aluminiumtrioxid

By calling torture "enhanced interrogation", perhaps? Anyways, could we please get back to the subject of hand, which is that people are trusting an organization to make the right call regarding torture and its justifications which is so gravely incompetent that they tortured their own informants (plural!) for information, and so puppy-kickingly evil that they detained a mentally handicapped person to use footage of him crying to blackmail his relatives?

Well, the basic mistake you're committing here is a/ assuming that most people who were interrogated were "religious zealots who truly believe that killing innocent Muslims and Westerners is going to guarantee them a place in heaven", which is far from the truth - 26 of the 119 people (over 20%!) detained did not meet the most basic standards for detention, and this is "a conservative calculation [that] does not include individuals about whom there was internal disagreement within the CIA over whether the detainee met the standard or not, or the numerous detainees who, following their detention and interrogation, were found not to 'pose a continuing threat of violence or death to U.S. persons and interests' or to be 'planning terrorist activities'", according to the report we got, and b/ thinking of them as this terrifying other who became irrevocably corrupted, instead of being... y'know, regular people who had such a shortage of opportunities that signing up with terrorists sounded like their best option. Hate groups tend to attract desperate people, and - while I'm by no means an expert on the subject - I'm fairly sure that treating that underlying problem also severs many of the ties responsible for the person's loyalty to the organization. Its an interesting perspective to suggest that the AIT were done to people who weren't actively involved in Al-Qaeda or had a direct relationship to Bin Laden The usage of AIT under these conditions would have made it even more unpalatable. But I would need to read some credible links to believe this, if you can post some I would find it pertinent ? Is the government's very own report on the issue credible enough for ya?

Well, the basic mistake you're committing here is a/ assuming that most people who were interrogated were "religious zealots who truly believe that killing innocent Muslims and Westerners is going to guarantee them a place in heaven", which is far from the truth - 26 of the 119 people (over 20%!) detained did not meet the most basic standards for detention, and this is "a conservative calculation [that] does not include individuals about whom there was internal disagreement within the CIA over whether the detainee met the standard or not, or the numerous detainees who, following their detention and interrogation, were found not to 'pose a continuing threat of violence or death to U.S. persons and interests' or to be 'planning terrorist activities'", according to the report we got, and b/ thinking of them as this terrifying other who became irrevocably corrupted, instead of being... y'know, regular people who had such a shortage of opportunities that signing up with terrorists sounded like their best option. Hate groups tend to attract desperate people, and - while I'm by no means an expert on the subject - I'm fairly sure that treating that underlying problem also severs many of the ties responsible for the person's loyalty to the organization.

Well, I can obviously only talk about why I dislike it, but... no. It's fairly easy to determine who are the kind of posters who have nothing of value to add to a thread, then I can put them on ignore and be done with it. My problem is that this kind of poster always manages to piss off somebody to the extent that the entire thread devolves into a screaming match, which at best clogs up rational discussion, or - and this is the more common occurance - shuts it down entirely. And I'm sure it's very funny for the outside observer who has no horse in the issue of the day and can just delight in the Grade A snark flying left and right, but for those who'd actually like to discuss the matter at hand like rational people, it's immensely frustrating. That's a shame you feel that way so let me give you a peek behind the curtain. The mods here are each assigned some forums. When a report comes in from a forum post, all mods of that forum, all global mods, and Fionavar, receive a notification. Then we meet in the mod forum and discuss the report. None of us rule in fiat and you never have to worry about being ignored. We may not agree with the report, but we do discuss it. Thanks for clearing that up

And this perfectly illustrates another concern, actually: namely, the standards by which we judge toxicity. I'm generally reluctant on reporting things I deem toxic and vile, because there's an entrenched subsegment of the forum population who see it as entertainment; on the other hand, I didn't see my earlier outburst as particularly toxic, because pointing out that one thinks a person holding a position of responsibility is inherently incapable of responsibly fulfilling the obligations that come with said position is seen a public service in the communities I was socialized in. So yeah, blind spots arising from values dissonance is certainly a thing. Which, in hindsight, should've been obvious. Huh.

You do realize that actively taking a giant sh*t on the face of a person who admitted being wrong and publically apologized for it is a/ not reducing the amount of toxic bile present, quite the opposite, and b/ actively disincentivizes people from owning up to their mistakes and trying to make amends, even further exacerbating the toxic bile problem in the future, right?

...So, you can find my reply in the thread where it belongs.

Well, that's your problem then. I highly doubt any moderators are cool with torture (seriously though, name them if you're going to throw a dart like that), some may argue that it's justified as a means to get intelligence and that is their hill to fight on. And even if they are, they may very well do their "job" regardless. You honestly don't see how "thinking torture is a justified means to get intelligence" logically leads to "being cool with torturing people as long as it yields intelligence"? And the thing is, being okay with torture speaks of a lack of empathy on the most basic level. If a person is willing to trivialize the torture of a mentally handicapped person - a person who is not only innocent, but isn't even capable of understanding why is this happening to them - to use the footage of them crying as "leverage"*, just because the CIA pinky-swore** that torture sometimes yielded useful information, how the hell am I supposed to assume that they'll take seriously my much less grievous beef with someone who was mean to me on the Internet? *Page 16, footnote 32. ** because they'd totally admit if they had violated all international human rights treaties for no particular gain, right? Just to give another view about how the advanced interrogation techniques- AIT ( torture as you like to call it ) were used. I watched an interview around how it was implemented, the CIA didn't use AIT and then ask questions expecting it to yield the only answer, it was used to gain confirmation around information already gathered. So for example if the CIA was told that person X was a courier of Bin Laden they would use AIT just to confirm this This is important because there is a valid view that says torture doesn't provide really accurate information because people will end up telling the interrogator anything they want to hear, the way AIT was used it did reveal information And I'm not suggesting this is something that made it okay but its not correct to say it wasn't effective How about having this conversation here? Thing is, if you try to argue for the effectiveness of torture, your job isn't to prove that torture was "useful". Of course it was "useful"; that's why people have been using it for millennia! Question is, a/ was it more useful than using interrogation methods not involving lasting psychological damage and risk of immediate death, and b/ was it useful enough to outweigh the completely unjustifiable additional torture and, in some cases, killing of innocent people the program also entailed?

And, to embarrass myself even further, I even read back the original topic to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting something. Turns out, I totally was! The mod in question did indeed make vaguely disapproving noises about torture on the earlier pages of the thread, and later on, he was - seems to have been, at least - only arguing about its effectiveness, a context I, as a latecomer to said thread, was deprived of. I jumped to conclusions, for which I apologize. I still think said mod lacks even the most basic levels of empathy, though.

Well, that's your problem then. I highly doubt any moderators are cool with torture (seriously though, name them if you're going to throw a dart like that), some may argue that it's justified as a means to get intelligence and that is their hill to fight on. And even if they are, they may very well do their "job" regardless. You honestly don't see how "thinking torture is a justified means to get intelligence" logically leads to "being cool with torturing people as long as it yields intelligence"? And the thing is, being okay with torture speaks of a lack of empathy on the most basic level. If a person is willing to trivialize the torture of a mentally handicapped person - a person who is not only innocent, but isn't even capable of understanding why is this happening to them - to use the footage of them crying as "leverage"*, just because the CIA pinky-swore** that torture sometimes yielded useful information, how the hell am I supposed to assume that they'll take seriously my much less grievous beef with someone who was mean to me on the Internet? *Page 16, footnote 32. ** because they'd totally admit if they had violated all international human rights treaties for no particular gain, right?

Well, 97% of the time, it's not! The problem is the remaining 3%, and the fact that vaguely worded forum roles and the mod squad having people who are perfectly cool with torture as long as it happens to brown people make me extremely apathetic about reporting clearly abusive behavior.

...Not sure if dense or arguing in bad faith... Migration from the forum, not the company.

I wasn't here around then, but I've heard of mass dev migration around the time the toxicity regarding KotOR2 has reached unbearable levels. KotOR 2 did indeed come out well over 2 years ago. Do correct me if any of these statements is untrue.

Yeah, saw that. Her problem to deal with, at least with her examples - threads you find irritating you don't have to read (promancers have said this in the past). I guess those two threads qualify as a 'microagression' ? Heh. Thing is Obsidian gets flak and heat in the 'outside world' anyway, some of it may be deserved and some of it not. Sounds like her idea of 'welcoming' is just to be praising. Needs a bit more than that if you want to condemn this forum as a place that 'needs to change', though I'd be amused to hear what you would say does. Every decision incurs a tradeoff. Thing is with different moderation policies, they create different forum environments, which, in turn, appeal to different subsets of people. On the face, it seems that if your goal is to have a diverse place with many different kinds of voices being heard, lax moderation policies are the way to go, because that's the only way to ensure that nobody's being shouted down for having the wrong kinds of opinions. On the other hand, by implementing lax moderation policies, you invite the kind of people who like lax moderation policies, and are, by extension, okay with engaging in the occasional bit of sh*t-flinging - because they were socialized to see it as no big deal. Thing is, not everybody is socialized that way, and those who think that even the occasional and comparably mild sh*t-flinging is still a pastime that entails getting poo all over you... will not want to participate in a community whose members are okay with throwing fecal matter on their fellow community members. Hence, up to a point, the amount of diverse voices lost by cracking down on sh*t-flingers is actually offset by the influx of new people who like being part of communities where no amount of sh*t is being flung. Assuming that this is true, I don't see why anyone would want to have a sh*t-stained living space filled with the kind of people to whom proximity to fecal matter appeals, instead of having a cleaner living space, filled - to the same extent as the other one was - with people who are a bit more discerning regarding their surroundings.

Everything is perfectly fine, the community here is welcoming and positive, nothing needs to change at all. No sirre.

...Which would, presumably, be very bad, because...? Run the risk of being a very stale place, people become reluctant to argue. Look, if the only way certain people can argue is by spewing toxic bile, then they damn well should be reluctant to argue.

On the other hand, Obsidian employers choosing to refrain from posting on their own company's forums because the community is so entrenched in bad attitudes is also untenable.

Or you could just have a multi-tiered infraction system where repeated offenders and those responsible for creating a consistently toxic atmosphere quickly find themselves banned unless they change their ways, but occasional missteps don't draw serious consequences? ^A system like that works. I've seen it in action. Although usually it's a bit simpler than you're describing it. Basically it's a 3 strikes rule. 3 strikes and you're suspended for a period of time (3 days, 5 days, whatever). 3 suspensions and you're gone for good. Well, I was taking my example from RPG.net and its 17-tiered infraction system, but your idea also has legs. Thing is, I'm not sure permabans are mandated in but the most extreme circumstances; in most cases, topic bans should suffice.

Or you could just have a multi-tiered infraction system where repeated offenders and those responsible for creating a consistently toxic atmosphere quickly find themselves banned unless they change their ways, but occasional missteps don't draw serious consequences?

I, too, had great faith in the people developing PoE until I fired up the backer beta. That said, by "meaningless" I don't mean... actually-meaningless, just one with less thematic and emotional depth than the one in the interview. And given that "literally exploring the subconscious of your teammates and dealing with both their issues and your own" is - if done right - pretty much the pinnacle of thematic and emotional depth, I'm fairly sure that even if the other dungeons have perfectly engaging side stories and nifty mechanical tidbits to play with, they probably won't have the same impact as the one they decided to cut out. Even then, I can imagine lots of perfectly valid reasons why they'd decide to not go there.

So, basically, feedback is always valuable, but agressive feedback is less valuable than the same feedback without the agression. Isn't it in everybody's interest then to incentivize civilized behavior?

That any feedback is useful feedback and closing down forum a lot prevents that. I need to find another quote from some dev I read some time ago. It was even better and talked about how even people not being nice when presenting feedback obviously have lots of passion to do so and should be at least heard.Closing down communication to all kinds of feedback is always a bad idea. How lucky that nobody was advocating for that, then!

Which should be treated as par for the course, because...? By no means always and certainly never tolerated. But sometimes what they don't say is more valuable than what they do. Other times they are just being trolls or a-holes. Please, do elaborate, I'm not sure I follow you.

actually quite unpolite and somewhat insulting towards the developers and I fail to understand why you have that impression. You do not seem to have much trust in the game that's beeing developed and their creators. Well, they repeated "Pillars of Eternity will be a combat-focused game" many times, so it's either gonna be chock-full of meaningless dungeons, or chock-full of meaningless wilderness fights. Probably a mix of both.

Which should be treated as par for the course, because...?