Prez wrote on Oct 16, 2012, 02:15:
Well, if you prefer, let's get to the heart of the issue:

The issue is whether or not the prison system can deny him the ability to communicate - which is a 1st amendment issue.

The state has already (constitutionally via due process) denied him of his liberty through his incarceration, so why in the world would they not have the right to deny him anything other than his life (cruel and unusual punishment notwithstanding)? That would be the only thing as far as I can legally tell that they would need further due process to remove from him. The legal rules concerning double indemnity preclude the state from trying that for the same crimes he's already in jail for, but short of that it seems they can legally do just about everything else.

This is about the paper mail and what can and cannot be sent in it.

-That doesn't matter either, Seph.

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 16, 2012, 00:31:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 15, 2012, 23:22:

Agent.X7 wrote on Oct 15, 2012, 21:42:

Scheherazade wrote on Oct 15, 2012, 20:35:
You may want to read the article...

He was not suing for the right to sit at a computer and facebook all day.

He just didn't want his incoming personal paper mail turned back (censored) - simply on the grounds that it contained a print out from a social media page.

The issue is whether or not the prison system can deny him the ability to communicate - which is a 1st amendment issue.

The state government already makes too many exceptions on what you can or can't say - given that the constitution allows you to say everything and anything - and no law can legitimately trump the "highest" law of the nation.

In case you're wondering, here's the actual law :
"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"
It lists no exceptions.

If you take notice, there are other clauses in there that are commonly violated by the state government. Eg. You need no permit to peaceably assemble.

-scheherazade

He's a prisoner. He has no right to assemble, limited rights to free speech and religion, no right to bear arms, etc. Why? Because HE IS A PRISONER. The legal view is that he willingly accepted as a consequence of his actions that certain rights will be suspended and/ or revoked. It's also what happens if you denounce your citizenship.

The constitution provides clarification of the rights we are all naturally granted, but does not protect you from yourself. If you CHOOSE to give up your rights (such as you do by committing a crime that you know entails imprisonment) YOU gave up certain rights.

The restriction is on using the internet and or a computer. If somebody wants to send him the transcripts or screenshots of his Facebook page through the allowable mail system they should be able to. The article hints that the real problem in prison is the use of Facebook on smuggled cell phones. He's suing not because he had to give up his most of his rights but because one of the few he does have is being impinged.

What part of he's in prison did you miss? Aside from freedom of speech and religion these guys are there for a reason. Prisoners shouldn't be using cell phones and getting to go on facebook in the first place.

Agent.X7 wrote on Oct 15, 2012, 21:42:

Scheherazade wrote on Oct 15, 2012, 20:35:
You may want to read the article...

He was not suing for the right to sit at a computer and facebook all day.

He just didn't want his incoming personal paper mail turned back (censored) - simply on the grounds that it contained a print out from a social media page.

The issue is whether or not the prison system can deny him the ability to communicate - which is a 1st amendment issue.

The state government already makes too many exceptions on what you can or can't say - given that the constitution allows you to say everything and anything - and no law can legitimately trump the "highest" law of the nation.

In case you're wondering, here's the actual law :
"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"
It lists no exceptions.

If you take notice, there are other clauses in there that are commonly violated by the state government. Eg. You need no permit to peaceably assemble.

-scheherazade

He's a prisoner. He has no right to assemble, limited rights to free speech and religion, no right to bear arms, etc. Why? Because HE IS A PRISONER. The legal view is that he willingly accepted as a consequence of his actions that certain rights will be suspended and/ or revoked. It's also what happens if you denounce your citizenship.

The constitution provides clarification of the rights we are all naturally granted, but does not protect you from yourself. If you CHOOSE to give up your rights (such as you do by committing a crime that you know entails imprisonment) YOU gave up certain rights.

Bhruic wrote on Oct 15, 2012, 21:03:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 15, 2012, 11:24:
Do you know if releasing the rats behind a closed door in doctor blahblah's lab at the beginning count as a kill?

Rats never count as kills, so you can take out as many as you want without ever getting a "kill".

Verno wrote on Oct 15, 2012, 10:38:
Glad to see Dishonored up there, game is awesome and totally underrated. Beat it on the weekend, 27 hours for my first run which was mostly non-lethal, unfortunately I don't save scumm and I had a few accidents - unconscious guard falls into water and drowns, etc.

Quboid wrote on Oct 14, 2012, 22:36:
Bluesnews has now had over two thirds of a billion visitors! Congratulations on another not-actually-important-but-kinda-cool milestone!

Creston wrote on Oct 14, 2012, 10:30:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 13, 2012, 23:06:
It's shaky but I believe the "emergent" aspect is how you deal with these events that happen. The narrative in FTL is emergent. "Aliens boarded my ship, there was a fire, I lost most of my crew, but I picked up more from a slaver later." Random != Scripted

No, but random isn't emergent either, because all these things are planned to happen. Aliens will often board you because they're designed to do so, fires happen because getting hit sets stuff on fire, being able to pick up more crew from a slaver is programmed to happen in that encounter. (or at least it's one of the options.)

Maybe my definition of emergent is too rigid, but the things you described are natural outcomes of events that were programmed. I see emergent as something that happens that the devs never planned for, but which changes something in the game in a way that actually has an effect.

So, to give a weird FTL example, you get boarded by aliens and you lock one in a room somewhere. Then because you don't have enough crew left to kill it, you decide to leave it there. If you were then able to continue on (I don't know if the game allows that, but let's assume it does), and get boarded again, you find that the other aliens won't try to enter that room because one of their own is already in there. So you have effectively created a wall they can't pass.

Maybe not the best example in the world... ehm... let's go with Notch's example of a damaged landing gear. If it damages when you land, that's because there's a chance of it damaging when you land. That's just written into the game. But what if you land and go outside your ship, set off an explosion somewhere that dislodges a bunch of boulders, which roll down and slam into your ship, thus breaking its landing gear?

To me that's more emergent gameplay.

Creston

yuastnav wrote on Oct 14, 2012, 05:37:
I bought it and never finished it, mostly because I agree with the RockPaperShotgun review on this one in the sense that the puzzles don't make any sense. Instead of having fun I was frustrated most of the time and eventually just used a walkthrough because many of the puzzles were just stupid and weird. :/

The main character is really annoying and that not in a charming way.

Creston wrote on Oct 13, 2012, 22:58:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 13, 2012, 21:38:
The point of mentioning FTL and the landing gear is that he wants to emphasize it not being a game about flying a ship through space, but a game about working on and managing a ship flying through space.

Okay, and that's fine. And if you do an First Person game about flying a ship through space, that might be seriously frakking awesome.

It has nothing to do with emergent gameplay, though.

Creston

Yosemite Sam wrote on Oct 13, 2012, 18:37:
Its not as good as Raiders or Crusade, but better then Doom.

Killer Kane wrote on Oct 13, 2012, 20:33:
I thought "3" was WAYYY worse than 4, unwatchable!

Creston wrote on Oct 13, 2012, 19:01:
The trailer is stupid, tbh, as I see nothing there to even get remotely excited about. Why are his laser bolts flying towards that planet? Does his space ship have no windows? (to be fair, I watched it with the sound off, so maybe he explains that.)

The more interesting thing would be if he made an emergent gameplay rogue/fps variant. However, he mentions FTL which, quite frankly, has zero emergent gameplay. Every single thing that happens to you in FTL is scripted. It happens randomly, but all those encounters are scripted. FTL doesn't throw something at you that the devs didn't prepare.

So him saying "Oh, and the landing gear breaks, and you have to spend resources to fix it" isn't emergent, because he'd script for the landing gear to break.