Monday, April 13, 2015

Hot Java Burned My Lips So I Had to Tweet





































at No comments:
Labels: ,

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Dreams in the Stillness of the Evening.

In the evenings, after my son has gone to sleep, I like to sit outside in the cool air and sip wine while thinking about the life that I could have lived and the women I could have loved. There's the girl who always spoke with the voice of a child, barely a whisper at times, who would call me from across the world just to hear me say, "Hello." We would talk for hours, or rather she would talk for hours. I would listen to jazz and try to imagine what it felt like to create something that would touch another person's heart a million miles away. While Coltrane blew his horn her voice would mingle with the words creating a dream that never became reality. 



Then there was the girl who liked to slide her tremendous bottom across my crotch and giggle as I reached for her with trembling hands. She would pull her shirt up letting me see her tiny breasts in the sheer bra while she bit her lower lip and made me whisper words of adulation into the valley between her tits. Her auburn hair would tickle the back of my neck as she lowered her lips to my ear and told me the secrets of the cosmos but I never listened to her. I was lost in her eyes, swimming in the depths of her soul even as she kissed me goodbye for the last time. 

There was the raven haired nightmare that tore at my soul while teaching me all the sins of the flesh. Night after night she would climb into my bed and speak to God while I tried to remember if the Devil did the same. Blood was shed on those sheets and she laughed at my panic. In the morning she would pat me on the cheek and say, "Tomorrow is for love, but tonight? Tonight is for us." She scratched her name across my spine and tattooed it in the pit of my soul always telling me, "You will never be without me." She was right. 

So I threw myself off a bridge and prayed that Flannery O'Connor was right.

Two tones of sexual repression and angst found me on the banks of Obed. She pulled me into her car and laid my weary head between her breasts while I shivered. "Don't worry," she cooed, "I've something special planned for you." Then she pushed me against the door and buried her head in my lap and sang bebop while I wondered if this were Heaven. When she came up for air she breathlessly whispered, "It is, it is," but when she lowered her head again all I could see were fires surrounding us and my flesh felt hot as I screamed for salvation.

It always goes that way. My mind working backwards and tripping over the impossibilities of paths not taken until my wine is gone I hear Chet Baker call out, "I'm old fashioned," while my Darling Bride calls my name. "Charlie," she says in a voice that dances to its own rhythm, "I need you." So I get up out of the rocking chair, smiling at the cool breeze the comes across the field, and go back in for the night, content with life I've chosen.
at 2 comments:
Labels:

Dyvers Q&A Coming Your Way


Every so often I open up the blog to anyone who wants to ask me a question and this weekend is as good a time as any. So if you've got a question you've been wondering about me, the blog, 'Murica, role-playing games, or most anything else under the sun now's the time to get into the action! Questions can be submitted anytime between now and 12:00 AM Tuesday Morning.  Answers will begin showing up Tuesday Evening.

E-mail me your questions with the subject "Questions for Dyvers." Send me your questions through twitter! Or leave them down below in the comments! Can't wait to see what you all come up with this time!



at 1 comment:
Labels:

Friday, April 10, 2015

WTF is Sealioning

The term Sealioning, or Sea-Lioning, originates with the Wondermark web comic in issue #1,062, The Terrible Sea Lion. In the comic a Victorian couple are riding in a steam powered car when one of them remarks, "I don't mind most marine mammals. But Sea Lions? I could do without sea lions." This comment then brings on the terrible sea lion who barrages the couple with overly polite questions demanding proof to substantiate the stated opinion. These questions seemingly occur throughout the day without regard for the couple's privacy or unwillingness to further discuss the matter. The term would soon find itself being used more commonly in the wider internet community as a shorthand for dealing with people who are intentionally trying to subvert an individual's statements by asking polite, yet persistent questions. 

Where the original term appears to have been designed to denote individuals who are expressly arguing in bad faith and using their questioning as a way to deflate and defeat their target it has since become a way to undermine anyone who questions an unsubstantiated statement that's been expressed publicly (for example, "John Q. is a bigot"). The logic behind this change is difficult to fully express but a lot of the reasoning was described by James Murff in his article, Why Sealioning is Bad.
". . . The biggest reason why people hate sealioning is because responding to it is a complete waste of time . . .  [T]hese questions are not asked because the person genuinely wants to know. If they did, they would do their own digging based on your statements, and only ask for obscure or difficult-to-discover information. This is the 'debate principle'; when you go to a debate, you educate yourself on the topics at hand, and only request evidence when a claim is either quite outlandish or unflinchingly obscure . . ." (Why Sealioning is Bad)
The problem is that this line of reasoning presupposes that the person asking the questions is doing so in bad faith while the person making the statements is not. That isn't always the case. Let's look at our earlier example, "John Q. is a bigot." If John is actually a bigot then there should be some proof. Asking for it is a reasonable act as the accusation is unsubstantiated at this point. Now the author making the argument can claim that the person asking the questions is 'sealioning' as they haven't done their research. After all, it isn't the author's responsibility to educate you when you go entering into a debate. 
Only you're not entering into a debate but rather you're actively asking a for proof of an unsubstantiated statement. It's a tricky situation and as sealioning actually happens and part of it is expressly designed to bury an individual under a sea of questions to drain their energy and prevent them from defending their statements. Yet as it continues to become a more main stream term it's being used more often by bad actors attempting to stifle debate around their unsubstantiated statements.

Telling the difference between actual sealioning and not is difficult for observers but not impossible.
". . . When the target is continually asked questions - especially the same question under a different phrasing, which is very common when sealioning - it's rattling. They have to fight the natural instinct to respond in good faith to neutrally-phrased questions, as answering them will only bring more. It's a forced violation of the empathy that a compassionate person feels towards others, as it pushes them into noticing that their questioners are not particularly interested in the questions themselves . . . Compound this with being sealioned but multiple people, as is common on Twitter, and you've got a recipe for a very frustrating and fruitless timeline. If you respond, you are bombarded with even more questions by people who aren't asking to actually be convinced. If you do not respond, you are insulted as somebody who doesn't wish to participate in reasoned discourse, despite the clear and simple fact that such a discourse is not reasonable; it merely has the appearance of rationality . . ." (Why Sealioning is Bad)
Under these conditions it's relatively easy to notice when someone is sealioning; however, even here there is a possibility that what's happening isn't sealioning. It could be that you have made an unsubstantiated statement without actual proof and only substantiated by rumors, hearsay, and innuendo. Under those circumstances you have become the bad actor and the people asking you questions are acting reasonably. 

While the term was created with good intentions, as a way to deal directly with people who are attempting to undercut and devalue your statements, in recent weeks it has become the favorite tool of bad actors attempting to stifle debate and force their unsubstantiated comments to be taken as fact.

Works Cited

Maliki, David. The Terrible Sea Lion. 2014. Wondermark. Web. 4/10/2015

Murff, James. Why Sealioning is Bad. 2014. Simplikation. Web. 4/10/2015
at 2 comments:
Labels: , ,

Your Facts are Far Less Important than My Narrative.

For the last few days I've been reading through the early stages of the Hugo Awards controversy and the emerging narratives that have come from it. In doing so it's become clear that were it not for the involvement of Vox that the criticisms of the Sad Puppies slate would be essentially meaningless. With Vox's involvement critics of the Sad Puppies are able to call the entire slate a racist, sexist, regressive movement that is actively attempting to keep minorities out. It doesn't matter that the Sad Puppies slate has nominated women and minorities. It doesn't matter that they have people who have expressed wildly different moralities or political philosophies. The narrative has been established.

It happened when +Zak Smith and +Kasimir Urbanski were falsely accused of being bigots right after the launch of Fifth Edition too. Then the narrative was that of hearsay. "I heard," they would say, "that Zak and Pundit are bigots. That they have exclusively (or primarily) targeted women,  people of different colors, and transgendered folk!" When you pointed to them having friends who were any of those things it was dismissed out of hand, as though they had specifically cultivated these relationships just to defend themselves from being labeled as bigots. These men were nefarious actors within the hobby whose evil knew no bounds. That such logic made no sense except within the narrative no longer mattered because the narrative had been established. They were bad people, the worst people you could imagine under the circumstances, so no vile act was beyond the pale.

All nuance disappears and we're all painted with broad strokes. David supports #Gamergate so he must hate all women. Never you mind that he designs games with a woman, plays with women at his table, has a woman Game Master, and has never said an ugly thing about women in his life. John supports the Sad Puppies slate so he must be trying to keep those of us who are different out of the Hugo Awards and away from Science Fiction. It doesn't matter that he's gay, black, and really just likes most of the books on the slate. The narratives have been established. 

We get so wrapped up in the narrative about people and things these days that our imagined reality takes over what is actually happening - and this isn't a new thing; it's just more obvious now that we have the internet with its drastically intensified focus and reduced news cycle lifespan. We're more interconnected than ever before with our Twitters, Facebooks, Google+, Linkedin, and so forth. We can't get away from the story and its emerging narrative until it's firmly established in the wider culture. Then the controversies fade into the background leaving behind their established narratives and the destroyed lives of those on the wrong side of the story. 

If it isn't clear what I'm saying here is that before you buy into the established narrative on anything research it by going to direct sources and through trusted sites. Don't just follow lockstep with someone because they tell you that this is how it is.


at 14 comments:
Labels:

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Mark, I Was Bored and A Bad Thing Happened

This morning I was talking with +Mark Van Vlack about the new banner on my blog when he mentioned that some day he would get around to making himself a new one for his blog. Well, I like Mark quite a bit. Not only because he's very smart and his blog, Dust_Pan_Games, is filled with great ideas but also because he's funny. That makes him a winner in my book any day.

So I was bored and these came out. 


This first banner is a composite using Mark's clip art Dust Pan symbol, the IMPACT font, and an image that I've been working on for a while. I'm not sure who the girl is but I ran across her while I was looking for modern pin ups and just thought she was fantastic. So I changed the color to black and white, removed her from the background, colored her tattoo, and added a peonie to her hair because it just looked better to me all the way around. It kind of obscures the word Games though so it might not be that great.


I like this second one a more than the first one. For some reason it feels cinematic to me. May just be my imagination. Anyway with this one I've enlarged Mark's Dust pan symbol and again used the IMPACT font. It gives it a clean look that I like.

So what do you guys think?
at 2 comments:
Labels: , ,

Downtown Dyvers

As I mentioned yesterday I've been reading a lot about U.S. Copyright Law in an effort to better protect myself and the team I'm working with on a project slated for the first of 2016. The discussion that came about ended up mostly about the technical law as opposed to the moral question that I was interested in; but if that's what people want to talk about who am I to complain?

Lobster Monster Banner

Anyway I got to thinking about my Lobster Monster banner that I've used for the majority of my blog's life and decided that it was time for a change. The new banner which I've taken to calling Downtown Dyvers is an image that I made using paint.net and a half dozen pictures from 1910-ish. Combining them together to create the banner was a lot of fun and it just kind of fits what I think Dyvers is becoming. It's a bit busy, a hodgepodge of lots of stuff, and the most interesting people are all going their own way.

I may, eventually, go back to a new version of the Lobster Monster banner in the future but if I do it will be different in some substantial ways. It needs to be because the blog is growing and changing into something better. The audience is growing daily and I want that banner to reflect the changes that are happening both with them and with me. 

Pretentious? 

Maybe. 

Downtown Dyvers Banner

Either way I like it, though I think that the word Dyvers may need to go to a pure white. Time will tell as I need to look at it on the blog for a bit before I make the call. Anyway, I hope you all like the new background, link colors, and banner.
at 6 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Is It Cool If I Pirate This? Come On! You Haven't Been Selling It for, Like, 5 Whole Minutes!


Here's the deal. 

I'm reading the U.S. Copyright Code right now for a project that, hopefully, will be launching on January 1, 2016 so that I can keep myself and my team on the safe and legal side of things. It's about as fun to read as taking a hammer and dropping it on your bits while watching a Congressional Hearing about Congressional Hearings. Yet it brought up these two questions in my mind:
1.) There is a thing that you want to download from the internet. There are no avenues available for you to purchase it from a first party vendor, like Steam or Amazon, and you can only find it in secondary markets (such as used bookstores) and as scans/downloads online. The original intellectual property owners are long since gone and there is, apparently, no one in possession of the IP and no licensing of the the thing in the market (no shirts, books, so forth). Morally, is it okay to download the thing under these circumstances?
A second question:
2.) There is a thing you want to download from the internet. The intellectual property is still owned by a company/individual who makes money off the property but they no longer sell the version of the product you want to download. They have not attempted to make money off the product for a number of years. Like in the above situations there are no avenues available for you to purchase it from a first party vendor, like Steam or Amazon, and you can only find it in secondary markets (such as used bookstores) and as scans/downloads online. Morally, is it okay to download the thing under these circumstances?
Without a doubt if the owner of the copyright has not been dead at least a hundred years (and in many cases 150 years) then the product is not in the public domain - and some things (such as recorded performances of songs) might never pass into the public domain - so in the situations described above nothing that you're contemplating downloading is in the public domain. But there is this whole new thing that has developed in the last few years called abandonware. Which is essentially a situation where the copyright holder has folded and the intellectual property has passed into this realm of limbo where no one, apparently, owns the rights. 

After running this blog for the better part of two years I'm firmly convinced that I have some wildly intelligent and thoughtful readers. So I'm turning to you for help because I'm struggling with my own answers to these questions and I'd love to hear your thoughts on them.  

I'll be here, waiting. 


[Edited on 4/8/2015  at 4:12 PM EST to add the word "Morally" at the beginning of each question to help clarify my questions]
at 10 comments:
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

WTF is CHORF

CHORF is an acronym coined by Brad R. Torgersen to describe the worst sort of fans. The term actually stands for Cliquish, Holier-than-thou, Obnoxious, Reactionary, Fanatics. Unlike terms such as SMOF there is no good side to being labeled with this term. 

A person who is a CHORF is specifically trying to prevent others from enjoying the topic that they profess to enjoy. Their group of friends and accepted acquaintances/allies are the only true fans. They often administer 'tests' that are designed to force someone to prove that they're a real fan (think of the kid who confronts you at a comic convention demanding that you answer them when they ask, "What happened in issue 12 of Green Lantern, volume 1, page 7, panel 4?"). They express a superiority over others for their self-perceived superior knowledge on the subject. When confronted by any change or imagined threat to their favorite subject they react with volatility (think of the kids who drop rape and death threats because you suggested that maybe a comic book cover shouldn't pose the women in sexually suggestive ways when it's specifically targeted at little girls). 

A CHORF is a complete jerk and is unwelcome anywhere they go.
at 14 comments:
Labels: , ,

WTF is SMOF?

Recently I've been seeing the term SMOF show up in my feed quite a bit. The acronym was a new one for me so I started researching it to try and understand. After looking into it, it became clear that SMOF stood for Secret Masters of Fandom. 

From what I've been able to ascertain it was coined by Jack L. Chalker, the author of the Well-World novels (which are actually a really good read). This version of the word describes a tongue and cheek conspiracy theory about a secret cabal of science fiction fans who, through their own nefarious means, change the popular tastes and ideas about what constitutes the best in the genre. This appears to have mostly faded into the history of the word. Now it appears that SMOF is often used as a joking way to describe the people who run conventions for nerdy things. When used in this sense it isn't really a pejorative but more of a friendly needling; however, the term has another meaning that is far less kind. In this sense the term is used to describe the sort of boorish, snobbery that tends to characterize those gate keeping schmucks who are constantly delineating who is, and isn't a fan; what constitutes a true fan; and what constitutes the "right-good-fun" as opposed to the "bad-wrong-fun".

The last definition of this word has caused some consternation so recently a new term has been coined by Brad R Torgersen, CHORF, which is being used to separate these jerks from the word.
at 2 comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

The Trouble with War

 Recently I introduced a war into my home game. Two factions aligned against each other and they began fighting in the capital of Bissel, Th...