Posts made by Warma Sheen

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

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

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

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

I suspect it's less about your safety than their fear of legal liability.

What liability?

If you get sick on their premises, there's at least an argument to be made that your illness is their responsibility for not disinfecting the facility; and if they get sued, I can't imagine their business owner insurance covers pandemics.

People can sue over whatever you want, but I doubt you'll get any court to believe that an apartment complex owner is negligent for not managing to keep a laundry room disinfected during a pandemic.Usually you just have to show you're following best practices and best practices are going to be to ensure that there's posted rules about hygiene habits. For instance it's probably a very good idea to wash your hands before and after you do laundry in a public space.

You might not be likely to win a case like that, but it doesn't mean a landlord (or any establishment) wants to risk spending the money to defend the lawsuit(s) you receive, especially if multiple residents all get sick. As more people are out of work and markets dropping, there will be more and more people who are willing to go to extreme lengths to make money - even if it is just nuisance lawsuits to try to collect a quick, low settlement.

Does anyone really believe all the business closures that happened before it was mandatory were done out of an abundance of caution and concern for people at their own expense? I don't. I think places like Disney found it was financially risky to continue operations. Whether it was lawsuits, or expenses, or just bad press for possibly being an epicenter of an outbreak, I don't think their decisions were based primarily on the health and welfare of people because they just care so damn much.

Governments impose social distancing rules.

Nerds across the world become instant heroes, with decades of experience leading by example.

(Sorry, I didn't make it meme-form.)

@tragedyjones That's awesome! Congrats! Now I know who to complain about.

I agree. I think it works fine. I prefer it to anything besides miniatures. Anything less than that I feel just gets in the way and slows things down.

@mietze When they cancel school for this I wonder if they thought about where the kids who go and who would be taking care of them. If you can afford daycare you are still putting a bunch of kids together all day. If you can't you have to miss work to take care of them. I don't know that the logic of it holds.

It is a conspiracy. They only cancelled this season to keep the Warriors from retaking the championship this year.

https://www.additudemag.com/rejection-sensitive-dysphoria-adhd-symptom-test/

https://www.additudemag.com/adhd-rejection-sensitive-dysphoria-vs-bipolar-disorder/

@Wretched That would be hilarious if it weren't so sad/scary.

The coronapocalypse is real. Not as bad as a zombie apocalypse, but real enough to have a definite effect.

The coronavirus is thought to have a higher mortality rate than the flu. Because we can't trust all the numbers coming from different countries, there's no real consensus. Still, the yearly flu we see are deadly. I'm not why people overlook that so easily.

But the perception surrounding the coronavirus is the real effect. Its sending economies crashing and people fearing for their lives. Its inspiring racial hatred (like that needed any more help). It is affecting businesses from meeting financial targets and causing political upheavals.

You know something is really bad when it can affect the untouchable 1%.

The coronavirus has really bad PR and it just goes to show that perception is reality.

I didn't think the first season of Altered Carbon was all that good. I wanted it to be. The idea/setting was fantastic. But the plot was confusing and chaotic (and soap opera cheezy) and didn't run together well. They changed a bunch from the book, for no discernible reason, but I didn't think it worked well. I'm hoping for a better second season but the previews were not promising.

@Lotherio said in Good TV:

Locke & Key is interesting, conceptually and in execution. Story development is well paced for me. Not done with it but enjoying this series.

I also liked the show. It wasn't the best ever, but I enjoyed the journey.

Good luck on getting this going. I think I've only played one super hero game and that only lasted a month. But I'd be willing to give one a try.

@Aria said in Bad TV:

@Ghost said in Bad TV:

@Auspice said in Bad TV:

Supernatural should have ended where it was written to end. Season 5. They wrapped up the story nice and neat. Then it became the dead horse that kept being beaten for views.

I gotta give it to the cast, though. Good on them for making good money across 15+ years on a show that I'm sure they're well aware is repetitive and tropey. You git that money, boys.

I love Supernatural, but I love it knowing full well it's garbage. And really, so do they -- a fact which I give them full credit for. Everything after season five is best summed up in a quote from "Chuck", an in-world author writing Supernatural as a book series that is accurate to the character's lives before they happen* and which will later become the Winchester Gospels, because he's actually a prophet:

"It's not jumping the shark if you never come back down."

I give them full credit for the recognition of the general garbageness of the show and also that they continue to very clearly and obviously have of fun making it and a boatload of fun with their fans. Good on them.

(*Yes, I really just typed that. >.<)

If they tried to take themselves seriously, it would be sad. But they don't. At all. They laugh at themselves right along with you, which makes it awesome. On one episode, they literally laugh at themselves. That is one of my favorite shows.

As a heads up, if you only watch the first season, you won't understand what I'm talking about. It isn't until later that they gave up on trying to be a spooky scary show and just started having fun.

@Sunny said in Dead Celebrities 2020:

There is a point here, folks. Why is this objection not OK and others have been?

IMO it seems to depend on who has the objection. Or the comment. It doesn't just happen on this thread. It happens on others too. If you're just noticing that, congrats, you're not at max cynical mode.

I was not a fan of Kobe. I despised his style of selfish play (and selfish everything else). But as a person, this is a tragedy that hit home for me. I felt it. Good or bad, he was a substantial part of my basketball experience for a lot of years through the TV screen.

And I feel for the other families that lost people on that crash who will inevitably get overlooked or minimized while people express their sympathies for Kobe and his family. They lost people too. No one who has that happen to them should have to also feel less important than someone else who went through the exact same thing. I know that's just how people are, but it still sucks.

@Pandora Whatever. Use either. Both.

@surreality said in Personal Agency for Personal Boundaries:

@Derp Yes, that is a huge help, but I still wouldn't feel comfortable unless there was a list of 'nope, not happening' (ex: rape, child rape, etc.) listed as 'can't be thrown at people without permission'.

'Anything lasting longer than a single scene' is pretty important; hopefully this will include things like 'this mentally fucks someone up for life' in practice.

Why do people keep glossing over / ignoring this?

It seems like this would solve a huge majority of problems. This doesn't have to be a MU wide setting. It can be specific to each player. Many of the situations complained about can easily be put into a yes no list for each character. Characters have +finger information, +info, +prefs, etc. They can easily have a yes/no list of problematic situations that they allow or have deny. Then the responsibility is on the 'offending' person for trying to push something on someone that has already been denied.

If that's not enough, you can add that code red command to let someone know they're pushing something that's already been denied. Then the onus is on the guy that was inconsiderately entering gray territory without bothering to check the other person's settings.

The list can be as long as anyone wants. It can have an area for write in answers. It can be defaulted on each bit as all nos or all yeses as staff prefers. Every player can be required to set them in chargen before approval so no one feels looked down on for marking something off limits. None of this would be difficult to code based on what I've seen from coders.

Seems like all that makes staff intervention much easier by eliminating bad situations before they start. If people can't be trusted to speak up for themselves or for other people to not to be crappy to others, then this would probably just push the problems elsewhere rather than eliminating them, but there's a chance it could help.

Just make it a thing.

@Auspice said in The ADD/ADHD Thread (cont'd from Peeves):

@faraday said in The ADD/ADHD Thread (cont'd from Peeves):

Likening ADHD treatment to lobotomies is not.

this.

Except no one did 'this'. 'This' was faulty conclusion jumped to for the purpose of arguing a point that no one was making.

I wasn't likening ADHD treatment to lobotomies. It was just one example of when the scientific and medical community accepted treatment for a condition(s) that was just wrong. An example that science/doctors don't always get things right and other educated professionals others still will go along with it.

@faraday said in The ADD/ADHD Thread (cont'd from Peeves):

Coming onto a forum about ADD talking about how "pumping people with aderall and ritalin" is bad, doctors are unethical, big pharma can't be trusted, some people with diagnoses "likely don't have it", etc. is not just unhelpful, it's harmful. This is not a matter of 'everyone's entitled to their opinions'; it's contributing to the stigma around mental health and that's a bad thing.

So if I understand you correctly, it isn't the fact that these things exist that are the problem. It is me bringing them up that is contributing to the stigma around mental health?

I don't get to have an opinion and people aren't allowed to mention these contributing factors because you don't like the conclusions that I draw from them?

Are you serious?

Your conclusions are the only ones that are right and saying otherwise is harmful?

What a joke.

Feel free to argue my points as not being true. And I mean, the actual things I said, not the things you twisted into statements that sound offensive just so you can have something to get pissed off about. The fact that you had to change them into something else when you could easily copy / paste or just take the whole quote is evidence that you are well aware of what your trying to do. I'm just not sure why. Anyway, here are my points (many of them copy and pasted with ease) in case you actually want to refute them.

*Sometimes sciences/scientists are just wrong.
*Science thought lobotomies were proper solutions for people that weren't considered normal. (If you want more examples of things science once thought about mental conditions which are no longer believed to be true you just let me know as there are more than a few.)
*It isn't insane to think there might be a better way to address ADD than pumping people with aderall and ritalin. (which is what was actually said rather than what you incorrectly changed it to be.) (Also, notice all the modifiers in there that indicate I'm not trying to state some cold, solid fact - just the possibility that another solution could possibly exist.)
*It is not nonsense to be skeptical that maybe not everyone diagnosed with ADD/ADHD actually has it. (if you have some way to know that every diagnosis is correct and accurate, I'd sure love to know what that is) (Again with all the modifiers...)
*'Big pharma' has been known to sweep better courses of treatment for all kinds of conditions under the rug if they are less profitable.
*'Big pharma' are the same people that have proven untrustworthy of ethical standards.

@faraday said in The ADD/ADHD Thread (cont'd from Peeves):

Nobody is saying that medication is the only answer, or even the best answer for everyone. There are all kinds of behavioral therapies available.

That was kind of the whole point of my post. I agree with you. So I'm still not sure why you're picking a fight. If you want to, that's fine. Fight away if you must. But use my actual words instead of made up, self-serving BS edited so you can try to stand on some moral high ground you don't actually have. Besides, if you have to change my words to argue my point, you're not even arguing my point. You're just arguing your own fictional point.

And even then, we would probably still agree.

Science has come a long way. Science still has a long way to go. I believe in the near future, science will say, 'this was not the best way to go about treating ADD/ADHD, we didn't fully understand it and we're gonna do this instead'. That's what I believe. If you can't even acknowledge that is a possibility, that's on you.

@Auspice @Rinel My own experience with ADD is just that, my own experience. I certainly never told anyone else what to think about the matter. It was just me expressing my beliefs, largely based on my own experience. I thought that was clear without needing a full legal disclaimer and a scientifically cited research paper.

How I adjusted is just my case. I never presented an option to cure the world, just a technique that was helpful for me that I think could be more useful for a lot of others. As far as I can tell this isn't a thread about one person in particular. I'm not sure why my post seemed to be taken as a direct attack on anyone.

Everyone else who posted about their beliefs and experiences seemed to be treated rather respectfully, even when they varied in experience. So it was a pretty shitty feeling that I didn't get the same, tbh. I'd love to say whatever, but it bothered me.

It was suggested to me that because I didn't state in my post that I had been diagnosed with ADD that you assumed I did not and that is why my opinion was so easily dismissed, but I think that's a cop out. You don't have to have ADD to have an opinion about it. It doesn't just affect the person that has it, it affects everyone that they come into contact with, especially those they care about. Neither of my parents were diagnosed with it, but they both have very strong opinions of it. Those opinions served me very well, btw.

@faraday I certainly didn't tell anyone that ADD is a big pharma conspiracy. Yes, that would be nonsense, which is why I did not say that. I did suggest that very recent events have proven that big pharma cannot be trusted not to put people above profits. Having doctors push diagnoses and prescriptions on patients that may not need them or would be better served by other courses of treatment is their main play. That's not just my personal opinion, but the fact and finding of the multiple trials that have been decided by juries and judges earlier this year. As ADD diagnoses are being given out in steadily greater numbers every year, it is not nonsense to be skeptical that maybe not everyone diagnosed with ADD/ADHD actually has it. Some definitely do. Some likely do not. The same can be said of the number and dosages prescribed. There may be better ways. But 'big pharma' has been known to sweep better courses of treatment for all kinds of conditions under the rug if they are less profitable. It isn't insane to think there might be a better way to address ADD than pumping people with aderall and ritalin, since the same people best suited to find that way are the same people that have proven untrustworthy of ethical standards.

Anyway... That's been bothering me for a few days now. And it took about 6 hours to write this post to keep it as positive as possible. But what that means to me probably doesn't mean the same to other people.

@Thenomain said in General Video Game Thread:

We need to stop expecting the world.

I feel like that's not just people coming up with unrealistic expectations, though. That's the company promoting and trying to create hype and pitching their product as though it is the world - then struggling to meet the raised expectations they created.

Both Cyberpunk and Bloodlines 2 went on presale like a year in advanced based on little more than fancy trailers. That's way too far out of having any hope of hitting your target date with any definitive accuracy. It felt less like your usual presales and more like late-term crowdfunding / market testing. If they get a lot of presales, they keep working on it. If they don't, they fix as much major stuff as possible and release it as is to the smaller market.

And sure, every company wants to make sales, but no one wants to make the video game equivalent of the Fyre festival.

Saw this. Thought it was informative. Maybe someone else can be helped by it.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/20/us/asexuality-explainer-trnd/index.html