Support NeoGAF

[theprojectdan]

I'm not sure I believe I'm doing this.

If OSC simply spouted his silly views wherever he wished and was not involved financially or politicly, then I would not care. That's his prerogative.

Do you take the same stand against all organizations that band together to accomplish political goals? Back when Thurgood Marshall was GC of the NAACP during the civil rights era, would you have said "If Marshal simply spouted his silly views wherever he wished and was not involved financially or politically, then I would not care." ?

What you're really saying is "people who I disagree with are allowed to have their views but they really should never talk to others about them, join up with others who share them, or ever be involved in the political process."

Some of us welcome open debate, and recognize that the great political traditions of free speech and the free exchange of ideas in society means the same for all.

He has the right of free speech, free assembly and everything else. He is even free to do what he is doing.

I have the right to not purchase goods or services by him for the same reason.

That's nice, and I certainly agree with this post now. But it's not what you said previously, and I was talking about your own internal logic, not positing that you were a government actor who could actually prohibit the speech.


Dragona's inconsistency (or moreso, idea wasn't clarified) was stating that people are allowed to have ideas so long as they don't promote them or actively donate to them. Other guy pointed out this means Dragona believes people can have views but can't espouse them publicly.

Dragona clarifies, they can, but the moment they do she exercises her equal right to not monetarily support it.

Other guy agrees.

 

[elrechazado]

I'm not sure I believe I'm doing this.

If OSC simply spouted his silly views wherever he wished and was not involved financially or politicly, then I would not care. That's his prerogative.

Do you take the same stand against all organizations that band together to accomplish political goals? Back when Thurgood Marshall was GC of the NAACP during the civil rights era, would you have said "If Marshal simply spouted his silly views wherever he wished and was not involved financially or politically, then I would not care." ?

What you're really saying is "people who I disagree with are allowed to have their views but they really should never talk to others about them, join up with others who share them, or ever be involved in the political process."

Some of us welcome open debate, and recognize that the great political traditions of free speech and the free exchange of ideas in society means the same for all.

He has the right of free speech, free assembly and everything else. He is even free to do what he is doing.

I have the right to not purchase goods or services by him for the same reason.

That's nice, and I certainly agree with this post now. But it's not what you said previously, and I was talking about your own internal logic, not positing that you were a government actor who could actually prohibit the speech.


Dragona's inconsistency (or moreso, idea wasn't clarified) was stating that people are allowed to have ideas so long as they don't promote them or actively donate to them. Other guy pointed out this means Dragona believes people can have views but can't espouse them publicly.

Dragona clarifies, they can, but the moment they do she exercises her equal right to not monetarily support it.

Other guy agrees.

By what strange powers have you summoned the words from pages past and brought them to the future for us to view them?

 

[pvpness]

A mob is still made up of individuals making their own decisions. I don't entirely agree with separating a boycott from a specific person's decision to not buy something.

And again about punishing or actively hurting. The developers made a decision to work with this man. If I decide to not support them for that decision, how is it different from not buying the game because they decided to make it a side scroller or 2.5d? It's a decision they've made that I disagree with and deem worthy of not buying their product over.

Right, we're on the same page. The distinction that PAD is talking about is when you talk another person into not buying it without them coming to that conclusion on their own or doing any research on the matter themselves. At least that's what I think he's trying to say. I don't wanna get caught in an infinite loop of arguing on his behalf really I just think his statements on the matter (at least from the repost on the last page) are reasonable and wanted to understand how others could view them as unreasonable.

-Divvy

Well the original article basically can be summed down to "buy it, or don't buy it, make your own choice". However, PAD responded essentially saying that by saying that it's okay to not buy it for this reason, then you are promoting a boycott.

I think that's because he believes in not allowing peoples stated opinions to distract people from something that they would normally want. Am I understanding correctly? (the last quote kinda confused me with it's wording...seems odd)

 

[KHarvey16]

Dragona's inconsistency (or moreso, idea wasn't clarified) was stating that people are allowed to have ideas so long as they don't promote them or actively donate to them. Other guy pointed out this means Dragona believes people can have views but can't espouse them publicly.

Dragona clarifies, they can, but the moment they do she exercises her equal right to not monetarily support it.

Other guy agrees.

That's not an inconsistency though. The implication was since OSC is involved politically and financially, she would not support him by buying the game. Never is there the suggestion he can't do something. It's all very clear when looked at in context.

Is this the inconsistency you mean elrechazao?

 

[KHarvey16]

Right, we're on the same page. The distinction that PAD is talking about is when you talk another person into not buying it without them coming to that conclusion on their own or doing any research on the matter themselves. At least that's what I think he's trying to say. I don't wanna get caught in an infinite loop of arguing on his behalf really I just think his statements on the matter (at least from the repost on the last page) are reasonable and wanted to understand how others could view them as unreasonable.

If you believe in personal responsibility I don't know how that argument can be made. If I give you information that causes you to reconsider your purchase how is that wrong? I can see a case if some people were lining up at best buy and intimidating people or blocking doors but that isn't applicable here.

 

[LQX]

"We" in the thread title should be changed to "I".

 

[theprojectdan]

That's not an inconsistency though. The implication was since OSC is involved politically and financially, she would not support him by buying the game. Never is there the suggestion he can't do something. It's all very clear when looked at in context.

Is this the inconsistency you mean elrechazao?

Elrechazao's reading from Dragona's post didn't include the "They can go public. I can not buy." Whether or not Dragona implied it, you might have correctly inferred that that's what she meant.

Elrechazao, by his, Dragona's, or the communication gap that comes with internet message forums, didn't infer this and asked for clarification. Dragona gave it, they agree.

 

[IrishNinja]

A mob is still made up of individuals making their own decisions. I don't entirely agree with separating a boycott from a specific person's decision to not buy something.

And again about punishing or actively hurting. The developers made a decision to work with this man. If I decide to not support them for that decision, how is it different from not buying the game because they decided to make it a side scroller or 2.5d? It's a decision they've made that I disagree with and deem worthy of not buying their product over.

for the first part: yeah, a mob is made of individuals, but the cause organizes them. a boycott is a consciouis organized group of people deciding to not only "punish" by way of not buying (which i agree, on an individual level, i do not think this criteria applies) vs making it a "cause" and trying to appeal to others to act likewise. a large number of posts in this thread are about the important distinction between the OP saying "I" vs "we" even in the title itself.

to the second part of your statement: the decision to make the game 2.5d as you said is not politically motivated. again, in the context of your individual criteria, i cant logically argue against your tastes/preferences. however, again, a mob or organized boycott of sorts over a design issue (let's say, Diablo 3 has too much bloom! i hate celda! etc etc) is not the same beast as one over political issues, and it strikes me as a bit intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.

 

[KHarvey16]

Elrechazao's reading from Dragona's post didn't include the "They can go public. I can not buy." Whether or not Dragona implied it, you might have correctly inferred that that's what she meant.

Elrechazao, by his, Dragona's, or the communication gap that comes with internet message forums, didn't infer this and asked for clarification. Dragona gave it, they agree.

"Ask for clarification" is certainly a kind way of putting it. My response to him was made assuming he understood what I considered to be a pretty obvious point. I interpreted his post with that knowledge.

 

[elrechazado]

Let me rephrase that. Alil dslyxic I am.

Tell me what limit would you take the negative rights in our constitution too? You already admited you would advocate for a parent's to impose ciriculum that is tantamount to childabuse. I am not talking about positive rights here.

Anyways, you are a liberatarian.

1. Your premise is flawed from the get go. I assume you mean curriculum, and by that you mean "parents teaching their values to their children." The premise that ideas are child abuse is one not supported by law or history or common sense in this country.

2. I still have no idea what this sentence means "Tell me what limit would you take the negative rights in our constitution too?"

3. Your standard seems to be a call to use the power of the state to restrain parents from imparting sincerely held beliefs to their children. That might fly in Oceania or in on the Animal farm, but go create a fascist mind control state somewhere else, thank you very much.



Amazing, the willingness of people to throw their freedom away.

 

[ntropy]

I wonder what OSC's stance on abortion is!

 

[elrechazado]

Elrechazao's reading from Dragona's post didn't include the "They can go public. I can not buy." Whether or not Dragona implied it, you might have correctly inferred that that's what she meant.

Elrechazao, by his, Dragona's, or the communication gap that comes with internet message forums, didn't infer this and asked for clarification. Dragona gave it, they agree.

Honestly, don't bother at this point. The fact that his initial reply was a complete non sequitur about political donations and a personal attack just shows that he's not serious at all about having a rational discussion. Just read his subsequent posts from there where he tries to be clever without mentioning a single point he's trying to rehabilitate now.

Wasted time my friend.

 

[KHarvey16]

for the first part: yeah, a mob is made of individuals, but the cause organizes them. a boycott is a consciouis organized group of people deciding to not only "punish" by way of not buying (which i agree, on an individual level, i do not think this criteria applies) vs making it a "cause" and trying to appeal to others to act likewise. a large number of posts in this thread are about the important distinction between the OP saying "I" vs "we" even in the title itself.

I don't see it as a meaningful difference. Organizing simply means sharing information. To organize this boycott, for instance, I would outline why I felt OSC shouldn't be getting any money from this endeavor if you feel a certain way. People can read that and agree or they can disagree. How is that different then what is happening here?

to the second part of your statement: the decision to make the game 2.5d as you said is not politically motivated. again, in the context of your individual criteria, i cant logically argue against your tastes/preferences. however, again, a mob or organized boycott of sorts over a design issue (let's say, Diablo 3 has too much bloom! i hate celda! etc etc) is not the same beast as one over political issues, and it strikes me as a bit intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Why is it intellectually dishonest? It's a decision made by the developer that has caused me to not want to buy the game. It's exactly the same. What if it was a political story, and the protagonist was tasked with killing civilians in a market with a suicide bomb? Can I use that as a reason to not purchase it, even though it's politically motivated?

 

[Asmodai]

I'm not going to enter the minefield that is the discussion of this thread, but there's something that I think hasn't really been discussed yet.

What does the quality of a game or other product do to influence whether you are willing to boycott it or not?

The reason I ask this is because when I first read this thread, I was indifferent to Shadow Complex and assumed it was just another above-average XBLA game that got relatively high reviews.

Recently, I played the demo, and was extremely impressed. I definitely wouldn't boycott it after finding out how good it is, whereas before, when I wasn't planning on buying it in the first place, committing to a boycott would be easy.

Also, on a somewhat related issue, what does Chair Entertainment have to do with Advent Rising, if anything? I've seen people in this thread mention a correlation, I thought Chair was a relatively new developer and hadn't made anything other than Undertow and Shadow Complex. A clarification would be greatly appreciated!

 

[KHarvey16]

Honestly, don't bother at this point. The fact that his initial reply was a complete non sequitur about political donations and a personal attack just shows that he's not serious at all about having a rational discussion. Just read his subsequent posts from there where he tries to be clever without mentioning a single point he's trying to rehabilitate now.

Wasted time my friend.

Now who isn't reading? I interpreted your post under the assumption you understood what she was very clearly saying. I was wrong. Under that assumption I understood your post to imply that just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you can't contribute monetarily to them, even if they are in a position to influence politics and enact the viewpoint you disagree with. Hence my question to you.

 

[elrechazado]

I'm not going to enter the minefield that is the discussion of this thread, but there's something that I think hasn't really been discussed yet.

What does the quality of a game or other product do to influence whether you are willing to boycott it or not?

The reason I ask this is because when I first read this thread, I was indifferent to Shadow Complex and assumed it was just another above-average XBLA game that got relatively high reviews.

Recently, I played the demo, and was extremely impressed. I definitely wouldn't boycott it after finding out how good it is, whereas before, when I wasn't planning on buying it in the first place, committing to a boycott would be easy.

Also, on a somewhat related issue, what does Chair Entertainment have to do with Advent Rising, if anything? I've seen people in this thread mention a correlation, I thought Chair was a relatively new developer and hadn't made anything other than Undertow and Shadow Complex. A clarification would be greatly appreciated!

I would imagine that the more successful the product, the better it is for the boycotters to get their message out.

For the same reason that protesting Michael Vick is more effective for animal rights advocates than picketing against billy joe bob the tootheless dog fighting enthusiast from podunk west virginia.

 

[AkIRA_22]

without condoning or condemning... no.

 

[theprojectdan]

"Ask for clarification" is certainly a kind way of putting it. My response to him was made assuming he understood what I considered to be a pretty obvious point. I interpreted his post with that knowledge.

And that's where the problem is, though the assumption was valid. Still, you know his viewpoint and can be done with the past couple pages.

Honestly, don't bother at this point. The fact that his initial reply was a complete non sequitur about political donations and a personal attack just shows that he's not serious at all about having a rational discussion. Just read his subsequent posts from there where he tries to be clever without mentioning a single point he's trying to rehabilitate now.

Wasted time my friend.

Wasted, maybe. And clearly I'm willing to waste it. So long as you two are literally on the same page and one firestorm can be laid to rest.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I'm not going to enter the minefield that is the discussion of this thread, but there's something that I think hasn't really been discussed yet.

What does the quality of a game or other product do to influence whether you are willing to boycott it or not?

Relative to how strongly I feel about something, I guess?

I mean, if a company is building a smog-producing manufacturing plant across the street from my house, no product they release can be good enough to justify my decision not to buy their product.

If it's something like, "Man, Sugiyama is kind of a crazy person for denying the Rape of Nanking", it isn't that much of a concern for me because it's not something that's currently going on and I like Dragon Quest games and Dragon Quest music.

 

[Asmodai]

I would imagine that the more successful the product, the better it is for the boycotters to get their message out.

For the same reason that protesting Michael Vick is more effective for animal rights advocates than picketing against billy joe bob the tootheless dog fighting enthusiast podunk west virginia.

Definitely agreed. Shadow Complex is one of the higher profile XBLA games this year, if it was some unknown mediocre title, I don't think a boycott thread about it would be noticed nearly as much.

That said, the fact that the game is high quality and popular has to work against the effectiveness of a boycott, because people who want it will be tempted to get it regardless of the boycott. Kind of a double edged sword, it seems.

Relative to how strongly I feel about something, I guess?

I mean, if a company is building a smog-producing manufacturing plant across the street from my house, no product they release can be good enough to justify my decision not to buy their product.

If it's something like, "Man, Sugiyama is kind of a crazy person for denying the Rape of Nanking", it isn't that much of a concern for me because it's not something that's currently going on and I like Dragon Quest games and Dragon Quest music.

This is a big factor as well.

Personally, the reasons to boycott this game aren't strong enough for me. I don't agree with OSC in the slightest and think his politics are despicable at best and dangerous at worst, but the fact that he wrote the story for the game isn't enough to condemn it to me. Dozens of developers worked on this game, and did a hell of a job making it fun, in my opinion. The fact that one of them has political opinions that I find disturbing isn't enough of a reason for me to boycott it.

I can perfectly understand it being a valid reason for others to boycott it, its just a personal difference in how strongly we feel about it.

On the other hand, would I buy a novel written by OSC, where it is basically all his work? Definitely not.

 

[pvpness]

If you believe in personal responsibility I don't know how that argument can be made. If I give you information that causes you to reconsider your purchase how is that wrong? I can see a case if some people were lining up at best buy and intimidating people or blocking doors but that isn't applicable here.

Are you asking me if I believe that every American citizen goes into every issue having researched the subject extensively and thus drawing their own conclusions? Cause if that's your question, no. I personally don't think people research much at all. As far as you giving me information... do you mean telling me your take on a specific subject or simply pointing me in the direction of the available information? Because I'm fine with the latter.

So if this were a retail release that was sold in best buy would you have a different view? Because then it would actually be possible for an angry mob to be blocking the doors and intimidating people. Because that isn't a possibility for this specific product other methods would have to be used to "block" and "intimidate", but those methods are still out there and readily available for people to use with the exact same motivations that would be present in an angry group in front of Best Buy it just makes it technically more difficult for the mob in this scenario.

 

[IrishNinja]

I don't see it as a meaningful difference. Organizing simply means sharing information. To organize this boycott, for instance, I would outline why I felt OSC shouldn't be getting any money from this endeavor if you feel a certain way. People can read that and agree or they can disagree. How is that different then what is happening here?

in your individual scenario, you were making decisions based entirely on your own criteria, something we do as consumers constantly, and i think we'd agree is a fine thing.

however, if you cant see a distinction between this daily activity and the very steps you outlined towards a boycott...i mean, i cant make you see it as meaningful, but there's clearly differences.

Why is it intellectually dishonest? It's a decision made by the developer that has caused me to not want to buy the game. It's exactly the same. What if it was a political story, and the protagonist was tasked with killing civilians in a market with a suicide bomb? Can I use that as a reason to not purchase it, even though it's politically motivated?

again, i do not intend to tell you what your value judgments should be, so per your last line: you most certainly can. but you left me confused here: are you then arguing my point? in your example, yes, that's a great reason and obviously a political one. are you still honestly prepared to say that's the exact same thing as, say, not supporting another Wind Waker for not digging cel shading?
my mistake here might be context: for you as an individual, id find it odd but again your criteria is your own. if you were arguing this socially, however, then id disagree: the very fact this thread is 40+ pages alone should illustrate the differences.

 

[elrechazado]

Definitely agreed. Shadow Complex is one of the higher profile XBLA games this year, if it was some unknown mediocre title, I don't think a boycott thread about it would be noticed nearly as much.

That said, the fact that the game is high quality and popular has to work against the effectiveness of a boycott, because people who want it will be tempted to get it regardless of the boycott. Kind of a double edged sword, it seems.

I guess that depends on what's more important to someone, their self guiding principles, or their gaming enthusiasm.

I have a third consideration that overrides both: being cheap.

 

[Aselith]

 

[Asmodai]

I guess that depends on what's more important to someone, their self guiding principles, or their gaming enthusiasm.

I have a third consideration that overrides both: being cheap.

Yeah, being cheap, I rarely buy XBLA titles at all. I've only purchased Braid and Battlefield 1943 so far, and Undertow I got for free last year. Shadow Complex will be only the third XBLA game I've purchased.

I like to think that my principles are more important than my gaming hobby (I would feel quite a shallow bastard if it was the other way around :lol ), but my principles don't forbid me from buying this specific game in this particular situation.

 

[KHarvey16]

Are you asking me if I believe that every American citizen goes into every issue having researched the subject extensively and thus drawing their own conclusions? Cause if that's your question, no. I personally don't think people research much at all.

Can't disagree with you there.

As far as you giving me information... do you mean telling me your take on a specific subject or simply pointing me in the direction of the available information? Because I'm fine with the latter.

Why not both? This thread is an example of that.

So if this were a retail release that was sold in best buy would you have a different view? Because then it would actually be possible for an angry mob to be blocking the doors and intimidating people. Because that isn't a possibility for this specific product other methods would have to be used to "block" and "intimidate", but those methods are still out there and readily available for people to use with the exact same motivations that would be present in an angry group in front of Best Buy it just makes it technically more difficult for the mob in this scenario.

I would have a different view if those looking to boycott wanted to actively harass or deny people the ability to purchase the game freely, absolutely. That kind of behavior can't be defended, but fortunately it's not implicit when speaking of a boycott and furthermore doesn't apply in this specific case.

To me a boycott is a large organized group deciding not to support something because of a disagreement over an issue. Again I don't think that blocking tactics and harassment are implied or demanded when defining a boycott.

 

[IrishNinja]

I'm not going to enter the minefield that is the discussion of this thread, but there's something that I think hasn't really been discussed yet.

What does the quality of a game or other product do to influence whether you are willing to boycott it or not?

The reason I ask this is because when I first read this thread, I was indifferent to Shadow Complex and assumed it was just another above-average XBLA game that got relatively high reviews.

Recently, I played the demo, and was extremely impressed. I definitely wouldn't boycott it after finding out how good it is, whereas before, when I wasn't planning on buying it in the first place, committing to a boycott would be easy.

haha, good question. i personally think we dont like talking about it but quality is damn near 100% for most people's consideration of a boycott. we needn't look any further than whatever activision hate thread comes up this week: "I hope Tony Hawk/DJ Hero/(game X i had no intention of buying) bombs hard!" while sadly admitting theyll still be buying Modern Warfare 2 and alt tabbing back to WoW.

(i dont mean to speak for everyone -ever - and i know some of you here are sincere about this and that's cool. but i think its a fair point for many).

if this was uh, Yaris or something similar, i dont think itd be unfair to say this thread (for whatever that's worth) would have a lot more support. OT, but this kinda shit always makes me think of my old man's quote "the number of people at your funeral will most likely be determined less by the quality of your character and moreso by the weather that day."

 

[elrechazado]

Yeah, being cheap, I rarely buy XBLA titles at all. I've only purchased Braid and Battlefield 1943 so far, and Undertow I got for free last year. Shadow Complex will be only the third XBLA game I've purchased.

I like to think that my principles are more important than my gaming hobby (I would feel quite a shallow bastard if it was the other way around :lol ), but my principles don't forbid me from buying this specific game in this particular situation.

Nice try at rationalizing your hatred, homophobe!


god, what am I doing awake at this hour.

 

[Asmodai]

haha, good question. i personally think we dont like talking about it but quality is damn near 100% for most people's consideration of a boycott. we needn't look any further than whatever activision hate thread comes up this week: "I hope Tony Hawk/DJ Hero/(game X i had no intention of buying) bombs hard!" while sadly admitting theyll still be buying Modern Warfare 2 and alt tabbing back to WoW.

(i dont mean to speak for everyone -ever - and i know some of you here are sincere about this and that's cool. but i think its a fair point for many).

if this was uh, Yaris or something similar, i dont think itd be unfair to say this thread (for whatever that's worth) would have a lot more support. OT, but this kinda shit always makes me think of my old man's quote "the number of people at your funeral will most likely be determined less by the quality of your character and moreso by the weather that day."

Perfect example with Activision Blizzard. Personally, I am going to buy MW2 despite being fully aware that the company is basically as greedy as it gets, to the possible detriment of the industry.

To stop me from buying MW2, Activision would have to promise to use the MW2 revenue to nuke endangered species from space or something. If they're not doing that, I'm buying MW2.

I never complain about Activision for this reason because I'd be a hypocrite if I pretended to boycott their games. (As the "boycotts" would all be for games like guitar hero that I would have never bought in the first place anyway)

And very true saying about the funeral attendance.

 

[KHarvey16]

in your individual scenario, you were making decisions based entirely on your own criteria, something we do as consumers constantly, and i think we'd agree is a fine thing.

however, if you cant see a distinction between this daily activity and the very steps you outlined towards a boycott...i mean, i cant make you see it as meaningful, but there's clearly differences.

The only difference is they were presented with information by me rather than finding it on their own. I don't consider the source of the information relevant, but rather the truthfulness of it. If I present someone with some facts or they find them on wikipedia, they are free to make their own personal decision based on their own personal criteria.

again, i do not intend to tell you what your value judgments should be, so per your last line: you most certainly can. but you left me confused here: are you then arguing my point? in your example, yes, that's a great reason and obviously a political one. are you still honestly prepared to say that's the exact same thing as, say, not supporting another Wind Waker for not digging cel shading?
my mistake here might be context: for you as an individual, id find it odd but again your criteria is your own. if you were arguing this socially, however, then id disagree: the very fact this thread is 40+ pages alone should illustrate the differences.

You seemed to draw a special distinction between developer decisions that were politically motivated and those that were not. I see no use for such a distinction as a consumer.

The point of the comparison is to show that those reasons are all valid. Not buying a game because a developer decided to have a suicide bomber killing civilians, or because they decided on the use of cell shading, or because they decided to hire OSC to contribute and, more importantly, benefit from sales of the game are all perfectly valid.

I would never argue that a person absolutely must agree with my assessment as to the worthiness of OSC in receiving compensation from sales of the game. That is a decision for every individual to make. My problem here is the propensity for some to dismiss, out of hand, the reasons for not wanting to support the game as foolish and simply ignoring the existence of any true debate.

 

[mavs]

I'm not sure I believe I'm doing this.

If OSC simply spouted his silly views wherever he wished and was not involved financially or politicly, then I would not care. That's his prerogative.

Do you take the same stand against all organizations that band together to accomplish political goals? Back when Thurgood Marshall was GC of the NAACP during the civil rights era, would you have said "If Marshal simply spouted his silly views wherever he wished and was not involved financially or politically, then I would not care." ?

What you're really saying is "people who I disagree with are allowed to have their views but they really should never talk to others about them, join up with others who share them, or ever be involved in the political process."

Some of us welcome open debate, and recognize that the great political traditions of free speech and the free exchange of ideas in society means the same for all.

He has the right of free speech, free assembly and everything else. He is even free to do what he is doing.

I have the right to not purchase goods or services by him for the same reason.

That's nice, and I certainly agree with this post now. But it's not what you said previously, and I was talking about your own internal logic, not positing that you were a government actor who could actually prohibit the speech.


Dragona's inconsistency (or moreso, idea wasn't clarified) was stating that people are allowed to have ideas so long as they don't promote them or actively donate to them. Other guy pointed out this means Dragona believes people can have views but can't espouse them publicly.

Dragona clarifies, they can, but the moment they do she exercises her equal right to not monetarily support it.

Other guy agrees.

How is a boycott not protected by free speech anyway?

 

[elrechazado]

Perfect example with Activision Blizzard. Personally, I am going to buy MW2 despite being fully aware that the company is basically as greedy as it gets, to the possible detriment of the industry.

To stop me from buying MW2, Activision would have to promise to use the MW2 revenue to nuke endangered species from space or something. If they're not doing that, I'm buying MW2.

I never complain about Activision for this reason because I'd be a hypocrite if I pretended to boycott their games. (As the "boycotts" would all be for games like guitar hero that I would have never bought in the first place anyway)

And very true saying about the funeral attendance.

Didn't you know activision diverts 10% of their plastic instruments to be used in the clubbing of baby seals?

Seriously though, I could see some people coming in with sincerely held beliefs that other game companies are acting politically in some way that they find just as morally repugnant as the folks in this thread. It's all about line drawing in your entertainment budget (and not just that...think of the evils committed by large multinationals over the last 100 years, many of which still exist in some form). It's all about personal line drawing.

 

[Jonnyboy117]

Card isn't setting Mormon policy; he's just aping it. His personal feelings about penis-to-ass relations have fuck all to do with Shadow Complex. Boycott your fake outrage.

 

[elrechazado]

How is a boycott not protected by free speech anyway?

Who said it wasn't? Of course it is. Free speech isn't the only fundamental freedom in play here either.

 

[KHarvey16]

Card isn't setting Mormon policy; he's just aping it. His personal feelings about penis-to-ass relations have fuck all to do with Shadow Complex. Boycott your fake outrage.

Posts like this, IrishNinja, are the ones I am referring to .

And that one right down there too.

 

[LuigiLogik]

So do the people boycotting this game in defiance of Orson's Scot Card's views think that the Hundreds of Millions of people who bought a Michael Jackson album anytime after 1993 or an Elvis Presley album ever, support child molestation?
He's an ignorant homophobe not a criminal, and he played a very small role in making the game, plus the game doesn't seem to promote this anti-homosexual agenda, so even if you're successful you'll just stop more awesome sidescrolling action games being made.. which would make you lot a bunch of dicks.
If you want to show support for Gay marriage then write to your state representatives and tell them your views. Hell, write Orson Scott Card and try and teach em that Homo's aren't his enemy, narrative pacing and plot continuity are.

 

[mavs]

Who said it wasn't? Of course it is. Free speech isn't the only fundamental freedom in play here either.

Peter David, but I was actually just confused by the quote structure of the post I was reading.

 

[pvpness]

Can't disagree with you there.



Why not both? This thread is an example of that.



I would have a different view if those looking to boycott wanted to actively harass or deny people the ability to purchase the game freely, absolutely. That kind of behavior can't be defended, but fortunately it's not implicit when speaking of a boycott and furthermore doesn't apply in this specific case.

To me a boycott is a large organized group deciding not to support something because of a disagreement over an issue. Again I don't think that blocking tactics and harassment are implied or demanded when defining a boycott.

Why not both because second hand information can be miscommunicated or colored with personal bias. I'm always fine with two seperate people arriving at the same conclusion independently. I'm also fine with people pointing other people in the direction of available information (I do this all the time) but I myself don't even partake in, "Hey man, listen to this..." because there are too many factors that could be messing up the entire thing. Maybe a friend describes a scenario to you in a tone that makes you adamantly opposed to it but then later you read/discover more information about it and wonder what the hell your friend was thinking. That kind of thing.

My problem with a "boycott" is the organization of something which I think can be done entirely by individuals. If you and twenty other people don't want to buy the game, that's cool. If you and twenty other people wanna spread awareness on why you don't personally want to buy the game that's also cool. If you and twenty other people want to set up an anti-shadow complex headquarters and actively recruit people to the cause and organize events based around this cause... then it's rapidly heading down a path where a planned event at best buy goes horribly wrong and people get tear gassed and nobody understands what the hell is going on or why it went this far. Organization is a dangerous thing for human beings because most people want so badly to feel like they belong to something, anything, that they'll often sign up and march into war without so much as even understanding the basic original argument.

Probably a little to mean extensions there... but I'm really just trying to illustrate a point as clearly as I can. I don't trust the mob. Any mob. Seen it go wrong way to often.

(of course, this isn't to say that I'm not in favor of people doing exactly what I'm descibing above in order to fight for gay rights. Being that gay rights are a huge issue amongst many Americans and I feel like that is actually something worth fighting for. Planned events and what not are absolutely necessary for something on a level such as the issue of gay marriage, but that wouldn't be boycotting so the two things are entirely independent as I see them)

Edit: Gotta sleep but I'd be happy to discuss this further in pm's if there are still any questions for me of confusion.

 

[Asmodai]

Didn't you know activision diverts 10% of their plastic instruments to be used in the clubbing of baby seals?

Seriously though, I could see some people coming in with sincerely held beliefs that other game companies are acting politically in some way that they find just as morally repugnant as the folks in this thread. It's all about line drawing in your entertainment budget (and not just that...think of the evils committed by large multinationals over the last 100 years, many of which still exist in some form). It's all about personal line drawing.

Exactly. We all have a different threshold of tolerance, where we decide to draw the line for things like boycotts.

Anyone who is not naive knows that our Western standard of living supports a great deal of unethical practices in third world nations and the like. There's only so much we can do to avoid it. To me, singling out Chair entertainment for working together with OSC is a bit extreme. But to someone else, it could be a legitimate reason.

 

[elrechazado]

Peter David, but I was actually just confused by the quote structure of the post I was reading.

Well, I don't believe he did. IIR the posted quotes, he was making a case for why a boycott was unwise, even unethical. He certainly never said that the government should prevent people from boycotting a product, which is the only way the first amendment would be in play.

 

[IrishNinja]

The only difference is they were presented with information by me rather than finding it on their own. I don't consider the source of the information relevant, but rather the truthfulness of it. If I present someone with some facts or they find them on wikipedia, they are free to make their own personal decision based on their own personal criteria.

i agree with you here...but the bolded bits, that's you acting as an educated consumer.
vs the underlined ones, which are an active effort to discourage sales of said title...if you were simply playing consumer advocate, youd do so for all kinds of products, for reasons you dont even mind, like more objective efforts such as consumer reports aims to do. despite your outward intention, the latter is a clear appeal towards political camaraderie (in this example) to punish the dev's decisions. here, again, we're not even talking about the game's content so much as the political associations - its an argument by degrees.
mind you, im not judging this one bit, saying its inherently right or wrong of you to do - just trying to illustrate that the extra steps being taken to "present someone with some facts", especially on a larger scale such as a boycott, is quite different than acting on information you found by yourself.

You seemed to draw a special distinction between developer decisions that were politically motivated and those that were not. I see no use for such a distinction as a consumer.

again, i cant make my priorities yours, but given this thread's length, i feel safe saying there's a very clear & present distinction for many.

The point of the comparison is to show that those reasons are all valid. Not buying a game because a developer decided to have a suicide bomber killing civilians, or because they decided on the use of cell shading, or because they decided to hire OSC to contribute and, more importantly, benefit from sales of the game are all perfectly valid.

agreed, all very valid. but also very, very different scenarios that would warrant very, very different responses. im only calling intellectual dishonesty here if you're arguing semantics to the point of trying to make toon link = same line of deicsion as a studio actively supporting terrorism...if that's the case, i will cease my argument and quietly fear your feelings on the Ocarina of Time review controversy.

I would never argue that a person absolutely must agree with my assessment as to the worthiness of OSC in receiving compensation from sales of the game. That is a decision for every individual to make. My problem here is the propensity for some to dismiss, out of hand, the reasons for not wanting to support the game as foolish and simply ignoring the existence of any true debate.

all of this is respectable, though i hope youd not somehow taken my intent here as wanting any of the things in your last line there.

Asmodai: yeah, im with you here, clearly. i can say kotick's a dick all i want, but i intend to buy any of his company's offerings, my words are quite hollow, so i tend to withhold them.
some would argue that your criteria of endangered-species-nuking is a rather low bar, but i sir, rather see a man with a clear definition of right & wrong.

So do the people boycotting this game in defiance of Orson's Scot Card's views think that the Hundreds of Millions of people who bought a Michael Jackson album anytime after 1993 or an Elvis Presley album ever, support child molestation?

dude! acquitted by a jury of his peers, take that shit up with the system!
and wait, elvis? you lost me.

 

[KHarvey16]

If you and twenty other people want to set up an anti-shadow complex headquarters and actively recruit people to the cause and organize events based around this cause... then it's rapidly heading down a path where a planned event at best buy goes horribly wrong and people get tear gassed and nobody understands what the hell is going on or why it went this far. Organization is a dangerous thing for human beings because most people want so badly to feel like they belong to something, anything, that they'll often sign up and march into war without so much as even understanding the basic original argument.

The problem is what you're describing isn't just a boycott. Again, a boycott is simply a number of people who have decided to act together in refusing to support something by not purchasing things from them. All this extra stuff about headquarters and events is not a requirement for a boycott.

 

[mavs]

Well, I don't believe he did. IIR the posted quotes, he was making a case for why a boycott was unwise, even unethical. He certainly never said that the government should prevent people from boycotting a product, which is the only way the first amendment would be in play.

The disconnect comes from those people who believe that boycotts are likewise a form of free expression. They're not. Boycotts are the opposite: They are designed to be punitive. To hurt someone financially. The message it sends is, "I dislike what you have to say and therefore am going to strike back at you in order to punish you for saying it." It has nothing to do with attacking the things the person says; it's about attacking the person.

So, I think he's wrong. Actually, it's obvious that he's wrong, but I also don't think it's hateful expression as he seems to imply.

 

[KevinCow]

Fucking hell, this is going to overtake the actual Shadow Complex thread, isn't it?

 

[senahorse]

^^Exactly what I was thinking, pretty sad really.

 

[elrechazado]

So, I think he's wrong. Actually, it's obvious that he's wrong, but I also don't think it's hateful expression as he seems to imply.

I tend not to agree with him, but free expression does not mean "protected free speech" (the term you originally used when we got into this discussion - which is a term of art that implies that it is protected from government suppression). He's talking about esoteric principles of free expression and debate, not about government action.

 

[Wolves Evolve]

Christian Nutt's article in Gamasutra about this thread was amazingly well written, simply great. I agree with him that it is shocking to read so many presumably adult people supporting (in the early part of this thread) the fallacy that "its just a game." Fun is not my priority. Humans are my priority, and with humans I want to have fun. Still I'm enjoying the thread, its becoming quite nuanced now and restored a bit of faith.

 

[Ulairi]

Card is on the board of directors at NOM, that's a big step up from just being a run of the mill bigot voicing his opinion.

I wonder if Chair will hire a KKK member to work on a back story for their next game.

The NOM is not the same as the KKK. By stating that you are lessening what the KKK has done and wishes it could continue to do. That is the problem with everyone who used to say that GWB is like Hitler (or people who say Obama is like Hitler). Be against the NOM and its mission but to equate them to the KKK just makes you look like a fool.

 

[Ulairi]

Christian Nutt's article in Gamasutra about this thread was amazingly well written, simply great. I agree with him that it is shocking to read so many presumably adult people supporting (in the early part of this thread) the fallacy that "its just a game." Fun is not my priority. Humans are my priority, and with humans I want to have fun. Still I'm enjoying the thread, its becoming quite nuanced now and restored a bit of faith.

I think Mr. Nutt posted the article far too quickly and would have been better off on waiting and getting more responses from the primaries. I feel he was responding to the emotion of the issue. I think he should write a follow up and even try to contact OSCｔｏ　ｇｅｔ feedback from him.

 

[KHarvey16]

i agree with you here...but the bolded bits, that's you acting as an educated consumer.
vs the underlined ones, which are an active effort to discourage sales of said title...if you were simply playing consumer advocate, youd do so for all kinds of products, for reasons you dont even mind, like more objective efforts such as consumer reports aims to do. despite your outward intention, the latter is a clear appeal towards political camaraderie (in this example) to punish the dev's decisions. here, again, we're not even talking about the game's content so much as the political associations - its an argument by degrees.
mind you, im not judging this one bit, saying its inherently right or wrong of you to do - just trying to illustrate that the extra steps being taken to "present someone with some facts", especially on a larger scale such as a boycott, is quite different than acting on information you found by yourself.

Please do not call it punishment. It's not. Punishment implies the removal of something expected or deserved.

And again it's not strictly political associations but the nature of that relationship with political associations. It's one in which the success of the game supports and furthers an agenda I and many others find reprehensible.

Once again these extra steps don't seem meaningful to me. The only important thing is that a consumer is making a decision based on the information they have. If I hand out a flier or make a website or edit a wikipedia entry, there is no meaningful difference here.

again, i cant make my priorities yours, but given this thread's length, i feel safe saying there's a very clear & present distinction for many.

My argument is not that people don't think there should be a distinction but rather that the distinction is not valid. How many people maintain there is has no bearing on that point.

agreed, all very valid. but also very, very different scenarios that would warrant very, very different responses. im only calling intellectual dishonesty here if you're arguing semantics to the point of trying to make toon link = same line of deicsion as a studio actively supporting terrorism...if that's the case, i will cease my argument and quietly fear your feelings on the Ocarina of Time review controversy.

It's not dishonest, intellectually or otherwise, if I maintain a decision to not support a game over OSC's involvement is just as valid as doing the same over cell shading. This is my position.

all of this is respectable, though i hope youd not somehow taken my intent here as wanting any of the things in your last line there.

Nope .