Best posts made by Tinuviel

@HelloProject said in Diversity Representation in MU*ing:

Second, don't RP with strawmen and you'll be good to go

That's good advice for Changelings in general, fetches or otherwise.

@JinShei said in Why We Don't Make New Friends Anymore (Or Creepers Do Creepy Things):

I am entirely twitched about the idea of Fred West being in the shower

Having stopped reading for a bit, this line out of context just tickled me. Fred West in a shower, the horror!

@Roz said in Diversity Representation in MU*ing:

@Meg said in Diversity Representation in MU*ing:

@mietze said in Diversity Representation in MU*ing:

divinity

uh. i didn't know you could eat that.

A lot of churchgoers partake every Sunday.

To continue my point, but branch out a little, that's one of the biggest problems I have with the education system I work under. We're told to teach, rather than educate, and we reward memory rather than comprehension and understanding.

If you comprehend a subject, you might not necessarily remember exact details of which battle was where at what time, but you know how to use resources effectively to look it up. There is absolutely no way a human being can remember all of human history, or all of computer science, or all of mathematics. But we can remember how to find things out, and that's far more important.

I'd much rather focus my time on teaching how to learn than what to learn.

If a story is so interconnected with a person's trigger that removing or altering that facet to accommodate will require a great deal of effort to tailor? Then that person is responsible for bowing out.

If a trigger comes up but isn't vital in terms of telling the story or it can be altered sufficiently to make no story difference while also accommodating the player in question? Then it's up to the GM to do that if they want, while being aware that not doing so is a teensy bit of a dick move.

Regardless, I do agree that plots, events, and the like should have some nature of trigger warning. Like a film. It's not my responsibility to tell the cinema that I'm triggered by X, it's the cinema's job (by law or regulation in most places) to tell me what I can expect. The same should go for plots and events.

@insomniac7809 said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

People who insist that 2020 isn't the start of a new decade.

Every year is the start of a new decade, depending on where you're measuring from.

Ultimately, shitty people are going to do shitty things. No amount of transparency or organisational structure or written rules will stop them.

Rules aren't there to stop the bad guys.

I have an RL peeve that doesn't involve food or linguistics!

Don't use your work email for personal correspondence.
Don't use your work email for personal relationship-based correspondence.
Don't use your work email to discuss your evening with your colleague's sister.
Don't use your work email to send that discussion, including intimate particulars, to the 'all-staff' mailing list.

I don't know about the rest of you, but the backstabbing and the politics is the main draw of WoD (specifically vampire) to me. It's almost the entire point. That and the fact that there are no good guys, everyone is fucked.

@Auspice said in Wildly Out of Context:

"...it absorbs all the bad energy and reduces radio waves"

It's lead.

I mildly object to the idea that a game can "bring out the worst" in people. People are the problem, not the game. The game is just an excuse people use to be toxic. It's the "what was she wearing" of our little community - along side the actual "what was she wearing."

ETA: I'd also like a moratorium on the word 'toxic'. We have plenty of other adjectives we could use.

@Wretched said in Depression Meals:

Chinese Buffet

@Wretched said in Depression Meals:

Too much sushi

Um.

I generally try to avoid using the protagonist/antagonist model. Since these are player characters we're talking about, and they have more agency than we'd give a typical 'antagonistic' NPC. They're both protagonists of different stories, and where those stories overlap is when the antagonism can come into it.

So, ideally, give them stuff to do that isn't directly overlapping with other PCs all the time. They can do their 'play the villain' bit without negatively impacting their opposite sect.

@eye8urcake It's definitely one of those things that I look at and think 'some designers and engineers lost sleep over this design.'

@jennkryst As good an idea as that is, the kinds of people that suck at dealing with antagonists also suck at dealing with consequences.

Maybe we should just stop letting stupid selfish people play our games. Is there a test for that?

@gryphter said in The Work Thread:

@Auspice said in The Work Thread:

(p.s. Australia is more than just koalas.)

Citation needed.

@mietze said in Attachment to old-school MU* clients:

But I don't see the point in complaining or fretting about people that won't give an old preference up.

Then I shall tell you.

If you want to appeal to current MUers, then you do have to take their wants into consideration. If the innovation is too completely alien, then we're unlikely to adopt it.

If you just want to innovate for the sake of innovation... then why even bother calling it a MU anymore if it's so totally different?

There's a difference in separating the art from the artist, and supporting bigoted art.

Lovecraft's... initial inspiration over the horror sub-genre bearing his name is not the same as his work. One can enjoy the stories by other authors fitting into the same cosmos without tacitly approving of anything Lovecraft said, thought, or wrote. And his work is laden with his exceptional racism.

Bigots create art. Where that art isn't displaying their bigotry, I believe that there is more lee-way. If Wagner wrote music about anti-Semitism, that's different. If Rowling wrote works about transphobia, that's different. But one can enjoy Der Ring des Nibelungen or Harry Potter without supporting the views of their respective authors.

@derp said in The Desired Experience:

I would say that each of us are responsible for our own fun.

Sure, except I disagree with the idea behind this. If we're only responsible for our own fun, and that's it, then our fun is going to trounce all others' when in practice this isn't remotely true. We know that we should give time for others to shine, and not always hog the spotlight.

If you're in a group with ten other people, and everyone is focusing on making the thing fun for everyone else, then you've got eleven people making sure you have fun instead of just one.

@derp said in The Desired Experience:

You don't have to make the effort. You don't have to suffer for their fun.

These two things aren't the same. Make an effort to be inclusive and provide fun for others, but if you know you're not a right match you don't have to keep trying. That's literally what I said.

@Ghost True, I was keeping rather specifically to 'single artist' productions for ease. I think that work created before an actor/director/producer/whomever was revealed to be a villain is still 'acceptable.' Some people will adamantly not watch it, and that's fine, but 'cancelling' people that still watch does punish those that were involved in the work's creation but aren't to blame.

Anything created after? If you're going to work with someone demonstrably bigoted (and I'm not talking about a few tweets from a decade ago) or predatory or otherwise anti-social, you deserve to be 'punished' along side them.

Though I don't want to come across as one of those people, I don't like to condemn without evidence or confession. It's a deeply icky grey area, to which I don't think there are any absolute right answers.