Posts made by Ghost

@ZombieGenesis said in Dead Celebrities 2019:

@ghost You know Wade Bogg's is still alive, right? Or is this an Always in Sunny thing...?

Would I post a thing related to Always Sunny in Philadelphia? Moi?

Season 10, Episode 1: The Gang Beats Boggs

Today would have been Wade Boggs' 61st Birthday. He once drank 70 beers during a single flight across the USA.

RIP Boss Hogg.

...

Come on.

@Admiral There was controversy about an in-game ad featuring a trans model, so now the character creation for CP2077 is under the microscope as to whether or not they'll allow trans characters, which signs currently point to yes/maybeYes

@Roz said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

I am having a GRUMPY DAY for no good reason. That is all.

Watch Muppet Show clips on YouTube. It helps.

Sylvester Stallone on Muppet Show was pretty solid.

@Sparks said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

it came across as his choice to step away from the conversation rather than do so.

Just an FYI. I did not step away as a decision rather to do so, but that I saw the conversation was becoming a minefield and that expounding on my viewpoints (whether or not people were going to agree with them) wasn't worthwhile.

I think that sometimes when people dissect posts for signs of ugly thoughts/feelings without really asking them what their viewpoint is, the end result is a scenario where upset people are seeking a sort of submission to whatever their perceived (and often negative) assumptions are. The assumption of having been educated or agreeing with one's viewpoint ends up being more important than the conversation, itself.

If you'd like to ask me in private what my views are, or would like to discuss, you know how to find me. It would probably be more productive.

@Kanye-Qwest said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

@Ganymede yeah and he also entirely neglected to acknowledge or mention the mountains of bias that have absolutely, 100% resulted in these types of jobs being almost entirely staffed by men, so let's not act like that omission means nothing.

I was not aware that I was required to.

So youre saying that, as a man (myself), acknowledging the state of balance in gender roles in the IT industry is/was required as preamble to simply giving hiring advice?

I didn't come to testify before Congress. Just give hiring advice.

@Roz said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

@Ghost said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

Apologies. I thought we were answering a guy asking for advice.

That's really unkindly dismissive.

I think you're stretching the definition of unkind a bit there.

I involved myself to give my advice on the matter; not to attend church. Someone asked that I step out and I think that's a good idea.

Apologies. I thought we were answering a guy asking for advice. I'll step away.

@Sparks @faraday Just wanna pop in and say that I, in no way, was saying that or had any malice. Politics is just probably the base word to use, but I'm not that guy that groks too much on the whole Convservative vs. Liberal shit.

Like you, I don't want to have to prove my technical capabilities against anything that I was born into. I don't assume anyone has to prove anything other than whether or not they can do the work, which is any job, really.

My job entails scripting, documentation, environment detailing, and writing of process. I've got a guy on my team who has somehow been coasting for 7 years by doing business as usual changes and has no capability (and has never done) of doing any of those things. It's unbelievable. I'd gladly see him replaced with someone who will, and frankly don't care what gender, nationality, or religion that person is.

I'll never say or suggest that someone has to prove their skill/worth in spite of who they are. Logically, though, any hiring manager has to weigh their responsibility to hire the best candidate for the job against the weight of any cultural biases they may have. That is a balancing act.

I said the same thing everyone else did: choose the right people/good team.

@faraday said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

@Ghost said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

What you're in is a Catch-22 with your politics....I can tell you that not a one would be alright with having gotten a sort of socio-political bump over their skill set to support their gender/culture/religious tropes.

While I agree that nobody should be hired solely because of their gender/culture/etc. if they can't do the job, there are well-documented systemic biases and challenges that do require conscious thought and effort to combat. It's very easy for somebody to fall into the trap of thinking that "the best person for a job" is somebody exactly like them, who does the job in the same way they do. And that's the kind of BS thinking that leads to non-diverse workplaces.

ETA - There are a ton of articles about bias in hiring decisions. Here's a nice one: 7 Practical Ways to Reduce Bias in Your Hiring Process, and its lead paragraph is pretty spot-on:

A vast body of research shows that...unconscious racism, ageism, and sexism play a big role in who gets hired.

If something is unconscious, it takes conscious thought to overcome it, so it's good that @Arkandel is taking the time to think about these things.

Oh all of this is solid advice. Not long ago my whole division went through an unconscious bias training that was totally in my wheelhouse; I loved it. When you really think about it, bias plays a huge role in all kinds of baseline assumptions, and keeping your bias in check isn't a thing you succeed at; it's a muscle you have to always train.

For me, my work-hiring bias comes from having had to deal with unprofessional management giving bennies to their friends, and some coworkers who for the life of me I can't understand why they keep getting promoted despite having very few of the actual skills required for the job. So I'm at risk in my bias when it comes to candidates who say stuff that strokes those hackles.

Hence my advice to Ark. Which was biased.

Unconscious bias training is rad, and my zen Whitman transcendental Aurelius-loving ass couldn't get enough of it.

@Arkandel I've been in my current IT Ops group for over 7 years now, and here is my advice:

Build a team who can do the job.

What you're in is a Catch-22 with your politics. At the end of the day, IT is about skills and experience. It's a Catch-22 because if you take a female candidate who isn't as skilled as another male candidate, your team will suffer. If you give a woman a bump out of bias, then you're not hiring her solely for her skills, which isn't right either. At the end of the day, all you can do is build your team with the best people you can get, and if that ends up being a diverse team? Great. If not? It was the applications you had available at the time.

You will know, deep inside, if you hired the wrong candidate for the wrong reasons. It may work out, it may not, but you'll always feel it in your gut.

I work with a fairly diverse culture. Plenty of men and women, and many from China, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Japan, Russia, and Canada. I can tell you that not a one would be alright with having gotten a sort of socio-political bump over their skill set to support their gender/culture/religious tropes.

A good IT boss looks for skills and chemistry. Be a good boss, put together your elite squad, and then whatever mix of cultures and genders you end up with, be supportive of them. Also, whatever you do, never mention their diversity as a deciding factor in the interviews. They'll love you for being excited about their brains.

@Chime This is absolutely true. Would also provide some additional security.

@Admiral said in From my heart.:

So I'm going to forget this nonsense until it becomes relevant again

I totally believe you. You're totally gonna forget about this.

@Ganymede said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

But why?

It's a good question, and you're not wrong.

I gave the example that I did because it's a good example of when the consent system on a statless game meets a failure of good staffing. I've never been a fan of it, myself, but there are often very well-worded policies about behavior, but the number of reasons why they may not be enforced ranges from "because they're a friend" to fear of mass exodus due to staff being firm. That's why this stuff happens, and you're 100% correct that a stateless, cooperation-based system should be as simple as that. In a lot of cases it works fine, but when it breaks and staff waffle about confronting players, ooooo it's rough.

Altogether though, I think the class of musher who prefers diceless all-consent games may be a slightly different creature than the one who is comfortable with stats and dice resolution.

This is why I personally like prefer dice-based superhero mush systems. At the end of the day, people can stop arguing about who has the bigger dick and simply break out the measuring tape. Some people just don't understand characters have flaws and they just parade power power power, and wireless resolution can mean for some players only not-winning when they choose to or are forced to.

@Ganymede said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

I’m still lost as to why any of the above matters, regarding power levels.

On a game which seems to be based on traits and consent, how are power levels material in everyday RP?

Superhero games can be weird if the wrong players get the wrong characters, even if it's consent-based. Doubly so if there's no system defining win/loss, conflict resolution, etc.

I think sometimes the wrong players go for the most powerful characters that can do (in theory) almost anything, because when the game is mostly "talking it out", the concept that said Omega-Level mutant can travel through time to correct failures or Dr. Strange can literally rewrite the universe to hand himself a win is stuff that does get argued over from time to time.

I remember a guy playing the "most powerful telepathy in the universe" once who basically held an entire scene IC hostage so that he could ICly take his "girlfriend character" (who he was Oocly harassing) out of the scene. Dont get me started, I know staff shoulda slammed down on that (they didn't), but it's an example of how the wrong player can take the wrong power concept too far. Especially in this case, where the player was also staff.

That example I just gave was one of the more surreal experiences I had mushing, because while ICly this guy was using his character to ICly be a "forceful boyfriend" (she leaves with me or everyone suffers ICly) trope, oocly he was doing the same thing (you will suffer this ooc drama until she leaves with me).

I am going to hold off on being excited about the Avengers. It's unfinished, but looks dated and looks like it's nothing special. Hopefully more details will come.

I just ordered shrimp fried rice and a Sprite.

Fuck yeah.

You dont owe me an apology. Take care of yourself and be happy.

Theres no need to worry about a clean slate when I'm not keeping score.

@surreality said in GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits:

@Ghost said in GMs: Typical Player/GM Bad Habits:

But then again I've dropped OUT of PrPs because another player I knew needed the scene more than me. I'd like to see more of that, too. Maybe ask "hey this person didn't sign up in time, but the PrP is currently important to their stuff. Anyone keen to give up their seat?"

I've done this, too. If I was GMing something like this and saw this happen, were it in my power to do so, I'd probably toss that player a small XP thing for good-sport-ness.

Maybe if xp is the draw for rando people signing up for PrPs they have little care for, maybe a little compensation could be the answer. I mentioned a while back in some other thread something like a "PrP token" for giving up your spot, and each PrP has 1 slot for a "token holder" and if no one spends that token to get in 48 hours before the PrP then it goes to first bidder. Limited to 1 token per 3 months per player or something.

Just an idea.