Chris Avellone leaves Obsidian

[Volourn]

"For me I can accept that the Codex does have very informed and committed gamers, of course that in itself creates an issue as there a vibe of elitism but my main issue is the lack of moderation. The last time I went there to read a link there was a discussion about GG and there were a few people who were  openly talking about rape as a solution to deal with feminists or something equally as offensive. And I'm sorry but I have major issues with any website that allows such flagrant  sexism or other comments of bigotry 

 

It is simply not acceptable to me so the Codex will be missing out on  my erudite views and informed opinions as I refuse to frequent its forums   "

 

Are you taking what said there seriously? The Codex is more harmless than any SJW. That's for darn sure. SJWs are nazis. That is some scary stuff!

[HoonDing]

You mean you take what SJWs say seriously?

[BruceVC]

"For me I can accept that the Codex does have very informed and committed gamers, of course that in itself creates an issue as there a vibe of elitism but my main issue is the lack of moderation. The last time I went there to read a link there was a discussion about GG and there were a few people who were  openly talking about rape as a solution to deal with feminists or something equally as offensive. And I'm sorry but I have major issues with any website that allows such flagrant  sexism or other comments of bigotry 

 

It is simply not acceptable to me so the Codex will be missing out on  my erudite views and informed opinions as I refuse to frequent its forums   "

 

Are you taking what said there seriously? The Codex is more harmless than any SJW. That's for darn sure. SJWs are nazis. That is some scary stuff!

 

Sure you right...it is harmless , but its more the principle. I have an issue with associating with people who really think its okay to say " a good raping will sort her out " ...you see on the Codex that type of rhetoric is tolerated and that sometimes leads to people thinking that type of comment is acceptable outside the Codex. 

[archangel979]

 

"For me I can accept that the Codex does have very informed and committed gamers, of course that in itself creates an issue as there a vibe of elitism but my main issue is the lack of moderation. The last time I went there to read a link there was a discussion about GG and there were a few people who were  openly talking about rape as a solution to deal with feminists or something equally as offensive. And I'm sorry but I have major issues with any website that allows such flagrant  sexism or other comments of bigotry 

 

It is simply not acceptable to me so the Codex will be missing out on  my erudite views and informed opinions as I refuse to frequent its forums   "

 

Are you taking what said there seriously? The Codex is more harmless than any SJW. That's for darn sure. SJWs are nazis. That is some scary stuff!

 

Sure you right...it is harmless , but its more the principle. I have an issue with associating with people who really think its okay to say " a good raping will sort her out " ...you see on the Codex that type of rhetoric is tolerated and that sometimes leads to people thinking that type of comment is acceptable outside the Codex.

 

Or you can just avoid GG part of the forums. I have not seen much of this (or at all) on RPG general forums.

[HoonDing]

I'd play a Prison School arrpeegee with Avellone as lead designer.

[Gizmo]

I wouldn't.

[Lexx]

While we are at it, Prison Architect release is set for October this year.

[Luckmann]

"For me I can accept that the Codex does have very informed and committed gamers, of course that in itself creates an issue as there a vibe of elitism but my main issue is the lack of moderation. The last time I went there to read a link there was a discussion about GG and there were a few people who were  openly talking about rape as a solution to deal with feminists or something equally as offensive. And I'm sorry but I have major issues with any website that allows such flagrant  sexism or other comments of bigotry 

 

It is simply not acceptable to me so the Codex will be missing out on  my erudite views and informed opinions as I refuse to frequent its forums   "

 

Are you taking what said there seriously? The Codex is more harmless than any SJW. That's for darn sure. SJWs are nazis. That is some scary stuff!

 

As a nazi, I find that comment incredibly offensive.

[marelooke]

 

"For me I can accept that the Codex does have very informed and committed gamers, of course that in itself creates an issue as there a vibe of elitism but my main issue is the lack of moderation. The last time I went there to read a link there was a discussion about GG and there were a few people who were  openly talking about rape as a solution to deal with feminists or something equally as offensive. And I'm sorry but I have major issues with any website that allows such flagrant  sexism or other comments of bigotry 

 

It is simply not acceptable to me so the Codex will be missing out on  my erudite views and informed opinions as I refuse to frequent its forums   "

 

Are you taking what said there seriously? The Codex is more harmless than any SJW. That's for darn sure. SJWs are nazis. That is some scary stuff!

 

Sure you right...it is harmless , but its more the principle. I have an issue with associating with people who really think its okay to say " a good raping will sort her out " ...you see on the Codex that type of rhetoric is tolerated and that sometimes leads to people thinking that type of comment is acceptable outside the Codex. 

 

 

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

 

Censorship is never a solution and is more often abused to silence dissenting opinion than for anything worthwhile. Ignoring people only takes a bit of willpower and then there are always technical solutions.

 

Moreover visiting a forum also frequented by people with dissenting opinions surely doesn't mean you're "associating" with them any more than visiting a bar which is also frequented by members of the local fascist movement/biker gang/*insert socially unacceptable clique of people here*, especially if you stay away from their subforum/table...?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I have an issue with associating with people who really think its okay to say " a good raping will sort her out " ...you see on the Codex that type of rhetoric is tolerated and that sometimes leads to people thinking that type of comment is acceptable outside the Codex. 

 

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

 

Censorship is never a solution and is more often abused to silence dissenting opinion than for anything worthwhile. Ignoring people only takes a bit of willpower and then there are always technical solutions.

 

 

I can hardly imagine that sort of rhetoric fly on this particular forum either, yet somehow we're not screaming about Obsidian's fondness for censorship and silencing dissenting opinions...

[BruceVC]

 

 

"For me I can accept that the Codex does have very informed and committed gamers, of course that in itself creates an issue as there a vibe of elitism but my main issue is the lack of moderation. The last time I went there to read a link there was a discussion about GG and there were a few people who were  openly talking about rape as a solution to deal with feminists or something equally as offensive. And I'm sorry but I have major issues with any website that allows such flagrant  sexism or other comments of bigotry 

 

It is simply not acceptable to me so the Codex will be missing out on  my erudite views and informed opinions as I refuse to frequent its forums   "

 

Are you taking what said there seriously? The Codex is more harmless than any SJW. That's for darn sure. SJWs are nazis. That is some scary stuff!

 

Sure you right...it is harmless , but its more the principle. I have an issue with associating with people who really think its okay to say " a good raping will sort her out " ...you see on the Codex that type of rhetoric is tolerated and that sometimes leads to people thinking that type of comment is acceptable outside the Codex. 

 

 

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

 

Censorship is never a solution and is more often abused to silence dissenting opinion than for anything worthwhile. Ignoring people only takes a bit of willpower and then there are always technical solutions.

 

Moreover visiting a forum also frequented by people with dissenting opinions surely doesn't mean you're "associating" with them any more than visiting a bar which is also frequented by members of the local fascist movement/biker gang/*insert socially unacceptable clique of people here*, especially if you stay away from their subforum/table...?

 

Yes I agree, going to a particular forum doesn't mean you agree with the bigotry or controversial comments made by some of its members. My issue is with the overall Moderation policy of the Codex. Its not a indictment of all the people who frequent  the website

[marelooke]

 

 

I have an issue with associating with people who really think its okay to say " a good raping will sort her out " ...you see on the Codex that type of rhetoric is tolerated and that sometimes leads to people thinking that type of comment is acceptable outside the Codex. 

 

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

 

Censorship is never a solution and is more often abused to silence dissenting opinion than for anything worthwhile. Ignoring people only takes a bit of willpower and then there are always technical solutions.

 

 

I can hardly imagine that sort of rhetoric fly on this particular forum either, yet somehow we're not screaming about Obsidian's fondness for censorship and silencing dissenting opinions...

 

 

Let's be fair, this forum is very accepting of various opinions as long as they are formulated in a civilized way, which is something I greatly appreciate by the way. Moreover I visit here to talk about games, mostly, if someone starts talking (real world) religion/politics I generally stop participating in the discussion (as I do in real life) as nothing good tends to come from discussing these topics.

 

I was merely replying to Bruce's suggestion that certain places *ought* to censor certain opinions/worldviews to (avoid) send(ing) a certain message, such sets a dangerous precedent as before long we'll be making adult websites inaccessible (totally random example, truly), because surely, nobody would want to visit such degenerate places, right? So let's protect our citizens by making sure they cannot be lead astray (also: "won't anyone think of the children!!!"). I mean, where does one stop once started down that path? And truly I expect that these people mean well, unfortunately meaning well doesn't equal doing well.

Edited August 5, 2015 by marelooke

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

 

I can hardly imagine that sort of rhetoric fly on this particular forum either, yet somehow we're not screaming about Obsidian's fondness for censorship and silencing dissenting opinions...

 

 

Let's be fair, this forum is very accepting of various opinions as long as they are formulated in a civilized way, which is something I greatly appreciate by the way. 

 

 

Yet I'm pretty sure the mods would not tolerate someone calling for "a good raping to sort [someone] out".

 

So where do you draw the "censorship" line? If a forum is very accepting of opinions that can be formulated in a civilized way, but mercilessly stomps out those that can't (eg. "Hitler was right", just to go for a very obvious example), are they terrible for silencing dissenting opinions? If they're not, why are we envisioning a complete and inevitable breakdown of personal liberties at the moment someone proposes that certain forms of expression become not tolerated in a given community, when we have concrete examples of that sort of thing NOT leading to the envisioned outcome?

[rjshae]

Censorship is never a solution and is more often abused to silence dissenting opinion than for anything worthwhile. Ignoring people only takes a bit of willpower and then there are always technical solutions.

 

As has often been pointed out, the First Amendment right does not guarantee everybody a soapbox from which to espouse their insane beliefs.

[Zoraptor]

In this case that is a point on a parallel argumentary line, since no one is saying that people have the right to say whatever they want wherever they want, just that censorship doesn't work. You can easily agree that someone has the right to do something without thinking that they should do that something.

 

The fundamental difference between here and the codex is that the codex isn't trying to sell you games. Well, except its steam curator/ Infinitron and at least theoretically they don't benefit financially from that. Obsidian is though, they have a vested interest in not needlessly offending customers, conversely the codex revels in offending any and all delicate unique snowflakes as part of its unique appeal- and that is in very large part why people say those offensive things, precisely because people like Bruce will profess to have their panties bunched by it.

 

Personally I always make the distinction between little c and big C censorship. If censorship is fairly applied and 'sensible' it almost always falls under the little c subset. I may think the naughty word filter is a bit silly for example but it isn't a big deal. And we can hardly say that there's no trolling going on on these forums.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

conversely the codex revels in offending any and all delicate unique snowflakes as part of its unique appeal- and that is in very large part why people say those offensive things, precisely because people like Bruce will profess to have their panties bunched by it.

 

 

It's fine and good and if they're enjoying it, more power to them, but personally, I find that attitude woefully immature and it pretty much ensures I'll never visit that site.

 

What pisses me off is when people try to sell me on the idea that offending people for the lulz (something I delighted doing when I was 16, but not since) is a universal moral imperative and how dare you want to take that unalienable right away from someone in the name of silly things like "constructive discussions" and "a friendly and welcoming community".

[Zoraptor]

The problem with a 'friendly and welcoming community' is that all too often it goes far too far the other direction and becomes the forum equivalent of a Potemkin Village; merely an edifice of civility and niceness with no meaningful discussion at all. People 'getting along with each other' because everyone who doesn't agree with the consensus gets banned- per neogaf, the Bethesda forums etc. You must have the ability to offend when posting, because any opinion is likely to offend someone.

 

And it isn't just about offending people just for the sake of it, it does serve a purpose of sorts. Anyone who gets offended easily will not be able to contribute anything but drama at the codex anyway, better for all concerned that they don't go there or don't stay long. Rather surprisingly it works well* to promote discussion precisely because the people there don't get offended at every little thing; about the only opinion you don't find there much at all is the censorious one, for obvious reasons.

 

*So long as obvious drama threads and posters are avoided, at least.

[Gizmo]

So where do you draw the "censorship" line?

Under the text in the terms of service, that indicate what you agree to when joining that forum.

(They have a right to expect that of members, in exchange for the rights to post.)

Edited August 6, 2015 by Gizmo

[aluminiumtrioxid]

The problem with a 'friendly and welcoming community' is that all too often it goes far too far the other direction and becomes the forum equivalent of a Potemkin Village; merely an edifice of civility and niceness with no meaningful discussion at all. 

 

I've never encountered that problem, even on forums that are considered to have the most ban-happy mods ever.

 

Can you not discuss certain topics there? Certainly. Even with that limitation, are there more discussions on that forum than it's humanly possible to participate in? Well, yes. Do you need to discuss every possible topic on a single forum? Not really.

 

 

My point is, not every community needs to be everything for its members, and cries of "censorship" when someone attempts to enforce certain norms in a site they privately own are baffling. Especially since it's so easy to see what an utter cesspit a community without moderation turns into.

Edited August 6, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Zoraptor]

I pretty much agree with certain differences in emphases, I'd observe that the reverse is also true and calling for censorship on a privately owned site is also baffling. While that isn't what you're doing it is what Bruce is doing. That may be a philosophical difference though as by and large I have far more sympathy with people complaining of censorship than those wanting for others be censored.

[archangel979]

 

Censorship is never a solution and is more often abused to silence dissenting opinion than for anything worthwhile. Ignoring people only takes a bit of willpower and then there are always technical solutions.

 

As has often been pointed out, the First Amendment right does not guarantee everybody a soapbox from which to espouse their insane beliefs.

 

It does if they have enough money and influence (Scientology)

[Gfted1]

It does if they have enough money and influence (Scientology)

Why is Scientology any more insane than any other religion? Because they believe in a different extra-terrestrial? Seems to me that all religions are soapboxing.

[213374U]

So where do you draw the "censorship" line? If a forum is very accepting of opinions that can be formulated in a civilized way, but mercilessly stomps out those that can't (eg. "Hitler was right", just to go for a very obvious example), are they terrible for silencing dissenting opinions? If they're not, why are we envisioning a complete and inevitable breakdown of personal liberties at the moment someone proposes that certain forms of expression become not tolerated in a given community, when we have concrete examples of that sort of thing NOT leading to the envisioned outcome?

 

I'm less concerned about certain forms of expression being banned than I am about certain topics being unacceptable. Let's take your Hitler example. Essentially, all posts containing the same old "international Jewry" references are a subtler form of "Hitler was right", even though Hitler didn't invent anti-semitism. We've had quite a few of those, and I'm betting it's easy to post a holocaust denial topic under the guise of "historical review" without the mod squad getting their collective pants in a bunch, at first anyway.

 

Further, there's also the huge issue of consistency. A thread about how cool the Nazi leadership was would probably get insta-punted, but for years we had a certain user repeatedly expound the marvels of socialism as embodied in the Soviet Union, including mocking remarks about Katyn. It's probably no big deal either to post about the Armenian genocide with a pro-Turkish slant because it's a topic we're much less sensitive about than Nazism. I myself got into trouble with mods here for fooling around with non-Nazi swastikas that some other user had found deeply offensive, for some reason. Arbitrary application of rules and standards being all over the place is never a good thing.

 

So, yeah. I'm thankful I don't have to decide where to draw the proverbial line in the sand, but if asked, "offense" wouldn't even be a factor. Personal threats and openly calling for the death of people, possibly. That doesn't mean I don't agree with you on the KKKodex — I read the site from time to time but I can't find it in me to participate in the perpetual contest of edginess they have going on in there.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

It does if they have enough money and influence (Scientology)

Why is Scientology any more insane than any other religion? Because they believe in a different extra-terrestrial? Seems to me that all religions are soapboxing.

It hasn't been around as long and as such hasn't been normalized by large groups of people.

[Longknife]

 

It does if they have enough money and influence (Scientology)

Why is Scientology any more insane than any other religion? Because they believe in a different extra-terrestrial? Seems to me that all religions are soapboxing.

 

 

 

To be fair, Scientology does suck up people's money like only those 24/7 religious Christian broadcasting channels do that try to feed off senile old people by selling them cheap crap and asking for donations. Yes that's a perfect example of other religions acting the same, but Christians will of course condemn the actions of such channels. The money-making scam of Scientology is a large part of why it's called a cult and also not something only done by SOME parts of Scientology or something condemned by the majority of Scientologists.

 

 

Having said that, yes, the only difference between a "cult" and a "religion" is pretty much the size of it's following. The victors write the history books, as they say.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Longknife