We don't suspend people for having a different opinion, or for spreading their point of view. Even when I personally believe some opinions are bad and out of touch with reality. Or nonsense. I did suspend people for posting NSFW content there, for spreading hate speech or for writing things that were pure trolling and spam. I will not suspend people for writing they like Putin.
They've been muddying the water
And I said time and again that people should reply with sourced information, it's only way to stop spam and misinformation. If someone keeps writing nonsense - ignore. People have their own brain and can see who's writing is worth something, and who's just using anonymous telegram channels and wild imagination to have "discussion".
If I reply to someone with source and information that disproves their nonsense, I will most probably not sway die-hard believer of their narrative. But I will give someone more neutral different point of reference. If I instead go back and forth in emotional argue who's more right I will gain nothing, as it will keep the thread being off-topic and make neutral person side with better emotion-speaker, not facts. That's how I always saw it.
Users like Provos have even responded to half year old posts from users that never logged in for months.
I can see only one report from 2 weeks ago, that was pointing to a thread as a whole. If they are not reported with links to the actual message, we won't act. I have time to scan the last thread page to see if someone doesn't post stuff that breaks the guidelines. I will not know someone bumped 6 m/o old post if it's not reported.
There is a difference between my opinion and work as a moderator. Just like you may have a boss who tells you to paint his curbstone pink, even when you personally think it's hideous. You will do it, as it's the guideline you were given.
But also if we'd start to blanket ban people with unpopular opinions, it would be hard to draw a line. As I'm sure even among moderators there would be disputes. Like I would not want to allow "magic of natural vitamin C, treating cancer" statements (as it's harmful to lead people away from medicine into "natural healers", that will drain your pocket and give false hope), but someone else would say "they are harmless, let them be".
Perhaps something was done about it or they just don't see the opportunity to keep doing it again. Maybe I just like seeing people made an example of, that is likely a me problem
I don't personally "announce" I suspended someone. If someone posts a ref link, I ask them to delete it. If they ignore me - they will be suspended in a couple of days without further messages in the thread. What I do with warning is to both tell them to remove the message (hoping they will comply) and leave it for others to see and hopefully prevent them from posting ref links on their own. Not to spotlight specific suspensions.
Thanks.
Comment has been collapsed.
That gif, the arcade machine looks like it's supposed to resemble Sega Rally Championship! :)
Comment has been collapsed.
...
Comment has been collapsed.
tnx) gl hf all)
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks!
Comment has been collapsed.
This comment was deleted 5 months ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hi,
I've already answered this here, though it was a few months ago:
https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/nuakO7w
We don't suspend people for having a different opinion, or for spreading their point of view. Even when I personally believe some opinions are bad and out of touch with reality. Or nonsense. I did suspend people for posting NSFW content there, for spreading hate speech or for writing things that were pure trolling and spam. I will not suspend people for writing they like Putin.
And I said time and again that people should reply with sourced information, it's only way to stop spam and misinformation. If someone keeps writing nonsense - ignore. People have their own brain and can see who's writing is worth something, and who's just using anonymous telegram channels and wild imagination to have "discussion".
If I reply to someone with source and information that disproves their nonsense, I will most probably not sway die-hard believer of their narrative. But I will give someone more neutral different point of reference. If I instead go back and forth in emotional argue who's more right I will gain nothing, as it will keep the thread being off-topic and make neutral person side with better emotion-speaker, not facts. That's how I always saw it.
I can see only one report from 2 weeks ago, that was pointing to a thread as a whole. If they are not reported with links to the actual message, we won't act. I have time to scan the last thread page to see if someone doesn't post stuff that breaks the guidelines. I will not know someone bumped 6 m/o old post if it's not reported.
Comment has been collapsed.
This comment was deleted 5 months ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is a difference between my opinion and work as a moderator. Just like you may have a boss who tells you to paint his curbstone pink, even when you personally think it's hideous. You will do it, as it's the guideline you were given.
But also if we'd start to blanket ban people with unpopular opinions, it would be hard to draw a line. As I'm sure even among moderators there would be disputes. Like I would not want to allow "magic of natural vitamin C, treating cancer" statements (as it's harmful to lead people away from medicine into "natural healers", that will drain your pocket and give false hope), but someone else would say "they are harmless, let them be".
I don't personally "announce" I suspended someone. If someone posts a ref link, I ask them to delete it. If they ignore me - they will be suspended in a couple of days without further messages in the thread. What I do with warning is to both tell them to remove the message (hoping they will comply) and leave it for others to see and hopefully prevent them from posting ref links on their own. Not to spotlight specific suspensions.
Comment has been collapsed.
This comment was deleted 5 months ago.
Comment has been collapsed.