Talk is cheap, join the call on #UniversitiesUK to negotiate an end to the pension dispute
#USSstrike #UCUstrike thndr.me/8agVwy http://thndr.me/8agVwy

The executive, crowned or otherwise

With regard to Mr Speaker’s comments on President Trump, I do recall that there is precedent for the Speaker defying the executive. At the time, William Lenthall declared that he had neither eye to see, nor tongue to speak, except as the house was pleased to direct him. If certain honourable members wish to contest Mr Speaker’s decision, they are, of course, welcome to test whether their constituents are of the same opinion.

Certainly, Lenthall held no high opinion of himself - his self-penned epitaph was vermis sum - but his name and his words live down the ages. It may, of course, be endlessly argued* what was meant by that, though the question raised is not whether Mr Speaker was right in his decision, but whether the Commons may defy the Executive, crowned or otherwise.

It is, perhaps, worth recalling what Patrick Henry said in Virginia’s House of Burgesses:

Caesar had his Brutus — Charles the first, his Cromwell — and George the third —

‘Treason’, cried the Speaker

may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it.

Make the most of the example indeed.

*this year I have argued, at some length, what was meant by verbosa ac grandis epistola venit a Capreis.

OKCS’s questions (1-10)

Via the Know Direction podcast, Owen KC Stephens, one of the leading RPG writers of the past few years, is doing a series of 100 questions on his blog about RPGs. Partly because I need to ease back into the habit of writing and partly because I’m staying at a B&B away from home for work, here are my answers to the first ten.

#1. Would you prefer a GM be entirely beholden to the game rules and die rolls, or secretly make changes if it leads to a more interesting, or more dramatic, or more fulfilling game session?

I’d prefer them to secretly make changes. It’s easy enough to do, and can help the story.

#2. Give one concrete example of when a GM fudging die rolls or rules might lead to a more interesting, or more dramatic, or more fulfilling game session?

Only one? When fighting the BBEG, I’ve added hitpoints so that the boss will go down in memorable fashion. When the spellcasters are out of magic and the rogue can’t make a flank, that lucky crit from the bard’s bow, or the death-or-glory charge from the dwarf at the back makes a session you’ll really remember.

#3. Does it make a difference to your preference if the GM is entirely open about making changes? What if the GM can hide any change so you never even suspect it?

I would prefer to live in ignorance, thinking that my rogue’s mad charge to stop someone from dying was actually as amazing as I thought it was at the time.

#4. Do you consider altering NPC attitudes or personalities from their originally planned starting points, or changing the plot of a future game session based on interesting ideas that come up in play, to be GM fudging, or just normal GM activities, or both?

I’d say normal GM activities. If you develop a particular relationship with an NPC, it should develop as naturally as a relationship between PCs. Particularly if the relationship is, ahem, strained, you a well-timed re-appearance of an adversary can really liven things up. Besides, it adds to the realism of the world you’re creating.

#5. Should a GM be able to veto the color of a PC’s eyes? Or is that none of the GM’s business?

The GM should be able to, but should never have to.

#6. Is the GM a player in an RPG session?

Yes, absolutely. They have a particular role, and are more able to shape events, but they shouldn’t be apart from the others.

#7. Should the GM roll dice in secret, roll dice in public view, or roll dice with varying secrecy as appropriate to the nature of the roll?

I’ll go for door number three. Mostly, I don’t make much fuss about rolling dice, and just throw them somewhere convenient and don’t think much about whether the PC’s can see them. In all likelihood, the one or two on that side will be able to see if they care to, and that’s about it. If the PCs are looking for that sneaky svirfneblin at the back of the room, my stealth checks are going to be hidden. The only times I make a fuss about a dice roll are when it’s a matter of life and death. If my glabrezu has crit a character that’s already halfway down and I could take the PC out, that’s happening out front. If I have to make a will save or the PCs win the day, aleam in mensam iacio. I encourage players to do the same, so that they have their moments in the limelight.

#8. Is being the GM a chore, or a privilege?

I’m not sure it’s a privilege, not least because GMs tend to be in short supply. It’s definitely not a chore; I enjoy, I think, all the different bits of GMing, from reading the adventure to preparing handouts. Most of all, I do enjoy being the ringmaster. It does feel special when you’ve done a good job and you know that you’ve done a good job; not because people tell you, but because you can see and hear it in how they’re going over the story again.

#9. How much of the success of an RPG session is determined by the quality and actions of the GM? Would you prefer an awesome RPG ruleset with an awesome adventure and awesome other players run by a mediocre GM; or a mediocre RPG ruleset with a mediocre adventure and mediocre other players under an awesome GM?

I’ve not played that many different systems, and I don’t think I’ve really played any bad ones. Ultimately, though, a good group of players will compensate for deficiencies in a ruleset, but not vice versa, so I think that, as long as the ruleset is completely borked beyond usefulness, I’d go for the players. That said, players and GMs can accidentally (or not so accidentally) bork a ruleset.

#10. What is your pet peeve about GMs, expressed in a way that makes it generic and impossible to connect to any one specific GM?

It’s not about GMs specifically, but they do it as much as other players. I hate - hate - when people shake the dice in their hands for an interminable amount of time. There’s no need for it. You can just pick the dice up and roll them out of your hand. Instead, we have this stupid rattling that distracts everyone and breaks the tension and immersion. Worst of all, they start doing it before they’ve finished talking. You can’t hear what they’re saying, and they drift off, half a dozen dice-shakes later, before they roll the damn things. I could just about forgive picking them up and giving them a couple of quick jumbles in your cupped hands, but the endless jarring is not just unnecessary, but actually detracts from my enjoyment of the game.

yorkshirebrewsky:

srsfunny:

This Is The Couch Of My Dreams

They’re not that good; they’re on wheels, and they roll about everywhere cosntantly.

A question about Jeremy Corbyn

A question, honestly asked, for my friends who are more inclined towards Jeremy Corbyn.

Yesterday, Shami Chakrabarti presented her report on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. As people will know, there were a couple of incidents. One is that a journalist present asked a question that could be seen as being, depending on your point of view, somewhere between insensitive and outright racist. Specifically, one Marc Wadsworth said “I saw that the Telegraph handed a copy of a press release to Ruth Smeeth MP so you can see who is working hand in hand.”

That offence was given should be obvious; there were literally gasps of astonishment at what was said and Ruth Smeeth left the room in tears. I would have hoped that Jeremy would have immediately and directly challenged what Mr Wadsworth said.

The second incident was something that Jeremy said - the comparison of “the Netanyahu government” to “various self-styled Islamic states or organisations”. Whatever one’s opinions on that, I would hope we can all agree that it was a crassly stupid thing to say at an event about combating anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.

I’m fairly sure that, if, in one of my seminars, someone asked a question like that and I didn’t challenge it, I would be having a conversation with someone from the department. I’m also pretty sure that someone would suggest I stop digging if, in that conversation, I said something, well, crassly stupid.

I am disappointed that Jeremy did not immediately and directly challenge what Mr Wadsworth said. I also think that what he said was always going to take attention away from what the event was about.

If he is so - frankly - timid and has such a poor grasp of the media cycle, does that not at least count against him as leader?

My take on the EU referendum #brexit #euref →

yorkshirebrewsky:

mulderssunflowerseeds:

British followers:

these are two different documentaries which I found to be really informative in finding out what the EU is (I feel that although we may know vaguely what it is, we don’t really have a complete picture of it) and whether or not we should vote to leave or remain on June 23rd

so if you haven’t decided yet, or even if you have (hopefully these should reinforce your reasons for deciding whatever you’ve decided), I’d suggest giving these a watch

I’ve not watched the other one, but Brexit the Movie’s a fucking terrible documentary. It’s full of blatant misinformation (like most of the Leave campaign’s argument tbh). Let me attempt to summarise the problems here:

1. The constant populist rhetoric like “we the people” and “surrendering our independence”. I’m not even sure how to address this other than point out that it’s empty bollocks rhetoric.

It doesn’t exactly reflect well on a bunch of rich, privately educated bastards to who’ve got more in common with the average Tory MP  than the average person attacking EU bureaucrats trying to make themselves look salt of the earth.

2. They aren’t internally consistent. They criticise the EU for not having trade deals with most of the rest of the world, but also say trade deals mean fuck all. So, which is it?

3. They over-romanticise Switzerland. For one, they claim Switzerland’s got the highest export rate in the world (bollocks; they’re 17th). And also they’ve got a high quality of life, yes, they’re also incredibly conservative and isolated. Plus they’ve got a terrible system of direct democracy that resulted in things such as the ban on mosque minarets.

And the other thing that they didn’t mention was that Switzerland has to abide by EU laws that they get no hand in making.

4. They whinge about the number of EU laws on X, Y, or Z, but why’s the number of regulations on something matter? They don’t name a single one whose contents they actually find problematic. Personally, I don’t give a shit how many laws there are on something. I care what the laws themselves actually stipulate.

5. There’s a blatant right wing libertarian bias here. They claim outright that the UK in the 50′s and 60′s was the most state run economy in Europe. Fucking bullshit; that’d be the Soviet fucking Union and its allies, or hell, even Sweden would’ve been more socialist back then than us.

6. They blame the EU for stirring up the growth of right wing parties in Europe, yet they’re interviewing people like Nigel Farage (the leader of a far right bigoted party). That pretty much speaks for itself.

6. They bring up the fact that not many people know who the cabinet ministers of the EU Commission are as if this is some kind of intentional conspiracy. In reality, it’s just evidence that we need better civic education. Ask the average British person who their MP is and a lot of people won’t know that either.

7. Constant, meaningless statements about how unique and wonderful Britain and its people are compared to Continental Europe, e.g. “In Britain, we’ve always been suspicious of this idea that people need to be told what to do”. Again, it’s empty patriotic rhetoric. We’ve got an unelected law making body (the largest outside the People’s Republic of China) full of unelected peers, bishops, former MP’s, and other rich cunts helping decide our laws and we’re a monarchy. We’re not exactly in the best position to be lecturing other countries about how much more democratic we are.

8. Towards the end they make a fucking laughable prediction about how if we break away from the EU, we could become a massive trading partner like we did in the 19th century.

Except back then we had massive secondary industries like coal, steel, cotton mills, etc. And let’s not forget having a massive fucking empire full of resources to exploit. We haven’t got that anymore. How the fuck are we supposed to become a massive world power without all that, arsehole?

9. Speaking of empire, they praise the empire as a time of great entrepeanership and free trade whilst blatantly ignoring the fact that the UK had its own protectionist system known as the “imperial preference” system. Basically, trade from colonies and commonwealth dominions was prioritised over those from other countries (and that included the United States just to be clear). So, that’s another example of blatant hypocrisy.

10. They repeat the tired old argument about how if the UK left the EU, we could persue all maner of trade with the rest of the world, particularly China and Australia.

It doesn’t exactly bode well that China and Australia’s leaders (and those of other countries) have come out openly against Brexit. But you know, who gives a toss about facts?

11. They constantly dismiss the opinions of universities by saying the EU’s done nothing but buy the loyalty of universities and other high up organisations. But the EU funds plenty of projects that aren’t just for universities. Here in Rotherham, a crossroads was built with the help of EU money where there used to be a really inconvenient roundabout near the police station.

But also, of course universities are gonna care where their money comes from, especially considering the Brexit side have no coherent plan about how to make up for the lack of EU funds beyond vague promises about how we’ll fund it ourselves.

12. That brings me to the next point. They mention that the UK gets less back from the EU in funding than it gives. This is technically true, but misleading, because it’s not just about total money spent. It’s about HOW it’s spent and its long term effect. And if we remove these things, what will the outcome be? Quite simply, we’ve got no idea, and that’s precisely why Brexit’s such a dangerous idea.

It doesn’t exactly bode well that China and Australia’s leaders (and those of other countries) have come out openly against Brexit. But you know, who gives a toss about facts?

This is just the stuff I personally feel qualified to address. I’m sure there’s plenty of other problems with it.

Even if you’re pro Brexit, this is a fucking terrible documentary. Please don’t promote it as a legitimate source of information; it’s blatant propaganda.

Perfection

It really bothers me when people say ‘that is perfection’. There is a perfectly good adjective available. We don’t say 'that is tallness’; we say ‘that is tall’. We don’t say ‘that is relativity’; we say ‘that is relative’. I wonder if our habit of using superlatives too liberally means that, if we want to say that our meal was a nice piece of steak, we have to compare it to the Platonic form of the steak, or if it’s people trying to use language to sound sophisticated or passionate and mangling it instead.

Minor annoyances on the ECML, courtesy of Virgin Trains

“Every day, the New York Times carries a motto in a box on its front page. “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” it says. It’s been saying it for decades, day in and day out. I imagine most readers of the canonical sheet have long ceased to notice this bannered and flaunted symbol of its mental furniture. I myself check every day to make sure that the bright, smug, pompous, idiotic claim is still there. Then I check to make sure that it still irritates me. If I can still exclaim, under my breath, why do they insult me and what do they take me for and what the hell is it supposed to mean unless it’s as obviously complacent and conceited and censorious as it seems to be, then at least I know I still have a pulse. You may wish to choose a more rigorous mental workout but I credit this daily infusion of annoyance with extending my lifespan.”

Christopher Hitchens often remarked on the bothersome masthead of the New York Times. I begin to understand how he felt when I look at the entirely more banal menu on Virgin Trains East Coast.

By way of preface, if you haven’t already been bored to tears, I travel weekly from Huntingdonshire to York. I can book well in advance, so it’s often actually cheaper to travel first class. Hence, I have the free food and drink, and so read the menu. Allow me, gentle reader, to give you a flavour:

Breakfast

Early risers, we salute you!

Start your morning just right, after all it is the most important meal of the day.

Fuck off. Just fuck off. When I am reading this, it’s about half past six in the morning and I have been up for an hour. I want coffee, not your upbeat fuckwittery. However, that is just the introit. I am then invited to order “one of our brilliant breakfast selections”:

Our truly great British breakfast…

I cannot be bothered to finish the entry. No matter how hard you try, the breakfast will have been prepared in a travelling kitchen. You cannot prepare a truly great anything in a galley moving in excess of one hundred miles per hour. This is compounded by the offering of “rare breed pork sausage”. So rare, it would seem, that they don’t know what breed of pig went into it. Gloucester Old Spot and British Saddleback may both be rare breeds, but they are not the same fucking thing. Pretending that they are the same thing is, frankly, an insult to the farmers who bust their guts looking after rare breeds.

I will save you from the porridge - apparently, “wonderfully warming” - and the “heavenly” smoked salmon. Put the thesaurus down. 

The next entry that particularly offends me (there have been many minor offences in the meantime) is in the all-day section. I am offered a

“[t]ruly continental platter consisting of prosciutto, salami, Mozzarella, stuffed olives and sundried tomatoes served with mixed leaf salad and a bread roll”.

Not synthetically continental, but truly continental. Presumably, we have sufficient contempt for Virgin Trains East Coast that their mere assertion of continental origin is insufficient; they must assure us that they really fucking mean it. Why is mozzarella capitalised, but not prosciutto? I can see the case for neither or both, but not just one. How much was a Wykehamist paid to produce this codswollop?

I am later offered lemon and rosemary cake, which, I presume on the authority of Virgin Trains, is ‘luscious’, and not just alliterative. The Wensleydale is ‘cracking’, presumably latae sententiate.

While it is a minor thing, I object to this casual abuse of the English language. If it’s a fry-up, say it’s a fry-up. Stop beating the English language to make it sound like something greater, particularly when every-one knows that it’s a fucking fry-up. It’s a lump of cheese and, given its likely treatment and serving, is not wonderful.

It’s worth pointing out that, despite being a prematurely middle-aged wearer of corduroy, I am one of the least fuddy-duddy passengers in this compartment. I am not sure who they think the audience is, but neither the language nor the red and charcoal branding is going to convince anyone that you are anything other than a train company.

What particularly bothers me is that Virgin are in the process of refurbishing their trains. I suspect they have spent a considerable amount of money on changing the covering of the seats that were more than adequate, but they seem to have forgotten to do useful things like put it plug sockets, or handles on the inside of carriage doors, or toilets that reliably flush.

A hearty barley risotto? Get in the fucking sea.

Tabletop Gaming has a White Male Terrorism Problem

latining:

I am a gamer. I followed the call of Cthulhu and ran in the shadows with hackers and shamans. I traversed the ancient lands of Greyhawk, Faerun, and Eberron with companions new and old. I swung from an airship and buckled swash over London for the Kerberos Club. I threw dice and flipped cards and ground men into dust playing table-top wargames.

I don’t do that anymore.

Since July of 2015 fans of the game Malifaux have been attempting to overwhelm me with death and rape threats for no other reason than I am a woman who has opinions on the game. Wyrd Miniatures is silent on this matter and hangs up whenever anyone attempts to discuss the harassment. Given that a large number of threats identify the senders by name as Wyrd staff members, I do not find this surprising.

But that’s not what this article is about.

Keep reading