More importantly, the cub scout belt loops and pins have always been about leisure activities. There's one for chess, why not one for video games? Besides, these kids are going to spend far more time playing video games than nearly any other subject, why not teach them to do it responsibly? As a secondary effect, their parents will learn about the ESRB ratings system, since one requirement is for the boys to teach their parents about it.
It's not even like the cubs will gain ranks or advancement from video games. It's just recognition that they've learned something about it. Even if it were a BSA merit badge (which is used for advancement as a boy scout), would a video game merit badge be less useful that indian lore? What about coin collecting? How many scouts do you think earn basket weaving or pottery and go on to use their skills after summer camp is over? As long as they're learning age-appropriate (we're talking 10-year olds) and useful knowledge, I see nothing wrong with it.
For reference, here are the requirements:
Requirements for the Video Games Belt Loop
Complete these three requirements:
Explain why it is important to have a rating system for video games. Check your video games to be sure they are right for your age.
With an adult, create a schedule for you to do things that includes your chores, homework, and video gaming. Do your best to follow this schedule.
Learn to play a new video game that is approved by your parent, guardian, or teacher.
Requirements for the Video Games Pin
Earn the Video Games belt loop, and complete five of the following requirements:
With your parents, create a plan to buy a video game that is right for your age group.
Compare two game systems (for example, Microsoft Xbox, Sony PlayStation, Nintendo Wii, and so on). Explain some of the differences between the two. List good reasons to purchase or use a game system.
Play a video game with family members in a family tournament.
Teach an adult or a friend how to play a video game.
List at least five tips that would help someone who was learning how to play your favorite video game.
Play an appropriate video game with a friend for one hour.
Play a video game that will help you practice your math, spelling, or another skill that helps you in your schoolwork.
Choose a game you might like to purchase. Compare the price for this game at three different stores. Decide which store has the best deal. In your decision, be sure to consider things like the store return policy and manufacturer’s warranty.
With an adult’s supervision, install a gaming system.
My understanding of the issue is that Telco's are alternating between how they are classified. First, they wanted to be classified in such a way that they could receive gov't grants to build infrastructure. Then to reclassify so they do not need to license their infrastructure to competitors. Then to reclassify to avoid FCC regulation.
I agree, Congress needs to get their heads out of their asses. They either need to be regulated, or forced to compete.
I paid for the game. The game advertises multiplayer directly on the box. It advertises *ONLINE* multiplayer on the box. This game is still being sold in game stores and rented out from renting places.
Not getting that is false advertising, despite the XBL service having been turned off.
The box does label online multiplayer as requiring XBox Live access. Go take a look sometime.
I agree that it's disingenuous now to advertise the online multiplayer aspect, as it is no longer present. It would behoove any retailer to place a disclaimer that online multiplayer is no longer accessible for this game, any EA Sports game over a year old, etc.
The real question is how to enforce that. It falls on the retailers, not Microsoft or Bungie at this point. Do you have any suggestions?
Guild Wars doesn't give any benefit from grinding, though. The level cap is 20, and the benefits from elite armor are minimal and cosmetic. In other words, nearly all characters reach their maximum statistics relatively quickly, increased power comes from additional skills (of which only 8 can be equipped upon leaving a town) and the tactics of using them.
It also seems that they are preventing level-riders by only giving XP for 'meaningfully contributing' in combat. They also already have a system that limits the XP benefits for attacking mobs of a much higher or lower level.
I'm a little confused with why you replied to me. I'm actually in favor of the Arena Net system, which parallels that of the parable (same reward, regardless of time engaged).
While the GP's suggestion is counter to this example, I wouldn't call them polar opposites. The issue there is that his example is a zero-sum system, while Arena Net (and Jesus) give examples which are not zero-sum. However, A-Net is more concerned with the early participants receiving lesser rewards as additional participants arrive. In the parable, the intent is that the reward is all at the same level, that promised to the initial laborers.
And this is the big picture: using tunneling to side-step XBL is exactly the same as using an alternative matchmaking service on PC to sidestep the official servers. Just because console players don't want to do it changes nothing.
The real issue is when games which have no system-link support start getting servers pulled. Of course, then it's just like an MMO, except you never paid a subscription fee to begin with.
I have an old Win2K file server, when MSFT EOLs Win2K (IIRC at the end of the month) my file server won't just suddenly stop serving files. In other words while I can't just leave in on a wide open Internet it will do the intended job without MSFT's help.
But that isn't the same thing. When MS EOLs a product, you lose the update service. Similarly, MS just EOL'd the original XBox Live, the service through which all Matchmaking was made. So while there is no longer a service to connect to for matchmaking, the stand-alone features for those who do not have XBL are still available (including system-link and split-screen multiplayer). Note that system-link can be played over the internet through a tunneling service as always, bypassing XBL.
Nobody is asking these corporations to provide support for eternity, just as I don't expect MSFT to keep patching my Win2K. But we all know it would be pretty easy for these corps to release a PC server app that would allow the users themselves to host games if they wanted. Otherwise every single used copy of a game with multiplayer removed by the corp should have to have a warning label affixed to its cover. Fair is fair folks, and right now MSFT and EA are taking a product you paid money for and crippling it after the fact, with no redress. I don't see how this is ANY different than Sony gutting other OS after the fact. Both moves are wrong and taking away something you paid for after the fact with no way to get it back.
Actually, you are asking them to continue providing their matchmaking service, which has only been accessible through a subscription service. Then you are asking them to provide an alternative to XBL, regardless of them never having done so previously. Sure they could, but it seems silly to expect them to do so. The features were linked to XBL, buyer beware if you lose access.
As for crippling your product, they are only ending the service you can access with it. Everything you could do offline previously still exists. Car analogy time:
You purchase a car with OnStar included for a year. If you don't buy the service afterward, your OnStar features are deactivated. If OnStar goes belly up, you also lose access to that service. This is not equivalent to them breaking your device. Similarly with Satellite Radio, just because you purchased the radio doesn't mean that you have a right to receive your favorite station on it. If you can't do what you expect with the service any more, unsubscribe. Customers should understand this.
That said, I agree that products for whom the official (and exclusive) service has ended for should be labeled upon purchase. For example, an MMO whose servers are shut down.
The difference with OtherOS is that the feature was never dependent upon PSN access, nor was it advertised as such.
One commenter got close when they mentioned there should be a requirement by Microsoft to provide something that enables full play access to these older consoles and their games. I agree that they should.
What is your opinion of MMOs who shutter their servers? What if they don't have money to continue running them? What if they are simply unprofitable?
Halo 2 can still be played via system link. You can tunnel through the internet without connecting to the provided matchmaking servers. Add any other game that can be played via system link.
Again, this is an issue where the game is linked to the XBox Live service. It is absolutely no different from the cases of Tabula Rasa, Hellgate London, or any other defunct MMO in that ability to play the game is dependent upon the service being running.
These people can no longer play online multiplayer, a feature which they paid for. If the game or console isn't broken then it's reasonable for them to expect that they could continue playing.
Online multiplayer was a feature of XBox Live, a sevice which they also needed to pay for. That service no longer exists as of the 15th. These features were marked as such on the box. None of the features of the game are missing (system link multiplayer is still available), only those of the service because it no longer exists.
In the future an even worse situation will occur now that games need to be authenticated online in order to play even the single player campaign. What will happen then once those servers are taken offline in 5+ years? The business model shifted from buying to renting without us even noticing.
In this case, we've got the same situation as an MMO going out of business. The Ubisoft (and similar) DRM is a whole different issue entirely.
Of course, the OP's point (which after reflection I agree with) is that the End User shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get it to work. MS ought to make this known and available to players before they end their support.
It was pretty well known that the matchmaking service required XBox Live access. Look here, all the orange items on the list require XBox Live access to use. There's your fair warning.
So, the question is if MS should continue to provide access to XBox Live in perpetuity. I see no reason why this is any different from an MMO shuttering its servers. Yes, it sucks for those who bought the game and can't play it any more, but that's part of the deal when what you buy depends on a service being available. When that service goes away (and all services go away eventually), so does your ability to use its features. Of course, you also aren't paying for it any more either.
This isn't an issue with Halo specifically, just with Live for the original XBox in general. However, Halo 2 seems to be the only game people were playing, so it's difficult to make the economic argument in favor of MS maintaining this service for so few people.
RTFA before you claim something that did happen, didn't.
One juror, Jason Chilton, also a network engineer, said the law Childs was accused of breaking -- knowingly disrupting computer services or denying those services to an authorized user -- is "very specific," and though no services were actually disrupted, "he denied that access."
Chilton, however, said Childs' supervisors at the Department of Technology were also to blame. He said they "did everything wrong that they possibly could," citing "ineffective management and no formalized policies and procedures" for dealing with employees in such situations.
"If the city were on trial, they'd probably be guilty of a lot of stuff too," Chilton said. Ultimately, Chilton said, Childs "didn't follow the law, which was the basic thing that it came down to."
Of the network engineer code about not giving up your passwords, Chilton said, "Your own passwords, yes, but you don't deny access to someone who's authorized."
To be fair, Luther himself, in pursuing his sola fide theology famously dismissed James in its entirety as "an epistle of straw," and along with Hebrews and Jude, sought to expurgate it from the cannon. Now there are also good historical reasons for Luther, who witnessed the corruption which the system of indulgences had fallen into, to adopt this position. But it is clear is the scriptural selectivity is not the province of the Church of the Apostles alone.
Right, and I don't hold up Luther as some ruler of the church, not prone to error. He was quite wrong on several counts, and just as sinful as the rest of us. Rather, it is the strong tradition of questioning Scripture and those who run the church, of which Luther was one of the first to truly do, which I tend to hold to and follow.
In any case, my point however was political, not theological. The Church was at one time the arbiter between conflicting claims to Europe's crowns, the ex-communicated disobedient kings, &c.. There is a gate in the Vatican which is opened but once every millennium. For an institution with this temporal perspective [pun very much intended], the fact that it is "the people" and not they, who get to determine who administers the state, must still be a bitter pill. It is in this light that one must appreciate the Vatican's reluctance to submit to secular authority.
Right, and my point was that this political position is counter to what the Christian Church should be. There's a reason Jesus wasn't the conquering king who would return Israel's freedom, as the Jews expected. He had a different freedom in mind.
Because this still violates their principle. Even then, if someone joins the fight part-way through, those who were there from the beginning get less experience.
He never really says that. He's talking about killing mobs together. In existing games you always get less XP or level slower if you're playing in a party, and if you happen to be in the same area you can't just join them in a fight. If another player has already pulled the mob, you won't get any XP or rewards for helping to kill it.
Actually, the problem goes the other way around. If you've pulled a mob and somebody else joins the fight to kill it, you get less experience. This makes players in the open areas avoid each other, killing the social aspect. It seems Arena Net is trying to encourage ad-hoc parties both through removing that disincentive, and by providing events which require large groups.
When you have "arena" PVP where the teams are automatically generated by the game itself, it removes the social part of the game.
In this case, Guild Wars had random arenas (no need to form a team), team arenas (form a group of 4), faction arenas (form a group of 4, team up with two other groups for 12v12), and guild combat (8v8 guild teams).
And that's what the Pentagon is trying to balance: the desire for morale boosters, without violating OpSec.
Hell, even saying "talk to you in a week" broadcasts to enemy inteligence officers that your division is likely deploying for a week where you will be off-line, and to track you.
In other words, the Pentagon needs reasonable standards for what constitutes 'loose lips' which may 'sink ships'. Obviously Twitter is the worst possible medium if OpSec is your goal.
Makes sense, especially if he didn't know you where you were. Losing children who have been entrusted to you in the woods is a Very Bad Thing.
Yeah, it's all speculation I suppose, but it does tend towards a similarity in the Catholic church events: an older man is alone with younger boys, and we all remember ancient Greece and Rome.
Of course, BSA recognizes this and has a program called Youth Protection to prevent just such abuses. The issue is the people at varying levels who skirt this policy, often for the same concerns as the Catholic church (bad PR and embarassment if it is revealed), or for failing to do enough to ensure safety for the boys.
Having participated in the BSA both as a scout and an adult, I can tell you this issue as at the forefront of nearly everyone's mind. I can see, though, where the BSA has room to improve the system and make it easier and simpler to report and prevent these abuses.
Irony aside there are historical reasons why the Church would be reluctant to recognise the authority of states over them (after all they think themselves the authority over states), much less hand their people over to them.
And this is my problem (as a Protestant, Lutheran to be more precise) with the Catholic Church. They focus on certain bits of the Bible which are convenient to them, rather than taking it as a whole. They forgot this little bit: 1 Corinthians 5
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
Seems cut and dried to me. Why it isn't to the Catholic Church escapes me...
Again, just put yourself in the mindset of the Church. These guys genuinely believe they have a license from God to absolve the sinner of their sin. If the pervert priest in question confessed, said his Hail Marys or whatever, then it was all fixed, wasn't it?
Forgiveness is not freedom from consequences, or freedom to continue acting in sinful ways. I'm not sure this was the Catholic Church's belief in this matter, the documents leaked seemed that they simply wanted to avoid bad PR and embarassment for the guilty priests.
After all we are, so I'm informed, all born as sinners. And Catholicism is all about forgiving sin.
Correct on both points, but that is only a shallow understanding of scripture. The common translation is 'living in sin', where sins are no longer considered wrong. Unlike sinning and feeling remorseful (understandable, and unavoidable), we're talking about seeking out and pursuing sin. That these priests continued to (and their bishops and cardinals allowed them to) continue to work in areas where they were known to struggle with sin is disheartening. Similarly, a priest who struggles with alcohol should not be giving a tavern and bar outreach ministry.
Put another way, sin is unavoidable, but one shouldn't continue to place themselves in such situations where sin is likely.
Yet if IM and text messages are cited as reasons for feeling alone, perhaps it is consistent social interaction that they are 'addicted' to, rather than 'the internet' as a whole. I would think they would need to cite seclusion from Wikipedia or large blogs to conclude it was the internet itself they needed, rather than simply social interaction.
Slashdot Mirror
More importantly, the cub scout belt loops and pins have always been about leisure activities. There's one for chess, why not one for video games? Besides, these kids are going to spend far more time playing video games than nearly any other subject, why not teach them to do it responsibly? As a secondary effect, their parents will learn about the ESRB ratings system, since one requirement is for the boys to teach their parents about it.
It's not even like the cubs will gain ranks or advancement from video games. It's just recognition that they've learned something about it. Even if it were a BSA merit badge (which is used for advancement as a boy scout), would a video game merit badge be less useful that indian lore? What about coin collecting? How many scouts do you think earn basket weaving or pottery and go on to use their skills after summer camp is over? As long as they're learning age-appropriate (we're talking 10-year olds) and useful knowledge, I see nothing wrong with it.
For reference, here are the requirements:
Requirements for the Video Games Belt Loop
Complete these three requirements:
Explain why it is important to have a rating system for video games. Check your video games to be sure they are right for your age.
With an adult, create a schedule for you to do things that includes your chores, homework, and video gaming. Do your best to follow this schedule.
Learn to play a new video game that is approved by your parent, guardian, or teacher.
Requirements for the Video Games Pin
Earn the Video Games belt loop, and complete five of the following requirements:
With your parents, create a plan to buy a video game that is right for your age group.
Compare two game systems (for example, Microsoft Xbox, Sony PlayStation, Nintendo Wii, and so on). Explain some of the differences between the two. List good reasons to purchase or use a game system.
Play a video game with family members in a family tournament.
Teach an adult or a friend how to play a video game.
List at least five tips that would help someone who was learning how to play your favorite video game.
Play an appropriate video game with a friend for one hour.
Play a video game that will help you practice your math, spelling, or another skill that helps you in your schoolwork.
Choose a game you might like to purchase. Compare the price for this game at three different stores. Decide which store has the best deal. In your decision, be sure to consider things like the store return policy and manufacturer’s warranty.
With an adult’s supervision, install a gaming system.
My understanding of the issue is that Telco's are alternating between how they are classified. First, they wanted to be classified in such a way that they could receive gov't grants to build infrastructure. Then to reclassify so they do not need to license their infrastructure to competitors. Then to reclassify to avoid FCC regulation.
I agree, Congress needs to get their heads out of their asses. They either need to be regulated, or forced to compete.
I paid for the game. The game advertises multiplayer directly on the box. It advertises *ONLINE* multiplayer on the box. This game is still being sold in game stores and rented out from renting places.
Not getting that is false advertising, despite the XBL service having been turned off.
The box does label online multiplayer as requiring XBox Live access. Go take a look sometime.
I agree that it's disingenuous now to advertise the online multiplayer aspect, as it is no longer present. It would behoove any retailer to place a disclaimer that online multiplayer is no longer accessible for this game, any EA Sports game over a year old, etc.
The real question is how to enforce that. It falls on the retailers, not Microsoft or Bungie at this point. Do you have any suggestions?
Guild Wars doesn't give any benefit from grinding, though. The level cap is 20, and the benefits from elite armor are minimal and cosmetic. In other words, nearly all characters reach their maximum statistics relatively quickly, increased power comes from additional skills (of which only 8 can be equipped upon leaving a town) and the tactics of using them.
It also seems that they are preventing level-riders by only giving XP for 'meaningfully contributing' in combat. They also already have a system that limits the XP benefits for attacking mobs of a much higher or lower level.
I'm a little confused with why you replied to me. I'm actually in favor of the Arena Net system, which parallels that of the parable (same reward, regardless of time engaged).
While the GP's suggestion is counter to this example, I wouldn't call them polar opposites. The issue there is that his example is a zero-sum system, while Arena Net (and Jesus) give examples which are not zero-sum. However, A-Net is more concerned with the early participants receiving lesser rewards as additional participants arrive. In the parable, the intent is that the reward is all at the same level, that promised to the initial laborers.
(Yes, you can manually connect to servers over the Internet by IP once that happens, but you can do that with your Xbox too.)
And this is the big picture: using tunneling to side-step XBL is exactly the same as using an alternative matchmaking service on PC to sidestep the official servers. Just because console players don't want to do it changes nothing.
The real issue is when games which have no system-link support start getting servers pulled. Of course, then it's just like an MMO, except you never paid a subscription fee to begin with.
I have an old Win2K file server, when MSFT EOLs Win2K (IIRC at the end of the month) my file server won't just suddenly stop serving files. In other words while I can't just leave in on a wide open Internet it will do the intended job without MSFT's help.
But that isn't the same thing. When MS EOLs a product, you lose the update service. Similarly, MS just EOL'd the original XBox Live, the service through which all Matchmaking was made. So while there is no longer a service to connect to for matchmaking, the stand-alone features for those who do not have XBL are still available (including system-link and split-screen multiplayer). Note that system-link can be played over the internet through a tunneling service as always, bypassing XBL.
Nobody is asking these corporations to provide support for eternity, just as I don't expect MSFT to keep patching my Win2K. But we all know it would be pretty easy for these corps to release a PC server app that would allow the users themselves to host games if they wanted. Otherwise every single used copy of a game with multiplayer removed by the corp should have to have a warning label affixed to its cover. Fair is fair folks, and right now MSFT and EA are taking a product you paid money for and crippling it after the fact, with no redress. I don't see how this is ANY different than Sony gutting other OS after the fact. Both moves are wrong and taking away something you paid for after the fact with no way to get it back.
Actually, you are asking them to continue providing their matchmaking service, which has only been accessible through a subscription service. Then you are asking them to provide an alternative to XBL, regardless of them never having done so previously. Sure they could, but it seems silly to expect them to do so. The features were linked to XBL, buyer beware if you lose access.
As for crippling your product, they are only ending the service you can access with it. Everything you could do offline previously still exists. Car analogy time:
You purchase a car with OnStar included for a year. If you don't buy the service afterward, your OnStar features are deactivated. If OnStar goes belly up, you also lose access to that service. This is not equivalent to them breaking your device. Similarly with Satellite Radio, just because you purchased the radio doesn't mean that you have a right to receive your favorite station on it. If you can't do what you expect with the service any more, unsubscribe. Customers should understand this.
That said, I agree that products for whom the official (and exclusive) service has ended for should be labeled upon purchase. For example, an MMO whose servers are shut down.
The difference with OtherOS is that the feature was never dependent upon PSN access, nor was it advertised as such.
Sure they can, and by the federal government, too. Congress just hasn't yet given the FCC that power.
So in general they could be regulated, but in practice not yet.
And you don't have to. Problem solved. That said, it allows you to 'help' people for purely selfish reasons, as well, since you get full loot and XP.
I have no problems with a 'care bear' experience, as long as it keeps the d-bags like you out. Go play a game designed for guys like you.
One commenter got close when they mentioned there should be a requirement by Microsoft to provide something that enables full play access to these older consoles and their games. I agree that they should.
What is your opinion of MMOs who shutter their servers? What if they don't have money to continue running them? What if they are simply unprofitable?
Halo 2 can still be played via system link. You can tunnel through the internet without connecting to the provided matchmaking servers. Add any other game that can be played via system link.
Again, this is an issue where the game is linked to the XBox Live service. It is absolutely no different from the cases of Tabula Rasa, Hellgate London, or any other defunct MMO in that ability to play the game is dependent upon the service being running.
These people can no longer play online multiplayer, a feature which they paid for. If the game or console isn't broken then it's reasonable for them to expect that they could continue playing.
Online multiplayer was a feature of XBox Live, a sevice which they also needed to pay for. That service no longer exists as of the 15th. These features were marked as such on the box. None of the features of the game are missing (system link multiplayer is still available), only those of the service because it no longer exists.
In the future an even worse situation will occur now that games need to be authenticated online in order to play even the single player campaign. What will happen then once those servers are taken offline in 5+ years? The business model shifted from buying to renting without us even noticing.
In this case, we've got the same situation as an MMO going out of business. The Ubisoft (and similar) DRM is a whole different issue entirely.
Of course, the OP's point (which after reflection I agree with) is that the End User shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get it to work. MS ought to make this known and available to players before they end their support.
It was pretty well known that the matchmaking service required XBox Live access. Look here, all the orange items on the list require XBox Live access to use. There's your fair warning.
So, the question is if MS should continue to provide access to XBox Live in perpetuity. I see no reason why this is any different from an MMO shuttering its servers. Yes, it sucks for those who bought the game and can't play it any more, but that's part of the deal when what you buy depends on a service being available. When that service goes away (and all services go away eventually), so does your ability to use its features. Of course, you also aren't paying for it any more either.
This isn't an issue with Halo specifically, just with Live for the original XBox in general. However, Halo 2 seems to be the only game people were playing, so it's difficult to make the economic argument in favor of MS maintaining this service for so few people.
RTFA before you claim something that did happen, didn't.
One juror, Jason Chilton, also a network engineer, said the law Childs was accused of breaking -- knowingly disrupting computer services or denying those services to an authorized user -- is "very specific," and though no services were actually disrupted, "he denied that access."
Chilton, however, said Childs' supervisors at the Department of Technology were also to blame. He said they "did everything wrong that they possibly could," citing "ineffective management and no formalized policies and procedures" for dealing with employees in such situations.
"If the city were on trial, they'd probably be guilty of a lot of stuff too," Chilton said.
Ultimately, Chilton said, Childs "didn't follow the law, which was the basic thing that it came down to."
Of the network engineer code about not giving up your passwords, Chilton said, "Your own passwords, yes, but you don't deny access to someone who's authorized."
FTA
As it is, I'm not playing Spore and EA lost a sale.
I skipped that one too. Just wasn't worth it.
To be fair, Luther himself, in pursuing his sola fide theology famously dismissed James in its entirety as "an epistle of straw," and along with Hebrews and Jude, sought to expurgate it from the cannon. Now there are also good historical reasons for Luther, who witnessed the corruption which the system of indulgences had fallen into, to adopt this position. But it is clear is the scriptural selectivity is not the province of the Church of the Apostles alone.
Right, and I don't hold up Luther as some ruler of the church, not prone to error. He was quite wrong on several counts, and just as sinful as the rest of us. Rather, it is the strong tradition of questioning Scripture and those who run the church, of which Luther was one of the first to truly do, which I tend to hold to and follow.
In any case, my point however was political, not theological. The Church was at one time the arbiter between conflicting claims to Europe's crowns, the ex-communicated disobedient kings, &c.. There is a gate in the Vatican which is opened but once every millennium. For an institution with this temporal perspective [pun very much intended], the fact that it is "the people" and not they, who get to determine who administers the state, must still be a bitter pill. It is in this light that one must appreciate the Vatican's reluctance to submit to secular authority.
Right, and my point was that this political position is counter to what the Christian Church should be. There's a reason Jesus wasn't the conquering king who would return Israel's freedom, as the Jews expected. He had a different freedom in mind.
Because this still violates their principle. Even then, if someone joins the fight part-way through, those who were there from the beginning get less experience.
He never really says that. He's talking about killing mobs together. In existing games you always get less XP or level slower if you're playing in a party, and if you happen to be in the same area you can't just join them in a fight. If another player has already pulled the mob, you won't get any XP or rewards for helping to kill it.
Actually, the problem goes the other way around. If you've pulled a mob and somebody else joins the fight to kill it, you get less experience. This makes players in the open areas avoid each other, killing the social aspect. It seems Arena Net is trying to encourage ad-hoc parties both through removing that disincentive, and by providing events which require large groups.
When you have "arena" PVP where the teams are automatically generated by the game itself, it removes the social part of the game.
In this case, Guild Wars had random arenas (no need to form a team), team arenas (form a group of 4), faction arenas (form a group of 4, team up with two other groups for 12v12), and guild combat (8v8 guild teams).
Already been done.
And that's what the Pentagon is trying to balance: the desire for morale boosters, without violating OpSec.
Hell, even saying "talk to you in a week" broadcasts to enemy inteligence officers that your division is likely deploying for a week where you will be off-line, and to track you.
In other words, the Pentagon needs reasonable standards for what constitutes 'loose lips' which may 'sink ships'. Obviously Twitter is the worst possible medium if OpSec is your goal.
The scout master was livid, but I never returned.
Makes sense, especially if he didn't know you where you were. Losing children who have been entrusted to you in the woods is a Very Bad Thing.
Yeah, it's all speculation I suppose, but it does tend towards a similarity in the Catholic church events: an older man is alone with younger boys, and we all remember ancient Greece and Rome.
Of course, BSA recognizes this and has a program called Youth Protection to prevent just such abuses. The issue is the people at varying levels who skirt this policy, often for the same concerns as the Catholic church (bad PR and embarassment if it is revealed), or for failing to do enough to ensure safety for the boys.
Having participated in the BSA both as a scout and an adult, I can tell you this issue as at the forefront of nearly everyone's mind. I can see, though, where the BSA has room to improve the system and make it easier and simpler to report and prevent these abuses.
Irony aside there are historical reasons why the Church would be reluctant to recognise the authority of states over them (after all they think themselves the authority over states), much less hand their people over to them.
And this is my problem (as a Protestant, Lutheran to be more precise) with the Catholic Church. They focus on certain bits of the Bible which are convenient to them, rather than taking it as a whole. They forgot this little bit: 1 Corinthians 5
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
Seems cut and dried to me. Why it isn't to the Catholic Church escapes me...
Again, just put yourself in the mindset of the Church. These guys genuinely believe they have a license from God to absolve the sinner of their sin. If the pervert priest in question confessed, said his Hail Marys or whatever, then it was all fixed, wasn't it?
Forgiveness is not freedom from consequences, or freedom to continue acting in sinful ways. I'm not sure this was the Catholic Church's belief in this matter, the documents leaked seemed that they simply wanted to avoid bad PR and embarassment for the guilty priests.
After all we are, so I'm informed, all born as sinners. And Catholicism is all about forgiving sin.
Correct on both points, but that is only a shallow understanding of scripture. The common translation is 'living in sin', where sins are no longer considered wrong. Unlike sinning and feeling remorseful (understandable, and unavoidable), we're talking about seeking out and pursuing sin. That these priests continued to (and their bishops and cardinals allowed them to) continue to work in areas where they were known to struggle with sin is disheartening. Similarly, a priest who struggles with alcohol should not be giving a tavern and bar outreach ministry.
Put another way, sin is unavoidable, but one shouldn't continue to place themselves in such situations where sin is likely.
Or just reboot regularly. =)
Actually, another good lesson. Never trust user input :)
Yet if IM and text messages are cited as reasons for feeling alone, perhaps it is consistent social interaction that they are 'addicted' to, rather than 'the internet' as a whole. I would think they would need to cite seclusion from Wikipedia or large blogs to conclude it was the internet itself they needed, rather than simply social interaction.