Total posts: 5,653
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@Earth
@kindertina
(Assuming everyone is ready for a long rest)
@Secular: 7 1-3 level spells from the following: https://dnd5e.fandom.com/wiki/Cleric_Spells (You get Command, Identify, Augury, Suggestion, Nondetection, and Speak with Dead for free)
@Earth: 4 1-2 level spells from the following: https://dnd5e.fandom.com/wiki/Paladin_Spells (You get Protection from Evil and Good, Sanctuary, LEsser Restoration, and Zone of Truth for Free)
@kinder: 7 spells from your spell book
Day 5 (1 day until festival)Morning
A raven caws.
Player Summaries:
✶Eikka - 38/38 HP - 16 AC - Channel Divinity: ⬤ | Relentless Endurance: ⬤ | Spell Slots: 4|3|2
Grahf - 44/44 HP - 16 AC - Breath Weapon: ⬤ | Divine Sense: 3 | Channel Divinity: ⬤ | Lay on Hands: 25| Spell Slots: 3|2
Luraxt - 27/27 HP - 13 AC - Arcane Recovery ⬤ | Spell Secrets ⬤ | Spell Slots: 4|32|2
✶Roberts - 44/44 HP - 19 AC - Action Surge: ⬤ | Second Wind ⬤ | Spell Slots: 3
Snerp - 28/28 HP - 13 AC - Bardic Inspiration: ⬤⬤ | Feather Fall ⬤ | Spell Slots: 4|3|2
Created:
Posted in:
Player Summaries:
✶Eikka - 32/38 HP - 16 AC - Channel Divinity: ⬤ | Relentless Endurance: ⬤ | Spell Slots: 4|2|2
Grahf - 41/44 HP - 16 AC - Breath Weapon: ⬤ | Divine Sense: 3 | Channel Divinity: ⬤ | Lay on Hands: 15 | Spell Slots: 2|2
Luraxt - 27/27 HP - 13 AC - Arcane Recovery Ø | Spell Secrets ⬤ | Spell Slots: 4|2|2
✶Roberts - 41/44 HP - 19 AC - Action Surge: ⬤ | Second Wind ⬤ | Spell Slots: 3
Snerp - 25/28 HP - 13 AC - Bardic Inspiration: ⬤Ø | Feather Fall ⬤ | Spell Slots: 2|2|1
Created:
Posted in:
Grahf detects no aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead within 30 feet of himself, nor any area consecrated or desecrated.
Created:
Posted in:
The corw claps and sings to Snerps performance, over the course of his song and the night, he ends up making 4 gold.
[Snerp Performance Check: d20 (6) + 4 = 10]
Created:
Posted in:
Rictavio: By all means, my friend, I was getting to turn in myself anyway.
With that, Rictavio heads to the interior staircase and heads up stairs, walking along the balcony of the second floor before disappearing into one of the inn's rooms.
Created:
Posted in:
(Roberts insight is better than Snerps, fwiw)
[Roberts Insight Check: d20 (16) + 4 = 20]
It's clear they are nervous and hiding something about the wagon. They just want to get rid of Roberts and not have to talk about it.
Created:
Posted in:
Blue Water Inn
Rictavio: I would certainly love too, my dear fellow, but as I said, music is not really one of my talents. Storytelling? Carnival running? Those are where my talents lie.
Stockyard
Gunter and Yelena give each other a look and whisper to each other before addressing Roberts. I'm sure it's fine, that happens from time to time. Nothing to worry about, I'm sure. Here, I think your friend left this behind. He places another healing potion into Roberts hand. Now, is getting late and we should lock up. Good doing business. Yes. Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
Player Summaries:
✶Eikka - 32/38 HP - 16 AC - Channel Divinity: ⬤ | Relentless Endurance: ⬤ | Spell Slots: 4|2|2
Grahf - 41/44 HP - 16 AC - Breath Weapon: ⬤ | Divine Sense: 3 | Channel Divinity: ⬤ | Lay on Hands: 15 | Spell Slots: 3|2
Luraxt - 27/27 HP - 13 AC - Arcane Recovery Ø | Spell Secrets ⬤ | Spell Slots: 4|2|2
✶Roberts - 41/44 HP - 19 AC - Action Surge: ⬤ | Second Wind ⬤ | Spell Slots: 3
Snerp - 25/28 HP - 13 AC - Bardic Inspiration: ⬤Ø | Feather Fall ⬤ | Spell Slots: 2|2|1
Created:
Posted in:
Blue Water Inn
Rictavio grins: Ah, trying to sneak a peak at a fellow entertainer's act? Not exactly good sportsmanship, is it? It's just all part of my act, and I assure you the wagon is quite secure.
[Snerp Insight Check (advantage): d20 (1, 7) + 2 = 9]
Rictavio is clearly not revealing everything, but only to the extent that any man of his profession would keep some secrets to maintain the allure or surprise of his kind of acts.
Stockyard
(@Roberts: Yes)
Roberts heads back into the general store where Gunter and Yelena are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
(Do you want to go in and check on the shop keepers?)
Created:
Posted in:
Rictavio: ...and more amazing than the fact that it was a man-eating plant was that it had the greatest singing voice!
The crowd about him dissolves into laughter. Rictavio greets Snerp with a bow.
Rictavio: Greetings again noble gnome, please, step into my office.
He offers a friendly smile while guiding Snerp over to a quiet(er) corner of the tap room.
Created:
Posted in:
Snerp (and whoever else) heads back to the tavern. It is quite busy tonight, with Rictavio entertaining guests off to one side. Other than that, there is a patron who is arguing with Urwin and Danika at the bar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
(They are. You're still in the stock yard which is where all the storage sheds, the shop, and Rictavio's wagon are)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
(What are you talking about?)
Created:
Posted in:
No one answers from inside the wagon. Instead you get another inhuman growl.
Created:
Posted in:
(No, you left an actual building. This is the Rictavio's carnival wagon with "Rictavio's Carnival of Wonders" written across the side. The sound sounds something like this.)
Created:
Posted in:
As the group lumbers out of the stock yard, Rictavio's wagon suddenly lurches, as though something big has thrown itself against the inside wall. You hear the cracking of wood, the scraping of metal, and the snarl of something inhuman. Upon closer inspection, you see that the sides of the wagon are spattered with dry blood.
You also see an inscription on the wagon's door frame that reads, "I bring you from Shadow into Light!"
Created:
Posted in:
Gunter places a healing potion, a longbow (with associated ammo), and 6 wooden stakes on the counter, with a chest with 3,000 silver pieces.
Gunter: That'll be 500 gold.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
(Just about sunset on day 4 and the festival is evening of day 6)
Created:
Posted in:
To he issue at hand, the amendment is a restriction on the government. Basically, so that militia may be organized, the general right for people to bear arms may not be infringed.
Created:
Posted in:
Washington didn't make anything. The Bill of Rights were drafted by James Madison based upon input from other states and his vast knowledge of history and governments.
Created:
Posted in:
Gunter: Ah yes, I believe I heard someone say something about a longbow? We have a fine specimen here for 100gp.
Created:
Posted in:
(Silvering is not a defined process and basically up to my discretion)
Created:
Posted in:
Gunter kneels down close to Snerp.
Poisons and the like, eh? No. No, we don't carry any of that.
He then bursts out laughing, clapping Snerp on the back.
Created:
Posted in:
Gunter and Yelena exchange a look, then make sure there is no one else in the shop. Yelena then goes to lock the front door while Gunter becons Snerp to a room in the back.
Created:
Posted in:
Gunter scratches his head and tries to do some math in his head. Yelena rolls her eyes.
Yelena: So, you buy our products at half price, and in response you'll tell everyone in town about the only general store in town that everyone already knows about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
(Secular can make it for free given that he has the powder)
Created:
Posted in:
Gunter: Sure, we can make change. As far as prices... hm... Yelena?
Yelena: Old fool. Healing potions are 100 gold each, and holy water is 50 gold apiece.
Created:
Posted in:
Gunter: Hmm. Yes, there is a smithy in town who could silver a weapon, if you provided the silver, I'm sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Sorry, the mods don't comment on hypotheticals. The only way to know if some act will warrant moderation is to roll the dice and hope for the best, like in any sensible system of moderation.
Created:
Posted in:
(Correct, Luraxt is not affected by the sun the way a Drow would expect
Szoldar shrugs and nods in agreement. Same time at Inn. Da.
The store is packed tightly with various odds and ends, as if it was stocked by someone with a hoarding problem. At the far end is a counter manned by a portly married couple.
(The store has everything in the following lists with a base cost of 50gp or less
Created:
Posted in:
The group reaches the gates as the sun begins to lower in the sky. Szoldar and Yevgeni are there as discuss.
Szoldar: Is late. Escorting for today is over. If you need more, ask Urwin and he will contact us.
Yevgeni: Da.
Szoldar: We took liberty of selling wolf parts. He tosses a bag of 30 gold over to Snerp.
The group then makes its way through Vallaki to the stockyard.
This large stockyard has several locked sheds along its periphery and lies adjacent to a roomy warehouse. A wooden sign above the front gate reads "Arasek Stockyard."
Parked at the south end of the stockyard is a sturdy carnival wagon, its colorful paint peeling off. Faded lettering on its sides spells out the words "Rictavio's Carnival of Wonders." A heavy padlock secures the back door.
Among the storage sheds is a short squat general store with the lights still on.
Created:
Posted in:
The group decides to take the iron chest with gold coins. Later, after some counting, they'll sum up to 650 gp (just slapping it onto Snerp's inventory). Roberts asks around for weapons to purchase and they direct him to the stock yard in Vallaki.
(Where to now?)
Created:
Posted in:
As the group shows an interest in the potions, Luvash gives a sheepish smile: Uh... you don't want those. They're not as... potent as they used to be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
(Well, I wasn't going to pull that rug out from under your feet)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
(??? I said I'm treating it as if you guys have the materials for that spell)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Changing the rules is always something the mods can do here. The CoC is literally whatever bsh1 wants it to be. He can change it, unilaterally, at any time, for any reason.I think that is where the crux of our disagreement is. I don't know why you would enforce unjust rules. If a rule is unfair I think the authority in charge of enforcing that rule is morally obligated to ignore it. Changing rules is not always something that authority figure can do, but they are morally obligated to ignore it. You know, kinda like how people ignored the harboring slave laws, who participated in the underground railroad.
At no point have I ever said that unjust rules should be enforced. Never. What I am saying is that the solution to unjust rules - here on this site - is to change the rule, not place our faith in a specific moderator.
Created:
Posted in:
To respond to the points in the previous thread.
Your assertions aren't even worth looking into.
Ok. Then don't look into them. I provided my opinion on moderation. If you don't think it's worthy of consideration then don't consider it. Move on with your life.
You ask that BSH1 mod in perfect accordance with the letter of the rules. It's absurd and you haven't even backed up that bare assertion. He should just do it that way based on what? Your fealings I suppose?
I believe that if we have a CoC we should have one for a reason. If we're not going to actually enforce it, then chuck that shit in the garbage can and replace it with a page that's just a mood ring depicting bsh1's mood at that given moment. Sensible way to mod.
It can't be to eliminate bias in modding decisions, because quite frankly the English language like all languages, is limited and meant to act as short hand for ideals that can't quite be encapsulated with words. You can't remove bias from the modding decision making process.
Ok. You can't eliminate bias. I agree. But we can reduce it.
I don't get arguments like this. We can't achieve perfection, ergo we shouldn't even try to make it better? Silly argument. I never asked nor requested perfection. Simply that the rules that are there are the rules that are enforced. Otherwise, why have them?
You also can't eliminate mistakes or in this case a percieved mistake. BSH1 is human and like all humans with the exception of one, falls short of perfection. Maybe he made a mistake here in this instance, maybe he is inconsistent because he is constantly evolving and is in essence a slightly new person each day.
Correct. You can't eliminate mistakes, but you can reduce them.
But to reduce them, you need to be able to identify them. And you can't even call identify a "mistake" unless you have an objective stick to measure it against. I contend that the rules are that objective stick. If the mods don't follow those rules or enforce them, then they've made a mistake and we can point that out. Not that it'll do anything, bs1h has set himself up as the top of the food chain here.
I think the worst possible sin here is putting a microscope on what BSH1 does. Do you really want to put his every action under a microscope like it currently is?
Yes.
Do you want him to act like he is under a microscope which is trying to expose his every flaw?
Ah, no! I disagree with the manner in which the moderation team "engages" with the community over moderation action. When the moderators have made a decision, they should enforce that decision and that's the end of it. Getting into flame wars with users over decisions is counter productive. You're always going to run into users who object to some moderation action, no matter what the scheme is. Allowing them to draw you through the mud can't possible help anything.
Now, I'm not saying there shouldn't be engagement. And I'm not saying there can't be disagreement or discussion about what the rules are or how to apply them, but I think it's clear that the moderators get too involved and therefore too personally invested in specific moderator actions. The more they do that, the more surface area of themselves they are exposing to scrutiny.
Eliminating the mod's personal bias should not be the number one goal of choosing a modding philosophy (which is unique to each mod), it should be to maximally enhance fairness, whatever modding philosophy on how to do that he is working with.
Part of fairness is that people have a chance to understand how their actions can induce moderation. It is hardly fair to enforce rules that people can't know about. So unless bsh1 is going to provide a post each tell that tells us how he is feeling that day and what his level of tolerance for specific types of behavior, then I think it'd be best to just stick to the rules. The CoC is the only thing users have to go on when it comes to understanding what is acceptable behavior. The only fair way to moderate, then, is to moderate based on those rules.
If the rules themselves are unfair, then they should be changed. I'll note that this is a common conflation. What the rules are is a separate issue from how they should be enforced. Saying that the rules should be enforced is not saying that I agree with whatever the rules happen to be at that time. What it does mean is that, if there is some issue with the rules then we should change what those rules are and have the mods enforce those new rules, rather than depending upon the mods to take it upon themselves to selectively ignore the CoC.
And yes, bs1h sucks at modding.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I think your decision to focus on a completely insane hypothetical not worthy of serious discussion while ignoring and cutting out the stuff we were actually talking about says more about you than me.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
You'll have to take that up with the mods. But I contend that their decision to act shouldn't depend on your permission.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Good luck showing me in the COC where a debate about mortality is a violation. Especially when you said the Logan's run debate which was the same debate titled differently, doesn't.
A debate about mortality isn't a violation, nor have I argued that. The specific wording of the title is what was a violation and the fact that it was a violation isn't really an open question: it was deleted as a violation. If you disagree that it was a violation, then you should take it up with the mod that made the decision. I'm not opening that case for adjudication, I'm simply saying that, once a violation has been determined, the mod should take the appropriate action without having to wait for permission from a user.
That so wrong as to be laughable. The reason that most countries leave laws up for interpretation by courts and modified by courts is because the spirit of the law is important and takes precedence over the letter of the law. Take the speed limit for example. It is technically illegal to speed, but when you do so to take your child who got bit by a poisonous snake and is turning blue to the hospital, even if giving a ticket for it, a judge would normally interpret that you violated no such law.Enforcing the letter of the law is the worst way to go, and it would lead to even more injustice in the court system than already takes place. Enforcing to the letter, the COC would have a similarly negative result.
Certainly, in a full fledged government with different, isolated branches, with checks and balances, individual autonomy, hierarchical court systems, multiple competing jurisdictions, complex and arcane laws dating back hundreds of years, applied to almost all possible combinations of human behavior, yes. I agree with the above.
This dinky web site tucked away in some corner of the internet with about a dozen or so active members has precisely none of those properties.
Enforcing the spirit of the law over the letter of the law is a flaw. It's because the letter of the law is insufficient. And the reason why is generally because the letter of the law can't account for all possible circumstances and changing the law is an enormous undertaking. Furthermore, the existence of law enforcement discretion is a necessary component, given that the legal system can't handle all instances of potential law violation.
So it makes sense, in the real world, to use the existence of such discretion as a solution to the problem of inflexible laws.
But, again, that doesn't apply here. The only thing that does apply is the fact that the CoC can't account for all possible scenarios. But the rules aren't inflexible. They can be freely changed and amended as needed.
Not to mention, if I am okay with people making personal attacks against me than it causes no harm. It is beside the point but absolutely true and would not be challenged as true by an intelligent person.
There is no exception in the CoC where a violating act ceases to be a violating act simply because the involved parties have consented.
Your rules also don't take into account special people. Let's say you can label driving ability 1 to 10, and most people drive like 7s, but when drunk drive like 5s. If I normally drive like a ten while sobor but can provably drive like an 8 when drunk, it is ignorant to lock me up for reckless endangerment when my driving skills are still above normal. So looking at the letter of the rule unjustly punishes people who the rule should not apply to.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Created:
Posted in:
(Alright, you guys gotta make a decision about which loot item you're taking)
Loot:
- A wooden chest filled with electrum pieces (each containing the visage of Strahd)
- An smaller iron chest filled with unmarked gold pieces (about half as many coins as above)
- An onyx jewelry box with gold filigree containing 3 diamonds and 3 bags of diamond powder.
- A wooden throne with gold inlay and decorative stones.
- A rolled up rug with an exquisite unicorn motif
- A small wooden box containing twelve unmarked potions.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
You ignorantly assumed that the debate was meant as advocating suicide, when I made it clear I was advocating for mortality. I can't control your interpretation of the title. I do make titles for debates that sound more interesting than the debate itself. It is something I do almost every single debate I create.
I'm assuming nothing about what you meant by the debate title because what you meant by the debate title is irrelevant to the CoC:
"[The nature of the comment] is not based upon the intentions of speaker"
You are essentially saying that because somebody could interpret the title of the debate as violating the COC (something they could only do by ignoring the comment section and not reading the first round of the debate), that it should be removed.
It objectively violated the CoC. Consider this:
The mods are not going to delete comments and debates simply because another person demands it; there must be some violation of the CoC for the mod to respond to. So the fact that bsh1 was willing to delete this debate at all means that a violation was already determined ("[I]nterpretation is left to the discretion of the moderators"). The only question is why he was soliciting Yeshua's opinion in the first place. And the answer is that he was willing to let this violation go if the involved parties agreed to it. My main point in all of this is: I disagree that the CoC should be so selectively enforced.
That there was a CoC violation in the first place is a given.
No title would have sufficed in that situation. If I titled it something like "Society should implement a Logan's Run law and kill everybody at 30" , it would be the same debate and yet could be interpreted in a way that makes it a violation of the COC.
I don't see that such a title violates any part of the CoC.
It is not the mod's job to use twisted logic to see if something can be interpreted as violating the COC,
The "twisted" modifier aside, that is exactly their job.
it is their job to make sure the spirit of the rules are obeyed even if that means some actions would technically not violate the rules, but should be punished, or if somebody technically violated the letter of them but should go unpunished.
Flip that, reverse it. The mods should only ever enforce the letter of the law. If the letter of the law is insufficient, it should be modified.
Honestly, I can't control what you ignorant interpretation of the title is despite me framing the debate to be impersonal in the comment section and just a few hours after it was removed it would have been framed in round 1. Maybe we should debate whether BSH1's original decision not to remove the debate was correct, though you would clearly lose. Your whole argument is that if something can be interpreted as hateful that it should be interpreted as hateful. You sound like one of those SJW who interpreted the Geico Caveman commercials as racist.
My argument has already been stated:
The mods should enforce the CoC objectively and dispassionately, without polling involved users about specific actions. That the debate violated the CoC has already been decided; the debate was deleted after all. My issue is that he waited to enforce the CoC until he got permission to do so from an involved party. That latter part is what I have an issue with.
Created: