Zombieneighbours's page

This is a rant thread. If you can't stand a rant, then move on.

I know you've heard this one, "He doesn't optimize, he's a roleplayer"

There is also the reverse, "He doesn't role play, he's an optimizer."

Now we can probably agree that "Roleplaying" has a few different definitions. For example, if you play Pathfinder, then you are playing a roleplaying game, and are a role player by definition.

That's not the definition I think those who use the above statements are referring to though.

Role Playing would also be what you do with your character. Developing a personality for your character, a set of values, speech patterns, facial ticks, etc. This is likely the definition they are referring to.

There seems to be some kind of weird view that this is somehow no longer meaningful if your character is effective. I mean it's pretty obvious right? Look to fantasy literature, how many interesting character are also good at anything? Oh right...most of them.

Relating how well you roleplay a character with how well you optimize a character makes no more sense to me than comparing how well you optimize your character with how full is your mustache.

"He doesn't optimize, he's got a mustache"

Can anyone explain to me how this would be less relevant than comparing "Role playing" to optimization?

Blame White Wolf.

Once upon a time, they said words to the effect of "choose your name, then choose your concepts, then choose everything else, and try to have everything else fit the concept."

I think a lot of us had already intuited this, but they said it early and well, formalising the concept first view of roleplaying.

For a concept first roleplayer, optimisation is a useful but distant tool. It is a way of making a concept work well, not the starting point from which to build the character. It is the way decide between two equally appropriate choices, not a way of selecting options from the raw list.

Optimisation can damage a persons ability to play in this style. If your desire to be 'effective' runs stronger than your desire to play to concept, you end up with character that don't fit the concept they set out to begin with. If your desire runs strong, but not as strong as your desire to play to concept, it tends to end up limiting your choice of concepts.

Neither of these things is a good thing as far as roleplaying goes, at least to the "concept first mind set." It leads to situations like "Magnus Vaska, 12th arch mages of vann, living god", and the fish hook street boys heroing together, and the fish hook street boys getting royally narked that their carefully crafted and observed characters, which fit the adventures power level and setting, are getting completely sideline by a god wizard, who for some reason is hanging around with their gang of misfits.

Anything that isn't an Asian weapon

Seriously, eastern STICKS are better than western ones? Come on.
(the bo staff has the defending property while quarterstaves do not)

Which is an oversight on the part of quarterstaff design, but an oversight that has utility. It allows you to define your characters weapons more. Is he a wizard who carries it mostly as a walking stick? Or is he a staff fighter who's spent years training

Quarterstaff = long walking stick.

Bo staff = fighting staff

Shepards on both sides of the world us Quarterstaffs, and staff fighters on both sides of the world use Bo. The differences is that in west, both are called staffs, and in the east, both are called Bo.

I am more than happy to have 'western' and 'near-eastern' ninja, because at the end of the day, Ninja as depicted in the class, is just one of the best known expression of the idea of the 'mystic assassin'. The class works well for depicting the hassansin order, thuggee(some depictions there of), assassins of fate (as such as the euthanatos from mage).

Lion/bigcat-type or snake-type? Or something else?

Maybe it's my growing up with videogames, but even in the 2nd ED days the snake-type was always what "lamia" meant to me in terms of general fantasy gaming.

Now iwth Lamia Matriarchs(and all the other lamia variants) in the game, I'm wondering if that's changed anything for other folks. What have they always been for you, what are they now?

Got to idly wondering about this while thinking about plugging a "serpent continent" somewhwere in Golarion populated primarily by the various snake-type creatures. Then I realized "lamia" probably means "lionbutt" to enough people that it could throw off the flavor for a moment. At least everyone can agree what couatls, yuan-ti, and serpentfolk look like.

Snake tailed.

Having so much fun with this game :D

Actively campaign(through 38 degrees), protest(UK uncut and anon), funding research (the equality trust) and fund efforts to provide work arounds to their power(such a 'A human right' and 'The serval project').

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

The trick to keeping the themes of Lovecrafts unknowableness and madness inducing antics is to have plenty of red-shirts around. Victims to drive mad and turn against the PCs. Or to just turn inside out like a gymsock full of blood.

That the PCs survive, and stand bravely where their peers fell keeps both Lovecraft's heady horror, and Robert E. Howard's heroic ideal that looks in the face of horror and lets out a bellow of fury. :)

As to "why do we need Lovecraftian horror when we already have demons, evil gods and dragons?"

Because some GMs focus on Dragons, other GMs focus on horrors from beyond the stars. :)

To put it another way, why both to have evil gods, demons, or devils when you have dragons? Taking this to a logical extreme, why bother to have more than one monster for each CR?

Answer: VaR1tY!

And variety of a very awesome kind.

Tobias wrote:

Your players can have a jarring reaction from anything that they haven't memorized from the Bestiary, but it's actually the type of reaction you usually want them to have with Mythos creatures. They aren't supposed to be worldly or understood very well after all, and fighting them should be disconcerting.

I'm really not expressing myself well here (and, incidentally, the idea of my players picking up a Pathfinder book and reading it is highly unlikely. That's my job, as far as they're concerned).

What I'm trying to say is that the monster was just a souped-up blink dog to them. All of the things that make it eerie and exciting were lost on my players; they never even worked out that it needed angles to move through.
They also couldn't really fathom why it was there beyond the 'ooh-crazy-wizard-stuff' reasoning.

I find the cthulhu stuff interesting in small doses but I prefer a light sprinkling to a hefty side-order.

Then I suggest you perhaps didn't set up for it as well as you might have.

I would suggest getting a copy of Graham Walmsley's stealing cthulhu. It is effectively the cheat sheet for how to set up a mythos story, what the core elements and themes of each of the stories and monsters.

If you want to use a hound, you need to set it up right. Here is some of the stuff I might do with it.

Hook:
The PCs tracking down a mathematician, drug addict or magician interested in time, because he has a clue to the ongoing campaign.

location:
A strangely angled house on a wind swept moor.

Motifs:

- strange angles
- repetition of language(houndsworth chant from the anima version of black butler would be especially useful for this.)
- messed up causality
- distortion of time
- Deja Vu(via repeating of events)

Mechanic:

Non-sequential encounters with the hound. It attacks them, before they discover anything about it, when it attacks, it is already injured and has used up powers, but flees before it has been killed, later when they search for the subject and details on the creature, let them attract its attention and be what drew it to them, hit them hard with it, when they start to get the better of it, if attacks them at the first encounter, the it moves forwards to the final show down encounter and attacks them there, after it has taken tie to heal up and recover its spells.

Use haunt like traps to which have effects that mess with stuff like the age mechanics, distance, and time.

You might even consider having the final encounter not being against the PCs, but against one their ancestors. "what do you mean my buffs just run out and I am fatigued, they are good for minites yet" "But hours have just passed my friend, in the blink of an eye."

Simply do not allow them knowledge checks on the beast, without spending house pouring over the books held within the house.

Nebelwerfer41 wrote:

My recolelctions about the system are mixed. I really love their ritual magic system, but the mechanics for combat were horribly complicated. Each body part corresponds to a stat (12-15 stats if I recall correctly), and depending on how much damage was done to a body part, you would get a penalty to that stat, which meant doing a lot of math in the middle of combat. PLayed as written, mass combats would be impossible.

It's been a while since I played the game, but from what I recall, only crits (grievous wounds) meant ability damage, and while each body part had a "reference" ability, the actual ability which suffered damage was determined both by the area hit and damage type (blunt, piercing, slashing) - and in some situations, random dice rolls, such as the head injury.

Moreover, certain abilites from the rather large list (18 of them, blurring the distinction between ability and skill score, for d20 habitués) were not involved, mostly those that had no direct relation with physical efficiency.

The result was a slow down during combat - not so bothersome as it sounds - and a small math: the scores dimished were the actual modifiers used, not the source from which modifiers are derived.

I found more bothersome reminding the players of the flavourful but annoying spiritual pollution factor and of some dynamic bindings (stress/penalties).

However the almost freeform system which allowed the players to combine and experiment with ability-gift-skill-specialization-binding-situational modifiers scores for the various checks and rolls was so fun and well executed that it was a joy to play with.
A sort of super-detailed DragonAGE like game.

Pollution is one of the coolest things in the game, and is in practice fairly simple to deal with. Just make sure you take your time to perform a Cleansing ritual before getting your big mojo ritual magic on.

And bindings are awesome...Love has such cool effects. I'm in love with you, so I am less resistant to being manipulated and lied to by you!!! Ain't love grand!!!

I remember when I took my mom (who was already a senior citizen at the time) on a European trip (her hearing and vision problems were growing faster and I wanted to give her something nice before she went totally blind and deaf). We landed in Heathrow and, so, here I was guiding her (like one guides a blind person) -and- carrying her and my luggage (enough for two weeks) through a HUGE airport in a foreign country that I knew absolutely nothing about. Keep in mind that while my back wasn't as bad as it is now (I've been largely bed ridden for mosst of this year) it was quite bad. Of course, I was determined that this vacation be excellent for my mother.

My plan was that we'd go to the train station and ride it to Dover where we'd stay for a couple of days before our cruise ship headed out of port. My mom was very anxious - we were in large crowds of people, she couldn't see all that well (Heathrow isn't that well lit up), for most of the time we had limited money (because I was having trouble finding a money exchange), etc. To make matters worse, many people in Heathrow were very rude (not all of them, I hasten to add). Finally, to get down to the train station required an escalator - iirc, the elevator was broken.
The gate from which the train we needed was changed about 4 or 5 times (causing me to guide my mom back to the escalator, help her get back on, and I'd be carrying two weeks of luggage at the same time) and the door for the train opened and closed -very- quickly (which made it difficult for my mom to get on and she was terrified -justifiably- that she and I might get seperated while getting on the train (as I needed to get her on and then get the luggage)) - this causing us to miss several trains.
Finally, I got her and the luggage on and we sat down, collapsed under the exhaustion of such a long flight, navigating the largest airport in the world, in a foreign country, while handling a significantly blind and deeaf person and two weeks of clothes.
It was at that time that I looked up and...

You mean first class seating right?

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Income inequality by state (Gini) positively correlates with violent crime. It isn't as tight a correlation as the international statistical data, but its still there. You can check the Gini coefficient against the crime figures for yourself.

You have not disproven anything.

Your data looks at an entire state. My data looks at individual cities. Most of New York isn't New York City, just like most of Britain isn't London. New York State is about half the size of Great Britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

What was the term? Oh yeah, research fail.

That's the joy of dealing with social scientists; they keep trying to use real-scientist tools, but keep using them wrong.

I am aware that you where looking at at specific cities. I haven't claimed that cities and states are the same thing, and nations are the same.

No research fail here.

You claimed that 'supposed' evidence in your possession 'disproves' the hypothesis that their is a causal link between income inequality and crime violent crime rates.

1: I haven't actually made that specific claim

Just to avoid confusion, and to make my position falsifiable, I will formally state my position.

"The balance of currently available data suggests that their is a strong causative link between income inequality and a number of factors, here collectively called the Index of health and social problems(IHSP).

The causation comes from income inequalities ability to generate social evaluative threat. Social evaluative threat is demonstrably one of the most effective stress generators humans face, and the physiological and psychological effects of stress are well documents. Moreover, human willingness to perform complex actions to reduce their levels of stress are well documented, and go some way to explain criminal behaviour as a result of high levels of social evaluative threat.

This is not the only factor that effects IHSP. However, after poverty(average early income below $10,000), income inequality is greatest single pressure on IHSP. This effect is most visible at the national population level and when using the 20:20 measure of income inequality."

Your statement, even if it where supported by cited evidence would not disprove this position.

2: You haven't provided evidence.
You still haven't provided evidence that supports your claim. Specifically you have provided no data(Gini, 20:20 or otherwise) that say new york has a higher rate of inequality that DC.

It seems unlikely that DC has low income inequality compared to other major cities, because it's Gini coefficient is very high. But until you provide data, there is no way of checking your claim.

Regarding "Income Inequality" as a cause for crime . . . .
The data I searched says New York City has the largest income difference, while Washington DC has the lowest. But, and this is important, Washington DC has a violent crime rate twice that of NYC. Oakland, CA is close to San Francisco, but Oakland's violent crime rate is over twice that of SF's. That feel-good theory is easily disproven.

I have no idea where your getting you data, but I am disinclined to accept your claims at face value. DC's Gini coefficiant score is 0.532, higher than any of the states.

Income inequality by state (Gini) positively correlates with violent crime. It isn't as tight a correlation as the international statistical data, but its still there. You can check the Gini coefficient against the crime figures for yourself.

You have not disproven anything.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

So Mr Cameron, why should I believe you when the evidence controdicts your, and your hypothesis provides no causative link between cause and effect and agree to give up my Guy Fawkes mask, and twitter account?

I didn't know David Cameron was on the boards!

He checks them every day, didn't you know? :D

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Riots happen, they happen in far more draconian nations than this. You haven't shown the slightest evidence that the riots were caused by this.

No, the riots weren't caused by that, and I never said that was the cause. However, the riots were facilitated by it.

As for the article I posted, yes, an investigation can and should happen, but most police agencies gather evidence to support the accusation before arresting a perpetrator. The suspect would be taken into custody, questioned, and the police can quickly discover that his story matches the facts they have seen. Suspect is released, not assigned bail, which punishes the victim on this burglary.

I am glad to know that you are in possession of the CPS file on this case, and are an experienced US cop, able to speak for all police and sheriff departments in the U.S.A.

The truth is, that Arrest on suspicion, with release on bail is a common practice in the US, just like it is here in the UP and almost all modern countries which share our system of jurisprudence.

What would have happened if he couldn't meet bail? Should he lose his job because he was held in jail because he was defending his property?

I suspect a letter to liberty would probably come in at that point.

Thuggery gets brave when it knows there's not an effective response from its victims.

Does it? I have stood between a man and his girl friend, allowing him to punch, and head butt me, rather than his girl friend, without returning blows. I didn't stike him back, I merely allowed him to hit me and remained uncowed. Hardly what I think would fit the what you'd call an effective responce (I didn't have to hurt him, injure him or us a weapon).

He didn't grow bolder...he gave up and wandered off, only to be picked up by the police and arrested later.

Violence is as capable of making these things worse as better.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

It is standard practice when an individual has been killed for the police to investigate, arrest the person they believe to be responsible for the death and pass their file to the CPS. It is the role of the CPS to decide if they believe their is a case to answer, and enough evidence obtain a successful conviction.

Or, the police could say "Yep, these guys broke into your house, you killed one. Have a nice day."

Your country has eroded the individual's right to self-defense. You couldn't see riots coming at some point?

"No officers, she is my wife, but I thought she was am intruder and that I was in danger, so I killed her."

"Very good sir. Clearly this was just a horrible accident. You where just protecting your home. Have a good day. I'm very glad the law is a massive loop hole through which a murderer can happily skip and jump through."

Of cause we want the police to investigate possible crimes, else how exactly do they judge that the man was just defending his home, as opposed to trying to commit murder on the sly.

I am in no way put of from defending my life and my home. Nor is anyone I know.

Riots happen, they happen in far more draconian nations than this. You haven't shown the slightest evidence that the riots were caused by this.

I'm not British, so I have no choice but to learn about the laws of that country second-hand.

However, I understand the Prevention of Crime Act of 1953 prevents anyone from carrying an article in a public place with the idea that it could be used for protection if attacked. An American tourist from Arizona was attacked on a subway in the great nation of Britain, defended herself with a penknife, and was arrested for carrying an offensive weapon.

Y'all have banned knives with a blade longer than 3 inches. How's that worked out for ya?

On this story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-13977726

the 59 year old man on bail is the homeowner who defended his house when the masked gang broke in. Yes, one of the burglars died. Why is it a man defending himself was arrested?

Research fail.

I am satisfied that Peter Flanagan acted in self-defence after being woken by noises downstairs in his house shortly before midnight.
On investigating the disturbance, he was confronted by intruders, one of whom was armed with a machete.

People are entitled to use reasonable force in self-defence to defend themselves, their family and their property.

All the evidence indicates that in the frightening circumstances that he faced, Mr Flanagan did what he honestly and instinctively believed was necessary to protect himself and his home from intruders.

It is standard practice when an individual has been killed for the police to investigate, arrest the person they believe to be responsible for the death and pass their file to the CPS. It is the role of the CPS to decide if they believe their is a case to answer, and enough evidence obtain a successful conviction.

Perhaps we could see a citation for your story of the american tourist. See if it really supports your argument, or if you just think it does. ;)

Zombieneighbours wrote:

That is more than just a little bit awesome, but i'd be really impressed if you go alpinekat, MC chris, and Mc Hawkins too.

Bonus Points for Kate Tempest and Scrubius Pip

I'm going for mc chris and MC Lars next month when they come by ;)

Git wizard!!! :p

Not only did I get MC Frontalot, King of Nerdcore, to sign one of my Pathfinder Character Sheets at a show last night, but he was nice enough to take a few moments for a brief RPG chat with a few of us. And no, we didn't go all fanboi and talk about our characters ;)

He knew the Pathfinder brand, though I don't know if he's actually played. Still, good job promoting the brand Paizo! Even rappers know the name.

That is more than just a little bit awesome, but i'd be really impressed if you go alpinekat, MC chris, and Mc Hawkins too.

Bonus Points for Kate Tempest and Scrubius Pip

GeraintElberion wrote:

Zombieneighbours wrote:

So, developments in the social sciences over the last few years provide a fairly solid theoretical frame work for understanding the causes of the London riots.

Individuals and groups of individuals stealing high value goods for personal use, or resale. These individuals largely coming from the poorest segments of society. It fits the model of engaging in criminality to release pressure of stress caused by social evaluative threat. It was an activity undertaken largely by those most likely to be effected by social evaluative threat related stress, at a time of record income inequality between the richest and poorest in society.

But, according to David Cameron biological/economic drivers are not to blame. Rather he sees it as an issue of a break down in morals.

The humanoid David Cameron wrote:

"The greed and thuggery we saw during the riots did not come out of nowhere, there are deep problems in our society that have been growing for a long time: a decline in responsibility, a rise in selfishness, a growing sense that individual rights come before anything else."

David Cameron is describing himself.

He and his friends enjoyed trashing small businesses as a hobby whilst at university.

Of course, because they were rich they could throw Daddy's money at the blowback so that it went away.

Poor people with the same reckless, selfish attitude to other people's property and livelihoods will, on the other hand, feel the full force of the law.

How dare you imply that the Bullingdon Club is anything other than a dining club! Fergusson would never put a plant pot through a window. Tally hoe, I see a fair maiden in need of the protection of a the knight on boris bike.

I feel it only fair to admit that Boris is one of only two conservative politicians that I actually quiet like. He seems, despite it all to be a toughly nice man, and is a have a go hero to boot. Also Boris bikes are a great addition to our fine capital. It's just a pity he is so completely unable to grasp the problems of his constituents. I can't help but feel certain that if he had half a clue, he'd change his politics in a second...he's just oblivious. :(

All societies have rich and poor.

Yes. Total income equality would require so much social control that even North Korea couldn't achieve it(providing they where in the business). But the point is irrelivant.

Many have larger differences between rich and poor than Britain does.

While globally this may be true, not really interested in checking your claim, because it is irrelevant. Up until average income per person reaches $10,000 a year, increasing wealth swamps the effects effects income inequality. So when you look it globally, the effect is invisible, because of the statistical noise generated by general wealth increase.

However, look at the top 50 or so economise, what your find is ...shock horror, the UK is currently the second or third most unequal depending on measure. After the states( and Portugal).

In fact, if you believe the detractors of the United States, we are the absolute worst country on earth for having "income disparites," and yet we do not see our youth rioting. Therefore, there must be something else at work.

The use, on comparable measures, has the worst social issues in that same group, and the UK slots in about 2/3rd. To say that your youth doesn't riot is inaccurate. Your nation has its fair share of riots, which have seen their fair share of looting and arson.

But your mistaking me for some one who see's the world in a binary fashion. The evidence is consistent with income inequality being the primary driver, but of cause their are other factors.

For instance, city structure.

Tell me, are their many cities in the US, where you have 4 bedroom houses worth $2,640,000 have their back gardens back onto the shared garden of a poorly designed council block (housing project) from the 1960's? That describes the area I spent my teenage years. London(like many british cities) is a patchwork of the very affluent, and very poor, pressed up against each other. A perfect breeding ground for social evaluative threat. The fact is we could dig in to it and I am sure find many other factors.

From my understanding, law enforcement in Britain is . . . pathetic, at best. There were several days of rioting without an adequate police response. That sort of ineptitude encourages miscreant behavior.

Our methods of policing may have played a part in why the riots lasted as long as they did, but it wasn't the cause of the riots.

However, I am proud to say that to my knowledge, not a single individual died as a result of the policing of the riots. That has not historically been the case. And the police are engaged in investigation and arrest of looters.

Historically, a "whiff of grapeshot" over the heads of rioters has been enough to make them clear out; a second is never needed.

I am sure former President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, former President Hosni Mubarak, and Muammar Gaddafi all agreed with you six months ago.

Furthermore, how much does British law protect victims who defend themselves against ruffians? My understanding is that victims have been arrested by authorities for fighting back, and sued by the ruffians for damages. Once again, that is pathetic. Refusing to recognize the right of people to defend themselves places power squarely in the hands of the bad guys.

Oh dear flying spaghetti monster, what utter non-sense. Our law allows for reasonable force in self defence and the defence of your property. Your being sold a line of bull excrement, and your buying it.

There have been prosecutions, and civil cases where, individuals accused of criminal behaviour have sued or charges been brought against home owners, but they are of such rarity as to be of negligible consequence. They arise in cases where home owners have seriously overstepped the law, and used unreasonable force, usual with an illegally owned weapon.

If you think that this is some how a common or serious issue, I think I will go with Adam and say [Citation Needed].

The best explanation I've heard is this: What we are seeing in London and other English cities is an outpouring of evil. To try to explain evil as the result of something else is almost always a mistake. The urge to do evil is a primary motivation, not the indirect consequence of something else. Take, as just one example, this video of a young man in London who has been beaten and is bleeding profusely. A group of thugs approach him and pretend that they are going to help. Instead, they loot his backpack. Just for fun: the guy who steals his possessions throws them in the street a few moments later. They just wanted to do evil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6Gex_ya4-Oo

No, there is no social struggle against income inequality and social disenfranchisement. There's just major-league jerkitude,

What is this evil? You have a way of measuring it? You have a material causative link between it and the actions your describing? Is it a particle or a wave?

See, what I see in that video clip is a weakened individual being mugged for property with a value that will impact on the happiness and survival prospects of the thieves. You know, like a lion stealing a hyena's kill, or a hyena stealing a lions kill.

Are hyenas and lions evil?

Nature isn't pretty.

and if the authorities had any sense, they'd have used real bullet against the rioters to protect lives and property.

I for one welcome our new Dougian overlord. Let me be in the front line to shoot the children of 11, please, oh great dictator.

[humour] So you got out of bed the wrong side this morning then? ;) [/humour]

Yeah a little. :D

The humanoid, and his cronies have been talking some rubbish since the riots, and it's all gotten to me a little,so a rant was needed :D

So to actually give the thread a topic proper.

What do you think the cause of looting and rioting was amongst young brits?

What evidence do you have to support your hypothesis, and what psychological, criminalogical or epedimiological theory underpins your hypothesis.

How would you test it?

So, developments in the social sciences over the last few years provide a fairly solid theoretical frame work for understanding the causes of the London riots.

Individuals and groups of individuals stealing high value goods for personal use, or resale. These individuals largely coming from the poorest segments of society. It fits the model of engaging in criminality to release pressure of stress caused by social evaluative threat. It was an activity undertaken largely by those most likely to be effected by social evaluative threat related stress, at a time of record income inequality between the richest and poorest in society.

But, according to David Cameron biological/economic drivers are not to blame. Rather he sees it as an issue of a break down in morals.

"The greed and thuggery we saw during the riots did not come out of nowhere, there are deep problems in our society that have been growing for a long time: a decline in responsibility, a rise in selfishness, a growing sense that individual rights come before anything else."

Other conservative politicians have laughed of the idea that the behaviour of the rioters might be caused by the rioters economic circumstance. (As a side note Cameron has suggested a shopping list of changes to the law that any dictator would be happy to have...curfew powers, bans on masks and hoods, powers to block social media )

Cameron and his cronies offer no cogent explanation for the cause of this break down, or for why the break down led to riots

Yet...

Those few attempts to seriously talk to those involved with rioting list economic pressures and social disenfranchisement as the reasons for their behaviour. Or as one rioter put it, when challenged that rioting was unacceptable, "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?"

Such concerns are also rife in the media being generated by young people in london.

So Mr Cameron, why should I believe you when the evidence controdicts your, and your hypothesis provides no causative link between cause and effect and agree to give up my Guy Fawkes mask, and twitter account?

Or should I go with the well formed theory, which describes cause and effect, and is supported by evidence, and defend my self from your authoritarian wish list, especially when fighting to improve levels of income equality, should also improve many of the issues of broken homes and the like, that you consider to be to blame.

I think the discussion about teachers is getting way off-topic. The frequently asked questions for the libertarian paradise project does not mention the words: baby, babies, child, infant, children, education*, tuition, healthcare**, or teachers. Though it does mention the word "vacation" eight times. This is an adults-only fun time for the whole family!***

*I miscounted: "education" is in fact mentioned once, as a main factor in world population. Apparently education leads to babies, or something.

**It does include six references to "medical tourism".

***As long as your family consists entirely of adults.

In fairness, I should also mention that the FAQ also does not include the words minion, volcano, lair, Mr. Bond, lasers, death, death rays, monocles or cats. I am disappointed. However, it does include six mentions of pirates and five mentions of piracy, so at least there's that.

The discussion has evolved. There is a logical pathway from one to the other. While the discussion of teachers is directly linked to why some parties think that a Libertarian paradise would thrive and prosper, and why most of us start humming rise rapture rise. We are still on topic, just one rather arcane and specialised part of it, which has something to say about the wider topic.

I could understand complaining about off-topic shift if some one had come in and got every one talking about black holes instead, Greek myth or small blue creatures with white hats.

It is a little bit like saying "this converstation is meant to be about dinosaurs; why are you talking about birds?"

LilithsThrall wrote:

A Man In Black, the salary you're looking at is for the average school year - which is about three months shorter than the work year of other professions. Take the 47.5 and multiply it by 4/3. 63.3K is well above the average you listed for other BS reequired professions. Like I said above, if you want to discuss taking away teacher time off to pursue continuing education, we can do that.

These totals include teachers who spend the summer months working, be it as teachers or in other jobs. These totals are the reported annual salary of people who reported "teacher, full-time" as their employment in the census. Additionally, your "3/4 of the year" number doesn't include (often mandatory) continuing education, planning, etc., much of which is handled in the summer months. (Also, more than 50% of these teachers have higher education than just a bachelor's.)

Also, teachers need to pay the bills year-round, despite being furloughed three months of the year. You can argue, perhaps, that teachers don't deserve to be paid as much as other professions because they don't work the summer months, but the difficulty and stress of finding another, likely-low-paying job to cover the bills the rest of the year only makes being a teacher a less desirable career. Those three months (less workshops, planning, etc.) do not magically turn into increased income with a wave of the arithmetic wand.

You're still missing a good system for evaluating teachers, a productive way of incentivizing good performance once you identify it, and any sort of analysis on how implementing this system of evaluation is more effective than just spending more money on school infrastructure. Paying teachers based on performance is a solution in search of a matching problem.

I don't know if it is the same in the states as the UK, but end of term, does not mean end of work here in the UK(unless your a temp).

Most teachers I know are working for most of the holiday, not teaching but doing the prepritory work for the new term, or doing admin stuff. They also have major contractual restrictions on when they can take their holiday(i.e. only in the school holidays.)

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Ion Raven wrote:

Mynameisjake wrote:

Abraham spalding wrote:

Because the only way to be RP heavy is to be mechanically weak!
Stormwind much?

Not matter how hard you try to make it so, the "Stormwind Fallacy" is not actually a logical fallacy.

It is a false dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy. Roleplaying and building an optimal character are not exclusive. Having a less than optimal character does not make you a better at roleplaying, no matter how you look at it.

Actually, they can be mutually exclusive.

They are not always mutually exclusive, but they can be.

If the story brief calls for a group of characters built to be generalists, who could believable represent a korvosan street gang, it is bad roleplaying to make a hyper optimised god-wizard.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't imagine many gangs are going to have much truck with a wizard in their ranks who decides to take Ventriloquism or Crafter's Curse, instead of Sleep or Color Spray, which could end a street brawl in a second. They'd probably rather their caster buddy took Improved Initiative or Combat Casting or Spell Focus over Skill Focus (Perform: Comedy).

Ventriloquism:

Luring unsuspecting people into ambushes.
Causing distractions to aid your pickpocket partner do his job.
Draw away a guards attention to aid in sneaking.
Passing secret messages.
Threatening shopkeepers, without tipping of the guards as to who is behind the protection racket.
...Ect ect. ect.

No, no street gang would ever use that spell.

Crafter's Curse:
Punishment for those who go against the gangs will.
Means of extorting money from businesses
Means of damaging your rivals drug production.
Means of damaging your rivals front businesses.
ect ect ect

No, no street gang would ever use that spell.

Skill Focus (Perform: Comedy)
Making your gang mates laugh, and being like able.
Cutting put downs that shame members of rival gangs.
Causing crowds and distraction, to allow pick pockets to work.

No, no steet gang member would ever have that feat.

You also making a mistake in assuming that feats are something that the character 'chooses'. They are knacks or aptitudes which a character picks up as a result of their experience. They don't even necessarily know they have earned one, let alone make an active choice about which one of the abstract knacks they acquire.

There are ways to make a character that's all about power and mechanics, and has no flavor, no one denies that. But the person who made that character would not start roleplaying better if you forced them to play a cripplingly weak character. And there is no concept that inherently demands a character be cripplingly weak, making optimization of any kind into bad roleplaying, save perhaps the concept of 'the character is incompetent and has no business adventuring'. Which, of course, raises the question of why he is.

There are different power levels of concept. There is a difference in skill levels between "A fencer who has since childhood trained with the worlds greatest master, after having been selected from amongst five hundred promising youths" and "drop out student and hobby fencer, who has been dragged into events by misfortune."

Both are perfectly reasonable concepts. One is good for a high powered combat focused campaign, while the other low powered, steet level gothic horror campaign which challange characters across a wide range of threats(i.e. a campaign that favours generalists).

Also, not all characters are have to be Adventurers. Playing as adventurers is only one form of play, and one I cannot remember the last time I did.

Mynameisjake wrote:

Abraham spalding wrote:

Because the only way to be RP heavy is to be mechanically weak!
Stormwind much?

Not matter how hard you try to make it so, the "Stormwind Fallacy" is not actually a logical fallacy.

It is a false dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy. Roleplaying and building an optimal character are not exclusive. Having a less than optimal character does not make you a better at roleplaying, no matter how you look at it.

Actually, they can be mutually exclusive.

They are not always mutually exclusive, but they can be.

If the story brief calls for a group of characters built to be generalists, who could believable represent a korvosan street gang, it is bad roleplaying to make a hyper optimised god-wizard.

The stormwind fallacy is itself almost always used in a fallacious manner, specifically as a strawman, because more often than not, the argument isn't "optimisation is bad" it is, "character concept trumps character optimisation."

When making an "effective character" becomes more important to you than making a character that mechanically fits your concept, you inevitably either reduce the number of concepts your willing to play, or start to play characters which mechanics which in no way reflect their concept.

A Man In Black wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

Show me a professional field where this doesn't happen. Yet, those other professional fields pay on performance. Why should teachers be an exception?

Because the methodology for evaluating teachers is inefficient and gives results of questionable value, because the consequences of giving teachers incentives to avoid troubled students are dire, and because teachers are paid very poorly for their level of training as it is.

In the case of a manager, a manager can fire underperforming employees. I don't think that's something you want teachers doing.

As for the supervillainy discussion, I'd be willing to bet at least one of these enclaves ends up a haven for pirates. It's hardly unprecedented.

Actually, managers can't always fire underperforming employees. So, the comparison remains accurate and the question remains, if managers (and other professionals) have to deal with this sort of stuff, then why not teachers? As for teachers being underpaid, I don't think that's necessarily true. Some teachers are paid very well.

And as for current teacher evaluations giving results of questionable value, maybe, but that only means that better performance-based evaluation is needed.

What is you success metric? Can you define it? What is it that teachers have to achieve to be successful?

How do you make the success metric benifit children with a wide range of needs. For instance, teaching a child with Severe SEN to read and right, is a far greater success on the part of a teacher, than watching an exceptionally bright child from a good family breezing through their education.

How does your success metric get teachers to work at helping those who need the help most?

Having actually had my head stomped on, and been kicked in the genitals before now, I can attest that it is entirely possible to be hit so hard it leaves you feeling sick, for days afterwards potentially.

As for blinding, the giants might head might come within reach when it belows, the PC might have climbed on a piece of terrain to reduce the giants advantage, they might have thrown a dagger as part of that three second infinitival, they might be flying. If you cannot come up with a reasonable, use a different feat that turn. The options are near limitless, before you get into the cool options greecian heroics, wuxia or anima elements would allow.

Dogs in the Vineyard.

Matthew Trent wrote:

I feel that a campaign does not suffer from an excess of villains. Even if you don't want to highlight them as active opponents its not hard to say 'Yeah there are crazy cults worshiping some Old Ones, and no one takes them seriously. They aren't going to be playing a major role in this campaign.' You don't make a setting better by removing opponents.

I can't help but wonder how many sentiments like this stem from other sources. I know there have been music groups I disliked not because of their music but because people I didn't like loved them.

There is also the hipster trend of disliking things because they are popular. That confuses me a lot.

On the flip-side, I think that some Lovecraft fans don't realise quite how obscure he is.

When I grew up playing dnd I played with an entire group of literate kids who never mentioned Lovecraft (or pulp fantasy). We were fantasy enthusiasts raised on Tolkein and Lewis, Robin Hood and King Arthur, Greek myths and Bible stories...
When I helped to run a gaming society with about 60-80 members I never heard a mention of Lovecraft, we ran the gamut from 16 year olds to 60 year olds.
Of my current gaming group (all in their late-20s and early-30s) only I have read any Lovecraft.

Maybe this is a British thing, perhaps his writing is much bigger in the US.

Mmm... Are you kidding? We the brits love Lovecraft. Everywhere I have roleplayed in this country, I have meet call of cthulhu fans.

Yog-Sothoth.com is british is memory serves, we have a number of cthulhu, writers wise we have Charles Stross, Brian Lumley, Neil Gaiman and Graham Walmsley(all of whom have played with the mythos).

Back in the day we had Werebadger, who ran awesome mythos larp.

I'm retty sure that Cthulhu I bigger over here per head of capita, than it is in the states.

Rise, rapture, rise.

Has the officer involved ever claimed he was fired on? I thought it was a feared for life shoot first situation.

The firearms officers has never claimed they where fired on.

However, information was packaged to imply it. The implication in much of the media has been that it he did.

It is interesting because it has started to change the narrative of his death.

IIPCC: No, evidence that mark duggan opened fire on police officers. Bullit lodged in police officers radio was a through and through, from another officers weapon.

This stuff, I like.

I have friends involved in the clean up. Wish I could be their to help.

interesting dailey telegraph article on causes.

Two articles I found regarding not the riots so much as the underlying tensions behind them (note that there are two articles linked there)

Quote:

...here's a sad truth, expressed by a Londoner when asked by a television reporter: Is rioting the correct way to express your discontent?

"Yes," said the young man. "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?"

The TV reporter from Britain's ITV had no response. So the young man pressed his advantage. "Two months ago we marched to Scotland Yard, more than 2,000 of us, all blacks, and it was peaceful and calm and you know what? Not a word in the press. Last night a bit of rioting and looting and look around you."

Eavesdropping from among the onlookers, I looked around. A dozen TV crews and newspaper reporters interviewing the young men everywhere.

Thank you for those. I'd caught the '"Yes," said the young man. "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?"' quote already via twitter, but its interesting to see the full article.

Ok well that logic usually starts to fall apart pretty quickly.
If black males between 14 and 30 are at an elevated risk of violent crime, who are they at risk from? And WHY are they at risk?

Statistically young people (but especially males) from all backgrounds are at an elevated risk of crime. Are all young people criminals who bring it on themselves.

I am not going to pretend that much of the violence against young black men in London, is undertaken by other young black men. The statistics are fairly clear on this.
While you rack that up to thuggery, there is more to it than that.
While over all crime experienced by londoners is relatively flat across ethnicity with only mixed race individuals experiencing a significantly higher rates of crime, fear of crime in the black communities have a disproportionately raised fear of crime flat across ethnicity with only mixed race individuals experiencing a significantly higher rates of crime, fear of crime in the black communities have a disproportionately raised fear of crime
Along side this we have a situation where the MET is struggling with institutional racism, both real and perceived. Elevated fear of crime, and an unwillingness to turn to the police is recipe for weapon carrying.
Young disenfranchised men, turn to crime, as a way to reduce the presure of stress caused by social evaluative stress. And other young disenfranchised people make easy targets.

Elevated fear of crime, and an unwillingness to turn to the police is also a recipe for gang formation, as insecure, disenfranchised and frightened young men, form coteries for protection from each other, and from the perceived and genuine hostility of the police. Not all gangs are criminal enterprises, especially not initially.

Violence carried out by petty criminals and gang members drives those not members of gangs to join of form them.

However, beef between gangs, caused by the human tribalism generates violence, which rarely stops with members, but spreads to relations and wider friendship cicles, which in turn drives more people into gangs for protection.
The violence and weapon carrying within by gang members helps to criminalise them. After all, in for a penny, in for a pound.

Rioting has spread to brum, and their appears to have been a shooting in Leicester.

Correction: Leeds not leicester.

Oh and if I really wanted to SMVRF it, there would be two pages padding my post count.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

This thread, is a response to a horrible set of events, discussing its in a largely mature and level manner. We may well disagree, we may well even get into an argument, but we aren't trying to make one another angry, we are not dragging the conversational of its topic, we are not being disruptive. We are merely discussing a subject we find of interest.

Only one person in this thread is trolling.

Please either actually contribute, or go away.

Bill McGrath wrote:

GeraintElberion wrote:

So...

You're born in a poor innner-city area to poor parents.

You go to a poor school (transient student population, transient staff population, massive amount of EAL/EFL students, etc. etc.)

Your social circle has limited aspirations.

You have limited social capital so rely upon an overt display of machismo to establish yourself in new social situations.

You are overtly aware of your poverty, in terms of money, education, background, cultural knowledge...

You struggle to find work because of your poor qualifications and you have not developed in a way that makes you seem attractive to employers.

When you are confronted by the police you are amde acutely aware of your underclass status, something you can usually avoid by remaining amongst your peers. This means that even if you have done nothing wrong and get in no trouble then encountering the police can be a humiliating experience.

Are we feeling the tension yet?

And I haven't even thrown race into the mix...

You're completely right in that the reasons for the social problems need to be understood and addressed, and the current policing approach won't work. However, I think this train of thought can often lead to the notion that offenders who come from such backgrounds deserve lesser sentences because of their difficult situations. I don't think that citing a poor upbringing should diminish any criminal's personal responsibility; it's not a mitigating factor.

You're absolutely right.

Right now we have a legal system where people who behave in the 'right' way and come from the 'right' background are more likely to get shorter sentences.
Our legal system also bends over backwards for the powerful (try waving a cream pie at Rupert Murdoch...).
Mostly, the disadvantaged get longer prison sentences so the British system is definitely not on this kind of slippery slope anyway.

I would like to see absolute equality of sentencing.

To be honest I'd like a criminal justice system designed to reduce crime, rather than an expensive system of punishment that actually(according to the vast majority of the availible evidence) breeds criminality and crime.

IBTL.... wow this thread is just smurfy.

CJ, this thread needs you smurfing it like it needs a hole in the head. If your not interested, go and wind up someone else. Take the Smurf-trolling to an audience that finds it funny.

Shifty wrote:

ProfessorCirno wrote:

When the police act like an occupying force, they will eventually be treated as one.

So wasn't the guy killed in a shootout with Police? Why did he have a firearm unless he was a criminal, and why did he decide to have a shootout rather than accept arrest?

How are the Police acting like 'an occupying force'?

I am wondering if PC is confusing geography and assuming Tottenham is in Ireland (Northern Ireland) as we know most Yanks are geographically challenged when it comes to anything outside continental north America.

We also know that when it comes to Ireland the Yanks are historically challenged and don't understand that a clear Majority of the Northern Irish wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. That is why a lot of money for the Provisional IRA (Who loved to blow up innocent women children) came from the US because the Yanks thought the Irish were still fighting the Easter rebellion.

Then again at least the Poms arent rioting over a football match (this time).

Two sets of dark days that seem to be revisiting us...(see return of rebublican paramilitary activity to the streets of NI, and sectarian football violence north of the boarder )

How are the Police acting like 'an occupying force'?

Oh boy. Thats complicated. The MET has for years struggled with deeply in grained institutional racism, highlighted by the Steven Lawrence enquiry, and many others. These all breed resentment.

You then have racially targeted operations like Tridant which target young black men for search, based almost race alone, because it is targeted at a problem which is seen as only a problem in the black communities of london. This serves to breed resentment.

We have communities in Tottenham which are blightest by poverty, and which are seeing the services which give even the slightest chance at equality of opportunity with people living less than a mile away, slashed.

Higher and further education, one of the best hopes for many young men from these communities, has been shut of by pricing them out and the removal of support for those wishing to remain in education.

Tottenham has a history with the police. In 1985, Cynthia Jarrett was killed by the police during a house hold search. That sparked similar riots, put down with typical met efficiency. So this is the ghost of Broadwater Farm riot. Wider london had even more of a narrative of conflict with the police, as does England as a whole.

Along side the basic services which are being slashed, services expressly designed to improve working relations between the police and these young people are being cut.

and all these things are only scratching the surface.

ProfessorCirno wrote:

When the police act like an occupying force, they will eventually be treated as one.

So wasn't the guy killed in a shootout with Police? Why did he have a firearm unless he was a criminal, and why did he decide to have a shootout rather than accept arrest?

Because gun and knife crime in north London is complicated. Black Male between the ages of 14 and 30 in that part of north London are at elevated risk of violent crime. They carry knives and gun, because it makes them feel safe, but in reality, those who do carry weapons in that part of London are more likely to be the target of knife and gun crime.

Details of why he was being arrested, have not yet been released to my knowledge.

What we do know is that his cousin died in a fatal stabbing, and that he had become increasingly paranoid with regards to his own safety. He fits the profile of someone who would carry a weapon for self-defence(though he is at the upper end of that group).

Carrying a weapon makes him a criminal. But we do not know with certainty at this point that he did decide to have a shoot out with the police rather than submit to arrest. It is entirely possible that any number of other events took place there. We won't have much of an idea until the IPCC reports.

Only just woken up, after a late night gaming to find out about this...

It sounds like this is kick back on project Trident, as much as the shooting itself.

I'm interested to know how this is playing on your news? Especially faux news.

Ugh...already beginning to hate the phrase 'completely unacceptable.

No-Sh~@-Sherlock, ofcause its unacceptable, but since when do large numbers of angry young men behave in a rational manner that gives a s##+ about acceptablity. Now instead of stating the obvious in message after message of condemnation, and pretending that will make those young men any less angry about the death of a member of their community and years of perceived racial harassment by trident. How about you o something about the underlying problems.

Only just woken up, after a late night gaming to find out about this...

It sounds like this is kick back on project Trident, as much as the shooting itself.

It is rare that I am willing to fork out for physical product from the Paizo store... that pesky international shipping just isn't much fun, but for this I WILL MAKE AN EXCEPTION.

The excitement of opening a random booster is easily worth half the asking price for me. ;-)

With that in mind...probably not a good idea that you ever gamble. TCG's and TMG's both work on the same action/reward feed back loop that makes gambling and MMo's addictive ;)

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Simples!!*sqeek*

You can put plastics in these with minimal care, and throw them at a wall, and not see any damage at all.

Alas, that falls into the "treat them like metal minis" category for me, though I realize that for some who can paint much better than I can, that is probably blasphemy. :)

Its the difference between a second a miniature packing speed, and 3-20 seconds a mini packing(depending on delicacy.)

If I wan't essentially disposable mini's, I go paper :D

Zombieneighbours wrote:

I hope you make lots of money and have many fat happy children.

You heard it here first, folks -- ZN supports childhood obesity. ;-)

Ofcause I do...they taste so much better that way.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Hey guys. I think my questions about cast quality and plastic type got swallowed by the howling storm of internetz fail.

How detailed are the sculpts? I'll likely be repainting them if I get them, so it's important to know how friendly the models will be to this.

Will the be made from a soft flexible plastic like DnD mini's or a harder plastic, like those used in GW's plastics? My preference is for Hard plastic. If it gets broken its easy to fix, while straightening softening plastic minitures weapons, or even whole bodies, can be a nightmare.

Have you found a way to easily store the harder plastic figures without having to treat them like painted metal minis? I'm always up for picking up some new tricks. :)

Simples!!*sqeek*

You can put plastics in these with minimal care, and throw them at a wall, and not see any damage at all.