Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

CMDR Karrde Sun

CMDR Karrde Sun
I do feel just a little bit sorry for ~95% of elite content creators who jumped ship to Star Citizen after Odd. All they ever wanted was something to be "positive" about. They're probably still in their honeymoon so not ready for the community to throw some cold water on their faces.

Especially Drew Wagar who seems like a really nice and well adjusted guy. It was like he slipped on a banana peel on the last stream when he got kicked to the main menu and had to start again. Does that happen alot there?
 

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
tnhibl15epg81.jpg
 

Surefoot

S
CMDR Karrde Sun said:
Especially Drew Wagar who seems like a really nice and well adjusted guy. It was like he slipped on a banana peel on the last stream when he got kicked to the main menu and had to start again. Does that happen alot there?
Click to expand...
30K errors (the ones that get you back to menu) still happen, but are much less frequent than other causes of death - or having to suicide because of a physics glitch.
 

Navigare Necesse Est

Navigare Necesse Est
CMDR Karrde Sun said:
I do feel just a little bit sorry for ~95% of elite content creators who jumped ship to Star Citizen after Odd. All they ever wanted was something to be "positive" about. They're probably still in their honeymoon so not ready for the community to throw some cold water on their faces.

Especially Drew Wagar who seems like a really nice and well adjusted guy. It was like he slipped on a banana peel on the last stream when he got kicked to the main menu and had to start again. Does that happen alot there?
Click to expand...
Maybe he's trying to add comic relief to his shows.
 

varonica

varonica
Ronzer said:
Sounds like a bit of CIG logic there. Because I didnt, or missed denying or refuting something, then the opposite must be 100% true? So CR says he'll release a game in 2 years, and the opposite is true.
Click to expand...

It's all part of the big scams. You accuse someone of something, then because they didn't deny or present evidence that it wasn't true, automatically assume it to be true. It's the opposite of the way logic and law actually work, if you accuse someone of something then it's up to you to present evidence that it is true, not the person being accused proving it is false. The reason it's done that way is because it's much harder to prove a negative....in fact there's no way for anyone to present evidence that no-one is being paid, how exactly do you do that? It's the classic reversal of the burden of proof, if anyone accuses someone of being paid they need to present evidence, or retract that accusation because with no evidence backing it can't be demonstrated to be true. The rest position here is that it is false unless evidence is presented to prove it, NOT the other way around.
 

Sunyavadin

Sunyavadin
varonica said:
You accuse someone of something, then because they didn't deny or present evidence that it wasn't true, automatically assume it to be true. It's the opposite of the way logic and law actually work, if you accuse someone of something then it's up to you to present evidence that it is true, not the person being accused proving it is false. The reason it's done that way is because it's much harder to prove a negative.
Click to expand...
Which does lead to the hotly-disputed state of UK libel law, where the burden of proof in proving their statement true falls upon the defendant, rather than the accuser being asked to provide evidence the statement was false.
 

GreySix

GreySix
Sunyavadin said:
Which does lead to the hotly-disputed state of UK libel law, where the burden of proof in proving their statement true falls upon the defendant, rather than the accuser being asked to provide evidence the statement was false.
Click to expand...
Yikes, that sounds like a recipe for petty lawsuits on nearly anything, where only the lawyers wind up getting filthy rich.
 

varonica

varonica
Sunyavadin said:
Which does lead to the hotly-disputed state of UK libel law, where the burden of proof in proving their statement true falls upon the defendant, rather than the accuser being asked to provide evidence the statement was false.
Click to expand...

If you accuse someone of breaking the law and are taken to court for libel all you need to do is present your evidence they broke the law, the fact that it's the truth is the defense, it's not hard to understand. The accuser always has the burden of proof, the accused can't provide evidence of something that never happened, you can't prove a negative. For instance "prove you aren't a bank robber!" How do you do that? All you can say is there is no evidence you have ever robbed a bank, that's your only defence, you simple can't prove a negative! It then falls to the accuser, who has accused you of being a bank robber of presenting the evidence. If the accuser can't then that accuser is guilty of libel, spreading false and malicious stories about you around and harming your reputation.
 

WotGTheAgent

WotGTheAgent
SQ42 is years and years out still, especially since (in my opinion) they are targeting console sales above all else. And why wouldnt they? A lot of PC Citizens already own SQ42 in some form. Better to chase the new money.

If it hits on the Playstation 6, development will have gone through four different console generations.
 

TiberiusDuval

T
WotGTheAgent said:
SQ42 is years and years out still, especially since (in my opinion) they are targeting console sales above all else. And why wouldnt they? A lot of PC Citizens already own SQ42 in some form. Better to chase the new money.

If it hits on the Playstation 6, development will have gone through four different console generations.
Click to expand...
Console makers are pretty picky when it comes to quality of software allowed on their stores....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom