Vondy

The National Mall is center stage of our democracy. It is maintained by our tax-dollars. I have no issues with reasonable fees for special events like weddings and concerts, but for political protests? The government does not get to charge The People for the right to make their opinions known on their own front doorstep; and especially not by executive fiat. If it were any other national park I might not feel the same way, but the location of the national mall and the number of defining historical mass protests that have occurred there make it qualitatively different. No. Just no.
 
https://reason.com/blog/2018/08/09/demonstrators-might-have-to-pay-a-fee-to
 

I love both the dice and destiny token mechanics from this game.
 
The talent-tree driven system of character development? Not so much.
 

With all the concerns over hacking the computer voting system, I wonder if it would be practical to return to paper ballots for the upcoming November elections?

Voter fraud in Georgia
 
Lots of problems with Georgia's voting system
670 votes cast
276 registered voters

I'm pretty circumspect about the boards right now, but my impression is that you are asking a genuine question in good faith. To that end, I'll try to give you a genuine answer in the same spirit. I'm here to have discussions.
 
Do I find that attractive? Not at all. The platform you are referencing is the Rothbard platform and dates back to the 1970's. For many decades the Libertarian party was basically a gang of truculent idealogues and the platform represented what its candidates, often militant and zany oddballs, ran on. Over the past two decades, however, the composition of the party has changed dramatically. The party has absorbed a wave of both democrat and republican political refugees, who now compose what is commonly referred to as the "pragmatists" within the party. An excellent (but long) article on how this played out in 2016 can be found here: Did The Libertarian Party Blow It?
.
The pithy maxims most commonly used to explain pragmatist philosophy are "free markets and free minds" or "fiscal responsibility and social tolerance." This influx has naturally resulted in a great deal of dynamic tension within the party, which is amplified by the fact that you have everyone from radical anarcho-capitalists to paranoid preppers to moderate classical liberals in their ranks. The Johnson-Weld ticket represented an internal triumph of the pragmatic wing of the party. You will note, much to the consternation of the ideologues, their platform was not the Rothbard platform.
 
At this point more pragmatists run for office as Libertarians than ideologues, and they are seldom in lockstep with Rothbard's platform. This clearly presents a serious branding problem for the modern Libertarian party. While those familiar with today's party have an implicit understanding of what these candidates stand for, those outside of the party see the old platform, shake their heads, and say "Oh, great. God help us. Another castle-in-the-sky Libertarian whack-a-mole!"  
 
Every Libertarian candidate I have voted for is playing an infinite game. This may because they have that luxury. They only now becoming ready for "prime-time" and are not locked in a machinean two-party blood fued. They don't have any real power to be interested in at this point. Unfortunately, Johnson was an affable but hapless candidate. He ran on values (an infinite game), but was ill-prepared for a fast-paced television campaign. Weld was the better candidate, but playing second fiddle. Was my vote in 2016 a protest vote? Yes, certainly. But it was also a values vote.  
 
In reference to myself, I only use the term "libertarian" loosely and adjectivally. I am a classical liberal who strongly advocates strict federalism, fiscal pragmatism, individual liberty, and social tolerance. I am also intellectually liberal. So much so that more than one conservative interlocutor has accused me of being Epicurean or libertine. That's not really accurate, but not so far off the mark, either. My opposition to contemporary progressive social politics isn't rooted in values. It stemps from my perception that the movement has been hijacked by a stridently illiberal and authoritarian mob. From where I sit, a regressive, revanchist mirror universe Tea-Party currently rules the left.  
 
That said, I am a "faint hearted originalist." An originalist because I believe in the aspirational values and system of government our Constitution represents. Faint-hearted because I don't want berobed bomb-chuckers wreaking social and economic havoc by uprooting ideologically imperfect, but reasonable precedents. I don't believe the Constitution is out of step with our essential values. I think it informs them. Look how far its brought us! The amendment process allows us to tweak it without doing its intent injustice. For me it is not a source of pathos, but of pride. Liberty for all is an unobtainable ideal. We will always fall short. For me, its the struggle for liberty that matters, and defines us as a nation. 
 
My biggest issue with our national ethos today is that, due to some very serious mistakes we've made over the past two decades, politics are now center stage. To a degree, that's necessary. However, everthing, inlcuding our diets and hairstyle and wardrobes and entertainment has become hyper-politicized. Politics is downstream from culture and political didacticism produces pitiful cultural product and shallow society. Most of the social change people are demanding (much of it quite justly) should be pursued on the cultural and interpersonal front. 
 
One thing I've learned is that you legislate culture at your own peril. The reason people are seeing such virulent backlash is that law is usually the wrong lever to pull. I'm not saying you shouldn't legislate some basic social tenets (reasonable discimination laws, for instance), but people too often forget that the law boils down to the maxim "violence is golden." Law must be enforced. That means sending men and women with guns into your neighbors houses and businesses to force compliance / get your way.  
 
As a result, when someone says "there oughta be a law!" I always stop and ask "is this something I am willing to use violence against my neighbors to achieve?" If its not a question of ensuring fair play, public health, public safety, or good order I tend to be circumspect about using the law (government) as a lever. You could say I'm "fiscally pragmatic, geopolitical circumspect, conservation friendly, and socially liberal," and that I live by the mantra "let people alone." I don't like butt-in-skis or bullies irrespective of which side of the aisle they hail from. That's the libertarian streak.
 
I don't know if I really answered your question. I apologize if I didn't. Let me know.
 
 

I'm pretty circumspect about the boards right now, but my impression is that you are asking a genuine question in good faith. To that end, I'll try to give you a genuine answer in the same spirit. I'm here to have discussions.
 
Do I find that attractive? Not at all. The platform you are referencing is the Rothbard platform and dates back to the 1970's. For many decades the Libertarian party was basically a gang of truculent idealogues and the platform represented what its candidates, often militant and zany oddballs, ran on. Over the past two decades, however, the composition of the party has changed dramatically. The party has absorbed a wave of both democrat and republican political refugees, who now compose what is commonly referred to as the "pragmatists" within the party. An excellent (but long) article on how this played out in 2016 can be found here: Did The Libertarian Party Blow It?
.
The pithy maxims most commonly used to explain pragmatist philosophy are "free markets and free minds" or "fiscal responsibility and social tolerance." This influx has naturally resulted in a great deal of dynamic tension within the party, which is amplified by the fact that you have everyone from radical anarcho-capitalists to paranoid preppers to moderate classical liberals in their ranks. The Johnson-Weld ticket represented an internal triumph of the pragmatic wing of the party. You will note, much to the consternation of the ideologues, their platform was not the Rothbard platform.
 
At this point more pragmatists run for office as Libertarians than ideologues, and they are seldom in lockstep with Rothbard's platform. This clearly presents a serious branding problem for the modern Libertarian party. While those familiar with today's party have an implicit understanding of what these candidates stand for, those outside of the party see the old platform, shake their heads, and say "Oh, great. God help us. Another castle-in-the-sky Libertarian whack-a-mole!"  
 
Every Libertarian candidate I have voted for is playing an infinite game. This may because they have that luxury. They only now becoming ready for "prime-time" and are not locked in a machinean two-party blood fued. They don't have any real power to be interested in at this point. Unfortunately, Johnson was an affable but hapless candidate. He ran on values (an infinite game), but was ill-prepared for a fast-paced television campaign. Weld was the better candidate, but playing second fiddle. Was my vote in 2016 a protest vote? Yes, certainly. But it was also a values vote.  
 
In reference to myself, I only use the term "libertarian" loosely and adjectivally. I am a classical liberal who strongly advocates strict federalism, fiscal pragmatism, individual liberty, and social tolerance. I am also intellectually liberal. So much so that more than one conservative interlocutor has accused me of being Epicurean or libertine. That's not really accurate, but not so far off the mark, either. My opposition to contemporary progressive social politics isn't rooted in values. It stemps from my perception that the movement has been hijacked by a stridently illiberal and authoritarian mob. From where I sit, a regressive, revanchist mirror universe Tea-Party currently rules the left.  
 
That said, I am a "faint hearted originalist." An originalist because I believe in the aspirational values and system of government our Constitution represents. Faint-hearted because I don't want berobed bomb-chuckers wreaking social and economic havoc by uprooting ideologically imperfect, but reasonable precedents. I don't believe the Constitution is out of step with our essential values. I think it informs them. Look how far its brought us! The amendment process allows us to tweak it without doing its intent injustice. For me it is not a source of pathos, but of pride. Liberty for all is an unobtainable ideal. We will always fall short. For me, its the struggle for liberty that matters, and defines us as a nation. 
 
My biggest issue with our national ethos today is that, due to some very serious mistakes we've made over the past two decades, politics are now center stage. To a degree, that's necessary. However, everthing, inlcuding our diets and hairstyle and wardrobes and entertainment has become hyper-politicized. Politics is downstream from culture and political didacticism produces pitiful cultural product and shallow society. Most of the social change people are demanding (much of it quite justly) should be pursued on the cultural and interpersonal front. 
 
One thing I've learned is that you legislate culture at your own peril. The reason people are seeing such virulent backlash is that law is usually the wrong lever to pull. I'm not saying you shouldn't legislate some basic social tenets (reasonable discimination laws, for instance), but people too often forget that the law boils down to the maxim "violence is golden." Law must be enforced. That means sending men and women with guns into your neighbors houses and businesses to force compliance / get your way.  
 
As a result, when someone says "there oughta be a law!" I always stop and ask "is this something I am willing to use violence against my neighbors to achieve?" If its not a question of ensuring fair play, public health, public safety, or good order I tend to be circumspect about using the law (government) as a lever. You could say I'm "fiscally pragmatic, geopolitical circumspect, conservation friendly, and socially liberal," and that I live by the mantra "let people alone." I don't like butt-in-skis or bullies irrespective of which side of the aisle they hail from. That's the libertarian streak.
 
I don't know if I really answered your question. I apologize if I didn't. Let me know.
 
 

The first question you have to answer is one of design sensibilities.
 
A broad interpretation of the Survival skill and the requisite weapon skills could be sufficient for many groups.
 
Ergo, Survival 16-.
 
That's the fast and dirty way to do it. However, you could also require background skills, but make them broader / more inclusive.

Ergo, PS: Prepper God 16-.
 
This would cover everything that Survival didn't.
 
Or, you could get really granular and have discrete background skills covering very specific things you want them to know or do. An example, High Society can cover Fashion, Grooming, Manners, Who is Who, Juicy Gossip, Social Feuds, Luxury Items, and Culinary Hot Spots. Or, you can make people buy those as background skills individually. I used to build characters with scads of background skills. I realized over time, however, that many of those skills existed for form rather than function. They were really intended to flesh out the character. They were fluff text that / character notes could have been included in descriptive prose. 

First, this is disingenuous. Write him and ask. As it stands, this is just a contextonomy. Or, are you intentionally ignoring the point? Setting up a straw-man and knocking it down on a message board doesn't impress me. The point is: politicians are always trying to float programs we can't afford and offer people things they should not have to woo voters. The last fiscally responsible politicians we had were elected in the 1960's.
 
People in power who espouse "leftists ideas" are specifically targeting their opponents money and power. They are not targeting their own money and power, and especially not the money and power of the administrative state. I am opposed to an intrusive and ever-growing administrative state that sees the pocket-books of the common man as a blank check for politicians balkanized partisan agendas - be they right or left.  
 

I agree the GOP isn't interested in fixing gerrymandering. By that same token, the DNC isn't interested in taking reasonable steps to clean up voter rolls or verify eligibility. I'm not a partisan the way you are. I'm not pointing the finger at one party while turning a blind eye to the other. Neither of these parties are interested in playing an infinite values-based game that benefits the American people. Both are pursuing their finite interests in extremely cynical and self-serving ways. I am not going to  play "White hat / black hat" with you. There is a corruptive influence flowing from both parties. I'm not going to play "pick your poison." I'm going to say "don't drink the poison."
 
 
 
Economics is power. Taxes are control. This is so basic that I don't need to argue it. Indeed, if you think politics doesn't boil down to the control of the the people's treasure you don't know the first thing about power.
 
 
Define "minority governments." Do you mean a government in which the president's party is in the minority. All good, I generally prefer that. That does not mean I'm going to vote for candidates who espouse interests and goals are anathema to my own.
 
 
I regard both parties as being fiscally irresponsible decision makers with a poor grasp of economics. The republicans gave up on fiscal responsibility and sensible economics decades ago. That doesn't make the democrats any better than it and the difference can be explained not by fiscal sense, but presidents who don't control both houses and therefore can't spend like madmen.
 
I strongly recommend reading Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty.
 
If you really want to understand the causes of income inequality and the problems both parties bring to our tax structure, its a must read book.
 
If it were my word here is what I would do:
 
Do away with income tax. Yes, I said that. Leave the corporate income tax rate at 20%. Jack up the the capital gains tax up to 50-70%..  What would be the results:
Poor and middle class people would have more income for expenses, education, and insurance. Businesses would know what to expect and be able to make healthy profits - and more people could start small businesses. The money made from capital gains alone - which are not earnings - would pay for the military, medicare, and social security. You want to secure the middle class. That's how you do it. You want to fund entitlements with only modest reforms? That's how you do it.
 
Here is the thing: democrats always point out that the GOP caters to the rich. Its true! 
Here is the thing: republicans always point out that the DNC tax policies hurt the middle class and small businesses. Its true! 
 
Both have completely misunderstood taxes. The democrats are constantly raising the wrong taxes. The GOP belligerently refuses to raise the right one.
 
 
 
Vituperative aside, yeah, its a problem. But, its only one of many problems, and your woulda-coulda-shoulda is meaningless. 30-40 years ago politicians didn't say that. Here we are. Look, I work for a solar company. I get it. But, at the same time, even if we acknowledge it, what do you propose we do? Most of the policy movies I see from the environmentalists, while logical, aren't reasonable and, in some cases, are extremely destructive. Its an easy problem to diagnose. It is not an easy problem to treat. If you destroy your patients health and quality of life extending their life, what was the point?  I do not buy into the fallacy of "something must be done." Ergo, "something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done." I want us to set a responsible environmental policy and, I agree, this administration isn't doing that. But, whatever we do, has to be smart, effective, and conserve our economic well-being in the process. I do believe that's possible. It is not, however, what I have seen to date.
 
 
Dear God. Really? More straw men and conflations. I am talking about high-level political ideals and you are arguing personalities. My opinion of Trump's character is stated in no uncertain terms in this thread. Yes, the man is an obstinate ass. So what? That is not what I am talking about. Until the dems (and you) stop making it about the man and return to a focus on the nation all I hear is Charlie Brown's teacher. When you do make it about our nation and our values, then we'll have something to talk about. Of course, I may still find your proposals anathema, but I'll at least hear them out. In the meantime, I'mpointedly voting libertarian with a clear conscience and wagging my ballot in your face.
 
May the Force be with you. 

Full stop. 
 
This is you responding to common republican rhetoric and not to anything I said. As a result, why is it here?
 
 
Sure. I agree. But what does it have to do with me?
 
 
 
 
Well, we know there are lots of dead people on many states rolls. And many states do absolutely nothing to verify eligibility. That is, in of itself, a "soft" way of gaming the system. My answer would be "the states should investigate and find out." To date, when that suggestion has been made, self-interested politicians have gone to war screaming "racism" and "disenfranchisement," which is deflection. When leaders of deep blue states vocally refuse to take any steps to verify their rolls its smacks of self-interest and and begs the question "why do you refuse to take meaningful steps to find out." I am not saying there is definitive proof. I am saying their is enough anecdotal evidence that a responsible person would take serious steps to verify the integrity of the rolls. That should not be taboo and treating it like it is plays into critics hands.
 
 
I never proposed there wasn't and, as a result, I'm not sure why we are still talking about it. However, one issue that is often missed is what I would call "soft gerrymandering." By that I mean, "old lines." In many cases the urbanization of America has played into the republicans hands without their having to do anything. As cities become more blue, all that has to happen is for the GOP to do nothing. In other words, the republicans don't actually have to do anything in many cases to gain an electoral advantage.
 
 
Go back and read what I wrote in context.. I did not refer to personalities in my discrete response to your comments on global warming and our environmental policy. I referred to them in response to Trumps behavior such as "gas-lighting," etc. This is a conflation of two different things. As a result, there is nothing for me to respond to.
 
 
Sure. I already agreed that our policy is benighted. I also agree the Dems are better (to a degree) on this particular policy issue. However, you keep dredging up individual policies you object to as a means of pursuing a partisan fight with a non-partisan person who tried to raise a higher-level concern. Until we discuss how we get back to "increasing liberty for every single American" and fiscal responsibility and putting the administrative state in its place I'm not sure what this really has to do with me.  
 
 
Yes, the GOP has their heads in the sand. With that said, we can't have meaningful conversations when people engage in over-the-top rhetoric,  take absolutist positions, and defame the opposition with a broad brush. There are republican congressmen and voters who believe in global warming and want clean air, clean water, and responsible conservationist and environmentalist policy. The kinds of rhetorical tactics you are employing alienate the people you need to come together with to get anything done. Do you want catharsis or workable compromise that moves the ball forward. The my way or the highway tribalist moralizing endemic in our politics today have destroyed the necessary well of trust democracy requires.
 
 
Agreed. But how we talk about it has to engender conversation. We have to stop talking at one another and start talking with one another. For that to work you have to actively listen and respond to what people actually say. With respect, that has not been my experience in this thread.
 
 
I would say the same of the GOP. They need to be broken up. I have dual citizenship and lived abroad for many years. I really like parliamentary systems that force coalition-building. It forces compromise and while politics are still ugly, results in more reasonable sitting governments that have to take more reasonable positions and play to the national mainstreet as opposed to the radicals and reactionaries lurking in the wings.Our system of government can be reasonable and play to the middle, but only when the two parties stop playing a finite self-interested driven game. To a degree this is our fault because we actively deliver the message that we want statecraft rather than politics.
 
 
Bad economics does make my hair go white. So does sovereign debt and politicians who don't care if they bankrupt our nation tomorrow in exchange for votes today.
 
 
But, you see, this is where we have a real and pointed disagreement. I regard the democrats current set of policies and the direction they want to take us to be just as lethal to our national well-being and freedoms in the long-term as the republicans. The only difference is that the the republicans are in power and the democrats aren't. Trump is the acute ailment of the moment. Yes, I would like the pain he is causing us to go away, but saying vote for "hepatitis instead of cancer!" isn't very inspiring to someone like me, is it? You see, from where I sit, you keep minimizing the damage the democrats would do because of the damage the republicans are doing. And, this is my opinion and it may be unfair, but the reason I'm really getting so much opposition is that I'm not playing to your partisan biases.
 
 
Again, this is you responding to common republican rhetoric and has nothing to do with anything I said. As a result, what do I do with it?
 
 
I have already agreed. However, I already answered this question above. Again, please go back and read what I actually wrote.
No income tax. These are people's earnings. A reasonably low corporate tax rate. High capital gains tax. This is unearned self-perpetuating income. And, I do suggest you read the book. Its extremely well researched and cogently written by - gasp - a liberal!
 
We used to have high capital gains taxes and the rich still got richer without lifting a finger. They just got richer slower. I don't see that as a bad thing.
 
 
My answer: taxes and regulations. Strange, eh?
 
The caveat is, the right taxes and the right regulations. 
 
My issue with the dems is that they are pulling the wrong taxation levers are unnecessarily intrusive when it comes to regulation. This harms poor and middle class people in a way that is more subtle, but just as pervasive, way.
 
Let me be clear. I am not anti-regulation. Commons, markets, and regulations require some regulation to function in a fair manner. What I am against is excessive and populist regulation. In other words, I think regulation should be both smart and circumspect and reevaluated over time. Often times, in our zeal to do something, we impose bad rules that make things worse or have unintended consequences and never go away.
 
So, yes, let's regulate. But let's make sure we do so intelligently and with a deft touch - and let us always be asking: is there a better way to do this?

First, this is disingenuous. Write him and ask. As it stands, this is just a contextonomy. Or, are you intentionally ignoring the point? Setting up a straw-man and knocking it down on a message board doesn't impress me. The point is: politicians are always trying to float programs we can't afford and offer people things they should not have to woo voters. The last fiscally responsible politicians we had were elected in the 1960's.
 
People in power who espouse "leftists ideas" are specifically targeting their opponents money and power. They are not targeting their own money and power, and especially not the money and power of the administrative state. I am opposed to an intrusive and ever-growing administrative state that sees the pocket-books of the common man as a blank check for politicians balkanized partisan agendas - be they right or left.  
 

I agree the GOP isn't interested in fixing gerrymandering. By that same token, the DNC isn't interested in taking reasonable steps to clean up voter rolls or verify eligibility. I'm not a partisan the way you are. I'm not pointing the finger at one party while turning a blind eye to the other. Neither of these parties are interested in playing an infinite values-based game that benefits the American people. Both are pursuing their finite interests in extremely cynical and self-serving ways. I am not going to  play "White hat / black hat" with you. There is a corruptive influence flowing from both parties. I'm not going to play "pick your poison." I'm going to say "don't drink the poison."
 
 
 
Economics is power. Taxes are control. This is so basic that I don't need to argue it. Indeed, if you think politics doesn't boil down to the control of the the people's treasure you don't know the first thing about power.
 
 
Define "minority governments." Do you mean a government in which the president's party is in the minority. All good, I generally prefer that. That does not mean I'm going to vote for candidates who espouse interests and goals are anathema to my own.
 
 
I regard both parties as being fiscally irresponsible decision makers with a poor grasp of economics. The republicans gave up on fiscal responsibility and sensible economics decades ago. That doesn't make the democrats any better than it and the difference can be explained not by fiscal sense, but presidents who don't control both houses and therefore can't spend like madmen.
 
I strongly recommend reading Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty.
 
If you really want to understand the causes of income inequality and the problems both parties bring to our tax structure, its a must read book.
 
If it were my word here is what I would do:
 
Do away with income tax. Yes, I said that. Leave the corporate income tax rate at 20%. Jack up the the capital gains tax up to 50-70%..  What would be the results:
Poor and middle class people would have more income for expenses, education, and insurance. Businesses would know what to expect and be able to make healthy profits - and more people could start small businesses. The money made from capital gains alone - which are not earnings - would pay for the military, medicare, and social security. You want to secure the middle class. That's how you do it. You want to fund entitlements with only modest reforms? That's how you do it.
 
Here is the thing: democrats always point out that the GOP caters to the rich. Its true! 
Here is the thing: republicans always point out that the DNC tax policies hurt the middle class and small businesses. Its true! 
 
Both have completely misunderstood taxes. The democrats are constantly raising the wrong taxes. The GOP belligerently refuses to raise the right one.
 
 
 
Vituperative aside, yeah, its a problem. But, its only one of many problems, and your woulda-coulda-shoulda is meaningless. 30-40 years ago politicians didn't say that. Here we are. Look, I work for a solar company. I get it. But, at the same time, even if we acknowledge it, what do you propose we do? Most of the policy movies I see from the environmentalists, while logical, aren't reasonable and, in some cases, are extremely destructive. Its an easy problem to diagnose. It is not an easy problem to treat. If you destroy your patients health and quality of life extending their life, what was the point?  I do not buy into the fallacy of "something must be done." Ergo, "something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done." I want us to set a responsible environmental policy and, I agree, this administration isn't doing that. But, whatever we do, has to be smart, effective, and conserve our economic well-being in the process. I do believe that's possible. It is not, however, what I have seen to date.
 
 
Dear God. Really? More straw men and conflations. I am talking about high-level political ideals and you are arguing personalities. My opinion of Trump's character is stated in no uncertain terms in this thread. Yes, the man is an obstinate ass. So what? That is not what I am talking about. Until the dems (and you) stop making it about the man and return to a focus on the nation all I hear is Charlie Brown's teacher. When you do make it about our nation and our values, then we'll have something to talk about. Of course, I may still find your proposals anathema, but I'll at least hear them out. In the meantime, I'mpointedly voting libertarian with a clear conscience and wagging my ballot in your face.
 
May the Force be with you. 

Yes.  The "incident" you refer to was a pair of sock-puppet accounts that purported to be a "hot lesbian couple" named Rachel and Kara created by a cat-fishing troll named Fred Bittick. Some of us had figured it out fairly early on (the photos, personas, and anecdotes were improbable), but even gentle attempts to point it out resulted in some extremely nasty blow-back from board members who had bought it hook, line, and sinker. You either had to ignore Fred or play along so as not to be labeled all manner of nasty names. Ignoring him was not as easy because he was a very active and aggressive poster and would sick other people onto you if you didn't respond to him. It was like an Orwellian social experiment.
 
To compound matters, Fred tried to insert himself into people's lives beyond the boards via private messages and instant messaging, and attempted to draw out intimate and private information from board members while sharing fake information of his own. His first attempt to do that with me was when I concluded my initial doubts were correct. I think that intrusive and falsely obtained intimacy was, more than anything, is why those who let Fred in and became "Rachel and Kara's" most defenders / advocates were so deeply hurt by the whole thing. I kept my "I told you so" at the end very low key as a result.
 
Personally, I formally take everyone on the boards at face value until they give me a reason to think otherwise. Its simply easier (and mannerly) to work from that premise. But, I keep my eyes open, and I'm sensitive to the fact that some people cynically construct Internet personas that gives them social leverage in interactions / debates. I do not assume that is what is going on here. You can't go through your days suspecting everyone all of the time. I want everyone on the boards to be comfortable being themselves and to give one another goodwill, friendliness, and grace irrespective of who they may be. The only person any of us can represent is ourselves. I encourage everyone to do just that. 

Yes.  The "incident" you refer to was a pair of sock-puppet accounts that purported to be a "hot lesbian couple" named Rachel and Kara created by a cat-fishing troll named Fred Bittick. Some of us had figured it out fairly early on (the photos, personas, and anecdotes were improbable), but even gentle attempts to point it out resulted in some extremely nasty blow-back from board members who had bought it hook, line, and sinker. You either had to ignore Fred or play along so as not to be labeled all manner of nasty names. Ignoring him was not as easy because he was a very active and aggressive poster and would sick other people onto you if you didn't respond to him. It was like an Orwellian social experiment.
 
To compound matters, Fred tried to insert himself into people's lives beyond the boards via private messages and instant messaging, and attempted to draw out intimate and private information from board members while sharing fake information of his own. His first attempt to do that with me was when I concluded my initial doubts were correct. I think that intrusive and falsely obtained intimacy was, more than anything, is why those who let Fred in and became "Rachel and Kara's" most defenders / advocates were so deeply hurt by the whole thing. I kept my "I told you so" at the end very low key as a result.
 
Personally, I formally take everyone on the boards at face value until they give me a reason to think otherwise. Its simply easier (and mannerly) to work from that premise. But, I keep my eyes open, and I'm sensitive to the fact that some people cynically construct Internet personas that gives them social leverage in interactions / debates. I do not assume that is what is going on here. You can't go through your days suspecting everyone all of the time. I want everyone on the boards to be comfortable being themselves and to give one another goodwill, friendliness, and grace irrespective of who they may be. The only person any of us can represent is ourselves. I encourage everyone to do just that. 

Honestly, I know this will sound passe, but B/X.
Grab the old Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (Red) and Expert Set (Blue).
For all the populist derision that surrounds it there is a reason people got started with it.
I was 7 and a half years old and I was able to figure it out and was hooked for life.
Yes, for a modern D&D player it can feel archaic and restrictive, but it works.
It is also has a certain "anything is possible" old school romance to it.
And, once the players have the feel of it you can switch them to something crunchier or more modern.
That's my 2AP and I'm sticking to it.
 

First, this assumes you are slapping "requires skill roll" onto a power. Second, it assumes you are buying spells as powers to begin with. It may be customary or recommended or orthodox to build spells as powers, but you don't have to do so. Instead, you can just implement a skill based magic system. No faking required. You don't need anyone's permission to do so. But, if fear of interpretation and deviation without designer sanction makes this seem far to taboo to bear, I shall also quote the rules:
 
"The GM could set up the magic system so that characters don’t pay Character Points for spells; they get them “for free” after buying certain Skills and/or Perks."
 
George Takei voice: "Oh My!" That's in the Advanced Player's Guide on page 190, by the way. Many of us have been doing it this way long before Steve got around to codifying it. There are write-ups for skill based magic on the boards. You can also find one on at Killer Shrike's website. I always do skill based magic and its really easy to do.
 
Example: I jot down "Fireball: Blast 6d6, Explosion, End [6]" but the player buys: Fireball 14- (7 Points).
 
I've found this simpler, faster, and easier to manage insofar as the following guidelines are observed:
Spells must be researched, found, or learned from a master. Spells must be purchased individually. E.g., No "Fire Magic 14-" Spells are not characteristic based. You pay 3 points for an 11- roll and 2 points for each +1. Think really hard before allowing skill levels that affect more than one spell. Have a set of common modifiers for spell rolls. I've found up to +/-4 works well. I hear you cry: "But what about really powerful spells?" 
 
You can include prerequisites for learning the spell. These could be specific spells, a certain number of spells from the same school, or a relevant background skill at a specific level. Another tack is to jack up the limitations in your write up. Make it time-consuming, expensive, and/or exhausting to cast. Require helpers. Or make the getting the focus ("material component") a quest in of itself. Who said knowing a spell meant it was convenient to cast? Balance issues solved. 
 
Maybe I'm just an old dinosaur who came up in the era of rulings over rules, but one of the things I love about Hero is that their are multiple correct ways of accomplishing the same thing in the rules. Another thing I love about it is that for all of Steve's legalese, you aren't locked into his personal design philosophy. It may be the default, but its not the exclusive "One True Hero Way."
 
Its like magic for a skilled GM. ?
 

Yes.  The "incident" you refer to was a pair of sock-puppet accounts that purported to be a "hot lesbian couple" named Rachel and Kara created by a cat-fishing troll named Fred Bittick. Some of us had figured it out fairly early on (the photos, personas, and anecdotes were improbable), but even gentle attempts to point it out resulted in some extremely nasty blow-back from board members who had bought it hook, line, and sinker. You either had to ignore Fred or play along so as not to be labeled all manner of nasty names. Ignoring him was not as easy because he was a very active and aggressive poster and would sick other people onto you if you didn't respond to him. It was like an Orwellian social experiment.
 
To compound matters, Fred tried to insert himself into people's lives beyond the boards via private messages and instant messaging, and attempted to draw out intimate and private information from board members while sharing fake information of his own. His first attempt to do that with me was when I concluded my initial doubts were correct. I think that intrusive and falsely obtained intimacy was, more than anything, is why those who let Fred in and became "Rachel and Kara's" most defenders / advocates were so deeply hurt by the whole thing. I kept my "I told you so" at the end very low key as a result.
 
Personally, I formally take everyone on the boards at face value until they give me a reason to think otherwise. Its simply easier (and mannerly) to work from that premise. But, I keep my eyes open, and I'm sensitive to the fact that some people cynically construct Internet personas that gives them social leverage in interactions / debates. I do not assume that is what is going on here. You can't go through your days suspecting everyone all of the time. I want everyone on the boards to be comfortable being themselves and to give one another goodwill, friendliness, and grace irrespective of who they may be. The only person any of us can represent is ourselves. I encourage everyone to do just that. 

Why not replace Newark and Jersey City with Hudson City?
 
That way its right across from Brooklyn and Manhattan - and the Empire Club.
 
Two cities for the price of one!

Yes.  The "incident" you refer to was a pair of sock-puppet accounts that purported to be a "hot lesbian couple" named Rachel and Kara created by a cat-fishing troll named Fred Bittick. Some of us had figured it out fairly early on (the photos, personas, and anecdotes were improbable), but even gentle attempts to point it out resulted in some extremely nasty blow-back from board members who had bought it hook, line, and sinker. You either had to ignore Fred or play along so as not to be labeled all manner of nasty names. Ignoring him was not as easy because he was a very active and aggressive poster and would sick other people onto you if you didn't respond to him. It was like an Orwellian social experiment.
 
To compound matters, Fred tried to insert himself into people's lives beyond the boards via private messages and instant messaging, and attempted to draw out intimate and private information from board members while sharing fake information of his own. His first attempt to do that with me was when I concluded my initial doubts were correct. I think that intrusive and falsely obtained intimacy was, more than anything, is why those who let Fred in and became "Rachel and Kara's" most defenders / advocates were so deeply hurt by the whole thing. I kept my "I told you so" at the end very low key as a result.
 
Personally, I formally take everyone on the boards at face value until they give me a reason to think otherwise. Its simply easier (and mannerly) to work from that premise. But, I keep my eyes open, and I'm sensitive to the fact that some people cynically construct Internet personas that gives them social leverage in interactions / debates. I do not assume that is what is going on here. You can't go through your days suspecting everyone all of the time. I want everyone on the boards to be comfortable being themselves and to give one another goodwill, friendliness, and grace irrespective of who they may be. The only person any of us can represent is ourselves. I encourage everyone to do just that. 

A wife foreign policy. Unless your group has monolithic political views, or has been briefed and bought in, its a recipe for disaster. The same is true of religion. There are a lot of different kinds of liberals and conservatives out there. There are a lot of different kinds of democrat and republican voters out there. Painting one side or the other with a broad brush runs the likelihood of alienating people.

Top Secret S.I. rules adapted to the various genres of Pulp.

Indeed. To my mind it is more about genre and tone (morally gray comic book vigilantes) than power level. The Six Million Dollar Man, the Bionic Woman, the A-Team, Walker Texas Ranger, James Bond, Mission Impossible, etc. those are all firmly planted in the action adventure genre, with little-to-no gray area between heroes and villains, and so they don't really fit the core "Dark Champions" charter. They belong in an Action Hero genre book instead, IMO.

I dreamt I was on the Lawrence Welk show. I was dressed like the host in one of those obnoxious light blue dinner jackets and we were talking about rockabilly tango dancing (?!?). Anyways, Glenn Miller was leading his orchestra playing a desultory rendition of Begin The Beguine while my grandparents sat in the audience saying approvingly "Oh look, there's David. He's a regular on the show now." My daughters were in the audience too, looking up from madly texting on their phones with a "what the hell is all this?" look on their faces. My mom, at home, switches to FRD-TV. But, here is the thing: Tennesee Earnie Ford and Freddie Mercury are on stage with us, ferverently whispering at one another. My wife comes out onto the stage dressed for dancing and while Lawrence introduces her the band starts kicking up the tempo. The next thing I know Glen Miller gives a signal, Louis Armstrong struts out from amidst the band blaring his trumpet with huge, and Tennesee Earnie and Freddy Mercury launch into a high power duet of "The Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy from Company C.". My wife, who doesn't dance, is suddenly doing sensational swing moves and spinning around me with her skirt twirling, while I just stand there snapping my fingers and bopping my head to the beat trying to look hip. Freddie is doing his big strut and ass wiggles at Lawrence who is really digging it while while Tennesee Earnie dips my wife and swings her in an amazing dance slide back to me. Welcome to my inner life...

I decided to wait to respond to this and think about what to say. The reason is: you and I aren't having the same conversation. We also, very clearly, have different cultural and political priorities. I am not talking about policy goals. Those are trivial. I could not care less. I'm talking about something higher up the mountain than that. I'm talking about political values. 
 
When I said our traditional definitions of left and right were no longer useful because both parties were, above the finite policy level, pursuing mirrored (and selfish) tracks, you immediately started making partisan arguments and saying "well that guy is worse than my guy." So what? Again, I could not care less. We aren't even having the same conversation.
 
You are playing a finite game based on interests and short-term political gains and beating the other side rather than an infinite game based on values. That is also what both parties are doing, too. And, its bad game theory. A finite player who takes on an infinite player invariably loses. They run out of resources and quit the game. 
 
You want to debate me? Change your game. Become an infinite player. If you don't, pursuing this is a waste of my time. I don't care if the republicans started it or the democrats started it. I don't care if the republicans are really really mean while the democrats are merely really really petty. Who cares? Pointing the person who started it doesn't change the result. 
 
If the dems are so smart and moral and wise, why are they playing the same finite game? When you make your decisions based on finite interests you are not predictable and, from a cultural, diplomatic, economic, and military perspective that has serious negative consequences. Namely, you destroy the well of trust required to make cooperation possible. 
 
If you play the interests game friendliness and goodwill, respect and honor, go by the wayside. One party may win, but the entire nation loses in the long run because cooperation - E PLURBIUS UNUM - becomes impossible. How do we survive? We come together and cooperate. How do we prosper? We come together and cooperate. If the parties aren't doing that, why do you think taking a side will save you?
 
For me, America is not a finite game. It is not about the interests of individual parties and groups. It is not about specific pet policy decisions for special interest groups (or voting blocs). I will not play your game. For me, America is about life, liberty, and the freedom to pursue one's security and happiness. I know my political values. I stated them. You responded with partisan policy complaints. That is the root of the problem this nation is facing.
 
I have zero patience for either party. Neither represent me or my political values. Neither represent the values our nation was founded on. They represent a hungry and intrusive administrative state. Both are pursuing their own short-term finite partisan interests. When they play to win on that level the people lose. I want a party that is running on the values its for rather than the people and policies it is against.
 
The GOP ran on "Not Obama. Not Clinton." They won. Now the Dems are running on "Not Trump." Maybe they'll win. But, that is valueless finite drivel. And that is the problem with Washington. They have lost sight of our most basic and traditional of values. The ones found in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The aspirational glue that forms the WE in "We The People." And, so has the media. And so have stridently partisan voters.
 
I choose to play an infinite game aimed at maximizing personal liberty and opportunity and prosperity for every single American. Its infinite because its value based.
 
Democrats good! Republicans bad!
Republicans good! Democrats bad!
 
Utter tosh. Petty finite interest driven nonsense. Both are playing against the very values this nation was founded to aspire towards.  You can choose to play that game if you want. I won't be joining you.

This is such a basic soft skill (socially) that my mind boggles at the notion while at the same time finding myself  teaching younger co-workers how to be professional in the office.
 
Gaming is just like having a work meeting and the same expectations apply: be on time, wear clean clothes, smell nice, put your phone on vibrate and leave it in your pocket, chat with the people who are in the room with you before and after the meeting. You make contacts and build teams and trust that way.
 
NO PHONES AT THE TABLE. FULL STOP.
 
Its discourteous and says "I'd rather be doing something else" than participate in your boring game. Call it out and don't budge. Its bad behavior stemming from dopamine addiction. If their kids or SO or work must be able to call them in event of emergency they can set a unique ring tone and leave it in their pocket forsaking all others. If they are there to play they owe every person at the table their undivided attention and active partcipation.

"Wunnerful! Wunnerful!"

I dreamt I was on the Lawrence Welk show. I was dressed like the host in one of those obnoxious light blue dinner jackets and we were talking about rockabilly tango dancing (?!?). Anyways, Glenn Miller was leading his orchestra playing a desultory rendition of Begin The Beguine while my grandparents sat in the audience saying approvingly "Oh look, there's David. He's a regular on the show now." My daughters were in the audience too, looking up from madly texting on their phones with a "what the hell is all this?" look on their faces. My mom, at home, switches to FRD-TV. But, here is the thing: Tennesee Earnie Ford and Freddie Mercury are on stage with us, ferverently whispering at one another. My wife comes out onto the stage dressed for dancing and while Lawrence introduces her the band starts kicking up the tempo. The next thing I know Glen Miller gives a signal, Louis Armstrong struts out from amidst the band blaring his trumpet with huge, and Tennesee Earnie and Freddy Mercury launch into a high power duet of "The Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy from Company C.". My wife, who doesn't dance, is suddenly doing sensational swing moves and spinning around me with her skirt twirling, while I just stand there snapping my fingers and bopping my head to the beat trying to look hip. Freddie is doing his big strut and ass wiggles at Lawrence who is really digging it while while Tennesee Earnie dips my wife and swings her in an amazing dance slide back to me. Welcome to my inner life...