#imaging understanding someone to that point

[aegagrusdissemination]

AI is bad because it is being used to try to automate tasks that it is 100% not suited to do because said tasks require the understanding of context, details, and nuance, something that almost all generative models are currently not built with.

the tasks targeted are also often high-skill tasks, whether it be a physical skill or a mental skill. since they are high-skill tasks it is expensive to hire someone to do them. since they are high-skill tasks, too, they are also often either high-stakes tasks or just tasks which produce high-quality results.

the real problem is capitalistic cost-cutting where human labour in tasks that can and should be automated is cheaper than the automation, whereas human labour in tasks that should not be automated is more expensive than getting a crappy result from automation.

and on a personal note, as an artist and programmer, i am valuable at those jobs because i am able to understand nuance, handle edge cases, and note the context. this means my results can be up to specification right out of the gate and also I will not make obvious mistakes. current generative AI models cannot do this. an attempt to replace me/people like me with AI is specifically because we are expensive to hire for these skills and far more 'valuable' as menial labour instead.

that's the problem. AI is constantly marketed as 'you dont need to rely on people for the tough jobs anymore' for a reason.

also OP conflates a LOT of different AI models in their fourth point, which is not an indictment against OP but this is a known tactic that is being used to conflate literally anything that a computer does under the umbrella of 'AI' either as a marketing tactic (look, our normal algorithm that calculates stuff is totally AI and we are cutting edge) or to prevent easily having informed discussions (see case of right now).

CERTAIN AI MODELS, for example analytical AI that takes in data and categorizes it, are able to perform tasks at higher efficiency and reliabilitity than humans. CERTAIN NON-AI ALGORITHMS IN OTHER FIELDS, such as an image resizing tool which uses matrix calculations to approximate a larger image from a smaller one, are also able to perform tasks at higher efficiency and reliability than humans.

OTHER AI MODELS, like chatGPT which is a large language model which basically (highly simplified) means it is a large flowchart containing probabilities of which words follow other words, are currently being used INCORRECTLY for their capabilities and are thus being used to produce mediocre and/or actively dangerous results. this incorrect usage is the issue. there is a lot of context and nuance to what constitutes incorrect usage and what a useful application of these models would actually be.

but hey that's what humans can understand and discuss that current AI models currently can't.

Worst part of popular left wing AI discourse online is that there's absolutely a need for a robust leftist opposition to use of cognitive automation without social dispensation to displaced human workers. The lack of any prior measures to facilitate a transition to having fewer humans in the workplace (UBI, more public control over industrial infrastructure, etc) is a disaster we are sleepwalking into - one that could lock the majority of our society's wealth further into the hands of authoritarian oligarchs who retain control of industry through last century private ownership models, while no longer needing to rely on us to operate their property.

But now we're seemingly not going to have the opposition we so desperately need, because everyone involved in the anti-AI conversation has pretty thoroughly discredited themselves and their movement by harbouring unconstrained reactionary nonsense, blatant falsehoods and woo. Instead of talking about who owns and benefits from cognitive automation, people are:

Demanding impossibilities like uninventing a now readily accessible technology

Trying to ascribe implicit moral value to said technology instead of the who is using it and how

Siding with corporations on copyright law in the name of "defending small artists"

Repeating obvious and embarrassing technical misconceptions and erroneous pop-sci about machine learning in order to justify their preferred philosophy

Invoking neo-spiritual conservative woo about the specialness of the human soul to try to incoherently discredit a machine that can quite obviously perform certain tasks just as well if not better than they can

Misrepresent numbers about energy use and environmental cost in an absurd double standard (all modern infrastructure is reliant on data centers to a similar level of impact, including your favourite fandom social media and online video games!) to build a narrative AI is some sort of malevolent spirit that damages our reality when it is called upon

It's a level of reactionary ignorance that has completely discredited any popular opposition to industrial AI rollout because it falls apart as soon as you dig deeper than a snappy social media post, or a misguided pro-copyright screed from an insecure web artist (who decries a machine laying eyes on their freely posted work while simultaneously charging commission for fan-art of corporate IPs... I'm sure that will absolutely resolve in their favour).

It would be funny how much people are fucking themselves over with all this, except I'm being fucked over to, and as a result am really quite mad about the situation. We need UBI, we need to liberate abundance from corporate greed, what we don't need is viral posts about putting distortion filters on anime fan-art to ward off the evil mechanical eye, pointless boycotts of platforms because they are perceived to have let the evil machines taint them, or petitions to further criminalize the creation of derivative works.

[twopoppies]

Gina, I usually just ignore any content that pushes Harry’s het image, like Aft*r or that movie with Anne Hathaway, because every time the internet reminds me those things exist, it makes me so mad. But in those moments, I also realize just how complex and damaging that impact might’ve been for Harry.

I know it’s not something most people can relate to—it’s such a rare experience to have your sexuality scrutinized and publicly speculated on since your teenage years. It doesn’t happen to just anyone, so it’s hard for people to fully understand the consequences. But when you really think about it, and you realize it got to the point where actual movies were made that are purely based on a sexualized fantasy version of Harry—that’s just awful. The way he’s portrayed in both is basically a cartoon version of this het fantasy, and the only reason those exist is because of public and fans curiosity and obsession about his sex life.

And the worst part is that there are still people who genuinely think that’s who he is. I’m sure Harry ignores all that as best as he can, but he knows it’s out there. And I’m really glad he decided to start therapy a while ago. He hasn’t gone into too much detail about why, but what he said in the BH&G interview was really meaningful—about his sexuality, his private life, and how therapy helped him process some of that.

I get that it’s hard to see all this if you just take everything at face value. And if you don’t really care, then of course you won’t look deeper than whatever narrative the media feeds you. But sometimes I really wish people would think twice before making up rumors or throwing awful comments at someone they don’t actually know at all.

Yeah. I was watching an interview with Yungblud earlier, where he was talking about how he used to obsess about what people said about him on social media and how it fed into what sounded like an eating disorder, excessive drinking, and poor mental health.

Stepping back from social media and going to therapy are two things that probably saved Harry from crashing out.

[demon-at-peace]

DC + DP

Sam stared at the city. She and Tucker had left as soon as they could. Amity wasn’t safe, Danny stayed, he stayed because he couldn’t leave.

she didn’t understand it, didn’t understand how ghosts worked like that. She and Tucker visited sometimes, they’d talk with him. He looked the same as ever, imaging. He was different though. His eyes more tired, he limped more. He no longer seemed so young.

they talked over the phone, Sam begged him sometimes. When he called a bit too late at night to be normal, when his voice sounded hoarse and broken. Tucker did too, they’d have offer him a place.

“I can’t,” he’d say with no explanation. The next time they’d see him he’d be more tired, he’d look older still, despite being forever fourteen.

Sam worried, but there was nothing to be done. She called him, the phone rang and his name ran across the screen. She’d taken his last name of years ago, when he told her he hated them,

He didn’t pick up. Again. She’d called him yesterday and the day before, and the day before.

He hadn’t answered. She and Tucker called him hourly at this point, and still nothing. She stared as his voicemail started playing. He’d made it years ago, at fifteen. “Hi, this is Danny, I’m probably busy or something so leave a message, or don’t, I don’t listen to voicemails.” She hit the hang up button, and sighed.

she and Tucker were more than worried, she supposed it was time to head back to amity. The road trip was generally fun, even if the destination was somewhere they hated.

this one was quiet. They played car games, but without the usual laughter. Because Danny wasn’t responding. He never didn’t call back, and yet he hadn’t. So they went back to Amity.

amity looked the same as always, probably would never change. There was construction in progress repairing a building. Sam didn’t need to ask, if she did the answer would be. “Gh

but the town was in worse condition than she’d ever seen before. Broken buildings, glass on the streets. And a distinct lack of Phantom. Locals talked about it, mourning his loss. Others celebrated it with beer in pubs.

They returned home with heavy hearts, and they didn’t know what to do. It was one of those nights, with high tensions, and they’d had a little bit to much to drink.

“We’ve got to help him,” she croaked.

“I know,” Tucker agreed, “but how?”

Sam doesn’t have an answer, “there are other heroes?” She finally suggests.

Tucker smiles, “the bats are based in Gotham right? Maybe we could ask them?”

“so let’s find them!” Same agrees, she’s worried, and has no clue what to do, so the idea of helping even if it might be a dead end is fine.

it’s probably the hardest thing tuckers ever done, hacking into the bats servers, he’s worried though and it worth it just to see his friends smile again.

They wait after messaging, someone replies says they’ll look into it. Sam and Tucker hold their breath. Waiting for a reply, it comes.

“Give us two days,” there is nothing left to do but wait. So they do. Checking the computer hourly barely making it through school or work. until finally they finally get a response. They hug eachother as it pings into the message box and Sam on it and they wait with bated breath as the screen loads. She reads it with a smile already on her face.

“We were too late, I’m sorry for your loss.”

Sam’s smile vanishes.

—

so… yeah… idk bye? 👋

[waspwaste]

Writing Tip: Establishing Your Setting Based on Narrative Style

For the longest time, I have had trouble describing my settings. I know details are important—but not details that aren’t relevant. I’ve seen the post that tells us to include 2-3 objects in the room to establish the setting, but I also don’t want to place Chekov’s gun on the table and never use it.

How does one decide what details to pull out from the image in one’s head? Here’s what I do:

I pull out details based on the perspective of my narrator! Here are some questions you can ask yourself depending on what narrative style your piece is in:

First Person Present & Third Person Limited

When my character walks into the room, what strikes them as odd or out of place? What surprises them?

When they walk into the room, what would they notice as interesting or familiar based on their background?

If there are details that matter but my character wouldn’t notice them, is there someone else in the scene who could interact with those details or point them out in dialogue?

First Person Past

Everything in the previous category can be remembered, so start there

What would my character only understand the significance of later? This is great for dynamic foreshadowing, because your narrator is literally adding a detail they wouldn’t have noticed in the moment just so the twist/ending makes sense.

Third Person Omniscient

Similar to First Person Past, what are the details that will become relevant later in the story?

Similar to First Person Present and Third Person Limited, what would each character notice in the scene, and how can I convey those thoughts through both internal ideas and actions that might go unnoticed from any other perspective?

Imagine each character in the scene has brought something to the setting, what did they bring? How does that change how they interact with the setting?

That’s just about it! This is all I typically ask myself but I’m curious to know if anyone else does this and what questions they ask. :)

[vampiricmeurot]

Hi, im aware this post is old but you did use it as your evidence in a recent post, im also aware a lot of people responded to you so take your time assessing the situation.

I also wanna clarify that I dont give a fuck about wilbur, after all i have never even met the guy, i like his content, but this isnt enough for me to be biased, ofc if you feel like i have expressed any bias feel free to correct me, but in my eye, im only writing this because i believe that wilbur is ABSOLUTELY UNDENIABLY righteous.

I also believe that, shelby hasnt provided enough evidence for her claim, and that wilburs response isnt him admitting his actions, AND THATS UNDEBATABLE, i have a post on why i think that is the case. https://www.tumblr.com/vampiricmeurot/787016904776794112/the-funny-thing-is-he-never-admitted-it-wilburs

Also, if its not obvious, im using the “innocent until proven guilty” logic in all my points, which undeniably the most fair

First section

1-“tell them how awful i am to you”

NOT EVIDENCE, its up to you to believe what was the intention behind this statement, but claiming that he only did it to assert his power is quite biased, even at his worst intentions, he was just being a dick, not an abuser, and there are so many other possible intentions, it could have been also romantic or playful, nothing certainly proves he did it to abuse her, and while niki did address wilbur later on, she never talked about this specific incident

2-Tommys disney vlog

NOT EVIDENCE, almost same as number 1, you proved hes a dick, not an abuser, and he seems to be fine with it, WHILE YES tommyinnit is a minor, his videos are watched by his parents, and his parents let him roam on the internet on his will, and they never seemed to express any worry about tommy and his friendship with wilbur, it seems mostly that this is just wilburs humour, bullying between friends is normal, and nothing remotely close to proving he would abuse a person, at worst, once again he was a dick, not an abuser

3- Biting Tommy

NOT EVIDENCE, it proves he bites people yes, thats something we are already aware of, but its nothing close to what Shelby talked about, she claimed he but her so much he would open wounds, and that he was weaponising a safe word to cause more pain, Shelby described him as a borderline psychopath, youre proving hes just asshole, too different things

4- Technoblade apple throwing

NOT EVIDENCE, Once again, just a dick, and technoblade didnt seem to express any issue with this, it seems more like a thing between friends

General conclusion from your first section:-

Niki and Techno are adults, while tommy is a minor, he has parents, its up to them to decide when was wilbur breaking their borders, not you, its none of your business to decide whether wilbur was abusing them or not, if you wanna believe wilbur is a dick, sure, but claiming that its evidence he would abuse someone isnt valid whatsoever.

If you want to prove abuse you need solid 100% proof, not some speculations on some of his friendships

Wilburs music (second section):-

Ok im sorry but using wilburs songs to prove he is an abuser, is the equivalent of saying kurt cobain couldnt have shot himself because he said he didnt have a gun in one his songs.

I understand that youre trying to use his songs to analyse his personality, but lyrics of a song are just not a reliable source, there are so many possible interpretations of what could be said its just unfair.

When he said “abuse those I love”, he could have been painting a self deprecating image of himself, the word abuse outside of the jurisdiction could of rather meant just being toxic, and not necessarily something that would end you up in prison, you cant even prove if he was speaking for himself, you could have been speaking for some else who abused or someone who isnt even real, yeah that entire song could just be something he wrote for fun, music isnt used in the legal scene for a reason, its just not a reliable source

And yes, someone said that concrete couldve been written about a toxic relationship or something, but its just not something you can absolutely prove

Im not saying that the songs arent about abuse, but there isnt any concrete evidence that they are, and its unfair for you to draw such a conclusion, incase it wasnt obvious, NOT EVIDENCE

Third section (why he can get away from it):

I dont believe i need to write about this section, him having privilege doesnt mean hes always wrong or right, im assessing the situation without considering any superficial factors

And his pattern of targeting weaker people could just be a coincidence, not mentioning that wilbur is a twink, hes only tall, other than that he isnt even someone who appears to be threatening, and ofc, most of these relationships are non of your business, if you wanna think wilbur manipulated tommy, sure, but you cant know that for a 100%, NOTT EVIDENNNCE (i feel so evil saying that heeheheehe)

Other proof (fourth section):

Shelby hasn’t provided actual evidence of her abusr

Niki basically said he was a dick, didnt dare to confirm shelbys statement

Minx said she saw wilbur yell at a girl at a party, she didnt really provide any information on that issue, plus alcohol was present so he probably wasnt even sober, once again, NOT EVIDENCE

Also regarding alice, she never actually provided any evidence she was abused, only that she dated wilbur, and there contradictions with her statement, you can search em up, im too lazy to talk about it myself

Final conclusion:

Most of what you said was speculation, you were trying to prove he abused shelby by correlation, as if its something he would do, NOT that he actually did it, first of all, that is such an unfair way to determine the legitimacy of such serious allegations, him throwing apples at techno doesnt meant he would abuse shelby

Not mentioning that your speculation was built on your perspective, you saw wilbur throwing apples at techno as a dick move, techno could have seen it as a friendly gesture

Im sorry, but you need to provide concrete evidence, especially considering how impactful such accusations are, and they WERE pretty impactful

As a final statement, i wanna remind you im open to discussion, im not trying to prove you wrong for the sake of my ego or my favourite creator or something, i just feel that these allegations ruined Wilburs career (to some degree) without actually even being true

Compiling additional proof against Wilbur into one, easy to understand list.

I'm making a simple list that anyone can refer to when faced with doubts about Shelby's and other victims claims. I don't know if this will reach the right audience, or reach anyone at all, but i'd like to get it off my chest.

Why do I care so much? Because i've followed Wilbur since his day on the Jacksucksatlife channel. He had a great influence over me as a teenager, and it sucks that he was an asshole all along. I want to see him fail, that's all.

Main points are all in Shelby, Nikki, Minx and other creators' videos on him. These are just small details that are easily missed.

Wilbur being abusive towards his friends

The first video in particular really highlights the amount of power that Wilbur holds. "Tell them about how awful I am to you" seems like a dangerous thing to say as someone who is actually abusive, but it's likely that he knows he can get away with it. He doesn't expect anyone to call him out on his behaviour.

The other problem I have with this clip aside from the taunting, is the vacuum cleaner. He asks her to tell the people watching about her experience, and immediately starts vacuuming for no reason which drowns out the noise of her speaking. Feel free to tell me i'm looking into this too much, but this is how I feel about it: It's him (knowingly or unknowingly) showing off his power. Showing that he's in control even when she's talking about the biting, creating an understanding that it's not a serious issue and that it's just a joke. His humour makes the audience laugh along at an issue that we now understand wasn't funny.

A clip talking about how Wilbur threw Niki because she playfully said she was big and strong. His quick sentence "you were saying you were stronger than-" could either be him misremembering, deciding to ignore that detail, or literally saying that he interpreted her actions as claiming to be stronger than him. He says it was a "consensual throwing" but we already know how terrible he is with consent. TLDW: Niki said she was big and strong so Wilbur threw her "to assert dominance" (and show that he was stronger than her).

Niki has confirmed that she "knew wilbur in that way", but aside from mentioning the biting habit, she doesn't want to talk about it. She just said that that period was a dark time in her life. No one should ask her to talk more about this (or even bring it up around her), but it is unfortunately possible that she carries even more horrible experiences about Will with her.

In Tommy's disneyland vlog, there is a short clip where Tommy playfully unties Wilbur's shoelaces and gets his hand stomped on. Thing like these flew under the radar because of their brotherly bond. You'd expect two young brothers to react like this, but not a grown man and his teenage friend. Tommy tells him that his finger got cut, and instead of apologizing, Wilbur says it was because Tommy was gonna untie his shoelaces. He essentially says that Tommy had it coming, that it was his fault he got hurt.

The biting behaviour wasn't exclusive to romantic partners. This is a clip of him biting Tommy's hand "for content", despite Tommy repeatedly shouting no. The biting isn't bad here, but it once again proves that this was something he genuinely did.

The story starts at 0:38. Here, Wilbur tells the story of how he helped Techno pick apples by gently throwing them so Techno could put them in the basket. Techno says that Wilbur is very bad at throwing. In response, Wilbur says that he threw an apple as hard as he could, aiming for his stomach. Instead, he accidentally hit the shoulder that his surgery was on. Anyone who's been hit in the stomach should know how painful it is. If Wilbur were to throw an apple has hard as he could at his stomach, it would seriously hurt. But he laughs it off. Wilbur once again claims that the person he hurt deserved it, because techno made fun of his throwing ability. I've heard that Techno's dad yelled at Wilbur for doing it, but even then, he still laughs about the story.

Wilbur's music and separating it from the artist

It's completely natural for a musician with a history of bad mental health to blame himself in his music. One of Wilbur's biggest inspirations, Crywank, have lots of songs about being a bad person. A symptom of depression is to believe you're a bad person. But as far as we know, Wilbur's music actually told the truth.

I can't find the tweet, but we also know that one of wilburs old friends(?) came out with the info that Lovejoy's song "concrete" was based on their experience, and the song explains Wilbur's neglectful behaviour.

You should know what Lovejoy's music is about. A lot of it is based on toxic relationships, being cheated on, being abused. It is a complete mockery of the people that he hurt. "Call me what you like" is clearly about being in an abusive relationship where his partner takes advantage of him and cheats on him. She forces him to "bump his head into every doorway she sees suitable for them to go through". Not that he knows what the song he wrote is about though, since he couldn't recall a single thing about the song during the genius interview. Yes, he was high, but he may as well had someone ghostwrite it for him.

Singing "you claim your ex-boyfriend's a policeman, I say you need better standards" in the song Perfume is crazy when his standards are allowing abuse to happen.

When listening to Scum, you repeatedly hear him admitting to being scum and waste. Concrete is about how he's a piece of shit. Consequences should remind you of the actual consequences of his actions. I already explained what's wrong with "your sister was right". His parody songs are direct reflections of his real personality.

However, if you still want to listen to him - spotify has a feature where you can put local files into your playlists. If you have his music downloaded, you can listen to it on spotify without giving him money or views. Just saying.

Why he can get away with it

Look at him. He is an attractive white man in the UK, And pretty privilege is a thing, no matter how you look at it. He's popular and has gotten empathy from impressionable teenagers on the internet. A lot of people have put him on a pedestal after he showed support for the LGBT+ community and BLM, singing about being against capitalism. People feel bad for him because of his history with mental health problems. They excuse his actions because he was depressed during his relationships. He also has a pattern of exclusively targeting those weaker than him. Tiny women who he can pin down, throw or bite to show he's stronger than, and teenager Tommy who believed they had a brother dynamic. You will also notice that the only people who have shared their experience with him have been women who didn’t feel strong enough to fight back against him. He is a manipulator through and through.

This is not all the proof there is

If you need more convincing, watch other creator's videos and statements on the subject. Shelby, Niki, Minx, Alicenyannya. There are also more small things that he has done that add up, either violent behaviour, yelling, or ignoring people's boundaries.

You can keep uselessly arguing about why he acted this way, but the physical abuse is undeniable, and I hope that the other points in this post has shown his disrespect for consent (ignoring people saying no), manipulative behaviour (victim blaming, making it seem like a joke) and lack of care for the consequences of his actions (stomping on tommy's hand, throwing an apple as hard as he can at techno, throwing niki, biting his girlfriends).

Thank you to anyone who got this far, I hope someone will get use out of it. I'm happy to finally get what I wanted to say out there.

[lordmartiya]

I commented on how the decision makers in modern Star Trek have no idea what to do with the Romulans... But I have to admit, DS9 wasted a very good chance to get them around: subcommander T'Rul, on loan to Starfleet alongside the cloaking device installed on the USS Defiant. She was quite the character in her debute episode, the two-parter "The Search"... And then just disappeared while the cloaking device she was supposed to have sole responsibility over stayed.

Leaving aside that her disappearance makes no sense, she could have been a good way to explore Romulan culture (so far only ever touched in passing on screen, the most we got until Picard being a visit on their capital city), with even three characters for her to act as foil: Jadzia Dax the Klingonphile, Kaga the owner of the Klingon restaurant (another wasted character, as he's the ONLY Klingon not involved with the High Council or the military we ever met), and later Worf (who lost his father and homeworld to the Romulans). And later there's even three episodes perfect to explore the concept of Mnhei'sahe, the Ruling Passion at the center of Romulan culture in Diane Duane's novels that the writers of Picard finally managed to get in the main canon, "In the Pale Moonlight", "Image in the Sand", and "Shadows and Symbols":

"In the Pale Moonlight": have her in on Sisko and Garak's plan, with her having planted the bomb that killed Vreenak. And when Sisko finds out and asks why, she answers that it's the practical thing to the Romulans in the war NOW rather than when the Dominion has already defeated the Federation and Klingon, and when he asks how she could kill her own senator like that she simply answers "Mnhei'sahe".

"Image in the Sand" and "Shadows and Symbols": get her in the plan to destroy the Monac Shipyards in Jadzia's honor, because her comrade was murdered without honor by a monster carrying another inside her and burning all the Jem'hadar and Cardassians working and defending those shipyards and the entire place with the ships should be enough until someone can get their hands on Dukat and kill him (and the Klingon can respect such a sentiment). In the meantime we can get senator Cretak's point of view over the Bajorians objecting on the Romulans trying to put anti-ship weapons on their moon around their new hospital, something the Romulans find perfectly justified considering the Jem'hadar's precedents and that they would remove as soon as the war is over (and Ross having to mediate between the Romulans and the Bajorians over this. Could even be a good chance for Picard to have a cameo, as he's not only a respected diplomat but he understands both sides' cultures and can negotiate a proper deal).

Also, since "The House of Quark" happens right after "The Search", having her and Jadzia comment on the sheer absurdity of Quark, of all people, killing a Klingon in a duel would be hilarious, and then show him respect for how he completely humiliated D'Ghor and stared death in its eyes until death blinked.

[eych-two-oh]

Ooohhh but I don’t think we talk about enough how utterly devastating Pure Vanilla’s decision is—- to stab their Soul Jams after merging. Like immediately after he promised to give both body and soul to Shadow Milk, he fucking stabbed himself. Potentially destroying the two things Shadow Milk desired so fucking much. Do you understand how devastating that will be if he succeeded?? And Shadow Milk survived?? It’s fucking crazy really

[bitegore]

I made a character sheet to plot your OC's development over time! (There's supposed to be a character name in the big white space next to "over time" but it got eaten a little lmao)

You can use this for whatever you want, and you don't have to credit me. Feel free to change or edit anything you feel like. Please don't tag me if you credit me - just link to the original post.

Credits, explanations & a transparent version under the cut :D

Credits:

The actual image was made with the free NBOS character sheet creator, which is a sort of dated but free and solid text-layout sheet maker intended for ttrpg style character sheet creation.

Fonts used were Bisdak (titles) and Rockwell (body). Both are free! You can use them to fill it out if you like.

Inspired by a comment @maybe-solar-powered-calculator made on this other post about filling it out for characters at multiple points along their arcs. Thanks for putting the idea in my head :D

This is explicitly released under a CC0 1.0 deed, ie: you can do fucking whatever you want with it and I don't care and you don't have to tell anyone where you got it from and no one gets to stop you.

-

Last time I made one of these I got a bunch of questions on all manner of things, and I can never keep up, so I'm just appending a set of notes for how to use it and a glossary because I know some of these phrasings will be confusing.

Ignore or change anything you don't feel like works for you here. You can do whatever you want forever.

Suggested / intended use & general notes:

This sheet could work for something story-level, if you want. But it's really only good for individual arcs; if the character goes through multiple arcs in your story, then they're going to fit poorly here. In that case, you're probably better off doing versions for each arc, or just adapting this to a different format more suited to your thing.

Also, if your arc has a nontraditional structure - divorced from the typical "rising action - climax - conclusion" type of structure where there's a clear 'important turning point' - it may not work as well either.

The mindset section is meant to come at it from a 'golden mean' standpoint - that is, everything on either extreme of the slider is 'too much' and therefore bad. It's not bad-to-good! The far right side is a flaw too. They're only grouped the way they are on basis of the specific OCs I personally had in mind when I put it together.

Growth is labeled 'worse'-to-'better' but it means, like, active decrease in that area vs active increase; if nothing changes, it should stay at the center even if it sucks. The category is about contrasting changes, and sometimes changes are for the worse!

The entire sheet is very deliberately subjective. It should really be answered from the character's perspective - how they feel about it, not what's necessarily true. Technically you can do whatever you want and I can't stop you, but it's a better tool if you approach it from the point of view that the character may believe things that aren't true - that will define their behavior way more than the objective facts of the story.

-

Definitions:

This part is long as hell - recommend using ctrl+f to find the specific words you're stuck on. I defined everything.

General categories:

Mindset: how your character thinks about themself and how they act. Their understanding of their own approach to life. Attitude, viewpoint, decision-making process, that sort of thing.

Circumstances: the relationship between your character and the world around them. Where they are, what that place is like, and how they feel about it.

Growth: how the character and their impact - their attitude, their behavior, their immediate surroundings - changes over time.

Outset: the start of the character's arc.

Present: the 'center' of the arc. If you're planning something ahead of time and it hasn't 'happened' yet, then this is the near future.

End-game: where they are after the conclusion of the arc.

Mindset terms:

Center of the world: "If I have a problem, it's the only thing that matters to me." Self-centered, self-absorbed. Doesn't necessarily mean anything beyond that - they don't necessarily have to be unpleasant to be entirely focused on their own life.

my life isn't relevant: "Everyone else's problems are so significant, I don't pay any attention to my own". Someone who ignores or neglects their own life in service of some other thing, or doesn't consider their own behavior to have any real importance.

Only see enemies: Paranoid. Everyone's out to get them. Anyone who seems nonthreatening is hiding their potential for danger and everyone who seems threatening is a threat. The character must remain ever-vigilant, lest the cashier at the 7/11 suddenly stab them, or their best friend turn out to secretly be trying to poison them to death.

Only see friends: Naïve. Everyone is a good actor who wishes everyone else well, and if they don't seem like they're acting from a place of kindness or care then you probably don't understand what they're up to. The character is pretty sure the stranger holding that knife is, like, someone to chat up maybe, they're clearly only hanging out in this dark alleyway because it's a nice spot and no other possible reason.

overthink everything: Ten thousand thoughts per every single action taken. Maybe they never get around to acting at all. They have to consider every possible outcome. What if by eating lunch they accidentally trigger the apocalypse?! Who's going to think about these things if not them?!?!?!

impulsive to action: Act first, think never. What do you mean "consequences of actions"?

Unilateral decisions: "I will make every choice and no one else's opinions or thoughts are relevant". Discounts outside suggestions. Firmly convinced that they know best in any situation, and will brook no disagreement with their views when it comes to actually doing things.

Command me, please: "I don't know what to do and I don't know what to even start with, someone please tell me what to think". No confidence in their own views. Will not make any decisions unless forced and even then will beg someone else to please tell them what to do. Has no idea what's best and is pretty sure anyone else will have a better idea.

can't ask for help: No one will ever help the character; they have to do everything themself, even the things other people have repeatedly offered to do for them and have much more experience with. Doesn't necessarily mean that no one will help them or that they are explicitly barred by some real-world circumstance; just that, for whatever reason, they refuse to ask for help. This is an attitude thing - will they ever reach out? No? Then they're here.

too reliant on others: Have they ever solved a problem alone? Do they believe they're even capable of doing so? The character all the way at this end of the scale absolutely never expects to be able to do anything themself, has no trust in their ability to solve a problem, and needs someone else to come save them from it. The kind of person who needs ChatGPT to do their homework. Again - doesn't actually mean anyone will help them, or that the people they're relying on are reliable - just that they think they are helpless without ... well, help.

Weapon maker: This has to do with problem-solving strategies and not actual weapons. The weapon-maker is a character who views every situation as a conflict that cannot be de-escalated or solved by cooperation, and responds appropriately. The most fundamental weapon maker character turns everything into an argument, a fight, a war, etc. There are a bunch of other responses to conflict, though - they might avoid problems that need solving because they avoid conflict generally too. Fundamentally what you want to answer here is: when they see a locked box and they don't have the key, do they respond to it the same way they'd respond to someone telling them "you can't open this box"? And how do they respond to that? Typical weapon-maker approaches: - brute-force the box open or try and then give up if it doesn't work; and also get into an argument that might turn physical with the hypothetical person - shrug and give up immediately, in both situations so on and so forth. Another hallmark is that they kind of suck at problem-solving and give up if brute-forcing a problem doesn't work. This is not someone who is picking locks unless someone else told them to - they have one solution, it's to make everything into a conflict, and then to win that conflict by beating them or to give up because they think they'll lose.

Tool maker: This person approaches every situation like it's a puzzle, not a fight - up to and including actual fights. Tool-maker characters generally assume that a situation can be solved by just finding the right approach and doing it the clever way. There's the same fundamental question as above - if your character sees a locked box and has no key, would they approach it differently than someone telling them they're not allowed to open the box? 'Typical' tool-maker approaches: - I can trick the person into giving me the key by saying the right things, and I can also pick the lock because fundamentally there are 'right answers' to both of these - If i make friends with this person, they might change their mind, because now we're cooperating. I can still pick the lock because there are 'right answers' there. - The person has a reason for wanting me not to open the box, so I can definitely figure out what that is and solve the reason so then they'll let me open it. I can take whatever it is even if they really want to keep it if I just find the right answer. I'm going to break this box into little pieces because that's the easiest way to get into it but I could probably open it some other way if that wouldn't work.

A note - the center of this bar is someone who generally has different responses to different kinds of situations - like, in the box example, they'd approach the box and the person with two different general attitudes and processes - but generally responds to those situations using the same kind of decision-making process for each category every time. Most people are nowhere near either extreme. Characters tend to be classifiable into weapon-maker and tool-maker because they are fictional and it's easier to define one kind of approach than many. Approximately average approaches: - pick the lock if no one's around, but give up if someone is there because someone telling me not to open the box is a conflict i think i'll lose but a locked box is just a puzzle that i can solve - argue with the person, but give up on the box, because they're approaching the box as a puzzle and they don't think they have the skill to get into it, but the person is someone who can be convinced or bullied into handing over the key

I made this particular dichotomy up, which is why I think I get a lot of questions on it whenever I put it into anything, but I also don't know of any other snappy way to describe this sort of thought or approach variance, and it's genuinely useful for character writing in my opinion.

Pessimist spot-finder: Generally a downer but not necessarily. This kind of character just approaches everything with a close eye for problems, issues, reasons to find fault. If they're miserable, it might be why, but like, they can be a cheerful spot-finder if you want, I just wanted to get at "the glass is half empty" and "the glass is half full" more than anything.

Optimist upside fan: The opposite. "The glass is half full". If there are problems, they can find something about them that's not so frustrating or bad to focus on. Pretty damn good at overlooking minor issues if there's no reason to fixate on them. Not necessarily cheerful.

Abysmal company: could not give less of a damn about treating people the way they 'should' be treated. Maybe they take pride in that. Maybe they just think it's irrelevant. Either way, they know they treat people badly and they don't see any reason to stop. Does not necessarily mean that they treat people badly if they think they're doing the right thing and are wrong. Doesn't mean they're actually pleasant or unpleasant to hang out with, either, unless you really want it to mean that.

Decent to others: treats people well as a matter of course, or at least they sure think they do. Makes an effort. Would probably care and/or consider changing their behavior if someone said they were treating someone poorly. As before - they can be completely un-self-aware and just think they're doing right by people while treating them completely horribly.

Morality is irrelevant: 'abysmal company' for broader approaches to life and problems. Maybe they just know they're myopic and don't think other people's problems matter. Maybe they just gave up on trying to differentiate between 'good' and 'bad' and outsourced it to someone else or stopped paying any attention. Maybe they just like to take morally unjust actions and can't be bothered giving a damn when someone points out that they're morally unjust, or maybe they're proud of it. Kind of a villain trait generally, but not necessarily - it doesn't have to mean they act badly, just that they don't care if they do. Also, this is about how they choose their own actions and view their own behavior. They can think morality is relevant for other people as long as they ignore it when they act themself.

Always in the right: feels morally righteous in every decision they make. Standard superhero type of trait. Doesn't necessarily pass judgement on others, doesn't necessarily act well according to everyone's moral code (see: blue and orange morality), but they are extremely principled and will never deviate from the moral code they personally believe in. And they do genuinely believe in it.

Circumstances terms:

Generally terrible to generally excellent: how subjectively decent is your character's situation, overall? If they think everything is horrible, but the situation is charmed to everyone except them, then it's generally terrible.

Need for changes to passive tolerance: will they do something about it? Do they feel like they have to?

No agency in action to decisions are huge: agency being "how much power do I have to make changes here?", this just asks how much they have. No agency means that, no matter what they do, nothing will happen - they might be locked in a cage or somehow otherwise completely unable to use any sort of power at all, even the power of just leaving. The other end of the spectrum is where every decision the character makes makes a huge difference, not just to themself but to everyone around them as well. They can start wars, they can have anyone they want killed, they can do anything whenever they feel like it. If they think they have no agency even though they do actually have agency, they don't have agency here. If they feel like they have all the agency in the world and can do anything, then they do even if it's not true. It's perceptual again.

Stakes are deadly to mistakes solvable: what are the consequences of failure? Will you die, will you lose status you can't afford to lose, will you lose belongings, will you have to apologize, will nothing happen at all? Mistakes solvable is where they think every mistake is solvable forever - the character pushes someone through a woodchipper and they come out and to fix it, maybe an apology has to occur, but not much else. Does not necessarily mean no one gets hurt or killed as long as the character thinks there are no permanent consequences. This is the most important one on this section to keep subjective because it will greatly influence how your character approaches situations. A character who thinks everything is deadly-stakes may go to cartoonishly-extreme lengths to avoid turning a report in a day late. A character who thinks all mistakes are always solvable may push someone through a woodchipper and then just assume they can say they're sorry and it'll all go away. The setting and their approach do not need to be applicable.

Needs go unmet to attended with care: how do the people around them treat them? Do they pay attention when the character needs something, or do they ignore it? Does the character have to do everything themself around here, or are there people who will help out?

Regarded poorly to regarded well: how do they think other people see them? Are they respected, are they liked, or are they disliked? Do people broadly trust them or are they pretty sure everyone regards them with suspicion?

Nothing changes to changes in seconds: functionally the 'stability' meter of your setting - is the situation generally stable, or are things constantly changing? Does your character feel like every five minutes, there's a new problem that needs dealing with, or do they feel like nothing has ever happened ever?

Growth terms:

Changes in place: do they go somewhere else? Does the physical setting otherwise change (eg; earthquake, war, etc) ? Are there any other reasons that the 'vibe' or 'experience' of the place is different from before?

Change in power: does the character's percieved agency (see: no agency in action to decisions are huge) change? Alternately you can use it if they've gained or lost power in some percieved way (deposed, assigned a commanding position, etc).

Change in bonds: do their relationships with people change? Have they made new friends, lost old friends, changed the nature of their relationships with friends or partners, etc?

Change in beliefs: straightforwardly, have their beliefs, morals, etc, changed?

Change in hurts: have they undergone some horrible experience? Do they have past trauma from some pre-arc horrible experience they're healing from and/or discovering they're more powerfully subject to? Did they experience a physical injury that they're recovering from or which materially changed their life? Did something recent dredge up old issues? So on and so forth.

Change in hopes: Do their desires for the future look the way they used to? Do they care about different things now? This is something the character is not actively working for, but may be tied to actual goals.

Change in fears: are they overcoming fears? Growing past them? Gaining new ones? Are they scared of shit different from how they used to be?

Change in goals: Not the same as a hope because it needs to have a specific, achievable outcome the character is actively working toward. Do those material goals look different? Perhaps they no longer want to work against something, maybe they didn't have any goals and now they do. Or maybe they've realized the goal is impossible, or something has happened to make that goal unachieveable. Whatever it is, if there's a change, it's a change.

Change in self-awareness: their beliefs about who they are and what they're like, and what their circumstances are. Have they gotten more self-aware, have they gotten less self-aware, or has nothing changed?

Change in relationships: their relationships' overall health and resilience, as far as the character is concerned - which doesn't mean they're necessarily good, just that the character thinks they're how they're supposed to be. Have they improved? Have they gotten worse? Have they not changed?

Change in knowledge: do they feel like they know more about the world, their place in it, the people around them, etc? Not necessarily how to do things - just general information and awareness.

Change in social standing: how does others' regard for the character change over this part of their arc? Do people like them more or less? Are they respected more or less than before? Has nothing changed? And so on.

Change in skills and abilities: do they feel more skilled than they were before? Do they feel like they know how to do as many things as before? Again - not necessarily rooted in reality - a classic example of a character being wrong about this is a 'big fish in a small pond' character who used to be the high school sports star going to college on a sports scholarship and discovering they're not the best any more, and suddenly feeling like they're the worst - when they're better than they've ever been in an objective light. Use a subjective viewpoint for this.

Change in agency in life: how does the character's percieved agency change? Do their decisions matter less now than ever? Do their actions make way more happen than before? (See: no agency in action vs decisions are huge)

Change in outlook: Here's the upper/downer part. Are they more or less hopeful for the future? Do they think things are more terrible now? Are things improving as far as they're concerned? Or has that not changed?

Change in goal progress: how do they feel like they're progressing on the goals they've set for themself? Are they getting further and further away? Are they getting closer?

If some of this doesn't make sense and you want a clarification, you will have to tag me to get my attention, because I'm turning notifications for this post off the minute it leaves my immediate social circle.

Transparent version: (sorry you had to scroll so far)

[localguy2]

I hate that this is genuinely something I'm writing rn, but nothing has more RATTLED my faith in the writing team's ability to write a Zane story then him calliNG ARIN CRINGE-

[kaiserouo]

idk someone about bones or whatever

[antisocialxconstruct]

man who can literally read minds but can't conceive of someone genuinely enjoying his company 😬 I did most of this with act one of GC in mind but I couldn't resist doing a little bonus Ilya from later in the story lmao

original template by kogoyun, I did slice it up a bit because trying to view tall images on desktop is hell

[beevean]

I had a mental image for my Helia fic :3

At some point, while talking, Julia notices that the black ribbon wrapped around Hector's sash is falling off. She doesn't think twice in fixing it for him. For her, it's no different than fixing the collar of a shirt - but it's still the closest she has ever gotten to him, so a little bit of stomach butterflies are inevitable.

For Hector, that's her touching the only thing he has left of his Rosaly. Were it anyone else, he would have shouted at them to not touch it, never touch it, it's too precious! But if it's Julia... it's fine. She's gentle, and delicate, and only wanted to make sure "she" would stay close to him. She knows the importance mementos can have. So, he deeply appreciates the gesture, more than he expresses: it's too painful to still make his late wife's name, but she thinks that Julia is intelligent, so she understands.

(this is, of course, symbolism of how Hector is losing sight of his love in his revenge quest that is drowing him in hatred, but Julia anchors him to his better nature)

Anyway, what if Julia had psychometric powers and because she touched an object that belonged to Rosaly, now she can see her in her dreams too :) and what if she happened to see not just happy visions (a field of lilies of the valley, a day spent with children, a convalescent Hector), but the day Rosaly was executed and Isaac forced Hector to watch, responsible for whipping the blackened hearts of people in a frenzy? And Julia wakes up horrified not just for the heinousness of taking away an innocent life out of spite, but from how similar she and Rosaly looked, and how she feared all her life to be killed in a similar way and he should know, which makes her fear that her brother truly, truly resents her now and there may be no hope to reunite with him anymore? :)

[moldy-flowers]

The interesting experience of being pro Sasuke, anti konoha, pro tobirama, anti Naruto ending, pro Sasusaku, anti Itachi, pro Sakura, anti SasuNaru, pro Tobirama×Izuna, anti Madara, pro karin, anti Orochimaru, pro Uchiha and anti Hashirama. And also as much as I hate the guy danzo was kind of hot when he was younger...

[agalychnisspranneusroseus]

No you don't understand, Anne and Marcy third-wheeling Sasha during the dinner episode (and Sasha third-wheeling herself during battle of the bands) is so important to me. Anne and Marcy have come so far having left Sasha behind. They're happy and confident and strong and closer than ever, all because they were finally free. Because Sasha wasn't there to stunt their growth. Despite how much they love Sasha and how much they don't want to admit the distance helped them, it's true: Anne and Marcy were both victims of a toxic friend and they're learning to move on together. Ik it sounds like I hate Sasha because whenever I write about her I make her out to be a massive piece of shit but that's because... she kinda was! And I love her for that! I love these three, I love their story and their drama and toxicity (I was soooo happy when it was revealed Marcy wasn't as great as she initially seemed like - yes! The CONFLICT is CONFLICTING). Like yes marcanne is my obsession, I have marcanne brain worms, but I think one of the reasons marcanne works so well is because of Sasha. Their past, present and future with her have such a huge impact in Anne and Marcy's relationship with each other and with themselves. You can't separate these three and I love it, how easy it is to ship two of them without making it weird by leaving the third one behind (ironically, Sasha the Character is included by leaving Sasha the Person behind).

Marcanne to me is about two childhood friends living in a toxic situation healing together after leaving, only able to fall in love now that they are free and more comfortable with themselves and each other. They couldn't fully connect with each other before - not really. Anne didn't see the importance of listening to what Marcy had to say nor did she take it too seriously, and Marcy was simply not in contact with real people in the real world at all. None of this was Sasha's fault entirely, but she did third-wheel Marcy and she was possesive with Anne and was just a generally terrible influence on her, while reminding Marcy that, well, she didn't really matter all that much to anyone. Removing Sasha from the equation is not enough but it's a necessary step towards knowing each other better and the fact that they so easily became closer than ever just shows their eagerness to be together for real this time. Marcy's increased confidence and Anne's newfound empathy and admiration for her friend wouldn't have been possible with Sasha's domineering influence present. If they were to fall in love, it'd be because Sasha wasn't there to stop it.

I imagine that, once she finds out, she'd be furious, but mostly just devastated. Her friends only found love once she was gone. As if they think they'll be better off without her.

[vampiricmeurot]

The funny thing is he never admitted it, wilburs response wasnt bad, his only mistake is that he didnt realise the average american has the reading comprehension of a third grader

The amount of misinterpretation his response gained was insane, people claim its an apology when it says

“In the past week a series of allegations have been made over my conduct from an ex-girlfriend. I want to emphasise that, although I feel it fair to offer my perspective, this person's feelings are completely valid. I have taken my time sharing this statement as l wanted to process and respond respectfully and with the hope to gain a deeper understanding for the situation.”

Clearly its a response, not an apology, he clarified that these are only allegations, he clarified that THIS IS A STATEMENT, not an apology.

People also claimed its self centred, yeah, thats the point from a response in HIS PERSPECTIVE

He didnt mention her name because she didnt mention his, you could argue that it was actually sincere that he didnt say her name, she clearly clarified that she didnt want to be known as the woman abused by this big youtuber, This is one possible intention wilbur could have had when he made the response, but claiming that he did it because he was ingenuine with his response is jumping to conclusions

During the second paragraph he talks about how he was slobbish, disrespectful and selfish, yes it seems like he was sort of a dick, BUT HE NEVER ADMITTED ABUSE.

Third paragraph, “The allegations of abuse, particularly in the form of biting, deeply shocked me. Throughout our relationship, understood from our numerous conversations and text message exchanges on the subject, that this behaviour was consensual, playful and reciprocally enjoyed.”

YES he admitted to biting, BUT be put it in a different context, he said that he understood the biting was CONSENSUAL, as consented by both parties, PLAYFUL, as it was light hearted, RECIPROCALLY ENJOYED, as it was enjoyed by both parties

He is denying the horrific picture shelby painted, she said that he bit her everyday multiple times as hard as possible, and that he bit her so much that he has to sometimes open old wounds, she indicated that she didnt enjoy it, this is very different from the type of bites wilbur was describing, so what was he describing?

The bites he described was the general definition of love bites, also known as affection bites, and these are very normal in relationships, i do love bites myself

Ofc ofc he could be lying, but shelby could be lying to, and shelby is the prosecutor, SHE should be the one providing evidence that she was physically abused, she never did, not a single image, picture, chat or whatever was there was ever provided

The only “evidence” is that niki said he was werid or something, thats “he say she say”, NOT EVIDENCE, people claim his bullying humour is evidence, NOT EVIDENCE, and can you have no right to determine whether he was an asshole to someone or not, i saw people talk shit because he was a dick to techno because he threw an apple an strong as possible at him, not your fucking problem, techno could have spoken out about it

And his apology in the end of the third paragraph? He was apologising for being a dick, as he described himself with slobbish, disrespectful and selfish, NOT THE ABUSE

he says he doesn’t accept any of the labels the internet has put on him in the past year or so so can people stop saying he admitted it????

[greenerteacups]

What do you think as Hermione's career would be post battle of Hogwarts? To me her being minister for magic really doesn't make sense. She does not have patience or tact to wade through murky waters of politics 😭😭

So hard to say! The Trio are so, so young when we leave them, I find it almost impossible to project their futures farther than a few years out. The job that suited me at 17 would be radically unsuited to me now. That's why of all the Trio, Ron's ending strikes me as the most realistic — he jumps straight into the save-the-world business again, burns out, realizes he's actually Done The Fuck Enough, Thanks, and pivots into a low-stress career where he gets to see his family a lot. Feels accurate! The others are weirder to me because they do seem to just... pick a lane and stay there.

With Hermione, you could spin her a couple ways. You could say that she leans into her bookish side and does research or teaching, which is not my preference for a couple reasons (namely, I don't think Hermione would like academia as a profession; she finds her classwork interesting and enjoys intellectual validation, but she'd be stifled and wasted in a DPhil program, and she'd be infuriated by the administrative politicking of your average higher-ed faculty). You could say that she gets disaffected with politics and ends up as a barrister or a lobbyist of some kind, but if anything that requires more political finesse, because you don't actually have institutional power, you're just handling the people who make decisions and trying to persuade them of your goals. This is not Hermione's preferred method of influence. She's not even particularly good at persuasion, she just happens to be smart enough (and right often enough) that people take her ideas seriously.

Or you could say her brashness fades with the years into a softened flavor of tell-you-like-it-is honesty, which some politicians actually do successfully trade on; as we see in British politics today, you don't have to be all that charming or clever to get ahead, you just need to be really driven and well-connected (which Hermione completely is; she fought shoulder-to-shoulder with the first postwar Minister and her bestie, the Literal Messiah, runs the Auror Office.) But I don't know if Hermione especially wants to be Minister, after the war. She's just watched years of horrendous bureaucratic incompetence plunge the country into a violent civil conflict. She's had not one, but two Ministers of Magic try to bully or shame her friends into complicity with fascism. Her view of government is... likely extremely dark.

But Hermione also isn't the kind of person who sees her life as a quest for happiness. Babygirl has a savior complex that makes Harry look selfish. (She basically kills her parents — yeah, obliviating is a form of murder, #changemymind — "for their own good," and justifies every batshit, vindictive, mean-spirited move she ever pulls on the grounds that it "helps" one of her friends.) She is a mean, lean, dragon-slaying machine, and she needs a dragon. After Voldemort, the Ministry is the no. 1 threat to muggle-borns and non-wizarding Beings. As a war heroine with basically infinite political capital, I'd be surprised if she didn't try to do something there. That said, Hermione is so vivacious and dynamic that she could potentially grow in a hundred different directions; it's possible that all of this, while true of her at 18, becomes completely inaccurate by 22. That's why I'm not too fussed about any particular fanon interpretation.