511
512

Subreddit Ruling: Richard Lewis (self.leagueoflegends)

BuckeyeSundae[M] が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着注目論争中古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]esportsLawEU 188 ポイント189 ポイント  (84子コメント)

The mere existence of a "subreddit ruling" is very disconcerting to say the least.

I will tackle two issues: (1) user harassment as reason for a ban and (2) the ban of Richard Lewis.

(1) user harassment

The case where tweets linking to user comments causes harassment is quite unfortunate. However, I am not convinced that this is enough to base a ban on it. A lot of prominent eSports figures (including Krepo and other players) link directly to comments and cause intense discussion of certain statements. If you do not allow this behaviour at all, please make a rule and enforce it fair and even. In my opinion, this is not an issue at all. If I post in an open forum an opinion, I have to be prepared to discuss this. If I get harassed, it is the mods' job to protect me. Which does not mean to ban the source of tweets but rather keep an eye on posts that are made. I would like to see the mods to limit themselves to their core competence: Make sure that everything runs smoothly in this subreddit.

(2) Ban of Richard Lewis

I am completely shocked to see this ban. Richard brings great, well researched content. A ban does severely interfere with the much needed discussion of controversial topics in eSports. This subreddit has provided a forum to have such discussion. If this is not possible anymore, this damages the scene as a whole and makes the subreddit less valuable for people who would like to engage with other smart discussants. I have already given my reasoning, why I am not convinced by this "user harassment" line of argumentation. I would also like to add that I not always agree how Richard takes the fight to people and mods of this subreddit. It is, however, the job of the mods to endure this pain and make sure that we, the users, can still discuss valuable content.

At this point, I also need to add that I see the distinction between a personal ban and a content ban. Banning his content is absolutely inacceptable because at least the discussion about his content should be possible for other users.

In the end the ban of his content is not more than an arbitrary ban of an inconvenient voice. It is arbitrary censorship. If this ban is upheld, it is a huge loss for this subreddit and the whole community.

[–]DSA-Zocker [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

There is a difference between only linking to a comment and insulting the writer of said comment in the same tweet.

[–]AjStarGG [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

The case where tweets linking to user comments causes harassment is quite unfortunate. However, I am not convinced that this is enough to base a ban on it.

You just ignored all the other facts on why RL is banned.

I am completely shocked to see this ban. Richard brings great, well researched content. A ban does severely interfere with the much needed discussion of controversial topics in eSports.

Most of the time, the rest of the time he tries to stir up drama. I am not ok with that.

If this is not possible anymore, this damages the scene as a whole and makes the subreddit less valuable for people who would like to engage with other smart discussants.

  1. There are others journalist, not only RL and 2) people are visiting this sub for things releated to LoL, not drama and some other shit.

In the end this ban is not more than an arbitrary ban of an inconvenient voice. It is arbitrary censorship. If this ban is upheld, it is a huge loss for this subreddit and the whole community.

Care to explain, not just throw some dumb words in the air?

Btw, why are you trying to act that you are the real /u/esportsLaw, why haven't you used a more original username?

[–]jaynay1 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

IIRC she actually does some writing work as a lawyer familiar with German law so it's not like she's just copying the name.

But you're absolutely right that her post is massively problematic -- the vote manipulation that Richard's Twitter provides wasn't addressed in the slightest, and it's the most damning charge against him.

And that doesn't even mention that whole conflict of interest thing, since IIRC she's actually written articles with Richard.

[–]AGuyWithPants [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

His Twitter doesn't provide vote manipulation at all. He posts it on his Twitter and gives visibility to the post. He doesn't ever explicitly state to down vote the post. If people down vote the comment, it is their thought, not Richards.

[–]DrCytokinesis [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Btw, why are you trying to act that you are the real /u/esportsLaw, why haven't you used a more original username?

Because she is an actual lawyer that has worked with /u/esportsLaw on this subreddit before on many topics? She answered a ton of questions in tandem with esportlaw during the ama and she contributes a lot to the subreddit. The fact you are trying to discredit her shows how little research you actually do while trying to simultaneously bringing up the lack of research in Richard's articles. You're a hypocritical idiot and the fact you thought those were "dumb words" shows how deep your ineptitude really is.

[–]jamescharlick [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Where do you stand on the topic of setting an example with your behavior as a prominent member of the scene?

The comments here seem to be consistently that he writes excellent articles but acts like an abusive child in reddit comments and on social media. While there is no such rule that I am aware of posted on subreddit, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold such an influential personality to standards similar to how professional players have to maintain a certain level of non-toxicity in order to be allowed to play in the LCS.

I will add that I fall on the side of censorship being bad, especially when the overriding reason seems to be personal grievance on behalf of the mod team, and I agree with what you have said above. However playing devils advocate and looking at both sides, this has been a while in coming. If I were his employer I would have encouraged him to stop using reddit to reply to comments on his own articles or links featuring him and his content as a blanket rule, since he is unable to reply with a level head in many instances. A little self control and diplomacy can go a long way.

Furthermore if he has been repeatedly warned for his behavior, such as (1) tweeting user comments leading to harassment, then I don't think it's unreasonable to ban eventually. If it's one of a list of things that the mods are using as ammunition but he never received explicit warnings for that's another thing entirely, but surely it's understandable that when he shares a comment on his twitter that he doesn't agree with it's likely his followers will attack that comment on his behalf without even being asked. Asking him to stop sharing those comments is not unreasonable as a result, because we're not really talking about starting a debate but more of an attack on that user.

The whole brigading issue goes back to the concept of a prominent personality with a lot of loyal followers. While he has never explicitly asked for upvotes or comments it is implied whenever you share your work. I have no issue with sharing your work, at all, and vote brigading in this instance is a ridiculous concept. However when you are sharing comments from users that you disagree with you are also implying that you want you followers to go ahead and defend your position which does lead to the unacceptable situation I outlined above of personal attacks on that user by your followers.

I would love your opinion on those matters as well esportsLawEU, because at the end of the day a sensible rule for the average user and a sensible rule for an established figure in the LoL or eSports scene may not be the same thing. Sometimes these things are simply not scale-able. If you are deemed to be acting unreasonably and are asked to stop that behavior isn't that enough?

Again I am largely playing devils advocate here but I am interested in the debate.

[–]Aidensen 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well said.

[–]bearofmoka [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I agree that his content shouldn't be banned because this is a great forum to be able to discuss it. However, I'm a bit unclear - do you agree with the banning of Richard himself or do you want that lifted too? In my opinion, his childish behaviour doesn't deserve infinite chances to redeem himself and at some point, a line has to be drawn on his conduct.

 

Edit: words

[–]esportsLawEU [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The distinction between banning Richard's content and banning himself is very good and I must admit, I havn't thought about this before getting off my chest my initial thoughts (kids, do not do this at home). The ban of Richard's content would mean a huge loss for this subreddit and I had this in mind when I wrote my post. I can understand points that may have led to his personal ban. As I said, I do not agree with everything he does and the way he engages in fights with people can be below the belt.

[–]badgeruk[BadgerUK] (EU-W) [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

"Redeem himself?" - What the fuck is happening to the world?

/facepalm

Please upvote my posts. You are all a bunch of cunts

[–]OriginalBuzz [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Disagree. Users who may comment or post onto a website are usually not accorded an irrevocable right, but a revocable privilege at the pleasure of the site administrator, to post a submission to the site. If reddit would be a real life store, Richard would criticize all your product and would threaten and down talk your employees. He would bring people with him and together they would gank up on customers that find something interesting. They would tell them how wrong they are in a not so fine way. In no way a store owner would allow that shit and after some warnings kick such a person out. While the freedom of speech gives everyone the right to express their opinion, the householder's rights allows you to not listen to such opinion in your own place. Richard Lewis seems just not smart to be honest. I guess reddit has a good stream of people coming to his site and I would not continually bash on one of my major income streams. Reddit is not a holy forum where all is allowed. Reddit is a company and I see no reason why they should allow a person that is that disruptive, manipulating and aggressive on their site.

[–]Gennair [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Because of the product they give to us. We come here because we can have the masses decide what is worthwhile to be viewed. This is why Reddit became so popular. This ban basically removes why we come to reddit. We cant even use the voting system that we are given

[–]OriginalBuzz [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Funny, because Richard used and manipulated the voting system you are talking about. It has been shown that the earliest votes on a post or comment are the most important ones to decide about the success of it. Using your influence to manipulate that system is not democratic and will not let the masses decide. It is the opposite.

[–]ftyen[JackOffAllTradez] (NA) [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

1) i think mods' available actions have to take into account the nature of what "harassment" is being made, and what practically can be done. Sure, bringing in links that incite intense discussion is, in some sense, helpful to the community, but to the point where it attracts negative and malicious reactions will inevitably warrant moderators to protect the harassed. So the focus becomes either

1a) to protect the harassed - how? the voting system is designed for users alone to vote, moderators should not have influence over it (nor should any other user)

1b) to contain the source of the malicious reactions - while i see your point on this being inadvisable, i also perceive this as a lesser of two evils; sure this severely impacts certain users' freedom to deliver links for discussion, but when one considers what mods can pragmatically do, in balancing healthy discussion environment & user free from harassment, there should be an inclination towards a solution that protects the greater good (sorry for the cliche), and to ensure a healthy environment for the voting system to continue.

merely saying mods should "make sure everything runs smoothly in this subreddit" is easy, but when one thinks deeper into how mods should actually do it, tough decisions are to be made. I think it's more appropriate into looking the underlying reason mods made this decision instead of the other.

[–]Nordic_Marksman [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If any one followed RL watched the youtube videos around that time he apologized for his poor behavior and how he had handled commenting on reddit and you still accuse him of malicious intent, while i agree that the comments lacked neutrality it was also in no way a call to arms or harass the living shit out of this person but merely a comment this guy is making stupid arguments about this post.

[–]Catfish017 [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Yes, I feel that law's being a pinch naive on this in view of his bias toward protecting journalism. RL's action are of a similar nature but different category than the "prominent eSports figures" because of his particularly malicious intent, so to make that equivalence is also rather false.

[–]xNicolex [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

And can you prove this "malicious intent"?

Because all he does is link a comment, he doesn't ask people to down-vote it, or up-vote it.

So how exactly can you prove that it's "malicious"?

[–]DSA-Zocker [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

https://twitter.com/RLewisReports/status/588049787628421120

"Another day, another assclown..."

But yeah, no malicious intent.

[–]Catfish017 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Through experience of his personality, how he goes about things, and my personal judgment. Apparently these factors are obvious enough to a large enough group of people that the general consensus has found it "malicious."

[–]xNicolex [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So you can't prove anything is what you're saying?

You're making an assumption? A guess if you will.

[–]jasonissohandsome [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Completely agreed. While most of RL's articles strictly regard eSports news, there are undeniably RL articles that stem from personal vendetta rather than strictly journalism.

[–]DrCytokinesis [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I couldn't agree more. The user harassment makes no sense. It's witch-hunting. Not witch-hunting in reddit terms I mean it in an historical sense. The only way to solve it is to ban linking to comments altogether. Otherwise anytime I link to a comment on a different forum it's automatically brigading. Not to mention it completely disregards the agency of those doing the brigading as if their opinion doesn't count. Their needs to be a more nuanced solution to point 1 or they shouldn't bother trying to solve it. It's too arbitrary and inconsistent.

[–]Karma_collection_bin [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

feels like this got vote swarmed. lol....

[–]Genesis505 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

it would be nice if the mods could ban fake lawyers too, since faking such thing its illegal

[–]mrtummygiggles [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

"The mere existence of a "subreddit ruling" is very disconcerting to say the least."

They're attempting to imitate their idol, Rito Games. I may say that jokingly, but that's what it actually looks like.

[–]esportsLawEU [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

A "ruling" is something issued by someone with the competence to do so. Riot has the competence from the contracts they have with orgs and players. In order to be legitimate, rulings have to be fair and in line with a correct application of rules. This "ruling" however, seems to apply reddit rules in a way that can be easily challenged. This ruling is especially unconvincing because the rules are not applied evenly amongst all users.

[–]CLG_wrath [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I know RL would of been banned way earlier if mods didn't let him through because of his name. If he was an average nobody he'd of gotten banned withindays

[–]lolSpectator[ANAYLST] (NA) [スコア非表示]  (18子コメント)

Not surprised. RLewis articles/tweets stirs up drama and encourages witch hunting though

[–]Axwellington88 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

he cant follow the rules then he can get the fuck out. it's that simple. He is a grown man and can't even do that then fuck his content, something will fill his void soon enough.

[–]ar_gee [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

While I agree with you on the principles, please stop referring to his articles as well written or researched. He has the investigative journalistic skills of someone writing for a high school paper. The op eds that he had to "educate the public" about are so transparently self serving that it makes your head hurt. Go back and read his piece on nip and lemondogs for an example. It was poorly researched and written worse. Everything he does, including harassing faceless people on the internet for disagreeing with him, is so cringe worthy, I feel like I am taking crazy pills every time anyone defends his work.

[–]You_got_juked [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I think this post is very well-written but I must disagree because there is a line you cant cross when it comes to harrassing. The content Richard brings can be amazing but the way he treats others in thuis subreddit is disgusting and cant be tolerated. Lift the ban if Richards proves to be more mature!

[–]Whyyougankme [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well if he's harassing people he should rightfully have his account banned. And it was. But banning all off his content because he's an asshole to some people? That seems far too extreme to me especially considering the amount off hate he gets on a regular basis on reddit that the mods do nothing about.

[–]PansyPang [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

very well written, i personally like to watch various discussion based content, not necessarily because i agree with everything brought up, just to see various perspectives and make my own opinion. Richard has always had some unique insight into "things behind the curtain", true or not it was an interesting perspective and in hinsight there was often at least some truth to his information.

The other side is him harassing mods or people on this sub. I think that goes to far and i don t think the mods necessarily have to endure his outbursts.

This is why i understand they d ban him or say links to tweets or similar sources of him harassing others. I think it adds nothing to league and nothing to the health of this sub.

Its a tough decision to make, i d personally would have liked to see his content on the sub still since i m of the opinion that a well written or explained opinion that i disagree still deserves spotlight and discussion(in which i happily partake constuctivly).

I think both parties (mods and richard) are at fault to some degree(some more some less ofc), the mods for restricting the subreddit of a mostly valuable opinion(richards) and richard for thinking, because his opinions on lol or riot related stuff are of value, he can behave in whatever fashion he wants and harass people or manipulate perceptions to illustrate them in a bad light. Its a tough call tho, i d hope he gets a chance to change his approach and to redeem himself, i m sure there will be a void noticible in regards to content on certain topics.

[–]Sanae_ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Hardly anything to say about 1), except that others might not link as much and with such call to actions.

Concerning 2), while I agree that Richard can produce very good articles, some of them are very vitriolic and more of personal rants, nearly or completely baseless accusations and calls to witch-hunting.

It is arbitrary censorship

This is a big mistake in my opinion. Richard Lewis content is still on the DailyDot. AFAIK, mods didn't try to shut his blog down.

Moreover, it's the usual "moderation = censorship". Mods' job is to ban things that are deemed inappropriate, but your argument relies on "censorship = bad" [As a mean of expression, indeed, but it's necessary to remove abusive posts, spam and such I mean, you are a lawyer, you know Freedom of Speech isn't absolute, and has limitations in the legal system]. The issue at hand would the reasons of the ban, not the ban itself.

And with

We banned him for sustained abusive behavior after having warned him, warned him again, temp banned him, warned him again, which all finally resorted to a permaban.

I think the conditions for a ban have been met. Nothing arbitrary here. Otherwise, it'd be like saying your contributions can allow to disrespect the rules without consequences.

[–]_TakeaChillPill [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

Richard brings great, well researched content.

Granted. Kind of. In any case, the way he presents himself, and verbally abuses anyone who disagrees with him is absolutely unacceptable. I don't believe his content should be here at all, as it leads to monetary gain for him.

Does he deserve the money? Sure, he writes great stuff.

Does he deserve is from this particular community? Absolutely not. When you insult and belittle the people who you're trying to make money from, shit goes south. This ban is the result of his constant jackassery, and he definitely deserves it.

Whether or not you're convinced by that argument is irrelevant. RL is a total asshole, and the subreddit is better off without him.

Any normal person would have just said "Fuck it. You don't want me? I don't want you," and left everything well enough alone, but he's still out there tweeting, getting all of his little bandwagon buddies to hate on the mods, when in reality all they did was remove a toxic child from the sub, and that's perfectly okay.

[–]siaukia1 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Correction, his content being on here earns him no money. He is paid a salary, he is not paid per view. Something he has stated many times over.

[–]_TakeaChillPill [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What people say and what actually happens aren't always exactly the same thing.

Honestly, if he stops getting views, do you think he will continue to get whatever salary he's paid? Of course not, that's not how it works.

[–]maurosQQ [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

Does he deserve the money? Sure, he writes great stuff. Does he deserve is from this particular community? Absolutely not. When you insult and belittle the people who you're trying to make money from, shit goes south. This ban is the result of his constant jackassery, and he definitely deserves it.

Who are you to speak for the entire community and do the mods do this? If ppl want to see it they click it, if ppl hate it they dont click it and downvote it. Thats how freaking reddit works. Its not my freaking problem that YOU have a problem with it.

[–]Catfish017 [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

That's nice and all but the issue here is the disparity between the work he presents and how he follows up with community interactions, which creates an issue when his decent work becomes popular and subsequently has negative effects on the community. To tell people to downvote low quality submissions is an idea, but his works are of a quality that "deserves" an upvote, but it's the issues presented by that that creates the issue, ya feel? The previous poster might not be a representative of reddit, but what he said is based largely upon the general consensus of the subreddit's opinion.

[–]maurosQQ [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Then let ppl downvote the content, I dont see whats the problem with this. If the community doesnt want him, let the community vote. And since he is banned his only community interactions are outside of reddit which I personally dont care about because I dont follow him on twitter.

[–]_TakeaChillPill [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

We don't have any problem with the content. Often I'd read an article, like it, then check the comments to see him arguing with everyone, calling them names, acting like he's better than everyone else, etc.

We have a problem with the person. The content is relatively good.

[–]Catfish017 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Plus it's not just "not caring" about the person or what he says on twitter, when his actions on twitter have a negative effect on the community, it matters to me even if I'm not part of it

[–]maurosQQ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Good thing that the person is banned.

[–]_TakeaChillPill [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

I'm not speaking for everyone, it's simply my opinion. You're putting words in my mouth.

[–]maurosQQ [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Why do you speak about this community if its your opinion then?

[–]_TakeaChillPill [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Am I not allowed to have an opinion concerning the community I'm active in?

[–]maurosQQ [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Then write that YOU dont want him to have a place in the community. Because if you speak in general about what the community wants you will exclude a lot of ppl with different opinions.

[–]_TakeaChillPill [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Oh my God, you're just splitting hairs. CLEARLY it's my opinion, because I'm the one who wrote it. This will be the last response on this particular topic.

[–]Convictfish [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

an arbitrary ban of an inconvenient voice.

Amen.

[–]muffinman00 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I love how they blame RL for "vote brigading" the one user into deleting his account, when in actuality all it shows is the mods not being able to do there job. So as a result of them failing to do their job correctly they dive further down this back and forth rabbit hole of self entitlement and teenage angst. The mods could of handled this easily and avoid all this senseless drama and censorship, not do anything. Just go back to doing there job.

[–]fecii [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Can Richard go to the court about this Ban ? What position does this incident stand on the perspective of an European E-Sports Lawlord ?

[–]PerfectlyClear [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yup, he should definitely take unpaid moderators to court.