I wouldn't be surprised if this backfires a bit. The reason most publishers/IP holders don't go after videos on youtube and twitch is because it's basically free advertisement for your game.

If this behavior leads to people holding back on making nintendo based content, it could fuck them over in the long run. If you were a streamer or youtuber, would you feel particularly comfortable making videos and streaming nintendo games?

I know I wouldn't. There is no guarantee that nintendo actually puts effort into determining whether you are using an emulator or not. And even for the people who do use emulators, they may not be looking to continue making nintendo content.

One thing they’ve been saying that concerns me however, is that apparently there have been people getting banned from help forums and even the GitHub for criticism.

Perhaps there were people going too far and getting rightfully banned and some innocent people got caught in the crossfire?

They've addressed that:

We unequivocally condemn this abuse. The volume of negative engagement overwhelmed our moderation efforts. While attempting to protect the Godot community we mistakenly blocked individuals who were not participating in the harassment. The Godot Foundation Board takes full responsibility for these moderation actions. If you believe you were blocked in error and have not violated our Code of Conduct, please contact us with the form linked below. We are committed to swiftly rectifying any mistakes. We firmly stand by our mission to keep our community spaces free from hate, discrimination, and other toxic behaviors. - The Godot Foundation Board

a lot of the people complaining on twitter are not even gamedevs and don’t know what Godot is

You're probably right. Homophobes aren't the brightest of the bunch.

Yet another reason religion is a scourge.

Ghoul behavior

I love that you love this theory that you cannot possibly get any data on magically but also cannot realize that the 0.7% of the total vote in 2016 the leftist third parties got is almost 10x less than the loss from voter turnout between 2016 and 2020

It's not a theory or hypothesis. It is how a venn diagram works, it's geometry. And both geometry and that loss of turnout can be the case, they are not mutually exclusive. And I also never said that those who didn't turn out to the polls weren't to blame. You're putting words in my mouth at this point.

the 40% of people who simply did not vote at all are a BIIIIIIT more to blame than the 0.7% of people who voted third party,

Both are to blame. Anybody who didn't vote or voted for a candidate who had no chance is 100% to blame. Distinguishing blame by group isn't of value.

Spoiler candidates exist

I'm glad we agree. That's the whole point.

they would rather continue to scapegoat bernie bros and green party instead of just admitting their plan of pissing off as many progressives as humanly possible and trying to court republicans instead has not worked extremely well.

You're preaching to the choir. I hate their shitty ass strategy too.

and finally, if you’re cool with FPTP then great for you, keep voting DNC.

I am explicitly not cool with it.

No need to remove money from politics, support the poor, stop genocide, or anything important that would lose us money when we have something more evil than us to vote against! Yay! Some aren’t stoked on how complicit in that idea the DNC is. I’m not going to tell someone with a straight face that democrats will fix everything we just have to vote for them another 600 times so they can… keep going further from progress each year. Example being immigration they’re pushing which is fully 2 steps backward to take one step forward.

Welcome to FPTP two party systems.

I blame both

I really fucking wish that news articles would stop wording shit like this. Reading the title I initially thought he died.

Yes, it was stolen, however they were only able to do that because the margins were close. Had the green voters instead voted for the candidate closest to them that had a chance (Gore), then it would have mattered.

It doesn’t, though

Sure it does. I already explained how.

You say 3rd party is irrelevant

No I didn't. I said the introduction of an irrelevant candidate (meaning one that did not win) should have no effect on the outcome of an election.

I looked up exact numbers from 2020) more right 3rd party doesn’t prove it’s more than the left…. If there are only 2 relevant parties then… right goes to right, left goes to left. Shock

If we look at 2008 the left actually had 1.16x more than the right on 3rd party votes, and still won by 7% (10x the 3rd party votes on the left) where as 2016 the right had 3x the lefts 3rd party votes (2016 was a big third party year at ~3% right vs ~1% left. Who would guess 2 bad candidates leaves a huge 3rd party.) and then in 2020 the right had 4x the lefts third party votes.

As I already explained, that statistic is meaningless, as it doesn't say anything about how much overlap and therefore vote spoiling is taking place. I'll demonstrate:

• Voters 0 through 40 like the green party
• Voters 30 through 230 like the democratic party
• Voters 220 through 410 prefer the republican party
• Voters 400 through 510 prefer the libertarian party.

That means green has 40 potential votes, democrat has 200 potential votes, republican has 190 potential votes, and libertarian has 100 potential votes.

There is double the number of 3rd party voters on the right than the left. But it doesn't matter, because the dems overlap with 10 voters of the green party. And the repubs overlap with 10 voters of the libertarian party. They'll more or less cancel each other out despite there being way more right wing 3rd party votes.

Unless you have data to show how much overlap there is, this statistic is meaningless.

It should be encouraged.

Not in a FPTP system, because that leads to the spoiler effect.

It’s a fucking democracy.

The United States is a failed democracy by any reasonable measure.

It doesn’t. Someone with a “left” view and a “right” view can cancel each other out,

Only if the person with a left view also has a right view. And only if the other person with the right view has a left view.

You seem confused. The point of it isn't to give a fully accurate explanation of a person's views on every topic. It's to give somebody a general idea.

Plus, someone can say they are for something, but actually not support it in reality.

All political measurements fall victim to that. It's a moot point. But just because some people are like that doesn't mean everyone is.

Two people with wildly different views can occupy the same space

Not completely. If two people occupy a similar space, it means they agreed on something. That is meaningful. It's vague, sure. But it isn't completely random nonsense like astrology.

it’s not a thing that happens in reality if it were you’d point to actual data

I already explained why this is a terrible goalpost. But even under this terrible goalpost you're still not correct.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect

See the section under "Notable unintentional spoilers"

Additionally the 2000 election:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_2000_presidential_campaign

not randomly generated test cases where the hypothesis works assuming everyone has to vote and is going to vote.

That's already accounted for. The gray dots are non voters. Including non voters doesn't actually change the math, because the math is the overlap of circles. It is already only accounting for the subset of people who are voters.

I just gave an example of how it is meaningful.

It's definitely a terrible system, and there are better ones out there like 10Groups. But astrology is completely meaningless. The PCT at least tells you a vague (terrible, yes), but somewhat meaningful direction in which you believe.

For example, I know that since I'm libertarian left on the PCT, that I'm going to disagree with 90% of the things somebody who's authoritarian right on the PCT believes.

Astrology doesn't have that ability to reliably compare, since it is literally and completely meaningless.

But again, shit like 10Groups is better and everybody should switch to measures that have more than 2 axis.

Again, 6x as many third party votes on the right. Spoiler effect ain’t shit to the left.

On its own that statistic is meaningless, as it doesn't tell you how much overlap there is, and therefore how much spoiling there is. And regardless of which side, the spoiler effect is a symptom of a terrible voting system. The entrance of an irrelevant candidate should not sway the results of an election at all.

Additionally, everything is looking like it will be a very close race, in which case every bit of the spoiler effect matters, even if more of it is on the right, which you haven't established.

The overlap exists yes but the DNC has not moved left much in 12 years leaving progressives pretty disenfranchised

I don't like it either. But my point stands, there is an alternative choice.

The problem here is the spoiler effect, the system in which we elect representatives. It is in large part what allows the doupoly to remain uncompetitive.

The spoiler effect is at best a bad hypothesis

No, it's well understood, and very clearly exists. Here is an example using randomly generated voters ans candidates:

Election report for election "Plurality 2 Candidates"
Total people: 1047

Kruger - 112 votes - WINNER
Sahl - 111 votes

Election report for election "Plurality 3 Candidates"
Total people: 1047

Sahl - 109 votes - WINNER
Kruger - 93 votes
Maikol - 91 votes

The problem is that these are in effect venn diagrams. There will always be overlap, and that's the problem. That's what leads to election results being changed by the entrance of an irrelevant candidate (the spoiler effect).

and has never been proven to effect actual votes.

That's because the spoiler effect most easily happens in races that are already close, because we don't do much actual real life testing with actual elections because of the uncountable number of variables, and because doing it the python data science way is significantly more meaningful because of the aforementioned number of variables problem.

People voting third party just would not vote if there was no third party option.

If that's really true, then this whole idea about the democratic party trying to earn the votes of green voters is bunk. Either there is no overlap, in which case it's bunk. Or there is overlap, in which case we have a spoiler effect.

I'm not seeing any non-voters in these types of threads.

But yeah, non voters are a bigger problem.

A vote for Green Party/PSL/etc. is better than the alternative for those voting third party: not voting at all.

That's not the only alternative. There is overlap in the spheres of voters of the green party and democratic party.

IF the DNC actually wanted those votes it would court those votes.

The issue is the spoiler effect which is a result of the overlap.