Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Iduno]

I am mildly upset by the fact that "So..." seems to have become a commonly acceptable way to start a sentence.

I use it for trailing off when the sentence's ending is presumably obvious, and I don't want to take the time to find a way of ending it that doesn't feel like me saying something you've already figured out.

[itisnotlogical]

What used to bother me on more populous forums is when people would start a sentence in a thread title then finish it in the OP.

[Naturegirl1999]

What used to bother me on more populous forums is when people would start a sentence in a thread title then finish it in the OP.

that happens? Why?

[WealthyRadish]

What used to bother me on more populous forums is when people would start a sentence in a thread title then finish it in the OP.

that happens? Why?

-- and to summarize in the text body would mean repeating themselves.

[itisnotlogical]

What used to bother me on more populous forums is when people would start a sentence in a thread title then finish it in the OP.

that happens? Why?

A form of clickbait or otherwise attention-getting, I presume. Except there was never really nothing to direct the attention to, just an obvious question or dumb joke/meme.

[scriver]

I am mildly upset by the fact that "So..." seems to have become a commonly acceptable way to start a sentence.

Why though

Because I think I do that... all the time.

[ChairmanPoo]

I am mildly upset by the fact that "So..." seems to have become a commonly acceptable way to start a sentence.

So... what does it annoy you about it, exactly?

[pikachu17]

EDIT: Someone said the link might be against forum rules, so just in case I've removed it.
Boy is this guy an asshole. Among other things, he apparently thinks children having orientations is automatically sexual, seems at least a little racist, doesn't realize new forms of Hinduism has relevance since at some point you'll be able to play them, and apparently doesn't realize that sexuality has a lot of relevance in Crusader Kings, since it's the bloodline simulator.

[TD1]

I didn't read it, but giving children sexual preferences does seem .... off putting.

[Jopax]

Relating to my recent card troubles, despite saying they couldn't do much about it and that I should contact Amazon myself to resolve the potential issue before doing a proper refund or getting a new card if that failed the bank apparently just blocked my card from doing on-line transactions completely, which is a nice precaution to make I guess, but maybe let me know you've done it?

Either way, gonna have to make another trip to the bloody bank to get it sorted out :V

[scriver]

https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2020/04/crusader-kings-3-adds-bisexuality-asexuality-and-child-sexuality-preferences/107374/
Boy is this guy an asshole. Among other things, he apparently thinks children having orientations is automatically sexual, seems at least a little racist, doesn't realize new forms of Hinduism has relevance since at some point you'll be able to play them, and apparently doesn't realize that sexuality has a lot of relevance in Crusader Kings, since it's the bloodline simulator.

I don't want to sound like I'm agreeing with the angry guy, but it really has no relevance to that beyond being a modifier on your fertility percentage. It does come off like they are focusing on looking at sexuality through the lens of our modern, "sexual life style", culture's perspective and not through what we know of sexuality through history. We have a host of accounts and theories about gay or possibly gay or bisexual rulers who lived, for their time, completely normal lives and had children with their spouses, the only exception being that they had same-sex lovers at the side instead of different-sexed ones. From this perspective only straight, uncurved homosexuality matters (in the way of said fertility malus, ie "this person doesn't like sleeping with their spouse but lays back and thinks of England"). Bisexuality? Wouldn't be relevant at all. Asexuality? That's just being overly chaste or going celibate.

Now, from a story-maker perspective it makes more sense to include bisexuality along with the two straights, for obvious reasons, and storymaking is a very large aspect of CK for me, so I don't think it's a bad thing to implement. My favourite thing in that devblog was the separation of sexuality and sex act*, which reflects historical attitudes better than an automatic -10 to all relations because of a trait your character gets at 14 for liking the stable boy (but I do dislike the self-congratulatory attitude of "this new system is better than that old trait lol" in the devblog when seemingly all they've done is made it four traits and maybe moved it away from the trait bar).

*Apparently this has something to do with priestly pedophiles and all pedophiles in the catholic church is liberals or something according to that blogger? Wtf?

[WealthyRadish]

I didn't read it, but giving children sexual preferences does seem .... off putting.

I agree, it's unsettling that they're letting details like puberty get in the way of my misplaced sense of propriety.

I was going to make a joke about reading the comments, but christ, don't read the comments. Or the article. Or anything on that website. Might actually be against forum rules to link it.

[Eschar]

Might actually be against forum rules to link it.

Wow. Is it the literal linking rules ("If you post links to illegal material... you will be banned") or does it fall under defamatory material, by proxy ("you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive...")?

[pikachu17]

https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2020/04/crusader-kings-3-adds-bisexuality-asexuality-and-child-sexuality-preferences/107374/
Boy is this guy an asshole. Among other things, he apparently thinks children having orientations is automatically sexual, seems at least a little racist, doesn't realize new forms of Hinduism has relevance since at some point you'll be able to play them, and apparently doesn't realize that sexuality has a lot of relevance in Crusader Kings, since it's the bloodline simulator.

I don't want to sound like I'm agreeing with the angry guy, but it really has no relevance to that beyond being a modifier on your fertility percentage. It does come off like they are focusing on looking at sexuality through the lens of our modern, "sexual life style", culture's perspective and not through what we know of sexuality through history. We have a host of accounts and theories about gay or possibly gay or bisexual rulers who lived, for their time, completely normal lives and had children with their spouses, the only exception being that they had same-sex lovers at the side instead of different-sexed ones. From this perspective only straight, uncurved homosexuality matters (in the way of said fertility malus, ie "this person doesn't like sleeping with their spouse but lays back and thinks of England"). Bisexuality? Wouldn't be relevant at all. Asexuality? That's just being overly chaste or going celibate.

Now, from a story-maker perspective it makes more sense to include bisexuality along with the two straights, for obvious reasons, and storymaking is a very large aspect of CK for me, so I don't think it's a bad thing to implement. My favourite thing in that devblog was the separation of sexuality and sex act*, which reflects historical attitudes better than an automatic -10 to all relations because of a trait your character gets at 14 for liking the stable boy (but I do dislike the self-congratulatory attitude of "this new system is better than that old trait lol" in the devblog when seemingly all they've done is made it four traits and maybe moved it away from the trait bar).

*Apparently this has something to do with priestly pedophiles and all pedophiles in the catholic church is liberals or something according to that blogger? Wtf?

Homosexuals can seduce men in CK2, so bisexuals could be relevant, although how they wouldn't just be more OP than homosexuals is a question. Likewise, Asexuals likely couldn't seduce anyone, or have a low modifier to it. Not sure though.
Also, "two straights"? What does that mean?

[WealthyRadish]

Might actually be against forum rules to link it.

Wow. Is it the literal linking rules ("If you post links to illegal material... you will be banned") or does it fall under defamatory material, by proxy ("you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive...")?

Judging by the repeated and upvoted (((world banker))) talk in the comments, even if we assume the nazi "shock images" are from bots the site looks to be for white supremacists (although the racism in the article seemed confined to dogwhistling from my reading of it). I'm just not sure how the toad would feel about it; interestingly, there's someone in the comments who was banned from this forum a while back.