For one group, I could never plan out a boss encounter simply because they would change course at the drop of a hat. I don't mean "let's use diplomacy instead of war", but rather "let's leave and do something else". My fault because I enabled them, but I'm glad to not have that responsibility anymore. Fortunately, their habits taught me to plan for the worst. For a normal group, I keep a backup build or a completely hidden villain tucked away for emergencies.
You may end up not using the contingency plan, but that means you can refit it for a future campaign.
I wouldn't have let things get that far (dishonesty means I take out the friendship scissors and cut ties), but I assume that this scenario means that I've only discovered these things recently about my friend. Even so there's only one answer: sever contact with her and explain why. Make sure that she can't reach me and possibly take out a restraining order. I don't want to be involved in her theft and I sure as hell don't need her "help" with partners.
The fifth Horseman, Socialism, actually comes first and doesn't present itself with a horse. It hides the horse immediately after spawning and carries two coconut halves. It bangs these together and truthfully says that it is a Horseman. Then it proceedes to tell everyone else that they have horses of their own. Many believe this and collect improvised percussion that mimics the sound of hooves. Following this nonsense, Socialism tells the Patsies that they are now mounted cavalry units. Once this insane mob has been blooded sufficiently, Socialism mounts its horse and insists that nothing has changed. Afterwards begins the great "false equine cleansing" where the mob murders any surviving horse for commiting the heresy of existence, thus paving the way for the other Horsemen.
I prefer Carolina Eade's catfolk to the more anthropomorphic examples, because it makes for a nice elf-replacement without also taking on the inventors-of-magic-and-all-around-superior tag. If I had to use a more feline look, I'd go with D&D miniatures book artwork for a more "Khajiit" feel.
As for why I'd choose catfolk regardless of aesthetics? The whole bestial-but-not-furry nomadic hunter aspect. On the other hand, if it's an urban campaign, I go for the curious, absent-minded athlete-turned-thief.
It's two cultural attitudes. One born out of fear and the other born out of ignorance.
Don't just link them though, I want someone to explain to me how this is a BIGGER problem than say... the 60% of rapes that go unreported.
Source? RAINN lists an aggregate of Bureau of Justice statistics from 2008-12 as their source, so I'm thinking it's mostly secure funding each year. In 2013, they no longer list unreported stats probably because it's impossible to know how many crimes go unreported. And once again, this is solved by encouraging the victim to report what happened and go to a hospital as soon as possible.
You know why, right? If they can blame the victim, then it's not something that can happen to them.
We also need to stop telling victims they're special for being victims. This cultural attitude needs to stop. They need to be encouraged (and supported) to properly report the crime and get the medical evidence needed to secure a conviction. We need to stop praising victims for their mere existence (and unknowingly telling liars that being a victim is a desired state) and instead listen when they want to talk and support them when they're low. None of this involves removing burdens of proof.
Victims are best served by truth.
1 & 2 - No one's dismissing these concerns.
3 - I'll answer this below.
4 - No, but that won't stop liars from using the system to "punish" or silence someone.
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Aye, it should be. I hate those two faced b!!**es who fake it. It makes things so much harder for rape victims. The problem is, how do you go after them without putting rape victims who don't get a conviction in jeopardy of criminal charges? If you aren't incredibly careful, you'll make almost every rape victim too scared to speak up and report the assault, because doing so could result in jail time if there just isn't enough proof (and rape is incredibly difficult to prove).
First, I'll cover my ideas to help discourage false claims in academic settings. If a student (or staff) charges someone with sexual assault or rape, police should be notified and the alleged victim should immediately go to a hospital to get evidence needed. The window of opportunity for these charges should be small (no more of "I was assaulted last Spring garbage") since it's a college setting.
Second, I'll cover a few things that I think would help law enforcement and real victims. We've got to stop putting victims on pedestals. When police ask about the victim's sex life, clothing worn during the event, level of drugs (including alcohol), etc. they are not trying to help the defense build a case nor are they victim-blaming. They're looking for patterns and elements that might help convict the perpetrator. It's become a very popular trend to say "just believe the victim", but this is encourages liars to step in and capitalize on someone else's misery. Victims should be strongly encouraged to properly report the crime and head to a hospital to get physical evidence. This discourages liars and helps the victims to know that they're doing the right thing even if it would be easier to just go home and hide.
To make matters worse, Second Degree Rape is basically a crime of liability. This statute really needs a makeover. The idea that someone can regret a drunken sexual encounter and then excuse themselves by crying "rape" is disgusting. It damns the accused to a pointless legal battle and diminishes real rape in the public eye.
Left unsaid here is that this only applies to administrative college actions, not to actual rape trials. No criminal penalties are at stake. That makes me a lot less concerned about shifting the burden of proof. It's not a criminal trial. That's where the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing comes in.
An accusation of sexual assault (let alone an accusation of rape) can ruin someone's career before it even begins. If someone's expelled from a college after a biased hearing, there's a good chance they won't get into other colleges if that knowledge follows them. This is in addition to wasting the accused student's time and money.
Above all, it's simply not right to do this to innocent students. False accusations should be punished just as severely whether they go to criminal courts or college disciplinary hearings.
When asked how an innocent person is to prove he or she indeed received consent, (the bill's co-author Bonnie) Lowenthal said, “Your guess is as good as mine. I think it’s a legal issue. Like any legal issue, that goes to court.”
Lowenthal's basically saying "LOL NOT MY PROBLEM NAO! U FIXIT" Some more information on Lowenthal.
Vaguely worded legislation that slowly strips away due process is an excellent example of how "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions".
Stay safe, CA students. Be careful where you place your trust...or just film everything.
raises an eyebrow
I only read an analysis if I've also read what it's analyzing. If the analysis references things I haven't read, I stop and come back to it when I have.
2. Please don't stop with just reading Kafka! You do yourself a disservice if you fail to read the Kafka criticism of the last 50 years! A lot of what has been written is contradictory, but each critic has added to my understanding, and what with Kafka's last papers finally being prepared for the public after protracted custody disputes, now is a good time to revisit it.
It's interesting to watch how criticism changes over the years. My prefered method is to find the earliest analysis available and then read them (the interesting ones) chronologically.
3. Kafkatrapper is not actually more accurate (see my previous post above). BUT if you want to argue it is, and do a different reading of "The Trial" than I have, be my guest. But once you read the truly brilliant criticism, such as by Albert Camus, people who throw around such a facile term as "Kafkaesque" will make you resentful when you read its overbroad and generalized misapplication. At least, it makes me resentful.
I've found that Kafka- (as a prefix) lends itself more often toward aesthetic qualities rather than story elements (i.e. "Kafkaesque" being used to describe anything that looks like Prague's low income areas during the early 1900s). I've actually heard someone describe Dishonored as Kafkaesque. Like those applications, Kafkatrapping may not be one hundred percent accurate, but it's closer than existing terms. In all honesty, I dislike lumping people I disagree with into piles as that usually just adds fuel to the fire and nothing gets solved.
That said, the important part of the linked post wasn't Der Prozess or even Kafka (except to expand my growing backlog of to-dos), but the methods used by that society to silence and eliminate perceived threats. I see that same approach being used daily to control conversations rather than to arrive at an actual solution.
And including claims of nonexistent sexism in video games, film, etc. The biggest criticisms of video games that I've seen in the last few years is that they are subject to the free market. This is not a bad thing (as much as I like to complain about limited options in AAA titles), because it's a form of honesty at the end of the day.
2. The invocation of Kafka left me very disappointed in the article as written. I was hoping for Kafka criticism. This is not it. I've read The Trial and I've read a lot of Kafka criticism. This was a shallow use of a story with many more dimensions to it that those he pointed out. An alternate reading (arrived at by several authors in the Ronald Gray anthology Franz Kafa: A Collection of Critical Essays): Kafka's K was guilty. There is no escape from guilt. The fact it can be invoked to make us do/think/feel things is not some flaw but the sum of its function, which Kafka was brilliant at describing. Does it make you feel bad? Then it is doing its job. Some external referent isn't necessary. The author seems to think this is bad for society. He is wrong. Kafka would tell him it is society, and, more than that, it is K.
Having guilt (which can be natural or manufactured) is not the same as being guilty of a crime. The point of the Der Prozess was that there was no escape from guilt in that society, whether deserving or not.
After reading it, I've decided to do two things:
1 - Reread The Trial (Der Prozess) and any other Kafka work I can get my hands on.
2 - Stop using the SJW pejorative and start calling people Kafkatrappers. More accuracy and less anger.
[sarcasm]Haven't you heard? Women are the real victims in war and death is just painless when it happens to men.
Also, non-credible sources are non-credible. The American Enterprise Institute is about as biased as one can get on economic matters. They (and Sohmers) don't seem that keen on gender issues, either.
Data is data and deliberately obscure statistics (the 77% garbage) are always agenda-driven.
And it's not illegal on the federal level or in many states to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Not only can you pay less, you can just fire LGBTQ people and give that as the reason.
Good point, I forgot about the absence of federal laws. My state's "employment at will" (meaning any dismissal is fine as long as it's not technically illegal), so everyone else's grass always looks greener.
The people that push this misinformation are usually either genuinely misled about the selective nature of the statistics or so dependent on a bogeyman for their ideology to survive. Many tend to forget that it's illegal to pay someone a different salary based on gender, orientation, ethnicity, etc. and few companies would take that risk in order to save cash. Discount employment suddenly gets expensive when lawyers are involved.
Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
Another thing I perceive might be a source of the sometimes irrational attitude of some journalists might be the way social sites work these days: You are more likely to be exposed to positive input regarding your ideas than negative input, since social sites works more on the basis of likes/retweet/share than anything else. Thus, agreement is magnified and dissent tends to fall on the backburner.
This is something that really needs to be considered in future social media projects. It would be helpful to have the ability to simply click an icon indicating "needs more data" or "references plz" or anything else that could count towards useful criticism without the potential for system-wide abuse. This way, even if something is flagged out of spite it can still be defended with empirical data, triple-sourced references, etc. And, alternatively, poorly researched and plainly biased articles would receive the scrutiny they deserve.
In an effort to get this thread back on track, here's some comments from Chris Mancil (of EA, of all companies) from a very neutral perspective on recent events:
Chris Mancil (partial quote) wrote:
I seriously hope he doesn't suffer any disciplinary action for disagreeing with the accepted narrative.
But the degree to which women are constantly forced to "prove" their nerd-cred to these defensive men to be allowed to participate is far greater than what these men require of other men. Hence the annoying concept of the "fake geek girl," where a woman's interest in nerd-things is questioned and mocked instead of welcomed or assumed.
Let me provide something that might help you understand other peoples' perspectives.
I have a problem with the phrase "nerd-cred". I know of very few people that are willing to call themselves "nerds" who are enthusiasts about varying things people are often called nerds for obsessing over. When someone perceives a simple question about their favorite flavor of a prefered hobby or an obscure element used to gauge the depth of their involvement as "being forced to prove their nerd-cred", I question their reasons for so boldly embracing a label rather than the hobby.
When I claim to "love WoW lore and the older games, but hate the MMO" many people are generally curious what the hell I'm talking about and can't imagine that anyone would've played anything older than Frozen Throne. The questions I get are not me being forced to prove WoW-Nerd-Badge credentials as much as being forced to defend my position in relation to their's.
US DoJ, Criminal Victimization 2013 wrote:
US DoJ, Criminal Victimization 2013 wrote:
[sarcasm]Everyone involved, obviously. The actors, the crew, the producers, the hosters, the buyers, the random people finding free clips, and anyone enjoying it.[/sarcasm]
On a related note, it's always funny to me how masculine sexuality just causes some people to lose their minds and degenerate into a fear-induced supor. One person's excitement is another person's discomfort, I suppose. shrugs
Does anyone have any substantial proof that gamergate existed prior to the Zoe Quinn thing? Because while some deny it, everything I have seen seems to point to gamergate 100% being spawned from her harassment.
"Harassment" is not criticism of a person's professional behavior and their associate's behavior. Adam Baldwin invented the tag after viewing some criticism directed at Quinn and connected journalists.
No sane, mature person involved with gamergate condones harassment. And again, criticism is not harassment.
posted here for convenience
Oliver Campbell wrote:
I was speaking from the publisher's (albeit perceived) perspective. Paragraph provided for reference.
The immediate topic I was responding to was "rape as a motivation/background element" within a discussion of "alleged sexism in gaming". Please don't be dismissive about a very real and largely ignored problem.
Correction: we don't see either gender as victims of rape very often. It's a mature matter and will discourage younger buyers as well as gamers that just want a title without an unpleasant story to work around.
Is there a specific act of corruption that the forces of Gamer Gate are addressing? Anyone?
This also speaks to the line thrown out earlier about "We can't have female avatars or the feminists will complain about violence against women." Which of course doesn't actually happen in any of the games with female avatars.
Those of us that play games and can make the connections understand this; some publishers might not so that reason is a possibility.
Except in cases where things happen to them that don't happen to their male counterparts. Like having rape as their origin/motivation.
There's a reason why we rarely see male victims of rape in video games: many people believe men cannot be victims of heterosexual rape. Insane, right? Absolutely, but that is a big reason.
I know some would love to keep baiting and trolling to get this thread locked, but can we please get back to the original topic?
onto the sciencedirect link
Karen E. Dill, Brian P. Brown, Michael A. Collins wrote:
Even without buying the pdf, it's clear that the real sexism is coming from those who criticize video games based on social issues alone. They ignore the countless male characters slaughtered, tortured, incinerated, blown apart, and electrocuted en masse and exist only as XP resources. This researched is biased from the word "go"; are there other unbiased research pieces?
Meanwhile, some recommended reading (slightly related):
EDIT: Forgot the most important link - Richard Dawkins' Postmodernism Disrobed
It sounds like what could be going on is that we have hard data to reject the Columbine-era argument of video games and violence, but data on sexism is a lot more difficult to collect.
And to muddy the waters even further, some like classify sexism (in video games) as revealing garb (only when on women), plot-related violence (again, only when it happens to women), the possibility of plot-related violence (yet again, only when it happens to women), exaggerated anatomy (sing it with me! only when it's applied to women), and so on (there's a trend here, I know it).
Can we get back to video games, please?
Two interesting little things I stumbled across today (old articles):
BGLT Characters in Video Games. Unfortunately there's only two bisexual and trans characters mentioned. It's a start. I've seen other representations of bisexual characters in games, but mostly for "convenience". I can't fault video games for this as we're generally invisible by default :\
"50 Greatest Heroines in Video Game History" Worst thing about this article? They forgot Alice from American Mcgee's Alice. I will now devote fifty head-to-desk impact connections, because there's not a slow motion facepalm long enough to cover that oversight.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Big Fish Games has a huge customer base and specializes in casual titles with a significant portion of period mystery-themed games (you can't argue that that is not a dominantly female demographic). This is nothing against casual titles--hell, I've bought several hidden object games based on aesthetics alone--but their target audience is obvious despite efforts to maintain a gender-neutral image.
But that doesn't really address the issue that even these games - especially when recent CoD games go in for asymmetrical warfare in a big way - don't really have an excuse for not featuring more female characters or try to appeal more to female gamers.
They do have "excuses" (or rather, reasons) why they've avoided the extra step: significant success without taking the extra step, few women play the games, decision to focus on additional mechanics (new weapons, vehicles, misc tech, etc.) in lieu of female models, and likely a publisher resistance to risk the inclusion of one element at the cost of other elements (e.g. mechanics or graphic improvements) that will be included by competitors. With the way some "critics" react, it's little wonder that publishers are wary of including female avatars out of a desire to avoid the inevitable "violence against women" accusations (despite the thousands of male character deaths piling up on scoreboards).
Another feminist; two very interesting links:
An interview (a little less than two hours) with Liana Kerzner that sheds a lot of light on recent misadventures of video game journalism and the events leading up to them from a journalist's perspective.
I don't think that comparison is quite balanced.
Call of Duty's a first-person shooter specifically focuses on combat whereas the Mass Effect series is, while combat-heavy, a third person RPG focusing on story progression. Both had different target audiences and I'm pretty sure most Mass Effect buyers didn't pick the game for the same reasons that a CoD fan might buy Black Ops II. Typically, modern games grounded in realism offer fewer character/avatar options, simpler stories, and more mechanic-driven gameplay than space opera/fantasy RPGs. The only exception that comes to mind offhand would be Alpha Protocol (excellent game, by the way).
I'm picturing people keeping a constant supply of dry ice, heavy mist makers, or smoke machines just to maintain fog clouds all over the place.
I could see a wide distribution of stone incense burners constantly smoking around campuses. No wonder smoking's slowly being banned from public consumption.
And there are many levels of information that the government should never have access to.
Just wanted to share this:
A sane feminist investigates the ongoing online moral panic surrounding video games and the gamers who buy them. The video's short (six and a half minutes) and doesn't play into any particular "side" of recent debates.
Despite her interviewer trying to create strife from nothing, she parried the distraction wonderfully. I see this a lot in journalism ("find a buzzword/acceptable topic and set another example in political correctness") and it gets pretty old, but when an interviewee dodges the guided discussion and responds sanely it's a thing of beauty.
this is totally not from last year >_>
Anyone else watch a celebrity you're not really interested in respond in ways that defy the interview's rails?
Lunch got in the way. Fortunately, the next two hours are all mine...
Political correctness does stifle thought and communication as pluralistic ignorance takes hold. This is when the majority of a group's members privately reject a norm while assuming their peers accept said norm. In order to avoid a negative image, those members maintain norms that they personally reject. What worsens this is when popular personalities suffer from false-consensus bias thanks to pluralistic ignorance. Some examples. Hardly sophistry.
This is cherry picking specific responses while suffering from pluralistic ignorance.
Ironically, this very argument demonstrates exactly how "being white" is privileged. People get upset at the idea of having to confront their "race" and identity before speaking, because it seems exhausting, and demeaning, and a bit like a punishment, all without realizing that often "non-white" or "non-normal" people are forced to do that exact same kind of thinking every day.
And the fallacies continue with a fallacy of relative privation. Foisting guilt is a hostile tactic and using "privilege" in such a way always comes off as a hostile intent.
This supports shoving members of a race into perpetual victimhood. They have every right to expect civil treatment and when someone denies them that that person is in the wrong--not everyone who shares a single characteristic with the denier. Those who discriminate are the issue, not those aren't an immediate target. People that behave this way will attack whoever is "weaker" in their eyes.
It's also important to note that being told you are wrong about how you think about race isn't automatically an attempt to "shame" or "punish" people. Nobody likes being wrong, that's true. It can certainly be embarrassing to realize that you've been mistaken about something for a long time, but it's important to realize that being told that you should "check your privilege" is ultimately not about "shaming" any more than telling a child that six times six doesn't equal sixty six is. It's about trying to educate people to see the world differently, and understand that being "normal" is itself a privilege.
Argumentum ad populum. Bandwagon appeal combined authority appeal-by-proxy. This is the paragraph falls back into pluralistic ignorance in the assumption of a norm.