SomethingJones posted:

ACCESSIVE REPORTING OF POSYS

Mirificus posted:

Solarin posted:

'maybe stop buying garbage?' I say to the infinite void composed of nothing but payment options and bags of doritos

Sarsapariller posted:

I think a lot of this actually arises from the technology itself. Back in the dinosaur times, a conversation ended when one or more participants got up and walked away. You had some exceptions like public journals and letter-writing groups, and hey it turns out those were kind of notorious for cantankerous shitlords. The internet made every conversation eternal, and public- and then on top of that threw in notifications, so you could find out if somebody responded to you three weeks after the fact and get sucked right back in.

quote:

What alarms me is how many people seem to think the solution is to wall yourself off from conflicting opinions and create spaces where you only engage with people who don't challenge you. Straw man and stereotype your opponents and then all kind of communally take turns whaling on the effigy version. Which is one reason I really appreciate when pro-SC people do come in here, because it reminds us that they're human beings too.

Sarsapariller posted:

I think a lot of this actually arises from the technology itself. Back in the dinosaur times, a conversation ended when one or more participants got up and walked away. You had some exceptions like public journals and letter-writing groups, and hey it turns out those were kind of notorious for cantankerous shitlords. The internet made every conversation eternal, and public- and then on top of that threw in notifications, so you could find out if somebody responded to you three weeks after the fact and get sucked right back in.

This has had a really negative impact. I've felt it too, same as you- it's hard to walk away first when you really disagree with someone because you feel like you're letting them "Win." But the chances that you're going to reach any kind of understanding are slim to none, and you can't just unilaterally end a conversation anymore. All you can do is accept that your part in it has come to an end and disengage. People can't do that, though, and now we've basically laid out the foundations for every obnoxious and problematic area on reddit.

What alarms me is how many people seem to think the solution is to wall yourself off from conflicting opinions and create spaces where you only engage with people who don't challenge you. Straw man and stereotype your opponents and then all kind of communally take turns whaling on the effigy version. Which is one reason I really appreciate when pro-SC people do come in here, because it reminds us that they're human beings too.

Scruffpuff posted:

It goes even further than that and circles back into the real world. Remember when your friends and neighbors were from all over the political, religious, and personal interest spectrum? Because they were your friends and neighbors due to proximity - it was get along with each other or sit in your house alone. So people were forced to mingle and go to dinner and movies and go fishing with people who gasp disagreed with them, and it wound up with the horrific side effect of lots of people being close friends with other people who disagreed with them on some subjects, because they found lots of other common ground and had an overall greater respect for each other in general. It was impossible to brand some guy who liked Pepsi and you liked Coke into "the enemy" because you're about to be best man at his wedding and wearing a "Shitlords Drink Pepsi" shirt to the ceremony would clash with the decor.

In these more advanced times, we now see the wisdom of subdividing humanity into even more categories than we used to, and judging them accordingly with derogatory names for their group ("Pepshits") so that you can sit in the dark, one hand on dick, the other on mouse, to scroll through your "Coke-Woke" support group and read for months about how right you already know you are.

ewe2 posted:

(wise mode on)

Yes, the internet has lowered the barrier to confrontation. It's a double-edged sword as you point out. And I do worry that those who've never known life without a digital interface are more prey to sloppy thinking and various fallacies as an emotional crutch. It's why I don't touch the poop, because I've never felt those kinds of arguments are worth having, as tempting and fun as it is. That Beet questions himself is a mark of maturity. So many don't get to that stage.


But no I don't think that can all be blamed on the internet. We live in a real, polarised world, because we always lived at village size (we can only personalise somewhere around 150 other people), and looking for simple black and white ideas is comforting on all sides. Think about those famous psychological experiments done in an era before the internet (although also in a mass communication era, which might spoil the comparison). I'll just leave a *cough*Godwin*cough* here.

There is also a habit by some (not accusing you here!) of blaming whatever new technology is around for whatever they dislike about other people, often by pretending to a concern for children. To me that's usually a sign that they're insecure about maintaining some power they think they'll lose. Name anything, there's usually been some kind of paternalistic backlash. So I'm a bit wary of easy arguments like that.

The internet gives free rein to a polarised impulse, true. But you only have to look at real world politics and history to realise it's a human tribal impulse already, however encouraged by digital means. It just makes it easier to excuse to oneself. And far easier for those who have never questioned themselves to be zealots.

(wise mode off)

Beet Wagon posted:

I genuinely can't tell if I want you to have made all of that extremely vitriolic Coke vs Pepsi stuff up or for it all to be real and there to be serious online communities dedicated to trolling the gently caress out of people who like a different disgusting soft drink lol.

thatguy posted:

I don't understand the whole lootbox outrage. Haven't lootboxes/crates/cases been a thing for years?

Dusty Lens posted:

How do you say "I, on the other hand, can never be wrong about this" in Xian.

SCtrumpHaters posted:

Let me explain by giving you examples of how BF2 is doing lootboxes versus Blizzard games Overwatch and Heroes of the Storm

BF2
60 dollar game with paid DLC
Lootboxes cost real money, are earned slowly, and give clear essential advantages in the actual game
The advantages are hard to obtain through normal play. Darth Vader takes like 40 hours of play or some poo poo.

Overwatch
60 dollar game
All new maps, gamemodes, and characters are free forever if you own the game.
Lootboxes are 100% cosmetic and earned at an okayish to poor pace (matter of opinion) in game.

Heroes of the Storm
Game is free
All new maps and gamemodes are free
New and existing heroes can be bought with real money but are very easy to earn normally through playing the game. Earning enough in game currency to buy a legendary hero only takes a couple weeks. Legendary heroes are not any better than lesser rarities. You start the game with a bunch of free heros and they have several heros unlocked for everyone every week. I own about 50 of the 70ish heroes and I've only played for 6ish months.
The game shits lootboxes at you but you can buy them. Lootboxes are 99% cosmetic. There is a small chance for a lootbox to contain a hero. However thats not how they are normally earned and hero prices are not balanced around this. Its more of a cool bonus.

Thats how you do lootboxes and make money without skullfucking the customer.

Beet Wagon posted:

I genuinely can't tell if I want you to have made all of that extremely vitriolic Coke vs Pepsi stuff up or for it all to be real and there to be serious online communities dedicated to trolling the gently caress out of people who like a different disgusting soft drink lol.

Beet Wagon posted:

I genuinely can't tell if I want you to have made all of that extremely vitriolic Coke vs Pepsi stuff up or for it all to be real and there to be serious online communities dedicated to trolling the gently caress out of people who like a different disgusting soft drink lol.

big nipples big life posted:

all 3 of those suck rear end, BF2 just sucks a little more rear end

trucutru posted:

I for one, just can't wait until I have to find a hadoken inside a lootbox before Ryu can use it in the next SF.

big nipples big life posted:

Gambling boxes suck, free ones suck less but they are just there to entice people into spending money, we poo poo on CIG all day for enticing mentally unwell people to spend money with shady tactics, I don't see why anyone else is exempt.

fuctifino posted:

Bayonnefrog posted:

I have been saying for a long time and the twitch numbers bear it out. Eve Online will be around long after scam citizen has gone the way of the dodo bird.

Xaerael posted:

Actually one of the few things that are unlikely to happen. Capcom devs have been fairly against the lootbox culture. There was a recent article about MHW omitting them from it's "optionals".

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/monster-hunter-world-devs-weigh-in-on-loot-boxes/1100-6454539/

A Neurotic Corncob posted:

Quick reminder that this is what CIG encourages him to believe vanquished the Smart menace:

Beet Wagon posted:

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Games > Stupid Crowdfunding Accomplishment Mausoleum > Star Citizen: (ex-)criminals, stalkers,
harassers, and so on.

Solarin posted:

0 parps, lame