Zoraptor

The US signed it (1955, according to wiki) The US decided that the Gitmo detainees were 'unlawful combatants' and thus certain provisions of the GC relating to active combatants did not apply (though rather ironically, those pertaining to detained civilians therefore should). It's legal sophistry really- while it might apply to AlQ detainees on a case by case basis the Taleban were broadly recognised rulers of Afghanistan and Afghanistan was a party to the GCs (from 1956, per wiki) and for obvious reasons you cannot simply declare another country's government and anyone fighting for it illegitimate to avoid having to treat people under the GCs. It also has provisions protecting those resisting foreign occupation who are not wearing uniforms etc which would also cover many Taleban. Really though, the justification is basically the Asterisk Cheney one- they're bad people, so whatever we do to them is OK. Including, presumably, the very many innocent people, but then it is Cheney, a guy who literally has no heart.

Nah, it's your good buds in Saudi Arabia who are behind it. The US is just Not A Learning Animal. Few days after CH/ Belgium and everyone complaining about returning Syrian rebels causing crap in Europe... hey guys, we're training 'moderate' rebels. Don't worry though this time we'll be training actual moderates unlike a few months ago when our 'moderates' all went Al-Nus or ISIS, we're going to check their backgrounds and all sorts. In cooperation with our good buds in Qatar, Saudi and Turkey, who are totally moderate. So it won't be another bunch of moderates like we trained and helped in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya etc these ones will really be moderates, so don't fear, we've learnt from our mistakes etc. Stupidity, wanton stupidity. The difference between merely making mistakes and being an outright moron is that the moron repeats the same mistakes time and again, expecting a different outcome. Hint: when Saudi is intricately involved you aren't going to be dealing with moderates, you'll be dealing with loony tunes Salafi stone agers. The enemy of your enemy is only your friend if he's not actively your enemy, and Salafis are the enemy of, well, everyone who isn't Salafi. Please Yoda, after firing our politicians into the sun could you throw in the Salafis and any military commanders who think this crap is a good idea too? I'll name my first born after you. There are still plenty of communist rebels and 'terror' groups around to fill in the 'die religious people' atheist quota. But as JadedWolf says, it's all about giving yourself a justification for your violence, there are plenty of peaceful muslims, christians and atheists as well as those who will kill you for believing different.

David Cameron is a grubby little fascist. Co-opting an 'attack on free speech' to justify your own, far more insidious and effective assault on free speech should be seen as grossly offensive, and his constant pandering to the Daily Fail set is ridiculous. As for Obama, he is outright persecuting people like Manning and Snowden who have done more to defend free speech than all his pontificating, vacillating and politically spun convenient sound bites could ever do even if they weren't designed to justify and enhance the US vision of TIA while allowing a vestigial, facile, trivial parody of free speech to subsist as a sop to those who think the ability to talk about unimportant rubbish constitutes 'free speech'. The most essential part of free speech is not having David Cameron, Barack Obama, Frankie Hollande, Pope Francis or Grand Mufti sitting on the end of a microphone listening and recording every utterance every bit as much as it was not having Stalin or Hitler listening in. Horrible, horrible little maggots the both of them- and most people will get obsessed with front pages of a small circ french magazine featuring Yoda annoying adherents of the The Force; all while nodding along to their crap and feeling good about how enlightened and superior our values are and how we simply must be in favour of free speech because it's us and we're the heirs of Athens and all that is good in civilisation. Dear Yoda, I'm sure you could fire our politicians into the sun. Please? And remember, do or do not, there is no try.

Holy hell. I had a brief argument with the guy when he was here (I don't recall what about) and my argument at the time was torn apart in the space of a paragraph, but now I see he was going easy on me. Not his best work. I had virtually no objection to his previous GG piece, but this is, heh, problematic shall we say. He rails against 'the Gawker style' when employing an affected style himself, and the whole blog is replete with such stuff. Eg you certainly can 'punch down', in a national based publication, against a religion held by only around 7% of the population, a 7% which is definitively disadvantaged especially compared to the metro set epitomised by and which CH has as its main reader set. Indeed, one of his main earlier thrusts was that Chu could not comprehend the awesomeness of CH's satire because he couldn't speak french and thus lacked the essential context, so he has implicitly and explicitly said already that CH is aimed at the French (and hence, French Muslims), not the 1.6 billion worldwide muslims. Yet when convenient to his argument it's suddenly CH bravely taking on the whole, worldwide, 1.6 billion rather than the french 5 million- very Chu like logic there bro. Also, no mention of Judaism having 'special protection' in French law and that CH has sacked people for being 'anti Jewish' before. Really, 90% of it boils down to "I disagree with Arthur Chu and therefore he is a doody head", practically exactly the same as Chu disagreeing with CH and thinking they're doody heads, even using the same flawed logic and deliberate affectations to make the (reverse) points. (Note: I actually agree with most of what he says, Chu's a dismal writer with poor logic, and people should have the right to be asinine obnoxious morons, a right I'll happily defend with absolutely no intention of ever using it myself gratuitously. You'd just hope that most reasonable people would choose not to exercise that right, and would accept other people's right to call them asinine obnoxious morons when they do exercise that right. Note2: I do speak French to a reasonable level, am hard to offend and it's very infrequent that I get offended on someone else's behalf, since that's a monumental conceit to presume what others find offensive. So I have basically nothing in common with Mr Chu and don't agree with any actual limitations on free speech beyond the obvious ones: public safety, slander etc)

They know a very large number of people are going to be offended by it? What is the purpose, except to cause offence? And it has to be more than "well, we have the right to do it, therefore we should", that's a five year old's logic which most people grow out of eventually. If it were aimed at radical muslims then it would be fine, but that is something otherwise perfectly reasonable muslims will find genuinely offensive. Is it really just an attempt by a unreservedly atheist magazine to co-opt a religious figure for sympathy and to try to look 'reasonable' if anyone complains- they don't Believe so they might as well have Gandalf or Yoda with the placard, yes? Why should jews have special protection under french law but not muslims, when even M. Hollande says muslims are most discriminated against? etc etc. #jesuisEdwardSnowden would be far more appropriate to support actual freedom of expression as opposed to freedom to be a bit of a Richard. CH do have the right to be a complete asterisk just because they can, but that doesn't mean that they aren't being an asterisk just because they have that right. (I usually find the loads of rhetorical questions answering a question approach a bit lazy but, meh.)

By way of contrast, the (trigger warning) little brother site RPGWatch has had their 2014 awards. Far less detailed information is provided and their top three differs somewhat: DOS, WL2 and DAI. 1 Divinity: Original Sin 2 Wasteland 2 3 Dragon Age: Inquisition 4 Shadowrun: Dragonfall 5 Might & Magic X: Legacy 6 Lords of Xulima 7 Risen 3: Titan Lords 8 Legend of Grimrock 2 9 Dark Souls II 10 South Park: The Stick of Truth And I bet anything that table won't transfer properly despite it looking fine in the wysiwyg.

I dunno, sounds pretty personal to me. But then again, I'm stoopid. Yeah, he's taking it personal, see below from earlier in the thread. Have pity though, Gromnir's experience with the codex appear to include being PMed by Nomask7 which would scar the most accomplished warrior let alone someone with such a delicate id.

... While this is getting way off topic it should be pointed out that probably the three most prominent moderators on the site are a Jew, a gay guy and a woman. And, sadly, while they are all members here they post a lot more there. So it's not a 'some of my best friends are x' argument, it's a 'the site is actually run by x' argument, significantly different.

Nah. D&D, Fallout etc had problems with balance and gamesystems, D&D was poor at low and high levels, Fallout had massively over (by far the greatest problem) and underpowered builds. Arcanum's gamesystems were poor to atrocious at high levels, mid levels and low levels and pervaded its various builds. Mage was probably best because you could learn one spell (Harm?) and at least spam it to win almost every encounter and experience the stuff which was done well. Arcanum was absolutely awesome concepts marred irremediably by the worst gameplay implementations I've ever had the misfortune to see. It's actually worse than merely being a bad game, which are after all dime a dozen, it's a very very disappointing game because it should have been so much better than it was. If someone like Obsidz kickstarted a second Arcanum I'd be there with bells on the concept was so good.

Meh, I dislike the PCGMR meme* especially because it is so often used unironically. Actually bothering to write an article moralising about it using 'nazi' terminology is pretty moronic though, the meme is essentially harmless, it is often used with the correct irony and you aren't going to get a positive reaction in any case. The people who don't like it don't use it already, the people who do like it will think you're a unit of vietnamese currency who is taking things too seriously by half- and really, don't you have something, anything more important to write about? *I really wish the people who didn't use it most often and most unironically weren't also the ones insistent upon lionising the software console that is steam vs hardware consoles. Yeah guys, voluntarily turning your open system into a closed one makes you so superior to those buying a closed one straight off, thumbsup you awsum free thinkers you.

The only really big problem the codex has- so long as you're not a delicate snowflake- is the same one every forum has to greater or lesser extent. Half the time people want to be edgy, the other time they want to do groupthink and if they can they'll try to do both simultaneously. If the codex like a game you can usually be sure it is good, it's just the stuff that they don't like which you can't be sure of because they tend to dislike nearly everything. PST is a mediocre jRPG which is worse than KOTOR and Arcanum is just plain bad at everything except setting.

It simply shouldn't be taken seriously. Codex hates Bioware, they still have flashbacks and cold sweats about voting DAO as their game of the year. If DAI were a masterpiece reflecting the best bits of Codex approved RPG classics like PST, Fallout, Arcanum, VtMB, Gone Home, JA2 and BG2 it still wouldn't get voted highly, if it were objectively crap it wouldn't get voted highly. The only real solution to anyone disturbed by DAI's low rating is the obvious one, don't care about what others think if you enjoyed the game, and don't take a low rating as an anti-recommendation if you're thinking of buying but check out sources you trust. (I like the Codex and by and large like, agree with and trust their list. On DAI though, I wouldn't trust their rating at all. Sure, some will rate honestly and either love or hate it honestly, but too many won't)

So we will get propaganda and misinformation from the Blue Team now ? Well, it would be nice to have it formalised so that all the 'western media is unbiased and always right' types can give their cognitive dissonance muscles a bit more of a work out. Funny thing was I actually saw stopfake cited as being an example to go by, apparently unironically.

I know it's not literally what he said but my interpretation (and since he's a postmodernist douche, my experience is all that matters) of his tweets is a very clear "I am not Charlie because they had it coming." So he's arguing they deserved it because how they presented themselves? I wonder where I've heard a similar argument... Yes, quite. Thing is, there is actually a point there, though certainly not to the extreme extent of the past week's events. I know perfectly well that if I use my powers of free speech to go around a random selection of people telling them I boffed their mum last night then I will get a punch in reply at some point. That doesn't make the punch legal or 'justified' (though it might have a year or so ago, here, they fairly recently removed spontaneous justifiable anger/ provocation as a potential defence) but at the same time I do know that I'm doing stuff that other people will get angry at, and while I might make some sort of justification for doing it- defence of free speech, post modernism, whatever- I'd really be doing it because I can. I do find it ironic that Mr McIntosh, someone who clearly enjoys and frequently posts stuff which is deliberately offensive is complaining about and has no sympathy for someone else doing exactly the same. To be honest though, both sides of the GG debate are fairly frequently ironic in that respect- antiGG are beasts, beasts, for celebrating getting person X fired for supporting GG; now let's celebrate someone with blue hair getting fired and hope it was for being antiGG since that is Totally Different.

Codex is just trying to expunge the 'shame' of voting DAO as RPGOTY 2009 by being mean to DAI. Secretly they love it, its thread is the longest/ most continuous RPG thread as compared to the others on the list and there's lots of people playing and discuss!ng the game. Though no doubt they're really just playing it 7 times just to make sure it really is bad. Yep, they gave Gragt a sandwich* or something for lunch when he was doing his preview. *something something corrupt bâtards

Heh, we had a consumer revolt when they changed from superior NZ formula creme eggs to inferior British ones a few years ago.

That I really can't be any more clear on. Publishers have no obligation of 'fairness', they're inherently and fundamentally biased; but journalists do have that obligation. That really is the difference between the two, for publishers the status quo will always be "buy our awesome product!", for a games journalist it should be "(don't) buy this awesome(/ crap) product!" depending on the product's quality. Personally I don't really care about Leigh Alexander et alia's articles at all except as an indicator, I personally care far more about the attempts at blanket censorship and outright lying- neither of which were limited exclusively to games journalism in this case. I apply that to every poorly researched article I read, and whether it's GG related or not. Journalists have largely abrogated their role, which is an important even crucial one, in holding those in power to account in favour of pandering to politicians, interest groups, companies, pushing agenda etc. And when that happens they too need to be held to account.

There's still a fair bit of the nasty in the NT, especially if you want to go looking for it. One of the justifications for forced conversions was that you were just 'saving their souls from eternal damnation' and it really isn't hard to go from Revelations to it being your duty to save as many souls that way as you can. Really though, if you're looking for excuses to be nasty to people any religion can be used. Plenty of Buddhists in Burma at the moment deciding that Buddha really meant that you should set Muslims on fire, plenty of Christians who think that Jesus was a bit of a hippy and 'turn the other cheek' is crap in CAR etc. It's almost always just an excuse and justification, someone dressing stuff up in the trappings of an acceptable morality system by interpreting that system, er, liberally.

That's an interesting observation. Is it your own, or do you have a reference? Not my own, no. It actually comes from the TV programme QI, primarily, though I did try looking it up to confirm it's the sort of thing that google etc are generally poor at finding specific information on beyond supporting the basic premise. (And on rereading I should probably make sure to clarify that the Chinese did have some glass, it was just massively less sophisticated and less used than in the west)

I'd handwave much of the stuff publishers do as 'just the way it is done' because it is true. Publishers do not have any 'moral obligation' to fairness any more than department stores or supermarkets or politicians do. A publisher's obligation is to sell their product, and to do so using whatever techniques they think work and are legal. Morality only comes into it when it collides with public perception, so DMCAing bad reviews for using copyrighted material may remove the bad review but will court a huge backlash/ Streisand Effect while supporting charity or offering free upgrades is due to Good Will, not good will. Ultimately publishers are not your friend, they are not your buddy and they will exaggerate, obfuscate and spend influence to get what they want. Large corporations are basically sociopaths, they exist to make money first and foremost, everything else is window dressing. Anyone thinking different is living in fantasy land. Journalists on the other hand do have a moral obligation. The difference between a journalist and a PR agent is that a journalist is meant to look at things objectively and resist any blandishments and influences thrown their way by the PR agents- who are expected to try and influence the journalists as it's what they're paid for, as part of influencing the consumer- look at things subjectively and offer such blandishments as they can get away with. If a PR agent does that stuff they are doing their job, if a journalist falls for it or worse, encourage and actively/ passively condone it then they are not doing their job. Practically speaking expecting journalists to behave as they are supposed to may be fantasy land, but it is a fantasy land they theoretically do exist in. Indie studios do not have a moral obligation either, except in so far as they are happy to label themselves as being Independent rather than being Large Evil Corporate Publishers and setting themselves up on the moral high ground. Practically though there is little difference between a small company and a large one in those respects, Indies love playing the free thinking underdog precisely because it is good PR, and they're not big O Obligated to be hypocrisy free. For example Brain Fargo trashes publishers because his consumers lap that up- but if the KS dollars dry up and he cannot self fund does anyone seriously think that those 'principles' will be worth the photons used in sending this post and he won't go looking for a publisher? And that, really is why not focussing on publishers is by and large the right approach. They're just doing their jobs, if you get taken in by them then diddums, you should always take what they say with the proviso that their only real aim is to sell you stuff. OTOH journalists are supposed to be sceptical themselves, and are supposed to be impartial, if you get taken in by them or find their conduct to be disgraceful (for want of a better term) you have a right to be angry even if you know practically that many don't live up to those standards.

Yep. The Chinese make an interesting example, they invented a bunch of absolutely crucial things and had a huge number of inventions overall but they missed out on other stuff because they never really needed it- glass being perhaps the most notable. While you can do a lot with porcelain, enough that glass doesn't seem fundamentally necessary you cannot do things like make lenses or complicated chemical apparatus out of it. In that respect having something that was 'good enough' was a disadvantage in the long term.

The theory that I had heard about revolved largely around diseases and much of Africa being 'linear', having an easily accessible coastal strip but little else. Compare to the Med, where you could take a compass bearing and hit a different civilisation on most bearings in Africa you could go up or down the coast only. Plus Nubia (ruled Egypt at various times, built far more pyramids too), Mali Empire (~1.3 million square km; six times the area of Great Britain), Benin Empire (which had a longer continuous existence than almost all European countries), Zimbabwe and a fair few others. None of them apart from Egypt are particularly well known though.

I could understand that, depending on circumstances. If you get stopped by the police and produce your ID you'd probably be fine, at least on the way in and they'd have no reason to do anything further (search etc) assuming you were not stupid and didn't have your RPG7 on the back seat. It would be pretty stupid planning your attack and then getting busted because you were nabbed speeding or at a licence/ DUI check. It also really depends on whether they were obviously going to attack someone. If they were armoured up and wearing balaclava while driving around Paris they were liable to be stopped anyway and there would be no point having an ID, if they put their armour etc on close to or at the attack site they would have the extra option of bluff at least on the way to the attack. Still, I don't think I've forgotten my driver's licence in the past ten years and it seems just plain obvious to burn the car in some prepared place with few people around and with a handy second car available; you burn it precisely because you may have forgotten stuff.

The only really contentious part conspiracy wise is how one of the Kouachis managed to leave his id papers in an abandoned car. Given that they were not suicidal in the way many islamic extremists are and went to pains to avoid being killed/ captured initially, actually picked up a shoe when leaving plus that the rest of their operation was very professional having it all fell apart due to a spectacularly amateur mistake seems rather unusual. Not leaving identity papers around/ torching the car seems like criminal 101- or perhaps criminal kindergarten- to me. Even so, it's by far the most likely that that was just a fortunate mistake, rather than anything else.

Hollande is a monumental twot, but he isn't wrong on that. If the attack on the supermarket were carried out by a white supremacist christian it would not be labelled as a christian attack, it would be 'antisemitism' (a term I dislike for technical reasons, since arabs are semites as well). That attack would not be condoned and would be actively condemned by the vast majority of christians, and the actual attack has not been condoned and has been condemned by the vast majority of muslims. Blaming muslims in general for it would be as stupid as blaming New Zealand if one of the gunmen turned out to be from here and said they were doing it to avenge the Rainbow Warrior. Oh, good. So we can look forward to Anonymous hacking their machines, ruining the evidence chain, and destroying criminal prosecutions, just like they did with other criminals? Vigilante justice ...away! What, like the US government torturing people and imprisoning without trial for a decade+ (including of course a bunch of innocent people, some of whom are still held despite being known to be innocent) so much so that some cannot be tried the evidence is so contaminated and the accused are no longer mentally competent; or summarily executing people including innocents via drone. Well OK, they're not really alike.