To be clear, I’m not suggesting to not go to the doctor. Yes, go to the doctor. Please go.
I’m taking into consideration that this may not be financially feasible, though, and am attempting to comfort someone who seems troubled and distressed by being in a tough spot.
@faraday said in BSG: Unification:
Re: Scheduling... yeah that's a totally fair assessment. Later evening EST is our peak activity time (we have a lot of PST people), and it's what fits best with my schedule personally. But I don't think EST folks are completely SOL. Most events start around 9pm and run 2 hours, which seems to be the happy middle ground between EST and PST. And as you said, players are empowered and encouraged to run their own events whenever suits them.
2 hours to complete a combat scene? What the heck?
Dude, I'm used to 4+ hour scenes. For 3 people. Throwing down against NPCs.
Like, a 2-hour combat scene is fantastic.
I was part of a scouting mission with @Auspice, and it took a lot longer than that. Didn't mind one bit either.
But that’s not what I said.
If she has a cracked rib or strained muscle, then there really isn’t much a doctor can do.
I wasn’t talking about other potential diagnoses at all. If that was not clear, I apologize.
@Cupcake said in Considering Arx? Consider Deepwood!:
(someone app Bethany PLEASE)
sigh. PM me or something?
@nyctophiliac said in The Art of Lawyering:
Anyway, you ever seen in the movies where there's this firm of lawyers who are like "if you win this case we will make you a partner" -> Can someone explain that? Does that actually happen?
It probably happens, but it shouldn't. Partners are essentially business partners, so you only want to bring someone on if: (1) they are productive and contributing members of the firm already; and (2) they fit into the firm's culture. Winning a case may bring a lot of money into the firm, but bringing in one good payout isn't a partner-worthy accolade. In my case, I was made partner because I have been productive over a long period of time, even if my individual accounts don't bring in mountains of money.
What is the bar exam - it's like a licensing test right? Does it cost money to take? Does it last a certain length of time, are there strings attached?
You have the gist of it. It does cost money to take, and generally lasts 3 days for many. There's no string attached to taking it, but you may not be able to take it if you cannot get past requirements for a particular jurisdiction's bar association.
What can actually cause you to be disbarred (that's the term right?)? Could to retry the exam later if disbarred?
You can be barred for many reasons, and each jurisdiction has its own crusade every year. In Ohio, the crusade relates to accounting and insurance notices. If you are disbarred, you usually must receive permission to join the bar association again, but you generally do not have to take the bar exam again in that situation.
@Seamus said in Dream Chasers MUSH (JRPG/Anime):
It is not a problem until it becomes a problem. This means people are complaining that you, an FC, are spending all your free time in inaccessible areas/rooms to the vast majority of your faction/theme/etc, you do it in public/log/etc or you never leave a private room. Then this is our problem, and you are inviting staff to pay attention to you and you apparently want the repercussions.
People do this a lot anyhow, and they aren't TSing. How does TS relate to this at all?
What about responsible players that do play and RP with their faction folks on a regular basis? Why deny them a legitimate path of RP?
The problem isn't the TS; it's ignoring what you're supposed to be doing with your FC. And if you're fulfilling that duty, who cares if you TS every now and again?
Etc., ad nauseam.
@faraday said in The Art of Lawyering:
Are there even any good sources for laypeople? Something like Legal Eagle - though I know you didn't seem to thrilled with his stuff specifically earlier in the thread. I find that kind of thing fascinating but it's hard to know the pedigree of the information.
Well, Legal Eagle seems clearly aimed to entertain rather than educate. Law and Order is surprisingly a pretty decent source for a lot of basic criminal procedure. But if you are in a legal dispute of any kind, you are best served by going to see an actual lawyer.
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
We should hold racists accountable for their racisms and I don't think minimising the occurrences of it has a civil place in a discussion about separating art from artists.
Some of the most beloved authors were demonstrably racist. Dr. Seuss comes to mind. Yet there is an undeniable charm in many of his not-racist works.
He is dead and is mostly known as a successful, inspiring children's author. And I am willing to let people ignore his racist side because that part of him, to me, is more important.
No matter who said it, a noble spirit embiggens even the smallest person.
Reading all of this is fascinating, but only highlights how deeply-steeped I still am in the '80's.
I mean, fuck, I still have The Touch on my iPod playlist.
@insomniac7809 said in Separating Art From Artist:
Yeah, sometimes a work ages like milk behind a radiator.
Or a hairstyle from the 80s.
Or fashion from the 80s.
Music from the --
-- you know what, fuck that, Transformers are awesome.
This is an awesome resource. Thank you for posting it up.
It was a question of whether it was acceptable behavior.
I mean, I understand from the discussion that we are talking about shaming. Shaming people for their bad behavior. And if that means affecting their life so be it.
The line I see is whether the shaming leads to physical consequences. It is clearly wrong if someone is assaulted or killed as a result of exposing them.
But losing one’s job? Some people think that the truth hurts. But it also hurts children who depend on that job. Does the morality depend on what a person is being shamed for?
I guess that’s why I err on the side of not shaming.
I believe there are Changelings at City of Shadows.
For more info: http://cityofshadowsmux.com/wiki/Changeling
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
This is a freedom to be an arsehole issue.
In the United States, this is a freedom of speech issue.
I am aware of the UK law at issue, and I think the court came down on the correct side (because I think it rejected Forstater's claim). It's not even an interesting argument: Forstater was a jackass, acted like a jackass for a long time, and got kicked for being a jackass. She just had a jackass for an attorney -- there are a lot of them -- who kicked up a hornet's nest because she has money.
But in the United States, your freedom to be an asshole sort of fits under freedom of speech: to-wit, the Westboro Baptist Church.
@Derp said:
Players will go where the fun is. If it's a half-baked idea that's having trouble getting speed because you can't get a foothold, they won't stay there long anyway. But if you pause it, and come up with something awesome, you can be sure they're gonna come back. That's the nature of the beast.
This.
If players leave and never come back because of an attempt to fix a huge problem, they are not the sort of players you want to keep around.
My partner and I met in law school, and we blamed our hookup on the a-a-a-a-a-alcohol.
We both online dated and, like, never, ever again.
@7Wonders said:
One of the things I think staffers get snared in is being overly obsessed with the concept of fairness.
I think staffers get too caught up in appearing to be fair. Fairness is judged by others. The only way you can appear fair is by publicly demonstrating your decisions. If you haven't the spirit to be judged by others over whom you have some semblance of authority and responsibility, you ought not be staff.
@Auspice said in Dating in the 2020's:
The other is an idiot and would approve of a damp sock if it contained treats.
That reminds me of one of my last internet dates.
@JaySherman said:
I'm striving to overcome the knee-jerk reflex of appearing and being extremely above board after having survived some incredibly vindictive bad staffers on other games.
The best way to appear above the board is to be above the board.
There is no fine line between "airing dirty laundry" and "being forthright." If you and the player at issue are able to come to a mutually-agreeable resolution, then it can be handled without public notice. If you take action against that player over their objection, then you should make it public. This will demonstrate that you are willing to suffer the slings and arrows of public opinion.
The issue is whether others involved have the stomach to do the same. A player acting out may be less likely to do so if they know that staff will expose their activities should an issue arise, and that they will be named as having perpetrated such. On the other hand, a player raising a complaint may be less likely to do so knowing the same. There is risk reward to raising any sort of complaint seeking redress from authority.
In my experience, there are a lot of people who put up a stink, but are not willing to step out into the lime light to do so. In more cases than not, those players are the ones actually causing the problem.
