Just like this isn't criminal law, this isn't science. If anything, you prove that the standard is absurd by comparing it to science.
You are correct this is not law or science. You are incorrect in your implication that because of that fact, this topic deserves such low standards that simply asserting a position is evidence. That's absurd. Show me evidence for one side that you can't show for the other; it hasn't been done yet and thus there is doubt. Your narrative isn't proven in the slightest.
You don't know what evidence is. If you can say, well, maybe this one group did this one thing and maybe this other group also did that same thing for their side and here's why I think that - that's not evidence, it's your opinion. There is very reasonable doubt.
This isn't a court of law for someone accused of committing a crime. If you use some absurd standard of evidence, then you cast doubt onto any assertion. Yet anyone using basic good judgment can see that there has been review bombing by gamergate people.
This isn't an absurd standard of evidence. I'm a scientist, you have not rejected the null hypothesis. If there's evidence for one side of your argument, there's equal evidence for the other side.
As Christopher Hitchens once said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Unless some statistician goes through every comment on Steam etc. and makes some kind of regression for the negative and positive reviews, then all you guys are doing is fighting over face value. Each side is asserting the opposite position as being true, with no statistical model or methodology that I can see other than, "I looked at the reviews and they are like this, and other people say the same thing."
Transgender people are taking over. We can't watch any movie or TV show or play any video game without seeing a gay couple kissing each other. And they don't even make it fifty fifty ; it's not like half the gay couple are gays and the other half lesbians ; noooo, lesbians would be enjoyed too much by the persecuted white straight male community. All gay guys couples french kissing on tv non stop.
Yes, it's a political statement meant to anger some white straight guys perceived as "haters" when they just want real roleplay, real acting without subliminal political messages, then the social justice warriors act all ignorant and surprised why some of them are angered by the cheapened sauce they offer.
Yet anyone using basic good judgment can see that there has been review bombing by gamergate people.
Like the basic good judgment as a developer to not mention anything about bugs in their official statement when there are plenty of well written review listing plenty of bugs?
I never commented on that, and really have no opinion on the matter.
So you can tell with your basic good judgment that people are apparently review bombing - but can't use said judgment to tell that a developer not commenting on plenty of reported bugs is behaving rather pathetic?
This is a bunch of nonsense obfuscation. A bunch of 0/10s appeared on the metacritic sight, all at around the same time, all about the social justice issue. That is evidence enough, and you'd have to purposefully blind yourself to it in order not to see it.
Yet anyone using basic good judgment can see that there has been review bombing by gamergate people.
Like the basic good judgment as a developer to not mention anything about bugs in their official statement when there are plenty of well written review listing plenty of bugs?
I never commented on that, and really have no opinion on the matter.
So you can tell with your basic good judgment that people are apparently review bombing - but can't use said judgment to tell that a developer not commenting on plenty of reported bugs is behaving rather pathetic?
All I said was that I have no opinion on that issue. You brought something completely unrelated up, and I saw no need to address it since I was talking about the review bombing, not bugs.
Transgender people are taking over. We can't watch any movie or TV show or play any video game without seeing a gay couple kissing each other. And they don't even make it fifty fifty ; it's not like half the gay couple are gays and the other half lesbians ; noooo, lesbians would be enjoyed too much by the persecuted white straight male community. All gay guys couples french kissing on tv non stop.
Yes, it's a political statement meant to anger some white straight guys perceived as "haters" when they just want real roleplay, real acting without subliminal political messages, then the social justice warriors act all ignorant and surprised why some of them are angered by the cheapened sauce they offer.
I know what you mean friend. I recall a few thousand years ago when the Beaker People came over to England from the Iberian Peninsula. They were always shoving their new-fangled drinking vessels into our faces and trying to get us to use them if it was the only way. What's wrong with just scooping up water with your hands and licking it up like a cat?
Transgender people are taking over. We can't watch any movie or TV show or play any video game without seeing a gay couple kissing each other. And they don't even make it fifty fifty ; it's not like half the gay couple are gays and the other half lesbians ; noooo, lesbians would be enjoyed too much by the persecuted white straight male community. All gay guys couples french kissing on tv non stop.
Yes, it's a political statement meant to anger some white straight guys perceived as "haters" when they just want real roleplay, real acting without subliminal political messages, then the social justice warriors act all ignorant and surprised why some of them are angered by the cheapened sauce they offer.
I know what you mean friend. I recall a few thousand years ago when the Beaker People came over to England from the Iberian Peninsula. They were always shoving their new-fangled drinking vessels into our faces and trying to get us to use them if it was the only way. What's wrong with just scooping up water with your hands and licking it up like a cat?
You have a very good memory Diogenes42. Me I can't remember what happened last week. Or more importantly where I put my drinking vessel...
@Mirandel Still rhetoric. Regardless of my beliefs, I'll continue to play the Devil's advocate because people continue to spout a narrative as if it's fact. If what you assert is true, there is evidence to be found, and finding it will undoubtedly strengthen your claims.
You know what is rather funny dear @Abdel_Adrian and @Camus34 ? The notion that you both seem to have that you are making some sort of honest point asking for some sort of formal evidence needed to know that it is GG or related people doing the review bombing...
You almost convincingly seem to think that in a world of anonymous internet users and large hubs where they come together, we don't know how the internet works? Of course there is no evidence available to us, you know perfectly well that it is impossible for us to link for example IP addresses of downvoters and anonymous reviews to known GG accounts or something like that. And it is not as if people need to actually visibly organize, simply post on a popular GG hub like KiA that SoD makes fun of GG and has a 'SJW' agenda because of the all the 'identity politics' and the outrage will do the rest, which is exactly what happened.
The question is not if there is evidence, the question is more who do you think to fool insisting that without hard evidence we would not really know?
@Mirandel Still rhetoric. Regardless of my beliefs, I'll continue to play the Devil's advocate because people continue to spout a narrative as if it's fact. If what you assert is true, there is evidence to be found, and finding it will undoubtedly strengthen your claims.
You know what is rather funny dear @Abdel_Adrian and @Camus34 ? The notion that you both seem to have that you are making some sort of honest point asking for some sort of formal evidence needed to know that it is GG or related people doing the review bombing...
You almost convincingly seem to think that in a world of anonymous internet users and large hubs where they come together, we don't know how the internet works? Of course there is no evidence available to us, you know perfectly well that it is impossible for us to link for example IP addresses to known GG accounts or something like that. And it is not as if people need to actually visibly organize, simply post on a popular GG hub like KiA that SoD makes fun of GG and has a 'SJW' agenda because of the all the 'identity politics' and the outrage will do the rest, which is exactly what happened.
The question is not if there is evidence, the question is more who do you think to fool insisting that without hard evidence we would not really know?
Read my comment again moron, I critiqued both Adrian and booinyour eyes, I told them that they were not providing evidence, but arguing what they perceive to be true at face value. Face value (i.e. 'take my word for it'), being the worst type of validity in social science. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that one could not try to run some kind of a regression, one has to try and figure what sort of sample one has, what variables one is looking at, and then come up with a methodology.
@Mirandel Still rhetoric. Regardless of my beliefs, I'll continue to play the Devil's advocate because people continue to spout a narrative as if it's fact. If what you assert is true, there is evidence to be found, and finding it will undoubtedly strengthen your claims.
You know what is rather funny dear @Abdel_Adrian and @Camus34 ? The notion that you both seem to have that you are making some sort of honest point asking for some sort of formal evidence needed to know that it is GG or related people doing the review bombing...
You almost convincingly seem to think that in a world of anonymous internet users and large hubs where they come together, we don't know how the internet works? Of course there is no evidence available to us, you know perfectly well that it is impossible for us to link for example IP addresses of downvoters and anonymous reviews to known GG accounts or something like that. And it is not as if people need to actually visibly organize, simply post on a popular GG hub like KiA that SoD makes fun of GG and has a 'SJW' agenda because of the all the 'identity politics' and the outrage will do the rest, which is exactly what happened.
The question is not if there is evidence, the question is more who do you think to fool insisting that without hard evidence we would not really know?
Oh, well, you're asserting that narrative really hard. Your rhetoric has finally convinced me, absolutely no evidence is needed for these claims! Goobergabbers are the devil and OBVIOUSLY behind this! It's undeniable!
Is this what you want to hear? All you've done time and time again is state your opinion as fact. The fact that you can convince people who already share your opinion means nothing. You've provided no substantial arguments to either side of the discussion. Did GG have role? Maybe. It's definitely possible, if not probable even. Did anti-GG have a role? Maybe. It's definitely possible, if not probable even. Same exact verdict for both sides of the argument? Well, condemn the one you don't like! Smart.
@Mirandel Still rhetoric. Regardless of my beliefs, I'll continue to play the Devil's advocate because people continue to spout a narrative as if it's fact. If what you assert is true, there is evidence to be found, and finding it will undoubtedly strengthen your claims.
You know what is rather funny dear @Abdel_Adrian and @Camus34 ? The notion that you both seem to have that you are making some sort of honest point asking for some sort of formal evidence needed to know that it is GG or related people doing the review bombing...
You almost convincingly seem to think that in a world of anonymous internet users and large hubs where they come together, we don't know how the internet works? Of course there is no evidence available to us, you know perfectly well that it is impossible for us to link for example IP addresses of downvoters and anonymous reviews to known GG accounts or something like that. And it is not as if people need to actually visibly organize, simply post on a popular GG hub like KiA that SoD makes fun of GG and has a 'SJW' agenda because of the all the 'identity politics' and the outrage will do the rest, which is exactly what happened.
The question is not if there is evidence, the question is more who do you think to fool insisting that without hard evidence we would not really know?
Oh, well, you're asserting that narrative really hard. Your rhetoric has finally convinced me, absolutely no evidence is needed for these claims! Goobergabbers are the devil and OBVIOUSLY behind this! It's undeniable!
Is this what you want to hear?
It is not about what I want to hear dear, I was asking who do you think to fool by denying it?
All you've done time and time again is state your opinion as fact.
Oh the fact is that SoD is being reviewbombed, fact is also that forums here and at steam have been visited by a lot of rather new and rather angry accounts spouting all sorts of GG nonsense about 'SJW', 'Identity politics', 'PC culture', etc so again who do you think to fool by denying it?
The fact that you can convince people who already share your opinion means nothing. You've provided no substantial arguments to either side of the discussion.
There is not really a discussion other than who you think is being fooled by your question for evidence, it is rather plain and clear what is the case here. I am therefor not trying to convince you, I am telling you to stop pretending that you are honestly asking for formal evidence of behaviour by anonymous mobs when you know perfectly well how this sort of anonymous mobs work and that there is no paper trail.
Did GG have role? Maybe. It's definitely possible, if not probable even. Did anti-GG have a role? Maybe. It's definitely possible, if not probable even. Same exact verdict for both sides of the argument? Well, condemn the one you don't like! Smart.
Ah there we have it. The 'you cannot formally present evidence, so it could tooootally be this other group' It is a matter of condemming the 'side' who is outraged, motivated and whose language is used. That would be said GG mob
^^Yes! Taking things on emotions and faith is best way to go. People do so well with that model, it never gets out of hand, (e.g. two world wars) or anything... lol
^^Yes! Taking things on emotions and faith is best way to go. People do so well with that model, it never gets out of hand, (e.g. two world wars) or anything... lol
This situation is more like having a plate of crumbs formely occupied with cookies and a dog taking way too much effort to look innocent with some crumbs lying in her basket and you asking me to provide formal evidence that the dog ate the cookies... Hence the question who you think to fool?
^^Yes! Taking things on emotions and faith is best way to go. People do so well with that model, it never gets out of hand, (e.g. two world wars) or anything... lol
This situation is more like having a plate of crumbs formely occupied with cookies and a dog taking way too much effort to look innocent with some crumbs lying in her basket and you asking me to provide formal evidence that the dog ate the cookies... Hence the question who you think to fool?
Thanks for proving my point, your comment is nothing but an ad hominem smashed together with a straw man. That's what happens when you sacrifice the dialectic, and instead take on the false consolation of faith over reason, and emotion over logic.
^^Yes! Taking things on emotions and faith is best way to go. People do so well with that model, it never gets out of hand, (e.g. two world wars) or anything... lol
This situation is more like having a plate of crumbs formely occupied with cookies and a dog taking way too much effort to look innocent with some crumbs lying in her basket and you asking me to provide formal evidence that the dog ate the cookies... Hence the question who you think to fool?
Thanks for proving my point, your comment is nothing but an ad hominem smashed together with a straw man. That's what happens when you sacrifice the dialectic, and instead take on the false consolation of faith over reason, and emotion over logic.
Actually it is called a metaphor or analogy and so far there is rather enough circumstancial evidence (the reviews and votes on reviews themselves, language used by the new accounts and reviewers about 'sjw's' etch, known GG hubs giving attention and amplification to the matter) to state with both reason and logic that SoD has been reviewbombed by GG-aligned or sympathized people, hence the -> who do you think you are fooling? question
^^Yes! Taking things on emotions and faith is best way to go. People do so well with that model, it never gets out of hand, (e.g. two world wars) or anything... lol
This situation is more like having a plate of crumbs formely occupied with cookies and a dog taking way too much effort to look innocent with some crumbs lying in her basket and you asking me to provide formal evidence that the dog ate the cookies... Hence the question who you think to fool?
Thanks for proving my point, your comment is nothing but an ad hominem smashed together with a straw man. That's what happens when you sacrifice the dialectic, and instead take on the false consolation of faith over reason, and emotion over logic.
Actually it is called a metaphor or analogy and so far there is rather enough circumstancial evidence to state with both reason and logic that SoD has been reviewbombed by GG-aligned or sympathized people, hence the -> who do you think you are fooling? question
Calling someone a deceitful dog is in fact an ad hominem, moreover, you have in no way addressed or understood what I have written. I can tell, as you have lumped my comments in with Abdel, someone whose comments I like but don't always agree with. And, without much doubt, I can say that you have sacrificed the dialectic for overly emotional, irrational discourse, thus forfeiting any chance of a decent philosophical discussion.
@mzachary An absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, true, but evidence is still better than your feelings and convictions. No one here has actually stated anything definitive. I can't prove it's not GG any more than you can prove it is, and I'm not even taking a side - just playing the Devil's advocate. You, however, are so convinced in your conclusion that the answer is just obvious to you and should be to everyone else. Good for you. That won't work in law, or science, or even an adult conversation, but if that works for you, great. I, however, have higher standards.
And furthermore, GG doesn't matter! SoD and it's legitimate complaints matter. The bugs, and yes, the writing too.
^^Yes! Taking things on emotions and faith is best way to go. People do so well with that model, it never gets out of hand, (e.g. two world wars) or anything... lol
This situation is more like having a plate of crumbs formely occupied with cookies and a dog taking way too much effort to look innocent with some crumbs lying in her basket and you asking me to provide formal evidence that the dog ate the cookies... Hence the question who you think to fool?
Thanks for proving my point, your comment is nothing but an ad hominem smashed together with a straw man. That's what happens when you sacrifice the dialectic, and instead take on the false consolation of faith over reason, and emotion over logic.
Actually it is called a metaphor or analogy and so far there is rather enough circumstancial evidence to state with both reason and logic that SoD has been reviewbombed by GG-aligned or sympathized people, hence the -> who do you think you are fooling? question
Calling someone a deceitful dog is in fact an ad hominem,
Oh poor dear, I did not call you a deceitful dog, I used a metaphor to illustrate why in this situation it is rather silly to ask so formally for evidence when the circumstances already paint a rather clear picture.
I can tell, as you have lumped my comments in with Abdel, someone whose comments I like but don't always agree with. And, without much doubt, I can say that you have sacrificed the dialectic for overly emotional, irrational discourse, thus forfeiting any chance of a decent philosophical discussion.
Not at all, I am simply denying the premise of your call for evidence. There is not really anything emotional or irrational about it.
Accusing you of being emotional is a typical ad hominem, since it's easier to accuse you of being too emotional than it is to actually address your arguments.
Transgender people are taking over. We can't watch any movie or TV show or play any video game without seeing a gay couple kissing each other. And they don't even make it fifty fifty ; it's not like half the gay couple are gays and the other half lesbians ; noooo, lesbians would be enjoyed too much by the persecuted white straight male community. All gay guys couples french kissing on tv non stop.
Yes, it's a political statement meant to anger some white straight guys perceived as "haters" when they just want real roleplay, real acting without subliminal political messages, then the social justice warriors act all ignorant and surprised why some of them are angered by the cheapened sauce they offer.
We're not "taking over". Our visibility is being increased by people who like to make a quick buck off of us or another Oscar bait performance. Trans people themselves have almost no output in media.
LGBT representation on TV etc. at the moment has a lot of issues. And the Hollywood movies? Forget it.
This picture is wrong. 3 % of colored villains? I call bullshit on that. Not to mention, why would we count people "of color" ? As opposed to white people? Why are white people the base to compare to? Seems extremely racist toward white people to me. Or are white people not even allowed to be counted as a race?
@Ayiekie I am SO glad you brought up Shar-teel, a woman quite possibly defined by her misandry! Isn't it great that they rewrote her too...oh wait. Jaheira can't nag and Safana can't exploit her own sexuality because that's bad for women and obviously promotes misogyny.....but a woman hating a man is just fine!
That's because white males have no rights according to the social justice warriors. You know how it goes.
It's because white males have no shortage of representation in video games. "Misandry" isn't a real issue. It's not a recurring problem in video games, and it has no actual oppressive power. But it is very common for female characters to be treated as sex objects or without agency. These sort of false equivalences are why the anti-SJW narrative shouldn't be taken seriously.
^^Yes! Taking things on emotions and faith is best way to go. People do so well with that model, it never gets out of hand, (e.g. two world wars) or anything... lol
This situation is more like having a plate of crumbs formely occupied with cookies and a dog taking way too much effort to look innocent with some crumbs lying in her basket and you asking me to provide formal evidence that the dog ate the cookies... Hence the question who you think to fool?
Thanks for proving my point, your comment is nothing but an ad hominem smashed together with a straw man. That's what happens when you sacrifice the dialectic, and instead take on the false consolation of faith over reason, and emotion over logic.
Actually it is called a metaphor or analogy and so far there is rather enough circumstancial evidence to state with both reason and logic that SoD has been reviewbombed by GG-aligned or sympathized people, hence the -> who do you think you are fooling? question
Calling someone a deceitful dog is in fact an ad hominem,
Oh poor dear, I did not call you a deceitful dog, I used a metaphor to illustrate why in this situation it is rather silly to ask so formally for evidence when the circumstances already paint a rather clear picture.
I can tell, as you have lumped my comments in with Abdel, someone whose comments I like but don't always agree with. And, without much doubt, I can say that you have sacrificed the dialectic for overly emotional, irrational discourse, thus forfeiting any chance of a decent philosophical discussion.
Not at all, I am simply denying the premise of your call for evidence. There is not really anything emotional or irrational about it.
You are like talking to a religious fundamentalist. Moreover you are being very patronizing and credulous, which just proves what I've said already,
And, without much doubt, I can say that you have sacrificed the dialectic for overly emotional, irrational discourse, thus forfeiting any chance of a decent philosophical discussion.
@mzachary An absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, true, but evidence is still better than your feelings and convictions. No one here has actually stated anything definitive. I can't prove it's not GG any more than you can prove it is,
Oh on the contrary, it is rather easy to ascertain that it was GG. There was outrage on GG hubs, this outrage manifested itself in reviews and forum comments talking about GG talking points like 'sjw's', 'identity politics' etc, the rather curious situation on steam where the reviews are mostly positive, but negative reviews are massively upvoted and positive reviews are structurally downvoted.
Hence the question: Who do you think you are fooling by asking for formal evidence?
and I'm not even taking a side - just playing the Devil's advocate. You, however, are so convinced in your conclusion that the answer is just obvious to you and should be to everyone else. Good for you.
Actually that is because my conclusions are rather obviously based on what has actually happened, while you try to be smart and ask for evidence on an anonymous mob...
That won't work in law, or science, or even an adult conversation, but if that works for you, great. I, however, have higher standards.
I shall paint another metaphor for you: A man known to be a drugsdealer is thrown out of a motorclub home which is known to be a hub for drugtraffic and falls three stories down dead, inside are 30 people, none of them speaks up and it can't be pinpointed who actually threw the man out of the window. Now formally no one can be accused of murder as there is no evidence.
Though everyone knows that there has been a murder and they are all in on it.
It is not so much that you have higher standards, it is that you as well as everyone here knows that you cannot provide evidence of an anonymous mob even though all circumstancial evidence points to GG. I know how an anonymous mob works and you know it as well, everyone here has seen it works. The only thing that you are doing is rubbing our nose in the fact that we cannot formally prove it. But that does not mean that we are fooled by it.
When I ask you who you think you are fooling, i am not so much asking for you to confirm that you are fooling us, i am really asking if you really think that we are so dumb that we do not see through you...
^^Yes! Taking things on emotions and faith is best way to go. People do so well with that model, it never gets out of hand, (e.g. two world wars) or anything... lol
This situation is more like having a plate of crumbs formely occupied with cookies and a dog taking way too much effort to look innocent with some crumbs lying in her basket and you asking me to provide formal evidence that the dog ate the cookies... Hence the question who you think to fool?
Thanks for proving my point, your comment is nothing but an ad hominem smashed together with a straw man. That's what happens when you sacrifice the dialectic, and instead take on the false consolation of faith over reason, and emotion over logic.
Actually it is called a metaphor or analogy and so far there is rather enough circumstancial evidence to state with both reason and logic that SoD has been reviewbombed by GG-aligned or sympathized people, hence the -> who do you think you are fooling? question
Calling someone a deceitful dog is in fact an ad hominem,
Oh poor dear, I did not call you a deceitful dog, I used a metaphor to illustrate why in this situation it is rather silly to ask so formally for evidence when the circumstances already paint a rather clear picture.
I can tell, as you have lumped my comments in with Abdel, someone whose comments I like but don't always agree with. And, without much doubt, I can say that you have sacrificed the dialectic for overly emotional, irrational discourse, thus forfeiting any chance of a decent philosophical discussion.
Not at all, I am simply denying the premise of your call for evidence. There is not really anything emotional or irrational about it.
You are like talking to a religious fundamentalist. Moreover you are being very patronizing and credulous, which just proves what I've said already,
And, without much doubt, I can say that you have sacrificed the dialectic for overly emotional, irrational discourse, thus forfeiting any chance of a decent philosophical discussion.
Lol I would be a religious fundamentalist if I would deny facts in favour of my own belief. I am doing no such thing. Because you do not have an alternative for my postulation. You see that is why you and Abdel come across as rather disingenuous, you know very well that all the circumstancial evidence points to GG and given the nature of anonymous mobs makes it very likely to be GG especially in combination by language used and so forth.
You and abdel also know very well that you do not have any credible alternative that would explain what has happened, but please feel free to state that it was actually all a false flag to make GG look bad, because that would make me laugh ;-)
Hence I am not denying facts in favour of any belief and hence why I keep asking, who do you think you are fooling?
And furthermore, GG doesn't matter! SoD and it's legitimate complaints matter. The bugs, and yes, the writing too.
SoD has bugs and there are absolutely legitimate complaints to be had, but if you think that's why the neg bombing has occurred you're being intentionally obtuse.
No game in history will ever be given a legion of 0/10 ratings because of bugs. Temple of Elemental Evil had one of the most notoriously awful releases of all time and it was nowhere close to ratings like this.
There has definitely been an agenda at play here, and it's not on Beamdog's part. It was from the group that got their feathers ruffled and that's how they responded, en masse.
I don't have video evidence or signed affidavits to that effect though, so I guess you can still drag out the tired 'you have no proof!!!!' to your hearts content.
This picture is wrong. 3 % of colored villains? I call bullshit on that. Not to mention, why would we count people "of color" ? As opposed to white people? Why are white people the base to compare to? Seems extremely racist toward white people to me. Or are white people not even allowed to be counted as a race?
It's really hard to take you seriously you know? Like... you just don't get it, on any level. And I don't think you particularly care about people that aren't like you at all.
You can't just say "That picture is wrong." Do you have better statistics? And thanks for ignoring the central point which is that LGBT rep in Hollywood blockbusters is essentially non-existent.
Comments
Yes, it's a political statement meant to anger some white straight guys perceived as "haters" when they just want real roleplay, real acting without subliminal political messages, then the social justice warriors act all ignorant and surprised why some of them are angered by the cheapened sauce they offer.
So far that level of "take over" hasn't happened, so it's not enough yet...but you think it's too much. Riiight. Moving on.
https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/51708/jaheria-on-ambers-naggin-claim#latest
You almost convincingly seem to think that in a world of anonymous internet users and large hubs where they come together, we don't know how the internet works? Of course there is no evidence available to us, you know perfectly well that it is impossible for us to link for example IP addresses of downvoters and anonymous reviews to known GG accounts or something like that. And it is not as if people need to actually visibly organize, simply post on a popular GG hub like KiA that SoD makes fun of GG and has a 'SJW' agenda because of the all the 'identity politics' and the outrage will do the rest, which is exactly what happened.
The question is not if there is evidence, the question is more who do you think to fool insisting that without hard evidence we would not really know?
Is this what you want to hear? All you've done time and time again is state your opinion as fact. The fact that you can convince people who already share your opinion means nothing. You've provided no substantial arguments to either side of the discussion. Did GG have role? Maybe. It's definitely possible, if not probable even. Did anti-GG have a role? Maybe. It's definitely possible, if not probable even. Same exact verdict for both sides of the argument? Well, condemn the one you don't like! Smart.
No one here has actually stated anything definitive. I can't prove it's not GG any more than you can prove it is, and I'm not even taking a side - just playing the Devil's advocate. You, however, are so convinced in your conclusion that the answer is just obvious to you and should be to everyone else. Good for you.
That won't work in law, or science, or even an adult conversation, but if that works for you, great. I, however, have higher standards.
And furthermore, GG doesn't matter! SoD and it's legitimate complaints matter. The bugs, and yes, the writing too.
LGBT representation on TV etc. at the moment has a lot of issues. And the Hollywood movies? Forget it.
Hence the question: Who do you think you are fooling by asking for formal evidence? Actually that is because my conclusions are rather obviously based on what has actually happened, while you try to be smart and ask for evidence on an anonymous mob... I shall paint another metaphor for you: A man known to be a drugsdealer is thrown out of a motorclub home which is known to be a hub for drugtraffic and falls three stories down dead, inside are 30 people, none of them speaks up and it can't be pinpointed who actually threw the man out of the window. Now formally no one can be accused of murder as there is no evidence.
Though everyone knows that there has been a murder and they are all in on it.
It is not so much that you have higher standards, it is that you as well as everyone here knows that you cannot provide evidence of an anonymous mob even though all circumstancial evidence points to GG. I know how an anonymous mob works and you know it as well, everyone here has seen it works. The only thing that you are doing is rubbing our nose in the fact that we cannot formally prove it. But that does not mean that we are fooled by it.
When I ask you who you think you are fooling, i am not so much asking for you to confirm that you are fooling us, i am really asking if you really think that we are so dumb that we do not see through you... Actually a mob massively downvoting a game out of spite really does matter.
Lol I would be a religious fundamentalist if I would deny facts in favour of my own belief. I am doing no such thing. Because you do not have an alternative for my postulation. You see that is why you and Abdel come across as rather disingenuous, you know very well that all the circumstancial evidence points to GG and given the nature of anonymous mobs makes it very likely to be GG especially in combination by language used and so forth.
You and abdel also know very well that you do not have any credible alternative that would explain what has happened, but please feel free to state that it was actually all a false flag to make GG look bad, because that would make me laugh ;-)
Hence I am not denying facts in favour of any belief and hence why I keep asking, who do you think you are fooling?
No game in history will ever be given a legion of 0/10 ratings because of bugs. Temple of Elemental Evil had one of the most notoriously awful releases of all time and it was nowhere close to ratings like this.
There has definitely been an agenda at play here, and it's not on Beamdog's part. It was from the group that got their feathers ruffled and that's how they responded, en masse.
I don't have video evidence or signed affidavits to that effect though, so I guess you can still drag out the tired 'you have no proof!!!!' to your hearts content.
You can't just say "That picture is wrong." Do you have better statistics? And thanks for ignoring the central point which is that LGBT rep in Hollywood blockbusters is essentially non-existent.
Racist against white people FFS.