The way I moderate, is to be unashamedly selfish, with a sprinkling of impartiality.
Basically, I do whatever I would want "the mods" to do if I were a user. Obviously, there are other users, but since the point of me bothering with the whole thing is to facilitate the kind of activity I personally enjoy, considerations for people who want my communities to be something different, is simply not a priority.
Unless I joined a mod team that existed already, I decide.
If someone complains or has a suggestion, I do make an effort to actually consider what they are saying, but then I still decide what will or won't happen. I'm doing the work in order to have communities I actually like, not the adoration of a bunch of thankful users. If you compromise on the former for the latter, why even put in the effort? Either way, there will be a set of people who like what you do, and a set of people don't.
So why please other people at the expense of pleasing yourself?
Unless you actually open things up to be voted on, the goal is to be a benevolent dictator. You can't please everyone, but that doesn't mean you have to make yourself one of the unhappy ones. You may be a mod, but we're ALL users. That means what you want to do, even as a mod, matters too.
That pedestal being, that they keep making games that are just plain good, despite at the same time being involved with shit industry practices by working with Microsoft and Epic?
I think that particular pedestal is pretty fucking deserved. And one that looks their faults in the eyes.
They keep making good stuff, while marred by the bullshit that allows them to fund the studio.
Why do you think I'm specifically excited for them to finally do something fully self-published, so they can make something I can enjoy with no fucking strings attached?
Ok. Unfortunately it sounds like you're asking me to stop liking a studio that I like, based on speculation about how a future title of theirs might work. That's not an actionable argument.
Nothing about a multiplayer title requires it be made in a way that will break whenever the official servers go down. You are assuming this one will work that way, and I'll grant you it likely will.
But the change we both want isn't going to come from voting with our wallets, but even harder.
We know one of their WIP titles is a PvE multiplayer game set in their connected universe. Aside from that, nothing more is known, except for your generic corporate "we're excited about our future projects with Remedy" statements from 505.
I'd be very suprised if Remedy turns around and makes it overtly exploitative.
It's published by Epic (Control was published by 505). Unless Epic significantly compromises on their insistence of pushing the Epic store, it wont happen.
Remedy games have been "underperforming" despite rave reviews for a while. Yet they've been chugging along doing what they think is neat, instead of caving into the current money-making models.
And in this case, the Epic partnership definitely hurt the game. And they know it did. Before AW2, it was microsoft putting the breaks of Quantum Break despite it being great.
Control was the first time since Max Payne I felt they truly achieved the success that their level of quality deserves (and even then it was a timed epic exclusive).
Now Remedy has set themselves up to finally self-publish the follow-up to Control. I can't wait.
Remedy has fans, but something always seems to get in the way.
Shitty cyclists suck. I ride my own bike every day, and I can't get over how often I see someone riding among pedestrians, (often along a road clear of cars, or worse yet, along an actual bike lane right there).
I must have shouted "the bike lane is literally right here" as I go past people like this over a hundred times in my life.
It's obvius to me that hitting someone with my bike would be horrible, yet I see people riding them all the time like it's the same as lightly jogging.
From a certain perspective, it doesn't matter whether a given soldier dies or is injured. Either way, it means a combatant was removed from the conflict.
As such, deaths and injuries are grouped together when discussing the "losses" of war.
The way I moderate, is to be unashamedly selfish, with a sprinkling of impartiality.
Basically, I do whatever I would want "the mods" to do if I were a user. Obviously, there are other users, but since the point of me bothering with the whole thing is to facilitate the kind of activity I personally enjoy, considerations for people who want my communities to be something different, is simply not a priority.
Unless I joined a mod team that existed already, I decide.
If someone complains or has a suggestion, I do make an effort to actually consider what they are saying, but then I still decide what will or won't happen. I'm doing the work in order to have communities I actually like, not the adoration of a bunch of thankful users. If you compromise on the former for the latter, why even put in the effort? Either way, there will be a set of people who like what you do, and a set of people don't. So why please other people at the expense of pleasing yourself?
Unless you actually open things up to be voted on, the goal is to be a benevolent dictator. You can't please everyone, but that doesn't mean you have to make yourself one of the unhappy ones. You may be a mod, but we're ALL users. That means what you want to do, even as a mod, matters too.