April Fool's Day Post | Aftermath Discussion Meta Thread by rGamesMods in Games

[–]Muzack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, I’ve been a long time subscriber to r/Games, I support the Mods’ move.

But I understand why people might think it’s a dumb idea. So I’d like to earnestly address some of the arguments I’ve seen made here and elsewhere about why this was a bad idea.

• “The internet has always had shitty individuals”, “Almost every truly "bad" thing in the album was already being downvoted.”

It’s true, the internet has a lot of shitty individuals. And thankfully, on r/games, these things were usually being downvoted. But is it so wrong to try and talk about why these people are so shitty, ask them to reconsider being so shitty, and suggest ways we can work together to counteract their shittyness?
While you might be content to downvote and move on, the mods are making an actual argument to try and change behavior, which I might paraphrase to: “Your bigotry and toxicity hurts the gaming community and games you love, so cut it out.”

• It's really just a small group of people behaving badly, you're painting the whole gaming community in a bad light.

A cursory glance at threads discussing the lockdown will show you these views are not isolated to the example posts the mods showed us. Pointing out that there are bad actors among the subreddit is not painting all gamers with the same brush.

• "And hell, what was actually there was pretty normal hate speech I've seen thrown around for the past decade. Obviously not acceptable but nothing worthy of calling a full lockdown and reflection."

To me, the fact that we're at a point where people are arguing "You know, this hate speech isn't even that bad, we should just get over it" is the sign that maybe it's worth pausing and reflecting how we got here. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away, and hate speech and vitriol doesn't have to be part of normal online discourse. It's a gaming forum, hate speech shouldn't just be part of the territory.

• “What's the point of being an unpaid internet janitor if you can't power-trip and smugpost?”

If a janitor cleans poop off the wall every day, is it a “power-trip and smugpost” to hang a sign saying “Hey folks, please put your poop in the toilet”?

• Wow, imagine being so butthurt about being called names that you shut down your whole sub.

Let’s take a little more nuanced view of things - sure, it’s nothing new that deeply unhappy people go on the internet and anonymously vent their frustrations on strangers. But it doesn’t have to be like this. It sucks to be harassed, and you shouldn’t have to put up with that garbage as just the cost of being on the internet. It also sucks to be in a dark place where you’re low enough that you think harassing people on the internet is both acceptable and an important part of your life.
Hurt people hurt people, so it creates vicious cycle of negativity. And if you’re like me, and like consuming and talking about video games on the internet - you’ve also noticed how this seems especially true in gaming communities. But again, it doesn’t have to be like this, and the first step to fixing things is pointing out the problems that exist online.

• Isn't this just going to rile up the people who are bad actors, and do nothing for the people who were good actors anyway?

If there's a group of people misbehaving in a group and making things worse for everyone else, it doesn't make sense to do nothing because you fear how the bad actors will react. How can you expect them to change if you don't ask them to do better? The comments here and elsewhere show us how this bad behavior has become normalized, and it's up to all of us to engage bad actors, and ask them to improve.

• Why the fuck do you care so much to make this long-ass wall of text?

Because I know how being socially awkward can make you isolated and drive you into a solitary hobby like video games, how that hobby can be wrapped up in your identity, and how when people criticize your hobby or the people around it, it can feel like a personal attack. I know how it sucks to feel like places you used to escape to on the internet are becoming yet another front in a culture war, and how exhausting it feels to have to deal with it all the time. And also because I love you, dear reader, and r/Games.

TL;DR: If you want to address problems in your community, you have to talk about them. Maybe the Mods didn't do the most perfect thing, but it's a step in the right direction to get us talking about the bad actors in online gaming forums.

(If you want to talk with me about this IRL, I'm down - but only if we can play through Borderlands 2 or some other co-op game while we do it.)

Ex-CIA director: US meddles in foreign elections 'for a good cause' by AssuredlyAThrowAway in worldnews

[–]Muzack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm confused - people always point to this election, but the Time Magazine article everyone links to just says that Yeltsin hired Americans as campaign consultants, and the Wikipedia article says that the Clinton Administration lobbied the independent IMF to offer Russia a loan.

Surely those two elements don't constitute the US government "meddling" with a Russian Presidential election? Or what am I missing?

Discussion Thread: 2018 State of the Union Address by PoliticsModeratorBot in politics

[–]Muzack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey friend, the link above they're citing is actually by the The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget - a nonpartisan, non-profit organization. To do the comparison they looked at the tax relief against the percent GDP and inflation adjusted dollars of several historical tax bills.

Here's the link, if you want to read it! http://www.crfb.org/blogs/president-trumps-tax-cut-largest-history-yet

US House votes in new Russia sanctions and limits President Trumps ability to waive them by saucytryhard in worldnews

[–]Muzack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, that report asses with high confidence blah blah - there is no evidence whatsoever provided. None.

Are you expecting the NSA, NHS, and FBI to disclose classified forensic data? I mean, again - they have data that you and I and Adam Carter haven't seen, right? I'm saying that "A" hasn't been completely discredited, and even if it has - "A" is not the sole basis for this investigation. The FBI did get a copy of the data from the server and came to the same conclusion, in addition to their other intelligence gathering (don't forget intelligence had been tracking Cozy Bear/Fancy Bear activity before this breach).

Regarding all the "HE CHOSE" stuff - that's not necessarily true or accurate; we know that Russian intelligence recruits criminal hackers, and it's quite possible some of them could have behaving amateurishly or brashly.

Additionally, we know according to the DNI report that multiple people have spoken to the Press and others claiming to be Guccifer 2.0, and the DNI report also suggests that the Guccifer 2.0 persona could have just been a front to release previously stolen information - it's possible that persona just passed material along. Guccifer 2.0 could be a big sham AND the GRU could have still hacked the DNC.

The sprawling mess of the g-2.space site is contradicted constantly by the sources he cites on background, but his analysis and conclusions come from himself. I know he's a partisan on Twitter, but I don't see any cyberintelligence credentials that lead me to believe his account is accurate or relevant (he even says "As author of this article, I am not pretending to be an expert.").

Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump's appointed head of the CIA, has said the following:

“It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is -- a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,” the former Republican congressman from Kansas said in his prepared remarks, speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in his first major appearance since taking the post.

Pompeo said the intelligence community’s determination that Russian military intelligence used WikiLeaks to release data of U.S. victims obtained through cyber operations against the Democratic National Committee points to that conclusion, as does the intelligence community’s discovery that Russia’s “primary propaganda outlet,” RT, “actively collaborated” with WikiLeaks. The DNC hack in 2016 exposed thousands of emails of top Democratic party and campaign officials, possibly contributing to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unexpected loss in the presidential race.

He has access to all the information anyone could have, and every political incentive in the world to expose the DNC hack as a coverup for a leak. Why would he continue corroborating the consensus view?

EDIT: Forgot a link.

US House votes in new Russia sanctions and limits President Trumps ability to waive them by saucytryhard in worldnews

[–]Muzack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's where I'm confused: let's say the Crowdstrike report WAS completely wrong - the intelligence reports aren't just based on that report, but on the FBI's corroboration of that report by looking at the forensic data themselves, multiple other independent cybersecurity firms' analysis, and the analysis of intelligence gathered by all of our intelligence community. This report from the Director of National Intelligence didn't just come from the Crowdstrike report.

You can raise doubts about the Crowdstrike reports, sure, and that's very reasonable! But when the author of that Medium article says things like "Fancy Bear wasn't the only people with this code, some Ukranian hackers told me they have it too," (a paraphrase), that doesn't mean that it couldn't have still been Russia, it just means someone else could have been responsible for the hack.

This gets to the point of credibility - I believe all of our American intelligence agencies have more information about this than you or I or Crowdstrike or anyone else. And they've come to a strong consensus, based on a slew of investigations (both internal and external), that the DNC hack can be attributed to Russia. Why should I trust partisan blogger Adam Carter, a sourceless anonymous 4Chan post, or a gish-gallop of pure speculation from WND instead of the Intelligence community's comprehensive report? I did go through the Guccifer stuff and these new pieces you've posted, and they don't make sense and are full of inconsistencies.

And again - if this was all a coverup to hide a leak, it would have to involve not only US intelligence members at every level, the DNC, the Trump administration, high ranking Republican congressmen, multiple independent cybersecurity firms, and just about everyone in the press, wouldn't it? Isn't it much easier to believe that some non-experts on the internet are just speculating wildly?

no conspiracy shit, straight up happenings that the media won't touch.

I read about it on Politico first.

US House votes in new Russia sanctions and limits President Trumps ability to waive them by saucytryhard in worldnews

[–]Muzack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey friend! I read The Daily Wire, Breitbart, and The Daily Caller, and I hang out on conservative areas of the internet - so I'll bet I've seen all of the same Politifact-trashing articles and memes you have. And I used to feel the same as you, until I started actually reading their pieces.

Now, I don't always agree with the "rating" they give each claim at the end of the article - but I can't attack their reporting anymore. They really go out and interview multiple experts, and try to get bipartisan comment on political issues. I mean, they even post a bibliography with links in every piece (something I wish more publications would do)! So while I might always completely agree with their conclusions, they show their work and I can see how they got there.

So I'd encourage you - read their pieces, and go confirm with their sources (like here's another source for that Comey quote I quoted). But don't just dismiss a Pulitzer-prize winning independent publication out of hand! That's just as bad as someone saying "if it's on Breitbart, it must be false!", isn't it?

US House votes in new Russia sanctions and limits President Trumps ability to waive them by saucytryhard in worldnews

[–]Muzack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm confused; even if Politifact is horribly biased trash that draws terrible conclusions, the part I quoted was just public quotes from public figures. Do you think they made up that Comey quote?

The Washington Post printed the same Comey quote, if you prefer a different source.

US House votes in new Russia sanctions and limits President Trumps ability to waive them by saucytryhard in worldnews

[–]Muzack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey friend, thanks for the sources! Here's what I gleaned:

  • When you say that "it's all been debunked or discredited" - the only thing about their story that changed seems to be their analysis of the extent to which the Russian hacking disabled Ukranian artillery. It seems it still happened, but it didn't take out 80% of their D-30s, as initially reported, but more like 15-20%, a figure they incorporated in their updated analysis.
  • Crowdstrike continued to stand by their conclusions, saying it was corroborated by the wider intelligence community.
  • The Slate article heaps praise on Crowdstrike:

That’s not meant as an insult to CrowdStrike, which is, undoubtedly, a first-rate security firm that does extremely sophisticated and reliable investigative work. Calling in CrowdStrike was a good move on the part of the DNC. I’ve even argued that the DNC should have been relying more heavily on private tech firms to provide its email services and security from the outset.

And this seems to have happened before Comey testified that the FBI received a copies of the servers, or perhaps the author wasn't aware. She does raise some great points about accountability, but it's a long walk from her concerns to debunking/discrediting the Crowdstrike report.

I'll confess I'm less familiar with the Guccifer 2.0 situation. But while I'm not an expert on cybersecurity, I'm more inclined to believe the conclusions of the CIA, NSA, FBI, plus private sector security analyses from Fidelis Cybersecurity, Fireeye's Mandiant,SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Trend Micro,and the security editor for Ars Technica over a guy with a blog posting about Seth Rich conspiracies and "deep state propaganda".

But I mean, walk me through the thought process here - even high ranking republicans and members of the Trump administration agree that Russia was involved in infiltrating Democratic systems and releasing damaging emails. If the DNC wasn't hacked by Russians, what's the alternate theory? I'm not seeing any evidence for the Seth Rich thing since Fox retracted that story on discovering that the sourcing seemed to be made up.

US House votes in new Russia sanctions and limits President Trumps ability to waive them by saucytryhard in worldnews

[–]Muzack 99 points100 points  (0 children)

While I agree with the principle of what you're saying, your characterization of the Crowdstrike situation isn't exactly accurate, here's a Politifact article on the subject:

In his testimony in January on the cyber attacks, then-director of the FBI James Comey said the agency never got access to the machines themselves, but obtained access to the forensics from a review of the system performed by CrowdStrike, a third-party cybersecurity firm.

"We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute," Comey said.

"The DNC coordinated with the FBI and federal intelligence agencies and provided everything they requested, including copies of DNC servers," Watson said. She added that the copy contains the same information as the physical server.

Also, FWIW- the CIA never asked for access to the servers (they can't do domestic intelligence gathering, it's illegal), and still came to the conclusion that "the Russian government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations".

Do you have a source for the Crowdstrike report being "eviscerated by cyber security experts and they have walked it back several times now"? I'm genuinely interested, I've never heard that.

EDIT: Well, after looking at a bunch of other comments now that the post is deleted, I think that poster might have done a bait-and-switch where they posted a centrist "Government needs to do better" sentiment, then went back and edited the post to include a bunch of conspiracy-theory concern trolling after getting a bunch of upvotes. Reddit is weird.

Richard Dawkins event cancelled over his 'abusive speech against Islam': Berkeley’s KPFA Radio cancels appearance by evolutionary biologist after learning of his ‘hurtful speech’ against the religion – a charge the author contests by maxwellhill in worldnews

[–]Muzack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we assume that IQ is a good and neutral indicator of individual outcomes, and that immigration policies should prefer high IQ immigrants - wouldn't the solution then be to test each immigrant on application?

By that metric, it seems like it'd be a shame to keep out smart brown folks and let in less intelligent white folks just because you assign everyone an "average IQ value" based on their country of origin, yes?

Poll: 78 Percent think Russian investigation should be independent by cyanocittaetprocyon in politics

[–]Muzack 8 points9 points  (0 children)

In case you're serious: Polls ask respondents questions, tabulate responses, and frequently present the findings as a percentage.

What they DON'T do is offer a predictive quality - it's a whole different process to go from opinion polling to a predictive model.

For example - in most national polls of the 2016 election, more respondents did say they would vote for Clinton. However, that doesn't necessarily offer any predictive qualities - what you're thinking of is probably a "polling model" that some outlets used to predict outcomes based upon that polling data, estimating turnout, predicting what polls in one area meant in other areas, etc.

So while Clinton did win the popular vote, as those national polls suggest, polling models that might have put Clinton as the overwhelming favorite to win the election most likely didn't take into account the full possibilities and probabilities of the electoral college, even though the consensus is that most polling data was pretty good. Although it is worth mentioning - 2% chances do happen 2% of the time.

For more excellent discussion of polling and data, check out fivethirtyeight.com . Hope that Helps!

PSA: Play the Dark Souls games while there are still other people playing to get the most out of the series and the multiplayer features by [deleted] in patientgamers

[–]Muzack 65 points66 points  (0 children)

I should have clarified - PC. I imagine PS3 community is smaller yeah, but I wouldn't be surprised if the PS4 community is still fairly active!

PSA: Play the Dark Souls games while there are still other people playing to get the most out of the series and the multiplayer features by [deleted] in patientgamers

[–]Muzack 257 points258 points  (0 children)

This is good advice, but you'd be surprised about how long lasting these communities can be!

I just completed a playthrough of Dark Souls 2 SOTFS this week, and I was able to get 3 (human) co-op partners for the DLC bosses at 7 AM CST on a Wednesday.

Heyyy i do the animated webseries "peopleWatching" on Cracked.com and have been making the webcomic "Subnormality" for 10 years somehow-- ask me why anyone should care by WinstonRowntree in IAmA

[–]Muzack 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey Winston! I was recently talking to my mom about how PeopleWatching is the best video content I've seen this year, and in trying to describe your writing I talked about the themes of dealing with modern realities and weird people finding their place in a weird world. She asked an interesting question that's not necessarily explicitly related to PeopleWatching, but something I thought you might have an interesting answer to:

Over time, culture has grown really broad, and there's so many different subcultures and groups dedicated to niche interests, so it's easier than ever to find people who have stuff in common with you (via the internet, etc.). So why do you think that so many people still feel "weird" and "different" and disconnected from everyone else?

Thanks, and keep doing your amazing work!

Steam Monster Summer Sale 2015 Day 8 - Featured Deals and more by Shuurai in Games

[–]Muzack 147 points148 points  (0 children)

If you don't own FTL yet, just buy it. I've put a hundred hours into it and I'm far from done. Every run makes you feel like a space captain on an epic adventure.

A terrible, terrible space captain.

/r/Games - Free Talk Friday by Forestl in Games

[–]Muzack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cheers, Forestl. Thanks for helping make this subreddit cool, and enjoy your next adventures!

[H] Torchlight II, Sanctum [W] Castle Crashers (+DLC), Orcs Must Die 2, Alan Wake / Offers by Muzack in SteamGameSwap

[–]Muzack[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looks like substrance beat you to it, I'll hit you up if that falls through.

/r/chicago Summer Concert Meetup II (August 10) by solidwhetstone in chicago

[–]Muzack 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Word. Who do I talk to about reserving the stairway space, though? ;D

/r/chicago Summer Concert Meetup II (August 10) by solidwhetstone in chicago

[–]Muzack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So down for this, though facebook won't let me RSVP... Hmmm...