4 ms·

Why should I, J. Random Reader, look at the game genre most notorious for putting people in a frustrated emotional state and care about that game administrators

Why should I, J. Random Reader, look at the game genre most notorious for putting people in a frustrated emotional state and care about that game administrators' attempts to enforce good vibes through social control without ever touching the fundamental mechanics of their anger-generator? It's easy to focus on someone that uniquely makes it their thing to be purposefully annoying. Certainly easier than to employ systems thinking about why players are pushed into states conductive to being upset by others, or wanting to upset others. So ban with an iron fist. Or don't ban. Whatever. It's not really relevant to me until they start crafting new and more terrifying tools of social manipulation to envelope the one they refuse to touch because it's their cash cow. I don't mean to single out Polygon. They, like any outlet trying to profit from covering games, seems unable to move past the myopic coverage that refuses to admit "toxic" "shitlords" are an emergent phenomenon of life (as we currently know it). They seem hell bent on never looking at what it means for societies to have such large chunks of their population engage with software explicitly designed for emotional impact. Some of which knowingly and willfully employ techniques of physiological manipulation. Games press is visibly scrambling for meaning beyond toy purchase advice. That service is becoming available from more sources than ever. The editors are getting older on average and looking for more substance out of their life's work. This kind of coverage has the potential for an editorial voice unique to game coverage, instead of being hangers-on that poorly cover widespread social politics in an embarrassingly transparent attempt for relevance. Instead of any of that, I got to read the hot take "maybe this guy does more damage banned than unbanned." So I'll reiterate my question: Am I supposed to care?

spdionis 10y ago
> Certainly easier than to employ systems thinking about why players are pushed into states conductive to being upset by others, or wanting to upset others. League of Legends and its genre are popular because of the highly competitive nature of the game. A highly competitive game naturally leads to frustration sometimes. The only way to take away the frustration is to remove the competition (and ruin the game). Do you have any other proposals?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- forgottenpass 10y ago
  Do you have any other proposals? I'm not proposing to change what makes a MOBA a MOBA. I'm proposing that Polygon acknowledge the social aspect of a MOBA (and other games) beyond a surface level. As a system with inputs, outputs and feedback loops. Elevate their readers understanding, rather than write advertizing for a YouTuber. Provide an understanding where the idea a malicious banned user burning through troll accounts might cause less damage if unbanned and given a stake in their status within the artificial system is no longer a novel idea. Because it's not a novel idea of user moderation.
wodenokoto 10y ago
I really don't understand what you are trying to say. Do you consider LoL to be a game structured in such a way that it brings the worst out in people? And therefore we shouldn't care about the troubles of an admin, because it is the game designer who, so to speak, designed the game for trolling behaviour?
- forgottenpass 10y ago
  Yes. And to a large extent, it is not noteworthy enough to publish about without a novel event or perspective. I didn't say we "shouldn't care about the troubles of an admin." I'm specifically scoping around my disagreement with Polygon over what's noteworthy. This article falls into the category defined by the old saying "news is only there to fill up the space between the ads." We can care about the troubles of an admin on an interpersonal (or any other) level, just like we can care about anyone with an unpleasant job. That's largely a different topic.

spdionis 10y ago

> Certainly easier than to employ systems thinking about why players are pushed into states conductive to being upset by others, or wanting to upset others. League of Legends and its genre are popular because of the highly competitive nature of the game. A highly competitive game naturally leads to frustration sometimes. The only way to take away the frustration is to remove the competition (and ruin the game). Do you have any other proposals?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
forgottenpass 10y ago
Do you have any other proposals? I'm not proposing to change what makes a MOBA a MOBA. I'm proposing that Polygon acknowledge the social aspect of a MOBA (and other games) beyond a surface level. As a system with inputs, outputs and feedback loops. Elevate their readers understanding, rather than write advertizing for a YouTuber. Provide an understanding where the idea a malicious banned user burning through troll accounts might cause less damage if unbanned and given a stake in their status within the artificial system is no longer a novel idea. Because it's not a novel idea of user moderation.

wodenokoto 10y ago

I really don't understand what you are trying to say. Do you consider LoL to be a game structured in such a way that it brings the worst out in people? And therefore we shouldn't care about the troubles of an admin, because it is the game designer who, so to speak, designed the game for trolling behaviour?

forgottenpass 10y ago
Yes. And to a large extent, it is not noteworthy enough to publish about without a novel event or perspective. I didn't say we "shouldn't care about the troubles of an admin." I'm specifically scoping around my disagreement with Polygon over what's noteworthy. This article falls into the category defined by the old saying "news is only there to fill up the space between the ads." We can care about the troubles of an admin on an interpersonal (or any other) level, just like we can care about anyone with an unpleasant job. That's largely a different topic.