@Auspice Sure, but it's based on our perception that aforementioned PTSD character is only using it as a 'quirk'. Sometimes that's true, but sometimes it's just our inability to see deeper.
But at the same time... I don't really care. You want to play "the gay one"? Fine, whatever. It's a game, you're playing a trope. Whatever. I'd much rather people try to do something interesting and get it wrong than just play the same "basic white guy" over and over.
@Auspice The problem with judging characters from the outside is that we often just don't know how deep their layers go. Often we see stereotypes or "the mentally ill one" because we're only seeing one layer. So it's up to staff to really keep an eye on shit like that, not us.
@Auspice While I agree with the sentiment, outright 'restricting' the idea of playing a mentally ill character is still kinda stupid. Putting these character ideas under closer scrutiny I can definitely get behind, as with all potentially confronting ideas.
That said, it's not about whether the policy is right or wrong. If the staff want to throw their hands up and refuse to deal with certain types of characters, that's fine. We aren't going to change their minds or whatever, but we can point out problems with it and call it stupid.
@Goldfish said in Gray Harbor Discussion:
Slippery slope fallacy and all.
I'd hardly call it a fallacy in this instance. They've apparently restricted "British" applications before, so it's not unreasonable that any time there is an "influx" of a certain type of character, they'll restrict it.
@Goldfish said in Gray Harbor Discussion:
At that point, it breaks down into do you trust the staff? Do you cosign their vision? Do you have friends who do and can you tolerate the staff bullshit to play with them. And so on.
Eh, it doesn't break down to anything as grand as that. As it has been explained here, it's a stupid idea. So I'm going to point at it and call it stupid. I don't care what they do, if it's stupid I'm going to call it stupid.
@mietze Aye. Like I get "let's have fewer elite hackers" or "can we have not so many detectives from major cities." I get limiting concepts, often that's appropriate or at least there's a legitimate basis for such things. But limiting a character's nature..? Ugh.
That said, I do sort of understand that one might want to limit things that are inaccurate. I want to limit people playing characters where they're "the disabled one," "the gay one," or "the Asian one," but just limiting gay or Asian characters altogether seems as stupid as this.
ETA: The above paragraph is more an understanding that a staffer or two may have seen one too many "my character is missing a limb and that totally defines everything about their personality." The same as mental illness was portrayed in media until very, very recently. Fetishisation = bad, but blanket moratoria lacking in detail = stupidpants.
It's also important to remember that even as special as PCs can be... they're not the majority of a place's population most of the time.
@Goldfish said in Gray Harbor Discussion:
I feel they are within their right to say, 'Yo. Cool it with the Brits for a sec.' Because the game isn't set in the UK.
They're within their right to say anything they want. Doesn't make it sensible or something I agree with.
A concern I have with arbitrary decisions like this is that... what's next? "Okay we're getting a lot of queers in here, so we're putting a moratorium on not-straight-cis applications."
@bear_necessities Being an amputee or a British person isn't a concept... It seems unnecessarily arbitrary.
@krmbm said in Gray Harbor Discussion:
The last two "modern" games I played on prior to GH had at least one amputee on the grid. They seem to be a popular concept right now.
Having one or two of something doesn't make it popular.
@silverfox said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Are you the primary caretaker of a child or were you at one time the primary caretaker of a child? Yay! You are/were a mother.
This is news.
Wait, no. I know why. I love being able to surprise, and be surprised in turn. Surprise players, that is.
What sphere someone played was never a surprise, not after a while. We'd pick up on it. But being able to pull a clutch super duper power out at the right moment that nobody knew I had? Perfect, every time.
I don't care if people know my character is a vampire. I do care if people know his stats at a whim. I like some secrets, and don't care about others. Goodness knows why.
@Tyche said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:
Anyway in Ohio, the Cleveland Clinic system and University Hospital systems both claimed that they do indeed lose money on medicare/medicaid. However when the ACA passed both of them lobbied the governor to expand both under the ACA rules. Does that make any sense?
It does if one assumes the point of a hospital or a clinic is to treat the ill and tend the injured, and not to make money.
@Tyche said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:
Why the hell is American insulin being sold at 700% higher than it was 10 years ago?!!
Supply and demand...mmm.. I want to know.
That's a big concern for Brits, too. My sister's a diabetic and if the UK leaves the European Union it may be difficult to get a hold of synthetic insulin as much of it is made on the continent.
@WildBaboons Well that's to be expected. If they're trying to get people in/back, it's because it's empty.
I've been without glasses for almost two years, thanks to various medical mishaps going on with poor diagnoses and other bodily fuckery. BUT TODAY I HAVE NEW GLASSES. I CAN SEE AGAIN. And my SO is still attractive, so that's a plus.
Hey I have an actually relatable Real World Irk today!
If, after a discussion or argument, I change my mind or concede the other person's point I am not back-peddling. I am changing my mind. The entire point of speech is to convey information to another person, and the entire point of a discussion or argument is to educate the person you're conveying information to to change their mind.
That's not me back-peddling, that is me taking in new information and changing my mind. That's how it's supposed to work.
@Arkandel said in Random links:
I suspect there might be some hyperbole involved in the article though.
Not sure if this counts as a peeve, and it's not RL in as much as it is... a here-based peeve.
If the post is over six months old, don't upvote it. It's creepy.
@mietze said in MU Things I Love:
- That stomach-in-your-throat nervousness of disclosing something important in a scene that definitely could put your PC in danger, to players that you don't know well, because you are being true to your PC and getting to do so in a scene where everyone is awesome, and so even though you are OOC fretting that you're maybe just annoying people, you push through it and they are gracious OOC and super fun ICly!
It's my favourite thing to be the other person in the room when someone is doing this. OOCly awesome of course, but I do love being able to act IC to spike that tension a touch or two.