BruceVC

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

Volo..don't be a class hater...don't resent people who are more successful than you. I respect people who do well due to hard work...we can learn from them

Barti...you should vote on the side of righteousness and advancement ....vote Clinton

2133 what type of government and or ideology do you support or believe in, I know you aren't crazy about the EU but I am interested in your views?

So all you boys that live in the UK can you tell us who you have decided to vote for?

Yeah all politicians have said silly things in the past. This shouldn't negate all the good she has done in the past and the value she can add as the first women president She has the character traits of shrill harpy with a machiavellian bent. Her sex or political affiliation doesn't matter. No, i think it is time that people should pull up their boot straps, accept that there's no free lunch and vote for a candidate that stands for strength, honor, and glory. Preferably running with the following campaign-music: I hope she does get the presidency...I'll be sure to rub your face in it

Who would be an inappropriate woman president? Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann for starters? I get what you're saying. You're using inappropriate to mean "not suitable" whereas I was trying to read it as "not proper". Yeah

Why don't you like Hilary Clinton? She has a wealth of experience in a number of fields

Who would be an inappropriate woman president? Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann for starters?

Yeah all politicians have said silly things in the past. This shouldn't negate all the good she has done in the past and the value she can add as the first women president