Jump to content

archer

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    1,556
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    archer got a reaction from Lord Liaden in Coronavirus   
    This is (part) of what irks me about discussion of herd immunity on TV news. They said early on that COVID-19 was just as infectious as measles which needs the 80-95% to reach herd immunity...and that was before they discovered that COVID-19 had mutated so that the current strain going around only needs 1/10th the amount to infect someone compared to the original strain did.
     
    But the doctors who talk about herd immunity on TV talk about 60% of the population being the needed threshold as if COVID is one of the not-very-contagious diseases. And that's even on real news channels rather than FOX.  
     
    I know they don't want to scare people to the point that they turn off TV news but they aren't doing anyone any favors by soft-petaling the truth.
  2. Like
    archer got a reaction from TrickstaPriest in Coronavirus   
    This is (part) of what irks me about discussion of herd immunity on TV news. They said early on that COVID-19 was just as infectious as measles which needs the 80-95% to reach herd immunity...and that was before they discovered that COVID-19 had mutated so that the current strain going around only needs 1/10th the amount to infect someone compared to the original strain did.
     
    But the doctors who talk about herd immunity on TV talk about 60% of the population being the needed threshold as if COVID is one of the not-very-contagious diseases. And that's even on real news channels rather than FOX.  
     
    I know they don't want to scare people to the point that they turn off TV news but they aren't doing anyone any favors by soft-petaling the truth.
  3. Like
    archer reacted to Matt the Bruins in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    If I were on the fence and one candidate's campaign volunteers came knocking on my door wanting to speak to me about politics while deliberately flouting common sense pandemic safety measures, it would certainly move my opinion.
  4. Haha
    archer got a reaction from Duke Bushido in In other news...   
    The deed to your property costs $50-500.
     
    You have to contract separately with NASA for the $87 billion to put a "No Trespassing" sign on it.
     
  5. Like
    archer got a reaction from Lawnmower Boy in In other news...   
    The deed to your property costs $50-500.
     
    You have to contract separately with NASA for the $87 billion to put a "No Trespassing" sign on it.
     
  6. Haha
    archer got a reaction from Lord Liaden in In other news...   
    The deed to your property costs $50-500.
     
    You have to contract separately with NASA for the $87 billion to put a "No Trespassing" sign on it.
     
  7. Like
    archer got a reaction from BoloOfEarth in Usable as 2nd form of movement (6E)   
    Might be cleaner and more thematic to have the limitation "only places that are connected to the power grid".
  8. Like
    archer got a reaction from ScottishFox in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    In any rational country, Trump would no longer be president. But setting that aside for the sake of discussion in order to talk about mail-in balloting:
     
    The best feature of in-person balloting is that the ballots are secured all the time. Someone is supposed to have custody of them or they are supposed to be locked up at every point in time. Frankly, I've irritated a lot of party people over the years by pointing out how wide open for fraud our current system is to anyone who is smart, who wants to take on some minor risks, and who wants to put in some effort. And my suggestions for changing ballot security have never been well-received.
     
    Changing over to mail-in balloting is taking out the need for someone "to be slightly intelligent" and "to take some minor risks" in order to defraud the election. It's great that there hasn't been detectable levels of ballot tampering in places in the US which have used mail-in voting in the past. But we're in a much more politically charged election this time around than in the past which is going to change the level of motivation for people to want to tamper with things.
     
    With mail-in balloting, in many places in the US, people will be putting their ballot into their personal mailbox, lifting a flag, and the ballot will sit in the mailbox unattended overnight until the mailman gets there the next day to pick it up. 
     
    All anyone needs to tamper with that system is to go around to mailboxes in the middle of the night and collect ballots. There's YouTube videos on how to open envelopes without being detected. Open them up, trash the ballots who voted "wrong", fully fill out the other ballots in all the down-ballot races which the voter probably didn't bother to finish, reseal the envelopes, drop the envelopes into a post office drop box. 
     
    If the fraudster is slightly smart, he could look at traditional voting patterns in precincts and go out of his way to steal from mailboxes in whichever places are most likely to vote against his preferred candidate. 
     
    All of the "signature matching" and "bar codes on ballots" in the world aren't going to stop filled out ballots from being taken out of individual's mailboxes in the dead of night. 
     
    If Trump pulls out a win, I'd suspect something like that to be the cause. It's the kind of low tech solution that would spontaneously occur to and appeal to a bunch of Luddites. There wouldn't even have to be an organized effort. Just the idea occurring to a large number of highly-motivated people at the same time might be enough.
     
    My preference is:
     
    1) mandatory voter registration for everyone in the country. 
    2) no excuse absentee voting for people who request that.
    3) 24 hour early voting for a couple of months before the election, which caters to people who work odd hours and lessens congestion at polling sites.
    4) have "poll workers go to homes" rather than have "voters go to polls" to take care of the elderly and those who have disabilities & mobility problems of all kinds.
    5) have election "day" be a three day weekend in order to lessen congestion at the polls.
    6) pay poll workers as if they were professionals working a dangerous job rather than as if they were volunteers getting a tip. Hopefully that would get an adequate number of workers.
     
    Of course, my preferences are very rarely catered to.
    .
    .
    .
    I don't have a problem with mail-in voting in small amounts. But having everyone in the country being aware that there are tens of thousands of ballots laying around in mail boxes every night, that's too much like depending on the honor system for my tastes. In my experience talking to people from various parties who are avidly interested in politics and working inside a political party for a few decades, there's vanishingly few people who are avidly interested in politics who I would be comfortable trusting with an honor system.
  9. Thanks
    archer reacted to unclevlad in Coronavirus   
    "Treat it like a combat deployment."
     
    That was a point from the video above, with regard to teachers *generally*.  Maybe that's a little extreme, but not that much IMO.  And it's terrifying in its feeling, if you accept it has any level of validity.
     
    It is horrific for the kids...but this was inevitable.  We won't learn, as a society, without obscene levels of tragedy......and I'm afraid we need more than one.  It is beyond my comprehension how infantile too many of us are.  This camp didn't obey rules.  The staff...lotta kids themselves...and attendees are going to pay the price now;  it seems likely the camp organizers and sponsors will pay soon, because you have to figure a massive class action lawsuit is coming *soon*.  The Miami Marlins had players who broke MLB's loose rules, we're hearing...and now 18 players have tested positive.  Their season is in jeopardy.  
     
    What does it take for people to grow up????
     
     
    Leadership would help.....but that requires a leader.  How anyone can continue to support Trump at this point is simply beyond me.
     
     
     
     
  10. Like
    archer got a reaction from Grailknight in Teen Champions Supervillains   
    Time-travelling teens arrive from the future to invite the group to join the League of Super-Dudes. 
     
    Being a member of the LSD includes perks such as getting a flight ring, living in the future, and having lots of groupies. 
     
    The group takes the medicine to protect their bodies from the ravages of time, enter the time bubble, and they're off to the future.
     
    After an indeterminate amount of time adventuring in the future, the group discovers that they really just been high on a hallucinogenic drug for a very long time.
     
    Your call on whether their adventures with the LSD have all taken place completely in their minds or if they've gallivanted all over the city while fighting "future-villains". 
  11. Like
    archer reacted to Cancer in Coronavirus   
    As a college instructor, I can say that collectively we faculty didn't actively rebel when the university administration asked if we would consider in-person teaching this fall, but when they allowed the departments to state how they wanted their courses scheduled, only Chemistry requested anything but on-line only.  And the chemists only want on-site in-person instruction for a handful of advanced lab courses.  And with a properly protected, protocol-observing disease lab, I think you're safer there than in a primary or secondary school.
  12. Haha
    archer got a reaction from Scott Ruggels in Teen Champions Supervillains   
    Time-travelling teens arrive from the future to invite the group to join the League of Super-Dudes. 
     
    Being a member of the LSD includes perks such as getting a flight ring, living in the future, and having lots of groupies. 
     
    The group takes the medicine to protect their bodies from the ravages of time, enter the time bubble, and they're off to the future.
     
    After an indeterminate amount of time adventuring in the future, the group discovers that they really just been high on a hallucinogenic drug for a very long time.
     
    Your call on whether their adventures with the LSD have all taken place completely in their minds or if they've gallivanted all over the city while fighting "future-villains". 
  13. Like
    archer reacted to DShomshak in Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)   
    trump is of course flailing around looking for ways to avoid losing. He is also probably trying to distract people from his abysmal mishandling of the pandemic. And he likes to make outrage just to see people scurry in response. But I thought of another possible reason: He's just jealous at John Lewis' funeral pushing him off the front page. Everybody's praising this old black guy Trump never heard of, instead of paying attention to HIM!
     
    In my local paper, though, it still didn't put Trump on the front page.
     
    Dean Shomshak
  14. Haha
    archer got a reaction from Scott Ruggels in Increased Range?   
    You can offset that penalty to a certain extent by using area of effect attacks and targeting the ground near what you want to hit. That's tough on the background environment and on bystanders but you have to break a few eggs to make an oubliette. 
     
     
  15. Haha
    archer got a reaction from Scott Ruggels in What Have You Watched Recently?   
    Don't you mean "how bipolar Captain Janeway is"?
  16. Thanks
    archer got a reaction from Oruncrest in Limitation: "Only versus ego entangles" questions.   
    I would have reacted to his original question of how much of a limitation is appropriate to ask for but since he'd already gotten advice on that and he had already gotten a response from his GM, I didn't see a point in chiming in on that aspect of the conversation.
     
    For clarity's sake, I was reacting to his statement of, "We won the fight, but the mentalist got away, so my character's power is growing/adapting itself to fight the last fight, in the grand tradition of militaries everywhere.  I do expect to encounter the mentalist again, likely soon."
     
    It might be a grand tradition of militaries everywhere but it isn't a grand tradition in my Champions games. I deliberately try to not turn my Champions games into an arms race between players and the GM. I mean it's fine if the players and GM want to take a few baby steps down that slippery slope in their game. But I also don't see any problem with pointing out that it is a slippery slope. We're having conversations about the HERO system and its applications in actually playing games. And frankly, Panpiper was the one who brought up his motivations for asking the question so I don't see why you should be flummoxed if we politely discuss his motivations and whether we think it's a good idea for the GM to grant his request.  
     
     
    Now I'll go out on a limb and get controversial
     
    I understand the motivation: he didn't find the encounter to be fun so he's spending character points to try to keep the next gaming session against that opponent from not being fun as well.
     
    But frankly as an outside observer, the game not being fun is something better addressed by a conversation between the player and the GM about how much he didn't find the session to be fun rather than spending character points to specifically protect himself from a future gaming session not being fun. 
     
    If a GM sees a player feeling he has to spend character points in order to protect himself from having future gaming sessions not be fun, that should be a big red flag to the GM. A GM should use a villain very sparingly when having that one villain appear is irksome to the player(s).
     
    If it were the GM asking the question of how to handle it, I'd recommend finishing out the story arc but have the villain primarily use his other powers and use hirelings of various sorts so various players aren't sitting there for 15-20 minutes at a time with nothing to do because the villain has a highly effective (remove player from the game) attack that he uses over and over.
     
    A GM can always build a villain who is massively "unfair" or massively un-fun to play against. Or have the villains always behave in a massively un-fun manner (like the GM who has every villain turn every encounter into a hostage situation). A player shouldn't have to spend character point to counter the un-fun parts of the game...and the GM shouldn't make him feel obligated to do so.
     
     
    Now to give some completely unsolicited advice:
     
    I've had a couple of heroes built with "Hates mentalists" or "Hates enemy mentalists" which gives a convenient excuse for the character to work to develop mental defenses. That "drawback" also tends to give you an excuse to disobey of Mind Control commands easier and an excuse for targeting enemy mentalists first. If you don't like losing control of your character from time to time, I highly recommend that psych complication. It's also easier to work that into roleplaying than many other complications so enjoy it when you get the opportunity.
     
    In general, if you get a second crack at some villain and you know it's going to happen, I'm a big fan preparing to kick the guy's butt. Have the team gadgeteer whip up something to flash the villain's targeting senses. Have everyone on your team target the enemy mentalist during the first phase, even if it isn't convenient. Use some detective work to track him down and ambush him when he isn't ready and isn't with his team. You don't have to play fair: the guy's a mentalist after all.
  17. Haha
    archer got a reaction from DShomshak in Reboot the CU Uuniverse, WWYD?   
    This is 2020. 
     
    You think the public still reads books?  
  18. Like
    archer got a reaction from DShomshak in Teen Champions Supervillains   
    That's pretty much the premise of Marvel's Runaways series (2003).
  19. Thanks
    archer got a reaction from Hugh Neilson in Limitation: "Only versus ego entangles" questions.   
    I would have reacted to his original question of how much of a limitation is appropriate to ask for but since he'd already gotten advice on that and he had already gotten a response from his GM, I didn't see a point in chiming in on that aspect of the conversation.
     
    For clarity's sake, I was reacting to his statement of, "We won the fight, but the mentalist got away, so my character's power is growing/adapting itself to fight the last fight, in the grand tradition of militaries everywhere.  I do expect to encounter the mentalist again, likely soon."
     
    It might be a grand tradition of militaries everywhere but it isn't a grand tradition in my Champions games. I deliberately try to not turn my Champions games into an arms race between players and the GM. I mean it's fine if the players and GM want to take a few baby steps down that slippery slope in their game. But I also don't see any problem with pointing out that it is a slippery slope. We're having conversations about the HERO system and its applications in actually playing games. And frankly, Panpiper was the one who brought up his motivations for asking the question so I don't see why you should be flummoxed if we politely discuss his motivations and whether we think it's a good idea for the GM to grant his request.  
     
     
    Now I'll go out on a limb and get controversial
     
    I understand the motivation: he didn't find the encounter to be fun so he's spending character points to try to keep the next gaming session against that opponent from not being fun as well.
     
    But frankly as an outside observer, the game not being fun is something better addressed by a conversation between the player and the GM about how much he didn't find the session to be fun rather than spending character points to specifically protect himself from a future gaming session not being fun. 
     
    If a GM sees a player feeling he has to spend character points in order to protect himself from having future gaming sessions not be fun, that should be a big red flag to the GM. A GM should use a villain very sparingly when having that one villain appear is irksome to the player(s).
     
    If it were the GM asking the question of how to handle it, I'd recommend finishing out the story arc but have the villain primarily use his other powers and use hirelings of various sorts so various players aren't sitting there for 15-20 minutes at a time with nothing to do because the villain has a highly effective (remove player from the game) attack that he uses over and over.
     
    A GM can always build a villain who is massively "unfair" or massively un-fun to play against. Or have the villains always behave in a massively un-fun manner (like the GM who has every villain turn every encounter into a hostage situation). A player shouldn't have to spend character point to counter the un-fun parts of the game...and the GM shouldn't make him feel obligated to do so.
     
     
    Now to give some completely unsolicited advice:
     
    I've had a couple of heroes built with "Hates mentalists" or "Hates enemy mentalists" which gives a convenient excuse for the character to work to develop mental defenses. That "drawback" also tends to give you an excuse to disobey of Mind Control commands easier and an excuse for targeting enemy mentalists first. If you don't like losing control of your character from time to time, I highly recommend that psych complication. It's also easier to work that into roleplaying than many other complications so enjoy it when you get the opportunity.
     
    In general, if you get a second crack at some villain and you know it's going to happen, I'm a big fan preparing to kick the guy's butt. Have the team gadgeteer whip up something to flash the villain's targeting senses. Have everyone on your team target the enemy mentalist during the first phase, even if it isn't convenient. Use some detective work to track him down and ambush him when he isn't ready and isn't with his team. You don't have to play fair: the guy's a mentalist after all.
  20. Haha
    archer got a reaction from Scott Ruggels in Reboot the CU Uuniverse, WWYD?   
    This is 2020. 
     
    You think the public still reads books?  
  21. Like
    archer got a reaction from Lord Liaden in Coronavirus   
    My brother-in-law tried to argue to me that there's no such thing as over-population since you could have everyone in the world live in a space the size of Texas if that area was as densely populated as Hong Kong.
     
    I started out by asking him if he'd ever been to Hong Kong to see how they lived. Then I went on to talk about water shortages, lack of arable land, fertilizer shortages, pollution from industry which is necessary to support the population, what to do with trash created by people....
     
    There's a near infinite amount of resources, for all practical purposes, if we were to spend the money to harvest all the resources. Growing food inside cities. Windmills and solar panels on every roof. Tidal power. Thorium reactors. Recycling. Going into space to get resources from asteroids. Financially supporting people in their old age in every country so they don't feel the need to have a huge family in hopes that one of their offspring will be able to support their parents (that's a huge driving force for over-population).
     
    On the other hand, we don't have infinite resources if we're exploiting the planet like we're still living in the 1800's.
     
    < /rant >
  22. Like
    archer got a reaction from Cancer in Funny Pics II: The Revenge   
    I thought you got Olive Oil from watching Popeye closely then kidnapping her while his back is turned.
     
    At least, that's how Bluto used to do it.
  23. Thanks
    archer got a reaction from TrickstaPriest in Coronavirus   
    My brother-in-law tried to argue to me that there's no such thing as over-population since you could have everyone in the world live in a space the size of Texas if that area was as densely populated as Hong Kong.
     
    I started out by asking him if he'd ever been to Hong Kong to see how they lived. Then I went on to talk about water shortages, lack of arable land, fertilizer shortages, pollution from industry which is necessary to support the population, what to do with trash created by people....
     
    There's a near infinite amount of resources, for all practical purposes, if we were to spend the money to harvest all the resources. Growing food inside cities. Windmills and solar panels on every roof. Tidal power. Thorium reactors. Recycling. Going into space to get resources from asteroids. Financially supporting people in their old age in every country so they don't feel the need to have a huge family in hopes that one of their offspring will be able to support their parents (that's a huge driving force for over-population).
     
    On the other hand, we don't have infinite resources if we're exploiting the planet like we're still living in the 1800's.
     
    < /rant >
  24. Like
    archer got a reaction from Ranxerox in Coronavirus   
    My brother-in-law tried to argue to me that there's no such thing as over-population since you could have everyone in the world live in a space the size of Texas if that area was as densely populated as Hong Kong.
     
    I started out by asking him if he'd ever been to Hong Kong to see how they lived. Then I went on to talk about water shortages, lack of arable land, fertilizer shortages, pollution from industry which is necessary to support the population, what to do with trash created by people....
     
    There's a near infinite amount of resources, for all practical purposes, if we were to spend the money to harvest all the resources. Growing food inside cities. Windmills and solar panels on every roof. Tidal power. Thorium reactors. Recycling. Going into space to get resources from asteroids. Financially supporting people in their old age in every country so they don't feel the need to have a huge family in hopes that one of their offspring will be able to support their parents (that's a huge driving force for over-population).
     
    On the other hand, we don't have infinite resources if we're exploiting the planet like we're still living in the 1800's.
     
    < /rant >
  25. Thanks
    archer got a reaction from Gnome BODY (important!) in Limitation: "Only versus ego entangles" questions.   
    I would have reacted to his original question of how much of a limitation is appropriate to ask for but since he'd already gotten advice on that and he had already gotten a response from his GM, I didn't see a point in chiming in on that aspect of the conversation.
     
    For clarity's sake, I was reacting to his statement of, "We won the fight, but the mentalist got away, so my character's power is growing/adapting itself to fight the last fight, in the grand tradition of militaries everywhere.  I do expect to encounter the mentalist again, likely soon."
     
    It might be a grand tradition of militaries everywhere but it isn't a grand tradition in my Champions games. I deliberately try to not turn my Champions games into an arms race between players and the GM. I mean it's fine if the players and GM want to take a few baby steps down that slippery slope in their game. But I also don't see any problem with pointing out that it is a slippery slope. We're having conversations about the HERO system and its applications in actually playing games. And frankly, Panpiper was the one who brought up his motivations for asking the question so I don't see why you should be flummoxed if we politely discuss his motivations and whether we think it's a good idea for the GM to grant his request.  
     
     
    Now I'll go out on a limb and get controversial
     
    I understand the motivation: he didn't find the encounter to be fun so he's spending character points to try to keep the next gaming session against that opponent from not being fun as well.
     
    But frankly as an outside observer, the game not being fun is something better addressed by a conversation between the player and the GM about how much he didn't find the session to be fun rather than spending character points to specifically protect himself from a future gaming session not being fun. 
     
    If a GM sees a player feeling he has to spend character points in order to protect himself from having future gaming sessions not be fun, that should be a big red flag to the GM. A GM should use a villain very sparingly when having that one villain appear is irksome to the player(s).
     
    If it were the GM asking the question of how to handle it, I'd recommend finishing out the story arc but have the villain primarily use his other powers and use hirelings of various sorts so various players aren't sitting there for 15-20 minutes at a time with nothing to do because the villain has a highly effective (remove player from the game) attack that he uses over and over.
     
    A GM can always build a villain who is massively "unfair" or massively un-fun to play against. Or have the villains always behave in a massively un-fun manner (like the GM who has every villain turn every encounter into a hostage situation). A player shouldn't have to spend character point to counter the un-fun parts of the game...and the GM shouldn't make him feel obligated to do so.
     
     
    Now to give some completely unsolicited advice:
     
    I've had a couple of heroes built with "Hates mentalists" or "Hates enemy mentalists" which gives a convenient excuse for the character to work to develop mental defenses. That "drawback" also tends to give you an excuse to disobey of Mind Control commands easier and an excuse for targeting enemy mentalists first. If you don't like losing control of your character from time to time, I highly recommend that psych complication. It's also easier to work that into roleplaying than many other complications so enjoy it when you get the opportunity.
     
    In general, if you get a second crack at some villain and you know it's going to happen, I'm a big fan preparing to kick the guy's butt. Have the team gadgeteer whip up something to flash the villain's targeting senses. Have everyone on your team target the enemy mentalist during the first phase, even if it isn't convenient. Use some detective work to track him down and ambush him when he isn't ready and isn't with his team. You don't have to play fair: the guy's a mentalist after all.
×
×
  • Create New...