Feb 032017
 

The other day my email box contained a query about a comment that had been written on a DDOGamer article. The person who wrote the comment could see it but a friend could not, and the comment writer wondered if “… someone at Standing Stones felt that perhaps it touched too close?”.

The email caught my attention and made me feel like I should respond publicly.

This seems fairly likely to be a simple browser caching issue (have friend clear cache and refresh page; comment will appear), but the writer’s mind jumped directly to censorship. Which surprised me. This site does not engage in censorship of any kind, has not for years and years, and doesn’t even moderate comments except in a few, very specific cases which are called out here. If you are too lazy to click the link, it prohibits hate speech, personal attacks, that sort of thing.

I’ve only had to intervene in comments a handful of times, all of which were personal attacks. In each case, the intervention was clearly called out, right in the comment I was moderating. For the most extreme examples, check here.

The other part of this that I find fascinating is the idea that anyone at Standing Stone Games could in some way cause me to delete a comment. That has come up before; the idea that SSG policies or actions apply here in some way.

No one at SSG has the time to police the DDO world’s various blog sites. I am quite confident that the vast majority of what happens here – the vast majority – is never even viewed by anyone at SSG. Or at Turbine before. Or at WB Games, when they were involved. The chance that any specific comment is seen seems very remote.

Even if so, this site (and as far as I know, all of the DDO blog sites) is not affiliated with SSG in any way. They do not approve or disapprove content, they do not have the necessary permissions to make changes to anything, and they do not ask me to filter or change anything in any way.

There have been times when I have asked an SSG employee a question, and gotten an answer that was specified as “off the record”. I could still write about it if I so chose, but that would endanger my ability to ask future questions, and also be kind of rude. But “off the record” responses are not what we are talking about here.

  • Assumption one, if something is missing, I must have censored it. Nope.
  • Assumption two, that SSG can edit content here, or ask me to do it for them. Nope.

Anyone can write here, and if they do, they can do so in confidence that their words will be left as is, unless they violate the (very) few rules that exist, and even then, my editing will be visible and up front. Nothing “disappears”, nothing is deleted, nothing is mysteriously changed. Nothing.

And that is that.

Happy Friday!

πŸ™‚ πŸ˜€ πŸ™‚

 

  5 Responses to “Surprisingly, Censorship Has Come Up as a Topic”

Comments (5)
  1. [Comment redacted by Michael Jordan’s press team]

  2. This message was not @!##%! censored!

  3. I’m not exactly sure I would classify the one time you edited one of my comments as a “personal attack”, but I suppose a generic pejorative (no matter how ‘mild’) thrown out to the Ether* could be very loosely classified that way, if you wanted. Hehehe.
    πŸ˜‰

    * OK, OK – maybe not exactly to the Ether… (hehehe).
    πŸ˜‰

    {The few, the proud, the…edited? https://chezcr.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-few-proud-theedited.html }
    πŸ˜‰

  4. I find this interesting as well. I can’t imagine anybody at SSG having the time to review all of the blogs and posts to enact censorship of any kind. In fact, I believe they support frank opinions. It is what makes the game grow. Of course, this doesn’t include personnel attacks and other such hateful things.

  5. It’s true. I spend 20 hours each day making sure nothing negative is said on the Internet, using whatever tactics are necessary to keep only positive comments in comment sections of the World Wide Web. πŸ™‚

What do you think?

%d bloggers like this: