Well actions are indicative of motives and standards. You are probably a upstanding person and this is all someone elses problem.

A reminder to everyone that in addition to personal attacks, the ToS also preclude trolling, flaming and baiting posts.

Careful now...

In your opinion.



I enjoy the 4th edition for the most part. Those parts I don't enjoy are typically removed and replaced with previous revision or complete rewrites. (house rules are a norm around my games).

The story details are easily malleable into what I need. The stories provided jump start my own creative juices and I work with what I have to create the world that I envision in my mind.

Take the best parts, change the meh parts. and toss the trash out.

I'm still kind of wondering why Vairdic or Tiger Eyes haven't come out to deny criminal wrongdoing re: unreported convention income and fraudulently filed business checks. There are plenty of allegations which they could straight up put to rest without actually disclosing any information. Just, "that's not exactly true," and *poof* suddenly everything changes.

The fact that this hasn't happened, even after weeks of controversy, well, that's certainly something which begs speculation.

I, for one, will miss Frank. He was an asshole, sure. But he was my kind of asshole.

You would have a better point if every thread griping about it in the moderation forum wasn't promptly locked.

Let's play behind the curtain again with Caine H...

Frank generated 28 coutable posts with multiple warnings being doled out in some of those in our little private area. I count at least 6 of those which he was just lead to slide, and in fact his ban came when there were 3 other reports being considered, one of which generated a non-counted warning which was basically, any other slip, no matter how little, would put him over the line... there were 2 reports following that. It doesn't matter how little it was... he knew that the next one was it, he chose to cross the line.

With that out of the way, you can now resume the speculation this thread is supposed to be about. Lets try and keep it on topic..

Yeah, yeah. Frank was banned for being a drama queen. It's lame. Anyway...




Madam Harding?
Monsieur Stansel-Garner?

The only logical conclusions I can draw from your silence regarding the accusations above are either:
1) You don't care enough about the situation to address them - which I don't believe as prior actions don't speak to this.
2) The above accusations are not true, but you refuse to refute them out of spite towards L Coleman - which I don't believe as you've already proven you are principled people.
3) The above accusations are not true, but you are in some way barred from dispelling such rumors - which I don't believe, because that would be complete nonsense.
4) It is totally true. Lorne is a crook and you are barred from speaking to the fact for several reasons. This is my currently held belief, and until someone with such first hand knowledge, such as yourselves dispels my belief, I will hold to it.

Well, there's option 5 too. They haven't read the most recent posts yet to answer the questions.

Yes, but those accusations were in the original post. Paragraph 1, post 1, page 1, thread 1

The accusations, sure. I was referring more to your options/questions.

It'd be very surprised if it didn't result in SR5. RPG companies don't have a history of surviving massive fraud by founding members, and Topps is unlikely to have a sense of humor about royalty payments not being made due to owners of the company getting a 5 fingered discount on noticeable quantities of stock.



This is wrong. If you want to see why it is wrong, all you have to do is subject a level X warrior and a level X wizard to the 'same game test' a series of CR X challenges. If the warrior wins less than 50% XOR the wizard wins statistically more than the warrior, then the warrior is underpowered.

Aye, they've likely not read my post yet, but they've certainly read the 1st post or are otherwise aware of the accusations being floated around.

In that case, it's covered by option 1, "just don't care," which M. Harding has already proven not to be the case on her end through taking time to clarify her own actions and interactions concerning Randall Bills.

Maybe they will address my logic and dismiss it, however until they do, I feel it is the strongest model for the situation. Said model being that LLC is an outright thief who would compulsively steal from his friends, Randall Bills tried to help cover it up to avoid embarrassment, and the people who are in the position to level such claims against them are bound by legal agreement not to talk about it.

Or maybe they have moved on?

To be statistically significant you need 10,000 samples.
The warrior does have a problem, WILL save or die situations, but that is just IMO.

In regards to Saint Sithney's assertions...
You live long enough and you come to the conclusion that there are three sides to any dispute, side A, side B, and in the middle actual events that transpired. In any criminal case the least effective evidence is that of the eye witness. You take enough witness statements and you accept this as fact and not merely truth.

However, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

I hate arguing "X Class is better than Y" in terms of PnP RPGs, but for the love of all that is holy, don't use technical terms, in misleading ways. You can have a mathematical significant with as much as 2 (!!!!) test subjects. While significant, it will not be very valid, though. Test validity (value) and significance have nothing to do with each other. If you were aiming for a "gaussian distribution" of your data points, then say so, but even that can be achieved with as much as 30 test subjects.

On the other hand, if you use 10,000 samples, you will get a signicant result on pretty much ANYTHING! The expression of your difference, however could so small as to be irrelevant. That's why you need to compare the means as well, not just look for significance.

tldr: Large sample sizes are bullshit! Amp up the sample size enough and you will get a significant result on anything. That's why scientific studies don't do that. That's why pollster do it. It causes me headaches that the general populace still thinks "the larger the better" when it comes to sample sizes...

Option 6: There are a number of complex legal issues at play here and people recognize that it's only appropriate to speak for themselves, their motivations, and what they directly witnessed. Tiger Eyes has explicitly refused to comment on some things, repeat hearsay, etc. It's responsible, appropriate and frankly, the smart thing to do.

Sorry to come in late, but I wanted to answer this real quick. We have actually drafted and agreed upon on adendum to the ToS that forbids posting of personal information such as addresses and phone numbers for example.

As for the locked discussions, those threads could have been locked once the original post was made, which did come up in discussion. The thread degenerated beyond usefulness so it was locked.

Again, sorry for the interjection, but I wanted the answers to these questions in the same thread they were asked. Please keep discussion about moderation issues to the appropriate forum.

If you want to do that you could certainly write a monte carlo simulation and run it 10,000 times with no problems at all. Alternatively you can just calculate probabilities and achieve the same effect. I think it is pointless to do A when you can do B.

Incidentally, you do not need 10,000 samples, I have no idea why you would think that.



Is a good place to start - CR 5 encounters.

Actually, that's not a good place to start because encounters are roughly balanced (as is the entire game, for that matter) from CR 5 - CR 12.

As to Frank being a med student. I know PLENTY of doctors, I work with them every day. Most of them are egotistical assholes. God forbid you have to tell them they are wrong (worst of all as a nurse, they can write a patient off). But you know what? They still have professional integrity with their patients.

I personally would much rather have a smart doctor than a nice doctor. But I think we would all prefer to have both.

Sorry for my silence this week. I just accepted a position as an HR & Finance manager for a gaming company this week. I'm sure everyone can understand how hectic your first week at a new job can be!

I can't speak for David, but as for myself, I have decided to devote my energies more productively to succeeding at my new position than to continuing to dwell on what happened in my past position. Urgru has a very valid and good point. I am moving on and focusing on what the future holds.

I remain a huge SR fan, play in a weekly SR game, and hope to continue to be a writer for the game line. I consider many current and past writers good friends and look forward to working with them on more cool and fun projects in the future. I mean, hey, I have to finish the Netcat and Pistons searching for Puck story... and Slamm-0! hasn't been forgotten, either...

Just a Note, But we are Way Off Topic Here, but I just wanted to reply...

Except that you now have to create a baseline for the Tested Characters...

What Level?
1st Level?
5th Level?
8th Level?
15th Level?
20th Level?

Which Equipment?

Oh, and which Edition?
Basic
ADD?
ADD2?
Add2.5?
3rd?
3.5?
4th?

All of this makes a difference... In my estimation, 20th Level Characters will always win against those pesky CR5 encounters, regardless of
Class... while 2nd Level Characters will have some difficulty... Casting Limits for a spellcaster make a difference when compared to the combat abilities of a Fighter... Spell Availability vs. Weapon Choice? This is Important as well... Also, please remember that Encounters are balanced against a PARTY of 4 characters (From 3rd on at least)... Change the party size, and the CR encounters change dramatically...

So, It obviously becomes a lot more complex than you are initially letting on...

Keep the Faith

Did you read my post?



I thought it was obvious that X should be the same in all parts of the equation, my apologies if it was not.

As we are discussing 'Challenge ratings' this implies 3rd or 3.5. Either is acceptable.



No, the win percentage changes. There is a mathematical relationship between CR and Level. Now obviously some characters will have trouble with some encounters and not others, which is why you look at average win percentage across a number of different challenges.



In 3/3.5 wealth per level is in the DMG. I do not have the page number handy.

If you aren't worried about being statistically significant, then no you don't.

Yes...



My point is that "X" could be anything from 1 to 20+, and that is an important part of the equation... If X is 1, then everyone loses... If X is 20, then everyone wins... the fact that it is a sliding scale means that for anything meaningful, you have to actually choose "X"



Exactly... but 1 against the CR is going to make the Challenge much more difficult than 4 against a particular CR... which was my point... the Challenge (and thus the mathematical formula) changes in direct proportion to the number of characters that oppose it.. so if a Single opponent goes up against the CR, then it is a more challenging fight, and the parity between the encounter and the character is altered...



No, I understand that, but some gear is more powerful than other gear in the books (even within the given proce ranges), and some is more useful than others... which is entirely the point here... you can have sub-optimal gear chosen vs. optimal gear... so, which do you choose... I can probably pretty much guarantee that my ideas of what will be important will vary drastically from your idea... so for meaningful comparison, consensus must be reached to equip the characters towards parity if the resulting percentages are to mean anything...

Anyways...

Keep the Faith

I think you're missing the X against the CR as well, or maybe I'm not understanding what you mean. e.g. you put a level 5 character through CR 5 challenges, and a level 15 character through CR 15




Yes, win percentage drops to 50. I noted this in my original post? I am not clear what you are not understanding here?




Sure! I am not sure why this is important, just as long as you remember it when you run the tests. I'm not going to run them for you, and the results need to have value for you as well.



Err, you can be statistically significant (95%) with a sample size of 10 in some circumstances (e.g. someone correctly calling a coin toss 10 times in a row). Why would I need to run 10,000 tests in those circumstances?

Excuse me, i don't speak Cancer. Someone wanna translate that to Sprawl-Speak?

Guys, the DnD has gone WWWAAAYYYY off topic. Please open a thread in general gaming and continue the discussion there.

Point Taken, Caine Hazen...

Keep the Faith

Oh, did Frank get banned because of an attack on me? If so, that's twice now.

Yes, I viewed his response to me as an attack. Nearly everything Frank posted included an attack, though most of what he said was accurate though imprecise and was clearly the result of an owner or other involved person funneling him information. He was still unpleasant to interact with and read, though the information in his posts served a good purpose from the perspective of generating a large community discussion.

(FWIW, I recall the argument at ENWorld as one about damage output. There were crazy corner-case builds of 3.0 (this was pre-3.5) fighters that could dish over 600 points to a single target at twentieth level counting all iterative attacks. He attempted (again, IIRC) to redefine the conversation and was incredibly insulting while doing so, and the conversation went downhill from there. That he came to the then-small ENWorld with a rep from the WotC boards - which were wild, uncontrolled wildernesses filled with feral children in comparison - didn't help.)

- Ket

I can see other people not liking his posting style.
Me, myself and i, we all thoroughly enjoy his postings.
Especially since we have to excercise not insubstantial ammounts of self control most of the time to not post like him for exactly that reason.
I cope by usually going for the silly postings. But Frank seems to be too serious for that escape route i guess. Don't know how often i got warnings & bans over on rpg.net for similar postings . .

Good to hear. I hope this works out for you.
I think/hope all others leaving CGL will also find a Job, maybe even with a new license holder for SR.

Actually i believe chances for freelancers getting payed in a regular fashion will also be much higher with a new licensee.

Congratulations Tiger Eyes...

Here's to seeing more about Netcat...

Keep the Faith

Really glad to hear that, on all acounts (new job, moving on, and hopefully continuing with SR). Congrats.

Congratulations on your new job. I'm happy to have worked with you, and I think you still owe me some cookies

Looking forwards to reading more SR material from you.

Lars

went OT sorry.

Congratulations on your new job. And I would like to read more about Slamm-0! and Netcat.

Thanks. I hate it when good sub plots fall to the wayside because of Real Life. Congratulations!

Who wrote that bit about Netcat finding her Net Cat?

So, are you saying that, if you knew you would be paid on time, you would continue freelancing for the current company and line developer?
(Asking because I am curious, and I like what stuff shows up that I believe is yours)

Gratz on the new job Ms. Harding. Good to see you've bounced back from your previous troubles.

Other artists haven't, though ...

I appreciate that Frank Trollman broke the story on Loreman, and the information he provided helped me choose not to support Shadowrun anymore. If I had known that FASA and Fanpro were not paying the Freelancers I would have never bought all the books I did. A company shouldnt be helped out if they do not pay their employees.

PS
Frank is actually posting on another forum whinning how unfair his ban was over here on DS, and galvanizing the board on his unfair treatment over on DS. Yes, I believe that he probably had a few moderators who hated him and would censure him more than someone else. But in all fairness Frank insulted someone in each post he made. He attacked someones faith, insulted someones intelligence and the list goes on.

So Frank, please stop acting the martyr and his followers take a chill pill, he provoked to get his ban.

And she certainly didn't take the opportunity to dismiss any aspect of the current interpretation of events.
Not that she would need to with ketjak confirming the overall accuracy of the picture of events..

Oh well, I wish all the other payroll peoples a stress-free search for pleasant employment.

Guys let's please keep moderation topics to the Bugs/News forum section.

Guys let's please keep moderation topics to the Bugs/News forum section.

In all fairness, Jason Hardy is trying to get them paid ('them' including himself). As all real matters, this is not black or white.

To be fair though... one should acknowledge that several posters here are more than willing to provoke Frank to get him in trouble.

When I used to moderate other boards, one my posted rules was if you egged someone on to violate TOS, you were equally as guilty. It helped to keep the members in check. Before you ask, US legal code in many jurisdictions refer to this as being an accomplice / complicit in the act.

Online and in forums communities it's called "Flame-baiting"