Do you think gamespot is too stcrict?

Actually why is posting in all caps something to be moderated anyways?iusm78

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"] Now you and your little buddy run along and go falsely ban someone for having an opinion different than your own. SolidSnake35

I can agree with you on there, and yes, I can be very controversial, opinionated, and outspoken, sometimes to an extreme, but that doesn't give anyone the right to revoke that right or "moderate" it based soley on their personal opinion.

I can agree with you on there, and yes, I can be very controversial, opinionated, and outspoken, sometimes to an extreme, but that doesn't give anyone the right to revoke that right or "moderate" it based soley on their personal opinion.

Lakin0817

Which you still haven't demonstrated actually happened, btw.

A little bit. I've been moderated for some ridiculous things in the past.

But Most of the time when someone says they were moderated "for no reason", there's a reason behind them getting moderated.

A little bit. I've been moderated for some ridiculous things in the past.

But Most of the time when someone says they were moderated "for no reason", there's a reason behind them getting moderated.

dracula_16

I dunno - I think it speaks volumes when people post to try avoid moderation and yet get moderated anyway...

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Lakin0817"] Now you and your little buddy run along and go falsely ban someone for having an opinion different than your own. Lakin0817

I can agree with you on there, and yes, I can be very controversial, opinionated, and outspoken, sometimes to an extreme, but that doesn't give anyone the right to revoke that right or "moderate" it based soley on their personal opinion.

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"]

I can agree with you on there, and yes, I can be very controversial, opinionated, and outspoken, sometimes to an extreme, but that doesn't give anyone the right to revoke that right or "moderate" it based soley on their personal opinion.

m0zart

Which you still haven't demonstrated actually happened, btw.

I was moderated for that.

[QUOTE="Gokuja"]well i have been moderated for small things with no points lost besides for once which i admit i should have lost points. but the last one was really dumb. it was in a thread parodying fads and posts and stuff of OT. and i made a post with ALL CAPS and also made a reference to grammar and mods in it. it was all in good fun but i got modded 5 days later. i know caps arent allowed but we've have most likely all seen posts where someone uses all caps. i dont get why its a big deal because of the thread i posted it in.kingyotoX

Exactly it's because the mods don't look at the context of the moderation they merely see oh a report this person must be guilty. I'm not calling for as huge revolution like some people I merely want the mods to lighten up. If they weren't so strict about every little thing there wouldn't be a problem.

i agree they are a lil too strict, but its also all the dumb posters fault who abuse and make it soo strict. same with just about everything in life though.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Lakin0817"] Now you and your little buddy run along and go falsely ban someone for having an opinion different than your own. Lakin0817

I can agree with you on there, and yes, I can be very controversial, opinionated, and outspoken, sometimes to an extreme, but that doesn't give anyone the right to revoke that right or "moderate" it based soley on their personal opinion.

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Lakin0817"] Now you and your little buddy run along and go falsely ban someone for having an opinion different than your own. MAILER_DAEMON

I can agree with you on there, and yes, I can be very controversial, opinionated, and outspoken, sometimes to an extreme, but that doesn't give anyone the right to revoke that right or "moderate" it based soley on their personal opinion.

What the heck is free speech anyway if it can be randomly revoked by grad student moderators on a game forum. Freaking communism did the same thing.Lakin0817

Free speech has never applied to private property. You have a right to say what you think in public, and what you think on your own property, but you don't get to say whatever you think on someone else's property. You are subject to their rules. This is the natural balance between the right to property and the right to free speech.

Or as I've heard said in the past, you have a right to preach, but you don't have a right to someone else's soap box.

So if mods don't get paid why would they put up with the hassle of moderating a forum? Like I understand if someone joins a beta and gets to play a game early. I would do that for free. But moderate a forum? I'd want money for that. Lots of it.iusm78

When you come to care about a site or a community you would probably be more than happy to help out, I think thats the main reason mods do what they do.

This is a classic example of getting moderated for no reason... http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/moderate.php?mod_id=510502&view_mod_details=1kingyotoX

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"]What the heck is free speech anyway if it can be randomly revoked by grad student moderators on a game forum. Freaking communism did the same thing.m0zart

Free speech has never applied to private property. You have a right to say what you think in public, and what you think on your own property, but you don't get to say whatever you think on someone else's property. You are subject to their rules. This is the natural balance between the right to property and the right to free speech.

Or as I've heard said in the past, you have a right to preach, but you don't have a right to someone else's soap box.

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"]What the heck is free speech anyway if it can be randomly revoked by grad student moderators on a game forum. Freaking communism did the same thing.m0zart

Free speech has never applied to private property. You have a right to say what you think in public, and what you think on your own property, but you don't get to say whatever you think on someone else's property. You are subject to their rules. This is the natural balance between the right to property and the right to free speech.

Or as I've heard said in the past, you have a right to preach, but you don't have a right to someone else's soap box.

Meaning no disrespect to someone who has not earned it, but surely a forum is as public as you can get. Member ship is neither exclusive nor screened, and a forum itself is where these non-select, everyamn posters can express their views on things, although obviously within moderated reason. Whilst that in itself may contradict free speech to a degree of decency, it can be argued that many of the moderations experienced are, whilst not susbstantial, an irritant when no offense was meant - think of them as an undeserved parking ticket - you dont think you need one, but that matters jack in the scheme of things...

[QUOTE="iusm78"]Actually why is posting in all caps something to be moderated anyways?SolidSnake35

So it's annoying, that's it?

[QUOTE="kingyotoX"]This is a ****c example of getting moderated for no reason... http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/moderate.php?mod_id=510502&view_mod_details=1MAILER_DAEMON

I said "they gave you free live when it broke twice thats cool." that's what I was modded for that is simply crazy. Also I understand that this site wouldn't be good with constant flaming and name calling but telling someone to get a life gets you a 7 day suspension that is simply crazy.

That's funny, I thought this was a public forum open to all who wish to voice their opinions and views. So basically the city can invite everyone to a public rally at a city park, but they are allowed to arrest anyone who's opinion they don't agree with. You have a misconstrued way of thinking. And with that comment, you just proved my point that the moderators can censor anything they feel is wrong according to their own personal opinions. I never argued this, thanks for relaying my point even further.Lakin0817

It depends on what you mean by "public". If you mean it is own as a public entity, i.e. by some government for common use, then you are incorrect. If you mean it is open to the public, then you are correct. However, those two uses of the term are not the same -- a business open to the public is still private property, and as such the owners still have a right to determine what kind of expression is allowed and unallowed on said property. This forum is an example of that.

And if that is a "misconstrued" way of thinking, then Government has been "misconstrued" since the days of the Founding Fathers, since they were the most obvious defenders of private property rights, including the right of an owner of private property to limit expression on said property.

Meaning no disrespect to someone who has not earned it, but surely a forum is as public as you can get. Member ship is neither exclusive nor screened, and a forum itself is where these non-select, everyamn posters can express their views on things, although obviously within moderated reason. Whilst that in itself may contradict free speech to a degree of decency, it can be argued that many of the moderations experienced are, whilst not susbstantial, an irritant when no offense was meant - think of them as an undeserved parking ticket - you dont think you need one, but that matters jack in the scheme of things...D3nnyCrane

So it's annoying, that's it?iusm78

Nah... I've only gotten moderated twice in almost 3 years, and I say plenty of things that could be misconstrued as offensive.

You can keep banning me and I'll keep returning until you mods give me an intellectual reason why I am being banned for merely stating you are too strict.

Iheartmodidiots

Until you get IP banned. :|

Meaning no disrespect to someone who has not earned it, but surely a forum is as public as you can get. Member ship is neither exclusive nor screened,

D3nnyCrane

Heh, "meaning no disrespect" yet "to someone who has not earned it" -- not exactly a good introduction into this thread.

It certainly is screened -- all users must agree to the terms of use, which automatically limit their freedom of expression. They also agree that these terms can be modified at any time by the owners. That is a form of screening.

Calling these forums "as public as you can get" is definitely not a true statement. There is no public ownership in these forums, it is a private business open to the public but restricted by specific rules. Those rules are in effect the owner limiting the speech of those users. This is as opposed to public property, which is owned by an entity that represents the property in the name of the public at large, and in which political expression isn't as restricted.

[QUOTE="Lakin0817"]That's funny, I thought this was a public forum open to all who wish to voice their opinions and views. So basically the city can invite everyone to a public rally at a city park, but they are allowed to arrest anyone who's opinion they don't agree with. You have a misconstrued way of thinking. And with that comment, you just proved my point that the moderators can censor anything they feel is wrong according to their own personal opinions. I never argued this, thanks for relaying my point even further.m0zart

It depends on what you mean by "public". If you mean it is own as a public entity, i.e. by some government for common use, then you are incorrect. If you mean it is open to the public, then you are correct. However, those two uses of the term are not the same -- a business open to the public is still private property, and as such the owners still have a right to determine what kind of expression is allowed and unallowed on said property. This forum is an example of that.

And if that is a "misconstrued" way of thinking, then Government has been "misconstrued" since the days of the Founding Fathers, since they were the most obvious defenders of private property rights, including the right of an owner of private property to limit expression on said property.

...until you get IP banned and you can no longer even log in.

*holds up sign saying "Don't feed the trolls"*

dgwutka

I was first :P

That's the debate then. Does private property solicity for all to come join, participate, and have freedom of speech in their forums as gamespot does. If I uninvitedly come here and post, thats one thing, when im invited thats another. This is a public forum for anyone to join.
Lakin0817

Not anyone. If you don't agree to the Terms of Use, then you can't join.

That's the debate then. Does private property solicity for all to come join, participate, and have freedom of speech in their forums as gamespot does. If I uninvitedly come here and post, thats one thing, when im invited thats another. This is a public forum for anyone to join. Lakin0817

If that's the debate then there's no debate -- no one can join this forum without agreeing to the terms of use, which limits their exercise of free speech while on this forum. It's a set of terms you agreed to.

Technically, they could do it anyway, because it is private property and anyone can limit speech on their own private property. But in this case, users have even agreed to it before signing up.

Just to make it clear, if I expect people to take their shoes off when they come into my home, I don't have to have a sign posted on the door to insist on that. I can tell them to do it when they come in, and if they don't, then I can ask them and ultimately force them to leave. Similarly, if I INVITE someone to my home to watch a movie, and he starts spouting racist nonsense, I can and definitely would tell him to leave immediately, and he would be expected to. This is also because it is my private property, and I can decide what speech is allowed on it and is not. And that ability of mine to force someone to leave is there EVEN IF I invited them.

[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"]

Meaning no disrespect to someone who has not earned it, but surely a forum is as public as you can get. Member ship is neither exclusive nor screened,

m0zart

Heh, "meaning no disrespect" yet "to someone who has not earned it" -- not exactly a good introduction into this thread.

It certainly is screened -- all users must agree to the terms of use, which automatically limit their freedom of expression. They also agree that these terms can be modified at any time by the owners. That is a form of screening.

Calling these forums "as public as you can get" is definitely not a true statement. There is no public ownership in these forums, it is a private business open to the public but restricted by specific rules. Those rules are in effect the owner limiting the speech of those users. This is as opposed to public property, which is owned by an entity that represents the property in the name of the public at large, and in which political expression isn't as restricted.

What that meant is, as seems to be rubbed in peoples faces in this thread, is that MODs are the governing authority on this board, and as such, I respect their position. Also, You've answered all submission fairly thus far, so apologies for any confusion on my apparently not good introduction...

BY "as public as I get, I mean it is the internet. A non-physical entity. Something set up to ensure an almost unlimited access by all those capable of harnessing it. These boards (OT at least, being the only one I use) are not password protected,and as a private business open to the public, wurely must have a degree of ownership owed to it's consumers, in so much as that a business without users is like a car without wheels.

Personally, clutching at "Free Speech" is really a last ditch effort to try and score a point, and one that I will not grab for. however, I will admit it becomes annoying when you make a conscious effort to avoid offense and end up moderated anyway for something incredibly trivial - you can argue ignorance is no excuse, but considering the incredibly vast scope of moderating offences, it is one with perhaps a degree of validity.

With all due repsect, may it please the court :P

Just to make it clear, if I expect people to take their shoes off when they come into my home, I don't have to have a sign posted on the door to insist on that. I can tell them to do it when they come in, and if they don't, then I can ask them and ultimately force them to leave. Similarly, if I INVITE someone to my home to watch a movie, and he starts spouting racist nonsense, I can and definitely would tell him to leave immediately, and he would be expected to. This is also because it is my private property, and I can decide what speech is allowed on it and is not. And that ability of mine to force someone to leave is there EVEN IF I invited them.m0zart

He's got a point. GameSpot is just like any other private property.

"private property open to all the public" it's open to the public but we have the right to revoke your rights according to our own personal views. This is what i've been saying from the beginning. Censor ship according to ones personal opinoins. Authority given to "grad students with no time on their hands" to moderate the rest of us according to their views. Once again, one person has the authority over another based soley on what they believe vs. your beliefs. Lakin0817

No, they have authority over you because the people who own the site deemed them worthy of being a moderator.

Only sometimes, but it's really easy to avoid moderations if you really want to. I think I've gotten used to the "strictness".Hungry_bunny

BY "as public as I get, I mean it is the internet. A non-physical entity. Something set up to ensure an almost unlimited access by all those capable of harnessing it. These boards (OT at least, being the only one I use) are not password protected,and as a private business open to the public, wurely must have a degree of ownership owed to it's consumers, in so much as that a business without users is like a car without wheels.

D3nnyCrane

In respect to your first part, I was just saying that it was written to sound as if you felt I had not earned any respect. I assumed it was just misstated or maybe I misread, which is why I posted like that.

In any case, users are owed the same thing that any business would owe to any customer -- that they abide by the terms of their business agreement. The ToU is that business agreement.

Personally, clutching at "Free Speech" is really a last ditch effort to try and score a point, and one that I will not grab for. however, I will admit it becomes annoying when you make a conscious effort to avoid offense and end up moderated anyway for something incredibly trivial - you can argue ignorance is no excuse, but considering the incredibly vast scope of moderating offences, it is one with perhaps a degree of validity.

With all due repsect, may it please the court :P

D3nnyCrane

Point taken. I try to stick to the boards I am more familiar with. The main reason for that is that it gives me context for specific individual users. If I am familiar with the users of a given board, then I will know if this is just a misunderstanding or if the user is knowingly violating the rules. I can then act appropriately given that context.

It's not required, but I am by far not the only moderator who handles it this way.

The constitution doesn't give you the right to keep your shoes on in someones home now does it. Lakin0817

No, and it doesn't give you a right to call someone names in their home either ;) Again, the first amendment doesn't restrict a property owner's right to restrict speech on his property, which is exactly what I said to begin with.

How do you even become a mod?iusm78

The admins draft mods a couple of times a year...

[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"]

BY "as public as I get, I mean it is the internet. A non-physical entity. Something set up to ensure an almost unlimited access by all those capable of harnessing it. These boards (OT at least, being the only one I use) are not password protected,and as a private business open to the public, wurely must have a degree of ownership owed to it's consumers, in so much as that a business without users is like a car without wheels.

m0zart

In respect to your first part, I was just saying that it was written to sound as if you felt I had not earned any respect. I assumed it was just misstated or maybe I misread, which is why I posted like that.

In any case, users are owed the same thing that any business would owe to any customer -- that they abide by the terms of their business agreement. The ToU is that business agreement.

Personally, clutching at "Free Speech" is really a last ditch effort to try and score a point, and one that I will not grab for. however, I will admit it becomes annoying when you make a conscious effort to avoid offense and end up moderated anyway for something incredibly trivial - you can argue ignorance is no excuse, but considering the incredibly vast scope of moderating offences, it is one with perhaps a degree of validity.

With all due repsect, may it please the court :P

D3nnyCrane

Point taken. I try to stick to the boards I am more familiar with. The main reason for that is that it gives me context for specific individual users. If I am familiar with the users of a given board, then I will know if this is just a misunderstanding or if the user is knowingly violating the rules. I can then act appropriately given that context.

It's not required, but I am by far not the only moderator who handles it this way.

I think in my first part I was going fora double negative *runs through in head* "No disrespect to some who hasnt earnt it..." Yeah thats it you earned no DISrespect - sorry sounding intelligent takes a lot of effort for me!

I actually have no lasting beef with any Moderation, as it is a "read and delete" thing for me, and is made worse by my anti-authoritarian streak. Keep doing what you are doing - you've pretty much heard the last from me for now as far as moderation issues go.

It's not required, but I am by far not the only moderator who handles it this way.m0zart