Gee wiz, it's a good thing no one's forcing you to read it. Then again, since you're complaining like a little bitch, there must be something that keeps you reading. I can't imagine what a terrible burden it must be to lack the ability to not click on a thread that you don't like and have no desire to read.
Oh, and to all you people agreeing with him,(except mods) there's literally nothing stopping you from ignoring this thread like any rational human being would do if they lacked interest in something or found discussion on a subject to be a waste of time. Let's not discourage discussion as long as it doesn't hurt anybody, m'kay?

 

And, apparently, there's literally nothing stopping you from being a little dickweed.

The purpose of discussions is to allow people to get out all their thoughts on a subject, to share information with others, and to attempt to change the minds of those who are intellectual enough to change their opinions based on facts and evidence as opposed to hearsay and rumors.

But that doesn't mean that people can't also get tired of the discussion. Seeing it constantly active on the forums, or on the board, can itself be troubling. Like a conversation going on in the background that you can't escape. Ever had that happen?

Additionally, natural curiosity often leads many people to clicking a topic merely because it is active.... only to see it's the same old shit as it was before.

So no, there's nothing stopping us from ignoring it and just letting it go, but there's nothing stopping us from wanting it to die and go away, either. Nor is expressing that opinion an event worthy of disdain.

But go ahead, continue with your 'righteous' (and pointlessly insulting) defense of a degenerated thread. If you want to make an ass of yourself, no-one here is going to stop you.

 

Except you can't really compare the two. In one case, you'll overhear snippets of the conversation and your own might even be interrupted. In the other, you're completely aware and willing to read about and then impose on a discussion that you have no interest in. It would be like if you walked up to someone talking about something you didn't like. Then walked away... then came back a few minutes later because you were 'curious' and decided to tell them that they should stop talking about said thing because you didn't want to hear about it. In this case, who's the 'little dickweed'?

I haven't told anyone that they shouldn't want this discussion to die. That's a perfectly reasonable stance to take. I merely stated that you're being little whiny bitches when you come back time and time again, despite the fact that you're not interested in the thread, to moan about how this "won't die" or that the discussion is "pointless." I find it supremely ironic that you're accusing me of being righteous to be perfectly honest. I'm perfectly aware of the fact that I'm being a bit of an asshole unlike some other people.

 

Warburg. You're new here. Maybe that's something you ought to keep in mind, hmm?

 

I'm not, and I agree with him. I could go into any number of threads and say the exact same thing as Dr. Strange Lulz and I'd (rightly) be bitched out for it. This thread's no different. If you're not interested in the discussion then just fucking ignore it. There's nothing making you click on the topic and there's plenty of other places to discuss things you want to discuss.

 

I don't know if I'll get banned for this but why would you thumb a post that derailed the thread and didn't contribute to the topic at all and then tell people to "shut the fuck up" and keep on topic. It seems a bit hypocritical.

 

Please don't piss off the mods okay? The fact they leave this thread open says a lot about DLP. Let's not get it closed by falling to the hate the echo chambers encourage.

 

This thread is, among other things, also about gaming journalism and this is relevant:

youtube.com/watch?v=aYSUQLGy50M

So apparently major gaming sites received review copies of Dying Light very late, considering that the game is about to launch. The video is mainly about the positive view on this, but I can see why what's happening could be called shady. A quick Google search showed a bunch of forum posts and other stuff asking why there are no reviews available when there have been livestreams on Twitch and videos by Youtubers.

Interesting, to say the least.

EDIT: A reddit page on that topic has some interesting comments. About halfway down the page there's a post summing up several points from a review that was featured in CD-Action, the biggest gaming magazine in Poland. It points out some flaws, like reused character models and some other stuff.

 

One of the guy's girlfriends was ranting on twitter about how she slept with her boyfriend.

EDIT: Oh and someones boss admitted one of the guys slept with ZQ.

 

So now it looks like it's hitting Wikipedia too. This Guardian article talks about how there's a Wikipedia Arbitration Committee ruling banning five editors from editing anything GG related or feminism related, for that matter, because of their anti-GG stances. An excerpt from the article:

 

That article is hilariously inaccurate. It made its claims back on the 22nd and they are still not true even to day. If you want to read what is really happening, the relevant Wikipedia page is here for anyone to read.

First, no one has been banned, not yet. The ArbCom case is still ongoing, with the ArbCom members voting on a range of fact findings and proposed remedies. These remedies range from deciding nothing was wrong, through warnings, limited topic bans, more general topic bans, to total bans from English Wikipedia. While it now looks like topic bans will happen for some uses, it is still unclear what will happen due to changing votes and a somewhat convoluted system for ranked choices. When the Guardian wrote there piece, only one or two ArbCom members had even voted, let along listened to the arguments of their peers.

The Guardian article does the equivalent of claiming a jury has convicted a man of murder when they are in fact still considering how to vote - anything from not guilty, through manslaughter and the degrees of murder.

Second, it is not just 'feminists' who are getting hit. Lots of people are getting hit and not just throw away 'Single Purpose Accounts' either. Some of the 'pro-gg' accounts have long extensive edit histories going back years (someone on the by no means gg friendly metafilter counter 19000 edits going back to 2007 on one account, 15000 to 2013 on another and 5000 to 2004 on a third). By contrast, at least one of the 5 feminists in that article is a single purpose account - a user who joined Wikipedia only to argue on a new controversial topic.

This also ignores the fact that the 'in-the-trench' admins are far friendlier to misbehaviour they see as for 'a good reason' -a good reason in this case being arguing against gamergate. Pro-GG accounts are banned more often at lower levels, meaning fewer ever reach the exalted heights of the ArbCom.

Third, did it ever occur to you that these people might deserve to be banned? I mean, many of them have long and continuing track records of misbehaviour. For example, Tarc is one of the 'feminist' editors and he engaged in a extensive false-flagging campaign on the Manning page, where he behaved in a disruptive and arguably transphobic fashion in order to smear others on his appropriated 'side' by association.

Someone worried about the feminist 'purge' apparently wrote the Wikipedia and got this reply.

 

Hey, if you look at my previous posts, you'll see I'm pro-GG here. I just put the article out to peruse. I'm hardly saying I agree with it. The Guardian has a very very feminist slant, and it's worth noting that it's getting overzealous.

 

I apologize if this was posted already (I don't think so), but I find this piece of news not only surprising but also disturbing.

'Law & Order: SVU' To Air Episode Based On GamerGate

 

Lol. I remember they did (or maybe it was CSI or another of those dumb cop shows) a previous show about gamers that was completely ridiculous.

 

We live in a cyclical world.

The thing people freak out about changes, but the song remains the same.

 

Ya, that description is eye rolling at best. But what can you expect from those who don't do research, or are completely disinterested in it?

Either way I have yet to see a CSI show I actually like so seeing shit from a shit show is not surprising.

 

Yeah, those sorts of shows still live on the whole "anyone who's ever played a video game is a 35-year-old neckbeard who's never touched a real woman" stereotype, so it's no surprise they're adding rape on top of that.