ALTEREGO'S PROFILE

Does watching longplays count as playing videogames? I surely hope so because I'm too cheap to buy games these days, and I'm kind of glad for that right now... So! "The Last Of Us" was one of those games for which I was considering coughing up the dough to finally buy a PS3. It caught my attention ever since it was announced. The setting, the graphics, everything looked amazing! But the game turned out to be such a let down. Beyond the repetitive gameplay, dubious AI, and the average plot (Things that could arguably be said about most games ever), my biggest disappointment was the missed opportunity of exploring a cool sci-fi premise...

Most things that deal with zombies never delve on how the virus came to be, how it spreads to a global scale, or how could it be combated. They mostly dwell in cheap scares, gore, and drama. So why? WHY? did they decide to introduce the immunity/cure element into the story if they weren't planning on developing it? The game could have very well been about this dude fetching the girl to those people for whatever reason and then finding out they were going to harvest her organs or some shit, and then saving her anyway because *insert father-daughter bond here* And the game would have been exactly the same. EXACTLY.THE.SAME.

And then I find out the game got a perfect score pretty much everywhere!! Like, wtf... I've played better games in my days. -_-

Anyway, just a random rant that I didn't know where to post. And I'll probably be back with more sometime in the future. =P

I think what confuses people regarding this topic are all the little 'discrepancies' surrounding all these "rules". And I can understand that. I can't say there's much I disagree with, with the actual 'practice' of said rules, but in 'theory' they do left something to be desired.

First of all, what constitutes creating an "atmosphere of hostility and blah, blah, blah"? Because I can think of a couple of users who fit the bill and who have never been warned or banned because of it. And on that note, calling someone a "man-baby" or a "bigot" gets a pass, but how is that not vitriolic or hostile? ...I mention this as well because in the past I used to report people who engaged in "personal attacks" and such, with mixed results. Sometimes they'd get warned, sometimes not. And since I couldn't tell the difference, I just stopped reporting things all together because - I'm not gonnas waste my times doings your dirty works, peoples!

So obviously the "hostility" is not the issue here. So what is it then? Is it the gendered cuss words maybe? But then again, words like "bitch" that could be argued are derogatory to women get tossed around like they're confetti around here, sometimes even by women. And you know that the people who concern themselves with "safe spaces" often concern themselves with "micro-aggressions" as well. So even expressions that for most people would be nothing like: "Stop bitching about it" ARE an issue.

On the flip-side, if the "Don't be a dick" rule was instead called the: "Don't be a cunt" rule. I bet that would raise some eyebrows...

SO! If it is not the "hostility" nor the "gendered cuss words", then perhaps it's an odd mixture of both? Perhaps it's the sheer volume of it? ...I'm kind of Ok with that. But if you were to ask me, I'd say that is the "intent" what counts. So even if you're being classy with your insults, you're still being a dick. (I don't understand this logic of high-brow insults: OK, low-brow insults: BAD. The purpose is the same.) Though, to be utterly honest, I'd prefer less restrictions, not more. I know there's some middle ground to be had for the sake of civil discourse, inclusiveness, fellowship, and all that jazz. But it's all words at the end of the day. "Sticks and stones..."

Anyway, it should not be difficult to better word the rules. Not to be pedantic. Not to spell things out for people. Just to be clear.
_
Also, say whatever you want about Max. But one thing he did not do was: "justify, or explain, or excuse harassment or worse". Nor did he engage on it. In fact he stated several times that that was not what he meant, that his words should not be misconstrued in that way, and he even openly denounced those actions. At the very least give him that.

Jesuschrist, Max, It's not difficult. Just avoid calling anyone in particular a 'bitch' or a 'prick', at least when done with palpable contempt. Yes, I suposse that goes against the principle of Freedom of speech, if you insist looking at it that way. In a perfect world we could say virtually anything to anyone, anywhere; but we're not quite there yet. And that probably applies to you as well. If I were to send a barrage of insults your way, I doubt you'd take that in stride. You would lash out back at me and nothing productive would ever come from that interaction...

And that's the point. In the very post that (most likely) got you banned, you quoted one Jerry Holkins, saying that there are forms of speech that invalidates anything that you or anyone around you is trying to say. He was talking about death threats specifically, and I agree, that's SRS BSNS. But at the same time, it sort of makes sense that lesser kinds of 'transgressions' invalidates what you have to say to a lesser degree, don't you think? But the problem is, that you keep adding to it every time that you engage in petty name-calling and it builds up.

What I'm really trying to say is. If you care for rmn remaining a site where different opinions can have a place, then is in your best interest to learn to pick your battles and your arguments a bit more carefully. Every time a person on either side of the discussion flies off the handle, it only makes people on the other side be less open towards those and similar ideas. In one hand, they begin policing people's behavior more and more closely, and in the other you leave with your tail between your legs to who knows what dark corners of the internet. In the end everyone ends up in their own echo-chambers, and that's the opposite of what a pluralist society should be like.

Think about it in this way. A rift between gamers is what the SJWs want. Do you want the SJWs to win, Max?? DO YOU!!!?? xD

I took the test a number of times and according to this, I'm an ISTJ (Assertive, Sentinel), but also, an INTJ (Assertive, Analyst). The reason I say this is because some questions really bothered me, for example: "You would rather call yourself pragmatic than visionary?" And I was like: "Why do I have to choose? Why can't I be a pragmatic visionary?" xD So in a couple of test a picked one over the other and vice versa, and I got these results. The only significant difference was the Intuitive/Observant meter... Interesting.

Mind - Introverted (50-60%)
Energy - Intuitive/Observant (20%)
Nature - Thinking (60-70%)
Tactics - Judging (15-30%)
Identity - Assertive (40-60%)