pres man's page

pres man wrote:

Except even then it wasn't. Sure for a large portion of the white middle class, it was rocking. But if your skin was darker or you didn't live in the industrial centers, you weren't living the high life then. So claiming the system EVER worked in the way described is a delusion. Claiming we want to "return" to some ideal era is pointless, because no era was ideal for everyone.

And to be clear, my bone is with the suggestion that there ever was a
time when people were paid a substantial wage to do meaningless labor (except in government and boards of companies, but I'd hardly call that labor). The whole "It did for a while" part is what I think is silly. No it didn't.

I didn't read what Sebastian wrote as pining for a better age. In fact, I don't think he meant to suggest such an age has ever existed -- rather, I took what he wrote to mean that there was a time when the system (and our culture) genuinely held such promise -- a time when the system "supported the dream."

Maybe it is just a language issue, then. I wouldn't say the system "supported the dream", I would say the system had the potential to "support the dream". To me, to say it did "support the dream" would mean that the dream was in effect. I don't think anyone can objectively claim that is true in any kind of absolute sense (sure some people lived the dream, but many did not, just as now, some still live the dream and many do not).

Still I'd question if such a claim (that it had the potential to support the dream) was actually valid. If we had included everybody that we were excluding, would things have acted as they did at the time. Or would there have been a surplus of available (and acceptable) labor and this would have made life harder for the workers at the time.

Heck, that is part of the attraction of labor unions. To limit what labor the company can view as acceptable. This reduces the numbers of workers and often limits the number of them to those that are intimately related to the current workers.

pres man wrote:

Sebastian wrote:

I blame a certain chatter for this post...

Here's how I view OWS and what they stand for (to me). I believe that every American should have the opportunity to work to support themselves. This means that everyone who wants to get a job should be able to get a job, even if they're incompetent. They shouldn't have a right to the best job, or a high paying job, but at the very least, if they're willing to punch in and work 8 hours per day, 5 days a week, even if that work is digging holes that don't need to be dug and then re-filling them, they should have the opportunity to earn wages and support themselves and their families. Such a job should enable them to purchase nutritious food, it should provide their children with access to education (including college, without student debt), and it should allow them to obtain healthcare.

The current system does not currently support this dream. It did for a while -...

I seriously doubt it ever did. Nobody was paying people to dig holes and refill them. Ok, maybe during the Depression this was happening, but nobody doing that was getting paid enough put their kids through college or paying for healthcare (well maybe healthcare, since at the time the barber was also probably the dentist, so you could get your hair cut and teeth pulled at the same time). Let's take off the rose-tinted glasses.

Fordism? Late 1940s to the 1970s? Golden era of capitalism? I'm pretty sure that is what he is referencing.

Except even then it wasn't. Sure for a large portion of the white middle class, it was rocking. But if your skin was darker or you didn't live in the industrial centers, you weren't living the high life then. So claiming the system EVER worked in the way described is a delusion. Claiming we want to "return" to some ideal era is pointless, because no era was ideal for everyone.

And to be clear, my bone is with the suggestion that there ever was a time when people were paid a substantial wage to do meaningless labor (except in government and boards of companies, but I'd hardly call that labor). The whole "It did for a while" part is what I think is silly. No it didn't.

I blame a certain chatter for this post...

Here's how I view OWS and what they stand for (to me). I believe that every American should have the opportunity to work to support themselves. This means that everyone who wants to get a job should be able to get a job, even if they're incompetent. They shouldn't have a right to the best job, or a high paying job, but at the very least, if they're willing to punch in and work 8 hours per day, 5 days a week, even if that work is digging holes that don't need to be dug and then re-filling them, they should have the opportunity to earn wages and support themselves and their families. Such a job should enable them to purchase nutritious food, it should provide their children with access to education (including college, without student debt), and it should allow them to obtain healthcare.

The current system does not currently support this dream. It did for a while -...

I seriously doubt it ever did. Nobody was paying people to dig holes and refill them. Ok, maybe during the Depression this was happening, but nobody doing that was getting paid enough put their kids through college or paying for healthcare (well maybe healthcare, since at the time the barber was also probably the dentist, so you could get your hair cut and teeth pulled at the same time). Let's take off the rose-tinted glasses.

pres man wrote:

Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65892.html

Friday will be an interesting day.

Wait, they are at a private park, and the park's owners want them out so it can be cleaned, and they believe they have a right to stay?

Yup. It's a privately owned public space - I think there are some zoning laws that prevent it from being closed. The building owner contracted to provide a public space in order to be exempted from other laws.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/pops/pops.shtml

Quote:

Privately Owned Public Spaces, abbreviated as "POPS", are an amenity provided and maintained by a developer for public use, in exchange for additional floor area.

Ah, ok. For a second I was just mind boggled by the attitude.

Still if the private owner is obligated to "maintain" the area (instead of say, letting it become a toilet for the homeless), then I would assume they have some kind of say on its use legally.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65892.html

Friday will be an interesting day.

Wait, they are at a private park, and the park's owners want them out so it can be cleaned, and they believe they have a right to stay?

So wall street can only make money via loopholes?

I find that idea suspect. I also find it interesting that all involved have different ideas regarding whose responsibility it is to create jobs/hire people.

Yeah, I wouldn't say they need loopholes, but I would say they are working under the current conditions of the system. Suggesting that people should shoot themselves in the foot (not use the system as it is now, despite their competition doing so) for some moralistic ideal, that might not even be feasible, it a bit silly.

You see this kind of thinking in the gaming community. You have these folks complain that the other player is a "munchkin" for using the rules in play to make an optimized character, while they purposefully gimp themselves thinking it proves they are good roleplayers. If you have a problem with the system, then fix the system, but don't complain when others use the system as designed and you feel some moral obligation to gimp yourself.

I do find the idea of ignoring student debt across the board strange.

Let's say Student A goes to an expensive private university, takes out enormous loans to pay for it and gets an english degree and has trouble finding a job to pay them back.

Now let's say Student B goes to a state university, perhaps after spending the first few years at a community college, and has more modest loans. This student also gets an english degree, and has trouble finding a job to pay them back.

Ignoring both students' entire loans, actually punishes Student B's more responsible choices (to attend a more economical higher education). Student A now has more advantage because they have been able to get a more prestigious education (and yes, people still equate price to quality, right or wrong), but didn't have to actual pay for that education.

I'm not against more help on the education payment front (I'd like to see families that are "good investments", i.e. likely to succeed get better loans and grants), but we need to be careful we are not punishing those making good choices for society over those making poor choices.

Was the whole founding fathers line started because someone who supported the movement tried to bring in some phrase from the constitution. It seems strange now that others on that side, even perhaps the very same individual are now acting as if discussing the founding fathers is silly.

As for patriotism, I'm very confident that the current protests are just as much patriotic to the current US as those founding fathers were to united kingdom at their time.

One thing I do find interesting in the current protests, is they seem to have a very much "the majority has a right to have its will done" attitude (everything needs to be decided by consensus, see not allow civil rights leader and democratic congressman speak). Doesn't that strike anyone as particularly troubling. Where is the discussion of protection of the minority in all this.

Most of the little stuff that seemed strange to me, I've tweaked in my own version of 3.5.

I agree with the elf-gnome favored class issue. And in my version, I went ahead and made elves' favored class bard and gnomes' wizard. Part of the issue, is I just think the 3.x crew was never quite sure what to do with gnomes. They seemed pretty clear they wanted elves to be "wise, ancient, sages" and so they wanted them to be wizards (both wizards and elves are very iconic fantasy aspects, gnomes and bards are less so).

In 3ed they gave gnomes favored class was actually a sub-class. They didn't have favored class wizard, they had favored "class" Illusionist. At least in 3.5, they gave them an actual class. It isn't really surprising that they drop gnomes from the 4e PHB given that WotC never had a well defined view of what gnomes were. Gnomes are small humanoids, sort of like halflings, but they love gems and have beards kind of like dwarves, but they also love nature and magic like elves. So gnomes are basically halfdwelves.

But yes, I definitely think bard fits the elf. Of course, I'm biased, one of my favorite lines from the Fellowship of the Rings (the book) is:
"We live now upon an island amid many perils, and our hands are more often upon the bowstring than upon the harp."
-Haldir
If that doesn't scream bard, I don't know what does.

As for something else I thought they kind of did wonky, I thought the no zero level spells for paladins and rangers was kind of weird. You start off as a non-casting class and then wham! come 5th level you suddenly can start casting, and of course the character knew it was coming that is why that holy symbol/holly and spell component pouch was picked up before it happened. (this is another thing I change in my version, they cast 0 level spells, caster is half their level with a minimum of 1). I guess that is two things, no zero level spells and no casting until 5th level, but I think they are tied. If you had 0 level spells, then having them start casting at 1st level makes more sense.

HarbinNick wrote:

-Case in point. Unpaid internships. This is a poor tax, and nothing more. Only students with private means can accept an unpaid position. Yet companies love these things. In the indentured servant system, at least you got food and board in return for learning the craft.

Interesting point. Anybody have this experience or feel this way?

Unpaid would have been an improvement when I did my student teaching. Not only did I not get paid, but I had to PAY for 12 hours of course work, which involved me doing the 25%-50% of the work for a fully paid teacher for a good portion of a semester. Also, we were instructed not to have jobs outside of student teaching.

Let's just say that the majority of my student loans weren't taken until I actually got into the teaching courses.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

My emphasis, regarding the original topic.

Obviously these protests are disrupting the domestic tranquility of the nation, thus we should use all force in stopping them.

Be glad that we have as much capitalism as we do. Without a system where people can make "useless crap that doesn't advance the greater good" and other people can decide to buy it, we wouldn't have roleplaying games.

And I think it well within the rights of the people to decide, through their government, how they want to treat each other -- especially those unable to fend for themselves.

Sure, if people decide that they want to take the weakest among them and turn them into soylent green, well hey that's great.

Yeah, the whole thing reminds me of when Steven Colbert had Radiohead on his show, and they were spouting all this anti-corporation stuff. And then comedy central played right after the show, the South Park episode about the Hippy Jam fest (fight the power by holding a music festival and getting stoned). Somebody at scheduling for Comedy Central has a wickedly ironic sense of humor.

Generally the feeling is along this though.

Walk a bit, friend.

I said the same thing to Mr. Reeves right before he died. Too bad he didn't take such helpful advice.

pres man wrote:

I prefer to think of us as the "Bacon of Human Rights". Everything is better with bacon, yummmm.

As for nuclear power gets us energy independent. First off, there is the problem with waste disposal, I guess we could dump it on the boarder with Mexico, but I'm not sure how much of a solution that is internationally (thought it might make it easier to catch the illegals, look for the ones that glow in the dark). Secondly, that doesn't fix the problem with transportation. Electric cars? Yeah, tell me when I can drive it for 4 hours and then recharge it in 5 minutes at a "power station", so I can drive cross country to visit the family. Lastly, there is the fact that the anti-nuclear folks (many I'm sure are on these very boards) would never stand for something like that being done. Frankly the suggestion is incredibly laughable. Don't get me wrong, I wish we would build more nuclear power plants and less coal fire ones, but sadly that is unlikely to happen due to too much fear mongering.

It could be done, but you might have to sacrifice the one car per person ideal. Trains instead of cars etc.

Only if you are going to replace all roads with tracks, otherwise that isn't remotely a workable solution.

Good Roleplaying = ignoring the actual abilities and skills of the character and instead substituting the player's abilities and skills in its place

I love the idea that you can be in full plate and have a horrible dex and say, "I move as silently as a cat along with the rogue. Nobody can hear us sneaking up on them." Toss out all those pesky rules and let's do some "roleplaying".

I prefer to think of us as the "Bacon of Human Rights". Everything is better with bacon, yummmm.

As for nuclear power gets us energy independent. First off, there is the problem with waste disposal, I guess we could dump it on the boarder with Mexico, but I'm not sure how much of a solution that is internationally (thought it might make it easier to catch the illegals, look for the ones that glow in the dark). Secondly, that doesn't fix the problem with transportation. Electric cars? Yeah, tell me when I can drive it for 4 hours and then recharge it in 5 minutes at a "power station", so I can drive cross country to visit the family. Lastly, there is the fact that the anti-nuclear folks (many I'm sure are on these very boards) would never stand for something like that being done. Frankly the suggestion is incredibly laughable. Don't get me wrong, I wish we would build more nuclear power plants and less coal fire ones, but sadly that is unlikely to happen due to too much fear mongering.

... is that these 9 men know more ...

I just want to point out that currently there are 6 men and 3 women on the bench. Not nearly enough women yet, but let us not forget the ones that there are.

Well I'm sure he'll get the Bill Cosby vote.

Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper wrote:

I suspect this will be a long an profitable line, as long as there are not too many figures that manage to slip through the quality control process, such as the Lizardfolk Champion:

http://www.d20.ca/images/lizdonk.jpg

You know, I love the face on the lizardman. You are the only one I have heard to complain about it.

That is because some of us are biting our tongues.

It wouldn't affect the game much (other than me taking longer to look up things that were on the screen).

Though I don't use a screen to "screen" anything, I do use one. I just lay it on the table in front of me. It is usually covered with dice, books, miniatures, etc. But when I need to look something up, I just push that to the side and look at the screen. Since I rarely have to look at more than one panel at a time, it doesn't take very long.

In my home games I give xp at the end of each session. Everyone of the same level gets the same xp, lower level PCs get slightly more, higher level PCs get slightly less (as per the 3.5 rules). Players who were not present don't usually get xp, though if the party "uses" their character frequently during the session (say the rogue is gone and they have him check for/disable traps or open locks) then they may get a lesser amount of xp.

I like the different xp based on level, because it helps to fix the situation where people are of different levels, higher level PCs slow down on their level gain, while lower ones speed up. It is rare for them to ever true catch one another, but usually this keeps the spread to about 1 level ultimately.

As others pointed out, I don't want to make game time a competition as to who can get the most stage time. If the rogue sneaks a head and takes out a guard, everyone is rewarded since they are voluntarily giving of some of their game time to allow that to occur. By everyone getting a share it means the rogue isn't motivated to sneak ahead to just farm xp, and everyone has a stake in his success when he does go off.

The flaw I see with this suggestion is that tax cuts haven't really proven to get the economy moving again. Also cutting those rates and then raising them again later would only work if the economy started really getting growing at a highly accelerated rate. If it is still sluggish, then the politicians will just say, "We can't raise* taxes in the economy because it will dampen job growth." So you end up having the tax rates not return to the current levels.

*Any situation where taxes are lower for a time and then higher is consider a raise in taxes, even if was really a tax holiday and it is just returning to its previous level.

Is there any reason the Lizardfolk Champion is a Common, and possibly more numerous than his potential troops?

"Too many chiefs spoil the broth", or somesuch.

Maybe the "champion" was part of team. So all the members of the team are "champions".

Can we get some info on the genders. Are all the commons male (or at least the ones we can easily tell the gender for)? I guess looking at list that leaves Watch Guard and Watch Officer as possible females (all the others we already know or the gender probably isn't obvious).

... 99% chance that you're sadly overestimating your own abilities.

That must be the 99% he is talking for.

pres man wrote:

Benicio Del Espada wrote:

I'm sure the interviewee knew that anything not conforming to the predetermined portrayal Fox demands would not be aired.

So he choose to act exactly like this "predetermined portrayal" and gave a moronic response with out suggesting any actual solutions to the problems he believes exist.

Was this aired? lol

I hope not, this guy did more to hurt that movement than Fox could ever do. Of course I strongly believe that all news organizations try to find the dumbest individuals in any situation to interview because listening to a well thought out response isn't nearly as entertaining.

I'm sure the interviewee knew that anything not conforming to the predetermined portrayal Fox demands would not be aired.

So he choose to act exactly like this "predetermined portrayal" and gave a moronic response with out suggesting any actual solutions to the problems he believes exist.

An unaired interview of a protestor by Fox news. He rips Fox a new one.

So you finally get to be on TV and you waste the entire time ripping on the channel giving you a chance to talk instead of actually, you know, discussing the entire point of your being there.

So basically,
"What's this all about?"
"Rich people suck!"
"So what is your solutions, if things worked out exactly like you'd wish, what would that look like."
"Never stop! Rich people suck!"
"Ah... Ok."

Most Tea Party events, at least early on, occurred on the weekends. When does the OWS events usually occur?

Check this link out. You should get a lot of images from WotC 3.x products.

Athiests are devoid of faith, are they not? Correct me if I misunderstand the term.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

...
In Western culture, some atheists are frequently assumed to be irreligious,[citation needed] although other atheists are spiritual.[11][12] Moreover, atheism also figures in certain religious and spiritual belief systems, such as Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Neopagan movements[13] such as Wicca.[14] Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods,[15] whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but difficult to follow spiritually.[16]
Since conceptions of atheism vary, determining how many atheists exist in the world today is no easy task.[17] ...

Tacticslion wrote:

EDIT: ... and now Set's post doesn't exist, apparently. NONETHELESS: IT WAS TOTALLY THERE WHEN I QUOTED IT, I SWEAR. And I'm not the kind of guy to swear...

That happens on occasion, but only in threads frequented by a certain poster who dislikes me, so it's probably just Flag abuse (or a total coincidence!). I allowed myself to get worked up the first time it happened, but I just find it amusing, now.

This is the first time I've had a post removed for agreeing with James, 'though. :)

You can still find the post in your post history on your profile, so my guess is that it is just another site glitch.

Halflings no longer get a +1 on attack for slings and thrown weapons?
*smirk*
Ok.

Monkey Grip never allowed a PC to wield a two handed weapon in 1 hand.

I realize this comment is over a year old, but I wanted to point out that it is factually incorrect.

In 3ed, weapon sizes were based on the size of the weapon. If a creature and the weapon size were the same, that meant the creature could use it one handed. So you had = Tiny: dagger; Small: shortsword; Medium: longsword; Large: greatsword.

In 3ed, Monkey Grip allowed you to select one weapon that was one size larger than you and you could use it with one hand instead. Thus a human with 3ed Monkey Grip could use a greatsword with one hand (IIRC there was still a -2 penalty).

When 3.5 came about the weapon sizes were changed. Each creature size had a list of "light, one-handed, and two-handed" weapons specially designed for them (halfling's greatsword vs. human's greatsword for example).

In the 3.5 version of Monkey Grip you then could use any weapon one (creature) size larger than you with the same effort it took for a correctly sized creature, at a -2 penalty.

So originally Monkey Grip in 3ed was very much about wielding two-handed weapons in one hand. Later in 3.5, it no longer was.

Non-Constitutional scholar says something silly about "rights" and they can't be trusted.

Constitutional scholar says something silly about "rights" and that's ok, they didn't really mean it.

LOL

I know it may come as a sad realization, but most of the people on this thread are not even close enough in value to cost of a bullet for the government, let alone using some drone to fire a missile at. Sorry guys, you just aren't worth killing, that is how pathetically insignificant you are to most governments. Not even the most pro-government spending Dem would try to justify the cost to eliminate you.

When I'm a player, I find that deeply unsatisfying. At that point, if I'm the sorcerer, why am I even at the table?

And maybe this is the hair to split between the camps:

If I'm pro-screen, probably I want my GM to make a cool story.

If I'm anti-screen, probably I want my GM to play things straight up.

You can trust your GM in either case; it's just that what you want from them are two slightly different things.

I don't quite buy that.

If I'm pro-screen, probably I believe that as a GM I know exactly what makes a cool story.

If I'm anti-screen, probably I believe that I don't absolutely know what will make a cool story and I prefer to allow my players adapt to situations and we'll develop a cool story out of what comes out of that.

Certainly playing without a screen requires the GM to be a little lighter on their feet.

Well, it is understandable for why they might want to do that for organized play.

Of course, ultimately you are probably painting yourself into some corners. For example, are there domains that none of the deities have in their portfolio? If you introduce new domains, do you have to retcon the original deities or introduce new deities just to have someone have the new domains in their portfolio? Are you afraid to introduce new domains because you don't want to mess with the hassle, even if you have really cool idea for a couple of new domains?

Some sort of open trial in abstentia would have been a nice compromise between the need to stop this guy and due process. The constitution specifies hanging for treason, but i think the intent is "death" and you can't exactly blame the founding fathers for not thinking of a remote control plane as a form of execution.

Franklin probably could have rigged up something with the kite though...

"Yes, yes, death to America, but can you do me a favor for a second. Hold this key."

Well the guy's father and various civil rights groups tried to bring the issue to trial. It didn't go anywhere. So I am not sure that (1)that doesn't count as "due process" and (2)if it isn't "due process" then truly what does that say about confidence in "due process" in the first place. At best it shows this was not a violation of the civil rights of the individual and at worst it shows that the courts are in collusion with the executive and legislative branches.

Atheism just means not believing in deities. That doesn't mean the person is irreligious, they can still be spiritual without believing in deities (or that "deities" are truly deities and not just more powerful outsiders).

pres man wrote:

Are you suggesting his (Jesse's) accomplishment wasn't as impressive because he would have had a better chance traditionally?

Are you testing a chat AI, or what? What the hell does that have to do with anything? :P

Ignorant white guy implies a black man doesn't have a chance at victory because white people won't vote for the black guy.

pres man wrote:

Yup, nobody can dispute that logic, to paraphrase Slick Willy, Even Jesse Jackson won South Carolina.

Jesse Jackson wasn't running in a Republican primary.

Are you suggesting his (Jesse's) accomplishment wasn't as impressive (as Cain's) because he would have had a better chance traditionally?

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Elephant in the room: Herman Cain is a black man running on the republican party. That will be a significant problem with certain segments of the base.

No, I am not calling every republican a racist, but 50 years of minority support in the democratic party has left the racists with nowhere else to go.

Oh trust me, we've talked about the elephant. Where were you a few pages ago? :)

Yup, nobody can dispute that logic, to paraphrase Slick Willy, Even Jesse Jackson won South Carolina.

Generally, when I hear min-maxer it brings up an image of a player using point buy to make a character, that goes with a SAD class(es) and maximizes his main attribute(s) and minimizes his other attributes.

lastknightleft wrote:

Really, that runs counter to logical thought as the arguments here are made by people who were educated under a system run by the US Dep. of Ed.(at least, those of us under 30) if anything, isn't this thread proof of said institutions failure?

Sure, it's a failure, but it's hopefully better than no education at all (or mandatory homeschooling, as Bachmann would prefer). I would want to see it totally overhauled, without question. I would not want to see it totally disbanded, and not replaced. See the difference?

I don't have any on hand at the moment, but I think statistics would show that home-schooled kids actually are better educated on average than non-home-school kids (whether public or private school system). Now that may be because those families have more parental involvement in the children's education (obviously) and that they probably come from wealthier families (families where they can live comfortably on a single wage-earner's salary).

The original release date was probably too close to the release of the superman heroclix set that was just released.

Okay now that I got a new player and my OLD player (the one that didn't care much for the fact I didn't allow an atheist cleric), some how convinced my new one that an atheist paladin works.

I can't find a precedent. I just want to know, what to do here. I'd like a little back up. I know I could be a dick. (Again.) But I just...dunno.

When you say "atheist" what do you mean?

Doesn't literally believe in the deities? Because a short trip with a plane shift spell pretty much makes that idea incredibly foolish.

Or do you mean, just not dedicated to any deities?