Is it just me or do the forums seem a lot less active?

Quizzical

lotrlore said:

Sovrath said:

Thanks for the response and please don’t take my words as a harsh criticism.More of just noticing how the site has changed. 

Yes! SBFord! Does she still post as I see her under contributors?

 I might just submit an article ?

I've been writing on the internet professionally since 2009, at this point, I don't get too upset unless it's a personal attack. This is good feedback and there is a reason I try to respond to these threads when I see them pop up - genuinely interested in the feedback because when we improve, everyone here wins.

Suzie doesn't contribute anymore, but as she knows the door is literally always open! 

And yes! If you've got an idea, shoot me an email and we can talk! editor@mmorpg.com

Unless you're basically rewriting a press release (as is the case with a lot of news items), most of the time commitment to write a good article about a game is in playing the game a lot so that you understand it.  You might play a game for 100 hours because you like the game, then spend 1 hour writing an article.  Because of the time commitment necessary to understand what you're writing about, a single writer can't write competent articles about very many games.

Players who play games because they like the game have already put in most of the time commitment to write a good article.  If it's practical to do this, then I think would be ideal to have a lot of people each write an occasional article about whatever game they happen to be playing.

For example, I'm probably the only regular on this forum who plays Uncharted Waters Origin much.  But I've played it quite a lot, understand the game well, and could probably write some good articles about it.  I wouldn't be competent to write an article about any other game that has launched this year, though.  But that's not a problem if articles about other games are written by other people who have actually played the games a lot.

That doesn't work for reviews, as it would naturally cherry-pick people who like the game to write a review about each game.  That would result in all games reviewed being rated highly.

Slapshot1188

Wargfoot said:

Is Slapshot calling for violence again?
I do panic when I read his posts.

That guy.

Only those who consider words violence would feel that way 

Me?  I love everybody.

Slapshot1188

Xiaoki said:

Slapshot1188 up said:

As I said. I have a different perspective. As Mill said in “On Liberty”:

Mill warned of the “peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion” explaining that “[i]f the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” 

This sounds like the villain from the Vin Diesel movie XXX.

Even federally protected "free speech" is not all-encompassing. You can't incite panics or violence.

Or, actually the profound words of John Mill.  Here is a description of how actual free liberty compares to what we have in the US (from FIRE):

While the American system of free speech, protected primarily by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, tracks Mill’s theories closely, there are important differences. Our legal freedom to speak is not without limits, and those limits will be discussed later in this Guide. By and large, however, our system leans very heavily toward unfettered free speech, toward what one famous Supreme Court justice has called “the marketplace of ideas,” where good and bad ideas, and true and false ideas, compete for public acceptance. After all, what state official is qualified to determine the truth or worth of our ideas? Absent an infallible human ruler, the free marketplace of ideas is our only sane and progressive option.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Xiaoki

Slapshot1188 said:

Xiaoki said:

Slapshot1188 up said:

As I said. I have a different perspective. As Mill said in “On Liberty”:

Mill warned of the “peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion” explaining that “[i]f the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” 

This sounds like the villain from the Vin Diesel movie XXX.

Even federally protected "free speech" is not all-encompassing. You can't incite panics or violence.

Or, actually the profound words of John Mill.  Here is a description of how actual free liberty compares to what we have in the US (from FIRE):

While the American system of free speech, protected primarily by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, tracks Mill’s theories closely, there are important differences. Our legal freedom to speak is not without limits, and those limits will be discussed later in this Guide. By and large, however, our system leans very heavily toward unfettered free speech, toward what one famous Supreme Court justice has called “the marketplace of ideas,” where good and bad ideas, and true and false ideas, compete for public acceptance. After all, what state official is qualified to determine the truth or worth of our ideas? Absent an infallible human ruler, the free marketplace of ideas is our only sane and progressive option.

The Supreme Court Justice that wrote the "marketplace of ideas" dissent in 1919 was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, who also wrote the "clear and present danger" standard in 1918 which states that "speech could be punished if it posed a clear and present danger of causing some harm".

Hmm, sounds a bit like what I said doesn't it.

Scot

Guys we are getting rather political, blah, blah, etc.

KnightFalz

Slapshot1188 said:

As I said. I have a different perspective. As Mill said in “On Liberty”:

Mill warned of the “peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion” explaining that “[i]f the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” 

You do have a different perspective, and are of course entitled to it. That I argued to the contrary doesn't mean I don't see the merit of your viewpoint. It was a pleasure to disagree with you in this enjoyable exchange.

Slapshot1188

Xiaoki said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Xiaoki said:

Slapshot1188 up said:

As I said. I have a different perspective. As Mill said in “On Liberty”:

Mill warned of the “peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion” explaining that “[i]f the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” 

This sounds like the villain from the Vin Diesel movie XXX.

Even federally protected "free speech" is not all-encompassing. You can't incite panics or violence.

Or, actually the profound words of John Mill.  Here is a description of how actual free liberty compares to what we have in the US (from FIRE):

While the American system of free speech, protected primarily by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, tracks Mill’s theories closely, there are important differences. Our legal freedom to speak is not without limits, and those limits will be discussed later in this Guide. By and large, however, our system leans very heavily toward unfettered free speech, toward what one famous Supreme Court justice has called “the marketplace of ideas,” where good and bad ideas, and true and false ideas, compete for public acceptance. After all, what state official is qualified to determine the truth or worth of our ideas? Absent an infallible human ruler, the free marketplace of ideas is our only sane and progressive option.

The Supreme Court Justice that wrote the "marketplace of ideas" dissent in 1919 was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, who also wrote the "clear and present danger" standard in 1918 which states that "speech could be punished if it posed a clear and present danger of causing some harm".

Hmm, sounds a bit like what I said doesn't it.

I think you missed the first sentence of the quote...
There is a difference between legal and what is right.  And what is right is not always something even people with pure intentions can agree on.

Slapshot1188

Scot said:

Guys we are getting rather political, blah, blah, etc.

We actually aren't. If anything it is a philosophical discussion, not a political one.  We are having quite a polite discussion.
Maybe just relax a bit and smell the roses!

Eldrach

Well - this thread evolved into uselessness.

Wargfoot

Slapshot1188 said:

Scot said:

Guys we are getting rather political, blah, blah, etc.

We actually aren't. If anything it is a philosophical discussion, not a political one.  We are having quite a polite discussion.
Maybe just relax a bit and smell the roses!

What is happening is pretty much how post-moderns argue.

You advocated free speech.
The opposition extrapolated it out to some weird absolute. (1)
The opposition then pretends to have made a point.

To put this in gamer terms:

Slapshot: I like World of Warcraft.
Opposition: OMG, SLAPShot Claims WOW iS teh BESt gaME ever MAde???!!!!
Crowd: ???

At some point you realize it isn't a lack of understanding that fuels these exchanges, but a lack of honesty and one checks out.





NOTES:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Slapshot SaYs It IS OkAy TO Yell FiRe IN A thEATRE!  OMG, OMG, OMG.

Quizzical

Wargfoot said:

NOTES:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Slapshot SaYs It IS OkAy TO Yell FiRe IN A thEATRE!  OMG, OMG, OMG.

Who yells fire in a theater, anyway?  Doesn't the theater have fire alarms?

And yes, it is legal to pull a fire alarm--if there is a fire, or you at least have a good faith reason to believe so.

Slapshot1188

Wargfoot said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Scot said:

Guys we are getting rather political, blah, blah, etc.

We actually aren't. If anything it is a philosophical discussion, not a political one.  We are having quite a polite discussion.
Maybe just relax a bit and smell the roses!

What is happening is pretty much how post-moderns argue.

You advocated free speech.
The opposition extrapolated it out to some weird absolute. (1)
The opposition then pretends to have made a point.

To put this in gamer terms:

Slapshot: I like World of Warcraft.
Opposition: OMG, SLAPShot Claims WOW iS teh BESt gaME ever MAde???!!!!
Crowd: ???

At some point you realize it isn't a lack of understanding that fuels these exchanges, but a lack of honesty and one checks out.





NOTES:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Slapshot SaYs It IS OkAy TO Yell FiRe IN A thEATRE!  OMG, OMG, OMG.

I don’t see it like that at all.  I think KnightFalz has a different belief than I do.  I do not think either of us is being disingenuous. That’s what we collectively have lost.  The ability to understand that it’s ok for others to believe differently than ourselves and that it’s actually healthy to have your own assumptions challenged.

It’s the only way we grow. 

Ungood

On the issues of "Freedom of Speech" I think some French Atheist said it best:

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend, with my life, your right to say it"

Voltaire.

When we lost sight of the fact that the Freedom that I defend for you, I also defend for myself, and the Freedom I take from you, I also take from myself, we lost both our freedoms and the understanding of why they are important.