>> Ask Ashiel Anything <<


Off-Topic Discussions

2,501 to 2,550 of 3,562 << first < prev | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rpol?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

http://rpol.net/

roleplay online.

It lacks much of the secondary forums, such as the game design forum which got deleted recently, as they are only allowed when volunteers moderate them, though the community there is pretty good.

I will say though, read the rules. They are not super sticklers for the most part, but there are some unexpected rules, I.E. no multiple accounts allowed. (though given the a gm can make any number of characters for you in their games, you really don't need multiple accounts)

They have an excellent dice roller that can have the default set by the gm and has options for specialty rolling for tons of systems, drawing cards, etc. They even allow you to roll different sized dice and add the results together and keeps a log of dice rolls and who made them.

Each game is like a forum moderated by the gm including multiple threads, characters with sheets, a 'notepad', and othr useful tools.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Rpol?

Rpol.net is a play by post website. When you set up a campaign you can, essentially, create new aliases that only function within that campaign.

I've used it a time or two for some games we played to handle stuff that didn't need to be handled at the table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:


IMHO, I think Mods should have to cite a rule when they remove a post and explain why the post was removed. IIRC, the mods at GITP do exactly that.

IIRC, one of the mods (Chris, maybe?) said explicitly that they want to keep the forum rules a secret. I'll see if I can find it....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:

I remember getting a 3 day ban here for Sarcasm. Still have the email saved informing ke of it.

Can you imagine the emptiness of this site if that rule were enforced?

No, I can't imagine it!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It hurts in my soul.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


IMHO, I think Mods should have to cite a rule when they remove a post and explain why the post was removed. IIRC, the mods at GITP do exactly that.
IIRC, one of the mods (Chris, maybe?) said explicitly that they want to keep the forum rules a secret. I'll see if I can find it....

Yep, I found it.

It was a response to this thread. In case one (or both) of the above links break (seems to happen a lot on this website even when posts aren't being deleted), here are the relevant posts:
In the OP of that thread, 137ben wrote:

A little while ago, I created a silly/joke thread. It was locked a mere 20 minutes after creation, and all replies were deleted.

While it is the first time this happened to me, it is not the first time I have seen silly threads get locked almost immediately. Hence, the inquiry in the topic of this thread: is there a forum rule against satirical/comical threads? Are such threads required to be in a specific subforum?

If such a rule does exist, I request that it be stated in the Community Guidelines, or somewhere else visible to the public. I believe making the 'real' forum rules (i.e., the rules being enforced) match the publicly stated forum rules would make it easier for users to comply with the rules.

And the response was

Chris Lambertz wrote:

Silly/joking threads aren't something we're against or something not OK under our Community Guidelines. However, historically, we don't keep "parody threads" open (parody being a direct parallel of an existing contentious thread, riffing on an individual or group that within our community in a negative way, or similar). Why don't we keep them open? Because more often than not it isolates people, brings out the "mean" side of people, and ultimately doesn't serve to keep our forums a fun or friendly place. This would fall under the "baiting" portion of the Guidelines.

We do not explicitly spell out "don't do this" or "these threads aren't allowed" because, well, we're a site that caters to gamers. And, more often than not, explicit rules are just asking to be gamed or exploited.

As an aside, I will admit that I missed some key language in the post that indicated that it was a sarcastic, which is totally my bad (it has been a long and fatiguing week in the wake of PaizoCon, and that's not an excuse, but just trying to give context for my own flub), and have revised my post locking the thread.

So, that is probably why they don't cite what rule is broken when they delete a post: citing the broken rule would reveal part of the forum rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

and god forbid your forum users know the forum rules. wouldn't want to be able to distinguish between an infraction made in good faith and one made with the intent of subverting authority.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd also say it's a good idea to archive any post you put any amount of work into. That doesn't just go for Paizo.com posts: other fora have downtime, glitches that cause posts to go missing, and occasionally go off the internet entirely. In the particular case of Paizo.com posts deleted because they contained objectionable (to a moderator) content, you can supposedly recover the text of those posts by e-mailing Paizo customer service. In practice, though, they don't always respond, and if they do respond they often don't supply the deleted text. And, of course, they can't help you recover a post if it was eaten by a forum glitch and not by a mod.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cuatroespada wrote:
and god forbid your forum users know the forum rules. wouldn't want to be able to distinguish between an infraction made in good faith and one made with the intent of subverting authority.

Direct from the FBI: a lack of intent to break the rules makes you not open to punishment for breaking said rules.


not really what i was getting at, but i don't really care enough to explain.


Tels wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
and god forbid your forum users know the forum rules. wouldn't want to be able to distinguish between an infraction made in good faith and one made with the intent of subverting authority.
Direct from the FBI: a lack of intent to break the rules makes you not open to punishment for breaking said rules.

I think he was getting at the idea that the FBI is actively keeping people from knowing the law so that they can bust them for it when they unknowingly make an infraction.

The idea that posting the rules would be bad because someone would make them mad while not actually breaking the rules is both madness and tyranny. The idea that not explaining why posts were removed somehow helping the situation is equally insane.


There are two sad aspects about that you mat have missed,

First, it sounds reasonable enough that someone might actually believe it.

Second, there really are folks who seem to live for the sole purpose of subverting rules, gaming the system in their favor, destroying whatever nice things others have with the added challamge of doing it within the rules, and who love to see how far they can push tjings while staying within the rules via technicalities.

Also, it is possible they don't have set rules and simply run on the judgment of moderators, but of course are unwilling to admit that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Still practicing my painting. I think I'm getting better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Still practicing my painting. I think I'm getting better.

Getting better is against the rules!


Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Still practicing my painting. I think I'm getting better.
Getting better is against the rules!

This is kind of fan art. That might also be against the rules though, because htf would we know?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cuatroespada wrote:
not really what i was getting at, but i don't really care enough to explain.

I think he's referring to Hilary Clinton's email debacle.

The FBI director listed a number of ways she broke the law, then said he couldn't prove her intent and no one would prosecute her.


Kryzbyn wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
not really what i was getting at, but i don't really care enough to explain.

I think he's referring to Hilary Clinton's email debacle.

The FBI director listed a number of ways she broke the law, then said he couldn't prove her intent and no one would prosecute her.

Ahhh, I see. :o


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
not really what i was getting at, but i don't really care enough to explain.

I think he's referring to Hilary Clinton's email debacle.

The FBI director listed a number of ways she broke the law, then said he couldn't prove her intent and no one would prosecute her.
Ahhh, I see. :o

Lack of intent has never stopped someone from being prosecuted for breaking the law in the past.

"I didn't intend to speed, officer, I was just extremely careless. Can I get a Hillary Pass?"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I can not stand that woman.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
I can not stand that woman.

You're not the only one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

On the subject of Mods employees: for the longest time I had no problem with them. And, still, to most of them, I'm fine - more than, even.

However, on a couple of occasions, I've been repudiated by an employee for... well, I'm not entirely sure, honestly. In the most notable event, I think she presumed I was attempting to shame someone, or something.

It seems like she felt that I had to be doing something spiteful because I was a conservative Christian (especially in light of subsequent posts by that employee that I've seen, making her personal opinion of such groups abundantly clear), though I'm willing to give it a pass - it's possible that she just really misinterpreted me and my personal beliefs just happened to be on display while she mistook my intent.

(Frankly, at the time, I felt more like I'd actually made a mistake somewhere than I do now.)

That said, despite the fact that she was an employee, and against my entire thread, the moderator staff eventually sided with me - that is, at least, they thought about it, decided my intent wasn't malicious, and that there was a viable discussion to be had, and that the thread (for the most part) wasn't toxic. Based on that, they allowed the thread to stay, and most of my posts (though they deleted everything that directly engaged the employee in question, and vice verse).

To me, that situation clearly exposed something about the moderator staff - something that 137ben's post does: that the staff is excepted to perform miracles with nothing to work with.
(It also shows an underlying, to me very alien, line of thought that seems prevalant at Paizo of, "If I don't acknowledge it, maybe it never happened." that is as true in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting as it is on the Pathfinder Forums. It's a side matter, but I find that when the ret-cons are just assumed, and not acknowledge that it leaves me extremely confused. At least on the forums, it's noted that a moderator did something.)

The moderators seem to be expected (by their job) to show preferential treatment to Paizo employees (something I find understandable, as, you know, they're the actual employees, here, and company solidarity is a thing*), treat everyone equally (the ideal, but not usually all that possible), divine intent (requiring a combination of a great Sense Motive, actual divination, and probably something genuinely impossible), allow a free-form forum with few direct rules (to avoid the ever-present genuine problem of over-regulation), and to make the ever-ambiguous "right decision" about all of that.

I think the mods are doing a pretty great job under that paradigm - I don't necessarily agree with the paradigm, but neither to I disagree with the sentiment that hard, explicit rules can be problematic. The reason is: I've seen it. I've watch a forum die under those hard, explicit rules - even when they weren't that bad.

The thing is, I'd consider Paizo a place where CG-to-NG range is the ideal - the system they're going for is a pretty classical Individualist Government, where important individuals apply their own understanding of benevolence, tempered by grace, tempered by freedom, tempered by kindness, tempered by considerateness.

To quote:

Quote:

My soul is good, but free. Laws have no conscience. Blind order promotes disorder. Goodness cannot be learned just from a book of prayer. Compassion does not wear a uniform. The smallest act of kindness is never wasted. Repay kindness with kindness. Be kind to someone in trouble—it may be you who needs kindness the next day.

Core Concepts: Benevolence, charity, freedom, joy, kindness, mercy, warmth

A chaotic good character cherishes freedom and the right to make her own way. She might have her own ethics and philosophy, but is not rigidly held by them. She may try to do good each day, perhaps being kind to a stranger or giving money to those less fortunate, but does so purely out of joy. Such a character makes up her own mind up about what is good and right based upon truth and facts, but does not fool herself that evil acts are good. Her goodness is benevolent—perhaps occasionally blind, but always well meant.

A chaotic good character can seem unpredictable, giving alms to an unfortunate outside a church but refusing to make a donation within. She trusts her instincts and could put more stock in the words of a beggar with kind eyes than the teachings of a harsh-looking bishop. She might rob from the rich and give to the poor, or spend lavishly for her own joy and that of her friends. In extreme cases, a chaotic good character may seem reckless in her benevolence.

Though, of course, it has hints of NG, instead,

Quote:

Do the best I can. See the good in everyone. Help others. Work toward the greater good. My soul is good, regardless of how I look. Never judge a book by its cover. Devotion to the goodness in life does not require approval. Charity begins at home. Be kind.

Core Concepts: Benevolence, charity, considerateness, goodness, humaneness, kindness, reason, right

A neutral good character is good, but not shackled by order. He sees good where he can, but knows evil can exist even in the most ordered place.

A neutral good character does anything he can, and works with anyone he can, for the greater good. Such a character is devoted to being good, and works in any way he can to achieve it. He may forgive an evil person if he thinks that person has reformed, and he believes that in everyone there is a little bit of good.

The end-goal, of course, being to repudiate lawful evil - i.e. violating the spirit of the rules for the intent.

In the end, neither of those function quite as well as hoped, I think, but that's due to human nature - everyone fails, to some extent.

I think their ultimate goal is, "Don't be a jerk." and they attempt to keep that in-focus... but sometimes they misinterpret what is and is not being a jerk, or their definition disagrees with someone else's. That's to be expected. I think, for that system, that paradigm, they do a solid job. The moderators, at least, have never made me feel unwanted or uncomfortable - I may not always agree with their decision, but I can, at least, respect what they're trying to do, and respect them. And I think that's ultimately what they're asking for - respect people and their decisions, be kind, don't be a jerk.

I agree that their decisions aren't always perfect - far from it. And a few of their mandates are contradictory or frustrating. Buu~uut, that's how it goes at times. It's not really that bad, all things, considered - at least, I've been in far worse communities that purported to follow rules.
(I still prefer my lawful good communities, but, you know, that's just me, and I'm willing to point out positives of less-lawful-ones.)

:)

* I'll note that I disagree with the company's general method of handling it, but I respect the idea that, as I don't own this company, they can legitimately come to a different conclusion than I. It's their company. I'll continue to disagree with them, but it's not automatically a deal-breaker. At present.

EDIT: For a bit of clarity.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

"Don't be a jerk" should go both ways, I reckon.


Kryzbyn wrote:
"Don't be a jerk" should go both ways, I reckon.

I agree. I think that's where much of the "failure" part comes in - that and it's not always evenly meted. But the latter is easily explainable as "human error" - and it's common no matter what. It's just easier to disagree with in a less structured environment (such as this) where individual interpretation seems to be given preference).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's a sketch I just did to practice some more. I was working on practicing values, painting, blending, etc.

Youthful bravery.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

@Tacticslion.

Perhaps the issues I have on that subject is that I'm Lawful Good. :)
EDIT: And have spent time as a moderator on some sites and a GM on some MMOs. A strong sense of professionalism mixed with a strong set of rules and framework leads to much success. It's something a teenager with a decent sense of reflection can do.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm Neutral!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
not really what i was getting at, but i don't really care enough to explain.

I think he's referring to Hilary Clinton's email debacle.

The FBI director listed a number of ways she broke the law, then said he couldn't prove her intent and no one would prosecute her.
Ahhh, I see. :o

Lack of intent has never stopped someone from being prosecuted for breaking the law in the past.

"I didn't intend to speed, officer, I was just extremely careless. Can I get a Hillary Pass?"

yeah now that i've slept... i was never trying to suggest that lack of intent should get one a pass, but instead that it would be nice to be able to identify people attempting to subvert the rules just to be a pain so you could deal with them in a more long term manner sooner. if the rules aren't explicit, it's more difficult to fairly say "this person is just trying to give us a hard time."


We are too hung up on technicalities. "Well, technically, what I said is true..." isn't a phrase that anyone should be proud of, or give anyone a free pass. If one is deceitful, or otherwise intentionally dishonest, technicalities don't matter, except possibly in a legal sense. This is the lens people should view their world through, and judge actions, not through technical gotchas. IMHO, of course. I think we'd see better political discourse if that were the case. But, I digress...

On a message board forum, a person could "technically" skirt the rules, but the mods would still have the power to say "you've gone too far" and take appropriate action, and not abide intentional abuse, even if the rules are posted.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

We are too hung up on technicalities. "Well, technically, what I said is true..." isn't a phrase that anyone should be proud of, or give anyone a free pass. If one is deceitful, or otherwise intentionally dishonest, technicalities don't matter, except possibly in a legal sense. This is the lens people should view their world through, and judge actions, not through technical gotchas. IMHO, of course. I think we'd see better political discourse if that were the case. But, I digress...

On a message board forum, a person could "technically" skirt the rules, but the mods would still have the power to say "you've gone too far" and take appropriate action, and not abide intentional abuse, even if the rules are posted.

A little communication goes a long way. I've had to GM for a few persistent world games and have had to perform rulings when people tried to abuse rules. It's not particularly difficult to deal with special case scenarios when someone is trying to abuse the rules, nor is it particularly hard to revise the rules if something comes up after the fact.

I once GMed for a persistent world where players received credits for playing for participating in a session. Another sub-GM and his friend tried to exploit the community's participation rules by him running her a ton of very short sessions over the course of a game, running games that lasted about 20 minutes, declaring them "over", and then continuing after a 5 minute break, so that he could "legally" give her a ton of bonus session XP so she would level faster than everyone else in the community.

It was brought up for review, overruled, and the rules adjusted slightly and with explanation for why this was a subversion of the spirit of the rules and wouldn't be allowed.


Also, feel free to let me know what works or what's s*** with the pics I'm posting (or even simply if you like or dislike). >_>

Feedback is helpful. 6_6


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've liked them all so far. There's a commonality to them that seems to note your own style. I like the anime/comic blend you have going.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm more lawful neutral these days. It seems that everything put in front of you needs to be reviewed and can't be taken at face value, and morality is subjective. In my own head, I'm lawful good, but to the world I'm probably only neutral.


TheAlicornSage wrote:

There are two sad aspects about that you mat have missed,

First, it sounds reasonable enough that someone might actually believe it.

Second, there really are folks who seem to live for the sole purpose of subverting rules, gaming the system in their favor, destroying whatever nice things others have with the added challamge of doing it within the rules, and who love to see how far they can push tjings while staying within the rules via technicalities.

Also, it is possible they don't have set rules and simply run on the judgment of moderators, but of course are unwilling to admit that.

>there really are folks who seem to live for the sole purpose of subverting rules...

That is rather easilly fixed. If someone seems to technically abide by the rules, but is clearly being a horrible person, moderator could make a question asking the community if something should be done about it. If people agree, appropriate action could be taken, even though the person, technically, did nothing wrong.

Rest of the time, I would rather have the mods abide by the rules than use their own "good judgement".


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
I'm more lawful neutral these days. It seems that everything put in front of you needs to be reviewed and can't be taken at face value, and morality is subjective. In my own head, I'm lawful good, but to the world I'm probably only neutral.

Considering Paizo's views on morality, I am probably "any Evil".


Tacticslion wrote:
However, on a couple of occasions, I've been repudiated by an employee for... well, I'm not entirely sure, honestly. In the most notable event, I think she presumed I was attempting to shame someone, or something.

I wish to mention that, though I have lost some of the awe of/easy comradere with said employee, I still respect her. She certainly seems well educated and I certainly accept that she knows a great deal. Though these expressions and situations have harmed an (vague as this is, across Internet forum space) emotional connection (or something), it did not diminish her, as a person or a professional.

I solidly agree that Paizo's policies are, perhaps, lacking in some regards.

The actual mods, though - those guys, I think, are attempting to keep afloat a leaky boat with a combination of gumption and willpower. I suspect, it's a combination of inherited systems from way back when (awesome as people are, eventually electronics change, and I'm unsure how much of their code is inhereted and how much is clean slate)"; bit have problems); and Paizo's conflicting goals (neither of which is wrong, but following both of which is... difficult).

Paizo wants to have the closeness and comradere of a small company, and in many ways, they are. It's (un?)fortunate, though, that they're growth has opened their forum to become something different than it once was. Beyond that, many people in the community have grown and changed over the years, as well; they become different than how they were. New people come in, some old people go and some stay, employees change and remain, and undergo personal shifts. This means that people, faces, numbers, kinds, and styles change all while being the same place.

I cannot imagine trying to wrangle that chaos. I'm appreciative of those who try.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
I've liked them all so far. There's a commonality to them that seems to note your own style. I like the anime/comic blend you have going.

Thanks. Glad to hear it. :)

Here's a little somethin'-somethin' I'm drawing for my friend Arcane Knowledge. It's a scene from a really old game of ours. It's still a WIP.

Bubble invasion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can you draw a dinosaur?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
Can you draw a dinosaur?

Gimme 10 minutes to see what I can sketch out.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Super rough 1-layer dinosaur?
EDIT: I feel strangely compelled to quote Marvel Super Heroes' (the old video game) Spiderman and shout "Here's one for J.J.!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's a dinosaur. I approve of this.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Manager

Folks, the commentary on paizo.com moderation is getting a bit off-topic for this thread. You are welcome to take the discussion to Website Feedback or email community@paizo.com if you have questions or concerns regarding our moderation policy..


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What topic is that? EDIT: This is literally a thread for talking to me about anything someone wants to talk to me about, and ask any questions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Still a WIP.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
That's a dinosaur. I approve of this.

Humorously, if you'd not asked, I would've probably said "nope". However, you asked, and I've been trying to step outside my comfort zone to progress faster. I've also learned a lot of nice techniques that help me remember to just throw some shapes on the page and run with it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am going to point out that that isn't just any ordinary dinosaur, it is clearly at the very least Dinosaur(Wizard 3), considering the visible effects of the Blur spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
I am going to point out that that isn't just any ordinary dinosaur, it is clearly at the very least Dinosaur(Wizard 3), considering the visible effects of the Blur spell.

Frighteningly, Tyrannosaur have enough HD that they could totally hide really well despite their size and Dexterity with a blur active.

In fact, it'd probably be a lot like that one dinosaur from Jurassic World. :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I visit the off-topic discussions for the first time in... A while... And I see this topic is still afloat.

Now... IIRC, I owe someone a good shoveling... XD


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Do I need to say I told you so? I don't think I do.


Tels wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
not really what i was getting at, but i don't really care enough to explain.

I think he's referring to Hilary Clinton's email debacle.

The FBI director listed a number of ways she broke the law, then said he couldn't prove her intent and no one would prosecute her.
Ahhh, I see. :o

Lack of intent has never stopped someone from being prosecuted for breaking the law in the past.

"I didn't intend to speed, officer, I was just extremely careless. Can I get a Hillary Pass?"

Are you aware of how ignorant this post is of how the law actually works? Even if it was intended to be sarcastic, it comes across as dangerously uninformed. Lack of intent in fact stops people from being prosecuted literally every day, in virtually every jurisdiction. Which is working as intended. And that's a very good thing.

2,501 to 2,550 of 3,562 << first < prev | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >> Ask Ashiel Anything << All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.