Steam installieren
Anmelden
|
Sprache
简体中文 (Vereinfachtes Chinesisch)
繁體中文 (Traditionelles Chinesisch)
日本語 (Japanisch)
한국어 (Koreanisch)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarisch)
Čeština (Tschechisch)
Dansk (Dänisch)
English (Englisch)
Español – España (Spanisch – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (Lateinamerikanisches Spanisch)
Ελληνικά (Griechisch)
Français (Französisch)
Italiano (Italienisch)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Ungarisch)
Nederlands (Niederländisch)
Norsk (Norwegisch)
Polski (Polnisch)
Português – Portugal (Portugiesisch – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (Portugiesisch – Brasilien)
Română (Rumänisch)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Finnisch)
Svenska (Schwedisch)
Türkçe (Türkisch)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisch)
Українська (Ukrainisch)
Ein Übersetzungsproblem melden
Diskussionsregeln
Diesen Beitrag melden
Executive Producers usually f*k everyone in the room so I would not be surprised if Mick Gordon was not the only one to suffer under the executive wrath.
That said, Hugo Martin and Joshua really worked their butts off, this was Stephen Ash last game too.
It would sadden me a whole lot if this is how Eternal is remembered but we can all communicate with Id directly through Bethesda portal under feedback which is what I suggest everyone to do and be productive.
Asking for Stratton to resign most likely won't happen, demanding Id to work with Mick Gordon might.
But yeah I think the mountains you have written on this has mostly been in defense of Marty. You were more heavy handed with it before I started pushing back against you, but that's how I would sum it up.
It's not a dismissal, I gave you an opportunity here to clarify what about Mick's statement you thought made "zero sense". But I can see you chose to focus on tone rather than content.
None of that was in your initial reply. Your first instinct was to tell me that you had the option to lie and obfuscate, you said as much earlier. I even quoted you in my last post.
I don't think it matters much that you come up with new options in hindsight now that you realize it was a bad idea to list "lying" as a good option. Especially when those options are also self-admittedly bad, which leaves my statement "I didn't leave you much of an option" to still ring true.
When a cat jumps onto a table I can spray him with water and the cat usually chose to jump down. He can also stay on the table and see what happens.
Right but just now, you are acknowledging that it is seen like that. And that without knowing the inside of your mind you can't really blame me or anyone else for reading it as if you are intending to benefit Marty.
You aren't just "reserving judgment", you are forum-warrioring your opinion that me and other people should "reserve judgement". You are aggressively neutral in a conflict were one sides only defense is for everyone to "reserve judgment". What you are doing is indistinguishable from defending Marty.
I questioned why you treated Mick differently when he was being dogpilled with no evidence. You conceded that your behavior was bad the first time around. I forced that concession out of you, before that there was no record of your regret. So it doesn't need quotes, that is factually what happened.
Here it is btw.
fans be fans, boots need cleaning.
FRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT
Tell me more about this "lazy" thing you're talking about.
I've written "mountains" on this and you've distilled it all into "you've defended Marty more than anyone else here."
Give me a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ break.
It's starting to sound like you're not really invested in this anymore - that's fine.
You said "if anything in Mick's statement were verified" which is a blatant and honestly condescending paraphrase of what I spent time writing out and is pretty inaccurate, so please spare me the "tone" retort.
I didn't realize there was an expiration date on proving you came to a conclusion based on free-will rather than being coerced into it by some unknown on the internet, but clearly you're taking this exchange as evidence of that despite my attempts to poke holes in your reasoning.
And your decision to put that argument aside rather than actually confront the fact that you aren't actually a catalyst and the other side deserves due credit seems to confirm that, so thanks.
And if the cats jumped on the table for a good reason, they'll ignore the spray to begin with. I've owned many cats, and the spray bottle stops working.
I'm doing it more out of reaction to you and others "forum warrioring" for Mick and calling anyone with a more nuanced or disconnected perspective on it morally wrong.
Not only is it perfectly fine to pass on this issue, given the information we do know, it's far more logical than slitting your wrists in protest based on a loosely substantiated narrative - for either side.
Once again, you didn't force anything out of me. There was no waterboarding- I didn't say or do anything against my will. The decision to "regret" what I said was mine, not yours. And I don't regret it too much because I didn't fly off the handle in an emotional fit at Mick in the first place like many others did.
Even at the time, I felt the entire situation was pretty insignificant to me and fans of the series. I still mostly feel that way, though i would like to believe id will do something for Mick if there is evidence that he said is true. Either way, it's not something that I'm invested enough in to dislike either side of these enough to boycott or hate.
The question was - What about Mick's statement makes "zero sense"?
There is no way for me or anyone else to know what the catalyst are for your private thoughts. But when it comes to your public stance I am the catalyst.
What is really argued here is me saying "I left you no good options" and the options you have presented me, to prove that statement wrong, have either been self-admittedly bad or straight up lying (which you considered to be a good option). At this point we can just leave this because I think your ego is too big to ever admit that my statement holds true.
If I'm slicing any metaphorical wrists they aren't mine.
The point of my statement was to clarify that aggressively reserving judgment is indistinguishable from defending Marty. That's why it makes sense to say that you are defending Marty.
OK now you switched the conversation from being confused about ever having made a "concession" to saying you weren't "forced" to make that concession. This is some low-level manipulation just to avoid acknowledging what has already happened. Very disappointing.
Great, and youve had to ask twice that because I've answered that question multiple times in several threads - heres the cliff notes of a few examples again. The fact that Mick went without pay for 8 months and continued to work and that non-payment for delivered content wasnt considered an actionable breach of contract, or that Id would mistreat a high-profile contractor like this to begin with.
Mick provides thin, vague responses to these issues, like "the approvals didn't come" or narratives about disorganized team meetings and calls. He's probably telling the truth even if it is his version of it, but there's a lot we don't know about the arrangement he was operating within or context. Might be enough but we're still just taking his word for it, and that's how we got in trouble with Marty's post.
Dear God - look at the bolded part. Maybe you do understand, you're just too much of a sanctimonious, grand-standing zealot to admit it.
Definitely someone's ego is too big here, for sure.
Unless you're Mick Gordon you don't get to take credit for dispelling the narrative up to this point, or anyone deciding to reconsider their position as a result. Try very hard to let that sink in.
That's a personal decision, and pointing out things that were said in the past doesn't mean you get credit for their choice now.
And you're too in your own head to realize the only reason anyone is "aggressively" reserving judgment is because of zealous forum morality police browbeating anyone who decides its not appropriate to get outraged over this.
If there's any aggression here it's a product of you, and people like you, refusing to allow anyone to have a diverging perspective - or to abstain from having one at all. You mentioned bad-faith earlier - I think chastising anyone for not accepting your own argument is exactly that.
Aside from believing ive switched anything - sounds like maybe you do getting it. I suppose that is disappointing for you on some level.
Pointing out someone said something, and that someone deciding how to handle the situation - potentially in the way you want - isn't an example of you forcing them to do anything. Their decision isn't yours to take credit for.
So once more with feeling and to clarify again: thanks for digging through my post history and finding a few instances where I jabbed at Mick. I did so in the absence of information to the contrary and it was ignorant, but I was persuaded by what I mistook for actual evidence. It won't happen again, for either side, and until I know more I'll let this play out without feeling like I need to demand any action that has zero impact on me.
I guess nows the time where you start pulling that leash.
To sum up - there is nothing really outlandish or unbelievable about Micks statement, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that something like what he said could have happened.
You were content never expressing any regret or taking any responsibility until I showed up. Your justification is largely irrelevant here, especially when you have said that lying is very much an option for you.
I'm only taking credit for putting you in a position were you had no good options but to publicly denounce your past behavior. It doesn't really matter to me if you believe what you wrote, it only matters that you wrote it.
It doesn't matter how you justify defending Marty when in effect that is what you are doing. Going into a childish "I didn't start it" is also entirely meaningless when you chose to take an impossibly contrarian position, defending someone that's indefensible by all the known facts of the situation.
Yeah you are squirming like crazy not to make any more concessions so you switch up topics when you get caught.
Instead of acting confused like 4-5 posts ago and then switching to being upset about being "forced" you could have just wrote something like this and bypassed all of that.
No. I'm playing the long game, if there is a courtbattle and you start shilling for Marty that's when I pull the leash.
Oh, let me guess - this is another instance of you forcing a concession from me, right?
Using a colloquialism in the moment doesn't detract from the fact that this has been my position since Mick released his statement. Taking what people say on this forum to the most literal extreme is as tiring and infuriating as it is uninteresting.
Once again, I don't think Mick's lying, but I do believe he might have his version of the truth which could be disconnected from the other side's - or a more accurate version that doesn't align with either - and that we don't have impartial enough evidence or perspective on this to determine that.
So essentially you're:
Truly - an embarrassment of riches when it comes to rhetorical leverage.
Until you get it through your thick head that your brigading constitutes an irrational, pseudo-informed and hate-aligned perspective on this, I suspect you'll be completely unable to empathize with anyone's position aside from your own and anyone that rejects your hardline will be doing so "in defense of Marty." That's sad.
I'm not trying to justify my position to you - apparently that's impossible. But if taking a reserved approach is considered "defending" in the face of your "Marty should be fired/kill the Beast" rallying cry then it's pretty obvious this entire conversation is going exactly the same place it did when Mick was the target. The only thing I'm defending is validity in deciding not to brigade online over something that at this is point barely more than hearsay.
Not even sure what this means and I'm not sure what topic I'm switching to. Acknowledging and adjusting your perspective is not squirming - it's not an admission of guilt. Saying Mick's in the right isn't a "concession" - it's acknowledging the evidence supports that, when and if it becomes available. I promise you no part of me hinged on anything Marty said being the truth and I'm completely ok with rejecting all of it as soon as someone shows me the money.
Instead of brigading and browbeating people for responding honestly to new information and acting like the most unwanted probation officer ever - maybe don't take credit for people's decisions and stop being so emotional about this issue.
Considering I haven't shilled for Marty yet, and have honestly shilled more for Mick up to this point, I'm wondering what exactly you think that leash is actually attached to.
For someone claiming to be "mostly on Micks side" your actions just doesn't any sense. And I mean that, it's not some colloquial exaggeration.
I don't think your expression of guilt was a huge turning point, it was just something you had to do.
Brigading? I'm one person. And wtf do you want out of this statement anyway? It's like 99% vitriol, without substance and you are calling ME hate-aligned smh.
We went through this already and you agreed with me that Mick is at worst a 2/10 ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and Marty is at like an 8 or a 9. Mick never deserved what he got even if he were to be guilty of what he was accused. Marty deserves everything he gets if he is even guilty of half of what he is accused.
Now you have added two layers of "I don't understand" even though I have explicitly reminded you of what we are talking about multiple times, very good. Moving from a probable misunderstanding to playing dumb.
Metaphorically, the leash is attached to a dog.