Jimquisition: I'm Going To Murder Your Children

[Deadcyde]

2... after all the crap gamers have been put through eventually they were going to snap, the fact that the ones snapping were misanthropic neckbeards notwithstanding.

And what crap would that be? Publishers releasing games you don't like? Being privileged enough to afford computers, game consoles, software, and having enough free time to play those games?

Cry me a river, doesn't seem like much of a hardship to me.

Afford video games? Have you paid attention to any of Jims episodes? Never mind that games/consoles/computers are ridiculously priced, barely playable and require all sorts of nonsense hoops to jump through even to be able to play them. Lets also have our favorite games ass raped by focus group mentality.

As for time to play them... we don't.. and that's the point. No one wants to waste their few precious hours on a load of horse shit they were forced to pay ridiculous prices for due to being under the impression that the developers were trustworthy.

I can just hear you now "but some people have it worse"

so we should too? rather then raise them to our level of lifestyle and freedom we should lower ourselves to theirs so then we can have equal suffering.. hooray...

*shakes head*

next you'll tell me misandry can't exist.

 

[DaedricDuke]

Ah, the Bad Dragon website, high up on my bookmarks list... Lots of really fun products that perfectly resonate with my bad girl fantasies X3.

I shall continue being a beacon of human kindness and perfection in the hopes of seing which one he has. I'm curious!

I hope it's the cockatrice. t(^-^t)

 

[Gilhelmi]

That is why I would hire off-duty police or private security forces. Police are allowed to carry at all times, even off-duty (depending on local laws).

Not where I live, they aren't. Also, it's still up to the convention venue whether to allow them in. As I said, any sane convention would not allow firearms through the door, and that's their right, off-duty cop or not.

It must be a pretty insane place to live where just because somebody's an off-duty cop they are allowed to carry concealed firearms. Even on-duty cops don't conceal their weapons. The idea that people would be able to walk around with concealed weapons at a convention (or anywhere) is seriously problematic.

I am not a police officer and I am allowed to carry (I have my conceal carry permit). It is not a problem because I never draw my weapon unless I am attacked. I can carry anywhere there is no sign.

In the United States, the 2nd Amendment (of the constitution) gives us the right to own weapons. In the state I live in, we have the (state) constitutional right to always carry (assuming, of course, that you can pass your background checks and other legal requirements). Even in California, many people have conceal carry weapons permits. You might be surprised what is actually legal, if you look at the laws on the books.

 

[wulf3n]

Do you?

It should be painfully obvious that a situation where there's no hurdle preventing the "victim" from lodging a claim, and numerical superiority means absolutely nothing, this is clearly not the same as the Bystander Effect.

The bystander effect is a social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals do not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present. The probability of help is inversely related to the number of bystanders. In other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help. Several variables help to explain why the bystander effect occurs. These variables include: ambiguity, cohesiveness and diffusion of responsibility.

Note that nothing is said about the capacity of the victim, nor about numerical superiority. The Bystander Effect refers only to a person's refusal to accept responsibility for intervention by claiming that it's somebody else's problem, and that they don't have to act as a result.

This is EXACTLY your argument.

What your failing to take into account is the notion of responsibility.

If said bystander(s) can do nothing more than said victim, and having more people doesn't help said victim the responsibility lies solely on the victim.

In a situation like that it's not a about expecting someone else to deal with it, it's if the victim wanted something done about it they'd do it.

But as Erttheking pointed out on these forums that isn't the case, so this can be perceived as the "Bystander effect"

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Afford video games? Have you paid attention to any of Jims episodes? Never mind that games/consoles/computers are ridiculously priced, barely playable and require all sorts of nonsense hoops to jump through even to be able to play them. Lets also have our favorite games ass raped by focus group mentality.

No, they really aren't.

Computers and consoles have never been more affordable. When I was growing up, a decent computer (adjusted for inflation) would cost around $10,000 today, and it was slow and cumbersome. Today you can get really fast computers for under $1,000, and a cheap (but still capable) computer for a few hundred.

And don't get me started on the games. The games of today are so much more sophisticated, way more playable and engaging. People get nostalgic about "retro" games, but the reality was that most of them weren't very good. And they still cost tons of money back then, too.

You might complain about DRM or online passes, but we had to deal with shit like crazy cardboard wheels used to decode numbers, or "enter the third word of the fourth paragraph on page five of the user manual."

 

[Aardvaarkman]

In the United States, the 2nd Amendment (of the constitution) gives us the right to own weapons. In the state I live in, we have the (state) constitutional right to always carry (assuming, of course, that you can pass your background checks and other legal requirements). Even in California, many people have conceal carry weapons permits. You might be surprised what is actually legal, if you look at the laws on the books.

One of the many problems America currently suffers from.

But still, this right doesn't transfer to private venues, does it? If the law requires private venues or residences to allow firearms, even if the owner doesn't want them there, then that's supremely fucked-up. Don't property owners also have rights over their property?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

If said bystander(s) can do nothing more than said victim, and having more people doesn't help said victim the responsibility lies solely on the victim.

In what situation can the bystanders not do more than the victim? In most cases (i.e: assault, etc) the victim is under duress. They don't have the ability to do very much - meanwhile, a bystander is able to call the police, because they are not being assaulted.

But yeah, it's all the victim's fault for being such a victim. The perpetrator is completely innocent.

 

[wulf3n]

If said bystander(s) can do nothing more than said victim, and having more people doesn't help said victim the responsibility lies solely on the victim.

In what situation can the bystanders not do more than the victim? In most cases (i.e: assault, etc) the victim is under duress. They don't have the ability to do very much - meanwhile, a bystander is able to call the police, because they are not being assaulted.

But yeah, it's all the victim's fault for being such a victim. The perpetrator is completely innocent.

Hmmmm, how about a forum [not this one, because you need 2 clicks] where the victim only has to click a little button to report the issue to the moderators. All I can do is click the same little button. Why is it my responsibility to click and not the victims?

 

[AuronFtw]

If said bystander(s) can do nothing more than said victim, and having more people doesn't help said victim the responsibility lies solely on the victim.

In what situation can the bystanders not do more than the victim? In most cases (i.e: assault, etc) the victim is under duress. They don't have the ability to do very much - meanwhile, a bystander is able to call the police, because they are not being assaulted.

But yeah, it's all the victim's fault for being such a victim. The perpetrator is completely innocent.

But that (lack of) logic breaks down when you apply it to... you know... the actual setting we're talking about here. Someone being "attacked" on forums or over the internet isn't magically incapable of defending themselves. They can post in response, they can ignore in response, or they can report it to the site mods or local police (if they feel the threat is real enough). They aren't pinned to the ground getting punched while "bystanders" are watching it happen. They are not helpless.

And guess what? When "bystanders" (from another country, even) call the police for messages not really related to them, say, joking facebook messages made between league of legends players [http://kotaku.com/league-of-legends-player-jailed-after-terrorist-threat-610691101] to use a totally random example, and the police actually get involved, everything is blown out of proportion. Even obvious jokes are taken seriously, and innocent lives are ruined by the overzealousness of some fucktards trying to white knight and failing at it miserably.

If you see someone getting punched IRL, standing by and watching in a crowd is definitely bystander effect. If you don't see or hear or even read someone's email or twitter to see their personal messages, some of which is hateful, it's not "bystander effect" to do nothing, because it's none of your fucking business. Hepler hasn't been in the news for years, ever since the reaction to her not liking video games simmered down - are we supposed to follow her social media and also read her emails to tell if she's being "attacked," or we're guilty of bystander effect?

Seriously. That's ludicrous.

 

[Deadcyde]

Afford video games? Have you paid attention to any of Jims episodes? Never mind that games/consoles/computers are ridiculously priced, barely playable and require all sorts of nonsense hoops to jump through even to be able to play them. Lets also have our favorite games ass raped by focus group mentality.

No, they really aren't.

Computers and consoles have never been more affordable. When I was growing up, a decent computer (adjusted for inflation) would cost around $10,000 today, and it was slow and cumbersome. Today you can get really fast computers for under $1,000, and a cheap (but still capable) computer for a few hundred.

And don't get me started on the games. The games of today are so much more sophisticated, way more playable and engaging. People get nostalgic about "retro" games, but the reality was that most of them weren't very good. And they still cost tons of money back then, too.

You might complain about DRM or online passes, but we had to deal with shit like crazy cardboard wheels used to decode numbers, or "enter the third word of the fourth paragraph on page five of the user manual."

Never been more affordable? Computers for the last decade are updating at such a rate that parts on a computer diminish at ridiculous rates, or for the nose bleed section, it might cost you a grand, but it'll be worthless in 3 years. As for consoles, surely you don't mean to lump them in with computers seeing as they've gone from 200 dollars at launch (psx) to 600 dollars at launch (xbone). Yeah, real cheap.

Not to mention games have gone from 20 bucks in the psx era to prices upwards of 80 to 100 dollars. And please, more intricate and playable? Intricate like dead space three and it's freemium yet you already paid 80 bucks for it type intricate? Or do you mean engaging in the we create DLC before the game is released just so we can squeeze more money out of you... Final fantasy 8 was 4 disks and I got it for 40 bucks new.. it lasted a hundred hours... I bet you can't name 10 games from this era that take more then 100 hours.

on what games huh? Atari games? No popular games had drm crap like that I'm 30 and a hardcore gamer from commander keen and terminal velocity days.. so I know the history of games and drm back then was a cake walk..

We get treated like shit constantly and it's apologists like you who give these corporate leeches permission to do so, not only that, you defend them with the weaksauce "oh it was worse" or "they're a business"

NO... it's not cool and it will never be cool.

As for someone threatening a dev online.. big deal, I've had more threats online then i can even remember. Maybe if they stopped allowing us to be treated by crap by signing deals with bloodsucking distributors just so they can get a few dollars, I'd feel a little bit bad when some entitled neckbeard goes all jerk nuts and retard strong on them...

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Never been more affordable? Computers for the last decade are updating at such a rate that parts on a computer diminish at ridiculous rates, or for the nose bleed section, it might cost you a grand, but it'll be worthless in 3 years.

That's completely inaccurate. The progress of computer hardware has slowed over the last ten years. It's never been more stagnant. It's very different to the 80s and 90s, when there would be huge leaps in technology within a year or two.

Do you really think a 3-year-old computer or console is worthless? That's not borne out by the facts of the market.

As for consoles, surely you don't mean to lump them in with computers seeing as they've gone from 200 dollars at launch (psx) to 600 dollars at launch (xbone). Yeah, real cheap.

Have you not heard of inflation or relative purchasing power? When I was a teenager, we'd be lucky to get a few dollars per week in pocket-money. These days teenagers tend to get more like tens of dollar per day.

We get treated like shit constantly and it's apologists like you who give these corporate leeches permission to do so, not only that, you defend them with the weaksauce "oh it was worse" or "they're a business"

I'm not being an apologist, or defending anything. Just addressing the facts.

I had to go into thousands of dollars of debt to buy powerful computer as a student - these days they are given to kids as birthday presents, and an iPad (which are commonly given to kids under 10 years old) has more computing power than a $4,000 computer did then.

If you're so against the "corporate leeches," then why do you buy their products? I guess I'm an apologist for thinking that affordable computing and ubiquitous internet has empowered people more than it has hurt us.

 

[Deadcyde]

Never been more affordable? Computers for the last decade are updating at such a rate that parts on a computer diminish at ridiculous rates, or for the nose bleed section, it might cost you a grand, but it'll be worthless in 3 years.

That's completely inaccurate. The progress of computer hardware has slowed over the last ten years. It's never been more stagnant. It's very different to the 80s and 90s, when there would be huge leaps in technology within a year or two.

Do you really think a 3-year-old computer or console is worthless? That's not borne out by the facts of the market.

As for consoles, surely you don't mean to lump them in with computers seeing as they've gone from 200 dollars at launch (psx) to 600 dollars at launch (xbone). Yeah, real cheap.

Have you not heard of inflation or relative purchasing power? When I was a teenager, we'd be lucky to get a few dollars per week in pocket-money. These days teenagers tend to get more like tens of dollar per day.

We get treated like shit constantly and it's apologists like you who give these corporate leeches permission to do so, not only that, you defend them with the weaksauce "oh it was worse" or "they're a business"

I'm not being an apologist, or defending anything. Just addressing the facts.

I had to go into thousands of dollars of debt to buy powerful computer as a student - these days they are given to kids as birthday presents, and an iPad (which are commonly given to kids under 10 years old) has more computing power than a $4,000 computer did then.

Moores law, look it up.

oh, inflation that's exactly what it is. Sorry, but inflation hasn't been the same everywhere. As well as the fact that distributors and devs are blowing out massive budgets when before they worked with far far less without issue. And if games are selling far more today then they used to at a price adjusted for inflation that means? Yes, devs are wasting money.. who foots the bill? Us.

Good for you, you're right.... Buuuuuuuut, it has zero bearing on the points i just made.

 

[Deadcyde]

Not only that, who do you suppose puts up with DRM, paying customers or pirates?

That's right, us. We get punished for paying for our games.

Seriously, homework for you, go back and watch every single one of the Jimquisition episodes.

 

[Deadcyde]

Also maybe i was a little over excited calling you a shill. But your complacency on the way consumers are treated by the games industry is half the reason they do it.

 

[Gilhelmi]

In the United States, the 2nd Amendment (of the constitution) gives us the right to own weapons. In the state I live in, we have the (state) constitutional right to always carry (assuming, of course, that you can pass your background checks and other legal requirements). Even in California, many people have conceal carry weapons permits. You might be surprised what is actually legal, if you look at the laws on the books.

One of the many problems America currently suffers from.

But still, this right doesn't transfer to private venues, does it? If the law requires private venues or residences to allow firearms, even if the owner doesn't want them there, then that's supremely fucked-up. Don't property owners also have rights over their property?

IF, the private venue puts up a "No-Gun" sign then it is illegal (for non-law enforcement) to carry there. BUT, few places bother with this, usually because they get complaints from customers. Even people who do not carry, still complain about the "Gun-free" signs, especially in my area (I mentioned earlier the state constitutional right, it passed with 90% of the vote in my state).

Sure, a business owner can ban weapons, but they usually do not. Why ban weapons, when only law-abiding citizens are going to follow the law? Why ban weapons when so many people complain about the ban?

America also has a very rebellious streak in the common citizen, you might not see it in the media much, but many people do not trust the government. I do not mean the normal NSA wire tap rage that the media is covering right now. What I am talking about goes back a lot farther, back before our founding even. How do I say this without too sounding crazy? America was formed by overthrowing a tyrannical government. We are taught of our Abolitionist ancestors who fought against slavery and the former Black slaves who joined the Union Army to fight the Confederate rebels. American history is filled with fighting against a corrupt Government and evil people who oppressed us. So the 2nd Amendment is our guarantee that if the Government does need 'replacing' we would have the means to do so. I guess there is no way to say that without sounding crazy. I do not want to overthrow the Government, most people do not want to either, we just want to keep the ability to out of fear that if we lose the right to bear arms then the Government will start to abuse its power.

I forget who said it but "The Second Amendment protects the First Amendment." That is very much the culture in a very large part of the United States.

I do not know where you are from, but the United States is HUGH. 300 million people in 50 states. The 50 states have very different cultures from one another, even if the population in is very diverse. There is no such thing as one America culture. This is the hardest part to explain, California is very different from Utah, and Utah is very different from Florida, who is different from Kansas. Every place you go is like another country, every state has its unique flavor to it. The people are even different in temperament. You do not see that in the national media much, they are mostly LA or New York in culture.

Imagine if you went from London to Paris, or any other city in the world. That is what it is like to travel through the United States.

I said all that so you know, I am only talking about parts of America when it comes to firearms. In some areas (like New York state or Colorado) they do not allow people to carry weapons (generally, there are rare exceptions), let alone shoot anyone even in self-defense (or they have extremely high standard to prove self-defense). BUT, in Oklahoma, for example, they allow to to shoot an intruder in your home. If that person was not there legally, they forfeit their life essentially. 50 states, 51 laws (including federal, who are not suppose to interfere with state rights, but that is another lengthy discussion).

I knew a guy who was shot at by a group of people who did not like the fact that he was white and his wife was black. He took out the engine block of the racists car with one shot. The Sheriff investigated, ruled it justified, and congratulated my friend on the restraint he showed (the Sheriff said he would have shot the racists and did the world a favor). I love .50-cal pistols. Now, how would that story had played out in your country? How would it have played out in New York? How would it have played out in any number of states? 50 states, 50 ways it could have gone.

Sorry for the wall of text but, with the USA being a Democratic Republic, this type of thing gets complicated really FAST. I hope this helps you understand a bit more.