The State Of Gamer Discussions Online.

When mainstream media, or people not within the gaming culture, take a look at how gamers discuss things online; a clear sense of bewilderment and possibly disgust is a common opinion. Regardless of age or position in life, we gamers tend to speak colourfully about gaming at the best of times. Whether that be because of the idea of internet anonymity, attention seeking (or trolling for the lulz), or in retaliation to the aforementioned reasons and more, the only people who can understand why gamers talk the way we do is other gamers.

I submit the idea that none of us here or on any other gaming site that currently exists are terrible people who just go on attacking opinions and insulting people in real life. Rather, I believe we are all here not only due to a shared interest, but because we have the capability of venting frustrations to those of a like mind and that many, if not most of us, do likely express ourselves in improper ways relative to the issues or situations.

Whether you'd admit it or not, everyone here is a fanboy on some level. Being a fanboy isn't a bad thing, it is simply a higher degree of passion for something than an ordinary fan. Everything said or done on gaming websites is no different than the things said or done at sporting events, in forum discussions for other interests online, or in any non-official interaction amongst like-minded peers.

Personally speaking, I speak my mind and I do so uncensored for the most part. I encourage people to speak their mind in an uncensored fashion as well, even when we don't share the same opinion. So long as we are not mercilessly attacking each other with the most awful language possible and make threats against each other, then being honest and yet brash in the way we speak to each other shouldn't be a big deal. It's akin to trash talking essentially.

I personally don't believe that anyone here really takes what anyone else here says personally unless it is of the aforementioned merciless attacks or threat variety. We all know that people are free to like and buy what they want, and they will do so regardless of what anyone says on the internet, but that doesn't stop us from having an opinion about something and expressing it.

Gamers as a group are a lot more vocal, a lot more passionate than many not familiar with the medium are used to seeing for something that is, comparatively, such a young medium of entertainment. I believe that this is an asset though, not a liability. We should be free to be honest, we should be free to be expressive, and so long as we aren't bullying anyone or making threats against anyone then we should be free to speak as we choose even if it involves trash talking, gamer-centric language that doesn't exist in the Oxford Dictionary.

Unfortunately the nanny-state approach permeates everything and people with vindictive personalities, or people who choose to easily be offended by anything will do their damndest to silence people and rules and regulations for such censorship exist everywhere. One can definitely see the benefit of restricting comments that are malicious as no one should have to put up with things like racism or threats in comments. That's understandable. However censoring people for paltry trash talk phrases like SDF (Sony Defense Force), or Nintendrone, or Xbot? That's micromanagement at best but I digress.

Here's the real meat of the issue. Gaming discussions online are literally no different than sports discussions, car discussions, hell even tv show discussions. I'm 100% certain that everyone here has been to a non-gaming site that discusses some other passion and has seen the exact same kind of language being used only with different adjectives appropriate to the subject. It's just the way things are when it comes to hobbies.

I'm also 100% certain that despite my own altercations with individuals on this site, I could have a gaming session with any one of you and have an absolute blast of a time. We'd trash talk each other, play the game, and just generally be completely different in that situation than we are here. That's one thing about gamers that I feel is unique in the world of hobbies. We may talk trash online, but when we're gaming together it's all about the game and having a good time and anything else doesn't matter.

I know for a fact that plenty of you would destroy me in any FPS game, but I also know that you wouldn't begrudge me a match so that we could just enjoy gaming the way it was meant to. At the end of the day, that's what we all do and that's how we all are. Just gamers looking for something to play and someone to play it with no matter what it is we just said here on N4G or IGN or anywhere else.

So call me whatever you want in the comments, say whatever you like however you want to say it. I encourage it because you're just doing what we all do here. Speaking our minds, being honest at least in the sense of expression, and being literally no different than anyone else in the world discussing something they love. But if you and I ever have the chance to game together, I know we'll have fun no matter who wins or loses and no matter what console (or PC) it's on.

Game on.

[Gazondaily]

I've had my beef with you a few times on the comments section but when it comes down to it, I would be more than happy to play a game with you.....so I can SHOOT YOU IN THE FRIGGIN FACE! Nah, not really (but yes really).

I don't really take things to heart but there are times when you just want to reach out of someone's monitor and smack them.

However, reality really sets in when you actually meet someone in real life after you have spent a long time arguing with them online. Case in point, I used to argue with the user Abzdine on this very site all the time. I honestly couldn't stand his comments and we'd have our spats on the front pages all the time. Then we ended up PM'ing each other and actually finally met up at Gamescom in Germany and he turned out to be a really really nice guy. I consider him like an older brother now and have immense respect for him. Now, I just think, what a shame it would have been if I carried on 'e-hating' this guy because of silly (and it really is silly if you think about it) arguments we have online.

It's just the nature of it all I supposed. Anonymity, whilst having some advantages, also enables enmity to grow.

If the usual members all met up on here, I would bet that we would all get a long. I'm sure we would have a right laugh and I'd get a long with everyone (don't know about vice versa). Well except for Silent Negotiator...there's something about him that makes me wanna strangle him. I blame the picture of Red and the way he types. But I'm sure we'd get along IRL.....maybe....

[darthv72]

couldnt agree more. there are many who would think that my position on neutrality is a facade but it really isnt.

I have spent the majority of my gaming existence in the middle and i have the most respect for those who prefer to game on one platform so long as they can respect my preference to play the field.

Im not out to convince anyone that the middle is where they need to be. Im just in this hobby for the entertainment value. I have lived a life of a console gigolo for 30 years and Im not about to settle down with one platform just yet.

Gaming can be an addiction, it can be a hobby, it can be a way of life and it can be profitable but most importantly of all...it was meant to be fun.

I tend to speak my mind but in a censored manner. I do it that way because it shows restraint and im too old to get into a verbal confrontation with all sorts of negative connotations back and forth. It really isnt worth it to add explicit language and derogatory phrases to make a point about if you like or dislike something. for me its easier to say...i dont like it and leave it at that. to each their own.

[Gazondaily]

Ah yeah darth, my days I think remarkably similar to you especially when you said this:

"there are many who would think that my position on neutrality is a facade but it really isnt. "

I've always been able to tell that you really were trying to be genuine so here's one user that believes you lol. #brohug

The most telling thing is, I've been called a PC elitist, a Sony fanboy, an Xbot and even a Nintendo fanboy , all of this on this site alone. I sometimes think, people must think I am some sort of platform chameleon lol but I honestly type what I think. I especially get drilled for defending Cliffy B (why does everyone hate him so much?! Actually..don't answer that).

But you're right darth...its a hobby and gaming is supposed to be fun. The gaming community being so hostile is such a MASSIVE shame. I went interviewing people at Eurogamer (video coming soon) regarding which platform they preferred and there were Sony fans, Xbox fans, Nintendo and PC fans standing side by side, most often actually friends with each other and I just thought, well, I wish the online community was the same.

Ah well....what can you do.../shrug

[NewMonday]

@Septic

"..consider him like an older brother"

thought the story was going somewhere else :p

on topic..

the thing that derails conversations is obvious dishonesty, at NeoGaf you need to back up your claims and separate claimed fact from opinion, and the mods can actually spot many astroturfers because membership requires a paid Email account.

[rainslacker]

I think a lot of it comes down to the nature of the written word. Many times some context is lost because the tone of ones voice and mannerisms are lost when put in print. Because of this, and the fact we are anonymous internet users, all sense of empathy towards the other person is lost. Human nature perhaps, I dunno.

For instance. I tend to write a lot, and I tend to be very descriptive when I write. On here especially where the conversation is limited to a set number of comments based on bubbles.

In real life, I tend to listen more, and in a gaming discussion I will take arguments or points and address them on an individual level. In my written comments I realize I come off as condescending or mean at times to other users, however, more often than not, I'm pretty neutral in the way I actually feel about it. In real life I take a middle of the road approach with how I speak and don't become overly emotional like how my comments may come off at times.

I think the only "gamers" that really annoy me are the ones that act like they know everything(IRL). They act condescending and try to interject their opinion as fact in every conversation regardless of merit, even if it's not about gaming...I'm sure we all know someone like that, there's one in every GameStop, and it's likely we've all been grouped up with one of these God's gift to gaming gamers at some point. IRL I tend to ignore these people, and just nod my head when they do so, but on forums I will turn their argument around and express my own.

Otherwise, I have met some people from forums IRL or in online matches from time to time, and 95% of the time, they are always much more personable and act more respectfully than their online counterparts.

[Ducky]

'Plumbers are red'

... this has been a terrible year for Luigi.

[darthv72]

It does seem that way. And yet i always preferred Luigi to mario. Maybe because Mario just kept letting Peach get taken and if Luigi was in charge it wouldnt happen. not on his watch.

But anyway, he did get his own super luigi game so it isnt all bad for him. he just needs more respect

[cdrorbaugh]

You should never take thing's serious on the internet, as cheesy and corny as it sound's never judge a book by it's cover.. Now septic I was once like you argument after argument with someone, met up and look now turn's out we had a lot in common, now I am new here to this website, turn's out it has what I am looking for. But I hope we can all get along and keep this gaming community strong.

[Ravenor]

NO! I still hate all of you.

But in all honesty, I still think about our argument that led you to ignoring me. I didn't believe that a Dark Souls MMO was possible, the essence of that game is so locked up in tight reflexes and the animation priority, I still think the latency would kill it. Your example was Dynasty Warriors Online, which I didn't agree with but what got to me the most, was when you told me I need to play more games. I don't have enough time in the day to play anymore! My backlog stretches back, and back, and back.

But you're alright Dragonknight, I'd rather argue with you than some others here.

[DestinyHeroDoomlord]

Wish I had a backlog...

[steve30x]

I would take what DragonKnight has to say with a grain of salt. This person will start PM'ing you if he disagrees with what you have to say and runs out of bubbles. I had to block this person because he continually PM'd me months ago over something I said and they ran out of bubbles. This person is rude and just doesnt know when to give up

[DragonKnight]

Yeah, this was discussed in PM and steve30x confused me with someone else because up until this comment we'd never had any interactions.

[steve30x]

I take back what I said. I was thinking of somebody else. The Guy I was thinking of only has one bubble.

[mechlord]

Hehe :)
if youre a man, argue with all your passion :)

(props to Elfman)

[DestinyHeroDoomlord]

The online persona, just the other day I read a book which talks (reads?) about people's behavioural changes when online. Incoming quote, "we all wear masks, metaphorically speaking".

[darthv72]

Are you sure that last line wasn't from the jim Carey movie....The Mask?

http://youtu.be/1Va4_MIeJ24

[DestinyHeroDoomlord]

Haha it did, movie's are the only thing I can accurately quote hehe

[Christopher]

***So call me whatever you want in the comments, say whatever you like however you want to say it. I encourage it because you're just doing what we all do here.***

No. Don't do this. Stay within the Terms of Use you agreed to on the site here. This is not a place where you can call someone whatever you want. You may not be a bad person in real life, but that doesn't mean you can come here to vent in a way that is against the Terms of Use.

[DestinyHeroDoomlord]

10 bubbles... seems legit

[Christopher]

It is legit. Very.

[DragonKnight]

Terms of Use? You mean the same Terms of Use that the site staff ignore all the time, that Terms of Use? I've seen site staff approve stories that have incorrect titles and other submission guidelines violations, right now in the blog section is Spam, albeit well-intentioned Spam it's still Spam approved by site staff, and you want to talk about the Terms of Use?

I'm not talking about things like racial slurs, sexist threats, or anything like that. I'm talking about paltry stuff that's arbitrarily punished at random and are non-issues to everyone but site staff. I personally won't go into a hissy fit shouting "Offensive" at things like SDF or ____ bot or anything like that.

But it's funny that the Terms of Use is brought up when it's ignored by site staff all the time.

[Christopher]

We don't ignore it.

Site guidelines for submissions != Terms of Use for submissions as the like. Terms of Use governs what one is allowed and not allowed to do as far as posting comments and "abusing" the site in a general term, it covers nothing about how to make a proper submission or the like.

If they were non-issues by the users, then why do we get hundreds of reports for the exact same things every day?

Follow them or not, it's your choice in getting a restriction or not.

[steve30x]

Actually its site members that approve stores not site staff.

[DragonKnight]

"Site guidelines for submissions != Terms of Use for submissions as the like."

So then you ignore submission guidelines. Either way, something is ignored.

"If they were non-issues by the users, then why do we get hundreds of reports for the exact same things every day?"

You didn't seriously ask that question just now did you? You more than anyone should know how the system works. Do you honestly think that even half of the submissions you get are from people legitimately offended by hearing something like "SDF" or "Nintendrone" or other non-insults like that? You understand don't you that people will make malicious and superfluous reports on the basis of not liking someone else right? I'm sure you've noticed all the "Trolling" de-bubble votes every user on this site has made against comments that are even one word comments right? Are you calling those "legitimate issues" that deserve immediate attention? Come on now.

@steve30x: Site staff approve stories too. Here's an example.

http://n4g.com/blogs/detail...

Click on info, then click on who approved it, and boom. One approval worth 10 points for a third party site promoting its own stuff with links and all manner of other stuff in the ad, oops I mean blog, that no user here would ever be able to get away with doing.

[Christopher]

***So then you ignore submission guidelines. Either way, something is ignored. ***

Ignoring a submission guideline by someone who likely is just clearing the queue (note: there's one general news admin who goes through and cleans out the submissions in various ways who you never see or interact with). It's not a sign of us not caring about the guidelines, only showing how much time it takes to deal with everything and catch everything.

***Do you honestly think that even half of the submissions you get are from people legitimately offended by hearing something like "SDF" or "Nintendrone" or other non-insults like that?***

I think that people who don't like its use report them. Whether it's a person who doesn't like one or the other doesn't matter to me since both sides report them. In the end, we get the reports for them, we handled them as appropriate. Why a person doesn't like it doesn't matter to us as long as it gets reported. Which it does.

***You understand don't you that people will make malicious and superfluous reports on the basis of not liking someone else right?***

Sure, but that doesn't mean we moderate it just because it's reported. That's why we moderate instead of just blindly accepting the community responses to things.

***I'm sure you've noticed all the "Trolling" de-bubble votes every user on this site has made against comments that are even one word comments right? Are you calling those "legitimate issues" that deserve immediate attention? Come on now. ***

Nowhere did I say every reported comment was moderated or needed it. Only it's made visible to us to review.

*** http://n4g.com/blogs/detail... ***

There is nothing wrong with that submission. Submissions from third-parties are allowed (but not counted for contests) and it's about gaming. Furthermore, N4G has been involved with ExtraLife for years, so it's a form of promotion for the event without taking up space on the home page.

So, you're wrong on that one. But, I'm not saying there aren't mistakes on the site. So, you don't need to hunt down one and shove it in my face or whatever you call it on the Internet. Just, that one, nothing wrong with it at all.

[DragonKnight]

"Ignoring a submission guideline by someone who likely is just clearing the queue (note: there's one general news admin who goes through and cleans out the submissions in various ways who you never see or interact with). It's not a sign of us not caring about the guidelines, only showing how much time it takes to deal with everything and catch everything."

No no no no, I'm talking about instant approvals for Spam, instant approvals for articles without checking if even the titles are correct, these things happen thanks to site staff all the time. That blog post in the blog section about charity gaming? Yeah, that's Spam. It may be well-intentioned and I have nothing against it per se, but it's Spam that was put through by site staff. If any of us normal users tried to put something through where we're asking for donations, or linking to our own stuff to promote it, it'd be failed for Spam and you know it. Thus, site staff is guilty of putting through stories that the community itself didn't even get the chance to vote on.

"I think that people who don't like its use report them. Whether it's a person who doesn't like one or the other doesn't matter to me since both sides report them. In the end, we get the reports for them, we handled them as appropriate. Why a person doesn't like it doesn't matter to us as long as it gets reported. Which it does."

Are you sure they don't like its use, or it's just that they don't like who's using it? I can report that someone said the word idiot over and over, and get enough people to do the same, and according to you it won't matter if I'm doing it because I legitimately have an issue with it or not, it'll be just because I reported it. And what about the person who reports the use of, say, XDF but did so immediately after using the word SDF? Oh but no, context and reasoning aren't important. Blanket arbitrary punishment, which is somehow also random, is right?

"Sure, but that doesn't mean we moderate it just because it's reported. That's why we moderate instead of just blindly accepting the community responses to things"

Except you just said that you moderate it because it's reported and that why a person reported it is irrelevant.

"Nowhere did I say every reported comment was moderated or needed it. Only it's made visible to us to review."

I never said that you did. I used it merely to show you an example of non-issues being reported and that there is precedent for such non-issues to be moderated.

"There is nothing wrong with that submission." Actually yeah there is. Just because N4G has a partnership with some third party site doesn't mean that submitting spam, even gaming related spam, isn't wrong. The site staff allowed a blog to instantly go through, meaning the site community didn't have a say in it, and it involved promotions that are against submission rules. I mean, how is this any different than a user submitting a youtube video from his own channel so long as it's about gaming, but he's not a developer? Answer: The only difference is that said user has no partnership with N4G for such kind of an advertisement and that blog does.

The site is allegedly about the community "voting" on what is seen and what is not and yet the site staff take liberties with that to put through the stories from partners without the community even getting so much as a say on whether or not we want to see that? Doesn't that sound like a contradiction to you?

[Christopher]

***That blog post in the blog section about charity gaming? Yeah, that's Spam.***

Not according to our guidelines on blog submissions it isn't.

*** If any of us normal users tried to put something through where we're asking for donations, or linking to our own stuff to promote it, it'd be failed for Spam and you know it.***

We've had people link blogs to their youtube channels, include their youtube videos, and more as a form of self promotion. So, no.

***And what about the person who reports the use of, say, XDF but did so immediately after using the word SDF? Oh but no, context and reasoning aren't important. Blanket arbitrary punishment, which is somehow also random, is right? ***

You've made a personal leap in logic.

Seeing one post is not how we determine every post as being one in need of moderation. We also do go to the actual comment and look at what it was in response to. Oftentimes, I will only moderate the original "troll" comment as it already hides the responses and the others were likely only responding in like (though, not an excuse and something that could still result in a restriction).

***Except you just said that you moderate it because it's reported and that why a person reported it is irrelevant.***

No, I said that people who report the use of trollish labels have been moderated. I did not say that all reports have moderation applied to them. The reason for the person reporting it is irrelevant.

For example, there is a comment on this page that you reported as "trollish" that isn't. We saw it and did not moderate it. Your bubble vote is still there and it will remain. That is how many comments are handled.

***Actually yeah there is. Just because N4G has a partnership with some third party site doesn't mean that submitting spam...***

Actually, no, there isn't. N4G may at any time post anything they want as they own and run the site. If they want ads on the site that have nothing to do with gaming, they can do it. If they want to post blogs that advertise their other sites? They can do that as well. The Terms of Use specifically cites the ability for HavaMedia, the owners of N4G, to do as they wish for their own site and change any part of it at any time as they see fit.

***The site is allegedly about the community "voting" on what is seen and what is not and yet the site staff take liberties with that to put through the stories from partners without the community even getting so much as a say on whether or not we want to see that? Doesn't that sound like a contradiction to you?***

No. A blog about a gaming event that was approved by a staff member doesn't take away that fact or diminish it. Do you also think that when I promote a conference stream to the top of the page when it's being streamed that I shouldn't do that and instead it should take the 12 hours it usually does to make it to the top of the home page when it's all done and over with? I'm fairly certain these gray areas do not diminish the goal of N4G or the ability for the community to help drive it.

[DragonKnight]

@cgoodno (for some reason this didn't post as a reply)

"Not according to our guidelines on blog submissions it isn't."

You mean the all but 2 sentences on Topics? One that says "it should be related to the Newsboiler site" and the other that says nothing about personal life? Way to rest on extremely broad definitions, but considering the heavy moderation that everyone has seen on self-promotion on this site, it doesn't jive with what actually happens.

"We've had people link blogs to their youtube channels, include their youtube videos, and more as a form of self promotion. So, no."

Are you serious? Fortunately for you, I don't have access to archived information to prove what you've just said wholly incorrect, but I've personally seen blog posts failed because they linked to someone's youtube channel and the reasoning behind it being a violation of site guidelines even though the video linked was completely gaming related. You know you've seen this too, but I am unable to prove it to you thanks to the fact that I don't have access to removed, yet not totally deleted, content.

"We also do go to the actual comment and look at what it was in response to...."

I have proof to the contrary that the comment page isn't always visited before moderation happens. Don't believe me? Check my recent tickets yourself and see.

"For example, there is a comment on this page..."

This is something about you personally I find amusing. I encourage you to post every single piece of activity I perform on this site since you're fond of doing so when we have discussions (and not only me) in what I can only think is some weak attempt at undermining me. I don't recall making such a report, and if I did it was likely against the person who mistook me for someone else but I digress.

"Actually, no, there isn't. N4G may at any time post anything they want as they own and run the site..."

Actually, yes there is. What is the point of having rules that the site staff (or owners) will just ignore whenever they want? Does that show potential new users how to follow the guidelines, or just that when they attempt to do something because they saw something similar pass through, they'll find that their submissions don't go through for violations that magically don't apply to what the site staff puts through? Makes the submission guidelines kind of pointless and the entire theme of the site being one where the community decides on what's seen and not seen a farce.

"No. A blog about a gaming event that was approved by a staff member doesn't take away that fact or diminish it..."

Yeah it does. You're telling everyone that because you're site staff you're above guidelines. Sure there are grey areas, but don't pretend that you don't move conference streams to the top for any other reason than to drive traffic. You know those kinds of stories would be put through quickly if members saw them in the pending list, just look at the comments in them.

Anyway, I'm done discussing this. These comments are off topic from the blog and, unlike what can happen to you (nothing), I wouldn't put it passed someone to mark my comments as off topic in my own blog. Good day/night depending on your time zone.

[Christopher]

So, essentially, here's is what I'm hearing:

DragonKnight's way is right.

N4G is just wrong.

There is no real debating with you.

Final words: You don't like it? Fine. That's something you'll have to deal with on your own time. I'm done here since you just want to deny everything until you are "proven" right in some way. I don't have time to cater to your myopic view of what this site is.

[DragonKnight]

And lo, your method of commenting back has forced a reply.

"DragonKnight's way is right."

What exactly do you think is my "way?" Because as far as I can see, I haven't posted my thoughts on how things should be, I posted my thoughts on how things are and what has been done and how it's against what the site's own rules are. So do tell what MY way is since you think you know me so well.

"N4G is just wrong."

N4G isn't a living being. It's a website. The site staff who ignore rules are wrong.

"There is no real debating with you."

Debate? You tell me you're above the rules, that your moderation techniques include methods that aren't applied, and that you don't care why something is reported and you call that a debate?

What have I denied? You're the one that's in the position of denial. I said rules were ignored, you said "no they aren't" and used broad, sweeping grey areas to back up your weak argument. I don't need to be proven right when the evidence is in your grasp everywhere. Do the work yourself since you have better access to the information than I do.

You're the one that sits there, arrogantly defending breaches in regulations, trying to post the past activities of users with complete disregard for any privacy or respect for the responsibility that you have given your position with that information, completely ignoring anything that could prove to you that rules are being broken, and I'M the one trying to be proven right and have myopic view of this site?

But what else can be expected from someone who can get away with trolling comments since he publicly admitted that it doesn't matter if someone reports his comments, he'll just negate the report anyway. Class act cgoodno, class act.

[Christopher]

***You tell me you're above the rules***

Never said any such thing.

***that your moderation techniques include methods that aren't applied, and that you don't care why something is reported and you call that a debate? ***

Really? You don't notice the massive amount of text you've provided refuting anything I've said above? That's called... a debate.

***What have I denied?***

That this site doesn't have rules preventing what you would call "spam" which in fact are allowed and have been for as long as it has been around.

That the moderators don't just ignore rules as they see fit and that when a guidelines isn't followed it doesn't mean that the site is suddenly broken. That one mistake isn't the end of the site or diminish it in any way.

***You're the one that's in the position of denial.***

Incorrect. I have not denied anything other than to tell you how moderation works in most cases and that what you call "spam" isn't and also is allowed on the site.

***arrogantly defending breaches in regulations,***

There weren't any breaches in regulations. See above question of your own about "What have I denied?". You claiming them as such doesn't make them so.

***But what else can be expected from someone who can get away with trolling comments since he publicly admitted that it doesn't matter if someone reports his comments, he'll just negate the report anyway. Class act cgoodno, class act.***

Show me where I troll. Show me where I call someone a name. Show me something of mine that has not been moderated properly.

What can expected from me is explaining to someone how the site does and doesn't work, explaining that mistakes are made but not so that they cause the site to lose its focus or goal, and explain other things. It's what I've done here.

Now, I expected you to at least listen to reason. That, I did not get. YOu want what you have said to be "the answer" for some reason. I don't know, don't really care. It doesn't further my job as admin, it doesn't further this conversation, it only results in you thinking that, somehow, you claiming what you claim is what it is and nothing I or anyone else can say will change that.

So, what am I left with?

Nothing.

So, while you may not like my answers, and while you may call me a "class act" in a derogatory manner, I will continue to do what I do and continue to help this site as best as I can regardless if you don't understand the how and why.

I do not need your approval or understanding to do my job. Just as I don't need to know why someone reports someone. They report it, I review it, I either moderate it or move on. That is my job here. I will keep at it.

[DragonKnight]

"Never said any such thing."

Oh really? 'The Terms of Use specifically cites the ability for HavaMedia, the owners of N4G, to do as they wish for their own site and change any part of it at any time as they see fit.'

Are you not a site admin? Thus a representative? Have you not immediately approved or failed stories before based on your own judgement, completely circumventing the submission process? Yeah, not above the rules at all right?

"Really? You don't notice the massive amount of text you've provided refuting anything I've said above? That's called... a debate."

I like how you avoided the "moderation techniques that aren't applied" part in favour of sarcasm. Good job.

"That this site doesn't have rules preventing what you would call "spam" which in fact are allowed and have been for as long as it has been around."

I'm denying that this site doesn't have rules? Wow, is that how you really talk? Anyway, the site has rules against spam, which is why stories, articles, and comments have been removed because of it. I've seen blog posts failed simply because the blog had a link to a youtube video which was still about gaming. I've seen, and have even reported, blogs that were word for word transcripts of gaming related youtube videos removed for the reason of, you guessed it, spam. And now you're trying to tell me, and everyone, that it's magically ok to write a blog where one is essentially e-Begging, and posting links to their own sites to further that goal, and yet that's fine because A)N4G has a partnership with them, B)Putting it as a blog doesn't take up space on the main page, and C)Even though it's a glorified ad, it's ok because it's gaming related. Gee, I wonder how all of those people who had failed submissions for literally doing the same thing feel about that.

"That the moderators don't just ignore rules as they see fit and that when a guidelines isn't followed it doesn't mean that the site is suddenly broken. That one mistake isn't the end of the site or diminish it in any way."

So pick which is worse, ignoring the rules or circumventing the approval process, both have happened and the fact that you added an "and" means you know it has, and does, but you're just trying to brush it off because "it doesn't break the site." That's not even important. You're showing everyone that there are people on this site for whom the rules don't apply.

"There weren't any breaches in regulations."

Yeah there were. You even admitted to them with your "and" so nice try there.

"Show me where I troll. Show me where I call someone a name. Show me something of mine that has not been moderated properly."

That would take a hell of a lot of time sifting through your comment history (which isn't something I do) when the quickest solution would simply be for you, since you LOVE divulging activity that no one but a site staff member can see, to post a screencap of how many de-bubble votes you've been given that went unmoderated.

As for the rest of your spiel, going off on a speech about yourself and what your job is is of no interest to me. I pointed out what you choose to ignore, you deny and evade with broad "grey area" reasoning, so we have both been guilty of engaging in an exercise in futility.

Bang up job. *Thumbs up*