Let’s not give Valve a pass just because they can lazily and baselessly say “um nintendo!” about it.
okay but this was not your initial argument–this is an entirely separate issue from it, actually. your argument was “Valve about to become as litigious as Nintendo with IP they’ve let rot.” and that is demonstrably false or they wouldn’t have let Portal Revolution release. if they were going to be litigious about the Portal IP, why would they DMCA Portal64 but not Revolution?
to me, this is clearly an example of incorrectly getting mad about something and then shifting the goalposts to not have to take the L.
and that is demonstrably false or they wouldn’t have let Portal Revolution release. if they were going to be litigious about the Portal IP, why would they DMCA Portal64 but not Revolution?
Revolution is a mod for Portal 2 and requires the purchase of Portal 2 to play. Anyone who wants to play it has already given money to valve, or needs to. Revolution Is great for Valve, they do basically nothing and get they more sales of Portal 2. Portal64 does nothing for Valve.
There is a very clear incentive for Valve to not only allow but boost Revolution.
While Valve permits Revolution, a game that benefits the company, it does not imply they would also permit Portal64, a game that lacks benefits for Valve.
Portal64 required you to have access to one file from portal 1, portal_pak_000.vpk. It’s trivial to get that file. Either via google, or purchasing Portal, extracting the file, then getting a refund.
Revolution requires a continuously working copy of Portal 2.
It’s significantly easier for the general population to play Portal64 without giving money to Valve than Revolution.
you run into the same issue: being hyperbolic here doesn’t really work if literally the same week of your hyperbole, something directly countering the hyperbolic point you’re making happens. hyperbole isn’t non-falsifiable or unimpeachable just because it’s hyperbole and intended to be humorous–you can still be hyperbolically wrong, and in this case you are.
Yes, hyperbole is non-falsefiable. It’s a rhetorical device, not a claim unto itself. In this instance it’s a rhetorical device being used to communicate the idea that, were this Nintendo, they’d be receiving rightful backlash, but people, like you, online will give a pass due to the sheer fact that it’s Valve doing the takedown.
were this Nintendo, they’d be receiving rightful backlash, but people, like you, online will give a pass due to the sheer fact that it’s Valve doing the takedown.
well… now you’re indicating that this kind of isn’t hyperbole from you, because you’re just straight arguing the underlying (and still incorrect) “hyperbolic” point now, lol
Yes, hyperbole is non-falsefiable. It’s a rhetorical device, not a claim unto itself.
i mean i think this is just obviously ridiculous. if someone said “every person who dislikes Valve is a pedophile who hurts children” or whatever hyperbolically i think it’d be silly to say that’s non-falsifiable just because it’s hyperbolic. there’s still an underlying and incorrect claim being made
are we seriously calling “pointing out that the argument being made has been changed in a rhetorical sleight of hand because the original argument is completely wrong” nitpicky and toxic now? come on. this is a piss take and bordering on “let’s look the other way when someone is making a false argument that aligns with what i want to be true”.
I feel like you should take a step back and take a look at your posts lately. You’ve been super combative, looking for points to cling to and attack people on. It literally looks like every angry redditor. It’s a terrible look for the admin of an instance whose slogan is ‘bee nice’.
While you may not agree with the tone that Alyaza used in their reply, their response is logically and factually correct and I think it’s natural for someone to be upset about someone who’s being deceitful with their point (whether it’s done consciously or not). Furthermore, jumping into a conversation someone else is having online to call one side pedantic or toxic isn’t exactly treating them with good grace or being nice. If you wanted to diffuse, you could have asked questions or treated their response as charitably as possible before jumping to conclusions about intent.
Being nice and being civil are two different things and we do not strive to be perfectly civil around here. After all, weaponizing civility is often used by the intolerant to try and tone police others. While tolerance/intolerance isn’t at play here, the same mechanisms of speech are, and its fair to attribute charitability and faith based on the conversation as it unfolds. If someone is deceitful in their response, someone responding to that bad faith with less respect is to be expected.
i guess this is a bit opaque but: pretty much any (formal or informal) mod action or guidance that isn’t completely self-evident (i.e. spam removal, approving users, pinning threads) has been seen by at least two or three other mods, usually more depending on who’s around. that includes this informal correction from me upthread. the site-wide mod team is aware of what i said because we have a chat for vibe checking stuff like this–and straightforwardly, if they disagreed with how i responded or the substance of what i said, then the posts would not still be up because i’d delete or amend them.
okay but this was not your initial argument–this is an entirely separate issue from it, actually. your argument was “Valve about to become as litigious as Nintendo with IP they’ve let rot.” and that is demonstrably false or they wouldn’t have let Portal Revolution release. if they were going to be litigious about the Portal IP, why would they DMCA Portal64 but not Revolution?
to me, this is clearly an example of incorrectly getting mad about something and then shifting the goalposts to not have to take the L.
Revolution is a mod for Portal 2 and requires the purchase of Portal 2 to play. Anyone who wants to play it has already given money to valve, or needs to. Revolution Is great for Valve, they do basically nothing and get they more sales of Portal 2. Portal64 does nothing for Valve.
There is a very clear incentive for Valve to not only allow but boost Revolution.
While Valve permits Revolution, a game that benefits the company, it does not imply they would also permit Portal64, a game that lacks benefits for Valve.
From what I read of the portal64 project it did require owning the original (or having a copy of it) because it patches the assets from the base game.
Portal64 required you to have access to one file from portal 1, portal_pak_000.vpk. It’s trivial to get that file. Either via google, or purchasing Portal, extracting the file, then getting a refund.
Revolution requires a continuously working copy of Portal 2.
It’s significantly easier for the general population to play Portal64 without giving money to Valve than Revolution.
Or it’s hyperbole.
you run into the same issue: being hyperbolic here doesn’t really work if literally the same week of your hyperbole, something directly countering the hyperbolic point you’re making happens. hyperbole isn’t non-falsifiable or unimpeachable just because it’s hyperbole and intended to be humorous–you can still be hyperbolically wrong, and in this case you are.
Yes, hyperbole is non-falsefiable. It’s a rhetorical device, not a claim unto itself. In this instance it’s a rhetorical device being used to communicate the idea that, were this Nintendo, they’d be receiving rightful backlash, but people, like you, online will give a pass due to the sheer fact that it’s Valve doing the takedown.
well… now you’re indicating that this kind of isn’t hyperbole from you, because you’re just straight arguing the underlying (and still incorrect) “hyperbolic” point now, lol
i mean i think this is just obviously ridiculous. if someone said “every person who dislikes Valve is a pedophile who hurts children” or whatever hyperbolically i think it’d be silly to say that’s non-falsifiable just because it’s hyperbolic. there’s still an underlying and incorrect claim being made
This is nitpicky and toxic. Who cares? Bee nice.
are we seriously calling “pointing out that the argument being made has been changed in a rhetorical sleight of hand because the original argument is completely wrong” nitpicky and toxic now? come on. this is a piss take and bordering on “let’s look the other way when someone is making a false argument that aligns with what i want to be true”.
I feel like you should take a step back and take a look at your posts lately. You’ve been super combative, looking for points to cling to and attack people on. It literally looks like every angry redditor. It’s a terrible look for the admin of an instance whose slogan is ‘bee nice’.
While you may not agree with the tone that Alyaza used in their reply, their response is logically and factually correct and I think it’s natural for someone to be upset about someone who’s being deceitful with their point (whether it’s done consciously or not). Furthermore, jumping into a conversation someone else is having online to call one side pedantic or toxic isn’t exactly treating them with good grace or being nice. If you wanted to diffuse, you could have asked questions or treated their response as charitably as possible before jumping to conclusions about intent.
Being nice and being civil are two different things and we do not strive to be perfectly civil around here. After all, weaponizing civility is often used by the intolerant to try and tone police others. While tolerance/intolerance isn’t at play here, the same mechanisms of speech are, and its fair to attribute charitability and faith based on the conversation as it unfolds. If someone is deceitful in their response, someone responding to that bad faith with less respect is to be expected.
i guess this is a bit opaque but: pretty much any (formal or informal) mod action or guidance that isn’t completely self-evident (i.e. spam removal, approving users, pinning threads) has been seen by at least two or three other mods, usually more depending on who’s around. that includes this informal correction from me upthread. the site-wide mod team is aware of what i said because we have a chat for vibe checking stuff like this–and straightforwardly, if they disagreed with how i responded or the substance of what i said, then the posts would not still be up because i’d delete or amend them.
Alright. There’s no need to get into this here. This has nothing to do with the post anymore
Dude, someone corrected your misinformation and you call them a bully?
Check the username. Wasn’t a reply to me.