Beet Wagon posted:

When I get the word to ban everyone in this thread who makes low content posts, it'll be fitting that the last ban I request is my own.

Beet Wagon posted:

When I get the word to ban everyone in this thread who makes low content posts, it'll be fitting that the last ban I request is my own.

ArfJason posted:

you all clamored for the retard who doxxed people and celebrated him.

D_Smart posted:

I wasn't talking about the "sanctity of the ignore list". I was talking about this specific rule as it applies


But since you - as admin - banned me without cause, and just because you felt like it, rules, like facts, are useless I guess.

ArfJason posted:

you all clamored for the retard who doxxed people and celebrated him.

ArfJason posted:

you all clamored for the retard who doxxed people and celebrated him.

Sappo569 posted:

Derek he already have you the reason , he doesn't like you

Now if I've learned anything from star citizen and how to moderate forums , if you don't like someone you just ban them

D_Smart posted:

I wasn't talking about the "sanctity of the ignore list". I was talking about this specific rule as it applies


But since you - as admin - banned me without cause, and just because you felt like it, rules, like facts, are useless I guess.

XK posted:

Coolest pair of quotes I've ever got.


gently caress, you just "same"d my previous post then jump right back into this?

Chill, guy.

D1E posted:

As lovely as Star Citizen is, I would play it every day of the week if my only other choice was LOD. And I bet so would 99% of all gamers.

ArfJason posted:

you all clamored for the retard who doxxed people and celebrated him.

cool new Polack jokes posted:

Is it still doxxing if theyre not a real person, I'm referring specifically to the middle aged Norwegian

Like uh "criminal fraud unmasked" is not quite the same as collecting and disseminating private information with intent to harm

JUST SAIYIN

DogonCrook posted:

I think the point is the mods dont want to read through every asperger hell dump to see if they did or did not in fact break the law.

iron buns posted:

Old:


New:

DogonCrook posted:

I think the point is the mods dont want to read through every asperger hell dump to see if they did or did not in fact break the law.

Sappo569 posted:

Isn't that what they do as mods already ?

ArfJason posted:

cool. people trying to rationalize doxxing.

Mirificus posted:

quote:

The Curious Case Of Star Citizen

Quick disclaimer: I am speaking as a fan of the game and as someone who is hopeful that the game is a success. At the same time, in following the game I've observed a number of practices from CIG that could be classified as deceptive or misleading. I hope to make this thread not as an accusation against CIG but as a rough guide of things to look out for in the interest of protecting the consumer.

The most fundamental thing to keep in mind in this regard is the unique funding model of the game, which inverts some of the more innocuous practices in the industry and makes them potentially hazardous.

For instance, it is common for any videogame to experience delays, but it is not common for a videogame to receive funding based on overly optimistic estimates. In the case of Star Citizen, the release dates have been pushed back year on year, from 2014 to 2015 to 2016 to 2017, and almost always at the last possible moment. The most recent example is CIG's Gamescom presentation this August, which showcased an impressive list of features and optimizations. At the end of the presentation Chris Roberts, the head of CIG, stated that they are aiming for the end of 2016. Sales for Star Citizen quickly spiked after the presentation, but subsequent information about 3.0 has been limited. More recently (only 3 months from the Gamescom presentation), it's been revealed that they haven't even finished shooting the motion capture for the release, which means we still have quite a while to wait. Virtually no one in the community believes 3.0 will make its 2016 date. Yet there has been no official statement from CIG that the timetables have not been adjusted.

From this and numerous other examples we might conclude that Chris is either very naive about these release estimates, as he misses them broadly and consistently, or that he is aware that putting a shorter release estimate is good for sales. I cannot read his mind so I cannot answer this question myself, but it is largely irrelevant. The important point is that potential consumers should remain vigilant when it comes to taking CIG at their word about release windows. Expect a release not months but years after CIG projects a date.

There are other reasons to be suspicious as well. In the past, CIG's funding has relied on the good will of their backers, and they have made multiple assurances to those backers in order to maintain their loyalty. Recently, however, CIG has been scaling back on those assurances (more here: https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/355007/we-didnt-fund-a-company-we-funded-a-game-remember-the-pledge). Many backers have stored up hundreds of dollars in store credit over the years, and these backers have been assured that they will be rewarded with the best deals on ships. Yet more recently, CIG has begun to offer cash only discounts on ships, effectively reversing their promise to those who have been most loyal to the company. While the details of this reversal may seem minor to those outside the community, there is a feeling of unease amongst backers that CIG is on a slippery slope. It is hard to know whether these recent changes are motivated by funds drying up or merely a need for a bigger warchest, but they are doing so at the expense of their credibility amongst their own.

In addition to all this, early 2016 saw the release of a new ToS from CIG that was quite bravely anti-consumer. Whereas previous ToS's promised accountability in terms of a financial audit and the option of a refund if the game was not delivered in a certain amount of time, the new ToS completely denied the opportunity for a refund regardless of their ability to deliver a product. All customers who signed up under this new ToS are out of luck if things were to go south.

CIG's funding model is exciting because it is essentially selling an ambitious vision rather than a product. But there is a danger lurking in the exchange. The model allows CIG to make fantastic promises at the outset with almost no accountability when it comes to delivering on them. For this reason, I think a "watchdog" approach is warranted with regards to the enticing new promises CIG are sure to make in the years to come.

D1E posted:

You have revealed yourself to be a doxxing, petulant, whiny, insecure, desperate and tedious little "Internet Warlord", Derek. Go play in your own message boards, since you can't even be entrusted with enough responsibility to be a moderator on a real forum.

You know what's really funny? As lovely as Star Citizen is, I would play it every day of the week if my only other choice was LOD. And I bet so would 99% of all gamers.

happyhippy posted:

Open Whaling Frequencies

Generation Internet posted:

derek smart is a big baby weirdo who apparently blocks everyone not currently encouraging/enabling him

this thread is bad for encouraging/enabling him

Thoatse posted:

https://www.reddit.com/r/GamesWatchdog/comments/5eufpp/the_curious_case_of_star_citizen/

thatguy posted:

Way to not be a big baby about it.