[ZeConster]

Michael's "attitude" was a response to his.

[Mirikon]

Guns, are you sure we've been reading the same thread?

[All4BigGuns]

Guns, are you sure we've been reading the same thread?

Quite. Until Micheal Chandra copped his attitude, the OP was quite civil. I've spoken with him via PM and again, quite civil.

Michael's "attitude" was a response to his.

Considering how closely tied the two of you are, you aren't exactly unbiased. You should recuse yourself in the matter.

[Mirikon]

No, Guns, he was being combative, much as you are in many of your threads, and much as I sometimes have a tendency to do. If he didn't mean it as snark and belligerence, then he failed utterly in his intent, and we can maybe chalk this up as part of the issue with a text-based medium. But when multiple observers say you're being a dick about things, then maybe you should look and see if maybe you do, in fact, come off as a dick, instead of just assuming that they're obviously wrong, because you thought you were being civil.

[ZeConster]

Considering how closely tied the two of you are, you aren't exactly unbiased. You should recuse yourself in the matter.

It's almost funny how you are telling me I'm biased about Michael and should recuse myself. Because considering how many fights with him you've gotten into, that goes double for you.

EDIT: And then there's also the absurdity of saying "I'm going to say bad things about your brother now, and because he's your brother, you're not allowed to publicly disagree".

[All4BigGuns]

No, Guns, he was being combative, much as you are in many of your threads, and much as I sometimes have a tendency to do. If he didn't mean it as snark and belligerence, then he failed utterly in his intent, and we can maybe chalk this up as part of the issue with a text-based medium. But when multiple observers say you're being a dick about things, then maybe you should look and see if maybe you do, in fact, come off as a dick, instead of just assuming that they're obviously wrong, because you thought you were being civil.

Remember, Mirikon, I specifically said he was being civil before Micheal Chandra's attitude and condescension, and quite honestly, he was being civil--if a bit forceful--before that. Afterward, however, he returned attitude with attitude with both sides escalating up to Wyrm's insulting the man's intelligence.

[The Wyrm Ouroboros]

I didn't miss the question. I am, however, not interested in thinking up an answer.

This is completely uncalled for and not at all respectful. Any snark from the OP came after this comment.

Uh, no.  Chandra gave several answers, all of them relatively benign and encouraging spuwdsda to use his own initiative, come up with his own reasons, and to be creative.

Black Market Goods are opposed by Standard Goods, which are "Standard items with no Availability rating". So you roll a test for any item that has a non-zero Availability Rating since they are only available if you go through tougher channels.

If you disagree with it, houserule it. It's dead simple, really.

I'm not so sure a Fairlight Caliban is freely accessable in stores. A cheapass commlink, sure, but a Caliban? Not really.

spuwdsda's reply?

Matter of opinion. I can walk into Harrods can walk out with any sort of ridiculously exclusive and expensive things. £30,000 iPods for instance. I doubt SR is any different.

However, you seem to have missed my key question.

What legal items (with an availability rating) would you have as only black market and which in stores?

spuwdsda gets snarky right here, saying that the perfectly reasonable answer (and reasonable doubt) that Chandra's given, after Chandra says 'if you don't like it, houserule it', is 'a matter of opinion'.  Well, yeah - Chandra just said that.  Not only that, though, spuwdsda continues to deliberately press for a detailed answer - being snarky and saying that Chandra 'seemed to have missed (his) key question'.  Chandra's got better things than go through the list of stuff and say, 'oh, you could get this at Harrod's', and 'oh, you could get this at Harrod's too'.

Chandra says no, he didn't miss the question, he simply didn't have any desire to answer it.  Because, y'know, he pretty much already did.

You, Wyrm, were quite needlessly condescending, and yes you should apologize for your comment because you did in fact call him "moron" however indirectly.

Apparently you think I called him a moron too, Guns - and here's the thing.  I'd call anyone who would do this sort of thing a moron, whether it's him, Chandra, you, Bull, or Jason Hardy - because using a legally-bought gizmo that you haven't scrubbed clean in a shadowrun is a bloody stupid thing to do.  I called the character who did this a moron.  You think that's you, he thinks that's him, fine - that's your right.  Don't pin your insecurity on me, because if you did it, then yeah, you are.

Condescending?  Hell no.  I gave the strait dope straight up.  He stated this specifically:

My position is: There are no mechanics by RAW to buy items, with availability, retail. I would have appreciated some.

Guns, he seems to have missed the point.  With this statement, he is declaring that he wants hard rules on how to purchase things legally.  'You just buy them.'  The rules are there in order to get stuff you can use in pursuit of your illegal activities, not for stuff you use in your daily life.  I described why you don't use legally-acquired items in shadowruns.

You seem to be the only two that have a problem with having things laid out specifically for him.  If that's condescending, well ... okay.  I've been called worse.  And if that's insulting his intelligence, then yeah, sure, whatever - but I'm a hard, firm believer in you being what you show yourself to be.  He didn't get it; I laid it out for him.  If that offends him, fine.  If that offends you as well, fine. 

Really, at this point he (and you - why the hell are you getting into this, again??) are just picking a fight, trying to make it look like he's being piled on, and have gone way, way off-topic.  So ... *shrugs*  Sorry.  Your constant pugnaciousness does mean that people stop taking you seriously.

[Nico]

Chandra says no, he didn't miss the question, he simply didn't have any desire to answer it.  Because, y'know, he pretty much already did.

Well that seems kind of snarky, but with so many things, it's important to keep in mind that it's almost never one guy who starts it. (Please don't break out any WW2 references now...) Communication is a complex thing, lots of things can go wrong, but it can't hurt to remember that a perceived slight, in the eyes of the perceiver, is real. No matter what any number of (more or less) impartial observers think about it. Cue heightened sensitivities, preemptive snark-attacks and general escalation.

I don't think anyone would lose face if you all just took a step back, stopped demanding apologies and retractions all around and got back on topic, no?

As I previously stated, I think it's easiest to roll stuff for personal use (where the datatrail helps you establish a possibly fake but superficially legal identity) into lifestyle. If you want to build a fake identity for use on a run, I don't see a problem with rolling availability (maybe with a situational bonus) to represent the extra care and time taken such a task requires. After all, very few real people buy everything they own on the same afternoon.

[Novocrane]

I don't think anyone would lose face if you all just took a step back, stopped demanding apologies and retractions all around and got back on topic, no?

Voice of reason, there. Though I don't know what there is to talk about when it's been quoted and referenced that the GM may adjust availability and legality to suit location and situation. If this is all about providing a means to buy goods without resorting to black markets in the core book, that is as good as it gets.

[The Wyrm Ouroboros]

Chandra says no, he didn't miss the question, he simply didn't have any desire to answer it.  Because, y'know, he pretty much already did.

Well that seems kind of snarky, but with so many things, it's important to keep in mind that it's almost never one guy who starts it.

  No offense, but it's only snark if it's taken out of context, which it has been here.  Chandra was asked to use his time to go through the list of items in Shadowrun and say what he'd think was available 'legally' - and presumably readily.  Consider an effective reverse of the question - which items in today's open marketplace would you place a Restricted or Illegal marker on for Shadowrun?  Go on, go through the ten billion products and give us a list of what you'd make illegal.

Don't have the desire to answer the question?  I don't blame you, because it's a passive/aggressive question that denies personal creativity and responsibility for my own game in favor of trying to get someone else (you, Nico) to do the job for me.  "I don't have any desire to answer that question" is remarkably polite; Robert A. Heinlein suggests high-velocity lead as an appropriate answer to a question like mine, and to be frank, I agree with him.

Yes, at this point I'm pissy, but it really twists my tail to watch new guys going after the old guys and making a stink about how the old guys are wrong for telling the new guys to think, get creative, make a house rule, and - when pressed to do the new guys' work for them - get people howling at them that they're not playing nice.

[Xenon]

this thread gone so far out of topic that i don't think it can be salvaged. i can't personally see anything good coming out beyond this point and the entire thread should probably be closed before it gets even worse...

[spuwdsda]

Chandra was asked to use his time to go through the list of items in Shadowrun and say what he'd think was available 'legally' - and presumably readily.  Consider an effective reverse of the question - which items in today's open marketplace would you place a Restricted or Illegal marker on for Shadowrun?  Go on, go through the ten billion products and give us a list of what you'd make illegal.

Michael wrote: "That rarer legal items still take time to find? Yes. However, I wouldn't necessarily wrap it all into the black market."

I asked:

"What legal items would you include in the black market and which would you exclude? One or two examples should do."

Michael refused to give one single example. One item of legal gear that, in his opinion, would be only available on the blackmarket rather than retail (on-the-shelf or not).

Later I claimed that - there is no current mechanics by RAW to buy items (with availability) retail. This is essentially my only claim on this topic

Michael eventually responded: "The fact that you now went to actually denying RAW rather than just debating RAI, shows this isn't a debate at all, it's a show."

Michael claims I am denying RAW, but refuses to offer any argument to this effect. Many others have posted various opinions, but they have addressed different issues. No one has yet offered any argument that undermines my claim. Until one is offered I will post no further on this thread.

I am sorry if my robust debating style and rhetorical flourishes have caused offence - that was not my intention.

[Nico]

No offense

And none taken, LOL!

but it's only snark if it's taken out of context, which it has been here.  Chandra was asked to use his time to go through the list of items in Shadowrun and say what he'd think was available 'legally' - and presumably readily.  Consider an effective reverse of the question - which items in today's open marketplace would you place a Restricted or Illegal marker on for Shadowrun?  Go on, go through the ten billion products and give us a list of what you'd make illegal.

Don't have the desire to answer the question?  I don't blame you, because it's a passive/aggressive question that denies personal creativity and responsibility for my own game in favor of trying to get someone else (you, Nico) to do the job for me.

And you rightfully shouldn't blame me, or anyone, or suggest (in so many words and referencing a classical writer) that spuwdsda should be shot. Not only is your "effective reversal" grossly disproportionate to the question you claim it reverses, but that question is also grossly disproportionate to the question originally posed by spuwdsda. One or two examples does not equal going over every item in the whole book. And even if it did, the number of items in the book has an equally ludicrous relationship to the number of commercially available items in the world today. Now just one or two examples for what you asked is perfectly reasonable and I'll happily provide them: Guns, cars, private property, credit cards, prescription medicine. All of these deserve at least an R, because, legally aquired, they are entered into some sort of registry that can be accessed by a government (in most sensible legislations, anyways).

Now I'll go ahead and claim that that wasn't so hard, and that I absolutely felt no need to shoot you, or in fact would have, had you asked the question in earnest rather than tried to use it to prove a point. Please try to understand that this is not an attack by "the new guys" trying to take "the old guy's" treehouse. Get off your barricades and stop fanning the fire, please. If you burn down the treehouse, no one can have fun.

[ZeConster]

Michael claims I am denying RAW, but refuses to offer any argument to this effect. Many others have posted various opinions, but they have addressed different issues. No one has yet offered any argument that undermines my claim. Until one is offered I will post no further on this thread.

I am sorry if my robust debating style and rhetorical flourishes have caused offence - that was not my intention.

And that is precisely the problem here - your aggressive "debating style" turned a discussion into a heated argument.

[Xenon]

good thing he said he was sorry then. now kiss and make up.