• 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.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Qassim

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,532
United Kingdom
If you do not want to be lumped in with defending racism, then you should clarify what exactly you are having an issue with instead of throwing out a blanket accusation of moddin' dirty when all of the bans have been to diet racist posts.

You could have quoted the post that you took issue with. You didn't. I'm not calling you a racist. I'm saying that by not clarifying the specific post you take issues with, the things you are defending are racist, no matter what your actual MO is.

Who said anything about a ban? I didn't complain about any of the bans. I very specifically avoided talking about those. I'm talking about someone who got warned for perhaps genuinely misunderstanding an argument, there's no benefit of the doubt, and it's something I've seen here a few times. No real attempt to discuss, just "get it the way I get it now, or we'll hit you with this very vague rule".

I'm saying that by not clarifying the specific post you take issues with, the things you are defending are racist, no matter what your actual MO is.

And this kinda demonstrates my issue nicely. Assuming the worst of people's positions where there is doubt. I don't know why a reasonable person would ever do that. Before insinuating something as serious as racism, I'd probably seek clarification myself if there was any doubt. I wouldn't just jump straight to the worst, that's not nice.

I imagine Stygr got a warning because he was explained many times why people had an issue with the card, but still refused to budge.

Yeah, and I don't think moderation was necessary for that at all.

But, before you decide to derail the thread even further.

Entering a discussion in its later stages for the first time and then claim to be concerned about derailing a thread is funny. If you're concerned about that, you wouldn't have even started.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 3058

User requested account closure
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,728
Here's the updated card
DoRx_2IXsAAmVT_.png:large
Not just changed but improved.

This was so easily avoided.
 

Deleted member 2317

User-requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,072
It's funny because they're so blind to release it, the implication that no one stopped them first is sad as all hell.
 

Dark_Castle

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,147
Vibes of:



But not nearly as funny (plus probably hopefully lacking in intention).

The scene has always bugged me for a different reason. Why would Trunks ask them not to shoot when their targets are Goku, who can withstand energy blast far greater than bullets? It's like the writer suddenly forgot they were writing an episode of Dragon Ball Super.
 

Aselith

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,373
The scene has always bugged me for a different reason. Why would Trunks ask them not to shoot when their targets are Goku, who can withstand energy blast far greater than bullets? It's like the writer suddenly forgot they were writing an episode of Dragon Ball Super.

Feelings can get hurt too, you know
 

Qikz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,491
The scene has always bugged me for a different reason. Why would Trunks ask them not to shoot when their targets are Goku, who can withstand energy blast far greater than bullets? It's like the writer suddenly forgot they were writing an episode of Dragon Ball Super.

Fairly certain if I remember correctly that Bulma helped develop bullets that would be able to hurt Saiyans hence why they were always shooting at him all the time.

I mean don't you remember the red ribbon army arc? Kid Goku was completely impervious to bullets, but then in Super they have him get scratched by one before he goes to train with Krillin and he explains that he's out of practice and his body is weaker.
 

Mobyduck

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,100
Brazil
Who said anything about a ban? I didn't complain about any of the bans. I very specifically avoided talking about those. I'm talking about someone who got warned for perhaps genuinely misunderstanding an argument, there's no benefit of the doubt, and it's something I've seen here a few times. No real attempt to discuss, just "get it the way I get it now, or we'll hit you with this very vague rule".



And this kinda demonstrates my issue nicely. Assuming the worst of people's positions where there is doubt. I don't know why a reasonable person would ever do that. Before insinuating something as serious as racism, I'd probably seek clarification myself if there was any doubt. I wouldn't just jump straight to the worst, that's not nice.

I don't know why you are beating around the bush instead of just pointing the post(s) you want to defend. It doesn't help that you started with "Haha, the moderation here is sometimes so hilariously authoritarian," as if anyone was supposed to know you were talking specifically about a certain warn in here, instead of a ban. It then took you 5 posts to finally say what you meant from the beginning, while you berated other users for not understanding what your point was. I still don't know if your issue is with post #91 or #176, I will assume both. I'm not a mod, so I'm not privy to how they come to their conclusions (I imagine those posters got reported), and that's why you should PM someone from staff, still, I imagine Stygr got a warning because he was explained many times why people had an issue with the card, but still refused to budge, post #49 shows that. Vipu's is kinda the same. Came into the thread after over a hundred posts just to say how people here were oh so wrong, ignoring the discussion already taking place and generalizing ERA for loving to see racism where there is none.

Now, I'm sure you will be unhappy about my explanation, because I'm not a mod. All I can say is that those warns were fair, considering all the things people get banned for. But, before you decide to derail the thread even further, I'd just recommend PM'ing a mod and talking to them, explaining why you believe those warnings were unfair, and don't use the "genuine misunderstanding" excuse, 'cause there was no misunderstanding in neither of those poster's contributions to this thread.
 

LordFish

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
494
Saw the name and picture thinking it's not so bad.
Then I saw the text, jesus christ, how the fuck did this pass concept without one damn person realising how bad it looks.
 
Oct 31, 2017
9,627
Correct. Anyone who has a bad idea should be condemned forever.

This 'card' should have never been designed like this in the first place, I mean come on. I find it very hard to believe that no-one at Valve would see the connotations in this card, incredibly hard. Valve is definitely not incompetent so.

The fact that it was publicly revealed at all was, in my opinion, a wink. If it was truly an oversight, it was a godawful one. If it wasn't an oversight then, well... what does that say about at least some people at Valve?

They corrected it, which is good. But it should have never been that to begin with and Valve should definitely know better.
 

Metallix87

User Requested Self-Ban
Banned
Nov 1, 2017
10,533
This makes their original fuck up even WORSE. If black cards are assassins, then why would there be a theme of cracking a whip on them anyway? This is never a thing in fiction. Why would assassins (or mercs for hire) need a fat slaver to "crack a whip"?

Someone inside of valve thought they were funny.
Assassins and cruelty are both elements of black in Magic: the Gathering. The cards Grixis Slavedriver and Royal Assassin in Magic are both black, despite occupying different flavor space with regards to the color pie.
 

LordFish

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
494
This 'card' should have never been designed like this in the first place, I mean come on. I find it very hard to believe that no-one at Valve would see the connotations in this card, incredibly hard. Valve is definitely not incompetent so.

The fact that it was publicly revealed at all was, in my opinion, a wink. If it was truly an oversight, it was a godawful one. If it wasn't an oversight then, well... what does that say about at least some people at Valve?

They corrected it, which is good. But it should have never been that to begin with and Valve should definitely know better.

That's the thing, even giving them every damn benefit of the doubt it's almost the very definition of "bad optics" and could have been so easily avoided.