keep the wildmen

[harry-pancreas]

You can't ban political discussion if you make a political decision, that's censorship.
Keep the wildmen, and please don't touch shavarath or menechtarun, we don't have a lot of good packs left and every time one gets updated it actually gets downgraded and the story becomes awful.
Stop changing the old parts of the game or you will make it 100% bad...

[cadaverash]

They should do an in game event for a month where players pick sides to save the Wildmen.

But that would be a lot of work and would give players the power to change the game environment.

I'd be happy if they had a story behind them leaving the game instead of just cancelling them out like they never existed.

[Oliphant]

I think censorship should be expanded to ban you if you kinda meh.

[donblas]

You can't ban political discussion if you make a political decision, that's censorship.
.

I'm pretty sure they can - it's their forum.

It may not even be DDO's decision - they don't own the IP. WotC have been changing stuff.

[PaddyMaxson]

Why?

They're not interesting to fight, they're not particularly interesting story-wise. Seems like the only reason people want to keep them is that there's a political implication in not keeping them.

Edit: as they keep getting brought up - I don't include mongrel men in this description of wildmen, they are a different thing and actually interesting.

[Saekee]

It is not the dumping of Wildmen that bothers me--it is dropping in the bollywuggy thingies. I would rather they just put in halflings.

[sbeehre]

What is wrong with wildmen? also this is a fantasy computer game and not real life.

[merlinfire1]

if they were being forced then they would have said so. at least then we could give them support against that compulsion.

but that's not the case. i think it's quite obvious what's going on and i'm very disappointed. not just because if this continues what it could lead to in terms of game and company direction, but because of the damage it will do to the playerbase. DDO is already their "small size but high spend per player" game more so than any other title they run. this is absolutely NOT a place where you can afford to shed players for silly and immaterial causes.

[Jeromio]

What is wrong with wildmen? also this is a fantasy computer game and not real life.

So many discussions about this, but it seems that nobody can explain why "wild men" is actually offensive. Maybe it's clear to people from the US, but for me as a european it means nothing really. Could someone please explain or link to something explaining the issue?

Edit: Ok... I have received private information explaining it to me, so now I'm aware. However, I still think that SSG should have been more clear about this topic.

[CaptainPurge]

So many discussions about this, but it seems that nobody can explain why "wild men" is actually offensive. Maybe it's clear to people from the US, but for me as a european it means nothing really. Could someone please explain or link to something explaining the issue?

Agree strongly. Still don't know what we are supposed to be hating on.

Also not sure where this is supposed to be going but Ataraxia is going to be replaced by what? Remember, the caves in the explorer area have to be replaced with something. Bullywugs? Not really. These are sandy shores.
We'll get there.

[Hawkwier]

So many discussions about this, but it seems that nobody can explain why "wild men" is actually offensive. Maybe it's clear to people from the US, but for me as a european it means nothing really. Could someone please explain or link to something explaining the issue?

Edit: Ok... I have received private information explaining it to me, so now I'm aware. However, I still think that SSG should have been more clear about this topic.

The edit is interesting. We live and learn.

Just because we don't happen to know why something may be offensive to someone, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means we maybe don't possess the full knowledge to understand matters fully. I'm also from Europe, as it happens.

I'd also ask those having a hard time understanding why someone may be offended to consider it is their absolute right to feel how they do.

If I elbow someone in the face, it's not my privilege to decide how hurt they should be about it, even if I do so accidentally.

All I can decently do is apologise and try my best to ensure I don't do it again.

Whilst unwelcome stereotypes may not induce physical pain, we should be able to understand they may induce hurt nevertheless, and that the rectifying actions ought to be similar.

I have no beef with Wildmen. I don't see it as a big issue to me. But that doesn't mean it isn't to someone. I may not understand the full picture.

On that basis I have no issues with these changes. If they reduce hurt for someone, they are welcome.

/not signed

[magaiti]

If I elbow someone in the face, it's not my privilege to decide how hurt they should be about it, even if I do so accidentally.

All I can decently do is apologise and try my best to ensure I don't do it again.

Elbows are inherently offensive, you absolutely should surgically remove them.

[PaddyMaxson]

The edit is interesting. We live and learn.

Just because we don't happen to know why something may be offensive to someone, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means we maybe don't possess the full knowledge to understand matters fully. I'm also from Europe, as it happens.

I'd also ask those having a hard time understanding why someone may be offended to consider it is their absolute right to feel how they do.

If I elbow someone in the face, it's not my privilege to decide how hurt they should be about it, even if I do so accidentally.

All I can decently do is apologise and try my best to ensure I don't do it again.

Whilst unwelcome stereotypes may not induce physical pain, we should be able to understand they may induce hurt nevertheless, and that the rectifying actions ought to be similar.

I have no beef with Wildmen. I don't see it as a big issue to me. But that doesn't mean it isn't to someone. I may not understand the full picture.

On that basis I have no issues with these changes. If they reduce hurt for someone, they are welcome.

/not signed

Eloquently put.

[merlinfire1]

Nobody in this playerbase is meaningfully offended by the presence of wildmen.

This is a political act of virtue signaling. But we are not allowed to talk about politics. So we're at a sort of impasse here.....do they want feedback, or not?

[Lonnbeimnech]

So many discussions about this, but it seems that nobody can explain why "wild men" is actually offensive. Maybe it's clear to people from the US, but for me as a european it means nothing really. Could someone please explain or link to something explaining the issue?

Edit: Ok... I have received private information explaining it to me, so now I'm aware. However, I still think that SSG should have been more clear about this topic.

It should be wild person, also menechtarun needs to be changed to personechtarun.

[boredGamer]

So many discussions about this, but it seems that nobody can explain why "wild men" is actually offensive. Maybe it's clear to people from the US, but for me as a european it means nothing really. Could someone please explain or link to something explaining the issue?

Edit: Ok... I have received private information explaining it to me, so now I'm aware. However, I still think that SSG should have been more clear about this topic.

Don't worry, it's not clear.

A simple straight forward explanation and then saying we're moving on would've been the right way to communicate it, instead of banning / stopping everyone from asking why (since it isn't clear).

[GODDEATH]

oh it is clear, if you are here posting because you do not like it , that is your baggage.

[Hawkwier]

Nobody in this playerbase is meaningfully offended by the presence of wildmen.

Patently you cannot, and do not, know this assertion on your part to be true.

There are clear examples in my country where such absurd assertions were, wrongly, initially used to defend popular entertainment shows of the time, which were based on premises that are utterly unacceptable to the point of revulsion now, and moreover really should have been then.

Also the use of "meaningfully" offended is interesting. Do you get to decide what is meaningful offence or not? Why should that qualification matter? If someone is offended, are you implying their offence can simply be ignored because you don't deem it sufficiently meaningful?

[Cordovan]

Thank you for the feedback. The thread is being closed due to too many posts violating the rules.