Best posts made by Derp

@Aria said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

This is the point of tax season where I basically have all of our stuff entered.....

Save for our mortgage information, because our mortgage company's website sucks and works on exactly no browsers despite what they say, and one piece of paper from my retirement investments that won't come until more than halfway through February.

Fuck you guys. I want my refund.

Same, except I have all my stuff submitted and the IRS is like "90% of refunds are issued within 21 days*"

Unless you have the earned income tax credit and then fuck you, we think you are scamming us, you can wait until March

But see, that doesn't make much sense.

Okay, so I have a function r() that turns all of my text within it red. But it can only turn text red. It can't underline it. If I want to underline it, I have to use u(). But u() can't make it red like r() can. If I want to make it red and underline it, I have to create a new function, ru(). But then what about green? Well, then I would need g() and gu(). Can I make it bold on top of that? Surely you can see where this is going.

And while yes, you could theoretically provide all of that within the arguments of one function, not every developer is going to foresee every possible permutation of those things and write arguments into the function to handle that. Whereas if you provide several simpler functions that can be nested, you are in fact increasing the simplicity, because each one does a specific thing, and in combination they can do things that would take an incredibly complex function with multiple args to do together.

@Snackness said in Podcasts:

@Wizz oh just you wait until I can get on my laptop

@il-volpe said in Paying for a MU*?:

I was once invited/hired to TS people on a game where you paid like $5 to join and then could hire certain characters to TS and pay them for the session, and the game owners took a percentage. This seemed feasible but I don't think it lasted long.

I used to ask players to give to certain charities in response to certain events. But I also always made it clear that it wasn't mandatory and that I wouldn't know if you did it or not.

You better be real good at TS if I'm paying for it.

@Snackness said in Podcasts:

@Wizz Summaries added!

Summaries added to mine as well! WITH LINKS! (Take that!)

@tinuviel said in Paying for a MU*?:

@derp said in Paying for a MU*?:

@tinuviel said in Paying for a MU*?:

and then there's going to be people that try to get the law involved because real financial exchange has happened and that always leads to lawyers eventually.

This.

And lawyers ruin everything.

@SG said in Depression Meals:

I've been getting into Instant Pot stir fries. It's a gross looking mess when it comes out, but holy shit is it tasty as fuck. And it takes about 5 minutes of work.

oooh. Link?

@il-volpe said in The Desired Experience:

Also, saying, "Bringing only four sandwiches and giving them only to the same four people every time is not cool," is not the same as telling you who you must give your sandwiches to. You can only bring as much as you can bring to the pot luck, nobody expects you to make it a hardship on yourself to bring something, nobody is saying your having only four sandwiches reflects badly on you.

So to summarize:

Nobody is saying that everyone has to play with everyone.

But you can't play with a limited number of people.

Except that you can absolutely play with a limited number of people if that's all the time you have.

It just can't be four people.

Except if those four people are the only ones you can play with.

What the hell are you even saying at this point? Because you're starting to contradict yourself now.

Is there some lower bound? Some theoretical limit at which 'not cool' and 'totally fine' diverge?

@il-volpe said in The Desired Experience:

You're describing a situation where sandwich clubs are invisible and harmless.

Who anyone else is playing with and why is not any of your damn business. Therefore why does it matter who can see what?

@TNP said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@Auspice

She’ll always have a female voice, but if you want her to have an Australian, Indian, southern U.S., or some other accent to match your family’s speech patterns, you can absolutely do that.

Alas. Though the accents are pretty cool.

Pfft. You're thinking too small.

It should be named Alfred, and be voiced by Michael Caine. Obviously.

@faraday said in The Desired Experience:

Can we maybe just agree that the potluck analogy is imperfect?

This is why I used 'community theater with unlimited stages'.

@Ghost said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

Bad Hipster

Is this like the spinoff to Bad Moms or Bad Grandpa? Or Bad Teacher?

@il-volpe said in The Desired Experience:

@derp said in The Desired Experience:

Why should vampires, or anyone else, expect more access?

Because Vampire is supposedly a game where the win friends and influence people element is important, and specific MUs often advertise that this is what the faction play is focused on. You can't lick asses that aren't there.

And you think that the way to do that is to go directly to the top? Like it's some kind of democracy where you can hold the guy at the top accountable, and he doesn't just skin you semi-alive for being annoying and leave you staked in the sun?

I think that's more a failure of imagination, rather than a failure of availability.

@SinCerely said in Storytime! Embarrassment Edition:

@Roz see now I want to tell my embarrassing caught-having-sex story.

I think everyone has one of those stories, and they're all fantastic.

@il-volpe said in The Desired Experience:

This would be relevant if "getting to the top" in this context meant "occupying the top position" rather than "getting chances to personally ingratiate myself to my betters, or fuck up trying to do so." Maybe "getting at the top" would better serve.

You keep moving the goalposts.

And I mean, I guess this is the place to talk about things you want as an ideal, desired experience, but -- I think the experience that you're looking for doesn't necessarily match up with what you're going to be able to find, on a couple of different levels now.

But it's good to get that kind of thing out there. Maybe there's a pocket out there with like-minded folks, but I think your desired experience is the outlier in this situation.

@TheOnceler

I wish I could upvote this more than once.

@Sunny said:

It's less meant to be a throttle and more a wall. It's not meant to slow growth, but to keep characters from going past a certain point at all.

+1 Theno. This sounds like a terrible idea. If you don't want them to spend xp, don't give it to them. Setting a hard upper limit like that is just depressing, and leads to periods of non-growth that will lead to more frustration than steady growth with a slow xp gain.

@silverfox said in Wildly Out of Context:

"If you don't stop looking at my penis, I will pee on you."

I feel like there is a fabulous story here.

@botulism said in MUs That We Would Love To Make (But Won't):

with no Force/Jedi/Sith since they're supposed to be really rare post Order 66

@Ghost said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

New peeve:

Facebook memes about troops, jesus, or anything that includes the words BET YOU WONT SHARE THIS!

I'll bet that particular branch of the sharing stream dies with me. Fuck off.

Say AMEN if you like this quote and God will bless you with $777,777.77

@tinuviel said in GMs and Players:

I honestly don't care if it happens elsewhere, I just don't want to approve of it happening elsewhere.

This is a good point. But it wasn't quite my original point. Which is that there are a certain subset of players that expect staff to adjudicate the behavior/content/whatever of player interactions that happen in other media. Like Discord.

So you and Bob do a naughty little TS on Discord. Whatever, I don't care. But then a week later you send me a screenshot presumably of Bob calling you a dirty <swear word of some kind> (because we are in mildly constructive).

What am I supposed to do with this?

I can't verify it. It didn't even happen anywhere I have any control over.

But you want me to take actions against Bob because, presumably, he was mean to you or whatever. Even though for all I know you just straight up doctored that conversation which, in an earlier conversation, we saw was remarkably easy to do.

What then? Because I tacitly gave a nod of approval to 'yeah I am not going to explicitly ban you from doing a thing I cannot prevent you from doing anyway' I am now supposed to play the judge of the thing I couldn't stop you from doing had I wanted to?

There has to be reasonable lines beyond which -- there be dragons, yo, and if you go get eaten by one, then. I don't know what to do for you.