First I am glad someone brought this up.  I was going to, but wasn't sure if it was on topic.

Next, some points...  And I am going to split these to avoid 'wall of text' issues...

How do you accommodate the fact that being a whiney bitch is the only way to get results?  It really should be studied scientifically,  but at least anecdotally 'vote with your wallet' does not work.

I think the ME3 thing was rather just, actually.  "Distinct endings driven by player choice" were not delivered.  There are some youtubes that demonstrate this pretty well.

But my point here is, "not buying it" doesn't work.  They don't assume that you are unhappy.  They assume that you are a Madden fan instead. Or worse they will just assume there are fewer gamers.  Likewise returns aren't an option.  You wouldn't find out about the ending thing until you played through a second time.

The wallet vote probably doesn't exist.

Next point - George Lucas.  See he is quoted in that article, too.  How do you deal with his pompous ass without whining?

Han shot first.  Jar Jar Binks.  Etc.

Dude actually blamed the fans, "Why would I make any more when everyone yells at you all the time and tells you what a terrible person you are?"

Han shot first, is all I have to say to that.  For a time I was an advocate of what I called "Lucas's Law" - removing copyright protection for creators who drive their content into a ditch.

Anyway, I do think it is unkind to judge Lucas as a person when you have no idea what that person is like.  As a creator, though? As the sole controlling interest for something you care deeply about?   That has to be a different matter.

Quote from: mcbobbo;683671Next point - George Lucas.  See he is quoted in that article, too.  How do you deal with his pompous ass without whining?

Han shot first.  Jar Jar Binks.  Etc.

Dude actually blamed the fans, "Why would I make any more when everyone yells at you all the time and tells you what a terrible person you are?"

Han shot first, is all I have to say to that.  For a time I was an advocate of what I called "Lucas's Law" - removing copyright protection for creators who drive their content into a ditch.

Anyway, I do think it is unkind to judge Lucas as a person when you have no idea what that person is like.  As a creator, though? As the sole controlling interest for something you care deeply about?   That has to be a different matter.

If you care so deeply about a fictional creation that changes to it that you dislike motivate you to make threats against the creator's family, hound them with abuse, or even whine at them...it's a rather clear sign you need to get some perspective.

Last one...  Anti-bullying.

Caution - this is a slippery slope argument.

But anti-bullying statutes scare the hell out of me.  For example, the one they're looking at up in BC prohibits...

"threats, name calling, insults, racial or sexual comments" and "spreading rumors, ignoring, gossiping, and excluding"

In that view,  one of the very tenants of therpgsite is "bullying" - being able to speak your mind freely.  Someone put it as "an armed society is a polite society".  If this type of law gets created to protect content creators,  we lose our unique environment.

Also, a lot of this is judgement.  Imagine the rpg.net gang at the wheel.  When they can ban you from a site you shouldn't need to participate in, that's one thing.  When they can fine you (and jail you if you don't pay the fine) that's entirely different .

I don't think you need 'anti-bullying' laws to stop these kinds of threats.

You just need to make it easier for people to press charges and see prosecutions and suits for slander and harassment. There needs to be more vigorous enforcement of the the law with regards to protecting people from spurious attacks on their character and safety. All sides need to stop pretending the Internet is some magical land where the laws no longer apply.  

22 people got charged over the Tablo case. They're even angling for extradition for the jackass who mostly ran the campaign.

A few more high profile cases like that and suddenly all this 'Anonymous Lives!' shit will start dying down just like the hacker boom did. Use the chilling effect in the other direction, and a lot of the more cowardly will start backing the fuck off when they realize there really are actual consequences for this bullshit.

Quote from: J Arcane;683690I don't think you need 'anti-bullying' laws to stop these kinds of threats.

You just need to make it easier for people to press charges and see prosecutions and suits for slander and harassment. There needs to be more vigorous enforcement of the the law with regards to protecting people from spurious attacks on their character and safety. All sides need to stop pretending the Internet is some magical land where the laws no longer apply.  

22 people got charged over the Tablo case. They're even angling for extradition for the jackass who mostly ran the campaign.

A few more high profile cases like that and suddenly all this 'Anonymous Lives!' shit will start dying down just like the hacker boom did. Use the chilling effect in the other direction, and a lot of the more cowardly will start backing the fuck off when they realize there really are actual consequences for this bullshit.

Exactly. The laws already exist. Harassment is a tort and/or a criminal offence in most jurisdictions. Defamation is a tort.

More importantly, people need to behave like grown-ups a little bit more.

Quote from: noisms;683678If you care so deeply about a fictional creation that changes to it that you dislike motivate you to make threats against the creator's family, hound them with abuse, or even whine at them...it's a rather clear sign you need to get some perspective.

We agree there.  But let's do be careful where we draw that line.  Death threats are already covered under established law, and existing systems can be leveraged.   So what's next?

Quote from: mcbobbo;683712We agree there.  But let's do be careful where we draw that line.  Death threats are already covered under established law, and existing systems can be leveraged.   So what's next?

I think three things could happen, or more likely a combination of all three:

a) Technological development - people being able to simply better filter what they see on the net, including abusive crap directed at them
b) Tort law will respond as the legal profession slowly opens up and becomes more competitive both in England and the US
c) Governments will start to criminalise harassment and defamation to a greater degree than they already do

I prefer a) to b) to c) for obvious reasons but I think change is more or less inevitable. A week or so ago news about teenagers committing suicide because of bullying via ask.fm was all over the BBC. Once it gets to that level I'm sure it won't be long before there's either a social or a political response or both.

As a function of 'a', some method for input would be nice to see.

I just don't know how it's possible,  though.  There are so very many voices wanting to be heard...

Quote from: mcbobbo;683733As a function of 'a', some method for input would be nice to see.

I just don't know how it's possible,  though.  There are so very many voices wanting to be heard...

I think it might just be the case that you will see more 'walled gardens' on the internet where nice people go. Or people will be more savvy about the way they use social media. I do it already on G+: the minute somebody posts something to do with politics they go in my ignore circle. On Facebook I unfollowed almost everybody so I get very little on my news feed. More people will do things like this and get more sophisticated about it.

Nevermind.

Quote from: mcbobbo;683683Last one...  Anti-bullying.

Caution - this is a slippery slope argument.

But anti-bullying statutes scare the hell out of me.  For example, the one they're looking at up in BC prohibits...

"threats, name calling, insults, racial or sexual comments" and "spreading rumors, ignoring, gossiping, and excluding"

In that view,  one of the very tenants of therpgsite is "bullying" - being able to speak your mind freely.  Someone put it as "an armed society is a polite society".  If this type of law gets created to protect content creators,  we lose our unique environment.

Also, a lot of this is judgement.  Imagine the rpg.net gang at the wheel.  When they can ban you from a site you shouldn't need to participate in, that's one thing.  When they can fine you (and jail you if you don't pay the fine) that's entirely different .

Nah. An armed society is a society where you're walking on eggshells. There's no actual politeness, just a climate of fear in case you accidentally screw up and piss someone off.

You can be perfectly critical without needing to resort to any of the things you've mentioned, if you have an actual point - in fact, if you can't actually back up your assertions properly, going straight to ad hominems or threats is a good way to demonstrate you don't actually have any position to argue from.

Like, with Jennifer Hepler's "skip the combat" ideas, "I quite like the combat in these games, and I'd rather skip the story pieces, actually - how about a more comprehensive checkpointing system that would let me skip things, too?" is a good comment, fair and reasonable. "lol lazy bitch games are all about combat not your shitty story"... isn't. It doesn't add anything to the discussion or the topic at hand. The world is a little bit more shit for it's presence.

The volume that a concerted campaign can put out makes arresting and punishing the attackers difficult. And "ignore list"-type tools only really help against an odd few attackers - so you go online, and have to ignore all the new sockpuppets that have appeared, and the new attackers that have joined in, before actually getting to do what you want. At some point, it just becomes not worth it.

I'm curious if anyone just death-threats them right back...

" oh yeah? Well I'm going to sneak into YOUR house tomorrow night, kill your whole family, go all Titus on them and make them into a pie, then force feed it to you while I rape your cat! Then I'm going to pee on your computer."

Wait bullying laws prohibit... Ignoring? WTH?

Quote from: TristramEvans;683828Wait bullying laws prohibit... Ignoring? WTH?

Oh, come on. You've been a child at some point in your life; I don't believe you've never deliberately ignored someone in an attempt to make them upset (Not an ad hominem, just a statement that children are mean to each other). There are different ways of ignoring people.