Destined

I think we should ask @taaaki what he thinks about the feature and its implementation. He should know best.

But it was transferred to the English language and is used there, like other German words, e.g. kindergarten or schadenfreude. As a German I sometimes stumble on texts or shows that use such words and usually it takes a couple of seconds for me to realise that it was actually German

In one of Sotha's Thomas Porter Missions (I think Lich Queen's Demise, but am not sure) you had to brew a potion by using items on a kettle. A similar system could be used for crafting, if it could be advanced a little further. E.g. you have a container into which you have to drop the items you want to use to craft. A script checks, if these items are suitable to create something and if they are, they are created. If not, they could removed again from the container. You could place a manual on how to use this (written by the Inventor's Guild if it is supposed to be mechanical or by a Mage if it is supposed to be magical) near it and even spread a couple of recipes around the mission. This would be kind of like the new Prey, where you can create different elemental cubes from scrap and then combine these cubes to create items. You could even consider to use the element part as well: A script checks, which materials are used on the model dropped into a container to create the respective elemental cubes (or spheres or something like that). For crafting the elemental items are used. It could also limit the use to certain moveable items: If they are too big to fit into the container, you cannot use them. This way, you would not affect any earlier missions, while the setup could be saved as a prefab for use in future missions. I think some crafting system would decrease the hesitation to use single-use equipment. I am also an RPG-player, who usually finishes the game with hundrets of potions, because I always keep them for the right occation, just to realise later on that I could have used tons of them without affecting my game later on. I found the Witcher games to have a nice workaround for that. You had a limited amount of potions that you could use at a given time, but could produce them quite easily. This way you could use them without having to fear that you would miss them in the next fight, but still had to give some thought about which ones to use. There already are some scripts that check if the player is allowed in specific areas (e.g. in Fieldmedic's "No Ordinary Guest"). These should be quite easy to modify to check for certain items in the inventory as an addition to the current location. As usual it would just require a mapper willing to implement it...

The only experience I have with a single player game using the mic was in a Zelda game for Nintendo DS (not sure if it was Spirit Tracks or Phantom Hourglass). In this case you had to blow into the mic in some instances and I was rather annoyed than finding it an enjoyable feature.

This sentence really got me: "We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute."

Obsttorte made a script some time ago, which emulates the older Thief version of highlighting the room the player is currently in and marking the ones already visited. I cannot really search the forums right now, as I am only on my phone, but it should not be too difficult to find. If I remenber correctly this script uses the location system to achieve the effect and has to be set up by the map author. Personally, I agree with people that a mini-map doed not fit TDM. In general, the decision should definitely lie with the map author, so a map generated from the map geometry would be too much and could give too much information. Displaying the ingame map in the corner would be fine, but is also not really necessary in my opinion.

Heilung is actually mostly German (at least the home country of the band members is), but the themes and languages they use are ancient European (and mostly northern). I like them, but it is a kind of music I cannot listen to too much. Especially the poems and spoken passages are quite strenuous at times.

I still cannot really see the need for an arrow. If the guard is so far off that you cannot throw the flash bomb in front of him to blind him, it seems to me that he would also be too far off to require blinding at all. The only advantage of an arrow I could think of would be more preicision, but I think if you practice throwing the flash bomb, you should also get the precision you would need to blind a guards.

Isn't that what gas arrows are for? Ranged knock out... They are quite rare, as range on knock out is quite powerful, but they exist.

I immediately recognised the first from Fallout 3. Great irony playing the song on a radio in a wasteland after a nuclear blast; I loved it Don't know other games using one of these, but the style would fit to Bioshock as well.

@joebarnin Depending on what exactly you try to achieve and if the teleporter is activated by a script, it may be possible for the script to check if the player is currently climbing? If so, you may be able to delay the teleport until the player has stopped climbing, which in turn would avoid the problem you are having. Not sure if or how this is actually possible, but it may be worth looking into. @MirceaKitsune The first spawnargs that would come to mind for me would be "team", "personGender", "personType" and "AIuse", since these mainly affect how AI interact with an entity. However, this only changes how AI interact with the entity, not the other way round. I would assume (at least I have seen no spawnargs that suggest otherwise) that the behaviour of your entity with other AI is hard coded in the entity class. This means you would have to take one of the AI entity classes and manually change all physical properties to match the werebeast/manbeast (e.g. model, animations, skeleton definitions, ik definition, etc.). If you want to try that, I would suggest you the open the def file of an AI entity (e.g. a guard or a civilian) and copy paste any spawnargs from the werebeast/manbeast that appear to have anything to do with animations, models, or other physical interaction. Which ones exactly you need, would be trial an error. It is a lot of work and I am not even sure if this works, but it is the only thing that I can think of.

There is an entity called target_callscriptfunction that calls a script function when targeted. The script function to be called is defined by the spawnarg "call", which has to be added. I hope this helps.

I think here we need another distinction according to intent of a speech/medium, etc. Dirty jokes and porn do not have value in terms of discussion, because their intent is to entertain. They never claim to contribute to anything like a public discourse. A call for violence (at least in the context of a public speech) does not intend to entertain, but tries to reach people and get them to act. It is similar for other media. Your example #KillAllWhiteMen can be meant as a provocative way of advertising, but looking at what is happening in South Africa right now (where they literally are killing white farmers), it could also be seen as a literal call for violence. I think this is similar for "hate speech". In a calm situation, it will not do much. Maybe be seen as provocative or as someone simply venting. But in an already tense situation, it will pour oil into the fire and may have negative effects.

Yes, I think we are in agreement here. I would still say that there is one case, in which the person giving such a speech should be liable: if malicious intent can be proven for the person that gave the speech. However, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to prove malicious intent, if the person is not stupid enough to admit to it himself. But there may be people whose egos are so inflated that they get overconfident and to do so.

This is a really good and difficult question. I consider myself to be a rather rational person and as such, I would consider even books like "Mein Kampf" as source material. I was taught in school that the book, while present in almost all households at the time, was actually read by only a very small portion of the populace. If more people had read it and understood what was proposed in the book, Hitler might have had far fewer followers than he actually had. Protocols of the Elders of Zion was unknown to me before your post. This is more difficult in that it is based on fake and fictional texts, but the intent of the book seems to be furthering the antisemitic narrative. I am not sure in how far this book calls for violence, so I cannot really tell how I would classify it. Books are generally more difficult to classify, because they have to be read and interpreted and especially the interpretation can vary from reader to reader. Ideally, during their discourse people would notice that a book calls for violence and decide against it; finding a reason why the call is in there and realising that it contradicts a respectful together and/or human rights. This is at least how I would handle books. Unfortunately, as said before the interpretation can go other ways as well and further an aggeressive reasoning. As for a test whether a speech triggers violence, I have none. The correlation would be the only suggestion I have, but this has two important faults: it can only be done in hindsight, so it is too late anyway and you cannot transfer this to other speeches and, as discussed at length here, a speech alone is never the only reason for violence. It can be a factor that added to the general atmosphere of aggression, but it will never be the sole cause. For the examples you brought up: speeches, which explicitly advocate violence, would definitely fall under this label (and if I am not mistaken are already covered by the law). Critisism is much more difficult, because in this case the question how it is delivered is very important. It makes a huge difference, if you say "Child marriage is bad and should be abolished by this group." or if you say "These people are child fucking pedofiles and don't deserve to live." In many cases you can see a difference between critisism that tries to start a dialogue and critisism that wants to antagonise the other side. The latter is of course more likely to further aggression and violence against the other side, but as I said it can only be a factor, never the sloe reason. EDIT: I just thought of another reason, why it is so difficult to correlate speeches and violence: You can never verify that the violence would have occured without the speech. You are stuck with the situation that includes the speech and cannot see the outcome of the same situation without the speech. In some cases (like the video Lowenz posted) the violent people will cite the speeches or name the author of the speech, which clearly shows a connection, but as said before the speech will always be a factor of many.

I agree with what was said later on: "The Koran causes terrorism" and "Hate speech causes violence against minorities" is not comparable. It is the agressive interpretations of the Koran (which can be interpreted as similar, if not the same as hate speech) that causes terrorism. So, I would give the books a pass, the same I would give violent games, films or other media a pass. It is not the source material, but rather people interpreting it in a way that causes violence, that is the problems. This can be the Pope that incited people to go on the Crusades for Christianity or Imams that incite Muslims to terroristic acts. In a more secular context, it is public figures that blames certain groups for everything bad that is currently happening and inciting people to attack said groups. For me these are all comparable as well as condemnable. Al Andalus mentioned by Zerg Rush is a nice example that religions can live side by side in peace, if they respect each ohter. I am not sure what the reason for the attack by Christians was, but I would suppose it was either secular lust for power or a more violent interpretation of spreading your faith (which again I would interpret as inciting by religious leaders). Having thought more about it, I would agree that hate speech alone will not be enough to cause violence. You always need people that listen to it and heed the message. This works best on a fearful, frustrated, and insecure (?) mass of people. In the 3rd Reich Germany was recently destroyed in a war and had to pay reparations to other states. People were poor and frustrated and then a person appeared that told them that it was the Jews' fault and they are bad and should be eradicated. If the people would not have been in such a bad place, it is likely that the whole thing would not have worked. Similarly, today the target audience for hate speech (that actually causes violence) are mostly the poor, the unemployed, and/or the poeple frustrated with the current government (for whatever reason). Coming back to the question if, when, and how hate speech should be prohibited, I would say it is very difficult to say. It would be better to change the circumstances that cause hate speech to lead to violence, but in many cases these are very deeply rooted and cannot be changed on a whim. So, the next best thing to prevent violence is to remove speeches that trigger violence.

Ok, this concern I can understand. I am not sure, when the player entity was last changed or how often (if ever) this currently occurs, but I understand that it may cause trouble.

Far from it. I believe in religious freedom. Just as I believe in other human rights (which also includes the right to life and the prohibition of slavery and torture). Consequently, I would not support making Islam illegal. However, in order to provide a peaceful together, I believe that certain aspects of the religion should be changed. E.g. the forceful spread of the religion. As someone mentioned before in this thread: the freedom of one person ends, where the freedom of another starts. This includes that I have the same right to my religion as a muslim has, and consequently, no muslim has the right to force Islam on me, just as I have no right to force Christianity on a muslim. So, I reject your black and white view of "accept it as it is or make it illegal". There is still a compromise possible, if all concerned people show some respect to one another. I have never read the Qur'an, so I cannot say how much of the required violence is actually stated in there and how much is interpretation. If the forceful spread of the religion is an unchangeable part of the religion, then yes, a religion like this has no place in a world that wants to provide human rights to all people. I am aware that this a dilemma: if I want to respect all human rights, I would have to accept this religion, but at the same time I cannot, because it contradicts the human rights. But as Zerg Rush stated in his last comment, Christianity also had a (violent) missionary phase and was able to change to respect other religions, so I hope that this is also possible for Islam.

This is exactly why I asked. I undesrstand the hesitation of changing existing entities, especially if you may have more than one of them in your map and the changed properties may not be suitable for all. For this, you have spawnargs that can be changed in DR (which I assume is what you meant with "but I feel mission authors should have to modify builtin stuff as little as possible. Thankfully this is usually the case already"). The player entity is a special case, because (as far as I know) it cannot be changed in DR. However, there is only one instance on the map, so any changes can only affect this one entity. And as you pointed out, on important advantage of changing the def-file in this case is, that creating a new entity may require you to change other references. Regarding your suggestion of overriding defs. The way you suggested cannot work, because you create a loop in the definition, in which the definition targets itself. And if you want to change the definition and keep the name, anyway, why use this intermediate step and not simply change the original definition in your map? I cannot see, why your way is norably different from it. Also, the way TDM handles def files is exactly designed in a way to support modification by map authors, with def-files in FM folders taking precedent over core def-files. This way you can change anything you want without affecting/compromising the core files. If you notice a crash or have any unwanted effects, you can simply delete the def-file in the FM folder and revert any definitions to their original form.

Why are you opposed to changing the player's definition? As long as you have your def-file in the FM-folder it will not affect anything other than the FM itself. If I understand your workaround correctly, you are also creating a player entitiy that inherits its properties from the original. I cannot really see any benefit. You only have an additional step.

In the video, a politician was speaking out against immigrants and soon after people that had a clear connection to his party were acting out against immigrants, even naming the politician while doing so. I would say that there is a clear correlation, which cannot be made between violence and video games. Sure there are other factors that contribute to these situations. Maybe the person in question was beaten up by an immigrant one time, maybe he was stolen from and blames them or had other resentments to begin with. Still, the speeches of said politician incited him to act violently against immigrants. It may be that he would have done that at some point anyway, but the speech seems to have given him confirmation that what he is doing was right. I agree that the speech in itself was not the sole reason, but it contributed and may have given the final impulse he needed. What I am trying to say is that the right rhetoric can create an atmosphere in which violence against a singled out group is perceived as "not bad" or "acceptable" and humans tend to target their aggression, frustration etc. somewhere. So the aggression against these singled out groups is a welcome target for them to vent. It is very likely that this would have been targeted at someone else (their wife, a competing sports club, maybe even themselves), but being given a pointer they choose the singeld out group. The main problem I see in this discussion is exactly what you already pointed out: we are missing a clear definition of what "hate speech" entails. Is using the wrong preferred pronoun hate speech? Is insulting people? Is blaming the economic collapse on immigrants? Without a clear definition, I believe that this discussion is rather pointless, because people might simply talk past one another. And of course without a clear definition of "hate speech", we cannot define what the effect a law against them should have.

Ah, ok. I do not use this function and can see why this is annoying.

The point is that the violence was not directly incited. The fearmongering and badmouthing led to increased aggression and violence against certain groups (in this case immigrants). That this violence was tolerated is, of course, another point, but the aggression itself was caused by speeches that were allowed.

Not sure what you mean. I ignore a lot of threads (e.g. any that deal with Linux problems). When I check the forum, I open the threads I am interested in and afterwards hit "Mark forum as read". It is no "ignore these topics in general", but it also does not require much effort...

I think this question was answered with Zerg Rush's post/video: Violently persecuting minorities after being incited by politicians or toher people through scaremongering. As discussed largely in this thread, the definition of "hate speech" is very vague, but it cannot be denied that there is rheotric that can encite the masses to violence against (mainly minority) people.