ANIMALS...?

You know what I love? The sudden appearance of unidentified black goo. Take that, Alaska!

Also, just for fun: The amazing lizard that swims in sand. Lizards have a good track record for being neat, it seems.

Satellites

While browsing Planet Simpson again, I found the exchange on the show that best displays what I think of other nerds:

Comic Book Guy: Last night's "Itchy & Scratchy" was, without a doubt, the worst episode ever. Rest assured that I was on the Internet within minutes, registering my disgust throughout the world.
Bart: Hey, I know it wasn't great, but what right do you have to complain?
Comic Book Guy: As a loyal viewer, I feel they owe me.
Bart: What? They're giving you thousands of hours of entertainment for free. What could they possibly owe you? If anything, you owe them.
Comic Book Guy: [pauses] Worst episode ever.

(From "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show")

Cinderland

Hey, I got sunburns on my arms. Fuck you.

I started a book! Hopefully I can finish it.

I also started playing Ogre Battle recently. I quite like it still, and its good to play a strategy-RPG that doesn't follow the FF Tactics mold, while still maintaining the customization aspect that makes me go OCD. It's a different kind of strategy involved, too - almost reminds of a board/card game-style game.
I am running into some problems, though. One, and this is an issue I didn't really have any time I played this before, but I am finding that managing some of those little factors can be very stressful. Stuff like Alignment and Reputation can be screwed up quickly and shut you out of various game options (especially classes, AND ESPECIALLY female unit classes, of which you have little choice in). On one hand, it's a neat balancing idea - it discourages players from making one unit too strong and just plowing through the game, although you can still do that. But one thing can lead to another, and now many of my units that would need high alignment to upgrade are not there yet, and my reputation is rock-bottom and I have no idea how to get it back up. Oh well.

That's Not Me

A narcissistic aside: My message board alter ego is mentioned on this lovely 1UP.com podcast featuring lovely 1UP people (that's 6/22/2009), at about 25 minutes in (but you can wait while the good folks talk about other things, surely?). The ribbing I got I will take like a man.

So, with death in the news recently, I really must ask: when it comes to well-known people biting it, which was a better: this month, or this time last year?

June 2009 leads in sheer volume: David Carradine kills himself while jerking off to start off the summer, and then Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, Michael Jackson, and now Billy Mays (why is he mentioned alongside everyone else? Fuck if I know) all expire within days of each other. There really is no competition here.

But what about in quality? This designation is a bit more contentious. June 2008 had the deaths of three giants: Bo Diddley, George Carlin, and Stan Winston (he is a major figure for nerds, you see). The major ones, BD and Carlin, I'd say at least come close to equaling the entirety of this month's stiffs, they being examples of superior human beings. Sure, a lot more people are probably sad to see Jackson or McMahon go (and not to diminish the work of either, although Jackson was far far far far far far past his prime), but my personal bias (and objective fact) say that last year's stiffs can edge 'em out. Note: Billy Mays is a non-factor.

How about the shock factor? This also gives the edge to this month, because the thing about last year was that, while losing those people was incredibly sad, they were all old, and its not like we don't think anyone past 70 isn't as good as dead (Winston is the exception). So, while McMahon falls under this, the rest of them were still unexpected. Bonus points for Carradine's bizarre wanking death in Bangkok, of all places.

My decision? Well, most of the facts point to this month being the better of the two months worth of deaths, but my own personal opinions still point me in favour of last year. Surely, that is what will determine it for most people. Who can stay objective in a field such as this?

Nobody's Fault But My Own

Here's something that's been nagging at me: Am I mean online for no reason?

Just as a preface, I can tell you straight away that my online 'voice' is not really much like my real 'voice'. Shocking, I know. As far as I can tell, my voice is based on my main sources of reading, which is very acerbic and opinionated, as well as prone to non sequiturs. While the non sequitur part is recognizably me, I can say that the rest only exists within my everyday speech as vague attempts, which I am prone to stumble over (much like everything else). Since online writing gives me more time to think over my words, it ends up sounding a lot cleaner than IRL.

In conclusion, I am a lot more caustic online than I am in real life. Is this the dreaded anonymity protection concept, where I feel free to be an asshole because it lacks real consequences? It is a definite possibility, I must say. Then again, I don't think I've ever had a real forum where I could speak of the same things - but, that could be because I just avoid them, out of fear. I try to assert myself when the opportunity pops up, but I'm still not sure its on the same level as I do in an online discussion. So I am not discounting that solution, it being one of the obvious ones. But there's got to be something more to it, surely? I still have some level of caution that makes it so even the great anonymity shield isn't enough to make me feel safe to express myself all of tume. So what other reasons could there be?

It could be that I am raging against the world I see, whether or not an it's appropriate setting for that rage. I know a lot of people say they think everything kinda sucks now, but I have come to observe many things that do really infuriate me on some level, to the point that even mild cases get me riled up. So I might be mean because I am just SO FUCKING MAD. But really, I don't think I am, at least not all the time. I mean, when it comes to certain issues (for example, my hatred of rampant proud ignorance that is, like fear-free posting, a trademark of online discussion) it really gets me in righteous fury mode, but in the smaller cases, is it really justified? Am I just making up an issue so I can get mad about it? I'd say that's a possibility, too.

At this point, I can say that I have answered my initial question. I am not mean online for no reason: I am mean online (possibly) because (a)I read a lot of things that are mean online and emulate them, (b)I feel free to be mean online because wheeeee nothing is gonna stop me, and (c)I have things that get me mad, and I sometimes carry that sense of anger into all sorts of conversations. Well, that's the one side of the 'why'; the psychological half. But what about the practical half? Is there really any reason for me to be mean online? What does it get me?

A lot of my reads grapple with this question as well. After all, as the tired cliche goes, you catch more dopes with free food than a punch in the face. But do I really want to 'catch' them? Do I really go out to convert a ton of people to my 'side'? I think that's the crux of the practicality argument, and this is where I really disagree with it.

A lot of people think that you're never going to educate anyone by being snarky. But is that really true? For one, addressing an issue on a more emotional level can grab attention, and I'd say that's a pretty essential step in a persuasive argument. That's huckstering tactics used often by the lowest of the low, I know, but I can't say it doesn't work. Second, going for an emotional response has a greater chance of getting the audience to know the issue at hand, which is ALSO an important part of a persuasive argument. It doesn't matter if they like me, or what my take is, but if they get the IDEA, that's a good thing, and even better if (even if only for a short while) I get the person to really take that idea and think about what it means. To paraphrase Alan Moore (to a considerable degree): I don't care if they agree with me, as long as they think about what I say.

But, one may ask, wouldn't the anger bit get in the way of that goal? If someone just sees you as a ranting, opinionated jackass, won't they just ignore what you have to say completely? Yes, more than likely, that will happen. Just look at PETA, who are so completely out there that any legitimate issues they may have (and they do have some) are completely smothered by provocation. On the other hand, going completely neutral on a subject likely won't get you anywhere as well, as people will just gloss over the entire thing like a weather report. It's a difficult task figuring out what level of ferocity is needed to attract attention without making you the spectacle rather than the issue.

On a more personal note, I don't like the argument because I don't think I should water down who I am and what I believe just so I can be appealing. I mean, we're all bound to do that, as it comes naturally, I think. But, especially when dealing with something very important to me, asking me to not actually share my opinions just feels wrong. I am intelligent enough to know when to apply temperance, and I am completely willing to use trial-and-error to figure out how to do this right, so don't be telling ME what's the right way to get MY views across. Not only that, but do you really think I'm less likely to engage an audience by showing how something really makes me feel (and thus allowing them to see what the weight of the topic might be) instead of treating the argument like some hashed-together high school science project, or compromising my view to such a degree that it loses all impact, and goes for the tiny and easier victories over the more difficult and important ones? I know the people who want the mean guys to tone it down often have good intentions, but good intentions don't always lead to good results.

In the end, I am more willing to stay myself and be able to reach a few than I am to compromise and have a vague hope that I've reached more. I want people to know what I think, that I'm not afraid to say what I think, and that I want them to know why I think that way. If that makes me come across as mean, spiteful, ranting, crazy, whatever...so be it. If that causes a few to ignore me completely, so be it (chances are they are just as convinced of their position as I am of mine, so trying to preach to them them is about as worthless as preaching to the choir). I refuse to constantly play nice so that I can possibly score a few more points. It's just not who I am (online...and hopefully offline as well).

Mutilated Lips

I find this amusing.

This may also be a challenge to my friends, BTW.

Movie Theme

You know what I haven't done in a while? Made a post that just linked to something amusing, a standard among blogs. Guess what I'm not going to be doing. Come on, guess.

I like summer. I like warm weather, and the outdoors being inviting. You know what I don't like, though? Constant, creeping heat. I've tried many things to get my room to cool down a tad, none of them working. I'm very picky, as you can see: I like heat, but only when it's working FOR me.

The End

You don't actually want me to talk about video games, do you? Good, because I won't. I'll take about tabletop games instead.

I've been reading card game rules for a while now, trying to find the intricacies of the game mechanics. The best ones always have that one ingenious thing about them, stuff like Lord of The Rings' Free Peoples/Shadow concept, or Doomtown's poker hand decisions, or even Shadowfist's general chaotic atmosphere. You don't necessarily need a great innovative mechanic to make your game good, but it does mean games of the 'Russian fist fighting' variety need to really try hard to be interesting. And some have: I mean, Magic did it, and Raw Deal did it. And for the unpretentious, there have been a few successful bare-bones games, like Pokemon. But the challenge is trying to make it seem like a game of its own, and not just a rehash of another game, or even worse, a game you could easily make just using a deck of playing cards.

As an example: one of the newer games on the block (and one with an innovative distribution method, something for game publishers to consider in modern times), Decipher's Fight Klub falls into RFF. How does it fair? It does have some interesting elements to it (some of them borrowed from Decipher's other games, even the names), and it is obviously going for the Raw Deal style. I can't say its the greatest game ever (or that it really lends itself to new ideas being implemented), but it should be enjoyable for those who pick it up, and I guess it works well with the new sale model it's trying. My only other complaint would be that the cards look like a photoshopped mess at times...a real shame considering the high quality of Decipher's card design in the past.