l2 RPG, nubz0r.

So, a friend asked me "How do these 'RPGs' work, exactly?"

Of course, I over did it:


Here's an example of how a Tabletop, or Paper and Dice, Roleplaying Game works. This example is geared towards people who have never played a Paper and Dice RPG before, and the "VERY IMPORTANT" examples afterward are geared towards the White Wolf gaming systems. Feel free to link back to this page.

Tom, the utterly awesome and badass and generally great person that he is, has invited Dick and Harry, the near mongoloid simpletons that they are, to participate in a roleplaying game. A date, time, and place is agreed to; and they meet. Tired of playing futuristic space marines fighting aliens, and tolkeen-esque elves trying to save their world from Hitler-esque douchebaggery, they've decided to play a detective/mystery game set in Huntsville Alabama in the modern day.

Tom, Dick, and Harry sit around a dining room table, gaming books- and computers- assorted around them for easy reference. After all, it's easy to remember where the rules are, than the rules themselves. The game has started. Tom is the Game Master (GM).

Dick and Harry have previously made characters according to the rules- which differ from game system to game system. Dick is playing a Hard-nosed private investigator named Dick Tracy. Harry is playing Dick's long-time best friend, and professional magician, Harry Who. If the game was a play, these characters would be the parts played by the actors Dick and Harry.

Tom: "Dick, you've gotten a frantic voice message from a contact who has frequently helped you on cases in the past. He sounds anxious. The message says, 'Dick? Dick? Shit! Voicemail. Look, Dick, remember how I did you that solid a bit ago? I need a favor, and I need it now-like. Meet me at midnight in the rear of the alley behind McLeary's.'"

Dick: "What does my character know about this contact that I don't?"

Tom: "The incident he's referring to was a case you worked about six months back. It had hit a dead end and you were worried that it was going to languish and end up unsolved. Fortunately, this contact- we'll call him Bill- pulled some strings and got you the information that solved the case. It was a clutch rescue, and netted you some much needed cash. Generally, the guy's an excellent source of information, and he's never lied to you- a rarity in itself, among contacts. In other words, he's good people. If you want to know more, you're going to have to make some rolls."

[Tom and Dick look at Dick's character sheet. They decide that Dick's character isn't just trying to remember his dealings with Bill; but trying to figure out some things that might not have been obvious. Now that they have decided on some rolls Dick can make, Dick picks up the appropriate dice and makes the rolls. Tom interprets the rolls into actual information.]

Tom: "Well, you've known the guy for a few years, and he's always reliable- the type that won't jerk you around for a handout if he doesn't actually have information- which is unlike most of your other contacts. The only real problem is, he has a thing for cloak and dagger stuff- preferring to meet in alleys and use dead drops, instead of just calling you when he's alone. He really hates phones and voicemail. But he's never steered you wrong in all the time you've known him."

Dick: "Alright, well this sounds serious, and the guy's 'on the level' so I'll give Harry a call and go meet him."

Tom: "Gotcha. Harry, your ol' buddy Dick, the Dick, Tracy gives you a ring."

Harry: "Hello?"
Dick: "Yo, Hair, how's the magic business?"
Harry: "Good. What's up?"
Dick: [Explains the situation] "So, you wanna come along? Might lead to some fun."
Harry: "Sure, sure; I'll meet you there- I got a gig I'm about to do. Will I need anything?"
Dick: "Just your sparkling personality."
Harry: "Cool, see ya there."
Dick: "Oh, and Harry?"
Harry: "Yeah?"
Dick: "You might wanna ACTUALLY get a sparkling personality..."
Harry: "Dick."

Tom: "Nice. So, your show it great, as always, Harry, and you both arrive at McLeary's a few minutes before midnight. Though your characters have known each other since childhood, this is the first time we've played these characters. Go ahead and describe yourselves to each other."

Dick: "Remember Warren Beatty in the Dick Tracey movie? I'm him, but more Same Spade- no yellow, all browns, with a voice like Humphrey Bogart."
Harry: "I look like Harry Houdini."

Tom: "Right, so you're at McLeary's and you walk around back. The Alley buts up against an apartment building. McLeary's is a popular greasy spoon, run by a crotchety old bastard- but the food is good, and you've been going there since you were kids.
"The Alley is disgusting. Rubbish lines both sides, and the dumpsters- halfway down- are overflowing with week old trash. It smells putrid, and the humid air of the southern summer doesn't help. You're not surprised that it's dark- the old man who owns McLeary's is cheap. Whatever lights might be down there are either off or burned out. You hear the distinct sound of rats and other vermin crawling through garbage, and the thought of actually seeing what's there is slightly less appealing that traversing the dark, dank, corridor. What do you do?"

Harry: "I turn to Dick. 'Do we have to meet this bag of fuck down there?'"
Dick: "'Fraid so. What's the matter, scared of the dark?"
Harry: "No, it's just..."
Dick: "What?"
Harry: "These shoes are expensive!"
Dick: [laughing]"Oh, get to steppin' you prissy bitch!"
Harry: "Alright, alright! But if my shoes get stained, you're buying me new ones!"
Dick: "Fine, whatever, let's just go meet Bill."

Tom: "Oh, ho! We're gonna let the fates decide this. Dick, grab a ten-sided dice. Harry, grab one, too. Dick, your dice is the tens place; Harry your dice is the ones. If it's low, Harry needs new shoes, if it's high, Dick is off the hook. Roll 'em!"

[Dick's roll places them in the: singles, teens, twenties, thirties, all the way up to nineties. Harry's roll puts the polish on the number. If Dick rolls a 4, they're going to roll between 40 and 49- depending on Harry's rolls. The Dick rolls a 10 on a ten-sided dice (also called a "d10"). If Harry rolls a ten as well, that would mean they have rolled a 100 (00). Otherwise they have rolled a 01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08, or 09. Harry rolls a 5.]

Tom: "Uh-oh, Dick- looks like you've just bought little Miss Priss some new dancin' shoes!"

Dick: "Stupid metrosexuals..."
Harry: "Don't hate the playa, hate how you rolled!"

Tom: "Now I need you both to roll your Perception!"

[In the system they are playing, Perception is a roll that players make to see what, if anything their characters might notice beyond the general description of the scene the GM has given. A Perception roll is based on some of the stats recorded on the character sheets, and both Dick and Harry tally up how many dice they need to roll. In some systems, only one die might be rolled for a Perception roll. Usually, in those systems, the character sheet will record what type of dice (six-sided (d6), eight-sided (d8), ten-sided (d10), twelve-sided (d12), twenty-sided (d20), etc) needs to be rolled. Sometimes, there might even be a bonus- either to how many dice should be rolled, or to the number(s) rolled. All of that information is found on the character sheet, and GMs will help players who don't know where such things are located- a very frequent occurrence, even with experienced players.]

[Dick rolls his dice, Harry rolls his. Tom interprets the rolls into actual information.]

Tom: "Harry, you rolled bad and don't see anything, still too focused on whatever it was you just stepped in. You can feel some wetness in your shoe- which means Dick is buying you new ones!"

Harry: "Aw, motherfucker! I just stepped in something! Fuck! I hope you have good credit, asshole, we're going shopping tomorrow!"

Tom: "Dick, you notice a glinting on the ground, and a familiar smell. You follow the glint of moonlight, and sure enough it's as you expected. Bill's dead, and the glint is his pooling blood. His body lies on the rubbish against the apartment building. Before you can say anything, you hear Harry step in the blood, and start cursing."

Dick: "Watch out, there's...! Nevermind."
Harry: "There's what? What were you gonna say? And where's this Bill dude?"
Dick: "Bill's right there. (I point to the partially concealed body) And that's his blood you're wearing on your high-heels."
Harry: "Aw, fuck!"

------------------------------------------------------
End of Example.

Some notes you should be aware of: (Ignore any of it, if it doesn't make sense)
* Not everyone says "I" when referring to their character. Some people say "My character goes and looks at Bill's body." Some might say their character's name: "Amy goes and looks at Bill's body." Some people use combination of any of those approaches. It's just however the player feels comfortable.
* There's a concept of "Player Knowledge vs Character Knowledge". Player knowledge is what the Player knows. Character knowledge is what the character knows. As the player, you might know calculus; but if your character is a medieval knight, it probably has no idea about anything beyond basic mathematics. If your character is that knight, it knows things about chivalry, and the rules, rights, etiquette, expectations, and constraints of being a medieval knight. Things the player might not know. The GM is there to help fill in the gaps from a Character's Knowledge to yours, while it's your job to have fun you should refrain from having your medieval knight glibly go drive the automobile that just appeared from the future. in fact, your knight shouldn't have any concept of what he's seeing. This is a fact that crops up in almost every game; and something to keep in mind, but not something to be overly concerned with (that's the GM's job).
* Different systems use different mechanics. Let's take something similar: Throwing a stone at someone, to hurt them. In two different systems, you might roll based on your Athletics skill level. In the first, that might be 1d20 (one twenty-sided dice [Yes it can be either "dice" or "die" in this context]) plus some bonus based on how many levels of the skill Athletics you have. In the other, that might be a number of dice based on the combination of your dexterity and athletics- both attributes recorded on your character sheet. Additionally, determining if that roll has hit your opponent is different depending on the system. These rules can get rather arcane and complex. It's not the job of the players to know how to do any of this- though that tends to help speed up game play- it's the job of the GM. And the GM may be called somethign different in different systems. In RIFTS and GURPS, the GM is called a GM. In D&D the GM is a "DM" for Dungeon Master. In the World of Darkness games, the GM is an ST, or Story Teller. These mechanics are different because they are copyrighted- like software code- by the company that made them.


VERY IMPORTANT:
It may sound complex, but it's very very very easy to actually play, under the right circumstances.
For Instance: I might show you a White Wolf character sheet that has the following look:
STRENGTH * * *
DEXTERITY * * * * *
ATHLETICS * * * * *
You don't necessarily know what "Dexterity" means- in the context of the game, or what those asterisks represent. If you've been sat down and helped to make a character, you should have been told what each thing meant; but let's assume you've forgotten because of the sheer amount of information thrown at you (a very common occurrence with new players). So, I might say "Roll to hit with your rocks" and other players might grab some dice, roll them, and say "I got 6 successes!"

That sounds insane. How can you succeed at one task multiple times? Were they throwing multiple rocks? How did they know what to roll? And generally, "WTF?".

This is where knowing the rules speeds up the game. In White Wolf, the game is setup in such a way that to do something, you usually take an Attribute and an Ability, add them together, apply any bonuses or penalties to that number, and roll that many ten-sided dice. Each dice is a Failure, a Botch, or a Success, as determined by a difficulty set by the ST (ST, or Story Teller, is what White Wolf calls their Game Masters). But all of that is something that may still sound arcane.

Think about it this way: You have a certain chance to hit someone with a rock. They have a certain chance to dodge a potential hit, or even dodge into what would have been a miss. You make one roll to see if you CAN hit them. They make a different roll to see if they CAN dodge it. If you have more dice that say you CAN hit them, than they have dice that say they CAN dodge, you hit. If they beat you, they dodge.

Here's how it would look:

"Roll to hit!"

You roll to hit by rolling a number of dice equal to your DEXTERITY plus your ATHLETICS, a total of10 ten-sided dice (10d10). The ST didn't call out a difficulty, so it's assumed you have a 40% chance to hit on each of your dice. This means, a roll of 7,8,9, or 10 on a d10 is a Success. A roll of 2,3,4,5, or 6 is a Failure, and a 1 is always a Botch. Each Botch negates a Success.

You roll your 10d10 and the dice show: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 9, 2, 3, 10, 10.

That's 1 Botch, 4 Failures, and 5 Successes.

The Rules also say that any dice that rolls a 10 may be counted as a Success and rolled again, to try and garner more Successes. You rolled 2 10s, but you also rolled a Botch. Botches negate Successes, and they take away 10s before the take away other Successes. So, your Botch kills one 10, leaving you a 10 to "reroll".

You roll a 1. Normally, this would be a Botch; however, when re-rolling, Botches only count as Failures.

So, you rolled 1 Botch, 5 Failures and 5 Successes. The Failures don't mean anything, but the Botch kills one Success, so your total is "4 Successes".

Your target gets a chance to dodge, using different Attributes and Abilities, bonuses and penalties, etc etc. But the basics of this is: if your target gets more successes to dodge than you get to hit, they have successfully dodged your attack.

What would normally happen, with a player unfamiliar with how the system works, is the following:
Player:"I want to hit that bitch with a bottle!"
ST:"Okay, Roll to Hit!"
Player:"Uhm.... say what?"
ST:"What's your Dexterity?"
Player:"Uhm, a bunch of asterisks."
ST:"How many asterisks/dots/pips/slash marks/whatevers?"
Player:"5"
ST:"How many asterisks for Athletics?"
Player:"5"
ST:"Roll 10 dice"
[Player rolls]
Player:"Now what?"
ST:"How many dice are a 7 or higher?"
Player:"5"
ST:"How many are 10s?"
Player:"2"
ST:"Did you roll any ones?"
Player:"Yeah, one."
ST:"Okay, that cancels out on of your tens. I need you to roll one more die."
Player:"It's a one."
ST:"Doesn't matter, this time. So, that's 4 Successes. Cool, your target only rolled 3 Successes to dodge."

This stuff is only hard when no one has played it before. But playing with even one experienced person makes it very very simple. After you've gone through that same conversation four, or OVER 9000!, times people tend to grasp it, and by the fifth time they only ask to confirm things. By the millionth time, the ST says "roll to hit" and they do everything themselves, replying with their successes.


Read More...

RPGs

I've been playing Tabletop, or Paper and Dice, Roleplaying Games for something like 16 years now. I enjoy them, and I'll probably be one of those guys still playing into my fifties and later. Maybe.

A handful of years ago I stumbled upon the idea of Virtual Table Tops, a way of doing Paper and Dice games online. OPEN RPG was the program I had encountered, and the implementation was buggy, but workable. Recently, I've found something better.


Enter RPTOOLS, and their suite of programs, specifically MAPTOOLS*.

It's simple, except that it's built from the ground up. Essentially, it's a chat client, with a layerable drawing feature, some RPG specific add-ons, and it's free. But it's better than that.

You can set visibile distances, lighting, obstructions, etc etc etc. It's really bad ass how feature rich this thing is, especially since it's FREE! The only thing that sucks is the lack of in-suit voice/data.

Want to send the PDF scan of the map from your sourcebook, instead of meticulously copying it? Gonna have to hit up some email addys. Wanna talk, and save the typing for dice rolls? Better get something like Ventrillo, a program VERY familiar to online PC Gamers.

But, really, those are VERY VERY minor problems- Ventrillo is free and can handle a normal group inside the limits of it's free, local host, server.

Want some numbers?

Documentation: 95% - video tutorials, awesome macro documentation, and an active Forums. Would be 100% with a document accompanying; but still, almost perfect. The video tutorials are AMAZING!

Features: 85% - I discussed the reasons why above. Some adventures require long descriptions of events/speeches. Having to type that is bad; but since you're building the maps beforehand, take a minute and write it all out in NOTEPAD, for easy cut and paste blocking. I just wish there was some player status implementaion, a la MMORPGs. AFK, and ReadyCheck, would make this 87%-90%.

Functionality: 88% - There are still bugs/issues. Most of these are simply annoying. I put it below 90% as a caution to people expecting perfection.

Other Problems: I've discussed them above. The only other one is if you're running a significantly older/underpowered machine. Space for storing all the gigabytes of graphics you'd want can be a problem. And if you're not a texture/3d/etc graphics modeler, you're gonna have some trouble gathering all the modern models you might want. But a little imagination and effort can overcome most of that. (For instance, I wanted a BBQ grill for a back patio. No such luck, and I got tired trying to search for one. Instead, I used a dark 55gal barrel, added two small pipes for smoke chimneys, and voila! Similar problem with sinks; so I used an image for an old washbasin. Ever seen those modern sinks that look like big bowls on top of a counter? That's what these look like. Good enough for me.) Top-down view only; but remember, if you were drawing out your game maps by hand, that's how they'd be, too.

Overall - 95% (Averages to 89.3, so 5.7% was added because it's COMPLETELY FREE, and OPEN SOURCE!) This is truly amazing. If you've moved away, but wanna still game with the same ol' assholes; if you're too poor/busy to drive an hour for the weekly game night; or if you're just more comfortable using computers rather than ACTUALLY being face-to-face with other humans, this is exactly what you're looking for.

As Tabletop RPGS are orders of greatness above the old Choose-Your-Own-Adventure books, this is that far beyond Forum post games, or trying to run a real game in a chat room.

*(Launching will cause the program to be installed and then run, downloading isn't significantly different for getting to know the program).
Read More...

It was said when Richard Burris (D-Il) first accepted Blagojevich's nomination that he had nothing to lose. Turns out, that's not the case. He's being investigated by Illinois for perjury, and by the Senate Ethics Committee.

He lied about raising funds for Balgojevich. Flat out lied. Because he wanted his one, last, shot at being somebody in politics. How desperate do you have to be, to make a national fuss about getting your Senate seat, while lying about how you got the appointment?

Sad.
Read More...

What Can $1 Buy?

In this, the worst recession since the Great Depression, people's notions of what some arbitrary number of dollars can buy changes. When before it was $20,000 is that car, today it might be $20,000 is x amount of weeks groceries/rent/utilities.

Wanna know what $500 can buy you?

Look at this:

It was, supposedly, made for $500.


(found via Warren Ellis)


Read More...

Satellite Collisions COULD KILL US ALL!

We've all heard about the satellite wreck, the other day. Well, Dr. Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer and President of the JREF, did some math. And failed. So he did some MOAR math and was full of win- deadly, megaton, kilo-rifle-shot, win:

Remember, I’m trying to be very rough here; I don’t care if I’m off in my numbers by a factor or two or not; I just want an approximation.

The kinetic energy of an object is equal to 1/2 x its mass x its velocity^2. Again, because I’m being really rough here, it doesn’t matter which satellite hits the other. We can assume they have about the same mass, so the kinetic energy (in ergs, which I’ll explain in a second) is

KE = 0.5 x 700,000 grams x (800,000 cm/sec)^2 =
2 x 10^17 ergs

An erg is a small unit of energy, but 200,000,000,000,000,000 is a lot of them. Blowing up a ton of TNT releases about 4 x 10^16 ergs, so this collision was roughly the equivalent of lobbing 5 tons of TNT at the satellites.

but that's not all...

Read More...*

That’s why there’s a large cloud of expanding debris; each piece of shattered satellite carried away a piece of that violent energy release. The energy of collision changed the orbits of all those shards, so they are now orbiting the Earth on new paths that take them higher or lower over the surface, right into the traffic lanes of other satellites.

So eventually, some may once again find an object in their way. And because of the high velocity, the kinetic energy of impact even from a low-mass piece can be pretty fierce. A rifle bullet does a huge amount of damage when it hits something, and it has a mass of about 10 grams and moves at a paltry 1 km/sec. Now think of the damage inflicted by a small satellite chunk that masses about 1 kg (100 times as much as the bullet) and moving 8 times faster… the energy of impact is 6400 times that of the bullet. Imagine getting hit by six thousand rifle bullets, and you start to get an idea of why satellite collisions are not just catastrophic for the two birds involved, but also a danger to other objects in orbit as well.

So, maybe we all won't die- but the Earth just got a little bit more like RIFTS, in which we're all dead.

*Something stupid happened with the code I'm using to mash blogger into acting like a legitimate blog, and hiding the lengthy bits of my rambling posts. (Much like that sentence). So, I had to rig the rigged code into working, and the "Read More..." link is a permanent part of this post. Hopefully, this issue won't carry over into other posts.
Read More...

Memetic Infections

Facebook infections look remarkably similar to human ones. And like organisms, the odds do seem stacked against all but the fittest of memes.

Originally spotted at /.

Very neat article with graphs, and discussions of weakness in the theory. Very very cool.

Except, that memes are, basically, "viral ideas"... as in "viral"... as in infectious agents... as in "No fucking shit, Sherlock."

But, still, I haven't seen a lot of studies on the actual study of meme and virus co-representation. I know there are such things out there, I just haven't seen them. And the very scientific nature of such an interesting piece is always very cool and very much appreciated. (Take note, Huffington Post, science- REAL scientifical science, with "like evidence and stuff" can be, and is, cool).


Read More...

LEAVE TEH BATMAN ALONE!!!111

(mild cursing, just so you're aware)


Made by friends of mine. Good job, gentlemen. Now, about my Obama idea...
Read More...

Great Article on Latest Autism Rulings

Dr Steve Novella, on Neurologica, writes:

The Autism Omnibus hearings were set up to evaluate for thousands of petitions for compensation under the vaccine injury compensation program. This is a program set up in the US to compensate those who suffer adverse effects from vaccines, and it is paid for by a tax on all vaccines. This is a sensible system because it allows manufacturers to produce much needed vaccines without risking bankruptcy over fad pseudoscientific accusations - like those that took down Dow Chemical. It also more quickly and fairly compensated families, which is fair given that vaccines are somewhat compulsory in the US (although in most states it is all too easy to get an exemption).

Read More...

Internet-Vision

Remember Doctor Horrible's Sing-along Blog? Just telling people you do, so you can seem cooler?

There's a group of people- ever expanding, ever better- that actually do "television" shows for the internet. And there's a new one, as of Today:



6 minutes, seems like it could be horrible, seems like it could be really good. We'll see. Definitely worth watching.
Read More...

It's a Celebration!

Happy Darwin Day.

For those of you who are local, I'll be celebrating tomorrow with others of like-mind.
Read More...

Guilding the Lily (of copyright vs technology)

The Author's Guild claims that the new Kindle's text-to-speech software is illegal, stating that 'They don't have the right to read a book out loud,' said Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild. 'That's an audio right, which is derivative under copyright law.' Forget for a moment that text-to-speech doesn't copy an existing work. And forget the odd notion that the artificial enunciation of plain text is equivalent to a person's nuanced and emotive reading. The Guild's claim is that even to read out loud is a production akin to an illegal copy, or a public performance.

Read More...

Alan Moore

Read More...

Better Late than Never

Doctor Who is back in production, ramping up for the 4 (or 5?) specials due out in lieu of a real season this year.

Then David Tennant is out, and enter Matt Smith.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/4124591/Doctor-Who-Introducing-Matt-Smith-the-26-year-old-Time-Lord.html

GAY! If he's got that little emo-ass quaff I'm not gonna watch. This will be a Haden Christianson as Darth Vader level of shit, says I. But, to be fair, I should go find some of Matt Smith's other performances and see if he's a whiney little shit. As should you.

Read More...

Hack the Planet!

found at WarrenEllis.com:

What do we do if our best efforts to limit the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere fall short? According to a growing number of environmental scientists, we may be forced to try an experiment in global climate management: geoengineering. Geoengineering would be risky, likely to provoke international tension, and certain to have unexpected consequences. It may also be inevitable. Environmental futurist Jamais Cascio explores the implications of geoengineering in this collection of thought-provoking essays. Is our civilization ready to take on the task of re-engineering the planet?

Except, isn't that illegal? Didn't we sign some UN resolutions that said we wouldn't do that kinda shit- as did, presumably, many other countries? Or does that only apply during war/conflict?

Regardless, it's not like it's going to be easy, or cheap, or worth it, most likely.

1) Look at how much China spent to try and control the rain during the Olympics. And look at how well it worked. And notice who is saying it worked perfectly, and who is saying it didn't work at all. But, mostly, just understand that Perry was right when he said "Yes I believe China will control the weather. If it doesn't cooperate they'll have it shot."

2) There's a basic principal that I'm thinking about: The air only holds X amount of moisture, if you force it to rain one place, or divert the rains so that some area gets cloud cover, or similarly attempt to manipulate clouds/rain, aren't you forcing drought in some other place? Presumably this could be diverted, a little, by manipulating on one side of a large body of water, so that moisture content could be reclaimed. But how well would that really work?

3) As with most futurist, this guy seems like a really neat thinker, possibly even highly intelligent. But, in the end, a complete fraud. "Futurist" is a term that, roughly translated, means "sci-fi geek with some amount of journalistic-esque ability" (Yes, -istic-esque.)

4) His book is Hacking the Earth, because Hackers already laid claim to "Hack the Planet".
Read More...

PZ Meyers may well be trying to kill us all...

via Pharyngula
Read More...

Random Thought

You'll damn well know it's the future, when...

Junkies are shooting up with syringes full of baby brains, so they can function enough to pull down that next score.
Read More...

Kinder, Gentler, Atheists

Christopher Hitchens has described himself as an anti-theist. Richard Dawkins has ascribed to the label, at times, too. They are often described as "The New Atheists", those two along with Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. "The New Atheists" are characterized by being "out", proud, and open about their atheism; which a lot of people on the religious front take to mean "aggressive", "indignant", etc.

Then, there're people like DJ Grothe- host of the Point of Inquiry podcast- Annie Laurie Gaylor, and Dan Barker. These are, what I consider to be the KG Atheists. Dan Barker introduces himself, on Freethought Radio on Air America, as "your friendly neighborhood atheist". The KGs are all about inclusiveness and "not raising to the bait", etc etc.



Then there are those who are somewhere between the polar opposites I'm making these groups out to be- including most of the people I just mentioned. This probably represents the largest group of atheists. (And here, by atheist, I mean anyone covered by terms such as Freethinker, etc; the big A word is one of my favorites).

The KG position is that by being aggressive, dismissive, confident/arrogant, and responding in kind to vitriol, we're only hurting our own position. It's an argument I dislike; but I can't find fault with it. They claim organizations such as The Rational Response Squad only serve to drive away some people who might otherwise join, or support, us.

But, I'm a kid of the digital revolution. We had watches that did trig, when I was growing up. Eat that, old people with your stupid sliding rulers...

I've dealt with trolls for longer than I've dealt with herp... er.. the POSSIBILITIES of STIs. :twisted:

Obviously, the best way to deal with those people is to ignore them, completely. But you know what that does? Nothing. It does nothing, so the troll gets bored, and the watchers go watch someone who WILL feed the trolls. You know what happens when you out troll the troll? The watchers help you beat the pitiful creature into the cyber-dirt, and rub it's crushed psyche with salt so that confidence may never spring forth from such potent manure, ever again. You gain allies, who can then be coddled, appeased, treated kindly, and won over.

The KGs have their place. They will always be needed, because "midwestern, Lutheran, housewives" will always be scared of the big mean satanic atheists; and dulcet tones may be the only way of getting them to put down their monster burning torches. But KGs often condescend to the Aggressives.

Worse, KGs, often express the exact same sentiments, feelings, and ideas as the Aggressives. Yet, it comes off- to me- as passive aggressive. Why is that bad? First, if you're asking you'll never truly get it. Second, it's bad because it stinks of false confidence.

Humans are social animals. We're wired to instinctively trust confident, self-assured, people- regardless of how stupid/idiotic/intelligent they may be. Who was the smartest kid in your High School? And who was the MOST popular? Chances are, they weren't the same kid. (Yeah, yeah, beauty has something to do with it, too; but you can't fake beauty as easily as confidence). Passive aggression has a stigma of being sleazy, underhanded, and... passive aggressive. It connotates negatively.

There's, seemingly obviously, always a place for the KGs; but why not accept the Aggressives, too? Those of us who enjoy a good screaming match of sarcastic one-ups-man-ship, insult round-up, or pin the negative stigma on the loser-faced-loser-boy have our uses. When slick sleazy conmen like Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Kent Hovind, etc etc etc ad nauseum, get up and spout their lies- the same lies that they've spouted a million times before, despite having been shown the evidence each and every time- why not return fire with someone who will equally ignore logic and gladly participate in tit-for-tat?

Why is it bad to ever offend, instead of the tried and true strategy to defend?

Let's face it, the moderates will attract some people. The KGs will attract some people. But the Aggressives could help to make it harder to say provably false, demeaning, bs- and less of that would attract some people. As would a projection of confidence and self-assurance.

This is very much tl;dr territory, so I'll stop there, for now. This is something I've been thinking about seriously for the last 6 months or so. I'm curious to hear the opinions of others "in the trenches", so to speak.

This is my first volley in a discussion I'm trying to start at the North Alabama Freethought Association's forums. I can maintain separate conversations- it'd be interesting to see how two different conversations develop, honestly- but anyone who would like to see it there will need to register for their forums.
Read More...

Anti-Vax Fakery Discovered

Phil Plait, over at Bad Astronomy is discussing the news from the UK based Sunday Times, that the original study finding a link between vaccinations and negative health effects in children was faked.

If these allegations are true, then it means that Wakefield out-and-out lied in his original work. He has denied this, according to the Sunday Times, but won’t make further comments.

This may cause a firestorm in the antivax community, but there are two things I will guarantee: the first is that in the end antivaxxers will stick to their beliefs that vaccines cause health problems like autism, because this is not and never has been, for them, about the facts and evidence. It’s a belief system, and like most other belief systems, it is impenetrable to evidence. If you have any doubts, I suggest you read the comments to the post I made the other day about measles being on the rise in the UK. One commenter on that post is saying all manners of outrageous things, and ignores the evidence that I (and a pediatrician) have left in the comments to him.

find the whole thing: here.
Read More...

Bad Science fights bad "science"!

For those of you who haven't seen this over at Boing Boing, like I did:

Ben Goldacre wrote a critical column about DJ Jeni Barnett, who was recently heard spewing loads of anti-vaxx psuedoscience on her 3 hour live radio show. He included an excerpt- about 44 minutes- of the show, with the critique.

So, what happened, then? The radio station (LBC), and it's parent corp (Global Audio), threatened to sue M. Goldacre.


We have "fair use", over there: fair dealing. It amounts to the same thing. LBC and Global Audio maintain, apparently, that 44 minutes of a 180min broadcast is too much. Plus, as deep pocketed corporations- especially when compared to Mr Goldacre- they have the conception that they can bully and browbeat anyone who doesn't do what they like.

It would be understandable if he hadn't been making a point, letting their own DJ condemn herself, but the case is just that. He excerpted, roughly, a quarter of the overall broadcast in order to make comments. That would be like using ~7min from a 30 min TV show to illustrate some aspect of the show. To me, that doesn't seem unreasonable.

But I'm not a corporation that cares about nothing other than its bottom line.

Of course, in my paranoia infused/narrative driven brain, another possibility presents itself: The corporations know how legal action produces lots of media, and they're trying to drive people to buy the nearly $6 (US) show online.

In reality, I fear they think they're protecting themselves from being exposed as people who don't care how much they hurt other people. A lot of psuedoscience is just stupid: magnetic wrist bands to help your arthritis, for instance. Anti-vaxx has a body count.

Anti-vaxx has a body count.

Read More...

Thomas Sowell, a conservative columnist from the Hoover Institute, says the banks don't want the money the government is trying to give them; but that's not even remotely true. The Banks definitely WANT the money, why wouldn't they? What Banks don't want is regulations on how/what they can spend/use the money. He also says banks are loaning less today than they were before they received any money.

What does he know that we don't?


The short answer is: nothing.

First, let's look at the loan situation. The credit crunch- the limited availability and issuance of loans- is still ongoing, and worsening, despite every measure tried. Why? There are, as with so many economic problems, lots of reasons. One, companies are going bankrupt, so there are less companies trying to borrow money. Two, companies are going bankrupt, and reporting vastly smaller profits than at any time in recent memory (if they're not suffering losses); which means loaning money to businesses is riskier. The job of a banker is to minimize risk. With the lackluster profit reports we're seeing, expectations and markets down, and the recession due to last through spring (an optimistic opinion, in my view), it's risky to loan businesses money, at the moment. However, those businesses- like WalMart- who are doing well, aren't reporting a problem with getting loans.

Additionally, people with good credit aren't having a big problem with getting loans, either. Anecdotally, my sister just got a loan on a good condition used car at a very good interest rate. Her credit wasn't perfect- she had a repossession some years ago- but she had no outstanding debts, and a good job. But, many people are getting laid-off. Look at "Bloody Monday". Many many people are already out of a job, working reduced hours, etc etc. We've all seen the news and heard the stories. The facts on the ground aren't good for workers. Which means it's risky to give a loan. If the person has slightly bad credit, they're a huge risk- when viewed objectively as a potential soon-to-be-beneficiary of, recently extended, unemployment benefits.

The credit crunch is on because the recession is bad, and people are losing their jobs. That is partly due to the credit crunch. It's a feedback loop. Fortunately, the longer the recession goes on, and the credit crunch weeds out the insolvent, the less impact it will have. The problem is, it's not over, and the point of equilibrium will only be realized in hindsight. Which means loan officers won't be aware of it when it does, if it hasn't already, hit.

Secondly, business and banks are begging for tax cuts. Why? Because that's free- read: non-regulated- money. Cut their taxes and they get access to money they would have owed. It doesn't come with all the oversight, preferred stock option exchange, or any of the other, unfortunately meager, regulatory provisions of government "bailout" money. Of course they want that. If you asked a business person if they would rather have a bunch of money free and clear, or the same amount with a bunch of political bullshit, regulation, and rules attached... Which would you pick?

The money is the same, either way. Potentially, there's more money in the bailout, immediately. Tax cuts might be easier to make permanent, though, and that may have something to do with it. The point is that Thomas Sowell and the Republicans are spouting bullshit and demanding the Democrats stop spouting bullshit. There's no way of telling if the Democratic stimulus package will work, yet.

Finally, there is some indication that the Republican stimulus plans, i.e. more tax cuts, don't work. Huh? Look at the last few years. Bush loved his tax cuts, and look where we're at. I'm not saying that tax cuts put us in this situation, but I am saying they didn't help. The last round of tax cuts barely stimulated the economy during the third quarter. Most people kept the money and saved it, a strategy that proved to be very wise indeed.

Infrastructure is a good investment. It's possible that there are better investments; but I haven't seen any. I've seen some data that claims there are equally good investments; but there's a problem not being addressed with those few I've seen. Ignoring recent data on tax cuts, they do seem potentially capable of helping. But they don't help nearly as many people.

According to Maude Barlow, the top 200 corporations control the same amount of wealth as the bottom 2/3s of people. That's 4,290,000,000 people. Infrastructure, like internet access, roads, electrical grids, etc etc, has been shown to disproportionately help the poor, while tax cuts help the rich. How? If you pay 10% of 20,000 (the federal poverty level as of a couple years ago) you're not gonna get the same benefit of a 2% tax break as someone who pays 15% of a billion. But if it only takes you 15 minutes to get to work, instead of 30 minutes, it means less gas and gas money isn't as big a problem if you make $200,000/year.

[An Aside: I use the driving example because of I-565, that "Lake of Asphalt" some of you may have heard about on NPR about a week ago. My mother's commute was cut in half when it was completed. There are those who would say 15 minutes of time for Bill Gates is worth more than 15 minutes of {anyone else}'s time. That's a good argument; except that it ignores the real world situation of gas. In reality, $20 a week in extra gas doesn't mean much to Bill Gates; but it can mean a very very modest retirement savings for someone who was otherwise living paycheck to paycheck. Again, in reality, it probably wouldn't get used solely for savings; but the point remains.]

Keynesian Economics is the real point that is being argued. It's got it's problems. However, so does every other system. The fact of the matter is that Keynesian economic strategies, or maybe just the ones I've heard, seem to benefit the poor more than the rich. In fact, they don't seem like they really help the rich. That was- in a way- Keynes's point, from what I understand. Should the government be in the business of "redistributing the wealth"? No, but if money needs to be spent- tax cuts are expenditures, just like infrastructure- I think it should be spent to help the poor more than the rich. This is a biased viewpoint; but it's not one I'm likely to ever change, regardless of my personal financial situation.

There's a balance that can be reached between helping the poorest and not seriously injuring the richest. It's just hard to reach that point when people are willing to lie, or "misstate" the "facts", to advance their viewpoint. Legislating morality is a dangerous game, and one I'm very opposed to; which is why I don't think we should legislate against greed or self-interest. What I do think, is that we should have a democracy that supports the majority, and the vast majority of people are poor.

Read More...

Via Wil Wheaton (In Exile)



Yes, THAT Wil Wheaton.
Read More...

What is "Pression", anyway?

According to Charlie Stross (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/01/depression_20.html) it is anecdotally likely that more people are depressed, right now. Which I mention because in the last week I've slept rather irregularly- including two days of 18 or more hours. Normally, this is a sign of sickness- but I haven't felt sick and I doubt I could get sick twice in that short span- or depression- but I haven't felt any more depressed than usual.

It occurs to me, there is a third option.

The last time I slept so much, I grew a lot. Maybe I have hit another growth spurt. This is highly doubtful, for any number of reasons, of course; but I wanted to warn you, anyway. I could be getting even bigger, which means, soon, there will be no more space for you on this puny marble. As a precaution, you should all install break-away cyanide teeth, in case you must commit suicide to give me the space I need to grow.

You've been warned.
Read More...