Update 93: Patch 1.03 - Important Community Fixes

[Litany]

 

I wasn't offended by the limerick. But when someone else said they were, I thought to myself "Oh, they're offended. I personally am not, but I can't discount their personal views on the subject. So the poem in question should probably be changed." I'm a member of the majority who joins with the minority to make the change happen without having any personal stake. There are a lot of us, we just don't tend to be as loudmouthed as the regressives/reactionaries.

 

And actually minorities get rights all the time in democracies? Gay folks make up ten percent of the population but Indiana is facing nationwide boycotts over recent legislation. The US Supreme Court has made a number of rulings re: minority rights, even when a majority opposed what they did, which is how you got integrated schools and interracial marriage in the US thirty to forty years before it had popular approval.

 

And you know who has the right to censor what's in Obsidian's video game? Obsidian. And they did. You lose. Neener neener.

 

 

You're contradicting yourself again with reality. You made the boss analogy, I simply enlightened you as to how it was wrong.

 

If you change something said in jest because it's "offensive", where does it end? Who decides what is okay and what isn't? You? If so, why are you suddenly speaking for me and in effect taking away my liberties of reading the joke. Why do I, as an adult, need another adult to run in front of me waving their hands telling me that what I'm about to read or watch is so offensive that I'm not allowed to even judge it for myself? That's what you're doing and advocating right now.

 

The infantilization of the LGB and transgendered community in particular is disgusting to me. Why are you treating them like children who don't have the common sense to just, skip past reading something that offends them? Why do they need you to defend them when they aren't asking for it, and frankly, don't need it.

 

Obsidian decides because it's their game.

 

And yes, different types of content are held to different standards. This is not controversial.

 

Edit: And you don't have a "right" to read or watch anything. Obsidian can produce whatever content they desire and decided that this content was not appropriate for their game. They didn't take away your right to read it, and insisting they keep it tramples on THEIR rights to decide what is in their game,

 

Your rights end where they intrude on the rights of another.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Litany

[Litany]

 

That depends, is the rape and abortion content part of a Backer-submitted joke poem that isn't explored or deconstructed by the game or its story?

 

I'm not saying that games shouldn't have negative things in them. If we did that we wouldn't have a lot of stories left to tell. For example, Pillars could explore racism (and does!) and even use racial slurs, but if a Backer submitted a poem full of racial slurs I would expect it to be rejected. There's a difference between storytelling and thematic elements, and some fluff included to reward a contributor.

 

TLDR: It's ok for Mark Twain to write the n-word, but it isn't ok for you to walk up to a black guy and call him that.

 

 

 

That's simply an absurd, subjective and arbitrary place to draw the line between what is allowed and what isn't. What counts explored or deconstructed to you? To me? To someone on twitter looking for more followers? Unless you buy their story about missing it during the vetting (Just as they missed the gamebanshee.com advertisement and the numerous other not-lore-friendly) then they clearly thought it fit the "tone" of their game until a twitter dust-up - the only reason it's out now is to avoid offending the sensibilities of some people and that's censorship anyway you cut it. 

 

I dunno, but I think that a one-off limerick doesn't make the cut, and Obsidian agrees.

[SunBroSolaire]

 

 

I wasn't offended by the limerick. But when someone else said they were, I thought to myself "Oh, they're offended. I personally am not, but I can't discount their personal views on the subject. So the poem in question should probably be changed."

Well I guess since so many people are offended by the change then by your logic it should be changed back 

 

If that's how Obsidian wants to respond, they are free to do so. I would oppose it because people have said they find the language hurtful and I have no rationale for denying that experience. And Obsidian agrees, so gone it will stay.

 

You're being very selective about who's opinions matter here.

[Litany]

The only opinion I truly value is my own. And Obsidian's. Because I like their games.

Edit: In all seriousness, the calculus I use is simple. It cost the people complaining nothing when this content was changed. And it resulted in others feeling safer and included. Since the cost was minimal (practically non-existent), removing the content is a net gain for the players and Obsidian. I will always err on the side of inclusion in these matters. That's my two cents.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Litany

[SunBroSolaire]

So why are you posting here?

[ikigai]

 

 

That depends, is the rape and abortion content part of a Backer-submitted joke poem that isn't explored or deconstructed by the game or its story?

 

I'm not saying that games shouldn't have negative things in them. If we did that we wouldn't have a lot of stories left to tell. For example, Pillars could explore racism (and does!) and even use racial slurs, but if a Backer submitted a poem full of racial slurs I would expect it to be rejected. There's a difference between storytelling and thematic elements, and some fluff included to reward a contributor.

 

TLDR: It's ok for Mark Twain to write the n-word, but it isn't ok for you to walk up to a black guy and call him that.

 

 

 

That's simply an absurd, subjective and arbitrary place to draw the line between what is allowed and what isn't. What counts explored or deconstructed to you? To me? To someone on twitter looking for more followers? Unless you buy their story about missing it during the vetting (Just as they missed the gamebanshee.com advertisement and the numerous other not-lore-friendly) then they clearly thought it fit the "tone" of their game until a twitter dust-up - the only reason it's out now is to avoid offending the sensibilities of some people and that's censorship anyway you cut it. 

 

I dunno, but I think that a one-off limerick doesn't make the cut, and Obsidian agrees.

 

Yeah, we know this, the question is why, and the only answer you or Obsidian seem interesting in giving is "someone was offended" and that just doesn't seem like the response of someone who has thought much about the issue.

[Litany]

 

 

 

That depends, is the rape and abortion content part of a Backer-submitted joke poem that isn't explored or deconstructed by the game or its story?

 

I'm not saying that games shouldn't have negative things in them. If we did that we wouldn't have a lot of stories left to tell. For example, Pillars could explore racism (and does!) and even use racial slurs, but if a Backer submitted a poem full of racial slurs I would expect it to be rejected. There's a difference between storytelling and thematic elements, and some fluff included to reward a contributor.

 

TLDR: It's ok for Mark Twain to write the n-word, but it isn't ok for you to walk up to a black guy and call him that.

 

 

 

That's simply an absurd, subjective and arbitrary place to draw the line between what is allowed and what isn't. What counts explored or deconstructed to you? To me? To someone on twitter looking for more followers? Unless you buy their story about missing it during the vetting (Just as they missed the gamebanshee.com advertisement and the numerous other not-lore-friendly) then they clearly thought it fit the "tone" of their game until a twitter dust-up - the only reason it's out now is to avoid offending the sensibilities of some people and that's censorship anyway you cut it. 

 

I dunno, but I think that a one-off limerick doesn't make the cut, and Obsidian agrees.

 

Yeah, we know this, the question is why, and the only answer you or Obsidian seem interesting in giving is "someone was offended" and that just doesn't seem like the response of someone who has thought much about the issue.

Why isn't that enough? What was lost by the change? What do you gain if it were changed back?

 

Why are you so insistent on hurting the feelings of others for no reason?

[Ruinshin]

 

 

 

 

That depends, is the rape and abortion content part of a Backer-submitted joke poem that isn't explored or deconstructed by the game or its story?

 

I'm not saying that games shouldn't have negative things in them. If we did that we wouldn't have a lot of stories left to tell. For example, Pillars could explore racism (and does!) and even use racial slurs, but if a Backer submitted a poem full of racial slurs I would expect it to be rejected. There's a difference between storytelling and thematic elements, and some fluff included to reward a contributor.

 

TLDR: It's ok for Mark Twain to write the n-word, but it isn't ok for you to walk up to a black guy and call him that.

 

 

 

That's simply an absurd, subjective and arbitrary place to draw the line between what is allowed and what isn't. What counts explored or deconstructed to you? To me? To someone on twitter looking for more followers? Unless you buy their story about missing it during the vetting (Just as they missed the gamebanshee.com advertisement and the numerous other not-lore-friendly) then they clearly thought it fit the "tone" of their game until a twitter dust-up - the only reason it's out now is to avoid offending the sensibilities of some people and that's censorship anyway you cut it. 

 

I dunno, but I think that a one-off limerick doesn't make the cut, and Obsidian agrees.

 

Yeah, we know this, the question is why, and the only answer you or Obsidian seem interesting in giving is "someone was offended" and that just doesn't seem like the response of someone who has thought much about the issue.

Why isn't that enough? What was lost by the change? What do you gain if it were changed back?

 

Why are you so insistent on hurting the feelings of others for no reason?

 

 

Because their feelings are their feelings and shouldn't matter to anyone else but them?

[apolloooo]

the problem is just how crazy that idiot girl is. she wants to kill all men and put men into concentration camps, pretty much the epitome of sexist and psychotic person. if she isn't so crazy and actually convey her disappointment with a good, civilized way, it wouldn't be so bad.

 

i love the game, but obsidian should not cater to potential murderer.

[JaJaIhrMichAuch]

Why isn't that enough? What was lost by the change? What do you gain if it were changed back?

 

Why are you so insistent on hurting the feelings of others for no reason?

 

 

If I say that Obsidian removing the limerick hurt my feelings, will that be enough to get you to petition Obsidian to change it back?

[Bulivyf]

 

 

I wasn't offended by the limerick. But when someone else said they were, I thought to myself "Oh, they're offended. I personally am not, but I can't discount their personal views on the subject. So the poem in question should probably be changed." I'm a member of the majority who joins with the minority to make the change happen without having any personal stake. There are a lot of us, we just don't tend to be as loudmouthed as the regressives/reactionaries.

 

And actually minorities get rights all the time in democracies? Gay folks make up ten percent of the population but Indiana is facing nationwide boycotts over recent legislation. The US Supreme Court has made a number of rulings re: minority rights, even when a majority opposed what they did, which is how you got integrated schools and interracial marriage in the US thirty to forty years before it had popular approval.

 

And you know who has the right to censor what's in Obsidian's video game? Obsidian. And they did. You lose. Neener neener.

 

 

You're contradicting yourself again with reality. You made the boss analogy, I simply enlightened you as to how it was wrong.

 

If you change something said in jest because it's "offensive", where does it end? Who decides what is okay and what isn't? You? If so, why are you suddenly speaking for me and in effect taking away my liberties of reading the joke. Why do I, as an adult, need another adult to run in front of me waving their hands telling me that what I'm about to read or watch is so offensive that I'm not allowed to even judge it for myself? That's what you're doing and advocating right now.

 

The infantilization of the LGB and transgendered community in particular is disgusting to me. Why are you treating them like children who don't have the common sense to just, skip past reading something that offends them? Why do they need you to defend them when they aren't asking for it, and frankly, don't need it.

 

Obsidian decides because it's their game.

 

And yes, different types of content are held to different standards. This is not controversial.

 

Edit: And you don't have a "right" to read or watch anything. Obsidian can produce whatever content they desire and decided that this content was not appropriate for their game. They didn't take away your right to read it, and insisting they keep it tramples on THEIR rights to decide what is in their game,

 

Your rights end where they intrude on the rights of another.

 

 

This is your third contradiction, so technically, you're out. You can keep going if you want though, that's your right.

 

Obsidian did decide. It was in the original game. It wasn't removed until the fake PC hate pandering victimized ragestorm on Twitter, that you self-admittedly are directly contributing to, made it something it wasn't. Obsidian did produce what they desired, and they were forced to change it by people like you who feel that your being offended outweighs every other person's right to even BE offended if they so wish. You've taken that ability from people to decide for themselves. I know that you're having trouble comprehending this but how isn't that considered the definition of censorship?

Edited April 4, 2015 by Bulivyf

[SunBroSolaire]

the problem is just how crazy that idiot girl is. she wants to kill all men and put men into concentration camps, pretty much the epitome of sexist and psychotic person. if she isn't so crazy and actually convey her disappointment with a good, civilized way, it wouldn't be so bad.

 

i love the game, but obsidian should not cater to potential murderer.

Exactly. Chances that she genuinely cares: 0. Chances that she's desperately trolling for attention: 100%. 

[Litany]

 

 

 

I wasn't offended by the limerick. But when someone else said they were, I thought to myself "Oh, they're offended. I personally am not, but I can't discount their personal views on the subject. So the poem in question should probably be changed." I'm a member of the majority who joins with the minority to make the change happen without having any personal stake. There are a lot of us, we just don't tend to be as loudmouthed as the regressives/reactionaries.

 

And actually minorities get rights all the time in democracies? Gay folks make up ten percent of the population but Indiana is facing nationwide boycotts over recent legislation. The US Supreme Court has made a number of rulings re: minority rights, even when a majority opposed what they did, which is how you got integrated schools and interracial marriage in the US thirty to forty years before it had popular approval.

 

And you know who has the right to censor what's in Obsidian's video game? Obsidian. And they did. You lose. Neener neener.

 

 

You're contradicting yourself again with reality. You made the boss analogy, I simply enlightened you as to how it was wrong.

 

If you change something said in jest because it's "offensive", where does it end? Who decides what is okay and what isn't? You? If so, why are you suddenly speaking for me and in effect taking away my liberties of reading the joke. Why do I, as an adult, need another adult to run in front of me waving their hands telling me that what I'm about to read or watch is so offensive that I'm not allowed to even judge it for myself? That's what you're doing and advocating right now.

 

The infantilization of the LGB and transgendered community in particular is disgusting to me. Why are you treating them like children who don't have the common sense to just, skip past reading something that offends them? Why do they need you to defend them when they aren't asking for it, and frankly, don't need it.

 

Obsidian decides because it's their game.

 

And yes, different types of content are held to different standards. This is not controversial.

 

Edit: And you don't have a "right" to read or watch anything. Obsidian can produce whatever content they desire and decided that this content was not appropriate for their game. They didn't take away your right to read it, and insisting they keep it tramples on THEIR rights to decide what is in their game,

 

Your rights end where they intrude on the rights of another.

 

 

This is your third contradiction, so technically, you're out. You can keep going if you want though.

 

Obsidian did decide. It was in the original game. It wasn't removed until the fake PC hate pandering victimized ragestorm on Twitter, that you self-admittedly are directly contributing to, made it something it wasn't. Obsidian did produce what they desired, and they forced to change it by people like you who feel that your being offended outweighs every other person's right to even BE offended if they so choose wish. You've taken that ability from people to decide for themselves. I know that you're having trouble comprehending this but how isn't that considered the definition of censorship?

 

Obsidian just said, in a post from their CEO today, that they were unhappy with the content and asked the backer to change it. So if you're accusing them of lying, more power to ya.

 

And let's say, for the sake of argument, that they liked it at first but changed their mind when they were criticized. That's still Obsidian making the decision.

 

And I have a hard time calling it censorship unless Obsidian's hand was forced, and I see no evidence of that. They seemed to take the criticism to heart immediately and took steps to correct the issue with their very first patch.

 

Edit: And none of you are in a position to say what her motivations were for complaining. And it hardly matters either way, since there appear to be plenty of people who agree with her regardless. And if she really was looking for attention and this bothers you, I'm sure she's really hurting now that a bunch of nerds decided to go to war over the issue.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Litany

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Guys, Firedorn is cool with it.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/74461-controversial-limerick-discussion/page-25?do=findComment&comment=1631723

 

Everyone wins, one side gets a "problematic" piece of content out and the other side gets a middle finger to those offended immortalized in the text.

[SunBroSolaire]

Eh, in light of this, I have no complaints about the change. I still think that "Ericka" person is a narcissistic lunatic, and those supporting her are enablers, but nuts on the internet is nothing new. Glad to hear Obsidian did the right thing and left it up to the backer.

[Plaguesofwrath]

My only question is this:  Has the bug that causes a trap to disappear when a second trap is laid been fixed yet?  It's not a major game breaking bug, but it is a bit annoying to keep losing traps because I'm trying to lay out several but all but the most recent disappear completely.

[dukemagus]

 

Absolutely disgusting to see Obsidian cave in like this, and spitting in the faces of their backers in the process. The overwhelming majority was in favor of KEEPING IT, as you could see simply by checking the official forums or other places.

 

If I'm offended by wizards being in the game because mystical things are against my religion, will you also pull them from it?

 

The vocal population were present in that debate. I, for example, have an opinion regarding the issue, but chose not to share it. I highly doubt the forum objectively represents the 'overwhelming majority'.

 

 

But i'd be willign to bet five bucks we represent more PAYING CUSTOMERS WHO ACTUALLY BACKED THE PROJECT than the politically correct police or the hipersensitive progressive lound minority that started this storm and the harpies in "gaming" sites that made it lok like something serious.

[LeoKasper]

SunBro has the right attitude.

 

Nothing changes overall, and this instance is nowhere near severe enough to stamp a label on Obsidian as being a company that bends too easily to the outcry of some lunatic on the internet.

 

Simple case of customer service is how I look at it. If that sasquatch comes back with another complaint, then it'll be time to reply with a firm "no".

[ChipMHazard]

Eh, in light of this, I have no complaints about the change. I still think that "Ericka" person is a narcissistic lunatic, and those supporting her are enablers, but nuts on the internet is nothing new. Glad to hear Obsidian did the right thing and left it up to the backer.

 

I never thought that they were going to force his hand given that he did pay for his ingame message and there may have been some legal issues if they did, at least not just remove it without his consent. 

I do still have a complaint though, why try to pass this off as having to do with upholding a literary standard? Seeing as the request for a change was brought upon by the "scandal".

Just be clear about having presented him with a choice and him having chosen to change it. Don't start bringing up silly notions such as tone when it clearly wasn't out of place when taking the other memorials into account. 

I guess I just don't care much for PR nonsense, even when it's nessecary. And it really is just sad that was ever an issue to begin with and the request for change ever had to happen like this. 

Edited April 4, 2015 by ChipMHazard

[Plaguesofwrath]

If you really need to have the limerick restored, there's a mod on the nexus that does just that.  

[Bishamon]

I'll choose to trust that Firedorn was telling the truth and that he chose to change the limerick to spare Obsidian the drama. I consider trust something not so easily shattered and Firedorn speaking up has relieved my cheif concern, that Obsidian would be kowtowing to misandrists and like in the future.

 

Now that that is cleared up I'm going to DL the update and put this whole thing behind me, I suggest we all do the same, Firedorn did this to spare Obsidian from drama, and we should honor his request.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Bishamon

[alvin_the_elf]

All the silliness aside, can someone tell me what was on the second patch after the 853 MB one? I can't seem to find a log anywhere. But Steam is downloading 579 MB of files.

[Evange]

So much bullcrap over this limerick??? Man it's just a goddam video game! Don't let this overshadow the colossal efforts put in by the great men and women at Obsidian Entertainment!

[TuxedoKamina]

I'm glad Firedorn was ok with changing it (and it was a pretty funny change) but I'm disappointed it became an issue in the first place.

 

I'm tired of professional victims whining about everything all the time.

[dukemagus]

All in all, there's 2 things i commend in this patch:

 

- Bugs fixed

- Firedorn for being smarter than the people that wanted to crucify him, Obsidian and everyone in support of both of them. The new joke works wonders on the situation.

 

I still think the removal was dumb and the epitaph changing right will eventually be requested by more people, since the reason for the change was arbitrary and people would be right to think that the way it was handled was unusual and the right was given in a kinda arbitrary way.

 

And yeah, i am a "new user" on the forum, but i can print some proofs i backed the game if you don't want to take my word seriously because of my post count.