Amentep

A sort of sense of tribalism, I guess? "My team won, your team lost, hardee-harr"? Or, alternatively, "My choice was the correct one, everyone else's (who didn't choose the same as me) wasn't, hardee-harr". That's most applicable for the console war stuff you mentioned, though - for something like Disney discontinuing Infinity, I would imagine the rationale is something more like, "You guys are doing this poorly, please either do it well or just stop cluttering up the market with your inferior product". You say "something they have no interest in", but someone like Hurlshot clearly does have an interest in something like Disney Infinity - it's just not living up to his standards, so he'd rather see it get better or just go away...and that's the end of it. It's hard to consider the human aspect of it (namely, people actually losing their livelihoods and the reality of such situations for so many people, including the employees' families), mainly because we have no idea who they are and have no real understanding that they really exist beyond some abstract "I guess somebody must've worked on this...", so it's easy to not consider them when quickly posting some off-the-cuff comment about the story on some random forums, . But what's the point of thinking "do it better OR go away"? Why not just "do it better"? Its this idea that something that doesn't meet Random Criteria 3 that I don't like should not exist that I just don't understand. Something you don't like or something bad exists. Unless you bought it and thought it sucked, why is its existence such an affront to humanity that one must be happy for its death, mock its supporters when it goes away and the like? Tribalism? Isn't that taking the PC Master Race thing too far?

I think there is. But then I guess - to me at least - you've summed up everything that I dislike about the internet in one sentence. I've heard Skylanders isn't having a great time either - and to be clear from everything I read Disney Infinity wasn't canned because it wasn't selling and was in the red but because it wasn't making the amount of profit they wanted. I'm a bit worried about Lego because the last few stand alone games were buggy (and I sold back Batman 3 because of a bug that kept corrupting my save files that never got patched and because of that I have not bought any further of the stand alone games). Have there been many bug issues? Also as someone who isn't overly a fan of building Lego stuff, not sure what I'd think of...having to build stuff for the game.

I understand not feeling that an inferior product has the right to succeed; I think the game could have done a lot of things better. And some of the building stuff isn't easy for me as an adult, so I can understand it being impossible for a kid. And that it took them three iterations to create toy sets that could be used by all the toys in the toybox was a big failing IMO. BUT, understanding why Infinity didn't succeed (or in this case "didn't make as much money as they'd estimated it should, and the market for toys-to-life is slowing down and we really wanted to get out before Infinity took off in the first place so we're bolting"), it still seems a bit ghoulish to enjoy the demise of the company. I see it all the time when game makers shut down ("Oh good riddance, I never liked their games" - like those games existing was an affront or something), or when TV shows are cancelled ("I hated that show, now I enjoy the tears of its fans that its gone!") but having enjoyed the series and seeing a lot of the same things you had posted online when reading the news ("I like Skylanders better so good bye" or "Yeah Lego was better so glad this is ended") just stings a bit to me. And I confess I am still reeling a bit at the very unexpected news, given that two weeks ago I was reading about the next years plans. I suppose now I need to decide if I want to invest in Lego Dimensions or save my money. :|

That's a real shame. I liked Disney Infinity a whole lot and was looking forward to the next year. I wish I'd been able to spend more time making things in the game like I had in the beginning, but I was enjoying playing the existing sets and with trying some of the fan content. Yeah, great news that Avalanche is being shut down because Disney is ending DI production and thus people are losing their jobs. And that fans of the series won't receive anything new in a game they liked - particularly after the line up had been semi announced through the end of the year and the expectations that created. And its wonderful that possibly all the fan created content will disappear from the online servers because Disney won't want to maintain that for a product they're not making money on. But the only truly important thing is that a game you don't like - and therefore weren't spending time/money/thought on - won't exist any longer so you don't have to...what? Be hassled by seeing it as you walk past it to stuff that interests you? Be troubled by ads for it? Be worried that someone might talk to you about it? I'll never understand people's glee when something they have no interest in ends or fails. I really never will. I saw it when SEGA got out of the console business and people were cheering because they only bought Nintendo with some people expressing anger that Sega didn't go under completely. Mystifying.

I think SHIELD suffered for several weeks from its typical "for expert spies these people actually suck at stealth, subterfuge and security" thing but in a more acute state. This week they came off as mildly competent, so that was nice. Overall I've liked the season, but I admit the last couple of episodes had really frustrated me.

That reads like a top secret redacted governmental document as many times as "****" is censored...

Why? Because a century is a relatively short amount of time in the grand scheme of things? Indeed. Just imagine if Victoria Woodhull had won the presidency in 1872. Or in 1884 or 1892. Depending on how this whole FBI case goes, maybe Clinton will be in a prison cell on election day as well. Just imagine Hillary Clinton publishing a newspaper exposing marital affairs amid the protestant clergy who spoke out against the evils of "Free Love" (which is what the US Marshalls used to demonstrate Woodhull was publishing an 'obscene' newspaper - hence why she was in jail at the time of the 1872 election)...

Why? Because a century is a relatively short amount of time in the grand scheme of things? Indeed. Just imagine if Victoria Woodhull had won the presidency in 1872. Or in 1884 or 1892.

Thought the second ep of Houdini and Doyle to be an improvement. Indeed having done the set-up they are able to spend more time with the characters and the mystery. Still some goofy things (why did the Constable accept dinner with Houdini when she knew it was part of a bet AND more importantly she knows her boss has already threatened her with firing if he finds proof that she and Houdini are having 'improper relations').

Thanks, yeah I meant 1920s. Typoed, but now corrected.

IIRC, legally the penalty for horse thievery was not death. Hanging of horse thieves was done by vigilantes (even if some were "lawmen") not by the state. And while universal voting for Women wasn't ratified until the 1920s, there are records of women voting in 1756 (Lydia Taft) and New Jersey law gave women property owners (of property above a certain size) the vote until 1807 when laws officially disenfranchised women. I'd be curious to know which states had laws about unmarried couples being married due to virtue of renting a room together. Most of the common law marriage laws I've heard of have a cohabitation rule that would not be met by sleeping together in a hotel room (and would also result in a lot of John-Prostitute marriages).

Have you seen the original Django film by Sergio Corbucci with Franco Nero? I think it holds up really well.

Katherine Hepburn is in AFRICAN QUEEN, not Audrey. I think ones connection to the film is dependant on whether you like Bogart & Hepburn bickering with one another. I too find it dull even if I recognize good performances from both leads.

Really enjoyed Civil War. They really did good at making the story work. Good stuff.

LoT is a terribly written show. The recent episode required everyone to act as stupid as humanly possible to happen. Probably still watch out the seasin, but yikes. Sadly AoS has also been dumber than usual.

I liked Shadow of the Beast the original. The trailer for the remake seemed...gory?

I may be wrong, but if the event was open to the public (which I think it was) I believe the rule is that you can't expect privacy with respect to not being recorded in public spaces so long as the end result isn't commercial. The only grounds - again - that I understand she might be able to argue would be defamation, but she'd have to prove she was portrayed in a false manner; just being unflattering or embarrassing isn't enough. I find it interesting that article - rather than debating any of Sullivan's points spends the article trying to say Sullivan's points are wrong not for factual reasons but because he's "liberal".

She's filed a police report; if it is true, then hopefully they'll find the attackers and successfully prosecute them.

I could take Karzak as long as the topic wasn't dual wielding for rogues, then my eyes would glaze over and I'd fall unconscious. I remember Caelis mostly as a spammer, not a serious poster.

Get off my lawn! I always appreciated (and indeed tried to follow) the idea of cultivating a thread if it got derailed very quickly by splitting off the derail and the original thread into their own threads. Not really sure about the capabilities of the board, but you'd think merging and/or separating threads would be expected in board software now. But I often love those kinds of posts...although I don't like it when it's done ad nauseam like it seems some of us have been doing lately, and I probably wouldn't love it if you did it to me, and I'm sure you've had opportunity... And really, this just ties into the general point I made way earlier in the thread about basic civility to one another...there's just that little difficulty of "not being a massive hypocrite" that I'm struggling with...so I guess your way is probably better. Some posts I don't cancel; if I have a good point I'll just edit it or re-edit it. Or I may type up my vent but then cancel it and come back in a few hours and type a legit post. Very rarely do I actually get so vexed by a poster here that I really have to rant. In fact I think I only have two posters (maybe three) in my ignore list because, for the most part, everyone here is either ok or I can just skip their posts without suffering knee-jerk-itis.

You should see all the posts i spend significant time writing were I pedantically point out errors, attack fatuous logic and tell people off...which I then delete before posting them. I understand the need to vent. I vent all the time. I just don't end up posting the vent for everyone to see. If you find yourself unable to not respond to another poster, I recommend really giving them what-for then hitting "cancel". Works great - there are people who think I'm level-headed enough to be a mod (thanks Malcador!).

This is a very good post, I support the last line emphatically My experience as a moderator is that there are some users who have no discretion. My experience as a moderator is that while those folks exist, they are actually quite rare on most forums (4chan, reddit, youtube, et al being notable high profile exceptions). I personally have not seen such on WoT. Also, my response as a moderator to all this would be something along the lines of what Meshuggar posted here, though probably a bit more blunt in it's delivery. WOT is generally a lot better place than WWOT/Ye Olde was on BIS (but in BIS's favor, it had the benefit of having two forums so the happy spamming was kept separate from the serious & po-faced discussions so it was probably easier to police). Mind you my response as a moderator would have problem been very similar to what I wrote - report posts that you think are trolling or derailing threads if you feel that strongly about it. The moderators aren't always going to assume because a thread drifts off topic or becomes dominated by a popular figure that it isn't part of the natural evolution of a thread - which will always involve topic drift.

This is a very good post, I support the last line emphatically My experience as a moderator is that there are some users who have no discretion.

I think trolling about Bioware and Bethesda (and Troika) was a LOT more common back when the forums started. It might be time for a review of the forum rules - reviews never hurt. So again, I come to - do you report these posts that you feel are out of bounds? Or do you expect the mods to read every thread and intercede without being signaled? Or do you just give as good as you get and figure if the rough-housing gets too violent a mod will jump in to referee? Back when I was a mod on BIS - not that there is completely applicable to here - there was no way that the 4-5 people who were mods of the WWOT forum could keep up with all of the posts, reading each one and moderating each discussion. Yes we read threads, but we also relied on the posters telling us where the problems were because we couldn't watch every thread or every "problem" poster. And sometimes if no one complained the assumption was that people were happy with the bickering. Or the mods couldn't come to a consensus that what was done warranted action.