Underlore

Commenting is forbidden. >.>

Banned from Hand of Fate

2015-06-30_062628

Defiant Development are a Brisbane based game development studio, deeply hates the idea of anything like journalistic integrity and is like so many other development firms ever so keen to threaten and force and redact into silence anyone who says anything unflattering to them, or about them.

I would love to provide the “complete” (as Defiant Development staff morgan puts it) timeline of events, in question here, but since it began and ended this same “morgan” person quoted below, has banned me and deleted my threads and comments.

As I said in the log below I would ADORE a compete accounting of our interactions as they reveal a fundamental problem with corporatist media and the culture it generally promotes, but alas, we live on a planet where private ownership at any stage of any platform means immunity to basic freedoms of speech.

History will show this is a bad plan since those same arguments (my yard my rules) have been used to evade civil rights protections in virtually all contexts that even remotely permitted capitalism.

Anyway, here’s the log and the email and some now doubt dead by now links.


Republished from here: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/CasualVendetta/discussions/0/530645961935812162/

How I got banned from the HoF forum for standing up to a single tryhard.
Never tell your password to anyone.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Innomen: Heh, which part of Australia? (GMT+?) 🙂 Thanks for going through the hassle of enabling a private conversation. Steam does not make that easy. (Which I firmly believe is both intentional and underhanded.)
morgan: I’m briefly online now, as it’s night here – we’re in Brisbane.
Innomen: Brisbane, oky 🙂 Well no need to eatinto your evening, I sent an email so you can reply at any pace. 🙂
***Email I sent.***

Subject: Innomen calling Morgan, Over 🙂
to support@defiantdev.com
4:40 AM
Heya, it’s probably better to email since we have the crazy time difference also it’ll give me a chance to proof read my replies 🙂

Here is what I wanted to say in response to your ban threat, but I figured it would be better received privately.

In response to:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/266510/discussions/0/530645446319098357
(Originally posted by morgan: Innomen, please refrain from attacking other users. Critiques of the game are fine, but the only rule here is be nice. I’m deleting all offending posts, any follow up will result in a ban.)

I agree in principal but you should hear a few things from my perspective before you drop any ban hammers on what you might on closer inspection consider to be an ally. 🙂

As an initial side note, imo, deleting offending posts only causes confusion because now I can’t see what I typed that was the problem. (As a dev you have steam’s ear more than any of us. You could comment to them that you need the authority to edit comments like in forums.) Or perhaps you could open an official HoF forum somewhere and simply close this one, relaying all users there.

I say all that because I genuinely don’t remember what you’ve deleted, and now that whole linked conversation looks broken and a little crazy, because you’ve cut out key bits of context, which makes it even harder to remember what I and others typed, in response to what, and in what context.

But generally I can absolutely say this with confidence: I only “attack” (I would say rebut) other players when they attack me or other players for daring to complain about a game’s difficulty as if we’re lazy and weak expressly because we complained. (The opposite is true. Speaking complaint to any degree of power is an uphill battle in most any context.)

If you’re truly fine with criticism to the game but not to other players than I am not the one whom you should be threatening. Frankly if you genuinely want niceness enforced, you could do far worse than making me a moderator. (Not asking, just saying I’m the opposite of ban worthy by that criteria.)

Surely you don’t think it’s “nice” when players (example below) attempt to mock other players into silence by as I said implying that complaint itself betrays a weakness of skill and presumably character. (I call these people “tryhards” as opposed to a hardcore gamer who is essentially identical barring the need to mock casuals and whiteknight for devs and publishers.)

Example:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/266510/discussions/0/530645446320677868/#p2
The vast majority of Vred’s comments are tryhard bully drivel, and if you genuinely agree and blame the player base, then this is a pointless conversation and I should emotionally divest from this game and this community immediately.

I always draw the flak in these situations because I’m a sociology writer and I’m not afraid to write. Essentially that means in these situations I have the sharpest claws. But you only see my claws when there’s a bully or a bully’s ally in the room. So if you’re scolding me for scolding bullies then you should be aware that your approach to increasing “nice”ness is ultimately self defeating.

You honestly don’t have to reply, I’m perfectly happy simply believing you’ve read it and will take it into consideration in future moderation worthy encounters 🙂
***Email End***
(Sorry, steam doesn’t have a collapse text tag.)
Innomen: GMT+10 🙂
morgan: Can you edit the latest post to take out all the slagging off other players, please? There’s no need for that, and given I’ve just had to delete posts of you calling other users tryhards, I don’t think it’s kosher to jump back into a bunch of side attacks on people. Just make the point.
morgan: All good, I’ll take a look at the email.
morgan: Here’s my quick summary – no claws, please.
Innomen: That was fast.
(I don’t believe he had time to even read the whole of the email, his response happened in a matter of seconds.)
morgan: It’s not how we do things here. If you have issue with other peoples posts, you’re more than free to raise it.
morgan: You write for a living – I read for a living!
morgan: (also write, but hey)
Innomen: So are you threatening me with a ban or aren’t you? You can’t tell me it’s ok 30 seconds after you remind me that you’re deleting my posts while demanding I make changes.
morgan: I didn’t say it was okay. What leads you to that impression?
(Maybe because he said “If you have issue with other peoples posts, you’re more than free to raise it.”)
Innomen: You asked me to edit my comments before your email reply, is that request withdrawn?
morgan: No, not at all.
morgan: The forum rules are simple, and in the FAQ
Innomen: So merely posting a “rule” makes it right?
morgan: It makes it the rule.
morgan: You can play by those rules, or be banned from the forum.
morgan: I asked you not to attack other users. Now I’m checking the posts you’ve made since, and they’re mostly attacks – either explicit or snide, on other users. You can edit those posts, or I can ban you. Simple.
Innomen: So there’s no reasoning with you, it’s arbitrary demand obedience or exclusion.
Innomen: Indeed it is simple.
Innomen: I have principles and ethics, you don’t.
Innomen: Goodbye.
Innomen: I’ll be publishing this conversation by the way.
morgan: Please do. The record speaks for itself. However, you really shouldn’t post private conversations without asking both parties for permission – that’s the principled and ethical thing to do.
Innomen: Are you insane? You just told me to delete my comments or be banned at which point you’ll delete them and now you’re pretending like you don’t mind accountability?
Innomen: Do you not realize that’s an obvious contradiction?
morgan: If you post it in any way but unedited (and including this comment) then I’ll be sure to followup with the complete record, including your posts before and after warnings – people get banned from forums for breaking the rules of the forums. We have a rule prohibiting attacks on other players. You broke that rule. You refused to cease attacking other players. You’re banned and it’s done.
Innomen: I’m FAR less afraid of public scrutiny of my opinion.
morgan: No, I told you to edit your comments so they weren’t attacking other players. Good day, sir. As I say, please post *complete* logs, if you choose to do so.
Innomen: “you post it in any way” but “you’re banned and it’s done”
Innomen: How am I supposed to post if I’m banned?
Innomen: You really aren’t all there are you.
morgan: You got banned at the point where you refused to change and said goodbye.
Innomen: You’ve already made it impossible for me to post *complete* logs because you’re an intellectual coward and essentially a liar.
morgan: Goodbye.
Innomen: You banned me because I refused to bow to your childish demand for censorship.
Innomen: I meant publish on my blog, my review, and other places, not your little fiefdom btw.
morgan is now Snooze.
morgan is now Online.
Innomen: Well, thanks for confirming what I already knew to be true. For a moment I was actually thinking you were reasonable. But I should have known when you threatened and censored me while defending the abusive bully tryhard defending your cash crop. You’re a garden variety hypocrite with no sense of integrity. Remember your actions in this context if you ever find yourself shut out and silenced by someone with a little more power than you in a given context.

===

As yet he’s given no further reply, and why should he? Devs are held to no standards at all, anywhere. Certainly not ethical standards of what you might call journalistic integrity.

Updated: June 30, 2015 — 6:35 am

6 Comments

Add a Comment
  1. You really have a problem with simple rules lol, and always using ad hominem attacks, no wonder the result

    1. Yeah because rules are intrinsically good. Thanks for clearing that up. >.>

      Meanwhile back in the real world the complexity of a rule isn’t the defining aspect of its ethical value.

      1. I see no issue in a rule forbidding ad hominem attacks

        1. That’s because you have no respect for freedom of speech or journalistic integrity. Further, an Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy only in and of itself. An argument of substance which also contains an attack is not a fallacy.

          Example:
          Ad Hominem = You’re a moron.
          Argument = You’re a moron if you still think the earth is flat after watching a boat disappear hull first while sailing into the horizon.

          Grabbing the “moron” part and saying it refutes the argument is absurd.

          Indeed, banning the use of logical fallacies is absurd as well.

          Ad Hominem prohibition is a power trip.

          1. Arguments are very well possible without insults. Using insults to try to “strengthen” an argument by unsubstantially bashing the opponent weakens your position instead.

            1. And it’s possible to dig a basement using a melon baller. So what? And I didn’t say it strengthens an argument, so why are you using quotes?

              That’s why Ad Hominem is a fallacy in the first place. It isn’t an argument. It does not strengthen or weaken it.

              Look again at my example. At no point will addition of insult make the world flat. The argument’s merit is based on its parity with reality.

              I was not banned for being wrong, I was banned for not kissing boot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Underlore © 2013