GTA-likes aka "throw as many unpolished gameplay elements at you so you are diverted enough not to notice the mediocrity of every single thing"-games ... Nah, I'll just keep playing Wolfenstein, at least that game keeps it simple, and manages to focus well on one specific thing.

imagine if they did this for quake, community would riot

I love Avast too for the silent mode, and also the quickly accessible "disable shields for X minutes/hours" feature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxKrqpkxCBY

There are already rules against this. If people break those rules, you can report this to an admin to have the proper penalties be applied.

Play your ETF2L matches with the ETF2L configs as they are supplied, and don't change them.

(class limits can make it a pain in the ass to switch classes or can be annoying when hopping spawns)

www.twitch.tv/skeej

- Provide a brief description of your stream

Streaming mostly pcw's, 6v6 and 9v9 EU Prem, and also official games if I find the performance hit playable enough. Will stream some pub/mix/pickup shenanigans from time to time, mainly offclassing soldier.

- State your country of residence

The Netherlands

- Give a brief background of your league/division/team history

Been playing medic for quite a while in the Div 1 and Prem regions of ETF2L, both 6s and HL. Most teams were lead by myself. Captain of the Dutch national 6v6 team. Apart from an ESL season, my team history is viewable on my ETF2L profile: http://etf2l.org/forum/user/19877/

The quality of prem fluctuates all the time, and it might be far from the best season, its also not that shit.

However, I still don't understand why some particular teams got seeded in div2 and div1, yet we have some quite weak teams at the bottom end of prem and even a vacant spot. (edit: gg smzi saving prem).. I guess this is a result of the newer, fresher, keener teams climbing the ranks in div2 and div1 not even realising how well they can compete, and not having considering raising the bar and requesting a higher division placement.

Also a little correction: Brego didn't trial for us (didn't get to it, time constraints), but HYS is trialing though.

I can only like singleplayer games if there are intricate mechanics to master or if there's a great storyline with compelling characters and interesting themes. A "great storyline" is hard to find in videogames though. I prefer a short but strong story from an indie game over a long but weak story from a bigger title. Also, "world building" and tiring the player with pointless details does not automatically make a great story (I'm looking at you, RPGs)

Singleplayer games where progression is a goal in itself (skinner box mechanics) don't interest me at all (most RPG games). Games that have no focus and try to divert the player by constantly throwing new things at him are also boring (GTA for instance). Progression seems meaningless if it will be kept contained within the closed universe of the SP game, and if the progression is not directly linked to mechanical mastery it also feels meaningless. The way progression can be valued in a multiplayer game by measuring your skill to others is much more meaningful than some AI or algorithm telling you "you have come X far" or "you are X good".

Last SP game that kept me captivated and actually had me finish the game AND want more after the end was Broken Age, but that is probably also related to the kickstarter investment and the build up from the documentary. I can't even remember which was the last sp game I finished before that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDPy2euUFbM

Like I said: Even when you can see flaws in the argumentation (which most of his opponents surprisingly fail to do), it's still an enjoyable demonstration of strong rhetoric. The fact is just there that someone like Hitchens, out of many, can't deal with his argumentation properly.

Yes, there are many valid objections to the cosmological (and also the ontological) argument; yet many opponents of Craig fail to come up with a proper rebuttal. The problem is usually that they make it easy for Craig to marginalise their rebuttals by disproving his statements with recent discoveries and hypotheses from cosmology and (theoretical) physics, exactly like you are trying to do. An MWI just moves the first cause question a few turtles downward. And God doesn't come from anywhere because he is transcendant and eternal, duh.

The point is: he doesn't have to. Philosophical arguments for a God are inherently metaphysical, and metaphysics transcends empirical science by definition.

Because it's easier to do. Arguments in favor of a kind of deism are stronger than the arguments that try to make the jump from deism to theism (and eventually to specific religion like christianity).

These are severe examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect, to which this Ken Ham weirdo is also subject. (edit: lol just found out about the highlander team with this name, funny coincidence)

The amount of self-contradiction in Ham's argument is baffling. "Historical science is not observational science, and thus cannot be proven"? This basically means we cannot even begin to discuss history in any meaningful way, so why even debate? Ham escapes this deadlock by introducing a circulatory self-proving explanatory mechanism like a dogmatic scripture (we all know the jpeg, bible is the word of God and I know so because God created it blabla). Having your whole case be dependant on the foundation of a circulatory argument is pretty saddening.

What perhaps is the most disturbing is that there might actually be a real necessity for people like Bill Nye to engage in these debates, because there's a general public out there that sees nothing wrong with the reasoning of a person like Ken Ham, even though he constantly reasserts the dogmatic nature of his views ("if I were to be proven wrong about fact X I would still not change my viewpoints", or "fact X cannot even be hypothetically proven wrong since it is an absolute truth" - WAT) In an ideal world we would not even give these people the dignity of a debate where both standpoints seem to be on an initially equal level. Sadly however we have countless events, like the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, that show that there's a too large group of people that actually takes this stuff seriously to just ignore it as random nonsense.

Everytime the discussion goes a little more in depth and requires Ken Ham to define the terms and concepts that he uses, all that comes out is gibberish. How can he dichotomically oppose
"observational science" to "historical science" anyway (as this seems to be his main argument to discredit mainstream science)? As Nye pointed out, observational science is in principle always historical science, since we are always looking into the past. Ham should try adhering to the 7th proposition of Wittgenstein's Tractatus more often, as he's more often just using words without a real grasp of what he actually means by using those words.

So yeah, idiotic debate, but sadly a necessary debate. (A)Theistic debates become way more interesting when you take a theist that doesn't interpret his religion's scripture in a moronically literal way. Take William-Lane Craig, whos reasons for believing are arguments of a philosophical nature, and thereby takes a standpoint that is basically compatible with all of mainstream science. I saw someone mentioning and admiring Christopher Hitchens in here. Well, a man of his stature is made to look inarticulate and incoherent when opposed to WL Craig (and I say this as someone who's obviously more on Hitchens' side). Even when you can see flaws in the argumentation (which most of his opponents surprisingly fail to do), it's still an enjoyable demonstration of strong rhetoric.

Your last sentence makes it seem like you equate "belief" in science to the same level as belief in dogmatic scripture, even though before that you pose a way more nuanced view. In this example, I think that in a certain epistemological sense it's relatively safe to say that gravity is an objective truth. If you don't agree, then the disagreement probably stems from which definition of "objective" you use, a word that has been attributed a confusingly broad range of meanings. Obviously we cannot "know" anything objectively when you define objectivity in its purest philosophical sense, because "knowing" is an act done by the subject, which inherently presupposes a layer of subjectivity. This is basically just wordplay. I don't think it's useful to talk about objectivity and truth in this manner because these pure and abstract definitions bear no relation to us, since we are innate subjects. If you use objective in the pragmatic common sense of the word, then there is nothing problematic with stating that gravity is an objective thruth (although, Erik Verlinde would like to have a word), just like you wouldn't jump off a balcony because "if gravity occured in every instant before this instant, there still a probability that it won't occur in this instant" ... By this I mean to say that, I think, although shocka1 might be arrogant and without nuance in his wording and style, it's fair to say that still he's "right". Saying that gravity is an objective truth makes almost infinitely more sense than placing unquestioning faith in a book.

Sneis

all of the euros mentiones above + wonderwall

+ Darn

dont eat the yellow snow

Should start off with roster overview and then go to individual players. Best of both worlds :D