Kotaku only posted about it before confirmation of Bioware's involvement. I shudder at how much they may cost, though.

I think I like Mordin the most. #speakup

Ubisoft have also kindly provided an announcement video on YouTube, but no unboxing video as yet...

#tips
#FarCry3
#speakup
#InsaneEdition
#kotakueditorialboard

Bobble head Vas....

This is gold. #speakup

I don't know what you did or said, but YOU ARE FORGIVEN.

We all have those days! At least you realized it. Tomorrow is another day :D

Thanks for the link.

... I see you called him "dumb as s**t?" Really? Granted, you did bother to make an elaborate counter-response, but is that really something that's okay to say to someone? Along with the people calling him an idiot, or saying that he "hit every f***ing branch on the stupid tree," or saying that Porky Pig was "probably fairly accurate to [his] physical appearance! >:}" ???

That thread is full of horrible responses to dubious information, because even if he's wrong, he doesn't deserve to be deprived of his dignity as a human being. Granted, him saying that he wasn't "surprised by stupidity anymore" was no help, but while I do feel that a number of people in that thread deserve to be formally disciplined on Kotaku, I don't necessarily feel that he is among them, even as I won't defend him if he was misusing information. #kotakueditorialboard

I didn't care when he posted the image of a person throwing up in a toilet. That was his prerogative to have that view. When he made false and inflammatory accusations about an entire minority group is where I draw the line. What he said is legally construed as Hate Speech. Apparently you (as what I assume are a representative of the KOTAKU editorial board and Kotaku as an entity) seem to think that he was just fine and dandy saying.

Please do not try and claim I, or anyone else was trying to deprive his dignity. He launched a rather rude, and disgusting attack on the dignity of an entire minority group in his rant. What if we replaced the word Gay with the word Jew? What if the rant was about Muslims? What if the rant was about Women, specific ethnic minority groups, developmentally disable peoples? I do not think that you would be so quick to defend his dubious information.

I find it highly problematic that you feel that his hate speech is not something that you should discipline. As I stated before, He should not have a star for the reasons I elaborated on above, as well as the following;

Federal guidelines identify hate speech as the following; In the United States, hate speech is legal (except for obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words.)

His speech after the initial post was made to create a space in which Defamation of a protected group would occur. It also could be considered an incitement against the populace drawn on misinformation, much like in the Dark Ages when people claimed the jews brought the plague with them.

Please elaborate on why you feel his hate speech should be ignored, yet others should be disciplined?

Also may I ask if you are a member of the editorial board, moderator, or a concerned community member?

#suspension #banhammer #NO #kotakueditorialboard #Trollpatrol

There isn't really an editorial-board "staff," so to speak, at least not to the best of my knowledge.

"I do not think that you would be so quick to defend his dubious information"

Contrast "even as I won't defend him if he was misusing information," which was what I said. With respect, I would like to know how you possibly misunderstood that to assume that I was going to defend his statements. So how was I defending his dubious information again? My point wasn't that he was right or that I believed him. My point was that ***even if he was wrong,*** that gave you no right to call him "dumb as s**t" or for anyone else to throw around the insults I listed in my previous post. How is that any better than what he said? As for why I feel several others in that thread (including you) should be disciplined, as far as I noticed (unless I missed something), he was simply trying to make a scientific statement, even if he was wildly wrong, which is very different from someone else saying that he "hit every f***ing branch on the stupid tree."

What on earth is "defamation?" TheFreeDictionary's legal dictionary defines defamation as such:

"Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person"

If the original poster was spreading bad science, then he was spreading bad science and should be held responsible and accountable for doing such, but I don't think he was trying to intentionally misuse science just for the sake of having an excuse to condemn the actions of gay people. If all he was doing was spreading bad science, then you could simply have replied to him civilly and politely and explained how he was misunderstanding the facts or how his sources were inaccurate. You did explain this, but calling him "dumb as s**t" certainly doesn't give you the moral high ground, so to speak.

Me calling him ONE name does give me moral high ground. Shit is a dirty word, so what? It wasn't my most eloquent moment. I did say he was dumb as shit, but I didn't attack an entire group of people claiming 20% of them 'plague' carriers, or spread bad science AFTER it had become obvious that the science was faulty, or try and claim I was saying all these things to 'not encourage them to be gay' (which in an of its self is a highly defamatory statement).

Do you have any specific power to punish someone here on Kotaku or are you just here to talk (each are valid I would just like to know? To me you are defending him and his hate speech. You make the claim, " while I do feel that a number of people in that thread deserve to be formally disciplined on Kotaku, I don't necessarily feel that he is among them, even as I won't defend him if he was misusing information."

The key part here is that you dont feel he needs to be disciplined for spreading misinformation, "IF HE WAS USING MISINFORMATION". You are defending him for what he was saying. You may not be saying he was right... but you aren't saying he was wrong. He was clearly misinforming the Kotaku community, and when called on his misinformation he kept reposting it to other commenters. That is the point at which his actions become intentional, and he moved from just another bigot to hate speech.

Legally speaking, presenting faulty data; debunked research; and falsified reports to further a goal is considered fraud, fraud is the intentional spreading of false communications. HIs presentation of documents stating LGBT people were sent out with HIV by the government is considered hate speech, as well as defamatory information. By extension, his inclusion of misrepresented data from the CDC can be seen a defamatory, since he has previously used documentation [as mentioned above] from anti-LGBT sources.

The final defaming piece is, "This is scary, and I would only wish this not to happen to any kind of people, which is why I don't exploit gay marriage like our nation does, encouraging people to be gay". It becomes OBVIOUS here that his goal is to dissuade people from "being gay" he was writing this piece to make people disgusted with "gay" to deter them. That again proves intentionality of malice. He may think that he is doing Gods work, be he is not. He is spreading lies intentionally around the Kotaku board.

Please address my previous question to you about his speech if it were directed at other groups. Would you support him if he quoted a study that stated that 1 out of every 15 priests molests children? What if he were to say that Christians/Catholics support child molestation by their priests. All of this information is supported by hundreds of documented attacks on children, as well as studies that the vatican have done. What would you say if his rant was about Jews or Blacks or Catholics/Christians/et all or Women or any other minority group. Would you feel differently about his rant? Honestly, from where I am you claim to not defend him, but you pretty much are defending him. #kotakueditorialboard

Only the editors really have any "power" to punish people, so to speak, of which I am not one. Basically our option is to report people to #trollpatrol.

"Please address my previous question to you about his speech if it were directed at other groups. Would you support him if he quoted a study that stated that 1 out of every 15 priests molests children?"

I don't support him now. His science may be faulty, but I don't think he's deliberately trying to misuse it. (You believe his actions stem from malice; I believe they stem from ignorance. Since his direct CDC source went along with some of the things he was saying, even if not on the scale he in his extrapolations believed it did, it seems to me that he had at least a grain of truth in his statements.) I'm not saying that what he is doing is "right," but even in the case that it is *not,* you and the others who were calling him names have no moral right and no practical reason to do so. It certainly doesn't help you win arguments. From what I've been able to gather from the conversation between the two of you, I think you two have some serious issues in trying to communicate that need to be worked out.

As for whether he was trying to emphasize internal orientation or external sexual behavior as being the problem--his literal words imply the former, but his arguments imply that the latter, specifically anal sex (which I understand as being quite risky for people of any orientation?), is the issue--you would probably have to ask him. In other words, his arguments seem to focus more on the sexual behaviors of men who have sex with men, than necessarily trying to condemn gays simply because they're gay. I'm not saying this even makes him less wrong, but I think that he, you, and I have very different perceptions of what he was saying, leading me to think we all need to make sure we are properly communicating what we are trying to say.

("Would you support him if he quoted a study that stated that 1 out of every 15 priests molests children?" Did he have evidence? Strong evidence, applicable not to isolated areas but to the church as a whole, that couldn't be argued against? If so, I would have no choice but to do so, even as I wouldn't like the conclusion. If something that's true happens to be unpleasant or unpopular, that doesn't make it false, and vice versa.)

That being stated, from the CDC source (relinked for your convenience), if I may ask for clarification: "In 2007, MSM were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women." Is this specifically referring to gays in a certain area, or is this a general statement? I don't understand.

Unrelated, but something I don't understand: The user Blackmarquetbaby posted this: "Furthermore, the answer is not to discourage homosexuality, because this drives the issue underground further. There are people who have sex with people of the same sex, and this fact will not go away." What I don't understand is this--aren't certain risky behaviors like abusing cigarettes, alcohol, and fatty foods already openly discouraged by medical professions, or do I have this wrong? What makes this different in terms of whether discouraging ibehavior is encouraged or not? (As I understand, anal sex carries higher risks for people of any orientation compared to heterosexual penis-vagina sex, though a friend in the medical industry has told me that lesbians have a lower rate of STI infection than straight people do. I haven't looked into this.)

At any rate, regarding fraud, "the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim." (In fairness this may be a case of constructive fraud instead, if he had a duty to know things such as that one of his sources was from a discredited dermatologist, for example, and thus his ignorance shows that he didn't do sufficient research.)

Also,

"I feel really sorry for you. I honestly do. You are probably a very lonely and sad man." Necessary??

The reason that I did not feel that he deserved to be disciplined by Kotaku's #trollpatrol for his words and actions is that the #trollpatrol, as I understand it, was designed for punishing conduct that is not simply the spreading of inaccuracy as truth but is altogether destructive and not designed to encourage civil discussion in any way. Also, you were condemning him for "[creating] an unsafe space on the Kotaku Commenting Community," and then you and other people threw insults at him. May I ask how those two things should be reconciled?

I'm curious as well as to why you consider his words to be "hate speech." Regardless of how wrong he is and how he's misunderstanding and misusing information, in terms of the format and structure of his arguments, how are his words any different from people using science (even bad science) to discourage others from smoking cigarettes or abusing alcohol? As far as I can tell, he's trying to say that "Activity A leads to negative consequence B. Ergo, Activity A should be discouraged." (Again, his words as literally interpreted imply that his issue is with the orientation itself, but none of his other arguments seem to support that interpretation.)

Well said. I do feel that we are reading him in two separate ways - so I don't feel we could come to a consensus.

In my communications with him, he never once linked to those specific CDC sources. I merely linked to 3 articles all about the same flawed study. Even if the CDC source had a grain of truth, it did not equate to the numbers reported. That is where his comments became targeted and derogatory. Misreporting data is fraudulent.

I also beg to differ about his intention behind his deterrence of internal orientation, or external proclivities. He said, "encourage people to be gay". He did not say encourage gay sex, encourage anal sex. or encourage unsafe sex. He specifically targeted a single group. Even in your generous explanation of your POV of his point - he is targeting a specific subsection of the LGBT population - gay males. He is implying that what two consenting people do is encouraging the transmission of a disease. If that was his intent then he should be against any and all unions that would encourage STIs.

"In 2007, MSM were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women." - I included this to show that number varied with the studies - that no singular study has been completed to specify what percentage of LGBT males carry the HIV virus.

"Unrelated, but something I don't understand: The user Blackmarquetbaby posted this: "... It is true Lesbians have the lowest STI infection rate of any sexual group (aside from A Sexual). If his claim was to ensure that people stay STI free, would they not want to encourage lesbian sexual encounters and promote strong lesbian relationships?

Those behaviors are discouraged by medical professionals, as is unprotected sexual interactions between any sexual groups and their chosen partners. The LGBT community looks down upon unprotected sexual encounters for the most part. Like any group of people there is a subsection that do not use protection, the are seen as a fringe group and are not welcome in larger LGBT society. The issue I think is the perceived notion of promiscuity in the LGBT community. The community is no more promiscuous than other sexual groups. I feel that the promotion of stable, monogamous relationships would help to decrease the promiscuity. Many religious groups claim that notion as well. The best way to curtail STIs are to stay celibate until marriage. Without the endgame of marriage many people feel there is no need to stay celibate.

Any way you want to look at it - I feel that his language was defamatory, and could be labeled as hate speech. His logic is highly conflicted, and it's obvious from his originating post (an image of a man throwing up) that he wasn't looking out for the safety of gay people. He just found them gross and was grasping at straws to explain why (other than he just doesn't like them). Remember, lot's of people just didn't like interracial marriage and tried to use similar arguments, even going so far as to say that their children would be ostracized, people from different races couldn't possible live together, and so on - merely because they didn't like the idea. I know that no matter how he feels, he is an ever dwindling breed - a lonely, sad person. #kotakueditorialboard

I addressed some of this issue above, but I do feel he started to receive heat from the commenters and then tried to grasp at straws to validate his stance 'scientifically'. As you can see from the thread, he drops that stance and is unable to support his reasoning, yet continues to push his misinformation.

You did nail the reason he should be disciplined on the head. Aside from his position, starred commenters are supposed to be the best and brightest of the GAWKER Group commenters. They are supposed to be well spoken, clear and concise. His lack of focus, coupled with his inability to support his comments are an indictment on his abilities to continue to be a starred commenter. If he has this much of an issue supporting a cohesive argument about an opinion that he holds he is going to cause a great deal of chaos on the boards discussing other topics he would be far less informed about. #kotakueditorialboard