Best posts made by Ganymede

@Kestrel said in RL things I love:

Why were he and his mother both virgins, then?

I don't know. I sort of explain my marital celibacy as the after-effect of being professional and having children. Asexuality by industry is a real thing.

@bored said in TS - Danger zone:

Are you playing dudes in public? Can you put a literate paragraph together?

I play a lot of dudes. And I put together more than a few literate paragraphs.

I've been told that my RP-style is intimidating as hell. I don't know why? I've always thought of my style as being light and somewhat humorous.

Whatever, though. I don't get the crazies either.

I fucking hate my job some days.

Your job is to defend against this claim filed by a firefighter for workers' compensation related to a brain-and-lung cancer diagnosis. Although the State of Ohio by law conclusively establishes such cancers as caused by the firefighter's work, we still want you to defend against the claim based on the fact that such firefighter was diagnosed with leukemia fifteen years ago, which could have been a cause of the current cancer, rather than his occupation. You have 24 hours to prepare your defense. Godspeed.

JFC, I hate what I have to do sometimes.

@Auspice said in TS - Danger zone:

Don't ask if your character can kiss mine. Don't wait for her to make the first move. Just do it. If she doesn't want it she'll make it clear.

With most of my PCs, I highly recommend asking first.

The cute ones are the deadly ones.

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

That movie is absolutely glorious, and it's a crime that it doesn't get more love.

In second place: Zombeavers.

Seriously, it's an awesome movie.

@chibichibi said in TS - Danger zone:

Consent is queen.

Mice murder. Shrikes impale.

@Derp

@Auspice

I did that. ICly. Ask skew.

Received as part of an e-mail message today:

I have to resort to Urban Dictionary to decipher your emails. By the way, Boom Diggity: “when something is so fly you just have to say boom diggity.”

@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:

To expand on this further, does the TS... libido, for lack of a better term, change or just the approach?

Everything.

When Erin did her thing, it was out of a desperate need to feel like part of a family again. Her family had been killed in the initial Cylon attacks. She had a history of engaging in risky, suicidal behavior that was on her service record, but her surviving it was the reason she got into the PC squad. Also, she was a science student and nerd who grew up in an isolated camp on an arctic world. The sex was fast, frantic, not very satisfying, but it filled a void in her.

Clarice is a self-deluded evolved Mouse Beast Changeling who is probably more deadly than anyone realizes. She buries her sorrow and feelings in her. When she was younger, she had a thing with a partner that meant the world to her. Sadly, in her history, that spouse died, living her bitter and singular-focused. Recently, she killed 20+ people just to do what she thought was right. The sex with her is more languid and drawn-out, but her reaction thereafter is one of cold indifference. Hot and cold, that sort of thing.

Cai was a family man out of time who had the unfortunate fate of being made into a Ventrue that couldn't rule anything (a Fisher King). He tried to make his own "families," but each would turn on him in time. Every time he tried to claim something, something went wrong. One sexy-time session resulted in a sink falling on his head, crushing his face. So, the sex is always somewhat tragic: either beautiful with the knowledge that everything will fail later or tragically comical as a reminder that nothing lasts forever, even for an immortal.

Approaches? Varieties? They change with each character I make. They all have their stories. And, of course, those characters are attached strongly to whatever theme and setting is available.

I'm not sure where Salty is going, but chances are that it'll involve booty, swearing, and a great deal of piracy.

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

For instance once someone hits Greece's shores they cannot be allowed to move onto northern Europe which, let's face it, is what they actually want. They need to go through legal procedures and be accepted by the wealthier countries, which takes lengthy procedures and oversight.

Emphasis added.

Racism and tribalism are but symptoms of the ancient evil of classism.

@Ghost said in TS - Danger zone:

I heard similar about that place. Ive also run into players that don't stick around unless there's TS so I figured that would be likely there.

To be honest, I don't think I've engaged in TS any more than a couple of times with my noblewoman, but I have had some great RP with others. If either of you want to dip a toe in, I can probably help out a bit. The staff there are really great, and a lot of the players can be very engaging.

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

Socializing losses is a direct transfer of wealth from the tax payers to those who own assets. In essence you're telling asset owners that they should feel free to pursue maximum risk strategies with no concerns whatsoever because if anything ever goes wrong, that will be paid by the tax payers.

I'm not telling anyone anything. You are adding words to contort the plain meaning of what I wrote to suit your polemic; to-wit, I did not write the word "asset" or "asset owner" in the paragraph you quoted. Regardless, the vast majority of tax payers in the United States own assets or an interest in an asset, be it a house, a retirement account, or a vehicle.

What I did write, however, was that the fundamental principle of socialism is to enact policy to benefit the most people rather than favor a smaller group. If you read what you wrote, which I will quote below, you will see we agree:

However I happen to think that a good government should be trying to make the people as a whole prosperous rather then a wealthy minority pursuing high risk strategies.

Even so, we already have laws that benefit a wealthy minority pursuing high risk strategies; for example, Donald Trump has taken advantage of bankruptcy proceedings to shield his personal assets from his business failures. These laws, however, may also be used by others, even those who own no assets.

Let's look at some of the other non-adversarial things you wrote:

If we're looking at the US specifically. A lot of companies used the low interest rate as an opportunity to take very large loans which they then used to buyback stocks to the benefit of senior executives who get paid in stocks. Now that there is a crisis, those companies have a huge debt and no revenue. Without intervention those companies are looking at a stock value of 0 dollars and a complete asset liquidation.

I am aware of this, and agree neither with the strategy nor the proposal to bail out these companies, notably those in the airline industry. The next thing to be considered is the economic effect of letting them fail. While it is completely just to let the creditors and executives fall as a result of their recklessness, there would undoubtedly be further economic fallout as large players in the airline industry fall. Their assets may thereafter be acquired by one or two larger firms, who will then be able to lock-up market power and engage in anti-competitive behavior, as is often the case when there is a large-scale market failure (like the Great Recession).

I will not overstate the fallout, though, because the Pandemic is forcing people to consider virtual and online meetings, which will make up for the inability to meet in person. It may push the nation to innovate further, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But while we're on the topic, let's also implement universal healthcare, state-run insurance, and other "socialist" policies. There may be economic damage, yes, but economies actually recover fastest from disaster.

@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:

Talking with you chucklefucks about while typefucking.

FTFY.

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

The best advice I've seen so far is if you're sick, assume you have it, and take the appropriate steps to not infect anyone else.

The advice I give to people is to assume you have it, even if you are not sick, and take appropriate steps not to infect anyone else.

@Tinuviel said in TS - Danger zone:

I save that for you these days, lover.

@mietze

I hope all goes well and that he keeps safe and healthy!

@faraday said in Privacy in gaming:

If the problem is bad enough that the person doesn't belong in your community, then you ban them. Otherwise I think rehabilitation is more productive than punitive actions.

Rehabilitation is a wonderful concept, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to be a counselor for someone who clearly has issues. I concur that rehabilitation is more productive than punishment, but I don't expect as a player that staff instruct or convert someone into a productive player; that's entirely on them.

And, let's face it, we're not talking about people who just "don't understand how to MUSH." The problem players we are talking about are legitimate problems on a game, and need removal rather than coddling.

The only way you could let anyone down is by taking steps that would increase your risk.

Godspeed and be well.

@faraday said in Privacy in gaming:

Unsubstantiated rumours that Bob is driving off a players, but the players in question can't be reached for comment? Come on, that's not a bannable offense, that's gossip.

Of course.

Accusations that Bob is harassing Suzy, but Suzy denies it? Really? You'd ban them for that?

Rhetorically, no. Because I think I was Suzy in this case, right? (I didn't have a problem with their behavior.)

Once I had a couple players come on record with specific complaints (about insensitive/inappropriate channel comments), the player received a stern warning to knock it off. To leave channels if they couldn't restrain themselves. When they didn't, they were banned. I personally don't think that should have been an instantly-bannable offense either, but I guess YMMV on that one.

Exactly. Right here is where we do not share the same opinion. And I'm just fine with that.

If folks feel that makes me a bad staffer, that's their prerogative. I did my best to be fair and even in hindsight I don't feel that I did anything wrong.

I don't think you're a bad staffer, and I don't think you did anything wrong. Let's just be clear about that. But I'll go back to one of my previous posts regarding how I simply do not see anything productive with stern warnings.

Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared.

I realize this puts me in a small minority of staffers, perhaps thankfully.