[Mara]

Whatever.  I will only say ONE final thing. It is supported by FLUFF not by RULES. Point to a place where it definitively states onset times and intervals for rolls against for that disease. Oh! You can't, because as someone pointed out already, it only lists "Special" with no explanation as to what special is, so no it is not supported by Rules.

Which means the GM looks at the fluff of it and decides how, at his table, it will be handled.
Myself: I consider that it needs some other factor applied then just the 'ware mentioned. However, what that
other factor is will vary by character story. It is something that, frankly, I will rarely even make the player have
to roll for, because it would rarely show up at my table. However, I do consider MbW to be an increased risk
factor for it. Not that MbW causes it. But that it is an increased risk factor.

Personally, though, All4BigGuns, I think your issue is not that there is something that is not spelled out explicitly
how often rolls need to be made. I think it is because you have had experiences with Bad GMs who delight in
torturing the PCs and players, rather then looking at things from the perspective of "what makes a good story?"
You are PARTIALLY right that a GM *SHOULD* discuss something like that with the player. It is one of those things
that touches on matters that can be personal for a player. I know, for example, that I never put MbW on a character
I plan to play....because the concept of the ware weirds me out as an epileptic myself.  However, if a GM told me
that I was going to contract TLE-X in game, I would work with him on developing the trigger list. Why? Because I am
here for the story of my character, and having a believable trigger list a) helps the GM and b) helps me keep the story
straight.  At the same time, I fully understand that not every player can handle the same things I can. As a GM, it is
my job to be able to know where a player's limits are and NOT cross that line. As a player, my job is to work WITH the
GM to tell a better story. As a player and GM, I must fully acknowledge and accept that In-Character Decisions have
In-Character Consequences. If you insult or mock your fixer, then the GM does NOT need your permission to have the
Fixer screw you over. If you take wares and the GM warns you at chargen that you are putting yourself at risk for TLE-X,
and you choose to take no actions to minimize your risk, then the GM does not need to get your permission to give you
TLE-X. HOWEVER, the GM has the responsibility to measure up if you could deal with having that, and working with you
on the onset, triggers, and methods of suppressing the triggering.

[All4BigGuns]

Which means the GM looks at the fluff of it and decides how, at his table, it will be handled.
Myself: I consider that it needs some other factor applied then just the 'ware mentioned. However, what that
other factor is will vary by character story. It is something that, frankly, I will rarely even make the player have
to roll for, because it would rarely show up at my table. However, I do consider MbW to be an increased risk
factor for it. Not that MbW causes it. But that it is an increased risk factor.

Personally, though, All4BigGuns, I think your issue is not that there is something that is not spelled out explicitly
how often rolls need to be made. I think it is because you have had experiences with Bad GMs who delight in
torturing the PCs and players, rather then looking at things from the perspective of "what makes a good story?"
You are PARTIALLY right that a GM *SHOULD* discuss something like that with the player. It is one of those things
that touches on matters that can be personal for a player. I know, for example, that I never put MbW on a character
I plan to play....because the concept of the ware weirds me out as an epileptic myself.  However, if a GM told me
that I was going to contract TLE-X in game, I would work with him on developing the trigger list. Why? Because I am
here for the story of my character, and having a believable trigger list a) helps the GM and b) helps me keep the story
straight.  At the same time, I fully understand that not every player can handle the same things I can. As a GM, it is
my job to be able to know where a player's limits are and NOT cross that line. As a player, my job is to work WITH the
GM to tell a better story. As a player and GM, I must fully acknowledge and accept that In-Character Decisions have
In-Character Consequences. If you insult or mock your fixer, then the GM does NOT need your permission to have the
Fixer screw you over. If you take wares and the GM warns you at chargen that you are putting yourself at risk for TLE-X,
and you choose to take no actions to minimize your risk, then the GM does not need to get your permission to give you
TLE-X. HOWEVER, the GM has the responsibility to measure up if you could deal with having that, and working with you
on the onset, triggers, and methods of suppressing the triggering.

Okay, with what you're saying that's fine (with the caveat of not crossing that line with a player that isn't comfortable with such things). My problem was that Wyrm was seemingly saying that it should be done to everyone without hesitation or consideration for the player's comfort level.

[Mara]

Okay, with what you're saying that's fine (with the caveat of not crossing that line with a player that isn't comfortable with such things). My problem was that Wyrm was seemingly saying that it should be done to everyone without hesitation or consideration for the player's comfort level.

That is because Wyrm has been arguing from a mechanics based approach. When something's basic mechanic is "GM says so,"
it is a much trickier situation, that must be worked out for each GM's table. I am curious, All4BigGuns: when you GM, how do
you handle things that the rules for are GM Fiat? Do you just not use them? Or do you discuss things in depth with your group
beforehand?

It has always been my belief that the biggest arguments always seem to be an instance where both people involved are right,
but they are looking at things from a different perspective. Wyrm is looking at things from the perspective of "Already talked this
over, everyone at the table knows what page I'm on, and how I am handling things." You are approaching things from the "We
are still in the hammering things out as a group" stage.

[All4BigGuns]

Hasn't really come up.

In the case of MBW, I'm really the only one in the group that'll use it. (One likes playing adepts without implants or unaugmented mundanes, and another sees it as a waste with augmented maximums as they are and the high premium of a cost on it.)

[Kat9]

[Words]
And actually, I have pretty much everyone behind me on this one, because I've explained myself, people realize that 'hey, he isn't just slapping people out of the blue, and y'know, this isn't something I'd need to spend karma on to get rid of because it's not a Quality.'
[A lot more words]

Four more years, four more years. You got my vote sir, and a +1.

[WellsIDidIt]

Whatever.  I will only say ONE final thing. It is supported by FLUFF not by RULES. Point to a place where it definitively states onset times and intervals for rolls against for that disease. Oh! You can't, because as someone pointed out already, it only lists "Special" with no explanation as to what special is, so no it is not supported by Rules.

If a character develops TLE-x, she does not manifest symptoms immediately; instead, she becomes subject to acute epileptic
seizures in stressful situations. When in appropriately stressful circumstances, the gamemaster may call the TLE-x victim to make
a Body + Willpower (3) Test. If the test fails, the character suffers a seizure, and the “disease” effects above kick in.

There is no onset or interval. You fail your test, you develop TLE-x and are then subject to the effects anytime you have to resist seizures and fail that roll as well.

You seem to be trying to assert that:

Speed
A pathogen’s Speed represents the incubation period between initial exposure and the  first Disease Resistance Test. It also represents its period of effect—how long before the effects kick in again, and another Disease Resistance Test must be made.
The number in parentheses is the minimum number of Disease Resistance Tests the character must make. Even if a previous
test reduces the Power to 0, the character remains infected and must make another test to resist the effects again after Speed
duration has passed, until the minimum number of tests have been made.

applies to TLE-x despite:

Technically not a pathogen

and

follows much the same rules

TLE-x is not a pathogen and does not follow all the same rules. What are we given? We're given when the effects kick in after the character has gotten TLE-x.

Speed is not how often the character is exposed to the disease, it's how often the character has to resist after exposure. How often you are exposed to TLE-x is no different than how often you are exposed to malaria in a mosquito infested swamp, GM decision.

[carmachu]

Currently, there are a plethora of qualities to represent neural damage, buggy 'ware, or people whose systems have been thown out of whack, one way or another, by their extensive augmentations.  If a character does not take one of those qualities, then I would not apply any of those penalties.  Unless your game has the optional rules for buggy second-hand 'ware, cyberware damage, and so on.  If so, I hope you also use the optional rules for things like magic loss and acquiring geasa during play, to keep it fair for everyone.

This. A thousand times this. I'm so tired of cyber getting dumped on at times while bioware and magic seeming to get a pass.

[The Wyrm Ouroboros]

Currently, there are a plethora of qualities to represent neural damage, buggy 'ware, or people whose systems have been thown out of whack, one way or another, by their extensive augmentations.  If a character does not take one of those qualities, then I would not apply any of those penalties.  Unless your game has the optional rules for buggy second-hand 'ware, cyberware damage, and so on.  If so, I hope you also use the optional rules for things like magic loss and acquiring geasa during play, to keep it fair for everyone.

This. A thousand times this. I'm so tired of cyber getting dumped on at times while bioware and magic seeming to get a pass.

And if, in-game, you implant something second-hand or buggy, you believe you shouldn't get the penalty?  Yes, I play with magic loss and geasa; that's also part and parcel of the big SR world, and has been since I started playing 1e1p.  I actually do not usually play out how much damage accrues to cybernetics due to combat, etc.; the specific issue with MBW is (and has been) so significant that it does get highlighted and used as being the downside to this incredibly fash piece of 'ware.

That said, again, a Negative Quality is something you take so you can get points to buy up your Firearms skill at game start, or get another couple of contacts, or whatever.  To remove the Quality, you have to not only replace it in-game, you have to pay back the Karma you received for it.  If you implant something buggy in-game, you may get the negative effects that are described by that Negative Quality, but to get rid of it, just get better gear - or undergo surgery - or go through psychological therapy.  You didn't get karma for it, so you don't have to PAY karma to get rid of it.  This is the difference between an in-game effect taking place which uses the rules provided by the Quality, and taking the Quality itself.

A4BG - that statement really does make it sound like you're arguing against TLE-x because you're the main (or only) one it'd affect in this game, and maybe your GM is listening in on the discussion.  I don't know; maybe it's just me.

Mara, I really am not arguing from a mechanics-based standpoint.  I've stated that I tell my players when they consider the MBW cyberware that they are really likely to come down with TLE-x (and tell them what TLE-x is, duh), and that they can avoid it by taking medication.  That's my 'social contract' part.  A4BG states that not only am I wrong in regards to the 'MBW causes TLE-x' portion (which is where all my rules laying-out  'crunchy bits' debate comes from), but that I'm wrong and a bad GM for applying the pre-warned disadvantages to the PC if they drop their end by a) implanting as well as b) not medicating.  He says that even though he's not taken the medication, unless I talk it over with him and get his approval for it at the time that I decide he's dropped the ball long enough (which, again, is not 'it's a slow day, I'll screw with A4BG today 'cause he has MBW and I'm being a prick'), then I'm a bad GM and he'd walk away from the table.

He wants on-the-spot confirmation, and says that anything else is me taking control of his character.  I say 'you had your chance to control the character, and you let it go; you were warned about this, and now it's coming to pass.'  That's the social contractx.

Move-by-Wire is the leading cause of TLE-x, and the odds of you coming down with TLE-x if you have Move-By-Wire implanted are not small.  That is crunchy bits.  It has an onset of 'when the GM thinks it's been screwing with your head long enough, and you haven't taken your medicine', sure, but that's not fluff; that's a GM-defined crunchy bit, as compared to a Catalyst-defined crunchy bit.

Saying otherwise gets into 'At My Table'.  And at this point, everything that All4BigGuns is saying is 'at my table' - and it's kind of starting to look like he's defending his right as a player to ignore the above social contract, and also claiming that doing so shouldn't mean he's affected by the crunchy bits - that that's GM Fiat (even though he innately agrees to 'GM-defined crunchy bit' when he implants the MBW) and only a bad GM would make him be affected by the negative effects of him not fulfilling his side of the bargain.  *shrugs*  Whatever.

[Mithlas]

even though he innately agrees to 'GM-defined crunchy bit' when he implants the MBW

I think a lot of this goes into "your table may vary", and most of us have already acknowledged this, especially with an acknowledgement of the necessity of communication and the general assumption of Shadowrun (even most RPGs in general) being cooperative experiences between all the players and GM. Here specifically I think that you're putting words into other people's mouths. You've said that the way you GM it is that TLE-x is part and parcel of your game - if it's your table, your call, that in and of itself is fine. It's not necessity for all tables to use that stance; flexibility of the system is an intelligent part of any RPG system which allows a variety of styles and stories to be told.

Move by wire is something that is powerful, but costs a lot on several levels (nuyen, essence, possibly availability and contacts, etc).

At this point, I think that all that can be said (constructively) about the topic has been said, and I think it's time for a thread lock.