薔薇語

8 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

Senators represent the citizens of entire states more than the states themselves.   The citizens vote for them and senators who narrowly construe their responsibilities will quickly find themselves out of a job.

You keep wanting to equate Senators with House-Reps. Senators were designed to protect the explicit interests of small urban states against large rural states at creation. They were also suppose to ensure the states could have a say in the level of federalism being observed. So trying to expect this office to somehow be based on proportional population would be an odd desire inconsistent with the office's design. 

I am not saying you are incorrect in your view of how illsuited senators are at representing proportionality, but that you are incorrect in desiring that of an office explicitly not designed for that purpose. 

La Rose. 

13 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If population should be the sole determinant of representation, presumably that should extend internationally.  The US has a population just over 322 million, third place behind China (just over 1.4 billion) and India (over 1.32 billion).  Any 3 of the next 10 would outvote the US.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations)

Good Point. Why should the UK, Japan, US, and India all have the same vote share in the UN? Also, why shouldn't we be able to directly elect our UN ambassador? 

La Rose. 

I generally wouldn't buy any special skill or power for the weapon unless it was specifically designed to be hard to detect. 

Most swords are built with OAFocus. 

Many guns are also built with OAFocus. 

If there is a class of gun easily concealed, have that class merely get IAFocus. Inobvious to reflect that it can be concealed by most folks in most situations. 

If a weapon is like a Dillenger gun and designed  to be hard to detect, then buy it with a plus 1 or 2 to a concealment roll. 

La Rose.

5 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

States are made up of people, but they're not actually people.  

Never said otherwise. The difficulty here is not in MY desire to see states as people but perhaps in yours to expect them to be such. 

Senators represent STATES. They are fairly distributed based on that criteria. They were originally even selected by the state legislatures and not by direct popular vote. 

So we again get back to my only potential solution for the problem you perceive: reframing how you look at it. If, however, you have another possibility to the solution I didn't already point out above, I would be curious what you think it is. 

La Rose. 

The alternative in the 18th century was to simply not have a unified country. Is the perceived problem you speak of today worth not ever having had a unified nation? I assume you'd say no. If the perceived problem today worth breaking up the nation ala some desires of Canadians and Alaskans to form a more 'representative' smaller nation acceptable? I would generally assume you think no, Mega. 

So what are we left with? A constitutional amendment process that would absolutely require those smaller states to willfully relegate themselves into nothingness. I know you can understand the practical issue with this and why it won't happen. So what are we left to do? I can't think of another alternative. Can you? 

Perhaps the one 'solution' I can devise is for is to change how we frame this facts. The senate isn't unfair to populous states, it is perfectly even to states by judging thwm based on thw statehood and nothing more. Perhaps we could even go back to having state legislators picking the senators and restore them to their original role of representing states, not people. This might help us push back on some national government creep and restore more federallism. 

La Rose. 

1 hour ago, wcw43921 said:

This would give the voters more of a say in who sits on the bench, without the polarizing effect of a judicial candidate having to campaign for the office as chief executives and legislators must campaign for theirs. Special interest groups could campaign for or against their retention, of course, but the Judges would at least have a chance to stand on their record, rather than running against an opponent in an election.

By giving voters a direct say are we not forcing a judge to be a politician for those 8 years? Rather than disinterested concerns of law they would be compelled to consider the political fallout. We already have such worries without adding on explicit partisan political pressures. I worry that doing so would bring the court's reputation down to congressional levels. Likewise, nuanced issues of law expressed in concurring opinions yea or nay are likely going to be lost in the noise of public discourse even more so than they are now. 

Also, like the above it would require a constitutional amendment process likely to be even more bitterly partisan and dividing.   

La Rose. 

1 hour ago, Ternaugh said:

 

The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number of Supreme court judges to 9, but it started out at 5 and has gone as high as 10 in the past. The number could be changed by Congress, but that's unlikely.

 

https://www.livescience.com/9857-9-supreme-court-justices.html

 

FDR did attempt to have the law changed, after the Court overturned several provisions of his New Deal legislation. He wanted the President to have the right to appoint an extra judge for every member of the Supreme Court who refused to retire after age 70, for a total of up to 15 Justices. FDR's "court packing plan" was ultimately defeated by members of his own party.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

I am well aware of that. But to change it to have set rolling term limits would require a constitutional amendment. 

La Rose. 

10 hours ago, Pariah said:

There was an interesting discussion on the local NPR station this morning. The gist: Would the nomination & confirmation process for SCOTUS be less contentious (and less likely to result in screaming, protests, political grandstanding etc.) if Supreme Court appointments were not lifelong? Specifically, what if Supreme Court terms were limited to 18 years, with a new nomination coming every two years? How would it affect the process? How would it affect the Court's decisions?

 

Any thoughts?

Very unlikely. It would mean we would have major swings in court makeup probably once a decade as opposed to once a generation. The steadiness of a court helps protect that veneer of non-partisanship and reliability. By making every president selecting at least 2 nominees a term and potentially 4, we are going to have this as a campaign fight every cycle. That won't be good. 

Next there is the procedural issue: how do you compell the senate to confirm? Is there a default to appoint? If not, what prevents a senate from doing what it did in '16 and securing one nominee for the bew guy on top of his guaranteed 2? 

Next up, unless there is some provision preventing reappointment, it means judges become actual political figures concerned about a re-election of sorts. 

Lastly, it requires an extreme overhaul of Article 3 of the constitution. There is no way anyone is going to get that kind of change delt with well. Either party will accuse the other of wanting to pack the court, which some Dems are already expressing as a good idea for heaven's sake! Can you imagine the level of animosity that would erupt from Republicans trying to amend the constitution and adding 9 more conservative judges to the 4 and a half that are already there? 

La Rose. 

1 hour ago, freakboy6117 said:

could you do it with duplication? basically, create a dupe at the instant of death use the change duplicate adder lets you adjust complications and alter powers

Potentially. Multiform provides a bit clearer way to proceed given the general lack of remains. 

La Rose. 

If there is no particular benefit to the PC, I would probably go with both Social Complication: Everyone is Distrustful and Distinctive Features: Frightening Aura. 

Social Complication because we are modelling the social response to him AND Distinctive features because it is something innate to him.

If the effects are benefiting the PC, you could build it as an Uncontrol and set effect Mind Control or PRE for PRE attacks to cause fear. Should be fairly cheap. You could still let them keep the Dis. Features with that build. 

La Rose.  

A fair summation of the hearing by DeFranco.

La Rose. 

On 9/29/2018 at 8:01 AM, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

It's pretty clear we handle death and character generation far too differently to continue this conversation.  For us, if starter characters are 500 pts, then a year later you're u to 550, then you die--

 

your new character is a starting character.  500 pts.

 

 

Using this model--

 

your reanimated guy would start at 500 plus whatever he spent on the power.

 

It is clear we are different. I normally allow and play in games where we allow new characters to be roughly on par with eachother in points. Akin to an old and popular DnD trope of '1 level below' or 'at the lowest group level'.

Even taking the creation concept you imagine, I worry if ir would still cause intra-group concerns:

Start 500pts

At 550pts

2 characters die. 

One comes back at 500

The other at 500 plus a bonus pack. 

And of course that ignores the potential oddity of the character dying in the first few sessions and now being many points ahead of still living characters. 

To me, I worry this could cause meta issues regarding fairness that Hugh's comment of "Why should you  pay points for the privilege of continuing to be in the game with  a new character?" avoids well. All that stuff is fluff for back story and justification for point allocation. 

Quote

(Didn't you have a different avatar a while back?  The "knife ninja woman" from the Perks header in BBB?  Or was that a different Rose?)

I believe there are two or three accounts that use 'Rose' in some manner. I am perhaps the only poster, however, who signs each post with "La Rose" or any derivation. 

The most notable other Rose in my mind is, I think, BlackRose. She is actually from France, I believe. 

As to my avatar, it has been this for a few years at least becausr I haven't been active for a few years. Came back only because I had a game potentially starting up and wantes some input. Prior to this it was a blue glass rose since the mid 2000s. 

La Rose. 

6 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Rose, I explicitly made the point of saying that his drinking was not the issue. None of his remarks that I quoted had anything to do with drinking.

You said "The point raised by the above is not whether he drank or not, not even how much, or whether or not that's acceptable. The point, per evidence from multiple other people who knew him at that time, is that Kavanaugh misrepresented his conduct in the context of determining his fitness for one of the highest offices in the country."

You said the issue is he misrepresented himself after discussing his drinking. The implication is that he misrepresented his drinking. I am saying that doesn't seem to be the case. If you mean aomething else, it wasn't expressed as well as I think you wished it to be. The fact that 'saint' and 'exemplary' are being used as stand-ins for not very well expressed ideas that don't seem grounded in statements by the judge only adds to the issue. 

"Evidence of Kavanaugh's aggressive behavior toward women is part of an overall pattern at odds with his remarks, and much more telling within the context of the current proceedings".

You say "evidence" here when I am not sure that is an apt description. What exactly are you referencing as the evidence? Perhaps I am missing something. If it is the allegations as they stand now, that seems to require prior belief in their veracity to be claimed as evidence. If it is something elae, I am curious what.

La Rose. 

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

In an interview Kavanaugh gave to Fox News, he said, "I went to an all-boys Catholic high school. I was focused on academics and athletics, going to church every Sunday at Little Flower, working on my service projects, and friendship – friendship with my fellow classmates, and friendship with the girls from the local all-girls Catholic schools." He also denied not just sexual impropriety, but having sex at all during high school and "for many years thereafter." If you don't believe the word "exemplary" suits how Kavanaugh characterized his behavior at that time, what word would you suggest?

 

The point raised by the above is not whether he drank or not, not even how much, or whether or not that's acceptable. The point, per evidence from multiple other people who knew him at that time, is that Kavanaugh misrepresented his conduct in the context of determining his fitness for one of the highest offices in the country. That speaks to his honesty, his motivations, and his character, and casts doubt on his denials of the more reprehensible behavior he's been accused of.

It is less about the word choice but the view folks choosing it are expressing. 

Lord Liaden, do you think being "focused on academics and athletics, going to church..." precludes one from also drinking? Do you think someone who drinks is definitionally incapable of being "focused on academics" etc? Are these mutually exclusive in your mind? If so, why so? If not, then perhaps you can start to understand where I am coming from. Does drinking sully one's character? No. 

People seemed very oddly focused on the Judge's drinking as a kid and seem to be using that as a way to sully his name. Most everyone here probably drank in highschool, especially if they are of that generation. Most everyone here has probably drank to some subjective sense of extreme (Even teetotaller me is a drunkard by Archer's standards 0.0).  But if I asked most any of you if you were good kids, a great number of you would likely answer yes. You would likely point to good actions as signs of positive character. No one would go out of their way to express some negative characteristic, especially if doing so would play into a terrible narrative of you as a violent rapist. As Archer pointed above above as it relates to drinking and I more broadly before that, memory is a fickle thing. To quote Archer's good point "Some people vomit easily when they drink, others have a cast iron stomach. Remembering forty years later that someone vomited is easier than forty years later remembering all the times that person didn't vomit." Our memory and minds play tricks on us. I have vomited from alcohol precisely once in my life when I was 21. But if you were to ask my roommate at the time about my ability to handle alcohol, he is far more likely to recall that activity despite is low modality than the few times where I drank just as much consequence free. 

The judge is under extraordinary scrutiny. He has every reasonable incentive to play up his positive characteristics and to avoid negative ones just as I don't mention how much I hate most sports when I hang out with my sports loving friends - that is not the appropriate time to express those thoughts. Nor does his talking up his positive characters preclude him from having negative ones like drinking in highschool. And drinking in highschool is by no means an stepping stone to violent rapist. If we want to question the veracity of his statements, then lets actually assess what he actually said, not caricatures of it.

La Rose. 

16 minutes ago, archer said:

To me, it's hard to think in my head that if someone is drinking that they aren't drinking to excess. Well, I guess I know it in my head but that isn't what my gut tells me. (I saw you take a sip of beer! You are drinking too much!!!)

This I can relate to! When I drink it is only because it's a social occasion that seems to require it. I can remember getting a housewarming gift of a can of nice beer here in Japan. It sat in my fridge for 2 and 1/2 years until I gave it to the person who replaced me at work as a housewarming gift.

A few years back when I was feeling a bit depressed because I wasn't getting out and meeting people, I thought that it would be a good idea to buy some liquor try and drink it at home as a mood booster to go out. Those two bottles are still sitting in my fridge 3 years later.

I sometimes even tease my girlfriend when she goes out and drinks and call her an alchy and she drinks less than once every couple months.

La Rose. 

1 hour ago, archer said:

But there's no obligation to release your income tax statements to the public, whether you are a candidate or an elected official. If you want that to become a requirement, you need to talk to your congressman and senators about passing a law to require it.

I wonder and doubt any such standard would be ruled constitutional if challenged for any constitutional office (Senate, House, Pres.). If made law, I doubt anyone would actually challenge it, too. 

La Rose. 

3 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

The implications of the word "saint" seem to be the sticking point in this discussion. Kavanaugh never used it to describe himself. However, his initial description of his own conduct in his youth clearly asserted that it was exemplary, which no one else from that time and place in his life has corroborated, and quite a few have contradicted. He was at the very least being disingenuous, and has subsequently had to walk back his self-characterization. If this was a trial that would have little evidentiary significance, but for a job interview it doesn't bode well.

I don't think characterizing what he said as him claiming to be "exemplary" is fair either. Drinking, even to excess, in one's youth is hardly grounds to condemn someone. And the fact he hasn't gone out of his way to say he drank a lot is hardly surprising. He either thinks he didnt* or doesn't want that to be the narrative for the very real concern akin to Dean's idea above. 

*And this is a subjective standard. Drinking a bottle or two a night to some is perfectly normal. But to me, a person who drinks less than once a year, drinking more than once a week makes you a drunkard. 

Again, I feel we are mischaracterizing his statements and trying to demand this holier than thou standard from a mere mortal. 

La Rose. 

Duke, I think I can answer a bit of that. 

Imagine you are in a campaign with friends. Everyone built 500pt characters. One character has the ability you described. After a year everyone is 550pts but that character has died and come back but now at 600pts. Do you think that would go over well in the group? A player choosing to be below the point cap is a bit different then a single player being allowed to be way above it. I think the simple group dynamics in psychology of it all woodwind or such an idea rather impractical.

Beyond that, it also has the benefit of neutralizing death at no cost. If Jane's character dies and she makes a new one, she is still at the point cap but now this new character lacks all of the history that she would otherwise have been able to draw upon in the campaign. But her friend Joe gets to have all of that knowledge, campaign history, and more points after he dies. It just feels like a recipe for disaster.

La Rose. 

Being focused on school, church, sports, etc., does not make one a saint. Does not mean one has done nothing less than great. Nor are those focuses exclusionary of drinking. I have known top students who drank and did drugs in school. Doesn't mean that they were of poor character but that they were merely mortals. And we should never expect one of us to be more than mere mortals with all of our virtues and vices. He hasn't painted himself as a saint and strawmanning him as such isn't helpful or productive.  

That quote of mine has a typo. Should be 'exclude'. 

La Rose. 

7 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

No.  The letter was forwarded to the FBI to investigate and was leaked by someone shortly afterward.   Then when Ford was swarmed by reporters she decided to go public.

The Senator said she forwarded the allegations. And if it was her intent to forward the documents the whole time, why not do so immediately? Her own actions betray her claims. 

La Rose. 

33 minutes ago, Ternaugh said:

 

"You are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute."

Huh? I know this is perhaps my first time ever using 'naughty' words on this forum, but I don't recall that being an issue in the past. Have the forum rules changed in the last few years? 

La Rose. 

1 hour ago, TheDarkness said:

His words, "The allegation of misconduct is completely inconsistent with the rest of my life. The record of my life, from my days in grade school through the present day, shows that I have always promoted the equality and dignity of women."

Again, he didn't characterize himself as a saint. Even people of good character are allowed to get drunk. I can almost guarantee that everyone here drinks far more than I, but I would never use that as an excuse to impune one's character. Nor is being supportive of women exclusive with flirting. 

It seems as though lots of folks are establishing caricatures of what the person has actually said. The pursuit of justice requires us to try our eternal best to set aside such exaggerations. 

La Rose. 

Selective would only be helpful, as lucius points out, if you also wanted to not targrt other, non-self, characters (Allies, for example).

If you have that goal (to not taget allies), go ahead and use ONLY selective and never target yourself. 

La Rose. 

8 hours ago, DShomshak said:

That was Lawnmower Boy who pointed out this was a hiring committee, not a trial. I just repeated his insight.

 

A few further thoughts:

 

First, Kavanaugh made himself easy to attack by presenting himself (or letting Trump and others present him) as such a perfect plaster saint. Plaster saints invite hammers to smash them. If he'd begun by saying that he'd had a wild youth but he'd repented of it and tried to be a better man, he'd be... Well, maybe not untouchable, but he'd be harder to attack. For instance, while insisting that he doesn't remember any such attack on Ford, if it did happen he apologizes and wants to help her and urges all women to report such attacks right away. Just from the most cynical, tactical standpoint, that would limit the damage. Lots of people love a repentant sinner, and it would avoid the question of his current honesty.

 

Dean Shomshak

I am not sure that is a fair characterization of what the Judge has expressed. I am not sure why some think he was presenting himself as a saint. Saying one has never engaged in illegal sexual acts isn't quite the same as sainthood. 

Next, claims about his good character are not claims of sainthood by others. Nor does the judge have control over how others portray him. I think perhaps we are expecting far too much control over media narratives by the judge here. 

Moving on, it seems your solution for political blowback is rather unproductive. Take a moment and consider the idea that you, a decent man who has raped no one, were accused of a violet attempted rape. Would you feel the right way to proceed would be to say to the world "Dang! Maybe I did, maybe I didn't. Who the heck knows. I was such a terrible drunk back then! Let me go ahead and apologize regardless cause maybe..." There is no world in which that is the better option.

La Rose. 

2 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

Wait--Kavanaugh's co-rapists all denied being present?  No!  It can't be!

The Judge and Mr. Judge have both denied the allegations. Beyond that  Prof. Ford named two others at the party but not engaged in the acts. One of which was her friend and that person said they can't recall ever being at a party with both the Prof and Judge. Check the CNN clip above. 

So I don't think your summation is accurate. 

La Rose.