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. 5,049 posts (5,054 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,049 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Shadowborn wrote:
You'd think if he was going to run all the way to Coast City for pizza, he'd have brought back another three just for himself.

Are you sure he didn't just eat them on the way?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Set wrote:
Manuelexar wrote:
I believe It's a budget matter and they have to make it right.

I'm pretty easy to please when it comes to super-stuff and saving money on special effects. Instead of having dudes fly around on wires like they do when Sif punches them, just cut to carnage happening around the corner, or behind a closed door, and let us see the horrible aftermath, the way they (very effectively, IMO) did on Heroes, never really showing Niki's super-strong persona in action, but suggesting that bodies were just torn limb from limb when people showed up later to see the carnage she'd left behind.

If they want to save their FX budget for Lightning Lincoln moving go pieces or Mikelock shooting rockets out of his arms, I'm fine with that.

It might even be an interesting storytelling device, to never actually *see* 'Hyde' in action, only neurotic Cal, after the fact, amidst all the wreckage and bodies.

Or the hallway scene of Daredevil, which is amazing. Though I don't think that would fit the cinematography of the rest of the show.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM Barcas wrote:
I'm surprised how much more I liked Laurel in the Flash crossover. She was just so much better than she is on Arrow. Perhaps it was the writers, or the generally happier style of the Flesh.

She was doing her characters job, being the DA, instead of trying to not do her job by protecting Ollie or actively doing things against her job by being a vigilante. I think that made a huge difference. The lawyer aspects of the character she can pull off, when she isn't actively holding the idiot ball.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thegreenteagamer wrote:

I am also a fan of loose tea. I have a steel mesh ball and chain that doesn't get nearly enough use.

Part of the problem is my perception of the price. I know it is not more expensive by weight than bagged stuff is without the bag factored in, but when you throw down twenty dollars and end up with a handful of product it's considerably demotivating. The fact that such a handful can be distributed into a huge amount of cups is not really at the front of your mind when you visually assess your purchase.

I can walk to a place that sells it in 2oz quantities for as little as $4, depending on variety. Depending on type, it can make anywhere from 10 to 30 cups. The other place near me only sells it in 1/2 lb bags, so I don't buy nearly as much from them since that can be 15-20.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have found yunnans to be my favoite variety recently. A lot less bitter than dark blends the English and Irish teas tend to be. I also love herbal spiced teas, typically orange, clove, ginger types. There are a couple great loose leaf places around here, so I mostly drink that, but in a pinch Biggalow, Twinings, and Celestial Seasonings are not bad.

As for Lipton, they do not waste tea. They buy the waste that higher quality brands don't want, and the things that fall through the filters. They basically get the powders that fall off the good leaves.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Krensky wrote:

It is MCU (which is Earth-199999), but Marvel didn't want them directly linked because they're very different in scope and tone.

The also mention Banner breaking Harlem in Urich's clippings.

Pretty soon you won't have to worry about all that numbered universe garbage with the upcoming unification.
Yeah, and somehow I don't see the MCU being involved in the unification. Maybe they might show a few elements of it in the comics, but for the films / shows, it is NOT gonna happen.

In Spiderman they apparently made some jokes about the movies, joking that some of them look like the actors who played them, but other than that I highly doubt they will do anything to movies.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

I really enjoyed it. There were tiny things here and there that I might quibble about, but they didn't do anything to detract from the enjoyment of the best Marvel Comics TV show yet (and Agent Carter really set the bar high). Strong writing and good-to-amazing acting throughout, and the limited budget for TV surprisingly not posing an issue. Marvel's Feig recently spoke about re-re-casting Spider-Man as an actual teenager so they could cover many of the Parker's highschool plot & character points in the movies... screw that. Daredevil just proved that the Spider-Man re-reboot should be done in 13-episode seasons on Netflix.

However, there was a singular plot development in Daredevil that totally, infuriatingly unnecessary. ** spoiler omitted **...

I just finished up Daredevil (Should have gone to bed instead but oh well...), so I can actually read this and respond...

** spoiler omitted **

As for spiderman...shrugs. The expanded format of 13ish hours versions 2-3 hours is always going to provide a more rich story. BUT...I I don't...

episode 11:
I think they also had to get away from that character, as he is a dying trope that is losing relevance. Young people don't read newspapers.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have been larping for ~10 years now. I think I've played in 3 games with boffer or nerf weapons, and never played in a Vampire game. We call it theatrical style larping in the communities I'm involved with. It has a tiny player base compared to boffer or vampire, though technically vampire would be a subset of the style.

I play mostly one shots, where the games are structured ahead of time with pre-written characters. Most of the time the GMs cast ahead of time so people can prepare. Games tend to be between 10 and 30 people, though larger ones exist. Combats are resolved through mechanics that vary depending on the game, but player's physical abilities never really come into play. The mechanics can be as simple as RPS or dice rolls, but some can get fairly complicated.

Games have a huge range. I'm playing a game in May based around being at an academic conference of Cthulhu mythos scholars. I've played games set in superhero, tribal societies, pirates, 3 musketeers, far future, and mundane games.

Where I am in the Northeast US, we have a couple communities based around colleges. I participate in games at RPI, WPI, and Brandies, which is having a larp weekend this weekend, and I know some people from MIT and Harvard. Intercon is the biggest convention for this style I know of, though I believe there are some similar ones on the other coast.


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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Episode 8

The origin of Fisk

This cannot be unseen and I will carry these powerful images with me for the rest of my life.

note: do not let anyone under your care that is under 18 watch this. I strongly caution against it. But for fellow adults on this thread: this is film mastery and will forever elevate the genre's bar to the stratosphere. Marvel is now truly sitting on gold.

Bah. This is PG13.


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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mattastrophic wrote:

Hi guys. As a total noob here, I find myself wondering something...

This "reactionary" hatred-promotion... Is this year the first year it has happened?

I am wondering whether this is largely a result of the con being held in America.

-Matt

This is the 3rd year they have run a slate. The first year they were mostly irrelevant. The second year they got a few things on the list, which were basically blacklisted. This year they dominated the nominations.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Spook205 wrote:

Remind me, is Bradford the same one who was insisting on 'read no white authors' for a year, too?

Edit: Yeah, thats her..

Mr. Correria's fisking of her article (including a link to the original article) is...

Yes it was. Doesn't seem like a horrible idea to me. More of a "If you're in a rut, get out of it and try a bunch of new things" than "White male writers are all horrible and you shouldn't read any of them".

For those who already read a broad spectrum of authors, it's probably a pointless exercise. For those who don't, maybe you'll find some interesting new voices.

For those who loudly insist they never consider the color or gender of the authors they read, only the quality of the work, it might be worth taking a quick look at the author bios and seeing if there is a trend. :) And then maybe seeing if there are works that seem appealing, but maybe from a slightly different perspective due to the different experiences that come with different races and genders.

If this was meant as a dig at the Sad Puppies, you may want to consider that there was more diversity on their slate than last year's winners.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Constantine wrote:
What does it matter what the voters views are? It shouldn't at all. As long as they vote for a work that they enjoyed and thought was good, that is all that should matter. Do I think all the Puppies read every book, no, I don't. Do I think most of the other non-Puppies voters read everything they voted for as well, nope. And the very nature of voting for one thing excludes another, we certainly can't start to try and figure out why everyone votes the way they do, that is impossible, nor should it be attempted. They paid their money, they get to vote.

One thing to keep in mind is that the puppies organized "book bombs" of all of the things they put on their slate, where in one day the forum goers of Monster Hunter Nation go to Amazon and buy copies until the book is on the best seller list. Not to mention that the group is made up of people who spend their free time on a forum about a book series. So there is a good chance that a lot of the puppies did in fact read every work they nominated.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
Quote:
They tried 'better and gentler' for several years. No change. While there might be some hypothetical 'perfect middle ground', since no one is able to present it, it's obvious they used a tactic that would work, instead.

One of Martin's ideas that I liked is the suggestion that instead of rousing sad/rabid puppies to take over the Hugos, those people could have instead made a new award that is meant to bring recognition to the works they think deserve. A significant part of their rhetoric is that they believe they have the numbers on their side - they say that the works that win the Hugo are not the most popular ones.

So, if they have the numbers, they could translate it into influence. Make a NotHugo award, figure a nomination and voting process, and run with it. If, indeed, the works they like are the ones that a wider audience would find more deserving, then over time the award will come to be recognized and appreciated.

That seems to me like a considerably more peaceful solution than taunting the Hugo voter crowed and then organizing a hijack of the nominations. It's a peaceful coexistence rather than open conflict.

Do you find this idea flawed or problematic in any way?

Because newly made up awards have the prestige of the oldest award for the genre, that the fathers and greats won...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
sunbeam wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:


1. 'I dont discuss religion or politics in polite company'. - this implies that we should only discuss complicated and important ideas among those who agree with us. Thats stupid. It prevents the transfer of ideas, and create a polarizing effect. If no one ever calls you on your bs, your bs becomes worse and worse over time as everyone agrees with you.
That's the nature of the modern world though. Unless you consciously seek out other viewpoints a self-reinforcing echo chamber out there just waiting for you to pay attention to it.

On the other hand, sometimes it's worth just shutting down the discussion rather than letting it blow up into a big argument, when you've gathered for something else. Whether it's work or game night or a family gathering or something.

I actually find "I don't discuss religion or politics in polite company" often is a polite way of saying "I'm not going to discuss it with you, because I know we won't be able to stay polite."

So you are saying they should concede defeat and never try to fix something they see as broken rather than piss off people who don't like them already? A lot of progress will be made that way.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
Caineach wrote:
My god. I haven't actually read much stuff on the Hugo list, but 'If you were a dinosaur my love?' is terrible. How the hell did that dretch get an award?

I guess many people liked it?

To be honest, I almost never agree with any awards. I assume this will be true for most people' it is weird to expect awards to reflect your own taste. Methods of choosing awards vary, but they are almost always independent of the opinion of any single fan.

It's perfectly legitimate to disagree with the main body of voters for the Hugos. It is also legitimate to question any part in the nomination and voting process. But deciding to use a loophole in design of the process to hijack the award is a rather offensive way of voicing discontent. SP attempt to sound ignorant of the consequences of their action, but I find it hard to believe that they are.

They wanted to deliver the massage that they don't buy into the integrity of the Hugo awards as they are now. What they did was change the game such that now everybody will have to doubt the integrity of the awards, because clearly something happened that was not the scenario envisioned by those who came up with the nomination system.

I would reiterate that their political stances are not the issue - the way things appear to be is that they are in the minority anyway, and many of them are not harmful with those opinions (Corriea, for example, may be aggressive in his internet debating but from all that I was able to see he is a smart, compassionate guy that is not [in any meaningful interpretation of the word] a bigot of any kind). I do think that they are in the wrong in this controversy and that there were better, gentler ways for them to raise their concerns.

Sorry, but when you voice your concerns for years and get ignored, the people who ignore you can't complain when you up the anti.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My god. I haven't actually read much stuff on the Hugo list, but 'If you were a dinosaur my love?' is terrible. How the hell did that dretch get an award?


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


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Which is why the concept of voting "No Award" before any entries on the slates is attractive, even if it seems unfair to deserving authors on the list.

The other, even more radical notion I've seen is to just vote "No Award" entirely - declare this year's Hugos null and void.

The question is whether the Puppies will be able to keep this up in the face of losing, possibly to nothing, in the actual voting.

Responding with progressive slates would break the system

And all this would do is show that the puppies are right and that people would rather be spiteful than allow things supported by someone they don't like to possibly get an award.


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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
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.
OK, that I hadn't heard and would like to see more on.

Honestly, I haven't looked to verify the claim. I'm mostly going on Correia's response to last year's backlash, which I think is a really well written piece that puts most of the people complaining about him to shame.


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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kolokotroni wrote:

So basically what has happened here, is the 'sad puppies' have created a literary award american style political party. Its sort of a problem with the democratic process in general. A well organized group pushing a block of ideas that has the potential to pull in disperate supporters is superior to individuals pushing individual ideas.

Its easier to just tell someone 'vote xyz because reasons 1 2 and 3' then to get them to analyze and evaluate the issues that x, y and z represent solutions for. If someone was (had they evaluated everything in question) inclined to vote x,a,z, then theres a good chance they will just jump on the x,y,z bandwagon because human beings are suggestable and largely prefer others to make difficult choices for them.

The sad puppies are pushing the kind of books they want to see win awards. That in and of itself is fine. Its only different in scale and oraganization from well known figures in the genre recommending a given author or book. That is a pretty well established practice going back to the inception of things like the Hugos.

The problem is when one group gets oragnized, it pushes everyone to get organized to compete, and then you have a loss of ideas. Its probably the biggest problem with the american political system. You have 2 big voting blocks that sort of mash together a number of different positions, and in order to succeed you have to cram yourself into one of those two models or have little chance for success.

I am not really sure what the real solution is other then a countering force trying to 'get out the vote' for books other then whats on the sad puppy slate. Ofcourse you still have the problem of block voting being more effective then individual voting. You can say encourage people to read everything on the list and evaluate for themselves, but the truth is, that wont work as well as telling them what to vote for. It just wont. People dont work that way.

From what I can tell, their recommendations weren't even hitting significantly more numbers than other people who have done the same thing. They are basically posting some recommendations around a few author's message boards. The difference is the amount of buy-in they have gotten from their fanbase, which left wing ideologues have apparently driven into a frenzy.


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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mittean wrote:

I know a lot of us are always looking for new fantasy movies that fly under the radar. I'm wondering what everyone's are?

I bring this up because some good friends of mine just released a film called Mythica on ConTV (a free Netflix-for-nerds site) that is pretty awesome. At a minimum its better than the D&D movies, and at fraction of the cost.

I loved growing up with films like LadyHawke, and Willow, and even Goonies. What about you guys?

The group that did Mythica does a lot of fantasy movies through kickstarter. They seem to be solid, if sometimes on the cheesy end. Their special effects have been good. They did The Christmas Dragon and got the animation studio that does Game of Thrones dragons, and it looked like a live action Toothless. It was adorable.

Edit: Mythica 2 is currently running on kickstarter


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:

If that's really the case, then just pushing other people to vote, without pushing them to vote for a specific slate, should be sufficient. You'd need more, of course, but if there really are hordes of fans upset with the current state, just getting them to nominate should work.

Again, I'll point out that the last couple years when Sad Puppies was successful in getting a couple of nominees on the slate, they still lost.

It takes time to get disenfranchised people active in something.

So just break the system instead. Good plan.

Maybe there wasn't a conspiracy and the stuff these guys like just didn't win.

The system was already broken. They changed no rules. They just exploited the bad ones that were already in place.

From what I can tell, Sad Puppies is never claiming that there was an active conspiracy, just that the active voting pool was shifted towards one end of the ideological spectrum and was disenfranchising people who didn't fit in.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

If that's really the case, then just pushing other people to vote, without pushing them to vote for a specific slate, should be sufficient. You'd need more, of course, but if there really are hordes of fans upset with the current state, just getting them to nominate should work.

Again, I'll point out that the last couple years when Sad Puppies was successful in getting a couple of nominees on the slate, they still lost.

It takes time to get disenfranchised people active in something.


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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
sunbeam wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Again, a book you thought should have won not winning is not evidence of it being "wrong".

Personally, that's the only book on the list I've never heard of. I've read all the others, with varying degrees of enjoyment. Sword of the Lictor is rightly considered a classic. Pride of Chanur was the start of one of favorite series.

Well you probably won't enjoy Courtship Rite if you ever read it. But I'll stand by my point, it was the most outstanding book on that list.

So tell me, as a reader I can't tell what the best book was on that list by reading all of them?

But somehow the Hugo picks correctly by this voting process?

And it's been pure and pristine the whole time it's been in existence until now... and ... and evil people are fixing the process.

Come on, if it is this vulnerable you're telling me this is the first time ever this kind of thing has been done with this award? Not buying it.

And curiously no publishing house would hav8e ever thought to put their finger on the scale? Ever? I mean "DAW books, publisher of this year's Hugo winner..." That's got to be worth something for sales or ad copy.

None of the voters were fan boys and picked a name like Asimov or Heinlein just because?

Considering there are people who sell NY Times best seller to authors (they pay large groups of people to go out and buy a book the same day to guarantee they make the list), I highly doubt that Hugo Nomination has stayed pristine, considering you can do it for less than $1000 for some categories.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Arturius Fischer wrote:


TheJeff wrote:
Just for the record: Castalia House is a lesser publisher. Barely known even in Finland, as far as I can tell. Maybe just an e-publisher, I'm not sure. So on that front it qualifies.

That's good to know, thanks.

TheJeff wrote:
OTOH, it's Vox Day's project. He's lead editor. So his Rabid Puppies slate doesn't look so much like a principled struggle for either smaller publishers or against leftist bias, but just using backlash against SJWs to push his own business. Without, by the way, making that connection clear on the post where he recommended the slate.

And I suppose Scalzi gets a pass for posting his own slate that included his own works? I mean, pushing one's own business seems to be something both sides are using here. I don't see what's not 'clear' about that, especially when they openly admit it.

Fortunately, at least Sad Puppies seems to have some principle.

For about the 10th time, Scalzi didn't "post his own slate". He makes a blog post where he lists those of his works that are eligible.

That's all. He lists them all. Doesn't try to drive votes towards one so he'll have a better chance. Doesn't list all the works that he thinks should win. Just says "This is what I've got that's eligible."
I'll admit, even that is considered a bit much by historical Hugo standards. But it's a far cry from what we're seeing now. And of course, you know it's him doing it. It wasn't clear to me until I dug deeper into it that Vox was publishing most of the stuff on his list and no one else on this thread mentioned it, so I assume they didn't realize it either. It certainly wasn't explicit in the posting of the list itself. Disclosure makes a big difference.

"Here's what I've written this year. Vote for them if you liked them." vs

Quote:
They are my recommendations for the 2015 nominations, and I encourage those who value my opinion on matters related to science fiction and fantasy to nominate them precisely as they
...

If you believe there is a difference I have a bridge to sell you.


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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
jemstone wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Sometimes the dub improves upon the original product.

...

I loved you once, Toz. ignites beam saber

He's not wrong, you know. Points at Cowboy Bebop as an example.

In other news, I finally watched (Season? Volume? Book?... one...) Space Dandy.

It was pretty amazing......

Baby.

I was reminded of that today when I saw a kickstarter for a Space Dandy card game. At some point I need to watch it. I've heard good things.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
doc the grey wrote:

My biggest issue with this season so far has been the major down step in villain influence in the city, Starling city's importance in the overall narrative and the importance of Oliver Queen the secret identity as a whole to that narrative.

Like the whole 1st season was a setup for how important his hometown, his company, and the remains of his family were to Oliver and how a lot of this quest was focused on his quest to both protect and better all of them in a more meaningful way. And what's been really sad is how little that has started to matter as this season moves on. I mean hell S1 his villains were literal corporate villains that no one else could reach and had the power to hire super villains but this season excluding Ras and co most of his antagonists have been low level goons that have been shown to be well within the capacity for the police to handle with maybe the exception of Brick.

The other thing that's bothered me is how little we get to see of what Oliver Queen's been doing as Oliver Queen since this season started. Like he just lost his mom, his girlfriend, his company, and until recently his sister. What the hell is he doing when not under the hood? Is he trying to recoup Queen Consolidated since it's been so important to him for the last 2 seasons, where/what the hell does the rest of the city think of him now that he's lost control and had basically become a shut in as far as we've seen, and does he think that his plain clothes self is even worthwhile or useful in his crusade?

Seriously this is the stuff I wanted/want/wanting to see this season talk about but fear we're not going to get. Like it would be great to actually see Oliver Queen the secret identity become important again in the narrative and start pulling his weight as a force for good for the city alongside his arrow slinging counter part. Like trying to legitimately fix the damage in the Glades and help bounce their city out of the corrupt economic depression it's been in while as the Arrow fighting legit threats to...

I agree. I feel like they have dropped the Oliver part of him and now he is just the Arrow.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
memorax wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:


You sprinkle hints at earlier episodes that Simmons might be inclined to react that way. As it sits, Simmons has been exposed to super powers many times and has even very nearly died from contact with alien tech and she never leaned towards developing mutantophobia even a little bit. That makes it seems a little bit contrived that her stance now changed by events that were not really different in magnitude, but merely in results.

Seconded.

When Simmons tried to kill herself would have been a great opprtunity to show or at least have the character develop mutantphobia. Instead as long as bad stuff happened to strangers. She was good. Once someone who she was close to and had feelings for died.

Also, I think there is a legitimate double standard between things happening to ordinary strangers and her friends.

When bad things happen to ordinary people who don't know what they are dealing with or how to handle it... bad things happen. It sucks, but with training or knowledge they could have been better off.

When bad things happen to SHIELD agents who specialize in dealing with the unexplained, and nobody else on earth is better trained or prepared... and they STILL can't come out alive?? Then yeah... maybe some things ARE too dangerous to run free ;)

I actually disagree. As good as SHIELD agents might be, when dealing with the unexplained, unexpected things will happen. Agents die, and that's a risk that all of them should understand. It is, ultimately, unavoidable.

For this reason, I find that the way the characters in the show handle death to be badly written. From that episode mid season 1 that Sky was dying, up to Tripps' death, they seem to have a very hard time accepting that fellow soldiers fall in battle. I find this to be a weakness of the show.

But mostly the people who have a hard time with it started as non-combatants. Also, with Sky, she is a civilian that they dragged into it. That is very different from a fellow soldier who signed up. A lot of the conflict the first season is driven by them not being able to reconcile in their minds that Sky wants to be there and involved as much as any other person.

Not to mention a lot of soldiers have a hard time dealing with casualties within their squad.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SAMAS wrote:
While not Japanese, I just found out that the French series Wakfu is up on Netflix. If you have not seen this series, fix that.

I like Wakfu. I find some of the characters a little inconsistent (mostly Amelia), and the show itself is a little to episodic for me, but I like the world.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
memorax wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:


You sprinkle hints at earlier episodes that Simmons might be inclined to react that way. As it sits, Simmons has been exposed to super powers many times and has even very nearly died from contact with alien tech and she never leaned towards developing mutantophobia even a little bit. That makes it seems a little bit contrived that her stance now changed by events that were not really different in magnitude, but merely in results.

Seconded.

When Simmons tried to kill herself would have been a great opprtunity to show or at least have the character develop mutantphobia. Instead as long as bad stuff happened to strangers. She was good. Once someone who she was close to and had feelings for died. Then the mutantphobia suddenly is part of her character. Mind you in a world where there is people with powers both mutant and non-mutant. Targeting mutants makes little sense imo. Human Torch, Black Panther and Iceman. The first two get a free pass on racism. Iceman gets persecuted. It's not like mutants and non-mutants have a tattoo on their forehead that make them stand out. If Marvel really wanted to show racism properly then the fear would not be towards Inhumans and/or mutants. It would be against everyone and anyone who had superpowers mutant or not.

Developing a different opinion when something happens to you instead of a stranger is normal behavior. People aren't predictable. Not to mention that her new-found fear doesn't seem to be limited to just mutants, but to everyone with enhanced abilities. Sure, she is hypocritical, but that is normal human behavior.

edit: they aren't treating the show like the comics where only mutants get discriminated against.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Set wrote:

Simmons seemed more sympathetic when it was Donnie Gill developing superhuman powers. Maybe Chloe would have gotten a pass if she was a cute boy?

And his supper powers resulted in his reported death after he almost killed her and people she cares for. She even rants about how everyone who has had powers attacks them.


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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have a really hard time with the claim porn reduced sex and not the reverse of lack of sex increased porn. How are they able to justify a causal relationship?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

I still find it funny how the "but it influences people!" crowd never seem to inude themselves in their claims... Nope. It's always everyone else who is too stupid to separate fantasy from reality. "Porn influences people negatively... Not me, because I'm Oh-So-Enlightned, but everyone else, because they are obviously not nearly as smart as my brilliant self!".

Can we stop assuming that people are stupid? They aren't. Most of them might be uncultured, but they aren't stupid. 99% of the world can (and does) tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

I'm so f!@@ing tired of this holier-than-thou atittude...Saying porn causes body image issues and sets unrealistic expectations about sex is like saying The Matrix sets unrealistic expectations for learning kung fu and makes young martial artists feel bad about themselves because they don't look like Hollywood stars and can't dodge bullets!

And if are going to mention Japan, let's remember that even though rape is a very common theme in Japanese pornography, it's one of the nations with the lowest number of actual occurences of the crime in the world.

I posted a peer-reviewed scientific paper that disagrees with you on this very topic in this very thread.

Do you have any thing to backup your claims or is it just a gut feeling?

Tell me... What do you think is more likely? That those people were (consciously or not) speaking what matches their spiritual beliefs and whatxthey thought the scientists wanted to hear... Or that they actually measured how much satisfaction they felt and how judgemental their partners were?
"Bah. My gut feelings and anecdotes refute your peer-reviewed science."

I didn;'t bother to read the study in question, but unless they did some brainwave scans when people were watching porn, there is most likely enough bias that any results they got are junk. Plenty of other studies have found that surveys of how people feel are almost never honest and accurate when the thing in question is controversial.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Greylurker wrote:
of everything coming in the Spring season this is what I am looking forward to most

Wow the art quality in the preview varied so much.


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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
I have some friends who do convention panels on terrible anime. I will have to ask them about Mahouka.

For those who may be interested they record their panels

1 to 50 of 5,049 << 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.