Posts made by TNP

@Lithium

If it doesn't, poke Glitch. Cause obviously it's a glitch.

@Lithium Not that.

It's under settings. It looks like this:

Follow topics you create
Follow topics that you reply to

Go to your profile. Top right of the page (assuming it's the same in all skins) is the 'edit' 3 dots. Click that. You'll see settings.

I love those. I skip over the straight sex scenes but I do love the books. I do the same with Anita Blake (which have gotten less porny lately).

@Lithium said in Changes to The Hog Pit:

I have yet to figure out how to turn off notifications AND HAVE IT WORK.

Go to your profile. click the 3 dots in a circle. Settings. Go down to FOLLOW. Uncheck those.

Most important: don't play a female (granted, this only applies if you're going to TS a gay guy)

@EmmahSue

Yes, I know. But once we click 'join' that one and only time, nothing at all is different for us. It won't change our posting or replying habits at all. It'll only keep new users and people who don't want to see Hog Pit posts from doing so. If that's the point, cool. I get tired of marking things read that I don't want to read myself. But I can't see how it's going to do a thing to change the tenor of replies in any category. If someone is likely to go hog wild (see what I did there?) in the constructive category, they're going to, even if they clicked 'join' once 5 months back.

I've been shamefully neglecting my other games lately because of how much fun I've been having on the 100. I almost feel like all you silly gamers now who disappeared because you were playing Fallout 24/7.

@Glitch said in Changes to The Hog Pit:

The occasional topic move or split isn't a big deal, but it'll hopefully encourage thought about where you're making a response when you're considering how to convey your message.

I don't see how it'll make any difference at all. Once you join a group, the topics appear on unread messages right along with all the other ones. When I reply, I don't even really notice which category a thread is in.

Which is exactly why it's no big deal to me. Beyond having to click 'join' a single time, it changes nothing for established users.

@lordbelh said in Changes to The Hog Pit:

Its not a big thing, I just don't see the point.

This really. It's not a big deal. But it's one thing to change things around if the change is really needed. It's another to do it just because a few people are morons.

Add me in to the ones who finds this unnecessary and catering to the idiots.

George ZImmerman's latest circus. It's not so much anger as disgust but this topic fits well enough.

@Arkandel said in What are you playing...?:

@TNP You make it sound like it's a superhero game based on the Kushiel books.

... I didn't even realize I wanted that but now I need it.

I want to see Captain Valerian in action.

@DnvnQuinn said in What are you playing...?:

@tnp What's KD and CoMux?

Kushiel's Debut and a superhero game.

The 100 Mush
BITN
KD
CoMux

I wasn't clear. By 'employees' I mean employees of whatever business I happen to be in. Bank tellers for instance. Pharmacists. Yes, you know my first name because it's on your computer screen. That doesn't mean we're on a first name basis.

@Ninjakitten said in RL Anger:

@ThatOneDude

They make you wear a nametag because at some point someone presumably decided this was friendlier, same as they somehow decided calling customers by (first!) name made them feel valued. First-name exchanges between people who are essentially strangers always feel awkward and over-familiar to me and I avoid them as much as I can.

Oh, I hate being on a first name basis with employees. Maybe it's because I'm old and was raised when that was not the norm. In fact, it would have been considered disrespectful. Use my first name? No. You can call me Mister.

@Olsson And you can do it from your bedroom.

@Kestrel The problem is that it's a Mu. Every player wants to have an OOC say. Many want their character to have an IC say. If they don't get one or the other, they either feel railroaded or ignored.

The Senate was an IC way to do this on both levels. It's very possibly a really bad way, doomed to failure, which is fine, if it's an IC failure. If it's an OOC failure, see previous posts in this thread. To a certain degree, it doesn't matter if the accusations are right or wrong if that was the perception at the time they were happening. (Obviously, it does matter but widespread incorrect perceptions can ruin a game quicker than a smaller accurate one.)

Given the setting, leadership can either be all NPC which would suck in its own way (see almost every WoD sphere with NPC leadership) or given to a small number of PCs which lead to cries of favoritism and cliquishness (see almost every WoD sphere with PC leadership as well as previous posts in this thread).

The idea of the Senate happened organically because obviously some kind of leadership is desperately needed but 100 teenage criminals and rabble-rousers who came from an arguably not so benevolent autocratic Council aren't going to want to be ordered around by another 'council' (which, yes, is what the Senate will be but elected by them so it's a compromise).

tl;dr Leadersip in a Mu setting is pretty much always a lose-lose situation. No matter what, a bunch of people are going to be unhappy.

@GirlCalledBlu said in The 100: The Mush:

The thing that bothers me about the ire here is that there's some misplaced assumption that Staffers are not allowed to participate in the games they run.

Oh, this is an OLD argument and not at all limited to The 100. Some games had a rule that no staffer was allowed to have a PC on the game. Some games (WoD) have the rule the staffer isn't allowed to have a PC in the sphere they staff. Some have neither rule. So yeah, old argument and one that has never been answered. It's all a matter of preference and how much someone trusts staff.

Yeah, they didn't hide it. I had a lot of fun on 5W while it was going strong.