Posts made by Ganymede

No one can do much for either side of the debate until they realize that Roe v. Wade is obsolete.

@WTFE said in RL Anger:

Given the realities on the ground, however, I lean more to the anti-life crowd than I do the anti-choice.

What's "anti-life" mean for you?

I think in context, it means you support a woman's right to an abortion, but I don't see how or why that's "anti-life."

And neither does the U.S. Supreme Court, which does not vest a "right to exist" in a fetus.

To be clear: there is a state's interest in protecting the potential for life and a woman's right in governing her body. Those are the two competing interests in the abortion debate. And the former supersedes the other where the fetus is viable.

But the fetus does not actually have a right to live until it is born, at which point it is a baby.

This distinction is important. Very important.

@ixokai said in Harassment in VR, there's something we can likely learn from this.:

I don't think that line violated any of our rules as stated, and those rules aren't nitpicky lawyer-level details, ether.

An act does not need to violate a proscribed rule to be considered absolutely wrong.

That's why common law exists.

That's why equitable doctrines exist.

Go with protecting people from feeling uncomfortable. That's the better policy. How you go about doing that is up to you.

@Lisse24 said in RL Anger:

Recently, my sister gave birth to a very early and very small preemie. Born a trimester early and weighing only a pound, there was no guarantee that she would survive the first few hours, although she thankfully did. In fact, the baby's doing extremely well, although there's still no guarantee that she'll ever be brought home.

Much love and prayer to you. My twins were premature, but not that premature. (They spent a month in the NICU.)

I'm pro-life and pro-choice. This confuses a lot of people.

@Arkandel said in Harassment in VR, there's something we can likely learn from this.:

It's important to handle these incidents early, either way. Else they fester.

I get what you're saying, but your example is neither analogous nor particularly good.

First, the issue is how to address a complaint from Player A about Player B. In your example, I, as Player A, don't really make a complaint: I just mention it in passing.

Second, if people want to whack off to my PBs, that's fine. Rooney Mara has a fine scene with Daniel Craig, and Bryce Dallas Howard's been nailed on camera too. Not a problem, and I can help people find those bits online.

Third, presuming I told staff about it, then they should talk to me about it. The fact that I've shrugged it off should not compel staff not to take action, but were I traumatized and fearful that the person would find me in RL if I told anyone, then you'd probably want to carefully consider your strategy, as it may lead to RL ramifications. Like, let's say Player A is the frightened ex-partner of Player B, who has been stalking her from game to game.

We both agree that staff should take some sort of action. What I'm saying is that you need to talk to the complainant first and tailor your strategy on what's said. I'm pretty sure you don't disagree with that.

Finally, people do nag me for RP when I'm playing with Loki or others. It's always been an issue. Thankfully, no one has asked for a naked photo. I haven't quite found the right one.

@Arkandel said in Harassment in VR, there's something we can likely learn from this.:

But I meant what Player A wants staff to do should in no way limit what staff actually does, as there may be a Player B, C or D who aren't talking to staff at all, but who are getting poached as well by the offending player.

Of course not; however, you can't even begin to formulate a plan on how to address the situation without starting with the complainant and respecting their wishes to some extent.

@Arkandel said in Harassment in VR, there's something we can likely learn from this.:

Of course you should talk to the complainant (in fact, even if she's not complaining per se, it's actually pretty common for people to just mention this off the record without filing a grievance). But not for this purpose.

I don't recall stating only one purpose for talking to Player A.

@Arkandel said in Harassment in VR, there's something we can likely learn from this.:

As you know I usually err on the side of being cautious with staff involvement unless it's actually necessary.

That's why it's important to talk to Player A, the complainant. If you don't know what she's looking for, you cannot be sure of what is needed.

@ixokai said in Is there a basics of CG out there somewhere?:

For most cases with most players there's a review and an approve and that's it. This can't be argued as anything but more efficient then hand-statting to my mind. Maybe I'm missing something entirely.

I think the disconnect exists at a circumstantial level.

What you seem to be describing is a system that checks on a pure point-by-point basis; that is, the only function of staff in the process is to ensure that all the dots are put in the right place. On that level, I concur that CGen functions that allow players to set them are more efficient from a staff perspective. But maybe you and I worked on different WoD MU*s; that's just not how it goes or went. (It's entirely likely that we both worked on the same games, actually.)

The general WoD character approval process also involves, generally: (1) looking at a background; (2) checking Breaking Points to make sure they are sensible; (3) reviewing +notes for Merits to make sure they are sensible; and (4) hand-setting XP spends out of CGen. This presumes that the automated CGen checks for pre-requisites, otherwise that's another thing to check. And that could be another thing to check if there are problems with the pre-requisite checks. So, there's going to be staff-involvement -- generally -- above and beyond simply checking point totals.

Plus, as I said before: I like having interaction with my players. Back when, I didn't just point them to the room and say GO FORTH AND MAKE THYSELF. Players interested in joining asked me what I was looking for or wanted or needed, and we actually had conversations to that end. Players wanted to discuss their concepts and how they'd fit in. Players wanted to talk about rule interpretations. Players wanted to talk, and I was happy to talk with them.

I know times have changed. I have less time to fudgel when I'm connected. Still, when I had to hand-stat everything, I could say "trust me," and players would.

@ixokai said in Harassment in VR, there's something we can likely learn from this.:

I think Player A should be protected.

I think Player B crossed a line. BUT.

I don't think that line violated any of our rules as stated, and those rules aren't nitpicky lawyer-level details, ether.

I don't know quite how to resolve these two situations.

I concur with @WTFE that the absence of a direct complaint is irrelevant. My question is: what does Player A want staff to do? Have you had that discussion with her yet?

@Insomnia said in Harassment in VR, there's something we can likely learn from this.:

I guess I'm a misogynist then? I've been on the "Why not, other person did" end of things far too often to otherwise. I'm not being sexually harassed because I'm a girl, I'm being sexually harassed because another woman is encouraging the behavior by using her sexuality. How is that not a problem?

I wouldn't use the term "misogynist," but I would consider your logic profoundly misogynistic.

You're not being sexually harassed because you're a girl. And you're not being sexually harassed because another woman uses her sexuality to get attention or sell products.

You're being sexually harassed because some asshole thinks it's okay to sexually harass you.

Without regard to legality, suppose a woman agrees to have sex with a man for $400, and does so. If that man goes home to his girlfriend and fucks her without her consent, the man is the rapist -- not the hooker. I don't think there's any argument there.

I can understand the idea of "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch." And I understand the sentiment that "floozies on the Internet bring us all down." But let's be very clear here: floozies on the Internet brings us all down because there's a large population of wretched, God-forsaken assholes out there that will make any flimsy connection that seems remotely plausible in order to denigrate a group that they want to subjugate.

They are awful people, and they deserve our ire; the people exercising their freedom to use their tits to sell video games do not.

@ThatGuyThere said in 2016-2017 Basketball Thread:

I mean for a normal person LeBron is still young (31) but for a basketball player he is starting to hit the cusp of old.

I think one should evaluate a player based on the years he's played, rather than his age.

That said, the regular season is a punishing, profit-making siege that is ultimately meaningless. It's how hockey works as well. Less so for football, because getting through 16 games on a weekly basis is hard enough. Don't even get me started on the insanity that is baseball.

@Sunny said in Harassment in VR, there's something we can likely learn from this.:

On one hand, tits for a mount fucking drives me nuts.

It drives me nuts too.

Isn't it just easier and less time-consuming to spend $20 at the local titty bar? And then, they are right there.

@ixokai said in Is there a basics of CG out there somewhere?:

You know, I can't even figure out where we began to disagree, or even why. So, I'll just start over again.

Most of the time on WoD games, a player goes through CGen and waits in the end for approval. Some people go through CGen without incident; for others, it is a siege of frustration. I'm in the former category. I can't remember the last time I really had a problem with getting approved, other than delay by staff.

I can argue efficiency simply because it's demonstrable. People hire me because I'm a lawyer: they can learn the law themselves to petition courts, but I'm frankly better at it because I do it all the time. The same applies here: players don't need to learn how to use CGen commands if staff is handling the statting. All players have to do is send a list of desired stats; that seems pretty easy to me.

I seriously doubt that any CGen involves one command to complete. Even @Thenomain's code requires the review of +notes and the occasion hand-setting.

I'm not suggesting we all go back to hand-statting because it's better. I'm trying to point out that it presents different challenges and different merits. Back in the day, I had a much-closer attachment with my players as well. Why? Because I was the one that helped them cobble together their PCs, for one thing. The other thing was that I had a heart back then.

@Arkandel

What I meant was: Chris Bosh spent a good bit of his formative years on a shit team. And he did fine.

It'd be nice for the Pelicans to have a great player for a little while before he jumps ship.

@Arkandel said in 2016-2017 Basketball Thread:

Anthony Davis needs to go to a real team. His prime is going to get completely wasted on that piece of shit roster he's stuck with.

Chris Bosh has done nicely, minus being a shill for Xarelto.

@ixokai said in Is there a basics of CG out there somewhere?:

I don't know if this is rosy nostalgia or just that your experience was on simpler systems, but I think this wrong: I think there are notably less problems with chargen and notably less frustration with players (especially players who are not experts on the system).

I'm going to nitpick because: why not?

There's nothing inaccurate in my statement. If staff hand-statted everything, players would not have the frustration of having to figure out commands to generate their character.

But, as I also said: you are trading one headache for another. Now the onus is on staff to do the work. So, players have to play the waiting game, which is only really solved by a fully-automated CGen with no approval process.

My experiences are generally on WoD games, but I've found the same experience on non-WoD games. If you make a PC, someone has to check you out before you are fully-approved. To ameliorate the waiting game, there are policies allowing soft-RP to occur in OOC areas; however, you can't really enjoy the full game experience without approval.

My past experience isn't rosy; it's simply different. That doesn't mean my conclusions is wrong either; it's simply and reasonably constructed from different experiences, apparently.

And think about efficiency: if staff must generate PCs for players, they will become better at it. Some staff will be good at it, some will be bad, but those who are good will get better. After hand-statting about a dozen PCs, I could reliably crank one out in 2 minutes using MIAM's code. All I needed was a @mail with the stats.

But, as I said: I think players want control over the process. They may want to hand-wring over where to place their dots, and to shift their stats around on a whim. I know I do that, so I can see why others would too. But if you want that power, then you'll have to put up with the attendant problem of learning CGen commands.

So, you choose fruit, you live with fruit.

@ixokai said in Is there a basics of CG out there somewhere?:

I think the order you do things doesn't really matter, because IMHO chargen is mandatory and until its active a game shouldn't be open to players. Hand-statting sucks-- it requires the users to literally know everything possible and requires them to do no errors and staff to catch the inevitable errors and not make mistakes when setting up the stats. I hate hand statting.

Players like to have control over setting their stats.

What many players may not remember is that there were once games where there was no chargen. What you did was apply for a character, which meant sending @mail to staff about what stats you wanted. Staff would then review the application, and stat the PC for you.

Back in the day, I hand-statted everyone as a staffer. I knew the commands; I knew if the points worked; and it allowed me to interact with the player prior to having them on the game. It was not a bad thing; it was a good thing. It required me to spend more time on the game than I may have wanted, and where there was a dozen apps in one day some people would have to wait longer -- sort of.

Frankly, if staff had to hand-stat everyone, we'd probably avoid a lot of problems, and the frustration of players not knowing how to use the CGen commands. And because most games require a review process anyhow, I don't think it would slow things down substantially.

@Miss-Demeanor said in Harassment in VR, there's something we can likely learn from this.:

@Thenomain I'm not trying to say it never existed before WoD. Hell, it happened in D&D TT's for years before online gaming was even a thing. But WoD actually thematically allows for creeptastic behavior in an IC sense, A lot of the splats were originally built around being a monster in a world where bad shit happening is a day ending in Y. Rarely have I heard as much squawking about creepy/harassing behavior as I have from WoD games.

I'm going to concur with @Thenomain's conclusion that this is a human-based behavior, and that humans are responsible for their creeptastic behavior.

But I'm going to also agree that WoD/CoD opens the door to the defense that "it's in theme, so you shouldn't stop me." The Sabbat are a good example of this, as are the Crones and Acolytes, in the Vampire world.

The thing is that staff, in the past, have stopped at the books, shrugged their shoulders, and carried on as if it were acceptable behavior.

It's not acceptable.

Even if something is "in theme," staff can and should create an environment that is safe for everyone. If players consent to the creepy shit happening to them, that's fine, but if players are not okay with it, staff needs to step on that shit even if it is in theme.

@surreality said in Harassment in VR, there's something we can likely learn from this.:

Anyway, fast forward a few weeks, and my character is on +where as being in a bedroom with someone. Whether they were using the bed or not is sorta irrelevant, because we all know that's what everyone assumes the moment they see 'bedroom', and that particular stupidity is a stupidity to rail against at some other time; the only relevant thing here is: the assumption is definitely there.

I used beds quite often, until someone pointed out that they'd probably do lethal damage if inserted rectally.