Kazuka's page

If a rogue is not an option, how do you feel about a psychic? I have no clue how to play those and want to try one out sometime.

I'll write up an elf rogue for this. I'm definitely interested.

Unless one of those two players is already writing one...

I'm not concerned with blocking the joke candidate, especially at the lowest level. And actually you can block at least the weirdest of the joke candidates - it's easy enough to write legislation spelling out minimum qualifications - the dog wouldn't be allowed to be president, for example: Neither 35 years old, nor a natural born citizen (or, to be technical a resident at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.)

Minimum qualifications I'm not too concerned with. That tends to be a natural part of leadership positions. And while a dog wouldn't qualify, there are a few trees that would :p

It's the issue of taking steps to try to block all possible unexpected candidates. That is part of a method of maintaining a system of power for what is, in this case, an increasingly nonfunctional political system. Stop and think about the chances of a third-party candidate as well; given their current chances of gaining the Presidency, what is the practical difference between being third-party and a write-in as far as outcome?

I suppose it's theoretically possible that tens of millions of people spontaneously decide to write in Bob from Kansas, with no political campaign pushing them to do so and Bob himself being completely unaware it's happening. Practically speaking though, it's not going to happen. If someone's going to win an election noticeably larger than the 12 people who elected the dog mayor, there's going to have to be an actual campaign. The press are going to ask Bob. Bob might as well either file the paperwork or say up front he'll refuse.

Practically speaking, our political system wasn't designed for tens of millions of voters to begin with. It was designed for late 1700s to early 1800s America. Some of the checks and balances put into the system, such as the division between branches of government or the write-in candidates, are either not functioning as well or simply broken because they do not scale well. The current two-party system and the increasing voter dissatisfaction with both parties are symptoms of a political system that is increasingly malfunctioning.

This is a weird hill to die on. The idea that a spontaneous write in campaign without support from the candidate will save from anything is ludicrous. Even with the candidate working at it, it's an uphill battle. Of all the hurdles with this, the candidate declaring his candidacy is the smallest problem.

I focus upon it because it is an easy way to demonstrate both how the current system has grown corrupt and how it is no longer properly functioning. I could use the other political parties instead, but that also requires muddling through some of their less-accepted or outright-insane political ideals. So rather than deal with the most complicated aspect of it, I choose the most broken example.

And assuming your Bob from Kansas example, what actually happens is that someone else recognizes the groundswell of support for Bob and some other Bob from Kansas files the proper paperwork and takes the seat because he's obviously the one they were voting for. Or all the Bobs in Kansas show up after the election, each claiming to be the victor.

And what stopped some other Bill Clinton from taking the seat back in the 1990s? The one who ended up in office is not the only one with that name from that State.

Your challenge to my example is too absurd to even be considered.

As for Trump, most of his supporters actually like him. I'm sure there are some, as always, who just think the others were worse, but he really does have lots of very enthusiastic supporters. Not a majority, even of the Republican base, but a plurality. Same with Clinton, of course, though I think her support is much broader, but less enthusiastic.

Trump may be trolling, but the vast majority of his supporters don't think so.

The vast majority of his opponents don't think he's trolling either. And he might not be. We will see.

Joke write in candidates winning is evidence the system is set up to stop write in candidates from winning? I can't follow your logic.

You cannot have a system that does not unnaturally restrict candidates without leaving it open to the occasional joke candidate winning an election. The minimum expected percentile of votes for joke candidates ranges depending on the popularity of the available serious candidates, but you can expect at least 5% of the votes to be for candidates that might not be serious, human, sane, or even real. It's expected that, every once in awhile, you will have a case where the serious candidates are so disliked that the joke candidate wins the election. Even if that joke candidate has no idea they were actually running.

That should be enough information to follow the rest of my logic.

File the paperwork. Declare yourself a candidate. Take the one simple little step and the objection goes away. If someone's actually serious about running, even as a write in, there's so much other work to do that one little step is such a trivial hurdle it's not worth worrying about.

That's assuming it is the person being voted for who decides they should get votes directed to them. If, say, during this election a large majority of the United States decides to write in Bob From Kansas and Bob didn't even know he was liked that much, it is still the will of the people that Bob ends up President. Of course, Bob is still free to reject the role if he wishes, but it does not change that enough Americans thought him a better idea than Trump or Hillary to secure his win.

That is what the write-in system exists for. Those cases where none of the official candidates are considered worthy enough by the people and enough people can instead think of a better option. Artificially restricting that prevents such a system from working, while the current viewing of it as a joke both restricts it from working and helps keep us trapped within the two-party system.

As for your hypothetical: If they're really Hitler and Stalin and voters don't actually want Hitler or Stalin - well it's still an uphill battle, but there's nothing in the process to stop the write in from winning.

I've already linked to one State where this is categorically untrue.

The only real exception would be if for one reason or another you didn't decide to run until too late. Often that's someone who lost a primary wanting a do-over for the general election. In this case I guess we could assume that our Stalin and Hitler didn't tear off the masks and rant about how they were going to destroy the country until well after the primaries - which would explain how they got the nominations without actually having support.

Or all of the other prospective candidates were even worse and they really were the cream of the crop. This has happened a few times in real life. I've heard a few people argue that Trump is a case of this in the current election. It boils down to them believing he's not going to even try to fulfill a single campaign promise and is just running for personal entertainment, but all of his opponents both within and without the party were actually serious. That Trump is trolling the entire American political system, pretty much.

Stepping away from the hypothetical here: The real problem with a candidate like Trump isn't that the system is corrupt and set up for him to win, but that the system is working and far too many people actually like what he's spouting. Throughout the process, the polling pointed to him as the winner. By a plurality of the Republican primary voters, not an actual majority, admittedly. That scares me far more than any problems with the system. There are a lot of people out there who are seriously behind him.

Here's the scarier thought: The theory that he's just doing all of this to troll the entire American political system, and there's a serious possibility that it might secure him the title of President. At that point, our political system would have degraded to the point of being self-parody. And it's not that far from it now.

And if you think Hillary is just as bad (or even close to it) then the same should worry you on the other side. Though at least there you can just pretend she's fooled them all into thinking she's not whatever it is you're sure she is. Apparently even Bernie. Either that or the whole Sanders movement was a ploy all along. Since he started by praising her and ending by endorsing her ...

To be blunt, I think Clinton is a sock puppet. Every time in her professional life I've seen that she's had any really hard pressure on her, she's bent knee. She did it during a certain court case I brought up. She did it as First Lady when advocating for health care reform. She did it again when her husband cheated on her. And by this point, I've established the pattern of behavior.

That's why I don't like her for President. If we're going to elect a rubber stamp, how about we elect an actual rubber stamp and save on the costs of paying a person?

Kazuka wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Kazuka wrote:

The California one is that they not only have to declare themselves, but it has to be written. Which brings up an interesting question about what happens if California rejects this form from someone.

But, in any case, if you pick someone as a write-in and they haven't submitted that form, your vote simply doesn't count. One of the many interesting ways they've come up with to negate votes. Remember the hanging chads?

Sure. They're negating votes like captain yesterday's for himself. So what. Who cares?

Find me a case where it matters and we'll talk. If we see a case, even in a local election where someone would have won, but they hadn't bothered to fill in the form, then it's worth addressing. Or if they win, but somehow they'd rejected the form.

And there are practical reasons too. If by some miracle John Smith wins on a write in vote, which of the dozen John Smiths who show up at the town hall the next day gets the job? The one who declared himself a write in candidate and filled out the proper form, otherwise how would you know?

There are no cases that meet that standard. Those votes would have to be kept and tracked, and they're not. There's no data because the system isn't set up to generate that data.

If it matters? We honestly don't know. Saying it doesn't and saying it does are both the same thing: Guesses based on a complete lack of information. If that lack of information is a sign that something doesn't matter, then I concede you have a point.

That's the lovely thing about election systems. You can set it up so the results you don't want to happen not only do not happen, but simply don't matter.

Do you think think this is really happening? That there are massive underground write-in campaigns winning elections with absolutely no publicity, but getting ignored because no one bothered to fill out a form? It's a rarity when an organized write-in campaign wins. I just don't believe that spontaneous ones ever do....

Do I really think it's happening? After the Ficus Campaign and a dog being elected mayor that did end up getting covered, I really would not be surprised if there are a lot of elections where organized write-ins for ordinary people have a good chance of winning.

Also, it's indicative of one of the bigger problems: The two-party system controlling the elections. Let's say we have two primary party candidates who pretty much come down to Stalin vs. Hitler as far as how good they'll be for the nation. I mean, you pretty much don't want these people to even remain in the nation, let alone win a political office. But there's this highly popular, non-party guy who would do a good job, but isn't popular with the political parties. What are the chances of Mr. Write-in actually winning?

The reason why the write-in system even exists is for when the party-backed candidates are pretty much the same shade of terrible. And yet, the system itself is set up to make this option into a joke.

Kazuka wrote:

The California one is that they not only have to declare themselves, but it has to be written. Which brings up an interesting question about what happens if California rejects this form from someone.

But, in any case, if you pick someone as a write-in and they haven't submitted that form, your vote simply doesn't count. One of the many interesting ways they've come up with to negate votes. Remember the hanging chads?

Sure. They're negating votes like captain yesterday's for himself. So what. Who cares?

Find me a case where it matters and we'll talk. If we see a case, even in a local election where someone would have won, but they hadn't bothered to fill in the form, then it's worth addressing. Or if they win, but somehow they'd rejected the form.

And there are practical reasons too. If by some miracle John Smith wins on a write in vote, which of the dozen John Smiths who show up at the town hall the next day gets the job? The one who declared himself a write in candidate and filled out the proper form, otherwise how would you know?

There are no cases that meet that standard. Those votes would have to be kept and tracked, and they're not. There's no data because the system isn't set up to generate that data.

If it matters? We honestly don't know. Saying it doesn't and saying it does are both the same thing: Guesses based on a complete lack of information. If that lack of information is a sign that something doesn't matter, then I concede you have a point.

That's the lovely thing about election systems. You can set it up so the results you don't want to happen not only do not happen, but simply don't matter.

Kazuka wrote:

It's true everywhere. A completely blank ballot is simply discarded because it contains no usable voter data. And most are even more strict. They do vary if you skip an issue, though.

Indiana will record an undervote if you skip an issue, but at the same time limits what you make mark a ballot with and where you may mark it; marking it in an not-allowed spot by accident can have the ballot discarded. California simply doesn't count ballots for skipped questions, but also has limitations on who you may vote for.

Fair enough. It seemed like you were claiming that leaving the Presidential line blank would get your entire ballot, including your votes for other candidates, discarded. That doesn't happen anywhere. That really boils down to "If you don't vote, your vote won't be counted."

As for the other issues, sure most states limit how and where you mark the ballot. You can't just scrawl "Trump" on it in orange crayon and expect it to be counted. Indiana apparently uses Scantron machines to read the ballots - Fill in the little circles with a pen and it'll work just fine. Up until a few cycles back, we had the old lever voting machines - you didn't get to write anything at all. It's a not a big deal. Really.

As for California's law, the limitation is "must have officially declared themselves a candidate". If that ever affects the outcome, let me know and I'll worry about it. The country as a whole actually has limits on who you can vote for too: For example the presidential candidate must be at least 35 years old and a natural born citizen. The horror. The horror.

I may be taking "blank ballot" a little too literally. Sadly, I know people who have submitted completely blank ballots.

They technically don't have to be natural-born, but I doubt we're going to find someone that's around 230 years old and willing to lead the nation :p

The California one is that they not only have to declare themselves, but it has to be written. Which brings up an interesting question about what happens if California rejects this form from someone.

But, in any case, if you pick someone as a write-in and they haven't submitted that form, your vote simply doesn't count. One of the many interesting ways they've come up with to negate votes. Remember the hanging chads?

Kazuka wrote:

Berinor wrote:

Kazuka wrote:

Berinor wrote:

Feral wrote:

If my choices are status quo and slightly worse status quo, I'll just be abstaining from voting altogether.

Please consider casting a ballot even if you leave the presidential election options empty. While I am short-term pragmatic with my vote (especially in this election) and feel strongly I need to prevent one of the candidates from winning, I respect people who demand that politicians earn their vote. But casting a blank ballot is an actually measurable way of indicating disapproval of all candidates rather than the apathy that people assume is the motivation (or lack thereof) behind not voting.

It can also get your ballot discarded, depending on local vote tallying rules.

The point is that they keep records of who votes and, while it's unlikely to get that much attention, a discrepancy between number of voters and number of votes in a given race says more than missing voters.

That way there's at least data to differentiate from apathy. Also, it means it's no longer reasonable to dismiss your complaints as just laziness.

The discrepancy depends on how they count the missing voters. If it's simply people who never submitted a ballot, a discrepancy would exist. But if it's people who never submitted a proper ballot, then your blank ballot automatically gets you cast as one of the missing voters.

It also, in their eyes, potentially marks you as too lazy to fill in a ballot, thus going right back to apathy and right back to dismissing your complaints as laziness. After all, you didn't actually put in the effort to vote legitimately.

Fair. If there's a better way to provide that feedback when there's no "no confidence" option I welcome it. Until then, I will continue to advocate for getting out and casting a ballot, even if your conscience or gag reflex prevents you from voting for any candidate on the ballot.

And they do record which voters came to...

I hope one is found. Blank ballots are really not treated as anything other than a citizen just choosing not to vote.

The recording of voters is simply to prevent people from voting twice.

Kazuka wrote:

Berinor wrote:

Feral wrote:

If my choices are status quo and slightly worse status quo, I'll just be abstaining from voting altogether.

Please consider casting a ballot even if you leave the presidential election options empty. While I am short-term pragmatic with my vote (especially in this election) and feel strongly I need to prevent one of the candidates from winning, I respect people who demand that politicians earn their vote. But casting a blank ballot is an actually measurable way of indicating disapproval of all candidates rather than the apathy that people assume is the motivation (or lack thereof) behind not voting.

It can also get your ballot discarded, depending on local vote tallying rules.

Is that really true, anywhere in the US?

I know plenty of people vote the top line and ignore the smaller, local races. Their votes are still counted. I'm pretty sure they don't discard the whole ballot for leaving a spot blank, even if it's the top spot.

How they actually tally it for that race, I don't know.

It's true everywhere. A completely blank ballot is simply discarded because it contains no usable voter data. And most are even more strict. They do vary if you skip an issue, though.

Indiana will record an undervote if you skip an issue, but at the same time limits what you make mark a ballot with and where you may mark it; marking it in an not-allowed spot by accident can have the ballot discarded. California simply doesn't count ballots for skipped questions, but also has limitations on who you may vote for.

Kazuka wrote:

Berinor wrote:

Feral wrote:

If my choices are status quo and slightly worse status quo, I'll just be abstaining from voting altogether.

Please consider casting a ballot even if you leave the presidential election options empty. While I am short-term pragmatic with my vote (especially in this election) and feel strongly I need to prevent one of the candidates from winning, I respect people who demand that politicians earn their vote. But casting a blank ballot is an actually measurable way of indicating disapproval of all candidates rather than the apathy that people assume is the motivation (or lack thereof) behind not voting.

It can also get your ballot discarded, depending on local vote tallying rules.

The point is that they keep records of who votes and, while it's unlikely to get that much attention, a discrepancy between number of voters and number of votes in a given race says more than missing voters.

That way there's at least data to differentiate from apathy. Also, it means it's no longer reasonable to dismiss your complaints as just laziness.

The discrepancy depends on how they count the missing voters. If it's simply people who never submitted a ballot, a discrepancy would exist. But if it's people who never submitted a proper ballot, then your blank ballot automatically gets you cast as one of the missing voters.

It also, in their eyes, potentially marks you as too lazy to fill in a ballot, thus going right back to apathy and right back to dismissing your complaints as laziness. After all, you didn't actually put in the effort to vote legitimately.

Feral wrote:

If my choices are status quo and slightly worse status quo, I'll just be abstaining from voting altogether.

Please consider casting a ballot even if you leave the presidential election options empty. While I am short-term pragmatic with my vote (especially in this election) and feel strongly I need to prevent one of the candidates from winning, I respect people who demand that politicians earn their vote. But casting a blank ballot is an actually measurable way of indicating disapproval of all candidates rather than the apathy that people assume is the motivation (or lack thereof) behind not voting.

It can also get your ballot discarded, depending on local vote tallying rules.

I have a player who has focus issues because of ADD. He's perfectly capable of focusing, but can't always control what he's focused on. We've learned to get his attention and give him a very brief summary of what happened when we notice that problem kicked in.

It's also fun when this problem kicks in related to some random campaign detail.

Couldn't everyone vote "blank" and demand new elections with new candidates? It's like the two big political parties decided to choose their worst candidates just for the hell of it. oO

No. The general public doesn't actually elect the President.

The purpose of the vote is to tell the Electoral College how we want them to vote.

Basically, all those people who believe the individual citizen's vote doesn't matter? They're right. It's the Electoral votes that matter. That's how a President can lose the popular election but still win the Presidency; they just have to win enough Electoral votes.

You think Satan isn't a lesser evil?

He's more of an average evil.

Now, if you wanted a greater evil, there's always Cthulhu or Putin.

I say we should all write-in Satan. Lesser evils just are not doing the job anymore.

A ballroom filled with otyughs in ballgowns.

The set I have has lasted me for years and worn rather well.

That said... I didn't order them online. Check your farmer's markets and local trade shows, and don't be afraid to head out into the country a bit. If you can find a local woodworker, you can possibly get a set of high-quality wood dice made just from leftover wood they have sitting around and actually end up paying less than you would for ordering online.

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

The EU is NOT a government, no matter what paranoid Britons and others think

It is an alliance of sovereign states that agreed to work together for their mutual benefits

It never became a stronger political union than this thanks in a major part to the UK fighting it relentlessly. Which makes it even more ironic that the Leave side won because the UK citizens were afraid of that imaginary EU government.

The problem with saying 'The EU is NOT a government' is that it seems to have gone out of its way to deliberately name a lot of its institutions (such as the European Parliament, the various European Presidents, and the European Court of Justice*) as if it were a government.

It also has a 'budget'.

For an institution which isn't a government, the EU seems to like dressing up as one a lot - well, either that or the translators really messed up when translating the various names and titles of its departments and functionaries into English... :)

* The European Court of Human Rights (which should NOT be confused with the European Court of Justice) is, of course, actually (at the time of this post) an institution outside of the EU. Not that there aren't some in the UK who apparently confuse the ECHR as being an EU institution, which misconception has possibly been unfortunately aided by European treaty obligations requiring member states in some circumstances to abide by ECHR rulings. :(

Well, you do need to throw some bones to the political union aficionados so that it doesn't show too much how the free market has obliterated their dream :-)

But :

There is no President of the EU (as in higher up than the leaders of the member countries)

There is no Prime Minister or any minister/secretary of state of the EU (as in having the definite and authoritative decision on all things about governing the life of the citizens of the EU)

In fact getting European "laws" applied in member countries can take...

1. A government does not need a President, Prime Minister, or any kind of centralized leader.

2. Getting laws to apply everywhere in some nations can sometimes take decades or even a century.

3. A common foreign policy is nice, but not required. Sure, it means that particular governed group can be a nightmare to deal with, but a common foreign policy has never been required.

4. Not all governments are funded through direct taxation. And some of the ones funded that way now went a very long time without it.

5. There's a very long list of nations that have either had periods where an election was deemed widely unimportant, or which never has had an election deemed widely important.

None of those are necessary signs of a government. They are signs of certain governing styles, but not signs of a government.

I probably am reading a lot into it.

Gets to be habit after awhile. On this topic, it's usually who I see that kind of argument from and what they mean when outright asked.

-A trans woman orc who has yet to get the necessary treatments.

She wasn't intended to mess with the players on that level, but it brought the entire group to a cognitive standstill for a few moments. The only reason she ended up trans is the random gender roll said she was.

Then someone asked, "Are you serious?"

I said yeah, they told me this was cool and went on playing.

So in other news, I-1515, the attempt to put an anti-transgender rights bill on the 2016 ballot failed to make the ballot.

I'd link a story, but I can't seem to manage it on my tablet.

Here! Posting this for you :)

Ulthar, Dreamlands.

Kazuka wrote:

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

Here's some Nerd News. I love that they are just making this a natural part of the character. I don't like the stories that feel like they are forced or pandering. Just make it normal.

George Takei, the original Mr. Sulu, is gay. So to have the character he defined for multiple generations come out as gay has me dancing in my seat.

George is not a fan.

Ah. So Takei kinda feels that the new Sulu is pandering to the LGTB movement? At least, that's what I get out of his words; what he said is a pretty typical argument for a character being pandering.

That's... going to complicate discussions on Star Trek a lot. I think I'll stay out of them; there's too many people on both sides of the fence I want to slap some sense into.

It's nice that it happened but wow those movies are awful even though the guy playing bones really nails it and other tertiary characters are ok. The plots are just awful. They literally cured death in the last one. And in the previous one they figured out how to teleport long distances. Never showed up again. I mean, that literally replaces star ships without any consequences. >_<

It's not the first time in Star Trek they've cured death. Star Trek 3 had Spock's death being cured as a result of a Federation missile being the entire plot.

The missile also never shows up again. But, the treaty that bans the Federation from developing or using cloaking technology comes after this, so it's entirely possible the Federation was forced to give up on the missile and cloaking technology both just to keep the rest of the galaxy from attacking them. But, yes, the Federation has had the technology to cure death ever since the 2200s.

They've also used the transporter that way a few times. Just ask Scotty. And Riker is a case of the transporter being successfully used to clone someone.

Theoretically, this is also why it is they have no trans people; it would be as easy as sticking someone in the transporter, making the necessary alterations to their pattern while they're dematerialized, and then rematerializing them. Want to transition from man to woman? It's probably two minutes of standing around bored in what looks like a field of static and then it's done, and without any of the side-effects that modern pharmaceuticals have.

And the long range transporter technology actually does exist in Star Trek outside those movies. Sisko himself mentions using the transporter to travel between planets a lot during his days at Starfleet Academy. It's heavily implied that they have the technology to do it, but the energy costs are potentially too prohibitive to make it a regular form of travel. It's established canon that they issue energy rations to military and civilians alike, so there's definitely some kind of power limitations they're dealing with.

There's also the fact that transporters are very easily detected, easily tracked, and easily blocked; in order to transport between two places, you need to know of everything between those two places that could interfere with your transporter beam. And that's assuming the place you're beaming to doesn't have some kind of tech to block it (nearly everyone does). So, beaming from Earth to Romulus, while theoretically possible, would fail because the Romulans would just block your transporter beam. This is likely also why it is that the Borg don't just use their transporter tech and drop a bunch of drones on Earth.

There's actually a lot of minor details that hint at the Federation's utopia being mostly propaganda that the characters buy into. Quark noted that for all of its propaganda of loving peace, humanity is every bit the warrior race that Klingons are; he's one of the few characters who didn't drink the Kool Aid, and the Dominion War proves how right he is.

The new Star Trek movies don't actually pull anything new as far as what the Federation is actually capable of. They just don't try to hide some of the more ridiculous items like previous Star Treks have.

Edit: If you're wondering how Khan could use a transporter to get onto the Klingon homeworld without it being blocked, the answer is simple: The Klingons were being incredibly stupid during that period of time. The smooth-headed TOS Klingons were because they tried to augment their race using the DNA of people like Khan... who were still technically human. Add to that, they overmined their moon to the point it exploded, causing such of a crisis they were forced to ally with the Federation just to survive. That's part of why the TOS Klingons seemed so human; to a large degree, they were. It took Klingons some time to clean up all of the messes they made during this era as well as purge the humanity from their gene pool, leading to the Klingons of TNG.

Here's some Nerd News. I love that they are just making this a natural part of the character. I don't like the stories that feel like they are forced or pandering. Just make it normal.

George Takei, the original Mr. Sulu, is gay. So to have the character he defined for multiple generations come out as gay has me dancing in my seat.

"Kazuka, I know it's your turn to GM, but could you run Carrion Crown for us? I know you're a Call of Cthulhu fan..."

One of the players still wakes up screaming from nightmares about the imagery I used, another one can't hear fiddle music without feeling a growing creeping dread, and we're pretty certain a third has a permanent case of PTSD. The fourth was diagnosed with schizophrenia about a month after the campaign ended.

That is also the last time the group has ever played Carrion Crown.

I want to run it again, but people keep citing that pesky Geneva Convention.

Fast forward to this weekend?

"Hey, I notice there's this one module we never play. How about we have Kazuka GM Carrion Cr-"

The GM leaped over the table and tackled him to shut him up.

A few things.

- The joy of telling a story.

- The joy of watching my player's growing horror when they realize the evil prophesy about how to unleash doom describes everything they have done in the campaign so far.

- Watching the players, when discussing their latest self-inflicted TPK, come to the sudden realization it was caused by something innocuous I did.

- Watching one of my players go into a fetal position and have a PTSD flashback every time someone mentions Carrion Crown. I tweaked some of the descriptions a little.

- Hearing the horrified exclamations from my players when they realize two of their goals directly contradict each other... such as the sorceress the king ordered them to kill and the daughter he ordered them to rescue and bring back alive turning out to be the same person.

- The finder's fee I get from a local psychologist.

Still not Skynet. Dystopian future, though. But not Skynet.

Remember, Skynet was a highly-intelligent central computer network. NOT the Terminators or other machines under its control.

This is the closest thing to Skynet.

Master Pugwampi wrote:

Kazuka wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Kazuka wrote:

What would happen to the universe's energy supply if I edited the laws of physics to round pi off at 5 million digits when you drop below 7 physical dimensions?

Why are you rounding off edges of a pie? The crunchiness is a good thing. What kind of pie is it?

The kind that keeps the universe from randomly exploding. So, cherry.

Aren't those used for bombs? I iz confussed...

Yeah that's what I was thinking.

Kazuka might've been thinking of Strawberry, that's the stable one.

Well, the universe was started by a Big Bang. It might not be that stable.

Kazuka wrote:

What would happen to the universe's energy supply if I edited the laws of physics to round pi off at 5 million digits when you drop below 7 physical dimensions?

Why are you rounding off edges of a pie? The crunchiness is a good thing. What kind of pie is it?

The kind that keeps the universe from randomly exploding. So, cherry.

Still not Skynet.

What would happen to the universe's energy supply if I edited the laws of physics to round pi off at 5 million digits when you drop below 7 physical dimensions?

Does anyone else find it sad and kind of ironic that all this is occurring during the centennial of WWI, a time when Great Britain sent the flower of a generation to die in (primarily) France and Belgium and to defeat Germany?

And that the age group that voted to exit would be the children of that generation?

The whole thing seems surreal to me.

The children of the World War generations doing something that screws up your nation? Americans call that "Tuesday."

Hey all. Have an HRT question for the other trans ladies here, if anyone's up for a nuts and bolts question.

I've been undergoing HRT for just under two and a half years now, estradiol (sublingual) and spiro. Today, in consultation with my doctor, I'm starting on progesterone (micronized).

I've been reading about how some people cycle on and off it, like taking it for 12 days, then off it for 16 days. Other people just take it every day, no cycle, which is currently the plan for me.

I was wondering, if there are any of you here with progesterone as part of your hormone regimen, whether you cycle it or not.

Also curious as to what kind of an impact it's had on you. I've heard both good and bad things about it.

I've just recently gotten things in my life stabilized after a very rocky and exhausting two years by making a small tweak to my estradiol intake (or at least that seems to be the case), and I'd like to try and avoid going through stormy weather again if I can avoid it. Or at least be ready to batten down the hatches if I need to.

And if it's not something you'd want to discuss on the forum, feel free to PM me.

Thanks all. I'm not around here as much as I used to be, but I'm glad to see this thread and this community still going strong.

Keep a solid watch on your opinion of yourself. If you start having a down period, or find darker thoughts happen a lot more often, let your doctor know immediately. And with that combination, don't be surprised if you have more frequent headaches.

Kazuka wrote:

Smarnil le couard wrote:

ericthecleric wrote:

Interesting article.

Merkel wants Juncker to go. Of course, she nominated him in the first place!

Funny thought : without UK, the majority at the european parliament would pass from the PPE (right) to the PSE (left), leaning more toward political integration and less toward pure business and finance.

The next European Commission president will have to be designated according to this new majority... Unintended and interesting consequence.

So they've created the exact political result they were afraid of?

So it seems.

This Brexit situation is seeming incredibly familiar. Not quite the same order of events, but...

Well, if this ends up in war, I have my "I told you so" gifs already bookmarked.

ericthecleric wrote:

Interesting article.

Merkel wants Juncker to go. Of course, she nominated him in the first place!

Funny thought : without UK, the majority at the european parliament would pass from the PPE (right) to the PSE (left), leaning more toward political integration and less toward pure business and finance.

The next European Commission president will have to be designated according to this new majority... Unintended and interesting consequence.

So they've created the exact political result they were afraid of?

Boudicca succeeds in driving the Roman Empire out of the British Isles, eventually leading to the Celts being established as a regional and, later, world power.

In the modern era, Americans debate whether or not Cernunnos would have accepted gay sailors, with druids and mythology experts weighing in to support both sides of the argument. Historians debate whether or not Boudicca would have accepted modern feminism. Yet, for some strange reason, everyone is certain Brigid was a lesbian and have been for centuries, resulting in lesbians not being part of the gay rights movement because their rights were already protected. Trans people also are not part of the gay rights movement, in large part to the fact that they're met with general apathy by most of American culture and generally ended up with rights simply because no one in power cared enough to bother trying to deny those rights when the issue was finally brought up.

Christianity remains a minority population, and due in a large part to a long history of antagonism between Christians and druids, is generally viewed as a religion that encourages terrorism. Muslims are still viewed the same way as in the real world.

Unfortunately, the Native Americans have nothing they can contribute to this, since they were successfully eradicated by the Celt population over a century ago.

I just.

Is this.

I don't even.

So, how about local sports team?

In the third supplement to the original Dungeons & Dragons rules (1974-1976), Eldritch Wizardry, writer Brian Blume invented two artifacts he called the Hand and Eye of Vecna. These were supposedly the only remnants of an evil lich, Vecna, who had been destroyed long ago. The name "Vecna" is an anagram of "Vance," the surname of fantasy author Jack Vance, whose "fire-and-forget" magic system is used in Dungeons & Dragons.

Magic in DnD is described as Vancian, yet actually works via a very different method than magic in the Vance novels; in the Vance novels, people were effectively charging themselves with magical energy that was set to go off. So the limit on spells wasn't a limit on how many you could remember, but on how much energy your body could store without killing you.

I don't want to derail KSF's question so I'll be brief.

I just want to give everyone an update. My mother passed away about an hour ago. She slipped into a coma because he liver failed. She was at peace when she passed. I never called her and I wouldn't have talked about myself even if I had decided to. I am saddened that she died, but I also am glad that she's finally at peace. I don't know if she would have accepted me or not. I don't really care either way. I have had a while to think about it and I am just happy that she is no longer in pain. Her life started off horrible and barely improved.

Please, don't forget to answer KSF's questions! I wish I had answers, but I don't.

My condolences.

May your time of mourning be peaceful.

Yes, you did, and yes, you are.

You are completely misrepresenting that paper in order to prop up your rediculous claim that epidemiologists and public health officials want to keep malaria around as a treatment for syphilis.

Which is crazy.

Epidemiologists are scientists. Public health officials are politicians. I said doctors. And even then, I said some were leery of wiping malaria out, which is far different from wanting to keeping it around; that is considering that exterminating it in the wild may not necessarily be the best idea.

What you are doing is misrepresenting the paper to say there is no chance of syphilis gaining penicillin resistance in order to fight the ridiculous words you put in my mouth.

Seriously, "some doctors are leery" suddenly meaning there's a conspiracy theory to keep a disease around or that there's a collective effort among policy makers and researchers to keep it around? That's insane. This level of leaping to conclusion would impress Superman.

Way to leave out the rest of that section that discusses how the bacteria lacks the strucures and processes by which penicillin resistance develops and how there's been no signs of it in over sixty years of use of penicillin G. That paragraph mentions a route that it could acquire it, despite how unlikely it is.

The article is quite clear, but you still misread it.

Your conclusion is only accurate if one completely ignores the entire section of the discussion on penicillin resistance that comes after that, including the conclusion.

"It is important to note that the absence of documented penicillin resistance in T. pallidum after more than 6 decades of its use for treatment of syphilis suggests that the development of penicillin resistance will likely require a multistep mutational process whose probability of occurrence is much rarer than those of the single point mutations that are responsible for macrolide resistance. Although this may have forestalled the emergence of penicillin-resistant T. pallidum, it provides no guarantee that such resistance will not emerge."

I didn't misread the article. I'm just not dismissing the parts of it that don't fit with my worldview.

Um, that's not what that article says at all.

"However, Cha et al. (8) showed that Tp47, an abundant, membrane-bound lipoprotein that was initially identified and characterized by Norgard and colleagues (12, 82), binds penicillin and has high β-lactamase activity that is subject to strong product inhibition. Furthermore, Cha et al. (8) hypothesized that if a mutant variant of Tp47 emerges that overcomes the product inhibition of its β-lactamase activity, this would confer novel, bona fide resistance to penicillin."

The article is pretty clear.

Since there's no evidence of penicillin resistant T pallidum, malariotherapy hasn't ever been used for almost seventy years anday we have much better ways to employ pyrotheray that have lower mortality rates than malariotherapy's 15% I seriously doubt that anyone is arguing against malaria eradication on those grounds.

No evidence for penicillin resistance yet, but the mechanisms necessary for resistance have already been found. At this point, we're praying it doesn't make the necessary mutation.

Kazuka wrote:

It's not about being able to study the disease. It's about being rapidly able to infect a large population with malaria to counter a syphilis epidemic. That is one scenario where storing it in a lab potentially is the less effective option. And as insane as it sounds, medical science once considered syphilis to be worse.

And what you're saying is that there's a conspiracy to not eradicate malaria, leaving millions of people sick if not dead, because there's the possibility of a syphilis outbreak that we're going to have to counter with a malaria outbreak, despite malaria not being very prevalent in a lot of areas you would want to use it in.

The people in tin foil hats still call that crazy.

Considering a conspiracy theory is precisely not what I'm saying, you're right. That is crazy.

There's a difference between "leery" and "conspiracy theory." Learn it. Because if every time you see the idea someone is leery of something and think they're in some kind of conspiracy, then you're the one with the tinfoil hat issue.

And do you really think it would be that difficult to introduce a malaria outbreak in areas we'd need one in to counter syphilis in this era?

Kazuka wrote:

There's also the fact that malaria is one of the treatments for syphilis and modern antibiotic-resistance has made some doctors leery of calling for malaria's extermination.

That is an utterly absurd line of reasoning. You can keep something stored in a lab somewhere like polio in the off hand chance you need to study it. It doesn't need to be out in the wild.

I can tell you first hand how much malaria sucks.

It's not about being able to study the disease. It's about being rapidly able to infect a large population with malaria to counter a syphilis epidemic. That is one scenario where storing it in a lab potentially is the less effective option. And as insane as it sounds, medical science once considered syphilis to be worse.

There are those working to exterminate it, but to date every attempt has failed. From the DDT-chloroquine program of the 1950s and 1960s that ended in the World Health Organization abandoning attempts to exterminate malaria to the modern efforts with artemisinin, they've had one problem: Cambodia. From that nation arises the new, highly-resistant strains of malaria that quickly spread all over the globe. As long as Cambodia exists, all efforts at eradication end in failure.

So, since we can't eradicate it anyway, how insane the reasons are for keeping it around may be is ultimately pointless; it's sticking around no matter what. We might as well see if there's a potential use for it.

Sissyl wrote:

My only point is that, at least within medicine, race is a relevant issue. It rarely comes up, but when it does, you need to be aware of it. Humanity is far from random genes. Study of the differences and similarities of race is not by itself, blasphemy. The difference between humans is enormous, startling and magnificent, and it should not lead to morons saying one configuration is better than some other.

That said, it does. Morons will always mistreat others for the flimsiest reasons. Whether you are fat, thin, male, female, black, white, or have a patch on your jeans, you will be targeted. Perhaps we shouldn't give the morons ammunition? But when it comes to medical biochemistry, please let us not ignore what knowledge we have and say "lalala he said race he must be racist!!!"

I don't think you're automatically racist for saying race. I think that, given the specificity of testing available at this point, describing the characteristics that rarely come up but matter when they do as race seems equivalent to using the terminology of the four humors when we're able to type blood.

Unfortunately, when it comes to bloodtyping as an analogy, the four humors are about as accurate as anything else we have access to. A lot of modern medical science in practice is the equivalent of sniffing a vial of blood and going, "Okay, I'm pretty sure this came from a chicken..."

Just because the testing exists doesn't mean there's that many people doing it or that it's commonly-available. That is why we don't do a full biochemistry work-up on everyone, or even most people, but instead rely on averages and norms.

People tend to seriously overestimate how advanced we are in certain fields. Medical science is one of them.

I just noticed that the census we got up here in Canada never asked for race. The closest it got to asking about race was asking about your native language.

Sorry for jumping right to page 4 and not reading everything, but aren't there medications that have a different effect on different "races?" I remember on M*A*S*H there was some medication that had some super nasty side effects on people of Mediterranean descent (Which immediately caught my attention) but was a lot easier on people that are, well, not.

Some medications, such as HIV drugs, vary based on race. All medications vary based on birth sex. They can also vary based on height, weight, level of physical activity...

Basically, race is one of the major factors, but it's far from the only one. And some factors, such as birth sex, have a more far-ranging effect.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Kazuka wrote:

That 12%? That can be sold as "we help the disadvantaged, those ignored by the rest." And that does sell

Not nearly as well as profit. Garbage is kinda harsh and pretty unwarranted.

It doesn't matter if you dislike the idea of human races anyway: the people making the money are going to use it no matter what because it's real and it effects the bottom line. Its a big reason there's no cure for malaria: It doesn't affect places that have the money to fix it.

Well, that aND over use of DDT for agricultural purposes rather than disease control lead to most mosquitos bring resistant to it. Also a vaccine is kind of hard to make since it's a parasite, not a bacteria or virus and it's.a quick evolving one at that. Then theres the general difficulty of educational efforts relating to it in the remote places its still endemic. Malaria's continued prevalence in Africa (minty percent of cases are in Africa) has a lot to do with economics, but it's hardly the only reason.

There's also the fact that malaria is one of the treatments for syphilis and modern antibiotic-resistance has made some doctors leery of calling for malaria's extermination.

It's one of those medical discoveries that earned a Nobel Prize, since it was the first effective cure for that disease.

Kazuka wrote:

That 12%? That can be sold as "we help the disadvantaged, those ignored by the rest." And that does sell

Not nearly as well as profit. Garbage is kinda harsh and pretty unwarranted.

It doesn't matter if you dislike the idea of human races anyway: the people making the money are going to use it no matter what because it's real and it effects the bottom line. Its a big reason there's no cure for malaria: It doesn't affect places that have the money to fix it.

They used a racist statement to try to support their point. Harsher may have been warranted, but I felt it best to be polite.

It can sell very well through indirect sales. Remember when, suddenly, the television was flooded with ads for drugs to treat Hepatitis C? Hep C sufferers are not a majority of the population by far, yet there was a massive amount of money spent on that campaign.

The idea is that you want the 88% to buy, but you know they're already targeted massively by advertising and probably will ignore more directed at them. So, you advertise to the 12% instead, but do it as loudly as possible so you draw attention from the 88%. There will be people who notice you're helping this minority group and who will purchase purely for that reason. And they'll potentially tell friends and families.

It's also why companies like to advertise charity donations.

Kazuka wrote:

Scythia wrote:

There is a good reason not to link race (or any social grouping) and disorders/illnesses. If a condition is something only "those people" (whoever isn't the dominant group) get, then it will not receive significant research attention or funding. By declaring a condition to be a feature of race, it decreases the chances of effective treatments or cures being found.

Only if the people who control the research and funding are all racists, and even then not necessarily.

Well, not really. Also anyone who is driven by profit, or anyone seeking acclaim. Which has more potential to make money and draw positive attention: A treatment for a condition generally confined to 12% or less of the population (in the U.S.) and an economically disadvantaged group at that, or a condition that can strike anyone.

I cut off the rest of your post because it was garbage reasoning.

The answer is both. It's all in how you sell it.

That 12%? That can be sold as "we help the disadvantaged, those ignored by the rest." And that does sell. The other 88% may not have any use for that particular product, but they're certainly going to be paying attention to the rest of your products to see if there's something for them. And then, when you do introduce something for them, they're going to be more likely to buy it because they already view you in a more favorable light.

Companies do this all of the time. There are entire brands devoted to this marketing strategy. How do you think the gluton-free fad got started?