Darklord Rooke

I have the same issues with grinding, I don't like it at all. Have you tried Valkyria Chronicles on Steam? In my opinion, it's the most forward thinking JRPG of recent times. It tells a beautiful story, the combat is strategic, the characters nicely developed, and the art unique. http://store.steampowered.com/app/294860/

They're almost at the final stretch goal with 32 days to go ...

Much, MUCH better gameplay :3

If we were to start questioning whether games were actually VNs, we'd need to cast suspicion on Rance 6 (eroge-RPG for sure, VN ... not so much.) And lets not do that because I'm looking forward to seeing it WIN THE WHOLE CONTEST

Good question, RedK. Want to take a stab at answering it?

Pffft, the assumption being he's not still here, bans aren't as final in this age of VPNs. People will likely have their suspicions on who he is.

The importance of marriage will decrease once societies hit a certain point. A certain point in terms of equality between the sexes, a certain point in terms of freedom and exposure to new ideas, and a certain point where Governments can provide security for its citizens. Then marriage will start to be seen as a lifestyle choice, instead of ‘we need to get married because the woman has no career prospects and the children need to support us into old age.’ Even China has started to turn its back on marriage: https://theconversation.com/chinas-marriage-rate-is-plummeting-and-its-because-of-gender-inequality-66027

We kinda figured that out from the start

The concept of a love triangle is deciding between two potential love interests that you are already in a relationship with. They are not poly relationships, but they are relationships concerning love between more than 2 people. So while you're right on this point, you're still wrong with your original point that "You rarely see people dating with more than two partners at once in media either. It's not only marriage. If a person is in love with someone else, it's gotta be just that someone else." Don't know why you said 'more than 2 partners' then later qualified it to be 'just someone else', but lets take the essence of what this is all about - multiple partners. As I said before, you see it quite often provided you aren't just watching blokey action flicks. Friends, the most popular sitcom in the 90s and early 00s had Phoebe dating 2 guys at one point. Big Bang Theory, the most popular sitcom today had Raj dating 2 girls at some point. I really don't see how you've never seen it. Movies, shows, novels, it's not a rare phenomenon. I can't help what you do or do not see, but it's a well known phenomena spawning many articles: https://www.theguardian.com/childrens-books-site/2015/feb/13/love-triangles-why-are-there-so-many-teen-fiction which cite many examples, like the very popular Twilight novels. A good number of novels in the romance genre have people in a relationship with more than 2 people at once. Guys fighting over girls. Girl friendships breaking up over a guy. Bandit, the movie with Bruce Willis, had the lady ending up IN a poly relationship with the 2 guys. An excellent and hilarious movie which unfortunately didn't do that well probably because society just doesn't want to see that stuff (I presume.) We are not bombarded with media that state love is only possible between 2 people, we are always bombarded with media that says marriage is only possible between two people and therefore you have to choose if you want to take that final step.

There's a reason why writers are advised NOT to be PC. It limits their ability to describe, and it limits their ability to tell and describe truths. There's lines I draw, and I refuse in any way to be limited in my language because people aren't happy with certain words. It's like when people frown at you for swearing, it's offensive to some people but it didn't stop anybody from actually saying them.

Gf/bf/dates get upset because people view the ultimate end of a relationship is marriage, and they view marriage as a possession system. In the olden days it used to be that women belonged to men, these days it's progressed to one spouse belonging to another. It's in no way better, and it restricts polygamy just as much. In the future things will probably be a lot more casual and informal, where people live their own lives and sort of duck in and out of each other's. Wellll, other people believe things will be a lot more communal in nature, but I don't like that sort of future. Either way, I just don't see how the concept of marriage and relationships as they are now will work. Once we do away with the idea of people belonging to one another, then it starts opening up the idea that people can have relationships with as many people as they want, because it's their life and their choice. People's lives are much better than they used to be. Things are already progressing, no need to force issues into people's faces. It won't do much, TBH.

I didn't say it was. I just said it was abuse, which isn't always criminal. And that you can be held to account, that is you could be fired (even though what you said isn't illegal, and you can get fired for some ridiculously low-grade stuff these days.)

Whether it is an 'attack' at all is something a) you can't say and b) you haven't demonstrated. Whether it's harmful is another thing altogether, both offensive odours and language use are both potentially harmful and therefore it's quite the fair comparison. Good that you brought that point up, actually. You haven't addressed what you've sacrificed, you've just danced around the edges. What you sacrifice in your desire to be polite is your ability to be descriptive and concise. That is, you'd rather everybody be vague and nondescript in your desire to please everybody. Obviously a balance needs to be addressed, where you balance politeness with your desire to use descriptive imagery, to be descriptive, but that's a sacrifice I will never accept. If that offends people *shrugs*. I'm perfectly willing to be offensive. People who don't offend anybody never achieves anything. Case in point, find a replacement for 'lame' that presents the same imagery, noting that 'crippled' is also ablist and therefore can't be used if you're being fanatically PC. You're making an assumption. You assume, incorrectly, that I advocate the position that you must always be 'nice' - I don't. I mentioned that being offended is on the offendee, being insulting is on the offender, and that you shouldn't mix the two. I didn't state anything further. I'm Australian, if someone is being stupid I'll tell it to their face. If somebody else is offended by my language, when it's in no way disrespectful to them, then they'll just need to deal with it. I'm saying ableism isn't a 100% bad thing. That ableism is part for the growth behind society, and the growth behind society is the reason why we are able to care for the disabled. To say we must abandon the philosophies which helped get us to that position is a position which should need much more than 'it's offensive' to be worth any weight. The purpose of language isn't to be polite. The purpose of language use isn't to make people feel better. The purpose of language use is to convey information, thoughts, and ideas. If in your attempts to be polite you want to restrict your ability to communicate effectively, knock yourself out, but I won't be subscribing to this policy. Abuse is about an offender intentionally treating a victim badly. People are right to clamp down on that. Going around using the word 'blind' is not this, though. Your 'just kidding lol' is not believable in most cases. In this situation you would have engaged in 'namecalling' behaviour, which is a part of abuse. That is an attack and is behaviour which is frowned upon. Notice that it doesn't matter if the victim is offended or not, you can be held to account for this. Just like if I punched you in the face, I would be charged with assault whether you were injured, offended, harmed, or otherwise. That should give you a hint that it's not about the feelings of individuals which denote a crime or a social 'no-no', because the feelings of individuals are fickle things. Once again you confuse the issue of 'insult' and 'offense'. If no 'insult' is present, it doesn't matter whether people take 'offense', if an insult is present then that is a deliberate attack. Using a part of someone's identity in a negative connotation, because that part of their identity is often considered a 'negative', and therefore provides a useful image for descriptive purposes. Nothing wrong here depending on how it's used. If you want to deny that someone who is blind is somehow disadvantaged, and if someone gets angry when people suggest they are, I would think that's more to do with denial on their part. If people don't like that I use ablist language, and think I'm a selfish individual, please come up and start a discussion so I can tell you how wrong you are

Because fiction has different goals to communication. Fiction has different goals to my group's weekly get together at the pub (which usually involves the underside of a table somewhere amirite :3) Genre fiction is about sucking people in and entertaining people with the story, and calling attention to the writing because it was written haphazardly is against those goals. There have been people who tried writing dialogue exactly how people speak, complete with 'ers' 'umms' and 'ahs', but that was literature, the artsy genre.

Australian here, the original sentence is horrible. Like seriously horrible. I don't even like the sentence it ended up at - "I told you I gave you the unburnt piece of toast, right?" Repetition of 'you' is eyecatching. May be replaced with 'said', with the 'to you' implied: "I said I gave you the unburnt piece of toast, right?" "Didn't I say I gave you the unburnt piece of toast?"

People need to separate the idea of 'insulted' and 'offended'. If I 'insult' someone, that person may feel 'offended', but that doesn't mean if someone is offended that they were insulted. This is because an 'insult' refers to the intent of the offender, whereas being offended refers to the emotions of the offendee. The two words are often mixed together to do away with the pesky idea that some people just go around looking to be offended, and catering to these people is sometimes more trouble than it's worth. There's nothing insulting about using the word 'blinded'. It denotes 'not being able to see', so blinded by fear means not being able to see clearly due to you being such a timid tabby. It's an excellent descriptive word that often has no prejudice behind it. That people are offended by this is only natural, because some people are offended by anything. Case in point, the other day at the supermarket the lady in front of me had such an overpowering body odour that it assaulted my senses. This, I found, was quite offensive and caused me to move to another aisle. Alas, it did not give me the right to spritz her copiously with perfume. And I'm not going to stop calling people stupid when they're being stupid because it offends those with intellectual problems. It's, once again, an excellent descriptive word. The idea of institutionalised ableism is perfectly normal. Countries are about growth and coming out on top in that international competition countries are locked in with each other. The more they win, the more resources they nab for its people. Same deal with businesses. Countries and businesses will look for the best people to carry out certain tasks, certain work, and preference will naturally go to those more able because these people are often able to more effectively carry out these tasks. The up side of this is that society is now in a position to adequately care for the disabled, unlike in the past where they were often killed off for being a drain on resources, and we got to this point partly by being terribly ableist. Society is interested in getting as far away from nature as possible, nature is all about survival of the fittest (because life was harsh and you needed to be tough to survive) and is not a nice place. These days we're cushioned away from real life enough that we can provide for those less fortunate. I regularly use all except for words 3, 11, 12, and 13. However I'm an aspiring writing, and writers are taught not to be too PC in their writing ...

Marriage won’t change. It will die. How does the recognition of lesbian marriages show that marriage isn’t an institution possessive in nature? Seems to me it has little to do with the concept. Furthermore explain how marriage being a system about families receiving legal recognition negates its possessive nature, Marriages were always about families receiving recognition, but it was about legally locking those families into the possession of the male. If marriage were no longer about keeping track of their possessions, then people would no longer be upset when partners ‘cheat’ on them. Alas private investigators are currently making a fortune going around and catching partners being ‘unfaithful’. Explain the concept of remaining ‘sexually faithful’ to someone without relying on the idea that one person belongs to another. Marriage will break down in the future because they weren’t built to be flexible in nature, it’s too ingrained an institution to change, and society will soon move past this outdated institution. How can the Government, for example, encourage both parents to join the workforce while still expecting the child to have been given a quality upbringing? With a nuclear family (and marriage is about nuclear families) it’s becoming too hard, which is part of the reason they’ll break down, and part of the reason marriage will too (because there’ll be too much opposition to change.) Women used to get married for security, but they no longer need that and in fact it will harm their careers. People used to see kids as security that would provide for them in old age, but these days the Government does all this heavy lifting with social security. The idea of tying yourself to one person FOREVER is becoming increasingly distasteful, especially considering we're all living longer. In the past, the idea of tying yourself to someone for 20 years didn't seem that bad, now you have to put up with their bad habits for 60, 70, 80 years. Some people believe humans will soon live to 150, just how long must you suffer your partner's snoring? New reports are coming out saying a third or a quarter of millenials will never marry. In 2014 in England, only 50% of people were currently married. 28% of men lived alone and had never married. 22% of women lived alone and had never married. Marriage is on the way out, and pretty soon society will drive media to show more types of relationships to the people. Properly also, NOT the half-hearted way eroge does it. But we should give it a little time, it’s only been since the last half of last century that marriage started to no longer be useful. I often see movies where people date more than one partner at a time. I often see shows where people date more than one person at a time. Pffft, in my opinion Jennifer Aniston has built a career on it. The romance genre is filled with love triangles. Of one person being ‘torn’ between 2 lovers. It’s an explanation of where that privilege arose. Modern talk of privilege is about equality, and yet societies emphasise growth. If you ask a Government what’s more important, growth and strength or equality, they’ll say growth and strength because they could then use that to provide for their people. Equality means little without first having the resources to make your people comfortable. Recently countries have been in a position where the majority of people no longer had to worry about starving and could then fight for social justice, and that’s a good thing because it shows countries are in a good space. But institutions which have entrenched for thousands of years does take a little time to unravel. Give it some time

Happy New Year everybody. Everybody keeps remarking what a terrible year 2016 was, but TBH I don't see what was so terrible about it :S

Are you familiar with what marriage is about? Marriage is a possessive system invented so men to keep track of their possessions, like wives and any offspring they may bear. It’s part of what makes the concept of ‘marriage’ obsolete. In the olden days polygamy was completely natural, as was monogamy, but it was a possessive system. We're not flooded with the concept of ‘love’ being possible between only 2 people, but rather that marriage is only possible between 2 people. Which is why you see all those stories involving love triangles, cheating, revenge and whatever. If you aren’t counting your partners as possessions, then does it matter if your partner is seeing other people? Adultery is only a thing because of the concept of one partner belonging to another. But monogamy - why did it come about? Many people think it’s because of Christianity, but monogamy was running rampant before this. In Ancient Greece for example. That doesn’t mean Christianity didn’t help this, but it’s suggested the truth lies elsewhere. Think about it a little. If women and their children were treated as possessions who weren’t allowed to take multiple husbands, but men could take multiple wives as possessions, then there’s a pretty obvious limitation isn't there? Some men will be left out in the cold. These men will often leave, meaning a smaller army, meaning less tax revenue. Which results in monogamous cultures, in a world where women were viewed as possessions, being superior militarily and growth wise, or would inevitably prove themselves to be better superior militarily and growth wise. That is, monogamous culture would eventually prove to be the stronger culture. Over time people then came to view this as the norm, and because stronger cultures conquer weaker cultures, would spread over much of the globe. Which meant that monogamy, under a male possessive marriage structure, was a superior scheme idealised by society. Polygamy under current marriage norms doesn’t work. So before we talk about ‘monogamy privilege’ you first need to provide an environment for polygamy to thrive, and that’s still a ways away from happening. That eroge is poly friendly doesn’t define progress, although it does challenge some of today’s norms. What would make eroge progressive would be if they demonstrated poly relationships where the women weren’t treated like the possessions of the male. And I can’t say that it is. So I don’t really see a need for praise, yet.

That’d be me. Next person got so hammered on New Year’s Eve they woke up thinking the year was 2061 and they were a dashing space pirate named R. MeHearty

"Offensive ableist expressions you are probably using on your daily life" - Sounds like a pretty lame topic, mate. Might want to go with patriarchy.

I hope you realise this attitude is going to be what causes Skynet to nuke us all EDIT: Obviously I'll be safe cause I live in Australia, but still ...

Yeah, but it's easy to get Rance overpowered anyway so there's not much point. It's more important to raise other girls low FR, and I should have done that from the start ... except I thought there's be a big event style payoff if I raised Kimchi's FR xD

I gave about 4 presents to Kimchi believing upping her FR would actually do something. ... It doesn't do much. Still bitter about it

Agree with you here. I like enemies on the map, like Dragon Age Origins or XCOM. Having battles on the same map and not in a separate turn-based battlefield allows for tactical set up of your group before engaging. Just my preference, though