Seems like that would need to be a situation where you'd need at least two (three would be better) mods/admins to approve the response as a sort of stopgap to personal skin in the game, unfortunately without a way to randomize which admins/mods are chosen, it would be as easy as picking sympathetic ears to rubberstamp things for you.
Well, that and the whole everyoneisapersonunlessyourastraightwhitecismale bullshit doesn't help
don't judge the tacky clothes too hard. it was the '70s after all.
not enitrely true.
voting red is usually an instant unpersoning...
Context for anyone curious:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFRjrLmc_4c
Btw, I'd love to get this guy to bitchute. He does good work.
Sure, its gameplay kinda sucked, but that didn’t matter, players looked past such mediocrity and focused on the nuanced tale found within.
.
gameplay kinda sucked.
If gameplay sucks, the story is irrelevant.
you want a deep moving story and you're shit at QA on the gameplay, make a fucking movie.
Constructive criticism, but the mods should consider reading Politics and the English Language by George Orwell and editing the rules accordingly. It could help make things easier to understand.
I know I'm new to this .win, but I want to help where I can, and i think reading the article will help mods make the rules more clear.
Also, sorry if this is a double post, my internet is unreliable sometimes.
A little context might help, as gaming journalism did make some small improvements in the transparency department for a while, although at this point, I think letsplayers have more or less replaced journalists as the way I get news about new video games, so I maybe things have backslid since then.
This may get a bit tl;dr, but bear with me.
Also, keeping in line with the theme of ethics and transparency, I've been an observer of the gamergate movement rather than an active participant, and I missed the original mess, so take that into account.
But gaming journalism had a problem with getting a little too cozy with devs for a long time. I used to have access to some EGM* issues from the nineties, and one of the things that sticks out in my mind is how many games got positive or neutral reviews when the games were actually "meh" or garbage. It was actually rare for a game to get less than a neutral rating unless it was from some obscure studio you never heard of. This didn't change in the 2000s, but got worse. An example of the stuff happening behind the scenes is that devs and publishers would offer journalists "sneak peeks" or early access to a game in development or about to be released with the understanding that the journalist couldn't say anything negative about the game in their review. I'm sure there are other examples, but you get the idea.
Frustration with gaming-related press was pretty high around the time that the "zoe post" came out, and it acted like a lightning rod for that frustration. Some of that frustration came out in ways that was harmful to the end goal of gamergate, but the reaction from kotaku, a leading gaming press company, pretty much pissed everybody off, even the more sane gamers at the time.
They wrote about a dozen articles across nearly every website they had, denouncing gamers as "dead" or saying that we "didn't have to be" gamedevs' "customers anymore."
That's when people started to get really pissed, and the short version is gaming press outlets started posting their ethical standards front and center. Meanwhile, kotaku lost all credibility among gamers, and it's parent organization has been passed from owner to owner for the past 5(10?) years.
staying alive
annnnnd now I have the BeeGees in my head. thank a lot, lmao. xD
Because 90s media for kids was all about rebelling against the establishment, and most media companies are run by 90s kids who havent realized they are the establishment yet?