They are no longer allowing refunds and now they are also stalking and checking up on what their backers post on other forums. You can defend this all you want but this is a dangerous precedent you are calming agreeing to.
True free speech is still not unopposed speech. Everything you say can and will have repercussions. In this case it is "act in a NEGATIVE way that does not line up with the values of the community and be excluded from said community"
And again... you can call it what you like.. "true freedom of speech" or some other naive crap... But the matter of fact is that this action does in NO way shape or form infringe on the legal definition of freedom of speech. It only impacts peoples ability to be disruptive arses.
Now do come back when someone have been banned from the SC forums for posting a civil and well formed criticism. Then we MIGHT be able to start talking. As for now they just said that a people who act like or associate with trolls and arsehats will not have a place on the official board.
Most of the things one says does not have any significant repercussions and that's precisely what is required for true freedom of speech to exist. The moment people refrain from saying something because of the consequences they fear may happen, their freedom is in practice reduced.
I very much agree with that there are legal systems in which legally speaking the case presented was not one in which their "freedom of speech" was violated.
You can oppose what someone says without actively trying to punish the person. Once you try to punish the person, you are actively trying to reduce their freedom.
It is not about "naivity", it is an ideology. I do not at all actively punish anyone for what they say in any context, so in that sense I live my belief about what an ideal world would be.
I am not talking about freedom of speech. We are well aware freedom of speech does not exist on private boards but are you all comfortable with the actions of this company of basically stalking and punishing a backer for something he said on another board.
He was not banned from the game just the forums. So really its not that big a deal. It is odd that a game company is stocking forums and twitter to ban people speaking out. That makes me go hmmm.
I am not talking about freedom of speech. We are well aware freedom of speech does not exist on private boards but are you all comfortable with the actions of this company of basically stalking and punishing a backer for something he said on another board.
This is a correct statement. I, too, am not arguing "speech freedoms", because people are not being impugned by a government, but a company who is stalking its crowdfunders.
He was not banned from the game just the forums. So really its not that big a deal. It is odd that a game company is stocking forums and twitter to ban people speaking out. That makes me go hmmm.
It is innovative in the sense that few if any other game company does it. It means that their company has a true conviction and they are willing to use all their tools at their disposal to achieve it.
It depends on what he said. Even then though.... Policing on a 3rd party forum has only been done in my recollection by companies like Star Vault. Shady and crap. Anyone remember that fiasco that went on for years!? They followed people like Slapshot around to multiple sites. They'd even sent mods / admins here trying to enforce their rules on that section at some points. Which funny enough those mods got banned. Not just for that stupidity but they were acting worse than the people supposedly upsetting Star Vault.
While free speech does not exist on 3rd party forums. Policing another set of forums is pathetic for a company. Most companies don't generally give a flip unless it just gets way out of control. Extremely out of control in a high traffic place like twitter. Even then though. Why should they get upset? Who cares, seriously. How much money have they made? followers? yet get upset over some trivial high school garbage Pathetic.
How many people here would be banned from their games if more companies acted the same way? I'd bet the majority.
They are no longer allowing refunds and now they are also stalking and checking up on what their backers post on other forums. You can defend this all you want but this is a dangerous precedent you are calming agreeing to.
Well they didn't ban the guy from the game, so there's that... What is dangerous about it though? it just shows it might not be a good idea to make yourself known to the powers that be in such situations. It's a lowblow for sure, but hey, I'm sure the banned has resorted to a few of them themselves in order to land in such a situation.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
He was not banned from the game just the forums. So really its not that big a deal. It is odd that a game company is stocking forums and twitter to ban people speaking out. That makes me go hmmm.
It is innovative in the sense that few if any other game company does it. It means that their company has a true conviction and they are willing to use all their tools at their disposal to achieve it.
It means some amount of crowdfunding money is being used for damage control, to impugn the people who gave them crowdfunding money and are simply not pleased.
Freedom of speech working as intended, he said what he wanted to say, they acted how they wanted to act...
That does not make their action right or just.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
And i think the anger here is naive because i sort of like the option deny people who act like arsehats access to any current or future project i am part of.
For an example (but not limited to) people who aim to disrupt and cause discomfort to participants in said project for their own enjoyment. And i like to retain the ability to do so BEFORE they have cased havoc. That is not the same as "silencing critics" but more akin to blacklisting the guy who urinates in my flowerposts just for kicks.
We all use aliases on boards so how did they track that person as being the same person. So they contacted the people in charge of the other board and obtained that information. So the people in charge of the other board allowed SC to check this person's IP and so on?
Don't you guys find this disturbing ?
No, you aren't understanding who's freedom of speech is in question here. CIG has freedom of speech on THEIR board. And as long as it's THEIR property, they can determine whoever gets to use it. PERIOD! That's THEIR right....not yours.
I, sure as hell for one, NEVER want to hear about how my freedoms are being violated, should I ever open up a forum or blog where I am told I MUST allow any and all opinions posted whether I agree with them or not ON MY BOARD!
Personally I like it. It needs to be done more often. Too often people use the excuse of freedom of speech to spread toxicity and it's become pandemic. Now we're breeding a society of bullies under the guise of freedom of speech. Ban away!!!
I like it too! Lets ban anyone who ever said anything remotely negative about anything from everything! Lets monitor all our employees facebook and twitter accounts and find some excuse for firing them! Lets do away with all the negativity on the internet and make it just rainbows and butterfly's!!!
/sarcasm off
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
He was not banned from the game just the forums. So really its not that big a deal. It is odd that a game company is stocking forums and twitter to ban people speaking out. That makes me go hmmm.
It is innovative in the sense that few if any other game company does it. It means that their company has a true conviction and they are willing to use all their tools at their disposal to achieve it.
Tawess that is just it. They did not give him his money back and ask him to leave. That would have been a better option but to just take his money and then not allow him the right to express his opinion on their boards because of something he said on another board makes me think very poorly of SC. If they had asked him to stop backing their game because of his opinions they would have had the moral high ground but no here they are greedy enough to want his money but not have to deal with his criticism.
He was not banned from the game just the forums. So really its not that big a deal. It is odd that a game company is stocking forums and twitter to ban people speaking out. That makes me go hmmm.
It is innovative in the sense that few if any other game company does it. It means that their company has a true conviction and they are willing to use all their tools at their disposal to achieve it.
No its odd and creepy.
And we're only hearing one side of it... do you think the average user is going to find themselves in this situation? I'd imagine you'd have to seriously be pushing buttons for this kind of thing to happen.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
We all use aliases on boards so how did they track that person as being the same person. So they contacted the people in charge of the other board and obtained that information. So the people in charge of the other board allowed SC to check this person's IP and so on?
Don't you guys find this disturbing ?
No, you aren't understanding who's freedom of speech is in question here. CIG has freedom of speech on THEIR board. And as long as it's THEIR property, they can determine whoever gets to use it. PERIOD! That's THEIR right....not yours.
Sure, it's their right because ToS probably says "right of refusal for any reason". If it gets out, however, the refusal is because of something someone did in a medium disconnected from the entity in question, that is not ok to me. So they guy said what the guy said, company makes its decision, now I, as another consumer, will act on my on conscience. Like I said, though, before I get my panties in a bunch, I'd like to see it more substantiated.
Tawess that is just it. They did not give him his money back and ask him to leave. That would have been a better option but to just take his money and then not allow him the right to express his opinion on their boards because of something he said on another board makes me think very poorly of SC. If they had asked him to stop backing their game because of his opinions they would have had the moral high ground but no here they are greedy enough to want his money but not have to deal with his criticism.
No you are missing the point. They said. Feel free to enjoy the product you bought. You just can´t come in to the forums any more because you are a arsehat.
Why do people insist they have the Freedom of speech to post on other people's media? The idea is ridiculous. You have freedom of speech to go and start your own blog on the web. What about the rights of the people who own the media?
Get a clue.....You don't own the board, so you don't own the right!
There are people, such as myself, that consider freedom of speech to be a virtue even though it is not a right enforced by the government in every aspect of society. It makes sense that people get upset when people reduce the freedom of speech regardless of whether or not it was their right to begin with.
I hear you, and I too consider freedom of speech to be an inalienable right. However, is what happened here, specifically, censorship or a result of consequences? Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom of consequences. If he was banned, it was for violating the terms of use of the official forums. This is not a violation of his freedom of speech. The guy was banned in the same way that the editor of a local newspaper would have been fired for printing something he was told not to print. He's free to do it, of course, and become the hero of many with no legal recourse, but he still gets fired from the paper.
He was not banned from the game just the forums. So really its not that big a deal. It is odd that a game company is stocking forums and twitter to ban people speaking out. That makes me go hmmm.
It is innovative in the sense that few if any other game company does it. It means that their company has a true conviction and they are willing to use all their tools at their disposal to achieve it.
No its odd and creepy.
And we're only hearing one side of it... do you think the average user is going to find themselves in this situation? I'd imagine you'd have to seriously be pushing buttons for this kind of thing to happen.
Its not a matter if he did something wrong or not. Companies worth their salt dont give two hoots about crack pots on a forum bashing them. Could you see EA coming to this forum and banning accounts for bashing SWToR? Again, odd.
Nobody's "freedom of speech" was curtailed here, lol
CIG did not force the other site to remove the posts of the offender, his words are still there for all to read. They simply revoked his privileges to speak on their own forums. Just as any group would censure or expel a disruptive member in that group.
What has been shattered here is the illusion of non-accountability.
What you post on the internet has consequences.
Depending on the nature of the post, it can end your political career or kill your job promotion prospects or end your relationship with your SO or get you fired, possibly even result in prosecution and jail time. A forum ban is a trivial slap on the wrist, great for hyperbole and grandstanding, if you really want to "play the victim" all that much.
I have no problem with any company taking action against a-holes who go out of their way to disrupt games for other people or attempt to harm the business. Freedom of speech means you are free to say what you want, it doesn't mean you are not responsible for what you say.
They are no longer allowing refunds and now they are also stalking and checking up on what their backers post on other forums. You can defend this all you want but this is a dangerous precedent you are calming agreeing to.
Ah...wow. Seems like I managed to get refund in last moment
Comments
I very much agree with that there are legal systems in which legally speaking the case presented was not one in which their "freedom of speech" was violated.
You can oppose what someone says without actively trying to punish the person. Once you try to punish the person, you are actively trying to reduce their freedom.
It is not about "naivity", it is an ideology. I do not at all actively punish anyone for what they say in any context, so in that sense I live my belief about what an ideal world would be.
While free speech does not exist on 3rd party forums. Policing another set of forums is pathetic for a company. Most companies don't generally give a flip unless it just gets way out of control. Extremely out of control in a high traffic place like twitter. Even then though. Why should they get upset? Who cares, seriously. How much money have they made? followers? yet get upset over some trivial high school garbage Pathetic.
How many people here would be banned from their games if more companies acted the same way? I'd bet the majority.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
For an example (but not limited to) people who aim to disrupt and cause discomfort to participants in said project for their own enjoyment. And i like to retain the ability to do so BEFORE they have cased havoc. That is not the same as "silencing critics" but more akin to blacklisting the guy who urinates in my flowerposts just for kicks.
This have been a good conversation
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I, sure as hell for one, NEVER want to hear about how my freedoms are being violated, should I ever open up a forum or blog where I am told I MUST allow any and all opinions posted whether I agree with them or not ON MY BOARD!
/sarcasm off
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
This have been a good conversation
CIG did not force the other site to remove the posts of the offender, his words are still there for all to read. They simply revoked his privileges to speak on their own forums. Just as any group would censure or expel a disruptive member in that group.
What has been shattered here is the illusion of non-accountability.
What you post on the internet has consequences.
Depending on the nature of the post, it can end your political career or kill your job promotion prospects or end your relationship with your SO or get you fired, possibly even result in prosecution and jail time. A forum ban is a trivial slap on the wrist, great for hyperbole and grandstanding, if you really want to "play the victim" all that much.