Something new, I suppose.
First, I love Dianna Agron. Second, there is a distinct connection between the lyrics and the video. Finally, this is probably the most perfect, catchy pop tune in the past decade.
Also: this video was the premise for a PC I once played.
@arkandel said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:
Sure, and that's why Vlad should buy Intimidation.
No, that's not what I'm getting at. What I'm suggesting is that a social system consider reputation or renown as a factor. That would give your combat monkeys an "in" when it comes to politics, or a potential bar therefrom, independent from skills but dependent on actions.
Might give them pause from being bullies.
@WTFE said in The 100: The Mush:
I don't know the game runners of any of these games from @Ganymede.
Hey. Don't drag me into the dumpster here, would you? I've got kids.
I was making an anecdotal observation that a lot of white guys are really mad right now on various WoT fansites.
Counselor, why are you on WoT fansites?
@lithium said in CoD/W:tF 2E?:
I want to have to deal with protecting territory, expanding territory, making sure your Locus is safe, facing off against the Pure and everything else, and not really knowing if I can trust the neighboring packs or not without a greater threat to us all in play.
Fair enough. I'll ask, but the project will back-burner.
I just don't think a lot of people want to run a W:tF 2E game right now, partly because some of the interests you've raised haven't been handled well in the past or there's no code to assist in it.
@The_Supremes said:
You must be new around here, or around these boards in general, so I'll tell you a couple of things you'll want to know if you want your game to reach out and succeed.
First, Sunny's probably one of the nicer people around here. She's got far more experience running a MU*, as far as I can tell from your resume (I know I do, and she's got some on me, I think). When she says the application process seems deceptive, and is more involved than you attest to, that is a somewhat influential opinion. Whether it is right or wrong is mostly irrelevant.
Second, if you're advertising here, then you likely want to attract interested people to try your game out. As you've been around online games like MUSHes, I hope you'll concur that these games are part-setting, part-policies, and part-cult-of-personality. So, if you hope to reach your goal -- getting players from here -- adopting a personable, inviting air is a good idea, whereas a defensive, standoffish, or otherwise off-putting air might be counterproductive.
Third, if you haven't been around MUSHes for a few years, you're likely a stranger here. If you're a stranger here, realize that you're entering a community that has old hats, as well as new ones. Going back to my second point, it might behoove you to be personable and inviting, rather than critical of others' opinions.
Finally, if you could not tell from warnings, there are some folks here that take pleasure in digging their claws under your fingernails for the hell of it. There are others that will criticize your game to death for our own agendas and purposes. Separating the constructive criticisms from the unconstructive ones will save you a great deal of pain. Also, attempting to defend yourself here is an exercise in futility. Most members here will independently investigate on their own, no matter what people post (myself included). When you respond, however, that may give those independently-minded people a basis to rule out your game.
Sidenote: the location of the U.S. Supreme Court's most recent watershed eminent domain case was New London; I could not tell if your citation to Kelo was calculated to refer to the location or the government entity involved, but thought I would add some clarity (and to demonstrate nitpickiness).
My suggestion: loosen up on the application process. A lot. Players these days are far more tolerant of policing once they have their PCs, rather than weeding out people prior to the approval. This is mostly laziness on the part of players, I suppose, but the trick from your perspective is to get the customers in the door.
My experience is vastly different, but I've worked with great casts and crews.
I've heard horror stories.
Just you wait for Guffman.
@Three-Eyed-Crow said in Dystopia MUX:
My concern with that stuff is always less about what I'm obligated to do (attractions are fleeting and can be RP'd around/downplayed) than what the other player will take it as license do. I've been on the receiving end of 'This flirtation we agreed to' became 'YOU ARE MY ONE TWU WUV NO YOU CAN'T SAY YOU'RE NOT IT IS DESTINY'. And that was with a player I thought I was on the same page with, not just some rando.
This is my concern as well.
Having been on stage and through improv, I'm aware that "romantically interested" doesn't really mean shit-all. But if the other party doesn't understand that "romantically interested" may be just a passing fancy or future tension, I really can't work with them.
That's not a house flipper; that's a hobbyist.
I represent plenty of very, very successful house flippers. Inspections and title examinations are all standard steps before investing thousands of dollars into any property. Cutting corners lead to the problem you've cited, among others.
Good house flippers are common, but usually unheard of because they are good.
@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
An initial party pulled a 'come fight me bro, I'm at this location' -- and gave an address not his own. That person is one of the people I am saying should face a charge, despite not being the one who asked someone to SWAT that address.
Ah, I see. My mistake.
Yeah, no.
The facts don't show that Party A knew, should have known, or had any reason to know, that Party B would have Swatted Party C at the provided address. That's stretching it. Party B attempted to Swat Party A, and should be indicted for it, even though Party C was the ultimate victim.
I mean, unless Party A said something like: bro, I totally double-dog dare you to Swat me at this address. And I don't see that being the case here.
Eventually, I'll be playing the following, if anyone wants ties:
http://reno.mechanipus.com/wiki/Galina
Just need to work on that BG. Also, looking for good coterie-mates; Gangrel and Dragons preferred, for thematic reasons. Ghouls and hangers-on too.
Chat if interested.
@Auspice said in The Crafting Thread:
I began trying to grid my aida last night since the first pattern drops this weekend.
I read this as:
I began trying to grind on Aida last night since the first pattern drops this weekend.
I need to watch less Lucifer and sleep more.
@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
All three have a part of the responsibility here. A shouldn't be getting a pass.
Why?
There's no evidence that A knew, should have known, or had reason to know that B would have called C to Swat Address. Even if there were some evidence, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A knew, should have known, or had reason to know that B would have called C to Swat Address.
I'm not seeing it in the actual facts, and have no reason to infer that.
Not even criminal mischief. Although "fighting words" can be the basis for a crime, the words, in this case, did not instigate a fight between B and A, or even B at Address.
I don't see it. Sorry.
@Auspice said in Shadows over Reno:
...you may not want ties. >.>
Why not?
We can be friends. I'll show you who needs to be hunted. Really.
What's the harm? I'm totally harmless. This is one of my few PCs without much in the way of combat stats.
Really. We should be friends.
Shall we go to dinner?
@surreality said in Internet Attacks? Why?:
It would indicate the desire to avoid that person actually following through. Which means they have to at least have considered the possibility that they might, if they had the real one.
Unfortunately, possibility doesn't get you passed Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 any more. And I haven't even gotten into the causation issues.
I see what you're saying, but the claim just isn't plausible to me.
And I have just the additive for that coffee. It'll make it taste richer and sweeter. 
Speaking of LaCroix --
-- what the fuck is up with Whiteclaw?
Why?
Sure, A had a choice. He/she/it could have not said "come fite me bro."
But B didn't have to choose to Swat. He could've shown up there with a posse of Peruvian badger-herders, and sat in front of Address yodeling to Jim Croce's "I've Got A Name." But he chose to escalate the matter even beyond sending hired goons; he decided to get law enforcement involved.
And C could have chosen to refuse to Swat Address. Maybe she could have asked B for a name and a reason. I don't know. Again, she could have gotten Peruvian, yodeling badger-herders instead. But, she didn't: she chose to Swat.
Saying "come fite me bro" isn't a crime. Really, it isn't. They are words. And while they arguably are fighting words, I don't know a prosecutor that would go after a person for saying "come fite me bro." Would it have been any better if A used his own address? Of course not: then A would be dead, presuming the same circumstances.
The culpability rests with B and C. Neither were coerced to "come fite me bro." Or to "Swat." But they chose to Swat. And that arguably was the cause of death.
And that's why it's doubtful a jury would convict A.
If you go too far back along the chain, we might as well indict Z, A's teammate, who decided to get a blow-job from his boyfriend rather than party-up and take down B.
(Edit to add: the doctrine of intervening criminal acts also cuts off A's civil liability.)
