Posts made by Ganymede

@Wolfs said:

I'm going to be "that guy."

You're not really "that guy"; you're everyone in the league and on television, and that's fine.

The comment was about dominance, and I was making a counterargument to that. Numbers are numbers.

@Arkandel said:

... But I haven't seen a team this good and dominant at least since the 2000-2001 Lakers. They are even better than some of the great Spurs teams.

I'm not so sure I agree.

Golden State has lost to: the Bucks; the Mavericks; the Nuggets; the Pistons; and the Trail Blazers. These aren't great teams (the Mavs are currently the best at 31-28). I'd expect a dominant team to crush the opposition, and only struggle with teams of their caliber -- like the 2000-2001 Lakers.

The Spurs have a better point differential and give up 10 fewer PPG, even if they have a worse record. The Spurs have more home wins, and are still perfect at home (as the Warriors are). In other words, don't over look the Spurs; they could feasibly trounce the Warriors.

@faraday

This is true.

@Sunny said:

Nope! Sam isn't making any decisions for Ingrid.

In your examples, however, Sam's decisions affect Ingrid.

Corollary: Ingrid is Sam's ghoul, and made the ghoul with Sam's knowledge and consent. Presuming that to be true, does your analysis change?

@Sunny said:

I think that players have no business taking away the agency of other players.

What of the agency of Ingrid's player to play Ingrid as she was designed? Isn't that being taken away by Sam's deliberate evasion?

@Sunny said:

Sometimes something does have to give, and that something is not for handling on a player level.

I cannot agree with you here. I'm more on @Lithium's side of the bench, under the circumstances.

To wit: if I make your PC's IC husband, and you slough off my attempts to RP with you, I am absolutely free to presume that your PC is ICly sloughing off mine in some way, shape, or form. You can protest, of course, but that would require confronting me OOCly -- maybe ICly. But if you're OOCly avoiding me for some reason or another, I doubt you'll do that, and I doubt that whatever harm may come to your PC is substantial, since you won't do anything about it.

Not that you would actually do this to me, of course. I think the salient fact in the situation here is that Sam is online RPing with others. So, it's not like he can't be online because of some RL complication. Here, Sam's player is just being a serious dickbag.

@mietze said:

You can Four Paragraph me any time you want to, Gany.

Being tiresome and rude isn't the same as being long and rough, no matter how others use the words, darling.

@mietze said:

If it helps there was also a discussion about how a poser that's way mismatched for others (in a scene of 1-2 paragraph posers, they are hammering others with 3-4 of fluff and thinking it makes them a better RPer/writer/what have you) can be tiresome and rude?

Hey, now.

I'm not tiresome and rude because I like using paragraph breaks in my poses. I'm tiresome and rude because of my holier-than-thou attitude.

@Arkandel said:

What I think will make or break them in the playoffs is how the referees treat them. One of the main reasons they have the record they do - other of course than the fact they have several amazing shooters and passers at the same time - is the illegal screens they get to set to get Curry/Klay open looks.

Even if you removed Draymond Green from that play, the defender would not have been able to get to or stop Curry from taking the shot. Plus, I've seen Curry make several of those kinds of shots, even when contested.

That said, yeah, that's a pretty illegal screen to me.

@Arkandel said:

How the hell do you stop a guy who can do this?

Possession ball. That's it.

You can't fast-break this team. You do that; you give the ball back; and then they score. All you can do is play solid defense, take your time on offense, and hope that Curry twists his ankle or something.

And then, you only have to worry about Klay Thompson.

@Thenomain

This.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8kRdM7dbJE

@Sunny said:

From her post, I did not get the impression that Ingrid app'd in with Sam's cooperation; it sounded to me like the characters are linked in history/the source material, rather than something agreed on, and given it's NOT a situation like a leadership role (just playing an FC on a comic game doesn't qualify unless there are specific rules pertaining to this), I'm with @Arkandel on this one. Sam's player doesn't owe her anything, and to be honest if I were Sam and I read this about her considering asking staff to MAKE me play with her? That would not make me want to play with her more.

Sunny, you ignorant slut.

No, I have no witty rejoinder here, but, for the moment, I thought it might be funny if I went all Justice Scalia on your Notorious RBG opinion.

@Arkandel said:

And you'd have been justified to, but where did you read Sam asked the OP to make Ingrid?

It is reasonably inferred from Ingrid's statement about having her background tied intimately into Sam's. You generally don't do that without Sam's knowledge or consent, so I presumed that Sam had knowledge that Ingrid was coming in as Ingrid. And if you have that knowledge -- and give consent to have one's BG tied so closely to another -- you're implicitly inviting that person into your PC's life.

Certainly, it was reasonable for Ingrid to presume that Sam would make time for her, especially after he said he wouldn't. And then he didn't.

@Arkandel

Read the specific scenario above; you're wandering into hypotheticals.

If I make a PC to play with someone, and that someone asked me to make the PC, I will be downright bitchy if they turn me down thrice and are playing with others. I may even end up tossing the PC entirely and moving on with my life. This has happened to me a few times, so I've learned to always make a PC that is capable of handling their shit on their own; becoming part of a troupe can be tumultuous and aggravating, and unfulfilling even if it pans out.

@Coin

There's no rush on it, but I intend to spend a good deal of time this weekend coming up with modules and shit.

@Thenomain said:

You tell people to pre-pose. I see people pre-posing an entire pose which either ignores everything they weren't posing for, or shoe-horns following elements so that they end up posing independent reactions to everyone. When I warned before that bit that I was going to be wrong or pedantic to make a point, this is kind of what I meant.

I just found this; sorry, man.

I actually tell people to "pose-queue," but that's a pedantic difference. And, yes, I agree that a framework is best, which you alter as others pose. But, to be honest, I did not think I'd ever have to thoroughly describe what I was getting at, as I learned to "pose-queue" early in my career and it is instinctual now.

I also agree that shoe-horning individual reactions is sort of stupid. Pose-queuing does cut down on the time needed to create a good pose for a situation as it unfolds, though, so I encourage the practice in scenes with more than 3 people.

@Thenomain said:

The problem with talking about "IC/OOC Separation" is that has become misleading as to the nature of these tools, and that's something you've ignored me saying (for reasons I literally cannot understand don't understand). The term is now a label, and practically a cliche, that does not help our hobby one bit.

And yet "IC/OOC Separation" is an important concept that we should discuss regularly, as in: "just because someone is fucking with your PC IC does not mean they are necessarily doing so for OOC reasons." Which is, I think, what Lithium is getting at.

Like "capitalism," it's important to remind people how the concept has been perverted from what was once quite a noble, sensible idea.

@Lithium

Again, I don't think your perspective and Theno's are necessarily incompatible. He argues that all choices are motivated by the player's creativity, understanding, and biases, which I agree with. Your argument that choosing between available options does not necessarily connote an OOC ulterior motivation, belief, or attitude is also agreeable.

@faraday said:

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer, just different playstyles.

I would call them different "play preferences."

@Thenomain said:

8. Know a little bit of what you're going to do in your next pose. Not all of it, but some of it.

This answers such a huge peeve I have, especially when @Ganymede says to "pre-pose".

Uh, I can't break this one. Someone help me out on this one.

I do not understand what you're getting at here. Care to rephrase?

@Lithium said:

It's that I, myself, literally have no idea how you could come up with the idea that there is zero separation between our characters and ourselves.

An illustration.

My PC, Erin, punches your PC in the face. Your PC reacts by getting angry. Your PC could have reacted by punching back, presuming that this is within the realms of how your PC would have reacted in a similar circumstance; however, you OOCly made the choice to react by getting angry.

Suppose, out of those two choices, you decide by rolling a die: even, get angry; and odd, punch back. You still decided OOCly to make the choice by die roll.

I see both of your perspectives, and don't find them as mutually-exclusive as they may seem.

Hopefully, that helps you two in your spat.