1 hour ago, prauxim said:

Now, instead of loosing my ship, I can just get straight DQ'd for lamenting to the dice gods after I roll 6 blank greens in a roll. Awesome.

Pray to whatever god you want. Just be quick about it.

Just now, Punning Pundit said:

Carrying a weapon into a game store is always a threat. The fact that the law allows you to be making a threat to everyone in the game store is secondary to you having chosen to be making a threat to everyone in that store.

I don't feel safe in an environment where any altercation can escalate to deadliness as soon as one weapons carrying person decides to pull out their tool. You don't feel safe either, or else you'd leave the gun behind.

So do us all a favor and leave the gun behind or stay out of the toy store.

No, you feel threatened , but that doesn't mean that someone has made a threat. It is FFG's responsibility to enact rules regarding the tournament; not to offer penalties for things that are already against the law (like brandishing).

Also, if the mere presence of firearms worries you, I'd recommend you stay away from...any public area in the USA, pretty much. Again, if the store owners are concerned about it, they can put a "no firearms" sticker on their door. If not, I don't see that it's FFG's call to make.

6 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

No, you feel threatened , but that doesn't mean that someone has made a threat. It is FFG's responsibility to enact rules regarding the tournament; not to offer penalties for things that are already against the law (like brandishing).

Also, if the mere presence of firearms worries you, I'd recommend you stay away from...any public area in the USA, pretty much. Again, if the store owners are concerned about it, they can put a "no firearms" sticker on their door. If not, I don't see that it's FFG's call to make.

Why are you carrying a gun in a toy store?

Edit to add:

A gun is a deadly weapon. The only reason to carry one is to threaten or to use deadly force when the wielder feels threatened.

So: why are you feeling threatened in a toy store?

12 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

Link to the post itself where they outline the exact issue. It's in the "Do games go to time more?" Thread.

Oh you mean this blog post.

https://www.pinksquadron.dk/2019/07/do-we-go-to-time/

As for the chess clock that was in the thread there are so many things that complicate the mater, for one there is no standard turns as one player make all of their moves and/or attacks then the other player make all of their moves and/or attacks. Players will not start with the same amount of pieces/models and depending on how the initiative line up is one player may be moving 3 models before the other player moves one. There could be a time limit on some events but it is going to be difficult. The only phase that can be timed is the planning phase, and that is for both players since it happens simultaneously. The system phase is sometimes skipped all together and that leaves the activation and the combat phase still which takes up most of the time. You could put a limit per model say 90 seconds to complete an activation phase from dial reveal to action. Combat gets even trickier because both players do participate in an attack. If a clock was involve hypothetically the defending player could time out the model in the defense step causing the attacker to get a penalty. Granted that would be exploiting the system but if the system is designed that poorly then you can't blame the more pragmatic players from using the exploits. You are going to need a better system.

Just now, Punning Pundit said:

Why are you carrying a gun in a toy store?

Who says I am?

But to answer for carriers in general, most simply have the habit of carrying daily, everywhere they legally can. To take it off just because you're going to a tournament could well mean leaving your firearm in your car, unattended, for the duration of the tournament. It's much more responsible to have your firearm in your possession and under your control.

Furthermore, the more times you have to remove and put on your weapon, the more people will see it and know about it, and the more likely someone could try to start trouble (anything from thieves breaking into your car to steal it to idiots deciding to SWAT you just because they don't like guns).

I'd also point out that using a weapon for intimidation or threats (never mind actually attacking with it!) is already against the law. If someone does it, they're already in for a worse penalty than losing a tournament prize. On the other hand, if someone's not breaking any laws (and especially if no one even knows they're carrying), what difference is it to you if they're carrying or not? Again, anyone who has been about in the US for any amount of time has certainly been in the same stores as people carrying firearms before, and probably never even realized it.

8 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

Oh you mean this blog post.

https://www.pinksquadron.dk/2019/07/do-we-go-to-time/

As for the chess clock that was in the thread there are so many things that complicate the mater, for one there is no standard turns as one player make all of their moves and/or attacks then the other player make all of their moves and/or attacks. Players will not start with the same amount of pieces/models and depending on how the initiative line up is one player may be moving 3 models before the other player moves one. There could be a time limit on some events but it is going to be difficult. The only phase that can be timed is the planning phase, and that is for both players since it happens simultaneously. The system phase is sometimes skipped all together and that leaves the activation and the combat phase still which takes up most of the time. You could put a limit per model say 90 seconds to complete an activation phase from dial reveal to action. Combat gets even trickier because both players do participate in an attack. If a clock was involve hypothetically the defending player could time out the model in the defense step causing the attacker to get a penalty. Granted that would be exploiting the system but if the system is designed that poorly then you can't blame the more pragmatic players from using the exploits. You are going to need a better system.

Not what I linked too. They're having to deal with a recurring issue involving a specific group of people that stall the matches they're in. With the addition of the Floor Rules there is now a solid set of action that can be taken against that group. Read the actual post I linked.

Just now, Hiemfire said:

Not what I linked too. They're having to deal with a recurring issue involving a specific group of people that stall the matches they're in. With the addition of the Floor Rules there is now a solid set of action that can be taken against that group. Read the actual post I linked.

This post, which is about a blog post?

I read the source, there is little need to go through the comments.

2 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

This post, which is about a blog post?

I read the source, there is little need to go through the comments.

The post of mine you'd originally quoted had been in response to their specific post about the specific issue they had been encountering. If you see little to no need to bother reading the post I linked then why did you waste your time quoting me in the first place?

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

Drinking excessively , probably (especially during a tournament).

Though, something tells me your question was sarcastic, and you'd prefer to act as if you have no control over your own actions and that it's unreasonable for FFG to require people to control themselves.

Willpower is a finite resource and I used all mine trying to win games with ships that rely on green dice.

Haha, just screwing around (mostly). I only drink excessively during tournaments held at that Catholic Church in San Antonio with the awesome bar.

Of course raging is never cool, we had a few people with that issues in 1.0 and we are lucky they didn't return for 2.0.

Just now, Hiemfire said:

The post of mine you'd originally quoted had been in response to their specific post about the specific issue they had been encountering. If you see little to no need to bother reading the post I linked then why did you waste your time quoting me in the first place?

You posted a thread which was about a blog post (the link was posted by the OP). I read the blog post, then you told me that is not the important part but the replies to the thread about the blog post, and you are asking why I am wasting your time?

To put it in a metaphor, essentially this is like posting a YouTube video and then telling me the video is not important but I should have read the comment section instead.

1 minute ago, Marinealver said:

You posted a thread which was about a blog post (the link was posted by the OP). I read the blog post, then you told me that is not the important part but the replies to the thread about the blog post, and you are asking why I am wasting your time?

To put it in a metaphor, essentially this is like posting a YouTube video and then telling me the video is not important but I should have read the comment section instead.

I detect possible user error. Click the bolded "ThinkingB replied to a topic" in the post I linked. It'll take you directly to the post I was referencing when I communicated the change to them.

12 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

I detect possible user error. Click the bolded "ThinkingB replied to a topic" in the post I linked. It'll take you directly to the post I was referencing when I communicated the change to them.

So a reply to two replies which were also replies to a previous reply, all the way back to the OP which was posting a link to a blog.

Primary sources matter, if you want to make a point you are going to have to work on the delivery of your thesis.

3 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

So a reply to two replies which were also replies to a previous reply, all the way back to the OP which was posting a link to a blog.

Primary sources matter, if you want to make a point you are going to have to work on the delivery of your thesis.

🤨 Either you're trolling or you really are that dense. They had brought up an issue they'd been having (which is in the post I linked previously, I'll do so again at the end of this post, click on the top portion of the link to go to the actual post and not just the start of the thread) and the release of the Floor Rules now gives them a line of action they can take since the judges now have fairly solid instructions of what to do in the circumstances they outlined. The section I had in quotation marks back on the first page of this thread is a direct quote of Slow Play portion of the Floor Rules.

Click the "replied to" part to go to the post, and read the second section.

1 hour ago, Punning Pundit said:

A gun is a deadly weapon. The only reason to carry one is to threaten or to use deadly force when the wielder feels threatened.

So: why are you feeling threatened in a toy store?

Preparing for a potential threat doesn't automatically mean the person feels threatened at all times. Most people don't live in constant fear of their property burning down, but many still buy fire extinguishers just in case. Similarly, most people who carry don't expect to ever draw in self-defence or defence of others, but it's there just in case.

And why single out game stores? The question should be, "What potential dangers are in society in general?" unless you think game stores are somehow magically safer than any other store or business.

I wonder. How does it handle 'obstacles running through the map' (LIKE CATS!!!)

24 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Preparing for a potential threat doesn't automatically mean the person feels threatened at all times. Most people don't live in constant fear of their property burning down, but many still buy fire extinguishers just in case. Similarly, most people who carry don't expect to ever draw in self-defence or defence of others, but it's there just in case.

That's a really interesting metaphor. I have been trained in deescalation and prevention. When that fails, I have been trained in first aid and CPR. That, to use your metaphor, is a fire extinguisher.

You have been trained in and carry a deadly weapon. That is, in your metaphor: a flame thrower.

I don't expect to deescalate a situation or perform first aid. But I've got the training just in case you feel threatened and pull out a gun. I just wish you would disarm yourself before leaving the house so that I don't have to keep you calm if you decide you're afraid.

I will though. I'll do it cheerfully.

2 minutes ago, Punning Pundit said:

That's a really interesting metaphor. I have been trained in deescalation and prevention. When that fails, I have been trained in first aid and CPR. That, to use your metaphor, is a fire extinguisher.

You have been trained in and carry a deadly weapon. That is, in your metaphor: a flame thrower.

I don't expect to deescalate a situation or perform first aid. But I've got the training just in case you feel threatened and pull out a gun. I just wish you would disarm yourself before leaving the house so that I don't have to keep you calm if you decide you're afraid.

I will though. I'll do it cheerfully.

Very kind of you, I'm sure, but if someone draws their gun, you might be wiser to keep your eye on whatever deadly threat necessitated its drawing rather than on the one trying to protect you as well as himself.

Believe it or not, most people who carry realize that a gun is a deadly tool to be used only in life-or-death situations, and not an intimidation gimmick to win an argument.

And again, since waving around a gun threateningly is already illegal, I don't see why FFG needs to punish legal carriers instead of just calling the police on those who break the law.

16 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

And again, since waving around a gun threateningly is already illegal, I don't see why FFG needs to punish legal carriers instead of just calling the police on those who break the law.

This gets to the heart of the matter: FFG, quite wisely, isn't interested in what people can get away with under the law, and being reactive when the law is broken.

Instead, they are being proactive in the name of safety. They are deescalating situations before they even happen- before the event is even created.

They have created a rule which will make altercations less deadly. I'm sure we all appreciate that, and thank them for it.

Just now, Punning Pundit said:

This gets to the heart of the matter: FFG, quite wisely, isn't interested in what people can get away with under the law, and being reactive when the law is broken.

Instead, they are being proactive in the name of safety. They are deescalating situations before they even happen- before the event is even created.

They have created a rule which will make altercations less deadly. I'm sure we all appreciate that, and thank them for it.

Yes, because people prone to violence with no regard for the law will take ever so much more notice of a game company's tournament rule.

The rule does absolutely nothing to make people safer; it just allows those ignorant of reality to feel safer.

27 minutes ago, Punning Pundit said:

That's a really interesting metaphor. I have been trained in deescalation and prevention. When that fails, I have been trained in first aid and CPR. That, to use your metaphor, is a fire extinguisher.

You have been trained in and carry a deadly weapon. That is, in your metaphor: a flame thrower.

I don't expect to deescalate a situation or perform first aid. But I've got the training just in case you feel threatened and pull out a gun. I just wish you would disarm yourself before leaving the house so that I don't have to keep you calm if you decide you're afraid.

I will though. I'll do it

You apparently have a paranoia of CCL holders that is not backed in any way by statistics of their criminality.

Bearing arms in the US is a legal right and being prepared to defend yourself or others in the event of a dangerous altercation is thoroughly undeserving of the scorn and condescension you've been casting on it. Many different types of people carry for many different reasons. You are clearly not comfortable with the responsibility involved in carrying, but casting that discomfort onto others is simple projection.

I am happy for you that your life has been privileged enough to not consider legally carrying a weapon a reasonable option, and I hope it continues to stay that way.

17 hours ago, JJ48 said:

Yes, because people prone to violence with no regard for the law will take ever so much more notice of a game company's tournament rule.

The rule does absolutely nothing to make people safer; it just allows those ignorant of reality to feel safer.

The irony being that the most safe milieu is the gun-free milieu, and those ignorant of that fact are those that feel safer packing heat everywhere they go, and what's worse, expect everyone else to swallow that claptrap as the "price of freedom."

Any event sponsored by FFG, whether it is on FFG property or not, is their responsibility, and they have a right to ban weapons, including (and especially) guns.

The NRA may have bought the compliance of every state government in the USA; fortunately, FFG still has the right to create a safe environment in the way they see fit.

1 hour ago, RampancyTW said:

You apparently have a paranoia of CCL holders

I swore that I wasn't going to get involved in this but...

Is a 'paranoia' the collective noun for a group of conceal/carry holders? Like a pod of whales or a parliament of rooks? If it isn't can we make it one?

1 hour ago, RampancyTW said:

You apparently have a paranoia of CCL holders that is not backed in any way by statistics of their criminality.

Bearing arms in the US is a legal right and being prepared to defend yourself or others in the event of a dangerous altercation is thoroughly undeserving of the scorn and condescension you've been casting on it. Many different types of people carry for many different reasons. You are clearly not comfortable with the responsibility involved in carrying, but casting that discomfort onto others is simple projection.

I am happy for you that your life has been privileged enough to not consider legally carrying a weapon a reasonable option, and I hope it continues to stay that way.

It does strike me that there is a bit of "carriers are powderkegs looking for any excuse to go off" bias in his posts.

4 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

It does strike me that there is a bit of "carriers are powderkegs looking for any excuse to go off" bias in his posts.

The need to carry is beget from either the fear of being unprotected or the power trip of establishing your rights.

As my brother rightly puts it, you have no business carrying a gun if you are not willing to hurt another human being.

None of that is something I want in the same room with me.

9 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

The need to carry is beget from either the fear of being unprotected or the power trip of establishing your rights.

Neither is something I want in the same room with me.

Again, don't go anywhere in public in the USA, then. I'm sorry having a plan just-in-case frightens you so.

8 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

As my brother rightly puts it, you have no business carrying a gun if you are not willing to hurt another human being.

At least that's something we can agree on.