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

bugleyman's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter, 7 Season Star Voter, 8 Season Star Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStar RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler. 7,550 posts (7,667 including aliases). 83 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


1 to 50 of 7,550 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Aberzombie wrote:

One other thing I've been ruminating over....

I have yet to hear anyone on the new show provide a name to the undead. I doubt they'll use Walkers, although you never know. Another name used in the parent show was 'biters'.

Who knows? Maybe they'll go ahead and just use 'zombie'.


Yeah...I kinda wish they hadn't changed it, and just made a bigger flip-mat. Oh well.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ched Greyfell wrote:
Those of us who've been playing Pathfinder for 6 years have done so because we didn't want a new edition.

I've been playing Pathfinder for 6 years, but that isn't why. You're welcome to your opinion, but please don't claim to speak for others.

The squares on this map aren't actually an inch; they're ~4% too small. Perhaps not a big deal to some, but since I regularly mix flip mats, several different brands of tiles, and other one-inch-grid-based accessories, it's problematic for me. Regretfully, I won't be picking up anything else in the line until the problem is corrected, so I'm posting here in the hopes that it can be.

Samy wrote:
I can't find any beetles.

Now this is going to bug me. Thanks for that. ;-)

Imbicatus wrote:
There are lots of them. Sorcerer bloodline powers, kineticist blasts, and some domain powers to name a few.

Hmmm...I never noticed that before. That seems to be an unfortunate inconsistency in what "spell-like" means from a design point of view.

Is "spell-like" intended as a shortcut for re-using spell descriptions (which I believe was the case in older editions), a method to describe the activation mechanism of the ability, or both? The lack of clarity is problematic.

Cao Phen wrote:
Well, that is for SLA that are spells. The possible confusion would be SLAs that has no spell equivalent.

A spell-like ability that isn't like any spell seems like an oxymoron. Is that a thing?

It sounds like the ruling is that yes, feats that affects spells also affect SLAs.

Which is bonkers, but in line with the (now-defunct) "SLAs count as spells for Prestige Class pre-reqs." But that's another thread. ;-)

3 people marked this as a favorite.

One day I hope to be wise enough to quit reading these threads.

One day.

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler aka bugleyman

Vanities such as followers are pretty clearly intended to fade into the background most of the time.

IMO, the GM shouldn't attempt to target followers or even ask what they're doing in combat. Likewise, players shouldn't abuse followers or use them as shields. Doing so repeatedly makes them fair game. imho.

Wow...that was fast.

I've only picked up one so far, but will pick up a second when the opportunity arises.

Serghar Cromwell wrote:
By weight, my body is over 30% malice.

Only 30%? Amateur.


You are wrong, and therefore bad.

P.S. Do I actually have to read the Kineticist before posting, or can I just skip to the "good" part? ;-)

Where do I get this Ancient Bestiary 1?!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Yeah, this whole paradigm of responding to complaints with "Since you obviously dislike it so much, why are you here talking about it?" is really weird and nonsensical, yet it keeps coming up.

You're absolutely right, and it's quite distasteful.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey, if it's not a problem for ME, then it's not a problem. AMIRITE?

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler aka bugleyman

I stand corrected. I should have said "will drive the cost down, which may or may not result in a decrease in price."

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TomG wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Except that in this scenario, I'm the doctor. As it happens, I have a master's degree in information management and bachelor's in information technology, both from, *gasp*, an actual brick'n'mortar research university.

Substantially similar post eaten by forums.

As long as we're out-degree-ing each other, I'm a professional web developer with a degree in computer science and PhD in Computer Information Systems from a top-tier research university.

As much as he's starting to sound trollish (and he's probably just really frustrated with people with their fingers in their ears), Orfamay Quest is correct. Adding CAPTHCA to the forum will do little observable good, and almost certainly observable harm.

1. As "Orfamay Quest" pointed out, these are humans posting, not bots, so CAPTCHA is irrelevant.
2. As others pointed out, most CAPTCHA types have been solved with a high degree of accuracy. That doesn't really matter, because even with a low degree of success, an automated program can retry quickly enough that its effective success rate is still pretty high. In other words, CAPTCHAs are mostly machine solvable anyway, so even if the perpetrators here *were* bots (and they're arguably not), CAPTCHA would likely only discomfit them temporarily until they prepped an automated solution (which is easy to do).
3. Several years ago researchers identified rings of CAPTCHA-breakers that instead of trying to automate solving would instead offload it to another site. For example, to solve Site A CAPTCHA, Evil Guy Z would reproduce it on Site B (a high traffic pr0n site, for example) and use the human-generated solutions to crack Site A. Yet another (of many) ways to circumvent CAPTCHA.

The long and short of all of this is CAPTCHAs take time to implement (and I'd rather have that time go toward more important features), provide negligible benefit, but measurable harm.

CAPTCHAs can work on low traffic sites that use common platforms (WordPress, for example,...


I stand humbled before your superior degree-fu. It seems you are actually the doctor. ;)

However, my original suggestion was actually to apply a mix of techniques, including CAPTCHAs, user registration confirmation, etc., in an attempt to both combat bots and inconvenience human spammers. Doubtless custom, domain-specific development would also play a role.

I appreciate that CAPTCHAs aren't a silver bullet, but I'm sure you are aware, one of the basic principles of computer security is that you can't make a system impregnable; rather, you can make it an unattractive target, and you can try to slow determined attackers long enough for humans to notice and intervene. CAPTCHAs and user registration confirmation in particular struck me as an easy-to-implement start of a comprehensive strategy.

My original suggestion was also born of frustration, as this isn't a new problem. Nor is it clear to me why it isn't been treated as a higher priority. Personally, I would have long since tried these things (and more), especially given the importance of this site to Paizo's revenue.

Finally, while I personally find them annoying, no CAPTCHA has ever stopped me from signing up for a site I cared about, so I don't really buy the argument that they'd harm the community. But I'm prepared to accept the idea that I'm atypical in that respect.

TLDR: A reasoned argument stating the weaknesses of CAPTCHAs -- but also acknowledging that that hadn't been my only suggestion -- would have been treated as such. However, "LOL UR STUPID CATCHAS ROFL N00B!"? Not so much.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:

As the T-shirt puts it, "I'd be less Grumpy if you were less Dopey."

The opening post on this thread suggested CAPTCHA technology. He was answered in the second post explaining that it wouldn't work. The IT manager for Paizo chimed in on ninth post of this thread to explain that CAPTCHA wouldn't work.

Anyone still suggesting CAPTCHA-based technology at this point is making a contribution to this thread of negative value.

Imagine the following conversation with your doctor.

* "I'm afraid you've caught a serious viral infection."
* "Well, is there something you can do?"
* "Yes, but the drugs are very expensive."
* "Well, why don't you just use penicillin?"
* "Penicillin is an antibiotic, not an anti-viral."
* "Yes, but why don't you use amoxicillin?"
* "That's an antibiotic, not an anti-viral."
* "How about norfloxacin?"
* "That's also an antibiotic, not an anti-viral."
* "How about tetracycline?"
* "That's not an anti-viral, either."
* "Well, how about penicillin?"

Except that in this scenario, I'm the doctor. As it happens, I have a master's degree in information management and bachelor's in information technology, both from, *gasp*, an actual brick'n'mortar research university. So while I'm admittedly NOT presently employed as an web developer, I'm at least as qualified as -- no offense -- Random Internet Poster #2340934 to comment on the situation.

But appeals to authority aside, you might consider the possibility that everyone who isn't you isn't necessarily a moron. Or not; it's up to you. Either way, the snark is not helpful.

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler aka bugleyman

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Let's not begrudge them success. They've made a profitable product that caters exclusively to a subset (those willing to pay for a character generator) of a very niche market (tabletop RPGers). If they want to charge a fixed price for the product of their labors, that's fair. If a baker going to charge less because his rolls have become popular? Probably not!

Please take this as it is meant -- with absolutely no malice -- but that analogy demonstrates a complete lack of comprehension of my point.

That said, I don't begrudge them their success. I've spent at least $100 with them on Pathfinder stuff.

thejeff wrote:

Yeah, there is that.

OTOH, if anyone was crazy enough to shell out some cash for it, take the money and run. :)

There is such a thing as damaging a brand. Why would Paizo want most people's first impression of Pathfinder to be a despised B movie?

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Chubby1968 wrote:
Regarding the captcha discussion. An alternative is google's reCAPTCHA.

That's not an "alternative" in any meaningful sense of the word.

1) the spammers who are hitting our board are not bots.
2) Captcha and its variants only protect against bots.
3) Captcha, and all its variants, add substantially to the annoyance level of real customers.

Drive away some of the paying customers while doing literally nothing to prevent spam? Yeah, that's a great idea! <rolleyes>

Assuming you read this -- which is a risk, because you clearly haven't read most of the thread -- it's not about stopping spammers. It's making this site a less tempting target. If CATCHAs "add substantially to the annoyance of level of real customers," doesn't that mean they'd also annoy the spammers? And since the goal is to encourage them to move to easier (read: less annoying) targets...

Also, the current situation is untenable, and is almost certainly driving away customers. If I come to a website to create an account, and see it is inundated with spammers, I'll probably just say thanks but no thanks and go to a different site. One that, mysteriously, doesn't have that problem. If only we had some clue how they accomplished that...

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler aka bugleyman

Carlos Robledo wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
You try figuring out the Herolab scripting language and coding the rules in yourself. These are good prices!

When I first started, I was actually doing this.

I actually got pretty good at coding my own items, abilities, spells and such.

Then I was like, this is is too much. I could just pay $10 and play around with the whole book instead of spending 1-2 hours coding in only the things I want at that time from a book.

Best decision ever.

I still occasionally do it, largely because I typically GM anyway.

As for the price...more people buying add-ons should drive the price down. After all, the marginal cost of additional downloads is zero (or so near zero as to be irrelevant).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I were Paizo, I think I'd stay away from movies. Hard to imagine getting much further from core competencies. Also, all three D&D movies were bad. Heck, even Battleship and the Transformers movies were bad.

Just say no. :P

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler aka bugleyman

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to say I'm not prejudiced. But that would be a lie. If I'm being completely honest, I have to admit I'm a bit put off by trans-gendered people.

I realize, intellectually, that this is irrational and horribly unfair. I'm disappointed in myself for feeling this way. However, pretending I don't won't fix the problem, either. All I can do is be aware of it and work on being a better person.

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler aka bugleyman

4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Flag it and move on. Engaging just prolongs and this one isn't entertaining.

But...this site deserves a better class of troll.

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler aka bugleyman

3 people marked this as a favorite.
jtaylor73003 wrote:
No they are talking about imagine behaviors. No one seen this behavior at all. I am actually talking about the behavior on this thread. Thanks again for proving you are bigot.

2/10. Troll harder.

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler aka bugleyman

jtaylor73003 wrote:
Feelings nothing more than feelings. From a bigot. I didn't mention myself at all. I said that the community is judging and demonizing people they never met because they belong to a certain group of individuals. That is the definition of racism, sexism, and phobia.

No, they're discussing observed behavior. They only one I see drawing conclusions about individuals (the actual definition of racism, sexism, etc.) is you.

Then again, you're a troll with a victimization complex and an ax to grind. Have fun with that.

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler aka bugleyman

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As a white, heterosexual, cisgendered man, I probably engage in this behavior to some extent.

I don't want to. In fact, I try not to. But personally I struggle if someone is playing a cross-gender character. Not because I think it's icky or wrong, but because I am receiving constant sensory input telling me that the person in front of me is a male (or female, or whatever). It's hard to engage my imagination to the point where I "see" something different.

There's probably not much that can be done, expect perhaps in the most egregious of cases. Although threads like this can help raise awareness.

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Chandler aka bugleyman

1 person marked this as a favorite.
jtaylor73003 wrote:

Ah yes the hypocrisy of those who claim to be progressive. You can't discriminate against white straight males because they are white straight males even while calling every minor thing a sign of discrimination.

Blackbloodtroll is bullying because blackbloodtroll purposefully label the other players as white straight males so demonization is easier. Blackblootroll wants to feel comfortable calling out their so called bad behavior, and wants permission from the community to call out their so called bad behavior. Blackbloodtroll wants to bully them into changing their behavior that blackbloodtroll dislikes with the consent of the community.

If blackbloodtroll was trying forcibility change a parties behavior for any other reason instead of so called sexism, racism, or homophobia what would you call it?

Right...sure thing, pal. You're the victim here... :P

What would I call it? Hmmm. Decency? Empathy? Consideration? Take your pick.

Not much point to going further, as this post -- along with yours -- is likely going to be swept up by the mods in short order.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
A captcha also only takes a second or two to get past. You could accomplish the exact same result by just delaying the activation by about a minute. Not that I'm saying we should do that, either.

It isn't the delay that matters, it's the extra effort on the part of the registrant.

But whatever. All I know is that many, many other very popular forums that employ CAPTCHAs and/or registration confirmation do not have this problem. I cannot, of course, say this is a causal relationship, but there is certainly a correlation.

For the record, six out of ten threads on the front page at the time of this posting were spam. It's hard to see how a few registration hoops would do more damage to the community than that level of spam. YMMV.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some hostile/baiting posts and their responses. Let's leave whatever drama or upset that may have happened in other threads out of the conversation.

Too bad; I enjoy master baiting posts.

Erm, wait... ;-)

thejeff wrote:
Fair enough and I largely agree, but it's a blatant example of how wacky religious beliefs get treated differently then wacky non-religious beliefs. Even directly harmful ones get legal protection.

They do, and they shouldn't; no argument there. But to me, that's encapsulated in the "let live" part of "live and let live." No one should be allowed to use their beliefs, religious or otherwise, as an excuse to impinge on the rights of others.

thejeff wrote:
Have you noticed the entire recent kerfluffle about allowing people (and companies) to ignore laws if they claim religious reasons? Both the Hobby Lobby contraception coverage case and the state level "religious freedom" laws?

I have, and I find them both ridiculous (the former, especially. More "corporations are people" nonsense). But they can (and should) be refuted without caring about the particulars of the religion in question. I don't care why you believe you should get special treatment; the answer is still no.

It's simply that trying to persuade people that their religion is wrong -- using logic of all things -- is a waste of time.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

It shouldn't but it does. Quote Leviticus 20:13 and you're a preacher. Use your own words and you're ordering a hit.

Its very difficult to tell the preacher he's wrong without calling his rationale into question. Thats the same rationale that the rest of the faithful are using for THEIR faith. They're stuck together (on purpose, often)

I have no problem telling the preacher that's he's wrong...I simply don't care what his rationale is.

thejeff wrote:
OTOH, the difference in the way we treat people with wacky belief X, supported by religion, and wacky belief Y, not supported by religion, makes no sense to me. Religion itself shouldn't be something to attack people for, but it also shouldn't be a shield to hide behind.

Maybe I'm partially playing devil's advocate here (oh, the irony), but how, exactly, do you imagine they'd be treated differently? I don't make a habit trying to debate anti-vaxxers, because doing so is pointless. Irrational people believe irrational things...I can't change that by telling them that they're irrational. In the case of religion, all I'm likely to do is upset them.

Are their beliefs worthy of ridiculous? Yup. But there's absolutely no point in trying to convince them of that.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You can't address it, because its faith. You can't question the nasty behavior without drawing the entire faith into it , and many otherwise good people of faith wind up siding with bad people of faith rather than good people or staying out of it altogether. If Pastor Creflo Dollar sold paperclips or rescued puppies he'd be in jail.

I guess I don't understand.

If someone is being a bigot, you call them out on it. Why does it matter that they're bigoted because of their religion?

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Because it gets used as cover for some really nasty behavior.

Since its not subject to rationale, inquiry, sense, or reason people who want to do things that are not sensible or reasonable very often use it as cover to do some bat guano crazy things. It circumvents debate by making it not debatable and I think history has shown thats a BAD thing.

Then we should address the nasty behavior. I'm not a big fan of thoughtcrime.

*shrug* I guess. Things like activation e-mails and CAPTCHAs are pretty standard, and for just this reason -- not many netizens would balk if they intend to actually use the account (as opposed to spamming with it twice).

That said, maybe you're right and they have a different strategy. It's simply hard to understand why Paizo in particular seems to be taking so long to address the problem.

Again, the idea isn't to make spam impossible, just to make it too time-consuming to be worth the effort.

But really, why not try? How many hours are burned manually removing threads/accounts? To say nothing of the negative impression created when a visitor to the website sees 50%+ of the recent threads on the front page are spam (not an exaggeration -- for the past week or so this has been the case at least half the time). In other words, the status quo isn't really a realistic option, especially if you derive much of your income from the web.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Literally 80% of the recent threads on the front page are spam.

Guys, come one. CAPTCHAs? How about requiring folks to activate their account by e-mail before use? Or better yet, how about both?

Neither of these are silver bullets...nor are they intended to be. Rather, they're intended to push the amount of effort required to spam high enough to make the spammers look elsewhere for easier targets.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Bugleyman, you're assuming the mods are just watching idly. Don't you think the mods are doing their level best to end the situation?

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that the solution to the problem isn't moderation.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Email activation is meaningless. So are CAPTCHAs. A few seconds' delay doesn't stop anyone. These people are getting paid to do this.

And yet other sites, some more popular, that employ these strategies do not have this problem. Again, a "few seconds delay" can and does make people, paid or not, look for easier targets.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
If you want to continue posting suggestions, head over to Website Feedback.

Now that makes sense; I'll do that.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:

"more flexible mechanics"...

Cops & Robbers has the most flexible mechanics of any Roleplaying Game I've ever seen... doesn't mean it's fun.

If you've got a DM who can't figure out how to apply Skills and mechanics on-the-fly, get a better DM.

The only way to get truly "flexible" mechanics is to stop playing games with any mechanical rules at all and instead just sit around in a group telling a story of how awesome your guy is.

That's not fun, and it's not even a "game" - that's masturbatory.

Pardon, but that's a false dichotomy. There aren't only two choices: Pathfinder or no mechanics at all. There is a whole range of possible options between the two, none of which deserve to be dismissed as "masturbatory." That's classic badwrongfun-ism.

Also, "sitting around in a group telling a story" is a tradition across many cultures, and an important mechanic for passing knowledge from one generation to the next.

Of course, none of this really has anything to do with some guy's opinion of Pathfinder. Maybe find something other to do than tell someone why his opinion is "wrong?"

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure, but League of Legends is a computer game; additional mechanics mean nothing to a computer.

Obviously it's a matter of taste, so there is no right or wrong answer, but to this forty-something parent trying to squeeze in time for an RPGs -- often via PFS -- additional mechanics are a hindrance, not a selling point.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

This always seems odd. Why is this an acceptable answer for religion but not for anything else? In no other area of life does someone not at least get a ribbing for coming up with whacky ideas.

UFO convention= nut job.

Religious convocation= solemn even beyond social reproach.

I've grappled with this myself...sometimes in this very thread. But I think it comes down to this: Don't be a dick.

While a large number of adherents to a particular belief systems says nothing at all about that belief system's validity (or lack thereof), it does tell us that the belief system resonates with people. From a purely practical point-of-view, why attack it? If people arrived at it through something other than purely logical means -- and the undisputed role of culture and upbringing in the selection of religion tells us that this is very often the case -- you cannot hope to reason someone out of their faith. All you're likely to do is upset them. And even if you could, would you really want to, assuming they didn't want to be disabused of their beliefs? Wouldn't that be selfish?

Like I said, I've struggled with this myself -- and probably will again -- but right now, I feel it's better to refrain from commenting on someone's religious beliefs and focus on their actions.

I'm a fan of the trimaran in particular, but yeah, these are a little wacky. Perhaps one side should have been more conservative.

However, there is always this.

Now that the SCOTUS has weighted in, can we please put the bestiality/polygamy/incest "parallels" to bed once and for all? They were both spurious and odious from the word go., I can't believe this thread is still going.

Second...this all boils down to faith. There is, quite simply, no empirical evidence for the existence of God; you either have faith, or you don't. Personally, I don't, but I don't begrudge others their faith as long as they don't use it as an excuse to impinge on the freedom of others.

Live and let live...pretty simple, really.

Culling feats and classes? That's 2nd edition talk (which I personally would be more than fine with). Otherwise removing stuff becomes problematic.

Literally 80% of the recent threads on the front page are spam.

Guys, come one. If not CAPTCHAs, how about requiring folks to activate their account by e-mail before use? Or better yet, how about both?

Neither of these are silver bullets...nor are they intended to be. Rather, they're intended to push the amount of effort required to spam high enough to make the spammers look elsewhere for easier targets.

1 to 50 of 7,550 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.