#arguably only game that can hold my interest for long periods of time because it has so many distractions <33

[paris-in-flames]

Armadillo sweep let's gooo!!!!

[victorluvsalice]

AU Thursday: Smiler’s Otherland -- Domains!

Hi everyone, I’m back on my Smiler’s Otherland bullshit! :D After making my initial “here’s my first ideas on the concept” post back in May 2023, I’ve been trying to get my thoughts organized regarding what Smiler’s Otherland should look like, more details about their weapons, how many outfits they need, etc. And now I’m going to share some of those thoughts with all of you! Because it’s my tumblr and you’re my captive audience. :p

So -- let’s start with the domains! Because you can’t have an Otherland without actual, you know, lands in it. So far, I’ve come up with four domains for Smiler:

Smile Street: The “hub” domain, or at least the domain any visitors would be likely to land in first, much like Alice’s Vale of Tears or Victor’s Living Dead Forest. This domain is arguably the "coziest," and allows Smiler to put their best smiling face forward. :D

-->As indicated by the name, it’s a long winding street lined with brightly-painted houses in all colors of the rainbow -- in fact, here, the shot of Towers Street from this The Smiler ad gives you a good idea of what I’m picturing:

Only, instead of just those spiraling yellow clouds in the sky, there's also a big yellow sun featuring a Smiler-logo face on it, as per this screenshot from this video on The Smiler mobile game: (WARNING -- the linked video does have flashing lights/strobe-like images starting about midway through!)

...maybe a little less overtly creepy, as this is supposed to be the friendliest domain, but you get what I mean.

-->And who lives in those cheery little houses? Why, the Advocates, of course! Who are based on these guys from The Smiler mobile game (screenshot from the same video linked above):

You know, just a little higher resolution. XD They're naturally very friendly, greeting visitors enthusiastically, and spend most of their time wandering around, trimming trees and hedges into spirals, having little get-togethers in each other's yards where they tell jokes and laugh a lot, playing various games with each other, painting big grinning faces on portable easels -- that sort of thing.

-->At the end of the street is -- well, the town SPIRAL rather than square, as the road just spirals in on itself until it stops at a big fountain full of glowy yellow liquid at the center. Around the outer curve of the spiral is a little cafe (which serves a variety of drinks and treats, though many of the drinks glow at least slightly, and the treats tend to have spiral decorations), a playground (with all the equipment painted with yellow and black stripes with occasional touches of purple and white), a general shop selling a variety of goods (which, yes, would basically be the shop from the Smiler Shop TV video, manned by Matt and Carol -- Smiler can put their parents into their Otherland, as a treat), and a train station consisting of a bright yellow covered platform with spiraling columns holding the roof up, a Smiler coaster car (like that seen above) for the "train," and tracks that start out flat but quickly spiral off into wild loops and twists (because, of course, the coaster itself has to serve as transport to the other two "nice" domains). Just a nice place to hang out, chat, and watch the spiral clouds swirl overhead. XD

X-Sector: Named after the section of Alton Towers that The Smiler coaster is actually in, this is the domain dedicated to Smiler’s interest in technology and chemistry (with the actual look of the tech ranging from more steampunky to more cyberpunky depending on the time period of the AU it features in).

-->The domain consists mostly of a big old lab, surrounded by a yard featuring grass made out of green wire, flowers made out of twisty bits of metal with stained glass leaves and petals, and simple conical trees (like the kind you might see in an old Playstation or XBox game before graphics really started taking off -- that Smiler Game screenshot above is roughly the right aesthetic). The sky here would be filled with swirling, spiraling yellow and black clouds, lit with the occasional flash of lightning. It's all very dramatic.

-->The lab itself is divided into two wings, separated by a main hall with lots of optical illusions a la the actual The Smiler station (with various changing patterns on the walls -- be warned, that linked video has a fair amount of flashing lights in it!). The left wing would be devoted to engineering and be filled with things like whirring little hypno-wheel gadgets, boxes with flashing lights, various skittering tiny robots, and other things of that nature. The right wing would be devoted to chemistry and have various workstations covered with bubbling flasks of liquid and hissing tanks filled with volatile gases -- though I'm really tempted to throw in a little bit of Willy Wonka flavor and have a big old waterfall of Joy Serum somewhere in here too. XD I mean, it feels like something Smiler would have -- maybe it flows into a giant pipe to provide the liquid for the fountain in Smile Street? Or perhaps it just serves as the "drinking water" for everyone there...

-->As for residents -- well, I suppose in addition to Advocates in lab coats tending all the various experiments, it would make sense to have Dr. Gladwell from the Smiler Takeover "Fear Test" show at the very least. After all, he is the Ministry's Chief Neurological Cortex Reprogrammer! :p The only thing complicating that is that I wanted to name Smiler's outfit for this area after him...but I suppose I could name it after his role in the Ministry instead... Anyway, the most notable resident here would naturally be the Marmaliser itself -- a big robot wandering around on its five limbs, looking for unhappy people to make happy and coming by the lab to have its Inoculator syringes and Giggler gas tanks refilled and its Tickler brushes, Flasher bulbs, and Hypnotiser wheels looked at and realigned as necessary.

Musical Mayhem: Hey, Victor wasn’t using the name :p This domain is all about Smiler's love of music and festivals and things of that nature, and -- as you might expect -- is strongly based around that whole The Smiler Takeover that Alton Towers did for the ride's 10th anniversary.

-->The domain itself is a giant fairground set in a field of glittery green grass under more of those yellow spiraling clouds, with a couple of black-and-white-cobbled looping paths winding through it. There are various carnival games scattered about (like the "Beat the Buzzer" game where you have to get a wire loop around a metal simplified Smiler logo without touching it, otherwise it'll buzz and you'll have to start again; hook-a-smiling-duck; bag tosses with grinning Smiler-logoed bags; one of those water gun games where you shoot Joy Serum at a target to make something rise up; etc), along with food stalls, comfy sitting areas, and carts where people can get balloons and little sparklers and trumpets to blow. As you might imagine, it's chaotic, but in a good way!

-->The dominant feature of the fairground, though, is a huge stage at the far end -- a bigger version of the Takeover's Celebration Stage, with all the smiley-face decorations but yellow curtains instead of red. There's a few rows of seats in front of the stage for people who want to sit down and watch, and designated "dancing spots" for those who want to dance and sing along. The dancing spots are generally more populated than the seats, as you might expect. XD

-->Again, the domain is mostly populated by Advocates from Smile Street, just enjoying the carnival -- but you can't have a Celebration Stage without Felix E. Lated as the star performer! :D (Again, Smiler can have their uncle in their Otherland, as a treat.) When he's not up on stage singing, he's wandering the fairground, encouraging everyone to let loose and have fun. Possibly Grin-Grin the clown (from the above-linked "Fear Test") also makes an appearance from time to time, creating balloon animals and telling ridiculous stories -- oh, and we probably should also have the contortionist and the magician from the "Meet The Ministry" stage show up too! All the performers for the Advocates to enjoy!

Sanctuary: Unfortunately for Smiler, as stated in the original post, we can’t neglect the spookier, scarier parts of the coaster’s theming -- and that means having a domain where everything is creepy and horrible, to represent their fears about going too far and actually harming people. And thus we have Sanctuary, inspired by all the Kelman-related materials, such as the Smile Always series and the Sanctuary scare mazes (a few clips of which can be seen in this informative video -- again, watch out for some flashing lights)! Hooray! :D

-->The area is a large, underground asylum, accessed by a pair of rusty metal swinging doors spray-painted with "THE TRUTH" in bright yellow (taken from one of the AR spots you could access with The Smiler Mobile Game back in the day -- there's a set hidden away in each of the other three domains) -- once inside, you're confronted with an absolute maze of concrete corridors, all painted a faded white. The place is not in good repair, with plenty of patches of exposed rebar and wiring on the walls and cracks in both the ceiling and the floor. The whole place is poorly lit, with buzzing yellow lights dangling from the ceiling and occasionally sparking or going out entirely. The only concession to color is in the various posters that have been hung up -- images of spirals with DO NOT RESIST written under them, photos of decaying animal corpses captioned with LIFE IS BAD, and various images of people with their mouths distorted into extremely creepy smiles. It's just a very unpleasant place to be!

-->There are two groups of people that live in this horrible location -- the first being the Corrected. These are the asylum's patients, dressed in tattered and dirty white t-shirts, pants, and dresses, who roam the halls and live in the various cells dotting the hallways. Most of them either have Glasgow smiles or various bits of machinery forcing their mouths into grins, and many also have at least a partially-shaved head and nasty scars on their scalps indicating brain surgery. However, the Corrected are all completely non-violent, either just wandering around doing their thing (vaguely giggling to themselves, drawing on the walls with whatever they can find, standing in small groups and laughing together) or hiding away from anyone they think is a threat.

-->No, the actual enemies of this area are the Staff -- the nurses and orderlies who run the place. The nurses are dressed in stained white uniform dresses, sporting dark circles around their eyes, vicious grins accented by dark lipstick, and long claw-like nails ready to take a swipe out of misbehaving patients; and the orderlies are dressed in similarly-stained yellowed scrubs, with the same dark circles around their eyes and vicious grins. The nurses carry syringes to stab unsuspecting victims, subjecting them to a variety of bizarre hallucinations; the orderlies carry shock batons guaranteed to bring patients to their knees. Their favorite activities are to stalk unwitting Corrected, then take them down while laughing hysterically. Not nice people at all!

-->And the person in charge of the whole shebang? Why, that would be Dr. Minister, a Kelman-like old man with a neat white suit sporting the Sanctuary logo, glinting glasses, and a smile that -- well, it's obvious the man's HEARD of smiling, but you're not sure he's ever seen it in action. He's insistent that everything he does for the Corrected is for their own good, and his ultimate goal is to turn Smiler into his apprentice/successor -- and Victor and Alice into Corrected. Smiler, as you might imagine, loathes this guy, and is absolutely terrified of ending up like him. :(

And that's everything I've got for now! It does make me slightly annoyed that I only have four domains for Smiler when Victor has five and Alice -- well, as per A:MR, the minimum is eight (presuming you don't count the Vale of Doom as separate from the Vale of Tears). But I do think that these four cover pretty much everything important when it comes to the coaster, it's themes, and all the events and attractions related to it. Next up, we have the weapons -- which, believe me, was a much easier post to make...

[mwezina]

Wheel of Fortune & FE3H

The Wheel of Fortune is meant to show the ever-changing nature of life as it goes through ups and downs. Our own position in life relative to others can evolve and flip as fate brings us to dizzying heights or the darkest lows. The Wheel of Fortune seems to be telling us, nothing is permanent, and we should cherish each and every moment. 

Some things I notice are the blue sphynx sitting atop the wheel, appearing to adjudicate the spin with her vast knowledge and wisdom. Anubis in devil form slips alongside the bottom, representing death, and the serpent slithers close by, representing both evil and the forces of life. What I find most interesting are the four living creatures sitting in the clouds with books in their hands (perhaps another reference to the Torah?). They are believed to hold up the throne of God in Jewish and Christian mythology, so perhaps the wheel itself is a throne? Also, the animals being man, ox, lion, and eagle are very close to the three (really, four) houses of Fire Emblem: Three Houses. Man being perhaps the church as they look like angels, and ox being a deer, transformed from humble work animal to mythical wild game. 

The crest associated with the Wheel of Fortune is the Crest of Goneril. The name itself harkens to the oldest daughter of King Lear. She is arguably the most evil of the antagonists in the play due to her backstabbing nature. Every alliance she forms in the play is dissolved by her hand, including the ones with her sister and her husband. In the end, she takes her own life when Edmund rejects her. 

The dragon associated with this crest is the Kalpa Dragon. This one is probably the most oddly specific of the dragon names. A kalpa is a very long period of time in Buddhism, similar to an aeon, though probably longer. Considering the strong themes of Buddhism in the rest of Fire Emblem: Three Houses, this is not a surprise. It is believed that at the end of each kalpa, the world is annihilated and reborn. 

My personal opinion is that the Kalpa Dragon, just like the Wheel of Fortune itself, has no definite form. It may sometimes be shaped like a wheel, but from a different angle, it appears to be a different shape altogether. That’s what made the Kalpa Dragon so terrifying, because it seemed to embrace multiple contradicting forms. It must have been a mysterious dragon, with the relic only making use of one part (perhaps fins?) of its massive being. 

The character I choose to connect to all these things is Hilda Valentine Goneril. She appears to have a carefree nature, happy to take her spin on the Wheel of Fortune, but she’s actually terrified of how people view her. While she appears to embrace the motto of the Wheel of Fortune, she truly hasn’t yet. All the same, she encourages others in her life to let go of preconceived notions and go with the flow more. 

As with the rest of the Golden Deer who are named after King Lear characters, Hilda also seems to embody the reversal of the character she’s named after. While Goneril breaks alliances and backstabs at every opportunity, Hilda is able to form many alliances with the Golden Deer and those in other houses. She is also loyal to Claude to the end, much to his surprise. 

For the Kalpa Dragon… I’ve got nothing. I can only see a loose connection between a kalpa and the Wheel of Fortune. Over the course of existence, anything can happen, and in the end, it didn’t matter anyway.

Previous: The Hermit

Next: Justice

[hannie-dul-set]

DON’T THINK, JUST DO — na jaemin.

SUMMARY. an overthinker, a piece of advice, a sudden confession, and a subtle meltdown.

PAIRING. na jaemin x g.n. reader GENRE. high school! au, f2l, fluff, humor WARNINGS. swearing WORD COUNT. 1.6k TAGLIST. @danishmiilk​ @wownajaemin​ @leejunini​ @astroboy-lele​ @unknown5tar​ @yunoyeol​ @w0nni3wrld​ @charm-art​ @bat-shark-repellant​ @nct-writers​ @czennienet​ @neowritingsnet​ @kpopscape​

NOTE. surprise LMAO take this quick fic that i wrote in a couple of hours after a bathroom apology for being mia this past week, for not keeping my promises, and for my further disappearance within the next few days/weeks because i am, quite frankly, about to mcfreaking die <3 enjoy.

Self study period. Eight in the morning. Everything was normal— seemingly normal— save for the empty spot beside you where your deskmate should be occupying, perhaps pestering you yet again about the importance of eating breakfast if he were here, but he wasn’t. It was odd.

He’s never been late before.

Saying that makes it sound like you were closely knitted with Na Jaemin, the present absentee and your deskmate for about three years, but you couldn’t admit that you were. You couldn’t admit that you weren’t, either. Still, even if you weren’t as bro with him like his members in the school’s dance team, or as involved in his personal troubles as his childhood best friend, but at least you’ve seen the kind of lunch he brings to school every single day for three straight years. That was probably enough to form some sort of bond— though trivial, maybe even feeble, but it was enough.

That was also enough for you to develop an unsurprising crush on him. Your self-awareness was annoying enough to throw away any ounce of denial.

Which was also why you were worrying over your head when he missed the first period, even more so when he arrived like a disheveled zombie midway through the second.

“Na Jaemin,” you greeted his tardy arrival with your eyebrows creasing in worry. He greeted you with a usual good morning and his usual smile— or so he attempted to. But that smile lasted for approximately 0.813 seconds before he fell onto his seat with a contorted groan. “What’s wrong? Are you sick? Did you practice too hard yesterday? Gosh, you should know better than to overdo it.”

Jaemin only whined when you reached out to pitifully caress his hair, his gaunt face and evident dark circles down buried in his arms. “I’m so tired.”

Dear lord, what happened to the model student that seemed to shine day in, day out despite his overly packed and strenuous schedule? You frowned, telling him that he should just sleep through the rest of the morning and you’d cover for him, but he rose from his slumped over position and waved you off. 

“I can manage,” he gave you a tired smile. “I already missed a lot by being late.”

“You idiot, are you trying to die?” you huffed, snapping your attention off of him in annoyance. “Wait a minute, why does he look fine? Tsk. Lee Donghyuck were you slacking off while your team members were dancing to death?”

The man in question flinched, dropping his phone with a painful noise onto the table when you turned around and smacked a notebook onto his desk.

“Oi, what the fuck? What would you know when you weren’t even there?”

“Then why do you still look fresh while poor, tired Jaemin over here is—”

“It’s not that.”

You turned back around to the worn out voice beside you.

“I just didn’t get any sleep last night.”

To your surprise, Jaemin was the one who came to Donghyuck’s aid.

Donghyuck’s glare was enough to drill two gaping holes into your skill, and you simply bowed and gave him a sheepish grin in apology before switching your attention lanes back to Jaemin. Not the most embarrassing thing you’d ever done, but shameful all the same. “Then why didn’t you say so— anyway, that’s not the point. Did you stay up playing games again? Gosh, did Lee Jeno force you to rank with him? I swear, you guys should—”

“It’s kinda nice to see you worrying about me,” he chuckled, falling back down into his desk with his arms crossed and looking up at you with an invisible, fond grin. “But it’s not that either.”

Damn your stomach for suddenly deciding to stumble over at that insignificant gesture of his. He wasn’t even doing anything, but look at you. All of a sudden, guilt decided to gnaw at your conscience because while Na Jaemin was barely holding onto his consciousness, you were busy fawning over his charms despite the fatigue. You didn’t deserve to sit next to him.

“I was thinking.”

Your thoughts froze.

“About?”

“Things.”

“Like…?”

“Whether I should do this or not, whether I should just give up or not, whether I’m actually stupid or not...” Jaemin sighed, eyes closed in contemplation, or perhaps finally in drowsiness. You hoped that he’d just give in and sleep. “...those things.”

What could he have possibly been thinking about that the poor boy couldn’t even sleep? Whatever it was— cure that entirely. This was a crime. Maybe you shouldn’t confiscate his thermos of coffee later.

“Aish,” you raked your fingers through your hair, expelling an exasperated sigh. “Na Jaemin, as a professional overthinker, let me give you some professional advice—”

He perked up, eye now a little wider and looking at you in a swirl of interest and attentiveness.

“—don’t.”

And now confusion was thrown into the mix.

“You see, it’s an endless, torturous cycle with the only endgame being regret. You believe that you’re only gonna mull it over for a mere moment, weigh your pros and cons, and come up with a decision after a few minutes of thinking—” you breathed it sharply, shaking your head in faux dismay. “—but the ‘what if’s’ come around and before you know it, it’s already five in the fucking morning and you have to go to school in a few hours looking like a contaminated corpse.”

Jaemin blinked his sunken eyes at you. He wasn’t sure what to say, but somehow your speech full of vigor, confidence, and a ridiculous form of charisma drew out all the exhaustion from his veins. He buried his face back into his arms to avoid looking at you.

“Right?”

He pressed his lips together to prevent a smile from forming too wide, but you wouldn’t be able to see, anyway. “Right, you’re right,” but maybe you could hear it in the tone of his muffled voice.

You grinned, proudly nodding to yourself at his affirmation. “Which is why, before you end up following me into this hidden circle of hell— you should just stop. Don’t think. Fuck impulse control. There’s no time to regret when you’ve already done it. It’s not easy. Absolutely not. But it’s better to just get it over with and deal with the consequences after rather than living in an endless loop. So repeat after me— don’t think.”

Slowly, Jaemin peeked out from his huddled position, sitting up straight and looking right at you.

“Don’t think.”

“Just do.”

“Just do.”

“Perfect! You got it,” you beamed. “Don’t think, just do, okay? I believe in you, Jaemin.”

The advice that was haphazardly spilling from your lips was seemingly a bit crooked in nature— arguably so— but he seemed to be genuinely considering it. Jaemin was silent for a moment, blanking out at the rows in front of the both of you before he softly spoke up, eyebrows scrunched together, his head cocking to the side.

“Should I...?”

“Yeah, definitely! You don’t have anything to lose if you do it, right?” he spared another moment of consideration, and you kept going. “...whatever it is— but that doesn’t matter, just do it. If you do, you wouldn’t lose another night of sleep because of it.”

Self study period went on as is, but luckily you two weren’t the only ones not studying. You left him alone to rest and think about it more while you scribbled down answers for an assignment that was due later— highly contradictory to your suggestion of not thinking, but all was released when you heard Jaemin drop his pen to the table, followed after by a long, deep sigh.

“Alright.”

A bright smile overtook you as you busied yourself with the assignment.

“I like you.”

That smile disappeared with a loud and violent cough.

Oh, what the fuck.

“You told me to just do it, so there, I just did it. I like you,” he yawned as he melted into his books, peering over to look at the utter shock and disbelief in your frozen expression. Jaemin had to hold back a laugh. “You don’t have to follow your own advice— take as much time as you need— but I don’t want you losing sleep over me just as I did over you.”

With that, he decided that this was the best fucking time to finally disappear into sleep. You wanted to scream— the feeling of your throat twisting over itself with the indignant desire to squeeze out something, but there was sharp heat at every breath that prevented you from doing so.

You settled for two words only.

“Holy fuck.”

“Thank you for that quick and eloquent response,” Jaemin flipped over, looking at you with tired eyes and an equally tired smile, but despite all that he was still lively. “At least it wasn’t a blatant rejection.”

You thought that you wouldn’t have to make eye contact with him when his bangs were messily covering his eyes, but your regret came late when you caught the subtle quirk of the corners of his lips when you looked down at him in your daze. “W—wait, who said anything about rejecting you? How dare you drop that bomb onto me when I’m unprepared? I’m never giving you advice ever again.”

Self study period over. Nine in the morning. The bell rang and before your deskmate of three years, your crush of a little less than that could slip back into the slumber that he’d missed because of you, he managed to speak in a soft voice.

“Take your time.”

© hannie-dul-set, 2021.

[supercorp-hosie]

My thoughts for Legacies 315:

1) for the Star Wars, I have no knowledge about it, I saw some parallels of characters after the episode, it seems accurate, but I still have no idea why Hope’s characters in it didn’t even have a backstory or name lmao. I’m just overall unfazed;

2) the background of the trio and Alaric! There are like so much to address and I don’t know how to fully share my thoughts in-depth organisedly. I’ll try;

3) facts first: so it’s canon that Lizzie’s mental problem is diagnosed at earliest 11, but specific time unknown;

4) Jed activated his curse earliest at 11, since Lizzie had a crush on him for two weeks. I mean who would’ve thought that, common headcannons seem to incline on Josie x Jed tho😂. That just doesn’t randomly cross my mind🤣. Anyway, it doesn’t deny that Jed and Josie could be a thing too, since the twins often have the tendency to crush on the same person? I’m feeling like 60% of the time? I mean they obviously have the same preferences for LI, bad girl or bad boy type, anyone? Rafael, Sebastian, Jed, Jade, Penelope, Hope, Finch. They kind of have this thing with new people to their lives, for Josie, Rafael, Finch, Jade(it’s arguable but I think people tend to have a whole new lens when reconnecting with a disappeared person in your life for years when you’re very young. The perspectives are not the same, like you’re meeting a new person especially you don’t really know them before);

5) especially Lizzie, she definitely has a thing for new people that seems like bad boy/girl. I emphasised on the new people here bc I don’t think ethan is exactly that type, it’s just how Lizzie imagine him to be in that AU. Raf, Sebastian, Ethan....(maybe Jed was new when she crushed on him too, who knows), more specifically, it’s Strangers to Lovers trope for her romance department, so she can imagine as much as she wants and have the wildest dreams (bgm intended). Maybe Josie’s it’s not as much like this considering we don’t know how Posie happened, and with Hope her crush is canon when she was 12, but we don’t know how long exactly the crush was and when did it started, I just have to count that not being new person into her life. But I do get that why Josie said Lizzie always get the boy/girl Josie crushed on too, mostly they have the same type and preferences. Though they can randomly blurt out characters that we all don’t even know as more solid examples.;

6) Alaric and the fact of him being quite an absent father since the twins were 11 is solid canon. I understand the need to care for Hope because the world can’t afford a tribrid went uncared for and went around killing people, but still, the different perspectives of Hope and Lizzie to Alaric are very sad. To think that your father would betray you for another child, is very sad, even for Lizzie, the more dramatic one. So I understand that Caroline wasn’t there for the twins either, another absent parent. About the mother figure being diminished here, I’ll address it in another point. What’s left for Lizzie? Josie.

7) So basically Josie had to handle herself and Lizzie’s all by her own? That’s very hard! My BFF is bipolar, we are not living together, but before, my whole situation [for being in love with her + her situation] had really been hard for me too. I couldn’t imagine what’s it’s really like for Josie. (Another point that I need to address is the real mental problem that Lizzie has) Sure Alaric might not always be absent, but the intensity of Lizzie’s perspective begs to differ. Josie had to understand what is Bipolar at a very young age; had to be there for Lizzie when she had her outburst; had to be the one constantly check on Lizzie whether she had taken her meds; had to digest the emotion impacts from Lizzie after the outburst; had to understand how Lizzie functioned when she was down. None of that are easy, and there’s no one there to ask of what Josie really feels. How Josie pent out? What does she need? Josie might feel the need to be not wanting things and always be good so that she can get the love from Alaric (I remember in season 1, Josie felt the need to lose the game to get on Alaric good side) . So she just started to suppress her voice and her needs, because Lizzie need them the most. Over time or years of suppressing in front of her dearest family, she most likely felt unneeded by her parents, and forgettable to her parents(the girl that’s so quiet that her parents forget about her, the girl that Penelope won’t fight for anymore). She needed to feel needed, so she just let Lizzie take all of her, from whom she felt needed the most. So all of these from Josie’s perspectives, it started a vicious cycle for the twins. And leads to how the twins dynamics and how Josie are in present days. But her problem was never solved, they just accumulated day by day, year by year, leaving the good and dark side from Josie being so separated and unbalanced. The inner turmoil is always there. These lead to the extreme polarity of Josie’s good and bad side. When she’s doing bad, Josie would be especially aggressive than she needed to be because that’s an instinct to compensate the lack of action before. After long suppression, once being released, the instinct would be stronger than usual and harder to get it under control. Under the influence of dark magic, Dark Josie felt like another personality inside Josie here to take over the whole Josie and protect their interests that true Josie are neglecting. Kind of like dissociative identity disorder but not really it?? It’s just an understanding that I’ve been wanting to express, but so hard to organise it, because it’s so complex. By this understanding, I do still think that Josie should still be held accountable for her actions, even when dark magic was influencing her, like even people with mental health illness should be instituted and lost their freedom. I just think that it’s not fair to think she’s straight up very evil and do nothing good for people. It’s not like she’s being dark for no reason at all. This just mean that the dog that doesn’t bark can be more harmful than people think. These doesn’t mean that when Josie goes dark, she doesn’t deserve any leniency at all while holding her accountable. (And it’s not like she’s not beating herself up for most of the things she had done) Oh and sure, Josie should do the healthy way of voicing out these needs and all, to encourage a healthy dynamics between them like she’s the only healthy one between them, but still the problem is, they both lack the environment and guidance to make a healthy working relationship between themselves. How could they know what is healthy when the environment was already lack thereof.

8) Reading Lizzie’s diaries is bad, I understand, because you literally need to understand what leads to what, to gain control when your life is a chaos, but still. It’s even worse when you have that need to confide in another person to get things out wrongly. (I was having a phone call during the diary sharing review, but this is what I vaguely get) a) Josie is confiding the contents very specifically to another person that Hope can somehow reconstruct a sequel to it? b) Josie chose the wrong place to confide it since when she gets emotional, people can probably hear what was shared. At least from what I guess I got, it isn’t stated that she spread it to the whole school nor it was spread to the whole, even if that’s the case, it may not be on purpose, and she chose the wrong person to confide in. Like about the reveal in 112, she made up that Hope talking bad about Lizzie to the whole school, but it doesn’t mean that she spread it nor the whole school actually knows. Another case is, even if the school knows, it could easily be known by any passerby to Lizzie outburst and spread in the school. From what we saw from 101, the kitchen is a public space, the utensils and cutleries breaking should be very alarming, and there are students with intensified senses in the school. By that fact itself, it doesn’t really help Lizzie in being discreet of her illness. Still, sharing your sister’s diaries after reading it is really bad. But I do get that, sometimes you really need to talk to someone that know some of the situation but don’t really know the person in question to recalibrate yourself. But that person have to be like the dead end of all school gossip but not close to Lizzie, so it can do no harm (because he/she/they literally have no use to talk to someone with all these, usually there’s this no name policy, but with Lizzie being her sister, it’s useless hiding, maybe) when you disclose something related to her pertaining your own issues. Josie should apologise for sharing Lizzie diaries, even if Hope was not meant to know that, despite her werewolf hearing. For the reading part, did we get the apology tho? I guess we had? If negative, apologies needed.;

9) From Lizzie perspective, we can see her does Josie wrong but didn’t apologise either. Like Lizzie being princess but Josie being her android, personalised valet? It just showed that during that period of time(specifically from when until when tho, that’s a question), after what Josie had been enduring, taking care of her, Lizzie thought of herself being princess but didn’t actually think Josie as her equal? Like how the Android was programmed to bow to Lizzie? That’s just the habit of the twins dynamic showing, also partly Josie mistake, but Josie does deserves to be perceived as more than that, even when she’s derogatory to herself, Lizzie should uphold that for her. Their dynamics is just sad because it’s not entirely the twins fault, it’s also due to the absent parents in the household, they didn’t know better, they can only depend on each other. They’re orphaned like Hope in a way when their parents are still present. Even though they have privileges as Alaric’s daughters, but that doesn’t help with their real situation. This is just a perfect example of how your family shaped you, but we can still fight to shape ourselves after the power that our parents have over us gradually diminished, like how they’re starting to shape themselves more now as they’re coming to age.

10) What really warms me from the Android situation, despite Josie feeling like she’s being degraded the whole time, a subject to Lizzie, is that from how Josie is the combination of two Androids, also shows that how Lizzie actually looked up to Josie. Maybe it’s not addressed, but I see that. For Lizzie, Josie can really do so much things for her, take care of her so closely that Lizzie can count Josie as her personal valet. Derogatory, yes, but that place is also very important to prince and princess, bc they can literally do nothing to take care of their daily lives themselves well, like Merlin for Arthur (I mean the actions, not the presumably romantic relationship). Without Merlin, Arthur life is a mess! And the knowledge for Android part, it means that in Lizzie’s mind, Josie actually is like the person who knows everything😂 usually that figure should be our parents😭, but for Lizzie, it’s Josie, like she knows the answer to all. It’s sad and warming at the same time. Just more appreciation will do! And the fact that the special sword that they’re finding the whole time was in Josie’s thigh, just show how the trust that Lizzie had in Josie, not even their parents can triumph it, because Josie was the one being there the whole time. So they really deserves each other despite all the shitty things they have done to each other.

11) about Lizzie mental illness, I was recommended a post informing people about how Legacies fucked up Lizzie’s illness. After my own research, I do agree with the OP, I think that Lizzie situation is more like borderline personality disorder rather than bipolar, but that doesn’t make the whole situation easy. I can provide the table I made the next time regarding that.

12) Hope being Lizzie’s villain is really fitting, lmao, the intensity of Alaric care for Hope is so much that even Lizzie thought that Alaric would betray the twins for Hope.

13) I like Hope’s look. Josie being the Android that malfunction sometimes is funny too, especially when Josie is angry the whole time, cuz it’s infuriating too🤣🤣

14) Hope and Josie during Lethan kiss is me. How they’re totally in the same team when Lizzie being like that? Hosie are both wary of their characters and backstory? Hosie rights. Hhhhhh, oh Hope might be jealous of Ethan😂 Hizzie rights.

15) Another Hizzie rights, Hope wrote a sequel to Lizzie fanfic. And..... is Hope officially a nerd too???? I can’t! Hhhhh but maybe not, or else Hope would have known who she was.

16) Lizzie says, maybe deep down I still feel that you’re the chosen one (IN HER OWN STORY)

17) Younger Hope kind of break my heart more. It’s so sad😭😭 how she’s in denial of their parents death, and blame it on herself.....no baby. How Hope just have to tell herself all that again. And about Hope being scavenger, I think it’s fitting too. Her life, like the twins, is in pieces too. She had to pick them up herself, and build a world where her heart and hope can rest safely, and that just make her not mad at Josie burning down her room gayer. She was so closed up to herself that her room is like another world for her. So forgiving Josie just because of her crush, is like Josie and her crush on Hope meant the world to her???? Hosie rights! Anyway, Josie still messed up with that.

18) Having Younger Hope saying those things to Josie, oh my heart! Josie is a protector for Hope! Hosie rights! And Hope knowing the truth to stop Lord Marshall! Malivore, and Josie just stop talking because she doesn’t want to encourage Hope to die😍😍 Younger Hope actually wants to be best friends with the twins!!!!

19) Hope literally just stop growing taller after 12/13 like I did, is fact! And I’m comforted by that, sorry not sorry, lmao!

20) For real I don’t understand why Hope is suddenly full tribrid at the end. When she fights with Malivore.

21) The gun fight and sword fight is so weird! It’s like the gunners don’t know how to shoot at all, like they’re in slow motion, difficultly level easy to the audience, it’s so fake. I’m for Hope being badass, but it seems like the show doesn’t know how to portray a good fight scene. The sword fight is like in slow motion. And if Hope is to combine magic with sword fighting, she should combine them more. I don’t feel she’s badass at all, cuz it’s literally level easy😑

22) Star Wars AU have brought up so many childhood unresolved for the trio to understand each other more and be a better team. I love them ended up being all supportive and the panda promise🤣🤣 I love that the twins just agree not to let Hope die like that. But they’re like promise that a little later than Cleo and Landon? My team Sowanby! Applause to Handon, but please don’t be together again! Strike three, no is no!

23) for MG, Jed, Kaleb, they really need to make up with each other, I’m glad that they finally made it. And Kaleb being jealous of Methan? Lmao! And MG didn’t even say Ethan name? I love Maleb bonding, and MG never left his man behind!! Another things is, what’s wrong with those boys fighting scenes? We saw them throwing valuables to distract the monster again?! What if the keys are damaged? How are you going to go home? Oh and Jed being useful!

24) Jed last name is Tien, 田/填 in Chinese, I’ve shared enough in my other post. But still WE DONT ACTUALLY HAVE JED FIRST NAME! Give us that!

25) Still, I don’t understand how the wendigo is not dead yet. And how come it’s defeated by fire this time??

26) I don’t quite actually know what’s happening with Dorian. Is he okay? I bet he is, so Emma is coming back, right? Based off what the conversation is? We need Emma, really.

27) regarding Emma, is the lack of mother figure that I want to address when stating the twins dynamic. I don’t actually know a lot from TVD or TO, I just happen to know some general things and snippets from edits. But I know Hayley’s words before she dies, like “I’m not going to teach my daughter it’s okay to let people she loves die” and paint art, have at least one epic love? But for real, in legacies, all I get for Hayley is 103, Josie paying her respects, but none other than that. It’s all Klaus. I believe that Hayley is an important figure to Hope too. But she’s not mentioned enough, it’s kind of erasing her impact on Hope?? Like Caroline too, we get her phone calls, the twins trip to Europe to treat their problems off-screen, the letter for Lizzie in 302, the recommendation for Lizzie to go to the witch retreat, but not vetted by Alaric.....yes she get all these and Jo Laughlin being there in 106 (I cried so hard). But still the mother figure is still being minimised. Like in Lizzie’s fanfic there’s never a place for Caroline? How surreal? It doesn’t make sense. (I understand the actress is just not returning). But still these doesn’t change the fact that the show is lacking a mother figure as a whole. Emma should be that.

28) Clarke!!! Like it’s predictable! But what’s unpredictable is that he went straight to shower🤣🤣🤣 I love his snarkiness! Clarke meeting Hope half naked! Holarke! Hhhhhh

I’m too tired, sharing this episodes thoughts is exhausting me. There must be something I left out, please feel free to remind me!

[kitkatopinions]

Mercury Black.

Mercury for the RWBY asks post! One of my favorites in the Villains Group!

My top three ships for the character

I’ve shipped some pretty weird things for Mercury via fan fiction, so this list is a little bit weird, but uh... Mercury/Yang could have such an interesting dynamic and relationship if Mercury gets redeemed and works hard to be better. Another fun one is Whitley/Mercury. I’m sorry lol, but while writing a fic with a mutual wherein Mercury and Whitley were forced to interact as Watts was living in Schnee Manor and using Jacques, and the two of them ran away from their abusers together and had to rely on each other to survive... I started kinda shipping these two! It only works in AU fics right now (and was less weird when I thought Whitley was fifteen and Mercury was sixteen/seventeen.) Also, I don’t hate Mercury/Emerald. I tend to see them more as siblings, but dang, there’s some good artwork that has made me start seeing the chemistry there.

My three least favorite ships for the character

Mercury/Oscar is... Not my favorite. XD They’d have older brother, younger brother energy only and that’s it. Nora/Mercury is something I don’t think would work at all. And Adam/Mercury... Ew, I mean, it’s kinda ew. But I literally had to look up a list of ships and go ‘I don’t hate that’ for a lot of them to find three I definitely don’t like. He’s pretty easy to ship with a lot of people!

My biggest criticism for the character

There isn’t enough of it. The character Mercury does have is pretty good, but he’s used so sparingly that I almost forget he’s a character at times. He should’ve had a bigger role in the story, they should’ve put more emphasis on his relationships with more than just Emerald, they shouldn’t have dropped him out of season eight before he could do anything. We need to know more about him and see him vulnerable and have him be relevant to the plot again, or he’s in danger of becoming boring.

My favorite thing about the character

I love his versatility. I already talked about him being easy to ship with a lot of people, but it’s more than that. The knowledge that he just goes with things even if they’re crazy (”I killed my dad and then this lady showed up talking about destiny and took me to a castle with a magic demon woman so here I am”) makes him a character that can be put into a lot of situations. You want to get him redeemed? Throw him into a situation where he’s with the right people and away from the wrong ones and his character naturally starts adjusting to fit that. You want him to be sad and whumped? Isolate him with someone like Tyrian or Watts and let him suffer. Want him to be a hero from the get go? If Ironwood or Qrow had found him instead of Cinder, he can be! He can go to Beacon or be in Atlas as the friend of Penny! He’d adjust to that! Want him to be a wildcard grayer scale character who isn’t on the heroes side or Salem’s side? If Roman and Neo had found him instead of Cinder, he can be that! He can view Roman as a father figure. He could’ve run away from home when he was younger, found Ren and Nora, and become attached to them. He could’ve been friends with Team SSSN if he’d been sent to Haven before moving to Beacon. He could’ve been found by Raven and the tribe and become attached to them. He’s a character you can put into almost any scenario on any side and it’d work!

A headcanon I have about them

In my headcanons, Mercury was raised isolated and didn’t go to school, so Emerald saying he’s socially awkward wasn’t a lie at all. Mercury can’t hold a real conversation with anyone outside of talking about plans and illegal action... And Emerald, who he doesn’t want to admit is his best friend. Also when he went to Beacon, he started getting interested in all kinds of hobbies and things he’d never heard about before. He liked going to the library because there were always kids reading and playing games that looked interesting. He loved checking out the booths at the Vytal Festival and trying foods and wondering what the hell cotton candy even was. Emerald was constantly rolling her eyes about it, but she secretly found it endearing and it made her feel a little less cynical herself.

What I would change about them if I was making a re-write

He needs to be involved. I don’t know why he constantly got shafted, but he should’ve had a proper second fight with Yang, he could’ve gotten dropped into Atlas with Watts instead of Tyrian (or along with Tyrian.) And I know this is a bit of an unpopular opinion, but I think Mercury should’ve been the one to start his redemption in season eight and Emerald should’ve been given time to work through her Cinder issues some and get redeemed maybe in season nine. Like I said, Mercury is versatile, he never had someone who he was committed to and believed in amongst Salem’s followers outside of Emerald, he didn’t care about the cause, and he’s deeply connected to the trauma of being abused by his father. Like many Merc fans, I think he should’ve gotten a wake up call when he saw Oscar getting abused, and tried to convince Emerald to leave with him, and I think Emerald should have said she had to stay and try to talk to Cinder about what she’d heard Oscar tell Hazel. Mercury is reluctant, but agrees, and he’s the one who starts escaping with Oscar. Yang’s frustration and hesitance in trusting him would be more personal, but at the same time, it wouldn’t be Penny’s murderer that everyone (and Penny!) is working with so easily, then, either.

What I I think of their character allusion and what (if anything) I would change about it

Mercury (mythology) was the god of messengers, thieves, commerce, travelers, and trade. His predecessor in Greek mythology, Hermes, was a messenger of the gods and called ‘a divine trickster.’ If that sounds weird, it’s because it is. If that sounds like it fits more with Emerald, that’s because it does. Emerald, the thief, who steals from sales people and takes the reins in every deception and most conversations with other people, who carried out Cinder’s orders from Salem and was arguably one of the biggest contributors to the Fall of Beacon (messenger of gods,) who was the one to tell Salem why they’d failed in Haven, and then later was the one delivering Oscar back to the group and the first face Ironwood sees when he realizes he’s been tricked by Ruby’s group. Emerald could be argued as the messenger role here. I truly believe that they made Mercury based off of the god of Roman/Greek mythology only because he has special shoes. Mercury does connect to Hermes/Mercury as a guide to the dead, leading them to the Underworld. As an assassin, this is treated literally in the RWBY world, but he isn’t really utilized in that way! Other than murdering his abusive father, Mercury’s direct kill count is at one the same as Emerald (who is Penny’s murderer, period.) The only other connection is a very lose one - Hermes’ role as a boundary crosser reflects Mercury’s loose morals and his easy slide into villainy, but also his potential to cross over to another side at the drop of a hat as I already established. As I already said, I’d have Mercury either replace Tyrian when Watts goes to Atlas, or I’d have him join the two, and act as an assassin there, increasing his role of guiding the dead to the Underworld. And having him be the one to deliver Ozpin/Oscar makes him more of a messenger of the gods, but I would also give him some important information about Salem to deliver to Ozpin as well. And I’d also have Salem ask him and Emerald to tell her what had happened at Haven and have him play more of a role when Cinder went to talk to Raven in the mid seasons. I’d have Mercury used to deliver information from Cinder to Roman in the early seasons, and just over all increase his connections to the various big names around him and give him a lot of information. I might also have Watts add some sort of Iron Man/Shadow the Hedgehog sort of flight capabilities to his boots in the seventh and eighth season sort of like Penny’s flight abilities just to get the whole ‘winged shoes’ thing. But I’d make sure that his flight is sporadic and rough-around-the-edges, worse than Penny’s, and something he can’t always rely on or use for long. Idk, I just think that’d fit with his personality really well.

[haechanhues]

My Analysis Of Enhypen (From I-Land mostly) and I was going to do it straight out of watching it, but it was like 2am and the next day I was sick so today it is :) (Edit : It took a couple of days to even write it) and I also watched some Enhypen videos so.... yup but I’ll try my best to keep it to my observations with I-Land and like the behind videos 

Sunoo

- My expectation of him : I thought he’d be the loud one like San/Wooyoung  is in ATEEZ from the get go but he was so shy at first. Watching him open up and spread who he is as a person was one of my favourite parts of the show. He also became more confident in himself and his abilities. You may think differently but if you take the first episode and last episode as examples, you’ll be able to see his level of comfort in showing his qualities as a person.

- In saying that, his expressions, especially in brighter concepts astound me. Like in those concepts, he just has the spotlight. For real, for real. He can also do intense concepts too. Amazing. He also has a voice that surprises me, like you’d expect his voice to be slightly higher but it’s among the lower tones (I don’t know the tonal scale)

- He doesn’t really take too harshly to teasing or when the other people poke fun at him. He takes it in good stride (Though nobody should go overboard) He just accepts it as it is with a smile or maybe a little sigh or even just teasing back. He knows it’s all with a good heart. I find that really admirable - it’s not an easy trait to have. Also the fact he can joke with the others as well.

- I love the way he monitors others, especially his members, and like he can make a person feel good. Like the way he without any hesitancy will help style another person’s hair if they asked or whatever. He just wants to do well, together. He wants to share his happiness with other people and I think that’s such a reason to love him. He also is the first to emphasise the beauty in every person. He brings attention to it in such a beautiful, caring way. He also can see the bigger picture so easily and so thoughtfully. Always looking for others.

- In saying all this, I have a theory that he was chosen as the producer’s pick because he has this ability to him. Like a moodmaker is someone that keeps the team’s spirits up and provide the stress relief and I feel he’s more than that? He has absolute faith in other people and can bring out hidden components of a person they didn’t really know they had e.g Sunghoon during Chamber 5/ The Heeseung Aegyo fiasco. Like he has this flamboyancy and shamelessness to him that you can help but join in or that it’s alright to join in.

Sunghoon

- My expectation of him : I thought he’d be a refined person, with a real likeness to someone with a status of a prince. Regality to a tee. But he’s got such a dorky tender heart. He’s so incredibly handsome. I know this is a really shallow and obvious observation. Anyone with two working eyes can see the boy is incredibly gorgeous. But he just leaves you in awe. He’s arguably the prettiest boy I’ve ever seen. I also love how shy and bashful he can get. 

- The way he cherishes the people around him. I feel from the very first episode, he’s not necessarily a social person, but you can tell he wants to get along with everyone.  He’s so comfortable to be around and you want to try anything in your power to make him smile and laugh and be your friend or whatever. During I-Land, you can see it from the way he talks about his sister and his friendship with Jake and the other I-Landers. 

- He’s a massive dork. Like he doesn’t know how cute he is. And because he’s got that Prince look to him and that title attached to him, when you see him being dorky and screeching you can’t help but like that paradox. I think Episode 10 was his episode and that one VR segment too. Like he’s so funny and just he’s a soft spot for me I think. The ‘Pork Slice’ part I want ingrained into what made my life a life worth living. 

- As a leader, it was so interesting to see him work. He helped K a lot with his leadership when Sunghoon left the team. He takes a couple of steps backwards for other people, and at times it scared me, but it ended up so right for him in the end anyway and I’m thankful. It helped people see what kind of a person he is and I’m glad he had other people looking after him. He also is careful and accepts suggestions and sincerely works with each of them. He makes observations on his own too. 

- This can be interrelated but I think a large massive part of why he’s in Enhypen is how hard he works. He works diligently and wholeheartedly. He’s a quiet powerhouse in that respect. He does his work without the need for attention but solely to improve his skills as a performer and for his future. He doesn’t care if his hands get dirty. As long as one person, even if it’s himself has faith in him, he’ll do it. 

Heeseung 

- My expectation of him : I thought he’d be known as The Ace and hardworking and etc. It wasn’t a wrong assumption but I think we can go into more detail. He’s a really talented person and I mean that with every fibre of my being. From the very first episode, he’s labelled as the ‘Ace’ and it continues throughout the programme so when he does debut, it isn’t too much of a surprise, if at all. 

- Too be honest, I’m not really sure if this counts but I’m going to add it anyway. His relationship with his brother (so hilarious) is such a heartwarming moment. In I-Land he was one of the older ones (I think) and someone with a leadership role and so a lot of people relied on him. But it was great to see he had a good support system who he loves and adores with all his heart. The way his older brother is a source of energy for him really made my heart go into overdrive. So fucking cute. 

- As a leader, I feel a bit like stupid for mentioning it cause it’s so obvious, but he’s got leadership skills. (Duh) But like as a leader, he works on the synergy of the team. He’s patient, stern and is usually almost on the right path. He’s someone very reliable and his objective is clear. He wants to fit the concept as well as he can and makes sure that everyone is on the same page without anyone falling behind. 

- He also has the ability to let loose and have fun. He makes jokes and tries things out because it looks fun. He’s under a shit ton of pressure, especially on I-Land as the ‘Ace’ and I’m grateful he’s able to enjoy his time with the other contestants. He actually plays around quite a bit and his smile is so wide and bright, it’s so nice to see. 

- Even though he’s not the leader in Enhypen now, he has a role of being a caretaker. He helps out when he’s needed (e.g Helped out Taki for the BTS performance) He’s a really thoughtful and understanding person. He’s always the first one to state problems and then come up with solutions. When someone feels bad for getting criticisms, he takes it as his own as well. He doesn’t want to succeed solely. 

Jake

- My expectation of him : No joke it’s just Aussie, at first. He was the first Enhypen member/I-Land contestant who I ever learnt about. I also think he’s a little like Eric from The Boyz. Slightly. Just, not as crazy. Like it’s weird just seeing a not-loud Eric and/or a crazy Jake. Also, he’s really attractive. I don’t know exactly why he’s so attractive but there’s something about him you just can’t describe in words. 

- His debut astounds me the most. Not because I didn’t think he could do it. But because he had such a short training period and even as a trainee he had to exceed hundreds of others (500 others/499 others?) to be let into the company. He’s just got this natural luck to him as well. Imagine that. He’s also quite an adaptable and fast learner. He always seems to improve with every little thing he learns and it always has such an impact. 

- He’s got a charming way of performing. He may not be as rich in skill training as the other contestants or members and often gets criticism for it. But every time he had a performance where you forget about it. He’s got this irresistible charm on stage. You want to learn more about him, watch him more and he plays his role really well. 

- His eyes are so sparkly and they just lure you in. He’s currently one of the only boys I’ll accept lip bites from (I usually find them cringe). But he makes it look natural. He gets so excited with new possibilities - new opportunities of fun, to get to know other people and know the people he knows more. He always engages with every situation with eagerness and acceptance. 

- As I mentioned before, he’s the icon of growth. Yes, everyone knows it. But you don’t look at him and see his inexperience nor the lack of skills in comparison. You want him to debut immediately and grow with him. Out of all of them, I feel like you look at him and apply yourself in his shoes. You want him to succeed and to learn and to grow and you want to hold his hand during the whole process. You want to watch and do the same with yourself. 

Niki

- My expectation of him : I thought he was going to be a mood maker of the team cause I saw a lot of compilations of him being groovy and weird. It’s a weird thing to say but he reminded me of seaweed in the game of Seaweed (I don’t know how to explain this game to anyone, it’s kind of like tag I guess except when you get tagged you have to act like seaweed in the ocean) or like those inflatable balloon people at car autos or something. Weird analogy but- He’s actually quite chic. 

- From the very first episode and all to the very end, he’s a very skillfull dancer. He picks up the dances quickly and he’s such a small person but he has this way of performing large gestures that astound you. He was a really meticulous teacher too. A stickler for details. He’s very satisfying to watch dance. When he’s in the zone of dancing, it’s really beautiful and you just want him to perform more and he could do the same dance again and again and it’d still have the same impact it did the first time. 

- In I-Land, in the earlier episodes he struggled with the team aspect. He was amazing individually and could lead the team well during dancing. But wanted to show the best version of himself and forget about the rest of the team. BUT, if you look at him now, he knows the importance of his teammates and strives for the best. He also allowed himself to open up emotionally and cried more and adored more. (I noticed this moment especially with Hanbin, Sunoo, Taki and those who were eliminated) 

- During the show, it didn’t really show Niki enough being playful. I think we got to see cheery Niki when he received the hanbok from Jungkook. But you can see it better in the behind I-Land videos with the sheep costume that Jungwon wears and during Enhypen’s debut. But my favourite moment is when Jungwon wants to sneeze and he looks at him and he’s like ‘Jungwon hyung ANDWAEEE’ and his voice and everything is going to be stamped into my head. 

- He’s practically made to be an idol. His dancing is one thing but when he takes pictures and has to fit concepts that his hyungs find awkward, he just does it with such a chic way of doing things. He knows where to angle his head and he’s gotten so good at expressions. Off stage, he’s chic yet playful and extremely loving with his hyungs. 

Jay

My expectation of him : First of all, the whole reason I’m into Enhypen is because of him. He’s the reason I watched the show. He’s almost always my avatar on Rhythm Hive. I expected him to be confident and good at everything. He’s also really good looking. Like, the type of guy I’d have a crush on if he lived in my country type of crush. 

- He’s a great speaker. His ability to give feedback and constructive criticism is an amazing feat. He points out problems carefully and constructs a solution. He does so in a way that he creates a feeling of trust and faith. I’m terrible with criticism, like I can accept it but I don’t know how to reply to it. But with Jay, I actually want him to provide feedback. 

- He’s a really intense performer. He’s just constantly burning and his gaze is like a promise. He uses emotion to perform harder and to outdo himself and to prove to others that they’d regret making their decision. He is very emotional and it shows when he performs. A really determined person to do well in everything he does. He’s got this wild and untamed look in his eye but his body is very controlled and confident. It’s seriously a good look on him. It’s really attractive. 

- His leadership qualities are amazing. He knows how to utilise everyone’s talents to make the team standout more. He has an in depth understanding of everyones personalities and talents enough to put them in the right position. (That sounds like a report card). He’s also not as hardheaded as I had expected him to be, he’s flexible and is able to listen to everyones opinions and communicate on an equal level. He helps out without taking complete control over the situation. 

- He’s the moodmaker! Yes, he’s responsible for about 95% of the memes and quotes in I-Land. I don’t think I have to quote them. In saying that he’s pretty much the victim of Enhypen and I-Land pretty much. 

- I think the way he is so emotionally driven is what makes him stand out. He is the epitome of a fiery personality. He’s so unapologetically him and also open about what he’s feeling and what he’s aiming for, which is considerably quite new considering how boys are kind of taught to suppress their emotions. He also doesn’t let his emotions dictate how he treats a person. He treats them fairly, even when he’s disappointed or angry at someone. Watching him succeed and sometimes fail and promise to come back, genuinely felt like he was destined for it and wasn’t waiting for Lady Luck to shine on him. He goes and does shit done himself. He invokes so many emotions and empathies in other people. 

Jungwon 

- My expectation of him : When I was watching KCON:TACT 3 I was really attracted to his voice and they way he talked and danced. Though I didn’t expect to end up biasing him to the point of no return. Never in my life have I loved a boy quite like this. I don’t know it feels different. It felt different with both Haechan, Kyungsoo and Sunwoo but this is all so different this feeling right here. Warning : This is going to be extremely biased. Like no joke. I’m sorry, this boy is just going to have longer lines but I’ll still keep to the same bullet points. 

- He’s so lovely. So so lovely. He has this ability to smile and have fun and tease and make little comments. His eyes are like hypnosis. You’re able to look at him, see the uplifting of his smile and every one of his facial features are uplifted so it makes his expressions brighter, more welcoming and more trusting.  He’s got broad shoulders and like someone you want to cuddle and watch with stars in your eyes. Like that chick is so right, ‘you’re someone I can’t live without now.’ The way he reacts to such comments, bashful smile and the whole hand over his mouth. He’s so pretty. I don’t want him to be sad or whatever. 

- He’s so accepting of other forms of life and doesn’t care for status, wealth, age or whatever. For him, if they’re part of the team, they’re part of the team and he’ll look after them as a team member. He puts his importance on things that actually matter and looks to create an atmosphere where he can be relied on and that others feel comforted. He has fun and talks with others with softness and makes others feel engaged. He’s so fucking attentive. Like he understands other people well and has high observation skills. Like if one is upset, he’ll just quietly go to comfort them and give attention in a soothing matter. He’s also got a soothing voice. I love hearing him talk. 

- The hidden ACE. He made an impact during the competition at significant times. I think the reason why many contestants and him, himself went down the ranks was because they were previously in the higher ranks and were believed to be safe. But as a vocalist, he has such a clear and stable voice. You can recognise his voice immediately, even when I wasn’t a Enhypen stan, I could recognise his voice even without knowing who he was. But as a dancer, he’s so amazing at it. Like, his popping and his ability to do intense choreographies. As a performer he understands nuances, meanings and the concepts of a song and understands his role in the performance. Him getting praises was my favourite thing ever. I think he was a favourite among the producers. Though when he did have stumbles, I was so worried for him. Like no, I refuse. 

- He’s got an optimistic way of thinking, without being overcompensating. Basically when things don’t necessarily go the way it was set out to or when others suggest another way of doing things, he takes his time to think about it and decides. He basically uses it as a tool to grow and adapt in order to produce the best results. Now that I’m thinking about it, rather than being optimistic, I would say he’s an opportunist(?) in a sense. He’ll accept the suggestions and has this greed to live up to and exceed the expectations. This is easily seen when Jungwon isn’t doing too well doing part 5 and ends up swapping with Heeseung. And he also has this greed. It’s a greed I’ve never seen before. The goals are the same but in a way that’s different?; He doesn’t  want his grandmother to be devastated if he is eliminated, he wants to be an artist that does music he loves, ‘it’ll be even more impressive if we can go beyond their expectation’. He uses the current happenings as a way to exceed them and to go beyond capacity. In short he’s a realist without being stuck, he’s an idealist without being too high up in the clouds, he’s optimistic but not unrealistic. It’s inspiring, he’s inspiring. They all are but Jungwon has my heart at the moment. 

[dreamsmp-megaritz]

my problems with the tone of post-season-1 Dream SMP

Here are some things I often see in Dream SMP post-season-1, which I do not see so much in season 1. Take all of this with a grain of salt, in light of how (1) I am not nearly as familiar with the seasons 2&3 material as I am with season 1 material (so there may be some or many parts of seasons 2&3 which do not have these problems, and which I am failing to give due credit to), and (2) I often cannot pin down why I feel differently about season 1 than about seasons 2&3, so I am not certain how much of my claims stem from objective differences between them vs. subjective biases on my part.

I hope this post can present some topics of further discussion, investigation, friendly debate, and/or analysis.

--

Problem #1. Excessive emphasis on making a clear distinction between “canon” and “non-canon.”

It seems that now players often talking about “canonically” doing X and “not canonically” doing Y. I don’t like this much. Back in season 1, people almost never used the word “canonically.” The line was blurrier, and I liked that better. This is a block-game role-play, and given this format, there are many features of the story which really cannot be pinned down with much precision.

As one example (among many), L’Manberg was a “nation” but it also seems to have consisted of only a few people. There’s arguably no way to make much sense of this within any tightly defined “canon,” and I think it’s good that the story has not tried much to do so. The canon should remain loose in some ways.

The blurriness of the canon/non-canon distinction is also good for the intertextual elements discussed in @lucemferto’s video about Philza (which is fantastic, and I highly recommend watching it). This sort of intertextuality is one of my favorite things about Dream SMP-- and I have my own theories as well, which I will write about at a later time-- but I suspect some of these cool elements may require keeping the canon/non-canon distinction at least somewhat blurry.

Of course, I totally grant there is a need for a "role-playing / not role-playing” distinction, or something along these lines. Many of the characters dislike each other in the story, but are friends in real life. Occasionally some of the younger fans get confused about this, and will become angry at content-creators under the false impression that the content-creators are mistreating each other. I fully recognize that some kind of explicit distinction is needed in order to avert these confusions, and to keep everyone on the same page of realizing it’s all in good fun. But the necessary distinction should be sensitive to the loosey-goosey nature of the storytelling format.

Back in season 1, I think content-creators would often correct young viewers’ confusion by saying “It’s a bit” i.e. a skit or game (rather than using words like “canon”). I like this “bit” terminology, because it seems appropriately loose-- instead of using the word “canonically” which seems inappropriately strict.

(Admittedly the term “bit” may be more appropriate to the very early period where there was little to no scripting. I’ll briefly return to the “scripting vs. improvising” distinction a few times. It is related to these other distinctions, but not identical to them.)

--

Problem #2. Some dialogue scenes are too long.

Let’s take a bunch of the one-on-one scenes between Dream in prison talking to other characters such as TommyInnit, like in this VOD and following ones. These scenes involve a lot of interesting story details, but they go on for a frankly very long time. To me they feel incredibly drawn out. They’d be better at half the length. They seem to have a lot of needless repetition, among other issues.

I’m not certain of the cause of the problem, but it seems to be stemming partially from the particular kind of combination of scripting and improvising which they involve. It isn’t always a great combination. It’s like the players have a checklist of story points to cover, but they aren’t sure how to pull it off in a way that sounds natural without taking too long.

I’m not sure how to solve it. Scripting the dialogue more thoroughly might help make them more concise-- but at the cost of sounding less natural, and losing the charm which Dream SMP’s improvisation often holds.

But further analysis would be needed to say exactly how or why the problem is happening. And not everyone might agree me that it’s happening at all. So I’ll be curious to hear other people’s assessments of the problem (if there is one) and what’s causing it.

In any case, I’ll contrast it to season 1. I believe season 1 did not have many scenes that dragged out for a long time. Season 1 has serious moments as well, and it has dramatic weight. But it does not often have the feeling of dragged out scenes. Again I think further analysis is needed to figure out whether I’m right about this or not-- and if I’m right, further analysis will be needed to figure out why the seasons feel so different, because I can’t really say for sure or in detail why it feels this way. So again I’m curious what other people will think about this.

--

Problem #3. Too serious.

This problem seems to be part of the cause of the first two problems. Excessive seriousness may contribute to dragged-out scenes which aren’t fun to watch, and it may contribute to taking the “canon vs. non-canon” distinction too seriously, with an excess tendency to put “serious” stuff on the “canon” side of the divide and put “non-serious” stuff on the “non-canon” side of the divide.

In any case, the storyline after season 1, or at least some parts of it (probably not other parts), seem to have a puffed up air of “seriousness” which really feels off to me.

This does not mean it never succeeds at being serious in the right way. For instance I think serious parts of the Quackity VOD “Quackity Visits Dream in Prison” actually work very well-- even the one-on-one scene between Quackity and Dream, which is one of the best prison scenes. Crucially, this specific prison scene does not seem to have the problems that I’ve complained about for other prison scenes, or at least not nearly as severely. But a lot of seasons 2 and 3, from what I’ve seen of them, appear to have the problem of feeling like they’re “trying too hard” to be taken seriously, and it doesn’t work for me.

Another strength of that Quackity VOD is that the scene with Schlatt at the afterlife gym had a combination of seriousness and levity which I thought was very strong. Whatever one may think of Schlatt’s style of comedy outside DSMP (i’m aware of the myriad controversies), I think Schlatt is incredibly skillful at pulling off an effective combination of seriousness and levity, and I think his chemistry tends to enhance other players’ ability to pull it off too.

And to be clear, season 1 has serious moments as well. But the mixture of seriousness and levity in season 1 seems stronger to me. When Schlatt wins the election, this is a dramatic moment, but it also seems to have a degree of campiness which makes it work well. When Wilbur goes through various scenes of planning to blow up Manberg, this is dramatic and a serious character arc in some ways, but it does not seem to me that it has the air of over-seriousness which parts of seasons 2 and onward seem to have.

However, I can’t really articulate why this is. Some of it may be a nostalgic bias toward the earlier material, and/or the fact that the earlier material had more novelty. And I was in a very particular kind of emotional place when I watched a lot of season 1, due to the pandemic and various other factors, which has strongly impacted how I feel about it today.

However, I think this does not account for everything. I maintain that, most likely, there are also objective differences between the seasons in their style or tone, even though I cannot really pin down what they are in detail or with much assurance.

I also want to add another disclaimer that I’m not sure how consistent this is. For instance, there are plots like the Butcher Army where I simply haven’t watched enough to get a sense of how serious or non-serious it comes across as.

--

Possible diagnoses?

There may be a bunch of possibilities for what causes these issues, but for now I only have the faintest speculations.

One possibility is that seasons 2&3 are more scripted, whereas season 1 was more improvised. This would explain some of the issues, if true. However, I am not sure whether it is actually true that seasons 2&3 are more scripted than season 1.

I can’t find citations offhand right now, but I recall Schlatt once said (at least a lot of) season 1 was heavily scripted, and I think that Wilbur once said season 2 is not as scripted as many people think it is. Now, I grant Schlatt and Wilbur may be using different standards of what counts as “heavily scripted,” and it’s not clear to me whether they agree or not. So there may be some ambiguity. But in any case, the combination of these two statements leads me to think season 2 is probably not significantly more scripted than season 1. And if that’s true, then the degree of scripting is not the key to understanding the problems.

Another possibility is that the difference stems from whether Wilbur or someone else is the main writer. This is most likely a big part of it. However, I am not sure of the details, as I have not researched it enough. I also do not know whether Wilbur has returned to being the lead writer yet (as of late March 2021), or if that is still upcoming.

[nattsunoyume]

Something that always bothered me about All For The Game is the lack of verisimilitude in its portrayal of languages and bi/multilinguals. So, because I’m a firm believer that critiques are useful (especially to other writers who might not be familiar with this reality) and because I want to give you a more realistic portrayal of our favorite characters, I’ll be analyzing where Nora Sakavic went wrong and what would be more truthful to each of our beloved characters (I’ll be focusing mainly on Kevin and Neil, but also the Minyard twins – no Nicky because his fluency is pretty believable).

SO, stick around if you’re a) interested in multilingualism b) are a writer who could benefit from reading this/use the critiques I’ll make as a reference c) are interested in deeper dynamics of your favorite characters

First of all, I want to make sure you all know that I’m not saying that this lack of depth in Nora’s work is in any way detrimental to the story. But, with a narrative that utilizes foreign languages use as a plot point, I have to say that Sakavic’s portrayal just fell flat. Being bi/multilingual is very nuanced and has very interesting and complicated dynamics that can shape and give character to a narration/story. Knowing how to speak multiple languages is not just a feat that you can use like a superpower every now and then and then forget about it (*cof cof* that’s exactly what Neil does *cof cof*). Also, disclaimer: I don’t know whether Sakavic speaks any language other than English, but from her portrayal of foreign language speakers I’ll assume that she does not. Disclaimer number two: I’m writing this as a multilingual (I speak four languages), a linguist (I study linguistic mediation) and writer myself, so I feel like I’m qualified enough. I’d love to have other bi/multilinguals add their thoughts though!

To begin our analysis, let’s go over the three things that Nora got /very/ wrong:

Time: the length of time that it takes any character to become proficient in a language is incredibly off. e.g. from what we see with the Minyards I’d say that they are portrayed to have a B2/C1 level* in German, this just from studying the language as an off-course for three-ish years. As much as I’d love that to be true, you can’t become that fluent in that small of a time frame (unless you dedicate each of your living, breathing moments to said language; and we can all agree that the twins did not, in fact, do that). Neil is also another concerning example: he is portrayed to have – once again – B2/C1 levels (I’m deducing this from the way he is said to be speaking – never struggles to find words, speaks fluently without having to stop, is very witty and confident in the languages he uses). We’ll go over some quotes in the following part, for now just know that, given the context in which he learnt these languages, his fluency is completely unrealistic.

Vocabulary: the characters are shown to use vocabulary that is not, in fact, that easy to use when speaking a foreign language. You don’t need to speak multiple language to know that, when learning, you focus on more common words and phrases (the specific language comes much later-on: I’d say C1-C2). But the foxes use very specific language (e.g. the Minyards all understand the word “dashboard lighter”, “gopher” – those are not words that you learn in high-school-level German. They’re words that you learn with extensive use of the language/extensive reading). There are better ways to include a character’s not-that-high-proficiency rather than just make them all-knowing: how do you portray a certain lack in vocabulary without hindering the narrative? Gesturing (Character A doesn’t remember word X so they trail off and mimic it) or roundabout ways to say a certain word (i.e. You don’t remember the word vase so you use “the thing to hold flowers”) are great alternatives to get a point across!!

Sentence Structure: this is probably the thing that bothered me the most, because it shows laziness in writing. When speaking in a different language, the sentence structure remains unvaried!!! If Sakavic didn’t mention that a certain sentence/exchange happened in X language, you wouldn’t be able to tell at all. But, when speaking in a foreign language you’ll use easier syntax – it’s a small change but it truly goes a long way. You also won’t use complicated tenses or long, overly difficult sentences. That’s because, when speaking in a foreign language, your major aim is to get a message across. Your job as a writer is to show this change. Writing what you want your characters to say and then slapping a “X said in X language” isn’t enough, it’s lazy. 

* I’m using CEFRL levels all throughout this analysis, it’s the abbreviation of Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Its levels go from A1 to C2. Where A1 is very early beginner, A2 is elementary stage. B1 is intermediate, B2 is upper intermediate (where you basically can have normal, every-day life conversations without any hindrance – you can also read books with only some inconvenience). Finally, C1 is almost fluent, in this level you can approach Specific Vocabulary and Specific Speech (for example, you could – if you were interested in it – talk about deeper topics, ie. Philosophy, Science etc. with little to no difficulty) and C2 is deep proficiency, where you’re basically fluent. If you need to read more about it click here

I’ll now analyze Neil and Kevin’s respective use of the language. Neil is supposed to be a self-taught learner, whereas Kevin grew up with native speakers so their approaches and fluency are going to be very different and diverse.

Let’s talk about Neil, first. 

Here’s the thing: his fluency is more believable than that of the twins, and that’s because he actually lived in the places where those languages are spoken (that accelerates learning rates because you’re fully immersed in the language). But the thing is 1) He lived there for a too short period of time: 18 months in French speaking locations does not grant you the fluency that he demonstrates in French. 2) Yes, he lived there, but he was HIDING: I’ll assume he didn’t attend school or even have lengthy conversations with native speakers, so, apart from essential conversations, he probably didn’t interact that much with native speakers 3) He is said to be reading as much as he can, but I can assure you that reading and speaking are two completely different ordeals. He should not be so fluent in speaking. From what we know of Neil (very smart, quick witted and has a deeper reasoning for being fluent in those languages) I’d say that it would be much more believable to have him be a B2 (AT BEST) in German and a B1 (again, AT BEST) in French. So, let’s see how a B2 conversation in German would work shall we?

As you can see, it’s still perfectly legible, except it uses simpler words (seriously? Skimming? Gopher?) and less-fancy sentences. Of course, how Sakavic wrote it sounds cooler , but if we want to showcase a stark difference this is the way to go. The key to writing a foreign language speaker (that’s not a C1-C2) when you’re not a foreign language speaker is to ask yourself: would I have been able to come up with a word like this in middle school? If the answer is no, then don’t use it. Another tip is to ask yourself, is this word that I’m using the most common synonym? Or is there a easier, more approachable word? Go for the basic vocab first.

Let’s now talk about Kevin. Ironically enough, he is the character that – alongside Nicky – is the most believable in having the highest fluency and yet, he’s the one that showcases his fluency the least out of all the foxes *sigh*. Also, ironically enough, he’s the character that should showcase this fluency the most and here’s why: this guy grew up in a highly multilingual context!!! He’s a native English speaker who grew up speaking Japanese and, later on, French! From what we know of Kevin’s upbringing I’d venture to say that he speaks fluent Japanese (C1-C2 levels) because he was exposed to it from a very early age (and kids learn languages at an easier and faster rate than teenagers and adults alike). Similarly to Japanese, we can assume that he came in contact with Jean at 10-13 years old, still in the perfect prime for learning languages with ease. Because he spent so much of his life in a multilingual environment, I’d imagine he employed a heavy use of code mixing/code switching. What is code-mixing/code-switching? I’m Glad you asked!! It’s the mixing of words, phrases, clauses or even complete sentences of two (or more) languages. Code-mixing happens within the same sentence (this is INCREDIBLY common between multilinguals; I cannot stress this enough. If I’m with someone that speaks my same languages there won’t be a sentence that I utter that will be only in one language and that’s because code-switching is faster: instead of having to scramble for words in a certain language I can just use the first one that comes to mind.), whereas code-switching happens in a conversation (so one sentence will be in a language and the following in another one). So, Kevin’s problem in his realistic portrayal is the opposite of Neil: where Neil sounds too much of a multilingual when he shouldn’t (he speaks multiple languages, which is arguably different from being multilingual), Kevin sounds too little like one. You can’t look me in the eyes and tell me that someone that spent his entire life surrounded by two different languages doesn’t struggle with self-expression when that environment is taken away. Think about it: the closest people to him were Riko (Japanese-speaker) and Jean (French-speaker, who is said to speak with a thick French-accent: that means that when he came to the Nest he probably wasn’t fluent in English), Kevin must have spent the better part of his life submerged in those languages and then he leaves. And you mean to tell me he doesn’t struggle with using ONLY English to express himself? Bullshit. Arguably Kevin is the character that, throughout the series, struggles with his identity the most, his multilingualism is part of that!! Address it you cowards!!!!! Multilinguals showcase slightly different personalities with each change of language! What’s he like in French! What’s he like in Japanese!  Plus never, in the series does he forget a word. It’s so unrealistic I could cry.

Lastly, I’d like to tackle a big issue in Sakavic’s lack of awareness of LSPs. LSP (language for specific purposes) indicates a subset of a specific language. LSPs vary from the common everyday use of a language, it concerns those branches of language that aren’t the vocabulary or sentence structure you would need on a day-to-day basis (e.g. the language used in the medical field, language used in business settings etc.). To make a long story short: every foreign language learner knows/will eventually know all common vocabulary, but not every learner will know certain LSPs. As an author writing about bi/multilinguals it’s important to make the distinction between Common Language and LSP. This is an issue in Nora’s work because every character uses words that are related to certain fields with an ease that’s unrealistic – once again, I know I’m being nit-picky but these things are important. Why is Andrew able to understand gang-related language in a language that he learned from high school and from his cousin who is very much not a gang member? Whilst Neil is perfectly able to understand words like the french for “withdrawal” without batting an eye. And I know, I know, that I should suspend my disbelief and just go with it, but I don’t want to. These are the things that, as an author that wants to use speaking multiple languages as a plot device, are essential to the building of the narrative-world. You don’t get to use language-speaking as a deus ex machina to then not acknowledge it entirely when it’s not useful. Have your characters forget words! Have them stop to think about the sentence structure! Have them pronounce things weird! Have them speak in easier patterns! Have them say things wrong! Have them flail their arms about trying to mimic what they mean! Have them ask people what a certain word means! Or have them understand said word from its context! Speaking languages has nuances, so please keep them in mind!!! You can include these touches and still make a story entertaining, please don’t forgo them just because it’s easier to ignore them.

Finally, I’d like to offer an example of a GOOD portrayal of bilingualism and, specifically, of LSP awareness. It’s an excerpt from C.S. Pacat’s Captive Prince Series. Pacat speaks multiple languages herself and this deeper understanding is reflected in her work. You can’t begin to understand how happy reading this paragraph made me. It’s a simple addition, but it made the entire story feel much more realistic and relatable to me. The excerpt is from Prince’s Gambit and it holds not spoilers (if you haven’t read the book don’t worry, this is just for comparison-purposes).

It’s not even a page’s worth, it doesn’t delay or obstruct the narration. Instead, it makes it feel all the more real. Imagine what All For The Game could’ve been with similar assessments on Neil’s part. 

Anyway, I’d have so many headcanons concerning a deeper assessment of the foxes’ language skills (mainly concerning Kevin because I speak all the languages that he speaks so I might be a bit biased) but I’ve written too much already. If you’ve reached this further down thank you! Please let me know what you think or, if you need any further insights/questions, please don’t shy away and come ask them to me! If you need help with references, analysis of this sort or anything really, I’d love to help!

[quidfree]

Hi! Thinking of Dumbledore + Sirius, do you think Sirius would feel sympathy for Dumbledore if he knew about how torn he was btw his siblings + feeling trapped? I judged him harshly at first, but now I think about the difficulty about losing both parents + sibling, but not wanting to sacrifice everything to step in as parent + guilt that comes with that. I do think Dumbledore loved his siblings + I was happy when his bro said he did a good job with their sis before her death.

hi! this is an interesting one hm

the thing abt dumbledore is that i’m pretty sympathetic to him all things considered- i’ve never really taken the time to explain my feelings about him on here but i definitely don’t think he’s snape levels of “fandom should see he’s irredeemably terrible!”, though i have a lot of qualms about him. he’s certainly not the hero rowling thinks he is, but he’s also not the guy rita skeeter says he is, to put it succintly.

on the one hand, i do think canon mostly fails to acknowledge that he was very manipulative/calculating and made a lot of very cold (or just plain terrible) choices- everything to do with sirius, for one, as well as the whole dursley situation. i know there’s a couple of reasons harry had to live with them (supposedly...) and i can’t be bothered to go into them, but even then i never understood why he couldn’t have done to petunia what he does in OOTP (?) sooner- send a letter to scare the shit out of her and remind her to treat harry decently or at least leave him to his own devices. like, there was so much he could have done in the years between the potters’ deaths and hogwarts- that squib neighbour was already spying/reporting for him, so he was fully aware of it all, idk. i just find that whole thing exemplary of his callousness. it’s more unforgivable to me than raising harry knowing he might need to die for the cause- because that was necessary to defeat voldemort, but giving harry an escape from abuse was so avoidable. his handling of other characters also doesn’t paint him in the best light, sirius as most obvious suspect- there’s a good piece on tumblr about sirius being a liability in his eyes because he’s not loyal to dumbledore or his cause above all else, but to the potters (and ultimately harry) and his own code, and i really think it’s the best reading of dumbledore’s handling of sirius in OOTP, because i always found that kind of insane. it’s brain-dead obvious that the worst thing to do with sirius (especially if you were worried about his unhinged state and whatnot) would be sticking him in grimmauld place- even if they had to keep him hidden, they could have let him floo between order hideouts! see other people! prowl london as a dog! it’s insane that dumbledore of all people would be that dumb about it, so it makes the most sense to me as him locking sirius up where he’s the most contained.

on the other hand, dumbledore was both a quirky schoolmaster and a wartime militia leader, and i think a lot of the weirdness in his character is bc rowling set out to write a much more child-like series than she ended up writing. dumbledore is a pretty iconic guy in the books, manipulations included- he’s such a chessmaster, and he has flair, as kingsley would put it. most importantly he clearly tries very hard to orchestrate the best possible outcome for the entire world- not based on arbitrary beliefs or personal whims, but because he’s sort of the main bastion of hope in the wizarding world. i don’t necessarily think his actions in this context are all excusable, but he’s a war-time leader, and pretty much knows it’s all down to him- although the order is certainly competent, it’s a very ragtag group of people dumbledore holds together, and in terms of skill, knowledge and aura he’s their biggest asset. he’s already been through a wizarding war where he probably set out to murder the love of his life, another wizard supremacist wackjob! we know he’s long past egoism- he’s genuinely For The Greater Good, and he clearly cares about harry; his choices are undoubtedly not made lightly. it’s also important to note just how bad wizarding society as a whole is on these issues- even the most muggle-friendly wizards are remarkably ignorant about them (arthur weasley), and everyone else is at least marginally bigoted; bigotry is built into the fabric of their society, and their government is extemely complacent/corrupt, so the order and their ilk are very much on their own, while people like the malfoys are tolerated despite the open secret of their wartime alliances. dumbledore has a tough job, and he doesn’t know all the things the reader knows. so i think the op-eds calling him Just As Bad As Voldemort or whatever are missing any nuance.

then we get into dumbledore’s backstory. it explains a lot about him, i think. it’s interesting to me that he’s so consistent as a character- he has always been about The Greater Good, and he’s always had an ego, but as a child he let the latter dictate the former and as an adult he forever attempted to substract it from himself lest he repeat the same mistakes. some more questionable rep from ms rowling in having her (1) gay character be the guy literally seduced into wizard supremacy by his evil boyfriend, but i always liked that beat of a very isolated extremely intelligent character drawn into a warped sense of righteousness- it’s also very consistent of dumbledore to believe he’s doing the best for someone when he’s not really thinking about that at all, which is the case with his sister. obviously his family’s story is tragic, and then he gets pulled into this fake vision of a better world, validated in his brilliance, and then there’s his mother’s death, and then his sister, and suddenly it’s all come crashing down and he spends the next years of his life slowly realizing he’s the only one who can stop a project he might have been overseeing once. aberforth lays into him for it, and fair enough, but jesus, what a shitty spot to be in fresh out of hogwarts. i don’t know if it’s because i’m an older sibling, but i can understand the horrible burden of knowing that it’s always on you to think of yourself second, even when you’re inches away from the best thing in your life.

getting sidetracked- the question was about sirius and dumbledore. the thing abt LMV is that i try to keep my own opinions out of it; the marauders-dumbledore dynamic is a difficult one. they all respect him endlessly, and in school i think they adored him, but as a wartime leader it gets complicated. i think in canon their relationship was better, just a little strained (and a little more for others) bc of his style of leadership- you know, keeping secrets, playing games etc. in LMV, though, his machinations got them personally into some shit, so i wagered things would be more terse. james i think thinks most positively of him, as he is wont to do so, except where he is somehow at odds with sirius, because his loyalties there are clear and he is far more violently protective of sirius than he lets on. lily is a close second, because she’s a big picture thinker and gets how hard his job is, but she tends to be wary of his reasoning. remus is a more distrustful person by nature, and dumbledore using him for werewolf stuff wears him down. sirius is not a fan of authority, does not like secrets, and hates people using him as a pawn, so things are most strained for him, obviously. i think a lot of dumbledore introspection in LMV is from sirius’ POV, somewhat accidentally, so he gets a harsh rep.

to finally get to the specifics of your question: would dumbledore’s backstory get sirius to sympathise? arguably not much. sirius is a tricky guy, esp because i write him in a period that we know nothing about. he’s not a cocky slightly feral 15 year old, and he’s not a traumatised 30 something prison escapee; i try to get a plausible balance, so i don’t lend sirius in LMV so much of OOTP sirius’ world-weary wisdom. he’s 21, and in a war where the other side are wizard nazis he’s mostly related to somehow; he sees things in blacks and whites almost necessarily. so either you’re good or bad, trustworthy or not. peter crossed the threshold, so he’s dead to him; regulus turned himself in, but he’s one of them, so sirius doesn’t know what to do with him. sirius might understand how hard it is to have younger siblings you love fiercely who don’t understand your commitment to a higher goal, but dumbledore was on the wrong side of things that time, so i don’t think he would draw any sympathetic parallels- i don’t see why he of all people would feel bad for where dumbledore’s youthful aspirations of wizarding supremacy lead him, despite his good intentions. he’s not very forgiving of bigotry, i think especially because he’s cut all ties with his own background so harshly.

tldr; i feel for the guy, and his life was fucked, but sirius probably would not, and dumbledore got enough unwarranted hero worship considering his dodgy actions that i don’t resent sirius for holding that grudge.

[gem-quest]

[ O P H E L I A ... ]

“There is no life I know to compare with pure imagination. Living there, you’ll be free, if you truly wish to be.” 
- Pure Imagination

Real Name: Catriona “Cat” Walsh Age: 20 FC: Saoirse Ronan Species & Class: Specter Bard Guild: Moonstone 
 Description of In-Game Powers: Specters are Gem Quest’s non-corporeal undead player race.  They’re notable for only having 9 stats instead of 10, with Strength being omitted from their stat lineup because they literally have no physical bodies.  Instead, their Willpower stat serves as their Strength equivalent.  This means they have a rechargeable meter of how much they can possibly interact with physical objects before taking a rest or recharging with a spell or potion.  Beyond that, Specters are distinguished by their inability to be damaged by non-magical weapons, increased susceptibility to light magic, and inability to be healed via healing potions or traditional physical healing spells (only a period of rest or spells/potions aimed at restoring mental wellness can heal them).  The non-magical weapon immunity is amazing lower levels, but it’s not long before everything thrown at you seems to be enchanted or blessed or cursed or whatever.  Weirdly enough, as far as the whole “incorporeal being” conceit is taken in other aspects, Specters can indeed take potions, as well as eat and drink.  They get decreased buffs from some potions and foods, though.  To balance this out, spells that provide small buffs and aren’t explicitly light-aligned are extra effective on them.

There’s a lot of frustration with the class because of its “fake” weapon resistance, since any old dagger with any mild enchantment or magical effect at all on it can hit them.  They can’t viably hit physical things in combat without specifically taking Knight, Rogue, Rider, or Mage-Knight as their class.  And even then, they’re arguably the weakest race choice in the game for non-magical melee combat.  Meanwhile, a lot of physical things and all magic can still hit them very hard very easily. 

All of this said, there ARE skills to really like here, too - namely, superb mobility.  Specters can pass through physical materials five feet thick or thinner as long as those materials aren’t specifically enchanted to prevent phasing.  They float slightly by default and have a rechargeable flight ability that allows them to lift much further off the ground in short bursts.  They also have a rechargeable ability (with more uses per charge than flight) that allows them to teleport from where they stand to any spot they can see within 20 feet without a spell as long as they haven’t been hit with an attack in the past 5 seconds.  This gives them excellent mobility even in the heat of battle and allows them to have a lot of control over their position and angle.  It also means that it’s often smarter for them to worry less about defense than about being hard to hit in the first place.

Place of Birth: Dublin, Ireland

Appearance: Ophelia has a Specter’s signature slightly translucent skin, under-saturated color palette, and skirt hem/legs that trail off into mist.  Her eyes are a stormy gray, and her wardrobe is almost exclusively black and white.  When it comes to fashion, she prefers some of the more dark Victorian-inspired looks in the game as opposed to the high fantasy, renaissance, or medieval looks that a lot of other characters favor.  That said, she’s got a pretty extensive and well-curated wardrobe behind her.  She considers it highly important that she have at least one appropriate black and white ensemble to wear in each and every level in order to fit in with the theme.  That said, she also has her own signature look that she uses as her “default” (the outfit she’s wearing in her pic at the top of her audition - full-body edit to be shared later!).  Oh, and she loves gloves and capes.  LOVES THEM.  And kind of hoards them, tbh.

Places Most Likely to be Found In-Game: Ophelia’s favorite haunt at the moment is the City of Magic in Level 11.  It’s the logical home base for a character who’s both a crafting/magical class AND a ghost. There’s a high enough concentration of both useful items and ingredients AND sufficiently gothic-flavored areas and NPCs to suit all her needs, both practical and aesthetic. She’s set up her own little shop in one of the many background spooky haunted house locations within the shadier-looking part of the city, and her Aesthetic demands she sometimes hangs out at the city’s main graveyard.  

Beyond that, she can sometimes be found in various libraries and shops across the levels she can access, looking for interesting bits of crafting knowledge, hints of new items she could try cobbling together, and items that she could modify or combine with something to make can even more useful item.  She’s also been known to turn up in random wilderness or roadway portions of levels in the first half of the game, foraging for crafting components that grow or randomly generate within those environments.

Current Inventory:

Screaming Lute (x1): Ophelia is very, exceedingly proud of her combat lute.  She crafted it herself out of her bardic starter instrument.  Specter Bards begin the game with an instrument they are capable of interacting with consistently.  Cat has decided that, within Ophelia’s story, this was Ophelia’s lute in life, and it was destroyed shortly before her death as a way of intimidating her.  Anyhow, Ophelia has heavily modified her starting weapon to the point that she thinks of it as an entirely new item.  It’s covered in strange etched carvings and shifts between glowing with an eerie red light from the inside and constantly trailing wisps of white smoke.  She uses it as her primary weapon in the game, as strumming specific notes and chords on the lute lights up some of the etchings and fires off various spells and magical effects and spells Ophelia has been able to learn.  The lute downright shrieks whenever she uses it to cast a spell.  How does it work, you might ask?  That is a very long story, and one I’m saving for another post XD  Most of the spells Ophelia has at her disposal are cast through her rune-covered lute and will be catalogued in her lute info.

Whispering Flute (x1): Ophelia likes rhymes and the aesthetics of symmetry.  A secondary combat and utility weapon of hers, this is a flute enchanted to fire off up to three charges of Ventium per day, and one charge of Murmurationium per day.  A good insurance weapon to sneak into a dangerous social situation, as it’s a perfectly normal and usable flute until she uses it to unleash the fury of the cold cruel winds of death upon you XD

Empty Unbreakable Bottle (x5): Ophelia favors magical items strongly because Specters can interact with non-martial ones automatically, without having to expend any extra effort or have at least X amount of Willpower to do so.  Unbreakable Bottles are the cheapest magical container commonly for sale in game that’s capable of reliably holding liquids, so Ophelia likes to store all liquids important to her in them.  And she likes to have at least a couple of empty ones on her at all times in case she wants to take a sample of something or otherwise just needs one.

Unbreakable Bottle of Rune Ink (x5): Rune Ink is an item that can be used as permanent and unfading ink that’s nigh impossible to remove or cover up.  More importantly, though, it allows a PC with knowledge of the game’s runes, basically a language of magic that appears in a level or two and on some items, to write runic symbols that absorb nearby magical energy and store it within the object with runes written on it.

Enchanted Carving Tools (x1): Basic carving tools, enchanted to be able to create magical items and inscriptions.  Ophelia uses them for crafting both magical and non-magical items, since any given item needs to be enchanted for her to be able to actively use it for long stretches of time anyway.

Enchanted Mending Kit (x1): Enchanted mending/tinker’s tools able to repair magical items without damaging their magical properties.  Ophelia uses these to repair any repairable item sent her way, for the same reason she also uses enchanted carving tools for everything.

Paxanimi Potion (x3): A potion that mitigates psychic damage or corruption and provides a temporary boost to a player’s Psyche stat.  For Ophelia, as a Specter, this is the closest thing she gets to a reliably available health potion.

Psychometry Scroll (x1): Allows caster to make one inquiry about the past of an object or place, then projects a scene or quote from the object’s or place’s history that provides a relevant answer to that question into the caster’s mind.  Without crafting very specific questions, the results can often be vague and unhelpful, as the game will take the path of least resistance in providing a vision that meets the requirements of the inquiry.

Ictuium Scroll (x1)

Second Sight Scroll (x1) (Learning)

Assorted Random Crafting Bits and Scraps

She actually has more inventory kept hidden away within her home base rather than coming with her everywhere.  Most of it is just more tools and materials and many, many changes of clothes.

“How much does it weigh?  Can I touch, smell, and taste it?  Can I put it in my inventory?  Is it magical?  Is it combustible?  How many knowledge checks can I roll on it?  Does it match my outfit?  Can I keep it?” - Catriona, literally every time she sees any new item in D&D

Strongest character trait: Imagination

Strengths: Ophelia is an immensely imaginative and resourceful person who comes to Gem Quest from a background of extensive fiction reading and making famously effective TTRPG characters.  It helps that she researched Gem Quest *extensively* before starting and continued to be active in forums and the GQ Wiki right up through getting stuck, along with getting early advice and support from a beta tester acquaintance.  Her ideas are typically wildly innovative and a bit risky, but to her credit, they pay off more often than not.  She’s slow to trust others with much critical personal information, but pretty open to giving others a chance and to judging people based on her own experience rather than on gossip.  Thinking on her feet is second nature to her, and she’s rarely at a loss for ideas.  Her devotion to her character and planned story arc have helped her to maintain a degree of focus and stability that’s thus far proven to be her most valuable coping mechanism. 

She’s generally friendly and pleasant despite her spooky aesthetic, story, and demeanor, and she will genuinely try to help anyone who asks her for it.  In business and in social encounters, Ophelia is considerate, well-mannered, and often downright chatty, though she usually knows to take a hint when people make it clear that they don’t want to talk.  She makes and offers a selection of odd but useful items at very fair prices because she’s not here to make a profit - she just needs enough resources to keep going.  She’s earned a bit of good will based on that.  Her skill in puzzle and strategy-based quests and willingness to dispense hints on the above, along with her crafting, has garnered her a good reputation as a support player and PC shopkeeper within her guild.

Weaknesses: Even knowing that the game is now a matter of life and death, Ophelia still seems to care more about her in-game narrative and goals than practicality, survivability, or winning.  A vibrant creative type who wishes no irl harm to anybody, she has a hard time conceiving that even the most blatantly destructive PCs would truly do harm to anyone outside the narrative.  She catches most of the references you make and then obnoxiously, steadfastly denies that she has caught them if you inquire, because Star Wars doesn’t exist in the world of Gem Quest and of Ophelia, dammit!  While her coping methods might be working for her internally for now, her devotion to staying in-character makes her a bit of an acquired taste.  She is very, very particular about sticking to character, even when it’d be more practical and less annoying for her to drop it. She’s been known to make important decisions that risk her safety (and sometimes, indirectly, that of others) in the name of “authenticity” to her character and story plans. 

Far, far too curious and adventurous for someone with a Defense stat of 2.  She has lots and lots of interesting ideas, all of which she gives equal chance to, plenty of which aren’t good.  Just because her creative ideas pay off more often than not doesn’t mean that there aren’t times when they don’t pay off.  And when they don’t pay off, they tend to not pay off SPECTACULARLY.  Reasonably likely to get herself killed enacting some inventive and exceedingly high-risk scheme to take out a dangerous boss before it can do damage. 

For some folks, the mix of creepy aesthetics and backstory and acting choices with effusive goodwill and pleasantness is more off-putting than inviting.  Arguably talks too much, especially when she’s nervous or upset.  Has a weakness for getting emotionally involved with NPCs, particularly minor NPCs with chains of side quests or that can serve as temporary companions, despite theoretically knowing that they’re just chunks of code.  Seems physically incapable of just sitting back and relaxing for a few without having to start some new project or come up with some new big subplot or plan. 

Plenty of folks are happy to buy her crafted items, but she has a bad reputation as an active combatant due to a few infamous Incidents.  At this point, only the truly uninformed, the truly desperate, the truly experimental, or the truly crazy in Moonstone would willingly party up with her XD

“Death has made me less than kind.  And very, very creative with a broken lute, who knew?” - Ophelia

Player Stats: Ophelia’s defensive strategy in combat is just to not be hit at all.  Her Defense stat is dangerously low, with any points that could buff it up as she’s gained levels and experience instead going to Agility and Luck.  She prefers to draw her “defense” from stats that she can get more versatile use out of.  She’s unusually low in Charisma for a Bard and has only enough Willpower to allow her to craft with physical items.  She can’t wield non-magical weapons at all.  However, she opted to invest a bit more in Psyche than a lot of other players did since a lot of a Specter’s durability lies in their emotional stability.  She also has uncommonly high Intelligence, which combines with her Psyche and Luck to equip her well for puzzle-based and strategy-based challenges.

STRENGTH: X

DEFENSE: 2

CHARISMA: 6

PSYCHE: 7

WILLPOWER: 7

CAUTIOUSNESS: 4

AGILITY: 8

ENDURANCE: 5

INTELLIGENCE: 9

LUCK: 8


Personality: (A lot of this is already in her strengths and weaknesses, so I’m putting a bit of a summary and some extra detail in here.)

She eats fictional media for breakfast, means well, talks a lot and talks often, has an overall spooky quirky nice one vibe (you know the type), fancies herself an actress regardless of the feedback she might receive, will (un)live and die in-character out of a fruity cocktail of artistic integrity and spite, is the Bard equivalent of a TV mad scientist who tends to cause the problem at the start of the episode with an experiment and then solve it in the last 2 minutes with a crazy genius plan that’s then shown to have not *totally* worked in a post-episode stinger, and is too smart for anyone’s good.  

Building a clear narrative here helps her bring some degree of organization and order to the wild creative whirlpool that is her brain.  She’d never considered herself much of an escapist until she discovered GQ, where she hasn’t escaped from responsibilities and work and struggle so much as she’s found an intoxicating degree of control over what her responsibilities and work and struggle are.  She can write a meaningful story here, be its central driving force, have the impact she increasingly feels like she’ll just never be able to have in real life, and stick her epic quest out to a glorious conclusion.  Ironically, she’s a weird mix of always needing an outline and a sense of narrative while ALSO constantly bursting with new ideas and clever but risky plans that she takes quite seriously.  Cat harbors perpetual mild guilt for feeling so restless and unhappy - after all, she’s lived comfortable life and has a family who loves, and it’s not like people have to like anything she makes or does or says in order for her to have a high quality of life.

“Think you're escaping and run into yourself. Longest way round is the shortest way home.” - James Joyce

Biography: Catriona Walsh was born in Dublin, Ireland to an Irish mother and an American father of Irish descent.  The family moved to New York City for her father’s job when she was just 5, but she and her mom remain close with her mom’s side of the family back in Ireland.  After 3 years in New York, the family moved to Columbus, Ohio, where Cat spent the rest of her young life, except for summers.  Most summers since she was 13, she’s stayed a couple months with an aunt and uncle who own a small tour company in Dublin.  From 16 on, she’s been helping with business while there.  Now she’s at college in Dublin and working at the company on the weekends, in exchange for staying with her relatives. She’s studying business for her parents and literature for herself.  

Cat has always had a great fondness for the tour company, though mostly for the actual tour guide end of it.  She’s a natural storyteller and explorer who delights in going off the beaten trail and sharing all she knows about xyz subject with anyone who seems interested.  Unfortunately, her improvisational bent has landed her in trouble with her aunt and uncle more than once.  There are schedules to keep and itineraries people pay to be taken through, after all.  This landed her behind the front desk of the office answering phone calls and administering group ticket sales, which she very nearly hates.

School is hard, especially with her true interest pushed to the side by necessity.  Feeling like none of her ideas ever get taken seriously is hard.  Making friends that last beyond one semester sharing a class is hard, and as she gets further into her college career, her future looks increasingly stifled and bleak to her.  Attempts to get some poetry and original music off the ground haven’t gone anywhere, ending in some spikes of faceless nastiness that prompted her to delete her one YouTube account and take a step back from social media about a year and a half ago.  Sure, she knows she’s supposed to have a thicker skin than that if she wants to go anywhere, and she *does* want to go somewhere.  But she can’t seem to make her skin much thicker.  She wants to argue with her uncle and aunt a bit more, as she increasingly disagrees with them on quite a few things, but they’re both extremely conflict averse, and she can be extremely lacking in tact about things she’s suitably worked up over.  

Through it all, she knows full well that so so many people have it worse, and that she has no reason to feel restless and dissatisfied and unhappy.  It’s just that she has a hard time connecting with people and feeling heard. She’s not alone, so why is she lonely?  Cat takes refuge in being the zany, intensely individualistic artist who’s sometimes worth inviting to a party for the interest value and who surely has friends somewhere - you just haven’t ever met them.  

For the past year or so, all the time Cat has for herself and an increasing amount of time that used to go into schoolwork has been split between her long-time refuge in tabletop roleplaying and her new favorite place: Gem Quest.  She’s part of two Dungeons & Dragons games currently being run on Roll20 (well, was a part of them, anyway), both of which she plays as a multiclassed build with some degree of casting put together for a mix of strong utility and intricate storytelling.  Gem Quest continues a years-long trend of being in love with exactly one fantasy video game at a time and playing it as much as possible, though it’s her first MMORPG.  

Catriona researched Gem Quest *extensively* before ever getting it or creating her character.  She heard about it from a fellow member of one of her online D&D groups, an avid gamer happened to be a beta tester.  Cat was drawn in by the idea of being able to entirely occupy the space of a created hero within a sprawling fantasy setting and be a version of herself designed as a protagonist in a world designed to be impacted by her.  She had a cousin who had a VR headset but decided it just wasn’t really his thing, so it wasn’t hard to convince him to let her use it for this.  After waiting to see more setting and story info during the early general release and researching everything there was to know about GQ thus far, including via discussion with her beta tester acquaintance, she entered into the game a short while after launch. She’s had time to level up, mostly in being an item crafter and utility character with a surprising capacity to serve as a highly mobile glass canon blaster (and inexhaustible source of very creative and very insane plans) in combat.

She also has a whole, novella-length backstory for her character - a summary of which I will post later! - that she treats as her character bible and guide for all in-game interactions.  It’s based on a single image of a skeleton in a black and white dress in some official art of one of the higher levels where there are a lot of scenic skeletons lying around.  This is the sort of brain Cat has XD



Ophelia, as a character, is the ghost of a minor noblewoman and court musician who was betrayed when she starting poking around into the disappearance of her older brother at court.  Her desires to find her brother and for vengeance brought her back as a Specter, but she came back a world away from the place she died and has to go on a quest to make it back and finish her story.  Cat built the character to be tied to a mid-to-late game puzzle-heavy level so she could have a big climatic Moment there.  Then, she’d continue to the end in search of her fictional brother.  Ophelia wields a spectral lute as a spellcasting focus and spends a lot of time pursuing leads about both her brother and her murderer (aka quests Cat finds thematically/aesthetically good for Ophelia).

Cat is VERY set on seeing this plot through and being the hero of her story, from start to finish, despite what’s happening with the game now.  She does her part to provide puzzle guides and crafting support for those working to beat the game, but she’s not going to rush through her story and suddenly snap back to being poor little ungrateful and inexplicably depressed Cat who has no place in anything and can’t do anyone much good with what she’s got.  While she’s in the game, she’s going to be Ophelia.  At least Ophelia has a *reason* to be unhappy and restless, a wildly creative and wildly striving brain tied to the world with a few wisps of smoke.  And at least Ophelia is good at what she does.

Never mind how much she adored aggressive exploration and creative combat at first.  She’s learned well enough that she’s just a liability there, she’s bad at being in a group, and, not so different from real life, she’s at her best when she’s just at the shop counter being support.  She’s already been booted from a couple of parties over her crazy plans, play style, and general personality. And there have been more than enough incidents with her pulling something crazy because it was in-character and genuinely seemed like a good solution with the resources given, usually with at least decent results but always with high risk, that no one in the know is willing to party up with her anymore. 

She’s kind of stuck either in her shop or going solo.  At least she makes good things, though, right?  And she’s just taking her plot slow because of she’s savoring and developing her story, not because people don’t really like conquering life beside her out here either, right?

Right?

Relationships: I’m very much open to some plotting and planning with anyone who’d like to try working something out!

In regards to side characters or such of my own, I have some ideas already for this.  I’ll fill these in as I finalize my ideas a bit more!

Char 1 -

Char 2 -

Char 3 -

Playlist: TBF Pinterest: TBF Extra: TBF

[night-unfurls-its-splendour]

I'm watching the entire series of Game of Thrones for the first time. I've made my way to season 3, making sure to watch as many commentaries as I can. Last night I listened  to the Set Design / Costume Design commentary for S3 Ep 4: "And Now His Watch is Ended".

I know most historical costume Enthusiasts / Critics either don't touch, or make exceptions for Fantasy productions and on the whole I agree with that. But something about the Game of Thrones costumes (and how the show's popularity has impacted costume design on productions actually set in the medieval / Renaissance time period) has just really been bothering me.

(Perhaps you see what I mean here with Contessina De Bardi in Medici: Master's of Florence and her sneaky mini structured neckline)

It may be a couple of things, but lots of the ... insights from Michele Clapton shed some light on this for me. I have a few questions.

First: North of the Wall, we spend some time in this episode with The Night's Watch at Craster's Keep. Of Craster's wives, Clapton said [Disclaimer this is not an *exact* quote because I couldn't find a transcript anywhere and my sister sent back the Netflix DVD and I do not have an idetic memory - but the important parts of the comment are, in my own estimation, accurate] : "With Craster's wives I got this idea of them just having bits of rabbit, whatever they can get, woven with grass..." this raises in my mind, SO many questions.

Firstly - we ARE north of the Wall, yes? Where,  as we have seen, the ground is just about ALWAYS covered in snow, or 90% mud. So where is the grass coming from? And also what they are wearing is so clearly not grass?

This also provides a segue into my second question.

Do sheep exist in Westeros?

Why is it that this show has such an aversion to wool? Every man wearing protective clothing is wearing Leather (or rather I should perhaps say "vegan leather"). Every Hearty Weave (TM) appears to be an attempt at Linen; and every Fine Lady is wearing Silk satin, or if you're Olenna, silk brocade (in obviously hot weather, because naturally elderly ladies benefit from heat stroke).

I've not seen one woollen cloak. Not. One wool... anything really. I ask myself "Why?"

100% natural wool is wondeful. It's naturally flame retardant; it keeps you warm; it breathes well; it's soft in a light weave; it's strong in a heavy one; its water repellent. So what is with this endemic erasure of wool? Even productions like 2018's Mary Queen of Scots have had costume designers like Alexandra Byrne who, when searching for a durable fabric for cold and rainy Scotland, came out with a wardrobe comprised entirely of DENIM. Which,  as we all know is the WARMEST AND MOST COMFORTABLE of fabrics when damp. Now we all know Byrne's real reason for using denim is because it's cheap. The problem is Byrne tried to justify it by saying all of that guff about wanting a fabric that wears well in rain (Which,  I cannot stress this enough- denim does not) and, of course because denim would be "ReLaTaBLe". But I digress.

All that aside, perhaps the things that bother me most are components and composition. Which is where we get into the wooly (heh) area of me being a person with interest in HISTORICAL costume, critiquing a FANTASY series.

So let's just get this out of the way: I'm not saying that anything that the costume Department did with this series was "Wrong" [with one exception, but we'll get to that when we get to it]. I'm just going to say that I don't like the way it was approached, and my reasons on WHY. 

I think I have a modicum of justification for my opinions here because, fantasy is fantasy, yes but the concepts of "Fantasy" and "Medieval" have become so strongly connected that the line between them has become so blurred in the modern mind as to be almost non-existent anymore. We're in a strange cycle here. "Fantasy" was directly inspired by Medieval and over the years took more and more creative wiggle room because, the great thing about fantasy is, you can make it whatever you want it to be aesthetically. But as Fantasy and Medieval have become so intertwined, more and more creative license has been taken with the latter, so that the original inspiration has become beholden to imitate the art it inspired.

But I'll save my pontification on the modern eye and Medieval fashion for another post, and try to keep on track only as far as this affects my feelings on Game of Thrones.

My justification is that GoT is not just inspired by Medieval England/Europe in the broad sense that most Fantasy of the Sword and Sorcery variety is; it was SPECIFICALLY inspired by ONE ERA of English History, The Wars of the Roses [15th century] (with character inspiration from other eras, as recent as the 16th century).

The thing about being interested in Historical Fashion is, once you know it, you can't UN-KNOW it. For example, my understanding of the medieval approach to clothing composition is "Cut as little as you need to because sewing is tedious". You don't want to have to sew more than you have to because what's the point of that? Practically no clothing in the medieval period was tailored because why bother doing that when you can just sinch it with a belt, or lace it up the sides? Is any of that applied here? Nah. Because when we look at Sansa's dresses, look at those obviously machine stitched, perfectly pristine seams. ~whistles~.

I'll never throw shade at a costume department for using sewing machines, but I will shade them for not bothering at all to make clothing for a universe that has no sewing machines look like it was made in a universe that has no sewing machines.

  I can agree with not holding Fantasy series to historical standards - to a point. To wit: as long as it's believable IN-UNIVERSE.

AS FAR AS WE KNOW, the GoT universe doesn't yet have Mechanized looms. Now I know that they make some pretty unreal lace in Myr, but I just can't think of any in-universe justification for the texture of Danny's blue number in season 3.

Another thing that bothers me is the proliferation of corsets and how those corsets are approached.

Here are some historical corset facts.

• the term 'corset' wasn't widely used to refer to structured undergarments outside of France until the late 18th century (1700's). Before tart they were called "stays" (16th-17th century) or "a pair of bodies" (15th-16th century)

• structured undergarments first appeared in the 15th century, as the bodice of under-dresses(kirtles) were lined with reed or Buckram to provide back and breast support and provide a smooth surface for the gown worn over it. It also provided a foundation for multiple layers of petticoats, so the waistbands wouldn't dig into your sides.

• Structured undergarments that existed independent of a kirtle or petticoat aren't in evidence until the 16th century (Elizabethan/Renaissance) and aren't widely used by all classes until the late 17th century.

• Most 16th-17th century boned foundation garments had straps, since they didn't reach down much farther than the natural waist,  unless they were designed with a high back.

• Corsets, stays and other structured undergarments were never worn without a shift/chemise/slip underneath because...

• Corsets chafe.

• Corsets are difficult to clean, but shifts are easy to launder. Shifts protect your skin from chafing and protect your very expensive corset from the oils produced by your skin

(Reproduction example of 15th century style kirtle, from Prior Attire. Source video here)

(Sansa's... corset here has this bizarre low back and 18th century style tabs on the bottom? It also seems to lace only down to her navel. Not quite sure what's going on here, it really doesn't seem to be supporting her at all.)

The reason I hate, hate, hate the way Sansa is costumed under her...  very suit-like gowns is  because she never ever is shown (so far) wearing anything under her corset; her gowns are all long-lined, flowing and loose fitting; and show only wears (usually) one petticoat under them. So in short, I dislike that Sansa wears a corset because Sansa has NO REASON to be wearing one.

◇◇◇◇Another Thing◇◇◇◇

I want to spotlight on a little thing from the commentary that really hits on one of my larger problems with the aesthetic interpretation of this show in general.

During one of the scenes with Stannis and Melisandre, Clapton mentions that they made Melisandre's hair a darker shade of red in season 3 than it was previously. She says the phrase "sort of makes her more earthy".

Yes. Let's make the FIRE priestess more EARTHY. LET'S JUST DO THAT. AS OF THIS SHOW ISN'T "EARTHY" enough.

There's this fantastic quote I read somewhere by GRRM about how he loves fantasy because it's colorful, where real life is gray and brown and olive and dull. Melisandre is arguably the most colourful character in the show/series. In the books, EVERYTHING about her is Red. And not just red. She's scarlet and crimson. When she's introduced there's this fantastic description of her wearing flowing robes of scarlet silk with slashes in it revealing a darker, blood red fabric underneath.

That was passed up for a monotone, very simply cut red gown and I can't stop asking myself why a designer would scrap something like that without even trying to pay homage to it.

This show just sort of takes everything colourful in Martin's world and MAKES it gray and dark for the sake of Gritty Realism (TM). I suppose that's part of trying to appeal to a wider audience, but I just find it increadibly visually uninteresting.

◇◇◇◇ONE MORE LITTLE THING◇◇◇◇

Is this the sofa from the Study in Clue?

???

[tarajenkins]

Given what you've said of Vauthry, about how we're never given any chance to even try and redeem him, help him become a better person, I'd like to ask: how would you go about "saving" him? When he transforms into that Lucifer/Archangel Michael-looking guy, he seems permanently lost, but how would you write out a redemption narrative for him?

I love this ask, I hate the answer I have to give. But it’s gonna be a long response anyway, because context and because you already know I don’t know when to shut up about characters, lmao. 

SO I HOPE YOU LOVE HEARING ME RAMBLE UNDER THIS CUT (but I won’t blame you if you don’t)

I don’t think the in-game narrative allows Vauthry any chance at redemption in the current time, even if he had the agency to take it.  I don’t think we ever saw what he actually could have been. I think what we saw in Shadowbringers was the Lightwarden he’d been carrying finally “awakening”, as Innocence’s Triple Triad card put it. Or, as the X-Files put it in their eighth ep: “We are not who we are”.  

Even if that Lightwarden could be driven out of him (I know an “Aethertech” who would do anything to make that possible cough), I don’t know if he’d regain clarity he may never have had to start.  I’d love to think that he did, a long time ago. The Minstreling Wanderer tells us he can’t say whether or not Vauthry was a monster as a child, when you unlock Crown Of The Immaculate EX.

I believe the Lightwarden’s influence was driving a lot of his brutal acts of “justice”, because that is kinda their whole thing.  As for the man inside the monster?  I have a hunch he was desperate to not be seen as unnatural, and was trying to make sense out of what was happening to him in a way that would not make him a hybrid abomination. Because if he wasn’t a God, if he wasn’t this divine thing he was told he was – then what was he? The way he worded it, “this is why I was born…as man and Sin Eater both…” – it makes me feel he had, at some point in his life, at least once, ASKED why he was born as he was. That he had perceived it was wrong. He needed it to be right. And that was just fuel to the corruption fire.

The talk of godhood actually seemed to be a recent phenomenon, as no other NPC mentions a thing about it – they refer to him as “Lord Vauthry”, and speak of him in mortal terms, apart from his miraculous ability to keep the Sin Eaters at bay. He freely boasted of being a God to the Crystal Exarch, yet we’re to believe he didn’t say a word to his own people, all this time? Or that no one, in turn, would mention to us “Yyyyeah, about this guy….” Mayor Punchable Face may have told him he was a God, but it doesn’t sound like Vauthry bought into it enough to spread the good word for at least twenty years. 

Also consider he called his transformation into Innocence a “trial”. Why would a god need to be tested? And by whom?

By the time we see him in-game, it seemed he was in a rapid decline of sanity, or at least the ability to keep up appearances, and whatever was left of him was fervently clinging to the only purpose he was ever apparently given – which is exactly what that Lightwarden (and Emet-Selch) would want. 

 He was really cynical about the rest of humanity. Given his father, I can see where he’d get that from. Not that daddy told him people suck, it’s that Vauthry probably learned that by his father’s example. Maybe by the rest of Eulmore, too, but I got the impression he was kept seriously isolated from society before his inauguration. He seems to prefer being alone – he only leaves that room when he moves the Sin Eaters against Lakeland. He gives no indication he knows how to socialize, period. You either come to him, or you don’t see him. (He may be keenly aware humes don’t typically reach at least fifteen feet tall. Seriously, look at Cruelty’s size compared to player characters, now look how Cruelty makes a comfy couch for him.)

Cynical, and yet, he wanted to see the people of Eulmore’s “dreams fulfilled, their wishes granted”. Just so long as he was the one responsible, and he was the one recognized for it. He needed their acceptance. 

ANYHOO.  On to stuff I still have zero idea what to make of. 

I should preface the rest of this infodump with the fact I found the Eulmore arc to be the weakest of the expansion, between Vauthry and Ran'jit. Most of the MSQ was given nuance. Eulmore was given a Saturday Morning Cartoon sledge. A -lot- of questions, with no answers, unless Squeenix decides to be generous in a fifty-buck lore book later. (something I hated Warcraft for. I should not have to pony up for a book to understand the main story quest chain in a game.) So, here are some of the questions I’ve got:

- FOOL! THAT WILL NEVER WORK!

They don’t really explain why Emet-Selch thought corrupting an infant was a good plan, as the Sin Eaters seemed guaranteed a win on The First, if only by outlasting the survivors of the Flood. Impatience, maybe? Why not give it to the mayor? That dickpickle would’ve said yes. Maybe we’ll get more answers with the Eden raid. IT’D BE NICE *COUGH*

- The meol thing.  

It’s using Sin Eater’s non-existant flesh to make a bread, and through that bit of Sin Eater, Vauthry could control whoever ate it.  The fanbase loves the “soylent green is people” angle, but it’s done pretty haphazardly, when you think about it like that? Sin Eaters have no lasting corporeal body. They are Light, mixed with a bit of the lingering essence of whatever they originally were – and what they originally were did not have to be humanoid. They dissolve into sparklies in the air upon death – and arguably, they would not have to die to contribute sparklies to somehow mix into food. Forgiven Cruelty lost a whole wing to Thancred when Thancred first took Ryne from Eulmore, and it seemed to have grown back just fine by the time we see Cruelty again. Killing Sin Eaters also would be entirely counterproductive to a nation that devoted themselves to NOT killing them. Also – we are shown the Afflicted, people who are falling to corruption from a SIn Eater attack they’d survived. How is it people who eat meol don’t become corrupted themselves?

Where did the idea for meol  even begin? Vauthry’s father was ousted by the people as mayor before Emet-Selch said hey there, friend, you have a punchable face, let’s make a deal – and Vauthry only took control of Eulmore 20 years ago. He looks a LOT older than 20, or even 40. So his father must’ve rode his child’s coattails before then.  Did Mayor Punchable Face think that was a wise countermeasure against future insurrection? In any case, Vauthry did not exert that control until the WoL and allies were coming to kill the Lightwarden of Kholusia (him), so it did not seem to be a priority of his. Alphinaud confirmed the people were of a free mind until they were made to fight the WoL and allies. (and dialogue stressed it was very noticeable when someone was not of a free mind.) Squeenix: *throws meol into purse* I have to go plotholes came up

- The “Perverted Paradise”.  (I at least giggle every time Alphinaud says this.)

Vauthry is presented as the pinnacle of vice, yet the game does not really show this well – in some cases, not at all.

Gluttony: He isn’t shown to indulge in drink, let alone overindulge. Apart from the meol scene at the end, which was related to controlling the Eater-corrupted citizenry, not gluttony, he was not shown to have so much as a snack. There’s food in his chamber, all of it untouched. But! In the Shadowbringers trailer, Squeenix thought the best example to showcase Eulmore’s decadence was – three thicc'qotes. Having pleasant conversation ‘round a table. Eating fresh fruit.

Not the creepy-ass old patron who thinks that  since his pretty servant can’t sing anymore, she should be “Ascended” as a kindness, although it was implied she could have recovered her health, just not her voice. Not the guy who tossed his servant from a balcony because reasons and wanted us to bring him back. Not even the noblewoman trying to have her servant killed because her lecherous husband put designs on the poor girl.

Three thicc'qotes. Having pleasant conversation ‘round a table. Eating fresh fruit.

We get it, Square, we’re supposed to see he’s fat and think that is bad. Moving on.

Lust: He doesn’t visit the adult nightclub downstairs (the adult nightclub that is shown practically empty and behind closed doors, the lewdness of it all – I clutch my pearls.) He doesn’t  creep on your player character like Magnai did in Stormblood – he doesn’t creep on anyone. He doesn’t want you to be his steed. No interest is shown in the Sin Eaters apart from them fighting for him, as much as some people in the fanbase theorize he is fucking them. (They probably think that Spirited Away is about the sex industry and My Neighbor Totoro is about dead girls, too.) This game is pretty blatant when they intend that sort of thing, see: Yotsuyu, Sastasha, any number of things in Ishgard or Ul'dah. I’ve found nothing here, except the German translation for “Consort Of Sin: Forgiven Obscenity” is “Purified Fornication: Playmate Of The Redeemer”. Since this is not implied in any other translation, I put my trust in Koji Fox and the fact Obscenity’s job seems to be Official Nose Petter to Forgiven Cruelty.

Greed: I am not going to hold his rings and his robes against him, as Urianger has just as much bling (more, actually), The wealthy are made to give up ALL their fortune to be permitted to stay in Eulmore – but that wealth is then used to provide everything for free to those who live there, and the free citizenry are apparently given funds for private use to boot. If they intended to show that Vauthry was using all that for hookers and blow for himself, it did not convey well.

Wrath: If one has broken the rules of the city (or has thrown shade that takes him a full two minutes to catch), Vauthry definitely has this in spades, with a temper tantrum a lot like Philia’s Fierce Beating attack.  But again, the writers don’t really show the extent of the wrath they are trying to tell . Because if you don’t break the rules? Nothing happens, apparently. Trouble seems to have to be brought forward to him, he doesn’t go looking for it.  It didn’t feel any different to me than the Grand Companies, yet this is the one that finally makes Alphinaud do the *GAAAAASP*.

The populace does not seem afraid of Vauthry. In fact, they feel free to pop ‘round to have a word if they think something needs doing. Chai-Nuzz did not seem distressed by his wife’s suggestion she would have a word with Vauthry to soothe the “hard feelings” stirred up in the quest “Emergent Splendor”.  

Pride: He has great pride in his ability to keep the SIn eaters under control, but doesn’t really display any vanity in himself. No portraits, statues, etc. When Alphinaud interfered with Kai-Shirr’s punishment, Alphinaud was told he’d be permitted to stay in the city if he made a painting – not a portrait of Vauthry, but of the city itself.

Sloth: We get it, Square, he’s fat and he sits down, moving the FUCK on.  No actually, hold up, to be honest? As tired and :| as he looked all the time, he struck me as depressed. What guy in Paradise looks that haggard?

NOW moving on.

Envy: If my theory holds, probably plenty of unresolved envy for folks who are not “half Sin Eater”. Otherwise, I can’t think of an example here.

- “Ascension” (Sure thing, Jan)

This is only made reference to in the Weeping Warbler quest chain. “As all know, the sin eaters exist to devour the sinful. But also do they serve to gather the souls of the innocent, and shepherd them unto celestial paradise.”

Sin eaters ate a meal that represents the sins of a household you fool oh wait this is The First

The thing I don’t get here is - why are there obviously limitations on who can be ascended, and when? If the idea is strictly to feed the Sin Eaters, or make meol, or just be an asshole, why is this the only time we hear of it?

It’s like if there are no more mortals, Vauthry wouldn’t have that reassurance he is doing good anymore. Either that, or since he’s never worked in retail, he doesn’t know how to push features.

But I’m betting on the former.

- LASTLY: the hypocrisy of the writer’s narrative (and the fanbase).

Tesleen was our first and horrifying sample of what Sin Eater corruption can do to a human. No matter how strong her will may have been, she was just lost to it. She scratches madly at her face when she uses one of her attacks in Holminster Switch, as though trying to stop herself, or punish herself. But she can’t help it. And we know this.

Titania was a tragedy, had to be stopped. But, a TRAGEDY. Whatever was left of the benevolent ruler was corrupted. There was never a moment where our heroes went “dis binch just evil, they gotta go down”. ( I had many choice words for Titania when I wiped enough times to them, but no actual game dialogue really says it. )

We, the Warrior Of Light, came this close to becoming a Warden ourselves. Somehow it was stalled (convenience!), but there was never a question corruption = bad and out of our control.

Vauthry, on the other hand, is treated as though he is in full control of his faculties, although the corruption before birth makes that questionable at best and he pretty clearly is not? Even as he did that Exorcist neck-twist, no one was like “oh fuck, the Sin Eaters got to another one, damn that poor man”.  (Which would seem a logical conclusion to me, I hate we have like zero real say in our characters’ reactions) Not even a “ahaha okay no seriously what the fuck is going on guys”. Nope. Their reaction was “EVIL”.  Trying to help somehow was never on the table. Watching him die slowly at our feet was.

We saw the Echo of the real circumstance of his birth. It had to come from the Sin Eater that corrupted him, because he wasn’t out of the womb to see that scene play out. Or Emet-Selch. Either way, we saw it, yet at no time afterward do we try to bring the truth out. We just let everyone believe he was evil by choice, and not another casualty of this mess.

And remember earlier, how I said Alphinaud confirmed the free citizenry were not under Vauthry’s control until the fight? Remember the noblewoman whose husband went after their bonded servant, and so she tried to get the girl murdered?

Yeah, we catch up to that noblewoman who tried to murder her servant. She feels really bad about that now.  And what is an option we get to tell her ex-bonded servant when she wonders how she could possibly trust the woman who tried to kill her?

“Vauthry’s society brought out the worst in people…”

Fffffffuck you Square lmao

TL;DR:

In private RP land? In private RP land, where we can back the fuck up in the timeline at will? You are damn skippy that Lightwarden got purged before it took complete hold. (an Aethertech did it with SCIENCE.) And Vauthry is cynical and scarred and bitter and broken and betrayed, but he’s not evil. If anything, he’s actually pretty relatably human. And he’s actually pretty damn glad his father’s shitty legacy is over.

[walkonwalkonwithhopeinyourheart]

Tactical Analysis- How Liverpool won the 2019 CL via /r/LiverpoolFC

Tactical Analysis- How Liverpool won the 2019 CL

Despite being touted as an uninspiring snoozefest by critics, neutrals, and media outlets I decided to do a tactical analysis on the UCL final as I feel it deserves major attention since it was our first major cup win since 2005 and minor cup win since 2012. Additionally, it was an anomaly from a strategic perspective as Jürgen Klopp approached the game with a counter-attacking setup with limited application of his usual and trademark high-press style. Liverpool finished the game with an astonishing 35.4% ball possession, a clear contrast with the 2018/2019 season average of 62.13%. Prior to the final the team trained and practiced in Marbella, Spain with Benfica’s B team-rejecting other clubs along the way due to confidentiality concerns-and because Liverpool’s assistant manager Pep Lijnders identified numerous similarities between Tottenham’s and Benfica’s B-team. The team had time to condition and acclimate to the temperature disparity between England and the much warmer Marbella/Madrid where humidity levels also become a physical factor. During the training session, Benfica’s players replicated Tottenham’s 4231 lineup and mimicked key players’ movements. Liverpool Echo’s James Pearce(the primary club correspondent & journalist) also published live photos from the Marbella training sessions which showcased a variety of tactical lineups with an emphasis on different strategies (eg. possession based drills as opposed to long-ball play).

Coming into the game, Klopp’s original gameplan was to play defensive and conservative football with a long-ball approach. In the same vein, Pochettino’s goal was to bait Liverpool’s high-press and find spaces forward as a result. He benched the in-form Lucas Moura hoping to bring him on in the 2nd half with fresh legs to try to outpace the Liverpool defense or catch them out of position. However, the 22 second penalty marked all the difference in the game. Going up 1-0 early, Klopp stuck to the original plan and conceded possession to Pochettino’s team with Mané, TAA, and Robertson being the focal points defensively. Fortunately for Liverpool, Pochettino had no backup plans in place and continued to play hardball. In Tottenham’s defensive-third Liverpool contained Spurs to their half by shaping up as a 442 as shown here[https://imgur.com/a/IUQKYhq]. Because Vertonghen and Alderweireld played a low-block while on the ball and because Trippier and Rose pushed up the halfway line hugging the sidelines; Firmino and one of Salah/Mané forced a stalemate by leading a 2-man line with minimal pressing following the ball path and covering passing lanes. Hugo Lloris’ poor distribution woes meant that Tottenham spent the entirety of the first-half passing the ball in their own half or were forced to pass it back whenever their gaps closed.

When Tottenham attempted to move the ball forward to the middle of the pitch and Liverpool’s third, Sadio Mané would fall back to congest the midfield and Liverpool would shape up as a 451 as exemplified here [https://imgur.com/a/TLITABV]. Looking at the average player position map from the game [https://imgur.com/a/GfA1PjY] you can see the 451 shape with a slight 442 lean. Interestingly, during this transition phase Liverpool chose to purposely leave Kieran Trippier wide open on the wing as shown here [https://imgur.com/a/GzYved9]. Klopp identified a glaring weakness in Trippier’s build-up play and crossing and chose to leave him unmarked the entire game. The following clips highlight some of Trippier’s weaknesses (poor spatial awareness, crossing/passing, and movement) during the final, whenever he was targetted. [https://streamable.com/s4o0n] . Despite being unmarked the whole game, Trippier hardly received passes from his teammates. This clever approach meant that Eriksen was marked out of the game since Liverpool occupied most of the spaces in the midfield. The only way Tottenham could go forward was with long balls to Kane and Alli. Virgil Van Dijk and Joel Matip had a relatively easy time marking Kane winning most aerial duels (3 & 3 respectively) with Matip racking up a whopping 14 clearances (compared to Virgil’s 5[https://streamable.com/flm7d]). Matip more so than Van Dijk, was instrumental in keeping the clean sheet and keeping pressure off the back. He had significant key interceptions, key passes, and played the role of a competent midfielder while having the physical and mental composure of a world-class defender[https://streamable.com/kccwt].

TAA and Robertson were strictly instructed to stay in their defensive halves. Comparing their UCL final heatmaps[https://imgur.com/a/J6UuaUC] to their seasonal averages you can see that their overall placement was uncharacteristic [https://imgur.com/a/NwcfqCI]. Even moreso when you compare to the last meeting between the two teams: [https://imgur.com/a/NTa5Dre]. In the recent encounters between Klopp and Pochettino, Jurgen utilized his traditional 433 with a 343 shift coupled with his famous gegenpressing system. In Klopp’s gegenpressing, the fullbacks are normally instructed to camp up into the opponents half either simultaneously or one at a time while a defensive mid falls in between the two center-halves thus mimicking a 3-4-3 shape . This shape normally allows the fullbacks to generate an incredible amount of crosses while also supressing counter-attacks with ease (ironically, Liverpool completed a shocking 1/16 crosses or 6% succesfully in the final). What’s more interesting is that the fullbacks while on the ball were explicitly instructed by Klopp to play the ball out immediately from the back as opposed to building their way up the pitch as they normally do. The defenders were often targeting Mané with long-ball passes. [https://streamable.com/85gcz]

Personally, Mané was my MOTM. If we ignore the fact the he won a penalty within the opening seconds of the match, he was the link holding the team together defensively and offensively during the transition periods and through admirable bouts of athleticism. Mané won key duels in the front against the likes of Trippier, Eriksen, Vertonghen, and Alderweireld and was important in linking the midfield both ways. Alisson however was just as important for his late-game heroics and contributions. Several critics claimed that the quality of the shots were lousy and essentially directed straight at him. However, nothing could be further from the truth as his world-class positioning and footwork contributed to his excellent shot-stopping making challenging saves look too ordinary. [https://streamable.com/4pgai]

Despite converting the penalty Salah had a poor night. Partial fault lies on Salah’s own selfishness. However, Salah was specifically instructed by Klopp to get rid of the ball as quickly as possible and to not hold it as he usually does in a high-press system. Salah took some very uncharacteristic shots as a result and failed to improvise in key moments when better and wider options were available. If we look at the following xG graph, we can visualize the quality (or lack thereof) of the shots and key plays, the majority which came from or centered around Salah. [https://imgur.com/a/eCJan3Q]. Fortunately, Tottenham was kept quiet during the first half and had zero shots on target.

Coming into the 2nd half Klopp struck first and decided to make two important substitutions by subbing on Divock Origi for the unfit Firmino and James Milner for the quiet Giorgino Wijnaldum. Immediately, Divock and Milner contributed defensively and Klopp switched to high-press defense and build-up attack as shown here[https://streamable.com/b2cl5]. Pochettino’s team was beginning to become overwhelmed once again. While he did try to alleviate this issue with substitutions of his own; in the grand scheme of things his substitutions made little to no difference. Lucas Moura was subbed on in hopes of outrunning Liverpool but Klopp’s first-half conservative approach meant that his players had plenty of energy to spare. Eric Dier came on for the injured Sissoko as a man-for-man substitution but Dier was largely and not surprisingly anonymous. It wasn’t all rainbows and sunshines for Klopp however as the German manager did make a poor late substitution taking off Mané for Gomez in the 90th minute of regular time. In just those 5 minutes of added time, the rusty Gomez gave up 2 chances with 2 shots on target (marking 25% of the chances Tottenham created all game). In hindsight, the most obvious and logical change should have seen Salah off for Shaqiri or Oxlade-Chamberlain as the Egyptian international looked fatigued at that point.

Pochettino’s last life line was subbing on Fernando Llorente in the 81st minute to try to nick a goal off a set-piece or cross presumably. However, substitute Divock Origi sealed the game at the 87th minute after brilliant contributions from both Van Dijk and Matip. The game finished 2-0. Statistically speaking, it was a complete irregularity compared to previous seasons and European campaigns. The biggest takeaway from this game was the exposition of Jurgen Klopp’s growth as a football manager. Opting to set aside his usual “heavy metal” approach(a choice that might have arguably cost him previous European titles) and instead choosing a low-risk high-reward strategy he showed the world how much he has developed as a manager. At times he’s been unfairly labeled as a pure man-manager; a manager who’s triumphs come mostly from the fact that he can motivate his players to perform for him without much thought to tactics. However, on June 1, 2019 he proved to the world that he’s all that and much more.

TL;DR: Kieran Trippier won Liverpool the CL.

Submitted January 09, 2020 at 07:49AM by PaoloMustafini via reddit https://ift.tt/35yyeQP

[armsinthewronghands]

Ron Edwards Making No Sense

https://plus.google.com/u/0/110790893064742233179/posts/JJj6ow3fEX5

Wayne Snyder Shared privately  -  Aug 18, 2015

Simon Bisley, 1997

(NOTE FOR THE TRANSCRIPT: The post consisted of a Simon Bisley painting)

43 Ron Edwards's profile photoMike Evans's profile photoMichael Moscrip's profile photoRichard Grenville's profile photo 84 comments

Richard GrenvilleAug 18, 2015+4 5 4

If I were in my bikini and bird mask ensemble I would not like to be in that position under all those razor-sharp spider parts, is all I'm saying. 

Richard GrenvilleAug 18, 2015

+Jeremy Duncan #startingequipment for Oriax?

Asia PickleAug 18, 2015

I do like his stuff. You ever seen that TV show Spaced?

Ron EdwardsAug 18, 2015

plus for audacity, but yeesh, Simon, you get the big bucks, try some figure drawing

Zak SmithAug 18, 2015+5 6 5

That is a baffling comment +Ron Edwards. I don't know if you mean to have a conversation about art here but techmastery snark against Simon Bisley is about as misplaced as taking Aretha Franklin to task for not knowing how to sing. Any distortions of naturalistic anatomy in Bisley are chosen stylistic effects.

Rafael ChandlerAug 18, 2015+3 4 3

Sweet. Love the bird-girl. Thinking she might not be human -- look at them fingers.

Ron EdwardsAug 18, 2015+3 4 3

+Zak Smith Ohhhh, I have been schooled now. I'm saying this as someone who likes you: fuck off, Zak. Can't a person post anything without you comin' in as Master Scold? Do you own art? All of it, or just Bisley? Can you not face being baffled, as you call it? Or that a person can post something wrong, like really wrong horribly OMG wrong, and the world won't collapse if you don't correct it?

And no, this isn't a debate. I don't like Bisley so much, so what, it's not going to change the world.

People knuckle under to you for one reason: because they're scared of being vilified Limbaugh-wise. You've got the moral high ground, the professional success, the accolades, and a life you can be proud of. Any reason you have to be a bully?

Answer me that before you crack down on me again.

Zak SmithAug 18, 2015+1 2 1

1. There's a difference between "I don't like Bisley" (statement of opinion, unarguable) And "Bisley lacks technical ability" (assertion of fact, arguable) and the second is so far as I can tell, simply misinformation. I have a moral obligation to correct it if I see it because you don't want people acting on bad information. 2.How are the rest of us supposed to know which of your many public opinions you want to discuss and which one we'll be attacked for discussing? You snarked at Simon Bisley (he didn't attack you), I neutrally commented that I don't think that was warranted, now you're biting my head off? 3. If you didn't want to talk about your opinion, why'd you say it where other people could read it? 4. How can a person with no coercive power over you be "bullying"? +Ron Edwards +Mike Davison 

David BaityAug 18, 2015

+Zak Smith lmfao

Victor Garrison (headspice)Aug 18, 2015+1 2 1

+Rafael Chandler​, Dude, what are you? A "fingers man"?

Ron EdwardsAug 18, 2015+1 2 1

+Zak Smith You hold and openly wield immense coercive power. You are a master of single-messaging people about whom they plus or not-plus, of posting public messages to shame, and of leveraging your deserved reputation as a great artist and contributor to the hobby for weight in conversations. You are widely feared and operate as a chilling agent throughout many discussions in which your tangible interests are not involved. You may intend this or you may not; I am not speaking to that. But either way, do not play "Li'l ol' me."

I won't be looking at this thread again until tomorrow, in case that interests anyone.

Zak SmithAug 18, 2015+1 2 1

Which one of these "powers" is forbidden from Mere Normal Men? "A master of single-messaging"? That isn't a magic spell, Ron, you can do that, too. +Ron Edwards You just type. As for "leveraging my reputation"--you can't simultaneously claim someone has a deserved reputation for contributions in a field and then claim that their influence is unfair . Either the reputation is deserved and so they should be influential. Or it isn't and they shouldn't.

Tony DemetriouAug 18, 2015+2 3 2

I love Bisley, and his style. This is pretty representative of my ideal goal, if I could magically make art in any style I choose.

The distorted anatomy is perfect, in the same way that I enjoy Disney animation - the choices of how to stylize or not to stylize it gives so much character to the piece. And I'm lucky that the choices Bisley makes are the ones I find appealing.

And those colours!

+Ron Edwards Um, not intending to dogpile or anything. I totally get why you might not like this :) - But I can't agree with the "figure drawing" comment, to my eye he clearly has mastered figure drawing, and now is deciding which rules to break. That's what I love most about this piece!

So when I see you criticize his anatomy, I assume that we've got a mismatch when it comes to what we enjoy about the stylizations.

I say this because in other posts you've made, you've linked to comics and referenced art with much weaker figure drawing than this without commenting on the lack of technical skills. While that might not mean anything, is it just that you find these particular ones to be ugly?

Joshua BlackketterAug 18, 2015

.

David Lewis JohnsonAug 18, 2015

.

Ron EdwardsAug 19, 2015

A new day, and two fallacies await.

1. The "magic spell" is classic deflection. I said nothing of who can and cannot do those things. Single-messaging is obviously available to everyone; . The question is why you do them, which you are failing to answer.

2. Deserved reputation in doing a thing, in this case art, is not a moral obligation (your term) to do some other thing. Especially if that other thing is itself morally unsound.

These were also posted as provocation: I said I wouldn't be looking at the thread again until today, which I didn't. You posted immediately with fallacy statements, which you're not dumb enough to believe are valid. I think you know well a person can barely if ever resist replying to such things. Then you can play "ah ha you were too looking." You caught me with that once, and that dog hunts no more.

I don't think you are posting in good social or intellectual faith. What frustrates me is that you usually do post in good faith, and with points I generally value - until someone flips your Scold Switch, and you launch into these modes of attack which have long passed their high-school sell-date. They're beneath you. Yes, anyone can do them, and again: why would you?

One more check-in tomorrow to see if you answer this time. Then I'm done.

Zak SmithAug 19, 2015+1 2 1

+Ron Edwards *People don't have ideas different than yours just to piss you off, Ron* You assume bad faith: this is not good. - 1. It isn't "Deflection"--Bullying by definition requires the bully have abilities the target does not. I cannot bully you as I possess no such powers. - 1b.  As for why I'd single-message someone: Because sometimes going "Dude do you know what's going on in that thread?" would derail a public thread so you send them a private message. Right now I genuinely don't know why you're attacking me or why anyone of good conscience would join in with you. I need facts. So I asked. - 2. Everybody has a moral obligation to fact-check stuff that's discussed. Period. You (or anyone else) say an inaccurate thing, it needs to get fact-checked. "I don't like Simon Bisley" requires no comment. "Simon Bisley lacks technical ability" requires a fact-check, just like "girls don't play D&D" or "game have to look like textbooks" or any other incorrect fact I come on here and check. - 2b. I say and believe things you disagree with  because I believe they're true, not out of a sadistic desire to upset you. (This probably goes for a lot of people.) I, of course, never post fallacies and don't do so in order to "provoke" people. Provoking you achieves nothing. It is a bizarre and paranoid conspiracy theory to assume I someone get some special cookie for making you (or anyone else) mad. Like what's my supposed motive in your worldview? I didn't wake up hating Simon Bisley just as much as you yesterday and suddenly pretend to think he had technical skill just because I thought it would upset Ron Edwards! And what a joy upsetting Ron Edwards is? Right? Oh I am so glad I got to do this! What glee  I have reaped from manufacturing this false opinion about my own profession simply in order to upset one random man! That would be like you pretending bats are made of goat cheese in order to piss off a biologist you don't like. Evidence I liked Bisley before today is not thin on the ground, nor is evidence that I fact-check people when they get things wrong. I would hope, as a biologist, you'd think fact-checking bullshit about your area of study is an end in itself . I feel the same way about art. When you make false  accusations and I counter them you are not the only audience for fact-checks I may do to those false accusations. Every single person who might ever read since the beginning of time needs to know you aren't telling the truth, not just you. Now:  The person making a claim has the burden of proof--if you are claiming I am lying prove that now.

Wayne SnyderAug 19, 2015+3 4 3

That's some pretty funny shit right there. This could have been one of those art posts where folks comment, "Cool." Or "Awesome!" But ya'll have brought the comments bar up a notch to down right entertaining. To bad you can't hear me slow clapping.

Wayne SnyderAug 19, 2015+2 3 2

But I must admit, I'm a bit sad it turned out to be an argument about arguing instead of an art criticism debate.

Tony DemetriouAug 19, 2015

Alas - the internet!

Zak SmithAug 19, 2015+2 3 2

+Wayne Snyder Would be happy to have the art criticism debate if there was someone who wanted to throw down on the other side. But that never really does happen.

Tony DemetriouAug 19, 2015

I don't know if anyone here has the technical chops to have that debate, +Zak Smith ?

Zak SmithAug 19, 2015+1 2 1

The whole talkin'-RPGs business relies on articulate amateurism +Tony Demetriou, if everybody here can say why they don't like Palladium or Pathfinder or Prometheus, they can, in theory, say why they think a painting fails. They may not be able to refer to personal experience painting, but I am not going to pull rank here and claim you need an MFA to critique a picture.

Tony DemetriouYesterday 12:22 AM

I kinda feel that, having played 2-10 hours of RPGs per week for a couple of decades now, I can speak as an expert on the topic (while recognizing there are many other experts)

With pictures, I can talk about what I like. But I don't really know how to engage in a criticism debate. Willing to try, of course! Especially since I learn so much by a good debate :)

Soooo....

What's with Bisley's neon colours? I love them, but my first impression when looking at this picture is a mess of brightness. That seems to be the opposite of when I look at, say, Franzetta who tends to use one dominant colour for the whole picture.

Is that a failing on Bisley's part, or just a stylistic preference? I love the colours, but could it have been possible to have made a picture like this, without the first impression being such a mess? Maybe better separation of them, rather than similar tones on overlapping objects?

I also find he often muddies the picture with unnecessary detail - like this picture has a great silhouette, and he pulls the two humans out of the background by making them brighter than the background. But the spider seems like it's a mess. What's with those skulls beneath its legs, that are the same colour as the legs, and the same brightness and contrast? It forces my eye to do work to figure out what I'm looking at. It doesn't "lead the eye" around the picture very well.

I'm a fan of both headdresses, but the material on the guy's one seems off - it looks like it's meant to be feathers, but to me it looks like some sort of white cardboard. The girl's headdress feathers look soft, which is what I'd expect from the guy's headdress too.

And the spider's abdomen kinda looks half finished? It looks like there's the brown from the background drawn over it. Or is that some sort of green in the background and not an abdomen? I dunno. I don't like it!

... but these are my nitpicks - as a whole image, I adore it!

Zak SmithYesterday 2:21 AM

I don't understand +Tony Demetriou , you have looked at far more pictures in your life than played games, why aren't you an expert on that, too?

Tony DemetriouYesterday 3:16 AM

Because of my nature.

I've mentally broken down and analysed what makes RPGs "work" and created my own, which tests my theories.

I've looked at many pictures, but until relatively recently (maybe 5 years ago?) I haven't been engaging with it in the same way. I'm trying to learn to draw, and it's given me a new perspective on art - I'm noticing things that I was never aware of before. My understanding of form and structure and linework is so much advanced just from this hobbyist learning - and I'm sure that once I go further I'll have similar gains with my understanding of tone, colour etc. once I start learning how to apply that too. So I "know how much I don't know" if that makes sense?

Maybe it's just how I learn - I very much "learn by doing", which explains why I'm more comfortable considering myself an expert on things that I make or do, rather than things I mostly observed.

That said - in the post above, I've given my criticisms of this picture. Do you agree or disagree with them, or have any comments of your own?

Zak SmithYesterday 3:26 AM+1 2 1

It can't be just you, as nearly every single intelligent person not trained inthe field is terrified of rendering an attempt at an intelligent opinion of a piece of art. As if it were somehow 1000 times more complex than a movie (which every person has opinions on). As for your criticisms: perhaps what they lack is a sufficient counterexample--like who does right the things you guess possibly he did wrong ? 

Tony DemetriouYesterday 3:39 AM

Good point. I have no problem at all discussing movies, and the artistry involved. Maybe it's some sort of assumed-complexity due to art criticism being viewed as some elite field?

Hmm, a counterexample - I can absolutely give examples of people who do it differently but I don't know if that means they're doing it right.

- For the bright colours, a lot of cartoons and 3D animation uses bright colours without the first impression being so confused. The artwork isn't nearly as good (in my opinion), but this picture is also brightly coloured, while still "reading" easily at first glance: http://www.wisdomswebzine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Tangled.jpg

I suspect it's because, although there are bright colours, it's still a pretty limited palette - mostly blue and purple. It also keeps the characters silhouetted by dressing Flynn in darker colours and with dark hair against the white horse, and putting the darker blue behind the horse.

Rembrant's The Night Watchman is a great example of a very busy picture with a lot of detail, where the detail doesn't muddy the picture (although it makes me feel like I've forgotten my glasses...) https://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/the-night-watchman/

If Bisley had done something similar around the spider & figures it might have helped give it a clearer shape, and stopped the spider being such a mess?

For the headdress - I think Bisley's own picture is the best example of doing it "right" - the woman's headdress feathers look great, the man's looks like cardboard. I think he should have softened the edges of the man's feathers.

For the spider's abdomen... uh, it just looks half finished to me. I don't think that needs a comparison? Although there certainly are other pictures that use that same effect.

Zak SmithYesterday 3:46 AM

+Tony Demetriou "I can absolutely give examples of people who do it differently but I don't know if that means they're doing it right." Well if you like it they're doing it right and if you don't they' aren't

Wayne SnyderYesterday 3:55 AM+2 3 2

Bisley is known for his bizarre pallette choices. I know he often used automotive paint in his illustrations. He's riffing off Frazettas choices, but taking it up a notch. Bisley is a heavy metal painter. He is painting visual representations of heavy metal music for the covers of a magazine called heavy metal. So the subject matter is over the top brutality and horror and sexuality. If you removed the spider and the warhammer from this piece it would just be pornography. The beef cake warrior's bulging junk is aimed directly at the sorceress's bulging junk and the course of image is obvious. But it is both, it is sex and violence in a pure cartoon proportioned form. It is the teenage mind and that is who is supposed to buy the magazine this is a cover for. I don't know why he put that skull mess in the center. I suspect without it the composition would be lopsided. Maybe it just wasn't "metal" enough for the Biz, so he added the skulls. It may have even been the choice of a art director and the Biz just wanted to get it out the door and get paid. But I doubt that. 

Zak SmithYesterday 4:05 AM+3 4 3

I think "when in doubt skulls" is a pretty good creative default

Richard GrenvilleYesterday 5:37 AM+3 4 3

Regarding people's reticence about art crit, I guess I'll state the obvious to get it out there: there is a whole industry of art critics, which was at some stage dedicated to placing painting and sculpture (although not really printmaking) in a special separate category elevated above the vulgar horde - to promoting the value of art as a vital endeavour in which humans aspired to the level of gods. And even if critics haven't done much of this in the past couple of generations, some of those old attitudes still linger on, especially in primary schools which tend to be the last refuge of ancient pedagogical ideas.* And those old values still inform the economics of the art market (the aura of the art object, the figure of the artist as a conduit into some extraordinary other world). So I suspect people might be reticent to talk about paintings partly because they're haunted by the snooty ghost of e.g. Vasari or Jacob Burckhardt, refracted through a thousand indirect sources, telling them there is something spiritual and ineffable in there which is not for the likes of them. The fact that this picture in particular is not in the (socioeconomic) category elevated by Vasari or Burkhardt but makes use of its gestures probably makes things worse, not better.

In contrast, AIUI in the early days of film there were conscious efforts made by auteur directors on one hand and populist producers on the other either to place the medium firmly in the elevated sphere of Art or to rescue it from that ivory tower and make it democratic, for the people. Perhaps the economic possibilities of mass-market film just blew away the arguments on the high art side. Perhaps the costs of commercial film production spiraled out of the hands of individual directors making their individual artistic statements and left only oligarchical demagogues, reliant on sometimes-subversive film-making experts.

* and some innovative ones too, I'm not dissing early education here.

Ron EdwardsYesterday 8:38 AM

+Zak Smith You're not hitting anything with that reply. I never said you were doing this vindictively to upset me personally as me. I'm saying you use rhetorical and social tricks to marginalize people when they post things that .. whatever it is those things do that prompts it. It fits into your own definition of bullying - because using techniques not only that others don't have, but that they won't use, counts in that definition. You said my post "baffled" you, yeah, well it baffles me that a person of your qualities and insights would do these things.

You're saying Bisley's distortions serve his (an) artistic purpose. You can just say so. You don't have to pursue anyone who plusses me saying something else. You don't have to claim "moral obligation" to put me or anyone else down, with chilling and silencing techniques. It's this pious scolding and shaming I'm talking about. Not difference of views about the artist - in fact, if you'd asked in a real way, you'd have found that I like the way Bisley does it most of the time, not so much in this picture this time. I did not say "Bisley can't draw bodies and can never draw bodies and never did." That is your trip, you brought it in, and all your high-minded fact-checking claim to being the intellectual in the room is based on that alone. You revved up your moral fires for nothing.

All of the potential for easy contrast of posts, no status issues, open to the reader to evaluate or ignore, is gone when you descend with your blazing moral obligation in play. You talk about assuming things? You assumed vast tracts of attitude, position, and intention in my post, so hard you "saw" them. You've created an entertainment environment where people can enjoy you putting someone down. That's bullying.

Daily check-in tomorrow. It is remotely possible that this could be a worthwhile conversation.

Zak SmithYesterday 9:04 AM

+Richard Grenville Sure, but just because someone is telling you to stay in your class and let them handle the heavy lifting, why would you let them?

Zak SmithYesterday 9:18 AM

+Ron Edwards 1. Why would I want to marginalize you? Your claim has no motive. 2. Asking people why their friends or allies are being dicks isn't a "trick". It's a straightforward way of dealing with bad behavior. 3. No definition (including mine) of bullying includes "don't use techniques that are totally legit and make sense and that are designed to make the person making a false accusation stop" which is what these "techniques" were doing. 4. You're using a begging-the-question argument "What you did is obviously motivated by badness because it uses techniques that are bad and those techniques are bad because they are motivated by bad" 5. "You're saying Bisley's distortions serve his (an) artistic purpose. You can just say so. You don't have to pursue anyone who plusses me saying something else." I didn't do that. I only talked toone other person--Mike Davison--once you called me "bullying" because that is an insane charge. If you call me bullying--you are lying. If someone I consider a friend plusses that lie--I must address that with my friend. Period. Anything else would be irresponsible on my part. Also, in my original comments to you I didn't say the distortions "served an artistic purpose" I said he wanted them to serve an artistic purpose , which is different, in case you didn't know that, which your joke (implying the distortions were mistakes) seemed to indicate. 5. "You don't have to claim "moral obligation" to put me or anyone else down," I didn't "put you down" I fact-checked you. You asserted Bisley's distortions were down to not knowing how to draw accurately (rather than choice).This is not subjective--his distortions may be (subjectively) undesirable but they are (objectively) not "because he doesn't know any better". Therefore you said something objectively inaccurate in a semi-public space . Anyone who knew you had said this and knew the truth would have an obligation to point out the fact-checking error. 6. "in fact, if you'd asked in a real way,..." Once you express yourself in the form of a snarky attack, you don't then get to demand benefit-of-the-doubt from someone defending your target. Bisley did not begin a conversation by making fun of you . You attacked Bisley. I defended him. You then attacked me. 7. ". I did not say "Bisley can't draw bodies and can never draw bodies and never did."" No, you just made a joke to that effect at his expense and then accused me of bullying instead of going "Oh, sorry, that's not what I meant, let's sort this out" 8. "You assumed vast tracts of..." I assumed nothing. I interpreted that you made a snarky joke at Bisley's expense.  *I can only be accused of assuming if you are claiming your comment was not a snarky joke at Bisley's expense.* You got a reasonable response to that directed not just at you, but to any naive 3rd party who doesn't knowmuch about art who might be reading (naive viewers might take your joke at face value and they need to be disabused of that and know the artist you're attacking can actually identify body parts and where they go). 9. " You've created an entertainment environment where people can enjoy you putting someone down. " I wasn't putting you down, I was fact-checking you. If someone enjoys that outside of some pre-existing reasont o dislike you, they are a total asshole. If someone sees that as important and necessary, they are correct.

Richard GrenvilleYesterday 9:48 AM+2 3 2

just because someone is telling you to stay in your class and let them handle the heavy lifting, why would you let them?

this seems like it might also have some bearing on your conversation with Ron - my guess is that a lot of people feel discouraged in talking about art the same way they would feel discouraged in discussing engineering, only even more so. On one hand, they feel ignorant about what they imagine is a specialized field of knowledge (like engineering). But also they have a sense that they might trip off some kind of lurking art trap and get laughed at by the cognoscenti for their ignorance or something, as if they'd used the wrong fork at a gala dinner.

Class anxiety may be silly and useless but it's real for lots of people and harder to negotiate than ever now that it no longer runs in simple hegemonic directions. 

...I'm not saying that Ron is suffering from class anxiety. Just realised I didn't leave that clear. 

Zak SmithYesterday 9:53 AM+1 2 1

Use whatever fork. Know why you made that decision. Speak with the courage of your convictions if someone gives you static about it.

Victor Garrison (headspice)Yesterday 9:54 AM+2 3 2

My only criticism of this piece is: why did he paint such awesomely proportioned derriere and legs and stick those spooky, fucking spindly assed fingers on her hand?!?!?

I mean as far as drawing in your gaze, it's obvious Biz intentionally wanted her ass to be seen first. I say this not because I'm a perv (tho I won't deny that charge) but because it's pretty much center and hi-lighted more brightly than anything else. Your gaze moves from there over to his crotch, up his breast plate, to his face and then -- OH SHIT!-- to the monster. I like how he lures you in with submissive sexuality, brings you further along with brute sexuality, then BAM knocks you in the head with a hideous creature. Nice work, nice work.

Rafael ChandlerYesterday 9:55 AM

+Victor Garrison He gave her fingers like that so you could tell your friends, "Hey, man, she gave me her digits." <rimshot>

Richard GrenvilleYesterday 10:12 AM+1 2 1

for me it's a tangle of long golden-brown forms that could be a tree root or something, and then I see a butt, and then the rest kinda unmasks slowly. 

Zak SmithYesterday 10:16 AM+1 2 1

The greens of the spider come on before anything else for me

Victor Garrison (headspice)Yesterday 10:28 AM+1 2 1

+S Robertson , If you're telling a linear story, yeah, that's the route to take. But it seems to me that Bisley is going for a visceral "EWWW" reaction. It's a dark piece, so much so, that IMO, it almost looks like a black velvet painting technique was used. The bird woman's butt is the brightest spot in the painting, which is a signal to start viewing there. Especially since that spot seems to be the counterbalance to the large, dark negative space at the top of the painting. The next closest bright spot is the cod piece, then the breast plate, then the helmet, and that's when I made out the spider creature. IDK, that's just the way I encountered it, not as a story, but as an....oh shit, MONSTER! kinda thing.

Victor Garrison (headspice)Yesterday 10:32 AM

+Zak Smith  Damn, I didn't realize that green was the spider. Seriously, I thought it was shrubbery and had no clue wtf he stuck that in a dungeon.

Justice PlattYesterday 10:45 AM+1 2 1

Good to see that Zak knows what Ron said better than Ron does.  There is absolutely no contradiction between the belief that Bisley chose not to do good figure drawing for whatever reason and RE's comment.

Victor Garrison (headspice)Yesterday 10:57 AM+1 2 1

+Rafael Chandler​​, I wanna say I "dig it", but I'm reaching, yet I can't grasp it.... :)

Zak SmithYesterday 2:06 PM

+Justice Platt How do you interpret: "yeesh, Simon, you get the big bucks, try some figure drawing" ?

Justice PlattYesterday 2:14 PM+1 2 1

+Zak Smith , three points:

1)There is no logical contradiction between saying that and believing the artist capable of figure drawing.

2)The guy who said it says that' he did not in fact assert that Bisley cannot draw bodies.

3)It is entirely plausible that he meant to point to the lack of use of figure drawing skills.  Example: The Packers go 3 & out on consecutive off-tackle runs.  I say "Yeesh, Rodgers, you get the big bucks, try some passing" in whatever tone of voice you like.  I clearly mean, as a reasonably informed football fan, that the Packers are making a strategic blunder by not using Rodgers' passing skills.  I think the situation is exactly analogous for RE as a comic fan.

So, yeah, you seem to have jumped to conclusions about his asserting Bisley's lack of skill.

Zak SmithYesterday 2:23 PM

+Justice Platt Are you saying you think the comment was intended to be a responsible and constructive comment rather than (at best) vague snark?

Justice PlattYesterday 2:28 PM+1 2 1

I make no claims to being able to read RE's mind. He speaks for himself well.   I'm saying that your blanket statement that RE asserted that Bisley has no skill is false on logical grounds, on the grounds of the testimony of the author, and on the grounds that there exists a strongly plausible alternate interpretation.  Is any of this not true?

Zak SmithYesterday 2:30 PM

+Justice Platt I suggest only that RE;s comment was snarky and negative enough that my initial comment was necessary to clarify the facts. His subsequent comments could have been "Oh, that's not what I mean" and I'd go "Oh, ok" But instead he went "YOU CLARIFIED AFTER MY SNARKY COMMENT! YOU ARE BULLYING ME!" at which point he passed from "requiring clarification" to simply "wrong and insane"

Justice PlattYesterday 2:36 PM+1 2 1

+Zak Smith , bullshit.  You have repeated a false thing-that RE asserted that Bisley has no skill in figure drawing-multiple times, even after clarification from the author.  In no way did RE's reaction force you to do that, and blaming him for it is ridiculous.

Zak SmithYesterday 2:41 PM

+Justice Platt If he disagrees with that assertion, then he may say that and I will have no choice but to take him at his word. It does't retroactively mean: -My initial clarifying comment was in any way insulting or unnecessary (as his  initial comment was, at best, ambiguous and, at best, still insulting snark) and -any of his later statements were in any way ok, since they contain crazy false accusations

Justice PlattYesterday 2:53 PM

+Zak Smith ,  the issue is not RE and the terrible things he allegedly  forced you to do.  You are not telling the truth about what he said. My 1st & 3rd points from my comment above at 4:14 applied before you replied, and you jumped to the conclusion that he must be asserting that Bisley had no skill.  Further, it is a rather insulting assumption that a lifelong, voracious comics reader like RE has no awareness of Bisley's work & skill.

Zak SmithYesterday 2:56 PM

+Justice Platt If Ron feels that I have misrepresented his position, he can say so. My first comment is wholly justified because it was there to clarify the situation after his snark. My subsequent comments were necessary to to establish that he was not telling the truth about bullying.

Justice PlattYesterday 3:09 PM

+Zak Smith , textual evidence is what it is.  Did you in fact jump to conclusions and make false statements about what RE asserted or not?  Were those conclusions based on the insulting assumption that RE was unaware of Bisley's skill or not?  If the answer to any of these is no, which of my three points is untrue?

Zak SmithYesterday 3:48 PM

+Justice Platt I already spoke to this: " If Ron feels that I have misrepresented his position, he can say so. (Neither of us know what he meant.) My first comment is wholly justified because it was there to clarify the situation after his snark. My subsequent comments were necessary to to establish that he was not telling the truth about bullying. "

Justice PlattYesterday 4:12 PM

More bullshit.  Your entire justification for ongoing intervention has been that you need (in fact have a moral obligation) to correct RE's error of fact-an error of fact that you made up.  RE points out to you that you did so, and you repeat it yet again!  In bold even!    

As far as your subsequent statements go, this is more "Ron made me do it" nonsense.  Simply put, you can take issue with someone's tone, or with someone's attribution to you of bullying behavior, without insisting that your tendentious interpretation of his statement is utterly correct. You are perfectly aware of this.

So, do you believe that RE's statement must and can only mean that Bisley lacks technical skill or not?  If not, will you retract those parts of your statements in which you definitively, unambiguously assert that this is the case? .   And, yes, this is important.  There is at least one person on the internet with a strong propensity to twist any statements by RE that can be twisted and attack RE with them.   The person I have in mind also clearly values your opinion, and would be happy to have fodder for his horseshit that he can present as approved by you.  Whether or not there is an analogy to your own situation is up to you.

Zak SmithYesterday 4:21 PM+1 2 1

+Justice Platt " do you believe that RE's statement must and can only mean that Bisley lacks technical skill or not? " I do not know what it means, I only know what: -I think it implied and -that Ron, instead of clarifying, chose to attack me " If not, will you retract those parts of your statements in which you definitively, unambiguously assert that this is the case?" If Ron says this isn't what he meant, then he can say that, at which point I will go "ok, then that's clear now" but all of my actions remained justified: His first statement morally required that I (or someone) clarify--as it strongly implied Bisley didn't know how to draw. My later statements were likewise, *morally required* because Ron falsely claimed he was being bullied.

Justice PlattYesterday 4:35 PM

+Zak Smith , a man who does not know what a statement means does not repeatedly, confidently, unambiguously, in bold offer an interpretation of that statement, nor does he present it as a definite error of fact someone made, nor does he assert that he has a "moral obligation" to correct it.   Why are you so reluctant to admit that you jumped to conclusions?

And again, this "If Ron chooses to correct me" horseshit doesn't wash.  Either you parsed his statement right, in which case I owe you an apology, or you did not, in which case you owe him an apology.

Zak SmithYesterday 4:38 PM

+Justice Platt How, pray tell, do we know if I correctly interpreted Ron's statement, psychopath?

Justice PlattYesterday 4:56 PM

+Zak Smith, either the author agrees with your interpretation or there is no plausible alternate interpretation.  Pretty simple.  Neither is the case here.  You can answer my questions whenever you like.

Does you calling me a psychopath mean I'm officially on some list of trolls or RPG drama club members or whatever?  Can I have a membership card?

Zak SmithYesterday 5:03 PM

+Justice Platt "either the author agrees with your interpretation or there is no plausible alternate interpretation" YES. That's why we have to wait for Ron to get past addressing: -1. The minor moral crime of responding to a work of art by an artist who'd done nothing wrong with a snarky attack and -2. The major moral crime of accusing me of being a bully and then move on to -3. The minor and arguable possible crime of ignorance or incompetence of attempting to express a possibly-believed inaccurate view of Mr Bisley's working process ....before we can answer the question of just what interior mental space Ron's absolutely totally objectively shitty comment was meant to reflect. When and if he finally gets around to clarifying that, I'll address it. As for you: you are simply obviously a psychopath for being so worried about 3 after all the 1 and 2 going on and doing so with so much pointless swearing. It would be remiss if I didn't point it out, for the benefit of anyone who hadn't noticed and might considering collaborating with you on any projects or discussing anything with you.

Justice PlattYesterday 5:53 PM

+Zak Smith , how on earth can a comment that you admit you don't know the meaning of be "absolutely totally objectively shitty?"  And before you go to the "it was snarky" well, remember that my alternate interpretation turns the comment from "Hurr hurr Bisley can't draw" to "Bisley would have done well to exercise more figure drawing skills."  You appear to have admitted that my interpretation is at least plausible, so you;ll be wanting to make an actual argument about why that's "objectively shitty." Otherwise,  all you're really doing is tone policing RE, since, agree or disagree, that's a reasonably productive thing to say.

Also, we have both essentially been ignoring RE's 10:38 AM comment, in which he both specifically points out that he did not explicitly say that Bisley cannot draw, points out that you made assumptions (one of which I pointed out above as an insulting assumption) to get to that interpretation, and states that he generally likes Mr. Bisley's work.  All of this makes my interpretation substantially more plausible.

As to my concern with 3-I was under the impression that you agreed with me that smaller falsehoods in the service of "larger truths" was a bad thing.

Unnecessary swearing?  Never thought I'd see the day when you'd blanch at bad words explicitly directed at your ideas, but times do change.

Last, on the psychopath thing,  I look forward to seeing your compendium of "dumb things Justice has said."  Maybe you'll find some stuff I don't remember or whatever.  Little trip down Memory Lane.  I am disappointed by no membership card.

I don't, however, expect to see it soon.  Unlike RE, I have no real reputation in RPGs to lose, and my name, to the best of my knowledge, has never been mentioned in a thread I am not in.  That's not the case for RE. Agree or disagree with him, like his stuff or don't, he's been working very hard to write good games and think clearly about RPGs for quite a while.  This is a good & worthy thing.  Allowing distortions of his remarks to stand just gives him more nonsense to contend with, especially at the hands of the individual I referred to earlier, who clearly values your opinion, covets your influence, and craves your approval.

Zak SmithYesterday 5:56 PM

+Justice Platt "my alternate interpretation turns the comment from "Hurr hurr Bisley can't draw" to "Bisley would have done well to exercise more figure drawing skills."" Your translation inaccurately removes the snark, which is there regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it or not. And is still opinion expressed as if it were fact or advice expressed to someone who clearly chose otherwise, which is also inexcusable and does not lead to a good discussion. The helpful or informative form of the remark would be something like "I wish he showed off more of his figure drawing skill here". Most of your comments are unnecessary, you just need to wait for Ron to respond rather thant repeatedly trying to find new interpretations of his objectively dumb remark " Agree or disagree with him, like his stuff or don't, he's been working very hard..." Calling me a bully torpedoes any and all good intentions on his part and means his alleged accomplishments don't matter. He ceases to be a reliable voice immediately at that point and becomes a chew toy for the rest of his life unless he manages to apologize and there can be no real defense of him. Even if my interpretation of his remark in my first response was inaccurate, nothing licenses him to say that--it is evil.

Justice PlattYesterday 6:13 PM+1 2 1

+Zak Smith , you can do better than that.  One man's hateful snark is another's witty tone.  I found your initial response nastily condescending, but that's not an argument against you. It's just straightforward tone policing either way.

And, as far as opinion expressed as fact goes, come on.  Just silly.  



Zak SmithYesterday 6:21 PM

+Justice Platt "Witty snark" or "hateful snark" are still just snark at the artist, which makes you not A Respectable Helpful Voice In The RPG Scene it makes you The Comments. And the way you build a decent RPG community is not be ok with people acting like The Comments. The Tone was snark (not ok to make a negative comment without facts to back it up). The Content was implying inaccurate facts (likewise not ok). "Tone policing" is when you make an accurate criticism and get attacked for your tone. Ron made either: -an inaccurate criticism (which is wrong, regardless of tone) or -an opinion-as-fact criticism (which is wrong, regardless of tone) The internet SO doesn't need more opinion-as-fact or baseless snark.

Justice PlattYesterday 7:44 PM

+Zak Smith , my alternate interpretation, whether or not it is particularly incisive, is substantive.  Which, frankly, is the better standard-"accurate" kinda sucks, since how could we possibly ' whether or not a counterfactual criticism, like my reinterpretation, is accurate?  Do we have access to all the pictures Bisley could have drawn?

The opinion as fact thing is still silly.  Work harder.

I agree about elevating the tone of internet discussion to at least some degree.But notice, you've gone from a duty to correct any & all errors of fact to a duty to elevate the the tone, as judged & enforced by you.  

Which, given your earlier name-calling and ridiculous blue-stockingness about swearing, allows me only to say "Be the change," y'know?

Zak SmithYesterday 7:59 PM+1 2 1

+Justice Platt "The opinion as fact thing is still silly.  Work harder." This alone makes you wrong. The rest is icing after that. If you think the internet needs more "Kirk is just better than Picard" then you're not a person anybody else need to listen to. As for "being the change" you don't stop someone from robbing banks by quietly not robbing banks. You have to call out bad behavior or it will continue, as the entire RPG internet proves every day.

Justice PlattYesterday 8:03 PM

+Zak Smith , would repeatedly, unambiguously asserting that your somewhat implausible interpretation of someone's statement was absolutely true count as OAF?

Zak SmithYesterday 8:09 PM

+Justice Platt Only if they contest it. If I think a house is on fire that isn't because of taste it's because of what i thought was a true fact about the world (which is all any of us can do: draw conclusions from sensory data). A grown-up like Ron needs to know the difference between taste and fact right off, but everyone can take the facts in front of them and make an incorrect inference--there's no shame in that so long as it is investigated if it was insulting to the target. Since Ron's comment was a bad thing to say because represents all bad options: -"Bisley lacks technical facility (incorrect) -"Bisley doesn't lack tech facility but it's good to express personal distaste by pretending it does" (counterproductive and trolling) -"Bisley made a choice I don't like and I'm going to both obscure that it's a choice and obscure that it;s just a taste thing" (counterproductive and trolling) -"I'm gonna snark for mystery reasons" (counterproductive and trolling) ...my inference was not particularly insulting since all the options make Ron's statement bad

Tony DemetriouYesterday 8:19 PM

I also interpreted Ron's comment as implying Bisley can't draw figures well.

I can absolutely see how the comment could have been intended to imply that Bisley can draw figures well, and chose not to in this picture - but even so it was clearly snarky. By saying "try some figure drawing", in either interpretation, it's saying that he didn't do figure drawing in this image.

To me, the implication that he didn't do figure drawing in this image is objectively wrong - there are two figures in the picture with (although stylized) relatively realistic proportions, musculature, etc. - there is clearly figure drawing there, whether it's good or bad.

So, using your football metaphor, it'd be more akin to Rodgers regularly passing the ball, but failing to do it to your satisfaction. And then you make the comment about "Yeesh, Rodgers, you get the big bucks, try some passing"

So clearly snarky.

(But it doesn't bother me if Ron is snarky or not. Bisley isn't here on this thread, and isn't having his feelings hurt, so we don't need to defend him unless we believe that some tangible harm will come to him or others from this snark.)

I'm not convinced that Ron's comment was shitty or bad - but it was inaccurate, and I don't have a problem with someone disagreeing with a comment they believe to be inaccurate.

I was quite surprised by Ron's response - although Zak's comment can be read as condascending, the reply was more vitriolic than I expected. Especially as I've seen Ron handle other, more direct attacks, with grace. I'm assuming that is due to their history, rather than this thread itself. As such, hanging this disagreement on Ron's originating comment feels like everyone is talking around the actual issue*.

* Whatever that actual issue might be.

+Zak Smith - Although I recognize that you were using the word in a non-medical sense, if we're being technically correct, +Justice Platt is only a psychopath if he scores above 30 on the PCL-R checklist. http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Hare-Psychopathy-Checklist.html

I dunno if he's likely to show up as a psychopath, as one of the primary traits is a lack of empathy, and Justice seems to be showing a lot of empathy towards Ron. (Although a psychopath might attempt to simulate that empathy as an excuse to exert their dominance in a conversation.)

Tony DemetriouYesterday 8:22 PM+1 2 1

+Zak Smith As a matter of taste, I don't know if this house is on fire, but it certainly is flaming

http://www.cynical-c.com/2015/06/19/relentlessly-gay-yard/

Zak SmithYesterday 8:25 PM

+Tony Demetriou the fact that Bisley isn't present is not the issue. Nor are his feelings. The point is a snarky negative comment does 3 things: -makes the conversation worse (because it is vague but contestable) and -(in this case) implies incorrect information. and -Violates the golden rule You don't avoid snark to spare peoples' feelings (surely thousands of people have snarked at Bisley before--he is an artist, this is a consequence of making art, it would be bad to let it affect your feelings), you avoid it because it makes the resulting conversation worse or (at best) does nothing but take up space. And, further, everyone must be subjected to the same standard whether they are present or not because they could easily see the comment in the future, and--MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY--uninformed 3rd parties, new to the situation might see it in the future.

Tony DemetriouYesterday 8:29 PM

+Zak Smith Out of context, I have zero problem with snark. I've got a friend that communicates almost entirely via sarcasm. I'm also Australian, where we'll use insults as everyday conversation tools. To me, this doesn't muddy the conversation.

In context, if snark is used as an attack, then I've got a problem with it. If it's used to express an opinion, but not specifically as an attack, then I don't. In this particular case, I couldn't say which is true.

I do think whether Ron believes Bisley is going to see his comment makes a difference on my interpretation of whether it was an attack or not.

If you feel that snark makes the conversation worse, regardless of whether it's an attack or not, then it doesn't matter whether Bisley is present or not.

I absolutely agree with you that Ron's comment implies incorrect information, and that incorrect information is bad (which is why I also disagreed with it.)

Justice Platt12:25 AM

+Zak Smith , RE did contest your interpretation.  I've pointed this out a few times. So yeah, OAF, by the standard you explicitly set out.  Really makes the rest of your post moot.  Snark always and everywhere bad might be defensible, but it is not the argument you were making in your posts to RE.

What I do want to address is your take on my opinion of OAF.  You immediately ascribed to me a complete straw man-that I want the internet to have more "Kirk is objectively better than Picard."  You had no warrant for saying so, and before you say that I should have clarified, does that justify the insulting  ascription of the most ridiculous position I could possibly hold?

It's of a piece with your professing to find four uses of a rather mild expletive "pointless swearing" and offering that as a reason people should avoid me.  In both cases, I cannot imagine that you did not recognize what you were doing and go on to do it anyway.  You are vigilant for strawmanning where you are concerned, and your body of work (to put it mildly) shows little concern about cussing.

These are the kinds of things that concern me in argument.  Your sanctimony about snark and OAF is sadly misplaced and rather grotesque when it occurs almost literally in the same breath with these other tactics.  You admit that snark can be harmless, OAF is pretty well understood as a statement of opinion by the vast majority of English speakers.  Faux outrage and strawmanning are always harmful.  So, yeah, be the change.

Zak Smith12:58 AM

+Justice Platt You ignored this: " If I think a house is on fire that isn't because of taste it's because of what i thought was a true fact about the world (which is all any of us can do: draw conclusions from sensory data). " You also ignored the fact that while Ron has repeatedly said pieces of what he thinks Ron has NEVER claimed his original snarky comment could not imply to a good-faith, educated reader that Ron thought Bisley lacked technical skill Until he: - does so, - does so convincingly and -then I deny him and can give no counterevidence ...then I am plausibly in the realm of fact. Right now I have an interpretation of his words "He implied Bisley lacked technical ability, despite possibly not meaning it" and my responsibilities "Therefore someone needed to establish this was not a true thing to imply". Nothing that has happened has changed any of that, and none of that is me taking something I know to be an opinion and claiming it's fact. So far as I can tell (and this is a guess),, from what he's saying, Ron agrees with this: "Ron implied Bisley lacked technical ability, despite possibly not meaning it" and his take is "Who the fuck cares? I get to just say random shit on the internet because who cares if anyone believes it? The important thing is nobody should ever clean up after the mess I make." As for the rest: OAF always leads to "Kirk is better than Picard" arguments, so you are totally defending that practice. On swearing: you're doing it against a target that's done nothing wrong in defense of a target that objectively has (he said I "bullied" which is objectively incorrect), that's the disturbing bit. ' OAF is pretty well understood as a statement of opinion by the vast majority of English speakers.' Incorrect: the whole reason for edition wars and other shitty internet phenomena is that nobody clearly draws lines between what's fact and what's opinion. Like it's a fact that people I know grasp percentile systems easily. But if I go "percentile systems are easy to grasp" then we don't know whether I mean that fact I just reported or whether I am just saying they are having done no research. Same with 90% of RPG arguments, treating claims you've researched the same as info you haven't ("This is "unworkable" "--well is it literally unworkable as in the math can't ever work because of a literal error or is it just you don't like it? "You can't satisfy both this and that at once!" Well are you sayng you tested it or are you saying you guess that?  "This drives most women away?" Well are you saying you checked or you're just guessing because you don't like it?) leads to nearly all the pointless fighting on the internet about games. So, just because you aren't smart enough to see why doing bad things causes problems doesn't mean they don't cause problems. Also, because you're not smart enough to see the reasons I call out bad behavior while at the same time engaging in behavior you think is the same, doesn't mean it's the same.

Justice Platt2:03 AM

+Zak Smith , you wanna get some sleep?  Rethink that post?  It's pretty feeble,

Zak Smith2:12 AM+1 2 1

+Justice Platt Again, the fact that you even posted that, resorting to just straight trolling and attempting to sort of wish away clear objections to your mistaken argument, suggests further that you have no value as a person to talk to. If you have an argument: make it. If you don't: apologize for wasting everyone's time.

Justice Platt3:06 AM+1 2 1

+Zak Smith OK. In order then:

I have no idea what you're talking about with the house on fire thing.  Hence ignoring it.

You're shifting goalposts again.  The idea that RE clarifying his position requires proof to the good faith etc etc is ludicrous.  It's also an entirely new standard.  My position has been consistently that your repeated, unambiguous statements that RE asserted (Not "implied"-another goalpost shift,.  "Asserted" is your multiple repeated original word choice) Bisley had no skill were not warranted, given that you don't know what RE means, and plausible alternate explanations exist.  "Plausibly in the realm of fact" is a ridiculous standard for big bold text this is true statements.  It is "plausibly in the realm of fact" that you're going to the bank tomorrow morning, but I'm still not going to claim that you definitely are, especially if you say you aren't..

You again change the claim you make-your original straw-manning is that I want more KP arguments, not that I'm ok with them.  

You,  a grown-up with some experience of the world, find it "disturbing" that someone called your argument "bullshit" in a cause you think bad?  What exactly does "disturbing" mean here, anyway?  Ooh-a vague insinuation!

Last, I can summarize your claims about OAF as: 1)Leads to unclear/confusing claims that sometimes require requesting warrants.  2)Abolition of this form of statement abolishes, or at least greatly diminishes, 1.    1 is not unique to OAF statements, and it is frankly risible to imagine that unclear claims and/or the need for warrant clarification stop or greatly diminish with their elimination.  So, minimal harms and inadequate solvency.  I'm not saying the practice is laudable, but c'mon.

Zak Smith3:26 AM

+Justice Platt 1. "I have no idea what you're talking about with the house on fire thing.  " Then the decent thing to do is ask not continue to be a tremendous shithead. I will explain: A grown-up person reporting on their taste knows they're reporting a mere opinion. If they dress it up as fact, they're pulling a rhetorical maneuver. Intent to deceive or bluster past rational objections. A person who thinks a house is on fire (they see the smoke, etc) and reports that it is and turns out to be wrong, has simply made a mistake no intent to deceive there. They inaccurately reported a fact which we all do innocently from time to time because we rely on our senses. My remarks in response to Ron have been of the second kind at worst--I believe Ron's remarks to be asserting (perhaps against Ron's real beliefs, because they are jokes) a certain thing that people may believe. Just as a joke may assert that a chicken crosses the road even if the person telling the joke doesn't believe that any chickens ever cross rods. 2. "You're shifting goalposts again. " Incorrect, I never shift goalposts, that would be disgusting, and it's disgusting you'd say that. My initial comment was based on and continues to be based on (and justified by) this idea: " (a) Ron's initial comment was such that a naive viewer might believe that Ron was expressing the following idea: "Bisley lacks technical skill" WHETHER RON BELIEVES BISLEY LACKS SUCH SKILL OR NOT. (b) It is therefore the responsibility of someone to explain to such a naive viewer that Bisley does indeed have technical skill " ...this has been my contention since the beginning. We know that Bisley does not lack technical skill. If he asserted Bisley lacked technical skill despite not believing it, he is evil and negligent. If he asserted it and believed it, he is ignorant and subsequently got mad about that being exposed. Neither of these conclusions is good for Ron therefore assuming one rather than the other does nothing to harm Ron's reputation more than the other choice. But there is no evidence anywhere that he did not assert this . You don't tell someone to try figure drawing if they're trying figure drawing. (a) Is not an opinion . It is an assertion of fact, so far as I know. If Ron wishes to contest the idea that his snarky remark may be read in such a way by a third party. I am (because I am sane) willing to consider the idea that my analysis is an inaccurate statement of the facts, but thus far there is zero evidence of this. Ron's defense and yours has simply been to talk about what Ron believes not what was implied to readers by the remark  (the only relevant thing). - As for the rest: you equivocate "not all harm is caused by x" (true statement) into "therefore there is no reason to eliminate x" (not a rational conclusion. OAFs cause: -some harm and provide -zero benefit ...so there is no good argument for them. Like bedbugs.

Victor Garrison (headspice)4:03 AM+2 3 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrCPIrs90eg

Ron Edwards3:32 PM

Looks like people were busy.

+Justice Platt thanks for the input.

+Zak Smith as I've stated before, there is no connection between my initial statement and a statement that Bisley cannot draw figures. Demanding that I repeat it was unnecessary, and as this is the second time, please don't demand it again.

You also demand that this statement be assessed or discussed in terms of its impact on readers. This is not the first time you have elected yourself the Voice of the Readers - I believe we agreed that you weren't going to do that to me again.

This is the day, unfortunately, when I have decided you're not going to explain why you single-message people to criticize their plussing choices, and why you often reply to others' stated views or takes on works of art in a chilling fashion yet post very similar statements about work you don't like. These are bullying acts. Why, in the complete absence of discernible need, do you do them?

My last statement before signing off. Willing or not, knowing or not, you have cultivated an environment of fear in this subculture. You can call this crazy and talk about more and more colorful metaphors all you want. Or you can try to assess this claim in any way you want that's not your gut, and see what you see then.

Signed off now, finished with the thread.

Zak Smith3:45 PM

+Ron Edwards 1. " as I've stated before, there is no connection between my initial statement and a statement that Bisley cannot draw figures. " Then what was it meant to communicate and why should we care? What's important is what it could logically be interpreted to mean literally by third parties 2. " You also demand that this statement be assessed or discussed in terms of its impact on readers. This is not the first time you have elected yourself the Voice of the Readers - I believe we agreed that you weren't going to do that to me again. " Citation needed. Why would I ever agree that the _most important thing about a public distortion of fact not be discussed? That would be like me agreeing to let you kick readers in the balls. 3. " This is the day, unfortunately, when I have decided you're not going to explain why you single-message people to criticize their plussing choices, " I do not message people to criticize them I message them to see if they are insane or not. If they are insane, it is important to block them from my circles. You haven't even explained how that's bad . It's Good Citizenship 101 to privately contact people you have conflict with so that you don't rake each other over the coals publicly unnecessarily. You are just grabbing random acts out of the air and affixing the word "bullying" to them out of what appears to be sheer insanity. How is sending someone a message in any way a harmful act? 4. " and why you often reply to others' stated views or takes on works of art in a chilling fashion yet post very similar statements about work you don't like. " Citation Needed. Since you aren't that smart and apparently can't read very well I suspect your definition of "very similar" is the problem here. 5. " These are bullying acts. " Incorrect: a bullying act would be: -negative and -something I can do that the target cannot or refuses on moral grounds to do. ...you haven't cited any such acts. You've only cited awesome good things I did.

6. " Willing or not, knowing or not, you have cultivated an environment of fear in this subculture. " If you're trying to say "Oh no, back in my day, indie game designers used to feel totally cool about posting false allegations and now they're afraid they'll be asked for evidence" or "I can't falsely accuse someone of bullying, then run away with no calls for accountability any more" well cry me a fucking river. I don't know any good person doing good work who claims to be afraid of jack shit--in fact people seem markedly less afraid than they were a year ago when you could be publicly accused of everything from hate crimes to cattle rustling and the Oh-I-Know-That-Guy network would back the accuser up because they both had the same grudge against the same dumb game. You can allege I've had an impact--but if you do so, then you have to weigh that against the fact that the DIY RPG scene is fucking kicking ass these days, in ways it hasn't for 30 years. I am totally proud of calling out shit people for their shit behavior--it's worked and we've made things better.

Zak Smith4:28 PM

I didn't come into this assuming Ron was insane, but now, I guess, we all know he actually is.

[eyesaremosaics]

Feminist film recommendations?

Hmm interesting question anon. I will list some of my personal favorites (in no particular order) hopefully you enjoy them.

1. Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

I felt like there was fire in my veins walking out of the cinema. Not only is Charlize Theron’s Furiosa a total badass, but the best thing is that it’s not just her. To have such a range of women portrayed equally and beautifully was so uplifting. Women caring for each other, lifting each other and fighting hard for what is right. We need more of that, both in Hollywood and in life.

2. The color purple (1985)

Read this book in high school, about a sisterhood of women, all standing together against the racism and sexism that they face and somehow coming out on top. It’s an inspiring story of women coming together in the face of adversity.

3. Gone With the Wind (1939)

Scarlett was the most coveted female film role of all time. Despite the films obvious flaws as a result of the time period in which it was made, overall this is a feminist parable. Scarlett is above all else–a survivor. She never gives up, digs her heels in, rolls up her sleeves and does it. She faces adversity with admirable courage. Despite the fact that she is a terribly flawed human being, you can relate to her. She sets her mind to something and she does it, whether it’s dragging her family out of poverty or eating as much BBQ food as she damn well likes. Her flaws make her human, which adds richness to the overall story. Scarlett has inspired me to persevere at the darkest of times. When all hope seems lost, “tomorrow is another day.”

4. Erin Brockovich (2000)

I love Julia Roberts, and this movie stands out as one of her best in my opinion. A single mother, fallen on hard times, but somehow holding everything together. Making the best of a bad situation, an eternal realist. Portraying a woman as much more than she appears. She uncovers some dark secrets (chemicals leaked into the sewer systems) which led an entire community to develop terminal illness. She works tirelessly to expose those responsible and find justice for those who can’t help themselves. My favorite line is when this bitchy secretary says: “maybe we got off on the wrong foot here.”“Yeah lady because that’s all you got, two wrong feet and fucking ugly shoes.” Bahahaha

5. Suffragette (2015)

Tells the story of the women’s right movement at the turn of the last century. It taught me to stand up for myself, and for women everywhere. Very proud to have that as a part of our history. Incredibly grateful to all the women who fought tirelessly, endured persecution, humiliation, incarceration to ensure my right to vote.

6. Pocahontas (1995)

Pocahontas is VERY loosely based on the true story. Disney took a lot of liberties here which mask the horror of early American history and its impact on the native Americans. HOWEVER, what I like about her characterization in this film… Is that she was strong, rebellious, bold, adventurous, and wise. She went wherever the wind took her, a true free spirit. She was graceful, and kind in ways other Disney princesses were not. The purity of her heart and the message she had to bring, stopped a war. She is a warrior, but not one that fights with weapons, she fights with love. In the end she chose herself and her duty to her people over a man. I wanted to be just like her when I was a little girl watching this in the theater, and she still inspires me today, nearly 20 years later.

7. Fried green tomatoes (1992)

I watched this film when I was in high school, with low expectations and was very surprised to discover how moved I was. A story of two women, finding empowerment within oneself. The main character listens to a story from an elderly woman and learns how to love herself. I believe it’s important to encourage other women and learn from each other.

8. Obvious child (2014)

Jenny Slate’s character has an abortion after a one night stand with a guy she actually really likes. However, she knows she isn’t prepared for it and chooses to terminate the pregnancy. There’s great friendship and family in the film and it really helps to destigmatise abortion.

9. Wild (2014)

The book is arguably better, but the film is worth watching. A woman goes out and hikes one of the worlds longest trails, on a mission to find herself and to prove that she can finish what she starts. Finding herself on the elements, and getting clarity. Very freeing and inspiring.

10. Kill Bill 1 & 2 (2003)

Uma Thurman is a boss, and everyone knows it. She is so vice tally connected to her inner life as an actress, always enjoy watching her. These films are what she is most known for nowadays, and for good reason. It’s a story of revenge. A woman is almost murdered by the man she loved, pregnant with his child. Wakes up in a hospital, having been in a coma for years. Suffered all kinds of indignities, she willed herself to walk again. Dragged herself by her fingernails until she could rise up, strengthen her skills as a warrior, and set out to settle old scores. She takes each person down one by one, yet you still find the humanity behind each character and the reasons why they did what they did and became who they were. It’s about survival, perseverance, and ultimately in the end–forgiveness. Leaving the past behind, to start over again.

11. She’s beautiful when she’s angry (2014)

It’s a documentary about the feminist movement in the 1960s and 1970s, with interviews with many of the women who were part of it. Sure, it makes you angry to see injustice, but it’s also highly uplifting to see what these women did, and how it paved the way for equality forty to fifty years later. These women were, and still are, amazing figures who haven’t stopped fighting.

12. How to make an American quilt

A group of older women reflecting on their lives around a quilting table. Each of their stories are so inspiring, and the way they all come together to heal from their traumas is very powerful. Winona Ryder’s character (Finn) is experiencing a late twenties crisis of identity, and is unsure about wether or not to get married to her long term fiancée. Listening to the lives of all these women helps bring perspective and clarity to her. Life is never black and white, life is like a quilt. You build as you go along.

13. Frida

This Selma Hayek-fronted, Academy Award-winning biopic of the feminist icon portrays the artist in a whole new light. It’s amazing to watch the story of any incredible historic figure succeed against the odds, but double if said figure is also a woman and shot so beautifully by Julie Taymor.

14. The hours (2002)

This film follows three women as their lives weave in and around the narrative of Virginia Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway. The multi-generational movie shows how people are connected through time by similar angst, anxieties, and personal struggles.

15. The Stepford wives (1975)

What happens to women when things are too perfect? The answer might make their husbands happy, but the truth behind what is happening in this ideal-seeming suburb is nothing short of horrifying.

16. Miss Representation (2011)

A documentary on the way women are treated and portrayed in the media, this film broke open the truth behind the images women and young girls are force fed on a daily basis. Start your watching here, if you can, and then continue on to these other films to see how much has and hasn’t changed.

17. North Country (2005)

A fictionalized account of the first majorly successful sexual harassment case in the United States, this film follows the female miners who fought for their right to work without suffering the abuse their male coworkers heaped on them because of their gender.

18. The Headless Woman, Lucrecia Martel

New Argentine Cinema figure Lucrecia Martel draws connections to the country’s dark political/class struggles, transposing its “disappeared” from the mid-to-late ‘70s into a sedate, challenging story about a woman’s fractured state following a fatal accident and its ensuing cover-up.

18. Princess Mononoke, Hayao Miyazaki

A thread of feminism weaves itself through the work of Hayao Miyazaki. Perhaps his most mature film, Princess Mononoke features a memorable and tenacious heroine, San, who subverts feminine stereotypes and is written without the fanciful quirks commonly found in animation. She is serious and single minded. Grounded to the earth, living in the moment. She is totally present, and pure. Even her rage comes from a pure unadulterated place. Wolf-goddess character Moro deserves attention as an unlikely mother figure that is fierce and, well, totally pissed off (you would be too if people were destroying your home), but also wise and nurturing. Fighting for what’s right, against impossible odds. Being humbled by nature, the ultimate female reclamation. So many layers in this film.

19. Dogfight, Nancy Savoca

A rare film set during the Vietnam War and told from the perspective of a woman, Nancy Savoca’s Dogfight reveals a different kind of cruelty people inflict upon one another, off the battlefield — in this case, a group of misogynistic Marines using women in a contest of looks. Lili Taylor’s peace-loving Rose, who becomes one of the targets in this game, soon realizes she’s being courted by River Phoenix’s Eddie for the wrong reasons — though his guilt and seemingly genuine interest in Rose is apparent. Rose confronts Eddie about the game, defending the honor of all women involved, which winds up bringing them closer together.

20. Alien, Ridley Scott

She’s not a sidekick, arm candy, or a damsel to be rescued. She isn’t a fantasy version of a woman. The character is strong enough to survive multiple screenwriters. She was lucky enough to be played by Sigourney Weaver,” said Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America President John Scalzi of Ellen Ripley from 1979’s Alien. Defying genre cinema’s gender clichés (she is gender neutral, really) as the clear-minded, intelligent, and capable officer of the ship Nostromo, Ripley is more resourceful than the men who employ her and steps in to take over when all hell breaks loose.

21. Orlando, Sally Potter

Our own Judy Berman recently highlighted Tilda Swinton’s performance in Potter’s adaptation of Virginia Woolf’s satirical text that explores gender and artistic subjectivity, a project that was ambitious in both form and content:

“Although it’s far more straightforward a narrative than most of her work, Virginia Woolf’s Orlando still presents one major challenge for the big screen: its protagonist is a nobleman in Elizabethan England who lives a life that spans centuries, and is suddenly transformed into a woman midway through it. Tilda Swinton may be the only (allegedly) human actor equipped to play the role of such a regal, mysterious androgyne, and her performance in this adaptation — also a breakthrough for director Sally Potter — became her signature.”

22. The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, Jacques Demy

Celebrated for its vivid milieu, Jacques Demy’s sensitively characterized film is a superior look at an independent woman (Catherine Deneuve) in a romantic narrative who makes difficult choices about marriage, children, and survival that sometimes leave her alone — but she is never lonely because of that.

23. Daisies, Vera Chytilová

The young women in Vera Chytilová’s Czech New Wave farce “construct fluid identities for themselves, keenly aware of their sexuality, toying with the men who pursue them. It’s an exhilarating, surreal, anarchic experiment, framed by the turbulent 1960s.

24. Daughters of the Dust, Julie Dash

Julie Dash directed the first feature film by an African-American woman distributed theatrically in the United States in 1991 — a stunningly captured look at three generations of Gullah women off the coast of South Carolina and Georgia in 1902.

25. Meshes of the Afternoon, Maya Deren

The bar for avant-garde female filmmaking, born from personal experiences and anxieties. Maya Deren’s 1943 experimental classic builds its interior female perspective and constructs of selfhood through dreamlike imagery.

26. The Passion of Joan of Arc, Carl Theodor Dreyer

Critic Jonathan Rosenbaum on Carl Theodor Dreyer’s crowning achievement, released in 1928, that still painfully echoes contemporary cases of female oppression — the film’s silent context taking on an unintentional resonance:

“Carl Dreyer’s last silent, the greatest of all Joan of Arc films… . Joan is played by stage actress Renee Falconetti, and though hers is one of the key performances in the history of movies, she never made another film. (Antonin Artaud also appears in a memorable cameo.) Dreyer’s radical approach to constructing space and the slow intensity of his mobile style make this ‘difficult’ in the sense that, like all the greatest films, it reinvents the world from the ground up. It’s also painful in a way that all Dreyer’s tragedies are, but it will continue to live long after most commercial movies have vanished from memory.”