Story Mode Controversy --REDUX

[meganoth]

I'm not. I'm just saying that Native Americans aren't above crime, so assuming that they don't commit crimes is biased and apologetic.
The Duke can be a criminal in a fictional world because it's believable this could happen. Live with it.

Post automatically merged: Monday at 10:33 AM

TL-DR

Well, then you probably are in agreement with khz and me, we as well think that native americans aren't above crime.

TL-DR: I listed reasons why indian casinos developed differently than privatly owned casinos (naturally not perfectly, but I don't see evidence that indian casinos are more corrupt than other company or organisations. This is not naivety, just application of current knowledge

Thanks for the link, while it exaggerates its case, for example it seems to begrudge indians some of the same privileges that normal corporations have had for decades (political influence through donations for example), it also points at possibly severe problems with indian reservations (the tax evasion).

 

[meganoth]

That may be true, but it sidesteps the question of whether kHz’s actions match the seriousness of his warning. If he believes TFP faces real reputational damage from a racist depiction, then forum debate and an optional mod are weak solutions compared with getting actual affected voices or public scrutiny involved before release.

And I don't get why you're being dismissive of my opinion. Did I say, "shut the thread down"? Did I say for him to stop talking about this?

If I was kHz, I'd be insulted by that.
So you think he's sincere but you don't think he's serious.....which is pretty much what I was saying.

He was warning TFP that there may be problems and he is taking steps (the mod for example) to make that problem go away for his personal space. Then dozens of forum users started discussing this with him endlessly, many with reasonable arguments, some almost with flames. This could give a wrong impression of it being dead serious to him.

 

[Kyoji]

Well, then you probably are in agreement with khz and me, we as well think that native americans aren't above crime.

TL-DR: I listed reasons why indian casinos developed differently than privatly owned casinos (naturally not perfectly, but I don't see evidence that indian casinos are more corrupt than other company or organisations. This is not naivety, just application of current knowledge

Thanks for the link, while it exaggerates its case, for example it seems to begrudge indians some of the same privileges that normal corporations have had for decades (political influence through donations for example), it also points at possibly severe problems with indian reservations (the tax evasion).

You guys are debating how serious this needs to be when we have zombies running around.

He was warning TFP that there may be problems and he is taking steps (the mod for example) to make that problem go away for his personal space. Then dozens of forum users started discussing this with him endlessly, many with reasonable arguments, some almost with flames. This could give a wrong impression of it being dead serious to him.

I think he is pretty serious about it. The flames I think stem from a culture war raging where people are trying to shut down things that offend them ranging from comedy, movies, literature, etc. and those that oppose it. It's quite serious in many parts of the world and regardless of what side of the fence you lean on it's a very important issue for many and therefore it brings out peoples passions on both sides of the spectrum. Also, I think there is a difference between finding a motive for ones actions and drawing conclusions versus personal attacks. I believe in Occam's razor and with the world the way it is currently it's easy to understand some of the logic train on both sides regardless if people want to admit it or not.

 

[Roland]

That may be true, but it sidesteps the question of whether kHz’s actions match the seriousness of his warning. If he believes TFP faces real reputational damage from a racist depiction, then forum debate and an optional mod are weak solutions compared with getting actual affected voices or public scrutiny involved before release.

Not necessarily. If people from TFP read these forums (they do) then having this discussion serves a food for thought as they develop the story. If he’s hoping TFP takes action but doesn’t want to publicly cause problems for them then doing it this way is quieter and discretionary.

Getting awareness of the issue out there and having a conversation about it is a valid way to bring awareness. Sure, going to the Native American community and working hard to get public cancel culture revved up before the story comes out is another way to go but that’s like suggesting a Nuke when a can opener works just fine.

And I don't get why you're being dismissive of my opinion. Did I say, "shut the thread down"? Did I say for him to stop talking about this?

Because you shifted from the conversation topic to speculating about Khz’s motives and made it personal. Ad hominem comments need to be shut down and that’s where you went. You were commenting about Khz and making baseless accusations rather than about the stereotype and the story that is the topic.

If I was kHz, I'd be insulted by that.
So you think he's sincere but you don't think he's serious.....which is pretty much what I was saying.

Well, so far I’m not impressed by your ability to get in anyone’s head with any accuracy so I’ll wait to let Khz verify if they feel insulted. As for your attempt to paraphrase my thoughts, sorry but strike two. I think he is sincere and serious.

He has spent time modding the localization files which have got to be the most tedious files to mod of any in the game all to create an alternate storyline. That seems pretty serious to me so no I would never characterize him as not serious about it. I think he is hoping someone who can make decisions sees this thread and doesn’t dismiss it but decides there’s merit in altering the story.

On the topic— I agree that casinos and Native Americans do have some stereotypes and also inaccuracies in how their management is depicted. But I think it is on the level of any literary license that is taken with any profession depicted. I’ve seen exaggerations in how teachers are depicted and I’ve heard from friends that very little that is shown regarding doctors and hospital administration is very accurate—(yes, even The Pit). It’s all done to make stories that the public want to consume.

I think the public will largely like a story involving a Native American corrupt casino administrator who rises to power after the apocalypse and becomes a Governor or Neegan like leader. Even if it is inaccurate and stereotypical.

 

[Double G]

Because you shifted from the conversation topic to speculating about Khz’s motives and made it personal.

This always seems to be the case with forums. Everything is fine until someone cuts to the chase. It's ok for others to make broader drive-by comments but once someone addresses a subject directly that's when it becomes a problem, right?

Also, I don't know what his motives are. I have my suspicions, just like most of the people here do. But if I was him and was as concerned as he seems to be, I would want to know the opinions of the most important people relative to the situation. I wouldn't place all my efforts into a forum with a whole bunch of people that don't really care.

And the fact that he ignored my suggestion seems kinda telling to me. If the claim is that this is harmful Native stereotyping, then actual Native feedback seems like the most relevant evidence. Avoiding that question leaves this as mostly non-Native people debating what Native Americans should find offensive.

PS - There's only one 'e' in Negan.

 

[Nukem_ded]

To me this whole argument is just play. If it's not grand standing then it's masturbation.

ever tried to ■■■■■■■■■■ using honey?
doesnt work.

if we have asian and black zombies thats great, how about some trans and non binary while we are at it. then i can kill them allllllllll

this is the dumbest thread i have ever seen anywhere

 

[Jost Amman]

Because you shifted from the conversation topic to speculating about Khz’s motives and made it personal.

That's because for some people this whole conversation is pure la la land talk, so we're legitimately wondering about his motivations.
The fact that this is perceived as "personal attacks" tells a lot about how you perceive this kind of conversations.

I should be able to tell someone that they have an idiotic opinion, but that doesn't mean (necessarily) that they're idiots. Usually, when you're talking to someone who's saying something stupid, you don't say "your opinion seems stupid to me", you say "are you stupid?", as in "right now", as in "as far as this opinion goes".

 

[theFlu]

The fact that this is perceived as "personal attacks" tells a lot about how you perceive this kind of conversations.

That's mostly because the motivations don't matter, AND they're impossible to reliably determine from the outside. So it mostly is just baseless guesswork, and at worse a tool to cast doubts - effective only at shutting down discussions. You might've seen me troll Roland over something very similar, calling random people liars. It's just not useful.

Motivations don't matter might sound a little obnoxious, but they truly don't. Data, proposed problem and proposed correction do. This case is like trying to get the local restaurant to stop selling beef, because "red meat causes cancer". I don't need to question the motives of the person to show that "red meat causes cancer" is coming, through clickbait media, from WHO. WHO reviewed 14 studies on the topic to make the statement. 13 of those studies showed "no correlation", one showed "potential correlation" => WHO ended up relying on that one anomaly. Even science is done with "confidence intervals", the occasional anomaly is expected.

I don't think it would be too difficult to argue the merits, whether or not the person trying to stop the beef is a vegan. The data don't support the proposed problem, and the proposed correction would not alleviate the issue even if (people will just get their beef elsewhere).

In this case, the data are from "Native Advocate Groups" .. arguably not as "science based" as WHO... it is relatively easy to assume that they will not judge any case to be "free of Indian Oppression"; much like the counterpart business organization will not judge in favor of unfair tax advantages. But either of the claims could still be valid, and that is independent of the motivations from which they've been brought.

And while that sounds "trust the science"-y ... it's not. Physics and maths are producing reproducible science, everything else it engineering at best, and pure fairy tales aren't uncommon either. We will never have usable data for moral claims ... or human research in general.

 

[Jost Amman]

That's mostly because the motivations don't matter, AND they're impossible to reliably determine from the outside. So it mostly is just baseless guesswork, and at worse a tool to cast doubts - effective only at shutting down discussions. You might've seen me troll Roland over something very similar, calling random people liars. It's just not useful.

Motivations don't matter might sound a little obnoxious, but they truly don't. Data, proposed problem and proposed correction do. This case is like trying to get the local restaurant to stop selling beef, because "red meat causes cancer". I don't need to question the motives of the person to show that "red meat causes cancer" is coming, through clickbait media, from WHO. WHO reviewed 14 studies on the topic to make the statement. 13 of those studies showed "no correlation", one showed "potential correlation" => WHO ended up relying on that one anomaly. Even science is done with "confidence intervals", the occasional anomaly is expected.

I don't think it would be too difficult to argue the merits, whether or not the person trying to stop the beef is a vegan. The data don't support the proposed problem, and the proposed correction would not alleviate the issue even if (people will just get their beef elsewhere).

In this case, the data are from "Native Advocate Groups" .. arguably not as "science based" as WHO... it is relatively easy to assume that they will not judge any case to be "free of Indian Oppression"; much like the counterpart business organization will not judge in favor of unfair tax advantages. But either of the claims could still be valid, and that is independent of the motivations from which they've been brought.

And while that sounds "trust the science"-y ... it's not. Physics and maths are producing reproducible science, everything else it engineering at best, and pure fairy tales aren't uncommon either. We will never have usable data for moral claims ... or human research in general.

Let me explain my angle in a little bit more depth.

If I had to use legal jargon, for me the plaintiff (khz) has no standing on the matter.
I'm going to go even further, and say that even Native Americans have no standing in this matter.

Why?

Because customers are the sole judges on what is acceptable for them, and what it's not.

The same way anyone can have a reason not to buy ANY game, so Native Americans can decide to not buy 7D2D when the story comes out.
That's the most effective and fair form of justice on the matter. Trying to suppress things that one group doesn't like, removing the ability for a much larger group to have them, just because you want to impose morality, it's borderline authoritarianism.

That's why Capitalism, when done right, is the utmost form of social freedom.

Spoiler

 

[theFlu]

Because customers are the sole judges on what is acceptable for them, and what it's not.

Certainly; but that doesn't hinge on khz's motivations, at all
And while in this case I agree, it's still a moral question at the base. There are moral issues where I'd land on the other side, of censorship. You can imagine what those might be. If I want to be able to advocate against those, I can't shut down another man trying to explain his.

 

[Jost Amman]

Certainly; but that doesn't hinge on khz's motivations, at all

Yes. But it explains why this whole discussion is preposterous.

 

[Double G]

how about some trans and non binary while we are at it. then i can kill them allllllllll

In the old game Final Fight, the original Japanese version had a female enemy. But for the American version there was concern over the idea of beating up a woman, so instead of removing the character they simply said she was a male transvestite.

 

[Kyoji]

This isn't math. In any proper debate, outside of stem fields, motivation matters because there isn't a direct right or wrong answer as it's generally subjective and in the context of discussions motivation is important as it frames the discussion and it's why we see it all the time in daily discourse.

For example, if you tell me that your oil company invested millions into drilling without damaging the eco system and that leads one to believe that the company may be environmentally conscious. The narrative changes if you find out that the company was forced to do so through legislation and they just left out the fact they were forced to do so. The outcome is the same, but the sentiment around the whole discussion changes. Then lets presume you give deference to that company in the future because you believe them to be eco friendly whereas you might not otherwise. So motivations mater.

That being said you can question motives, but you shouldn't slander people either.

 

[theFlu]

For example, if you tell me that your oil company invested millions into drilling without damaging the eco system and that leads one to believe that the company may be environmentally conscious.

I don't entirely disagree, motivation is the difference between murder and manslaughter. It is part of "how do we treat this man", but that won't bring back the dead. In your example, it doesn't matter for the environment what motivated the company; the cleaner drilling is an improvement..

In this case, I don't really care how we should treat khz; I care for the overall artistic freedom of writing. Freedom to write Tropic Thunder again, freedom from HR-approved scripts. Train people to understand humor and tolerate even the bad attempts, stop sterilizing everything and build up the immune system. None of that cares what makes khz tick.

 

[Jost Amman]

In this case, I don't really care how we should treat khz; I care for the overall artistic freedom of writing. Freedom to write Tropic Thunder again, freedom from HR-approved scripts. Train people to understand humor and tolerate even the bad attempts, stop sterilizing everything and build up the immune system. None of that cares what makes khz tick.

100% agree on this.

 

[Dead Smarty]

Because customers are the sole judges on what is acceptable for them, and what it's not.

The same way anyone can have a reason not to buy ANY game, so Native Americans can decide to not buy 7D2D when the story comes out.
That's the most effective and fair form of justice on the matter. Trying to suppress things that one group doesn't like, removing the ability for a much larger group to have them, just because you want to impose morality, it's borderline authoritarianism.

That's why Capitalism, when done right, is the utmost form of social freedom.

And how is this relevant? We already bought the game so there is no more "voting with your wallet" possible if we don't like the story.

 

[Jost Amman]

And how is this relevant? We already bought the game so there is no more "voting with your wallet" possible if we don't like the story.

Then don't buy EA.

And, in any case, you can still stop buying future "products" or DLCs from this company.

 

[Dead Smarty]

Then don't buy EA.

And, in any case, you can still stop buying future "products" or DLCs from this company.

For real, learn to read and learn to understand the BS you are talking now: WE ALREADY BOUGHT THIS PRODUCT SO THERE IS NO MORE VOTING WITH OUR WALLETS HERE.
All people can do to make their voice heard is on this forum. Not buying future products will not impact THIS product.
And not buying early acces? If that voids any right to voice your opinion here, then what is the purpose of early acces?

Now back to what I asked: How is your response relevant?

 

[theFlu]

WE ALREADY BOUGHT THIS PRODUCT SO THERE IS NO MORE VOTING WITH OUR WALLETS HERE.

You bought a "product" in a state "story will be added later" .. if any story can be a problem for you, you shouldn't have bought it at such time. That doesn't mean you can't complain about it, it just means you already voted. You gave the artist your money, they'll write what they want.

 

[Kyoji]

I don't entirely disagree, motivation is the difference between murder and manslaughter. It is part of "how do we treat this man", but that won't bring back the dead. In your example, it doesn't matter for the environment what motivated the company; the cleaner drilling is an improvement..

In this case, I don't really care how we should treat khz; I care for the overall artistic freedom of writing. Freedom to write Tropic Thunder again, freedom from HR-approved scripts. Train people to understand humor and tolerate even the bad attempts, stop sterilizing everything and build up the immune system. None of that cares what makes khz tick.

I am not suggesting people treat kHz differently. I was saying it as a general concept. In this particular case people will already infer motive because deciding to post this thread is motivated by something.

To go back to the oil example. If the optics are good then perhaps the company won't be held to the same standard as if the optics were negative. It's the same way we see public outrage influence decisions. Things are rarely discussed in a vaccuum. So while the outcome may be the same initially that doesn't mean the future doesn't branch off and become different based on whether the motivations are clear or not. As an example if the company is need as negative perhaps share holders replace the CEO and that changes the future to where the company is perhaps more focused on such things not happening again rather thaj doing the bare minimum as they didn't take a financial hit due to the optics and now do not need to invest more into eco care to appease public sentiment.

To make this more relevant to this discussion then you can view it as such. If the argument is taken at gave value then perhaps it gets changed and future endeavors are more conscious of this issue. If people were to find out that there is a perceived negative agenda behind it then public sentiment shifts and then you get a new outcome both and and in the future. So if your goal is to prevent future A from happening then challenging the motivation of the person is a great way to go about getting the future B results you desire. Regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong, it's effective. For the record I'm not suggesting anyone does or does not challenge motives, but am explaining that motives clearly matter (not in the item itself, but in the effective changes it can bring).