text:
Protesters in La Crosse blocked an exit and surrounded a State Patrol car carrying the governor and were "beating on the windows and rocking the vehicle." When the car was "extricated" from the crowd, a truck blocked a second exit.
— Scott Walker on Tuesday, November 19th, 2013 in a book
Gov. Scott Walker says protesters surrounded his car, blocked his exit and rocked the vehicle after a 2011 appearance in La Crosse
By James B. Nelson on Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 5:00 a.m.
The title of Gov. Scott Walker's new book is "Unintimidated." So, it makes sense that it would be filled with details about how he stood up against his opponents.
The book describes death threats against the governor and his family, protests outside the governor's residence and -- of course -- the massive protests at the Capitol in Madison in the wake of Walker's move in early 2011 to curtail collective bargaining for most public employees.
One of the incidents has stood out, both for PolitiFact Wisconsin readers who have asked us to look into it and for those who have interviewed Walker as he has made the rounds promoting his book -- a face-to-face meeting with "hundreds of angry protesters" after a Feb. 15, 2011, appearance at a La Crosse factory.
Here is how Walker describes it in the book:
"As we prepared to leave, the state troopers saw that the protesters had physically blocked the entrance we had used to come onto the property. So they turned the squad car around and headed toward the other exit. We watched in disbelief as the throng of people rushed toward the second exit to block our path. As we tried to pull out, they surrounded the car and began beating on the windows and rocking the vehicle.
"Just as we extricated ourselves from their grip, a truck pulled up and blocked our path, playing a game of chicken with the troopers. They turned the lights and sirens on and warned him to get out of the way. Eventually he backed up, and we sped off.
"It was a lesson in how much our circumstance had changed in a matter of a few days. We were dealing with people who were so blinded by their anger that they were not in the least bit afraid to storm and shake a police car. We had never seen anything like it in Wisconsin before."
Walker goes on to say that the incident, among others, prompted the addition of security officers and procedures for him and his family. The La Crosse visit underscores a central theme of his book that he stood up against increasingly aggressive protests.
To be sure, it has been documented that Walker received death threats, including against his family, and emotions on both sides were high as Senate Democrats fled to Illinois to block a vote and Republicans maneuvered to pass the measure.
Walker critics, meanwhile, have largely argued that protests were orderly and a straightforward exercise in democratic action. The most common refrain: "This is what democracy looks like."
This item is not meant to settle that disagreement, but to look at one incident that keeps getting mentioned in the national media.
One example, from a Nov. 23, 2013 appearance on the "700 Club" show hosted by conservative talk show host Pat Robertson:
Robertson: "They were banging on your car. You were in danger of your life -- is that the way it was?"
Walker: "Oh, it was; no doubt about it. We, at one point, coming out of a manufacturing business in La Crosse where they were literally shaking one of our squad cars that the State Patrol was in with me."
So, is Walker right?
Did protesters in La Crosse surrounded a State Patrol car carrying him and beat and rock the vehicle? Did a truck block the exit so they could not leave?
The situation at the time
The La Crosse incident came days after Walker surprised the state with his proposal to curb collective bargaining. The visit -- like the large protests in Madison and in other cities that Walker visited -- received considerable media coverage.
That coverage from the time is a good starting point and one we will give extra weight.
News coverage or a document generated at the time -- say a police incident report or an internal email -- is less likely to be skewed by spin or memories. It is more likely to be accurate than a recollection from years later, particularly one that may well have been put into writing by another person entirely. In this case, Walker's co-author, Mark Thiessen.
As written, the incident is about more than angry protesters. It depicts an organized effort to prevent Walker from leaving -- one exit is blocked by the crowd, the windows "beaten" as the car is "rocked." Once "extricated," the car turns toward another exit which is immediately blocked by a truck "playing a game of chicken" with state troopers. The crowd rushes there as well.
This does not describe an orderly protest. It describes chaos.
Indeed, if an incident like this happened, it almost certainly would have been widely covered. At the time, both sides were actively portraying the other as extreme and unreasonable. Any incidents by protesters, in particular, became a talking point on conservative blogs and talk radio.
We searched for details about the La Crosse story, specifically that protesters blocked and rocked the car in which Walker was riding, and found nothing. We could not locate any news report from the time that indicated Walker himself was physically threatened in such a way.
We turned to Walker spokesman Tom Evenson and asked for details about what happened that day. He referred all questions to the book's publisher, Penguin Group.
Penguin spokeswoman Jacquelynn Burke offered a one sentence response: "The Wisconsin State Patrol confirms that this event took place."
When we turned to the State Patrol, they didn't offer much more detail.
"I did connect with somebody in our dignitary protection unit and they were able to confirm for me that there was an incident," said Peg Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Department of Transportation, which includes the State Patrol.
We asked for any reports related to the incident, a copy of any dash-cam video, or for interviews with the troopers or staff involved. Anything with details.
Schmitt said there was no formal report filed, and that no further information about the incident would be made public. The State Patrol viewed what happened in La Crosse as a routine incident, she said, adding the most important concern was "moving the governor to safety."
She said no interviews or additional information would be provided because it could compromise the State Patrol's ability to provide security in the future.
What was reported at the time
Looking for more information about the nature of the car incident, we turned to those involved in La Crosse, including local police, executives with the company Walker visited, the news media, and those involved in the protest.
Walker's visit was covered by the La Crosse Tribune in a story published the following day.
The story noted that hundreds of protesters lined the street leading to Ted Mannstedt & Son, a structural steel manufacturer that employs about 25 people.
"Chants of 'Hey hey, ho ho, Walker's got to go' bled through the walls" and could be heard inside the company, the story said.
The story included coverage of Walker's speech, quoted protesters and included a photo of Walker's car with protesters in the background. There was no mention of any altercation involving the car.
La Crosse Tribune editor Chris Hardie said reporter Chris Hubbuch and photographer Peter Thomson covered Walker's visit and watched his car leave the plant.
"Both Chris and Peter were standing outside when the governor left," Hardie said. "Neither of them remembers any kind of car rocking or the car being surrounded, that kind of thing."
The journalists reviewed a Google satellite view of the property and refreshed their memories about where they were standing in relation to Walker's car, Hardie said.
"They would have noticed if they were blocking and beating on his car," Hardie said. He noted, too, that the journalists would have also been alerted if they had seen flashing police lights or heard a siren from Walker's car -- something else the governor described.
They witnessed nothing of the sort.
The view from La Crosse police
The La Crosse Police Department had officers at the scene because the crowd had grown to several hundred and was in the street and on private property.
"We were assisting by blocking off the streets and so forth," said Officer Lisa Barrix, department spokeswoman.
She said there was no record of misbehavior by the crowd, including interfering with the car during Walker's departure, and no arrests. No mention, either, of a truck blocking an exit.
"There was nothing out of control," Barrix said. "We don't have any record of any type of disturbance that I can locate."
Two officials with the company, including owner Brad Mannstedt, recalled a large, noisy crowd.
"There was at least a good 500 people on the street," said Mannstedt.
He said protesters moved toward Walker's car as he was leaving, and said it was possible some got close enough to swat at the vehicle with rolled up posters.
"I don't think there was any real malicious attempt to get at him. They were trying to get his attention," Mannstedt said. "It's as if you were to take a newspaper, roll it up and slam it on your desk to get somebody's attention."
Bob Sandvick, a quality control supervisor at the firm, said he was paying close attention to the crowd to make sure the protesters did not trespass onto company property. Asked if he knew anything about protesters surrounding Walker's car, he said "I'm not aware of that."
Ward Keil of Onalaska, who was in the crowd, said the "mood of the crowd was a little belligerent."
People screamed at cars that they believed were carrying Walker, but didn't do anything more aggressive than that, he said. Also, he said, it seemed that authorities used a "dummy car" so protesters didn't know which car the governor was in.
Finally, local television news coverage of the governor's visit included a video snippet of the governor's car leaving the plant. The crowd is several feet away from the car, and the car pulls out of the parking lot and turns onto the street without pausing.
There's no evidence of a truck blocking the way.
More from the Walker side
We circled back to Walker's office and asked to interview staff members or anyone else with first-hand knowledge of the incident.
Former Walker communications director Chris Schrimpf, in an email, offered a description similar to that in the book.
"I remember the day well because the hatred on the protesters' faces as they banged on the car and shook it was jarring. I remember they ran toward the car like an angry mob (because they were one), we were blocked by the other car, and we were stuck."
Schrimpf declined to be interviewed about what happened. When pressed on what other evidence he could provide, Schrimpf pointed to a change in how travel around the state for media appearances was handled.
He said that after the La Crosse visit, Walker stopped traveling by car. Instead, they flew and did appearances in airplane hangars. Walker's schedule confirms the switch to air travel.
That switch may be evidence the La Crosse visit signaled issues that required a security change, but the switch alone is not confirmation of the specifics as described by Walker and supported by his former aide.
Remember: We are not checking whether Walker -- and Schrimpf -- were startled by the protesters, or even if they were frightened by them. Or whether the State Patrol was ready for what it encountered that day.
We are looking at whether the exits were blocked and the car rocked. We are examining the words used in the book, ones that depict a direct and physical threat to the governor of Wisconsin and disregard for state troopers and local authorities.
Walker gives an updated view
With the story in the news, Patrick Anderson, a reporter for the Tribune, asked Walker about the incident when the governor appeared Dec. 6, 2013, in La Crosse for a bill signing.
Walker described it this way:
"As we came out, literally tons of the, a whole bunch of the protesters ran down to the other exit and got out in front of the exit and literally blocked the car and got around the car and were kind of banging on the sides," Walker said, according to a transcript of the interview the newspaper provided to PolitiFact Wisconsin.
That's pretty close to the language in the book, but then things start to differ a bit.
In the book, Walker describes lights and sirens and the truck blocking the way. In the interview, he said a state trooper in the squad "rolled the window down and said pretty sternly, you need to move back from the car."
Asked about being afraid (Robertson, in the TV interview, phrased it as being "in danger of your life", a statement Walker agreed with), Walker said:
"I was concerned. It was, it was something that I had never experienced before. I don't know if afraid is the right word but it certainly was jarring, is probably the better word than fear."
Asked about the car rocking, Walker said: "Yeah they shook a little bit. ...signs were banging and that."
The governor also addressed the police report question.
"Of course there's no police report. No tickets were issued, no arrests were made. The whole use of the (dignitary protection unit) … is that if you're in a situation like that you get out. … The last thing you want to do is heighten it. But it was a pretty big wake up call."
Walker says protesters in La Crosse blocked an exit and surrounded a State Patrol car carrying the governor and were "beating on the windows and rocking the vehicle." When the car was "extricated" from the crowd, a truck blocked a second exit.
Yet we could find no mention of the car rocking incident before the book came out Nov. 19, 2013.
Beyond the book itself and related public statements, there was no concrete evidence provided by Walker's office, despite numerous inquiries by PolitiFact.
Local police, journalists at the scene, and people from the company and the crowd do not recall seeing Walker's car rocked or banged upon. And no one involved in news coverage, local law enforcement or witnesses reported seeing a truck blocking the car from leaving.
Finally, in a recent interview, Walker toned down his description of the incident.
Based on the available information, we think the book's depiction of what happened -- an organized effort to prevent Walker from leaving that placed him in direct danger -- is False.
You may comment on this article on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel website.
Published: Monday, December 23rd, 2013 at 5:00 a.m.
Researched by: James B. Nelson
Subjects: Labor, State Budget, Unions
"Unintimidated: A Governor's Story and a Nation's Challenge." Gov. Scott Walker
La Crosse Tribune, "Walker defends plan to strip state worker bargaining rights," Feb. 16, 2011
La Crosse Tribune, "Walker defends anti-union bill, Senate manuver in La Crosse," March 11, 2011
CBN News, "Unintimidated: Scott Walker's story, a nation's challenge," Nov. 23, 2013
WKBT-La Crosse television coverage of Walker visit to La Crosse, Feb. 15, 2011
La Crosse Tribune interview, Gov. Scott Walker, Dec. 6, 2013
Emails, telephone interview, Chris Hardie, executive editor, La Crosse Tribune
Telephone interview, Ward Keil, Dec. 4, 2013
Email, Jacquelynn Burke, publicist, Penguin Publications, Dec. 4, 2013
Telephone interviews, Officer Lisa Barrix, Dec. 3, 2013
Telephone interview, email, Bob Sandvick, Ted Mannstedt & Son., Dec. 4, 2013
Telephone interview, Brad Mannstedt, Ted Mannstedt & Son, Dec. 5, 2013
Email, Chris Schrimpf, Dec. 12, 2013
WisconsinWatch.org Gov. Scott Walker calendar 2011

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Hotel-and-cruise packages using the 36-passenger motor yacht Delfin II, and the Hotel Delfin, built around a tidal lagoon on Santa Cruz Island, are being reintroduced by Galapagos Cruises on Oct. 12, when the newly refitted vessel begins Galapagos service.
The package is an economical way to see the islands, as the cost per person, double occupancy, of $165 a night is little more than the lowest cabin rate ($1,000) for seven nights aboard the company`s flagship, the Santa Cruz. The 88-ton, 120-foot, 16-knot Delfin II, built in the United States and designed for day cruising, carries a crew of nine. It could easily carry 100 passengers, but national park regulations restrict it to 36. It has a large saloon, a dining room and a bar, all air-conditioned; three bathrooms, deck space for sun-bathing and a covered section on the top deck.
Two multilingual guides accompany the group on the day cruises and provide evening lectures and briefings at the Hotel Delfin. The hotel, at Puerto Ayora in Academy Bay on Santa Cruz Island, accommodates 36 people in 18 twin cabins with private facilities. Its dining room provides panoramic views of the Pacific and the highlands of Santa Cruz, and meetings can be held comfortably in the adjoining spacious bar and lounge. The hotel has its own sandy swimming beach.
Departures of the standard one-week itinerary are scheduled each Wednesday and Saturday from Guayaquil by air to Baltra. Transfer from Baltra to the hotel is made aboard the Delfin II, cruising en route around Daphne Island during a lunch aboard.
Cruises are scheduled to Punta Cormorant, Devil`s Crown and Post Office Bay on Floreana Island; and to James, Plaza, North Seymour, Santa Fe and Bartolome Islands. A full day is spent ashore visiting the tortoise reserve, pit craters and lava tunnels of the volcanic Santa Cruz highlands and another half-day at the Charles Darwin Research Station on Academy Bay.
The itinerary is designed to link with guaranteed air space to and from Guayaquil on 3-, 4- and 7-night stays, but visitors can join or leave any day but Sunday. Children under 12 get a 50 percent discount. All meals are included.
Galapagos Cruises operates the Santa Cruz, Isabela II and several smaller yachts in the Galapagos. A sister company, Metropolitan Touring, markets more than 75 tours within mainland Ecuador, ranging from city sightseeing and visits to Indian markets to countrywide itineraries, mountain climbing, trekking, birdwatching and cruises in the Amazon basin aboard the Flotel Orellana.
Additional information, brochures and reservations are available from the operator`s U.S. representative, Adventure Associates, Suite 110, 13150 Coit Rd., Dallas, Tex. 75240; 800-527-2500, or 214-907-0414.


text:
Sin Aesthetics
About Mo
examining play
Stance Crap and Authorial Intent.
January 8, 2006 Mo	29 Comments
I'm going to say something very unpopular. Ready?
Actor stance and Author Stance are different names for what are two streams of the same authorial act and only really exist to explain and define each other. They are NOT different things.
OK. Disclaimer time. I am talking the only way that anybody can with any degree of certainty: out the framework of my own experience. While my experience is varied and diverse, it is decidedly west of the pond. I know that there are freeform LARPers and experimental gamers that will fight me tooth and nail on this – and perhaps rightly so. I'm willing to admit that I don't know what that is like and so can not really test the idea. I let y'all fight it out among yourselves.
With that in mind, I think this is the way, and the only way that Actor stance exists: In an old 7th Sea campaign. I had a character Livia who had fallen in love with two different men. She was extremely conflicted about it, and when it came down to having to make a decision, had a terrible time choosing between them. All the while, I as a player, knew that she was going to end up with Fortuno, because damn it, he's one mofo sexy rogue, and me? I'm a complete sucker for a mofo sexy rogue. The latter is, of course my author stance and the former my actor stance.
That statement up there about Livia feeling conflicted is something that I have made up, because the character is fictional. I've come to the statement through a very different process than the statement about the mofo sexy rogue, but it's still something that I have constructed, made decisions about and chosen. Giving it the name Actor Stance only helps delineate it as a parallel thought process that is occurring in my head beside the one about the sexy mofo rogue. The terms "Actor Stance" and "Author Stance" is a tool that helps me clarify to the listener that I feel or think two divisive things about one situation.
Now, say in the same situation, I did not think or feel two divisive things. Say, Livia, my character was just as clear about choosing of Fortuno at the time as I, Mo, was about what she should do. Then the terms "Actor Stance" and Author Stance" is used, again, as a tool to illustrate something: of course being that there is no disparity between the thought processes
The problem arises when we talk about Actor Stance and Author Stance as if they are not related, or as not products of one single source (my brain). Actor Stance does not exist separately from me, it is a product of me, just like Author Stance is. If I talk about what Livia thinks as if it is divorced from my self, then I am creating a fallacy. I created the character, I have made choices about the way she has pushed and pulled on the world and about how these events have changed her. I own her, and her process is a part of me.
Still with me, even if you do or don't like it? Good… I'm going somewhere.
There's an old argument that's been going on between Nar GM's and Players that have come to Nar games (particularly Immersionists), that says that the Players don't Author, and that is destructive to the story. The converse is often thrown back that Nar games destroy the immersion process (or socket character enjoyment ) by either demanding authorship and bring the immersionist out of the immersive seat or meddling with the "integrity" of the character. Neither of these statements is necessarily true.
Here's the situation:
It's a super heroes game. The Player has expressed a strong, Author Stance desire to meet Superman, but has never expressed such a desire in Actor Stance. The GM is putting the opportunity on the table.
GM: OK, So you hear that Superman is in Metropolis.
Player: OK.
GM: Are you going to go?
Player: No.
GM: But you want to see him meet Superman, right?
Player: Yeah, but John has no reason to go to Metropolis.
GM: Come on, just make him go. You never author your character!!
Everybody's frustrated.
Here's what's happening. There are three Author Stance statements that the Player is saying. Only one is articulated in a way the GM is understanding.
1.) I think it would be cool for the character to meet Superman, (for whatever reason) and I would like that to happen. The GM has obviously heard this quite clearly.
2.) It is important to me for the character to feel "organic", or play naturally. This may have been an articulated statement at one time, but it's not clear to the GM at the moment, or is not valued by the GM at all.
3.) Because of 2, I need you to give me reason in game to go and fulfill my desire.
There are also a few things the player is misunderstanding:
1.) "Authoring your character" in this case has relatively little to do with authoring or with author stance. The player has authored, and employed author stance by declaring a desire to meet Superman. What the GM is actually saying is: "It's not my job to change your Actor Stance to meet your Author Stance. This is a Narrativist Game. Employ your Director Stance to insert a reason to go to Metropolis.
2.) In many games, the "organic" declaration is stated frequently by the Player, but is not heard by the GM as an Authoring Statement. Instead it's heard best as a statement of enjoyment of the game, at worst, an episode of MyGuyism. All too frequently it's just ignored, which makes the player feel like the statement has been made and accepted, and therefore should be respected.
How do you fix it? Social Contract of course. If there is a strong, crystal clear directive at the beginning of the game, everyone has expectations down: "There may be times for you in the game to change the way your character thinks or feels or acts for the good of the story. If that situation arises you are responsible to change those things in a direction more friendly to the game, and to find your own means of accomplishing this, either by simply changing your character's mind or by employing your Director Stance in a way that is acceptable to the GM." Players with any experience in trad games at all have been enculturated to:
1.) Express all desires in Actor Stance,
2.) Abandon any hope of control over the setting,
3.) Just enjoy the ride via the character and
4.) STFU Newb, I'm the GM.
Therefore, if the social contract does not expressly re-negotiate it, this will end up as the unexamined default, and everything will run amok..
Up next: Push vs. Pull
Previous PostAgenda AffirmationNext PostPush vs. Pull
29 thoughts on "Stance Crap and Authorial Intent."
xenopulse says:
I completely agree. Here's the deal:
You can only act out something that someone has already predetermined. If you're making it up as you go–even if you have a strong idea of who the character is–you're still writing the lines, still authoring the actions. There is no way anyone who's roleplaying can actually be an actor and not an author at the same time.
John Kim says:
Yeah, I agree as well.
I find it puzzling inded to say that Actor stance is not authoring. A lot of people seem to insist on this — i.e. that playing without Director Stance or other out-of-character statements means that you're doing nothing but submitting to a GM-authored plot. Where does this come from?
Victor Gijsbers says:
I do not agree, and I have to admit that I think your uses of the terms "Actor Stance" and "Author Stance" muddy waters that are normally quite clear. Let's look at the Provisional Glossary:
Actor Stance: "The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have."
Author Stance: "The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions based on the person's priorities, independently of the character's knowledge and perceptions."
Although one might claim that Actor Stance as defined here is rarely ever attained, the general attitudes expressed here are not so difficult to understand. Actor Stance is the result of an agreement between the players that they will not use their OOC-knowledge of the world to decide things for their character – such agreements are, in my opinion, misguided, but it is clear what it means. And see how it is logically impossible to use these two stances at the same time?
Now look at your superhero example. First, you list three "Author Stance" statements the player has made; but NONE of the is actually a statement made in Author Stance. None of them is a decision about actions of characters, therefore, stance does not apply at all.
Look at the 7th Sea example. When you say that Livia feels conflicted, that has nothing to do with Actor Stance or Author Stance – it is not a decision about what your character does. If you say that you know she'll choose the sexy rogue in the end, then that is STILL not an example of Author Stance, because you are not making the decision there and then, you are only expressing what you believe your decision will be in the future. (Who knows what may happen in between? The sexy rogue may die.)
If I may venture a guess, it seems to me that you have conflated the Actor Stance / Author Stance division with a in-the-fiction / -in-the-real-world division.
Merten says:
I'm not really sure where the line between "actor stance" and "author stance" goes, especially regarding to immersion. The way a suspected hardcode immersion freeform larper could see it, could be that you're free to author stuff as long as it happens within the parameters you have made or that have been given to as your character, which you have then compiled into a kind of mental construct of the said character. Or as long as you are authoring stuff through or connected to your character.
Wheter you're doing stuff within the parameters ("I'm not going to Metropolis, since I don't have a reason to go there") or because it's stuff you, as a player think as cool ("I'd love to have a scene with Superman so heck, I'm off to Metropolis") is up to the player and not really accountable by GM or fellow players. The decision process happens inside the players head and I doubt that even the players are usually conscious about their decisions. Some might be.
As a sidenote, I suspect it's usually easier for some, uhh, hardcore immersionist players to note and use the parameters as the characters are provided to them and not created by the player.
As for social contract, very much agreed. Social Contract should be clear to participants even when playing in "traditional way".
ricmadeira says:
Yep, what Victor said.
As for J. Kim's question… I think people have their own personal bias and stuff; it's the only explanation. I first read of these stances talk over at the articles on the Forge, and Ron & Co were always very careful to dissociate these "technics/tools/ephemera" from *any* statements about the game, like what creative agenda is in use, etc. People should go and read the source instead of getting these things second-hand and making their own assumptions about what they mean/imply.
From my experience, I'd posit: training. I spent a lot of time in my early playing life being told that I had not only no power over anything but my character, but that active GM-meted punishment would ensue if I ventured into that domain. A lot of RPG texts on how to GM and how to play reinforce that attitude.
A lot of people, even when it's explicitly negotiated in the social contract that they use DS to supply what they need to do what they're doing don't ever think of it or try because they have no comfort using it and negative associations with trying. Especially where players without GM experience are concerned, there needs to be some positively reinforced training time to get the gist of the process and some confidence therein.
If the mind of my character is my only playground of comfort and control, it's the place where I do my best work – regardless of how when or if it comes to the table. This is also where some of the defensiveness and resistance about active character re-engineering comes in. Some players feel this: "It's the only place I have that's safe and mine. You have the whole rest of the game, leave it alone."
I don't agree. Your position requires the assumption that only the outward decisions and actions of a character made at the table as part of the game count towards stance. How the character feels, what the character thinks about a certain situation, how the character's psychology reacts to the events of the game are part of a whole process of decisions and actions that occur (most likely) out of view of the GM.
Actor Stance, as implied by it's very nomenclature is not the decision the character makes, but the mental positioning the player chooses to take an action. You are right that it is logically impossible to actively employ both stances at once as a place to act from however, by the time a character is asked to make an act at the table from any stance, he has actually already made several actions (from either stance) internally. Though I'm positive many would argue that decisions made off the table don't count for anything at all because they have not been made part of the SIS, they absolutely do count towards resolving this particular frustration, more so, than the decision the player ultimately makes in the game.
The GM in the example is asking the player to change the action of his character in game. By the time that the GM has asked him to do so, the player has already made decisions (from either stance, usually Actor) for the character. The player is identifying that, whyever or whenever it was made, the decision has already been made that the character never just goes to Metropolis by chance, and that some thing is needed to allow the Actor Stance to change so that it can feel natural, comfortable or plausible to the player.
Maybe more later, but for now, I'm late for work. 😉
Bradley "Brand" Robins says:
What Mo said, plus this: Olivia did, in the end, chose to go with Fortuno — the rogue. There was an actual character decision made, and so stances do apply.
It's just that it isn't so easy as "well at that exact moment Mo was thinking about her character's view or world knowledge" or "Mo was deciding what she wanted to do from her OOC desires." She was, at that moment and in the moments leading up to the decision, doing BOTH.
Even when Mo is making author stance choices, she will always filter it back through author stance. This is because her character is the prime socket for her play. I, otoh, often go pure author stance and go right for making statements about the story becuase story, not character, is where I plug in.
I think here you'll see a differnce between Dogs and Polaris as well. In Dogs you have to author, but can author through your character — allowing a blending of author and actor stance. In Polaris you have to author towards the story, meaning you can't just author through your character. However, to say that Polaris allows more authorial control is bogus. It just does it in a different way. It's authoring yourself vs. authoring with your character. And if/when you author with your character then many players will be using Actor and Author stance at the same time.
The stances are still important, because they help define the process by which the decisions are made and the angles of attack we have upon it — but the specific moment by moment deliniation you're insisting on isn't very helpful (to me, at least) in figuring out what is actually going on in the human brain around the issue.
These two posts leave me much more confused then I was before. I don't get what Mo is saying at all. Mo, you start out by claiming:
Your position requires the assumption that only the outward decisions and actions of a character made at the table as part of the game count towards stance.
Stances, as defined, only have to do with decisions by the players – so how does my position imply that the decisions and actions of the character count towards stance? Even more mysteriously, the decisions the character makes at the table? Surely, only the player is at the table, and the character cannot make decisions in the real world?
I assume that when you say:
by the time a character is asked to make an act at the table from any stance, he has actually already made several actions (from either stance) internally,
you actually wanted to write 'player' where you wrote 'character'? (Characters after all don't act at the table and certainly don't act from a stance.) But even so, I don't really understand what you are saying. It seems to me that you are saying that whenever a player makes an overt decision, he has already made many decisions that he has not spoken out loud, some of them from actor stance and some from author stance.
But surely, this is not the case? First, let us notice that everything about "how the character feels, what the character thinks about a certain situation, how the character's psychology reacts to the events of the game" has nothing to do with stance, since stance is about the character actions, not his psychology. I truly doubt whether characters make many decisions in the player's unspoken thoughts – but I'll grant you that they may.
Second, let me stress how artificial and unnatural Actor Stance is. A player taking Actor Stance filters all the information he has about the game, allowing only a small part to influence his decisions. He must actually make a decision as if he did not know some part of what he as a matter of fact does know. This is difficult, calls for a heavy dose of self-examination and honesty, and is certainly not the natural way that people think about stories or their own characters in stories. I just can't believe that anyone will go through the trouble of taking this stance unless there is a very specific social contract that states that it is mandatory – and if such a social contract exists, and the player is committed to it, why would he break the contract in order to use both kinds of stances?
I mean, I don't get it. You speak as if Actor Stance is something natural that people just slip in to; but it is not. It's strange, it is a bizarre artefact of old-school roleplaying, and I can't see anyone just slipping into it, let alone do it constantly and in quick succession with Author Stance.
Brand, when you write:
Even when Mo is making author stance choices, she will always filter it back through author stance. This is because her character is the prime socket for her play.
you mean 'actor stance' where you write 'author stance' for the second time, right? That doesn't make the statement less of a mystery to me, though. How do you filter something through a stance?
I can totally see how Mo likes to immerse herself in a character. I can see that after she's made a choice from Author Stance, she then 'slips into' the mind of her character and finds a good reason for the character to actually act along the lines of the decision she just made. I can even see this being a process where possible courses of action are weighed against the internal dynamics of the character's mind and rejected or accepted in that light, until there is some final decision about the course of action that the character will take.
So, if you guys are talking about some process that is a quick succession of immersive thinking and non-immersive thinking, I can totally see what you are talking about and I'll agree that it is real.
But it is not a succession of Stances. Is any OOC-knowledge used in this process? If yes, the player is in Author Stance. If no, and if using OOC-knowledge is in fact scrupulously avoided, then the player is in Actor Stance.
Stances have nothing to do with immersion.
Maybe Mo's post is really insightful, but I'm no longer sure it's about stances at all.
Heh. Now you've confused me, Victor.
It seems to me that you are saying that whenever a player makes an overt decision, he has already made many decisions that he has not spoken out loud, some of them from actor stance and some from author stance.
Absolutely that is what I am saying.
First, let us notice that everything about "how the character feels, what the character thinks about a certain situation, how the character's psychology reacts to the events of the game" has nothing to do with stance, since stance is about the character actions, not his psychology.
I do not agree with this at all. A Stance is a metal positioning from which an action is taken, not the action itself. It's the place the decision comes from, which has everything to do with the feelings, thoughts and internal psychology of the character (as it exists in the player's head), or of the player himself.
let me stress how artificial and unnatural Actor Stance is
Wow, that's a big statement, and one that speaks very loudly of someone who does not use character as a socket – as the locus of enjoyment in the game. Either it's that, which makes the process alien to you, or we still have a fundamental misunderstanding between us about what the process is.
The process is an entirely natural, very easy, and ultimately facinating one for me. Artificial is a weird word to describe it, because essentially roleplaying itself is an artificial process: We're creating fake people that play in fake settings and do fake things. So I'll set that word aside.
When I play, I have (at least) two very strong independent streams of parallel thought. They are created and expand naturally through the game.
One is responsible for creating, fostering and maintaining a conceptual model of my character. The character has a fully functional psychology that differs vastly from my own. My characters have flaws, ones that they are aware of, and ones they are not. They have layers of denial, they can be, and are, affected by trauma. They are dynamic, and they are continually changing because of the events of the game. At any point in time, were we to step aside from the game, I could tell you exactly what my character thinks or feels about what is happening in that moment.
That is my Actor Stance. If you asked me to act purely in Actor Stance, I would be able to step into the character, and make a decision based on everything the character knows, feels and understands, to the exclusion of everything else. That decision would not be based on any out of character knowledge.
If you think about it, I making decisions in my Actor Stance on a continual basis, because with every new event in game, I am integrating the experience with everything the character already is. Most of these decisions, of course, happen in my head and not outwardly because the group has gathered to tell the collective story, not to hear every minutia of my character's psychology.
I also make decisions from my Author Stance to influence my Actor Stance, but I'll go into that one in a minute.
The parallel process, is of course, how I think and feel about the game myself. This includes the satisfaction I am having with the character, with the story, with the other players. It includes wants and desires from all of those things as well. It also includes the responsibility of providing others (story, players, GM etc) with things I might not want or be interested in. That's my Author Stance, the place I act from as an author of the story. I make lots of internal decisions in Author Stance too. I decide if I like a plot, and if I as a player want to see more or less of it in game. I think up cool things to contribute to the SIS – an NPC, a situation, an action I might take.
Not only is this parallel process entirely natural for me, it is necessary for me, if I am fully going to enjoy the game. It's the process with which I plug into game emotionally.
Now, within my Author Stance each of the following components might occur:
-I really like that NPC. I would like my character to meet him.
-The story isn't emotionally intensive enough. It needs more drama.
-The path my character is taking is causing friction in the story/game/social setting. I should do something to correct that.
I can then choose to act from my Author Stance to do the following:
-Employ authorial control directly to the world to make a reason for my character to meet the NPC I personally like.
-I can pawn my character to do something in game: I can pick my character up and put her into a situation that she would not naturally go into (if I were acting in Actor Stance).
-I can act in Author Stance to change the decisions I make to formulate my Actor Stance, thereby changing the way my character will act in game. This last one is tricky, and one I meant to post about later, when I felt I could explain it fully. Where there is a variety of ways that my character could choose to act, I can author my character to choose one over the other for the sake of the story, the game, the GM's sanity or the social contract. I can also use my Author Stance to author an internal fiction that allows the character to act differently while still maintaining a sense of character continuity or integrity. Clear as mud?
I think it is about stances, but it has become about a lot.
Essentially, the original point of the post was to identify that both Author and Actor stances were a product of the same person – you (or me, as the case may be) and as such, both could be a locus of authorial control. You can change the game by influencing the game directly as a player, or you can change the game by influencing the way your character develops. Can we agree on this piece?
I think this may all be an issue of terminology. I understand what you are saying about two parallel processes in your mind; it's just that I don't think they match with Actor Stance and Author Stance as defined in the ProvGlos and used on The Forge. (And neither of those two processes you speak about are what I wanted to call 'unnatural' and 'artificial'.)
Since I don't think those terms – as defined in the ProvGlos – are very useful anymore, it is probably a waste of time to fight a terminological battle about them. 🙂 I do suggest that you seek different names for the two processes you are describing, but I won't cry if you don't.
You'll have to explain this one to me, though:
You can change the game by influencing the game directly as a player, or you can change the game by influencing the way your character develops.
How is the second not a subcategory of the first?
I'd say that the two are parts of each other. The second can be a subprocess of the first, but it is an important one and one that is (sometimes) overlooked in the ways players control the game. Too often I think that many discourses about authorial control (author stance may, as you say, not be the right word) focus on how you directly impact the game, rather than on how you indirectly impact the game.
I think that's what Mo is going to get to with the Pull/Push post though, so I'll stop now.
Hi, Mo
I agree, and I think that that's pretty much the point of narrative stance theory. I think that they're called "stances" because, like martial arts stances, you shift from one to the other naturally throughout the course of play.
With that in mind, I'll add director stance to the mix.
Author Stance: I want my guy to meet superman.
Actor Stance: I have no reason to visit Metropolis.
Director Stance: My widowed aunt lives in Metropolis, and I need to go visit her.
Actor stance: I have to go take care of my poor, widowed aunt.
Very rare is the play that does not incorporate all three stances in some aspect.
Joshua BishopRoby says:
From my tack, Mo is talking about more than the four stances when she says 'stance', and Victor is applying Stance to character action when in fact is applies to player action. Stance is also all about power, which I haven't seen mentioned once thus far. That, and you're relying on the SIS, which torpedoes any discussion eventually. Here's how I'd construct it:
stance – the fictional information that a player is allowed to call upon, the fictional elements the player is allowed to affect, and whose priorities the player is expected to follow when proposing statements about the fiction.
Victor, when Mo determines what her character thinks and feels, she is making a statement about the fiction, whether or not this statement is thereafter processed by the System / Lumply Principle. This statement does not ever have to be shared, but even if it is hidden inside her mind, there are rules to it — she's not supposed to just start imagining fluffy bunnys flying in the air. As such, stance does apply to these statements, because she can and will be making these statements (even if only to herself) from a stance.
Mo, your desire or agenda differs from your characters', certainly. That you will not make a statement about the fiction that makes your character act contrary to her desires does not slam you into actor stance. Presumably it's also a part of your agenda that you prefer some realism or continuity of character, and so finding a way to reconcile your player-goals and your character-goals is, as far as I can see, a perfect example of author stance. I don't see you doing author and actor in parallel, I see you doing author stance, a part of that being a preference for continuity.
As far as going to Metropolis, that the player says "No" that doesn't necessarily mean they're doing Actor or Author at that point. It could be either, really. If the player is allowed to perform in author stance, they can, I dunno, accidentally get on a train to Metropolis that they thought was going elsewhere or something. They can see a newspaper with superman pictured and decide that today is the day they go meet the guy. If they make such a statement, then they are taking up author stance, but if they do not, they aren't necessarily sticking to actor stance.
The only thing that I take a real big issue with is your point three in the superhero example, 3.) Because of 2, I need you to give me reason in game to go and fulfill my desire. This sets off all sorts of bells and whistles in my head, with passive-agressive codependent gamer culture bullshit being dragged into a perfectly enjoyable game. It may just be your phrasing of it, with "I" and "you" involved. Would I need a previously-ratified statement about the fiction from which I can act be accurate?
Overall, I tend to agree with a bit of line from Victor, that 'stance' is an increasingly obsolete term. It conflates way the hell too much and assumes even more.
I agree with the alarm bells. However, let us turn it around. If it were the GM saying, "I need you to give me something to make this work" would we get the same alarm?
What if, instead of being something said passive-agressivly and only subtextually, it was said outloud.
Because if -anyone- at the table is sitting there sulking because they aren't getting candy, it is a problem. If, otoh, someone steps up as an adult and says, "I need some help to get to where we both want to be" that's anything but co-dependant.
That's a little better, but then the other side of the problem — they guy who only ever makes statements after he's had everyone else suggest things / tell him what to say. Why is that guy even at the table? What happens when we phrase stance in terms of responsibility rather than limitations?
Victor is applying Stance to character action when in fact is applies to player action.
Look at the definition: "The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have." What is Stance about? It is about player decisions about character decisions/actions.
So, yes, I'm applying it to character actions; and I'm applying it to player actions in the same breath… because that is what the definition states! 🙂
Well, as I said, if you guys want to use Stance-talk to describe moment-to-moment thoughts as in Ben's example, by all means do. I don't think it's a very good choice of terminology ('stance' sounds to me like something more constant) and I don't think it's the way it used to be used (which was more about the kind of knowledge you were allowed to use and the kind of power you had, not about the classification of moment-to-moment thoughts), but who really cares? It's not that important.
Because he wants to be? And if he can actually make his synthesis cool, then because we might want him to be?
Now I do believe in responsibility, but as I play with children (like 8 year olds, not 17 year olds, though they are also children…) and learning disabled folks, I may have a different agenda than lots of folks.
Victor, I find the definition to be out of date. The provisional glossary was last updated in May of 2004, and I think things have developed a little since then. Polaris, Primetime Adventures, and Dogs were all released after that update. You may disagree, which is certainly your perogative, but I'm finding stance to be increasingly obsolete. I ramble about it in my blog.
Brand, I'm not saying it's one or the other, and certainly there are a host of reasons to include anyone in any game. Mostly I was just floating the question — what happens to the game when contributions are your responsibility, not a constrained action? What happens when the game is set up with the understanding "you are here to contribute this, that, and the other thing to the collaborative process"?
Joshua Kronengold says:
I don't think the terminology is all that important, so I won't talk about it.
What's important to me is that there are, in fact, two things — playing the character (and largely, though not never entirely sucessfully, trying to ignore ephemera like die results, stakes, etc) and playing with, well, "other stuff" (which is divided into several characters — board game mind, GM mind, etc).
And how a game forces you to switch between these mental states (or doesn't) is, well, important.
I think a lot of your question also becomes relevant to the discussion in the Push/Pull post. What differentiates pull from inactivity is effort, and so in that case I think the question of responsibility becomes vastly important.
I was just pointing out that there can be different types and levels of responsibility, depending on what you're wanting out of game. I can see you and I and Ice, for example, getting together and smashing each others mental faces in as part of a game and having a ball. Won't work with all groups, however. Not even a little.
ecboss says:
Sorry to be late to the party. : )
Joshua: I think part of Mo's point was to say that the way we've been commonly looking at the stances (as distinct, non-overlapping activities) is out of date.
My understanding of the common usage of actor stance includes all of the immersive experience-in-character (of its psychology etc) that Mo talks about. The decisions specified in the glossary are creative decisions about the character, as well as in-character actions. Leaving those out is an artificial division.
Assuming actor stance is just taking on a very specific creative constraint about what you will create in play. But it is a complex, self-interpreted constraint that can be (and was intended) to be dis-empowering.
But what Ben wrote made it crystal clear to me:
Step 1: Author Stance: I want my guy to meet superman.
Step 2: Actor Stance: I have no reason to visit Metropolis.
Step 3: Director Stance: My widowed aunt lives in Metropolis, and I need to go visit her.
Step 4: Actor stance: I have to go take care of my poor, widowed aunt.
The issue Mo is nailing is that folks trained by the social contract of traditional play feel that they don't have the right to take step 3. They feel cut out of Director stance so don't think they have the authority to bridge the gap between their own Actor-stance constrained choices, and their Author-stance informed desires.
Lee Short says:
I think part of the problem in this discussion is that Victor is using the glossary definition, which is very different to how the terminology was used on RFGA. Others here are clearly using the terminology as it was used in RFGA. I can't cite examples, but my impression as to how the terminology was used on the Forge is that it was very often used in the RFGA sense, but that may have been just my slanted reading of the text. It also may have just been how some of the contributors used the terms. But I think clarity in the terminology is lacking, and I'm not sure how to fix it.
I think part of Mo's point was to say that the way we've been commonly looking at the stances (as distinct, non-overlapping activities) is out of date.
Absolutely. Now sometimes they still don't get it even after you said it six times and hit them with a rubber mallet.
I also just hoped to underline the idea that Actor Stance is as much a result of the player's decisions as anything else in game (granted, constrained by the bounds of IC knowledge). What I was getting to here was to lead into the Pull vs. Push discussion so that I could talk about Pull techiques immersionists can use to author more effectively and buy/win harmony in game.
Lee: Please clarify, what is RFGA? I probably sound like a newb when I ask, but as I said, I didn't grow out of the Forge. I'm missing your cultural reference. 😉
That should be RGFA. rec.games.frp.advocacy
RGFA narrative stance theory, first developed by Kevin Hardwick and Sarah Kahn: the original discussions are now lost, but a quicky summary of the 4 stances is given here (scroll down to the narrative stance section).
It is interesting to note, although largely irrelevant, that audience stance, part of narrative stance theory, but dropped from Forge stance theory as not being a way in which players act on the game, has been made formally relevant in such games as PTA, and explicitly if informally relevant in others such as DitV.
RGFA was a major locus of rpg theory discussion back in the 90's.
However, I don't think you are using RGFA stances, so all that is probably entirely irrelevant. Sorry.
[Although I was never an active participant in RGFA, I am married to Sarah Kahn, so the history of narrative stance theory is rather dear to me.]
Hear, hear. The concept of stances broke serious ground in getting us to where we are. John Kim has excellent archives of all those discussions and theory.
IMO audience stance is a very important aspect of play. Ben Lehman has discussed at length & it's pretty critical to how I view design these days, but is deeply intertwined with all the rest of the ways to be in a game.
Also, in-character as a stance and "deep in character" are not in common parlance now. It seems like they have been subsumed into what's thought of as "actor stance". They are all about immersion. I'd recommend reading the Advocacy Faq, Mo.
http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/rgfa/faq_v2/faq0.art
Pingback: Getting around to (one of) the point(s). | Sin Aesthetics
In which Mo explores the social pathology of roleplaying and designs a larp or six.
That which pushes…
Fuck Stratification
All Design is Political
The Media is the Method (and the Message)
Content on the Margins: How we know what's in.
You Could Be Me, I Could Be There: The Joy of Representation
That which pushes back…
Bill on Gender and Game Mechanics: Part 7 – The X Card as Care Overlay
Bill on Gender and Game Mechanics: Part 3 – How we fare in Care and Justice
Bill on Push and Pull – One Last Time
Bill on Gender and Game Mechanics: Part 2 – Care and Justice Mediation
And all the rest is tagged.
actual play aesthetic C&P character cognitive cons contest contests context Crow DitV emergence emotional agenda examining play Game Chef game craft game design games GAW goal goals I immersion impassioned improv INWAY larp marionette mask MBTI NGH Other payoff poetry possessing force post-immersion publication puppet push/pull soaps socket sockets theatre The Wire tools
C&P
game craft
Gender & Gaming
push/pull
Roleplaying Theory


As they return from recess, Senate Republicans face the decision of whether to fix their health care plan or let it die. The Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) has received a barrage of media criticism and is not polling well, so the temptation to give up on the bill is strong. But Republicans should stick with it: Their plan makes some very beneficial and underappreciated reforms. By adjusting and effectively marketing the legislation, maybe they can chalk up a political win while improving the nation's health — both physically and fiscally.
A key benefit of BCRA is that it puts Medicaid on a budget. Right now, the program is growing faster than the overall economy. Over the long run, this is unsustainable. BCRA converts Medicaid from an open-ended entitlement to a per enrollee payment, and it limits the annual growth of this payment after 2025 to the rate of inflation. This reform makes an important contribution to the nation's long term fiscal health — probably the only one possible under a Trump administration. As the latest update from the Congressional Budget Office shows, the budget deficit will rise sharply in 2017 and is forecast to exceed $1 trillion annually starting in 2022. By 2047, CBO projects a public debt-to-GDP ratio of 150 percent under current law. As Republicans and some Democrats have warned, we are headed for a fiscal train wreck.
The four horsemen of America's fiscal apocalypse are national security, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Under President Trump and Congressional Republicans, spending on defense, homeland security and veteran's affairs is likely to increase. Social Security and Medicare expenditures are inevitably headed higher due to growth in the eligible population. While Congressional Republicans may wish to reform these programs, Trump opposes any changes. This leaves only one spending driver that can be controlled over the next four or eight years: Medicaid.
As originally drafted, BCRA reduces Medicaid spending by $772 billion over the 10-year budget horizon. Thereafter, the savings continue to grow. By 2036, CBO expects Medicaid spending to be 2.4 percent of GDP under current law and only 1.6 percent of GDP under BCRA. These savings come from both slowing the rate of expenditure growth and rolling back the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion.
This second change is a major source of controversy and may not be necessary. BCRA reduces federal revenues by $230 billion over 10 years by repealing ACA taxes on wages and investment income for high income earners. If these taxes were kept, more money would be available to continue funding Medicaid expansion while still reducing deficits over the 10-year time horizon. The precise terms of an ongoing Medicaid expansion would have to carefully balance the interests of states that opted into and out of this program under ACA.
Taking the tax repeals out of the legislation removes the Democratic argument that BCRA redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich. That said, there are legitimate arguments for repealing the two taxes (i.e., they punish people for working and investing). But the fate of these Obamacare tax hikes can be decided as part of an overall tax reform package later this year; their repeal need not impact the debate on how we provide health care to disadvantaged populations in a cost-effective way.
Limiting the growth of Medicaid spending over the long-term may provide an impetus toward more cost-effective health care. While Medicaid is less costly than Medicare and private insurance on a per capita basis, it is still very expensive health care by international standards. In 2015, Medicaid spending averaged $7,492 per enrollee. This compares with per capita health expenditures of $4,003 in the United Kingdom, $4,150 in Japan, $4,608 in Canada and $5,267 in Germany. All these countries have higher life expectancies than the U.S., so they appear to be providing adequate care by our standards.
Our system is expensive for a variety reasons. While the Left is correct to remind us that insurance and pharmaceutical company profits contribute to high costs, there are numerous other factors, including (1) high executive compensation at not-for-profit hospitals, (2) huge jury awards in malpractice cases, (3) insufficient use of less expensive non-physician providers such as midwives and nurse practitioners, and (4) unnecessary and redundant tests and procedures.
All of these excess cost drivers have support from special interests, and it is hard to imagine Congress removing them — especially during a time-compressed budget reconciliation process. The only feasible option is to put a lid on overall costs and then empower states, providers and patients to implement cost-saving measures.
This is what BCRA does by changing federal Medicaid support to a fixed per enrollee grant. States and providers will no longer have an incentive to maximize reimbursement claims. Instead, they will have to find ways to provide acceptable levels of service within an established cost envelope. BCRA gives states the tools to do this by relaxing restrictions on the Medicaid program.
But I recommend going further. BCRA could give a single health care grant to each state to cover not only Medicaid but also exchange subsidies and assistance for patients that cannot be economically insured due to chronic conditions. Then, the federal government could just leave it up to each state to figure out how to cover residents that lack employer health insurance. Since states are generally required to balance their budgets, their leaders will have an incentive to make cost-saving reforms and to encourage patients and providers to cooperate.
Flexibility can be further enhanced by relaxing ACA's definition of essential health benefits. This would not only lower the cost of state-provided programs but would also reduce insurance premiums on the exchanges and for employers. While anyone not planning to have a baby should have the option of buying plans without maternity coverage, some essential health benefits would have to remain. In exchange for receiving very large health care block grants, states should be required to cover outpatient and inpatient care as well as prescription drugs.
States can save money by encouraging patients to use Health Maintenance Organizations like Kaiser Permanente. Kaiser uses a capitated model under which participants pay a fixed cost each year to receive all required services. By keeping patients in network, using electronic health records and sometimes saying no, Kaiser provides care at costs well below the national average.
Blue states might choose to eliminate third parties like Kaiser and instead implement their own single-payer systems. Vermont evaluated single payer a few years ago and decided not to try it, but the California state senate recently passed a single-payer health plan — one that relies on federal funds and can only be implemented with waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services. While I think the California single-payer plan is an awful mistake, maybe we need one or more states to make this error to learn which options work best.
It has been said that states should be laboratories of democracy. Maybe BCRA can become the vehicle by which states become laboratories of cost-effective health care policy.


I'm a YouTuber. But I have returned to the NSMBW hacking scene. Hopefully some people are excited for my future projects.
I'd say more, But I'm lazy. I might update this over time.
Sounds like a really cool concept, but my question is, would it be possible to be able to use a real switch to control the game on your pc? Or is that impossible?
I seem to only be able to have a maximum of 5 mood avatars before when I add another the image appears blank and I can only assume it won't work. Is there a cap limit of 5 only or is this a bug? Or do the rest of the mood avatars just not show? If this is a bug then please fix it. Thanks in advance. I'll show a screenshot if I have to.
Posted on 05-28-17, 07:22 pm in ongoing NSMBW/NSMBU Level Contest!
I tried making a really old winter themed level have this feature but on Dolphin Emulator the results that I got scarred me for life (it seemed like the textures of Mario's face were super enlarged or some other bullcrap). But with this guide, I can make more creative levels, thanks to you. Thanks so much man!
Posted on 05-28-17, 07:07 pm in What are your greatest life achievements?
I use an Elgato HD60 with a Wii adapter that cpatures in 360p quality. It's not the cheapest but you might be able to find a better one.
Posted on 05-27-17, 12:27 pm in What are your greatest life achievements?
Posted on 05-27-17, 12:24 pm in forumssuggestion Should we get a File Depot?
Posted on 05-26-17, 08:05 pm in forumssuggestion Should we get a File Depot?
Page rendered in 0.234 seconds (with 1.703 MB of RAM).


A large portion of the conditions that customers are attempting to comprehend the attention on this issue the way they can comprehend it. Despite the opportunity, that you have procured, the focal striking part is repair or change.
To the extent, you know, when you take a photo on your PC at midnight, and it stops, what will you do? Is it safe to state that you will call any expert to demonstrate to you proper methodologies to repair it? Additionally, we will offer you specialized help for online PCs. They require just the individuals who are skilled, experts and can work proficiently inside their structure.
Generally, clients are less mindful to such things. They simply call or take the casing to the repair shop. All that is viewed as, the decision of 1-866-356-8386 AVG Toll Free Number will give numerous focal points. Customers can even trust that who is dependable, which ought to be picked?
AVG Antivirus for PCs, workstations, and cell phones to ensure against infection assaults and keep different dangers from noxious documents. AVG Antivirus Installed and utilized on every single working framework, including Microsoft Windows, Mac OS and Linux with assurance for all. The free form is likewise accessible for clients with handicaps to sweep and expel infections from PC frameworks or cell phones. In this manner, when you have an issue introducing, uninstalling or actuating, you may need to dial AVG phone number and get a moment arrangement from AVG Customer Service.
Introducing and utilizing AVG antivirus programming can be performed with a simple procedure, yet here and there you may experience distinctive issues because of similarity or setup issues. In such circumstances, you can take the assistance of experts who will enable you to beat any issue with the help of the antivirus AVG. The contact number of AVG tech is the ideal place to take care of your concern around your work area with the best-specialized help at the most minimal conceivable rates.
AVG Antivirus gives online specialized help to amend blunders that happen when utilizing diverse sorts of gadgets and programming applications. Issues with the antivirus are tackled with the assistance of the most recent apparatuses in specialized help of AVG, so our authorities can instantly distinguish and take care of issues without investing excessively energy in our clients. You can likewise get Support for AVG Antivirus with toll free Helpline telephone number to meet the accompanying needs.
In the event that you are searching for an AVG Technical Support Contact Phone Number, call now our sans toll number, our pros will enable you to tackle your concern of supporting AVG with a direct and basic process. We work with the experts to give unbeatable specialized help to an abnormal state of consumer loyalty. You will likewise get free guidance and specialized help to maintain a strategic distance from such a circumstance in a matter of seconds.
Installing an antivirus is the first step towards defending your system from malware and adware. The internet is a major source of malware, which are designed primarily to disrupt your system and steal sensitive information. If you are using the AVG antivirus, then it does protect you from these threats. The antivirus tool works on various platforms and can really shield your system from the constant threats. But of course, setting up and installing the AVG can be a bit problematic. But with our AVG support at SK Techies , you don't really have to take much of any stress.
What prefer us to fix the AVG Technical Issues?
Being proficient in the internet protocol services and having in-depth knowledge of the AVG antivirus, our team of experts will make it easy for you. We will make sure to help you problems related to installation, up-grading the software, removing the excess junk or spam and many more. S K Techies believes in innovation and we use some of the most advances software tools to reduce your burden.
SK Techies are always there to support you in the hour of crisis. Our responsibility is to see to it that your AVG antivirus properly works within the given environment. Our technicians are the best in the industry with sizeable experience of working on antivirus. In a way, we are making sure that you have the best experts to guide you through. Dial our AVG Contact Phone Technical Support Number.


We are very happy to announce that our first book in the USR Series: Explorations in Urban Practice is finally out! Thank you to all our contributors and participants that made this possible. More info and how to order -> here.
The Urban School Ruhr (USR) is a learning platform and a pedagogical experiment that investigates participative and artistic practices in urban space. USR is envisioned as an independent public institution and an assembly of individuals gathered together around a declared common interest.
The USR curriculum comprises field trips to European cities and an Open Programme that takes place in the cities of Witten and Hattingen, thus it engages with the present and the future of the Ruhr area. USR activities are conducted by faculty members, together with local and international tutors and associated educational partners.
USR is a complex educational program of the Open Raumlabor University developed in cooperation with Urbane Künste Ruhr (Artistic direction: Katja Aßmann).
The Class 2016 overlooks the Petite Ceinture, a neglected green space in the very centre in Paris, that still awaits for redevelopment.
Walking the GR2013 -the first metropolitan and artistic hiking trail in Marseille- part of the official programme of the Capital of Culture in 2013. Three years later, we meet the artists to discuss the long term impact and transformational effects of such cultural, political and economical undertaking.
Understanding the kitchen as a site of dialogue and reciprocity, USR class 2016 cooks and eats together at R-Urban in the Parisian banlieue. During the dinner, invited speakers did a short presentation – in between courses- followed by an informal discussion.
USR meets dpr-Barcelona (Ethel Baraona Pohl and Cesar Reyes Najera) in Athens. Together we celebrated the official book launch of Aristide Antonas 'Archipelago of Protocols' by doing a public reading on the stairs of Philopappou Hill – under the Greek Acropolis.
The class immersed on an intense discussion about Autonomy and its implications during the Autonoma Conference at the Onassis Cultural Centre in Athens.
Class time at the Arènes de Picasso – Noisy Le Grand. City as campus, public square as classroom.
USR's sporting ambitions provide both healthy recreation and a different way of looking at the city, for example atop Le Corbusier's Cité Radieuse in Marseille.


Can I watch Hulu Live TV in Windows?
I would like to watch CBS on Hulu, but for that, I need the Live TV subscription. I have read somewhere that this only works on some devices, and not in Windows. Is that so?
I do not have an active Hulu Live TV subscription myself at the moment, and the main reason for canceling my subscription, was the fact that the Live TV could only be seen on Chromecast, Apple TV, on Android, and on iOS systems. It is written at the Hulu website that this will change sometime in the future and that support for other devices will be added, but as of August 7th, Hulu Live TV does not support Windows.
Let us at least hope that Hulu Live TV will get the support up before the autumn season with new TV series start. I look forward to a new season of The Big Bang Theory, but if time allows it, then I also enjoy NCIS, Bull, Kevin Can Wait, and quite a lot of other CBS series.
How much does the Hulu Live TV cost?
The price for Hulu Live TV is 39,99 USD per month. If you want to keep this with the commercial free version of Hulu, the price is 43,99USD. A subscription to CBS All Access will not let you watch live content in the same way, but you can still watch all your favorite CBS shows on demand, whenever you want. It might sound much cheaper, but let us not forget all the other channels you get access to with the Hulu Live TV subscription as well.
Would you like to watch CBS All Access outside the United States? I have done so for years, and I enjoy it. With my subscription, I can watch the newest Big Bang Theory episodes at once, and I can even enjoy them without commercials. You can find our more on how to stream CBS All Access abroad in this article.
Are you gonna watch CBS at Hulu Live TV? Is it worth the money?
← Now you can stream CBS on Hulu as well!


text:
About This IR
Scholar Commons > Open Access Journals > IJS > Vol. 43 (2014) > Iss. 3
Diatom flora in subterranean ecosystems: a review
Elisa Falasco, Life Sciences and Systems Biology Department (DBIOS), University of Turin, ItalyFollow
Luc Ector, Department of Environment and Agro-biotechnologies (EVA), Public Research Center – Gabriel LippmannFollow
Marco Isaia, DBIOS, University of Turin, ItalyFollow
Carlos E. Wetzel, Department of Environment and Agro-biotechnologies (EVA), Public Research Center – Gabriel LippmannFollow
Lucien Hoffmann, Department of Environment and Agro-biotechnologies (EVA), Public Research Center – Gabriel LippmannFollow
Francesca Bona, DBIOS, University of Turin, ItalyFollow
In scarcity of light and primary producers, subterranean ecosystems are generally extremely oligotrophic habitats, receiving poor supplies of degradable organic matter from the surface. Human direct impacts on cave ecosystems mainly derive from intensive tourism and recreational caving, causing important alterations to the whole subterranean environment. In particular, artificial lighting systems in show caves support the growth of autotrophic organisms (the so-called lampenflora), mainly composed of cyanobacteria, diatoms, chlorophytes, mosses and ferns producing exocellular polymeric substances (EPSs) made of polysaccharides, proteins, lipids and nucleic acids. This anionic EPSs matrix mediates to the intercellular communications and participates to the chemical exchanges with the substratum, inducing the adsorption of cations and dissolved organic molecules from the cave formations (speleothems). Coupled with the metabolic activities of heterotrophic microorganisms colonising such layer (biofilm), this phenomenon may lead to the corrosion of the mineral surfaces. In this review, we investigate the formation of biofilms, especially of diatom-dominated ones, as a consequence of artificial lighting and its impacts on speleothems. Whenever light reaches the subterranean habitat (both artificially and naturally) a relative high number of species of diatoms may indeed colonise it. Cave entrances, artificially illuminated walls and speleothems inside the cave are generally the preferred substrates. This review focuses on the diatom flora colonising subterranean habitats, summarizing the information contained in all the scientific papers published from 1900 up to date. In this review we provide a complete checklist of the diatom taxa recorded in subterranean habitats, including a total of 363 taxa, belonging to 82 genera. The most frequent and abundant species recorded in caves and other low light subterranean habitats are generally aerophilic and cosmopolitan. These are, in order of frequency: Hantzschia amphioxys, Diadesmis contenta, Orthoseira roeseana, Luticola nivalis, Pinnularia borealis, Diadesmis biceps and Luticola mutica. Due to the peculiarity of the subterranean habitats, the record of rare or new species is relatively common. The most important environmental factors driving species composition and morphological modifications observed in subterranean populations are analysed throughout the text and tables. In addition, suggestions to prevent and remove the corrosive biofilms in view of an environmentally sustainable cave management are discussed.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1827-806X.43.3.1
Falasco, Elisa; Luc Ector; Marco Isaia; Carlos E. Wetzel; Lucien Hoffmann; and Francesca Bona. 2014. Diatom flora in subterranean ecosystems: a review. International Journal of Speleology, 43: 231-251.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/ijs/vol43/iss3/1
Table 1.docx (26 kB)
Table 1. List of the subterranean environments analysed in the review: bibliographic references, name, typology and location of the sampling sites. In this list are included only the references mentioning diatom taxa.
Table 2. Checklist of the diatom taxa recorded in all the subterranean habitats and cited in the review, with related bibliographic references.
Supplemental Content/Export Citation
Botany Commons, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons
Publication Ethics & Malpractice
Reference Styles
All Issues Vol. 52, Iss. 1 Vol. 51, Iss. 3 Vol. 51, Iss. 2 Vol. 51, Iss. 1 Vol. 50, Iss. 3 Vol. 50, Iss. 2 Vol. 50, Iss. 1 Vol. 49, Iss. 3 Vol. 49, Iss. 2 Vol. 49, Iss. 1 Vol. 48, Iss. 3 Vol. 48, Iss. 2 Vol. 48, Iss. 1 Vol. 47, Iss. 3 Vol. 47, Iss. 2 Vol. 47, Iss. 1 Vol. 46, Iss. 3 Vol. 46, Iss. 2 Vol. 46, Iss. 1 Vol. 45, Iss. 3 Vol. 45, Iss. 2 Vol. 45, Iss. 1 Vol. 44, Iss. 3 Vol. 44, Iss. 2 Vol. 44, Iss. 1 Vol. 43, Iss. 3 Vol. 43, Iss. 2 Vol. 43, Iss. 1 Vol. 42, Iss. 3 Vol. 42, Iss. 2 Vol. 42, Iss. 1 Vol. 41, Iss. 2 Vol. 41, Iss. 1 Vol. 40, Iss. 2 Vol. 40, Iss. 1 Vol. 39, Iss. 2 Vol. 39, Iss. 1 Vol. 38, Iss. 2 Vol. 38, Iss. 1 Vol. 37, Iss. 3 Vol. 37, Iss. 2 Vol. 37, Iss. 1 Vol. 36, Iss. 2 Vol. 36, Iss. 1 Vol. 35, Iss. 2 Vol. 35, Iss. 1 Vol. 34, Iss. 1 Vol. 33, Iss. 1 Vol. 32, Iss. 1 Vol. 31, Iss. 1 Vol. 30, Iss. 1 Vol. 29, Iss. 1 Vol. 28, Iss. 1 Vol. 27, Iss. 1 Vol. 26, Iss. 3 Vol. 26, Iss. 1 Vol. 25, Iss. 3 Vol. 25, Iss. 1 Vol. 24, Iss. 1 Vol. 23, Iss. 3 Vol. 23, Iss. 1 Vol. 22, Iss. 1 Vol. 21, Iss. 1 Vol. 20, Iss. 1 Vol. 19, Iss. 1 Vol. 18, Iss. 3 Vol. 18, Iss. 1 Vol. 17, Iss. 1 Vol. 16, Iss. 3 Vol. 16, Iss. 1 Vol. 15, Iss. 1 Vol. 14, Iss. 1 Vol. 13, Iss. 1 Vol. 12, Iss. 1 Vol. 11, Iss. 3 Vol. 11, Iss. 1 Vol. 10, Iss. 3 Vol. 10, Iss. 2 Vol. 10, Iss. 1 Vol. 9, Iss. 3 Vol. 9, Iss. 2 Vol. 9, Iss. 1 Vol. 8, Iss. 4 Vol. 8, Iss. 3 Vol. 8, Iss. 1 Vol. 7, Iss. 4 Vol. 7, Iss. 3 Vol. 7, Iss. 1 Vol. 6, Iss. 4 Vol. 6, Iss. 3 Vol. 6, Iss. 2 Vol. 6, Iss. 1 Vol. 5, Iss. 3 Vol. 5, Iss. 2 Vol. 5, Iss. 1 Vol. 4, Iss. 3 Vol. 4, Iss. 2 Vol. 4, Iss. 1 Vol. 3, Iss. 3 Vol. 3, Iss. 1 Vol. 1, Iss. 4 Vol. 1, Iss. 3 Vol. 1, Iss. 1
ISSN: 1827-806X (Online)
Speleogenesis
Cave and Karst Science
Journal of Cave and Karst Science
Karstologia
Travaux de l'Institute de Spéologie Emile Racovitza
Scholar Commons | About This IR | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement
International Union of Speleology


Hi! My name is Bror. I am interested in BIOS mods to my ASUSM2N32WS Pro, Rev 1.04G. With a BIOS Rev 2001, and a AM2+ socket.
AMD Phenom II X4 920 AM2+ and abow.
The only limit is the max ow 125W, and a on board DDR-2 controller.
Only a few of AM3 socket cpu´n have a DRR-2 controller and a DRR-3 controller.
No matter core count, there has to be a DRR2 controller, or it will not work.
Can enny body help me with a modded BIOS file?
All new CPUs except the Thuban hexacores work with the 1802 BIOS.
Somebody posted a modded bios based 1802 at the Asus support forums a while back. Apparently it contains updated agesa and updates for pci-x. I have not tried that bios myself though.
if you have problems with the CPU being stuck at 800MHz.