Bay 12 Games Forum

To see what happens, obviously. Probably other reasons, too, but if I were to boil a sandwich, that'd be why I'd do it. Sometimes, when it comes to cooking, you just have to try it and find out whether or not it's edible.

Sometimes it's not.

What, for the US? Cowboys/frontier folk and colonists would probably count pretty well.

Though if you're talking nazi or near-nazi exploitation stuff, yeah, that's around.

@DH: Technically, and pretty close to only technically. Most stores are still entirely unwilling to sell mature content to minors, and most kids don't even remotely have the ability (funds/transportation) to get to and purchase a game without parental/sibling help. The bill in question would mostly have just made the de facto state of things de jure.

Though aye, there's online stuff nowadays. Ain't no scrutiny on gift cards and whatnot, and anybody can lie about their age online :V

What? "Not meddling in things you don't understand" is a great principle. If you don't know what the fuck you're meddling with, any success is pure chance.

N... no, working when you don't really know what the fuck you're meddling in is basically the absolute most fundamental skill any high level administrator/manager/politician has to have to not be shit. They have limited time and a great many demands on it, which largely precludes an in depth understanding of the processes going on at ground level, and they have to use that time to make effective (or at least largely harmless, which in all seriousness making the game ratings have legal omph would be) decisions. And a great many do, and do so consistently. Many don't, as well, obviously, but that's what makes (one of the) major differences between a good manager and a bad one.

Depending on how you fall on the subject itself, her actions regarding the gaming stuff can be a mark for or against the skill in question. Most of us here count it as a mark against, obviously enough, but there's a lot of folks that wouldn't, and hold that she did the right research with the correct consequent action, including quite a few academics/researchers in the fields studying the phenomenons involved with video games and aggression. Hell, the APA just recently released a metastudy on the subject that suggests that current research favors the sort of course of action clinton took, that experiencing violence in video games is a reliable indicator of increased aggression and lowering or preventing access is a desirable goal. There's some notable problems with it, but that's still a hefty body of knowledge saying curtailing access to certain video games among the youth is probably a good idea. Largely disagree with the findings, myself, but I can understand (if dislike) how someone would act as clinton did, given that sort of research does exist and did when the event in question happened. It's a mark against, t'me, but not a terribly substantial one.

... really, as we should have noticed from the last few hundred years of sciencey stuff, you don't actually have to know what the hell's happening to get useful results. Admittedly it is kinda' important to, because unexpected consequences are a thing, but it's not like there's not plenty of stuff we're buggering about with in good health that was brought about with basically zero comprehension of the underlaying principles. Ultimately, meddling when you don't know what the fuck is going on is how you find out what the fuck is going on. It's a good thing when it's done correctly. An actually good principle would be to meddle carefully in things you don't understand, and try to receive the best results when you do.

... though note fair, that doesn't mean it will stop being terrifying. Probably less terrifying. But it's been approaching a decade now and driving is still pretty goddamn scary, personally. You do (hopefully) get better at it, and the shakes eventually (mostly) stop, but you're still performing what's probably the most deadly act you ever will in your lifetime short of die. Cheerful or fun it isn't, for some people. Others find it pleasing to put themselves and everyone around them's lives at risk, for some mad reason, but some, not so much.

I think so? Could have sworn I've either done it or been in the car with one where that happened. Probably the latter and enough years back my memory's shot regarding the subject.

... I don't think you really want to regardless of the transmission in question, though. That... sounds like a good way to get someone killed.

Hey, if it ends up such that voting for someone else is a safe bet and not likely to get one of the people that are willfully trying to kill our species in its entirety elected, I intend to. Otherwise, yeah, while I like my video games and I love my privacy and I loath my wars, there's basically not a goddamn thing clinton is likely to do that I'd find distasteful that the GOP option won't do twice as hard and thrice as fervently, and if voting for her is what it takes to keep the greater evil out, a voting I shall go. Next cycle, can try to get someone less flesh-suity elected.

Statement still stands :V