Best posts made by Ganymede

Corruption,

You have omitted three points that must be considered before your own list.

1. Look at your life to determine whether you have the time necessary to create and operate the game you intend. Do you have it? If not, don't start. Factors include, but are not limited to: (1) your work schedule; (2) your spouse or significant other(s); (3) your family; and (4) whether you intend to carve large chunks of your time to devote to other hobbies, like macrime.

2. Look at the people you want to bring on-board as staff. Presuming you like, respect, and can work with them, examine their life to determine whether they have the time and motivation necessary to participate and assist you. Do they? If not, don't start.

3. Look at the people you want to bring on-board as players. Presuming you like, respect, and want to entertain them, examine their life to determine whether they have the time and motivation necessary to devote their time to your game to make it better. Do they? If not, don't start.

Ignoring these three points will likely result in your losing any motivation for running a game.

Canada.

And this guy, specifically:

Who is also, by the way, this guy:

Who is our Minister of Defence.

Justin Trudeau is pretty cool, but this guy is the shit.

@Cupcake said in Coming Soon: Arx, After the Reckoning:

I kind of feel compelled to point out that this isn't a static issue.

I kind of feel compelled to point out that, while many of you have expressed seeing @lordbelh go, few seem to be intent on why this occurred.

I also kind of feel compelled to point out that, while at least one has expressed the fear of saying anything contrary to the status quo, no one has given many fucks as to why, or what will be done to fix that.

That I can come here and not worry about political debates.

@Bobotron said in PC antagonism done right:

Yeah, but are there options to incentive failure other than MOAR DOTS?!

If you are of the mentality that failure is an important part of character development and storytelling, then failure is simply another facet of success. Good for you.

If you are not, then whatever carrot works may incentivize you to consider failure as an option.

If failure simply is not an option, so be it. Some of us might find you to be a horrid bore.

@Tyche said in RL Anger:

Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

The irony is that this song is supposed to be ironic.

@Arkandel said in RL Anger:

So, for the non-Americans among us, can anyone explain the result (yet)?

The United States contains a large number of people that used to not vote at all. They were your tired, poor, working-class citizens that lived in rural, small-town Bumfuck that didn't really give a shit about what was going on in the big cities or Washington. The government never helped them (or so they believe), so they didn't care what was going on. They were aware that the country was tumbling economically and in world rankings, but believed they couldn't do anything about it.

Trump made them believe otherwise.

The vote is ultimately a repudiation of modern, civil, urban politics. When rural America came in, they unbalanced the polls in Trump's favor.

Meanwhile, Clinton wasn't strong or persuasive enough to convince half of her own party that she deserved to be there. Bernie's supporters were still sore over the DNC's shafting, and disheartened when Bernie strategically switched sides in order to try and prevent the Trump ascendancy.

Clinton's campaign shifted to out-of-battleground areas where the DNC believed, arrogantly, that it could win. They had a shot, but the gamble failed. Meanwhile, Clinton failed to hit the grassroots areas in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio, preferring instead to speak in the larger, more Democratic areas.

Trump's message: You've been forgotten; I'll speak for you.

Clinton's message: Get out and vote, and I'll win.

So, rural America got out and voted. And Clinton lost.

@Derp said in PC antagonism done right:

There should be meaningful mechanical interactions available for people who don't want to throw down and brute force their way through things most of the time.

Let me add something to this.

If you intend to have a political game, there must be meaningful mechanics for people who don't want to throw down. There also must be a meaningful penalty for throwing down.

And at the risk of being repetitious, this is what RfK did well for a time. You could see it in action: when the Invictus tried to fuck with @lordbelh, he went up and stole their territory from them, which caused the Covenant to lose ascendancy. No violence or physical force; just a well-coordinated assault with influence.

@Catsmeow said in RL Anger:

I will state I am not a Trump supporter, but it's none of my business if anyone is.

As a minority in many important ways, I actually find that this is very important to me now. Now, more than ever, I value my own opinion, and, in my own opinion, I must ensure that his Presidency lasts, at the longest, four years.

I don't agree with anyone reaming anyone because of their personal agendas or beliefs.

I generally don't, unless your personal agendas or beliefs have the consequences of forcing me to the leave the country or deny my right to exist for no damn good reason. Personal agendas include voting for people in power, even in ignorance.

@Ghost said in Course Corrections:

The Viper pilot/Lego situation was a real situation, and when I mentioned that current pop culture references weren't in theme (I approached this delicately, politely), she told me that understanding the show wasn't required, that she'd never seen the show, doesn't want to, and to stop talking to her. Weeeeelp.

I'd've reported her to staff.

It's one thing to not know the theme. It's another to be willfully ignorant and unwilling to change that status because, fuck it, you want to play with Legos on a war-themed game.

@Ghost said in State of Things:

To be honest, the one who's being a prick about it is @Ganymede.

You're right; I was. I was a self-righteous asshole for it too, because I read the comment incorrectly at the absolute wrong time. I wasn't trying to be argumentative; I was trying to be argumentatively inflammatory.

That's my transgression, and I'll own it. I apologize for the misreading, which is severely hypocritical, and would like to move on to address substantive points.

@Derp said in State of Things:

Black Lives Matter did more damage than good.

I disagree, but only from a matter of perspective.

Black Lives Matter opened up a wound that, as you aptly put it, is suffered by minorities of all kinds, including poor people regardless of their race. It did good by forcing a dialogue and examination, and provoked a response within the law enforcement community that would likely not have happened without. At least now, law enforcement agencies are strongly considering or adopting the use of cameras, if only to protect themselves. The use of body cameras has been debated since I was a prosecutor.

Where Black Lives Matter falls down is by attempting to twist each and every incident of law enforcement violence into a shit-show that makes the victims look as bad, or worse, than the police officers. Where Black Lives Matter falls down is by indiscriminately picking up incidences on video which actually exonerates racist cops who happened to beat up a not-so-sympathetic victim. And that has turned Lily-White America against what should have been a cause they could support: increased scrutiny of government and law enforcement.

Unfortunately, like Occupy Wall Street, I think Black Lives Matter attracted the wrong support base and took a wrong turn. I do not necessarily fault the founders of the movement -- one of whom tragically killed themselves -- because these sorts of movements so often fall apart when there is a lack of leadership. Thankfully, the movement helped propel people like Bernie Sanders and other progressives to the forefront, and put some pressure on the government to police themselves. But the movement has fallen short, and will always fall short, in getting adequate support to address the issue of discriminatory or disparate law enforcement and application of force because by its very title, it is divisive.

(I'm a huge law enforcement supporter and a actively-voting Republican at state and local levels, and have a number of law enforcement friends who would agree with @Derp.)

@Rook

I play US daytimes. Try BSG: Unification. Battlestar Galactica is a sci-fi war scenario. Players there are good, the code is great, and CGen is so quick and easy you can do it through the web.

@HelloProject said in RL Anger:

I like to think that I wouldn't hit someone due to the inner goodness of my heart, but some people require digging down very, very deep. It's one thing to disagree with someone, it's another for someone to be telling you to your face the most racist shit I've ever heard, for three hours straight, and to be trapped in the situation due to it being a point in your life where you had no idea what to even do when shit like that comes up.

Picture yourself on public transportation. Some man comes up and starts berating you for being Muslim. You're black, you're young, and you don't want to cause trouble, but the man is really upsetting you.

So, these three men come up and try to shut the man down with their words. They tell him to get off the vehicle when the opportunity arises.

And then, the man whips out a knife and starts slashing people's throats.

You know what? Yes, I'm going to punch an ignorant racist that decides he wants to stand his ground. Actually, I'm not; I'm going to honestly attempt to take him down and subdue him. And I will do it with as much prejudice as I can muster because I don't want to be fucking stabbed by some crazy fuck who'll probably mistake me for being Mexican or Muslim.

Is it always okay to punch a Nazi? No. Is it okay to pre-emptively strike someone who seems likely to lash out with deadly force? Legally, yes.

@Ghost said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

I think the food allergy analogy actually works pretty well.

Kind of.

Do you have a food allergy? I do. It's an insidious sort of allergy, something which even my mother doesn't always watch out for. (She fed me something with allergens in it last night.)

I'm allergic to legumes: beans, peanuts, etc. Specifically, I'm allergic to proteins in the seeds. The proteins are mostly eliminated through brewing, and don't exist in the oil; soy sauce is fine and so is peanut oil. However, isolated soy protein is in a lot of things, especially store-bought, pre-packaged frozen meats. A lot of "Asian sauces" also use some form of black bean in it.

In my case, I assume all of the risk. If I eat the wrong thing, I'm the one doing the choking and dying: not you, not the owner, and not the cook. Further, in my case, there's no way in God's green earth that a cook is going to be able to make reasonable accommodations for me. And, in my opinion, it would be my damn fault, so that's why I carry an epipen.

I pick my meals and restaurants very wisely, see.

And if a customer comes in and announces they have an allergy, everything you listed is how most restaurants would accommodate the customer. And as long as reasonable precautions are taken, there is absolutely no risk of a successful lawsuit. At all.

So, your analysis isn't great, and your analogy isn't great. At least, not in the liability context or from the perspective of someone who has to deal with a shitty, shitty set of allergies.

Sidenote: on how to improve any improv, or how to make any MU* scene better. Seriously. https://medium.com/@TimELyons/the-greatest-improv-advice-i-can-give-674c09f07376

@tragedyjones said in RL Anger:

So apparently real human people are now offended by anti Nazi violence in video games.

Real human people like real human Nazis can go fuck themselves.

@Arkandel said in Emotional separation from fictional content:

A question we need to look at though is... are such things getting reported or do those who could, or should, simply take their losses and stop logging on instead?

I have doubts whether there will ever be a policy or code that would dissuade someone from cutting-and-running instead of confronting a problem. We play these games for fun, not to be harassed or to get into an internet argument with someone. If people choose to stop logging on, that is their choice and there is nothing I can think of to stop them.

Whatever the cause may be - insecurity, staff in general being perceived as not being sympathetic, not knowing if you won't be judged or told you're too sensitive... whatever it is, my concern is it might be taking a toll. And that maybe making it as easy as typing "+complain Arkandel" knowing no one will ask any questions right at first unless there are more similar complaints might at least help get some feedback.

Take it from a staff perspective. Typing "+complaint Thenomain" to ping me that @Thenomain has done something to upset you doesn't really tell me what he did. Without details, I don't know if he: harassed you on channel; paged you with salacious details of his sex life; sent you a dick-pic via Skype to your account that he inexplicably got from you; or was generally being a poopie-head. The code therefore is completely useless to staff, who cannot reasonably be expected to take action.

But staff (in general) have often been terrible about handling these things, requiring too much evidence before they do a thing, or not thinking what your problem is is enough or... whatever.

I get that, but there is nothing that your proposed code will do to address that.

Sure, this particular guy playing the numbers by paging every female around was too overt and got dealt with but others might do it slightly more subtly, and they're not as easy.

Look, if someone makes you feel uncomfortable and I happen to be staff on your game, tell me. If it's sexual, definitely tell me. I may have a high tolerance for people who randomly page me with "your PB is super-hawt!", but that doesn't mean anyone else should have to feel anxious about being on my game.

My kids are 4 now.

@Rook said in Game Stagnancy and Activity:

So, what are people's thoughts to keeping players out of private rooms and on-grid and on-theme? This was touched on in a few other threads, even today. How do you encourage public RP, how have you seen it encouraged and rewarded?

On BSG:U, players that run battle/mission scenes for other players get Luck points. I think.

Otherwise, we RP because we like each other. I think.

@surreality said in RL Anger:

Calling someone a 'vagina' is not exactly inoffensive, now, is it? Exactly.

As I think I said to someone else, the only person that gets to determine whether they are offended by a term is the person who hears it. Whether that reaction is reasonable is another question entirely.

For @Pandora, she doesn't think that people should be offended because people calling one another dicks and cunts has been around for a while. That's not an unreasonable stance. For @Ghost, he (she? I always forget) doesn't think that he (she?) was saying something so dreadfully offensive so as to elicit a vitriolic reaction. The insult wasn't tossed at me, so I wasn't personally offended, but I can see why someone else -- like @saosmash, who works in public defense and has probably had to fight sexism for a long fucking time -- would take offense.

Calling someone a 'vagina' may be offensive, but I don't think any of us can point a stick at someone and say thou shalt not be offended.

@solstice

If you don't mind telling me who this person is, I will do what I can to pre-emptively make sure they don't set foot here.

Just tell me by PM.

Thanks.

Edit: And done.

@surreality said in RL Anger:

There's just really no purpose for her post at all other than an attempt to call me a hypocrite in a roundabout way, and unfortunately there's no real way around that basic fact.

So what?

That people had, on the whole, chilled the fuck out and started to understand where others were coming from and that there's a lot more consensus there than not? Was nice. Is nice. Had she not gotten to that part yet and hence the error? Sure. But maybe that's a lesson to take away, too -- to find out what's going on a little more before firing off the snarkbombs.

And you needed to be the one to teach her that lesson? Is that it?

Really, though, people like to play rhetorical games like that on forums and like head games among friends RL or on games or in relationships, it is something I just do not have patience for on even the best day.

This entire fucking inane conversation started when someone knee-jerked a word that many, but not all, people find offensive. It was like the house was collapsing. When we figured out that, maybe, that person didn't mean to insult someone mortally, things died down. But then someone else said something that another person found insulting, and then the house collapsed again. And when that was settled, here we go again.

You don't like people playing on your phone? Then keep it real, if you want, but you are becoming part of the problem.