I’ve known of his fight with cancer for a long time and it is greatly disheartening he will be losing the battle. While I am sure his stances on many subjects puts him at odds with the viewership of this site at large, I felt he made his case from a point of level headed rationality which is to be commended. Between…

It’s hard to sell me on their heart being in the right place. I just want to hear about the new Devil May Cry. Instead I’m swarmed by a guerilla court of public opinion jurrored by militant feminists. All because Im interested in videogames and not the people who play them.

But that is the thing, we don’t know what they took, or even what they were looking for, because they never told anyone about it openly. Also, ToS are not above the law, no matter if you agree to it, it will not hold in court if it was used to do something illegal (that depending on where you are as I said above).

It’s an invasion of privacy that you allowed.

There’s a lingering question as to whether that would hold up in a court of law, though. Just because something is in a contract doesn’t mean it’s enforceable under scrutiny. TOSes routinely overreach in order to render the company as broadly liability-free as possible. This doesn’t mean that if signers to said TOS…

I don’t think it is right that they picked a girl who is known to use homophobic slurs as the face of the campaign. It’s very hypocritical to me that someone can protect girls but proceed to speak in typical gamer-speak and call everyone a “f*****” or “gay” or “suck my dick” and stuff.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am a software engineer.

Whataboutism isn’t going to push forward any point of view.

how does selling headphones implies that their heart was in the right place exactly?

While their heart was in the right place

ToS are not laws. They can put whatever they want in it. Legal or not.

A TOS doesn’t magically absolve a company from all legal consequences.

You agreed to the TOS.

The whole idea of having a squad of people, ready to react to any message that someone could consider to be “bully-like behavior” seems rather detrimental to what they stand for.

Because:

How is attending to the ethos of the researcher a short-sighted view? I’m not saying that his criticisms are wrong. For instance, I agree that Guild Wars 2 has invaded the privacy of its players, and I wish there were either legislative or practical ways to protect that privacy. I also want there to be fewer cheaters…

As a person who has not cheated since you had to use a Game Genie to do it, this is a shortsighted view of the problem with this. I don’t want my privacy invaded because a game company cannot figure out a less invasive way to catch cheaters.

As ironic as the situation may seem, they still make a very good point. HOW ArenaNet are going about detecting cheating is totally unacceptable.

I think that consequently looking for and then banning people for programs they might have installed on their PC is extremely shady, as you have to employ means that are shady to determine that, he should’ve been banned from FFXIV and PoE, as determined by their anti-botting investigations, but not GW2. With this kind…

Back in the 90's when I was just getting into my teens, we didn't have facebook. Instead my mates, school friends, enemies etc, communitacted with CB radios. Most rigs were set-ups in our bedrooms with Station-Master antennas (I had a Megatron). We urban kids with CB radios can draw many parallels with social media…