How can I get a resolution of actions in and out of the game that made me feel uncomfortable?

Since the beginning, two characters of our players have had a very "pulling" relationship. One is a great lady, the other a more agitated seafarer. Small balls of fire directed on the armpits, many insults and small poisoned feathers … you get the picture. Both players seem to get along with each other and check from time to time with them that everything is always copacetic. Until the last session. Lady decides (for long reasons) to sleep in the hammock of Man who is on the bridge. The man pulls her out of the hammock and tells him no. Lady says well, none of us wants and rips one of the racks. He is now too unstable for the man to sleep, but Lady can still. The man says well, sleep in it.

The man waits for Lady to be asleep, then tightly squeezes her in a hammock. She wakes up as this happens and the man's head makes her lose consciousness.
The man hangs a hammock over the ship, feet first and above the water. What a woman is terrified.

Lady wakes up, screams a bloody murder, the man comes back. The man tries to say that he did this to make peace (with her). Lady is trying to bite / scratch but can not. So, Lady begins to insult the man and, in doing so, calls his mother a cow (Man in Minotaur.)

Then the man strikes unarmed and binds Lady in the face until she calms down, then leaves her partially loose and goes off.

The character of Lady is obviously furious and now makes a silent treatment. The character of the man never apologizes, but repeats that he "was only trying to make peace".

The player of the character of Lady is closed a bit, but has not clearly expressed any problem with the interaction. (In my previous post, I stated that none of the other players seemed worried.It should have indicated that none of the other characters seemed upset.) If any of the other players were unhappy, I can not say.

Some of them even made jokes after the end of the session about going back to the 1940s and carrying the wife. and "My wife has black eye because I explained something to her … why does she have two black eyes … well, I had to have it." explain twice. " Hardy Har Har and all that. Another player was calm after the incident of the game but laughed at the jokes.

I feel very uncomfortable with both unplanned casual player violence, rather than with unarmed violence AND post-session discussions. If anyone else was upset, I would not know how to say it. To be fair, I did not project my discomfort at that time either – mainly to avoid some of the statements that were made.

I do not want people to feel that they can not play their characters in a certain way and that the culture of the game is different, and that the players can sometimes make decisions, etc., and so on.

But I also do not want to play with people who act like that in the game AND who also make jokes as they did afterwards. It seems that the choice they made in the game (and the lack of reaction) was a test of the waters and allowed them to act as they did after the match.

The main concern is how you want to play, but I must be able to believe that you play a role and that you do not play your own identity in secret.

Once again, I realize that in the game, we kill people, we steal, we love, I get it back. Just tie up and hit a helpless friend (GENDER ASIDE) just because you feel very bad about how we play this game for over a year now.

I am not so close to DM (just friends) and I only know other players for a little over a year. There is a woman, a non-binary and four men. Three of the players are working together (two for a while), a player has already played with two of them but there is no real relationship outside the match. All players (except those who are not binary) play characters that match their gender. The age range is 30 to 55 years old. The players Lady and Man have already played together (briefly) and do not work together.

Unfortunately, and as evidenced by some cats and comments (even on this site), reporting that such jokes make me feel uncomfortable is likely to be perceived as a moan or a "snowflake" sensitive".

How can I approach my DM and my players to get a resolution of these uncomfortable actions without getting that kind of response from other players / DM?

Editing Update: I followed a script similar to the one below when I asked my group to talk about the problem. I did it with the whole group at the same time because I probably would have worked only once. It seems to have gone well. The Man player said that he would no longer make jokes about domestic violence. Having not played yet another session, I do not know if / how I affected the mood of the band. The Man player seemed really upset at having embarrassed me and the Lady player stated that she knew (from past matches with Man) that sometimes, when he was excited / in role play he could be a little offended and therefore less disconcerted. but what happened? So the question is being addressed at the moment. I'll have to see what will happen in the future since Man seemed sorry and what Lady said is a little bit like a pattern, Man was very excited before and nothing like that had happened, so I think he hoped it would have been won. it will not happen anymore.

design – Why can not an angular component update the store directly, rather than through actions and reducers?

Context

I am in the process of determining the management of the status of my first application Angular 8. I envision the store library kiosk, which simplifies the API ngrx / store.

Kiosk store class has a public method update(key: K, value: T(K)): void, to directly update the field K of the state of the application. This method has been called since component.ts, so

onSet(value: string): void {
this.store.update('text', value); }

from an example library.

As far as I know, the standard way to update the state is for an intelligent component to send a message. Action, the state being updated in the store by a reducer a function. (To be fair, the booth also supports that.)

Questions

Why is the Action / Reducer path preferable to a direct update of the store from a component? When could these be justified?

Example

Suppose the first screens of the application are used for user input. The entries in a subsequent screen depend on those in a previous screen, but not the reverse. An intelligent angular component is responsible for a screen. A data structure (ViewModel?) Is defined for each of these components. Whenever a screen is opened, its smart component is filled from the store using the corresponding data structure.

I would like to save in the store all entries, including invalid ones, if you press "Previous Screen" and only valid entries, if "Next Screen" is. Should I perform a direct update or send an action from the component?

Grapple – Do actions that impose the Grabbed condition limit the use of a hand?

The action Grapple states:

requirements You have at least one free hand. Your target
can not be bigger than you.

You try to grab an opponent with your free hand.
Try an athletic check against their Fortitude DC.
You can also grab yourself to keep a hold on a creature
already entered.

Critical Success Your opponent is retained until the end of
your next turn unless you move or your opponent escapes
(page 470).

Success Your opponent is caught until the end of your next
turn unless you move or your opponent escapes.

Failure You can not catch your opponent. If you already had
the opponent has caught or restrained using a grappling hook, those
conditions on this creature end.

Critical failure If you have ever had the opponent caught or
restrained, he frees himself. Your target can either grab you,
as if he managed to use the action of grappling against you,
or force you to fall and land.

Similarly, Snagging Strike is worded as follows:

requirements You have a free hand and your target is at hand.

You combine an attack with fast attacks to unbalance an enemy as long
as it remains within your reach. Strike while keeping a free hand. If that
The strike strikes, the target is flat until the start of your next turn or until
it is no longer within your reach, whichever comes first.

Finally, Combat Grab is worded as follows:

requirements You have a free hand and your target is
within reach of this hand.

You slip on your opponent and catch him. Scrimmage
Hit with a free hand. If the strike strikes, you take
target using your free hand. The creature remains seized
until the end of your next turn or until it escapes,
comes first.

These three actions seem to be unclear on the "state" of the free hand that grabs while the target is entering the seizure condition. It is clear that the attacker must generally remain within reach of the target, but it is only implied that the hand remains busy for the duration and can not be used for other actions.

The intent of this question is to determine if it is possible to enter / hit / fight with an attack, then follow up with Double Slice (which requires that "You hold up two melee weapons, each in a different hand. "). The character would wield a melee weapon in one hand and a glove with free hand and agility qualities on the other, thus meeting the two melee weapons rule (because the glove counts as a simple melee weapon, exceeding the attack does not count as a weapon), as well as the requirement of a free hand for the action of the grapple.

IOS 13 Voice Control Accessibility Feature – is there a way to create more custom actions (instead of just creating a link to accessibility tags)?

The new voice control API is really great, it's the one where you can talk to your iOS device and perform actions. (Apple video)

My only complaint is that finding information about this is a bit difficult. I do not see any WWDC video on it, and I can not find any other documentation.

It is essentially powered by accessibilityLabels. Since each accessibilityElement element can only have one accessLabel, it is (after what I can see) limited to that.

Is it correct? Is there a way to provide users with more custom actions? For example, there is the Custom Accessibility Action API which allows you to add others by sliding up / down with VoiceOver, but these In no case do they seem to be available for Voice Control, it is simply the accessibility label.

It's a really great API, but with custom actions and VoiceOver rotor actions, I can normally provide actions more easily accessible to users, and I can not understand how to do that for a user who uses the control voice.

In a mining pool, how does the counting of actions work with vardiff?

I was reading this very interesting page: https://slushpool.com/help/hashrate-proof/

I have read the "How does the calculation of the extraction and hash rate work?" section and with a fixed difficulty for all minors, all this was perfectly logical. But there is this sentence:

The value of 2 ^ 32 has been chosen arbitrarily in the past, but is stable
and does a definite part. In reality, proof of the value of work can
vary from one minor to another, but it's just a detail of implementation.

Except that I can not understand exactly this "detail of implementation". How do you take into account the varying difficulty of each minor in the way you exactly count the shares? What would be the exact formula for calculating the% of rewards for each minor?

In a mining pool, how does the count of actions work with vardiff?

I was reading this very interesting page: https://slushpool.com/help/hashrate-proof/

I have read the "How does the calculation of the extraction and hash rate work?" section and with a fixed difficulty for all minors, all this was perfectly logical. But there is this sentence:

The value of 2 ^ 32 has been chosen arbitrarily in the past, but is stable
and does a definite part. In reality, proof of the value of work can
vary from one minor to another, but it's just a detail of implementation.

Except that I can not understand exactly this "detail of implementation". How do you take into account the varying difficulty of each minor in the way you exactly count the shares? What would be the exact formula for calculating the% of rewards for each minor?

error prevention – Cancel sending Gmail and other UX design templates to reverse actions / transactions

I will quote some relevant information / reflections from this article by Gregory D Abowd & Alan. Title – Give attention.

The principle of intention: Cancel is the intention of the user, not a system function. A Cancel button is
then considered an action to satisfy that intention. however,
the system will not always be able to act in such a way as to perform exactly the
intention of the user.

Another proportionate effort:

We need to make sure that the easy-to-execute commands are easy to cancel.


It seems reasonable as if we think about it – reversing an action is not the suggestion of a system, but that of the user "occasional& # 39; intention. In addition, we can safely conclude that sending an email is a different type of activity than activities such as spell checking or image correction. digital. It is different at the same time because it is of non-continuous nature and probably requires more thought value (and therefore more important). As a result, comparisons with other UNDOs in the digital world could be spared.

This makes me ask a question – why does Gmail highlight the CANCEL feature in the notification each time I send an email? This could very well be in the left ribbon / menu, etc., but no longer in a static position, allowing the user to reach it at any time, instead of asking me each time. The sending of an email is part of GMAIL's flagship facilities – and must be handled accordingly. Making the CANCEL action appear each time is very insignificant and may give the impression to the user that sending a false email may be acceptable. Assuming the UNDO button is somewhere (menu item), it still helps, but allows the user to search for it when needed.

Another point I would like to make is copy. The "UNDO" call creates an "email sending action" mental model similar to any action we could undo / redo in a Word file, for example. Would not it be better to talk about "REMINDER" or something more relevant to the action that he's doing? A neat copy could also help establish the weight behind this action.

Because the CANCEL function is excluded from the use of a "bug" or system delay in sending emails, it could very well be restructured to help the user's mental model. Say, as a suggestion, the email once sent, a preloader-type installation somewhere in the user interface runs for 10 odd seconds (depending on the settings) and sends the email. If necessary, the user can contact him and pause him, make changes and continue the process of sending.

To conclude: Sending an e-mail, although in the digital world by one click of a button, is an important action and one must also reverse it accordingly. Agree, the user must have control, but we must be careful and responsible in defining how a user accesses these controls, because the broader goal is to make the user more efficient and not only to make the product more glorious. Both are not proportional in my limited understanding.

enterprise – Placing multiple destructive actions

In the current project I am working on, I came across the scenario below in which I have to display 3 destructive actions. It's inside a map view and these maps will appear as a result of a particular search. I have taken some steps to prevent mistakes:

  1. I did not use full red buttons to avoid unwanted attention.
  2. I've used icons to help the user identify each action

But I still doubt placing 3 destructive actions nearby and putting them all in red. Enjoy if anyone can share your opinion on this particular scenario.

P.S. This is a business application, which avoids having multiple clicks and hidden information to provide more usable and effective user interfaces.

Sample image

Authentication – How to use custom rules in web applications, which prohibit the user from performing certain actions?

Hi everybody!
The issue is related to an ability to prohibit users from viewing certain elements of the FrontEnd with permissions and other conditions.

We develop a web application. Our application has backend and 2 frontends – browser and mobile.

Our system is able to restrict user interactions with defined permissions. We store the permissions in the user object, which can be retrieved by calling /me period. Thus, these permissions can be used on the user interface as follows. The UI knows the permissions and can decide whether to display certain items. Of course, we also apply these permissions on the backend. Permissions can only be set on the user manually by another administrator user.

Some time ago, we discovered that some rules of the application also prohibited the display of user interface elements. Example:

There is a button: Make a payment in the user interface. We do not show this button in 2 cases:
– The user does not have permission: Create Payment
– The user does not have portfolios available on his account

The second – is a clear restriction, but it is not an authorization in our system, because it can be dynamically modified according to certain circumstances.

The main problem is therefore in the mobile interface. Mobile also prohibits the user from performing certain interactions at the user interface level with the help of permissions and rules. Mobile gets permission from the backend, but other rules like the one above (no portfolios available) are not at all permissions. So in case our backend decides to ban certain actions, but that the mobile application will not be up to date, mobile will not be able to update the user interface immediately because it is mobile – the user must upgrade his application via the store.

I see the following solutions

  1. Create a high-level abstraction (such as ACL) on the backend, which can initially be calculated with multiple conditions. For example:
ACL:
allowMakePayments = permissions.createPayment == true And user.wallets.length > 0;

allowReadTransactions = permissions.readTransactions

I do not like this idea because these ACLs can be dynamically modified (permissions can also be changed dynamically, but this is a rare case in our application). In addition, the generation of these access control lists can prove expensive when processing many access control lists (you must access the database, check certain conditions – they can vary a lot).

  1. Define separate endpoints for resources, which will indicate whether this user can perform this action or not. So, these endpoint computers will do the same thing as ACL, but a) you only ask for it when you need it. for example, the user goes to the payments page, and this page does 2 things: he retrieves all transactions and asks the server, if this user can make payments

Maybe you know how to work with these? Techniques to support such behavior?

Enjoy for any answer, thanks!

javascript – Privacy issues related to the inclusion of all reports of crash status + actions

I am currently working on creating a method of sending incident report details for an Office add-in created with Redux.

Because of Redux's operation, it is possible to get the complete state of the application and all the actions that lead to it, allowing you to rerun what the user has done until the crash. However, even if users agree to send the error report, recreating the entire state seems invasive. For example, the returned REST data raises some privacy issues.

What are the ways to gather useful information to know what led to the crash without sending too much information? I'm thinking of purifying a specific text in some actions / states before sending it, but maybe there is a simpler solution?