|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I believe it would be a difficult thing to get a lawyer to sit down with you and hammer out the deal about not reporting things to the police, Orfamay.
From a lawyer's perspective, it would still be in their interest to report it to the police. In US Civil Law, the fact that something has been reported or that there was consideration for pressing charges by the prosecutor is valuable evidence for a settlement.
Criminal law requires "beyond reasonable doubt".
That's a major difference and pushing for a settlement any and all evidence that can be accrued is in the plaintiffs favor.
More likely, what actually happened is that the plaintiff pushed the lawsuit and the defendants approached for the settlement. The value of the settlement from the defendants perspective is that they avoid various court records, such as having witnesses testify. They can also include stipulations on the settlements, such as the plaintiff can't disclose the amount settled for, nor can they reveal any details of the case that aren't already in public documents. Essentially, Cosby used the settlement money to buy silence. It's not accident that there are non-disclosure conditions, those have to be put into the settlement purposely by one party or the other.
The content of statements IS evidence though.
For example, we have women making statements over a long number of years, independent of each other, made in completely different regions who have no association with each other, making remarkably similar statements.
There are a large quantity of details and those details are consistent with each statement. It details quite clearly a pattern of behavior.
And remember, many of these statements were made to police or lawyers prior to the public accusations, before these details were made public.
Again, I'm not saying that he should be convicted in a court of law based on this. If he goes to trial, it should follow all rules that are applicable.
I am not a court room though. I am not a judge, I am not the government.
I AM allowed to form an opinion based on the information I have given to me at any point in time. Based on the information available at this point, I think it's very likely he is a serial rapist. I have no interest in listening to a comedian who has a high potential of being a serial rapist.
Here's the thing. I'm allowed to form my opinion. Telling me I'm not allowed to form an opinion is hogwash. You have an opinion about this subject too, just based on what you've read in this thread. I'm not sitting here and telling you you have the wrong one, or that you're not allowed to have it.
I'm sorry, I got it wrong. So far his defense has been to..
1) Say nothing
So no, we haven't heard his side of the story. Watching the AP interview from early November, he seems to be employing the strategy of non-engagement and hoping it goes away.
That means the ONLY evidence we have right now is the claims of these 33 women. We have their word on this, including the fact that 13 of them were willing to testify in court as witnesses, even though they had no connection to the suit, nor would they gain from it monetarily.
There has literally been no evidence presented that would point towards his innocence.
I'm willing to hear his defense, but that means he has to put one forward.
Freehold DM wrote:
I'm not interested in anything he has to say... as an entertainer.
If he has something relevant to offer up in his defense, I'm willing to hear it. It better be good though. For example, if all he has is personal attacks on each of these women, I'm not interested. I want to hear dates, times and alibis. To date, the best he's offered up is "I've never met that woman". That's not really much to go on and is so easy to say.
If I were on an actual jury, sure, I'd do everything I can do examine all the evidence.
I'm not on a jury though. I am not the government. Any "punishment" I chose to enforce will be miniscule and irrelevant to Mr. Cosby's life, therefore I think focusing on me and my actions as they pertain to this series of events is laughable as if I'm somehow guilty of something that actually matters.
Based on everything that's known to the public right now, Cosby is most likely a serial rapist. I'm sorry if that conclusion is offensive, but it's also the most realistic conclusion at this point.
Freehold DM wrote:
Are you saying I'm not allowed to form opinions based on the information I have available to me?
I've shared all I feel like sharing on that story. I have no interest in getting into a debate about gamergate. It's such a non-story it deserves as little attention as possible.
I stand by my decision. It's my money, I get to choose who I give it to and I can use any method I see fit.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Oh man, you killed my human fighter, but I just introduced him. That sucks... well, if you're going to make me use a new character I'm just renaming him. Yeah, that's what I'm going to do. My old character was Boromir... I'll just rename him... Foromir... naw that doesn't sound right... Faramir. Yeah, that's it. Oh, and they're brothers too, so I'm using the same stats. Screw you GM!
This is the conversation in my head that happens after Boromir's death.
Freehold DM wrote:
Do you consider yourself to be in the category of "serial rapist"? Because that is how I would describe the allegations against Bill Cosby.
For the moment, let's assume that half of the women coming forward are lying, and half are telling the truth. I'll even give him the benefit of the doubt and round it in his favor. That means 17 women have lied, while he's raped or sexually assaulted the other 16 of them.
I'm not a big fan of people who have raped one person, let alone 16. So no, I'm not really interested in hearing him talk.
Would you consider yourself to be in a similar league with Mr. Cosby?
I'm no saint myself. I've done bad things at various points in my life. I know no one is perfect. I have no time for an unrepentant rapist though. Sorry if you find that disconcerting.
edit: to add, there are so many other funny people out there, other tv shows to watch, etc... I don't need to spend time watching him. I have other options available to me. I will spend my attention on people I don't think have done things I find morally reprehensible.
I have a similar issue revolving around gamergate. The CEO of a company I have previous bought things from said some things I found shocking. He was purposely using his standing as a CEO of a company to say things that I didn't just disagree with, but I found to be repugnant. I'm not spending my money on their products any more. There are enough other games where I can play them without thinking about providing him financial support, that I see no reason to give him my money any more. I was a big fan of that company too, one game I had bought three retail versions (two so I could run both machines online and a third as a gift). I bought a collectors edition of another at $100. I'm done now as a customer, because he decided to use his company as a platform to express disgusting views.
Again, your comments surround the bow itself.
Yes, Lars has not trained his entire life to be an English longbowman. I agree to this fact. So when comparing the physical capabilities of the two, we must acknowledge that they are different.
For example, if you compared me to nearly any kid from Jamaica (where sprinting is a major sport and everyone participates) I'm probably going to lose a foot race. They've trained most of their lives to do it and do it well.
Lars' point is that the mainstream method for nocking an arrow is slower than the method he demonstrates.
Do you have evidence that this is false?
I fully concede, Lars is not as strong as an English longbowman. He is also obviously not a scholar or expert on history. Do you have evidence that the technique itself is flawed, or do you ONLY have evidence that Lars is flawed?
Using the same person (Lars) with the same equipment, do you think he would develop MORE power using more mainstream modern techniques?
I think we're all in agreement, an English longbowman who trained all their life would probably be better at this than Lars. People have cited evidence that English longbowmen has physical changes from their years of training. Do you think an English longbowman would be more effective using a slower method or a faster method?
Something to note involving all of the "debunking" so far....
None of it actually has to do with the technique he is using. Not one person has even claimed that his method of nocking, drawing and firing the arrow cannot achieve what he is doing.
It's all about how the bow he is using isn't effective, or the arrows aren't constructed right.
None of it has to do with the speed or accuracy he is demonstrating. I don't think he's some sort of genius, or that he's uncovering something completely unknown. Rather he is demonstrating a technique that is not widely used and showing it to be just as effective, if not more, than other nocking/drawing techniques.
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
As an aside, what Lars was doing seems to have little to do with the archery that was practiced by English longbowmen. Their main tactic was to fire rapidly, but to fire high so that arrows rained down from above in an area rather than specifically aiming. They didn't use quivers much either, they jammed their arrows in the ground point first when they wanted to use them in combat. But they didn't jump around much either but operated in groups to lay down heavy density arrow-rain. The arrows didn't have much problem penetrating armour, certainly not chain mail, as most of the impetus for the arrow on penetration was from gravity and the fall from the parabolic reajectory rather than from the pull itself. A lot of the development of armour in the middle ages was an arms race against the arrows - chain mail was pretty useless, which is why plate mail progressively developed. Lars might be more relevant for Asian composite bows and horseback archery but that was not the bag of the English longbowmen (which were six feet long).
Lars has shown that he can reliably shoot faster than people using other techniques. If the English were primarily concerned with rate of fire, why would they not use this (or something similar) technique?
Sighting the arrow down the left side is better for accuracy, but as you say, the English were firing to a space, flooding an area with arrows, not attempting to hit a specific target. His method would seem more than adequate for doing that (even though he has shown himself to have good accuracy).
The problem with using evolution as the basis for explaining human behavior is that you CANNOT use any other animal as an example of what is or is not typical behavior of humans. Even within the various primate species there are large differences in behaviors. Picking one and holding it as an example of human behavior is choosing a selective bias in an attempt to prove a point.
Second problem is one of the very concept of gender roles and applying them to people. We know that not all men are 100% male and not all women are 100% female, both in the non-brain physical sense and in the brain physical sense. It's a spectrum and everyone is on it somewhere. Therefore saying that your apparent gender assigned by society should predict your behavior because of evolution is false, because society may have assigned you (a) the wrong gender or (b) a superficially simplistic one that fails to account for other factors.
I believe we are creatures of evolution and it is possible to use it to explain most of our behaviors. The problem is we live in a world colored by our society, and that society is not built around science. You can use science to explain portions of society, but you cannot rely on society to adhere to all aspects of science, since it's a social construct created by a bunch of animals who are controlled by evolution, not perfectly scientific beings.
TL:DR - I never trust anyone who uses another species sexual behavior in an attempt to explain ours. Their choice of examples often betrays their agenda or base viewpoint.
The answer is none.
Last season they had 5-6 (including Browner being suspended twice).
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Seriously, it's about 1/2 way down the page. It gets it's own header, divided into a couple of easy to read paragraphs. This stuff isn't hard to find.
Higher education is not ONLY college/university. It includes trade schools and job specific training.
In January 2015, the President proposed the American Technical Training Fund to award programs that have strong employer partnerships and include work-based learning opportunities, provide accelerated training, and are scheduled to accommodate part-time work. This discretionary budget proposal would fund 100 centers to help high-potential, low-wage workers gain the skills to work into growing fields with significant numbers of middle-class jobs that local employers are trying to fill, such as energy, IT, and advanced manufacturing.
Let's break down your statements here.
Quark Blast wrote:
When people could afford to pay for their own education, they could receive it and provide for themselves.
Quark Blast wrote:
Today college tuition is way out of proportion with the benefit it gives.
Now that college education is harder to obtain (the monetary barrier), it's worth less.
Quark Blast wrote:
But giving more people degrees, in effectively the same manner we give high school diplomas (i.e. they can be "earned" simply by showing up and marginally participating), we will only produce less value in college degrees as a whole.
Therefore if we make them easier to obtain again, they will become worth even less.
Your conclusion is false based on the premise YOU propose.
You keep harping on this concept that college degrees will be handed out just as easily as high school diplomas. Do you have proof that this is intended? Do you have something to compare this to?
I had a great-granduncle who had his university degree at 18. I don't say this to point out that he was some sort of genius, but rather that I believe the standard for a degree in the 1890's was lower than it is today. I highly doubt that the qualifications for his job were near as stringent as they would be in comparison to today.
Here's a challenge. If you think an increase in the number of degrees in society has an impact on wages, show it. Right now you're making a bunch of claims, but history doesn't bear them out.
Something to consider, in the 70's there was an increase in college graduates entering the workforce (the baby boomers were graduating). This lead to an initial dip in wages for entry level jobs requiring degrees, but as time went on, wages went back up and productivity increased faster. The overall net effect for the individuals (college graduates average $1,000,000 more in lifetime wages than non-college graduates) but had positive impacts on the overall economy as well.
In numbers, if you count 25-65 year olds, the US ranks 5th in higher education levels (42%). If you look at 25-35 year olds the percentage stays the same, but that ranking drops to 14th. South Korea for example is at 65% in the same age bracket, while their 55-65 bracket has fewer than 15% with college degrees. Their unemployment rates for people with college degrees is 2.6%. 40 years ago South Korea was extremely poor, it's actually a rather amazing turn around. Education has been a major focus for them, they are the third highest in the world for the % of GDP spend on education.
If you want to argue for stringent standards on college degrees, I'm all for it. You'll get no complaints from me that we need high standards in education. But arguing about HOW we do it is different from arguing about IF we should do it.
Please, dig up some information that a higher educated workforce is bad for us. I'd be really interested to hear that.
Quark Blast wrote:
Roughly 10% of the baby boomer generation participated in the Vietnam War. They'd be too young to participate, or reach college soon enough to use their parents benefits from WW2 or the Korean War.
Dependents can use your benefits from the GI Bill, but that counts against your total benefits. So if you have 36 months of eligibility, so if you use 12 and your spouse uses 10, there are 14 months remaining.
Not every veteran used their benefits. The Vietnam War did have one of the higher usage rates at 72%. To be eligible though, you need to have received an "other than dishonorable discharge" though. I don't know about the numbers for whites, but for minorities about 24% received other-than-honorable (a category of it's own, I can explain in great detail if necessary as I used to do this paperwork for a living). While an other-than-honorable does not automatically disqualify you for the GI Bill, depending on the reason it can increase rejection rate from jobs and college applications (so you can't even use the GI Bill) by 40%.
Currently the military branches are considering re-examining some of those discharges in an attempt to account for PTSD influenced behavior.
Anyways, all this brings down the total % of baby boomers who used the GI bill probably down to around 6.5%. 29% of baby boomers had college degrees by age 42, putting the GI bill benefiting just over 22% of baby boomers with college degrees, or about 1/5th.
1) Free college education does not automatically mean you are guaranteed to get a degree.
In the US, state colleges and universities were either free or so cheap you could pay your way through working a menial labor job for several decades. It's not uncommon among the baby boomer generation for example that they graduated either with no debt or minimal debt, while receiving little money from their parents. During this period of cheap/free school graduation was not automatic. Therefore we know that this assumption is false.
2) Free post-secondary education does not automatically mean college or university.
In fact, if you actually go check out current proposals (linkified if you're lazy) you'll note that technical programs and on the job training are ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL. Citing the exclusion of these programs as part of your opposition to the proposal seems a little silly. Know what you're against before you decide you're against it.
3) The level of complexity in the world is ever increasing.
Jobs will continue to become more layered and specialized. While schooling now is already more advanced than it was 100 years ago (go check out 3rd grade math from then and compare it today, it's more advanced), that trend is going to continue. People are going to need more and more education to do what future decades determine are menial jobs. In addition with out our cultural system is set up, more and more aspects of being a citizen require more and more knowledge. Planning for retirement is a part time job now that if done well can take 10-20 hours per week. It requires math skills and economics to do well. Society continues to grow more and more complex and require additional skills to be successful in.
Janitors will have to have a basic understanding of economics and investments to plan for their own retirement, otherwise they will place a heavier burden on the government when they are no longer able to work.
Creativity is a skill, not an inherent ability.
Add more activities into the group mix that rely on creativity. There are lots of games (not just RPG's) that rely heavily on creativity, such as the card game Once Upon a Time.
There are also a lot of short RPG's designed to last a single session (2-4 hours) which are low on mechanics and heavy on the creativity, such as Fiasco.
Think of it in physical fitness terms. Games like this isolate the creative "muscles" of the brain, which helps build various creative skills which improves our ability to roleplay. A game like Pathfinder certainly uses those skills, but it also accesses other skills, like tactical and strategic thinking, so the focus is more broad.
Matthew Downie wrote:
I think of the game as a collaborative process. If a player isn't interested in contributing, I'm not interested in playing with them (as DM or as a fellow player).
It also gets to how I am as a player. If I'm in your game, you don't need to "entertain" me. I'm going to participate, be creative and add to your game.
Players are participants, not an audience.
I believe Stellar Impact is a versus game only, no single player. Hence the online only, cause the game is only designed for multiplayer.
Last I checked it wasn't free (maybe $10 or 15), but the remaining player base is tiny.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Something I've changed over the years, I no longer see it as my responsibility to "hook" the players. Instead it is their responsibility to tell me why their characters are motivated to do these things.
As DM, I have enough on my plate as it is. If the players aren't interested in my game, we'll do something else.
I'm in the camp that says you have to prove that it's actually cheating. That means showing intent to deflate the balls, under who's orders, how it was done and when.
Did some over eager ball boy who happens to know Brady's preference do it on his own? Or does Belichick have an assigned "ball deflator"?
It also matters how common this is/was for the Patriots. Did they do it all season? Have they been doing it since 2007? Or was this a one time, high pressure game thing?
Then when it gets to the actual punishment, the impact of the cheating does matter. The NFL has prescribed punishments for various levels of offenses and this has to be considered. Not all cheating is punished equally. For example, PED's are cheating, but the team isn't punished, the individual player is. Otherwise if we consider all cheating to be equally heinous and should void all wins, that means any team that had someone use PED's during their season has to give back their super bowl rings. I suspect that would be quite a few.
Lastly, I think the overall righteous indignation about cheating needs to end. To me it stinks of statements like:
sanctity of the game
These sound like good ideals, but they aren't really representative of what the NFL is, which is a business in which millions of dollars (or even billions if you're an owner) are at stake. When people's livelihoods are on the line, and their livelihoods have the possibility of making them very wealthy, they are naturally going to look for any and every advantage they can gain.
These aren't "athletes" in the Victorian sense of the word. They aren't there to engage in contests of pure athletic skill. It's a cutthroat entertainment business and if you don't use every fiber of your being to take everything you can, someone else will take what you have from you.
I don't say this to apologize for the cheaters, but rather as a fan I get really annoyed at the sanctimonious b@%+$&!% being spouted (particularly by former players). If the Patriots cheated, they should be punished in a way that is commensurate with their crime. Lost draft picks for example is a very powerful punishment that can affect a team for years, hampering their ability to field the best team they can for quite a while.
I'm not a Patriots fan either. The team that breaks my heart is the Vikings.
Which of the two options that I provided do you think that your explanation falls under, 1 or 2?
The indigestible portion of corn is called an insoluble fiber.
Insoluble fiber is important for your digestive tract, even though it isn't digested. It's very good for you, even though it isn't broken down by the body.
Studies regularly reinforce the fact that high fiber diets (which includes both soluble and insoluble fiber) reduce your chance of coronary disease, stroke, hypertension, gastrointestinal diseases, diabetes and obesity. This of course applies to unprocessed corn. Processed grains involves removing the fiber, which of removes the "indigestible" portion, but also removes the health benefits of fiber as well.
Your defense about industrial farming is that you made stuff up to make it look better, therefore it's vital to our self-preservation.
Concerning the bolded portion, which method would you consider more effective at correcting this issue:
You haven't yet actually provided proof of anything you've said. You keep making claims and stating opinions, but you haven't really provided proof.
To this point, you sound like a petulant child who is threatening to misbehave further unless his demands are met. I'm not wrong either. You make those very threats on the last post of the previous page. You point your righteous indignation at other people being inconvenienced by you and threaten to double down on the behavior in an attempt to bully your way to a victory.
This is not an ad hom. This is a fact. You very much made that threat yesterday.
Everything else just sounds like rationalization coming from you now. There's no point in arguing with someone who will do whatever mental gymnastics are required to rationalize their point, because they'll never stop doing it and it doesn't matter what I say, because it will always be rationalized.
Yeah, you're clearly seeing things ONLY as you want to see them to make sense for your argument.
You can argue this with someone else, cause I have no interest in you making stuff up that I can see aren't true.
You keep saying this, but none of the pictures being shown does this statement make any sense at all.
What exactly is preventing him from sitting with his knees a little bit closer, say 8-10 inches apart?
Considering the number of options in Pathfinder, and the insane number of options if the DM allows 3.5 and 3PP material, it would due madness NOT to plan your character to at least some degree. Just looking through all of the books would take a ton of time every time you leveled if you didn't have some idea what you wanted your character to look like.
Quota achieved, since this point has been made on every page of this thread I believe.
You should consider Mythender instead. You can download the pdf for free from the Paizo website.
The feel of the game is like playing a 20th level game, on crack. It only concerns itself with the equivalent of high level abilities, so you don't have to keep track of as much stuff. Here's how I describe what this game feels like:
It's like the final fight from The Avengers. Since it's an RPG done in real-time, it lacks some of the polish, but the epic feeling and intensity is very much present.
Education is only one factor and it plays different roles.
Women who work and have a higher education tend to have fewer children.
At the same time, if things like education and various services are cheap or free, they don't act as barriers to having children, which increases the birth rate.
Also, Europe went through a similar change, though not as drastic as the US, in regards to abortion. While attempts at reforming abortion laws started in the 30's, it wasn't until the late 60's that laws were finally repealed.
The only major difference between the US and Europe concerning abortion is how we talk about it. The antiabortion groups are much more vocal and powerful here in the US (though they decidedly in the minority, albeit powerful). Otherwise the timeline is fairly similar.
Keep in mind that college graduates and prison inmate are partially selective: the smart, driven person willing and able to work within the system is more likely to end up in college while someone that isn't is more likely to wind up in prison. You can't just turn one into the other.
Are you claiming that there has never been a violent offender who went to prison, but was later able to turn their life around and become a successful and contributing member of society?
DM Barcas wrote:
By the time career criminals arrive at their prime years for crime (16-24), they've already rejected education as a pursuit in favor of crime. School is already free (compulsory, actually) at the point they are developing a criminal skill set. This proposal would have almost no effect on crime. (Throwing people in prison, on the other hand, is proven to be effective at lowering the crime rate. The so-called prison-industrial complex is the primary driver of the post-1994 drop in crime.)
The facts don't support your argument.
Prison inmates who participate in educational programs have a 43% lower recidivism rate than inmates who do not participate.
The prison-industrial complex has actually been shown to increase crime. It creates a network of information sharing and community building amongst criminals that further aids their criminal endeavors, especially organized crime. There's also significant evidence that the increase in prison populations is pushing higher and higher participation in prison gangs, which also results in higher participation in gangs outside of prison.
The drop in the crime rate is much more closely linked with the legalization of abortion.
No, I'm not trying to silence you. I'm trying to encourage you to participate in the conversation more constructively.
If your only concern is that this issue doesn't exist, fine. I think at this point we are all convinced you believe this is a non-issue.
I understand what you're trying to say. I really do.
The problem is communication between humans, and it's a problem you aren't understanding. You think you are saying one thing, and it's being interpreted as something else. Here's the thing though, it's a fundamental problem to thing you are trying to say, not a problem with communication, language or interpretation.
When someone says "I have a problem"
You do this consistently, and in multiple threads (I'm not stalking you, the "RL" topics comment was referring to other threads about life in general, other than roleplaying).
Now, you're free to say "that's not a problem" all you want. The issue is that when you do that, it becomes interpreted as "be quiet". I understand you're NOT trying to say that, but that is an inherent inferred meaning, regardless of your intent. This is the nature of how human minds work.
You aren't choosing to belittle and condescend, but that is the effect of your comments.
I'm not saying this to be mean. I'm pointing this out so that you KNOW. You have the choice, take this as a moment to learn something, or continue on your path where you inadvertently (even though you don't want to) belittle and condescend others.
If it is your goal to better understand WHY this bothers other people, than there are better ways to go about it. But to question the validity of the premise IS an attempt to shut down conversation on the topic.
This is not from the simple fact of your disagreement. It's fine to disagree. To be honest, I don't necessarily agree with the OP either. I want to offer suggestions and advice though, and setting myself up as the opposition who completely disagrees is not the best method to do that though. Plus I do understand the core problem and have methods from my own games that can help solve that issue, because I have personally seen, experienced and probably even been that problem before.
Here's the problem I have with your response:
Someone came on here and said "something is bothering me".
Instead of trying to understand why it's bothering them, your response is essentially "be quiet, it's not a problem".
I agree, I think planning the character is a good thing. The game is complex and to make a good, solid character can take planning and preparation.
At the same time, I see the point. It CAN (not always, but sometimes) represent a player who is being uncooperative, who doesn't interact with the DM and other players fully.
So please, stop trying to argue that the problem doesn't exist, because there are people on here saying "I have this problem". For you to say "no, that doesn't exist" is belittling and condescending.
By the way, you do that with a lot of things quite consistently. Both in roleplaying topics and real life. When someone else points out an issue they have to deal with, your standard response is "it's not a problem for me, so you should stop talking about it".
What about someone who refuses to deviate from their plan? What if their refusal becomes disruptive at the table or reduces the enjoyment of others?
I agree with you, a Schwarzschild black hole seems highly unlikely.
You haven't actually presented anything that could conceivably be considered PROOF that they don't exist. You are merely putting forth evidence on how likely it will be to find.
Overall, this is a pedantic conversation. If you insist on claiming PROOF of it, I'm certainly happy to continue it with you. I have no interest in defending Schwarzschild's model, but so far you haven't actually proven it to be a false one.