Jim Sterling / James "Stephanie" Sterling / James Stanton/Sexton & in memoriam TotalBiscuit (John Bain) - One Gaming Lolcow Thread

A woman does do his makeup, his husband(female) does his makeup and her fashion sense is just as bad you'd imagine looking at Jim.
Jesus christ.... Well that's just tragic. I didn't know he was manipulating mentally unsound women these days. That's low even for him.

But fairs fair, I don't expect good makeup out of a tomboy. I would expect her to look at it before she puts it out into the world though.

Thanks for keeping me in the loop. A lots gone down since I stopped watching Jim.
 
Meanwhile, W40k fans have had to deal with this shit forever already. (I've not watched the video, I haven't had the heart yet, maybe tomorrow. )
 
Jesus christ.... Well that's just tragic. I didn't know he was manipulating mentally unsound women these days. That's low even for him.

But fairs fair, I don't expect good makeup out of a tomboy. I would expect her to look at it before she puts it out into the world though.

Thanks for keeping me in the loop. A lots gone down since I stopped watching Jim.
You're acting like Jim himself isn't also mentally unsound, but his 'husband' isn't a tomboy just imagine the kind of woman who latches onto the whole 'queer' bullshit and you can imagine what she looks like.

Meanwhile, W40k fans have had to deal with this shit forever already. (I've not watched the video, I haven't had the heart yet, maybe tomorrow. )
Yeah but 40k is a game for misogynist fascists so they deserve it obviously. /sneed
 
Meanwhile, W40k fans have had to deal with this shit forever already. (I've not watched the video, I haven't had the heart yet, maybe tomorrow. )
The common connection is Hasbro. Games Workshop (40K owners/creators) took on an ex Hasbro executive and the bullshit started ramping up DnD is owned by Wizards of the Coast, who themselves are owned by Hasbro.

The troon rot of Nurgle had already set in with 40K, though, because their sperg out about hate and Warhammer is for everyone (but not fascists) started before they took on the Hasbro exec.
 
I'm completely ignorant about D&D and the OGL so I'm not going to comment on it too much but from what it seems WotC wanted to move away from what is at the moment an extremely generous system that has given birth to it's main competitor (Pathfinder) and I couldn't fault them for wanting to wrangle control back and make money from people basing their stuff on the D&D system, its kinda scummy but there is no such thing as a free ride.
TL;DR the Open Game License was written to let anyone create expanded content that fits inside the DnD ruleset. This was generally a great thing for DnD, as it didn't replace core rulebooks that you still needed to buy, and meant that players had no shortage of well made content to play - People could actually make money creating classes, adventures, races, regions, errata and such for DnD, so they took it seriously and made some really good shit. This ultimately spawned Pathfinder - But only after Last time they tried to fuck with the license. The thing about the license is that it was intended to be written to be perpetual, non revocable. Everyone involved in writing it has said as much. But they didn't use "Non-Revocable" in the document, they used other terminology and now Wizards is trying to use that to snake their way out of it, using a new license that takes advantage of the old terms to 'De-Authorize' the old license.

The problems with the new License are many, mainly that you end up giving Wizards all the rights to your content (They totally promise to not abuse it, but they also promised to never do what they're doing now, so take that with a pound of salt) and that they can collect royalties on all your sales and gatekeep anything in it, letting them decide arbitrarily if anything is allowed.

On the face of it, a license asking for royalties and putting some approval process in place isn't the worst thing, the problem is retroactively forcing that license on everyone, after you grew to massive pop culture popularity off the back of their work, just as much as they grew themselves in it. These people already know how to create interesting and engaging adventures that people want to partake in, which is why they're popular - rather than making more of their own, they're just deciding that you owe them some of that pie now.

The problem with this, which is rapidly manifesting, is that people aren't particularly attached to DnD - Which is why there is already a movement from the Pathfinder publisher, already joined by many of the major content publishers, to just cut Wizards and DnD out entirely, and set up a new open common ruleset and license to carry forward. Wizards can screech as much as they want, but game rules cannot be copywritten - just the specific, non-generic terms used to describe them.

They may have just inadvertently killed the golden goose with their greed, and its delicious to watch.
 
But 'landlord' is a buzzword these days, so, if you want to make someone sound greedy and evil, I guess you compare them to people successful enough to own property to rent out to less successful shitstains.
These are the same people who branded JKR the Queen TERF for holding the most middle-of-the-road positions imaginable, so what can we expect?

What I find funnier about Jim's misplaced landlord rant is that apparently we're all supposed to forget that he's still making 10k a month for doing absolutely fuck all. That's more than a lot of landlords would make renting out a single property over a year. Maybe people in glass houses should pay their fucking rent, Jim.
 
What I want to know is just when have asexual people ever been oppressed or discriminated against?

I guess you could point to like, stories of Christian matyrs who were forced into marriage instead of being allowed to become nuns like they wanted? But that of course presumes these women were "asexual" and not just... you know, religous. Or just didn't want to be married to Ogdar the Bear-Fucker of the Eastern Wilds.
 
Man both my predictions were way off the mark this week, I thought he was going to shit on Ubisoft or Hogwarts Legacy. I'm completely ignorant about D&D and the OGL so I'm not going to comment on it too much but from what it seems WotC wanted to move away from what is at the moment an extremely generous system that has given birth to it's main competitor (Pathfinder) and I couldn't fault them for wanting to wrangle control back and make money from people basing their stuff on the D&D system, its kinda scummy but there is no such thing as a free ride.


He posted an image on twitter with this same makeup and I thought he had just fucked up the exposure or something because of how pale he looked but no, he just put on way too much makeup and looked like a fucking corpse.
The OGL is technically a system agnostic open source license for game rules. It is just that WotC made it originally for 3e, and the whole purpose was so anyone could make add-ons for someone else's systems who released their system under the OGL.

The issue is they are trying to force people who they never met, who agreed to one license, to agree to a drastically different license without signing it, having read it or anything else. A new license which allows WotC to do anything they want with your third party content without restrictions while still imposing restrictions on what you can do, while also trying to take their money. The old version already imposed most these restrictions, but they were bilateral. In particular this let's WotC use the actually copyrightable parts of your content like story, settings, art, and characters, but you get nothing such in return. The old version protected both of you there.

What they are doing is, per my contract lawyer in the US (this affects my work so I'm heavily involved in it and talking to my lawyers daily), akin to if they tried to change the GNU so everyone making anything ever and releasing it under the GNU, even if it was a totally unique piece of software, have to pay Stallman and now Stallman owns that idea, going forward and backwards.

This is really more of an open source debate and contract law debate than anything related to gaming. While, yes, Paizo made bank off it, that was PF1e, which was basically D&D3.75e, but PF2e isn't really based off D&D anymore than any other generic fantasy TTRPG, and it doesn't use WotC rules anymore, which 1e did. The reason 2e used the license was so some third party could make their own stuff for it. WotC, with this change is trying to claim everything released under PF2e as theirs, while also breaking a contract in a way they can't.

This is a very nuisanced issue that could be used to dismantle open source, and Jim likely doesn't know more than greedy corporation.

ETA: I have majorly simplified this issue so not too off topic or long, while trying to give context.
 
Missed the mark with my prediction. Oh well. Here's some D&D discourse.

Hey, I just joined. I've been lurking here for years now, like a festering limb.
This is one topic I think does need discussion. I'm an old bastard and used to read the old rpg books, decide your own adventure I guess.
Jim has at least caught onto something very important in the history community games. It sucks they are clamping down but don't most D&D's just fucking
make all that shit up? Fuck the licence crap. Just make some rule set up
Still, he now runs at 803k :)
 
What I want to know is just when have asexual people ever been oppressed or discriminated against?

If you consider the fact that arguably the most powerful organization in Europe during much of its history, the Catholic Church, lauds celibacy as a virtue.

Asexuals have literally never been discriminated against.
 
If you consider the fact that arguably the most powerful organization in Europe during much of its history, the Catholic Church, lauds celibacy as a virtue.

Asexuals have literally never been discriminated against.
Please explain the literal.
Not every asexual has virtue for a demigod. Many have no sex drive, nothing like the filth in the Catholic church
 
If you consider the fact that arguably the most powerful organization in Europe during much of its history, the Catholic Church, lauds celibacy as a virtue.

Asexuals have literally never been discriminated against.
The closest argument you could make is either A) Countries encouraging people to have kids in times of population drag or B) People pointing out human asexuality isn't a thing, and they're massive autists.

Edit: Honestly, you could make an argument that normal heterosexuals are discriminated against considering how many 'single child' countries there are, not to mention people telling them to stop popping out crotch goblins if they aren't going to raise them, lest we get more Jims in the world.
 
Even then its usually not in the form of descrimination against "Asexuals" its just incentives provided to people who have children.
Obviously, that's why I say 'closest argument'. But the type of inbred who'd call themselves asexual is the exact type that'd say not being offered the incentive because they're asexual is phobic of...something.
 
The very best argument I've heard to suggest that asexuals are meaningfully discriminated against is that sometimes they get 'Corrective rape'.

Which is still ridiculous because the same thing applies to anybody who doesn't want to have sex for any reason, to show that asexuals have some particularly tragic discrimination that needs to be pointed out they'd need to show that they are being disproportionately targeted for rape and sexual assault and this directly relates to their sexuality, or lack thereof.

I did read somewhere that Asexuals are more likely to have a history of sexual assault, especially when they are very young, but that suggests that being asexual is a reaction to a traumatic experience rather than being a factor that puts you more at risk of it happening.

Apart from that, I dunno, I guess it must get kind of annoying when your granny asks if you've met a nice boy yet?
 
The very best argument I've heard to suggest that asexuals are meaningfully discriminated against is that sometimes they get 'Corrective rape'.

Which is still ridiculous because the same thing applies to anybody who doesn't want to have sex for any reason, to show that asexuals have some particularly tragic discrimination that needs to be pointed out they'd need to show that they are being disproportionately targeted for rape and sexual assault and this directly relates to their sexuality, or lack thereof.

I did read somewhere that Asexuals are more likely to have a history of sexual assault, especially when they are very young, but that suggests that being asexual is a reaction to a traumatic experience rather than being a factor that puts you more at risk of it happening.

Apart from that, I dunno, I guess it must get kind of annoying when your granny asks if you've met a nice boy yet?
Isn't the main reason asexuals were added, like intersex, is to get better awareness of them? In an ideal world this would lead to scientific attention and then a better understanding on what asexuality actually is and whether it is an actual sexuality at all or just sexual behaviour induced by some previous event or mental condition.
 
Apart from that, I dunno, I guess it must get kind of annoying when your granny asks if you've met a nice boy yet?
I mean, asexuals do have nonsexual romantic relationships. So they might find a nice boy/girl. They just won't reproduce. Interestingly, based on certain studies I have read in the past, they're one of the only cases where polyamorous relationships do not immediately melt down as well. Since usually the additional partner is there to help provide the sexual needs of the other person, and you don't have this whole mess of jealousy being quite so bad.

However, the same studies I've seen making those claims also claim that asexuals have extremely high relationship failure rates due to the other partner of not feeling all their needs are met. What causes issues is LGBT events typically are highly sexual in nature and are also kind of used as a dating platform for the more sane members. This leaves asexual as the weird ones.
 
Back