ThisIsAManWhoKnowsHowToGling

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sorry, accidentally hit post while I was still typing. Pretty sure I'm done now

[–] [email protected] 74 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (10 children)

So, back in January the mods of [email protected] announced they were packing up the community and moving to [email protected]. To assist in this, they closed [email protected]. For simplicity, I'm going to refer to them as the .world one and the .blahaj one.

Now, there were lots of other things they had done that were dick moves, but whats most important is the sheer entitlement of thinking you can just pick up a community and move it, like they own it or something. This pissed off the community here, so one guy created [email protected]. Within an hour, this community was more active than .blahaj had honestly ever been, and it has sustained a more subdued version of popularity since.

The mods quickly realized that they had shot themselves in the foot, and backtracked with an apology that read like "we are sorry that you peasants were mad about the completely justifiable decision we made, and we hope you feel better soon. Here's your emotional support sub back." This just pissed off the community more, and the more we found out about their actions behind the scenes the more pissed off we got. It was a real mask-off moment where we got to see how shitty the mod team was, not just to the community but also to Ada. Personally, the part where I decided to never come back was when they cited an accidental ban followed by a successful appeal as a bad thing that was also Ada's fault for some reason. Do they think they are above making mistakes? Or do they think they should just not ban trolls because they might hit innocent bystanders by accident? Either interpretation makes them look really bad to me.

So, the end result of this was that .blahaj's most active users were burned on the old mod team and hopped to this community. That's why there are three now.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Talking in terms of hope or wishing them luck is a good substitute. Serves the same purpose, but doesn't carry the god baggage. It also has the extra benefit of sounding more sincere, since it's just non-standard enough to give the impression that you actually put thought into your well-wishes without sounding seriously unusual.

My go-to is actually variations of "I have faith in you" and then encourage them based on whichever one of their strengths is most applicable. For example: "You're smart. I have faith that you'll spot whatever opportunity presents itself next."

And of course, there is the classic atheist thing of replacing the thoughts and prayers with actual help. A lot of the instances where thoughts and prayers are actually appropriate include times where they need emotional support, which costs nothing but time and energy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's a reference to the Wug test. Specifically the prompt "This is a man who knows how to gling. He is glinging. Yesterday he ______"

At the time the test was developed, it was commonly believed that children need to be instructed on how to conjugate each individual word they learn, or else they will end up englishing very ungoodly. The test showed that even young children have a grasp on how to pluralize and conjugate even unfamiliar words, and can make guesses on the meaning of new words based on context clues.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 weeks ago

@[email protected] draw me a picture of this guy's dad snorting snow off a lady's back on a cruise ship

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago (11 children)

None of these look even remotely like static lmao

@[email protected] draw for me a picture of static without a tax return in the middle

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 weeks ago (25 children)

@[email protected] draw for me a picture of static without a dog in the middle

[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 weeks ago

Look, we are not the target demographic for Apple.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

I'm gonna try to get this printed and hang it in my living room

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 weeks ago

Totally forgot about that story.

53
Poor girl (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
 
283
D&D rule (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
 
203
Sharon role (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
 
 
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/37577108

She'll get over it eventually.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/16206879

Lets test the theory

80
System76 rules (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
 
422
RMS rule (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
 
249
Baby showers rule (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
 
15
½+7 Rule in DnD (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/36002281

Back when I was a senior in high-school, I adopted a freshman dork who got me to watch Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood (if only to get him to talk about something other than Skyrim). I'm gonna call him Baby Gronk. He was a good kid and I was trying to show him how to be cool, so I invited him to my next D&D campaign. This was a mistake.

Baby Gronk was dead set on playing as Alphonse. I okayed this. Eberron was not out at this point, so I asked him to present me with the homebrew he wants to use. We then had a little talk about how to mechanically handle being a hollow suit of armor (which he wanted to use as portable cat storage!) and I thought I'd got a good read on what his character is going to be since we both have watched FMA:B. I also made sure he understood that D&D is not like Skyrim; it can be fun to break the game mechanics, but at the end of the day you are playing make-believe with a table of people who are trying to tell a story together.

The campaign taught me a valuable lesson on media literacy. I know my baby dork watched the same show as me. I will never know why he thought the Alphonse he brought to my table was anything like the Alphonse in the anime. His only character trait was that he liked cats. Whenever he got bored he would start looking for cats, even if we were in a blizzard in the middle of nowhere. He almost died trying to pet a Remorhaz, which he somehow thought was a kind of cat‽ There was even one time he nearly caused a party wipe because he got bored in the middle of combat and started looking for cats. It was a serious problem.

I got tired of this catastrophe very quickly, and the players were clearly trying to not bully Baby Gronk. When he gets killed in combat at one point, I decide to take the opportunity to eject him from the campaign. We do a funeral scene, and then I pull him off to the side and give him a postcredit scene where his death was actually faked and now he's being recruited into S.H.I.E.L.D. as a secret agent. I then ended the session, ditched the group chat, and moved the date, time, and location of our weekly dnd sessions so he couldn't find the new group. My friends assured me that I had done the right thing.

The moral of the story I took at the time was "Follow the Half Plus Seven rule when inviting players to your table; if they are too young for you to date, there's gonna be issues at the table." A few years later, I reflected on this again, and realized that the problem was that I was a coward. I did not have the spine to look Baby Gronk in the eyes and tell them "Hey, Alphonse's obsession with cats is ruining the fun of everyone else at the table, including me. Can you dial that back?" That wasn't who I wanted to be. At that point, I started setting more firm ground rules with my players, and dedicated myself to making my tables safe spaces for my players.

I ran into Baby Gronk a few years later after he had graduated. He'd got his own D&D group by then, and told me the campaign I ran for him inspired him to be a DM himself. I still couldn't look him in the eye. We then parted ways.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/36002110

Back when I was a senior in high-school, I adopted a freshman dork who got me to watch Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood (if only to get him to talk about something other than Skyrim). I'm gonna call him Baby Gronk. He was a good kid and I was trying to show him how to be cool, so I invited him to my next D&D campaign. This was a mistake.

Baby Gronk was dead set on playing as Alphonse. I okayed this. Eberron was not out at this point, so I asked him to present me with the homebrew he wants to use. We then had a little talk about how to mechanically handle being a hollow suit of armor (which he wanted to use as portable cat storage!) and I thought I'd got a good read on what his character is going to be since we both have watched FMA:B. I also made sure he understood that D&D is not like Skyrim; it can be fun to break the game mechanics, but at the end of the day you are playing make-believe with a table of people who are trying to tell a story together.

The campaign taught me a valuable lesson on media literacy. I know my baby dork watched the same show as me. I will never know why he thought the Alphonse he brought to my table was anything like the Alphonse in the anime. His only character trait was that he liked cats. Whenever he got bored he would start looking for cats, even if we were in a blizzard in the middle of nowhere. He almost died trying to pet a Remorhaz, which he somehow thought was a kind of cat‽ There was even one time he nearly caused a party wipe because he got bored in the middle of combat and started looking for cats. It was a serious problem.

I got tired of this catastrophe very quickly, and the players were clearly trying to not bully Baby Gronk. When he gets killed in combat at one point, I decide to take the opportunity to eject him from the campaign. We do a funeral scene, and then I pull him off to the side and give him a postcredit scene where his death was actually faked and now he's being recruited into S.H.I.E.L.D. as a secret agent. I then ended the session, ditched the group chat, and moved the date, time, and location of our weekly dnd sessions so he couldn't find the new group. My friends assured me that I had done the right thing.

The moral of the story I took at the time was "Follow the Half Plus Seven rule when inviting players to your table; if they are too young for you to date, there's gonna be issues at the table." A few years later, I reflected on this again, and realized that the problem was that I was a coward. I did not have the spine to look Baby Gronk in the eyes and tell them "Hey, Alphonse's obsession with cats is ruining the fun of everyone else at the table, including me. Can you dial that back?" That wasn't who I wanted to be. At that point, I started setting more firm ground rules with my players, and dedicated myself to making my tables safe spaces for my players.

I ran into Baby Gronk a few years later after he had graduated. He'd got his own D&D group by then, and told me the campaign I ran for him inspired him to be a DM himself. I still couldn't look him in the eye. We then parted ways.

view more: ‹ prev next ›