#Define Your Trading Objectives

[stockexperttrading]

Unveil the secrets of Forex trading with a guide tailored for beginners. Learn the fundamentals, from market hours to entry and exit strategies, and understand the significance of risk management. With just $100, you can enter this global market and potentially grow your investment over time. The guide underscores the importance of education, recommends resources, and introduces Funded Traders Global as a valuable partner. Clear goals, risk tolerance, and a well-structured trading plan are presented as key elements for success in the Forex journey.

[talenlee]

What Is Truth (in game worldbuilding)

The question to start with: How do you present information as truthful in your world?

Okay, there’s a lot going on here, and it involves defining in order to get some specificity. The principles might be universalisable but I sure ain’t gunna pull it off here. This is primarily considering world-building for a game, and not the world-building for a conventional narrative explanation like a story or web serial or whatnot. Those are worlds where you can, amongst other things, go back in time and change the setup you have for the story you want.

And you should.

That’s what editing is.

But in the making of a world for a game, you have to make a way for people to interact with a playful space that gives them boundaries and things to interact with (that are cool and fun or ‘engaging’ if you want to be technical) and that means you need to confer the reality to these players in ways that you, the person building the world, may struggle with depicting.

The task of depicting truth is different in storytelling for a conventional narrative and for a game. Particularly, games have an interface layer that typically speaking, players have to have some reason to believe they can trust, and the job of the interface is to serve as a window between the reality of the game (ie, you are a player interacting with a playful device) and the fiction of the game (there are fuckin DRAGONS man).

See, one of the easiest ways to convey ‘true’ things to your players is to describe ideas in an entirely objective sense. This is this, this is that, and then you use objective measurements as much as you can, in the objective voice of a narrator. This is fine, this works out just okay, and I don’t want you to feel bad in any way about doing this this way, but when you present information like that, you have presented that information as reliable. That creates a sense of trust which you then can just poop down your leg when you have to explain that something you told them isn’t true.

Obviously you can be okay with this, I mean it doesn’t matter if a Metroidvania videogame has to indicate that an early message log was a lie. It needs to be done with a bit of care though because say, if a game opens by telling you that you’re using a stun gun to knock people out through the whole game, and then reveals, shock horror, that actually it’s a murder gun that has been knocking people into death with kill bullets, then the result isn’t going to be a player feeling an emotional distress at the realisation that they were doing something wrong because they trusted the wrong person, you’re going to have a player rejecting the experience, falling out of the fiction and going: this is bullshit.

(Because it is bullshit.)

I think on this because I think about how I present information from Cobrin’Seil. Cobrin’Seil is a D&D setting. It’s meant to be made for people to play in in a setting that is primarily mechanically oriented, where the world can be represented by reasonably reliably systems. Wizards in the top of the world and the bottom of the world can both cast spells that are similar and those spells may work differently under the hood, within the fiction, but are still reasonably coherently reliable things. The same is true that the followers of a death god can heal people with spells that may look entirely different to the spells of a god of the harvest but in the end, the people experiencing the outcome still wind up healed.

I think that the world of Cobrin’Seil is more interesting and more rewarding to write about if there is a strict delineation between the concrete and reliable — rules information — and the social and communicated — things people talk about in the world. That is to say, if you need to roll a few d6 or d8s for a thing, that’s rules information, segregated, and, thanks to 4th edition’s excellent trade dress (the way the books are designed to look) we have a good standardised way to express that. But if you want to know about the world, the things in the world and the way they relate to one another, then that’s where you talk to people and people have biases, and all the information presented in the world is presented as if it is being told to you by a person.

When I’m discussing the world of Cobrin’Seil, then, I know that it’s easy to state questions from a near-objective narrative position, but to deliver answers it should always have an attribution, a source. That source then gets to be someone potentially wrong, and to bring in their own biases and their own opinions.

I know that in Cobrin’Seil, I am biased towards presenting wizards who study things and write things down as a useful source of studyable information. I also know I don’t necessarily verify that information or make it widespread. Sometimes I like that because there are some things I want to be objectively true. For example: Wizards can prove that racism is based on nothing meaningfully true. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean people don’t believe in racism or engage in it, but that there is some objective authority in the universe that can say ‘look, this is a social system that sucks, and ‘detect racism’ spells won’t work.’

Otherwise, though? Things like how magic works? What gods can do? How fairies can manipulate reality? That stuff is all competing theories, maybes, possibilities, and I try to make sure it’s always at least three competing theories.

That bias remains, though, right? And it stands to reason, I, a person working in academia who is working on higher education, would likely see the advantages to and potential authority of a system like that. But that also demonstrates something of my biases towards, you know, things being written down. I could have it so that there are shamanic songs and lyrical poetry that carry important narratives of truth… except I’m not good at writing those, so I don’t.

This is what you need to be mindful of. There are ways to represent what’s ‘true’ in your worldbuilding, in the information you present to people, but you need to also be mindful of your biases. You need to maintain a sense of truth that players can engage with and you need to be mindful of where it’s okay to lie to them.

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

[alexanderwales]

For Thresholder there are lots and lots of worlds, most of them just name-checked, sketched out in a handful of paragraphs as a place that people had visited before and now has little plot relevance. It's my favorite part of the series.

I'm not writing one of those chapters where I need one of those worlds, and I'm not sure I could give this one its due, but the idea I had last night was a world where people could increase and decrease the size of objects virtually at will. This doesn't work with conventional physics, but that's okay, some of the worlds can be more conceptual.

To start with, we have some ground rules: you have to be touching the thing, it can only operate on loosely defined "whole objects", and there's some kind of thing that happens with objects where they retain their physical structure to some degree, even if the square-cube law means that not everything stays functional. This is easy for things made of base elements (an iron nail becomes bigger and we can grok that it's still just made of regular iron) but it's less easy for complex organics. If you increase the size of an apple, are the individual cells increasing in size? Are new cells being generated? I think for this, I would have to say that the answer is that the world works on a level of pre-Enlightenment human understanding that the real world doesn't have, one where there aren't cells. (I am a bit sketchy on when cells were discovered, and more sketchy on what they thought was going on before that.)

As far as consequences, which is my favorite thing, I think there are a few big ones.

For one, any amount of food is enough to feed an infinite number of people. A single apple can feed a family, if they want to have nothing but apple for a meal. A single apple slice can feed a family. In fact, even the smallest crumb can undergo the process of magnification to become a full meal. But while you can make "more food" by making it bigger, the taste and texture don't necessarily stay the same. It seems to me that there's probably a sweet spot for most foods in terms of size, and eating a grain of rice the size of a loaf of bread is a very different experience than eating a bowl of rice. And if you've ever eaten one of those sourdough breads with way too large of bubbles, that's what pretty much all bread would look like if magnified, just holes with strands of gluten between them. So I think in terms of food, there would be a lot of class divide, along with a lot of processing of magnified foods to make them more palatable. Maybe a loaf-size grain of rice wouldn't appeal to many people, but you can break off bits of it and probably still make mochi with it.

Another big issue is manufacturing and the trades. In my mind, you have construction workers building the equivalent of dollhouses that then get sized up on a plot of land, but I think dollhouses are a little bit small, and most trades would work on a scale that was easiest for human manipulation. I don't think that's what we do for dolls, which tends to be nimble, finnicky work, and if you can freely scale up and scale down your tools and materials, I think you'd naturally want to work a bit bigger. Probably you would rescale on many different steps of whatever you're producing, and if this world was in the industrial age, then you would have people in factories rescaling as a human step in a factory somewhere. Another cool thing is that a chef could have a single pot and pan that they resize for their needs, and a single knife that fulfills roles we would use two or three different knifes for, though I think maybe handles would be a problem there.

Anyway, I'm not going to use this anywhere, though I do think it's cool, if maybe in a way that's not all that unique (What if Big Thing were Little Thing and What if Little Thing were Big Thing are both speculative fiction staples, see Indian in the Cupboard, The Borrowers, Ant-man, etc.). I have a bunch of outstanding questions re: conservation of momentum and some hacks that only work under certain implementations, but sometimes that's a bridge too far.

[cerastes]

In your opinion what's the hardest/thoughest boss in the Like a Dragon Franchise? (Story and Coliseum both if it matters)

Hmm, that's a hard question! The first three Yakuza games are the hardest, with the third one being a bit controversial, whereas the following Yakuza games are noticeably easier because they are balanced around the player blasting through the main story without doing side content, so for players that do side quests -- the overwhelming majority of players because the side quests are integral to the experience of Yakuza -- they end up so so very strong and armed with so many techniques, raw HP, and items that the actual main story beats are not really difficult at all. Mind you, they are still VERY fun games.

Then, we have to draw a distinction between a difficult boss and an annoying boss: Yakuza 3 has plenty of annoying bosses that are only difficult if you take them at face value, such as Tamashiro Brass Knuckles Form, who has practical grab immunity and permanent hyper armor, so you kinda have to Light Attack Heavy Attack (jab into heavy overhead) in between his recovery frames for a while to beat him. This is not fun, but this is not hard, conversely, NOT doing this makes him very hard, but also not fun, lmao. But, it's not HARD per se, just not a well designed player experience.

In this same game, however, you have Andre Richardson, who has a billion cool attacks between his Gun Kata and Kickboxing, not to mention one of the coolest QTEs in the franchise. This is a boss who I wouldn't say is hard, but is an apt test of the various skills you learn as Kiryu: Movement, blocking certain attacks, getting out of the way of others (namely, bullets), not overcommitting if you see him prepare his command grab, punish his own overcommitting when he does his four kick combo, etc. He isn't hard, but he is an apt test.

Hard is difficult to define in a game where you very much make your own challenge: Do you want to no items a boss? Or are you ok with bringing 16 Staminan X and just going full Korean MMO on any given boss by simply trading 24/7 and healing when your HP gets low? That is straight up to you.

If we define hard by As Objectively Close To Difficult Even When Using All Resources Available To You, And Not Just Annoying, I'd say the Arase & Shinzaki 2v1 fight in Yakuza 3. This is an optional superboss, basically, a rematch with Arase from Yakuza 1, an infamous dual pistol-totting player filter back in the day, with the added difficulty of having to fight Shinzaki at the same time, who possesses Majima's speed and a lot of his dagger attacks. You are fighting not one, but two enemies with unblockable-if-unarmed attacks, who pack a punch, are both fast, and have AI specifically designed to kill you by having Shinzaki priorities flanking you a la Majima before attacking (meaning you are constantly turning) while Arase prioritizes going as far away from you as possible and shooting you. Is it annoying? Very, but it's also very hard even without the annoying factor, and 16 Staminan X might not save you the way they can against any given Amon Jo encounter. Even without a trove of healing items, Amon Jo always follows a logic to his fighting style in any given game, whereas Arase and Shinzaki can straight up put you in unavoidable damage situations very easily, and both ARE very competent fighters even without the other around (albeit significantly less deadly once you take one out, likely Shinzaki first).

For these reasons, I think the Reapers take the price, yeah.

[darkmodepls]

Selfish Heterodynes

And why that's a good thing for their people

One thing that is commonly known about Sparks is that they have extremely self centered worldviews and motivations.

Sparks find it very hard to care about other people, and when they do, they often treat them more as an object or a pet than as a sapient being.

It's the main reason why non-sparks are so afraid of them. If you are just another object, what's stopping the Spark from using you for spare parts.

So. What is it about Heterodyne selfishness that makes their people so fanatically loyal

to start with, Heterodynes are selfish about their people because they are people.

Any time Agatha is introduced to a new group of people, she goes out of her way to learn their likes, dislikes, and histories. While there is a Doyalist explanation for this (the audience needs the exposition) I believe the Watsonian explanation is that this is part of being a Heterodyne.

Heterodynes that grew up in Mechanicsburg probably knew the names and life histories of more than half the town. They would drink with their men and participate in festivals. *Even if part of the festivities included being chased by an angry mob.*

Because they care about the person, they care about their personality and goals. To damage a mind is almost sacrilegious to a Heterodyne.

One of the defining traits of Heterodynes is that they are vehemently against brainwashing and mind control. While part of it is the fact that such methods undermine any genuine loyalty, It could also stem from the way such things interfere with who the victim is as a person.

Think about how Agatha's horror over Dr. Vapnoople differed from that of other Sparks. They were mainly concerned with how it kept Dimitri from expressing his Spark, while Agatha was upset by what it did to his personality.

Heterodynes make space for their people to achieve their goals.

As small as Mechanicsburg is, it's divided up into a variety of districts where all sorts of industries take place. From medicine, to constructs, to engineering, and trade, if a citizen wants to work in a certain field, the town can accommodate them.

Additionally, the people have no fear showing their work to the Masters. The moment Agatha started Heterodyning, she had a crowd of people clamoring to offer her their skills and talents. There wasn't a any hesitation to brag about this skill or that talent or offer these services to their Master.

Why would there be? it was probably a very common sight to see a crowd of townsfolk proudly share their latest creations with the Masters, and the Heterodynes probably took great delight in their people's ingenuity.

Because the People, their Personality, and their Skill belong to the Heterodyne, any Outsider trying to harm a citizen is trying to Steal from the Heterodyne.

to the Heterodynes it's never just a servant or just a gaurd, or just a farmer. They know that the servant was named Molly and had 2 nieces and preferred cake to pudding. They know that Grant had been a Jaeger for 200 years and had been best friends with their grandfather's sister's husband. They knew the Farmer Mac was a minor spark who had been secretly crossbreeding orange petunias as a gift for their wife.

Every loss is personal, so that makes it vital that they protect their people with everything they have.

The core of my idea can be summarized with this Discworld quote:

"All witches are selfish, the Queen had said. But Tiffany’s Third Thoughts said: Then turn selfishness into a weapon! Make all things yours! Make other lives and dreams and hopes yours! Protect them! Save them! Bring them into the sheepfold! Walk the gale for them! Keep away the wolf! My dreams! My brother! My family! My land! My world! How dare you try to take these things, because they are mine!I have a duty!"

Terry Pratchett, The Wee Free Men (Discworld, #30; Tiffany Aching, #1)

All that a Mechanicsburger is belongs to their Heterodyne, and the Heterodynes will protect them from all threats the way a dragon guards its horde.

[fora-d-orbita]

I spent a night researching how to play the different varients of Sabacc for a fanfic and decided to compile things up for the other poor writers out there:

Notes: There's cannon stuff here, but also some of the licensed versions of the games sold at the Disney parks, so take everything here with great assault and check the fontes to see what is cannon and what is not. This post contains the rules of traditional sabacc, the corelian spite, the Coruscant shift and the dice game Hintaro (the one Qui-Gon played to win slaves)

TRADITIONAL SABACC

The traditional sabacc deck is made of 76 cards. Sixty were distributed in four suits (Flasks, Sabers, Staves, and Coins), with 15 cards per suit: pip cards numbered 1 through 11, plus a Commander numbered 12, a Mistress numbered 13, a Master numbered 14, and an Ace numbered 15. The other 16 were two sets of 8 special cards: Blance (−11), The Idiot's (0), Endurance (−8), Moderation (−14), The Evil one (−15), The Queen of Air and Darkness (−2), Demise (−13), and The Stars (−17 and −10). Fonte

The objective of traditional sabacc is to get to a hand total of 23 — positive or negative —, without "bombing out" your hand (getting 24 or more).

A hand with pure 23 (positive or negative) is called Pure Sabacc.

Negative numbers beat their positive counterparts, and thats because there's less negative cards than positive, so the (second) best hand you can ever get is -23, but that also means -19 beats 19, 20, 21 and 22 (because the negative values are worth more).

There's also a thing called the Idiot's Array that's a hand that wins against all the others and consists of an Idiot (Zero), a 2 and a 3 (both negative and positive work). Fonte

While playing you'll be handling two pots, the Sabacc Pot and the Hand Pot. At the start of the game each player put an entrance fee into the Sabacc Pot (I can only assume the credit quantity is defined by the table you are playing) and one player makes an initial bet into the Hand Pot before the dealer gives everyone their cards (usually really small amounts - since you don't know how good your hand will be yet) and that's called "your blind".

After the someone makes the blind and you receive your cards (each player starts with two cards) it's time to play three rounds:

Betting: after seeing your cards you can Call the bet, raise it, or fold it. If you fold it you put all your previous bets into the Sabacc Pot and exit the game.

Trading: that's how you make your hand better. You can either drawn a card, trade a card (by discarting and then buying a card) or stay (which basically is to do nothing). The two important things in this round is that you can't just discard, meaning that if you drawn a card your hand will now forever consist of three cards instead of the initial two, also if you choose to trade you have to DISCARD FIRST then buy a new card so when you discard the card you don't know what you getting next is better or worse then what you initially had in your hand and that brings more of gambling aspect to the game.

Dice: the dice is where things can get really messy. At the end of each turn the dealer rolls two dice and if the numbers/symbols are equal ALL PLAYERS discard the hands, the deck is shuffled again and everyone gets a new hand with two cards and the game basically restarts (keeping all the bets of previous rounds). That is called a SHIFT. If the symbols of the dice don't match nothing happens.

If you have a really good hand and you're trying to milk the other people for credits (which is basically standing by/raising your bets to keep the numbers raising and you can win more money) you are also risking losing your hand with a shift during the dice round, and to counter that you can try to scare your opponent into folding by revealing one of the cards in your hand in the INTERFERENCE FIELD during your turn (either during betting or trading).

So let's imagine I have an Idiot's Array (or I want you to think I have one), I can put my Idiot (0) in the Interference Field so everyone can see. The idiot Array being the best hand in the game chances are everyone's going to fold their hands, unless you think I'm a liar (which is fair). Alternatively if I have a 14 or a 15 (which are cards close to 23) I can pull that in the Interference Field and even if a Shift happens during the dice round all the players keep the cards in their Interference Field. (I truly hope I didn't make this too confusing) You can place as many cards into the Interference Field as you like (out of the hand maximum of 3), but revealing all three cards is basically Calling Alderaan (which I will explain in a bit) and ending the game.

After the dice round the games goes back to the betting round and the cycle (betting, trading, dice) continues until someone calls Alderaan, which happens when this person thinks they have the best hand and won the game. When someone calls Alderaan every player in the table reveals their cards and the players with the best hand takes the HAND POT of every player.

The Sabacc Pot can only be won by a player with a Pure Sabacc hand or an Idiot's Array Hand. So let's say the winning hand in a game is a 20, the winner takes the hand pot of every player, but the Sabacc Pot (made of the blind and all the folders) stays in the game for another game until someone gets a Pure Sabacc or an Idiot's Array. Easy right?

(fonte)

If you or someone else called Alderaan and you Bomb Out — meaning you have a hand total above 23 (negative or positive) or a 0 — you have to pay a fee into the Sabacc Pot.

Besides the Idiot's Array there's another special hand that is the fourth best overall (the Idiot's being the best, then -23 is second and 23 is the third) called The Fairy Empress and it consists of two -2 cards. It's not clear if a Fairy Empress is able to win the Sabacc Pot (my personal opinion is that it don't), so I guess it depends on the house rules.

THE CORELIAN SPIKE SABACC

It's the game portrait in the Solo movie of Han Solo! And (in my opinion) it's like Sabacc for little kids — meaning there's less cards to count. So cute!

The objective here is actually to get a hand as close to ZERO as possible.

The deck is made of 62 cards being 30 green cards with positive numbers going from 1 to 10 (so is three of each number), 30 red cards with negative numbers going to -10 to -1, and 2 Sylops that are worth 0.

Similar to REAL Sabacc we have two pots, the Sabacc Pot and Hand pot. Whoever has the hand closer to zero wins the Hand Pot and if that is a true zero that person also wins the Sabacc Pot.

At the start of a game each player pays the fee at the Sabacc Pot and makes a blind bet, each player gets two cards for their starter hand. The dealer then picks the card from the top of the deck and puts it into the Discard Pile.

The game consists in three phases:

The card phase: you can Stand with your hand, Draw a new card from the deck, or Swap a card either by discarding a card and buying a new one or by picking the card from the top of the discard pile and then discarding a card. Once you drawn a card your hand total goes up, and you can't discard a card without swapping. So let's say you hand total is 4 cards, you can never go back to have 2 cards again.

The betting phase: you can either Check and do nothing, you can Bet and put more money into the Hand Pot either Calling or Raising a previous bet of making one your one if you the first one to play, or you can Junk and exit the game leaving your previous bets on the Sabacc Pot.

And the Dice phase: that works exactly like the one in real Sabacc. So you roll to dice and if the symbols match you discard your hand and pick a new one, except this time you receive the same quantity of cards you had previously. So if you had 4 dice and you had to discard you hand you buy 4 new cards. During the shift (it's unclear if the act of discarding your hand and buying a new one is also called a shift in this game, but that's how I'm calling for this "guide") some dealers can pick the card from the top of the deck and put on the top of the deck so no one can buy the card that was discarded during the shift, thus making the game more fair. But between you and me where the hell are you going to find a fair dealer in the Star Wars universe?!

Corelian Spike has a lot of special hands so I go over each one really quick from the best hand to the less best:

1. Pure Sabacc: two Sylops (the 0 cards)

2. Full Sabacc: 10, -10, 10, -10 and an Sylop.

3. Fleet: 4 of a kind+ a Sylop (so here could be four 1 cards, or four 10 cards, don't matter if they are positive or negative + the Sylop)

4. Yee-Haa (I swear I'm not making this up): a pair and a Sylop (ex: 2, 2 + the Sylop)

5. Rhylet: Three of a kind + a pair (ex: 1,1, 1, -2, -2)

6. Squadron: four of a kind (1,1,1,1)

7. Gee Whiz: positive or negative 1 to 4 + a corresponding 10 (-1,-2,-3,-4,-10 or a 1,2,3,4,10)

8. Straight Khyron: run of 4 cards (ex:3,4,5,6)

9.Bantha's Wild: three of a kind (let's say 3,3 and 3)

10. Rule of two (and name raise so many fucking questions with cannon): two pairs (2,2,4,4)

11. Sabacc pair: a Sabacc with one pair (2,2, -4 — and it is a Sabacc bc it's equal to zero)

You need to consider that most of these eleven wining hands are almost impossible to get, to so most games will end either with a Sabacc ( a hand total to 0 — not to be confused with a PURE Sabacc) or with hand totals of One or Two (so still close to zero). And the Sabacc Pot can only be won if you hand total is zero, even if you have a special winning hand.

Fontes

THE CORUSCANT SHIFT SABACC

This one is actually the easiest of the butch, BUT it have the most different game play.

So the deck have 30 positive cards and 30 negative cards going from the numbers 1 to 10 divided by 3 suits: Circles, Triangles and Squares.

So we have: Circles 1 to 10, Circles -10 to 1, Triangles 1 to 10, Triangles -10 to -1, Squares 1 to 10 and Squares -10 to -1. AND THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT. The deck also has two Sylops that are equal to 0 and are worth for any Suit. The total amount of cards in the deck is 62, just like Corelian Spike.

The game also uses dice, but they are two different kinds of dice. One of them is a number dice that has the numbers -10, 10, -5, 5 and two zeros, the other one is a shapes dice that has (you've guessed!) circles, triangles and squares.

At the beginning of the game you're going to roll the two dice and see the results, the objective of the game then becomes having the closest number that we called with the numbered dice with the most amount of cards of the shape that we called with our shape dice.

So let's say we called a -5 and a triangle, we need to get as close as we can to a hand total of -5, but also have a certain amount of triangles in our hand to win.

I know it's a little confusing the first time you hear about this shit, but imagine we're playing together and we both have a hand total of pure -5 but I have a 10 square and a -5 circles and you have 7 triangle and a -2 triangle, you actually won from me bc you have more triangles than I. So the shapes are actually used more to decide between a tight. It's actually really easy.

So the game starts by rolling the dice and defining the objective, then the dealer gives FIVE cards for each player instead of the traditional 2 of the other kinds of Sabacc game. Then we have the games phases:

Select: where you select your cards by discarding the ones you don't want. You can't discard as many cards as you want, including your whole hand, as long as you made it clear to everyone in the table how many are you keeping (wink wink) and then we go on into:

Betting: no mystery here, you can raise a bet, call a bet or fold in which case you out all of your cards into discard and leave you previous bets on the table.

Now we restart the circle by giving each player the exact amount of cards they previously discarded. So if you discarded (or if people think you did) four cards you now gain 4 new cards and the table goes into Selecting and Betting again.

You may notice there's no Sabacc pile in the Coruscant Shift, so the winner gets everything despite which hand they ended up with.

When a player is confident enough in their victory they reveal their cards and everyone else needs to do it too, player with the closest total of cards sorted in the dice win, if it's a tie the shape value decides the winning hand, but if it's a tie in numbers and shape (my total is -5 and have 3 triangles and your total is -5 and you have 3 triangles) each player will draw a new card from the pile, player with the biggest number wins the game. So if I draw a 9, but you draw a 10 you won the game.

I actually really like Coruscant Shift because the gameplay aspect of it sound really fun and things can change a lot the more players you have in the table, kind like Space UNO if you think about it. Also is very fitting that Coruscant have the most weird version of the game.

Fontes

HINTARO

Hintaro is a dice game, so it's mostly luck but it has a little twist to it.

Each player has two dice and the dealer has one dice.

The winning dice rolls from weakest to strongest are:

4. Double Kulro

3. Double Tukar

2. Quad Kulro

1. Double Tukar and Double Kulro.

Each face of the dice can 1 Kulro, 2 Kulro, 1 Tukar, 2 Tukar, One Tukar and one Kulro, or a blank — Kulro and Tukar being the names of each symbol.

The dealer dice is different and haves 2 symbols: the Hin symbols cancel out one Tukar, the Taro symbols cancels out one Kulro and a blank.

The game starts with all players rolling their double dice, then they make bets and the dealer rolls their dice to cancel out one symbol in the table, after that the player with the highest winning hand takes the bets. If no one has a winning hand the game continues until someone win.

Fonte

THAT'S IT!

[guilty-pleasures21]

Yooooooooouuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!! You SUCK!

ATSV fanfic starring Miguel O'Hara (my weakness!!! 😭)

0. The Slow Burn

Part 1 - the meet cute

Part 2 - the coffee mug

Part 3 - the spicy song

Part 4 - the absence

Part 5 - the watch/the sweet song

Part 6 - the backrub

Warnings: none.

_______________________________________________

     He brought his hand closer to her face, the heat of his flame raging against her, threatening to burn her skin. And then, suddenly, it was gone, and she could breathe again. X looked around, trying to locate her enemy, and found him smashed firmly into the wall, the brick forming a perfect outline around his golden form. What? She definitely hadn’t done that. At least, she didn’t think she had. She turned back and found a new figure standing in front of her. A man, judging by his broad shoulders and heavy build. He was clad in a red and blue outfit, not a single patch of skin in sight. But the material was tight, clinging to his muscles, defining their sharp lines and letting his enemies know exactly what they were up against. He was big and tall and �� tall and … big. 

     “Um, please don’t tell me I’m going to have to kill you too,” she only half-joked. She was already barely surviving the fight against the strange new villain that had sprung into existence only moments ago, she definitely couldn’t handle another insane man who thought the world owed him a living right now. The man folded his arms across his chest and let out a small chuckle, almost definitely smirking at her beneath his mask. 

     “I’d like to see you try, arañita.” X frowned at the  easy confidence of his tone, at the smoothness of his voice and the spark of warmth it ignited in her chest. Argh! She hated him already. She averted her gaze, giving herself the space to collect her thoughts and refocus her attention back on the task at hand. She cleared her throat. 

     “Well, thanks for your help, Mr …” X trailed off, leaving him to fill in the blank with a name, something that might help her identify him. The man let his hands fall back to his sides and studied her carefully for a moment. 

     “Spiderman,” he supplied. Wait, what? X raised an eyebrow, confused. 

     “Like the character?” Now it was his turn to look puzzled. 

     “Wait, what?” Before she could elaborate, a golden blur shot from the side, slamming straight into the … Spiderman, he’d said? She winced at the impact, cringing on his behalf. It didn’t matter how big and strong he was; being tackled by a man made of literal metal had to hurt. The Spiderman stumbled for a second, dazed, but then he regained his bearings and threw a punch at the other man, forcing him to the ground. 

     “Spiderman?” she repeated, picking up their previous conversation. “The fictional character they created as my love interest because having a woman fight bad guys isn’t good press for the patriarchy?” She vaulted to the balcony on the second floor, her eyes flickering around her surroundings, her brain calculating all the possible ways they might come out victorious. Then she paused. She’d only known this Spiderman for, what, five minutes? And already she was thinking of them as some sort of team. And that was when she saw the fire extinguisher. Her gaze slid back to the two men below her, both of them continuing to trade punches. It could work. But only if the Spiderman was somehow able to read her mind from all the way over there. She called out to him. 

     “Oh god. Please don’t tell me you’re just a random guy in a costume,” she teased him, flying over his head to get to her new weapon of choice. He hunched his shoulders at that, clearly offended by the very suggestion. 

     It worked. The man lit up in flames, screaming with anger as he rushed at the Spiderman. X ripped the extinguisher out of the wall and threw it to him and the object landed perfectly in his hands. Without a moment’s hesitation, the Spiderman aimed it at the flaming man and sprayed, disorienting him. When the can was finally empty, he smashed it over the villain’s head, the force of his blow knocking him out. X landed in front of his prone form, then looked up at the Spiderman across from her, gesturing for him to tie the man up with his webs. He tilted his head, considering, but then did as she’d asked, wrapping the man up firmly in his spider silk. At the same time, she began weaving her own web, twisting it into a thick, impenetrable rope. When she’d finished, she swung it into the air, looping it around the railing of the second floor balcony. Then she knelt down and attached the end to the Spiderman’s, suspending the now unconscious metal man in the air when she stood up and pulled on it. Perfect. Now to deal with the next problem at hand. She turned to the Spiderman, standing there, watching her with his arms crossed over his chest. So he really did have powers. But then why had he left her to be the lone hero for so long? 

     “I can assure you, arañita,” he replied, ducking to avoid another punch. “I am very, very real.”

And then he looked at her, just for a second. But it was the second she needed. She gestured to the fire extinguisher, hoping he’d know exactly what she was trying to say. And judging by the slight pause he gave, he did. He nodded, then turned back to the golden man, trying to keep him busy, making sure he didn’t catch onto their plan. “Unlike pretty boy over here.” 

     “So, uh, thanks for your help but, I could have used it, like, a year ago?” she told him as much. He released his arms, his shoulders sinking slightly in weariness or exasperation, she couldn’t quite tell. 

     “That’s not how this works,” he replied cryptically, turning to the man hanging between them. He swung him over one wide shoulder, then reached up, a finger outstretched. Except that, it wasn’t a finger, not exactly. She looked on in bewilderment at the sharp, elongated tip, which he flicked across the spider silk rope, snapping it in half. Then he tossed something to her, a small, bracelet-like device which she caught easily. She waited for an explanation, but he just waved a hand at her expectantly. “Put it on. We’ve got a lot to get done.”

He'd brought her to his HQ after they'd returned the Molten Man to his home dimension. They'd been in the control room for about half an hour now, her nodding along enthusiastically to his explanations about his missions and the Spider society he'd brought together. He'd originally intended to just give her a brief overview - as he'd started doing when the other Spiders he brought back quickly lost interest in the science of it all - but the look on her face: contemplative, interested ... it had kept him rambling on. Until her eyes had narrowed, her eyebrows drawing together as she tried to comprehend his explanation.

     X frowned, her features scrunching up as she thought about how to phrase the question on her mind. “Okay, but isn’t you manipulating space and time to travel to different dimensions also going to contribute to rips in the aforementioned space and time?” 

     He paused, impressed; though he would never admit it. All the questions he’d been asked before had been dumb, brainless. Some of the other spiders hadn’t even bothered to ask any, silently accepting that they’d never be able to understand. But she … she questioned him, challenged his hypotheses, made him wonder if there could be more than just one way to do things.

     “Well, no. Because I’m not actually manipulating space and time,” he explained patiently. “I’m just travelling faster than the speed of light. It’s like taking shortcuts through space.” She nodded slowly, her eyebrows creased together in thought. It made sense. If she didn’t think about it for too long, that is. And there was still the question of the watches and how they managed to stabilise the bonds holding organic matter together outside of their own dimension. But maybe it was best to just leave it here for now. Before her brain started melting in her skull. 

     “Ugh, physics,” she groaned, pulling on her hood in exaggerated annoyance. “I hate physics.” Miguel raised an eyebrow at her dramatics, slightly intrigued, against his better judgement. She claimed to hate it, but she seemed to grasp whatever concepts he threw at her quickly. He knew based on her file that she was a biologist - like him, though that was besides the point - which meant that she must have had to do some outside reading in order to understand at least the basic foundations of astrophysics and quantum mechanics. And she must have been especially smart to have somehow gained an understanding of those subjects all on her own. She gave herself a shake, oblivious to the thoughts running through his mind, and inhaled deeply. 

     “Okay, I’m good,” she decided, ending the discussion. “Can we take a break? My brain hurts.” He didn’t realise until she turned to him with a pleased expression on her face that he’d let out a snicker. Miguel's eyes widened, surprised by his own reaction, and he quickly cleared his throat, his features melting back into their usual scowl.  

     “Fine, okay.” He waved her off, dismissing her to go do whatever she wanted. “But be back here by four tomorrow. We’ve still got a lot to do.” He turned back to his computer, forcing himself to not look back at her, to not think about how his watch had lit up green the moment they'd met - an indication of a successful canon event.

     "Adiós, Miguel," X called out to him, her voice echoing through the cavernous room. "See you tomorrow!" He hunched over his desk, his voice just loud enough that she could catch it before she left. 

     "Hasta mañana, arañita.”

[avilionea]

rules : if you're tagged, make a new post with links to music and/or lyrics describing the following . . .

event that defines your character's past 

Stay, I Pray You, Anastasia Cast ��� How to turn away? / How to close the door?/ How to go where I have never gone before? / How can I desert you / How to tell you why? / Coachmen, hold the horses / Stay, I pray you / Let me have a moment / Let me say goodbye / Harsh and sweet and bitter to leave it all / I'll bless my homeland 'til I die

how your character sees themselves

After Eliot , Johnny Flynn •And lost I was for all of the time / We never shared thereafter / Closing my books and chilling my feet / The air blew in much darker / Floorboards, they've been laughing at me; the folds of my skin are frayed / I'm the oldest man I know by now; I was the youngest yesterday

how others view them

Crow on the Cradle , Pete Seeger • If it should be that our baby's a girl / Never ye mind if her hair doesn't curl / With rings on her fingers and bells on her toes / And a bomber above her wherever she goes / Sang the crow on the cradle / Rockabye baby, the dark and the light / Somebody's baby is born for a fight / Rockabye baby, the white and the black / Somebody's baby is not coming back / Sang the crow on the cradle

their closest relationship (platonic or romantic or a secret third thing)  Koschei the Deathless - feat. @koschyei

Would You Fall in Love With Me Again, Epic Cast • Is it you? Have my prayers been answered?/Is it really you standing there, or am I dreaming once more? / You look different, your eyes look tired / Your frame is lighter, your smile torn / Is it really you, my love? //

I am not the man you fell in love with / I am not the man you once adored / I am not your kind and gentle husband / And I am not the love you knew before / Would you fall in love with me again / If you knew all I've done? / The things I cannot change / Would you love me all the same? / I know that you've been waiting, waiting for love//

What kinds of things did you do? //

Left a trail of red on every island / As I traded friends like objects I could use / Hurt more lives than I can count on my hands / But all of that was to bring me back to you /

/... / I will fall in love with you over and over again / I don't care how, where, or when / No matter how long it's been, you're mine / Don't tell me you're not the same person / You're always my husband and I've been waiting, waiting

a major fight scene

Where I Want to Be, Chess cast • Now I'm where I want to be and who I want to be /and doing what I always said I would / and yet I feel I haven't won at all / I'm running for my life and never looking back / in case there's someone right behind / To shoot me down and say he always knew I'd fall/ When the crazy wheel slows down/ Where will I be? Back where I started

end credit song

Famous Last Words, My Chemical Romance • So many bright lights, they cast a shadow, but can I speak? / Well, is it hard understanding, I'm incomplete? / A life that's so demanding / I get so weak / A love that's so demanding / I can't speakI am not afraid to keep on living I am not afraid to walk this world alone / Honey, if you stay, I'll be forgiven / Nothing you can say can stop me going home

TAGGED BY: @koschyei TAGGING: @llallwgan @eynsavalow @mayregina @epihlogue @magikborn @lilybelle @worthyheir @realmsdelite @iinmortales @drachnslayer

[nicklloydnow]

THE ARTIST AND HIS TIME (1953)

“I. As an artist, have you chosen the role of witness?

This would take considerable presumption or a vocation I lack. Personally I don't ask for any role and I have but one real vocation. As a man, I have a preference for happiness; as an artist, it seems to me that I still have characters to bring to life without the help of wars or of law-courts. But I have been sought out, as each individual has been sought out. Artists of the past could at least keep silent in the face of tyranny. The tyrannies of today are improved; they no longer admit of silence or neutrality. One has to take a stand, be either for or against. Well, in that case, I am against.

But this does not amount to choosing the comfortable role of witness. It is merely accepting the time as it is, minding one's own business, in short. Moreover, you are forgetting that today judges, accused, and witnesses exchange positions with exemplary rapidity. My choice, if you think I am making one, would at least be never to sit on a judge's bench, or beneath it, like so many of our philosophers. Aside from that, there is no dearth of opportunities for action, in the relative. Trade-unionism is today the first, and the most fruitful among them.

II. Is not the quixotism that has been criticized in your recent works an idealistic and romantic definition of the artist's role?

However words are perverted, they provisionally keep their meaning. And it is clear to me that the romantic is the one who chooses the perpetual motion of history, the grandiose epic, and the announcement of a miraculous event at the end of time. If I have tried to define something, it is, on the contrary, simply the common existence of history and of man, everyday life with the most possible light thrown upon it, the dogged struggle against one's own degradation and that of others.

It is likewise idealism, and of the worse kind, to end up by hanging all action and all truth on a meaning of history that is not implicit in events and that, in any case, implies a mythical aim. Would it therefore be realism to take as the laws of history the future - in other words, just what is not yet history, something of whose nature we know nothing?

It seems to me, on the contrary, that I am arguing in favor of a true realism against a mythology that is both illogical and deadly, and against romantic nihilism whether it be bourgeois or allegedly revolutionary. To tell the truth, far from being romantic, I believe in the necessity of a rule and an order. I merely say that there can be no question of just any rule whatsoever. And that it would be surprising if the rule we need were given us by this disordered society, or, on the other hand, by those doctrinaires who declare themselves liberated from all rules and all scruples.

III. The Marxists and their followers likewise think they are humanists. But for them human nature will be formed in the classless society of the future.

To begin with, this proves that they reject at the present moment what we all are: those humanists are accusers of man. How can we be surprised that such a claim should have developed in the world of court trials? They reject the man of today in the name of the man of the future. That claim is religious in nature. Why should it be more justified than the one which announces the kingdom of heaven to come? In reality the end of history cannot have, within the limits of our condition, any definable significance. It can only be the object of a faith and of a new mystification. A mystification that today is no less great than the one that of old based colonial oppression on the necessity of saving the souls of infidels.

IV. Is not that what in reality separates you from the intellectuals of the left?

You mean that is what separates those intellectuals from the left? Traditionally the left has always been at war against injustice, obscurantism, and oppression. It always thought that those phenomena were interdependent. The idea that obscurantism can lead to justice, the national interest to liberty, is quite recent. The truth is that certain intellectuals of the left (not all, fortunately) are today hypnotized by force and efficacy as our intellectuals of the right were before and during the war. Their attitudes are different, but the act of resignation is the same. The first wanted to be realistic nationalists; the second want to be realistic socialists. In the end they betray nationalism and socialism alike in the name of a realism henceforth without content and adored as a pure, and illusory, technique of efficacy.

This is a temptation that can, after all, be understood. But still, however the question is looked at, the new position of the people who call themselves, or think themselves, leftists consists in saying: certain oppressions are justifiable because they follow the direction, which cannot be justified, of history. Hence there are presumably privileged executioners, and privileged by nothing. This is about what was said in another context by Joseph de Maistre, who has never been taken for an incendiary. But this is a thesis which, personally, I shall always reject. Allow me to set up against it the traditional point of view of what has been hitherto called the left: all executioners are of the same family.

V. What can the artist do in the world of today?

He is not asked either to write about co-operatives or, conversely, to lull to sleep in himself the sufferings endured by others throughout history. And since you have asked me to speak personally, I am going to do so as simply as I can. Considered as artists, we perhaps have no need to interfere in the affairs of the world. But considered as men, yes. The miner who is exploited or shot down, the slaves in the camps, those in the colonies, the legions of persecuted throughout the world - they need all those who can speak to communicate their silence and to keep in touch with them. I have not written, day after day, fighting articles and texts, I have not taken part in the common struggles because I desire the world to be covered with Greek statues and masterpieces. The man who has such a desire does exist in me. Except that he has something better to do in trying to instill life into the creatures of his imagination. But from my first articles to my latest book I have written so much, and perhaps too much, only because I cannot keep from being drawn toward everyday life, toward those, whoever they may be, who are humiliated and debased. They need to hope, and if all keep silent or if they are given a choice between two kinds of humiliation, they will be forever deprived of hope and we with them. It seems to me impossible to endure that idea, nor can he who cannot endure it lie down to sleep in his tower. Not through virtue, as you see, but through a sort of almost organic intolerance, which you feel or do not feel. Indeed, I see many who fail to feel it, but I cannot envy their sleep.

This does not mean, however, that we must sacrifice our artis's nature to some social preaching or other. I have said elsewhere why the artist was more than ever necessary. But if we intervene as men, that experience will have an effect upon our language. And if we are not artists in our language first of all, what sort of artists are we? Even if, militants in our lives, we speak in our works of deserts and of selfish love, the mere fact that our lives are militant causes a special tone of voice to people with men that desert and that love. I shall certainly not choose the moment when we are beginning to leave nihilism behind to stupidly deny the values of creation in favor of the values of humanity, or vice versa. In my mind neither one is ever separated from the other and I measure the greatness of an artist (Molière, Tolstoy, Melville) by the balance he managed to maintain between the two. Today, under the pressure of events, we are obliged to transport that tension into our lives likewise. This is why so many artists, bending under the burden, take refuge in the ivory tower or, conversely, in the social church. But as for me, I see in both choices a like act of resignation. We must simultaneously serve suffering and beauty. The long patience, the strength, the secret cunning such service calls for are the virtues that establish the very renascence we need.

One word more. This undertaking, I know, cannot be accomplished without dangers and bitterness. We must accept the dangers: the era of chairbound artists is over. But we must reject the bitterness. One of the temptations of the artist is to believe himself solitary, and in truth he hears this shouted at him with a certain base delight. But this is not true. He stands in the midst of all, in the same rank, neither higher nor lower, with all those who are working and struggling. His very vocation, in the face of oppression, is to open the prisons and to give a voice to the sorrows and joys of all. This is where art, against its enemies, justifies itself by proving precisely that it is no one's enemy. By itself art could probably not produce the renascence which implies justice and liberty. But without it, that renascence would be without forms and, consequently, would be nothing. Without culture, and the relative freedom it implies, society, even when perfect, is but a jungle. This is why any authentic creation is a gift to the future.”

[thetepes]

eh. usually i try to be objective with evidence posting because ive been through many, many, cancellations before. If i see something that doesn't sit right with me, i consider it a positive to point that out. I've always held the opinion that people trading evidence should be willing to respond to good-faith skepticism to strengthen their doc, so i think i've overlooked how taxing it must be to sift through white knighters and so called 'good faith' skeptics. for that i'd wanna apologize, and let other anons know that it costs nothing to be upfront about your intentions when being skeptical.

(im the hbomb 'smoking gun' anon btw)

See...that I can get behind. That I can understand. I really do try to do the same thing myself. I've been canceled a good few times, especially back in the early 2010's where everything was offensive and we were sort of feeling out this new more accommodating internet era. I used to be a massive fucking troll, I was downright an asshole so I know what it's like to change, but still have your past define you which is why I didn't bring up Hbomb's history.

It's not about that.

I'm willing to respond to good faith crit and skepticism, I think other people should be more open to it without labeling people something or the other, I've done it over and over and over and over and over again. I posted everything I could and tagged it and reblogged it and shared it as far as my platform will allow.

Eventually though it just

Runs out? It feels like people want me to do the work to convince them individually repeatedly and are unwilling to even click a tag on their own to go see what I've posted, they want and demand for me to go get their specific request for them and lay it in front of them and explain it to them like I'm a mom cutting up their steak and feeding them bite sized pieces when I've already done that. I did the work. I posted it in small consumable chunks.

If I don't do that though they accuse me of bad faith, sometimes even if I link them to my pasts posts, but don't walk them through them and explain then spread around I don't have proof further enabling and even empowering who I'm talking about to cause further harm so I feel like I am obligated to do this over and over and over and over and over and over.

Eventually good faith and white knights are all just wearing white.

[greyplainsttrpg]

My most memorable "gleeblor" experience during the early development of my game my was centered around inventory abstraction.

Early on in Greyplains, there weren't any equipment tables at all. Objects had properties, and the idea was that it was up to the player and the GM to understand what objects they wanted aligned to what properties.

For example, weapons have Size, Type (as per damage) and Name. Your character is some amount skilled in large weapons and blades weapons, they would be synergistically skilled with a large blade. They could then become extra proficient with a specific large blade weapon, up to the player and GM to determine.

However, early players, and my cowriter, couldn't grasp what this meant. Like, "okay, but what is a large blade?" type of questions. It is a blade that is large in size (both defined in the book). Like what the fuck do you mean "what is a large blade?" It's a large blade. "Yeah, but is a longsword a large blade?"

I don't want to list every weapon ever developed by every culture that possibly matches the possible description of "large" and "blade." A large blade is whatever matches the description of large and blade. "I think you need examples."

The same thing happened with the Value Tier Table. I define a range of value for things based on the amount of labor required to trade for it based on the estimated wages of a skilled medieval laborer (like masons or teamsters). This outputs a GP range for the good/service, but this way any monetary or barter system could be used to understand what things are worth using the game. It is then up to the GM and the players to discuss the finer details of the price based on the context of where, who, and why they are buying the item.

But no. "Okay, but what is a 'Large Blade' worth?" It is worth whatever the GM believes is an appropriate amount of time from their universe's equivalent to skilled labor to earn to purchase or trade for that product, and the exact amount is based on whoever is selling it and what their relationship to your character is. "Okay but that isn't a number."

I lost, and now people tell me that there is too much equipment. Or they still criticize me that "but X isn't in the tables, does it exist?" Fucking kill me.

I'm not sure if I should have ever capitulated to this. I think it makes the game fundamentally worse because it makes it narrowed to my own perception of reality as opposed to methods for GMs and players to construct their own realities. However, it undeniably makes the game more accessible.

I'm not sure who or what is to blame for this mentality. It was so shocking that people did not understand where I was coming from. Like, a longsword isn't real or platonic. The true longsword isn't divined by the ancients in a world of platonic forms and then laser beamed into your character's hands and belt-strap. It's an arbitrary object manifested via a combination of work, perceived value, relationships, skill, shape, and time. A longsword, like anything else, is a product of the mind and of culture. And instead all people wanted was "but give me simple to understand number... eww that's too many numbers."

GLEEBLOR!

[allegraforchrist]

Self Image as a woman is constant battle between comparison and content.

Idolize the perfect body, the perfect hair, the perfect skin routine, the perfect face shape, the perfect breast size, the perfect gym glutes, the must-be-perfected everything about ourselves.

And after we ‘achieve’ one of the above, we move on to the next project of ourselves.

Women of God, there’s a difference between bettering your body and eating habits, versus objecting your body and eating habits. What I mean by objecting is subjecting ourselves as constant object of attention - attention to the self, and not to God. Attention to the self-image, instead of God’s image.

We should want what is God’s best - for our souls, minds, bodies, and health. We are the temple for the Holy Spirit. But taking that best and turning it into nitpicking obsession, is never going to satisfy your fleshly self-image. You are created in God’s image.

You are the rib, the daughter, the child, the woman of God. When you complicate your beauty in Christ, (beauty as in faith, modesty, prayer, love, kindness, fruits of the spirit, peace), you compromise Christ.

Instead of reflecting Christ, you’re reflecting the world. You’re fixing your outward appearance to match the mask of unpredictable industries.

You can’t say you love God, but then love complaining about your facial features, your body shape, your weight, your stretch marks, your hair, your lips… your whole Godly make up boiled down to what the world defines as a “woman”.

I’ve been here, and I am here, and to be honest, nothing in the world is going to make you a more beautiful daughter, sister, mother, wife, than being in Christ.

We need to value ourselves according to the Word, and not the word of articles, tiktoks, hacks, tutorials, skinny exercise Pilates or whatever.

We mustn’t trade our authentic femininity for short-lived vanity. Don’t idolize what you wear, your makeup, your hair, your skin, your fitness level… etc. Instead of praising God and giving Glory to Him, you give praise and glory to companies and models, and products. I’m not saying don’t get your hair down, don’t go to the gym and get fit, don’t get your nails done, don’t eat healthier, don’t try new methods to help with your acne and stretch marks and dermatological complications, don’t not love your gift of being pretty. I’m saying we mustn’t make our outward appearance the standard over Christ. Our outward must reflect our inward, and that happens when we take our eyes off our insecurities and set them in Christ and the loving Word of God.

Nothing in appearance lasts forever, we aren’t going to look younger and cuter when our bodies are buried one day. Proverbs 31:30, “Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.”

Seek God, seek His image in you, seek His beauty, His purity, His love: because we are made in His image. We are fearfully and wonderfully made! Psalm 139:14, “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.”

No, maybe you’re not a Victoria Secret Model like Adriana Lima. You’re not the ideal blonde like Taylor Swift, you’re not curvy like Kim Kardashin, you’re not fit like Simone Biles, you’re not attractive like the DCC Cheerleaders, you’re not super intelligent like Amy from the TBBT, you’re not cleared skinned like Jennie from Black Pink. It doesn’t matter what you’re not, it matters what you are: a woman of God. What makes a woman of God attractive and beautiful and intelligent and pleasing, Her love for Christ! PROVERBS 31! Your value and belle is beyond worldy measure. Proverbs 31:15-18, “…She is more precious than rubies; nothing you desire can compare with her. Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor. Her ways are pleasant ways, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her; those who hold her fast will be blessed.

Don’t spend your life hating your body, it is your vessel for the Adonai Almighty.

^ 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, “Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.”

^ 1 Corinthians 10:31, “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.”

Don’t simplify your significance to God, by treating it as an insecurity. You’re perfect as following Him makes you to be. Matthew 19:21, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

[coochiequeens]

Interesting how the "sex work is work" crowd never talk about how the sexual exploitation of women interssects with racism.

Left to right: Mickey Meji, Ne’cole Daniels, Taina Bien-Aimé, Bridget Perrier, Ally Diamond

In Dr Vednita Carter’s Black Minnesota neighbourhood, white middle class men cruise the streets in luxury cars, looking for Black girls and young women to pay to use and abuse sexually. This echoes back to the white man’s white god-given right to unlimited sexual access to Black women and girls during the long centuries of slavery.

There isn’t much that Dr Carter doesn’t know about prostitution and its inherent racism. When she was 18, she and her white friend answered an advert for dancers. They were channelled into separate white girl and Black girl tracks, and before long Dr Carter found herself sucked into prostitution.

But she was one of the lucky ones. Unlike so many women, she got out of the trade relatively quickly and with her life intact. She subsequently set up a not-for-profit, Breaking Free, to help other women and girls get out. In February she was in England to speak at the ‘Women of Colour Against the Sex Trade’ event, hosted by SPACE International, an organisation of prostitution survivors.

She told us about the group work she does with young women, some still in that life, some taking their first steps out of it. When you ask them what they like about prostitution, she said they talk about how good it feels to have money. But when asked how they feel when they get down on all fours and take his dick into their mouth, they all start to cry.

Dr Carter said, “Don’t get me wrong. The majority of women in prostitution don’t make a lot of money.” Mickey Meji, from South Africa, continued this theme saying prostitution is not a way out of poverty. Most women enter it poor and those that manage to get out, end up even poorer, but now scarred emotionally, physically and mentally.

Bridget Perrier, an indigenous Canadian woman, who was brutally pimped from the age of 12, said that in her native language, there’s no word for prostitution. Traditionally, women and girls were seen as water carriers and life givers. It was the white colonialists who introduced prostitution to her people. And what a brilliant mechanism it has proved to be for decimating communities.

Prostitution defines women as commodities, objects to be used, so the power men have over them is more or less total. Perrier told us of her adopted daughter, whose mother, Brenda Wolfe, was murdered by the notorious serial-killer, Robert Pickton, who fed her body to his pigs. Her jawbone was found in the pig trough.

He admitted killing 49 women – all involved in prostitution and most indigenous. The police missed endless opportunities to end his killing spree, just as West Yorkshire Police spent years bodging chances to catch Peter Sutcliffe.

What do you expect? Women involved in prostitution are disposable and when they are racialized, even more so. As Dr Carter said, prostitution makes a statement about all women: that all women can be bought and sold, and if a man doesn’t want to buy you, he can rape you. If you can be bought and sold, you’ve not got full human rights. So of course the police aren’t going to prioritise your disappearance or even murder.

Ne’cole Daniels was a ‘trick baby’ – her father a ‘trick’ or ‘john’ as American prostituted women refer to their punters. She was the third generation of women in her family who landed up in prostitution. She spoke movingly about the havoc that the trauma her mother and grandmother experienced wreaked on the family. She had an epiphany and became determined that she would be the last one; that there would be no fourth generation.

The pain and loss in these women’s lives was a palpable presence – the pain and struggle of being Black in a white supremacist culture; female in a male supremacist culture

White-dominated agencies are ill-equipped to deal with Black women’s emotional pain – pain caused by white racism. The need for well-funded services run by Black women for Black women is urgent. Daniels, like Perrier, Meji and Dr Carter, has dedicated her life to serving the women in her community and telling the world the brutal truth about the sex trade.

Suzanne Jay, an Asian Canadian woman, spelled out the racist ways in which Asian women are packaged as products for men, raw materials for multi-billion dollar profits: china dolls, geishas, Japanese schoolgirls, and willing, subservient girlfriends. Their small stature and ‘childlike’ features are fetishized in porn and brothels everywhere.

She traced the roots of this back to the Japanese ‘comfort women’ brothels in the Second World War, enthusiastically taken over by the United States afterwards. The US ‘rest and recreation’ centres set up during the Vietnam War confirmed Thailand’s lasting pre-eminence as a ‘sex tourist’ destination, where relatively wealthy white men come in their thousands to buy sexual access to poor Asian women, feeding off their poverty, disadvantages and suffering.

Just as the military use and abuse prostituted women, so do the so-called peacekeepers. While UN peacekeepers were in Cambodia, its sex trade more than tripled.

Many people argue that the solution is to legalise the sex trade or to decriminalise all its aspects. But consider what we heard from Roella Lieveld about the Netherlands, where prostitution was legalised 19 years ago and recent research found that 97% of the women involved experience violence

Consider also the Black woman we heard about whose pimp placed her in one of the legal brothels in Nevada. When the white men didn’t buy her because she’s Black, her pimp beat her for not making enough money. She was advised to get photos taken of herself naked on all fours and to market them to punters who like Ku Klux Klan roleplay.

Is such a brutal, exploitative and racist industry really reform-able?

And what is it for anyway? Male orgasms. And building up male egos and entitlement.

I leave you with the wisdom of Ally Diamond, an indigenous woman from Australia. She asked why society enables men’s bad behaviour. We make excuses for them: they don’t mean it; they can’t help it; it’s not their fault. When did this start? When did we start downgrading men’s abuse from serious to not so serious?

We deserve better. We need to unite and rise up and say enough is enough. We need the Nordic Model. And we need it now.

This article first appeared in the Morning Star on International Women’s Day, 2019.

[that-one-paintbrush]

BFDI objects are a different breed to II objects. They can interbreed but both styles of reproduction are only available to the crossbreeds. II objects are live bearing and reproduce quite like squids and worms. I will not go into specifics but know that they do not mix genetic material from genetically different limbs to reproduce. They trade colonialism for the ability to choose their partner. This would have resulted in a smooth transition to society if not for the last defining feature of their reproduction.

It was said by Goiky scientists that it would be truly impossible for objects to produce a complete object. That it would be far too resource demanding for a creature to produce everything from wood to gold. But inanimate earth objects do just that. ( They can even, in rare occasions, produce fatal materials to the dam.) How they do this is by entering a state dubbed "hyperphagia".

Their brain shuts down as do many facilities to lessen strain on their body. The amount varies but is not linked at all to the individual personality despite legends and superstition. A pregnant object will undergo one of three types of trances.

Deep hyperphagia: a near complete shut down of higher reasoning. Almost animalistic, the object will be unable to properly understand simple mechanics like locks and faucets. Often they will become dirty and bruised. This state is the basis for many a horror movie.

Mild hyperphagia: a middle ground. An object may be able to reason and open simple doors as well as even be able to vocalize short words. They can reason and even plan somewhat. If provided proper facilities they keep themselves well and clean. This is noted as the most desirable outcome.

Sirenic hyperphagia: the most terrifying of the hyperphagia. Objects are able to reason, plan, solve puzzles, and masquerade as completely unafflicted. Most accidents occur when a sirenic hyperphagic object manages to fool a weaker willed object into releasing them. They will attempt to reason with others with the sole desire of fulfilling their objective.

All of the above states have one linking factor. The object enters a state wherin they try to eat as much as possible. Almost all of their nutrients during this time go to the arduous task of making the infant. The nutrients in question can include other objects. Cannibalism is expected.

There is ... one other state of hyperphagia. But this is running too long... Lemme know if you want more world building crud.

ohh shit this is so cool id totally love to hear more

and just to confirm youre talking about ii objects, right?

[wizisbored]

@an-unprofessional-artist i always want to talk more all the time forever. ask and you shall recieve.

so i kinda wrote centaurs into the book of genesis. i figured, given the setting, i should have some idea of what christianity has to say about centaurs. and with the belief that humans were made in gods image, whats the deal with these human-horse things? the first version i came up with was that before making man god tried remaking the horse in his image and wasnt satisfied so then made man from clay(?) and was satisfied. but while centaurs being gods first draft fuckup is objectively funny i feel like that doesnt really jive with the rest of the 7 day creation story, so i think instead im going to go with centaurs being made as like a deputy go-between when man is put in charge of all the other animals. thats the official story the way the church tells it, but centaur kids still like to convince their younger siblings that humans are centaurs who just decided to get off their horse bodies.

anyway biblical origin aside, im currently adding some details to beetlejuices harness design so ill talk a bit about that. this is specifically about centaur labourers - mostly draft builds - who travel around looking for work. centaurs by nature are highly social herd animals, but its harder to find casual jobs for a large group, so travelling companions are often pairs, sometimes 3s or 4s, who are matched enough in size to easily pull as a team. they still have a need for more socialisation than that, though, so teams who come across each other on their travels naturally gravitate to each other. small temporary herds form and break after a few days, tiny ephemeral centaur communities spring up wherever they get the chance. in larger towns with a high rate of taurs passing through there will often be centaur hangout spots, usually converted from old stables, which primarily serve as bars and boarding houses but will often also be a good place to find centaur farriers, branders (essentially tattoo artists), or just someone to help groom your coat.

given its essential kit for work, the labourers who form and pass through these communities will almost definately each have a pulling harness. and given these harnesses are almost constantly either being worn or carried slung over their owner's back, and are ripe with convenient rings and straps to attatch decoration to, theyre very ofen customised. and so we finally get to the thing i wanted to talk about in the first place - the trinket and ribbon trade. while there are some more permenant and elaborate customisations, like beetlejuice having his hames painted green and black and white wraps on his traces, tying ribbons and small trinkets to a harness is quick and easy. which means they can easily be added, removed, and passed around. ribbons are less often traded and more just given, and are also often personal - for example, giving a friend torn off piece of your leg wraps. theyre rarely actual ribbon, usually just a scrap of fabric, and serve as a memento of the person they came from. trinkets are less sentimental. theyre sometimes traded as a sign of mutual respect, but more often won - through wagers, competitions and the like. they can be pretty much anything that could be tied to a harness, with widely varying worth and durability, from playing cards with a hole punched through them to fancy pendants. centaurs will make these trinkets in order to bet with them or offer them as prizes. making a trinket to wear yourself is seen as kinda pathetic, as is simply buying them, but some secretly do so in order to seem more impressive and occumplished.

of course, there are also permenant centaur communities. centaurs are less common than humans but there are still small towns that are majority or even entirely centaur. barbara and adam live in one such town, and so lydia did too from the age of 12. given they're herd animals these tend to be very tight-knit communities, which can be both a blessing and a curse. lydia was fairly happy there, as much as a grieving child could be.

[bedknees]

You always leave your cool headcanons in the tags! If you're up to it, do you have some for Simon and Betty your up for sharing? I'd love to hear them 🥺

lol sorry ha ha! I like whispering in the tags a lot lmao. And sure! I don't think I ever really gave headcanons on these two disasters but I have a ton so buckle up, and thanks for the ask. ^^

Betty

She was born to Russian Jewish first-gen immigrants somewhere in New England. They were medical doctors by trade, running a practice together and everything. She is an only child. Her parents worked a lot so she was often alone at home when she got old enough.

Due to relative solitude at home, Betty became an avid reader and allowed it to occupy her time when she was lonely. She has a particular penchant for mystery novels that persisted into adulthood. Her general love of the unknown led her into being interested in real world mysteries.

Her birthday is April 11, 1966 - making her an elder Gen X and an Aries.

Has always been very smart, especially in regards to mathematics and has a minor in it. It's definitely her forte, if not made obvious by Temple of Mars.

She is bipolar II and has learned to manage it well over years, as long as no major stressors enter her life she is pretty good to go [crying cat giving thumbs up image]

Loves plants and mushrooms! She's especially fond of succulents. Very adept at fungi identification and foraging properly.

When she's not deep into her work, she likes taking nature hikes either on foot or on her bike. She's always loved the outdoors.

Betty loves all genres of music, but is particularly partial to Depeche Mode and Journey.

She also loves all animals, but really enjoys alligators and crocodilians. The first time she went down South and saw an American Alligator just casually hanging out near a river, she nearly burst into tears.

Simon

His birthday is August 25th, 1965. He is a Virgo because of course he is. Just misses Boomer status, as Gen X began in '65 lmao.

His father was a first-generation Russian/Yakut immigrant, while his mother was a second generation Filipina American. They were borderline hippies that met at a music festival, but break the (objectively flawed) stereotype by being very well educated with successful careers in teaching.

Simon had a younger sister and developed Older Sibling Syndrome that defines part of his personality to this day.

Stemming from his parents, Simon has always had a thirst for adventure. In addition to being exposed to camping at young age due to his family taking him to festivals in his youth, he also has always had a general inclination to explore the unknown.

Loves 60s-70s rock and roll a la Mountain and Jimi Hendrix, but just prefers the genre in general. This manifests later a bit in Ice King's love for Marceline's music, which is of course rock-centric.

He is autistic; his first special interest was cryptids, something that never really left him. He eventually developed one for playing the drums (also seen in IK later) and Cheers obv. His main interest is by far ancient artifacts. He was the kid that checked out books on Ancient Egypt every week.

Got his PHD in Archaeology by 27 due to being wicked smart and starting intro college classes all the way back in his Junior/Senior years of high school.

Unironically tuned into Art Bell's radio show because of his cryptid and conspiracy fascination. He never actually bought into any of it (mostly), but it was fun for him!

Is a cat person full stop. He will sometimes take walks in his neighborhood and be greeted by all the outside cats that he has made a point to get to know!

Simon and Betty

Met at a University-held science and sci-fi convention right before Betty was to leave for Australia. Simon held a small panel on the Enchiridion, talking about its history and his search for it. Betty fell fast and hard. They both did. After the panel they talked for hours about it.

Their shared love for mysteries and adventure made them a perfect match. They shared a ton in common and became inseparable almost instantly.

Were the couple that rarely ever fought, but they also possessed a level of obvious codependency. Betty was the first person to ever make Simon feel so seen and he loved her wit and eccentricity, and Simon proved so smart and sweet and genuinely interesting that their pull was magnetic.