350 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

filaminstrel wrote...

...It might also give her a gigantic power trip knowing that she single-handedly created a class of oppressed people.

I don't think we're in danger of helping her develop a higher opinion of herself than she already has.  Plus, it depends on how broadly the group is defined.  If it's inclusive enough, using it as a perjorative becomes ineffective and even more meaningless than it already is.

Still, just throwing it out there.  It's not on topic anyway so I won't be following up on it within the thread.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 07:50 .

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Dave's correct. Sarah made that phrase up herself. I don't know why she couldn't bring herself to say "I wouldn't have coined the phrase if it didn't happen." False modesty? Embarrassment?

Edit: hey, Sarah -- I'm in the BDF, right?

It's a common propaganda trick.  You demonize the opposition through simplistic and misleading labels, thereby attempting to force them to debate you on their terms.  Such as "You're just a Bioware shill, you would say that."  Which is just a more advanced form of ad hominem then "No U" but it's still basically the same in terms of motivation and effect.  It attempts to fundamentally alter the focus of the argument, and often succeeds in doing so.  Inventing a group - such as "BDF" which doesn't exist and doesn't claim to - takes such labeling a step further by creating a group with a vague definition through which Sarah can link people at will and without consequence in attempts to pidgeonhole and discredit them.

You're close - it's a logical fallacy, yes, and a debate trick, surely...
but it's not a propaganda tool, per se.

What you are talking about is, indeed, a form of ad hominem - but guilt by association doesn't quite define what you are looking at.

It's "poisoning the well" - that is to say attempting to dismiss someone by attributing a negative label (rightfully assigned or no) to them and therefore claiming that anything that person says is false due to said label.

"They are fanboys, of course they'd say that."
"They are trolls, they'll complaing about anything."
--- both which mean "they are part of group X and you can't trust anything from group X."

Tu ququo, which you allude to later, is more of a "I was speeding?  Well, you were jaywalking so what do you have to say about that?"  Or "I may have lied, but you lied too.  Your point is invalid about me lying."

I would point out that there is a difference, however, with calling someone a blanket dismissive term (fanboy, troll) and inventing a term to actually define someone or a group of people based on actual traits they exhibit.
BioWare Defense Force isn't actually deragatory until you get to implied meaning - and, unless I miss my guess, Sarah means the people who argue against and shoot down most criticisms of BioWare or BioWare's games.

Honestly, I think it's a bit childish but it's also not really an ad hominem (seriously, if that's an ad hominem attack than calling someone who rides bicycles readily a "bicycle enthusiast" is an ad hominem) -

If you like, come up with some mildly immature name that's not deragatory towards those who do have problems with the "changes" to DA2.  I'd suggest something like "Overzealously Criticism Crew" (OCC) or "classic cRPG Old Guard" (COG)...

really, it's only an ad hominem if it's meant less to describe and more to dismiss.  Which, yes, BDF could be (and I'm sure has been) used for.

Of all the trolling and personal attacks and the like on the threads, I think BDF bugs some people so much because it's nowhere near enough to actually be ban or warning worthy and yet it's annoying to be called.  And I think that's the point.

So call me an OCC or a COG (or invent your own creative way to label those of us who are all "panicking over nothing" with regards to DA2) and stop harping on a largely harmless acronym.

Modifié par MerinTB, 16 octobre 2010 - 07:56 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

filaminstrel wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...
maybe I can get a dual membership card to include the BDF as well.

Hmmm... acknowledging the label and taking ownership of it is an effective way of diluting its negative effects.

Maybe we should form a group, and define it the way we want - not Sarah.

...It might also give her a gigantic power trip knowing that she single-handedly created a class of oppressed people.

Not really, I don't care either way, though I do get a chuckle at how pissed they get about it. I mean if the same group of 4 or 5 posters jumped into any negative or criticism thread with the aim of discredting the OP or anyone who remotely agrees, what should people expect after awhile? It's not rocket science.

[upsettingshorts]

MerinTB wrote...
Of all the trolling and personal attacks and the like on the threads, I think BDF bugs some people so much because it's nowhere near enough to actually be ban or warning worthy and yet it's annoying to be called.  And I think that's the point.

While I agree with the majority of your post - including the distinction between ad hominem and poisoning the well - the issue I have with a term like "BDF" in the way Sarah uses it is the implication her use of it carries with it:  That those who defend Bioware are doing it out of either ignorance (they don't know the truth) or stupidity (they like dumb features).  

If someone known for even keeled objectivity had coined the term, I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with it.

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
I mean if the same group of 4 or 5 posters jumped into any negative or criticism thread with the aim of discredting the OP or anyone who remotely agrees, what should people expect after awhile? It's not rocket science.

There's a difference between coming in to a thread and saying "OP is wrong" versus "OP is stupid."  And it's not rocket science, it's rhetoric.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 08:00 .

[nightcobra]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

filaminstrel wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...
maybe I can get a dual membership card to include the BDF as well.

Hmmm... acknowledging the label and taking ownership of it is an effective way of diluting its negative effects.

Maybe we should form a group, and define it the way we want - not Sarah.

...It might also give her a gigantic power trip knowing that she single-handedly created a class of oppressed people.

Not really, I don't care either way, though I do get a chuckle at how pissed they get about it. I mean if the same group of 4 or 5 posters jumped into any negative or criticism thread with the aim of discredting the OP or anyone who remotely agrees, what should people expect after awhile? It's not rocket science.

Not really, I don't care either way, though I do get a chuckle at how pissed they get about it. I mean if the same group of 4 or 5 posters jumped into any positive or appreciation thread with the aim of discredting the OP or anyone who remotely agrees, what should people expect after awhile? It's not rocket science. 

this also happens a lot, just look at  "The "Thanks Bioware for the Signature Edition" Thread"

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 16 octobre 2010 - 08:01 .

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Of all the trolling and personal attacks and the like on the threads, I think BDF bugs some people so much because it's nowhere near enough to actually be ban or warning worthy and yet it's annoying to be called.  And I think that's the point.

While I agree with the majority of your post - including the distinction between ad hominem and poisoning the well - the issue I have with a term like "BDF" in the way Sarah uses it is the implication her use of it carries with it:  That those who defend Bioware are doing it out of either ignorance (they don't know the truth) or stupidity (they like dumb features).  

If someone known for even keeled objectivity had coined the term, I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with it.

I can't speak for even most of the times it's been used, but I've always taken it to simply mean a bunch of people who I repeatedly see in all the negative threads posting against the OP -

and those several people know who they are.

If you want to pick out several people who go into any postive "I love BioWare / BioWare Games / etc" just to bash on the OP's opinion and call them the "Anti-BIoWare League" (ABL), it'd be similar.  Slightly sarcastic but apt.

I think that's ALL it's really meant to mean... and just sometimes gets misinterpreted (or Sarah, being overzealous, tosses it ot a bit too readily like "fanboy" or "troll" are.)

[upsettingshorts]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

this also happens a lot, just look at  "The "Thanks Bioware for the Signature Edition" Thread"

No kidding.  The two threads ended up being copies aside from the OP because the negatives jumped in the positive thread and the positives jumped in the negative thread.  I have been guilty of doing this in the past and even in this specific situation.  But it's certainly not a habit limited to "fanboys" or "haters" - it is simply how this forum seems to work.  

MerinTB wrote...
I think that's ALL it's really meant to mean... and just sometimes gets misinterpreted (or Sarah, being overzealous, tosses it ot a bit too readily like "fanboy" or "troll" are.)

You're probably right.  In fact, my annoyance with it is probably misguided.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 08:05 .

[Leonia]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

this also happens a lot, just look at  "The "Thanks Bioware for the Signature Edition" Thread"

No kidding.  The two threads ended up being copies because the negatives jumped in the positive thread and the positives jumped in the negative thread.  I have been guilty of doing this in the past and even in this specific situation.  But it's certainly not a habit limited to "fanboys" or "haters" - it is simply how this forum seems to work.  

I sort of suspected that would be how things would go, though it was refreshing to see a bit more of the positive "thank you" posts cropping up over the course of the evening. Of course, the posters who thought that way were the ones I expected would be reasonable. I sort of have this list of good posters and bad posters and tend to tune out posts made by the bad posters most of the time. I haven't actually added anyone to my ignore list though since it gets confusing once everyone starts quoting one another. Anyway, what can ya do, we have one positive thread and a handful of negative ones.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

MerinTB wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Of all the trolling and personal attacks and the like on the threads, I think BDF bugs some people so much because it's nowhere near enough to actually be ban or warning worthy and yet it's annoying to be called.  And I think that's the point.

While I agree with the majority of your post - including the distinction between ad hominem and poisoning the well - the issue I have with a term like "BDF" in the way Sarah uses it is the implication her use of it carries with it:  That those who defend Bioware are doing it out of either ignorance (they don't know the truth) or stupidity (they like dumb features).  

If someone known for even keeled objectivity had coined the term, I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with it.

I can't speak for even most of the times it's been used, but I've always taken it to simply mean a bunch of people who I repeatedly see in all the negative threads posting against the OP -

and those several people know who they are.

If you want to pick out several people who go into any postive "I love BioWare / BioWare Games / etc" just to bash on the OP's opinion and call them the "Anti-BIoWare League" (ABL), it'd be similar.  Slightly sarcastic but apt.

I think that's ALL it's really meant to mean... and just sometimes gets misinterpreted (or Sarah, being overzealous, tosses it ot a bit too readily like "fanboy" or "troll" are.)

Pretty much Merin, even though you're right I do tend to get overzealous at times.

[Daerog]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Pretty much Merin, even though you're right I do tend to get overzealous at times.

Just makes these forums more entertaining when people do get overzealous at times.

Really, I think the "BDF" thing is funny, because I just picture a group of fanatics with power rings summoning Captain Moderator or Captian Lockdown or whatever. In a very old looking cartoon kind of way. (I do not want the ring of love, I don't care for monkey companions).

Anyway, this thread derailed really fast.

On topic: I'm hoping for Shale or a stand alone adventure thing.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Pretty much Merin, even though you're right I do tend to get overzealous at times.

Just makes these forums more entertaining when people do get overzealous at times.

Really, I think the "BDF" thing is funny, because I just picture a group of fanatics with power rings summoning Captain Moderator or Captian Lockdown or whatever. In a very old looking cartoon kind of way. (I do not want the ring of love, I don't care for monkey companions).

Anyway, this thread derailed really fast.

On topic: I'm hoping for Shale or a stand alone adventure thing.

It's funny that you picture that, because the Wonder Twins from the old Space Ghost cartoon kinda inspired the whole term in the first place. 

[AllThatJazz]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Pretty much Merin, even though you're right I do tend to get overzealous at times.

Just makes these forums more entertaining when people do get overzealous at times.

Really, I think the "BDF" thing is funny, because I just picture a group of fanatics with power rings summoning Captain Moderator or Captian Lockdown or whatever. In a very old looking cartoon kind of way. (I do not want the ring of love, I don't care for monkey companions).

Anyway, this thread derailed really fast.

On topic: I'm hoping for Shale or a stand alone adventure thing.

Agree. The threads where people really go at it are always the ones I like reading, even though I'm generally far too much of a chicken to post! 

On topic, someone like Shale, please. A lot like Shale. Almost identical would be good. Shale, In fact. Thanks.

[Merced256]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

this also happens a lot, just look at  "The "Thanks Bioware for the Signature Edition" Thread"

No kidding.  The two threads ended up being copies aside from the OP because the negatives jumped in the positive thread and the positives jumped in the negative thread.  I have been guilty of doing this in the past and even in this specific situation.  But it's certainly not a habit limited to "fanboys" or "haters" - it is simply how this forum seems to work.  

Well, you did once reference it to forum pvp, which is actually more accurate than any of us wish to think. So in a way they are battlegrounds of sorts because the issues are very polarizing i guess. Or maybe its not the issues, just the way they are most often conveyed. I've been hesitant to post in positive threads for that very reason, and i guess its a reason why i didn't post in the linked thread. Not that there weren't plenty of things said that i disagree with, just that at this point the fight has been fought. Anything else is just rehashes on the History channel.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

JohnEpler wrote...

Except the decision isn't between 'do we release this as DLC' and 'do we put it on disk', but rather 'do we release this as DLC' and 'do we not release it'. We do not have unlimited time and resources.

I think here's the problem. Gamers hear this argument from devs a lot, and yet we see Valve constantly releasing new, free, updates for their games. They just released a huge update for CSS, a game quite a few years old. 

Then we see companies like EA and Activision charge money for the same stuff. You talk like it's a problem on our end, that we're the ones not getting it, but it's not. I'd wager it'd be easy for other companies to emulate Valve's community first approach, but the problem is, while it's profitable, it's not nearly as profitable as economically strangling the consumer. So you have EA shareholders sitting there asking "Why should we do what Valve does when we can make even more money by doing XYZ."

Paid DLC is a fairly new concept, and it's inception coincides with the mainstreaming of the video games, and the development of blockbuster style games with enormous budgets. It's a correlation that is too tight to call a coincidence.

[Sevens]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Is this character more like Shale (a complete character with a full set of conversations), or more like Zaeed (a shell of a character with nothing to say when you talk to him)?

Naturally, I'm hoping for someone like Shale.

Naturally, I'd vote for Zaeed.

[Maconbar]

If BW was really evil, the bonus character could be a hold-over companion from DA:O.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Maconbar wrote...

If BW was really evil, the bonus character could be a hold-over companion from DA:O.

That'd be dick yo.
For the record though, it's not that they're evil people, it's that they're a company. They've, sadly, chosen to take the profitable route over the moral route, and that's a shame. 

[Sir JK]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...
For the record though, it's not that they're evil people, it's that they're a company. They've, sadly, chosen to take the profitable route over the moral route, and that's a shame. 

I would say that not going for profit and thus leading the company to go under would be the less moral route. We consumers can go on without new games from Bioware (theoretically) but I'm quite certain those that work at Bioware would have a significant harder time replacing their jobs.

[Maconbar]

Actually I heard that the Duncan is going to be the bonus companion.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Sir JK wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...
For the record though, it's not that they're evil people, it's that they're a company. They've, sadly, chosen to take the profitable route over the moral route, and that's a shame. 

I would say that not going for profit and thus leading the company to go under would be the less moral route. We consumers can go on without new games from Bioware (theoretically) but I'm quite certain those that work at Bioware would have a significant harder time replacing their jobs.

Common misconception there. You can be a moral company and dedicated to your consumer without going under. Valve, for example, has done an amazing job supporting their consumers with tons of free updates and content, and even a free game (Alien Swarm). 

As I said before, the problem is (I'd wager) Valve's profit percentage isn't as high as Activisions or EA's.

[Sevens]

Sir JK wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...
For the record though, it's not that they're evil people, it's that they're a company. They've, sadly, chosen to take the profitable route over the moral route, and that's a shame. 

I would say that not going for profit and thus leading the company to go under would be the less moral route. We consumers can go on without new games from Bioware (theoretically) but I'm quite certain those that work at Bioware would have a significant harder time replacing their jobs.

Company going under, you say? Phew. Thank god they came up with that Signature Edition/Project 20 (+) Dollar scheme of theirs.

Modifié par Sevens, 16 octobre 2010 - 12:44 .

[Sir JK]

For the record, I was objecting to the implied statement that companies are immoral because they have to think about profits. I don't think Bioware or EA is at risk. Nor do I think the signature edition is in any ways immoral. But enough derailing from me. If you wish to discuss it with me I welcome pms.

[Kail Ashton]

Adanu wrote...

I'm pretty sure that it will be the latter... considering they are making you pay on release for this one, they're just trying to make money.

Shale was excusable because of time constraints. This is not acceptable for me. I will not be buying this game if this is the future of your games Bioware. I pay for the game, not to be screwed over and made to pay more for what should be available from the start.

lol oh no~! corperate conspiracies to make money! no wayz!! enjoy life with the tin foil cap champ

lol you things would complain (and i imagine you do) that the sky is blue and that having to breathe is a scam, i'm astounded to no ends the complete batsh!t insanity i see on these forums

Modifié par Kail Ashton, 16 octobre 2010 - 01:19 .