Support NeoGAF

[Hostile_18]

I'm at the point now where unless it's someone with a track record I just ignore it.

Someone could post a rumour from Reddit or 4chan have no sources and it would get a 10 page thread here. Each to their own but people just set themselves up for disappointment (as I have done in the past).

I'm still waiting on my PS1-3 Backwards compatible PS5 with Soul Reaver remake Neogaf!

 

[ScaryBrandon]

What does this have to do with the thread? Nothing. Take your pathetic fanboyism somewhere else. Also, an 18% difference is negligible in real world performance. Get out of this thread and never return. You're a complete and utter disgrace to this thread.

We all know why you made this thread nicely timed with the latest RE8 leaks. And its 20-30% difference on paper depending on the ps5 variable clocks and even higher in practice as CUs matter more than clocks especially when it comes to ray tracing.

 

[BluRayHiDef]

What a shitty take, He is allowed his opinion the same as you are allowed yours.

That 18% on paper could be a lot less or a lot more in real life than on paper.

We haven’t seen a game running side by side yet, so unless you somehow think your opinion is better then his opinion, you should retract that.

It’s aggressive and unproven.

You're a complete and utter disgrace as well for continuing a topic that has nothing to do with this thread. Stay on topic.

We all know why you made this thread nicely timed with the latest RE8 leaks. And its 20-30% difference on paper depending on the ps5 variable clocks and even higher in practice as CUs matter more than clocks especially when it comes to ray tracing.

You're even more of a disgrace than you already were now that you've decided to continue to veer off topic. Leave this thread and never return; you're utterly reprehensible.

 

[FunkMiller]

I'd say it's more important for the denizens of forums like this to stop believing or posting the things these idiots are claiming. Starve them of oxygen and they'll curl up and die.

 

[Bojanglez]

No. Schools should probably just teach people how to think critically and not trust anything mentioned on social media unless they can establish that it is a source that can be trusted.

To me it is no different than listening to people in a pub. If some dude makes a claim I don't just trust it. I either ignore it or scrutinise it, before realising they are likely bullshitting and then ignore it.

 

[martino]

No. Schools should probably just teach people how to think critically and not trust anything mentioned on social media unless they can establish that it is a source that can be trusted.

To me it is no different than listening to people in a pub. If some dude makes a claim I don't just trust it. I either ignore it or scrutinise it, before realising they are likely bullshitting and then ignore it.

Amen
But post truth societies and social media algorithm teach us more how to confirm bias

 

[-Arcadia-]

Should Twitter and Facebook be my Mom and Dad?

Of course not. Not only are you an adult, capable of making a decision about what you want to see, we should now well understand the dire consequences of letting these social networks decide what we should be able to read.

That concept applies to much greater as well; never delegate to an authority, that which you can handle yourself.

 

[Kev Kev]

fuck you and your censorship

never censor anything. ever.

 

[BluRayHiDef]

fuck you and your censorship

never censor anything. ever.

You're a complete and utter disgrace to these forums, as you lack the self control to remain respectful and obey the rules. You're morally reprehensible.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use NeoGAF to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. Sexual, racial, or ethnic slurs will not be tolerated in any form and are bannable on the first offense. It is recommended that profanity be held to a minimum in order to keep the level of discourse high, and profanity should not be used when addressing others. Though NeoGAF is an international forum, discussion is to be held in English unless otherwise designated.

Source

Spoiler

 

[Explosive Zombie]

I think we should keep track of claims made by insiders and whether or not they turn out accurate and then if they try and make new claims but have been wrong a bunch of times we shame them... by saying shame to them...

 

[-Arcadia-]

You're a complete and utter disgrace to these forums, as you lack the self control to remain respectful and obey the rules. You're morally reprehensible.



Source

Spoiler

Between your Ree-style hot takes, increased agitation at having them criticized, and your attempts to beat people you don't like over the head with the rule book, instead of finding the fortitude to fight your own battles, I must say, you're painting a very unfavorable picture of yourself.

Kev Kev could stand to dial it down a few notches, but passion in the time of such censorship, and a call for more, is understandable. Further still, he's right.

 

[MMaRsu]

It leads to pandemonium and fanboy warring. It should be banned or moderated in some way.

pandemonium

lmao sure bud

 

[BluRayHiDef]

Between your Ree-style hot takes, increased agitation at having them criticized, and your attempts to beat people you don't like over the head with the rule book, instead of finding the fortitude to fight your own battles, I must say, you're painting a very unfavorable picture of yourself.

Kev Kev could stand to dial it down a few notches, but passion in the time of such censorship, and a call for more, is understandable. Further still, he's right.

Censorship is the suppression of material based on it being considered obscene, dissenting, or a threat to security. Hence, moderating material because it is unverified and potentially false is not censorship.

 

[Kev Kev]

Kev Kev could stand to dial it down a few notches

ok all jokes aside yeah maybe it was a bit much but the language i used is part of making my point. it seems like if OP had it his way, then those types of comments would be censored and users be banned. fuck that

 

[Kataploom]

I'm not in favor of banning anything. People should know better than believing shady sources just because they are thirsty. Journalists and influencers shouldn't spread bullshit information just because they depend on the news cycle, need engagement and they are unscrupulous. Unfortunately, none of this happens.

But I do think gaming companies don't legally pursue unwanted leaks hard enough. Somehow they are giving in to the notion prosecuting leakers is not cool and gives you bad publicity. I have two theories and I haven't decided yet which one is more plausible...

1) Most of the insider leaks are controlled or even encouraged by the companies
2) Most of the gaming companies are scared to death of the social media mob and the Streisand effect

This, putting responsability on other peoples acts for some others "going crazy" is giving governments reasons to censor EVERYTHING, instead of tell and teach people to be responsible with the information they read on internet and what they say about it.

If people want to console war, then let them do and move on to something else, we can't pretend things don't exist by hidding them, it sounds "wokesplaining" lol

 

[excaliburps]

Nah. I think it's fine. I know a lot of devs don't think reprting on leaks is "real news," but it is. I mean, we can't just recycle press releases and just post what they want us to post, no?

I do find it funny how so many "insiders" there is now. Like, everyone wants to be someone who's in the know, that they'd do anything which includes pilfering news from other people and passing it as their own. LOL!

 

[-Arcadia-]

Censorship is the suppression of material based on it being considered obscene, dissenting, or a threat to security. Hence, moderating material because it is unverified and potentially false is not censorship.

Well, that's the trick, isn't it? Throughout the history of the world, censorship almost always starts for the right reasons, but quickly becomes a rolling, out-of-control behemoth wrongly applied to every situation, either out of negligence or on purpose.

This very site you're on, as wonderful as it is now, was destroyed and razed down to its last member, because it started off with ideas about good censorship.

Unless we are to think that we can be the shining exception to this constant world history rule, a truly egocentric thought, the best plan is to always, always cut unnecessary censorship off at the knees.

Ask yourself, do we really need this censored? Other people deciding what we can see? Or do we need to be educate and empower people in dealing with random, unconfirmed information?

 

[BluRayHiDef]

Well, that's the trick, isn't it? Throughout the history of the world, censorship almost always starts for the right reasons, but quickly becomes a rolling, out-of-control behemoth wrongly applied to every situation, either out of negligence or on purpose.

This very site you're on, as wonderful as it is now, was destroyed and razed down to its last member, because it started off with ideas about good censorship.

Unless we are to think that we can be the shining exception to this constant world history rule, a truly egocentric thought, the best plan is to always, always cut unnecessary censorship off at the knees.

Ask yourself, do we really need this censored? Other people deciding what we can see? Or do we need to be educate and empower people in dealing with random, unconfirmed information?

It's as if you didn't even read the post of mine to which you replied. Hence, I repeat: Censorship is the suppression of material based on it being considered obscene, dissenting, or a threat to security. Hence, moderating material because it is unverified and potentially false is not censorship.

Conveying information that is purported to be secretive is not innately obscene, dissenting, or a threat to security. Hence, banning such conveying of information does not constitute censorship.

 

[-Arcadia-]

It's as if you didn't even read the post of mine to which you replied. Hence, I repeat: Censorship is the suppression of material based on it being considered obscene, dissenting, or a threat to security. Hence, moderating material because it is unverified and potentially false is not censorship.

Conveying information that is purported to be secretive is not innately obscene, dissenting, or a threat to security. Hence, banning such conveying of information does not constitute censorship.

Perhaps it's you yourself that should endeavor to read others' posts better and understand where they're coming from.

You have more than enough information to understand what I'm trying to tell you, but insist on adhering to an extremely limited, semantic version of censorship, preventing any and all discussion from going forward.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Moderating material because its POTENTIALLY false?

You can't do that besides these potential leaks of controllers and side panels being removable would never happen.

Just me but I like to think I have enough common sense to spot BS.

Plus if I see a thread title or the first few posts are just meant to antagonize a certain group of people I just ignore it.

I don't need or even want someone monitoring whats "potentially true" I can make my own decisions.

 

[Rikoi]

Censorship is the suppression of material based on it being considered obscene, dissenting, or a threat to security. Hence, moderating material because it is unverified and potentially false is not censorship.

Sorry but this is pure bullshit.
You think we should censor any claims that isn't backed by 100% proof? Who decides what's true and what it isn't, if there isn't proof of such claims?
We don't even censor flat earthers, and you want to censor claims that might be true?
POTENTIALLY false, means that it could be also TRUE, even if there is a 1% chance in this, it can still be said, because it might be the truth, and you have no right to censor it.
Only things that should be censored are those that could severely harm the population, and even this concept might be abused.