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

Michael Brock's page

Global Organized Play Coordinator. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 4,626 posts (4,661 including aliases). 3 reviews. 1 list. 2 wishlists. 6 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,626 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

SeekerOfDragons wrote:

ok. in that case, how do I get it to reflect on my stars and not on one of my characters? do I just report it as my PFS number without the -# for one of my characters?

r/

SoD

Yes

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Swiftbrook wrote:

(As I understand it)

You get GM credit towards your GM stars, but you don't get PFS player credit as the Kids Track are not PFS sanctioned scenarios.

^this

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

5 people marked this as a favorite.

We will be discussing this in futher detail at this Wednesday's PFS meeting and hopefully have a resolution by week's end.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

You can email me directly at mike.brock@paizo.com

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

Please join me in congratulating Fernando Bassini as the first Venture-Captain of Argentina. He will be based out of Tres Arroyos, but assist with growth of PFS throughout the Province of Buenos Aires.

I will let Fernando introduce himself, speak of the wesbite they have set up to coordinate game play, etc...

Welcome to the team!

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please join me in congratulating Rajmahendra Hegde as the first Venture-Captain of India. He will be based out of Hyderabad, but assist with growth of PFS in the state of Telanganan, Bangalore, and Chennai.

I will let Rajmahendra introduce himself, speak of the wesbite they have set up to coordinate game play, etc...

Welcome to the team!

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

6 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
PFS is going to shrink some.

We are about to add VCs in Argentina, India, and Hong Kong. We shall see......

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

ShadowcatX wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
You know what you never hear and would sell tons of papers? "Cop shoots other cop to save innocent." That would be a cop who would deserve to be honored. Where are the good cops when the bad cops are gunning people down in the street?

It happens more than people think. It just doesn't get the same media coverage.

Here you go from two weeks ago.
Ok, shooting someone who is shooting at you and shooting your partner to save someone else are TOTALLY different things. Do you not see that?

They didn't respond to shoot him. They responded to save his wife and talk him out of the incident without it escalating. He choose to go off the deep end. You said we never hear of cops shooting other cops to save innocent people. I think they shot a person to save an innocent person, the other cop's wife. Again, people like to twist words to make it fit their story. A bad cop was threatening to kill his wife and started to shoot at the responding officers, placing innocent civilians in the area at risk. Its what you asked for. Also, you will notice, he shot at them, they tried to talk to him instead of returning fire immediately, and when he continued pointing his weapon at them, they then shot and killed him. They didn't just show up with guns blazing.That was just a quick example I thought of immediately. If I did a Google search, I could probably find a dozen more examples.

I showed it. And you still don't want to accept that good cops actually stopped a bad cop from hurting an innocent person by killing him. You said those are cops that should be honored in your post that I quoted. You failed to do it, again making excuses instead of even following up in what you posted just a few minutes ago. Your dislike for the police doesn't even allow you to give credit where it is due, even when you set the qualifiers and they meet that. Again, it is what it is and not worth arguing with you any longer. It's a holiday weekend. I'm out. Good luck to you.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
.What hurts the system more, angry internet posters or you?

Angry Internet posters. It does more to burn out good cops than anything else. You can say it doesn't. I've seen first hand that it absolutely does. Again, we aren't going to come to a compromise on this because you aren't going to believe what I say regardless of how much I've seen it happen over the ten years I was on the police force. I'm trying to talk my friends out of the job because I don't want them hurt or dying for people who don't appreciate the sacrifice they are willing to give. Again, I wouldn't mind having a beer and discussing face to face, unfortunately, that isn't an option so I choose to take my wife on a date and a nice dinner than continuing to have a conversation here where nothing is going to be solved and no one is going to change their opinion. It is what it is. Good luck.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
You know what you never hear and would sell tons of papers? "Cop shoots other cop to save innocent." That would be a cop who would deserve to be honored. Where are the good cops when the bad cops are gunning people down in the street?

It happens more than people think. It just doesn't get the same media coverage.

Here you go from two weeks ago.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
So either accept the fact that occasionally cops are going to to bad things and don't expect them ever to be held accountable for their actions or just don't use the police at all?
I guess you rethought that post?

Not really. Just figured it isn't worth debating. People are not going to change their minds - you, me, or anyone else in this thread.

There are people that think cops will do nothing but screw them over. They discredit them every chance they get, even the good cops with never a negative mark against them in a 20 year career, and don't honor the good ones who sacrifice their own lives to protect complete strangers. For those people, I guess they would rather live in an anarchy and protect all of their stuff on their own. That's fine. That is what they think. I disagree and there isn't really a middle ground to come to.

When people start twisting words to make it sound like the cop walked up, with malice and aforethougt, and shot the baby in the face at point blank range, it's time for me to exit the conversation. It is clear that those people don't want to discuss the topic. They only want to crucify the cop. They fail to see that every emergency incident like this has grey areas. Mistakes happen. If you think the system is broken, go make strides to fix it. I've already advised several times in this thred that bad police work should be held accountable. People seem to have ignored that and want to keep championing the position that all police are evil.

I'm not mad. Im not frustrated. It is what it is. I got out of police work because I got tired of all the people who didn't appreciate the service willingly offered and the risk of me losing my life every day for people that don't appreciate it. It isn't my loss. I work for a gaming company. It's really children who would have been protected had I stayed. They unfortunately don't receive the same level of investigation, and subsequent protection, that they would have received if I was still a crimes against children detective.

So, since there is no middle ground to come to in this conversation, I choose to bow out of the conversation and wish you good luck in your life.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

thejeff wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:


Because it is standard practice in swat when you make entry into an apartment building, to use bird shot, not slugs. The officer was trained to change ammunition when in that specific instance. He didn't change ammunition. He put someone's life in danger through his actions of not changing ammunition, which is something he is solely accountable for. It is his weapon.

The swat officer who fired the flash bang grende, hadn't been on scene when the information was gathered. He was likely at home when the incident started and called out to the scene. When he arrived on scene, he was likely told by his commander, "We've received information that there are armed guards by the doors. From the drug buy a few hours ago, There are no children present. To prevent loss of life to offers entering, we are going to use a flash bang grenade to stun the guards by the front door. Upon entry, point man and second will proceed down the hall. Numbers three and four will handcuff and guard the incapacitated by the door."

The officer that fired the weapon that has the grenade is going by the information provided by his commander. He isn't afforded the opportunity to investigate the circumstances so has to rely on the info provided by either the detective or the commander. It is solely the detective or commanders responsibility to make sure the information they bare providing is accurate. If something is inaccurate, and innocent people get hurt or killed, it is completely the fault of the commander or detective, hit the guy who came from home, received the information, and followed through with actions based on the info he was given.

Though I don't really disagree with the assignment of responsibility, just for the record:

As near as I can tell, this wasn't an "incident" where SWAT was called in. It was a raid. The buy and surveillance had been done the previous day* and then they'd gone off to get the warrant. Surveillance hadn't been maintained or they would have noticed that the armed...

Unfortunately the swat team is not part of the info gathering, surveillance, etc... They are called out to end a situation based on the info that was provided to them. Should the swat member who fired the grenade be held accountble? No. Should the detective or commander that didn't confirm all of the information before telling the swat team to go be held accountable? Absolutely.

As to your larger point, I 1000% agree. The person providing the wrong info should be held accountable, the Habersham County DA should open an investigation, and if shoddy police work was responsible, the officer/detective that provided bad info that led to the awful injuries of the baby should be held accountable.

I dont think anyone here is arguing against that at all. I encourage everyone on this thread to write the Habersham County DA and ask what the hell? However, the DA did his job by bringing the case to the grand jury. I believe a grand jury of citizens failed to pass a true bill on any officer in this case. If you want to hold anyone accountable, hold the citizens of Habersham County responsible. They are the ones who refused to true bill the case and send it back to the DA's office so he could seek prosecution.

I would like to stay and discuss longer. Hell, I'd love to have a beer and just chat about it because difference of opinions is what makes everyone a more rounded person. But, my daughter has the day off school so I'm headed out to spend the day with her, not stay on the message boards.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

ShadowcatX wrote:


Maybe its just me, but if you're wielding a weapon I'd say you have a responsibility for what happens with that weapon.

Let's use another example and see if it helps clarify. And yes, I understand it is fictional but I'm trying to see if it helps clarify.

A doctor diagnoses a patient and says they have symptom XXXXX so what is wrong with that person is XXXXXX. They relay that information to the surgeon. The surgeon then cuts the person open to start performing the surgery on what he was advised was wrong. When he opens the person on the table up, he sees that the info he was given was wrong, that the person does not have XXXXXX, and he immediately tells the nursing staff to start sewing this person back up. When the nursing staff starts seeing the person back up, the patient goes into cardiac arrest and dies. Who should be held accountable? The doctor providing the incorrect info that led to the surgery, or the doctor who was performing the surgery based on the information he received from another professional in his same field? It was, after all,the tools used to cut the person open and the complications that arose from that, that caused the person to die, not the original doctor that provided bad info.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

ShadowcatX wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Who's arguing? Thread's about Georgia SWAT teams; saw another story about them killing someone through gross negligence. Shared it.

I can post at least 40+ news stories where GA SWAT teams made good arrests. Do we really want to do tit for tat?i can also post stories and videos of officers who hesitated, even when they were absolutely in the right to shoot, and are now dead. Why aren't you posting any of those stories as well?

As I said, if they were in the wrong, or if the info they were given was wrong, those people who did shoddy police work should absolutely be held account able.

If someone randomly murders 1 person, but lets 40 others live, does that mean that everything is okay or should that someone be locked up for life?

"Oh, but they do their job and don't kill innocent people 80% of the time" is not an acceptable response.

Can you name an incident where someone randomly murdered 1 person but let 40 others lI've? If so, link it and we will discuss.
Every killer ever in the history of mankind? Do you really want me to start linking cases where mass murderers have next door neighbors that are like "I never would have thought" or "he seemed so nice"?

Mass murderers don't usually kill neighbors. They go into a mall food court or a theatre or whatever and kill I discrimation. What I *think* you are referring to is a serial killer. They actually single out a specific type of victim and actively seek to kill that type of victim and not really deviate.

Also, please don't say "every killer in the history of mankind." For example, It's an inaccurate statement. Someone who kils a person because they struck the vehicle when they were driving drunk doesn't fit the argument you are trying to present.

So you can't rebut my argument, so you argue with my grammar. . .

On a side note,...

Please restate your argument. What you stated confused me in what you were asking me to rebut.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

ShadowcatX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
One was following procedure and the other was not?
So the procedure is you're not responsible for people who are injured by your grenades but you are for people who are injured by your bullets? S$&&, sign me up for being a grenade toting cop.

I didn't say that and you know it. The procedure is for the detective and the commander to do their job, make sure all of the information they are providing to a swat team is accurate, and relay that information.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

ShadowcatX wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Who's arguing? Thread's about Georgia SWAT teams; saw another story about them killing someone through gross negligence. Shared it.

I can post at least 40+ news stories where GA SWAT teams made good arrests. Do we really want to do tit for tat?i can also post stories and videos of officers who hesitated, even when they were absolutely in the right to shoot, and are now dead. Why aren't you posting any of those stories as well?

As I said, if they were in the wrong, or if the info they were given was wrong, those people who did shoddy police work should absolutely be held account able.

If someone randomly murders 1 person, but lets 40 others live, does that mean that everything is okay or should that someone be locked up for life?

"Oh, but they do their job and don't kill innocent people 80% of the time" is not an acceptable response.

Can you name an incident where someone randomly murdered 1 person but let 40 others lI've? If so, link it and we will discuss.
Every killer ever in the history of mankind? Do you really want me to start linking cases where mass murderers have next door neighbors that are like "I never would have thought" or "he seemed so nice"?

Mass murderers don't usually kill neighbors. They go into a mall food court or a theatre or whatever and kill I discrimation. What I *think* you are referring to is a serial killer. They actually single out a specific type of victim and actively seek to kill that type of victim and not really deviate.

Also, please don't say "every killer in the history of mankind." For example, It's an inaccurate statement. Someone who kils a person because they struck the vehicle when they were driving drunk doesn't fit the argument you are trying to present.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:

Im going to hazard a guess that there are a lot more crooks out there breaking the law than there are corrupt cops fabricating evidence.

Let me give the opinion of someone who has walked a mile in those shoes. I was a crimes against children and special victims detective for almost 10 years.

Let's get this on topic. . . How many of the crooks you got in those 10 years hit children with grenades? Of all those, how many were told "meh, its fine, you don't need to go to jail"?
I assume you either missed or ignoring where I said people who do shoddy police work should be held accountble. It's back on the last page.
How is "I threw a grenade into a room without knowing who was in the room" different from "I fired a shot gun and hit someone after the slug passed through 2 walls"?

Because it is standard practice in swat when you make entry into an apartment building, to use bird shot, not slugs. The officer was trained to change ammunition when in that specific instance. He didn't change ammunition. He put someone's life in danger through his actions of not changing ammunition, which is something he is solely accountable for. It is his weapon.

The swat officer who fired the flash bang grende, hadn't been on scene when the information was gathered. He was likely at home when the incident started and called out to the scene. When he arrived on scene, he was likely told by his commander, "We've received information that there are armed guards by the doors. From the drug buy a few hours ago, There are no children present. To prevent loss of life to offers entering, we are going to use a flash bang grenade to stun the guards by the front door. Upon entry, point man and second will proceed down the hall. Numbers three and four will handcuff and guard the incapacitated by the door."

The officer that fired the weapon that has the grenade is going by the information provided by his commander. He isn't afforded the opportunity to investigate the circumstances so has to rely on the info provided by either the detective or the commander. It is solely the detective or commanders responsibility to make sure the information they bare providing is accurate. If something is inaccurate, and innocent people get hurt or killed, it is completely the fault of the commander or detective, hit the guy who came from home, received the information, and followed through with actions based on the info he was given.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

thejeff wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

. Here's the other thing. It doesn't matter how good of a cop you are. When another cop ruins someone's life, it doesn't matter that you were a saintly cop, that person's life is still ruined. There are police departments that are committing highway robbery, literally. They steal money from poor families traveling through the area. Those families don't care that you were a good cop during your career, they are still being harassed by cops.

"Not all cops" is a pointless statement. It does nothing to alleviate the problem that some cops ARE abusing their power. In this situation, I am not the problem. The cops abusing their power are. You want to be mad? Be mad at them. Go Serpico on their ass.

I guess you think profiling is ok then? What you advised above is very similar to same reasons federal law enforcement profiled people.

Like I said, replace almost any other group where you've put the word cop and you would be rallying against the side of those profiling that group.

His statement doesn't apply to people of ethnic backgrounds, because [insert ethnic background] is not a basis for which people are chosen to be PAID to protect and serve the public.

We don't grant any of the other groups you might substitute special powers to carry weapons and order citizens around. Those other groups don't investigate themselves when they're accused of crimes. Their statements aren't given extra deference when cases come to trial.
The very nature of the job demands that cops be held to a higher standard.

Since one doctor killed a person in surgery because he made a horrible error in judgement, that means all surgeons are eventually going to make an error in judgement and kill someone? I've never been a doctor but aren't medical reviews conducted by other doctors?

It's similar. The doctor didn't kill with a gun or a grenade, but he did kill due to errors made in surgery that, if not made, would have allowed the person to live.

Just because one person in a particular profession screws up, it doesn't mean everyone in that profession is going to do the same.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

ShadowcatX wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Who's arguing? Thread's about Georgia SWAT teams; saw another story about them killing someone through gross negligence. Shared it.

I can post at least 40+ news stories where GA SWAT teams made good arrests. Do we really want to do tit for tat?i can also post stories and videos of officers who hesitated, even when they were absolutely in the right to shoot, and are now dead. Why aren't you posting any of those stories as well?

As I said, if they were in the wrong, or if the info they were given was wrong, those people who did shoddy police work should absolutely be held account able.

If someone randomly murders 1 person, but lets 40 others live, does that mean that everything is okay or should that someone be locked up for life?

"Oh, but they do their job and don't kill innocent people 80% of the time" is not an acceptable response.

Can you name an incident where someone randomly murdered 1 person but let 40 others lI've? If so, link it and we will discuss.

You can't compare what one unit in one department did and say that it applies to every department in the country.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

ShadowcatX wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:

Im going to hazard a guess that there are a lot more crooks out there breaking the law than there are corrupt cops fabricating evidence.

Let me give the opinion of someone who has walked a mile in those shoes. I was a crimes against children and special victims detective for almost 10 years.

Let's get this on topic. . . How many of the crooks you got in those 10 years hit children with grenades? Of all those, how many were told "meh, its fine, you don't need to go to jail"?

I assume you either missed or ignoring where I said people who do shoddy police work should be held accountble. It's back on the last page.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

Irontruth wrote:

. Here's the other thing. It doesn't matter how good of a cop you are. When another cop ruins someone's life, it doesn't matter that you were a saintly cop, that person's life is still ruined. There are police departments that are committing highway robbery, literally. They steal money from poor families traveling through the area. Those families don't care that you were a good cop during your career, they are still being harassed by cops.

"Not all cops" is a pointless statement. It does nothing to alleviate the problem that some cops ARE abusing their power. In this situation, I am not the problem. The cops abusing their power are. You want to be mad? Be mad at them. Go Serpico on their ass.

I guess you think profiling is ok then? What you advised above is very similar to same reasons federal law enforcement profiled people.

Like I said, replace almost any other group where you've put the word cop and you would be rallying against the side of those profiling that group.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

Sissyl wrote:
Mmmmmmaybe hand-to-hand combat training, as opposed to most other guys' absence of such? Just a theory here, mind you.

Most police receive four hours training at the academy and nothing is required after that. If the officer wants any further training, it's up to the individual to seek it out. I'm sure there may be a handful of departments that offer additional training somewhere. But, most officers out there have only the few hours at the academy that involve arm bars, wrist locks, and maintaining control of their weapon when someone is trying to take it away. Most of those thing they teach rarely work on someone larger or stronger than the officer.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

Irontruth wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
SWAT kills Georgia man using info from drug addict who stole his car

Sure you can point out one or two cases a month where the cops did something wrong. How many more arrests are made where things are done correctly in that same time frame?

And to be clear, if the cops were in the wrong, then they should absolutely be held accountable for their actions. I'm not arguing with you there so not sure why you are trying to argue it here.

Here's the thing about "not all cops": I don't care.

There are too many bad cops. Maybe you didn't see them where you worked, maybe there weren't any. I still don't care.

As long as there are bad cops, cops get to deal with a reputation that includes their bad actions. If you want a clean reputation, go Serpico on their asses.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Generalizations about, and stereotyping of, any group is just not a positive way to go about life. Replace "cops" with just about any other group of people out there in your paragraph I quoted above and you should start to see what I mean. Stereotyping a whole group of people, whether it is a career, race, ethnicity, hobby, etc... is pretty unfair to the 98% of the group that doesn't fit what you've labeled them all as. I would think gamers (which all of us here are I am guessing) should know better than most what being the victim of a stereotype is like.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

Kthulhu wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
I believe most police officers are good people trying to do the right thing. However, grenade to a baby's face == not ok. Ever. Sorry, try again.
Nobody said it was OK. What some people are saying is that the officer who threw the grenade shouldn't be fired/punished/etc. He took reasonable actions for the situation that he was in as he perceived it. Unfortunately, some jerk had barricaded a door with a baby's crib, with the baby still in it. Not the officer's fault...the jerk's fault.

This is actually slightly off base. The officer is always responsible anytime he discharges his weapon, whether it is lethal or less lethal force. There was a case were a SWAT team entered an apartment of a barricaded crazy man who they knew was armed. The second team member through the door forgot he had slugs loaded into his shotgun. When the team took fire from the crazy man, the SWAT member fired his shot gun, injuring the crazy man. Unfortunately, the slug exited the crazy man, traveled through two other walls, and struck and injured an innocent person in the next door apartment. That officer was held accountable for injuring that neighbor even though they weren't part of the incident intitially.

Every officer is taught in the academy, and twice a year at re qualification, that they are responsible for every time their weapon is discharged. If they have even a doubt they may injure an innocent, it's best to think twice before discharging their weapon. In this particular case, the officer probably won't be charge and shouldn't be. However, the detective or commander who failed to do sufficient and complete investigation should be looked at by the local DA's office for shoddy police work.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
What we need to see is the good cops starting to throw their bad cop colleagues under the bus and speak out about police corruption. A decent problem reporting system that doesn't get people threatened by the cops would also be a good idea. What many people don't realize is that accepting transparency and accountability lets you avoid having everyone judged by the behaviour of "a few bad apples". Ideally, this would not be necessary because the police sorted these things out in a way that worked already - but that is not the case. Trust is difficult to repair in all situations, even more so for people with power.

Its out there but the news doesn't cover it as much as they should. The sorry cops that killed the old woman in Atlanta during a ridiculously bad no-knock warrant all went to prison. The cops in New Orleans who were taking target practice on displaced people during Hurricane Katrina have all gone to prison. There are cops dismissed, and investigations started every day by internal affairs offices all over the country. Unfortunately, the media really only wants to cover the most controversial cases because it is what drives ratings. You never hear about the cop that was fired because he handcuffed people too tightly for the third time in six months, received two previous warnings, and was subsequently fired because he never corrected the errors of his bullying of the helpless person in handcuffs.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

bugleyman wrote:
I believe most police officers are good people trying to do the right thing. However, grenade to a baby's face == not ok. Ever. Sorry, try again.

Agree 100%

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Ah, now I see your second message. I disagree with almost everything in it, but as you are a staff member, which I didn't realize until now, with the power to delete posts as you see fit, I shall refrain from posting further tonight.

The only posts I removed that you posted are where you were demeaning me with a title that doesn't fit. Your post that include links to the NYT article are still here and not removed.

As I mentioned in my PM, If you want to repost your posts without the officer comment, then they will stay up.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Yes, you did, but, alas, it said nothing about why posts of mine that didn't use the word you objected to disappeared, nor does it explain why my links to news articles from sources such as The New York Times and Russia Today are disappearing but your replies to them are unscathed.

Sent you another PM.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

thejeff wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
However, the pendulum shift is concerning. Why does everyone yell for "innocence until proven guilty" for an accused civilian, but when a cop is involved in a shooting, they aren't afforded that same opportunity? Almost immeditely after every police shooting you hear cries to arrest the officer, even if there were multiple witnesses that support a "good shooting."

This I haven't seen. I can't think of any of the cases that have had a public outcry lately where there were multiple witnesses supporting a good shooting.

The case above with the kid with the sandwich apparently shooting at the cop, is the one I think most likely to be good of those I've mentioned. Unless the cop went to a good deal of work to fake the evidence, which is a stretch.

Michael Brown. Levar Jones. David Hooks. Darrien Hunt. Eric Garner. John Crawford.

I don't want to get into a debate about the Mochael Brown case. But, I'm going to hod, judgement until all the evidence is out.

There is apparently videos where witnesses are overhead saying they saw Brown charging the cop even after he was ordered to stop. The cop also allegedly had a fractured orbital bones that came from Brown striking him. It's already been shown several witnesses lied about what they saw. A lot of people make the mistake and think that someone who doesn't have a weapon, besides their fists and hands, aren't a threat when, in fact, they can kill someone with just their hands, especially when they a bigger than the person they are attacking (Brown was bigger than the cop). I will wait until all the evidence and the grand jury findings come out before I make a personal decision on it. Do I think the cop was wrong with the initial stop? You bet. It should have never escalated. Do I know if it was Brown or the cop who escalated it to the point where it turned lethal? Nope, I wasn't there and don't have all the evidence.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Any particular reason links to articles in the New York Times and the SF Gate by former police commissioners are disappearing?

I PMed you.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

thejeff wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
I also absolutely support personal cameras attached to every officer's uniform. It would absolutely protect more officers against false claims than it would catch officers doing something wrong. Of course you get people screaming not to raise taxes to support that initiative and the money has to come from somewhere. You also get the crowd that will argue it violates their right to privacy.
From a program in Rialto, CA:
Quote:

THE Rialto study began in February 2012 and will run until this July. The results from the first 12 months are striking. Even with only half of the 54 uniformed patrol officers wearing cameras at any given time, the department over all had an 88 percent decline in the number of complaints filed against officers, compared with the 12 months before the study, to 3 from 24.

Rialto’s police officers also used force nearly 60 percent less often — in 25 instances, compared with 61. When force was used, it was twice as likely to have been applied by the officers who weren’t wearing cameras during that shift, the study found. And, lest skeptics think that the officers with cameras are selective about which encounters they record, Mr. Farrar noted that those officers who apply force while wearing a camera have always captured the incident on video.

Partly, you could argue that complaints dropped because the fake complaints weren't made, but the drop in the use of force is another matter.

Agreed and why I support the use of personal cameras by every officer the day they are sworn in. Like I said earlier, better hiring screening and better pay is also going to eliminate most of the "bully complex" you find in the scumbag cops out there.

I know that it is easy to lump all cops into the same boat and say that most, if not all, lie to make their cases. But, there ae more good cops than bad cops out there. and no, I'm not directing that specifically at you Jeff. That is a general statement.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
SWAT kills Georgia man using info from drug addict who stole his car

Sure you can point out one or two cases a month where the cops did something wrong. How many more arrests are made where things are done correctly in that same time frame?

And to be clear, if the cops were in the wrong, then they should absolutely be held accountable for their actions. I'm not arguing with you there so not sure why you are trying to argue it here.

One or two cases a month should not be acceptable.

I never said it was acceptable.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

Sissyl wrote:

Michael: Thing is, in blatant cases where there IS evidence of wrongdoing on the cop's side of things, the story remains the same: "It's a tragic accident", "You haven't been out there, you don't know", "We need to support the police"... As you say, there needs to be scrutiny, it needs to be effective, and people must see justice be done even if it's a policeman who's done something bad. Today, we don't have that. In Sweden, we had two policemen forcing a youth to delete a recording of the two cops clearly overstepping their powers (I think it was a case of slight brutality), only the file could be partially recovered and was very clear that they threatened the youth with things like "I think you're looking a bit high, if you don't delete the file as we say you're going to have to come with us to the station". When it became a matter for the court, the court (which has no jury in Sweden, only politicians) judged that while the policemen had been wrong to do what they did, they could have potentially been right to do it and therefore no action would be taken against them.

Every such case taints the reputation of the police force as a whole, as you say. That is why we need cops to speak out against it, and work toward better accountability for cops. This is, as far as I can see, rarer than hens' teeth.

100% agree. And why I think internal affairs is the second most important department in every police department.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

thejeff wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
SWAT kills Georgia man using info from drug addict who stole his car

Sure you can point out one or two cases a month where the cops did something wrong. How many more arrests are made where things are done correctly in that same time frame?

And to be clear, if the cops were in the wrong, then they should absolutely be held accountable for their actions. I'm not arguing with you there so not sure why you are trying to argue it here.

But they're not being held accountable. That's the problem.

And that is absolutely the fault of elected officials, especially district attorneys.

Since there are articles that have been posted about how there should not be no knock warrants, let me offer an article where a judge refused a no knock warrant when it was absolutely necessary. You can read it HERE.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Who's arguing? Thread's about Georgia SWAT teams; saw another story about them killing someone through gross negligence. Shared it.

I can post at least 40+ news stories where GA SWAT teams made good arrests. Do we really want to do tit for tat?i can also post stories and videos of officers who hesitated, even when they were absolutely in the right to shoot, and are now dead. Why aren't you posting any of those stories as well?

As I said, if they were in the wrong, or if the info they were given was wrong, those people who did shoddy police work should absolutely be held account able.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Why Police Lie Under Oath an Opinion Piece by Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness which was first shared with me by Comrade Barrister.

Yep, an opinion piece by an author who is known to hate everything involving police. Find me a article that presents both sides of the argument nd we can discuss. Post a very one sided article and it isn't worth the time debating. I'm not looking to argue with you, by the way, which it seems you are looking for. I was just trying to offer the insight from someone who has been there and done that for a decade.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
SWAT kills Georgia man using info from drug addict who stole his car

Sure you can point out one or two cases a month where the cops did something wrong. How many more arrests are made where things are done correctly in that same time frame?

And to be clear, if the cops were in the wrong, then they should absolutely be held accountable for their actions. I'm not arguing with you there so not sure why you are trying to argue it here.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

thejeff wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
thejeff wrote:

That said, this one may really be good. But so many others have tainted the well sufficiently you can't trust the cops to be telling the truth. Or even not fabricating evidence.

Interesting. So the crooks have not tainted the well sufficiently enough. You can trust them to tell the truth most of the time and not hide evidence?

Im going to hazard a guess that there are a lot more crooks out there breaking the law than there are corrupt cops fabricating evidence.

Not at all. There are obviously plenty of crooks, but no one believes them. People, especially prosecutors and juries, give far too much credence to police, even when defending themselves in suspicious circumstances.

And of course, in cases like this, the "crook" doesn't get the chance to tell the truth or lie. He's dead.

That's why the videos are so important. People are seeing it and they can't just dismiss it as "Well, the cop's probably honest and the guy he shot's no angel and must have provoked it somehow."

I think we are in agreement on the topic for the most part. As a cop (or detective), it is very sobering responsibility when you can take away people's liberties. I fully support full scrutiny on every arrest. It is why I was careful on every arrest I ever made and I made sure I had more evidence than would ever be needed to obtain a conviction. It's also why I've never had conviction overturned on appeal in more than 350 arrests.

I also absolutely support personal cameras attached to every officer's uniform. It would absolutely protect more officers against false claims than it would catch officers doing something wrong. Of course you get people screaming not to raise taxes to support that initiative and the money has to come from somewhere. You also get the crowd that will argue it violates their right to privacy.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
thejeff wrote:

That said, this one may really be good. But so many others have tainted the well sufficiently you can't trust the cops to be telling the truth. Or even not fabricating evidence.

Interesting. So the crooks have not tainted the well sufficiently enough. You can trust them to tell the truth most of the time and not hide evidence?

Im going to hazard a guess that there are a lot more crooks out there breaking the law than there are corrupt cops fabricating evidence.

Not at all. There are obviously plenty of crooks, but no one believes them. People, especially prosecutors and juries, give far too much credence to police, even when defending themselves in suspicious circumstances.

And of course, in cases like this, the "crook" doesn't get the chance to tell the truth or lie. He's dead.

That's why the videos are so important. People are seeing it and they can't just dismiss it as "Well, the cop's probably honest and the guy he shot's no angel and must have provoked it somehow."

I'm certainly not defending bad cops. I arrested three cops during my tenure. I had no patience for a bad cop as it gave the rest of cops bad name, including me at the time. If it is a "bad shooting", the cop should absolutely be arrested and put on trial.

However, the pendulum shift is concerning. Why does everyone yell for "innocence until proven guilty" for an accused civilian, but when a cop is involved in a shooting, they aren't afforded that same opportunity? Almost immeditely after every police shooting you hear cries to arrest the officer, even if there were multiple witnesses that support a "good shooting."

On a side note, when I use good or bad shooting, let me clarify. I don't think there is ever a such thing as a shooting that is good and I hope it doesn't come across that way
Anytime a weapon is discharged, whether someone is hurt or killed, it is always a bad situation for all involved.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


That said, this one may really be good. But so many others have tainted the well sufficiently you can't trust the cops to be telling the truth. Or even not fabricating evidence.

Interesting. So the crooks have not tainted the well sufficiently enough. You can trust them to tell the truth most of the time and not hide evidence?

Im going to hazard a guess that there are a lot more crooks out there breaking the law than there are corrupt cops fabricating evidence.

Let me give the opinion of someone who has walked a mile in those shoes. I was a crimes against children and special victims detective for almost 10 years. I didn't care whether I made ten arrests a month or no arrests in a month. My only goal was to arrest scum bags that hurt people who couldn't protect themselves. I didn't need to fabricate evidence. I based my cases solely on the evidence that was presented. Any case worth an arrest generally has five times the evidence you need to make the arrest. You just need to find it with a little work. Every officer amd detective I worked with felt the same way.

Lumping the tens of thousands of good officers and detectives into the same group as the handful of bad ones is just plain wrong. What most people forget is a police force, no matter how big or small, is a direct reflection of the community they serve because the pool of officers comes from that community. If you really want to fix the problem, it is fairly simple. Better screening during the hiring process and better pay. When communities hire people to become officers and carry weapons that can maim and kill, and they pay the, less than a McDonalds manager makes, something is wrong.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

If you are missing a session, send me what you GMed/played, when you participated in the game, and your PFS number (including character number to apply the credit to). DO NOT PM me the info. Email me at mike.brock@paizo.com.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

12 people marked this as a favorite.

The new ACG pregens are now available. Enjoy!

And before anyone asks, I don't have an updated ETA on APG, updated CRB, or Magus pregens, though they are being worked on.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Pregen? Oh hell no.

The ACG pregens hold their own. The old pregens from the core are being reworked. New pregens for the APG are being designed. Try to keep an open mind. And try them out before you just shut the idea down without any play experience with the new and revamped pregens.
That's still only half of it. Even a well done character still isn't one of my characters.

As I've been advised countless times while in this job, we aren't going to please everyone all of the time, even when it's something that is new, free, and something previously unavailable. I'm also guessing you didn't like WBG or WBG2 since they had the same requirement. My apologies it doesn't fit your needs. Hopefully, we can take the feedback and do better the next time around.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

tkpope wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
tkpope wrote:
Disappointed that the closest region is 160 miles away.

It's only because someone didn't apply for wherever you are at. VO positions are often under appreciated and people lash out at them about things not in their control, single them out on message boards just because they have a title next to their name, and other immature acts that make people hesitant to volunteer their valuable time for people who don't seem to appreciate it. That makes finding volunteers a difficult task and is one we battle every day.

If you or someone you know might be interested in volunteering, have them email me.

Mike that's not true. I applied for VL!

I had more than 200 emails and 20+ Questions on each of the 200+ questionnaires to review. It is likely I may have missed one or two in all of the documents. Email me.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

7 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Pregen? Oh hell no.

The ACG pregens hold their own. The old pregens from the core are being reworked. New pregens for the APG are being designed. Try to keep an open mind. And try them out before you just shut the idea down without any play experience with the new and revamped pregens.

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.
WesWagner wrote:

If I see the VO in Portland Oregon has volunteered, should I just contact them directly to ask to get involved?

Yes

Paizo Employee Global Organized Play Coordinator

Andrew K wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
tkpope wrote:
Disappointed that the closest region is 160 miles away.

It's only because someone didn't apply for wherever you are at. VO positions are often under appreciated and people lash out at them about things not in their control, single them out on message boards just because they have a title next to their name, and other immature acts that make people hesitant to volunteer their valuable time for people who don't seem to appreciate it. That makes finding volunteers a difficult task and is one we battle every day.

If you or someone you know might be interested in volunteering, have them email me.

There may or may not have been someone who applied near tkpope (I have no idea), but that certainly isn't always the reason. I applied (and I trust there were good reasons I wasn't accepted), but even with these new VOs, the nearest city is almost 75 miles away, and that's to the closest edge of Tucson ignoring how far in I would have to drive. If I can't get my local shop to completely run OP -- it was going to be easier having a VL here -- then OP is out of the question for probably anyone here. Driving an hour or more for it is not an option for most of the people who would want to play.

I hope I was the only person from Sierra Vista to apply, because it'd be really disappointing to know multiple of us went for it and none of us could make it to have a VL down here.

I don't remember seeing an email from you, Andrew. However, I went through more than 170 emails so I may have missed one or two. Email me so we can sort it out.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

5 people marked this as a favorite.
sanwah68 wrote:

Personally, I have no problems with Pre-gen only, but as a reasonably experienced player it would be great to have pregens of all the classes (including the APG and ACG), as it would be great to trial some of the classes before I play one of them. An example: the Hunter sounds cool, but how does it play. Using the quest series, I could find out how I like 6 different classes, if all the pregens were available.

Actually if the Hunter was available, I would organise to play tonight :)

Consider it an opporunity, not an issue

They are coming. All of them.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good luck with the quests and hopefully they help to fill some kind of place in your events. On a positive note, there were no real quests series before.

1 to 50 of 4,626 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.