Some Flirts and Jokes Removed on the PTR, Fathom Dweller Available in NA, DLC #791

[Relapses]

Neither am I, but I really don't recall /burp and /fart being used for harassment at all. (And if I go back to the game—which I might, if the ethics scandal is actually addressed—I'm likely to re-create at very least /burp via macro anyway.)

I'm thinking maybe players from another faction on a RP-PvP server interfering with a serious RP event by spamming one of those emotes? I don't know. It's a stretch but I have to believe somebody somewhere reported it (or a game dev experienced it firsthand)...otherwise it wouldn't have been removed.

[DarkAmbient]

In a word: bull, and I don't mean a tauren who should still be able to joke about wearing leather. For one: @Valkyrst was not referring specifically to you (and has already made that clear), but to the discussion as a whole. For another: you're accusing others of being "disingenuous" and less-than-fluent in the language, while yourself splitting hairs rather than just admitting that you were the one who misinterpreted the context.

Well I disagree, and clearly so do you, so there's not really much else to be said about it.

[minteK917]

I could swear none of blizzard games were rated E. Id understand if they where shooting for this rating.

[Dacia Ultan]

I'm thinking maybe players from another faction on a RP-PvP server interfering with a serious RP event by spamming one of those emotes? I don't know. It's a stretch but I have to believe somebody somewhere reported it (or a game dev experienced it firsthand)...otherwise it wouldn't have been removed.

Not necessarily. Someone could have just decided that it was too dumb. I mean, I know people are claiming that everything was removed because it squicked some dev or another; but I'm fairly sure there was a gap in time between the background changes/addition of incubi and the discovery that the /jokes and emotes had been removed.

Well I disagree, and clearly so do you, so there's not really much else to be said about it.

You're not "disagreeing." You're trying to cover your ass by trying to talk down to people. Again: feel free to take your toys and go home if you choke that hard on admitting that you made a mistake.

[Adamas102]

I could swear none of blizzard games were rated E. Id understand if they where shooting for this rating.

There's way too much violence and other dark imagery for the game to be rated E, but that doesn't mean the people in charge of the game now NEED to keep all the innuendo and off-color humor that the people who made the game almost 20 years ago thought was funny and/or cool.

[Dacia Ultan]

There's way too much violence and other dark imagery for the game to be rated E, but that doesn't mean the people in charge of the game now NEED to keep all the innuendo and off-color humor that the people who made the game almost 20 years ago thought was funny and/or cool.

Watch out; if anyone hears you refusing to catastrophize about it, you might get accused of being "woke" or a "puritan" or of wanting to "infantilize and shelter" people. (That said: I still say doing so was dumb and irrelevant, and doesn't count as addressing the actual ethics scandal.)

[qwerty123456]

Oh, I get it; you have a tenuous-at-best grasp of what the word "inclusive" means.

Reductio ad absurdum. And when they did add black blood elves (among other options); people complained about that as much as they're currently complaining about the pointless and irrelevant removal of "bull in leather" jokes.

I'd say that you must therefore be doing that thing where you define "crying" as "any real or perceived complaint about something that you don't personally see as an issue," except "trying to defend" the removal of the jokes wouldn't even be a complaint (quite the opposite, in fact). And you're also conveniently ignoring the fact that no one is defending the removal of the jokes; the general consensus is that removing the jokes was pointless and irrelevant.

Inclusive means not excluding anyone. What definition are you using?

And Lol at Reductio ad absurdum. My use of "extremes" is for humor and not necessary to "prove" my point.
Also interesting how you have to change your defense to "Oh but those evil meanies that want jack off jokes were freaking out over black elves."(even though you have no proof that those people were the same or the reasons why they complained about either situations) when I called out the fact that those jokes are fictional as well and still way less monstrous than rape and genocide.

No I define crying as complaining and wanting the removal of something extremely minor when much greater things in the same vein exist in the game. Like I said before I would be totally fine with someone noticing a jack off joke in hello kitty island adventure and complaining about it and wanting it removed.

[Relapses]

Not necessarily. Someone could have just decided that it was too dumb. I mean, I know people are claiming that everything was removed because it squicked some dev or another; but I'm fairly sure there was a gap in time between the background changes/addition of incubi and the discovery that the /jokes and emotes had been removed.

That's a reasonable take.

What I don't understand is how people can take that same thought process then deduce that Blizzard is being overrun by the Archdiocese. Oh well.

[DingDongKing]

Nope. You replied to my comment about therapy by saying "And screaming woke at everything is totally healthy" and when it was pointed out that I never said the word you tried to pretend it was a general remark about the thread. Just converse like a normal person who's chatting with other random people, it's easier and more pleasant all round. There's no need to misrepresent anyone.

If you want to split hairs so hard, did I say you were mentioning the word ‘woke’? Nope.

You said people who behaved a certain way needed mental health. I countered that by saying, ‘well people who behave in this other way aren’t healthy either’.

Not you. People.

So yeah, you’re engaging in a bad faith conversation. Stop pretending. Or continue. The ruse is up.

[Dacia Ultan]

Inclusive means not excluding anyone. What definition are you using?

"Anyone." Not "anything." No one is being "excluded" or attacked by the removal of fart and jack-off jokes—even if it is a dumb decision which has nothing to do with the actual issues. I'd say "you tried," but it'd be a lie.

And Lol at Reductio ad absurdum. My use of "extremes" is for humor and not necessary to "prove" my point.

If that wasn't just an attempt to cover your ass: your wit is tepid at best and you don't have a point.

Also interesting how you have to change your defense to "Oh but those evil meanies that want jack off jokes were freaking out over black elves."(even though you have no proof that those people were the same or the reasons why they complained about either situations) when I called out the fact that those jokes are fictional as well and still way less monstrous than rape and genocide.

Did you miss the part where I found the jack-off jokes funny and their removal dumb and irrelevant, or are you deliberately and disingenuously ignoring it in order to tilt at some "snowflake" caricature in lieu of arguing? I'm the bitch who wanted female worgen to say "it's technically true, but call me that and I'll bite you," for hellsakes.

No I define crying as complaining and wanting the removal of something extremely minor when much greater things in the same vein exist in the game.

Which literally no one is doing in this discussion. At most, they're saying "I'm sure there's a reason for this that we're not privy to;" more often, they're saying "well, that was irrelevant; are they going to address the real issues now?" There are, however, plenty of people acting like the removal of the jack-off jokes is the end of the world; and if that's not "crying," you are holding a blatant double standard. Also: you've added a relative privation fallacy to your reductio ad absurdum.

That's a reasonable take.

What I don't understand is how people can take that same thought process then deduce that Blizzard is being overrun by the Archdiocese. Oh well.

I guess some people just can't grasp that not everyone needs to make a federal case out of a few lines being removed from a video game, even if they don't personally approve of the decision.

[DarkAmbient]

talk down to people

I take it self-awareness isn't your strong point. Although to be fair if it wasn't you wouldn't really know it anyway.

[Deadite]

If I'd wager a guess it's Blizzard seeking to remove as many "built-in" tools for player harassment as they can.

Guess they better remove /s and /y and /w then? Those things are used for 99% of the harassment. Keep chatting to party,guild and raids.

[Relapses]

Guess they better remove /s and /y and /w then? Those things are used for 99% of the harassment. Keep chatting to party,guild and raids.

I should have added the descriptor "faction-neutral" to that because the only people who I could possibly see offended by this would be those on the receiving end of an 11 year old spamming that after a PK or something.

[Dacia Ultan]

I take it self-awareness isn't your strong point. Although to be fair if it wasn't you wouldn't really know it anyway.

Awww, did I hurt your tender little feelings? I may get snarky in response to people being obtuse or insincere, but I said nothing comparable to this:

Please note that I said "the only one of us", i.e. the only one out of Valkyrst and I. I did not say "the only person in this thread". You do understand the difference, yes? Perhaps English isn't your first language, in which case you are forgiven.

Or this:

The poster was clearly referring to me, and I clearly replied to them on that basis, but you then decided to reply to me as if my response to them had meant something different. So you'll forgive me for wondering why you would so obviously misrepresent what I wrote, because anyone who is fluent in English would understand the meaning of that simple exchange.

Nor did I not so much flounce out of the discussion as try to demand that everyone who disagreed with me do so, and front like I was speaking for the whole thread:

If you (and others in this thread) can't engage in good faith then do us all a favour and don't bother at all.

So...again? I snark the blatantly disingenuous (and maybe batted you around a bit after the above antics); you got all haughty and snotty when you could have just admitted that you were wrong. And considering that I'm also not acting like the sky is falling because a few lines got removed, while claiming that it's the people who aren't catastrophizing who are somehow fragile (a position which you've been at least defending): you're in no more of a position to cast aspersions on others' self-awareness than you are on their good faith.

[Byleth]

When I read that it makes me wonder why you play an online game if you can't stand the social interaction. Why would you subject yourself to something you can't stand?

What are you talking about?

I'm fine with social interaction. In fact I'm a main tank and raid leader for my crew.

[Dacia Ultan]

What are you talking about?

I'm fine with social interaction. In fact I'm a main tank and raid leader for my crew.

Well, it's not as if there's any sound justification for getting unreasonably outraged over the removal of a few lines. Between that, and some of the rhetoric floating around in this discussion, it comes as no surprise that they'd be resorting to personal attacks; that's pretty much all they've got to fall back on.

[Menog]

Well, it's not as if there's any sound justification for getting unreasonably outraged over the removal of a few lines. Between that, and some of the rhetoric floating around in this discussion, it comes as no surprise that they'd be resorting to personal attacks; that's pretty much all they've got to fall back on.

"they" because we are all the same?

Why are you dehumanizing people that don't agree with you?

So now its a "us against them" discussion?

You know who also did that back in the day? The people that produced holocausts.

Pretty pathetic that you resorted to downgrade me, (or us for that matter) when I was clearly not even talking to you, in a effort to add another shard of nothingness to the conversation.

But yeah I already figured what kind of troll you are.

[Byleth]

"they" because we are all the same?

Why are you dehumanizing people that don't agree with you?

So now its a "us against them" discussion?

You know who also did that back in the day? The people that produced holocausts.

Pretty pathetic that you resorted to downgrade me, (or us for that matter) when I was clearly not even talking to you, in a effort to add another shard of nothingness to the conversation.

But yeah I already figured what kind of troll you are.

This from the person who concluded I was socially inept because I admitted to finding some of the jokes/flirts uncomfortable. Almost like they were downgrading me...

Wow, you should look in the mirror sometime.

[Dacia Ultan]

"they" because we are all the same?

No, but there's a definite trend in terms of actions. Namely: flipping shit and slinging insults because a few lines were removed, which somehow is supposed to qualify everyone else as "snowflakes."

Why are you dehumanizing people that don't agree with you?

Good to see that you draw no distinction between having bullshit called on the bullshit you're perpetuating with being "dehumanized" for "disagreeing." Says volumes about how well you handle disagreement.

So now its a "us against them" discussion?

It became an "us against them" decision the moment people started trotting out the ad-hom. Which, by the way, began with tirades against pronouns and "woke," and has continued more-or-less along those lines aside from the occasional foray into self-victimization (by the same people calling others "snowflakes," no less).

Speaking of which...

You know who also did that back in the day? The people that produced holocausts.

Oh my fucking God, you did not just compare being mocked to being genocided. Wow; and you accused @The Dark One of being unable to handle social interaction, and me of being unable to handle "disagreement." I think they call that "confession via accusation."

Pretty pathetic that you resorted to downgrade me, (or us for that matter) when I was clearly not even talking to you, in a effort to add another shard of nothingness to the conversation.

For one: you downgraded yourself when you resorted to ad-hom, and did so further when you doubled down on it.

For another: I wasn't addressing you, either; I was commenting on a greater trend. If you're so sensitive about being indirectly called out for contributing: maybe you shouldn't have done that.

And, finally: any rational standard by which my post is a "shard of nothingness" would qualify both this outburst of yours and your potshot at @The Dark One as "far into the negatives."

But yeah I already figured what kind of troll you are.

If you'd actually "figured out" anything (as opposed to just lashing out because your feelings were hurt), you'd realize that I'm not a "troll" at all, and that it's pretty priceless of you to play that card in the face of your own antics. But, y'know...go off or whatever.

This from the person who concluded I was socially inept because I admitted to finding some of the jokes/flirts uncomfortable. Almost like they were downgrading me...

Wow, you should look in the mirror sometime.

Little so-and-so fuckin' Godwinned me for hurting their feelings. Oh, the irony.

[SinR]

Blizzard stop, its already dead