>>21594
So paying for customer requested art (commissions) is A-OK, but paying for art with merely customer input (a quest) is somehow doubleplusungood?
>A quest by definition [etc]
Bullshit.

>>21596
Is that really what you got from that? What I saw was "it's degrading the artform". Of course, there are certainly arguments you could levy against the validity of that complaint too.

>Therefore, reducing this medium to an interactive illustrated fapfic is a huge waste, and so is shifting your readers' focus to sexual content.

What if they just want a specific theme or concept and they pay money for that? Or they use it to get images of what would otherwise be a text quest, which, according to many opinions, are inferior to arted quests? What about just getting an author to continue an old quest they dropped?

>What if they just want a specific theme or concept and they pay money for that? Or they use it to get images of what would otherwise be a text quest, which, according to many opinions, are inferior to arted quests?
Then they should ask for it. A quest is shaped by the suggestors as much as it is by the author. Call me purist, but I contend that quest advancement - or form, for that matter - should not depend on any kind of monetary reward. It's a thing everyone's doing for kicks. "I'll be driving the quest at half force unless you pay me" is not a healthy standpoint.

>What about just getting an author to continue an old quest they dropped?
Why was it dropped? If the author just got bored with it and wandered off to do something else, again, a plea from the fans is enough and money is not necessary. If the author dropped it because they're having a hard time making the ends meet, then donating to them has less to do with the quest and more with just helping out someone you like and/or think is cool.

Although I admit I was a bit frustrated while writing >>21594 .

>>21606

So, are you honestly so retarded that you think that free stuff is inherently superior to paid stuff regardless of the difference in quality between two things?

Or do you just hate capitalism so much that the very idea of somebody making money when there is a demand for their service makes you so irrational that you just vomit words at your keyboard and hope they make sentences?

I'm not happy with it because he's diverting money away from who really needs it - the foundering MLP fleshlight industry. We can't stand to lose any more American jobs.

Were I to 'fund' a quest, I would only do so in the sense of "Run this setting, I'll pay you such and such every thread of 300+ posts and at least fifty updates". I'd not try to steer the content.

Also, you failed to address adding art to a text quest with commissions.

>>21606
This is just... extremely stupid. Quests as an "art form" aren't "degraded" by Doxy making an MLP paid tumblr quest. I think it's more valid than Zone's porno flashes because it's basically a puzzle game with porn you can get for doing the puzzles right. That's actually a lot more clever and interesting than some flash of Toph giving Aang a footjob with an annoying mechanic added.

If Doxy asks for money and people want to pay money for the product, there isn't really an issue. Having a bunch of totally shittastic quests with irregular update schedules (or ones that just die part way through, like most of them) make the medium look worse than one person making money. Also who gives a shit?

Like, are people not going to read other quests or questlike things because there is a porno MLP tublr quest? It is not going to make a single bit of difference one way or the other.

>>21618
>This is just... extremely stupid.
Read the thread's subject line.

I've done a few quests I was paid to do. I agree that paying for suggestions to be more likely to get used sullies the concept just a little bit, but them getting money for doing a lot of work that a bunch of people benefit from and enjoy is not a terrible thing.

Bob 2012/07/06(Fri)16:19 No. 21696 ID: 01f6f1
File 134161673992.jpg - (203.82KB , 1175x1600 , THOR.jpg )

Unforgivable! The moe subculture is tarnishing the image of crossdressing and gender identity! No plot, no personality, no depth, no comedy! It's just a new and cheap way to sell shota and lolicon! Unforgivable!

No commitment on crossdressing! Unforgivable!

>>/questdis/56885
> for all I know it might be the main reason we are so abundant and one of the most populant species on Earth
Certainly not our highly-developed telencephalon, opposable thumb and diet. You know that many people can't get pleasure from sex? Sex, sexual behavior and reproduction are much more complicated than rubbing genitals. Furthermore, the number of deaths during pregnancy and birth, for both mothers and children, were absurd before the advent of modern medicine. Pregnancy meant risking your life. Anyway, I'm hardly an authority on this subject, much less someone who can impart knowledge efficiently. You will gain more studying on these issues.

Excuse me, I'll channel some of the antagonism and stupidity in this thread.

>>/questdis/56901
You must be terrible in bed. Or anywhere else, really.

I didn't want that discussion to turn into being about sex at all :(
I just wanted to discuss deerling culture and motivations. But maybe I should defend some of my concerns here. I dunno, most of it was intended discussions.

>>21715
>Certainly not our highly-developed telencephalon, opposable thumb and diet. You know that many people can't get pleasure from sex? Sex, sexual behavior and reproduction are much more complicated than rubbing genitals.
I wasn't talking about stuff on the individual level, and more about general desires. Much of our own culture and jokes discusses the pleasure of sex and its complications. There ARE unique individuals in the human race that do not enjoy sex, but the human race as a whole is abundant not only for the reasons you've stated above, but because of the selfish immediate gain of pleasure from reproducing. Why propagate the race? Why care? What do most individuals get out reproducing? To not be alone? For manpower to help tend to the farm fields? The pleasure of raising a child? All good reasons, and many use them. But the big draw, the main reason humans have a high birth rate, I believe, is still pleasurable intercourse.

>Furthermore, the number of deaths during pregnancy and birth, for both mothers and children, were absurd before the advent of modern medicine. Pregnancy meant risking your life
Yep, but not now. It's not much of a concern. And it's not 100% guaranteed death back then either. There's a decent chance you can die, but I believe there was also a decent chance at surviving birth as well. the human body fights very ard to survive. It's why there are a few cases of surviving gunshots to the head, disembowelment, etc.

With a race such as the Rekitzchen, you have a 100% chance that the Traurig will die for the purpose of conceiving a child, and have a relatively small chance at their resurrection, which doesn't actually depend on their physical body at all, but the emotions of the parents at the time of the murder. All evolutionary bodies are built to adapt and survive more efficiently. Sentient minds are not at all built efficiently. No science will help the Rekitzchen birth rates beyond marriage counseling.

>>21722
> I didn't want that discussion to turn into being about sex at all
Sorry, I just don't feel "comfortable" having this discussion in that thread.

I'm not the best person to discuss this, so I will just point out some stuff. Many people are simply unable to enjoy sex. Unlike other species, humans are aware of the consequences of sexual intercourse. There are several ways to obtain pleasure, but most are neglected at the expense of coitus. Maternal, perinatal and infant mortalities are and always will be major concerns in the field of public health. Anyway, I believe that you're totally missing the point, because I can't draw any comparison between this and Deerling Quest.

Let me be honest, your knowledge on this subject manages to be more limited than mine. Furthermore, this isn't the kind of thing that can be discussed only through "logic" and brute force. Really, we should shut up and go back to our books before we embarrass ourselves even more.

>>21725
the comparisons are there to establish perspective. A discussion on reproductive methods and the reasons why creatures reproduce. That was the source of the discussion. That is what it has to do with Deerling Quest. We truly only can understand human concepts, and when taking on alien concepts must try to match them to any human concept. Why do they reproduce? Why do we reproduce? To understand why, I believed we must analyze and compare reproductive methods, the odds of their consequences, etc. There's deal with the consensual murder and burial of the Traurig half. the potential consequences are permanent death and there's a damn good chance of that happening and there's no way to lower that chance. It is a relatively traumatic experience. Pretty heavy stuff to go through for something that will consume much of your own resources to raise.

Homo Sapiens are lucky in comparison, they get a potentially enjoyable method of conception which has nothing to do with traumatic death. So much easier than what deerlings have to go through, and it's even easier to survive, because the female doesn't necessarily HAVE to die to have a child. She can, but it's actually from bloodloss a side affect of birth. And while we still get the resource black hole called a child, we can still say we had fun conceiving the child in the first place. Not heavy, not dark. No deerling will ever have the potential to experience the joy in conceiving a child.

That's it. I'm comparing conceptions and the risk of mortality in both of them. Just to understand the desire of having a child for deerlings. It's basically risk vs. reward. For Deerlings, the risks are high, so the reward must be worth as much risk. Why is the reward so desirable for deerlings? Is their a human concept we could possibly attach this to? And that is why I was making all the comparisons in the discussion. For that single human concept I could attach it to. I had to run down a list man, and physical pleasure was just one of concepts I had to scratch off. I discussed it, tried to move on, then had to further justify why I brought up the point later.

>Let me be honest, your knowledge on this subject manages to be more limited than mine. Furthermore, this isn't the kind of thing that can be discussed only through "logic" and brute force. Really, we should shut up and go back to our books before we embarrass ourselves even more.

Yeah you know what I should probably drop it now. I'm just obstinate, I can't help it. I gotta justify why I do things, whether it's asking a question or suggesting something. It's why most of my suggestions and questions are long as fuck and I forget to do tl;dr.

>>21727
> Not heavy, not dark.
I wouldn't want to be your daughter or wife, just let me say this.

>>21733
I revise shit in my arguments sometimes. I made a reference to Back to the Future when I described the murder in exchange for a child as "super heavy", and added that it was pretty dark. the human description part I added not heavy, not dark to contrast that reference.

I edited out the first reference and the dark part, but forgot to take out the contrasting statement later. Nonetheless, the meaning of heavy in that context is still about how human reproduction is not emotionally heavy or dark in the depressing definition.

I'm too apathetic to be hatin' on anyone over something as stupid as weight or physical differences.

>>21735
> I'm too apathetic to be hatin' on anyone over something as stupid as weight or physical differences.
It's cool.

Oh, can't regret what I said. You reaction was just adorable.

>>21738
What?

>>21739
I was mostly joking, no need for that long winded answer.

>>21741
I thought I described that my whole thing is long answers.

>>/quest/430307
I have many language vices. First because my English is just terrible, second because English doesn't cover certain circumstances. Anyway, I overuse the expression "you guys/girls". Of course, for reasons that don't interest me at the time, if a group includes more than one gender you normally should use the masculine plural form. Well, I simply don't give a fuck. In any event, I definitely should feel offended. You clearly said that referring to a group of people of unknown gender as "girls" is derogatory. Fuck you, sir and/or madam.

>>21744
"Guys" is gender- and age-neutral.

"Girls" refers to adolescent females.

"Guys" isn't the opposite of "girls". "Boys" would be.

You could be more condescending or offensive if you ended each sentence with ", kid" (the comma is there for a reason), but to top that you'd have to resort to overt insults. Even with "girls" you are achieving a quite passive-aggressive tone, regardless of your intentions.

>>21745
> "Guys" is gender- and age-neutral.
Not at all times, but that's exactly what I said. I also said that I don't care.

> Even with "girls" you are achieving a quite passive-aggressive tone, regardless of your intentions.
Because I'm not using the norm, which happens to be patriarchal. You don't like what I use, I don't like the norm. What now?
Anyway, being offended by what you perceive as "passive-aggressive tone"? Really.

> overt insults
Which are? I usually don't go around saying how others SHOULD make suggestions.

>>21749
>Not at all times
40-something females sometimes address their group as "girls" ("me and the girls were having a bit of fun"), and men calling other men "girls" is usual enough in a military setting ("alright, girls, get the fuck in fucking position and let's fucking get this fucking shit over with"). In the former case, "girls" is being used with a bit of humor. In the latter, you don't get to call anyone a "girl" unless you're an insider.
It's very context-sensitive.

This does not change the default state of "guys" being gender- and age-neutral, as it is in its most common usage.

>I also said that I don't care.
You don't care whether or not people understand you correctly? Not being proficient at basic communication isn't a crime, but willful ignorance certainly does not earn you any medals.

>Because I'm not using the norm
>I don't like the norm.
This isn't about norms. This is fucking Basics Of Communication 101. You don't go to downtown Baghdad to yell "ELIF AIR AB DINICH" over and over again, just because you "don't like the norm", without consequences. Whitey don't get to go to Harlem and call a nigga a nigga without consequences. And you don't get to call people girls, in an environment where it's not a neutral denomination, without consequences.
Changing the meaning of a common word or phrase just for yourself isn't "not using the norm". If it was a made-up word you were using, or a rare one with no easily confused context, it would be simply be a matter of taste.

Or even if "girls" was used in a conversation of neutral or positive tone. But you were being defensive and in such a position any breech of "norm", without a strong established precedence of unnormative speech pattern, is a very bad idea unless you want to be insulting.

>patriarchal
Entirely irrelevant. Entirely, completely, utterly. Unless you want to talk about systemic gendered oppression and that sort of thing - which is a quite "funny" topic on its own right.

>being offended by what you perceive as "passive-aggressive tone"? Really.
Going the "plausible" deniability route? Either you just don't want to admit your mistake, or you actually fully intended to use this type of "hidden" insult. More often than not, "careless" comments aren't as unavoidable as some would like to pretend.

>>21749
It's not because you're not using the norm, it's because "girl" refers to an adolescent. Did you just not read what he read, or are you simply not capable of comprehending simple sentences?

The reason it's insulting is because you're calling everyone children.

If you didn't give a fuck you'd just use the proper term instead of pretending like you are taking some sort of stance so you can feel superior/be an attention whore/whatever the hell your game is.

>>21751
> This is fucking Basics Of Communication 101.
Yeah, just like context. Of course, my posts on that quest were already insulting, the use of the correct term wouldn't make any difference.

> "ELIF AIR AB DINICH"
For someone who complains about how others sound, you certainly abused here. I understood what you said, no need to repeat yourself.

> Either you just don't want to admit your mistake, or you actually fully intended to use this type of "hidden" insult. More often than not, "careless" comments aren't as unavoidable as some would like to pretend.
Honestly.

It was never intentional, I just like how it sounds. This is unusual? I knew I was wrong, however. Never knew this could be interpreted as an insult, but I knew it was wrong.

Anyway, now that you said what bothers you, you're interested in hearing what bothers me?

> Entirely irrelevant. Entirely, completely, utterly.
Is this an invitation? I gladly accept, of course!

>>21752
Should I use "gals" instead? I don't like how it sounds, however.

> feel superior/be an attention whore/whatever the hell your game is
No games, dude. "Dude" is okay? You identify yourself as a man, right? Anyway, I just like how "You girls!" sounds. It's cute.

>>21755
People generally are going to be confused or assume you're insulting them if you use "girls" instead of the proper masculine term. You certainly have to have figured this out at some point.

Having to explain yourself to people and obstinately choose to use the wrong term makes you an attention whore. Like, I get that english isn't your first language, but the first time people tell you "girls is insulting unless in certain contexts or if it's a group of all actual girls" you should not be like "Oh nah bro I don't believe in norms" you should, you know, just use the right term.

>>21758
You already got it all figured out. Why do you keep arguing, I'll never understand.

> You certainly have to have figured this out at some point.
Actually, I didn't. I noticed that some were confused, others tried to correct me by saying that they were men. I found that funny. Why believe in my word, though? The whole world is out there to violate you in the butt, man. You're totally right in being wary.

>>21761
>It doesn't matter. You are a woman, you'll get all the unwanted attention you don't need. Don't know why so much importance is given to this kind of thing, but I gave up on understanding people like you. Yeah, I get it. You're a woman. You and half of the world. Why should I give a fuck, really?

This is an example of you contradicting yourself in a way that seems tailored to be as offensive as possible. You belittled the PC for being female then said it's no big deal. Then you came in this thread and said:
>In any event, I definitely should feel offended. You clearly said that referring to a group of people of unknown gender as "girls" is derogatory. Fuck you, sir and/or madam.

So you hate women, but if saying someone is a girl is seen as derogatory, that's offensive? You're either completely nuts or trolling heavily. In either case, you are being disruptive.

>>21762
I was complaining about how men and women are treated differently, about how women are constantly harassed. That's all.

> In either case, you are being disruptive.
Yeah. Want me to stop or something? Honest question.

>>21766
>about how women are constantly harassed.
HUE HUE HUE HUE HUE HUE HUE HUE HUE HEU HUE HEU HUEHEUH HUE UHE HUEHEH

Men are approximately 50% of all rape victims, except in the US where the majority of rape victims are male due to prison rape.
Women get lower sentences than men for the same exact crimes.
After passing a law that made the police arrest the attacking party in a domestic violence call, DV-organizations/feminists/that sort of people passed a new law where in practice the man is automatically arrested, because the previous new law didn't actually get the results they wanted, as half or more of the people arrested were women - because, get this, women initiate violence as much if not more than men, for the same reasons (NOT in "pre-emptive self-defense"). Single mothers are also 40% more likely to abuse their children and the majority of DV in homosexual relationships occurs in lesbian relationships.
Men are eligible for draft, women aren't. Outside of Israel, I'm not aware of a place where women are conscripted, and conscription certainly is something I have first-hand experience of.
In volunteer militaries, women have lower standards.

Men are constantly and intentionally depicted as the only rapists, child molesters and domestic abusers. All men are Schrödinger's rapists by default, in popular image as well as actual laws in some places and cases. Underage 12-14-year-old males have been forced to pay their female rapist child support when she got pregnant.
Speaking of 12-year-old males, some DV shelters do not allow males 12 years old or older in. And speaking of DV shelters, if I remember correctly, there are 300 DV shelters for women, but none for men, in either Canada or UK, can't remember which. A woman who opened a DV shelter for men in the UK was forced to flee out of country by other women and feminists, but only after she had lived with constant police protection due to repeated death threats, bomb threats, and she finally fled when those people killed her dog.

In some place(s?) a woman who drinks alcohol and has consensual sex while under the influence is raped according to law. The brand shiny new "more equal" definition of rape in US law still excludes woman-on-man rape as a concept.

According to studies, women fear violence more than men, while men are actually the majority of the victims of said violence.
A journalist in, was it Canada, lamented the "alarming statistics" of women having relatively recently become almost 50% of the victims, due to - get this - THE NUMBER OF ATTACKS OVERALL AND ESPECIALLY AGAINST MEN GOING DOWN.

Men are 92% of workplace deaths.


Oh, those poor women, constantly harassed.

For people who have the numbers, the links to the studies and present all of it better than I do, start with:
http://www.youtube.com/user/manwomanmyth/videos?view=1
http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat/videos

Then we can start on this topic again.

>>21761
> You certainly have to have figured this out at some point.

>Actually, I didn't. I noticed that some were confused...

So... you didn't notice people being confused and correcting you, but you noticed they were confused and corrected you?

Fuck. I guess I can't very well expect you to understand what other people are saying when you obviously don't even read what you are writing. I think that is the fasted I have ever seen anybody contradict themselves.

The model penal code definition also excludes man-on-man or woman-on-woman sex offense as rape. Fortunately, basically no state uses gendered words in their rape definition. Almost every state just says "a person who... another person"

Gender specific rape law was challenged in the supreme court, however, and they ruled that it is not unconstitutional for a state to define rape in a gender-specific context.

>>21768
OK, this video addresses this thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNnw_iJr2cE

Also, it appears I may have gotten some stuff (such as this particular item) muddled in my previous post, which is a good reason to go through all the videos and such. Such as http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com/ although the more recent stuff is almost entirely just transcripts of the GWW videos (or the videos just readings of the posts).

JtO has stuff to say too so it doesn't hurt to check his other videos, but I think GWW and MWM are clearer on the whole, especially if for you this stuff is new, "new", or varying degrees thereof.

>>21770
Well, what I understood from the JtO video linked in my previous post, many people and MRAs are worried about the alcohol part and the possibility of the official definition of "penetration" excluding the kind of penetration where a woman forces her vagOOO on a man's pOnOs.
Especially when, while technically not stated in such a way, there's a high chance of the alcohol thing working only one way (a drunk woman is raped, a drunk man is a rapist) - or going the full retard way (if you both were drunk, never mention it to anyone or you BOTH are rapists even if neither of you feels it was rape - in which case the woman's going to get off easier by default).
That the "new" definition is just "plausible" deniability thing (as in, "we still only consider man-on-anything as rape, but not woman-on-man, and you can't complain because TECHNICALLY we didn't word it EXACTLY that way").

>>21769
I figured that it was confusing for some, but not insulting. I'm saying that I had no intention of offending anyone, that I hadn't realized that saying "you girls" was offensive. Are you trying to win something here? You don't give a fuck to what I write, so why do you keep arguing?

>>21767
BR? Sorry, what is the relationship between what I said and all this information dump?

>>21779

>>21766
>I was complaining about how men and women are treated differently, about how women are constantly harassed.
>about how women are constantly harassed

The StuK 40 of my StuG III is ALWAYS loaded with High Explosive Anti-Bullshit shells.

This is actually a decent example of context as relates to the previous topic, as one does not simply make careless off-hand comments in the BDA thread without a chance receiving replies.

Also it's on you to prove that you did not vote for Stalin.

>>21780
Hey, you really want to talk?

>>21779
I am just pointing out you being stupid and wrong. I am pretty sure that's what BDA is for.

Your whole attitude is really defensive and angry. You need to chill out.

>>21781
What's that supposed to mean?

>>21782
> I am just pointing out you being stupid and wrong.
That's what I'm trying to say from the beginning. I was wrong, I am stupid, I do not care.

> Your whole attitude is really defensive and angry.
Yes, that's exactly how I'm behaving now. You know me better than myself. It's so ridiculous that I don't even need to say anything, you already have all the answers.

>>21783
I never said anything that contradicted what you said.

>>21771
This guy presents material in an unclear way and really doesn't do his homework.

Keep in mind, first and foremost, that this isn't some definition that has meaning other than how the FBI is reporting certain statistics. It doesn't change the criminal definition of rape, because most crimes are defined by state legislatures, not the federal government, especially typical "police power" crimes like rape, battery, murder, etc.

His inability to find the full text must be a symptom of either laziness or ignorance. The full text of the UCR is available online, on the FBI's website, and the reason the "more complete" new definition isn't otherwise anywhere is because the new version of the UCR hasn't been published anywhere. It's not a conspiracy.

There are two crime statistics reporting metrics, the UCR and the NIBRS. The purpose of the UCR is to get broad data on general types of crimes. The purpose of the NIBRS is to get more crime-specific data. The NIBRS defines rape as:

"The carnal knowledge of a person, forcibly and/or against that person's will; or not forcibly or against the person's will where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity (or because of his/her youth)”

So this is already a broad, gender neutral definition. Although NIBRS does specifically exclude homosexual rape for some reason.

Some of the other things he says are also misleading. Non-penetrative activities are defined in a gender neutral way and fall under a lesser category, and women can obviously rape men by having them penetrate their vagina, even under the definition he lists.

The thing about alcohol is also just stupid and evidences a total lack of research on his part. Either a lesser degree or an alternate definition of rape in almost every jurisdiction is when you intentionally give somebody intoxicants such that they are incapable of consent. It doesn't make it a crime to have sex with somebody while they are drunk, or while you are drunk. It makes it a crime to intentionally drug somebody or intentionally get them completely plastered so they don't know what's going on. Also phrased in gender-neutral terms pretty much everywhere that lists it as a lesser degree/alternate definition.

To the extent that the FBI has changed their reporting statistics, it is to bring in more closely in line with statutory definitions in most jurisdictions. To the extent that they specifically included drugging, it can be safely assumed that it will line up with how the states who include that do it, which is as I described.

He seems really intent on hunting out "persecution" and "conspiracies" and less intent on actually doing his homework and performing even cursory research. Just the fact that he said "I sent the FBI an email half an hour ago. Let's see if I get a respons" is accusatory and ignorant. Shouldn't he have done his "report" on the issue after he contacted them and waited a reasonable period to see if they would respond?

>>21785
You posted:
>>I was complaining about how men and women are treated differently, about how women are constantly harassed.

To which I replied with a very small sample of all the reasons why such a statement is bullshit. Because that's how I roll.

To which you in turn replied with the type of phrase that is often used as a condescending, "subtle" version of "wow, you never shut up, do you" or "you appear to have some deep-seated emotional issue", and variations thereof.

>>21784
Okay well, to clarify, the way you write presents an image of being defensive and angry. Maybe you are not at all like that, and are just not great at communicating.

Actually all evidence in this thread strongly supports this hypothesis.

I can present an example from the post I'm replying to.

Instead of clarifying, you are aggressive and accusatory. Sarcastically stating that I "have all the answers" and "know [you] better than [you] know [yourself]" doesn't present a calm, rational attitude. I obviously don't know very much about you at all, but you seem actually surprised when people continue to argue with you, even though your responses tend to be, at the least, insulting.

The other reason I kept on before was because you never actually said I was right. I thought you were still disagreeing with me, because your response was defensive instead of conciliatory.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume this is because you have trouble communicating, and not because you are intentionally obtuse.

>>21788
Thanks.

Would you believe if I said that most of these "insults" weren't directed at you?

>>21787
What a whiny bitch. Shut up.

Women are the only victims? No. Only women are harassed? No. Men suffer nothing with the difference? No. Will I treat Claire differently because she has boobs? No. A drugged sociopath will get hit by some bozo if she straight her shit up and go to a bar? Yes.

>>21790

>specifically call out the harassment of women
>backpedal furiously
>try to not only move the goalposts, but try to convince everyone involved that you were shooting for entirely different goalposts to begin with

You are the stupidest motherfucker I have seen in this thread.

And I post in this thread.

Bob 2012/07/09(Mon)21:21 No. 21805 ID: fa9f7e
File 134189408888.jpg - (19.00KB , 300x300 , kelso-burn.jpg )

>>21804

>>21804
What exactly are you criticizing?

>>21808

Pretty much every post lady moon posh has made is dripping with entitled bullshit (also he seems like the sort of fag who would unironically tell someone to check their cisprivelege).

And, as evidenced by the previous posts in this thread, it would be a waste of my time to actually go through and explain to him why he's a shithead. If you can't see why, then I am baffled as to how you could possibly respond to my posts due to your crippling illiteracy.

So, given that this is the big dumb arguments thread, I decided to insult him because he is a fucking idiot and I felt like making my opinion known.

>>21790
>What a whiny bitch. Shut up.
Ace argument, fraulein.

>A drugged sociopath will get hit by some bozo if she straight her shit up and go to a bar?
Has...

...Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

>>21810
> I felt like making my opinion known.
Cool beans.

>>21817
You said something about "subtly" insulting and telling others to shut up. That was my answer. Anyway, I thought we were arguing about whatever I wanted to convey with my words. In my humble opinion, not a noteworthy subject. Maybe you guys really enjoy telling others how they should do things, particularly completely unimportant and totally insignificant things.

>>21818
So you actually were using that type of passive-aggressive "subtle" insult? Is that what you are saying?

In which case in your reply you should have stated that "what a whiny bitch, shut up" was the intent of your previous post. For example, you could've said "What I meant by that was that you are a whiny bitch and should shut up".

Which leads me to believe that "bad English" isn't actually the cause here.

By which I mean to imply you cannot communicate sufficiently in any language.

And what you want to convey with your words is actually a very noteworthy subject because THIS WHOLE THING DID IN FACT START FROM YOUR INABILITY TO CONVEY WITH YOUR WORDS WHAT YOU ACTUALLY MEANT.

>>21819
I did. Doesn't justify what I did, but I was in a really foul mood. I blew up because of a comment and take it out on you guys. Sorry about that. However, I don't think that an apology is enough, but I'll try not to repeat the same mistake. Or shut up and shut down the computer when I get depressed again.

> ==>
> this

Damned be you all, lazy bastards.

>>21884
To be fair, Ficus did say we're on autopilot. Although it should be sufficient for that to just not post.

>>21884
This.

>>21884
==>

Introducing direct player characters for suggesters to control is the worst possible thing you can do to the stability and long term life of a quest. Agreed?

>>21892

with this audience? yes.

>>21892
Which quests did that?
I remember one where the orb was given a robot body.
Do interactions like the one in Shoujen count? Where we had [insert insane thing here] abilities?

>>21894
Guns for Hire did, and it resulted in half of each update being about them, and later, entire updates.

Which makes it even less recommendable, as it switches focus rather jarringly in the latest thread from HA HA LET US TROLL EVERYTHING to OH MY GOSH WE LOVE THIS RUSSIAN SO MUCH

>>21894
Doesn't count, still requires consensus.

>>21895
That's sounds like your generic systemless forum RP than an actual quest.

>>21896
I would also like to establish that the "your" in this as in "Your friendly neighborhood Spiderman" instead of implying that you personally have a generic systemless forum RP.

>>21896
That is exactly what it became.

With one of those Russians sleeping with and seducing the main character.

>>21895
>>21896
>>21898
I thought it was less of a "generic systemless forum RPG" and more of a "massively overbloated collection of wiki updates in a half-arsed effort to make up for the lack of actual content".

But maybe that's just me.

>>21317
Well I'll be, looks interesting now.

You know, her owning and playing with a toy sword implies that she was a bit of a tomboy. Probably had actual dreams of being an adventurer once she thought she could never be a mage. I wonder how that panned out in Hammerfell or why she didn't try that before becoming a woman of ill repute.
I'm also curious if her pimp might try and track her down all the way to Cyrodil. It's hard giving away that lifestyle. You know she had to have had a pimp.

>>21930

Uh, yeah, whatever. I don't think a bordello owner would cross the ocean to beat up some raggedy cat lady just because she didn't give two weeks notice, no matter how skilled she was with a yo-yo. If anyone crossed the sea to get revenge on her it would be that cult she doesn't like to talk about, which is much scarier than a single pimp. And then there's the demon king marauding her dreams, more dangerous than both pimp and cult. And of course, there's the opening story of Oblivion, which being a world ending crisis is the most dangerous thing of all.

So, pimps are kind of low on my priority of worries right now.

>>21932
This IS a dark comedy though
Just sayin' shit can get ridiculous in this genre
remember Idiocracy and upgrayedd? Motherfucker wanted his money from 500 years in the future and got there even though there was no project to make a third cryopod, had access to no scientists even actually aware of the project, and somehow decided that, instead of digging out his ho, he'd just freeze himself.

In a dark fantasy comedy, you're goddamn right I expect a pimp to cross an ocean to get some of his motherfuckin' money from even the most raggedy of women. And the more ridiculous something is, the more dangerous it might be.

>>21933

Yeah, but unlike Idiocracy and upgrayedd, Prequel is actually good.

>>21964
The presence of a persistent pimp does not indicate quality or effect the whole's products quality. It's just one joke villain, really, and can be done well. And its been done in other absurd comedies before, or from a story a comedian told. Persistent and asshole pimp jokes are commonly mentioned when pimping is described in comedy. Because pimps are greedy assholes that love money, and pimping ain't easy... apparently.

But this is apparently coming from a guy who liked that movie telling a person who didn't about it. So, take that first statement with a grain of salt if that seems unreasonable.

>>21965

Yeah I'm not a big fan of stereotyping the porn industry until reality imitates fiction, no matter how funny the tired old rehashed joke is. You're free to like those movies; I was just being snarky.

That's... not how that works, and even then it's not the porn industry we're talking about. We're talking about something actually considered criminal. Whether its considered criminal in Hammerfell is another thing entirely.

In addition, that's not something funny, it's something you snirk at, nothing more. People don't repeat shit that was at first meant to be funny to be, unless their fools. Often, it's for entirely different reasons.

Like memes for example, no one really laughs at memes, they're not clever. After a certain point, it's just there for the snirk you get for recognizing it. A hollow retelling of the first joke, either for a sense of nostalgia or for a sense of belonging in a group that understands it. Why are memes even tolerated here at all if they serve no purpose? Because we're all retarded? No, because they have a form of meaning, often related by group. Jokes transcend their initial purpose over time, integrating into a community value or tradition. You tell them more often to get better along rather than to entertain.

>>21970
People are dumb too
Jokes lose their funny after being told once, at least after the person hears it first
they can't have their first purpose after that.

>>21968

We're talking about something actually considered criminal ORLY? Try uncensoring fictional drawings in Japan. And yes, big pimp daddy dog yo where's my money bitch is a meme. I don't like it. We should kill it.

Moving here because it's fully integrated into 100% argument about real life culture and 0 percent Prequel
>>21972
The porn industry and the sex industry are completely separate. You were talking about how the meme or stereotype affects the porn industry when it cannot.
>Yeah I'm not a big fan of stereotyping the porn industry until reality imitates fiction, no matter how funny the tired old rehashed joke is.
There are laws in the porn industry. You don't beat a porn star to get money from them, no one does, that's far from practical. That shit is discussed in acting contracts. Because that shit is still acting. Often it's filled with corny as fuck or just plain bad deliveries, but it's technically acting. Why you brought up the porn industry I have no idea, it didn't even seem relevant at all to the discussion. We were talking about pimping.
Okay, yeah, fine pimp abuse is a terrible, boring old meme if it's just there by itself with no deconstruction or build up. But you can't kill a meme. It's there, it's in culture, it's staying until it becomes so completely irrelevant no one talks about it anymore, which takes cultural upheaval or distancing, which cannot be controlled short of enslaving the culture. You'd have to go 1000 years in the future, where pimping will be so different you have no idea. Or the same, depending on whether or not pimps are licensed or not and have to adhere to legalized sex industry laws. If pimps have to be licensed because pimping is legal, and have been for some time in the year 3000, the unfunny joke will have pretty much died. If it's still illegal and pimping and hoing is all still within the black market, the joke will never die, because of how random human nature is and that odds are you'll have a harsh, mean pimp that abuses their hos than one that treats them with respect like Butters.

South Park, in my opinion, managed the pimping memes well, anyway, and could make them funny. But that was less about the fucking meme and more jokes about how weird the characters are. Butters the greatest, nicest pimp is so much a ridiculous concept some people can't help but laugh. In other examples of refering to pimping as a good joke, refer to the Other Guys with Will Ferrel and Mark Wahlburg, where straight-laced Will Ferrel has whole issues to do with pimping thanks to his backstory. Which, again, is still more character humor than enforcing the meme. But if the memes didn't exist, you can't build or deconstruct on them at all in the first place. We would not have a scene in the world where, in a serious discussion with his wife, he recedes back into his pimping personality due to his insecurity with his looks and real personality. This fucker pimped because he hated himself... and to make fat stacks of cash.

I would like to say that I knew this guy who made his living by pimping and he was a pretty cool guy. and once one of his employees came over and the three of us smoked some pot together.

so uh I guess fuck anyone who thinks pimps aren't cool

>>21974
The issue is about the joke of pimps being abusive and how horrid it is to use in fiction, or if it can be done well.

Human nature allows a person to defy stereotypes, so I don't think anyone is going to argue that a pimp can't be nice and cool.

But please note EG, that just because he was cool to you (if you aren't joking at all), does not mean he was cool to his hoes. I would also like to say that ho doesn't have to be a misogynistic term if a person uses it to refer to male hoes as well. Which I am.
Pimps beat their male whores too you know. Or are cool to them, random human nature and all, you know.

>>15862

OH NO, A GIRL ON THE INTERNET. WE BETTER BEG HER TO POST HER PORN SO SHE CAN PRETEND LIKE SHE WAS PRESSURED TO DO IT AND TOTALLY DOESN'T LOVE COCKS.

Just fucking admit you like sex and porn already and start posting it, you'll feel better about yourself and you'll get on everyone's nerves a lot less.

Alternately if you want to pretend you're ready for the nunnery, act like it.

(This user has been banned for this post.)

>>16042
I think it's time that you piss off.

Some people just do not like sharing personal things, and that's their prerogative. So I suggest you respect their wishes.

>>15862
I would recommend against posing "tease" images if you don't intend to post the full thing-- certainly not that kind of tease, as it does not show off any art and has no purpose other than being tantalizing, which will lead to posts like above.

You are a talented artist. It would be very easy for you to make the edits you'd have to make to post some things, and other things... just don't post them? Or don't talk about them? Bam secret kept good game everyone good game.

When did this culture arise of artists owing fucking everything to anyone else? It really pisses me off that apparently oh, you made a thing, you're OBLIGATED TO SHOW EVERYONE IF YOU SO MUCH AS HINT AT ITS EXISTENCE.

Yes, this has happened to me. Yes, I fucking hate it. "If you didn't want to share it you wouldn't have mentioned it!" Fuck off. Pay me for it if you want to see my shit scribbles that badly.

>>16048
Cirr, most of the time you personally resist linking something you just drew and told people about it's because you have some irrational fear if people calling you weird. Also you refuse money :v

I mean yes I agree with the main point about artists not being obligated to show people things but I don't think you have a lot to be personally mad at here.

Bob 2012/10/30(Tue)15:16 No. 22719 ID: c28336
File 135163537152.jpg - (46.44KB , 300x300 , 1305783910802.jpg )

>>16048
>Pay me for it if you want to see my shit scribbles that badly.
Funniest thing I've read on tgchan bar none.

>>16048
If you don't want to show people things you don't hint about their existence or talk about it at all. Doing it, then complaining about them asking you to show it and then somehow trying to place yourself as a victim of omg rude offensive conduct is a shitty attention whoring technique.

I feel a strong desire to shower all of you in barely-covered penises.

>>22722
Well you should probably do that then.

>>22722
Proceed...

>>22717
Why the fuck would you not share something you made if people want it? It exists, and it costs you nothing to share it.

>>22734
Dignity? You're embarrassed by it in some way?
Human condition. Michelangelo had the same issue with his scribbles I think.

>>22734
Because most people actually care about how other people view them, and would rather not announce it to the whole world every time they draw furry porn.

blue!wine9yL7oA 2012/11/03(Sat)02:13 No. 22741 ID: 1ace6e
File 135193399125.jpg - (33.55KB , 500x374 , 1267499821410.jpg )

I've generally avoided this thread because I have no idea what happened (when I found my thread, the posts were already removed) besides what I was learned from the warning post. But I feel I should say my piece.

It was a gift image. I made it for a friend. I asked if I could show the little bit I was proud of, they said it was fine, and I posted it without realization that it would lead to some sort of weird avalanche of whateverthefuck. It wasn't some weird gamble for attention, I didn't expect anyone to ask to see the rest, and I never complained about the requests. In fact, that night I sketched something up (with dicks!!! wow) that I could share with everyone because it wasn't a gift. It sits uninked on my desktop with the rest of my works, but I digress.

Sorry for cropping art??? ? (also sorry to the poor soul who cleaned up the thread, thank you)

>>22737

But if he's already mentioned it then he HAS announced it to the world.

It's his own fault for bringing it up in the first place. If he doesn't want to share it then he shouldn't be flaunting details about it to everyone and getting buttmad when people get curious. And this is true for all artists who think this way too.

And when he does this, sure he's not obligated to give it to them when they DO get curious, but it's seriously not something to get so pissy over either. I'm sorry, but Cirr's not the victim here at all.

tl;dr Cirr has no one to be angry with but himself.

>>22741
>I didn't expect anyone to ask to see the rest
If you post partial arts on the internets, internet people will want to see the rest. This is a constant. Adding a definitive 'I will not post the full image', with an optional reason (e.g. made for someone else) will effectively eliminate this. Otherwise the assumption will be that the image is a WIP towards something that will be posted.

test