Amentep

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).

Yeah, to be honest I like the concept of the Witch Doctor, but I've never really used the necromancer in Diablo II; I did used the Druid but not really as a summoner. So yeah I'd probably avoid the Witch in Path of Exile...

Decided to drop my Witch Doctor and go with a Wizard. Got tired of my summons doing the work and me just walking around. Me: "Oh look a monster...oh wait, its dead. Oh another one, oh dead too... ...and again... ...and that mob died before I saw it... ...oh that's a boss monster, finally I get to do something"

Yes, but highly unlikely, as there were no other unidentified samples on it. In fact, if there was a chain of custody for the item, I'd feel very comfortable prosecuting the case A chain of custody would make all the difference; but that doesn't exist and why the shawl was there is still a mystery. Was it Eddowes? Was it another prostitutes? Was it Kominski's? Was it by Eddowes because the killer had it, because she had it, or because someone who found the body had it? The thing is, Kominski was probably a suspect because he was a foreign Jew with signs of mental problems who was known to the police at the time. Because he lived in the area - which was a home to prostitution, transiency and so forth, it becomes problematic to assign a significance to it that it can't bear. Particularly knowing that he was a public self-abuser as well as potentially a client of the lady in question. With respect to his being a suspect, if you look at the early suspects you tended to have people who would have been on the police radar at the time and/or who were seen as "deviant" in some way - Druitt (possibly homosexual and/or possibly mentally ill and committed suicide right after the last murder), Kłosowski/Chapman (Polish immigrant, eventually hanged for poisoning his three wives and retroactively seen as a Ripper possibility by Abberline), Kosminski (Polish, Jewish, later admitted to an insane asylum), Ostrog (Russian immigrant and con man), Pizer (Polish, Jewish, assault suspect), and Tumblety (homosexual, con man). IIRC of the early police candidates, only Sadler (sailor, violent drunk) didn't fit the bill of "undesirable (foreigner, mentally ill, gay)" in some way. That said, only Druitt, Kominski and Ostrog were officially mentioned by police, ultimately, which implies they were more serious candidates than others (unless you believe the theory that this list was released so that another press suspect - Cutbush - would be dropped from speculation). Mind you these were the same police who interviewed native American members of Buffalo Bills Wild West Show on the idea that "a savage had to have done it", so...

Since the person who bought the shawl doesn't believe it was Eddowes, and since the suspect was known to the police as a "self-abuser", there could be legitimate reasons for the shawl to have been in contact with Kosminski before the murder and have no relation to the murder. Like most other solutions offered, its not terribly definitive.

I think this isn't a problem with bisexual characters so much as a limitation in the conceptualization of romances in general (ie, that the romance becomes the default way (sometimes only way) to interact with the character - its not really a problem isolated to Mass Effect either, its been a problem with most of Bioware's romances)

Playing Diablo III; got my Witch Doctor to over lvl 20 and finally the class feels "alive" to me. Before it just seemed like I was leading some zombie dogs around and they killed everything for me. But now I have some offensive spells that make it feel more like I'm doing more than watching my dogs take down monsters.

I'm not saying that you're saying we can't make a joke, but I'm curious as to why mocking the convention seems to mean (if I'm reading you correctly) that we either wouldn't care about the emotional pain of a rape survivor or that we wouldn't even be willing to use trigger warnings in posts given the proper reason and context?

Okay so total side note, I know the conversation got all different while I composed a lengthy, serious and heartfelt post that I ultimately declined to post and threw away, but since when can't comedy be directed at...well anything? It was clear Meshugger was being (or attempting to be) funny in his post (apologies to his avatar, I guess, if I misread that situation) and that there was a dogpile in the humor. I understand that people feel differently over the importance/lack of same in real trigger warnings, but... I'm not sure I agree that the dichotomy is based on politics, per se (but will admit that I may be wrong) but a moderate and reasonable middle besieged by radicals on either side of it that are fighting each other and dragging everyone else into it. And I don't think those radicals necessarily fall into easy liberal/conservative labels.

Oh I know people can and do fall through the cracks. I also know of some people who will lie to people in order to get them out of their customer window or off the phone... I like the think, though, that there are systems to try and keep people from falling through the cracks as much as possible.

Roy Rogers had Trigger.

To be fair to bureaucrats everywhere, the vast majority of people don't fall into special cases, they just think they do when something doesn't go the way they wanted.

Font looks alright to me. Functional, as they say.

Have you declared "Ich bin ein Berliner" yet? Particularly near pastry shops?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/brazil/11060282/Brazils-valley-of-beauties-appeals-for-single-men.html

I may be naive, but I think as long as you can show that you put logic in your design decisions you shouldn't be afraid to try something that may be perceived negatively by any specific sub-group because you can at that point justify what you've included as a deliberately thought out choice. And that's the thing, ultimately it isn't police-able, that was my point. The market will look out to tap parts of the market that aren't currently being served when it thinks they can make money out of it. That will always be in a capitalist model. Which gets back to my comments about labeling things being bad and it is an argumentative technique to dismiss people who disagree with you (Oh, you don't like what I said? You're a GAMER!)

This is how I feel about it as well. I actually do not think that you have to disclose friendships unless you're actually reviewing a game though. But then again I think that people take this way too seriously. I'm not actually paying Kotaku anything for their services, so calling for journalistic standards feels weird from the start. If you want to demand something, pay for it. While I can see your point, if the newspaper (for example) was publicizing a play (not reviewing, just talking it up a bit) at the local theater and the star of the show was dating the person who wrote the article, wouldn't that feel like a conflict of interest? That the paper is being used as a tool to hide what would be a PR piece as substantive culture news? Or maybe the play is culturally significant and deserves to be publicized on its artistic merit regardless of who does it, but at least in stating the relationship you give the reader information that helps them understand that significance is deserved and not through personal relationships. But I've ruled myself an old fart by mentioning newspapers, so maybe my views are skewed by traditional media outlets. All I know is these bloggers need to get off my lawn. I'd think so as well at this point, and as I mentioned very likely it is a simple oversight that weren't intended to intentionally mislead. Can't really know without investigation (which maybe isn't our business but that of Kotaku's management). I agree there is an elitist subculture in gaming (there are, in my opinion, several, to be honest). I disagree its not an important issue to discuss though. As someone who has, as a primary hobby gaming (video games, board games, pen and paper role playing games) I have to consider myself a gamer by definition. But I'm being told that due to a sub-culture that is considered undesirable and that I in no way identify with (I'd argue several different ones, but still) that suddenly I can't embrace my hobby. Maybe it is wrong to feel put out, but I fail to understand why - when I've done nothing wrong *I* suddenly have to change, my definition and concepts have to change. I didn't do anything wrong. These people don't represent me, they don't represent gamers in the true sense and we should be embracing being a gamer and rejecting them, not rejecting them both. IMO. I'm old and cranky. And people who love and play smartphone games are every bit as much a gamer as I am. I am Amentep, and I shall answer these questions. To be honest, I just avoided that thread in general because (IMO) people's perceptions of feminism so completely colors the discussion that discussion of it is always going to be rendered a pointless tug of war online. That said, the definition is the definition. Feminism is no more about the hatred of men than communism is about the hatred of communes. One (rather annoying) habit of arguments - particularly regarding academic approaches to sociological structures is that people on both side like to play fast and loose with definitions and therfore change the playing field for the opponent. It becomes hard to argue intelligently your point when the other side has given new and arbitrary definitions to key words in the debate. Its just damn wrong. A living language will have evolved meanings. What is happening in these cases is that people are loading words with meanings beyond what they are so as to recontextualize the other side. To - in essence - label them. Labeling something (or someone) is the first step in diminishing and decreasing their viability as a monolithic group because people who dislike how the label is loaded will find a new self-adopted label to distinguish themselves and only those who are steadfast will stick with the label (or will adopt it to be "edgy" or "ironic"). But loading context to a word doesn't change its meaning in society unless the society accepts it. I think we should reject these things, on general principal. We should be better than labels and we should be able to admit that our group isn't what it should be, look at it critically and find other ways to deal with those aspects of our group we don't like. I'm neutral on games reviews - just like movie review and book reviews. You read any reviewer who has a shred of consistency in thought and you'll be able to figure out from what they thought whether you'll like the reviewed movie/book/play/game. I think - in general - though people online tend towards cynicism with regard to anyone else online. Nature of the beast kind of thing. And it has been a concern that for years the primary money in games journalism is from game and those who make game technology. This has been stated since the 1980s, so its not new, its not terribly secret. The point is to go in with eyes open, and hope that the journalists meet you halfway and - at the very least - are honest about their dealings. There does seem to be a blur with game websites between what we'd call "journalism" and "bloggers" and it is perhaps a point in time where gamesites need to decide if they're game journalists or game bloggers and make such a distinction clear to their readers? And to be fair, she's only one voice, whose specific concerns (good, bad or indifferent) can be addressed and analyzed. The idea that there will be a secret cabal of women who will suddenly make games "their way" and we who are not in the cabal will suddenly have nothing to play is, at best, silly. Because at the end of the day, games are business and the dictates of the market will decide what gets made. But at the end of the day if one game developer sits down and asks - "Does this game need to go to strip club and does it really need to make you walk past the dancers and does it really need to you to be able to see the dancers in their dressing rooms?" before including a strip club in the game, then is the world really hurt?

To be fair, Bruce, this isn't a mathematical formula; people can see the same things and draw vastly different conclusions because we are, ultimately, vastly different cognitive entities who will draw on vastly different life experiences to analyze situations and data. Really? Perhaps you'd like to take it up with Merriam-Webster - 1: a player who is game; especially : an athlete who relishes competition 2: a person who plays games; especially : a person who regularly plays computer or video games Maybe the OED? A person who plays a game or games, typically a participant in a computer or role-playing game. How can you explain that a word doesn't mean its definition, per the dictionary, but instead means the arbitrarily constructed label that is now being used? I understand the living language changes, but that change is by common usage, not forced usage. Don't worry, we'll keep trying to get you to see the truth, Bruce. We have faith in you.