Comments Disappearing from Reddit - GGG Has Nothing to do with Governance of /r/pathofexile

"

Hellcat5 wrote:

Heywoody, you have no proof that the people who run the subreddit don't get compensated in some way. You have no proof that the people who run the subreddit don't have monetary goals or hidden agendas. You have no proof that the downvoting doesn't happen from people who have hidden profiteering agendas.

"

Hellcat5 wrote:

My original post was a presentation of few statements and screenshots of experiences. (which you didn't read or look at before your first comment to my thread) The only conclusion I stated was "If you're looking for an unbiased source of information about path of exile, somewhere you can go to post your thoughts about Path of Exile, Reddit is not the place

Speaking of proof...not sure what kind of discussion you expected to unfold here when you offer a single anecdote while jumping and pointing and screaming about grand conspiracies.

"

innervation wrote:

"

Hellcat5 wrote:

Heywoody, you have no proof that the people who run the subreddit don't get compensated in some way. You have no proof that the people who run the subreddit don't have monetary goals or hidden agendas. You have no proof that the downvoting doesn't happen from people who have hidden profiteering agendas.

"

Hellcat5 wrote:

My original post was a presentation of few statements and screenshots of experiences. (which you didn't read or look at before your first comment to my thread) The only conclusion I stated was "If you're looking for an unbiased source of information about path of exile, somewhere you can go to post your thoughts about Path of Exile, Reddit is not the place

Speaking of proof...not sure what kind of discussion you expected to unfold here when you offer a single anecdote while jumping and pointing and screaming about grand conspiracies.

Wonderful of you to misconstrue my point by removing it from context. So, I'll clarify. I provided screenshots of my experience with description. Heywoody made statement without supporting evidence.
(I believe this is another way to say it - some might say this is an Eli5 way to say it - I brought my blocks to show and tell, and heywoody only talked about his balls he left at home. we have no proof that heywoody has balls.)

I'll add back in the context (the original response is on page 6 for those interested) -

"

Hellcat5 wrote:

"

Heywoody wrote:

thinking that The Official Path of Exile Forums run by Grinding Gear Games is open and uncontrolled and 'balanced' is like thinking that a salesman really has your best interests in mind. Even if he does care about your interest, he cares more about getting his compensation check.

There you go. I think you had the /r/pathofexile subreddit- a forum run by volunteers with no monetary goals whatsoever- confused with the Official Path of Exile Forums, which is the complete polar opposite in that regard.

Heywoody, you have no proof that the people who run the subreddit don't get compensated in some way. You have no proof that the people who run the subreddit don't have monetary goals or hidden agendas. You have no proof that the downvoting doesn't happen from people who have hidden profiteering agendas.

"

innervation wrote:

Speaking of proof...not sure what kind of discussion you expected to unfold here when you offer a single anecdote while jumping and pointing and screaming about grand conspiracies.

Would you care to define these "types of discussion" you mention? I'm not sure I can agree with your use of "single anecdote" to classify, and this comes from my background with semiotics (definition provided from google to show my point) -

"

noun
noun: anecdote; plural noun: anecdotes
1.a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
"told anecdotes about his job"
synonyms: story, tale, narrative, incident; More

2. an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay.
"his wife's death has long been the subject of rumor and anecdote"

3. the depiction of a minor narrative incident in a painting.

If you intend point 1, I can agree. If you intend point 2 or 3, then I cannot agree with your classification of my statement as anecdote. My "account" shows evidence, thus cannot be classified as "unreliable" or "hearsay," and it's not a painting.

Now, regarding "jumping and pointing and screaming about grand conspiracies" while your words paint a rather lively picture of me, I, unfortunately, cannot behave in this way due to medical conditions.

I can appreciate the colorful nature of your words, but when I boil it down, it's no more than yet another reddit attempting to insult in a pseudo-intellectual way. If you could discuss without insinuating, I'd be happy to oblige.

"

Hellcat5 wrote:

The thread's purpose is -
"I created this post as insight / warning for new players or players who've not yet visited /r/pathofexile. Not everyone uses or has used reddit, and I think they deserve fair warning. "

There is a little problem - the warning you are giving about the Reddit is simply not true. People answering to the thread are simply pointing out inconsistency and lack of logic/proof to your claims. You can repeat all you want what is the true purpose of the thread, but until you give solid proof, this thread is simply a slander.

"

Hellcat5 wrote:

Wonderful of you to misconstrue my point by removing it from context. So, I'll clarify. I provided screenshots of my experience with description. Heywoody made statement without supporting evidence.
(I believe this is another way to say it - some might say this is an Eli5 way to say it - I brought my blocks to show and tell, and heywoody only talked about his balls he left at home. we have no proof that heywoody has balls.)

What he said or offered as proof is entirely irrelevant. The fact that you expect other people to prove things is relevant.

If I require a bucket full of evidence to believe something, and you offer a drop of evidence, and 'heywoody' offers no drops of evidence - I'm equally unimpressed with the respective premises. Perhaps more suspicious of yours, because if someone says something with no evidence, well, that's easy to dismiss. If someone is extremely adamant about something with very very scant evidence, it should make you ask 'what's the agenda here?' before you dismiss it.

"

Perq wrote:

There is a little problem - the warning you are giving about the Reddit is simply not true. People answering to the thread are simply pointing out inconsistency and lack of logic/proof to your claims. You can repeat all you want what is the true purpose of the thread, but until you give solid proof, this thread is simply a slander.

You're denying the facts I've presented in images. The people who've bashed on what I've presented also deny the experience I've had with reddit shown in images. One cannot present solid evidence to someone who refuses to accept it. Slander is saying things like "you're a liar" without proof of deceit. This thread is an expression of my experience and a warning from it.

"

innervation wrote:

What he said or offered as proof is entirely irrelevant. The fact that you expect other people to prove things is relevant.

He responded making statements he didn't support in any way. That is completely relevant. I expect someone making counter-argument to also provide fact, but maybe that's getting too far into the logical argument process for you. Using an emotional logical fallacy doesn't derail the point. Attempting to change focus through an attack through implication to my character doesn't derail the point I've presented either. If you're going to play at pseudo-intelligent, why not transcend into the logical process to surpass implied insults?

But, hey, scientists have agreed from evidence that global warming is a fact, but yet still some people deny those facts to make themselves feel better (perhaps) or with some other agenda related to financial gain and product sales.

We cannot deny the breadth of the human condition. Saying that someone is operating from an altruistic intention doesn't prove that the person doesn't have other silently thought about motivations. Me stating, no matter how many times, that I created this post with a specific purpose doesn't effect those who deny it, and presume the worst.

"

innervation wrote:

If I require a bucket full of evidence to believe something, and you offer a drop of evidence, and 'heywoody' offers no drops of evidence - I'm equally unimpressed with the respective premises. Perhaps more suspicious of yours, because if someone says something with no evidence, well, that's easy to dismiss. If someone is extremely adamant about something with very very scant evidence, it should make you ask 'what's the agenda here?' before you dismiss it.

Granted, you're not saying who you're pointing at with:

"

innervation wrote:

If someone is extremely adamant about something with very very scant evidence, it should make you ask 'what's the agenda here?' before you dismiss it.

The images I presented support validating my experience and my warning from my experience. I've stated my intent, albeit you want to transform it into an ad hominem fallacy argument by stating, indirectly of course, I've got some other agenda here, and implying "he's deceitful, ignore him", which skirts on the fallacy of tu quoque. Oh, how I wish you'd go away, but I'm sure you'll stay, and be back another day in attempt to slay ...