chrissedoff's forum posts

#1 Posted by chrissedoff (2108 posts) -

Is Bioforge such an obvious answer that nobody feels the need to mention it? Those videos blew my mind.

#2 Edited by chrissedoff (2108 posts) -

@jthom252: I don't make anything that would be of any interest to anybody on Kickstarter, but you're totally right: there's no way I would create a Kickstarter campaign, now, even if I was a genius with an killer idea for a project. Now, the only people who can truly afford to start crowdfunding campaign on Kickstarter are established entities who have access to the kind of capital you'd need to withstand a lawsuit if something goes wrong with some of the rewards for your backers. So that basically means that Kickstarter has become extremely risky for the people for whom it was ostensibly created. If I was sitting on a mattress full of money, I might buy some Indiegogo stocks right about now.

#3 Edited by chrissedoff (2108 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@heyguys said:

@hailinel: I disagree. They very clearly state that Kickstarter backers are, "...helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists." Now they are just creating safe guards that mean project creators now have codified obligations to their funders and it's not just a one way street and there are extended safe guards against using Kickstarter fraudulently. If you are expecting to receive large sums of money there should absolutely be prerequisites you're willing to prescribe to.

This is strengthening the concept of crowd funding, not diminishing it.

And yet, if a backed project goes sideways, Kickstarter is now saying, "Oh, and backers can now sue you if you don't deliver." Delivery was never something that could be guaranteed. Even well-organized, well backed projects can fail for reasons outside of the creator's control. While it is irresponsible of creators to not keep backers informed and to fail to put the funds toward their intended use, backing a project is a voluntary choice, as is the amount pledged.

I couldn't agree more. This is a really uncool change that could potentially hurt a lot of honest people who simply are unable to give backers the exact rewards in the exact fashion they promised. I will almost always side with consumers on any given issue, but the nature of crowdfunding (and of the people whose projects rely on crowdfunding) is such that it really is up to funders to know to whom they're giving their money and understand that none of this is a sure thing. I mean, we're talking about products that haven't been created yet because they don't yet have the capital to do so. Nobody can guarantee that everything will go according to plan as long as they have as much funding as they think they will need.

#4 Edited by chrissedoff (2108 posts) -

@heyguys said:

@chrissedoff said:

@rorie: Oh, of course. Wouldn't want to suggest that an American Enterprise Institute-funded woman with a PhD making half-hearted, un-sourced claims and telling feminists they should just shut up is doing so out of a cynical desire to make a great living and be a minor celebrity. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that anyone who's earned a doctorate is capable of making an argument that can't be completely dismantled in a song. This is the same woman who claimed that most feminist academics are just a bunch of uggos who take out their envy of the hotties on men, so it's hard to justify dignifying her with Fair and Balanced™ verbage.

Oh I think she believes, to an extent, what she's saying. Just because someone is making money off of what they're doing doesn't mean they are not sincere about it, I think most of the people at AEI are fairly well known partisans. That's not to defend AEI, who I... disagree with almost categorically, but AEI and Sommers deserve to have their arguments addressed for what they are not who's presenting them.

Both are valuable. A person's motivations for making spurious claims is totally relevant. Take Tom Wheeler, who chairs the FCC. He wants to classify Internet services in such a way that enables telecom companies to extort web companies so that they have to pay to have their sites work properly. When you look at how what he's about to do is a big favor for telecom companies, the fact that he made a lot of money lobbying for the industry before being appointed to his position at the FCC becomes pretty darn interesting. Heck, he might even work for them again when he "retires" from his current job. Since he's such a talented guy, he might even get a great big bonus if he goes back to working for the telecom industry. But only because he's such a swell guy, not as some kind of camouflaged quid pro quo.

I mean, seriously, if you don't pay attention to who's paying who and you take everyone at face value, you're going to get played for a sap on a regular basis. If Sommers was taking AEI money to fund peer-reviewed studies that helped us learn more about how representations of women in media, that would be one thing. But her role is to be their attack dog. She's a highly educated woman who says the same things about feminism that Rush Limbaugh would say except the fact that she's a woman with a PhD gives it an aura of credibility. Whether or not she sincerely believes the things she says I can't say for certain, but her arguments are pretty flimsy for somebody with her credentials. Would a serious academic who's being paid for her smarts make the argument that video games are just toys for boys so whatevs? Would she boil down the motivations of progressive media critics with, "I dunno, they're just a bunch of hipsters, I guess?" I won't dismiss the possibility that years and years of pandering to an agreeable audience with really low standards for what constitutes a well-reasoned argument might have caused a little bit of brain atrophy on her part, but personally, I think she's not trying very hard because she can a lot of money from phoning it in and loudly making polemics that don't stand up to scrutiny they totally will not get from the people who want to pay her anyway. Whether she's a true believer or a charlatan, she's shilling either way, because she takes a big fat paycheck from a far-right think tank to make a bunch of noise in the media that lines up with their ideology while passing herself off as a legit feminist and academic.

#5 Edited by chrissedoff (2108 posts) -

I don't see any chance of it coming back. Vinny, Dave and Ian are all elsewhere. That leaves Dungeon Master Rorie and the fairly noncommittal Brad and Drew. Jeff sat out Pathfinder for a reason and if Dan could be roped into it, there is an excellent chance he would remind everyone how "dorky" D&D is every two minutes so we don't forget that he's a "cool guy." Dave and Vinny's enthusiasm for role-playing really carried Unplugged and made it fun for both the audience and, I think, the other players at the table. I'd be very surprised if they even tried returning to Unplugged. Maybe if people keep bringing it up, they will, but it'll never be the same if they do.

#7 Posted by chrissedoff (2108 posts) -

I can't bring myself to play the first few Ultima games. It's just motionless sprites in basic colors and then text. It's the fact that characters don't have faces and don't animate that makes it not at all immersive for me.

#8 Edited by chrissedoff (2108 posts) -

@nahgwihoafj: Dude, shhh! Why are you being such a narc..............TO YOURSELF?!!??!

#9 Posted by chrissedoff (2108 posts) -

Boy it sure is interesting how the OP's position seemed to just morph from, "Hey, both sides have good points let's just be chill and not argue about it" to consistently making critiques of one side of the debate and arguing in favor of the legitimacy of the side that's almost solely targeted at opinionated women and is lousy with hackers, trolls and misogynists. It almost makes you wonder if calling for civility from a supposedly neutral position is really just a Trojan horse that is deployed to create a false equivalency between the two sides of this debate!

#10 Edited by chrissedoff (2108 posts) -

@rorie: Oh, of course. Wouldn't want to suggest that an American Enterprise Institute-funded woman with a PhD making half-hearted, un-sourced claims and telling feminists they should just shut up is doing so out of a cynical desire to make a great living and be a minor celebrity. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that anyone who's earned a doctorate is capable of making an argument that can't be completely dismantled in a song. This is the same woman who claimed that most feminist academics are just a bunch of uggos who take out their envy of the hotties on men, so it's hard to justify dignifying her with Fair and Balanced™ verbage.