Kids actually have a low chance for developing symptoms too.
But they are susceptible to infection regardless and spread infection like nothing else known to man.
We all know that this will be a strain on families, but so is a dead member.
It's a reasonable choice in unreasonable times.
@arkandel said in Decriminalise Pretty:
As for comic books how many heroes and heroines aren't drawn to be absolutely gorgeous?
Depends on who your superheroes are.
@GreenFlashlight said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
If you get sick on their premises, there's at least an argument to be made that your illness is their responsibility for not disinfecting the facility; and if they get sued, I can't imagine their business owner insurance covers pandemics.
As someone who handles commercial and premises liability coverage issues often:
@runescryer said in Decriminalise Pretty:
However, you've inspired me to do another PoP binge through while waiting for Tiger & Bunny Season 2 to drop on Netflix in April...
I'm going back through LoK because Korra is my boo.
@TNP said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Why are New Yorkers panicking? Because you are.
Why would they not?
New York is one of the densest metropolitan areas in the world. It is about 2.5 times that of San Francisco and Los Angeles. Milan has a population density just above San Francisco. So if New Yorkers are paying attention to what's happening in Milan, they have every reason to panic.
If your chances of catching the disease increases by population density, then a New Yorker is more likely to catch it than someone living in Milan. That's something to consider. New Yorkers are younger than the Milanese, but that doesn't mean they can't catch it and pass it to someone they care about.
These are tough times.
@betternow said in GMs and Players:
So how do you figure out which it actually is? Or (I know, revolutionary idea) Could BOTH player and staffer be the problem in the same equation?
I don't try to figure it out. The point of the question is to self-reflect. And when I do that, I usually find an answer I am comfortable with.
If I am not being fair, I should try to be more fair. If I am being fair, then there is nothing more I can do.
It does not matter if the staffer is fair or not; what matters is the decision I end up making.
@Kanye-Qwest said in The ADD/ADHD Thread (cont'd from Peeves):
All my life, it was "you're lazy" "you aren't living up to your potential" "why can't you just take care of it" and my favorite from my dad, "you're worthless". I think it's impossible not to internalize that stuff, and have it color all your feelings about YOURSELF.
I lived through this as well. After a while, I just didn't care.
Parents: You're lazy.
Me: And?
Parents: You aren't living up to your potential.
Me: But it's my potential, right?
Parents: Why can't you just take care of it?
Me: I did, just not the way you wanted me to.
Parents: You're worthless.
Me: If you say so.
Granted, I was a very difficult child to deal with, being one part smart aleck and one part rebellious asshole.
But looking back on how I was raised, I understand why.
It's a cultural thing.
Yeah, St. Petersburg was quite an experience, but it did not fall due to her actions.
The importance of a large grid depends on the context and setting of the game. Ironically, the larger the scope, the less likely one needs a large grid.
For your average WoD game, I can understand why people want a GRID. Walking around the streets is a somewhat important element to the game that is often forgotten.
For a game like, oh, Mass Effect, you'd probably want modular places. On the Citadel, large areas like "the Zakera Ward" need no Grid; it's probably enough to attach rooms to that one room, and allow people to "Rapid Transit" between areas.
For a game like, oh, Dragon Age, you'd probably want to do the same thing as Mass Effect, but you could also add rooms to represent other "zones" in a region, wherein there may be pitched battles.
And then, if you have a space ship, you'd probably split the rooms into general floors/wings, with rooms sprouting off of them. Space stations, the same.
The game designers have to consider where they want the RPing to occur. If you want a lot of backdoor, small-scene, schemes, like in a Lords-and-Ladies game, having a detailed, large Grid would be helpful. If you expect there to be a lot of pew-pew-pew, with less importance on social scheming, then having rooms representing areas of larger scale is probably best. Take into consideration setting, and you should have an idea of how to lay out the Grid.
Note, though: being too abstract often leads to confusion, as occurred on Victoria Reverie.
@Admiral said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
My company is a mess. And I can't afford the 25 to 40 percent pay cut I would get from bring transferred.
I hear you.
Sucks ass.
You guys are seriously begging for Disney to rear its ugly head.
@Jeshin said in The Art of Lawyering:
The debate was related to qualified immunity seems weird! and I'm like it is weird! but then I tried to liken the Bob example to sometimes you go after the dept/city and not the individual so etc etc. Laymen people mangling law.
"Qualified immunity" is a whole other beast. Your analogy doesn't fit into it very neatly for innumerable reasons, not the least of which being that qualified immunity for the deprivation of civil rights by law enforcement follows a different set of elements than qualified immunity for just about every other tort out there. And that's part of the problem with qualified immunity for excessive force complaints.
I can probably spend the entire night explaining why proposals from requiring police officers to get malpractice insurance to statutorily removing qualified immunity won't do shit, but if the short discussion on capitalism else-thread is any indication no one wants to listen to folks with some expertise on the subject. (My law firm handles excessive force complaints.)
@Packrat said:
I still find it crazy that prior to World War 1 the main source of income for the US federal government was tariffs, along with how important that was to the establishment of US industrial supremacy in the early/mid 20th century.
I don't see why. The Wealth of Nations talks about tariffs an awful lot. They are really good in keeping domestic trade protected from international competition.
Here's a quick run-down.
"Qualified immunity" for excessive force complaints requires a plaintiff to prove two things: (1) that their constitutional rights were violated; and (2) that the defendant officer clearly violated established law. Element 2 is the difficult thing to prove because criminal law is evolving so fast that it even the best practitioners couldn't say with reasonable certainty that any act "clearly violates" established law.
"Qualified immunity" for other sort of torts requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant acted: (1) with hatred or ill-will; or (2) reckless disregard for the plaintiff's rights which had a great probability of causing substantial harm. This is the "malice" standard used for many torts.
So, what's the difference? Well, the first variety of qualified immunity doesn't inquire into an officer's intent, but it does require a plaintiff to make an argument based on existing law. In practice, a plaintiff's attorney has to allege facts to establish a "clear violation of established law," which is a lot more difficult that you'd expect. This is especially true if you are alleging a new set of facts that has never been seen by a court. After all, how can you violated "established law" if you have a scenario that is a matter of first impression? The second variety seems to be a lot harder because you have to establish the officer's mindset at the time of the illegal act. In practice, it is actually easier because a court can infer from allegations what a mindset might be.
Suppose we look at the Floyd situation, and we discover that there has been no cases before Washington courts where an officer knelt on the neck of an accused before. How can there be a clear violation of establish law? You'd have to find an analogous situation in Washington that somehow made it to a judgment. Given that many police departments settle this cases prior to judgment, it's unlikely that you'll find any such case. See the problem?
But take that same situation, state the known facts, and then argue that the officer acted "with reckless disregard for Floyd's life" by kneeling on his neck, "which has a great probability of doing substantial harm." There's almost no way to argue that this would not be the case, presuming the allegations to be true. The plaintiff would survive the motion to dismiss, which practically cuts out the immunity defense.
@Ghost said:
Aha! But what about the element of Grimm's Fairy Tales?
Perhaps we are working with different versions of Changeling: the Lost, or coming from a different perspective, but in my opinion, the player's character is the sweet little old lady. She just doesn't know it yet.
@Groth said in The Art of Lawyering:
Can a borderline case even make it to a jury?
Yes.
Suppose there is a clear precedent that requires three operative facts. Suppose there is sufficient evidence to establish all three, but there is evidence to the contrary. This is what a jury shall decide: what the facts are.
And if they fit the mold, the case is made.
@Arkandel said:
Now - this is where it gets tricky - say they're having fun with it. In fact it's gaining popularity compared to the mainstream game purpose, more players are getting into that than chasing bank robbers or avenging kidnapped kids. What do you do?
How is this tricky?
If this part of the game runs contrary to what staff wants or expects, staff has three choices: (1) eliminate it; (2) accept it as a whole; or (3) compromise. Whatever is selected is indicative of how strong staff is or was attached to their theme and setting. This is wholly dependent on who is staff.
Personally, I think the crime-angle is interesting and would accept it. If the new players brought a campy Batman or He-Man element, though, fuck them in the face.
@Tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
But any further discussion of the topic will make @Ganymede want to hit me.
This presumes I don't already want to do so.
@faraday said:
Having a lot of cliques can be very detrimental to a game, since new players just throw up their hands and leave when they can't break into RP.
@Derp and I had a discussion as to whether a non-inclusive clique with no influence and no desire for it is actually a detriment to a game. While we ultimately concluded that the influence would be minimal or nil, I asserted that such a group would also be pointless and, therefore, undesirable.
