Posts made by Derp

@ganymede said in Forum wonk:

I will (likely) personally bear the set-up cost.

@silverfox said in Forum wonk:

I dunno if I speak for anyone else, but this place has come to mean a lot to me, and I would really like to contribute to the cost. We got you.

I would like to second Silverfox's thing. For all that we snipe at each other on this forum sometimes, this place is a good thing full of good people. I would also contribute to any costs to keep such an endeavor going, and I know that a bunch of others have made similar noises.

@macha said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:

@tributary Lol they'd want me to prove it wasn't my dog's. they are not bright people.

Fortunately, this is fairly easy and cheap to solve.

Just get one of these little Geeni security cameras. Should run you somewhere around twenty bucks or so, and a smallish SD card that should also not run you very much. Stick that little bad boy in a window facing the grassy part in question and it'll just record everything to the SD card, and start overwriting when it's out of room. I think I have a 128 GB in mine and it's got like four solid days of footage or something.

Problem solved.

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

The word "binging." Two syllables spelled almost identically, yet the I and the G are both pronounced differently, and there's no way to infer that without just knowing.

I mean, technically, they first G could be either, depending on if the base word is binge or Bing, the search engine. It'll never be as popular as Google but someone's gonna try to make that a word eventually so we might as well accept that both pronunciations are correct and have different meanings.

@dnvnquinn

NWoD, no, not that I am aware of. Not publicly anyway.

OWoD there is Modern Nights and Liberation.

@greenflashlight

@krmbm said in GMs and Players:

Hey, you know there's a difference between "couldn't prove it" and "no proof," right?

That's not how proof works. You either have proof of something or you don't.

Are you thinking perhaps of evidence?

@bear_necessities said in GMs and Players:

When did I EVER say that we should ban innocent people?

You did, my dude. Right here:

@bear_necessities said in GMs and Players:

Like if someone came to me and said Ruiz was on my game, I wouldn't even blink twice even if I couldn't prove it.

You would ban a person on purely an accusation with no proof whatsoever, whether they were the person or not, regardless of what harm it would do to them or their reputation in the process. You literally do not care whether they are the guilty party, you just boot them anyway.

How is it not clicking for you that the things you're saying run in opposite directions? I mean, really. Do you really think this, and the concept of "of course we would never ban an innocent person" are actually compatible?

@krmbm

I mean, as long as we're being honest about what we're talking about here. I called it favoritism before and everyone was quick to clutch their pearls about it, but I guess we're fine just calling it what it is now.

It's not something I would do. It's not something I would support one of my staff doing. I definitely wouldn't play under staff that do this. I would hope that someone out there has similar standards, but that's probably a vain hope.

@krmbm

Because this random stranger on the internet isn't one of your friends, and so don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, or equal treatment.

Good. Cool.

@ganymede said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:

@derp

Uh. This is a bad faith claim, if I ever heard of one.

I mean, possibly? I don't really know what to do about it. There are some procedural details that are super boring or whatever, but basically 'if insurance does not cover it it will be covered by another thing', but the website requires insurance information, so.

@krmbm said in GMs and Players:

He needs to TRY to sound other than condescending.

I don't sound like anything over the internet where there is no sound. What people read into what I write is what they read into it. Not necessarily what I wrote.

Maybe they should try to stick to the substance of the actual argument instead of trying to, what was the phrase used earlier? Tone police?

@bear_necessities said in GMs and Players:

I think when you break it down like that, you are grossly misrepresenting me and what we are all trying to say here and it's very condescending

I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm telling you how this reads to me. Because that's how this reads to me. You, in the same breath, say that you shouldn't just take people at face value and ban people right before you say that you'd take someone at face value and ban a person because that's the lesser of your perceived two evils.

It's a contradiction. And the problem with contradictions, from a logic standpoint, is that you can use them to justify literally anything in an argument whether it logically tracks or not, and it all seems nice and solid, even when it's flawed.

I don't hold this same belief. This is something that you value, and something that I don't. I don't know how else to explain it. If your priority is the process, then it's a problem. If your priority is just teh general gut-check feeling then it's not.

@bear_necessities said in GMs and Players:

So I'm definitely not saying take everyone at face value or accept 'random' accusations against people and unilaterally ban without any evidence whatsoever. I'm talking for extreme cases like stalking or people who have been knowingly abusive in the community. Like if someone came to me and said Ruiz was on my game, I wouldn't even blink twice even if I couldn't prove it.

The problem is that these two statements are contradictory, because the thing that you said not to do in the first is exactly the thing you're doing in the second. And because of that:

@bear_necessities said in GMs and Players:

The risk to my game by banning someone like that is minimal;

I don't think that this is an accurate statement. I mean, for you, it probably is, but for me, the calculus just falls the other way. Because, I dunno, I'm a crazy misogynist abuse enabler or whatever.

Honestly, I think it's also about what kinds of players do you want to attract. Do you want the ones that care about rules, and process, and transparency, even if it takes time? Or do you want the ones that prefer immediate gut-check judgment calls based on personal beliefs and social opinions? Those are two different kinds of player, and while neither of them is neccessarily inherently wrong -- they both have some positives and negatives -- they're not really compatible viewpoints.

I'm attempting to attract the former. It sounds like you're trying to attract the latter. I'm not sure there's a middle ground there.

Also, weird. My post got cut off and then doubled, so the deleted one down below isn't like, a flounce-off delete of something. Just removing a dupe.

@krmbm

Meaning "I need a more concrete example of the behavior in question. What is said? About what? Give me an example."

I don't know what "passive aggressive comments on channel that may or may not be about you" means.

@meg said in GMs and Players:

would you consider them going to every GM scene shady shit, for example?

Did you do the DNC thing like was suggested? Because that would include GM scenes. If it becomes some kind of a problem of race conditions, we'll figure out a fair way to get you both into things without you having to be in things together.

Or them talking on channels in PA ways that may or may not refer to you?

Uh. I guess it depends? This one is pretty vague, but I suppose it could fall under the general "don't be a dick" clause? I'd need something more concrete to go off of.

@meg said in GMs and Players:

Do you honestly think that on a small game, the only way someone can affect you is by contacting you directly?

So you just skipped right on past that 'some other kind of shady shit' sentence to call this one out?

I already answered this question.

@bear_necessities said in GMs and Players:

How do you expect someone to "prove" that someone else is stalking them?

My point was that I don't. I don't need you to prove it. Because your out-of-game interpersonal relationships aren't my problem.

I have a set of rules. One of those rules is that someone can ask for no contact for any reason. Period. Once you invoke that, if he contacts you, then we can boot his ass. Easy.

If he doesn't contact you, then it's a moot point.

If you think that there is some other kind of shady shit going on -- he's paging your friends or whatever, or I don't even know -- then that leaves a trail too and likely violates our general "don't be a dick" policy.

@bear_necessities said in GMs and Players:

why would you believe they have some nefarious purpose in declaring so-and-so a stalker? And I think that's kind of the crux of what you're saying - you have to have proof becase otherwise you could just be telling lies and honestly that's how you get people like Ruiz, or that Down with OPP guy everyone talks about, and by the time you figure it out it's way too late and it's already tainted your game.

Because doing the opposite of this and just taking everyone at face value is how you get people like Spider, and some of the people at games like The Network right now, just making random accusations and expecting that staff will act on it because they said so, to the detriment of those not in the person's in-group.

That sword cuts two ways, and I prefer to err on the side of the one backed by stronger evidence than someone's deep conviction.

@bear_necessities said in GMs and Players:

@derp Exactly how is removing a stalker from your game 'playing favorites'????????

Because I have nothing but your word that the person is a stalker, in most instances. I don't even know that this person is who you think they are. You just said that Tom, who just logged on, is secretly BronlyLover2014, the guy that's been following you around all these games.

Uh. Ok? I mean, how do you know that Tom is BronyLover2014? How do I know that the relationship between yourself and BronyLover2014 is what you're claiming it is? Why am I even getting involved in the relationship between you and Tom-supposedly-Brony when as far as I can tell he hasn't said word one to you?

I'm supposed to prioritize your opinion because you are an existing player on the game even though I probably don't know you from Adam. Just like I don't know Tom.

That's literally giving an existing player an advantage based merely on the fact that they exist prior to Tom, and no other criteria.

If you don't think that's playing favorites, then -- I don't know what to tell you. if some people give you that, cool. But that's not how I roll.

@farfalla

An excellent point. Playing favorites for your favorites is an excellent way to build trust with your favorites and lose it with everyone else.

But I mean who cares, right?

Jesus.