ChipMHazard

To people wondering why this is seen as a big deal for some people, let me clarify why (At least why it's important for me): There now rests a shadow over the developers, watching their every move. They will now have to write content while keeping this ever watchful presence in mind. I feel sad for developers whom get caught up in all of this nonsense since it makes their job needlesly harder. How will this affect future content? Will the tone of the game become lighter as a result? Was this a strategic descision to appease one person while hoping that any future content will go unnoticed by similar people?

If I may, I think I like the new one better. It's actually funny. Aye indeed it is. But the supposed precedent this sets isn't. Which is also I would like further clarification on this as reassurance that this won't happen again, if only to show that this wasn't to appease one clearly crazy person on twitter i.e. I would like to know which tone backer content has to live up to.

Really? So her joking about killing all men shouldn't be taken at face value then? Like another joke perhaps...

If someone did though I'd be completely understanding about it. It's your decision whether to complain about it as it was hers. I doubt she expected it to go so far as it did. She did expect it do go as far as it did and she is very happy about the results apparently. Now we're going to have to wait and see if she starts finding other parts of the game to complain about now that she has gotten as taste for blood.

"Once it was brought to our attention, it followed the same vetting process as all of our other content. Prior to release, we worked with many of our backers to iterate on content they asked to be put into the game that didn't strike the right tone." So this means that said poem didn't get screened before release, okay... Are we going to be seeing more changes being made to backer content that wasn't checked before release as well or was this really the only one? What tone are you referring to exactly?

Just make sure it's a damn good one and that it doesn't imply having given into peer pressure sparked by a single disgruntled individual.

Here's something for people to remember. IF a patch turns out to have caused more issues than it fixed then it's far easier to opt out of installing it using GOG than Steam - Which doesn't always respect the "don't update this game" setting. Personally I can most certainly wait for a new days more before I get to patch the game.

I like the lyrics in the new one, but it only exists because the original one was removed. And this one seems to make fun of those that forced its removal. From an ingame lore perspective it makes even less sense since it would have to be seen in the context of what has happened outside of the game.

Imo, Obs has the right to add or subtract anything they feel is in their best business interests. The "offending" memorial should have been addressed when it was submitted, not down the road when everyone craps themselves. Agreed. Ultimately it is up to them. I am going to wait until we get some offcial word about the reasoning behind this removal before I pass my personal judgment on Obsidian. If it does turn out that they removed this one memorial without giving a very compelling reason for doing so, then I will have to see it as giving into social media bullying. It would sadly set a precedent where one person can fan a controversy and have the developers give in to whatever demand they put forth Which means that backer items aren't safe from being removed i.e. censored. If it turns out that Obsidian forgot to go over [some of] the backer items before putting them in and the item in question, hopefully along with others in order to show consistency, simply didn't adhere to a set of rules they had in place beforehand - Then ok. At this point in time it does seem like Obsidian simply choose to give in so that the nutters would get off their back. But we'll see what they have to say about this.

You mean, criticizing speech you disagree with? Yes, that is the liberal freedom of speech. It's not criticizing if you want to enforce people to remove what they wrote. It's more then that. Anyways I don't care If not for this thread I wouldn't even see the limerick in game. I can't phantom why would this be so much of a deal. The people complaining about the joke don't have the power to force Obsidian to remove it(thank god). They are entirely within their rights to complain about something they don't like. And you are entirely in your right to disagree with them. Aye. Sadly that's where outside pressure comes in. Apply enough of it and you might just get your way.

Really looking forward to this patch, and not having to stop myself from loading in no-no areas and double-clicking items.

I haven't noticed any change when equipping boots, gauntlets or belts.

Not to my knowledge.

It's neither a simple nor reasonable request to make. The removal would set a precedent where it's possible for a single person to accuse Obsidian of offending one group or another and have the subsequent social media pressure force Obsidian to cave into their request (Which really is just a veiled demand). It could also mean that Obsidian would have to go through all of the backer content and make sure nothing else would be able to offend anyone, not to mention limit future content. Most importantly it further proves that it's possible to misconstrue anything and have the social justice movement make a mountain out of a nonexistent molehill. The joke is too vague to objectively be about transphobia. Only reason you've given so far as to why it should be removed is that it doesn't really matter when it comes to enjoying the gameplay. That is true, most people will probably never read it and it doesn't really do anything to enrich the lore, imo. But by the same logic removing the joke wouldn't do anything to improve the game either. A backer paid for the joke to be in the game and Obsidian allowed it to be included. That seems like the most reasonable argument for the joke to stay as is.

No. Such a paragon of rationality indeed! Oh, you mean "@Obsidian No spine whatsoever - only a loud, fringe minority of thin-skinned crybabies were offended"? Because that's about the only not-very-polite quote aimed at Obsidian I found at your links. Okay, some people were also saying mean things about TotalBiscuit, but knowing the propensity of the man to weigh in discussions he knows nothing about with all the tact of an elephant in a china shop, that's hardly surprising (and also not very relevant to the issue of people reacting to Obsidian's handling of the matter). Did you just misquote me on purpose? That is just low. That "no" was clearly part of what followed. If you're going to act this way then I see absolutely no point in trying to discuss anything with you. Stop trying to deny that people on both sides are behaving in a childish manner. It's quite clear that not everyone is being polite about their critiscm.

...And I suppose you expect me to take your word on this over my personal experience with the critics' group because you have been such a paragon of rational thinking, right? ...Well this part was... something. About something, I'm sure. There were words. On my screen. That's pretty much all I can tell. Mind injecting a bit of coherence here? No. So here are some examples of people not behaving very politely, irregardless of where they stand: (Not to mention those that actually want Mr. Bain dead because of his views on this matter) https://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/582341164507918336 https://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/582200461127634945 https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/582184209013284864 Are you done? If you don't like the comparison then stop trying to bring emotional arguments into the discussion. I do believe that we can do without that when it comes to discussing the merits of removing backer memorials, for various reasons. Oh and there are actually transgender people that don't want Obsidian to change anything. As a counter weight to that premise.

Was it, though? Because from what I've seen, people were politely pointing out their concerns, Obsidian said they were looking into it, aaand... that's pretty much it. I literally can't find anything more harsh than "this joke is vaguely tasteless, you might want to look into it". But for some reason, this prompted others to start wailing on and on about censorship and evil SJWs making mountains of molehills. Also, harrassment. Bandwagoning indeed. Very much so. At least from what I can tell. People insinuating that Obsidian should change it is bad enough by itself, not to mention those that are blaming Obsidian for being transphobic. Not everyone have been polite about their critiscm (This thread being a clear if limited example) and politeness has nothing to do with bandwagoning. Do not even try to make one "side" of this discussion innocent. Do not even try making this into something akin to the gamergate "war" where both sides profess innocence. I must once again state that the [alleged] harrasement of the person whom [allegedly] originally raised the point about the joke has no bearing on this discussion. None. Zip. Nada. It's a matter for the police and the social media sites where it took place. There is transphobia in the world, but this game is not an example of it. There is nothing to find offensive with the memorials except perhaps the poor writing that went into some of them.

I'm not sure what your point is. Also, you should be legally forbidden from ever using the word "fallacy" until you learn what they are and why is it useful to have a working knowledge of them My poiny being that your argument didn't have on. What I replied to had no bearing on the discussion what so ever and was simply an appeal to emotion. I fully understand the wording and so far what I've seen the most is simple bandwagoning. As to trading insults, well you can surely keep doing it if you so wish. Just don't drag me into it. No, I mean, what was your point with the statement "a lot of people find a lot of content offensive; media doesn't have to conform to them"? Case seems pretty clear-cut: somebody politely pointed out that the limerick is kinda problematic, Obsidian almost immediately responded by contacting the backer who submitted it and asking him whether he's cool with its removal, he said yes, so it's probably going to be removed. At least this is what I've heard. So what exactly is the point of pointing out that media doesn't have to conform to people who find content offensive? Is conforming to the wishes of opressed groups inherently bad and they should stop doing it? Also, I don't think it's insulting to point out that a working knowledge of fallacies is generally best used to check one's own logical processes, not to use it as a bludgeon in internet arguments. It's not problematic simply because someone pointed out that he/she found it offensive, insensitive,of poor taste etc. What you've heard doesn't constitute as evidence for your conclusion. Even if Obsidian were to remove the joke it wouldn't weaken the point I raised as I would still disagree with it. And here you are again with your fallacy. Trying to guilt me into accepting your premise. There is no group being discriminated against in this case nor is there any group being mocked in this case. There is supposedly one person whom supposedly shared his/her concern about a vague, lyrical joke which then got spread around via social media and turned into a mountain of an issue. No, I don't believe in censorship simply because people found something offensive. You are allowed to make jokes about pretty much everything you can imagine, just like people are allowed to dislike said jokes. Works of fiction are also allowed to depict contet that is disturbing, offensive etc. Only times where I would deem it nessecary would be when it, at the very least borders, on actual hate speech. Why do I think it's important to only censor in the most extreme cases? Because it's a very slippery slope. It should most definently be used when others lean on them like crutches and base the entirely of their premises on them. You may belive that they mainly serve as a means to scrutinize oneself. I however do not. All you, and others for that matter, would have needed to do was present actual proof to back up your conclusion. Instead all that I have personally seen so far is bandwagoning. Basicly this turned into a "Won't someone think of the children!" argument. Now If Obsidian decides to go over all of their backer memorials and rewrite/remove those that they don't like (With the approval of the backers) then that would be fine, or at least not as bad. It would be far more consistent than just picking out one example and removing that in an attempt to appease the mob.

I'm not sure what your point is. Also, you should be legally forbidden from ever using the word "fallacy" until you learn what they are and why is it useful to have a working knowledge of them My poiny being that your argument didn't have on. What I replied to had no bearing on the discussion what so ever and was simply an appeal to emotion. I fully understand the wording and so far what I've seen the most is simple bandwagoning. As to trading insults, well you can surely keep doing it if you so wish. Just don't drag me into it.

...And you don't think that trans people may be better suited to judging whether a transphobic joke is indeed transphobic or not? I would agree with this. But I would also think that a priest is well qualified to determine what is offensive to religious people, a 45 year old soccer mom is well qualified to determine what's offensive to mothers, yet I wouldn't want them removing offensive content everywhere. Except, y'know, when priests or soccer moms voice their concerns over content being offensive to their peer group, the internet hate mob doesn't descend on them and dig through their facebook photos to mock them for not being feminine enough, which is a thing that happened to the person who complained about the limerick. Or so I've heard. But, y'know, transphobia totally isn't real. So what? What does that have to do with this discussion and the validity of your complaint? Stop throwing around fallacies as if there was a clearing sale. Be mad at those that harassed the person whom originally raised his/her opinion. This discussion has nothing to do with that.

...And you don't think that trans people may be better suited to judging whether a transphobic joke is indeed transphobic or not? So what if some do find it offensive? Do you speak for all those [transgender] that don't? This is just another silly fallacy. Alot of people find alot of different things offensive. That doesn't mean that forms of media has to conform to their wishes.

...Since when is "dark content" offensive? How can you not see that some people will find dark content offensive? There are people whom are easily shocked by elements such as those shown in PoE. And I think brushing off concerns of transphobia with "well, the game also has 'dark content' in it, so your complaint is invalid!" is missing the point, to put it lightly. What matters is not whether sensitive subjects are present, but how they're handled. Don't strawman my argument. Reread what I wrote and understand that removing the "offensive" joke because of it being offensive to some would be inconsistent with the direction Obsidian took. The [PoE] world features elements that can be seen as offensive, and that is completely fine because the world being represented is not an idyllic world by any means. I don't believe in censoring or otherwise tailoring fictional worlds until they no longer feature nasty elements from the real world. That stated, this joke is not an example of that. It's a joke in lyrical form. People are trying to make it into a uniquely offensive example and thus make it completely fine to remove it. It's a joke and there is no proof whatsoever that it has anything to do with transphobia. Different people can and will interpret that joke differently. People are reading far too much into a simple joke about an obviously silly person. Also I never claimed the critiscm being raised is invalid. I do however think it is entirely overblown. That people are trying to fight a social justice fight that simply isn't there and that this joke found in a video game is being targeted unnecessarily. Ingame characters, literary works etc. can be racist, bigoted, prejudiced and ignorant because they were written to showcase that within that fictional world. There is nothing wrong with that and it doesn't nessecarily showcase the author's views. Misconstruing this joke, and indirectly Obsidian, as being tansphobic is borderline smearing and will require far more evidence, than what has been presented thus far, for me to buy into it.

Its one of those words that are a victim of their ability be used as a bludgeon in discourse. It has too much emotive weight/baggage even though in and of itself is really a neutral concept (the problem is always how it's used and censorship is used every day in a wide variety of forms). Quite so. ...Since when is "dark content" offensive? How can you not see that some people will find dark content offensive? There are people whom are easily shocked by elements such as those shown in PoE.

Frankly, judging by the fact that the dude couldn't even spell "light", I'd be astonished if it turned out backer submissions were even read at all, much less vetted for appropriateness. And you might be right. Regardless though, if they remove something solely on the grounds that it has offended or might offend someone, then it's censorship by definition. Even if they did it pre-release, if they looked at that limerick, and said "this might offend someone, we should take it out," then that's censorship. Once again, not good or bad, just fits the definition. It also comes down to consistency. If Obsidian had wanted to develop a game that was as inoffensive as possible then that would have been fine. From what I can see they didn't develop the game with that in mind as the game does feature dark content. They've also allowed backers to help create content that some see as immersion breaking, so removing the joke because of that would be inconsistent as well.

Yeah i love the box, too, with all the signatures.... just, uh, well... you'll see when you open it. <sadface> What's in the box?.. Sorry.