BruceVC

No its fine but I have never believed in this concept of the "Rainbow Nation" because the implementation of it is flawed and I think it sets an unrealistic expectation on the new South Africa. We tend to get judged on the criteria of what the "Rainbow Nation" is suppose to mean and not what we have really achieved..like an end to Apartheid without a devastating civil war People will naturally hang around with people they want to, you can't force people to now believe that just because Apartheid ended everyone is now going to be great friends. And that's fine. As long as we have respect for each other and don't discriminate then people will just gravitate to there own social groups that transcend a racial barrier In South Africa you often people lament the fact that we " aren't a Rainbow Nation " but we are just not in the way they expect it to be

Interesting well I would like to hear other opinions from other American forum members The question is a simple one " is the USA the same, better or worse off under Obama than Bush after 8 years " ? Obama is basically just Bush 2.0 so it's not really a matter of who's better or worse. They're the same on almost everything that matters. Obama might be very slightly better, but that's a tough call. And the impressive recovery of the US economy, the low unemployment rate and fact that the USA is not involved anymore in any new conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan can Obama not take some credit and recognition for this ?

In the American parlance feel free to mentally "find and replace" SJW with Democrat. Because while all Democrats are not SJWs, in the US all SJWs vote Democrat. So by empowering Democrats we are empowering SJWs. I can agree with that and its amazing how well the USA has done since " SJW" have taken over running the government? Compare the USA under Bush to it now and the last 8 years under Obama...are we really going to say things were the same or better overall under Bush? So SJ influence is not always a bad thing? Yes. Pretending otherwise is folly. All questionable programs that people disliked under Bush have vastly expanded under Obama. The amount of corruption that Obama has presided over has NEVER been seen in the executive and is EXACTLY what I predicted when I heard the dem primary frontrunner was a Chicago pol. Not to mention the idiocy with Iran and his refusal to defend the Marshall Islands flagged ship. It's ****ing disgusting. Interesting well I would like to hear other opinions from other American forum members The question is a simple one " is the USA the same, better or worse off under Obama than Bush after 8 years " ?

Which is also true of political parties in the first place. They've (re-)inflated a housing bubble, allowed most of our capital city to (continue to) be sold to Russian mobsters, and engendered the creation of a great number of zero-hours jobs. They've cut government services and failed to make savings from it. So no, not really. But no British government has done a good job since the War. We have property in London and when I visit the capital and stay there two things that most local people talk about are Property prices in London are very expensive and only foreigners can afford them There are many Arabs and Russians who are now effectively buying up London My argument to this would be The market determines the price of a particular property based on numerous factors like location. Is it the governments fault that a flat is that expensive in Chelsea? Its a global world, can you really prevent wealthy people from other countries from investing in areas like property? How would you reasonably prevent this? You do what most other countries do and impose a property tax on foreign nationals. Although, Bruce, it's lovely to see you embrace Globalised, low-tax ideology when it turns out your family own a multi-million pound property in one of the most expensive Boroughs in the UK. Like most left-wing SJW types, you've never had an opinion you couldn't afford. Monte thats nasty My family is investing most of our money outside South Africa in property, considering the potential uncertainty with some aspects of the future of South Africa I would say this is prudent? We are all committed to South Africa but that doesn't mean you should have all your eggs in one basket if you are able to. Also my family is from the UK so I see the UK as my second home outside of South Africa, its the only place I would like to immigrate to as I feel the most connection to the UK

Which is also true of political parties in the first place. They've (re-)inflated a housing bubble, allowed most of our capital city to (continue to) be sold to Russian mobsters, and engendered the creation of a great number of zero-hours jobs. They've cut government services and failed to make savings from it. So no, not really. But no British government has done a good job since the War. We have property in London and when I visit the capital and stay there two things that most local people talk about are Property prices in London are very expensive and only foreigners can afford them There are many Arabs and Russians who are now effectively buying up London My argument to this would be The market determines the price of a particular property based on numerous factors like location. Is it the governments fault that a flat is that expensive in Chelsea? Its a global world, can you really prevent wealthy people from other countries from investing in areas like property? How would you reasonably prevent this?

In the American parlance feel free to mentally "find and replace" SJW with Democrat. Because while all Democrats are not SJWs, in the US all SJWs vote Democrat. So by empowering Democrats we are empowering SJWs. I can agree with that and its amazing how well the USA has done since " SJW" have taken over running the government? Compare the USA under Bush to it now and the last 8 years under Obama...are we really going to say things were the same or better overall under Bush? So SJ influence is not always a bad thing?

Its not really about Quinn or Grayson, per se. They're just real world examples of the questions that arise when developers and journalist intersect at at personal level. What he's saying is that if you're a journalist in a relationship with a developer, that you should recuse yourself/be recused by editorial from any journalistic endeavors related to the covering of that developer. To not use real people, lets say Developer A (DA) and Journalist B (JB) are in a relationship. JB writes positive things about DA's career in games, and mentions their current work, the Awesome Game of Awesomeness (AGA) How do you know the positive press isn't influenced by the relationship? Would this developer be noted by this press outlet if not for the relationship with the journalist? DA runs into financial trouble because they sunk too much money in their project. JB allows DA to move in and pays for some of the bills so DA can continue working on AGA. JB writes a positive preview of AGA. How do you know the positive preview isn't influenced by the relationship? Isn't JB technically a financial investor in AGA? Does this mean JB can't be objective? Would AGA be a game covered by this press outlet if not for the relationship with the journalist? DA and JB break up. DA completes AGA. JB gives a negative/positive review of AGA If Positive: Is the review accurate, or is JB inclined to write positively about it because they'd hyped it during the relationship? If Negative: Is the review accurate, or is JB inclined to write negatively about it because the relationship soured? Would AGA be a game covered by this press outlet if not for the relationship with the journalist? DA works on the sequel, AGA2. When it comes out, JB pans/promotes it. If Promote: Is the review accurate, or is JB inclined to write positively about it because they'd hyped it during the relationship? If Pan: Is the review accurate, or is JB inclined to write negatively about it because the relationship soured? Would AGA be a game covered by this press outlet if not for the relationship with the journalist? You see the problem begins to arise about whether you can trust the news outlet to be unbiased as much as it can, and point out what biases it has when it can't be neutral. Well based on how you have created this post and the logical nature of your points I would have to be insane to disagree with it. So good points made in a reasonable and convincing manner The only counter argument I could make is no one had even heard of Depression Quest until GG was founded so wasn't a " mountain made of a molehill " about this example? Its not like AAA games are created like this or for that matter even other Indie games where developers have physical relationships with developers so why create a movement that is determined to " expose corruption in the gaming industry " based on this example. In other words its not that bad this accusation of unethical behavior because I am sure the whole Depression Quest was just one isolated example ?

Its not really about Quinn or Grayson, per se. They're just real world examples of the questions that arise when developers and journalist intersect at at personal level. What he's saying is that if you're a journalist in a relationship with a developer, that you should recuse yourself/be recused by editorial from any journalistic endeavors related to the covering of that developer. To not use real people, lets say Developer A (DA) and Journalist B (JB) are in a relationship. JB writes positive things about DA's career in games, and mentions their current work, the Awesome Game of Awesomeness (AGA) How do you know the positive press isn't influenced by the relationship? Would this developer be noted by this press outlet if not for the relationship with the journalist? DA runs into financial trouble because they sunk too much money in their project. JB allows DA to move in and pays for some of the bills so DA can continue working on AGA. JB writes a positive preview of AGA. How do you know the positive preview isn't influenced by the relationship? Isn't JB technically a financial investor in AGA? Does this mean JB can't be objective? Would AGA be a game covered by this press outlet if not for the relationship with the journalist? DA and JB break up. DA completes AGA. JB gives a negative/positive review of AGA If Positive: Is the review accurate, or is JB inclined to write positively about it because they'd hyped it during the relationship? If Negative: Is the review accurate, or is JB inclined to write negatively about it because the relationship soured? Would AGA be a game covered by this press outlet if not for the relationship with the journalist? DA works on the sequel, AGA2. When it comes out, JB pans/promotes it. If Promote: Is the review accurate, or is JB inclined to write positively about it because they'd hyped it during the relationship? If Pan: Is the review accurate, or is JB inclined to write negatively about it because the relationship soured? Would AGA be a game covered by this press outlet if not for the relationship with the journalist? You see the problem begins to arise about whether you can trust the news outlet to be unbiased as much as it can, and point out what biases it has when it can't be neutral. This is a very good post and detail, very interesting. I am going to dinner now but I will respond to this..probably tomorrow

It was high, apparently the highest since 1997 or so

It can be, but we have a few situations that are more relevant at the moment, such as the SPJ thing and possibly a debate panel at a con. I'd much prefer to talk about that than getting into another circular argument with Bruce that clogs up several pages. Fair enough, until next time Nonek

Yeah I would expect this from you, much easier just to say things and not have to back them up Like your unproven assertion that Mr Grayson is innocent of any unethical behaviour? Please Bruce you can believe your own lies, as i'm sure they let you sleep at night, but don't expect any others to do so. A game journalist has a code of ethics to follow, he should not have a personal relationship of any kind with a game developer, never mind sleeping with one or paying for what follows. This is basic ethics, that can be confirmed by any ethics professor or anybody possessing a journalism degree. This should be simple to comprehend for a child or even you. Edit: I'm not surprised that I have to tell you this. Are you suggesting that Grayson paid Quinn to sleep with her? I hope you aren't saying that...that would be a new low from you

What cash payments were made to Quinn? Provide links or it didn't happen, its very unethical to make baseless and defamatory accusations Nonek...I'm surprised I have to tell you this? http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/04/kotaku-writer-paid-800-to-dev-he-was-sleeping-with-without-disclosure/ Grayson confirmed that the payment took place Was this not a personal matter? Is this related in anyway to the game Depression Quest that Quinn created? In the article it says "Grayson did confirm the payment, but also noted that it had nothing to do with Kotaku and was a separate matter relating to the brief time when he and Quinn were together " How is paying someone money that you dated proof of unethical behavior? This is surly a private that has been explained and is not related to Grayson's time as a gaming journalist so I don't see how this relevant ? You asked for proof the payments were made. I provided that. How you choose to interpret that information and the circumstances around it is entirely up to you. Yes so Grayson and Quinn dated for a short time. For me some payment made from Grayson to Quinn is not irrefutable proof of unethical conduct

Yeah I would expect this from you, much easier just to say things and not have to back them up

What cash payments were made to Quinn? Provide links or it didn't happen, its very unethical to make baseless and defamatory accusations Nonek...I'm surprised I have to tell you this? http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/04/kotaku-writer-paid-800-to-dev-he-was-sleeping-with-without-disclosure/ Grayson confirmed that the payment took place Was this not a personal matter? Is this related in anyway to the game Depression Quest that Quinn created? In the article it says "Grayson did confirm the payment, but also noted that it had nothing to do with Kotaku and was a separate matter relating to the brief time when he and Quinn were together " How is paying someone money that you dated proof of unethical behavior? This is surly a private that has been explained and is not related to Grayson's time as a gaming journalist so I don't see how this relevant ?

What cash payments were made to Quinn? Provide links or it didn't happen, its very unethical to make baseless and defamatory accusations Nonek...I'm surprised I have to tell you this?

There is nothing wrong with a discussion about ethics in the gaming industry but very seldom do we actually see that type of discussion when is comes to issues raised by GG or people that support the movement As I keep saying its more about undermining or dismissing SJ initiatives or people that support SJ Because it's clear and in the open and for the first time, easily accessable: http://deepfreeze.it/ Wow, okay. There seems to be a lot of anger on that website, I'll go through some of the links and articles though

There is nothing wrong with a discussion about ethics in the gaming industry but very seldom do we actually see that type of discussion when is comes to issues raised by GG or people that support the movement As I keep saying its more about undermining or dismissing SJ initiatives or people that support SJ

Well what Chris says up to 7 minutes is largely accurate, that the initial reasons for the creation of GG was based on a false accusation of collusion between developers and gaming journalists. He correctly dismisses the whole Quinn saga about her sleeping with 5 guys and Grayson only punting her game because she was having sex with him. These are all baseless accusations and were a reason for the foundation of GG so that should tell you something about the merits of the movement? This whole thread really highlights this, the general debate here has nothing to do with ethics in the gaming industry

So Conservatives will govern again, do they need a coalition partner? Its not a bad result, from an outsiders perspective this doesn't seem like a bad outcome. They have done a good job overall, the UK economy has recovered for example?

I thought about it afterwards and I realized my question was a little rude and presumptuous. The English are more reserved about this type of thing, you guys aren't like the Americans and me who openly state who we will be voting for, so my bad

No. Besides being a woman - and, as you pointed out, succeeding in spite of it in a very poisonous political climate - she stands for most everything I hate about U.S. politics - corporate backing, family ties and other questionable connections, being put mostly in a position to succeed by others - just like everyone else who runs for anything even half-important in this godforsaken, nepotistic country - and straight up, I did not not like her part in the Obama administration (being a grand part of the "most transparent administration ever", HA), and I have little love for what I know of her politics. Why in the world do YOU think we should like her for president? You still haven't given any bloody reasons that would actually play into why she makes a good candidate. Because she succeeded at manipulating her way into positions of import, just like everyone else who holds/has held those positions have? You should vote for her for several reasons, the main ones being she does have the credentials, experience and ability. So she is a women who actually meets the criteria ....she is not some token. That should be reason enough ?

No. Mind your own business. 1) Committees - You are correct that much government work is done by committees. A good example would be civilian oversight of the security services. Which of course I support. If, like me, you actually observe the functioning of these committees then you'd have healthy skepticism of their capabilities. You wouldn't want one commanding how much money you are allowed to have. Because that means their oversight extends to everything. EVERYTHING. 2) The Crash (which you mention later) - Was delivered by bankers, but engineered by politicians. Bad housing loans were not initially made as some sort of jolly wheeze. They were supposed to help honest poor folks get on the housing ladder. Once made they were traded as if completely sound because the government had instructed them to be treated as such. Yes some shockingly twisted and bizarre f***s were implicated in what happened later, which only made the situation worse. But at root this is like blaming the repo man for your mortgage foreclosure. EDIT: Just to disprove the notion that nothing on the internet ever matters, I'm pleased to report that I have shifted my vote thanks to this discussion. I have to be honest I find it strange that you guys won't share what political party you are voting for ? Its not like we don't discuss everything else...you should be confidant enough in your decision to discuss and debate the party you chose ? Neither of you strikes me as lacking in conviction and confidence around your political views so why the secrecy ?

You guys are right, I have removed the " she deserves it part" Now do you like her?

Normal currencies are less volatile, but that's a difference of degree, not a fundamental one. The main reason why Bitcoin is less stable than "normal" currencies is, I think, the fact that the market for Bitcoins (and the market for trading Bitcoins for goods & services) is many orders of magnitude smaller than, say, the Dollar equivalent. So if one person suddenly decides to buy (or sell) a lot of Bitcoins, that can quickly upset the whole Bitcoin ecosystem and change everyone's expectations (and by extension the "going price"). Whereas a single Dollar-based transaction would never make any measurable difference in the grand scheme of things, since there are probably billions of other Dollar-based transaction on the same day and they all sort of even out. The value of today's national fiat currencies isn't fundamentally more "real" than that of Bitcoin. In both cases the value derives from the fact that people expect to be able to either trade it back later at a profit, or buy stuff they want with it. With Dollars you have more choices what to buy and there's less risk of the whole system collapsing before you have a chance to trade your money back for another currency, but again that's a difference of degree. The central bank can choose the amount of new money to print or change the federal funds rate, but those are only tools to nudge the market for that currency into a particular direction, they don't make it possible for the central bank or government to simply "decide" the value of a currency. And they can also make things worse. Not that any of this is poor thinking, but you do know that Barclays Bank and others have recently been fined for manipulating currency markets? Yes I know about LIBOR and other financial scandals. No one said the banks were perfect and due to how they use to operate these types of things will happen and the banks will be penalized and adjust to ensure it isn't repeated. We should be admiring this type of sense of wanting to get better and not being too arrogant

Unless Bill is her VP and he plans on assassinating her on day 1 of being president, I don't think so. He may or may not be morally bankrupt, but at least he was a decent president. Her? I know she's morally bankrupt - why else would she stay married to that husband of hers that cheated on her in one of the biggest public marital scandals of all time without so much as batting an eye...if not for the lure of power later on - and while she has shown flashes of competence at one time or another, I'd rather take my chances with virtually anyone else. Its interesting you see her staying with Bill as a sign of weakness or politically opportunistic. I admire her for it and see it as sign of strength , she was utterly humiliated after the Lewinsky affair and understandably could have divorced him and moved on Yet she stayed with him and in the end Bill Clinton redeemed himself and she created her own political identity. She became the first female senator elected from the state of New York and then nearly won the Democratic presidential nomination. She then became Secretary of State ..a very tough job on its own And she did all of this in the context of American politics being still quite dominated by men, especially in 2000. So her achievements are doubly impressive So the real question everyone should ask themselves is " why wouldn't you want her to be president of the USA" ...she deserves it