Jump to content

Cyphon

Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About Cyphon

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator
  1. I think I found the problem: https://www.polygon.com/2018/11/10/17959500/obsidian-xbox-acquired-x018-new-vegas-pillars-eternity Obsidian will add PS4 support as soon as M$ stops trying to be a monopoly...i.e., never.
  2. Oh, I know what Modern Racism Scale is. But I have no idea what "ambivalence concept was used to demonstrate the construct validity of a relatively nonreactive scale of racial prejudice-the Modern Racism Scale" means. How exactly did they "demonstrate construct validity"? By showing that there is prejudice in 81 white student from their university without proper control groups to account for other contributing factors? Are you having a laugh? Trying to obscure that your conclusions are meaningless behind obscure terms doesn't work with me or with any other person who studied natural or formal sciences. Also I like how you ignore the bulk of my post because you cannot refute it. Their scientific research techniques are absolute trash, that's the main reason why I disregard their findings. Their inability to formulate their conclusions in a way that actually makes sense only adds to my skepticism. The fact that they have been cited a lot only means that sociologists are bad at critical thinking and understanding scientific method. If you think that my preference for facts is a demonstration of bias, well, it's not really my problem, is it? I am no expert on global warming, but I know there are several contributing factors. Frankly, I am yet to see a study that proves that the bulk of gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth atmosphere is largely attributable to greenhouse gases. Why do you ask? Then you're not looking. Willful ignorance is not a counter to widespread professional consensus, nor is "nuh uh, they used a bunch of terms of art I don't understand wjem writing a paper meant for consumption by others who speak 'the language', so I'm going to accuse them of deliberate obfuscation." I could sit here and spew "legalese" at you all day and your "nuh uh" approach to anything that inflames your confirmation bias would still fail to contradict my expertise. Denial is a helluva drug.
  3. Depends. Does Draining Whip give you +2 for every enemy hit or just the first one? In other words, can you focus on AOE for faster, larger focus gains once you have it? If you can double or triple up, I can see how an AOE focused cipher could benefit from higher max focus, especially if sporting fast weapons. If not ,i.e., if you only get the +2 per attack with no multiplier for how many enemies hit, even if it's AOE, then yeah, not optimal. Anyone know which one it is?
  4. You've got it so backwards it's not even funny. The very best way to paint the target is to engage in childish one-uppery. Obsidian and Firedom responded rather perfectly. The showed responsiveness to the issue but Firedom also got to express his feeling that this was an overreaction to what was intended as a harmless jest, but which unintentionally offended people. The overall effect is an honest effort to keep the peace and nobody can fault Obsidian or Firedom for that. Had they done what you suggest, it would only be throwing gas on the fire. Firedorn knew it was offensive. He expected it to be rejected. He obviously did not intend it as just a harmless jest. Why the hell are you so invested in making it seem like he is without fault? I beg to differ. You ascribe a lot of malevolent intent to someone you just don't know. Fact is, HE chose to change it when confronted with the criticism...as he has told us. HE changed it to keep the peace, which is behavior you'd expect from someone who acts maturely in the first place and didn't intend the offense. People are at different levels of understanding and comfort with these issues. If he says he meant no offense...which is what the first line of the changes indicate...then I have no reason to believe him. BY continuing to lash out and pillory him, or anyone else who might be trying to catch up to you in your understanding of the issue, you discourage him and everyone else who might unintentionally offend people from having the dialogue that might help them learn not to. When people make honest efforts to keep the peace on these things, the most productive response is "thank you, I appreciate that." They're more likely to accept, or at least respect, your point of view and try not to tread on it next time. "The way I see it, I got to write something controversial and then got to publicly insult some people who didn't like it." "Who knows, probably slipped through the cracks. I thought for sure they would have asked it to be changed prior to release." So mature. ¬_¬ I hadn't seen those yet...there IS a lot of reading to be done if one is to be completely informed about everything that's been said here. Certainly changes my opinion. However, I will say that there is a fine line between making a controversial joke and going too far. If he knew he was, I dunno. He obviously did know that he was pushing buttons on purpose if those quotes are true though. Also, it's disappointing he thought he was "insulting people" with his changes. They could be read, and I did read them at first, as a nice gesture to keep the peace, but have his polite rejoinder. If he intended it as a insult, that's disappointing. The point here should be just doing what's best to help the community move past it and get back to focusing on the game and fun.
  5. You've got it so backwards it's not even funny. The very best way to paint the target is to engage in childish one-uppery. Obsidian and Firedom responded rather perfectly. The showed responsiveness to the issue but Firedom also got to express his feeling that this was an overreaction to what was intended as a harmless jest, but which unintentionally offended people. The overall effect is an honest effort to keep the peace and nobody can fault Obsidian or Firedom for that. Had they done what you suggest, it would only be throwing gas on the fire. Firedorn knew it was offensive. He expected it to be rejected. He obviously did not intend it as just a harmless jest. Why the hell are you so invested in making it seem like he is without fault? I beg to differ. You ascribe a lot of malevolent intent to someone you just don't know. Fact is, HE chose to change it when confronted with the criticism...as he has told us. HE changed it to keep the peace, which is behavior you'd expect from someone who acts maturely in the first place and didn't intend the offense. People are at different levels of understanding and comfort with these issues. If he says he meant no offense...which is what the first line of the changes indicate...then I have no reason to believe him. BY continuing to lash out and pillory him, or anyone else who might be trying to catch up to you in your understanding of the issue, you discourage him and everyone else who might unintentionally offend people from having the dialogue that might help them learn not to. When people make honest efforts to keep the peace on these things, the most productive response is "thank you, I appreciate that." They're more likely to accept, or at least respect, your point of view and try not to tread on it next time.
  6. Of course, you miss the part that by in any way caving to a "pathetic intimidation attempt," they validate it and succumb to it. You only bring down and insult everyone involved by trying to characterize it that way. Face it: they considered the complaint and simply decided it needed to be changed to keep the peace. That's not censorship, intimidation, caving, cowardice or whatever. These are smart people who, as today's patch showed, listen to the community and want what's best for their game and it's fans, both in a business sense but also in the sense of having created something cool that they get to enjoy with everyone. They simply wanted to keep the peace...it was changed to address the issue and, as a bonus, Firedom got to have some clever word play in there to express his disappointment at the overreaction to the unintended offense people took with his joke. Seems like a happy medium to me.
  7. Actually, the other thread was linked to by a mod as the place to continue the discussion. Like, mod A closes a thread and links to that one, mod B closes that one and says "how did you start this?" TRICKSY HOBBITSES!!!!!!!
  8. You've got it so backwards it's not even funny. The very best way to paint the target is to engage in childish one-uppery. Obsidian and Firedom responded rather perfectly. The showed responsiveness to the issue but Firedom also got to express his feeling that this was an overreaction to what was intended as a harmless jest, but which unintentionally offended people. The overall effect is an honest effort to keep the peace and nobody can fault Obsidian or Firedom for that. Had they done what you suggest, it would only be throwing gas on the fire.
  9. "Whoa, okay. When did you guys start another thread on this? And how did it get to 20 pages while I was out having dinner? Look, we're fine with you guys talking about this, or whatever you want to talk about (as long as it's not, I don't know, endorsing piracy). But like with everything else, you don't need to start a new thread every time you think you have something so important to say that you need a new thread, instead of posting like everybody else. Continue here: http://forums.obsidi...cussion/page-26" ======== ZOMG CENSORSHIP NAZI!!!!!!
  10. That's what I've been saying from the start. Obsidian did not "cave under the pressure", they gave Firedorn all the freedom he wanted to handle that so called crisis. Meh. he first line is implicitly an acknowledgement that he recognizes people took offense. That act of changing it is implicitly a recognition that it was better for everyone to do so. The second line is barbed, to be sure, but overall it's a polite way of saying "fine, let's move on."
  11. If it loses you as a fan, then I'd have to say this: responding to an overreaction by trying to top how much of an overreaction it was with an even bigger overreaction on your part is, by definition, pure and unadulterated derp.
  12. I don't see it that way. That barbed comment applies to both "sides" of this nonsense at different times.
  13. Why aren't you happy? The backer didn't get screwed. Isn't that what you wanted? Frankly, I thought he was pretty brilliant about it. His changes were mature in that he made sure to tell everyone that he was only joking and meant no harm, thereby acknowledging that he understood people took offense, but he also lightly chastised everyone folks for overreacting a bit, cuz hey, there's a right way and a wrong way to provide criticism...and overall the act of changing it at all was a nice gesture to try to keep the peace. Win win for him. People should move on.
  14. Agreed. People made their case on both sides of the issue. Obsidian listened and made up its own mind about how best to respond. Respect their decision and move on. The prolonged and irrational anti-"SJW" tantrum is effing infantile. No it is just freedom of speech. And a reaction to their behavior since its getting more and more stupid every day. And now the line is almost completely crossed for many people. Whose behavior? From where I'm sitting, it seems both "sides" get way out of control and lose all sense of objectivity and rational thought almost every single time. As for freedom of speech, indeed. People on both sides exercised their freedom of speech to make their case. Obsidian was 100% free to react in whatever way it felt best. That's how freedom of speech and public debate are SUPPOSED to work. Freedom of speech is great.... but it doesn't escape blow back. Obsidian may have thought of its best interests, but the ultimate message after all of this is, it buckled under pressure by a fringe group and backed down. This looks bad to the rest of the community; worse than keeping it. If someone thought it tasteless in Obsidian, that's a reflection of their development, which also means confidence diminished by those who actually thought the joke amusing.... which it sounds like the majority of its fanbase. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Rule 2: Forums are not a representative sampling methodology. The "majority of its fanbase" is quietly enjoying the game and ignoring this nonsense entirely. Thats just a deflection - as the ratio is probably still the same. Plus, I was making a point that there are consequences to freedom of speech, and in this case, is going against its own internal humor methodology as well as the demograph the joke was intended to entertain. No, studies have shown that forum dwellers are, in fact, not representative and tend to exhibits some distinctly similar trends and traits, which also shows they're a subset unrepresentative of the whole. It's not a deflection, it's the reality...and I say that as someone who likes forum dwelling from time to time. Just because something is getting said or talked about the loudest, doesn't mean it's what most people are saying or talking about.
×
×
  • Create New...