it is at this point I'd normally pass a shovel, but you seem to be doing fine yourself by clawing at the walls of the hole you are digging.

Consider your own behaviour here (especially within the context of this thread, currently) and you may see the light you are avoiding.

my last post to you now.

Not agreeing with you or finding your arguments convincing is not "trollishly argumentative". it only mean that you failed to convince me that you are right. you have not provided sufficient argument to agree with you, or that I can resonate with. Thats all. .

Let's see...
Not discussing the topic...
Personally attacking another forum user.

Your behavior is the problem. Go away troll. Quit harassing me. Quit attacking other users. YOU are in violation of the Forum rules. Who the heck are you to lecture me,. Go away TROLL!

You came to this thread with the sole intent to insult another user. As I've been saying for a long time, the real problem on this forum aren't the few people all you "self-appointed" "forum regulars" had been calling out, but that you are all these forum regulars who like to bad mouth other users, derail their threads, downvote their posts without reading them and otherwise go around trying to bully and harassment other users off the forum are the REAL problem. But people like you are so strung up on your self-proclaimed moral superiority that you have blinded yourselves to the fact that YOUR behavior helped turn this forum into a shitter as much as anyone else.
Arguing that we somehow need "100% proof" when something has been confirmed by two journalists and no one else is even suggesting otherwise IS being "trollishly argumentative". You clearly are not trying to discuss in good faith. Anyone with half a brain can see that.

The context of this thread (or of the report itself) does not matter. What matters is that they made a quantitative survey, asking "Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Political correctness is a problem in our country." to different individuals who, themselves, have various understanding of the word. And who answered in accordance to their own understanding of it.

They didn't sit with each one of them to discuss and co-define the meaning and limits of this notion. They made a superficial quantitative poll with undefined (and negatively loaded) terms. Upon which any interrogated person projected his/her own signification. They ended up with a series of formal "yes" (and a series of formal "no") about different things.

Picking concrete exemples (of supposed p.c. oppression) could lead to very different results. It would have been one way to mitigate the issue. That is, if you don't have time and resources for proper qualitative research.

Make such a superficial poll about "incivility" in a community. You'll have a pretty high number of people wishing it was reduced. Based on it, make practical rules against incivility, and you'll have a whole load of theose people, who seemed to agree, suddenly going "hey, this is not at all what I meant as incivility" and "you left this out" or "you abusively included this". Even if (implicitely or explicitely) the notion has a clear shared meaning amongst the investigators, and a clear shared meaning amongst the decision makers, the issue is with the multiplicity of implicit meanings amongst the investigated people themselves.

And you'd end up using this poll to justify policies that they would not all have supported. Making them say what they didn't mean.

Just gonna leave these here.

Yarp!

"Mass appeal" means appealing to everyone, at least potentially, which is far broader than what is at most a majority of the gaming demographic.

Do the opinions of non-gamers matter? Well, if you think public perception doesn't matter, you simply do not understand marketing reality. Small groups can create very big headaches when they are motivated and organized, and there are a lot of companies that never got a second chance to learn that.

So it doesn't really matter all that much if a person does or doesn't like it. What matters is, what are you going to do about it, and one thing is certain: avoiding foolish mistakes can mean the difference between success and failure. CDPR has a huge release coming up, which they have heavily invested in, so it's a very bad time for them to be needlessly pissing off people that have a loud voice.

again, you need to directly reply to people, otherwise people dont know its them (if thats me, im fine with it as I only hopped in here to point out what I pointed out).

Geez, I leave for a couple hours and all he’ll breaks loose. Enough to even draw tiny back into the thread. It’s sad to see you back on the horse... or is that off the horse... I never really got that expression.

according to my post last night, its a space hopper!

I doubt it - and thats my point.

I think really, for verifiable "I didnt know" repellant, warnings etc should be sent direct to the associated account email (with lawsuit "culture" still rising, Im sure the legal dept would agree).

Anyways, inabit!

I really don’t know how you make your rulings on if it’s within guidelines or not. If someone is being outright rude than it’s obvious but it’s not always so clear.

They will when they feel the mighty blow of her banhammer! lol