sirblastalot

Addl wisdom: some people make jokes when they're uncomfortable, as a defense mechanism. If you have a player or players constantly trying to lighten the mood, consider that the atmosphere you're trying to create may not be a good fit for your party, and/or parts of your party may not be a good fit for your game.

One slab of dry ice is a couple pounds, I could easily see a bathtub full of it being a problem. Also, co2 is heavier than air, cats are smaller than humans, and they live closer to the ground, so I think ...m... made the right call.

This kind of thing can be fun. It can also be just as or more fun to sit around with nothing more than some scrap paper and an idea. Especially no shade on people that don't have unlimited budgets to spend on setups like this.

Fun fact, any game dev's financial data can be stolen if you're capable of answering my riddles three

I would really like to commission that one artist that does the WWI kobolds to do a piece with 3 kobolds running a vintage SMG as if it were a crew served weapon. (But sadly they won't return my emails)

I just want you to know how much I appreciate your hammer comparison. That is an incredibly apt simile and I want you to get credit for it. You should feel good about your analysis and communication skills.

Isn't SCP public domain? You're explicitly allowed to do whatever you want with it

That strikes me as highly reflective of google's position of power; from the employer's perspective, the point where the diminishing returns are no longer worth it is related to the point where they're losing too many applicants from interview exhaustion. If you're not google, not offering the kind of pay and such that google does, your break-even point is likely much sooner.

Additionally, from the worker's perspective, the only-3-interviews rule is an assertion of our power. And, as an added plus, if enough people adhere to it, it will shift that break-even point even for places like Google, and resist the shifting of that burden onto unpaid workers.

This is silly. EVERY system can be exploited, and every group should expect eachother to act in good faith. The difference between systems is what parts are done for you and what parts you do yourself, and every group is going to want a different assortment of those pieces. You're just mad that some groups get what they want out of DnD. You are the problem person in this image.

What's his deal?

The question that raises from a process improvement perspective then is "were the first 3 rounds really effective tests?" Perhaps a better solution is not more interviews, but more focused interviews conducted by the people that actually have the knowledge and power to make the decision. (And if the knowledge and the power are divided among multiple people, another great improvement would be empowering the people with the knowledge.)

Yeah, it saves you money...by costing the prospective employee. There's only so much we as employees can or should be willing to give up for free, and it's 3 interviews.

I also question if more than that is really improving the quality of your hires. Far more often (100% of the time, in my experience), multiple interviews are more a symptom of bureaucracy; multiple managers insisting that they get to stick their fingers in the pie, rather than actually learning anything more meaningful about the candidate.