That is correct, but that has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech is a very specific term referring to a very specific thing. Private companies do have the right to restrict your speech in general but there are specific protected things they aren’t allowed to restrict you from saying, everything else outside of those protected things they can restrict if they want to and even in some cases have to (privacy things, medical stuff, discrimination, etc). I might have been to loose in my usage of “all they want” though.
It actually does, in terms of how the US government views free speech, its more or less treating it as a concept. Rather than a literal sense of the term.
This is why Companies even private ones, are regulated and forced(loosely) to relatively speaking to not mislead or misadvertise stuff other wise get in a lot of problems. But that’s more of a loose side of things.
If you are referring to the Definition side of things, it just lets whoever represents big co express their corporate lingo.
That said im going to Taco Bell. Goodbye.
46.1 second reload for 38.1cm triple ansaldos is inexcusable when there’s both historically documented proof it can be 30.9 (rounded down so it can be 30) in a bracket where everything ranges from 22 to 32 seconds with equivalent or larger guns.
But this is going off topic
Not necessarily. It is a factor in why toxicity exists. There are multiple reasons. Cause we have those who would like the historical fire rates.
But those who will claim in-game is fine where it is(it’s not).
Then those who love to make a compromise, but both tell them to be quiet.
My personal opinion is historical accuracy should be second to game balance if said accuracy renders something far too strong.
I’m going to give an example; 46cm guns reloading in 32 seconds vs 38.1cms reloading in 46 seconds.
Or 40.6cms in 29.
The only difference is rating (.4 difference).
A hypothetical comparison is one plane having eight 7.7mms at 600 rpm with another only .4 higher having eight 20mms at 900 rpm
I personally would prefer a compromise approach.
Whatever the irl reload is.
is given a quarter more, making it semi-historical, as it is 1 quarter longer than irl.
Though I am assuming that is sort of what you are saying.
Yeah more or less.
1 Like
It feels weird because it mixes moral norms with age regulations. Being respectful in general, not just near kids, is basic moral norm. Age restriction exists to protect individual from something they shouldnt see that early. Or to inform parents that there might be something “not right” for their children. In this case its chat because foul language from it may stick to kid mind especially considering kids tend to repeat after others (like monke see monke do). And toxicity: insults, threats etc, which younger folks struggle with.
Age rating is just compromiss/average number. 18 doesnt mean wait till 01:30 am, July 1st and then you suddenly become capable of handling 18+ content. And as I said before, it protects/informs but doesnt allow. Terms of service are proof for this, they ban foul behaviour no matter the age.
2 Likes