This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Veritas was caught red handed attempting to manufacture fake news. Just outright, unquestionably they we're attempting to create a fake story from whole cloth. If the NYT or CNN had tried to do what they tried to do, you'd be screaming bloody murder. But because you like Veritas, you will spin it however you need to, to make yourself more comfortable with the idea you support a lying piece of shit source. See for example.
The first webpage you linked is a wall of text with the readability of a dictionary and a complete lack of context on almost everything. Sussing out what each section is trying say much less verifying them, would take forever. Can you point to one specific case that you consider irrefutable?

When you first mentioned it, I looked a little into PV's credibility on my own (hadn't heard of it before, but then I know very little about PV), and The Guardian article you just linked is actually the first one I found. But the article is written with a lot of bias, which makes it feel less like objective journalism, and more like a hit piece. And when I also read the counter on Project Veritas' website, their response seems quite reasonable. They use lies, disguises and false identities in order to get interviews and access. Which, as they point out, is standard for investigative reporting. That leaves the only real claim against the claim that they were trying to fabricate a story about sex and abortion and get that published, in order protect a creepy Republican judge by drowning out the news. That seems pretty far fetched, and their own explanation seems plausible. So it's hardly compelling evidence.
If people want to argue that PV pushes the envelope, I won't disagree. I'm still amazed O'Keefe didn't get shot at when he demonstrated how porous the southern U.S. border was... by crossing it while dressed as Osama bin Laden.

What the media and the left are pissed about is that PV keeps sneaking in behind closed doors and recording 'the things that don't get said in public'. It beggars the imagination to think that their last ejection from Twitter was anything other than a reaction to that CNN sting.
22
What must you know about your game character in order to play a RPG?

Are just the stats enough to get started or do you need a multipage background with established relationships?

Stats, plus at least a vague background to work from.

If you can pick all your stats, then some kind of vague background is a good idea. Otherwise, if you're rolling stats, then making something up to go along with your rolls is a good idea.
23
Veritas was caught red handed attempting to manufacture fake news. Just outright, unquestionably they we're attempting to create a fake story from whole cloth. If the NYT or CNN had tried to do what they tried to do, you'd be screaming bloody murder. But because you like Veritas, you will spin it however you need to, to make yourself more comfortable with the idea you support a lying piece of shit source. See for example.
The first webpage you linked is a wall of text with the readability of a dictionary and a complete lack of context on almost everything. Sussing out what each section is trying say much less verifying them, would take forever. Can you point to one specific case that you consider irrefutable?

When you first mentioned it, I looked a little into PV's credibility on my own (hadn't heard of it before, but then I know very little about PV), and The Guardian article you just linked is actually the first one I found. But the article is written with a lot of bias, which makes it feel less like objective journalism, and more like a hit piece. And when I also read the counter on Project Veritas' website, their response seems quite reasonable. They use lies, disguises and false identities in order to get interviews and access. Which, as they point out, is standard for investigative reporting. That leaves the only real claim against the claim that they were trying to fabricate a story about sex and abortion and get that published, in order protect a creepy Republican judge by drowning out the news. That seems pretty far fetched, and their own explanation seems plausible. So it's hardly compelling evidence.

Plus the article in The Guardian has ZERO evidence to back up it's claims.
Well, it's reporting on an article from another paper (The Washington Post). The Guardian article is basically the text version of a newsreader, with snark. I wouldn't expect it to have evidence, that's the job of the article that's being written about. But yes, the Guardian article is the wrong article to link as proof.

I'm not giving The Washington Compost money to read their drivel, let's see if Archive dot is can archive it without their crappy request for money on top of everything.
24
Greetings!

The Guardian is in the same group of cock-sucking Marxists that the NYT and CNN. I don't trust a thing the Guardian says. Overall, I have found Project Veritas to be far more accurate and truthful than the aforementioned Liberal media sources.

Are the Liberal, cock-sucking Marxist media going to attempt to lie, smear, and disparage organizations like Project Veritas?

Yes, of course. They collectively hate organizations like Project Veritas because Veritas exposes their lying, their deception, and fucking corruption, and then broadcasts it out to the public, for all to see what fraudulent, corrupt bastards they are.

I love it when the Liberal cunt media gets fucked! It's always a great day whenever that occurs. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Do all marxists suck cock or is that like incidental to the ideology
25
Veritas was caught red handed attempting to manufacture fake news. Just outright, unquestionably they we're attempting to create a fake story from whole cloth. If the NYT or CNN had tried to do what they tried to do, you'd be screaming bloody murder. But because you like Veritas, you will spin it however you need to, to make yourself more comfortable with the idea you support a lying piece of shit source. See for example.
The first webpage you linked is a wall of text with the readability of a dictionary and a complete lack of context on almost everything. Sussing out what each section is trying say much less verifying them, would take forever. Can you point to one specific case that you consider irrefutable?

When you first mentioned it, I looked a little into PV's credibility on my own (hadn't heard of it before, but then I know very little about PV), and The Guardian article you just linked is actually the first one I found. But the article is written with a lot of bias, which makes it feel less like objective journalism, and more like a hit piece. And when I also read the counter on Project Veritas' website, their response seems quite reasonable. They use lies, disguises and false identities in order to get interviews and access. Which, as they point out, is standard for investigative reporting. That leaves the only real claim against the claim that they were trying to fabricate a story about sex and abortion and get that published, in order protect a creepy Republican judge by drowning out the news. That seems pretty far fetched, and their own explanation seems plausible. So it's hardly compelling evidence.

Plus the article in The Guardian has ZERO evidence to back up it's claims.
Well, it's reporting on an article from another paper (The Washington Post). The Guardian article is basically the text version of a newsreader, with snark. I wouldn't expect it to have evidence, that's the job of the article that's being written about. But yes, the Guardian article is the wrong article to link as proof.
26
Bad call on the cops part they had no legal obligation to intervene and not like they woulda made any money out of it.
27
Veritas was caught red handed attempting to manufacture fake news. Just outright, unquestionably they we're attempting to create a fake story from whole cloth. If the NYT or CNN had tried to do what they tried to do, you'd be screaming bloody murder. But because you like Veritas, you will spin it however you need to, to make yourself more comfortable with the idea you support a lying piece of shit source. See for example.
The first webpage you linked is a wall of text with the readability of a dictionary and a complete lack of context on almost everything. Sussing out what each section is trying say much less verifying them, would take forever. Can you point to one specific case that you consider irrefutable?

When you first mentioned it, I looked a little into PV's credibility on my own (hadn't heard of it before, but then I know very little about PV), and The Guardian article you just linked is actually the first one I found. But the article is written with a lot of bias, which makes it feel less like objective journalism, and more like a hit piece. And when I also read the counter on Project Veritas' website, their response seems quite reasonable. They use lies, disguises and false identities in order to get interviews and access. Which, as they point out, is standard for investigative reporting. That leaves the only real claim against the claim that they were trying to fabricate a story about sex and abortion and get that published, in order protect a creepy Republican judge by drowning out the news. That seems pretty far fetched, and their own explanation seems plausible. So it's hardly compelling evidence.

Plus the article in The Guardian has ZERO evidence to back up it's claims.
28
Everything she does a person with enough time and focus who starts at an average baseline of athletic ability could do, even with regard to flexibility, she is not an outlier among females who have dedicated serious time to pursuing flexibility.   The "talent" is hard to measure in the things she displays.  I know numerous women and several men who can do a split past parallel between two chairs for instance.  One of them was super flexible at the start, but most of them were not exceptional regarding flexibility and worked on it for a couple years.  An example I will give is I have a buddy, who wondered if he could do a backflip (as a 27 year old adult who had never tried it) and he just did it, no warm up, no attempt with a spot, nothing past a Lady there told him to tuck his legs tight.  he just did it.  That IMO is a good measure of natural ability.  Similar is punching power.  You can enhance it with training, but people are born with the "touch of death", they dont develop it.   

Edited to add:  However I have no baseline for how long she has been training either.  If you told me she took an interest in this stuff 6 months ago and is at this level now, 18 dexterity is within a possible stat (still want to see a few more tests), if you tell me she has been training 5+ years, well that allows a whole lot less of a measure for me than a skill vs talent assessment.  Thus, as I said, I need more information.

This is one of the reasons why I favor redefining abilities as "general competence in that area" rather than "innate talent".

In various games, raw dexterity is often used for things like dodge bonus and miscellaneous athletic feats. Likewise, raw strength is used for how much someone can lift.

In games, it isn't really relevant how many months or years it will take you to realistically learn a new skill. The important question is: how good are you *now* at miscellaneous physical tasks.

Yeah, there's a lot of overlap between skills and "ability scores", and a great deal about this line of discussion is really all about "where do we draw the line?" Were does 100% RAW innate talent ends and training start? And to what extend could someone with seemingly low "raw" talent realistically develop high levels of ability with training and conditioning alone?

Over time I've come to think of attributes, stats, "ability scores" or "whatever they're called in any given game" more as "core abilities", or the central base from which more specialized "skills" spring from.

However, arguably some degree if "innate" ability does seem to be exist in real life. Question is: to what extend? And how does that fit in the game? To what degree are ability scores innate or a measure of general training and conditioning? Do we even need to draw the line, or just treat it all as potentially trainable?

IMHO Attributes are mainly raw talent + some training maybe to hone it. Which is why having some skills or something to justify knowing/being able to do X a necesity IMHO.

Of course to better model reality (if that's your goal) you'd need a lifepath minigame a la Cepheus Engine (yes I know it's Traveller's I prefer to promote the OGL game).
29
Taking it back to the topic, they just gave Phil Masters a week ban for daring to suggest there's nothing wrong with the disadvantage "Slave Mentality."
30
Veritas was caught red handed attempting to manufacture fake news. Just outright, unquestionably they we're attempting to create a fake story from whole cloth. If the NYT or CNN had tried to do what they tried to do, you'd be screaming bloody murder. But because you like Veritas, you will spin it however you need to, to make yourself more comfortable with the idea you support a lying piece of shit source. See for example.
The first webpage you linked is a wall of text with the readability of a dictionary and a complete lack of context on almost everything. Sussing out what each section is trying say much less verifying them, would take forever. Can you point to one specific case that you consider irrefutable?

When you first mentioned it, I looked a little into PV's credibility on my own (hadn't heard of it before, but then I know very little about PV), and The Guardian article you just linked is actually the first one I found. But the article is written with a lot of bias, which makes it feel less like objective journalism, and more like a hit piece. And when I also read the counter on Project Veritas' website, their response seems quite reasonable. They use lies, disguises and false identities in order to get interviews and access. Which, as they point out, is standard for investigative reporting. That leaves the only real claim against the claim that they were trying to fabricate a story about sex and abortion and get that published, in order protect a creepy Republican judge by drowning out the news. That seems pretty far fetched, and their own explanation seems plausible. So it's hardly compelling evidence.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10