Rose
@Rose@lemmy.world
- Comment on Asking for moderator Rooki's removal for misconduct 3 months ago:
In the absence of announcements, my understanding is that it’s highly unlikely that Rooki will be removed for the misconduct.
Firstly, it doesn’t take a team of two admins and seven moderators nearly a week to investigate a matter involving a handful of comments and six users. Secondly, if it were a broader investigation into Rooki’s overall conduct, you’d expect Rooki to at least be asked to pause their moderator activity for the duration, but Rooki continues to ban people and remove comments.
Ironically, one of the users banned by Rooki for trolling today is EndlessApollo, whose comment and subsequent ban by !vegan launched the whole chain of events.
- Comment on Asking for moderator Rooki's removal for misconduct 3 months ago:
Looking at the modlog, Rooki reinstated the two !vegan moderators and restored one of the mods’ comments about an hour ago. Rooki also edited their own comment referenced in the OP to say the following:
Edit: I am sorry, about my emotional decision i reinstated @Eevoltic and @naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com as mods After researching myself, many sites say its not healthy, one (1) research paper says it is at least NOT unhealthy, but it has few points of data.
Personally, I’m not fully satisfied if that is the end of it. The changes look like Rooki admitting that the issue is not clear-cut, but Rooki’s conduct as a moderator has to reflect the rules, not something as arbitrary as Rooki’s level of disagreement with someone’s views at the given time.
Nobody should have to convince Rooki that something is not misinformation. Rooki (or any other instance moderator) must not even think of interfering on that basis. The word “misinformation” is not in the rules in any shape or form. If anything, the rules side more with the community moderators’ judgement by saying “Your participation in individual communities will only be acceptable on the condition that you abide by their rules.”
- Comment on Asking for moderator Rooki's removal for misconduct 3 months ago:
This link allows to see all comments removed specifically by Rooki.
- Comment on Asking for moderator Rooki's removal for misconduct 3 months ago:
Going by this Lemmy.World chart, Rooki is an instance moderator standing below @ruud@lemmy.world and @jelloeater85@lemmy.world, so I’m appealing to them in the form of a public post so that the issue can’t be swept under the rug.
If users or communities don’t like it, they could, and SHOULD move to another instance.
!vegan are already going for that option, but the problem is that if your written rules do not reflect your actual practices, it’s a lot like backstabbing because you invite people to build communities over time only to go back on your rules and force the users to migrate, which leads to fragmentation and a lot of members lost in the process.
- Comment on Asking for moderator Rooki's removal for misconduct 3 months ago:
What’s inconsistent about that? Communities have their own rules, which often are and should be much stricter than the sitewide rules. For example, a pro-Harris community may decide to ban pro-Trump posts (or vice versa) to keep it on-topic, but that wouldn’t justify a site admin removing the mods and their comments for that. Some communities exist specifically for debates, while others choose to be more of a safe space type.
- Comment on Asking for moderator Rooki's removal for misconduct 3 months ago:
For me, the purpose of the post is exactly what it asks for. I don’t think I’ve ever posted to !vegan except for today, to cross-post the OP, but my own fate as a long-time lemmy.world user likely rests on the outcome of this request. I run a tiny community that has no relation to animal rights or ethics but I feel it is absolutely threatened when there are moderators like Rooki that act based on their views rather than the rules.
- Comment on Asking for moderator Rooki's removal for misconduct 3 months ago:
For one, I don’t see the moderators “denying any risks”. The very first one seen at the archived link and in the mod log says “There are some scammy and not nutritionally complete vegan cat foods or there, so it’s important to do a bit of extra research”.
Regardless of any of that, the job of a moderator isn’t to fight what they believe is misinformation, as that view leads to total censorship, as I already explained. What if you believe that abortion kills? Would you then go and remove moderators that say otherwise? The same question stands for the other examples provided in my OP.
- Comment on Asking for moderator Rooki's removal for misconduct 3 months ago:
When it comes to disagreements of that nature (and again, even if we assume that the science were on Rooki’s side), the right course of action in my view is to make an opposing comment and make your case, then if that’s unfairly removed by the community mods, create your own community (it could be another version of vegan or “anti-vegan” depending on where you stand) and use that to express the opposing views. Resorting to your admin power is completely unacceptable for a case of disagreement that is not related to a rules violation.
- Comment on Asking for moderator Rooki's removal for misconduct 3 months ago:
That is my understanding based on Rooki’s own post, the post of the demoted vegan mod, and the modlog containing the removed comments.
- Submitted 3 months ago to support@lemmy.world | 105 comments
- Comment on The Epic Games Store Officially Launches on Mobile Devices 4 months ago:
One was a jury trial and the other wasn’t. Google had plenty of records of their internal communications but Apple had a different practice. This article by The Verge does a decent job at highlighting the differences.
- Comment on 'The gold rush is over:' Slay the Spire and Darkest Dungeon devs say that big Game Pass and Epic exclusive deals have dried up for indie devs 8 months ago:
Steam is largely driven by Valve’s own games and freebies as well. 1.5M currently playing Dota 2 and CS 2, with the next best being F2P games: PUBG with 370K online, Apex Legends, and Naraka.
- Comment on Steam keeps on winning 11 months ago:
Epic cannot do that because
In response to one inquiry from a game publisher, in another example, Valve explained: “We basically see any selling of the game on PC, Steam key or not, as a part of the same shared PC market- so even if you weren’t using Steam keys, we’d just choose to stop selling a game if it was always running discounts of 75% off on one store but 50% off on ours. . . .”
(source)
However, Epic regularly offers coupons out of pocket. Right now you can essentially get 43% off any game above $14.99 or the regional equivalents, as many times as you want, even if the game is already discounted by the publisher.
- Comment on Steam keeps on winning 11 months ago:
Valve’s actions do not have to copy those of Google for it to engage in anti-competitive behavior. Focus on the Steam-specific issues deemed reasonable enough for the judge to allow the trial to go through, like the MFN, high profit margin, user reviews manipulation, and so forth.
- Comment on Steam keeps on winning 11 months ago:
Heck I’m sure that they very quickly came up with a functional shopping cart at the very least.
Steam has been offering third-party titles since 2005 but still had no shopping cart as of 2008.
- Comment on Steam keeps on winning 11 months ago:
In the Epic trial, Google made some of the same arguments as those used to defend Steam, like the presence of competing stores or the claim that it wins people over by the quality of the product.
Epic’s expert made these relevant points:
Google impairs competition without preventing it entirely
Google’s conduct targets competition as it emerges
Google is dominant
And we know who won in this antitrust case.
- Comment on Steam keeps on winning 11 months ago:
Not to mention that open source software can and sometimes does contain spyware.
- Comment on What's up with Epic Games? 11 months ago:
Debunked time and time again.
- Comment on What's up with Epic Games? 11 months ago:
Many of the articles do have references on the DRM status. Here’s an example indicating verification by a staff member. I personally tested a bunch of the games for DRM and noted it back when I contributed. Until recently, most of the games released on Epic were DRM-free. Even the Sony games were notably DRM-free on Epic before they were released on GOG. Nowadays, it’s more common for the new ones to use EOS and have it function as DRM.
- Comment on What's up with Epic Games? 11 months ago:
Epic’s current approach to reviews is arguably better anyway. There’s no toxicity, incentive to troll to farm points, and it’s randomized, so it doesn’t enable review bombing.
- Comment on What's up with Epic Games? 11 months ago:
It’s all in the realm of “what if”. Sure, it could attempt this or that, but it hasn’t, nor is there any guarantee that it would fly. That just brings me back to the original point of when a company that is not partially owned by the Chinese actively works to please the Chinese government to further their business interest but I don’t see much of that with Epic. If you look at some of the other companies in which Tencent has a large stake, like Dontnod, there’s absolutely no sign of the Chinese agenda in the games either.
- Comment on What's up with Epic Games? 11 months ago:
Since this is a gaming community, it would be more relevant to say that Tencent likely has a stake in something that you already play or use, like Discord.
- Comment on What's up with Epic Games? 11 months ago:
Epic not being underfunded is stating the obvious. Just look at the scope of their Fortnite collaborations.
- Comment on What's up with Epic Games? 11 months ago:
Most investments aren’t to gain influence but to profit. At this time, there is no sign of Epic doing anything that could be explained by the alleged influence of the Chinese government, and as the majority owner, Tim Sweeney has the final say anyway.
- Comment on What's up with Epic Games? 11 months ago:
The multi-billionaire owner with the backing of the Chinese government
Who cares about the backing if it has no effect on anything? I’m more concerned about Valve having a separate Steam client for China, censoring their games specifically for China and even reportedly banning for bringing up Winnie the Pooh.
- Comment on Fallout 3: GOTY Edition is free to keep for the next 24 hours on the Epic Games Store 11 months ago:
They own Easy Anti-Cheat, which has kernel level access and collects data as part of its user agreement but these people keep regurgitating the debunked claim of the launcher being spyware. Occam’s razor, anyone?
- Comment on What's up with Epic Games? 11 months ago:
Rocket League is fully playable on Steam.
The story of most of Valve’s games is finding a mod, hiring the modder, then making the game exclusive to Steam.
- Comment on What's up with Epic Games? 11 months ago:
Epic has a significantly higher percentage of games confirmed to be DRM-free.
- Comment on The Insomniac Hack Reveals The Ugly Truth Of Video Game Hype - Aftermath 11 months ago:
You risk losing the audience when the other outlets’ reviews are up weeks or days before the game release while yours will be published a week after the game release unless really cutting corners or reviewing a short game.
- Comment on Baldur's Gate 3 'Isn't Going to be on Game Pass', Insists Larian Boss 1 year ago:
Games reach Game Pass via deals similar to those offered by Epic. Microsoft pay the publisher a fixed amount, so if it is believed that it beats the proceeds from the projected sales for the given period, there’s no reason not to agree to it. In other words, it’s all about how much they would offer and how long it would have been since the game release.
