Hatred is back on Steam Greenlight, Gabe Newell apologies.

[Guest Kloaked]

When things like this happen and I read all the comments in forums like these,  it makes me wonder if there is a limit to what people will accept? whether there is a line that the most people will draw and say, "no, you've gone too far"?

 

Clearly it is not this game, maybe it will be a game where children are being raped or something as equally horrid like that.  To be honest I don't know that I want to live in a world where people find that sort of thing entertaining.

 

To actually respond to what you said and not put words in your mouth,

 

I don't think there's a limit. There's sections of Reddit and 4Chan that I think should be obliterated from existence since they are just overly gross and inhuman in my opinion, but therein lies freedom of speech which will always be argued.

 

While I am all for freedom of speech, I do think there is a line we shouldn't cross in the freedom of expression. 

[SpaceCore]

When things like this happen and I read all the comments in forums like these,  it makes me wonder if there is a limit to what people will accept? whether there is a line that the most people will draw and say, "no, you've gone too far"?

 

Clearly it is not this game, maybe it will be a game where children are being raped or something as equally horrid like that.  To be honest I don't know that I want to live in a world where people find that sort of thing entertaining.

The current world you find yourself in thinks Kim Kardashian is entertainment.

I also don't want to live in this world.

[BloodySinner]

Good. I plan on buying it. Looks like fun.

[mr moose]

The interesting thing here, after reading the replies, is that it seems many of you can't separate you're abhorrence for censorship and desire for freedom of expression from the concept of inappropriate. We all agree there should be no such thing as censorship (this is a civil right), however the simple question is, is there a point that is too far?  What would it look like? what would it take to get you to a personal dichotomy where your convictions between freedom and moral/ethical appropriateness oppose each other?

 

Keep in mind it is not hypocrisy, as hypocrisy is an ignorant/arrogant issue, this is a conflict of belief systems with no real solution.

[othertomperson]

And as much as I don't like the game (it just doesn't look fun) it is very good that it is back, Valve shouldn't arbitrarly decide which games are allowed on the platform

 

You don't think Valve should have a say what games are on their store, that they sell?

 

 

The interesting thing here, after reading the replies, is that it seems many of you can't separate you're abhorrence for censorship and desire for freedom of expression from the concept of inappropriate. We all agree there should be no such thing as censorship (this is a civil right), however the simple question is, is there a point that is too far?  What would it look like? what would it take to get you to a personal dichotomy where your convictions between freedom and moral/ethical appropriateness oppose each other?

 

Keep in mind it is not hypocrisy, as hypocrisy is an ignorant/arrogant issue, this is a conflict of belief systems with no real solution.

 

 

Censorship has nothing to do with it. No government intervened, no authorities were involved. A company made the decision that it wasn't comfortable associating its brand with a product so they pulled it. They've since gone back on it, but that's a move every corporate entity should be entitled to do.

[Guest Kloaked]

You don't think Valve should have a say what games are on their store, that they sell?

 

 

 

 

Censorship has nothing to do with it. No government intervened, no authorities were involved. A company made the decision that it wasn't comfortable associating its brand with a product so they pulled it. They've since gone back on it, but that's a move every corporate entity should be entitled to do.

 

Except Valve is selling games that are arguably just as bad.

 

The audience of this issue (including myself) were unsure about the lack of consistency. If Valve doesn't want to sell super violent games, they don't have to and no one would be able to rightfully condemn them. However, when they're selling games like Postal and Grand Theft Auto and choose to take Hatred off of listing is when it becomes an issue. I think it's more than just inconsistency here - I believe someone at Valve who had the strings to pull Hatred off of Steam were siding with the people who were making the absurd accusations toward the developers.

[mr moose]

You don't think Valve should have a say what games are on their store, that they sell?

 

 

 

 

Censorship has nothing to do with it. No government intervened, no authorities were involved. A company made the decision that it wasn't comfortable associating its brand with a product so they pulled it. They've since gone back on it, but that's a move every corporate entity should be entitled to do.

 

Censorship is the prevention of a person from accessing a product, service or content.  It does not have to be total or absolute, it can be partial and temporary and it does not have to be instigated buy a government or authority.  Valve removing the game was censorship. Most of the comments quoting my post included references to censorship as supporting rational to their opinion.

 

In this case it is a valid part of the discussion, although I think most of us already agree we don't like it.   I would like to know peoples thoughts outside of civil rights and freedoms (and thus outside of censorship). 

[othertomperson]

Except Valve is selling games that are arguably just as bad.

 

The audience of this issue (including myself) were unsure about the lack of consistency. If Valve doesn't want to sell super violent games, they don't have to and no one would be able to rightfully condemn them. However, when they're selling games like Postal and Grand Theft Auto and choose to take Hatred off of listing is when it becomes an issue. I think it's more than just inconsistency here - I believe someone at Valve who had the strings to pull Hatred off of Steam were siding with the people who were making the absurd accusations toward the developers.

 

So? Do they even need a reason to not sell a product if they don't want? People in this thread are being so ridiculously entitled about what one company did in their own shop.

 

 

it can be partial and temporary and it does not have to be instigated buy a government or authority

 

It does for the absurd Libertarian/FREEDOM argument to hold any water.

[mr moose]

So? Do they even need a reason to not sell a product if they don't want? People in this thread are being so ridiculously entitled about what one company did in their own shop.

 

 

 

 

It does for the absurd Libertarian/FREEDOM argument to hold any water.

what? what libertarian/freedom argument in this thread requires a government imposed censorship to be valid? 

 

 

In the context of this discussion people are claiming that personal morals should not be the cause of censorship.  I don't think there are many who disagree.  I have no idea what limitation you place on the definition of censorship, but it has little place in this discussion.

[Guest Kloaked]

So? Do they even need a reason to not sell a product if they don't want? People in this thread are being so ridiculously entitled about what one company did in their own shop.

 

It's the consistency that matters. To basically repeat myself, if your store is selling violent games and you choose to take down another game that's similar to what you continue to sell, that's when it becomes an issue. No real reason was given to take it down, so one could assume it was due to the media attention the game was getting and someone at Valve sympathized with those who were speaking against the game and it's developers.

 

No one is arguing about whether or not Valve can choose what they sell. Target is in the same boat with Grand Theft Auto. They can sell what they want, but them taking GTA off of the shelves seems kinda pointless and inconsistent with their other sales of violent and gory movies.

 

The real issue is the consistency, not whether or not a company can choose what they sell.

[othertomperson]

 

what? what libertarian/freedom argument in this thread requires a government imposed censorship to be valid? 

 

 

In the context of this discussion people are claiming that personal morals should not be the cause of censorship.  I don't think there are many who disagree.  I have no idea what limitation you place on the definition of censorship, but it has little place in this discussion.

 

Of course it does. Otherwise it's just a company moving furniture in their own house, instead of government forcibly moving your furniture. There's a huge difference and it is massively relevant to this discussion. It's the difference between the state preventing its citizens from saying things, and the moderating team on this forum enforcing a TOS with warnings and bans. It's stupid to conflate the two as being the same thing.

 

Compare with the situation in Australia where the state decides that games like this shouldn't be available to its citizens, and rather than individual shops not wanting to sell those games. How they remotely comparable?

 

It's the consistency that matters. To basically repeat myself, if your store is selling violent games and you choose to take down another game that's similar to what you continue to sell, that's when it becomes an issue. No real reason was given to take it down, so one could assume it was due to the media attention the game was getting and someone at Valve sympathized with those who were speaking against the game and it's developers.

 

No one is arguing about whether or not Valve can choose what they sell. Target is in the same boat with Grand Theft Auto. They can sell what they want, but them taking GTA off of the shelves seems kinda pointless and inconsistent with their other sales of violent and gory movies.

 

The real issue is the consistency, not whether or not a company can choose what they sell.

 

They can pull any game at any time and for no reason. Consistency has nothing to do with it.

[Guest Kloaked]

 

 

 

Of course it does. Otherwise it's just a company moving furniture in their own house, instead of government forcibly moving your furniture. There's a huge difference and it is massively relevant to this discussion. It's the difference between the state preventing its citizens from saying things, and the moderating team on this forum enforcing a TOS with warnings and bans. It's stupid to conflate the two as being the same thing.

 

Compare with the situation in Australia where the state decides that games like this shouldn't be available to its citizens, and rather than individual shops not wanting to sell those games. How they remotely comparable?

 

 

They can pull any game at any time and for no reason. Consistency has nothing to do with it.

 

 

[Lewellyn]

 

 

 

Of course it does. Otherwise it's just a company moving furniture in their own house, instead of government forcibly moving your furniture. There's a huge difference and it is massively relevant to this discussion. It's the difference between the state preventing its citizens from saying things, and the moderating team on this forum enforcing a TOS with warnings and bans. It's stupid to conflate the two as being the same thing.

 

Compare with the situation in Australia where the state decides that games like this shouldn't be available to its citizens, and rather than individual shops not wanting to sell those games. How they remotely comparable?

 

 

They can pull any game at any time and for no reason. Consistency has nothing to do with it.

 

 

So you would be ok with a mod on LTT going AGAINST the TOS, muting you, because they didn't like your opinion, not because you did anything wrong? Seems like you have a problem understanding the backbone of the consistency argument.

[mr moose]

 

 

 

Of course it does. Otherwise it's just a company moving furniture in their own house, instead of government forcibly moving your furniture. There's a huge difference and it is massively relevant to this discussion. It's the difference between the state preventing its citizens from saying things, and the moderating team on this forum enforcing a TOS with warnings and bans. It's stupid to conflate the two as being the same thing.

 

Compare with the situation in Australia where the state decides that games like this shouldn't be available to its citizens, and rather than individual shops not wanting to sell those games. How they remotely comparable?

 

 

They can pull any game at any time and for no reason. Consistency has nothing to do with it.

 

 

They are both censorship,  No one is talking about the government or state.  Why even bring that into it?  If a company decides not to sell a specific product then that is a form of censorship.

 

You seem to be hung up on the idea that censorship can only occur if a government instigates it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

[LAwLz]

The interesting thing here, after reading the replies, is that it seems many of you can't separate you're abhorrence for censorship and desire for freedom of expression from the concept of inappropriate. We all agree there should be no such thing as censorship (this is a civil right), however the simple question is, is there a point that is too far?  What would it look like? what would it take to get you to a personal dichotomy where your convictions between freedom and moral/ethical appropriateness oppose each other?

 

Keep in mind it is not hypocrisy, as hypocrisy is an ignorant/arrogant issue, this is a conflict of belief systems with no real solution.

Anything that does not involve realty in any way is okay in my book. As soon as they start torturing someone to produce the game then it's no longer okay.

I am pretty sure the pain point for most people will be when it involves violence against children. I don't even think GTA allows you to kill children for some reason.

There would probably have been a far bigger uproar if Hared took place on an elementary school.

Oh, there is an idea for Hatred 2.

[othertomperson]

 

So you would be ok with a mod on LTT going AGAINST the TOS, muting you, because they didn't like your opinion, not because you did anything wrong? Seems like you have a problem understanding the backbone of the consistency argument.

 

Not entirely sure how that is a direct result of LTT having a TOS, which is what I said, but SURE WHATEVER.

 

I don't have a problem understanding consistency. I've just said repeatedly that you don't have a right to enforce it on Valve's store.

 

They are both censorship,  No one is talking about the government or state.  Why even bring that into it?  If a company decides not to sell a specific product then that is a form of censorship.

 

You seem to be hung up on the idea that censorship can only occur if a government instigates it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

 

I'm hung up on the fact that actions of a store in their own store do not affect your rights as an individual and that's what the entire issue of censorship is even about.

 

Your position of trying to police what private corporations must sell, whether it be in accordance or against their own morality and is an affront to the concept of free enterprise.

[Lewellyn]

 

 

 

Not entirely sure how that is a direct result of LTT having a TOS, which is what I said, but SURE WHATEVER.

 

I don't have a problem understanding consistency. I've just said repeatedly that you don't have a right to enforce it on Valve's store.

 

 

I'm hung up on the fact that actions of a store in their own store do not affect your rights as an individual and that's what the entire issue of censorship is even about.

 

Your position of trying to police what private corporations must sell, whether it be in accordance or against their own morality and is an affront to the concept of free enterprise.

 

 

I'm having a real hard time trying to understand how someone can be so downright dishonest. Every single person that has responded to you has said the same thing, that Valve or any other seller has the right to define what it will and will not sell but it doesn't have a right to arbitrarily and hypocritically enforce personal moral standards on what it sells. Are you misrepresenting the argument on purpose? Because that is what sure as hell looks like to me.

[mr moose]

 

 

 

Not entirely sure how that is a direct result of LTT having a TOS, which is what I said, but SURE WHATEVER.

 

I don't have a problem understanding consistency. I've just said repeatedly that you don't have a right to enforce it on Valve's store.

 

 

I'm hung up on the fact that actions of a store in their own store do not affect your rights as an individual and that's what the entire issue of censorship is even about.

 

Your position of trying to police what private corporations must sell, whether it be in accordance or against their own morality and is an affront to the concept of free enterprise.

 

 

where on earth did you get the impression I am trying to police what private corporations sell?  Have you been reading this thread or are you just reacting to the concepts?

 

No one is trying to force valve to do anything, they are merely aggravated by the decision to pull the game and condone the decision to re-instate it.  Their rational for this is because they do not believe a corporation should be inconsistent and that a corporation should not place moral censorship upon it's customers. You have seriously misinterpreted what people are saying.

[othertomperson]

I'm having a real hard time trying to understand how someone can be so downright dishonest. Every single person that has responded to you has said the same thing, that Valve or any other seller has the right to define what it will and will not sell but it doesn't have a right to arbitrarily and hypocritically enforce personal moral standards on what it sells. Are you misrepresenting the argument on purpose? Because that is what sure as hell looks like to me.

 

But that's the point! IT DOES HAVE THE RIGHT! There is no rule against what they did. They don't even need a god-damned reason, let alone apply a badly thought out rule consistently, fairly or at all.

 

 

where on earth did you get the impression I am trying to police what private corporations sell?  Have you been reading this thread or are you just reacting to the concepts?

 

No one is trying to force valve to do anything, they are merely aggravated by the decision to pull the game and condone the decision to re-instate it.  Their rational for this is because they do not believe a corporation should be inconsistent and that a corporation should not place moral censorship upon it's customers. You have seriously misinterpreted what people are saying.

 

 

Because the rational reaction to this is "oh that's a shame that's a game I wanted, looks like I'll have to get this from somewhere else," or "that's not a game I was interested in so I really don't care." The rational reaction is not to go on a massive rant about censorship.

 

You aren't taking issue with the fact that they placed moral censorship on their customers, but that they took a business decision based on their morality which, inconsistently or otherwise, they are well within their rights, and obligations even, to do.

[mr moose]

But that's the point! IT DOES HAVE THE RIGHT! There is no rule against what they did. They don't even need a god-damned reason, let alone apply a badly thought out rule consistently, fairly or at all.

 

 

 

 

Because the rational reaction to this is "oh that's a shame that's a game I wanted, looks like I'll have to get this from somewhere else," or "that's not a game I was interested in so I really don't care." The rational reaction is not to go on a massive rant about censorship.

 

You aren't taking issue with the fact that they placed moral censorship on their costomers, but that they took a business decision based on their morality which, inconsistently or otherwise, they are well within their rights, and obligations even, to do.

 

So you haven't been reading the thread then?

[Lewellyn]

But that's the point! IT DOES HAVE THE RIGHT! There is no rule against what they did. They don't even need a god-damned reason, let alone apply a badly thought out rule consistently, fairly or at all.

 

You realize the entire point of the Greenlight system on Steam is to allow the gaming community to support what they want to be put on the storefront, right? Like, are you entirely oblivious to the fact that you are flat out wrong in that regard? When over 90% of the people who voted said that was a game they wanted on the storefront and a random Valve employee (one single person) decides personally they don't want it on the store, how in the hell do you not understand that what happened was against the whole purpose of the Greenlight system?

[othertomperson]

 

So you haven't been reading the thread then?

 

HERP DERP

 

You realize the entire point of the Greenlight system on Steam is to allow the gaming community to support what they want to be put on the storefront, right? Like, are you entirely oblivious to the fact that you are flat out wrong in that regard? When over 90% of the people who voted said that was a game they wanted on the storefront and a random Valve employee (one single person) decides personally they don't want it on the store, how in the hell do you not understand that what happened was against the whole purpose of the Greenlight system?

 

OH I WAS CLEARLY MISTAKEN. CLEARLY this is a legally binding idea and you should TOTALLY take them to court over this! Then you'll see that what products a store is legally obliged to sell is a true democracy, and not a PR exercise after all!!

[Lewellyn]

OH I WAS CLEARLY MISTAKEN. CLEARLY this is a legally binding idea and you should TOTALLY take them to court over this! Then you'll see that what products a store is legally obliged to sell is a true democracy, and not a PR exercise after all!!

 

Trolling or reading disability? Probably the latter, but you might just be drunk.

[Guest Kloaked]

 

 

 

HERP DERP

 

 

OH I WAS CLEARLY MISTAKEN. CLEARLY this is a legally binding idea and you should TOTALLY take them to court over this! Then you'll see that what products a store is legally obliged to sell is a true democracy, and not a PR exercise after all!!

 

 

 

Do you have any reading comprehension skills? Like, seriously mate.

[othertomperson]

Trolling or reading disability? Probably the latter, but you might just be drunk.

 

Nah, I'm just in hysterics at this point. Three people basically screaming censorship over one shop for a period of like two days deciding that it didn't want to sell a game that tbh looked shit anyway. Cry me a god-damned river.