Posts made by HelloRaptor

@WTFE

Spoken like someone who's never watched a dozen "modern" replacements come in at ten times budget (in both time and money) and still not actually managed to replace the system that it was intended to replace.

Spoken like someone who's never dealt with budgets (in both time and money) based on unrealistic expectations for what things should cost or how long they should take, or situations where 'not actually manage' is just code for 'awkward due to unfamiliarity'.

A decade? That's what you think is old and decrepit?

Read for comprehension, you curmudgeonly fuck. I was pretty clearly speaking about software systems built for functioning within an OS with a modern counterpart, not embedded systems probably built in the 50s.

Further, 'shit that became common 10 years ago' is not the same thing as 'a decade old makes something old and decrepit' by any reasonable standard of understanding what the fuck someone is saying, especially when speaking about technology.

In either case, examples of shit like code written before Unix was even a thing were clearly well outside the realm of what I was talking about in that quote.

I know techies love to use the latest hotness, but only a dumb businessman listens to techies breathlessly talking up their grand future vision of modern hardware and modern software. If you have a system that works and does what you need, you don't replace it. You introduce a new system iff you have clearly-identified business needs that are not being met by your existing system. And even then, you probably start by having the new system only augment what you've got until it has proven itself and can be expanded to replace.

All of which completely ignores the fact that I flat out said that what you had said was true, so why you thought you had to rehash that shit here I have no idea.

What I was talking about, and why @Shebakoby's gripe is still perfectly valid, are companies running old ass programs that are so far past no longer supported and quickly reaching the point where they aren't going to be compatible with a modern OS in any reliable way while still needing to use a modern OS for everything else. And specifically, as I already said, when there are viable modern alternatives even if they aren't perfect.

This is especially a problem when the industry you're a part of is moving forward with that modern alternative regardless of its imperfection. It doesn't really matter if what you're trying to do was best done on an original Macintosh or Windows 3.0 machine, on Version 1 of whatever program you're using, when the people you're in business with are on Windows 7 using Version 8 of whatever that program is, and those versions are incompatible due to changes in how the program works and organizes data. At some point you're going to have to suck it up and move forward.

If you've seriously, for real, in all honesty never run into one of the many examples of organizations running wildly outdated software that they can and should have moved on from, but haven't due to a combination of fearing the unfamiliarity of the new and being unwilling to pay employees to learn a new system before it gets implemented and a million other examples of them just clinging to the past 'because it works' even when it is clearly not going to keep working for much longer? Then really, you have lived a charmed fucking life.

But they do exist, and it is pretty common to run across, and it is pretty fucking frustrating. Especially when they want all the bells and whistles and advancements a modern OS provides but don't want to let go of some shit that came out the same decade as the original version of the OS.

HERE IS SOME BOLD TEXT TO INDICATE YOU SHOULD PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING:

Much like I said before, everything you described is true, from the catastrophic results of trying to update embedded systems by companies more interested in showing off those bells and whistles than creating a functional replacement (they often get paid regardless), to the techheads who will want to replace everything with the most cutting edge modern version of itself even when it's not necessary or even detrimental to the process.

But what I said, and what @Shebakoby was griping about, are also true. We're just talking about different aspects of the same general issue, and none of us are wrong. Aside from the bits where you were wrong about what you quoted.

@Coin said:

@Ganymede said:

@Coin said:

No. I just have a higher opinion of him than you, probably.

I don't consider my opinions high or low. It only matters if they are accurate or not.

Opinions are by definition judgments not necessarily based on fact. They can't be "accurate" or "inaccurate". They can be informed and misinformed and --you get the point.

@HelloRaptor said in WoD MUSH Comparison?:

@Coin said:
I shouldn't have replied in the first place. Too little sleep, and I slipped. Won't happen again, he typed optimistically.

Not sure if sincere, or sarcastic FTFY typo.

Fingers crossed for the former! So tight!

Ugh. Okay, so replying again for the sake of clarification: I had typed up a long response, realized I was doing so after saying I wouldn't, and deleted it to type the above, didn't realize I had also deleted the part that was the body of your quote.

I fucked up my sleep schedule over the weekend so stayed up all night and mostly through the day, then caught a couple of hours to tide me over so I can hopefully fall asleep tonight and sleep till morning, but in the meantime I'm kind of a zombie. Sorry for the confusion.

@Coin said:
I shouldn't have replied in the first place. Too little sleep, and I slipped. Won't happen again, he typed optimistically.

@Three-Eyed-Crow said:

@HelloRaptor said:

There comes a point where you need to bite the fucking bullet and move up. The number of times I've talked to companies that have perfectly viable (maybe not perfectly, but still viable) modern alternatives but don't want to spend the money or time to train people to use them, is just infuriating.

My first job was at a weekly newspaper that still used dial-up Internet service. I used to beg to go back to my apartment to do anything online, where I could use my cable modem.

I love how people are like... shocked and awed that there's still dial-up internet service at all.

@Coin

And sometimes making people roll blind is just a way of making sure knowledge doesn't color their reactions.

Yeah, wouldn't want people we otherwise trust getting unconsciously influenced in their decisions by-

Sorry, choked on the... irony? Hypocrisy? I can never tell which is which these days.

@Derp

Frankly, the code has come far enough that unless you have access to God and the server itself, cheating is next to impossible. With everything backed up through SQL and such, not stored on the game itself, it's next to literally impossible to cheat with things like xp. Staffers could do their own xp jobs just with other staffers occasionally peeking at their xp/log.

I needed a good laugh. Way to go, I appreciate it.

@WTFE said:

@silentsophia said:

@Shebakoby Having worked campus IT, it's probably both underfunding and people refusing to give up things they are comfortable with (thrown in with 'but it still WORKS!')

"But it still works!" is the single best reason to keep a system in operation. I know that among techies it's all annoying that someone dares to use stuff that was around when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, but the claim that "you could replace it with modern software/hardware and it will be All Better" has been exposed as utter and complete bullshit so many times and in so many ways that smart business managers are correct to give such claims a dubious eye.

Replacing a system that works with a new, as yet untried, system is an incredibly risky venture. There are a lot of up-front costs with no conceivable return for months to years (depending on the size of the project)—and those returns may not even happen!

About three out of every four software projects are deemed failures by the people who make them (Source: Brooks), and the people making them have a vested interest in claiming that they were the greatest thing since sliced bread. I suspect, from years of observation, that were you to ask the actual end-users if the software project was a success you'd see that number rise to 9944 times out of ten thousand.

What kind of sucker places expensive bets where the people who have a vested interest in pumping up the success statistics are saying "well, you'll lose 3/4 of the time"? Why would you do that when you can use a system that is provably doing its job right now?

While everything you've said here is technically true, @Shebakoby's gripe is still valid, because 'but it still works' is often a tenuous statement at best, and what they really mean is 'but because we have sixteen workarounds, four kludges, and two pieces of gum in place, it still works!' and that shit only 'still works' in the sense that a rickety suspension bridge that hasn't actually dropped someone into a ravine 'still works' until the moment it doesn't, and that moment will be soon.

When it's getting to the point your program won't even run in a modern OS, and by 'modern OS' we're talking about things that became common a decade ago, it's time to look at more modern options and stop clinging to the familiar comfort of your old ass bullshit. People in the construction project planning industry and holding on to a program written for DOS, that won't even run on 64bit operating systems, and runs for shit in emulation, but then complain that everything ELSE they have to use runs so fucking slow because they're stuck using <4GB of RAM with half a dozen programs open.

There comes a point where you need to bite the fucking bullet and move up. The number of times I've talked to companies that have perfectly viable (maybe not perfectly, but still viable) modern alternatives but don't want to spend the money or time to train people to use them, is just infuriating.

@Ganymede said:

@HelloRaptor said:

And set their own notes, and judge their own scenes. PVP even.

If it's just about trust, and you trust the people involved, these should be no problem. Maybe they aren't, to you. I personally see it as having to do with shit other than trust, but I appear to be in the minority here.

Sure. Make the +notes public. Make a 'log or it didn't happen' policy. Transparency helps to build trust.

Of course, no. Why do that? Let's just stick to the way we've been doing shit for years, pretending that players can't trust staff, and vice versa.

You're right. All the games should do that. Everyone will be completely reassured and we can all live happily in an ideal paradise. I look forward to the day that the world embraces that ideal, and we can have referees playing on one of the teams they're officiating for. Because as long as they're trustworthy, there's no possible way their direct involvement could influence their calls.

I was a fool to have doubted your vision.

@Ganymede said:

@HelloRaptor said:

Yeah. Storytellers bringing their own characters is a recipe for making other players feel awkward.

This can be true, but so can the opposite.

Might as well toss in and give it a shot. I concur with @Coin. The entire fucking game is about trust, and with the proper code and policies in place, there's no reason why staff can't set their own XP requests.

And set their own notes, and judge their own scenes. PVP even.

If it's just about trust, and you trust the people involved, these should be no problem. Maybe they aren't, to you. I personally see it as having to do with shit other than trust, but I appear to be in the minority here.

@silentsophia said:

@HelloRaptor Holy crap. Texas is going to be cold this week.

I look forward to your anguish when it hits over a hundred. ^_^

@Roz said:

@HelloRaptor said:

TV shows in 2015 which depict any business with modern office spaces using dot matrix printers for anything but large scale data logging. What the fuck?

My office technology is laughably outdated, but even we don't have those.

(What shows are these?!)

It was CSI, but I went back and checked and he was actually printing a large batch of line data from a car's onboard computer, so it's passable and I was wrong. >_<

@Sunny

WoD is one thing, but this is actually dramatically different in several other genres. It's not an entirely reasonable issue across the board -- it might be entirely reasonable within the context of the games you enjoy/play on/play in, but it's nowhere near as universal as you're presenting it.

WoD, D&D, Pathfinder, Shadowrun, basically any game where potentially lethal conflict is pretty common.

It's rather the norm in at least two genres, every LARP game I've ever played in/was a storyteller for, and I'd say in 75% of the tabletop games I've played, the GM has a character in it.

My condolences. Like I said, there's going to be people for whom it's not an issue. If you're one of them, more power to you.

People bitching on TR really shouldn't be used as a litmus for something being reasonable or not.

TR was used as an example because it's the single largest game that @Coin and I both played on the most recently. Since it's been a thing at basically every MU* and tabletop game I've ever played in, I could make the list more expansive, but I didn't think it was really necessary.

@Coin

I disagree. That's still about trust.

Since you're just ignoring shit and repeating yourself, I'll bow out.

A++, @Coin, you're totally right.

TV shows in 2015 which depict any business with modern office spaces using dot matrix printers for anything but large scale data logging. What the fuck?

@Coin

I think that the level of awkwardness regarding inserting your own character in a scene you're running is almost entirely to do with the level of comfort and trust that the other players are willing to put in you, and how you present yourself as a storyteller and a player.

That's such a bullshit sidestep. Why do we not allow staff to do their own xp spends, set their own notes, make rule calls about situations their PCs are involved in right then, etc? Why, if Bob and Joe just got in a huge OOC screaming fight at one another on the channels, do we generally not let Bob's staffbit respond to a PK situation Joe is in with somebody immediately after?

Because no matter how much we might trust those people 99% of the time, no matter how much we believe they would absolutely try not to let their conflict of interest interfere, people make mistakes. If Joe dies as a result of the scene, is it ever going to be possible to say that Bob's fight with him didn't slant any of the rulings against him? If Joe survives but the opposing character dies, is an accusation that a shitty call was the result of him overreacting to trying not to penalize Bob and going too far ever going to be answered without reasonable doubts?

While you're correct that the issues some people have can stem from a lack of trust, we can trust someone to do their best and not deliberately make calls or decisions based on their PC being in the scene, while still being uncomfortable with the situation because of uncertainty over the unintentional weight it puts on those calls or decisions. Did Bob get taken out of play because you kept your PC back when it could have intervened, because you didn't want to take the spotlight and thought someone else would do it? How about because you rolled a random number for attack of all PCs present, and Bob got hit because your PC added to the count, when otherwise it would have hit Joe instead who would definately have survived? The awareness that the only reason he went down was because the random outcome was influenced by your PC being present has nothing to do with trust in you and everything to do with the easily focused frustration that your PC being present provides, because getting upset with a randomly generated number isn't very satisfying.

You can think it's horseshit all you want, but on TR the complaints about people STing scenes where their own character was present was fucking rampant, and was almost never about them grandstanding or stealing focus or anything of the sort. It was about bullshit randomness that was easily blamed on them, or how they didn't step in to do the thing everybody knew they could, but nobody felt like they could take them to task IC since people OOCly understood they were trying to not be That Guy/Gal. Or bitching about some PC gaining IC benefit from the outcome of the scene that his player ST'd for his own pack/coterie/etc. How far does trust go when there's a pretty direct line of benefit from Bob running a scene for his pack and Bob's PC also reaping the rewards they bring back?

Meh. I've no doubt there are people who don't give a fuck one way or another, but let's try not to pretend it's not an entirely reasonable issue that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with trust.

@ThatOneDude said:

@HelloRaptor To me it seems odd to think this should be the norm, I mean I get it and I've done it with friends. Where we end up having our own little slice inside of the game, but, what about the other 50 players? We never interact with them? Its seems very counter intuitive to the idea of a system that brings people together to RP.

What does any of that have to do with whether or not a ST brings their PC into a story they're running? o.O

@Arkandel said:

@Derp said:

Find two or three people and run plots for each other. Your PC can even be in them, just try to let the other people have the spotlight.

YMMV but I could never do that. If my PC is directly involved in a scene I'm running I'd be too self-conscious about it - am I giving him too many breaks? Am I trying too hard to not hog the spotlight? Awkward all over.

I just need a good excuse for the character to not be present and his friends can go off and get themselves into grand adventures without him. Those jerks.

Yeah. Storytellers bringing their own characters is a recipe for making other players feel awkward. However good your intentions are, it's pretty reliable that you're either going to be too easy or too hard and probably not as useful as you would normally be, for whatever reason, and that nobody should react to that reason later because it's just a pretense for not stealing any shows, if you went that route. If things randomly target, would Other Guy not have gotten killed if your PC hadn't been there? If things aren't randomly targeted, why did Other Guy get targeted instead of your PC?

Even the very best of us aren't above being being influenced by our subconscious, so how much did your PC being there change the outcome, if that outcome was undesirable and/or not fun?

Awkward all around. Someone bringing their PC along is generally a good enough excuse for me to bow out, for all those reasons and so many more. Reasons you can't ever really do or say anything to circumvent.

This is one of the reasons I dislike werewolf on a MU*, because someone inside the pack running pack stories either can't participate or suffers from the above, and staff rarely has the attention span to run stories for packs anymore.

Ideally the best way would be for packs to run things for each other, but frequently the people who know and like one another well enough to be willing to do that on a regular basis tend to end up in the same pack to begin with. Plus if there's any kind of conflict between packs IC it makes things OOCly awkward for some folks.

@tragedyjones

Superboy

Oh the cosplay.

@TNP said:

I just have to mention this oldie but a goodie that some of you have probably forgotten and others were lucky enough to not have heard of. Until today.

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2008/12/fan_ficition_friday_goku_and_anne_frank_in_until_t.php

Yes, you read that link address correctly. Dragon Ball Z and Anne Frank. Oh, yes. Hitler is in it too. Naturally.

@Trundelbot

Like expecting the Hulk to be automatically stronger than She-Hulk per se isn't really based on anything but laziness of expectations.

I think most people who even care enough who's stronger to think about it probably expect the Hulk is stronger beecause She-Hulk keeps her intelligence and personality, and the ability to transform at will, and traditionally with Hulks strength tends to be based on how much of that shit you lose. The smarter, more rational versions of Bruce banner's Hulk have all been much weaker than the normal Hulk, possibly excepting Maestro but he uses villain rules anyway.

So yeah, #BioFacts is a silly reason to act incredulous that girl superheroes might beat up boy superheroes or be better at the job.

eta: That may not even be exactly what anyone itt is doing but I encounter this argument enough that I'm going to rant against it anyway

It wasn't what anyone was doing, no. Anyone who would get incredulous at that is just a bad comic book fan, because there's no shortage of beatdowns that have happened in either direction.

@Rook

I think what @Arkandel is talking about can more easily be demonstrated by weightlifting: There are Men and Women's divisions for weightlifting because there are some pretty basic differences in the average-to-high end of physical strength that give men an advantage that can't really be matched in terms of frame size and how much muscle can be stacked on it.

The women who compete in these things are not wilting flowers by any stretch. They are just as dedicated, just as ridiculously ripped, just as focused on proving themselves, but the men's records are anywhere from half again as much (for comparable weight class lifters, i.e. these people all weigh in at X) to three times as much at the high end (men have 4 full weight classes above the top female weight class in world competitions). The heaviest female weight class for lifting barely tops the lightest male class for lifting.

Were you to say that it's somehow sexist to make 'the girls' have 'their own little league' and they should be able to compete with the men on equal terms, they would basically never place. It would effectively be like letting heavy weight class lifters compete directly against light weight class lifters, all across the board.

DISCLAIMER: None of the above is meant to imply that women shouldn't serve in combat, or aren't just as capable of being soldiers or at all manner of athletics and etc. I don't believe that to be the case. It is the case, though, that sometimes physiology plays a distinct part in giving advantages to one gender over another, and people ignoring that in the name of pushing 'equality' is, I think, what @Arkandel was getting at. I could be wrong.