Welcome to Gaming! Come chat with us in the GoatChat network (desktop users click here). We also have an Official Steam Group.
All sub rules are defined in detail here and open for feedback
-
Submissions must be related to gaming.
-
Titles must be clear and reflect content of the submission. Include game titles where necessary.
-
No Clickbait (defined).
-
No links to illegal torrents or other illegal downloads/content.
-
No link posts to merchandise and/or unrelated products (exceptions).
-
Mark all spoilers with: [](#s "Text goes here")
-
Mark all NSFW posts appropriately.
-
Submissions reposted within 6 months will be removed.
Content creators, please read our community Content Creator Guidelines
What you're encouraged to post:
Games! We should talk about games more than anything! New releases, old favorites, Speed Runs, Let's Play's, development news, what we love, what we hate and so on and so forth.
Try to post things that create discussion. We want people to feel engaged and feel their voices are heard, rather than to be a place of disposable content.
If you're not sure, ask!
If you wish to, you can archive your posts here.
Check out v/gaming's megathread of gaming-related subverses
view the rest of the comments →
[–] thethreefive 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
I'd love to see a system that really educates users to use their voats in a manner that's conducive of a beneficial and diverse community. How many large, and still aggressive1, subs on that-other-website have we seen that go as far as to hide the down arrow or inject a tooltip containing the rules for voting into the page to prevent brigading against opposing thoughts. It seems that no matter how often you reiterate guidelines on not downvoating dissenting opinions, users never seem to listen in large enough volumes to make a difference.
That being said: I don't think this is an impossible war against groupthink, just that I haven't seen an effective tool to diffuse it.
So how does a large community encourage sincere and diverse discourse while inhibiting aggression and dismissal of dissenting viewpoints? Or is such a community unfeasible given the restrictions of this text medium and human tendencies to create and defend ad hoc tribes?
This is an important area of online social systems I think the entire internet (and the companies utilizing it) would benefit from getting some solid scientific research on.
1 Aggression in this case being defined as uncritical evaluation and dismissal of rhetoric presented by an opposing viewpoint.