Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for NKD

Real Name NKD   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname NKD
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Aug 3, 2007, 17:05
Total Comments 3572 (Veteran)
User ID 43041
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Older >


News Comments > etc.
5. Re: etc. Oct 30, 2014, 11:48 NKD
 
ASeven wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 11:36:
Fun fact: Anita supported #CancelColbert. The creator of #CancelColbert is not pleased.

Anita plays the game way better than Suey Park does. First, Anita isn't a racist piece of shit, which helps her a lot in the publicity department.
 
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
2. Re: etc. Oct 30, 2014, 11:28 NKD
 
Anita Sarkeesian explains Gamergate?

Maybe they can invite Westboro Baptist Church on to explain marriage equality. Or maybe they can invite on Ken Ham to explain evolution.
 
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Assassin's Creed Unity GeForce Video
1. Re: Assassin's Creed Unity GeForce Video Oct 29, 2014, 23:09 NKD
 
Ubisoft is always good about adding PC specific graphical features, but the performance always leaves something to be desired. I'm curious how that'll play out.  
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
1. Re: etc. Oct 29, 2014, 11:52 NKD
 
While I agree with her sentiments, for the most part, I find Christina Sommers presence in the Gamergate debate to be a little self-serving and disingenuous. She has been a vocal opponent of third wave feminists for a long time and is co-opting Gamergate for her own purposes. She's only here because the feminists are here. I'm not necessarily knocking Ms. Sommers views on third wave feminism. I find that it's fundamentally flawed and frankly a little misguided in a world that's moving towards a more fluid view of gender that isn't just Men vs. Women. But Gamergate is the wrong platform for that.  
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Metaverse
4. Re: Morning Metaverse Oct 29, 2014, 11:44 NKD
 
That Verizon thing is so hilariously dystopian.

Start a news site, but then stipulate that you cannot write anything AT ALL about a subject that your company is wrong on. It's genius because they are going to spin it like "Well, we have an inherent interest in those stories, so we ban them to avoid conflict of interest." Except that their interest in those stories is making them disappear or downplaying their importance, so avoiding them entirely is in fact perpetuating that conflict of interest.

 
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > WildStar Realm Transfers
2. Re: WildStar Realm Transfers Oct 29, 2014, 11:30 NKD
 
Darks wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 11:09:
First sign that a game is losing is subscription base when they starting moving account around and consolidating servers.

Well, technically the first sign is when the servers start to become ghost towns. That happened fairly early on. They took too long getting a solution in place. That made it worse, and more importantly, they failed to take the steps necessary to slow the attrition.

Some people were never going to stick around, because of the hardcore focus, but others were ready to play and enjoy the endgame content but could not get there because of timesinks, gating, and underpopulated servers. When people were psyched about Wildstar bringing back 40-man, difficult raids, they weren't psyched about a long grindy attunement process. That crap was dropped in at the very end of beta and got no feedback or testing. If they had been up front about it, people could have told them it was a horrible idea that nobody wanted.

You can't have the crown jewel of your content hidden behind the most tedious and difficult gating process since what EverQuest did in the Luclin expansion. Wildstar's 40-man raid is probably the least-played MMO content in history. Nearly 5 months in and there are only like a half dozen guilds even doing it. How can you justify creating content only a few hundred people are going to experience?
 
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc., etc.
36. Re: etc., etc. Oct 29, 2014, 10:54 NKD
 
TheVocalMinority wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 08:40:

Using that facility to ban people you simply disagree with rather than just trolls and griefers creates a nice echo chamber which doesn't challenge and hence improve your ideas. This is not a good thing.

Normally, I'd agree with you, but when someone ignores points/flees threads when you poke a hole in their reasoning, or simply refuses to see reason altogether, it's a waste of time to respond to them. I gave those individuals ample amounts of my time and didn't even get so much as a reasonable discussion.

So blocking them ensures I don't get goaded into wasting any more time, and I can reply to people who disagree but show interest in honest dialogue. I don't tend to post a lot of one-liners IMHO. If I'm going to spend my time writing a lengthy post I want it to at least lead to an interesting discussion, not round and round in circles with someone.
 
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc., etc.
26. Re: etc., etc. Oct 29, 2014, 03:48 NKD
 
beremot wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 03:22:
Now for ME to be right, and YOU to be wrong, members of GG would actually have to be responsible for many of the threats and attacks carried out against its critics or perceived enemies. These threats and attacks would then lead to a number of articles in the gaming press that are CRITICAL of GG for very OBVIOUS reasons--i.e. when when you issue threats of rape, murder, and mass murder to try to silence those who criticize you, you get .... BAD PRESS.

Firstly, I don't think there's some grand conspiracy. It's simply one-sided reporting. Nothing more to it than that. The motivations for that one-sided reporting are too numerous to list, probably as varied as the people doing the reporting. It's just simple bias.

Tell me, how does Gamergate benefit from threats and harassment? Has it actually silenced any of their opponents, or has it actually raised their opponents profiles and sabotaged the ability of Gamergate to talk about anything else? Anti-GG, feminists, and other people have benefitted HUGELY from these threats. They've gotten all kinds of interviews and press coverage they couldn't have dreamed of before. Why would anyone who actually believes in Gamergate want to give their opponents a bigger soapbox? Why are all the discussions on sites like the KotakuInAction subreddit very reasonable and level-headed? Conversely, who benefits from the doxxing and threats against Gamergate supporters? The Gamergate supporters do, though to a lesser degree since they get less press coverage.

I'm not saying it's all some big false flag conspiracy. The motivations behind the harassment are probably mixed. I'm sure there are some misguided people on both sides who have let their anger get the best of them and lash out. I'm sure there are some people attacking their own side for sympathy and to raise their own profile. I'm sure there are some people who aren't invested in either side and simply fire off threats to cause chaos and havoc for laughs.

The bottom line is we just don't know. Pretending to know where anonymous harassment comes from is folly.

So I ask you, what's served by comparing the length of harassment penises? In any debate there are going to be outliers. Assholes who want to behave like shitbirds on the Internet. Can we just never have a debate again? Is every controversial discussion going to devolve into a discussion about people being mean on the Internet? Should we decide on gun control issues based on who gets the most threats? Should we decide on abortion issues based on who gets the most threats?

When you stop debating the issue, and start a huge meta-debate about how each side has conducted itself, you've already lost the plot.
 
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc., etc.
23. Re: etc., etc. Oct 29, 2014, 02:27 NKD
 
Prez wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 02:05:

This whole line of thinking is so wrong-headed I honestly don't even know where to start. So before Gamergate became a thing Twitter was never used for harassment? Do you guys even think about this stuff before you type it?

Join me!
 
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc., etc.
22. Re: etc., etc. Oct 29, 2014, 02:19 NKD
 
beremot wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 01:37:
First, as you probably know if you've read any of my other posts, I don't believe it is a coincidence that female critics of gamergate who speak out are then targeted for various forms of harassment, up to and including threats of mass murder. No, I don't think these are "lone wolves," or "false flag" operations. There is just too much of a pattern going on here.

Having said that ... I think the problem you've described in your post, is, whether or not you believe GG is responsible, inherent in its very existence, since literally anyone can get on twitter and "become" a member of GG, as far as I know. Which means all "members" of gamergate can deny responsibility for the actions of any other "member," since all they have to do is say this other, usually anonymous person, isn't "really" a "member" or "associate" or whatever. It is a recipe for chaos. Of course members of GG can and do act collectively when they want to, but the built-in ability to deny that anyone who acts badly is actually a member, remains.

As for Anita Sarkeesian ... do you really believe she has anywhere near the number of "followers" that GG has? Or that they often act collectively, the way GG can and does?

I know that GG receives its own share of threats, etc, but I doubt they are anywhere near the number Sarkeesian or any of the other prominent feminists receive. I also find it very hard to believe, as some allege, that committed feminists are delivering rape threats to GG's female members. That would be like vegetarians committing cannibalism or Christians calling on the power of Satan. Feminists really really really don't believe rape is ever a good thing, even as a threat to direct against those they strongly disagree with.

Your post is interesting because it's really a precise example of what I'm talking about. People can just associate threats with one group or another, and the only thing that lends one association more credibility than another is your personal belief. You play up the threats against "your" side, saying you don't believe it's a coincidence, and that there must be some coordinated effort involved. Then you downplay threats to the other side, saying the threats are somehow less in number or less in severity, and declaring that "your" side would be less inclined to do such a thing.

You don't actually have any numbers or evidence lending any more credence to one association over the other, yet you believe one side to be guilty as sin, and the other side to be mostly innocent. Why is that? It's because that's what the gaming press says is true.

If you just read articles about Gamergate on mainstream gaming news sites, you will be unable to see the big picture. You have to go to Twitter, or reddit, or actually put in some effort to see all the harassment, doxxing, and other shenanigans Gamergate folks have been put through. Why? Because the gaming press only reports one side. As far as I can recall, the gaming press has not posted a single article about a prominent Gamergate supporter being harassed, doxxed, or otherwise fucked with.

Where was the article about that guy getting a knife mailed to him with a letter saying "Kill yourself."? Where was the article about that guy getting the cops and fire department sent to his house and his fiance getting doxxed? I only found out about it because of a link in a relatively small sub on reddit. How is that fair? Why are these threats somehow less important than the other ones?
 
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc., etc.
16. Re: etc., etc. Oct 29, 2014, 01:10 NKD
 
You know, that raises a question that bothers me these days. Not just regarding Gamergate, but in general whenever anyone is trying to attack a group or cause.

Take the quote "individuals associated with Gamergate"

What does "associated" mean in the context of anonymous individuals and leaderless, loose assemblies of people with no membership roster? Are they associated simply because people have deemed them to be associated? Are they associated because they dropped a name or used a Twitter hashtag? Is "associated" just a word that lets you connect one person's actions with other people without having to show any contact between the two? Isn't it dishonest? Couldn't you associate anyone with basically anything just by saying so?

Doesn't that behavior open the door to a lot of manipulation and chaos-sowing by people just looking to stir shit up? One of the pro-Gamergate guys got doxxed and people called in a false police report and got cops and fire department to show up to his house. His fiance is apparently up next to get doxxed. Would it be fair for me to start associating those actions with prominent Internet feminists? Harassed by individuals associated with Anita Sarkeesian? I have no proof other than the fact that the victim isn't well-liked by Ms. Sarkeesian.

If someone Gamergate doesn't like is harassed, it's someone associated with Gamergate.

If someone Anita Sarkeesian doesn't like is harassed, it's someone associated with Anita Sarkeesian.

It doesn't seem useful to me to use terminology like "associated with" when some anonymous prick on the Internet harassing someone can claim association with basically any individual or group. Isn't it best for all sides of any debate to decide not to associate anonymous shit-stirrers with other people when there is no compelling proof?
 
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Next-Gen Grand Theft Auto V Bonuses for Returning Players
20. Re: Next-Gen Grand Theft Auto V Bonuses for Returning Players Oct 28, 2014, 23:56 NKD
 
Krovven wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 16:35:
I don't think I'll ever play it on PS3 again...but despite my disdain for Rockstar, I am tempted to get GTAV on PC and will likely crumble when the release date rolls around.

Just get that shit through alternate means. Don't fall for Rockstar's double and triple dipping nonsense.
 
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc., etc.
3. Re: etc., etc. Oct 28, 2014, 21:16 NKD
 
Henry Dorsett wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 20:00:
Gamer: "a cis white male who hates women, minorities, or anyone different from himself; especially : a basement-dweller who regularly plays with himself" (Sarkeesian-Gawker Dictionary)

Fixed that for you with the dictionary definition that the gaming press uses.
 
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Next-Gen Grand Theft Auto V Bonuses for Returning Players
6. Re: Next-Gen Grand Theft Auto V Bonuses for Returning Players Oct 28, 2014, 13:25 NKD
 
Verno wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 12:32:
I haven't been following the re-release stuff very closely, is there any word on Heists yet?

Yeah they are doing a cross-promotion, they come on-disc with Half Life 3 or Dr. Dre's new studio album.
 
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Into the Black
8. Re: Into the Black Oct 28, 2014, 00:17 NKD
 
They need to get Keanu for Strange.  
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > X-Wing & TIE Fighter on GOG.com?
22. Re: Into the Black Oct 27, 2014, 23:06 NKD
 
Shut up and take my money.  
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
12. Re: etc. Oct 27, 2014, 22:55 NKD
 
UHD wrote on Oct 27, 2014, 19:46:
So what was so different this time that the past thirty years of game journalism paled in comparison? Why now?

Why does anything happen when it does? Eventually there's a combination of events that knocks people out of their complacency.

1) Wider knowledge of GameJournoPros mailing list where evidently some shady, and potentially illegal stuff has been going on.

2) Minor conflict-of-interest situation (the Zoe Quinn crap) popped up to kind of light a spark under what was going on.

3) Game news sites coordinated to post several stories attacking gamer culture on the same day, effectively biting the hand that feeds them.

4) Subsequent coverage of the situation by games news sites were one-sided, covered in inaccuracy and smearing. This is on-going and games journalists are digging the hole deeper and deeper.

For me, its been a long time coming. Gaming is a big industry now, and deserves a decent set of journalists covering it. Not a bunch of idiots who want the respect of a serious journalist, but the responsibility of a blogger.
 
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Crowdfunding Roundup
11. Re: Morning Crowdfunding Roundup Oct 27, 2014, 14:03 NKD
 
WaltC wrote on Oct 27, 2014, 13:29:
Kickstarter should realize it is in their best interests all around to require *bonds* of some kind, equivalent to the amount of money to be released into the projects *before* they issue the money. The bond should hold until the project successfully completes, and in the event that it does not, Kickstarter would be able to refund the money. In this way they could indemnify all projects against fraud. If the individuals related to a project cannot obtain such a bond then they cannot apply for a Kickstarter project, etc. Seems like common sense.

Kickstarter might even help such people obtain an adequate bond, etc., if they are sufficiently qualified. It would do nothing except dramatically help the entire situation if Kickstarter invests in fraud indemnification. Just telling people, "You could lose your money" will progressively get old as it simply isn't fair for Kickstarter to keep its money while project backers are getting scammed.

No bond, no Kickstarter, should be the company's motto.

You talk about "fraud" and "scamming" but that's actually fairly uncommon. The real risk in Kickstarter is that people will put a good faith effort into shipping a product, and still fail. The whole point of Kickstarter is to help risky projects which have struggled to find traditional funding. Everyone who backs a Kickstarter should know that it's not guaranteed. If they don't, then Kickstarter is not for them. Introducing a bunch of additional barriers to entry like this 'bond' business (legally problematic to the point where Kickstarter couldn't function, by the way.) would be the final nail in the coffin for Kickstarter and people would simply flock to a platform that didn't have such silly requirements.

I really don't know why some people seem to have a problem with a platform that lets the consumer decide what projects are worthwhile and which are not. As long as people know what they are getting into, there is no problem.
 
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
43. Re: etc. Oct 27, 2014, 12:16 NKD
 
Why am I not surprised that Beamer completely ignored my post pointing out that he was misrepresenting that subreddit?

Ah well, I give up. Kid's going on the block list. Even Cutter isn't on there.

This comment was edited on Oct 27, 2014, 12:23.
 
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc.
36. Re: etc. Oct 27, 2014, 06:20 NKD
 
sdgundamx wrote on Oct 27, 2014, 05:58:
Trying to kill advertising for websites that write things you don't like or trying to get writers fired for having opinions (or making jokes) you don't like doesn't strike me as particularly ethical behavior.

It's the only way sites will listen and implement standards and transparency. You have to hit them where it hurts. Since they do not sell subscriptions, and do not sell products, you cannot simply organize a boycott. You have to convince the advertisers that doing business with them isn't worth the hassle.

Gawker has itself in the past wrote about, supported, and encouraged campaigns to advertisers of people they disagree with philosophically and politically. I don't see how they can possibly complain when it's a tactic they themselves have used. Feminists and other social activists have ROUTINELY used this strategy to take down people who disagree with them. Gawker is the prototypical bully. It lashes out at people it disagrees with, using its influence to make their lives difficult. But when someone uses the same tactics against them, they burst into tears and play the victim. It's so textbook it's almost sad.

Write-in campaigns to advertisers is a tried and true media protest strategy that has been used for decades, particularly by progressive or liberal causes. To see people who have used that same strategy turn around it and condemn it as unethical is really bizarre.
 
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3572 Comments. 179 pages. Viewing page 7.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo