Posts made by Ganymede

Scenes from a Law Firm before a Massacre

Act III, Scene i

Partner: One of my clients needs to have a commercial deal closed by December 1.
Me: Okay. It's November 11, so I doubt that's going to happen.
Partner: He thinks otherwise, so here's the title company he wants to use but has not called yet and a copy of the purchase agreement.
Me: Can I talk to him?
Partner: Not unless it's absolutely necessary. Can you get it done?
Me: No.
Partner: Well, try your best.

Act III, Scene ii

Partner: It's November 12. What's the status?
Me: I called the title company and left an e-mail. Can't really close without them, so I'm waiting for a response.

Act III, Scene iii

Partner: It's November 13. What's the status?
Me: Same as yesterday.
Partner: Did you call them?
Me: Yes. I called them yesterday. And left an e-mail. I'm waiting for a response.

Act III, Scene iv

Partner: It's November 14. What's the status?
Me: Look, how about I just tell you when I have the title company on board?

Act III, Scene v

Me: Well, they called back. They can handle the deal, but they don't think they can close by December 1.
Partner: Why not?
Me: Thanksgiving, mostly. We need a title report finished and a policy issued. We need a legal description of the parcel. We need other documents too.
Partner: So when will it close?
Me: Not on December 1.
Partner: Why not?

Act III, Scene vi

Opposing Counsel: I know it is November 30, but here are the documents for closing.
Me: This easement won't work. We need to revise it.
Opposing Counsel: Okay.
Partner: So when will the deal close?
Me: Not tomorrow.
Partner: Why not?

Act III, Scene vii

Opposing Counsel: It is December 1. What's the status?

(Stage explodes into violence.)

FIN

@sunny said in Recipes and Shit:

Food bloggers also like to get paid for the work they do.

I appreciate this.

@greenflashlight

If they were good at what they did, it wouldn’t be a comedy or satire.

I will admit that the new movie felt a little less comedic, but I think it was aimed at a different draw.

@greenflashlight said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:

May I ask what you see it as?

I look at the movie as a "scientists were right" flick.

You said before that the original Ghostbusters story involved four blue-collar schmucks who saved the world, but I disagree. Three of them fit (and are) three main academic stereotypes: (1) the poser (Peter); (2) the know-it-all (Ray); and (3) the savant (Egon). They believe they know better so they start this bizarre business service that everyone is skeptical of until it proves to be true in the vein of other 80s services, like psychics and mediums, which were prevalent and mocked back then.

This is evident from the beginning. We are introduced to Peter as he uses his advanced degree to flirt with hot college girls; Ray is the busy-body spouting off his theories; and Egon eccentrically gathers the evidence and builds the machinery. All of them are parapsychologist professors at Columbia University. Once they manage to get their business set up, they hire a blue-collared person (Winston) who is willing to take a risk because this is the 80s and everyone needs a job. In the end, Winston is pivotal as the "everyman" figure that follows along because that's his job.

There are a lot of articles about how critics found the film. Some found it a satire on academia and Reaganomics, but I think that is deeper than what was intended. It ultimately is a story about how the people who believe in the bizarre prove they are right. But I really liked how each of the characters had their specific place: Ray is needed for his enthusiasm and energy; Egon is needed for his vision and brains; Peter is needed to engage socially with a doubtful public; and Winston lends the credibility that comes from being the "everyman" among the nerds.

And that's why I think Ghostbusters: Afterlife follows.

@il-volpe said in The Desired Experience:

I think when you have the non-available prince and their supposedly available PC proxy, the proxy gets bored of having all the bother while being too pawn-like, and PCs still wish they could worm their way closer and closer to the Prince's ear without getting stopped by the OOC consideration of the prince not really being an 'on-screen' character.

I think the above scenario is an example of (1) how stupid Vampire players' expectations often are; and (2) how infrequently staff actually instill the spirit of the game into the MUSH.

FFS, you're supposed to spend a lot of time not getting crushed.

@greenflashlight said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:

I just can't get my head around putting that story in this franchise.

I think we see the original movie very differently.

I saw Ghostbusters: Afterlife as a very loving homage to Harold Ramis as Egon Spengler and I think that's what the movie was going for to begin with.

But I also think we see the original movie very differently, and that may be why I don't understand your disappointment.

@greenflashlight

I didn't need them to say anything to understand. I live with a girl like that every day. She liked the movie, I think. And then she went to go see Wicked with my partner the next day.

Still one of my favorite movies of the year. Paul Rudd effortlessly carries humor with him. Olivia Wilde is perfect for her small role. I can't say I understand why you didn't like it or the analogy you made because if I could put the cast of Seinfeld into a murderhouse I would because I hated Seinfeld.

@greenflashlight said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:

So uh, I kinda hate the new Ghostbusters movie? And I feel like the only thing that they would have had to change for me to like would be to not make it a Ghostbusters movie, just make it a Cthulhu movie with a cheeky wink-wink Ghostbusters reference here and there.

I loved the new Ghostbusters movie. I was in tears, but I have a soft spot for the franchise and very bright girls with social issues.

@tinuviel said in The Desired Experience:

None of those things run counter to what I said. Staff can take mitigating actions, but they can't decide that another player's reason for excluding others is unwarranted.

I guess not, but implicitly what I said does. Regardless, because of who you are and who I am, I will amend.

Regardless of what justification a player may have for not interacting with the game at large, staff can and should take action to protect the game, including, but not limited to, requiring players to either give up positions of IC power or interact with others regularly.

@solstice said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:

What a productive coping strategy!

I blame it on my blood.

I have been getting a rash of people attempting to register who have not provided an e-mail address. Unsurprisingly, some of such registrations have come from our banned friend(s) who just can't seem to get enough of us.

As a result, I am requiring that all new registrants provide an e-mail address.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with people I don't have to or want to and, yes, what the requirements are to get an account here are completely based on my judgment.

@greenflashlight

Not me.

Two things that help me through depression: (1) work; and (2) cooking.

My partner knows I'm in deep when I'm cooking all the time.

@tinuviel said in The Desired Experience:

But nobody external to the group or individual making the choices gets to decide on just cause.

Except staff.

I am wholly supportive of staff who require interaction when a player has a PC that is part of integral to the plot or IC social structure. If a Sandwich Club is in positions of importance, it is reasonable for staff to step in and have them make a choice: relinquish your positions of IC authority or interact with others. And staff should step in under those premises.

Otherwise, we're all just in the peanut gallery.

@Carma

@faraday said in The Desired Experience:

Most Sandwich Clubs I've encountered (including the ones I've personally been a part of) are not 100% insular. They may prefer playing with each other, but there's enough tangential encounters that anything you give to them has a chance to spill out to the rest of the game -- especially if the thing you give them leads to some kind of public event, or requires support from the science department, or whatever.

This is really important.

Sandwich Clubs don't usually start because people want to ignore the rest of the game. I think that Sandwich Clubs come about because people can only make so many sandwiches and want to share them with people they are familiar with or, at the least, are not likely to be stalked or harassed by. (Let's not pretend this doesn't happen.)

I am happy to give my sandwiches to whoever wants a sandwich, but I only have so many sandwiches. I prefer to give my sandwiches to people who will not demand all of my sandwiches because I like to share them and interact to do so. When I end up having to give all my sandwiches to one person I feel sad and unbalanced. I don't last long.

So the people I let into my Sandwich Club are the sort of people who understand that I only have so many sandwiches to give. Nonetheless, they like my sandwiches and I like to share them. If others want to come and enjoy my sandwiches, that's great too; however, as more people come to try the sandwiches, the amount of sandwich to share becomes smaller and so sometimes it is less enjoyable.

As long as people respect how many sandwiches a person can make, I think the gaming experience for all will improve.

@carma

If I were a GM, I would leave Sandwich Club alone, as they apparently want. They would be eligible for no position which would require them to RP out of their circle.

If I were part of Sandwich Club, I would want the GM to just leave me alone.

@il-volpe

I agree with you. It is a pity I cannot RP as much as I want, but that is a by-product of how life is for me and a lot of others, I think.

@il-volpe

Why is it not cool to play with folks you want to play with?

@il-volpe

I have literally never said that and will never say that.

But I only have four sandwiches. I can spread them around as best I can, but I refuse to be told who I give them to. That said, where I am right now I came in with no friends. I give sandwiches to whoever wants them. I am lucky if someone takes one.

I still only have four sandwiches. And there is being an awful lot inferred from what I said that simply isn’t what I ever intended.

@faraday said in The Desired Experience:

(ETA: Talking about a generic PC here. I can understand exceptions for featured roles and such where they may have signed up for specific responsibilities as part of taking the spot.)

Same. If you sign up to bring a dozen sandwiches but only bring four I can understand people being soured on that.

@ominous

You can assume what you want, or you can actually read what I wrote.

If I only have four sandwiches to give, I have to be selective about who I give them too. Am I to be blamed if I give them to my friends? They like my sandwiches. They may tell others how awesome my sandwiches are. And others may want my sandwiches, but I can only make four.

The problem I have with the potluck analogy is that it does not take into consideration what people can give. It implies that you should bring something to a game, and I agree, but where I disagree is where and how people judge others based on what they can bring.

If four sandwiches are not enough, that’s fine.
Just be up front about that. And then I will take my sandwiches elsewhere.

Above all things players like feeling wanted.