The Last Night - Mac, PC, Xbox - 2018

HSH28 wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1spupkj

That's not an apology! If you read what he says here it actually sounds more like a defence of his previous comments. The "there is no sexism in France" thing is strawberry floating hilarious too: my girlfriend is French and has reliably informed me the culture over there is exactly as bad, if not worse, than anywhere else. She grew up being wolf-whistled and descriminated against at work because of her gender. She now runs workshops and gives conference talks on just how bad sexism is in the French workplace. "We have 6 women on our team." Bully for you.

What are you even talking about. I post a reason for giving the guy the benefit of the doubt and you exclaim that its not an apology.

I'm not talking about Idlethumbs posts the guy made 3 years ago either. To me those just show that he was in over his head at the time and didn't really know what he was talking about. I was referencing the Raw Fury statement seemingly from people that work with him.

Ok Hugo. Let's break this down:

- A game dev posts some truly horrible statements online
- His game gets some traction
- I react negatively, to him and the game he's making that was, at least initial, designed to illustrate these opinions.
- You react by giving the guy the benefit of the doubt
- I ask why
- You provide a link to a statement by a company that is publishing said game, with a link to a statement from the dev included within.
- I look at the statement, and I look at the statement from the dev. He does not deny his previous viewpoints (which were, remember, strawberry floating awful). He does not deny the that the game is about a future where "feminism won." He makes no apologies for defending and being a part of a movement which ruined people's lives. He makes points which are, at best delusional and at worst lies.
- I conclude there is nothing in the publisher's statement, nor the devs statement, that warrant giving him the benefit of the doubt.
- I have to explain this to you.

I've bolded the important bit for you.

Again, "over his head" "didn't know what he was talking about." Why are you assuming this? When someone is racist, do you assume they don't know what they're talking about? How about when someone makes online death threats? Would you give them the benefit of the doubt I wonder?

EDIT: Also, it looks like you didn't see my full reply. I was editing on the fly, sorry.

I'll still play it because

a) It looks cool as strawberry float
b) I'm not above listening to views I strongly disagree with

jiggles wrote:I'll still play it because

a) It looks cool as strawberry float
b) I'm not above listening to views I strongly disagree with

Urgh.

I'm sorry that this wasn't a deal breaker for me, but I accept that it is for you

Tafdolphin wrote:EDIT: Also, it looks like you didn't see my full reply. I was editing on the fly, sorry.

Not so sorry that you bothered to change your post.

EDIT - You might not be willing to look at the posts and the publishers statement and think the game deserves to actually be judged on its merits or that the guy might have changed his views at all. But I just am. Until something new happens to change that position I think that's all there is to say on the matter.

HSH28 wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:EDIT: Also, it looks like you didn't see my full reply. I was editing on the fly, sorry.

Not so sorry that you bothered to change your post.

EDIT - You might not be willing to look at the posts and the publishers statement and think the game deserves to actually be judged on its merits or that the guy might have changed his views at all. But I just am. Until something new happens to change that position I think that's all there is to say on the matter.

So, the answer to my question of why you're giving this guy leeway on his terrible comments is "Because." And what else could you possibly need to see? He's literally stated his feelings over, and over and over.

Lessons learned: sexism (and, by association, racism and general xenophobia) is acceptable as long as the guy spouting it offers clarifying statements on just how sexist he was being, and makes a cool looking game.

Cool.

Tafdolphin wrote:

HSH28 wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:EDIT: Also, it looks like you didn't see my full reply. I was editing on the fly, sorry.

Not so sorry that you bothered to change your post.

Um. No? As all my points still stand.

Your break down seemed to be pointed at me making you explain your position, but I posted when you'd only said what I quoted. And what you quoted didn't actually address why I was giving the guy the benefit of the doubt and seemed to be going off at yet another tangent.

I presumed your sorry was because you'd realised that and hence that entire post was pointless.

Tafdolphin wrote:

HSH28 wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:EDIT: Also, it looks like you didn't see my full reply. I was editing on the fly, sorry.

Not so sorry that you bothered to change your post.

EDIT - You might not be willing to look at the posts and the publishers statement and think the game deserves to actually be judged on its merits or that the guy might have changed his views at all. But I just am. Until something new happens to change that position I think that's all there is to say on the matter.

So, the answer to my question of why you're giving this guy leeway on his terrible comments is "Because." And what else could you possibly need to see? :slol:

Lessons learned: sexism (and, by association, racism and general xenophobia) is acceptable as long as the guy offers clarifying statements on just how sexist he was being, and makes a cool looking game.

Cool.

No. Its because the posts (from 3 years ago) appear to me to read like he didn't really know what he was talking about at the time and the publishers statement from people that work with him suggests he isn't that person now if he ever was.

Now you might take the publishers statement with a pinch of salt and the fact he hasn't clearly and publicly recanted his posts and apologised might be all you need to condemn the guy, but I'd prefer to believe otherwise until there's proof that doesn't exist in the form of 3 year old forum posts or tweets.

HSH28 wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

HSH28 wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:EDIT: Also, it looks like you didn't see my full reply. I was editing on the fly, sorry.

Not so sorry that you bothered to change your post.

EDIT - You might not be willing to look at the posts and the publishers statement and think the game deserves to actually be judged on its merits or that the guy might have changed his views at all. But I just am. Until something new happens to change that position I think that's all there is to say on the matter.

So, the answer to my question of why you're giving this guy leeway on his terrible comments is "Because." And what else could you possibly need to see?

Lessons learned: sexism (and, by association, racism and general xenophobia) is acceptable as long as the guy offers clarifying statements on just how sexist he was being, and makes a cool looking game.

Cool.

No. Its because the posts (from 3 years ago) appear to me to read like he didn't really know what he was talking about at the time and the publishers statement from people that work with him suggests he isn't that person now if he ever was.

Now you might take the publishers statement with a pinch of salt and the fact he hasn't clearly and publicly recanted his posts and apologised might be all you need to condemn the guy, but I'd prefer to believe otherwise until there's proof that doesn't exist in the form of 3 year old forum posts or tweets.

Jesus. None of that is even slightly like what I've posted.

I have read the statement from both parties and they do not contain anything that absolves him. No pinch of salt. I don't disbelieve anything. I just don't think it changes anything as 1) the guy does not deny or apologise for his awful comments 2) he actually doubles down on some of them. When you say "oh he's changed" the weight of evidence is on you. None has been provided.

You, again, state that he "didn't know what he was talking about" but have given no reason as to why you would possibly think this apart from "because." This is, to me, borderline acceptance of his sexist views.

Tafdolphin wrote:I don't disbelieve anything. I just don't think it changes anything

Raw Fury wrote:A lot can change in three years, including viewpoints, and Tim has assured us that The Last Night does not spout a message steeped in regressive stances. We trust Tim and know that he is an advocate for progression both in and outside of our industry, and we hope that this will be apparent moving forward.

Tafdolphin wrote:This is a game whose central premise is that progressivism and equality is wrong.

So who's wrong. You can't both believe what you said earlier and that post from the publisher.

HSH28 wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:I don't disbelieve anything. I just don't think it changes anything

Raw Fury wrote:A lot can change in three years, including viewpoints, and Tim has assured us that The Last Night does not spout a message steeped in regressive stances. We trust Tim and know that he is an advocate for progression both in and outside of our industry, and we hope that this will be apparent moving forward.

Tafdolphin wrote:This is a game whose central premise is that progressivism and equality is wrong.

So who's wrong. You can't both believe what you said earlier and that post from the publisher.

Like. I. Said. The weight of evidence is on the person making the statement that something has changed. The statement itself is not proof of the statement.

Statement: "The Inauguration crowd size was the largest in history"
Evidence: [Picture] proves it wasn't

Statement: Tim has told us he's no longer sexist
Evidence: ???

So you don't believe the statement then?

I believe it is, at this point, un-evidenced. I don't believe it's a lie as I have no evidence to believe either way. I believe, for the third time Hugo, that you can't just say something and expect everyone to shrug and go "meh, ok."

I'd argue that taking into account the person who makes the game when deciding whether or not to spend money on it is absolutely justified.

Tafdolphin wrote:I believe it is, at this point, un-evidenced. I don't believe it's a lie as I have no evidence to believe either way. I believe, for the third time Hugo, that you can't just say something and expect everyone to shrug and go "meh, ok."

Can you not believe that someone might say "Ok I'll believe you absent of any proof to the contrary"

I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt. That's me. There is doubt that he believes horrible things right now and this game will incorporate them, yes I doubt that, even though he posted those things.

I can understand how you might not be able to give him the benefit of the doubt, but do you have to give me a hard time because I'm willing to do that.

HSH28 wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:I believe it is, at this point, un-evidenced. I don't believe it's a lie as I have no evidence to believe either way. I believe, for the third time Hugo, that you can't just say something and expect everyone to shrug and go "meh, ok."

Can you not believe that someone might say "Ok I'll believe you absent of any proof to the contrary"

I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt. That's me. There is doubt that he believes horrible things right now and this game will incorporate them, yes I doubt that, even though he posted those things.

I can understand how you might not be able to give him the benefit of the doubt, but do you have to give me a hard time because I'm willing to do that.

When the point of view is sexism and support of gamergate, and after the year we've had which has been defined by people doing exactly what you're doing now, then yes. Yes I do.

HSH28 wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:I believe it is, at this point, un-evidenced. I don't believe it's a lie as I have no evidence to believe either way. I believe, for the third time Hugo, that you can't just say something and expect everyone to shrug and go "meh, ok."

Can you not believe that someone might say "Ok I'll believe you absent of any proof to the contrary"

I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt. That's me. There is doubt that he believes horrible things right now and this game will incorporate them, yes I doubt that, even though he posted those things.

I can understand how you might not be able to give him the benefit of the doubt, but do you have to give me a hard time because I'm willing to do that.

As someone who seems to argue any minor point, you've not exactly got a reputation for giving benefit of the doubt. Seems strange that you'd be so willing in this instance. Almost like you're being contrary to the majority opinion.

Here's a thread that much better breaks down the apparent themes of the game, and the author's anti-socialist bent. Note this isn't about sexism but is still a deeply disturbing worldview. It also shows that, contrary to the publisher and dev's statement, this is not a progressive game.

twitter.com/petercoffin/status/874101412665454592

Tafdolphin wrote:When the point of view is sexism and support of gamergate, and after the year we've had which has been defined by people doing exactly what you're doing now, then yes. Yes I do.

But that's not my point of view and that's not even the point of view I'm giving the benefit of any doubt to. What year are you talking about, the stuff this guy posted was all 3 years or more ago wasn't it?

rinks wrote:As someone who seems to argue any minor point, you've not exactly got a reputation for giving benefit of the doubt. Seems strange that you'd be so willing in this instance. Almost like you're being contrary to the majority opinion.

I'm not sure that is the majority opinion. And giving someone benefit of the doubt, isn't the opposite of arguing minor points with them. Give me an opinion and you are quite right I'll argue on whatever side I come down on against however many believe it, but I'm quite willing to allow for misunderstanding in those arguments. By which I mean normally people don't understand what I mean when I write something so I'm quite ready to accept that the other way round is true too.

Tafdolphin wrote:Here's a thread that much better breaks down the apparent themes of the game, and the author's anti-socialist bent. Note this isn't about sexism but is still a deeply disturbing worldview.

Anti-Socialist? Really. Hmmm. The theme described is actually present in quite a lot of Sci-Fi I've read, it doesn't necessarily factor in quite like that though.

We're on different wavelengths here Hugo and you're either deliberately not understanding my posts to be awkward or you're...well, I honestly don't know. Let's just say I hope it's intentional.*

*

And I'm done. I'm out. At least when it comes to bashing my head against the Hugo Wall.