Playstation 4 and your real name

Akka said:
I don't expect anything from you... I have only one thing to repeat to this dreadful display of ignorance... but trying to explain such a concept to people who don't even understand... Are you for real or just playing dumb ?
Okay, stop typing for a few minutes and think about it. I'm pretty sure you can figure it yourself if you just try - because it's just so friggin' OBVIOUS it's impossible for anyone to not get it... It's, again, pretty obvious for anyone not being purposedly an idiot (or being unable to think more than a second)... Also, you're pretty clueless...

Moderator Action: This counts as a violation of the rule of the Tavern and earns a three day ban.
 
I'm afraid that the "Would you like to log in with Facebook?" will become "Log in with Facebook" very quickly.

Unfortunately, it seems to be leaning that way. I was unable to use one internet service as I had not a crapbook account so maybe not big loss. I didn't need it anyways. Also, just recently, on other ones, 'login with crapbook' was the default option and the regular login was tiny little text that hard to see.
Also, the mobile phone thing. I cannot afford mobile phone for the moment, and sometimes I need one to 'verify' accounts. It is getting harder to make throwaway email accounts (though, I think 6 is enough for now). I blame spammers for this.
 
And now we get to the core of the issue. The bone of the disagreement. Since I'm not John Smith on Facebook with my girlfriend and cute dog plastered everywhere then I am worthless.

Another thing that rarely happens to me in real is people assigning me arguments I didn't make. Although I would be lying if I said it never happened.

In any case, I wasn't attempting to make a statement about a person's invidual value based upon their willingness to associate their name with their argument. Instead, I value arguments more highly when they come from a person to whom I can put a name and a face. Putting your name to your argument says something real about your trust in that argument.

It also says something about you as a person. I have more respect for people who put themselves and their beliefs on the line. That doesn't mean that I don't have respect who don't do that.

I think most people share my viewpoint on this.

I think Harvey Milk got a lot more done as Harvey Milk than "HahaMilkMustache23" every would have.
 
No, that's fair BvBPL. I can understand that, and I understand what you mean. I certainly twisted your argument a bit.

Just consider, even if you don't end up agreeing with me, that some of us want anonymous places to go for non-nefarious reasons. Sometimes someone like myself or aimee just wants to play Counterstrike as RobotDog88 and forget real life entirely. I think it's a reasonable thing to want.
 
some of us want anonymous places to go for non-nefarious reasons.
RobotDog88

Neo-Nazis use the number 88 as a code to represent the slogan Heil Hitler.[3] The letter H is eighth in the alphabet, so 88 is meant to stand for HH. The number is sometimes used in combination with the number 14 (e.g. 1488 or 14/88). In this context, the number 14 stands for the "Fourteen Words", which is a white nationalist slogan created by convicted terrorist David Lane. Examples of usage include: the song "88 rock'n'roll band" by the neo-Nazi band Landser, and the names of the groups Column 88, Unit 88, White Legion 88 and Barselc88. Holocaust museum shooter James von Brunn often signed his writings as "JVB-88."

Hmmm...........
 
RobotDog88 leads to someone from Butte MT
 
Funny connection there, ace. I trust you know I'm not actually a Nazi and I was pulling 88 out of my butt as a random "birthdate style" number.

Really funny though :)
 
Trolling means you posted there under a pseudonym and must be held accountable :shifty:

Joking, of course, but I've been to the worst pits on the web. I can't say I've ever posted on Stormfront, but I've definitely read it.

Conservapedia isn't nearly as evil as Stormfront, but it is far more amusing.
 
I spend too much time trolling Sfront.
"caketastydelish" used to have the username Oldschooler88. We brought up the Nazi connection with him, too.
 
Oh good finally: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ence_n_3071632.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037

WASHINGTON -- More than half of Americans believe there is a link between violent video games and gun violence, but only a third favor more government research on the subject, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll.

According to the new poll, 37 percent of Americans said they'd be in favor of government-funded studies on whether there's a link between video games and gun violence, while 46 percent were opposed. A 53 percent majority also said that the current system of voluntary ratings for video games was adequate, while 31 percent said the government should mandate stronger warnings.

Fifty-one percent of Democrats, but only 32 percent of Republicans and 32 percent of independents, said they would favor funding for studies on video-game violence. Democrats were also the most divided over whether the current voluntary labeling system is adequate, with 43 percent saying it is and 40 percent saying that the government should mandate stronger warnings. A majority of both Republicans and independents said that the current system provides adequate warning.


Those results come in spite of the fact that many respondents say there's at least some link between violence in movies and video games, and gun violence. Twenty-five percent of respondents said it contributes a lot to gun violence and 28 percent said it contributes some, while another 25 percent said it contributes a little and 14 percent said not at all.

The survey results follow calls in recent weeks from President Barack Obama and top congressional leaders for this type of study.

In January, Vice President Joe Biden called for more research into violent entertainment following the Sandy Hook school shooting, and this week, the background checks bill released by Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) addressed the issue by proposing a National Commission on Mass Violence.

Although lawmakers are eager to explore possible links between violence and mass media, few Americans believe that video games are key to reducing gun violence. Asked to choose from a list of potential policies to reduce gun violence in the U.S., only 5 percent of those surveyed chose "reducing access to violent video games." That option fell behind "stricter gun laws" (30 percent), "increased access to mental health treatment" (28 percent), "armed guards in schools" (16 percent), and "something else" (9 percent).

Asked to choose from the same list, 21 percent chose reducing access to violent games as least effective at reducing gun violence, the same percentage that chose armed guards in schools. And although "stricter gun laws" was chosen by the largest percentage of respondents as the most effective option, it was also listed by the most respondents (36 percent) as the least effective. Only 10 percent said that increasing access to mental health treatment would be the least effective option for reducing gun violence.

Not surprisingly, Democrats and Republicans in the survey were split over the effectiveness of gun laws in particular. Fifty percent of Democrats, but only 15 percent of Republicans, said that stricter gun laws would be the most effective policy to reduce gun violence. Sixty-one percent of Republicans and only 16 percent of Democrats listed it as the least effective.

The wide partisan difference in opinions on whether stricter gun laws would help reduce gun violence underscores how polarizing the issue is among Americans. The United States Senate will debate a number of bills -- many of which contain language about video games and mass media -- next week aimed at reducing gun violence.

The poll was conducted April 9-10 among 1,000 adults using a sample selected from YouGov's opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. Factors considered include age, race, gender, education, employment, income, marital status, number of children, voter registration, time and location of Internet access, interest in politics, religion and church attendance.

The Huffington Post has teamed up with YouGov to conduct daily opinion polls. You can learn more about this project and take part in YouGov's nationally representative opinion polling.
 
I know the thread hasn't been super on topic, but please don't try to derail it on purpose. I know I can't make you, I'm just asking you not to. Yes, it's fun to poke me on that topic, but can you just be a pal and not do it in this thread?

EDIT: Please? Just as a favor to me?
 
I'm on AlpsStranger's side on this. I hate "Always Online" in general. I just wanna play my single player games as single player.

Dragon Age 3 is apparently going Always Online (&, seriously, after the junk that was DA2, you'd think they would have learned their lesson & just made a good single-player game). SimCity was a clusterF.

If I wanted to go online & play with other people I'd go online & play with other people. There's lots of games for that. But I like playing most of my games as just me vs. the (stupid) computer. Take that, stupid computer, for the 500th time! You lose again, CPU - I rule you!

That's what I want.

Also, my best BluRay player is still, to this day, my PS3, & I've bought a top of the line, 3D BluRay player, to watch movies. It takes forever to load, & honestly there's only a few movies that are worth watching in 3D (plus, the glasses, OMG, don't get me started on the glasses). I still use my PS3 as a BluRay player more than I use it for games, to be honest.

I'll not buy a PS4 that requires me to register my real information & be online all the time. I wanna play Tomb Raider without anyone knowing how many hours I spent looking at Lara Croft's boobs, er, I mean playing the game.
 
Yeah, my gaming time has dropped by like 50% in the last few months. I just can't stand where gaming is headed anymore.

Probably good for me, really.
 
SimCity (2013) also has forced online and look at what happened. Even mainstream non-gaming media (including the BBC and the New York Times) are commenting on its disaster.

I am very much a former gamer.
 
Yeah, and the fact that they think it's still worth it is the writing on the wall.

We're not the customer. It's the data miners they're after.

EDIT: And that's no conspiracy theory. It's just the way things are. *shrug*
 
Yeah, my gaming time has dropped by like 50% in the last few months. I just can't stand where gaming is headed anymore.

The way the industry has gravitated towards less content in the original package and more downloadable content has bothered me as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom