Bay 12 Games Forum

Bird is bird

... turkey's good, too, though. Oversized-turkey sausage is bad?

I guess I'm mostly just curious if you've actually had giant emu sausage and thus gained a dislike of it via those means, heh.

And gods help you if you try to help and bork something up.

Well, gods or a lawyer

If it's the first two, then that just prevent spamming the servers. If its the last one, then that's just taking into account what their servers can handle on average.

Or... or they could have done what they did with SC1 and WC3 and not really had any issue at all as far as that goes, if those are even the major issue. That would have given a bit too much control to the player for current!Blizzard's tastes, though

Still, having trouble finding a concise list of what's screwed up with it, other than mention of a map-size limit -- which didn't exist in WC3, and WC3 got along pretty well as far as that went.

In any case, they didn't have those problems in WC3. That says pretty strongly that if they're applying those sort of limitations, it's not because of the issues you're mentioning.

If your map has offensive materiel on it, then who does the offended party complain to?

They either take it up with the mapmaker or they don't play the map. It isn't blizzard's responsibility to play language or content police on user-created content. Toggleable language filter, sure, but that's the limit of what they should do. They're overstepping their bounds -- bounds established in the massive amount of user-content that basically made WC3 (and SC1, to a lesser degree) what it was -- if they're mandatory-censoring user created content, and it's definitely fair to call them on that.

Anyway... all I know is that almost everything I've heard about the SC2 customs maps have said it's a step backwards from WC3, which is nearly a decade old now. Size limitations, script limitations (arbitrary upper limit on the amount allowed in a map), numerous other things. That... that's bad, Wiggles. It's just bad. Blizz screwed the pooch a bit on this one.

Wish I could actually play the game and see for m'self, but there's no way I'm buying (or acquiring through other means) with the custom scene in the state its in. Considering how much I loved the WC3 custom games... it's sad, man. It's sad

... alpha's been stated, repeatedly in this thread, to be anticipated as being release capable around the middle of the year; so summer-ish. Unless something comes up, which might happen, so no promises, only likelihoods. Search bar and reading is friend.

Shit cript, there'd be a market for it. Dunno how you'd get it past the FDA, but there's definitely places in the world you could profitably sell human blood for restaurant-style consumption.

... According to who? "Religion" very often refers simply to belief systems, not necessarily organization. There's a reason why the phrase "organized religion" isn't redundant.

Generally spiritual people who aren't religious. There usually is a divide mentioned between religious and spiritual individuals, at least in my experiences running into theology and religious philosophy. Being fair, though, those tend to have somewhat more rigorous definitions of religion than general-use (which regularly and happily calls science a religion, so... yeah.). Organized religion usually refers to larger-scale (and/or hierarchical, in terms of clergy-equivalent) religious groups. Plain religion usually has some codification involved. Just spirituality gets a bit fuzzier.

In any case, the only reason I bring it up is because it's not just a vague personal definition -- m'drawing attention to the divide because I've ran into it a fair number of times.

It doesn't make sense. That same argument could be used to argue that simply not having children should be illegal.

That'd be the among ridiculous consequences I mentioned. It makes sense, in the sense that it doesn't logically contradict itself (on the short-term, anyway; it's got the same problems every infinite-resource assuming system does), not that the end results aren't just plain silly. It's pretty easy to follow, too.

There is no "potential argument" that actually makes sense.

Also, in the case of the actual anti-choice movement that actually exists in the US, yes, it's religious. Also, when you start talking about belief in a supernatural "soul" that exists in every person... yeah, I'd call that kind of belief "religious".

Go with spiritual Religion implies organization, and maybe dogma, etc. Belief in the soul (which tends to be the core of the major religious argument)  doesn't really require any of that.

And potential argument as argument from potential -- i.e. the waste of the potential of the life that could be. I'd agree with you the logical consequences of it are g'damn ridiculous, but it makes sense. It's a workable moral heuristic with a few terrifying consequences, like most moral heuristics

It's not in line with the movement you mention, though, of course not. There's not much a secular presence within the US pre-life groups.

Can't a person just believe that the point at which an unborn child can experience meaningful suffering is ill-defined, and thus potentially inflicting that should be avoided if at all possible?

Sure. Argument from suffering, (not the offical(ish) name for it, which I've forgotten) s'a basic moral argument for a lot of the better (conceptually) founded animal-right arguments. Which makes it pretty relevant, really.

... though that may only imply that ensuring the abortion is painless for the child is a major issue, which would probably be pretty easy to do.