Also, first user from Bing! I'd expect more to get here given that, oh, I don't know, they copy Google's results.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
More Entries
Also, first user from Bing! I'd expect more to get here given that, oh, I don't know, they copy Google's results.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Politically Incorrect Pokemon
Today, Pokemon Racism Still Exists Pokemon Black and Pokemon White came out. It has all the spiffy bits of each new generation of Pokemon games - new beasties to catch, a new land (not based off Japan this time!) and new baddies to fight. It's got all the shininess of Red Gyarados, and quite a few new features as well, as detailed here. I'll also go into them below, to spare all you readers from having to make that huge exertion to click that link.
Triple Battles
This is the first major change. Yes. You can send three Pokemon into battle at a time now.
Wat.
Okay, first, why couldn't we do this earlier? I mean, was it against intergalactic Pokemon law to throw more than two Pokemon out? Perhaps the laws in Unova are more lenient about these things.
Second, can anyone else see where this is going? I can.
GO EVERY SINGLE POKEMON I OWN!
I also never really understood what stopped baddies from throwing out all their Pokemon into battle. I mean, you've already broken a few laws by TRYING TO STEAL MY POKEMON.
Let's move on to the baddies.
Team Plasma
Team Plasma is the latest set of baddies. They want to separate Pokemon and humans.
Okay, first off. Plasma. Are you serious? Plasma? This is coming from the game where the baddies haven't figured out biological warfare or even chloroform for heaven's sake! How do they know what plasma is?
Second, does their goal sound familiar to you? Separating Pokemon and humans? Maybe this wasn't the best goal, especially in conjunction with the whole Black/White motif. Fighting for segregation...
But, just a thought. What if they're the good guys? Intent on saving the Pokemon from their enslaved states? Sure, they may seem to be content, but they'd be more content on their own, no? Who knows? We certainly won't know until Pokemon can say something other than "Pika-pika-pika-chu!" (Yes, I know, Meowth and Mewtwo exist. Stop poking holes in my arguments.)
Infinite TMs
Okay, this is the last groundbreaking thing. I'm not sure you understand how groundbreaking it is. I can now satisfy my life-long dream of having a team of all HYPER BEAM!!!111!1one!1one1!1!!eleven!!!
Triple Battles
This is the first major change. Yes. You can send three Pokemon into battle at a time now.
Wat.
Okay, first, why couldn't we do this earlier? I mean, was it against intergalactic Pokemon law to throw more than two Pokemon out? Perhaps the laws in Unova are more lenient about these things.
Second, can anyone else see where this is going? I can.
GO EVERY SINGLE POKEMON I OWN!
I also never really understood what stopped baddies from throwing out all their Pokemon into battle. I mean, you've already broken a few laws by TRYING TO STEAL MY POKEMON.
Let's move on to the baddies.
Team Plasma
Team Plasma is the latest set of baddies. They want to separate Pokemon and humans.
Okay, first off. Plasma. Are you serious? Plasma? This is coming from the game where the baddies haven't figured out biological warfare or even chloroform for heaven's sake! How do they know what plasma is?
Second, does their goal sound familiar to you? Separating Pokemon and humans? Maybe this wasn't the best goal, especially in conjunction with the whole Black/White motif. Fighting for segregation...
But, just a thought. What if they're the good guys? Intent on saving the Pokemon from their enslaved states? Sure, they may seem to be content, but they'd be more content on their own, no? Who knows? We certainly won't know until Pokemon can say something other than "Pika-pika-pika-chu!" (Yes, I know, Meowth and Mewtwo exist. Stop poking holes in my arguments.)
Infinite TMs
Okay, this is the last groundbreaking thing. I'm not sure you understand how groundbreaking it is. I can now satisfy my life-long dream of having a team of all HYPER BEAM!!!111!1one!1one1!1!!eleven!!!
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
On Searches And Hard Drives
This article recently popped up on customs and the searching of hard drives. This whole thing really reeks to me of unreasonable search and seizure. It's one thing to have your luggage scanned through, and another to have the contents of your computer looked through. It's the difference between having someone look through your backpack, and having that same person look through not only your house, but everything you've done for the past month, six months, or even further back (if you're someone who never cleans out their caches).
"Well if you don't have anything to hide, you won't mind being searched."
Oh, fuck no.
This whole thing just reeks of irony (and not just because I'm not at a bus stop!).
When asked for comments on specific cases of computer seizures, customs replied they could not offer much information. Why?
"The privacy rights that citizens have really supersede the government's ability to go into any depth."
Wait. Shouldn't these same rights apply to our hard drives? Especially given, oh, I don't know, the fourth amendment?
Okay, anyways, let's move on. I mean, it's hardly fair to bash customs. They prevent terrorism, day-in, and day-out. I mean, without them, there would be so many more terrorist attacks. This policy with scanning hard drives, they've caught dozens of would-be terrorists, right?
Well, you'd think that if customs had caught a terrorist, it'd be all over the news. They'd at least reference it, right? To show they were doing something.
No reports. No news stories. No nothing. Unless terrorists caught by customs happen to fly under the sensationalist media news radar (hint: they wouldn't!) I think it's safe to say there have been none.
I'll close with these statements: of the terrorist attacks in the past decade, how many have been on a plane whose passengers passed through customs? Now how many have not had anything to do with customs? How many terrorist attacks has customs caught? How many terrorist attacks were caught on the plane, having bypassed customs?
We don't need stricter customs, we need smarter customs. Once again, I point towards the Israeli setup. I think it's wonderful, and should be implemented here.
"Well if you don't have anything to hide, you won't mind being searched."
Oh, fuck no.
This whole thing just reeks of irony (and not just because I'm not at a bus stop!).
When asked for comments on specific cases of computer seizures, customs replied they could not offer much information. Why?
"The privacy rights that citizens have really supersede the government's ability to go into any depth."
Wait. Shouldn't these same rights apply to our hard drives? Especially given, oh, I don't know, the fourth amendment?
Okay, anyways, let's move on. I mean, it's hardly fair to bash customs. They prevent terrorism, day-in, and day-out. I mean, without them, there would be so many more terrorist attacks. This policy with scanning hard drives, they've caught dozens of would-be terrorists, right?
Well, you'd think that if customs had caught a terrorist, it'd be all over the news. They'd at least reference it, right? To show they were doing something.
No reports. No news stories. No nothing. Unless terrorists caught by customs happen to fly under the sensationalist media news radar (hint: they wouldn't!) I think it's safe to say there have been none.
I'll close with these statements: of the terrorist attacks in the past decade, how many have been on a plane whose passengers passed through customs? Now how many have not had anything to do with customs? How many terrorist attacks has customs caught? How many terrorist attacks were caught on the plane, having bypassed customs?
We don't need stricter customs, we need smarter customs. Once again, I point towards the Israeli setup. I think it's wonderful, and should be implemented here.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Griefing
Tried to make this as un-ranty as possible. That being said, this was produced in a facility which also processes rant, and thus may contain traces of rant.
For those of you who don't know what griefing is, let me sum it up: It's being a dick, usually for one's own enjoyment.
The question was posed a few days ago on reddit, and I so happened to be thinking about it at the time. (Okay, fine, only after I saw the topic)
I'm not entirely sure what drives people to grief others, but my conclusions, some of which were drawn from the thread, are these:
(Note: there are definitely some "reasons" griefers use, but these are rationalizations or post facto justifications which ring hollowly.)
Some men just want to watch the world burn
This is the smallest subset of griefers, I believe. There are those who much prefer to watch stuff get destroyed than make anything for themselves, but the number of people who have this mindset are few enough. Nothing to see here but depraved fellows, move along.
Dopamine rush
Some griefers get off by doing stuff they know they shouldn't be, getting a rush from the threat of getting in trouble or from the power trip from the illusion of not being able to be caught. Oh, you're such a rebel, killing your team at spawn. I bet all the girls go for you, rebel.
Schadenfreude
Somewhat like the above, some griefers get off on watching others suffer, or go into grief. Trolls basically feed on schadenfreude but with anger instead of pain. These are like masochists, except with other people. Are we allowed to sic modern "feminists" on them?
Revenge
This would be a more personal thing, using the griefing as a means of showing how powerful they are. Again with the power tripping. Included in this are a mix of other motives for griefing - anger, jealousy, etc. This is the most childish drive for griefing, revenge, in my opinion, being a very childish thing itself. (Then again, I'm a youth, so what do I know?)
Anyways, being griefed generally sucks; it can turn what could have been a fun afternoon of gaming into a crapfest. (One might even relate them to bullies of the internet) One has to deal with them one way or another, and there really only are a few choices at your disposal (apart from dissolving into a puddle of sulk), and I suggest that all of them be employed.
Deterrence
This one is easy. If you see a griefer, report/ban/kick them or whatever means you have to remove them from the game you're in.
Counter-Harassment
I should preface this with a statement: Chances are you won't make any griefers reform. They're also not worth your time; there are too many, and you're in the game to have fun, not to reform people. So this should be used if you can't get rid of the griefers yourself. Just grief them back until they leave.
No Reaction
"Don't feed the trolls" applies to this pretty well. No reaction means no fun for the griefers. They'll leave.
One last note: generally when griefers grief something, it's something someone else put work into. That is, a K:DR, a Minecraft base, a win/loss ratio, a WoW account, or the like. If you're getting worked up over losing these, as opposed to losing your time, then something is wrong. (I don't mean the time you put into that 10.0 KDR, either. I mean the time you are being griefed) If you need to have a statistic or an object proclaiming how much you love the game or how much time you put into it, you should reevaluate how you play. Think about it: do you enjoy the numbers/achievements/omfgwtfbbqhaxpwn items, or do you enjoy the act of playing the game? Griefers hit the former the hardest, and the latter to a far lesser degree.
tl;dr Griefers are lame excuses for humans, don't even deserve to be called trolls (trolls are funny to other people, that's the difference), but should be met as if they were trolls and ignored.
Addendum: Griefing done "right", just like trolling done right, is funny for everyone involved. To do it "right", it takes a certain level of familiarity, maturity, and cleverness on all sides (at which point it's more like frinedly back-and-forth than malicious assault). On the flip side, griefing done badly, like trolling done badly, just makes you into a childish arse.
For those of you who don't know what griefing is, let me sum it up: It's being a dick, usually for one's own enjoyment.
The question was posed a few days ago on reddit, and I so happened to be thinking about it at the time. (Okay, fine, only after I saw the topic)
I'm not entirely sure what drives people to grief others, but my conclusions, some of which were drawn from the thread, are these:
(Note: there are definitely some "reasons" griefers use, but these are rationalizations or post facto justifications which ring hollowly.)
Some men just want to watch the world burn
This is the smallest subset of griefers, I believe. There are those who much prefer to watch stuff get destroyed than make anything for themselves, but the number of people who have this mindset are few enough. Nothing to see here but depraved fellows, move along.
Dopamine rush
Some griefers get off by doing stuff they know they shouldn't be, getting a rush from the threat of getting in trouble or from the power trip from the illusion of not being able to be caught. Oh, you're such a rebel, killing your team at spawn. I bet all the girls go for you, rebel.
Schadenfreude
Somewhat like the above, some griefers get off on watching others suffer, or go into grief. Trolls basically feed on schadenfreude but with anger instead of pain. These are like masochists, except with other people. Are we allowed to sic modern "feminists" on them?
Revenge
This would be a more personal thing, using the griefing as a means of showing how powerful they are. Again with the power tripping. Included in this are a mix of other motives for griefing - anger, jealousy, etc. This is the most childish drive for griefing, revenge, in my opinion, being a very childish thing itself. (Then again, I'm a youth, so what do I know?)
Anyways, being griefed generally sucks; it can turn what could have been a fun afternoon of gaming into a crapfest. (One might even relate them to bullies of the internet) One has to deal with them one way or another, and there really only are a few choices at your disposal (apart from dissolving into a puddle of sulk), and I suggest that all of them be employed.
Deterrence
This one is easy. If you see a griefer, report/ban/kick them or whatever means you have to remove them from the game you're in.
Counter-Harassment
I should preface this with a statement: Chances are you won't make any griefers reform. They're also not worth your time; there are too many, and you're in the game to have fun, not to reform people. So this should be used if you can't get rid of the griefers yourself. Just grief them back until they leave.
No Reaction
"Don't feed the trolls" applies to this pretty well. No reaction means no fun for the griefers. They'll leave.
One last note: generally when griefers grief something, it's something someone else put work into. That is, a K:DR, a Minecraft base, a win/loss ratio, a WoW account, or the like. If you're getting worked up over losing these, as opposed to losing your time, then something is wrong. (I don't mean the time you put into that 10.0 KDR, either. I mean the time you are being griefed) If you need to have a statistic or an object proclaiming how much you love the game or how much time you put into it, you should reevaluate how you play. Think about it: do you enjoy the numbers/achievements/omfgwtfbbqhaxpwn items, or do you enjoy the act of playing the game? Griefers hit the former the hardest, and the latter to a far lesser degree.
tl;dr Griefers are lame excuses for humans, don't even deserve to be called trolls (trolls are funny to other people, that's the difference), but should be met as if they were trolls and ignored.
Addendum: Griefing done "right", just like trolling done right, is funny for everyone involved. To do it "right", it takes a certain level of familiarity, maturity, and cleverness on all sides (at which point it's more like frinedly back-and-forth than malicious assault). On the flip side, griefing done badly, like trolling done badly, just makes you into a childish arse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)