Fallout 3 - Editorial @ Destructoid

In an editorial entitled 'Videogame fans need to shup about everything', Jim Sterling from Destructoid looks both at how Diablo fans want to maintain Diablo's tone as darker - as well as some of the upheaveal that was going on between Bethesda and the fans of Fallout. Here's one of his rather spicy comments:

So, these people were complaining about a new game for their favorite franchise that was pretty good by all accounts and made a lot of money, ensuring future Fallout games for quite some time. Yet, had these guys had their way, I doubt we'd even be talking about Fallout DLC, or New Vegas, or anything Fallout-related right now. Had these guys had their way, we'd have a game that looked, sounded, and played like something from 1997, and it would have sold to a small group who would then have likely complained that it hadn't changed enough.

Click to expand...

More information.

Haha good read

I didn't think Game journalists still visit the Codex

Dumbest things iwe read in a very long time. What a moron.

Very good points, best i've read in a while. Will surely piss off everyone at NMA which ofcourse, is a good thing.

bemushroomed said:

Very good points, best i've read in a while. Will surely piss off everyone at NMA.

Click to expand...

It would if we post trolling attempts. We don't, though. Unlike this site, we're pretty strict on preventing cross-site trolling.

Anyway, I've seen this editorial countless times. Lazy false representation of opinions, ignoring facts that don't corroborate his theory, and - most amusing - getting angry at people in a one-sided, obsessive manner because you think those people are getting angry in a one-sided, obsessive manner. Yawn? I'm sorry, but it's more amusing than upsetting.

But "very good points"? Really? Ok, explain to me how his points are good and not lazy strawmen set up so he can easily take them down. Are his points "very good", or are you calling them "very good" because you agree with them. If the latter, how is your behaviour better than the "fans" this article targets? How is the author's?

Brother None said:

But "very good points"? Really? Ok, explain to me how his points are good and not lazy strawmen set up so he can easily take them down. Are his points "very good", or are you calling them "very good" because you agree with them. If the latter, how is your behaviour better than the "fans" this article targets? How is the author's?

Click to expand...

Exactly my thoughts ... his argument falls to the facts that (a) we got a new game and should be happy, (b) the game was pretty good and so we should be happy and (c) the game made a lot of money and is therefore very good.

It is exactly the sort of argument a teenager makes when someone questions a musical performer or actor on the basis of talent and they say 'well, they have a lop more money than you' ... as if that matters.

So because the game was decent fun, was called Fallout which is the title of a game many folks wanted to see a sequel to, and made a crap-load of money, then we are not allowed to make critical remark? Perhaps HE needs to STFUAJPG.

That Final Fantasy IX article was stunning.

Brother None said:

Unlike this site, we're pretty strict on preventing cross-site trolling.

Click to expand...

Feel free to give us some tips, since you seem to have it all figured out...

JDR13 said:

Feel free to give us some tips, since you seem to have it all figured out…

Click to expand...

*shrugs* I love the RPGWatch community. My belief is it allowing people to openly troll sites like NMA or the Codex never adds anything to any debate, often leads to nasty debates, and because certain users do so at an obsessive pace, derail a significant number of newsthreads. How the Watch moderates is their business, I'm simply expressing concern as a user.

A simple question if this is open to community debate: what does allowing cross-site trolling add to a community? How many threads here have been improved by people flaming or trolling the Codex or NMA?

EDIT: I really don't want to make it sound like I'm trying to tell anyone what to do, by the way. Like I said, I think the Watch has a good community, certainly one healthier than the Codex or NMA's in many ways, but still spots for improvement.

Brother None, i thought it had many good points in regards to how a fanboy's mind works.. The article is maybe more amusing than "intelligent", but he's absolutely right.. Getting upset about games is one thing, getting upset about people in their 30's acting like whiny little kids is another thing, and imo, at least a BIT more understandable

Brother None said:

A simple question if this is open to community debate: what does allowing cross-site trolling add to a community? How many threads here have been improved by people flaming or trolling the Codex or NMA?

Click to expand...

I'm just curious as to what your definition of "allowing" is. I don't think the moderators having some tolerance, and not instantly banning people, is the same thing.

I'm just as annoyed as anyone else by the sudden influx of idiots we've had recently, but I don't see any reason for more action than what's already been taken… yet.

JDR13 said:

I'm just curious as to what your definition of "allowing" is. I don't think the moderators having some tolerance, and not instantly banning people, is the same thing.

Click to expand...

Banning is pretty extreme. To go back to NMA, we just remove any posts directly trolling another community, linking to threads on other sites saying "how stupid", or direct personal threats/extreme attacks on developers or journalists. I think your remark on the moderating having to be a response to how the community works is spot on: you moderate something that is a problem. The fact that we have to moderate for threats to developers is very telling of NMA as a community, and it sucks. Equally, I'd argue the Watch long since reached the point where moderating for cross-community trolling is a good idea.

bemushroomed said:

Getting upset about games is one thing, getting upset about people in their 30's acting like whiny little kids is another thing, and imo, at least a BIT more understandable

Click to expand...

Really? I'd say insulting an inanimate object is preferable to insulting a human being. Maybe that's just me.

Brother None said:

*shrugs* I love the RPGWatch community. My belief is it allowing people to openly troll sites like NMA or the Codex never adds anything to any debate, often leads to nasty debates, and because certain users do so at an obsessive pace, derail a significant number of newsthreads. How the Watch moderates is their business, I'm simply expressing concern as a user.

A simple question if this is open to community debate: what does allowing cross-site trolling add to a community? How many threads here have been improved by people flaming or trolling the Codex or NMA?

EDIT: I really don't want to make it sound like I'm trying to tell anyone what to do, by the way. Like I said, I think the Watch has a good community, certainly one healthier than the Codex or NMA's in many ways, but still spots for improvement.

Click to expand...

First, thanks for the support. Lots of room for improvement, I'm sure. It's not so easy for me to see the "path" to those improvements.

When you say "allowing", what action are you specifically recommending? In this case, are you suggesting we warn bemushroomed? Edit the post? Contrary to some of the claims floating around out there, we try to take a very light hand to moderation. In fact, I closed my first thread ever a few weeks ago and the other staff admonished me for taking the wrong action (and, in hindsight, they were right).

I tend to think you posted a fair response and txa backed it up, so the point has been made. And, on the other hand, I think bemushroomed has the right to make those comments — within reason — and I think his intent was perhaps a little different, anyway.

Dhruin said:

When you say "allowing", what action are you specifically recommending?

Click to expand...

I don't know since I'm not staff, obviously, and moderating well takes a lot of indepth knowledge of a community, easy to miss but true.

But something that works for me is a simple question: does the post add anything other than the trollish remark? If someone is simply replying to someone else or taking part in the debate and the remark is just peripheral, it's better to let it slip and/or try to steer the thread.

In this case I'd have a hard time blaming Bemushroomed since he's simply replying in the spirit of the original newsposted article. The problem is when valid articles on Fallout 3 turn into huge flame-debates because people would rather discuss NMA than Fallout 3, or when the content of a Codex article gets ignored in favour if just dismissing or complaining about the Codex. In those cases, the trolling kills potential valid debates, and lures in people who're just in it for these kind of personal attack-threads rather than actual game debate.
That sucks, and I think you could argue for removing said posts, or moving them into a generic "NMA sucks" and "Codex sucks" thread. The same applies, obviously, to dismissing opinions as "console kiddies" or similar Codex/NMA-esque things, but I don't think that's as big a problem here.

Brother None said:

Equally, I'd argue the Watch long since reached the point where moderating for cross-community trolling is a good idea.

Click to expand...

It seems so. But TBH, we weren't prepared for such a situation. As Dhruin already explained we have deliberately decided not to moderate much. Our experience at RPGDot was that over-moderation almost killed the community. We want to avoid this here.

Containment measures have been taken. All the rubbish is moved into the Cesspool thread. So far nobody was banned because we didn't want to cross that line. Doing so later is still a possibility. In that case we would have to be prepared to ban dozens of people to make our position clear.

Brother None said:

Equally, I'd argue the Watch long since reached the point where moderating for cross-community trolling is a good idea.

Click to expand...

Hear hear. Idiocy breeds idiocy, and there's no shortage of idiots in the world. Once stuff like that takes root, it can drag down the culture of a site very quickly indeed.

Gorath said:

Containment measures have been taken. All the rubbish is moved into the Cesspool thread. So far nobody was banned because we didn't want to cross that line. Doing so later is still a possibility. In that case we would have to be prepared to ban dozens of people to make our position clear.

Click to expand...

IMO the Watch dropped the ball on this one. A low-moderation policy is wonderful. Really. It's one of the things that make this site what it is. However, responding to a childish site raid is another thing — that has the potential to spiral out of control and do real damage, to people and to communities.

What would I have done? To start with, when it was still just a few people poking (mostly) good-natured fun at us, nothing. But once the serious trolling started, I would've declared martial law.

Whut?

This:

* Change site's livery to olive drab.
* Put a splash screen on login with "LISTEN UP BITCHES" as the headline, explaining the following new (temporary) rules in place:
* Suspend new registrations.
* Immediately remove all threads with even a whiff of cross-site trolling (in either direction).
* From that point onward, immediately ban anyone participating in cross-site trolling, in any role — whether it's defending or attacking the Watch, or defending or attacking the Codex, with the bans would automatically expire when martial law is revoked.
* The martial laws would be reviewed once a week, and taken down as soon as circumstances warrant.
* And from there on out, cross-site trolling would be an offense subject to moderation.

So what if the asshats participating in the raid call us moderation Nazis or nanny-staters or whatever? Let 'em.

(Besides, that's not what they disrespect anyway — they disrespect what they call "faggotry" — i.e., a wishy-washy forced-neutral ball-less position of not daring to take a stand and speak up lest you be thought "not nice.")

Is it possible we could focus on what's really interesting? I mean, as in the games we all enjoy.

Personally, I'm getting a bit tired of the pointless Codex-oriented posts. The place is what it is, and they've demonstrated what they're about - and plenty people from here fell into the trap. No getting around that.

Now, let's get on with the show - please.

Brother None said:

Really? I'd say insulting an inanimate object is preferable to insulting a human being. Maybe that's just me.

Click to expand...

Well ok, IRL they are insulting the people that likes the product and the people behind it. To insult them because they want to make a product that many people can enjoy and to make money, well, that's just pathethic. In the mind of a 12 year old (/and fanboys - who are just as intelligent and narrow minded) maybe that's how the industry works; the game companies creates games, not to sell them, but to satisfy a really really small group of extremely conservative people. They need to grow up, and that's what the article says really well.