The "Game" MMORPG plays with locking topics

Kyleran

Scot said:

Well the upshot of that article is we lost Torval, so now I am pissed off; this is the sort of thing that happens and it just shows how such articles are just going to result in damage to the forum community. That's why we need boundaries as I mentioned.

Looks like he took himself off of the forums after that other thread closed.

Before getting too pissed off keep in mind the staff here created the thread but no one had to post in it, we all get to choose how deep into the mire we wish to wade.

I tried to keep my responses at knee level.

TheDalaiBomba

Slapshot1188 said:

TheDalaiBomba said:

Kyleran said:

In all fairness my characters in MMOs tend to solve most problems with extreme violence, even against small animals.

You should see what a .50 cal does to a rad squirrel.

Jokes aside, this country literally had a political group try and violently invade the Capitol building because they lost an election, and few seem to give a shit.  Many for the same reason Mr. @Scot listed: they just wanna live their lives without having to listen to politics!  It will be sadly hilarious once politics comes knocking on these people's doors.  How confused they'll be, not even knowing how the landscape changed under their feet while they "just wanted to watch the ballgame."

Or worse: these same people ignore all the reality of current politics, but still feel fit to share their opinions on the current political topic authoritatively.  We've got folks arguing things like "it's not in the Constitution, so they were right to overturn it!" indicating they don't even know the 9th Amendment exists.

To be fair: it's a little bit harder to grasp when folks like Alito apply it very selectively themselves.

If that's not a sign of societal decline, nothing is.

This is funny. And a great example of why MMORPG was right to lock the post that started this discussion.  Their only mistake was that it didn’t properly local and thus discussion was started.

There's absolutely nothing funny about not understanding the 9th Amendment.

Slapshot1188

TheDalaiBomba said:

Slapshot1188 said:

TheDalaiBomba said:

Kyleran said:

In all fairness my characters in MMOs tend to solve most problems with extreme violence, even against small animals.

You should see what a .50 cal does to a rad squirrel.

Jokes aside, this country literally had a political group try and violently invade the Capitol building because they lost an election, and few seem to give a shit.  Many for the same reason Mr. @Scot listed: they just wanna live their lives without having to listen to politics!  It will be sadly hilarious once politics comes knocking on these people's doors.  How confused they'll be, not even knowing how the landscape changed under their feet while they "just wanted to watch the ballgame."

Or worse: these same people ignore all the reality of current politics, but still feel fit to share their opinions on the current political topic authoritatively.  We've got folks arguing things like "it's not in the Constitution, so they were right to overturn it!" indicating they don't even know the 9th Amendment exists.

To be fair: it's a little bit harder to grasp when folks like Alito apply it very selectively themselves.

If that's not a sign of societal decline, nothing is.

This is funny. And a great example of why MMORPG was right to lock the post that started this discussion.  Their only mistake was that it didn’t properly local and thus discussion was started.

There's absolutely nothing funny about not understanding the 9th Amendment.

Fully agree

DigDuggy

To be honest, they shouldn't have opened the topic to begin with.  

1:  I don't come here for politics, regardless of left, right, center.
2:  They, me, you know what it's gonna turn into.  By comment 2, it'll have degenerated.
3:  The topic is complicated and requires more than a 'look who supports' copy/paste.
4:  IMO, the companies are pandering to the majority opinion.  If I thought they had an honest opinion one way or the other, it might mean something.  IMO, they had a meeting, said what would be a profitable stance and message.  Send it.

lahnmir

Slapshot1188 said:

lahnmir said:

Iselin said:

Slapshot1188 said:

 Even the politicians that are supposed to be the ones addressing this stuff (not a court) reveal a total ignorance of basic concepts related to the US Constitution and the roles of the 3 branches of the government.

Wow. really? Who elected those idiots?

Also I find it fascinating that it's the idiot politicians and not the courts who are supposed to decide what women can and can't do with their bodies.

I might be naive but I always thought it should be the woman and her doctor.

Also, this isn’t about ‘knowing, understanding and trusting the system,’ it is about a decision that gives states the power over a person’s body, and when I say person I of course mean women.

Because this isn’t about promiscuous girls murdering babies. It is about men controlling women, be it through non democratic tricks or the religiously fueled lie that a beating heart automatically equals a life. Had this been about a man’s body this would have never, ever passed.

A decision was made that gives a state the power to take away control of a woman over her own body, just think about that. The above is all somebody has to understand, not previous decisions, not the legal system, just the above. Next step will be forced vasectomies for men and euthanasia for people over the age of seventy five to slow overpopulation down. But fear not, your state knows what they are doing, you just have to trust the system.

I hate topics like these, people get banned, other people decide it is time to show their ugliest side, nobody wins. I’ll see where I end up by the end of the day, whatever.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

I may be mistaken, but I believe you are not from the US.  I'd like to explain why that post is wrong but this is not the place. Again, this is not about what people think is "right" or "wrong" but about the US Constitution (which does contain a mechanism to change it and update it as desired). If you'd like to continue feel free to DM me.

 

you are right indeed, I am Dutch so I am not fully updated on all the ins and outs of US laws and regulations. I am however fully aware of the struggles my country had to preserve the right to abortion, fighting tooth and claw at the forefront. Even helping people in other countries through any means necessary (Waves at Women on Waves). To me, denying women the right to an abortion (or at least opening the doors to such a decision) isn't a political or legal issue, it is one of human rights, or the grave violation thereof, which I consider this change.

I do firmly stand by my point that all of it is about control. Real solutions could have been proper sexual education (as far as I know pretty draconian right now in the US in a lot of places), shared, financial etc, responsibility (denying a woman abortion is placing 100% of the problem on the woman), or even having a discussion about sex as equals without frightening the youth with punishment, hell and damnation (I have always considered religion as an argument the ultimate ‘get out of jail’ card).

I know this is not the place, the time, or the audience, but this (to me) is such a horrible violation of human rights that I don't know of a time and place to not speak up about it, and it has absolutely zero to do with virtue signaling or what some other internet meme clown might think.

So yes, it would be interesting from a political/legal point of view to hear where I am wrong, but no, I do not consider this to be such an issue.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Ungood

harken33 said:

Ungood said:

Hey.. Hey.. look at me.. this new thing hit the fan and suddenly I am an expert in Dog Anal Glands... I mean.. whatever the current shit is.

In totally unrelated news, my dog has impacted anal glands, so I need to take her to vet to get her butthole squeezed. Got an appointment set up for Tuesday, I am sure none of us are looking forward to it, but hopefully she will stop dragging her ass on the carpet.

Hey while not an expert in dog anal glands I would say I have acquired some knowledge, about $70+ per visit to have them expressed (by a vet tech not even the vet, where I live it’s considered a medical procedure so groomers cannot do it) about $1k-$1200 last year alone. It got to the point we might go twice in the same month and leaving them unattended can lead to infection.

In January the new vet tech fresh out of school mentioned her dog had the same problem and what she did to combat it. If you feed her any wet food daily you can buy some All-Bran Buds (the cereal), depending on her size let a few spoonful’s soak in a little water for 15 minutes then mix it in with the wet food. This will help your dogs stool firm up and should allow them to pop / express their anal glands naturally when they do their business.

We started doing this in January and have had zero scooting /anal gland issues (or trips to the vet) since, whereas I would have spent $500.00 or more by this point.

Anyway, good luck with the appointment.

Thanks for the heads up, that was very informative. She eats mostly dry, I feed her Nutrish, which is supposed to be good, along with table scraps and various treats, like, whatever I am eating, she gets some.

It's only been about twice a year so far, but, I might start to schedule her more frequently, mainly because she is getting older, and I guess like old humans, old dogs get problems more frequently.

But that is really good to know, thank you for the info! 

Ungood

Scot said:

If people don't wish to read about politics that's their choice and I do think you are speculating about posters habits.

Gamers,. which are often egotistical, self centered, Assholes that feel they are best, smartest, and cannot be wrong at all ever, viewing themselves as the most amazing king shit of the internet to ever live, that will devolve to personal attacks, stalking, harassment, and every kind of unhanded douche nozzle antic you can think of, because you dare to disagree with their favorite game mode or game.... suddenly talking politics.. what could possible go wrong.

TheDalaiBomba

lahnmir said:

So yes, it would be interesting from a political/legal point of view to hear where I am wrong, but no, I do not consider this to be such an issue.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Hate to burst your bubble, but the majority opinion overturning Roe v Wade doesn't make an earnest attempt to grapple with a legitimate legal basis, either.

Alito stated the 14th amendment did not expressly give a right to abortion and, since that right was not expressly given, it didn't exist.  But what about rights to guns beyond that required for a militia?  That's not mentioned either, I hear you say.  Touché!  He addresses this by simply stating his reasoning only applies to abortion.... Somehow.

He never truly tries to grapple with how the 9th fits into that logic.  He tries to justify it by saying those rights weren't largely accepted at the time the amendments were written, ignoring that our entire legal framework was based on English common law, which actually allowed abortions at the time until "quickening" (when the mother felt the first fetal movement in her womb).

So yea, even the Justice who wrote the majority opinion can't really give you that viewpoint you seek.  That should tell you something about how tortured the reasoning is, to be honest.

Quizzical

Iselin said:

Quizzical said:

Iselin said:

Slapshot1188 said:

 Even the politicians that are supposed to be the ones addressing this stuff (not a court) reveal a total ignorance of basic concepts related to the US Constitution and the roles of the 3 branches of the government.

Wow. really? Who elected those idiots?

Also I find it fascinating that it's the idiot politicians and not the courts who are supposed to decide what women can and can't do with their bodies.

I might be naive but I always thought it should be the woman and her doctor.

It's one thing to talk about the existence of another thread.  It's quite another to relitigate the arguments from that other thread.  That's not the point of this thread, so please stop.

Maybe you should tell the ones who started doing it, yourself included, to stop.

In this thread, I haven't pushed an opinion on whether the court decision in question was good or bad.  I'm trying to keep on topic here.

Ideally, I'd like to get a comment from the staff here.  What's the current status of a "no politics" rule when front page posts routinely violate it?

cheyane

Kyleran said:

Scot said:

Well the upshot of that article is we lost Torval, so now I am pissed off; this is the sort of thing that happens and it just shows how such articles are just going to result in damage to the forum community. That's why we need boundaries as I mentioned.

Looks like he took himself off of the forums after that other thread closed.

Before getting too pissed off keep in mind the staff here created the thread but no one had to post in it, we all get to choose how deep into the mire we wish to wade.

I tried to keep my responses at knee level.

DAMNIT  not good. So sad.

Quizzical

TheDalaiBomba said:

Scot said:

Do you need more evidence of the fact we don't want politics on the forums from that thread and now this? I don't see this as about moderation, we can go elsewhere for politics, we don't need to see it steeped in every aspect of our lives.

Even more so today when every issue is given a clarion call of hysteria, both for and against. Obviously I don't want the site doing political articles, but I can see how the staff might feel they need to make a stand or indeed follow "gaming's corporate response". We can start by more clearly saying we don't want this, what we tend to do instead is argue the political point.

With all due respect: politics isn't going away because you'd like to ignore it.


Again, that's one of the biggest problems in general: apathy among citizens.  That fatalistic "they're all the same!" attitude (you can spot it in here from multiple posters already lol, a sad joke) is what the absolute worst of the worst depend on to stay in power.

It's rather sad, seeing so many adults so willingly surrender themselves to the slimiest of politicians' express goal: to sling so much shit you stop paying attention to the real bad stuff.  All out of, let's be honest: abject laziness.  We don't want to research things on our own- we want it boiled down to an article, at most, that reaffirms our own biases.  We don't want to understand the issue- we want to know what our "side" thinks (and yes, you there reading this as a "Fierce Independent" that hates both parties equally: that's still a side and shitting on both parties as if they're identical is both wrong AND still an incredibly lazy side to take).

We really need to be better, people.  We love to play characters that make a difference in their game world.  Characters that do things to help save or help folks, instead of just bitch about stuff with a fatalistic attitude that ensures nothing ever gets better.  I guess we're role-playing those folks because it's a helluva lot easier than actually going out and trying to make a difference in real life.

The argument is not that we should ignore politics.  The argument is that not everything in life should be about politics.

If they want to restrict political discussions to one forum section, that would be fine.  But political discussions need to be contained or else they'll overwhelm everything, which is why so many sites have a "no politics" rule in the first place.  We should be able to discuss what we like or dislike about this or that game without it getting derailed into an argument over abortion.

Some people on this site strongly disagree with others on various hot-button political issues.  That shouldn't have to mean that we hate each other.  We should still be able to get along and enjoy the same games.

Indeed, getting along with other people whose political views are very different from your own is tremendously important to society.  A lot of people are naturally prejudiced against those on the other side of the political spectrum.  We have known for many years that the way to get over such prejudices is to have frequent, positive interactions with people on the other side.  That's how you naturally learn that the people on the other side aren't a bunch of monsters.  

Computer games ought to be one way that we can do that.  So should a lot of other things that aren't naturally political.  But when everything degenerates into political flame wars, that only reinforces the prejudices and political hatred.  That's bad for society.

Quizzical

TheDalaiBomba said:

Scot said:

Well the upshot of that article is we lost Torval, so now I am pissed off; this is the sort of thing that happens and it just shows how such articles are just going to result in damage to the forum community. That's why we need boundaries as I mentioned.

It is not really avoidable when you have gaming companies issuing statements on political topics.  And it really shouldn't be, at least if you're in the U.S..

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with companies issuing such statements.  Nothing.  Nada.  Zero.  Zilch.  Politics has always been in everything and always will be in everything.  Escapism is only healthy in moderation and I'd be willing to bet, despite your examples of the ubiquity of news today, that most here don't read a lick of news outside of gaming sites (well, maybe they've read some entirely garbage punditry really only fit for Facebook group threads).  Some of the opinions offered in the original thread make that *very* clear.

How many political statements are posted online in a given day?  I'm sure it's very far into the millions.  My best guess would be in the hundreds of millions.  There are other places where people can go to argue politics, which is as it should be.  There should be space for people to discuss other things, too.

TheDalaiBomba

Quizzical said:

The argument is not that we should ignore politics.  The argument is that not everything in life should be about politics.

If they want to restrict political discussions to one forum section, that would be fine.  But political discussions need to be contained or else they'll overwhelm everything, which is why so many sites have a "no politics" rule in the first place.  We should be able to discuss what we like or dislike about this or that game without it getting derailed into an argument over abortion.

Some people on this site strongly disagree with others on various hot-button political issues.  That shouldn't have to mean that we hate each other.  We should still be able to get along and enjoy the same games.

Indeed, getting along with other people whose political views are very different from your own is tremendously important to society.  A lot of people are naturally prejudiced against those on the other side of the political spectrum.  We have known for many years that the way to get over such prejudices is to have frequent, positive interactions with people on the other side.  That's how you naturally learn that the people on the other side aren't a bunch of monsters.  

Computer games ought to be one way that we can do that.  So should a lot of other things that aren't naturally political.  But when everything degenerates into political flame wars, that only reinforces the prejudices and political hatred.  That's bad for society.

Computer games do not exist outside of politics, and never have.   I can understand the sentiment, but this isn't just some run of the mill political news blurb: this decision will likely have far-reaching consequences for decades, and dozens of studios all spoke out on the same issue.

Political news of that magnitude will always leak over.  Just like the invasion of Ukraine did.  It's unavoidable.

To be clear, referencing a post you made in the original thread: I would have no issues with the staff reporting game studios that support Dobbs v Jackson.  It would give me a convenient list of companies I prefer not to do business with, and I would have no problem posting to criticize those decisions without being upset or thinking the staff was pushing their political opinion on me.  However, how many studios have spoken out in favor of the opinion?  The reality is this was not only a legally dubious and nakedly political decision, it was an unpopular one.  MMORPG.com's staff cannot force gaming studios to make opposing statements just so they can share these to retain the appearance of neutrality.

I get the feeling some in our country underestimated how important this right was to the general public.  The sentiment seems to be that people think religious groups are the only ones who care enough to take crucial actions.  They're about to be thoroughly surprised, because a lot of women *love* what RBG stood for, and the justice that replaced her pretty much perjured herself on this issue before Congress, along with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

I do agree the staff needs to work on moderating those threads heavily to keep discussions from becoming mere name-calling, though.  But, if we want them to do that, we can't then whine about moderation in these threads.

Quizzical

The debate about abortion is fundamentally a question of at what point a new human life is sufficiently valuable as to merit legal protection.  There is a tremendous cost to telling someone that you have to take care of this other person even if you don't want to.  There's also a tremendous moral cost to ending a human life.  Those are both enormous things, and people often disagree as to which is more important in a variety of circumstances.  (See also euthanasia or the death penalty.)  I would suggest that if you dismiss either one of them as being trivial, you haven't seriously thought through the issue.  So of course abortion was always going to be a hot button political issue.

But the existence of hot button political issues shouldn't mean that we have to hate each other.

TheDalaiBomba

Quizzical said:

The debate about abortion is fundamentally a question of at what point a new human life is sufficiently valuable as to merit legal protection.  There is a tremendous cost to telling someone that you have to take care of this other person even if you don't want to.  There's also a tremendous moral cost to ending a human life.  Those are both enormous things, and people often disagree as to which is more important in a variety of circumstances.  (See also euthanasia or the death penalty.)  I would suggest that if you dismiss either one of them as being trivial, you haven't seriously thought through the issue.  So of course abortion was always going to be a hot button political issue.

But the existence of hot button political issues shouldn't mean that we have to hate each other.

Nobody is dismissing the decision as trivial.  I'm dismissing those who would hide behind irrational legal arguments to upend a law that provided a right that's been recognized since before the 20th century.  An argument that, as Justice Thomas couldn't help but hint at, could be legitimately used to revoke same-sex marriage, contraception, and even interracial marriage.  Is anyone trying to argue interracial marriage would be considered largely accepted during the creation of a country where it was illegal to have interracial marriages for nearly the first century of its existence?  It's nonsense.

And it's result has been, in over a dozen states, the right is being revoked or severely limited to the point of insanity.  In some cases, not even in the case of rape or incest could the mother legally seek an abortion, even before fetal viability.  What a world.

Mendel

Fundamentally, I think the real issue in question here is, does reporting on social media posts on whatever topic by employees of a game company have any bearing on the delivery, creation, quality, or enjoyment of a game?  Do such posts qualify as 'news' and need to be mentioned and discussed here?  I think that is the criteria that the staff need to consider when making posts.

We don't really need articles based on whatever dredging through social media turns up.

Slapshot1188

Mendel said:

Fundamentally, I think the real issue in question here is, does reporting on social media posts on whatever topic by employees of a game company have any bearing on the delivery, creation, quality, or enjoyment of a game?  Do such posts qualify as 'news' and need to be mentioned and discussed here?  I think that is the criteria that the staff need to consider when making posts.

We don't really need articles based on whatever dredging through social media turns up.

That’s a pretty good point.  I think most will see it through the lens of whether or not such samples confirm their own beliefs on a situation.  

After some thought I think your last sentence is pretty good.

ChildoftheShadows

TheDalaiBomba said:

lahnmir said:

So yes, it would be interesting from a political/legal point of view to hear where I am wrong, but no, I do not consider this to be such an issue.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Hate to burst your bubble, but the majority opinion overturning Roe v Wade doesn't make an earnest attempt to grapple with a legitimate legal basis, either.

Alito stated the 14th amendment did not expressly give a right to abortion and, since that right was not expressly given, it didn't exist.  But what about rights to guns beyond that required for a militia?  That's not mentioned either, I hear you say.  Touché!  He addresses this by simply stating his reasoning only applies to abortion.... Somehow.

He never truly tries to grapple with how the 9th fits into that logic.  He tries to justify it by saying those rights weren't largely accepted at the time the amendments were written, ignoring that our entire legal framework was based on English common law, which actually allowed abortions at the time until "quickening" (when the mother felt the first fetal movement in her womb).

So yea, even the Justice who wrote the majority opinion can't really give you that viewpoint you seek.  That should tell you something about how tortured the reasoning is, to be honest.

'The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is pretty clear.

olepi

It is interesting to see corporations react to the ruling. Not only game companies, but major tech companies like Microsoft, Intel, and AMD have taken positions.

Kyleran

Slapshot1188 said:

TheDalaiBomba said:

Slapshot1188 said:

TheDalaiBomba said:

Kyleran said:

In all fairness my characters in MMOs tend to solve most problems with extreme violence, even against small animals.

You should see what a .50 cal does to a rad squirrel.

Jokes aside, this country literally had a political group try and violently invade the Capitol building because they lost an election, and few seem to give a shit.  Many for the same reason Mr. @Scot listed: they just wanna live their lives without having to listen to politics!  It will be sadly hilarious once politics comes knocking on these people's doors.  How confused they'll be, not even knowing how the landscape changed under their feet while they "just wanted to watch the ballgame."

Or worse: these same people ignore all the reality of current politics, but still feel fit to share their opinions on the current political topic authoritatively.  We've got folks arguing things like "it's not in the Constitution, so they were right to overturn it!" indicating they don't even know the 9th Amendment exists.

To be fair: it's a little bit harder to grasp when folks like Alito apply it very selectively themselves.

If that's not a sign of societal decline, nothing is.

This is funny. And a great example of why MMORPG was right to lock the post that started this discussion.  Their only mistake was that it didn’t properly local and thus discussion was started.

There's absolutely nothing funny about not understanding the 9th Amendment.

Fully agree

Interestingly enough, according to this source even the Supreme Court prefers to avoid addressing the 9th amendment seeing it is actually quite challenging to interpret.

https://constitutionus.com/constitution/amendments/the-9th-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitution-explained/