-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
PCGamer opened a forum that prohibits users from talking about guns, religion, sexuality, abortion, politics, economics (up: policy taken down)
- Thread starter Chairmanchuck (另一个我)
- Start date
So its wrong for people to want a forum where they can solely discuss the mechanics, strategies, tech issues and genre elements of a video game? And because of that, they are short sighted? What nonsense.
No one is saying you won't find 0 political relevance, its just this new forum will not be the place to discuss it and thats fine. There are topics here on ERA we are not allowed to discuss and that is also fine.
Well that just simply isn't true. Are you going to find much GRAPE-relevance in games like PC Racing sims? Because their OT just passed 6500 replies in Hangouts. What about Destiny? One of the most discussed games on ERA and 99% of that conversation is about the games mechanics, story, characters and updates. There is more to discuss than GRAPE-only stuff. Its the reason I joined GAF & ERA and why I spend most of my time in Gaming Hangouts.
I get they want to keep it gaming related, but is there any hardline rules on conversations about guns at least? Or is it literally down to mod discresion whether or not they deem it acceptable?
How absurd.
How absurd.
Games will never be respected as a real artform whilst a large proportion of the audience insists that the right way to talk about them is to ignore all of their substance.
I guarantee you, if you go into either of those OT's, you will find GRAPE related discussion of some sort. Imagine being banned over discussing it. That's the problem here. Shit, the SF5 OT is mostly about mechanics and matchmaking, but imagine being banned because you wanted to talk about how sexual the characters designs are.
If that sort of discussion is stifled, then yeah, that forum isn't worth being a part of. 100%.
I'm saying that sort of discussion will run real dry real fast, yes. It is short sighted.
And let's not get crazy, under these rules, the topics you can't discuss on Era would DEFINITELY not be allowed on a forum that doesn't allow GRAPE related discussion.
But this sort of discussion is always stifled. Its just a question of whether you want it stifled by overwhelming toxicity, banning people with the wrong opinions (and as Resetera shows, that doesn't stop the overwhelming toxicity) or just pre-emptively banning political discussions outright.
That usually only few people know something about the topic.
But we can talk about games while ignoring parts of them. If we pretend that political messaging doesn't exist we can objectively talk about games without arguments!
Surely we can talk about how many polygons are used in the latest Call of Duty without having to consider what they're rendering and the messaging of the content?
Hey, they only banned sexuality and not gender, nobody said people can't make threads about nonbinary/trans issues! :)
lmao just shows how not thought out that decision is, would literally only take one bad faith thread about trans/nonbinary people until they see how stupid this whole shit is and that they'd have to add another G. If they did this to try to stop racist, homophobic, etc. assholes from posting that's the worst way to do it as it just sounds like they want minorities and people with leftist views to shut up instead.
Also disappointed, but definitely not surprised by the amount of "both sides are bad!!!" & "video games are apolitical, this is a good thing!!" crowd in here. Kills me that some of y'all truly think this wouldn't attract the "keep politics (aka everyone who isn't a white cishet man) out of my games" crowd. Don't be so fucking naive. It's 2020, stop being cowards and stop being centrists, grow some god damn backbones.
lmao just shows how not thought out that decision is, would literally only take one bad faith thread about trans/nonbinary people until they see how stupid this whole shit is and that they'd have to add another G. If they did this to try to stop racist, homophobic, etc. assholes from posting that's the worst way to do it as it just sounds like they want minorities and people with leftist views to shut up instead.
Also disappointed, but definitely not surprised by the amount of "both sides are bad!!!" & "video games are apolitical, this is a good thing!!" crowd in here. Kills me that some of y'all truly think this wouldn't attract the "keep politics (aka everyone who isn't a white cishet man) out of my games" crowd. Don't be so fucking naive. It's 2020, stop being cowards and stop being centrists, grow some god damn backbones.
Economics is such a weird one, it's like the wanted to spell grape but couldn't think of something for the E lol.
It's better to let that discussion happen so you can weed out the trash. As resetera shows.
Doesn't mean there aren't weeds anymore, but there's less of them.
I mean, if we want to break it down to its most basic forms, I'll take the attempt at a discussion versus no attempt at discussion any day of the week.
Because it's a discussion forum.
Imagine thinking that discussing the server tickrate on COD servers is more important than the fact that they decided to gaslight the Highway of Death into being a Russian op.
"Just a game about cool guns and explosions".
So it's a forum about video games and that's it? Sounds like something that's appealing to people who just want to discuss games and not have public displays of members advertising ways to filter out "GRAPE" threads with internet scripts.
I see it as a great way to keep right wing trolls out as well. That keeps their favorite talking points they have shit opinions on to a minimum as well.
I see it as a great way to keep right wing trolls out as well. That keeps their favorite talking points they have shit opinions on to a minimum as well.
Just stick your fingers in your ears and enjoy the show.
That seems to be the messaging here.
Treating gaming as completely removed from politics is as stupid as it is asinine.
Imagine doing the same in other media.
Discussion of politics and government are strictly prohibited in the Macbeth forum.
imagine playing and talking about video games because you like video games.
imagine.
But the gaming industry doesn't exist in a vacuum.
What about discussions of representation in games and the creation of games? What about the economic impact of things like lootboxes?
What about the impact of AAA publishers on the market, how indie developers can find a voice in the industry?
Both highly relevant and valid topics that this policy would ban.
Pretending that games just exist and nothing else can be talked about regarding how they exist is stupid.
Its a lot of work for a still shitty result, can you blame people for not wanting to bother with it?
As someone who used to be a mod for a, at the time, very large forum, I can tell you first hand that trying to block this stuff outright is going to be logistical nightmare opposed to letting the discussion happen and moderating based on people's behavior.
People like to complain about how Era and previously GAF were notorious for banning people for no reason, but I've participated in some of the most heated threads on this forum, and 99% of the time, the people banned were done so because they were acting like a jackass and not because of their personal views.
Pretty cool to have a venue for people who want to avoid these topics.
Probably going to be difficult to apply at first but maybe it will work out eventually.
Probably going to be difficult to apply at first but maybe it will work out eventually.
User banned (2 weeks): Inflammatory false equivalence
This is exactly what I'm talking about, you can't tolerate any disagreement without insulting me by implying I'm naive or don't know what's going on, I actually have well informed opinions that go beyond Fox News or MSNBC talking points, people on the right would accuse the left of being baby killers, people on the left accuse the right of being racists fascists and women haters , how long till this goes on till we actually sit at the table and discuss things like resonable people? how long till the insults turn into actual violence? Things aren't getting any better if we keep going down this path
I mean if you actually feel this way, then the last thing you'd want to endorse is a forum that disallows people coming together to discuss GRAPE related topics. However would we understand each other otherwise?
What you're talking about is a much bigger conversation, but let's put it this way. When are good, upstanding people on both sides of the aisles going to look at actual fascism going on world wide and say, "no that's wrong" rather than doing nothing because doing nothing is more comfortable?
Okay so you call your republican family members "Nazi trash"? Or other people in real life that are republican? How does that go over?
What about them? No one is saying they can't be discussed they just can't be discussed there. This one site not allowing it is not going to impact anything. Its not going to impact this place (or Twitter or Reddit), if anything it will remove the people you don't want in the discussions here to begin with and will remove the lurkers only here for gaming news and announcements. Everyone doesn't have to view the world through your eyes at ALL times.
Alright I'll bite.
What do you want to talk about exactly?
What are some things that you want to talk about that you feel you cannot in fear of getting insulted?
I'm not discrediting what you say but I'm going to need some examples is all.
Anyway, I doubt this rule will go over well at all. The key one is sexuality. Supposedly according to the rules bringing up the heterosexual romance between 2 characters would be a bannable offence if there is no clearly defined romance in the game. The problem with that how anyone defines clearly defined because the fact of the matter is most gamers don't know the first thing about sexuality and romance so things that are clear to some will be ambiguously defined to others and vice versa.
Extend this to non heterosexual couples and recognize that said romances are often purposefully obfuscated in media for social reasons and you have a big ol bag of bad.
The only way this rule can work is if they are able to define what it means for GRAPES to be part of a work. How many times does COD have to say "war on terror" before it is okay to discuss? Does it matter how many times? And so forth.
Last edited:
Thankfully I don't live in the US and my family members aren't nazi trash
I have no issue calling Republicans nazi trash
Probaby because the tick rates on a ongoing live service game that impacts the enjoyment of a game is more important to the people who actually play it opposed to people mad about a story beat that was discussed for one week and then forgotten. There needs to be enemy forces in games. This time it was the Russians, imo that's better than it always being defaulted to middle eastern people.
One side wants to take away people's rights and the other does not. What rights should we give up to meet in the middle and learn from those who hate others for existing in ways that they hate?
So a gaming forum that ignores the gaming industry and pretends that games just appear.
Sounds legit.
Wouldn't it make more sense to actually moderate those topics instead. I can see the appeal but your average gamer today is interested in more than just gaming and the community they thrive in is one they no doubt desire to discuss real issues. Have a section for such topics and another strictly for games.
This is a joke post.
Dude 1: bro, like, just vidya talk you know
Dude 2: yeah man, like no religious speech
Dude 1: like yeah, no religion talk dude. Like lives get taken because of it. Speaking of life taking, no arbortion.
Dude 2: * cough cough * oh shit, hell naw, we can't ever discuss anyone's right to arbort
Dude 1: yeah man, right on
Dude 2: you know what else our forum shouldn't birth? Po-li-tics
Dude 1: ho-ly-shit
Dude 2: while we're at it, fuck economics
Dude 1: yeah fuck that
Dude 2: speaking of fuck, our topics bro
Dude 1: yeah bro
Dude 2: dude like the first letter bro, omg wtf
Dude 1: Oh, sneaky... RAPE
Dude 2: Oh!!!!!!!
Dude 1: Oh!!!!!!!
Dude 1 and 2: NO!!!!!
Dude 1: Like ok, we gotta add a letter dude
Dude 2: Sexuality is controversial, ban that
Dude 1: Yeah
Dude 2: Yeah
Dude 1 and 2: Oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now we got RAPES
Dude 1: RAPES
Dude 2: RAPES
Dude 1: Oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude 2: Oh!!!!!! Naw, dawg, like, guns yo. No guns.
Dude 1: GRAPES!
Dude 1 and 2: Oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude 1: bro, like, just vidya talk you know
Dude 2: yeah man, like no religious speech
Dude 1: like yeah, no religion talk dude. Like lives get taken because of it. Speaking of life taking, no arbortion.
Dude 2: * cough cough * oh shit, hell naw, we can't ever discuss anyone's right to arbort
Dude 1: yeah man, right on
Dude 2: you know what else our forum shouldn't birth? Po-li-tics
Dude 1: ho-ly-shit
Dude 2: while we're at it, fuck economics
Dude 1: yeah fuck that
Dude 2: speaking of fuck, our topics bro
Dude 1: yeah bro
Dude 2: dude like the first letter bro, omg wtf
Dude 1: Oh, sneaky... RAPE
Dude 2: Oh!!!!!!!
Dude 1: Oh!!!!!!!
Dude 1 and 2: NO!!!!!
Dude 1: Like ok, we gotta add a letter dude
Dude 2: Sexuality is controversial, ban that
Dude 1: Yeah
Dude 2: Yeah
Dude 1 and 2: Oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now we got RAPES
Dude 1: RAPES
Dude 2: RAPES
Dude 1: Oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude 2: Oh!!!!!! Naw, dawg, like, guns yo. No guns.
Dude 1: GRAPES!
Dude 1 and 2: Oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I mean, I'd say that more often than not, AMERICA is the enemy force in COD games.
Stephen Miller, Trump's speechwriter is an actual fascist. Accusing people of saying you support a fascist regime isn't just lip service or hyperbole.
Also let's remember this is in context of a forum preventing the type of discussions you're having here. I'm not really sure why you're defending it.
Also these topics are important and have impact on games. One of the most popular games coming out this year is about a terrorist group blowing stuff up to prevent a megacorporation from leeching resources from the planet. You think these developers don't make these decisions from their own influences in the real world?
Quit the naiveté and stop spouting the both sides rhetoric. All sides of an argument do not deserve equal merit just based on the fact that some people will argue them. It's fallacious reasoning.
You should probably play Spec Ops: The Line.
Literary criticism is more than "well the bad guys are from X and this is bad".
If you honestly are that reductive no wonder you think games talk should avoid political discussion.
Ahhh I'm not going down that road with you. I'm sure someone else will bite that bait though.
Selective reading I see
I didn't say it should be avoided at all costs, I just don't think it has to be mandatory everywhere. Whatever happened to the mind set of "their forum their rules" does that not apply because it's not a forum you like? That place is for a discussion for video games, this place is a discussion of video games & more. ERA was set up to be more than just a video game forum and the PCGaming Forum is not. They can both exist.
Have you heard of No Russian?
There is no discussion of any sort of art form without an understanding of what decisions are made and why. Whether that's tech, script, design, etc. Artificially limiting some of these sections because it causes conflict is arbitrary and frankly won't work.
I guess time will tell but until then it doesn't sound like a bad idea to have an option you can visit every now and then where it will just be about games. Yeah yeah games are political in nature and I doubt the rules will be as extreme as people make them out to be. But commentary that is going to cause the user base to be at each other throats will be prevented and that is a good thing.