392
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
392 points (95.6% liked)
Games
16861 readers
302 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I have mixed opinions on whether regulation is needed. Maybe just more transparency in marketing would be enough, and I'd be happy to see that, but an outright ban on the business model seems heavy handed to me, given that it's a problem individuals can simply choose not to participate in if they're informed of the risks.
I wonder how many people would buy a game where the piece tag says something like this:
And then in the fine print:
It’s a very good idea. But I‘m sorry to inform you that this is regulation. It is a very nuanced piece though. Much better than banning it outright, at least to try first.
I know it's a regulation. I'm just saying I prefer less intrusive regulations when they're enough to get the job done.
Makes sense and will be taken more serious than a black and white approach. I‘m with you there.