crossmr

There is a reason the original sub on reddit had the rules it did, it was to avoid posts like this.

This is wizards of the cost all over again. Unity learned nothing from them.

I’m old enough to remember these terms developing. I can remember when the first Diablo came out and called itself an ‘ARPG’. There was some controversy over this term and simply the use of the term RPG. As video games developed, there was some prestige around the ‘RPG’ label. By the late 90s, you were looking at a lot of well loved and top games using the term. Gold Box Games, Bard’s Tale, Ultima, JRPGs like Phantasy Star and Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior, etc.

Diablo is the first game that I can recall that really prominently advertised itself as an ARPG. They did this of course because it wasn’t really as deep as the rest of them. There weren’t a lot of ‘choices’ to be made in this game. You set up your character and ran through the dungeon. They wanted to use the ‘RPG’ label because it was well regarded at the time and helped move units. It was a lot like calling an RV a sports car because sports cars have wheels, doors, can drive on the road. ARPGs had RPG mechanics, in that there were things like stats and you could choose abilities/spells on level up. But they really weren’t RPGs.

Around that time in PC Gamer there was a great column about what made an RPG an RPG and it was clear that games like Diablo weren’t it, the key from that was an RPG had players making meaningful choices that had a lasting impact on the game world. Whether you threw fireballs or lightning bolts wasn’t exactly a meaningful choice that had impact on the game world.

When it came to JPRGs vs RPGs, the difference was always fairly clear. RPGs were of the D&D variety. While they featured magic, the system itself was somewhat grounded in reality. JRPGs had a distinct style. Big numbers, wild combos, certain aesthetics, etc. To me the JRPG label makes sense, because it is a different style of game. I would note that JRPGs though really didn’t fit the definition of RPG for the most part, a lot of ‘RPGs’ didn’t because there was very little decision making. They were quest style games where you had a party that levelled up, but you weren’t making many decisions in the game that had much an impact.

I think the labels are absolutely important for distinguishing the type of game it is. People want to know what they’re getting into when they play it. If I’m expecting Baldur’s gate and get Diablo, I’m probably going to be a bit disappointed.

jerky, granola, lots of vegetables are fairly stable and can be eaten raw. Carrots, garden peas, green beans, lettuce (you can eat that in the first day or two before it wilts), apples,

It depends on the fruit. Look at a banana funny and it’ll go rotten. Apples are pretty stable.

No editorials or articles which are little more than third party editorials.

Editorials usually end up as:

Someone has an opinion, this isn’t news.

Articles which are little more than:

This bloke has an opinion and I’m going to write about it! (which is often a negative topic) also isn’t news and something that worldnews on reddit struggled with. The sub was constantly flooded with topics which were just: Joe Blowhard thinks everyone sucks and some other right wing nonsense.

There was no news there either than a third party stating that someone else had an opinion.

Sort of.

On reddit, moderators can set minimum karma thresholds to control who can post in the sub, admins can use it to control who posts anywhere sitewide.

For example, new users who make a contentious statement and get down voted for it will suddenly find themselves rate limited for posting comments. They could be in the middle of an exchange where the other user is firing back responses, but then suddenly they are restricted to making one post every few minutes in the sub.

Admin can also use that to automate things like shadow banning.

I’m not sure if I buy this. /r/videos was the first sub to go dark early and hasn’t been brought back. If the admin were really going in and forcing subs to open you’d think they’d start with the sub that started everything and actually got coverage. Not some random subs.

Because suburbs aren’t very dense. you have much longer bus runs to pick up fewer people. Some cities don’t want to spend money on it. Not every part of every city is like downtown New York.

For north america it’s an issue of lower population density, a significant issue in most Canadian cities and mid size and lower American cities. Europe usually has higher density and better investment. Most cities can’t justify running frequent bus services in those areas which means people want to drive and thus fewer people use the bus and the buses get scaled back or removed. I’ve lived at both ends of this. Most cities aren’t willing to spend the money in the hopes that ridership catches on. I lived in a city of a million that had only 2 train lines. If you were lucky and lived right on it and worked right on it great. Otherwise every trip became insanely long. Many feeder buses were every 30 minutes, so you ran into a schedule issue there, then you had to get to the train, and possibly wait 15-20 minutes for it. Get to where you were going, get off and wait for the every 30 minute bus going out to where you needed to be and ride that.

Even if you left right when the bus was coming, you’d be looking at 15 minutes to the station, waiting up to 20 minutes depending on how the wind blew, riding say 25 minutes to your destination (already at 1 hour) then getting off waiting for possibly up to 20 minutes for the other bus, and then another 20 minutes out to where you were going. Possibly 90 minutes, vs 30 minutes in a car, and you could leave when you wanted to.

If the train time didn’t exactly line up, you might end up leaving 2+ hours before work started, vs leaving 45 minutes before while driving.

The vast majority of the plane isn’t driving through the center of London to get to work. In North America a lot of people are coming from the subburbs to somewhere else. Let’s look at the scenarios a lot of people deal with.

1. You take one bus near your house to your work
2. You live near a train station and you work is near a destination station
3. You are within reasonable biking distance and aren’t going to end up a sweaty mess by the time you arrive
4. You can’t do 1 or 2 because a single route won’t get you there and you may need additional transfers/long walks to get there.

1-3 are usually fine for commuting. Assuming you don’t need a vehicle to run errands, transport anything big to and from work, etc.

4 is the scenario for most people and why cars are popular. If I can walk out my front door to a bus stop, and get dropped off right beside work, a bus is great. if I walk 15 minutes to a stop, wait for a bus, take an inefficient route in the general direction of my work, get off, wait for a transfer (could be 5-15 minutes depending on the city/route) then take another inefficient route only arrive at my office in 2-3x the amount of time it would have taken to drive there, I’m driving. Most people don’t seem to realize that most places don’t have the awesome transportation system of a New York City, London, or some places like Seoul or Tokyo.

As the cities get smaller, the transportation gets worse. I grew up in a city that had 1 bus on every route. it would go by every stop once an hour. It was really awful as a system especially if you had to transfer. It wasn’t just a matter if living near a stop and having work near a destination stop, you also had to see if the bus time lined up with your work time. Otherwise you’d be there an hour early and maybe have to stay an hour late. If you live in some European or Asian cities that have really good public transit, or one of the very few north american ones that do, and your work and house line up just right, it makes sense for you, but for most it doesn’t.

Bus rapid transit and bus lanes are not universal and even if a city has them it doesn’t mean they have them on every single street. There have been times where public transportation has made sense for me. I lived in a city where I was on the same block as the train station and my place of work was a 5 minute walk from the destination station. Great, I took the train everyday.

The next job was a 25km drive, which took around 20-25 minutes in a car, and if I’d taken public transportation it would have been 1.5 hours each way. Most people fall into the latter type of situation which is why cars are so popular. Public transportation tends to fall apart as soon as you start adding in transfers. Buses/trains usually don’t perfectly line up so every time you have to transfer, you add in a significant amount of time, and neither of them are direct so when you combine inefficient routes with things like waiting time cars almost always make more sense.

Did you live in one of those cities where they had the flying buses? Because otherwise you’re just as much, if not more, at the whim of traffic and construction on a bus. A car will always be faster and more reliable than a bus. subways and local trains usually only beat cars because they’re often on a closed loop where they don’t have to stop. Plenty of trains have issues though, like the city I used to live in who shut down the trains downtown every single holiday weekend (downtown was the transfer point). A bike might be reliable on short distances where there is heavy traffic if you have dedicated bike lanes where you can avoid that traffic.

The problem comes if your city doesn’t have total subway coverage and you have to take a bus to a subway, take a subway, take a bus from the subway, driving will always win.

Are you confused as to why people would prefer to be in charge of their own transportation and set their own schedule instead of being at the whims of whatever forces that might cause buses & trains to be delayed, cancelled, rerouted, full, etc.?

He’s sharing data, that his company collected, but there remains the question of what the data exactly is. I mean, I don’t think any of us were born yesterday, and we’ve seen ‘science’ and ‘studies’ in journalism and how they’ll massage statistics and use vague terms to make specific claims. My favourite of this was years ago a study about cosmetics, which includes things like sun cream, was used to paint the narrative that all Korean men were walking around with make-up. While make-up was a subset of cosmetics, when you actually looked at it, it didn’t really support the claims they were making in the articles about it. For the most part I rarely trust anything like this being shared unless I can have a look at the whole package.

There are real studies and real science behind all these stories, but the journalists and middle men can rarely be trusted to present them in an unbiased manner that can be verified.

so I’d think it’s likely that he’s reporting it accurately

That’s not really a safe assumption to make. Even though they shared their methodology they don’t seem to have shared the questions or the data. Misleading survey questions aren’t uncommon.

No Kotaku is acting like this. There was a distinct lack of evidence in their article

Some suggested the data is wrong or that the owner stats are skewed by moms buying consoles for boys

This isn’t acting poorly, this is just questioning the methodology, which is a good idea, because a lot of these surveys are very poorly done or have obvious holes in them like that one. .

They later shared the methodology, but it still isn’t clear what the exact questions were.

The rest of the article is the Kotaku writer speaking very vaguely about people. Was it 2? 200? 2000? who responded like this? You certainly wouldn’t know from that article, but Kotaku isn’t shy about painting all gamers with the same brush in the headline.

Reddit doesn’t seem to make a lot of choices or take much action in its own good interest. I moderated a 25+ million subscriber sub there for a number of years. The minimal effort the admin put in to assist was laughable. The brigading against the sub, mod harassment, chronic abusers, the mediocre tools, it was just a poor experience. Four things stand out to me:

1. At one point this user harassed us via modmail over and over so we got his account suspended from all of reddit for 24 hours. This prompted them to create a throwaway, mail us, claim to be law enforcement and state that he was essentially going to hunt us down. The throwaway was banned, but the original account allowed to serve out its 24 hour suspension and then just carry on. We never got an answer on why nothing happened to that account. The decisions they made were mind boggling. We had a banned user make a new account, and it took a few months to realize that it was him. It’s not like the account didn’t cause trouble, it’s just they were previously banned for making chronically bad posts to karma farm. Just really subtle, but not egregious rule breaking. They’d been contacted numerous times to not post low effort/low quality/inappropriate stuff and after numerous attempts to correct it, with no real come back from them, we banned them. After awhile, and many many removals of their submissions, I realized this new single purpose account was them, sent it in for a ban check, confirmed, only to find out an account which had been used for no more than chronic ban evasion (it posted in no other sub) was handed a 2 week suspension and then just allowed to carry on. It was very frustrating as a mod trying to address abuse when the admin didn’t really seem to care.

2. I found this guy spamming hundreds of subs selling fake masks during the pandemic. I had to personally write 3 bots and chase him around Reddit for weeks to eventually shut him down because the admin were so slow and so inept at dealing with him they simply couldn’t do anything. This guy was operating by leaving his posts up for around 15 minutes when he posted so the mods would never get reports and ban him unless they happened to be right there when he did it. He also had dozens of accounts and kept buying more. By the time the admin would show up to ban any of his accounts he’d stopped using them for days and was through several new accounts since. It really didn’t take me long to write a bot to identify his posts with 100% accuracy (except for some archive bots that some people had that copied his posts), but they couldn’t do a thing to stop him

3. Pushshift was both the bane of our existence and the biggest tool I used. Bots obviously used it to find old posts to karma farm off of. We used it to track abusers in detail, notify other subs when we saw something up, etc. Without the ability to see deleted posts and comments we would have missed quite a bit. It was really the one tool that made moderating effective.

4. The horrendous block tool. Which essentially boils down to ‘I want the last word and I’m going to shut this discussion down entirely, even though I’m not a mod in this sub and have no business having that kind of control over a public discussion’. The best part was users who’d block someone, wait a bit, unblock, because you have to wait to reblock, then after that time passed, make another sniping comment and then immediately reblock. The old blocking method wasn’t perfect, but the new one was a mess. Someone blocking you meant that if a third party entered an on-going discussion, replied to you to discuss something, you couldn’t reply to them because the thread was downstream of someone who had blocked you.

This kind of behaviour just demonstrates a site that really doesn’t give a crap about its users or the community they try to build and participate in.

Mods can’t delete anything. They can only remove it. When anything is removed it’s there. The only ones who can permanently ‘delete’ something are the admins. So even if a mod went through and nuked the whole sub, the admins could just restore it.

Definitely. I work from home, so I use old.reddit most of the time, but any time I’m away from my machine, I’ll use RIF. Wouldn’t touch their app with a 10 foot pole, and in a mobile browser it isn’t great either. Behind the scenes the whole place is crumbling.