Post by Duke on Sept 22, 2020 2:53:40 GMT
Evidently, the President of Sales Prevention has a slate that cannot be erased.
I got assassinated; I got better; it's not better enough.
I got curious about the sudden activity in the Rules Questions section of the official board: Steve's been absent for a prolonged period, and I thought perhaps he was back (note to the audience: I don't have much interest in 6e, so I don't generally check out the "official answers to 6e questions" section. This is not an insult to anyone, folks. It's simply that this section has nicely sequestered itself away and labeled itself as "information I care nothing about," so I don't go there. Only so many hours in a day and all that, right?)
Steve wasn't back, and I saw some interesting changes had been made to that forum-- changes which suggested Steve will be gone for quite some time yet.
I have no idea why I am compelled to explain this, since I don't think anyone stumbling over here doesn't spend a considerable amount of time over there, but let me sum it up anyway (I mentioned "compelled," right?):
The forum is open for anyone to answer. The person posting the question will then, if so inclined, "pick" the best answer; there is also a voting mechanism in there somewhere; I don't know, as I didn't care enough to look for the details on that.
Anyway, there was a question posted that I actually could answer, as it was about something that has been a constant since the first edition. A lot of other folks answered as well, and a discussion broke out. The discussion is forbidden by the rules of that section. Anyway, that had settled down, but there was a bit of information that, if it had come out in the discussion, I thought the OP might want clearly and in an answer.
So I answered the question.
Boy, was that the wrong thing to do. :rofl:
Thia had already had enough of the discussion, and put a shout out to the douchebag in chief about moving the thread or clearing the discussion or something, but that had been some time before I stumbled in, so I figured "Well, I guess that's been done; I guess it's a Q&A again." So I answered the question, including clearly the information I thought was particularly important about "Only in Alternate ID:" how it came to be an evolved from the early editions (I thought this might help the OP recognize it in other HERO materials ), how it is different from Secret Identity, and what sorts of characters might find it useful.
As per the rules, I addressed only the question. I did not address all the parts of the question, simply because I found them to have already been well addressed before the discussion broke out. And stopped. I can't point out hard enough that the discussion had stopped, been moved, or whatever. At any rate, Thia killed the discussion.
What I did _not_ know was that Thia's self-appointed position as policeman of Steve's forum is some sort of official thing, or at least it is being taken seriously as one.
I'm going to state this clearly: I have never done a damned thing to be thanked, to seek recognition, or anything like that. Everything I have ever done on that site or for that product line has been exclusively for the love of the game, and born of the desire to help. When I posted my answer, I did _not_ expect it to be selected as a best answer. I did _not_ expect it to get a like, a quote, a comment-- I did _not_ expect a damned thing.
I certainly didn't expect Thia to raise his hand until his shoulder strained and yell "Simon! They're doing it again!"
Mostly because I wasn't. I was following the rules, answering the question, and not quoting, talking, calling out, whatever-the-hell-it-is-that-makes-it-a-rules-violation.
Thia, apparently. Thia makes it a rules violation.
Stop-- don't get worked up: I am not mad at Thia. I _am_ a bit _annoyed_ at Thia, but only because I can't shake the feeling that he didn't bother _reading_ what I had put up to ensure that it was in line with the rules. Annoyance is minor; I'll forget it in a week or two. I mean, I get downright _pissed_ a dozen times a day at work, so what's an annoyance, really? :lol:
I am pissed with the President of Sales Prevention, however:
His "some people need to learn to read!" bullshit -- and I call it what it _is_, because it's pretty clear that arrogant fuckwad hadn't bothered reading anything after "teacher! Teacher! they're still talking!" He should take his own advice and learn to read.
Yeah, I know: people thinking "this isn't a private board! You could get banned from the official board for calling a spade a spade (which, in itself is bullshit: if I was in any way _lying_, that would be different, but I think we've all seen enough to make it hard to deny that on a long list of his personality traits, every second line is "arrogant" and every third is "asshole."
I particularly like that heavy-handed "these"-- Oh, Hell; what were they called? Warning? Limitations? Violations? Hell, I don't remember. It's not like it was important enough to bother remembering, considering the context of the information and the way it was delivered. Let's call them "demerits," because I'm damned if I remember what they were.
Anyway, something to the effect of "You have earned X number of demerits (if you're keeping score, one was for swearing-- which was accidental, and the minute I noticed it I went in to edit it, but the next guy quoted it to make sure there was no chance to repair a damage I had caused. Very Party Politics of him, I think, but moving on, the other one was for refusing to be insulted. No; I'm not making that up. You don't think that fart knocker has favored children over there? They're easy to spot because they can endlessly violate the terms of posting-- being rude, insulting, etc-- with no repercussions, but you can get a demerit for refusing to tolerate abuse _from_ them. Other abuse? No problem; call it out. Abuse from the fair-haired set? Suck it up, Kiddo. Or, let's put it another way: I got some demerits for defending myself in the exact same tone in which Dan speaks to _anyone and everyone_, _all the time_, save that I was never deliberately obtuse. There. That's about as accurate as it gets, really.)
Getting back on track: "...you have earned X number of demerits and will be assassinated for a while. Continued accumulations of demerits will result in this, that, or the other--" all of them probably more worrisome if my social life actually centered around that board. One of the nicer things that comes from being an extrovert is that stuff like that is hilarious: "Oh no! I might have to talk to real people in the real world, or go to bed at a reasonable hour! Oh, the _horror_! And let's not forget that it is a board for a _role playing game_-- something that is quote "other-people oriented," and always best in a group of real live people. So--- "Oh-ho! Take that, person who prefers face-to-face contact with even relative strangers in the real world to complete faceless strangers on the internet! No longer will you be able to work out your insomnia in this introverted, delayed-gratification way!" Yeah. _There's_ a punishment.... Moron.
At first I was a bit annoyed, as this had all started over a slip of the tongue that I had actually tried to correct before it became a problem. Ah, party politics. Making sure everyone gets screwed over, whether there's good reason for it or not..... Though honestly, my own experience with party politics and rabid, epileptic dry sodomizings has demonstrated that "because I can" or "because I had the chance" seems to be reason enough for most narcissists, so I suppose I should have not even bothered giving it that one-last read-through before going to bed.
Anyway, the big threat of being un-personed on that board (again: really funny if you're an extrovert. I recall a time many years ago (decades) when my brother J, myself, and oup friend P went out one night just to see how many bars we could get thrown out of. Dude, that was actually _fun_. And really, _really_ hard at the last two places we went. We are the only people to achieve a lifetime ban from an absolute hell-hole of a dive in Brunswick called "Shipwrecked." Joke's on them: we lived longer than the bar did! :rofl: )
Damn it; I can't stop digressing. Sorry, Folks. (folk? I might be the only guy reading this, ever! HA!)
The big stick is "these demerits will never go away---" and that was the absolute instant all my fucks fell out. Seriously. They just all of a sudden fell out of my pockets and vanished, leaving me with absolutely _none_ left to give. I mean, what's the point? It's pretty much like being a college professor, grabbing a bike lock, and smashing a complete stranger in the face with it to demonstrate that you belong to the party of peace and love. You want people to think "oh, Man! I screwed up so badly! I need to make some corrections; I need to change what I do here...!" The best way to encourage that, obviously, is to state up-front that it is pointless to do so. As idiotic as it sounds, it's being done by an obvious hyper-intellectual, so it must be accurate, right?
I believe I have said this elsewhere, but anywhere in life, at any time, in any situation, one absolute inviolable truth about human beings is that there will always be _zero_ contrition in the face of zero absolution.
You wonder why recidivism happens? Is it that some people are just wrong-minded? Naturally evil? Or is it because when they get out of jail we never stop treating them like they should be in jail? What's the motivation to do better when those in charge say point-blank "I'm just looking for a reason to send you away for good...."?
Same thing there: These naughty points will never, _ever_ fade from your record, and--
and thank you; save your breath. Your job is done: you've convinced me to stop giving a shit.
blah-blah, digress, digress, digress some more.....
Back on topic:
I thought I gave a shit, for a bit. I thought "Hell, I like these guys enough to keep in touch. I like helping other fans of the system. I'll fill in a little more detail for the answer in the hopes that something here will be useful to OP.
What do I get for it? I get wrongfully Narc'ed on, and best of all, insulted for lack of reading by some absolute scrotum who clearly hadn't read anything but the Narc'ing.
Again; I don't hold it against the Narc. I'm just a bit annoyed that someone took it upon themselves to _be_ a Narc, also quite clearly without actually reading what they were narc'ing on. And it's really out of character for this guy (the Narc), too-- or at least, I thought it was; you guys might know him better--- but frankly, you can google up a hundred studies that show this problem: when there is a bully (The Scrotum that Walks Like a Man), there are those who will, for reasons ranging from like-mindedness to avoidance of being bullied later, will unconsciously try to ingratiate themselves to the bully. You'll find similar studies with similar results on people with power or authority and a subset of those without who will ingratiate themselves with those people.
And NO! Do NOT call them "kiss-asses" or whatever. That's a whole different thing: a bootlick is a bootlick, willingly and usually intentionally. These other folks quite often don't even know that they are doing it: it's part of a subconscious need of some sort. You can't fault them for this any more than you can fault someone with any other psychological quirk. It is what it is; move on. You _can_ fault the bully, as to date I don't think anyone has ever found an "accidental" bully. With that in mind, and no actual evidence that the Narc was a genuine kiss-ass, my forgiving nature is going to assume it was more a matter of weak-willed or fear-based subservience to a bully.
At any rate, the whole reason I spilled all this was to explain why I am copying my answer over to this site: I don't want anyone putting words in my mouth later, and I have complete trust in the guy who runs this site (something I can never say about the other site).
So here was my partial answer (as I said, I was just trying to fill in a couple of things I didn't see in previous direct answers. I had avoided the "conversation" part of that thread for fear that I might get sucked up in it, which was a violation of the rules. As it turned out, it didn't make one bit of difference, because the Ego that Walks Like a Man won't bother reading anything before telling you to learn to read).
The question was a request for disambiguation regarding the Power Limitation: Only in Alternate Identity. Following is my original answer:
----------------------------------
The primary difference between Only in Alternate Identity and Secret ID is access to the power. If the character possess the power even in his secret ID, then the "Only" part is invalid. He may not wish to use the power while in his secret ID, but he does still have it.
This Limitation first appeared in the days before Multiform and Shapeshift and other powers that introduced mechanics for changing forms and mapping the abilities of those forms. Before Multiform, for example, Only in Alternate (in those days, "Hero") ID was a pretty common way to model someone like the Hulk, who clearly did not have his super-strength unless he was in his alternate identity.
That was not the only use for this Limitation, though. Even today, it's a great way to represent Powered Armor: if the character is not in his powered armor-- his "Hero ID," then he does not have his jet boots or laser gauntlets or radar sense, etc. Characters who bind themselves to demons to use the demon's powers, characters who make a physical change into something else (growing wings, becoming the Hulk, transforming into pure energy, etc), or even characters who have to suit up with gadgets (anything in Batman's utility belt is likely going to be "Only in Alternate ID."
Characters who are actually deprived of a power when they are not in their "hero mode" are the characters for whom this Limitation (OIAID) works best. Characters who maintain control and use of their powers but simply do not wish to use them while in their "civilian mode" may want to consider Secret ID. While this is not the _only_ complication of maintaining a dual identity, it is one of the many complications folded into it.
Hope that helps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the record, I don't care who you are: I'm not answering another damned thing on that Rules Questions board. Not that there's many I could answer, being as how it's 6e. If the occasion comes along that I do think I can answer something, I'll probably answer it here, in this thread, just in case you try to google the answer before or after visiting the official board.
I got assassinated; I got better; it's not better enough.
I got curious about the sudden activity in the Rules Questions section of the official board: Steve's been absent for a prolonged period, and I thought perhaps he was back (note to the audience: I don't have much interest in 6e, so I don't generally check out the "official answers to 6e questions" section. This is not an insult to anyone, folks. It's simply that this section has nicely sequestered itself away and labeled itself as "information I care nothing about," so I don't go there. Only so many hours in a day and all that, right?)
Steve wasn't back, and I saw some interesting changes had been made to that forum-- changes which suggested Steve will be gone for quite some time yet.
I have no idea why I am compelled to explain this, since I don't think anyone stumbling over here doesn't spend a considerable amount of time over there, but let me sum it up anyway (I mentioned "compelled," right?):
The forum is open for anyone to answer. The person posting the question will then, if so inclined, "pick" the best answer; there is also a voting mechanism in there somewhere; I don't know, as I didn't care enough to look for the details on that.
Anyway, there was a question posted that I actually could answer, as it was about something that has been a constant since the first edition. A lot of other folks answered as well, and a discussion broke out. The discussion is forbidden by the rules of that section. Anyway, that had settled down, but there was a bit of information that, if it had come out in the discussion, I thought the OP might want clearly and in an answer.
So I answered the question.
Boy, was that the wrong thing to do. :rofl:
Thia had already had enough of the discussion, and put a shout out to the douchebag in chief about moving the thread or clearing the discussion or something, but that had been some time before I stumbled in, so I figured "Well, I guess that's been done; I guess it's a Q&A again." So I answered the question, including clearly the information I thought was particularly important about "Only in Alternate ID:" how it came to be an evolved from the early editions (I thought this might help the OP recognize it in other HERO materials ), how it is different from Secret Identity, and what sorts of characters might find it useful.
As per the rules, I addressed only the question. I did not address all the parts of the question, simply because I found them to have already been well addressed before the discussion broke out. And stopped. I can't point out hard enough that the discussion had stopped, been moved, or whatever. At any rate, Thia killed the discussion.
What I did _not_ know was that Thia's self-appointed position as policeman of Steve's forum is some sort of official thing, or at least it is being taken seriously as one.
I'm going to state this clearly: I have never done a damned thing to be thanked, to seek recognition, or anything like that. Everything I have ever done on that site or for that product line has been exclusively for the love of the game, and born of the desire to help. When I posted my answer, I did _not_ expect it to be selected as a best answer. I did _not_ expect it to get a like, a quote, a comment-- I did _not_ expect a damned thing.
I certainly didn't expect Thia to raise his hand until his shoulder strained and yell "Simon! They're doing it again!"
Mostly because I wasn't. I was following the rules, answering the question, and not quoting, talking, calling out, whatever-the-hell-it-is-that-makes-it-a-rules-violation.
Thia, apparently. Thia makes it a rules violation.
Stop-- don't get worked up: I am not mad at Thia. I _am_ a bit _annoyed_ at Thia, but only because I can't shake the feeling that he didn't bother _reading_ what I had put up to ensure that it was in line with the rules. Annoyance is minor; I'll forget it in a week or two. I mean, I get downright _pissed_ a dozen times a day at work, so what's an annoyance, really? :lol:
I am pissed with the President of Sales Prevention, however:
His "some people need to learn to read!" bullshit -- and I call it what it _is_, because it's pretty clear that arrogant fuckwad hadn't bothered reading anything after "teacher! Teacher! they're still talking!" He should take his own advice and learn to read.
Yeah, I know: people thinking "this isn't a private board! You could get banned from the official board for calling a spade a spade (which, in itself is bullshit: if I was in any way _lying_, that would be different, but I think we've all seen enough to make it hard to deny that on a long list of his personality traits, every second line is "arrogant" and every third is "asshole."
I particularly like that heavy-handed "these"-- Oh, Hell; what were they called? Warning? Limitations? Violations? Hell, I don't remember. It's not like it was important enough to bother remembering, considering the context of the information and the way it was delivered. Let's call them "demerits," because I'm damned if I remember what they were.
Anyway, something to the effect of "You have earned X number of demerits (if you're keeping score, one was for swearing-- which was accidental, and the minute I noticed it I went in to edit it, but the next guy quoted it to make sure there was no chance to repair a damage I had caused. Very Party Politics of him, I think, but moving on, the other one was for refusing to be insulted. No; I'm not making that up. You don't think that fart knocker has favored children over there? They're easy to spot because they can endlessly violate the terms of posting-- being rude, insulting, etc-- with no repercussions, but you can get a demerit for refusing to tolerate abuse _from_ them. Other abuse? No problem; call it out. Abuse from the fair-haired set? Suck it up, Kiddo. Or, let's put it another way: I got some demerits for defending myself in the exact same tone in which Dan speaks to _anyone and everyone_, _all the time_, save that I was never deliberately obtuse. There. That's about as accurate as it gets, really.)
Getting back on track: "...you have earned X number of demerits and will be assassinated for a while. Continued accumulations of demerits will result in this, that, or the other--" all of them probably more worrisome if my social life actually centered around that board. One of the nicer things that comes from being an extrovert is that stuff like that is hilarious: "Oh no! I might have to talk to real people in the real world, or go to bed at a reasonable hour! Oh, the _horror_! And let's not forget that it is a board for a _role playing game_-- something that is quote "other-people oriented," and always best in a group of real live people. So--- "Oh-ho! Take that, person who prefers face-to-face contact with even relative strangers in the real world to complete faceless strangers on the internet! No longer will you be able to work out your insomnia in this introverted, delayed-gratification way!" Yeah. _There's_ a punishment.... Moron.
At first I was a bit annoyed, as this had all started over a slip of the tongue that I had actually tried to correct before it became a problem. Ah, party politics. Making sure everyone gets screwed over, whether there's good reason for it or not..... Though honestly, my own experience with party politics and rabid, epileptic dry sodomizings has demonstrated that "because I can" or "because I had the chance" seems to be reason enough for most narcissists, so I suppose I should have not even bothered giving it that one-last read-through before going to bed.
Anyway, the big threat of being un-personed on that board (again: really funny if you're an extrovert. I recall a time many years ago (decades) when my brother J, myself, and oup friend P went out one night just to see how many bars we could get thrown out of. Dude, that was actually _fun_. And really, _really_ hard at the last two places we went. We are the only people to achieve a lifetime ban from an absolute hell-hole of a dive in Brunswick called "Shipwrecked." Joke's on them: we lived longer than the bar did! :rofl: )
Damn it; I can't stop digressing. Sorry, Folks. (folk? I might be the only guy reading this, ever! HA!)
The big stick is "these demerits will never go away---" and that was the absolute instant all my fucks fell out. Seriously. They just all of a sudden fell out of my pockets and vanished, leaving me with absolutely _none_ left to give. I mean, what's the point? It's pretty much like being a college professor, grabbing a bike lock, and smashing a complete stranger in the face with it to demonstrate that you belong to the party of peace and love. You want people to think "oh, Man! I screwed up so badly! I need to make some corrections; I need to change what I do here...!" The best way to encourage that, obviously, is to state up-front that it is pointless to do so. As idiotic as it sounds, it's being done by an obvious hyper-intellectual, so it must be accurate, right?
I believe I have said this elsewhere, but anywhere in life, at any time, in any situation, one absolute inviolable truth about human beings is that there will always be _zero_ contrition in the face of zero absolution.
You wonder why recidivism happens? Is it that some people are just wrong-minded? Naturally evil? Or is it because when they get out of jail we never stop treating them like they should be in jail? What's the motivation to do better when those in charge say point-blank "I'm just looking for a reason to send you away for good...."?
Same thing there: These naughty points will never, _ever_ fade from your record, and--
and thank you; save your breath. Your job is done: you've convinced me to stop giving a shit.
blah-blah, digress, digress, digress some more.....
Back on topic:
I thought I gave a shit, for a bit. I thought "Hell, I like these guys enough to keep in touch. I like helping other fans of the system. I'll fill in a little more detail for the answer in the hopes that something here will be useful to OP.
What do I get for it? I get wrongfully Narc'ed on, and best of all, insulted for lack of reading by some absolute scrotum who clearly hadn't read anything but the Narc'ing.
Again; I don't hold it against the Narc. I'm just a bit annoyed that someone took it upon themselves to _be_ a Narc, also quite clearly without actually reading what they were narc'ing on. And it's really out of character for this guy (the Narc), too-- or at least, I thought it was; you guys might know him better--- but frankly, you can google up a hundred studies that show this problem: when there is a bully (The Scrotum that Walks Like a Man), there are those who will, for reasons ranging from like-mindedness to avoidance of being bullied later, will unconsciously try to ingratiate themselves to the bully. You'll find similar studies with similar results on people with power or authority and a subset of those without who will ingratiate themselves with those people.
And NO! Do NOT call them "kiss-asses" or whatever. That's a whole different thing: a bootlick is a bootlick, willingly and usually intentionally. These other folks quite often don't even know that they are doing it: it's part of a subconscious need of some sort. You can't fault them for this any more than you can fault someone with any other psychological quirk. It is what it is; move on. You _can_ fault the bully, as to date I don't think anyone has ever found an "accidental" bully. With that in mind, and no actual evidence that the Narc was a genuine kiss-ass, my forgiving nature is going to assume it was more a matter of weak-willed or fear-based subservience to a bully.
At any rate, the whole reason I spilled all this was to explain why I am copying my answer over to this site: I don't want anyone putting words in my mouth later, and I have complete trust in the guy who runs this site (something I can never say about the other site).
So here was my partial answer (as I said, I was just trying to fill in a couple of things I didn't see in previous direct answers. I had avoided the "conversation" part of that thread for fear that I might get sucked up in it, which was a violation of the rules. As it turned out, it didn't make one bit of difference, because the Ego that Walks Like a Man won't bother reading anything before telling you to learn to read).
The question was a request for disambiguation regarding the Power Limitation: Only in Alternate Identity. Following is my original answer:
----------------------------------
The primary difference between Only in Alternate Identity and Secret ID is access to the power. If the character possess the power even in his secret ID, then the "Only" part is invalid. He may not wish to use the power while in his secret ID, but he does still have it.
This Limitation first appeared in the days before Multiform and Shapeshift and other powers that introduced mechanics for changing forms and mapping the abilities of those forms. Before Multiform, for example, Only in Alternate (in those days, "Hero") ID was a pretty common way to model someone like the Hulk, who clearly did not have his super-strength unless he was in his alternate identity.
That was not the only use for this Limitation, though. Even today, it's a great way to represent Powered Armor: if the character is not in his powered armor-- his "Hero ID," then he does not have his jet boots or laser gauntlets or radar sense, etc. Characters who bind themselves to demons to use the demon's powers, characters who make a physical change into something else (growing wings, becoming the Hulk, transforming into pure energy, etc), or even characters who have to suit up with gadgets (anything in Batman's utility belt is likely going to be "Only in Alternate ID."
Characters who are actually deprived of a power when they are not in their "hero mode" are the characters for whom this Limitation (OIAID) works best. Characters who maintain control and use of their powers but simply do not wish to use them while in their "civilian mode" may want to consider Secret ID. While this is not the _only_ complication of maintaining a dual identity, it is one of the many complications folded into it.
Hope that helps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the record, I don't care who you are: I'm not answering another damned thing on that Rules Questions board. Not that there's many I could answer, being as how it's 6e. If the occasion comes along that I do think I can answer something, I'll probably answer it here, in this thread, just in case you try to google the answer before or after visiting the official board.