Best posts made by Ganymede

@Derp said in The Work Thread:

I have two college degrees, a professional certificate, my CP/CLA (Certified Paralegal/Certified Legal Assistant) and ACP (Advanced Certified Paralegal) credentials in Discovery and Trial Practice, and I make half of the average salary of someone in an entry level position in my field, probably without those last two (which are fairly important) and tend to command an even higher salary.

Where do you work? It sounds like a shitty place to work.

Don't mind me, I have more degrees than you, of course, but I always find it strangely amusing when people start talking to me about "the odds of you winning the case" while I'm staring at actuarial tables and the graduate degree I have in a statistics-based field.

But you? You are working in a shitty place, it sounds, but for the following:

And I do the lion's share of the actual casework, too. The research, the briefs, the filings. The attorneys largely just take what I wrote and go talk about it in court.

I never ask my paralegals to do any of the following:

• Research my briefs;
• Write my briefs; or
• File my briefs.

Because, frankly, if I'm being paid to argue them, I might as well have the professional integrity to make them myself, rather than pass off someone else's work as my own. The assholes who do the above are the same that will flog their paralegals for "getting it wrong," whilst they are the ones carrying the malpractice insurance and license to practice.

Hint: It's always the lawyer's responsibility to make sure work is done right, and don't let them forget that.

@thesuntsar said in How to: make your poses less repetitive:

I've made an effort since then to change up how I write things, I don't exactly want to keep writing like a 15 year old. My question today is, how do you folks keep your writing fresh/dynamic/evolving? Any resources that you like to check out or just a conscious effort to switch up stuff?

It has to be a conscious effort.

When I came back to the hobby a few years ago, I started to interject acting directions into my poses. For example:

Ripley stares at Claudio. "That's nice. I can see where you would assume that; however, that's not the case, and that was never the case." She looks away. "And I'm sorry that you thought that, but that does not change how I feel or what I want."

That became something like:

Ripley looks to Claudio. "That's nice." Beat. "I can see where you would assume that." Another beat. "However, that's not the case, and that was never the case." She turns from him; looks away. "And I'm sorry that you thought that." Break. "But that does not change how I feel or what I want."

Now, my pose might look something like this:

There's an awkward silence before Ripley finally looks at Claudio

"That's nice." Beat. "I can see where you would assume that." Another beat, as if to signal a change in mood. "However, that's not the case, and that was never the case." There's a note of finality in the end.

She looks away then.

"And I'm sorry that you thought that." Break. "But that does not change how I feel or what I want."

And then Ripley says no more.

I'm not sure how I feel about my newer style, but it has challenged me to write that way. Normally, I write like I'm trying to punch a hole in your eyes with words.

@Ghost said in How to pronounce FYI?:

F.Y.I.
B.T.W.
O.M.G.
C.I.A.
W.O.D....

For your information --

By the way --

Oh my God --

Central Intelligence Agency --

World of Darkness --

@coin said in How to: make your poses less repetitive:

I like to ape styles, when I notice patterns, and then try to apply each style to a character.

I do the same, generally, but tailor my style to the player.

SunnyJ poses differently than Auspice, who poses differently than Arkandel, etc. Molding my writing to theirs a little helps with the overall scene's flow. My "chosen" style right now is mostly, and perhaps unfortunately, because I am trying to practice my writing craft.

That said, y'all don't really want me to RP as I write.

"After reading your letter, it is my understanding that your clients have no interest in taking appropriate and reasonable steps towards trying to bring this case to a speedy resolution. My impression is that they would rather remained mired in discovery by making demands which are neither reasonable nor practical. If you wish to bring this matter to the Court’s attention, bear in mind that we will bring up your clients’ discovery deficiencies at that time, so that the Court can see and judge their lack of comity."

@Macha

Go to the EEOC first.

@arkandel said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

It's not that hard to apply the exact same paradigm with social stats. I give what I try to be an impassionate speech meant to inspire you but I just come off as a sanctimonious self-serving prick, making you wonder what are you doing following my lead.

I think what Pacha means is that players of PCs with Presence 1 and Expression 1 will make impassioned speeches, but not tell people that it should come off as sanctimonious horseshit. And that's part of the reason I am examining this issue again.

@surreality said in Good TV:

I wouldn't say the series is at all dependent on having seen it, as a prequel. There are some things from the film you can look at and say, 'oh, so that's why that was how it was!' but that's fairly standard for any prequel.

It's not, and I've been told by my partner that there are some glaring continuity differences, but it is still very good. I appreciate the mix of puppetry and CGI.

Also, Simon Pegg does a great job of impersonating the Chamberlain.

@ziggurat said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

@Ganymede, I saw your comment about being able to manipulate and outwit other players, on an OOC level, and typically leaning towards manipulative character archetypes for that reason.

If I gave you that impression, I may have mis-typed.

I really don't lean towards manipulative character archetypes. (I tend to lean more towards broken people who have violent tendencies; please see Shrike.) What I know, however, is that I'm fairly good at manipulation, planning, and writing convincingly. Some people say it is part of my charm. As such, I feel compelled to put points into my social stats, so that I'm not cheating if my PC suddenly tries and succeeds in tricking someone else to do what they want. In other words, I make sure that my PCs have some social clout because I know that I sometimes fall in that direction.

I definitely agree with the sentiment that removing rules in a way that makes social manipulation/conflict hinge itself entirely upon the abilities of PLAYERS and not about their characters, is bad for a lot of reasons.

I have concluded that whether there are social stats or not is irrelevant; social manipulation and conflict, without a strict, robust system, is always going to hinge upon a player's ability to communicate in writing. Period. It is neither a good nor a bad thing; it simply is this way. If a player wants to alter their PC's communicative skills, that is literally entirely up to them, if they are a skilled writer.

It means that players can really only play as characters with their level of social aptitude or less, with their talent for writing also applying, essentially, the lesser of their abilities as a socialite or writer determines how socially capable their characters can be.

I don't mean to be blunt or mean, but this is simply the case and I think it has to do with our medium; however, it is less about one's social aptitude and more about one's ability to communicate in the written medium. And it is not a limit on your characters' potential; it is a limit on how your characters will be perceived.

If you are unable to pull together a cogent sentence, constantly misspell words, or use confusing or improper syntax, many players are not going to consider your character persuasive, manipulative, or charming. If you roll to try to make the other players treat your character differently, I think you will find that quite a few people are simply going to avoid your PC. It's not a personal thing, necessarily; it could simply be that the other player wants to spend their online RP time with other players that type as well as they think they do.

I have seen countless times players electing to avoid other players because of their perceived inability to communicate well. No amount of social stats is going to change this. If that's the case, then why bother with social stats at all? People judge as they will judge.

… and those that lack social skills or even struggle with social interaction because of things beyond their control (maybe they struggle with a mental illness, or perhaps are on the autism spectrum, etc) are at a pretty steep disadvantage, and will struggle to have fun.

Anecdotally, I think this is the case already. And, unfortunately, I don't think any amount of system tweaking is going to change this. It's a social issue in our hobby.

@Tinuviel

@caryatid said in I owe a lot of people some apologies.:

Let's have some transparency from the admin side of things, regarding one of the admin's behaviours.

It's a fair request.

I've talked with a number of other members. Some have even come forward to me. I have discussed this matter with them, and promised confidence.

I have already discussed the matter with Arkandel briefly, but intend to do so again when I get back home.

I'm afraid that's all that I'm comfortable with coming out and saying at this point.

@mietze

"Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country. I wholly disagree with the argument of the Government that the First Amendment left the common law as to seditious libel in force. History seems to me against the notion. I had conceived that the United States, through many years, had shown its repentance for the Sedition Act of 1798, by repaying fines that it imposed. Only the emergency that makes it immediately dangerous to leave the correction of evil counsels to time warrants making any exception to the sweeping command, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Of course, I am speaking only of expressions of opinion and exhortations, which were all that were uttered here, but I regret that I cannot put into more impressive words my belief that, in their conviction upon this indictment, the defendants were deprived of their rights under the Constitution of the United States."

-- Holmes, J., Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630-631 (1919).

This eloquent opinion turns 100 years old in November, and should be emblazoned in the minds of anyone who wants to have a serious discussion on the freedom of speech.

@kdraygo said in Apology to Darinelle:

Just name that category: Canada.

But then you’d have to agree to allow corporate interests to plan and build a pipeline through your ancestral lands after, and that’s downright nutty.

@Arkandel said:

So they'll happily go gobble down pounds of meat harvested from less exciting animals systematically living their lives under truly horrible conditions and reward the people doing this by paying for that meat, but ohno that one lion.

I can accept people killing and eating animals. I reject the idea of hunting and killing for sport.

@insomniac7809 said in Bloopers:

...is that Cyborg beating his meat? Is that a joke they did in the show?

It is, and that's part of the joke.

This is why Teen Titans Go! > Teen Titans.

@Auspice

@roz said in Learning how to apply appropriate boundaries:

One very important thing to keep in mind when you're developing boundaries is this: your feelings are worth the same as other people's.

I'm a bit more aggressive on this point, and would say:

One very important thing to keep in mind when you're developing boundaries is that no one else's feelings matter as much as yours if you are made to feel uncomfortable.

Because, to me, that's the best way to put it.

I don't really care if the other person's enjoyment will be threatened or ended. So long as a particular line of RP is making me feel honestly uncomfortable, I will terminate it.

@reimesu

@surreality said in Learning how to apply appropriate boundaries:

A big part of that, really, is 'I don't want to take part, but you do you and enjoy it!' -- it's the spirit behind that principle, not 'I'm not into this but since it's objectively OK you can force my participation'.

Sure, I get that. But, bear with me.

Them: Do you want to do this?
Me: I don't want to take part, but you do you and enjoy it!
Them: But I'd really like you to join me.
Me: I don't want to take part, though.
Them: Why not?
Me: It's not my cup of tea.
Them: I don't think I'm going to go if you're not going to go.
Me: Why not?
Them: Because I really want you to play with me.
Me: Another time, then?
Them: What's wrong with just joining me for this scene, and next time we can do a scene you want?

Some people don't take a fucking hint, and that's when I have to be the asshole.

@Ghost

@too-old-for-this

They are great movies, though. They are zeitgeist. They are as classic as On the Waterfront or Citizen Kane, but, like those movies, should be viewed through a contextual lens.

They don't hold up well as examples of how to act now, but anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be drubbed in the head.