Considering general relativity exists, it’s fitting that each place has its timezone.

Clearly we don’t play the same kind of game. In my game, murder hobos are putting themselves at risk of death. And the old man and his canary is actually a safe encounter to through at them. Because the of the character itself, and because of the difference of power.

Again, you’re missing the point of what is taught. You’re hell bent on the unfairness and people acting like children. I play with adults. Setting the tone of the game is important to do in game.

This encounter is not a punishment. It is a lesson and a demonstration and an opportunity. It shows how big the game can become. It shows the kind of enemies they can make. It shows that the story can go any way they like, but they should not be stupid about it.

The problem with murder hobo is not that they are evil. It is that they are stupid. Stupidity should be a fatal mistake for the game stay interesting.

Lol how long will you reference games that have nothing to do with ttrpg? And then I would be the one focusing on the wrong thing?

Do you understand that the dm is fundamentally unable to cheat?

Do you understand that the dm can make things difficult just as much as he can make them easy?

Do you really expect that the player should never face anything they can’t murder?

You should really try to understand what game you’re playing. Ttrpg are not competitive games, so your comparisons with competitive games are missing the point entirely.

I’ll state bluntly : if you consider the game as a competitive game, you are a problem player.

It is a good thing to show the players that the game is not a competition because as a dm you are the one to decide how hard it will be.

The game cannot be competitive. Do you get that?

You know what? You’re the only one here thinking that this encounter is meant to end in a tpk. Which tells a lot about the kind of person you are.

Your comparison is simply stupid. Deal with it. You don’t understand the point I’m making and you’re crying like an entitled player would if he couldn’t do anything he like at the expense of everyone else. What am I supposed to tell you? You’re defending a spoiled kid making a mess here and using dumb comparisons to make your point.

This encounter can serve as a narrative tool to put the campaign back on track. It gives the characters an opportunity to change. If you can only see that as a punishment you have the maturity of a child.

Ok, 3 things.

First, who ever said that this encounter was ever meant to end in a tpk? Not me. Not anyone I read mentioning this encounter. Bahamut is a benevolent god, not a moronic asshole like murder hobos.

Second, murder hobos are not playing to win, they’re playing moronic assholes in a power fantasy. But anyway, both murder hobo and playing to win make problem players.

Third and finally, this encounter is a narrative tool that can take a campaign back on track. A discussion alone doesn’t have this power, because the characters changing their behaviour suddenly would break the story.

Because you’re not hurting people but imaginary characters that have been exceptionally evil.

If you can’t see the difference you’re a complete idiot. Do you know what a story is? What a game is? What morale is?

The dm can cheat to win yes. That is also the lesson. Which means trying to beat the game is a hopeless goal. And if you think this is the game, you’re gravely mistaken.

The comparison to flogging is simply dumb. It’s completely irrelevant.

Now you can be a dumb player and refuse to learn anything from this encounter. It can spark a discussion then.

It’s called teaching a lesson. Murder hobos do not respect the game. By giving them this encounter, they will get down from their high horses learning that sometimes things are not what they look like and they should be more careful and smart about what they’re doing.

It’s often easier to point to a problem than to suggest a solution. That’s mostly the problem of the left in fact : they (we) point at the problems of minority, and this makes it mostly like the solution is to stop the problematic behaviour.

But it’s much harder than that in practice when the problem is patriarchy. The whole society is the problem. And the left doesn’t show a 'ew model, it only says that the old model must be destroyed. Which is completely true. But what will be left of the chaos?

A society must be build on culture. And right now the left destroys the old culture that must be destroyed, and it can feel that nothing is built to replace it.

IMO the center of the problem is the heterosexual relationships. How do you interact with the other sex. And it is not about what you shouldn’t do, but what you should do.

For an example, courteous love was invented in the middle ages for this purpose. As was the ideal of the knight. Later it became the renaissance man, although the name is from modern history.

The question is what the modern men and women be. It is cultural work that must be done, and very, very few people ever touch on this subject.

And this absence means that all that progressive men ear is what’s targeting at the conservative assholes. And more often than not it makes no distinction. In fact, very often it even warns those men that pretend to be allies but aren’t. This antagonistic discourse is wearing and tearing on the soul.

Ben quand t’attaque LFI spécifiquement et pas les autres, sans même de comparaison par exemple, alors que la situation le demanderait pour être un véritable argument, oui on peut dire que t’es partial.

Personne n’a jamais défendu que lfi ne comptait sue des saints. Maintenant désolé mais vois la gravité des affaires de lfi vs celles de la droite par exemple, on peut relever la différence de traitement. Elle est assez évidente. Typiquement, reprocher à lfi de ne pas être démocratique alors que LR va avoir sa première assemblée générale et le RN n’a jamais élu personne, ben d’un côté on présente Mélenchon comme un dictateur stalinien vs le Pen pour qui c’est un non sujet.

Traitement différencié donc. C’est démontré. Et avec ça, le biais médiatique. Combien de plateaux ou journaux défendent lfi ? Par rapport à tous ceux qui les attaquent sans merci ?

The corrollary is that pushing Linux usage rate won’t happen through installer improvements but through politics and having access to preinstalled Linux.

That’s not most people no. That’s a tiny number of people.

Don’t get me wrong. Making the installation easier is a good thing. But thinking it will change anything to the usage rate of Linux is naive.

Most people do not install any OS and they will never do. Ever.

Installing Linux is not hard already. The single barrier is partitioning. Well, at least when everything works. Secure boot is also a barrier, as are bios configured to NOT boot on a USB key by default. Or Windows with its fast boot making accessing the bios and booting on devices harder.

If you want to consider people who want to try to install Linux without experience, there are a dozen of barriers, and the installer is not the biggest one, far from it.

The installation is irrelevant to the use of Linux. The vast majority of people never installed Windows. And they never will.

Y a eu des périodes pire que ça dans l’histoire. C’est pas encore la fin du monde mec.

Tu mélanges deux choses : d’un côté, la propagande qui n’a pas besoin d’internet pour fonctionner. En fait, internet à la particularité de contenir les informations qui peuvent déjouer la propagande, d’où le concept de post vérité qui est plus complexe à analyser que la simple propagande.

Et de l’autre côté, la conception hyper addictive des réseaux sociaux. Leur but est de capter l’attention et de pousser les utilisateurs à rsster le plus longtemps possible. Ça c’est un simple problème de capitalisme. Si c’est pas une entreprise aux manettes, aucune raison pour l’application d’être aussi toxique. Le problème ici n’est pas internet ou le réseau social mais l’entreprise qui l’exploite.

Je doute que ce soit de pire en pire. La propagande et la manipulation de masse existe depuis toujours. Jules César ou à Athènes ils en parlent ouvertement et avec conscience.

Même internet ne permet pas de faire plus que la télé en fait. La différence, c’est qu’internet le fait de façon moins contrôlée. Ou plutôt, certains ne sont pas content de qui controle internet alors qu’ils ont donnés les clefs.

Selon moi, les réseaux sociaux ne devraient pas appartenir à des entreprises privées. Parce que l’appât du gain crée des algorithmes dégénérés de sélection, et c’est malsain de laisser la modération à un chef d’entreprise. Par essence les réseaux sociaux agregent les gens, alors espérer que la concurrence fasse le tri ne peut pas marcher.

Les chefs d’états se méfiaient de la télé dans les années 50 parce qu’ils avaient conscience de son pouvoir et de son utilité. Les libéraux n’ont vu que des profits à faire et n’ont rien prévu.

Le problème, c’est comment tu définis un journal sérieux ? Le point où le figaro, c’est sérieux ? Valeurs actuelles ?

Comment tu traces la frontière ? C’est comme avec la télé en fait. C’est pas parce que c’est à la télé que c’est n’importe quoi. Il y a même de bonnes émissions à la télé. La question est de savoir les différencier.

Et pourrait penser que la censure est une solution, mais elle n’a jamais réussi dans cette mission, et à toujours été dévoyée pour taire les progressistes et les raisonnables.

Pour moi, il faudrait voir les média comme un quatrième pouvoir, et leur instaurer une éthique comme aux magistrats ou à médecins. Mais on en est clairement pas là. En attendant seule l’éducation permet de lutter. Mais quand on voit que même les gauchistes peuvent s’enfermer dans des histoires propagandistes complètement déconnecté de la réalité (comme on peut le voir avec le nucléaire par exemple), je le dit qu’on est pas rendu.

It’s funny to think that you need communism for this kind of figure to mean anything.

If you deny that this meme is disdainful of the “there is a loneliness epidemic” statement, then you’re in bad faith.

Even if what you’re saying is logically true, that’s not the truth people see, as this thread demonstrates. Which means you’re in bad faith here.