Modern Steam Moderating is a JOKE

All Discussions > Steam Forums > Steam Discussions > Topic Details

Cynical Terrorist 5 Sep @ 5:00pm

Modern Steam Moderating is a JOKE

Or should I say woke? 5 years ago Steam was pretty laid back and allowed freedom of speech and let threads actually discuss things in a fashionable sense, but now they delete and censor anything that remotely offends at all, then wave the terms and conditions when I doubt they have even read it themselves.

A great example of this is the moderating on Witcher 3 forums, you can't even say anything remotely negative or critical (keep in mind he isnt even of the dev team) without the steam appointed moderator getting worked up, locking or deleting the thread, and claiming it's all trolling when it's more accurate that his feelings got hurt over someone offering criticism. This isn't a way to moderate at all, moderating should balance keeping things civil and allowing sensible free speech, and when you allow moderators to operate based off their own biases then discussions become a joke.

That is just an example of an appointed moderator, but I personally got hit with warnings and bans for basically the most abstract possible way I could have "violated" the TOS, when it's clear the moderator was just butthurt I was criticizing RDR2. (All I did was point out how the other poster was getting upset and should calm down in a discussion over RDR2's quality)

Back in the day steam mods were alright, but now they are on par with reddit mods, issuing bans and warning for the dumbest reasons, probably because nowadays steam hires moderators from those woke communist countries in the EU that are used to censoring free speech rather than freedom loving people who are sensible.

Last edited by Cynical Terrorist; 5 Sep @ 5:01pm

< >

Showing 1-15 of 155 comments

Shreddy 5 Sep @ 5:03pm

The Witcher 3 is a great game but it was made by CDPR who went extremely woke since then and now heavily censor their forums and reviews to maintain an echo chamber. I think I am banned from every single game forum they have. Unfortunately steam allows game devs to run their forums however they want so there is no objective rule set to stick to and avoid being banned. It’s best to not post on game forums and just stick to these steam forums where there are objective rules and standards.

Last edited by Shreddy; 5 Sep @ 5:03pm

C²C^Guyver |NZB| 23 hours ago

Your memory sucks. Freedom of speech has never existed here or on the old SPUF. As Valve is a private company and such companies don't have to adhere to free speech laws. Freedom of Speech means the GOVERNMENT cannot put you in jail for things you say.

Shreddy 23 hours ago

Originally posted by C²C^Guyver |NZB|:
Your memory sucks. Freedom of speech has never existed here or on the old SPUF. As Valve is a private company and such companies don't have to adhere to free speech laws. Freedom of Speech means the GOVERNMENT cannot put you in jail for things you say.

OP references sensible free speech which is completely reasonable and exists on most forums, you are attempting to strawman the argument by comparing it to “freedom of speech” in a political sense which isn’t what’s being discussed at all.

Animus 23 hours ago

You're not owed a platform on which to besmirch or insult others, or their products.

C²C^Guyver |NZB| 23 hours ago

Originally posted by Shreddy:
Originally posted by C²C^Guyver |NZB|:
Your memory sucks. Freedom of speech has never existed here or on the old SPUF. As Valve is a private company and such companies don't have to adhere to free speech laws. Freedom of Speech means the GOVERNMENT cannot put you in jail for things you say.
OP references sensible free speech which is completely reasonable and exists on most forums, you are attempting to strawman the argument by comparing it to “freedom of speech” in a political sense which isn’t what’s being discussed at all.

As I was a forum moderator and server admin for over 10 years, I can assure you, you're wrong. Game devs can run their spaces as they see fit. They paid for the space. Break rules and you get shown the door. Go ranting or mouthing off in brick and motor store and see what happens.

You have NEVER had a RIGHT to say as you please here. EVER.

Last edited by C²C^Guyver |NZB|; 23 hours ago

KarlThorsten89 23 hours ago

Most game discussion boards hire people that are not from Valve, but work for the publisher or developer of that game. Valve has a few hundred people, maybe about a thousand at most if I recall correctly. That's not a lot of people these days, especially for a company and game client with such massive success.

So expect each game community to be managed very differently, and very restrictive at times.

Cynical Terrorist 23 hours ago

Originally posted by C²C^Guyver |NZB|:
Originally posted by Shreddy:
OP references sensible free speech which is completely reasonable and exists on most forums, you are attempting to strawman the argument by comparing it to “freedom of speech” in a political sense which isn’t what’s being discussed at all.
As I was a forum moderator and server admin for over 10 years, I can assure you, you're wrong. Game devs can run their spaces as they see fit. They paid for the space. Break rules and you get shown the door. Go ranting or mouthing off in brick and motor store and see what happens.

You have NEVER had a RIGHT to say as you please here. EVER.

This kind of attitude right here should immediately disqualify people like you from being a moderator. The problem is the rules are so loosely interpreted that anything is used as an excuse to ban or warn, with no actual reference to where in the TOS is being broken.

Maybe instead of white knighting for censorship you could actually experience freedom of speech by listening to people.

Animus 23 hours ago

Originally posted by Cynical Terrorist:
Originally posted by C²C^Guyver |NZB|:
As I was a forum moderator and server admin for over 10 years, I can assure you, you're wrong. Game devs can run their spaces as they see fit. They paid for the space. Break rules and you get shown the door. Go ranting or mouthing off in brick and motor store and see what happens.

You have NEVER had a RIGHT to say as you please here. EVER.

This kind of attitude right here should immediately disqualify people like you from being a moderator. The problem is the rules are so loosely interpreted that anything is used as an excuse to ban or warn, with no actual reference to where in the TOS is being broken.

Maybe instead of white knighting for censorship you could actually experience freedom of speech by listening to people.

There's a difference between freedom of speech, and free speech.

Neither are without consequence, or being shown the door if the property owner doesn't like what you have to say.

Cynical Terrorist 23 hours ago

Originally posted by Animus:
Originally posted by Cynical Terrorist:

This kind of attitude right here should immediately disqualify people like you from being a moderator. The problem is the rules are so loosely interpreted that anything is used as an excuse to ban or warn, with no actual reference to where in the TOS is being broken.

Maybe instead of white knighting for censorship you could actually experience freedom of speech by listening to people.
There's a difference between freedom of speech, and free speech.

Neither are without consequence, or being shown the door if the property owner doesn't like what you have to say.

so basically you're advocating for how some sub-reddits are moderated? All at the mods discretion, meaning any bias is fine? Great, we'll just have a forum of sycophants.

Saying a game sucks shouldn't warrant harrassment by moderators, and I mean actual steam mods not just the appointed ones per forum.

Last edited by Cynical Terrorist; 23 hours ago

Animus 23 hours ago

Originally posted by Cynical Terrorist:
Originally posted by Animus:
There's a difference between freedom of speech, and free speech.

Neither are without consequence, or being shown the door if the property owner doesn't like what you have to say.

so basically you're advocating for how some sub-reddits are moderated? All at the mods discretion, meaning any bias is fine? Great, we'll just have a forum of sycophants like yourself.

Saying a game sucks shouldn't warrant harrassment by moderators, and I mean actual steam mods not just the appointed ones per forum.

Not advocating for or against anything. Merely explaining how they work, which has always been this way.

Namecalling the moment you don't get feedback you like kinda cements the warning and bans might be more on the correct side of things however.

Criticism should remain constructive. "Game sucks, devs suck" isn't constructive in the slightest.

The law allows this, it allows businesses to own private property, websites included. Which also allows them to set the rules on their platforms no matter how arbitrary, so as long as it's not aimed at protected demographics.

Last edited by Animus; 23 hours ago

#10

Cynical Terrorist 23 hours ago

Originally posted by Animus:
Originally posted by Cynical Terrorist:

so basically you're advocating for how some sub-reddits are moderated? All at the mods discretion, meaning any bias is fine? Great, we'll just have a forum of sycophants like yourself.

Saying a game sucks shouldn't warrant harrassment by moderators, and I mean actual steam mods not just the appointed ones per forum.
Not advocating for or against anything. Merely explaining how they work, which has always been this way.

Namecalling the moment you don't get feedback you like kinda cements the warning and bans might be more on the correct side of things however.

Criticism should remain constructive. "Game sucks, devs suck" isn't constructive in the slightest.

I literally had paragraphs outlining my complaints for RDR2, but gatekeeping criticism is exactly what I'm talking about here.

I'm merely pointing out how you're just emptily advocating for the system without just cause.

Besides, you came in yourself with aggression towards my stance.

Yeah, and the law all allows liberals to slander our president too, but at the very least we abide by it because we respect free speech. Valve is offering a service, and at some point the government should step in and consider it a form of social media, to which freedom of speech must be applied.

Last edited by Cynical Terrorist; 23 hours ago

#11

Animus 23 hours ago

Originally posted by Cynical Terrorist:
Originally posted by Animus:
Not advocating for or against anything. Merely explaining how they work, which has always been this way.

Namecalling the moment you don't get feedback you like kinda cements the warning and bans might be more on the correct side of things however.

Criticism should remain constructive. "Game sucks, devs suck" isn't constructive in the slightest.

I literally had paragraphs outlining my complaints for RDR2, but gatekeeping criticism is exactly what I'm talking about here.

I'm merely pointing out how you're just emptily advocating for the system without just cause.

Besides, you came in yourself with aggression towards my stance.

I'm not advocating for or against, as cited before. Merely explaining how it has always been.

If you dislike companies having the ability to set arbitrary rules for their private properties, vote.

#12

Cynical Terrorist 23 hours ago

Originally posted by Animus:
Originally posted by Cynical Terrorist:

I literally had paragraphs outlining my complaints for RDR2, but gatekeeping criticism is exactly what I'm talking about here.

I'm merely pointing out how you're just emptily advocating for the system without just cause.

Besides, you came in yourself with aggression towards my stance.
I'm not advocating for or against, as cited before. Merely explaining how it has always been.

If you dislike companies having the ability to set arbitrary rules for their private properties, vote.

And yet they don't even abide by their rules? I'm sorry mate but at this point it is just sycophancy. Most forums aren't run this way.

#13

Animus 23 hours ago

Originally posted by Cynical Terrorist:
Originally posted by Animus:
I'm not advocating for or against, as cited before. Merely explaining how it has always been.

If you dislike companies having the ability to set arbitrary rules for their private properties, vote.

And yet they don't even abide by their rules? I'm sorry mate but at this point it is just sycophancy. Most forums aren't run this way.

Yet, again, their property. Their freedom to do so.

Which is why voting is important, so maybe someone somewhere will hold corporations accountable to their behaviors.

Facts do not equate to sycophancy.

#14

Cynical Terrorist 22 hours ago

Originally posted by Animus:
Originally posted by Cynical Terrorist:

And yet they don't even abide by their rules? I'm sorry mate but at this point it is just sycophancy. Most forums aren't run this way.
Yet, again, their property. Their freedom to do so.

Which is why voting is important, so maybe someone somewhere will hold corporations accountable to their behaviors.

Facts do not equate to sycophancy.

Facts are facts, but the way you're using them leads one to believe it is sycophancy, tell me why are you arguing so hard for the big corporation?

At the end of the day forums should only be moderated against threats, spam, and actual in fighting. Not on the arbitrary whims of moderators. This has nothing to do with company policy and everything to do with individual moderators being completely unqualified for the part.

#15

< >

Showing 1-15 of 155 comments

Per page: 1530 50

All Discussions > Steam Forums > Steam Discussions > Topic Details

Date Posted: 5 Sep @ 5:00pm

Posts: 155

Start a New Discussion