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. 4,927 posts (4,932 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,927 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BlackOuroboros wrote:
Fergie wrote:
BlackOuroboros wrote:
Stuff

I apologize BlackOuroboros. I used the term, and included a link to its historical definition, for the reasons I had stated in the original post, not for shock value. I feel that Malcolm X's explanation of the term is very relevant to almost any non-equal power structure.

Also, I'm not trying to silence anyone. I fully encourage people to disagree with me. I wouldn't really bother posting stuff if everyone agreed with me all the time.

Again, sorry if I offended you.

I came on a bit strong as well, so I apologize about that. I've seen the "you don't agree with me so you don't get a say" statement made in earnest enough times that I have a knee-jerk reaction to it.

I found this article a couple of days ago and it sums up a lot of my feelings towards the current culture. I don't fully agree with everything he says, but I feel a lot of the observations are accurate.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fergie wrote:
Caineach wrote:
]You obviously don't have connections to feminist blogs on twitter or tumblr, where the term originated. ...

True.

EDIT: I should add that I am not a woman, or what I consider a feminist. I believe in equality, but don't tent to identify with groups that have the "ist" suffix.

So... "some blogs" is the best you got? Then Huffpost and other "news" organizations talking about what some blog wrote? Is there perhaps some organization? Oprah? Anything with a shred of credibility?

"Some bloggers" created something. Trashing "Feminists" over it is the textbook definition of strawman. I think you are being fooled.

Tumblr feminists blogs are a fairly well defined group. Just because they are not one you are familiar with does not mean they are some imaginary straw man. Just like Paizo messageboard posters is a defined group, but most people would have no idea who we are.

Quote:


NOTE: There was also a "don't be a jerk" transportation campaign a while back, but there is no government policy against being a jerk. Advertisment does not equal policy.
Define: Policy - a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual.

I said it affected policy. It affected how they spent their budget. That is by definition affecting policy.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mechaPoet wrote:

It is impossible to be sexist toward men in the same way that it is impossible to be racist toward white people or classist toward the ruling class. Please note that I'm using these "-ist" terms in the context of their existence as oppressive systems, not as simple prejudice.

EDIT: fruitless inb4 wild misunderstanding and misconstrued backlash against this.

All I'm saying about that particular article's summary of one of Engels' points is that the particular conception of Neolithic gender is most likely based in an understanding of history from the viewpoint of Engels' contemporary conception of gender. Humans have a degree of sexual dimorphism, sure, but it's much less pronounced than in most primates. Also, the very concept of "two sexes" is a product of biological classification. And I'm not saying that there aren't sexual differences between given human bodies (duh), but rather that our classification of them is still just a product of culture (fun fact: the sciences are cultural institutions, as much as some people like to assert that they're somehow outside of, or objective with regards to, culture).

When you try to use a specific specialized definition (that many people don't agree with) of a term that has many different ones, and you don't specify until after the fact, don't be surprised when people misinterpret your argument.

Personally, I think the idea that you can't be sexist against men or racist against white people to be b@*#%&&@. 1. The systematic definition you are using is not the one people will colloquially use. 2. It ignores the idea that power dynamics can be different within different areas of a culture.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fergie wrote:
Caineach wrote:

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. In black/white racial issues, there is the term house negro* for those who serve the master at the expense of their own. I'm not sure what the term is for women, but throwing your own under the bus for profit/privilege has never been cool except in the eyes of the master. It is why Coulter, Palin, Crowley are tolerated, but no woman who stands up for other women is allowed in the boys club.

2. Just to be clear, what national group are you talking about specifically? I have heard Fox "news" bend over backwards to say "manspreading" over and over, (it was pathetic to view that) but what "group" are you referring to. Also, to be clear, there is NO GOVERNMENT POLICY related to how you sit on mass transit. It might not be legal to take up more then one seat, but that has next to nothing to do with an advertisement campaign related to "courtesy". You are being distracted by a circus sideshow.

The entire point is that this whole thing is a strawman whose purpose is to mock "the dumb femnazis" while ignoring actual issues. It is rather sad to see so many people fall for it. Keep talking about how people sit on the subway, then wonder why women's paychecks are smaller then men's.

** spoiler omitted **...

You obviously don't have connections to feminist blogs on twitter or tumblr, where the term originated. I first came across manspreading on a Huffington Post article talking about how terrible it was. I've seen it talked about on msnbc. It's not just Fox news talking about it. They mocked something after it became news when the transit authority put out advertisements against it, they didn't create the thing whole cloth.

How the government spends money is government policy. Funding an advertising campaign is spending money.

Feminists created the term and championed the cause. Mocking them for its idiocy is not somehow attacking a strawman. It is attacking the ridiculous cause they created.


3 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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fergurg wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Brox RedGloves wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Yeah, hiding this now. Some of this crap being bandied about is disgusting.
Honestly curious about this one...
National Review is about the lowest level of "journalism" you can get, and various 'isms are just beneath the surface. It gives me a good perspective on the ideas of people who read/post links to it however.
Of you could just try reading the article linked and realize it is written with tongue firmly in cheek.
Wait... You mean someone took that article seriously?!
Ann Coulter made an amusing claim in her book, "Godless", which I'm going to misquote because I haven't read it in almost 10 years, but it goes something like this: liberalism's greatest achievement is its inability to be made fun of. No matter how ridiculous and over-the-top you try to satirize it, there are going to be liberals who will, or already have, seriously proposed your satire and genuinely believe in it.

I think that is the first intelligent thing I have heard attributed to her.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fergie wrote:
Brox RedGloves wrote:
Of you could just try reading the article linked and realize it is written with tongue firmly in cheek.

I did read it. The joke is that women (feminists) are just upset over silly stuff that is really trivial. See girls, boys will be boys, don't get all b!$++y about it. Go with the flow, smile, and don't forget your rape whistle!

I'm all for some good humor, and enjoys some very non-PC stuff, but when you are the dominate group, you have to try harder then having the underlying theme be: just suck it up and deal with it. If the article is 10 ways whites oppress blacks, it is going to require different jokes then 10 ways blacks oppress whites. The Onion is good at this, the National Review comes off as A-holes.

Sidenote: I have no idea what "manspreading" really has to do with feminism, (and I'm not that interested) as it is a silly term from a NYC transportation advertisement group that has done a really bad job in the past, and in my opinion is a total waste of tax money. In NYC killing people with your car is 100% legal, so spending money to go after subway riders for sitting some specific way is kind of an insult to begin with.

Manspreading is a term the NYC transportation groups took up because of complaints from feminist groups who coined the term.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Caineach wrote:

Someone did a response of why my previous post used bad statistics

The response itself is pretty terrible.

* If you do the math using fumbles per play instead of plays per fumble, you get a different number, yes. You find out that the odds are "only" one in 300 instead of one in 16,000 that the Patriots simply have been having good luck with fumbles.

* By-position analysis shows that the Patriots quarterbacks don't fumble very much, that the Patriots running backs don't fumble very much, and that the Patriots receivers don't fumble very much. All of which are independent (compare the NYG, who had the worst running backs, but the second-best receivers).

So even the reanalysis actually shows that, yes, there's definitely something there. The Patriots are systematically better at not-fumbling across the board in a way that transcends any one player or position and that is probably not due to chance.

This could be due to all sorts of things. The Pats could be systematically calling plays that are less likely to result in fumbles. The Pats could be systematically training their players better in ball-handling skills. The Pats could be paying more attention to ball-handling in their recruitment process. Or they could be doing something outside of the rules. The data don't tell us what they're doing. But I'm convinced they're doing something, when even the reanalysis shows that they're doing something....

Yes, but 1 in 300 is not outside of what you would expect from a team that has a lot of money to pick out top tallent and has been successful at doing so. It does not put it in the "only explanation is cheating" category that the original article implies. By random chance, with 32 teams, you would expect a team like this to pop up about once every 10 years (assuming teams were not linked data, which we know to be false since the same key players are on them from year to year). The ability of skilled coaches to manipulate the team would make it more frequent if the coach is above average for the league.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
gamer-printer wrote:

I've commented on this video in other forums, but, while Lars trick shots are indeed impressive, I find many discrepancies in trying to derive specific archery mechanics based on his demonstrations. Several things to consider are: he is using a practice bow with a very low pull strength and he is barely doing a half pull each time. If he were using a full strength war bow (I'm not even considering the extreme pull of an English longbow which is considerable higher than most bows of war), Lars couldn't possibly release so many shots in such short duration, let alone pulling more than half the distance the string allows. Most of his shots are less than 20 feet distance from the target, yet the arrow barely passes the paper target, perhaps going 1/2 inch into the target straw backing - which is not deep enough to kill. So I find his demonstration questionable. Also sticking a tipped arrow into a non-tipped arrow is a cool way to show his accuracy, but a tipped arrow will never split another tipped arrow - it only works against non-tipped arrows, so is almost meaningless beyond an interesting trick shot.

If Lars used a full strength bow (even with training) and pulled the bow string to its fullest extent, there's no way he could loose arrows as effectively as his demonstration with a practice bow (its almost a toy compared to the real thing.)

I completely agree with Lars historical point that archers did hold several arrow in their draw hand as one technique to be faster at loosing arrows than pulling each from a quiver. However, just as often archers placed arrows vertically stuck in the ground around his feet and could feed his bow almost as fast.

Define war bow for me?

I personally think he is using a bow in the 40-55lb draw range. That would put him at the low end for what many non-european cultures used, and at the point where you can reasonably kill medium game (deer, humans). The fact that he is not drawing back the bow to proper draw length is killing the power though.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
Jason Nelson wrote:

I had originally dismissed the issue of the Patriots deflating footballs as being insignificant, and in the outcome of the AFC championship game with the Colts I doubt it made a big difference; 45-7 is 45-7. The bigger question is the suspicion that it's been a pattern.

I had been mostly thinking in terms of passing. A softer ball is easier to throw and catch, sure, but that seemed to be a bit of a personal preference thing. The larger issue I hadn't thought of until I heard a retired NFL running back talking about it was not about passing at all. It was about fumbles. The football is easier to hold and prevent defenders from dislodging it when it's underinflated.

Guess who leads the league over the last 5 years in fewest fumbles per play? The Patriots.

That's nothing surprising on its own; ball security involves some luck, but it's also a skill and a mindset that you can emphasize in practice, and some teams are better at it than others. A well-coached team like the Pats you'd expect to fare well at keeping the ball.

The surprising thing was that they weren't just first; they were first by a country mile. The gap between the Pats and the #2 team was the same as the gap between the #2 team and the #27 team in terms of plays per fumble. That's a statistical outlier, and one that correlates with the effect of an underinflated football.

Is that evidence of cheating? No, but it is an interesting data point in the fact pattern when people ask, "Who cares? What difference does it make anyway?"

Someone did some statistical analysis on it. The graphs wont load for me, I think because the site is overloaded, though.

Someone did a response of why my previous post used bad statistics


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Caineach wrote:

He is usually shooting at large targets for the distances he is shooting at, and usually not hitting them anywhere near the center or a consistent place. The 2 shots he has of him shooting above the minimum distance of most places I've been to practice at, he is shooting at the closer distances, and he misses several times. 40 yards is roughly the farthest they show, and he misses at least 2 of the 6 arrows he shot, and the arrows that hit are poorly placed.

He does some really good trick shooting at very short range, but all that shows is that he practiced a single trick a lot. It does not show that he is a great archer overall.

He has to be VERY accurate to hit even 4 out of 6 arrows shot towards him. Those are VERY SMALL objects.

I didn't even know Point Defense Drone mode was possible until I saw this. (And by the way, I still haven't heard from anyone what the Pathfinder equivalent ability is -- I saw this once, but I can't remember the name or where on d20pfsrd.com it was, and now I can't find it again.)

He is shooting at larger than standard targets at 40 yards and has worse accuracy than me, and I'm not good. I know more than a few people who can consistently hit cds at that range with more consistency.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
In the real world, real criminal organizations actually will go after your family if you cross them or go after them. They do it to rats, cops, DAs, whatever. If your character wants to be in the "go after the big bad evil" business, be prepared to have the "big bad evil" be evil, and understand that your family is fair game.

Realistically, the big-bad evil guy has access to powerful divination magic, will identify you as a threat, and teleport all his most powerful minions to slaughter you when you're still too low level to fight back. We have to look for ways to make the game fairer and more fun than that.

I think if my fundamental character concept is, "Regular guy who just wants to get the job done, save the world, then get back home to his wife and daughter, because protecting them is all he really cares about," then I can reasonably say to the GM, "Just so you know, if you murder my family or turn them into demons, my character won't turn into a grim vengeful antihero. He'll kill himself immediately."

Name a specific divination spell that would identify a threat years in advance.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:
A quick note on the "plot immunity" nonsense. In the real world, real criminal organizations actually will go after your family if you cross them or go after them. They do it to rats, cops, DAs, whatever. If your character wants to be in the "go after the big bad evil" business, be prepared to have the "big bad evil" be evil, and understand that your family is fair game. If you have an issue with that, make all of your characters orphans.

Or do what I did the last time I played a self-righteous guy and make it so the big bad evil already has your family hostage.


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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
UnArcaneElection wrote:

By the way, for those who are claiming that Lars Anderson isn't accurate: That can't be right, given that he is able to repeatedly hit arrows and other small quasi-ballistically flying objects(*). Even if he did more than one take to get this, he still has to be good enough to have a decent chance of getting one take in which he hits multiple objects of this type. Hence, BAB at least close to +20.

(*)Speaking of which, can anyone remember what the Pathfinder ability for doing this is called? I can't remember if it is a feat or some archetype class feature (not Archer Fighter, though -- that was the first place I looked). In StarCraft 2 that is called Point Defense Drone, but that doesn't help much for Pathfinder . . . :-)

Whether or not Lars Anderson has his history somewhat mixed up, what he demonstrates clearly works. If you could combine his skill with additional Strength training (and a bow of draw strength to match while retaining close to the same shape), you would have an archer who could do all the stuff I listed several posts back AND punch through a large variety of armor types.

He is usually shooting at large targets for the distances he is shooting at, and usually not hitting them anywhere near the center or a consistent place. The 2 shots he has of him shooting above the minimum distance of most places I've been to practice at, he is shooting at the closer distances, and he misses several times. 40 yards is roughly the farthest they show, and he misses at least 2 of the 6 arrows he shot, and the arrows that hit are poorly placed.

He does some really good trick shooting at very short range, but all that shows is that he practiced a single trick a lot. It does not show that he is a great archer overall.


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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:

I don't know if this was discussed already, but I just learned of this:

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/lewin-courses-removed-1208

Essentially, Walter Lewin, the man who helped millions around the wolrd learn physics, sexually harassed women online. He was revoked his professor emeritus status and his lectures were removed.

One the one hand, I am shocked. He definitely was helpful when I was studying physics. He seemed so genuinely good - inspiring, energetic, smart. He was everything one wanted in a teacher. That he could be this messed up is disquieting.I fully support punishing the man in full accordance with the law.

On the other hand, I can't help but be angry that his videos were removed from the website. I mean, Mein Kampf was never banned because of it's author (despite, unlike the physics lectures, having a relation to the evil of the man who wrote it and being quit harmful as a book) but I suppose that orchestrating the largest scale genocide and possibly the most hideous war that the world has ever known is a small crime compared to sexual harassment.

I have a similar problem with the Cosby boycotts. Just because the guy turned out to be a douche behind closed doors doesn't mean that his the material that was put out and in the public eye was. It is still as good as it always was for its purpose.

"Following broad consultation among faculty, MIT is indefinitely removing Lewin’s online courses, in the interest of preventing any further inappropriate behavior." How does removing the guys recorded lectures prevent future harassment? Sure, I understand removing him from being the teacher, and if appropriate prosecuting him, - that just makes sense. But why remove the educational material he created? We used nazi diagrams in modern medical textbooks for the past 50 years. Just because something was spawned in a tragedy doesn't mean good can't spring out of it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arnwyn wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Damn... What's the name of the anime where the girl uses paper to fight? I really liked that show, even though it was pretty short. The battle against the guy who inspired Son Goku is awesome! :D
Read Or Die.

Ah, yes! That was it! Thanks! (The sequel wasn't as fun, IMO).

I think I'm going to rewatch it while looking for something new...

*gasp*! I thought/think R.O.D the TV was one of the greatest series of all time. (I did also like the prequel.)

After how awesome the OVA was, the series was kind of a let down for me. It was cool, but in a different way.


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.


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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I really want to enjoy Lord Marksman and Vanadis, but the harem elements really detract from it. And DAMN those outfits look cold.

I watched a few episodes of that show (about half, actually... 5 or 6... Maybe 7? Not sure), because it was supposed to be about the protagonists winning battles with wits and good tactics... It isn't. They win battles with giant anime energy attacks... Pretty disappointing. :/

Fanservice is not as big a part of it as it is in many other animes, but it's there. I wouldn't mind if the show were truly about using good tactics and cunning... Sadly, it is not.

I wish we had more anime about cunning protagonists winning through wits and cunning...

This is reminding me I need to watch Bodacious Space Pirates at some point. My friends have described it as an amazing hard sci-fi space combat series where the author specifically said that he made it about a crew of high school girls because if it featured normal people it would never sell, and he wanted to make money.


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?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason Nelson wrote:

I had originally dismissed the issue of the Patriots deflating footballs as being insignificant, and in the outcome of the AFC championship game with the Colts I doubt it made a big difference; 45-7 is 45-7. The bigger question is the suspicion that it's been a pattern.

I had been mostly thinking in terms of passing. A softer ball is easier to throw and catch, sure, but that seemed to be a bit of a personal preference thing. The larger issue I hadn't thought of until I heard a retired NFL running back talking about it was not about passing at all. It was about fumbles. The football is easier to hold and prevent defenders from dislodging it when it's underinflated.

Guess who leads the league over the last 5 years in fewest fumbles per play? The Patriots.

That's nothing surprising on its own; ball security involves some luck, but it's also a skill and a mindset that you can emphasize in practice, and some teams are better at it than others. A well-coached team like the Pats you'd expect to fare well at keeping the ball.

The surprising thing was that they weren't just first; they were first by a country mile. The gap between the Pats and the #2 team was the same as the gap between the #2 team and the #27 team in terms of plays per fumble. That's a statistical outlier, and one that correlates with the effect of an underinflated football.

Is that evidence of cheating? No, but it is an interesting data point in the fact pattern when people ask, "Who cares? What difference does it make anyway?"

Someone did some statistical analysis on it. The graphs wont load for me, I think because the site is overloaded, though.


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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Doomed Hero wrote:

If marvel was smart they would use this opportunity to fully canonize the films and tv universes and have all the marvel stories across all media take place in the same unified world.

That way they could use the comic medium to tell stories involving the characters marvel doesn't have film rights too, and use the fact that those characters can't be in the movies as a "story wedge" to push the way the comics-only characters are handled.

The x-men comics would heavily feature the fact that they are a secret group who take great pains to be unnoticed because they are a very hated social group.

Spiderman would be about a kid juggling his superhero career at night while he still maintains his identity as a student. Taking the character back to his roots the way Ultimate Spiderman did would be a great fit for the cinimatic universe.

The fantastic four could be a "submarine story" about four superpowered astronauts trapped in another dimension. Having them be able to communicate back to the regular world but not interact with it would be a great narrative device.

The Punisher could be used pretty much as-is, but could be reworked as someone who lost his family to the Winter Soldier timeframe Hydra resurgence. Frank Castle's story could be about routing out and killing Hydra agents rather than organized crime. That would give him more of a Jason Bourne, domestic espionage feel that would keep him seperate from the core superhero stories but still connected through a common enemy.

The books about characters that already exist in the movies and tv shows would just elaborate on what we already know and tell the stories of what they do when the big events aren't taking place

The inherent limitations of working with the movie production timelines and not being able to do "epic crossover events" with characters who can't be in films would force writers to take a slower, more character-centric approach to comic books, which is really what the fans enjoy most anyway.

It will never...

This would be amazing and cool and would never work. You need a central authority organizing the plot and action to keep everything together. The number of people required to keep this organized would be overwhelming.


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

Captain America Vs Star Lord superbowl bet.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:

Well, it's getting more interesting...

- A Yahoo! sports hack, er, "writer" tested ball deflation and claims it made a measurable difference in his performance.

- I was wrong in my previous statement that "each team uses the same balls". Turns out only the New England offense used those balls.

So I'll repeat: I fundamentally do not believe that the ball-underinflation had an impact on the game result. But it's too prevalent (11 of 12 balls), too consistent (-2 PSI each), and too consistent with Belichick's history of pushing the boundaries of the rules to claim it's unintentional.

So yet again the Pats have been caught intentionally tampering. Yet again it's the appearance of impropriety that's important.

I find that I am now fascinated in watching how this plays out...

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 pretty much my feeling towards this controversy. If the balls get inspected by officials before the game (and they should be), then they have no one to complain with but the offical's staff.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Funny thing. When I sit in the formal way men are supposed to cross their legs, they take up more space than when I manspread, and my junk is more crunched.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:

I'm generally part of the "back story is fair game" camp. And yes, that includes using any ambiguities as fodder for the ongoing campaign. It may also include adding additional texture to elements that are there.

For example: Your old man was a famous and valorous warrior? Fine. But you didn't say what he is now. Maybe he's suffering from some long term effects of his valorous warfare - chronic injuries, anxieties, bitterness about some loss of vitality, weariness of the fame and just wanting to reside quietly on the farm. Or maybe he's beset by some of the obligations incurred in his prime and needs an adventurous child to help him out with a problem or three. Maybe he has generated some enemies as nefarious as he was valorous - or maybe even less nefarious but still holding a grudge. Perhaps he has turned to philandering (fame begets groupies) to replace some of the excitement he no longer gains on the battlefield and you have a lot of bastard siblings around the countryside.

I like using a PC's back story to introduce campaign developments that will be personally meaningful. When I come up with adventure hooks, they're invitations for the PCs to adventure. Back stories are like adventure hooks for the GM, invitations to build the campaign along certain lines and use those hooks.

Gods yes. If a GM does not include elements from my backstory, why did I bother writing it in the first place? Personally, my backstory has begun to always include a minimum of a few elements specifically for the GM to find ways of abusing my character:

Some of them include
1. A person I care about
2. A location the GM can use as a setpiece
3. A mystery I don't understand
4. At least 1 enemy (generally 1 potentially high level and 1 low-medium level)
5. A potential ally.

This usually fits in less than a page, but has run to maybe a page and a half. After sending the GM a draft, I discuss it with them to make sure that we are on the same page. We may revise a few things after the first couple sessions when the campaign is still finding its groove, but nothing should be retconned after that. Things may be different than they appear - that is the mark of a good story teller.


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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

The massive retcons confuse things, but that doesn't keep them from telling good stories. It just doesn't fix the "Oh my god it's all so confusing for new readers!" problem.

For all the history and continuity, in order to enjoy mainstream comics, you've really got to live in the now. Is this storyline that I'm reading right now a good storyline? Are the characters engaging? Is the plot sufficiently mysterious or exciting? Some level of the Are the characters basically in character - hitting the right iconic notes at least? Do I want to know what happens next?

Even if it's going to be retconned away at some point. Or if it doesn't really fit with some other story from years ago. Is this story a good read?

The rest of it doesn't really matter. The story itself should include all the background information you need to understand it, though there might be easter eggs for those with deep knowledge.

And this is one of the reasons I have never gotten into reading comics. I can't pretend that the continuity doesn't matter to me.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Randarak wrote:

The key there is "if the stories are good". I've spoken with a number of people at my local shop, and granted while this is anecdotal, quite a number of them are disappointed with many of changes made to the comics that they love. Some of held on hoping for a turn towards a more favorable change, but many others are dropping titles like a hot rock.

In the end, sales will tell whether this was good idea to anyone outside the Marvel Bullpen (and Disney management).

Oh, there is definitely a reason I put that qualifier in there.

I think one of the things you may want to consider though: are the stories worse or are you just no longer invested in them? In some cases, I'm guessing the stories that got dropped were no longer as good, but the fans kept them alive hoping they would be what they once were. When they got introduced to new characters with a reboot, they no longer had the attachment to the old stories that would keep them reading.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
At this point, the Marvel universe is a mess for those who don't want to keep up/do a ton of research into it. Furthermore, most of the characters aren't ones you can even connect to...

And think of that from the perspective of someone who is just picking up a comic for the first time, or hasn't read since the 90s. They have a familiarity with some aspects of characters through other media, but in other parts they are completely wrong. If it is frustrating enough for consistent readers to drop subscriptions, many new readers will never get into it in the first place. You need to keep barriers for entry low.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aranna wrote:

Here is a thought. Why not let these heroes age?

Spiderman was introduced in 1962... 53 years ago. The amazing spiderman should be in his early 70s. We should be reading about his amazing grand children. This way the stories stay fresh without constantly having to alter the universe.

You can easily run into pacing issues doing this. Just look at the Dresden Files now. He has 1 book come out a year and progresses the world 1 year between, but now that the story has ramped up he has to find reasons for certain plot points to not advance during that time. You could have the opposite effect as well, where a years worth of comics takes place in the span of a day. Sure, when that event is over you can have a nice breather where the characters don't have much going on for some time, but then you once again run into the first problem.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Randarak wrote:

I'll be using this event as a reason to stop buying Marvel comics.

I used the New 52 as a reason to stop buying DC, as I enjoyed the pre-Flashpoint characterizations and the reboot didn't appeal to me. The rehashed "Secret Wars" and its various reconstructions will yield the same result.

Besides, I'm running out of physical space to store comics. I'm happy with the collection that I have and, along with trades, I can go back and reread the works that I enjoy so much.

I have no interest with reworking of loveable characters and new universe with supposedly new ideas that they come up with, and most likely being disappointed. I saw various examples of that over the last 10-15 years, and I have had my fill.

I hope that they do well for their own sake, but I think I will not be alone in my departure.

On the other hand, as someone who doesn't read comics but loves the superhero genre this might actually get me to look into them. I would never jump into a story half way through, so, as someone with mostly a passing familiarity in the characters, I will never pick up a comic in their main line. This will provide a distinct entry point for new readers to join in, and if the stories are good they will likely keep their old readers. From what I hear, the problem with the new 52 was that the stories were overall terrible.


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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:

Okay...phone lost my post.

Long story short, antagonistic girlfriend aranna, please watch Kinos journey and tell me what you think. I think you might enjoy it, and I recommend it strongly. I may put it on my watch list for the year.

I only caught bits of that when my roommates were watching it in college. It looked really interesting. I should find a copy.
a warning that it is an incredibly dry series. I wouldn't suggest watching it late at night. But it is very deep in parts.

I really like those types of shows. I absolutely loved Hanbie Renmei, which is probably one of the slowest paced well done shows I know of. I even didn't mind the standing around talking in the original .hack (though that show committed so many other crimes it is hard to forgive).


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:

Okay...phone lost my post.

Long story short, antagonistic girlfriend aranna, please watch Kinos journey and tell me what you think. I think you might enjoy it, and I recommend it strongly. I may put it on my watch list for the year.

I only caught bits of that when my roommates were watching it in college. It looked really interesting. I should find a copy.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dire Elf wrote:

We usually don't have a party name, because we can never come to a consensus. On the occasions when we have chosen a party name, it was usually selected because it was a name that annoyed the GM or one specific player who never agrees with anything anyone else suggests.

We are sad, sad people.

You are not alone.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
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.

That's probably the best counter argument I've seen yet.

Despite some similarities and despite common impressions in the US, anime is a very broad term. Much more a media than a genre.

As my female friends like to say Just Ship It


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Paladin of Baha-Who? wrote:
When people react badly to suggestions about how to make RPG gaming welcoming to women, it always makes me wonder why they value the behavior that is offputting so highly.

Its not necessarily the behavior itself that's valued but the ability to not constantly have to think about what you're saying and doing. Taking that self monitoring up to a level that more women would be comfortable with can detract quite a bit from the fun.

You have to avoid a level of offense that's set by another person. Its not static, its not objective, and most importantly its not visible. Telling when you've stepped over the line or are coming close can be VERY hard so it's a constant worry that anything you say might be over the line.

It's not that hard. And contrary to what the naysayers here keep saying, if you listen to the women who've come to this thread and others like it, it's not generally about "offense" or "self-monitoring".

The real complaints tend to be things like

unwanted touching - up to the level of being groped

constant flirting/verbal sexual harassment - as if they're only there to be hit on by the guy gamers. Or to have their body parts or their characters body parts commented on.

sexual propositions/rape in character

unwanted/condescending help - even to long time players and/or professionals - women can't possibly know what they're doing.

Is this kind of thing really that hard to avoid? Don't touch. Don't hit on during the game. Don't rape their character. Keep the sex out of the the game, at least until you know them better and have an idea of their boundaries. Offer help if asked, but don't push it on them.

That's about 90% of it. Watch out for other idiots doing the same stuff and shut it down.

And I think if any of us actually saw this b@+$~$##, we would call it out. No one is condoning it. We don't know who is doing it, and at this point most cons have rules against it. If you experience it, tell someone and there will be help. Edit: And if there is not - there is definitely a problem you should let the greater community know about.

I get the feeling that because I don't like the PC police idea of the X-card, or similar safe space ideas, that I somehow also condone ridiculously bad behavior that women are sometimes subjected to.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
To add: I'm a little bothered by the idea dominating this thread that what keeps women out of games is salty talk or lewdness, as though they are delicate flowers who might fan themselves and exclaim "my word!" and have a fainting spell. I call BS on that.

Unless I've missed something, I don't think anybody actually believes this; rather, I think this is what the "Nuthin' needs to change" crowd pretends is being cited as the issue, because it's a lot easier to dismiss as ridiculous than the convention groping and the selective PC rape and the assumptions of incompetence and so on and so forth.

Some women in this thread: "The game would be more accessible to women if there weren't men trying to grope us, rape our characters, and talk down to us like we're completely ignorant."
Certain male respondents: "You want us to stop cussing? That's ridiculous because XYZ, which now means I've proven there's not an issue so if you still say there is then you're against honest criticism of your ideas."

I think you are getting 2 conversations crossed.


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 to 50 of 4,927 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.