Best posts made by Tinuviel

This isn't anger so much as it is.. 'ugh'...

I had a student ask me, for the first time in my (admittedly short) career why the save icon in Word was a strange symbol.

Kill me now.

@Pandora said in Privacy in gaming:

I don't understand why and haven't read any argument for it other than 'just because'.

"Just because" is a perfectly reasonable argument when it comes to how people feel. People will feel violated, just because. People will feel insulted, just because.

But, in my case, it takes away my ability to decide who knows what about me. If I tell you, for instance, the names of my children and you then elect to tell others, I would feel violated because I should get to decide who knows that. The same principle applies to information conveyed between two people and intercepted by a third party. I didn't get to decide if I wanted them to know that information, whatever it happens to be.

ETA: When it comes to personal feelings like this, nobody needs to understand why. They just have to understand that it is.

@faraday said in Punishments in MU*:

@Arkandel said in Punishments in MU*:

Today in Punishments in MU*: Faraday gets turned down.

It’s worse than being banned. :sniff:

At least when you're banned you actually wanted to be there...

@Sunny said in How to Approach (nor not) a Suspected Creep:

Can somebody explain to me why it's problematic behavior to go:

p X=You ok?

It isn't. And anyone that says otherwise deserves a very long sideways glance with a dash of askance.

ETA: So long as you're ready to accept "Yes, I'm okay" at face value and move on.

@JinShei said in The Savage Skies - Discussion Thread:

I think the new information about something that is part of my identity should change how I view it.

Of course. I simply meant that constantly feeling ashamed for things done by other people in the past - even the recent past - isn't helpful. One shouldn't be overwhelmed with the shame of being something because someone else that was that thing did horrid things.

@Snackness said in A bit of trouble on Firefly:

“At my signal, unleash my friends who say hi!”

@SilentHills said in MU Things I Love:

'corpse hideout'.

We prefer the term "The British Museum"

@mietze said in Diversity Representation in MU*ing:

I guess but as far as anything pragmatic he was a giant rotting gross asexual monster.

I think I dated him in high school...

@Cassite said in Diversity Representation in MU*ing:

Looks like he had a pretty negative experience just now.

That's what I'm known for.
Ask anyone.

@ganymede You're typing like there's any sort of logic behind how people feel. People can know perfectly well that how they're feeling is unreasonable, but they still feel that way. Just repeating "you're going to miss out" isn't going to help people that have an actual fear of missing out.

To continue on @Derp's theme: nobody likes to lose. Whether it be political position, death, loss of prestige, opinion... people hate losing. So instead of taking some political damage and trying to rebuild... they go all out and fight to the death.

This is not all people, obviously, but it's common enough that one just doesn't bother with it.

If the 'antagonist' side only exists to be a foil to the 'protagonist' side, it should be NPCs. If your game is about robbers, the cops should be NPCs. But in the cops and robbers game, you've got bands of robbers, and they're all somewhat antagonistic against each other since they all want to win.

If you want to have pseudo-antagonistic groups, give them things to do that aren't just "fuck with the other guys" all the time. Make the actual antagonistic moments matter by emphasising that they are rare.

@wizz I think that greatly depends on genre, too. If you're playing a super hero, you're expecting to eventually win. Or if it's plucky underdogs vs evil empire, then the underdogs should eventually come out on top.

But if you're playing urban horror, like WoD pretends to be, or Cyberpunk, or "everything sucks, you get to make it suck less briefly" kind of genres then the opposite is often true. You're going to lose eventually, make it count while you're here.

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

@tinuviel If the people you want to appeal to are going to cling to the old preferences, then I'm not sure if you want something totally different it is a good use of your time and energy to try and pry it away from them and let their refusal stop you from trying something new with other people (even though it will ve smaller) who are less reactive and might even be receptive given the right environment.

It's called iterative innovation. Introduce new thing that is similar enough to old thing to get people on board. Make small changes to new thing over time, leaving more of the old thing behind. Eventually you have totally new thing, and nobody really notices.

You're trying to force an absolutist view on this, where one doesn't need to exist.

@horrorhound said in GMs and Players:

Don't talk shit.

I mean. Um. That's kind of what this place is for.

But to avoid personal attacks, I shall simply say this: Some players have an over-inflated sense of their own importance, and become soul-sucking time-stealing dredges of willpower. It becomes taxing to deal with them - as staff and as a player.

Should this then result in the emotional draining player being removed? Yes, but I don't think staff should be given too much hassle for trying to soldier through.

There's a difference, to my mind, between TS and an IC sexual/romantic relationship.

An NPC can absolutely have an intimate relationship with a PC. They don't need to spend hours typefucking each other for that to be true, and to have an impact on the story.

@insomniac7809 Even worse is when you make that erudite natural philosopher that's so-so at the blade, and it turns out every "investigation" or "diplomatic" scene winds up with combat because the ST doesn't know how to do anything other than say roll initiative.

@arkandel So the Forum will be down all next week while nodebb shits itself?

@sunnyj said in Miami, Blood in the Water:

because FC seems to be on the downside

FC's latest and biggest down-swing is because of the talk about this new game.

Make it first, then advertise. Sheesh.

@thenomain