Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines 2 Leads Fired

Rhetorical questions are a thing, and it's pretty clear by the phrasing that this was intended to make a statement rather than elicit a response, if it wasn't intended as a sincere request. Well, clear outside of the "aren't" in place of "didn't", at least. So from Cheater's perspective, it'd certainly be a statement rather than a question, as they've indicated insincerity was intended.

(The rest is more a general reply to this nesting, so feel free to skip it if inclined:)

The problem here is that the statement/question can be taken either way and, as Khalaq noted, the site has a firm, long-standing zero-tolerance policy. The site has never made exceptions for solicitations which could also be interpretable as insincere, simply based off that fact. Rather, it's still been considered an issue even in cases where it's stated as being insincere [ie: "Well, just gimmie one then? j/k"].

Then you have the fact that the comment in question didn't provide anything and, rather, could potentially be considered as rude or crass. That automatically removes some leeway as far as moderation consideration, in a situation where potential rule violation is already ambiguous at best. Then there's the fact that it's a moderator obligation to persistantly note where "the line" is, as it benefits not only as a warning to the individual in question, but as a notification to anyone else reading the interchange [as generally those boundaries tend to stretch without frequent reminder- much like they do when moderations start giving leniency towards rules against hatespeech or other inappropriate behavior.]

While valueless in contribution and dubious as far as intent, 1stcheater's comment is nevertheless inherently harmless, as the most intuitive interpretation would be that it's insincere. Off that, it'd be a bit unexpected for a user to take offense at the comment. Moderation perspectives differ from lay users, however, and it's entirely reasonable for staff to present a warning for such a comment, so long as there's any reasonable possibility of the matter being interpreted sincerely.

Generally, one'd go off of context to determine whether such an unclear comment could be deemed insincere, when it is in doubt, and Cheater's comment is decidedly not based in any reasonable context. For example, the previous example of ["Well, just gimmie one then? j/k"] would be far more reasonable to excuse than not if it's a reply to a moderator saying "Gods, I've had to suspend so many beggars of late. I feel like Oprah- 'You get a suspension! And you get a suspension! Everyone gets a suspension!' ". In that circumstance, context would clearly indicate insincerity, as the preceding context both notes a negative (which someone wouldn't want to actually beg for) and a framework (where levity related to begging would be contextually appropriate).

Khalaq's comment was gently/professionally presented, as well as being justifable from a moderation perspective. There's nothing to criticize there, as far as basis or presentation. While 1stcheater's comment wasn't outright problematic, it wasn't defensible by site rules, and it would have actually been more expected to get actual punishment than to get a warning. Certainly, had this been just a couple of years back, a user'd still have been facing an immediate suspension for such a comment.

Well, even further back, you'd have been suspended just for using the word "free" in any context [and I'm not exaggerating there at all, having been subjected to that exact scenario myself]. That was understandably argued against, and changed. Staff also began presenting warnings, especially for new users, and improving their tone. Now, however, as far as typical staff behavior goes, we're at a reasonable spot. Meanwhile, it appears as though Cheater has been on the site even as far back as the more extreme period, so one could easily assume that staff's outlook on the matter would be a familiar one to them.

In actuality, it seems as though what is actually being argued against here is the present state of explicitly defined site rules, or the right of moderators to offer commentary or take action on those rules. If there's a disagreement on that end, one should direct commentary to cg via the Suggestions forum or Support tickets, or should explicitly detail why an argument is to be made against a specific comment (beyond "moderators gotta flex"). A statement essentially boiling down to "Okay everyone, here's where you all would start getting close to the boundaries, these days. Do take note." isn't usually premise for outcry, unless the base rule is problematic, or the tone or premise of the warning is inappropriate- and neither appears to be in fault here.

Basically, even if the initial statement can be defended (and again, even though it's hard to take sincerely, it's still a comment which has all the contribution benefit of "Poop." and at least on the surface violates established site rules, a combination which really does not reasonably engender acknowledgement), Khalaq'd also still be able to defend his statement [as this isn't a circumstance where mutual exclusivity as far as defensibility is necessary].

Does that mean his comment was necessary here, either relative to the initial comment or in terms of disrupting the tone of the conversation? Perhaps not. But that's a hard thing to balance, as a moderator, and secondary to a moderator's obligations to support and promote the site's rules. So even if it's a bit out-of-line (and I'm not saying it is) it still [unless I overlooked something] wouldn't be to the point where it could be criticized. Thus, arguing the matter here (outside of more technical rule discussion) wouldn't really accomplish much, especially as noone has yet given reasonable premise for such argument.

you're probly right. it sounded a bit too broad, but much more euphemistic, you know, in that silver-tongued, covert, manipulative marketing bs kind of way, as you put it.

that list up there isnt a complete list. they were just examples. here ill add fallout to it. if you can think of any any more feel free to list them.

those with key enough contribution benefits (say, the original narrative designer of the game they're trying to make a sequel to) could have leverage in arranging such stipulations.

People like that always have it easier. To me, the same rules should apply to everyone but especially the ones who have least power; they need the most protections.

You don't even realize how horrible I am. I mean, I'm a feminist, that alone should justify blacklisting me.

Damn, another innocent developer TRICKED with CHEAP tactics to do the bidding of the SJW menace. They are so powerful and yet also so weak because they get triggered over words.

Thumbs up!

You have succesfully made your Persuasion check! You are now hitchhicking with a Nosferatu.
Or, possibly, with Donald Trump..?
As the being is an unnatural orange, you're entirely uncertain as to how to distinguish between the two.

View attached image.

I mean, I played through every clan in the first game multiple times, with a majority of each clan's backgrounds. Had I been a bit less obsessed, there still would have been at least a single distinctive playthrough for each clan [well, after you implement the mods which make Toreadors, Brujah, and Gangrel more distinctive/better-matched-to-their-PnP-focuses, at least].

Stealthy Nosferatu, [mod-derived] companion-controlling Toreadors, [mod-derived] raging, beast-like Gangrels, [mod-derived] weapon-saavy Brujah, Dominating Ventrue, cast-and-blast Tremere, the ever-special Malkavians.. 7 decidedly distinct playthroughs (or 4 without mods, though clan-specific backgrounds helped a lot in their own right as far as distinguishing clans) is pretty hefty, especially given the various endings you could run with (to better suit your character design).

With free-power, no-clan-pathing in play, the assumption is that the narrative/immersion feel would be the same each playthrough, distinguished only by what powers we've selected. That'd limit us to, what, at most 3 runs before we get exhausted? Less, for those who play exclusively for first-time narrative. Well, it'd be mitigated if the game ends up having any kind of significant sub-plot-branching, but I don't imagine that'd be something to put money on.

-

That all said, our concerns in this conversation may actually be been a bit premature. I somehow didn't come across this before (or forgot about it?) so I guess it's good that I googled it- but it seems as though you'll actually be able to select clans other than Thin-bloods: https://www.pcgamer.com/bloodlines-2s-first-five-clans-are-a-perfect-starting-lineup/

By one interpretation of the implications in that article, thin-bloods will actually fill a versatile, blank slate build role [while still being distinctive in their own right], much like the Scion in Path of Exile, rather than replacing distinctive "class" builds altogether. That is to say, it's more there to provide an alternative "class" option for increased gameplay mechanic freedom, than being intended as the sole "core" build option. By another interpretation, we'll be forced to choose a clan later into the narrative, and thin-blood is just our starting state (which we can't choose to maintain).

In either case, it looks like- well, from the kind of vague information I'm getting on the matter, other sources aren't any more detailed than that PCGamer article- the clans will still serve the same function of mechanical and narrative individuality that they did in the first game (regardless of how thin-bloods are implemented).

Again, not really anything there to confidently go with, but there's enough there that we should probably see how it turns out (or see if there's a clearer source of information on the matter) before we start jumping to firm conclusions about how clans'll be set up.