Mr. Tact wrote on Feb 19, 2018, 09:30:

Beamer wrote on Feb 19, 2018, 06:46:
This thread is great:

1) DangerDog says "Trump never claimed it was the largest inauguration. The media made the battle!"

2) It's proven Trump made the size comment

3) DangerDog says "Well, it's about when the photo was taken, so Trump was right!"


It shows That DangerDog doesn't bother looking into anything before getting all angry at someone else over it, meaning he blames the media instead of Trump, and it means he'll do anything to defend Trump.

Basically, why are we talking to him when it's been proven here he's ignorant, unwilling to use Google before committing to an opinion, and unwilling to change his poorly informed opinion after someone shows him actual video disputing his memory? This isn't even about opinions, which people here argue often. He's arguing fact in the face of video evidence. If someone can't even agree on widely-proven fact, why engage?

Sadly, DangerDog is not unique. In fact, he represents significant portion of the population. It is the very definition of how/why Trump was elected.

Yes, that's why I'm curious. I'm not going to change his mind or even get honest answers, but how he avoids reality is interesting. His political beliefs are a house of cards, he daren't risk disturbing a single one in case the whole lot falls down.

That's why this is so weird - this was no "gotcha", Trump brought this entirely on himself. It was completely pointless of Trump to make that claim. He drew attention to the attendance (Spicer pretended it was about people watching after the fact) and then rather than point to the mitigating reasons, he made an incorrect statement about the attendance that make those reasons irrelevant. DC didn't like him? His statement was still obviously wrong. The weather was bad? His statement was still obviously wrong.

And yet, you fell for it. That was also completely pointless. You parroted an obviously incorrect statement and in your paranoia, you blamed the people who pointed out that the President made an obviously incorrect statement - as if that's not something the media should pick up on. I can't imagine you deliberately tried to mislead anyone else because it was so weak but then what was the point? As I said before, it looks like deep down, you know you've fallen for the most obvious con in history and rather than accept that and learn from it, you cling on to anything to maintain the illusion.

Claiming to not care about the media after inadvertently admitting you were wrong fits that too.

DangerDog wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 20:33:

Quboid wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 17:45:
I don't care about the numbers, or the inauguration at all. I'm intrigued by what leads someone to believe a politician - any politician - over clear, objective reality.

That makes two of us, as for the media lol I don't give two shits about what the "media" has to say regarding Trump, or really anything.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have complained about it in the first place. So you agree that it wasn't well attended? That looks like an excuse for poor attendance, so do you agree that Trump was incorrect in claiming more people attended his inauguration than Obama's?

DangerDog wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 17:33:

Quboid wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 16:36:
https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp-content/uploads/sites/47/2017/03/Untitled-1.jpg

Which one are you adamant has more people?

Considering that only 4% of DC supported Trump it's amazing anyone showed up.

You seem to be really hung up on numbers so why don't you count them and let me know what you come up with.

So you agree that it wasn't well attended? That looks like an excuse for poor attendance, so do you agree that the media was right to call out Trump's false claim?

I don't care about the numbers, or the inauguration at all. I'm intrigued by what leads someone to believe a politician - any politician - over clear, objective reality.

DangerDog wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 16:31:

Quboid wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 16:05:

DangerDog wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 15:59:

HorrorScope wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 15:46:

DangerDog wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 15:30:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pressure-on-fbi-mounts-after-failure-to-pursue-tip-on-florida-suspect/

FBI's new slogan. If you see something, say something so we can do nothing.

The other slogan could have been... "See something, say something and we'll detain people without cause or due process, trust us."

The family he was living with say they had no idea he was so unstable, maybe things could have turned out differently if they were at least made aware of the situation.

Do you think Trump was correct when he claimed to have more people at his inauguration than Obama?

If you count the Russian troll bots, then yes he had way more watching the inauguration.

Beep Boop!

Are they invisible?

https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp-content/uploads/sites/47/2017/03/Untitled-1.jpg

Which one are you adamant has more people?

DangerDog wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 15:59:

HorrorScope wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 15:46:

DangerDog wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 15:30:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pressure-on-fbi-mounts-after-failure-to-pursue-tip-on-florida-suspect/

FBI's new slogan. If you see something, say something so we can do nothing.

The other slogan could have been... "See something, say something and we'll detain people without cause or due process, trust us."

The family he was living with say they had no idea he was so unstable, maybe things could have turned out differently if they were at least made aware of the situation.

Do you think Trump was correct when he claimed to have more people at his inauguration than Obama?

El Pit wrote on Feb 17, 2018, 02:01:

jdreyer wrote on Feb 16, 2018, 23:16:
When I saw the headline, I thought "Strike" was the name of their new game.

Yes, I thought "What? Eugen Systems working on a baseball game? Oh, those Frenchies!"

I thought it was a new Sudden Strike game. That's not so much of a stretch.

Oh look, the literal Nazi sympathiser who links to extremist content is complaining about people being concerned about extremists again.

It's basically the ESRB's job to ignore problems until the government threatens to do something isn't it? Then they step in and implement the softest regulations they can that will get the government to back off. That's probably what will happen to lootboxes if the US leads the way - the ESRB will reconsider their position and implement something weak like more warning labels and hope the controversy goes away.

eRe4s3r wrote on Feb 14, 2018, 22:58:

Cutter wrote on Feb 14, 2018, 20:30:
The only difference here is these guys got caught. Devs/pubs giving away copies for positive reviews is zero different.

It's plenty different, employees are banned by TOS from reviewing (including freelancers), non employers are not. Any Indy dev working on Steam knows this, because they read the TOS before signing on.

I know I did And you'd be surprised how much more relevant review score is nowadays, Steams entire algo uses review score primarily. So a good youtube channel promoing your game might not actually do anything for you if that doesn't translate to (positive) reviews. It has become super important to pick the right youtubers and streamers to give games too.

Also, any "product given for free" review gets flagged and easily visible.

Employees can still make topics in forums or boards or whatever. But reality is that this was a shitty low quality MMO

It's all about the score, and products given for free don't count towards that. Only products purchased on Steam count, to reduce abuse. I thought he'd specifically tell employees to buy it on Steam; he didn't go that far but he offered to reimburse employees so at least he wanted to avoid the "free" label.

Quinn wrote on Feb 14, 2018, 18:40:

Quboid wrote on Feb 14, 2018, 18:14:

shiho wrote on Feb 14, 2018, 16:39:

Retired wrote on Feb 14, 2018, 13:53:
Been watching some Twitch vids - anyone know if this is Skyrim level epic amount of game? Not to happy about he 59.99 price tag - will be looking for a sale or a key store.

You are why we can't have nice things.

I also like value for money, sorry.

The problem with the stereotypical consumers in the gaming market, is that hype is what they consider value. With enough money behind their PR campaign, this game would've convinced you it'd be even better than The Witcher 3, having you biased during release and much more forgiving of any bug or performance issue.

If it made any real sense, I would dare you to play the first hour of this game and tell me to my face that this game isn't worth a few pathetic hours of a day's work.

I'd take you up on that. It could be something I would really enjoy, and be prepared to spend £40 on, but I'm not sure and the reaction has been mixed (but quite good for a niche game, to be fair). I'm with Kxmode, I'd buy it on Steam if it wasn't so buggy. I want to spend 2 hours figuring out if I like the game, not fighting bugs and re-playing parts because something went wrong and the save system is apparently bad (which IMHO is a major pest).

I'm going by the reaction, BTW. I've largely removed myself from hype; I don't look at previews or pre-release footage and frequently only hear about games (including this one) at around their release. I recommend this, there's little worth knowing about a game until it's independently played. Just bullshit and inflated expectations.

shiho wrote on Feb 14, 2018, 16:39:

Retired wrote on Feb 14, 2018, 13:53:
Been watching some Twitch vids - anyone know if this is Skyrim level epic amount of game? Not to happy about he 59.99 price tag - will be looking for a sale or a key store.

You are why we can't have nice things.

I also like value for money, sorry.

I like Paradox. Their DLC tends to be expensive but I'd rather pay more for good games with good business models.

Haemimont Games aren't great. Their past titles have always felt a bit empty, short on content and imagination. Tropico 4 is probably their best, and that was just Tropico 3 fleshed out.

Tipsy McStagger wrote on Feb 13, 2018, 10:59:
The reviews are all middle based, I'll link some hilarious tidbits:

I can fly
Morrowwind Stealth lol
Spinny Stab moves
HUNTING REIMAGINED LIKE YOU'VE NEVER SEEN IT
Moonwalk

All that aside, a bunch of people are saying it's better than skyrims release for bugs.

Oh dear. One to consider when it's out of figurative Early Access by the looks of it. I like the sound of what they're going for but it's pretty niche and £40 is a lot for something I might not like, never mind something that doesn't even work.

That's not moon walking - or is that the bug, that they're supposed to be?

Tipsy McStagger wrote on Feb 6, 2018, 14:05:

Pigeon wrote on Feb 6, 2018, 13:30:

Hughes estimated he will need to raise about $2m to bankroll his adventure.

Oh okay he just wants idiots to fund his ridiculous hobby. I get it now.

Exactly.

An article from a previous OotB was quite telling:
The project received the backing of the flat-earth community in America after Hughes became a flat-Earth supporter. "We were kind of looking for new sponsors for this. And I'm a believer in the flat Earth," Hughes told the host of a flat-earth web show, the Post reported. "I researched it for several months."

"after"

Beamer wrote on Feb 4, 2018, 15:36:

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Feb 4, 2018, 12:44:

Beamer wrote on Feb 4, 2018, 10:44:
She was 15. She did not consent because she was too young. If you disagree, where do you personally draw the line?

She did consent, it's just that the law doesn't recognise that consent because of her age. Really the determination should be made on an individual basis, rather than applying blanket age restrictions. A girl who goes out of her way to conceal her age and prostitute herself should be deemed to have granted consent. We're not talking about someone pressured into prostitution here - it's a website that she registered for and she went into it knowing the consequences of her actions.

Let's be realistic here. Fourteen and fifteen years olds commonly engage in sex and in many cultures the age of consent is much lower. I don't have an issue with consensual sex where both parties are considered to be able to offer consent. The issue I have is psychological manipulation and coersion, which should not be tolerated. I find the idea repugnant of ruining this man's livelihood and reputation because he engaged in consensual sex with a girl who sought out sex and went to lengths to conceal her age.

So do you think a 10 year old can ever consent to sex with a 38 year old? Hypothetically do you think a case exists where it's possible?

If there is a genuine reason why the adult would have reason to believe the child was of age, I don't think the adult is at fault. The child doesn't legally give consent, but the adult isn't to blame either.

What constitutes 'reason to believe' ultimately comes down to a case-by-case basis. It's tough to imagine a 10 year old could genuinely be mistaken for an adult but a 15 year old on a prostitution site is very possible. I could go to PornHub and see loads of supposedly 18 year old women, are they 18? I'd assume they are at least 18 - probably older - but I only have their appearance and the adult-only context to base that on.

There's precedent for this. Two soccer players got caught with an under-age prostitute and successfully argued that they couldn't have known. This one is pretty clear-cut (she was over the age of consent but under France's minimum age for prostitution, she agreed that she misled them), so this doesn't necessary apply to Jess Cliffe's case. Still, my initial, woefully under-informed impression is that he's not at fault regarding her age.

Beamer wrote on Jan 23, 2018, 13:15:

Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 23, 2018, 13:09:
Blue, it is a good thing you love that woman -- otherwise you'd probably have to kill her.

Better to decide now than immediately after moving.

This obviously isn't ideal, but it can be nice to have a good clean-out. Fix up things that have been slowly getting worse, throw out stuff that will never actually be used again. Kinda liberating.

Listen Betty, don't start up with your blue zone shit again.

Beamer wrote on Jan 16, 2018, 16:38:
Or, as I call it, capitalism for the rich, communism for the poor.

I'm stealing this.

NKD wrote on Jan 14, 2018, 18:52:
Or maybe everyone would have started hurling nukes and we'd all be fucked!

That's the scary thing. What if when North Korea heard about the alert, they decided was the US engineering an excuse to attack them, so they decide to strike while they can. Goodbye Seoul.