Best posts made by Roz

@carex said in Good or New Movies Review:

This is late because I don't usually go see movies but I just caught a copy of the Black Panther and I have to wonder, does no one else find it hilarious that the movie is a white supremacist dream come true, but for black people?

• All Wakandans are of the same people so there is no crime or social problems.

There are actually several tribes in Wakanda, one of which lives in remove from the others and actually becomes a source of internal social conflict.

• King is treated like a celebrity. No one is allowed to challenge.

Except, like. The ritual challenge? That is built in? Like -- that's a really important plot point? The fact that no one expects T'challa to be challenged is indication that the Panther Tribe is actively cultivating good relationships with the other tribes. (Except the Jabari, who have isolated themselves, and then return to challenge.)

• Wakanda intervenes militarily where ever it wants in the world.

Except -- part of the major points is that it doesn't? Like. This was the core conflict of the film. They have agents all over the world, but they work quietly at most. It was Erik who wanted to start intervening militarily.

• Leader kills his political enemies.

W -- hen? The time T'challa didn't kill M'baku? Or the time he wanted to save Erik and Erik refused?

• Black Panther is the Randian hero personified.

You either wildly didn't understand Black Panther or you super don't understand what a Randian hero is. T'challa is the opposite of an individualist hero: his duty to protect his people and the civilization around him over his own personal desires is the core of his character.

If you changed Wakanda into Texas and reversed the race of the actors, this movie would be every white-nationalist manifesto ever written rolled into one.

There's a pretty huge difference between white nationalism, which is closely connected to colonialism, which invades other territories and then conquers, pushes out, or exterminates the natives, and a fantasy about a small piece of Africa that managed to avoid colonization and thrive.

Also, did you miss how the answer to the core conflict of the film -- "Should Wakanda be opening itself up to help other nations" -- was that, yes, they in fact should be opening up? Like. The whole conclusion was that their isolationist policy was a mistake and that they had a responsibility to use their power to help better those in need elsewhere.

I mean, I wouldn't mind if the rule was actually "no reviews at all, positive or negative, in the ad thread" and it was relegated to just questions/clarifications. That way you could put any and all game feedback in a thread in Mildly Constructive or wherever, positive and negative, and avoid this sense of "all the positive things are reprinted next to it and the negative things relegated to somewhere else."

petition to ban @Rucket

@mietze The apology also seemed to ignore a whole lot of other creepy behavior the OP has engaged in, so it's really not surprising when people respond negatively to an apology that actually couches what creepiness the OP does admit to in "I just wanted to fit in." From what I understand, he wasn't just "joining in on in-jokes and suggestive comments," he was the one bringing up suggestive stuff. So his apology ignores some of his worst behavior (stalking people across social media/other games and the crazy amount of lies he's made up regarding his OOC identity) and also attempts to half-excuse what he does admit to.

The fact that people who experienced his behavior are responding negatively to this is really not surprising. I also don't think that any of the responses in this thread have made steps beyond passionate to abusive. I mean, yeah, it's an ad hominem situation because it's a situation about one person's behavior. But I don't think calling out bad behavior or the serious issues with the original post is immediate Hog Pit material.

***=Spoilerinos***

click to show

@downwithopp said in An Apology to BSO and BSU.:

I did not come here to start a fight. I did not come here to defend myself - though I ended up doing so - that was a backslide on my part. I came here to ask for forgiveness. To admit that I was wrong.

I mean this with every sincerity: don't come seeking forgiveness. That places the responsibility on the other person to absolve you. If you truly want to improve and move forward, put your feelings of remorse into the world -- and then let them go. Let people feel their feelings, whether they're to forgive you or not, and let yourself move on. If people want to contact you, they will. But don't apologize with the expectation of forgiveness. Apologize to acknowledge the harm of your actions and perhaps to give yourself some mental closure on that chapter of your life. But also accept that could very well be the end of that chapter. You may not find yourself back in the community -- and that will be okay, too. Sometimes when you're going through the painful process of change, you have to leave big parts behind. Let people have their feelings. Build something better.

@Arkandel said in Accounting for gender imbalances:

@Caryatid Do you think the gender imbalance is something that ought to be addressed in the interview?

For instance does a question such as "we're currently a team consisted only of men, how do you feel about that?" sound like we're preparing to listen for feedback and keep things professional, safe and constructive or signal we might be shedding too much of a spotlight on gender right out of the gate?

Tbh that sounds like a question that opens you guys up to legal liability re: accusations of gender discrimination. (Also, personally, that question would kind of moreso give me the opposite impression: that the company was trying to assess whether I could be a Good Sport about all the Guys Being Guys.)

@Tempest you just make it feel impossible to have a reasonable discussion about modding issues when you get into a melodramatic FRENZY every time someone puts a toe out of line. Why do you think anyone is going to listen to your opinion about board administration when you can never state it in a reasonable fashion?

BRB DYING

I AM DEAD. I LOVE THEM.

@collective said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

@faraday said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

That seems kind of extreme. Just because I, as staff, wouldn't inflict Random Typhoid or Random Fires or Random Murder or Random Racism on somebody doesn't mean that typhoid and fires and murder and racism don't exist in the theme.

Okay, so why is bigotry different in that a player should have to put up with it on a non-consensual basis? If your character can't get sick without consent, or can't have their IC house burn down without consent, what makes it okay for the players of those characters to have to sit through abusive language and situations based on race, orientation, etc?

Oh my God. Literally where has anyone said that a player should be forced to sit through that? Discrimination existing within a theme =/= Every player is forced to sit through shit they don't want to sit through.

You are repeatedly vilifying anyone in this thread who indicates any support of allowing IC discrimination to exist in the theme, despite your occasional assurances that you're not trying to "enforce" anything. People have already said multiple times "players shouldn't have to submit to scenes with abusive language that make them OOCly uncomfortable," it's just that people aren't saying "we will never include any real world IC discrimination on this game" that you seem to be objecting to. There is so much space in between "there is no IC discrimination allowed on the game" and "you will be forced to interact with all IC discrimination no matter how abusive or pervasive," and nearly every game I can think of is going to exist between those two extremes.

It would be much more productive to talk about "what are the most effective ways/tools we can use to help people navigate when there are thematic issues that hit too close to home for them OOCly and help people to play in a collaborative manner that's fun for everyone." Which is not the conversation you're having. Your conversation seems to be "there is no reason why anyone should want to engage in these themes on a game."

So I work in arts marketing. Over the past year, we've gone through a full website redesign for one of my company's projects -- a performing arts venue -- and I project managed from the client end. Our web developer is fantastic. Like, legit, he's awesome. He's passionate about his work, patient, communicative, everything great. The experience was so positive on both ends that, kind of on a whim, I emailed him a few months ago to say, "Hey, I've been looking for new opportunities. Let me know if you're ever looking for project managers?" And he came back with, "Actually, I've kind of been looking for something on the level of a COO...

Fast forward to now, when he's actually in town for the conference of our ticketing platform. We talk about what he's looking for, what I really like doing, and find a whole lot of overlaps. My former department head has drinks with us, because she was there for the big chunk of the process and also loves him. She straight up acts like my mom (despite being a year younger than me) and goes WOW ROZ WOULD BE GREAT AT THOSE THINGS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NEEDING SOMEONE TO DO.

He's really careful about spelling out all the ways the work would be different for me. (It's remote, the team is all across the country, etc.) He thinks I'm great, but only wants me to consider talking about it seriously if I know all the pros and cons. I come back the next day and go, you know what, I think it's all exciting. So now I have to consider what my price tag would be and we can figure out if it's something that makes sense for both of us.

I'm kind of terrified?

@carex That is a horrifically terrible idea.

@apos said in Learning how to apply appropriate boundaries:

@faraday said in Learning how to apply appropriate boundaries:

@mietze said in Learning how to apply appropriate boundaries:

I agree , when expressing discomfort or dissatisfaction is used to try to "win" and get your way.  But I think you can have situations where that isnt the case (which is what I assumed Faraday meant) and so if you want to negotiate and are up for that ooc, starting off with "change or leave" may not be the best approach.  Because that can and does trigger people who would have perhaps worked with you to find something more agreeable or mutually agreed upon to just say "ok then, bye."

Its like starting off a disagreement or annoyance with your spouse or partner by throwing in a "we can just divorce or break up then!"

Yeah that's what I was trying to get at. Maybe my example wasn't the best.

Yeah like I get that this is more the root of why a lot of people are reluctant to say something. A lot of times, they like the RP except for X happening, and aren't sure if they can politely ask about X without offending the other person and losing the entire RP dynamic. I get that, and I don't think there's great answers. But I would encourage everyone to go on the assumption the other person is reasonable. If they aren't reasonable, and they don't respond to a very gentle, very polite, very respectful nudge, then it's probably a time bomb and as much as it sucks to lose that, it's still probably better off.

Yeah. Sometimes treating a situation as if it's DELICATE AS WATERFORD CRYSTAL and it needs to be HANDLED CAREFULLY can actually make things more awkward. Because it kind of projects to people that you think the situation is awkward and difficult, and thus they should find it awkward and difficult.

Whereas if you treat things like "this is a normal thing and not a big deal," it can often help to keep matters low-key. Which I think is the core of "assume the other person is reasonable." It should be normal to be able to say something like, "Hey, I've actually got some issues RPing about X, can we figure out a way around that?"

Obviously this isn't a FOOLPROOF THING. But the other thing about assuming that the other person will be reasonable is that it, well, lets them disprove that assumption if they're going to. And then you know that they're not a reasonable person and you probably don't want to be RPing with them anymore anyways. It shouldn't be "how can I avoid explosions in order to set my boundaries so that I'm comfortable," it should be, "how do I find reasonable RP partners who I don't have to worry about exploding on me if I have to enforce a boundary."

@mietze said in Constructive (keyword) Criticism of Arx Systems:

Or out of fear that they are not doing it right because their skills are "too low/not good enough."

This is why I also dislike system discussions that are based on, like, a basis of "what is the absolute most efficient way to do this," because it quickly turns into "people are doing this wrong/not doing it well enough because they're doing it at less than peak efficiency." Which I don't mean as "people shouldn't crunch numbers if that's where their happiness lies" or "people should obfuscate their efficiency," but when we're talking about user engagement in a system and how to make it feel better, I think that a hyperfocus on "peak efficient way of utilizing a system" tends to actually have a negative effect on the discussion. It reduces the human element in favor of math and it gives the false impression that the math can predict how people will engage and how they'll feel about it. The math can predict a lot! Not denying that. But it very much loses the human element that is going to be the most common reaction.

Watching someone make a bold choice that is so deeply IC for their character even though it risks very serious IC consequences that could bring the end of that PC's story. But it's the choice that sticks truest to the heart of a character. Just really exciting to see.

I generally think that PCs should have generally equitable routes to pursue engagement with NPCs, but the idea that NPCs should always be required to provide the same types of scenes to any PC is odd to me. I wouldn't agree that's a necessary part of a game.

No horse, no knowledge, just wanna say: congrats on kicking cancer's butt, and I'm glad it was caught early.

I streamed crafting a pretty dress for Arx on Twitch today and people came and hung out and it was fun. THAT IS ALL.

Honestly the worst part about all of this is how it's a response to someone who literally was talking about how they were groomed and preyed on as a child and working to protect their kids from experiencing the same thing.

When everyone is on OOCly on board and cackling delightedly at the IC drama.