fishers64

Same boat here, man. Same boat here.

Only one person can be lynched a round (unless there is a double hang, etc). Whether that person is the Secret Role or one of the mafians is up to you. The Forum Leader's reaction to the Theorist is artistic license. Votes: Shadowhawk - 1

Night One: 4:00 AM...Topic 1: Regarding the current debate...posted by Theorist: All hail to the rightful King, for I serve them eternal! The voices of the over-watcher, the game-master, the rule-maker have whispered in my ears, and they have spoken that BLADE is good, and that she is true, and that she is harmless to you who would ally yourselves with the ordinary members, of which she is one. Trust in her experience and skills, but watch over her carefully, for with her innocence now known, a threat she may be. Keep watch for the secret roles, of which I know not, for it might be that they can do both great and terrible things. Ignore the antics of madmen like Luroka and Lucina, who seek only to cause chaos in your midst regardless of their true purpose; forget the rambling essays of Pulse, who by design threatens to confuse you all into doing his bidding. Beware Ta-Metru Defender and Xccj, whose mighty staff powers could spell doom for us all. But if you listen to only one piece of advice, listen to this: I beg you all to use your heads, to deduce the nature of the crimes to follow with logic and skill. For if we are to be defeated by a group of lousy complainers, it shall be a sorry day indeed. 4:30 AM...Response, posted by Forum Leader: I agree with you that we should not be defeated by a group of complainers, but instead learn from what they have to say. And while your comments about Blade are fine, insulting your fellow members is against the BZPower rules and guidelines. Respect your fellow members please. The Forum Leader then PMed the Theorist to give him a warning and tell him that if he continued insulting other members, his proto would be dropped. * * * 4:32 AM...Topic 2: Regarding the Intelligence of Vahki, posted by Shadow Unit#phntk#1 I propose to send to Greg the idea that the clockwork brains of the Vahki give them intelligence, enough to discern good from evil. Therefore, some of them are not all evil and are capable of thinking for themselves. I think this condition might be pretty rare. Thoughts? 4:34 AM...Response, posted by Supreme Complainer Overlord: The Vahki aren't misunderstood heroes. They are unfeeling robotic villains. 4:36 AM...Response, posted by Shadow Unit#phntk#1: I don't think they are all bad, just programmed that way. I think some of them could resist their programming. 4:37 AM...Response, posted by First Complainer: You've said it well Supreme Complainer Overlord. We can't let there be a world where Vahki are allowed to have feelings. Next thing you know, Dermis Turtles will be canonized as Spies for the Dark Hunters. We can't let this happen. It was then that a certain complainer handed the First Complainer a warhammer. Unit, Canonization Proponent, killed by Mafia. Topic closed. * * * 4:44 AM...Topic 3: Nivawk, posted by Lenore: I think it's really cool that Turaga Dume has this big bird creature. I wonder if it is a symbol for his sadness and is really close to his heart. I think that would be really cool - the flying adventures of Dume and Nivawk! What do you think? 4:50 AM...Response, posted by Secret Role: Lenore, Member, killed by Secret Role The Forum Leader spent the night protecting his friend. While this might seem like a good choice - after all, he knew that his friend wasn't a member of the Complainers, only time would tell whether that alliance would last. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ You have 24 hours to vote. No suspect list, but there's plenty of hints in the above scene for those looking for them. No whitetext dead giveaways, though. Vote!

I wrote this blog entry awhile ago and batted it around for some reason in debate over posting it. Mostly because I couldn't tell whether this quote is related to the actual entry or not: I have concluded that it is only somewhat related, but hey. Free donuts. * * * Also known as Truth Truth Truth Truth Lie or Truth Truth Truth Truth Opinion. It's one of the most common fallacies out there. It's also the oldest trick in the book to deceive people. The problem I've noticed is that people can type it themselves...and trick themselves into believing it. For example, Bionicle is biological chronicle, Gali is blue, Tahu is red, solar flares are red sometimes, the sky is red. Did you catch it? Pshaw, you were looking for it, and it was kinda obvious. TTTTO is more common though. The practitioners of this commonly believe that the O is a T, because of all of the Ts that came before it. Big mistake. For example: Some flowers are purple, some Legos are purple, some Mixels are purple, purple is awesome. Of course, it really doesn't matter how many T's are in front of it. And usually RL applications of TTTTL and TTTTO are waaaay more subtle than my blatantly obvious examples. Then, of course we have TLTTT, TTLTT, TTTLT for the truly wicked. Opening with a true statement and subtly weaving in the lies as you talk is the hallmark of true villainy. Or, if unintentional, true stupidity. The way to avoid the latter is to insert degree measurements (increments) of certainty when you talk/type. For example, "I think", "I'm pretty sure", "I know", and QUOTE (The source). Or if you're IRL, "this said that", wave the source in their face, etc. If you can slap "I think" or "I feel" in front of the sentence, it is most likely an O. If you can slap "I want this to be true" in front of the sentence/phrase, then there is a high possibility it is an O or an L. Of coarse, if you're really smart, you use the increments of certainty when lying. This is actually extremely hard. In fact, one of the easiest ways to spot a liar or opinion-presented-as-fact is lack of the increments of certainty. But "I think" *insert lie here* is actually one of the best ways to lie, because if you're exposed you can just play dumb and get out. It actually works as a shrewd shield, especially since not only do the opposing party have to prove you're wrong, but also prove you knew. Humble people can be the worst. And now that I've told you how to lie and get away with it, I shall end this one on a comparable sour note. Check everything. And be careful.

I'm just picturing a Rahkshi jumping on a couch as it is being raced across town by Xaeraz.

ROLE PMS HAVE BEEN SENT OUT. NIGHT ROLES HAVE THE TIMES INDICATED IN THEIR POSTS TO RESPOND. If you have not received a PM, you are merely an unfortunate member of: The Memberbase: 2:00 AM...3:00 AM. All was quiet in the forum. No signs of clacking keyboards could be heard just yet. Instead, the members gathered on the forum index, waiting for the first topic, the first volley, the first argument. Perhaps the Forum Leader would appear today, with his kind and generous gifts. Perhaps the Canonization Proponents would stop by. Shivering, they looked at each other, wondering which side to pick in the ensuing debate. Would aligning with the complainers save them from their bitter remarks and hidden authority? No one knew...just yet. Quiet, until...

Yep. I literally got a PM from Windrider regarding this game. I also got paranoid.

Right now we have some staff controversy that's holding up the show. Apparently some people on the staff do not find all the details of my critical attitude and sense of humor agreeable. IMO they have incredibly thin skins, but whatever. Once that is resolved, I'll cut down the roles and we'll start.

I think it is important to say that is not meant to be a personal attack on you, bonesiii. I said exactly what I meant, and I meant exactly what I said. And nothing more. I'm also standing by my point that I made, since it is true. I'm trying to help. Further, the idea that there's nothing that can be done for me in terms of changing my opinions is a lie. I don't change my opinion in response to lies or to suit your programming, but I do in response to truth. You know this, I hope. On the other hand, if you are trying to get me to believe a lie and are thinking "fishers will never buy this", you're absolutely right. You should give up now. I agree with you that an image can convey meaning through the qualities of its subject matter. That was never at issue. I also am aware of the denotations and connotations of words. The word "rabbit" refers to a four-footed furry herbivore with a certain recognizable ear configuration. That's what the word means. It also connotes certain things depending on the context. A pet rabbit is very different than one that is eating my garden. Further, I don't know what meaning the author was trying to convey by just by knowing that it contains rabbits. If the diorama contains a rabbit sitting next to the definition of the word rabbit pasted on the back of the shoebox, that is very different than a diorama that contains ten rabbit figures sitting in a circle. There are literally infinite rabbit dioramas with infinite possible meanings, and knowing that it contained rabbits tells me nothing about the meaning of the diorama, intended by the author or not. A method of conveying meaning tells me nothing without the context of the method. And unless I completely fell off the face of world, theme is the meaning of a story. I thought that was common knowledge. And 90% of this topic understood exactly what I was saying, but you and You just lost the game did not. This is because you wanted to lower the requirements for theme to an impossibly low standard so you could claim the G2 story has a theme. That wasn't required to prove me wrong - Aanchir proved that at least part of the story had a theme, and you named the theme that I was missing, thus proving me wrong. The only reason to do that is to confuse me and ensure that I won't attack your position. That's stupid, because I don't do that. When I'm wrong, I admit to it and change my thinking. You know this. I just did it. You just lost the game was arguing that Bionicle was its own theme. It's not, because the theme of the Bionicle stories is something different. Bionicle is a story that conveys meaning, it is not the meaning itself. A method is not a meaning. * * * And yes, I know that in making that statement that I made in what you quoted, I missed your other point, which follows below this lecture in a quote. You can tell me that I missed the point that you were trying to make. I'm not going to bite your head off if you say it. I wanted to make my own point, and I made it. Statements are true or false, regardless of who says them. They are not programming opportunities to insert your lies. I do not program. But you do, so I can never tell what you're really thinking. This is coming from someone who recently had to go back introspectedly and pull out a few lies that you embedded. I don't appreciate it. I shouldn't talk. I have been responsible for the same thing, I know. Half the time, I wasn't trying - I was stupid, and it couldn't be helped. But it doesn't help me. I rejected three responses that you would have played before I settled on this one. You might play this one too. I once thought that this was funny. I could talk with you and get high. I can take drugs and get high too, and it would be just as destructive. It took me ten hours to get rid of the fake high so I could write this post. It took those same ten hours to ditch the nonsense your programming generated...rather appealing for those ten hours. I had to say "nope" to myself over and over. You may argue that this teaches people not to get taken in by this. But the cost is that nobody knows whether this is what bonesiii really thinks or whether it is his cheap manipulation to fool the fisherwoman. It hurts me because I don't know what to say to help you, and it hurts you because you cover your lies by programming them with what pleases them, which they repeat back to you to tickle your ears, or they flame you for the blatant nonsense you say to cover them. You never learn. You may pay lip service to the idea that you change your opinion when you're proven wrong, but you rarely get there because all of your debate opponents are programmed into bafflement, think they don't understand something you do, and give up. I'm not baffled. What you said in my previous post was complete nonsense. Prove me wrong. I agree with most of this. I even used the exact same types of examples in my last post to make my own point, which is that the meaning of a story is not conveyed in a single word without the context for it. Using the same types of examples I used doesn't disprove what I said. And since the theme is different from the method of conveyance, it cannot be said in a single word. It can be referred to by the object that conveys it, but that only works if both parties involved have read the story in question and understand what the meaning is. The meaning is still different from the object of conveyance.

GM NPC SURGE "I'm not about to get in the way of that," Surge said. "Just don't solo yourself into trouble. Oh, and by the way, we're on a planet that is full of villains, and we're trying to shut down a portal. Make of that what you will." GM IC FRAVI (TALKING TO RENDER) "Just kill the jerks." --------------------------------- Villain Profile: Name: Phanlax (plural) Powers, Abilities, & Weapons: Phanlax are civilians...that can divide into up to 10 copies of themselves. These copies respond to voice commands from the original being...or anyone else who happens to walk by. Other than this, the copies do not have great intelligence. Appearance: These civilians have a blue stripe on the top of their heads to distinguish them from other civilians. Bio: Phanlax were created by Mechna's government to handle routine administrative tasks. Their unquestioning obedience can be questioned by the central intelligence of the system, but rarely is out of fear...they don't know anything different. Location: Mechna's government center.

All added. 5 spots left.

GM IC ??? "Bureaucrax" one of them said to Quark. "We fix it," was the response to Saracen.

Emily Dickenson and Walt Whitman? Also, what is the doll in the top content block of your blog? her name is gillian & she is my spirit animal -E

Goodbye, Rez. Good luck on your future endeavors.

I still think that Matilda is Ronald Dahl's masterwork.

I'm joining the couch too. Happy birthday!

I found some too.

And this is where we go from legitimate humble-pie eating and legit points to absolute deep-end insanity. This is not to insult the fine people who made these posts - even I can be insane on occasion - but let's call a cat a cat. Fortunately, I have an answer for this particular breed, finally. If you're arguing Bionicle is a theme as distinct from Ninjago and Chima, I agree with you on that. I thought about putting that I was using the literary definition of the word theme, but I figured the line "When I say "has no theme" what I mean is that Bionicle G2 has no unified message that it intends for kids to grasp." covered that nicely. Apparently not. It's sad that neither of you actually know what meaning really is. Also, using a rabbit diorama and what "people would say" is horrible reasoning. People say all sorts of things that don't make sense and are evasive. My dad told me this morning that I all I do is useless; this is not true. Further, we're talking about a story here, not a piece of art, so it's a different ball game (although similar). It has its own considerations that the example overlooks. I didn't. That's not where that reasoning comes from. It comes from a very simple distinction between purposes and methods, and methods and context. I thought most people would understand the difference without me having to state it, but alas: WHY (aka purpose, meaning, belief, theme) - function of an intelligence (usually a person or organization of people): the reason behind a person/organization's actions, the person's purpose in the situation or just in life. Usually purposes in situations branch off of a person's life purpose in logical ways. Defined in terms of right or wrong, good and bad: a good purpose hurts the people around them and themselves, bad hurts, etc. Good purposes bring positive emotions, bad ones bring negative emotions, leading the area to be emotionally defined. HOW (aka method, process, function) - function of an intelligence (usually a person or organization): the method a person/organization uses to achieve their goals. Defined as either good or bad: a good method achieves the goal the person set out to do, a bad one does not. WHAT: What is. The result. The arrangement of atoms. Whatever. What I have found is that a good and bad purpose (WHY) and that a good and bad method (HOW) are cross-cutting. A good purpose with a good method happens, and you have positive change. A good purpose with a bad method of achieving that purpose will not succeed; perhaps the person can go back to choose another method (if they are still alive, have the resources, etc) but until they choose the right method, they are stuck. A bad purpose with a good method can happen as well - some criminals don't get caught, hire the best lawyers and get off, etc. And there are bad purposes with bad methods - witness all of the America's Dumbest criminals videos. But when dealing with people, it is important to distinguish between these three things and maintain the distinctions. And bones, your post appears from my viewpoint to throw these distinctions into a blender, which, for someone who has known this for a very long time, makes it very hard to read. I dislike confusing meaning and messages with wrenches and hat racks. Now, on the notion of methods revealing purposes, you are only partway correct. You must have the method...but you also must have the context of the method. Saying "I wrote a novel" does not tell you the reason why I wrote it. There are at least 100 reasons to write a novel. I can write a novel, and you could write a novel, and the two would be for entirely different purposes. Saying "I fixed my bike wheel" does not tell you the reason why I fixed it. I could fix it to go to school, or shopping, or to a party. "But I know the context, fishers..." Yes, you do, but you have to keep the methods separate from the context! The context is the WHAT level. It's what decides whether the method was the right one, but it isn't the method itself. Methods can be done in different contexts, different WHATs, with different results. I even find in terms of tracking someone's purpose to write down methods and contextual observations in separate columns (I don't do this very often, just when I feel I need to). Most of us understand this in terms of ourselves pretty good, I think. It's when we turn it around to tackle other people - or a story - that we somehow lose track of it. For me I had so many negative experiences growing up it carved them into razor-sharp distinctions, and I forget that the #1 lie in college is finding meaning in meaninglessness, saying that WHYs are HOWs, WHYs are WHATs, instead of letting WHYs be what they are. There's a lot of confusion here with universal WHY that I'm going to refrain from saying here yet; but suffice to say "alarm clock" is not a meaning, "painting" is not a meaning, and even painting an alarm clock is not a meaning, because we don't yet know why the artist painted the alarm clock (although we could look at the resulting painting and make a good guess). In fact ten artists can paint 10 alarm clocks for ten different reasons. Regardless of whether there is a universal intelligence, because I have intelligence and therefore am distinct from it. Mata Nui controlled the Matoran universe; all of the Matoran inside of him had their own brains and purposes in living. * * * But what's the fun in a philosophy lecture if I don't do Q&A? (More importantly, I need to get back on topic.) So one blender breakdown, coming to a forum post near you. I can already feel a headache coming on. Eh. There's a difference between aesthetic theme and "theme the author is trying to convey". In any case, your example is a situation. It's not a theme. Bionicle itself has used that situation to convey multiple different themes over the years, as Aanchir pointed out - everything from "teamwork" to "overcoming adversity" to "misfits aren't bad and are valuable for important things", among so many others. Now if "normal plain English" = "aesthetic motif", go to town. But most people I know of think of theme as the "message the story is trying to convey". I even went out of my way to make that crystal clear and put it in bold text. Yikes. Actually, that's a command. Commands are methods. Issuing a command to a person (or a computer) is a method of accomplishing something. (Whether ET could understand this is another matter entirely. ) Rabbits aren't themes. They are rabbits. I'm not sure what else to say here. XD I mean, if you can't tell the difference between a rabbit and a theme I guess we'll have to drag you off to the asylum... It exemplifies the theme you chose -- "everyday stuff". I can totally do all of those things on an orbiting space satellite. If I could have left my old dino book on three planets, it could be a major production. Well at least we can agree on something. No meaning is possible, though. Just look at Minesweeper. The only point to that game is wasting time and allowing your mind to think about something else (when in reality you could just stare at the wall and think without playing it, but there you go). Ah, there you go - I didn't think of that. I'm wrong. That's all you had to say, man. Yay. One less item of meaningless entertainment for me. Topic closed?

This is correct. My thought, right or wrong, was this: none of the topics I mentioned were developed enough to be a theme of the story. For example, G1 did have multiple themes, but all of them were developed out and reinforced. 2004-2005 had multiple themes, 2001-2003 had multiple themes, but all of them had enough story space so I knew it was the theme of what I was reading. I might not get all of themes right away, but I might think back on it later and realize "Oh, the MNOG was telling me that misfit people are okay" in addition to other messages it had. I'm not trying to argue this. It certainly helps if it has a central theme that all of the subthemes branch off of, since it's easier on my poor brain in terms of making connections, but it's not always strictly necessary. Sometimes you get characters into a situation and "stumble into" another theme, and it's fine. I'm not arguing that multiple themes aren't allowed. I'm not leaving for this reasoning. I just wanted this reasoning checked before I left, and I'm glad I wrote up the topic.

GM IC ??? "I do not understand the question," one of the beings said to Saracen. Another one nodded to Dorothy Quark. "We were operating the portal because we were ordered to. We were then ordered to shut the portal down and dismantle it. We were then ordered to stop doing so."

GM IC ??? The beings ignored Quark and Thumper entirely, except for one who stood in the middle of them with its hands up. "I answer question," it said. Then, when Saracen shouted his order, everyone stopped, leaving the boxes where they were. "Violence is uncalled for." said one of them. "We obey orders." --------------------------------------- OOC: And I've decided that this is the last GM villain like this for a very long time. But this concept for Mechna's government was too good to pass up. GM NPC FORTIS "What are you going to do?" Fortis said.

----------------------- OOC: Speaking of Vexing company... ...technically this counts as a GM error (unbalancing time so they get left behind), but it's so funny I'm going with it. GM NPC FORTIS Fortis sighed. This whole situation was too confusing. "Vex, I don't really find the charges of desertion to be founded." Out of the corner of his eye, he saw a strange military being and an even stranger organic creature engaging in combat. He wasn't sure what to make of that, either. "Rocka, go find out what he did on Antropolis. And he's staying with us. He's useful." GM NPC ROCKA "I'd like to hear that explanation of what you did on Antropolis now."

GM NPC STORMER "We should have authority," Stormer said. "We have authority over the entire galaxy - at least in terms of civilians in danger." GM IC ??? (BOARDED UP ROOM) Beyond the boarded up windows, the Heroes would see that the windows had been boarded up on the inside as well...but that job wasn't very good. Some beings were moving around rapidly doing something in the dark rooms beyond. Removing the boarding also revealed a metal door with a push panel to open it. "Heroes" one of the beings hissed. One of them grabbed a panel and pulled a grab handle with a strange substance inside it, and fled through an underground tunnel. The rest continued with their frantic dissembly, shoving control panels in boxes and grabbing computer units to flee with.

Obscure, but: The School Story, The Starplace, and the Land of Elyon books still hold up for me. I easily could write full blog entries on each one TMD style, but shall refrain. (Frankly anything by Andrew Clements is solid reading for adults anyway.) To summarize: strong female protagonists, and frankly a bit of a different take on the world. When I was younger, the "overcoming adversity" theme was really big for me, and in all three stories, it was the young girls who won and carried the day, despite all of the other characters and adults. The School Story is economic, The Starplace is social divisions (race, but also talent/personality), and The Land of Elyon is the unknown/unbelief in strange and exciting things (classic, but unlike doomsday tales of it not being retained as we get older, the series suggests that we can retain it as adults). The School Story also suggests that female characters have more power than they realize in ordinary situations, even as it relates to adults. The story pulls back to focus on a female secretary at one point and honor her role in advancing the plot, shows the nervousness of a female schoolteacher as she does something for the girls, and relishes the moment of an intimidated female editor as she overcomes the fear of her boss. It's a feminist masterwork without having to claim itself as one, and a fine piece of excellent storytelling without having to blow itself up with detail. Every time I read it, I notice something new.