Best posts made by Ganymede

@Derp

Over here, statutory immunity does not apply to known potholes that a political subdivision elects to ignore.

@glitch said in Mass Effect MU*?:

Biotics is pretty much just magic with a sci-fi flare, which we've done some work on. We're on hold for code changes while seeing how the big updates @faraday is in the midsts of pans out. I like where she's heading on all of it, but it does put things in a rather large state of flux.

I think @Seraphim73 or @Three-Eyed-Crow bandied about treating Biotics like weapons. Clumsy, yes, but sensible in the FS3 combat engine. Is that what you've developed?

@mietze said in RL things I love:

When I was a kid, my church culture taught that using tampons would turn you into a slut, because once you started putting things other than your husband's penis into your vaginal canal, you would not be satisfied with his penis and would continue to voraciously experiment and be ruined for marriage.

If these men think that tampons would make women not satisfied with them, then they either have a true disability or need to start learning how to use what they have.

@sparks said in Mass Effect MU*?:

Resigned question: Does this mean no performance of Hamlet.

Drunken, effusive exclamation: Alas, poor Yorick.

@silverfox said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:

They can be washed!

Yeah ... white-washed.

@magee101 said in Mass Effect MU*?:

Is there a website or connect info for this project?

No, there is not.

Project remains in progress. The holiday season has made life difficult. The partner demands time with me, and I must oblige.

After that, sure.

Why are people asking me on Facebook if I ship? Do I look like Amazon or EBay, bitches?

No, I don’t, I won’t, and if you are stupid enough to offer card numbers to a stranger you will get what you fucking deserve.

@arkandel said in A new platform?:

I'll give a hint:

@mail faraday=Hello
-Hey!
@mail/proof
@mail/send

is harder to figure out than clicking on "Faraday", picking "Mail", then clicking on "Send".

Unless you don't know where to find the Mail button, are not aware that you need to click on Faraday in order to select a recipient, and then think that the Compose button is the equivalent of Send.

I think I've said it before, but a nice webpage that clearly states how to do certain key, elementary functions would make the experience more user-friendly without having to invest in substantial content development.

To be fair, I don’t feel as if I need an excuse to get drunk, sing loudly, or flash people.

That’s every Saturday for me.

@kay said in oWoD - Is there such thing as a good one?:

The important question here is what would you call a flock of Gangrels.

The Brood.

@Macha

There's nothing wrong with your reasons.

But if you're in a combat scene, I can see why others would want you to hurry along a bit.

Yeah, adapting.

Doesn't mean you're a bad person.

Not to nag or rehash this shit, but —

— there is less than an inch of snow on the ground and a two-hour delay has been called.

The most important mediation of the year is happening today.

Fuck you, Thursday.

@HelloRaptor said:

And set their own notes, and judge their own scenes. PVP even.

If it's just about trust, and you trust the people involved, these should be no problem. Maybe they aren't, to you. I personally see it as having to do with shit other than trust, but I appear to be in the minority here.

Sure. Make the +notes public. Make a 'log or it didn't happen' policy. Transparency helps to build trust.

Of course, no. Why do that? Let's just stick to the way we've been doing shit for years, pretending that players can't trust staff, and vice versa.

When I hear things like “only the young, old, and compromised are in danger,” I think to myself: “that means the healthy have a responsibility to protect them from the effects of this disease.”

Sweet Jesus, when did people cower from adversity?

@HelloRaptor said:

Because as long as they're trustworthy, there's no possible way their direct involvement could influence their calls.

I didn't deny the substantial influence that authority or affluence brings. That's always a threat. Transparency makes that threat more open. No policy will ever cause a sane person on a game to ignore the potential for abuse that staffers have.

That risk exists in tabletop, and will always exist where there's a Storyteller and no absolute rule of dice.

All I'm suggesting is that we stop calmly red-lining initiatives to give staff a little more faith as a matter of course. We've been kidding ourselves that we can curb abuses through policies or code.

@Jeshin

Your statement to me is so fundamentally unreasonable that I'm not sure how I can unpack it.

You're not an idiot.

These inquiries are why the sub-forum exists, and I'm delighted that it is being used.

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

Privatizing profits - When the economy is good only those invested benefit.

Private ownership of the means of production is the hallmark of any capitalist nation. This is true even in socialist nations, where people are allowed to own real and personal property. I do not understand why it is morally wrong to retain the profits one earns through one's labor and/or property.

Socializing losses - When the economy is bad suddenly the Government (via taxpayers) should come help a company that was all about profit for their shareholders and nothing else before. Suddenly it's in the national interest.

The fundamental principle of socialism is to enact policy to benefit the most people rather than favor a smaller group. Said another way, government should act in a way that benefits the greater good. Where there is catastrophe, a socialist nation should move to allocate government resources to where the most can benefit, and this is morally good, in my opinion. But this is also, as you put it, "socializing losses." Another way to put it is "insuring against common risk." I therefore do not see how "socializing losses" is morally wrong.

What I believe you are talking about is a government selectively benefiting a small group of people. I concur that this is improper, and would be improper in either a capitalist or socialist nation. I disagree that this means "privatizing profit" and "socializing losses" is morally wrong.

It is generally deemed a moral hazard to advise one group to do something while doing the opposite. Brokers and retirement funds encouraging retail investors to stay engaged in the market instead of pulling out and re-investing once a bottom has established are themselves getting out of the markets or shifting to new markets but not advising the same to their buy and hold customers.

Dissuading investors from pulling all of their investments out of the stock market is exactly what brokers should be saying. The fact that so much of the American economy is dependent upon the steadiness of the stock market is something you cannot reasonably argue against. Consider, though, that such brokers and fund managers also must do as they are told, which is why they are selling off fast -- because, despite their advice, investors are in fact pulling out and this is caving the market. Compare this with attorneys who often advise sensible resolutions only to be directed by clients in completely insane directions.

@Surasanji said in Just checking interest in a concept.:

Well, of course! Now we just need someone to play Prince.