Elerond

This article found its way to my twitter feed. Newsweek claims that analyze of #GamerGate tweets don't back their claims that is is about ethics in games media http://www.newsweek.com/gamergate-about-media-ethics-or-harassing-women-harassment-data-show-279736 Hopefully it is not posted yet as I don't have had time to read this topic in couple days (Dreamfall Chapters and Civ Beyond Earth as reason)

I finally know what gamergate is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate Sometimes you find links with useful information from twitter

It seem that Felicia's concerns getting doxxed weren't unfounded. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/23/felicia-days-public-details-online-gamergate

Making someone unconscious by knocking them in head is actually quite difficult thing to do and and to cause person to lose their consciousness by oxygen deprivation one needs to block their airways for over minute or two. "[Lunge for Aelys and break her neck.]" is much easier and faster to do especially when target of the attack don't resist. But one could argue that there should still be some sort attribute check.

I am back with latest thing about gamergate in my small twitterverse Article summary article about gamergate that uses sarcasm to convey it message. It is written to look like forced support piece for GamerGate, to give it message more strength. Its tone seems to be neutral in first glance, but really it is very anti-gamergate http://www.clickhole.com/article/summary-gamergate-movement-we-will-immediately-cha-1241?utm_campaign=default&utm_medium=ShareTools&utm_source=twitter

If the target isn't aware it doesn't count? Im going to have to disagree. It doesn't count if it's not meant. Things like that said in an impulse, for venting are not serious and shouldn't be treated like such. It's bloody redicolous overreaction. Death threat is any form of communication where another person directly, indirectly or by implication say that they will kill another person. For legal consequences threat usually has to be such that its target has reason to fear for their safety or there is reason to fear safety of public. But I would say that venting or acting on impulse is not shield and should not be shield from social ramification when you say something stupid, especially when you do so in public, as most people are fully capable to control what they say and do even when they are angry/sad/etc.. In my opinion Valve's reaction to stop doing business with person that issues threats against their employees is my opinion reasonable, predictable and even commendable reaction. As it shows that Valve puts well being of their employees over the money and sent message that they look down bad/idiotic behavior. Media's (or more specifically Kotaku's) reaction was okay in sense that they reported game getting kicked out from Steam because of behavior of one of it's developers and rights holders, but one could argue that gloating tone that they use to report it is not very proper for media outlet. I would also point that developer in question did use his twitter account in official business matters for the his company and it was one of the two official twitter accounts for their company. So when he decided to use that account for his venting he was also representing his company and game even if he didn't meant to do so.

It's odd. To me, she represents a mature reaction to the drama, aka the entire article reads like "I get a lot of scrutiny while in the public eye, and yes it's unfair and uncomfortable, but I can't let that stop me from being me, nor can I let that allow me to hate people as a collective." Damn right, that's exactly the attitude everyone should have. But then at the end she remarks that she thinks this article will garner scorn and disdain from GamerGate supporters...wtf why? It's like she's misunderstood something or Iunno what, but we can't know because she never clarifies or explains what GamerGate means to her. Best of luck to her, either way. Hopefully the article sparks talks with some people and she'll realize she's got nothing to worry about. Because when she gave similar remarks in twitter she got hundreds of angry replies about them (as she said in the post), so she probably except similar reaction to this also.

Newest from twitterverse Felicia Day's blog post where she writes down her thoughts about GamerGate and how it has effected her. http://thisfeliciaday.tumblr.com/post/100700417809/the-only-thing-i-have-to-say-about-gamer-gate EDIT: Article where journalist tries to find out what is the thing that gamergate movement wants. Writer seems to be bit frustrated about end results. http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/10/gamergate-should-stop-lying-to-itself.html?n_play=5447d040e4b00a112b2a20ae

You did make some posts in the other thread with any death threats should be taken seriously. I expect the police to be involved and a thorough investigation to be carried out. Just to be on the safe side. Valve took these threats seriously, as they removed game that he had made from their service, which is somewhat serious act I would say and it also sends message that such behavior is not acceptable and there is consequences when you act such way. So I would say that Valve showed excellent example how to take such threats and I am pretty sure that devs will in future think twice before they go write such things in public forum.

What qualifies as a death threat if not: "I am going to kill gabe newell. He is going to die." For it to be a death threat, you have to communicate it to the person you're trying to threaten. Writing that you feel like killing a certain celebrity on your twitter feed doesnt count. It's like being at a bar and shouting "I want to stab that stupid kid in his stupid fat face!" if a Bieber song comes on. People say they're going to kill other people all the time, it really doesnt mean much unless it's written on a note attached to that persons boiled rabbit. Death threat is any message, phrase, gesture, picture, etc. where one person threatens to kill another person directly, indirectly or implies such thing. But such threats become crime only when their target has strong reason to fear for their life, personal safety or safety of their property (This is how Finnish law determines such thing, as Finnish criminal code only knows "illegal threat" that includes all possible threats of violence). Death threats that are directed towards somebody in public forums like twitter are bit more complex (as their directness and severity can be argued not be enough to warrant such thing to be a crime), but usually police will investigate them if person that was threatened does reports threats to them. In this case it seems that Newell (or Valve) decided to use their own justice instead of going to police.

But Ragnar is one of those evil SJWs it says so in twitter and other places

In my understanding Steam (Valve) reserves right to remove game from their service at any point of time without needing to inform game's rights holder/s about that decision without need to give reason behind their decision although this time Valve gave out reason behind their decision.

If your income depends on someone else's platform who is not anyway depended on your product/s, you probably should not publicly bad mouth and threaten them because they can always decide not to do business with you. Only person that I feel bad for is his business (now ex-)partner, because he probably didn't deserve also loose his income because of actions of his business partner, but that is reality in business and something that people even advocate with righteousness fury in other circumstances.

As far as you character knows cultist have planned to make girl as their inside puppet in the family (because that is only information they give you about their plans), otherwise you try to guess if they have lied to you or if they try to deceive you, but I would argue that such thoughts aren't thoughts that character who is worried for the girl would have. Especially when you in that point of time know that lord has lied you about who the girl is and that girl was pregnant for the lord and that girl tried to run away from the lord and so on details. As I said that I think that your character has to be quite ruthless if they think that they can knock down girl and kill cultists so that they will not put girl in more danger than what you would put that lord if you let girl go. And I would also argue that character may not be the most good spirited person if they put safety of that lord front of safety of that girl. Put still end of day knocking her down using stealth to take her "safe" (although I am not sure how well that kind thing would work with their conversation system) will only work as way to add flavor in the conversation, but would not actually change consequences of the quest. But as I said I think that it would be okay to add such options in the conversations (I only argued that in my opinion such options would have different flavor in them than what you described) I would also point out that letting girl go or killing her aren't only out come options in that conversation, but they are probably most default ones.

Player character know is that point of conversation that Lord has abused the girl and lied about who girl is and that he is quite disgusting person overall, so I would question more why player character would care if she immediately will kill/poison/whatever the Lord, especially when player still knows that they have time to collect reward from the lord? Some player will not care, others will want to roleplay a good guy that does not allow murder. And players at that point don't know what happens if you let the girl go. You know because you played that part already. I came into this topic as a person that didn't know what happens later and the person I watched on Youtube didn't as well. We both assumed letting the girl go would kill the Lord or something else terrible will happen. The Youtuber decided to kill the girl to prevent that. I noticed that if players can automatically succeed killing the girl they should automatically succeed in knocking her out as that is what a good person would do to avoid OR RISK any more unneeded deaths. Player and character know in that point of time that animancer has made girl so that she will kill lord after they have left from Dyrford and as girl don't get enough head start to give Lord and his retinue to leave from Dyrford before player's party gets there. So from player's character perspective it is quite save let girl go regardless of what they plan to do for lord. Of course player maybe confused if they haven't read all the text and journal updates thoroughly. I am not sure if good person who wants avoid unneeded death would knock girl down before the cultist, because that would cause confrontation with them and risk girls life, as knocking people out is quite risky business as is fight over their unconscious body especially with bunch of magic users, who don't regard girls life very high. In my opinion such option needs more ruthless character that don't really care about people than good character that don't want anybody to die (like for example niece raping pedophile lord that tries to make sure that said niece and her part of family will not take over family's heritage over his blood)

Player character know is that point of conversation that Lord has abused the girl and lied about who girl is and that he is quite disgusting person overall, so I would question more why player character would care if she immediately will kill/poison/whatever the Lord, especially when player still knows that they have time to collect reward from the lord?

In that case there is three option, let girl go back (and when you go back to lord you will find him alive and well and girl next to him and you can decide do you tell about ritual to lord or not and so on) nap girl's neck and kill cultist. Option three is not directly shown to player, but if you kill cultists without killing girl it is possible to reverse ritual (all options to this path aren't open in beta). Knocking girl down and letting her go to lord are effectively same as cultist are already cast their spell on her and she don't kill lord before you get to tell him/not tell him about ritual. Although letting player knock her down and carry her to lord would add flavor option for those players who want be bit more brutal in how they handle situations, but consequence wise there would be next to nothing difference to current options. No, you misunderstand. The way the conversation goes the player is led to believe if you let the girl go she will get there and kill the Lord. You don't know if you can get back in time to do anything about it. At that point in time, knocking her out is only normal response that does not involve making a hard choice (let girl kill lord or kill girl).As I was watching that conversation with the Let's Play person we both got the same impression. The youtuber chose to kill the girl to prevent her from killing the Lord. The options are presented in a bad way to players, that it why I am asking for the knock out option to be able to resolve this situation without killing the girl or the lord. I didn't get that urgency from the writing, as cultist leader rambles how girl will slowly kill lord and rest of his family but as I said girl will not kill lord before you get back so knocking her down option would work only as flavor version if added, as it would not change any consequences that quest has. But of course there is nothing wrong in flavor options as they give player ability to respond more on their liking.

In that case there is three option, let girl go back (and when you go back to lord you will find him alive and well and girl next to him and you can decide do you tell about ritual to lord or not and so on) nap girl's neck and kill cultist. Option three is not directly shown to player, but if you kill cultists without killing girl it is possible to reverse ritual (all options to this path aren't open in beta). Knocking girl down and letting her go to lord are effectively same as cultist are already cast their spell on her and she don't kill lord before you get to tell him/not tell him about ritual. Although letting player knock her down and carry her to lord would add flavor option for those players who want be bit more brutal in how they handle situations, but consequence wise there would be next to nothing difference to current options.

Latest thing from twitter Why #Gamergaters Piss Me The F*** Off Chris Kluwe played in the NFL for eight years, but he’s been a gamer for 26 — and he’s sick and tired of the misogynistic culture in today’s gaming community. Article/blog/open letter/rant/whatever uses language that would not be allowed in this forum. https://medium.com/the-cauldron/why-gamergaters-piss-me-the-f-off-a7e4c7f6d8a6

But DA2 didn't let you use it, IIRC. Then again why do you need a whorehouse when you have Isabella, same number of VDs. You can hire bunch of male and female prostitutes to entertain you in the brothel (The Blooming Rose), so I am not sure what you mean with "DA2 didn't let you use it"?

There is more option to deal with girl, but some them are class specific and some depend on your attributes and skills. As cipher you can wipe girls mind somewhat clean so that she don't remember that his father sexually abuse her and you can convince her to go back to him or you can tell her truth or something else. With high enough lore and intellect you can understand what is going in the ritual, which gives you more options You can let cultist finish with ritual and let girl go back to her Lord father as double agent (then you can reveal that fact to Lord so that he can decide what to do and even persuade him to take her to animancer in Defiance Bay so that they can search cure) And some other options So there is more than two options to handle that quest, but those options aren't necessary always open as you haven't find necessary information to unlock them or you don't have high enough attributes/skill or you have wrong class. But there is probably options that you as player would want to do/say but game don't offer corresponding option.

Did they actually think that the Sami weren't white? I suspect more of the regular old click-bait inanity instead. People for some reason link all indigenous populations, regardless where they are from, to be people of color, even though Sámi people belong same population speaking Finno-Ugric languages as Finss, Estonians and Hungarians, with that difference that they have mixed less with Indo-European populations.

And I hoped that it had stopped, but it is back to fill my twitter feed This time we got article that supports gamergate that delve into how hate from both side obscures real purpose of gamergate, but article don't have clear focus point, but seem to try cover all issues that bother writer. http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/gamergate-hate-affects-both-sides-so-how-about-we-end-it

"'GameJournoPros' is a private mailing list which the owners of competing game publications use to communicate outside of public eye" There are forums mailing lists, events, sauna evenings (informal private gatherings), etc. in every industry, political circle including all forms of media, which people with similar interest organize, so that they can talk and share information with people in same field. This is not corruption in any form, but normal social behavior that most people participate in their own lives (of course interest and topics of this gatherings change depending on interest and work that people do). Of course these social can lead problems, like make it harder for new people get in the field, as they need to get access on these things to build their social standing in community/ies of their field and get access to information that is shared in these things. And these things can cause formation of Old boy network where members of network have better change to get better positions in the field. So it is not corruption or unethical thing to have private mailing list where you speak with other people of your field (even those that are you direct competition), but of course it can lead to favouritism and way to make things more difficult to new people to get in the business if it becomes too dominant social club/circle in the said business.

Speeding actively endangers others. Trash talk does not. Big difference. Then you must have never played competetive multiplayer or been in heated debates. One could easily claim that speeding don't in most cases endanger others. And one could also claim that trash talk can cause depression, anxiety and other mental (health) issues that endanger others. I have played competitive multiplayers even when players needed to use same computer to play them. I have been heated debates regularly, but maybe I have selected forums that with care and shield myself from realities of World (I have doubts that is the case, but it is also hard to judge your own behavior).