BruceVC

That's exactly the reason I will sign the petition

I'm not sure I want to sign that petition, who on these forums is going to sign it ? I read more on that link and I now realize how his actions have effected others in the company, I may sign that petition after all

I'm not sure I want to sign that petition, who on these forums is going to sign it ?

Nothing like dimestore psychology to fit in well on Twitter. " but Gamergate is looking more and more like the only sensible alternative " Imagine a world where that was actually true... a world where GG was the only voice that mattered around the gaming industry. Can you think of any worse future for the gaming industry ?

QFT

Have you ever cared that games may be sexist? I can't recall you ever being concerned about this in games, maybe you can remind me of times where you have raised this where " game x" was objectifying women or showing them in a way that was demeaning. But anyway its fine if you don't care about sexism in games. The gaming industry, meaning publishers and many developers ,cares and that's all that matters

What's nonsensical about it? An 18 year old has probably never held a corporate job and doesn't know what a code of conduct is. The only time he could have interacted with people is on the Internet so his idea of acceptable comments would be based on that experience And that would not be the same as how he can conduct himself in RL. We see this all the time where people have to be trained in what they can and cant say to customers and fellow staff members. This is directly related to a persons age and life experiences

I have been working the whole weekend so its been productive but not very entertaining. I did manage to go to an excellent restaurant last night called Eisbein and Co and had a few drinks and ate some of the best Eisbein I have ever eaten.

It's true, I felt bad posting it, but I was dying to know. No need to feel bad. There is a valid reason at times to ask someone's age as it can explain a certain naivety and lack of understand around business etiquette and codes of conduct. For example an 18 probably doesn't know why threatening to kill his boss but then saying " he didn't really mean it " is unacceptable on many levels I have noticed many similar views and misunderstandings from some people on this forum on other topics. And my best educated guess for this is that people still seem to think you can conduct yourself in RL the same way you can conduct yourself on the Internet. And you obviously can't

That trailer was amazing, awesome magic and its effects I want that bird !!!

Sorry if you feel disrespected, I was just being honest. I respect your view that is what you think but I find it abnormal because that's not how the average person would look at a tragedy that effects the citizens of there own country But you already seem to acknowledge this as the Dutch media showed this concern towards its dead citizens and you didn't understand why, in fact you were offended by this. I can't really explain to you why most people would automatically show more concern to there own citizens killed in a tragedy, its just the way human beings think. Its probably got to do with a level of patriotism and the fact we generally see citizens of our own country as part of our greater community on a national level, citizens in a country are like a tribe. We share a common identify and when someone who belongs to that "tribe " is killed this impacts us on certain levels Empathy in this case would just mean you do feel for the families and the loss. Its something that you don't feel good about. And yes to be totally unconcerned if citizens of your own country are killed in a particular event I think is not right. Sorry to say this The frustrating thing about you lately is that I can't tell if you're intentionally insulting people or not but you do it so constantly that it simply cannot be another way. First off, I take offense to the implication that I don't care at all about citizens of my country being killed when all I said is that I don't value citizens of my country any higher or lower than citizens of any other country, because doing so is unethical. I also take offense to your statement that I don't understand why the Dutch media showed "concern". I understand that perfectly well and I vehemently contest your assessment that it is empathy or even anything related to empathy. I also still take offense to the implication that not showing empathy while not having an emotion connection is abnormal as you have yet to prove in any substantial form that these responses are empathic responses or that they are responses that the average person has. Simply put, I don't think you know what empathy is. Here's the facts: The idea that a country is some sort of enormous tribe is a projection. It cannot exist. If an actual tribe becomes significantly larger than that society's average Dunbar's number (usually somewhere between 150 and 200), it splits. It is impossible to have an emotional connection to more people than the human brain allows and therefore impossible to have a real empathy for them. The fact that the "average" media person (again, I contest your claim that the "average" person does the same because in my personal experience this has never and will never be true) tends to make empathic statements anyway proves not that they have empathy but that they either instinctively fake it because of expectations or project the loss upon themselves (probably under the guise of nationalism), which isn't empathy but self-pity. Were I to read about these people right now and understand who they were, their names, their lives, and form an emotional connection, I would have an empathic reaction. I would have something to identify with, and therefore I would have an empathic response. If you have seen a lot of personal information about these victims? Guess what, you're having an empathic reaction because you have an emotional connection, not because you have some magic "caring about every stranger's life". Maybe the response you lament us not having is culturally respectful, or culturally appropriate, but it certainly isn't nor will it ever be empathy. What happens with nationalism is that the brain can't recognize more people than, again, Dunbar's Number. So it takes more people and internalizes them as a single entity. These good people I know aren't individuals, they're my nationality. It's a projection of belonging with a positive group fit only for people who can't form close emotional connections to the actual people around them. Nationalism on a biological level is the same as discrimination. It's the difference between "this one guy of [race, gender or nationality] is an individual who commited a crime" and "this one guy of [race, gender or nationality] is a criminal, people of [race, gender or nationality] must be criminals". As my country is often referred to as a "melting pot", I can tell you for a fact that nationalism has been nothing else but a source of countless problems and discrimination here. "This guy is dead, but it's worse because he's one of ours!" Does that seem like a good response to you? I think it demeans the entire human race and the fact you consider it "normal" is frankly the most scathing condemnation of modern society I can think of. Okay I did misunderstand you, I thought you were surprised that the Dutch media showed concern for it citizens who were killed. When in fact you were saying they should have shown the same concern for all the people killed. I apologize for misinterpreting what you meant Anyway my point doesn't really change, the media of any country will always seemed more concerned with deaths of there own citizens. That doesn't mean they aren't worried about the deaths of other citizens So for me you don't need to have real visibility around the deaths of citizens of your own country before you feel empathy. Just the fact that you hear that people of your country have been killed is enough to feel empathy. Of course the emotional connection gets more serious when you see who they were and how there loss effects relatives And I don't think being concerned with your own citizens first and then others second makes you a bad person and I don't agree this is a form of discrimination. So I have no problem with Nationalism as long as it doesn't lead to automatic discrimination against foreigners

Nonek you do realize that game is misogynistic, my advice is stop playing it immediately...delete it from your PC and never ever mention you enjoyed playing it !!!

Never said the website is closing down. And was it an objective of GG? Can you provide links? I thought one of the objectives was to bring honesty and integrity to gaming media sites. Something you don't seem to agree with. The difference between the two of us is I'm all for honesty and integrity. Try and debate against that all you like but you will lose. I have no problem " losing " Hiro. You just haven't convinced me I need to admit I lost. Also I'm not sure why we have to have a winner or loser, lets try to agree on a common way forward to ensure that GG can make the relevant changes that you feel need to be made in the gaming industry

But is he the legitimate and recognised President of China? Depends on your definition of legitimacy, if you say is he the legitimate leader to the ruling political party then "yes" But is he the legitimate ruler to the people on the street than "no" because they never voted for him. The average Chinese citizen has no say in who the ruling party nominates

Sorry if you feel disrespected, I was just being honest. I respect your view that is what you think but I find it abnormal because that's not how the average person would look at a tragedy that effects the citizens of there own country But you already seem to acknowledge this as the Dutch media showed this concern towards its dead citizens and you didn't understand why, in fact you were offended by this. I can't really explain to you why most people would automatically show more concern to there own citizens killed in a tragedy, its just the way human beings think. Its probably got to do with a level of patriotism and the fact we generally see citizens of our own country as part of our greater community on a national level, citizens in a country are like a tribe. We share a common identify and when someone who belongs to that "tribe " is killed this impacts us on certain levels Empathy in this case would just mean you do feel for the families and the loss. Its something that you don't feel good about. And yes to be totally unconcerned if citizens of your own country are killed in a particular event I think is not right. Sorry to say this

I am happy but I still want to see the actual implementation of Romance, I don't want to see the whole "yes I love you because you gave me a present " concept which did undermine the credibility and believability of Romance on certain levels

Yes you did mention that but that's a good endorsement to play this game because it seems like real value for money

So you admit Gamasutra's views have gone down? No I need to go through the links myself before I comment. But its quite possible, it doesn't mean the website is now going to close down which seems to be an objective of some people from GG?

So Xi Jinping who is the President of China, who didn't come to power through the will of the people is not the legitimate president of China. Because you know he's also the Chairman of the Central Military Commission as well. Check. No China is not a Democracy, its a one party state and demonstrates certain characteristics of a dictatorship. So the current president does not represent the will of the people, he represents the will of the political party

That doesn't make him illegitimate. Democracy does not equal legitimacy. Okay will then we have reached an impasse and that's fine I believe that if people in a country have a chance to vote in a free and fair election and the results of that election mean that the majority of votes determine what political part wins that means there is a legitimate form of government that should govern. You don't think this means that is a legitimate way to determine who governs, what would you definition be of political legitimacy?

I was about to mention it, but decided against it The US electoral college system is not a true democracy and therefore not "legitimate". Waiting for South Africa to declare war in the US to correct that heresy Okay I really don't have the energy or knowledge to get into a discussion around if the " USA is a real Democracy " I just know its more of a Democracy than Libya under Gaddafi ever was

Need to check your own link. Looks like Gamasutra has dropped, not increased. And the other two, how are they doing?

If you can't see it, I'm not sure I can explain it so it makes sense. Who made the decision that a leader with more than 50% backing inside a nationstate is the only "legitimate" leader? What about a leader appointed according to his countrys constitution? Italy had a PM for a while that was appointed "Senator for Life" by the President and appointed PM and a cabinet consisting of People not elected for anything (i.e. technocrats). He was never elected, yet no NATO planes swooped in and bombed Rome back to the stone age. No I can't see it because none of those examples are the same as Libya. Gaddafi came to power through force, there was no valid Libyan constitution under Gaddafi and the Italians in the last 100 years have not decided to wipe out an entire Italian town because that town wanted political transformation. So I just don't see how that post is relevant to what happened in Libya ?

I don't have a problem with the word legitimate. I have a problem with non-Libyans determining who is or isn't a legitimate leader in Libya. I wouldn't want the British to say Lincoln wasn't "legitimate" because he wasn't of royal lineage. Democracy doesn't = Legitimate. It's ironic that you mention legitimacy though. See, Gaddafi was put into power by Libyans; while these rebels owe their success to the west. So if either is to be considered legitimate; it would be Gaddafi. Once again Gaddafi came to power in a coup because he had the support of the army, he didn't come to power through the will of the people So I fail to see how you say that someone who stays in power through military control is legitimate. If he had actually won an election I wouldn't be raising this criticism of this regime