Posts made by Ganymede

You have my interest, Sunny. What's your circle coming in as?

Help me. What's a fatkini?

Well, here's my listy-list.

On the Reach: Clarice; Ripley (still re-specing); and Mark (well, soon to be)
On Reno: Max
On By Right of Blood: Dan (still working to finish him up)

@Thenomain

Hey. Fuck you.

You wish you were as cool as us.

@Admiral said:

I am allowed to hate Renner as much as I choose. It doesn't have to be reasonable.

Very well. Your dislike is reprehensibly unreasonable. Also, your face is stupid.

By the same token, V:TM 20 tweaked Celerity and Potence a little, and thereby balanced out the physical disciplines.

I'd check the lease first. Most include provisions related to terminating the lease or not renewing it after termination. At first blush, the new management appears to be nothing illegal.

Anything? MediaWiki seems to be the popular choice. Wikia is terrible.

I logged on to check this place out. CGen is easy to get through. Playerbase seems a little low on active players doing shit.

The wiki is really clunky, though, and could use some work.

@The-Tree-of-Woe said:

By Right of Blood: CWoD Sabbat, in need of players who will both make the effort to explore genre and stay around long enough for the game to build up a playerbase.

Finishing up a playerbit right now. If anyone wants to go in on making an aggressive, domineering Path of Night pack, let me know.

ASUS seem to have heat issues, but are pretty durable. Plus, they are cheap on Newegg.

Despite conversing on this already, I'm not exactly sure what they are looking for. It's not so much the "black person from a single parent home," so much as the same if they profess a love for fried chicken, smoking weed, and loving krunk.

Mind, I think Lil' Jon'd make a fun concept to play.

Yes, but my argument has always been that "harmful stereotype of black, poor people" isn't a bad character concept to have. You've conceded that the problem is how the characters are played, as opposed to the concepts themselves, so I still fail to see why one should block any concept at all.

Except for the Strider Rom, I'm all for banning that shit.

I don't see how sharing your prejudices here is useful. I think I've demonstrated the contrary. People may be attracted to the idea of a game that lacks "damaging stereotypes," but I think a lot of people aren't.

@The_Supremes

I doubt you'll find anyone on this board who wouldn't want to forget anything related to Gypsies in the CWoD.

That said, if your statements are not bans, why mention them at all? Weigh each application as you see them come in. This will make the game seem more inclusive.

@The_Supremes

You're probably incorrect to assess that you don't know me. I probably know you, and have probably bumped into an alt or two of yours long ago. That's been my experience recently.

Even so, you probably won't. The message to me -- intentional or not -- is that the game's staff don't trust the players to play their characters, stereotype or otherwise, well. They've prejudged them, which, although reasonable, runs contrary to the idea of being inclusive or combating prejudices (presuming that this is part of the reason the game is not letting the stereotypes on in the first place).

If these are the policies from on-high, that's fine. But they are, in my opinion, the wrong sort of policies to adopt, especially based on the proffered explanations.

@HelloRaptor said:

Vampires don't get picked on because they're easy to fight, they get picked on because 1) they have a pretty terrible reputation for being mind raping* sadists, and 2) because more often than not the people playing them seem incapable of treating any non-vampires like anything but shit, despite evidence of just how poor an idea that is.

Let me add something: (3) vampire PCs are often played by fucking morons who are just begging to have their PCs gacked for doing incredibly stupid things.

@Wizz @The_Supremes

I don't often name-drop, but Sunny is one of the exceptions. There are many reasons: she's been around a long, long time; she has operated a game; she has witnessed the utter destruction of games; she has played in the genre as long as I have (which is pretty fucking long); and she's a kind and thoughtful player that I personally find delightful. Most importantly, I'm not alone.

I'm not asking The Supremes to sit quietly. I'm telling them that they are confronting a player that others will listen to. This is not to suggest for a moment that her opinion is any more or less true than The Supremes' explanation; this is to suggest that if one drives Sunny to give what equates to a negative review, that's a blemish. And the reason why it's important in this case to listen rather than defend is because of appearances, which is important to the advertisement.

This genre operates by credibility and appearance. This is why "the truth" is irrelevant. This is also why defending the game and its policies is largely pointless, especially when one is simply advertising for activity. In short, I'm not suggesting that The Supremes shut up and conform; I'm suggesting that The Supremes pick and choose carefully how to respond and what to respond to.

That said, I've taken a look at the wiki page, and, regarding the Werewolf section, I concur with Sunny. I am of the opinion that banning "stereotypes" is as prejudicial as the laws and policies that remain prevalent in the real world. I respect the sentiment behind them, but think that the policies are contrary to the spirit of inclusion and respect that the game apparently wishes to foster.

I want to play a man-hating "feminist" Black Fury stereotype; it is fun for me to play through how that mindset will help or hinder her pack. I want to play a Hispanic Bone Gnawer janitor with a huge family, so that other werewolves can see his Rage when his family is attacked. When it comes to offensive stereotypes, the issue isn't what the character is, but who is playing them. And you're really not going to learn who your good and bad players are until you get them in the door.

How to loosen the system? Minimize the application requirements to a simple set of questions that can be answered via bullet-point sentences. Let the players play. Address issues as they rise.

@The_Supremes said:

You must be new around here, or around these boards in general, so I'll tell you a couple of things you'll want to know if you want your game to reach out and succeed.

First, Sunny's probably one of the nicer people around here. She's got far more experience running a MU*, as far as I can tell from your resume (I know I do, and she's got some on me, I think). When she says the application process seems deceptive, and is more involved than you attest to, that is a somewhat influential opinion. Whether it is right or wrong is mostly irrelevant.

Second, if you're advertising here, then you likely want to attract interested people to try your game out. As you've been around online games like MUSHes, I hope you'll concur that these games are part-setting, part-policies, and part-cult-of-personality. So, if you hope to reach your goal -- getting players from here -- adopting a personable, inviting air is a good idea, whereas a defensive, standoffish, or otherwise off-putting air might be counterproductive.

Third, if you haven't been around MUSHes for a few years, you're likely a stranger here. If you're a stranger here, realize that you're entering a community that has old hats, as well as new ones. Going back to my second point, it might behoove you to be personable and inviting, rather than critical of others' opinions.

Finally, if you could not tell from warnings, there are some folks here that take pleasure in digging their claws under your fingernails for the hell of it. There are others that will criticize your game to death for our own agendas and purposes. Separating the constructive criticisms from the unconstructive ones will save you a great deal of pain. Also, attempting to defend yourself here is an exercise in futility. Most members here will independently investigate on their own, no matter what people post (myself included). When you respond, however, that may give those independently-minded people a basis to rule out your game.

Sidenote: the location of the U.S. Supreme Court's most recent watershed eminent domain case was New London; I could not tell if your citation to Kelo was calculated to refer to the location or the government entity involved, but thought I would add some clarity (and to demonstrate nitpickiness).

My suggestion: loosen up on the application process. A lot. Players these days are far more tolerant of policing once they have their PCs, rather than weeding out people prior to the approval. This is mostly laziness on the part of players, I suppose, but the trick from your perspective is to get the customers in the door.

@Three-Eyed-Crow

It's not that simple everywhere, but documenting these events is a good thing. I'd also brush up on your company's policies regarding claiming FMLA leave.

@The-Tree-of-Woe said:

The only "antagonist" genre in CWoD I like playing are Sabbat -- they're the only ones that have free will, excluding Technocrats.

Wait, what?

The Code of Milan sort of ensures that free will is a false construct among the Sabbat. The Vinculum ensures that soldiers don't stray too far.

Maybe I was playing a different game than you, but being a Sabbat was rather antithetical to the concept of "free will." Their motto was: JOIN ME OR DIE COULD YOU DO ANY LESS?!?