Kavanaugh has a pitiful litigation record. His testimony at his hearing prior to his diatribe on partisanship reveals this. And Thomas vastly expanded the power of agencies in his decision in Chevron.
You really have no idea what you are talking about, even as a conservative. You really ought to consider sitting the fuck down and not challenging me of all people on constitutional jurisprudence.
It is also a game that has an absence of a lot of the negatives raised in another thread.
Powerful PCs? Hell yes. Is that a problem? No, because every player can have a high level character. Competition? Not really, unless you’re trying to catch Enid Schmitt’s eye. Great players? Fuck yeah.
It is a gem of a game, and made with so much love. Anna runs a nice ship, and we’re all lucky she still is.
Are there other topics, besides economics or constitutional law, that you want to invoke argumentum ad verecundiam on?
On those two topics, I'm more than capable of smashing any argument you may have.
On others, I can just use logic, reason, and empathy to demonstrate your absence of authority.
@Ghost said in How To Treat Your Players Right:
The only way to be fair and ensure that you are making the right decision is to place the burden of proof onto the accuser. This is a text based hobby. Log that stuff.
Yes, but DownWithOPP's behavior had an effect on a lot of other people too.
We had a report of a bad player on Victorian Reverie through a third-party. I did nothing in the absence of a complaint from the aggrieved. The aggrieved simply left. Over a period of a couple of months, we lost half-a-dozen relatively-active players without an explanation. The third-party finally filed a complaint, and, when the bad player was confronted, she threw shade and accusations at the departed parties, and then at the third-party. I eventually determined that the behavior she was accused of in fact led to the departure of the aggrieved, but despite taking action the aggrieved would not return.
The damage had been done.
The burden of proof in a court of law is on the prosecution, but the responsibility of staff is to not only be an adjutant, but also an investigator. Investigators act on anonymous tips all the time because those tips can lead to the discovery of evidence of bad acts. And I think that staff need to adopt the position as investigators as much as being mindful of their role as judges.
You'll hear a lot of excuses. "We can't make too many exceptions." "We have to be fair to everyone." And it's all bullshit: fairness is about treating people based on their needs, not the same. And, thankfully, the ADA keeps this in mind.
It's not fair to force a diabetic to stick to the same schedule as people without diabetes, just like it's not fair to force someone without a leg to participate in an ass-kicking contest.
@Salty said in Sexuality: IC and OOC:
I want to say it is that a lot of men play women and especially queer women but someone else made the logical point that if they do it well it typically isn't picked up on as a guy doing it, so I can't be sure that the majority of them are but it feels like it. So it winds up being personality and circumstance that attract my pcs to women.
I wonder if it even matters what the RL gender of the player is. I know that I really don't give a shit, and I hope that people who RP with me sexually also don't care. It's not like, after a good TS session with someone who is of an RL identity that I'm not normally attracted to, I suddenly toss my cookies in the shower and scrub myself clean (edit).
I wasn't really agreeing with you. And it's not really a full-circle situation either.
It sucks that the world sucks, and that it forces me, as a parent, to help my kids get through the suck. But just because they are prepared for the suck doesn't mean I can't keep on smashing my boot against the suck in the vain-but-hopeful pursuit of justice.
I mean, I hate how health insurance works in this country, and I want to go universal, but that doesn't mean I won't devise and approve of measures like Obamacare that try to do something positive.
I wish I knew more about the setting.
I think that if Faraday opened a Serenity game it would be flooded in a matter of minutes.
Hint hint.
@magee101 said in I know it's an old topic but to this day....:
Please tell me that this hobby protects people from the stupidity of "magic"
I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of participants in this hobby enjoy the wondrous nature of "magic" and the supernatural, yet still understand that the planet isn't fucking flat.
Regarding staffing and perks, I never have and never will ask for any perks if asked to become staff. I never have and never will ask for perks if I submit work to a game as a player either. Anyone may hold me to this.
But if I do contribute something, recognition and respect as to the source would be polite.
The difference between flat-earth era and anti-vaxxers is that the latter is concerned to be one of the top ten health threats in the United States.
@Tempest said in Our Tendency Towards Absolutes:
So, the reasons behind what Sparks is talking about, have nothing to do with what Sparks is talking about?
I think Sparks is criticizing the mentality that all staff are bad by default, and how this is deleterious in the hobby.
I think Too Old For This is explaining that bad staffers don't get the boot as often or quickly as bad players, presuming an equal level of badness.
Both positions can be correct, so I wouldn't respond either, except to say perhaps that the observation is true, and if one's experience has been so bad that one cannot trust any staffer than maybe this hobby is more trouble than it's worth.
I can't even right now.
Everyone seems to want something or need something. This is the problem with being somewhat reliable and helpful. Do this, do that. Respond to this, reply to that. If I weren't so damned good at my job, I probably wouldn't be half as stressed as I am.
Now, the cat won't eat. Again. Just stopped eating over the weekend. And I caught myself thinking, in earnest, that if he would just die already I would have one less thing I would have to worry about on a daily basis.
There's too much to do, and too much to give a shit about. I honestly begin to understand the concept of compassion fatigue, and I've hit the point of exhaustion.
I see what you’re saying, Ghost, but you are mixing apples and oranges.
The x-card appears to be suggested for con-games, where there are plenty of strangers getting together for a session. You don’t really have that time to team-build and communicate the expectations. The x-card is a great policy for game stores that are trying to draw interest from newcomers. That’s where its strength lies.
I concur that it is not a substitute for effective communication over time, but it is an excellent idea to draw in a new crowd.
I am sorry that my experience is bringing up sad memories.
Gay Edward -- he loved men dearly -- was a wholesome and dumb cat. He's the cat everyone wants: lazy as shit, warm as fuck, and stupid as hell. He was going to turn 10 this year.
The diagnosis is far worse than we thought, so I know that euthanasia is probably the only reasonable thing to do. He has two masses on his stomach, and the ultrasound showed fluid collecting in his stomach tissue. Given his anemia, the doctor suspected this to be blood. I can only imagine what it feels like to have two cancerous, hard masses growing on your stomach, along with having an un-burst blood boil on the inside.
Like, holy fuck, no wonder he didn't want to eat.
I will be putting him down in a few hours. I will go secure with the knowledge that our decision is the right one. I will put the needle in, if asked. I will push down the plunger. Because, goddammit, were I in that position I would want my loved ones to fucking let me go and do the honor of bringing a merciful end.
I feel that we focus so much on the sanctity of life that we forget about the dignity of life. I thank God that I have the opportunity to give my cat the latter, which is a gift I hope my loved ones will give me at some point.
I'm going to sing Dust in the Wind tomorrow at karaoke.
These days we're seeing what feels like an increase in social control mechanisms. More defined rules as to who can say what, what can or cannot be said, and who has the right of way when it comes to a disagreement regarding said social rules. Sure, societies have always had these kinds of things, but I'm noticing now more than I ever have that the number of things that I apparently am not allowed to say or have no right to do seems...more in the forefront?
That's not what the X-Card is meant to address.
The X-Card is a message from a player to a storyteller regarding the content of the story being told. The storyteller has no real interest in "doing anything" on behalf of the NPCs in a campaign, and should not be afforded the same agency as a player. In my opinion, a tabletop game should be about the players' engagement and enjoyment thereof, not the storyteller's enjoyment in subjecting the players to certain situations. And I think it is highly inappropriate for a storyteller to put their enjoyment over that of a player when that player is objecting because the subject matter is making them feel extremely uncomfortable.
As I stated previously, I don't think the X-Card System works well on a MUSH because a MUSH is more like improv than a tabletop game. In improv, the performers must always be aware of others' comfort level. Some performers figure this out through practice and repetition with the same partners, but others ask prior to an act what the boundaries are. Regardless, a performer must give way to the comfort of their partners; that's part of the hobby.
Where a MUSH is different is how they generally have settings and systems to resolve conflict. Both are largely outside of the performers' control. In improv, you can set scenes or scenes are set for the performers that are generally benign; on a MUSH, and conflict is resolved by consent. This is not always so on a game: I believe the players implicitly consent to certain kinds of activities on a World of Darkness Vampire game, for example, like blood-drinking and the use of Conditions to affect your play. Using the X-Card to avoid the consequences of a social roll targeting your character is contrary to that implicit consent. But using that X-Card at the onset of certain kinds of activity could be a good reason to either switch the path of RP, fate to black, or otherwise work out a reasonable alternate result.
That said, a player coming to a game really should do some research regarding what they are getting into. World of Darkness games are not the same as Twilight games.
Bravo.
That's all that can be said.
But, man, did I ever get triggered when I read the bit about not having food in the house.
Not that I have personal trauma, but because the fact that 1 in 4 kids go hungry where I live makes my blood boil hot.
I tell my kids every day: if someone in your class doesn't have food for lunch, you share yours; if you share your food and come home hungry, you get double dessert to make up for your sacrifice; and if think someone in your class isn't getting enough food, you invite them over every damn day if you want to because no child should ever go hungry.
I don't know why the thought of hungry kids makes my eyes wet and my hands ball into fists. I've never gone hungry.
But I've known kids who did, and that shit shouldn't happen.
@Apos said in Consent in Gaming:
I think it's a terrible idea to put someone in the position of having to feel like the wet blanket and the unfun person of saying, 'I don't want to play this out'.
How should another player know when to initiate the default FTB?
Alternately, if I suggest an FTB, what if the other player doesn’t want to stop the action, but feels compelled to do so because I suggested doing it?
This is the paradox of courtesy.
I think it is healthier to expect players to set their own limits and be comfortable in doing so. To do that, pointing out that someone is not a wet
blanket for setting limits and encouraging players to do so is a better policy than expecting players to somehow know where a limit is.
@faraday said in Accounting for gender imbalances:
My point is that responsibilities outside of work should have nothing to do with your qualifications for work. If you can do your job, that's all that should matter. But in reality that's not all that matters. Employers bias towards people based on perceptions about their commitment or their ability to do things outside of work, and that causes a bias in hiring against certain demographics.
I want to interject here to say the following.
There is more definitely an employer bias against people's outside commitments, and I believe they are highly sexist. A man who volunteers for the United Way "is committed to the community"; a woman who has to go take care of a sick child "is not committed enough to the business." It's horrible, ugly, and fucking nasty bullshit that I see and deal with on a daily basis.
I can remember our new associate frustrated and in tears because she had to take yet another day off because of a sick child. She was worried (because I was not a partner at the time) that she might lose her job because she was taking too much time off too soon from her hire. I had to reassure her repeatedly that the partners understood, and that they measured a person's commitment based on work product quality and timeliness. And that I would defend her to the death if otherwise. Now that I'm a partner, I'll guaran-damn-tee it.
Our firm has long-trended away from the antiquated "sit on your ass in your office" mentality of other firms, preferring to allow our staff to take needed time to be away from work with the understanding that the work will get done well and on-time, whenever. You can work from home, from the office, during office hours of after hours, and no one would be checking your clocking-in-and-out. Obviously, it's easier to get work done during business hours (because we do need to call courts and lawyers), but the firm is committed to making sure our attorneys and staff can reasonably raise families.
You may be able to make more at another firm, but good luck on that 2,000 billable-hour requirement.
@Admiral said in Staff scrutiny during CGen:
I believe that staff's role in CG is what I said. To ensure that the player creates a workable concept, and the player creates a concept that won't damage the fun of others.
I concur, so I'll amend.
I think the point of staff in the process is to ensure all players have a good time, and this sometimes means rejecting a concept that would foreseeably affect the rest of the players in a negative way.