CRYSTALGATE'S PROFILE

Personally, I don't mind the RTP. However, I will mention that the looks of your game is the first thing someone sees.

author=Mimim

author=Crystalgate
Implementing that particular Yanfly script is not complicated, it's a simple copy and paste work. You don't need to know anything about programming at all.

Not as simple as you might think :<

Tried copy pasting the script thingy lots of times into the script editor and it just comes up with errors when I try to start the game.

What about enemy health bars, can these be added without scripts? :D

I could add both to a new project in about two minutes by simple copying and pasting. Did you put them on the right place?

author=chana
Once again, it does not prove a thing about any other subject, but shouldn't one be very cautious and at least in doubt when so many people are complaining about the same thing and in the same way, most of whom visibly sane, respectable citizens?

Yes, many people are complaining about the same thing. However, they all make very poor cases for themselves. If millions of people make poor cases for themselves, one should be very cautious about them, not about the party they accuse of doing crimes.

author=chana
If a scientist's conscience had not spoken harder than his fear for himself and his career who would know, MUCH LESS BELEIVED, that a whole French village was experimented on in 1951 (Pont-Saint-Esprit) and given LSD with the disatrous consequences it had :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7415082/French-bread-spiked-with-LSD-in-CIA-experiment.html

Are you throwing in yet another conspiracy theory? Granted, this one seem plausible, even after I did some research, but what is it supposed to prove? Even if the evidence is examined and it becomes confirmed that CIA indeed poisoned the village, it will not in any way or shape prove anything about other conspiracy theories, no more than someone being convicted of kidnapping proves he committed arson as well.

author=chana
If you're very patient, this is a history of mind control technologies (it's after 40-41), 30% of the population of the USA. Source seems serious enough :
http://targetedindividualseurope.wordpress.com/

author=chana
The man is a scientist, I suppose he got it from his own works, also this has nothng to do whatsoever with CTs.

You don't seem to know what makes a reliable source. A scientist or a doctor or whatever doesn't make a reliable source.

Let's take a medical experiment as an example. A new medicine is being tested and it has reached a stage where it's being tested on humans. Now, half the subjects of the experiment won't actually get the medicine, they will get a placebo instead. The subjects themselves will not know whether or not they got the real deal. The reason for this is because people who think they are getting a cure will often think they are getting better, even if the cure actually doesn't have any effect. However, by giving half of the subjects a placebo, you will be able to tell if that's the case. If the patients that got the medicine reports an improvement, but the placebo patients reports the same improvement, then the experiment should not be interpret as if the medicine actually helps.

So, the patients are not considerer reliable.

Someone will be tasked with monitoring the patients. That person will also not know which of the patients gets the medicine and which gets the placebo. Even if the person is honest, what could happen is that for example someone reports feeling a lesser headache than before, but is stuck by vertigo twice as often and now the person monitoring the experiment has to decide whether or not that's an improvement. Knowing whether or not the patients actually got the medicine can bias you, even if you do your best to be as non-biased as possible.

The person monitoring the patients is in other words also not considered reliable.

Now, let's assume that the experiment shows the medicine actually improves the chance of a patient recovering. Is that research now considered reliable? Not really, the guys in change of it has to submit a lab report that details how the experiment was carried out. If the experiment was a bluff, any person with the necessary resources can at any day duplicate the experiment and get a different result than the one stated in the lab report. Likewise, if the experiment wasn't correctly conducted, say the person who monitored the patients knew who got the medicine and who got the placebo, anyone looking at the lab report may point out why the experiment is not viable.

Nobody is considered reliable. When you want to establish something as a fact, what you need isn't merits, you need transparency. You need to detail how you got the information so that other people can take the same steps as you did and that way either get the same results as you, or get different results. For example, saying "I interviewed thousands of people who said that..." will not cut it since we have no idea how many you mean with thousands and we don't know how many you interviewed to get the thousands who said the particular thing. Instead, if you say "I interviewed ten thousand randomly selected people and out of those ten thousand, over seven thousand said that..." that's much better. Now I could if I wanted to also interview ten thousand of randomly people and see if I reach the target number of seven thousand. This allows your claim to eventually be established as a fact.