First off I want to say @heygeorge, this is one is for you! Couldn't have done it without you buddy.
Secondly I want to say I both absolutely love and hate you Voat. Equally. Sometimes at the same exact time, but other times some more than the other. Other times the exact opposite. It just depends. ;)
Yesterday I banned controversial user from v/gaming for being what I now have termed a 'Noid'. A Noid (according to me) is a person that regularly submits content that is low value, low effort, typically downvoted, and has low participation. Often times on purpose.
I banned this user from v/gaming for Spam.
Only one problem… the content was 'technically' on topic (a stretch but for sake of argument I concede). And guess what Voat did? What do you think Voat did? Yeah, that's right, Voat called me out on it. This is the part I hate.
So now we have Putts vs. The Goats and I'm not budging. Headbutts are heard throughout the kingdom. What rule do you cite? Spam? That isn't exactly right! What is spam, what isn't spam? Who says this is spam or that is spam? Spam this, spam that. Spam it all! I'm going back to browse v/all.
But through the smoke, Steam arose and how they enacted a rule to fight the troll. The problem now is this, everyone's a potential misfit.
And this made me love Voat, because it's a legitimate concern, the very merits worthy of wise discern. If I say that's spam, many decades from now what will the definition of spam be then? Think about your children and their children's children. What kind of Voat do you want them to envision? A Voat where much is spam, because that may happen if my stance stands.
So, here we are at the crossroads yet again. There's arguments on both sides, where to begin?
Edit:
I'm thinking now...
view the rest of the comments →
TheBuddha ago
I've already made my thoughts pretty clear on this, and I urge you to rethink it.
Shitty and low effort doesn't make it spam, it just makes it annoying. It's way too subjective.
I'd absolutely support a rule against this in that sub, but the user's shitty attention whoring isn't really spam.
Yes, I'm defending a pedo. Someday the speech you come for may be mine.
sguevar ago
I have to disagree and people have to stop conflating artwork and fanart with gaming.
They are not the same thing and his low value posts that were also spammed across the v/gaming community are not related to gaming. He is just sowing discord because he likes to that. But I stand that his posts are not gaming related.
Wahaha ago
They are absolutely gaming related and at the core of what makes gaming fun: creativity. Engaging with games on multiple levels instead of just eating whatever the gaming industry shits out nowadays is the core of what makes gaming so much fun.
sguevar ago
The only level that I agree it relates to the gaming market is the marketing part. Artwork helps market a certain product. But it is not related to gaming at all for gaming is not defined by the artwork but by the product's functionality and viability. Artwork is besides the point. It is simply added value to the game, nothing more.
Wahaha ago
Art is an integral part of games. Just like Mods. It allows for gamers to engage with the game on another level than just that of a consumer and v/games is catch-all enough for it to fit in. If you want to get more specific, go to or make a subverse that is more specific.
sguevar ago
So comics are also gaming related? I could post artwork and fanart of DBZ because it had games or of Xmen or of any movie ever made because a game qas created due to those movies?
Wahaha ago
Correct.
Dortex ago
That's an interesting question. Franchises are a weird spot for me, since, yeah, they're in basically all categories at once. I'd personally gloss over franchises, as long as it doesn't focus on a different medium. I mean, obviously it stops being gaming related if i go back to Toriyama's original publications, for example. But if a manga suddenly came out as backstory for a game, I'd have to support the post.
sguevar ago
Look I am not* saying that art isn't an important part of the games. I am saying it is not an important part of gaming.
I make the difference between the two because gaming is about playing games not sharing fanart or artwork of them.
I honestly can't explain this better.
Dortex ago
I don't make this distinction. I'm understanding what you're saying. I'm disagreeing. And since it's nit a factual matter, it's probably not going to be resolved. As it stands though, Putt agreed it's on-topic, if only for the sake of argument. So here we are.
sguevar ago
Well guess we just have to agree to disagree.
So let me just use the same analogy that I used with a different user:
Saying that artwork and fanart are related to gaming is a logical fallacy because it is the same thing as saying that travel agencies are related to hotels.
They do not. They are both related to tourism but that is about it. Nothing more. Artwrok and fanart are related to game content, not gaming. You are right to say that a culture has risen because of the game industrie but that doesn't mean that they are related.
Because then you are simply opening the door to other users posting images of Xmen and DBZ or of LOTR just because they have games attached to their franchises. It is simply senseless not making the distinction between gaming and game content.