Lurker > adjl

8.6% ($1749 to $1900 CAD). The legal maximum is 5%, but we're on a series of fixed-term leases because my province doesn't do nearly enough to protect tenants from fixed-term leases being abused, giving us no legal recourse for that.

Nade_Duck posted...

maybe i remember wrong but i don't think there's anything saying link doesn't stick around for a little bit to fix things up before he leaves. i'd imagine if you've done all the sidequests and have the masks that link would probably remember what he did to get the and could act accordingly, or even possibly get help from redeemed skull kid.

It's not impossible, and the credits strongly imply that Anju's wedding happens despite not actually showing Kafei being there such that I'm sure everything works out in the long run, but it still just feels wrong to listen to them say "We will greet the morning together" and then say "jk I'm just gonna rewind time so none of this happened bye." They're greeting the morning together, and it's up to me to make sure they have a morning to greet, dammit.

faramir77 posted...

However, I have already obtained the one from completing the Deku Playground minigame on each of the three days, which I used to think was one of the toughest heart pieces in the game to get.

I usually end up getting that one early simply because there's very little else to do in the first cycle if you know what you're doing. If the choice is between sitting around and waiting for the clock tower to open or bashing my head against the playground, I'll take the playground (though it is indeed much easier now than I remember it being as a kid. Funny how that works).

There was one post in one of the feedback topics where he outright said "insult me if you want, but don't insult Fandom," and that just made me really sad. Nobody gets paid enough for that degree of corporate simping.

STEROLIZER posted...

Hes an employee. Not the owner. He doesnt have authority to make sporadic changes on a dime or even respond and comment to some things.

Hes taking notes, and working in the backend. The fact that hes even interacting at all is proof of this.

Disgruntled GameFaqs users ranting and raving isnt going to suddenly bless DToast with a promotion so that he can make the series of executive decisions. All its going to do is make him apathetic in his duties.

This is common sense. I dont understand why none of you understand this. Its like screaming at the Starbucks Barista, and going so far as to key that college kids car because pumpkin spice lattes were taken off the menu.

That's nice, but it still doesn't change that there's plenty of feedback, so your premise that there's nothing but insults or whatever is outright false. He's just also told everyone that their feedback is worthless, so there's really no room to suggest that people can be more constructive.

https://imgur.com/FjdaEow

Bonus comment: "3 Pumps Daddy is my new rapper name."

The part where there's feedback. The official statement from the community manager is (paraphrased) "We're getting a lot of people saying that they're unhappy with the changes, which is exactly what we expected, but we're going to make absolutely no changes to our plans." There never was any intention of adjusting the plan based on feedback.

STEROLIZER posted...

Provide feedback, not cowardly insults, and incoherent ranting

There's plenty of feedback. He's outright said they're ignoring it.

TomNook posted...

Nah. They need a board to discuss the poll of the day. That is this board.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/1324-actual-poll-of-the-day

https://imgur.com/GjMiQps

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that there aren't many game developers looking at the GameFAQs message boards to help them track down exploits. That means discussing them is just going to result in more people using them and messing with others' fun until they get fixed.

https://imgur.com/ez69obJ

rjsilverthorn posted...

Yeah, that alone makes having a sex and sexuality board a bit iffy. I was never on the board so I have no idea how spicy things got over there, but even having a discussion about sex with someone that young is a good way to end up on a watch list.

I would say there is actually a need for teenagers to be able to discuss sex openly with people who are more experienced so they can get useful advice (there's a ton of misinformation out there). It's just not necessarily in the context of a bunch of adults discussing their sex lives as adults under the assumption it's all other sexually active adults they're talking to.

Annoyingly, most sites that are generally tame and mature enough to potentially take on that responsibility are also the sorts of sites that are going to face problems with age verification laws because they aren't trying to fly under the radar. But then states pushing for age verification laws tend not to be overly keen on comprehensive sex ed in the first place, so they probably aren't too concerned about that.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It's probably more the mindset that "Women obviously want kids because maternal instinct", with the assumption that if you're denying you ever want kids you're just young and confused and will change your mind eventually. So there's always an implied "You're going to regret this decision" if you choose to have an irreversible method of birth control when you're "too young to know what you really want".

It's still sexist, just a different flavor of sexism.

That's why the opposition exists in the first place, but specifically requiring their husbands' permissions is just outright stating "it's only okay for you to not want kids if your husband also doesn't want kids." While I would generally say that sterilization is a decision that should be discussed between partners and a consensus should be reached before going ahead with it (whether that consensus is being okay with sterilization or divorcing because it's an irreconcilable dealbreaker), asking the husband for permission is quite overtly treating the woman as his property.

keyblader1985 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/e/e7112908.jpg

That's in the same vein as putting The Iron Giant in a fighting game. It kind of misses some crucial elements of the character and just boils down to "don't you want to see *insert popular character here* in a video game?"

Soap. Polysporin and a bandaid if I think there's a significant risk of infection or if it's likely to bleed everywhere.

rjsilverthorn posted...

Considering the push some states have made towards ID requirements for sites with 'sexual' content they could also be trying to keep out of that mess.

I suspect this is the biggest factor. Completely stamping out sexy content altogether? That probably won't happen, nor will it be necessary to stay under the radar of age verification laws. Shutting down a board specifically intended for discussions of an explicitly sexual nature? That's something that might actually be needed to avoid having a verification requirement, particularly where the only age restriction now is "promise us you're over 13" when you create your account and that obviously won't cut it for 18+ content.

captpackrat posted...

Wasn't there a poll that showed the site actually trends older than you'd think?

Which is precisely why they want to do more to attract a younger demographic.

LinkPizza posted...

While all of it is crazy, this is the one thing I think is the worst Why should the choice be up to their husband? It makes absolutely no sense at all I think a lady should be able to have control of their own body without needing a man to make her decisions She not a child

Presumably, it comes from the attitude that it's a woman's obligation to provide kids to a husband who wants them. Which is... not okay.

I doubt it. None of the higher-ups particularly broken up by the idea of CE's community being gradually whittled away. I can't see Toast caring enough to reinstate anyone.

Plus that gives you more control over the matter. Not to plan for breaking up with your boyfriend, but if you're ever looking for a new relationship this guarantees what happened with your ex won't happen again.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

It was just am excuse. They have rolled back every other covid policy but that

Companies have stuck with ditching 24-hour service, yeah, and it makes sense because those periods generally don't generate enough business to cover the costs of staffing them, but it was also an official government policy to stop offering 24-hour service (at least around here). Sticking with it is the business' choice, but I'm just not sure why it was part of the Covid restrictions initially.

Jkd91 posted...

That's actually pretty crazy that you could then sue if you change your mind, seems like the sort of thing that if you decide to go through it then you're done.

I don't know how often it actually happens, nor how often those suits are successful, but with the prevailing cultural norm that women are expected to want kids and there there's therefore something wrong with any that don't, many doctors choose to simply avoid the issue entirely by refusing to do sterilizations. Unless a woman already has multiple kids (and even then it's still often an uphill battle), it's not at all unusual to have to go through multiple doctors, get psych evaluations, and/or have their husbands sign permission slips (if they aren't married, they're out of luck) before any doctor will be willing to do the procedure.

Of course, this is assuming the woman in question is white. Minority women still pretty often get sterilized without their consent, because there are still too many genocidal maniacs practicing medicine.

Jkd91 posted...

I got a vasectomy at the beginning of the month and needed a referral from a doctor which took about 30 seconds, he literally asked if i wanted children and if i was sure then sent the necessary stuff to the clinic.

I've no idea how easy it would be for a woman to get it done here (england) but for a man its super easy.

That's generally how it works in the US and Canada as well. Vasectomies are all but offered in drive-thrus; men not wanting kids is seen as totally normal and something doctors are happy to accommodate. There are the facts that vasectomies are a less invasive procedure than tubals, and are a more effective form of birth control, and can be reversed more easily (the failure rate is non-negligible, but low enough that changing your mind later due to changing circumstances isn't the end of the world), all of which mean that if a couple wants to be sterilized it makes more sense for the man to do it, but even outside of couples or other cases where a decision is clearly being made between a vasectomy and a tubal men have a much easier time of getting sterilized.

Jkd91 posted...

Just so im aware, you pay for this right ? why would they say no if you do ?

Part of it is a fear that the woman will come back and sue for malpractice for not doing enough to discourage her if she changes her mind down the line. Most of it, though, is the assumption that all women want kids and that any who say they don't are just wrong and the doctor knows better.

Honestly, from what I've seen of Tony Hawk's public/social media activities, it'd be pretty on-brand for him to just hang out on a random GameFAQs social board and not tell anyone. He seems to be pretty chill and low-profile.

blu posted...

As long as if the amount doesnt go down. I always loved the chance to stay an extra day on vacation and get $1500-2500 (for two people) on a trip I paid $400 for.

It probably will go down, given that the numbers seen in non-cash compensation are artificially inflated by the fact that the company knows they won't actually be paying out on them and to make them seem more generous. If airlines actually have to pay for every instance, they won't be paying as much, though I expect they'll still have to cover immediate requirements like paying for a hotel room if you're stuck overnight.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

I am mad however that Walmart stopped being 24/7 made no sense I could accidently social distance at 2am in walmart

The mandatory reduction in hours for essential services is one thing that always struck me as being counterintuitive. If it's essential, people are going to be shopping there regardless of what the hours are, so reducing the hours means you end up with the same number of total customers showing up within a smaller time window. That increases density and the risk of transmission, exactly the opposite of what the goal was. I'm sure there were further considerations like being able to reduce the number of overlapping shifts for employees and the impacts it had on traffic timing, and increasing the extent to which people were able to take advantage of the disinfecting effects of the sun, plus maybe secondary concerns like overall reductions in traffic increasing the risk that people are victimized by street crime (already an elevated risk for late-night shopping, but with fewer people overall that means even fewer late-night shoppers), but at face value it never really made sense to me.

slacker03150 posted...

"That's not political. Just because one particular group likes to make science and social denial their political points doesn't mean those things actually are politics."

One of the mods said something to that effect as well (specifically about gay/trans rights), which is just obviously nonsense and boils down to "'political discussion' just means taking a political stance we don't like." Ironically (or not, depending on how strict you want to be about defining "irony"), that's pretty much exactly the same way people complaining about media being "too political" use the term, except they use it as a dog whistle for "black people exist" whereas here it's a dog whistle for "racists exist."

Come to think of it, I haven't seen The Flash today.

I'm at least 65% certain it's one of the two.

Cupcake2006 posted...

What happens June 8?

An event of a nature which we are no longer permitted to specify happens in Arizona, which may or may not be related in some way to the subject of women's reproductive health.

Jen0125 posted...

My lights and two Christmas trees stay up year round. You should try it!

We don't keep all of the Christmas decor up, but we do keep some of the string lights. They're just nice to have regardless of the season.

Isaac never really clicked for me. That probably means I just need to give it enough time to figure out important synergies and the like, but it just didn't hold my attention long enough for that. I'll give it another try one of these days.

Not only is it all about the side quests, it's one of the best side questing experiences in gaming full stop. More so than any other game I've played, MM captures the feeling of "this town and this world existed before me and will exist after me. I'm just dropping in, observing everyone's day-to-day lives and reactions to the events of the game, and helping out with the problems they have as part of those lives." It's such a magnificently organic experience that makes it so easy to care about the people that are being helped out by the side quests and feel that you're making a real difference in the world, which is everything side questing should be.

They aren't all super-important and compelling, and there are certainly a few side quests that are more transparently just "complete this minigame please" (getting the Bunny Hood, for example), but there's some really amazing stuff in there.

I only report people when I think the post/poster is making the topic/board worse to enough of an extent that removing them would be an improvement. That's pretty rare, and certainly doesn't extend to enforcing arbitrary, poorly-defined restrictions that are seemingly a first step in shutting down social traffic to the site.

Indeed it do be.

Sometimes, I love the Internet.

I pretty much never beat MM that I don't get all the masks. All heart pieces is another story, since that's a lot (and it requires a restart after completing the Anju-Kafei sidequest so you can get the one from the mayor with the Couple's Mask, and restarting after that quest just feels wrong), but I definitely get all the masks whether I plan on cheesing the final boss with the FD mask or not.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

Depends. If you are upfront about it being casual/unknown, and someone catches feelings later, that can't be your fault. Or at least not if you address it again and go from there.

Pretty much. Make it clear that you're casually dating multiple people, and if either partner wants something more serious/exclusive, they say so and the other one gets to choose between either agreeing to that or breaking things off because they can't reciprocate it. It's only a problem if you mislead people.

DiScOrDtHeLuNaTiC posted...

Why are you interested in women who are completely neutral?

IYKYK

How do you tell the difference between a plumber and a chemist?

Ask them to say "unionized."

slacker03150 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/e/ec77667c.jpg
I guess it is closer to the source than the all red star. My bigger problem with it is the points look all fucked up. The bottom 2 are these skinny little twigs while the top 3 are thick. It doesn't even follow the pattern of the show's star. It just looks like a star a kindergarten would make.

I guess that isn't too far off, then. Still not exactly a $200 tattoo in my books, but if TC's happy with it, that's all that really matters. Not like it's my skin.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

If two people have radically different ideas of what they want a relationship to be, it's much better to try and discuss that in advance rather than just wait until it turns into a huge fight/breakup over it.

Pretty much. You don't necessarily have to air everything on the first date or two (especially if you're casually dating a couple different people and there hasn't been any pretense of forming an actual long-term relationship yet), but sitting on potential dealbreakers because you're worried about how a person will react just pushes that reaction further down the road and makes the ensuing breakup rougher. If there's something fundamentally incompatible, it's better to break up early and move on to somebody else than delay the inevitable.

Jen0125 posted...

This s*** is why I don't get my ex. I spent 6 years telling him I didn't want kids. From the day we met. Then we broke up mainly due to his displeasure because he wants kids. Why did you waste so much of your prime parenting years??? Make sense.

I expect it was the same reason it's so hard to get a tubal: The idea that even if a younger woman insists that she doesn't want kids, she'll likely change her mind later in life. It doesn't make sense, per se, but it's likely a product of the broader culture of assumptions around women wanting kids. He just failed to challenge those assumptions.

streamofthesky posted...

But since that's too obvious, 2nd best part: watching all the extroverts freak the f*** out because after the entirety of human history having it be their world and introverts having to deal w/ it, all of a sudden, for a few mere weeks, they had to live in an introvert's world, and dear god did it enrage and terrify them!

At some level, I shouldn't too too smug about that, given that I know that not socializing for an extrovert is about as anxiety-inducing as socializing is for an introvert (putting aside for a moment the extent to which both concepts are on a spectrum) and that's just not pleasant, but after spending so much of my life being hit with "stop being antisocial" whenever I wanted to do something that didn't involve people, there was more than a bit of satisfaction in seeing the tables turned (and I'm not even actually an introvert, I'm just perfectly content to be alone).

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

Just be upfront about being non-committal (or don't make any promises, at least).

That's really the big thing. Give people the chance to voice their displeasure or dip out if they're unhappy with you talking to more than one prospective partner. Transparency is important at any stage of a relationship. It's important that everyone knows what's going on so they can make informed decisions about how much they want to commit.

It actually looks like it did get infected, which can cause that kind of patchiness. It should be possible to touch it up to be a solid colour and clean up those lines, if that was the intent. $200 for that is still definitely a ripoff, though.

rjsilverthorn posted...

The vouchers were always BS because you know a huge chunk of them probably went unused.

"Here's $100, which you can only use to buy tickets with our airline (where $100 won't cover the full cost of the flight so you'll still have to give us more money to use this), and which will expire in three months so hopefully you're already planning another flight specifically with our airline."

Yeah, it's not exactly a secret that their compensation policy is specifically designed to avoid ever actually having to pay for it.

https://imgur.com/Dsh0h08

ConfusedTorchic posted...

no different than any other launcher that isn't steam, really

I wouldn't say that. It's notably different from single-publisher launchers like Origin and UPlay in that it covers games from multiple publishers, and it's notably different from GOG Galaxy in that it doesn't offer the convenience of being able to consolidate (most of) your library in one launcher (though that convenience is hampered a bit by still needing to have each other launcher open to open the games). I can't actually think of any other launchers off the top of my head (counting all single-publisher launchers with that first one), so that leaves it as being notably different from all non-Steam launchers I can think of.

darkknight109 posted...

GOG.com is literally the only online game store worth using.

If it's DRM freedom you're after, the Humble store still has a fair number of DRM-free titles (though decidedly fewer than when DRM-free games was a big selling point for their bundles), and itch.io is mostly DRM-free.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

That plus running the site on Version 13 skin goes a long way to making the site tolerable.

As opposed to what? V13 is the default, as far as I can tell (I did use V12 Throwback up until I was forced out of it, but that was many years ago now).

You would think, but here we are.

That or the Whocco. Phonetically, I think that makes more sense, but it means pulling an extra C out of nowhere, and that's just poor portmanteauship.

Too late. The Whoco has been unleashed.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Ah, yes, but as far as I know the bar stating it is new.
And I assume the cookies associated with it are new.
While I accept a cookie has enhanced my experience before I don't think this new bar or the new cookies are doing so.

Correct on all counts, as far as I can tell (I haven't actually seen the bar, but again, I've got GameFAQs locked down so hard it barely runs and that tends to suppress overlays like that). Having a statement somewhere admitting to using cookies and explaining what they do has been standard for websites for close to ten years now (I don't remember exactly what case it was that catalyzed it, but there was a big digital privacy suit that resulted in all websites having to be transparent about what data they're collecting), and I'm guessing this is just Fandom tacking on their established way of doing that instead of whatever GameFAQs had before (which is probably buried in their privacy statement).

It's likely that there are new cookies being installed, because Fandom do be like that, but I rather doubt any of the new ones will enhance the experience.