Who's "Rock Bottom" are we here for?
I generally avoid internet drama, but something has got to be in the electronic air. Was it 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons being released? Is it the author of a self-published how to play RPGs manual being stressed out? Calling someone a dumb ass because you play Dungeons and Dragons differently and they are able to articulate their position is amazingly immature and unkind. Want to peddle a book with a very limited audience? All press isn't good press
Neither you, JD, nor the guy who writes Save vs All Wands, nor the similar morons at YDIS, nor most of the vocal dim people on the D&D blogosphere, were ever remotely in my audience. You have to sell books to people who will pay. The people who know me, who have been reading my blog for 7 years, are perfectly aware of my attitude, my belief system, my intolerance of morons and my willingness to personally abuse same, and they don't care. They don't care because they're not interested in who likes who or who wants an opinion. I'm sorry that after all this time you're deluded about this, but it is clear that you don't know anything about what makes me popular - not with you and your crowd, JD, but with the people who think about your crowd the same way I do.ReplyDelete
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
Alexis, you are ridiculosuly out of order. Comparing Oakes Spalding and I to YDIS ? I did read your blog for years and I suppose it was a waste of my time as I had imagined you were a person of character with passion and intellect. It would seem from your ranting, I was either gravely mistaken or you are undergoing a serious personal issue (publishing is stressful).Delete
You are lower than those sniggering crap flinging mooks at. YDIS who don't put on any pretense of being anything other than sniggering crap flinging mooks. I seriously think you are suffering some sort of issue you need to be aware of if my assessment of your lack of character is out of place.
Enjoy your echo chamber, but please don't strike out at others you feel you have the privelege to insult, they don't deserve it if they haven't figured out how to ignore you or can't get away in real life.
Then it's good that you've put yourself in charge of that detail, isn't it?Delete
Did they teach you in morality class, JD, that it was okay to insult people as long as you were honest about being a sniggering, crap flinging mook? Because I don't see the difference. Did they teach you in morality class that you had some special entitlement to who is privileged to say what to whom? Near as I can tell, Oakes Spaulding is an adult. He made up his mind to write on his blog about what I've said on mine, as did you. Now I've chosen to write about what he said on his blog on mine, and this is somehow "striking out" at others? What have you been doing? Do you think that the 'words' make the difference between deliberately setting out to prove your superiority over others? Do you think that because you've failed to pick certain words to portray your opinion, it is more considerate or kind or thoughtful or whatever you think makes you more superior here? You're full of contridictions, but the most notable one, JD, is that you think you're any different than I am.Delete
There's no law in this arena. No law except opinion. You've chosen to play the kindergarten morality gambit, to remind me that I'm not playing nice with the other children. Good luck with that. I haven't had to listen to a kindergarten teacher in a lot of years.
If Oakes has a problem with my assessment of his nonsense, he's old enough to address me himself. If he needs you to cover his back, then he isn't old enough to enter this discussion.
Alexis you feel free to mischaracterize other folks input and opinions all you want. I have no more authority than that given to any cognitive being with a desire to communicate with others that doesn't appreciate being insullted or seeing others insulted by someone pretending to greater capacities and capabilities.Delete
I am definetly acting out of character, maybe I was hurt...no wai,t I realized I had wasted my time reading the words of someone I thought was able to genuinely apply their intellect and had awareness of that same spark for something more and discovered I was wrong. Feel free to keep contributing to other folks negative opinions of yourself, or do better.
If the value of my words were ever based upon your 'feelings,' JD, then you never read anything I wrote. My blog shouldn't have to depend upon whether or not people like me. My words are truth or they're not. If they cease to be true - if they suddenly change their meaning now - because your feelings are hurt . . . well. You're right. You were wasting your time.Delete
"My words are truth or they're not"... that speaks volumes, it really does.Delete
Thanks for covering by back, man, but I'm just glad I got a link. :)ReplyDelete
The fact that you think that defining words as either all or nothing is someone definitive of a bias is also telling. "True or not true" is a rhetorical device for "the reader will believe or will not believe, as the reader will." I'm sorry if the manner of my speech confuses.ReplyDelete
Keep on keeping on. I'm not confused for a moment here Alexis. I've been using words and paying attention to others do so for years Alexis. I used to place some value in yours. It wasn't my "feelings" being hurt that soured me but how you decided to use words. Every moment we tell the world who we are by the words we use and you told me enough about yourself for me to not like what I saw and to tire at playing into your ego-trip. I brought my points here because commenting on your blog was pointless, unlike triangles (<- now that's baiting).Delete
That's it. Innuendo is a crowd pleaser.Delete
All you've given is an entitlement to judge others: "the words that they use" is as good a justification as any. Of course I'm being judged. That's the point, isn't it? Funny, however, that while judging me on the words I use, you're not turning that same judgment on yourself, for the posts you've written, the words of mine you've chosen to ignore, the math you've chosen to ignore and all the other ways you've obfuscated and altered things that I've said.
It isn't just the words we use that directs others to judge us, JD. It is their prejudices, also. I could use the most perfect words in the world, I would still be subject to prejudice.
I am telling the world who I am. I'm being honest. I could choose nicer words. Then I would be dishonest. You could like me for who I am. You don't because you're prejudiced against people who don't fit your tastes. No reason you should. No one should like anyone they don't like.
Is that a reason for me to give a f--k? No. People aren't going to like me. Boo hoo. The special issue here isn't that I won't be liked, it is that I don't care if I'm not liked. And that is really wrong in your opinion. We should all want to be liked.
The fact that I don't need to be galls the hell out of you. Thus, all this morality. All this superiority. All this you should and you are and this is bad and blah blah blah.
Guess what, princess. People in the world are going to say that orcs shouldn't have less than 7 hit points. Get over it.
Oh, JD. The sniggering crap flinging mooks have made you an honorary member. You must be very proud:Delete
Good finish, nice chioce of words,evidence of keen intellect and a true master of language and communication... you are a the lowest of the low a bully with pretense of intellect. You are a hypocrite and of low character as you have displayed by commenting on my blog in a manner you would not tolerate on your blog.Delete
Gee, thank Alexis now I'm just curious enough to go read YDIS (did they need more attention?)Delete
LOL. Damn, I knew there was a reason I liked you. Yes, it was totally mastered. We're all hypocrites, man. We're human.Delete
Point in fact, not a soul has stepped forward on my blog to tell me I'm wrong, but my numbers are absurdly high. The sharks are swimming around in a circle, smelling flame war in the water, because in fact the sharks don't care who's right, who's wrong. They want to see a fight, they want people to spit and for them to cut one another.ReplyDelete
People make up rules about what's 'immature' and what's 'unkind.' You write them about me, JD, and then you tell me I'm "ridiculously out of order" for addressing you after writing those words about ME. What the heck is "in order"?
It's all ridiculous, JD. This post, your inserting yourself repeatedly into the discussion all week, when all it needed was "I disagree" . . . you're carrying forward with post after post on the subject, just as I am, pretending that this isn't about you and I.
The sharks all know that it is. They're loving us right now. We're giving them everything they want. All we need to do is be more sarcastic, less understanding about what the other says and more rabidly confrontational. We're the best show on the D&D blogosphere, right now! Don't you feel great?
"Point in fact, not a soul has stepped forward on my blog to tell me I'm wrong, but my numbers are absurdly high."
(1) What would be the point of anyone doing so, with your comment moderation policies?
(2) This is not on the Holy Sphere of your blog, Rumson, but you're wrong.
I don't care about the sharks. I am reacting to you, your actions, your choice of words. I chose to not have that reaction stiffled by your moderation of your blog. I have no reason to bash my head against that wall.Delete
Yeah, I know JD. That moderation really sucks. If it wasn't there, every post I write would be hijacked just like this one. Hijacked by the mook that's now chosen to join. I got tired of that hijacking. And as someone who read my blog for years, you should know how vastly improved the dialogue has been. I admit, lately, I have been somewhat scattered. Hard to tell on this system who your friends are. Isn't it?Delete
But then, you have a monopoly on what it feels like to be stabbed in the back. Because you've never, ever done that with anything you've ever said.
Yeah, that "hijacking" is largely preserved for those who are interested in it, because I copied it and reposted it before you deleted it.Delete
The reader can decide whether it is a "hijack" or a counter-point.
Whether or not the dialogue has been improved (vastly or otherwise) is dependent upon what you want. I do not want an echo chamber. As a point of fact, I was going to post to wish you well on your new book, but the notification of comments moderation so turned me off that I did not.
For what it's worth, I hope that you do stop reading antagonism in to anyone who contradicts you. Although you have also gone out of your way to claim that you don't care about politeness, you are certainly easily offended by others.
I also hope your book does well. Your process is interesting, even if your provincialism is not.
You think you've hijacked this post? You keep doing a fine job of reinforcing my points, no hikack at all.Delete
AFAICT, Alexis, JD is not writing about your personal relationship, but about your position. If you stop thinking that this is about "you and [JD]" and start thinking about the content of JD's posts, you might find the process far less confrontational.Delete
Sorry, JD. I think that Alexis was blaming me for his comments policies. I was not "hijacking" his posts, either, unless disagreeing with him is "hijacking". Or correcting his misstatements about what I said.Delete
FWIW, I don't think he does these things on purpose.
"As someone who read my blog for years, you should know how vastly improved the dialogue has been . . ."Delete
Only it hasn't Alexis.
Instead of improving the dialogue you've virtually eliminated it by manufacturing an echo chamber where the only voices that make it through are the ones that agree with you. It's a damned shame too, because when you actually had conversations with people that had differences of opinions it brought out the best in your writing.
Hell, when I started my Best Reads of the Week series I fully expected to have one of your posts in there every week but this move into a place where it's you versus the world has soured everything you've written and it's ruining everything you've accomplished.
I don't understand why you attack old and new readers with the sort of bullying, mountains of text that convince you they've been taught a lesson when the reality is that they've just tuned you out. You've gone from being an intelligent voice to a hysterical caricature that goes about trying to bully and intimidate people who disagree with you on the internet - as though doing so would actually get you anywhere.
Seriously, you know it doesn't work right?
When you come on to JD's blog, or mine, or YDIS', or any other and start braying and kicking about everyone just treats you like an ignorant troll - and they ignore you. Your words become meaningless and the only person who ends up looking bad is you.
I keep hoping that you'll wake up one day and realize what you're doing to your blog and stop with the pretentious commenting rules and metaphorical cock measuring.
Your opinion, Charles, doesn't count.Delete
A brilliant retort.Delete
I beg to differ Alexis, his opinion does count. You aren't the blog writer or a moderator, you sir are out of line. Sinking lower and lower Alexis, it's not very becoming.Delete
You know what's funny, JD. I never looked at the original math, because for the purposes of my argument I stipulated that his math was correct. But a friend on Google+ hinted that it wasn't. So I looked at it. In fact the numbers are quite screwy. For example an AC 6 Orc defending against a 1 hit die creature has a 65% chance of surviving a round unscathed. Thus, cubing that gives the chance of surviving 3 rounds unscathed-27%. So in a group of 100 Orcs, out of the 12.5 that have only 1 hit point, 3.4 would survive 3 rounds. Given that a number of Orcs at all hit point levels would not have survived, the number of surviving Orcs with only 1 hit point would be 3.4 out of some number less than 100, NOT "1 in 100' as Alexis states. That after 2 hours (or whatever) of cogitating the problem, one could make such an elementary probability error is notable, to say the least. :)ReplyDelete
His initial math works if the original 100 1hp whatevers are attacked and don't counter attack and can then be ganged up on during the future rounds. It's a shabby scenario but the math works, even if the scenario is a fantasy.Delete
Actually, tell your friend he's blown it.Delete
The first round, you have to account for the people who have been hit. The second round, you have to account for the remaining people who have been hit both once and twice. The third round, you have to account for people who have been hit once, twice and three times. Which you are not accounting for above.
I could have missed something but I don't think so. If your opponent needs 14 on a D20 to hit you, then there's a 27% chance that he won't get it in three rounds. So 27% of the 1 hit point folks will survive since they will have taken no hits. Does that make sense?Delete
@Alexis, I already explained that, I used words. You know how they work, right?Delete
@Oakes, the 100 face 100 attacks on round one, and then the 65 face 100 attacks on round 2 and then the 30 something face 100 attacks on round 3.
The scenario depends on the 100 1hp defenders just standing there and being victims only.
Sorry JD, that Reply was directed to you but Alexis beat me to it. I think you have to assume that everyone will have one and only one opponent through the three rounds or until they are killed, whichever comes first.If one hit die creatures are fighting each other, there's going to be an expected equivalence of numbers on each side for each round. Thus, while you may be "ganged up on" by two opponents because your comrade just got it, there's an equal chance that you'll fell your guy and have no opponent jump in. You can play a fight out using the RandBetween function in Excel. After three rounds of battle, about half will still be standing and roughly 7% on average will be 1 hit point guys. But the outcomes will vary. In one battle I just ran the 1 hit point guys actually did as well as the 8 hit point guys.Delete
Yeah Oakes, Alexis has a b.s. setup where one side just stands there and doesn't attack the other.Delete
Well, here is how Alexis puts it: "The humanoid's attacks are not considered - only the chance of a humanoid with an armor class of 6 surviving three spear attacks during a given combat." That sounds like, well, 3 attacks, not 6 attacks or whatever. I think you have to assume a one-to one correspondence. Instead you could I suppose have your Orcs fighting invincible opponents (with only one hit die attack chances) who suddenly disappeared after three rounds, but even then the number of attacks wouldn't equal 1+2+3. For all Orcs, only about 20% (not 35%) drop on the first round-at least according to my Excel simulation, so it would be something like 1+1.25+1.67 or some such.Delete
i only pay attention to Alexis at all because i enjoy his self doubting whining - his defenciveness is another symptom of this - he really is a horrible person - one of two worst i have ever dealt with online since i started being on net in 1989 - it is not worth reasoning with someone who claims to b reasonable but resorts to abuse to solve problem. Such people are incapable of teaching. - insulted me with insults only a homophobe would actually consider insults and some of my gay friends would think was a pleasant fantasy. We should be sympathetic but avoid this dangerous mentaly unhealthy person who can only respond with tantrums like a small badly raised child.ReplyDelete
I find it amusing that Alexis is lecturing JD on medieval / fantasy combat –ReplyDelete
wasn’t JD SoCA heavy infantry?
After a violent youth,boxing for fun,martial arts, and even theatrical combat training (where you learn to not get hurt and fall and not get hurt). I got involved in a splinter group if SoCA. I've never been official SoCA heavy Infantry, I've fought in events where people can and did break limbs, ribs etc. I got my nose broken by a padded pole arm to the face (and kept on fighting beating the two guys I was facing, ref stopped the fight due to injury just as a struck both my foes in the crotch when he saw the blood streaming from my face); I saw a lady get her arm and jaw broken in one bought. I've been in dozens offaux- battles, hundreds of melees and I have no clue how many duels and sparring matches I've been in. The wife fenced competitively in college and i kick her butt every time I "cheat" by using actual fighting techniques (it pisses her off because she doesn't like to go off training too much). I've done cross discipline martial arts weapons sparring so people can test their skills against someone outside their discipline, helped out in a street defense program,and been in some some fight training videos (which felt like standing there and getting hit in the head while the cameras rolled).Delete
Thousands of hours into all that and I'm not an expert and try to avoid even pretending to be one.
Yes, JD you are an EXPERT martial artist.. .ReplyDelete
anyone above 4th level is an expert or 'hero,'
with 1000s of hours of experience you are approaching master or 'superhero' status...
their is nothing wrong with titles that are honestly applied and appropriately earned.
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and
fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser
people are full of doubts.”
Hero? Well.. I don' t know considering this is my best self defense advice: If you can run away, do so right away, just run unless you are jeopardizing the safety of other people, just run. Don't yell for help that's probably going to be ignored, save your breath for running. If you can't run, yell "Fire" of "Car Thief" that gets a lot more attention than yelling "help" will ever get you.Delete
Never agree to go off with a would-be captor they will hurt you more then they are willing and able to hurt you now, run.