213374U

That's not exactly what I meant. There are two things to look at here. First, hard work and dedication are indeed essential to get anywhere in life... unless you are born into a wealthy family. For the overwhelming majority of mankind, that's not what happens, so you gotta work. However, hard work and dedication are not a guarantee of anything. For some, it's not even a guarantee of a decent living. How many exactly is "some" depends on where you're looking, but globally it's billions. Any factors beyond hard work and dedication are outside of your control. For most people, hard work is a necessary condition, but not sufficient. The rest boils down to luck. Now, while I don't doubt that you know of people who started at the bottom and have triumphed, that's exceedingly rare. Looking at economic mobility research, US-specific, the odds of striking rich aren't good: "The "rags to riches" story is much more common in Hollywood than on Main Street. Only 6 percent of children born to parents with family income at the very bottom move to the very top." http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2007/11/generations-isaacs You can't just dismiss 94% of those born into the bottom-earning bracket as just lazy, no matter what the Donald might say. Now, it's patently ridiculous to think that everyone has a right to be rich, or that everyone would even want to be. But outside of selected anecdotal evidence, why do you believe that, even if you had put in at least the same amount of work as the people in your examples, you would have gotten anywhere near where they did? Is it possible to succeed despite the odds? Yes. Does it take hard work and dedication? Sure, among other things. In this sense, one can consider themselves to be "self-made", even if that ignores the millenia of societal progress that have afforded "self-made" men the opportunities to succeed rather than just hunt for food or starve. For each of these "self-made" men, millions have just gotten by, and some not even that, despite putting in the work too. But then, "self-made" is just a self-aggrandizing way of saying "hard working". That's the second thing to look at, as Newton put it: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants". Perhaps the most brilliant scientist in history understood that his accomplishments couldn't have occurred in a vacuum, and were built upon the centuries of work of those who came before him. "Self-made" men not wanting to pay taxes because they don't owe anything to the society that has enabled them is not just incredibly arrogant, it's laughable. Or it would be, were it not because it's such a widely accepted idea. edit: can't into English

No, it's not hard to grasp, but that's only because that's not how it works in reality. What you are describing is, I don't know, 18th century capitalism theory? In this day and age, "the rich" do not significantly spend, participate in, or stimulate the economy. Instead, what they do is keep inflating the already completely absurdly sized financial derivatives bubble, whose notional value is currently estimated at >$1.2 quadrillion. The actual world economy you're thinking about is just around $77 trillion. Think the tulip craze of 17th century Netherlands, that has grown to about 20 times the size of the global economy. The solution to that ain't gonna be pleasant, to put it mildly. Please, tell me exactly how encouraging these **** to keep breaking banks whose bailouts everyone else have to pay for is growing anything but their own greed, let alone the economy. But beyond that, there's this magical notion that "the rich" have amassed fabulous amounts of wealth without being at all connected to the rest of mankind, that they don't owe anything to anybody, and that they have no responsibility to maintain the very structures and conditions of stability that allowed them to make and keep money to begin with. The only way to ensure (rather than just trust in the kindness of their hearts and hope for the best) that some of their good fortune reverts back to everyone is through taxes, though I'm open to other ideas if you have any. The "self-made man" myth is right up there with the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and Santa, and they'd all be laughing their asses off, hadn't they just found that the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is now subject to negative interest rates.

Funny. Those two can apply to anyone. I'm thinking they fit the leaders and supporters of the current ruling party here, a conservative party, especially well. They however don't get called names -and rarely are accused of hypocrisy even- because, being right-wing, they hold the moral high ground by default. Remember: wearing a tie makes you respectable. There hasn't been a conscious, directed effort by the left to ridicule and discredit the right by reducing and identifying the whole of it with the most strident and caricaturesque of "right-wing" figures. However, anyone on the political left is subject to be automatically disqualified by being tagged a 'sjw', provided they mention any of a -growing- list of taboo topics. This is nothing new really, used to be that you'd be called a commie or a pinko and instantly pegged as an undesirable -- this is just the internet age equivalent. Anyone interested in understanding how the aforementioned effort works can check out Owen Jones' Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class. Or not ("he just wants you to buy his book, he has an agenda" etc).

Basically anything that doesn't jibe with whatever the stance of the alt-right is on the subject at hand.

Some would settle for being allowed to take a bathroom break. Golden age, no doubt. But for whom?

Guilty until proven innocent, huh?

Well you are pretty much right on the money, but it's called "hate crime" these days. Makes it easier to... hate? It's nature's prerogative to punish idiocy, not the state's.

Technically, that's what happens. She's simply not a playable NPC in the starting dungeon -- she acts as a guide and gives you her line about her now being an apprentice and therefore useless. I guess it was a way to cut corners. Changing her dual-into-mage subplot timing to account for the (very likely) possibility that you had had her in your party confronting Sarevok and keeping her during the initial dungeon would be too much effort for a fairly minor story pacing detail. More than anything it bothered me that Safana, whom I might not have even met previously is now a trusted party member, no questions asked. I would have preferred that they code in a throwaway generic Flaming Fist "spec ops" or whatever to offer support with traps, if they couldn't be bothered to come up with a Safana continuity solution. And yeah, I'm not impressed by the dearth of alternatives regarding NPCs. I'll probably have to create one or two custom NPCs when (if) I get around to that evil party run.

She's magically replaced by Safana -- no explanation regarding why, how, or when.

Been to the heroic area in Section X lately? It's hilarious: totally deserted except for a bunch of level 65 juggernauts with gibberish names and empty legacies... except for the currency achievements. They just don't give a **** anymore, do they?

Sadly that's the case. This thread is a good example, seldom any discussion of the actual game going on. No talk of the new NPCs, encounters, not even the actual writing. Nope, it's all that GG/transphobia tripe. I know I'm going to regret this, but I have to agree with the Gromnir: it's best for writers to simply avoid hot topics. You forgot paid mods, btw, we haven't seen the last of that.

That's a pretty big statement to make so casually. Can you provide any, ahem, citations? I'm genuinely interested. Rules can be used reactively against certain behavior and to remove people who refuse to abide by them repeatedly. However I'm not so certain they change behavior by themselves, and they certainly do not work preemptively. Do laws stop harmful behavior, or are lawbreakers as unconcerned about the law as they are with the well-being of their fellow humans, which the law is ultimately designed to protect? This doesn't mean rules are useless. They would be an instrument through which "problem" users could be removed from here, which may or may not be you are really asking for. However, that by itself does not lead to "productive" discussions, simply to less users. You reasoned how getting emotional can get in the way of "productive" discussion, but that doesn't reflect my experience. You seem certain that threads that devolve into slugging matches cease to be productive, but I'm more of the opinion that they devolve because they weren't that productive to begin with - people get progressively more frustrated and the discussion fails. Whether this results in the topic being deserted or poo-flinging makes little difference. Your reasoning also ignores the fact that online discussions do not work as face-to-face interactions. The thread is still here after the enrage falls off, and all it takes is that you walk away for a while. Discussion can be continued by any participants at any point because previous comments remain. Using "human nature" as a justification to engage in a protracted exchange of personal attacks lasting more than the adrenaline rush would in a real life situation sounds like a rationalization, to indulge in behavior that you know is neither acceptable nor productive, but feel like indulging in anyway. Emotional investment may play a role, but much like abusive relationships, you learn as you get older... or don't. Either way, (more/tougher) rules are not really a solution. And yeah, I know I'm probably a huge hypocrite for posting this. Oh well.

True story: I consider 1989 to be the best pop album in over 20 years. So do many others who aren't the stereotypical teeny bopper fan.. Eh. I'm more of a Pink guy myself...

Yeah, same here. Problem is hitting "cancel" after hitting "post" doesn't work so well. I blame poor impulse control. Again: PM the mod who locked the thread, ask them to clean it up and re-open it, or split the salvageable part into a new discussion. I've done it a few times and they always granted my request -- even when I was the chief culprit of the topic taking a nosedive. Curating a topic that has gone completely off the rails is a waste of time if nobody is interested in it anymore, so lockdown by default makes sense, because the decision is rarely final.

Perhaps. But if a significant portion of participants would rather rehash the same old topics and perspectives over and over and over than engage in -by your standards- productive discussions that lead somewhere... is it really <trollname>'s fault? I'm fairly certain that any one user's ability to shape or direct a thread is basically zero after the first post. It's a collective effort. Takes two to tango and all that. Try to engage people that you consider capable of responding in kind, in a manner that you consider conducive to productive debate, see what happens. You will either get the sort of conversations you'd like... or come to despise humanity a bit more. Either way, I doubt strict(er) rules are a solution to this "problem". This is my theory and I'm sticking with it. http://phys.org/news/2011-11-poop-throwing-chimps-intelligence.html

Well, evil options were always somewhat underwhelming in the originals. Through my obsessive reloading I found that some quests (dwarves, Bridgefort, druids) do offer satisfying alternatives for evil characters beyond "now give me everything or else"... even if dialogues leading to said alternatives aren't great. The problem is finding a solid justification for an evil character to get involved to begin with. But again, that was already problematic in the originals as well... and to some degree also in pretty much every CRPG out there. OMG, reported.

Yeah, so basically, I can't participate in the political or otherwise serious discussions because these people are always in them and always domineering discussion and people are always replying to and shaping the discussion around their posts. Fun. I'm not really following. What exactly prevents you from participating? When the poo-flinging festival starts, bystanders will usually not get involved. What you get is a few mini-conversations going on in parallel inside a given thread, simultaneously, against a background of playground scuffle sounds. Their posts won't get more attention than yours unless they are, well, more interesting. Quality something something Taylor Swift popularity something something. But that's a discussion for another thread. It what bothers you is the bad snr and threads getting bloated with back-and-forths that go nowhere quick (both legit complaints), you can always add the usual suspects to the ignore list -- looks like you already have them (us?) identified anyway. It's not good for much but it will at least help with post clutter. You can also PM some mod and ask them to prune if there is yet hope of salvaging the thread; I've found they'll usually be happy to oblige. If you take the bait, you have nobody to blame but yourself. And if you honestly believe someone is harassing you, the report function actually works. This I know for a fact. When all's said and done I much prefer users exercising their discretion than moderators exercising their power.

I just can't be arsed to log in anymore. I renewed my sub for two more months but... nah. And that's despite the fact that I finally found me a guild to run HM ops with, where I basically have a guaranteed spot as main tank. And it's not MMO burnout either, I just got back to DDO... I don't know. The game just feels stale. The terribad episodes and broken ranked PVP sure don't help.

Has anyone actually ever been banned, outside of spambots? I couldn't name anyone. Personally I like it that way. You can always head out to RPGWatch or SA for stricter moderation... or the KKKodex for the opposite.

That's actually... a good point? Perhaps "racism" in this context doesn't even apply. Racism is not cool IRL because no useful conclusions about an individual can be drawn from their skin color. However, in D&D, races often have an assigned alignment. Goblins are "usually neutral evil", so it is perfectly justified for goblins to be generally reviled. Being accused of being prejudiced against goblins is a bit like being accused of cowardice for not being big on petting Australian tiger snakes (I just love me some National Geographic). I don't really remember the goblin in question, though. Is it the new companion?

Fair enough. The telomere lengthening in cancer cells is commonly brought up in this context, but from what I understand, it's more a with this ergo because of this argument than an actual proven causal relationship. It's not telomeric lengthening that turns healthy adult stem cells into cancer cells, but rather telomerase is upregulated in cancer cells... for various reasons. If you have an actual background in biochemistry, you are in a better position than me to explain those reasons (and I'd thank you if you did). However, telomerase upregulation does indeed appear to be necessary to sustain the growth of cancers. If you weren't suggesting a causal relationship... why bring it up, though?

So confused already that you can't remember what you posted just a few hours ago? Some weird comment about you going to the theatre and not getting a boner or something: If you weren't making a ridiculous parallel between Shakespeare and Gaider, as the ultimate masters of their respective media whose works are universally lauded and thus far unsurpassed, what was that, just another of your mildly heartwarming yet completely irrelevant ramblings? Oh, I don't know, maybe somebody who recognizes that the earlier incarnations of said story within a franchise aren't absolute timeless masterpieces that can very well be improved upon? I didn't expect superiority in the scope (i.e. a bigger game, more plot branches, different systems etc.) and I dare you to find a quote where I said that. I expected better writing within the scope of the game because one does not need to be Shakespeare or be working on something the size of War and Peace to write a main antagonist that isn't an insane, childish mary sue. The game falls short in this regard for the reasons I've been explaining in the last few pages. Again, you are just making general, off-base statements that simply do not apply to the game because you are arguing for the sake of argument and without an iota of actual knowledge. Not only you insist on swinging blindly, you're also convinced that you hit a home run. Wish I could say I'm surprised or disappointed or something equally pompous... but we've both been around the block. You're welcome to try again when you have actually played the game and have something of substance to add to the discussion, though. Until then, trading barbs with you is a waste of time that even I have trouble justifying.

but based on your expectations, why shouldn't we have julius caesar writing at this point? Nah, those aren't my expectations, they are just some weird reinterpretation of yours based on a hilariously inappropriate parallel between Shakespeare and... James Ohlen? David Gaider? Haha... edit: what are these "significant obstacles" BD have encountered, that you keep referring to, to excuse mediocre writing? It costs the same to write a crappy character than it does to write a good one.

Wake me up when a game has Julius Caesar-level writing.

Funny thing is, I enjoyed it sufficiently to finish it, and will probably replay it as an evil character at some point. As I said, I'd probably buy another Beamdog IE game, though I'd prefer if they didn't use the Baldur's Gate property. Gameplay is solid. Area and encounter design, challenge, etc. All of that works pretty well and it's as good as anything found in previous titles. I'd say bringing accomplished modders on board has paid off as well. Again, I got my money's worth. However, the writing is not only the weakest part of the game, it is weak in and of itself. The scope and length of the game are absolutely irrelevant to the quality of storytelling, the plausibility of situations and circumstances, how original it is or how believable, consistent and unique the characters are. Unsurprisingly, one of the areas I'd liked the most is one where there's very little writing or dialogue: the old temple of Bhaal, where the mood and plot are conveyed more through gameplay and ambient cues than written exposition. And sorry folks, but BG2 isn't exactly the Sistine Chapel, Beethoven's 9th, or Crime and Punishment. So yeah, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect more experienced developers to improve on it. Arguably they have done so in the gameplay and tech aspects, so I don't see what's so esoteric about writing that BG2 simply cannot be topped in that regard.