Posts made by bored

It's worth pointing out that the %'s are very guesswork-y and vary considerably between reporting institution, so hanging on single % changes is not particularly meaningful (apparently people were accusing my governor of conspiracy theory-esque minimizing the threat because he quoted a lower %, but it was simply from a different source). These are also likely to be higher than the actual mortality rate, because people who are mildly or non-symptomatic account for the bulk of cases yet rarely make it into the statistics at all.

They are valuable in a comparative sense because other illnesses are measured the same way, with the same flaws, and these %s are an order of magnitude higher than typical flu mortality.

I don't know that there's a unified culture, or anything about this particular game, but I have used Discord for tabletop/VTT style stuff. Dice bots and the like exist for various systems and can be fairly sophisticated: I used one for FFG L5R, which if you know anything about the system, requires interpreting symbols vs. just adding up numbers, and the rolls can have multiple steps where you 'pick' dice for later stages/rerolls. It automated most of it pretty smoothly. As there are various large public discord communities centered around various games and systems I imagine you can probably find similar for anything that isn't too obscure.

AFAIK, sheets aren't common although the underlying technology would not prevent them (I know bots can communicate with an SQL database, so potentially they should be able to do pretty much anything data wise). Most games I've seen will do something simpler like a link to a google spreadsheet.

Fwiw, even I saw this coming, about as soon as I saw the 6'7" + all red text shortdesc, and then some totally random chat incident with him posturing about being 'the biggest viking' on the game or whatever. It's actually sort of funny how predictable these people are.

Also, lol at 'ghosted IPs.' Hack that Gibson, you crazy cowboy.

Weird thread. Obviously there's competition. There are finite players with finite time. Games advertise, innovate, and push unique code as competitive advantages. Games use mechanisms for competitive player retention that are well-studied in the professional game industry and abused by predatory mobile games. We have GOMO as a term, and with it many games I could recount, by name, that have been created explicitly with the goal of stealing a portion of an existing playerbase. People steal code, steal databases. People are right now discussing UH's trash fire as an opportunity to swoop in. Why not build that game before, if it's just about delivering your own vision?

What is any of this, if not competition?

Now, like anything, it can be healthy or not. Striving to create a good game that people will want to play on as much as other existing games is (at least partly) competitive but not inherently bad. Arguably, the UH situation demonstrates where lack of competition allows for stagnant design and poor behavior to flourish. But let's not fluff ourselves too hard here, pretending we're above these considerations.

I tried 4T, but it never felt like the theme gel'ed and it had some demographic issues that plague these games when they don't get larger playerbases.

I think to answer the general question of why there aren't bigger/more successful games... is that UH is what you get. Even if you remove/ignore the creeper stuff, it's a huge +who list with lots of alt-camping, lack of ready access to core rp, etc. And the games just all tend to trend this way. A lot of people just want to have their favorite characters and maybe do personal RP/TS on them, but the motivation to do plots, public rp, etc seems minimal, and is further complicated by the wide selections of characters creating inconsistent tones, power imbalances, etc that often ruin that RP when it does happen.

In a way, these games almost run themselves, but getting them past a very low bar of 'people log in and chat on Super-aliases' is a much more difficult process.

I said 80s but not for the gif-related reasons, but just because it was a good time in comics. Doing a game purely on exaggerated nostalgia would be fun for a laugh but I think it would also be a really short-lived. Comic games in general suffer from a lack of any real attention paid to building an ongoing world and story, so that's probably the biggest thing you want to focus on.

I am sitting here staring at the clock waiting on Bojack.

I kind of want to watch it, but I've never gotten into (most of) the CW stuff and everything everyone says about Arrow makes me hesitant to attempt slogging through it.

That said, even just from seeing trailers/ads, I was really impressed that they made a comics-accurate looking Monitor on television, of all things, and actually worked in more else-verse material in than the original had (making this a bit like CoIE + Multiversity).

"Penis Man is neither man nor woman, you nor me," Shomer wrote in one post. "We are ALL Penis Man."

Amen.

I am ridiculously hype on Picard. TNG was the Trek I grew up with (to the degree that Geordi being "the guy from Reading Rainbow" was actually a major selling point), and after much meandering through all the movies, prequels and reboots, this feels like it's actually landed. This isn't to say I've hated all the other stuff (the JJ movies are fun), but they've felt like something else. Understanding Picard is so essential to understanding post-Kirk Trek, since he really set the tone for it as a series about diplomacy, exploration, and science over space Western pew-pew Kirk punching Lizard guy goes here.

And I wouldn't want a new episodic rehash either. I think that's the challenge they've faced, since TV has moved away from that a lot and the audience has higher expectations in storytelling.

I had some concern in the trailers since they leaned a little hard on the 'powered girl kung-fu' sequences and I was worried it would be trope-y Whedon-esque shit, but having seen what that plot actually is, I'm on board. Stewart is among the best actors working, and it shows. The Daystrom scene nailed Trek-science feels. I also like how they've built out Earth and Federation life a bit, since there was little of it in the old shows.

And the final shot? OHSHIT!

@Groth said in PB 'realism':

In fairness to people picking tiny, fragile-looking characters for their hardcore warriors that has been something of a trend in Hollywood and other visual media. I think the only athletic looking action star that comes to mind is Michelle Rodriguez.

Like I said, I accept it to some degree where media doesn't give you an option, which applies to women even moreso (although I think saying Michelle Rodriguez is the only one is... not true). But there are extremes that bother me. Also, again, its peeve territory, not 'omg I hate you and wont RP' territory.

It also kind of depends on the game genre and its own expectations. I am OK with 'lithe' PBs for fighters in genres & systems where Dex/agility/etc style builds are a thing. Your elf can be whatever, as can your Jedi. And if you're a badass with a gun, it probably doesn't matter what your build is at all. But if you're a medieval badass with a giant axe or something, it might bug me a little more.

And yeah, if it's face-only I don't care. I think this is also an evolution of PB use - when they first came in, they generally were just faces ('faceclaim' is another term for PB in non-MU RP communities) but bigger and more elaborate galleries have become more prominent.

I don't particularly care about PBs (I'm a little oldschool and even used to kind of 'specialize' in character descs to the point where friends used to ask me to write theirs) and while I understand the value of the quick visual shortcut I think it's really easy to get lost into everyone using the same ~30 faces, with some slow rotation based on who is currently big in theaters (I have a friend who used Ana de Armas before she was big and now bitches about her being taken in the first five minutes on every game!). It basically becomes self-defeating, especially as people so often lean into the PBs to the degree that they're playing the actor or their most famous role.

@Auspice said in PB 'realism':

@Arkandel said in PB 'realism':

For example if you're playing a thuggish fighter type but your model is a slender more delicate looking person, or it's a figure skater as depicted by Chris Hemsworth, etc... is that okay? Not okay? Do you notice when people do that?

I 100% notice.
I'm not gonna call people out on it, but if someone is a strength 5 MMA fighter (without being, say, supernaturally enhanced) but they're using some really thin, reedy sort of PB... It throws me off a lot.

This one is my peeve as well.

It bugs me if there's an obvious stats mismatch. When I had my Size 18 Pendragon character, I picked a 6'5" actor. I onced changed a roster's prior PB from a prettyboy choice to someone with muscles because he was strength 5. I realize it may be harder for female characters since these body types are not well represented in media, but I appreciate the effort in at least picking someone who's a little athletic vs. exceptionally tiny, fragile-looking, etc for your hardcore warrior character.

@Kestrel You're choosing to cherry pick to avoid being uncomfortable or wrong.

You might live in the UK, but there's been plenty of discussion about America-specific topics/situations (ie the KKK, Charlottesville guy, etc). I have never talked about Rowling, and my discussion was with Ganymede about the US (again, Charlottesville). And you came and @'ed me about it. You don't get to do that and then say you're not talking about the topic I was actually talking about.

It's also pretty clear from context and other comments that you've made, that while you may be in the UK, you would support people in the US being fired for their tweets (so long as they're people you don't like, anyway). Are you disavowing that?

Really, everything about how you argue is disingenuous and evasive. The stuff about being fired for activism is another example ('I dont want to work for a company that would fire me, lolz!' - shitting on every person who doesn't have your freedom of job choice), but at this point it's hardly worth the effort.

@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:

Literally no one is treating at-will employment as a good thing.

I mean, @Auspice called it a 'sort of benefit.' You seem to be arguing that you don't support it, but only because you're in the UK. In the US, the only way people are getting fired for tweets (which you 100% support) is via at-will employment laws or (equally shady and anti-labor) 'morality clauses' in contracts. You can't separate the two things. If you want people to be able fired for (edit: relatively trivial - yes people can be fired for crimes and such) things that have literally nothing to do with their job, you're in favor of anti-labor employment laws. Consequences, as you like to say!

Which circles back to where I started. It's not that I want people to be immune to consequence. It's that I want consequences to adhere to reasonably just standards, and not mob whim. I want free speech protected while I would also like the law to catch up to the internet age of harassment, bullying, and doxing, and do more to punish those things. You presumably want most of the same (because you don't want women getting death and rape threats for speaking), but it seems to me you're just not willing to concede that it might limit you in even the slightest way in the process.

You want to fight the troll war, because it's cathartic to bully the badguys. Unfortunately, in the US, the winner of the troll wars proved to be Trump.

@Auspice said in Separating Art From Artist:

This is sort of a benefit to at-will employment. Because in an at-will state, an employer could absolutely fire you for -phobic rants.

People often worry about 'but what if I get fired for being LGBT and my boss is religious' and at-will does not apply where it'd be illegal (you can't be fired for your religion, sexuality, race, etc.).

You absolutely can be, in a number of states. I think that one is actually before the Supreme Court presently (and given the makeup doesn't look good)?

I brought this double-edged at-will employment sword up already. I think most of us agree that people being fired for being raging asshats isn't bad, but the idea that at-will employment is good is a far stretch, and historically I daresay it's been used largely for oppressive reasons/outcomes. So its weird to see people treating it positively, even if they like some person getting fired for something they said on twitter in a very specific case, it's hardly a pro-labor concept.

@GreenFlashlight Yawn.

I think I'm going to join in with the whole, 'this isn't worth engaging with the insisted narrow focus on the KKK' because, yeah, the inherent Godwin kind of makes it pointless. Just imagine me re-iterating my posts @Gany here.

@insomniac7809 I don't really follow your post. I have said several times that engaging in a public rally probably mitigates privacy protections to some degrees. I can nonetheless find that in some instances those consequences might be out of scale, believe that better legal frameworks might rein this in, and point out that it can have a suppressive effect on speech you support alongside speech you oppose.

@Kestrel

That argument easily reduces to 'don't become an activist if you're concerned about having a livelihood.' Is that really the stance you want to take? Like... do you not get that you're basically arguing for your own suppression? I don't get it. Most of these things (like the employment contract issue that you didn't respond on) are far more effective as tools of oppression than they are as tools of activism. Twitter shit just gives people a false sense of bravado.

@GreenFlashlight said in Separating Art From Artist:

I have not put words in your mouth, bored. Please show me the same courtesy, particularly as you have no idea what I think about these hypothetical children.

You presented a counter-argument to the idea that collateral damage to dependents was a valid concern. You did it while blatantly avoiding mention of the most likely victims of such a scenario. Sarcastic delivery aside, I am pointing out the holes in your argument as presented.

@Kestrel Maybe you want to eat and you don't have ready access to other employment options? Like, for a person really interested in discussing all this stuff, I'd think you'd recognize the privilege there.

As for companies being able to 'have an ethos,' again... sounds great in theory until you examine the other side of what is happening there. If you want to find something that gives corporations power to control workers, including subjecting them to every imaginable form of mistreatment, -ism, and bias, there's hardly a better candidate than at-will employment contracts. The power to fire someone over a tweet is terrifying, and it's the same power used to fire an employee who speaks up about something internally that they 'shouldn't.'

Beyond that, I've never read a Harry Potter novel and I am unsure why parts of your post are even directed at me, as I am not a surrogate for the thread at large. My concerns are mostly in regards to law vs. mob, and it's... disturbingly oblivious to argue in favor of the latter in a thread discussing the KKK.

@GreenFlashlight said in Separating Art From Artist:

So if Kestrel reports a Klansman for being at a Klan rally, the effects of that on the Klansman's family belong more to Kestrel than to the Klansman who chose to be at the rally, who chose to be a Klansman, who chose to tie his family's fortune to his Klan participation? Because I feel like it's on the Klansman, and on the Klansman's SO who realistically had to know what they were getting into. Also, their brat kids shoulda known to be born to better parents.

It looks like you forgot something while explaining what dependents are, but don't worry, I fixed it!

(double for latepost)

@Kestrel

Your willingness to wear your beliefs on your sleeve is your own choice, though. In the United States (and even moreso in Europe, really), we do enshrine a certain right to privacy, particularly as in regards to political belief. This is to ensure people retain a freedom to such beliefs, and we can look to easy examples of what happens when it is not upheld (ie, McCarthyism etc). This is all at least in theory anyway, as there's another thread discussing how this may be less true in practice, where people's reactions to that knowledge were generally alarmed. Because we expect that we can keep those things to ourselves if we choose.

So its clear: I'm not advocating that people be immune to consequence for their actions where they express certain beliefs, but instead that there be laws and standards related online bullying, threats, and violation/dissemination of PII. We actually do have laws for some of those things, but they only seem to apply in the meat/paper world. Online, mob justice is supreme, and it feels oh so wonderful until you're the target.

(I am not that interested in debating the specifics of a rally beyond what I've said already to the lawyer catbot: it's public action so it mitigates privacy).