(I may well hold the record for longest time playing without an ascension)

I think I started Hack around '92, and finally ascended in 2009. I've been trying to ascend about once a year since then.

Don't worry, that would never happen.

G's are only ever gnomes (of differing ranks), but a g might be a gargoyle, flying gargoyle, or gremlin.

I hope that clears things up. And for god's sake, don't genocide G's if you're playing as a gnome.

But it came with a free frogurt!

That puts him in the same state as the comet, assuming all goes well.

I came close - I kept thinking "But eChocolate is a noun, not a verb!"

You asked about the timeline. I kept my response limited to the timeline
You're right - I'm a goalpost-moving jerk, and I'm sorry.

From what I can tell, Depression Quest was released on the day of Williams' death. That's not taking advantage, that's an unhappy coincidence. I'm pretty sure release dates are set more than 24 hours in advance. Quinn had to option of pushing the release, but it's such a quagmire of morality, I can't bring myself to judge whether that would have been the right decision or not.

As for the "coverup", that's another item I just haven't seen evidence of. It felt entirely organic to me - a bunch of people saw a witch hunt and shut it down. It doesn't take a conspiracy for an idea to spread between reddit, gamasutra, kotaku, fark, 4chan, and wherever the hell else - these communities have plenty of overlap. The first idea to spread was the Quinnspiracy, and the second was that it was toxic, with moderators acting accordingly Now, I haven't seen the original threads (and I think at this point it would be a good idea for everyone involved to republish any of the original material), but from what I've seen in subsequent threads, I suspect "toxic" was a valid judgement.

This is exactly the type of response I'm talking about. Rather than point to any actual breach of ethics, you:

• Nitpick on when the (still-alleged, and completely-irrelevant) cheating occurred
• Assert that the game sucked - a completely subjective opinion
• Effectively state that reviewers cannot have friendships with developers, or it's a breach of ethics (at least this one was on-topic)
• Accuse a developer (not a journalist) of taking advantage of a suicide

I suppose I can see the argument that reviewers should disclose their relationships with developers, but 90% of the response was a complete non-sequitor, which is why I have such a low opinion of #GG. It seems to be an excuse to pile on a developer who made a game they don't like, and any journalistic concerns are an afterthought.

ZQ's lack of ethics and morals

Please elaborate. Seriously. I've seen this charge over and over again and have never seen any evidence for it except an ex-boyfriend's crazy screed.

As you say, the timeline is the single most important piece of information, and my pure contempt for the #GG movement has been fueled mainly by the fact that the timeline seems to be:

1) Dev writes game
2) Dev gets game "reviewed" (a sentence or two)
3) Dev starts dating reviewer months later
4) Dev is accused of "lack of ethics and morals"

I don't understand how 4 follows from 3, and all of the hate directed her way seems to stem from that faulty connection. So if you can show how I'm wrong, maybe you'll start to convince me this is actually about ethics in journalism.

My apologies. Clearly, I can't speak for everyone, so my "No one's alleged..." statement was hyperbole.

I meant it only to be taken in the context of this thread, in response to I find it hilarious that someone can believe in a vast conspiracy of gamers to kill these women, then try to trot out the conspiracy nut card..

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I do not believe in a "conspiracy of gamers to kill these women", nor do I believe anyone in a "conspiracy of media to cover up/distract from Gamergate". I guess, in conclusion, I think anyone alleging any kind of conspiracy here is a nut. The whole scenario appears to me as an organic situation in which everyone reacted according to their existing beliefs, not because of any collusion.

No one's alleged a "vast conspiracy of gamers" - just a bunch of assholes playing pile-on on the internet, one or more of which have gone too far. Does that really seem like a farfetched scenario to you?

And I haven't "believed the press" at all, because I haven't read the press. I've just listened to each side speak in their own words. I've heard a lot of hatred spewed towards LWs 1, 2, and 3 - just read this thread. What I haven't heard in a hundred posts is a single (yes, single) violation of "journalistic integrity". I can't even tell what the hell #GG is about. Assuming #GG'ers have dropped any consideration of Gjoni's allegations (as well they should), the whole movement seems to be about...nothing.

Again, I'm talking about the ones in the debate
Whoops - I missed your original point. My bad.

there's not really anything to win.
I still disagree. The point of a (public) debate isn't to convince your opponent, it's to convince the audience.

By this measure, I'm certain that Nye won. Anyone who was over 18 and watching the debate has probably had their minds made up for a long time. But I imagine there were a ton of religious parents that sat their kids down to watch the debate. Nye's arguments had a chance of swaying kids who may not have been exposed to a scientific view before, and his arguments had the benefit of being based on observable evidence that anyone could at least understand. Ham's arguments are based on personal beliefs and an ancient book. He had little chance of convincing anyone not already thoroughly indoctrinated.

Not many people say it's impossible, just that there's no evidence.

There's no more reason to believe in a biblical God than Xenu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just because someone says something happened doesn't make it true - even if science could theoretically model it.

Exactly right, and there's an even more compelling reason. Consciousness is hard and motivation is hard. I'm convinced it's easier to create a neural interface than write a truly intelligent program, so all of that superintelligence will simply be add-ons to your average human, driven by a human, with your normal human feedback loop (physical sensations, emotional needs, etc).

Why are we afraid of AI? Because it can sift through thousands of computers near-instantaneously and collect the data it needs? Because it can control physical machinery halfway across the world?

We can do all of that. And with the right upgrades (which, again, are probably easier than inventing a conscious machine), we'll be able to do it as fast and as well as any machine.

Where does the freedom to "say what I don't like" end and harassment begin? You wouldn't be able to follow someone around while they're in public, yelling insults, all day, every day. Eventually you'd get a restraining order, and if you violated it, you'd go to jail. At some point "saying what I don't like" becomes more damaging to my quality of life than a punch in the face.