TheDarkness

On the Hero System forum, there is a thread on revamping the martial arts system in which the topic of creating a skill related pool has come up often. Some discussion of the pool is for spells, and one of the central ideas being that it should be incremental, so that high level things must have lower level spells that must be in place first. Admittedly, my own contributions, as someone with less experience in Hero magic, has been more a structural view on it, how to build a pool that generally behaves in that way without constraining it to a preapproved list of spells, so that players may still use their own ingenuity. It seems to me that power limits that gradually increase are actually a campaign world level thing, as opposed to a system level one. As such, it seems simple enough for a GM to say, here are the caps on your pool and its slots at the level of a x point character, here they are at x+50, etc.

Interesting. I've kind of thought a bit about implementing a change in the movement rules as a house rule, but I hadn't thought through the mechanics of it. My main reasoning on it was the choppiness of aspects of it, which, I think, is the difficulty of including speedsters. I've actually been working on designing a game of my own, and that was one aspect that influenced my own design. Because of speedsters, if you allow moves in all rounds, speedsters are going to benefit more than anyone else. My workaround has been to allow movement in any round, in Hero I would say any segment, regardless of whether you have an action(this is to get around the whole time freezing as all the normals running away from the combat stop moving except two segments in the round, for example, among other things), but, that movement could only be starting movement minus any that was sold back, not bought movement, and the rationale is that even speedsters couldn't just endlessly use their power, they run, then move normally, then bolt for their next pass. I'll have to think about what you have above.

I will sometimes, when trying to work on something comedic, keep in mind the old adage on the link between comedy and tragedy. I look at what I would do if this were tragic, and then find what's funny in that as well. Looking at your aliens. I might ask why they need to conquer. Why do they suck at passing? Why the 1930s spy as the go to display, is there something about that type character that they admire, or is it something so baffling to them that they are trying to hide behind what they don't understand about us? As for causing trouble for the characters, the idea that comes to my mind is that the trouble does not have to be so much a fight for them against flat alien mooks. Perhaps the trouble is that they are so bad at it that, first of all, their plans are no threat whatsoever, and actually put the aliens themselves in danger. And the heroes are more just trying to prevent a chain of events that will cause these aliens' destruction. Another thought is that, to a brilliant detective, the incidents the aliens might cause might be so nonsensical as to appear to be a potentially brilliant plan by some unknown mastermind. Just thoughts.

White Chaplain, good name, and I like the story for the character as well. Nice! I have nothing else useful to lend this thread...

The problem with your point in 4 is that if calling out clear racism is not allowed because of something that amounts to the same thing as political correctness, it is of advantage to no one but the racists. And the difference between calling half of the population racist and calling half the population "people who call racism" seems like no difference at all to me. I'm not saying that there is not unfair name calling all around, but the whole argument that all the democrats are calling racist is doing the exact same thing. The Republican party has an issue with attracting minorities. A huge issue. There's a reason for it, but that doesn't mean that all their voters are racist. But, since the Republican Party's answer to this issue has, for many years, been saying "African Americans just don't understand why we're the best party for them" instead of asking "why don't african-american voters think we're the best party for them" and maybe listening instead of explaining. BUT, this would not have possible in most of my lifetime, because the southern bloc went to the GOP in protest of the Civil Rights Act.

If you mean election results, that's a different animal. By voting patterns, we're purple, nowhere near predominantly red or blue almost anywhere. The vast majority of American territory is populated by purple by any estimation. We don't show up as particularly red or blue in any election by our voting habits, either in the cities or in the rural areas.

In fairness, while the electoral college serves a purpose, the current system actually does not serve that purpose well. Further, the actual maps of Republican and Democrat voting patterns turn almost the entire country purple. There are a number of false maps floating around that depict islands of blue in a sea of red, they are about as accurate as that guy from Pulp Fiction who tries to shoot Jullian at the beginning.

Somewhere I saw someone put out the theory that the prequel trilogy was actually imperial propaganda. The child stealing jedi begin by using muscle to end a trade dispute, and end by trying to take over the senate. They take in a child whose mother is a slave and do nothing to help her, and she is subsequently raped and killed. The senate itself is shown to be useless and in need of replacement by a central force, which the jedi think they are. In fact, the leader of the senate ends up being chosen by someone standing in for an actual senator, someone whose entire political career is owed them by nepotism, Jarjar "unqualified for every job he has" Binks.

I think one aspect that might be important is that while knockback becomes less likely, knockdown remains just as likely, if not more so. Not sure how I would model that, just sayin'.

Someone brought up Harry Potter. The big one would be the duel between Voldemort and Dumbledore at the Ministry of Magic. A smaller one that would showcase some interesting powers is the brief duel from the book between Snape and Harry after Dumbledore's death, as Snape spends the duel countering everything Harry does because Snape can read Harry's mind and knows what spells he will use before he uses them. For zero-grav, the best example I can think of is in Inception, don't remember who is fighting whom. Also, for grittier fencing, the Michael York Musketeer movies have several good examples.

I quoted your actual post. You didn't actually quote another post in the one I was responding to. The previous person said that denouncing the alt-right as more than a response to being made to do so might lose him a few votes, the alt-right's, but never inferred their votes were responsible for his victory. No one is claiming their votes are the problem.

No one close to the issue is claiming that the alt-right voters won the election by way of their votes. What is actually demonstrable is that they had an influential role in the campaign, especially online, and a cabinet position went to someone whose livelihood came from ties to them and who actually spoke of admiring the white nationalist who founded the alt-right. That is more political power than they've had in almost any national election in our lifetimes. That's the issue that most are concerned with on both sides of the aisle. Moderate Republicans are not pleased with it any more than Democrats, but their influence is waning, because to cross the aisle in any meaningful way is to be a RINO, which is political suicide for many of them.

I was thinking the same thing. Which would make it cheap, as would making something to hide it.

Statistically speaking, the experts seem to agree that the trend that is most likely is more hate crimes, especially in relations to muslims, than in normal years, just as followed Brexit. No one is saying that the meanings of the data is perfectly clear, but that there is some reason to suspect that heated rhetoric plays a role, and will play a role. Now, in regards to how people should respond, I follow the view that the response to appointing people to the cabinet who refer to actual white nationalists as people they greatly admire(as Bannon did in regards to Spencer) should be loud, decisive, ruthless, and without end until such people are moved far away from anything resembling state power. One can either be my president, or court white nationalists, never both, and no reasonable person should expect differently from anyone who is not a racist. It is important to keep in mind that the historical point of hate crimes was terrorism and disenfranchisement. It has often been a political tool against minorities and those who support them, and the effects sought are usually beyond the effect to one individual. In areas with very small numbers of minorities, it can be devastating to not just the individuals it happens to, but anyone who is a minority in that area, and I have seen more than enough small towns where this still occurs to consider it a powder keg for any presidential candidate to EVER court white nationalism. In regards to the data, these are small numbers, but their fluctuations are not that erratic that the 67% increase can be looked on as at all normal. Looking through the last five years, some of the main issues that come up in the data are linked to the data being split up in different ways(the addition of gender nonconformity as a category, sikh as a category, etc). Some other issues and patterns arise as one examines the quarterly information by state. If one assumes one cause, I would say it's fair to figure in others. For example, public response to a terrorist attack, and to Brexit, could be factors. Further, whether it is a red state or blue state, given rhetoric, could influence what the response to the wall and Trump's rhetoric could result in as far as how Hispanics are treated. What size cities are present. One of the stats I intend to look at is hate crimes against hispanics in different areas. Did the numbers fluctuate in different ways by region, etc. However, to claim the rhetoric likely has no effect is hard to justify. The rhetoric got him elected. Literally no moderate Republican I know voted for him. More than a few in the religious right labelled him sent from God. Donald Trump. Rhetoric has an effect on people closer to normal than the dim bulbs and hypocritical losers who do hate crimes. On the latter group, rhetoric is all they listen to when it comes to race. It is their bread and butter, and it has been many, many decades since their rhetoric was so involved in national politics. Given that, before the election was over, talk among Trump supporters was already rife with talk of something beyond simple demonstrations, and that was the more rank and file supporters, it is highly unlikely that those who wish or might be influenced to take part in hate crimes against minorities are not in any way emboldened, when literally the entire white nationalist presence on the internet is well aware of Trump's courting of the alt-right, was in love with him at the talk of the wall, and was absolutely drooling at the muslim ban. I mean, he tweeted messages from white nationalists. It is not hysterics. I am not saying it is the next third reich, but it will not be not because of Trump, unless he dumps them fast and hard, and his cabinet picks suggest he won't. So, four more years of obstruction it is. Not what the country needed, but better than the alternative.

To actually examine the FBI statistics, 2015 had a 54% increase in the number of offenders committing hate crimes against muslims. Over the the five year span previously, 2014 plays a distant second to 2015 in the number of offenders in this category. So more people doing such hate crimes against muslims by another highly significant amount. Further, in the same five year span, 2014 AGAIN plays a distant second to 2015 in the number of offenses involved in the total number of incidents, with a 69% increase in 2015 over 2014. So, more offenses per incident by another highly significant amount. To be clear, 2015 is the first year hate crimes against Sikhs got a separate category from other muslims, so they are not included in this stat, though that category is a much smaller number.

The problem with discounting statistics, and then using statistics, should be obvious. 1. Memes are not the source of the contention. And not all the crime statistics from where you gathered them are in aggregate by year, as I pointed out in the post directly before you posted. Further, June of 2015(end of the second quarter) was when Trump began his rhetoric about the wall. He was not just a blip for 2015. Nor are most sources solely crediting him, but it is rather difficult to explain a 67% rise in hate crimes against muslims during that period without his campaign rhetoric playing a part. 2. YOU are playing a statistical game here as bad as the meme you are criticizing. You are working with overall totals, and ignoring details. Hate crimes DID go up for a number of specific groups by a significant margin, which I already summed up earlier. You will find no expert who is going to say a 67% increase is insignificant. Nor 12%, nor 8%. Further, the closest comparable political event to the election, Brexit, DID see an increase in hate crimes motivated by those events, so it is not unreasonable to predict similar results. 3. Your entire point three focuses on the increase in intimidation hate crimes(and summing them up as someone yelling something from a car, which is very unlikely to be reported to police) and totally ignores the marked increase in both simple assault and aggravated assault. In effect, you begin by criticizing hyperbole, and then your entire point is hyperbole. 4. We're talking about crime statistics, but if we want to talk about fake news and hyperbole, we should include stories discounting even the possibility of increased hate crimes on muslims, blacks, LGBT folks and hispanics IN THE FACE OF ACTUAL STATISTICS THAT SHOW ACTUAL AND SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN HATE CRIMES AGAINST THOSE EXACT GROUPS as perfect examples. 5. Given that the article was talking foremost about hate crimes against specific groups, and the statistics back the assertions, saying, 'no, don't worry, the aggregate hasn't changed that much, [it's just your groups that are being targeted a non-insignificant percentage more all of a sudden]' is actually not addressing the article at all. Statistically speaking, a 67% increase in hate crimes against a group, in this case muslims, is so far from what they, or any other reasonable American, should take as being insignificant, that one wonders why you would think that the aggregate should be the only relevant statistic. Seriously, did you just try to discount a 67% rise in hate crimes against a specific group by not actually ever acknowledging the stat, while using the very tables that stat came from, in a conversation about that exact stat? For hate crimes against muslims, as the article stated and as the data shows, 2015 was a spike not seen since after 9/11. It was also high for most other groups by a significant percentage.

Also, table 13 has state by state reportage of incidents and offenses by quarter, if you need timeline info beyond annual info.

Cool, in the, 'good work' vs. 'I'm so glad we have this detestable crud to research' sense of the word. Also, the links I sent you were for the victims page, there are links on there for state by state breakdowns of reportage, pages focused on the offenders, etc.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2014/topic-pages/victims_final That's the victim's page for 2014, each category has the link for the table it's from, which is organized the same as 2015's stats(just with different tables). Here's 2015: https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2015/topic-pages/victims_final Now, a highly relevant stat that I only looked up for anti-muslim hate crimes in 2015 from the tables, was any increase in the number of offenders. I did not do that for the other metrics, but it is an important measure for determining whether these behaviors are becoming more widespread, or if it is possibly just the usual suspects doing more of them. The stats suggest that there are more people doing such hate crimes, that those who do them are doing more of them, and that that increase is almost entirely in the realm of hate crimes against people, NOT property. A lot of the data is broken down in the tables as the number of incidents, the number of offenses(as one incident could include multiple offenses), the number of victims, and the number of offenders. Also, keep in mind, the numbers I put up I did originally in a facebook discussion, do not take those for being exact, they should be pretty close to the mark, but for a presentation, I would have done more exact measurements. I would love to see what you come up with from the same data.

Actually, a spike in hate crimes already began during the campaigns. Using the FBI stats for victims of hate crimes from comparing 2014's numbers to 2015's: 30% increase in victims of racially motivated hate crimes, 22% increase in victims hate crimes involving religion, with, using the FBIs stats, a 67% increase in hate crimes specifically toward muslims. 12% rise due to 'anti-jewish bias'. 8% rise in hate crimes against blacks. 7.5% rise in hate crimes against whites. 33% reduction in anti-asian hate crimes.(So, be Asian as soon as possible.) Assuming the stats for each group match the trend in the aggregate, as to the nature of these crimes: 2015 saw an 11% rise in the numbers of hate crimes against a person, while hate crimes against property stayed almost exactly the same. 15% rise in hate crimes taking the form of aggravated assault. 12% rise in hate crimes taking the form of simple assault. 6% rise in hate crimes taking the form of intimidation. Double digit increases in quite a few categories. 67% increase for muslims.. To clarify, there was a 67% increase in the number of incidents of hate crimes based on anti-islamic sentiments, a 69% increase in the number of offenses in that category, and a 54% increase in the number of offenders in that category alone. Considering that Brexit saw a rise in such crimes, it is highly unlikely that that will not be the case here, although we may have seen our rise already, and likely have been having elevated levels of such crimes post election. To further clarify, you have to go back to just after 9/11 to find comparable stats on hate crimes against muslims, so, no, people who are saying there's no reason to believe there is an elevated level of them don't actually have a strong argument, since there was already an elevated level of them, starkly elevated, in fact, whose explanation tends to include, among them, anti-immigrant sentiments that existed before, but which were, for some reason, whipped into a frenzy during a time that coincided with the campaign. It is highly unlikely that campaign rhetoric is not a factor. I would add empowering white nationalists likely did not help, either, since that is a group closely tied historically to actually doing hate crimes.

http://the-female-soldier.tumblr.com/

The characters can find memorial statues of themselves. With dates in the past, with epitaphs that all end with "Until their rebirth."

Dice. Marked "DO NOT ROLL".

From the rational wiki entry for Reason magazine, a libertarian ezine(and, for the record, I know some libertarians whose views I find interesting,, this is just something I found funny): "The first thing one is confronted by when clicking a link to Reason is reason.com asking you to donate money to them. In true libertarian spirit you should ignore their requests to artificially prop up an unprofitable business and not donate a single cent."

Further, when there are only two viable parties in elections, should anyone really want EITHER to be overly defined to the point of excluding a broader range of views?