this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
126 points (97.7% liked)
Games
16861 readers
1730 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So in theory one could be banned for making a negative review video?
Vanguard was enough for me to nope out, but this just seems like more anti consumer bullshit to me.
In theory you could read the article?
Not reading the article is a bannable offence.
Sorry, new rules.
Oh God please let this happen
What if reading it counts as negative conduct?
Red State detected
The article focuses on streamers and doesn't unambiguously answer this question
The article is very vague, I agree. But they do say
And it doesn't answer the question is because the question is irrelevant. But I do agree that the article is shit. One image of the said code of conduct shared on twitter was more informative than this article.
My point is just that it doesn't make sense to criticize the question for not reading the article if the article doesn't answer the question, and what's really needed to answer it is additional context. The broad scope of Riot's statement could be construed to mean they could do more than just ban streamers for using hateful language.
There was already another comment that added the relevant information so I didn't repeat it and no, riots statement is pretty concise.
Article and Riot's official documents refer to penalising toxic (flaming teammates/other people) behaviour during content creation with Riot' IPs. A negative review isn't toxic inherently
To capitalized G-amer clowns it is the same.
They have full legal rights to ban you for farting when the minute hand and hour hand aligned. This changes nothing in terms of what they "can" do. It's rather their public announcement about what they "will" do. If they really wanted to ban you for silly reasons, they don't even need these silly reasons, they can just ban you and are fully within their legal rights to do so.
Negative reviews are the least likely scenario for banning someone in game, as the person has already reviewed it and needs no further acesss on that account for their stream.
More likely they will punish people with an ever increasing range of 'inappropriate' that seems somewhat reasonable at first (hate speech) and end up with some minority group (LGBTQ+) being silenced through a chilling effect.