Elerond

Elliot Rodger threated to shoot people in internet earlier this year before his killing spree, comes first to my mind. Is a slippery slope, up next people will be getting prosecuted because of precog crime. There isn't any real basis to put a person in jail just because they said something stupid. Threating to kill somebody somebodies is just not stupid but is act that is considered to be crime in many countries which USA is one.

Elliot Rodger threated to shoot people in internet earlier this year before his killing spree, comes first to my mind.

Here is something even more interesting: http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54179 Law enforcement deemed there was never an imminent threat. Anita canceled her talk because of Utah's CCW law. Spin it how you will, those are the facts. Imminent threat is something that has ability to cause harm to people if they don't take immediate actions to prevent such harm. But university and university's police have said that they had prepared extra secure measures at the presentation, but Sarkeesian felt that those extra measures were insufficient without checking that nobody brings guns at the presentation which is why she decided to cancel it.

Asking more ethical journalism, but not actually stating what one means with such abstract notion (ethical journalism) or saying that game journalism should be more like typical journalism have both high change to produce results that are unsatisfactory for those that ask such things. When people can't get in consensus on ethical questions like is it right to kill another human being in some circumstances or is it ethical to waste food when hundreds of millions of people suffer from hunger/starvation in world. It seem bit naive to just ask more ethical journalism without specifying what that statement actually entail, as it is absolute sure that without details people will have many different interpretation what that means. And I would also guess that most of the journalist think that they conduct their business in ethical manner, so it should not be very surprising that so general statement don't rise much of passion or self reflect in the most of the journalists or even majority (my guess no data to back up such statement) people. I would say that most of what one can except is to get reactions like yeah more ethics is good, but such concerns don't apply to me because I already am ethical (people rarely see themselves unethical if you can't convince that something they are doing is unethical, by showing that things they are doing hurts somebody/something).

Geek & Sundry tweets one of their vlogers video where he talks about gamergate and how he thinks that it is not movement or equivalent, but a brand and not even very shiny one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa-NzqCJ4lM&feature=youtu.be

And I had so high hopes that there would not be gamegate related tweets before I go in bed, but then Jim Sterling retweeted this https://storify.com/EffNOVideoGames/stopgamergate-it-has-always-been-a-spin

Somebody has added #gamergate and #notyourshield on twitter bot Eliza's keyword list. Eliza is bot that uses primitive AI algorithm with same name from 1960s that simulates Rogerian psychotherapist and it seems that it has had nice talks with people using those hastags. New Statesman has published article which writer seems be quite glad over fact that people have been wasting their time by talking with bot. http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/10/ultimate-weapon-against-gamergate-time-wasters-1960s-chat-bot-wastes-their-time

In interviews in past few days she has said that she is sex positive feminist and said that she don't think that there is anything wrong in sexualized women in video games if it's not done in derogatory way and women don't only exist to be objects of desire, etc. things. Revolution 60 seems to be quite liked in iTunes, reviews in magazines seems to be more mixed. It seems that critics whose reviews don't fit in party line should be blacklisted from reviewing games. https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/522507578665074688 It is very interesting to see people to ask publishers to make sure that reviews of their game in launch day are positive by blacklisting publications that would give them poor reviews. I though the idea was something about make things more ethical or something like that, not to find ways to maximize big publishers' profits. https://twitter.com/Ex_nihilo_0/status/522498689399402496

BBC coverage about threats against USU and Anita and it also covers GamerGate, writer seems to do his best to keep neutral tone. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29626809

PC Gamer tweets about their article about USU incident, in which they mention that Anita says that some of the threats had #GamerGate tag in them http://www.pcgamer.com/anita-sarkeesian-cancels-university-talk-after-school-shooting-threat/ This link is not from tweets, but from PCGamer's articles comments where article's writer posted it together with that Jezebel article that I posted previously. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=134397896&postcount=12285

Maybe - just maybe - men are more willing to work extra hours or take on more tasks because they value money more, and women value their free time more? (in general) And that is just one of those societal factors that I spoke, of course it is possible that male genetics make them more willing to do more overtime and female genetics make women value their free time more. But I would bet that such differences originate from differences how society see members of different genders and how they are raised and how culture in general perceives and influences them. So it is not simple issue that can be solved with ease, but more a issue that needs changes in society if people want it to be solved.

But even so, if you're a manager and you have a man and a woman applying for the same job, with the same credentials. You as the manager isn't going to hire the woman who gets paid less? You're the manager, you need to keep costs down. You would hire the woman for less pay. That is complicated question. If you as manager see man more qualified in job because of preconceived notions that you aren't even aware then you hire man, but if you don't have those notions and see them both as qualified to job you will hire the woman, who asked less pay because of some factors that make her to value her time less than that man. Both options are things that happen in real life and because of first option I have gotten job instead of more qualified woman (at least on paper, who is my friend, which is reason why I know how much she asked and what her qualifications are compared to mine) even though I asked 600€ more per month.

I want to see those statistics. There's a lot of talk about it, but I've yet to hear about actual examples, only "hear-says". I work in a software company and most of the staff is women. They get paid just as much. Heck, every woman I know in various other companies and jobs and talked about it, never complained that their wages were lower. There are always differences between employes, but there are many factors to that - overtime, bonuses, work quotas, etc, etc.. You can look them up by searching studies about salary differences. I will not quote any specific numbers because they will change depending on what has been studied and how study has been concluded. But there is hundreds of studies done by subject and which politicians choose ones that seem to best support their views about matter. There are probably studies that support you view of things, so you can choose to believe them if you will, but when statics show that one gender in general gets less salary than other, then I would say that overtime, bonuses, work quotas, etc. etc. don't work as only explanation why it is so, but as I said salary differences don't necessary are results from employers actions/malice/prejudice/etc. but factors caused by general society (like women ask less pay, because of some factor, men do overtime more because of some factor, men are perceived more qualified/better workers because of some factors, etc.). But I will say that when statistics from source to source show that one gender gets paid less than other then I would say that there are some other factors in play than your typical work compensation factors alone, but I also think that most if not all of these other factors originate outside of employers. Here is EU's general report about subject, which references several studies about subject. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/gender_pay_gap/140319_gpg_en.pdf

Yup

It is not something that companies do intentionally out of malice, but that happens because of much more obscure factors, which is why fixing it is difficult and time consuming process. Especially when many of those factors originate from things in general social consensus and what kind views people have grown with. For example companies often think that they treat men and women equally but their own statistics often show that women with same qualifications than men get offered smaller starting salary, which many women take as face value as they in anonymous inquiries about subject often value their time less than men, and often you can also find that men get more often and bigger raises than women, but it is also shown that women typically ask less and smaller raises than men. Where we come back to that point where I said that difference in salary isn't necessary because of malice/sexism/etc. from company but because of our societies views about subject and how we raise and educate our children and how our culture influences (like people not even believing in the subject or making light about subject) them. And it also should be remembered that people work 40-60 years of their life so salary statistics are still influenced by politics of 1940s and 1950s, which make subject even more complicate to analyse and to find solution (which all the members of society don't even want to do in the first place).

I am always so happy to read twitter in these days Terrorist threats against Utah State University because they have Anita Sarkeesian as quest speaker in some of their events. Article writer of course remembers to link that threat to GamerGate. http://www.standard.net/Police/2014/10/14/Utah-State-University-student-threatens-act-of-terror-if-feminist.html TotalBiscuit has recover somewhat from his cancer treatments has come back to give defensive voice for gamergate. Washington Post gives their try to explain what GamerGate is and it don't draw very pretty picture http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/14/the-only-guide-to-gamergate-you-will-ever-need-to-read/

Although I have seen little to none evidence that Grayson gave any coverage for developer in question after their possible sexual relationship, so looking from that point of view there was really no need him to recuse himself or disclose such relationship. But any way in this point of time I feel that that particular case is worst hindrance that GamerGate has, because of way people decided to attack developer in question first and only afterwards start to rise questions about journalist in the question. It becomes in my opinion very problematic thing especially because those attacks against said developer were the tinder for article series in multiple publications that are know as "Gamers are Dead" articles which GamerGate uses to fuel their movement. Which in my opinion creates problematic basis for the movement and gives door for the people to criticize the movement and accuses them for things like women hating and sexism. And movement also isn't helped by fact that one of it loudest voices comes from journalist that writes in publication that has at least previously shown heavy anti-gamer mentality and holds opinions against woman rights movements. And said journalist has written several articles that are seen attacks against sexual minorities. In my opinion GamerGate need to do better PR (produce articles and videos that can't perceived as attacks or angry rants or conspiracy theories. Produce articles and videos that condemn attacks and don't try to defend them by saying that there are attacks in both sides [because GamerGate is social and political movement and there is no oppose side for it, only people that criticize it for one reason or another, but they don't form opposite movement that tries to compete with it] ), find better mouth pieces for their movement and I would also say they should focus their message better (meaning to specify what they mean with corruption in (gaming) journalism and start to give propositions of possible solutions). Because in current form it seems to only accomplish to mud public opinions about gamers and gaming at general.

Morning update from twitter Here article from Social Researcher who analyses in the article why "#Gamergate, as we know it now, is a hate group." http://jezebel.com/gamergate-trolls-arent-ethics-crusaders-theyre-a-hate-1644984010 Blog post from Brianna Wo where she talks how she fear that "current hostile environment could be the new normal" and how she tried to talk with Milo Yiannopoulos about it in interview and why that didn't worked out. She also reveals that she used to be avid Fox News watcher. http://spacekatgal.tumblr.com/post/99950527903/changing-the-new-normal

Me personally probably not, but it can cause parents to forbid their children to come and play with others. It happened in past and I would prefer if it will not happen again, because I think that it is quite unfair towards 6-17 year old kids if they can't go local gaming clubs because their parents think that we will corrupt their children.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gamergate-death-threats-2014-10 It start to feel that we have come back to time when gaming wasn't so socially acceptable hobby that it has been past decade. And I start to wonder when we start to again get concerned parents to our gaming club that think that we are Satan worshipers.

It depend what is meant with degenerate If degenerate is used in context where Josh for example uses it, ergo to mean ability to do things that designers didn't mean players to be able to do or rewarding player's for behavior that designers didn't meant to be rewardable in the game, then I can understand why they don't want to make same design decisions again in their new game. But of course I am not fan of problems where there is only one way to solve them, like content that can be accessed only one way. And I am not also fan of lockpick ability that works as way to get extra income for the party, even if lock-pick skill is not locked only for certain classes, because I feel that is bit lazy design decision. So I don't think that PoE's skill system is best or even necessary good one, as it is is quite simplistic. Stealth is most interesting of the skill, but that is because it's only active skill. Mechanics currently gives player extra money and can save some health in maps where there are traps, but mechanics probably will become more interesting when player gets ability to laid traps. Lore gives you more information about enemies, but that itself in my opinion is not enough to make it interesting skill, but it seems to be most useful skill in conversations, but I am not fan how it seem to become skill that gives characters faster xp gain by fulfilling bestiaries faster. I don't like that main point behind athletics is to make adventure days longer by increasing time that character can travel before they get fatigue statuses. Survival makes consumables more interesting choice to use, which make it probably most interesting skill after stealth and mechanics (given that using traps is as interesting as I hope) . Of course each skill has their uses in interaction events and conversations, which can make them more interesting in full game than what they are in beta, but I think that when number of skills is as limited as it is they all should bigger role in the game and preferably active functions addition/instead of passive buffs.

That is trivial. In every game even against the computer, you have to make better choices than your opponent. However, improving build/skill is more analogous to which playstyle is more effective. This is what I think you were referring to earlier when you said: Well. Let us take some relevant examples here. I apologize that I can't find the exact quotes: There have been some posts by Josh saying that players exploit save/reload for better results on RNG. Now, that is funny, isn't it? I never did. I am sure many did not. The point is that it shouldn't matter what players do. The job for the developer is to only ensure that the RNG is not too skewed. Same goes for bad class choices. As long as the game carefully explains that a Cleric is a wisdom based class, it does not really have to make "make all stats useful for all classes". Is it too wrong to ask, that no changes in the core mechanics are necessary to just accommodate that? Another relevant example: You do know that we can't break down doors/Chests right? Do you know the reason? It is so because that would make the lockpicking skill apparently useless. Now does that even make sense to you? It doesn't to me. Meaningful don't mean equal, but that choice is meaningful. I am not sure if Josh has said something specially about RNG in skill use and using save/load to win always in those situations, but I know that Josh has said that if he gives player ability to do something in game and it negates challenge that he has created to game then it's his mistake and he will try to avoid such situations at best of his abilities, which means for example that he don't use RNG in skill checks in his designs. I don't have any same to confess that I am one of those players that use save/load to win RNG checks when I can do so in the games, because it is just most efficient way to play and I still can find game fun even when I do so, but I don't lament (anymore I have in past) if developers decide to use different solution in their skill checks. Not be able to break doors don't make sense to me in immersion wise, but as way to create challenge, give more meaning for certain skills/builds or because it just causes too much work compared to advances that it would bring in gameplay (reasons in list are hypothetical examples to help me explain my views about subject) I can understand why they didn't include it in the game and even I would miss ability to bash doors, chest and other things it's not something that breaks or makes game for me. I also miss ability to pick pocket people and non-combat spells, and many other things that game will not have, but even I think that they would make game better to me I accept developers explanation that they didn't fit in scope of the game.

Such attitudes sadly seems to be quite common For example when you read new about how police shot unarmed man, who has criminal record or who was suspected of petty crime, you will find comment section of that news article full of people that will tell you that police actions were not only acceptable but recommendable things to do and that man had it coming and world is better place with out him.

Chess does not satisfy this for example. All options (besides black and white) are not equal. Some strategies are inherently better. That is why people have pretty small set of starting moves. Now that is non-trivially analogous to choosing feats/classes/skills. The point is that not all builds in RPGs are going to be equally effective or at least that is going to really really hard to do. Now, it is an entirely different question whether this is a meaningful goal. I personally think it is not. 1) firstly, why the heck does the developer care how I play? He has no business doing that. His job is to make enjoyable, deep and tactically complex combat system. Give me more options! That is what I want from the dev. By trying to "ultra" balance, he is basically ruining the depth as the focus moves from giving me options to making equally effective but restricted builds. Let me choose how I play! 2) This is a point I have been trying to make since ages: That builds are not useless. The implementation of the content is. let us say that there is a skill called "Decipher script" in one of the iterations of the game. Let us say that there is a particular game developer that decides that this skill was useless in an older iteration. How do they deal with it? a) They add content to match the skill so that it is useful now. b) They remove the skill. I think that is the point: If you really feel that certain builds are hampered due to useless stuff they do, then for christ's sake ADD THAT STUFF as a relevant thing in the game instead of removing the skill! 3) I can't speak for others, but finding out which character builds are OP is something I enjoy, There is actual fun in discovering what you can do better with ever build. Min/Maxing is a game all by itself. Chess has depending situation better and poorer choices, but any of those choice aren't less valid by as themselves. Like for example you can't say that moving queen is always better option than moving soldier. Chess' challenge is to make better choices than your opponent. 1) Developer don't give damn how you play but what ways to play they have given you and are some of those ways against of their vision of the game and challenge that they want game to offer for the player. As game rules aren't meant to be comply with players' play styles but set boundaries in which players try to find right way to play withing those rules. I would compare person complaining that game don't accommodate certain play style to that draughts player complains that that they can't use same play style in chess than what they used in draughts. 2. I would say add, delete or modify stuff accordingly what you think will result best end result, there is no reason to save old things or way to do things just to save them if you get better results with new thing or way to do things. And some times can make things better just by removing bad apples from the pie. 3. It may be fun to find most OP build, but it also may be very frustrating when build that you made don't let you to complete the game. Making sure that every build that you can come up in character creation is viable removes that risk that player finds themselves in situation where they need to rest start the game because choices that they made in character creation prevents them to completing the game or makes playing the game frustrating experience. Making are build viable don't mean that there isn't best build, but that there change that there is multiple as best builds, but that work in different roles or styles of play.