Amentep

Right there are other ways to do it, but my question is whether doing it via "level scaling" breaks the verisimilitude or not since contextually the level scaling is an attempt to address the "reality" of the game situation

There is that, but I was more just looking at the numbers. I would never estimate a 30:1 ratio of Supporter:Opposer based on looking at comments or forum discussions about it. Of course, at a place like this there's no where near the numbers of people involved in this discussion to even allow a ratio like that. Are opposers particularly vigilant (there's little need for them to send John several emails, but they may feel compelled to make several replies) in responding, so a few people end up being overrepresented when examining post count? Is there something about the way John did this that would facilitate responses from people that otherwise would not (it did go viral)? From a stastical point of view, internet commentary is self-selecting so invalidates itself as being extrapolation to the population (at least without significant margin of error). I'd also say that because its near impossible to eliminate sock puppeting you'll never know on the internet whether 500 people think alike or if one person posted under 500 aliases. However to be fair to the opposers, Walker makes it fairly clear that his opinion is set, ergo it doesn't invite debate from those who disagree with his stance. Why email him you disagree with his position when you know you can't change his mind. I can't help but feel that there may be an "unmeasurable" group that feels there's just no point in registering a disagreement (that's on top of the fact that you typically have to feel passionate to write a letter of comment anyhow; ambivilance doesn't drive writing campaigns).

I'd assume - perhaps wrongly - that would be up to the individual. Don't get me wrong I think your standpoint is understandable and your point well made; but I can also understand those who don't agree with you feeling this is important to bring up. Perhaps it is crusading for the sake of having a windmill to tilt at. I don't know the answer to that. But I don't think its wrong to ask the question, even if in answering it you find that the question didn't need asking. Mayhap there are invisible barriers being put into place by individuals who don't intend to do so that - if those barriers were removed more women would care? Without pondering the question, without examining the system, without thinking about ones actions these unintended consequences can't necessarily be measured.

What I find interesting about this is this type of breakdown is not at all what I see on comments (and certainly not the case on this forum). On some level there's a level of this going viral, and it's easy to be an outside observer that has an email address or a twitter account and can take a few minutes to write something up. I'm also curious if "the stage" is what motivates the more adversarial people. And I mean adversarial as in the types that are itching for a good internet argument (i.e. people like me, although I don't think I'm as intense as I once was... clearly I still have it in me somewhat). Despite a moderator telling me to do so on numerous occasions (on numerous message boards), I have very limited recollection about ever taking a discussion from the public space to the private PM space. It just wasn't as much "fun" then. Sort of like that bit in Thank You For Smoking where Aaron Eckhart's character tells his son that he's not trying to convince his son with the argument, he's trying to convince the hypothetical observers. In this sense, many internet pissing matches end up becoming a competition to see who can win, as opposed to any sort of attempt to educate or promote genuine discussion. There are certain people who flock to being contrarian. And there are some people who feel being an ass is a valid debating topic. True story - back in my days on Usenet groups, there was a guy whose common debating tactic was to take anyone who disagreed with him repeatedly and create a thread accusing them of being a child molester as a way to try and cow people from disagreeing with him. Its not a valid question. Really? Which arbiter of validity said so? What people do is always interesting from a social standpoint. How they do it is important from a social standpoint. Once you've satisfied the basic needs of your society (food, water, shelter) then things are going to turn to the luxuries of life and how those are used (or how they're available). Neither is what's posted on message boards on the internet. So we're already pissing in the wind, contextually, as it were. But I'm not sure that just because this message board isn't the real world doesn't mean it isn't worth it to think about broader topics. "Someone will say: Yes, Socrates, but cannot you hold your tongue, and then you may go into a foreign city, and no one will interfere with you? Now I have great difficulty in making you understand my answer to this. For if I tell you that this would be a disobedience to a divine command, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say that the greatest good of a man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living — that you are still less likely to believe."

Who is getting riled up? And if a valid question is asked, doesn't the source become irrelevant?

I knew she was disliked, but I'm surprised by the vehemence seen from people on her passing.

I'd say that - in my experience at least - fandom in general is insular to a fault and it doesn't matter what you're a fan of. One of the more depressing things I've seen in fans is people making fun of other people's fandom. What a lot of hardcore people don't seem to understand - in my opinion at least - is that being hardcore doesn't somehow make them better; their being a fan of something doesn't make the object of their fandom superior to that which they are not a fan. But that's the thing, fandom for many is a refuge. And anything that is seen to "change" that refuge is going to be seen as an attack by a certain segment of the population who can't get past their own exclusionary tendencies and/or their own self-doubt about themselves or their fandom.

The big question - in this sense and in my opinion - is whether the barrier to their readership is internal or external. This isn't something that Walker addresses; he seems to assume its external (I'm not entirely sure; I avoided the site for years simply because I have trouble taking them seriously with the name "Rock, Paper, Shotgun as a serious game journalism site). This doesn't mean that self-examination or trying to raise points about larger issues is irrelevant, however. Anything that is advertising driven should either be casting as wide a net as it can or do very, very well with an advertiser popular demographic).

I find a lot of media related studies to be horribly skewed or weak in methodology in terms of generating results worth caring about. I'm not sure I'm against people trying so much as that often it comes down - in my experience at least - to the individuals using their own experiences and what "facts" fit what they think it the case. Most of them don't seem to start life as "How does media "A" do this" but "Media "A" does this and I'm out to prove it". I confess, I've never understood why anyone would care whether someone was a "casual" fan of something or not. Hell, I post here regularly and I couldn't care less if any one of you fine people liked anything I like. I do enjoy our discussion, but at the end of the day I could care less how "hardcore" you are.

To be fair, gender studies is going look at everything produced by a society to try to understand how it influences and is influenced by gender. I don't think there is any way to escape scrutiny in this sense as you suggest.

For a moment, I thought he said "Activision" and was thinking Pitfall Harry.

Interesting approach; I suppose this may be the crux of the difference between us in that I see the game mechanics as an abstraction that never approaches "real" but simulates same (in this case, equating "real" with "true"). So as long as the mechanics are relatively consistent within themselves I'm not terribly bothered with how faithfully they adapt the setting. Two questions come to mind - (1) "would you rather have no level scaling even if it makes the game worse for all experiences because it still reads as "false" in your verisimilitude test?" and (2) "If the RPGs main storyline is a fight against another adventuring party who has also been gaining experience during the time the player has, shouldn't the adventuring party have its own leveling system that equates to what experience it has gained during the time you took to get to it so as to be "real" within your verisimilitude test(ie level scaling)?" Or am I misreading your use of verisimilitude?

At a guess, I'd assume the argument is that the video in question (which - to be fair - I haven't seen either) is not a case of being a lone video that is easily ignored, but within context part of a continuing series of gaming ads that could be considered a systemic issue rather than a "lone ad in the wilds" issue, and thus less easy to ignore.

There used to be a number of prominent women posters on the old Black Isle site who just never transitioned to Obs boards (or who did but never posted much). Tess, Quixotic, GM, Aurora, and...um...the woman who ran her own irc channel and had multiple handles that for whatever reason I can't remember any of). That said, I seem to remember a few women from that time who took gender neutral handles and never really advertised they were women too, so as not to garner negative attention.* Mind you there are a lot of guys from that period (Onkel, Rayt, slowtrain, that young guy who was the first community mod whose handle I'm blanking on) who didn't come over or don't post any more either. I had a point when I started this, and I think the thing is that maybe there are more women posters here who either lurk or who don't advertise they're women because they don't want the extra (unwanted?) attention they feel they might get? *when we first got avatars on Obsidian and I picked an avatar with a woman on it, people assumed I was a woman and started hitting on me in PMs - strange but true!

From what I gather, their attitude is that its not a 'fund my life" kickstarter because there is an end product (the game) that is promised out of it; I'm not sure that I necessarily agree but I can see their argument, at least.

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/grimoire-heralds-of-the-winged-exemplar?website_name=grimoireforever Funny, that link is for a game called "Grimoire", not "Wizardry" (and yeah, I know the history, but Grimoire isn't Wizardry 9, its Grimoire).

I think - reasonably - any Joe not part of the strike team could have survived. Sure CC says that they destroyed the Joes, but at that point they thought they'd killed all of the strike team too. Not unreasonable to think that others would have survived (if they want them to).

I'm not sure what you're experiencing. When I quote stuff i get a quote box and a scroll bar on the right and no problem room-wise. Also the quote box has an arrow on the right that allows me to expand the box. Perhaps this is a browser issue (or I'm misunderstanding your problem)? I only use BBCode to clean up quotes (because doing it outside of the code doesn't seem to work right always). It's mostly trying to do quote splitting, with the forum software hating anything more than 3 three separate quotes, and being tough to get those separate quotes. Yeah without switching to the coding, the system doesn't seem to add a space after quotes making it hard to type between multiquotes. it also seems to be real easy to accidentally delete the quote coding while working on editing a quote if you only want to reply to a part of it.

I'm not sure what you're experiencing. When I quote stuff i get a quote box and a scroll bar on the right and no problem room-wise. Also the quote box has an arrow on the right that allows me to expand the box. Perhaps this is a browser issue (or I'm misunderstanding your problem)? I only use BBCode to clean up quotes (because doing it outside of the code doesn't seem to work right always).

I want a soft-serve ice cream cone dipped in chocolate...

Yeah Yum! Brands is big on maximizing space (the nearest KFC to me is housed with a Long John Silvers, another chain Yum! divested themselves of like A&W). I dunno if the change was with trans fat or not - I know McDonald's fries don't taste 100% the same since they changed to lower trans fat.

They're cutting the chicken pieces differently at KFC. Not sure exactly why, but its difficult to tell 100% whether what you're getting is a breast or back piece (sometimes it seems like you get part of both). I've even had one where they left the neck on. A&W was bought by Yum! (who, IIRC own KFC now) and didn't do well for them so was sold to some of the largest franchisees, as I recall. Dairy Queen's always been an independent franchise chain with little of the top down management you see in other Fast Food Franchises; they tend to vary wildly between locations in my experience. Not familiar with Foster's. The internets comes up with a company called "Fosters Freeze" (apparently one of the classic restaurants built around soft serve ice-cream like my fave Zesto's here). Not sure if that's the company you mean though -looks to be a California only restaurant.

Er, they released them on DVD already. At least in the US; sure they were direct-from-laser disc copies, but they were released on DVD.

Carmine Infantino - probably best know for working with DC's The Flash and his stint as DC's publisher - passed away. http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=44738 Also passing this week was George Gladir, co-creator (with the late Dan DeCarlo) of Sabrina the Teenage Witch - http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2013/04/george-gladir-co-creator-of-archies-sabrina-passes-away/ As well as Fred creator of Philémon - http://www.lobservateurdebeauvais.fr/article/02/04/2013/puiseux-le-hauberger--deces-du-dessinateur-fred/6855

RIP Roger Ebert. He was always one of my favorite reviewers - one of the few who seemed to enjoy genre movies.