[Mr. Vega]

It's really fun to see liberals basing their arguments on the idea that a cartel has the right to do whatever the hell they like. You guys realise that the same arguments you're using to shut down discussions of censorship could equally well be applied to, say, restaurant owners in the South refusing to serve black customers?

Apply the harm principle to both cases and compare. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't believe in factoring the real life consequences of the different choices when deciding what the right thing to do is? You just look at the abstract principles? Kk.

[Scotty]

While PH could probably have phrased it less aggressively, please don't shoot right back with snark and sarcasm.

And I think the situation is rather more similar to a restaurant owner in the South refusing to serve Thai food.  There is no discrimination against customers of any kind going on; it's a matter of a business owner not being forced, coerced, cajoled, or pestered into carrying a certain product based on ~scary issue~.

EDIT: more clearly stated: it's a matter of products, not a matter of customers.  That's a significant difference.

[AdmiralRalwood]

more clearly stated: it's a matter of products, not a matter of customers.  That's a significant difference.

A very significant difference.

It should also be noted that even now, businesses retain the right to refuse service to anyone; somebody else has to notice that they only exercise this right against, say, black people before it becomes a problem.

[Lorric]

please don't shoot right back with snark and sarcasm.

Like this?

Congratulations on totally missing the point of why he brought it up.

[Phantom Hoover]

It's really fun to see liberals basing their arguments on the idea that a cartel has the right to do whatever the hell they like. You guys realise that the same arguments you're using to shut down discussions of censorship could equally well be applied to, say, restaurant owners in the South refusing to serve black customers?

Apply the harm principle to both cases and compare. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't believe in factoring the real life consequences of the different choices when deciding what the right thing to do is? You just look at the abstract principles? Kk.

Well people are trying to apply the harm principle and you're just shooting them down by saying that it's not governmental censorship and therefore isn't doing any harm!

[Mr. Vega]

It's really fun to see liberals basing their arguments on the idea that a cartel has the right to do whatever the hell they like. You guys realise that the same arguments you're using to shut down discussions of censorship could equally well be applied to, say, restaurant owners in the South refusing to serve black customers?

Apply the harm principle to both cases and compare. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't believe in factoring the real life consequences of the different choices when deciding what the right thing to do is? You just look at the abstract principles? Kk.

Well people are trying to apply the harm principle and you're just shooting them down by saying that it's not governmental censorship and therefore isn't doing any harm!

Does the "harm" to a douchebag developer outweigh forcing someone to stock a game they don't want to stock? In this case, no ****ing way.

[NGTM-1R]

Are they really trying to apply the harm principle here? Serious question: people are equating a "lack of success" with "harm". There are times where that is probably valid, when it represents an organized, wide-scale attempt to prevent the success of a group based on non-functional attributes. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

The people whose jobs and livelihoods are riding on this have at no point done so less than willingly; they are engaged in an act of artistic expression if you hear them talk about it and anybody can tell you that doing it for the art is usually inimical to doing it for the money.

They have not been denied access to all distribution options, only one. There has been no organized effort to interfere with their success; only one entity has done so. That entity may represent a disproportionate likelihood of success for them, but it is not engaged in this behavior as part of a concerted effort against either similar people or similar products. There is no evidence of systemic discrimination of any kind.

I have spent much of my posting this thread constructing an argument that this particular game is based on either great galloping misanthropy or a complete failure to grasp that we don't live in the same world as we did when Doom and Night Trap came out, both of which are not only functional issues with its likely design failing to connect with audiences, but also artistic issues with what even the developers argue is their artistic expression. And the gallery owner is still allowed to make a judgement call about what art is good or not, as the retailer is allowed to make judgement calls about what they think will sell.

Even if you want to argue on grounds of censorship, there are alternate reasons for Valve to remove the game based on what the developer has said about it, many of which are based in functional aspects. Anyone nostalgic for the days of Doom and Postal while making a game will be eaten alive in a modern FPS environment where a major studio like Bungie can drop their new flagship title as an FPS and only get a passing grade from people. Any argument to some form of censorship must first demonstrate that no functional argument has merit.

[Mr. Vega]

I did use quotation marks.

[Phantom Hoover]

Does the "harm" to a douchebag developer outweigh forcing someone to stock a game they don't want to stock? In this case, no ****ing way.

I don't really care about the harm done to 'some douchebag developer' either, but I do care about the power that private distributors have over public expression, and it annoys me when any concerns about that are dismissed out of hand as 'nothing to do with freedom of expression'.

[Mr. Vega]

Does the "harm" to a douchebag developer outweigh forcing someone to stock a game they don't want to stock? In this case, no ****ing way.

I don't really care about the harm done to 'some douchebag developer' either, but I do care about the power that private distributors have over public expression, and it annoys me when any concerns about that are dismissed out of hand as 'nothing to do with freedom of expression'.

A better case will come around. Be patient.

[Scotty]

Does the "harm" to a douchebag developer outweigh forcing someone to stock a game they don't want to stock? In this case, no ****ing way.

I don't really care about the harm done to 'some douchebag developer' either, but I do care about the power that private distributors have over public expression, and it annoys me when any concerns about that are dismissed out of hand as 'nothing to do with freedom of expression'.

I don't think this is the particular front to throw yourself against in that particular fight.  This is significantly more cut and dried than any scenario such a true discussion requires.  To wit: Valve has decided they (and decided only for themselves) that they will not carry this game.  That is the extent of Valve's involvement (or lackthereof) in this situation.  It is not censorship, it is not unreasonably limiting freedom of expression (if it could be said to be doing that at all; I'm not convinced it is).  That's pretty much the end of story when it comes to whether this is an instance of a private corporation unduly shaping public expression.

Your concerns are not invalid, even if I don't particularly share them.  They're just not particularly applicable now.

[AdmiralRalwood]

They have not been denied access to all distribution options, only one.

Valve has decided they (and decided only for themselves) that they will not carry this game.  That is the extent of Valve's involvement (or lackthereof) in this situation.

Did you guys forget that Valve put it back on Greenlight?

[Scotty]

Yes.

[NGTM-1R]

Did you guys forget that Valve put it back on Greenlight?

No. Since people wanted to bang on about it being pulled as censorship after it was put back on Greenlight, I kind of have to continue talking about the period where it was off Greenlight even if that's over while discussing whether or not pulling it is censorship.

[Akalabeth Angel]

You won't believe who led the charge to get the game back on steam. And who is now requesting AS, ZQ, and Phil Fish be added as targets to shoot.

Phil Fish isn't even in the industry anymore dude. He quit after he got hacked.

It's somewhat frustrating that my (admittedly self-evaluated) Good Analogy got wholly ignored by the thread.

Your analogy is flawed because that's now how Steam's Greenlight works.

[Mr. Vega]

You won't believe who led the charge to get the game back on steam. And who is now requesting AS, ZQ, and Phil Fish be added as targets to shoot.

Phil Fish isn't even in the industry anymore dude. He quit after he got hacked.

You should tell them that.

[Akalabeth Angel]

You won't believe who led the charge to get the game back on steam. And who is now requesting AS, ZQ, and Phil Fish be added as targets to shoot.

Phil Fish isn't even in the industry anymore dude. He quit after he got hacked.

You should tell them that.

Tell who? You want to like, give a link? Remotely expand upon what you specifically find offensive?
Or are you talking about a months-old blog post that Total Biscuit made in reference to the gamergate thing that offended people and prompted them to start attacking him. (ie http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s4nmr1 )

If you have a specific qualm with what's he's saying here for example feel free to expand upon it.

As for Phil Fish, while I empathize with him having watched him on the Indie Game Movie his alleged tweets in response to this above were pretty juvenile. Though, I don't know twitter so maybe that's the norm.

[Scotty]

It's somewhat frustrating that my (admittedly self-evaluated) Good Analogy got wholly ignored by the thread.

Your analogy is flawed because that's now how Steam's Greenlight works.

Superficially, no.  Practically, yes it is.  Anyone can host a packaged game and put it behind a paywall.  Steam is publicity and simplicity rolled into one.  Greenlight is the epitome of Steam's publicity offering, wherein prospective games metaphorically throw themselves to the masses to raise enough interest for their game to open up new sales avenues.  Whether the game actually gets greenlit is ultimately irrelevant beyond Steam's sales figures.  The game exists whether it is sold on Steam or not.  Steam taking something off greenlight is analogous to saying "No, you cannot use my billboard."

Before the post edit: What the hell are you even arguing right now?  Seriously.  Sit down and tell me what the disagreement between you and Mr. Vega is, because reading that quote chain makes me wonder if you know.

[Mr. Vega]

It's somewhat frustrating that my (admittedly self-evaluated) Good Analogy got wholly ignored by the thread.

Your analogy is flawed because that's now how Steam's Greenlight works.

Superficially, no.  Practically, yes it is.  Anyone can host a packaged game and put it behind a paywall.  Steam is publicity and simplicity rolled into one.  Greenlight is the epitome of Steam's publicity offering, wherein prospective games metaphorically throw themselves to the masses to raise enough interest for their game to open up new sales avenues.  Whether the game actually gets greenlit is ultimately irrelevant beyond Steam's sales figures.  The game exists whether it is sold on Steam or not.  Steam taking something off greenlight is analogous to saying "No, you cannot use my billboard."

Before the post edit: What the hell are you even arguing right now?  Seriously.  Sit down and tell me what the disagreement between you and Mr. Vega is, because reading that quote chain makes me wonder if you know.

I'm basing this off Jim Sterling (cause I'm not wading through the cesspool so AA can have his smoking gun):
https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/545052195453169664
https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/545052546164072448
https://twitter.com/GREENLIGHTGOLD/status/545053289079771137

[FrikgFeek]

I think pulling Hatred off Greenlight was very hypocritical by Valve. I mean, seriously, with all the utterly broken, unplayable, or just awfully bad games they sell with no quality control whatsoever they suddenly decide to pull this 1 game because they didn't like what it was about. I mean, sure they put it back on but Valve has never moderated Greenlight, it's why so much crap appears on Steam on a daily basis.
It's not outside their rights, sure, but it was still a dick move.