BruceVC

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

Wow, that's an excellent post. Nice one

. I was laughing at the thought of Feargus or someone else asking him to write them and his subsequent reaction to the request. Imagine if Obsidian decides " that on further reflection they are going to implement Romance due to fact that the majority of fans feel they add a deep level of party interaction and a RPG without Romance would be lacking something " My ...how I would chuckle

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. Tajerio you mustn't misunderstand me. I never Romanced Merrill, I only had eyes for the beautiful Isabella 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

Please try to move past Stage 1 in the grieving process (denial) and go directly to Stage 5 - acceptance. It's the healthy thing to do. I don't think we ready for stage 5 yet, I would say we are cautiously making our way through stage 3. These things can't be rushed and there are several emotional levels that need to be considered Besides who would the target for all the gratuitous gloating that you anti-romance people enjoy...imagine how bored you would be if you couldn't keep raising the point that there won't be Romance in PoE So, you're still in the 'bargaining' stage? We'll all be here for you, Bruce, for the stage 4 depression. Actually, I've said before during the Kickstarter that I don't have a problem with BG2 level of romance. They were easily ignored if you wished, but you still got a lot of interaction with the party members regardless. I guess that makes me a woman without a country, neither promancer nor total antimancer. Anyway, it's dead, Jim, it's dead. I'll be thinking of you during your time of grief. (Did anyone else LOL at the thought of MCA writing a "shotgun wedding" or "farmer's daughter" romance? ) Yeah I was more than happy with the BG2 implementation of Romance. That would satisfy most promancers I'm sure

I had a friends farewell dinner tonight, he is going to the UAE for 4 years on a really lucrative contract for a bank. We had a few drinks and some good food

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

Link?For science, of course.... http://www.gibberlings3.net/readmes/Readme-RE.txt That Mod looks like a very comprehensive and enhanced version for additional Romance options, its a pity I missed it when I played BG2

a Please try to move past Stage 1 in the grieving process (denial) and go directly to Stage 5 - acceptance. It's the healthy thing to do. I don't think we ready for stage 5 yet, I would say we are cautiously making our way through stage 3. These things can't be rushed and there are several emotional levels that need to be considered Besides who would the target for all the gratuitous gloating that you anti-romance people enjoy...imagine how bored you would be if you couldn't keep raising the point that there won't be Romance in PoE

Valid response and I agree. Now we reach an interesting question. Is it fair to say that you acknowledge that certain comments and words on the Internet can be unacceptable and the person who makes those comments could or should be banned from a particular forum? But obviously you would have to look at what type of forum the comments were made?

Excellent answer and what is the reason you would report him as you have made it clear that you wouldn't report someone on RPGCodex. Please give as much detail as possible?

Excellent, thanks for responding. I am trying to understand your perspective so please work with me as I have few more questions before I get to my final point I know you have children, I don't know if you have a daughter. But lets say hypothetically you have a daughter and she's 11 or 12 and is active on a website for people her age. Its very innocent and they discuss things that girls her age do. One day someone on that forum makes a post " My Ideal Birthday Present" and all the girls start discussing and chatting about there perfect present. She even calls you over to give you some hints for her b-day with comments like "daddy look what this girl is getting...hint ..hint ". Its really good fun and very sweet. Someone, with a nickname like "danthedashing", then makes a comment that's say " I know what all you girls really want for Christmas, you want to get raped" ...but he then says " just joking, I'm just Trolling" and puts a big smile at the end Your daughter is obviously upset and comes to you. How would you deal with it? This website does have Moderators and posts can be reported

QFT. I often say to people "no one can define my RPG experience for me" and what one person enjoys or likes to be included in a particular game doesn't mean another person will want. But there is no right and wrong, its a personal choice

Hi Ros, you've been very quiet lately. Is it because you studying and are you still seeing that bar lady?

Interesting so despite the fact that comment would be very offensive to many people you personally don't see it as big deal? And if I understand you correctly the reason you feel that is its just words and may not mean anything but bluster or some misplaced attempt at humour?

I want you ask you and others a simple question, do you think for example someone on...I don't know lets say RPGCodex logs on to there forums and during a debate about the objectification of women in video games says "that Saarkesian women has a big mouth, I know what would sort her out. She should get raped" Do you think people should just ignore that type of comment or do you think that person should get banned? Or some other way of addressing that comment?

Not the wheel per say, but the whole game. Also it's counter intuitive for PC players who use the keyboard to select which dialogue they want. It's not a big secret that the dialogue wheel was created to make it easier for console players to select the dialogue. Yes, there are several people here who play on PC and enjoyed DA II. You can use the numpad to select dialogue options. I also find it odd you're suggesting that PC players only use the keyboard as opposed to constantly clicking on small areas with a mouse. I thought DA2 was a good game, not great but entertaining enough and I played it on PC...as always. The issues I had with it weren't anything to do with the dialogue but the reused dungeons and monsters just appearing out of the air

International treaties don't infringe on national sovereignty because... You say so? Let's take Spain as an example: The list of treaties it is a party to is long and each limits its sovereignty to a degree. You've referred to Westphalian sovereignty, but ignore the fact that the very definition of that concept requires absence of external interference in national affairs. Being party to an international treaty is allowing external interference, as each treaty restricts the ability to make sovereign decisions. The European Union is the result of a series of such treaties, treaties that were entered by member countries voluntarily and without coercion. Do they limit certain aspects of sovereignty? They do. Do they abolish it, as you constantly state? No, they don't. Each member state is free to exercise their sovereign rule, but is bound by laws and regulations it voluntarily accepted. Furthermore, the EU doesn't micromanage countries. You're only partially correct when you point out that legislation of the EU affects other member countries. It does, but the implementation of EU legislation in any given member country is left to the national parliaments. Furthermore, the Court of Justice is focused on Union law, not national law. It interprets treaties and passes rulings on the Union level, it doesn't micromanage national courts. Similarly, the European Court on Human Rights is a court specifically intended for appeals in cases where human rights might be violated, as was the case with the Tysiąc case. Last, given that you're quick to flaunt your time of living on the Iberian peninsula as some sort of credentials for understanding the EU, it's puzzling you think having an education and mentioning it is abhorrent. It isn't a dodge. You've been constantly redirecting the discussion, making irrelevant points. Again, the subject matter is not Ukraine joining the EU, but signing an association agreement, yet you're reframing it as if Ukraine wanted to do the former. Furthermore, your point is somewhat inconsistent. On one hand, you're complaining that the EU destroys national sovereignty, yet at the same time you're complaining that the EU did not impose solutions across the Union to fix the inequality problem. I say, it's convenient. You're treating the EU as a federation whenever it suits your point, like when you complain that the EU is not fixing the inequality problem. Given that poverty and inequality levels and cicumstances vary by country, the EU can only do so much. National policies are the crucial element of targeting it, as one overarching policy that applies across Europe would be either too generic to be of help or force countries to adopt policies not suited for their individual circumstances. What works in Sweden doesn't have to work in Germany, Italy, or Spain. It's interesting that disagreeing with you automatically makes me an ignoramus, because I happen to not share your opinions about the Union. Yeah, I must be intellectually dishonest. Totally. Except I'm not the one claiming that living in the EU since '86 gives you grounds for speaking about it, except when someone else claims something similar, then it's "What does it matter how long have you been living in the EU." Did I say it's not strategic? No. I said it wasn't as strategic as Germany or Poland, which were to be the primary battlefields of World War III. In their relative strategic importance, Germany and Poland trumped Yugoslavia because they offered what was effectively a highway straight into the USSR, owing to the lack of natural barriers. And yes, I use a loose, broad definition of what constitutes the eastern bloc. It's just as warranted as your alternating treatment of the EU as a federation (whenever it doesn't do something you want it to) or a Union that encroaches upon national sovereignty (whenever you want to bash it). I never said Poland was neutral and I never stated Yugoslavia was not a strategic country. What I consistently said was that Poland was pursuing a policy of non-alignment with any of the two superpowers it was stuck between (the wording might be off, but that was the point) and that it is a better example than Yugoslavia because the circumstances in which it existed are much closer to the ones in which Ukraine exists. But, of course, instead of actually reading the point, you're focusing on nitpicking and twisting words. Yes, the EU and Russia aren't the Third Reich and the SU, but that wasn't the point. You're constantly moving the goal posts around and twisting the argument just to appear right. Tagaziel I'm really enjoying your posts and I'm learning a lot or at least getting a different perspective

No the USA needs to address the concerns around Prism But we shouldn't be naïve and think that every other country doesn't also use almost every means at its disposal to spy on people in the interest of national security.

Doesn't make you creepy, but it does make me question your taste. Or would, if I didn't already. For the record I have no idea if there is such a thing as an "advanced prostitution " mod. I was just making a point. I don't like blanket generalisations about people when you have no idea why they choose something in an RPG and that's what Auxilius was doing when he suggested that people who use Adult Mods are creepy.

mmmm..the Chinese and they have done it before. What is my present for answering the question? Hacking computers to spy on people? North Korea, Britain, Russia, France, Iran, Syria, ... to name but a few. LOL, NK doesn't even have internet. You, dude, should watch the news more. USA has the largest spying program in the world as it has recently been revealed. Every country tries to engage in cyber espionage and cyber warfare to a certain degree, its effectiveness is determined only by the investment they can afford to make. The only reason the countries like Russia and China don't have the equivalent to the Prism program is because they haven't committed the necessary resources to create it and most of the programs that Prism monitors actually were designed in the USA so its easier for them to integrate Prism into these programs