A Community Hub Ban Story

No, i don't remember what game it was, but my point i tried to make was just devs sometimes being devs,as some will just have a short fuse, shouldn't let it bother you.

So you are not using any products made in China or other Asian countries with slave workforce doing all the manufacturing? Or is it only bad when western workers are abused? I've only ordered once from Amazon and will not again, just because their service is crap, not because some Americans are treated badly because lack of laws to protect them.

did you look up amazon bad business practices, or was it more important for you to talk about forum etiquette?

I think you already forgot that you posted a thread on SG platform talking how wrong you were treated by the devs of your game, not sharing awareness of amazon workers. Yes, I usually care to stay on-topic if possible, and at this point it doesn't matter whether it's amazon and labor laws, starving children in Africa, or Japanese celebrity marrying a body pillow, all three are equally irrelevant to your case, and all three would be classified as spam by me.

I've also looked up spam definition as you asked me to, from Oxford dictionary:

Irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet

Should I look up "irrelevant" too?

I don't get it. Why aren't you thanking the publisher?
Using nazi-related insults is the easiest way to get a Steam Community Ban [harassing developers is another basis for such, mind you] that I'm aware of, and they saved you from the risk of getting that permanent black mark. Given how generous that is, especially in light of your unwarranted behavior towards them, they seem to deserve nothing but praise on the matter.

While spam originally was closely matching in meaning to flooding [which is what you seem to be thinking of] and could thus occasionally be used as a sort of synonym for such, the term has since seperated into having a distinct, alternate application [as per Archie's examples above].

Anything that's non-constructive and/or off-topic to the point of causing disruption to the thread would qualify as spam. By modern application of the term, your unnecessary and inherently problematic initial post would qualify, and your final post, the one you finally got in trouble for, would not only easily have qualified, but would also qualify as harassment. Which, if that's also an option available to them to flag you for, only further supports the interpretation that they handled you with respect beyond what was warranted by your behavior.

Rather, if you'd looked up the definition of "spam" yourself, you'd see that the core definition consistantly is stated as being "irrelevant/inappropriate/disruptive messages sent on the Internet" or equivalent. Some older dictionary entries still haven't updated "emails" to a more versatile term such as "messages", despite that versatility of application being a long-standing reapplication of the term. Likewise, while it's left out of modern definitions, some older definitions do specify "to a large number of recipients", but anything put on a public forum is by definition sent to a large number of recipients, anyway. However, while those nitpicks exist and though advertising and malware have always been the highlights, the fact that spam can also refer to general disruptive/non-contributive content is a well-established and long-standing element of the term.
The flooding association correlated due to the similarity between dumping a lot of messages in one place and dumping a single message to a lot of different users; However, it was never an association that was properly a part of the core definition of spamming, and I can't recall seeing it associated with the term for a long time now (except as a potential subpoint when listing examples of what would qualifiy as spam for a particular medium).

Following on that, while automated advertising posts are the usual example of forum spam [just as automated advertisements can be considered the usual example of any method of message spamming], anything deemed to be similarly lacking in merits can also fit to the term, by way of their sharing equal form and valuation.

On that note, if your aim is to not have your posts be treated as spam, then you should probably add in some reliable sources for your accusations toward Amazon, and post supporting data that can confirm that Amazon is behaving in excess of standard industry behaviors. If you're telling others to look up the information on their own without even offering clear context, then your thread may as well not exist. At that point, at best it serves as an "I dislike this company for personal reasons" blog-style topic, rather than a proper conversational forum topic.
That kind of thing is best left to social media; While there's no reason to necessarily begrudge users who utilize SG for such purposes, users doing so should also expect that posting on an unsuited medium won't necessarily garner them favorable results, and that they've no reasonable basis for responding negatively toward constructive feedback [because, again, this isn't anyone's personal social media page, and thus responders aren't likely to limit themselves to "You are SO RIGHT" level feedback.]

So far you haven't yet properly addressed any topic, instead arguing definitions or redirecting attentions. It's not really about forum etiquette, or even basic conversational etiquette, at that point; Rather, it's hard to take your comments as having any degree of value at all. In short, spam- as per its current utilization- seems to be a label your posts trend towards, and as such is a habit you should properly take under reconsideration. [Meanwhile, I'm working on trying to better condense my responses.. Maybe I'll do better the next go around, huh?]

Anyway, to address your round-aboutly presented topic:
Frankly, it's rare to find any American business that treats its employees with any degree of respect, with most employers stretching legal boundaries to their limits at every opportunity [As an example, and as only a tiny part of that company's low considerations toward their employees, HEB Pantry grocery stores will punish employees for going into overtime (even if it can't be helped by the employee), and are willing to run their employees on back-to-back 8 hour shifts (closing shift followed by opening shift just three hours later), thus bypassing laws that dictate that anything past 8 hours in a single day counts for overtime]. I've yet to work at, or know anyone who works at any non-government employment that isn't troublesome to its employees in some way. [It's more likely to exist than unicorns, but I have about equal expectations of ever seeing either.]

Hell, even on SG, you'd be hard pressed to find a single bundle site that hasn't had negative feedback. While Bundlestars and Humble can still be considered to be a bit niche in their criticisms [though if Humble truly is being as arbitrary with their bans as some have indicated, then they may be better moved to the next grouping], GMG and IndieGala have had plenty of significant misdeeds towards their users (and in the case of GMG, their developers), and Otaku and Groupees are pretty much considered shovelware sites that noone expects much from. Yet, G2A is the only site we really emphasize, and that's because, yeah, they've just worked that darn hard at making a standout negative reputation for themselves.

In summary, while it's fair to topically reference the specific misgivings towards a company or site, blanket "this company is bad" commentary has to be reserved for the few companies that are renowned in their infamy. Yet, even then, threads commenting on G2A make sure to point out the specific encounters or issues that are being criticized [eg, "another reason not to use G2A"]. As such, your thread doesn't match expectations even at a foundational level.

tl;dr version: Pie is delicious. Irreverent, irrelevant comments are not.
(Sorry for the spammy feeling of that wall of text- but hey, at least I'm being topical, right?)

but ya other then the huge performance loss, more lag online, and the magical appearing zombies in rooms you just cleared it was a fine rebuild.

The lack of ability to leave a neutral review is frustrating, especially in those circumstances when you want to provide constructive feedback to the developer without leaving a negative review, but definitely don't feel a positive is justified (that being a consideration one might have with Early Access games, for example).
I also have several games that I've reviewed that are decidedly niche, that I'd like to inform people of the niche appeal on (or warn them of the nature of). It's a game that's great if you're the intended audience, but most gamers wouldn't enjoy it in the least. As such, it's hard to give it a "recommended" or "not recommended", since that's an association that'd vary according to the audience.

I also feel that Steam users gravitate towards "recommended" when they're on the fence, which leads to Steam's inflated review scores [compared to other user-review sites, for the same games] and from that, the fact that 60% positive on Steam more often than not means "complete trash" rather than the more intuitive "6 out of 10 users genuinely like this, that's a majority, it's still worth some consideration!".

So yeah, that lack is only hurting us right now.

Sweet! I just stopped following everything! Since everything I was following I don't play anymore :P

Thanks!