DavidHansen

Unfortunately for Obsidian, they already burnt that powder. They already confirmed that "all the other content" than the original limerick HAS been vetted.

Maybe it's a 24 hour bonus and resting is 8 hours?

Oh wow, that's a big difference from BG2 Thanks

So I started on Normal, but might restart on Easy just to spend less time caring about stats and more on the story. But I read that difficulty affects number of enemies as well. Does this place you behind on experience? How to recover?

How are higher level spells for Foe-only AoE? I might not have the patience to carefully aim all my AoE spells.

Semi unrelated - looking for some views on Godlike abilities. Are they worth it for giving up headgear?

Visitors, note my summary on page 2: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/75387-controversial-limerick-discussion-2/?p=1632465 . This is going nowhere because all has been said.

Also this thread is totally off topic by now, as everything that can be said on it has been said.

Link? fixed: http://i.imgur.com/2k5C7dV.jpg it might seem to be silly jokes, but it's all like that, and not jokingly Even if I bought into the way it's been framed it is obviously hyperbole to call her a sociopathic monster (and dehumanising). Him. Eric. Don't you get it? They get to decide what her name and gender is. Her identity is their property. Whether someone gets to decide what their name and gender is will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Still, anyone else gets to have a view on this, like they get to have a view on everything else. If someone claims to be serving food that is Spanish, you can opine "That food is not Spanish", and even say "The food is not Spanish". It would often be considered rude and inappropriate though. But if they act like an a*****e then there's not great reason to be polite to them, and people might end up looking for insults that would hurt them.

Link? fixed: http://i.imgur.com/2k5C7dV.jpg it might seem to be silly jokes, but it's all like that, and not jokingly Even if I bought into the way it's been framed it is obviously hyperbole to call her a sociopathic monster (and dehumanising). I disagree that it's hyperbole. I think it's perfectly descriptive and very warranted. Still, anyone can form their own opinion on it by looking at the posts.

Could have saved us a lot of trouble just saying that you were a transphobe instead of dressing it up in that whole freedom of speech cloak. Please avoid calling people "transphobe" for reacting negatively to "kill all men". Are you going to keep pretending or are you going to admit that this is what it is? That's not hatred of all transsexuals. It's hatred of a single transsexual, which is very warranted. Hating a gay person does not make you homophobic, unless you hate all gay people. So it's his (and your) right to decide if someone is really transgender, as opposed to "passing". Again, do you want to keep pretending or admit what it is? Also, hatred]/i] is ok. It's everyone's right to have an opinion on it. Like you can have an opinion on whether someone is grumpy or stupid or paranoid or happy or competent or a good father or Spanish. Sure, those insults might hurt. But using group-related insults ("he's compensating for a tiny d***") doesn't mean that someone hates all of that group.

Link? fixed: http://i.imgur.com/2k5C7dV.jpg it might seem to be silly jokes, but it's all like that, and not jokingly

Could have saved us a lot of trouble just saying that you were a transphobe instead of dressing it up in that whole freedom of speech cloak. Please avoid calling people "transphobe" for reacting negatively to "kill all men". Are you going to keep pretending or are you going to admit that this is what it is? That's not hatred of all transsexuals. It's hatred of a single transsexual, which is very warranted. Hating a gay person does not make you homophobic, unless you hate all gay people.

Could have saved us a lot of trouble just saying that you were a transphobe instead of dressing it up in that whole freedom of speech cloak. Please avoid calling people "transphobe" for reacting negatively to "kill all men".

Brief rundown of events 1) Someone posted on Twitter that a particular poem in the game was "transmisogynistic". It was then retweeted by a journalist (?), and Obsidian responded to both that they would look into it. Now, the person who originally tweeted that complaint consistently comes across as a sociopathic monster in her tweets. So maybe Obsidian should not have treated a tweet from a person like that seriously. On the other hand, Obsidian couldn't necessarily know that this person was like that. 2) A poll was run on the boards showing that 98% of something like 100 participants wanted to keep this in game. Now, maybe Obsidian should have paid greater attention to that poll and the scarcity of people who found this offensive, or maybe it was OK that they didn't. 3) Obsidian then changes the limeric, and posts an update saying that the content 'failed their vetting process' and that they have 'worked with many other backers to change ("itinerate") content that didn't fit with the tone of the game', and that they have been supplied with new content by the backer, Firedorn. This is interpreted as that they forced a change, and caved to pressure from a crazy person / a tiny minority with no sense of humor. 4) The person who originally wrote the poem, Firedorn, says that Obsidian contacted them by email and gave them free choice as to whether to change it. Whilst this is hard to reconcile with Obsidian's update, there's some theories that allow it (their message was meant as marketing to defuse criticism from SJWs). 5) Overall there's nothing really to follow up on - the backer has said he had a free choice, and the replacement poem isn't too bad and pokes fun at the whole deal. Questions that remain aren't large enough to cause a lot of noise over. IMO this can be closed. We aren't really getting anywhere new after this.