OOTS #1225 - The Discussion Thread

[Goblin_Priest]

I'm close to retirement age - in fact, I'm double dipping, retired from Place A when they froze my pension at earned benefits and took a job at Place B. And I still refuse to grow up - I play video games and the like. But my body is definitely aging.

I don't know, I don't feel like that's tied together. Typical adult leisure has shifted over the years, but I don't feel like it's a significant determinant of being an adult or not. I used to play chess, as a child, with one of my grandfathers. Was he less of an adult because he liked the game of chess? I'd play cribbage with the other. Was he less of an adult because he liked games of cards? Video games didn't exist back then, but I don't really see them as being fundamentally different from chess, cards, fishing, hunting, baseball, or whatever. At it's core, it's /leisure/, and pretty much everyone has had some form of it, even if in the saddest sense it's just passing all your time/money at the bar on booze or gambling because of how miserable your life is.

Our relation to leisure might have changed, I'm fairly certain it is, but I don't feel any less of an adult because I play video games. If anything, parenting is liberating, because it allows revisiting many childhood activities that society had told us we had grown out of. Going at the swings, down the slides, taking out a dusty GameBoy, snow ball fights, etc. There's so many things I hadn't done in quite a long time, that I now enjoy doing once more with my children. And doing them doesn't make me feel any /less/ of an adult, it makes me feel /more/ like one. If I'm booting up a world of MineCraft to play with one of my kids, it's not just about "me" anymore, it's about bonding and sharing. And if I want to play some "more mature" games when they are in bed, like FPS or 4X games, why not? Previous generations would kill that free time watching advertisements. Because that's basically what cable TV is filled with: overpriced low-diversity array of ad-filled content. "Hey, what's on TV?" "Meh, not much. Wanna join?" Nobody will succeed in making me feel like less of an adult because I'd rather boot up a video game than go back to that antiquated form of overpriced passive entertainment.

It never gets easier: yep. One of mine's 28 and one is 31 with a child. They've flown the nest and are out there doing their thing in the world. But we stay in touch and I am occasionally asked for advice. (that's nice). I stopped offering advice, except on request, at about the time each finished college.

"You know how to reach me if you'd like another viewpoint/opinion" That has worked out reasonably well.

My wife prefers to keep offering advice for free and unasked for. That's her groove. Sometimes well received, sometimes not. Parents are not required to be perfect, but I think it is required to keep working at it ... even at this time ...

Unsolicited advice is rarely welcome. Unsolicited parenting advance is often outright offensive.

Of course, every person and family is different, but people tend to take /very/ personally any disagreement over their child rearing methods, and unsolicited advice easily comes off as judgemental even when it's not intended as such. Previous generations know a lot that current parents don't know. But it also goes both ways, current parents knowing a lot of other stuff previous generations often don't, and, more importantly, the context of child rearing has greatly changed since the previous generation.

And if there's something that's even more rarely well received than unsolicited parenting advice, it's parenting advice/judgement "aimed" at old practices. Grandmothers, in particular, tend to be extremely thin-skinned when it comes to this. For example, say you don't want to use talc powder on your baby because it was linked to certain forms of cancer? Tell your mother/grandmother that, and in many cases, you can expect for you to be seriously hurt/offended and go ranting about how /she/ did used it, and /everybody/ used it, and it /worked well/ for her.

As such, when unsolicited parenting advice is given, there's a good chance that /both/ parties end up offended. The receiving party taking it as a critic of their parenting skills, and the giving party taking it as a critic of /their/ own parenting skills. And as a rule of thumb, every parent has given so much to parenting that they tend to not receive critics well, with little importance of whether they are older (because they did what they did for longer) or younger (because they are actively enduring the costs of parenting).

Things like this will also vary according to culture and generation, though, but older generations tended to have been raised in a much more heavily "respect your elders, they know best" philosophy than current generations. In addition, our current elders basically /only/ had their elders to rely upon for information, whereas current parents have access to much more (credible) sources. To some elders, this adds insult to injury, because they were forced to suck up to their elders and grew some expectation that they would eventually earn this reverence themselves.

I mean, I love my grandparents and respect them for all they've done, but /I/ am the one living every day with my kid, and the consequences of every decision that relates to them. Thus, /I/ set the rules, and that's not really negotiable. Well, plural "I", to include the wife. :P

As a rule of thumb, I find it preferable to be very cautious about granting unsolicited advice, especially for sensitive subjects like parenting. Heck, I remember a meme passing not so long ago, where a tall guy joked about the burden of being tall, where he can never offer free help fetching stuff on high shelves, but must always oblige if asked. Someone, clearly not a tall guy, asked why he wouldn't just offer it if he saw a person struggling, clearly judging the tall guy for this approach. Well, as a tall-ish guy myself, I can say that people can actually be offended if I offer them unsolicited aid in fetching objects from high shelves. Seriously. Maybe not most people, maybe a minority of people for things like this, but it happens. So if people can get triggered and offended for helping them due to a trait they have no control about and that doesn't really have innate value (height), I think this just helps to suggest the hazards that can represent giving unsolicited advice about something that people not only do have much control over, but also take incredibly personally, and are greatly taxed for (in terms of fatigue, free time, money, etc.), and which will potentially have great impacts down the road on another's life (the child).

[Fyraltari]

"There's no point in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes." -- Doctor Who (4th Doctor)

Third too.

[bunsen_h]

Third too.

Huh. I had to search for that one.

Jo Grant: Doctor, stop being childish.

3^rd Doctor: What's wrong with being childish? I like being childish.

[Algeh]

People tell that a lot, but it's not true. Far from it, in fact. I took some measurements, y'see. On my screen, O-Chul is 1.1 cm tall. The handles are 6 mm from the ground. If O-Chul is 6' tall or taller, the distance between the handles and the ground is roughly 3'2" or more – uncomfortably high for a small character.

Yes. It's not that the handles are low, but that the cabinet-looking things are very tall.

Yeah, using the wall-block-counting method to see where the handles are, it looks like the handles are probably somewhere in the second row of blocks from the bottom, which is the same row of blocks the paladins' torsos are in up above on their ledge. The scale of the room is extremely odd, with a very high "ceiling" for that bottom level and the paladins much more than a typical single floor's height above. I count 9 rows of blocks on that bottom level, and the paladins' heads are barely into the 4th block on their level, so I'd think 5 blocks would be a more typical ceiling height (maybe even 4).

[bunsen_h]

The left-hand door of the right-hand cabinet has a yellow notice on it, and below that is either a knob or a pair of smaller notes. A control to specify the spatial connection to be found when the door is opened, plus instructions?

[Amarsir]

Given that she can’t see through the floor, wouldn’t the most rational conclusion for Lien be that the door is beneath them, rather than that there isn’t one?

Comic ruined. /s

[Ironsmith]

Actually, come to think of it... have we considered that the wardrobes might be a Narnia-esque gateway into and out of the room?

[Fyraltari]

Given that she can’t see through the floor, wouldn’t the most rational conclusion for Lien be that the door is beneath them, rather than that there isn’t one?

Comic ruined. /s

Lien knows better than to make any assumption.

Actually, come to think of it... have we considered that the wardrobes might be a Narnia-esque gateway into and out of the room?

Yes.

[Dion]

Given that she can’t see through the floor, wouldn’t the most rational conclusion for Lien be that the door is beneath them, rather than that there isn’t one?s

I’d argue the most rational conclusion that the mystery figure is Huey, Dewey, and Louie wearing a cloak.

Further, is logical they have stolen a dry erase magic marker from the animator, and they will use it to draw a door when they need one.

And this will setup a mighty battle with sir thumb.

[Peelee]

Further, is logical they have stolen a dry erase magic marker from the animator, and they will use it to draw a door when they need one.

No no no, that's all wrong. Everyone knows you look in the mirror to see what you saw, pick up the saw, and cut the table in half. Two halves make one whole, so they crawl out the hole.

[bunsen_h]

Given that she can’t see through the floor, wouldn’t the most rational conclusion for Lien be that the door is beneath them, rather than that there isn’t one?

Comic ruined. /s

She doesn't say that there isn't one. She says that she has no idea how they might get out of the room. Take that literally: she doesn't know. She wouldn't assume that there must be a door that's out of sight; she wouldn't assume that there isn't one. But they can't make any plans based on knowing how to get out.

[Shining Wrath]

I'd say that since there isn't a door visible anywhere, then there isn't a door in the whole room, so exit via the whole.

Unless one of our paladins has a dex score sufficient to permit picking locks on manacles with booted feet, though, the question of doors is largely irrelevant.

Anyway, I expect one of the other voices to arrive soon and we'll get some exposition about the roles / goals of this faction in the Stickverse.

[Emmit Svenson]

Given that she can’t see through the floor, wouldn’t the most rational conclusion for Lien be that the door is beneath them, rather than that there isn’t one?

Yes, and since we know she's not the sort of person to jump to an irrational conclusion, we can deduce that hanging on the fourth wall, where we can't see it, is a mirror in which Lien can see the area beneath them.

[bunsen_h]

Yes, and since we know she's not the sort of person to jump to an irrational conclusion, we can deduce that hanging on the fourth wall, where we can't see it, is a mirror in which Lien can see the area beneath them.

That would require a mirror that's angled toward them, or curved, big enough to show the entire wall beneath them. If she were claiming that there isn't a door in the room, which she isn't.

If she was able to see the wall beneath them, I'd expect her to note the presence of the cabinet-looking things with their enormous doors.

[Fyraltari]

Yes, and since we know she's not the sort of person to jump to an irrational conclusion

In a world of magic where passwall and teleport exist, the possibility of there not being any door is is not as improbable as in ours. Occam's razor would not justify asserting that there is a door beneath them. Besides all she says is that she doesn't see any exit. Until they figure out how to enter and leave this place, they cannot escape.

[Gallowglass]

Christ on a pogo stick. You people.

let's look at Lien's actual dialog here:

"I was worried that I didn't see any windows at first"

"then i realized I didn't see any doors either"

"even if we get out of the manacles, i have no idea how we are getting out of the room."

All of this is logical and correct and, if you actual read what she is saying instead of making up dialog yourself, there is nothing irrational about it. She doesn't say there are no doors, she says she doesn't see any.

Things she doesn't say:

"There is no door."

"There is no way out."

Things she DOES say"

"I don't see any doors (exits)"

"I have no idea how we (can get out)"

[Dion]

Things she doesn't say:

"There is no door."

I wonder if maybe they’re inside the snarl. I bet the snarl doesn’t have doors.

[Ruck]

I think it's fair to assume for now that Lien is probably correct, since her vantage point seems to mean she can see everything we can't, and we can't see any exits either (only those wardrobes, which, while they have doors, I think it's also fair to assume they are just wardrobes and not secret exits). Plus, from the Doylist standpoint, I'm not sure why the line is in there if we're meant to think there is an exit. It's still uncertain enough that I'm open to either possibility, though.

[Metastachydium]

I think it's fair to assume for now that Lien is probably correct, since her vantage point seems to mean she can see everything we can't, and we can't see any exits either (only those wardrobes, which, while they have doors, I think it's also fair to assume they are just wardrobes and not secret exits). Plus, from the Doylist standpoint, I'm not sure why the line is in there if we're meant to think there is an exit. It's still uncertain enough that I'm open to either possibility, though.

Well, technically there is a corner we don't see and neither should Lien.

[Emanick]

I think it's fair to assume for now that Lien is probably correct, since her vantage point seems to mean she can see everything we can't, and we can't see any exits either (only those wardrobes, which, while they have doors, I think it's also fair to assume they are just wardrobes and not secret exits). Plus, from the Doylist standpoint, I'm not sure why the line is in there if we're meant to think there is an exit. It's still uncertain enough that I'm open to either possibility, though.

I wouldn’t say it’s fair to assume that the wardrobes aren’t secret exits - if nothing else, it’s good for a Narnia joke. It’s true that we have no evidence of that, though.

I agree that, from a Doylist standpoint, Lien’s comment probably only makes sense if the lack of apparent doors is meaningful in some way. If there’s a hidden exit whose hiddenness is relevant, though, the comment would still make sense.

[Goblin_Priest]

In a world like this one, if you want to make a prison, and you aren't a schmuk detaining other smuks, you'd more likely than not avoid having doors.

[ebarde]

I think this is also to cue us in that this prision is related somehow to the dungeon. I mean, we've just been introduced to another room without doors type deal, I assume they were designed by the same person maybe.

[bunsen_h]

In a world like this one, if you want to make a prison, and you aren't a schmuk detaining other smuks, you'd more likely than not avoid having doors.

We've seen several jails and prisons in the strip before, all with doors. And this space doesn't look like its main purpose is as a prison; it's a multi-function area with some limited resources for restraining humanoid prisoners.

[goodpeople25]

We've seen several jails and prisons in the strip before, all with doors. And this space doesn't look like its main purpose is as a prison; it's a multi-function area with some limited resources for restraining humanoid prisoners.

Pretty sure those could easily be covered under the schmuk clause.

[Peelee]

Pretty sure those could easily be covered under the schmuk clause.

Shojo, the Sapphire Guard, and Tsukiko were schmucks now?

[Fyraltari]

Shojo, the Sapphire Guard, and Tsukiko were schmucks now?

The first two are debatable but that last one... Yes.

[Peelee]

The first two are debatable but that last one... Yes.

Tsukiko was still significantly more powerful than a massive percent of the world, so I'm not sure I would agree with that sentiment. The Azurite prison was still able to effectively shut her down without depriving her of a door.

[Fyraltari]

Tsukiko was still significantly more powerful than a massive percent of the world, so I'm not sure I would agree with that sentiment. The Azurite prison was still able to effectively shut her down without depriving her of a door.

I thought "schmuck" was a negative assesment of someone's mental might. Is it not?

[Peelee]

I thought "schmuck" was a negative assesment of someone's mental might. Is it not?

She was a wizard/cleric, so I'd say her Int and Wis were almost certainly not bad at all. She had some foolish beliefs, but I wouldn't call her a schmuck.

[Fyraltari]

She was a wizard/cleric, so I'd say her Int and Wis were almost certainly not bad at all. She had some foolish beliefs, but I wouldn't call her a schmuck.

Oh, I'm not denying her academic credentials at all but, she had proof that Redcloak was a traitor and when discovered snooping around in his study she decided to confront him right there despite knowing that he had a mind-control-the-undead spell. she was rather foolish.