• 3 Posts
  • 167 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle









  • So, since it’s you’re first play through, you might be missing a bit of information/lore.

    spoiler

    The Emperor, if you select certain dialog options in one of the 1:1 conversations with him, he’s completely self serving and has been lying to you from the beginning. He sees you as his thrall, as a means to an end. A lot of the backstory he’s told you, as many of the interactions with him, has been half truths at best. There’s no way he’d partner up with Orpheus as Orpheus is going to see right through the lies and want him dead. Orpheus wants you dead too, but due to the threat at hand reluctantly partners with you. And the Raphael is the one that imprisoned Orpheus in the first place, so once released, the Emperor is screwed.



  • Again, please stop saying this removes protections for trans/gay.

    What do you mean, again? You mean, for the first time? Because either you forgot you never said it or you’re trying to gaslight. I can’t read your mind. You don’t control me, nor anyone else. And do you want me to stop bringing it up because it’s hurting your argument? Should I throw in there too, there’s countries were you can be put to death for being Atheist? Or speaking out against the government. Why is it important for you to out these people or not consider them, because it very much seems like it’s one or the other. Why are you very much against increasing user security/privacy?

    That information is already public

    It’s sort of public, with steps. It should be, not public.

    The blocking scenario is what happens now, you just wouldn’t know they made a new account unless you’re actually able to see it…

    Are you new to the internet? That’s not how any of this would work. And I brought games in as an example, hoping to give an example you’d understand, clearly it didn’t.

    If votes don’t matter now why not change it to a form where they do matter

    Why should they matter? Why do you very clearly want to see what and how everyone votes? Are we going to implement social scores? If you’re upvote count isn’t high enough and your ration isn’t good enough,… hold on wasn’t there a Black Mirror episode with this exact premise?

    So, if someone downvotes something, you expect them to defend it… but a simple upvote is perfectly acceptable. Just no, that’s never going to happen. Congrats you re-invented Facebook. Only upvotes and no counter feedback.

    I’m genuinely lost as to why you’re not in favor if increasing security for users. I mean, I’ve given some simple examples but there’s honestly way more reasons why we don’t need everyone able to track everyone, to be able to stalk/harass everyone. And “banning” someone will do nothing since anyone who knows that’s a possibility, will just have a shadow account to monitor you.



  • In my line of work, you need to plan and explore the extremes, else you haven’t planned and covered for everything.

    So, going back to my example, say someone is trans/gay, if they can’t safely post/vote then they’re just effectively silenced. And there’s certain parts of the world where that freedom of expression might be very important to them. To safely and freely be themselves w/o worry of punishment. Making it easier to see just makes it easier for them to be discovered. Or when someone is put to death because they spoke out against something… are we going to start posting “We did it Lemmy!”.

    Blocking them… means I know for certain it was someone. If I get a few downvotes right now, I can brush it off as random people. But once a name is attached, that’s when it’s going to escalate. And blocking them isn’t going to stop someone. They can just start a new account and continue and for some people, getting blocked is 100% just going to do that. We know this. Video games have been banning people for decades and that literally doesn’t stop them. Right now, votes don’t matter. If we remove that, votes will matter. And again, it’s not going to drive engagement like you think it is, let alone honest engagement. Have you left a response to every vote you’ve ever done explaining in detail why you voted that way in regards to something? If not, you’ve already failed your own ideals.



  • I’m having trouble seeing how downvotes being public would lead to more harassment.

    It’s not just downvotes. Upvotes could be used as well.

    You would have to make sure you’re comfortable with putting your opinion forward just like with commenting.

    That works unless your opinion is the minority. What if there’s someone’s gay in say a location that might put them to death for being gay. And now they can’t even upvote/downvote safely because any action they take could be used against them. Swap out gay for any really where people can be punished IRL for something online.

    If there’s someone going around downvoting someone relentlessly it will be brought to light for all to see, not hidden like it is now.

    To what end? What benefit does that bring other then further harassment/bullying? If I actively know someone is downvoting me because I said Batman sucks and they decided to go through my entire post history to downvote everything, what, if anything should the response be? Do we form up a council to start handing out punishment and review cases?

    That would encourage more people to speak up because their detractors would have to do so publicly and without explanation they seem like they’re not bringing anything to the table in the discussion

    There’s a huge disconnect already from view count, posts/replies, and votes. If you’re going to require that a vote must come with an explanation… you’re going to see engagement drop to 0. This really sounds like the “if you have nothing to hide” that’s thrown around on why governments/police feel the need to pry into everything. Which you might agree with, but I very much don’t. And frankly, I don’t think it’s going to encourage more people to speak up, simply because people just don’t have the time. It’s easy for a person to just upvote/downvote something without saying something, especially if they have nothing to add.


  • Exactly. We need counter views. One of the problems with any type of social media has been echo chambers and the lack of healthy debate/conversation. People have forgotten how to have a civil debate/conversation with someone else. And people tend to act like, if you don’t 100% agree with me, than not only can we not be friends, but you’re actively an enemy. That shouldn’t be the case. We do not need everyone to agree on everything, it should be acceptable to have a different opinion.

    With everything public, we’re going to have no healthy conversation since people will use previous votes (up or down) against someone. One of the issues is, an up/down vote by itself doesn’t give much insight into anything. It’s not like the vote itself is quantified. We already see people try this with digging into post history to make assumptions of someone and bring it up as “evidence”.


  • I think it’s a bad idea. It’s just going to start harassment and witch hunts when someone gets a downvote they don’t like. Stalking is going to be a thing, people are going to aggregate all the votes you’ve done to make assumptions about you to then bully you. Once public, sources outside Lemmy will start gathering and cross referencing data about you.

    In the US, when you vote, the vote is private to protect the person. Making votes public will only empower those that would abuse it. It very well could end Lemmy due to massive bulling, harassment, and the decline of activity.


  • I’d say that is mostly accurate. Most of the quests revolved around “good” actions. There’s a few that’s “neutral”. And only some that are clearly “evil”. I would say, you’d get the the game much faster doing evil things because… you sort of shortcut a lot of “quests” (either strait up ignoring the request, or just killing them).

    spoiler

    Example, the fight in the House of Grief, with an evil run with Shadowheart… this place becomes much easier since you only fight about half the room and the other half now helps. And if you do some evil stuff at the Tribunal, there’s a special vendor. And in Act 3, siding with Ethel grants you a different reward. So there are some benefits that only evil acts can get. But also, in act 1, there’s a sword that’s exceptionally good sword at Waukeen’s Rest.

    But on the whole, if you start off evil early, many of the NPC’s that would chain to later quests… well… they may not exist anymore. But it’s not lacking fun. Being evil in of itself is an interesting play through. Especially, because the dialog you see will be very different from most other runs. I didn’t hate the evil runs despite there being very few positive interactions for being evil. But the endings were very much lacking when compared to a “good” run.