Support NeoGAF

[Kwixotik]

That's a dangerous path to go down isn't it? The "reasonable person" aka "community standards" justification for censorship? A "reasonable person" may also view hideously violent games as not worthy of discussion either, should those be banned too?

I'd never heard of this game until now so I've got no irons in this particular fire, but if the game is a legitimate western release that isn't AO rated or porn, doesn't banning discussion of it based on the distaste of some set a dangerous precedent? Also, I have to ask, wouldn't it be more constructive for the mod or mods shutting down discussion to actually explain why they are doing so rather than just anonymously closing topics?

I'm not really talking in terms of site policy. I'm more talking, on an individual level, you might consider questioning whether you want to be the dude playing erotic BDSM video games and discussing them without shame. I don't really care whether the site allows you the freedom to discuss it or not (though I would argue places like 4chan might be a more suitable place to discuss such games), I'm just asking individuals why they want to in the first place.

 

[L Thammy]

Or you know people could just not post if they don't have anything important or relevant to say.

People posting in a topic on a message board rarely consider how their post will affect the course of the topic or the message board as a whole. It's just how humans are.

I wasn't here during that time, but I heard about it.

He got demodded though, so I don't see the problem, the punishment sounds adequate. It would actually be a problem if he stayed as a mod.

Amir0x was demodded, but not for what he did in his role as a moderator. At least not directly.

 

[Santiako]

It's essentialy a porn game and these are the characters:

I mean, c'mon.

 

[Neiteio]

This is an important point.

Is the violence or sexuality in the game to serve a purpose in terms of advancing the story or setting a particular tone/atmosphere? Or is it gratuitous and simply in the game to appeal to a certain demographic? I don't find Mortal Kombat particularly compelling because of this (even if it is so incredibly over the top and not meant to be taken seriously).

That's why I find it interesting that the poster criticized me for liking The Last of Us, I don't come to the game for the murder and gore, I came to it for the engrossing story in which the violence was used as a vehicle for exposition.

If Criminal Girls tried to seriously tackle themes like underage sexual child abuse, I'd have absolutely zero issue with it. But we all know that's not the reason it's in the game....

Someone tried to paint you as a hypocrite for liking The Last of Us? That's not fair to you -or- the game. In TLoU, any and all murder committed on the part of the player is a desperate act of survival, or barring that, an act fueled by heated emotion. It's justified by the narrative and feeds into the harrowing experience that is so raw and real in TLoU. That's what I'd say to those people.

 

[Kyou]

Oh, no

The thread will be locked

They will become laughingstocks! How ever will they show their face in society again!

if the mods were merciful they'd just send killbots to the poster's house

 

[aspiegamer]

Well, thatd sucks if censorship of comercially available games would start around here.

I really think this could be a legitimate mark to have. If the ESRB/PEGI/CERB/whatever deem a game suitable for retail consumption for the general populace, it should be allowed to have a place at GAF in gaming general discussion. No need for subjective screams of "too violent" or "too sexual" where everyone has a different opinion and different rankings that way.

 

[terrisus]

Or is it gratuitous and simply in the game to appeal to a certain demographic? I don't find Mortal Kombat particularly compelling because of this (even if it is so incredibly over the top and not meant to be taken seriously).

Gratuitous and over-the-top violence and murder so that it's not meant to be taken seriously?

Would we have a thread about a game with "Gratuitous and over-the-top sex and sexual assault so that it's not meant to be taken seriously?"

 

[duckroll]

While no rule on NeoGAF can't change later, I do think that some guidance is in order on whether this is due to the game's content or the direction threads about it tend to go.

It can be both. In the most recent thread, I feel it was more of the latter. I wasn't directly involved with any moderation in the recent thread, but my view is that the problem it caused is that it was basically a thread about the censorship of the troubling aspects in the game. Such a discussion will naturally lead down a predictable direction - arguments about censorship in general, and further augments about whether such a game should exist in the first place. We can't really tell people not to defend a game or not to comment on how reprehensible the content is without basically saying "don't discuss the game", since that is the basis of the entire news piece presented in the thread. Hence locking the thread is really not out of the ordinary. But yes, the messaging can be better handled.

Having said that, I do think the content of some games are troubling enough that they may not really merit a platform for discussion here. It's definitely not an easy clear cut thing though, and probably merits more internal debate.

 

[Krejlooc]

How is anyone supposed to know what is or isn't allowed if decisions are made in an opaque manner seemingly based on personal distaste alone rather than clearly listed rules?

I really don't think this is rocket surgery. It should be obvious where the line is and what crosses it. I suggest you look up the accepted distinction between pornography and art (there is none, it's defined as societies whim). If the line somehow isn't clear enough for you, the mods luckily made it explicit which subject was not allowed to be spoken of.

 

[OceanBlue]

This is an important point.

Is the violence or sexuality in the game to serve a purpose in terms of advancing the story or setting a particular tone/atmosphere? Or is it gratuitous and simply in the game to appeal to a certain demographic? I don't find Mortal Kombat particularly compelling because of this (even if it is so incredibly over the top and not meant to be taken seriously).

That's why I find it interesting that the poster criticized me for liking The Last of Us, I don't come to the game for the murder and gore, I came to it for the engrossing story in which the violence was used as a vehicle for exposition.

If this game tried to seriously tackle themes like underage sexual child abuse, I'd have absolutely zero issue with it. But we all know that's not the reason it's in the game....

That poster isn't saying that the sex in those games exists to further characterization or anything like that. He or she is saying that the games have sex because they wouldn't sell without it.

 

[LinnyCkles]

At least this means Bioware threads will be locked for the very same reason. Their games are no better than those pervy and badly written Japanese games.

Say what?

 

[Watch Da Birdie]

I'm just asking individuals why they want to in the first place.

That's why I say leave those topics open.

I mean, if someone is gonna admit to playing that game, I say let 'em. Then everyone knows it and can promptly put them on ignore.

 

[Amir0x]

Were you around during Amir0x's reign of terror? The decisions of a single mod are not always best for the forum.

Ya'll are hilarious. I was not a good mod because I argued with everyone and couldn't keep my opinions to myself, and frequently derailed topics. But my actual -moderation- was fine. You guys don't know what goes on behind the scenes, I was extremely resolute in following most of the rules of moderation - cataloging bans, banning only for specific infractions of TOS, not banning people part of arguments with me unless they flung insults. I feel like I have to defend myself because you guys only see one side of the picture, and don't actually know who is handing down bans or locking threads when people get it.

I was not abusing my actual moderation powers until I edited my post. My problem as a mod came from my big mouth. It's hilarious that you even think I'm the poster child for this - we had a mod who literally let her boyfriend secretly use and ban people from the account, ban anyone in discussions about feminism. I'm not even the fourth most abusive mod we've ever had.

 

[Cymbal Head]

It seems like there's a lot of ambiguity here that could have been avoided if the mod that closed the thread had simply said why they were closing it. I don't begrudge the use of ModBot (lord knows I wouldn't want to have to deal with the PMs), but it shouldn't be a shield for insufficiently responsive moderation.

Edit: duckroll's post above is a model of responsive moderation

 

[Dash Kappei]

Tag quote incoming.

Tag quote incoming

 

[Thunder Monkey]

This is not a democracy.

We are in Evilore's home having a chat with tea. He's appointed an eclectic group of people to moderate the discussions taking place. If discussion of the more risque gaming software is what you want, you can go somewhere else to have it. Because it's not wanted in his home.

If it helps think of it like that. Well... honestly we should in all situations. Snark or vehement disagreement are acceptable. But those in power still decide what is conducive to debate and what isn't.

 

[unbias]

The only problem I see is they closed the topic without specifying current policy or new policy that comes with the closing of the topic. This is a private forum, they can do anything they want, however, closing a topic that isn't clear in violation of a certain standard should be clarified to remove confusion(since confusion doesn't serve in anyone's interest). Don't want it talked about? Fine with me, just please clarify the standard.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I really think this could be a legitimate mark to have. If the ESRB/PEGI/CERB/whatever deem a game suitable for retail consumption for the general populace, it should be allowed to have a place at GAF in gaming general discussion. No need for subjective screams of "too violent" or "too sexual" where everyone has a different opinion and different rankings that way.

Well, sure, if GAF were an entity for people to discuss any video game as deemed acceptable by the ESRB. But it's a private forum and an anything-goes mentality will eventually meet things that reflect poorly on it by virtue of that discussion.

Criminal Girls just happens to be that thing.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

I am glad we are able to have this discussion

I do feel a bit of what the OP is getting at still there is a line that Criminal Girls is crossing that would make me avoid threads discussing it. It depends on what type of community we all wish to have on NeoGAF

there are other forums for such tastes, H-gaming is a thing but I don't like games that are not honest about what they are and who they are targeting

 

[nynt9]

I think shutting down discussion of a commercially available game on a major system is absurd. Rapelay or downright H-games would never be allowed on a closed platform but this game is going to be available on PSN. I think in this case the closing of the thread is not justified.

Mind you, I don't personally approve of the game's content but my opinion on the game's quality or social acceptability does not matter.

 

[Griss]

The moderation on Neogaf is what makes it what it is, which is a really good place to discuss games. I have no problem with this whatsoever. Now, what the fuck actually is this game...

It's essentialy a porn game and these are the characters:

I mean, c'mon.

Wow. Wow. I guess I'll take number 3, she's like 100 years old or something, right?

Spoiler

Seriously get the fuck out of here with this shit, are you fucking kidding me? Are you kidding me?

 

[terrisus]

I am 100% OK with banning discussion about games that involve player controlled sexual assault of clearly underage looking girls from this forum.

And I am 100% OK with banning discussion about games that involve player controlled violent murder of other human beings from this forum.

Tag quote incoming

Tag quote incoming

 

[Seik]

It can be both. In the most recent thread, I feel it was more of the latter. I wasn't directly involved with any moderation in the recent thread, but my view is that the problem it caused is that it was basically a thread about the censorship of the troubling aspects in the game. Such a discussion will naturally lead down a predictable direction - arguments about censorship in general, and further augments about whether such a game should exist in the first place. We can't really tell people not to defend a game or not to comment on how reprehensible the content is without basically saying "don't discuss the game", since that is the basis of the entire news piece presented in the thread. Hence locking the thread is really not out of the ordinary. But yes, the messaging can be better handled.

Having said that, I do think the content of some games are troubling enough that they may not really merit a platform for discussion here. It's definitely not an easy clear cut thing though, and probably merits more internal debate.

Well it just makes sense. The game's content features seeing lots of skin of underage little girl.

I think this fact alone justifies the thread lock and shames anyone that will try to defend it.

And I am 100% OK with banning discussion about games that involve player controlled violent murder of other human beings from this forum.



Tag quote incoming

Please, man, tell me you're joking, my sarcasm meter is all broken these days.

It's not even worth a comparison.

 

[Vire]

Amir0x is too opinionated to be a mod, it's better this way trust me. He gets to be unfiltered this way.

 

[Sakura]

I really don't think this is rocket surgery. It should be obvious where the line is and what crosses it. I suggest you look up the accepted distinction between pornography and art (there is none, it's defined as societies whim). If the line somehow isn't clear enough for you, the mods luckily made it explicit which subject was not allowed to be spoken of.

If the ESRB is ok with it coming here, and doesn't even rate it 18+, then to me that says society is ok with it...

 

[Suzushiiro]

ok well that's fuckin weird then

To expand on this a bit- originally the visual novel medium was pretty much all about porn. Then you started having VNs that actually tried to tell good stories, but because the medium was originally all about porn and thus most of the target audience was at least not particularly bothered by it you had games like Kanon, Fate/Stay Night, and Muv-Luv that told serious stories but also included sex scenes (that you generally fast-forwarded through to get back to the story.) The more successful ones out of these games wound up getting console ports with the porn removed.

Now that the medium has become more popular with the mainstream (arguably primarily due to games like F/SN and ML,) these sorts of games have mostly faded away as VN developers who actually want to tell a story make "clean" games while VN developers who just want to make fap material keep doing what they've always been doing.

 

[L Thammy]

If Criminal Girls tried to seriously tackle themes like underage sexual child abuse, I'd have absolutely zero issue with it. But we all know that's not the reason it's in the game....

That's actually different from what I said. I said that for some games, the sex appeal is meant to draw consumers in, and then there is actual substance that is meant to keep them there. That could be a dramatic story or it could be solid gameplay. It doesn't tackle any sort of sexual themes. In other cases, there is sex appeal and absolutely nothing else of value. And, of course, there's all sorts of stuff in between.

 

[Settin]

Ya'll are hilarious. I was not a good mod because I argued with everyone and couldn't keep my opinions to myself, and frequently derailed topics. But my actual -moderation- was fine. You guys don't know what goes on behind the scenes, I was extremely resolute in following most of the rules of moderation - cataloging bans, not banning people part of arguments with me unless they flung insults. I feel like I have to defend myself because you guys only see one side of the picture, and don't actually know who is handing down bans or locking threads when people get it.

I was not abusing my actual moderation powers until I edited my post. My problem as a mod came from my big mouth. It's hilarious that you even think I'm the poster child for this - we had a mod who literally let her boyfriend secretly use and ban people from the account, ban anyone in discussions about feminism. I'm not even the fourth most abusive mod we've ever had.

Exactly, chief. A red name behaving in that manner in threads is intimidating because you have powers that we don't.
Also, this abusive mod you talk about was probably before my time on GAF. You're the best example I had

 

[Angelus Errare]

A long time ago, I read that someone on GAF would even resort to gun violence should any of these gamers come anywhere near his daughter or something similar to this.

Yea that guy was a bit extreme, but some of the posts in that particular thread were...creepy to say the least. I mean we had a few GAF members flat out admit they were pedophiles. I mean you gotta really be comfortable on GAF to admit something like that.

 

[Krejlooc]

If the ESRB is ok with it coming here, and doesn't even rate it 18+, then to me that says society is ok with it...

Do you know how ESRB ratings are handed out? They're not exactly thorough.

 

[ohlawd]

It's essentialy a porn game and these are the characters:

I mean, c'mon.

the girls on the left side could still pass off as 1000 year old dragons

the girl on the right side tho... her back must be killing her!

 

[Neiteio]

Ya'll are hilarious. I was not a good mod because I argued with everyone and couldn't keep my opinions to myself, and frequently derailed topics. But my actual -moderation- was fine. You guys don't know what goes on behind the scenes, I was extremely resolute in following most of the rules of moderation - cataloging bans, not banning people part of arguments with me unless they flung insults. I feel like I have to defend myself because you guys only see one side of the picture, and don't actually know who is handing down bans or locking threads when people get it.

I was not abusing my actual moderation powers until I edited my post. My problem as a mod came from my big mouth. It's hilarious that you even think I'm the poster child for this - we had a mod who literally let her boyfriend secretly use and ban people from the account, ban anyone in discussions about feminism. I'm not even the fourth most abusive mod we've ever had.

I'll back you up on this. I remember you took issue with my unbridled enthusiasm at times (I.E. the 3DS, etc), but I never felt like you used your mod powers against me, and if you ever thought something was getting out of hand, you actually contacted me in private about it to share your concern, which is more than I can say for some mods here. So yeah, I think you were fine as a mod. I just think it was a bit intimidating for everyone because your name was red and your opinions were strong, and that made people afraid to have a dialogue sometimes (for fear there was a risk of retribution).

 

[ponpo]

Well it just makes sense. The game's content features seeing lots of skin of underage little girl.

I think this fact alone justifies the thread lock and shames anyone that will try to defend it.

No justification from me, I think there is just not much consistency as of now. Again, THIS (NWS) is from Demon Gaze which has an OT. A lot of upcoming titles feature content just as questionable as Criminal Girls. If you want all discussion on said games to be banned fine, but at least clarify.

 

[Geneijin]

Well, I've done both. Further, not everyone is the same. Sometimes, I don't mind putting my name behind a decision so as to say "if anyone doesn't like it, I'm the one that closed this thread." Other times, I might want to type out an explanation that's too long for ModBot message, so that's why the personal touch is used. Other times, we're just acting on behalf of the moderation policy at large and would rather it not look like an individual decision. Not wanting to be singled out with user responses may also factor into it.

Then what's the preexisting moderation policy for this if the other times for using ModBot is to reinforce such a policy? And if ModBot wasn't used to reinforce a GAF moderation policy, then what was the individual reason for closing the thread in the first place? If discussion for a specific game is banned outright, it would be convenient to know why to avoid similar mishaps if it's against an already established moderation policy, wouldn't it?

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I mean we had a few GAF members flat out admit they were pedophiles.

Man

That happens more than you think these days

I had to eventually stop following NeoGAFShitPosts because there would be a link to a "I love Shauna's tan booty!" post every day.

 

[Vire]

That's actually different from what I said. I said that for some games, the sex appeal is meant to draw consumers in, and then there is actual substance that is meant to keep them there. It doesn't tackle and sort of sexual themes. In other cases, there is sex appeal and absolutely nothing else of value. And, of course, there's all sorts of stuff in between.

Right right, I'm agreeing with you essentially. This game in particular falls into the "sex appeal being in the game simply to draw in consumers with no value" category.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

My opinion is if a game has merits beyond any pornographic stuff on the surface, then a thread should be made if people are interested in discussing said merits. If it's a straight-up porn game like Rapelay or Battle Raper or whatever, is there really much to discuss?

On the other hand, this is a tough question because people find merits beyond author intent and all that. I would say go with the consensus on certain things, but even that might be unfair to the minority.

I guess a safe bet is to allow OTs of games that have at least been rated by the ESRB. Anything beyond that should be a case by case thing.

 

[Griss]

And I am 100% OK with banning discussion about games that involve player controlled violent murder of other human beings from this forum.

I probably shouldn't respond, but here goes anyway.

There are certain contexts where violence is appropriate or acceptable, such as self-defence, defence of the weak and innocent or defence of your country etc. Games tend to be based around these kinds of conflicts, rather than existing for the pleasure of actually getting to murder people.

There is no context in which the molestation of children is necessary for anything. The only point to it is sexual gratification of a pedophilic urge, and basically... fuck that.

 

[Amir0x]

Exactly, chief. A red name behaving in that manner in threads is intimidating because you have powers that we don't.

That's not abusing my power as a mod though; debating as a mod is allowed, so is arguing. It's just it derailed threads and I would KEEP replying over and over again, and sometimes I'd get so stubborn and say things so crassly that people would start to get offended. I wasn't "abusing" my moderation, I just wasn't a good fit for being a mod because I am way too opinionated and stubborn. But my 'decisions' as a mod were not actually breaking any rules, until the editing fiasco (which I totally deserved to be demodded for; and I deserved to have left moderation earlier because I had discussed my opinionated attitude with Evilore like 30x and should have realized I couldn't keep it contained). I followed the TOS for bans pretty explicitly. There were a few exceptions, every mod occasionally bans someone where other mods say 'well maybe we should be a bit more lenient here or there', but my problem was different.

That you feared me is something I can take responsibility for, but I did not ban people for getting into debates for me. On one or two occasions I would even message other mods to watch the discussions in case someone needed a ban because I didn't want to judge a ban in a conversation I was apart of.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Yea that guy was a bit extreme, but some of the posts in that particular thread were...creepy to say the least. I mean we had a few GAF members flat out admit they were pedophiles.

Banning discussion that creeps people out on a personal level would lead to entire community threads to vanish. Then you have to decide who's personal tastes to shape the rules after.

 

[terrisus]

Please, man, tell me you're joking, my sarcasm meter is all broken these days.

Joking about murder, torture, and other things such as that being reprehensible, and that if we're going to be banning discussion of reprehensible things here, we should deal with that as well?

Not really, no.

 

[Toxi]

And I am 100% OK with banning discussion about games that involve player controlled violent murder of other human beings from this forum.

Goombas and Moblins are okay though.

 

[Tomat]

I hope EviLore makes an appearance.

 

[Seik]

Ya'll are hilarious. I was not a good mod because I argued with everyone and couldn't keep my opinions to myself, and frequently derailed topics. But my actual -moderation- was fine. You guys don't know what goes on behind the scenes, I was extremely resolute in following most of the rules of moderation - cataloging bans, banning only for specific infractions of TOS, not banning people part of arguments with me unless they flung insults. I feel like I have to defend myself because you guys only see one side of the picture, and don't actually know who is handing down bans or locking threads when people get it.

I was not abusing my actual moderation powers until I edited my post. My problem as a mod came from my big mouth. It's hilarious that you even think I'm the poster child for this - we had a mod who literally let her boyfriend secretly use and ban people from the account, ban anyone in discussions about feminism. I'm not even the fourth most abusive mod we've ever had.

Good to hear from the source. I hope you didn't take my post from earlier personally because it was just based on things I heard, as I said, I wasn't there during these times.

You're a nice guy, as far as I know, so far.

 

[Saikyo]

The game has a jrpg system, the "punishment" thing is not the focus.

If the game is already rated by ESRB what was the problem?

 

[InfiniteNine]

No justification from me, I think there is just not much consistency as of now. Again, THIS (NWS) is from Demon Gaze which has an OT. A lot of upcoming titles feature content just as questionable as Criminal Girls. If you want all discussion on said games to be banned fine, but at least clarify.

I made an OT/ News threads for a few R-18 games and my Translated VN thread contains many R-18 games in the OP that are discussed and recommend to people as well, so what I want to know is this no longer okay?

 

[Gamerloid]

And I am 100% OK with banning discussion about games that involve player controlled violent murder of other human beings from this forum.

Killing baddies to advance plot vs sexualizing children for erotic pleasure... Your argument doesn't compare.

 

[Settin]

That's not abusing my power as a mod though; debating as a mod is allowed, so is arguing. It's just it derailed threads and I would KEEP replying over and over again, and sometimes I'd get so stubborn and say things so crassly that people would start to get offended. I wasn't "abusing" my moderation, I just wasn't a good fit for being a mod because I am way too opinionated and stubborn. But my 'decisions' as a mod were not actually breaking any rules, until the editing fiasco (which I totally deserved to be demodded for; and I deserved to have left moderation earlier because I had discussed my opinionated attitude with Evilore like 30x and should have realized I couldn't keep it contained). I followed the TOS for bans pretty explicitly. There were a few exceptions, every mod occasionally bans someone where other mods say 'well maybe we should be a bit more lenient here or there', but my problem was different.

That you feared me is something I can take responsibility for, but I did not ban people for getting into debates for me. On one or two occasions I would even message other mods to watch the discussions in case someone needed a ban because I didn't want to judge a ban in a conversation I was apart of.

It's really my hang-up to fear authority in some way, but that doesn't change the tone of those threads.
Edit: for clairty, any thread in which a mod posts has its tone altered.

 

[terrisus]

There are certain contexts where violence is appropriate or acceptable, such as self-defence, defence of the weak and innocent or defence of your country etc.

Sure, this is definitely true.

Games tend to be based around these kinds of conflicts, rather than existing for the pleasure of actually getting to murder people.

But, there are many games which do not fit into those categories, which do feature murder, torture, etc. "for the pleasure of it," and yet discussion of them is allowed here.

 

[Tohsaka]

I probably shouldn't respond, but here goes anyway.

There are certain contexts where violence is appropriate or acceptable, such as self-defence, defence of the weak and innocent or defence of your country etc. Games tend to be based around these kinds of conflicts, rather than existing for the pleasure of actually getting to murder people.

There is no context in which the molestation of children is necessary for anything. The only point to it is sexual gratification of a pedophilic urge, and basically... fuck that.

A lot of the most popular and best-selling ones, like GTA, aren't though. Those games are about glorifying the criminal lifestyle for the most part.