Shady Community Hub Bans?

Currently viewing this thread:

let's be realistic, they would have to ban half the forum if they didn't want negative criticism that could reduce their income.
 

R4MPZY

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
From what i could gather in the post you linked, you seem to be against EA games in general " studios stop caring about releasing a fully fleshed out product before asking for people's money"

Later on you post about Warband being the reason for Bannerlords succes, despite M&B originating from...an EA aswell..

Did you just invalidate your own post ?
 

Nordmann

Sergeant Knight
WBM&BWF&SNWVC
You have to be very careful on Steam, what you can get away with on here will get you banned there. They run an extremely tight ship.
 

CryptidByte

Recruit
From what i could gather in the post you linked, you seem to be against EA games in general " studios stop caring about releasing a fully fleshed out product before asking for people's money"

Later on you post about Warband being the reason for Bannerlords succes, despite M&B originating from...an EA aswell..

Did you just invalidate your own post ?

No, I didn't. Did you read his? I just wrote everything he said, in opposite more or less. With his quoted, on purpose, so my statement wouldn't be taken out of context, which for some reason, everyone seems to insist this was a stand-alone post, in a stand-alone thread, that I made. Which I did not. Among many posts.

My point is. HAD I said that EA is bad for consumers. Do I REALLY need to be banned for that? Excuse me? But that wasn't my point. More importantly, if someone can be banned for telling people to negatively review a product under such a loose definition, then anyone that does the opposite, asking to positively review a game, should also be banned.
 

Nordmann

Sergeant Knight
WBM&BWF&SNWVC
No, I didn't. Did you read his? I just wrote everything he said, in opposite more or less. With his quoted, on purpose, so my statement wouldn't be taken out of context, which for some reason, everyone seems to insist this was a stand-alone post, in a stand-alone thread, that I made. Which I did not. Among many posts.

My point is. HAD I said that EA is bad for consumers. Do I REALLY need to be banned for that? Excuse me? But that wasn't my point. More importantly, if someone can be banned for telling people to negatively review a product under such a loose definition, then anyone that does the opposite, asking to positively review a game, should also be banned.

Inciting other users to a negative course of action will get you banned from most places, and Steam is no exception. Maybe it's different on here, but that's up to TaleWorlds.

If the game is bad or the company are doing something shady, then consumers don't need to be told to create negative reviews, they'll do it of their own accord.

Reviews should never be solicited, one way or the other. They shouldn't need to be, unless they are untrue.
 

CryptidByte

Recruit
Alright. Enough. I need someone to read it, and explain WHERE I am soliciting negative reviews. Even if it's taken outside of the context of the reply, using someone else's argument format, used ironically. Even taken as a stand alone:
I state that the fact games aren't review bombed in EA, leads to more companies using it as a platform for bug-testing and bug-ridden releases.
I speculate that if Taleworlds continues to do this, it'll lead to future titles that are of similar quality on release.
I claim the reason it has so much positivity and players is due to Warband, and that if you want more Early Access titles instead of fully released games, don't complain.

Now. Again. What here is ban-worthy, and how is this not appropriate criticism?
 

DEM1L1CH

Recruit
Alright. Enough. I need someone to read it, and explain WHERE I am soliciting negative reviews. Even if it's taken outside of the context of the reply, using someone else's argument format, used ironically. Even taken as a stand alone:
I state that the fact games aren't review bombed in EA, leads to more companies using it as a platform for bug-testing and bug-ridden releases.
I speculate that if Taleworlds continues to do this, it'll lead to future titles that are of similar quality on release.
I claim the reason it has so much positivity and players is due to Warband, and that if you want more Early Access titles instead of fully released games, don't complain.

Now. Again. What here is ban-worthy, and how is this not appropriate criticism?

"Not criticising EA leads to more companies releasing EA titles that aren't fleshed out"

is likely the offending text. for the record, i agree with your statement 100%
 

R4MPZY

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Alright. Enough. I need someone to read it, and explain WHERE I am soliciting negative reviews. Even if it's taken outside of the context of the reply, using someone else's argument format, used ironically. Even taken as a stand alone:
I state that the fact games aren't review bombed in EA, leads to more companies using it as a platform for bug-testing and bug-ridden releases.
I speculate that if Taleworlds continues to do this, it'll lead to future titles that are of similar quality on release.
I claim the reason it has so much positivity and players is due to Warband, and that if you want more Early Access titles instead of fully released games, don't complain.

Now. Again. What here is ban-worthy, and how is this not appropriate criticism?
"Not review bombing games in EA causes more games to be released on EA, and studios stop caring about releasing a fully fleshed out product before asking for people's money" can be understood as you inciting others to review bomb bannerlord = most likely the reason for your ban.
That is you right ?
 

monoolho

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
The context doesn't make you look any better, it makes you look worse. (A) Humor doesn't translate well over text because text lacks the necessary inflection and (B) you made no stylistic attempt to indicate it.
This. Except:
A -You're wrong. Yes it does, but you have to be a competent writer of more than just colloquial sentences and everyday slang and mannerisms. So what lacks here is the finesse of the OP, who did not write accordingly with his intended sarcasm, most likely because of being used to internal-joke types of communities and chats. Do not blame the language nor the medium here, as one can read humour quite well, if it is well-written. Which it was not.

B - You're right here. Everything I said in A.
Again. I bought Rimworld, Kenshi, and Project Zomboid while they were in early access. And 7 Days to Die. Plenty of which I left positive reviews for. There is no ideological viewpoint against EA, unless someone really, really wants to read into it as such, while not paying attention to anything else I wrote.
Problem here is that you expect from Steam moderators the same treatment a Distric attorney or lawyer would have with you, digging your past. They are time-constricted to act solely on the singular thread and post for which you were banned, not to meticulously search through your generous or mischievous history. I agree it was overzealous of their part, as you were not doing what you were banned for. However, as stated by Callum himself, this holds no long-term relevance for you on the TaleWorlds forums, and attests some bad moderation on the Steam forums, which are famously badly moderated. Unfortunately, I've got to tell you: wait it out, and maybe try to appeal to Steam support for this. It is not a problem with TaleWorlds, nor with Bannerlord, but rather with the Steam discussions. If you feel this damaged your Steam account, please do contact Steam, otherwise, wait it out.
 

DatBandit

Regular
I think you failed to notice the topic title that Doc started. This is why context is important. He called it review bombing, which it's not, given it holds a 83% positive rating, deserved in my opinion. This is why it's important to know the context something was said within. He wanted people to stop complaining about the game, on the context it was in EA. I, personally, disagree with this opinion. Had Fallout 76 been released into Steam's EA, I would've complained about it. While other games, I did not.

Again. I bought Rimworld, Kenshi, and Project Zomboid while they were in early access. And 7 Days to Die. Plenty of which I left positive reviews for. There is no ideological viewpoint against EA, unless someone really, really wants to read into it as such, while not paying attention to anything else I wrote.

I even went on, in a later post, to agree with Doc's premise on the way someone complains.

To be fair...I agree with you, EA isn't always the way to go. But in this case if you knew the history of of warband and why those 1000+ hr kids banned you is because they've been waiting on this game for forever. In a way they kind of pushed the devs for an EA release. As a result it sucks when you're asked to put out content when you've said "Hey this sh*t ain't ready but here you go" disclaimer on it. Then someone comes along and says ya this game shouldn't be EA because it promotes other titles to be EA . The moderators kind of just took what you said as is. The other guys right what you said wasn't really funny and looked more so as if you were bashing the game because it was EA. Don't get me wrong everyone entitled to their own opinion you just didn't go about it the right way and came out looking like the bad guy. Perception is everything my friend.
 

DatBandit

Regular
This. Except:
A -You're wrong. Yes it does, but you have to be a competent writer of more than just colloquial sentences and everyday slang and mannerisms. So what lacks here is the finesse of the OP, who did not write accordingly with his intended sarcasm, most likely because of being used to internal-joke types of communities and chats. Do not blame the language nor the medium here, as one can read humour quite well, if it is well-written. Which it was not.

B - You're right here. Everything I said in A.

Problem here is that you expect from Steam moderators the same treatment a Distric attorney or lawyer would have with you, digging your past. They are time-constricted to act solely on the singular thread and post for which you were banned, not to meticulously search through your generous or mischievous history. I agree it was overzealous of their part, as you were not doing what you were banned for. However, as stated by Callum himself, this holds no long-term relevance for you on the TaleWorlds forums, and attests some bad moderation on the Steam forums, which are famously badly moderated. Unfortunately, I've got to tell you: wait it out, and maybe try to appeal to Steam support for this. It is not a problem with TaleWorlds, nor with Bannerlord, but rather with the Steam discussions. If you feel this damaged your Steam account, please do contact Steam, otherwise, wait it out.
what this guy said lol he just beat me to it =P
 

CryptidByte

Recruit
On what way? Look, I can argue with you mono, about humor. I think I did it well, given I literally copied someone else's words, and wrote it using their prompt. Thus, I was limited in how I could phrase something.

Being ideologically opposed to EA, IS NOT AGAINST Steam's guidelines. Had a game like. I dunno. Shadow of War released into early access with micro transactions in a singleplayer game then I would be. Completely. ****ting on it. Because I am ideologically opposed to loot boxes, especially in a singleplayer experience. This is not against Steam's laws.

Nothing I said is ban worthy. Nothing. I don't care if I'm perceived to be against Bannerlord. What I said does not constitute a ban, except under some very, very questionable reading. By a moderator that should not be in charge, or was having a bad day, or wasn't paying attention, or was whatever.

Edit: Now that I vented, I agree that I'll wait it out. But I don't know how bans work, and whether or not this stays with my Steam history forever. If that's the case, I might contact support after I'm no longer banned, since I don't want this on my record. Or whatever you want to call it. It really does bother me.
 
Top Bottom