Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Callan S.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 44
1
General Misc. / Re: Quick Blade S-rank Killers
« on: April 26, 2018, 12:27:36 am »
But then the next time a wizard goes by, you'll wonder what it would have lead to and you'll never know! >:)

2
General Misc. / Re: Quick Blade S-rank Killers
« on: April 24, 2018, 02:23:30 am »
Brutal!

And now an update: New Meat

It's got new cook options and a career kills board. Fancy surviving and escaping after being stabbed? Now you can buy escape supplies and the longer you live, the higher your career kills goes, even if you are defeated! Or fancy staying in the fight for longer? Buy slog and have at that S-rank a second or even third time! And fight your way through enough S-rank and you can increase your bounty multiplier!


Notes: I have this vague idea of the Skinner earning coin towards some kind of base building and expansion, creating their own band of skinners. Then maybe being hired by a wizard to do some side work the wizard needs as he travels...

3
General Misc. / Re: Quick Blade S-rank Killers
« on: April 19, 2018, 12:37:50 am »
Just letting you know I have the current high score.
Is that 23? It gets pretty tough as it slowly dials up the enemies reaction speed over time. Considering some kind of health system for missed clicks and to cap the reaction increase at a certain point and just make it random.

4
General Misc. / Re: Quick Blade S-rank Killers
« on: April 19, 2018, 12:33:42 am »
How is it? I keep forgetting about it lol.

This is actually a new game with the same themes - this one is a rapid reflex test, the other was a resource management game. I wanted to test a model of play that had rapid engagement, as another game with a similar model had done well.

So in this game is very quick - when the sign says 'Kill' click or hit space and see if you can beat its reaction speed.

Granted, for now it ends in doom eventually.

5
General Misc. / Quick Blade S-rank Killers
« on: April 18, 2018, 02:59:41 am »
Quick Blade S-rank Killers

A second derivative game, this one based more on a reflex test! A play takes as little as 30 seconds.

I suspect I borked up the score code in the last project, since not a single score has been shown. Hope to see the high scores working in this one.

6
General Misc. / Small derivative game in development
« on: March 19, 2018, 11:15:34 pm »
A small game inspired by the SA books. You're hunting S-rank for the bounties. It's certainly not a triple A studio game. A simple combat system of attack, block and strong block or after you've played active for awhile there's an idle option. But I am looking to develop more opponents and levels and then perhaps a greater setting event/story event also derived from the SA books. If people play it'll show it's on the right track and it's worth extending the track. Basically it also works as a medium for advertising the SA books as well.

I'm not quite sure if the tutorial links properly to the main game - if worst comes to worst, you can refresh the game and at the start press 's' to skip the tutorial.

S-rank Skinners

7
Author Q&A / Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« on: August 13, 2017, 04:41:43 am »
MGM,

Quote
Please stop the soap box antics.  You have basically ignored every major point I've responded with.

Maybe it's just that. And in regards to what I say, that you're reading my example uncharitably, could that be the case?

Or only I could be doing 'soap box antics', but you could not be falling into any similar habit? Only the other guy, me, could be doing something wrong, not you?

If you want to tell others they've done wrong but not consider you might have done wrong, then it's just a question of whether the forum involved enables your trolling. It really is trolling to say others are doing something wrong, but not consider you could be too.

I've said 'Maybe' to your charge of soap boxing. Can you say 'maybe' to my charge you've read and replied uncharitably? (Edit: and at the start of your post, like I did, because we're not going to enable one way listening/advertising here). If not, you're trolling. I don't know why you think you think you're better and can tell others they've done something wrong, but you don't have to say you'll consider you've done something wrong - you're not our peer? I would prefer moderation to step in at that point, rather than enabling someone to tell others they are doing something bad but plug their ears to hearing they are doing something bad.

If I'm ignoring all your points, if you actually say 'Maybe' to the idea you've read and replied uncharitably, we'll see if I ignore that.

In regards to moderation: Yeah, I don't think someone acting like they are not everyone else's peer in how they feel they can judge others without considering judgements apply to them...I don't think that's social behavior. If you're gunna judge, you've gotta be able to openly consider judgements laid toward you. Something that Voxday or acrackedmoon would never do, o/c.

8
Author Q&A / Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« on: August 10, 2017, 01:54:47 am »
MGM,

Quote
Or at least refer to the example I made earlier with people renting out their rooftops to look into arena events.  Is that wrong?
I already said yes. It was the first thing I said in reply. At most the concert providers have accepted people who already live there will look out of their windows. Adding more people doing that without talking with the concert providers (particularly at a profit) - well, what do you call it when people do things without actually asking permission first? At the very least, its the mark of people who do not work together. People who want to eat the bread but put no effort into baking it. Freeloaders.

I have no idea why you raise 'risks' of trespass as being a point of difference. Because an author wont come and personally defend their income in the same way as you defending your home - with potential lethal force? Sounds like you think you have teeth in regards to trespass, but the author does not - so it's different to you because of the level of potential violence.

Quote
If the problem is merely that it's wrong to "get into a book without paying" then going to a bookstore and looking through books is wrong.

Depends if it's legal. Also you can't read it properly/to it's full extent. I once saw a guy who I suspect had a photographic memory scanning the pages of a technical book in a store. Yes, I'd say he was wrong to do that. But it's so edge case I'm not going to go on about that one.

Quote
Ok so am I morally obligated to compensate someone everytime external stimuli modifies my brain?

Right after I've said 'modified in a way you could not have without the author' you repeat it in this severed version - this is disingenuous argument. Then giving a completely off topic example - as if pirates are just walking down the street and then someone keeps flashing the words of a book at them or something. As if they didn't seek out the modification. You've got multiple red flags here of just blocking out huge chunks of what is being said to you - it really is coming off as a rationalising Yar.

Are you just here to advertise an ideology? To be listened to but offer no listening in exchange for that? I wont bother reading the rest if it's a commercial. And me saying that will be the mark of the advertiser. As soon as they aren't listened to they leave in a huff (with little effort even put into that) because that's all they were there for to begin with. To have ears while their own were closed. Getting listening for free. More freeloading, hidden under a guise of genuine discussion. Kellhus-like.

Or maybe you'll put effort into listening and take my example as any amount of charity would show it - that you can't get your brain modified without the author and if you sought to do so then you owe her or him the exchange they seek. I hope it's this - I hope I just went on a questioning rant about advertisers as a false positive and I'm wrong on that and just look silly for ranting. I'd rather be wrong. That's why I raised it as a question, rather than an advertisement of fact.

9
Author Q&A / Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« on: August 10, 2017, 12:57:11 am »
I never said it was specifically directed towards you, MH. But it was a charitable reading - just saying 'Piracy or theft of IP or copyright infringement, is legally called..infringement.' as if it was just a technical observation and was nothing to do with MGM's argument - well, that would be a non sequitur given the discussion before that point. A kind of random thing to say if it doesn't actually weigh in on any side or make an argument. Currently it feels like you're weighing in for for the 'theft/pirating is different' argument, by the way you're saying things which try to outline differences between theft/pirating.

Quote
I see some merit to both sides, but that loss of a sale, whether through theft or infringement, is a loss to the creator. That part didn't count?

You'd said it's a loss to the creator...OR someone might want to try before they buy...or they might not have the money to buy it. What does 'or' mean there, but 'it's a loss...or it's actually something else'?

If you're saying it's a loss and that's it, then there is no 'or it's something else'.
It was indeed a random thing, and a technical observation because I strongly believe that understanding (which does not mean agreeing with!) each other comes first through making sure we all know what we're talking about.
It was indeed a clarification or a technical observation.
Said technicality is not a reason, certainly not my reason, to handwave the argument away. It's sole purpose was to clarify. Semantics matters when discussing something. Especially when it involves legal labels.
I don't think you're getting that we aren't discussing semantics, we are deciding semantics.

We're deciding what things will get you locked up in prison. It's like we've got someone lined up in front of a firing squad but you're trying to argue he's being shot for infringement, not theft. In the old days they'd hang you for murder or stealing an apple - murder aint stealing, but being hung for both makes drawing a difference kind of pointless. Semantic arguments are pointless unless we get down to physical outcomes. Like Cnaiur says to Moenghus, he is lettered - that he complains about the slaver killing his slaves or the husband striking his wife. "But. You! Do! Nothing!". A conversation that goes into 'do nothing' semantics is stonewalling.

Quote
As to the latter half of your message. I don't see all of that as mutually exclusive. Piracy is a loss of a sale that should have rightfully taken place. Piracy also happens, sometimes, because people want to try before they buy. Or because they are <insert other reason>.
One thing is to establish WHAT something is. The other is WHY do people do it. That's not an either/or situation. They are totally different things, but can be discussed together.
They can't be discussed together - they are two different subjects. When you say 'It's a loss of sale...or it's X', that's making it one subject. "The light switch can be on or it can be off" makes on or off part of the same subject.

Quote
I'm not trying to be antagonizing but Im not blind to your annoyance with me so I will show myself the door.
Well you're putting words/emotions in my mouth there, after making your argument then saying you're leaving after having made it. Making it a one way communication where I am to listen but not be listened to. These aren't exactly positive things to do. At best I think you're confusing straight talk for annoyance.

10
Author Q&A / Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« on: August 09, 2017, 09:54:32 am »
I never said it was specifically directed towards you, MH. But it was a charitable reading - just saying 'Piracy or theft of IP or copyright infringement, is legally called..infringement.' as if it was just a technical observation and was nothing to do with MGM's argument - well, that would be a non sequitur given the discussion before that point. A kind of random thing to say if it doesn't actually weigh in on any side or make an argument. Currently it feels like you're weighing in for for the 'theft/pirating is different' argument, by the way you're saying things which try to outline differences between theft/pirating.

Quote
I see some merit to both sides, but that loss of a sale, whether through theft or infringement, is a loss to the creator. That part didn't count?

You'd said it's a loss to the creator...OR someone might want to try before they buy...or they might not have the money to buy it. What does 'or' mean there, but 'it's a loss...or it's actually something else'?

If you're saying it's a loss and that's it, then there is no 'or it's something else'.

11
Author Q&A / Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« on: August 09, 2017, 01:31:43 am »
Can people stop trying to act as if a pirating/theft 'distinction' is the real crux of their argument? There are fines or imprisonment for pirating. There are fines or imprisonment for theft. If people were arguing there should be no fines or imprisonment for pirating, it'd make some sense to argue that distinction. But as is, it has nothing to do with your argument, you're just insisting pirating can just happen and that's okay, even as it's pointed out bluntly to you that it gets fines and potential imprisonment.

You suffer a fairly nasty penalty for either of them if caught. See the equivalence?

We call it theft as a reference to 'you get fines or imprisonment for this if caught'. Because we agree that should happen - if you're sitting in prison but saying 'Ah ha, but I'm not here for theft, I'm here for infringement!' and you think it makes a difference, at best it's silly.

Quote
And there's the group of ppl that pirate because they don't have enough money to buy all the content/media they want.
No, that's an example of a sampling effect. People don't pirate because they lack money. People might steal food if starving, but when they lack money that doesn't somehow drive them to pirate.

12
Author Q&A / Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« on: August 08, 2017, 07:49:59 pm »
ER, like MGM, you seem to not see yourself in the equation. You are having your brain stimulated by the media. Massaged, if you will. It doesn't matter if the medium is duplicatable, the service is occurring and it's freeloading to get the service without paying.

Why do you think you deserve the service for free? At least in this society - if you felt we should all live in a society where everyone is supported and we get easy duplications for free, I could see that as making some sense (because the author would be supported, because everyone would be supported)

But when people aren't supported and go without, why do you think you can argue you don't have to go without? Why should the author go without, but you don't have to?

Isn't it just an argument to saddle others with poverty for your own benefit? The sort of thing we accused wallstreet of during the GFC and hated them for it?

13
Author Q&A / Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« on: August 08, 2017, 07:53:18 am »
If someone sneaks into a performance, do you feel that's legitimate and not theft? You seemed an advocate for performances before, so I'm guessing you don't advocate for sneaking into them....

(click to show/hide)
....So, do you think sneaking into performances is okay? Surely nothing is taken if you sneak into a performance?
The problem with sneaking into a concert is the actual trespassing.  I'm not advocating trespassing.  Aside from that I don't see a problem.  A close example to that would be how people rent out their rooftops so that people can look into stadiums.  I have no problem with that.  Do you?

Yes. And what harm is there in trespass, MGM, that you're so against? Isn't trespass like getting to get inside a book and seeing it without paying to get in? Property is just an 'intellectual property' as well, it's made up. How is a property reduced for sneaking onto it and furtively moving around there and experiencing it, eh?

It's like you keep not seeing yourself in the picture here - when you read a book, your brain gets modified. It doesn't matter if 'no physical property is taken', you are getting your brain modified for free in a way you could not do without the author. It seems like, BBT style, you just can't see yourself in all this - you just focus on the physical property.

Quote
You seem to think that just because you equate piracy with theft that I have to agree.  I don't.

Err, you really do. Right now you're just arguing that you just don't have to obey laws. Anyone can say that - and we treat them with some contempt because we get some benefit from following laws and people who don't follow those laws screw up the benefits we get - you're advocating taking from us. People should adapt to laws. You're being worse than the guy that wants to play a boardgame with a group, but wants to cheat at it. In the boardgame piracy and theft are the same - do you want to play with the group and accept the equivalency or go live in the mountains as a hermit? I have to wonder if you avoid social activities where people have to be turfed out if they don't adhere to the rules of the activity.

And suppose a technology comes out tomorrow that stops all pirating. How about adapting to that? You're not advocating for the technology because the technology in this example has cancelled pirating. So what are you advocating? Are you like Saubon, you think you have joined forces with technology, when really it has no loyalty to you at all? You advocate for there being no problem in pirating, but then technology switchbacks and stops pirating - what then, are you going to advocate that pirating was something to stop? If technology enables pirating you advocating pirating, if technology stops pirating you argue against pirating? A puppet?

Again, I think you've just distanced yourself from having to turf out people who don't follow the group activity. It's like we all distance ourselves from the building that kills our meat for us. You don't feel you have to enforce anyone to follow a set of mutual rules and as much you don't feel you have to follow any yourself. That you don't have to equate piracy with theft. Like none of us kill animals to have our meat but still enjoy our meat, you enjoy the benefits of civilization but feel you don't have to enforce or adhere to its rules to do so. Only trespass seems to get to you, to make you feel something wrong is happening. As if only trespass is breaking some kind of rule, but piracy isn't. It's really arbitrary.

14
Author Q&A / Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« on: August 07, 2017, 07:56:24 am »
Quote from:  Callan S
As I understand it libraries participate in a royalty system where the author gets a little bit of money for each lend. Radio stations do the same for songs played.

Gotcha. But, as you pointed out in your next post what about me buying TUC and lending it out to 10 people? Nothing illegal about it, yet people are getting the content for free. This conversation is a circle i believe.

You seem to be saying that where it is legal and permitted by the author to share the content for free that means you can share it in ways that aren't legal and aren't permitted by the author. That makes no sense. How on earth does an example that is legal and permitted make an argument for doing something that is illegal and not permitted?

15
Author Q&A / Re: Midlist Authors & Online Piracy
« on: August 05, 2017, 07:31:23 am »
To clarify here, MGM, you're not just saying people can only spend so much - it's that they can only spend so much and then they can keep getting more than what they've paid for, because they can only spend so much?
I'm a proponent of free markets.  A buyer's position is to buy what's in their best interest.  A seller's position is to entice a buyer to buy the seller's goods.  When those two interests intersect, we have a transaction.  I elaborate a bit on why I view copyrights and piracy unconventionally in a response to some one else below.

If someone sneaks into a performance, do you feel that's legitimate and not theft? You seemed an advocate for performances before, so I'm guessing you don't advocate for sneaking into them?

But to use your own argument, nothing is taken if I sneak into a performance - they were still going to perform. What's wrong with me sneaking in and getting entertained for free? Why is that not legitimate, but the performance that is a book - people can sneak in to that performance and that is okay?

The only argument you've got left is you could buy a book and then lend the physical performance that it is to someone else. But the speed at which that works - one bought copy maybe taking several days to be read, then lent to another, it's slow. If you were advocating 'pirating' by lending bought, singular physical works, I wouldn't really call it pirating (maybe Scott would, dunno. Never know with that guy when it comes to an assumption), thus I use scare quotes.

So, do you think sneaking into performances is okay? Surely nothing is taken if you sneak into a performance?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 44