Having read through a few pages multiple times, I actually think what we've got is a case of miscommunication based in preconceptions and the ignore option form past discussions getting in the way of this one.
...
I think that's really what the whole argument boils down to.
I've been off work with a stinking cold the last few days so I've been posting on this way more than I would normally, so yeah, I've read everything...
I know exactly what the pro argument is but take this little bit of the discussion - I pointed out that there may be issues with attempting this on the Frostbite engine as it's never been done before, that BioWare didn't develop the Frostbite engine and the 2 instances of games that I found with a profanity filter for in-game content were both developed by the company that did build the engine as well as the game. BioWare make games, not engines.
The response was the BioWare have put horses in the Frostbite engine... so they should look at a profanity filter.
Now I know not everyone is particularly technically adept but those two things have nothing to do with each other; the Frostbite engine certainly supports 3D models with inverse kinematics - the tech is already there it's just a matter of being clever about how you use it. The tech required for a profanity filter would probably require splicing audio tracks queuing both up in memory and stitching them back together seamlessly. That's really something for the people who developed the engine to look at, not BioWare.
... and there was no rebuttal to that it was just conveniently ignored and we go back to "BioWare should look at a profanity filter" ...
Bryan Johnson actually asked where you might conduct this survey to see if there's support for the idea (which led to my moment of Mormon/Amish confusion) and stated that BioWare already do focus group testing... they've done the research insofar as any games company does. That was also glossed over.
I've also pointed out, on at least 2 occasions that it's already too late for MEA ... which, again, has been pretty much conveniently ignored.
So if we forget about the instances of name-calling, which really add nothing to the discussion, you've one side pointing out the pitfalls and impracticalities of a profanity filter and the other seemingly ignoring anything they don't want to hear and simply re-iterating the fact that they want a profanity filter.
Help me out here - what more could those of us against the idea on purely technical or economic reasons have done?!
There's been no counter-argument just stonewalling.