Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Feiya

Caineach's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 5,044 posts (5,049 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 396 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My only real complaint about the series is that they mostly ignore the fact that he is a lawyer. I'm not a big comic reader, so I only have a passing familiarity with the a few characters from elsewhere. But I was hoping for something more paced like Burn Notice, with a solid client of the week interacting with the overarching plot. Instead, it felt like they rushed the primary plot as the only thing going on, so it felt like too much happened too quickly.

That being said, the cinematography was amazing. Others have mentioned the hallway scene, but I think one of my favorites was the episode open where they show Fisk's morning routine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hama wrote:
Um Arrow fights are crap. Anyone fighting like Ollie does would be dead within seconds.

Not to mention his bow would break the first time he tried to use it after one of his melees with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hrothdane wrote:

@RainyDayNinja I'm guessing you are suggesting that the numbers being similar is somehow indicative of something.

You have given evidence of a correlation between number of votes and being affiliated with Tor, nothing more, and weak evidence at that. I don't see any evidence as to what caused it. Patterns emerge in any system of data if you look hard enough and long enough at it and feel free to cherry-pick data. Also, Day is quick to try to explain away the years in which the category numbers didnt all match up, nor does he include any kind of analysis of the overall pattern of voting data. Unless vote manipulation has been endemic from the beginning, there should be clear and marked changes in the voting data around the time the manipulation began, which would be much easier to show. He is clearly trying to find a pattern.

Extrapolating sound conclusions from data is hard enough with organized and randomized studies and actual statistical analysis tools. Expecting a non-random sample cherry-picked from all the years of data to give insight just wastes everyone's time.

Actually, the number of votes each thing got is a huge indicator and ridiculously important. It shows that people did not vote for the Sad Puppies list en mass without consideration, as 1 work on the list has twice the number of votes as another. It also shows that the previous voting had those Sad Puppies is accusing of block voting having large chunks within 10% of eachother. So, Sad Puppies, publicly announcing their slate, do not show signs of block voting but their opposition, who is denouncing the block voting, does.

Quote:


@koloktroni

Trying to "rock the vote" so to speak isn't the issue. My issue is with the premise of Sad Puppies that their preferred works were being marginalized by an illegitimate force and that they had to react. That narrative doesn't hold water.

Actually, It holds a lot of water with me. The works they support are frequently a different style that sells really well but does not get recognized by awards. They are the cheesy romance novels of science fiction.

Quote:


@Caineach

You don't have to convince me that the nomination process is not constructed well and leaves great potential for abuse. However, having great potential for abuse does not equate to that abuse having occurred.

As to politics, my point was that any two news sources can have a wildly different view of things. The old "politcal correctness will doom the liberals" is a shibboleth that has been circulating since the phrase "political correctness" was invented. I've probably heard we are a year away from the Republican party splintering over the libertarian and conservative Christian divide for 10 years, too. I was also thinking about one of the many other times Bill Maher has complained about political correctness. Once again, shibboleth.

Political correctness was originally a conservative push and has changed meaning since the 90s. That it has now taken over the left and is strangling it is slowly becoming more evident, from the redacted story Entertainment Weekly published on this to the death threats being sent to the pizzeria in Indiana. You can find the redacted article at the end of Coreia's response to sad puppies 3 backlash


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
jemstone wrote:
Do you have any idea how hard it is to come up with those Magical Girl "You will be punished for your wrongdoings!" monologues on the fly? Do you? DO YOU?!?
Yes.

In Samurai Flamenco they actually discuss it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hrothdane wrote:

What points? As I indicated when I paraphrase one of Correia's comments, I've been to their website and read their side. Where is the evidence there was any sort of organized liberal cabal, that quality works were systematically excluded from the process because they didn't meet an arbitrary level of social conscience?

Until there is compelling evidence that such corruption existed and actually affected the results in a meaningful way, Sad Puppies has no legs to stand on. Sometimes groups are marginal because they just aren't popular.

Once again, where are the critiques of the quality of the writing of the supposedly undeserving works? Where is the evidence that a liberal elite has made attempting to tackle social issues trump writing quality? All I'm seeing from Sad Puppies is a bunch of people complaining about SJWs.

As for the political comments, if I go to a liberal news site, they will say that conservatives are imploding. If I go to a conservative one, it will say liberals are imploding. I'm well familir with Bill Maher, and in the case you mention, he was resentful because he got pushback for his attitudes towards Islam, which are hardly uncontroversial. I'm also not sure how unbiased a person would be on the subject of political correctness when they name their show Politically Incorrect as a badge of honor.

As many have said, the "cabal" didn't have to be organized because the voting public was so small that it could have been an informal friends circle that just circulated recommendations to eachother and thus dominated the voting. As was pointed out above, it could take as little as 12 votes to get on the short list in some categories, and if those groups were the active particpants in other parts of the con they could easily drive other people away from voting just by being annoying. The convention circuit is extremely cliquey, and this award could easily be dominated by the active cliques through normal social interactions.

As for the Bill Maher comments, it had nothing to do the backlash against his Islamic beliefs. It is about his comments on Elton John attacking Dolce and Gobbana and backlash against a university professor saying "all live matter" instead of "black lives matter". And your comments about going to conservative sites to see them talking about the other side imploding makes no sense with regards to me mentioning Huffington Post, since Huffington Post is one of the most liberal news outlets with respectability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by "hitting significantly more numbers". Are you saying less people read those message boards than Scalzi's, for example?

Exactly. More people read Scalzi's message board, but he failed to conver them into voters.

Quote:


Their recommendations certainly drew more votes than anyone elses, even assuming there was anything to directly compare them too. Partly because they framed it as "Here's your chance to stick it to them."
And by "left wing ideologues", they basically mean people who write stories featuring LGBTQ characters in positive roles, right?

If that were the case, Correia would be eliminating himself, as well as a number of authors on the sad puppies list. There is a difference between people who support LGBTQ issues and people and the people who have become rabid in their attacks against anyone who doesn't support the party line. There is a reason Bill Maher of all people recently called out the left for attacking its own, and you are starting to see news articles about the left being self-destructive with its political correctness on places like Huffington Post.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hrothdane wrote:
This movement isn't about inclusion. It's about reactionaries attempting to exert control over a system that hasnt been favoring them. The condescending and patronizing attitude of the sponsers of Sad Puppies towards those that they believe have "stolen" the awards from "true" sci-fi becomes extraordinarily clear in the banter they have with their followers and their attacks on critics in the comments on their sites.

And have you looked at the banter they are responding to? The Sad Puppies have been downright civil in their response.

Quote:


The Rapid Puppies list was more successful than the more moderate Sad Puppies one. That fact alone gives an idea of what kind of person is behind this movement. The name "Sad Puppies" alone is a perfect example of the kind of self-indulgent victim complex that motivates its creators.

Yes, because using a mocking joke of a name for what started as a gag is somehow a self-indulgent victim complex. Or it is a guy with a sense of humor who understands how the internet works and how to connect with his fans. Apparently understanding how PR works is evil.

Quote:
Once again, nobody has given any evidence that there was any form of vote tampering in the past. Saying "certainly it must have happened at some point" doesn't cut it, sorry. The only evidence presented amounts to "I dont like thing and everyone in my social circle doesnt like thing so it must win awards by cheating." This mentality pops up all the time when one group feels marginalized: they characterize anyone that disagrees with them as illegitimate because CLEARLY they deserve to be in charge regardless of any facts or evidence. It's nothing but unfettered ressentiment and it's disgusting no matter what group is guilty of it.

Or it could be that the group is actually being marginalized and shut out of the conversation. Gotta love a group claiming to be open and welcoming hurling insults and vilifying a group for saying they feel like their voices aren't being heard and then doing something about it.

Quote:


People here keep saying that it's just about a group of fans trying to get more of the sci-fi they like visible, but people keep dancing around the topic of what that actually means in this context. This movement is not about quality writing; it's about censuring certain categories of content. Just like Gamergate, Sad Puppies brings along the baggage of unleashing a horde of vitriolic negativity on a group of people that have commited the apparently heinous crime of caring too much about social issues and writing about them. My God.

The leaders of Sad Puppies want to define "good sci-fi" as being free of LGBT themes and social justice issues. I have not seen one critique of the actual writing skills of an author, only snide comments on the interests of the supposed elites. This Sad Puppies group of reactionaries has declared an entire group of writers--and by extension their fans--illegitimate because of the subject matter of their stories. How does that make the field more open? How does that fight for the rights of artistic expression?

Apparently that is why the creator uses an ethnically diverse cast in his novels, and the recommendations included works with non-hetero-normative main characters from a group of authors across the political spectrum. Because they think those things shouldn't be included...

Quote:


I accept that the arts will always have works I don't like and that other people will. Camus put it better than me when he wrote that "A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad." You can dislike the works, but that is no argument against leaving the creative marketplace free and open. Creative people need an open environment to work in, to feel free to take risks. Taking risks means making mistakes, trying things that haven't been done before. How are writers supposed to feel comfortable when they know that any slight trace of social conscience will earn them a fanatical hatedom? Sad Puppies claims that they felt punished for not kow-towing to some unproven--and completely unevidenced--liberal conspiracy by being denied awards. How terrible. Correia even mentions in one of his dismissive comments on his site that he has a pile of money. I really see how marginalized he is. Not winning an award vs having people grabbing torches and pitchforks because you wrote a gay couple. I wonder which is worse for the industry. I wonder which infringes more upon the freedom of artists to follow their inspiration.

Yes. Because the traditional voters response to Correia getting his first nomination before he became popular (complete boycott of his works because of his support for the Republican party) and publicly encouraging people to refuse to read it is so open and welcoming to new authors. If you are only open and welcoming when people don't dissent with you, your not actually open and welcoming.

Quote:


Correia and Turgeson and Wright can say they are just underdogs fighting the good fight until the end of the world. It doesnt mean anything if their actions dont support that.

But they seem to be growing and converting undecided in their favor, so you may want to take a look and actually read their points before outright ignoring them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

At which point of course, there is no problem with voting No Award above any names on the slate, since that's allowed by the rules.

This isn't a government or giant corporation. It's a volunteer fan organization. Sure, there are basic rules, but it has run for decades mostly by the good will of those involved. It's not designed to be completely hack proof. And it probably can't be, without being changed beyond recognition.
As analogy, think of a munchkin building Pun-Pun or some similar exploit and insisting it was "rules legal and therefore...

Except that the slate didn't vote in things to troll, they voted in things that they thought were worthy but would not get consideration (at least the SP one, RP is a different story). By block voting No Award out of spite, you are telling everyone who likes those things that their opinions didn't matter, thus proving the point of the people who created the slate that the award has become an elitist clique. Sad Puppies wins either way. The only ones it hurts are the authors who got on the slate despite not having anything to do with Sad Puppies.

Scalzi has the right of it. Read the things that got nominated and make a judgement ignoring how they got on there. It is the only way to be fair to the authors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Pristine is a strong word. You're right, I doubt it's pristine. I also doubt it's seriously corrupt. It's a small fan/volunteer community doing the work. The community of authors is also pretty tightly knit - even the outcasts, like Larry and Vox are well known personally, if not liked.

The number of votes is publicly released (after the awards.) If there's dirty business going on, it's going to be pretty obvious. Like this.
There have been allegations from the Puppies of Tor doing something, but I haven't seen anything specific about what that is. Until I do, I'm writing it off as "Tor is winning too often, they must be dirty".

They aren't saying they are doing something nefarious. They are saying that they are a small group that has dominated the awards by being hostile to outsiders and making people not want to participate. If you have ever seen small convention politics, it fits right in with what sad puppies claim is happening. One clique gets slightly more powerful, pisses people off and drives them away. Now they get to dominate the awards by virtue of other people just not wanting to participate, and the awards skew towards one groups collective appetite. In this case, it looks like you only need about a dozen people to pull it off, which is really easy to do with just a single book club or social circle. A handful of charismatic people who convince their friends they should read certain books is all it takes. It doesn't need to be an organized effort for them to dominate the discussion. Sad Puppies is just an organized pushback against that behavior.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Berinor wrote:

Caineach - there is a difference, but I agree it's not a black and white thing. It's more like charcoal and ash (I don't actually know which of those is darker, but you get the idea).

One is introducing a bias of memory by making sure your eligible entries are considered. This makes sense, but would be better if it were more across-the-board. Maybe something that would have a list of all valid entries thus far, updated daily. Or maybe allowing writers to submit their name for official consideration. You could argue that in its current state it's implicitly asking people to nominate the whole list. This is where it edges into gray territory.

The other is explicitly asking people to submit entries they haven't personally considered. That's deliberately introducing a bias. It may be similar in shape, but the scale is different.

I'll also add on that unless there's consistent bias, humans are, in aggregate, good at making guesses. In my opinion, introducing a conflicting bias might be effective at changing the struggle, but it's not healthy to the process in the long run since it leads to factions. Diluting the bias (by encouraging "fair" people to vote but not attempting to directly sway that vote) or eliminating the bias (by convincing people to realize they're biased and attempt to counter its influence) are better ways to make that happen.

So if you still think I'd be interested in that bridge, let's talk price. :-)

Is it asking people to submit entries they didn't read? I read it as "these things are awesome, and we think you will agree". You have no evidence that people didn't actually read the things before submitting them. Your talking about lists circulated on author's websites. By their very nature, the people on those sites are likely avid readers. Not only that, but Sad Puppies did book bombs, where they bought copies of the works and sent them out for people to read.

Sure, getting people organized to read things they may not have otherwise read is an escalation, but it isn't some demonic scheme that a lot of people are making it out to be.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

From talking to a few people in the industry as well as what I've seen online, it looks like the reaction that they're trying for is avoid that arms race, but instead to punish the bloc nominating by voting "No award" above all the nominees on the bloc slates. No award can actually win, so that could be effective.

I've heard no talk of building competing slates and much disgust at the notion.
For future years, as I suggested above, the best approach is to get more people to nominate. Drown out the puppies if they try this again.

Great. Punish good authors for being liked by the wrong kind of people. That will certainly heal the rift that is growing in fandom.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I got to say, looking at the Sad Puppy list of authors if you claim they organised a politically biased list, I will laugh at you. It contains people from a broad political spectrum who wrote a fairly diverse body of work.

As for the morality of it, if all it takes is a group smaller than a college science fiction club publicly announcing they are going to rig your vote to successfully rig your election, you have bigger problems for one of the most prestigious science fiction awards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Hoover wrote:

Shrinking... flying... energy blasts... Is he Iron Man or the Wasp? Anyway good times.

I just wish they'd resolve him and move on. The whole rest of the show is gritty and filled with angst, and then there's Ray. Kind of like The Flash, only backwards. The whole Flash show is a lighthearted romp, and then there's Dr Wells.

Honestly, I hope they leave him a fairly open aspect of the show. I hate it when shows continuously write off people and characters that they could instead use to flesh out the world. Its my biggest complaint with Supernatural - every potential ally has to be killed off to keep the feel of 2 people on their own static, rather than letting the show evolve and giving them new people they could occasionally call for help.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
memorax wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:


Hypocrisy is a very human emotional reaction to shock.

So, while I am not fond of the direction they are taking the character, her actions are entirely realistic.

It's not a major issue. I'm glad they show how much a hypocrite Simmons is. I just wish their would have been a buildup. While realistic it does feel like they tacked it on simply to push Inhumans.

How do you build up response to a sudden traumatic event?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Sometimes the dub improves upon the original product.

...

I loved you once, Toz. ignites beam saber

We have already had this discussion in this thread. It is rare, but it is true.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So I watched Samurai Flamenco this weekend. If you are a fan of Sentai shows and Gurren Lagann, you will love it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I just discovered this album and really hope it is the soundtrack. It wont be, but it would be perfect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

God I want one of these systems


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ivan Rûski wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I would feel more reassured if there was more Dinklage and less Sandler in the trailer...
Alex Martin wrote:
The concept is novel and the Toru Iwatani sequence had me laughing. That being said, I am little concerned that is a Sandler/James movie.
Sandler isn't that bad. You just have to be willing to turn your brain off.

Sandler is amazingly hit or miss for me. He can do highbrow comedy, he can do slapstick, and he can do things that strike a solid balance of the 2. A lot of his things go too far into the slapstick end for my tastes. Like Ben Stiller, he is a comedian I will wait and see what the reviews are before watching. That is a lot better than I will give Will Ferrell, whom I can't stand to see on screen.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:
Krensky wrote:

For most of mechPoet's posts, it appears to be.

See their above comment about grammar being a tool of oppression for an example.

If someone uses "they" pronouns, dismissing that by saying "you can't use 'they' as a singular pronoun, because it's not proper grammar" is oppression.

Would you like to argue that "words are just words" to excuse the use of slurs, next?

This type of dialog only makes enemies and bystanders out of potential friends, in my experience.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
TanithT wrote:
Why does anyone need to know my gender or treat me in gendered ways or use gendered language to describe me? The whole thing just weirds me out. I have no answers to give about my gender identity that fit into a binary, and that makes life pretty uncomfy in a world that is so intensively focused on gendering everyone and everything.

Do you think that part of it, part of it, is that humans are sexual creatures, constantly and subconsciously assessing everyone they meet to see if that person is up for it, assuming that they are attracted to that gender?

Given that most people (there are exceptions) limit themselves to one particular gender, then knowing the gender of the person you meet is crucial information when it comes to how you interact, both consciously or subconsciously.

Thoughts?

Thoughts: humans are sexual creatures, but almost no one is looking to have sex 100% of the time? When I go to work, I'm not eyeing my co-workers, most of whom are old enough to be my parents, thinking, "Hm, yeah, that's the right gender presentation, I should pursue reproduction with them."

The obsession with gendering others is, perhaps, in some small part, sexual in nature. Perhaps even born of the fact that humans reproduce sexually. However, gender is a social construction, and acts much more like a social class presented as an inherent reality. If the urge to gender people was a largely sexual one, rather than a social process we're taught to enact, then I'm guessing there would be a lot fewer children asking, "Are you a girl or a boy?" to anyone who fails to conform strictly to the socially constructed gender binary.

I have to disagree. I think it is a huge part for some people. One of the first things that goes through my head any time I meet someone is a sexual assessment of them. It doesn't matter what age or gender, though I am only personally attracted to women. I'm also constantly re-assessing people as I interact with them.

Just because people don't think about sex 100% of the time doesn't mean it doesn't interrupt their other thoughts with regularity and change their behavior.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I know a number of people who use Ze.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:

Transfer of credits from one regional accredited school to another regionally accredited school is not guaranteed. Even when it's the same regional accreditor.

I've seen classes taught by the same professor at different colleges not transfer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A couple days ago my friends an I were discussing Gurren Lagann and came to the conclusion that the hero should have been a duck. Nothing in nature beats the male duck's spiral power.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Set wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
I personally don't like a Peggy Carter match up. There are too few episodes to waste time on this.

If they don't tie her life up with a bow in the final episode, it leaves room for future segments, such as another eight episode run next year during the Agents of SHIELD winter break.

No reason to shut all the doors, after all. She could have had many years of adventures as a founder of SHIELD before settling down, and I for one am not watching Agent Carter to find out who she plays housewife with or the exciting adventures of her learning how to cook and sew and vacuum floors.

What makes you think she would choose a man who would make her do any of those things?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RainyDayNinja wrote:
Since Spider-Man is based in New York, they're going to have to address what he was up to during the events of the first Avengers movie. Will they retcon him in, saying he was fighting the Chitauri somewhere else in the city? Or maybe the Battle of New York spurs him to move beyond fighting purse-snatchers and seek out SHIELD so he can make a real difference?

I think he will have been a kid who has grown up in the aftermath of the destruction of a major part of NYC. If he got his powers shortly after, he will have had at least 2 years to develop into an Avenger recruit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alzrius wrote:
Caineach wrote:
I just noticed RWBY on Netflix last night.
I saw that too. They've (very cogently) made each "volume" of the first season into a single episode - meaning that they're essentially presented as two movie-length features.

Awe, but that means you don't get to sit through the awesome intro song until it is stuck in your head :(


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:

Please. You wouldn't want my wife. She's a smart ass and enjoys mocking things you enjoy.

hugs UC Gundam DVDs

Is that supposed to diminish his request somehow?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:

Btw, sorry if it felt like I baited you so I could make my response, but I felt that y'all's dislike for the term was due to a misunderstanding of its definition and use (determined by asking you to explain why you disliked it).

Again, I'll be the first to admit that bandying these terms about willy-nilly can be less than useful. But I don't think that a misuse of the term (and here I'm wary of drifting into the dreaded realm of prescriptive linguistics) as an ill-conceived "catch-phrase" or "buzzword" (if indeed such a thing happens) should be taken as the first and foremost understanding of it. I would also encourage that anyone who is not part of a given oppressed group have a little leeway with how that oppressed group describes their experiences. It's more important to try and understand where someone is coming from than to dictate how they should express themselves.

I think you misunderstand me. I have no problem with the definition. I have a problem with its use. It gets used to describe behavior as being aggressive that is in no way such. It gets used to describe every possible behavior someone can take that isn't strictly towing the feminist line, and even sometimes then. If a guy shows any sign of interest in someone, I've seen it somehow labeled a microaggression. The term is being used as a sledgehammer to say any non-puritanical male thoughts are somehow oppressive, regardless of how he acts on them.

Forgive me, but I feel sex shaming is a bad thing. The US is too puritanical society as it is.

Of course sex shaming is overwhelmingly directed at women, but we must fight any hint of it targeting men. Even when it's not actually sex, but harassment.

Are you claiming the concept is inherently invalid and should be dropped entirely? Or just that "microaggression" is applied overly broadly - to any expression of interest, as you said?

I think some groups are applying it properly, but that there is a significant, vocal group that screams that any possible thing a man can do is bad. I think some of the popular feminists right now, like Anita Sarkeesian, skirt the line.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:

Btw, sorry if it felt like I baited you so I could make my response, but I felt that y'all's dislike for the term was due to a misunderstanding of its definition and use (determined by asking you to explain why you disliked it).

Again, I'll be the first to admit that bandying these terms about willy-nilly can be less than useful. But I don't think that a misuse of the term (and here I'm wary of drifting into the dreaded realm of prescriptive linguistics) as an ill-conceived "catch-phrase" or "buzzword" (if indeed such a thing happens) should be taken as the first and foremost understanding of it. I would also encourage that anyone who is not part of a given oppressed group have a little leeway with how that oppressed group describes their experiences. It's more important to try and understand where someone is coming from than to dictate how they should express themselves.

I think you misunderstand me. I have no problem with the definition. I have a problem with its use. It gets used to describe behavior as being aggressive that is in no way such. It gets used to describe every possible behavior someone can take that isn't strictly towing the feminist line, and even sometimes then. If a guy shows any sign of interest in someone, I've seen it somehow labeled a microaggression. The term is being used as a sledgehammer to say any non-puritanical male thoughts are somehow oppressive, regardless of how he acts on them.

Forgive me, but I feel sex shaming is a bad thing. The US is too puritanical society as it is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:

I am honestly curious about some things in this topic:

First, if half of gamers are women, does this mean women consume the same types of games as men? Because I was under the quite distinct impression that women were a far smaller percentage of those who play the A-budget titles, with most female gamers focusing on app games or at least far lower budget projects. This, in turn, would deny the idea that A-budget titles should be designed equally with them in mind. If they WERE as many as the male gamers, I believe we would see a pretty strong proliferation of studios willing to make A-budget games about shirtless werewolves. And of course, it is a given that low-budget games won't go too much into titillating subjects, given that it's typically a costly thing to do, what with heavy graphics and so on.

Second, if feminists cast any game that doesn't have a female protagonist as sexist (due to ignoring women), and any game that has one as sexist (consider Ms Pacman, if you will, seen as THE WORST example of sexism in gaming by some...), what do they hope will happen? If even the obvious protests against sexism are judged to be sexist crap, like Watchdogs, it is getting difficult. If you want someone to change, it's usually seen as pretty useless to condemn them whatever they do.

I believe most people are sensible if they take the time to think about things. That certainly doesn't mean all of them are. Some are too fixated on their protests that they lose sight of their goal. Hopefully, that goal is to make gaming a vibrant, interesting scene where everyone can be welcome, where people can give us interesting stories and characters, that breaks new ground, and even possibly change people's minds about some things. That certainly isn't where we are today. Most of the money in the industry is poured into stupid military propaganda games, and everything else tends to follow suit. So, if we want to change the industry for the better, it is far more important to point out the good than the bad. Otherwise, if...

The closest character I have ever heard of being described as a positive video game female character is Jade from Beyond Good and Evil. Of course feminists still attacked her for being physically unrealistic, despite the fact that I personally know women with her, or more extreme, proportions. I've also seen her get attacked by feminists because she takes care of the other children in her orphanage and is maternalistic.

As a side note I find it really amusing that my spell checker has paternalistic but not maternalistic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:
LazarX wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
Caineach wrote:
God I hate the term microaggressions.

What you rather we call small instances of racism, sexism, and ableism in the form of oppression-normalizing jokes and "innocent" remarks? I can't think of anything catchier.

EDIT: Oh! We could call them dick-jokes! Not to be confused with phallic puns and innuendos, dick-jokes are what we call mean jokes told by racist and sexist dicks!

Call them what they are, and stop fixating on catch-phrases. In the end, they do far more harm than good.
Honest question: how?

Microagression as a term implies that a behavior is consciously designed to be aggressive, and applies no distinction to levels of behavior. Many of the times it is used are in fairly benign applications, lumping them in with much more serious problems. In this thread we have examples of a guy sitting with his legs spread apart naturally on a mostly empty subway and a guy silently doing a doubletake of a sexily dressed woman being labeled the same thing as a guy actively crowding the people next to him making them visibly uncomfortable and a guy stalking a woman for 5 minutes after she refused to talk to him. Lumping these types of things into the same category results in people not taking them seriously.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fergie wrote:

~Shrugs~

My main point was that REAL problems of inequality exist, and result in all kinds of horrific real world consequences. Making the discussion about some strawman fringe argument (and/or making fun of that argument) isn't very funny when women are getting raped/assaulted on a very consistent basis. (It probably could be funny, but that article Fergug brought up didn't appeal to my sense of humor)

Liberals are not afraid of being made fun of, but when the joke is at the expense of people who get the short end of the stick and suffer real world consequences, it is about as funny as blackface whites making fun of silly negros.

1. The author was a woman.

2. I'm sorry, but when a group goes on a crusade (it has made national news and influenced government policy) against people sitting with their knees a foot appart claiming it is sexist, they don't get to use "but we are assaulted more" as a defense against mockery, unless they can somehow show a good correlation to guys casually sitting on subway cars and assault.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:

I wish people would be clearer about what they're trying to debunk. There's a lot of things being suggested by the video, some of it true, some of it debatable:

Lars can literally fire at twice the rate any other archer in the world can manage.

True, but he sacrifices a ton of accuracy for doing so. Other archers are practicing for speed and accuracy, he is mostly practicing for speed. Thus he will be faster.

Quote:


Some / many ancient archers used a technique similar to this.
This technique was used effectively on the battlefield, not just for display purposes.

Yes. But he also makes the claim that other techniques were not used when they were just used in different areas, and he tries to back up his position with demonstrably false claims.

Quote:


These arrows are fired with enough force to penetrate light/medium armor.

They can be fired from his bow with enough force, maybe. Note, he takes significantly slower shots when piercing the armor, instead of his normal speed shooting, and they don't show him so we don't know if he is using the same equipment.

Quote:


Lars has enough accuracy to shoot arrows out of the air.
Lars has enough accuracy and power to shoot arrows out of the air even when they're fired with full force by a competent archer.

An impressive feat of trick shooting.

Quote:


Quivers of arrows weren't used in real battles.
Something something Hollywood something.

The video of him wearing a quiver is rediculous. First, his arrows are not sized for the quiver he has - they are too long. Second, he is about as coordinated as puppy on a good day, even without the quiver getting in his way. I have run through woods with a side quiver on. The bow in my hand slowed me down more.

Quote:


Not all battles are the same. If you're firing at French knights mired in mud, you have a couple of minutes to shoot at them before they get to you. In this situation, you only need so much rate of fire because if you're firing every two seconds you'll run out of arrows in no time. What you need is good range, and good penetration because they're going to be in high quality armor. (If rate-of-fire was everything, no-one would ever have bothered with crossbows.)
If you're fighting mongol hordes or peasant spearmen, the situation will be different. Or you might be in a siege, or fending off lions, or trying to defeat a single guy with a sword ten feet away, or in an archery contest firing at a non-moving target.

But he isn't making a claim about Mongolians. He is making broad sweeping claims about all archers in general.

Quote:


His technique is impressive, and would be useful in some of those situations, and not so useful in others.

Yes. Unfortunately he isn't making that claim.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
UnArcaneElection wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
This is the first thing I've looked at on the subject..

I read part of the article, up to and even some way past the point where they said this: "You can see it in the slow-motion footage during the tournament scene in Brave; as the arrow begins its flight, it’s oscillating back and forth, swimming through the air like a fish and moving to the left, until the aerodynamic effect of the air passing over feathers causes it to begin spinning, at which point the arrow turns and begins traveling to the right." They even give a link to the trailer to the Pixar animated film, just to confirm that they weren't talking about a different Brave film than what I was thinking of. I am less than impressed with a takedown article that uses this for a source . . . .

Physicists widely acclaimed the movie for its accurate portrail of the effect. As an archer, using that shot in their previews was one of the biggest reasons I wanted to see the movie. I got a huge physics hard on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I admit, I don't know what arrows look like at speeds from a 30 lbs bow, but I DO know the following off of personal experience.

Well, I got my daughter a toy bow for Christmas and her arrows go faster than that. It doesn't feel like a 30 lb bow, her's feels more like something really light...like 10 lbs...and they go FASTER than what he shows.

Not an archery expert, but I CAN say that I've seen her little toy bow with little suction cup arrows, and they GO FASTER than his bow does.

Hmmm...I wonder, if I put arrow points on her arrows and shot from 2 feet away...if I could pierce chinzy cheap chainmail with a cloth behind it too?

What's worse, is I DO sports, and I play Baseball (among other things) and I can even throw a BALL FAR faster most of the items that I saw moving in that video (PS: Lars doesn't appear he can throw that well...as an aside).

I can catch a thrown baseball...

Are you telling me arrows move slower from a 30 lbs bow than a thrown baseball or a toy 10 lbs bow?

If so, I can see why it's so easy to catch an arrow (though truthfully, catching one from daughter's bow wouldn't be so easy unless shot right at you). The experts seem to say it's impossible to catch an arrow from a real bow though (as opposed to my daughter's bow or a baseball).

Considering the arrow used in the grab an arrow and shoot it back only is visible in flight for about 5 frames, it is really hard to make that claim. That being said, lets look at some simple sources

This site on compound bows has information on what the minimum recommended speeds for hunting game are. Taking their minmium medium game number of 25 lbs point blank, adding 5 for distance, to get to 30 ft/second, you have an arrow going 20mph as the recommended minimum. But bows will probably blow away this in the real world. The minimum recommended bow for hunting game that size is generally a 40 lb draw weight.

Playing with some base numbers with a speed calculator, I wouldn't be surprised if a 30lb bow only shot at around 60mph. (IBO 150, 28 inch draw, draw weight 30, 250 arrow weight, 0 extra on the string). I'm not really familiar with IBO, it seems to be something for compounds only, but they assume a general number of 5 for every 1 lb in the draw as a default, so I assumed the default. The arrow weight I got from my wooden arrows with target tips - broadheads would be slower.

Edit: This speed makes sense in my head for how fast the arrow is traveling when I shoot at long range targets. I have almost been able to get 2 arrows in the air at 100 yard targets. At at 60mph, that would be around 3 seconds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Caineach wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
This is the first thing I've looked at on the subject..
The only thing I really take issue with here is the guy claiming the arrow would not break like that. I find that failure entirely plausible. Most of his other take down is really good.

Well, in truth, unless Lars hits the arrow every time, Lars should be dead from having arrows shot at him and trying to split them in half.

However, there are TWO reasons the experts say it's not doable to shoot an arrow in half in the air. First is the grain of the wood on a real arrow, it's impossible to shoot in half lengthwise supposedly (as tried twice on mythbusters in season 3 and 4 supposedly).

The BIGGER reason though, is that there is an arrowhead at the front of that arrow. If you are in an archery contest, your arrow head will converge on the back of the other arrow, hence possibly going through it.

However, if it is coming at you, your arrowhead is going to hit that arrow head...and that's where they are going to smash together. Going through another arrowhead just as strong as your's would be harder than punching through platemail.

That's just getting through the head, prior to getting through the shaft itself.

Most likely, it was done by Lars having non-pointed and non-headed, slow moving bamboo sticks tossed at him (I could say shot, but with the speeds he's dealing with, it's more like someone tossing them at him as someone can throw faster than the shafts are coming at him in his catching video).

1. He isn't making the claim that he is splitting it the whole length, just that he is splitting it. He obviously isn't splitting it in half, since the pieces aren't even remotely the same size.

As for the speeds of the oncoming arrows, they look pretty typical of what would come off a 30 lb bow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:

I don't even know what the point of that comparison is. He's not using a longbow. Nothing he's showing involves shooting arrows at a field full of targets from a great distance with a longbow.

He talks about using techniques other cultures used, NOT English longbowmen. Techniques used in skirmishes among close targets on the field of battle, not shooting onto it from a distance.

It's like comparing trap shooting to a sniper, and saying the trap shooter is doing it wrong. "He's not even using the right rifle..."

EDIT: ninja'd

He uses the first half of his video to talk about how bad English longbowmen are. That is where the comparison comes from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

They also mention that though possible with bamboo, with real arrow quality wood used in war...shooting through an arrow is basically impossible due to the grain of the arrow.

Yeah - they did a couple of Mythbusters on that. It's impossible to split a real wood arrow.

No. What they found was that the incoming arrow would follow the path of the grain - just like splitting logs. Good, high power wooden arrows will use parallel grain, but you don't even bother trying to do that before 70lb test arrows. You don't need it on the target arrows for low power bows that they use, so when they tried to split the arrow it just sheared off the back end. I've seen target tips do that in the SCA, usually taking off no more than a hand span of the back of the arrow. But in the SCA, very few people are shooting over 60lb bows, and the vast majority are shooting 30-50.

The mid flight shear that happens in the video is exactly the type of failure I would expect from wooden arrows. The majority of the arrow moves to the left, including both the head and fletching, while a portion of the arrow, likely a single ring, split to the right. I've seen damaged arrows fail that way in mid flight from the bending stresses, and that type of failure is one of the things marshals in the SCA are supposed to look out for when checking someone's arrows.

As for the strength of the bows he is using, I would put money on them being between 50 and 60 lbs. It is a weight a trained archer can sustain for extended durations without as much compensation for low power, and on typical foam will drive the arrows about as far as he does. Trained archers wont strain to pull it back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:


See, here you're assuming that if more women are becoming homemakers and schoolteachers it must obviously be because they want to. You don't think there's any social pressure that tries to force women into 'acceptable' careers?

And here you are assuming that the only reason they would join those carriers is because of societal pressure.

The fact of the matter is we have no idea how much is societal pressure and how much may be genetic predisposition. We can't really tell if an infant somehow recieved cues from the adults around them to play with dolls over cars, or if the infant is already disposed to prefer one over the other, and you can see delineation of the averages at less than a year. To say there is no genetic predisposition is just as ludicrous a position as saying that there is no societal pressure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

There was talk that fanservice make men see women as nothing but sex toys, that it has a subtle but real negative effect on young women and and that it should only be done "in moderation". There were comparisons between fanservice and racism and homophonia, FFS.

1- There is no evidence that fanservice (or even porn) makes anyone sexist. It's a claim as empty as saying that video-games and rock n' roll music make people violent.
4- If you think a cartoon showing overly-sexualized fictional characters is as bad as thinking less of people just because of their ethnicity or sexual preference, then you really need to lower your consumption of PC-Holier-Than-Thou Koolaid...

1) These claims seem to get perilously close to saying that media or literary portrayals have no impact at all. That mass media has no effect on shaping culture or individuals. There's a lot of space between that and "violent video games don't turn people into murderers".

4)Fanservice (of the kind we're talking about) is sexist. It's an aspect of sexism. It's putting women's bodies on display draw male eyeballs. And money.
Is it, all by itself, the moral equivalent of all of racism or homophobia? No. Of course not. It's an aspect of sexism, so it's equivalent to an aspect of racism. Parallel to the way black people were portrayed in film and tv, rather than to all of racism.

Anime has some differences from Western sexualized portrayals. The anime girls are sexualized with plenty of shots designed to titillate, but are otherwise often competent well-developed characters. Western equivalents tended to be just there to be seen or for the male leads to rescue. That's been changing, but the differences are interesting.

1. Put up some studies that can show it is bad then. Don't shout that something is terrible for doing things you can't show it does.

2. It is only sexism if it is a pattern that is shown to favor one group over another. As I pointed out when I commented on the difference between the US comic market and anime, while individual titles may favor one side or the other, anime as a whole does a whole lot of sexualization of both genders. They target material for a specific audience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I tell my players this when it comes to backstory:

You get one paragraph to tell me the salient points of your back story. Anything you tell me may be used during the course of the game as an adventure hook, or as a motivating factor.

One paragraph is enough that your history will have plenty of blank space for me to add shocking revelations, and sudden twists!

For example:
Luke Skywalker's backstory is that he was raised by his Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen on a moisture farm on the desert planet of Tattooine. His father was a spice trader and he doesn't know who his mother was. He yearns to become a pilot and leave the boring life he leads behind.

During the course of the game as a GM I can introduce:
** spoiler omitted **

As a GM, my goal is to integrate the story of the player characters into the plot of the game!

To me, a player who has a back story that has no effect on the plot of the campaign may as well not have a back story at all. We could be playing a board-game instead. A short back story that allows the GM to help customize the campaign and make the players feel like their characters are a key part of the story is so vital to the fun of my campaigns.

In my campaigns:

** spoiler omitted **...

Actually in the Star Wars game, I'd be more upset over the GM railroading me into being a Jedi. I wanted to play a fighter pilot.

Unless of course, we'd actually talked that over out of game and agreed I'd be going that direction.

I disagree that back story having no effect on the plot of the game is anything like playing a board-game. For me, it's the in-game decisions that make that difference. For those it doesn't have to matter whether I've got a mysterious past or not. Bilbo's family history never played any role in the plot of the Hobbit. Conan's Cimmerian childhood friends and enemies never came back to haunt him (in the Howard stories at least). Their backstories influenced their characters and thus their actions, but not outside...

Yes, but the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are each basically a single plot arc of a campaign in my experience. The Hobbit is maybe 6 sessions, and the LotRs is probably close to 12. If I have a game that runs 50+ sessions and covers years of time, why should I not have you ever interact with your past?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aberzombie wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


Inflate a ball to 14.5 PSI (the minimum) in a room at 72 degrees, have them inspected inside, then take them outside into freezing weather. Let ideal gas law do its thing. "Cheating" without cheating. Voila.

This was my original thinking, but then I saw the article saying they reported as much as 2 psi below minimum. Temp changes probably wouldn't account for that much difference.

And I saw something today that Belichek is claiming no knowledge of what went down, saying it was a Brady thing.

Depending on the temperature of where they were measured, it could easily account for more than half the deflation. As was pointed out by the calculations above, if they were inflated and measured at 80F, then you are looking at 1.5psi difference, and 90F accounts for 2psi. (edit: The game temp is significantly warmer than I was expecting, at 51F. People were talking about the game being cold, and 51F is t-shirt, light jacket in rain, weather.)

But this still doesn't answer in my mind how it could possibly happen. They get supplied by the team to the officials for measurement. They should be in the hands of the officials after that, so any tampering should implicate officials. Not to mention how many officials were handling the balls during the game with none of them noticing.

Why teams are supplying their own balls is another question I have. Can the NFL really not afford to pay for all 27 game balls, they can only spring for the 3 kickoff ones? And why are teams supplying the balls that get used with their own offensive line? That just asks for them to be tampered with. Those balls should be mixed up so teams do not know whether they are getting one they supplied or not, so any tampering can backfire.

I have no real stakes in this. I don't care about the Pats. I just am laughing at how ridiculous it is that this type of cheating is even possible. The whole system has to be designed to allow it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Captain America Vs Star Lord superbowl bet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Randarak wrote:
I don't know if that is accurate. In my experience, the majority of comics buyers aren't teenagers. They generally seem to be college age and older. Comics are generally $3.99 and up. Its easy to run up to high cost if you are buying more than just a couple. Maybe I'm speaking out of ignorance, but I generally didn't have a lot of money as a teenager.

That's because most comic purchasers are people who got into a few comics in high school, grew up, and then got real jobs that can support the habbit. What you need to think about is not existing sales, but growth. I would put money on the vast majority of new comic readers starting before the end of college, with most of those starting before college.

Edit: Its like cigarettes, you need to hook them while they are young.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:

"Trick" being the only word I could come up with, it was probably poorly chosen. Twenty-four hours sans sleep. Otherwise, I tend to agree, Lauefindel.

And Jiggy, much like a CG Bob, I started out with the impression that Dash was CN... but I don't think so upon reflection. While it's true that the only people he ever directly fights for are his family, he also is shocked - stunned - that anyone could ever actually kill someone else.

I would still peg him in the CG range - though with some CN leanings - but any 'neutralness' seems to come from a combination ignorance and thoughtlessness. I don't think he realizes that what he's doing is actually harmful (his pranks) - instead, he simply shows all the hallmarks of having a low wisdom.

That said, I wouldn't fight a CN assignment - I just think that his willingness to do the right thing, as seen much later in the film, and his youthful tendencies tend to get him a bit of a pass.

Considering he is starting from the point of all children (evil malicious bastards), I think he shows definite growth towards CG.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:

1. Okay, couple of things. First of all, if players are offending others, how is that "having a good time with friends"? Second, it's really not about whether something is offensive (e.g. someone saying "F@*! you" or something), but rather about whether someone has said or done something a) oppressive (rather than offensive--the difference being between just hurting someone's feelings and reinforcing societally normalized forms of dehumanization/objectification/etc. whether it's in the form of sexism, racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, transmisogyny, what have you), or b) trauma-inducing (trigger warnings exist not to censor, but to give people a heads up so they can avoid or prepare for a triggering factor that will literally make them re-experience trauma that will f*~! them up).

This is part of the reason I have trouble believing any woman whenever she says she wants to be treated just like one of the guys. They never seem to understand that men are generally a@%%&%$s to their friends. Mocking and ridicule are some of the surest ways to know that you are an accepted part of a group. If I can't make an anti-Semitic joke with my Jewish friend, I question if we are actually friends. I'll joke with my gay friends to stop checking out my ass, and they will joke about how I'm not good enough for them. Like I said above, we through peanut M&Ms at my friend with a sever nut allergy.

At the same time, you pay attention to how people react. If someone goes cold after a dead baby joke, you don't make more. But you learn those boundaries though actually interacting with the people around you and poking them.
Quote:


2. See my above point about oppression versus offense. In any case, if you aim for offending "everyone," that necessarily includes oppressed groups. Mocking people with power and calling them out for s%&&ty behavior (which is certainly an offensive action toward them) is not equivalent to offensive sexist behavior. The notion of "it's fun to offend everyone!" is well within your rights, but recognize that "everyone" includes oppressed groups.

So? If they are friends they will join in with their own insults and jokes and you will bond. If you cross the line, you will learn where the line is for them, and not cross it in the future. If they're not yet friends, you jumping the gun. You need to establish the relationship first.

Quote:


3. Well, it's not really passive aggressive, is it? The X-Card has a direct function that is explained to the table, and is to be used not in place of talking, but as a supplement to talking. If someone at your table, one of your friends, asks you to stop doing something that's bothering them, is that also "censoring"? Perhaps, but it is a request for you to self-censor for the benefit of a social activity--the X-Card is not some magical compulsion effect that goes around suppressing your freedom of speech, it's a request that you can honor or not.

It puts a barrier between you and your friends that prevents you from bonding. The person you flag is either going to already know he went to far or be completely confused. It starts with a stage set for not offending people, putting people on the defensive before you even begin.

Quote:


You are correct in assuming that I've never played with military people. However, I think the X-Card would be great for military players, considering the astounding rates of PTSD and rape that occur in the U.S. military (I don't know any stats on this in other militaries).

Game time isn't a therapy session. Its a time to shoot the s$@& with friends and make new ones. Just having the X-card rules sets the tone for the game in a way that will change how people will approach the game, and that will turn a lot of people off.

Quote:


And, I'll just reinforce this point: the X-Card is just as "censoring" as someone asking with their words for something to stop--for high levels of gore, for phobias, etc.--and this tool makes games more accessible by making it easier for people with anxiety, trauma, and even just plain shyness to play games with people.

And it puts other people on the defensive, makes them uncomfortable because they feel like they have to watch what they say, and becomes a barrier for them to interact with others.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Relevant to the tangent.

And in comics there is a problem because the only fan service is for men. If you think that is true about anime, you have never seen shoujo. There are tons of shows geared towards women, and I can think of a number of reverse harem shows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:
Caineach wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:

Here's a concrete and potentially productive suggestion: introduce the X-Card to more public gaming spaces.

It's a free set of rules to be used as a safety tool in RPG's, among other places/spaces/situations. Would it be feasible to encourage the use of this tool in more public gaming spaces? Would it help? What would it take to make its implementation more widespread?

If that got attempted in any group I have ever gamed with, the person who brought it up would probably be laughed at so much they would flee from embarrassment.
What makes it so funny?

I'm guessing you have never gamed with military people.

1. It treats everyone at the table like children and forces people to use baby gloves. It puts not offending people at the front of the list of people's minds, instead of just having a good time with friends.

2. The idea of not offending people is very frequently seen as not a worthwhile goal. Offending everyone is one of the primary ways groups bond.

3. It is a passive aggressive way of censoring people in the name of avoiding confrontation and will probably cause just as many issues as it attempts to fix.

Personally, I'm more likely to play a game of cards against humanity with a new person and throw in the most offensive things I can to test their response than I am to play with something like this. Hell, the last time we introduced a new person to my current game group we played cards against lego creationary (use lego bricks to make cards against humanity cards and people have to guess what the card is). We mocked the guy because he didn't know what the card was but made a highly amusing rectum.

If a GM I didn't know brought the X card to a generic table, I would probably find a way to politely excuse myself, because I doubt I would enjoy the game, and probably wouldn't enjoy that person's company very long. If I knew the game was designed to be intentionally emotional, I would stay, because those types of games are designed to test the boundaries, but you know that when you sign up for those games. For a generic game this really isn't needed and will only distract people from having a good time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Dragon Half is one of the few examples I like to reference where the dub is superior to the sub. Cowboy Bebop also managed to equal the original language in quality.

El Hazard was interesting because they intentionally changed a significant amount of dialog for American audiences. The original show has a lot of puns and idioms that do not translate well, and they turned it into American humor. I definitely enjoyed the dub more, and the show overall was pretty good. How can you go wrong with lines like "What you call cats, we call body armor".

1 to 50 of 396 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.