How do you deal with conflicting schedules?

I’m trying to get a group together for a campaign. They’ve all already created character concepts, and all seem excited to join. The problem is, it seems like every day of the week, someone is taken, and I know that if we don’t keep a consistent schedule, the group will eventually cease meeting. Does anyone know how to get everyone together, or how to break the idea that someone may have to drop out?

How do I handle kids’ conflicting goals?

I’m playing Amazing Tales with my two daughters (an even simpler version, actually– we don’t really make characters with specific skills, I just let them be whoever and we make up a story while occasionally rolling dice). The problem is, they’re trying to go in conflicting directions. The "campaign" currently involves being on a pirate ship, and while my 3-year-old wants to rescue their space alien friend who’s been captured by the mean ol’ pirates, my 4-year-old wants to join the pirates and keep their friend prisoner.

I know the #1 rule when gaming with little kids is "always say yes," because the more they’re allowed to let their imaginations run wild the more they’ll love the game. But I don’t know how to do that with two kids who keep coming into conflict. (We’ve been with the pirates for several sessions now, and this is not a new problem.) It’s not that my 4-year-old likes being mean– I’ve tried to explain how badly their alien friend wants to be free, and how sad her husband back home will be if they don’t free her– she just likes the idea of being one of the "bad pirates" and is willing to help them do whatever they’re trying to do. Last night I decided to let my 3-year-old have her way, and she rescued their friend over my 4-year-old’s objections. In a previous session when the girls themselves got captured, I let my 4-year-old talk her way into the crew and stand guard over her sister’s cage (I was hoping she would use the opportunity to free both of them, but she dutifully kept her sister locked up).

How can I let both of them have the story they want if their goals are mutually exclusive?

Can conflicting descriptions of the recent past be handled better than GM fiat?

I’ve been having a problem in RPGs lately where participants, myself included, have radically different ideas about what just happened on a basic factual level. For example, in a recent Pokémon RPG where I am a player, a significant conversation was had amongst the players and an NPC about whether or not to tell Will’s Alakazam we can talk to Pokémon. In the course of the conversation, from my perspective, one of the PCs asked a question of the group and the NPC responded first. However, another player was convinced that the question was asked and then my PC and another PC responded, and only then the NPC responded. I will use this example throughout this question as an illustration, but please keep in mind that it is only one example of this sort of problem and that specific case has already been resolved; you can feel free to use it similarly to illustrate the advice you give in an answer, but the actual specifics of that advice as applied to this situation are not important to me.

These sorts of disagreements about basic facts can be a serious problem when players end up making plans that rely on fundamentally incompatible versions of the world, and lead to lengthy arguments and discussions. Although this hadn’t come up much before until about a year or two ago, it’s been coming up a lot since that time, particularly since the first steps I outline below consistently do not ever work with several of our newer players.

The current system that we use for this has developed in an ad hoc manner and is not particularly thought out. It goes like this:

  1. There is a disagreement. In this case it’s about whether or not the PC in question insulted the NPC by shutting them down for interrupting when no one else was talking.
  2. We clarify whether the disagreement is about material or immaterial facts (i.e. whether we are disagreeing about what happened or what that means. This isn’t always obvious– "John murdered Sue" is probably immaterial if the issue at hand is whether the killing was justified rather than whether the knife propelled by his hand entered her heart. The important part is to isolate what we disagree about and determine whether or not it is something that we think should be obviously true or false to both characters regardless of their value differences). In this case what order people spoke in is a material fact, and no immaterial facts are disputed– we agree that if the PC in question had shut the NPC down in that manner it would be insulting, but we disagree as to whether or not that, in fact, happened (i.e. whether or not other people were currently talking at the time).
  3. If the disagreement is about immaterial facts, it’s not relevant to this question, but it enters a separate process
  4. If it’s about material facts we survey the group. Generally, in the past, people change their minds or at least acquiesce to our carrying on with things being the other way if everyone but them remembers something differently. For two people we now play with in several games this is never the case. In this case, everyone but the player of the PC who shut down the NPC (myself, another player, and the GM) agrees that no other players had indicated their PCs were talking at that point. The player dissenting continues to insist that we had, in fact, done so, though.
  5. If the group cannot reach consensus in a timely fashion (<2 hours), the GM issues a fiat or declares that discussion between the invested parties will happen elsewhere as the rest of us keep playing. Those side conversations usually take 2-4 hours when I am a party and 4-6 hours otherwise. In this case, the GM declares by fiat that there was a miscommunication in the in-character conversation, the NPC is not insulted because they thought what was happening was the same as what the PC in question thought was happening, but generally everybody is momentarily off-put or confused and then things are worked out off-screen and the PCs are getting along again and the main thrust of the conversation can resume. It takes only 30 minutes before that fiat is given (this is unusually short) and then another half-hour or so to discuss/explain what the fiat means.
  6. If GM fiat was issued, although the disagreement is officially resolved, there are still always inevitably problems of late, unless the GM fiat is in line with the position espoused by the new players, if either player is in the game (they are never both in the same game, so far). These problems take the form of more disagreements about what’s happening, material or immaterial, in all areas related to the fiated thing, which inevitably morph into rehashing the same disagreements that were had before just with putatively a new issue at hand. Frequently the content of the last GM fiat is also a matter of material disagreement in these cases. This starts the process over, usually resulting in another GM fiat after a couple of hours. In this case the fiat was sufficiently concillatory and no further problems around that particular issue arose. The fact that we quickly ended up is a 4 hour conversation about a different conflict between the GM and the player in question related to a different past fiat from a previous session may have had something to do with that, however.

This process is exhausting and frustrating for everyone involved. Is there a better way to resolve these disagreements about basic facts?

Advanced Custom Fields conflicting with custom plugin when saving custom field

I’m writing a plugin for the practice and running into an issue where another plugin, Advanced Custom Fields is conflicting with my code. I have created a custom post type with it’s own custom field. My save method works and the custom field data is saved if I disable ACF, however I am getting a validation error that I think comes from the acf plugin when trying to save/publish with the plugin active. See pic for the error message.

So I guess my question is, do I need to check if that plugin is active and use it’s functions to handle this and if not do it the normal way, or am I doing something else wrong? Does every plugin that saves custom field data have to check if this plugin is active and handle it accordingly? That just doesn’t seem right to me but this is my first time writing a plugin.

error message

Here is my save method:

public function save_metabox_details() {         global $  post;         if(current_user_can('editor') || current_user_can('administrator') && isset($  _POST['ipmyskills_nonce'])) {             $  nonce = $  _POST['ipmyskills_nonce'];             if( $  nonce && !check_admin_referer( basename(__FILE__), 'ipmyskills_nonce' )) {                 die('Validation error');             }             if (isset($  _POST['ipmyskills_input'])) {                 $  sanitized_value = esc_html( sanitize_text_field( $  _POST['ipmyskills_input'] ) );                 update_post_meta($  post->ID, 'ipmyskills_input', $  sanitized_value);             }         }      } 

How to handle conflicting updates of a customer record

We are developing a simple web based single-page CRM-like app. I was thinking about what happens when two operators are both editing the details of a customer “John Doe”. On the server side we use a optimistic updating, i.e. the ajax update payload includes revision-number which must match whats in the database, however on the front-end I was wondering how we should handle this?

I thought about a modal popup along the lines of: “Sorry AgentB has already updated the record and your working copy might not be up-to-date? Would you like to:” (a) Update anyway (b) Reload (c) Some form of merge

However I can imagine the users being confused by this. Then I start thinking this scenario must have been covered a million times already. Are there any guidelines and fantastic reference apps to demonstrate the best way to handle such common concerns in a web based multi-user line of business applications?

We are open to use any necessary cool-aid to achieve the best solution (websockets, ui frameworks etc…).

conflicting packages – not installing mariadb-client-10.1

I have the Ubuntu 18.04.3 LTS and when I run apt upgrade, I get the following:

dpkg: regarding .../mariadb-server-core-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb containing mariadb-server-core-10.1:  mariadb-server-10.1 conflicts with mysql-server-core-5.5   mariadb-server-core-10.1 provides mysql-server-core-5.5 and is to be installed.  dpkg: error processing archive /var/cache/apt/archives/mariadb-server-core-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb (--unpack):  conflicting packages - not installing mariadb-server-core-10.1 dpkg: regarding .../mariadb-client-core-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb containing mariadb-client-core-10.1:  mariadb-client-10.1 conflicts with mysql-client-core-5.5   mariadb-client-core-10.1 provides mysql-client-core-5.5 and is to be installed.  dpkg: error processing archive /var/cache/apt/archives/mariadb-client-core-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb (--unpack):  conflicting packages - not installing mariadb-client-core-10.1 dpkg: regarding .../mariadb-client-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb containing mariadb-client-10.1:  mariadb-client-core-10.1 conflicts with mysql-client-5.5   mariadb-client-10.1 provides mysql-client-5.5 and is to be installed.  dpkg: error processing archive /var/cache/apt/archives/mariadb-client-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb (--unpack):  conflicting packages - not installing mariadb-client-10.1 No apport report written because MaxReports is reached already                                                               Errors were encountered while processing:  /var/cache/apt/archives/mariadb-server-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb /var/cache/apt/archives/mariadb-server-core-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb /var/cache/apt/archives/mariadb-client-core-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb /var/cache/apt/archives/mariadb-client-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) 

Then, when I run apt --fix-broken install, I am getting:

dpkg-deb: error: paste subprocess was killed by signal (Broken pipe) dpkg: regarding .../mariadb-server-core-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb containing mariadb-server-core-10.1:  mariadb-server-10.1 conflicts with mysql-server-core-5.5   mariadb-server-core-10.1 provides mysql-server-core-5.5 and is to be installed.  dpkg: error processing archive /var/cache/apt/archives/mariadb-server-core-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb (--unpack):  conflicting packages - not installing mariadb-server-core-10.1 dpkg: regarding .../mariadb-client-core-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb containing mariadb-client-core-10.1:  mariadb-client-10.1 conflicts with mysql-client-core-5.5   mariadb-client-core-10.1 provides mysql-client-core-5.5 and is to be installed.  dpkg: error processing archive /var/cache/apt/archives/mariadb-client-core-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb (--unpack):  conflicting packages - not installing mariadb-client-core-10.1 dpkg: regarding .../mariadb-client-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb containing mariadb-client-10.1:  mariadb-client-core-10.1 conflicts with mysql-client-5.5   mariadb-client-10.1 provides mysql-client-5.5 and is to be installed.  dpkg: error processing archive /var/cache/apt/archives/mariadb-client-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb (--unpack):  conflicting packages - not installing mariadb-client-10.1 No apport report written because MaxReports is reached already                                                               Errors were encountered while processing:  /var/cache/apt/archives/mariadb-server-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb /var/cache/apt/archives/mariadb-server-core-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb /var/cache/apt/archives/mariadb-client-core-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb /var/cache/apt/archives/mariadb-client-10.1_1%3a10.1.41+maria-1~bionic_amd64.deb E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) 

Stuck at Removing Conflicting Operating System Files 14.04 to 16.04

I know this is a known bug and there are other posts about it such as Here However the posts don’t do me any good or skip a step or a hundred. First, they say to “Continue with the installation”. Huh I am stuck at:

enter image description here

I do not see a continue button??

I assume I need to hard reset the machine as nothing else is working, but these are important details missing in all workarounds I have found.

Some background: I have not used this machine for a while, I booted it up it was fine, but said that TeamViewer need to be updated (12). I tried the automatic update which did nothing so I found it online and tried installing. The progress bar froze for a few hours so I tried restarting. The restart also got hung after closing everything to I reset the machine. At boot I got nothing but a purple screen and recovery mode got stuck with a kernel panic. I attempted a boot repair which did not work. Then I tried booting from a 14.04.5 disk to try to reinstall. There was no re-install options. only in parallel or erase, or other. But here I got the “No Root File System Defined”, which is easy to look up and says all I need to do is set a partition to / Root, but no instructions on how to do it. I tried a 16.04.6 boot disk which gave me an update option so it could continue. This was hours ago and the picture shows what I have.

If I reboot, do I continue with the install, do an update or Other and what do I do. All the guides list some console commands, but I don’t have a console, just the update gui.

Sorry if am a pain, but I have been doing this for about 6 hours and am no closer to getting it working.

Thank you.

Conflicting answers about Transiting Zurich International Airport

I am living & residing legally in the UAE for 10 years.
For return trip Dubai – Zurich – Djerba, Tunisia with a transit of 10 hours in inbound and outbound flights, here is what may happen:
VERSION 1: Swiss embassy “to know whether you are allowed to stay in the transit area consult the link”. I did so I learned that I am a passport holder of a country that is exempted from a compulsory transit visa. Great I meet all the requirements.
VERSION 2 : Consulting Swiss airline check-in officers in Dubai Airport they said “After contacting police authorities in Zurich, we are assured that you and your family don’t have the right to land on the airport”. Transiting not allowed.
VERSION 3 : I mailed the passengers and immigration authorities at Zurich Airport and the answer was that I have the right to transit the airport as I meet all the requirements.

NGINX – conflicting server name “www.foo.com” on 0.0.0.0:80, ignored

I can’t figure out why does nginx raises error conflicting server name.

My project runs on two domains – foo.com and bar.com. After setting up nginx, I’ve installed let's encrypt certificate which adds a server block in sites-available/myproject.

Then I tried to set redirects from www.foo.com and www.bar.com to foo.com and bar.com but these two domains doesn’t work.

sudo nginx -t nginx: [warn] conflicting server name "www.foo.com" on 0.0.0.0:80, ignored nginx: [warn] conflicting server name "www.bar.com" on 0.0.0.0:80, ignored nginx: the configuration file /etc/nginx/nginx.conf syntax is ok nginx: configuration file /etc/nginx/nginx.conf test is successful 

The same shows error.log

This is the sites-available/myproject

server {     listen 80;     server_name www.bar.com;     return 301 $  scheme://bar.com$  request_uri; }  server {     listen 80;     server_name www.foo.com;     return 301 $  scheme://foo.com$  request_uri; }  server {     server_name foo.com bar.com;      location = /favicon.ico { access_log off; log_not_found off; }     location /static/ {         root /home/futilestudio/myproject;     }      location / {         include proxy_params;         proxy_pass http://unix:/run/gunicorn.sock;     }      listen 443 ssl; # managed by Certbot     ssl_certificate /etc/letsencrypt/live/foo.com/fullchain.pem; # managed by Certbot     ssl_certificate_key /etc/letsencrypt/live/foo.com/privkey.pem; # managed by Certbot     include /etc/letsencrypt/options-ssl-nginx.conf; # managed by Certbot     ssl_dhparam /etc/letsencrypt/ssl-dhparams.pem; # managed by Certbot     }  server {     if ($  host = bar.com) {         return 301 https://$  host$  request_uri;     } # managed by Certbot       if ($  host = foo.com) {         return 301 https://$  host$  request_uri;     } # managed by Certbot       listen 80;     server_name 178.128.xxx.xxx foo.com bar.com;     return 404; # managed by Certbot     } 

So what I want is to redirect all www to non-www which are secured. Do you know where is the problem?

DMG & Errata conflicting ruling clarification / What is defined as Use an Object? [duplicate]

This question already has an answer here:

  • What items can a Thief use as a bonus action with his Fast Hands? 2 answers

If the DMG states you cannot use Fast Hands with any item that requires an action to activate, but this Errata states you can use Healers Kit with fast hands WHICH requires an action, who am I supposed to listen to?

Also, What is defined as Use an Object?

Activating some magic items requires a user to do something special, such as holding the item and uttering a command word. The description of each item category or individual item details how an item is activated. Certain items use one or more of the following rules for their activation.

If an item requires an action to activate, that action isn’t a function of the Use an Item action, so a feature such as the rogue’s Fast Hands can’t be used to activate the item. (DMG PG 141 “ACTIVATING AN ITEM”)

Can a thief use the Fast Hands feature to activate a magic item? No. One of the benefits of Fast Hands is being able to take the Use an Object action as a bonus action, but using a magic item doesn’t fall under Use an Object, as explained in the Dungeon Master’s Guide (p. 141). In contrast, using a nonmagical item, such as a healer’s kit, is in the domain of Use an Object. (Sage Advice Compendium v1.03)