Minor game stuff from around the web for commentary...

[Josh_Kablack]

I find it more fair when PCs and NPCs operate under the same basic rules. Everybody casts the same fireball, even if their caster level is different.

Fairness aside, it's a heckofalot easier to understand a game where the same rules cover multiple cases of the fantastic elements than a game where each such case has its own different rule.

And fantasy game which is easier to understand is also easier to MC for as well as play in, since players and MCs have better ideas how those fantastic elements which are not modeled by reality are supposed to work. But hey, a lot of gamer partisans on the internet like complexity for the sake of adding an exclusion barrier to the game they like. These folks don't realize the extra work they are making for themselves, but you really can't talk them out of it. Ignore them. Don't buy any games they work on and go about your life.

[Zak S]

The Supreme Court has rejected prior restraint by the fucking government because of the first amendment. You know who can still institute prior restraint? The goddam fucking MLB, or sandlot baseball, if they want.

..and sandlot baseball has not instituted prior restraint, nor is whatshisface saying sandlot baseball is broken for not having this rule. So you have no point. You epic moron.

But you know what else shitmuffin? Punishing someone for saying mean things is not prior restraint.

Yeah, I said that. Prior restraint is Prior to the act. Please try to keep up, small troll.

let them say the shitty thing and then punish them appropriately afterword.

Yesh: that's what I said you should do. That's also what you do in baseball. That is not prior restraint. That's (contra dumbass) totally possible to do. That's also why I pointed out the Supreme Court rejected prior restraint.

You really need to read more carefully.

[PhoneLobster]

Now, now. We don't compare writing dicks on the Den. Besides, I'm pretty sure I put out more material last year than Justin Bieber has in the last two.

It is perfectly reasonable to refer to the fact that Justin Bieber's back catalog and local performances include a great deal of material supporting the claim that Justin Bieber thinks he makes spontaneously perfect material that is he then uses forever without changing or correcting.

[Kaelik]

let them say the shitty thing and then punish them appropriately afterword.

Yesh: that's what I said you should do. That's also what you do in baseball. That is not prior restraint. That's (contra dumbass) totally possible to do. That's also why I pointed out the Supreme Court rejected prior restraint.

You really need to read more carefully.

No you complete and utter idiot. Writing a law or rule that specifically says "If you say the word fuck we will kick you out of the game" is actually not prior restraint, but that is literally the actual thing you said we shouldn't do.

Because you are an idiot. And you don't understand what prior restraint means. Because you are not a lawyer. So stop pretending that you know the fucking law better than a lawyer you fucking idiot.

[DSMatticus]

If he is actually sad because he has a +1 bonus to charisma checks thereafter, he is:

One: the value of the bonus in the original rule from your blog is unspecified, as is the bonus in my post. Furthermore, the value of the bonus itself is inconsequential to the hypothetical: the only thing that is important is that, as a result of the bonus, the musician-but-not-diplomat is a better diplomat than the diplomat-but-not-musician. To attempt to retroactively specify a value for the bonus that is literally as small as possible to score points through rhetoric is deceitful and shitbaggy.

Two: You should stop making shit up and attributing it to your opponents. No where in my post do I describe the player of musician-but-not-diplomat sad because he received a bonus to charisma checks. I described him (and player B) as sad because as a result of that bonus to charisma checks he is the party's best diplomat, which sets up perverse incentives that confront both player A and player B with an unpleasant choice. That is fundamentally different than being pissed that you got a +1 to something you don't care about. You are being deceitful and shitbaggy.

Then there are a bajillion other things besides music this person can do to curry favor that would cost as much or less money and (in game and out) time to curry favor.

One: you are modifying the situation and the rule. The original rule is very simple - if you make a successful musical performance with this piece of equipment, you get a bonus. It doesn't describe non-musical alternatives and it doesn't specify that the bonus fails to stack with those other sources. Musician-but-not-diplomat is still the better diplomat, because any of those things the diplomat might do the musician can also do.

Two: I know you are going to argue that you aren't really modifying the rule because the original rule supersecretly had those aspects all along and it's my fault for criticizing what you wrote instead of what you meant. But I'm going to decapitate that argument right now: if the original rule was meant to have viable alternatives, then there would be no reason to describe it as potentially having the effect of incentivizing everyone to become a violinist. The original complaint that you set out to knock down only makes sense if there are no viable alternatives and the violin is in fact a unique and irreplaceable bonus. So no, the above is not an honest mistake - you are being deceitful and shitbaggy.

If they don't want to and it takes time: yes. The players will (as is so often the case) have to think of a clever work-around.

The party wants to convince the King that they're worthy of being granted holdings for their services to him. The quickest and most effective way to to do so is a charisma check. If they succeed, the party can go on to play the lords and ladies campaign arc they very much want to. If they fail, then they will not be able to do so without first wasting time on other things they are less interested in. Musician-but-not-diplomat has the best chance of getting the party what they want.

You are making utility arguments about what players want, but you are not considering the fact that players also have goals for their characters and for the story. Accomplishing these goals is valuable, either in and of itself or because it moves the players closer to the game they want to be playing and/or the story they want to be telling. You're seriously arguing that people should cockblock themself in the name of fun. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

Remember: if the diplomat-but-not-musician was better at diplomacy than the musician-but-not-diplomat, then this situation would be resolved with the diplomat doing the diplomacy he wants to do, the musician not doing the diplomacy he didn't want to do, and the party maximizing their odds of getting the result they want. That is a better outcome in every way than what you are advocating - it's getting to eat your cake and have it too. And it is that way specifically because the rules do a better job of incentivizing the experience the players signed up for.

It's wrong for them to be so petty and competitive about it, for starters

That is the second time you have fabricated a position and tried to attribute it to me in this post alone. Nothing even remotely like competition is described anywhere in the hypothetical. It's very simple: musician-but-not-diplomat is better at achieving the party's goals through diplomacy than diplomat-but-not-musician. This means that anytime a diplomacy/charisma check could be used to advance the interests of the players (either in game or out of game), it is in the best interests of the party to have the musician-but-not-diplomat to make the check. This makes musician-but-not-diplomat unhappy, because he wants to achieve the party's goals but does not want to be the party's diplomat. This makes diplomat-but-not-musician unhappy, because he wants to be the party's diplomat but does not want to hurt the odds of achieving the party's goals. That is not a competition. Both characters have the same goal, and are acting cooperatively, but the rules have caused a situation in which the roles the players are encouraged to adopt are not the roles they want. Once more, you are deceitful and shitbaggy.

Maybe they could be. If you find a better version email me.

The bonus provided by successfully playing a musical instrument is typed as an equipment bonus. Equipment bonuses do not stack with other equipment bonuses. Musical instruments are not the only source of an equipment bonus to charisma checks.

Diplomat-but-not-musician is no longer shooting himself in the foot by not being a musician. He gets his +X equipment bonus from his incredibly fancy pants. Musician-but-not-diplomat is no longer incentivized to be the diplomat, because diplomat-but-not-musician is once again the better diplomat. If sometime in the future someone wants to play diplomat-but-also-musician, the rules support that character.

This still has the problem that everyone who gets a violin put in their hands becomes a violinist, but at least now not all diplomats are made better by having a violin in their hands and it is an improvement - a simple one at that. And that was really fucking easy and really fucking obvious.

To quote a man we all know:"The supreme court has roundly rejected prior restraint"

One: you don't know what prior restraint is. Like, at all. Prior restraint literally means to restrain the speech of someone before the act of speech which you find questionable. It's a question of prevention, not punishment. If racial slurs were against the law, and you made a racial slur, and the government punished you, that would not be prior restraint! If racial slurs were against the law, and the government forcibly cut your internet connection because it thought you were about to post racial slurs on the internet, that would be prior restraint.

Two: you're one of those people that makes me wonder if you know what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech is the right to not be censored or punished by the government. It has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a private institution that you are a member of can take private (and otherwise legal) action against you for the things you've said. Not only does prior restraint have no bearing on whether or not there should be rules against saying the n-word during a baseball, freedom of speech also has nothing to do with it. Because baseball is not ran by the government.

You're arguing that writing a rule to punish people for excessively offensive speech is impractical because it's difficult to identify excessively offensive speech. Therefore, instead, you should just correctly identify excessively offensive speech as you hear it and then punish people.

So, now that you hopefully understand what the term actually means, do you see how that describes punishment for improper conduct, and not prior restraint of improper conduct?

[Zak S]

Writing a law or rule that specifically says "If you say the word fuck we will kick you out of the game" is actually not prior restraint, but that is literally the actual thing you said we shouldn't do.

"
Prior restraint (also referred to as prior censorship or pre-publication censorship) is censorship imposed, usually by a government, on expression before the expression actually takes place
"

You're not a lawyer, Kaelik. You're just a troll.

[Foxwarrior]

DSMatticus: As I recall, in Justin Bieber D&D then there's a hard cap on all bonuses of like +10 or something. Why he doesn't point out that a new way of getting a bonus merely allows people to change the justification for the total +10 on their roll that players always get when they actually care is beyond me.

Maybe he just prefers coming up with new arguments that make him look bad?

[PhoneLobster]

Then there are a bajillion other things besides music this person can do to curry favor that would cost as much or less money and (in game and out) time to curry favor.

One: you are modifying the situation and the rule. The original rule is very simple - if you make a successful musical performance with this piece of equipment, you get a bonus. It doesn't describe non-musical alternatives and it doesn't specify that the bonus fails to stack with those other sources. Musician-but-not-diplomat is still the better diplomat, because any of those things the diplomat might do the musician can also do.

Two: I know you are going to argue that you aren't really modifying the rule because the original rule supersecretly had those aspects all along and it's my fault for criticizing what you wrote instead of what you meant. But I'm going to decapitate that argument right now: if the original rule was meant to have viable alternatives, then there would be no reason to describe it as potentially having the effect of incentivizing everyone to become a violinist. The original complaint that you set out to knock down only makes sense if there are no viable alternatives and the violin is in fact a unique and irreplaceable bonus. So no, the above is not an honest mistake - you are being deceitful and shitbaggy.

Interestingly one of the first things someone presented on the topic of this thread was to suggest Justin Bieber would provide many alternatives.

Then the literally first post Justin Bieber made on this thread was to shit all over that and call it a "bizarre fantasy".

Sure, player A might say 'If I play a really stirring emotional passage on my ocarina can I get a bonus on my Diplomacy check', and we know Zak S will say yes. And if player B says, 'if I stick my tongue down her throat and get her really hot, can I get a bonus on my Diplomacy check', and we know Zak S will say yes.

Your fantasies about me are becoming increasingly bizarre.

He followed that up in his second post where he appeared to challenge anyone who disagreed with his awesome rule to come and fight him and all his friends at the neutral venue of his mom's house.

And then Justin Bieber finished up that second post by saying "peace out", signalling how he then walked off to never post on this thread again.

[DSMatticus]

"
Prior restraint (also referred to as prior censorship or pre-publication censorship) is censorship imposed, usually by a government, on expression before the expression actually takes place
"
...
before the expression actually takes place
...
before the expression
...
before

Please stop. Prior restraint is a well-defined legal term, and you got it wrong. No amount of bullshitting will save you on this one. The only thing you can do by refusing to admit fault (or just quietly retreat from the point entirely) is to kneecap your own credibility. You're doing us a favor here.

As I recall, in Justin Bieber D&D then there's a hard cap on all bonuses of like +10 or something. Why he doesn't point out that a new way of getting a bonus merely allows people to change the justification for the total +10 on their roll that players always get when they actually care is beyond me.

Two: I know you are going to argue that you aren't really modifying the rule because the original rule supersecretly had those aspects all along and it's my fault for criticizing what you wrote instead of what you meant. But I'm going to decapitate that argument right now: if the original rule was meant to have viable alternatives, then there would be no reason to describe it as potentially having the effect of incentivizing everyone to become a violinist. The original complaint that you set out to knock down only makes sense if there are no viable alternatives and the violin is in fact a unique and irreplaceable bonus. So no, the above is not an honest mistake - you are being deceitful and shitbaggy.

I know you're not defending him, I just want to point out that I have already rebutted exactly that sort of argument. An effective ceiling (i.e. one people actually hit) is incompatible with the assertion that optimization indicates ubitquitous violins, especially if "there are a bajillion other things besides music this person can do to curry favor that would cost as much or less money and (in game and out) time to curry favor."

[Prak]

I'd like to think Aboleths evolve into Shibboleths when exposed to a Water Stone.

Shibboleth
Huge Aberration
Hit Die: 15d8+20
Init:+2
Spd: 10 ft., swim 60 ft.
AC: 15 (+2 dex, -2 dex, +5 natural)
Base Attack/Grapple: +7/+21
Attack: Tentacle +13m (1d6+6)
Full Attack: 6 tentacles +13m (1d6+6)
Space/Reach: 15 ft./15 ft.
Special Attack: Inquisitor's Lash, Brainwashing, Psionics
Special Qualities: Aquatic Subtype, Darkvision 60 ft., Improved Grab
Saves: Fort +4, Ref +4, Will +15
Abilities: Str 22, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 20, Wis 24, Cha 24
Skills: Autohypnosis +20, Bluff +19, Diplomacy +21, Intimidate +37, Kn. (Arcana) +18, Listen +20, Sense Motive +39, Spot +20, Swim +6
Feats: Alertness, Combat Casting, Iron Will, Negotiator

Shibboleths are aboleths who have been exposed to the fell eldritch energies of strange blue rocks. They are cruel and hateful beings, filled with paranoia and the belief that they are surrounded by impostors and deceivers. It is possible these creatures filled an exalted place in the antedeluvian aboleth empires, and indeed, aboleths tend to defer to them, as they expect all creatures to--those who do not are immediately suspected of being diabolical infiltrators seeking the aboleth race's precious bodily fluids and purity of essence.

Combat
Shibboleths are frail, physically weak things compared to their prior form, but what they lose in strength and durability, they gain in mental acuity and presence.
Inquisitor's Lash (Su) The slime of a shibboleth is quite different from that of an aboleth. Instead of transforming the target, it cuts through all manner of illusion and attempt to deceive.
A target struck by a shibboleth's lash, including areas containing illusions (treat as striking a square, AC 10, with a size penalty based on the space covered as if it were a creature, ie AC 9 for a 10' area, AC 8 for a 15' area, etc), is affected as by a targeted Greater Dispel Magic effect with a caster level of 15. This effect only dispels effects from, or which mimic effects from, the schools of Enchantment, Illusion and Transmutation.

Brainwashing (Su): A Shibboleth which has maintained a grapple on an intelligent target and has two free tentacles may insert those tentacles into the creature, usually into the brain via the ears, though this will differ depending on the nature of the creature, and exert influence directly on the creature. This functions as the spell Mindrape as cast by a 15th level wizard. This effect may be used at will.

Psionics: Shibboleths manifest as 10th level psions.

Skills: Shibboleths excel at rooting out falsehoods, both through guile and implied force, and have a +12 racial bonus to Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive. While this, coupled with their powers and natural presence makes them supreme deceivers themselves, those who over use these abilities are quickly turned on by other shibboleths, who then investigate how an impostor could have become a shibboleth.

[Zak S]

Writing a law or rule that specifically says "If you say the word fuck we will kick you out of the game" is actually not prior restraint, but that is literally the actual thing you said we shouldn't do.

"
Prior restraint (also referred to as prior censorship or pre-publication censorship) is censorship imposed, usually by a government, on expression before the expression actually takes place
"

You're not a lawyer, Kaelik. You're just a troll.

[Zak S]

"
Prior restraint (also referred to as prior censorship or pre-publication censorship) is censorship imposed, usually by a government, on expression before the expression actually takes place
"
...
before the expression actually takes place
...
before the expression
...
before

Please stop. Prior restraint is a well-defined legal term, and you got it wrong. No amount of bullshitting will save you on this one. The only thing you can do by refusing to admit fault (or just quietly retreat from the point entirely) is to kneecap your own credibility. You're doing us a favor here.

God you're stupid:

Here's DSMATTICUS:
"
You're arguing that writing a rule to punish people for excessively offensive speech is impractical because it's difficult to identify excessively offensive speech."
That would be: Prior (before) restraint is impractical. Which the Supreme Court agrees with. As does pick-up baseball.

"Therefore, instead, you should just correctly identify excessively offensive speech as you hear it and then punish people."

Which is not prior restraint. Which is what I said is good. Not prior restraint. So you're a complete moron.

The question is: Would you change the rules of baseball or not? Because as it stands, someone can abuse them by talking smack about someone's dead relatives (i.e. there's no prior restraint on this abusive speech) and is incentivized to. And then you punish them after by judging the speech on its own merits after it's laid out. Because it really can be hard and impractical to describe offensive speech so as not to create "undue restriction" outside a specific example. As is affirmed over and over with offensive speech in works of art.

So answer the question: Would you change the rules of baseball?

[PhoneLobster]

Justin Bieber.

The only man who responds to a repeated and consistent application of "I do not think that word means what you think it means." with a repeated and unrelenting "Does to, does to, does to, does to TIMES INFINITY, does to!"

[TOZ]

God you're stupid

Empty words coming from you.

[Prak]

Well, Zak is demonstrably fucking wrong here, but he has performed a miracle.

I actually agree with Kaelik about something.

However, I'm very sad, because Zak's repetitive, disingenuous "rebuttal" of our points is the closest I may ever get to being able to tell someone "Look, I don't go to your work and slap the dicks out of your mouth" and have it be as relevant and literal as it will ever be, but tragically, Zak doesn't do gay porn. So I'm very sad that I cannot use it in that sense, only the figurative and purely insulting sense.

[Damocles]

Just imagine an episode of Cops where the police come to the scene and start asking questions. So one dude, instead of answering the cops questions, decides he's going to ignore the cops, whip out a guitar and start playing a song. There's no way that's going to net him a reaction bonus.

Yeah, the guy playing the instrument could calm down shaken witnesses enough to give more accurate testimony.

[DSMatticus]

You're arguing that writing a rule to punish people for excessively offensive speech is impractical because it's difficult to identify excessively offensive speech.

That would be: Prior (before) restraint is impractical. Which the Supreme Court agrees with. As does pick-up baseball.

You're arguing that writing a rule to punish people for excessively offensive speech is impractical
...
a rule to punish people for excessively offensive speech
...
a rule to punish people for
...
to punish people for
...
to punish people for

Prior restraint (also referred to as prior censorship or pre-publication censorship) is censorship imposed, usually by a government, on expression before the expression actually takes place.
...
before the expression actually takes place
...
before the expression
...
before
...
before

Let me make this very clear for you, because you are not a bright man: prior restraint does not mean "write down a prohibition before enforcing it," which is how you are using it. Prior restraint means acting to prevent the violation of a prohibition (written or otherwise), as opposed to responding to the violation of a prohibition (written or otherwise) after the fact. Neither of the things in the original example (formal rules about punishing people for excessively offensive speech, punishing people for excessively offensive speech with no formal rules whatsoever) are prior restraint, because both involve punishment delivered after the violation, which is the exact opposite of what prior restraint is and means.

Note that, despite neither being a case of prior restraint, both are still distinct events, in the same way that the government arresting you for breaking the law is different from the government arresting you because the police don't like something you did. Neither of those is an example of prior restraint, but the former is still very different from the latter.

someone can abuse them by talking smack about someone's dead relatives (i.e. there's no prior restraint on this abusive speech)

Prior restraint (also referred to as prior censorship or pre-publication censorship) is censorship imposed, usually by a government, on expression before the expression actually takes place. An alternative to prior restraint is to allow the expression to take place and to take appropriate action afterward, if the expression is found to violate the law, regulations, or other rules.

You are arguing as though without prior restraint, people can "abuse" the rules. That is exactly like arguing that without prior restraint, basketball players are free to foul eachother. After all, there's no prior restraint enforcment of the foul rules (as that would be completely impractical to do successfuly): instead the foul happens, and then the player is punished.

Zak, you've lost this argument. You've lost this argument hard. You totally fucked up on prior restraint, and at this point the fact that you're trying to bullshit your way out of admitting fault is incredibly obvious. And it makes you look like a slimy disgusting shitweasel who will say and do anything in order to avoid confronting their own mistakes. I have never met anyone in my life who so quickly and easily resorts to lying as a defense mechanism. Everytime you come here, you make me feel like I should apologize to PhoneLobster for all the times I've called him a deceitful strawmanning twat. You are so much worse you make me wish I was arguing with him. You are to PhoneLobster as Kaelik is to... I don't know, Grumpy Cat or something.

Edit: damocles, your tags are fucked and now the thread is exploded. Fix 'em, if you'd be so kind.

[John Magnum]

It's like, how could an interminable Justin Bieber thread get worse? If the tags got super fucked. Good job everyone, ten out of ten, never stop.

[Cyberzombie]

Why don't you try some real arguments, otherwise go fuck yourself

Don't think I need to, you've proven my case wonderfully given that all you seem to like doing is telling me to go fuck myself. You're precisely the kind of asshole gamer that's going to bend rules to ridiculous lengths.

You're the one claiming your game falls apart because of some stupid musical instrument rule. Dude, just take a step back and analyze what you're even saying and how ridiculous that is. One minor little piece of equipment granting a +2 bonus on a successful ability check has you totally flipping your shit and getting totally outraged about how it completely breaks everything.

This is exactly why Monte made the comment about how it's stupid to design rules for assholes. You've proven exactly why that's a very true statement.

Good work.

[Aryxbez]

You're precisely the kind of asshole gamer that's going to bend rules to ridiculous lengths.

No, he actually provided you reasons why you were full of crap, and now you're just writing him off because he used a cuss word.

As been mentioned, it's not hard to find a justification for using a Musical Instrument in a given situation. Part of what makes it "appropriate" in some context is what the roll will represent. Maybe it'll annoy the merchant, maybe instead he'll appreciate a fine tune from his homeland, or find the buyer has class and give him more respect on sales. Alternatively, if he failed, could be the opposite, finds it annoying, insult to his people, or someone trying too hard.

I believe the whole bit on what Frank was trying to say, in this world (one where a rule of music =bonus to social checks), it's acceptable to use music to be more social or whatever. Maybe it's because the world IS in fact a musical, or it's a setting conceit from the game itself (like how bards are sacred or seen as BA in Norse Culture). Regardless, it's an acceptable behavior in the game world, which is represented by the rules, which are your interaction with that world. Complaining that the game world is doing stuff within the game world, can be considered "anti-roleplay" in a way (or one desiring to ret-con something in the setting, whichevs).

Finally, for Zak S, I do find it rather poor taste in your status to try and blanket Denners here as "loser virgins". Really just makes you seem like a loser yourself, especially given how inaccurate that is (Most here played White Wolf in their youth, or old enough to have outproven that insult in their life experiences.), and shows inability to argue, and instead use personal insults. That Crap aside, I'd totally would be encouraged to use that rule as a social-lite, I'd probably utilize it to get more into the setting, and expand on the Character concept. Though now it's something I'll spam due to its rules function, it's just as much a valid part of the character, and isn't me being an A-hole for using something part of the character concept to further do my schtick. Which will likely be used to bring fun results, as social encounters aren't usually a team job anyway, and if so, I'm sure as said above, could be justified in some way.

[Zak S]

prior restraint does not mean "write down a prohibition before enforcing it," which is how you are using it.

It is (of course) not how I am using it. You idiot.

Prior restraint means acting to prevent the violation of a prohibition (written or otherwise),

Which is exactly what you said you want in D&D and what I said you want in D&D you want rules that stop people from doing asshole moves (violating society's always unspoken prohibition against asshole moves) as opposed to...

as opposed to responding to the violation of a prohibition (written or otherwise) after the fact.

…which is what I propose for D&D, what the Supreme court does, and what baseball does about being a dick first baseman. (And what I said.) Punishing people for being assholes after they make their asshole moves. (The "shibboleth"--the asshole move is made, and then the punishment comes.)

When someone makes a move putting mechanical advancement ahead of fun for the table (i.e. when someone violates the prohibition against being an asshole) they are then punished after doing it.

Now since baseball works this way (in the example), just as I do, are you proposing the rules of baseball should be changed? Should first basemen be prohibited from speaking at all (an action to prevent the violation of the prohibition against asshole speech) lest they say something offensive?

Answer the question. Unless you're too stupid to answer it.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Well, Zak is demonstrably fucking wrong here, but he has performed a miracle.

I actually agree with Kaelik about something.

However, I'm very sad, because Zak's repetitive, disingenuous "rebuttal" of our points is the closest I may ever get to being able to tell someone "Look, I don't go to your work and slap the dicks out of your mouth" and have it be as relevant and literal as it will ever be, but tragically, Zak doesn't do gay porn. So I'm very sad that I cannot use it in that sense, only the figurative and purely insulting sense.

He just sucks cock for fun. By the barrel.

[tussock]

@Zak.

In law, there's a difference between A: censorship (where the state may destroy unpublished material and punish your intent to publish it) and B: publication laws (where the state may destroy published materials and punish the publishers for whatever reason; decency, copyright infringement, incitement to crime, bla bla bla).

You can't be citing judgements against A as if they're against B. What you're doing is instead C: fascism (where the state doesn't like people like you and punishes them for doing the exact same things that favoured people are allowed to do freely).


That is all. Again, I really like Zak's blog, he's got some great ideas, art, etc. He, he just doesn't understand argument at all, how it works. Logic not his strong suit.




#General argument here.

You know, people have basically been called assholes for trying to optimise their combat (or any other) stats since the 2nd edition PHB opened by telling us that rolling up Rast was just fine and you should live it up and be very happy with how much you suck. Because Roleplaying isn't even about being good at the things you're trying to be good at, it's about playing out the dim and unremarkable life of the unfortunate person you happened to roll up, even though they clearly aren't fit for adventure.

And Zak is obviously from that time period, as are Cyberzombie and some others here. It's sad, but that's what it is. Curse you, Zeb Cook, your game was readable, but that horrible idea is still with us. And I even like random stats.

[Username17]

Protip for Cyberzombie and Souran: defending shitmuffin is not the hill you want to die on. I understand that both of you are much more favorably inclined both to breaking rules in the middle of the game by MC fiat and to kicking people out of the game for having differences of narrative vision than is typical for this board - but those are points you're going to want to make in another context. A context that does not, for example, rely on people discussing a shitmuffin post where he is - as is so often the case - demonstrably and demonstratedly wrong.

You could have a discussion where some rule had unintended consequences and when used in a different situation caused the game to break. And you could discuss whether it was better for players to voluntarily restrain from using it until the MC had figured out a replacement or whether it was better for the MC to issue a slapdash ad-hoc fix immediately or whatever. But this is not that discussion. This is a discussion about shitmuffin's idea that he can make a rule whose predicted and intended effect was to incentivize certain behavior and then throw a temper tantrum when people take the bait and perform the incentivized behavior or even verbally tell him that that is obviously what is going to happen. If you're throwing your hat into the ring, that is the hill you are attempting to die on. You do not want to die on that hill, because it is stupid and you will accomplish nothing.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

So, this argument is only spread out over four pages, which means that unlike the 30 page crapfests the other threads became I can actually still walk through the entire exchange and show all the relevant bits to the people sitting in the peanut gallery shouting "WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU STILL ARGUING WITH HIM?!" And then all those people can see Zak for the scumsucking shitbag who tells naught but lies that he actually is, and then they will be like "WE KNOW, THAT'S WHY YOU'RE A DUMBASS FOR DOING THIS TO YOURSELF." And then I will sob and beg people to save me from myself.

This means that if the runner on first has a child that dies in a car accident, the first baseman is allowed to taunt the runner with this fact during the game. In many cases, the first basemen has every incentive to do this.

But if the first baseman does this (despite the fact that the rules allow it and incentivize it) then it reveals that the first baseman is an asshole

Zak is arguing that despite the fact that outrageous assholery is rules permissible, the behavior itself still makes you an asshole. Issues of prior restraint have nothing to do with this argument so far. A rule hasn't even been mentioned yet.

Problem #1: this cuts both ways. If the first baseman starts taunting people about their recently deceased relatives in order to win the game and you think "that is and should be acceptable under the rules," you're also an asshole.

I am arguing that if the rules permit outrageous assholery, why would you defend the rules and advocate not changing them? (Aside: it's not like rules concerning sportsmanlike conduct are new.) This, also, has nothing to do with issues of prior restraint. A rule that calls for kicking players out of the game after they engage in outrageous assholery would, in fact, be a rule change that addresses outrageous assholery without prior restraint.

Rewriting the rules to find not-unduly-restrictive ways bar obviously evilly offensive speech is less efficient and just than barring individuals willing to resort to such speech.

Zak is arguing that the rules should not be rewritten [to address matters of outrageous assholery], but that you should still just kick those people out no matter what the rules say. Still, no sign of prior restraint being relevant: arguing that the rules should not be changed at all is very much not the same as arguing that the rules should not be changed to accomodate prior restraint. See above - that is, again, a rule change (what Zak is actually arguing against) without prior restraint (what Zak is claiming he has been arguing against).

You're arguing that writing a rule to punish people for excessively offensive speech is impractical because it's difficult to identify excessively offensive speech. Therefore, instead, you should just correctly identify excessively offensive speech as you hear it and then punish people.

This is in direct response to the above quote, and as such is pretty unambiguous: I'm pointing out that in order to kick people out of the game for excessively offensive speech, even without a rule, you still have to be able to identify excessively offensive speech! You aren't actually making the task any easier by refusing to make it a rule. Does prior restraint have anything to do with this? Of course not. We're still talking about whether or not rules which permit outrageous assholery should be changed at all, which is not a matter of prior restraint.

To quote a man we all know:"The supreme court has roundly rejected prior restraint"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint

If you disagree with the Supreme Court's reasoning here, then you are saying the rules of baseball should be changed. Is that what you are saying?

And this is the first mention of prior restraint. As you can tell, it...

came out of left field.