213374U

Source?

Hmm, I don

That is the problem, made plain as can be; Players put themselves in the PC's place ~Instead of playing the PC... That's not Role playing, its improv (Games like Oblivion make it [almost] impossible to play any other way). ** "Role playing" started out as a teaching tool to impart empathy, and to enable one person to see the situation from another's "shoes". What you've described is replacing that other person with one's self and making decisions as seems right to you, and not as might seem right to them. You know, I was going to make a post yesterday saying precisely this. But I thought it would be superfluous, as you had explained it already and I doubt I could do better. All I'm going to add is that those who only play RPGs as themselves miss out on the great fun that is creating and putting on a new personality every time. That IS what roleplaying is all about. edit: lol alanschu

Yeah, that's pretty much all you need. Be sure to install the "NPC armor mod" component included in Killap's restoration patch, as well. It's pretty sweet.

Yes, I see your point now. But it's not really a problem when I can find a workaround for almost any copy-protection related annoyance within three clicks, is it? If anything, it's the publisher shooting themselves in the foot.

See, everyone has their opinion on what "justice" really is.

I do, actually. I don't gad about adopting cynical poses to try and look more in the know. So I don't begin by assuming all government is crap. Well. Good for you, then. I'd recommend NOT reading up on how the oil biz works, if your panties are so quick to get in a knot. That way you may get away with your non-cynical pose. no, jeesus... it has a definition, look it up. i can't even believe that i have to argue this point. so, by this idiotic logic, when i call you all retards for making me debate this, don't get offended because i really mean "people who wear nice shoes." Okay, so you just cut out the part of my post that addressed and explained the difference between scientific (retard refers to any number of well-documented medical conditions) and moral definitions, and proceeded to make a poor (both in quality and taste) analogy. Um, nice work.

You actually sound surprised? edit: um, yeah. Pretty shocking that they admitted to it, though.

Nah. Justice has a foundation in ethics, and those are pretty plastic. "Red" refers to the visible radiation with an associated wavelength between X and Z nm (too lazy to look up the actual numbers). That is a real world definition. "Justice" isn't any more real than "honor" or "piety".

Your point? No point in jumping down that guys throat. Well, only he brought it up - rather dogmatically, I might add. I replied in kind. Not really looking for a fight, either. I still don't understand what the fact that he may not be alone in thinking that second-hand sales are such a big deal has to do with anything, tbh.

Whose dictionary's/which edition?

Counter Strike. It's the same as with Starcraft, though - but still awesome to play at LANs.

Not quite. I'd say you're simply trying to up your postcount. You just need to be more subtle about it.

Your point?

Misdiagnosis?

And what "problem" is that? The developer/publisher being left out of the loop with regards to profit from a used single copy? I fail to see how that is a problem. That's like the RIAA suing for multi-million sums in reparations for alleged "lost sales". You cannot prove that people who purchase a used game at a GS would, were that venue unavailable to them, purchase a new copy from the publisher. Everyone likes a new product better than a used one, so if people are purchasing second hand games, there must be a reason for that, such as, woe is me, diminished interest. It's only a problem in your mind. I can see your point about limited installs being designed as a means to make resale more difficult, but considering that de-activation tools are provided by the publisher, it's a bit useless. So maybe the traditional publisher role is becoming obsolete. Take a look at Valve. They seem to have tackled this issue pretty well, by innovating and adapting their biz model. In a market economy, those who can't adapt, fail.

As I said, it will depend on who you are playing with, man. "Strength" of a deck in MtG is relative. All decks are vulnerable to a certain strategy or another - hence the existance of a "reserve" for most competitive decks. Also, if you don't plan on updating with new cards, your decks will be rendered obsolete by cards and strategies from new editions. This isn't a problem if you only play with a closed set of decks, but that's it. MtG is designed to be a time and money sink, and there is no easy way around that. Another problem is that pre-constructed decks are often one-trick poneys and once you master the core combos the deck is based on, there is very little else to do, making for very boring games. To answer your question, yes. You can mix and match the duel decks.

Yep. That also has the key advantage of rewarding combat, stealth and speech-oriented characters equally. This should be like CRPG design 101 by now... but it isn't, for some reason.

Lol, no.

Me? Well, I'm eating a steak atm, if you must know. Trying to stay away from the chips, too. So fattening.

I'm sorry, sir, but I'm afraid I can't accept that. It seems your license to make up random **** has expired.

Don't let the door hit your ass on your way out. :D

This is irrelevant. Presumption of innocence isn't simply a legal precept, it's also a useful consideration in informal discussions. What I'm trying to say is that it's bad to assume these things. There is a burden of proof that must be dealt with before establising culpability, without that there is no causality. It may be intellectually appealing to assume that these parents were abusive as it makes it easier to understand, but that may or may not be the case. If you just want to start proclaiming guilt left and right, go ahead. But that's the point where the discussion loses all meaning, as your guess is as good as mine. Please, do so. It's always interesting to see how people come up with these numbers, as this isn't hard science by any means. Also keep in mind that correlation does not imply causation. What? If anything, then being a psychopath would have to be a mitigating circumstance, as psychopaths do not choose to be so, and according to you, it's their condition that "most likely led them to commit the crime". Or are you suggesting that being a psychopath is a crime in and by itself? What's your point, exactly?

Unfortunately, in this case, assuming that these children were abused entails criminal liability for their parents. Are you familiar with the concept of presumption of innocence? Also, where do you get this "vast majority" fact from, and what exactly constitutes a "vast majority"? You know, it's bad form to jump "incorrect" at what somebody said when you actually failed to understand what he meant. Just sayin'. We lack the means to deal with psychopaths as psychopaths. Of course, when they have broken the law, they can be dealt with (albeit rather ineffectively, as the penal system focuses heavily on rehabilitation), but then the circumstance that they have a personality disorder is secondary to the fact that they are criminals, which makes the point moot.

And I'm not an expert but I think you just made that up on the spot. There's just no way to know from what the article says. Psychopathy isn't always a result of childhood abuse. Yep. That's an important question, I think. But if these kids are truly psychopaths as opposed to simply self-taught hooligans, what are the odds that their parents could actually detect it? To what extent can they reasonably be held accountable? We simply lack the means of dealing with people with aberrant personalities, as they aren't truly mad and therefore can't be confined just because of what they might do. Unfortunately these people are walking time bombs, and even though only a portion of them is violent, they are all dangerous. Sadly, all one can do is hope not to run into one. Wals, you have some sort of psychology background, don't you? Surely you must have more to say than that?