Posts made by Roz

@gryphter Unfortunately, you'll likely have to move onto a new company to get a higher pay and position.

Yeah, I had actually been close to pinging you in DMs when your bbpost when up on Arx. Sending good vibes your way for stuff getting better.

She posted on Arx about a week and a half ago that she's currently without internet and still dealing with her health issues such that she'd be absent for a while longer. (She'd been gone from Arx similarly throughout July as she'd been absent from MSB.)

Hal Prince and I'm just gonna go find a corner to cry in.

Victorian ivory dildo BELONGS in a MUSEUM!!!

Board: OOC Stuff, Post Number: 99
Poster: Pax
Subject: Atlantis 64-bit Release Candidate
Date: 07/29/19 04:22:41

Yeah, this isn't (directly) Arx-related; if you aren't a macOS user, or you don't use the Atlantis MU* client on macOS, feel free to skip the rest of this post.

I know some of you out there use the Atlantis MU* client which I wrote. Which was written long enough ago that it wasn't 64-bit, and thus will die horribly when the next version of macOS comes out this fall and kills off 32-bit support.

I've been taking a bit of time to try to get Atlantis updated for 64-bit, and it's mostly there now; it doesn't (yet) work with Dark Mode, and there's a last few tweaks I want to make (like getting a newer automated update framework in place), but I'd like any Atlantis users who are feeling brave and/or helpful to give this build a try and see whether or not there's anything horrifically wrong with it. It seems to work fine on both my Mojave installation and my Catalina developer release, but different machines cause different quirks.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/clhapmluhij88bt/Atlantis-0.9.9.6-rc5.zip?dl=0

Cheers, and thank you for anyone willing to pitch in and give it a test run for me. Thanks!

No baking recipes require a standing mixer. They just make life a whole lot easier.

There have been at least a few blind players on Arx I've heard about. The code staff actually made some nice updates after some made some suggestions about ways to improve the screen-ready experience, which was v nice.

Veronica Mars is here a WEEK EARLY!!

I would say never grit your teeth and keep trying; IME, that just makes it all worse. Playing becomes a chore, and it'll sink your interest faster. I have better luck with telling myself it's okay to have my inspiration lapse for a while and find entertainment in other avenues aside from that particular character, that particular game, or even MU*ing in general. Even if I don't disappear from the game, I'll just stop trying to kickstart myself for a while and do other stuff instead.

For me, it depends entirely upon the game; I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer here, or at least there isn't for me. I don't think I've ever played a game with zero OOC secrecy, because even the many games I've played where all the logs get posted, there's still a level of secrecy that was held by staff running metaplot things. I do think that people get much more sensitive to secrecy between players than secrecy about, like, the answers to mysterious plot stuff that staff is running. (Or in PRPs, too, tbh.)

Atmosphere and setting just makes a big difference. Whether or not there's a competitive or collaborative atmosphere makes a difference. Whether or not there are even ways to get ahead at all makes a big difference. I've played on games where there just isn't stuff designed in the setting to get secret advantages or whatnot, no real route for selling your soul for power or whatever. OOC secrecy didn't matter there.

In settings where this is much more of a real possibility, I do think OOC secrecy can protect against metagaming to a certain extent. Like -- if everyone can see that PC A sold their soul for evil, how long do you think it would take before other PCs start being randomly wary of them for no particular reason? Not long, IMO.

Had a job interview today, an in-person second interview after the initial phone screen a couple weeks ago. I think it went well, and it seems like a position I'd do really well in and that I'm a really good fit for. I would appreciate good vibes because I really, really need a job.

I've been playing in a campaign using this for a month or two, and it's real sleek.

@Ghost No, I already got the point you're making, which is about historical realism in presentation. My point is that the conversation prior was about allowing certain identities to exist at all, even in an entirely historically accurate way. Not for them to exist in an open, ahistorical way. It's the difference between "you can't play a gay person on this game" and "the historical realities of the time period mean that that character concept will face the obstacles and oppression that were seen in that day."

The conversational thread prior wasn't about whether or not people should be forced to bend their setting to be ahistorical. It was about the idea of not allowing certain fundamental types of identities to be played at all, sometimes despite them definitely existing.

@Ghost said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

@Quinn said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

There were definitely non-straight people in 1941 Berlin

Oh, I'm sure there were! However a story about trying to write about living life as that character would please in an environment where they had to constantly risk being discovered and thus sent to a death camp would be less than enjoyable.

It might be enjoyable to someone? People like to write about different kinds of tension. It sounds like it wouldn't be something you'd enjoy, but that's not a universal. But in any case, this point:

On this particular topic, when it comes to LGBTQ, I think it's easy to assume that people matching those demographics existed during the era, but whether or not those demographics could be roleplayed in the open as accepted while maintaining historical integrity wouldn't be very feasible.

...is actually an entirely different conversation than the one people were talking about. It's definitely come up on the board in the past for people to chew over, talking about the value and feasibility of flexing history to set certain oppressions to the background, but it's not really related to the points that were being discussed. Which is more "these people have existed everywhere in every point of history, even if they haven't been publicly presenting as such."

@Ghost said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

Example: You're going to have about as few likely LGBTQ characters represented in a MUSH that takes place in 1941 Berlin as you are going to have allowed Neo-Nazi characters in Fights n' Tights.

I'm confused at this example. Do you think queer people didn't exist in Germany in 1941?

Anyways I will gladly accept the accusation of bias in regards to favoring representation for marginalized communities and not representation for genocidal hate groups. I am biased, I admit it.

@Sparks Yeah. It kind of reminds me a bit of the situation with Tilda Swinton's casting in Dr. Strange. Where the director was like, "We didn't want to have a racist caricature for the Ancient One steeped in orientalism, so we...rewrote the character to be white instead." And man, Tilda Swinton is fucking awesome in every role she plays and there's no denying that, but that reasoning was still super bullshit on the director/movie team's part. (Guys, you don't reduce racist portrayals of things by...just making characters white instead.)

But if you, for instance, make a blanket ban on trans characters because of disrespectful or fetishized portrayals, and then have a player roll in to peek at your game who is actually trans IRL and see that, I cannot imagine that not feeling like shit even if the intentions were meant to be good ones. Because now you're in a situation where it's like, "Listen, we barred this concept that is part of your RL because people weren't respectful, and now you, person for whom this is an aspect of your real life, also can't include it or explore it." And, in the end, it basically sets it up as, "We just don't want to deal with the difficulty of telling people to be respectful with your identity, so we're just going to make a rule against it." That is: "This identity isn't worth our time to protect" swiftly becomes "You are not worth our time to protect."

@Thenomain said in Good TV:

@Roz said in Good TV:

@Thenomain said in Good TV:

I think we need to start a Yennifer Fan Club on this board.

Only if you start spelling her name right!

Look, you lot are lucky I remember which one she is without googling!

Oh, I'm sure your memory isn't that bad--

@Sparks said in Good TV:
In the same game. Ciri whined non-stop. Way to kill my redhead fetish, Ciri.

Oh. It is.

@Thenomain said in Good TV:

@Roz said in Good TV:

There was no moment of competition for me when it came to the Yen/Geralt pairing.

I think we need to start a Yennifer Fan Club on this board.

Only if you start spelling her name right!

@Thenomain There was no moment of competition for me when it came to the Yen/Geralt pairing. Like, I would worship at the Queen of Yennefer, she's so great. Triss literally is all like "Haha sorry for totally manipulating you while you lost your memories" and I was like "exCUSE?"

But yeah honestly Geralt and Yennefer have to be one of my favorite video game pairings of all time. Dayum.