Best posts made by Ganymede

It's 3 AM. I must be lonely.

But the final three episodes of She-Ra and the Princesses of Power have again left me in tears and speechless.

This is the best series no one's watching.

@Lotherio said in Suitable system for a gritty fantasy game:

Side tangent: FS3 is action oriented (sci fi) and most fantasy isn't.

Most, but not all. And I'd really like an action-based fantasy game, because the Lords and Ladies shit gets boring really fucking quick.

@puppybreath said in RL Anger:

At which point she called me Hitlerish because I would have fired someone because I didn't agree with his 'opinion'.

Remember when religious fundamentalists told kids to burn Nirvana CDs because of their music?

Pepperidge Farms remembers.

@The-Sands said in FS3:

Missing on an 85% isn't that big a surprise. You should still be missing about 1 in 6.

I'm not surprised that the Trump Administration is a shitshow in wheels, but that makes me no less pissed off that it's happening.

@derp said in RL Anger:

They turned their wrath to Marilyn Manson.

Well, one out of eleventy-billion ain't bad.

@faraday said in Identifying Major Issues:

Where did anyone say requiring an email was a shield against harassment?

It's been brought up in other threads here, but I was directly addressing this:

"And if I'm running a game? Honestly, there are things I will want for my own security and game features that will require this. And if you can't trust me enough to even provide a burner e-mail for that, fine. Play elsewhere. There are other options." (Emphasis added.)

If your game requires the e-mail address for functions to work, that's fine. For the wiki? Cool. But if anyone thinks that the e-mail address will provide some sort of security against harassment, hacking, or whatever, it really won't.

That's all.

@crawfish

@Tinuviel said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

If a person has developed a reputation for being hostile, abusive, or the like then they should be ostracized. That's part of how communities self-police. If we want to encourage new blood to enter the hobby, we need to exclude those people that cause the most problems.

@Ghost,

This is my response to yours. This is the risk we can present. And so long as problem players can weasel their way back onto games, there are no real consequences for them.

This is why I am ardently pursuing my "crusade."

@crawfish

@Rook said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

This thread was started to level the conversation into greyness, so as to allow for abstract discussion. I think it can be agreed that the case in which we are specifically referring to is an extreme outlier to this conversation, yes?

I've been saying this for a while, actually, and in response to your concern regarding the Court of Public Opinion and blacklisting.

I don't remember which game you defended, Rook, but I've always advised staffers not to defend their policies or decisions. More often than not, you are shouting into a cacophony of ignorant noise. It is advisable to correct people who state blatantly false statements or premises regarding a decision, but unless a policy is so bizarre and indefensible so as to warrant an echo chamber of mockery, you will likely find one, two, or three people that will take up the mantle and vociferously defend your decision without you saying a word.

In the past decade or so, I think that players have generally adopted the policy that: (1) staff are responsible for their own games and have the authority to make whatever decisions they want; and (2) policies can be ignored where circumstances demand attention.

That said, I have been a proponent of the benevolent dictatorship.

@macha

@Rook said in MU and Alternate Channels:

You are responsible for your behavior and actions at all times.

I follow a similar maxim, said another way:

Don't write something or message someone electronically with something you would not want someone to see as an exhibit in court.

@bluebird

There is so much frackin' art talent here that I am feeling very inadequate.

@Derp said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

What we are doubling down on is this: We are not going to remove a player before they have presented themselves as a problem on that game. This goes against the spirit of things that the Game Owner wants to see become canon there. So no amount of outcry is going to get us to magically remove the player before she has done so.

I can see Anna behind that. It's admirable, but it also dashes apart the idea of holding a person responsible for their destructive behavior in these games. And, as I said before, I cannot and will not recommend the game to anyone, and will advise against joining it if asked.

You mentioned in another thread about how unhealthy it is for us to apparently obsess over VASpider. I don't think any of us wants to think about her, especially those she has injured. But she keeps coming back because of the sentiment that is being espoused in the game's policy. So, the way I figure it, the only way to kill the conversation is for her to either stay the fuck away from the hobby or for the hobby to push her out.

I appreciate the candor.

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

That's fascinating. No privity of contract?

Promissory estoppel does not apply to public officials who make representations in office. Here, the former prosecutor promised not to prosecute if Cosby would testify at the deposition. That promise would not be binding upon his successor.

If it was in writing, that's a different story.

Frankly, I don't know why Cosby's attorney ever allowed his client to testify in a civil matter on issues which could give grounds to a criminal prosecution, regardless of what the prosecutor said. The Fifth Amendment is there for a reason, not the least of which is that you should never trust the prosecution.

@Lithium said in How Do I Headwiz?:

A MU is a dictatorship, and you have to be a benevolent one for your game to flourish.

This.

The only "democracy" that exists is what you give. Reasonable players understand this.

Own your mistakes. Credit your successes. You decided to remove a player for what you considered bad behavior. The game is successful because of the strength of its players and collaborators.

Trust your players, but verify their claims.

And talk to others: players and people here. I think you'll find a wealth of wisdom.

@aria

Probably nothing, like how Blue Lives Matter has nothing to do with actually supporting law enforcement.

@ominous said in RL Anger:

We already know that you're a glorious catbot attorney rather than a feeble human being stricken with our insatiable and undeniable love of fried chicken and watermelons.

@Tez said in Game Stagnancy and Activity:

1. Give your players the ability to affect the world. Endorse it. Facilitate it.
2. Have a tight theme, so that whatever your players want to do will fit in to your vision.

What do you think is the best way to achieve 1 and 2? They seem gently contradictory.

@DownWithOPP summarizes @faraday's method, and I think it's pretty solid.

Start with 2. On a World of Darkness Vampire game, a tight theme could be "political machine" or "Strix infestation." The players will then know generally what sort of plots staff will run or would like to see. On a Mass Effect game, the players could be on Omega during the Cerberus takeover. On a D&D game, the game could be set around protecting a particular realm from invaders from another kingdom. This differs from the sandbox approach of "this is the Grid, play in it, and make your own drama."

Then, move to 1. Like BSG:U, you could have modules/plots that mesh with how staff is playing through the metaplot. On the Mass Effect game I mentioned, staff could run a general campaign of "Cerberus is in the lower levels taking over the power plants," and encourage players to play out skirmishes in Omega's underbelly and mines. Particular events like protecting a plant against invasion could be run by staff or players.

If 1 is going well, the game will self-sustain.

In another thread, I discussed my views on risk, and here they are: "let the players decide if their characters die." This seems counter-intuitive to the idea of "risk," but it isn't so where there are set objectives to meet or satisfy. If the players lose those skirmishes, it could have an effect on the metaplot: if Cerberus takes the plants or the Cylons crush a scouting patrol, that could negatively effect the campaign, just as success in both encounters may improve the players' situation. And advertise those successes and failures equally, to let the players know that this ain't no cakewalk.