Gromnir

Gromnir I'll tell you something interesting and true. In life you don't need to know any minority group or person being discriminated against in order to feel empathy. All you need to do is ask yourself " how would I like to be treated like that" If the answer is " no I wouldn't like that" then I can guarantee you the minority group also wouldn't like it For example, how would you feel if a group of people refused to allow you into a restaurant with your family or partner because of the color of your skin? They gave no other reason except for " no your type aren't welcome here". How would you feel...hurt ...embarrassed...humiliated....? This are the types of emotionas that people who are discriminated against feel and I'm sure you agree this wouldn't be a nice experience yet I doubt you have ever been stopped going into a restaurant because of the color of your skin? as a minority, we believe your perspective is a bit... simple. am actual a teeny bit perturbed, and our knee-jerk reaction is to kinda rub your nose in your error to make a point, but that wouldn't be helpful. *deep breath* regardless. we mentioned above that empathy didn't help us with our girlfriend's pov. she were genuine bothered by the portrayal o' male & females in Children of Dune. sure, we could, after-the-fact, kinda imagine how the tv miniseries were sexist and demeaning, but that ain't genuine understanding, and only way it helped us were to be realizing that we don't get it-- where "it" is The Female Pov. the last thing our girlfriend woulda' wanted were some kinda patronizing faux empathy. "i feel your pain." nonsense. HA! Good Fun! ps serious, don't make assumptions that may come back to bite you in the arse.

as we said earlier, a women-only section for the women who ain't posting here is unnecessary. that being said, Gromnir complete recognizes that we don't understand women well enough to be able to speak for them. sure, we can looks at an issue cold and rational and devoid o' gender, but to do so is probable missing the point. example: am recalling we watched Children of Dune (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0287839/) with a girlfriend of ours. that were 11 years ago? wow. our significant other at the time were hardly a card carrying member o' NOW. regarding economic issues she tended to be a bit conservative, but like many folks, she were more concerned with issues than with party-line philosophies. she were educated (better than Gromnir) and made lots o' money. anywho, when we watched Children of Dune, we were surprised a bit. the fact that the kwisatz haderach were male-- had to be a male-- bothered our girlfriend more than a bit. we saw loads o' strong women characters in Children of Dune. our girlfriend saw the miniseries much different than us, with women needing to be rescued by men and all sorta other misogynist staples. we were wise enough to not argue, but we were mildly shocked at how complete different our girlfriend viewed the miniseries, and how she specifically saw it in terms o' the male v. female dichotomy. is just an example. we could give dozens o' similar, but different examples oh how we is caught off-guard by female perspective. am not saying that female perspective is right or wrong or that female pov specific deserves recognition-- we let you each decide according to your conscience. regardless, we does recognize that there IS a female perspective and typically we needs to consciously guess at it, 'cause it don't come natural to us. HA! Good Fun!

exposition HA! Good Fun!

number one pitfall: different is better especially with a complete new property, the developers will be tempted to be different, but different is not intrinsic better. cars is frequent made different not to improve, but 'cause of planned obsolescence, and to be able to sell more and varied replacement part, etc. sure, same is guaranteed not to be better, but black isle/obsidian, of all developers should be wary of change for the sake of change. goal should be to build a better mousetrap, not just a different one. listening to chrisA speak of why there were no swords in ps:t is, in retrospect, sad and amusing. magic swords were cliche to chris, and so were dwarves and elves and a host o' other staples o' crpgs. to be fair to chris, how do you know if people actually like a thing if they has never been given an alternative? nevertheless, chrisA wanted to be different, for the sake of being different... which is an immature goal. the value in different is in the potential for improvement. speaking to poe specifically, we can all be hopeful. after all, one espoused goal is to recreate the appeal o' games such as bg2. developers is consciously looking backwards to what has worked in the past. oh, sure, all developers look to the past to see what has worked--couldn't make any game without looking to the past. that being said, one can look at various poe races or inclusion o' gunpowder, or a host o' other changes and ask if such additions is done to make poe better, or to just be different, for the sake of being different. we like change. change, even when seeming unsuccessful, can bring about innovation. however, am hoping that the folks at black isle/obsidian has matured a bit since ps:t-- learned that change should not be the goal. HA! Good Fun!

... if kissinger posts his 10 favorite political anecdotes, we would read... 'cause is kissinger and am expecting he gots more than a few good stories ... am not sure what is the fascination with internet lists in general, but a list from rpg codex? is posting the link the equivalent o' a rpg nerd selfie or somesuch? we all gets creeped out by the morbidly fat and comically hirsute fifty-something male in a tiny pink bikini? a haha moment we will wanna forget asap? spent way too much effort responding to this. jokes on us s'pose. *shrug* HA! Good Fun! ps needless to say, we did not use the link. have had bad experience with rpg codex links regardless.

Indeed, people know not to derail important threads Orog at bsn, regardless of how they start, all romance threads that survive more than 5ish pages become ghey romance threads. additionally, there is a kinda critical mass for romance threads-- can't go an entire page of threads w/o at least one romance thread. dunno if obsidian has insufficient posters to test if such phenomena is universal or limited to bsn. regardless, am thinking that as to issue o' female posters and obsidian boards, it is a question o' obsidian games more than anything. folks come for the games, then maybe they stay for the after-dinner conversation. sadly, there ain't been many/any obsidian games to attract new women posters, and one o' the few popular games obsidian has had in the past five years, were directing folks to the bethesda boards.... 'cause, as Gromnir has pointed out numerous times in the past, the main purpose o' the boards to developers/publishers is the cheap advertising they provide. HA! Good Fun!

as an aside, am recalling our crane brinton from university. we don't remember innovation being an element o' revolution, but we does recall that the American Revolution were distinguished from other historic revolutions 'cause of absence o' the ... am forgetting the exact phrase... time of terror? in point o' fact, all o' the great political revolutions in history brinton examined (english, french, russian and american) is having a surfeit o' innovation and lasting socioeconomic change you seems to think is fundamental to definition o' "revolution." conversely, am recalling that the forcible restoration o' post ww2 japan and the industrial revolution were examples o' the innovation and lasting socioeconomic change brinton found lacking in the political revolutions examined. perhaps brinton had too much influence 'pon us to be able to take your innovation notions to heart as they seem to be complete at odds with one o' the only works we has read that specific compares revolutions. HA! Good Fun! ps brinton wrote before the soviet collapse, and were still not seeing innovation or lasting meaningful change from russian revolution. we were in school studying brinton in 1989, so failure o' the soviet were even more clear as we were able to actual watch the berlin wall being disassembled contemporaneous with our reading o' brinton. had actual visited soviet russia in 87 and would return when we were teaching in europe a few years later. *chuckle* am recalling that not far from red square in 1987 we were offered a car for our sony walkman... although condoms were the real black market hot ticket item at the time.

Oh dear me. I'm not insisting upon it at all. The definition I use does have multiple criteria relating to socioeconomic and political change, but I do not use multiple definitions. The reference to the British system of the 18th century is merely to illustrate that the political system the Constitution put in place is not nearly so innovative as people tend to think, since it draws heavily on that British legacy, and is much more evolutionary than it is revolutionary. which is why your comments is unresponsive. a revolutionary war doesn't require innovation any more than a civil war requires polite and courteous behavior. is not same revolution as is transistors or elastic in underwear. btw, with the exception o' the rare, complete and accidental discoveries, we would argue that virtual all revolutions (socioeconomic, political or otherwise) is evolutionary, but that is a topic for another thread. that being said, the James Burke series, Connections, could be enlightening for you. HA! Good Fun! Fair enough. Your definition is so different there's not much point in the two of us talking about it, though I would wonder why we have the words insurrection, rebellion, revolt, and revolution if no innovation is required for the last one. Your point about virtually all so-called revolutions being evolutionary is one with which I generally agree, at least pre-20th century. historically, "revolution" probable were a nice way of saying, "really bloody." more modern and it is gonna have to do with the scope of change, or perhaps how fundamental the change were. not require any grand innovation. the abbasid revolution weren't particularly innovative. the siamese revolution of 1688 were probable more reactionary than anything. the haitian revolution saw the successful new regime establish serfdom? very innovative. look in a thesaurus and see how many words there is for "cold." is some very subtle differences 'tween some o' those synonyms. HA! Good Fun!

Oh dear me. I'm not insisting upon it at all. The definition I use does have multiple criteria relating to socioeconomic and political change, but I do not use multiple definitions. The reference to the British system of the 18th century is merely to illustrate that the political system the Constitution put in place is not nearly so innovative as people tend to think, since it draws heavily on that British legacy, and is much more evolutionary than it is revolutionary. which is why your comments is unresponsive. a revolutionary war doesn't require innovation any more than a civil war requires polite and courteous behavior. is not same revolution as is transistors or elastic in underwear. btw, with the exception o' the rare, complete and accidental discoveries, we would argue that virtual all revolutions (socioeconomic, political or otherwise) is evolutionary, but that is a topic for another thread. that being said, the James Burke series, Connections, could be enlightening for you. HA! Good Fun!

no, Gromnir is willing to concede that there is an argument that monte's pov is accurate and that the war were more accurate described as a civil war. the Founders wouldn't agree, and neither would the lion's share o' historians, but it is a valid argument and we suspect a large % of Americans living during the American Revolution would not have seen the war as a revolution per se. 'course this is all ultimately irrelevant in the present context. Revolutionary as we used above, coulda' been replaced by "A Government born out of rebellion," and post meaning woulda' been changed not one whit. no, the thing that we don't get is the insistence in using multiple definitions o' revolutionary. even if you does not think the American Revolution were a "true" revolution, to bring up British checks and balances is revealing that you is trying to use multiple definitions o' "revolutionary" at same time and interchangeable. which is confusing and just plain wrong. HA! Good Fun!

agreed... but is more strange than that. tajero seems at one point to recognize he is arguing over the pronunciation. at the same time, he is arguing that Gromnir is not presenting a good example o' a hot girl. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=tomato is... peculiar. HA! Good Fun!

"Previous government overthrown by those ruled and replaced with new government" is the historian's usual definition of a successful rebellion, not a revolution. But like I said, it's largely a semantic argument. I subscribe to a very restrictive definition of revolution--you, obviously, do not. That's cool. And of course I'm oversimplifying the dependence of the American system on the British system. I didn't want to write a book on comparative poli sci in this thread, after all. However, while I don't for one second argue that the Articles of Confederation government was in some respects quite innovative and transformative, the government of the United States today is based on a much more conservative document (the Constitution), which is in large part a reaction to the ineffectiveness of the Confederation government. So to say, as you did above, that the US is a revolutionary government is to say that the 1789 government is revolutionary, which it most decidedly is not. how very strange. at one point you claims that you is inexplicably fighting a semantic argument, but later you is still claiming that the 1789 government is "decidedly" not revolutionary. curious. in any event, am thinking you is confusing revolutionary multiple meaning... and am not sure why. the Constitution were formed by the same revolutionaries as were the articles. the Constitution were meant to foster and support the revolutionary ideals that had been espoused back in 1776... and before. Bill of Rights, which actual contains the First Amendment, is actual from 1791. Bill of Rights is near universal recognized as a founding document by historians. we got no need to argue sociological revolution or whether the Founders reinvented the wheel-- that is a complete separate issue from the one we brought up. am not sure why you want to argue that point, but is curious that you is seeming using the multiple definitions o' revolution interchangeable. bring up fact that checks and balances is from british (which is true in only the most limited way imaginable) got nothing to do with how we used revolution above... or how Brandeis used. am not seeing room for confusion. *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

as educated men, the the founders were much aware of John Locke, and we suspect they had at least heard of France previous Ben Franklin going there in 1776. we got a nice copper statue from the french, but it kinda turned a funky shade o' green. insofar as current free speech standards which sparked this current debate, France is not all that relevant. France has some very strict hate speech laws. regarding the original direction o' the thread, and making women comfortable with their posting, am s'posing the French should be given their due.. am just not knowing what they is due in that regard. HA! Good Fun!

as to civil war, that is indeed a valid point, given just how many o' the Populace viewed self as brits even during the war. however, as we said above, the revolution never were particular popular here in the USA... is something that gets skipped over in history books on this side of the pond. nevertheless, the signers o' the declaration, and more important, the folks who agreed to articles of confederation, were quite clear that they weren't fighting as Brits. HA! Good Fun! ps edit for weird double-post

uh... it definite were a revolution. previous government overthrown by those ruled and replaced with new government? seems like that is covered. you know, with root of word being REVOLT and all. sociological revolution is a different thing altogether... will let you and others decide on that point. not change that the fledgling US government were a revolutionary government. btw, while you is way oversimplifying how much US government owes to british checks and balances, that didn't occur til US Constitution o' 1787. articles o' confederation established the first government o' the united states, and it didn't genuine have checks and balances. HA! Good Fun! ps actual worth reading articles o' confederation, or at least reading 'bout them. helps clarify the revolution thing a bit too as it makes clear how the revolutionaries viewed themselves.

These are clearly offensive comments and inciting violence or at least hate towards gay people. Yet if I understand what you are saying the gay person has no legal recourse? that isn't what we said. review. we said no slander. we didn't speak to iied or privacy or other such stuff, in part 'cause facts is kinda shallow. now, in regards to your new questions, in the US if you can prove that the individual were attempting to incite direct and imminent lawless action and that such lawlessness were likely, the first amendment is gonna offer no protection, but again, is only in the case o' imminent violence or lawlessness. just a general hate-filled rant 'bout how all ________ should be "rounded up"? nope. sorry. keep in mind that the US is a revolutionary government. the founders were quite mindful o' the notion that if laws were enacted that chill debate or curb dissent, such laws could be used to stifle any unpopular or subversive speaker. yeah, nazis and gay-bashers is kinda contemptible, but those same laws that would be used to quiet nazis and gay-bashers today coulda' been used to silence civil rights speakers back in the 50s and 60s. btw, the American Revolution were never all that popular with the local populace... is not like we had a huge anti-English sentiment here even at the time o' the Boston Tea Party. heck, the tea tax actual resulted in lower tea costs-- folks being hurt most were smugglers, like John Han****. the Founders recognized the value o' allowing unpopular speakers to have a voice. so, let the gay basher rant and rail. "Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." J. Brandeis (Whitney v. California) HA! Good Fun!

am speaking very generally about defamation here, so keep that in mind, nevertheless, is odd you use a defamation example. common law defamation is, by definition, making a false statement 'bout somebody that causes them harm. slander and libel is the two flavors o' defamation. truth is, therefore, typical a defense. again, am speaking only to your "slanderous comments" question. as an aside, it seems that in russia, a news presenter who is not homophobic or who fails to identify a person's homosexuality is negligent and can be sued. weird. am joking... kinda. HA! Good Fun!

... y 'know, we loathe emoticons, but w/o them it is tough to tell if somebody is trying to be funny, or is suffering from head trauma. HA! Good Fun!

That's funny, I was always under the impression that it was Americans who had the hardest time with that concept. not at all. example is bruce being confused 'bout donald sterling's situation. HA! Good Fun!

is no need to feel bad 'bout generalizing. as we said earlier in this thread, the way Free Speech is viewed beyond the boarders o' the USA is fascinating. Chinese Constitution protects freedoms of speech, but such freedoms don't mean anything if government can ignore such protections, yes? Sweden is very protective of freedom of the press. nevertheless, if a Swedish journalist wrote something that offended muslims he could be in trouble and freedom o' speech protections would take a backseat to the muslim's "dignity." etc. from an American pov, protecting polite speech, protecting speech that offends nobody, is kinda pointless. if nobody is offended, why would such speech need protections? we tried to explain to an individual in another thread that protecting Liberty and protecting Democracy is frequent adversarial. he didn't understand. nevertheless, in the United States we accept that, "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric," and we don't let the Democratic process or current notions o' what is acceptable trample 'pon the individuals' freedom o' speech. US Constitutional protections o' speech is unique, but more important, our cultural values is different. even so, is not as if all Americans think it is ok to burn koran or crosses or flags. many Americans is disturbed by such and is often shocked that people is allowed to get away with such things. typical American has some fuzzy threshold regarding what speech is beyond the pale... which is why we don't let The People decide what is and ain't legal. also, is tough for folks outside the US to grasp that our Free Speech protections is a prohibition against government interference. say bad stuff about your boss' mother is not gonna be protected by the Constitution. free speech doesn't get you freedom from prosecution for tangential related crimes or torts. you steal documents or software or whatever, and then try to use freedom o' speech to hide and you is gonna get burned. similarly, if you write a story that is claiming that Bob has syphilis and it ain't true, you is gonna face libel... though famous people get less protection than average folks. child p0rn is considered symbolic speech, but it ain't protected. "obscene" speech isn't protected, but try and define is not easy. p0rn is not necessarily legal obscene. fighting words ain't protected, but we not got time enough to explain fully. yell "fire," in a crowded theatre is not protected. attempts to protect children get a slight lowering o' the standard... google "bong hits for jesus," and "seven dirty words" if you is genuine interested. am understanding we didn't clear up the issue at all. regardless, while it is best not to make generalizations, shady would not be making a mistake in thinking that europeans see free speech fundamental different than does Americans. HA! Good Fun!

But your 'Why' is aimed at people not arguing in this thread (AFAIK) - you're asking why people can say 'no' to boob plate but 'yes' to boob scale - whereas many here are saying 'well, boob-plate is actually ok too so it's 'yes' to both' Again - I missed the one-sided outrage against boob-plate back then. 'Cadegund' ? Is that necessarily female? - what about 'Sagani'? If we were talking Earth-based fantasy and had 'Susan' as a name, that'd be a good point. But we're not. Having said that - I agree on other points that 'female armour' doesn't necessarily have to have boob-swell. It may or may not be important to display visibly female guards depending on whether or not Obsidian want to emphasise the gender-equality in the PoE world's employment system or just let the player assume an equality or lack thereof. as to the folks in this thread not arguing 'gainst b00b plate? so what? obsidian changed b00b plate in response to community outcry. see the original concept art for cad? they changed 'cause b00b plate were sexist, ridiculous and demeaning. then obsidian gives you b00b scale and all we hear is the chirping o' crickets. the fact we don't see hue and cry 'bout scale or plate is part o' the problem, but thanks for bringing that up once again. as for cad and sag, they is party npcs, so the issue won't Be an issue, yes? you will know cad is female... which is what we were saying earlier 'bout the ridiculous visual differentiation nonsense. between fact that she is gonna have a different kit than other party npcs even if they have same armour, she will have a different name. honest, this visual differentiation bit is a joke. need a reason to differentiate? why? for most npcs, joinable or otherwise, it won't be an issue. for the infrequent non-party female that happens to be in scale or chain, and needs to be instant recognizable as female (1:100?) you don't think obsidian can come up with a way other than b00b swell? is actual kinda insulting to suggest obsidians is so incompetent. the developers can't come up with an obvious female name if they for some reason think it is important that you know random npc 12 is a female? Lady Nailbiter? whatever. HA! Good Fun!

Hehehe, you must not have read many of my post if you make that claim. As for scale, wanna make a bet that it will be noticeable without using zoom. You obviously don't have any valid reason for being against boob scale and are just spouting random things. nope, Gromnir hasn't read many of your posts. we don't feel any poorer for that. as for visibility o' b00b swell, am betting when spell effects is active, and enemies is filling screen, b00b swell will be a largely useless way to distinguish. only time b00b swell will be noticeable is when it won't actual be needed to distinguish. we have reasons. am thinking that is the problem. Gromnir is demanding reason. so few people do. "You obviously don't have any valid reason," see, now the above applies to you. we have given reasons, observing the difference in how plate and scale is being treated and pointing out, with the visual aid help o' others, that the distinguishing aspect is negligible or non-existent. etc. maybe you prefer to believe obsidian, or you don't think it is an important issue at all, but to claim we don't have valid reasons is to be utter unreasonable and/or irrational. HA! Good Fun!

Now you are deciding what is important and what isn't... As this is an Iso game with relatively small character models, yeah I guess that boob armor would help. It is you my friend who is not making sense, this whole talking gimmick aside. Also as they only showed one variation of plate, I wouldn't count out boob plate just yet. actually, as models IS relative small, b00b armour is gonna be less helpful to distinguish than any number o' other more obvious means... such as Names (HA!) and portraits and dialogue n' such. a single character in b00b armour, particularly when moving and in midst o'multiple spell effects, is gonna be largely indistinguishable unless b00bs is extreme anyways... which is just one reason why things like war hammers and swords is being made over-sized. a subtle swell, as most boardies has claimed they is comfortable with, would be utterly pointless. and yes, Gromnir is using his brain to recognize what is and isn't important. might wanna try it. parrot developers even when shown silliness o' such excuses with screenshots and reason is making your "why" seem like little other than slavish recitation. what you is doing is saying a prayer. developer says. you repeat. add an "amen" at the end might help you to distinguish. oh, and if pronounced b00b plate makes a comeback, we would be thrilled, 'cause then perhaps we could see a return to 2012 when multiple threads was b00b armour battles. b00b plate angered. b00b scale doesn't. is precisely our issue. makes no sense. HA! Good Fun!

I am not convinced with how you debunked it. What about npc, they don't have portraits, you can click their info and see the gender, the only way to find out is through dialog and it would be awkward as **** to start each encounter with I'm a girl/boy. You didn't do a good job of debunking anything tbh... There is something to be said for visual differences in animation. you mean non-party npcs? you want to know if guardsman #3 is female or male? is that a genuine concern? if is a unique female npc in chain or scale, you can't figure any way to makes her recognizable w/o boob swell? a female name might be too obvious for you? and why should it be important sans dialogue? is no reason you should be able to distinguish the short guy in scale from a woman in scale. eowyn's scene from lotr gots far less impact if the witch-king can see b00b swell from the start, eh? *chuckle* and again, they effective got rid o' female b00b plate, so why is scale different? you ain't making sense. HA! Good Fun!

if it weren't for the racism/antisemitism, the crude private messages, and the pervasive idolatry o' cain, codex would be... quaint. *shrug* while we disagree with the notion of a Proper RPG, the fact that so many codexians believe they knows what makes the Proper RPG can lead to interesting debates. HA! Good Fun!