Hell yeah, good luck with the launch!

Considering the mod will ban you for expressing literally the same sentiment as the OP and was posting multiple time daily, I think they are.

There’s a channel called Lemmimo that did a pretty interesting documentary on it that explains it. Also explains a lot of the reasoning behind popular conspiracies and why some of them are obvious bunk. Dude is very talented only came across the video a couple days ago due to his music he made for the video.

I’ll have to see if I’ve got a copy of an NDA I signed for play testing but that’s what I would have thought. It would be provisional on your participation not on an agreement like old school EULAs. As someone else pointed out it seems to be in closed beta or some form of early access, so maybe Valve won’t care and it won’t come back on them.

I’m-

RIP. Taken out by Valve legal team already, everyone bail.

And I’m not under NDA. I have signed no contracts, made no verbal agreements; I haven’t even clicked through a EULA.  This message does pop up when I launch Deadlock, but I didn’t click OK; instead, I hit the Escape key and watched it disappear.

I’m not a lawyer but I sure hope the writer of this checked with a lawyer before posting because that does not sound right.

Edit: Thank you Vodulas for pointing out this update appended to the article.

Update, August 12th: Turns out Valve was not fine with me trying Deadlock with friends; I’ve been banned from matchmaking! Oh well. Please feel free to make fun of me in the comments!

I don’t think either is acceptable frankly but my guess is this is a passive statement “I hope they do x”. Yours is advocating for direct violence “we should shoot/kill x”. Both are shitty and should be avoided imo but one is a call to action.

What do you guy think was the intention with this?

I’m not trying to ascribe meaning to it… just wondering if anyone is familiar with the potential symbology

Then after being told, with image examples, that it’s a natural formation.

I grew up in a literal haunted house.

I am 100% serious, though being diagnosed later in life with bipolar type 1…

Given the last line I would suggest to you that it’s probably not a bad idea to get in touch with your usual doctor/psych and talk to them. Especially if you are prescribed medication as BD can make adherence to a medication regimen difficult as I’m sure you’re aware.

Always remember, if in doubt, take these questions to a medical professional rather than the internet. Here you could be getting advice from people more unwell than you are and don’t know about your situation or BD.

It likely will because they’re cheating and not learning. Whatever they’re shortcutting by cheating, if it’s assumed knowledge down the line, they won’t have it because they cheated instead of learning. The morality of it aside, if you rely on cheating in academia you’re just screwing yourself over, in more ways than one.

I’ll take your word for it. At the institution I’m currently at and my former one this is academic misconduct as it isn’t your own work. I’m real suss on anyone claiming to have a phd while suggesting methods that essentially introduce a potential time bomb for your degree. May as well actually learn how to learn if you’re going to uni but hey that’s just my (apparently red hot) take.

I think getting them to show their work is appropriate and for any that can’t replicate their work explain to them the downfalls of cheating. The other comments here justifying likely haven’t ever been in an academic setting. Relying on cheating is setting yourself up for failure if you intend to continue studying at a tertiary level.

I don’t think a punishment is necessary for cheaters just a lecture. Let them know people can and have had their degrees rescinded years after the fact when their cheating was detected with newer methods.

Edit: downvotes for suggesting that cheating is bad lmao. Like I said cheating at uni is easily detected these days. Fuck the getting caught, you’re paying however much to get an education, you may as well actually learn.

Alright and then this can be it for me as I’m pretty sure we won’t reach a consensus.

What would you say of “people downvoting posts about football and basketball because they don’t care about it”? Or my posts that were on the emacs community, which has about 10 active users per month? Or etc

I would say the edge cases for this don’t justify the blanket guideline and if they did it could be worded (and likely similarly ignored) like reddit did. I would also say situations like the language one can be implement with a UI fix. Plenty of small communities both here and on reddit grew despite being “niche” or even just not popular.

You seem to understand that we’re are not talking about your case, but you still want to keep your downvote based on a flawed assumption.

No. You don’t seem to understand that you’re providing guidelines that are incompatible with voting. You want to talk about edge cases in which your guideline can function and makes sense. I’m providing you far more likely and apparent cases where it doesn’t. Your guideline means someone would be breaking them even if downvoting content that breaks the rules of conduct I.e using it directly as intended. I’d consider guidelines for not downvoting stuff solely because you don’t like it for “reasons” before your guideline. Which I’d argue being a lot of former redditors, Lemmy largely inherited.

The idea of even a guideline against shielding communities from negative engagement while affording all the benefits of positive engagement isn’t worth the odd niche community post being spared a couple downvotes from people who don’t know how to use it. If individual communities want to only display upvotes, then goes nuts since that makes way more sense. I doubt I was the first but I’d guess most votes are from people who share my numerous strong views on it. Anyway, as I alluded to before if you can’t understand my position after this many paragraphs then we probably better call it a day. Have a good one.

That’s fine and I’m saying that it is not a good idea to do so. I had figured my providing you with examples how intended voting behaviour can violate your proposed guideline would demonstrate that. Non English communities getting downvoted for… not being English is not intended or desired behaviour and deserves a more direct fix than a guideline.

No because that has nothing to do with why I downvoted the OP. Also, as I pointed out in an edit, my engagement with this post has likely driven it up in this specific instance anyway. Even if it doesn’t this went from being engaged by 2-3 people to a lot more real quick despite the OP largely neutral votes for the first hour, and now being -10 so clearly it doesn’t just drop the post off the face of the planet due to downvoting and probably other factors are considered.

Anyway, throughout this I’ve done my best to address every point you’ve brought up. Yet I’ve had multiple questions, some even asking for clarification, go ignored. So I think now is probably a good time for the old “agree to disagree”.

I mean if you want me to be specific then unfortunately I can do so. It’s more than I just disagree with you. It’s that I think your reasoning in the OP is very flawed and misrepresents the situation you are attempting to portray. Which felt dishonest initially but given your attempts to engage people who disagree I now assume misguided, sorry to say. Also I think people stating their views under the pretence of a question should be discouraged due to proximity behaviours like concern trolling (not implying that’s what you’ve been doing, just an example). Lastly, I super strongly oppose being shown content on a site like this that I can’t interact with. For your case it may make sense but I can super easily see it being abused by the cases in my example; where people can grandstand shitty politics(again as an example) but then the onus is on me for some reason to not engage with said content.

Fair, my point was not everyone downvoting things when they aren’t in a community is because they don’t like it. Good news, some instances have implemented “show upvotes only” so the displayed count is unaffected by downvotes. So you’ve already got a means/precedent to do so.

I appreciate the first part of your comment and the overall candour. However:

1. Which post? Because I only downvoted the OP because you essentially imply all people downvoting content In communities they aren’t in are doing so because they just don’t like it. I’m asserting people sometimes do with reason, like the flaming I mention. Also the OP isn’t really asking a question(imo), it’s stating your views with the question in the title as a means to do so. The rest, even you disagreeing with me I have not.
2. What assumption? My initial reply is explaining why people may downvote content when they aren’t in the community in cases outside the ones you’ve provided.
3. I don’t see how this is worth mentioning that I accept the reality that people don’t use vote mechanisms as they’re intended? Edit: if this is in regards my sports post on reddit remark that was me essentially saying “yeah sometime people don’t use it correctly which sucks” not “deal with it”. Though again said communities could avoid it by not allowing post that are just match titles etc.
4. Why would I when my issues with the OP still stand? Edit 2:
5. Definitely not advocating for downvoting content you just don’t like. For me content I don’t like doesn’t means it’s inherently “bad”. Bad for me means inflammatory, trolling, rule breaking, low effort etc.
6. The one vote against OP is offset by my upvotes of your other comments and engagement with the post; and is likely weighing it up more than down at this point.

Yeah that does suck but unfortunately people using downvote as a disagree button was a problem on reddit despite the guidelines against doing so. So the same people would likely ignore OPs suggested guideline too. Again, I wouldn’t consider that bad content and not in the criteria for my prior post. Though it does make me wonder if lemmy has implemented vote fuzzing if it’s getting downvotes that quickly? Most likely people are just dicks though. My previous partner was a vegan so I am unfortunately familiar with people getting offended by them just existing.

Now that is just lazy, doesn’t even fix the problem when you could just filter it and never see that sub again.

I don’t view inane content as bad. So that rules me out for that case.

Me using functionality of a website in its intended fashion isn’t “policing”. I usually do that afterwards if it’s bad enough but usually a sub has to have a pattern of doing it before I filter it. I know sport subs that were just match/race titled would cop downvotes on reddit, which again sounds like an issues better addressed by the community it’s being posted too.

If I can see it and I view it as bad content it’s getting downvoted. Especially since such content usually is inflammatory political post from niche politic subs that have no problem espousing their politics in a “either you agree with us 100% or you’re wrong/the enemy”. The rest of the time it’s weird fetish porn.

I browse by all because it’s a good way to see communities/content I wouldn’t otherwise see if I stuck to a curated community list. Not being part of the community doesn’t matter because I’m still seeing the content and still behaving consistent with using the downvote button to collectively filter it out.

I think a better option is these communities opting for the post not to get sent to all. Which won’t happen because a lot of previously mentioned post; the target isn’t the community who already likely agree with them, it’s everyone else. Better yet these communities could implement rules against post that are clearly inflammatory/flaming but then where would they grandstand?