Aielman15

I agree with you, I just don't care about gamerscore and I don't think it has any relevance in any topic.

We all know she is not a gamer, we all know she's an ex-AI exec and that's why I think she doesn't have what it takes to save Xbox. I just think that using achievements as a metric and being proud of having more achievements than another person is weird.

I also think that her setting up an Xbox account to play a month before her promotion is a stupid "how do you do, fellow gamers?" marketing pitch that I'm not sure why was attempted in the first place.

Huh, I wasn't familiar with the concept. Thanks for showing it to me.

Gamerscore is a useless metric and doesn't prove how much of a "gamer" a person is. I had a low gamerscore back in the X360 days because I played few titles per year, but I would play them for countless hours for fun and not to chase fake internet points. Add to that the hours spent on emulators and other platforms with no achievement, and it's no wonder I never cracked 100,000 until, years later, Covid and GamePass let me play more games than I usually do (I've since jumped to PC, so my gamerscore hasn't increased since then). Heck, I have friends who only have a few thousand fake points because they have spent thousand of hours on the same few games, while I usually hop from game to game as I chase different experiences.

Even if the above wasn't true, I fully expect someone who has a real job to have less time to devolve to gaming, which means less gamerscore. I don't want Microsoft (or any company, really) run by sweaty neckbeards who spend more hours in their man-cave than the outside world. I want those companies to be run by competent people who understand and care about the gaming industry. Which is not to say that the ex-AI exec cares about any of that stuff, but her lack of gamerscore doesn't mean anything.

Sharma having no gamerscore is not the problem. The problem is her not having any gaming background and having been cherry-picked by Nadella because she was an AI exec. Xbox desperately needs new blood and a bold vision to resurrect their dying brand, but I doubt she's the one who'll save the day. I'll be more than happy if she proves me wrong a few years from now, though.

3x speed is nice, but I can already do that on emulators.

If this is the same port that was sold on consoles, you can speed the game up while maintaining the music at the correct pace, which you cannot do on an emulator. It makes the game 100% more bearable.

"The developer made fun of the death of Charlie Kirk" is not a hateful comment just a fact.
"This developer is a fascist" is more hateful then the stated review above.

Ok.

No, I'm offended by you talking like a 17yo who just discovered Kant.

But go on, please, talk about the ethics of moderating hateful, bigoted, racist rhetoric on the biggest gaming platform.

I already answered your questions, but you seem more intent at discussing abstract ethics like an armchair philosopher rather than the real problem at hand.

Whereas the armies of content moderators tend to be incredibly poorly paid. The entire way this kind of work is done is that it nearly always either entirely or largely is done by the lowest bidder, in the poorest places possible.
[...]
So... your ethical calculus seems to conclude that stopping the spread of bigotry and fascist rhetoric in richer countries is worth the cost of the sanity of workers in poorer countries.

Why is the assumption that those workers must be poorly paid? If Valve, the multi billion dollar company whose owner owns multiple yachts as well as the company producing them, doesn't pay its workers adequately, then Valve is at fault. The solution shouldn't be to throw up hands and go home. There is a solution but they aren't willing to take it because it would require them to spend money, which is what I said in my first comment.

Your ethical calculus seems to be that if 100s of users of a website/platform don't get banned rapidly for violating TOS, then the website/platform should be held legally liable for that [...]

You know damn well what I meant but you keep this enlightened bullshit going on.

Valve literally got reports about those reviews and ignored them. They are at fault. Full stop.

If confronting the actual ugliness of them challenges you, makes you defensive and accusatory, good. That means you likely never thought about the totality of the situation here that deeply.

Please stop this enlightened philosopher bullshit. It's painful to read and makes you look dumb.

It's the dictionary definition of whataboutism.

"Steam has a problem with moderation, these are hateful reviews that have been reported but ignored by Steam support team"
"But what about fascists?"

The original user didn't answer and ran with their tail between their legs, because they didn't want to admit that Steam has a problem with moderation.

Your entire comment reeks of "we shouldn't fight fire because that puts firefighters at risk".

There are no 100% ethical solutions to every problem, real life is a compromise. You can get better ethical results by allowing those workers to get adequate monetary compensation for their work and seek medical help if they need it. Otherwise what's the solution, allow everyone to read the same stuff? Why is that more ethical? Is it more ethical for the random user (who may also be a suggestible kid, or a person belonging to a persecuted minority) who reads it? Is it more ethical for the developers who get their game review bombed by fascists and bigots, and see their source of revenue diminish or fizzle out because of it?

As for the legal responsibility, it becomes so when the platform is complicit with the users writing hateful stuff. You are not responsible for the random shithead declaring his love for Mein Kampf. You are responsible for the hundreds of users who do, while you repeatedly ignore the reports of their misconduct, thus implicitly accepting and normalizing their behavior.

Additionally, when hateful behavior is accepted and normalize, human shit stains will come in drove and multiply the problem tenfold. By moderating their spaces, they would prevent a lot of those hateful messages from being written in the first place.

Do we have any proof those reviews were from people following that curator? I imagine that information has also been posted elsewhere online.

Why does that curator exist in the first place? Why are those reviews still up?

Do you think off topic reviews or curator recommendations should be allowed for things you approve of? Say if a review points out the developer is a secret fascist?

Great comeback! I really love whatabaoutism.

Oh please, moderating a forum unpaid for 5 mins every now and again is so easy it's how this whole platform and Reddit function.

Please, kindly refrain from talking about things you know jack shit about.

If you're truly an indie dev without the resources to moderate your own space, Steam allow you to simply close the forums and forbid discussions.

Steam forums are a resource for devs to interact with the community, get feedback, etc...
Closing them means losing a resource. What you suggest is that devs big enough to employ a community manager should have access to that resource, while small/solo devs should just accept that they can't have it. Sounds like second class citizen treatment to me.

It would be a lot easier if Steam got their shit together and started moderating their online spaces, which is something they should've been doing this whole time.

Alabaster Dawn! I'm eagerly waiting for it.

Fox + Bunny = Funny