Toxic Actiblizz scandal and lawsuit

Precisely my point. I am still willing to give these monsters money for a game I want to play but could never imagine giving another cent to GGG and am even calling for a boycott of them. Which part of my admitting my insane hypocrisy did you not get when you quoted me so pointlessly out of context?

My statement was simple in its self castigation. Sorry you missed that and somehow only read what you wanted to read. Hardly a rare occurrence on here, I guess.

.

"

awesome999 wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Do I think it's very likely the ActiBlizz is guilty? Yes. Simply being accused means you're more likely guilty than not. 94% of criminal cases that go to trial result in conviction on at least one charge. But to me that doesn't mean that you skip the trial and go straight to presumption of guilt.

That is an opt out. It is only fun to make prediction before the game start not after the game ends. You will get negative brownie points for not making a prediction.

I don't think guessing something that goes one way 94% of the time will go that way is worth any brownie points at all. There is absolutely nothing noble or daring about predicting that the accused is guilty. I think it the scoring should be:
Say the accused is innocent and they're found not guilty
= positive points.
Say the accused is innocent and they're found guilty
= negative points.
Say anything else
= zero points, the equivalent of passing/staying in a card game.
The idea is that this ActiBlizz thing would be just one "hand" and the next party accused would be a new round.

And on this hand, I'm knocking my knuckles on the table. Check.

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

Precisely my point. I am still willing to give these monsters money for a game I want to play but could never imagine giving another cent to GGG and am even calling for a boycott of them. Which part of my admitting my insane hypocrisy did you not get when you quoted me so pointlessly out of context?

This strikes me as a tad harsh. As in, the problem isn't that I don't understand you, but that I think you're being immoral on this point.

I'm also inclined not to give GGG money ever again, but I could imagine myself doing so. As a matter of fact, I did very recently. Somehow I missed the Path of Exile 2 gameplay trailer when it dropped and noticed it this past week. I thought to myself that this is the opportunity to redo ranged so it's not just going to be superior to a true melee play style, by doing things like avoiding multiple projectiles and chaining, and by not balancing "melee" weapons by giving them ranged skills — because the end result of a balanced game where ranged has no clearspeed disadvantage vs melee is to give "melee" no clear ranged disadvantage.

The trailer disappointed heavily, and I have zero hype for PoE2. BUT there was a moment there where I had just the smidgen of hope. It's what made me actually watch the trailer almost all the way through, until they were showcasing the multiprojectile ranged spear attacks (yuck). It was basically a case of "let's give them ten minutes and see if things are better wait nevermind still the same old shit."

The point I'm trying to get at is that it's a big thing to say a person or group is beyond redemption, and I certainly don't consider GGG to be in that category. And I feel I'm quite hard on them, so it's a little staggering to hear someone is MORE critical. I often feel I go right up to the ethical line myself, and dare not go further lest I succumb to whatever the real life equivalent is of the Dark Side.

Plus when we get down to it, you're not being hypocritical. You're not caring as much about who's making your product, and instead interested in buying products you judge to be of high quality. That might represent a kind of character progression (or, to some, regression) on your part, but changing as a person doesn't, by any reasonable standard, make one a hypocrite.

"

There is absolutely nothing noble or daring about predicting that the accused is guilty.

Neither is sitting on the fence. You get free brownie points in the court of public opinion in making the "right" choice. You get double the brownie points for winning the prediction. You are an amateur that doesn't know how to play this game at all.

Who is giving out the brownie point?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The point I'm trying to get at is that it's a big thing to say a person or group is beyond redemption, and I certainly don't consider GGG to be in that category. And I feel I'm quite hard on them, so it's a little staggering to hear someone is MORE critical. I often feel I go right up to the ethical line myself, and dare not go further lest I succumb to whatever the real life equivalent is of the Dark Side.

Despite reading this I don't really feel the urge to change. SO I would like to say I am beyond redemption at this point.

Well since CD Projekt Red has tarnished its own glowing reputation, I suppose id Software is the last AAA gaming company left to lose its sheen now.

Understandable that they've stood the test of time though, given they were once the fiefdom of superintelligent alien AI overlord John Carmack, before he sold his soul out to the Demon of Faces. His spirit lingers on tho, in id Tech! \o/

"

Exile009 wrote:

I suppose id Software is the last AAA gaming company left to lose its sheen now.

I Googled "I'd software" and clicked on the news tab. Nothing scandalous. So maybe a link?

Also: it's not about the dark side being as bad as I imagine. It's about it being as bad as I remember.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Exile009 wrote:

I suppose id Software is the last AAA gaming company left to lose its sheen now.

I Googled "I'd software" and clicked on the news tab. Nothing scandalous. So maybe a link?

Also: it's not about the dark side being as bad as I imagine. It's about it being as bad as I remember.

Uhhh...id Software. Of DOOM fame. How do you not know them? They're classic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Software

And in case you haven't heard, they're still on top of their game -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_Eternal

As for John Carmack, his wiki page doesn't really do him justice. The man is a machine, and that's only slightly a figure of speech. Also an absolute nightmare to work with, albeit not cos he touches anyone. Still a legend tho.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carmack

There's no recent scandal about them as far as I know, although they had some real fun characters back in their old days. Hence why their sheen is intact.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Also: it's not about the dark side being as bad as I imagine. It's about it being as bad as I remember.

The Jedi aren't perfect, Jedi are bad and flawed in their own way.

The best way to do go about this is to say that each side in this conflicts looks at the other and sees a reflection of their own worst features celebrated as a positive feature. :P

"

awesome999 wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Also: it's not about the dark side being as bad as I imagine. It's about it being as bad as I remember.

The Jedi aren't perfect, Jedi are bad and flawed in their own way.

The best way to do go about this is to say that each side in this conflicts looks at the other and sees a reflection of their own worst features celebrated as a positive feature. :P

You seem overly enamored with the idea that villains can be good guys, and vice versa.

Now don't get me wrong — I am, to a moderate extent, a moral relativist. That said, one thing that distinguishes me from others who claim such a label is: I don't believe moral relativism exists in a state of nature, or at least to a much lesser magnitude than what we enjoy in our current times. If you were the only human being on planet Earth, the requirements of your survival and your inability to share with another the work of ensuring those requirements are met, these would force a particular set of ethics upon you such that there would only be one right way to be. While this is an absurd example — humans, like all sexually reproductive species, are never utterly without community — I do think we've made great strides in systems to allow greater specialization of labor, causing AND caused by a growing flexibility of thought in what traits are or are not virtues in people.

In short, I view economic specialization and moral relativism as two sides of the same coin, intrinsically bound to each other. Moral relativism doesn't work without the work of a person's life can having value, despite different means. Economic specialization doesn't work without the tolerance for different virtues than one expresses themselves. They form a positive feedback loop. To this, I like to throw in the fact that we are a sexually reproductive animal, and add family to these two, forming a kind of secular Trinity. You can't have a great society unless it has tolerance for differing values, the ability to pursue any work there is an actual demand for, and, regarding the crude necessity of perpetuating itself, support for males and females raising children together and instilling in them the values of responsibility and tolerance.

That said, I do believe there are some things that are objectively evil. Not anything as trite as believing your way is right and all other ways are wrong — showing a preference for the particular set of traits relevant to success in one's own work, and thus relative disdain for the traits relevant to success in others, is quite natural. There's nothing evil about saying people should be as you say, while respecting the sanctity of the Trinity. But there is evil in saying that they should be as you say, and may the Trinity be damned. Those who would cut out from under themselves the infrastructure that allows freedom of belief to exist on the scale that it does, are not deserving of that freedom, and unknowingly work against their own interests in dismantling it.

I think it's a relatively short leap from the first position to the second. As a wise Russian once said, the line separating good and evil passes through every human heart.