Andrew Tuttle's page

It's always very hard when someone close to us is lost.

I imagine each of you is dealing with it in his or her own way.

I just purchased today a sihedron metal today, so I think of Mike every time I put it on.

My sincerest condolences.

-- Andy

My deepest condolences to him and his family.

-- Andy

Liz,

Best wishes in all your future endeavors. Be happy!

~~ Andy

I feel sorry for that poor baby. :(

Awesome job Paizo team.

-- Andy

Hey BigNorseWolf,

I think we're on the same page, but reading different paragraphs. I think words inside those paragraphs are causing some communication difficulty too.

In order of import.

FIRST,

Andrew Tuttle wrote:

I'm not sure I'd want to read a study testing that hypothesis, either. Because ... well I think I'm Chaotic Good and want to stay that way. :D

Nothing wrong with accepting a trend as long as you realize that the trend doesn't apply to every individual.

I don't want to read any study where women are injected with large amounts of testosterone / androgens in order to determine the gender bias of their potential offspring (whether the women agree to participate in the study or not).

REGARDLESS of trends.

I think sometimes if an individual doesn't b%&%+ about how things are "trending," they become co-conspirators to the trend. And sometimes "trends" steamroll folks, crush them, make them hurt.

I won't accept any "trends" I find morally objectional, and I'll complain about them when I see them.

It's why I can call myself a "flaming liberal" and still very-easily relate to my right-leaning brothers and sisters (and somewhere-in-betweens) when they spout off at the mouth / keyboard.

I appreciate and admire fervor as long as it's based in thought and love for others. As I typed, I like to consider myself Chaotic Good. :D

SECOND,

Its quite possible neither or both or true.

Yeah, well I know that. So again, the onus is on you, you offered the hypothesis.

I didn't check the links you offered. If you've read them and still can type "it's quite possible neither or both or true," I don't think they're note-worthy.

If they can't convince you, and you're offering the hypothesis, they won't do much for me (I've taken the position your hypothesis is lacking).

Regards,

-- Andy

One of my old players, a medical doctor, once stated that it is normal for medicine students to self-diagnose themselves with lost and lots of afflictions during their studies as they learn about them - and the same applies to mental conditions for psychology students as I was told by fellow psychologist (hopefully soon to finish her doctorate).

Yeah. :D

Self-reporting is a very dangerous condition, but it's the human condition.

Most of us either over-report ("OMG! It NEVER stops hurting!") or under-report ("meh. It doesn't hurt. much").

I'm glad I'm not a physician. Most I've met would rather patients presented themselves unconscious and non-responsive.

Hella' lot easier to diagnose and treat when the patient is not telling you what's wrong with them.

-- Andy

Not that anybody really needs to know this, but Paizo is collecting the money in trust for Goblinworks until they have the necessary infrastructure to deal with the funds themselves.

Tell it like it is, Vic.

It's a reflection of Paizo's engagement with the community that we're even allowed such "glances behind the curtain," and as a member of the community (and a customer) I appreciate it.

I really feel I can trust Paizo, and that's a good feeling.

Speaking of good feelings, 'gratz to everyone at Goblinworks for blowing this Kickstarter out of the water!

-- Andy

Dave Arneson put a crashed spaceship in his 'Blackmoor' campaign ... while Gygax himself wrote 'Expedition to the Barrier Peaks', which explored similar themes.

Pleasure to read Barrier Peaks typed here on the messageboards, Wrexham3.

To topic, I'm not sure where Pathfinder's headed, but I'm along for the ride.

-- Andy

Yep, Kirth.

it ran like a completely different adventure each time -- even I had no idea how things would turn out. That's half the fun for me as a DM -- to see where the players will take the ball that's been hiked to them and run with it.

I'm totally in accord here.

One of the major buzzes I've had as a GM / DM has been watching how different groups of players take the same scenario / module / encounter and deal with it in their own unique way.

Sometimes it flows in the direction I expected, sometimes it goes somewhere I never even considered ... but that's part of the fun I enjoy as a GM / DM, that sense of wonder and expectation as to what the players are gonna' try given a specific set of circumstances.

Many times I've felt my pants were on fire trying to look composed and neutral as the PCs did something completely unexpected or mega-creative, but that's part of the GM's job to. Smile and keep things moving.

I confess I've never had anyone tell me something I'm "running" isn't "as written" ... but then I'm careful about who I spend time with, it seems.

-- Andy

However just flat out telling someone that they're wrong lacks any construction and is just an attempt to inflate one's ego on how they're "better" than the people who don't agree with them. Or at least that's how I see it.

Cool. Well, we all see things from our own unique perspective.

When I see someone I care about making what I consider a mistake, I'll call them on it.

I'll even say "Hey, you are wrong," or bat their hand away from the fire they are trying to touch.

No harm, no foul.

-- Andy

I'm listening to Love Shack by the B-52's right now.

"Funky little shack, funky little shack!"

-- Andy

Congrats Adam Daigle with your new job at Paizo!

Congratulations, Adam! The Paizo folks are some of the best I've seen.

You are joining good company (pun intended).

-- Andy

P.S. I'm also going to be watching your mandibles for the lil' Golem icon!

Kelsey, Kelsey, Kelsey.

I can't even read your full post without feeling the need to tell you are StrongBadWrong.

Like it or not, waterboarding is not torture, because the DOJ says it isn't. It's stupid and ineffective, and it would be torture in France, but in America it isn't torture, because that's what our law says. Your laws don't apply here.

(1) Kelsey, water-boarding is torture. John McCain may not know how to pick a vice-presidential candidate when he's desperately seeing the presidency, but as a prisoner-of-war the man knows torture when he hears about.

Water-boarding is double-plus bad.

(2) Kelsey, you are factually incorrect when you type "the DOJ says it isn't."

You're wrong, in other words.

"A Justice Department official who signed two secret legal memos in 2005 authorizing the use of waterboarding now says the department has made no determination that the interrogation method is legal under current law.

Steven Bradbury, acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, makes the statement in prepared testimony to be delivered today to the House Judiciary Constitution subcommittee, the Associated Press reports."
cite

That was in 2008. I hope I don't need to tell you the current "DOJ" isn't all down with water-boarding, but if I need to I will.

This also relieves me of the need to type about how a cabinet-level department of the US Government doesn't get to decide whether something is or is not legal here in the US.

Kelsey, I think you are a passionate person (I am too), but I also think you are ignorant (as am I, of oh so many things).

Please check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Regards,

-- Andy

Meh; There's rules for civility and citizenship, and theres rules for war. I'm not going to try to infuse morality into the latter.

Kryzbyn,

I don't mean to get up in your face, but it's the "Meh;" that bothered me.

Luckily, neither you (nor anyone else reading this) needs to struggle much. The work of "infuse"-ing morality into war has already been done for us by the Geneva Conventions, which establishes "the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of the victims of war."

The United States is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, so as a citizen thereof I expect my nation-state to at least meet (and when I read the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution exceed) the treaty's requirements.

I know it's a tough road, but I'm hoping here in the 21st Century humans can hold the conflicting ideas "war is horrible and should not ever happen" in their heads long enough to agree "in the event we've got to send men and women off somewhere to kill other men and women, they will try and kill as few folks as possible. While they are killing, just kill the ones trying to kill us back."

Regards Kryzbyn. I'm really passionate about this. I'm ashamed of my country the past decade, and it hurts me deeply.

-- Andy

Why don't you hold to the standards of international agreements that the USA are part of? Such as the Geneva convention ?

They go a lot further that "not shooting kids and prisoners", mind you.

Not upholding them (like you did in Gitmo) made the USA lose A LOT of diplomatic clout, and made them no better than a standard rogue state in the eyes of many. Waging war recklessly on a "Right is might" motto isn't going to make you a lot of friends on the planet. A little bit of care and self-restreint wouldn't hurt : war isn't a contest to elect the most barbaric.

Enchanté Smarnil le couard!

One of the things I truly cherish about the Paizo messageboards is their distinct international flavor. I appreciate the fact a company I regard so highly (Paizo) has such a reach, and I really enjoy reading and typing to folks from all over the globe.

I'm still parsing this thread (which I participated a bit in yesterday), but I saw this post and wanted to both agree with you (I "favorited" your post) and give you a polite caution (if that's possible using this medium).

When addressing folks from here in the US, I'd avoid using the personal pronoun "you" when discussing the large-scale activities of both our nation as well as groups in our nation.

I'm an United States citizen by birth and choice. I recognize I live in a republic, but _I_ don't care to be associated with many, many of the activities the United States has participated in the past decade or so on the international stage.

Frankly, I think some of my fellow citizens deserve to be tried as international criminals -- not only did they violate international law, I believe they violated the mandates and requirements of our own "native" laws.

For a long time, the US has been (for better or worse) viewed as the "Good Guys." I certainly no longer feel that way, and I can't blame anyone from a completely different country feeling or thinking the same way.

So I'd type "you folks" or even "US citizens" or some-such rather than "you" in future posts.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité,

-- Andy

Hey Kelsey!

An act of war should not be held to constitutional standards.

I strongly disagree with you on this point Kelsey; as a US citizen first and as a human being second.

Regards,

-- Andy

* Andy points at CourtFool's head. *

“I’m sorry for speaking. If I came here with the intention of showing you the truth, of telling you the truth, I would stand here and say nothing at all, but since you won’t let me not talk, I am forced to tell you lies. It is a long-held principle in East Asian traditions, that the truth cannot be spoken. The first line in the Tao Te Ching is the Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao. The speech that can be spoken is not the true speech. So, I have no recourse but to lie to you.”

source

From what I can figure out ... you can't speak to others about the first principle, because as soon as you attempt to speak about it (regardless of how pretty and accurate your words are about it), it becomes the second principle.

Forming words and qualifying things in an attempt to communicate information about the first principle fundamentally changes the first principle, and it becomes the second principle (an attempt to communicate).

Or more elegantly,
"The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name."

Regards; and good to see you! I asked about you a few months back,

-- Andy

It's nice to see this!

I also appreciate Paizo's seeing an adventure goal or campaign idea, and then tweaking some game mechanics in a self-contained environment (like an Adventure Path) before rolling them out and offerring new rules elements as part of the Core System / larger game ecosystem.

Regards,

-- Andy

American Media 101

Step 1: Realize mediocrity does not get ratings
Step 2: Find a commentator with extreme viewpoints that causes controversy because thats more interesting
Step 3: Ignore all media news except the extreme fringes and paint that as the mainstream viewpoint of a political movement or party
Step 4: Cause as much division in public opinion controversy = RATINGS!!!

American Media 101

FTFY.

-- Andy

(I don't mean to offend, but I couldn't help it! :D )

Off topic-- what are the punctuation rules for political parties? Are they capitalised or no? ( for example: is it republican or Republican? I dont know and it bugs me.)

The names of political parties are proper nouns, so they are capitalized.

If you're referring to the Republican Party, you'd capitalize it. If you're referring to the republican form of government, it's lowercased.

I capitalize the Tea Party myself, but it's more personal preference. When I see tea party used now-a-days, I'm pretty sure folks aren't talking about Alice and her friends sitting down for some tea, at a party. So I prefer to capitalize it.

Others disagree, and point out since the Tea Party has no "no officers, no headquarters, no letterhead" it's not an official party (so isn't a proper noun).

-- Andy

Ancient,

My first post denounced a ridiculous article. You could say I aggressively attacked the author of that article, sure.

No, your first post in this thread offerred your opinion ("That article is garbage.") as fact.

It's part-and-parcel of what I think's increasingly-wrong with discourse and politics in the United States, there's no middle-ground nor shades-of-gray. Things are either totally evil or super-duper good. There's no common-ground between folks whose opinions might differ, there's just either "Yeah, right!" or "No, badstrong-wrong!"

And you are right, you didn't attack nor denigrate anyone participating in the thread directly. However, even though I thought the article Gworeth posted was inflammatory and more than a bit partisan ... it wasn't much factually incorrect from what I could discern.

The fact someone's opinion is inflammatory or even partisan doesn't make it less or more true. "Truth" is independent of how it's delivered to us. It's up to each one of us to discern if the various things flying towards us are true and worth paying attention to, or just noise, or just silliness, or just partial-crazy.

Also, you have this composition claim, too, and I am baffled by it. I never said "you'll never find any racism among tea partiers because I am not a racist".

Me pointing out to you what I see as flaws in your logic (using quotes) is not the same thing as making a logical claim (much less a compositional claim). I'm repeating back to you what I think I heard you typing. If you're baffled by it, then mayhap you're experiencing my sense of "cross-eyed confusion."

I said the movement isn't racist based on two things: I know hundreds of them and don't know any racists, and there's no evidence that the movement is racist.

That's not quite what you typed / said, but I'm not going to link-back again to what you actually typed.

Regardless, you've not met them all. Would you agree, or disagree, that some of the ones you haven't met might be racist?

And there's plenty of "evidence" that some folks participating in the Tea Party movement are what I'd call racist. I don't want to bring up my personal anecdotal experiences, but here's a link to a 2010 research study performed by the The University of Washington's Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race and Sexuality.

I am confused at the rush of some to point out classic logical fallicies without thinking about them first.

Me too. But I try to think before I even form an opinion (based on what I hope are facts, and doing my best to filter out my emotional states such that they don't impact my reasoning). I also think before I take the time to respond to a post on the intarwebs.

A couple of weeks ago, someone made the claim that even if an assertion is true, it shouldn't be made if it's a fallicy.

Well that's brain-mangling, eh? "Here's something true, but I'll not assert it because it's a fallacy." That's like the line, "This sentence is false," eh?

I wonder if sometimes winning an argument is more impoprtant than pursuing truth.

It's my opinion it's not, really. It's better to pursue truth, and do your best to communicate truth, than to "win" an argument.

Regards,

-- Andy

Ancient Sensei,

I have the sense I strongly disagree with you about a number of things, but that's life, eh?

I think the first step in friendly dialogue is looking for what the other person is saying, and not looking for something you can turn into a fight.

This would ring a bit more true for me if your first comments in this thread hadn't been

That article is garbage. It starts with name-calling and then advances as if the name-calling was reasonable and justified and beyond protest.

GentleGiant already pointed it out, and I feel it's a bit disingenuous to come out swinging and then make a call for "friendly dialogue."

Like him, I'd really like to know ...

What exactly do the Tea Party people believe?

... but I've found it exceptionally-difficult to really find out.

You're a self-identified tea party conservative, but when you typed

I know the garbage described in the article isn't true because I am a tea party conservative. When a pundit accuses the tea party of racism, I know it isn't true, because I belong in that reference group.

I go cross-eyed.

That's like me typing, "I know you have to be dead-wrong, Ancient Sensei, because I'm a white male. When a pundit accuses white males of racism, I know it isn't true, because I belong in that reference group."

Then,

Also, I know many people from that reference group. Finally, because there's no evidence of racism at tea party events. So again, the claim is demonization, without facts.

Again, I could easily type, "Also, I know many white males. Finally, because there's no evidence of racism among the white males I hang with. So again, the claim is demonization, without facts."

The only claim I'd make is there's some fundamental failures in critical thinking (or communication) going on here.

Regards,

-- Andy

InVinoVeritas,

I'm pleased I had the opportunity to read your post, thank you for your time.

I'm an American married to a Northern European, so I've discusses at length some of the major differences between the way an American and a European values a speaker. This might not be what you're seeing, so please feel free to correct me if you like. An American speaker is much more likely to espouse a single point of view, and will be viewed by other Americans as a high-status individual by his ability to stay on message. A European speaker, on the other hand, gains status by demonstrating a breadth of understanding of different viewpoints. The end result is that the American politician constantly and consistently pushes in one direction and one direction only, leaving any pushing in any other direction to his opponents. The European politician, on the other hand, shows erudite knowledge of a topic from multiple sides, and can speak to multiple viewpoints.

To the European polity, the American looks like a parroting thug, clearly very low status because of his inability to discuss the nuances of an issue. However, to the American polity, the European looks weak-willed and unwilling to commit to any single course, and therefore clearly low status as well. Because the two cultures have different status markers, their politicians take those markers to extremes, and end up looking egregiously inept from the other side's point of view. However, in truth, both methods lead to government by vote of the people.

These two paragraphs are very insightful. Exceptionally-well put.

Gworeth,

Your teacher was most-likely referring to the Electoral College, the mechanism where we Americans actually elect a President and Vice President. It's not the "popular vote" that elects US Presidents and Vice Presidents, its the Electoral College.

It is pretty byzantine, and there are regular calls for modifying it (usually around four year election cycles here in the United States), but it's part of the US Constitution and so not-so-easy to modify (by design).

Regards to you both!

-- Andy

I am not trying to start any fires.

That's my impression, reading your posts. Not that the ability to start a fire is necessarily a bad thing, it's a mark of a civilized person in some places. (Sorry, your fire reference reminded me of a scene in Aliens III.)

"I am genuenly wondering how a country like America, the land of the free and the brave, the bulwark of democracy can appear to me, an outsider, from Europe, to be so far from those ideals. This is important! I say appear, for I cannot rightfully claim that this is the case, only that it appears to be the case.

I'm a US citizen by birth and choice, Gworeth. Living in my country I can certainly appreciate how anyone might sense the disconnect between the ideals the US was founded on and works toward, and the hard, cold reality of how we (as a country, and as a people) behave, because I struggle with it myself very frequently.

So when you, as a self-identified European, see we self-identified Americans acting or behaving in a manner you might thing is bat-s~%*, I understand. I feel the same way about my countryfolk at times too.

The disrespect was scary to me, and I openly admit, I'm an impressionable person. But why the disrespect? Disagreement, of course, but disrespect?

Well people are different. Some folks have manners and a sense of decorum, and will treat others they disagree with respectfully. Other's won't.

But I don't think the fellow you described yelling at his Television set and cursing out the folks he saw there is quite the same as someone frothing at the mouth in another's person's face in "Real Life" (as it's called now-a-days).

Some folks also know each other well enough, or have had enough exchanges and experience dealing with one another, they'll use terms and language that are somewhat offensive, but are just short-cuts for communication. For example, I can't type the profoundly-obscene terms I used affectionately towards other members of the service when I was in the military here on the messageboards.

I'm sure this is true globally, I think it's the human condition, regardless of national borders.

And the belittlement or dismissal of my concerns, just because of the sources of my information is only confirming my reasons to worry.

Well, frankly Gworeth, if you're going to discuss political matters with Americans, you'll have to suffer through quite a bit of relatively-hostile exchanges and logical fallacies before you find folks you can exchange ideas and opinions with.

That's true in first-person exchanges, and even more so given the Internet's anonymity and false sense of immediacy.

My regards,

-- Andy

http://www.factcheck.org/

Bears repeating, and linking.

-- Andy

Regarding foundries and their claims, sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't. As a graphic designer, I can tell a HUGE difference when I'm designing something that requires that level of inspection. Also ligatures, auto kerning, etc contribute vastly to readability.

*claps, nods agreeing*

Wait...people WANT to use Helvetica?

Helvetica is a perfectly-serviceable font (the fact it's so "serviceable" means it's used so frequently ... and by folks who get paid money to use specific fonts for specific reasons). In fact, there are plenty of versions of it / variations of good old Helvetica that are actually very attractive.

It's also one of the few fonts I'm familiar with (possibly the only one) to have its own movie. It's available for "Watch Instantly" on Netflix, last I checked ... worth a look-see if you've a few hours and have an interest in font design, use, and "serviceability issues."

The only font awful enough to be the official US Government font of choice. Youbetcha!

*boos, cat-calls and raspberries!*

Calling Helvetica "awful" because the US Government uses it on certain documents (tax forms come to mind, but those are "awful" for a different reason) is like calling "all web pages ugly" because you can go to MySpace.com and end up with bleeding eyeballs.

Then again, I'm a font-geek and not ashamed of it. :D

Regards,

-- Andy