[Teen Modification - Swearing Discussion]

"Did he just SWEAR?! Tommy, you cover your ears while you murder all those people. I am going on Twitter to let these disgusting developers know this is unacceptable!"

 

And that's how swearing will be censored.

 

It won't be in the patch notes, though. The QA team missed it while the dialogue was vetted and it was never supposed to be there to begin with.

[Humor. Do we have humor?]

No fun allowed, OP.

 

Rest assured if any snuck through that Twitter would make sure it was removed ASAP.

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

[Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?]

The issue has not only been resolved, it has been resolved with the help of the original backer.

 

This is not a free speech issue. It is not a censorship issue. It never was. 

[Obsidian devs after the Limerick controversy..]

 

 

 

I didn't say it proved anything one way or the other. I said I didn't believe it was as simple as a quick PM. I've read his other posts as well. I'm not saying he isn't fine with the changes, but I am saying that it appeared as if there wasn't a gigantic huff about this then his preference would have been to leave in what he originally had.

 

But I'll go ahead and PM him anyway and we can compare notes.

 

 

 

As I said, there's not much more to it than what's in his posts. Your point is he's not COMPLETELY happy about it, but there's no real affordance or attempt to understand why that is. If you wish to state he's not happy about it cause he's not happy with the person who complained fine. If your desire however is to say that Firedorn is upset with Obsidian and very begrudgingly agreed to change it against his own desires or the like, then I don't think he'll provide you with support for that.

 

It's just a simple scenario of the practical choice vs. the emotional one. Firedorn, I think, would've loved to keep it in as a "**** you" to the guy who complained, but also understood the ramnifications of doing so and believed the removal was a kinder choice on behalf of Obsidian (which it seems he may have been wrong about, but that's besides the point). Overall, he decided keeping it in wasn't worth the hassle. I think we would've seen different action from Firedorn were it his game and were he on the receiving end of the hate mail instead of Obsidian on his behalf.

 

 

Seems to me like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. My point is my point because of the reason I already showed. I said I agree with you that he said he is fine with the change. The fact that he stated that he preferred for the original to stay is the reason I'm saying I don't think he was 100% satisfied with the resolution. If I go into Subway for a turkey sandwich and they tell me they only have ham then I'll have ham, no big deal. I'm not upset. But I would have preferred turkey if they had it.

[Obsidian devs after the Limerick controversy..]

 

 

 

See how the thread goes dead silent the moment anyone's actually addressing the subject matter seriously?

 

Exactly what I've been talking about...

 

I kind of wish I was in the earlier threads, but as I noted in my first post here, there's not much else to say now that we have a definitive timeline and that Firedorn himself has spoken on the matter. Obsidian's made their decision, Firedorn is happy to leave things as they are. So a substantive discussion is difficult to start because the issue is essentially over. We just have to live with the results is all.

 

 

See, I don't really believe that it wasn't more than a suggestion for him to change it when I see something like this:

 

 

 

 

I've seen GamerGate reference this a dozen times over and I've called out the fallacy here a dozen times over, only to be downvoted on that subreddit because heaven forbid I speak out against the dominant narrative (yes yes, believe it or not, GamerGate can be subject to hugboxes too, and not everyone who criticizes your methods is your "enemy" or a "shill").

 

 

 

It's simple: he doesn't like the guy that complained. That's what the underlined is referring to. Nothing about that statement says "Obsidian forced me to change it at gunpoint." People are reading too much into that one snippet, taking it out of context and trying to suit their narrative. He's saying that he himself finds the complaint ridiculous, but given a choice between standing up against that person he disagrees with and consequently and inadvertedly making Obsidian "back" him, or removing the limerick entirely to save Obsidian some skin for his limerick and his opinion, he chose the rational choice of wanting to let Obsidian be absolved of involvement.

 

  Just because he chose to remove it doesn't mean he has to agree with the opinion of the person who raised the complaints to begin with, or even sympathize with them. I mean this is the guy who's replacement limerick was giving the finger to the people who led him to remove it, something Obsidian gave the green light to include. Check his post history, it's crystal clear this was his intent. You can even PM Firedorn yourself and ask him. It's not as if he's hiding; I myself PMed him on this matter because I got sick of seeing 20 different people interpret his posts 20 different ways to suit their own conspiracies and devices.

 

 

 

 

I would actually ask YOU to explain how on earth that post proves it wasn't his decision, especially when other posts by Firedorn directly suggest the opposite.

 

You are failing to apply Occam's Razor and failing to accept Firedorn's account as truth, instead clinging to some theory that he's lying to us and slipped up in that one underlined snippet (again taken out of context) which you have absolutely no proof for.

 

People are just mad and want justification to direct their anger at Obsidian, and they're frustrated they lack such justification so they're making it up at this point, happy to cling to any half-hearted attempts to justify it.

 

As stated, PM the guy yourself if you're so curious. Give him a week or so (that's about how long a response took for me) and don't be surprised when his response doesn't fit your narrative.

 

 

I didn't say it proved anything one way or the other. I said I didn't believe it was as simple as a quick PM. I've read his other posts as well. I'm not saying he isn't fine with the changes, but I am saying that it appeared as if there wasn't a gigantic huff about this then his preference would have been to leave in what he originally had.

 

But I'll go ahead and PM him anyway and we can compare notes.

[Obsidian devs after the Limerick controversy..]

 

What argument are you trying to make here? It's ridiculously vague. I assume you made it vague on purpose in case you need to backpedal or move the goalposts.

 

So again, you think that references to things like rape should be removed from the game as well, correct? And then murder, because people who played this game have lost loved ones to murder.

 

Please, I am not that sinister.

 

You asked me if "the game should be completely overhauled and cut to pieces because there are parts that contain things like rape?"

 

No.

 

I am saying that I am against rape, and that rape portrayed in context is actually helpful to show the injustices that linger (and, unfortunately, often times thrive) in the world, hence, the point about Schindler's List. I am against genocide, and Schindler's List is a very good film at portraying genocide in the proper context, as it properly shows the inhumanity of the Holocaust. I've not heard of a single Holocaust survivor (or relative of a Holocaust survivor) be offended by Schindler's List, because it's filmed in the proper context, so your point about someone having lost a loved one due to a murder is moot.

 

The limerick, unlike Schindler's List, is nothing of the sort; it's just a cheap, thinly-veiled, transmisogynistic jab.

 

 

So then my original post, of which you only quoted a portion of originally, was correct. In which I said:

 

A group of people that don't mind the risque as long as it follows their particular set of morals, otherwise it's too offensive and should be censored?

 

As long as you're the one who is against it or as long as you, personally, can justify the existence of any other atrocity in the game then it's kosher. As long as you can contextualize the event there isn't a problem. Otherwise it needs to be censored because you disagree with it.

 

And again, since you're only quoting portions of my argument that you think you can argue I'll reiterate that I am again correct when I say: 

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

 

 

And one more thing I'd like to point out to anyone reading this: Notice how the speech changes in this post compared to the other one. In the initial response Achaye claimed that the limerick was obviously tranmisogynistic. And in this response then it's suddenly a cheap, thinly-veiled, transmisogynistic jab.

 

It's because the initial argument can't be defended, so the goalposts are starting to slowly shift. No, no, it's not obvious now. Now it's underhanded. They're subconsciously manipulating the masses. It's a conspiracy to destroy transgenders.

[Obsidian devs after the Limerick controversy..]

 

See how the thread goes dead silent the moment anyone's actually addressing the subject matter seriously?

 

Exactly what I've been talking about...

 

I kind of wish I was in the earlier threads, but as I noted in my first post here, there's not much else to say now that we have a definitive timeline and that Firedorn himself has spoken on the matter. Obsidian's made their decision, Firedorn is happy to leave things as they are. So a substantive discussion is difficult to start because the issue is essentially over. We just have to live with the results is all.

 

 

See, I don't really believe that it wasn't more than a suggestion for him to change it when I see something like this:

 

[Obsidian devs after the Limerick controversy..]

 

Please do enlighten me.

 

With pleasure. Ever hear of the word context? I assume you abhor genocide, and denounce it. I do too. So how is it possible that both of us can agree that Schindler's List is considered theatrical art?

 

Now compare that to a limerick that is obviously transmisogynistic.

 

 

What argument are you trying to make here? It's ridiculously vague. I assume you made it vague on purpose in case you need to backpedal or move the goalposts.

 

Are we arguing whether this game is art? Is the argument whether or not the game being art defines whether content can be used only within certain context? Are you getting existential on me on defining context?

 

"So how is it possible that both of us can agree that Schindler's List is considered theatrical art?"

 

That assumes I consider it theatrical art. If I don't does that mean context does or doesn't matter?

 

The crux of the argument is that I find certain content acceptable and you find certain content unacceptable. So why even try and use an example where you assume we're both on the same page to begin with?

 

But if we assume you are trying to say that in context one was okay and one wasn't, then you didn't bother to explain why. And you didn't bother to explain why in this context because I'm assuming you know it's going to be difficult for you to actually argue why certain things are okay and certain things aren't.

 

Now compare that to a limerick that is obviously transmisogynistic.

 

You can save the dogmatic speech for someone who doesn't like to think. You're blatantly attempting to pass your opinion as fact by throwing in the adjective obviously. It's not obvious. It's what you believe. I believe that the limerick was not transmisogynistic. There is nothing explicit in that entire limerick to make your opinion a fact. There's nothing there to even say that it wasn't just a pretty man. Hell, for it to be transmisogynistic, like you say, Firedorn would have killed his partner and not himself anyway.

 

But, let's humor you and say that the limerick is everything you built it up to be. Your argument was that in context certain things are fine. Well this is a world of conflict. And in this world of murder, rape, manipulation, and questionable morality then, even in context, it fits into the game world.

 

So again, you think that references to things like rape should be removed from the game as well, correct? Because there are people who have suffered rape that play this game. And then murder, because people who played this game have lost loved ones to murder. And then death, because people have lost loved ones in general are playing this game. And then fighting, because there have been people who are abused and they're playing this game.

 

You can't have it both ways.

[Obsidian devs after the Limerick controversy..]

 

...by getting offended over a poem in a video game, or by a scientist's shirt while he celebrates landing a spacecraft on a moving comet

 

Of course, the lack of empathy and perspective SJWs show for things and people that fall outside their worldview can lead to some strange behaviours that many of them seem to exhibit.

 

So you're saying that we should all just accept an obviously transmisogynistic poem in the game, despite the fact that there are trans individuals playing the game? That ought to make it welcoming for said trans players.

 

Or that it's perfectly appropriate for a high-ranking scientist present for a monumental, historic moment to be wearing attire that portrays women as sex objects, despite the documented misogyny that already discourages women from entering the science fields? That must make women comfortable working around you!

 

And somehow, those who point out such sexism are depicted as having a "lack of empathy and perspective" by apologists such as yourself.

 

Please do enlighten me.

 

 

So you're saying that the game should be completely overhauled and cut to pieces because there are parts that contain things like rape? Should we sit here and accept lore that obviously condones rape enough to accept it in game when there are people who have been raped playing the game? That ought to make it welcoming for said rape survivors.

 

Or is it possible that a minority of people are so hellbent on finding crusades that they'll look for the worst in everything just to have a reason to be outraged? Just to have a reason to say that they're fighting anything? A group of people that don't mind the risque as long as it follows their particular set of morals, otherwise it's too offensive and should be censored?

 

And somehow, those who point out the irony and fallacies in those arguments are depicted as "misogynists, rape apologists, racists, and bigots" by the perpetually offended such as yourself.

 

Please do enlighten me.

[Obsidian devs after the Limerick controversy..]

[Anti-Piracy built into game?]

If the game does something to embarrass your friend just make a complaint on Twitter and they'll probably give you an apology and free product key.

[Twitter outrage over the "[spoiler]" quest]

I was hoping for something like this. The entire game deserves to be scrutinized and changed since they didn't have the constitution to initially defend their own product.

[Just discovered this game. Very well done.]

DS I was king.

[Some nags with the realism]

Just make a post on Twitter and they'll change anything you want.

[Controversial Limerick Discussion 2]

My favorite part of these threads is how people defending the changes can somehow tell that something is a joke whenever the situation or person being quoted suits them, otherwise everything is taken at its absolute worst possible interpretation.

[Limerick edit thread 2]

No publisher needed, if give us your cash

Developer freedom, tradition we'll smash

So worry for not, we would not betray

Short of meddler's cries, for content risqué