Posts made by Rook

Dear @tragedyjones,

We are currently considering your recent request for eHarem funding. Your offer of 6% ownership of said eHarem is within our guidelines set forth.

In the interests of oversight and governance, @tragedyjones, we require weekly progress reports. These will be submitted as graphs of eHarem current growth and projections on both eHarem applications and quality assurance. In addition, we require a review of your eHarem financials, including an audit by a substantiated third-party firm. You have your choice of the one firm in our employ.

Our committee will contact you once a decision on your funding application has been made.

I find it amusing that within three minutes, your resolve has collapsed and you have outed your source.

"Shamefur dispray!"

Uh.... so this is interesting. This is my game (renamed to Umbral Shards). I will say this, though, that the Risk file was one of the first I put up out of notes and such... and then had several conversations on here about the very same thing. Given the vehement opposition in conversation, I might likely go back and either rewrite it, or just scrap the idea because, well, subsequent conversations right here.

With that said, I haven't had time due to work to do anything but code on the place.

Browsing Shoutcast after years and rediscovering Euro music stations that I used to subscribe to, that are now free streaming stations. Then remembering that one of my favorites was a Greek station.

@Roz Maybe it's the avatar...

Would boil down to 2D math, @Tempest, and data attributes on your weapons. D&D, for example, handles 'Reach 2' weapons cleanly.

@Bobotron
Your notes and approaches with the AI coding was exactly what I was working toward before it became clear that the game wouldn't use it at the level that would justify the amount of coding and data work to build the bestiary, the objects, and the system. Lots of questions arose about reach, weapon sizes, cover and concealment, and all sorts of combat modifiers that could affect not only AI decisions on attacks, but resolution of dice rolls.

I built a somewhat integrated +Sheet/Inventory system that would allow people to 'equip' or 'wear' items that altered their +sheet accordingly. That included purchasing items from vendors like magic swords, magic armor, etc.

I have also built a combat prototype system (that was never used) that allowed a DM/ST control 'monsters' and have them execute rolls, take damage, spend points, etc. Making this work with a DM/ST is not hard. Making it automated and truly 'hands free' combat becomes MUCH harder because... reasons.

Could even use the +Grid system that I built for miniatures-style round-based combat systems (in this case, a D&D MU).

I happen to agree. I've (we've) argued why we don't agree, and you (@Jeshin) still insist on arguing the point. So, I've pretty much stopped contributing to the argument. But it seems to be becoming circular.

@Alzie said it best. Points to Alzie. And Theno.

A thread where everything's made up and the points don't matter.

I am also working on a system like this. Well, revamping the one I already wrote. So I do have some opinions on what I want, yes. I'm not trying to derail your effort, and will contribute any ideas and code where I can!

So.

Granular permissions, to me, mean that different 'queues' or 'buckets' or whatever you want to call them can have different sets of permissions settable easily (without coding up function attributes for example), and apply those permissions to IC or OOC groups or individuals.

• Staff (I still prefer that this NOT be coded against a bit or flag, maintain a list or attribute)
• IC Groups (Sabbat, Camarilla, The 'Clickers' Cabal, Law Enforcement)
• IC 'races' (Vampires, Weres, Autobots, Unapproved Characters, etc)
• Public
• Invite-only (essentially, someone has to be added manually to the record)

These can be applied to various 'roles', and roles can have multiple entries. If you appear in any group, or are mentioned by dbref, in any 'role', you have those privs.

• Read
• Write/Edit (can edit the body/title of the original submission)
• Contribute/Comment
• Admin (can move, close, reassign)
• Inviter (can add more Readers or Contributors)

In a lot of cases, I would guess that the system would attribute the record originator to be #1, #2, #3 and #5, and that Staff would be all plus #4. In some cases, however, you might want to set up Groups to be overall Roles in a queue. So your IC/PC Prince could automatically have Roles #1, #3 and #5 in the Camarilla queue, but could not Admin the record nor Edit it. This would allow your IC PCs to answer a lot of items in the queue, especially for IC things like meeting requests, IC information requests, and so forth, and Staff don't need to be involved. (Again, this is for games structured like this.)

This allows you to open up the system so that Roles != Bits. Storytellers would not need a Wizard bit to simply admin a queue. Just build a group as you mentioned, and assign the role to the group.

I can show you what I mean on Shards, if you want to poke. I've built @Groups as an underlying system to the entire game, and everything I am coding is coded against that idea. So far, my BB system uses this approach, and the very similar queue/request system will, also.

• "Sources" - I think that this would make more sense as "History". Actions taken on a record should be trackable and auditable. Someone gets added, removed, changes are made, movements done, attributes on the record changed, etc.

• Better Permissions - This should be setup so that any type of Group can manage and admin a job queue. It shouldn't require bits. This entire idea should be modular and understand 'super admins' (probably Staff or Wizards), 'admins' (any group that can be defined), and 'users' (any group/specification that can dictate visibility, submissions, etc).

• Categories - This might be better served with 'queues', each with their own management/admin team, workers and so forth. You might be able to use some sort of 'tags' idea, too, if further 'categorization' is needed, especially for searches, filtering and so on.

• Actions - some actions may be allowed on some queues, not allowed on others. Maybe a use case arises where one queue does not allow adding people to the ticket. I could see Complaints being this way. Another use case might not allow submitters to close the ticket, only the admin group can. Rights per Action should be granular.

@HelloRaptor No, I get that. I am completely agreeing. I just kind of take it a step further: "Let her try." Step up to the scales, and give it your best. Place where you can.

@Arkandel, I've always simply said "Damn it, let her try it." We dealt with this in the military combat arms, where women were not allowed into certain MOS fields because of perceived "lack of physical requirements". I've always just shrugged and said, "If she can do the job just as good as a common male soldier, she can have the job." But the fear was always over-extension and getting hurt. I can tell you that I've known plenty of women who could load and fire an artillery piece just as good as the men around me, because some of those men were physically small.

The same works in reverse. There are numerous things that women are far better at than men. I have always wondered if the male ego/mind has always 'relegated' that type of work as 'women stuff', then, just so they could feel better about being second-rate.

Thus, in a perfect world, "If you are good at it, you get to do it" no matter who you are, where you come from, what you believe in, or any of that other crap that doesn't matter.

I believe in a meritocracy, where you get where you belong because of your skills and behavior. No more "<X> is better than <Y>" when talking about sexes, races, credos or orientations.

This is one of those cases where I think that a system would be very cool (at a high level) that handled single-player mob killing, ala MUD. But with MUSH mentality. I know, shut up, Rook.

@Coin
Eh. I had something witty written mocking America being a Christian-held state.. but fuck it. I have no shits to give to religion anymore. Not even in mockery.

Eh. "Bad" relationships have a place, but so do "twisted" ones. The dynamic is not bad between the characters, but it is definitely not something an outsider would call white-picket-fences healthy. And yes, it takes a lot of conversation and comfort to launch into this, but with a stable RPer, they go great. Everything needs to be a negotiation, anyone that comes into the conversation with 'HAVE TO HAVE' types of attitude tend to be a hands-up, "Sure sure, thanks but no thanks" moments for me. It just signifies a closed mind.

@silentsophia said:

I wish the whole 'you have to love yourself before you can love others' didn't make me feel so bad. I can't even like my friends. I don't think that makes me feel better at all.

Then.... um. Why are they your friends?

I believe the bulk of the story is that WORA went down, and the community here has no access to any backups or files from before. So, it's gone.

I can build, code and give general help/feedback, in return for some kids gloves in helping me ease back into WoD?