Sawyer on vacation?

[rheingold]

Seriously why does anything to do with pillars have to end up about "the limerick". Give it a rest guys. Regarding him hiding, nonsense, there were plenty of people who supported him, probably more than who didn't. If he was on holiday, hope he had a good one, and is ready for the expansion/sequel.

[Nakia]

Since I love the game I hope Mr. Sawyer has gotten some well deserved rest.   

[sku]

 

That's an interesting version of events. I wonder if your mind is so warped that it skews reality to convince you that that's exactly what happened, or if you know that you're seriously twisting the story and you just don't care because you want to convert another mindless drone to your cause. It amuses me how sure you are that you and that group of raving lunatics that would not (and still won't, apparently) shut up about the insignificantly benign memorial incident are "the more reasonable people."

Well, at least you're consistent. Carry on.

 

Luckmann is a troll.

 

 

 

I prefer "Noober". If you know what I mean.

[barakav]

Since I love the game I hope Mr. Sawyer has gotten some well deserved rest.   

Nah since I already paid for the expansion I am technically 1/10000 his boss so I conclude that he doesn't deserve any rest until he finishes his part in its' development and I get to play it.

 

No sleep ,no sleep for the Sawyer!

Edited May 1, 2015 by barakav

[VahnXIII]

 

 

That's an interesting version of events. I wonder if your mind is so warped that it skews reality to convince you that that's exactly what happened, or if you know that you're seriously twisting the story and you just don't care because you want to convert another mindless drone to your cause. It amuses me how sure you are that you and that group of raving lunatics that would not (and still won't, apparently) shut up about the insignificantly benign memorial incident are "the more reasonable people."

Well, at least you're consistent. Carry on.

 

Luckmann is a troll.

 

 

 

I prefer "Noober". If you know what I mean.

 

Heya.

[Volourn]

"Why is that some people (hey, Luckmann!) fixated on mr. Sawyer as the Ultimate Enemy Of All Things Breathing so much? I mean, is there some particular comprehensible reason for it or it's just, like, irrational?"

 

More like because Obsidian games would be better without Sawyer's influence. He hates role-playing, chocies, and freedom. everything must ebt he same, act the same, be balanced he same. Even then, he fails because PE isn't even balanced. L0L

 

\Not that he is the worst designer ever as he has good dieas too but he is way overrated. This is evidenced by  the fact that he  erased a lot of work from an Obsidian writer/designher who does awesome stuff.

 

 

"Regarding him hiding, nonsense, there were plenty of people who supported him, probably more than who didn't."
 

The forums were heavily against changing the limerick at all.

 

 

"RPG Codex (which hates basically everything except BG2 and maybe Torment)"

 

You obviously don't know much about the Codex.

\

[Nakia]

 

Since I love the game I hope Mr. Sawyer has gotten some well deserved rest.   

Nah since I already paid for the expansion I am technically 1/10000 his boss so I conclude that he doesn't deserve any rest until he finishes his part in its' development and I get to play it.

 

No sleep ,no sleep for the Sawyer!

 

I have also paid for the expansion so I am also 1/10000  the boss and I say he should rest, relax and come back refreshed.  

[barakav]

We really need to create a poll to make this decision...

Edited May 1, 2015 by barakav

[rjshae]

 

He is still posting something awful, so it may just be that he don't like twitter.

 

And I would also guess that they are currently having their hands full with expansion pack, so they don't necessary have that much free time in their hands.

 

I think he feels safer on SomethingAwful. It's behind a paywall, he gets the kind of feedback he wants and doesn't have to deal with criticism or the drama of the real world. I bet it's cozy.

 

This isn't the real world. It's a fabricated construct where the sociopathic gaming stasi attempt to control the discourse through obtuse criticism and disinformation memes.

[Varana]

"RPG Codex (which hates basically everything...)"

 

You obviously don't know much about the Codex.

\

 

But it's all you need to know.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Varana

[Jasta11]

 

 

not new.  mentioned to mc a while ago.  within days after release we were convinced that a particular non-backer poster with intimate knowledge o' the mechanics o' poe were josh.  posting style were recognizable to us as josh from years past-- bit more acerbic than the currently more diplomatic sawyer.  also, we recall that josh made a comment in an interview that implied that posting as a non developer offered different insights and opportunities.  posting with an alt  would be consistent with his observation and with Gromnir's suspicion regarding the poster named ___________.  it would also explain josh's unusual absence.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

So we are looking for a non-backer who should have had a cat picture up until now...

 

or...

 

Definitely this. If I spent all my time on a game, I would welcome criticism, but I would not welcome people making snide remarks and borderline insulting comments all the time and hide behind ''constructive criticism, grow a spine'' when called out on it. 

 

At some point, some people have to recognize there are human beings on the other side of their forum posts. Humans who just might (and brace yourselves, I know this will hurt) not agree with their viewpoints, and who have no obligation to answer one particular criticism over thousands and thousands of others, nor to cater to a particular group if they don't want to.

 

The more I look at the sort of virtual lynch mobs that form as soon as something they don't like happens, the more I understand why developpers increasingly seek a more controlled environment for their feedback. Some might call it isolating themselves or censorship or whatnot, I call it being able to keep their sanity in an era where you can get death threats for changing the stats of some guns in Call of Duty. To say nothing of cluster****s like the recent controversy about paid mods on Steam.

 

You know you sound a lot like a dev yourself so it's probably you. If I was a  cat worshiping developer I would definitely want to post in such a thread as my secret alter ego.

 

 

I wish my career was half as successful as Josh's, so I'll kinda take it as a compliment .

[Luckmann]

You're definitely fixated. Maybe someone with more energy or interest than I could make a wordcloud of all your posts here, so we could all see the big, bold Sawyer front and center.

Feel free to, really. There won't be any surprises, though. In case you haven't noticed, Sawyer was project lead. He gets a lot of mention on the boards. So.. uhm.. yes? Mentioning someone when relevant doesn't imply a fixation.

 

That's an interesting version of events. I wonder if your mind is so warped that it skews reality to convince you that that's exactly what happened, or if you know that you're seriously twisting the story and you just don't care because you want to convert another mindless drone to your cause. It amuses me how sure you are that you and that group of raving lunatics that would not (and still won't, apparently) shut up about the insignificant, benign memorial incident are "the more reasonable people."

 

Well, at least you're consistent. Carry on.

 

It may be interesting to you, but it is also true. It wasn't my intent to be exhaustive - hence the "in a nutshell". There's a lot to be said on the topic, but I favoured brevity and accuracy rather than fairness. In case you missed it, I didn't bring the subject up, nor am I the one to harp on it. There was a question. I answered it.

 

Luckmann is a troll. This is not something he has tried to hide. Whether or not he's actually an a**hole is sort of besides the point. Whether or not he believes the garbage he spews on this subject has nothing to do with the reason he spews it.

 

DNFT.

 

Don't be ridiculous, Gkathellar. You know full well that I'm not a troll, unless you're another one of those idiots that believe that when someone doesn't agree with you, it's immediately a "troll". Coming from you, I'll take it as a badge of honour, though. And I would obviously not try to hide something that isn't true. It seems to really rub some people the wrong way when you're honest on a topic, I guess.

 

We were all there, we saw what happened. It's ridiculous to try to rewrite what happened, or call others trolls when they go through the events in a nutshell. If anyone wants to whole thing, the threads are mostly still floating around, afaik. It should be fairly well-documented.

 

"Why is that some people (hey, Luckmann!) fixated on mr. Sawyer as the Ultimate Enemy Of All Things Breathing so much? I mean, is there some particular comprehensible reason for it or it's just, like, irrational?"

 

More like because Obsidian games would be better without Sawyer's influence. He hates role-playing, chocies, and freedom. everything must ebt he same, act the same, be balanced he same. Even then, he fails because PE isn't even balanced. L0L

 

\Not that he is the worst designer ever as he has good dieas too but he is way overrated. This is evidenced by the fact that he erased a lot of work from an Obsidian writer/designher who does awesome stuff.

 

 

"Regarding him hiding, nonsense, there were plenty of people who supported him, probably more than who didn't."

 

The forums were heavily against changing the limerick at all.

 

 

"RPG Codex (which hates basically everything except BG2 and maybe Torment)"

 

You obviously don't know much about the Codex.

\

I'm not sure I'd put it quite that harshly, but I find it deeply disconcerting that I'm generally agreeing with Volourn here.

 

 

Literally worse than Hitler.

 

 

 

 

 

Why is that some people (hey, Luckmann!) fixated on mr. Sawyer as the Ultimate Enemy Of All Things Breathing so much? I mean, is there some particular comprehensible reason for it or it's just, like, irrational?

I think he also lost a lot of people by then suddenly jumping at the command of crazy people. You could probably write a thesis the size of a large dictionary based on the issues examined in detail on the forum, which has gone completely unheeded or simply ignored, while he is quick to lick the steamy bootheels of the most unreasonable clique of the psychologically deranged.

 

So it's no surprise he's not the most popular man in the world. Come to think of it, I can't think of anyone that's lead such a successful high-profile game development project yet managed to maintain significant impopularity. Most others end up with veritable cults, like Avellone, Urquhart, Fargo or Cain.

 

My impression is that it's mostly a very small, but quite vocal group of people who seem to share the same ideological outlook, who really have anything against Sawyer. You actually being one of the most vocal of the group. There were e.g. many charitable ways of construing the events that followed the backer incident, but your group were hell bent on one particular interpretaion, which you rehash in this thread. And that interpretation may certainly be the correct one, and it also be wrong. However, to make a strong judgment either way, is not at all indicative of reasonableness, which you seem to suggest. Quite the opposite.

 

"your group".

 

 

 

 

Yes that's cute an all. But it doesn't really support your viewpoint, or suggest why people should consider it "reasonable".

 

What do you want? Do you want me to tell you you're wrong? You're wrong. Your most fundamental fail was pointed out; the suggestion that there's some kind of "group" that is mine or that I belong to, let alone one that share "an ideological outlook". It's absolutely ridiculous. If anything, there's a group of people adamantly defending the man based purely on his perceived politics; see no evil, head no evil.

 

I don't care about that at all. I see s**tty people behaving s**tty or do s**tty things, I'm going to call them s**t. I've always made it a point to try to argue factually and objectively when it comes to the game in most regards, and the fact is that most of the really s**tty decisions relating to the game that has remained constant no matter how much exhaustive criticism has been levied against it, are Sawyer's pet hangups, such as hard counters, immunities and the war on movement.

 

The game has other issues, many issues, that we've explored in detail, but that we can't pin on anyone in particular, so it escapes mention. If I knew who the hell was responsible for the current Attribute bonuses, I'd ask them what the hell that is about too, or the way they insist on putting band-aids on a bad system, ravaging CNPC Attributes to do it. It's incredibly disconcerting and disturbing to see it happen, instead of seeing the problems resolved.

 

For some reason, the CNPC Attributes is malleable, no matter the nature of the CNPC:s as presented thematically in the narrative, but the Attribute bonuses themselves are chiseled in stone and untouchable, beyond reproach. All of my WTF:s and if I were a worse man I'd say that I want to see the man responsible dragged out into the street and.. well, whatever. Is it Sawyer? Now clue. Doesn't matter. Still an issue.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Luckmann

[dorkboy]

Fascinating.

[Prime-Mover]

[1] What do you want? Do you want me to tell you you're wrong? You're wrong. Your most fundamental fail was pointed out; the suggestion that there's some kind of "group" that is mine or that I belong to, let alone one that share "an ideological outlook". It's absolutely ridiculous. If anything, there's a group of people adamantly defending the man based purely on his perceived politics; see no evil, head no evil.

[2]I don't care about that at all. I see s**tty people behaving s**tty or do s**tty things, I'm going to call them s**t. I've always made it a point to try to argue factually and objectively when it comes to the game in most regards, and the fact is that most of the really s**tty decisions relating to the game that has remained constant no matter how much exhaustive criticism has been levied against it, are Sawyer's pet hangups, such as hard counters, immunities and the war on movement.

 

[3]The game has other issues, many issues, that we've explored in detail, but that we can't pin on anyone in particular, so it escapes mention. If I knew who the hell was responsible for the current Attribute bonuses, I'd ask them what the hell that is about too, or the way they insist on putting band-aids on a bad system, ravaging CNPC Attributes to do it. It's incredibly disconcerting and disturbing to see it happen, instead of seeing the problems resolved.

 

For some reason, the CNPC Attributes is malleable, no matter the nature of the CNPC:s as presented thematically in the narrative, but the Attribute bonuses themselves are chiseled in stone and untouchable, beyond reproach. All of my WTF:s and if I were a worse man I'd say that I want to see the man responsible dragged out into the street and.. well, whatever. Is it Sawyer? Now clue. Doesn't matter. Still an issue.

 

[1] No, I want you to give relevant and carefully thought out reasons for your position, all while construing the counterposition you are responding to in a charitable manner. I want you to do this especially because you countless of times refer to yourself, and those who see things your way as "reasonable". Simply posting an image macro is neither. Further, I fail to see why it is "absolutely ridiculous" to claim that a certain ideological outlook is the greater cause of the division on this topic. And you seem to have no hesitation in affirming something like that diagnosis on those who's view are in opposition to yours, all the while maintaining that you are simply being reasonable. That however is indeed demonstratable false (recall, that you are unreasonable does not necessarily mean you are wrong!). There were various ways of construing the events, but - and I repeat myself here - you and others were had a single narrow focus with regards to why Obsidian made those decisions. There simply couldn't be any other reason!. And sure, there were people on the other side of the debate who presumably were as one-sided in their approach. But that hardly vindicates you (and those like you) as being reasonable here. 

 

[2] First of all, saying you don't care, followed by four counts of overly emotional language, isn't going to support that claim. Secondly, everyone makes a point to try to argue factually and objectively. However, most people fail to do so, especially when they are confident in their objectivity. In fact this is a general tendency. The more objective people think they are, the less objective the tend to actually be. The reason is - obviously - that (over)confidence undermines the self correction. So your arrogance in these matters is fundamentally misplaced. You were not being reasonable, you did not represent the reasonable position here. Not that this makes the position you were reacting to any more reasonable mind you. Both sides were simpy oozing of discusting self-rightiousness. And FFS, this is not about you using a particular vocabulary to express your resentment, though it certainly may be indicative of whether you are able to be emotionally detached or not with regards to the particular issue. 

 

[3] That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion on the topic of Limeric. Further, the fact that you don't know who to direct your blame at, does not jusfity your wierd hatred towards one particular developer at all, or with regards to this particular topic. That would be unreasonable indeed.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Prime-Mover

[Luckmann]

[1] No, I want you to give relevant and carefully thought out reasons for your position, all while construing the counterposition you are responding to in a charitable manner. I want you to do this especially because you countless of times refer to yourself, and those who see things your way as "reasonable". Simply posting an image macro is neither. Further, I fail to see why it is "absolutely ridiculous" to claim that a certain ideological outlook is the greater cause of the division on this topic. And you seem to have no hesitation in affirming something like that diagnosis on those who's view are in opposition to yours, all the while maintaining that you are simply being reasonable. That however is indeed demonstratable false (recall, this does not necessarily mean you are wrong!). There were various ways of construing the events, but - and I repeat myself here - you and others were had a single narrow focus with regards to why Obsidian made those decisions. There simply couldn't be any other reason!. And sure, there were people on the other side of the debate who presumably were as one-sided in their approach. But that hardly vindicates you (and those like you) as being reasonable here.

 

Don't be ridiculous, you know that's not going to happen. I gave a short and concise "in a nutshell" on the topic when asked, and have absolutely no inclination and certainly no obligation to supply you with an exhaustive explanation. If you want to lump us all together and believe that there is some kind of sinister plot going on where everyone belonging to whatever ideological outlook you attribute whoever you desire to vilify, the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.

 

I don't think anyone that feels that they are on side A or B in this arbitrary line in the sand that you have drawn actually cares enough to defend themselves.

 

You appear intent on politicizing and label people, grouping them into neat little boxes for you to bully or cherish, but the fact of the matter is that people can independently come to the same general conclusions on a topic without being cohorts or in cahoots. I sometimes find myself agreeing with Volourn, someone I have repeatedly and somewhat jokingly referred to as literally worse than Hitler.

 

Me and Monte Carlo tend to agree on many things, and completely disagree on others. Stun has argued for murderhobo-based experience, something I hate with a vehemence. When Sensuki and I have talked about the Attribute Bonuses, we both agree that there's a problem, but disagree on the solution. Even PrimeJunta has mellowed in his reverence and blind faith in Sawyer as of late, and we often agree on certain topics, yet are in many ways polar opposites. Gkathellar is another SJW lunatic, but still tend to be completely reasonable in other regards, as have been seen across the boards.

 

It is ridiculous to lump people together because they disagree with you, and assign them some uniform ideological label, people that more often than not have never even spoken directly to eachother (on these boards, there's about three people I've had direct contact with via PM on any meaningful level; Sensuki, Karkarov and Osvir). You want something from me, and I deny you that. It is not my job to educate you on matters that most thinking individuals would have no problem grasping.

 

[2] First of all, saying you don't care, followed by four counts of overly emotional language, isn't going to support that claim. Secondly, everyone makes a point to try to argue factually and objectively. However, most people fail to do so, especially when they are confident in their objectivity. In fact this is a general tendency. The more objective people think they are, the less objective the tend to actually be. The reason is - obviously - that (over)confidence undermines the self correction. So your arrogance in these matters is fundamentally misplaced. You were not being reasonable, you did not represent the reasonable position here. Not that this makes the position you were reacting to any more reasonable mind you. Both sides were simpy oozing of discusting self-rightiousness. And FFS, this is not about you using a particular vocabulary to express your resentment, though it certainly may be indicative of whether you are able to be emotionally detached or not with regards to the particular issue.

 

That's simply not true. A lot of people make no effort to that at all, and most do not even think of it on a concious level. There are some, of course, that do try to do that. Most of what you say is of course entirely true, however. But the option is that an individual makes the concious decision to be irrational or unreasonable, which would be.. farcical, really. So despite the potential pitfalls, I will continue to strive to be reasonable and judge most topics as fairly as I can, and take indications to the contrary under advisement.

 

The fact that you say "four counts of overly emotional language" is funny, though. Which "overly emotional" language was that? Actually, nevermind, I'd rather you don't respond. Even the question might be misconstrued as me actually caring what you think of my language. I realize that my language may sometimes come across as haughty, but that's entirely unintentional, and I apologize. While I try to keep my language on a certain level, I tend to forget that it's not always appreciated, which is likely due to the fact that English isn't my native language. I've learned most of my English through games and books and the peripheral effects of cultural imperialism.

 

[3] That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion on the topic of Limeric. Further, the fact that you don't know who to direct your blame at, does not jusfity your wierd hatred towards one particular developer at all, or with regards to this particular topic. That would be unreasonable indeed.

 

See, you attribute hate where there is none. Disdain, perhaps, irreverence, maybe, but not hate. He tends to come up in topics and I question many of his decisions. In context, it is incredibly relevant who you direct blame at. I see no reason to direct blame towards the innocent. If I can pin something on a specific person, I greatly prefer to do that rather than to express dislike for people I don't even know (or know of).

 

It's the very reason why we say "Sawyer and muh balance" when discussing Immunities, but say "What the hell are you thinking, Obsidian?" when discussing Attributes. There's a huge difference, and I think that it's quite reasonable. And when I see Sawyer doing something good, or something that's a result of his particular hangups or ideas, I'll praise him for that too, based on that merit.

[Prime-Mover]

 

[1] No, I want you to give relevant and carefully thought out reasons for your position, all while construing the counterposition you are responding to in a charitable manner. I want you to do this especially because you countless of times refer to yourself, and those who see things your way as "reasonable". Simply posting an image macro is neither. Further, I fail to see why it is "absolutely ridiculous" to claim that a certain ideological outlook is the greater cause of the division on this topic. And you seem to have no hesitation in affirming something like that diagnosis on those who's view are in opposition to yours, all the while maintaining that you are simply being reasonable. That however is indeed demonstratable false (recall, this does not necessarily mean you are wrong!). There were various ways of construing the events, but - and I repeat myself here - you and others were had a single narrow focus with regards to why Obsidian made those decisions. There simply couldn't be any other reason!. And sure, there were people on the other side of the debate who presumably were as one-sided in their approach. But that hardly vindicates you (and those like you) as being reasonable here.

 

[1]Don't be ridiculous, you know that's not going to happen. I gave a short and concise "in a nutshell" on the topic when asked, and have absolutely no inclination and certainly no obligation to supply you with an exhaustive explanation. If you want to lump us all together and believe that there is some kind of sinister plot going on where everyone belonging to whatever ideological outlook you attribute whoever you desire to vilify, the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.

 

I don't think anyone that feels that they are on side A or B in this arbitrary line in the sand that you have drawn actually cares enough to defend themselves.

 

You appear intent on politicizing and label people, grouping them into neat little boxes for you to bully or cherish, but the fact of the matter is that people can independently come to the same general conclusions on a topic without being cohorts or in cahoots. I sometimes find myself agreeing with Volourn, someone I have repeatedly and somewhat jokingly referred to as literally worse than Hitler.

 

Me and Monte Carlo tend to agree on many things, and completely disagree on others. Stun has argued for murderhobo-based experience, something I hate with a vehemence. When Sensuki and I have talked about the Attribute Bonuses, we both agree that there's a problem, but disagree on the solution. Even PrimeJunta has mellowed in his reverence and blind faith in Sawyer as of late, and we often agree on certain topics, yet are in many ways polar opposites. Gkathellar is another SJW lunatic, but still tend to be completely reasonable in other regards, as have been seen across the boards.

 

It is ridiculous to lump people together because they disagree with you, and assign them some uniform ideological label, people that more often than not have never even spoken directly to eachother (on these boards, there's about three people I've had direct contact with via PM on any meaningful level; Sensuki, Karkarov and Osvir). You want something from me, and I deny you that. It is not my job to educate you on matters that most thinking individuals would have no problem grasping.

 

[2] First of all, saying you don't care, followed by four counts of overly emotional language, isn't going to support that claim. Secondly, everyone makes a point to try to argue factually and objectively. However, most people fail to do so, especially when they are confident in their objectivity. In fact this is a general tendency. The more objective people think they are, the less objective the tend to actually be. The reason is - obviously - that (over)confidence undermines the self correction. So your arrogance in these matters is fundamentally misplaced. You were not being reasonable, you did not represent the reasonable position here. Not that this makes the position you were reacting to any more reasonable mind you. Both sides were simpy oozing of discusting self-rightiousness. And FFS, this is not about you using a particular vocabulary to express your resentment, though it certainly may be indicative of whether you are able to be emotionally detached or not with regards to the particular issue.

 

[2] That's simply not true. A lot of people make no effort to that at all, and most do not even think of it on a concious level. There are some, of course, that do try to do that. Most of what you say is of course entirely true, however. But the option is that an individual makes the concious decision to be irrational or unreasonable, which would be.. farcical, really. So despite the potential pitfalls, I will continue to strive to be reasonable and judge most topics as fairly as I can, and take indications to the contrary under advisement.

 

The fact that you say "four counts of overly emotional language" is funny, though. Which "overly emotional" language was that? Actually, nevermind, I'd rather you don't respond. Even the question might be misconstrued as me actually caring what you think of my language. I realize that my language may sometimes come across as haughty, but that's entirely unintentional, and I apologize. While I try to keep my language on a certain level, I tend to forget that it's not always appreciated, which is likely due to the fact that English isn't my native language. I've learned most of my English through games and books and the peripheral effects of cultural imperialism.

 

[3] That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion on the topic of Limeric. Further, the fact that you don't know who to direct your blame at, does not jusfity your wierd hatred towards one particular developer at all, or with regards to this particular topic. That would be unreasonable indeed.

 

[3] See, you attribute hate where there is none. Disdain, perhaps, irreverence, maybe, but not hate. He tends to come up in topics and I question many of his decisions. In context, it is incredibly relevant who you direct blame at. I see no reason to direct blame towards the innocent. If I can pin something on a specific person, I greatly prefer to do that rather than to express dislike for people I don't even know (or know of).

 

It's the very reason why we say "Sawyer and muh balance" when discussing Immunities, but say "What the hell are you thinking, Obsidian?" when discussing Attributes. There's a huge difference, and I think that it's quite reasonable. And when I see Sawyer doing something good, or something that's a result of his particular hangups or ideas, I'll praise him for that too, based on that merit.

 

 

[1] You are under no obligation towards me to do anything, and it's a fairly silly interpretation to assume that this was my suggestion. But if you label yourself and your views as 'reasonable', there is an onus on you to actually behave as such on pain of contradiction. That's not an obligation towards me though. Beyond that, you are again being uncharitable. No, I don't think there is a 'conspiracy' or a 'sinister plot'. I do however think there is a tendency on both sides of that debate to intepret certain things as automatically fitting within some binary for or against us framework. "You said X? surely you beling to group X. You said Y, certainly you belong to group Y then". That framework is indicative of an ideology with regards to the particular topic, or something broader. This is not to politicize the issue, as it certainly doesn't have to fit with any traditional political lines. But is there an ideology in play with regards to this gender issue? I think that's quite clear.

 

[2] I of course can't speak for what people you associate with, or which one of us has an experience which is most indicative of the general states of affairs. However, in my experience, people in general consciously try (though not necessarily effectively) to be objective to some extent. The point is simply that the more confident they are in their objectivity, the less they try to actually be objective. Lastly, to the point about language: both affirming and denying seems to imply that you care what people think. But that's ok. I have no huge beef with that in most cases. That being said, no I don't buy your excuse with not being a native english speaker. You are like most Scandinavians under 40  (which you are right?) - like myself - confident in your english language skills, and you clearly have a sufficiently extensive vocabulary to avoid unintentionally antagonizing those with whom you disagree.

 

[3] If you don't like the term "hatred", substitute it with what you consider the appropriate generic notion of resentment. That revision will hardly undermine the crux of my claim. Your view regarding Josh is not on a case to case basis. Instead there is a clear tendency to interpret most things Sawyer within a predetermined negative outlook. And that is hardly reasonable.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Prime-Mover

[Luckmann]

[1] You are under no obligation towards me to do anything, and it's a fairly silly interpretation to assume that this was my suggestion. But if you label yourself and your views as 'reasonable', there is an onus on you to actually behave as such on pain of contradiction. That's not an obligation towards me though. Beyond that, you are again being uncharitable. No, I don't think there is a 'conspiracy' or a 'sinister plot'. I do however think there is a tendency on both sides of that debate to intepret certain things as automatically fitting within some binary for or against us framework. "You said X? surely you beling to group X. You said Y, certainly you belong to group Y then". That framework is indicative of an ideology with regards to the particular topic, or something broader. This is not to politicize the issue, as it certainly doesn't have to fit with any traditional political lines. But is there an ideology in play with regards to this gender issue? I think that's quite clear.

 

I find it absolutely delightful that you are so far the only one that has expressly been trying to create this binary X vs. Y framework that you attribute to people on both sides, in this thread. Also "this gender issue"? I don't think most people see a gender issue at all. If you speak of the limerick, it could've been about anything, and reasonable people would've ridiculed the lunatic twitterites regardless.

 

And being reasonable and behaving reasonably does in no way mean that I'm under any obligation to clarify anything to you, on pain of contradiction, nor is doing so a prerequisite for being reasonable.

 

I come from a country where people have tried to ban traditional icecreams for being racist. No matter the brand of lunacy, I think it'd illicit largely the same reaction.

 

[2] I of course can't speak for what people you associate with, or which one of us has an experience which is most indicative of the general states of affairs. However, in my experience, people in general consciously try (though not necessarily effectively) to be objective to some extent. The point is simply that the more confident they are in their objectivity, the less they try to actually be objective. Lastly, to the point about language: both affirming and denying seems to imply that you care what people think. But that's ok. I have no huge beef with that in most cases. That being said, no I don't buy your excuse with not being a native english speaker. You are like most Scandinavians under 40  (which you are right?) - like myself - confident in your english language skills, and you clearly have a sufficiently extensive vocabulary to avoid unintentionally antagonizing those with whom you disagree.

 

Most Scandinavians under 40 cannot string a proper sentence together to save their lives, let alone carry on a coherent conversation. They are plenty confident, for sure, but that confidence is also often undeserved. As for "both confirming and denying", that's really just another one of those... "what are you even on about?" kind of questions that I don't actually care about.

 

But yes, I could probably avoid unintentionally antagonizing those with whom I disagree, but I cannot muster enough care to drag myself down to their level and risk having them beating me by their more extensive experience in regards to ineptitude. Because I honestly, really, on so, oh so many different levels actually could not give any less of a koala's scrotum as to whether some mental midget somewhere would actually consider my language antagonizing or not, unless there's an actual intent on my part.

 

I'm not going to jump through hoops and guard my language based on whatever ridiculous offence others seek to infer based on whatever made-up issues they think they have, nor am I going to curtail the independence of thought and discourse as to appropriate themes or topics because it might offend. So could I? Perhaps. Will I? Of course not. I will apologize and explain intent if necessary, but I'm not going to drag around a failing society's worth of other people's insecurities and damaged goods simply because someone, somewhere could possibly arguably maybe find it offensive or annoying under certain circumstances.

 

I know of people that can find even single words themselves offensive or annoying, and insist other people do not use it, because they are autistic and for whatever reason, they don't like that word. There's people that find offence in the most innocuous of things, and demand they be coddled and accommodated. I say no.

 

[3] If you don't like the term "hatred", substitute it with what you consider the appropriate generic notion of resentment. That revision will hardly undermine the crux of my claim. Your view regarding Josh is not on a case to case basis. Instead there is a clear tendency to interpret most things Sawyer within a predetermined negative outlook. And that is hardly reasonable.

 

I think it is very reasonable to interpret the world based on available evidence. It is completely reasonable to generalize. The fact that someone is judged harshly does not mean that they are judged unfairly. It is very much a case-to-case basis, but those cases to case paints an overall picture. I judged the cases by merit, and the overall issue based on the sum of the parts.

 

It is not like I want to break into his home and murder his cat. The level of antagonism you attribute me is just ridiculous. I do not like the man, just like many others do not like the man, and that general dislike is based on our experiences of the man in question. There is really nothing more to it.

 

 

Hopefully he is not offended by "man". Maybe he also identifies as a mayonnaise Apache attack helicopter? Quick! To the Tumblrmobile!

 

[Prime-Mover]

@Luckmann

 

1) Again, you are under no obligation towards me. It's a matter of logic. If you are claiming to be reasonable, you are contradicting yourself by not being reasonable.

 

2) Is there a gender issue? Maybe, maybe not. It could be a PC vs. anti-PC issue. It could be a conservative vs. anti-conservative issue. It's not entirely clear to me. But there is clearly some underlying ideological division going on, and it's clearly not just an issue of reasonable vs. unreasonable, though I believe you when you say you see it as such. I think it's clear that you're wrong though, but I'm not going to defend that claim further in this thread.

 

3) We disagree about the english language proficiency of the average young-ish scandinavian. 

 

4) Yes, I get it. You don't care what other people think about your unintentional antagonism, but still, you kind of do according to your reply. Whatever. My point was never about whether it was appropriate to call an idiot "idiot" and the like. I do however think it's this lack of courtesy very unhelpful with regards to attaining the goals one has for engaging with those one disagrees. But that's a different point. You brought it up for some reason, and I still don't know why. Being charitable does not mean to sugar coat something. It means giving people the benefit of the doubt, and attack the strongest possible interpretation of their view. Not for the sake of their fuzzy feelings, but for the sake of relevance, and letting the most reasonable position win out. If the most charitable interpretation is that the other dude or chick is an idiot, well then by all means call them an idiot if it serves some prudent purpose to do so. It almost never is the most charitable interpretation though.

 

5) Yes, evidence is groovy. And sure, drawing conclusions in unexplored cases based on good evidence is fine. That's not what's going on here though. There was no real evidence. It was all speculation, which was then put forth as evidence. Seriously, none at all, and certainly nothing to justify the level of antagonism in play here.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Prime-Mover

[ManifestedISO]

Gromnir's suspicion regarding the poster named ___________.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

How curious. Is there a thread title, in the event a passer-by passes by.  

[rheingold]

"The forums were against him"

Well then If a few rabid gamers with no social conscience were against him that clearly demonstrates that he was wrong!

Seriously, I am not sure why I have to keep repeating this, but forums are not representative of the majority, and that's problematic to say the least. Most people who played pillars probably didn't even know about the limerick, let alone care.

 

On the other hand, there is a tiny, self important group who claim that he is arrogant and dosn't listen.

What they really mean is that he dosn't listen to them! And frankly, why should a dev listen to the hard asses on online forums. They are not representative of the majority, much as they like to think so. In fact, it would be really bad business to listen to a few rather angry self indulgent people.

[Volourn]

"Well then If a few rabid gamers with no social conscience"

\

L0L

 

 

"On the other hand, there is a tiny, self important group who claim that he is arrogant and dosn't listen.
What they really mean is that he dosn't listen to them! And frankly, why should a dev listen to the hard asses on online forums. They are not representative of the majority, much as they like to think so. In fact, it would be really bad business to listen to a few rather angry self indulgent people."
 

But, that's exactly what Obsidian did.

 

 

Also, btw, if Obsidian listened to the 'majority' they wouldn't make RPGs or even games at all. The majority of epopel don't give a crap about games in general or this game specifially.o

 

 

HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES!?!

[Excalibur_2102]

 

Also, btw, if Obsidian listened to the 'majority' they wouldn't make RPGs or even games at all. The majority of epopel don't give a crap about games in general or this game specifially.o

 

 

HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES!?!

It was pretty clear he meant the majority of the target audience, not the majority of the people on the planet...  

 

 

[FlintlockJazz]

I was going to post stuff about what I thought of Sawyer, but then I realised that discussing someone on forums like this is kinda rude, so I won't.  Instead, I'll just point out that early in the design some of us argued "Hey, let's ditch the Vancian system in favour of mana, because Vancian sucks!" and "Do we really need a rogue class?  Let's get rid of it, it's a daft class and just takes things away from the other classes!" but he defended them as staples and I have to say, especially with the magic system he got it right in those cases.  Doesn't sound like he 'hates the IE games'.

[Monte Carlo]

 no social conscience

 

Just trying to be helpful, but you sound uptight.

 

Cant EDIT:  Please don't cite specific people and call them names.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Cantousent

[MotelOK]

Shazam! This thread really blew up! Anyway he's posting on twitter again. EVERYTHING IS OK! THE DIRECTOR HAS BEEN FOUND! RESUME PRODUCTION!