BruceVC

It is broadly supported. But what has that got to do with morality of putting people in jail for consensual sex? In Rwanda the majority of people also supported the genocide and in Cambodia the Khmer Rouge also had popular support.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/24/world/africa/uganda-anti-gay-bill/index.html What can I say...what can I say. Its appalling, shocking and unacceptable but the Ugandan president has signed the bill into law. The West should immediately cut any and all aid to Uganda. Apart from the obvious issues I have with this legislation there is the following The member states of the African Union are suppose to adhere to the African Charter of Human rights which says you can't discriminate against people around points like there sexual orientation. So this is yet another example of the failure of the AU to pressure countries to stick to the manifesto of the AU that they agreed to. No wonder Africa keeps failing to achieve its true potential I am always amazed that countries that suffered under colonialism and racism are keen to pass laws that allow them to discriminate against other minority groups, my how we forget our past. Hypocrisy anyone ? Well done Uganda for this step into anachronism

Unfortunately, you know nothing. It's a common trait of humans (especially on the internet) to classify people and put them into neat little boxes for their convenience. We construct mental images of persons - or to be more precise, we construct mental images of an average representative of X (republican, gay, black, religious person, feminist, gay activist, whatever) and use many such pieces to construct an image of a persona. The problem is that what is "offensive" can be very well subjective, and that people tend to overreact. I've seen people overreact again and again, on both sides. Heck, on EVERY side of every possible debate. I've seen horrible statements go unchallenged. I've seen people jumping on innocent posters. Of course, being respectful is a must, but some points and opinions really can't be expressed without hurting someones feelings. I apologize if I have made an assumption around your view on gay rights. What do you think about the rise of homophobia in Russia and laws that legislate it?

oc Right. I'm not so convinced either way. "Games turn kids into killers" is probably the most extreme example you can make, but there are other scenarios we could consider. For instance, the rise of "happy slapping" and other phenomena that transcend the barriers of the 'nets and affect people's physical lives. This is not the same as suggesting that 'Codex is a nest of rapists because they systematically trivialize rape, but it's difficult to establish whether a certain mindset becoming the norm online can affect individuals' mindsets when they log off. How good are we really at separating our online and RL personas? Social pressure is essential at curbing antisocial (oh, wow, I went there) conducts, but with the internet you have a space where standard social norms no longer apply and may or may not be substituted by something entirely different depending on the community you are looking at. You raised an excellent point and that is " it's difficult to establish whether a certain mindset becoming the norm online can affect individuals' mindsets when they when they log off. How good are we really at separating our online and RL personas" I was going to say something similar but I didn't feel like having to respond to the deluge of responses I knew I would get along the lines of "are you saying I'm a rapist now because I think rape jokes are funny" Personally I feel that there are people that revel in misogyny, racism, homophobia and sexism. And in RL they probably act on those traits in certain ways. So my view is why give them a platform where they can influence others or be dismissive of these social problems. So my point once again is you can make a controversial point but you need to choose your words.

Problem is, it's you determining what is hurtful and offensive. Malc what always makes the job of raising issues of social justice easier is knowing I have the support of people like you on my side, it just helps knowing we share a similar sentiment Please read my post I made about offensive words in South Africa, I'm not the one saying these words and statements are offensive. These words and statements are unquestionably offensive to almost every person who the bigotry is directed at

How is forbiding the usage of words not censorship? That's a very good question and even though it seems like I'm contradicting myself I'm not. I'll explain why I know that you and people like Cultist don't care much about gay rights. We have discussed this before. Even though I disagree with your opinion I respect your right to have a different opinion. But if during those debates you had made comments around the treatment of gays in Russia like " f***g f****ots they must round them all up and send to a concentration camp" my response and I guarantee the response from the Moderators would be very different. So you don't have to censor someone's controversial or personal opinion as long as the person positions there argument in a way that is not derogatory or offensive

This bit is saying those of us ('these people' he says, haughtily) who don't like CRPG romances are the ones with the problem. LOL. Which is why he can't handle the truth. I've never known you to be so sensitive before and you are firmly in the anti-romance camp so doesn't that make you "these people " And as far as the "don't like CRPG romances are the ones with the problem" ...what about the relevancy of the maxim " if the cap fits..." and all that ....

Meh. "Social justice" and raised awareness. Not seeing much of it. More like forums rune like camps lead by paranoid dogmatics that hand out harsh punishment for any percieved or hypothetical infraction. Internet used to be a place of ultimate freedom of speech (and yes, that includes people saying things you'd absolutely hate). It's less so these days. Hardly an improvement. People keep misunderstanding my point, I have no issue with people disagreeing with me or saying things I hate. I have an issue with comments that are hurtful and offensive. I don't suggest we stifle debate in any regards, I suggest we look at the choice of words we use. I can't see how this is censorship in any way?

It seems the peak of your ability to argue is to post a Jack Nicholson image and claim you're right. Quite sad, really, because 1: I never wrote there would be no meaningful interactions with NPCs; Obsidian is ditching one type of meaningful interaction, incidentally one that many consider relevant. and 2: I never used the argument no romance=combat simulator, I just argued that removing romances does no good to the idea that CRPGs are supposed to be more than combat simulators (it doesn't, unless you somehow believe romancing is a part of combat, a possibility I can't dismiss given you lacking reply). Maybe in your world of Jack Nicholson images what you posted could pass as showing adequate reading comprehension, but it instead suggests you didn't even bother to read my post (maybe because it has more than 140 characters) or you have a serious cognitive disability. He's right Monte, he didn't say the things you are accusing him of. Did you read his post ?

I don't consider Gothic an action RPG? Its the same as Elder Scroll games and Risen...what are those? cRPG ?

Meh. Why? It's harmless. People get worked up over nothing. you funny Trashman I encourage you read all my comments as I am not prepared to explain again IMO why some Trolling needs to be condemned and is in fact offensive and hurtful

Nah, I don't troll. Others may think I do, but from my perspective no. But while I can honestly say that I've never said anything solely to get a negative or emotive reaction I equally am not overly concerned about saying things that I know will offend people or that people won't like. Because I know that if I were overly concerned I'd never write or say anything of any substance. If I don't think it's worth it I'll usually bite my tongue though, because it, uh, isn't worth it. I don't think you Troll and in fact you normally explain your view in detail if its a topic you are interested in debating.

Oh Hassat I'm so proud of you, you have finally come to conclusion that we need to rate IE games on there Romance implementations. If we continue to see a concerted effort on your part to support Romance you'll be welcomed to promancers camp. But due to the intransigence of your past views around Romance we will need to continue to see you supporting the importance of Romance or you'll be back in anti-romance camp

Good point. I see what you are saying. If that's true its also fine

That's an awful lot of times you felt you needed to affirm us that you are absolutely, completely, utterly impartial and objective in this debate In fact I would that argue that someone who insists he is being unquestionably objective so much doesn't have the intention of being truly objective uh no. You'd rather take the stance that all trolls are made by horrible people? That you don't consider the possibility that there are good trolls? I don't think that's a good quality to have. Come now Hiro, I have conceded that there is such a thing as a good Troll. They are rare but I can't say with absolute conviction "there is no such thing as a good Troll" based on the observations from you and others But you have to admit that aluminium's post was funny

80% sure I've had several actual romances like this in real life. Join the club

I think that is Bruce's idea of a perfect romance? that made me laugh, good one If Vivienne is not a Romance option I'll be more disappointed than I was with when the decision was made by Obsidian to not have Romance in PoE but I'm confidant that DA:I will still be a very entertaining RPG and one I'll still support

That's an awful lot of times you felt you needed to affirm us that you are absolutely, completely, utterly impartial and objective in this debate In fact I would that argue that someone who insists he is being unquestionably objective so much doesn't have the intention of being truly objective

mmmm...you've raised some good points and they make sense on certain levels. The BG2 type of Romance might not be applicable in modern RPG

I already know that DA:I is going to be an excellent game because there is going to be a character like Vivienne in it

I don't see how I'm being defensive about the characterisation of what a Troll means. And I'm certainly not feeling guilty about something. I'm simply taking an objective view of what a troll is and can do. I'm of the view that you can have both good and bad trolls. That a troll can create a good troll thread on a forum. Do you have a problem with someone having an objective view of what a troll is? Because that's what I'm trying to do. You seem to be taking issue with this objective stance I'm taking and wrapping it up as being an apologist for trolls in general and feeling guilty about something. Okay thanks for explaining. No I don't have an issue with an objective view of a Troll, there are many sides to this debate as we have all seen from some of the posts.

Nonek thanks for responding to all my questions, I can appreciate the fact that it must have been a little annoying but I sometimes think its a better way to get to a final point so you understand the context of where someone is coming from. In South Africa there is a racist word to describe black people that begins with the letter "K" ( I don't need to say the word). This word is completely unacceptable to use and people in the public limelight who have used the word have been fired, that's how serious it is. This word is derogatory and very offensive and hurtful to black people and others as it represents the days of Apartheid where black people were marginalised and discriminated against. But its just a word and yet that single word symbolizes something much more. Do you think the millions of black people in South Africa need to have thicker skin around what this word represents for them? So the usage of that word is never acceptable under any circumstances because of our history. Now you have admitted that there are certain words on certain forums that should not be used and I have given you an example of another word that should never be used. Its that same logic that highlights the point that just because its the Internet and a forum discussion it doesn't mean that there should be no responsibility on people to not use those words or say certain things. Its starts with you and how you say things and it starts with you and what you are prepared to accept when you engage in discussion On RPGCodex around the post that "PoE wouldn' have Romance " I read some of the comments. Some people made comments like " well if they have Romance then I want the option to be able to rape someone". Of course they were being sarcastic but the fact that they are so indifferent about a serious problem that faces society tells me that some of the members really think that this type of humour is acceptable and the worst part of it is that the website and the moderators seem fine with this type of debate All I ask is that people have some empathy around bigotry and discrimination. Its real and does upset and impact thousand of people on a daily basis. And we also need to realize that there are certain boundaries that on public forum that we should never cross. Even if you feel if doesn't effect you personally that doesn't mean it isn't a serious issue for others

Everyone does that, of course, but I think that this in particular runs into the basic free speech argument. I don't have the right to tell people not to offend me and say only stuff I find acceptable, and because that's a reciprocal right they also don't have the right to demand that I not offend them and only say stuff they find acceptable. Considering the sort of stuff people as individuals and collectives find objectionable there'd be very little to talk about if that were not the case. Take the hypothetical situation of there being someone who posts lots of stuff I find offensive. I'm not exactly sure what, since I struggle to think of anything I'd find actually offensive that isn't actually illegal or bannable already, even somewhere like the codex. But anyway, it'd be tough noogies to me. I'd reserve the right to disagree, even strenuously disagree. What I wouldn't reserve is the right to tell them they cannot state their opinion simply because I don't like it. Zor do you consider yourself a Troll?

Considering you haven't shown what definition you're using in this thread, it's a little disingenuous to cite a definition and not share it with the people in this thread. Where did anyone say "why can't you just believe for a moment that there is good trolling?" I did a quick search through this thread and couldn't find who said that. Also, who has said you should have faith that good trolling exists? This reeks of a straw-man tactic. Considering I've cited one example of a troll thread on the WoW forums, do you accept there is good trolling? Hiro do you consider yourself a Troll? The reason I ask is because you seem very defensive around the characterisation of what a Troll means...its almost like you feel guilty about something......

Lets not be silly now, in Medieval times women were married off from the age of 13-16 and she was older than that The fact that she is emotionally immature doesn't change the fact she would have been perfectly acceptable marriage or Romance material "Would have been" is the key phrase there. No one played DA2 in medieval Europe, and no one will play PoE in medieval Europe either. It's fine to write a romance that makes players uncomfortable because the object of romance seems immature, fragile, or naive--certainly I always felt this way with Merrill--but to say that everyone should just be cool because that kind of thing was totally all right during the medieval period is nonsense. Also I didn't explain my point properly about RPG being set in Medieval ages so once again you guys missed my point ( you need to realize anything I say is true so you need to learn to decipher what I say if its in any way equivocal ) I meant that fantasy RPG are generally set in a world in the same type of social development that is equivalent to Medieval ages. So in other words superstitions reign, there is very little knowledge of true science and people died very young. And women got married from the ages of 13-16 due to low life expectancy. If you have an issue with that I suggest you build a time machine and go back in time to change how society operated, once you do that I'll gladly agree with you....but until then I simply can't I understand that the world used to work that way--though the early age of marriage was actually much more of an upper-class phenomenon than a society-wide sort of thing. And to depict that in-game is fine. But we gamers now have an entirely different cultural context, as do the people who design the games. So as much as we might want to get into that medieval-esque mindset, it's impossible not to interpret things like romantically engaging with an underage character through our modern lens. And since designers come from that same cultural context, that's where the weirdness sets in. That's a valid point and I completely agree. In other words developers are allowed to use artistic interpretation around certain topics as we do have a certain expectation of how things in our modern age should be presented . Another consideration is that I am liberal who takes issues of social justice seriously. So in the Medieval ages women had very few rights and were often mistreated, if they made a game where women were discriminated against in the interests of "Medieval realism" I would have a major problem with that game as I believe sexism is a social problem in many levels of our society and I would believe that type of portrayal of women would be unacceptable. So you are right and I now get what your were saying about the Merrill