BruceVC

That's cute I like to see ardent fans

I just love how these "[brand name] lore in [small number] minutes" videos are completely unintelligible to anyone whose first language is not english That's an interesting observation because your English on the forums is impeccable yet you battle with the video, but you are also right. The commentator speaks very quickly and this is obviously much harder to understand for a person who is not a native English speaker

Nice, but just to be clear are you saying the PC game of D&D or the original pen and paper game? Because you say Developers and I'm not sure how they fit into the pen and paper game?

That's a good enough endorsement for me

That's true we are comparing moral and effective, but I will maintain that you have to have some morality to be remembered as a good and effective leader There is no such thing as a perfect leader because the question of morality around a leaders actions become subjective But on the question of Churchill vs Stalin, you not seriously putting them in the same camp are you?

Likewise. And I assert that collectivization was a success as it fulfilled its stated goal. It rapidly collectivized agriculture turning millions of ineffective small scale farms into a couple of hundred thousand large, efficient collectively owned farms serviced with tractors and machinery; in turn this was able to provide a push for mass industrialization in urban centres which doubled the urban populace. Naturally such a large scale endeavour was not executed flawlessly; disruption of agricultural norms certainly antagonized sections of the populace, local officials often used coercive means to encourage collectivization. Furthermore this was obviously the final rift between the Soviet state and the enemy capitalist Kulak class, as the Kulaks resisted Soviet collectivization and tried to sabotage it by slaughtering cattle and so on (although the extent of this was greatly exaggerated by the Soviets). Of course this all coincided with a terrible draught which combined with heavy handed Soviet policies, Kulak sabotage and an all around ****ty harvest resulted in a terrible famine. Despite all this, agriculture stabilized by 1935 and became much more efficient than ever before thereby bringing an end to major famines in the region. I enjoy having debates with you because I do think you are a reasonable person who makes good points, we just don't agree on Stalin being a good leader. So when I said I don't want to debate this particular point anymore its not that I am annoyed or frustrated, its just that I can't say anything more on this topic to convince you

Absolutely no proof of that, at all. If there's a Satan, or some such entity, they are laughing with glee at you and all those who think similar. Anyone on this planet long enough that doesn't regularly go hunting for sandworms head first and that truly thinks, knows that stable families are the bedrock of a stable civilization. It's a 101 concept in pretty much all of the humanities and life. The evidence of this is everywhere. And it's something that many do still realize, both those who want the stable society and those who want to bring it down. The latter seem to sadly be winning, and they are laughing with glee as well. I don't disagree that stable families are important but I don't get the connection between a gay couple and stable family?

I'd just be interested in reading them. Really? You really want to destroy the excitement of the narrative...you are a reasonable person. Why would you want to do this?

Anyways... yes. War is coming on both sides of the Atlantic. The question is how? Will it be civil uprisings or will the powers that be take us into another world war to avoid such uprisings? As they certainly know they are coming. It's openly talked about in many circles on this side of the Atlantic at this point. My money is on both, but I hope I'm wrong. The momentum towards hot conflict seems inexorable at this point, on many levels. You always were the master of theatrics. So another world war is coming is it. Interesting, maybe you can explain how during the Cold War where the USA and the USSR really didn't like each other they never went to war ,because of the reality of mutually assured destruction due to nuclear weapons, somehow now we are going to see another world war?

Annnnnnd you've missed the point. The Soviet leadership is indeed responsible for a significant loss of life in this period however it is incorrect to say they are wholly responsible and that all of these deaths were a direct consequence of these policies. The U.S.S.R at the time was a huge collection of republics that were at most semi-industrialised. Death on a large scale was going to happen regardless of who was in charge. Where the Soviet leadership succeeded was in pulling out of this crisis and managing to rapidly industrialise and eclipse the productivity of the West: Reducing it to merely "Stalin implemented policies than everyone died" is an inaccurate and dishonest portrayal that fails to capture the success and severity of the period. An excess of 4-24 million is quite the overshoot. And like I said, with a population that size, in a collection of republics with limited levels of industry, in a time of severe drought, a large scale of death is going to happen no matter what man or party is "in charge". Have you studied the era perchance? I say this because all of the historians I first mentioned, although they by no means support Stalin, they highlight his success and effectiveness as a leader. To quote a famous historian who certainly felt no love for the man: "[stalin] had found Russia working with wooden ploughs and left it equipped with atomic piles". - Isaac Deutscher This will be last ,my comment around Stalin on this issue because you don't seem to be understanding my point Stalin's agricultural reforms, known as Collectivization, were implemented between 1928-1940. This was his idea and his concept to make reform agriculture more efficient. It was an absolute disaster and millions of Russians died. It was not the Soviet leadership who decided this, it was Stalin as he was the undisputed leader of leader of the USSR at the time Even if only 100k people died its not the point, the point is if a leader of a country makes a policy decision around something like agricultural reform and the result of that means millions of your citizens die them you have made a bad decision and history will remember you as are bad leader. Of course Stalin made lots of other terrible policy decisions but I am not going to focus on that

This wasn't done arbitrarily. The state capitalism of the NEP had restored Russia and the republics to pre-war levels and begun to plateau. Not wanting to continue presiding over capitalism longer then necessary (kind of looks bad for a CP) and desperately needing to industrialise to "build socialism" and catch up with, and defend themselves from, the rest of the world they believed they had to simultaneously, collectivize agriculture, rapidly industrialize and abolish the remnants of "capitalist relations" (e.g. the kulak class). Given the large landspace, primitive technology, competing interests of individuals (both in and out of the party), poor-planning and ****-ups of the party combined with a massive draught (a common occurrence in the Slavic states) this naturally resulted in an catastrophic loss of life. Despite all this their policies were a success, industrial productivity surpassed the Western powers and they were able to defend themselves from the growing fascist threat. So a success with lots of tragedy. Worth keeping in mind is that the rest of industrialized powers took hundreds of years of colonialism, imperialism, raw worker exploitaton and slavery to achieve the same thing. Lol those statistics are ridiculous. The Black Book of Communism, a widely discredit piece where even the authors themselves admitted to inflating deathtolls says the maximum deaths in the era was 6 million. You said "Leader quality = number of deaths", I was merely following your logic. Oh well it was only 6 million people who died due to his agricultural polices, and here I thought it was a significant amount The point is that Stalins leadership was and is tarnished by the loss of Russian lives due to various initiatives he tried to implement, no rationale person can think he was a great leader unless you don't consider the death of millions of your citizens as relevant?

Monte please don't equivocate, its not clear from this post if you support the endeavors of Amnesty? Just be honest, people prefer honesty ....

Nah, that's far too simplistic. More Americans died under Lincoln than Bush but that doesn't mean the latter is a "better leader" than the former. Under Lincoln people didn't die because of policies he implemented to change how food was produced. Under Stalin anything from 10 million to 30 million Russians died of starvation You can't count the loss of American lives in the Civil war as a direct fault of Lincoln, the Civil war wasn't his decision. It would have happened irrespective if he had been president or not ? So that's not an accurate analogy

In western academia, once the archives were opened, the most prominent historians in the Soviet field (J. Arch Getty, Robert Thurston, Sarah Davies, Sheila Fitzpatrick etc) more or less debunked the "evil totalitarian" paradigm. Yes, they don't support Stalin in the sense that they're Stalinists or whatever but they do acknowledge although ruthless he was indeed a competent and thus "great" leader of the time (much like Sorophx's Russian pals). Of course the West can't be peddling an educational curriculum that's sympathetic to the reds so instead they stick with the flawed historical narrative of Cold War works like Robert Conquest and Service. But you know, crazy Russian propaganda vs glorious Western freedom. EDIT: RE: The comments provided by sorophx's Russian friends) Although I have no love for the Russian, nor U.S state I can't help but find it amusing that the "brainwashed" Russians have a more level headed (albeit wrong) approach to this whole situation compared to many of the "Free-minded" people of the West. Of course this is only two people so we can't be making sweeping conclusions but it's amusing none the less. I won't deny Stalin did something's right, but he had a complete and callous disregard for loss of Russian lives in whatever initiative he decided to implement. Whether it is was the war of attrition against the Nazi's or his disastrous agriculture reform programs, millions of Russian died to prove his policies didn't work . Surely the definition of any good leader needs to be measured by a comparison of the number of citizens who died during a persons reign? This should matter and if this is true then everything that Stalin did that was good is overshadowed by the horrific loss of Russian lives he is responsible for?

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2014/08/19/sex-romance-and-dragon-age-inquisitions-improved-relationships Guys it looks like Bioware will be implementing many of the Romance suggestions we have discussed and also have acknowledged past issues, like the " I'm giving you a present, lets have sex" This is good news

Its clear that Bioware is obviously taking criticism about there previous implementations of Romance seriously. You guys should be celebrating this as it looks like Romance in DA:I is going to be more realistic and varied. This is good news folks, I'm interested to see what will be different

Hi Melk "waves " Where have you been? It seems like you haven't posted in ages?

You know what's weird but I also remember that hot producer, I watched a video with her and at the time I was blown away by how beautiful she was. I wonder what happened to her and where she is working now?

This has been a very good exercise to see what Russians think around those questions, I have to be honest they answered some of questions better than I thought but you can still see the influence of the propaganda machinery especially around the younger Russian. For example thinking that Stalin was a great leader and that the Ukrainian separatists are defending there families, also he is basically in complete denial around the degree that Russia is supporting the separatists. The younger one also doesn't seem to have much knowledge of history which is always a problem when you want to understand current events in the world and how history defines current decisions leaders make . But once again good idea Chilloutman. And well done Sorophx for getting those response from your friends I'm also disappointed with several of KP answers, I hope other Americans answer and give other perspectives . I'll gladly answer those questions if you guys don't mind but obviously I'm not American so you need to say its okay

What !!! You mean you normally don't eat fruits and veg...so what do you normally eat?

If I'm in the majority, I should be able to have the society I want, not one where anything goes. Everything someone does affects the society in some way, people are social animals and no one is an island. For example, if you don't have stable families, you don't have a stable society either. People used to understand that, but now we're tending towards absolutism. Like I said, Republican party is already dead, now they're driving away their base. I see major political realignment coming, but for the foreseeable future I guess we're stuck with one party Democrat rule. Do you think if you criminalize homosexuality you will have more stable families? Because that's what they do in the Middle East and I wouldn't say there cultures or family structures are better off than the USA?

What happens when they are squatting at the location they don't want to work at and are preventing anyone else from working there? In fact I want to add to this valid point to give you an example of how out of control the trade unions are in South Africa. Our constitution says "you have right to strike " so strikes are generally always allowed but we also believe in the " right to work" yet in every single strike the striking workers not only prevent workers who want to work from going to work but there are always examples of people getting killed by strikers...getting killed for wanting to work. So the trade unions basically force all people who work for a company to go on strike, you don't have a choice. And that's not reasonable or acceptable

Also there are millions of fans, like me, who love the Witcher franchise and RPG world. There is still so much to explore and for CDPR to show us through future games, I want to see a Witcher 4,5, 6. and maybe even a 7

Sometimes governments have no choice but to end strikes using force Volo, sometimes they have no choice....

Wow that's an insightful and interesting post, good job