How many of you have read GGG's terms of service?

"

Exile009 wrote:

"

Shagsbeard wrote:

This place wouldn't function at all without that. The real reason you're upset is that you think you should be in charge and you're not.

Would it not? I wouldn't be so sure. The subreddit shapes its rules in regular consultation with the community, and it's more successful than this space. So much so that even GGG pays more attention to it than their own forums, shaped by the rules they themselves chose for it.

"

Doomfairy wrote:

The subreddit is a hivemind of anger and entitlement.

"

Doomfairy wrote:

"

Exile009 wrote:

"

Shagsbeard wrote:

This place wouldn't function at all without that. The real reason you're upset is that you think you should be in charge and you're not.

Would it not? I wouldn't be so sure. The subreddit shapes its rules in regular consultation with the community, and it's more successful than this space. So much so that even GGG pays more attention to it than their own forums, shaped by the rules they themselves chose for it.

The subreddit is a hivemind of anger and entitlement. You would only call it successful if you support that behaviour.

"

V3n05 wrote:

You do know they have the right to do so. It's their forums, their company, their game. They reserve the right to limit and censor content and speech as they please, especially because if they want to operate freely within their own jurisdiction, they must abide by the laws that govern them as a New Zealand based company. If you know anything about NZ ruling, certain laws related to defamation in particular are taken very seriously. If the company doesn't crack down on certain bits of "free speech" as it were, they will be subject to government action. Just because you don't like that they have freedom to monitor and edit posts and comments as they please, doesn't mean they're an evil company for doing so. They aren't based in the United States where "free speech," (which BTW is very seriously misunderstood in our country), is a lot more free than it is there. They have laws they must abide by as well, which every player who plays PoE and interacts with the forums must abide by too so long as they're interacting within those outlets

"

Exile009 wrote:

"

V3n05 wrote:

You do know they have the right to do so. It's their forums, their company, their game. They reserve the right to limit and censor content and speech as they please, especially because if they want to operate freely within their own jurisdiction, they must abide by the laws that govern them as a New Zealand based company. If you know anything about NZ ruling, certain laws related to defamation in particular are taken very seriously. If the company doesn't crack down on certain bits of "free speech" as it were, they will be subject to government action. Just because you don't like that they have freedom to monitor and edit posts and comments as they please, doesn't mean they're an evil company for doing so. They aren't based in the United States where "free speech," (which BTW is very seriously misunderstood in our country), is a lot more free than it is there. They have laws they must abide by as well, which every player who plays PoE and interacts with the forums must abide by too so long as they're interacting within those outlets

I had critiqued this. It was disappeared. And not cos I'd attacked you btw. Nor because it violated any NZ law either. Just so you know. They're practically making the OP's case for them.

"

V3n05 wrote:

Someone did critique it, and it straight up involved politics. Not sure if it was you or OP, but that's why it got removed

"

Exile009 wrote:

"

V3n05 wrote:

Someone did critique it, and it straight up involved politics. Not sure if it was you or OP, but that's why it got removed

Perhaps, but it's worth noting that politics doesn't violate NZ law. Nor is it an attack on anyone. That's on them i.e. they can't point to anyone else for it.

For what it's worth, I'd pointed out that your rationale wasn't coherent. The early part (it's their forums to do as they please!) doesn't mesh with the latter part (they have to follow the law!). It was better fleshed out than that, but obviously that didn't pass their arbitrary rules. So this'll have to do.

"

V3n05 wrote:

"

Exile009 wrote:

"

V3n05 wrote:

Someone did critique it, and it straight up involved politics. Not sure if it was you or OP, but that's why it got removed

Perhaps, but it's worth noting that politics doesn't violate NZ law. Nor is it an attack on anyone. That's on them i.e. they can't point to anyone else for it.

For what it's worth, I'd pointed out that your rationale wasn't coherent. The early part (it's their forums to do as they please!) doesn't mesh with the latter part (they have to follow the law!). It was better fleshed out than that, but obviously that didn't pass their arbitrary rules. So this'll have to do.

Then it was you who made that post I responded to. And just to mention, politics is against the forum rules. That's why your comment you removed. Lol

"

Exile009 wrote:

You seem to be very good at missing the point. Your argument fails to justify that forum rule, as it was inherently self-contradictory. It borrowed from one philosophy to start, and then switched to its opposite in the latter half.

That's not surprising, as people tend to be very good at justifying things they already like to themselves using every concept they can think of, regardless of whether they make sense together or are internally coherent. So I'll tell you why you really think it's okay for them to censor - cos you like it. That's it, plain and simple. The intellectualisation is merely a post-facto rationalisation. That's why any argument you can think of to justify it is okay by you, cos all that matters is that it aligns with what you already believe - so it doesn't matter if they're contradictory.

And it was only 'political' in the sense of mentioning a certain philosophy, not any country or person. Even after the change to the CoC they didn't censor (and yes, I said censor) that stuff, but it appears now they do. So even they haven't been consistent over time, just as your argument was inconsistent.

Edit: And ironically, your original comment mentions two countries, and the law. But that's not political, even though they've also previously removed comments for mentioning specific nations. Truly, very consistent moderation...