More "Away Game" Bon Mots

Why should Facebook get all my good stuff?

This was in reaction to the whole EpiPen thing:

Some people thought I was being political when instead I was simply trying to state a fact of capitalism. Here's a clarification:

This next one is the result of me becoming increasingly annoyed with politics:

This was later turned into a meme by my good friend Eric Carr:

I'm flattered by how good-looking she is, even if she looks nothing like me.

And finally, this one came from my Blazing Sword page:

If they felt safe then, they ought to feel safe now. If they don't feel safe now, then maybe they ought to realize that their previous feelings of safety were just a comfortable illusion.

Traveller Tuesday: 2e High Guard Screens

I've been complaining a lot about something the nonsensical things Mongoose has done with 2e. But sometimes Mongoose gets things right, in which case I embrace my fully heretical anture and not only cherry-pick the bits I like, but then I graft them onto my own game.

I have an example of each in today's article.

My use of Traveller setting and dress falls under
fair use guidelines for both Mongoose and Far Future Enterprises.

So in 2e High Guard *, meson screens and nuclear dampers are now 10 dtons, instead of the previous 20 dtons from 1e High Guard -- which was itself a correction from 1e Core where they were 50 dtons.

Dropping screens from 50 dtons was something I approved of, because I couldn't see them taking the volume of a bay weapon while only reducing damage by 2d6, and 20 dtons seemed much more reasonable. But dropping them to 10 dtons seems questionable to me. Sure, it's unlikely to be an issue for player character ships, because the cost is exorbitant and they need to be stacked in order to be truly effective. But the big problem is with Navy ships -- mainly capital ships, but perhaps with escorts in the 1k to 3k range -- who have both the money and the space to give tens or hundreds of dtons to shields.
In 1e, the number of screens a ship could carry was limited. For non-capital ships, that limitation was based upon power plant performance; for capital ships, the limitation was this table:

But with 2e ships construction rules, which were designed as a unified system spanning small craft to dreadnaughts, all shields displace 10 dtons, with the only limitation being available volume and the power available. It worries me to think that a 2e capital ship could have enough power and dtonnage available to power sufficient number of screens as to make it essentially unkillable outside of spinal mounts. 

(For the record, I'm not fond of meson screen dtonnage in 1e, either. Nuclear dampers seem fine, starting out at regular size and increasing, but meson screens starting at 50 dtons is not only a waste of a bay, but also a challenge to logic. If screens for ships of 100 up to 2,999 dtons all displace 20 tons, and if nuclear dampers for ships 3k to 7.5k dtons are 20, why then are meson screens 50? Personally, I'd peg meson screen size to nuclear damper size while keeping the price difference.)

However, the 1e rules for Black Globes were asinine. Check out this table:

Now go back to the previous table, and see that per rules, a ship carrying a TL15 Black Globe device -- a shield derived from Ancient technology -- could only mount 3 of them. Not only does this do a disservice to black globes, which are supposed to be OMG ANCIENT TECH!, but 1) renders half the flicker chart completely unnecessary and 2) it says that BGGs for capships actually weigh less (10 to 30 dtons) than they do for non-cap ships (50 dtons)!

In this case, the 2e changes make sense. BGGs are back to being 50 dtons, and given their benefits I am completely comfortable with them taking up a bay's worth of space. In fact, I wonder if they ought to displace more volume, using the numbers from 1e meson screens instead.

But look! Using these rules, BGGs are actually useful  in combat! They have drawbacks, sure, but this chart balances those against the gains while not making BGGs useless (I'm looking at you, 2 measly points of armor per 10% flicker rate).

I like this, so I'm going to use it in my game. And that's what it means to be a Fully Heretical GM:  I can cut and graft as I see fit.


* Which, after nearly 10 months of development and six months after 2e Core came out, was finally published a few days after I mentioned their lateness in this article.

What Has Erin Been Up To Lately?

Sorry, all, I spent nearly all of Monday and a good chunk of Tuesday getting Blue Collar Prepping's Teespring store up and running. And then I thought to myself, "Self, wouldn't it be a good idea to also have a store for yourself so people could buy t-shirts and the like branded with your own pony likeness?"

I thought that was a swell idea. And so, the GunBlog PonyCast store is now open for business! You can purchase tees, tanks, hoodies, sweats, mugs, tote bags and stickers, all bearing my delightful ponysona. The funds will go towards helping pay for me to attend various conventions, such as the Gun Right Policy Conference in Tampa in September and the NRA Annual Meeting in Atlanta next year.

Also, it's really going to cheese off Sean Sorrentino to see his podcast referred to as a PonyCast. ;)

Speaking of ponies, given both the popularity of "Force Sean to wear a pony to the Gun Rights Policy Conference" and my Blazing Sword initiative (which has successfully filed as a nonprofit in Florida and is now waiting for 501c3 status from FedGov), I've decided that my ponysona needed a rifle in her portrait.


Now I've always envisioned Powder Flash as being a gunpony; both her name and cutie mark involve combustible powder, and I've said from the start that she has a black powder rifle in her cottage in Ponyville, but I never thought to add one until recently.


Given how I seem to be at the forefront of helping LGBTQ people learning to shoot, and I have such an affection for MLP, it seems now is the time for my ponysona to arm herself.

Here's a picture I sent to the artist for reference:

So these are some rough drafts from the same artist who drew her. I'm basing the design off a Kentucky rifle (partly because of her sorta-kinda-coonskin cap and partly because Kentucky rifles are awesome), only with a bar trigger instead of a finger hook. (Because ponies don't have fingers, duh.)

So far, I really love the powder horn and the filigree (filly-gree?) on the rifle. The bar trigger looks good to me, but I'm not 100% certain on it and I'd like some feedback. As for the flintlock mechanism itself... I think the flintcock itself looks fine, but there's something funky about the frizzen that I can't quite explain. Feedback and advice are welcome and encouraged!

Gun Blog Variety Podcast #106 - Dr. Jill Stein Doesn't Understand Science

Tired of the toxic brain fallout that accompanies the gibbering and capering of anti-gun, anti-science, anti-logic morons? Join us in the GunBlog VarietyCast bunker and we'll weather the derpular winter together.

• Beth interviews Liz Lazarus about her new book, Absence of Malice, a story of a self-defense shooting based on an event from the author's real life. 
• It's the "mass murder" you haven't heard about: a man murders his wife and three children. It would have made national news IF the murdered were committed with a gun... but he used a hammer, so no one in the media cares.
• Want to track down your misplaced car keys? Barron tells us how TrackR Bravo works, and if there are any security concerns you should have. 
• Erin takes the reins of the Main Topic and interviews listener Robert about Dr. Jill Stein MD's absolutely silly "nuclear power plants = WMDs" tweets. Then the discussion shifts to Blue Collar Prepping as they discuss preparing for a far more plausible nuclear emergency. 
• We're paying for it, so Weer'd does his Patented Audio Fisk™ on three anti-gunners ganging up on the president of USCCA on NPR's Diane Rehm Show.
• And our Plug of the Week is Bob Mayne's Handgun World Episode 381, where he interviews fellow podcaster Paul Lathrop about his 6 month ordeal of being falsely charged. 

Thank you for downloading, listening, and subscribing. You are subscribed, right? We are available on iTunes, Stitcher Radio, and now on Google Play Music!

Listen to the podcast here.

Read the show notes here. 

Thanks also to Firearms Policy Coalition for their support. Go to www.FirearmsPolicy.org to join.

Be sure to donate to Erin's "Let's put Sean in purple pony shirts for the Gun Rights Policy Conference" fundraiser!

And a special thanks to our sponsor, Law of Self Defense at www.LawOfSelfDefense.com. Use discount code "Variety" at checkout for 10% off.

Upcoming Law of Self Defense Seminars:

• September 10 - Alabama specific - Talladega, AL
• October 15 - New York specific - Poughkeepsie, NY
• October 22 - Iowa specific - Johnston, IA
• October 23 - Iowa specific - Central City, IA
• November 5 - Oregon and Washington specific - Sherwood, OR
• December 10 - Minnesota and Wisconsin specific - La Crosse, WI

The 11 Big Answers for TheDailyDot Regarding the Demise of Gawker

In the wake of Gawker's passing, there are some who are celebrating, there are some who are mourning, and there are some who are looking nervously over their shoulders. All understandable reactions, as there are plenty who either believe strongly in the idea of some level of journalistic integrity or have a personal grudge against Gawker; some who have no concept of it and just liked mindless gossip; and some who go to print with pretty much the same content, only with a string of pearls around their porcine formatting.Then there are the ones who are lashing out.

I've never liked TheDailyDot. Not the least because of their stupid name which, when translated into a URL, reads “The Daily Dot Dot Com,” but they are in reality, nothing more than a slightly classier version of Gawker: more hesitant to print outright lies, but more than happy to insinuate and perpetuate a hurtful narrative against anyone who disagrees with them. And so they're currently lashing out by asking “The 11 big questions for anyone cheering Gawker's demise.” That's their formatting there, completely leaving out proper capitalization in the title So let's humour them, and answer those questions, shall we?

1) Does it give you pause that, even if the Hogan post was offensive and should never have been published, that a federal judge and federal appeals court both ruled prior to the jury verdict that the post was likely “newsworthy” and protected by the First Amendment?

No. It doesn't. Because in the legal system, if you disagree with a court, you appeal it, to a higher court if needed. Does it bother you that a court ordered them to take down the video, and they not only failed to do so, but openly refused to do so in a public article posted on their site?

2) Even if you think Gawker’s publishing of the Hogan tape should not have been protected by the First Amendment—again, as an appeals court previously ruled—do you think that it was fair that the jury awarded Hogan $140 million dollars, 145 times more than the average judgement in wrongful death cases in United States?

Hulk Hogan is not just a person. Hulk Hogan is not even just a persona; Hulk Hogan is a brand. A brand that makes a lot of money for Hogan and his family, and for the WWE. When this incident happened, Hogan was removed from the WWE roster and merchandising, and merchandising is something the WWE does a lot of:  one version of a Hulk Hogan action figure costs about $20. There are about 6,300 Wal-Mart stores in the US; that's $126,000 in lost revenue from one action figure alone not being on shelves. Add in variants, posters, appearances in video games and home video, on-site merchandise, and the countless other ways that the WWE makes money, and that amount sounds about right for lost revenue.

3) Do you think it’s fair and just that Gawker—which employs dozens of journalists and staff that had nothing to do with the Hogan story—receive what amounted to the death penalty for one serious lapse in editorial judgement? Similarly, should the New York Times be taken to court and forced into folding for publishing false intelligence that helped lead the United States into the Iraq War? Should the Daily Beast be legally decapitated for its disgusting article from just two weeks ago that potentially outed gay Olympians that live in oppressive countries?

If I choose to work for an unethical and ruthless company, and that unethical and ruthless company makes a major misstep and has to pay the consequences, I may well lose my job over that. I would remind you of a phrase you are so fond of using: “Freedom of Speech is not freedom from consequences.” Gawker employees were (and are now) free to pursue employment elsewhere. If any of them need to contact me, I can give them a reference for a couple of companies that will employ nearly anyone. They probably won't be able to continue paying rent in NYC or San Francisco, though.

4) Do you agree that Gawker should have been barred from appealing both the verdict and the $140 million judgement before declaring bankruptcy and being forced to sell the company? As Gawker’s Tom Socca wrote on Monday, “The company was asking only to survive long enough to put the judgment before a higher court, on appeal. This is, supposedly, how the system works.”

If I, as a private citizen, commit a crime and and are arrested, and cannot pay bail, then I'm going to spend time in jail prior to the trial. When I was younger, a friend of mine was merely with someone who stole CD players from Wal-Mart. Unaware of what they were doing, he was detained by security and arrested while they fled the scene. He could not afford bail and spent a month in jail. Why are you more special than he? And they weren't barred from appealing. Their assets were seized. The assets that were likely going to go towards paying the plaintiff.

5) If you think, “but Gawker outed Peter Thiel in 2007 and they posted other distasteful stories over the years too,” do you also think they should be punished for those posts in the court of law, even if they are considered protected speech?

Irrelevant to the case at hand. This isn't regarding Thiel's outing, this is regarding the posts about Hogan. You, bafflingly, want to keep making it about Thiel which surprises me greatly, as Gawker outed a gay man. Billionaire or no, why should we care his sexual preference, and why are you defending this?

6) Do you agree with the variety of other lawsuits and legal threats that Gawker has endured from Peter Thiel’s lawyer that have nothing to do with the Hulk Hogan tape? Does it matter that those are garden variety libel suits that any first year law student can tell you are clearly protected by the First Amendment? Those cost Gawker millions in legal fees as well. If the Hogan suit failed, what if Gawker died by a thousand cuts instead, despite clearly being protected by the First Amendment?

The legal system is set up so that if you feel you have a grievance, you can take it to court if you can find someone to represent you. I'm personally shocked to see TheDailyDot invoking the First Amendment so often, considering how I've seen it and it's associated websites mocking it so frequently.

7) Do you think that because Gawker’s demise is something you agree with that the same thing won’t happen to newspapers you like in the future? Donald Trump has readily admitted to suing a former New York Times reporter—knowing he would lose—just to try to bleed him of money. Mother Jones spent millions in legal fees just to win a case against a vindictive billionaire in the early stages of litigation last year, only to see the billionaire turn around and start a million-dollar fund for other people to sue members of the “liberal press.”

If the newspapers “I like” put a focus on celebrity sex tapes and outing people's private lives, they're very quickly going to become newspapers I don't like. I hate to see good journalism punished, but at the same time, useless tabloid garbage should not be rewarded just because it shares a URL with something more worthwhile.

8) Oh and by the way, the same law firm that Peter Thiel funded just sent threatening letters to Politico and the Daily Mail on behalf of Donald Trump’s wife Melania Trump and demanded they stop reporting on stories Trump considers false. Do you think they smell blood?

Were these the same papers that were proudly printing nude pictures of her and questioning her immigrant status out of the left side of their face while condemning nude pictures of female celebrities and calling anti-immigration supporters racist from the right side of their face?

9) Maybe you don’t have any sympathy for former Gawker editor AJ Daulerio, the author of the Hogan post, because of his tasteless and offensive joke that made headlines during the Hogan trial. But does that mean it’s perfectly fine for Thiel’s lawyers to bar Gawker from paying for the legal defense of Daulerio, and at the same time, freezing his personal bank account so that he has no money to hire his own lawyer? Should he be forced to defend himself in court without a lawyer?

It's not a joke if it's under oath. He legally testified that he'd go as young as four years old in publishing a sex tape. Let's not try to dress that up. As for the second part of your question, was it perfectly fine for Daulerio to hide his finances from the court? And freezing someone's assets which, if the lawsuit is successful, would be used to pay the plaintiff, is not barring you from defense.

10) Do you think it’s fair and just that more than a half dozen individual reporters are still being sued by Peter Thiel’s lawyer in those non-Hogan related cases, and that Thiel’s legal team is attempting to prevent Gawker paying for the legal defense of those individuals as well? Should individual reporters face serious threat of bankruptcy for posts their employer assigned, sanctioned, and published (and again, are protected by the First Amendment)?

Thiel's legal team is likely trying to prevent Gawker's assets, of which they are being sued for pretty much all of, from being wasted before they can be awarded. Again with the First Amendment. You'd think you hated minorities with all the First Amendment you're throwing around, DD.

11) If Gawker is “mean” and “snarky” and has sometimes gone over the moral line by publishing private facts about public figures, should other gossip magazines be driven out of business by other deep pocketed celebrities as well? Should Hollywood band together and launch a thousand lawsuits against the National Enquirer and theDaily Mail and TMZ (even if courts have ruled they broke no law)? What about US Magazine and People? Where do we draw the line?

If every gossip magazine folded tomorrow I would not shed a tear. Literally, the only purpose they serve is to lessen the burden of waiting in a check-out aisle at the market, which is rapidly being overtaken by checking your messages or seeing if there's a Pikachu nearby on your smartphone. Either way, this is entirely academic, as according to the courts, Gawker did break a law.

So there you go, DailyDot. There's your answers. I doubt you'll be happy with them. You'll probably read this and consider me some kind of neo-reactionary alt-right troll (despite the recent Facebook trend of checking your political alignment having me land solidly on the Left).

But you know what? I don't care. I literally have no use for your site aside from occasionally screenshotting a bit of hypocrisy from you. Gawker is dead; it handed someone else the murder weapon and dared them to use it, then everyone was shocked they did. 

Everyone but those with an ounce of common sense.

Help Me Ponify Sean Sorrentino aka Operation Briarpatch

Jeez, Erin, do you have to give a code name to everything you do?

Yes.

Why?

Because it makes me giggle!

So for those of you who don't know. on this week's GunBlog VarietyCast my co-host Sean Sorrentino said -- on the record, in front of everyone (around the 30 minute mark) -- that if someone gave him the required $500 to attend, he would wear a purple pony shirt of my own design.

I reckoned that he's probably need three shirts, since Florida is freaking hot this time of year and conventions are sweaty, and he probably didn't want to wear the same stanky t-shirt for all three days.

As it happens, either people really want Sean to attend, or they really want to embarrass him, because as of this writing we've already received enough donations to cover his plane ticket and our hotel room. So now it's fallen on me to make shirts for him.

Special Super Bon Bon sized thanks to Sean's friend John Doughty for using his awesome skills to not only create a ponysona for Sean, but also to design a lovely logo suitable for putting on a shirt! John has saved me a TON of time and the end result looks better than anything I would have made.

Also, be sure to go to my Facebook page to vote for a name for Sean's ponysona!

So now I'm sourcing shirts for Sean, and here's what I've come up with.

I can get three of these from Allied Shirts for $56.35 and free shipping. But while they're nice shirts, I get the feeling that Sean won't wear them very often. But I'd much rather get just two of them for $37.57, and have the third shirt be a nice embroidered polo, like this one from Queensboro:

Some of you may well be wondering "But Erin, why are you getting a nice embroidered polo when you can just get a third t-shirt and be done with it for $56.35?" And that is an excellent question.

If I don't get enough contributions, then that's what I'll do. But my reasoning here is twofold:

1. If we make it a very nice polo shirt, then Sean may not pay attention to the shirt he's putting on an inadvertently wear ponies to work or to a political function. And that will be HILARIOUS. 
2. To meet the $50 car minumum for embroidery, I'd need to add an additional shirt to the order. And honestly, I'd like to have a pony polo shirt as well, featuring my ponysona (Powder Flash) in complimentary colors. There's an evening reception the first day of the Gun Rights Policy Conference, and Sean and I would look quite spiffy wearing our "team uniforms". You want me to look spiffy, don't you?
   
   Besides, unlike Sean I'd wear mine all over the place, like to the NRA Annual Meeting or the Big 3 Media Event. And if I ever have another TV interview like I did with the BBC, I'd wear it then as well!

I realize that this nearly doubles our total, but the shirts are REALLY nice and Sean has promised to wear his to all day and even be filmed wearing it. So please donate to my t-shirt fund and I will have a really nice shirt and Sean can be publicly embarrassed!

Any additional money will go defray my food and gas costs to get there, and any extra after that will be donated to helping Charles "Dustbury" Hill with his medical expenses.

Thank you very much!

Traveller Tuesday: the Tech Level Characteristic

This is just a wild hair notion up my nethers. I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not; I'm just getting it written down so I can ponder the ramifications.

My use of Traveller setting and dress falls under
fair use guidelines for both Mongoose and Far Future Enterprises.

Determination

Before characteristics are rolled, the starting Tech Level of the character is determined by rolling 3d6-3, with a DM of +1 for Darrians and perhaps a penalty or level cap (at the GM's discretion) to other non-Imperial races. This gives a range of 0-15, which nicely matches the range of TLs available within the Third Imperium. 

The TL stat is used to determine the tech level of the character's homeworld, and therefore the level of technology that he is familiar with. The player should select that character's homeworld accordingly. 

During character creation, any opportunity to increase INT or EDU may be used to increase TL instead with the GM's approval. For example, it makes sense for a low-TL conscript within the Imperial Navy military to increase his TL; it may not make sense for an entertainer.

Using This Characteristic

TL is not rolled for skill checks. Instead it has the following uses:

• A character injured in the course of a career uses the DM of the TL (+3 for TL15, +2 for TL 12-14, etc) in both the roll for injury severity as well as the roll to see if medical bills are paid by patron or employer. 
• This DM is also used when rolling to avoid aging effects. 
• In both of these cases, if the employer is the Imperium, the military of a system, or otherwise has a logically higher TL than the character, then use the TL of the system [15 for the Imperium] instead.
• It provides a base for the Tech Level Familiarity rules as found in the 1e book Scoundrel, pp.134-135. 

Definitions

• Primitive: TL 0 to 3
• Industrial: TL 4 to 6
• Prestellar: TL 7 to 9
• Early Stellar: TL 10 to 11
• Average Stellar: TL 12 to 14
• High Stellar: TL 15 to 16
• Advanced Stellar: TL 17-19
• Beyond: TL 20+

Familiarity and Comfort can be easily extrapolated to further categories as needed. The pattern is:

• C for TL and TL-1
• F for TL+1 and TL-2 to -4
• U for everything else

U, F, C

Paraphrasing from Scoundrel:

Unfamiliar

A character unfamiliar with technology will not understand it or know how to operate it due to its alienness, advanced design, or his own technological ignorance, and suffers a -3 DM to his roll when trying to do so. Naturally, this does not apply to lower-tech items which are still in use on that character's homeworld; for example, the knife and fork are TL 1 tools, but even a TL 15 character will know how to use one. However, that same TL 15 character will likely be unable to start a fire using flint and steel without appropriate training in primitive technologies (such as the Survival skill).

DM penalties stack; attempting to manipulate unfamiliar technology without a relevant skill results in a -6 DM.

Familiar

A character familiar with technology may not necessarily understand how the item works, but he is comfortable with using it and does so without penalty -- so long as he has skills in it. For example, a TL 2 musketeer could grasp the basics of using a gauss rifle after instruction, since he knows Gun Combat, but a farmer would have a -3 unfamiliar technology penalty (likely on top of a -3 unskilled penalty). 

Familiarity is on an item-by-item basis, not blanket across a TL: just because that TL 2 musketeer knows how to operate a TL 12 gauss rifle does not mean he can operate a TL 9 air/raft. Familiarity with the air/raft will also have to be acquired before he can use it, and until then he will suffer from a -3 DM (assuming the GM is feeling charitable and allows his Drive: Carriage skill to apply; if it doesn't, or if he doesn't have the skill, he's back at -6 DM). 

Comfortable

A character comfortable with technology can operate items of that technological rank because he understands the basic principles behind them. He does not need a skill to operate an item, although there is still a -3 DM unskilled penalty. Comfort extends across the entire TL, rather than on a case-by-case basis. 

Current Drawbacks to this House Rule

1. There is definite benefit to coming from a higher TL (specifically in regards to aging and injury), with no commensurate benefit to coming from a lower TL other than comfort/familiarity with primitive technology. Given that TL is a stat and the conventional wisdom is "High stats good, low stats bad", this limitation may not be a fundamental flaw. 
2. Players will have to keep track of familiarity and comfort levels for their characters through gameplay. 
3. Given a term within the Imperial Navy/Marines, TL-as-stat may become meaningless, or at best a range due to 4 years' exposure to high technology. A stat of TL "9 to 15" is so broad as to mean little. 
4. Given the main benefits of this stats exist during character creation, to adding this retroactively to existing player characters is rather pointless unless your campaign trends toward exposure to TL 16+ technologies. 

What do you think?