Posts made by Meg

@thenomain said in criticism not allowed in ad threads is only enforcing a false positive, prove me wrong:

@meg said in criticism not allowed in ad threads is only enforcing a false positive, prove me wrong:

@thenomain said in criticism not allowed in ad threads is only enforcing a false positive, prove me wrong:

I had four people independently contact me warning me away from the people running the game for doing what I accused them of doing,

Man, theno, you know I like you, but name names or don't bring it up. Don't drop shadow figures of people who 'all agree' about this one thing without giving some concrete names and at least some bit of proof.

Three reasons:

It's not my place to out them. Let them out themselves.

not saying to out them. i am saying it is a bad way to argue to name 'all of these people' agree with me without providing some proof that those people exist. i have a lot of people who agree with me about that.

it's just bad form.

It's not my place to out them. You know what happens to players who want to lie low to questionable staff but get outed? It's not pretty. I'm willing--maybe too eager--to be that person but it's not my place.

see above.

The post wasn't about the game, it's about my motivation for using the ad thread as a conversational ground.

and yet, you're the one who started dropping new shit on the people who run the game. own your shit, theno. don't now hide behind 'well this thread isn't about that'. you shot a shot that you didn't need to.

Saying "pics or it didn't happen" doesn't mean it didn't happen. Seriously. Don't fall into the "prove it" defense because it's just as easily used to dismiss criticism. There's a certain point where the evidence has to stack up, but it won't happen unless someone starts it.

i am not falling into that. but you saying there is evidence is what i am calling out. that you were disinvited from a game doesn't amount to 'evidence'.

@thenomain said in criticism not allowed in ad threads is only enforcing a false positive, prove me wrong:

I had four people independently contact me warning me away from the people running the game for doing what I accused them of doing,

Man, theno, you know I like you, but name names or don't bring it up. Don't drop shadow figures of people who 'all agree' about this one thing without giving some concrete names and at least some bit of proof.

There are many people who have contacted me independently calling me a sweet, beautiful forum angel. I'm not gonna name names, but that legit (or well, roughly) happened. Should people put any stock into that? No.

@auspice oh, i thought she was more referring to the crazy things that Anne herself has said. Not Todd. (tho lol todd). Like Anne saying that greenriders /turn gay/, etc.

Hence the 'if you don't use Death of the Author concept'.

@cupcake said in Ruins of Pern:

TELGAR! TELGAR!

Sorry, had to.

As for skeeve, yeah well, there's plenty of that to go around for the Pern setting, especially if you have no plans to apply Death of the Author. The literary trope, not the fact that Anne has actually passed. We all know what I'm talking about, right? Do I have to even say it?

you don't have to say it.

Waking up with a headache.

Sorry for the double post. (I bet we could get up to like, five posts today. it seems to be a common thing amongst us.)

@theonceler said in criticism not allowed in ad threads is only enforcing a false positive, prove me wrong:

@meg said in criticism not allowed in ad threads is only enforcing a false positive, prove me wrong:

And, I would like to add for the record, you will probably also agree with the statement when you have a bad interaction with a game.

I refuse to take this post seriously.

pls take everything i say super seriously, @TheOnceler. this is not a game.

@faraday said in criticism not allowed in ad threads is only enforcing a false positive, prove me wrong:

b) Perhaps (probably) I'm jaded, but it seems like a moderation nightmare waiting to happen, especially given how prior attempts at MU game/people wikis have turned out.

man, i am super excited about the idea of having a meme like page about 'Meg' and getting it vandalized whenever i say something people don't like, tbh. no sarcasm. it'd be hilarious.

what if i hate change.

@mietze said in criticism not allowed in ad threads is only enforcing a false positive, prove me wrong:

%r%r

i just wanted to quote this for posterity. because it is cute. that isn't constructive i know.

@tinuviel done.

@bored mine too. maybe we can convince the mods we're right this time.

And, I would like to add for the record, you will probably also agree with the statement when you have a bad interaction with a game.

@bored said in Spirit Lake: An Original Modern Fantasy Game:

If people actually want a policy where advertisement threads are only that, they should just be locked and truly advertisement-only with no discussion, with discussion in parallel threads in appropriate areas.

People wanted it, like enough that they implemented it as a rule and put it in the thread that Roz linked, the rules of conduct.

ETA: it sounds like enough of us now disagree with the rule, though! Maybe someone should start a constructive criticism thread to get it changed.

Ftr, I also think that ad threads that don't allow for bad reviews are silly. Someone make a mildly constructive post about that, too.

@sunny I might be misremembering. Or I might be remembering the wrong book. It has been a long time since I read the books.

ETA: It was The White Dragon in which they explore Robinton also having feelings in return. Different thresholds for skeevy is fair! I just wanted to confirm which book it was in.

@paris Yeah, but they introduced that /he/ was like, super into her and jealous of Sebell in Masterharper. Iirc. Which, yeah, a young girl having a crush on a mentor isn't that odd, and in DragonSinger it was played pretty well with Robinton being like, look at this guy here. But the reverse is skeevy, tbh.

@sunny isn't Masterharper the one that introduced that like-- weirdness between Menolly and Robinton. Despite her being younger than his actual son.

@rnmissionrun incorrect. Dragonsong/Dragonsinger > White Dragon

@arkandel said in Ideal Scene Length?:

But every time you log in I unload a shitload of stuff that I've been doing, PrPs I took part in, NPCs my character encountered so that building a foundation is genuinely complicated. Every scene can feel like it's catching up to something instead of building up toward something.

If every time I RP with you, you are just dumping a lot of things that you are doing into the scene. Well, I am going to quickly stop RPing with you, because that sounds boring. There's some amount of 'catching up' that should be done in a scene, for sure. People share their lives. But you don't sit down with a friend or acquaintance and just start listing everything that has happened to you in the last two weeks when you meet up with them. It's an ebb and flow. I might go 'hey, did you know I started going to the gym? Yeah, I'm really enjoying the rowing machine. I am thinking about actually getting into kayaking.' and then my friend might be like, 'Shit, I love kayaking! I own my own. Do you wanna make a plan to go out on the river with me next week?'

Etc etc. You get the picture. So I get where you are coming from, but I also just-- have never had that problem. #MoreMoneyNoProblems

@arkandel Yeah, I do like them organic, too. But if I am going for a length, I'd rather go for shorter rather than longer. Because I feel like if you are trying to go long, you are forcing things into the play that would never happen. Unless you have a really solid reason to hang around an unknown person for a long time (trapped in an elevator, closing on a house, etc), who here like, meets someone and spends a day with them? And scenarios where you are trapped with a new person probably just would not be fun to play, and probably should have some FF and handwave.

Of course, this doesn't apply to everything. No one size fits all soltion. You can totally have long, organic RP where characters just click. There could be a really fun reason for two new characters to be together for a long period. Mostly I have found short and sweet is a really good way to lay a foundation, without really knowing what the foundation is? Letting it build from there in little bits. (Or even when I do have a pre-planned relationship, like Teagan/Sebastian being apped in as pals. It feels more real if we develop that relationship in short scenes where we aren't stretching it to weird places.)

Also, ps, I had a scene with Teagan and Olive yesterday where Teagan stared at her phone half the time. It was amazing.

• I may or may not still suck.

I find that 'meet and greet' first scenes never go anywhere, and I prefer to keep those like, shorter. If this is the first time our characters are meeting, I'd rather something short and sweet. Then the next time we put them together, maybe a bit longer. Or if they click, a lot longer! Maybe they end up gushing about something.

But I find if I drag on that first scene too long, it makes the whole relationship suffer. I'd rather a bunch of short scenes than one giant one. I think some of the best relationships I've had come from that. (Like Eleyna-Sylvie were a bunch of small scenes, in between other things. Myrinda and her sons were a bunch of small scenes. Alden and Isabel. Etc etc)