They prove they were misrepresented by playing their tape.
Realistically, they're fucked, but it seems that's because of the prohibition against recording - any recording is going to be the tool of a bad guy. If we all recorded everything (and took steps to ensure it couldn't be edited like playing cryptographically generated white-noise in the background and checking if this watermark is valid in later recordings) we'd all be safe(r).
In looking at the exception (record crimes, threats, etc) I still can't see how this would be useful. The only times I've been threatened like that I'd have missed everything even just reaching for the recorder, but I can easily imagine how I'd set someone up to say "We're gonna come up there and kill you guys this weekend" by issuing a sports-boast just before turning the recorder on... In other words, the lack of context from trying to record only crimes would make it harder to prove the real crimes and easier to fake.
Not quite, I started insulting. And specifically to make a point.
If people picking arguments with me are going to post links to their personal information, I'm going to take the opportunity to educate myself.
Yeah, you got mad and got even. Cyber-stalker.:)
You also took my random bad words and replaced them with specific, chosen to be hurtful, descriptions. I'll live, I think, but you didn't respond in kind.
I don't really think of myself as pompous
Well, that "I shouldn't need to tell you, but" thing comes across that way... As does not just calling an asshole an asshole - why bother with fat jokes (which will only hurt sensitive people on the sidelines more than me) when you could have just said I was an ass. It seems like you took that course to look better than me - veiled insults are cooler and all.
Sort of like charging someone with intentional infliction of emotional distress for calling someone's mother a cunt. It's a waste of time (including apparently yours and mine), but that's not to say it doesn't happen.
Yes, but that doesn't mean there's a law against insulting someone, just that malicious prosecution knows no limits.
It's hard to fit all of my views into one line, lesson learned, I was just responding to a guy claiming that you can't charge someone with a crime for insulting you.
Actually he claimed there's no law against it, which I still think is right.
I'm pretty sure that he'd admit you could be charged or sued for doing anything though, but that's not a question of law as much as sleeping with the judge and judicial activism (punishing people they find unsavory despite the law.)
And the discussion went on normally, until the loser who just got killed starts spamming everyone with his rage.
You do understand that the discussion can continue regardless of players' locations, right?
Yes, it disrupts the pretty MS Comic Chat tableau, but that's not the conversation, that's posing for screenshots.
A party is a place for chatting, a PvP zone in a game is for killing.
But rather than be able to stop the jerk, he used a cheap trick to keep getting his way and expressed surprise at everyone's grumbling.
A cheap trick? How about a humiliation move? Like getting axe-killed in Quake. Trivially stoppable by paying any attention at all.
And he didn't express surprise at their annoyance - anyone could tell you idiots would rather bitch than anything else. He expressed concern, and perhaps some surprise, over how many of them were batshit insane and felt the need to threaten his life.
Truly pathetic, they're the assholes who won't get off the field and let others play and they can't even wake up enough to see it. Instead they threaten the only sensible guy playing the game.
MMOs are filled with people who couldn't operate TVs.
Pshaw, if I were a true unix stereotype I wouldn't be caught dead walking.
I see your distinction, but it seems weak, and thus retroactive. That law is not for people who got called a cunt any more than a assault is 'for' people who were barely touched. You can cry rape for anything but it's meant to punish people who seriously harm another person not to punish someone for being uglier than you expected when you sober up, even though it gets used that way.
That is not a correct statement, there is such a law, which I've pointed out, which sometimes gets broadly applied by certain people to do just that - remedy a trivial insult.
But not really, as I'm saying.
This is semantic, I'll grant you, but it's obscuring the issue.
I can imagine plenty of sympathetic juries who would consider "aggressive" use of the word "cunt" as being "extreme".
Yes, but the law is one thing, not anything you could imagine a jury buying. Many juries would consider a riding-crop in someone's ass to be obscene, but that doesn't mean it is, or that if a law were bent to prohibit filming it that the law would be constitutional.
it is widely considered uncivil to go around addressing people the way you are
And god (a god, take your pick) is widely believed to exist.
It doesn't surprise me that I have to point this out to you
Oh, so you got this far and thought I didn't know?
my sensibilities are not so easily offended as to cause me emotional distress
I see. So you went to my site browsing for material, got insulting, and acted all pompous and holier-than-thou just for the hell of it?
It's not offensive to me when someone insults me for a perceived reason which isn't actually true (i.e., ignorance).
No, it is offensive, but it isn't harmful.
But that's my point, you cretin, that there's no harm from all those things I said to you. I'm just some guy on the internet who knows nothing about you, so nothing I say can harm you if you're sane. That's sort of the definition of adulthood.
You just seem to be under the mistaken assumption that I'm a type of person that I'm actually not, and enjoy insulting me because of that.
No, if I enjoyed harassing you today it's because of how funny you are when you try to be all proper while being insulting.
Back to that semantic thing though... If you consider that an overzealous policeman could cite you for anything, and there'd be a closest law to it however tenuous the connection, then you could say that there's a law for everything. Cough in public? Ummm, disturbing the peace, engaging in biochemical terrorism, etc...
Or, if you would agree that laws can be over-broadly applied it implies that not all uses of the law are reasonable or valid, they're just random crap that happens to be wrongly prosecuted under this law as opposed to another.
So while I'll agree the law exists, I don't think it, or laws in general, mean quite what you think. Everything not explicitly forbidden is allowed. You seem to be operating on the anything-possibly-questionable-is-forbidden model. Are you in North Korea?
There's a law against killing someone, but not against calling them a cunt.
Pshaw, if I were a true unix stereotype I wouldn't be caught dead walking.
I see your distinction, but it seems weak, and thus retroactive. That law is not for people who got called a cunt any more than a assault is 'for' people who were barely touched. You can cry rape for anything but it's meant to punish people who seriously harm another person not to punish someone for being uglier than you expected when you sober up, even though it gets used that way.
That is not a correct statement, there is such a law, which I've pointed out, which sometimes gets broadly applied by certain people to do just that - remedy a trivial insult.
But not really, as I'm saying.
This is semantic, I'll grant you, but it's obscuring the issue.
I can imagine plenty of sympathetic juries who would consider "aggressive" use of the word "cunt" as being "extreme".
Yes, but the law is one thing, not anything you could imagine a jury buying. Many juries would consider a riding-crop in someone's ass to be obscene, but that doesn't mean it is, or that if a law were bent to prohibit filming it that the law would be constitutional.
it is widely considered uncivil to go around addressing people the way you are
And god (a god, take your pick) is widely believed to exist.
It doesn't surprise me that I have to point this out to you
Oh, so you got this far and thought I didn't know?
my sensibilities are not so easily offended as to cause me emotional distress
I see. So you went to my site browsing for material, got insulting, and acted all pompous and holier-than-thou just for the hell of it?
It's not offensive to me when someone insults me for a perceived reason which isn't actually true (i.e., ignorance).
No, it is offensive, but it isn't harmful.
But that's my point, you cretin, that there's no harm from all those things I said to you. I'm just some guy on the internet who knows nothing about you, so nothing I say can harm you if you're sane. That's sort of the definition of adulthood.
You just seem to be under the mistaken assumption that I'm a type of person that I'm actually not, and enjoy insulting me because of that.
You do understand that getting killed in an MMO isn't permanent and usually doesn't even interrupt your chatting, right?
So yeah, it seems like it is about like a hat on a bar.
Unwritten rules are rude, not only do they require people guess them, but they usually dump the cost of following the rule on everyone else.
For example, FPS players who bitch if you kill them while they're typing. Adding insanity to delusion, they often stop in a busy room full of mayhem and expect the little icon over their head to protect them like a guardian angel.
You're just playing the game, fighting away and suddenly some guy gets mental because your stray rocket hit him while he was typing. WTF? Thankfully in the FPS community the answer is to simply shoot the guy while he bitches - eventually his rage melts his cable-modem and he disconnects.
So who's really asking what of who? The researcher's asking that everyone in the game area be ready to play, they're asking him to not play the game the way it was designed, or the way he paid to play it, but instead to figure out which groups of people in the game are just chatting and to avoid them.
It's like going to a paintball game, standing around in doorways chatting, and bitching when you get hit. Yes, you might be used to chatting there, but that doesn't mean you should keep doing it. Not only would it be painful, but rude to the people who came to play.
If all he had done was obey the rules that didn't involve other people being harmed by his choices, he'd have been ok.
That's exactly what the law says. That's not watering anything down, that's the law.
Sigh, yes. That is a law.
But when you suggest it as a remedy for a trivial insult you're watering it down, along with the suffering of those it's meant to protect such as the little girl hounded to suicide.
You might question whether calling your mother a cunt is "extreme and outrageous"
No, I know that it is not, you festering retard, as does everyone with a mental age over seven. It's ridiculous that a few unfriendly words from someone you don't even know could be so extreme as to cause a normal person severe distress.
I don't see people disagreeing with me as trolling, I'm all for civil discourse. What you're doing is not very civil.
Bullshit, Fucknut. If I was uncivil I'd be kicking down your door and punctuating this with violence, or threatening to do so. I am merely sharing my view of someone who could utter such ill-considered drivel.
But that's my point, you'd rather be offended by my words than simply address the content. The law isn't (/shouldn't be) another censorship tool for whiners who are afraid of being shown to be wrong, or upset that they aren't being respected properly.
No shitbird, because you suggested the law as a remedy for someone's hypothetical mother who'd been called a cunt. That would be the watering down, and it's your reflex to deny it that makes you an asshole.
You've got paranoid tendencies if you see people disagreeing with you as trolling.
That made no sense, you must be a fucking imbecile.
He didn't CRY, he reported. He got exactly what he expected, proof that fucking imbeciles take MMOs seriously enough to threaten to kill you (wait... do YOU play CoH?) for something that is a legitimate way to play the game. If anyone's crying now it's all the assholes who had their accounts terminated for threatening.
Ignoring custom in favor of only the rules in print is antisocial behavior.
No, having rules (This area is for PVP) which are not expected to be obeyed is anti-social.
You only get to go PVP with people who have consented
No, he "got" to PVP anyone he wanted. Seems like you're mistaken.
It's a like a dance club where someone has decided that just because he's a man and you're a woman that he gets to bump and grind against you even if you're not interested.
Oh yes, think of the honor of a girl. OMG. Because touching a character in a game is RAPE!
Or, think of crybabies who sit in PVP zones and don't want to be hit when they aren't ready.
That's what PVP zones are for!
I've paid for this virtual equivalent of paintball. So quit ruining my game by adding all your pussy rules to it and simply shut up about getting hit by paintballs - if your mask is on and your flag isn't out, you're a target.
the people who play City of Heroes have decided as a community
No, the whiners who play CoH have decided to cry every time someone does something they don't like, and because whiners are far louder than normal people the community quickly becomes flooded with pathetic attention seekers demanding that everyone stop what they were doing and cater to them.
I remember being at a party with a guy who was telling a bunch of fascinated people stuff about spiders, the big, the fast, etc. This friend comes over and inserts herself, hears the topic - has a "ugh, I *hate* spiders" moment and then when conversation returns to spiders, asks if we didn't hear her and demands we stop... Umm, lots of other conversations going on - pick one. But rather than deal with shrill lady yet again everyone grumbled and let her get her way.
He was using the game's equivalent of violent force
That's ridiculous. Like saying placing a stone in Go is analogous to waging war. That game has no equivalent of violence - you know, where something happens to you and you may never be all right again. The cartoon characters just respawn, their players unharmed. So he's really using the equivalent of speech.
I welcome the $18B charge. Seriously, even if that was me I'd far rather the bill be seventeen trillion dollars than fifty thousand. I could only be so fucked so who cares if I fail to pay off a million a year, or a day? The $50k I'd actually be expected to pay, the bignum would be obvious evidence of judicial failure.
So yeah, show how copying ~30 songs caused more damage than the Iraqi war. Please. Then when I show how I've traded 300,000+ songs the universe will simply implode and we'll be done.
And this hardly interferes with that. Chat connections in almost all MMOs work at any distance. This just dumps a bit of their stuff, probably necessitating 15-30m of grinding to replace.
I'm actually with Twixt, the developers should have NPCs like him even if there aren't players. I mean, way to totally ruin the role-play for everyone. If you're playing a villain people should be calling 911 when they see you and taking pot-shots at you, civs with guns and heros who don't forget whatever it was that made you a villain.
In fact, that would be part of the fun of being a villain. More of a challenge, not just the cool gothy uniforms.
Besides, idiots get so bent out of shape over shit they just made up. Like tell them there isn't a Santa or a god and they start wars. Doesn't mean you should coddle them, just that people do dumb shit and can't face the consequences. Like chatting in a war zone while playing the enemy...
Not that the abuse doesn't happen, and that abusers don't make their own movies/pics, but that there just aren't secret internet chat rooms that you have to molest a kid to get into. It's... silly.
Then couple that with 95% of people being turned off by it and the other 5% being afraid it's a setup and it's no surprise it's not everywhere.
It's the same broken thinking that results in movies with Assassin guilds instead of lone killers. In real life criminals isolate instead of congregating unless they work together. Sure, some sickos will find compatible sickos, but are they building secret encrypted undernets for this purpose and recruiting worldwide? No.
But that doesn't get funding (and draconian new laws) like paranoid shrieking about the sky falling.
No, you fucking child. That's for bullying intended to inflict emotional scars. Simply randomly insulting someone merely shows them not everyone in the world is a Disney character. There's nothing in that which, if it caused lasting harm, is the fault of the unsavory person.
Now to call your mom a worthless person, incapable of doing anything right, and continue doing so day after day while also keeping her from leaving. That's where that law you mentioned comes in.
Honestly, I can't believe you fucking imbeciles who want to water our world down so that you'll never have to face the ugly truth of your own failure. Laws are for real harm, asshole, over-prescribing them is as harmful as with antibiotics.
That's one of those laws I break. If I can hear it, I can record it. It's a law of nature and trumps two-party consent.
I wonder how crazy the legal circumstances could be. If I recorded a phone-threat (without the threatener's permission) could I use it in court? How egregiously wrong could this get? Unable to prove self-defense?
Especially as many textbooks are written by professors now, and often almost totally for academic recognition (well, it's not for the money).
Editing Wikipedia (and I imagine, Wikibooks) feels like using Subversion. Slow, awkward, and my changes get accidentally overwritten by the next guy. Maybe once wikis are based on a better source-control model than the "one definitive master" and global-locking we'll get better books.
I'm speaking from a perspective of having been in mass-deployed product liability meetings. I know the kinds of arguments that influence the decision makers.
Yeah, of course. Anything that stands to make or save them money. And yes, this certainly would save them some tiny bit from reducing lawsuits and make them a ton via increased battery sales.
You made no point, you merely repeated their claims that they're doing this to avoid great and unfair settlements.
This'd be like you merely repeating the TSA's ban on containers over 100ml on a flight and claiming you understood their arguments - a total non-sequitur.
And it's all a red-herring because you never offer a glimpse of these real motives.
Discount it if you want by calling me a jerk
If you think that was insulting you're a coddled child, and if you can't read your latest post and see what I mean, you're hopeless.
At each step you write as if what you're saying is the final-word on the subject. You act like your stupid court scenario was definitive, try to shore it up as if my complaints were trivial and pretend it was still definitive, and come back to play this misunderstood expert - oh, if only I'd endeavored to learn more from you while I had the chance!
But in examination you've said nothing of value, and played the victim when I've gone out of my way to coddle you through the explanation of your social gaffe. Your "You: Lie to judge" scenario was insulting and while your "lawsuits cost money" point is true, it is trivial and has flaws you didn't seem to realize and were failing to address.
you're obviously a great intellect.
Thank you, but spotting the self-serving nature in an action like Panasonic's is really easy. No customers asked for the feature so it's obviously not something for customers. And that's all we're bitching about - that 'they' always sell these money-grubbing or CYA moves as for-the-customer. And that people like you crawl out of the woodwork to obfuscate this.
You did take the effort. You put your data on a webserver and told it to give copies to people. That googlebot guy came along and you gave him all your data.
things that ultimately undercut the enjoyment/value of their experience.
Or, things that let them experience the actual content and move on when it's gone.
From the perspective of a single MMO, and its designers, it's understandable why having people blink from place to place isn't as desirable. They want you to experience things at a specific pace. Both for optimum (assuming this is all you have to do) fun, and to keep you paying.
And yes, there is(/can be) considerable fun in exploring a neat virtual world. But only when it interests you. Yes, you probably will appreciate the content more if you have to strive for it, but why "work", grinding/slogging/waiting through something? This is a game.
The entire RPG community is stuck on this idea of new character who start with a pointed stick, stabbing rats until their basic characteristics have increased to the point where they can now stab orcs, etc. This tired trek through mundanity sums up 95% of the content of all RPGs. While this is where the much of flavor of the game is, it's also just rat killing and being forced to walk through some big level just to keep playtime at 50+ hours.
There's some interest to be had in watching a character level up, the first few times. After a while you just want a fast-forward button.
Forcing everyone into the slog just because it gives the newbies/whiners a slightly richer experience seems pathetic.
No, while it saves you a bit of time now it's ultimately more costly to leave these people uninformed about their shortcomings.
Had he simply been ignored he'd have heard that as a successful threat - someone cowed by the mod threat.
Instead he, and many others a similar mindset, have not only seen someone dissect why that is pathetic, but also ultimately useless.
While meta-mod would catch this in the end (and really, mod score is "what users think", so he's welcome to use it regardless) it'd be nicer for everyone, including him, if nobody had to play this little power-tripping game or cleanup after it.
Spend a little time now to create the community you want in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
They prove they were misrepresented by playing their tape.
Realistically, they're fucked, but it seems that's because of the prohibition against recording - any recording is going to be the tool of a bad guy. If we all recorded everything (and took steps to ensure it couldn't be edited like playing cryptographically generated white-noise in the background and checking if this watermark is valid in later recordings) we'd all be safe(r).
In looking at the exception (record crimes, threats, etc) I still can't see how this would be useful. The only times I've been threatened like that I'd have missed everything even just reaching for the recorder, but I can easily imagine how I'd set someone up to say "We're gonna come up there and kill you guys this weekend" by issuing a sports-boast just before turning the recorder on... In other words, the lack of context from trying to record only crimes would make it harder to prove the real crimes and easier to fake.
got insulting
Live and let live. Converse is also true.
Not quite, I started insulting. And specifically to make a point.
If people picking arguments with me are going to post links to their personal information, I'm going to take the opportunity to educate myself.
Yeah, you got mad and got even. Cyber-stalker. :)
You also took my random bad words and replaced them with specific, chosen to be hurtful, descriptions. I'll live, I think, but you didn't respond in kind.
I don't really think of myself as pompous
Well, that "I shouldn't need to tell you, but" thing comes across that way... As does not just calling an asshole an asshole - why bother with fat jokes (which will only hurt sensitive people on the sidelines more than me) when you could have just said I was an ass. It seems like you took that course to look better than me - veiled insults are cooler and all.
Sort of like charging someone with intentional infliction of emotional distress for calling someone's mother a cunt. It's a waste of time (including apparently yours and mine), but that's not to say it doesn't happen.
Yes, but that doesn't mean there's a law against insulting someone, just that malicious prosecution knows no limits.
It's hard to fit all of my views into one line, lesson learned, I was just responding to a guy claiming that you can't charge someone with a crime for insulting you.
Actually he claimed there's no law against it, which I still think is right.
I'm pretty sure that he'd admit you could be charged or sued for doing anything though, but that's not a question of law as much as sleeping with the judge and judicial activism (punishing people they find unsavory despite the law.)
And the discussion went on normally, until the loser who just got killed starts spamming everyone with his rage.
You do understand that the discussion can continue regardless of players' locations, right?
Yes, it disrupts the pretty MS Comic Chat tableau, but that's not the conversation, that's posing for screenshots.
A party is a place for chatting, a PvP zone in a game is for killing.
But rather than be able to stop the jerk, he used a cheap trick to keep getting his way and expressed surprise at everyone's grumbling.
A cheap trick? How about a humiliation move? Like getting axe-killed in Quake. Trivially stoppable by paying any attention at all.
And he didn't express surprise at their annoyance - anyone could tell you idiots would rather bitch than anything else. He expressed concern, and perhaps some surprise, over how many of them were batshit insane and felt the need to threaten his life.
Truly pathetic, they're the assholes who won't get off the field and let others play and they can't even wake up enough to see it. Instead they threaten the only sensible guy playing the game.
MMOs are filled with people who couldn't operate TVs.
Pshaw, if I were a true unix stereotype I wouldn't be caught dead walking.
I see your distinction, but it seems weak, and thus retroactive. That law is not for people who got called a cunt any more than a assault is 'for' people who were barely touched. You can cry rape for anything but it's meant to punish people who seriously harm another person not to punish someone for being uglier than you expected when you sober up, even though it gets used that way.
That is not a correct statement, there is such a law, which I've pointed out, which sometimes gets broadly applied by certain people to do just that - remedy a trivial insult.
But not really, as I'm saying.
This is semantic, I'll grant you, but it's obscuring the issue.
I can imagine plenty of sympathetic juries who would consider "aggressive" use of the word "cunt" as being "extreme".
Yes, but the law is one thing, not anything you could imagine a jury buying. Many juries would consider a riding-crop in someone's ass to be obscene, but that doesn't mean it is, or that if a law were bent to prohibit filming it that the law would be constitutional.
it is widely considered uncivil to go around addressing people the way you are
And god (a god, take your pick) is widely believed to exist.
It doesn't surprise me that I have to point this out to you
Oh, so you got this far and thought I didn't know?
my sensibilities are not so easily offended as to cause me emotional distress
I see. So you went to my site browsing for material, got insulting, and acted all pompous and holier-than-thou just for the hell of it?
It's not offensive to me when someone insults me for a perceived reason which isn't actually true (i.e., ignorance).
No, it is offensive, but it isn't harmful.
But that's my point, you cretin, that there's no harm from all those things I said to you. I'm just some guy on the internet who knows nothing about you, so nothing I say can harm you if you're sane. That's sort of the definition of adulthood.
You just seem to be under the mistaken assumption that I'm a type of person that I'm actually not, and enjoy insulting me because of that.
No, if I enjoyed harassing you today it's because of how funny you are when you try to be all proper while being insulting.
Back to that semantic thing though... If you consider that an overzealous policeman could cite you for anything, and there'd be a closest law to it however tenuous the connection, then you could say that there's a law for everything. Cough in public? Ummm, disturbing the peace, engaging in biochemical terrorism, etc...
Or, if you would agree that laws can be over-broadly applied it implies that not all uses of the law are reasonable or valid, they're just random crap that happens to be wrongly prosecuted under this law as opposed to another.
So while I'll agree the law exists, I don't think it, or laws in general, mean quite what you think. Everything not explicitly forbidden is allowed. You seem to be operating on the anything-possibly-questionable-is-forbidden model. Are you in North Korea?
There's a law against killing someone, but not against calling them a cunt.
Pshaw, if I were a true unix stereotype I wouldn't be caught dead walking.
I see your distinction, but it seems weak, and thus retroactive. That law is not for people who got called a cunt any more than a assault is 'for' people who were barely touched. You can cry rape for anything but it's meant to punish people who seriously harm another person not to punish someone for being uglier than you expected when you sober up, even though it gets used that way.
That is not a correct statement, there is such a law, which I've pointed out, which sometimes gets broadly applied by certain people to do just that - remedy a trivial insult.
But not really, as I'm saying.
This is semantic, I'll grant you, but it's obscuring the issue.
I can imagine plenty of sympathetic juries who would consider "aggressive" use of the word "cunt" as being "extreme".
Yes, but the law is one thing, not anything you could imagine a jury buying. Many juries would consider a riding-crop in someone's ass to be obscene, but that doesn't mean it is, or that if a law were bent to prohibit filming it that the law would be constitutional.
it is widely considered uncivil to go around addressing people the way you are
And god (a god, take your pick) is widely believed to exist.
It doesn't surprise me that I have to point this out to you
Oh, so you got this far and thought I didn't know?
my sensibilities are not so easily offended as to cause me emotional distress
I see. So you went to my site browsing for material, got insulting, and acted all pompous and holier-than-thou just for the hell of it?
It's not offensive to me when someone insults me for a perceived reason which isn't actually true (i.e., ignorance).
No, it is offensive, but it isn't harmful.
But that's my point, you cretin, that there's no harm from all those things I said to you. I'm just some guy on the internet who knows nothing about you, so nothing I say can harm you if you're sane. That's sort of the definition of adulthood.
You just seem to be under the mistaken assumption that I'm a type of person that I'm actually not, and enjoy insulting me because of that.
No, if I enjoyed harassing you tod
Of course it's a password I'll be able to steal simply by watching you read.
You do understand that getting killed in an MMO isn't permanent and usually doesn't even interrupt your chatting, right?
So yeah, it seems like it is about like a hat on a bar.
Unwritten rules are rude, not only do they require people guess them, but they usually dump the cost of following the rule on everyone else.
For example, FPS players who bitch if you kill them while they're typing. Adding insanity to delusion, they often stop in a busy room full of mayhem and expect the little icon over their head to protect them like a guardian angel.
You're just playing the game, fighting away and suddenly some guy gets mental because your stray rocket hit him while he was typing. WTF? Thankfully in the FPS community the answer is to simply shoot the guy while he bitches - eventually his rage melts his cable-modem and he disconnects.
So who's really asking what of who? The researcher's asking that everyone in the game area be ready to play, they're asking him to not play the game the way it was designed, or the way he paid to play it, but instead to figure out which groups of people in the game are just chatting and to avoid them.
It's like going to a paintball game, standing around in doorways chatting, and bitching when you get hit. Yes, you might be used to chatting there, but that doesn't mean you should keep doing it. Not only would it be painful, but rude to the people who came to play.
If all he had done was obey the rules that didn't involve other people being harmed by his choices, he'd have been ok.
Wow, you're such a pompous ass.
That's exactly what the law says. That's not watering anything down, that's the law.
Sigh, yes. That is a law.
But when you suggest it as a remedy for a trivial insult you're watering it down, along with the suffering of those it's meant to protect such as the little girl hounded to suicide.
You might question whether calling your mother a cunt is "extreme and outrageous"
No, I know that it is not, you festering retard, as does everyone with a mental age over seven. It's ridiculous that a few unfriendly words from someone you don't even know could be so extreme as to cause a normal person severe distress.
I don't see people disagreeing with me as trolling, I'm all for civil discourse. What you're doing is not very civil.
Bullshit, Fucknut. If I was uncivil I'd be kicking down your door and punctuating this with violence, or threatening to do so. I am merely sharing my view of someone who could utter such ill-considered drivel.
But that's my point, you'd rather be offended by my words than simply address the content. The law isn't (/shouldn't be) another censorship tool for whiners who are afraid of being shown to be wrong, or upset that they aren't being respected properly.
That's already covered by fraud, misrepresentation, etc.
And I'm not quite sure how those exceptions would work, considering you'd have to be recording everything to catch the threat.
No shitbird, because you suggested the law as a remedy for someone's hypothetical mother who'd been called a cunt. That would be the watering down, and it's your reflex to deny it that makes you an asshole.
You've got paranoid tendencies if you see people disagreeing with you as trolling.
He's the crybaby, not the other players.
That made no sense, you must be a fucking imbecile.
He didn't CRY, he reported. He got exactly what he expected, proof that fucking imbeciles take MMOs seriously enough to threaten to kill you (wait... do YOU play CoH?) for something that is a legitimate way to play the game. If anyone's crying now it's all the assholes who had their accounts terminated for threatening.
His bad.
Yeah, how dare the dirty bastard put his hat on the bar. Doesn't he know we don't do that around here cuz... cuz... well, just cuz. Damn him!
Yawn.
Ignoring custom in favor of only the rules in print is antisocial behavior.
No, having rules (This area is for PVP) which are not expected to be obeyed is anti-social.
You only get to go PVP with people who have consented
No, he "got" to PVP anyone he wanted. Seems like you're mistaken.
It's a like a dance club where someone has decided that just because he's a man and you're a woman that he gets to bump and grind against you even if you're not interested.
Oh yes, think of the honor of a girl. OMG. Because touching a character in a game is RAPE!
Or, think of crybabies who sit in PVP zones and don't want to be hit when they aren't ready.
That's what PVP zones are for!
I've paid for this virtual equivalent of paintball. So quit ruining my game by adding all your pussy rules to it and simply shut up about getting hit by paintballs - if your mask is on and your flag isn't out, you're a target.
the people who play City of Heroes have decided as a community
No, the whiners who play CoH have decided to cry every time someone does something they don't like, and because whiners are far louder than normal people the community quickly becomes flooded with pathetic attention seekers demanding that everyone stop what they were doing and cater to them.
I remember being at a party with a guy who was telling a bunch of fascinated people stuff about spiders, the big, the fast, etc. This friend comes over and inserts herself, hears the topic - has a "ugh, I *hate* spiders" moment and then when conversation returns to spiders, asks if we didn't hear her and demands we stop... Umm, lots of other conversations going on - pick one. But rather than deal with shrill lady yet again everyone grumbled and let her get her way.
He was using the game's equivalent of violent force
That's ridiculous. Like saying placing a stone in Go is analogous to waging war. That game has no equivalent of violence - you know, where something happens to you and you may never be all right again. The cartoon characters just respawn, their players unharmed. So he's really using the equivalent of speech.
I welcome the $18B charge. Seriously, even if that was me I'd far rather the bill be seventeen trillion dollars than fifty thousand. I could only be so fucked so who cares if I fail to pay off a million a year, or a day? The $50k I'd actually be expected to pay, the bignum would be obvious evidence of judicial failure.
So yeah, show how copying ~30 songs caused more damage than the Iraqi war. Please. Then when I show how I've traded 300,000+ songs the universe will simply implode and we'll be done.
And this hardly interferes with that. Chat connections in almost all MMOs work at any distance. This just dumps a bit of their stuff, probably necessitating 15-30m of grinding to replace.
I'm actually with Twixt, the developers should have NPCs like him even if there aren't players. I mean, way to totally ruin the role-play for everyone. If you're playing a villain people should be calling 911 when they see you and taking pot-shots at you, civs with guns and heros who don't forget whatever it was that made you a villain.
In fact, that would be part of the fun of being a villain. More of a challenge, not just the cool gothy uniforms.
Besides, idiots get so bent out of shape over shit they just made up. Like tell them there isn't a Santa or a god and they start wars. Doesn't mean you should coddle them, just that people do dumb shit and can't face the consequences. Like chatting in a war zone while playing the enemy...
Or, it's (99%) a lie.
Not that the abuse doesn't happen, and that abusers don't make their own movies/pics, but that there just aren't secret internet chat rooms that you have to molest a kid to get into. It's... silly.
Then couple that with 95% of people being turned off by it and the other 5% being afraid it's a setup and it's no surprise it's not everywhere.
It's the same broken thinking that results in movies with Assassin guilds instead of lone killers. In real life criminals isolate instead of congregating unless they work together. Sure, some sickos will find compatible sickos, but are they building secret encrypted undernets for this purpose and recruiting worldwide? No.
But that doesn't get funding (and draconian new laws) like paranoid shrieking about the sky falling.
No, you fucking child. That's for bullying intended to inflict emotional scars. Simply randomly insulting someone merely shows them not everyone in the world is a Disney character. There's nothing in that which, if it caused lasting harm, is the fault of the unsavory person.
Now to call your mom a worthless person, incapable of doing anything right, and continue doing so day after day while also keeping her from leaving. That's where that law you mentioned comes in.
Honestly, I can't believe you fucking imbeciles who want to water our world down so that you'll never have to face the ugly truth of your own failure. Laws are for real harm, asshole, over-prescribing them is as harmful as with antibiotics.
If you've got an entire map to play in and can't defeat a guy who's stuck in one spot you suck at the game.
This is the lowest form of 'cheating'. If you'll notice, it's also shared by players who have barely learned to move.
That's one of those laws I break. If I can hear it, I can record it. It's a law of nature and trumps two-party consent.
I wonder how crazy the legal circumstances could be. If I recorded a phone-threat (without the threatener's permission) could I use it in court? How egregiously wrong could this get? Unable to prove self-defense?
Especially as many textbooks are written by professors now, and often almost totally for academic recognition (well, it's not for the money).
Editing Wikipedia (and I imagine, Wikibooks) feels like using Subversion. Slow, awkward, and my changes get accidentally overwritten by the next guy. Maybe once wikis are based on a better source-control model than the "one definitive master" and global-locking we'll get better books.
I'm speaking from a perspective of having been in mass-deployed product liability meetings. I know the kinds of arguments that influence the decision makers.
Yeah, of course. Anything that stands to make or save them money. And yes, this certainly would save them some tiny bit from reducing lawsuits and make them a ton via increased battery sales.
You made no point, you merely repeated their claims that they're doing this to avoid great and unfair settlements.
This'd be like you merely repeating the TSA's ban on containers over 100ml on a flight and claiming you understood their arguments - a total non-sequitur.
And it's all a red-herring because you never offer a glimpse of these real motives.
Discount it if you want by calling me a jerk
If you think that was insulting you're a coddled child, and if you can't read your latest post and see what I mean, you're hopeless.
At each step you write as if what you're saying is the final-word on the subject. You act like your stupid court scenario was definitive, try to shore it up as if my complaints were trivial and pretend it was still definitive, and come back to play this misunderstood expert - oh, if only I'd endeavored to learn more from you while I had the chance!
But in examination you've said nothing of value, and played the victim when I've gone out of my way to coddle you through the explanation of your social gaffe. Your "You: Lie to judge" scenario was insulting and while your "lawsuits cost money" point is true, it is trivial and has flaws you didn't seem to realize and were failing to address.
you're obviously a great intellect.
Thank you, but spotting the self-serving nature in an action like Panasonic's is really easy. No customers asked for the feature so it's obviously not something for customers. And that's all we're bitching about - that 'they' always sell these money-grubbing or CYA moves as for-the-customer. And that people like you crawl out of the woodwork to obfuscate this.
You did take the effort. You put your data on a webserver and told it to give copies to people. That googlebot guy came along and you gave him all your data.
I doubt they read the patent. At that it's just reverse engineering, except for Nintendo's government-monopoly writ. Yawn.
things that ultimately undercut the enjoyment/value of their experience.
Or, things that let them experience the actual content and move on when it's gone.
From the perspective of a single MMO, and its designers, it's understandable why having people blink from place to place isn't as desirable. They want you to experience things at a specific pace. Both for optimum (assuming this is all you have to do) fun, and to keep you paying.
And yes, there is(/can be) considerable fun in exploring a neat virtual world. But only when it interests you. Yes, you probably will appreciate the content more if you have to strive for it, but why "work", grinding/slogging/waiting through something? This is a game.
The entire RPG community is stuck on this idea of new character who start with a pointed stick, stabbing rats until their basic characteristics have increased to the point where they can now stab orcs, etc. This tired trek through mundanity sums up 95% of the content of all RPGs. While this is where the much of flavor of the game is, it's also just rat killing and being forced to walk through some big level just to keep playtime at 50+ hours.
There's some interest to be had in watching a character level up, the first few times. After a while you just want a fast-forward button.
Forcing everyone into the slog just because it gives the newbies/whiners a slightly richer experience seems pathetic.
No, while it saves you a bit of time now it's ultimately more costly to leave these people uninformed about their shortcomings.
Had he simply been ignored he'd have heard that as a successful threat - someone cowed by the mod threat.
Instead he, and many others a similar mindset, have not only seen someone dissect why that is pathetic, but also ultimately useless.
While meta-mod would catch this in the end (and really, mod score is "what users think", so he's welcome to use it regardless) it'd be nicer for everyone, including him, if nobody had to play this little power-tripping game or cleanup after it.
Spend a little time now to create the community you want in the future.