Amentep

I fail to see how someone giving a lower score to a game they find racist is bad and unprofessional, but whatever. In terms of criticism it isn't - unless it was the same reviewer who did both the PC and console review and was tailoring each review to each market (which would imply that he wasn't doing reviews so much as some kind of targeted infomercial for himself/herself as a cultural lynchpin)

Welcome back!

I don't disagree with this either.

This is an IMAGINARY STORY (which may never happen, but then again may) about a perfect man who came from the sky and did only good. It tells of his twilight, when the great battles were over and the great miracles long since performed, of how his enemies conspired against him and of that final war in the snowblind wastes beneath the Northern Lights; of the women he loved and of the choice he made between them; of how he broke his most sacred oath, and how finally all the things he had were taken from him save for one. It ends with a wink. It begins in a quiet midwestern town, one summer afternoon in the quiet midwestern future. Away in the big city, people still sometimes glance up hopefully from the sidewalks, glimpsing a distant speck in the sky...but no; it's only a bird, only a plane. Superman died ten years ago. This is an IMAGINARY STORY... Aren't they all?

So there was unprofessional behavior on behalf of a person who has no journalistic qualifications and works for a website that, according to the Reuters, scores 15 out of 100 on an independent journalism test (or so I've heard). Whoopty-****ing-doo. I still believe that Grayson's sex life is small fries compared to the industrialized corruption going on with the big publishers, and focusing on that detracts from the real issue. I don't disagree that anyones sex life - per se - is the issue. Having no journalistic qualifications and systemic corruption are probably related and would probably connect why some people don't get why the ethical issue on non-disclsure/non-recusal is an issue at all given the greater issues suffered by games journalism.

Alternatively, they didn't want to be tabloid journalists who publish telephoto lens from a tree gathered topless pics of celebrities right next to the ongoing saga of Batboy The problem I see in the posts is the immediate dismissal of the ethics issues. Had there been no semblence of ethical impropriety on behalf of the journalists then realistically the group was right - Quinn's sexlife was a non-issue with respect to games journalism. I'm pretty sure that's not how conflicts of interest work. Yes it is. As far as I'm aware, "a conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." Primary interest here being "the unbiased writing of games reviews", secondary... I don't know, let's assume "continuing to have sex with Zoe Quinn". Unless Grayson is obligated to write about any of Quinn's games, I see no inherent conflict between these two. As I recall, Conflict of Interest involves two conflicting interest held by one party where the interest of one corrupts the interest of the other. A politician who remains on the Board of Directors of a corporation that receives government contracts has two conflicting interests, to the people via the government and to the corporation and their stockholders. The desire to see the corporate interest thrive can corrupt the interest in serving the people. In this case, a journalist who has a relationship with a developer can see the desire to serve the interest of the relationship corrupt the interest of providing unbiased coverage of gaming. Since I think we want journalists to be relatively human this isn't a case where mitigation by removal would work, so the only mitigation left is disclosure (telling people of the relationship so they can decide if they detect a bias) and recusal (not covering or giving press to the object of the relationship so that a neutral third party can provide unbiased views). The issue with this is that it appears that until this broke most of the "major" game sites journalists either didn't mandate to disclose or to recuse or weren't really policing it if it was their policy that disclosure/recusal be the norm.

Thing is the Brietbart article doesn't really indicate anything that wasn't known (that a group of journalists/bloggers/whatever coordinated a series of responses and articles). What is there doesn't really illuminate the ethics issue (the only one that really matters IMO) any further, so - and again IMO - it adds little to the real discussion that hasn't already been incorporated.

Two words will prove you wrong: Jessica Rabbit http://www.yayahan.com/portfolio/costumes/jessica-rabbit

Didn't feel right with responding to this with my fluff response to Gromnir...hope my double post is forgiven. if this works you will see what I am taking... If not we'll I will fix it at home. And technically the only people who can really interfere here probably won't so it's seeming more and more likely my entire legacy in this world is being shot in the head by thousands of gamers in new Vegas And you're happy with that? You can't change that legacy if you're not around to add anything to it. Look you're miserable and I get that, but I'd suggest perhaps calling a professional you know like TN suggest or at least 1-800-273-TALK (8255) might do more to help you than what you've been implying in this thread. Well I'm probably not gonna care soon. Besides, that's more of a legacy than most people leave behind, and I'm not exactly the type that'll ever get a girlfriend/wife/partner/whatever you want to call it. At least it's a fitting legacy... shot in the head by people I don't know. In response to the bolded, do you need one right now in your life? I've had girlfriends and I've not had girlfriends and ultimately my happiness wasn't due to me being in the relationship (or not being in them). Suddenly finding romance isn't a magic bullet anymore so than anything else in life. And if you don't care, it's not going to hurt to give that 1-800 number a call, is it?

am suspecting that psychiatrists likely see a difference 'tween the penn & teller scenario. though one wonders where the line 'tween acceptable schadenfreude and practical jokes is crossed and sociopath label is achieved. lack o' guilt, perhaps? in any event, were more noteworthy to us that we had never seen nothing sacred. is particular strange as frederich march were a star and for us he were always so darn... forgettable. other than dr. jekyll and mr. hyde, we has difficulty recalling specific films he were in, but we know there were many, and we not doubt that we saw most o' them. nevertheless, am positive we never saw nothing sacred. HA! Good Fun! ps and so we have our continuing battle with font size. hmmm Eh, I was mostly just offering suggestions to him for futher tricks if he wanted to pursue them, to be honest. Never saw Nothing Sacred either (sounds like it might be fun). I know I've seen the Jeckyll/Hide version with March, Death Takes a Holiday and Desperate Hours. Never saw his other Oscar films - A Star is Born, or The Best Years of Our Lives. Spend too much time watching trash cinema, I guess.

Augh! Vending machine gave me a diet drink instead of the intended choice. Tried to taste it...urgh...how do people drink this stuff? #water4life

if this works you will see what I am taking... If not we'll I will fix it at home. And technically the only people who can really interfere here probably won't so it's seeming more and more likely my entire legacy in this world is being shot in the head by thousands of gamers in new Vegas And you're happy with that? You can't change that legacy if you're not around to add anything to it. Look you're miserable and I get that, but I'd suggest perhaps calling a professional you know like TN suggest or at least 1-800-273-TALK (8255) might do more to help you than what you've been implying in this thread.

Oh was just commenting on how fun it can be to mess with people by intentionally lying to them to aid in manipulating them somehow. Not seeing how that is really sociopathic, I guess you lack empathy by treating people as tools ? But eh, I've done that with my relatives, interesting to watch the false gossip spread and them react to things that never actually happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_%26_Teller%27s_Cruel_Tricks_for_Dear_Friends

I laughed and felt old at the same time.

That would be the biography that he states now he didn't write. Oh I also watched THE ANGRY RED PLANET (1959) - Gerald Mohr, Naura Hayden and Les Tremayne go to Mars and encounter a man eating plant, a giant bar-rat-spider and a monsterour ameoba before being told to get off the planet by the superior martian natives. A bit slow in getting to Mars (but many space exploration films of the era suffer that) but the Mars stuff actually works well and the low budget is hidden by the clever "CineMagic" gimick. THE MAN FROM PLANET X (1951) - Aliens arive at an island off Scotland. While most reviews I've read of this paint the alien as a being of peace, the movie actually doesn't play that idea out. His motives aren't left entirely clear - and he's not against using violence and/or brain control to get what he wants. The heroes do kill him and send his planet on to probable oblivion so the Earth doesn't come out much better looking. Low budget is obvious in re-use of sets, but the cast is game enough. The alien mask is immobile, but the movie manages to not make that important. Lead actress Margaret Field was Sally Field's mother, first thing I think I've ever seen her in.

For something called "Journey to the West," the trailer dedicates astoundingly little camera time to the Monkey King. The story is - more or less - a prequel. How it all comes together. Monkey King shows up in the last 4th of the film.

But you won't concede that saying "gamers" only refers to a subset of gamers and not all gamers is just as wrong headed? That was the entire point of my post. You can't specify a specific subgroup and claim they are the group but then when challenged say "well obviously when I refer to the group, I only mean the subgroup". Under that logic it'd be correct to say "All humans have went to the moon, and by human I clearly mean the subset of humans that are astronauts who've been to the moon".

To be fair, we don't know who's shawl it was. It could have been Eddowes, it could have been someone who found the body, it could have been the killer. Kominski might have been a john, but he also was a public self-abuser so its entirely possible there is a secondary way to get his **** on the shawl at that. Could someone at least finish that thought before typing it. It makes no more sense from the repetition. I'd try to figure out what I did wrong, but I don't understand your issue so I'm not sure how to rephrase it. I'll try but it might not work. The family that owned the shawl claimed that the shawl was found by Eddowes body. They did not know who it belonged to. Because of its type and perceived expense it is not believed to have been owned by Eddowes. The area was known for prostitutes. Eddowes was actually the second person killed that night. There is a ten minute window from when she was last seen (with a man with a red scarf) and when her body was found by a constable on patrol. If the Shawl isn't Eddowes, and if the man she was last seen with had a red scarf - not a shawl - was her murderer, where did the shawl come from? It could have been dropped by another prostitute who found the body when she ran away for fear of being a victim herself. It could have been from the crowd (as I believe most of the later murders generated a crowd - even still we know of at least 4 people who had been near the scene besides the police officer who found the body and the police surgeon). It could have been dropped there before the murder even happened. Kominski's bodily fluids could have gotten on it - if he weren't the killer - because it was owned by a prostitute he'd "visited" or that gotten on it because he was a public masturbater. That's not even counting potential contamination of the shawl through 120 years worth of handling.

Admittedly I haven't looked at how things went down in places like reddit or 4chan, but in the confines of what I have seen, my perception matches that of TrueNeutral: For the record, I don't consider abuse acceptable on either side of this (or any) conflict. @BruceVC But don't you see a problem with taking a descriptive term that an entire subculture made up of a diverse set of people have chosen to positively self-identify with, and trying to overload it with a narrow and negative meaning for rhetorical purposes? Even when sincere (rather than just an excuse for demeaning the whole group), I would call that "negligent lack of clarity" at best, and "intolerant dismissal of other people's identity" at worst. Imagine if someone started a campaign of rudely lashing out against "LGBT people". Or "members of hip-hop culture". Or "Muslims". And when confronted with backlash, said "What's your problem? I consider that label to only refer to bad people!" ...Would you respond with "Oh, okay, carry on then"? I wouldn't... No I don't really see any problem with what I am saying and trying to explain. But you have given me a way to make an excellent analogy to reinforce my point. Personally I have an issue with Muslim extremists, like ISIS and Boko Haram, but not with Muslims. But within the Muslim community there are some people who think criticism directed at extremism is the same as criticism towards the whole Muslim community. But its not and that's not what I am saying. Its not my fault that people can't distinguish between the two. The word "gamer" doesn't mean all gamers, but if people keep wanting to believe that they are creating unnecessary vexation for themselves The "Gamer" equivilent to "personally I have an issue with Muslim extremists but not with Muslims" would be "personally I have an issue with Gamer extremists but not with Gamers" not "The word "gamer" doesn't mean all gamers but those gamers who are misogynist, etc.". That would be equivalent to saying "The word "Muslim" doesn't mean all Muslims but those Muslims who are extremists like ISIS, Boko Haram, etc." Do you now see how ridiculous that statement is? The word "TV" doesn't mean all TVs, only 12" Cathode ray tubes. The word "Car" doesn't mean all cars, only Fords The word "music" doesn't mean all music, only Elvis tunes The word "Sports Fan" doesn't mean all sports fans, only fans of the Chicago Cubs The word "German" doesn't mean all Germans, only the Germans who wear lederhosen

To me, a gamer should be anyone who counts gaming as a hobby. That would be video games, miniature games, card games, board games, pen and paper role playing games. I'd argue "counts gaming as a hobby" as someone who spends a non-negligible amount of their free time dedicated to playing their game(s). I don't think you should be required to ever be on a forum or chat about games. Its a hobby that (IMO) is defined by what you do, not what club you belong to. So the idea of taking the word and applying it as a negative label to certain groups of people is quite distasteful, again IMO.

To be fair, we don't know who's shawl it was. It could have been Eddowes, it could have been someone who found the body, it could have been the killer. Kominski might have been a john, but he also was a public self-abuser so its entirely possible there is a secondary way to get his **** on the shawl at that.

Like they said, it doesn't share any of the mechanics with the previous games, just the setting & lore. Probably would have worked out better if it'd been called DUNGEON SIEGE: The 10th Legion Returns or something rather than Dungeon Siege III which just creates an expectation of a return to specific gameplay elements that DS3 could never deliver (being a different style of game). I enjoyed it as a game in its own right, but I can see why people wanting a return of the Dungeon Siege type gameplay would feel put out.

Again, when there is just one identifiable sample and it belongs to a suspect, it's a completely different scenario. If there were mutiple unidentifieds, then it would be a more likely scenario that there were traces if her, ahem, customers on it. The first test of something they thought was there on the shawl ended up being "inconclusive" and for this new test the methodology of the recovery/identification hasn't been "peer reviewed" prior to being touted as an answer in the popular press (if that's important to you).

Heh, I'm still working on Hard. I've never been a "jump into the deep end of the pool" difficulty wise. So far I've liked the Crusader, kinda liked the Barbarian, liked the Monk, didn't like the Demon Hunter (but haven't played a lot), liked the Witch Doctor conceptually but got bored by having summons doing all of the work and liked the Wizard. Right now my I have a Wizard going through the story in hard and I've been exploring the Adventure mode with my monk and crusader. I'll probably go back and recreate a Barbarian at some point (I'd deleted all of my previous characters at one point, and when I decided to poach the Witch Doctor's int boosting items for my Wizard, I deleted that character too).