Elerond

I hope that the let me to play human hating elf or/and qunari that aims to convert everybody to follow the Qun or be cut down.

The US economy has NOT recovered nicely. The situation on the ground is pretty bad by US standards. Especially here in Michigan; although that's hardly his fault. Also, Obama is a warmonger. I have to wonder what alternate reality you live in when you say Obama has avoided conflicts. Under his leadership the US is just as interventionist as Bush; which is pretty bad. How can you say he is warmonger, seriously. I get other criticisms but not this one. He has got the troops out of Iraq ( and the airstrikes against ISIS aren't the same thing as the invasion of Iraq in 2003) He has set a deadline to pull out of Afghanistan He avoided bombing Iran around there Uranium enrichment He refused to attack Syria without the UN support He has not just sent troops to Iraq to deal with ISIS I think you seem to live in the alternate reality Rather tell me all these examples of his brazen warmongering ? But other hand he is also continued drone and special force strikes against alleged terrorist targets and even added their number to Bush administration (although he had more resources to do so as he didn't need to spent so much money in Iraq and Afghanistan) and also one could argue that his negotiation efforts in Ukraine's crisis haven't been aimed towards most peaceful solution and arming rebel/anti-government/new government factions during Arab spring and Syrian war weren't actions that were aimed to establish peace. And he also has done little to abolish AUMF. So he isn't most belligerent president that USA has had, but he also hasn't been most peaceful. Yes I agree that Obama has increased drone strikes and the usage of special forces. But I am not suggesting that the USA doesn't have reason for military intervention in certain places in the world that warrant the usage of tactics like drones, like there deployment in the tribal areas of Western Pakistan where the Taliban plan there attacks against the Western coalition in Afghanistan. Drone strikes are the only reasonable strategy when it comes to this type of situation. For example you can't invade Pakistan to deal with the Taliban and there Al-Qaeda affiliates ? But this is not the same thing as saying Obama is a warmonger as that would imply he is starting wars against governments like Pakistan in order to defeat the Taliban. Using drone is a military strategy and is not the same as a full ground invasion like we saw in Iraq in 2003 By taking military actions against Taliban, Al-Qaida, etc. organisations instead of supporting local law enforcements and keeping open ended authorization for use of military force also means that he keeps his country in warlike state and there is high change that those local law enforcements and governments lose their authority in eyes of their citizens (which can strengthen popularity of those who openly oppose them and USA [and other western countries]). Of course there are compelling reasons why those drone and special force strikes are done (which ineffectiveness and inability of those local authorities are probably most compelling ones). But such military actions come with cost that USA is seen as hostile country by many (outside of USA) and that those military actions aren't accepted by all people in USA and same time some people in USA see them as too lenient, which both weakens Obama's popularity and strengthens his opposition. It is not easy situation to him (as he is too warmongering for at least some of his supporters and he isn't warmongering enough to people in his opposition), but I am not sure if that factored very much towards result of this election, as usually foreign policy don't factor very much in elections in USA.

The US economy has NOT recovered nicely. The situation on the ground is pretty bad by US standards. Especially here in Michigan; although that's hardly his fault. Also, Obama is a warmonger. I have to wonder what alternate reality you live in when you say Obama has avoided conflicts. Under his leadership the US is just as interventionist as Bush; which is pretty bad. How can you say he is warmonger, seriously. I get other criticisms but not this one. He has got the troops out of Iraq ( and the airstrikes against ISIS aren't the same thing as the invasion of Iraq in 2003) He has set a deadline to pull out of Afghanistan He avoided bombing Iran around there Uranium enrichment He refused to attack Syria without the UN support He has not just sent troops to Iraq to deal with ISIS I think you seem to live in the alternate reality Rather tell me all these examples of his brazen warmongering ? But other hand he is also continued drone and special force strikes against alleged terrorist targets and even added their number to Bush administration (although he had more resources to do so as he didn't need to spent so much money in Iraq and Afghanistan) and also one could argue that his negotiation efforts in Ukraine's crisis haven't been aimed towards most peaceful solution and arming rebel/anti-government/new government factions during Arab spring and Syrian war weren't actions that were aimed to establish peace. And he also has done little to abolish AUMF. So he isn't most belligerent president that USA has had, but he also hasn't been most peaceful.

So we shouldn't discriminate pedophilia, necrophilia etc.? Those aren't defined as sexual orientations, but more types of sexual aesthetic preference/attraction (similar to preference towards thin/larger individuals, or specific skin or hair color). Pedophilia is also categorized as mental disorder as pedophilic acts cause harm. Necrophilia is seen socially unacceptable because it is seen to be disrespectful for the death and their families.

Optimally police would have acted like London's police in this incident https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7firDaaFVgo Here is example from Chinese police how group of police can take knife away from mentally disrupted person without lethal force. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d3d_1389243834&selected_view_mode=desktop Police in the video may have not break the law, but their decision and acts are far from what they should have been, which will decrease public trust towards police as institution which usually means that public is less inclined to ask police's help and offer help for them in future, which will make police's job harder and more dangerous and also which will decrease general safety of public. I would say that generally police should not only follow the law but enforce it in way that looks and feels good for public, because that will increase public trust and general obedience towards police. EDIT: Fixed url in video about London police

Still a bad name, it needs to be health and they need to call "health" wounds, and the "wounds" need to be called injuries. I disagree, because I think endurance describes better what that pool represent in the game, character's ability to endure short time pain and suffering. Where health as term describes something more long lasting than that. Although I think that injuries could be better term than wounds for those before rest minuses, but I feel that difference is so small that it matter very little to me.

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