alanschu

3 more months until content lockdown, not release or anything like that (though I suppose if you're playing the beta that might be good). From there it's polish. There won't be any manufacturing/retail angle, though, and that will keep roughly a month of time off the eventual release. I could see it being 4-6 months, depending on polish (i.e. 1-3 months after content lockdown) of the alpha.

Just BioWare. Orogun you won't get offended now that Alan has told you will you....remember you promised you wouldn't ..... Well, I'm slightly offended that you thought I wouldn't keep my promise. Well, technically you didn't make any promises if I did, only if I didn't!

The funny aspect is where I was more going with this. Part of me is curious if people will justify that trolling is necessary in their own minds because it'll show people to not take things too seriously or whatever, while for the most part it's just a situation of "I found it funny, therefore I'm okay with some of it." Humour is innately aggressive and often people are the butt ends of the joke, and the ability to laugh at oneself will make those types of situations more bearable (or even humourous). But I'm sure we've all laughed at the person "trolling" that perspective we disagree with. How often do we laugh and agree with the troll that makes fun of the perspective that we do agree with? Is it just a sense of satisfaction of "aha, that guy with opinion I don't like totally got what was coming to him!"

Okay fair enough. Taken more generally, what are your thoughts on optional content? Should it only be experienced at the exclusion of other optional content? Or is there wiggle room here?

I do agree with the notion, though, that a lot of our "big issues" are our big issues because a lot of the other, more serious issues, have been mitigated (for now, anyways). When I see a "oh man, another feminism/gay thread" or something like that, it's more a reflection of "Well, that's because we don't have a problem feeding and protecting ourselves now, among other things." Depending on what your perspective of "better" is, though, one is certainly free to feel that the way things are today are or are not better. I think there's some pros and some cons. It does seem like we're too protective now (especially physically) and so forth. As someone that lost a brother growing up, I suppose I can understand why some might feel that way. I know my mother was none to thrilled about me picking up a motorcycle and learning how to ride, due to those unpleasant memories. But my Dad was definitely supportive and of the "it's your life to live. Just treat it with respect (presumably the bike, and my life)." But yeah, everyone goes "my time was the best." And agreed on Darwinism not really having too big of an effect yet at this stage (and in the past, Darwin wouldn't have been too kind for someone like Stephen Hawking, for example).

delete: I loathe the text editor...

Haha. I was mostly being silly. I don't think romances will exist in the game (aside: I do disagree with Jaheira and Annah not being romances, though hey people have different opinions. I just don't see a romance as "requiring sex" although Jaheira does have that, and it's expanded upon in Throne of Bhaal). I never did the "romance" in NWN2 (I think it's only Elanee right? I didn't care much for her), so honestly I cannot remember (I played through the OC only once, and it was right at release). Although on a personal level, I *did* enjoy Jaheira's romance a lot in BG2, and a large part of it was because the concept was novel to me (I definitely wasn't expecting it). That said, hers (and probably Annah's) are the only ones that really made me go "Hey I like this!" I do not think that Obsidian is doing this. I'm just joking. I wouldn't expect any romances in the game, though I'd encourage you to go into an open mind still as there's a good chance the writing will still be excellent. It just means it's a different type of story.

Sorry, I more mean: if there were dialogue options that were available to non-romance players but not to romance players, would that make romances more palatable for you? Or is it simply "I do not like romances at all, and therefore they shouldn't be in because it's content that I'll only see doing something that I don't want to do?"

That's certainly a possibility, and there's definitely a degree of context that is very important. I mean, people go into comedy shows (an apt, analogy you made) and here things that can often be pretty crude, but there's a mindset of things being more for fun (although a good comic will still know which subject may or may not be appropriate (things like "don't punch down" often come up and whatnot), and if he or she crosses the line will often devolve into more self deprecating humor to make it clear that he or she is open to all things being open for being poked fun of. Although, with that context does it just mean that different actions may be considered trolling based upon that context? If so, it may still be definable if we isolate things like intentions and goals, for example. Though I'm just musing at this point. I'm a bit hesitant to give a troll credit because other posters prove to be reasonable human beings. I think it understates the contributions of quality posters. To Godwin the thread, it sounds like it could be a bit like suggesting maybe Hitler had a net positive because after all, after the second World War perhaps the world was in a better place than it was going in! Personal preferences not withstanding Though speaking of, a poster like LoF is precisely what I prefer to avoid on the internet. It's not something I see as a particularly creative or insightful way to promote discussion, personally. Though I'll agree that he was probably one of the few people that were likely "genuine trolls" rather than just posters that I feel can be antagonistic in providing their perspectives on topics. Reflecting on my time here, there's probably only maybe 2 or 3 posters that I'd be reasonably comfortable suggesting "that poster posts mostly to just get a rise out of people that read his posts." But as you say, personal preferences. I don't find it very difficult to find perspectives on the internet that I can be all smug and point at laugh about. I think trolls also run a risk because well, if they occasionally have something meaningful to contribute, you run the risk of simply being ignore due to past behaviour.

Fair enough. Though it's actually not something I would agree with as, technically, if the intent wasn't to simply aggravate and annoy people. But that is mostly semantics and I'll definitely concede that the application of the word "Trolling" is pretty widespread today (which I do not consider a good thing). I'd perhaps agree with the perspective of "trolling is a good match for Poe's Law" but I would not consider it a symmetric relationship (the wording gives the impression that those that match Poe's Law is therefore good trolling). If I come here under an alternate account to post on this forum as a hardcore fundamentalist about any topic here, I don't think I'd be doing anything that could be considered "good" on this board, though I'd probably be pretty successful at riling at least some people up. I also have reservations that it'd ultimately be that successful anyways, including the Tali Sweat thread. Unfortunately we cannot really quantify how many people stepped back and went "you know, I take things a little too seriously." And I think you can only definitively state it was "good trolling" if that was the reason why, so I guess it's a position of you and I having out own viewpoints on this. One thing I was thinking about on the way home today: can anyone think of a situation where a "good troll" had fundamentally different world view on yourself (open question, not just to Zoraptor)? To tie this back in with you, Zor, I am curious if there's a degree of identifying someone as a "good troll" because their actions are in alignment with what you think is ultimately a productive thing. BIAS: I'll admit that part of me is curious that someone is a "good troll" because they do a particularly creative thing that "Person X" agrees with. In that sense, there's that sense of self-satisfaction of "yeah, that guy really showed him. And he's on my team!" I mean, I can make reasonable predictions over what types of posts will receive "Likes" from which posters and I don't think my estimates would be necessarily poor. I mean, I'm fundamentally against Creationism. Is it at all possible for me to see a "good troll" that is a creationist? Do I have a bias to perceive an evolutionist as being a "good troll?" EDIT: As an extra: has anyone ever experienced a good troll that made them change their world view after being trolled?

So the issue is more that there is content that romance people see that non-romance people don't, while people that romance aren't required to miss anything themselves? If this is true, is the issue less with the romances and more with the lack of alternative-to-romance content?

Trolling is like art, you know it when you see it. Which probably sounds a bit glib, but it's about as accurate and categorical a statement as can be made about it. To be more specific, satire may be trolling and most good trolling involves a very large dollop of satire- but it's usually satire that is presented as being a serious position or statement. Same with either irony or sarcasm which for these purposes are just subsets/ techniques of satire. Trolling doesn't have to challenge a person's beliefs (beliefs is perhaps slightly the wrong word anyway) and certainly more regular techniques can be used to do the same, but I'd argue that good trolling has to have an element of that to be trolling at all. After all, if nobody cares then nobody responds, and that isn't really a troll. Can you point me to one? Simply for reference. It's come up in this thread in other places regarding a "good troll" but in all honesty, I'm not sure I agree there is such a thing as a good troll. Mostly because my application of the term trolling is behaviour that is set to be malevolent, with the purpose of disrupting discussions and antagonizing other posters. Because I don't consider the application of things such as satire, devil's advocacy, sarcasm, and so forth to really be "trolling" though. A quick google search for the term "trolling" mostly comes up with actions that are done specifically to provoke a anger and frustrate others while seeking for a response. Is it a case where the word "trolling" is applied very liberally? If I make a playful sassy comment to a coworker, and he jokes that I am "trolling" does that make me a troll? Because to me the crux of trolling is to post in a way to continue to intentionally antagonize in order to frustrate a poster and solicit responses (most likely of the heated kind). So with that in mind, it'd seem like the only way a "good troll" would exist is if someone were trolling an organization/group of people that would be deemed "appropriate for trolling" by some sort of supposed mass appeal. Like when Something Awful would go and intentionally derail a pedophile website or something. But if fine trolling is like an art form, I suspect you more mean "high quality trolling" as opposed to what SA did, since the posts that SA made were more akin to fairly standard inflammatory posting. Are you referring to "noble trolling" (for lack of a better term) or "high quality trolling" when you say "good trolling." EDIT: Before I duck out to volleyball, I think another challenge is that trolling is pretty much the embodiment of Poe's Law. Which is what I think some people may consider "good trolling" though I'm not entirely sure either.

I know you didn't bring it up. I did, since the way I read your original post made a comment regarding people that do it for fun and giggles. As someone that has definitely teased a person (probably several) for "fun and giggles" only to later learn that it wasn't actually being received that way and that I at times was taken hurtfully, I was pointing out that "trolls that do it for fun and giggles without actually hurting someone" as a segue into the point that "there's also those that do it for fun and giggles without realizing that they actually are hurting someone." It's cool. At this point I think things have been made clearer. Cheers.

Of course they'll say this. That way no one will expect them and then when people have them, it'll be a surprise rather than going into the game with expectations on who to romance! Really, it's about getting the BG2 experience, right? Taken more generally, does this mean that you feel that it should be possible for the player to have every possible character conversation interaction be available on a given playthrough regardless of which choices were made by the player?

Just BioWare.

To be fair, I have zero visibility on the project as well, so if there was already struggles then it could be a sinking ship. $200 million sounds high for me, but the only company I have anything remotely close to accurate for is BioWare, so I don't know.

I was more curious if Levine was quitting (possibly because of publisher restriction), and some people wanting to go with him to work on something else. Depending on the void left it may not be feasible to keep the studio open if a lot of (key) people leave. Part of me, though, was wondering if it was shades of West/Zampella, though leaving under a bit different (and perhaps amicable) circumstances.

Hmmm, one more post. Seems as though part of my first reply to Hiro was not posted (I moved it to a different tab mid post...) I just wanted to make sure it was clear that when I typed that word, I wasn't sure if it was the correct word to use. My intention was more just to ask whether or not the application of the term "troll" was more selective by the study, than compared to what you were applying it to. The intent was certainly not to "attack" and I apologize for it being taken that way.

Apologies for posting in sequence, though I bounce back and forth between walls of huge posts, and several posts to keep it easier to digest. [quote name="Zoraptor" post="1419612" timestamp="139267 A good troll pokes the self righteous, self important and self serious streak everyone has, and commits the worst crime imaginable to those people- making them look silly. That isn't always possible to do with impeccable logic and Socratic method. People need to be trolled, on the internet and in real life. Everyone needs their fundamental beliefs challenged at various points, if for no reason other than to affirm that you still believe them. And if your fundamental beliefs include the sorts of trivialities that people typically get trolled over then... well, a bit of self examination would not go amiss about whether Pikachu really could take Darth Vader in a fight is a truly important argument to have. Pikachu distraction aside, is taking up Devil's Advocate a "trolling" position? Is use of satire or irony trolling? I think it was mentioned earlier in the thread, but it does seem that the term gets used by a lot of people for a lot of different things, so maybe it's one of those words that is starting to lose its meaning. I don't know if I'd agree that a discussion where one has their beliefs challenged means that it's a trolling discussion. For instance, your post here challenges my beliefs that a post where one has their fundamental beliefs challenged is trolling! But your post isn't what I would consider a troll post at all. Do I apply the term differently than you?

I know you pointed it out, but I just want to focus on the idea that reporting a post is definitely not indifference. It may not seem, outwardly, like you're doing anything about it (though some people will respond to other posters to not engage), but I don't think it needs to be an outward thing. Even if a 3rd party observer could not tell if anything happened, that doesn't mean that nothing did. [citation needed] Case study example Now... is this me trolling? Does this define me as a troll? Would it be fair to say that Allan's most enjoyable act on the internet is to troll people and that he prefers trolling as his favourite thing to do on the internet? To tie in with my discussion with Hiro Protagonist, would the study linked in the OP classify me as one of the 5.6% of people, because of me posting this? I would contend that it would not make me a troll, because 211374U and I have interacted several times in the past, sometimes (waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back) in rather hostile manners,* though most times in fairly neutral, I'd say respectful, manners. We've probably both matured somewhat (I'm still hotheaded about various topics, but I disengage a lot quicker now than I used to in the past), but in general when I see one of his posts and some of our prior interactions, there's a degree of understanding by my account. In fact, my perception is why I feel I can safely link to his profile, whereas at this point linking Hiro's would give me greater cause that it may not be taken the same way, based on me learning that my previous post was taken as an attack on him and that that may colour how he reads into that post. It's not that I think Hiro is less capable of taking a joke, but just a perception I have on our forum interactions in this thread. Context is important, and the biggest question mark of the study is how it addresses context. But if it was a random person on the internet asking the question 213374U put forward, I likley would not respond with a link to the poster putting forth that question. Even if I was intending for it to be a joke, that intention is irrelevant if all it does is anger the poster. I'd err on the side of caution and would only do something like that after building up a rapport through repeated interactions. *IIRC there was some stuff with him about my use of the word predisposition when discussing piracy or something or other.... it was probably 7-8 years ago now, and helped convince me I needed to take a break from the forums to which some thought that I had been banned/suspended from the forums! Maybe that was someone else, but my (getting older...) memory makes me think it may have been him.

[quote name="Hiro Protagonist" post="1419446" timestamp="139 Nice little attack there with my 'perspective' alan.It's not an attack. I'm making the supposition that your definition is not the same as the one being applied in the article. Perhaps that you infer it as an attack is a large part of the problem of the internet. For some reason you assumed I was attacking you. Or do you think that your application of the term "trolling" is consistent with that put forward in the article? Admittedly I actually wasn't sure if "perspective" was the right word as I wrote it, but all I'm saying is that I think you're taking the study's conclusion and applying it to a larger, more generously applied label than the study itself does. At this point you're being overly defensive because I'm not attacking you. I'm saying that there are people that think they're just kidding around when in fact they're doing bad things. In fact, many of these people don't even fully realize that what they're doing is hurtful. Especially long term. If you're not talking about the bullies that are doing it for the fun and giggles, then we're not talking about the same thing and I don't think you're talking about the same people that the study is. No, I don't think that someone rickrolling me is a bully. I also don't consider someone that rickrolls me to be a troll, even if the act can be considered "trollish." I also don't think that someone that rickrolls someone once is a troll. I think that if someone has an established pattern of rickrolling people, preferably those they don't know, purely for the intent of seeing people get upset in response to be a troll. If a person I have never met rickrolls me one time, I have limited history with said individual and it will compromise further interactions with them. If a person I have only just met has 20 interactions with me, and each and every one of them is a rickroll, I likely don't interact with this person anymore (I doubt I'd get to 20). If someone is a friend of mine, with an established history and rapport with me and a host of other things for me to draw upon, a single rick roll doesn't measure a blip on the radar. Though if that friend decides that the bulk of interactions with me from now in is to rick roll me (or otherwise "troll" like behaviour), then it will start to compromise our friendship. I don't think it's a stretch that we will let friends and those we care about much greater leniency in terms of receiving the interactions. It's possible that you feeling that my post was an "attack" is a reflection of this thing. I certainly didn't intend for it to be an attack, though if it was taken as one I do apologize since good intentions doesn't absolve me of doing something I didn't mean to do. And I'm asking, is this the type of behaviour that the article is is referring to? I am disagreeing with the notion that any instance of trolling makes one a "troll." The same way that someone that loses his temper once isn't someone that would be considered hot headed, or a guy that trips up a guy in hockey one time isn't immediately labeled a dirty player. I'd say most people enjoy poking fun from time to time (supposition - no data). But the study found that only 5.6% of all respondents identify as having "trolling" as the thing they enjoy doing the most on the internet. Even if we remove the 41.3% that don't participate, that number only moves up to 9.5% of active participants. I wouldn't consider this "most" and unless my assumption is way off base, I think that the study's application over who would be considered a "troll" is a lot tighter than the application you are giving it. I disagree that the graph is saying "if you do any type of trolling or prank at all, then you're a bad person." The graph lists the "Favourite activity when posting comments online." It's not talking about single occurrences of a particular behaviour. (link to the graph: http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/140214_CDESK_MachiavellianTraits.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg )

Given the percentage of people that categorize themselves as trolls in the study, I think it's more an issue that the application of the term is used differently in the study than in your own perspective. I doubt very many people on this forum (if any) would be classified as a troll. Having said that, I do think there's a not all that clear line. Many bullies behave in ways that, in their opinion, is for "fun and giggles without any [intentional] hurting going on."

The distinction is whether or not we identify with whether or not we consider trolling one of the reasons we also go online. I'd also need to see the definition of what it means to be "trolling" on the internet. I definitely get angry on the internet, and have snarked and even snapped on some people. Is that trolling? When looking at the examples listed in the article, I don't do actions like that. I don't recall if I ever did (which means if I did, I simply do not remember it anymore). Specifically: I don't really have any difficulties saying that I do not go online with the purpose of trolling. What do you mean by trolling, though, since I wouldn't be surprised if we have different definitions. Does a sarcastic, snarky remark qualify? Or does it have to be actively posting in a particular way with the sole specific purpose of antagonizing others? Somewhere in between?

Reading this made me think of all the people doing things like cutting weight prior to their "weigh in" and stuff like that. I'm sure that'd be great for long term fitness too!

You're just being pedantic with the words I'm using. You also omitted the "likely not by an insignificant amount." Sorry, but both that hammer thrower and 200m hurdler are going to kick all our asses at a whole lot of different events than the specific ones they are olympic experts in. It seems we're just arguing semantics over what the scale actually is. Given that you were the one citing olympic athletes, I find it frustrating that because I use the word "above average" (by a not insignificant amount...) you revert ALL the way back to all people, sedentary and otherwise. Despite claims otherwise, you seem closed off and narrowminded in your fitness goals at this point (which is fine, if that's what you want out of your exercise). I don't believe this is a good thing, unless your goal is specifically to become a focused showman body builder. But then this shouldn't be a "general fitness thread" because general fitness would imply general fitness, not just body building. Michael Jordan in his prime, or an olympic sprinter, isn't going to be able to powerlift as much as the competitive body builder, but I'd argue they are significantly more "good at everything" in terms of bodily fitness. To use numberman's words: Unless you're training to be an competitive expert in a particular event, I disagree with the notion that "you have to choose what you want to be good at" and feel you're undermining your general fitness if this is the mindset that you go into exercise with. And I'm not even taking into account on how improving the other aspects numbers listed (motor control and proprioception) can have benefits beyond general fitness (proprioception is immensely valuable in injury prevention).