archer

Traditionally, east belongs at the top of a map. Try that with your fantasy roleplaying group sometime without showing the compass points on the map.

I'll add to Pattern ghost's response. The information about whether you're a Native American or not is collected for federal filing purposes (EEOC). 18 U.S. Code § 1001 as it existed prior to 1996 revisions provided: When she was making the claim that she was a Native American to the University of Pennsylvania she would have been under that version of the statute. She for most of her time at Harvard would have been covered under 18 U.S. Code § 1001 as it existed 1996 and later which provided: In a criminal prosecution, the prosecution would have the burden of proving the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, which brings into play that niggling part of the law which states "knowingly and willfully". So did she knowingly and willfully lie? https://www.salon.com/2019/02/06/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-identifying-as-native-american-on-texas-bar-registration-card/ This article shows that in her personnel forms at the University of Texas in 1981, 1985, and 1988 that she Identified herself as being white. That article also shows a picture of her hand-written registration card to the State Bar of Texas in 1986 where she claimed to be an "American Indian". Association of American Law Schools Directory listed her has a minority from 1986 until 1995 when she gained tenure at Harvard (and could no longer be easily fired) and changed her status in the directory. Before the age of the internet, potential employers would have to pull out the AALS Directory to find out details about applicants and various things about them such as whether they had minority status or not. (as stated in a Boston Globe article which interviewed the former chairman of the AALS) https://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabeth-warren-native-american-cherokee-controversy/ After she was gained tenure at Harvard then stopped claiming to be a minority with the AALS, that school touted her as being a Native American minority employee in such places as this 1998 Harvard Crimson article talking about the " painfully slow process of bringing professors of minority ethnicities to the Harvard University faculty". https://web.archive.org/web/20120504004530/http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1998/2/4/welcome-guinier-pwe-welcome-the-announcement/ If I were to be prosecuting this case, I would point to Warren changing her status to "American Indian" when taking the bar exam then getting her first job at the University of Pennsylvania which reported her as a Native American, getting her next job, Harvard, as a Native American. Then I'd point to her changing her status in 1995 in the AALS Directory to no longer being listed as a minority without notifying Harvard which continued to falsify reports to the federal government by listing her as a Native American. I probably wouldn't get a conviction because famous politicians are rarely taken to trial. But I personally take all of that history of her intentionally, repeatedly changing her status whenever it is an advantage to her as being "knowingly and willfully" falsifying and concealing. Here's a nice piece of additional reading https://legalinsurrection.com/2012/05/its-elizabeth-warrens-and-harvards-federal-filings-stupid/ And a bunch of links to articles and analysis about the controversy https://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabeth-warren-native-american-cherokee-controversy/#cite-note-3

Thank you for your response. That's not the way my mind works and I'll try to wrap my head around the concept of how your mind works.

I'm not arguing that there's not a double standard coming from the people who ignore what Trump says and does. Trump is a lying idiot and the people who blindly defend him on everything are almost as guilty as he is. I'm saying that what Warren did was wrong. I would think Warren was in the wrong even if Trump didn't exist. Given my political leanings, having Trump say bad things about her makes me prone to be a little more sympathetic to her than I'd otherwise have been. Out of curiosity, did you tell people that you were 1/4th German in order to gain an advantage in some situation for your personal benefit? Or have you done it only in casual conversation? I don't personally think it's a "mighty high" standard to avoid bringing up your "only known from family hearsay" racial heritage in a job interviews and when campaigning for public office. YMMV

Viola! No eagles! https://ffn.nodwick.com/?p=1878

https://ffn.nodwick.com/?p=1877

Yeah, i think players are wise to be skeptical of convenient prophecies which have the result of urging the players to follow some individual's agenda. If you're lucky, he's a Gandalf. If you're unlucky, he's a Saruman and you have to then work to undo everything you just did. The "story arcs" on Full Frontal Nerdity demonstrates that prophecies are just GM railroad tracks to either destination and that you are better off killing everyone and looting the corpses.

That's unfortunate and claiming Titan was a normal planet at one time did nothing to promote the storyline from what I can see.

Make Gamers a Protected Class in the United States Sign the petition today: https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-make-gamers-a-protected-class-in-the-united-states This would be funnier if I hadn't had bosses who gave out breaks if you drank coffee or smoked cigarettes but wouldn't give you a break if you did neither and wanted to do something else during a break.

D&D Party Member with -3 Charisma Keeps Trying to Roll Deception https://thehardtimes.net/harddrive/dd-party-member-with-3-charisma-keeps-trying-to-fucking-roll-deception/

I only saw the movie once and that was in the theater so I don't remember some of the fine details. Did they actually refer to that location as being "Titan"?

We don't have proof that she gained any advantage. We do know that she intentionally used it in a job interview when it could have given her an advantage. The reason you include stuff during job interviews is to try to display every feature you have in order to get the job. Is it the intentional attempt which makes a person guilty of something? Or do you have to prove that they succeeded before they're guilty of something? If you're talking about bank robbery or murder, just making the attempt makes you guilty rather than innocent. I'd argue that if you are trying to pass off family lore as facts during a job interview that you are guilty of not telling the truth. During WWII, my grandfather was wounded three times during the fight across Europe and had three Purple Hearts to prove it. He told us that the first Purple Heart was on D-Day. He also told us that at one point his squad was trapped behind enemy lines. I don't tell people that my grandfather "acted heroically" on D-Day because I don't know for sure that he fought on D-Day or that he acted heroically there if he did. He admitted that while he wandered around lost behind enemy lines that he ran and hid with his squad and eventually jumped an enemy supply train and rode it back toward the front so I don't tell people that he "fought" behind enemy lines because he never mentioned any fighting there. And I wouldn't mention any of it in a job interview because I don't think it is particularly ethical to trade on my ancestors in order to get an advantage in landing a job. I also wouldn't tell them that he was at various times a hobo and a moonshine runner before the war if I were interviewing for a job at a homeless shelter or a brewery. I've got another ancestor, direct lineage, who fought in the Revolutionary War and got a small government pension for his service during that war. And I wouldn't use that fact in a job interview either even though my aunt found his pension paperwork and confirmed that the story was true.

I knew that but hadn't remembered as I was putting this idea together. I tend to think of the Templars as being a secret society rather than a religious order, though they definitely were that. My impression was that Templars only lent money to the nobility, large merchants, and the famous rather than the little fellow who is trying to get ahead in this world. I'm definitely wanting the church's lending services to be available to everyone except perhaps wanderers. I'm kind of hoping to avoid militaristic trappings but I suppose that at some times and places that armed forces are unavoidable when you're talking about storing or transporting money. I'll have to think on it.

1) This "deeming" was done by a GM, in my experience. The bonus doesn't come from the players having equal access to getting the points like the other aspects of character building. 2) It was also done during character creation, many times before the campaign started. How useful various skills turn out to be in the campaign might vary drastically from what the GM foresaw during character creation. This one aspect of character creation, the GM doling out package deal bonuses or not, depends on having a GM who ties to be fair, understands what "fair" means, and can accurately see the future of how his campaign will unfold (which as many of us can attest, is very much a hit and miss thing at best). The formula is there to help an aspiring GM to attempt to be fair if he wants to. Whether the GM ends up being fair depends on factors which are out of the players' control. Character creation, regardless of the edition, is the one part of the game where the player is supposed to be in control. I'll freely admit that the idea of having the GM dole out extra points during character creation to some players but not others has always rubbed me the wrong way. As for the argument between power frameworks and package bonuses: I don't have a problem with the GM shooting down any power frameworks he doesn't want in his game. Yes, this limits the player during character creation because the character chose something and the GM says "no". But the fix to that is built into the rules: the player gets those points back and can spend them as he sees fit on other powers and skills from the RAW. With a rejected package bonus, the player doesn't get back those points to spend on something else. There's no RAW that the player can look at to definitively figure out how to "earn" those points either because those points explicitly depend on factors that exist only in the mind of the GM (that whole "deeming" business). It is just messy. In my opinion, if the GM wants to give someone extra points for a player having a tight character concept, give it out during play in the first few sessions when the player roleplays having a great character concept rather than having the GM dole out extra points during character creation to some players but not others. That just creates a "feel bad" at the one point in the game when the player is supposed to be in control.

I'd like to make it clear that I don't mind the GM giving away free points. It's just when it becomes arbitrary that I have a problem with it. If everyone gets 3 point to put toward skills which reflect their background, cool. When Hank gets three points, Tony gets two points, Steve gets three points and Diana gets one point, that's when I start to have a problem especially when each player has to convince the GM that their character deserves the points. One character is a private investigator in Hollywood and gets a three point package deal bonus for being a P.I. The next character grew up on the back lots of Hollywood, was a fighter pilot in the war, now works as a stuntman, and does inside the film industry work for his private investigator buddy. And he gets no bonus or a lesser bonus because his skill set is split across the various aspects of his character's more extensive backstory.

I think it's more likely that they're trying to figure out how much you're buying from their competitors and when. If they've got that information, they know when to push advertising to your app.

H&R Block did mine earlier this week. We had outlandishly huge medical expenses last year (like around 35% of our gross income) which was the only reason we didn't owe a lot on our taxes. (This year we were no longer eligible for a couple of credits we'd been getting in recent years, though the change in the law wasn't the reason for that.) Though the tax prep person did point out a couple of places where the change in the law benefited us such as dropping a tax bracket.

I guess it makes some sense that they'll wait. I don't expect characters to die and stay dead beyond those whose actors have announced they're retiring from the roles but anything which might give a hint of who lives and who dies would probably negatively affect the hype around both movies. And Thanos is a "Titan" but genetically that means he's an Eternal. So I guess "The Eternals" a sensible direction for the MCU to go. It'd be somewhat lame at this point if Thanos's family stepped in to stop him. But they could certainly be around to either clean up or take advantage of the aftermath.

I never liked package deals just for that reason. "Here's my concept, give me some points" "That's not a real concept, no points for you!" What do you mean 'that's not a concept'? https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/concept concept - An idea or mental image which corresponds to some distinct entity or class of entities, or to its essential features, or determines the application of a term (especially a predicate), and thus plays a part in the use of reason or language. I can guarantee you that my character is a distinct entity and that those are his essential features: he was a fighter pilot in the war who is now a daredevil stuntman working for a Hollywood private investigation firm....

Robin, the Boy Wonder (11) Captain America (4) Thanos (2) Storm (3) Denny Colt (The Spirit) (7) OR Magnus, Robot Fighter (8) - wouldn't want either Doctor Doom (5) Starro (12) Green Lantern (4) Phantom Girl (8) Superman (6) Batman (3) Wolverine (6)

The whole "it can't go anywhere because it is a prequel" is just the lack of imagination of the writers and directors. Or a complete lack of knowledge about both Star Wars and science fiction. They're working and living in outer space. Off the top of my head: 1) They're captured and frozen in carbonite until after Return of the Jedi 2) They escape but their spaceship is disabled and they're stranded on a planet off the beaten path which doesn't have the technology to let them fix their ship or get rescued until the writers figure out their new movie script. 3) Their engines are damaged so they can reach lightspeed but not hyperspace. They go on a relativistic journey for the next 10 objective years while they age only two months until they arrive at the next movie script. If someone put some thought into it, they'd find a dozen other loopholes which would let the characters stay around but not disrupt A New Hope, Empire, or Return. Any of these could also be used for characters from Star Wars: Rebels, Clone Wars, or any random Jedi who might still be out there. BTW, I don't remember if anyone mentioned this but the only real "Rogue One" in the Star Wars Universe will always and forever be Wedge Antilles because that was his designation as the leader of Rogue Squadron. It's a travesty to waste that title on a movie which didn't even have a crawl and dramatic Star Wars music at the beginning. I'd much rather see Rogue Squadron movies than all of this Disney reboot drek.

I get the impression from the movies that Luke had been unconsciously honing his Force skills for years by doing stuff like flying his speeder through Beggar's Canyon (part of the old podracing course) while shooting at womp rats. https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Womp_rat https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Beggar's_Canyon

If you are giving me Carol's coverings, thank you, thank you. THANK YOU!

I'm so envious that there are 12, count them, 12 HERO sessions on the schedule. That's so awesome.

I'd like to add to that thought. I used to be a pretty loquacious guy until about 16 years ago when I had a severe head injury. Now I swing back and forth (mostly at random) between being what used to be my normal self to being barely verbal, sometimes within a few minutes. I can do thinking and writing but I stop being able to produce words verbally or my rate of being able to get out words slows to a crawl. And even at my best I sometimes substitute a wrong word for the word which I thought that I was saying. I vastly prefer roleplaying to roll-playing. But a system needs to be able to accommodate various levels of player skill, even if it's from moment to moment within the same player. I don't really care whether the way of dealing with that is a having great GM or having a comprehensive set of rules. But I've seen more sets of rules in my life than great GM's so I'd think getting a set of rules would be easier to come by even if having a great GM was strictly the superior option.