• Last Seen: MIA
  • Old Guild Username: Shon Harris... Go figure
  • Joined: 11 yrs ago
  • Posts: 277 (0.07 / day)
  • VMs: 0
  • Username history
    1. ApocalypticaGM 11 yrs ago

Status

User has no status, yet

Bio

User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

S'all good. Just giving some advice. I never team-wrote a thing until roleplaying with Prometheus, who introduced me to the finer points. I understand it can slow things down, but used well, it can also be a fantastic tool. Don't think of anything I say as criticism, well, unless I call it that. I'd hope you all would share your personal backgrounds with me too, as I am certain there is a ton y'all have to share.

@Wind: When I said shoot, I meant actually shoot it from the pistol. When I read the 'hope he's a good shot' line I literally exclaimed, "Jesus Christ" at the expectation. But you know, it's written... so I'll roll and let the dice decide. Thanks for that Wind. Thanks..
Goldmarble said
And...I disagree with you. I don't believe in a nanny state. I don't believe in trying to protect everything from the smallest of chances, if it involves giving up freedom. If 20 people in a year die, and 100 get injured, because of our current example; human body flying out of a car, strikes them....you know what? That is no reason to make a . Shit happens.Secondly, is if you want to make it law because that corpse might cause injury in the extremely unlikely scenario, then we might as well ban roof-racks for cars because you can stow a couple hundred pounds up there and it can fly off in an accident and cause further harm, just the same as an ejected corpse, right?Now, again: Even if it was legal to drive a seatbelt, I still use one. It's my choice, my prerogative.


This is absolutely going a bit off topic, but I just wanted to point out a bit of an oversight here. The idea of a body becoming a projectile as I'd mentioned a page or two ago was more with the imagining of a person in the backseat without their belt on. You know, accident happens, the person behind you suddenly projects forward toward your seat or the back of your skull. Sure, your seat might protect you, but if a belt would protect both of you... why not make that required? And that scenario is in no way unlikely either. I'm surprised it hadn't come to mind?

Anyway, I think this would be another example of how a community could create and maintain laws. Wearing a seatbelt is clearly a good idea for all parties. Law or not, people who are educated about the benefits and risks usually choose the option that maintains their health (specifically when that option is free and available). This is a bit similar to smoking. In my state, Washington, it is against most housing policies to smoke indoors and outright illegal to smoke within 25 feet of a place of business. It looks like restriction of a personal action, sure, but there effects had on other individuals without their consent or ability to reasonably avoid such. The fact is laws are agreements between parties to compromise. Compromise means meeting in the middle, and usually also means nobody is wholly satisfied. That's why I think there's power in communal agreements on a more manageable scale. Intentional communities offer the ability to choose and fight for what laws you favour without being one among several tens or hundreds of thousands weighing in. Imagine suddenly your neighbourhood had the power to make certain things legal or illegal. Say you have a couple hundred people under this jurisdiction and everyone gets a say in such a way that does not place an individual's opinion directly to them (unless they out themselves). Suddenly, laws effect a community more directly, one person is a much more significant figure, and should an agreement not be followed the entire community is apt to notice and hold each other accountable. I do not distrust larger governments, I just think that making a law that sweeps a million people spread across hundreds of miles of land seems a bit strange when it comes to topics like smoking pot or marriage equality. Bigger topics like managing pollution and distancing ourselves from non-renewable resources are issues that support everyone and effects everyone, a bit more applicable to a larger government.

What do you all think?
I'll be on tonight and will pop onto the Docs, Wind.

@Beo&Kraux: Jaysus, y'all. If that weren't a ton of dialogue I'd say you should split it half and half and post back-to-back between one another. But hey, there's a lot of posts like that in Apocalyptica... so... yeah. I'd say it's definitely the first step in team-writing, you'll smooth out and get used to each other and eventually it'll just weave into one another instead of building always out. With a team this size I think we'll all become very accustomed to it quick too. We'll probably all improve in that process.
Goldmarble said
And I am appalled at the idea, and reality, that the Government can tell me what to do, and how to live. If I don't like their ideas, their private enforcement officers will either arrest me, or try to coerce me to pay a fine, and if I refuse? Then I get arrested.For example: Say I hate being in a car, and using a seat belt*. I'm well aware of the risks and potential hazards of not wearing it, but not wearing it endangers no one else, but my own life. I do not agree with the idea that the Government should have the authority to make laws to protect us, from ourselves. If someone chooses to do something stupid that doesn't endanger anyone else? To me, that is their prerogative, their responsibility, and their freedom to do so.* I would wear my seat belt regardless of law or now laws to the effect of wearing it.


I can dig it, though, I do think the body becoming a flying projectile could endanger someone else (or turn a minor accident into manslaughter). I would add something though too.

I believe government is a useful tool for large scale programs like social services. Things that operate across the whole state or nation, these big sweeping programs that push tons of money, require many figures, and take weeks of dedication to produce make sense to fall onto a group focused on such. Meanwhile, I expect smaller programs to run within communities as well formed by, and agreed upon by the community. In my eyes, every community should have a shared governance that they're involved in directly. In my country, America, this is usually not the case. Communities trying to create their own rules and support systems are often associated with something else and categorized as a sub-culture or something other 'fringe'-like sort of idea that makes them appear off the norm. Really, the fact is it is a bit difficult for the average joe directly involve themselves in large-scale programs without a position or some other 'authority' to wear. By creating communal agreements that are actively engaged with (not just town/city laws we inherit and may or may not even be aware of) you give the ability to every individual to become directly involved. I see the need for government, but I believe in the adage that absolute power corrupts, so I believe power should be shared and shifted based on those with the most experience to lead given the situation. In other words, more than one leader, emphasis on those with experience/training/education relevant to the issues being engaged with (i.e. Boasting Commander and Chief status=Nothing when trying to solve deforestation). Again though, larger government would be expected to maintain larger programs, and possibly even provide incentives to those communities that actually operate in this way. When individuals are more responsible and politically active, you don't need massive protests to be heard -- you just talk.
@Zombie & Fallen: I added a bit to the Doc and directed the convo. Also, I'm never opposed to a bar fight. Mm... bar fights.
Just wanted to post up my results. Looks like several of us are in the same quadrant, but I find the distance from Authoritarian or Libertarian very interesting. After doing my test I checked out some the reading lists and the area I fall into, Left Libertarian, has a number of which I've already read. Not the biggest surprise there. Anyone else think they're going to do some reading to do with those minds outside our views, according to this?

Here's some advice for team writing. The focus is the ultimate product and what you want to come of it, not personal fame. Team writing is really just an easier way to work on a post that includes another character while not pretending to know that other perspective. It's really more important with Playable Characters. Often times people decide they don't know another PC, or aren't comfortable with having them even speak, because they don't want to god-mode or miss portray them. That's absolutely valid. It also can hinder things, especially in the early part like this. So if you just throw up a bit of writing and let us know it's on the Doc, you let others chime in if they think their character would act a little differently. Perhaps you have a trait you haven't told us all, that's supposed to emerge over time -- you can add that in. The coloured writing is meant to maintain ownership while we write. It helps see if everyone's getting their fair bit when we co-write and also can help direct questions or any confusion.

A more logistical concern is length. Often people post with a brief recount of whatever their comrade wrote... kind of annoying depending on the execution, and also a bit of back-pedalling too. This avoids that problem. Big world events can occur in multiple posts, like an explosion heard all around, but no one has to recount what Jill was doing unless it's actually relevant. That helps with length. But another thing is really just that... length. It's easy to write pages and pages that, really, is just going make a post no one is going to thoroughly read. Luckily you can split up the posting between authors to divide that super long post into two good length ones. It also means those of us who may write more than we need to should step back so others can step up. Benefit is that Google Docs has a chat function so we can speak about these concerns live as we all write. We can also just leave a friendly note too.

We're creating a story here. We don't need to walk on egg shells, we should be bold, but compassionate.
Brovo said
Quick note: History doesn't have failings. History is merely the chronicling of events based on the perspectives of those who lived within those times and what physical evidence remains of it all.


I see what you mean and would agree if history weren't recorded by humanity. As an idea history should not have failings, as it should be an objective account of what happened. However, history is recorded and in a sense sculpted by people, each group, and within reach group each individual holding their subjective wants and passions. History is absolutely chronicling of events based on the perspectives of those who lived, but if those who lived held a perspective not actually the truest account -- just the only surviving one-- then really history is an attempt at objectivity that can be bought and manipulated by influence. Physical evidence is also a great way of finding objective truth, but many peoples have destroyed any remnants or accounts of their enemies, either leaving gaps or placing false histories. So, I would say that history should be a like science in that it should be objective, but history has really proven that there is often more to it than what's visible at the surface -- ironically, history shining light on history.

All that just to say, I agree with you abstractly, but in reality, I would say history does have failings in relation to the people and peoples it describes. We look with a modern eye and I don't think it's necessary to remove judgement of our predecessors simply because we're born later.

Brovo said
That's cool, so do I. :)


I know! Besides the imaginative worlds and evolving plots, that's another thing I enjoy about your roleplays.

Brovo said Oh boy. Heart's in the right place but not the execution on this one. Making one group superior to another group in order to erode the reverse superiority reflected in history or other sources of fiction doesn't help paint any kind of image of equality. It's just inequality on different parties. I also have powerful female characters in my fantasy literature and role plays. Renalta is ruled by two queens, for example... But I don't define their rule by their gender. Other characters might note that it's unorthodox for a pair of women to rule a kingdom, some might even disdain it, but they themselves are not defined by the fact that they're women. They're defined by the fact that they're caring, intelligent, and strong, each in their own way, that compliments one another. Essentially: They're good rulers for their lands, gender be damned, and that is why they are in power, despite what any opposition might think.

And no, they don't need special matriarchal powers for that. They just need to be strong people. Same with male leaders in the world, no special powers of patriarchy for them, just some mix of characteristics that makes them suited for the job at that current time.


I agree with you and see how my lack of elaboration could be misconstrued. I did not mean suggest that male dominance would be solved by simple exchange, resulting in female dominance. What I meant to say, is that media representation already favours a specific group of people based on a specific set of characteristics. The roleplays I take part in and create are media, though not that broadcasted compared to film or published literature. Because of this I constantly try to flip our expectations to create questions. I recognize that creating a world that reflects history is safe as it abides by our records -- not fault on me, logically. I recognize that creating a world where things are pretty balanced tempts a few questions and gets things flowing -- bit riskier, but I'm not exposing myself to get those questions. Finally, I recognize and prefer to create worlds that have elements that are drastic, overt when they appear, and bring big questions. I do not have a quota for how many female bodied leaders should be in my roleplays, but I consider what powers my ideas reflect in history and fiction and how they might've been different were a few apparent characteristics flipped -- would it really be different? I see a lot of characters who are male and white, and I know in the shared lore common today this fits the profile for a hero in most of fiction. I get that. So I want to see if anything changes when the heroes don't match up with that expectation any more.

See I agree with you that a character is interesting because of their character, not because they lack specific genitalia and rule. My way of engaging that topic is to change the common lore though. The heroes could be white males, absolutely, but the canon I personally create is apt to be more diverse with a range of populations based on the world's history and challenges. So yes, yes, a thousand times yes to what you're saying. I just choose to go about a bit differently, not thinking that reversing majorities magically changes everything, but creating a world where the lore reflects our own in substance, just not appearances.

Brovo said Historically speaking, I would play with inequality because it's... Accurate... Sure you can have a female mercenary but a lot of people are going to look on that as being bizarre, some with outright hostility. Whether or not you consider that right or wrong is irrelevant to the fact that it happened.


I think that's something that I love about the Assassin's Creed label. While I wish they'd push more boundaries, one they do well with is casting gaze upon times and cultures we don't usually talk about. Often these cultures look different than what we'd expect. Inequality is a big problem in history. Specifically, in the histories certain countries we tend focus on more. Power dynamics are created by society though, and the -isms are social constructs. That means certain societies may have inequality, to many of us meaning women, people of colour, and non-hetero individuals have are usually undervalued. Other societies may have inequality that looks very different, perhaps even the opposite of all that. I do enjoy stories that remind us that history is more complex than white people being the age-old oppressors despite borders and passing millennia. Inequality has formed favouring different groups, including the overvaluing of women rather than men, and some cultures even placed women as the dominant hunters as we've placed men. So, historically is a weird term. The Minoan cultures are believed to have been a matriarchal society with the suggestion women were seen in a way we see men. Other cultures have done this too. That's also history, perhaps centuries of it, but we're not approaching all this from the perspective that could be solid belief.

So when I say I'd play with inequality to stimulate questions, that's what I mean. I should've spoken more about that before. We really approach all this from a small perspective amplified some by books and studies and cultural teachings. Our experiences too, all that's valid, but we really need also consider that history does hold more than we have as of now -- personally, I mean, but also as a world. We keep focusing on certain aspects of history and it's like we just expect the whole world was like medieval times in Northern Europe. Inequality can mean different things and I think recognizing it when it doesn't look so obvious, especially through roleplay, teaches us and actually creates a more creative story.

Brovo said
Out of curiosity, how does it expose a new perspective, what perspective would that be? I do like a good read so I hope you wouldn't mind indulging my curiosity.


The story is something I've been working with off and on for years. That may sound silly, but I've been careful to obtain as much perspective as I can around the time and the topic. I'd like to avoid specifics in a general forum, but I'd be happy to share with you the premise through PM. I'm not sure it'd be good form to air out an idea I've put so much into, and will continue to, on an easily searchable forum -- not that's probably worth stealing.

Very generally, the perspective is that of a young mixed boy living in a time and setting where racism exists as we think of it now, as well as in a form that recognizes more than visible extremes of colour. The story covers a lifetime, well, and more, and includes the ways we change in our perception of the world, morality, and sexuality. I'd like to engage with topics surrounding gender-queer individuals in times where we presume such was not a topic. The character's race will be a factor, but considering the time and situation not one that takes over the story. That said, so far, I have not ignored the life of one who cannot hide their characteristics in a world where certain characteristics are worthy of harsh repercussions. As a whole, the story actually surroundings a series of events this character witnesses, but the events reflect a greater problem building in teh world. As they grow up their recognition of the bigger problems grows too, so the story expands from personal experiences and anguish to a greater, loftier issue that reflects those of today. All this is very vague, and I know it might not be super helpful, but I would be happy to share with you a premise that doesn't describe just about every action/adventure story ;).

Brovo said
Changing the gender order against what our ancestors did as a result of sexual dimorphism would be a sweeping change to the state of the planet. It's often why stories which want to empower women in a medieval setting adventure to a fantasy land, like Game of Thrones, or Lord of the Rings.


That's sort of a slippery slope, right? Change one king to a queen and suddenly the entire state of the planet changed. At some point or another I'm certain a king died and, in that time, a queen was at least a figure-head ruler until a male heir or some other solution came around. And no, this is not a request for specific examples suggesting such thing unthinkable. Gender order is established in a certain form by certain societies. In those societies Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings pull most from, absolutely, changing the gender order would be pretty drastic. But what happens when say 'oh hey, what about those societies or those mythos that actually set the same expectations? What happens when suddenly we choose to focus on a time in history that defies what we've grown to expect and use that as a springboard for a roleplay or narrative. Or, even better, what happens when we use a time and an event we know largely from one perspective and find sources from the other, perhaps the society that was nearly wiped out, and use their perspective and order to build a story from. Absolutely, gender order was probably similar in many areas, but it wasn't everywhere, and it wasn't always exactly the same. So it's not ground-breaking, and absolutely not history-breaking, to highlight parts of history that have wonderful story potential, and happen to not follow the gender order we see as historically common.

Again, I agree with you, I just think it's maybe more valuable to use stories and histories that are just as valid to introduce ideas that are relevant to today.
I am saying that Gnosticism exists within many religions as a actual sects with unique views. It isn't necessarily just a large definition, because depending on the faith, there are significant differences. In terms of Christianity, Gnostics often focus on symbolic meaning and put much stock in that. Really, many Christians, perhaps even more Jews, approach the texts with the understanding that it's not all meant to be literal. However, Gnostics differ, as they usually suggest larger symbolic meaning within the entirety of the faith. There are many books removed or never included among the canonized Judeo-Christian texts due to their 'encouragement of gnosticism'. Then again, it shouldn't be a surprise when some gnostics proposed the Christian Messiah a symbolic form -- not physical.

If you're interested do what I do: Study it. When I ask about a religion or their perspective I take that, but also know their interpretation is mixed up with all they are. It doesn't give you a true story about what the faith-community is. So check it out, do some reading if you're interested. I picked up the Gnostic Bible by Meyer and Barnestone personally and am still combing over every bit.
I just wanted to chime in about the term definition of Gnostic. While Gnosticism has been described above as one who claims a deep knowledge, and that is very true, it is also a separate entity within religions as well as this categorical, well, label like it seems y'all are using it. Gnosticism does not really mean fundamentalist nor completely sold on an idea. Speaking to Christianity specifically, a Gnostic Christian would not be the majority and in fact has historically been separated as far from the Christian body as possible. Gnostic as a secular term pretty much works how I'm seeing y'all define it above. It just might be worth noting that gnosticism within faiths often means looking past the literal and seeking deeper, likely metaphorical meanings in the mythos of a faith-community. Again, keeping Christianity as a example to speak from, a Gnostic might see the world and the description of a Messiah as less a physical account of a man, and instead as an allegory meant to point a truth. Christianity lends well gnosticism too, what with a prime religious figure speaking almost entirely in allegory and metaphor and rarely, if ever, giving a straight answer. The idea is that the initiated are granted something more. I actually picked up a Gnostic Bible a couple months ago. While studying Judeo-Christian iconography and history I always found the Gnostics far more accepting and a generally compelling idea. Only now have I had the opportunity to read into it a bit more -- worth it if if you dig mythos.

Anyway, just wanted to point out the term is used in a few ways that hold loads of meaning. Defining terms definitely makes conversations clearer, it's also worth knowing that these terms do have lives and associations that could inform us too. Oh, actually I wanted to say that a major figure for Gnostic Christians is the Apostle Thomas (Doubting Thomas, 'Allow me to Finger your Rib-hole' Thomas). Assigning absolute certainty under the title Gnostic with a representative like that seems... off. Granted of course, Christianity by no means owns the term. I'd suggest Gnosticism is the seeking of a knowledge that validates the symbolic, seeking it where others may not. It might not sound as clean, but I'd say it works.
© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet