Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 04, 2021, 06:46:07 PMWell my good fellow, we all know those damn colonials can't speak the Queens English! Would you care for a cup of tea?

Well, you have it right. It does take years of practice to develop the full patronising imperialist outlook.  That's why our SJWs are so keen to decolonise our curricula and culture. Just as well, eh! You must approve?

So, the new D&D film (For 2023 - according to IMDB!) has Brit actors, Hugh Grant, Daisy Head and Regé-Jean Page in it. Which one(s) of them are going to be baddies?

Quote from: SHARK on November 04, 2021, 06:33:36 PM
Greetings!
The Merriam Webster Dictionary isn't considered authoritative in Britain?

I guess it would be considered authoritative for American English.
We'd probably regard the Oxford English Dictionary as the most authoritative, but we have a pretty strong tradition that dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive. Newspapers typically have their own style guides.

Quote from: Anselyn on November 04, 2021, 07:13:55 PM
Evening SHARK!

I must say that I imagine SHARK to be a persona you play well here

I assure you that SHARK is exactly the same in private correspondence! 

Quote from: S'mon on November 04, 2021, 07:34:56 PM
We'd probably regard the Oxford English Dictionary as the most authoritative, but we have a pretty strong tradition that dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive. Newspapers typically have their own style guides.

I am also happy to acknowledge that Webster's was published 56 years before the first parts of the OED so that's some kind of seniority. We should offer our enthusiastic contrafibularities to Johnson for his work of 1775 but it didn't establish a brand.

But - the OED was worked on by Tolkien and so is cleary blessed beyond all others, especially for full etymology, history and usage.

Quote from: S'mon on November 04, 2021, 07:37:43 PM

Quote from: Anselyn on November 04, 2021, 07:13:55 PM
Evening SHARK!

I must say that I imagine SHARK to be a persona you play well here

I assure you that SHARK is exactly the same in private correspondence! 

Greetings!

Yes, my friend, that's right! I try to always be authentic!

Silly quibbling about dictionaries aside though, I suppose I have always had a strong respect for dictionaries, as I have always loved words, vocabulary, and languages. I've always loved the Oxford dictionaries as well.

And I *do* spell ARMOUR as, well, ARMOUR.

Along with many other words that I write using the Imperial standards. In college, on more than one occasion, I had some nitwit wanker student attempt to "correct" me during in-class discussions and reviews of our written work, in regards to my word usage and spelling--and I simply sat back and enjoyed my professor's breaking out some English Style manual and explaining to these students that yes, I was in fact entirely correct in every way. While British Imperial standards are sometimes different, and American colloquialisms and styles are academically acceptable--the British Imperial Standards for English are never considered to be wrong or incorrect in any way, but merely a different style approach within English writing.

The look of crushing defeat and embarrassment on the student's face as the professor explicitly corrected them, was...*pure joy* for me. Fucking illiterate wanker.

In fairness, many, many American students have *zero* real education in real history, and so many things, whether it is geography or writing standards, but certainly there is an ignorance of most things British. They simply are not exposed to a whole lot for much of their official years of education, especially K through 12. I've had two friends, one from Britain, and one from Germany, for example, as well as various professors, explain that most American students are functionally 2 to 5 years behind most European students for anything K through 12, and don't seem to become equivalently educated as a European student until a year or two into college here. Our colleges and universities have always been good, so that's a saving grace and something to be grateful for, but the grade-school education...yeah, that leaves much to be desired, for certain. Sad and disappointing, I must say.

Of course, in the very recent years, I'm now not so certain that the quality of American universities has been maintained at all, but seems to have precipitously declined, and taken a hard leap off a cliff.

From what you have explained, as well as others like our friend Shasarak down in New Zealand, monstrous stupidity definitely seems to be spreading though, and gaining momentum everywhere.

Cheers, S'mon!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on November 04, 2021, 08:41:07 PM
From what you have explained, as well as others like our friend Shasarak down in New Zealand, monstrous stupidity definitely seems to be spreading though, and gaining momentum everywhere.

Yes - when I went to University it was definitely the case that we started out a couple years ahead of USA, our school A levels were roughly equivalent to US first 2 years at college, but UK end product after 3 years at UK University was similar to US end product after 4 years at University.

But now we have slacker school standards + mass higher education, so there is both a lot of remedial teaching at University level, and University standards are slipping too, though not uniformly. I'll go from teaching a pretty tough traditional Contract Law class to a "so how do you feel about X?" type class.  The worst thing is "My Graduate Journey" where they are invited to reflect on their feelings about *themselves* - and get huge marks for presenting papier mache, collages et al - this in a Law degree.

Quote from: S'mon on November 05, 2021, 03:33:56 AM
Yes - when I went to University it was definitely the case that we started out a couple years ahead of USA, our school A levels were roughly equivalent to US first 2 years at college, but UK end product after 3 years at UK University was similar to US end product after 4 years at University.

I met my partner when she did her Junior Year Abroad from the US in the UK, in the 80s. Her comments at the time are the same as yours above. A-levels are a very narrow focus though. I think there's a lot to be said for the IB as a good balance of breadth and depth. When I teach students who took Maths, Further Maths and Physics for A-level, there are times when it would be nice if they had read a few books in recent years ...

QuoteBut now we have slacker school standards + mass higher education, so there is both a lot of remedial teaching at University level, and University standards are slipping too, though not uniformly. I'll go from teaching a pretty tough traditional Contract Law class to a "so how do you feel about X?" type class.  The worst thing is "My Graduate Journey" where they are invited to reflect on their feelings about *themselves* - and get huge marks for presenting papier mache, collages et al - this in a Law degree.

We've been having "Curriculum Transformation". My university has decided that students should acquire "an inquiring mind" by the end of the course, and the OFS are keen that all graduates have core literacy skills. Didn't these used to be entry requirements?

My gamer colleague and I who teach first year "maths methods for physics" have been entertaining ourselves by setting important questions with real world application. Like -  If you roll 6 6-sided dice, what's the probabilty that you obtain two or more sixes?  If you generate two random integers in the range 1 to 20, what's the probabilty that one of them will be 15 or greater.     

Quote from: Anselyn on November 05, 2021, 04:25:42 AM

Quote from: S'mon on November 05, 2021, 03:33:56 AM
Yes - when I went to University it was definitely the case that we started out a couple years ahead of USA, our school A levels were roughly equivalent to US first 2 years at college, but UK end product after 3 years at UK University was similar to US end product after 4 years at University.

I met my partner when she did her Junior Year Abroad from the US in the UK, in the 80s. Her comments at the time are the same as yours above. A-levels are a very narrow focus though. I think there's a lot to be said for the IB as a good balance of breadth and depth. When I teach students who took Maths, Further Maths and Physics for A-level, there are times when it would be nice if they had read a few books in recent years ...

QuoteBut now we have slacker school standards + mass higher education, so there is both a lot of remedial teaching at University level, and University standards are slipping too, though not uniformly. I'll go from teaching a pretty tough traditional Contract Law class to a "so how do you feel about X?" type class.  The worst thing is "My Graduate Journey" where they are invited to reflect on their feelings about *themselves* - and get huge marks for presenting papier mache, collages et al - this in a Law degree.

We've been having "Curriculum Transformation". My university has decided that students should acquire "an inquiring mind" by the end of the course, and the OFS are keen that all graduates have core literacy skills. Didn't these used to be entry requirements?

I agree that A-levels encourage too narrow a focus, exacerbated by traditional University degrees. I did (1990-91) Latin Classical History Physics & 2 Maths A levels, and the latter lot definitely suffered from mixing arts & science subjects (so eg no Chemistry) - as you know we're 'supposed' to do either all-arts or all-science. Arts subjects are easier so not dependent on mutual support, but the Science path definitely expected a tight focus.

I agree that students ought to be starting with core literacy skills. We can help them develop critical thinking skills (as well as knowledge acquisition skills - equally important!), but those without the capacity for an 'inquiring mind' shouldn't really be at University.
I encountered a student recently who seemed to lack basic literacy and could not read the name of a case off the white board screen in front of him. He claimed to have been unfairly failed the previous year, he said they didn't believe he'd submitted his own work. I could see why they didn't believe him.

Quote from: trechriron on November 03, 2021, 04:49:36 PM
Witch - hardly an offensive class name when you consider 5e's Warlock, which in the tradition is a Witch that has been cast out. This doesn't bother me, it's a game not a religious reference.

Last iteration of the SJW disease there was some grumbling about the word Witch used in gaming, and in general, and then alot of use of Wiccan at their suggestion... until THAT was complained about and someone said "fuck it" and went back to witch - and round and round we go.

You can never appease. Because its never enough. And because eventually the next wave of SJW loonery turns on the old. Every damn time.

And you can not just come up with a new name because someone will complain that this is just a code word for whatever they want to be offended about. See the great Orc outrage.

Quote from: RPGPundit on November 03, 2021, 10:34:36 PM
Phylacteries are not a Jewish term, as was already pointed out in the thread.  A phylactery is, properly speaking, a term for something that is used to contain something holy.

So a Jewish Tefillin is a type of Phylactery, as is a Christian reliquary, Muslim amulets that hold verses from the Koran, Indian relic boxes that hold the hair of a guru, Buddhist reliquaries that hold the bones of a bodhisattva, etc.

So, as usual, Paizo are morons.

1 & 2: Didnt Dragon have an article on variant Lich foci? If not. Then this sort of stuff is great material for one. All the weird sorts of containers that might be used. Much like there were Dragon Articles on variant spellbooks, everything from preserved leaves to sheets of metal or even stone and other things.

3: We already knew that. Any semblance of sentience over at Bozo is rapidly fading. Seems like they are trying to out-WOTC WOTC.

Paizo could have just added more options. Instead they did exactly as predicted. You can bet more will follow.

Quote from: S'mon on November 05, 2021, 04:48:38 AM
- as you know we're 'supposed' to do either all-arts or all-science.

Yes. I had a friend at my traditionalist grammar school who had to fight to be allowed to take both A-level maths _and_ economics (and history) before taking PPE.  He's now quite an important person at the Institute of Economic Affairs.

Quote from: Omega on November 05, 2021, 04:55:42 AM
You can never appease. Because its never enough. And because eventually the next wave of SJW loonery turns on the old. Every damn time.

Here's the kicker: in the age of the internet, a literal handful of consistently active voices outweigh hundreds of lazy ones.  And if that handful start throwing out the right words (like pretty much any of the "ism"s), and people flock to their banner because they don't want to be seen as an "ist" who supports the "ism".  Furthermore, to be fully honest here, some of the complaints those SJWs have are based around a nugget of truth.  Orcs as black people is offensively stupid, but by the same token there's an honest lack of actual African-themed support in D&D.  Female space marines in 40k is pandering, but female Imperial Guard figures and Eldar and Tau hegemonists would be appreciated (or I like to think so). 

But yes, trying to appease a minority of people whose greatest virtue is being loud is a terrible idea. 

Quote from: Omega on November 05, 2021, 04:55:42 AMAnd you can not just come up with a new name because someone will complain that this is just a code word for whatever they want to be offended about. See the great Orc outrage.

I think D&D should -own- the Orc Outrage.  "We've heard your complaints, and we've listened.  We're making orcs and drow morally diverse, and removing ability limitations and bonuses, to better reflect the African American experience within D&D.  #OrcsAreBlackPeopleAndThatsOkay"

That's what the critics want right?  :-)

Quote from: Habitual Gamer on November 05, 2021, 09:05:16 AM
That's what the critics want right?  :-)

They just want to break things and hurt people.

"There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always— do not forget this, Winston— always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever. "

Quote from: S'mon on November 05, 2021, 09:18:53 AM

Quote from: Habitual Gamer on November 05, 2021, 09:05:16 AM
That's what the critics want right?  :-)

They just want to break things and hurt people.

"There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always— do not forget this, Winston— always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever. "

"Some men just want to watch the world burn."

Quote from: Habitual Gamer on November 05, 2021, 09:05:16 AMFurthermore, to be fully honest here, some of the complaints those SJWs have are based around a nugget of truth.

Nope. Its based around a lie, and the reason why SJWs keep getting ground is that people reject the consequences of said lie, but can't reject that lie itself.

Should D&D have more Africa and should 40K have more women? The question should be on the same intelectual calibur as 'Should D&D and 40K have more people in green pants?'.

As long as the lie of 'Diversity and representation are sacrosanct' has been thrust into peoples minds deep enough, then the SJWs will always take that lie to its logical conclusion.

Things canbe diverse or represent groups, for the same reason pants can be green. But in no way it should be seen as somekind of virtue.