Posts made by Ganymede

@Thenomain said in X-Cards:

I personally think we should start there.

I concur.

I mean --

@Lotherio

Anna Faris?

I love that I have satellite radio now.

And I can listen to the 40s and 50s channels rolling through the local destruction, imagining myself in a Fallout spinoff.

Fallout: New Property Damage Claims.

@Auspice

What's your budget?

@Sparks said in Fandom and entitlement:

In Captain Marvel, are Carol Danvers and Maria Rambeau in love? Like 70 or 80% of the fanbase say yes (and Brie Larsen sure as heck implies it constantly in interviews). Is that ever openly stated in the film? No. The subtext is, admittedly, extremely loud, but it remains subtext.

I loved the subtext.

In those scenes, Lashana Lynch eats every moment up. You can see that Brie Larson wants to break out of the subtext, but maybe she can't because Carol's brain isn't exactly together. Whatever. Am I looking forward to more Brie? Absolutely.

sigh

Here's to hoping that Maria and Carol get treated like Stuart and Freddie in Vicious. (Very under-rated TV series.)

@Jaded said in Good or New Movies Review:

The consistent reasoning I'm finding is because the lack of storyline and better developed human characters.

It's almost like humans can't stand it when there's a movie focused on something other than humans.

Except Wall-E was reviewed very highly.

@deadculture

Dammit, Bobby.

I can’t tell if you guys are awesome or awful.

I see what you’re saying, Ghost, but you are mixing apples and oranges.

The x-card appears to be suggested for con-games, where there are plenty of strangers getting together for a session. You don’t really have that time to team-build and communicate the expectations. The x-card is a great policy for game stores that are trying to draw interest from newcomers. That’s where its strength lies.

I concur that it is not a substitute for effective communication over time, but it is an excellent idea to draw in a new crowd.

@Warma-Sheen said in The Basketball Thread:

Stout defense? If they shot a bunch and missed, I might take that answer, but there's no way the defense was so tight they didn't even try to shoot. We've all seen Curry and Thompson drain threes with people molded to their faces. We know they can do it, they know they can do it. Still, I watched the game so I can tell you that was not the case, but even if it was, I refuse to believe they wouldn't still try, even if just to try to draw a foul and get three free throws.

Stout defense and being unable to stop the Raptors in the paint. Both were used to keep the Warriors off their game.

On defense, the teams matched up very evenly for steals and rebounds, but the Warriors had more takeaways and the Raptors more blocks. The Raptors beat the Warriors in the shooting categories, save for FT%.

As for the paint, Green and Looney each had 5 fouls that game, but Gasol and Siakam still scored 50+ points. Cousins made none of his shots (only points came on free throws), and Green and Looney were held to less than 20.

If the Warriors don't adjust to contain Gasol and Siakam again, they will simply pound the ball in. If there's a double-team, they'll kick out to VanFleet, Lowry, or Green for the open 3. It seemed that every time Curry attempted to cut, he got fouled before he could make a key play. And if I had to place a bet on injuries, I'd say that both Curry and Thompson are nursing undisclosed injuries, which would explain why they aren't hitting the 3s and why the Raptors beat the Warriors on fast-break points.

I have always said that MUSHing is more like improv than tabletop gaming, and continue to believe so.

I don’t think games need a x-card; rather, it simply needs to remind players that they can always opt-out. Unlike tabletop games, there are seldom a single person telling the story for others; however, I think players need to be reminded that if another player mentions that they are uncomfortable with a line of RP, that you should stop, take stock, and figure out how to proceed collaboratively.

That’s how improv works. And that’s how MUSHes work.

I think that the Warriors thought they could come back from behind, as they did with Portland. I don't think they expected that the Raptors would be as stout as they were on defense, and I don't think they had a game plan for protecting the paint against Siakam's and Gasol's attacks in the paint.

I concur with Arkandel: no matter how much of a force Cousins may be, he's coming off of a serious injury and hasn't played for a couple of months. But without Cousins or Durant, the Warriors can't guard the paint. Green is an excellent defender, but he clearly looked tired and managed only 10 points.

The Raptors' versatility is what makes them successful. They can keep a game close by shifting their plan of attack, all while maintaining vigorous defense (how or why did Green manage to get 2 blocks from the SG position?). Looking at the minutes, it seemed like the Raptors mostly stayed small, but got a lot of contribution from their bigs, and that made all the difference. If they can take the second game, and one in the Oracle, the Warriors are going to be in deep trouble.

@Warma-Sheen said in The Basketball Thread:

I've been rooting for the Raptors for a while. They have the best mascot in the league (no, not Drake) and that's enough to earn my support. Who doesn't love dinosaurs!?

The Raptors have Nav Bhatia, the owner and president of Mississauga Hyundai. I grew up watching the man's commercials locally, and he is the Superfan of the North now. His story is inspirational and worth reading about.

One game down. Three to go.

The Warriors aren't going to win a game in Toronto if they can't defend the paint. Siakam and Gasol had their way with them.

The past 40 days.

First, I found a house that my partner loved, and signed a contract to build it.

Then, I was elevated in the firm to partner.

Then, I had the privilege of picking up a new company car for myself on lease -- LEXUS.

And then, tonight, I just put our current house under contract.

@Sunny said in How to Escape the OOC Game:

ETA: It's a lot like 'never in the history of calming down has telling someone to calm down actually helped them to calm down'.

Lessons you learn with children.

@Ghost said in How to Escape the OOC Game:

Some 3 posts back I said I wanna stay out of this one so I'm going to respectfully give you all the floor and not challenge this.

Understood.

@Sunny said in How to Escape the OOC Game:

Telling people that words only have the power they're given is exactly like telling someone who is depressed to go outside.

I disagree, but I recognize that in such matters perspective is important.

@Ghost

I get that, but you're still shifting the goal-posts.

We started with a very specific example, for which you have an opinion I disagree with. There are many non-legal reasons for my disagreement.

The easiest and clearest one is taking your position a little further. If we cannot hold others responsible for our emotional states, then there cannot logically be consequences or repercussions for others' actions that do not cause physical harm, even if those actions are calculated, deliberate, and malicious. If I am solely responsible for my reaction were you to call me a fat, ugly dyke, then I am not justified in any action taken to retaliate against you for that slight.

If we can agree that people can be held responsible for calculated, deliberate, or malicious actions, then we should also agree that the bad actor should be responsible for the resulting harm. If so, then one should recognize the existence of emotional harm because it is just to hold a person accountable for harm they knowingly cause.

The severity of the harm is irrelevant.

@Ghost said in How to Escape the OOC Game:

But if someone's losing their shit because their dice are sucking or they lost an election? Sure, it's disappointing, but upkeep your reaction buffer, bruh.

You're really shifting the goal-posts here, man.

@Ghost said in How to Escape the OOC Game:

Oh, I wholly believe words can affect people, but words simply affecting people isn't the issue. My views are more related to the subjectivity of injury and the reasonable level of responsibility any given person should have towards ownership for social injuries and/or emotional states of others in social situations.

The subjectivity of injury is an interesting topic in jurisprudence.

As you may be compensated for emotional injury, I recognize its existence. After all, what is "pain" and "suffering" but subjective mental or emotional injuries?

@Derp said in How to Escape the OOC Game:

Call it victim-blaming if you want. But if people are so invested that they can't see what long-term damage it's doing to them, and are unable to walk away in favor of something healthier? Yeah. That's a problem.

Sure.

You know what, though? It doesn't cost me much to listen to people.

I make a lot of friends that way on games. It's not that I actually care more than what might be in the moment, or as a human might be concerned about another human's suffering. It's part of the empathy chip that I had installed in me not too long ago, and have since brought under my control.

In my 20+ years of playing, staffing, and being in this hobby far more than I ever wanted to be, I have found it easy to separate the chronic problem-makers from the genuine problem-sufferers. Even so, I have found that the chronic problem-makers aren't bad people either; some of them just want someone to talk to. If one were to argue that there are actual very few reprehensible people in our hobby, then I would counter that by saying that there are very few people that actually practice the profession of victimhood. Some players are simply more sensitive or more anxious or more paranoid than others.

My concern as a lawyercatbot and a Scion of All Wisdom is that the very few reprehensible people can do considerably more damage to one or many people than professional victims. In my experience, professional victims sow discord and chaos, but do not stalk or threaten others. Comparing them to the people Surreality and Sunny have had to deal with? I'd gladly take 100 professional victims over 1 creepy stalker.

Professional victims grate the shit out of me, but I will gladly step on the necks of any stalkers that know another player's RL identity and are following them. That bullshit is fucking wrong and disturbing, and we need to stamp that shit out. Accusations of the same must also be taken very seriously: a false accusation can ruin someone's reputation in our hobby, and should be dealt with swiftly and unmercifully.

In my Mod Voice, loudly: if you feel threatened or stalked on this board, please bring it to our (Arkandel and I) attention immediately. Arkandel and I agree on few things, but we absolutely will not tolerate stalking. We may request that you help us understand what's going on, but we promise you -- I promise you -- we will take that shit very, very seriously.