Or Monitors which use AI to spot players, something which could be considered cheating but can't be detected other than being "too good" something that'll have a shit ton of false positives and can be defeated by losing occasionally.
I don't own the game but I would if I did. I don't have a windows machine to Idle it on that wouldn't be bogged down by this game so idling it to rack up a few hours to leave a review isn't exactly feasible.
I agree with this and I think it makes sense since mod actions are already public, they're sent to every single server out there and any server which enables them will reveal mod names, and allow searching by mod. So I think it's only natural to enable it to make ease of use better since it allows searching by the mod doing it in the modlog and lets you confirm whether it is a specific mod doing things. That can be useful for reporting but it can also just be useful for people just looking to avoid conflict. If @[email protected] moderates several communities and is banning people for being gay and outing them in the modlog I might want to report them specifically for doing that, but someone else might just want to avoid touching any of the communities they are doing that in. Being able to know which person is doing the bans can help with that.
I strongly disagree with the idea that knowing who did it is only useful as a form of vigilante justice, it can be but the people looking to do this will do it anyway. It is better as a tool for users to help better report abusive behavior, or even just avoid conflicts with a specific moderator.
They know that people not caring or being aware of them isn't going to cut it, people who are aware of it and its impacts don't want it. And since it is publicly disclosed that it's there in the game, and there are lists and curators to make that more apparent, not knowing isn't likely to be something to last for long.
So it's only natural they'd want to try and improve their image, though this little stunt definitely did not help them.
Yeah there needs to be an effort to look for the problems, unfortunately the guy making fun of games because they suck and calling people "LGTVs" and making fun of queer people for "being woke" isn't a prime example of that, it's a prime example of someone pointing out that games are bad and sneaking in his hate of LGBTQ people into the videos.
We need to have an effort to critique and point out the real problems in why games are bad and AAA companies are making bad games, while also pointing out bad, biased, and hateful criticism that pushes a bigoted agenda.
I doubt they'll ever admit it, or even look into it.
Many triple-a games are going to shit, they're made with the goal of maximizing profits, they aren't a labor of love and creativity in the way that indie games made by a small team or even a single person are. Of course the people spouting "get woke go broke" either don't understand this or they don't care because they have an agenda. So they push the idea that "wokeness" the idea of portraying LGBTQ people in a positive light, or even recognizing them at all, is what is ruining games, and not corporate greed and cutting of corners that AAA companies often do because they think it'll maximize profits.
This is the case, the problem isn't that there is racial diversity or LGBTQ people, it's that a lot of AAA games are just horribly made at this point. Unfortunately I've seen quite a lot of people who miss that point and just use this as an opportunity to drop bigoted dogwhistles, and talk badly about how "LGBTQ are ruining games", both being assholes and completely missing the point.
Basically except they don't use anonymous accounts like 4chan does, I imagine it would be even worse if they did.
Immature losers can be any age, it's usually more pathetic when they are full grown adults.
It was, I wanted to see if bans send a notification to the user. They do not unfortunately.
view more: next ›
I guess I could but I'd still need to add playtime since steam doesn't let you review with 0 playtime.