term, and find when/why someone's linking to reddit can be moderated against for having a negative impact on the boards) such that they need to be -completely- removed from the reddit so that all room for suspicion of personal bias is removed?
If there was a clear rule that was being breached, the consequence of which was being censored from the reddit that the mods could point to and go "look, he broke that rule, this is the consequence" It would help them, and (hopefully) end the discussion.
Would it not be in everyone's best interest to take this oppertunity to create a rule which can be applied accross the board, and to clean up this currently very messy (and perhaps unhelpful) notion of "vote brigading"?
EDIT: Even if they just took this opportunity to implement some sort of - 1) warning 2) Temp Ban 3) Ban 4) Complete removal
Policy that they can apply across the board (even if no one else merits this treatment for another 10 years or something) it would clear up a lot of transparancy issues, and "THEY HATE RLEWIS THIS IS BIASED HE IS INNOCENT" stuff.
It's a lot easier to say: "Create a transparent and comprehensive rule", than it is to actually create one. There's a reason why every justice system in the world relies on judges to interpret laws, instead of just trying to define every aspect of human behavior.
Here vote brigading is an amorphous concept. Numerous other subreddits have failed to come to an agreement on what vote brigading is. Instead, the vast majority of subreddits simply require the no-participation filter when crosslinking to another subreddit.
Go ahead, come up with a rule that doesn't have loopholes and doesn't require interpretation. Unless you define vote brigading so narrowly that it covers only explicit requests for votes, you'll always require subjective judgment of intent.
I agree that they should have made stronger efforts to delineate their punishment. I disagree that they are obligated to do so, that it would have eliminated complaints and accusations of bias, or that their ultimate decision was unclear.
More generally, remember that this doesn't have to relate to vote brigading. The moderators felt that the subreddit is being disturbed in some way, and have taken steps to reduce that disruption. Whether you call it vote brigading or whatever, it's still their house and their rules.
Its really not that hard to define rules in uncomplicated ways. e.g. "Content creators may not post links to threads about themselves or their content."
You might think that rule too inclusive perhaps? Well, im sure with very little effort we could have a discussion which would yield a decent and clear rule, thats how we get definitions of vague things in philosophy!
Also, I didn't say they were obligated, I said it was in their benefit, and that it would be a better solution, which is what you asked for
EDIT: So that most vauge part of that is "Content creators" Which could be open to debate (she made a video 2 years ago therefore..) but if the job of the rule is to prevent people with large followings from mobbing threads, there are plenty of ways to go about wording it!
You are more optimistic than me if you think that will eliminate people complaining about subjectivity of the rule. What's the definition of thread? Can RL link to a comments section that contains some discussion of him? Or is he only barred from linking to the specific comment thread? How do you define "about themselves or their content"? How expansive is "about"? Does the original article have to be about him? Or is it just a specific comment thread? Does that mean he can just link to a comments section of a link not about RL but discussing RL, and say "downvote the retards who don't like me?" Or, if you want to be fair to him, is he banned if he links a comment section, and then one of his Twitter followers starts talking about him there?
This is why we have lawyers and judges: because there are concepts far, far more important than vote brigading that are even more difficult to define sharply. You believe the moderators acted as legislators. I disagree. I believe the moderators acted as judges: they interpreted the "no vote brigading" rule to include what RL was doing (based off of the TB precedent), and they "sentenced" him accordingly.
The original rule is clear from the plain and ordinary meaning of "vote brigading", and intentionally left open to interpretation. You think there's some sort of gigantic problem with this system that allows vague and ambiguous rules open to interpretation, but try looking up the definition of "negligence" some time. We sent people to jail over definitions way more vague than "vote brigading".
On May 23 2015 22:06 Ansibled wrote: I don't understand.
They're literally banning for using their website... so yeah, I don't think these vote manipulation rules are a particularly useful thing. I don't even know what I did.
To clarify -- Reddit administrators, not leagueoflegends mods, temporarily banned your account after you engaged in some vote brigading? You sound like one of the whiners from the Automated Ban Thread when you say "they're literally banning for using their website". You are in their house and you don't bother to learn, understand, or obey their rules.
On May 23 2015 22:54 Ansibled wrote: Can you point me to the rule that says clicking links on Reddit is a ban worthy offense? Thanks.
Since the admin told you:
followed a link from /r/lol into another subreddit and voted
So if you characterize what happened as "clicking links on Reddit is a ban worthy offense" then you are either being purposefully dense or deliberately misleading. You said "Banned for literally using their website" ... I don't know how else you'd be banned. I'd be way more shocked if you were banned for NOT literally using their website, like if you got banned because you started grouting your bathroom tiles or something.
followed a link from /r/lol into another subreddit and voted
So if you characterize what happened as "clicking links on Reddit is a ban worthy offense" then you are either being purposefully dense or deliberately misleading. You said "Banned for literally using their website" ... I don't know how else you'd be banned. I'd be way more shocked if you were banned for NOT literally using their website, like if you got banned because you started grouting your bathroom tiles or something.
everybody posts their reddit links on Twitter and Facebook but nobody gets banned for it except Rlewis. Moderating the vote brigade is a hard part of Reddit no doubt but you just can't ban content. He can still vote brigrade even when his content is banned.
I stand by "banning content is wrong when you claim you are a community based website"
But let's simplify the issue tremendously (avoiding any discussion of vote-brigading) and just frame the issue as follows:
1) Whether intentionally or not, RL's Twitter links were seriously disrupting comment threads; 2) RL was asked to stop and refused; 3) Such disruption was both primarily limited to and almost always found in discussions of RL's content, requiring constant moderator intervention; 4) The moderators believed that this disruption needed to be addressed in some way.
What alternative solution would you suggest for solving the issue? Alternatively, which of these four premises do you not agree with?
Is the proposed solution not: Create a transparent and comprehensive rule which can be used to determine when and why someone can be found guilty of vote brigading (or abandon the term, and find when/why someone's linking to reddit can be moderated against for having a negative impact on the boards) such that they need to be -completely- removed from the reddit so that all room for suspicion of personal bias is removed?
If there was a clear rule that was being breached, the consequence of which was being censored from the reddit that the mods could point to and go "look, he broke that rule, this is the consequence" It would help them, and (hopefully) end the discussion.
Would it not be in everyone's best interest to take this oppertunity to create a rule which can be applied accross the board, and to clean up this currently very messy (and perhaps unhelpful) notion of "vote brigading"?
EDIT: Even if they just took this opportunity to implement some sort of - 1) warning 2) Temp Ban 3) Ban 4) Complete removal
Policy that they can apply across the board (even if no one else merits this treatment for another 10 years or something) it would clear up a lot of transparancy issues, and "THEY HATE RLEWIS THIS IS BIASED HE IS INNOCENT" stuff.
It's a lot easier to say: "Create a transparent and comprehensive rule", than it is to actually create one. There's a reason why every justice system in the world relies on judges to interpret laws, instead of just trying to define every aspect of human behavior.
Here vote brigading is an amorphous concept. Numerous other subreddits have failed to come to an agreement on what vote brigading is. Instead, the vast majority of subreddits simply require the no-participation filter when crosslinking to another subreddit.
Go ahead, come up with a rule that doesn't have loopholes and doesn't require interpretation. Unless you define vote brigading so narrowly that it covers only explicit requests for votes, you'll always require subjective judgment of intent.
I agree that they should have made stronger efforts to delineate their punishment. I disagree that they are obligated to do so, that it would have eliminated complaints and accusations of bias, or that their ultimate decision was unclear.
More generally, remember that this doesn't have to relate to vote brigading. The moderators felt that the subreddit is being disturbed in some way, and have taken steps to reduce that disruption. Whether you call it vote brigading or whatever, it's still their house and their rules.
Its really not that hard to define rules in uncomplicated ways. e.g. "Content creators may not post links to threads about themselves or their content."
You might think that rule too inclusive perhaps? Well, im sure with very little effort we could have a discussion which would yield a decent and clear rule, thats how we get definitions of vague things in philosophy!
Also, I didn't say they were obligated, I said it was in their benefit, and that it would be a better solution, which is what you asked for
EDIT: So that most vauge part of that is "Content creators" Which could be open to debate (she made a video 2 years ago therefore..) but if the job of the rule is to prevent people with large followings from mobbing threads, there are plenty of ways to go about wording it!
You are more optimistic than me if you think that will eliminate people complaining about subjectivity of the rule. What's the definition of thread? Can RL link to a comments section that contains some discussion of him? Or is he only barred from linking to the specific comment thread? How do you define "about themselves or their content"? How expansive is "about"? Does the original article have to be about him? Or is it just a specific comment thread? Does that mean he can just link to a comments section of a link not about RL but discussing RL, and say "downvote the retards who don't like me?" Or, if you want to be fair to him, is he banned if he links a comment section, and then one of his Twitter followers starts talking about him there?
This is why we have lawyers and judges: because there are concepts far, far more important than vote brigading that are even more difficult to define sharply. You believe the moderators acted as legislators. I disagree. I believe the moderators acted as judges: they interpreted the "no vote brigading" rule to include what RL was doing (based off of the TB precedent), and they "sentenced" him accordingly.
The original rule is clear from the plain and ordinary meaning of "vote brigading", and intentionally left open to interpretation. You think there's some sort of gigantic problem with this system that allows vague and ambiguous rules open to interpretation, but try looking up the definition of "negligence" some time. We sent people to jail over definitions way more vague than "vote brigading".
Following standard philosophical method (always take a statement in its strongest possible form) Then no, he would not be allowed to do any of the things you just suggested (exception to one: see edit 2), which is why I suggested my suggestion was probably too strong, but it can be easily refined.
Coming up with definitions that make sense in the first place is why we have philosophers! I disagree that I am saying they were acting as legislators, I 100% agree that they are acting as judges. I am advocating that they use this opportunity TO legislate, for what is clearly a controversial, and poorly defined rule so that in future they can continue to judge easily and with less conflict!
Pointing to a poor and general definition that is commonly used and saying "look how vague this is, therefore vague things are fine" is not a valid argument by any stretch of the imagination. Even if a certain degree of interpretation is inevitable in any given rule, that does not mean one has an excuse to not strive for as close to a rigid, intelligible and understandable rule as possible.
(about me being optimistic, to my credit, I did put "hopefully" as a qualifier I am not naive enough to think that anything can solve all issues, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't help, and it doesn't mean its not worth trying!)
Looking forward to hearing from you
EDIT: Sorry for my late reply, I was mucho busy earlier this weekend! :D
EDIT 2: In specific response to: If he were to link to a thread, and that thread -then- began discussing him in the thread, would he be banned? No, and I dont think a correct interpretation of my (admittedly broad) suggestion would think that to be the case, nor do I see that we would want it to be the case, but lets say a correct interpretation of my first suggestion does, lets adapt it to show how refining a rule can be successfully.
So we don't want people to be retroactively punished, how could we change my suggestion to stop this?
We can break it into two simple rules: (Content creators may not post links to threads about themselves or their content) - original
- Content creators may not post links to threads that include their content or discussion of their content in the OP, or threads where discussion of their content has already taken place.
- Content creators may not post links to threads if discussion about them has already taken place in the thread.
(we can define thread as well if you like, or perhaps remove it with a more useful term, such as comment section if you think that would more aptly suit the needs of our rule!)
I am interested in why vote brigading something that is already popular, like a comment that Richard Lewis posts on twitter, or something on /r/bestof is bad. It seems to me it is just additional people contributing their opinions on a subject. The only time I really see it as a negative is the way that LoL youtubers coordinated it around T=0 of a post being posted, which apparently is heavily weighted in the algorithm. Which means things that people don't actually like are reaching the "hot" page.
So perhaps someone can explain the logic behind that.
Vote brigading is bad because when RL was doing it, he essentially was able to get his twitter followers to bury any criticism of him or his work even when the criticism was completely warranted. Vote brigading is bad because it allows people with lots of followers to control the dialogue.
Vote brigading, as far as RL drama goes, is not simply getting people interested in a submission or comment. It's manipulating discourse the same way unlimited campaign spending manipulates political discourse.
On May 25 2015 04:19 Raneth wrote: -snip-
Look, the problem is not writing the rule. It's closing loopholes that will inevitably rise when the rule is made. You can spend literal centuries writing rules and laws and still have a rule with loopholes. It's far more efficient to create a general rule and have people interpret and enforce the rule, rather than to spend ridiculous amounts of time and energy carefully crafting a 50 page essay on what constitutes vote brigading.
Right now, RL's argument is that he's not "vote brigading" because he's not explicitly telling people to go up/down vote posts. Obviously, he knows that whenever he links a posts and says "what a fuckign dumbass" his little twitter army will swarm the post and downvote it. He doesn't need to be explicit about vote brigading in order to do it.
Your proposals sound fine in theory, but theory and reality are different things. Go ahead, propose that content creators cannot link their submissions. RL can just link the article on twitter and tell his followers to link it to Reddit. He can't link to Reddit comments? Fine, he'll just mention a user's name and the name of the thread and say disparaging things about the user's comment, knowing full well his followers will downvote it.
Loopholes happen and they will always happen. It'd be nice if everyone used your philosophical method and obeyed and understood that the spirit of the rule is more important than the letter of the rule. But unfortunately, that's not how reality works.
Is the moderation team going to be over or under inclusive sometimes? Yes. Does it suck? Yes, absolutely. It's simply a cost-benefit analysis of whether that over/under inclusiveness is worth it.
Right now, RL's argument is that he's not "vote brigading" because he's not explicitly telling people to go up/down vote posts. Obviously, he knows that whenever he links a posts and says "what a fucking dumbass" his little twitter army will swarm the post and downvote it. He doesn't need to be explicit about vote brigading in order to do it.
So how is that different from the lolesport twitter account tweeting links to answers from an AMA of casters ? Because they do not asked for upvotes, but if I were to thinkl like you did, we could argue that they should know they were gonna create massive upvotes for this answers. After all, they got 683k followers when RL "only" got 28k in his "twitter army".
Im pretty sure Vote Brigading case should be made on intent, because if they won't then every pro that ever twitted a link to a reddit comment is guilty of it.
I've seen the answer to TotalBuscuit by a reddit admin concerning vote-brigading, and I don't agree with him. If reddit as an issue whit people linking to comments without any explicit call to vote-brigade, then they should get rid of the feature. If not, they should just shut the fuck off.
On May 24 2015 20:43 Chexx wrote: everybody posts their reddit links on Twitter and Facebook but nobody gets banned for it except Rlewis. Moderating the vote brigade is a hard part of Reddit no doubt but you just can't ban content. He can still vote brigrade even when his content is banned.
I stand by "banning content is wrong when you claim you are a community based website"
I feel like you haven't read most of the posts in this thread, and you're one of the ones most guilty of repeating the same points that people have endlessly discussed without adding anything.
Vote brigading is a subjective label that describes behavior conducted with certain intent. It is not an objective label that describes behavior alone. It is up to the moderators of a subreddit to decide what qualifies as vote brigading. The fact that RL's content is banned does not prevent him from vote brigading, but RL's vote brigading was entirely limited to his own content because he primarily cared about winning internet arguments about him, and the RL content ban has appeared to be effective in stopping RL's vote brigading.
Finally, your proposed position that banning content is "wrong" suggests that the moderators have some sort of moral obligation to allow RL's content on their subreddit. Not only does no such moral obligation exist, there are so many content bans in place already: are you similarly opposed to their "censorship" of Rule 34 LoL content or LoL memes? Is it "wrong" for /r/liberal to ban content from FoxNews? Is it "wrong" for /r/fatpeoplehate to ban all content not mocking fat people? The subreddit moderators get to choose what content they want to see on their subreddit. If you don't like their decisions, visit RiotFreeLoL instead.
Really, I'm disappointed that a TL admin has no sympathy for these moderators. What would you do if there was someone was poisoning this community without being a member of it? Would you stand idly by? The moderators of the subreddit were put in a terrible place and managed to come up with the only viable solution under the circumstances. And yet people like you complain that they are overstepping their bounds. Why don't they get to police their own community? What would you have them do instead?
But let's simplify the issue tremendously (avoiding any discussion of vote-brigading) and just frame the issue as follows:
1) Whether intentionally or not, RL's Twitter links were seriously disrupting comment threads; 2) RL was asked to stop and refused; 3) Such disruption was both primarily limited to and almost always found in discussions of RL's content, requiring constant moderator intervention; 4) The moderators believed that this disruption needed to be addressed in some way.
What alternative solution would you suggest for solving the issue? Alternatively, which of these four premises do you not agree with?
Is the proposed solution not: Create a transparent and comprehensive rule which can be used to determine when and why someone can be found guilty of vote brigading (or abandon the term, and find when/why someone's linking to reddit can be moderated against for having a negative impact on the boards) such that they need to be -completely- removed from the reddit so that all room for suspicion of personal bias is removed?
If there was a clear rule that was being breached, the consequence of which was being censored from the reddit that the mods could point to and go "look, he broke that rule, this is the consequence" It would help them, and (hopefully) end the discussion.
Would it not be in everyone's best interest to take this oppertunity to create a rule which can be applied accross the board, and to clean up this currently very messy (and perhaps unhelpful) notion of "vote brigading"?
EDIT: Even if they just took this opportunity to implement some sort of - 1) warning 2) Temp Ban 3) Ban 4) Complete removal
Policy that they can apply across the board (even if no one else merits this treatment for another 10 years or something) it would clear up a lot of transparancy issues, and "THEY HATE RLEWIS THIS IS BIASED HE IS INNOCENT" stuff.
It's a lot easier to say: "Create a transparent and comprehensive rule", than it is to actually create one. There's a reason why every justice system in the world relies on judges to interpret laws, instead of just trying to define every aspect of human behavior.
Here vote brigading is an amorphous concept. Numerous other subreddits have failed to come to an agreement on what vote brigading is. Instead, the vast majority of subreddits simply require the no-participation filter when crosslinking to another subreddit.
Go ahead, come up with a rule that doesn't have loopholes and doesn't require interpretation. Unless you define vote brigading so narrowly that it covers only explicit requests for votes, you'll always require subjective judgment of intent.
I agree that they should have made stronger efforts to delineate their punishment. I disagree that they are obligated to do so, that it would have eliminated complaints and accusations of bias, or that their ultimate decision was unclear.
More generally, remember that this doesn't have to relate to vote brigading. The moderators felt that the subreddit is being disturbed in some way, and have taken steps to reduce that disruption. Whether you call it vote brigading or whatever, it's still their house and their rules.
Its really not that hard to define rules in uncomplicated ways. e.g. "Content creators may not post links to threads about themselves or their content."
You might think that rule too inclusive perhaps? Well, im sure with very little effort we could have a discussion which would yield a decent and clear rule, thats how we get definitions of vague things in philosophy!
Also, I didn't say they were obligated, I said it was in their benefit, and that it would be a better solution, which is what you asked for
EDIT: So that most vauge part of that is "Content creators" Which could be open to debate (she made a video 2 years ago therefore..) but if the job of the rule is to prevent people with large followings from mobbing threads, there are plenty of ways to go about wording it!
You are more optimistic than me if you think that will eliminate people complaining about subjectivity of the rule. What's the definition of thread? Can RL link to a comments section that contains some discussion of him? Or is he only barred from linking to the specific comment thread? How do you define "about themselves or their content"? How expansive is "about"? Does the original article have to be about him? Or is it just a specific comment thread? Does that mean he can just link to a comments section of a link not about RL but discussing RL, and say "downvote the retards who don't like me?" Or, if you want to be fair to him, is he banned if he links a comment section, and then one of his Twitter followers starts talking about him there?
This is why we have lawyers and judges: because there are concepts far, far more important than vote brigading that are even more difficult to define sharply. You believe the moderators acted as legislators. I disagree. I believe the moderators acted as judges: they interpreted the "no vote brigading" rule to include what RL was doing (based off of the TB precedent), and they "sentenced" him accordingly.
The original rule is clear from the plain and ordinary meaning of "vote brigading", and intentionally left open to interpretation. You think there's some sort of gigantic problem with this system that allows vague and ambiguous rules open to interpretation, but try looking up the definition of "negligence" some time. We sent people to jail over definitions way more vague than "vote brigading".
Following standard philosophical method (always take a statement in its strongest possible form) Then no, he would not be allowed to do any of the things you just suggested (exception to one: see edit 2), which is why I suggested my suggestion was probably too strong, but it can be easily refined.
Coming up with definitions that make sense in the first place is why we have philosophers! I disagree that I am saying they were acting as legislators, I 100% agree that they are acting as judges. I am advocating that they use this opportunity TO legislate, for what is clearly a controversial, and poorly defined rule so that in future they can continue to judge easily and with less conflict!
Pointing to a poor and general definition that is commonly used and saying "look how vague this is, therefore vague things are fine" is not a valid argument by any stretch of the imagination. Even if a certain degree of interpretation is inevitable in any given rule, that does not mean one has an excuse to not strive for as close to a rigid, intelligible and understandable rule as possible.
Why is it invalid? You suggest that this rule is problematic. I point to the fact that an even more vague definition exists with much harsher punishments, and yet American society copes with it perfectly fine. Therefore it is implausible to suggest that this rule being vaguely worded is problematic.
You think that we should strive for "rigid, intelligible, and understandable" rules. I do not disagree, but I think the definition should be worded broadly to capture all instances of the "crime", and discretion subsequently invested in the moderators to narrow down the rule in individual circumstances. Any other approach, by definition, results in offending behavior that cannot be punished by the moderators because you defined your rule too narrowly.
The icing on the cake is that the moderators explained their interpretation of the rules to RL. They explained that in their view, what he was doing was considered vote manipulation and against their rules. He refused to obey them, and got his content banned. All of your concerns about unintelligibly vague rules go out the window when the moderators are so patient as to explain to the "criminal" what he is doing wrong and ask him to stop.
We can break it into two simple rules: (Content creators may not post links to threads about themselves or their content) - original
- Content creators may not post links to threads that include their content or discussion of their content in the OP, or threads where discussion of their content has already taken place.
- Content creators may not post links to threads if discussion about them has already taken place in the thread.
(we can define thread as well if you like, or perhaps remove it with a more useful term, such as comment section if you think that would more aptly suit the needs of our rule!)
Great, now we're on version 2. Let's keep track as we continue to poke holes in your rules:
* I post an article on my blog, then tweet out: "OK guys, I'm told this will be published on Reddit at 4:30PM. Everyone get ready to mass upvote and be sure to downvote anyone that doesn't like me!" * I see an article talking about my expertise. I tweet: "Hey dudes remind them all of why I rock and spam the comments with links to my articles." * I see an article talking about someone I dislike. I tweet: "What a fucking retard this guy is. Go get him." * Someone posts an article criticizing me. I tweet: "Yo check out that stupid fucking guy on the front page. Downvote everyone there that doesn't like me."
These are all blatantly vote brigading behaviors and yet none of them are captured under your rule.
On May 25 2015 04:28 cLutZ wrote: I am interested in why vote brigading something that is already popular, like a comment that Richard Lewis posts on twitter, or something on /r/bestof is bad. It seems to me it is just additional people contributing their opinions on a subject. The only time I really see it as a negative is the way that LoL youtubers coordinated it around T=0 of a post being posted, which apparently is heavily weighted in the algorithm. Which means things that people don't actually like are reaching the "hot" page.
So perhaps someone can explain the logic behind that.
It disrupts the conversation in a community. Upvotes/downvotes are supposed to reflect the prevailing sentiment of a community. Brigading introduces a lot of outside forces that shape the conversation to their will instead. In addition, it discourages new users from contributing if they are mass downvoted for disagreeing with a popular person.
Right now, RL's argument is that he's not "vote brigading" because he's not explicitly telling people to go up/down vote posts. Obviously, he knows that whenever he links a posts and says "what a fucking dumbass" his little twitter army will swarm the post and downvote it. He doesn't need to be explicit about vote brigading in order to do it.
So how is that different from the lolesport twitter account tweeting links to answers from an AMA of casters ? Because they do not asked for upvotes, but if I were to thinkl like you did, we could argue that they should know they were gonna create massive upvotes for this answers. After all, they got 683k followers when RL "only" got 28k in his "twitter army".
Im pretty sure Vote Brigading case should be made on intent, because if they won't then every pro that ever twitted a link to a reddit comment is guilty of it.
I've seen the answer to TotalBuscuit by a reddit admin concerning vote-brigading, and I don't agree with him. If reddit as an issue whit people linking to comments without any explicit call to vote-brigade, then they should get rid of the feature. If not, they should just shut the fuck off.
As I wrote above, I don't think anyone considers "vote brigading" is an objective measurement of behavior. It's a subjective judgment of behavior with certain intent. LoL casters aren't linking answers with an intent to disrupt the conversation. RL is linking comments with an intent to make sure everyone who doesn't like him is downvoted. And even if you think he is a sweet innocent angel who didn't have that intent, the moderators told him that what he was doing was considered vote brigading, and asked him to stop. He refused to listen and was punished accordingly. Even if their interpretation is totally unreasonable, it's still their interpretation and their subreddit.
On May 27 2015 04:43 GrandInquisitor wrote: Really, I'm disappointed that a TL admin has no sympathy for these moderators. What would you do if there was someone was poisoning this community without being a member of it? Would you stand idly by? The moderators of the subreddit were put in a terrible place and managed to come up with the only viable solution under the circumstances. And yet people like you complain that they are overstepping their bounds. Why don't they get to police their own community? What would you have them do instead?
It really is quite funny considering how teamliquid has handled certain things in the past.
His temporary stream ban is still in place. He was unbanned on agreement of apologizing and conducting himself better (at least not having his viewers spam us/other streamers.)
On May 27 2015 23:10 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: But unlike Reddit we don't hide behind a facade of "open community forum for free discourse."
the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit the leagueoflegends subreddit is not reddit
Dunno how many more times I gotta say it. Reddit is a "open community forum for free discourse" in the sense that anyone can start a subreddit about anything they want. The subreddit has never described itself as an "open community forum for free discourse". You must be really confused if you think of /r/fatpeoplehate, /r/rule34, and /r/AskHistorians as "open community forums for free discourse".
Even an open community forum for free discourse has rules. If I spammed the subreddit with LoL Rule 34 porn, and use all my Twitter followers to upvote my links, are they hypocritical for banning me and my content? How is it any different if I spam the subreddit with my articles, and then turn every comment section of my articles into a flamewar where my fanbase relentlessly downvotes anyone critical of me?
On May 22 2015 23:15 GrandInquisitor wrote: 1) Whether intentionally or not, RL's Twitter links were seriously disrupting comment threads; 2) RL was asked to stop and refused; 3) Such disruption was both primarily limited to and almost always found in discussions of RL's content, requiring constant moderator intervention; 4) The moderators believed that this disruption needed to be addressed in some way.
What alternative solution would you suggest for solving the issue? Alternatively, which of these four premises do you not agree with?
I don't agree with how they dealt with the fourth point. Banning his content doesn't stop him from doing his vote brigading (I won't continue it further but just wanted to say it's the problem they're trying to fix) and given his reputation of not backing down from confrontations I'd say it encourages him to disparage those in charge more.
I think the real failing on the r/lol moderation team was in number two though. RL is a dickbag but he's not a 100% unreasonable dickbag. I'm sure there's a way for the negotiations to go that would make him re-evaluate how he promotes (or demotes) posts on his social media accounts. I wasn't having the discussion with him so the particulars are unknown to me but I'm not sure that the conversation really did help more than it did hurt the issue. To that point you could make the counter argument, "What do the r/lol moderators owe RL to have to pander to him to get him to stop shitting over the r/lol community?" and the very obvious answer to this question is nothing. There is no reason for the r/lol staff to show RL any ounce of kindness or to handle him with care that would be accorded to a respectable social figure. The problem with this assumption though is that we know what it ended up creating because they didn't handle with the utmost care.
For better or worse the League community has very little founded journalism and even though compared to journalists RL is probably a hack, he's definitely better than all of the others and has more connection and accessibility in the professional scene then most wanna-be journalists do. Given the small size of the community, whether r/lol moderators like it or not RL is a prominent member of the community and is likely to be the person reporting some of the biggest news of the happenings of the scene. Obstructing that content on the basis of RL being a dickbag to people is actually a perfectly reasonable response to want to do, but in actuality it's not the best way to deal with the situation. By banning his content you're certainly denying his articles viewers and therefore revenue so you're hurting him financially in the short term; however given the circlejerk-y nature of reddit you're also having people discuss him all the time and actually increasing his notoriety. Given human nature the more restricted you make something the more of it they want, and I think that's the scenario that's playing out currently. Short term costing him money but continually building a collection of people who are forced to have an opinion on someone when he gets more mentions now then he did before his content was banned.
RLew has stated over and over that he doesn't get paid by clicks.
Which is why his content being banned and therefore less trafficked doesn't have any influence on his income at all, right? Just because he's not paid on a cost per click basis doesn't mean that he doesn't care about the range of viewers his articles will reach. I can promise you that the Daily Dot cares about how many clicks their site gets, and pay RL for his articles to reach front page news.
funny how RL is so invested in his status as esports journalist when his is the exact kind of behavior you would find in pre-professional fields.. he is a hack and stands in the way of actual development of the scene with these antics, making the entire idea of esports journalism look bad.
On May 28 2015 09:07 oneofthem wrote: funny how RL is so invested in his status as esports journalist when his is the exact kind of behavior you would find in pre-professional fields.. he is a hack and stands in the way of actual development of the scene with these antics, making the entire idea of esports journalism look bad.
yep, since esports is so young it attract's a lot of unproffesional people. Not only Richard Lewis, these people are also in the organisations and whatnot.
On May 28 2015 09:07 oneofthem wrote: funny how RL is so invested in his status as esports journalist when his is the exact kind of behavior you would find in pre-professional fields.. he is a hack and stands in the way of actual development of the scene with these antics, making the entire idea of esports journalism look bad.
yep, since esports is so young it attract's a lot of unproffesional people. Not only Richard Lewis, these people are also in the organisations and whatnot.
Some other "video game attorney" is posting on Reddit. Snooped at his LinkedIn...my god. It's like a Bronze V calling himself an expert in /r/summonerschool. The two of them went to two of the worst law schools in the country and must have been rejected from every reputable firm because their employment history is hilariously bad.
On May 28 2015 09:07 oneofthem wrote: funny how RL is so invested in his status as esports journalist when his is the exact kind of behavior you would find in pre-professional fields.. he is a hack and stands in the way of actual development of the scene with these antics, making the entire idea of esports journalism look bad.
yep, since esports is so young it attract's a lot of unproffesional people. Not only Richard Lewis, these people are also in the organisations and whatnot.
Some other "video game attorney" is posting on Reddit. Snooped at his LinkedIn...my god. It's like a Bronze V calling himself an expert in /r/summonerschool. The two of them went to two of the worst law schools in the country and must have been rejected from every reputable firm because their employment history is hilariously bad.
You already know it's not where you come from but how you sell yourself. Especially with how impressionable esports fans can be.
On May 28 2015 09:07 oneofthem wrote: funny how RL is so invested in his status as esports journalist when his is the exact kind of behavior you would find in pre-professional fields.. he is a hack and stands in the way of actual development of the scene with these antics, making the entire idea of esports journalism look bad.
yep, since esports is so young it attract's a lot of unproffesional people. Not only Richard Lewis, these people are also in the organisations and whatnot.
Some other "video game attorney" is posting on Reddit. Snooped at his LinkedIn...my god. It's like a Bronze V calling himself an expert in /r/summonerschool. The two of them went to two of the worst law schools in the country and must have been rejected from every reputable firm because their employment history is hilariously bad.
yeh. I see it exactly like you. On the other side I mean it's understandable that a guy like snoopeh wants to build on his "fame" or "status" that he has in league. But not sure that's the way to go. If I remember right he has good connections in riot even playing games with tryndamere. So a proper job in riot would have been an opportunity. But now snoopeh is the Saul Goodman of league.
On May 28 2015 09:07 oneofthem wrote: funny how RL is so invested in his status as esports journalist when his is the exact kind of behavior you would find in pre-professional fields.. he is a hack and stands in the way of actual development of the scene with these antics, making the entire idea of esports journalism look bad.
yep, since esports is so young it attract's a lot of unproffesional people. Not only Richard Lewis, these people are also in the organisations and whatnot.
Some other "video game attorney" is posting on Reddit. Snooped at his LinkedIn...my god. It's like a Bronze V calling himself an expert in /r/summonerschool. The two of them went to two of the worst law schools in the country and must have been rejected from every reputable firm because their employment history is hilariously bad.
yeh. I see it exactly like you. On the other side I mean it's understandable that a guy like snoopeh wants to build on his "fame" or "status" that he has in league. But not sure that's the way to go. If I remember right he has good connections in riot even playing games with tryndamere. So a proper job in riot would have been an opportunity. But now snoopeh is the Saul Goodman of league.
Sometimes a person's reach extends their experience and grasp. The qualifications to work at certain higher positions at Riot may not be parallel with what Snoopeh brings to the table. They are also the people who perhaps know him best, so it's difficult to sell yourself to people who know your business.
On May 28 2015 09:07 oneofthem wrote: funny how RL is so invested in his status as esports journalist when his is the exact kind of behavior you would find in pre-professional fields.. he is a hack and stands in the way of actual development of the scene with these antics, making the entire idea of esports journalism look bad.
yep, since esports is so young it attract's a lot of unproffesional people. Not only Richard Lewis, these people are also in the organisations and whatnot.
Some other "video game attorney" is posting on Reddit. Snooped at his LinkedIn...my god. It's like a Bronze V calling himself an expert in /r/summonerschool. The two of them went to two of the worst law schools in the country and must have been rejected from every reputable firm because their employment history is hilariously bad.
As far as I can tell the esportslaw guy went to George Washington Law School which seems to be decently ranked? I mean I know nothing about lawschool but google seems to indicate it's just on the edge of being in the top 20.
On May 28 2015 09:07 oneofthem wrote: funny how RL is so invested in his status as esports journalist when his is the exact kind of behavior you would find in pre-professional fields.. he is a hack and stands in the way of actual development of the scene with these antics, making the entire idea of esports journalism look bad.
yep, since esports is so young it attract's a lot of unproffesional people. Not only Richard Lewis, these people are also in the organisations and whatnot.
Some other "video game attorney" is posting on Reddit. Snooped at his LinkedIn...my god. It's like a Bronze V calling himself an expert in /r/summonerschool. The two of them went to two of the worst law schools in the country and must have been rejected from every reputable firm because their employment history is hilariously bad.
As far as I can tell the esportslaw guy went to George Washington Law School which seems to be decently ranked? I mean I know nothing about lawschool but google seems to indicate it's just on the edge of being in the top 20.
u/esportslaw is Bryce Blum and he went to a reasonably good law school and worked for a pretty good midsize law firm. GW Law School is pretty good; solidly a tier 1 law school.
GI is probably referring to the two lawyers in this post. /u/VideoGameAttorney, (the OP), went to New York Law School (not to be confused with NYU law), which is a pretty bad school. The other guy, /u/eSportsAttorney, from what I can tell, also went to the same school.
On May 28 2015 09:07 oneofthem wrote: funny how RL is so invested in his status as esports journalist when his is the exact kind of behavior you would find in pre-professional fields.. he is a hack and stands in the way of actual development of the scene with these antics, making the entire idea of esports journalism look bad.
yep, since esports is so young it attract's a lot of unproffesional people. Not only Richard Lewis, these people are also in the organisations and whatnot.
Some other "video game attorney" is posting on Reddit. Snooped at his LinkedIn...my god. It's like a Bronze V calling himself an expert in /r/summonerschool. The two of them went to two of the worst law schools in the country and must have been rejected from every reputable firm because their employment history is hilariously bad.
As far as I can tell the esportslaw guy went to George Washington Law School which seems to be decently ranked? I mean I know nothing about lawschool but google seems to indicate it's just on the edge of being in the top 20.
u/esportslaw is Bryce Blum and he went to a reasonably good law school and worked for a pretty good midsize law firm. GW Law School is pretty good; solidly a tier 1 law school.
GI is probably referring to the two lawyers in this post. /u/VideoGameAttorney, (the OP), went to New York Law School (not to be confused with NYU law), which is a pretty bad school. The other guy, /u/eSportsAttorney, from what I can tell, also went to the same school.
ahhh ok that's why I was confused. Didn't realize there was a second attorney in that thread.
On May 28 2015 03:24 Gahlo wrote: RLew has stated over and over that he doesn't get paid by clicks.
Which makes sense, because he probably gets enough clicks that it is worth it to normalize the per-article rate into a salary so that everything is smoother for both parties (RL gets security from articles tanking, the org gets security from sudden super popular article) and that way the content can be more focussed and better researched.
But that doesn't mean that clicks don't matter -- the onGamers staff probably didn't get paid on a per-click basis either but the denial of their content meant they were RIP'd anyways.
Yeah I find it a bit weird when people throw around that they're 'not reliant on clicks', they might not be getting paid from it directly but the traffic is obviously still important to the website they work for.
On May 28 2015 09:07 oneofthem wrote: funny how RL is so invested in his status as esports journalist when his is the exact kind of behavior you would find in pre-professional fields.. he is a hack and stands in the way of actual development of the scene with these antics, making the entire idea of esports journalism look bad.
yep, since esports is so young it attract's a lot of unproffesional people. Not only Richard Lewis, these people are also in the organisations and whatnot.
Some other "video game attorney" is posting on Reddit. Snooped at his LinkedIn...my god. It's like a Bronze V calling himself an expert in /r/summonerschool. The two of them went to two of the worst law schools in the country and must have been rejected from every reputable firm because their employment history is hilariously bad.
As far as I can tell the esportslaw guy went to George Washington Law School which seems to be decently ranked? I mean I know nothing about lawschool but google seems to indicate it's just on the edge of being in the top 20.
u/esportslaw is Bryce Blum and he went to a reasonably good law school and worked for a pretty good midsize law firm. GW Law School is pretty good; solidly a tier 1 law school.
GI is probably referring to the two lawyers in this post. /u/VideoGameAttorney, (the OP), went to New York Law School (not to be confused with NYU law), which is a pretty bad school. The other guy, /u/eSportsAttorney, from what I can tell, also went to the same school.
Yeah this is what I meant though I mistakenly thought they went to different schools. One way you know he runs a shitty firm - none of his supposed colleagues at his firm actually list his firm on their LinkedIn.
Also I'm like 99% sure his posts violate the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. Attorney advertising is extremely strictly regulated. In particular he definitely can't label himself as an "esports expert" because New York lawyers can't brand themselves as specialists without being certified as such by the ABA or any other organization. (Our firm warned us against even accepting LinkedIn endorsements for this reason.) I don't know what jurisdiction Bryce is in so I don't know if he is guilty of this as well.
I have a problem with the concept of an "esports lawyer" because the space is so small I don't know how you could make a decent living without miring yourself in conflicts of interest.
I might be wrong, but it seems like that, to me.
Edit: Plus the competency issue. There is IP, labor, contract, and a whole span of issues to deal with.
my assumption was that a lawyer who has spent "countless hours" giving videogame legal advice on reddit was not at the top of his field lol.
The conflict of interest point is interesting and not one I had considered. Would a company like GGA be large enough to have an in house lawyer? Not that it applies here clearly.
OT: hi cLutZ I made a really stupid and condescending post about SpectateFaker a while ago that you corrected and I still feel dumb. In my defense I was exhausted. Sorry lol.
Bryce practices (or used to practice) in Washington state and presumably that's where he passed his bar. Apparently he also passed the federal bar (?) a few weeks back.
EPT
I meant Libel
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oewAsbS.png)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDxNKlGVEAEbSaM.png:large)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zVdPs6Z.png)
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/hUwLx/c3bfb39f7b.png)
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/hUwHU/4515a459ac.png)
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/hXvi5/b4968d0b14.png)
