Savage IGN review (No Man's Sky)

[pokoko]

RolStoppable said:

pokoko said:

Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot is on line 1.  I mean, that's what this is, isn't it?  You reaching for an attack, even though the two situations are very different, and over-extending yourself badly?  And now following it up childishly when you realize that you've made a mistake?  

Though I suppose that you might not realize the two situations are different, as hard to believe as that seems.  Should we review for your sake?  The first event was me disagreeing with the idea that only fans of a particular console can post general bad news about it or they'll face moderation.  This time, I suggested that the forums would be less cluttered if someone were to consolidate their multiple game-specific threads, with absolutely no call for moderation.

The difference is clear.  Even a blind person--or a zealot--can see that.

No, I am not making a covert attack. In my response to Mike_L I said that I am calling out a double standard. There's nothing hidden about this. This is an open attack on you as the kind of poster you are on VGC.

Now that you posted this review, it's clear why you think that there is a big difference between the two events. Let's review it properly.

Event 1: A user with an extensive moderation history for trolling Nintendo topics exploited a loophole in the forum rules. Spreading negativity by posting news which grants the benefit of the "don't shoot the messenger rule". The user in question (daredevil.shark) didn't even participate in the thread. Here is the suggestion you disagreed with:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8001879

RolStoppable said:

Actually, it has been moderated in the past, but it doesn't serve as a proper precedent when the current mod team is a completely different one now. Long story short: Infamous Xbox fan gebx searched the internet for negative news about Sony and even openly admitted it. Such a practice is nothing more than exploiting a loophole in the forum rules, so there was eventually a stop put to it.

The next point is that the mods stepping in wouldn't prevent the news from being posted. All it would change for the community is that a user who is known to exploit the system would not be allowed to post it anymore, so there's no reason to worry about possible censorship of the content that can be posted on VGC. What would change for the user is that he wouldn't be able to get the gratification anymore, thus the mod team could book it as a win in their battle against trolling and they also wouldn't have to deal with derailing posts that call out the OP anymore. I consider this a simple solution where everybody except one person wins.

Nowhere does it say anything about only fans of a particular company are allowed to post negative news about it. My suggestion was clearly only refering to the very extreme cases who have piled up an extensive moderation history for slamming a particular company.

Here's your response:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8001914

pokoko said:

"Share price for Company X has fallen."

"Yeah, well, uh ... OP is a witch!  Burn them!"

Deflection can be fun to watch.

Actually, I look forward to this system people seem to be proposing where you can't post negative articles for a console manufacturer you don't like.  We could set up checkpoints and even build a WALL.  "Excuse me, comrade, you've posted an article about how filthy the bathrooms at NinXstation HQ are.  I need to see your Papers." (said with hand resting meaningfully on ban button)

Maybe everyone should declare which House they belong to when they sign up?  It could kind of be like Harry Potter.  Nintendor, Playstatherin, or Xboxlepuff?

Wait, let's take it a bit further:  You can only post negative news about the House to which you belong, because clearly posting positive news about your own House is also biased.

Mods, I call for an official review of this proposal.  This could be fun.

A post that misrepresented my position so much that a mod called your post stupid. That was absolutely deserved, because that post of yours was awful without a shred of a doubt.

Event 2: You call out a user who in your opinion is on a mission. This isn't unlike calling out daredevil.shark which plenty of people have done in the event 1 thread.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8027898

You then back up your initial post by pointing out that there is a pattern. This too isn't unlike what people did in the event 1 thread.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8028007

In a sense you are right that the two events aren't quite the same, because I didn't call for any censorship of the content while you suggested that any sort of negativity should be collected in a single thread. It's reminiscent of something that a former moderator (mrstickball) once tried with negative Xbox news. Annoyed that the Xbox platform was met with a wave of negative news, he wanted that any piece of negative news, no matter how distinct the topics might be, would be collected in a single megathread. You've done pretty much the same here, everything should go in one place, regardless of if it concerns reviews, news or whatever else regarding the game No Man's Sky.

Where the two events are the same though, is that both called for a restriction of the threads a particular user can make. I consider your suggestion worse, because yours was a call to change how negative news can be discussed. Almost ten years ago mrstickball's attempt to lump everything together didn't fly with the community either, so he got blasted for being unable to handle negativity. As can be seen above in my quote from the event 1 thread, I didn't call for oppression of negative news; my suggestion was all about taking away the gratification of posting negative news from a user who is known for getting a kick out of slamming a particular company.

You seem confused, as the "response" you posted was not to you.  I quoted someone else.  

You're trying so very hard to compare two things which are not the same, even to the point that you're distorting them both to make them fit.  It really makes you look desperate to attack me over anything, even if you have to manipulate the subject matter.  This goes back to your threat to stalk me, I suppose.  

That situation is not the same as this situation.  Period, end of story.  A rational person who disagreed with me about this situation would simply disagree with me about this situation and argue accordingly.  Instead, you've built an argument based on nothing and it seems kind of silly.  

Regardless, here are the facts:  1)  I disagreed with moderation in that instance, as the topic was relevant and credible, and I never once said anything about moderation in this instance or reported the OP.  2)  My suggestion in this instance was relative to a specific game which the OP had made multiple threads about, not a console or company in general.  Huge amount of difference, even if you don't want to admit to it.

The funny thing, though, is that only you are trying to make it into a big deal.  You're fighting an empty battle that only you care about.