you don't really get to tell others that they're not frightened of you, that's not really how that works

>Yet you somehow think I'm the one breaking the 'asshole rule'?
>I am an asshole
OK, don't.

Look this is very simple. You did something that someone had a negative reaction to and now you're going on trying to justify why you did the thing that you yourself have just said involved being an asshole.

Don't be an asshole.

>>115610
I didn't, I explained that it is an attack on my character by insinuating that I am something to be afraid if, ie. dangerous.

>>115612
I was, in the process of roleplaying a fictional voice that does not exist, an asshole to a fictional entity that does not exist. In turn I was continually verbally assaulted by someone who somehow believes that I was an asshole to them, when I was in fact not.

>>115606
In XQ thread 2, I made a post stating that Outissa was being useless and that Khoros was more competent. It was neither deleted nor was it pointed out as something you believed I had done wrong. This sets a precedent wherein I did the exact same thing, and it yielded an entirely different result.

have you considered perhaps not digging that hole in you're in any deeper by trying to use reason to solve an emotional issue here

This isn't a court of law, you don't gotta use your freeper rationale to try and win the argument of not being an asshole

(spoilers: your insistence on using logic in this spat is making you look like even more of an asshole, hth)

>>115615
>your insistence on using logic in this spat is making you look like even more of an asshole, hth
How? I don't understand how trying to be reasonable makes me more of an asshole than reacting emotionally.

(You want you gone, quest author wants you gone, take it elsewhere.)

>>115616
Because you're trying to use that to discredit people and you're using logic to defend emotional manipulation.

That's where this all started.
"I think a voice of conscience should be harsh."
"Emotional manipulation like that is reprehensible."

>>115617
If it's the character's own internal thoughts by word of God, was it ever emotional manipulation in the first place? Or was it merely introspection? Guilt?

It makes me physically ill to contemplate wasting time when somebody needs me. If you want me to make an appeal based on emotional reasoning, that is how much the decision to abandon a friend affects me. Trying to contemplate the logic behind it makes me feel physically sick to the stomach. My heart beats faster, and my head hurts a little bit as the possibilities of what could possibly have gone wrong in my absence run through my head over and over, bashing themselves into my brain and not letting me think about anything else. That's why I'm still here despite trying to pull myself away, again and again, that thought drives me back. That's why I need to understand why.

>>115618
If you went to someone for help and that someone said "wow you idiot why didn't you do it this way. No even better just go away and let this other person do it." how would you feel. this argument isn't about logic it's about not being an asshole to people just cause they do silly things that you don't like.

>>115618
You already said that you don't want to be a part of this quest anymore and that's fine. But if you keep this up, you're gonna get yourself banned from all the quests on this site.

So please, leave this quest like you said you were going to do before you can't be a part of any quests.

I've only read chapter 1 XQ and haven't seen the actual offending suggestion(s), so call me out on any mistakes

So as an outsider, I'm seeing that the 41c9bc guy made a harsh reprimand to one of the characters' actions, to which the other suggestors (and maybe Raptie) called them out on for being extreme.

41c9bc responds with their reasoning behind the suggestion, to which everyone else maintains that it's still extreme, giving reasons of their own while maybe getting annoyed/frustrated that 41c9bc is defending the suggestion and throwing insults into the mix.
At some point, Raptie expresses distress and asks of everyone that such harsh criticism be directed only at the story's antagonists, if anyone.

41c9bc, probably feeling slighted at the outcry, keeps explaining their reasons, basically boiling down to "the criticism was meant to be harsh, it seemed in-character to me, I'd said things in a similar manner before and didn't get in trouble for it. I don't think it's extreme because there was no swearing or lengthy speech about how the character sucks."

>>115618
I think you and everyone else need to take a step back from this for a while.
From looking over previous comments in the discussion alone, you're clearly invested in the story, and with this last comment it's clear you were doing what you thought/felt was appropriate.
As for the comment, you have both your fellow suggestors and the author telling you it was extreme, you've said your reasons and they still don't agree, to the point of clear frustration.
It has nothing to do with being your trying to be a constructive asshole or reasonable, you said something that was hurtful to Raptie whether you meant to or not, who has since said (via word of god) that the comment was not merited and (it and any future ones like it) not appreciated, in or out of character.

>to everyone else
I think this argument has gotten a bit out of hand, just agree to disagree and move on, there's no point getting in a tizzy beyond the actual event. Everyone has made their points and knows where they stand.

It's kind of moot now, but my objection was to the idea that quest authors, who have authority over their own threads, have the authority to request that objectionable content be treated in a specific manner in threads, new or old, outside of those threads they have control over.

Making a new thread to showcase content an author objects to isn't something an author should reasonably be empowered to dictate.

>>28713

Yeah, that was never the intention. Just getting the posts out of the quest's discussion thread.



For clarity's sake I deleted a couple posts that were about making a specific questdis thread, that's all gone now, just BDA2: BDA.

Also I really need to fix the unicorn generator.

>>28706
If we were intended to be the thoughts of Aubrey, an interpretation the quest author herself accepted as well-put, she did not seek us for help. We were supposed to be her. And from that perspective, my post was not invalid as a manifestation of introspective guilt, even if the original context of the post was something slightly different (a harsh chastisement intended to evoke guilt and a sense of responsibility that was evidently lacking). From my perspective, Aubrey was acting in a way that was unacceptable and in need of management, be it internal or external.

>>28708
Your assessment is sound.

I have little further to say on the matter, honestly, aside pointing out peoples' last few misinterpretations of things because people being misinformed is something that needs to be corrected, whether it's me or someone else.

Part of the reason I came back again and followed Cirr's advice of approaching things emotionally rather than rationally was because Cirr is someone I respect. Having Cirr call me out made me go back and try to look at it again. I prefer to approach things from an objective standpoint, because I have anger problems - mainly directed at the selfishness of people. It helps detach from the things that make me upset if I can examine them critically from an outside angle, or as elements of a narrative. Cirr felt that this approach was making the situation worse, so I tried following that advice and going back over to the emotional side of thinking.

That made me feel sick, and I'm quite done with opening that door. I'd much rather go back to being an objective observer.

I also hate spilling my guts at people, because I believe in what the image I posted (that was deleted) says. Forcing other people to tiptoe around and deal with one's emotions is an expression of one's inability to do so oneself. It makes me feel weak.

Regardless, the XQ discussion thread was not the place for this. Separating it removes it from Raptie's sight where it doesn't need to bother her, and allows others to examine it as a case study of what not to do in a situation of social conflict - both sides made mistakes here, whether they're willing to admit it or not. Perhaps it will serve to help someone achieve a deeper understanding of something, or something.

>>28714
Thanks for clearing that up.

>>28716
Here is an actual, legitimate, not-trolling question.

What are your thoughts on Laertes? Before the whole Khoros reveal thing?

>>28718
Laertes as his own entity?

Well, the moment he declared that raping his own daughter for the entertainment of the suggesters was the reward for siding with him, I decided that no matter what I didn't ever want to let him win. Particularly given Outissa's reaction to the subject of rape, which suggested that it would not be the first time this happened.

In summary, I found him to be utterly abhorrent.

>>28719
The insinuation of rape aside, what about his tactics in general?

Also, which poster were you? I'm having trouble figuring that out.

>>28720
My IP changed once or twice, I think. I might have got a new modem sometime during XQ, and then again just recently when I moved to go back to school.

Here is the example of the post where I did more or less the same thing to Outissa, but it wasn't really commented on or singled out ( >>/questarch/816064 )
This was also before I knew Khoros was the very person I was trying to fight against, of course.

Laertes reminded me of Dr. Doom in a lot of ways, though perhaps less redeemable (though that also depends on who's writing Doom in a particular story). Powerful, connected, dangerous, and arrogant. As a villain he was frighteningly competent, particularly since he was able to turn a good number of suggesters to his side. A few of them I recall stating that they saw Laertes as a more interesting character than Outissa, and they wanted to see more of him instead. I guess I can see that. He had a strong charismatic presence in his mannerisms, a really hammy-yet-polite-but-definitely-evil sort of villain.


It might also help to clarify that I didn't intend to continue having my voice be cruel and oppressive. Even before it was revealed that we were a part of Khoros, I felt like it would add something if I played out some character development during the quest, since the voices had already been established as actual actors acting on things with their own goals and motivations. The big revelation just kind of rooted a lot of concepts I'd been playing around with.

Khoros clearly has control issues, so I made the persona of the fragment a bit controlling, overbearing, even cruel at times. It feels a lot better to have a character start off with a lot of negative traits, a lot of room to grow as a person, but give them that little kernel of good to build off of - in this case, a strong sense of loyalty towards Outissa. That way a gradual change over time becomes something a person can look back on and feel proud over having pulled off (or find they did poorly and use that to become better at writing that sort of thing). To go back and see the key points where a certain event changed a character's perspective, made them more empathetic, helped them become more than what they were.

Essentially, I like to see and act out a character growing and learning. I don't like to be static. Though it's left up to player interpretation as to what Paarthurnax's true goals were (dragon in Skyrim, on the chance you've never heard of the character), I feel like his most overused quote fits my intentions for that character growth well.

"What is better - to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?"

In effect, I got the idea in my head to be the opposite of the Laertes persona, a sort of poetic inverse. Where he was affable and sadistic, I wanted to be brutal and caring. Where he was charismatic and elaborate, I wanted to be abrasive and efficient. Where he wanted to hurt under the guise of helping, I wanted to struggle to help despite an instinctive cruelty. Where he was guilty of severe betrayals of trust, I wanted to be unfailingly loyal.

>>28721
your mediocrity truly knows no bounds

HOWEVER, I'm gonna go on in and say yeah, putting this much stock in what people say to your fictional characters is a bit weird.

Learn to keep some extent of separation between you and said characters, even if they're kind of a stand-in for yourself the universal rule of "Everyone's a critic" will always apply and trying to combat that is kind of a futile gesture at best and actively drives away readerbase at its worst.

See also: Dominic Deegan, that one blue bear dude on deviantart, the guy who directed the ghostbusters reboot

Try to avoid being these people for everyone's sake, especially your own.

Yeah that's lame dude.

>>28724
>>28722
Every experience helps to build the greater whole. If an approach is ineffective, it is a lesson for next time. So if I am mediocre, then I am content with mediocrity, for now.

>>28725
Ugh, I hate false philosophy.
You said before you have to confront truth with an ice cold eye, but you're not confronting it at all. You're just going "ok, this is a problem." and then not doing anything about it. Accepting that you have problems is only the first step on becoming a better person. Do something about your problems!

>>28723
The implication here is that the only reason I stomp down on abuse towards characters is because I'm "too attached to them."

That is false.

I stomp down on it because if you don't then people will think it's okay and they'll just keep escalating until it becomes a serious problem.

And for the record, I'm proud of how "attached" I get to the characters I make. If I'm that passionate, then maybe it will express itself through my works, and other people will pick up on it and get just as invested as I am.

If you guys honestly, actually think that I'm not willing to put my characters through hell, then I have no clue what quests you've been reading, but they sure ain't mine.

>>28727
I think a better approach in the future would be to just go "Hey I don't want this tone in my work, please don't suggest that way." As opposed to "Oh no, my characters are gonna get upset." One will trigger internet nerds and the other (probably) wont, since people are understanding more often than not when red flags aren't waving and alarms aren't blaring.

>>28729
What? Did you see what I actually said?

>>/quest/829901

It's not at all what you're insinuating.

>>28727
I think the implication was that your response in questdis was uh... emotional. Which it was.

>>28726
You believe that my approach to character development is mediocre, but it is also thus far a statistically inadequate sample size. It is being taken into account, but the opinion of two to three people is not something to base my life and beliefs around on a dime. That is simply being a doormat.

>I hate false philosophy.
Why?

>>28726
I agree. Rather than address things, you doubled down: claiming that it was your right to be an asshole because you've been here longer. For someone who's attempting to look at things with a cold clinical eye you rely on a lot of logical fallacies and spent a great deal of effort to tell a quest author how their character how they are allowed to let their character feel.
approaching things from an emotionally detached standpoint doesn't make for a good argument when you still are unable to acknowledge the other persons point of view. Having an emotional reaction doesn't make someone weak.

Let me put it another way: in a debate the real goal isnt to be right, its to communicate your point of view to someone else. Emotions are an effective tool for doing so. Once someone sees your point of view they're more inclined to understand your overall meaning. Learning to empathize with another persons point of view goes a long way towards dealing with that anger. Just relying on clinical logic, particularly faulty logic at that, make you an asshole and you've been here long enough to know the rules

Also do some research on free speech before using it as a defense on the internet. You're operating on a privately run website and are subject to thier terms if service. Believe it or not this is true for 4chan as well. Its within thier free speech rights to remove your comments or deny you access based off their code of conduct. Legally, All free speech means is you cant be arrested for saying things. Using like some kind of "get out of asshole jail" card is just embarrassing. You're still responsible for what you say, claiming otherwise makes your argument sound childish

>>28733
>claiming that it was your right to be an asshole because you've been here longer
False. I explained my origins under the belief that it would help Ratie to understand my perspective better.

>spent a great deal of effort to tell a quest author how their character how they are allowed to let their character feel
The quest author and other suggesters tried to tell me how I'm allowed to feel, what I'm allowed to say, and put forth misinterpretations about how I think. Of course I pushed back.

>approaching things from an emotionally detached standpoint doesn't make for a good argument when you still are unable to acknowledge the other persons point of view
If the other person never explains their point of view and why they view things that way, how can I interpret and acknowledge it? You can look at a brick wall, and know what the exterior of the brick wall looks like, but you don't know what's on the other side if there's no window.

>Having an emotional reaction doesn't make someone weak
I have very strong emotional reactions, but I've had to learn to control them. I strive to distance myself to keep me functional in day to day life. And I don't like to lose, so a failure to maintain that healthy distance leads to a feedback loop of vitriol being directed at vitriol being directed at failure.

It's possible that in dealing with Aubrey, I let myself slip a little too far into the persona of the character I was trying to portray. This resulted in cracks in that foundation of stoicism and ultimately a collapse of control.

>>28734
>in a debate the real goal isnt to be right, its to communicate your point of view to someone else
You are fundamentally correct, yes, but I prefer not to let people keep running on false information. Examples being >>28670 and >>28706 which were at their core based on 'facts' that didn't exist. I did not tell Aubrey to kill herself, nor did Aubrey ask us for help.

Essentially, they were accusing me based on things that never actually happened.

>Emotions are an effective tool for doing so. Once someone sees your point of view they're more inclined to understand your overall meaning.
But if YOU let yourself see what THEY are saying through an emotional lens, you will always color it with your own emotions. You will never understand the other person. Raptie believed that what I said came from a place of malice, and that malice was all she was able to see.

>Learning to empathize with another persons point of view goes a long way towards dealing with that anger
The two parties need to actually engage in dialogue for that to happen. I was hoping this discussion around Laertes would continue, because that seemed to be what was happening.

>Also do some research on free speech before using it as a defense on the internet
It's not a defense, it's what I believe in, and knowing what I believe in is important when understanding where the differences in our logic lie.

>You're still responsible for what you say, claiming otherwise makes your argument sound childish
I just didn't believe that what I said meant what other people thought it meant. I understood what other people saw, but it didn't seem like they really understood what I was saying, and in communication that's a problem.

>>28735
>The quest author and other suggesters tried to tell me how I'm allowed to feel.
Nope. If you said, "this thing that happened made me feel this way", everything would be fine. You're free to feel however you want.
But what you actually said was, "the character is this and that because this and that happened.", and this is not ok.

This is called projecting. And what you're doing is, you're projecting your feelings onto the character. This is no longer "your right" and it's entirely at the discretion of the author if she or the character will accept this. In this case, she did not.

You say that you control your emotions. I say you're far from it heh.

>>28737
Several people tried to tell me that I was feeling guilt wrong, and that it's not supposed to hurt when you feel guilty.

>>28738
Question:

On a scale from 1 (agree very little) to 7 (agree a whole lot), to what extent do you agree with this statement: "I am a narcissist." (Note: The word "narcissist" means egotistical, self-focused, and vain.)

>>28739
>from 1 to 7
Excuse me do you have a problem with the number 10

>>28739
Probably a 2 at most. I'm rather irrelevant to the world as a whole, and under no delusions that it revolves around me. If I died tomorrow, friends and family would be affected, but the world at large wouldn't really change because of it.

I do have OCD, but it's minor. I've seen people who have to slam the door seven times before they can take a dump. I had a few similar compulsions when I was younger, but I kicked them years ago. Though my need to point out when people are incorrect about something is likely due to that quality.

Could the latent ability of furries to create drama from nothingness be used as an energy source? What sort of apparatus would be needed to collect the drama?

Scientific curiosity only, of course.

>>28753
Whatever they use to make power from the kinetic energy of those hamster wheel generators, take it and apply it to keyboards so that every keystroke helps power your computer. Then every time somebody has a big internet argument, it will save a minute bit of power.

Allow me to open the pleasant and polite discussion on the subject of Coxwette, its fans, and its characters.

ahem

Julia is a terrible person, an abusive waifu, and needs to be gotten rid of as soon as possible.

>>28755
I mean, I agree, but RML seems to like her, and naileD is naileD, so she's sticking around regardless of what the players want, it seems. QM fiat.

>>28755
>>28756
Outside of a sudden reverend attack, I don't really see a way for just getting rid of her under these circumstances anyway. Not much fiat involved.

Also, the one time RML commented on Julia, she seemed pretty neutral about her.

Bob 2017/09/27(Wed)12:21 No. 28758 ID: 681713

>>28757
For the removal of Julia, it's mostly about people not wanting to risk her recklessness and irregular behavior along with her abrasive personality for people whom we've already come to know and appreciate. There's really not a whole lot more to it than that, and frankly I believe it's a perfectly fine justification as far as player behavior goes.

As for saying RML likes her, it's more an 'actions are louder than words' interpretation, in my book, as well as a few snippets of things I've seen in the IRC. RML appears determined to force (and I don't use that harshly negatively, I just can't think of a better word) Julia onto the players and make us deal with her. In video game terms, she would be an invulnerable/plot critcal NPC kinda like in Elder Scrolls, where killing her would break the story path that RML has in mind, so she just refuses to allow it. She's taken command of Chuck's actions away from the players before, so its not like I'm particularly offended, I'm just looking at it or at least trying to look at it alll from a distance.

RML's quest is one of the more directed Quests that I've played, where it's very clear that QM has a very specific story in mind, and it will be executed regardless of player input.

In a general way, it doesn't appear to be a matter of 'Okay, this is the base setting, these things will happen and the player makes the story by responding to them however they like.' As in most quests. Coxwette is more 'Okay, this is the story that will happen, and this is how the character will respond. What the player does is simply modify how effectively or not they respond to it.'

Now, that may not necessarily be accurate as to RML is trying to do, but it certainly looks that way, which I would say is more important. This causes conflict to arrive, especially in this case where basically the story is going in a direction a large number of the players really really really don't want it to go. Death of the Author, as much as I honestly loathe the concept, is very much in play here, I would guess.

At this point, I would personally recommend that if she's hell-bent on keeping Julia around, then she really honestly should just make anything involving Julia a cutscene that cannot be voted on in any way whatsoever. Like, seriously, just fast-forward literally everything until Julia has exited the scene. Her presence has basically shattered the playerbase into pieces. We had disagreements and arguements before, but never anything so vicious or so lasting before she came along.

This was a long and rambling and I'm sorry. I tried to remain polite.

>>28758
>I tried to remain polite.
From what I've understood of this thread, you really wouldn't have needed to.

I'm not really sure how much of railroading there's involved in here, anyway: any possible way to remove Julia from the story - kick her out, kill her, etc. - seems to be the sort that even those that don't like her would rather not go for, and if we did, it'd break the story to even smaller pieces for everyone involved. Railroading or not, we're pretty much stuck with her.

>>28759
Might not have needed to, but I wanted to.

And most people who wanted to get her out of the story simply wanted to leave her be and let nature take its course, whatever that might end up manifesting as. When it appeared she was forcing herself on us, then people voted to try and punch her to perhaps either knock her out so we can run, or maybe influence her to run away.

Incidentally, I would consider this to be railroading, personally, even if it's to avoid an obvious bad ending. The fact that despite all the players ideas for getting rid of her, she's staying under QM orders means that she's plot relevant and has a reason for being- and I think most players realize that, but dismiss it just because her personality is just that bad. But, as I said earlier, the entire Quest is more directed than most- RML has a particular story she wants to tell come hell or high water, and we don't really have control of the main story path, just how well prepared we arrive to the key story points. Julia is apparently one of those key story points. So like you said, we're stuck with her.

>>28760
That's dumb. Your argument is that because the players don't want to do something, they're being railroaded.

The only thing RML vetoed was uncharacteristic, and frankly unjustified, violence on the part of Chuck.

Past that's, it's all the majority of players not wishing to pursue courses of action. Marginalizing or abandoning Julia is eminently achievable; the constraints on the ease with which we could achieve that were all consequences of our decisions. Being trapped in the warehouse with additional people we did not want to abandon was a consequence of our decisions. Conceivably, we could have prevented the well from being sealed had we wished to invest in doing so. Options existed, paths not travelled, etc, etc.

You're basically arguing that because RML does not alter game world realities in order to facilitate our desires (that do not even have consistent majority support), that she is railroading. It's absurd and childish.

>>28761
>The only thing RML vetoed was uncharacteristic, and frankly unjustified, violence on the part of Chuck. 

I mean, I agree with that and don't have a problem with it. It makes sense.

>Past that's, it's all the majority of players not wishing to pursue courses of action. Marginalizing or abandoning Julia is eminently achievable; the constraints on the ease with which we could achieve that were all consequences of our decisions. 

I'm not so certain if I agree with the entirety of it given end results, but I can see the logic behind the argument.

>You're basically arguing that because RML does not alter game world realities in order to facilitate our desires (that do not even have consistent majority support), that she is railroading. 

This, I didn't really mean to come off as it did apparently. What I've stated wasn't in Anger, it was more just an observation of her particular QMing style, which I personally believe is just as valid as any other. The point I was trying to make is that her style is different than the norm, which generally, yes, is a bit more flexible in regards to how the world behaves vis-a-vie player desires. This difference is causing a bit of cognitive dissonance in how players approach problems and generally I believe to be the source of all this drama. Basically she's not QMing how they expect, so people are getting mad and it can be perceived as railroading. Again though, I don't think her style is bad. It's just different. Different doesn't automatically equal bad. Personally, I'm mostly indifferent to the whole thing.

>It's absurd and childish.

That's just mean. Still I apologize if I came off like that.

>>28755
>Julia is a terrible person,
Sure.
>an abusive waifu,
Nah.
>and needs to be gotten rid of as soon as possible.
Nope.

The first point doesn't justify the third, and the second doesn't really use the term properly. Would her relationship with Chuck be abusive? We don't know. We haven't been privy to any of it. Has she abused people? Yes. However, that doesn't merit capital punishment.
If Chuck's going to be a hero, he doesn't get to be a hero selectively. He's going to save whoever he can, and 'can' is very different from 'wants'. And before anyone says 'but Julia can't be saved', as far as physically rescuing her goes she can.

>>28764
You misunderstand.

>If Chuck's going to be a hero, he doesn't get to be a hero selectively. He's going to save whoever he can, and 'can' is very different from 'wants'. And before anyone says 'but Julia can't be saved', as far as physically rescuing her goes she can.
I'm mostly talking about her being removed from the out-of-character standpoint: it's not Chuck that should get rid of her, but rather the plot. RML should pull some stops to make her go away regardless of Chuck's heroism, without him having to be stained by the ordeal. It doesn't look like this is going to be the case, unfortunately.

>the second doesn't really use the term properly
It does, actually. Look at the definition of "waifu": it's a virtual, non-real girl that one would love to date. In this case she's definitely naileD's "waifu" in the very correct use of the term, someone he'd love to fuck or at least see Chuck fuck.

Now look at how vehemently naileD's been defending her. Look at all these flimsy justifications to very real crimes and abuse. "She's not as bad as you think!", "I can change her", "I don't care if she's hurt people", and what have you - all very real excuses people in abusive relationships give.

Julia is such a terrible person that it's reaching out through the screen and into real life. She's bound naileD into her charm. She's hurting him.

>>28765
From an OOC standpoint, I still don't think Julia needs to be removed by the author. People just need to deal with characters they don't like in a more genteel fashion. (For example, ignoring them, or chastising them, or fucking both of their roommates while they watch. Purely hypothetical situations, of course.)
From a meta strategy standpoint, she also isn't unmanageable to the point where she is likely to get someone else killed.
Julia has done nothing to Delian, that is all self-inflicted. It's unfortunate but understandable if your perception of the character has been tainted by one of her proponents.

The Hif Man 2017/09/27(Wed)15:11 No. 28767 ID: eda54c
File 150655027366.png - (0.99KB , 174x69 , The Hif Eyes.png )

Hello

>>28771
I imagine he's exaggerating to make a point. That being that you come off willing to risk a lot of friends' safety and security just to get into Julia's pants. Which you kind of do. Come off that way I mean. Even if that's not your intention, that's how your phrasing and general extensive attempts at exclamation come off to several individuals. Myself included.

I am now going to write a post about artistic integrity and how it WILL apply to YOUR SUCCESS as a creator.

First of all, it is very important for YOU to ever have a lasting impact, and for YOU to have fans who are truly LOYAL to your work. It is important for the way people view YOU, respect YOU, and expose themselves to YOUR work (whether or not YOU want to believe that doesn't matter, this concept has proven itself time and time again through history). Think of it like running a business, though of course this is a very different business than most other businesses and until YOUR BRAND is reaching MILLIONS (not 1 million, not 1.5 million, 2 million and beyond) YOU want to have GOOD BUSINESS. Why? BECAUSE GOOD BUSINESS BRINGS GOOD BUSINESS, and BAD BUSINESS BRINGS BAD BUSINESS. What kind of image do YOU want to have as a creator? Someone who appreciates everything from all of YOUR fans (minus hateful/racist/bigoted fans who will bring BAD BUSINESS) or someone who believes certain fans of YOUR work are less IMPORTANT than others? Do YOU want to be known as a creator who STANDS BY their work, or cowards away and tries to hide (some may say even CENSOR) when somebody points out certain aspects of YOUR work? What possible reason would ANY creator have in doing something as silencing CRITICISM, STORY IRRELEVANT FANART, or STORY RELEVANT FANART of a character or setting within their creation? That, is BAD BUSINESS. It MAKES YOU LOOK BAD. When you have a fanbase of a number that is under 5,000 (for example, this site has under 5,000 unique users). If story relevant fanart of something YOU made makes YOU SO UNCOMFORTABLE that YOU HAVE IT CENSORED, WHETHER OR NOT it is a LIGHT-HEARTED PARODY, NO MATTER THE THEMATIC CONTENT, YOU have BAD ARTISTIC INTEGRITY, which will GET YOU NOWHERE. Because guess what? The fact that YOU DID THAT will NEVER GO AWAY, because NOTHING GOES AWAY ON THE INTERNET.

How about if YOUR fans aren't satisfied with YOUR work? Do you ALTER it to fit THEIR vision, or do you keep going with the VISION that YOU had ORIGINALLY intended? Do YOUR fans PAY YOU for YOUR work AS YOU make it? Do YOUR fans pay for the work after it is COMPLETELY FINISHED? Do they pay for it AT ALL? If YOUR fans PAY YOU for your work AS YOU make it, then YES, BEND OVER BACKWARDS FOR THEM, as there is no difference between YOUR fans ACTIVELY COMMISSIONING YOU for YOUR work. If they PAY YOU after it is a finished product, then YES but WITH CAUTION so as to NOT stray TOO FAR from the ORIGINAL product. IF your fans DO NOT PAY YOU, then YOU have ZERO REASON to do ANYTHING ELSE from what YOU WANT TO DO, UNLESS YOU WANT INPUT from YOUR fans.

>>28773
I, also, LOVE to CAPITALIZE completely random WORDS in my various SENTENCES!
IT REALLY HELPS with readability, and ALSO GIVES my writing a HUGE BOOST TO IT'S rhythm!
It's NOT super obnoxious AT ALL!

All of you are unsaintly and have IQs of less than 500.

>>28774
You are just jealous that you lack Tom's MANLY PHYSIQUE.

>>28773
tl;dr

Love YOUR fans,
TRUST the love YOUR fans have for YOUR work,
---and most importantly---
STAND BY YOUR work.

Love,


The Hif Man

P.S. -- This is not a passive aggressive critical jab at any one individual on this site, those who receive my criticism do so directly, whether in public or in private. People who actually have a true passion for the things that they do on this site I, despite popular belief, have a lot of respect for. I'd hate to see behavior detrimental to popularity that can be found and brought up at any time by anyone if they so choose cause anyone who doesn't want their work to wane into forgotten obscurity to do that. Unfortunately, most don't want to hear it, why I don't know nor do I really care which is why I wrote this piece, to expose behavior that can be detrimental to success anywhere in entertainment that I have seen only grow worse here as time has passed. Follow it, and make things better for yourself and everybody who follows your work or don't.

You may resume your talks in the Coxwette discussion thread. It's not longer under heavy moderation. Enjoy~

>>28782
>Enjoy~
I would, but I'm still banned from there. naileD, who is at the very least as guilty at bringing the quest and the discussion down as I am, is not banned. He even posted a blatant bait picture that was already deleted once.

I am annoyed by this outrageous favoritism.

>>28782
BDAs should stay in the BDA thread anyway.

>>28784
I apologize. Delian was able to placate me on IRC and avoid my wrath, which gave him an unfair advantage over those who don't use IRC.

In future, I'll try to be more careful about keeping things on equal ground.

Ban is removed.

>>28787
That's less of an unfair advantage and more of a proactive stance towards ban appeals. IRC is easy to access - web clients are everywhere, not to mention it's mentioned/linked on the front page, the FAQ and elsewhere. You don't have to join the conversation, but if you don't want to use it even for contacting mods then that's your loss.

>>28788
This was the first time I heard IRC was even an option.

>>28789
I'm not here to argue but if you leave the frames on, over to the left there's a heading of "IRC" with TGChan's IRC Chat address. Just saying for future reference.

We didn't come here to rock
We only came to disappoint you
'Cause deep down in your cunt
That's exactly what you wanted us to do
You wanted us to lead you on
You wanted us to bum you out
So you could build us up
And you could knock us down

If that's what gets your dick hard
Telling people they're bad at making art

You wanted to feel cheated
I guess we gave you what you needed
So, you're welcome
Don't worry about it
Just stay on the couch
Judge what other people do
Don't do anything for yourself
I'd hate to see it happen to you

If that's what gets your dick hard
Telling people they're bad at making art
Feeling just like you're the one in charge
Pissing on my most pathetic parts

The skeleton key is a genuinely good movie.

i dont understand what people have against pineapple pizza

>>28851
I like it.

>>28851
It's a discordant clash of tastes. Pineapple is sweet and juicy, where pizza is greasy and salty. Both of them are delicious in my opinion, separately, but if you put them together they come into conflict and fuck the whole thing up.

>>120626
>if you understand how neural networks develop (both machine and natural) you can see how the amount of information they contain can easily become computationally impossible to monitor in its entirety
If you think that, you need to do a LOT more research into the fundamentals of how NNs and SLNNs work.
Because all NNs are software-based (all parameters, even for accelerated ASICs, are stored as variables. There are no physical axons or synapses or analogues) they are by definition perfectly model-able (it is the model that operates). And because the entire goal of NNs for commercial use is to produce a limited range of outputs using the minimal possible inputs, fully characterising a given NN is not a herculean task in the least.
> and so underhandedness can naturally develop unnoticed just as a part of efficiently achieving whatever they were set out to achieve.)
Please don't use Hollywood depictions of AIs as a foundation for thinking about how AIs work in reality. Movies and TV are hilariously bad at even approaching reasonable depictions of how AIs work. That's how you end up with pop-science nonsense like the "paperclip optimiser apocalypse", that assume an AI capable of extremely felxible heuristic reasoning, capable of applying that reasoning to areas far outside it's original training set, but incapable of applying that reasoning to it's own operation (and thus by definition NOT be a self-learning neural network but a static pre-trained one).

>>120634

Oh no, I didn't mean to imply that I've been paying attention to dramatizations, it was more just the basic idea for example of poorly informed but insistent executives asking for the creation of far too generalised networks because they want to find as many answers to a generic question as possible. Yes it may be quite a lot further down the line until we can make something complex enough to unavoidably depend on self-monitoring, but it doesn't seem inconceivable that we would eventually be able to create AI SDKs that can be used to create even more arbitrary SDKs such that even the most inexperienced programmers are able to create their own applications that literally do anything within the computational ability available to them, regardless of their understanding of the results that might occur. I guess I'm talking about the automation of process creation mixed with human lack of understanding, like a "child picking up a power tool" kind of situation. I understand that a lot of these will have systems that say "you can't do x or y", but that becomes less dependable an assumption if you get more experienced but nevertheless still amateur (or even unlawful) programmers creating and releasing their own less restricted SDKs that don't have as many checks involved. I just mean as it becomes easier to automate intention, if someone doesn't have due consideration of the outcomes of what they're doing then they could create things that cause significant issues for everyone else. I'm entirely for the concept of AI itself, it's just that with any increase in general automation comes increased power, and we have to ensure that people are able to use that power responsibly.

>>120640
There is no more chance of somebody accidentally creating an 'evil AI' out of ignorance than an untrained machinist accidentally creating an implosion-type thermonuclear device on a shop lathe.

The AI 'advances' of today are not magic. They are concepts developed decades ago and discarded as too inelegant or inefficient to be worth pursuing, but now are worth pursuing simply because vastly more computational power can be thrown at the problem now. Regardless of the shiny smartphone interfaces they are presented through, today's AIs are extremely special-purpose, very far from general purpose, and not 'self training'. Indeed, the current 'Deep Learning' industry is built around the dichotomy between computational devices for training (massive datacentres filled with GPUs or ASICs) and computational devices for inference (portable coprocessors that are effectively fixed-function and are the ones that actually get access to live inputs).

>There is no more chance of somebody accidentally creating an 'evil AI' out of ignorance than an untrained machinist accidentally creating an implosion-type thermonuclear device on a shop lathe.

Holy shit that sounds like the start of an amazing quest.

Bob 2018/09/11(Tue)16:56 No. 29083 ID: e52162
File 153671021637.jpg - (3.23MB , 3120x4160 , P_20180911_195429.jpg )

I argue this is hurting children's artistic development

>>29083
I think you might be onto something.

Peopl on this board are too thirsty

>>/quest/924309
Your post doesn't make sense. "tgchan hours"? And do you really think boobs equate to the penis on men? Beasts are secondary sexual characteristics. That said, yes a lot of men would near-immediately try to make their dicks bigger if they could change anything they wanted about their bodies. That, and bigger muscles, which *are* secondary sexual characteristics for men.

It just kindof sounds like you're sexually repressed, and want to push that on other people.

>>/quest/924315
As for you, I meant that ONE post that I linked. You were busy being passive-aggressive, not directing anyone to the questdis. I definitely don't appreciate words being put in my mouth either!

>>128140
I wasn't being passive aggressive, I was musing over the rules for off-topic discussion, which I don't know too well. I just have an impression from times I've seen it called out. I guess it was the passive half because I wasn't sure enough about the rules to be direct, so I just kinda

implied it. Also I don't know teegee's personal opinion on arguments is. Also I'm just not good at being direct generally.

Basically I wasn't trying to be the aggressive part of that phrase.

>>128142
Oh right, and if it was about the "shame" part I was just trying to be sympathetic about the person I was replying to's problem with not getting discussions. It took me a while to figure out how to phrase it and that was the best one.

>>128142
>>128143
Oh alright then, I misread your tone.

>>128144
And again, for the words in your mouth, that was a misunderstanding based on your misunderstanding of my attitude of being passive aggressive. I didn't realize you didn't know what I meant at the time. I'm sorry about that.

>>128147
Then I apologize as well. Directly, instead of just implying it.

>>128138
Those are frankly insulting assumptions about people and general and then me. Maybe just consider I'm not sexually repressed but maybe you're sexually obsessed and you just want to push that on people.

>>924115
>more endowed

No. Just no.

>>924157
care to elaborate? your post reads like you find the idea disgusting.

>>924297
I do. I don't see why she'd just become a slut like that. I can understand getting cosmetics like horns for aesthetical value. Being out of amnesia, discovering body modification and then saying you want bigger breasts is slutty.

Boy there's a lot of discussion thread worthy chatting here, huh.

>>924304
That's kindof a terrible thing to say, honestly. First off, quit using slut as pejorative. Wanting or liking sex should not be negative. Second off, you don't automatically start sleeping around if you get a boob job! Of course the immediate reaction when you find out you can change your body at will is to try to become more attractive. EVERYONE (well, everyone with sexual urges) wants to be more attractive.

If you like her better with small breasts then just say so.

>>924307
"quit using slut as pejorative"
Real tgchan hours.

"EVERYONE (well, everyone with sexual urges) wants to be more attractive"
No, I'm pretty sure my first reflex isn't always enlarging my penis... Dunno how you make this generalization.

>>924305
Honestly, nowadays questdis isn't actually used for Quest Discussion most of the time. These days, it's more 'Quest Hangout', where people who play the quest chill. Not that I disagree with the implications- I've been trying to start discussion in the dis thread to no avail, is all.

>>924310
yeah, I know, but I figured there was some limit to that. Like, discussing things in the quest that are immediate problems or clarifying something important. A shame your attempts haven't worked.

>>924312
You're doing the same thing you realize?

>>924313
Don't prompt me to respond then. Also false equivalence, I was trying to direct people to the disthread, and using spoiler tags. But regardless of further "both sides are bad" I'm not going to post off-topic again.

>The Great Big Boob Debate of 2019

Take it to https://tgchan.org/kusaba/questdis/res/123379.html

>>924315
Sheesh, are you so petty you can't handle being proven both wrong and a big hypocrite?

>>128153
No, not really.

Personally, i think penny should get herself redone, but i try to skirt around it since people seem to love trying to attack me for saying that sort of thing because of their "moral high ground." Maybe i am a pervert, but that doesn't make me a bad person by default. In fact, i try to give everyone the respect they deserve. It really cuts deep when people start shaming me for this.

(or maybe i am just overly sensitive, in which case i can be ignored. Lets just try to maintain the status quo)