alanschu

Well Reddit sure rallied to your support. Unfortunately you removed the post so I can't see what was actually written.

The deleted you posting a picture (that is probably being spammed on their forum as is...) as opposed to a post with your own thoughts about the game?

Memory is only one aspect. A quick google search of the card came up with this: "The 710M is just a downclocked 620M with a new label. It's still a very ****ty card and will struggle to play any games at all. " Link

I'd argue two do, though PST's is much less detailed and thorough than BG2's.

We could probably create a thread about the obscure and bizarro stuff we remember.... lol. I think it was this thread where I made a reference to you and I at each other's throats regarding piracy in London or some other. Maybe it wasn't you, but I do remember taking a break from the forum for quite some time after that hahahaha.

It was probably me that did it. Note, I am also this although I am much more likely to disengage/ignore than I used to be.

Agreed, fair enough I do often answer questions with questions of my own. But yeah, depending on how the discussion is going (and my desire to keep the discussion going), I'll usually ask questions of my own. Normally because they're the questions I ask myself as well.

I remember the discussion so it's trivial to look it up. Blame my memory if you'd like.

It is funny though, to see you get all worked up because some guy decided to troll some anime threads that you created. I'd disagree, as someone that knows little about anime the entire thread was derailed by a bunch of absurdity that instead of having an opportunity to talk about it, I had to deal with the usual nonsense that was unproductive and ended up vacating the thread. So maybe it was harmless and good fun to you, but for me it was a waste of my time and neutered a discussion before it even began. I don't consider this a positive. EDIT: And yes, I consider constant exposure to that sort of stuff to have a socializing effect, even if it's online.

Yeah, so far the consensus for Thi4f seems to be: A few truly good side-missions, crappy main story and characters, hit or miss level design, buggy mess. Seems all the red flags that popped up during this game's development were warranted. This is just too bad. I had hoped this would have turned out better, but oh well, maybe stick to Dishonored. Anyone looking forward to South Park: Stick of Truth? This game looks good and I believe Obsidian to make a good game, but I haven't watched a lot of South Park and wonder if the greatness of the game will be lost on me. I am chomping at the bit for South Park.

It's clearly either or. No wiggle room or per case analysis!

Would it be Dragon Age without an emo elf? Could it possibly be BioWare without a Carth-clone? My only concern is that we're not able to get Raphael Sbarge!

Even if she is not romanceable and is perfectly okay crushing your heart and will!?

Cool beans and I appreciate the clarification since I was unsure and it seemed to be coming from more than just yourself as well. To be clear, most (but maybe not all... >.>) of my definition clarification is mostly to point out that we apply the term in a non-uniform way. As such, the context for how it's used is useful for us understanding each other's points of view, as well as that of the article. (more of a general statement to the thread, as opposed to you directly, as I'm pretty sure you wouldn't disagree) Fair enough. On this point I think we agree. Granted, the thread has gone in a lot of directions, but has it really gone into much of a "how to deal with trolls (if at all)" perspective. I know I made a comment about how I have little issue with a troll being banned off of private server space, if the caretakers of said space deem it appropriate. Nor am I particularly against the idea of removing comment fields, as I feel it neither mutes free speech nor criticism. The post originally started from the characteristic traits the analysis in the OP's link does, so if I may I have some thought experiments there, as well. I do tend to believe that people are not "all or nothing" in terms of personality traits (at the risk of perhaps giving the study too much credibility, for better or worse). When someone decides to make troll posts, does that mean that there are aspects of their character that would fit along the traits listed? (machiavellianism, narcissim, psychopathy, and sadism). The first is a bit easier for me to see, as part of me would not be surprised that a skilled troll would possibly score quite high in machiavellianism. For the other aspects, I suppose it would depend on the types of actions being enacted upon by the troll. As a final addendum to this point, however, is it necessarily bad that people may not be completely devoid of these traits?

Hahah, well evidently he is looking forward to it XD

In the PAX videos we show off the tactical camera mode at one point. That'll be refined but it likely won't deviate toooooooooooo much from what you saw there, in terms of camera angles. We'd like to have the entire game be playable in that mode, but there are some challenges with that so I don't want to over commit anything for someone's expectations.

It's possible that you wouldn't. I haven't played it, but I heard they went along a more traditional mobile game (i.e. things like MTX being more common) with the game. Though that's just on hearsay, as I don't actually know what is or is not different about the game.

No. It was more "we want to move away from old technology and consolidate everyone onto the same tech (early DA3 prototypes were already using Frostbite) and we really like what we've seen with DA3 at this point and are more keen on following up with that than DA2." Keeping us working on DA2XP would just delay us ramping up on Frostbite. Part of the influence of this thought process is likely how meh Awakening's sales were compared to the investment and install base. Couple that with less overall sales of DA2 and it's not hard to see that the XP held higher risks than we would necessarily want.

There's a definition argument for sure. And to be obstinately defensive, I'm not the only source that uses my definition, so when assessing the article in the OP I think it's fair to try to assess what group of individuals they are referring to. And hat tip mad props to 213374allofus (in particular) as well as others in this thread for carrying on the discussion. I'm also of the opinion that human beings are rather adept at defending themselves from cognitive dissonance. Here's an article that says trolls are bad human beings. But I'm someone that enjoys seeing some trolling from time to time... clearly I should do some mental gymnastics to insulate myself from this allegation! I mean... we've seen people take the article and conclude that it must mean that a single instance of "trolling" behaviour is enough to be branded with the label of "troll" as nebulously defined in the OP's link. We get another that says "that's not trolling" even though there appears to be enough consensus that the name of the act literally contains the word "trolling" in it, while another tells me I have blinders on and just can't accept that there is good trolling. (A fabulous argument... "why can't you just believe for a moment that there is good trolling?" is as easily cast aside with the equally inconsequential "why can't you believe for a moment that there isn't good trolling?") I mean, I'm told that I should just have faith that good trolling exists. People are good at lying to themselves (myself included. Those that wish to dismiss my statements can freely assume that I'm doing the same, if it makes them feel better!). If an act becomes vilified, they'll create justifications that there are exceptions, and it's the exceptions that they like that are the valid exceptions. The other things are definitely bad, or maybe even so bad that they aren't even part of the classification anymore. How many bullies actually believe that they are a bully? How many people like "good trolling" simply because it gives them a sense of schadenfreude? How many of us make exceptions and classify something as acceptable simply because we like it? (which is a pretty human thing to do and I'm not passing judgment on people for being imperfect human beings). How many "good trolls" do so simply because they want some laughs? (and is that a bad thing?) How many targets really step back and go "whoa... good thing that happened... I have an enlightened view on life now?" It's easy for us to assume that, because it makes us feel better about ourselves. And it doesn't just happen here. Look at pretty much any controversial subject and you'll see people coming up with all sorts of explanations and rationalizations for "Why I am not a bad person" whether it be defending themselves for liking/disliking romances in an RPG, a pro-vaccinator and anti-vaccinator, or whether or not trolling has a good aspect of it. You cited the Tali Sweat thread. Is the principle thing that you enjoyed about the thread the deep reflections that it made people have about how seriously they take content in a fictional universe? Or did the responses and reaction tend to make you laugh? Because at this point it's a philosophical debate, not anything that's really testable. Saying "well good trolling is like art" simply leaves it up to the observer. You'll say it's good trolling because there's an aspect of it that you derive some level of enjoyment/appreciation out of. I'm skeptical there's much reflection and learning that goes on because of a thread like that, but there's a lot of fingers being pointed, laughing, and bickering all around. And when we're just an observer looking on, we laugh because we're already at the point of going "wow, look how serious these people are taking it!" (I know I did) In this sense, are people actually learning anything, or are they just reaffirming where they are and feeling a sense of pleasure or superiority from it? To be perfectly frank, I think most people will enjoy good trolling simply because as human beings we enjoy a degree of schadenfreude when people we otherwise disagree with for whatever reason get upstaged and made to look the fool. I'm sure it's happened in this very thread, whether explicitly stated or not. I'm okay acknowledging that there are probably situations where I will laugh at someone's misfortunes where I would not if the context, not the act itself, was changed. We see the same justifications from people that get upset because they are banned from a particular forum, or because a comment thread was closed, and what have you. For a wide assortment of topics (Anita, the Duke porn star, trolls, etc. etc. etc.). I think there's a degree of self-delusion that is required to avoid cognitive dissonance when people cry out for losing their free speech in response to those types of actions when in reality it's simply "something I was enjoying in some capacity has been taken away from me." Perhaps we'd be better served acknowledging that sometimes we enjoy inappropriate things, and that in doing so doesn't make us horrible people (for a fun aside, I recommend following up on the Duke porn star for all sorts of examples of humans on both sides of a story putting up their walls while firing their cannons) My biggest concern with trolling consequences is that early evidence points out that hostile discussion spaces may undermine one's ability to learn about the topic, while simultaneously having those same people overstate how much they actually do understand about the subject. And then you get into the same ol' internet pissing matches that fundamentally aren't useful because it's just become noise where people think they have to be louder and more extreme than the previous poster in order to be heard. Well thought out and well communicated views need not apply. And I definitely do dislike that.

So you just hang around the forums of a game you think will be poor then? Or a company that you think deserves your ridicule and mocking laughter?

Well, that was a bit confusing because my discussion was about trolls on internet message boards (or rather, private property in general), and beyond. If you're not referring to trolls on internet message boards, then you seem to be excluding a group that you implicitly include in the first part of your question. You asked me "what are your principles regarding free speech and the application of these on public and private servers?" Your intent then, was to shift the discussion onto free speech in general and what that means, as opposed to within the context of the current discussion? You did say "I will ask again" (but then asked a different question...) but my initial elaboration was that I wasn't clear when I said "I think I may be taking the definition of free speech a bit too literally (i.e. from something like the first amendment), since I don't typically see silencing or ignoring a troll to be a violation of free speech." I already answered this, when Zoraptor called me on it, in that I clarified that I was referring to the legal right to free speech, which isn't applied in a private space. In that sense, I don't see banning a troll as a violation of anyone's right to free speech. The troll can still go and be a troll without fear of government persecution. He just can't do it on someone's private property anymore. You're right that my original statement was wrong. I thought, though, that that was cleared up when Zoraptor pointed it out and I recanted the original statement.

Eh, I think if embattled against a troll no good argument nor rebuttal will make a difference. Most troll posts are not very skilled, and once you identify the usual tactics like deflecting or even reflecting attacks, it's likely just a waste of time and I'd encourage someone to simply not let themselves get frustrated and disengage. The primary reason why I hesitate with "grow thicker skin" is that it becomes a victim blaming problem. Which is an approach I think is okay in singular instances, but becomes problematic if/when the scale of an act ramps up in frequency. Though rather than censorship I'd prefer any focus to go on preparing and educating people to both better deal with the adversity and to recognize that actions and statements over the internet can have consequences. Early studies show that hostile comments tended to polarize opinions, while simultaneously causing the participants to actually learn less from articles while thinking they learned more, than had hostile comments not occurred. Now this is just hostility in general, but that is the type of atmosphere I feel a troll both seeks to create, and is increasingly successful in.

Well, it's been a useful talk in this sense, in that this is where we're divided. This type of behaviour definitely fits under trolling for me, while satire or the use of humour does not. Including the John Cleese video. That and people deal with grief in different ways. My own father, and one of my cousins, made jokes at my brother's funeral and in general people appreciated the levity because context is important - no one doubted that the comments were anything more than an attempt to cheer up a group of people who were down in spirits. I doubt "good trolling" (i.e. the type you refer to) would bring anything to light. I think the good trolling would mostly just be entertaining for those that are watching and disagree with the notion that all men are rapists. Very valid point. That "skilled" (as opposed to "good") trolls flirt the line so much with Poe's Law complicates the matter a significant amount. Who's a troll, and who just has an opinion/perspective we think is reprehensible.

Morrowind did have ability driven elements, in that you could "see your arrow hit the target" but still miss. I don't recall if this was an issue with melee attacks or not, or if it just affected damage.

Bouncing between Blood Dragon and Horizon