Another year, another Comment Policy poll. Like last year, today we’re letting you vote and decide for yourselves our Comment Section Policy. This year, we’ve added an extra category for our unrestrained policy, something that may interest some of you.
Our new Unrestrained Policy will allow moderators to ban spammers. This is something we’ve already been doing for bots and those that are simply coming here to spam. However, this new policy will also apply to our regular readers. If you spam with a lot of irrelevant comments, your comments will be deleted. After that first “warning“, and if you are caught spamming again, you’ll get banned. The Man’s comments in this article are a perfect example of what we consider spamming.
This poll will run until Sunday (October 20th) and will end at 21:00 GMT. Do note that in order to minimize any possible spam or attempt to alter the results, we only accept accounts that have commented on five other stories in DSOGaming. Accounts that have been created today or last week are not acceptable. Accounts that have commented on five stories from today are also not acceptable. Duplicate comments are not acceptable. We’ll be also deleting all irrelevant/off-topic comments from this story (so that it’s easier to determine which option has won). Do note that if you don’t choose a number, your comment will be deleted.
This new Comment Section Policy will take effect on October 20th and will last for one year. In 2020 we’ll have a new poll for a new Comment Policy.
Here are all the current available choices:
- Unrestrained Policy: Our readers can comment about anything they want. They can leave political or racist comments, and they can insult other members (who can defend themselves via the Comment section. Moderators are not required to protect them and they can leave all users to fight each other).
- Unrestrained Policy but with the ability to ban spammers: Our readers can comment about anything they want. They can leave political or racist comments, and they can insult other members (who can defend themselves via the Comment section. Moderators are not required to protect them and they can leave all users to fight each other). Spammers will not be allowed and will be banned.
- Users can talk about anything other than racist stuff. Personal attacks will not be allowed: Our readers can talk about anything as long as it’s not racist or personal attacks. Moderators are free to delete comments THEY feel are racist or personal attacks. In case such a comment passes under the radar, readers can report the comment in order to bring it to our attention. Moderators can also ban users that keep talking about all those topics.
- Users can talk about anything other than racist or political stuff. Personal attacks will not be allowed: Our readers can talk about anything as long as it’s not racist, political or personal attacks. Moderators are free to delete comments THEY feel are under those categories. In case such a comment passes under the radar, readers can report the comment in order to bring it to our attention. Moderators can also ban users that keep talking about all those topics.
- Only PC-gaming related stuff: Our readers can talk only about PC gaming stuff. As such, they can’t share off-topic videos (such as music videos), talk about the weather, earthquakes or other disasters (like tsunamis for example), talk about history, or talk about all the other aforementioned categories. In case such a comment passes under the radar, readers can report the comment in order to bring it to our attention. Moderators can also ban users that keep talking about all those topics.
UPDATE:
The voting is over and we had 156 legit comments. From these votes:
16 votes were for option #1
80 votes were for option #2
10 votes were for option #3
17 votes were for option $4
33 votes were for option #5
As such, and from today, we’ll have an unrestrained comment policy but with the ability to ban spammers. You are now free to discuss the results in this story, and no further comments will be deleted.
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
No 2.
I vote for Number 2 Policy.
2 of course.
No. 4 is the most decent
4 all the way. Any dialogue could’ve been had up until this point. I’m tired of seeing the same two posters crapping all over the comments sectiion.
Number 2 unless others want to be china
Probably 2. Not 1, cos why would we want spam to stay? And not lower than 3 because politics are pretty much related to everything these days.
5…. pc gaming related stuff only please!
Yeah I personally want 5 as well but if that is a useless vote then I go with 2.
The comments section really should be limited to discussion about the article itself. If someone starts an off-topic comment thread about something unrelated then it should be removed. If the article warrants political discussion then those discussions should be relevant to said article which is why I think option 5 is best as long as the moderators can make decisions to delete comments appropriately and only ban users who repeatedly break the rules. Some people might consider it to be censorship if people are having their political opinions removed but I don’t really see it as censorship if they are genuinely off-topic. Why would anyone want to hijack an article’s comment section on a gaming news website to broadcast their political views in the first place when there are platforms out there with much greater reach than this website.
2. Unrestrained Policy but with the ability to ban spammers
Nº2 is fine in my book, grow a pair kids,
Number 4. Racism does not belong on discussion boards and politics never result in reasonable conversation, especially since they tend to circle around the drain that is the American two party system. The only exception I would make is if politics (e.g. human rights issues ala Blizzard) are relevant to the discussion of the article.
PS. Please return the YouTube links to the way they were. Now I have to open site from the RSS feed, click on the YouTube video image, click again to play it and click one more time to open it in a larger player on YT. I used to be able to just directly click the video header to go to YT.
4 would be good.
TL;DR – 2.
I think “politics” should be allowed- because this is not about “governments” (“Trump did this or that”), but rather, say- cultural issues that are sometimes pushed through games or the media.
And when that happens, where are you allowed to talk about it?
If, say, you don’t agree with Polygon on their site– they will throw your comments’ burning carcass off the internet and ban you till the heat death of the universe. They’ll also probably call your mom and tell her just how politically incorrect you are, they’ll call your workplace and tell them just how offended they are. They’ll make sure you do not exist digitally, erasing your thoughts from the web as efficiently as they can. Pretty soon you’ll be homeless and Polygon will have one free thinking person less to worry about in building their great new world…
So where are you supposed to talk about sh*t that sometimes happen in our little gaming world? Sometimes you just need to hijack a thread on a site like this one… 🙂
On a more serious note though, I feel like there should be some option between 2 an 3, but my vote is on 2.
Dunno if I ever saw racism in the comments here on DSO (so that’s probably not an issue anyway), and personal “attacks” sometimes are pretty hard to tell from just normal discourse, and mostly will depend on one’s sensitivity to such talk. If somebody writes “my 5700xt is better then your 2080ti” and someone replies “UR supid”- is that an “attack”? 🙂 Id say… no…
But if anyone really feels “attacked”, maybe they should be able to at least report it, but then… it’s going to be the moderators judgement to decide if it really is an “attack”- but then, how would they know? Maybe the person being attacked is just a special kind of snowflake and just melts really fast? 🙂 And I’m not even saying it jokingly, for some people it’s just going to be this way.
The mod may dismiss it as silly talk, but the person reporting might be crying in a corner… But then if you listen to every snowflake, pretty quickly no discourse will be allowed at all… So that’s probably not an option…
And you should be, I think, aware of how people really want to react to the stuff you say, so you should let them, and then deal with it accordingly. Meaning- free speech.
So yeah, 2 it is.
Either way, congrats on having a democratically chosen policy for the site! That DOES NOT happen often on the internet…
Also, whenever rules about politics are in place, they tend to be very selectively enforced.
No.2
2.
No.4 is the most decent one.
Number 2.
There is a block button already, if you feel offended or bothered by someone just use it.
This. Hands down, option 2 I enjoy the heated debates. No one should run from controversy which is a lost skill now. Do not want commercials though.
5. Would still allow for heated debates provided they are on-topic and about the subject being discussed rather than the people discussing them.
With 5 you are putting yourself at the mercy of a moderator you don’t know and have no idea what they think, because they get do judge what’s off-limits, not you, and for what? What do you get from all of this? Your only benefit is to not have to hit the block button yourself, or to not have to ignore the comment while submitting to the risk that a moderator might erase a comment that you would be interested in.
My understanding of 5 is that the moderator decides what’s off-topic rather than off-limits. And that’s something you can objectively appeal. In theory a moderator could go against the rule and block comments that shouldn’t be blocked, but that misuse of power is a possibility with all of these options.
The advantage of this to readers is they don’t have to wade through dozens of off-topic comments that are ostensibly random attacks on people/s or immature self-aggrandising nonsense.
Blocking people is not a good alternative, because if I have to block 90% of users what’s even the point of having moderators in the first place?
In practice, this has never been the case with online moderation. Just because you want 90% of the comments to disappear doesn’t mean that the moderator will agree with you on which 90% should disappear, and it’s also not ethically sound for you to try to make that decision for everybody else just because you think it’s too much work to block commenters you’re not interested in (which is objectively a trivial amount of effort).
If something is not on topic and I have issue with the comments that are not on topic then the chances are are moderation will act to create a healthy environment for commenting — and it is that rather than the effort of blocking people that I am invested in.
There is, to date, not a single example of a wildwest comment section on the internet that I can think of that didn’t descent into an immediate shit-slinging disaster short of those where everyone is politically aligned (which shouldn’t be an issue with option 5).
Staying on topic is also a non-trivial amount of effort — one that yields better results for everyone unless you are a malicious troll attempting to smuggle your views past under the guise of legitimate discourse.
Edit: Results are in. I’m not going to comment anymore because what’s the point of constructing a carefully thought out argument when a random insult carries as much weight around here (if not more?).
What constitutes “on-topic” is not decided by you, the user, it’s decided by the moderator. What makes a “healthy comment environment” is entirely subjective, all your’re doing is betting everything on the moderator’s biases and prejudices aligning with your own. But I guess it really takes having been on the receiving end of this problem to truly understand it. No matter how annoying you find most comments, the alternative opens the door for something far, far worse and leaves no possible way to ever course-correct.
“What constitutes “on-topic” is not decided by you, the user, it’s decided by the moderator.”
The moderator deciding where to draw the line is true of all moderation, including what constitutes spam which, incidentally, is identified by its lack of context (i.e. a form of being off-topic).
The moderator can also abuse their power and you would have no recourse, so option 2 doesn’t actually offer you the protections it appears to on paper.
Now, while there is a degree of subjectivity involved in what determines what is off topic there are also areas where something is objectively off topic because there is no discernible connection made between the topic at hand at the comment (i.e. a failing of the poster).
“But I guess it really takes having been on the receiving end of this
problem to truly understand it. No matter how annoying you find most
comments, the alternative opens the door for something far, far worse and leaves no possible way to ever course-correct.”
Just so we have context, we are talking about a privately run videogame forum here, and ONLY that right?
I’ve seen both extremes on videogame forums and I have to VEHEMENTLY disagree. The alternative is a toxic cesspit beyond compare.
Sorry, I’m genuinely having a hard to believing you were completely on point, acting in good faith, and were mispegged repeatedly as acting maliciously.
Yes, the spam rule opens up a new venue for potential abuse, hence why I would have voted 1 if I had caught the vote in time. I suspect a lot of people just read “spam” and assumed it would be advertisements or just repeatedly posting the same comment over and over dozens of times in the same article, stuff like that, but as you say it’s not defined that well here. Still, 2 remains better than all the choices below it, because having one potentially abusable standard is no justification for having all the abusable standards.
That “toxic cesspit” you dread so much is still infinitely better than a moderator-enforced circlejerk, because the thing you don’t see about these “standards” is that they are almost never consistently applied, so if you ban politics for example, in practice you’ll just be banning the specific political viewpoint that the moderator dislikes, not politics as a topic.
If you find getting repeatedly misrepresented (and maliciously so) and unfairly banned so hard to believe then you’ve never actually argued against a position people are emotionally invested in, or even joked about it. Try going to ResetEra and argue against censorship of Japanese games and see how long you last (assuming you don’t already post there and support censorship). Here, have a look at how that paradise works: resetera dot kiwifarms dot net
The truth is that heavily moderated spaces are the dominant inescapable cesspools and getting worse every day, with sites like DSOG being the rare exception.
I can relate to what you say about Resetera. And now that you mention I have had similar bitter experiences with self-righteous “progressives” who believe their broad affiliation means they aren’t actually a**holes.
That said, from what I can tell Resetera’s moderation slant is the effect of a skewed userbase rather than the reverse. Resetera is cautionary tale of what happens when you swing too far in the other direction, which is not what I am espousing.
When you eschew moderation you open yourself up to the exact same circle-jerks that over-judicious moderation does, and DSOG shows that in action.
You can barely go one article without it being derailed by anti-EGS sentiment (which might make sense if the game in question was actually coming to EGS), or people self-importantly projecting themselves as superior to console gamers (seriously, I hear more talk about consoles on DSOG than I do on actual console forums — isn’t this supposed to be a PC site?), or devolving into some random babble about immigration and how tight-fisted jews are.
None of this is relevant. You know it isn’t, the mods know it isn’t, the people posting know it isn’t. This isn’t a matter of subjective vs objective, it’s a matter of willful malice masquerading as free speech <– that's the huge difference between DSOG being unhinged, and Resetera.
Resetera is what inevitably happens when you give the censorship mindset an inch, what kind of people do you think are going to be interested in moderating for free anyway? Tight moderation eventually becomes corrupted and leads to a mod-enforced circlejerk because it has zero mechanisms to prevent those self-righteous a$$holes from getting in; it only takes one getting in and then you’re screwed and have no recourse to get rid of them.
I’ll happily wade through stupid comments for the tranquility of knowing that some soy-infused a$$hole with an authority b0ner isn’t going to insta-ban me for making a joke or refusing to praise the political dogma du jour.
As for comment quality, people dying of thirst in the desert will inevitably flock to an oasis. You will never get a sanitized forum that 100% agrees with all your biases and never has any posts that offend or annoy you unless you’re the one banning people yourself, for everything else, scrolling past a dumb comment is the price of knowing that you won’t be in the crosshairs of some a$$hole moderator and, to me, that is absolutely worth it. If it isn’t worth it to you, no matter how milquetoast and non-confrontational you are, the ground will keep shrinking under your feet anyway and eventually you’ll end up back in the pit with the rest of us.
Your point of view differs from mine in two major ways:
1. That any implemented change is irreversible. It’s not though; it’s a yearly vote.
2 .That I would want moderation to create an environment which agrees with my biases, which isn’t the case.
I am open to disagreement and differing opinions… I am not open to differences of opinion being used as a cover for personal attacks (and there is no subjectivity in this because the people doing it KNOW they are doing it!) or agendas that have nothing to do with the topic, even tangentially.
“If it isn’t worth it to you, no matter how milquetoast and
non-confrontational you are, the ground will keep shrinking under your
feet anyway and eventually you’ll end up back in the pit with the rest
of us.”
Never had that issue, and I’ve been able to talk openly about censorship and such on moderated forums where the only time comments were moderated (and never mine) where because someone derailed into personal sh*t flinging. The issue isn’t about how confrontational you are alone, but how on topic you are. Sadly, that forum isn’t about PC gaming.
If you are constantly being banned or moderated outside of sites with heavy biases then I have some bad news for you: you’re actually hijacking threads with a personal agenda where it has no place being. In which case, yes, you deserve moderation.
Sucks to hear that. But if you are being targeted over and over by multiple mods on multiple sites with various policies and massively different biases there is only one conclusion.
Regarding point 1, riddle me this: how are banned people going to vote? How are people who have been purged from the system going to be able to participate in the system enough to influence a future vote? Censorship is irreversible because it suppresses the voices that could reverse it, the first victims of authoritarianism are its opponents.
Regarding point 2, what I said is that you would be betting on moderation that would align with your biases, i.e. you can’t picture yourself on the wrong side of bias, which is an extremely naive way to think.
Now, I’m going to talk about something that might sound overdramatic since it’s about real world murder, but I’m not trying to make light of this issue or trying to draw a direct comparison on its severity to something relatively minor like Internet moderation, it’s just that I can’t think of another example right now that better illustrates the underlying mechanics of how this works. Anyway, as you might know, Mexican drug cartels tend to mutilate people during executions, disembowel them and hang their bodies from an overpass, very graphic and grisly things like that, and also very public and visible. The reason they do that is because when the public sees a horrifically mutilated body executed by a cartel their first instinct is to think “they must have done something to provoke this” or “they must have deserved it”. Note my emphasis on the word “must”, it’s all a guess, they don’t actually know, but the alternative that someone might end up like this for completely BS reasons is just too horrifying to think about, so people like to believe that the world is at least a bit fair.
The truth is that you don’t need to do something to explicitly provoke the cartel, you can be inconvenient simply by circumstance or you can just be associated to someone inconvenient and you get targeted to punish them (e.g. friends, family or associates of informants, etc.) and they’ll still give you the royal disemboweling and overpass treatment, because they want spectators to think that the target always deserved it.
This mentality of “they must have deserved it” (again, note the emphasis on “must”) is what intimidation preys on and relies on to continue escalating, but in many cases, they don’t actually deserve it, they didn’t do anything that should reasonably count as provocation, it was just a matter of convenience.
The mechanics of how people get censored and deplatformed online, and how those are perceived by spectators, are not dissimilar; sure there are people who court the hammer, but that’s not the minimum requirement to get the hammer in the current climate, the minimum requirement is this simple:
1: Have the wrong opinions and/or be associated with the wrong people,
and 2: Draw attention from some authority.
Let me tell you how I got instantly, permanently banned from Siliconera without warning: there was an article about a major censorship controversy regarding a game, I don’t exactly remember which one, and I posted a comment lampooning the typical censorship apologia; “it’s only censorship if the government does it”, “what got censored is ugh, yikes and gross”, lines like that, it wasn’t directed at any user in particular, I was lampooning a general opinion and there aren’t any rules against that as far as I could tell, in fact I wasn’t even the only one with this stance in the comments. So, what made my comment different and deserving of that instant, permanent ban without a warning? I have a pretty good idea of what happened: my lampooning of SJW language specifically (i.e. “yikes”, “gross”, etc.) struck a nerve, some SJW reported my comment, an SJW mod saw it, checked my comment history and saw that I was frequenting the naughty websites, like NicheGamer, DSOG, OneAngryGamer, etc. and that was the reason for the ban.
That’s why I say that the ground will keep shrinking under your feet, because being milquetoast and using proper and clean language doesn’t save you from being inconvenient, you already expressed your dissent from the SJW pro-censorship crowd like ResetEra, that dissent and your rubbing shoulders with tainted people like me and tainted websites like DSOG is what makes you inconvenient, hell, opposing their crowd while being respectful and persuasive would make you more inconvenient than the average, the only missing ingredient is to draw attention. So you’re not avoiding the hammer because you’re all respectful and proper, you’re avoiding the hammer because you’re keeping a low profile, I’m sure you’ve stopped yourself from engaging in certain topics because you thought “it’s not worth it”. Well, once all the overt sh1tlords are gone they’ll start sniffing for dissent more carefully and the purity testing will become more rigorous and that’s when you’ll end up back in the pit, so long as you keep dissenting enough for them to sniff you out, your demeanor won’t matter, I’ve seen this time and time again.
“Regarding point 1, riddle me this: how are banned people going to
vote? How are people who have been purged from the system going to be able to participate in the system enough to influence a future vote?
Censorship is irreversible because it suppresses the voices that could
reverse it, the first victims of authoritarianism are its opponents.”
Huh. That’s a really good point. Thanks.
I think using the term censorship” and “authoritarianism” is a bit overblown here though, which again, leads me to believe you are making this about the principle rather than the reality (i.e. a comments section on a niche videogame website) — after all, people can just make alts. That, and bans needn’t be permanent.
“Regarding point 2, what I said is that you would be betting on
moderation that would align with your biases, i.e. you can’t picture
yourself on the wrong side of bias, which is an extremely naive way to
think.”
I can’t agree here because my experience has shown otherwise, and in any case, I don’t need the moderation to align with my biases. I’m not sure why we keep coming back to his point. I don’t NEED the mods to agree with me for 5 to work as it needs to. In fact I can not post a single or read a single thing, and it would still function. I am not part of the equation, here.
“This mentality of “they must have deserved it” (again, note
the emphasis on “must”) is what intimidation preys on and relies on to
continue escalating, but in many cases, they don’t actually deserve it,
they didn’t do anything that should reasonably count as provocation, it
was just a matter of convenience.”
Moderation is anonymous on Disqus. You don’t know who banned who for what because the comments just vanish. That is a problem in and of itself, but there’s no parading of the fallen to scare a minority here.
“So, what made my comment different and deserving of that instant, permanent ban without a warning?”
The fact that you can’t tell is problematic for one of two reasons i. the moderation didn’t make it clear or ii. the obvious solution is something you’re not seeing. I suspect it’s a bit of both. I don’t want to make this personal, but since you used yourself as an example I kind of have no choice if I want to address this point.
There are two interpretations here i. you did nothing wrong and attracted the ire of a rogue mod… in which case rule 2 won’t protect you, or ii. you were out of line either by being persistent, off-topic or, actively making the experience unpleasant for other users by mocking them (which by your own admission, you were)
If you thought that would be acceptable despite no explicit rules against it I’m afraid it is you who is being naive here. To use a less extreme example… everyday conversation — you would have gotten punched in the mouth for the cheek of it. The mod wouldn’t have been justified in punching you, but you couldn’t claim innocence after knowingly baiting them.
I can concede that unfair moderation can happen, but on the mass scale you are suggested in a true melting pot site (unlike Resetera which is home to industry people who have to be “business friendly” in their leanings)… yeah, that’s hard to believe.
“Well, once all the overt sh1tlords are gone they’ll start sniffing for
dissent more carefully and the purity testing will become more rigorous
and that’s when you’ll end up back in the pit, so long as you keep
dissenting enough for them to sniff you out, your demeanor won’t matter, I’ve seen this time and time again.”
So your solution, as I am interpreting it, is that you we should make this place a pit, that way there’s no way down? I mean… yeah, I guess…
You’re not paying attention, again, I said you’re betting on aligned biases, you’re taking a risk because you can’t picture yourself as a victim of unfair moderation. “The world must be fair because nothing bad has happened to me” is not a sound argument, it’s the result of the mentality I described. Ultimately, you’re not going to be doing the moderating yourself, you’re just willing to trust some anonymous stranger online to do things as you would do them because you’ve never had a bad experience yourself, so I’m just warning you that you’re already on the wrong side of bias because you don’t strike me as liking the ResetEra types at all. Those same ResetEra types are very prone to ending up in moderator positions, because they have a lot of free time and because they are zealous about regulating speech, and all it takes to turn any forum into a ResetEra-like hellscape is for one of those types to get a moderator position.
The issue is that those types are already in charge of moderating most online spaces, and are only growing in number and intolerance of dissent.
Regarding my Siliconera ban:
1. I had no prior history of off-topic comments.
2. My comment lampooning pro-censorship stances was in an article about censorship, therefore not off-topic.
3. There were other comments with a similar tone and the same stance that didn’t get the hammer.
“So you’re not avoiding the hammer because you’re all respectful and
proper, you’re avoiding the hammer because you’re keeping a low profile,
I’m sure you’ve stopped yourself from engaging in certain topics
because you thought “it’s not worth it””
The funny thing is, the only times I’ve felt it was “not worth it” was because I would get loads of baseless accusations and attacks thrown my way in response to a reasonable, well-thought out post.
A lack of moderation doesn’t help with that, it exacerbates and even encourages it — or, because the topic was already saturated and there was nothing to add (at this point a comment is not worth making because it contributes nothing).
If anything, a lack of moderation being on my side was been the overwhelming issue. And, going by your description, it has been for your to.
All the issues you describe would persist without moderation, only the consequences would play out offline.
I should clarify one thing, I’m disagreeing with you on the inevitability of the slippery slide of allowing moderation, but I am not saying your policy of open moderation DOESN’T have merit (even if I feel your concerns are avoidable extremes, I can’t deny that aren’t possible), but just as the slippery slide of moderation is not inevitable, nor are the upsides of open-moderation — if moderation doesn’t stop people, other users can organise themselves into pograms that are just as effective at excluding viewpoints and shutting others out — what they can’t do, however, is keep those viewpoints from being voiced.
The question I have is this: are you concerned with allowing people to voice their opinions, or creating an environment where those opinions can be heard?
Because I’m not sure there’s any merit to an environment where they can simply be voiced (which is what 2 pretty much guarantees based on my experience of the internet), rather than one in which they can potentially be voiced and heard (which is what 5 promises in an ideal scenario).
If you just want to voice opinions, options 1 and 2 are without a doubt the best of the bunch. But since we are talking about videogames here, and not offline politics, I simply don’t see any value in that. I can shout into the void just as effectively by screaming at wall.
My stance is rather specific to the times and the problems we’re currently facing with Internet censorship. As I mentioned in my other comment: petty, dogmatic and overzealous moderators are currently dominant on the Internet and getting worse every day; by having a largely unmoderated space you’ll end up wading through a lot of filth, but at the same time it’s precisely the smell of that filth that keeps those authoritarian types away from moderator positions.
So when I see the edgelord comments you complain about, I actually find their presence comforting, because they mean the canary is still alive, they mean I don’t have to worry about the problem that I came to this site to escape from.
One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. How much an unmoderated space is worth to you will depend on how much unfair moderation you have personally suffered, and you already admitted you’ve never had a bad experience but, the way things are going on the Internet, your time enjoying that luxury is slowly running out.
Furthermore, DSOG style lax moderation is the exception rather than the norm, you already have sites like PCGamer for all the highly sanitized opinions free of thought-crime and unorthodoxy, so why should the Internet have two PCGamers instead of one PCGamer and one DSOG? Why should this site be the same as the other?
“No matter how annoying you find most comments, the alternative opens the
door for something far, far worse and leaves no possible way to ever
course-correct.”
It’s a yearly held vote. It’s about as course-correctable as it comes.
number 2
1.
Number 4.
No. 2
No. 4.
4. would be the best for a gaming blog!
4. Users can talk about anything other than racist or political stuff. Personal attacks will not be allowed
No. 1
Keep DSOG a free speech site for the third year running, boys.
Option 2
5: Only PC-gaming related stuff
And seriously you need to start banning some kids.
4.
oh and permit links and pics 😀
2. Unrestrained Policy but with the ability to ban spammers
4 or 5
Number 2
I Vote For Number 2, I want to be able to Tell Dithurts To Fuq his Mother. I also Vote To Get RId Of Robo-Fernando.
Before I Forget, ….Free Me & THEN you can Free Hong Kong 🙂
No. 1
2.
I only come to this site because it’s not heavily moderated, like every
other sjw fake game journo sh*t hole on the internet. If you start
banning because puss pads can’t handle words, I’m out.
4. Ad hominem attacks are usually made out of desperation when one cannot find a decent counter argument.
Number 1.
Number 2 leaves the door open for the moderators to abuse their power.
Number 2.
4. Users can talk about anything other than racist or political stuff. Personal attacks will not be allowed
No 2 if you have a mature audience, what I think you have. If things goes out of control and there are a lot of trolls and people feeding them No 4.
#2. Bye bye Fernando, the guy who says “first!” all the time and that other crazy guy that writes nonsense all the time.
Number 2, of course!
It’s the better choice cause you can have any opinion you want, but have to remember that there are consequences too. Freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences of such speech.
Number 2 ultimately fit for dsogaming site. I don’t want another Miss thank you,next that barking about ridiculous and confusing thing in comment section..
Number 3 or 5
?2.
2. Spam bots are a bigger problem than one random guy who says racist crap. If someone leaves a racist comment or wants to start a fight, I just ignore them. I don’t block people, only the bots.
DSOG isn’t OAG, I think most people here know that. So yeah, number 2. No need to turn into Redditera.
2, if someone “triggers” you just block them but spammers are just annoying.
2, only because I trust the DSOG staff to not abuse it and label anything they dislike “spam”
Number 3
Option 2
No 1. all the way.
Got a spammer in the comment section you say?
No problem Jay!
I smash that “Block User” button all day,
EVERYDAY.
Moderators be chillin while I play.
( •_•)
( •_•)>??-?
(??_?)
Kind of between a rock and a hard place here. Number 2 would allow me to finally stop hiding my power level and expose some imbeciles that plague this comment section, but number 5 would make my visit to the comment section much less vomit inducing since I wouldn’t have to see so many retarded gaming takes from you people. Decisions, decisions…
5. The comment section is too toxic to be left running wild.
I already know the outcome of this poll, but nonetheless here is my pick. Number 5.
5. Only PC-gaming related stuff.
I agree with you Metal Messiah. I also know the result, but I also pick number 5 regardless. The problem is our site has many, many readers who will never bother to comment. They’re mostly sensible people who have busy lives and simply want a positive and informative experience here.
On the other hand, this poll is a magnet for many trolls and seekers of attention because they enjoy getting attention through commenting. Therefore, the poll will always push for so-called ‘free speech’, which is often just a cloak for ‘I want to lash out online’.
What’s interesting is if you look at how many comments have upvotes here. Yours has 24 right now. Another of the same mindset has 13. There’s plenty of us out there who want a positive comment section with moderation. Sadly, we’re too quiet and icognito to get our way. That’s my opinion.
And let me thank you, Metal Messiah, and the rest of the upvoters for helping contribute to civil discussion in the midst of our mad comment world.
Agreed. I vote 5. I come here for gaming news and if I browse the comments of an article, I want to hear stuff ABOUT that article. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I really don’t give a sh*t about someone’s political views or how a game with a female character triggers their cooties detector.
That’s one of reasons I don’t comment here so often. I’ll go with 5 too.
Same here I vote 5
+1 for 5
Same here I vote 5
4. is most logical answer to we stay a bit little ontopic, but still with freedom of speech. Also, I would really like to I can say: “I bet my butt” without my comment awaiting moderation
2. Unrestrained Policy but with the ability to ban spammers.
1 worked fine last two times
Number 2 is proving the more popular of the two freedom of speech choices on offer. Voting for number 1 risks dividing the freedom of speech vote and thus opening the door to one of the more censorious choices stealing victory. So I voted for number 2.
option 5 ban peasant console fanboy ! pc master race forever
I have a question. What is your definition of political stuff? Just totally off topic stuff like Brexit and Trump? What about the stuff with Hong Kong and Blizzard. That stuff is pretty relevant PC gaming. If someone talks about Epic and their connection to Tencent and China and Hong Kong. I am okay with people arguing about that stuff.
I vote 2. Because I will, and have, just block idiots, racist twats, and spammers. But Spammers will just have a trillion accounts, so easier for admin/mods to block them.
2.
As always, option 5
This ain’t reddit or some other s*ithole of a website
Yeah, PCG allows themselves to post crap and talk about consoles. They don’t really answer to anyone, nor do they care. Only time they care is when we call out their bs, to which they either IP ban or lock their comments section.
This is why I’m glad this site exists, but we’re getting an influx of proper retards and trolls/spammers, and though I’m all for free speech, I’m not for excusing this yr’s influx of crap that’s been flooding this site.
It’s why I chose #5, because then if it’s not about PC gaming, it gets ejected.
Trolls talking about consoles being superior in regards to PC, but it’s still about mentioning a console?, ejected the F outta here.
Option 2
4
Your comment section is absolutely cancerous. I’m tired of using the block button
Bahahahahahaha!
#2. All the way. It’s the Essence of Democracy, is it not ?
Option 2
I sincerely hope that this poll doesn’t result in the freedom of speech vote being divided. With two such choices dividing the vote it could now result in one of the other more censorious choices winning despite it having garnered fewer votes than the two freedom of speech choices combined.
I hope that the likes of The Man and Fernando Diaz have their votes disqualified because they both have numerous sock puppet accounts which between them could corrupt the result.
Also, I already see there are a few people voting who I’ve never seen having commented before. Folk getting representation despite making no contribution.
Options 3 and 4 are pure soy. See Polygon, Resetera, Kotaku and PC Gamer if that’s what you want DSOG to end up being like if 3 or 4 wins. Option 5, while appealing on a superficial and idealist level, is unfortunately wide open to being abused by those with an ulterior motive who engage in cancel culture.
3 Three
I vote number 2 but with added racism section. I think everyone knows those spammers. Squirrel and North Korea’s leader etc…
I dont want this to be like OAG comments section where people cry that jews did this and that or other sh*t like that
The choice I like would be : You can talk about whatever you want, be a racist if you want, politics, whatever, but you cannot directly attack another poster.
Makes people try a little harder and be more creative to share their thoughts.
I do realize though, it would create a lot of moderator work to enforce it and be referees.
Im gonna go with option 2 though.
I quit going to pcgamer after being a subscriber in the 90s to their mag, and on their forums for so many years. They shadowbanned me because I politely called our their constant red meat articles on the chairman of the FCC and net neutrality (im against it). The commentors there were advocating violence and death to the chairman simply over a policy that doesnt even affect gaming and never would. They are full of fake outrage over there and I noticed this happening on a bunch of other gaming sites.
If you dare have a different opinion and no matter how politely you express it, if you go against their agendas you’re banned.
I like it here.
The best policy is no policy.
Let ppl say what ever the F they want….
So number 1 or 2
I like this site cuz it feels Independent and i hope its not manipulated by money from big companies….
So yeah lest sh.t on ubisoft EA and other degenerate studios who deserv it next year as well.
Number 5.
Wasting my vote, but 4. Tbh, all the racist and personal attacks are driving me away from this site more and more.
all the racist and personal attacks
That’s why I voted for 3.
Because we need more voices countering the tyrannical Left, 4 is not an option.
Spamming is not free speech so i go with 2. Also plz allow cussing.
Yeah I find it funny that 43 users voted for 2, including you and myself but metal Messiah voted 5 and 27 people upvoted him for it. But anyone else vote for 5 they get shutdown as they should. What I’m saying is, something is off about that 27 up vote in comparison. Weird
1.
Cool, can we toss in a rule where we purge the obvious influx of console peasants and trolls from this yr alone?.
I specifically remember this site not having this many people , who have openly gone out of their way to troll PC users on a PC specific site.
Also, I vote for #5, because that’s exactly what this site should only be about, PC gaming, not consoles.
2 Unrestrained Policy but with the ability to ban spammers:
It’s always annoying that we have to censor ourselves. Put *#$@ because it’s too offensive for someone to see the word f@gget. The ban spammers would be very useful. We need to get rid of people with multiple accounts, or bots like Fernando Diaz (Juan), Kim, Don, etc.
I wanna say 1, but I’ll say 2 because I know there’s a lot of spammers in this website.
I support full freedom of speech, I think you should be able to say whateverthef*ck you want, without being banned or censored, yes even these cursewords that currently need a mod to go through.
I believe in the idea of giving everything the possibility to be written or said, so that even the bad ideas will weed themselves out when in the wild if the public deems them as such.
“I believe in the idea of giving everything the possibility to be written or said, so that even the bad ideas will weed themselves out when in the wild if the public deems them as such.”
That might work offline because what one says carries actual consequences. But online you can have incendiary opinions for the sake of being incendiary indefinitely.
And that’s something we need to be honest about here: many of the people who want the freedom to say anything are acting in bad faith, knowing full well they aren’t concerned about expressing their fair opinion, but about having their carte blache to take aim at other users with the express purpose of grieving them.
2 or 3 … 1 is just plain stupid.
Go with 2.
Number 2 all the way. Too many other sites shut down what were otherwise good discussions because “Y’all couldn’t follow the rules” or some other sh*t. I like that this site allows people to be honest and isn’t shutting people down for saying things that may be unpopular or “offensive” to some. Spammers are just annoying spergs that need to be ejected though.
2.
Number 2.
Say what you want all the way, but ban that dumb spam with 20 posts.
Number 2 will be good.
1 or 2. Probably 2 just to reduce the irrelevant comments cluttering the comments section.
2.Unrestrained Policy!
I like 1 better but since 2 is the same and is winning, i go too with 2.
I created Disqus account for DSOG and for the past few years we had this free speech system and voting stuff in place and nothing bad happened. you can always defend yourself or in worst cases just use block.
Calling everything “toxic” is toxic.
Unrestrained Policy but with the ability to ban spammers
I’ll go with #2.
5 Only PC-gaming related stuff
So you want to censor others, but you don’t want toxicity. Ok r3tard
5 or go somewhere else 🙂
1
just ban “the man” and 2 isnt needed. if we allow the second option its like any other comment section where any mod can ban someone for spam if its a opinion they dont like or a user they dont like.
2 for sure.
I’d go with n.2EDIT: Wait, I did not read that for spammers you also considered people who just completely derailed the comment section. If we were only talking about all the ladies who offered stupid online jobs and stuff like that I would have sticked with 2, but after this consideration I’ll change the vote to N°1.
5. I like focused stuff when enjoying my hobbies, but what can you do about people wanting to be apes…
Number 3.
2. I only go with 2 instead of 1, because this is a gaming site. Let’s at least have the boundaries of topic in play. Why have comments be open for people do dump absolutely anything about any topic on here?
As for 3-5. Ya, no thanks. I prefer to not be parented by “moderators”. I have parents already. I don’t need more.
Only site left that I bother visiting for gaming, is this one, because it’s not run by tender hearted snowflakes. There’s plenty of crap sites for snowflakes to visit.
3.
Incel losers on this site gotta learn to behave like normal humans and respect all people.
2. It’s the least restrictive, but deals with spambait.
choice 5
You may want to consider just using an online survey or something next time. Not trying to be a smartass, but I was caught off-guard by posts deleted also. If all you wanted was numeric results for a vote count, then survey would likely serve better.
In any case, disregard my post on deletion, and just get rid of it if you don’t mind. Thanks.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ce6a769e02bbdd98047457983790ec170823da7f515577d4bbe60fff03ad92fb.jpg ???
2.
2 please.
1, of course
I’d say 3 personally, the comment section here can be super vile, and there’s always some new joker thinking they’re hot sh#t for being horrible.
The site is great, it’s a shame to see it get tainted.
#2
Anything can be talked about…just that anyone spamming will be reported by users! I believe DSOG is a great open-minded and unrestricted community of passionate gamers and tech enthusiasts, and we should have a open space to passively express our thoughts and opinions via the comments section.
I vote for #2 but really the voting could be simplified. Vote yes the comment sections should be used by child-like mentalities with emotional issues to vent or vote no.
mambo no 5
because to many f*gs https://media0.giphy.com/media/l0HlG7zxji53RUtpe/giphy.gif
#2
1.
no 5. I am only here for gaming news.
2. Unrestrained Policy but with the ability to ban spammers
2.
agree with the anti sissies ..an important part of life is being able to deal with A hoooles…I do not seek a safe space, Don’t need one.
#2 is going to win I see. But my vote is for #5.
Option 3. Racism should have no place in here.
Option 3 once again
MAMBO NO 5 BECAUSE https://media2.giphy.com/media/HjheuybfwDGnu/giphy.gif
My vote is 5. It seems 2 is the more popular option, which is fine too. I really like that this is up to a vote. Very transparent. I like that.
Number 2.
Number 2
2 !!
I say 2 too.
I vote 1. I can block spammers myself.
Out of principle I have to vote 1.. but I think 5 would be for the best interests of DSOG.
# 2
Unrestrained Policy but with the ability to ban spammers
As someone that was born in USSR, there is nothing more valuable then freedom to say anything you want.
Most “moderators” are power hungry “people” that usually weak and cowardly in the real life, all they want is to feel the power over otehr people.
There is not a single human on our planet, even the president of your country that can dictate to you what you can say or cant!
All the hordes of mindless drones that demand monitoring and adhering to some crazy rules on twitter, facebook, and every online resource to take peoples rights are usually for some reasons Leftists.
#2
I vote 2.
Like I said last year – “You never know what’s gonna be considered a “hate speech” tomorrow”. Look at peaceful OK sign for example.
People who’re way too lazy to block “natzees” are free to use PC Gamer and RPS instead. They ban any wrongthink for you. They also decide, what’s wrongthink, for you.
Yes, please leave this site and go to a “non-toxic” places where you can read “PC gaming only” news like “10 best penises in AC Odyssey”.
Number 2.
2 or 3 is fine with me. Just remember that the main reason people visit DSO is because it’s *not* a leftist/SJW gaming blog; take that away at your own peril.
One. I would like all forms of faggotry banned, though.
Numero two!
2 for me, keep the fight going lol.
Number 5 all the way.
I vote for 5.
Option 2
2. Unrestrained Policy but with the ability to ban spammers.
I don’t think comments get too out of hand here.
I’ll go for #5. This is after all a PC gaming only website so the focus in the comments should reflect that. I just hope your mods aren’t too trigger happy. . .
1. Unrestrained Policy
“5. Only PC-gaming related stuff”.
Because that’s kind of the point of this site?
And in terms of traffic, I genuinely can’t link this site to people because the comments sections are only marginally better than the lawless wasteland that is WCCFTech.
Here’s the thing: I come to DSOG to get a lot of news, but I almost always paraphrase the contents when talking to other people. That’s a site visit that’s not happening when it could be.
“I genuinely can’t link this site to people because the comments sections”
Get better friends.
Not the issue.
number 3
number 3
Bye bye spammers 🙂
Bye bye bots. 🙂
I voted 2 cause was afraid that 5 could be close. Otherwise I’d vote 1.
96 (1-2) > 60 (3-4-5)
GOOD
What did you say?
Well, if you commented before the poll was over, that is why they deleted your comments. They deleted a bunch of mine too.
Hahahahahahaha! Suck it, mods. Power thirsty sjw cucks. Lookin’ at you, Nick “so called free speech” McCaskey.
Option 2: 80 votes
All other options combined: 76 votes
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/733baeaa35ceb54dce61d8c12f33c2ef6925dcccd244eae31f91b001a0022119.jpg
Lol how many of the trolls voted for 2 thinking it only meant Ad spammers.
Probably the ones that know how to read… because that is exactly what it says.
Freedom of speech (Options 1 & 2): 96 votes
Soy (Options 3 & 4): 27 votes
Fascinating results.
im kinda butthurt there weren’t MORE number 2s…I mean damn, there are plenty of a**holes out there learn to deal with it, whats more, if someone offers a differing opinion, you get mad? ask yourself why, is your stance so damned weak and feeble you can’t handle a view that doesn’t fall inline with a fragile little world view.
“…there are plenty of a**holes out there learn to deal with it…”
Something most normal people learn by the 1st grade.
Guess I’ll take another stab at #5 next year, but it likely won’t win.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a01eab5382d33c14b8a2da03fca8c1eb1237ca1be9d5e5306384f843aaa580ba.png
“Moderators can also ban users….”
That alone should be a huge red flag for your preferred option 5. Though you may think, “I’d never do anything to get banned for.”, it doesn’t matter when the call is someone else’s to make.
Block button is there for a reason. Use it, and you’ll have your own option #5, but at least the moderation, will be up to you.
I still block people, but I’d really love for the spammers, consoletards and general trolls to be ejected from the site. Letting them fill up and me having to block them just creates a massive influx of “this person is blocked”, littering a good chunk of the comments section.
I’d really rather not have to block people on a daily basis, and instead have a force that keeps them at bay, or deters them from making alts every 20 mins.
Dtoid IP banned me for calling out one of their mods. Was a user there for years, and guess what?, their IP ban brought me here, and it’s a site that actually has more PC news than Dtoid ever will have. Had it not been for their own ruleset, I’d have never found this place.
“I’d really rather not have to block people on a daily basis, and instead
have a force that keeps them at bay, or deters them from making alts
every 20 mins.”
I hear ya on this point, but, I still think it’s worth the trade off myself. I’d rather be in control of the moderation, than have someone else doing it for me.
Coincidentally, I gave up on DToid a couple years back also. I wasn’t banned, but I just banned myself. That place is a toilet these days anyways.
I would to, but the site hasn’t exactly handed me the keys to the kingdom, which is why I prefer them doing it instead of me.
Dtoid will always be a shithole for PC gaming though.
If you want to be around censorious fagg0ts, there is always the other 99% of gaming sites.
censorious ?
– an adjective, describes people who are so critical, they find something wrong in everything.
You know, kinda like the dipsh*ts on sjw sites who call Mario sexist for saving the princess.
Good Decision. It should be free but also need to be free of SPAM
GZ all winners
“80 votes were for option #2”
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f397e5d6968e149a184ab5aa83ca0edea3163dfa6d3d226e50789db13e0dbdcc.jpg
I voted 1. knowing it might be too much to ask. But option 2 should work flawlessly as well.
Yep, a fair few people seemingly were happy to vote 1 but after seeing that 2 was winning it was the safer option to vote 2 so to safeguard against the freedom of speech vote being divided and thus risking the possibility of another option stealing victory.
Eh, i got yesterday 10 or more comments deleted. We all had.
Awesome an OAG, nichegamer comment section. Brilliant!
Freedom is always brilliant. If you want to be a puss fagg0t, there is always Kotaku and Polygon. They’ll always erase wrongthink, change your diaper, and put you to bed in your f*cking crib.
Did I say something that would lead you to believe I meant otherwise. Also I don’t care and ya blocked now because you’re a d**khead. Yay freedom!!!
My bad, you sounded sarcastic. I’ve seen several “This comment section is toxic, why can’t it be like Kotaku” comments.
Yeeey we won 😀 we can now discuss anything and offended any fagg0t 😀
FREE HK 😀
Good to see #2 won. Opinions should never be suppressed. I’ll see plenty of opinions this coming year that I don’t agree with, and you know what? Life will go on, and I’ll sleep just fine that night.
Bot spam on the other hand? Kill it with fire.
I really don’t understand the need for politics and racism and needing to insult others. I voted 5. but since 2 won… well… I guess thats how the trump hood rat f###en comment section will go ya f###en maf###As!!! HE YAAA!!
u mad bro
Yessss, mmmmm, your tears are so yummy. It’s like Hillary losing all over again 🙂
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0f9b868723e6f97a5009e1e7afb71d13bc0efacab31ae49153d03dfc7eb637e8.jpg
Sometimes, after having a bad day, watching this video always cheers me up.
>I really don’t understand the need for politics and racism.
There is no need for them, Games are political well comments will get political too which is fine but sometimes games become political statements, then the ban hammer follows. this way people can talk without fear of getting banned. and about racism, most of the time people who use this word are the actual racists. but we are living in a hell hole that “OK hand sign” considered racism, so f*ck that noise.
Too little, too late bud. But 2 won, anyway.
F*K YEAH!!!
DSOG is da best!!!
So can I say most of You are just stupid missing good possy or never had? 🙂
Yes, let them fight!
testing.. YOU ARE ALL STUPID 😀
“You are now free to discuss the results in this story, and no further comments will be deleted.”
Kotaku sucks d*ck. I click through 5 pages, there is maybe one story I am interested, the rest is stolen from Reddit front page 1 week after it hit reddit, anime sh*t, Cosplay sh*t. Sh*t stories. One of the worst comments sections this side of Yahoo. Glad I have this place to come to. Okay… had to get that off my chest.
girls voted 2. they like 4nal. good for them https://media3.giphy.com/media/mJ8okYy5ibZTwRZaKm/giphy.gif
Then 5 means that you want to take a d*ck in your mouth, @ss, puss, and each of your hands.
Then 5 means that you want to take a dong in your mouth, @ss, puss, and each of your hands.
I am glad community again manifested this way. After all, DSO is a place where (mostly) people who don’t agree with mainstream media gather and I feel here at home.
We could do something about the nude mods articles tho :)).
How about we get rid of the f*cking profanity filter too. It’s stupid af.
As far as I know that’s a condition set by Google for being allowed to use ads.
number 2 cuz we are pc gamer ofc we are racist because of society
Writen by : gangweed
Ah, yes, the cancer cycle is still going strong in this site I see: 1- Cancerous people making people jump away from this site. 2- No one else but them remain. 3- Vote to allow their cancerous behavior where nowhere else accepts them. 4- Go to 1.
You know this poll is completely useless now, right John? Or are you just doing it as a tradition for the sake of it?
You leftist censorship-loving twats are cancerous.