Dying on the hill that is Kevin's shitty writing

[hawkwind]

Can I get an exploration for why palladium players will die on the hill that is Kevin's often time poorly thought trough writing. Someone in a palladium FB group argued that I was wrong despite the fact I pointed out several times I was rewriting the fiction Kevin wrote. That it was impossible for x to happen based on my assumption of what Kevin forgot to say.

Such as. The new Navy never had scientist so their tech would never have advanced. Kevin makes no mention about scientists. It is only the readers assumption no scientists existed. So why can't some people stop and say "well if you do change that assumption it does change things." Kevin is horrible at thinking things through, and the New Navy is a prime example.

So why die on a hill when I specifically say I'm not working under those assumption?

Plus what the f is the claim of "reality" in a fictional setting?

[Jaymz]

Even if they HAD the brain trust to do so, they did not have the manufacturing capability.....nor any real reason to advance much beyond what they already had. They HAVE Glitterboys. If you read into it they would HAVE super nukes 9as they were the navy after all) and they would HAVE access to all the Chaos Earth NEMA gear. Frankly unless you completely rewrite the numbers they start out with as a "population" there is more concern of survival than worrying about advancing technology that seems to do the job very well. At least not until such time THE "population" numbers make it worth doing so which honestly wouldn't be fore a very long time. At best they would be no further ahead than the latest CS gear and maybe up to par with Triax. At best. Add to that they most certainly do not have the manufacturing base to just whip up a whole bunch of new gear at a whim and yeah I have no issue with them more or less as is with the additions I make (super nukes, NEMA gear) which hadn't been introduced to Rifts in any way until after Underseas.

As for reality...it isn't so much actual reality but suspension of disbelief and the point at which it goes to far to be able to suspend such disbelief. Trying to say they could advance their tech the same way a nation of millions could, without having those resources, brain trusts etc is a good way to destroy ones suspension of disbelief.

[Jaymz]

Also keep in mind that largely the survivors were not the research and technical staff but the actual naval crew etc. The research engineers and scientists would not have been on board (they may have had one or two for their specific fields...maybe), but by and large the people that would do the advancing of said technologies wold have been state side NOT with the naval vessel that banded together to create the new navy which is an instant brain drain. You'd likely end up with modified designs and perhaps a new way of using the technology they already had. Creating new technologies takes more than just being a scientist of "engineer". It takes resources, facilities, and any number of other types of sciences and experts, that by the navy's very nature would not likely have been on hand with the survivors but again, state side on the main land at researching facilities and such doing their jobs thus likely dead.

So going *poof* they now have scientists still doesn't fly in order to let them develop new technologies without going *poof* they suddenly have all these resources and *poof* the research facilities and *poof* the additional personnel that would be needed and *poof* manufacturing capability and *poof* full infrastructure to do so and *poof* insert whatever else I may be missing.

So saying you are "rewriting" that part is fine but you are doing the same thing you are accusing Kevin of doing and leaving out a number of things that then also need rewriting which in turn makes it no longer what it started out as. A group of military, in this case Navy, personnel who banded together to survive as best they could which you now turned into a self sufficient nation (which they were not at first) that has full resources, personnel, infrastructure, research capability, and manufacturing capability of such a nation (which again they were not and only grew to that later) equal to that of multi million person nations in other parts of the world who, in the case of a Triax, did not have to worry quite as much about survival and had most of it's infrastructure remain in tact. Even the CS has had relative stability for a century with a population of millions. The New navy? Not so much. Especially since they are largely at sea while the those left behind are civilians not military to begin with.

[Adam of The Old Kingdom]

there are engineering trained people in positions of responsibility, such as to sign off on stuff, but for the most part, fitters and mechinists make the magic happen.
If I read the setting correctly, you would see setting specific polish on the existing technology but are not likely to see reengineering or new tech. unless you introduce a genius or funky inventor to the timeline.

KS is a story teller. the numbers and details are some one else's problem, usually some other GM.

[Josh Hilden]

I wouldn't say his writing is shitty, his continuity is just really messy. He has too many spoons in too many pots.

EDIT: Also no writer should ever be their own final editor, period.

[hawkwind]

Actually I'm not going Poof. The arguer made no attempt to determine my changes. I'm building a radically different new navy for an Underseas game. The limited material demands more fleshed setting for an Underseas game.

My anger was the fact that I said many times I am rewriting the material and rather then asking what I was doing he assumed what I was changing.

The new navy is now going to be the NGU Navy. The material in Underseas is going to be treated as counter intelligence to hide their true existence. This was a story compromise so the book material could exist rather then saying "ignore it". The Neo Global Union is made up of the three surface bases (which are designed to draw attention away from the real settlements) and 20-30 underwater cities near or on volcanoes and thermal plumes. The debated simply assumed what I was writing and made no attempt to determine my goal.

It's my opinion that the New Navy wouldn't even be able to build ships and power armor as written. Where the heck do they get the resources? The control three bases that may not even qualify as cities? How would they even pay an outside party to get the resources. We don't even have to discuss scientist for the entire "story" to fall apart.

So I'm writing that the navy took over the bases, then went to look for Underseas settlements built by US corporations or military and help unify them. Then as the societies expanded they built new cities and increased resource extraction. No where does it say they didn't have scientists and it is said the bases still had personnel. We just assume no scientists existed but assumptions can be just as easily seen in the opposite.

[hawkwind]

New Navy is going to be slang/inside joke for the counter ops personnel. They are trying to hide their numbers and name is vague enough to leave people with no clue.

[hawkwind]

I find it just as unbelievable that the Ticonderoga still exists. 300 years and the ship never sustained enough damage to make her unsalvegable? And I was told MDC material just doesn't deteriorate by the person I was debating. How are my ideas any more unbelievable then those assumption?

[Jaymz]

Ok so you aren't rewriting it, you're competely discounting it as fake information and replacing it with your own creation.

That's very different than "rewriting" what already exists.

You presented your argument as if you're rewriting was simply modifying what already exists which you've just shown Is very much not the case at all.

For all intents and purposes you are in fact going *POOF*

[hawkwind]

I don't think I argued I didn't. The problem is the lack of asking my intentions. Asking what my changes are. One side was debating based in Cannon. The other not. And no matter how much I said so, the cannon trumped my ideas. It's like I wasn't allowed to spit ball ideas.

As someone who has had years of learning how to be critical of ideas, it drives me nuts that people can't say "rather then that, try this". It was nothing but "no, they wouldn't" and acted like it was a debate. It was a creative discussion. Honestly this is the second time I've left palladium FB groups because no one seems to just have fun in discussion of ideas or change. It's about what is "correct" not writing something fun.

[hawkwind]

The reason I blame Kevin, is because, once he writes it, it becomes this mythical "Cannon". Something that supersedes have fun discussions in the groups I tried to join into. We all know his ideas have holes a Dragon Dreadnought could fly through, why act like Cannon is somehow sacred. It's like a religion. It has to be write, no matter how poorly thought through it is.

[hawkwind]

And for the record it was the third post in the idea of redoing the New Navy. It's not like I wasn't up front.

[Sci-Fi]

Wow. Not only are you changing your tune but you're flat out re-inventing stuff here hawkwind, and I'm not talking about stuff for the New Navy, but as in history of the past few days on this topic. That is -not- how you presented it earlier and in fact you're taking points from the debate that you deleted and are now claiming them as your own invention.

You very much did present it as changing and advancing the current tech to the level you wanted. Starting with uniforms and going all the way up to giving them ship wide force field generation capability. It was pointed out to you repeatedly and by different people that the New Navy wouldn't have the technology or brain trust to pull that off and your argument boiled down to '300 years. Why not???'. You were told why not. Repeatedly as well.

You did say that you didn't like Kevin's writing on it, and wanted to update it and what not, and at one point you mentioned something about the book information being old information, but you're now totally changing your tune to say that it was 100% Fabricated as false information and you're creating something 100% new, that just 'hid' under the information in the book. That wasn't your previous point. You were saying, at length mind you, that you thought the New Navy would have advanced significantly, more over you postulated that they would not only surpass the CS in Tech level but would surpass Traix and the NGR as well. That if they could advance tech, so could the very limited people in the New Navy.  When that was contested you ignored the points. Lack of resources. Lack of people. Lack of Scientists and designers. etc.

In short. You're lieing your ass off to try and cover points of contention in the previous debate that you deleted when it was pointed out by multiple people how your 'changes' wouldn't be viable in the setting and are now coming to a separate venue to misrepresent the previous debate, change your position (Taking on aspects of the previous debate mind you) and present yourself as the poor put upon party that no one listened to.

You were listened to. Your ideas didn't work as presented, were poorly thought out, didn't take into account the setting you were trying to plug them into, didn't take into account canon writings for the setting, and more over 100% ignored and threw out the window anything resembling logical explanations as to the advancements and improvements you were trying to institute with the material as presented.

You very much were saying 'Kevin writes shit. And this is how it should be. POOF. Now they're better than everyone"

Don't come in here and lie. Some of us are on multiple venues. Some of us saw the debate. You're not pulling a fast one.

[hawkwind]

No. You did not read my threads and as it was my artwork. I deleted.

My over arching complaint is very specific. Did you ever ask for more information to gain clarification?

Ever?

If all you did was assume my changes, that is my point.

[hawkwind]

I am not lying. You did not make any attempt to determine what I said.

This is my entire beef. Don't assume you know what I am thinking and ignore my attempts to clarify.

The only wrong is I could have stated again and more multiple times I was not running off Cannon.

[hawkwind]

I never said I write better. My problem is the idea doesn't seem thought out. And I was fing pissed so I called him a shitty writer. His writing does this to me all the time. I can't even run his game as is. I constantly have to modify. But once you modify you have to justify.

I felt no need to justify my plans. I was fing spitballing on the force fields. I wanted ideas on how an undersea society might deal with hill breaches more than life pods.

[hawkwind]

Your logic did not for the changes I made and I said many, many, many, many times that I was making changes.

[hawkwind]

I left that group for a reason and I shoulda un-joined when MacIssacson rejoined me. I am now not capable if bring put back in.

[Sci-Fi]

I did read them. You were not what you'd call clear but you've totally changed the tune from the thread you deleted. You did claim that Kevin's stuff was shit and all the rest of it. You just made the mistake of coming here and trying to put forth an alternate version of events and got called on it.

In short, your ideas were unfeasible. Your explanations showed radical disconnect from what you proposed and concept. It also showed radical disconnect of the process of developing military grade weaponry and such, and application of such. You seem to think there are sections of submarines full of military weapon and vehicle designers. Not only that you seem to think that developing such technology is easy. Can be done with limited resources, limited manufacturing facilities, and no access to design or testing facilities. You also postulated that not only would the New Navy keep up with Traix and the NGR but surpass it. You said that if Traix could do it the New Navy could, even after pointing out that Traix had an entire nation of millions of people. You were asked repeatedly just who you thought built the jets and such for the US military. You dodged repeatedly as it disproved your point.

You've come here and are now claiming a totally different version of events. That you were creating something new, whole cloth and discounting the stuff from the books. You weren't. You were attempting to 'upgrade' the New Navy to what -you- thought they deserved after 300 years of floating around after the Rifts came. You were very clear about that. From your skin tight super-suits, to your Force fields over the entirety of a gigantic supersub to prevent hull rupture and then further to personal force fields for every member of the New Navy, from the Captain all the way down to the cooks.

So cut it out. People here, are there too and saw both threads.

[hawkwind]

No. Not a totally different claim on events. I always argued from my changes. NEVER futon cannon. As for my ideas not being thought out. You never asked for clarification.

[hawkwind]

I was never upgrading. He above description was ALWAYS my intent. If my descriptors have you wrong assumptions why not at some point go "your not making sense, why would they do X?"

[hawkwind]

I never said over the entire haul for the force field. YOUR assumption. You clearly have no desire to understand what I was trying to do and that's what pisses me off.

I pointed out several times I was changing assumptions from the text.

Assumption. No scientists existed. The book clearly said base personnel lived. Why wouldn't some scientists be there. It's not about "logic", it's about a tweek to the assumptions. What would the outcome be.

By the time we got into idiotic mess, I didn't give a shit about your opinions because you never have my plans a chance.

[Sci-Fi]

No. You're changing the story because you were shot down on Facebook and have come here with a different version of events, to try again in a new place with a new story.

You were told repeatedly why your stuff didn't work. You ignored or side stepped the points, over and over again when different people told you the same thing. Same things that people here have told you too. If you can't accurately articulate your point the fault wouldn't be with others but yourself. The problem was you were getting your point across it just didn't work for a number of reasons.

And why are you flooding the board with multiple posts? Inflating your post count doesn't make your argument for you.

[Sci-Fi]

Mar 19, 2015 23:42:57 GMT hawkwind said:

I never said over the entire haul for the force field. YOUR assumption. You clearly have no desire to understand what I was trying to do and that's what pisses me off.

Yes you did indeed propose an entire hull forcefield, as your purpose FOR the Forcefield was to prevent breaches of the sub's hull, and letting in the water. Which would need forcefields... over the entire hull. Even if only emergency ones. If you only had partial coverage it wouldn't make much difference as the field would cover part and leave the rest uncovered.

Again you're trying to change the facts of what you put forth, after deleting the thread as you THINK noone here read it.

[hawkwind]

I'm not trying to flood. I'm trying to get my points cleared up. I'm on my phine

[hawkwind]

You think I'm dumb. Of course people here are on both. Just becuase I didn't state that up front doesn't mean I didn't realize that.

I came here because I like This board better. FB drives me nuts. And as a professional I need to get my shit off FB. So I have a fee reasons to abandon the group beyond my annoyance.

[hawkwind]

No I did not. Targeted forcefield over breached areas was my thought. I didn't even know you thought I meant the whole ship!!!

[hawkwind]

Again I deleted the threads because it's my art. As an artist, seemed a silly thing to leave art in a group I wasn't in.

I left that group once before and deleted no threads.

[Sci-Fi]

So you need 10 posts with one sentence in them each?

*Shrugs* The point is man, you're telling a different story today, here, than you did yesterday there, bitching about people and problems you're subjected to, that's different than what actually happened.

People weren't being mean to you for no reason. The stuff you posted was.... well. I'll be nice and just call it 'non-viable'.

You're now changing what you proposed yesterday, to try and excuse the shoddy ideas and stuff you proposed. The "I wasn't actually talking about the new navy" (Even though you were and did so for dozens and dozens and dozens of posts) "But instead I've created my own organization, that has nothing to do with the new navy. Other than using them as intelligence cover"

That wasn't what you were proposing at all. You've gone this route to try and justify the radical and 'non-viable' changes you'd made yesterday. You got shot down yesterday and took a while to try and find a way to make them viable. The way you've done so is to concoct this story, about having never meant to update and upgrade the new navy (If you weren't why are you still bitching about unnamed and unnoted scientists in their bases?) but instead some entire home brew organization that you've created whole cloth.

[Sci-Fi]

As a side note, the art wasn't bad.