If you see a post that makes general statements and you think "This isn't about me", it's probably not about you. You gave reasons why they're a problem, so it probably wasn't about you. Your response missed the point though.
This is a public forum - and this is going to be relevant later on . It doesn't have to be addressed to me, nor is it relevant whether it's addressed to me or not. You made extremely generic statements and I'm giving my opinion on them.
If certain parts of GAF conducted themselves a bit better, perhaps it would be seen as a more valuable place than it currently is.
This is a public forum. Moderation isn't too heavy-handed. In order for a public forum to exabit the sort of uniformly stellar quality you have in mind, moderation would have to be much stricter and start deleting posts left and right. I'd rather not. I'd rather have people being candid, if sometimes crass.
And "be seen as valuable" by whom? Developers? Are you a developer? Do developers have a consensual opinion on GAF? Do you know if they check GAF regularly? How would you know?
Given the current political climate, I don't think that's the issue. I don't see developers coming back publicly any time soon.
Take TLoU2. Instead of giving feedback on the game, there was a lot of "Cuckmann" and "Let's review bomb" people.
Yes, there was some of that. Of course other members did the exact opposite. You're forgetting all about the constant accusations thrown at anyone who criticized the game. And then there was that lovely incident whereby one member even posted a mock review, suggesting GAF with its incessant criticism of TLoU2 was comprised of a bunch of incels.
Peachy.
I don't appreciate Neil being referred to as "Cuckman" and the rare and vague condoning of review bombing the game. But I distinctly remember these people explaining themselves. Though I disagree with their behaviour, I see no valid reason to delete their posts.
Again, this is a public forum. I'd reserve moderation to much graver offences.
The public nature of this forum is what would allow you to openly and harshly criticize these posters and expose the folly in their arguments.
The legitimate criticisms were lost in the ad hominem responses. That isn't the sort of attitude that's better than the other side, that's just framing yourself as anti-other side.
The point still holds. What makes GAF better than Era is moderation. Unless you're calling for much stricter, borderline arbitrary moderation, which would bring about its own set of fresh new graver problems, post like the ones you mentioned are the rather modest price you'll be paying for ample freedom of speech.
That's not independent and better, that's secondary and reactionary. It makes you look like the bad guy, because while they believe they're right the response here is just "REeeeeeee" and "Fucking SJWs".
Your attempt to boil down reactions to the above quoted caricatures is noted.
GAF eats up the clickbait and headlines with the reactionary outrage just like everywhere else but it isn't willing to make itself a voice worth listening to. Places like GAF used to be above that clickbait and ragebait nonsense. What happened? People that disagree with their views and actions could ignore it if it's nothing worth legitimising by responding to or sharing in the first place, or actually provide a response that isn't "Fuck ResetEra" if a rational voice neds to be heard. I've seen it happen here. I've seen it happen on Twitter. It lets Era be the place where all the "Good" people went, leaving all the "Bad" people here. It's not true, but it's not like people are trying to change that.
How about you do your part, hey? How about you let people post what they feel like posting? If you disagree, call them out. Point out the flaws in their arguments.
Seriously though, you went from criticising me for not commenting on moderation being key (in a reply that wasn't about moderation) to your takeaway from a reply that was about moderation being that it wasn't about the moderation. I think you got caught up in wanting me to be the enemy.
No, you were suggesting one member having his allegedly racist posts taken down was evidence for the unspeakable. Spell it out.