Superman 64 Discussion Thread

[Your Mom]

I think the moral of this entire tale is that everyone is awful.

:<

Even me?

Even Benji?

EVEN KANEY?!

But especially Bart!

 

Does that work here? Hell I don't know it's the first thing I thought of  

[Your Mom]

Wow I just clicked that link a bit back. I'm not going to get into all the other stuff but making a game where it's just punching a woman in the face over and over is pretty fucking disgusting. Watching the video about it took me down a rabbit hole of videos with awful people. Not fun

[TheWho87]

And it looks Twitter has confirmed what I was saying, you can report a violation of someone engaging in a abusive or harassing behavior, and in the reasons for reporting someone there is the option of "Offensive, disrespectful or in disagreement with my opinion", the first two of that I will not argue, its the "disagreement with my opinion" part which is wide open net that could easily be interpreted in so many ways it's ridiculous.

https://support.twitter.com/forms/abusiveuser

[Sousa]

Can you find examples of people who have been banned from Twitter for disagreeing with someone's opinion?

[Quom]

Did you read the rules and their policy on abusive behaviour? I'm guessing no, because the rules never mention it as something they will ban or suspend accounts for. Instead it's threats and abuse (generally through one sided interactions) doxxing etc. Which is hardly something terrible. 

[Sousa]

Seriously, the little question mark literally right next to the "rule" you're mad about clarifies this.

[Quom]

I'm guessing it's probably listed because people who had disagreements would report it as abuse under some other heading. Plus a lot of people handle disagreements really badly and it quickly denigrates into spite and hate filled comments. 

[TheWho87]

I know its not a part of the terms of serive of twitter, I'm just pointing out that disagreeing with someone is being classed as harrassment.

[Pizza]

There's a difference between me saying "I think your wrong about Gamergate Who" one time here, and me doing it over and over again, in every thread you post in, at every single opportunity. The second would absolutely be me harrassing you.

[Sousa]

I know its not a part of the terms of serive of twitter, I'm just pointing out that disagreeing with someone is being classed as harrassment.

So basically, "I know my concern has been thoroughly demolished, but I'd still like to be able to have it."

GOOBERGRAPE, EVERYBODY!

[Lint]

I know its not a part of the terms of serive of twitter, I'm just pointing out that disagreeing with someone is being classed as harrassment.

Considering harrassment is its own, completely separate option, I'd say your wrong

[gunnar hendershow]

Nevermind, it's been addressed.

Edited October 5, 2015 by damshow

[Plubby]

And it looks Twitter has confirmed what I was saying, you can report a violation of someone engaging in a abusive or harassing behavior, and in the reasons for reporting someone there is the option of "Offensive, disrespectful or in disagreement with my opinion", the first two of that I will not argue, its the "disagreement with my opinion" part which is wide open net that could easily be interpreted in so many ways it's ridiculous.

https://support.twitter.com/forms/abusiveuse

Just because it is there, does not mean that it is something they will ban people for. League of Legends has a player reporting system. You can report people for Hate speech, being abusive, intentionally throwing a game, or an offensive in-game name. You can also report a player for being not good at League of Legends. (The report option literally says "Unskilled Player"). They use this to track reporting and matchmaking data.

It's entirely possible this report feature is used in the same way on twitter - to track data on what gets people worked-up enough to access the report function.

[SeanDMan]

All indications are that it's a dummy report button.

Anyway, there has been an authentic(TM) Ethics In Games Journalism issue that cropped up recently.

One of the biggest Kickstarters ever was for Star Citizen, which raised over $45 million through it's initial Kickstarter and has, to date, raised over $90 million in crowd funding. However, not everything seems to be rosy in space; The Escapist wrote an article about conditions in the studio being subpar and toxic, using quotes from former employees. This caused quite a bit of a shitstorm, with a lot of people calling out The Escapist for writing a piece based on what they felt was hearsay. However, The Escapist dug in their heels and revealed how they vetted their sources and verified their information. For an unbiased perspective they also allowed the CEO of Star Citizens development to make an on the record comment.

A lot of people, meanwhile, have put a lot of money into this project, so they are angry at what they see as a hit piece. Kotaku, the bastion of ethics in gaming journalism, wrote an apologist propaganda piece about why things aren't really so bad, and decried the original article as harmful, saying they'd never write such an article. A few minutes of Google later and redditors discovered such an article.

It's interesting to contrast coverage of something where people have a financial investment vs, say, the scalding that Konami quite rightly received for their abuse of employees and toxic working environment.

[peteypirahna]

Just because it is there, does not mean that it is something they will ban people for. League of Legends has a player reporting system. You can report people for Hate speech, being abusive, intentionally throwing a game, or an offensive in-game name. You can also report a player for being not good at League of Legends. (The report option literally says "Unskilled Player"). They use this to track reporting and matchmaking data.

Holy shit, I knew League was terrible but I had no idea it was that terrible. You mean to say that the only way to possibly have fun in that game is to grind with bots for 400 hours until you're considered 'worthy' enough to game with real people? At which point you have to perform at 100% per match otherwise you'll be reported for being a bad player? Whatever happened to enjoying multiplayer games?

[Sousa]

BREAKING NEWS: Online gaming full of imperious shitheels, film at 11.

[The Lusophone]

Just because it is there, does not mean that it is something they will ban people for. League of Legends has a player reporting system. You can report people for Hate speech, being abusive, intentionally throwing a game, or an offensive in-game name. You can also report a player for being not good at League of Legends. (The report option literally says "Unskilled Player"). They use this to track reporting and matchmaking data.

Holy shit, I knew League was terrible but I had no idea it was that terrible. You mean to say that the only way to possibly have fun in that game is to grind with bots for 400 hours until you're considered 'worthy' enough to game with real people? At which point you have to perform at 100% per match otherwise you'll be reported for being a bad player? Whatever happened to enjoying multiplayer games?

Money. E-sports moolah leads to toxic environments in normal games as everyone thinks they can be the next... some guy who is good at MOBAs.

[Plubby]

Just because it is there, does not mean that it is something they will ban people for. League of Legends has a player reporting system. You can report people for Hate speech, being abusive, intentionally throwing a game, or an offensive in-game name. You can also report a player for being not good at League of Legends. (The report option literally says "Unskilled Player"). They use this to track reporting and matchmaking data.

Holy shit, I knew League was terrible but I had no idea it was that terrible. You mean to say that the only way to possibly have fun in that game is to grind with bots for 400 hours until you're considered 'worthy' enough to game with real people? At which point you have to perform at 100% per match otherwise you'll be reported for being a bad player? Whatever happened to enjoying multiplayer games?

The report for unskilled player serves no purpose other than to give them data on their matchmaking algorithm.

[Skummy]

How is that Kotaku article "apologist propaganda" or anything remotely resembling an ethics issue? Is it propaganda because it disagrees with the other article? Who gets to choose which one of those is "propaganda" and which is the truth? 

The Kotaku article, the way I see it, as someone with only a passing interest in Star Citizen as a product, explains a lot of people's concerns - not just about this game, but about crowd-funding in general. The Escapist piece, the one you're claiming is an unbiased report, reads like a tabloid hit piece. 

Maybe one is right and one is wrong, maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but it's hardly an ethics issue that different websites have different opinions of an issue.

 

Not to mention that Redditors have dug up an article from two years ago - because, as we all know, the greatest sin on the internet is change your mind or develop your opinions over time, and anything you said at any point in the past can be used against you in the present devoid of context - that, conveniently, is all about a video game studio accused of sexism so that, when it comes to motivating the GamerGate crowd, you can paint "the enemy" as a bunch of feminazi SJWs trying to TAKE OUR GAMEZ, with just a sprinkling of "oh right, yeah, ethics in whatever" over the top when you remember that's what it's all supposed to be about.

[SeanDMan]

How is that Kotaku article "apologist propaganda" or anything remotely resembling an ethics issue? Is it propaganda because it disagrees with the other article? Who gets to choose which one of those is "propaganda" and which is the truth? 

The big difference is the sources; The Escapist wrote an article based on 7 verified sources and 2 sources who preferred to remain anonymous. In contrast, Kotaku wrote a rebuttal piece sourcing the CEO of the company and their feelings.

The Kotaku article, the way I see it, as someone with only a passing interest in Star Citizen as a product, explains a lot of people's concerns - not just about this game, but about crowd-funding in general. The Escapist piece, the one you're claiming is an unbiased report, reads like a tabloid hit piece. 

The big difference between "tabloid hit pieces" and expose journalism is verifying your information. If you have nine sources telling you similar things, chances are you have a story. Kotaku, meanwhile, talked to one guy.

Maybe one is right and one is wrong, maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but it's hardly an ethics issue that different websites have different opinions of an issue.

It's an ethics issue because when a product has over $90 million sunk into it, no one wants to see that money as a sunk cost, especially if some of that is your money. Kickstarters for games being funded by games journalists is nothing new, nor is "journalist writes an article, doesn't disclose they have invested in product".

Not to mention that Redditors have dug up an article from two years ago - because, as we all know, the greatest sin on the internet is change your mind or develop your opinions over time, and anything you said at any point in the past can be used against you in the present devoid of context - that, conveniently, is all about a video game studio accused of sexism so that, when it comes to motivating the GamerGate crowd, you can paint "the enemy" as a bunch of feminazi SJWs trying to TAKE OUR GAMEZ, with just a sprinkling of "oh right, yeah, ethics in whatever" over the top when you remember that's what it's all supposed to be about.

Holy hyperbole batman, let me cut off your over the top rant and point out: a dude replied to an article by saying "this piece attacks a studio as a whole, which could damage it and endanger people's jobs, we would never write an article like that". You can't say that when you HAVE WRITTEN AN ARTICLE LIKE THAT. It doesn't matter if you wrote it two years ago or twenty years ago. It's like saying "I've never killed anyone" and when someone points out you killed a guy two years ago you say "Man that body has been cold for two years, I'm allowed to change my opinion on cold blooded murder, move on".

If you're going to live with a sword sometimes you fall on your sword. But you're more likely to die by the sword if you try and swing it around as a blunt instrument to beat down your critics with.

Just as a question, did you even bother to read any of the articles, Skummy? Read the Kotaku article again. Something immediately jumps out:

 Roberts told me

Roberts says

Roberts’ account 

Roberts said 

Roberts defended 

Roberts, for his part, argues 

 Roberts said

Et cetera et cetera et cetera.

Might as well have just let the guy write a PR piece himself. 

Edited October 5, 2015 by SeanDMan