BruceVC

16 hours did seem like a bit much but Romance is an important part of the dark and mature world of the Witcher so we should be expecting some decent Romance arcs and opportunities you mean detailed pixelled sex scenes? No, more the ability to have some sort of relationship with various female characters, like Triss, who then could influence certain decisions. For example " do you save Triss from the dragon or just get the gold and leave her to her fate" type of emotional and logical conundrum

I suppose this could reduce the brutal practice of beheading captives, but even in the past they have set terms to avoid killing the various American and British hostages. And the reality is you can't expect countries like the USA and the UK to negotiate so I don't think the beheadings will stop

16 hours did seem like a bit much but Romance is an important part of the dark and mature world of the Witcher so we should be expecting some decent Romance arcs and opportunities

You really need to ask, after people have already called you out for it? Try calling spades spades Bruce. 'Enhanced/Advanced Interrogation Techniques' - ambiguous terminology to disguise the fact that torture is used. vs. Torture - descriptive term telling us what was done. Doublespeak if there ever was any. Nah, we will have to agree to disagree

Hurlshot is 100% correct guys, the cast looks amazing and I'm confident they will deliver an entertaining experience

Yeah its a brilliant game. Did you play the first one ? I thought it was harder than Last Light but both games were very entertaining

So you're saying they should be let off the hook for this most grievous, wasteful and incompetently done human rights violation, because they say it helped prevent attacks on US soil? Let me remind you, this is an agency so bad at doing spy stuff, they're waterboarding their own allies because they can't tell them from terrorists and are getting caught red-handed when trying to tamper with evidence of their wrongdoings. If they were any good at spycraft, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because there would be no evidence of it. (Okay, actually, if they were any real good, we wouldn't be having this discussion because they hadn't been as incompetent as to try solving problems by mass torture, but that's beside the point.) I already did so. Is the government's very own report on the issue credible enough for ya? Repeatedly. (Note: it's page 16 in the actual report, which means page 42 of the pdf, if I remember correctly.) Okay , I am going to concede you are right about the handicap man and bad treatment of informants by the CIA because I took a look at that 520 page document but I didn't read it, I'll be perfectly honest. Large parts of it are also blacked out which also makes its difficult to understand , did you read that whole document...seriously the whole document? I hope you didn't read it just on my behalf? I prefer referencing links or websites when it comes to these types of debates. The reality is I have limited time so when I ask for credible links I'm not being lazy but to be honest very few people will read through a pdf of that length just to understand a different perspective But I do appreciate the effort you have put into this discussion and look forward to the next one

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/28/jordan-agrees-freee-islamic-state-militant-release-hostage This is interesting, Jordan has agreed to a prisoner swop to get one of their pilots released from ISIS captivity and possibly the Japanese journalist as well I wonder if this is a good idea, negotiating with a group like ISIS? What precedent do you set?

By calling torture "enhanced interrogation", perhaps? Anyways, could we please get back to the subject of hand, which is that people are trusting an organization to make the right call regarding torture and its justifications which is so gravely incompetent that they tortured their own informants (plural!) for information, and so puppy-kickingly evil that they detained a mentally handicapped person to use footage of him crying to blackmail his relatives? Okay well a debate around semantics is not doublespeak, but I'll let that go so we don't go around in a pointless discussion As for your main point. AIT EIT are not used anymore by the CIA so the reality is no one is trusting the CIA based on its past usage of this practice. People trust the CIA because it has done and does do very good work at protecting the USA both historically and nowadays, like finally killing Bin Laden and preventing attacks on US soil by extremists So in other words the mistake of using EIT should not enough to say the CIA is a redundant and ineffective US agency I'm not familiar with your comments about the handicap man and the informants being tortured, can you provide some links if possible ?

Mmm...you say I'm guilty of doublespeak The definition of doublespeak is " the practice of using ambiguous language regarding political, military, or corporate matters in a deliberate attempt to disguise the truth" How exactly do you think I'm trying to disguise the truth?

This is really good news as it means that EA and therefore Bioware will continue to be committed to the DA franchise Any development of the fantasy RPG genre I fervently support The all inclusive pansexual fantasy world? Seriously though, good for them. I have to be honest I have no idea what you mean by pansexual? I looked the word up but I don't get the connection to DA:I ? So at least I learnt a new word today

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/s-p-downgrades-russia-credit-rating-to-junk/ Another blow to the faltering Russian economy , S&P has downgraded the Russian credit rating to junk Some people may believe " well the views of the international credit rating companies like Moody's and S&P don[t matter " but they do. This means that Russia will borrow money at a higher interest rate and more importantly certain prominent global investment funds cannot invest in Russia due to the perceived credit risk. Not that there is much foreign investment anyway but this just leads to less investment which Russia desperately needs

A change in your current lifestyle sounds like an excellent idea, its always good to shake things up in a life. We tend to become complacent in a routine, so keep us updated around the dance lessons

This is really good news as it means that EA and therefore Bioware will continue to be committed to the DA franchise Any development of the fantasy RPG genre I fervently support

I am really surprised no one seems to singing the praises of Banshee? Its on season 3 and episode 3 and its absolutely gripping but I warn you its for adults only, this last episode was probably one of the most violent shows I have ever seen in my life

Thats very cute You can almost see what the puppy is thinking " I really want this bed but I'm not sure if I can really deal with this cat quite yet, but I'll make a lot of noise anyway " That reminds me, I had a dream last night where I was stroking a really cute kitten. Funny how we tend to forget our dreams unless something triggers them

I think much of those books was lost on you if you think 1984 is 'a false prediction that never occurred', and 'The West isn't like the pigs, you can't seriously compare Western actions to the horrific deeds of Al-Qaeda? ' As for how would I get vital information? Well, that really depends on the situation, the information that needs to be acquired, and who has it (do they even have it?). About the absolute last thing I'd do is put a person I want information from in a situation where they have nothing left to lose, like most of those who have been kept at Guantanamo Bay. The books were probably lost on me, as far as I know they symbolise life under Communism? They definitely don't reflect life under a Capitalist\Western society? Why else are they suppose to mean or tell ?

The something else being Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, not Advanced. I suspect that Bruce is getting a kick out of everyone parroting his (no doubt deliberate) mislabelling as if it were accurate. My bad, yes I meant enhanced Not sure how I got that wrong

Well, the basic mistake you're committing here is a/ assuming that most people who were interrogated were "religious zealots who truly believe that killing innocent Muslims and Westerners is going to guarantee them a place in heaven", which is far from the truth - 26 of the 119 people (over 20%!) detained did not meet the most basic standards for detention, and this is "a conservative calculation [that] does not include individuals about whom there was internal disagreement within the CIA over whether the detainee met the standard or not, or the numerous detainees who, following their detention and interrogation, were found not to 'pose a continuing threat of violence or death to U.S. persons and interests' or to be 'planning terrorist activities'", according to the report we got, and b/ thinking of them as this terrifying other who became irrevocably corrupted, instead of being... y'know, regular people who had such a shortage of opportunities that signing up with terrorists sounded like their best option. Hate groups tend to attract desperate people, and - while I'm by no means an expert on the subject - I'm fairly sure that treating that underlying problem also severs many of the ties responsible for the person's loyalty to the organization. Its an interesting perspective to suggest that the AIT EIT were done to people who weren't actively involved in Al-Qaeda or had a direct relationship to Bin Laden The usage of AIT under these conditions would have made it even more unpalatable. But I would need to read some credible links to believe this, if you can post some I would find it pertinent ?

Oh I have read 1984, it was a false prediction that never occurred. And Animal Farm is relevant, but the message from that book is also not relevant. The West isn't like the pigs, you can't seriously compare Western actions to the horrific deeds of Al-Qaeda? But Vals I would love you to answer my question " how would you as an interrogator who needs to get vital confirmation around information get this confirmation "

Well, that's your problem then. I highly doubt any moderators are cool with torture (seriously though, name them if you're going to throw a dart like that), some may argue that it's justified as a means to get intelligence and that is their hill to fight on. And even if they are, they may very well do their "job" regardless. You honestly don't see how "thinking torture is a justified means to get intelligence" logically leads to "being cool with torturing people as long as it yields intelligence"? And the thing is, being okay with torture speaks of a lack of empathy on the most basic level. If a person is willing to trivialize the torture of a mentally handicapped person - a person who is not only innocent, but isn't even capable of understanding why is this happening to them - to use the footage of them crying as "leverage"*, just because the CIA pinky-swore** that torture sometimes yielded useful information, how the hell am I supposed to assume that they'll take seriously my much less grievous beef with someone who was mean to me on the Internet? *Page 16, footnote 32. ** because they'd totally admit if they had violated all international human rights treaties for no particular gain, right? Just to give another view about how the advanced interrogation techniques- AIT ( torture as you like to call it ) were used. I watched an interview around how it was implemented, the CIA didn't use AIT and then ask questions expecting it to yield the only answer, it was used to gain confirmation around information already gathered. So for example if the CIA was told that person X was a courier of Bin Laden they would use AIT just to confirm this This is important because there is a valid view that says torture doesn't provide really accurate information because people will end up telling the interrogator anything they want to hear, the way AIT was used it did reveal information And I'm not suggesting this is something that made it okay but its not correct to say it wasn't effective How about having this conversation here? Thing is, if you try to argue for the effectiveness of torture, your job isn't to prove that torture was "useful". Of course it was "useful"; that's why people have been using it for millennia! Question is, a/ was it more useful than using interrogation methods not involving lasting psychological damage and risk of immediate death, and b/ was it useful enough to outweigh the completely unjustifiable additional torture and, in some cases, killing of innocent people the program also entailed? I do understand your point, you are saying can you gain pertinent information without using AIT. So my first point would be you are dealing with people who are religious zealots and many of them are not highly educated, thats why terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda are so appealing to them. They truly believe that killing innocent Muslims and Westerners is going to guarantee them a place in heaven But if you read that Speigel link he talks about using the the "rapport building technique" . In the article he says "By engaging in a mental poker game with them, but consistently presenting them with facts and evidence of their guilt, by speaking their language -- both figuratively and literally -- which is something none of these private contractors for the CIA could do. For example, I questioned Salim Ahmed Hamdan, bin Laden's driver, in Guantanamo. I offered him tea, made it possible for him to call his wife -- those are things that had been promised to him, but the promises weren't kept. During the interrogations, I lay down next to him on the floor, and then we talked. That's classic "rapport building" But I question how effective this is really to gain the information you need? And this applies to anyone who is prepared to kill for a cause. Suddenly relating to them and being friendly is going to make them betray their religion? I'm sure this works for some but not the majority So the question I would ask you is how would you as an interrogator who needs to get vital confirmation around information get this confirmation?

Well, that's your problem then. I highly doubt any moderators are cool with torture (seriously though, name them if you're going to throw a dart like that), some may argue that it's justified as a means to get intelligence and that is their hill to fight on. And even if they are, they may very well do their "job" regardless. You honestly don't see how "thinking torture is a justified means to get intelligence" logically leads to "being cool with torturing people as long as it yields intelligence"? And the thing is, being okay with torture speaks of a lack of empathy on the most basic level. If a person is willing to trivialize the torture of a mentally handicapped person - a person who is not only innocent, but isn't even capable of understanding why is this happening to them - to use the footage of them crying as "leverage"*, just because the CIA pinky-swore** that torture sometimes yielded useful information, how the hell am I supposed to assume that they'll take seriously my much less grievous beef with someone who was mean to me on the Internet? *Page 16, footnote 32. ** because they'd totally admit if they had violated all international human rights treaties for no particular gain, right? Just to give another view about how the advanced interrogation techniques- AIT ( torture as you like to call it ) were used. I watched an interview around how it was implemented, the CIA didn't use AIT and then ask questions expecting it to yield the only answer, it was used to gain confirmation around information already gathered. So for example if the CIA was told that person X was a courier of Bin Laden they would use AIT just to confirm this This is important because there is a valid view that says torture doesn't provide really accurate information because people will end up telling the interrogator anything they want to hear, the way AIT was used it did reveal information And I'm not suggesting this is something that made it okay but its not correct to say it wasn't effective

...Not sure if dense or arguing in bad faith... Migration from the forum, not the company. Oooooh, the forum, not the company. Got it. Still dunno, don't read that forum. Phewww....you off the hook Gfted1...no need to feel guilty about the Obsidian Mods being responsible for developers leaving Obsidian

. Even if we let promancers stay here. " Even if we let promancers stay here" you funny

Yeah, saw that. Her problem to deal with, at least with her examples - threads you find irritating you don't have to read (promancers have said this in the past). I guess those two threads qualify as a 'microagression' ? Heh. Thing is Obsidian gets flak and heat in the 'outside world' anyway, some of it may be deserved and some of it not. Sounds like her idea of 'welcoming' is just to be praising. Needs a bit more than that if you want to condemn this forum as a place that 'needs to change', though I'd be amused to hear what you would say does. I don't know Malc but your post just seems to me like an excuse to justify offensive or rude posting etiquette And I find it strange because you don't really make rude posts or seem to get that worked up in debates so why you would try to defend bad behavior is beyond me But yes I agree with you, a person could just ignore posts they don't want to participate in, like the important Romance thread but end of the day what you find is a certain perspective starts to permeate other threads and discussions and the overall tone of a forum gets dragged down. Now you may not believe this but I can guarantee you others have experienced it. So I think a certain level of blocking or closing down toxic threads is needed. And I may be overly critical because of my SJ stance but the reality is many other people obviously agree with my view ?