Any respec, or indeed any dramatic change for a character, should have a basis in the game world's internal logic.
Your character started out as a writer and through the game has focused more and more on shooting a crossbow? Sure, respec to downgrade the writing and add more to the crossbow firing skill. But adding points to basketweaving probably doesn't make sense.
@misadventure said in Flat/starting competency on MU*:
If someone wants the fun of growing from nothing, they can not spend their starting budget.
My concern with that is that there would be no 'competition' between those that choose to spend slowly and those that choose to min-max. Especially in nWoD, your stats and skills can (but don't always) directly impact your likelihood to hold certain jobs, and so forth.
It's not necessarily 'advancement' per se, but definitely adaptation that I find to be important. If I make a social character that likes writing letters and so on, and events transpire to make them an outlaw on the run and all that, I'd want to be able to invest in some sort of combat or stealth or something along those lines.
A character whose skills and abilities are the same from the beginning of the story to the end haven't really had a chance to grow. So there'd definitely need to be some mechanism whereby IC effort = +sheet alteration/advancement.
@wizz On the one hand, that's freaky as fuck. On the other, this "technology" could be used really well to keep organs alive for transplanting.
@darinelle This includes text messages, phone calls, or emails marked 'urgent'.
@wizz You're wrong. Pissing her off takes a great deal of effort and the phrase "I prefer chiffon."
@wizz Hardly. If one cannot be argumentative with one's friends then how would one act when a true cause for concern arises?
@wizz Except that both parties are adults, both parties are actually friends - in as much as either one allows themselves to be so on the internets - and we just simply disagree.
Huuush.
@wizz I never described anyone involved in this conversation as rude.
@wizz Given that my opening salvo, in that regard, was 'they disregarded advice from professional mental health persons', I would argue that countering with "Oh we'll just have to disagree" is disingenuous.
@surreality Then we shall agree to simply disagree.
With caveats.
@ganymede Last I checked advocacy was 'public support or recommendation for' something, no? Saying "I like this thing" is advocacy, it is support.
A'ight. I'll start this off with a disclaimer: I adore you to little tiny pieces, and outside this exact conversation there's no animosity between us until the next time I say something stupid.
But.
The wrongness I 'accuse' you of, if accuse is the correct term, is that you have expressed admiration for the show - right or wrong - without caveat. Not that you like the show, that you like the show without an advisory.
In this instance, I would argue that your advocacy for the program counts as advertising for it, or at least promoting it. And we have both agreed that the show requires at least a modicum of 'trigger warning'.
Further, your assumption that everyone has consumed, or will consume, the show the same way you did - Be it with warnings on US Netflix or otherwise - is dangerous given the confrontational nature of the events depicted.
Supporting or advocating such a show without a caveat is irresponsible.
That two families in California allege that Thirteen Reasons Why prompted two young women to commit suicide [1] and a man from Peru [2] and a teen from Alabama [3] sees to me to indicate that this show needs as many warnings and caveats as we can reasonably supply.
This may well be a place for adults. But this is also a place for adults with any number of not-quite-typical mental states, and your blatant "this show is amazing" attitude is goddamn harmful.
@surreality My concern is that you stated, initially, that the show was awesome and that anyone who disagrees (me) can go fuck themselves.
Additionally, the notion that 'it is helpful to me thus is helpful to all', one that you have put forward, is false and thus needs refuting.
I am not at all saying that you cannot like something that I dislike, or the reverse. I am simply saying that your initial comments - including mention of your own mental concerns as an implied sort of veto - were perhaps unwise and need reflection.
@surreality Certainly, an adult is capable of making a decision from a synopsis. A child, for whom it is advertised (at least in Australia) is not likely to do so. Thus the onus is on the production team to ensure their advertising is directed to a target audience is that which is best equipped to deal with such things.
@surreality said in RL Anger:
Also, seriously, no one is forcing anyone to watch it
Except that is what's happening. Young people are trend-followers. If all one's friends were watching Game of Thrones or Flash Gordon or whatever, then in order to be part of the crowd one is expected to follow suit.
@surreality Bullying and suicide can be represented without putting bullying and suicide on the screen in visceral detail without a warning. There are people that seek a 'you are not alone' story and are confronted with very real depictions of the trauma they go through daily.
Our only argument is that you seem to believe this series is fine as it is, whereas I require - not request or demand but require - advisories for such content.
@surreality I'll grant that living with mental illness or bullying or harassment or whatever else is all too prevalent in society.
What I won't grant is that simply because something exists it thus needs to be seen on screen. I don't want a player at the FIFA world cup gunned down because people get shot in reality. I don't want Will and Grace to end with Jack overdosing on meth just because it happens in reality.
I live my life with enough pain as it is. I don't want it flashed in my face on television without so much as a by-your-leave.
