Hurlshort

I think we should also point out that men can be taken advantage of just as easily. Sure, it is going to much less common, and there is a macho culture that makes reporting even more rare than with women, but it should not be ignored.

I took my laptop apart to clean out all the fans and the heatsink. I am not applying new thermal paste, that is a bit above my paygrade, bit hopefully getting all the dirt and dust out will suffice. Now I just have to hope I put it back together correctly.

No, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The suspects may not have proof they are not guilty, but the responsibility to prove that they are guilty lies with the prosecution. This is the way it should be, as convicting someone for not being able to prove a negative is not a very good standard for a legal system. It would certainly suck of someone was convicted because they stayed home alone and didn't have an alibi for a murder that occurred close to them or involved someone they were in conflict with. To get back to this rape law: you're a father I believe? If one of your kids were accused of rape by someone they had casual sex with and could not prove that it was consensual and the accuser could not prove that it wasn't consensual, why should they bear the burden of proof for a baseless accusation? Shouldn't the accuser be required to bring at least some proof of rape before making accusations? But this isn't a baseless accusation, this is a woman (or man) going into a police station, going through the interview process, submitting to tests, etc. It's an incredibly difficult thing to go through for a victim, hence they high rate of unreported assaults. As for my own children, I hope to raise them with the beliefs that casual sex is inherently dangerous. I want them to take precautions. Do you have unprotected casual sex? Probably not, that would be crazy. Well, making sure that the sex is consensual should be right there alongside wearing protection. It's better to be safe.

So when someone is murdered, do we put the onus on the murdered person to provide the burden of proof? No, we we do a full investigation of the likely suspects, and expect them to provide evidence that they weren't involved or at fault.

So you're pro-guilty until proven innocent? Are you pro-kangaroo court too? Way to oversimplify a complex legal issue.

I'm not sure that it works exactly like that, since clearly you will have repeat offenders among the males. I am pretty surprised how quick some of you are to deny that this is a real problem, considering you all spend a lot of time on the internet. There is a tremendous amount of disturbing bleep out there. Have you ever been to a club where a girl is way too intoxicated? I've seen groups of men move in like moths to a flame, and I can tell you, they aren't going over to her to be gentlemen. I guess it is somewhat refreshing that so many of you doubt these numbers, because maybe that means you all are good guys who treat women respectfully. That's important. But that also means we should believe women when they say they have been assaulted.

Being a bit more serious though, this is actually a very important shift in how we approach rape cases. Instead of placing the responsibility on the victim to prove that she (or he) resisted and was forced to have sex, it is now much more dependent on the accused proving that it was consensual. As a man, I have very little fear here, but that's because I never went around sleeping with people I didn't have a certain amount of trust built up with. And as a father, it is good to know that my daughter has the full support of the law in such a terrible situation. My number one goal is to raise her to be careful and always protect herself, but I can't keep her locked in her room forever.

The details are always complicated. Imagine your girlfriend video taped you and her having sex while she was somewhat intoxicated. The next day she would basically own you. She could go to the police and have you arrested for rape. So yes, how drunk is important. If a law can be exploited; it usually is. I guess another simple lesson would be don't stick your junk in crazy.

A company that just wants our money? *Le Gasp!* What is the crime, exactly? Check out your country commerce law or whatever They sell fake product, they lie, they got profit by it that day, the game isn't build for PC but they say it's build for PC, it's a breach of trust, a scam You are a customer...always remember that Ok, so I actually bought the game on the PC and find it fairly unplayable. My system is near the bottom of the requirements, but it does meet them. So you would think I might support you, but I don't, because you are being ridiculous. In order to fulfill their obligation to the customer, the game only needs to be playable. It doesn't matter if it sucks, if it is derivative, or is the gameplay is badly designed. So not only have they met that requirement, it's also very evident that they spent a ton of money developing the product. So you can ask for a refund if it is unplayable, and that is about it. That is the only legal obligation here. They are offering a product as advertised.

It's not as complicated as you two make it out. Don't take advantage of drunk people. Your girlfriend is probably not going to wake up feeling like she was taken advantage of.

A company that just wants our money? *Le Gasp!* What is the crime, exactly?

I plan on staying away from the tactical combat and just hacking and slashing my way through the story.

Might be your hardware throttling due to heat. Yeah. I think I've finally hit the wall, I had trouble with AC: Black Flag too. Time to either enjoy some older games or man up and buy a new system. Or I could buy it for the PS4. Which I own. But that sounds like defeat talking. And I don't want to pay twice for it. Hurlshot, what are your system stats for the Laptop? I'm not at home, so I can't reel them off exactly, but I have an ASUS laptop from 2010 with 8 gigs of RAM and the Nvidia GTX 460M. I think it is an i7 chipset but I can't remember off the top of my head. I think I am having problems with heat, after some more investigation. Framerates are dropping off in other games over time.

It's become fairly obvious that Qistana does not have the game and is only here to complain about it. Don't be concerned with credibility, keep fighting the good fight! edit: It would be worse if she did own it, because her mind was already made up before she bought the game. edit 2: I think she's actually a bot.

It was pretty great watching everyone celebrate like they just won the Superbowl. They hadn't won at home in a year!

Might be your hardware throttling due to heat. Yeah. I think I've finally hit the wall, I had trouble with AC: Black Flag too. Time to either enjoy some older games or man up and buy a new system. Or I could buy it for the PS4. Which I own. But that sounds like defeat talking. And I don't want to pay twice for it.

I am getting a weird drop in framerate. I play nicely for a couple minutes, and then it gets super laggy. Settings don't seem to matter.

Well that's kind of a root problem here. Are these entertainers or are they journalists? Personally, I haven't considered the gaming media journalists since the early days of Computer Gaming World. They are entertainment rags, closer to US Weekly than any reputable news organization. That's why I find this entire movement mindboggling. Wait, so what you're saying is that it's stupid to ask for reform because these sites are just clearly sensationalist rags? I'd say it's all the more reason to ask for reform because these sites are sensationalist rags. You argument basically boils down to this thing is broken, you people are being silly trying to fix it. I'm saying that the entire industry is sophomoric, from the consumers to the developers, so expecting the media to be less than that is unrealistic. Look, I love games, and I get that they are a big business. But at the end of the day, they are still video games. There are so many other things in this world I'd rather see us getting serious about. Edit: The movie industry is the exact same way, btw. Those awards shows are ridiculous.

You are investing, not buying a product, when you use kickstarter. The chances of your investment failing are clearly stated.

Plenty of people must consider them worth something, while IGN and their like is usually mocked you find people have respect for RPS or Polygon (with that weirdo prick Kuchera) or other sites that aspire to..uh..analysis of games and what not. That and these people are fun to abuse as they always bite. Plenty of people consider reality shows and trashy celebrity mags worth something as well. I'm just saying that maybe some of these expectations are a bit unrealistic. Video game journalism is always going to suffer from the fact that it is about video games, so expecting some high brow journalistic integrity is puzzling to me.

Well that's kind of a root problem here. Are these entertainers or are they journalists? Personally, I haven't considered the gaming media journalists since the early days of Computer Gaming World. They are entertainment rags, closer to US Weekly than any reputable news organization. That's why I find this entire movement mindboggling.

So...do we have an example of an ethical game journalism site? Shouldn't the Gamergate movement be pushing for people to start using those sites? I'm curious how much Kotaku's traffic has changed during this whole event. Sadly my guess would be that it has increased.

PC. It's not going great, I'll be honest with you. I kind of wish I bought it on my PS4. It's just not performing well. My laptop is getting upt here in age, but I'm still a bit surprised.

Is alanschu actually anti-gg? Or does he just think it's a stupid movement, like I do. It's basically fighting stupidity with stupidity, from what I can see.

What does that have to do with Alanschu?