View Profile: DemoMonkey - D&D, Pathfinder, and RPGs at Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
No Recent Activity
About DemoMonkey

Basic Information

Date of Birth
September 6
About DemoMonkey
Introduction:
I play every game that does not involve trains. Trains are the devil.
About Me:
"Feel free to wax lyrical! "

Brazil...
Where hearts were entertaining June
We stood beneath an amber moon
And softly murmured someday soon...
We kissed...
And clung together
Then...
Tomorrow was another day
The morning found me miles away *
With still a million things to say
Now...
When twilight dims the skies above **
Recalling thrills of our love
There's one thing I'm certain of
Return...
I will...
to old...
BRAZIL.
Location:
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, Earth
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
Mississauga
State:
Ontario
Country:
Canada
Game Details:
Playing D&D 3.5 and 5, running D&D 4 and 5. I am an Edition War Quisling!
My Character:
My character is impeccable. In fact, I think that's what I am going to call the next one I roll. "Impeccable, the Elf Fashionista"

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
60
Posts Per Day
0.06
Last Post
News Digest: Roll20 Gets Big Update, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and Pathfinder 2nd Ed Previews, and more! Thursday, 28th June, 2018 10:35 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
0
General Information
Last Activity
Today 02:41 PM
Join Date
Wednesday, 21st October, 2015
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
My Game Details
Town:
Mississauga
State:
Ontario
Country:
Canada
Game Details:
Playing D&D 3.5 and 5, running D&D 4 and 5. I am an Edition War Quisling!
My Character:
My character is impeccable. In fact, I think that's what I am going to call the next one I roll. "Impeccable, the Elf Fashionista"

Tuesday, 1st May, 2018

  • 09:57 PM - Gradine mentioned DemoMonkey in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    It seems like it might fall more into the "Believe the party whose account and supporting evidence you find most persuasive" category.. which would seem to describe basic common sense. Are you really ready to believe any accusation from any accuser without considering the plausibility of the story or the presence/absence of supporting evidence? By that logic, I could accuse you, someone I've never previously met or otherwise interacted with, of inappropriate or harassing behavior and you would have to believe me. Clearly this dichotomy is nonsense. I think the problem people are having with the dichotomy that DemoMonkey has set up is that he's presenting it as a universal; as if you have to either always believe the accusers or always believe the accused. This struck me as the core of Caliban's concern also. Where DemoMonkey has the right of it is that the dichotomy is true for every individual event. Which isn't to say that everyone literally is choosing to either believe the accusers or believe the accused. But that, in regards to outcomes, at least in the sense that there should be any consequences at all or not, there are really only two sides. So maybe the dichotomy isn't so much about belief as it is about choosing a side. When there are only two outcomes, both of which are mutually exclusive to each other, there is no ability to "not choose a side". Not choosing a side is, in essence, choosing the side of status quo. In this case, that means choosing the side of the accused. Choosing to disbelieve both sides, as long as one is capable of overcoming the severe cognitive dissonance require...
  • 08:24 PM - Doug McCrae mentioned DemoMonkey in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    DemoMonkey There's also the question of quantity of evidence. For me, multiple independent allegations easily crosses my threshold for everyday belief. I believe lots of other things on far less evidence. Sadly, it's not as if sexual harassment is an extraordinary or unlikely occurrence in our society.

Friday, 27th October, 2017

  • 10:26 PM - Hawk Diesel mentioned DemoMonkey in post Monk Weapon
    DemoMonkey I'm not trying to knock on your play style or anything, so I hope you don't take this that way. I definitely get the idea of suspension of disbelief and the DM being an entertainer. But where this particular fudging bothers me is that it basically nullifies player choice. The choices players make are meaningful and should impact the way the game plays. Otherwise, the game becomes more like a railroad where regardless of what players choose, the outcome is the same. Movies are cool and entertaining, and I love me a good storytime, but I play D&D to engage in a new world to explore and experience things through my character. I want my choices to matter in some way. Maybe there are players and groups that are different, that's ok. But my experience as a DM has been that players generally don't like being railroaded or making decisions if in the end it all leads to the same place.

No results to display...
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Friday, 18th May, 2018

  • 08:09 PM - dco quoted DemoMonkey in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    There are really only 3 choices: 1) Always believe the accusers. Result: Roughly 19 times out of 20 you will be on the right side. 1 out of 20, an innocent persons reputation and possibly livelihood will be irreparably damaged. The harassing behaviour is discouraged, at the cost of restricting both some truly undesirable, and some basically harmless, behaviour amongst men. 2) Never believe the accusers unless presented with incontrovertible court-quality proof. Result: 19 times out of 20, you will be siding with the accuser, who will be guilty about 18 of those times. The behaviour is not discouraged, at significant cost of personal freedom and safety for women. 3) Refuse to pass judgement at all. Result: trick question. This option doesn`t exist. By `staying neutral`you are `choosing option 2. So in the end, whether you actually in your heart-of-hearts believe any given allegations are true or not, your reaction to them will be predicated on the result you want to see in the wo...

Friday, 4th May, 2018

  • 06:18 PM - UselessTriviaMan quoted DemoMonkey in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    Like, Pagliaci sad? Dropped your ice cream sad? [AVENGERS SPOILER REDACTED] sad? What level of sad are we talking here? And yes Caliban. I believe any other position is a trivial variation on these two. Some things are binary. However, you can certainly feel free to enumerate your own list of options. Perhaps I am in error. Stranger things have happened. Completely unrelated to everything else on this thread, DAMN YOU DEMOMONKEY. I had, up until your post, completely avoided ANY spoilers for the Avengers: Infinity War movie. Posting such a major damn spoiler a couple of days after the movie's debut? Serious dick move, man. :mad:
  • 12:03 AM - Jeanneliza quoted DemoMonkey in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    "It is the idea it takes multiple women to have the same credibility and benefit of the doubt as any single man feels entitled to that needs to be challenged EVERY TIME, in all venues. It is this double standard that throws things out of balance, and it is so pervasive it often goes unnoticed or unchallenged. Start here, then lets move forward again." That's absolutely fair. So let's establish a basic assumption: Gender should have absolutely no bearing on an accusers credibility, nor on an accused's defense. Fair enough and before I go further I want to add that I appreciate ENWorld, though there have been questionable comments on this thread, I think an effort is being made to treat the topic with respect to all parties. That said, in response to you comment that gender should have no bearing on credibility or defense I can concede that. and now want to take that to the next stage. If gender truly has no bearing, then it should also have no bearing on the inherent need to take precaut...

Thursday, 3rd May, 2018

  • 09:35 PM - Elfcrusher quoted DemoMonkey in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    (Does anybody know if there's a way to clear all multi-quotes within a thread, or do I have to manually hunt them down and uncheck them?) Elfcrusher I think the ubiquity of social media, and the importance of online reputation especially in the "gig" economy, has enormously amplified the damage an accusation can do to someone. And for better or worse the addition of the term "sexual" to an accusation amplifies it's seriousness a dozen times over. To a large extent, public accusation now IS public conviction. It just doesn't carry a prison sentence. On the other hand, the fact that harassment (sexual or otherwise) is bad is so obvious as to be practically a tautology. And unpunished systemic harassment also ruins lives. So my questions - and they are only a discussion starter, I make no pretense to have solutions - is "Do people on both sides of this divide understand there is a COST to their convictions? Is that cost worth the gain they hope to see?" And as a result of that discussion, what...
  • 09:05 PM - Elfcrusher quoted DemoMonkey in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    I’m deeply curious: does the actual percentage of potential false accusations matter to anyone’s conclusions? If it were 1 percent of accusations are false, would the “Innocent until proven guilty” tribe change their minds? How about .01%? How about .0001? If it were 10% of accusations are false, how many of the “Accusers must be believed” tribe change their minds? How about 50%? How about 99%? At what level would certainty or uncertainty trump your ideological stance? What threshold of facts or lack of facts cause you (the general "you") to re-examine what you believe is the best course of action? ... (Fun prediction: Assuming anyone reads this post, both sides of this argument are now going to attack me for supporting the other side.) The mistake you're making is to assume that this has anything to do with which side gets "believed". An article in a paper (or on a web site) is not a trial and a conviction. Yes, this guy (sorry I can't seem to remember his name even thoug...
  • 08:23 PM - DM Magic quoted DemoMonkey in post Hidden
  • 07:34 PM - Dualazi quoted DemoMonkey in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    This does open up the question of: At what point do conventions become responsible for the actions of their guest, when they are not more closely scrutinizing the backgrounds of those guests? One woman, who is a convention organizer, with whom I spoke for the background of this story told me that word gets around, in the world of comic conventions, when guests and creators cause problems. Apparently this is not yet the case in the world of tabletop role-playing game conventions, because there are a growing number of publishers and designers who have been outed for various types of harassing behavior, but are still being invited to be guest, and in some cases even guests of honor, at gaming conventions around the country. The message that this sends to women who game is pretty clear. Yeah, thankfully the message is "witch hunts shouldn't destroy people's careers" it seems, which is a pretty good one on the whole. Convention organizers are under no impetus, nor should they be, to conduct backgro...
  • 04:45 AM - Shasarak quoted DemoMonkey in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    There are really only 3 choices: 1) Always believe the accusers. Result: Roughly 19 times out of 20 you will be on the right side. 1 out of 20, an innocent persons reputation and possibly livelihood will be irreparably damaged. The harassing behaviour is discouraged, at the cost of restricting both some truly undesirable, and some basically harmless, behaviour amongst men. 2) Never believe the accusers unless presented with incontrovertible court-quality proof. Result: 19 times out of 20, you will be siding with the accuser, who will be guilty about 18 of those times. The behaviour is not discouraged, at significant cost of personal freedom and safety for women. 3) Refuse to pass judgement at all. Result: trick question. This option doesn`t exist. By `staying neutral`you are `choosing option 2. Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

Wednesday, 2nd May, 2018


Tuesday, 1st May, 2018

  • 09:32 PM - Gammadoodler quoted DemoMonkey in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    Thank you for explaining. I believe the parameters you describe actually fits Option 2: Never believe the accusers unless presented with incontrovertible court-quality proof. Such as, as you say, multiple eye-witnesses and video. It seems like it might fall more into the "Believe the party whose account and supporting evidence you find most persuasive" category.. which would seem to describe basic common sense. Are you really ready to believe any accusation from any accuser without considering the plausibility of the story or the presence/absence of supporting evidence? By that logic, I could accuse you, someone I've never previously met or otherwise interacted with, of inappropriate or harassing behavior and you would have to believe me. Clearly this dichotomy is nonsense.
  • 09:18 PM - Caliban quoted DemoMonkey in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    Ah. So you consider "incontrovertible" the sticking point? I'm happy to forego that particular word; it isn't the linch-pin of my point. Edit: "court-quality" is. Edit edit: lynchpin? linchpin? lynch-pin? Nope. "Court quality" is ridiculous as well. You aren't really paying attention to what I'm saying, so I'm done with this. Your position is obviously flawed and doesn't apply to me (since I haven't believed 100% of the accusers or the accused in past incidents) and let's just leave it at that.
  • 09:03 PM - Caliban quoted DemoMonkey in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    Thank you for explaining. I believe the parameters you describe actually fits Option 2: Never believe the accusers unless presented with incontrovertible court-quality proof. Such as, as you say, multiple eye-witnesses and video. Nope. "incontrovertible" is a ridiculous requirement for something outside a court of law. Especially things that will always be reported second and third hand, and learned about days, weeks, or months after the fact. And some things will always have a level of uncertainty about them, and you just have to use your best judgement based on your impressions of the people involved, and the known facts about the incident(s). I stand by my statement.
  • 08:52 PM - Caliban quoted DemoMonkey in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    Like, Pagliaci sad? Dropped your ice cream sad? Peter Parker saying "I don't want to go." sad? What level of sad are we talking here? And yes Caliban. I believe any other position is a trivial variation on these two. Some things are binary. However, you can certainly feel free to enumerate your own list of options. Perhaps I am in error. Stranger things have happened. Your position is sadly lacking in both personal judgement and common sense. "Always believe them or never believe them. That's it, nothing else!" Obviously bullcrap and you should be ashamed of yourself for posting it. Option 3: Use a little intelligence an look at the history of the allegations, the accuser, and the accused. Actually consider it and judge each case on it's own merits instead of blindly backing one side or the other. A single incident several years ago with the accusation based solely on hearsay? I'm not going to put much stock in it. A recent incident, with multiple eye witnesses ...
  • 08:28 PM - Caliban quoted DemoMonkey in post Harassment Policies: New Allegations Show More Work To Be Done
    There are really only 3 choices: 1) Always believe the accusers. Result: Roughly 19 times out of 20 you will be on the right side. 1 out of 20, an innocent persons reputation and possibly livelihood will be irreparably damaged. The harassing behaviour is discouraged, at the cost of restricting both some truly undesirable, and some basically harmless, behaviour amongst men. 2) Never believe the accusers unless presented with incontrovertible court-quality proof. Result: 19 times out of 20, you will be siding with the accuser, who will be guilty about 18 of those times. The behaviour is not discouraged, at significant cost of personal freedom and safety for women. 3) Refuse to pass judgement at all. Result: trick question. This option doesn`t exist. By `staying neutral`you are `choosing option 2. So in the end, whether you actually in your heart-of-hearts believe any given allegations are true or not, your reaction to them will be predicated on the result you want to see in the wo...

Friday, 13th April, 2018


Friday, 6th April, 2018

  • 10:43 PM - Hussar quoted DemoMonkey in post Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?
    So, if "Race" is an unacceptable term to some people in Fantasy, is it also an unacceptable term in Science Fiction? Is Race not an acceptable term to describe Klingons, Wookies, Green Martians, Vorlons or Daleks? If not, what is the correct term? And if it IS acceptable, then what's the distinction? Why Puppeteers but not Dwarves? Why Kryptonians but not Elves? Actually in SF it’s almost always species and not race. But apparently we can’t use species in dnd because it’s too sf sounding. :/
  • 09:43 PM - Morrus quoted DemoMonkey in post Pathfinder 2 Elves & Dwarves; Golarion In Core Rules, Playtest Process, & Ancestry Terminology
    "Ancestry" instead of race, but then "racial hit points"? That was my term, not theirs. It’s not a quote.
  • 09:15 PM - Sunseeker quoted DemoMonkey in post Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?
    So, if "Race" is an unacceptable term to some people in Fantasy, is it also an unacceptable term in Science Fiction? Is Race not an acceptable term to describe Klingons, Wookies, Green Martians, Vorlons or Daleks? If not, what is the correct term? And if it IS acceptable, then what's the distinction? Why Puppeteers but not Dwarves? Why Kryptonians but not Elves? I don't see why it would be. I would think, given that sci-fi tends to be far more technical and scientifically (even psuedo-scientifically) accurate than fantasy, it would be the most appropriate place to use terms like "species", "biology", "interbreeding" and other such terms.

Wednesday, 4th April, 2018

  • 03:56 AM - Yaarel quoted DemoMonkey in post Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?
    Am I correct in giving all different ideas their due and boiling this entire long heated discussion down to: "Race is probably the most accurate and genre appropriate word for describing different sentient fantasy creatures, but it is also a word that some people find offensive in the real world and should be changed to increase inclusiveness." ? Actually, this thread also includes contributors who argue the reallife term ‘race’ − whether in the senses of species, or breed, or ethnicity − is also wrong in the fantasy context. Their physicalities are too different for the sense of breed or ethnicity, yet the term species involves DNA genetics that dont apply in a game where creatures from the spiritual world are a given, and golems can gain sentient, sapient, life. Since ‘race’ is also a controversial term in reallife − as well as being wrong in the game anyway − there seems no reason to keep it. Even the Tolkien estate has discontinued to the term ‘race’ in their most ...

Tuesday, 3rd April, 2018

  • 10:27 PM - Legatus_Legionis quoted DemoMonkey in post Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?
    I recall back in OD&D, we had an Elven Ranger, or a Dwarven Fighter, as race/class were the same thing for playing this type of character. Then AD&D expanded this so that we had races and they can pick classes. Then AD&D2e added non-classical races to those being playable. If we remove the term "Race", shouldn't we also remove the terms Elf, Dwarf, Halfling etc? What would those terms even be referring to without the concept of race? ... Should all characters simply be referred to as "People" with no further differentiation? What do we lose by that approach? And what do we gain? I would say alot, I'll explain below; ... Let people take X number of "ancestry" traits and it would literally define their biological ancestry. Perhaps they're just a mutt and thanks to that they've got darkvision, stonecunning and trance-sleep. Or something. One of the things I disliked with 3ed came out was how they treated classes (or lack there of), and made everything into a skill/point based sys...


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

0 Badges

DemoMonkey's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites