I don't engage in 'gatekeeping'. I've pretty firmly and frequently during my decade long stint on this forum suggested 'agreeing to disagree'.
I also wouldn't consider anything posted in response to G'raha to be 'vitriol'. I'd be more inclined to describe outright personal attacks or bizarre conspiracy theories about posters here being alts of one another as such. He's a bunch of pixels on a screen at the end of the day, hardly a real person with actual thoughts and feelings. Plus, as I mentioned in an earlier post, just because one person doesn't see it as a worthy issue to discuss that doesn't mean it isn't valid for someone else. Hence we circle back to the age old 'agree to disagree' approach.
It may also be worth noting that for some of us, G'raha was very much a non entity up until ShB. He was locked away in an optional side quest and then abruptly tied to pretty much every major event in the game's story. Personally if he was front and centre back in the days of ARR and scoffing down burgers I likely would not have bothered investing in the game in the first place.
More than a handful of posters have stated that they feel that the game's target audience and atmosphere has changed after a certain point. By all means, you're free to believe otherwise - though for those of us who see it as a valid point of concern? Well, we're going to continue bringing it up.
