This may not be the turning point (it sounds too opportunistic for that), but sooner or later there will be precedent-setting case made over internet harassment and slander.
Far too many people believe they say can say absolutely anything on the internet and get away with it.
Unless there is webcam evidence or something of the sort, how the heck would you ever prove that the person in question actually was doing the harassing etc.
I would imagine it would take much much more than a single instance to ever build a case.
"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is pretty hard to achieve in this scenario.
If the threat came from your account and no one else has a believable reason to use your account to threaten someone then it's probably you that made the threat. Same thing that record and movie companies were doing to prove who actually illegally downloaded media. His lawyer could also do what they did and ask for a certain amount of money for damages to settle the case against them on a case by case basis.
Threats are a criminal matter
We all know how secure an internet forum/gaming account is. It would take much much more than a single instance. Nothing a competent defense lawyer would wipe the floor with.
Unless there is webcam evidence or something of the sort, how the heck would you ever prove that the person in question actually was doing the harassing etc.
I would imagine it would take much much more than a single instance to ever build a case.
"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is pretty hard to achieve in this scenario.
Your IP address is logged down, and the internet operator tells officials who owns that internet connection.
Unless you're trying to actively conceal your identity on the internet, usually it's easy enough to find out who you are.
There are cases much bigger high profile cases going through multinational legal systems as we speak.
One of the most famous currently is a case that is local to me. One of my kids was a classmate of the victim. She was being harassed and extorted by a man in the Netherlands.
There are cases much bigger high profile cases going through multinational legal systems as we speak.
One of the most famous currently is a case that is local to me. One of my kids was a classmate of the victim. She was being harassed and extorted by a man in the Netherlands.
Just google Amanda Todd
Based on google that man is now in jail.
But actually I was just talking about proving that the person in question was doing something. Getting the officials of different countries to co-operate can be very difficult or impossible, but if they do then usually identifying a person is easy enough as long as that person is not actively concealing his identity.
There are cases much bigger high profile cases going through multinational legal systems as we speak.
One of the most famous currently is a case that is local to me. One of my kids was a classmate of the victim. She was being harassed and extorted by a man in the Netherlands.
Just google Amanda Todd
Based on google that man is now in jail.
But actually I was just talking about proving that the person in question was doing something. Getting the officials of different countries to co-operate can be very difficult or impossible, but if they do then usually identifying a person is easy enough as long as that person is not actively concealing his identity.
The man is in jail for another crime.
In any case, as I said earlier. It would take much more than a single instance to build a case. In a criminal case you would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the person in question was behind the keyboard. A history of that kind of behavior makes building a case easier but still difficult.
There are cases much bigger high profile cases going through multinational legal systems as we speak.
One of the most famous currently is a case that is local to me. One of my kids was a classmate of the victim. She was being harassed and extorted by a man in the Netherlands.
Just google Amanda Todd
Based on google that man is now in jail.
But actually I was just talking about proving that the person in question was doing something. Getting the officials of different countries to co-operate can be very difficult or impossible, but if they do then usually identifying a person is easy enough as long as that person is not actively concealing his identity.
The man is in jail for another crime.
In any case, as I said earlier. It would take much more than a single instance to build a case. In a criminal case you would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the person in question was behind the keyboard. A history of that kind of behavior makes building a case easier but still difficult.
If someone is using your computer, on your home, logged on to your Steam account, and talks about a game you have purchased and played, on forums you've likely been using for more than one post, then there's not much room for reasonable doubt whether that person is you.
The court will not think that tales about unknown people in your home using your Steam account to post things are reasonable unless you have a really really good story about how it happened, and even if it might be possible to create reasonable doubt by pointing fingers at your family members most people don't want to break their family like that.
This may not be the turning point (it sounds too opportunistic for that), but sooner or later there will be precedent-setting case made over internet harassment and slander.
Far too many people believe they say can say absolutely anything on the internet and get away with it.
Unless there is webcam evidence or something of the sort, how the heck would you ever prove that the person in question actually was doing the harassing etc.
I would imagine it would take much much more than a single instance to ever build a case.
"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is pretty hard to achieve in this scenario.
same could be said for every single word ever written down on anything be it a sheet of paper or a newspaper
Handwriting is fairly easy to identify, but type is much more difficult.
As I said it would take much more than a single instance to prove. There would have to be a history.
ah so your saying anything ever written on a computer over the past several decades including news articles falls into your definition of hard to proove.
gotcha
which by the way includes everything I have ever done at work covering about 20 years and everything anyone I have known at work covering about 20 years as well
oh and includes all computer code ever written.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
This may not be the turning point (it sounds too opportunistic for that), but sooner or later there will be precedent-setting case made over internet harassment and slander.
Far too many people believe they say can say absolutely anything on the internet and get away with it.
Unless there is webcam evidence or something of the sort, how the heck would you ever prove that the person in question actually was doing the harassing etc.
I would imagine it would take much much more than a single instance to ever build a case.
"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is pretty hard to achieve in this scenario.
same could be said for every single word ever written down on anything be it a sheet of paper or a newspaper
Handwriting is fairly easy to identify, but type is much more difficult.
As I said it would take much more than a single instance to prove. There would have to be a history.
ah so your saying anything ever written on a computer over the past several decades including news articles falls into your definition of hard to proove.
gotcha
which by the way includes everything I have ever done at work covering about 20 years and everything anyone I have known at work covering about 20 years as well
oh and includes all computer code ever written.
What kind of a tangent are you off on now?
A handwritten anonymous letters author can more easily be identified by the penmanship. A typed anonymous letter is much harder to identify and prove the author.
edit: unless their grammar is atrocious and they make the same predictable mistakes all the time.
This may not be the turning point (it sounds too opportunistic for that), but sooner or later there will be precedent-setting case made over internet harassment and slander.
Far too many people believe they say can say absolutely anything on the internet and get away with it.
Unless there is webcam evidence or something of the sort, how the heck would you ever prove that the person in question actually was doing the harassing etc.
I would imagine it would take much much more than a single instance to ever build a case.
"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is pretty hard to achieve in this scenario.
same could be said for every single word ever written down on anything be it a sheet of paper or a newspaper
Handwriting is fairly easy to identify, but type is much more difficult.
As I said it would take much more than a single instance to prove. There would have to be a history.
ah so your saying anything ever written on a computer over the past several decades including news articles falls into your definition of hard to proove.
gotcha
which by the way includes everything I have ever done at work covering about 20 years and everything anyone I have known at work covering about 20 years as well
oh and includes all computer code ever written.
What kind of a tangent are you off on now?
A handwritten anonymous letters author can more easily be identified by the penmanship. A typed anonymous letter is much harder to identify and prove the author.
edit: unless their grammar is atrocious and they make the same predictable mistakes all the time.
Its really that simple.
yes I understand you are saying that the vast majority of written words in personal, public, news, and office places by the vast majority of people writting them over the course of about 20 years is nearly impossible to proove who wrote them. all including all documents legal or otherwise.
pretty much all words written over the past 20+ years in all venues of business and person are done using a fucking computer.
not to mention decades worth of other documents legal and otherwise created before the computer
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
There are cases much bigger high profile cases going through multinational legal systems as we speak.
One of the most famous currently is a case that is local to me. One of my kids was a classmate of the victim. She was being harassed and extorted by a man in the Netherlands.
Just google Amanda Todd
Based on google that man is now in jail.
But actually I was just talking about proving that the person in question was doing something. Getting the officials of different countries to co-operate can be very difficult or impossible, but if they do then usually identifying a person is easy enough as long as that person is not actively concealing his identity.
The man is in jail for another crime.
In any case, as I said earlier. It would take much more than a single instance to build a case. In a criminal case you would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the person in question was behind the keyboard. A history of that kind of behavior makes building a case easier but still difficult.
If someone is using your computer, on your home, logged on to your Steam account, and talks about a game you have purchased and played, on forums you've likely been using for more than one post, then there's not much room for reasonable doubt whether that person is you.
The court will not think that tales about unknown people in your home using your Steam account to post things are reasonable unless you have a really really good story about how it happened, and even if it might be possible to create reasonable doubt by pointing fingers at your family members most people don't want to break their family like that.
You're arguing the case just like a prosecutor would, All your evidence is circumstantial
I could post articles on people who made threats against others on the internet and went to jail. Even if found not guilty the legal fees and time spent to defend oneself could be substantial and then there's the civil suit which has a lesser burden of proof in finding a person guilty. Bottom line if you get angry at someone curse out the monitor and don't document your anger on the internet. What good does it really do anyway?
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
This may not be the turning point (it sounds too opportunistic for that), but sooner or later there will be precedent-setting case made over internet harassment and slander.
Far too many people believe they say can say absolutely anything on the internet and get away with it.
Unless there is webcam evidence or something of the sort, how the heck would you ever prove that the person in question actually was doing the harassing etc.
I would imagine it would take much much more than a single instance to ever build a case.
"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is pretty hard to achieve in this scenario.
same could be said for every single word ever written down on anything be it a sheet of paper or a newspaper
Handwriting is fairly easy to identify, but type is much more difficult.
As I said it would take much more than a single instance to prove. There would have to be a history.
ah so your saying anything ever written on a computer over the past several decades including news articles falls into your definition of hard to proove.
gotcha
which by the way includes everything I have ever done at work covering about 20 years and everything anyone I have known at work covering about 20 years as well
oh and includes all computer code ever written.
What kind of a tangent are you off on now?
A handwritten anonymous letters author can more easily be identified by the penmanship. A typed anonymous letter is much harder to identify and prove the author.
edit: unless their grammar is atrocious and they make the same predictable mistakes all the time.
Its really that simple.
yes I understand you are saying that the vast majority of written words in personal, public, news, and office places by the vast majority of people writting them over the course of about 20 years is nearly impossible to proove who wrote them. all including all documents legal or otherwise.
pretty much all words written over the past 20+ years in all venues of business and person are done using a fucking computer.
not to mention decades worth of other documents legal and otherwise created before the computer
There are cases much bigger high profile cases going through multinational legal systems as we speak.
One of the most famous currently is a case that is local to me. One of my kids was a classmate of the victim. She was being harassed and extorted by a man in the Netherlands.
Just google Amanda Todd
Based on google that man is now in jail.
But actually I was just talking about proving that the person in question was doing something. Getting the officials of different countries to co-operate can be very difficult or impossible, but if they do then usually identifying a person is easy enough as long as that person is not actively concealing his identity.
The man is in jail for another crime.
In any case, as I said earlier. It would take much more than a single instance to build a case. In a criminal case you would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the person in question was behind the keyboard. A history of that kind of behavior makes building a case easier but still difficult.
If someone is using your computer, on your home, logged on to your Steam account, and talks about a game you have purchased and played, on forums you've likely been using for more than one post, then there's not much room for reasonable doubt whether that person is you.
The court will not think that tales about unknown people in your home using your Steam account to post things are reasonable unless you have a really really good story about how it happened, and even if it might be possible to create reasonable doubt by pointing fingers at your family members most people don't want to break their family like that.
You're arguing the case just like a prosecutor would, All your evidence is circumstantial
based on your position you are basically saying what I have stated here.
Reality however both in and out of a court of law is different from your view on this matter because of the very same reasons I have illustrated in the reply mentioned above.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I could post articles on people who made threats against others on the internet and went to jail. Even if found not guilty the legal fees and time spent to defend oneself could be substantial and then there's the civil suit which has a lesser burden of proof in finding a person guilty. Bottom line if you get angry at someone curse out the monitor and don't document your anger on the internet. What good does it really do anyway?
True on that one. Just look at the comments on all MSN articles lol. I read them for fun, and I like how posters use their actual real facebook accounts to post their hate with their full names out there for the world. Most times I wonder how these people even know how to turn on a computer; no point in arguing with them so I never consider replying even if I could troll them to shame. So much hate and ignorance, all you can do is shake your head and walk away.
I know people can be passionate about their beliefs, no point in devolving into threats of harming people. Either way I think both the developer and the 100 reviewers are in the wrong. The developer for threatening and goading the players, and the players for antagonizing him. If you hate them game just say it sucked because X and move on. I also think Steam should take a bit more active role in what goes through greenlight. If it costs the developer, so be it. That's the price to play and keep your dignity. If you want on steam, build a decent product or go sell your junk on your own site . It's like these developers want no accountability for their bad products, yet Steam users are held accountable.
I could post articles on people who made threats against others on the internet and went to jail. Even if found not guilty the legal fees and time spent to defend oneself could be substantial and then there's the civil suit which has a lesser burden of proof in finding a person guilty. Bottom line if you get angry at someone curse out the monitor and don't document your anger on the internet. What good does it really do anyway?
I mostly agree
I can't imagine much would happen from a single nerd rage post. Imagine if the legal system prosecuted everyone who nerd raged on the internet. I'd assume in a case such as this one, the authorities wouldn't bother with any kind of criminal proceedings unless the was continued sustained threats and harassment.
I could post articles on people who made threats against others on the internet and went to jail. Even if found not guilty the legal fees and time spent to defend oneself could be substantial and then there's the civil suit which has a lesser burden of proof in finding a person guilty. Bottom line if you get angry at someone curse out the monitor and don't document your anger on the internet. What good does it really do anyway?
I mostly agree
I can't imagine much would happen from a single nerd rage post. Imagine if the legal system prosecuted everyone who nerd raged on the internet. I'd assume in a case such as this one, the authorities wouldn't bother with any kind of criminal proceedings unless the was continued sustained threats and harassment.
defamation lawsuits are very hard to litigate successfully. but they do exist for a reason and they have from time to time been effective.
They are usually focused on business though, not people.
in other words be careful about calling Coke Cola a Dick.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
There are cases much bigger high profile cases going through multinational legal systems as we speak.
One of the most famous currently is a case that is local to me. One of my kids was a classmate of the victim. She was being harassed and extorted by a man in the Netherlands.
Just google Amanda Todd
Based on google that man is now in jail.
But actually I was just talking about proving that the person in question was doing something. Getting the officials of different countries to co-operate can be very difficult or impossible, but if they do then usually identifying a person is easy enough as long as that person is not actively concealing his identity.
The man is in jail for another crime.
In any case, as I said earlier. It would take much more than a single instance to build a case. In a criminal case you would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the person in question was behind the keyboard. A history of that kind of behavior makes building a case easier but still difficult.
If someone is using your computer, on your home, logged on to your Steam account, and talks about a game you have purchased and played, on forums you've likely been using for more than one post, then there's not much room for reasonable doubt whether that person is you.
The court will not think that tales about unknown people in your home using your Steam account to post things are reasonable unless you have a really really good story about how it happened, and even if it might be possible to create reasonable doubt by pointing fingers at your family members most people don't want to break their family like that.
You're arguing the case just like a prosecutor would, All your evidence is circumstantial
based on your position you are basically saying what I have stated here.
Reality however both in and out of a court of law is different from your view on this matter because of the very same reasons I have illustrated in the reply mentioned above.
I don't have a position. I'm quite neutral on the topic at hand.
There are cases much bigger high profile cases going through multinational legal systems as we speak.
One of the most famous currently is a case that is local to me. One of my kids was a classmate of the victim. She was being harassed and extorted by a man in the Netherlands.
Just google Amanda Todd
Based on google that man is now in jail.
But actually I was just talking about proving that the person in question was doing something. Getting the officials of different countries to co-operate can be very difficult or impossible, but if they do then usually identifying a person is easy enough as long as that person is not actively concealing his identity.
The man is in jail for another crime.
In any case, as I said earlier. It would take much more than a single instance to build a case. In a criminal case you would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the person in question was behind the keyboard. A history of that kind of behavior makes building a case easier but still difficult.
If someone is using your computer, on your home, logged on to your Steam account, and talks about a game you have purchased and played, on forums you've likely been using for more than one post, then there's not much room for reasonable doubt whether that person is you.
The court will not think that tales about unknown people in your home using your Steam account to post things are reasonable unless you have a really really good story about how it happened, and even if it might be possible to create reasonable doubt by pointing fingers at your family members most people don't want to break their family like that.
You're arguing the case just like a prosecutor would, All your evidence is circumstantial
based on your position you are basically saying what I have stated here.
Reality however both in and out of a court of law is different from your view on this matter because of the very same reasons I have illustrated in the reply mentioned above.
I don't have a position. I'm quite neutral on the topic at hand.
and also wrong about some legal matters you have discussed which is fine I dont think any of us could get all of it right, even a lawyer cant
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
There are cases much bigger high profile cases going through multinational legal systems as we speak.
One of the most famous currently is a case that is local to me. One of my kids was a classmate of the victim. She was being harassed and extorted by a man in the Netherlands.
Just google Amanda Todd
Based on google that man is now in jail.
But actually I was just talking about proving that the person in question was doing something. Getting the officials of different countries to co-operate can be very difficult or impossible, but if they do then usually identifying a person is easy enough as long as that person is not actively concealing his identity.
The man is in jail for another crime.
In any case, as I said earlier. It would take much more than a single instance to build a case. In a criminal case you would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the person in question was behind the keyboard. A history of that kind of behavior makes building a case easier but still difficult.
If someone is using your computer, on your home, logged on to your Steam account, and talks about a game you have purchased and played, on forums you've likely been using for more than one post, then there's not much room for reasonable doubt whether that person is you.
The court will not think that tales about unknown people in your home using your Steam account to post things are reasonable unless you have a really really good story about how it happened, and even if it might be possible to create reasonable doubt by pointing fingers at your family members most people don't want to break their family like that.
You're arguing the case just like a prosecutor would, All your evidence is circumstantial
based on your position you are basically saying what I have stated here.
Reality however both in and out of a court of law is different from your view on this matter because of the very same reasons I have illustrated in the reply mentioned above.
I don't have a position. I'm quite neutral on the topic at hand.
and also wrong about some legal matters you have discussed which is fine I dont think any of us could get all of it right, even a lawyer cant
There are cases much bigger high profile cases going through multinational legal systems as we speak.
One of the most famous currently is a case that is local to me. One of my kids was a classmate of the victim. She was being harassed and extorted by a man in the Netherlands.
Just google Amanda Todd
Based on google that man is now in jail.
But actually I was just talking about proving that the person in question was doing something. Getting the officials of different countries to co-operate can be very difficult or impossible, but if they do then usually identifying a person is easy enough as long as that person is not actively concealing his identity.
The man is in jail for another crime.
In any case, as I said earlier. It would take much more than a single instance to build a case. In a criminal case you would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the person in question was behind the keyboard. A history of that kind of behavior makes building a case easier but still difficult.
If someone is using your computer, on your home, logged on to your Steam account, and talks about a game you have purchased and played, on forums you've likely been using for more than one post, then there's not much room for reasonable doubt whether that person is you.
The court will not think that tales about unknown people in your home using your Steam account to post things are reasonable unless you have a really really good story about how it happened, and even if it might be possible to create reasonable doubt by pointing fingers at your family members most people don't want to break their family like that.
You're arguing the case just like a prosecutor would, All your evidence is circumstantial
based on your position you are basically saying what I have stated here.
Reality however both in and out of a court of law is different from your view on this matter because of the very same reasons I have illustrated in the reply mentioned above.
I don't have a position. I'm quite neutral on the topic at hand.
and also wrong about some legal matters you have discussed which is fine I dont think any of us could get all of it right, even a lawyer cant
Care to elaborate?
Sorry I already have.
lets move on shall we please?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Well... If your IP is enough to get your to court over copyright boo boo´s...
I am pretty sure a bunch posts containing actual threats would have no real problem to stick.... If soneone actually was willing to take the issue serious and plow some money in to it.
But the lack of financial gain in the matter is keeping it back.
This may not be the turning point (it sounds too opportunistic for that), but sooner or later there will be precedent-setting case made over internet harassment and slander.
Far too many people believe they say can say absolutely anything on the internet and get away with it.
Unless there is webcam evidence or something of the sort, how the heck would you ever prove that the person in question actually was doing the harassing etc.
I would imagine it would take much much more than a single instance to ever build a case.
"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is pretty hard to achieve in this scenario.
I believe "beyond a reasonable doubt" only applies to criminal cases, and this falls under a civil tort. I am not a lawyer, obviously. However, the burden of proof isn't quite so strict in civil cases.
Even so... hilarious. Digital Homicide appears intent on digging their own grave.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
This may not be the turning point (it sounds too opportunistic for that), but sooner or later there will be precedent-setting case made over internet harassment and slander.
Far too many people believe they say can say absolutely anything on the internet and get away with it.
Unless there is webcam evidence or something of the sort, how the heck would you ever prove that the person in question actually was doing the harassing etc.
I would imagine it would take much much more than a single instance to ever build a case.
"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is pretty hard to achieve in this scenario.
I believe "beyond a reasonable doubt" only applies to criminal cases, and this falls under a civil tort. I am not a lawyer, obviously. However, the burden of proof isn't quite so strict in civil cases.
Even so... hilarious. Digital Homicide appears intent on digging their own grave.
I agree
My comments were directed towards the nerd rage threats made on the forums.
Even considering the hypothetical situation of this even making it to trial is laughable. Judges issue subpoenas all the time for really insignificant stuff. It means nothing. Much like this case will mean nothing. They are just wasting their time. Valve will defend their users from a sue happy company trying to sue their customers over bad reviews.
Hell, I wouldn't call DH a company. They are 2 dudes who know how to asset flip unity store assets and google images.
Comments
We all know how secure an internet forum/gaming account is. It would take much much more than a single instance. Nothing a competent defense lawyer would wipe the floor with.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Unless you're trying to actively conceal your identity on the internet, usually it's easy enough to find out who you are.
There are cases much bigger high profile cases going through multinational legal systems as we speak.
One of the most famous currently is a case that is local to me. One of my kids was a classmate of the victim. She was being harassed and extorted by a man in the Netherlands.
Just google Amanda Todd
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
But actually I was just talking about proving that the person in question was doing something. Getting the officials of different countries to co-operate can be very difficult or impossible, but if they do then usually identifying a person is easy enough as long as that person is not actively concealing his identity.
In any case, as I said earlier. It would take much more than a single instance to build a case. In a criminal case you would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the person in question was behind the keyboard. A history of that kind of behavior makes building a case easier but still difficult.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The court will not think that tales about unknown people in your home using your Steam account to post things are reasonable unless you have a really really good story about how it happened, and even if it might be possible to create reasonable doubt by pointing fingers at your family members most people don't want to break their family like that.
gotcha
which by the way includes everything I have ever done at work covering about 20 years and everything anyone I have known at work covering about 20 years as well
oh and includes all computer code ever written.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
A handwritten anonymous letters author can more easily be identified by the penmanship. A typed anonymous letter is much harder to identify and prove the author.
edit: unless their grammar is atrocious and they make the same predictable mistakes all the time.
Its really that simple.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
pretty much all words written over the past 20+ years in all venues of business and person are done using a fucking computer.
not to mention decades worth of other documents legal and otherwise created before the computer
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Reality however both in and out of a court of law is different from your view on this matter because of the very same reasons I have illustrated in the reply mentioned above.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I know people can be passionate about their beliefs, no point in devolving into threats of harming people. Either way I think both the developer and the 100 reviewers are in the wrong. The developer for threatening and goading the players, and the players for antagonizing him. If you hate them game just say it sucked because X and move on. I also think Steam should take a bit more active role in what goes through greenlight. If it costs the developer, so be it. That's the price to play and keep your dignity. If you want on steam, build a decent product or go sell your junk on your own site . It's like these developers want no accountability for their bad products, yet Steam users are held accountable.
I can't imagine much would happen from a single nerd rage post. Imagine if the legal system prosecuted everyone who nerd raged on the internet. I'd assume in a case such as this one, the authorities wouldn't bother with any kind of criminal proceedings unless the was continued sustained threats and harassment.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
They are usually focused on business though, not people.
in other words be careful about calling Coke Cola a Dick.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
lets move on shall we please?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I am pretty sure a bunch posts containing actual threats would have no real problem to stick.... If soneone actually was willing to take the issue serious and plow some money in to it.
But the lack of financial gain in the matter is keeping it back.
This have been a good conversation
Even so... hilarious. Digital Homicide appears intent on digging their own grave.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
My comments were directed towards the nerd rage threats made on the forums.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Hell, I wouldn't call DH a company. They are 2 dudes who know how to asset flip unity store assets and google images.