#thinking about... malice <3

[sylvies-kablooie]

fandom politics are so funny

my favorite character is also your favorite character but you cannot interact with me because we wish for loki from the avengers to kiss two separate people. this divide is irreconcilable and i am inherently irredeemable. to suggest bipartisanship would make us both radicals.

[liquidstar]

a friend who'd wait :)

[malignant-chain]

Thinking about my nightmares/night terrors again. The Lunar Feather helps a lot, but obviously a few are going to slip through the cracks every now and then.

Most of them were about losing the championship. I felt like I lost everything on that court, and I guess my brain likes messing with me by making me remember that bullshit. That, and more recent events- My brain just likes to remind me of times where I feel like I hit rock bottom.

I have a lot about area zero too. I don't like talking about it much, because I genuinely felt like I wasn't going to make it out of there. I still have dreams of that stupid Iron Jugulis. I already know I fucked up going on there, yet I'm occasionally reminded.

I like thinking about the nightmares that feel like other people's memories more. Fucking upsetting, sure, but it's better than remembering my own.

[twentyfivemiceinatrenchcoat]

just take things at your own pace, ari

(i'm sure that anon was just excited because your prose is superb but i totally get how it can be discouraging. hell, sometimes i just shiver whenever i receive an email reminding me of work even if it's super mundane, so i completely get you.)

just take care of yourself. write to relax. take time to explore ideas & edit & just have fun

thank you anon 🥺 that’s very sweet of you!!! i don’t want to come off as mean or anything and i know that anon was just excited (which makes me happy) but!! soooo many writers get bombarded with ”pt 2” comments and i just…. think it’s rude. and i don’t think people who make those comments know it’s rude. which is why it’s important to be firm about those kinds of things… for everyone involved!!

there’s no malicious intent but that doesn’t change how discouraging it feels to have someone look at your hard work and then immediately jump to ”i want more,” yk?? especially using words like when and. etc. sometimes it feels stressful and sometimes it feels demanding. i really don’t think it’s proper etiquette at all :’3 …

[saeraas]

that twitter thread of Gojo's activism is actually a joke, according to the user. we know he ain't racist, just ignorant, and it was nice he did apologize. in fact, several of us are making jokes about it, but ofc nonblack ppl can't take humor and take it too far 🙄🙄

do you think I went "😭😭" seriously in anger or what anon also look at my bio goofy

[nonuggetshere]

I NEED to update my Radiance's gijinka design I stg I have such cool art ideas for her and PK but I am. So lazy.

Two sides of the same coin, equally as awful morally grey people that would maul each other to death if put in the same room, I love them 💜

I need to also focus more on her role in my AU because while I've rewritten pretty much the entire thing she was left behind and now idk what to do with her in the long run oopsie. All ik is that she ends up being mortal or near mortal after her fight with Ghost and Flower and she is Not happy about it, but it's also the only way PK would have left her alive and Flower is big on second chances so now she's just here, bitter and angry and a shadow of her former self (and actually I just didn't have it in me to kill her before I could do something cool with her + I like the potential dynamic she could have with other characters)

[tangential-hooligan]

All I could think about at work today was Mothman’s weird dialogue from SMT, so obviously this had to be done. Ingo would speak Vermin Gibberish and Emmet gets the S-tier Wilder Threats, and no, I will not elaborate any further

[mayoiayasep]

NOOOOOOO YOU DID 7 ALREADY then 5

i will not lie i do not have a plot for this one yet i just love vkei and i love mayoi so i had to mush these things together. howeverrrr i do think that koga would be a good second for this shuffle bc i think he's already familiar with the styles bc of undead and deadmanz, same w keito. also he and mayoi are in the same class so i have. some basis for interaction they arent strangers. somewhat. i think the dynamic could be nice like i think koga could help in somewhat giving mayoi a confidence boost bc i think despite the way that he would be kinda harsh at first i think he would admire her. bc mayoi's like. genuinely good at dancing singing in canon and it could give koga pointers ^-^ i think they could be friends :) mika and mayoi are also canonically friends now too iirc!! keito and ibara have the rivaling lecture groups but this aint about them

outfits!!! i lovelovelove malice mizer's outfits and i was thinking about them while i thought up the concept of this shuffle also rem's outfit from the death note musical!!

yea something like this ^

song concept: ma chérie by malice mizer<3 this song and au revoir are my favorite and i would love to hear something like them<3<3

[circesoracle]

Please please please I need to know what you dislike about bg3 cause I love hearing flaws in things people praise (nothing is ever perfect) ((I am a huge bg3 fan and have my own gripes))

assuming this is about that vague text post I made a little while ago, all I'll say is playing Dark Urge makes me a bit uncomfortable as I don't enjoy the fact the character you're required to kill and the character you are heavily encouraged and incentivized to kill in that story are both women only shown to be attracted to other women and those are the only two characters the game ties Dark Urge specific rewards to when that easily could have Not Been The Case

if this is more in general I think I could literally list what I dislike about this game forever, but that's true of pretty much every game I love with few exceptions

[randomnameless]

Day by day, it's quite fascinating to see how badly Pat and co wanted to make 3H a religion bad narrative and given the constant discourse that we're still seeing after 4 years, they sadly succeeded to an extent.

Yep !

Thing is, Pat'n'co at Treehouse, sadly, aren't working in a vacuum and some people already developed it more than I could ever do, but in some places in the world, organised religion (or religion in general)... Isn't well-seen or well-considered.

There's a reason why the r/atheism jokes existed soon after the game was released or why some people discoursed for +300 notes about a pseudo parallel and I don't think it's only because "church is usually bad in jrpgs so church must be bad in Fe16"or because they had to sell Hresvelg Grey so Rhea/Church must be "BaD".

Like, how are you supposed to talk (seriously !) to someone about a fictional organisation if their to go answer is "religion BaD"-

Tl;Dr : the religion BaD narrative only works because "Religion BaD" has some foundations IRL and "projection 101" is something a lot of the fanbase used to justify why they drank a lot of tea - but I expected more of a localisation team than to be on the same level as devoted fans who make the "fictional organisation of religious people called church = real life organised religion who also has churches bad = fictional organisation then also BaD"

And the fact that Treehouse straight up modified/edited the script's meaning to convey this thing still baffles me even nowadays, we all know what kind of mess Fates's lolcalisation was and thought people would have learnt about it, but no, in 2019 we still had professional people editing the "everyone supported their wedding and blessed them!" to "only the faithful supported their wedding and said faithful felt blessed by this wedding".

That's, imo, not acceptable.

[throwaway-yandere]

IM SORRY I DIDNT NOTICE THE CLOSED SIGN ON YOUR OENPAL EVENT 😭😭😭 this is the 'stardust' one, please disregard my ask!! Of course I want to join, but I also, really, absolutely didn't mean to break the rules. Sorry for the trouble!! And thank you all the same for holding the event :DDD

Haha dw about it, it's fine!!! It's no trouble at all, if anything, I'm sad that I can't use your ask since there seemed to be an intended recipient. Your letter seemed like an interesting concept but I don't think it'd work in a secret pen pal exchange ;-;

[whispering-kavka]

i've been thinking of some new names to use 🤔

[saucerfulofsins]

so there’s this nhl pride collection with prints for each team saying “in [blank] we have pride” or something along those lines. for every team except the blackhawks. Chicago is listed as a city that a charity will be donated to, but no art. felt weird to me and I’m having trouble pinpointing exactly why. Artists are under no obligation to make art of something that makes them uncomfortable (which the hawks logo probably did) but I don’t get why the alternate logo couldn’t have been used I guess? And I know hockeyblr hates hawks fans but it feels weird to be excluded in something like this. my little gay ass was so excited when I saw some of the prints then very sad when I realized they just ignored Chicago. anyways rant over have a good day 💛

Hey! I understand your disappointment entirely, especially because of the number of fandom writing initiatives (big bangs, fic exchanges, etc.) exclude either the Blackhawks or Kaner.

Because of that I ended up contacting the artist, whom I've been following for some time even before he released the pride logos. I should add here that my ask could have been formulated differently--I was mostly tired of not getting to participate in other fandom initiatives and then this on top of all that felt a bit shit. His response was far nicer than my tone warranted, to be honest, and really nothing but professional.

Anyway, as you predicted, the reason is indeed the artist's discomfort drawing the Hawks logo and secondary logo. He didn't mention this in his response, but the alternate logo is of two Native American tomahawks, which themselves have not just functional purpose but also ceremonial meaning (x). I also did not get the impression at all that the artist hates Hawks fans in any way, shape, or form.

So while personally I think a statement to the Hawks fans would've prevented frustrations on our side and any misunderstandings regarding the intent here, he is in no way obligated to do so, and I do fully understand his decision not to draw the logo. He also made sure to include a Chicago charity to still support the city's LGBTQ+ community that way.

I will say, I was very much looking forward to an alternative design for Chicago, and preferably one that would have somehow omitted the logo(s). I don't especially want to use anything with the primary logo on it, and the alternate logo is questionable to me for the aforementioned reasons. Seeing something different would've been nice and I'd definitely have bought it in that case--but alas.

In the end, though, while I absolutely agree that it sucks that the Hawks are frequently omitted in the fandom, nobody is obligated to include them. This is especially true for something like a replication of the logo. Anything allegedly behaviour-based I find veers quickly into the area of virtue signaling, and a holier-than-thou approach that I don't personally think is appropriate for the NHL's generally toxic culture.

[8bit-mau5]

updating the ships page is always such a treat <33

[strwbrymlkshake]

im the sleepiest guy in the world rn gn yangang I will talk to you tomorrow <3

[sophiamcdougall]

You're a reasonably informed person on the internet. You've experienced things like no longer being able to get files off an old storage device, media you've downloaded suddenly going poof, sites and forums with troves full of people's thoughts and ideas vanishing forever. You've heard of cybercrime. You've read articles about lost media. You have at least a basic understanding that digital data is vulnerable, is what I'm saying. I'm guessing that you're also aware that history is, you know... important? And that it's an ongoing study, requiring ... data about how people live? And that it's not just about stanning celebrities that happen to be dead? Congratulations, you are significantly better-informed than the British government! So they're currently like "Oh hai can we destroy all these historical documents pls? To save money? Because we'll digitise them first so it's fine! That'll be easy, cheap and reliable -- right? These wills from the 1850s will totally be fine for another 170 years as a PNG or whatever, yeah? We didn't need to do an impact assesment about this because it's clearly win-win! We'd keep the physical wills of Famous People™ though because Famous People™ actually matter, unlike you plebs. We don't think there are any equalities implications about this, either! Also the only examples of Famous People™ we can think of are all white and rich, only one is a woman and she got famous because of the guy she married. Kisses!"

Yes, this is the same Government that's like "Oh no removing a statue of slave trader is erasing history :(" You have, however, until 23 February 2024 to politely inquire of them what the fuck they are smoking. And they will have to publish a summary of the responses they receive. And it will look kind of bad if the feedback is well-argued, informative and overwhelmingly negative and they go ahead and do it anyway. I currently edit documents including responses to consultations like (but significantly less insane) than this one. Responses do actually matter. I would particularly encourage British people/people based in the UK to do this, but as far as I can see it doesn't say you have to be either. If you are, say, a historian or an archivist, or someone who specialises in digital data do say so and draw on your expertise in your answers. This isn't a question of filling out a form. You have to manually compose an email answering the 12 questions in the consultation paper at the link above. I'll put my own answers under the fold. Note -- I never know if I'm being too rude in these sorts of things. You probably shouldn't be ruder than I have been.

Please do not copy and paste any of this: that would defeat the purpose. This isn't a petition, they need to see a range of individual responses. But it may give you a jumping-off point.

Question 1: Should the current law providing for the inspection of wills be preserved?

Yes. Our ability to understand our shared past is a fundamental aspect of our heritage. It is not possible for any authority to know in advance what future insights they are supporting or impeding by their treatment of material evidence. Safeguarding the historical record for future generations should be considered an extremely important duty.

Question 2: Are there any reforms you would suggest to the current law enabling wills to be inspected?

No.

Question 3: Are there any reasons why the High Court should store original paper will documents on a permanent basis, as opposed to just retaining a digitised copy of that material?

Yes. I am amazed that the recent cyber attack on the British Library, which has effectively paralysed it completely, not been sufficient to answer this question for you.  I also refer you to the fate of the Domesday Project. Digital storage is useful and can help more people access information; however, it is also inherently fragile. Malice, accident, or eventual inevitable obsolescence not merely might occur, but absolutely should be expected. It is ludicrously naive and reflects a truly unpardonable ignorance to assume that information preserved only in digital form is somehow inviolable and safe, or that a physical document once digitised, never need be digitised again..At absolute minimum, it should be understood as certain that at least some of any digital-only archive will eventually be permanently lost. It is not remotely implausible that all of it would be. Preserving the physical documents provides a crucial failsafe. It also allows any errors in reproduction -- also inevitable-- to be, eventually, seen and corrected. Note that maintaining, upgrading and replacing digital infrastructure is not free, easy or reliable. Over the long term, risks to the data concerned can only accumulate.

"Unlike the methods for preserving analog documents that have been honed over millennia, there is no deep precedence to look to regarding the management of digital records. As such, the processing, long-term storage, and distribution potential of archival digital data are highly unresolved issues. [..] the more digital data is migrated, translated, and re-compressed into new formats, the more room there is for information to be lost, be it at the microbit-level of preservation. Any failure to contend with the instability of digital storage mediums, hardware obsolescence, and software obsolescence thus meets a terminal end—the definitive loss of information. The common belief that digital data is safe so long as it is backed up according to the 3-2-1 rule (3 copies on 2 different formats with 1 copy saved off site) belies the fact that it is fundamentally unclear how long digital information can or will remain intact. What is certain is that its unique vulnerabilities do become more pertinent with age."  -- James Boyda, On Loss in the 21st Century: Digital Decay and the Archive, Introduction.

Question 4: Do you agree that after a certain time original paper documents (from 1858 onwards) may be destroyed (other than for famous individuals)? Are there any alternatives, involving the public or private sector, you can suggest to their being destroyed?

Absolutely not. And I would have hoped we were past the "great man" theory of history. Firstly, you do not know which figures will still be considered "famous" in the future and which currently obscure individuals may deserve and eventually receive greater attention. I note that of the three figures you mention here as notable enough to have their wills preserved, all are white, the majority are male (the one woman having achieved fame through marriage) and all were wealthy at the time of their death. Any such approach will certainly cull evidence of the lives of women, people of colour and the poor from the historical record, and send a clear message about whose lives you consider worth remembering.

Secondly, the famous and successsful are only a small part of our history. Understanding the realities that shaped our past and continue to mould our present requires evidence of the lives of so-called "ordinary people"!

Did you even speak to any historians before coming up with this idea?

Entrusting the documents to the private sector would be similarly disastrous. What happens when a private company goes bust or decides that preserving this material is no longer profitable? What reasonable person, confronted with our crumbling privatised water infrastructure, would willingly consign any part of our heritage to a similar fate?

Question 5: Do you agree that there is equivalence between paper and digital copies of wills so that the ECA 2000 can be used?

No. And it raises serious questions about the skill and knowledge base within HMCTS and the government that the very basic concepts of data loss and the digital dark age appear to be unknown to you. I also refer you to the Domesday Project.

Question 6: Are there any other matters directly related to the retention of digital or paper wills that are not covered by the proposed exercise of the powers in the ECA 2000 that you consider are necessary?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 7: If the Government pursues preserving permanently only a digital copy of a will document, should it seek to reform the primary legislation by introducing a Bill or do so under the ECA 2000?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 8: If the Government moves to digital only copies of original will documents, what do you think the retention period for the original paper wills should be? Please give reasons and state what you believe the minimum retention period should be and whether you consider the Government’s suggestion of 25 years to be reasonable.

There is no good version of this plan. The physical documents should be preserved.

Question 9: Do you agree with the principle that wills of famous people should be preserved in the original paper form for historic interest?

This question betrays deep ignorance of what "historic interest" actually is. The study of history is not simply glorified celebrity gossip. If anything, the physical wills of currently famous people could be considered more expendable as it is likely that their contents are so widely diffused as to be relatively "safe", whereas the wills of so-called "ordinary people" will, especially in aggregate, provide insights that have not yet been explored.

Question 10: Do you have any initial suggestions on the criteria which should be adopted for identifying famous/historic figures whose original paper will document should be preserved permanently?

Abandon this entire lamentable plan. As previously discussed, you do not and cannot know who will be considered "famous" in the future, and fame is a profoundly flawed criterion of historical significance.

Question 11: Do you agree that the Probate Registries should only permanently retain wills and codicils from the documents submitted in support of a probate application? Please explain, if setting out the case for retention of any other documents.

No, all the documents should be preserved indefinitely.

Question 12: Do you agree that we have correctly identified the range and extent of the equalities impacts under each of these proposals set out in this consultation? Please give reasons and supply evidence of further equalities impacts as appropriate.

No. You appear to have neglected equalities impacts entirely. As discussed, in your drive to prioritise "famous people", your plan will certainly prioritise the white, wealthy and mostly the male, as your "Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin and Princess Diana" examples amply indicate. This plan will create a two-tier system where evidence of the lives of the privileged is carefully preserved while information regarding people of colour, women, the working class and other disadvantaged groups is disproportionately abandoned to digital decay and eventual loss. Current and future historians from, or specialising in the history of minority groups will be especially impoverished by this.