Posts made by Ganymede

@Kanye-Qwest said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

yeah and he also entirely neglected to acknowledge or mention the mountains of bias that have absolutely, 100% resulted in these types of jobs being almost entirely staffed by men, so let's not act like that omission means nothing.

The responses infer this neglect or ignorance. Is there any evidence? I don't see any. I see no denial of experience; I see no denial of the very fact that you are presenting here; and I certainly don't deny it. And, more to my point, has anyone jumped down my throat about my thought processes, neglect of acknowledgment, or mention of what I already know and believe?

Apparently not.

@Apos said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

Saying, "hire the best candidate" is one of those things that makes me raise my eyebrows because... I mean, of course they will. ... It's one of those things that's already well understood, and saying so says a little bit more about the person saying it than the person being told.

Emphasis added. Since I believe that Ghost and I have said the exact same thing, why is it that my advice elicited no accusation of neglect or ignorance, but Ghost's did?

Folks.

We are all on the same side. Why are we responding to one another as if were not?

Maybe we should all take a step back.

I want to add that holyshitballs pressing and pushing for equitable treatment is annoying and exhausting as fuck, and I acknowledge -- and I want everyone to know this -- that I am 100% fine with people venting about this topic right here. Like, I can only imagine what Sparks, Auspice, Faraday, or any other woman in the IT industry has to go through. I don't even want to think about it. Don't step back from the anger and rage. Don't take your foot off the pedal.

I just don't think Ghost deserves to get run over for saying everything I did, unless you all intend to run me over too.

@Sparks said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

Do you know how many times I've seen a conversation about ...

Do you know how many times I have seen ...

I'm going to step in and take some flak because I want to.

I don't see anything in what Ghost said speaking to your experience or contradicting your frustration. To the contrary, it appears to me that Ghost understands the constant battle being warred in the boardrooms and hiring halls. Yet nothing Ghost has said is, to me, incorrect.

But you did ask him to step away. And then comes the dogpile.

How many times does a person have to say the following for everyone to put down the firebrands and pitchforks?

"Choose the right people/good team."

This is what Ghost has said from his first post. Actually, what he said was:

"Build a team who can do the job."

And I have to defend this because I said the exact same thing.

"Hire the best people for the job, regardless of gender."

@Ghost said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

At the end of the day, IT is about skills and experience. It's a Catch-22 because if you take a female candidate who isn't as skilled as another male candidate, your team will suffer. If you give a woman a bump out of bias, then you're not hiring her solely for her skills, which isn't right either. At the end of the day, all you can do is build your team with the best people you can get, and if that ends up being a diverse team? Great. If not? It was the applications you had available at the time.

That's the advice. And I concur with it. That's why I responded with my post about intangibles. We had a male candidate that, on paper, looked better, but a female candidate that, in reality, was better. I stood there and advocated for the hire because I saw the intangibles, and, lo, I was right.

If Arkandel is going to do the hiring, he's going to need to do the defending. He's going to need to advocate for whoever he hires, regardless of gender. And if that's the case, as Ghost said, focus on the skills and experience when taking a position, and, as I said, don't forget about raising the intangibles.

Dave Chapelle was right, and I remain concerned.

@surreality

I'd get those for the vintage value.

@saosmash said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

She sounds like a badass.

I would hire former prosecutors and criminal defense people in a second. You have to train them closely, yes, but they take on huge (for civil attorneys) caseloads, work themselves to the bone, and have the sort of idgaf i put away/defended rapists before attitude that makes every office hour go by faster.

It's always amusing at the office when you hear:

"This dickwad wants $250,000 for his client because of a rear-ender that caused minor bruising to her boob? I've had to put an asshole away for raping his sister while hitting her with a hammer, and she barely got her medical bills paid. Fuck her, fuck her lawyer, and fucking bring it."

An absolute joy to work with.

@Ghost said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

I said the same thing everyone else did: choose the right people/good team.

I concur, but again write separately.

I think it's important to remember that "the right people" aren't necessarily the people with the "best credentials." The "right people" can often seem, on paper, to be the "wrong person," and yet turn out to be the "right person" based on what some coaches might call "intangibles" that aren't immediately apparent.

Take, for example, these two candidates for a small-to-medium firm (5-10 attorneys) general litigation firm:

• Male, late-20s, runs his own small firm with criminal and civil experience based on his general practice, and has done so since he exited law school.

• Woman, late-20s, works in the local prosecutor's office doing sexual felony prosecution.

On paper, the male candidate looks like the "best candidate": he has his own practice; he handles general litigation; and he is enough of a self-starter to continue a practice for a few years out of law school. But based on how we greased him in a case recently, we made the better choice.

The woman had better intangibles. Working in a completely different field means no fewer bad habits. Working in a local prosecutor's office means being used to taking orders from others. Substantial experience as a prosecutor means that she has absolutely no problem walking into a courtroom with little or no backup and winging her way through an evidentiary hearing. And I'd rather have a new associate bugging me with questions on the smallest things or about areas of the law she has no familiarity with than to pretend that she knows what she's doing because, hey, she used to run her own practice.

Yeah, she wiped the floor with that other guy. It wasn't even close. And I'm so fucking proud of her. (Because I brought her to the firm, I pushed for her hire, and I got it dammit because I can see talent, bitch.)

Look for the intangibles. Take a bit of a risk on paper. The rewards are enormous, and you better damn believe I have an ally in the office place.

@Arkandel said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

I don't know (I have no way of knowing) how that would feel. How awkward, intimidated or comfortable someone might feel despite the best intentions from everyone involved to make them fit in and feel part of the group... I haven't had to deal with it.

You'll never know for sure if you don't hire a woman. Women aren't like robots: they all act and react differently. You can refer to my manual, but that won't help you lead a woman.

But some of you might have. What are the challenges? What has gone wrong assuming good intentions were in place? What mistakes were made despite those intentions? What can I do from my end to make things smoother?

I'll just start with some advice.

• Hire the best people for the job, regardless of gender.
• Treat everyone equitably, not equally.
• There are always good intentions, not matter the result; if there are bad intentions, the results will matter.
• Be professional.

My firm has hired three female attorneys over the past year, unbalancing the gender composition of the firm's attorneys. The entire support staff is composed of women. Yet the men aren't nervous because they follow the above rules.

@surreality said in Random links:

...it's really not just D&D.

D&D = Shameless on crack = My life.

@Sparks said in General Video Game Thread:

(Yes, I'm a heretic. But I'm honestly so, so tired of FF7. Can we stop going back to that well?)

I honestly don't like FF7 or any of its spin-offs.

Being drawn into a group without asking to be, and having excellent RP with complete strangers.

@Sparks said in General Video Game Thread:

I'm sorry, arguably? No. FF6 is factually and objectively the best.

...

If they are going to be doing remakes on the apparent quality level of that FF7 remake they finally showed off at E3? Give me one of FF6.

I concur, and write separately.

The score for FF6 is an incredible achievement, with themes for every playable character. It is probably the best console game of all time, and probably my favorite one until The Last of Us. But it is the music that really sets it apart.

Celes' operatic theme is an actual vocal piece. You have metal versions of the final battle, like this one or this one done by the composer's own cover band. And the composer, Nobuo Uematsu, is so beloved that his music has hit the textbooks of Japanese students as examples of music composition.

FF6 has already technically been re-mastered, and that version is available on tablets. It's well-worth the money.

But this is the epitome of the Final Fantasy series for me. I really like Final Fantasy VIII, which I think was beyond its time when it was released, but it can't compare. Then again, the end sequence for the game is its own little masterpiece, given that it was made for the PS1. For me, it was poetry, and effectively -- and without words -- ties the entire game together.

There's a million different interpretations of FF8's ending. And I have talked to dozens of people about it, and each has their own understanding. I think that is critically important, as the game really is about things like thought, memory, and the connections we have with others across time and space. That damned song Eyes on Me (sung by Faye Wong) is such an earworm that my eyes tear up to this day when I hear it. The convoluted plot aside, the graphics and cinematography are way, way advanced for its time (1999).

(Edit to add: I saw the reveal trailer, and was mildly disappointed that SquareEnix is going to essentially clean up the graphics only. Updating the models further would have been nice.)

@ZombieGenesis said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

I think it boils down to this. You're saying: Why not just always be reasonable? And others are saying: Not all people are reasonable all the time and dice based/level based systems help compensate for that.

You've simplified the statements accurately, but the issue is actually: if staff is the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not allowed, why are the players fighting? And I believe my argument, which isn't expressly stated, is described by Faraday and Coin well: no conflict resolution system is free of staff adjudication, so it all falls to staff to figure this stuff out, make the rules, and stick them.

There's something to be said about the lack of consistency, of course, but, news flash: judges do not always come to the same conclusion based on the same set of facts and law either. So, as I've pointed out, I just sort of roll with things, and that strategy has worked on pretty well so far.

@Ghost said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

In a lot of cases it works fine, but when it breaks and staff waffle about confronting players, ooooo it's rough.

Here's the thing I'm fixated on, I guess.

Let's take the example of Arsenal and Iron Man. Arsenal's player poses something about Arsenal correcting Iron Man on some point on advanced technology. Among Iron Man's player's choices are rolling with that, and moving on. Why not do this? As I mentioned, Iron Man can be wrong about things. What's the importance of being "right" on this one?

If you follow improv rules, then Iron Man's player should go along with what Arsenal's player does. On a MUSH, we strive for consistency, so Iron Man's player has a legitimate reason to question whether Iron Man would have made a misstatement or Arsenal is actually smarter than Iron Man. But underlying both sets of interest is the question: what's the point of arguing this?

And that is what I don't understand here.

This is why I personally like prefer dice-based superhero mush systems. At the end of the day, people can stop arguing about who has the bigger dick and simply break out the measuring tape. Some people just don't understand characters have flaws and they just parade power power power, and wireless resolution can mean for some players only not-winning when they choose to or are forced to.

I like these too, but they are not always available. Besides, I don't always fall back on the systems to resolve issues, and I often like to take the route that leads to more interesting role-play.

That said, when you have a player that refuses to take a loss and keeps on pressing victory obnoxiously, you simply deprive them of what they seek most: validation. There is no rule that one must RP with someone, and if there was one I would go to staff to point this behavior out.

@Jaded said in General Video Game Thread:

Even so, it has Triple Triad and that was fun. I mean it completely derailed me finishing the game so that has to count for something.

I could Lionheart for eternity.

@Admiral said in General Video Game Thread:

Are they going to make it into a playable RPG where levels and stuff matter, or are they going to leave it as a festering pile?

I hope they leave it just the way it is because the faux-fan-rage is always amusing to me.

@Ghost said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

I think sometimes the wrong players go for the most powerful characters that can do (in theory) almost anything, because when the game is mostly "talking it out", the concept that said Omega-Level mutant can travel through time to correct failures or Dr. Strange can literally rewrite the universe to hand himself a win is stuff that does get argued over from time to time.

But why?

Right. We're talking about the wrong players, right? We're talking about the folks who don't want to talk it out, who just want to win, and will run over people to get it. We aren't really talking about the folks that are collaborative, who don't mind losing every now and again, and are interesting in facilitating others' stories as much as seeing their own blossom.

I'm presuming that staff is doing a reasonable job of making sure that the earth-shattering ridiculous concepts are either limited or put in the hands of players that are going to play those concepts in a reasonable way that won't squash the enjoyment of other players content to play lower-powered characters.

If my presumptions are wrong, I'm pretty sure I'll figure it out. So far, not wrong.

@TNP said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

@ShelBeast said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

Amadeus Cho, a dude with super intelligence is denied because it is a low powered game.

Asked to make revisions, as are at least half of those who app but decided to drop him instead.

I was asked to make revisions to my concept. I can't even remember what those revisions were any more. They have not been important at all.

@Arkandel said in Good or New Movies Review:

If you want it to do better you should make a better movie out of it, you guys.

Importantly, the Dark Phoenix saga is one of the most cherished X-Men story line. Thinking that you can reduce it to a single movie is idiotic to the point of nonsense.

@Arkandel said in The Basketball Thread:

Also the Warriors had an amazing shooting night from 3 (45%) and the Raptors an abysmal one. That, too, won't repeat itself.

I think it is telling too that the Warriors had an amazing shooting night while they were riding the emotion of having Durant on the court and him getting knocked out. After that, they were less than average, bringing their shooting night down from around 100% in the first quarter.

The Warriors barely squeaked away with a win. But for Green's last-minute half-block of Lowry, Jurassic Park would be going crazy.

@ZombieGenesis said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

That's how that player envisioned Roy Harper, as a super technological genius that outshined Tony Stark and Reed Richards in that area. That was his perception of the character. If we had no system in place that codified what he could do imagine that player in a scene with Tony Stark whose player has a very different take on just how smart Roy Harper is. Roy Harper corrects Tony Stark on some advanced technological thing, Tony's player starts going OOCly 'Huh?', and the debate begins about whose vision of the character should take precedent.

Staff's vision takes precedent where there's an approval process. There's no reasonable argument to the contrary.

To be frank? There's no reason to believe that Tony Stark can't be wrong. Tony flat-out denies what Scott tells him in Endgame, until he actually looks into it. Tony thinks he can pick up Mjolnir, and is dead-wrong there. So, why can't Roy be right about something, and Tony wrong, even if it is technological? For me, I see the issue as Roy's and Tony's players' fixations on their visions, and their inability to recognize that how an advanced technological thing works may be completely irrelevant.

In my experience, things get messy and argumentative when the stakes are actually fairly low. But if the stakes are low, they really don't matter much, do they? Players that get into these sorts of arguments invite an eye-roll from me.

But that might be why I'm getting along fine too -- because I'm not arguing.

From medical records.

"Child was restrained in forward facing car seat. Mother, who was not involved in the accident, was sitting in the car with Child at the time EMS arrived. Mother explained that Child was just adopted from Beijing. Mother stated that Child's culture in Beijing had taught them not to cry or they would be abused."

Fuck you, you racist piece of shit.

I'll admit that I'm new to this genre, and I don't have all the answers.

My first superhero that I got any mileage out of was Dr. Freeze on @RizBunz's game. I constructed him as a super-intelligent bio-technologist and physician who froze her wife to find a cure for her. He had the usual powers and the robotic suit that he needed to live, and it took a little bit of time to twist the system that the game used to the character's concept.

I ended up falling back on the system precisely zero times because I knew the character well-enough to know his weaknesses and strengths. And none of the GMs I had plots with ever quibbled with his power set because we all knew what it was. Anything that wasn't unclear from my stats and descriptions was discussed and resolved shortly.

Now I'm playing on Empire State, and I haven't run into any problems yet. Maybe I will? I don't know, but I don't think so. I'm pretty sure I know my PC's power levels, if such exist, and what she can and can't do. And I'm pretty sure anyone who GMs a scene I'm in will know the same, or can figure it out.