[Burichan] [Futaba] [Nice] [Pony]  -  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]
Psychic powers are more believable than something ignoring the square cube law.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [Last 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name (optional)
Email (optional, will be displayed)
Subject    (optional, usually best left blank)
Message
File []
Embed (advanced)   Help
Password  (for deleting posts, automatically generated)
  • How to format text
  • Supported file types are: DAT, GIF, JPG, MP3, MP4, PNG, SWF, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 12500 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.

File 129842217811.png - (27.36KB , 750x750 , BIGDUMBARGUMENT.png )
13522 No. 13522 ID: bf1e7e

This is the thread for BIG DUMB ARGUMENTS. If you want to have a BIG DUMB ARGUMENT, this is the place! If you were having a BIG DUMB ARGUMENT somewhere on the board and it vanished, it might be here!
Expand all images
>>
No. 13523 ID: 4e6eaf

THIS THREAD IS DUMB
>>
No. 13524 ID: 42855f

WELL YOUR MOTHER WAS A CLASSY LADY
>>
No. 13525 ID: 58db22

I FIND THAT HIGHLY DOUBTFUL
>>
No. 13526 ID: 42855f

I DOUBT YOUR SELF-DOUBT AS I HAD RELATIONS WITH HER IN THE FORM OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IN THE FUN HOLE LAST NIGHT, TREBEK
>>
No. 13527 ID: 1963d1

DO ALL THE POSTS IN THIS THREAD HAVE TO BE IN ALL CAPS, OR CAN WE TYPE IN LOWER-CASE LETTERS TOO?!
>>
No. 13528 ID: 28e94e

Guys.

Obama = socialism.
>>
No. 13529 ID: 2563d4

WHAT KIND OF STUPID QUESTION IS THAT
YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD FOR ASKING
>>
No. 13531 ID: f4963f

>>13528
AND SOCIALISM = HITLER

ALSO YOUR POST BROKE OUR ALL-CAPS RECORD FUCK YOU

FUCK YOU IN PONY HELL!!
>>
No. 13533 ID: 8e5432

plz 2 move socialism/federal power argument here from "Things worth Posting"
>>
No. 13534 ID: 2563d4

POLITICAL MATTERS ARE MERE TRIVIA FOR THE WORKING CLASSES TO OBSESS OVER IN THE ADORABLY MISGUIDED NOTION THAT THEY CAN AFFECT THE LEADERSHIP OF THE NATION

GENTLEMEN I BRING YOU A TRUE MATTER OF CONSEQUENCE FOR YOUR HEATED DELIBERATION

CHOCOLATE DIGESTIVES, OR RICH TEA BISCUITS?
>>
No. 13535 ID: 28e94e

>>13534
Whatever you say COMRADE
>>
No. 13536 ID: e3f578

EVERYTHING IS JUST SO TERRIBLE
SO TERRIBLE
UGH
>>
No. 13537 ID: d677cc

>>13536
YOU ALWAYS SAY THAT

JUST RECALIBRATE YOUR SCALE, JESUS
>>
No. 13540 ID: e3f578

>>13537
WHAT DO YOU YOU MEAN RECALIBRATE MY SCALE
DOES IT INVOLVE FOOD OR SOME SHIT LIKE THAT? OR ARE YOU IMPLYING GARRUS VAKKARIAN SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT MY SHIPS GUNS DUE TO HIS INVALUABLE CALIBRATION SKILLS?
>>
No. 13558 ID: 8e5432

>>13543
>It doesn't matter if it's a service, or regulation, or whatever the fuck else you want to call it. It's still a case of the government effectively managing the country
Yes. As you might notice, I agree that the federal government does indeed do a passable job at some things. I do not agree with your apparent belief that the government doing a passable job at one thing automatically means it will do an exemplary job at a different, unrelated thing.

>However, I'm sure Obama could find several precedents and a few loopholes allowing him to pass the healthcare bill.
So you feel that it would be good to violate the constitution in order to affect a universal solution over several discrete ones, despite the fact that the universal solution is, based on past performances, most likely to be inferior in terms of both penetration and fiscal efficiency? For what benefit? Merely because you desire to strip the right of states to make their own choices, thus slightly reducing the available freedoms of the American people? Even if you are of a blithely totalitarian bent and thus find this to be a positive thing, the "benefit" here would be so minor as to be nearly intangible.

>the postal service is pretty much the norm.
No. It is far more successful than most government programs.
>>
No. 13560 ID: 15b51b

>>13558
>No. It is far more successful than most government programs.
Prove it. Prove anything.
>>
No. 13561 ID: 8e5432

>>13560
>Prove it.
If doing so were trivial, I would have. Since it's not, I am unwilling to do so. I don't really have the time or, perhaps more importantly, the inclination. Proving this would require that I pull up a fuckton of information, much of which isn't publicly available. Even then, "successful" is a relative term, so true proof is kind of impossible.

>Prove anything.
Well, I did just prove that constitution thing. That was trivial; all I needed to do was link an online copy of the constitution.
>>
No. 13564 ID: d677cc

>>13540
IT MEANS YOU SHOULD REDEFINE "TERRIBLE" SO IT ISN'T "EVERYTHING" AND THEREFORE HAS A USEFUL DEFINITION

IN OTHER WORDS, PUT IT IN RELATIVE TERMS
>>
No. 13571 ID: 38b610

>>13558
>If doing so were trivial, I would have. Since it's not, I am unwilling to do so. I don't really have the time or, perhaps more importantly, the inclination. Proving this would require that I pull up a fuckton of information, much of which isn't publicly available. Even then, "successful" is a relative term, so true proof is kind of impossible.
This is a ridiculous excuse. Define successful. If you have no definition of success, you cannot call one thing more successful than the other. You must, therefore, have some definition of success.

>Well, I did just prove that constitution thing. That was trivial; all I needed to do was link an online copy of the constitution.
You've proven nothing! Proof requires more than just a link and sitting on your ass waiting for people to do it for you, you know; to claim you have made a proof requires that /you/ actually go out of your way to connect the evidence in your favor so that it will sound correct in /our/ eyes.

>I do not agree with your apparent belief that the government doing a passable job at one thing automatically means it will do an exemplary job at a different, unrelated thing.
Nobody said that but you. Stop putting words in his mouth.

Just because the government doesn't do well on some things doesn't mean it's not going to be /able/ to do well on others. That's the key word: "Able." Nothing is for certain. So consider the fact that we regard ourselves a democracy; it's supposed to be up to us, but then in order for healthcare to be in our hands (the hands of the public) it needs to be under public control as direct as possible. Even if that control is indirect, as it probably will be in a republic where we elect representatives to (hopefully) do what we want, it seems better to me than having no control at all. You're throwing away your own power by decrying a public plan. Having only a variety of private insurers may give you a choice, but they are not obligated to give you the choice you want.

>So you feel that it would be good to violate the constitution in order to affect a universal solution over several discrete ones
Let me quote the Constitution for you (The Necessary and Proper Clause, Article 1, Section 8):
>The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
It says "foregoing powers," referring to the enumerated powers. One of these enumerated powers is that of Congress to pass laws that benefit the "general Welfare," evidenced here (same section):
>The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
If it is Congress's duty to provide for the welfare of the United States - which also means the welfare of its people, for without the people there would be no United States - is it necessarily harmful to that welfare that we instate a publicly funded insurance plan? I do not think so, which brings me to my next response below.

>despite the fact that the universal solution is, based on past performances, most likely to be inferior in terms of both penetration and fiscal efficiency?
Past performances like, say, Japan? They have public plans available and they are the longest-lived people in the world, on average (last I checked, anyway, though if that statistic has declined then I can't imagine it was by a significant amount). Many European nations, with their public options, live longer than we do. What makes you so sure publicly funded healthcare, or at least insurance in the case of the US, will be so bad, especially considering we, too, will still have private insurers if we go through with it?

Now, mind you, I'm not saying the public plan going through Congress now is necessarily the best plan; what I am saying is that a public plan is not necessarily a bad thing, and if it can do good for the general welfare, then passing it is not out of constitutional bounds. If it was, don't you think that that "lack of penetration" would mean more people in these countries would be sick without care, and therefore the nations' average lifespans would be considerably shorter?
>>
No. 13572 ID: 5f0943

GUYS! GUYS! I THINK YOU ARE ALL MISSING THE POINT HERE!

The amount of posts in this thread is approximately twenty, not counting this post.
Twenty is double the amount of ten, which is double the amount of five.
Five, when multiplied by six hundred is three thousand.

Three thousand times two equals six thousand (3000X2=6000).
Six thousand plus twenty five is 6025, who was guitarist in the band "Dead Kennedys" from 1978-1979.
1979 minus one thousand nine hundred equals 79.

79 minus ten equals 69.
69 is a sexual position. Sex often involves penises.
Penises are phallic objects, bananas are also phallic objects.
69, 6 and 9 are all results of multiplying something with three.

Therefore, three equals banana (3=banana).
>>
No. 13573 ID: 2563d4

>>13571
>sound correct in /our/ eyes
You have made a mistake here, therefore your entire argument is invalid.
>>
No. 13574 ID: e3f578

>>13564
MY PERSPECTIVE CHANGING WOULDN'T MAKE EVERYTHING LESS TERRIBLE, IT'D TURN ME INTO A LYING, SMILING MACHINE IGNORANT OF TERRIBLE LIFE.
COME ON IT IS BASIC FACT LIFE IS PRETTY TERRIBLE. I CAN PROVE IT. FIRST PUT YOUR FINGER ON YOUR NOSE, SPIN THREE TIMES, THEN REFLECT ON YOUR LIFE. YEAH, PRETTY TERRIBLE, ISN'T IT?
>>
No. 13575 ID: 38b610

>>13571
My bad:
>If it was, don't you think that that "lack of penetration" would mean more people in these countries would be sick without care, and therefore the nations' average lifespans would be considerably shorter?
Is related to "not necessarily a bad thing," whereas the part about constitutional validity (and if it can do good for the general welfare, then passing it is not out of constitutional bounds) should have come after.

And,
>Nothing is for certain.
I should not have linked that with to
>consider the fact that we regard ourselves a democracy

>>13573
What? {:v
>>
No. 13576 ID: 3af16b

>>13571
>Define successful.
Serving the intended purpose in an efficient and thorough manner.

>Proof requires more than just a link and sitting on your ass waiting for people to do it for you, you know;
If people are unwilling to read the very constitution that they cite then I am able to prove nothing. That's pretty fucking baseline.
>to claim you have made a proof requires that /you/ actually go out of your way to connect the evidence in your favor so that it will sound correct in /our/ eyes.
Amendment 10 is one fucking line, and it explicitly says exactly what I said that it says. There is no need to "connect" the evidence in my favor, it's sitting right there.
To give an even simpler parallel (which shouldn't be fucking necessary), consider if someone asserted that the sky is red. I then point up and say "look, the sky is blue". You are saying that that would not be proof that the sky is indeed blue. You are wrong and also a faggot.

>Nobody said that but you. Stop putting words in his mouth.
He repeatedly submitted that the federal government has done passable jobs with certain things as evidence that the federal government would do a good job with socialized healthcare. The implication inherent to the fact that he submits this information is that he believes it to be relevant.

>So consider [...] the choice you want.
I'm sorry if I was unclear. I meant that we lose control going to federal healthcare over state healthcare. At state level, each state decides independently. That means that the people of one state are not unnecessarily bound by the decisions of those in another state. Furthermore, many states have truer democracy than the federal system. In my own state, for example, I could alter any legislation I cared to (including the State Constitution) by obtaining the signatures of registered voters equal in number to 1/16th of the votes in the previous election, and then my changes would go on the ballot to become law on a simple majority. So I would lose a lot of freedom if the issue became federal. States wherein the people have less access to democracy would of course have less to lose in this respect. But they even then lose the ability to have services independent of their neighbors.

>The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
This refers to taxation. It does not necessarily mean that the federal government is obligated to act in some specific manner, but could also meant merely that it is able to acquire money to do as described in the rest of the document.
However your interpretation is entirely valid and would probably be the one that the Supreme Court would go with.

>Past performances like, say, Japan?
No, I meant past performances of the US federal government specifically, and not with regards to healthcare in particular. Sorry for being unclear. I am aware that public healthcare works very well in other countries, especially countries that are on a scale similar to the member states of the USA. I think that reinforces my point, rather than hindering it, however.

>What makes you so sure publicly funded healthcare, or at least insurance in the case of the US, will be so bad
I am not sure it will be bad. In fact I think it would probably work out mostly okay for a significant majority of the population. But the same could easily be said for the current healthcare situation. I am not optimistic about magical socialism because our federal government does not tend towards magical performances, and I am unwilling to risk state-guided healthcare programs for this.

>If it was, don't you think that that "lack of penetration" would mean more people in these countries would be sick without care, and therefore the nations' average lifespans would be considerably shorter?
I have some stories I can bust out here. My grandmother, who is Danish and lives in Denmark, once broke her arm in the US. She went to a doctor here, covered by my family's insurance because she was visiting. She went to the doctor that night and was all patched up by morning. She also ended up diagnosed with diabetes, which the socialized medicine of Denmark had failed to notice. When she returned to Denmark, she waited six months for a checkup on the cast that should have happened after a week.
My aunt, who has eye problems, has similar waiting.
And something that was in the news, a man needed treatment to be able to walk again. Something to do with his nerves, I'm not sure of the details as I don't actually read Danish that well and this was a while ago. Anyway, the guy's treatment was not covered by the Danish national healthcare plan. So he asked for donations. He received them, largely from Americans. But because non-social medicine is taxed heavily in Denmark, he gave up half of that money to support a system that would not treat him.
Obviously, this is just one country and anecdotes are not really evidence anyway, but it's worth thinking about, at least.

Also, not all health issues result in decreased lifespan.
>>
No. 13584 ID: 2563d4

>>13576
>And something that was in the news...
You have started a sentence with a conjunction. Your inability to handle straightforward grammar invalidates your entire argument.
>>
No. 13586 ID: f7166d

None of you faggots know jack shit about constitutional law. GODDAMN.
>>
No. 13587 ID: d677cc

>>13522
HEY SEAL YOU FORGOT TO DRAW YOUR CAT
>>
No. 13588 ID: 38b610

>>13576
>You are saying that that would not be proof that the sky is indeed blue.
Sorry, I didn't read your post as clearly as I thought I had.

>I am not optimistic about magical socialism because our federal government does not tend towards magical performances, and I am unwilling to risk state-guided healthcare programs for this.
Nobody said it was going to be a magical process. I don't, at least. The problem isn't so much that people think it would be a great thing or that it wouldn't be, but that people don't seem to realize that they have to be the ones to make it great; without the action of the national public, a federally-operated or at least regulated public healthcare program will not work to their desires.

>I meant that we lose control going to federal healthcare over state healthcare.
>I am aware that public healthcare works very well in other countries, especially countries that are on a scale similar to the member states of the USA. I think that reinforces my point, rather than hindering it, however.
Perhaps so. However, if only certain states benefit (because almost inevitably, some states will not institute public healthcare - at least, not now), then what of the nation as a whole? I cite the Preamble, which I think sums up the purpose of forming the United States, or any national government, fairly well:

>We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The "more perfect Union" stands out to me in this case because I think it is essential: In order for a nation to continue to survive, its people must strive to keep it coherent. If we go for individual state healthcare plans, then it may make it easier to get decent and affordable healthcare for ourselves and those in our own states, but we run the risk of leaving more people behind in those states you described whose people have less power to influence legislation. If we do that, then how does this contribute toward the formation of a more perfect union? I am aware that the above quote also states that "we the People" aim to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves," but if we make individual priviliges for ourselves our highest priority then we run the risk of leaving others behind, which is detrimental to the general welfare, at least.

>Obviously, this is just one country and anecdotes are not really evidence anyway, but it's worth thinking about, at least.

It's a way to sway some hearts, perhaps, but no, it's not really conclusive evidence.

>Also, not all health issues result in decreased lifespan.
Not necessarily, no, but it's telling that these countries are at least better able to deal with life-threatening problems, in the short and long run. And if you look at a list of the top ten causes of death from, say, the WHO's 2004 sheet, the leading causes in the high-income countries are all diseases. (Data table: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index.html ) In fact, aside from road traffic accidents, disease accounts for the top percentages of deaths in the entire world. The CDC's statistics for US deaths ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm ) rank diseases in the top causes of death, aside from accidents; still, accidents account for less deaths than lower respiratory disease. So I think lifespan, while not an extremely accurate indicator of overall health, is a good one still.
>>
No. 13590 ID: 4d7f8c

>>13588
>without the action of the national public

This is the part where the plan goes horribly... horribly wrong. This is the part where ALL socialism goes wrong, people are, by and large, tiny deer raping cocks.
>>
No. 13591 ID: f7166d

>>13588
I just want to point out a few things without quoting excessively and writing a treatise.

Your document does not support the premise that it was originally introduced to support. Everyone dies eventually, and pretty much 100% of the diseases listed for high-income countries are 'old people diseases.' I don't know if you are aware, but countries with socialized systems rarely treat these diseases because they have to allocate resources, and use potential lifespan/likelihood of survival as a measure for determining how resources should be allocated.

Another thing you seem to be saying is that just because there could theoretically be a good health care bill, we should accept this one even if it is bad. This is stupid. Really stupid.

>State v. Federal Problem

Health care deals very closely with the actual population and its needs if it is successful. Why is a solution that is the same across the board instead of tailored to the needs of the people there superior? You seem to think that the democratic process only works on the state instead of the federal level. Keep in mind that the bigger the area you have to administrate, the harder it is to administrate well.
>>
No. 13592 ID: f7166d

>>13588

I meant to say that you seem to think democracy only works on the Federal and not the State level. Switch those in my above post.
>>
No. 13593 ID: 4d7f8c

State level is a good level to decide such things if simple do the the vast expense in 'whoops, looks like we were wrong... sorry bout that whole national economy thing'

While if a system works other states will look and say "hey now... that's a good idea, let's see if we can't do that too?" and maybe it will... or won't but that depends on the local social and political climate.

The Unites States is after all, "the Great Experiment" and in every experiment you need multiple test subjects and even control groups.
>>
No. 13594 ID: a41aaf

>>13534
>RICH TEA
FEEBLE LITTLE DISCS OF HATE.

>HEALTH CARE BITCHING
Still not getting how the Basic Human Rights Fail has continued for so long in the US with so much opposition.
>>
No. 13595 ID: 2563d4

>>13594
NICE TRY, BUT THE CORRECT ANSWER WAS "HOB NOBS"

I WOULD ALSO HAVE ACCEPTED "GINGER NUTS"
>>
No. 13596 ID: 28e94e

>>13594
Because I'm becoming more and more convinced that your average American has his head firmly lodged in his colon.
>>
No. 13598 ID: f4963f

>>13594
>>13596
We stopped being a progressive country long ago. It's sad, really.
>>
No. 13602 ID: 38b610

>>13591
>I meant to say that you seem to think democracy only works on the Federal and not the State level. Switch those in my above post.
No, I don't. See my following response.

>>13591
>Another thing you seem to be saying is that just because there could theoretically be a good health care bill, we should accept this one even if it is bad.
No, I'm saying that /a/ federal healthcare plan better serves the national interests outlined in the Constitution.

>>13593
>The Unites States is after all, "the Great Experiment" and in every experiment you need multiple test subjects and even control groups.
And that is somehow invalidated if a federal plan passes? Even if all states then have public healthcare, that does not rule out the possibility of different subplans for different states. Of course a state like California should be provided for differently under a federal plan than one like, say, Vermont, but that does not change my point that a federal plan better serves the interest of the entire nation. It just requires a different wording of the final legislation.

>>13591
>I don't know if you are aware, but countries with socialized systems rarely treat these diseases because they have to allocate resources, and use potential lifespan/likelihood of survival as a measure for determining how resources should be allocated.
What evidence do you have to support this?

>>13590
>This is the part where the plan goes horribly... horribly wrong. This is the part where ALL socialism goes wrong, people are, by and large, tiny deer raping cocks.
You're projecting far too hard. If the majority of people truly thought like that, the situation would be much worse than it is today. We wouldn't have Medicare or any of the other government-funded and operated institutions that work to keep our country together and prosperous (to a point), the military included. We wouldn't have states to begin with!

Since you seem to believe that socialism is necessarily something wrong, let me make clear the definition of the word. Socialism is that which supports the government, because the government must exert some control over the economy (and socialism is technically defined as supporting common management of the economy) in order to survive. If it didn't, it would have no resources with which to run itself. But I digress somewhat.

More to the point, I don't disagree that on the most basic level, a human only does something because he thinks it will benefit him. What I do disagree with, though, is your apparent belief that no human thinks that helping others will benefit him. Why would we have nations at all, if that were true?

If we did not pay taxes toward a general fund (the national treasury) from which a government we elect can draw to pay people to provide all the necessary goods and services to us, it would be much harder for each person to get all those goods and services. Stable governments also offer protection from crime and from the armed forces of other countries. It is ultimately beneficial to the individual to contribute a share of one's wealth and to involve one's self in the politics of his home nation, to ensure that he will continue to have a safe place to live where he is provided with all his basic needs.

So even though it may be true /now/ that not enough people are willing to push for a good national healthcare plan that serves everyone well, you should not assume that it will always be that way. After all, if you think it is that hopeless, then what reason will you see to try and make it less true?

tl;dr: Keep your spirits up. Untempered cynicism is just as fruitless as untempered optimism. A mix of the two is best.
>>
No. 13603 ID: cf244d

>>13584
I do not constrain my self to the most irrelevant of formal grammar rules because I am not a pretentious English major. My choice to ignore something you find important does not relate to anything else I say.

>>13588
>However, if only certain states benefit (because almost inevitably, some states will not institute public healthcare - at least, not now), then what of the nation as a whole?
What of it? This is not a matter on which we need be unified in the face of a unified opposition. If some people choose not to implement such a program, then why strip that freedom from them?

I notice from your data that the top killers are life-style influenced. The unhealthy lifestyles of Americans unfortunately confounds the data on healthcare.

>>13591
>You seem to think that the democratic process only works on the state instead of the federal level.
Federal democracy is very limited. It only allows the election of a relative few people, who make the actual laws.
Most states in the US have some form of initiative these days, though some require more signatures than others. That allows people to change any law that enough people truly care about. That's a form of democracy which simply doesn't exist at the federal level, and it's the truest form of democracy to ever function on this scale.

>Keep in mind that the bigger the area you have to administrate, the harder it is to administrate well.
This is a very good paraphrasing of something I said less clearly earlier. Thanks for that.

>>13594
Free health care is not a basic human right. It is not inherent to the human condition, as with freedoms of speech, assembly religion, and similar. It is not a protection of anything in particular. It is not even considered a right by the UN's declaration of human rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) and they think free education is a basic right (and mandatory free education, too, which makes no sense at all).

>>13598
According to Wikipedia, the Progressive Era lasted through the twenties. That's not that long ago. And whether we truly ceased to be progressive according to a more direct definition of the word is something that could still be debated. But any such debate would essentially boil down to a mess of semantics.
>>
No. 13604 ID: e3f578

>>13598
YEAH IT'S NOT LIKE ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD ISN'T PROGRESSIVE AT ALL. NO, THE US IS THE ONLY COUNTRY WHO IS DOING JACK SHIT FOR THE FURTHERING OF HUMANITY.

JUST WHAT IS WITH ALL THIS BETTERMENT NONSENSE. WHO SAID WE HAVE TO BETTER OURSELVES. WHAT'S WRONG WITH STAGNATING IT ISN'T HURTING ANYBODY AND SURE DOES TAKE A LOT LESS EFFORT. WHAT DO WE GET OUT OF BETTERING OURSELVES?
>>
No. 13605 ID: 38b610

>>13603
>If some people choose not to implement such a program, then why strip that freedom from them?
Strip what freedom? Most developed nations with public healthcare have both public and private plans available. Having a public one does not necessitate that the private options go away. And regarding freedom, I want the freedom to buy my healthcare, or at least my health insurance, from the state. By your logic, I think you helping to keep me from having that freedom.

>I notice from your data that the top killers are life-style influenced. The unhealthy lifestyles of Americans unfortunately confounds the data on healthcare.
That may be, but does that change it drastically?

>What of it? This is not a matter on which we need be unified in the face of a unified opposition.
Yes, it is. It might not be a wholly unified opposition, but if we don't try to provide the best possible for everyone in our nation, then we run the risk of falling behind our competitors. That doesn't just mean healthcare necessarily, but everything essential to our prosperity. China, for one, seems poised to overtake us - we already have very little leverage over them, not only because they are also a superpower but because we are heavily mutually invested in each other, and we have moved most of our non-high-tech manufacturing base to it and the surrounding developing Asian nations. If we do not do everything to ensure that we have a healthy, strong workforce to compete with such countries, then we will surely fall behind them, sooner or later.

And while that in itself may not seem to tie in directly with public healthcare, consider that if we allow each state to go its own way, then it defeats the purpose of - and therefore degrades - the union. While I don't disagree that each state should be provided for differently, I do disagree that we shouldn't all have to come to a unified decision on whether or not to provide healthcare at all. Regarding what you said about the federal government - no, our federal system is far from perfect, and it may well be further from the democratic ideal than the state system. But while the United States would be nothing without its individual states, the individual states would not be anywhere near as influential, both politically and economically, in today's world, if they were not expected to come to agreement on something as important to the continued prosperity of their people as healthcare as one Union of States.
>>
No. 13606 ID: cf244d

>>13602
>Of course a state like California should be provided for differently under a federal plan than one like, say, Vermont,
Under a federal plan, it cannot be.

>Socialism is that which supports the government, because the government must exert some control over the economy
This is either a totally false statement indicating absolutely no understanding of the issue at hand, or phrased so poorly that it appears to be.

>If it didn't, it would have no resources with which to run itself.
Except taxation. And bonds. That's worked okay for quite a while now.
>>
No. 13607 ID: 2563d4

>>13603
>pretentious English major
You have made an ad-hominem attack, ergo your entire argument is invalid. Also you have an ugly face.
>>
No. 13608 ID: cf244d

>>13602
Oh, and technically it's defined as supporting public ownership of enterprise. Seems like a small difference, but it can matter quite a bit.

>>13605
>Strip what freedom?
The freedom to choose your own government policy.
>And regarding freedom, I want the freedom to buy my healthcare, or at least my health insurance, from the state.
Then vote for that in your state. You currently have the freedom to do so, because it is still a state issue.

>That may be, but does that change it drastically?
I don't know. I don't have the numbers required to find out, and I don't think they'd really be possible to generate in any concrete way. If we factor that in, it could work out that the predominance of private health care actually causes Americans to have a better life expectancy over all. Or it could turn out that they're about the same. Or it could turn out that despite what the FDA and health groups say, the US lifestyle doesn't really effect life expectancy at all, and the entirety of the difference is from health care. But there's no way of knowing, so you also can't use this data as proof that socialized health care is certainly better for people overall.

>US vs. them
That's not really the international system these days.

>And while that in itself may not seem to tie in directly with public healthcare, consider that if we allow each state to go its own way, then it defeats the purpose of - and therefore degrades - the union.
The purpose of the union is, in layman's terms, to stick together so that we can not be taken out individually.
Healthcare is not relevant to that.

>But while the United States would be nothing without its individual states, the individual states would not be anywhere near as influential, both politically and economically, in today's world, if they were not expected to come to agreement on something as important to the continued prosperity of their people as healthcare as one Union of States.
No. They would not be considered as influential if they did not band together on matters of military or trade. Healthcare is a purely domestic issue, and people outside of America do not really give a fuck about that. At least as far as international politics are concerned, I'm sure there's plenty of idealists scattered around the globe who feel that their own position is right and Americans are utterly stupid for not agreeing with them.
>>
No. 13609 ID: 38b610

>>13606
>This is either a totally false statement indicating absolutely no understanding of the issue at hand, or phrased so poorly that it appears to be.
Perhaps it is the second one. I shall try to make myself clear.

>Except taxation. And bonds. That's worked okay for quite a while now.
Those are means by which the government meddles in the economy to acquire revenues for itself. If you don't think that taxation and selling and buying bonds has any effect on, say, disposable income, inflation, or recession, then you're kidding yourself.

Socialism is by definition the theory that the "means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole" - I cite the Oxford Dictionary, but I doubt it will be much different if you look for the definition from any other source. It is essentially the belief that the community (i.e. government, especially in a democratic nation) should interfere with the economy for its own interests.

Now, to go back to taxation and bonds, both of those are ways of interfering in the economy that are necessary for a government to provide for itself. A government has to meddle in its economy in some way that could be considered a tax or a tribute, or else it wouldn't be able to get the revenues it needed. That is why I say that any socialist action is necessarily one that benefits the state, because to be a socialist is to support regulation of the economy for the benefit of the community.

>Under a federal plan, it cannot be.
Why the hell not? Why can't a federal plan make provisions to create different subplans for the individual states? Why must a federal plan be so hopeless to you?
>>
No. 13610 ID: 38b610

>>13608
>The freedom to choose your own government policy.
If I had the ultimate freedom to choose my own government policy then I'd be living in my own damn utopia right now!

Nobody truly has that freedom, in the end. It's something to be striven for, but I think that while we're doing that we need to start making sure we have the infrastructure in place so that we /can/ strive for these things. Providing for healthcare is providing for one part of that infrastructure.

>I don't know… But there's no way of knowing, so you also can't use this data as proof that socialized health care is certainly better for people overall.
That's fucking bullshit! If there was no way of knowing then why bother having a fucking healthcare system in the first place? If there's no way of knowing then that implies that we can't expect consistent results from any healthcare system, which is obviously not true if you compare the systems of the developed world and the third world. Even if a state healthcare system is better than a federal one there has to be a way to /know/, or at least get close to knowing for sure.

>The purpose of the union is, in layman's terms, to stick together so that we can not be taken out individually.
>Healthcare is not relevant to that.
Yes, it is. If we cannot provide healthcare then we can be taken out individually, by disease and injury. It may not seem like much to you, but if Americans lead as unhealthy lifestyles as you say, then it must be important. If an (un)healthy lifestyle doesn't have to do with disease or injury, then what the hell does it have to do with?

>Healthcare is a purely domestic issue, and people outside of America do not really give a fuck about that.
Other people outside of America may not care about it directly but if we don't take care of our domestic issues, we won't be able to handle ourselves on an international scale. If domestic issues were so unimportant to our standing in the world, don't you think we'd be arguing about them just a tad less?

>That's not really the international system these days.
You're fooling yourself, then. The United States must keep up in the world or it will be trammeled upon. It will at least lose its position of relative power over other nations. That's the way life works; the strongest get their way.

I guess what I'm really meaning to ask you is this: Do you want to become another country's bitch?
>>
No. 13612 ID: cf244d

>>13609
What the Oxford dictionary said (and what other dictionaries say) is not the same as what you said it meant directly after. Of note, taxation and all that are not considered socialism under the dictionary definition, while your definition does include that.
As the meaning of a word is based on common consensus, and the meaning supplied by everyone (including the source you cite) disagrees with the meaning you allege is correct, I submit that your definition is wrong.

>Why can't a federal plan make provisions to create different subplans for the individual states?
Because then it wouldn't be a federal plan. It would be a bunch of state plans (and would have whatever downside people apparently thing a state plan has, though no one has yet supplied one) but instead of allowing people to choose democratically according to their own needs, it's decided by people in Washington who are less likely to have any idea of what would be most advantageous to the citizens in question. Not due to any incompetence or anything (or at least not primarily), but just because it's not their job to know.

>If I had the ultimate freedom to choose my own government policy then I'd be living in my own damn utopia right now!
If you were infinitely competent, and had access to infinite resources, then yes, you'd be living in a utopia. Unfortunately, everything is limited by reality. Even freedom; you don't have the personal ability to rule the nation by yourself because that would invalidate the freedoms of others.

>That's fucking [...] knowing for sure
Sorry if I was unclear. There's no way of knowing how much of the difference (if any) is due to healthcare and how much is due to lifestyle. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's utterly impossible to perceive a difference in different payment models for healthcare at all.
It is quite apparent that both private healthcare and public healthcare are superior to no healthcare.

>Yes, it is. [...] have to do with?
"we" refers to the states in this case, not individuals. Sorry for being unclear.

>Other people outside of America may not care about it directly but if we don't take care of our domestic issues, we won't be able to handle ourselves on an international scale.
This is true. But failing to take care of domestic issues in this sense refers to such things as civil unrest. The fact that people disagree on policy is not internationally relevant.
>If domestic issues were so unimportant to our standing in the world, don't you think we'd be arguing about them just a tad less?
No.

>You're fooling yourself, then. The United States must keep up in the world or it will be trammeled upon. It will at least lose its position of relative power over other nations. That's the way life works; the strongest get their way.
If that was true, all other countries would be being "trammeled upon" right now. Since that is clearly not the case, it is apparent that you are wrong. In fact, multiple countries can exist without people breaking out the trammels.

>I guess what I'm really meaning to ask you is this: Do you want to become another country's bitch?
If being their bitch just means that they can say they've got some numbers higher than us, I honestly don't give a fuck.
>>
No. 13615 ID: db9097

>Rationing

It's the reason we didn't sign the Int. Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Article 12 requires "–―The States Parties . . . recognize the right to everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health."

How the hell do you think pure socialized free health care systems work? There are limited resources that must be distributed to everyone in your population. It is an ethical violation of the doctor to waste medical resources that could better be used elsewhere. You have to ration as an attendant circumstance of any such system.

The exact opposite of here, where you can basically get any healthcare that you can pay for. A patient would likely sue the shit out of a doctor if he could pay for treatment and the doctor refused on those grounds.

Another thing to keep in mind is that we ALREADY have a federal system in place, but it is minimal and only for certain classes of people (medicare/medicaid). Also, if you're poor, you can get emergency healthcare and just not pay.

The real issue with health care in America has to do with the way doctors interact with insurance companies. We need more insurance reform, not a federal plan.

You seem to think a federal plan is the only way to have an effective system. Why is that?

I would be fine with a federal plan if it were to actually cater to the needs of local populations and was cost-effective.
>>
No. 13616 ID: 15b51b

The government should keep its filthy hands off my police and fire departments. I should have the right to choose what, if any, police or fire protection I want.
>>
No. 13618 ID: 38b610

Well, I'm down for the count. Cruxador, even if my definitions are wrong, you seem incapable of allowing yourself to reconcile them with your own even for a moment, if only to understand what the hell I'm saying. I was originally responding to the poster who said all "socialism" fails by describing all the socialist programs that we have implemented with success (to a degree, for success in approaching some ideal is always to a degree). The dictionary definition may not include "taxation and all that" by name, but I do believe that those things fall under the kind of economic meddling implied by communal regulation of production, distribution, and exchange. And if they were not intended to be for the government's benefit in some way, then what were they for? Everyone ultimately serves themselves, you know. Say my definition is wrong all you like, it's not going to change my point. And before you go calling me a hypocrite for doing the same thing you're doing to the other poster I was responding to - correcting his definition of a word - remember that unlike you, I actually responded to his point, rather than merely try to put him down in a game of semantics one-upmanship.

To address your point about taking us out one by one - even if you were talking about the states, I think my point still stands that we are more likely to be taken out one by one by unhealthiness of any kind if we do not strive to provide the best care possible. The Union is more than just states, you know - it is people.

I'm not sure at the moment how to appeal to you on the trammeling argument, though I remain convinced that I am correct. To answer your concern (or rather, lack thereof) regarding domestic vs. international issues, however, while healthcare may not be /as/ pressing an issue as civil unrest - which I see no reason to believe, since there are no ongoing large-scale protests I am aware of that threaten our quasi-democratic regime, unless you mean politicians in Congress who hold up the lawmaking process endlessly until they can ransom what they want out of each other, in which case I could agree - it is an issue that could certainly lead to civil unrest, if allowed to go too far. And while I'm aware of how unlikely that is, at least for the time being, I don't believe that makes it something we can just brush under the table forever and expect nobody important to give a damn.

I still don't believe a nominally federal plan couldn't have state subplans, if handled correctly. You have given me no evidence that any federal plan would necessarily be handled only by people in Washington. Even if it is most likely to be that way under the current system, there is a reason we call ourselves a democracy: It is that we are supposed to have the power to change the system. Even if that change is improbable, we are obligated to try if we consider ourselves a democracy, because democracy is useless if nobody has the will to try and effect change.

Even if there is no way to truly know how much of "the difference" is attributable to healthcare and how much to lifestyle, there must be a way to get as close to knowing for certain as possible. I'm not sure how I can tell you you're completely wrong there, because it's certainly true that some things are improbable. But improbability doesn't put something outside the realm of possibility, and it seems even more that way to me for this particular case when you don't give me an actual reason for why we can't come close to knowing. To dismiss it outright as wholly impossible or improbable (it makes no difference, since you're dismissing it anyway) speaks of a fatalist bent to your thinking that I believe marks the difference between how you and I operate.

I also have yet to hear you prove, beyond significant doubt, a single point about healthcare to me. When I press you for evidence, you dodge my inquiry with a rambling statement along the lines of "I can't/don't want to go to the trouble to try and prove that, so it must be wrong," a claim which you never back up with supporting evidence. I suppose that would be too hard for you, though.

db9097, while it may be true that other countries' public healthcare systems ration resources and services (something that I will pull a Cruxador on for now and not bother trying to prove or disprove), is that any reason for us not to try and push for a system that is better? Not a wholly public system necessarily, just /a/ better system. I think we could be better than them, if only we tried - which isn't to imply that the process of trying is going to be a "magical" one, no. Anything we try is going to carry the weight of risk with it. But if we never took risks, we'd never get anywhere in life. Maybe insurance reform is the way to go; maybe not. And I'm not saying a federal plan is the only way to have an effective system; I'm just saying it makes the most sense to do so in the context of the stated aims of the Constitution that Cruxador seems to hold dear.

Your point is also invalidated by the fact that most countries with public plans also have private ones, so it's not as though the two are mutually exclusive. Maybe it will mean the private plans are taxed more heavily, as in Cruxador's case of Denmark; maybe not. Is that such a bad thing, though? Again, you have yet to prove to me beyond significant doubt that it is: 1. Impossible to have a public plan without getting rid of (or significantly taxing) any private plan, and 2. That if we don't have a private plan (or if the plans are significantly taxed) that it is necessarily something /bad/.

Consider me out, for now. I may come back every now and then, but I am not going to continue to argue on a point by point basis in so pedantic a manner as to quote specific passages of your post and try to respond to each one separately. It's obviously not helping me here (though I expect I will get a few smartasses pointing out that it's not just the /way/ I write, it's the core /ideas/ behind what I'm writing that are wrong. Maybe that's true, but if it is, I have yet to see it). Anyway, ta-ta.
>>
No. 13619 ID: 4a3a02

>>13618

I guess I was just never clear on exactly what you were advocating, and you seemed to make arguments that basically said any sort of federal plan was always superior while refusing to admit that that could potentially not the case.

Cruxador is a stupid ass, but you also never actually responded to any of my questions about why you think that a Federal solution of any kind is the only reasonable one. I mean, if you agree that a plan that is specifically tailored to each state is superior, why would you even be against state plans?

I am for the most efficient solution that actually works, whether it is State, Federal, or Private. Also, the existence of a private system on top of a government one doesn't 'invalidate' my argument at all, because I wasn't arguing one way or the other in regards to rationing. You just seemed to be unaware that those systems worked that way.

We discussed it in detail in my Bioethics survey course in law school. It is the area of expertise for that particular professor. Looking through my slides and notes, I don't have actual citations for you, sorry, but I did check.
>>
No. 13620 ID: 6ba8b3

I hope you people don't believe that we won't treat everything or that we let patients die because of "resources"? I mean it's sometimes ridiculous to what extent we go. We treat everything. I'm sure I just misinterpeted.

As for Denmark I suspect somebody really fucked up or their system is broken. You really don't have to wait that long. As for cost effectiveness you get what your government pays for and prevention is always preferable to treatment after. Guess which one gets cuts when the bad days roll over even though it ends costing more that way. That said it took time to get it right and my country is tiny compared to yours with less politics. Good luck with that if you intend to go through with it.

Since they come up so often on tv shows I must ask. Bankruptcy and lifetime of debt because of medical bills true or false? Not getting treatment or only partial because you can't pay? Seems a bit extreme.
>>
No. 13622 ID: d677cc

>>13618
Cruxador?

Definitonal argument?

Couldn't possibly be!
>>
No. 13623 ID: 6ba8b3

>>13620

Nevermind, did a google because I finally got curious. Your system sucks that is all.
>>
No. 13624 ID: 15b51b

The US health care system is balls, but is compensated for by a campaign of misinformation which claims that people basically lay bleeding in the streets in other countries. People dying of thirst in overcrowded hospital waiting rooms, etc.
>>
No. 13625 ID: 6176b5

>>13620
>bankruptcy etc
Yeah, that happens sometimes. It's not normal though. Most people have health insurance, so if something expensive hasppens, they're covered. For people that can't afford insurance, there's the existing federal programs. People are never turned away for emergency procedures, though poorer people might sometines choose not to go to the doctor for something minor in order to save money. Usually this is the sort of shit most folks would ignore because it's totally trivial. I imagine bankruptcy allegedly due to medical charges is generally also due to existing financial troubles.
I've never met anybody with this problen, though.
>>
No. 13637 ID: d7be35

>>13624
Which is not too surprising, considering the other countries don't have electricity, still use horses as main transportation method and worship heathen deities, like the Pope, Allah or Lenin.
>>
No. 13638 ID: 2563d4

>>13637
Some of them even have nepotistic dictatorships installed at the top of their government!
>>
No. 13695 ID: 15b51b

>>13625
>Yeah, that happens sometimes. It's not normal though.
"Not normal" insofar as your standard medical visit does not result in a bankruptcy. But it is extremely common. 60% of all bankruptcies in the United States are due to medical costs. This is a figure which cannot be emphasized enough.
>>
No. 13735 ID: 977a5a

>>13695
Just to play devil's advocate, since this is the big dumb argument thread, what is a "proper" percentage of bankruptcies to be caused by medical bills? How should it compare to foreclosures, failed business ventures, credit cards, college, and whatever other sources of debt I may be forgetting?

Percentages don't really say much of anything unless they are given in a "number of incidences per 10000 citizens" style.
>>
No. 13736 ID: 383006

>>13695
Also, cites please? From what I read, 40% of people who filed for bankruptcy in the past two years had a serious medical condition. That doesn't mean that's the reason they filed for bankruptcy.
>>
No. 13737 ID: bf1e7e

>>13735

It also doesn't really account for how many people are already in crippling debt and on the verge of bankruptcy before it happens because americans can't manage finances to save their fucking lives (literally sometimes!)
>>
No. 13904 ID: e83bae

Also it is very difficult to type perfectly on a cell phone.
>>
No. 13908 ID: f7166d

Eh, I'm bored. Recognizing differences in gender and race is important, and not doing it is an impediment to modern medical testing.

This has nothing to do with thinking less of individuals because of their race or gender.
>>
No. 13909 ID: 28e94e

>>13905
I'm surprised that so many people are falling for such an obvious troll
>>
No. 13912 ID: 28e94e

>>13911
(I was referring to Technomancer, not you)
>>
No. 13915 ID: cf244d

>>13912
I see. That was unclear to me. I apologize for misunderstanding.

>>13913
Though I frown on banning people for their views, banning for such arbitrary shit is entirely acceptable to me.

Also banning for ban evasion should be a given, it's not like you need to say that.
>>
No. 13922 ID: 1854db

>>13915
>>13911
Ugh.

Shut up, troll. My god, you are being so obvious.
>>
No. 13924 ID: 2563d4

>>13922
This is the Big Dumb Arguments thread.
Getting mad at things posted in it is kind of a waste of mad.
>>
No. 13925 ID: cf244d

>>13922
I assure you, this is no troll. If you actually give a fuck, you could go into IRC and ask people if my opinions and statements seem in keeping with my general behavior over the last however long it is now that this place has been around. I'm sure there will be plenty of folks who will answer in the affirmative.

Though if you care that much, you're a big dumb faggot.
>>
No. 13926 ID: e3f578

I don't think I've seen Crux fuck around that much, admittedly. But he can troll without trolling, somehow. He's a mystical nerd-cowboy that inspires anger wherever he goes.
>>
No. 13934 ID: cf244d

>>13926
Not anywhere I go. You are overstating the case. Sometimes people become irate in my presence, but it's not like everywhere I go, people are exploding in rage at the merest touch of my shadow. Although that conjures a pretty badass image to mind.
This is probably related to my tendency to be right, and unassailably so, even when faced with mistaken beliefs which are held very deeply.
Also people tend to assume that any contention leveraged indicates that I am against everything they stand for. I don't know why that is. I guess people are silly.
And of course kids do tend to get worked up about shit. But most people around here are old enough not to, and those that aren't yet will be eventually.

But mostly people are not mad.
>>
No. 13937 ID: 43d730

>>13934
>Shadow of Rage
This is totally my next character in a supers game.
The yells of FUUUUUUU- shall herald his arrival, and the floodlight mounted behind him shall turn all villainous plans to ruin.
>>
No. 13939 ID: e973f4

>>13934
>my tendency to be right, and unassailably so, even when faced with mistaken beliefs which are held very deeply
Excuse me, you are not Seal.
>>
No. 13942 ID: 2eac65

>>13934
It has nothing to do with you being right about anything. People simply don't like it when people act like jerks. There's more than one way to make a point, and just because you think you have a point doesn't mean you can pick any one you want. Politeness still applies to the "right" side.
>>
No. 13943 ID: 2eac65

>>13934
It has nothing to do with you being right (or "unassailable") about anything. People just don't like it when people act like jerks. There's more than one way to make a point, and just because you have one to make doesn't mean you can choose any method you want. Politeness still applies.
>>
No. 13944 ID: 2563d4

>>13943
If you can make it frustrating enough to argue with you that nobody bothers, then you win the argument and are right by default. This is how the Internet works.
>>
No. 13948 ID: 1854db

>>13944
And that is basically all that Cruxador does.

Can we all agree just to never talk to him? Ever? I have yet to see a situation where talking to him led to good things.
>>
No. 13956 ID: 2eac65

>>13948
That would just be unfair. There's no reason to exclude him when he's not belittling people. My policy is "you are who you are at the moment"; when you act like a jerk, you're a jerk, and when you act nice, you're a nice guy. It's easier and more practical than keeping track of grudges.
>>
No. 13970 ID: f5e4b4

>>13967

Independently of the reason you got banned in the first place, you keep getting banned and your threads and posts deleted for ban evasion. Wait for your ban to expire or contact the mods in the IRC channel if you want to try and appeal your ban.

And a mod only needs a single click to ban your last proxy and delete all your posts. It's not like we're gonna get tired of it.
>>
No. 13972 ID: 2563d4

>>13971
Protip: That's not the mod that banned you.

Now kindly fuck off.
>>
No. 13973 ID: bf1e7e

>>13971

>My ban evasion has happened because I don't think it's for me to be banned for the original, ambiguous reason.

Nope. You even said that it was reasonable.

I was even going to decrease the duration because you were a fair sport about it after it was explained, then you just 'decided to not be banned anymore' so I reset the timer instead.

I also like how you talk a big game until you get called on it, then backpedal like crazy. Classy stuff.
>>
No. 13974 ID: 70d9eb

>>13971
Dodging bans without talking to the mod is not reasoning with the mod.
In fact, what you did was agree to the ban and say "Okay, okay. Fine, I guess I can live with that" and then you started evading it. You didn't contest it at all.
>>
No. 13975 ID: cf244d

>>13967
I'm pretty sure you were largely banned for being a faghat, not for your actual opinions. You suggested that your views were right solely because they were unpopular, for one thing.
Also not that I've espoused similar views in this very thread, and not been banned.

>>13969
I am pretty sure that such petty and pointless shit was not the cause of his ban.
Furthermore, your statement that nobody wants him is in error - his art is appreciated, even if his rhetoric isn't.

>>13971
>Okay, for starters, my original ban was placed out of personal bias and misunderstanding.
I am pretty sure there was no misunderstanding and little bias. But who cares? You're banned for a fucking week.

>My ban evasion has happened because I don't think it's for me to be banned
You're wrong. This is a privately run website, you have no right to post here. There is no claim made that moderation follows any strict rules. You can be banned for whatever a moderator wants, and it remains totally valid.

>Now I'm permabanned
It amuses me that you don't even bother to check your ban duration. It doesn't amuse me nearly enough that I would approve of it, though.
>>
No. 14059 ID: 9d07d9

It's funny how whenever someone starts talking about tgchan on 4chan and posts a link to the thread on IRC, everyone drops their false civility in that thread and starts insulting each other under the guise of anonymity.
>>
No. 14062 ID: 2563d4

>>14059
>False civility
I take it you don't go to the IRC channels, then.
>>
No. 14063 ID: f5e4b4

>>14062

It's more like they say under anonimity what they don't have the balls to say under their real IDs or nicks in the IRC.

We used to have the anon thread for that, now that we don't have one anymore, people go back to /tg/ to rip off the people they don't like here. But yeah, this isn't news.
>>
No. 14066 ID: 15b51b

>>14059
What's all this about? I did a search for 'tgchan' on that easymodo archive and didn't find anything except that OVERLORD guy mentioning his ban, Technomancer linking images, and anon claiming we have fapfics instead of quests.
>>
No. 14069 ID: 2563d4

>>14066
I think the most recent one was actually on /co/ and had started as a thread about one of Weaver's characters (Chain Chomp or something?) before getting derailed by "where is Weaver now?"

>we have fapfics instead of quests
This is pretty ironic given most of the sincere (and horrifically bad) attempts at erotic fiction on this site (i.e. not Driblis' one-paragraph joke ones) seem to come from fresh 4chan refugees.

But maybe they made the mistake of somehow only reading Blake Quest and Pink Dragon and Venji Quest.
>>
No. 14070 ID: 70d9eb

>>14066
People greatly exaggerating.
>>
No. 14073 ID: 59fe6f

Tdchnomancer is using this site to link his images back to /tg/? Okay, that needs to stop.
>>
No. 14074 ID: 2563d4

>>14073
The last I knew the mods were cool with 4chan/tg/ drawfags using tgchan/draw/ as a NSFW image hosting site.
>>
No. 14075 ID: f5e4b4

>>14073

More like you need to stop being a baby. A baby behind a proxy, even.
>>
No. 14076 ID: 885b2a

>>14075
I'm not behind a proxy, but thanks for playing :V
>>
No. 14077 ID: cf244d

>>14073
Why the fuck would you have a problem with that?
>>
No. 14078 ID: 15b51b

>>14069
>This is pretty ironic given most of the sincere (and horrifically bad) attempts at erotic fiction on this site (i.e. not Driblis' one-paragraph joke ones) seem to come from fresh 4chan refugees.
Yeah. There was also an anon or two saying that we "turned full circle" by "driving people out for posting stuff we don't like."

Tis a silly place.

>>14073
Why?
>>
No. 14079 ID: cc04a7

>>14077
>>14078
Because there's such a thing as reputation.

"But anon! This is tgchan! We already have a tarnished reputation, and besides, this is the internet! Who cares?"

We should care. Not because we're not a bunch of perverts, furries, etc, but because that shouldn't be the only thing that people see from this website if they don't already visit here. If we already have a bad reputation, and then enforce what people think the site is about (IE: fapfics and other fetish shit) by allowing people to use our site for those purposes and then post all about it on /tg/, we are never going to see any growth because our reputation will remain "That place is a shithole."

How many quest authors have found the site in the past year? Lonelyworld? Flynnmerk? Maybe four or five people have actually joined the site and contributed things. We are going to see less than that and especially less people who have any merit to what they draw if we willingly let people advertise ourselves as a complete and utter shithole that embraces this sort of thing.

We don't need to do anything to try to right our reputation on /tg/, nor do we need to actively go over there and try to say "No way guys, tgchan is awesome, look at Journey and Bitequest and shit!" All I'm saying is that we shouldn't willingly allow ourselves to be advertised as a shithole haven for the dregs of /tg/ deemed too crazy and shitty for even them, and a complete and utter hugbox towards any freak that can't post their shit on /d/ or /tg/.

It's for the good of the site that this does not continue and that Technomancer finds some other place to post his art.
>>
No. 14080 ID: f88f02

>>14079
I salute you.
>>
No. 14081 ID: ff5210

>>14079
I doubt the majority of the regulars care about reputation or getting new faces in. Seems to me they are pretty happy with their shitty injokes and drawing porn of each others characters.

The thing with Lonely World and the old guard greeting him by drawing porn of his main character was pretty symptomatic for that. Sure, it turned out ok in that case, but I still don't get how anyone could have considered a appropriate thing to do.
>>
No. 14082 ID: 6b2b68

>>14081
That was because of a joke/meme that started instantly though.

And even if some of the regulars don't care about reputation or growth, they should, lest the site be overrun with people like Flynnmerk, Technomancer and their cronies. It was bad enough when Reaver was around, we don't need more people like them. If left completely unchecked it could well be the death of the site, when quality quests are pushed to the wayside and stuff like Ratsturbation Quest becomes the most popular quest. It's not the community that started this site, and it's not the community that this site should try to maintain.
>>
No. 14083 ID: 70d9eb

>>14082
Were you even here when the site started, anonymous? Saying "It's not the community that started this site" is pretty absurd because the community absolutely started the site, and I don't even know what to say to your slippery slope argument, especially considering the first popular quest that got TGChan actually going and being active was Rape Quest.
>>
No. 14084 ID: d70df4

>>14082
I am going to tell you this once. You are a fucking idiot. Communities decide if a site is worth going to.

You know why Youtube was sold to Google? Because there is a massive amount of people that go to that site. That is the community that decided the site was worth going to. Without them, there would be no Youtube.

You do realize that this site is entirely community driven, right? That the posters are the community? That by posting here saying that the community didn't start this site is something a fucking imbecile would say? Do you know who runs this site? It is Dylan. He runs this site without donations and probably on his own time. He adds features for the community to use like colored text and those new thumbnails like :pomf:.

He made this site because he wanted a place for people to go from /tg/.
>>
No. 14085 ID: 2563d4

>>14079
Well, I don't think my opinion on this is really worth a damn, but since this is the Big Dumb Arguments Thread: mostly well-said.
>>
No. 14086 ID: f5e4b4

>>14079
>>14082

Nah, the site has always been full of fetishists, perverts and kinks than in any most social circles would make us look like sick fucks. Technomancer isn't even the worst thing that this site has seen, at all. I personally find that the fetishists don't shit up the place as much as the people trying to kick away those artists they personally don't like, using "reputation" as an excuse. Or those who think they should decide who is worthy of staying here and who is not.

>It's not the community that started this site, and it's not the community that this site should try to maintain.

Boy, selective memory is such a sweet thing. Easy to forget the myriad of weird porn that came since even Rubyquest, or the ocean of shitty and/or creepy quests flooding the front page during the first months of the board. Those were the golden ages!
>>
No. 14087 ID: 6b2b68

>>14084
Um, I think you misread my entire post.

I'm saying that people who enjoy Flynnmerk, Technomancer and others are not the same community as the old guard that started the site, who value quality storytelling in quests over porn shenanigans played straight. They are a community of people who wouldn't know a good story if it hit them in the face. They are people who would legitimately praise Silvermoon and think it's awesome instead of laughing at it or finding it funny.

The two quests commonly praised as the best of the best are Journey and Bitequest, neither of which are based around fetishes or porn. If you would like to see the community change to where Blakequest and Valley of Love's retard-sex chapter are the most widely praised things around, be my guest, but I for one would rather see the community stay the same, encouraging inventive ideas and just plain good storytelling. This is NOT to say I want to see the community remain stagnant, but that we need to have some values to hold onto. Basic storytelling, art, characters, you name it, we need to hold onto what made this site great and what Bitequest, Journey and others examplified as the epitomes of what a good quest should be.
>>
No. 14088 ID: 6b2b68

>>14086
The weird porn came out of Rubyquest, but it's not what rubyquest was about. There is a major difference here.
>>
No. 14089 ID: f88f02

>>14087
You're being silly, now.

For every Blake Quest, there's been something like, say, Herbert vs Happiness. For every VoL, there's been a Tales from Meigara. We are not falling down any slippery slope. THis is the way things have ALWAYS been, since rape quest, since surprise sex quest, since bg, since forever. And, miraculously, we aren't gone yet! Does that mean that people who dislike fetishism-as-story and blatant fapquests are bad? No. It means they have as much of a voice as anyone else here. That your posts haven't been deleted and you haven't been banned is a pretty clear sign of that, don't you think?
>>
No. 14090 ID: 6b2b68

>>14087
>>14088
This is also not to say we need to kick out people like Flynnmerk, Vyt or others, but strongly encourage them to improve and maybe help them along the way. If they flat out refuse to improve, refuse help and refuse criticism, that's when we send them to /brofist/.
>>
No. 14091 ID: 6b2b68

>>14089
Yeah, but see, for Valley of Love, Surprise Sex Quest and others, they didn't bring people to the site specifically to post in their threads and theirs alone, which is what we are starting to see happen.

Honestly, the only actual problem we have now is Technomancer posting the links to /tg/, which is advertising tgchan as a place to find his art, which is not the sort of "advertising" we want.
>>
No. 14092 ID: c5cc97
File 130144931935.jpg - (220.56KB , 902x755 , NoFist.jpg )
14092

>>14090
>that's when we send them to /brofist/.

Doesn't look like that'll be happening anytime soon.
>>
No. 14093 ID: 07416a

>>14087
You did NOT just compare Valley of Love with Blake Quest.
>>
No. 14094 ID: 6b2b68

>>14093
The retard-sex chapter specifically, yes. It's up there with Ratsturbation, Pink Dragon, Blakequest and Sevi in the "worst things quest has to offer" category, in my humble opinion. As far as dating sim quests go it's probably done better than any other and was probably better written than any other, but that still doesn't make the quest good overall.
>>
No. 14095 ID: 07416a

>>14094
Ratsturbation was hilarious though.
>>
No. 14096 ID: 6b2b68

>>14095
No... it really wasn't. It was just awful.
>>
No. 14098 ID: 15b51b

>>14094
>The retard-sex chapter specifically, yes.
I don't think there was any actual indication she was retarded.
>>
No. 14099 ID: f88f02

>>14098
oh boy here we go
>>
No. 14103 ID: cf244d

>>14078
>There was also an anon or two saying that we "turned full circle" by "driving people out for posting stuff we don't like."
Seems a valid concern to me.

>>14079
>If we already have a bad reputation, and then enforce what people think the site is about (IE: fapfics and other fetish shit) by allowing people to use our site for those purposes and then post all about it on /tg/, we are never going to see any growth because our reputation will remain "That place is a shithole."
Assuming you meant "reinforce" rather than "enforce" (because I otherwise have no idea what you were trying to say), you are somewhat exaggerating reality. "Things are allowed there" does not, in most people's minds, directly equate to "That place is a shithole." People have founded entire countries around the idea of shit being allowed.

>We are going to see less than that and especially less people who have any merit to what they draw
Not really. What effects the influx of people is mostly how much people are aware of tgchan. And "merit" is not an easily definable thing. While I don't deny it exists, I suspect I disagree with you on what's actually meritous, and moreover I find you to be judging prematurely.
>if we willingly let people advertise ourselves as a complete and utter shithole that embraces this sort of thing.
Okay, so we should advertise ourselves as a castle of wonders that embraces this sort of thing. Because guess fucking what? We embrace this sort of thing. Being deceitful in our advertisement (and by the way, we don't actually advertise) will get us nowhere.

>We don't need to do anything to try to right our reputation on /tg/, nor do we need to actively go over there and try to say "No way guys, tgchan is awesome, look at Journey and Bitequest and shit!"
Eh, we should probably remind them we exist, actually. But I agree that we need not do any correcting of reputation. Our reputation is mostly accurate.
>All I'm saying is that we shouldn't willingly allow ourselves to be advertised as a shithole haven for the dregs of /tg/ deemed too crazy and shitty for even them, and a complete and utter hugbox towards any freak that can't post their shit on /d/ or /tg/.
Guess what? That's what we are. tgchan houses things that aren't on /tg/. Quests with art, and many of the threads on our /tg/ board, are here because they need to exist for long periods of time without 404ing. But things are also largely here because on /tg/ they'd run afoul of the janitor or sage-bombing asshats (presumably such as yourself, based on your demeanor).

>It's for the good of the site that this does not continue and that Technomancer finds some other place to post his art.
Technomancer posting his art here isn't even related to any of that shit. All that tells people is that you can post images on tgchan.

tl;dr: Fuck you and your puritanism.

>>14082
>lest the site be overrun with people like Flynnmerk, Technomancer and their cronies.
I am pretty sure they are not associated with each other and do not have cronies.

>It was bad enough when Reaver was around, we don't need more people like them.
People who do a chapter every day for months? I disagree. Reaver-borne drama was a downer towards the end there, but overall Reaver helped the site a whole hell of a lot more than he hurt it.

>If left completely unchecked it could well be the death of the site,
Slippery slope fallacy.

>It's not the community that started this site
Your memory differs substantially from mine. Surely a quest about a little black kitten repeatedly almost getting raped would also be counter to your tastes? RapeQuest was the first major quest, and there really wasn't a community at all before those days, although the board did predate it by a few weeks or months.

>>14087
>I'm saying that people who enjoy Flynnmerk, Technomancer and others are not the same community as the old guard that started the site, who value quality storytelling in quests over porn shenanigans played straight.
That's why everything Gnoll did was universally reviled always until everything went to shit just recently.
Oh wait. Gnoll has never or almost never had a plot that lasted longer than a single thread, and is well-loved by everyone, and has been since almost when the site started. And Freis and bg and I'm sure plenty of others that I'm forgetting did the same thing since for as long as the site's been around.

>but that we need to have some values to hold onto.
Seriously? Are you just running out of arguments now? Are you going to ask us to think of the children next?

>>14092
And nothing of value was lost.
I hope some of those folks come back here, though.

>>14094
It's not better than Sourg Rapes.

>>14098
:unicode:





Also as a side note I haven't noticed anything Technomancer's done that's even remotely close to objectionable enough to prompt this. Did something get deleted?
>>
No. 14104 ID: 6ba8b3

What I'm taking out of this is that some would like that artists didin't use this place as their personal gallery to link to. On the logic if all they draw is huge slopping vaginas then the sloppy vagina enthusiast will come here and start quests about huge vaginas slopping around driving away those who like their vaginas tight and virginal?

Mostly reasonable request. Though I don't think the ratio of awesome quests will go up nor the site gain more readers even if this was the cleanest site on internet. Questing just isin't popular or well known and it's thinly spread around on multiple sites. I guess it's just a question of reputation or internet points. I'm going to have to say nay.

Also damn I'm a slow typist and agree with above.
>>
No. 14105 ID: e3f578

lol at the people going on about how Flynnmerk is a horrible person for making a shitty quest makes me laugh. I haven't even seen the guy act all high and mighty, does he act like a fag in IRC or something? At most from what he posts, he seems like some sad, kinda confused dude. That likes attention, but hey, who doesn't? He just has the writing quality of some dumb 15 year old. No need to make him out to be scum. I'm pretty sure most of us has made some weird, awful quality stuff in their time.

I see content flowing around, some of its quality, and we got some cool bros making stuff here. As long as that's happening I really don't see a problem with what's going on on tgchan. We're always gonna have shitty questmakers as long as this site supports quests.

I know someone will likely rebuke with a "but I never said we won't have shitty quest makers." I'm just saying that, I know, that wasn't the point I was making your posts out to be, but you seem to be saying that they should "just stop being shitty once they realize it or GET OUT" within the subtext of the argument. Some people can't improve. Hell, for that to fucking happen, quality would have to be objective instead of subjective. And on the subject of the authors using criticism to improve, the constructive type seems to be either rare or, even more-so, in the subtext of posts under the guise of the opposite type of criticism. The other times no criticism of any kind is posted when authors ask for it. I'm guilty of it because I'm a lazy fuck that just wants to read and have fun, admittedly.

Authors who do want to improve but seem to be stagnating, please do try harder to understand and weaken your faults please. I really do not want the message of this post to also be taken as an argument for you to not improve on account of lacking above criticism. I know someone might take that, because I would since I'm an idiot and I know there might be a few of you are just as idiotic as me and would mix meanings or get false ones. I'm not insulting anyone's character specifically here with that disclaimer, just trying to protect my own... with deprecating humor about questioning my intelligence and the merit of my own opinions I suppose.

What... what does that even mean?
>>
No. 14106 ID: e3f578

>I know someone will likely rebuke with a "but I never said we won't have shitty quest makers." I'm just saying that, I know, that wasn't the point I was making your posts out to be, but you seem to be saying that they should "just stop being shitty once they realize it or GET OUT" within the subtext of the argument. Hell, for that to fucking happen, we'd have to be able to judge quality objectively. And some people have a tough ass time improving to the point that they can't do it at all because of many reasons. Maybe they're thick-headed that shit is just not getting through or just have no idea how to go on about improving it, so they try continuing hoping that they somehow fixed whatever was going wrong by going forward and trying small different things. Sometimes, they've worked long enough on a quest or are attached to it enough that they don't want to see it die but realize the mistakes they've made cannot be fixed or are big enough no improvement can make it go away so that the only choice IS a reboot.

I had to fix the things in this sentence so it might make some better sense. the placement of "Some people can't Improve" and me not elaborating on it is the main one that bugged me on top of it being pretty cut and dry, plus me mucking up the objectivity/subjectivity sentence.
>>
No. 14108 ID: cf244d

>>14106
You could have deleted the post and remade it with the new text in place.

Also I've not seen FlynnMerk do anything worth criticism besides being a furry with fetishes, and even that remains within his own threads.
So criticizing him is a bit like getting mad at someone for shaving in the shower and getting beard hairs in the drain when you just clogged it already from shaving your legs.
>>
No. 14109 ID: e3f578

>>14108
I don't have a saved password and closed my window. I kind of fucked up in that regard.
>>
No. 14112 ID: 6b2b68

>>14103
>RapeQuest
>First Major Quest
>Not The End or HatchQuest
>>
No. 14113 ID: cf244d

>>14112
Neither of those were really major at that time. Even now, they're primarily notable only for being long-running. RapeQuest was major on a scale that nothing's been besides it and Reaver's quests. Fucking everyone read it.
Also, RapeQuest predates The End by 16 hours, while Hatch predates it by only two days.
>>
No. 14114 ID: bf1e7e

>>14108

Flynn isn't really an awful guy, just a kid who makes an awful quest.

If we ran people off for making awful quests we would have a much smaller site than we do now.
>>
No. 14115 ID: 2563d4

>>14103
>We embrace this sort of thing.
This statement is false. Some subset of users embrace the sick and/or just plain mind-numbingly-terrible-but-who-needs-quality-when-its-pandering-to-my-fetishes shit. The proportion is pretty hard to judge, though, let alone if those people are actually "us" in any sense, or just drive-by people from 4chan/tg/ following a link from there then returning.

>>14108
Pretending that the reason people don't like/mock FlynnMerk's work is because it's furry is the most retarded thing you've said this thread. Yamoto Cannon Fire.
>>
No. 14116 ID: d6ae01

>>14069
Oh you.
>>
No. 14117 ID: f5e4b4

>>14112

Well yes, as they've already told you, those two are technically older (although not by a notable difference), Rape Quest was the first major quest in the board, the one that brought most of the users to post in it and discuss it on the channels, the one that originated a large quantity of fanart. And ultimatelly, everybody remembers it as the one that started up the flux of suggestions and authors creating their own quests.
>>
No. 14118 ID: 69228e

Why is it always hurf durf Rape Quest in those arguments?
Barely anything actually happened in Rape Quest, despite the name, and the little that did wasn't overly explicit.
People really seem to have missed the joke.
>>
No. 14119 ID: cc04a7

>>14092
You don't go to brofist. Brofist comes to you.
>>
No. 14120 ID: e3f578

>>14115
So what are we going to do, force those suggesters that embrace shitty quests out? That's even more impossible then kicking shitty authors out! Suggesters like that don't give a shit about the overall quality of tgchan, they're just here to probably fap on top of enjoying some shitty shit.

Has there been a quest that's legitimately bad but enjoyable to read? Like how some people watch shitty movies for fun? Ironic Quests like that Green-Haired Cloud guy don't count because they were made to be that way on purpose. Sometimes people just want to fucking suggest in the Troll 2 equivalent quest.
>>
No. 14122 ID: cbc15e

>>14120
I used to love reading Sanya Quest for that very reason.
>>
No. 14130 ID: cf244d

>>14115
I haven't noticed people caring about pandering to fetishes, actually. Nor have I noticed any quests pandering to fetishes. Most users find things amusing completely regardless of what some fag in the arguments thread thinks.

>The proportion is pretty hard to judge, though, let alone if those people are actually "us" in any sense
Well, based on IRC conversations, a pretty decent majority of those people are tangibly "us" in the sense that they come on IRC regularly and have done so for years. And everybody on IRC at least passively embraces such shit.

>Pretending that the reason people don't like/mock FlynnMerk's work is because it's furry
I did not actually say that.

>>14118
It was a shitty quest with no real story that was oriented around silly fanservice shit. And it was the first major quest here. The fact that it was a cocktease is immaterial.

>>14117
The End is not technically older.
>>
No. 14131 ID: 2563d4

>>14130
>I haven't noticed people caring about pandering to fetishes, actually.
So you've missed the conversation you're part of?

>I did not actually say that.
Wow, apparently so! That or you're being pedantic about "with fetishes", a suffix which is completely redundant when talking about furries since furryism is a fetish, and also equally applies to why your point is dumb: i.e. if people hated on furries with fetishes here they'd hate on pretty much every quest author. I think, uh, Ed is an exception? Maybe Brom depending where you draw the line. I'm struggling to think of another.

>a pretty decent majority of those people are tangibly "us" in the sense that they come on IRC regularly and have done so for years
Pray tell, what magic allows you to determine that the people in /draw/ and /tg/ posting support for things like Technomancer's art and that kobold fapfic are longstanding IRC veterans? Those boards do not have IDs visible. Has a mod confirmed this?

>And everybody on IRC at least passively embraces such shit.
This claim is also complete nonsense, given that IRC is a relatively common place for rage about shit landing on the board. (You can usually tell when this is happening because LawyerDog will start calling people whiny babies.)
>>
No. 14132 ID: cf244d

>>14131
>Pray tell, what magic allows you to determine that the people in /draw/ and /tg/ posting support for things like Technomancer's art and that kobold fapfic are longstanding IRC veterans?
The magic of being in IRC when folks talk about it.

>I'm struggling to think of another.
There's plenty of folks. Jukashi? Weaver? The main issue with knowing who is or isn't a fetishist furry is that folks don't always share that information widely. There's no huge visible distinction between someone who lacks these traits and someone who has them but is not vocal about it.
Also, this line of conversation has no relevance to anything anyone has been talking about.

The remainder of your post is divorced from logic and/or observable fact to the extent that I am not unable to formulate a proper response.
>>
No. 14133 ID: bf1e7e

>>14132

>The remainder of your post is divorced from logic and/or observable fact

No,

>Well, based on IRC conversations, a pretty decent majority of those people are tangibly "us" in the sense that they come on IRC regularly and have done so for years. And everybody on IRC at least passively embraces such shit.

Is.

Not only is the concept of a 'passive embrace' completely absurd, but you are conflating tolerance with embracing.

And there's certainly no 'observation' going on here, you can't even NAME these supposed IRC legends supporting this shit.

also:

>This claim is also complete nonsense, given that IRC is a relatively common place for rage about shit landing on the board. (You can usually tell when this is happening because LawyerDog will start calling people whiny babies.)

Is an objective fact and you are absolutely retarded for even pretending that it isn't.
>>
No. 14134 ID: bf1e7e

>>14133

Oh, and also:

>Jukashi
>Not fetishist
>Will of the Underpants

Nope.mp4
>>
No. 14135 ID: 15b51b

Is "ladies" really a fetish?
>>
No. 14137 ID: 70d9eb

It doesn't matter how terrible a quest is because TGChan does not have quality control. If TGChan starts having quality control things are going to get completely retarded and shitty because people have different tastes and you're not going to get a clear line of what belongs and what doesn't.
>>
No. 14138 ID: 28e94e

>>14137
Pretty much yeah.
>>
No. 14139 ID: 08a5f4

>>14135
Of course. Anything to do with sex, thinking about sex, using the word sex, or any thought process more involved than 'Eeew, cooties' is obviously fetishistic.

Sorry, venting from folklore classes.
>>
No. 14140 ID: e3f578

>>14137
Aww man you hit the target on the bulls-eye. The people going on about trying to improve tgchan as an art form or community does not get the fucking point of quests.
>>
No. 14143 ID: cc04a7

>>14140
>The people going on about trying to improve tgchan as an art form or community does not get the fucking point of quests.

I need a drink.

You do not understand any aspect of the argument whatsoever.
>>
No. 14144 ID: f88f02

>>14134
BECAUSE NICE ASSES ARE CERTAINLY A FETISH

AND SO IS SEX, OH MAN

WHAT ABOUT BLOWJOBS? OH YEAH, DEFINITELY A FETISH.
>>
No. 14145 ID: e3f578

>>14143
you mean we aren't arguing about quality here?
Jeez man, it's just whining about all that crap about improving a community and other things is just dumb from a standpoint. This whole site is mainly to be a front for interactive storytelling and is a community second. I think anyway. Too many variable people in communities to actually improve them.
>>
No. 14146 ID: 1854db

Guys. I *did* suggest that we never talk to Cruxador.

But I guess if you WANT to let him troll you that's fine.
>>
No. 14150 ID: bf1e7e

>>14144

I consider a creepy obsession with the hypersexualization of plants to be basically the same thing as furry (similar to how I do not mark a distinction between FURRY and CHITINY and SCALEY and FEATHERY and ALIEN SEX), and furry is absolutely a fetish.

but oh wait Jukashi is -popular- so his fetishes don't count as fetishes. Forgot. Because 'fetish' is automatically a bad word on the internet (and not the neutral word that it actually is) and it's SO WRONG to insult somebody that you like.
>>
No. 14152 ID: 55bd47

I hate everyone here more and more every day. That is all.
>>
No. 14153 ID: cf244d

>>14150
I am pretty sure that the sexualized aspect and the plant aspect are independent of each other, since none of Jukashi's other stuff has anything to do with plant people.

Jukashi's fetish is pretty clearly just promiscuous girls. Which is pretty damn vanilla as far as such things go.
>>
No. 14154 ID: bf1e7e

>>14153

>I am pretty sure that the sexualized aspect and the plant aspect are independent of each other,

No more and no less independent than in 95% of furry porn.
>>
No. 14156 ID: 6ba8b3

You know you don't have to take the thread title literally?
>>
No. 14157 ID: cf244d

>>14156
Yes we do. It's a literal title. If this was supposed to be a thread for small intelligent agreement, it would be called that.
And it would get no posts.
>>
No. 14158 ID: 63edb7

I'm not going to complain about it since there's just as many quests that aren't overtly sexual than there are, but sex, furry or otherwise, has always seemed to be a prominent part of the site. Its always been there, at least as long as ive been here, but It's not really intrusive or anything, at least not in my opinion.

Then again, the very first quest I saw on the site when I found it was about a rat girl who masturbated a lot, so it's worth saying that there's certainly a point where I think the sex in quests can go too far. Furry-Ear-Sex-Yamoto-Cannon-Fire-Crying-While-Jerking-Off-Wearing-Your-Pants-and-Getting-Blood-Boners-Quest is probably the most recent example of that.
>>
No. 14159 ID: 2563d4

>>14150
>hypersexualization of plants
Seal, don't go dumb on us. That's Crux's job.

If Maolla starts sporting a huge stamen surrounded by murry petals, sure, but for now she's just a Star Trek green-skinned-space-babe. If Jukashi didn't say "they're half plant" there'd be nothing to indicate it from her visual design, and all the hypersexualised parts are regular old mammal equipment and behaviour.

You could make a more convincing argument that he's a regular furry since he has at least two female Lunars who go beastform with their tits out. :V
>>
No. 14160 ID: 70d9eb

>>14159
MORE LIKE BREASTFORM AM I RIGHT
>>
No. 14161 ID: bf1e7e

>>14159

Again, 'I want to fuck humanoid but distinctly non-human aliens with a roughly human mindset' isn't significantly different from 'I want to fuck humanoid but distinctly non-human animals with a roughly human mindset.'

That they are part plant specifically is actually ancillary, although it was misleading of me to mention the whole plant thing first.

>and all the hypersexualised parts are regular old mammal equipment and behaviour.

just like the tits and vaginas in 95% of furry porn.
>>
No. 14162 ID: 2563d4

>>14160
You are right.

>>14161
>just like the tits and vaginas in 95% of furry porn
Well, furry tits are, y'know, furry.

But since the argument is the not-human-but-almost part and they're clearly green, fine.
>>
No. 14163 ID: 15b51b

>>14150
Elves are nonhuman and therefore fetish.

Also, Kirk was a furry.
>>
No. 14164 ID: bf1e7e

>>14163

>Elves are nonhuman and therefore fetish.

If you focus on the sexualization thereof, then yeah basically.

>Also, Kirk was a furry.

When used in the sense that most quests on tgchan fit into the 'furry' fetish? Absolutely so.
>>
No. 14165 ID: 15b51b

Pretty much everyone is a 'fetishist' by that metric, because they like things which possess traits.
>>
No. 14166 ID: bf1e7e

>>14165

Yes.

Which is why it is absurd to even consider a significant percentage of the quests on /quest/ fetishistic.
>>
No. 14167 ID: 15b51b

I'm pretty sure that would make every quest a fetish quest, actually.

Except Golem Quest, of course.
>>
No. 14168 ID: 2563d4

>>14167
Golem Quest is actually the most sexually depraved quest on the board; it's just that nobody outside the hardcore and self-contained fanbase can stand to read it long enough to find out.
>>
No. 14170 ID: b6c6fc

reality doesn't categorize it self into Black/white

debating things either being Fetish/not fetish

is like debating wether someone is either Ghandi or Stalin (this is a crappy example, illustrating extreme things, I am not claiming fetish are evil, or that ghandi was a perfect guy, or stalin is satan, or any of that bullshit, I'm just trying to make a point here)

reality works in degrees, for example Will of the Undermind and Blake quest are both have fetish qualities

in my opinion (this is an opinion not fact, and is based on my own reasoning which may differ from the reasoning of those around me)
Undermind is much less of an imposing quest where fetishism is involved, though a lot about the Scellor's sexual nature is mentioned, it is rarely described in any detail, and almost nothing aside from some minor nudity is even shown. though many sexual things can be implied from things like "retractable teeth" and "three tongues" it (again in my opinion) is not openly offensive for those reasons Stupid and ridiculous perhaps (this is still my opinion)are technically not sexual in a normal sense any more then teeth and tongues are sexual to begin with.(by this I mean that these are not sexual organs on their own merit)

no on too BlakeQuest (my opinion yada yada you get the point!)
the problem with this sort of Fetishism is that the author blatently shoves his preferences down your throat (this is non literal exaggeration) fully illustrating sexual acts of the fetish nature with multiple updates. (in my opinion) this
Thus Blake quest level of Fetishism is far higher because the reader cannot ignore or dismiss subtle hints and must indure or enjoy said fetish to be able to read the quest

the thing with fetishes is that most people them, but it's up to the author to understand that most people won't also share yours

this is my main point, a quest with a thousand invisable fetishes offends no one,
but the more explicit, visualized, and pivotal to the quest your fetish becomes the great the chance you have to offend someone
>>
No. 14171 ID: b6c6fc

another example: I have one really major Fetish,
but from reading my quests it will be very hard to tell what it is

(feel free to try and guess) :3c
>>
No. 14172 ID: 70d9eb

IS IT TOMBOYS
>>
No. 14173 ID: 28e94e

>>14171
I can't tell if that's serious or not
>>
No. 14174 ID: 1854db

>>14161
>just like the tits and vaginas in 95% of furry porn.

This is objectively wrong. About 25-50% of furry porn involves animal-like primary sexual organs.

Also, stop calling green humans with earstalks furry. You're being retarded. Furry = humanoid with animal traits, and Scellor have no animal traits. They don't even have PLANT traits. They're just part plant in ways that are not even PHYSCIALLY APPARENT. Unless you count being green. Would a human with green body paint be lumped with furries in your mind?

Also...

>Again, 'I want to fuck humanoid but distinctly non-human aliens with a roughly human mindset' isn't significantly different from 'I want to fuck humanoid but distinctly non-human animals with a roughly human mindset.'

This is also objectively wrong. Aliens are people. Animals are not people. That is a big fucking difference.
>>
No. 14175 ID: e3f578

I've always read furry and alien fetishists just wanting to have sex with people, just wearing some weird shit. I mean, from a standpoint, these characters they make may as well be human dressed up as whatever the fuck they are.

Dude, they just wanna fuck humans but make it kinkier. Is that so wrong? (Yes)

>>14171
LW, you have a thing for tongues. You called Lucid's Bangle pictures sexy and they have her doing the "come hither" tongue pose. You totally dig that pose and its allllll right.
Also, you dig softcore from what you said in IRC one time I was actually there. But I dunno if that counts as a fetish or a type or whatever.
>>
No. 14176 ID: a4a522

>>14174
If I ever saw a human that looked like a scellor, even without the ears, I would shoot it in the face and call it a monster. People don't look like that. At all.
>>
No. 14177 ID: 70d9eb

>>14174
No, you are objectively wrong. Taking an actual sampling of a large portion of furry porn, the site e621.net (excluding pictures rated safe), you get 3.6% of furry porn having non-human parts. 25-50% is an absurd amount to assume, and there's no reason to believe it is even close to that.

This is not comparing animals to aliens, this is comparing animal people to aliens. Animal people are people, aliens are people. Furry is just a generic term to cover all the shit that is humanoid but not human, because there is no better term. If anything Scellor are more furry because of them being more distinct from humans than a lot of animal furry characters.
>>
No. 14179 ID: bf1e7e

>>14174

>Also, stop calling green humans with earstalks furry.

And flippers
And headtentacles
And tails
And three tongues
And sharp, shark-like, retractable teeth
And no noses
And slitted pupils
And wide mouths

>Aliens are people.

'aliens' as in 'residents of other nations' are people. Aliens as in 'extraterrestrials' are not. Unless you just want to count 'sentient humanoids' as people, in which case aliens are people too.

Also I'm not saying that they're furries, I'm saying that the distinction between the two is ultimately irrelevant.
>>
No. 14180 ID: bf1e7e

>>14179

in which case furries are people too derp derp.
>>
No. 14181 ID: cf244d

>>14171
Is it tiny furries with laser guns?
>>
No. 14182 ID: 2563d4

>>14181
>but from reading my quests it will be very hard to tell what it is

On that basis, macrophilia. :V
>>
No. 14184 ID: 13409b

oh wow I just noticed the things going on in this thread

Ok, I don't particularly care to get involved, but maybe I can clear some things up? For a start, I actually am indeed a furry (in the sense that I am particularly attracted to characters that blend human and animal characteristics), I just don't like saying so or showing so because the furry community is pretty terrible and I try to distance myself from them. And it's not like it's anyone else's business anyway, any more than that I like other exotic ladies, or light bondage, or girls wearing oversized men's shirts.

That said (and hopefully never to be said again), I do not personally consider scellor to be furry, and though I do consider them attractive I feel it no more strongly than I do for, say, dark-skinned human women. In fact, there are aspects of them that I wouldn't like in that way, such as the earstalks, or the oddly-shaped limbs. I make no claim that I do not include some lovely ladies in my stuff, nor that I avoid sexuality, but I do like to think I've done a pretty good job of keeping my personal fetishes from having any major influence in my comic or quests. That's a pretty awful thing for any creator to foist on their audience.
>>
No. 14185 ID: e3f578

>>14184
>girls wearing oversized men's shirts
<3
>>
No. 14186 ID: a4a522

Although most of them would believe otherwise, the people of this board would probably never be able to guess any of my fetishes based on my work. That shit has nothing to do with good storytelling, yo.

That being said, I do clump the xenophiles and furries in exactly the same bucket, although I think the 'furriness' of our board is greatly exaggerated. I will say that I've found the better quests tend to be the ones with human protagonists. I pretty much read anything with a human character.
>>
No. 14187 ID: 2563d4

>>14186
This is, of course, why Bite's two biggest and most successful quests have had non-human protagonists. :3c
>>
No. 14188 ID: 1854db

>>14179
Your comparison was between aliens and animals. Not furries and aliens. That comparison was invalid.

>>14177
What. How did you even get that statistic? If you're going purely by tags, then that number is way lower than it actually is.
I personally went through the 20 latest pages of results for -rating:s penis, at 48 images each, and I got 4-10 images per page with animal dick. One or two times more than that, only ONCE less than 4. It tended to be above 6.

So I guess I overestimated by a factor of 2. It's more like 10-25%.
>>
No. 14191 ID: 10c20a

>>14188
which comparison was that? Because the one I saw stated "'I want to fuck humanoid but distinctly non-human animals with a roughly human mindset.'"

Assuming this is the comparison you are referring to, the "humanoid" right there at the start, prior to "animal" makes the animal anthropomorphic. The most common use of the term "furry" refers to anthropomorphic animals. So his comparison there is indeed about furrys vs aliens, so I don't really know what you're on about.
>>
No. 14192 ID: 79ef99

Well, this thread sure lives up to it's title. It feels...weird being one of maybe two or three people on 4chan who have no particular hatred for furries. I'd think that people on here wouldn't have that self same opinion about them. But, i guess that even this place will have at least one or two people who have that ARRRGHHH FURFAGS! mindset.

INB4 furfag accusations.
>>
No. 14193 ID: 1854db

>>14191
The comparison I quoted. Here, I'll quote it again.
>Again, 'I want to fuck humanoid but distinctly non-human aliens with a roughly human mindset' isn't significantly different from 'I want to fuck humanoid but distinctly non-human animals with a roughly human mindset.'

He changed 'aliens' into 'animals'. Wanting to fuck something having animal qualities suggests you want to fuck an animal. Even if you really don't. Wanting to fuck something with alien qualities implies you want to fuck an alien. Which, let's face it, isn't that objectionable. This is because animals are not people, while aliens are. Yes, I mean in the sense that they are 'sentient humanoids'. Or just sentient, really. Or sapient. Whatever the term is to describe something that can give consent.
>>
No. 14194 ID: 1854db

Oh yeah. Also, aliens are pretty much already humanoid and distinctly non-human. Since the entire comparison revolves around putting those qualifiers on both types of being, the fact that they are unnecessary further invalidates the comparison.
>>
No. 14195 ID: e3f578

>>14193
>Wanting to fuck something having animal qualities suggests you want to fuck an animal. Even if you really don't. Wanting to fuck something with alien qualities implies you want to fuck an alien.

Note that the something you're referring to is humanoid, as in similar to humans. These people want to fuck human things in a kinkier style, not animals. If they wanted to fuck them, they'd just go grab one if they could ignore law and the chance being outcasted for being a disgusting pervert for their entire lives should they get caught.

No man, they want to fuck people with the the grace of human anatomy. Aliens count as wanting to fuck aliens because on all counts they do count as motherfucking aliens from space, which have the potential for actually existing in a form thanks to the size of the universe. Though the probability of wanting to fuck said alien will probably drop as soon as we realize these real aliens aren't green space babes.
>>
No. 14197 ID: 081e71

>>14195
People fuck cars. CARS. Look up Chris Donald. Sexuality is truly unbounded.
>>
No. 14198 ID: e3f578

>>14197
I wasn't talking about that people don't want to fuck weird things, I well aware some people do. Unless your referring to my statement about people not wanting to bone aliens if they are green space babes, but that's why I put down probability of wanting to bone instead of saying they won't want too. More people would lose their libido if the thing they're were about to copulate with wasn't in a form that they're relative to.

My point was just going over whether or not furries and xenophiles want to just get with what would essentially be human with a few extra features and more varied colors.
>>
No. 14199 ID: 6b2b68

I don't like the description "Anthropomorphic animals" because it implies they started with an animal and gave it human qualities.

It should be the other way around, they start with a human and give it animal qualities. They have a human shape, human mind, human everything except they have fur and their face is a little different. Unfortunately "Therianthropic People" is not the term that most people use to describe these creatures, and "Therian" is already used to describe a particular sort of person on the internet.
>>
No. 14200 ID: 2563d4

>>14192
>Hasn't read the fucking discussion
Go cry "fursecution" somewhere else.
>>
No. 14201 ID: 7031d5

Furries pretend to be normal people now?
Who would have thought.
>>
No. 14203 ID: 383006

>>14193
You are so fucking retarded that it hurts me.

There is no significant difference between any vaguely humanoid thing with a bunch of weird shit stuck on it, whether or not it is a consistent set of animal features or imaginary bullshit.

I don't think that point is really arguable. You guys realize that normal people don't want to fuck either, right?

If it's just a green skinned babe, or an elf, then sure. Scellor are not that, though. They have a bunch of freaky characteristics.
>>
No. 14204 ID: e02378

>>14203
that's just like, your opinion, man. you may not find scellor fuckable but others do. heck, i would be willing to do anything with more then a 50% physical similarity. need at least 90% or greater brain power compared to a human, though.
>>
No. 14205 ID: 383006

>>14204
I wasn't saying that some people don't find them attractive, I'm saying that they're at least as different from humans as a furry.
>>
No. 14206 ID: bf1e7e

>while aliens are.

Including non-sentient extraterrestrials.

LIke, say, tribbles?

Or wampas?

Or banthas? Wanting to fuck a humanoid Bantha totally isn't furry because banthas are aliens, right?

An extraterrestrial is at LEAST as far from human as an animal. In most cases, they would quite likely be FARTHER since they are unlikely to have the same common genetic ancestors.

I'm not surprised, though. Here you are, so caught up in being violently opposed to anything I say just because I'm me that you are now arguing that furry = bestiality. Fantastic. I always knew that you actually WERE a shithead, shii, but I didn't think that you'd actually go and prove it where everyone could see it.
>>
No. 14207 ID: bf1e7e

>>14206

Oh, and I TOTALLY said vaginas, not genitals. Animal-like vaginas are waaaaaaaaaaaaay less common than dog/horse cocks in furry porn.

Also I hope you aren't counting conedicks as animal dicks. They aren't.
>>
No. 14208 ID: 31b52c

I think one of the core problems with this discussion, as with pretty much all discussions on furries, is the question of what definition of "furry" people are using, and what particular quality people are finding most objectionable.
>>
No. 14209 ID: e02378

>>14208
oh absolutely.
>>
No. 14210 ID: 1854db

>>14207
>non-sentient extraterrestrials.
You would have a point here if there was any porn at all of it. Besides it's a bit irrelevant, isn't it? You'd be talking about alien animals. Not just aliens.

I'm going to state my point once again. IGNORING OTHER STUFF YOU SAID, that single comparison is invalid because it simply replaces 'animals' with 'aliens' and while animals are universally non-sentient, aliens usually are.

Also, if you were just talking about vaginas... uh, why? I don't see the point in arguing about fetishes while excluding men. Personally I think the only reason we don't see more animal vagina in furry porn is that the differences between human and animal vagina are pretty subtle in most cases. It doesn't look interesting thus people don't draw it. I think the only time people bother to make it look different is with snakes and horses (ugh, horses).

>conedicks not animal dicks
Psh, yeah right. Conedicks are dolphin dicks. People just put them on everything.

>>14203
I don't think you read everything in my post. I already addressed everything you just said. Of course I just restated my main point again so maybe that'll help you understand.
>>
No. 14211 ID: 383006

>>14210
You obviously didn't understand anything I said then.

Your entire point is mind-numbingly stupid and you addressed nothing that I said.

Wanting to fuck a furry has nothing to do with wanting to fuck animals, and wanting to fuck a freaky space creature is objectionable to most people. Anything that looks distinctly non-human is objectionable to most people, just not most people on this site or certain less savory parts of the internet.

It has nothing to do with perceived intelligence and no one was even talking about that before you started being ridiculous everywhere. I mean, the original shit even stipulated about the same level of intelligence and everything. You just... came out of nowhere with a completely irrelevant and ridiculous argument.

Re: Animal vaginas - most people don't draw them on furries because they look fucking gross. There are definitely more than "subtle differences." Hell, furry dog cocks don't really look like dog cocks. Dog cocks are fucking disgusting-looking.

Popsicle dicks are not dolphin dicks. They are just shittily-drawn shapes because furries. The same reason most vaginas are just lines. They're simple to draw and nobody can really tell you that it's 'wrong.'

The original context was Scellor v. most furries. How their only human parts are basically the tits and vags (and being bipeds). So, yeah, that would exclude dicks.
>>
No. 14212 ID: bf1e7e
File 130168055835.png - (114.94KB , 400x400 , ALossisaLoss2.png )
14212

>>14210

>You would have a point here if there was any porn at all of it.

And there is!

>Not just aliens.

Alien Animals are just as much aliens as alien sapient beings.

>and while animals are universally non-sentient

But furries aren't. I suppose it's my fault for using 'humanoid' instead of 'human-like,' but you used it too (And I quote: "Furry = humanoid with animal traits, and Scellor have no animal traits.") So I guess I can be forgiven for having a momentary lapse and thinking that you weren't a fucking idiot.

>IGNORING OTHER STUFF YOU SAID, that single comparison is invalid because it simply replaces 'animals' with 'aliens'

Ignoring the context of a discussion to try to argue semantics just makes you a retard. I also specified that we were talking about aliens that were similar to humans, in much the same way that furries can be considered animals that are similar to humans. The comparison stands, as both are just 'humans with exotic features.'

Also, by your argument, there is nothing 'furry' about this picture because it's just a picture of an alien. YAY.

>I don't see the point in arguing about fetishes while excluding men.

Well you're completely ignoring all of the furry pictures of chicks when saying pulling TEN TO TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF ALL FURRY PORN HAS ANIMAL GENITALS out of your ass.

So not only did you fail semantically (by ignoring that the original point was about tits and vaginas), you failed at statistics by ignoring an outrageously large portion of the thing you were trying to sample!

>is that the differences between human and animal vagina are pretty subtle in most cases.

No they're really not. Most animal vaginas are pretty silly and/or gross. I know, I've actually been paid to draw a couple.

>Psh, yeah right. Conedicks are dolphin dicks.

Not even remotely.

>This is because animals are not people, while aliens are.

Again, plenty of aliens are not people. Alien PEOPLE are people, but so are Animal PEOPLE. This is the entire point of the argument and none of your failed attempts at semantics have even approached addressing it.
>>
No. 14213 ID: e3f578
File 130168155345.jpg - (67.54KB , 426x640 , D4kMA.jpg )
14213

Man, what is this even about right now? The shape of genitalia on certain fictional organisms? I'm not getting this at all anymore.

Aww man, Seal, why'd you have to go and post fanart porn from your stripset in the argument thread? Even if you're using it to prove a point it's the only picture in here that isn't the OP image and man now this thread is all awkward like. It would have been better to use an example you didn't make yourself... I think. I dunno, it just puts me off like it shouldn't have a place in this thread.

I'll think I'll put some attractive picture of a model I found on some forum I like to lurk in to offset the picture. Maybe it can inspire a new argument, like what's attractive or some shit.

Are tanktops attractive on women?
>>
No. 14214 ID: bf1e7e

>>14213

I used one I had myself because it was already handy, I didn't have to bother going and getting one from somewhere else.
>>
No. 14215 ID: f5e4b4

>>14214

Well, I don't think tanktops are your thing, but I agree that it's better if you use one of your own instead of someone else's.
>>
No. 14216 ID: 31b52c

>>14213

Depends on the woman. Some women look bad in tanktops and some women look good, as I reckon.

How do you feel about women in the item of clothing known to americans as a wifebeater and to most of the rest of the world as a vest?
>>
No. 14217 ID: 31b52c

Also to step back to the previous argument, I think a problem is that at some point someone said "alien" and intended it to mean "sentient non-humans from space" while the other person took it as "any living creature of extraterrestrial origin". Technically it means the latter, but in common usage people wouldn't think of something like a martian bacterium or a tribble when they hear the word "alien".

And you have to think of social context. There are aliens in lots of things and there are furries in lots of things, but furries are more likely to be associated with the furry fandom in particular while aliens are not associated with people who are attracted to aliens. Although both have "legitimate" uses in fiction, furries are considered more childish and unoriginal (because HURR WHAT IF HUMAN HAD DOG HEAD) and are laden with associations from their fans, while aliens are usually more imaginative and the examples that people think of when they hear the word usually have more thought put into them. I think that's a dividing line. Like, a race of dinosaur people who just act like humans is furry, but a race of raptor people who are strict carnivores, have feathers, are mostly cruel but loyal to friends and have a culture otherwise based off logical extension from their biology and likely natural behaviors is... well, not as furry, in the pejorative sense.

You can argue that a sexual attraction to aliens is just as deviant as an attraction to furries, and you're probably right! But the point remains that furries have a lot of baggage that aliens don't. People don't think of them the same way.
>>
No. 14218 ID: ab8eaa

best animal dong = horse. best vagina = dolphin.
>>
No. 14219 ID: 70d9eb

>>14217
So aliens are more different from humans than furries and are therefore better to fuck, got it.

Lohrke tails tickle your balls while you fuck them, you know.
>>
No. 14220 ID: 31b52c

>>14219
>So aliens are more different from humans than furries and are therefore better to fuck, got it.

That is the opinion which seems to hold amongst most people on the internet, as far as I can deduce from observation.
>>
No. 14221 ID: e02378

how about star trek. klingons and humans have fucked. it is canon, we see half-breeds.
>>
No. 14222 ID: 383006

I think what
>>14217
is saying is actually incorrect if it is what
>>14220 and
>>14219
are saying.

Aliens are theoretically more legitimate than furries if you're talking about using them in media (a story/movie/something) for the reasons 14217 says.

However, I'd argue that sexing aliens is probably less acceptable than furries for similar sorts of reasons. If furries carry the baggage of being sexualized by their nature, then being attracted to them, although carrying some fandom garbage, is at least recognized as something that lots of people do.

If you're fapping to non-furry aliens, however, you are more of a fringe guy. You are sexualizing something seen as more 'legitimate' and less 'porny.' Of course, it sort of depends on how the aliens are presented in the medium for any of this to hold water. Blue people will funny foreheads who are cosmic sluts in skintight outfits? One thing. District 9? A total other thing.
>>
No. 14223 ID: 31b52c

>>14222

To approach my argument from another angle; I think that sexualization of anthropomorphic animals is not, in fact, what bugs people about furries. This seems counter-intuitive, I know. But what really bugs people about furries is the community. It's the fursuits, it's the unoriginal donut-steel original characters, the sparkledogs and the murry-purry yiffing circlejerking hugbox obnoxiousness of it all. And every piece of art, every comic, every story that uses furry characters is tainted by association.

People are, mostly, ok with the idea of fucking intelligent fictional creatures. Sci-fi and fantasy alike have played it both straight and for laughs for decades. You can go onto /tg/ now and make a thread about tyranid porn, and if you tried to make a similar thread about furries you would receive a much more massive backlash, despite the fact that furries are much closer to sexual norms than the other.

It's true that fucking aliens is more "fringe" than fucking furries, but that's the problem with furries in the first place. Their exposure has made them the recipients of backlash, to which they unwisely respond and perpetuate an upward spiral of mutual agitation. People are exposed to furries more often and, because of that, develop a grudge, a negative emotional response. They don't have that with sexualized aliens, because they aren't given reason to think about it very often.
>>
No. 14224 ID: 383006

>>14223
>People are, mostly, ok with the idea of fucking intelligent fictional creatures.

I think your argument is mostly valid except for this line. Your comment about tyranid porn is totally true, but that's on 4chan. It's pretty far from mainstream.

I think most people have a negative association with furries because of the assumption that everything is 'for faps' instead of for some more legit purpose.

Most people thought the sex scene in Splice was disturbing and creepy, not boner-inducing.
>>
No. 14225 ID: 70d9eb
Audio 09_-_Monkey_Baby.mp3 - (6.27MB , 09 - Monkey Baby.mp3 )
14225

I think this should help conclude the argument.
>>
No. 14226 ID: 2563d4

>>14224
>I think most people have a negative association with furries because of the assumption that everything is 'for faps' instead of for some more legit purpose.

>implying it isn't
>>
No. 14227 ID: 31b52c

>>14224

Ok, I'm going to backtrack a bit and say instead that people are relatively ok with the notion of fucking intelligent fictional creatures. And by "people", I mean people who are already familiar enough with the idea of such creatures existing in the first place.

By this I mean they're open enough with it that it can be played for laughs, such as in Star Trek with idle chatter about dating a guy with a transparent skull, or in Red Dwarf with jokes about finding six-breasted alien women to teach about This Earth Thing Called Kissing. Or it can be played more straight - for more on why you might see http://io9.com/#!5378477/why-are-people-always-having-sex-with-dragons-in-science-fiction

If you asked most people on the internet if they thought that humans, if they ever met intelligent alien species, would try to have sex with them, they would probably just say "yeah, probably". They might be a bit uncomfortable about it, or maybe not. If you asked a similar question about furries, you'd get a similar answer but there'd be more of a negative emotional response attached.
>>
No. 14228 ID: 28e94e

>>14226
>implying there isn't a substantial amount of clean content produced by furries
>>
No. 14229 ID: 2563d4

>>14228
>implying something can be both furry and not sexual when furryism is a sexual fetish

Unless you're one of the faggots who considers any and all anthropomorphism furry, in which case literally every person in the developed world is a furry and you have made the word completely useless.

Which is understandable if you're a furry in denial trying to convince yourself that you're not a deviant weirdo, but still not useful.
>>
No. 14230 ID: 31b52c

>>14229

Once again we run into the ambiguity of the word "furry". Perhaps we should all try make our language a bit more clear?
>>
No. 14231 ID: 29fbe3

>>14223
>>14224
>>14227

In my experience, the negative reactions you describe seem to be prevalent mostly within the English speaking part of the web (not sure exactly which countries, though). On the majority of non-English speaking fora, *chan-sites and art/comic galleries that I visit regularly (mainly Nordic, German and Japanese, though), there is generally a much more relaxed attitude to "fringe" stuff, erotic or not. Of course, most people whose sole language is English probably won't be aware of (nor care about) this.

Maybe the reason that they seem so much nicer is that non-English speakers tend to flock to the larger, English fora and *chans most of the time? Or is it simply because of cultural differences, or even a mix between the two? I don't know. After all, the viewpoints put forward in this post are merely trends that I've noticed, but which I cannot pinpoint the causes for.

Do any of you have any additional insights on what exactly is going on with that?

(Also, I apologize if I fail to make my points clear, as I'm not used to having "lengthier" discussions in English.)
>>
No. 14232 ID: 383006

>>14231
This makes perfect sense. The negative reaction people have to furry media is tied to the way people who associated with it comported themselves. It's obviously not a function of furry media in and of itself.

This is early fandom: the insular, thin-skinned groups who made asses out of themselves. People trolled the shit out of them,and most places had strict policies against their kind. It lead to the sort of reaction where no one wanted to associate with the tangential media because they were afraid of other people accusing them of being furries. They were the butt of the internet's jokes and a universal scapegoat. I've been aware of the fandom since around '98 or so, and I've always kept up with the drama and fighting because it was interesting to me.

As the internet itself became less of a group of insular communities centered around discrete interests and more of a conglomeration of communities with lots of crossover between members, the reaction against furries has greatly decreased. I think in most places, most people just don't care that much anymore. In large part, I think it has to do with the fact that a larger percentage of internet users use the internet more casually - they don't associate themselves strongly with any online group, and get their sense of community and belonging from elsewhere. In other words, a larger part of the internet doesn't take the internet so seriously.

To a degree, this has been shifting the other direction with things like Facebook, etc. but those social interactions are still mostly intrinsically tied to the real world, not talking about dragons.

>>14227
That article is interesting, but isn't really more than tangentially related to the discussion. None of those examples were really people thinking the monsters were sexy - they were the monsters simultaneously thinking other monsters were sexy while the humans did the same with other humans: Extended metaphors for sexuality, not sexualizing nonhuman creatures.

I'd still argue that in most instances, sexing the nonhuman thing is played for laughs or horror, or it's some kind of metaphor for looking below the surface and understanding other cultures. I'd say generally it's not because we're expected to find the nonhuman attractive (there are exceptions, obviously, as I said above).
>>
No. 14233 ID: 28e94e

>>14229
>implying that I'm in denial
>implying that the term "furry" actually has a single well-defined definition (how does it feel to be so very very wrong)
>implying that most of said definitions are either strictly porn and fetish fuel, or so broad as to be useless
>implying implications

also
>mfw you fit three different fallacies into 2 lines of text
:unicode:
>>
No. 14234 ID: 2563d4

>>14233
>mfw you fit three different fallacies into 2 lines of text
What can I say?
:pinkiepie:
I've had a lot of practice.
>>
No. 14235 ID: 31b52c
File 130170709779.jpg - (14.14KB , 120x125 , icwutudid.jpg )
14235

>>14234

There's some sort of innuendo there...
>>
No. 14236 ID: b6c6fc

>>14229
does that mean my quests aren't furry?
>>
No. 14237 ID: 8c73c8

>>14236
i would say not. it's like that robin hood cartoon where he was a fox. just being an animal person doesn't make it furry.
>>
No. 14238 ID: 70d9eb

Having sexy animals embarrassed in their underwear is furry, though.
>>
No. 14239 ID: 31b52c

>>14238

I think some sexuality can be included without being furry, so long as it's no more than would normally be encountered. Usagi Yojimbo, for example (an excellent comic that I recommend to anyone), hints at the existence of sexual relations in the build-up to a story about illegitimate children. The scene of which you speak (I'm assuming it's the one in Crash Quest) contains no more than normal responses to a situation that came about for perfectly good game reasons. (Also I think it is arguable whether those characters are "sexy").

Which raises another issue, when dealing with quests in particular. To what degree can quest authors be held accountable for being fetishy or for oversexing their quests when a lot of the responsibility for anything that happens can be placed on the suggesters?
>>
No. 14240 ID: e973f4

>>14239
The author has a lot of control over the quest, even if they pretend or even think they don't. "The suggesters told me to" is not really a legitimate defense if someone accuses you of putting fetishy stuff in your quest because you're totally capable of just telling your suggesters "no" and there's nothing they can really do about it if you do.
>>
No. 14241 ID: 70d9eb

don't even act like those tiny animals aren't sex machines
>>
No. 14242 ID: fdd8f1
File 130172573320.jpg - (8.52KB , 244x192 , sonicehwut.jpg )
14242

>>14241
>>
No. 14243 ID: 8c73c8

>>14240
well sure. but if every suggestion is
>put it in
it's kinda hard to ignore without making people mad.
>>
No. 14248 ID: 2563d4

>>14243
The opinion of people who suggest "put it in" doesn't matter. If you make them mad the most likely response is that they give up on your quest and stop suggesting "put it in".

If you literally have no other suggestions then you have pretty chronically failed at setting the tone of your quest or providing any plausible alternatives. Your quest is over as much as if it had no suggestions at all.

Remember: only you can prevent sex quests.
>>
No. 14254 ID: a4debf

>>14248
>Remember: only you can prevent sex quests.
This has to be, like, stickied on top of every page.
>>
No. 14258 ID: f88f02

THen you tell them inquest and in a discussion thread related to it:

No.

No, not even if you beg. No, not even if it makes sense. No, not if you present a fucking thesis on it, because this is my quest. If they continue to be assholes, drop the quest, it's all they deserve for not listening to you.

It's like the tabletop, really. The DM can say No at any time he likes and either walk out or kick everyone out.
>>
No. 14259 ID: 8c73c8

could also gloss over it with a blank image with the words 'and then they fucked' written in it.
>>
No. 14266 ID: 15b51b
File 130184758251.jpg - (28.06KB , 539x502 , iranian_cleric.jpg )
14266

ITT
>>
No. 14268 ID: 07416a

I, for one, enjoy sex quests. I also enjoy serious quests. I think nipplelessness is ridiculous.
>>
No. 14271 ID: 383006

Nipplelessness is next to godliness.
>>
No. 14272 ID: 81f48a

Quests without sex? INCONCIEVABLE!

That's almost as bad a quest that includes consensual sex between two healthy humans of opposite gender in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation!
>>
No. 14273 ID: a9ba96

>>14272
I think that might be taking it a bit too far!
>>
No. 14274 ID: b6b9b2

The majority of the community being completely unfunny and the spouting of tired memes and old jokes is arguable way worse than any assumed or actual perversions.
>>
No. 14275 ID: 1854db

Nipples are distracting. Tozol Quest is better off without them.
>>
No. 14276 ID: c128cf

Hypothesis: adding nipples and genitalia is not dissimilar to ending every other sentence with a tilde.
>>
No. 14277 ID: 70d9eb

>>14276
Does this mean Slinkoboy will start adding nipples to his quests?
>>
No. 14278 ID: 351eda

What the fuck would you do to test that hypothesis?
>>
No. 14282 ID: a41aaf

>>14278
Massive government-funded study.
>>
No. 14283 ID: 351eda

>>14282
Yes, of course. But what expiramental design would you use?
>>
No. 14284 ID: 15b51b

Quest full of Tildes vs Quest full of Naughty Bits vs Standard (Control) Quest.

Metric is earthquake strength and frequency in Iran.
>>
No. 14535 ID: 8c0848

>>14284
I can provide a quest with all nipples. You know I can.
>>
No. 14536 ID: 3046f0

>>14535
But can you provide a quest with all tildes?
>>
No. 14538 ID: 2563d4

>>14536
Well we know that Slinkoboy can't not produce a quest with all tildes.

So basically this is Gnoll vs Slinkoboy vs...uh...someone who makes very standard and generic quests?
>>
No. 14542 ID: 28e94e

>>14538
Slinko vs. Gnoll vs. Test Pattern.
>>
No. 14543 ID: 55c4cf

Digitigrade legs are not built for superior bipedal locomotion, or strength load out for resistance. The extra joints in the legs allow for bigger strides in quadruped locomotion. Having an extra joint creates a larger amount of stress on the muscles attempting to keep the joints rigid.

On the opposite scale, animals with no muscles, and exoskeletons are capable of leaping and lifting a greater exponential amount of weight because there is no stress against their joints virtually at all until a great variable difference.

Digitigrade look neat, and even I use them, but they're more stressful for walking, and they're fairly unbalanced for bipedal actions.
>>
No. 14545 ID: 8bdb6a
File 130316498129.jpg - (259.21KB , 862x852 , whatevs.jpg )
14545

>>
No. 14546 ID: 55c4cf

>>14545

I don't even see how that is a counter to anything. Especially the human who do to having nothing but thighs is not tiring themselves almost at all beyond balancing themselves and using their ball joints to propel the legs.

None of those bipedal creatures are proportionally strong either. I never said they cannot run fast, because it is built almost entirely to run--flee from predators in most of those cases. They're also incredibly imbalanced (and most of them are dead).

The T-rex was proportionally slow and strong for its size, and its strength was in its bite for combat. Unless the jaws are supposed to be a part of the legs themselves.

Again they are built for sprinting, and overexertion of using them fatigues them quickly.
>>
No. 14548 ID: f5e4b4

>>14545

Notice how dinosaurs had huge, very heavy tails to be used as a counterweight for the unbalanced center of gravity that a digitigrade bipedal has.

As for humans, yeah, digitigrade legs work in races and so because they're good for accelerating purposes. Now, watch videos with people walking with them. It's like trying to walk on heels, but worse.

Now, I'm not trying to dis people using digitigrade designs for fantasy and sci-fi designs. digitigrade creatures look pretty badass, and adds to the inhuman feeling. It's just that they don't really work in real life.
>>
No. 14549 ID: 55c4cf
File 130316690299.jpg - (66.24KB , 500x333 , nomusclesatall.jpg )
14549

I also never said the legs were bad at running, I am saying they are bad for lifting. Show me the digitigrade human fellow dead lifting in a strong man competition and we may have an actual counter.
>>
No. 14550 ID: 8bdb6a

>Notice how dinosaurs had huge, very heavy tails to be used as a counterweight for the unbalanced center of gravity that a digitigrade bipedal has.
What? You're focusing on traits that don't have to do with the legs. They have big tails because their upper bodies are way, way forward of their center of gravtiy. If they have an upright posture, no such imbalance exists.
>Now, watch videos with people walking with them. It's like trying to walk on heels, but worse.
It's almost like having your feet cut off has a deleterious effect on your walking abilities!

Humans with prosthetics aren't going to be quite the same as a creature who evolved that way. A dog with its front legs cut off, who learned to walk on its back legs, won't be as good as a creature who evolved that way. People wearing those weird stilt things won't be as good as a creature who evolved that way. Dinosaurs, who did evolve that way, hunch forwards and need tails to balance out.

But at this point, all you're arguing is "no creature exists which is precisely like a sergal." And you're right. Sergals don't exist. But you are not making a case that this form of locomotion is impossible.

If you exclude humans, you can very easily make the exact same case that bipedal plantigrade locomotion is impossible. No creature exists which walks quite like that. All you've got are things like bears which can stand up and lurch around on two legs, and lizards which can scramble around (but which have long tails and shit) and so on.

The arguments I see reduce down to:
1) Digitigrade legs are unbalancing.
But this is obviously untrue. Humans can walk around on the balls of their feet without falling over.
2) Digitigrade legs can't be strong legs.
But that isn't true either. See: Ostrich riding, multi-ton bipedal dinosaurs, etc.
3) Adding more joints makes things intrinsically worse.
But then horses, which have yet another added joint, and therefore are even worse, must just burst into flames whenever they try to move.

>>14546
I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about. It seems to me like you're arguing that bugs have more proportional strength than tyrannosaurs due to their legs.
>>
No. 14552 ID: 8bdb6a
File
Removed

No offense intended, but just in case anyone reading has forgotten how the whole ant strength thing works:

"The real strength of an ant, or any insect for that matter, lies in its diminutive size. Generally speaking, the smaller the critter, the stronger it will be. It's physics, plain and simple.

First, you need to understand a few basic measurements of size, mass, and strength:

* The strength of a muscle is proportional to the surface area of its cross section.
* Surface area is a two-dimensional measurement, and is proportional to the square of its length.
* Volume is a three-dimensional measurement, and is proportional to the cube of its length.

An animal's weight is related to volume, which increases in proportion to the cube of its length, or by a factor of 3. But its strength is related to surface area, which only increases in proportion to the square of its length, or by a factor of 2. Larger animals have a greater disparity between mass and strength. When a large animal needs to lift an object, its muscles must also move a greater volume, or mass, of its own body.

The tiny ant has a strength advantage because of the ratio of surface area to volume. An ant need only lift a small measure of its own weight relative to the strength of its muscles."
>>
No. 14553 ID: 55c4cf

>Digitigrade legs are unbalancing; But this is obviously untrue. Humans can walk around on the balls of their feet without falling over.

Humans don't have tails.

>2) Digitigrade legs can't be strong legs. But that isn't true either. See: Ostrich riding, multi-ton bipedal dinosaurs, etc. I said they tire the body, and are poor for lifting.

Ostriches and dinosaurs aren't proportionally strong.
>3) Adding more joints makes things intrinsically worse. But then horses, which have yet another added joint, and therefore are even worse, must just burst into flames whenever they try to move.

Okay, now you are using hyperbole, and getting off course here. Horses are quadruped. They are built for sprinting and have hooves. They are actually poorly balanced for sudden changes, and poor recovery for broken bones which happens from the previous instance.
Horses are very well built animals and don't have heavy tails. They have high endurance, but their strength isn't a high multiple compared to its muscle weight because most of its build is for carrying itself and speed.

Conversely, monkeys are recorded as being over 4x the strength of a human despite their small size. Monkeys are probably the best example of exerted strength in plantigrade bipedal animals, and because they are wild animals as well it shows the physical potential from required physical exertion on a day-to-day basis.
>>
No. 14554 ID: 8bdb6a
File 130317025781.jpg - (58.71KB , 398x325 , Picture89[1].jpg )
14554

>Humans don't have tails.
So what?

>Ostriches and dinosaurs aren't proportionally strong.
Okay I guess I can explain some more. Or just copy paste wikipedia's explanation because I'm kinda in a hurry, if that's cool with everyone:

"If an animal were scaled up by a considerable amount, its muscular strength would be severely reduced since the cross section of its muscles would increase by the square of the scaling factor while their mass would increase by the cube of the scaling factor. As a result of this, cardiovascular functions would be severely limited.

In the case of flying animals, their wing loading would be increased if they were scaled up, and they would therefore have to fly faster to gain the same amount of lift. Air resistance per unit mass is also higher for smaller animals, which is why a small animal like an ant cannot die by falling from any height.

As was elucidated by Haldane, large animals do not look like small animals: an elephant cannot be mistaken for a mouse scaled up in size. The bones of an elephant are necessarily proportionately much larger than the bones of a mouse, because they must carry proportionately higher weight. Because of this, the giant animals seen in horror movies (e.g., Godzilla) are unrealistic, as their sheer size would force them to collapse. However, it's no coincidence that the largest animals in existence today are giant aquatic animals, because the buoyancy of water negates to some extent the effects of gravity. Therefore, sea creatures can grow to very large sizes without the same musculoskeletal structures that would be required of similarly sized land creatures."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law
>>
No. 14555 ID: 55c4cf

I'm also completely baffled where you are getting the idea that I think locomotion is, "impossible."

I am stating that without the increased number of stressed joints, it would be easier to exert the same amount of force.

For a machine perspective, it is easier to exert more force with a stiff pole than it would be to push a pole guiding another pole with a flexible ligament.

You can have a digitigrade leg and a strong character, but it is very likely that a plantigrade skeleton would be superior.

I have no idea why you are coming away as if I am saying anything other than this is 'impossible.'

Do you often go to extremes over a disagreement?
>>
No. 14556 ID: 8bdb6a

>I am stating that without the increased number of stressed joints, it would be easier to exert the same amount of force.
How much easier? Significantly easier? How do you know that?

>For a machine perspective, it is easier to exert more force with a stiff pole than it would be to push a pole guiding another pole with a flexible ligament.
But legs aren't poles and joints. Having more spring in your step, so to speak, provides advantages.

>You can have a digitigrade leg and a strong character, but it is very likely that a plantigrade skeleton would be superior.
How likely? How do you know that? The heaviest bipeds in history were digitigrade, so obviously it can be used to exert a truly incredible amount of force. The same square-cube law which would cause an ant to die in minutes if it were the size of a dog also prevents most animals from becoming as large as a T-rex. Yet T-rexes existed, and weighed up to six and a half tons. This is a stupendous feat of biology. What do we have to counter that, other than "Well, it seems to me that such and such if you think about poles and sticks"?

Even if digitigrade legs reduce the maximum strength you can lift with your legs, which I'm not ready to grant, it seems that they provide advantages, as well, which would contradict your initial statement in the other thread that digitigrade motion is a major disadvantage.

Most of the bipeds in history have been digitigrade, and frankly, humans are not very far removed from our knuckle-walking ancestors, in the grand scheme of things. We have lots of problems with our knees and backs as we age due to this. Maybe this just the price of walking upright, or maybe, with another few million years of evolution, we might not have stayed plantigrade. I'd guess that digitigrade legs are better shock absorbers, but what do I know.

I can't really speak authoritatively about the mechanics of this, because I'm not an engineer or a skeletal biologist. But if anyone's going to talk like that, I'm going to need to see some math.

>Do you often go to extremes over a disagreement?
I'm so extreme, I shit snowboarders into half-pipes.
>>
No. 14557 ID: a56a7f
File 130318651177.png - (159.41KB , 1084x644 , wait why did I cap this.png )
14557

>>
No. 14561 ID: 55c4cf
File 130319273132.jpg - (34.95KB , 576x467 , medium.jpg )
14561

“Plantigrade-Feet allows greater forward propulsion than digitigrade and unguligrade mammals.”* (Brown and Yalden)
Digitigrade allows longer strides and increases speed.
Ulguligrade have the most quick and efficient movements.

Research done by Doctor Yalden seems to confirm that plantigrade feet give the most propulsion. I believe since propulsion is different than speed, current studies done do actually show plantigrade have more strength, as I meant it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Yalden
Also studied by J. Cleveland Brown (Who I cannot track down)

*: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1973.tb00178.x/abstract

I'm not going to carry on about the T-rex. The T-rex and its related dinosaur cousins were all strong. It moved around and is a marvel of biology, but as mentioned before its capabilities to move itself however great don't show how much propulsion it is actually creating. It did not use its legs for strength, its incredibly strong body part much like today's crocodiles and similar creatures have obscenely powerful jaws.

However if doctors in the field have shown so far that plantigrade animals is a stronger structure, then who am I to disagree with them.

Most digitigrade animals have a pad or area behind the toes which absorbs the shock created from the heavy force pushing down on both joints, before using the muscles to push off for bursts of speed.

It is true that the advantage of the structure is a long stride and speed, but I've already admitted that earlier. It is just my opinion that a humanoid digitigrade biped would be at a strength advantage in close combat due to having a lower propulsion resulting, as well as a center of gravity more easy to throw off. The center of gravity of extended biped digitigrades is higher, and also raises the center of the whole body. Higher centers of gravity are less balanced for close combat situations.

Now, a very fit biped digitigrade could lower their center of gravity, but conversely a fit biped plantigrade lowers it even further.

I'm not going to argue about this any further, but I had a thing of research with the center of gravity information on it, but I closed it and do not feel like looking it back up to cite it. It can also be countered that fantasy creatures have structurally been set up to have superior center of gravity shifts, but I'll leave that be forever.

It is worthy of note that very few scientists in the field give a damn about this subject because it isn't particularly useful in anything but fantasy settings. Most information about this involves furries.
>>
No. 14564 ID: 383006
File 130321445553.jpg - (18.06KB , 313x525 , 259_Image_001.jpg )
14564

Remember, only Test's "facts" are okay to completely fabricate without backing them up!

The same "how do you know that?" questions apply to him too. Also, those digitigrade dinosaurs had hollow bones like birds (including ostriches). Fact is, we know shit all about how efficient or proportionally strong dinosaur legs are, so the only way they're actually a good example of anything is to say "they existed." The fact that nothing is build like a dinosaur these days says far more for biped digitigrade movement. Ostriches/emus/rheas are technically, but their stance is mostly upright and really pretty plantigrade-like. It supports what Dreamer was saying about joints and stress.
>>
No. 14565 ID: 2563d4

>>14556
>We have lots of problems with our knees and backs as we age due to this. Maybe this just the price of walking upright, or maybe, with another few million years of evolution, we might not have stayed plantigrade. I'd guess that digitigrade legs are better shock absorbers, but what do I know.

It's less a plantigrade/digitigrade thing and more a halving-the-limbs-we're-on-thus-doubling-the-weight and our-hips-are-awkward-joins-to-balance-on thing, AIUI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skeletal_changes_due_to_bipedalism#Significance

(w.r.t. Tozols running (IRC), the main reason I don't think Penji would move like an ostrich is because she's got human-like hips (she's not as wide as a Nedyvor :V ) and upright balance. Unfortunately trying to re-find a decent comparison of avian vs human bipedalism is coming up short. I'm sure I've found one before. :| )
>>
No. 14566 ID: 8bdb6a

>>14564
>The same "how do you know that?" questions apply to him too.
Like what?
>so the only way they're actually a good example of anything is to say "they existed."
The engineering challenges of a six ton biped are pretty significant, so that is saying something.
>The fact that nothing is build like a dinosaur these days says far more for biped digitigrade movement.
What does being hit with an asteroid say about their legs, exactly? And just how many true plantigrade bipeds have existed since then? Remember that dinosaurs appeared to be pretty handily outcompeting early mammals (which grew smaller and smaller right up until the K-T event) so I don't think you can make the claim that dinosaurs were inferior.

>>14561
I can't access that article, but that's something.
>>
No. 14567 ID: a41aaf

Starting at
>>13276
A lot of this has already been gone through.
Plantigrade can leverage an extended heel & Achilles tendon to increase climbing and jumping efficiency, or shorten them for better long-distance running efficiency/endurance.
Digitigrade lacks the highly efficient passive-dynamic walk cycle of plantigrade, but will produce a greater effective force for the same muscle mass than plantigrade.

tl;dr
Plantigrade: efficient energy use during passive-dynamic walk cycle (ability to 'lock knees' when stationary and during walk cycle) and long-distance running via energy storage in ligaments around heel.
Digitigrade: efficient use of muscle mass = better 'power to weight ratio', however more use of muscle mass required (e.g. to maintain antagonistic tension when stationary & during walk cycle) resulting in overall lower efficiency.
>>
No. 14568 ID: 49d8f4

A chimp would beat up a tozol or a sergal or whatever the fuck you furries put up against it.
Chimps > all
>>
No. 14569 ID: 2563d4

>>14567
Oh god, why are you digging that up. Now look what you've done:
>>14568
You've woken up the trolls/fucktards.
>>
No. 14571 ID: e0c719

>>14240
Also, FYI, I refer to this as the "Artist's Excuse", and it is flat-out pants-on-head retarded. 'They told me to' is never a valid excuse in any shape or form, ever.
>>
No. 14572 ID: 2df453

A Human would beat up a tozol or a sergal or whatever the fuck you furries put up against it.
Humans > all
>>
No. 14577 ID: 28e94e

>>14572
But can human fight GRIZZLY BEAR?
>>
No. 14578 ID: e3f578

Grizzly Bear > all
No both
Grizzly Adams > all
>>
No. 14579 ID: c6e396

I think you mean Bear Grylls > all.
>>
No. 14599 ID: a41aaf
File 130333220874.jpg - (49.38KB , 720x480 , Project Grizzly.jpg )
14599

>>14577
Yes.
>>
No. 14600 ID: cf244d

>>14577
Somebody killed a grizzly with his bare hands (and teeth) once.
This is an anomaly, obviously. But strange shit can happen.
>>
No. 14611 ID: 0db7b8

I could kill a grizzly with bare hands.

...if it was a week old.
>>
No. 14612 ID: cf244d

>>14611
No you couldn't, because then the mother would be around.
>>
No. 14670 ID: 11fa54
File 130368922003.png - (509.97KB , 797x596 , formalapology.png )
14670

I would just like to apologise to the moderator for whom I caused trouble. Since I intend to be around here often, it makes little sense for me to be on poor terms with authority.

So yeah. Look, I filled out one of those forms.
>>
No. 14689 ID: bf1e7e

>>14670

It's cool bro, no worries.

Made me laugh, though. So kudos.
>>
No. 14716 ID: 557e92

So hey, since this is the big dumb arguments thread.
What is the board rules change that allowed Bite to troll /draw/ with essentially the exact same content that got deleted and caused a minor shit storm a few months ago?

If draw just lacks any kind of content restrictions now, that's fine. I'm just wondering after a cursory glance at the rules and not seeing an exception made.

Something something mods holding his dick while he etc etc.
>>
No. 14720 ID: 2563d4

>>14716
The shitstorm was that Bite's previous image was deleted despite not really being against the rules. And the rules have been clarified. Mostly to "whatever gets reported and the mods agree is unwanted".

>>/draw/2542
>There are no content restrictions on /draw/ beyond those for the site.
(And indeed there isn't so much as a section for /draw/ in the rules.)

The only overall rules I can see this could hit would be "stir up drama" (although the artist, guy who commissioned it, and creators of the characters depicted were all cool with the image, so any drama is just people getting mad on other's behalves) and "shock images" (which I'm pretty sure is intended to mean "no goatse and friends").

Which is not to say I particularly like the image, or think it doesn't support the horrible-den-of-fetish-faggotry reputation that keeps me from suggesting slightly less net-immune people poke around this site, but this isn't my tgchan.
>>
No. 14722 ID: 70d9eb
File 130392175030.gif - (2.83MB , 300x213 , otter.gif )
14722

I think this otter is cute. What do you think?
>>
No. 14724 ID: 9af61d

>>14722
UGH THIS OTTER IS TOO CUTE. sage IN ALL FIELDS.
>>
No. 14726 ID: 383006

>>14716
People kept telling me to post it in the fucking fanart thread and I was like "no. I'll post it on /draw/" and they were like "It's not even close to the most horrible thing on /draw/" and I was like "Ok, whatever."

If that's me "trolling" we are operating under two totally different definitions of trolling. I originally just directly linked it from my FA in the IRC.
>>
No. 14728 ID: a9b076

>>14716
The rules were rewritten largely because of that shitstorm.

>>14722
"Cute" is determined by having features alike to those of a human baby. It's a perceptio for the pujrpose of encouraging childcare. Since that otter is not a human baby, any appearance it has of cuteness is in fact merely base deception.

Unless you meant "cute" as in "sexually appealing", in which case I cannot contest your claim.
>>
No. 14732 ID: e3f578

>>14728
I think babies are ugly, how does this define the word for people like me?
Because babies are the ugliest fucking type of people I know next to fat nerds
>>
No. 14733 ID: 2563d4

>>14732
It doesn't. "Cute" isn't a technical term so the definition is up to usage.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/cute_1
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cute
>>
No. 14734 ID: 8211e6

>>14733
What's that? Cruxador is being a faggot about definitions again, you say?
>>
No. 14736 ID: f123de

>>14726
If people were actually ASKING you to post it, I withdraw the "trolling" comment. Thanks for at least keeping it to /draw/.
>>
No. 14738 ID: 70d9eb

>>14736
Oh okay so if someone doesn't get permission first to post fanart then they are trolling.
>>
No. 14741 ID: 2563d4

>Implying people on IRC won't beg you to post an image anyway even if it's shitting dicknipple drawn left-handed in MS Paint
>>
No. 14760 ID: 70d9eb

I don't see why it being in the questdis fanart thread or not would matter, since it clearly features a quest character, and Bite's Zane picture is tamer than things that have already been posted. Rape, gorey death, copious amounts of semen, all are already in the fanart thread.
>>
No. 14765 ID: 1854db

>>14760
Commissioned porn isn't. Let's keep it that way.
>>
No. 14766 ID: 8e18cd

>>14765

1) It's still fanart, commissioned or not. And Zane's creator was A-OK with it. I think he has the final ruling.
2) /draw/ content is even worse than the fanart thread, given the circlejerk that sits there.
>>
No. 14767 ID: 383006

I did feel like that picture belongs in part to this community. It is an expression of our hopes and fears. A little bit of each of you lives inside zanebound.jpg.
>>
No. 14768 ID: 70d9eb

>>14765
Commissioned porn is. You are wrong. Congratulations.
>>
No. 14769 ID: 2563d4

>>14767
Man, you guys could have picked a better phylactery.
>>
No. 14770 ID: 1854db

>>14768
Give me an example.
>>
No. 14771 ID: e35a2d

>>14770
I mean, if my drunken sketches of quest characters count as fanart, then I don't see why a commissioned art wouldn't. Their content is usually determined by someone other than me.

Alternately, if somebody paid to have a picture drawn of a character because they liked the quest but wanted somebody more talented to draw the picture, I don't see why that wouldn't count.

Alternately, if somebody was mad because raccoons kept killing their chickens, so they got somebody to draw a raccoon character from the site being raped and strangled, I don't see why that wouldn't count.
>>
No. 14773 ID: 1854db

>>14771
Well, there's another issue right there. If the reason the image was made was not because someone liked the quest, then it's not fan art, is it? Fan art is art from fans, made because they like it and want to show that feeling. A drawing of a quest character being abused because you don't like them/what they look like would count as hate art, along the same lines as hate mail. Fanmail vs hatemail, basically.

But I still want an example of commissioned porn put in the fanart thread. I'll preemptively say that it shouldn't belong there *anyway*, if it does exist and that wasn't just someone remembering incorrectly.
>>
No. 14774 ID: bf1e7e

>>14773

http://quest.lv/kusaba/questdis/src/130033372032.png

Didn't even have to look past the most recent thread.
>>
No. 14775 ID: 6d4ea4

>>14773

The thread has both plenty of 'hate' art and a number of commissioned pieces. I don't understand why the motivation for a drawing matters here; it's still fanart.
>>
No. 14776 ID: 70d9eb

>>14770
http://quest.lv/kusaba/questdis/src/130033372032.png
http://quest.lv/kusaba/questdis/src/130373030028.png
http://quest.lv/kusaba/questdis/src/129292816372.jpg

what
>>
No. 14777 ID: 1854db

>>14775
>plenty of 'hate' art
Really? Like what? Do you mean like, that one where Kyaos is tied up and laying eggs? I didn't like that very much either but at least the situation is realistic.

>examples
Hmm. Alright. I didn't know those were commissions though, and they don't really SEEM like commissioned porn. I mean, where's the self-insert?

But yeah, I don't think I like the idea of commissioned porn- or commissioned art of any kind- going into a general fanart thread like that. That's the kind of stuff I'd expect to either not be shared, or only on display on the artist's gallery.
>>
No. 14778 ID: 70d9eb

>>14777
And I don't like the idea of you thinking you're grand fanart marshal! You're completely full of shit and just keep adding arbitrary requirements to what you think 'belongs' in the fanart thread.
>>
No. 14783 ID: 1854db

>>14778
How am I full of shit? I started with a vague general statement, not bothering to think very much about why I didn't like it, and have been adding in specifics to define my point of view better. It's not arbitrary at all.

You should probably respond to what I'm saying though instead of launching an attack on me.
>>
No. 14785 ID: 70d9eb

You're the one that needs to back your view up because you're the one that wants to change the fanart thread for the worse without giving good reasoning.
You didn't add in specifics to define your point of view better, you changed your point of view after it was proven how you were wrong. If you were sticking with your original view of keeping the fanart thread the same in regards to commissioned porn, you would not be arguing against commissions being in the thread.
You haven't given any reasoning behind why commissions shouldn't be in the thread, but you have given a huge point in favor of them being in the thread because you had no fucking clue which pictures were commissions and which were not.
>>
No. 14787 ID: 66a4bb

Okay, in /draw/ there's a bunch of arguments regarding whether Sergals and Tau are furries.

BUT AMONGST THE MONOLITHIC TEXT-WALLS, I AM STARTING TO CONCUR TO THE IDEA THAT SERGALS AREN'T.

It seems that although I thought I had enough of arguing with furry enthusiasts, it seems that MORE PEOPLE want to kick up dirt over art drawn ages (at least three days) ago.
>>
No. 14790 ID: 3da238

>>14787

Sergals are furries.

All Xenos must be exterminated.

/thread.
>>
No. 14791 ID: 383006

>>14790

The Imperium of Man is fucking retarded.

40k is the worst "sci fi"

/thread
>>
No. 14792 ID: 3da238

>>14791

Pre Heresy Imperium of Man is the best administrative form for a galactic empire ever concieved.

Read up on it before extrapolizing and just lame trolling, to consider otherwise in my opinion is treason against mankind.
>>
No. 14793 ID: 711722

This thread is great!
Just kidding it's terrible.
>>
No. 14794 ID: 6b2b68

>>14792
I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or if you actually think 40k is in any way a serious setting and not a self-aware parody.
>>
No. 14795 ID: 2ce0c7
File 130416591052.jpg - (55.93KB , 467x286 , 1292631634903.jpg )
14795

Imperium of Man (pre-heresy)was designed as a big fuck yeah to the people who finally wanted COMPETENCE and a big FUCK YOU to those that think mankind has unsolvable problems and/or the good guys are faggy.

Imperium of Man. Efficient. Awesome. Competence.
A fact made even more clear by contrast with the post-heresy distopia. The authors really transmitted a message.
>>
No. 14796 ID: 383006

>>14792
Why on earth would I ever listen to anyone who would say "extrapolizing" instead of "extrapolating?" In other words, you are an idiot.

It is pretty obvious that you didn't understand what I was saying before. I was making the same kind of 'argument' you were, only my facts were actually correct.

/thread
>>
No. 14797 ID: 3da238

>>14794

Oh look, another summerfag with the 40k parody propaganda.

Listen. 40k Is what you want it to mean to you.

Not what 4chan summer threads want you to think.

(There are no summerfags. Just fags. Like the fags that don't realize 40k started as a giant hilarious parody.)
>>
No. 14799 ID: 3da238

>>14796

http://dexonline.ro/definitie/extrapolat/paradigma

Sorry for my shitty maternal language grammar issues I did not choose to be imprinted into my skull.

Really dismissing a point proven with actual facts ( novels and worthy fluff ) just because the sentence was constructed poorly?
>>
No. 14800 ID: 2563d4

>>14794
The level of self-awareness seems to vary, and is worryingly sparse among the fanbase.

>>14787
Well you came to the right thread! Look up, around >>14108 -ish downward.

(tl;dr: Those who are unhappy with which side of the furry line they lie (and nobody is ever unhappy to not be furry) like to try to redefine the term until it's either so common as to be normal, or so they don't count as one.)
>>
No. 14801 ID: f5b19d

>>14797

This is all very well and good...

...BUT WE ARE DRIFTING VIOLENTLY OFF-TOPIC.

ARE SERGALS FURRIES? I'M STARTING TO THINK NOT. IF THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SOME SORT MYTHICAL CREATURE, THEN I THINK THEY AREN'T. IF I DID, THEN I'D HAVE TO LABEL THINGS LIKE:

*GOBLINS
*ALMOST EVERY FICTIONAL ALIEN EVER CONCIEVED
*YETIES, SASQUATCHES, AND ASSOCIATED PRODUCTS
*STREET SHARKS
*A BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS THAT DON'T IMMEDIATELY SPRING TO MIND

I THINK WE SHOULD ONLY LABEL THINGS 'FURRY' THAT ARE LIKE HUMANOID 'WOLVES,' 'FOXES,' AND ALL THE OTHER UNORIGINAL STEREOTYPES.
>>
No. 14802 ID: 2563d4

>>14797
>40K IS NOT A PARODY IT IS A SERIOUS LIFESTYLE MESSAGE

>>14799
>Complete faliure to recognize that >>14796 is parodying >>14791 and >>14790
>>
No. 14803 ID: 2563d4

>>14801
Sergals are sharkwolves. The creator defined special genitals for them and draws porn of them. The most notable character of their species---Rain is to Sergals as Drizzt is to Derp Elves---has "raaaaape" as her defining characteristic. They are as furry as fuck.

Also a discussion in which you treat "LABEL THINGS FURRY" in the same way as "LABEL THEM FAIR GAME" is not going to go well on a site which is rampantly furry.
>>
No. 14804 ID: f5b19d

>>14803

OKAY THEN. YOUR POINTS NOW HAVE VIOLENTLY SHIFTED MY VIEWPOINT BACK TO ITS HAPILLY CLOSE-MINDED WAY.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WEBSITE IS 'RAMPANTLY FURRY;' SOMETHING I CAN DO JACK-SHITE ABOUT. MY BEST SOLUTION IS TO SIMPLY IGNOAR IT.
>>
No. 14805 ID: 4f9269
File 130416726233.jpg - (55.10KB , 325x208 , 1300744016_43_final.jpg )
14805

>Science-FICTION
>Implying any normal person would take fiction too seriously.

Yeah, I'm clearly thinking things better.
By saying that it's some measure of example I reffer to the important things. I do not take into consideration things that are meant to be funny or the fact that it was written in the 70s.

Imperium is a good way to organize stuff, a good reason because it constantly improved itself. (talking about pre-Heresy)
>>
No. 14806 ID: 87fc7a

>>14805
I'M JUST GOING TO JUMP IN HERE AND SAY YOU'RE WRONG, BECAUSE WARHAMMER'S REAL!
>>
No. 14807 ID: f5e4b4

Sergals are furries, were created by a furry artist to tell his/her furry stories and for people to have their little furry RPs.

They're Mary Sue sparkle dogs. Deal w/it.
>>
No. 14808 ID: 3da238
File 130416996920.png - (297.77KB , 1024x768 , Marinefistfinal.png )
14808

>>14807

I am dealing with it.
>>
No. 14811 ID: 6b2b68
File 130417660288.png - (1.73MB , 1000x1364 , Torori on Patrol PNG.png )
14811

>>14797
I have quite literally browsed /tg/ for years now, less so now than before, but I do think it's funny you're calling me a "summerfag" in spring. 40k is meant to be taken as seriously as Metalocalypse, and if you need any proof, actually read through Rogue Trader.

A summerfag is supposed to define someone who is "cancer" to /tg/, someone who only likes space marines and 4E D&D and is likely in high school, given that a "summerfag" is supposed to be someone who is out of school in the summer.

Wait, you know that my name is a 40k term, right? And that I collect and play both White Scars and Tau?

>>14807
Mick never had RP's and her story was about a human stuck in a low-tech civil war amongst aliens who was rapidly suffering from a worse and worse case of amnesia. The sergals and Rain were the aggressor aliens he was captured by.

>>14803
Rape is not Rain's defining characteristic. She never rapes anyone in the actual story she's from, and there's more images of her eating children than anything else involving two people. "Rain likes to Rape" was the 4chan meme spawned from her creepy appearance.

>Sergals are sharkwolves
>nothing about them is lupine
>sergals are sparkledogs
>good sergals don't sparkle
Cool story bro.

Granted, there's shitty fan characters of everything under the sun, and sergals are NO FUCKING EXCEPTION, but the good images based on the source material are pretty grand.

Like this one.
>>
No. 14812 ID: 8e18cd

> Warhammer 40k is a serious setting.

Because Rogue Trader (AKA 1st edition) was a TOTALLY serious setting. The fact they turned a SciFi parody (Dark Age of Technology? Oh wait... that was totally parodied off from DUNE)in the GRIMDARK setting it is now, is laughable. Mostly because it reeks of inconsistency and stupidity.

The only time 40k is enjoyable it's when it's over-the-top funny like Retribution or Soulstorm.

If someone actually tries to take Warhammer 40k seriously, it's just funny.


In other words:
LOL 40k.
>>
No. 14814 ID: 2563d4

>>14811
>She never rapes anyone in the actual story she's from
Ok, fine. "The most notable character of their species is heavily sexualised by her creator". Hell, Mick's FA gallery even has an entry entitled "Rain's well-used pussy".
>>
No. 14815 ID: 1854db

>>14811
I like that image a lot.

That said, knowing now that Sergals came from a story of a human trapped amongst them... Yeah, that's pretty standard furry fantasy there, and it doesn't make me think of Mick any more highly. Making the human a mary sue is usually how it goes, but I dunno if that was the case, having not read the story.

>>14814
This is a more serious complaint though.
>>
No. 14816 ID: b50664

gog DAMNIT

We need a formal definition of what "furry" is, and until we have it it is just as useless to make any sort of argument or debate over what's furry and what's not as it is to argue what kinds of music are "good"!
>>
No. 14817 ID: e3f578

>>14816
People would just argue over it, then never agree on it.
Who gives a shit over something like that anyway. If we define it anyway and enforce the definition, we become one of those faggots obsessed over definitions.
It seriously is just fetish material. Just leave it be because that all it fucking is.
>>
No. 14819 ID: 383006

>>14808
If I draw hermy foxtaurs raping space marines will that make me oh so edgy and cool?

Also, pointing out one possibly non-stupid thing that exists in the 40k universe, ignoring the vast quantity of extremely retarded things, and then claiming it isn't retarded in no way proves your point.

I love how defensive you got when your exact same argument was turned around on you.

As for you other fucking idiots from 4chan, attempting to decide whether or not something is furry just so you know it's OK to hate is retarded. You should hate things because they are retarded, not because they are "furry". The category isn't some automatic cancer bin that taints you if you accidentally think something in it is cool.

I think the "clever" design of sergals is a fucking ridiculous and nonsensical mishmash, and their fans are almost universally giant morons who take their precious 'canon' way too seriously - hey it's exactly the same as 40k! you guys should be making out, not fighting.
>>
No. 14820 ID: 2563d4

>>14817
>would
Try "do".

>>14819
>As for you other fucking idiots from 4chan, attempting to decide whether or not something is furry just so you know it's OK to hate is retarded.
Also, this.
>>
No. 14821 ID: 28e94e

>>14816
Furry: A term that means absolutely nothing because the furry community is so diverse

On topic (if there is such a thing here): Whether or not sergals are furry depends on how they're used. /tg/'s sergals, and by extension our sergals, are generally not furry. The version of sergals used by most furries (tits, standard furry "raperaperape" psychology) is totally furry. And Mick's porn is just Mick being Mick, don't think much of it.
>>
No. 14822 ID: 2563d4

>>14821
>Claiming furry means nothing
>Proceeding to categorise things as furry/not furry
Cool argument bro
>>
No. 14824 ID: 28e94e

>>14822
I don't even know anymore man
>>
No. 14827 ID: e3f578

hahaha oh man
Can we argue about something more fun and less trite? Like why in the fuck do people get married... or better yet why do so many give a fuck about that Prince Harry guy's wedding.

Because marriage is really fucking dumb ball and chain thing. And so is America paying attention to that damn thing.
>>
No. 14828 ID: 15b51b

If something being furry hinges on how much porn there is of it, a quick /draw/ browse confirms that Tau and Necrons are more furry than two purple fox men having sex.
>>
No. 14829 ID: f5fe2f

>>14827
It's traditional. People get married because people get married. And some folks may think it's silly to need government/church validation for a long-term relationship, but if you'tr in that sort of relationship anyway, getting married is sort of easy (as long as it's a heterosexual relationship) and has some practical benefits.

>Because marriage is really fucking dumb ball and chain thing.
I don't know about that. You imply through this statement that it is desirable for either member of a relationship to fuck off whenever they feel like it. I don't feel that the comparably minor procedures involved with marriage and divorce are disproportionately significant compared to the significance that should be afforded to alterations in a relationship of that caliber.
More importantly, folks in that sort of a relationship tend to reproduce. Do you not feel that a traditional family structure with no less than two parents who remain constant throughout a child's growth is a positive thing? If you do not, then your opinion would be directly counter to a substantial body of evidence such that it would be considered ridiculous by anyone with even a modicum of education in the field of child development.
>>
No. 14831 ID: 2563d4

>>14827
Events like these are one of the occasions the Royals do something of value to justify their upkeep---namely, drawing in foreigners to come gawp at them and boost tourism. (I believe they're also diplomatically useful.)

Don't let that stop you being cool and edgy, though.
>>
No. 14834 ID: e3f578

>>14829
I wasn't really paying much attention to the reproduction aspect of marriage or the healthy development of the child. Two people staying together longterm, with our without a child, is possible without marriage and they could definitely stay together to help said child grow. Romance doesn't even need to last, the relationship could devolve into being just friends, best friends or otherwise, and they decide to be like roommates for the child's sake. Granted, thinking that much about the child's development as justification for living as roommates is unlikely. It could get substantially awkward in the household should each parent introduce their own new romantic partners to the household on top of that.

I guess my main problem with marriage is that, beyond tax benefits, is that it sounds like an excuse to throw a big fancy party and doesn't really have much difference than a long-term relationship without marriage. Then, should the couple want to split up, they have to go through the complicated process of divorce, which is far more difficult then getting married thanks to all the paperwork and decisions that go with custody and property. I will coin up to the fact that my desire to be cool and edgy, as noted above, does have a bit to do with why I think marriage is pointless too.

I've found commenwealth marriage a lot more cooler, at least that's what I think it's called when you've been in a relationship long enough that the government practically views you as married.
>>
No. 14835 ID: 383006

>>14834
It's called 'common law' marriage, and not all states recognize it. Basically, the state says that if you're going to act like a married person, then the state is going to deem you to be married. Most of the time, it's a matter of cohabiting with the other person and banging for a period of years.

I think that marriage is useful because it is a big to-do. Without the big ceremony and stuff, the people who decide to do it wouldn't stick with it as long, because it wouldn't be seen as a very big deal. I think it's better for folks with kids to stay together. Divorce and custody is always bad on a child. Dunno.

If two people aren't going to have kids, though, it's pure legal benefits and doesn't really mean much as far as I'm concerned, other than an outward manifestation of those people's desire to be monogamous, and they can do that without the ceremony.
>>
No. 14836 ID: 424bcd

>>14834
Marriage is a primarily religious institution/ritual, if you don't feel need to adhere to any then I agree it serves little purpose on its own.

The fact that government gets in on the act is merely the fact that despite what most western nations would love to say, there is simply a lot of cross-pollination between church and state. It's the way it's always been, and the way it always will be. Just human nature to try and align power with power.
>>
No. 14837 ID: 467bf4

>>14836

>Marriage is a primarily religious institution/ritual, if you don't feel need to adhere to any then I agree it serves little purpose on its own.

This.
>>
No. 14838 ID: 70d9eb

Marriage is a part of almost all cultures regardless of their religion. Go live with the Mosuos in the Himalayan mountains if you want to be without marriage, otherwise get used to marriage existing, because it's not going to stop existing.
>>
No. 14843 ID: 383006

>>14836
I don't agree with you entirely. I think Lawyerdog is more on point. How family groups are structured is a sort of fundamental aspect of how the society made up of those same family groups will also be structured. Each state expresses different notions about family and what values it wants to promote. In California, for instance, no fault divorces are quick. In Louisiana everything is heavily focused around the kids and making sure they have a stable environment and a steady supply of cash. It's a way to promote and recognize social stability no matter whether the people are christian or completely secular.

The fact that the ceremonies are religious has little to do with the state's interest in regulating what marriage means and how it operates, although certainly the religious views of the legislators and voting majority will make a difference there.

It is an area of law that is almost entirely left in the hands of the states, except for the rights of parents to determine how their children are raised, which the supreme court recognized as a fundamental right under the constitution.

Different cultures do it differently, but we all have ways of recognizing stable unions of family groups and who 'belongs' to whom.
>>
No. 14844 ID: 1854db

Marriage comes with tax breaks and stuff.
>>
No. 14846 ID: bf1e7e

>>14843

It's kind of weird how these things always come up completely independent of you and RIGHT WHEN YOU'RE STUDYING THE SHIT OUT OF THEM.
>>
No. 14847 ID: 70d9eb

would you marry aleister crowley if it meant you got his hat y/n
>>
No. 14852 ID: f5fe2f

Okay well BiteQuest is pretty much the paragon of being right in this discussion, which makes sense given the circumstance.

>>14834
I agree that the parties are a bit over the top. I don't feel that any occasion is an inadequate occasion to throw a party, but people spend a fucking ton of money on marriages.
I also agree with the implied notion that marriage is a largely pointless institution when children are not considered. I don't see why children wouldn't be considered, however.

I furthermore feel that marriage shouldn't be a public institution, just based on high-minded idealism rather than any practical reason. I don't believe it's any of the government's business who's in a relationship with who. As it is my understanding that all of the legal benefits of marriage, save for hospital visitation rights, are obtainable through non-marriage contracts, it seems to me that it would be viable to eliminate marriage as a civil institution altogether. However I'm not sure what the system is in states other than my own, or how much it varies, nor can I foresee what societal effects such an abolition might have. It would probably have fairly negative results overall, as idealism often does.
>>
No. 14853 ID: 383006

I don't want to "swing my dick around" but, yeah, I took my Family Law exam on Tuesday.

>>14852
This is basically not true, especially concerning getting the same benefits through private contract. Depending on the state, there is really no way to get most of the benefits from marriage privately.

There are other very good reasons not to do this. Firstly, making the same benefits be a tied together bunch of things means that people won't have to get lawyers to get married (which is what would happen if it were a bunch of separate contracts if you wanted to get some rights) and would keep people with more money/power from abusing people in a weaker financial situation. This is especially true of something that is supposed to be about feelings and junk. Reducing it to essentially a business meeting sort of flies in the face of the spirit of marriage.

Secondly, there is no way to get the absolute strongest protections that marriage offers: Things like the interspousal bar to suit and the husband/wife privilege (meaning that a spouse can choose not to testify concerning confidential communications that the other spouse made to them) are super law powers. Every single state has the evidentiary privilege. These and many other of the special rights that married people have actually exist to protect the privacy of the marriage and give the spouses more control over their affairs than unmarried couples have, because the state/country generally wants to protect the couple and give them increased autonomy.

Not to say all marriage law is great and perfect, but I think its a sphere where the government is generally offering increased protection and autonomy to promote theoretically more stable family structures, and that's generally a good thing, and an area that would be sort of a giant mess if it were entirely private.
>>
No. 14861 ID: 3e141e

HEY GUYS. What's up with the ton of text quests recently?
I open first page and shit jumps into my face like on a japanese scat party.
Seriously, half the quests are text quests and 80% of the rest has terrible art.

I am disappointed.
>>
No. 14865 ID: 2563d4

>>14861
I guess it's Easter break and a load of talentless students are making text quests out of boredom?

Also quite a few of the good authors are busy one way or another, and if you're not updating daily you're going to get flooded off page 0 by text quests.
>>
No. 14866 ID: f5fe2f

>>14861
Who cares? It's not like you're obligated to read them.
>>
No. 14869 ID: 28e94e

I never got why everybody hates text quests so much.
>>
No. 14882 ID: 788dee

>>14869
They're like real quests, except not even nearly as good, don't have images (Google image search does not count), are made by people who want to make a quest "just like everyone else" but don't want to put in any effort whatsoever, bump infinitely better threads off the front page (only relevant on 4chan, though), still pretend they're better because of some retarded notion seemingly about text-only being better because text quests are like the novels to the comics of image quests, fully ignoring the fact that image quests almost exclusively have better writing, pretending their quantity has any relation to quality (protip: NO) because they know absolutely fuck-all about Soviet warfare in WW2, fully misunderstanding the oh-so famous quote.

AND because text quests detract from proper quests by associating the term "quest" with the abominable volume of sheer drivel that is text quests.
>>
No. 14883 ID: 2563d4

>>14882
That's a pretty comprehensive summary of the arguments, yeah.
>>
No. 14888 ID: 28e94e

>>14882
Ahem.

You seem to have confused Bob with text quests in general.

Let me address each argument (forgive me if I miss a few):

>not even nearly as good
Unsupported opinion. Moving on.

>don't have images (Google does not count)
While I will admit that images are generally a great help, I don't think it's as big a deal as you make it out to be. And Google art is fine by me as long as the images are relevant and consistent with the descriptions (O is pretty good about this, Bob not so much).

>are made by people who want to make a quest "just like everyone else" but don't want to put in any effort whatsoever
See top of post.

>still pretend they're better
Again, see top.

>pretending their quantity has any relation to quality
>implying that there aren't image quests that are just as bad if not worse
>implying that consistency is a bad thing

>because text quests detract from proper quests by associating the term "quest" with the abominable volume of sheer drivel that is text quests.
No.
>>
No. 14891 ID: 788dee

>>14888
>>Unsupported opinion.
Except that even average image quests are almost exclusively better than the best text quests.

>>While I will admit that images are generally a great help, I don't think it's as big a deal as you make it out to be.
Images are an integral part of image quests. Not just "helpful".
>>And Google art is fine by me as long as the images are relevant and consistent with the descriptions
The difference between "Google art" and actual quest-specific images is that "Google art" takes no effort and skill while actually drawing a quest successfully takes both. And images in quests are supposed to be images directly related to the quest, not just a "helpful" sideshow.

>>See top of post.
Ha ha no. Text quests are made by people who can't even be bothered to make the minimum effort of carving out a simple image representative of the quest. They extend this attitude to the writing.

>>Again, see top.
Again, ha ha no. Even pretending to be equal to image quests is horrible, excessive arrogance and detraction of image quests.

>implying that consistency is a bad thing
Being consistently sub-par at best is a bad thing.

>>No.
Yes. They pour out this shit, call themselves quests and count themselves among the actual, good quests (WHICH ARE IMAGE QUESTS, BY THE WAY, IF THAT WAS NOT CLEAR), directly implying that they, the products of less than minimum effort, are equal to actual quests made with real effort.
Drawing the shittiest image takes time, while text quests can just say "you/character does X" as a sidenote.
>>
No. 14892 ID: c25b49

>>14888
Bob actually suffers from these problems far less than do "text quests in general"

Text quests are usually shitty. This isn't to say that there are no shitty image quests, but if someone puts the effort into making a good quest, they will expend the time to make images (at least when moving at a tgchan pace).

While I do not disagree that it is unlikely that a desire for conformity is the sole reason people make text quests, the desire to be a quest runner, (particularly a popular one) and to attain the status that confers is the birth of a great many shitty quests.
We know text authors don't want to put in more effort, because if they did, they would draw pictures.

>No.
Contesting this only serves to make you look like a fool. This phenomenon is clearly visible on /tg/. The body of quests that run there is now entirely composed of text quests. While those lack the majority of the faults common to text quests here, they nonetheless clearly illustrate that the principle which you are denying is in fact a real thing that happens.
>>
No. 14893 ID: c25b49

>>14891
Google art, despite not being directly made for a quest, may nonetheless contribute positively to immersion and the feel of the thing. Your dislike if it is ourely opinion.

I believe by "consistency" he meant "they update consistantly". This is undeniably a positive aspect of a quest.

As an addendum, you are acting like a faggot (feel free to request details if you are unclear on what I mean by this). While how you act is certainly your own decision, do be aware that acting like a faggot is not conducive to arguing successfully.
>>
No. 14894 ID: 2563d4

>>14893
>do be aware that acting like a faggot is not conducive to arguing successfully
>Cruxador
Oh lordy lord. Thanks for the laugh.
>>
No. 14895 ID: 788dee

>>14893
I've only seen Googled images used either as 1) thematically somewhat relevant filler and/or to make it easier to separate the OP from suggestions or 2) as a cheap trick to imply that your text quest is as "cool" as whatever is in the image, without you having to actually make any fucking effort whatsoever to make the quest ACTUALLY "cool" through description and actual logical progression, let alone actually drawing what the suggesters are supposed to see as opposed to being a cheap fuck with no balls.
>>
No. 14897 ID: 28e94e

>>14891
In order:
>circular logic
>definition of quests that includes images... facepalm.jpg
>assumptions
>assumptions, outright stereotyping of text quest authors (!)
>weird text quest wank
>more unsubstantiated assumptions
>more weird text quest wank, seriously wtf

>>14892
>>14893
oh my god, I agree with Cruxador! The world must be ending!
>>
No. 14898 ID: f5fe2f

>>14894
After reading this post, I laughed quite a bit too. So thanks for that!
By "acting like a faggot" I meant specific mannerisms, such as "ha ha no" and "good quests (WHICH ARE IMAGE QUESTS, BY THE WAY" rather than as a generic pejorative.

>>14895
The first usage is basically what I'm referring to. Obviously, doing this poorly does not contribute to the quest, and even doing it well contributes less than a drawing made purposely for the quest. But nonetheless, such tangentially related images can help set tone. For an example of this general principle working well, see Madoka, which starts out with things in the opening credits, setting a tone somewhat different from the tone of the actual show, and ending with a tone which is more akin to the tone of the show turned up to 11, thus maximizing the actual effect the show has on people's emotions through things not directly a part of it. As a more direct analogue, that show often cuts away, showing still images of the city, or chairs, or whatever the fuck.
The fact that text quests do not generally do it nearly as well has no bearing on the fact that it is a valid practice.
>>
No. 14899 ID: 28e94e

>>14897
Now that I look at it, this response is kind of vague. Just ask and I'll explain some of the more unclear parts in depth.
>>
No. 14900 ID: e41ad5

>Text vs Image

Oh god not this shit again. Seriously? Seriously. It's like arguing that a self-illustrated novel is fundamentally written better than one that is not illustrated.

Here is how I see it:

A text quest CAN be better than an image quest. But it is fucking hard to pull off. Effort must be equal. And writing well is a sight harder than scribbling something up in MSpaint that looks like what I want to convey. Arting WELL is just as hard.

Furthermore, by their nature, text quests are much, much harder to read. Take Golem Quest vs, say, Mudyquest. In terms of sheer time it takes to read both, and understand what you have read, and comprehend it, mudy quest will fly by faster, despite having twice the threads at this point. THis is because it's far easier to look at a picture, maybe read some dialogue, and bam, there you are.

Meanwhile, Bob has to elucidate every part of what the picture would convey for a normal update. Even if he's using a picture, he describes the subject of that picture anyway (Usually, the picture is of a specific character or item) and has to maintain an 'image' with words.

This means that the bar for a good text quest is harder to reach for the average Joe, but at the same time easier to attempt.

Meanwhile, an image quest has a lower bar for what is 'good' versus 'fucking terrible', and is harder to attempt, or at least, keep up.

Again, text is not fundamentally worse than image. However, the bars of skill and quality differ - and the usual person trying to use a text quest does it not out of respect for the medium, but because of a lack of desire to spend time doodlan.

Does that make any sense?
>>
No. 14901 ID: 28e94e

>>14900
This is a very good explanation.
>>
No. 14902 ID: 1854db

>>14900
I agree with most of that, but to me, the problem with this text vs image argument is... Well, people expect text quests to have good writing, while they don't expect image quests to have good writing *or* good art. There is a double standard here.

Let me explain myself a little better before people start yelling- 'good' art for a quest, in my opinion, requires you to be able to see the location, the characters, and illustrate important objects and choices. It needs to outline the situation and give you enough information to proceed, just by looking at the image. Text in image quests tends to be used to explain details that the art either cannot or does not illustrate clearly. Also, dialogue. I've found that the writing in most image quests is pretty damn flat, and people love LonelyWorld's quests even though they have frequent grammatical or spelling errors. Quite a few text quests also have flat writing, and the worst ones don't even give you enough information to know what to do next. Yet people only complain about the text quests.

To sum up, complaining about 'bad writing' in a text quest is only valid if the writing fails to clearly explain what is going on and what you can do about it. That makes a terrible text quest. If you dismiss most text quests because they aren't as good as books, well, you're just being a snob. Lower your standards and have FUN, goddamn it. Also, stop ruining it for other people by bashing text quests whenever they get brought up.

If you won't stop, then at least start bashing the bad image quests too.
>>
No. 14903 ID: b6c6fc

>I've found that the writing in most image quests is pretty damn flat, and people love LonelyWorld's quests even though they have frequent grammatical or spelling errors

it's not my fault writing is hard!

B(
>>
No. 14904 ID: e41ad5

>>14903
You have almost as much trouble with it as BG does!
>>
No. 14909 ID: 2563d4

>>14902
>Well, people expect text quests to have good writing, while they don't expect image quests to have good writing *or* good art. There is a double standard here.
Hahahano. You do not speak for "people".

There are plenty of image quests with shitty writing.

There are even more text quests with shitty writing because if you are running a text quest chances are you are not even trying because the investment of effort required is a whole order of magnitude lower.

Text quests are bad because people who run text quests are lazier and half-assing it more.
>>
No. 14910 ID: 6b2b68

>>14902
I do bash the unquestionably bad image quests.

Pretty frequently, actually. In fact, I criticize them more than the text quests because I don't read text quests because I for one refuse to lower my standards.

I've criticized everyone from Lucid to LW in the past over various things, and written scathing reviews of certain other quests, but in the end they're still my opinions and people will disagree, even when this makes them wrong on the internet.
>>
No. 14911 ID: e41ad5

>>14909
>Say others are generalizing
>Do it yourself

Hah.

So I guess Bite is lazy, huh?
>>
No. 14912 ID: 2563d4

>>14911
What Shot means to say here is that he rapes puppies. He rapes them because he doesn't understand the difference between generalisation for concise argumentation and putting words in other people's mouths. But he also says it's because he enjoys it.
>>
No. 14913 ID: e41ad5

Bite runs (Or ran, we aren't really sure) a text quest. He called all text quest authors lazy or half-assing.

Therefore, he calls Bite lazy and says he's half-assing what's probably one of the best quests on the site.
>>
No. 14914 ID: 1854db

>>14910
Do you repeatedly bring up a single bad quest every time it, or image quests in general, is mentioned?
>>
No. 14915 ID: 383006

Imma start updating it again once my finals is over. Bleh.
>>
No. 14916 ID: f5fe2f

>>14900
This is entirely true.

>>14902
The largest issue I see with this argument is that you fail to consider: Image quests have both text and image, while text quests have only text. For this reason, it would not be unreasonable that standards be lower for image quests. That said, image quests with only the bare minimum in terms of both art and story don't pick up bigger audiences than text quests do.

>Yet people only complain about [spelling and grammar issues in] the text quests.
In my perception, such complaints are about the same for each, hovering at a level of "almost none".

>If you won't stop, then at least start bashing the bad image quests too.
People bash shitty image quest all the time.

>>14910
The impression I'm getting from this post is "I'm a badass who criticizes anyone!". Just throwing that out there.

>>14913
Bite is usually considered an exception to such general statements. Which makes sense, since as a text-quest author he's anomalous in a lot of ways.
>>
No. 14917 ID: 383006

OH, and just to contribute to the dumb argument - I take my time and write carefully when I'm doing Sammy updates. If I am all tired or something and can't write for shit, I'll usually hold off updating.

For my art quests, just look at the text in the last five or six Survivors updates. It sucks asssss. I just wanted to draw and quest and shit, and it's got the easiest art out of what I'm running, so I don't care if I halfass the text as long as I spend time on the picture.

I turned Sammy from some troll shit into a legit quest so I could update when I was at work or in school or something if it was slow. It takes me about a third of the time as an image update. For most of my quests, I spend about half or 1/3 of the time on the text as I do on the picture. It is a lot less work. For Bite Quest, I would spend time on the text because I disagree with the guy who thinks the image should convey everything. I intentionally don't do that in Lahamu, for instance, because the pictures are supposed to be like the pictures in a story book and just sort of convey what's happening generally. I don't think picture quests are like comics. I rely on the text frequently. I don't think that makes my quests bad. For Survivors, I intentionally have tried to not do that, though, other than the dialogue, obviously.
>>
No. 14919 ID: 2563d4

>>14913
Because he still can't understand that a generalisation does not explicitly cover every single possible instance under its scope, what Shot means here is that he has finished with the current puppy and is now eating its corpse.
>>
No. 14922 ID: 6b2b68

>>14916
I wouldn't say "badass" or anything, I just don't believe in pussyfooting around when you can give someone legitimate critique to try to help them get better.

People had legitimate criticism for the beginning of Colony Guard (which has since improved), people have had criticism for most of what Vyt has done (especially ratsturbation), I just wanted to say that the image quests aren't always free of criticism when the text quests get the lion's share, though I wish I wasn't one of the few that criticize given my opinions on the matter can be a little extreme, especially when working a lot of forced overtime here at the happiest place on earth.

It's been mentioned earlier that for a text quest the bar should be lowered, to which I say "Hell no." If you can't write better than Stephanie Meyer, maybe you should use the text quest to continuously improve. It's what I did with Hatch, and look at my art from the start versus now. If someone did that with their writing, if they focused on improvement with everything they wrote they'd probably start having a text quest maybe as good as Sammy before too horribly long, but apart from Sammy there basically aren't any good text quests because few people here can write.

Oh, I'm not saying I'm a perfect writer either, I just learn from my mistakes, and I've made a lot of mistakes with Hatch.

I crave critique for my quests actually, but nobody ever says anything, possibly because I haven't had time to update in forever.

>>14914
Not every time.
>>
No. 14925 ID: 788dee

>>14900
>It's like arguing that a self-illustrated novel is fundamentally written better than one that is not illustrated.
No. We're not arguing that Twilight with pictures is better than Lord of the Rings without pictures. We're arguing that Twilight fanfiction is nowhere near the level of, for example, Frank Miller's works.
So far I'm still seeing all the arguments in defense of text quests being bullshit thinly veiled implications about text quests being like novels in terms of quality and that image quests aren't held to the same standards because there are several good image quests while text quests are almost exclusively utter shit.

And Furbies Fur Jegus does not count because the author has previously proven himself to give at least half a flying fuck about making an effort by means of authoring at least one image quest.

I almost wish to assume that all these people defending text quests are text quest authors who are hurt as all bitches in their impotent butt because their sub-par shit isn't considered the equal of actual, good quests. You know, image quests.
>>
No. 14926 ID: 788dee

You know what, show me a fucking text quest that's actually good and is not Fur Jegus.

And even if we ignore the author of Jebus Fursson, it's still only one (1) decent text quest among many.
As opposed to, you know, several half-decent and a handful of good image quests out of many. Because there's a fucking connection here. Namely, one about text quests being almost exclusively shit while image quests are like any other medium with varying quality. To wit, text quests are shit and it's actually a good idea with a ridiculously minute chance of failure to minimize/ignore them by default.
>>
No. 14929 ID: bf1e7e

>Quite a few text quests also have flat writing, and the worst ones don't even give you enough information to know what to do next. Yet people only complain about the text quests.

Bad Writing + Bad Images > Bad Writing + No images.

>If you won't stop, then at least start bashing the bad image quests too.

Because people never talked about how they should run FlynnMerk off the site or anything like that.
>>
No. 14930 ID: e41ad5

>>14925
Again:

>The bar of entry and continuance for text quests is lower, while the skill necessary to pull them off is higher.

>The bar of entry and continuance for image quests is higher, while the skill necessary to pull them off is lower.

>You know what, show me a fucking text quest that's actually good and is not Fur Jegus.
>Blood quest (Completed, the text quest on /tg/), Dragon quest (Running, /tg/), Harlem quest (Running, /tg/), Zeon Quest (will never fucking end, /tg/), Commander quest (Running, /tg/)
>Maybes:
>Blood Quest (Completed, /quest/), Ant Quest (Haitus, /quest/)

Again, assuming one medium is simply better is a fucking fallacy, like saying live theater is better than radio drama. Or live action is better than cartoons.

I am not defending shitty text quests. Again. I am not defending shitty text quests.

All that needs to happen for a good text quest is for the author to give a shit and be skilled at writing. Unfortunately, very few individuals are like this - at least the ones who do quests at all. I'd love to see every great author on the quest give text only a shot, like Bite did. I can only wonder what the results might be.
>>
No. 14931 ID: 1854db

>>14929
My impression was that people complain about FlynnMerk's quests because they're lame in ways that don't include art or writing.

I almost never hear "boy this guy's art sucks, that quest is shit" or "goddamn what's wrong with this guy, he can't write worth a damn to go with his art". It's almost always other stuff like plot or pacing or lack of choices or too MANY choices. Even then they don't say the quest is SHIT because of it. People complain about text quests and say they are SHIT. They are the only ones that get this kind of treatment. That is what I can't stand.
>>
No. 14932 ID: 326434

DEAR ## MOD ##,

Get the fuck out. No one wants you here.
>>
No. 14933 ID: b6c6fc

>>14932
I support this statement
Mods are douchebags, who ban people for bashing retards that deserve it
>>
No. 14934 ID: 788dee

>>14930
>Blood quest
HA HA NO

>Dragon quest
No.

>Harlem quest
Not really, no.

>Zeon Quest
No.

>Commander quest
No.

>Blood Quest
No.

>Ant Quest
No.

Also:
>The bar of entry and continuance for text quests is lower, while the skill necessary to pull them off is higher.
No. The bar is lower, but the skill required for success is not any greater. Or are you saying that image quests are easymode because writing requires more skill than drawing AND writing? Fuck you.
>The bar of entry and continuance for image quests is higher, while the skill necessary to pull them off is lower.
The bar of entry is higher, but the skill required for success is actually higher because you need to be good in three things instead of one: drawing, writing and COMBINING THOSE FOR EFFECT. The bar of entry being higher is a GOOD thing because it stops those who just don't want to make any fucking effort whatsoever from "trying" and flooding the market with their sub-par shit.

>Again, assuming one medium is simply better is a fucking fallacy, like saying live theater is better than radio drama.
This isn't about different mediums, it's about QUESTS and two different ways of making said QUESTS wherein one way is INHERENTLY INFERIOR GIVEN THE MEDIUM.
And radio dramas are generally crud.
>Or live action is better than cartoons.
Irrelevant as long as cartoons are generally considered to be an exclusive children's medium, because children's shows are almost exclusively crud.

>I am not defending shitty text quests. Again. I am not defending shitty text quests.
Yes you are.

>All that needs to happen for a good text quest is for the author to give a shit and be skilled at writing.
AND GUESS WHAT. PEOPLE LIKE THAT EITHER 1) WRITE FICTION WITHOUT LETTING A BUNCH OF RETARDS SUGGEST THE STORY INTO STUPIDITY OR 2) MAKE THE SMALL EXTRA EFFORT OF SCRAWLING OUT AT LEAST SOMEWHAT PASSABLE IMAGES.
>>
No. 14936 ID: c1d28f

>>14933
I agree wholeheartedly. Maybe if we just drew "gtfo technomancer" on some images over and over we could say what we like on a board that is not supposed to have content restrictions.

(oh btw, it's Seal)
>>
No. 14937 ID: 383006

You know, I actually agree with Shot Trip. I think what he meant by the "bar to entry" is that the quality required for the quest to be acceptable is not very high for image quests. The bar for a text quest to be acceptable is basically pretty high. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that shitty art is a reason they stopped reading a quest, for instance.

That being said, a text quest is a lot less effort. A lot. I personally have given a few a shot, but they either quit pretty soon because there is no real investment involved in the same way as doing an image quest, or the writing was mediocre and they were boring, or they were about something that didn't remotely interest me.

There is nothing to grab the audience and immerse them in the setting, and their only real benefit is they can update so much faster. They will always be less popular than image quests, and most of them are bad. Isn't this what you'd expect, though? Low bar to entry means that the writing should have to be pretty good for me to give a damn. A text quest that's boring or flat (so, mediocre writing) is a giant waste of time. A drawn quest with mediocre art and poor writing can still be pretty entertaining though. Hell, a drawn quest with bad art and bad writing can still be pretty fun.

Anyway, I think a few people are kind of mischaracterizing Shot's arguments because they can't fathom agreeing with him, even though what he's saying is pretty reasonable this time.
>>
No. 14938 ID: 326434

Oh, I knew it was Seal. It was kind of a sixth sense thing.

Get out, Seal. Fuck you.
>>
No. 14939 ID: 70d9eb

Seal is the best moderator and all of his decisions are impeccable.
You cannot pec his decisions.
>>
No. 14941 ID: 788dee

>>14937
Let's put it this way: I own a factory that makes sandpaper dildos and fake plastic marbles. I look at the résumés. Image Quests are the guys who have a degree in sandpaper dildo molding and fake plastic marble blowing. I have no guarantee they'll be excellent or even mediocre. They could be horrible chucklefucks as far as I know. But it's a pretty safe bet to hire them.
Text quests are the immigrant who can only speak the language passably, has a criminal record and doesn't look respectable. Now, I could hire him and try to forge him into a good person. He could surprise me and be the hardest working motherfucker in the factory and bust his ethnic ass off learning everything there is to learn about the business. But it's a pretty safe bet he'll just steal all the paperclips and show up late every day.

See, the quality required for an image quest to be acceptable is not very high because it kind of meets the minimum standards because of the bar of entry is set higher than below sea level, whereas text quests really have no bar of entry. Many text quest posts do not even exceed the word count or regular posts, and we all know what the threshold for people posting all kinds of crud on the internet is. Protip: It's fucking zero.

>A text quest that's boring or flat (so, mediocre writing) is a giant waste of time. A drawn quest with mediocre art and poor writing can still be pretty entertaining though. Hell, a drawn quest with bad art and bad writing can still be pretty fun.
Exactly. And that guy (him) is saying - or at least indirectly implying - text quests are equal to image quests by default and that the flak text quests get is unjustified. Protip: It's justified as all balls. Because they actually are that bad.

And really, there aren't that many (image) quest authors that are generally considered "good" (as in above average and beyond) and only a handful of "great" authors at best.
>>
No. 14943 ID: e41ad5

>A cadre of simple denials without reasoning or explanation.
Two letters does not an argument make. Six letters is hardly better. Let's move on to where you're actually saying shit.



>The bar of entry and continuance for text quests is lower, while the skill necessary to pull them off is higher.
>No. The bar is lower, but the skill required for success is not any greater. Or are you saying that image quests are easymode because writing requires more skill than drawing AND writing? Fuck you.

So. An Image quest can succeed even if the art is terrible. You, and a few others, have said this yourself. I can, in less than a minute, put together a stick figure in a cube-like environment with a few random objects to interact with, and a simple
>You are Hurrr. You are in the land of Durr. WHat do?
And it would apparently pass muster with you.

Meanwhile, I could ALSO write a lengthy, detailed paragraph of prose describing a simple man named Hurrr, who lives in a ramshackle house in the land of Durr, and wishes to be an Elite of the Order of HurDur.
Yet this would not pass muster with you, and would take a great deal more thought and time, possibly even effort!

>The bar of entry and continuance for image quests is higher, while the skill necessary to pull them off is lower.
>The bar of entry is higher, but the skill required for success is actually higher because you need to be good in three things instead of one: drawing, writing and COMBINING THOSE FOR EFFECT. The bar of entry being higher is a GOOD thing because it stops those who just don't want to make any fucking effort whatsoever from "trying" and flooding the market with their sub-par shit.

And yet you've said that shitty art is 'fine', a few times. Or at least people with your argument have.

Thus I maintain my position: It's easier to make and maintain a text quest, but it's harder to make a successful one that lasts and is enjoyed by a large part of /quest/. However, it is harder to start and maintain an image quest, yet it the bar for quality of writing is much lower... I believe one person said that "Even if the writing is bad, at least the pictures are entertaining".


>I am not defending shitty text quests. Again. I am not defending shitty text quests.
>Yes you are.

Where? I hate them as much as you. I happen to write one because it helps pass the time. I know most everyone hides it - I am aware of the fact. I hide half of the quests on the front page just like you do.

I'm just saying what is evident to me. I'm not defending lackluster performance in the slightest.
>>
No. 14944 ID: e3f578

>>14941
I don't really give a fuck about text quest arguments anymore, but wow was that a shitty metaphor.
You could be a text quest author!
>>
No. 14945 ID: 28e94e

>>14941
Confirmed for trolling.
>>
No. 14947 ID: bf1e7e

None of you faggots are qualified to determine who is or is not deserving of anything. Especially those of you that are such pussies that you have to hide behind proxies to whine about me.

Crying that I'm not going to let you troll the shit out of /draw/ for a month because THEIR FETISH IS SO MUCH GROSSER THAN MY FETISH just makes you look like the sort of retarded twat that the site would be better off without. Don't like it? Don't go telling people to leave the site during the month of may. If people weren't being such gargantuan whining faggots about things in the first place it wouldn't have come to this.

Here is how this dialogue basically looks from here:

MODS DO SOMETHING
'Okay I will enforce the rules'
NO DON'T DO THAT THAT HAS NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES ON MY BEING A GIANT SHITHEAD
'Maybe you should try not being a shithead for a month'
MODS SUCK

tl;dr -- deal w/ it.
>>
No. 14948 ID: 788dee

>>14943
>Two letters does not an argument make. Six letters is hardly better. Let's move on to where you're actually saying shit.
How about stale text with constant GAME MECHANICS IN YOUR FACE while also commenting on suggestions, eliminating any potential flow before it even has a chance to start?

>So. An Image quest can succeed even if the art is terrible.
No. "Success" isn't just meeting the minimum requirements.

> I can, in less than a minute, put together a stick figure in a cube-like environment with a few random objects to interact with, and a simple You are Hurrr. You are in the land of Durr. WHat do?
And that would be shit. Crud. Sub-par. Abominable. Not even mediocre.

>Meanwhile, I could ALSO write a lengthy, detailed paragraph of prose describing a simple man named Hurrr, who lives in a ramshackle house in the land of Durr, and wishes to be an Elite of the Order of HurDur. Yet this would not pass muster with you, and would take a great deal more thought and time, possibly even effort!
Yeah, but your "lengthy, detailed paragraph of prose" is probably stale as old balls. Great deal more TIME would go into it, PERHAPS, but there are many things you can do the dumb way when there are billions of better ways to do it.
NOT TO MENTION THAT IF IT REALLY TAKES THAT MUCH TIME AND EFFORT TO WRITE A PARAGRAPH, YOU'RE PROBABLY IN THE WRONG BUSINESS.

>And yet you've said that shitty art is 'fine', a few times. Or at least people with your argument have.
Shitty art is shitty, but it's "fine" IN COMPARISON TO TEXT QUESTS.

>Thus I maintain my position: It's easier to make and maintain a text quest, but it's harder to make a successful one that lasts and is enjoyed by a large part of /quest/. However, it is harder to start and maintain an image quest, yet it the bar for quality of writing is much lower... I believe one person said that "Even if the writing is bad, at least the pictures are entertaining".
You don't get it, do you. Note how that was not a question but a statement. Because you do not get it.
You don't need to write like a genius to make a good quest, but if you write like an armless retard with Parkinson's and a cane up your ass, IT WILL STAND OUT IN A BAD WAY.

>Where? I hate them as much as you.
By constantly defending them? Suddenly I believe you fully.

Note how I did not actually mean what I said in that previous sentence. Because it was a lie.

>>14944
Unlike a text quest author, I'd at least doodle some hurrdurr picture to go with it if I was making a quest. You just don't like it because you are hutt in the burt because I don't like your dear text quests.
>>
No. 14949 ID: 788dee

>>14945
Confirmed for butthurt textquest author.

Who also has no skill in writing or anything else quest-related.
>>
No. 14950 ID: 28e94e

>>14948
You might as well just post "HERESY" and be done with it.

>>14949
lol no
>>
No. 14951 ID: e3f578

>>14948
Man, only text quest I read is Bite's
It's just really was a shitty fucking metaphor. I figure I'd point that out.
Okay, no I was wrong, you could be a political cartoonist
>>
No. 14952 ID: cccb33

>>14947
Two things:

A) their fetish is not why they are being lauded, they're being lauded because they are using the site for nothing other than posting their fetish art while insulting the rest of the site

And

B) this site is not an art gallery, technomancer SHOULD leave and take his "art" to sheezyart or something.

It's not that their art is disgusting, it is, but they are being tremendous faggots about it and you are being a faggot over people harassing them in response to things they gave done.

If they don't want backlash for the things they post they should go somewhere else, this site is not a murry purry hugbox.
>>
No. 14953 ID: cccb33

>>14947
Two things:

A) their fetish is not why they are being lauded, they're being lauded because they are using the site for nothing other than posting their fetish art while insulting the rest of the site

And

B) this site is not an art gallery, technomancer SHOULD leave and take his "art" to sheezyart or something.

It's not that their art is disgusting, it is, but they are being tremendous faggots about it and you are being a faggot over people harassing them in response to things they gave done.

If they don't want backlash for the things they post they should go somewhere else, this site is not a murry purry hugbox.
>>
No. 14954 ID: e41ad5

>>14951
>Okay, no I was wrong, you could be a political cartoonist

Now, now, we're trying to be adults here!

>>14948
Might want to watch where you're going while you're backpedaling like that.

Your entire position is thus:

>It is harder to draw than it is to write.

>Therefore, those who draw in addition to writing are better than those who simply write.

>In fact, I daresay it matters now who does the work, nay, it is in fact the very act of not including art that ruins one's potential.

> Theretofore: Art quests are better than text quests, all the time, no matter what, and anyone who argues against me argues for shitty shit that is shit.

>In addition, I am the only one who matters when it comes to judging the quality of anything. Everyone else is a frustrated author of the aforementioned shit, and is therefore shit as well.

>In addendum, capitalization makes me appear to be a mature, intellectual individual, and makes my points even more salient. Huzzah.
>>
No. 14955 ID: bf1e7e

>>14953

>but they are being tremendous faggots about it

How? THey're staying in their own threads and don't really like quests much. OH NO SUCH GIANT FAGGOTS. Surely they're worse than people actively going into their threads to try to troll them off the board!

Overlord was being a faggot for a while and oh shit he got banned for it. What the fuck sort of madness is this? It looks to me like enforcing the rules! Holy shit!

So, how, specifically, are they being faggots again? I won't wait up for an answer; partially because I have to leave for work but mostly because I know that you won't actually provide a legitimate one.

See, here's the thing. /tgchan/ was founded because 4chan basically got to the point where 'If we don't like this it is okay to troll it off the board' was the norm. That shit is not acceptable and will never be acceptable. They aren't interfering with your precious quests, they're making their own drawfag threads on the board that is for drawing (No, not quest-related drawing. No, not drawing by people who also run quests. Just drawing) and enjoying themselves where they are not bothering anyone else except for people who choose to seek sources of irritation, and thus deserve no protection from them.

The villains here are the fags who think 'if I don't like something it's okay to troll it until it goes away.' They are the faggots, they are the scum, and they are the people without whom the site would be a better place -- because getting away from people like that is the reason the site fucking exists in the first place.
>>
No. 14956 ID: b6c6fc

>>14952
I endorse this statement
>>
No. 14957 ID: 6d4ea4

I liked Red Sky.
>>
No. 14958 ID: e3f578

Maybe the lesson here is that everyone is a faggot.
>>
No. 14959 ID: 788dee

>>14954
You are full of shit. Either you cannot into reading comprehension or you're just plain making shit up.

My position, in all its simplicity, is thus: text quests constantly and consistently prove themselves to be sub-par crud, in contrast to the varying quality of image quests which contain examples of utter crud, great works and everything in between.

How good text quests "could" be means fuck-all when they do not prove themselves to be anything but crud.
>>
No. 14960 ID: e41ad5

>>14959
>How good text quests "could" be means fuck-all when they do not prove themselves to be anything but crud.

So Furries 4 Jesus is shit, gotcha.
>>
No. 14961 ID: 788dee

>>14960
Because I have not even once excepted it, am I right.

See, the joke here is that I have actually excepted it on several occasions and you're still making shit up.
>>
No. 14966 ID: e41ad5

>>14961
So it's not a text quest?

Because it is. And saying all of x is shit except y doesn't prove that all of x is shit. It just proves that all of x is shit except y.

And when your point is that x has never been good, it looks a little silly when you except the one thing that makes your argument fall apart like a damn house of cards, unless you aren't after actual discussion but simply being right.
>>
No. 14967 ID: 788dee

>>14966
It's a text quest made by an author who has made image quests before making said text quest. Also it's the only text quest I know which isn't crud. One. Out of many. Whereas there are several good and better image quests among many.
I'm not going to fucking repeat this over and over again in every fucking sentence in every fucking post. Do you really forget it every fucking time unless I mention it separately each time I refer to text quests collectively?
>>
No. 14968 ID: e3f578

Maybe what he's saying isn't that, but since there is only one actually decent text quest out of many, is that he may as well fuck technicalities and specific examples and just say text quests suck and will always suck until another guy like BiteQuest comes around and makes a good one, which most likely won't happen ever.

From that standpoint, he's right. No text quest has shown actual fucking potential. Hell, Sammy ain't a pure text quest, Bite drops an occasional image here and there. By that logic, Blood Quest by Rosque on this board wasn't one either. I had no idea it was completed here or that it existed on /tg/ in another form, but whatever. If people would argue either of those two as decent text quests (granted he called the two blood quests as shit anyway so he'd say fuck no that sucks objectively too), he could deny that and just bring up that they're this weird ass mix.

Well, I'm brought up that point. Nonetheless, text quests haven't shown much potential at all on this board, being a devil's advocate here.

Great, NOW I care. Fuck you two guys. This argument is dumb. the people arguing this argument are dumb. And now I'm dumb for arguing too.
>Well you didn't need any help with that anyway
Aww that's just great.
>>
No. 14969 ID: 28e94e

I'm going to second Red Sky as another example of a well-done text quest.

BTW, you're not allowed to just make exceptions for everything that doesn't fit your views like that. That's cherrypicking.
>>
No. 14970 ID: 788dee

>>14969
I do not even know what Red Sky is.

And I'm not cherrypicking. Exceptions have a habit of deviating critically from the norm. To wit, BEING THE EXCEPTIONS. It's still ONE (1) out of many against SEVERAL of varying degrees of good out of many.
>>
No. 14971 ID: 2563d4

>>14937
>I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that shitty art is a reason they stopped reading a quest, for instance.
Unfortunately this is why I don't read MiB's quests.

Yes it is a shallow as fuck reason and I am a bad person but the scrawly style is really offputting for some reason.

>>14952
>their fetish is not why they are being lauded, they're being lauded because they are using the site for nothing other than posting their fetish art while insulting the rest of the site
to laud, v.: to praise, to extol

Think you reached beyond the limits of your vocuabulary there, sport.

>>14959
>Either you cannot into reading comprehension
1) It's Shot
2) He's busy valiently defending text quests
I hope you realise you're not getting a discussion here. You're getting a frothing, flailing, fanboy defence. All hands to battle stations.
>>
No. 14973 ID: 788dee

>>14971
I consider this a live-fire drill. That's how real people do things.

As opposed to invertebrate bitch princesses in pink frilly dresses.
>>
No. 14974 ID: e41ad5

>>14970
Red Sky is a text quest done by Cirr. (I think? The guy what with the drones and whatnot. I'm pretty sure it's Cirr.) He used an image to mark updates. (Literally, a red and black portrait of the main character with UPDATE under it)

I suppose...

Text quests should be done by choice. Not because you can't art. Every text quest done by a (usually) picture artist has turned out well.

Really, it's the psychology of the author, not the fact that pictures happen to be absent. If you write a text quest because you can't draw, rather than writing a text quest because you think the story is more suited for text, then... Yeah, of course you'll get shit. It's like trying to pass off a comic book transcript as a novel.

But if the author creates it as a text quest because that's how he feels it should be presented, it's another matter.

Unfortunately, there are very few of these around.
>>
No. 14975 ID: e41ad5

>>14974
Addendum: In light of this, "Because I can't art" is a clear warning sign.
>>
No. 14976 ID: 788dee

>>14974
>Unfortunately
No. It's becoming clear there's just something wrong with you. Either you're pretentious as all fuck, or... Hell, I can't think of any other reason to prefer text quests to such a degree.
Text quests have no advantages over image quests and the trend is for anyone even half-competent to go with images. Pictures make things easier to follow (unless done very poorly, but that applies to everything and I should not even have to mention this) and there's nothing to stop a quest author from making an effort with the text portion. Besides, "a picture is worth a thousand words". Image quests are better for the community too. I can't exactly go wonder at the numerous text quest fanarts in the fanart threads.
>>
No. 14977 ID: 5dfd16
File 130445999103.png - (486.84KB , 1162x968 , styles.png )
14977

>>14971
Funny you should mention that, I've said it more than once myself. If you are talking about First Hand I'd even agree with you in that I can't even go back and 'look' at the first chapter of that mess.

The reason the 'style' (if it could be called that) even ended up like that is becasue I've been using a Mac GIMP port for the past year. Unsurprisingly it's almost useless due to lacking pressure sensitivity, so my sketchystyle evolved as a result to attempt quicker line thickening.

I actually aquired photoshop midway though my last chapter, but when I applied some of the more obvious smoothing techniques people complained about lost detail and dynamicism so... meh.

Besides, I tend to write grimy, used, unclean settings. The artstyle occasionally works 'for' me in such a case. I'd like to improve, but I'm also not an art student, this is just something I do in (my ever sparser) spare time.
>>
No. 14978 ID: 28e94e

>>14976
>Either you're pretentious as all fuck, or...
I don't follow.

>Hell, I can't think of any other reason to prefer text quests to such a degree.
Where did he say that he prefers text quests? He just says that he enjoys a well-done text quest.

>Text quests have no advantages over image quests and the trend is for anyone even half-competent to go with images.
>implying that the majority of people can draw worth shit

>there's nothing to stop a quest author from making an effort with the text portion
Just like there's nothing to stop a text quest author from making an effort with the visual portion (hint: see previous point)

>Image quests are better for the community too. I can't exactly go wonder at the numerous text quest fanarts in the fanart threads.
Go into the Golem Quest threads. There's actually quite a bit of fanart for it, the community is just too damn reclusive because of the perceived air of hostility towards them. (Golem Quest is pretty much the only text quest that's active enough to get any fanart these days)

>>14973
>manly posturing
>the internet
lol
>>
No. 14980 ID: 15b51b

It is kinda funny how the most widely praised text quests on the site have art.

But I don't see where this argument is really going. If we come to a unanimous conclusion that text quests are bad (except Sex Mall), it won't suddenly make it okay to troll them (except Sex Mall), and people will still post and update them (except Sex Mall).
>>
No. 14981 ID: 15b51b

>Go into the Golem Quest threads. There's actually quite a bit of fanart for it, the community is just too damn reclusive because of the perceived air of hostility towards them.
Sheesh. That kind of talk goes both ways. Just post it in the fanart thread. That's what it's there for.

We probably won't mind even if it's terrible.
>>
No. 14982 ID: e41ad5

>>14978
>>14981
Well, Bob gives bonuses when it's posted inthread, and it seems kinda redundant. If y'all really want, I can ask people to collect up everything we have and disseminate it into the fanart thread lightly (So we don't flood it)
>>
No. 14984 ID: 383006

>>14980
Goddamn I miss sex mall. It could have been so glorious. That's fuckin' it. When Sammy is over I'm going to do the most godawful yiffyaffy purple prose text quest ever to exist.
>>
No. 14985 ID: e41ad5

>>14984
And then it'll some how turn out thoughtful and philosophical and awesome because god damnit bite almost everything you touch turns to gold.
>>
No. 14986 ID: f5e4b4

>>14981

You're asking for a shitstorm. At this point you should know that if they did that, people would start bitching and whining about "Golem quest flooding the fanart thread." And then they would start bitching and asking to mov the GQ fanarts to their own threads or even different boards.
>>
No. 14987 ID: 2563d4

>>14982
>collect up everything we have
TBH, the Golem Quest wiki page is probably better for that. (Please try to namespace the images if there are going to be bunches---stick "golem_" on the front or something.)
>>
No. 14989 ID: 15b51b

>>14986
So just post new ones there, not the whole entire backlog. The duplicate file thingy wouldn't let you repost the old ones anyway.

Christ. Do I have to think of everything?

>>14985
>And then it'll some how turn out thoughtful and philosophical ...
WE'LL JUST SEE ABOUT THAT
>>
No. 14990 ID: 2cba8d

>>14955
Until recently there were rules that kept people from being able to post guro without having it deleted.

Then the rules were removed. People complain about the content and act like asshats about it. You say "fuck you I'm enforcing the nonexistent rules." Ok, you're doing your job by the book, can't argue that.

Could it be that people actually liked having content restrictions on the site? Which set of asshats is tgchan trying to cater to? Aside from the mods, of course, who don't have to do anything in the current situation but bitch at people and hand out bans.
>>
No. 14991 ID: 383006

>>14990

The content restrictions were stupid and shitty. What the hell is the big fucking deal about those guys and their thread on draw anyway? There is some gross fetish crap, but honestly there isn't that much of it, even in Technomancer's thread.

I don't like their shitty attitude, but I don't see why that's bannable. If they were trolling or posting that shit somewhere else on the board, OK, you'd have a point. But they aren't.
>>
No. 14992 ID: 6b2b68
File 130446899989.jpg - (47.47KB , 319x243 , umad.jpg )
14992

>>14955
They're claiming moral superiority and acting holier than thou when they are pretty much sicker than any "furry" here. That's specifically how they are being tremendous faggots, in a nutshell.

Also they claim to be staying here only because they have "no other place to go" when they could easily go to some art site instead of posting their stuff here, but we can't even tell them that now because apparently that is "trolling."

Also, you so mad.

you so banned
>>
No. 14993 ID: e41ad5

>>14992
But here's the thing, man.

It is all in their own fucking thread.

Give me one good reason you can't click the goddamn littl [-] button that is there even if you don't have an addon. Go ahead. It's your own damn fault for looking, when it says, in biiiiig fucking letters, HEY THIS IS MY DRAW THREAD and you know THIS GUY IS A HUGE PERVERT BLUH BLUH.

I don't walk into the goddamn Dong Museum and rail at the people there for flagrant display of male genetalia!
>>
No. 14994 ID: e3f578

The point of /draw/ is to post drawings on it right?
I'm really not seeing the offense here.
>>
No. 14995 ID: 6b2b68

>>14993
You didn't read the post you linked to, obviously.
>>
No. 14996 ID: bf1e7e

>>14990

those rules are still there. There isn't really anything in that thread that's more 'guro' than shit that gets a free pass in the fanart thread. At least, not that i've seen. And since I check reports that obviously means there's nothing really offensive there because nobody has reported it.

>Which set of asshats is tgchan trying to cater to?

Certainly not the pussies who can't even air their grievances without hiding behind a proxy.

>They're claiming moral superiority and acting holier than thou when they are pretty much sicker than any "furry" here. That's specifically how they are being tremendous faggots, in a nutshell.

Well, they're not going into other people's threads and trying to troll them off the site, so they basically DO have moral superiority in this case.

>Also they claim to be staying here only because they have "no other place to go" when they could easily go to some art site instead of posting their stuff here,

Can't really do a drawthread well without an imageboard. And given that people can and do talk to them in the threads and make requests, that's exactly what they're doing.

>but we can't even tell them that now because apparently that is "trolling."

When the 40kfags said '/tg/ was started because of the 40kspam on /b/ because it didn't have anywhere else to go, so it's okay for us to sage and troll everything else off of /tg/' they were trolling. And that is exactly what you are doing now.

And yes, it was me. Proceed to bitch in IRC if you want to, or just proxy up like the fag you are. Trolling is, after all, against the rules that still exist.
>>
No. 14998 ID: f123de

>>14996
Could be that no one reported it because it's not against the current rules of the site? It's a point you've certainly made abundantly clear in the most even-handed manner possible.


Hmm. http://quest.lv/kusaba/news.php?p=rules

How Moderation Works
The mods will do what they think is best. Here's some guidelines on what they're supposed to do:

(trimmed for brevity)
Deal with arguments and derailing of threads.
Deal with people trolling or antagonizing other users.
Coordinate with each other, and get opinions from the team. (you're waving around your big red ## Mod ## tag. So you've coordinated with the team and they approve of this?)

Overall
Don't be an asshole.
Don't post things to stir up drama.

Seems like by the rules everyone in this thread should be banned including me.
>>
No. 15001 ID: f5e4b4

>>14998

This is the big dumb argument thread, it was made for people to be retarded and have dumb arguments. If you or anyone brought all this up in some other thread or board, it would be stirring up drama and derailing, which would be bannable. It's easy.

Also people know perfectly what's guro and what's bannable, and they report them when they see it. They haven't reported the threads in /draw/ because they aren't worse than most stuff that got posted there and in /questdis/ before those guys came in.

So people just make vague accusations and try to troll them off just because they don't like them, even if they keep themselves to their own threads and don't bother the rest of the site.

Just like when the fags in 4chan used to try to troll quest threads off their board. Just because they didn't like them.
>>
No. 15002 ID: 8e18cd

>>15001

I reported a loli guro request that was thankfully deleted.

And reported one of Technomancer's pictures (Roasted Tau girl), that wasn't deleted.

So don't say no-one reports that shit.
>>
No. 15003 ID: 55c4cf

Grievance Procedures:

1. Politely express to the offending party that they are causing a grievance.

2. If it continues, inform a moderator of the grievance.

3. If the moderator does not solve it to adequate standards, express it to another moderator or an administrator.

4a. If the administration agrees with your grievance as acceptable, allow the administrative stave to handle the situation if/when it occurs in the future. Do not address the offending party yourself. If it is bothering you directly, inform the staff for resolution.
4b. If the administrative staff believes your grievance to be insubstantial, then accept it as a personal grievance and do not interact with the offending party in the future. If the grievance is taken into the hands of the offended party, then action will be taken against that person instead.

Cases that have been solved in the past will be used to apply in the future as well.

Cases involving content regulation on /draw/, Technomancer and other drawfags on draw, and Bitequest's Torture Porn like art for example are all resolved.

Attending the board for whatever length of time does not apply honorary policing status. Further complaints and bitching about Resolved Moderation will be acted upon appropriately in the future.

If you have a problem, follow the grievance procedure. If you do not follow the procedure, then it is your own fault that appropriate action is either not taken against the offending party, or is instead taken upon you.

Thank you very much.
>>
No. 15005 ID: bf1e7e

>>15002

So what you're saying is that the current system is working fine and there's nothing to whine about?

That's just absolutely super.
>>
No. 15006 ID: 8e18cd

>>15005

If it was working super you wouldn't ban someone from this thread. Just saying.
>>
No. 15007 ID: 2563d4

>>14998
>Could be that no one reported it because it's not against the current rules of the site?
Pretty much! I'm not sure how Seal can repeatedly say "it's not against the rules"---sticky and all---and yet argue that there can't be a problem because "nobody reports it". It sets up an expectation that reporting would do nothing but possibly get you zapped for abusing the report system.

(Also, if it's not against the rules, but you want it to be, reporting it superfluously is still not the right approach. Effort'd be better spent somewhere like here arguing that /draw/'s rules should be changed---which is sort-of what's happening, maybe.)

>>15003
If this is policy or something it should probably be on or near the rules page rather than buried in a very long thread full of stupid frothing.
>>
No. 15014 ID: 55c4cf

>>15007

Okay.
>>
No. 15015 ID: 6b2b68

>Certainly not the pussies who can't even air their grievances without hiding behind a proxy.

Maybe if you didn't try to ban people who argue with you things would be different. It'd be great to post on a website where people don't feel the NEED to do that, wouldn't it?

Though I'm not and haven't been posting under a proxy and >>14992 look what happened, luckily though abuse of mod powers is grounds for an unban.

>Well, they're not going into other people's threads and trying to troll them off the site, so they basically DO have moral superiority in this case.
No, they really don't. They're doing this the scientology way. They're loudly making claims and being giant hypocrites in the most annoying manner possible, being forced to leave them alone in their thread while they insult the entire rest of the site and bitch about what terrible furries post here while posting alien women with robot asses that shit scarabs is ridiculous, especially when they invite so many arguments with the things they say.

>Can't really do a drawthread well without an imageboard. And given that people can and do talk to them in the threads and make requests, that's exactly what they're doing.
Are you unfamiliar with how requests work on online gallery sites?

>When the 40kfags said '/tg/ was started because of the 40kspam on /b/ because it didn't have anywhere else to go, so it's okay for us to sage and troll everything else off of /tg/' they were trolling. And that is exactly what you are doing now.
Incorrect. What happened just before you enforced a new rule on a whim and deleted all related posts on a supposedly content-free board was a discussion of how their works is better suited for another site, more akin to someone saying that discussion of Mass Effect should be in /v/ rather than /tg/.

>And yes, it was me. Proceed to bitch in IRC if you want to, or just proxy up like the fag you are. Trolling is, after all, against the rules that still exist.
I'm not going to use a proxy Seal, I don't know why you're accusing everyone of using proxies when they are not.
>>
No. 15016 ID: a41aaf

>>15015
>They're loudly making claims and being giant hypocrites in the most annoying manner possible
HIDE THE THREAD WITH THE HANDY [_] BUTTON
advicebob.tif
NEVER BE AWARE OF THEIR VERY EXISTENCE


You don't like their crazy nasty fetish, they don't like your crazy nasty fetish, can't we all learn to shut the hell up and not act like enormous faghats whenever it's mentioned that somebody doesn't like something you like?
>>
No. 15017 ID: 788dee

I think I want IDs in /draw/ now. What it reveals could potentially be hilarious.
>>
No. 15018 ID: 788dee

Oh, and allowing people to post whatever just because it isn't technically and/or specifically against the rules does affect the reputation of the site negatively and sets a precedent for using the site as a personal file host and a refuge for any stupid shit that doesn't roll anywhere else.

Besides, there really is a bit too much furry in here.
>>
No. 15019 ID: e41ad5

>being forced to leave them alone in their thread while they insult the entire rest of the site and bitch about what terrible furries post here while posting alien women with robot asses that shit scarabs is ridiculous, especially when they invite so many arguments with the things they say.

I still don't see how this can't be solved without the hide button.

Are you so incredibly incensed by what less than an eighth of the site has to say in their own SINGLE thread that you absolutely, positively cannot leave it be? Is it so bad that you cannot sleep at night without trying to troll them offboard? Is it THAT BAD?

No. It isn't. It's the same shit we've all seen a thousand times or more. So hide it and move on.
>>
No. 15020 ID: 2563d4

>>15017
I want IDs in draw just so when people say "I drew this" without namefagging we might have some clue who they are, especially in oC.
>>
No. 15021 ID: 6b2b68

>>15018
This is a concern.
>>
No. 15022 ID: bf1e7e

>>15015

I didn't ban you for arguing with me you shitstain. I banned you for resorting to 'you so mad' just like I banned The God Emperor of Mankind for trying to bring up that retarded summerfag shit.

>luckily though abuse of mod powers is grounds for an unban.

Nothing about that was abuse of mod powers, you just threw a shitfit because I didn't unban you when you demanded it. The 'abuse' of my mod powers was not immediately banning you when you were being a massive shithead on /draw/ in the first place. Your 'you so mad' fallback pissed away that leniency and I gave you the punishment you already deserved.

>No, they really don't. They're doing this the scientology way.

And you're doing this the /tg/ 40k neckbeard way. If that's what you want to do, go the fuck back to /tg/ and don't update hatch there.

>Are you unfamiliar with how requests work on online gallery sites?

Differently than they do in drawthreads, yes.

>Incorrect. What happened just before you enforced a new rule on a whim

Oh, really?

>The mods will do what they think is best. >Here's some guidelines on what they're supposed to do:

>Deal with arguments and derailing of threads.
Deal with anything that could get us in legal trouble.
Deal with people trolling or antagonizing other users.
Research reported posts, and determine an appropriate response.
Ban anyone who continually is a problem.

Why look at that! Right on the rules page are three reasons for exactly what I did.

>and deleted all related posts on a supposedly content-free board was a discussion of how their works is better suited for another site, more akin to someone saying that discussion of Mass Effect should be in /v/ rather than /tg/.

You are a fucking liar.

>you should move your little circlejerking guro porn thread to another site
>Seriously, you and the others should leave. You and Overlord and God-Emperor and whatnot. You have no place here and most of the site hates you.

This sure doesn't look like civil non-trolling discussion here.

>I don't know why you're accusing everyone of using proxies when they are not.

You aren't =/= nobody is. Though if it isn't somebody using a proxy it's probably just you hopping on with your iphone to agree with yourself. Which you have done before.

HERE IS AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT, EVEN FOR THE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T SCUM:

See the ## MOD ## tag here? This is the internet equivalent of a daddy voice. Usually, if I am calling you a fag, I am just another fag on the internet calling you a fag. If I make a note of being a mod and call you a fag, I am telling you that you are being a fag from the perspective of a person whose task is to punish you for being a fag.

>What it reveals could potentially be hilarious.

Basically what it reveals is that Beakie and Numbers claim to speak for the entire site when they try to troll the /tg/ drawfags off the board. Nevermind that there are people whose oldest posts are in those threads and have moved on to post in every board on the site except for TEMP.
>>
No. 15023 ID: 788dee

>>15022
>>Basically what it reveals is that Beakie and Numbers claim to speak for the entire site when they try to troll the /tg/ drawfags off the board. Nevermind that there are people whose oldest posts are in those threads and have moved on to post in every board on the site except for TEMP.
Let's see it then. I'm curious.
>>
No. 15024 ID: bf1e7e

>>15023

See what? Me tracking down all of the people who came to the site (or at least started posting in) the /tg/ drawfag threads and then have other posts in General, /tg/, and /quest/? Why should I bother? There are also plenty of other people from the site proper who participate in those threads anyway, and you can see that just by scrolling by because some of them namefag.

The fact is, even if they ONLY posted in those threads, they would still be more valuable community members than, say, SDF. SDF runs his quests, doesn't read other quests (by his own word), and trolls the IRC channels. These guys draw in their drawthreads, don't read quests (except when they do, IE: Technomancer read Doll), and don't troll the IRC channels.
>>
No. 15025 ID: 788dee

>>15024
>See what?
IDs in /draw/.
>>
No. 15026 ID: 6b2b68

>>15022

I didn't "resort" to "you mad," I had the entire post before it and put that in to mimic how you in particular argue all the time everywhere else. If anything it was a joke, if one that apparently didn't work even when saying "I'm pretty sure the first person to say 'you mad' wins every argument forever" in the call last night.

You can disagree with me on the rest though.
>>
No. 15027 ID: bf1e7e

>>15026

>I had the entire post before it and put that in to mimic how you in particular argue all the time everywhere else.

Feel free to link a post where I turn to 'you mad.' Or when I've posted the macro. Or when I've antagonized a mod with their mod hat on and I was already insisting on being a problem.

>if one that apparently didn't work even when saying "I'm pretty sure the first person to say 'you mad' wins every argument forever" in the call last night.

After Demanding that I unban you and calling me a fag for not doing it? Nah, that was just passive-agressive whining.

For the record, the decision was that two-weeks was too long of a duration for what you did here and that one day for being a faghat and an extended ban from /draw/ was enough, which I can agree with because two weeks was way too long to begin with, it was just half the duration of the proposed /draw/ ban and I put it in on a whim. I probably would have changed the duration that night myself if not for your skype shenanigans =V
>>
No. 15028 ID: bf1e7e

Shit forgot to reply to the post I intended to.

>>15025

The crazy thing is that I totally remember them being there. I don't know if I'm just remembering wrong or if they got removed at some point.
>>
No. 15029 ID: 788dee

>>15028
Well put them (back) in.
>>
No. 15030 ID: bf1e7e

>>15029

I can't do that, hal.
>>
No. 15031 ID: 788dee

>>15030
Then find the guy who can.
>>
No. 15032 ID: 6b2b68

>>15027
You really can't say that you never say "you mad" or an equivalent thing even when and especially when they aren't even arguing with you.

>After Demanding that I unban you and calling me a fag for not doing it?
You were a fag for banning me in the first place and then yes, a fag for not unbanning me then, or at the very least for setting the duration so long to begin with.

But hey, I think we're done here. I'm fine with the way things currently are.
>>
No. 15033 ID: 2563d4

>>15024
>[SDF] trolls the IRC channels.
SDF's brand of aggressive humour is pretty much the same as LawyerDog's. Is he trolling too?
>>
No. 15034 ID: 6d4ea4

>>15033
PANCAKES
>>
No. 15035 ID: 8c0848

NINE
>>
No. 15036 ID: abcbff

NO
>>
No. 15037 ID: 544dd4

>>15033
Yes, yes he is.
>>
No. 15039 ID: f7ae22

>>15033
People say that I do nothing but troll and have never been nice in my life, and it's why I am no longer in #tozol, so yes.
>>
No. 15040 ID: 4531bc

THEY SEE ME DRAWAN
SOME SENATORS
I KNOW THAT THEY ARE THINKIN I AM A BAD TROLL

I WANNA TROLL WITH
THE GANGSTAS
BUT THEY THINK I AM A BAD TROLL

TROLLS HATAN
THEY THINK I AM A BAD TROLL

It is a sad day when differences of opinion regarding a quandary as petty as the one in question elicit a form of vehement, non-humorous response. It is my request that the facetious nature of this debate be exposited explicitly. This is in the interest of those who fail to observe such tendencies and instead take the violent verbal bouts at their face value.
Many thanks.
>>
No. 15041 ID: 15b51b

>>15039
Man, that ain't what I said.
>>
No. 15044 ID: 8e18cd

I think, Seal, you're taking this argument way too personally. Especially using off-site stuff as basis for extending the duration of a ban.

If you are to punish for something on-site, don't use stuff from other sources as your leverage.

Besides, you complaining about someone posting "You mad" in a discussion is hypocritical, given that's your favourite counter-argument. If you can't be civil or present your argument in a normal fashion, often resorting to name calling and pulling out things that aren't site-related, maybe you're not quite qualified for "internet daddy voice".
>>
No. 15045 ID: 1854db

>>15027
>mod hat

Why is this even a thing?
>>
No. 15048 ID: 27cb25

Well, got an hour to kill and nothing useful here to spend it on, so I might as well throw my two pennies in the overflowing well that is the perpetual shitstorm that is this thread.

Just goes to show that it doesn't matter if it's anonymous or not, we will always need or end up forming a thread to bitch. But I digress.

Text quests. Generally speaking I used to give every quest a chance before I stopped really following any quests at all due to a clusterfuck of a schedule these days with the spectre of graduation looming. Sometimes this was worth it. A lot of the time, less so. If I was to use the ur-example here, Golem Quest, well, it really doesn't look good ORbad to me. There are certainly worse quests that I have followed mostly out of the sunk cost fallacy or so-bad-it's-good factors. No, the main issue is it's just not the kind of thing I think I'd be that interested in. "Awesome people doing more and more awesome things" begins to grate on me pretty quickly. Past a certain point you might as well just start going "AH BUT YOU SEE I AM POWER LEVEL TEN BILLION" and it all blurs into meaninglessness and "awesome stuff" becomes mundane and commonplace, which means things that are meant to be awesome really aren't.

Of course I've only read snippets of the quest and quest discussion to arrive at that conclusion, so I may be wrong. I sure as fuck do not have the time to sit down and read War and Peace, let alone Golem Quest, so if my opinion is misinformed please don't hesitate to scream at me for ruining everything forever.

Dragging up old debates that should have stayed dead aside, Seal, you're really kind of a hypocrite at times. You do have a tendency to stir things up and then start banning people over them or just banning people for doing something you don't like while criticising people who would probably do the same if they were in your position. Now, this is all fine and well, because this is a private site, but I don't remember you being the head of the site last time I checked. I mean, if you are, fair enough, but surely the whole reason there are multiple mods is to split the workload and also ensure one person in the mod team doesn't dominate everything? I can't really argue against what you're doing because, again, private site and if the end user doesn't like it they can fuck off, but I am kind of feeling like it's getting to a point where I should probably do just that, because moderation based on the rules feels arbitrary and motivated more by personal vendettas than actual breaches of rules.

And yeah, I was kind of trying to prove a point in /draw/ by making a post with a fake ban message, but the point I was trying to make there is that anyone can fake a ban message with a bold tag and a color tag. Not the most appropriate way to alert the staff of the site, I know, but that's just the kind of asshole I am.

Okay, wall of text over. How the fuck Red Sky was cited as an example of a good text quest when it was just be throwing words at the site in the hopes they'd stick, I have no fucking idea, but there we go!

Oh, and I'm signing my name here because I'm on a different network and I don't want to be accused of proxying. In the name field and the message body. Just to be absolutely clear, here. I'll probably still get banned for proxying but oh well! If I get banned that pretty much resolves the whole fuck-off-the-site-or-not quandary, doesn't it.

- Cirr
>>
No. 15050 ID: 2563d4

>IDs in /draw/
Oh hey, they're enabled. Cheers.

>>15041
No, it's what Slinkoboy said.
>>
No. 15051 ID: f7ae22

>>15041
It was because of #tozol regulars in general saying things like that and the topic of conversation sometimes being about how I was a troll and didn't belong in #tozol, not specifically you (although you have said that yourself too.) Being in a channel where most of the regulars/mods didn't want me there seemed silly!
>>
No. 15052 ID: 2563d4

Oh hey I know what's fun:
http://pastey.net/149680-2omz
Having the actual log here so that a) all the drama is focused in this stupid drama thread b) it's at least drama based on things people actually said rather than what they remember each-other saying.

All I've cut is join/leave spam from people not in the conversation, and the conversation stopped (as in the channel went dead for half an hour and resumed with different people on a different topic) where the paste does.
>>
No. 15053 ID: 383006

>i like this place and bitequest too

:B

I draw those things mostly because I am a self-hating alcoholic.

I don't even know why everyone calls LawyerDog a troll. 9/10 times he talking about video games or expressing his opinion about whatever the topic of the channel is. He's not even abrasive and he doesn't throw around insults like SDF. It's like he got a reputation from somewhere that's not even actually true, and people just keep repeating it because it's a known 'fact.'
>>
No. 15054 ID: 2563d4

>>15053
>I draw those things mostly because I am a self-hating alcoholic.
I'll drink to that!
>>
No. 15055 ID: 258864

>LawyerDog is autistic
Well this explains everything
>>
No. 15057 ID: bf1e7e

>I think, Seal, you're taking this argument way too personally. Especially using off-site stuff as basis for extending the duration of a ban.

If you appeal your ban with 'you're a fag for banning me' you shouldn't really expect any sort of clemency.

>Besides, you complaining about someone posting "You mad" in a discussion is hypocritical, given that's your favourite counter-argument.

Again: Prove it. You and beakie keep saying things like this, but it simply isn't true.

>Seal, you're really kind of a hypocrite at times. You do have a tendency to stir things up and then start banning people over them or just banning people for doing something you don't like while criticising people who would probably do the same if they were in your position.

Again, when have I done this? People keep mentioning these OH SO COMMON OCCURENCES where I do things that I have no recollection of. Perhaps these instances are being manufactured whole-cloth?

>because moderation based on the rules feels arbitrary and motivated more by personal vendettas than actual breaches of rules.

Because punishment for an extended, planned campaign of trolling and harassment of users followed up by a /b/-style justification when called on it is SO unwarranted.

The only reason that this is even close to 'bad' moderation is that the people involved were given a second chance and a warning instead of just immediately banned outright.
>>
No. 15058 ID: 2563d4

>>15055
Half this fucking site is autistic. Or have you not seen /questdis/?
>>
No. 15059 ID: 15b51b

>>15051
I never called you a troll or said you didn't belong in my murry purry official secret fanclub chat room and neither did anyone else while I was around.

The only time I know that you were accused of trolling was a time you admitted that you were trolling, but then we all made up and then Slinkoboy wrote a letter to Princess Celestia about the valuable lesson we had learned about the value of friendship. (Before also deciding to leave)

I mean, I'm not gonna throw down over someone leaving a channel. I'm still kind of embarassed that it exists. But whatever I said, I didn't mean it like that. :(
>>
No. 15062 ID: bf1e7e

>>15045

Once again:

>Usually, if I am calling you a fag, I am just another fag on the internet calling you a fag. If I make a note of being a mod and call you a fag, I am telling you that you are being a fag from the perspective of a person whose task is to punish you for being a fag.
>>
No. 15064 ID: 10c20a

>>15044

As someone who has argued with Seal more than ANYONE, I believe I can confidently state that the claims of his flagrant use of "u mad" to win arguments is entirely false. He never even uses the phrase in an argument when he is actually arguing. If the words "u mad" ever leave his fingertips or mouth, it's because he isn't arguing, he's either interjecting into someone else's argument, or he isn't taking the topic that the person he's talking to as an actual thing at all. So I really don't know what you're talking about.
>>
No. 15067 ID: d5ec03

>>15064
>srs business
>big dumb argument thread

I see Seal cannot take a joke in the midst of an argument.

Him saying he never says "u mad" is kind of like if Numbers said he didn't like Latex though. Obviously he really was mad and didn't like being on the receiving end of it for once. Also, perhaps people would take him a little more seriously if he wasn't trolling or otherwise trying to make people mad so very frequently.

Saying "it's okay to say 'u mad' when I say it but whenever anyone else says it they are obviously 100% serious" is kind of retarded.
>>
No. 15068 ID: f7ae22

>>15059
[00:31]Deadbeard: LD trolls everyone though
[00:31]TestPattern: LD was trolling Slinko and accusing him of including rape and so on.
[00:31]TestPattern: If LD is going to consistently troll everyone then he can do it in a different channel.
[00:33]TestPattern: Like, if he says a nice thing, I can never be sure he means it.
[01:14]Blaank: LD is never nice.
[01:37]Fredrick: why the fuck do they keep putting nicholas cage in movies
I never "admitted that [I] was trolling", I apologized to Slinkoboy for being rude and making him feel bad.
>>
No. 15069 ID: bf1e7e

>>15067

>Saying "it's okay to say 'u mad' when I say it but whenever anyone else says it they are obviously 100% serious" is kind of retarded.

Actually I am basically always serious when I tell someone that they're mad, which is almost exclusively when I tell Numbers that he's getting super mad about something that isn't worth getting mad about when he's arguing with someone else.

And, again, resorting to /b/ shit when you're already only still around by the moderator's good graces is kind of a retarded thing to do =V It would usually be fine to do. But once it reaches the point where the mods are saying 'you are being a problem, stop it,' trolling them is just asking for a ban.
>>
No. 15070 ID: 557e92

Mods are like children: they should be seen and not heard.
>>
No. 15071 ID: e3f578

>>15070
And they're authority figures should beat the heavily. Admins, if a mod doesn't have a black eye and bruises where we don't see them, then do so. Because mods are obviously children, and we can't have them being all willy nilly.

>>15068
LD brought up an interesting point.
Why in sweet mercy IS Nicholas Cage still in movies?
>>
No. 15072 ID: bf1e7e

>>15071

because Nicolas Cage is awesome.

Duh.
>>
No. 15073 ID: 2563d4

>>15068
>The only time I know that you were accused of trolling was a time you admitted that you were trolling, but then we all made up and then Slinkoboy wrote a letter to Princess Celestia about the valuable lesson we had learned about the value of friendship. (Before also deciding to leave)
The chronology's a bit off but I assume he's talking about the big three-way dickslapping between you, Slinko, and LonelyWorld which I think most of those quotes refer to. (Blaank is just Blaank.)

The logs regarding that one span something like three days, though. (Most of it was 18th April.)

>>15069
>But once it reaches the point where the mods are saying 'you are being a problem, stop it,' trolling them is just asking for a ban.
It's probably the point where that moderator should step back and let the others make a call on it.

Stating the obvious: for all I know Seal did exactly that.
>>
No. 15074 ID: e41ad5

>>15070
Well.

There's an argument for both ways, really.

In one sense, Mods are like policemen. Most of the crimes police prevent aren't because they arrest people, it's because they are clearly present. People don't (usually) commit crimes in the presence of an officer, because, well, jail sucks and no one wants to go there. Eventually, in a community with a tight hold on law, this evolves (Hopefully) into a feeling that the cops will simply know you did something, whether they are there or not - thus halting more crime with less effort.

Now, the opposition to this sort of thing is if the cop in question isn't very good at his job. Say, he's inconsistent. Now, an incosistent cop is a pretty bad thing. The reason people keep pulling those roulette wheels works on the same principle - if someone thinks that they might get away with it, they might just do it. In this case, the visible cop is a bad thing, worse than the one that is not present but consistent.

Now, I'm not saying Seal's a bad cop. I'm saying we're still a rather young community, where the cops are still visible, and where the need to have the big mean red text show up is still evident.

That's why the 'Mod hat' is necessary. That's why the 'Daddy voice' is necessary. It's group psychology, incredibly simple. Until the community respects the rules as a whole and doesn't need examples made of the trespassers, that shit is still gonna happen.
>>
No. 15076 ID: 0d09e9

>If you appeal your ban with 'you're a fag for banning me' you shouldn't really expect any sort of clemency.

You were a fag for doing that because of a post in this thread and you know it, you even admit yourself that you set the ban for far too long presumably after the other mods called you out on it. You made a mistake, it's okay, we all do.

>Actually I am basically always serious when I tell someone that they're mad, which is almost exclusively when I tell Numbers that he's getting super mad about something that isn't worth getting mad about when he's arguing with someone else.

so you now admit that you call people mad frequently? You call more people mad or say they are a big gay baby frequently and if you do not want that behavior directed back at you you shouldn't do it in the first place, again, your own damn fault.

>But once it reaches the point where the mods are saying 'you are being a problem, stop it,' trolling them is just asking for a ban.
That never happened and the post in this thread that triggered the ban is completely unrelated to any fictional warning given.
>>
No. 15077 ID: 2563d4

>>15073
>the log is huge
Well guess what I had 40 minutes to burn while something was in the oven and my art box was memchecking so ITL ERRYONE MAD:
http://pastey.net/149697-1liq
Also everyone assumes LawyerDog is at fault what a tweest.
>>
No. 15078 ID: 0d09e9

>>15076
Oh, and before anyone claims the sticky is a warning, no, it only clarified that guro was allowed. That's all. It says nothing about being a hugbox and having no negative comments whatsoever.
>>
No. 15079 ID: 0d09e9

How about this seal, I will apologize for harassing people in /draw/ if you apologize for banning me for having a big dumb argument in the big dumb argument thread.
>>
No. 15080 ID: bf1e7e

>>15076

>you even admit yourself that you set the ban for far too long presumably after the other mods called you out on it.

I was planning to shift the ban to draw-only at dinner that night before I came home, actually.

>so you now admit that you call people mad frequently?

All the time, but never in an argument. Typically when they are raging and/or ranting about something silly.

>That never happened

The mod hat was on.

>>15078

http://quest.lv/kusaba/news.php?p=rules

>Deal with arguments and derailing of threads.
>Deal with people trolling or antagonizing other users
>Ban anyone who continually is a problem.

Right there on the rules page. This has not been edited, those have been the rules for quite some time. Ignorance of these rules is entirely on you, not on me for not constantly reminding you of them all of the time forever.

>>15079

>I will apologize for breaking the rules if you will apologize for doing something you didn't do.

I banned you for TROLLING, not for having a big dumb argument. Even bitequest and slowpoke told you straight up, 'yeah, that would have been fine without the you so mad' when you were whining about it in the skype call.

So I will not apologize for banning you for trolling, and I don't really expect you to apologize for breaking the rules. I'll just tell you to take that shit back to 4chan's /tg/ where it 'belongs.'
>>
No. 15083 ID: 1854db

>>15080
>mod hat was on

Okay hang on, if a mod posts with the red mod title, it's an unstated warning?

I would prefer it if the warning was actually stated. Thus, my asking why 'mod hat' is even a term that you are using. It's kinda bullshit, imo.

>>15064
>interjecting into someone's argument
When you do this, you are part of the argument, and thus are arguing. I believe this is why people see Seal as using 'u mad' during arguments.
>>
No. 15084 ID: 15b51b

>>15068
I still think you were way out of line with all the rape talk, but I didn't mean it quite like that. I'm sorry.
>>
No. 15085 ID: bf1e7e

>>15083

>Okay hang on, if a mod posts with the red mod title, it's an unstated warning?

You have to manually turn on the mod tag for any post that you make with it. If someone is using it, they are choosing to speak AS A MOD, and not just as a normal user (as we are wont to do).

>When you do this, you are part of the argument, and thus are arguing.

That is absolutely not the case. Telling someone that they are being incoherent due to their anger when they are raging at/arguing with someone else is not actually taking part in the argument.

>I believe this is why people see Seal as using 'u mad' during arguments.

Actually, Beakie was just trying to use that as an excuse for doing it now; and Numbers is taking his side because he's still upset about being demodded and/or because he was the other guy repeatedly telling the drawfags to leave the site. Neither of them actually recalls me ever doing that in an argument, they're just making excuses.

Or their memories are faulty, I guess that is also possible.
>>
No. 15086 ID: 8e18cd

>>15085

I don't believe you've dragged something that happened nearly a year ago into this, but okay, if that's your argument...

And I've told them to get out, sure, few times. Each time when people were requesting disturbing guro shit. Hell I don't really like Bite's guro shit and he knows it.

And yes you use "U MAD" constantly when me and someone else is actually discussing something, you butt in with "THE THING IS THAT YOU MAD" before a person can explain my argument (that you often don't agree with). If you don't have anything to add to a discussion besides that, you should not butt into discussions like that. I'm pretty sure people would feel better without it. If you want to present an coherent argument in a discussion, do it.
>>
No. 15087 ID: 788dee

I'm starting to think this site needs content restrictions.

And a vote.

There seems to be a difference of opinion as to what "tolerance" means.
As well as the rules. They can either be held to the letter, or to the spirit, but not both, alternating between them whenever it suits the mods/posters.
>>
No. 15089 ID: f5e4b4

>>15087

Are you're only saying that because the mods decisions don't appeal to your tastes/convictions.

>>15086

If you're having that discussion in a public channel, whoever wants can "butt in" the discussion and say whatever they want. If you don't want people to "butt in" your super serious discussions you should take them to a private place. And this still doesn't present any precedence of a mod using a "U MAD" during a serious argument.
>>
No. 15090 ID: 2563d4

>Seal does/does not use U MAD all the time

$ egrep -i '(ClockworkSeal|Love.?Drifter).*(u|you)\s+mad\b' rubyquest-*
Precisely fucking nothing

And just in case you think I've fucked up the regexp, let me just remove that "mad ends a word" test:

$ egrep -i '(ClockworkSeal|Love.?Drifter).*(u|you)\s+mad' rubyquest-* | head -n 2
rubyquest-2010-11-15.txt:04:21 < ClockworkSeal> you made a deal with lucid to keep her alive
rubyquest-2011-02-23.txt:00:01 < Love_Drifter> Cirr you made Bungee Grapple Adventures for me you obviously aren't a h8r

There's over half a year of logs of one of the channels Seal is active in looking for his two main nicks. It's far from a perfect search, but it's finding nothing. If he's "U MAD"-ing all the time I would expect more than nothing.
>>
No. 15091 ID: e41ad5

>>15083
Let's say an officer of the law starts talking to you about you causing a whole lot of ruckus, and he doesn't like people disturbing the peace.

Are you going to then push over a cart of apples while you're talking to him?
>>
No. 15092 ID: bf1e7e

>>15086

>Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:14:49

SURE IS A YEAR THERE.

I guess I must have been confused by your endless rants about how he should leave the site and how gross the stuff he draw is in skype, along with your history of telling him to leave up to a month ago and then changing tack to just insinuating that he'd be happier on gurochan than here (after he mentioned that he was happy here).
>>
No. 15093 ID: 788dee

>>15089
You're only saying that because you don't like it when people disagree with your favored opinion.

See, two can play this game.

But no. I said it because it would put a decisive end to the debate. It wouldn't be just someone saying so, it would be incontestable. I see lots of claims directly or indirectly referring to the opinions of others. "Well people don't seem to complain about it", "people have said they don't like it", etc.
>>
No. 15094 ID: 8e18cd

>>15092

I was referring to demodding drama. But whatever...
>>
No. 15095 ID: 0d09e9

>So I will not apologize for banning you for trolling, and I don't really expect you to apologize for breaking the rules.
Alright then.

I'm sorry for harassing other users of this site that are perfectly valid users of the site under the site's rules and acknowledge that telling them to leave is trolling. I need to learn that no matter how much I disagree with people's choices, no matter how wrong they are on the Internet, sometimes I need to leave them alone and not let myself get so mad over what other people do. That's why I have my own stuff that I can do differently, after all, and I need to work on that instead of trying to change anyone else, or worse, try to remove them from the site entirely.

I'm also sorry that the "u mad" and macro were taken the wrong way, which is really my own fault as I am the one who did not understand where that is and is not appropriate.

...Though I would appreciate it if you stopped saying "u mad," "big gay baby," or "you's a busta" to everyone all the time forever in the skype call as that was what led to my confusion and is also kind of annoying.

Still, my bad.
>>
No. 15096 ID: bf1e7e

>>15095

Dude I told you you don't need to apologize. It's the past, you've been punished accordingly, everyone can (in theory, but probably not in practice because INTERNET) move on! That was totally unnecessary!

Also I will stop calling people bustas when they stop all the bustin'. But fine I won't call you a big gay baby in skype any more =V
>>
No. 15097 ID: 383006

>>15077
Okay, I know this is probably way irrelevant, but yeah, my Roz picture was not supposed to be rape in any way. The picture was what would happen if Roz had sex with Venji, because they had talked about him being really toxic and he kept hitting on her (this was before he turned into a ghost). I was implying that if she actually let him sleep with her, his dick would poison her all to shit. That was supposed to be the joke.

I always thought that Slinko was mad because it looked like she was dieing and I sort of implied that I thought that she would die, I didn't know you thought it was rape. It was not intended to be rape.

LEGAL NOTE: Whether or not you pass out half way through depends on jurisdiction. In some states, a woman can revoke consent at any time. In some states, she can only revoke consent before penetration. Whether or not her lapse into unconsciousness would constitute a lack of consent would probably depend on the facts. In some states, silence could be construed as a revocation of consent.
>>
No. 15100 ID: 2563d4
File 130464477909.png - (30.22KB , 480x480 , yeah-i-know-the-one-on-the-right-is-green.png )
15100

>>15097
Dear Princess Celestia,

Today I learned a valuable lesson about friendship. Sometimes, people form rifts in their relationships due to miscommunication and assumption. If you can't always assume the best of others, it can still help to talk things out with them rather than letting the issue sit and fester.

Your Faithful Student,
Overcast Gloom
>>
No. 15101 ID: a41aaf

>>15097
>In some states, she can only revoke consent before penetration.
Wait, really? That seems pretty damn open to abuse.
>>
No. 15102 ID: 383006

>>15101
It's really interesting and sort of a hard area to regulate. You want to make sure that the rules are fair in both directions. On the one hand, you don't want to require some kind of physical resistance from the woman - you want to protect people who are coerced into sex. On the other hand, you don't want to give unscrupulous women a weapon they can use to ruin people they don't like. It's very tricky. You don't want to protect rapists, but you don't want to give women the ability to put a guy in jail (and on the sex offender's registry for the rest of his life) because she has 'buyer's remorse.'
>>
No. 15103 ID: f5e4b4

I say kill them all and let god sort them out.
>>
No. 15106 ID: 60ca9f

>>15103

Oh, like in that movie, Antz, where the new babies were either designated 'worker' or 'soldier!'
>>
No. 15108 ID: a41aaf

>>15106
HAPLO-DIPLOIDS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY.
>>
No. 15112 ID: 4d21cb

I humbly request the story about how SDF hurt the butt of some whiny idiot and got banned from #rubyquest for it.
>>>/questdis/346044
And Indigo should be banned for "stirring up drama" with his pathetic revenge-art.
>>
No. 15113 ID: bf1e7e

>>15112

He trolled enough that the channel's moderators decided to kick him out for it.

>And Indigo should be banned for "stirring up drama" with his pathetic revenge-art.

Nah, deletion is sufficient.
>>
No. 15115 ID: 788dee

>>15112
http://tinypaste.com/705e40

My excuse is that I was sober and fully aware of my actions.
>>
No. 15116 ID: 8e18cd

>>15113

While we at it, can the stupid discussion be cleared from there as well?
>>
No. 15117 ID: e3f578

>>15115
I read that and all I can think is that starburst has a major fanboner for Larro. He would not fucking drop it.
Also, SDF lacks timing in his trolling.
>>
No. 15118 ID: 2563d4

>>15117
I see no trolling from SDF in that log.

I do see people being openly hostile and making the chat a less welcoming place, but those people are mostly Seven.
>>
No. 15120 ID: e3f578

>>15118
Well he did seem to post nonsensically.
I guess I need to update my definitions and stop listening to people who say someone's trolling. A critical flaw in my book I keep overseeing.
>>
No. 15121 ID: f5fe2f

>>15120
Posting nonsensically != trolling.
>>
No. 15122 ID: e3f578

>>15121
Yeah that's the flaw.
Mixed joking/horsing around with trolling. Like that image. Sometimes I saw a form of antagonistic intent but that was a misreading. My bad.
Doesn't make starburst's fanboner for Larro go away though.
>>
No. 15123 ID: 788dee

The worst thing is nobody answered my question: Maine coon or Norwegian forest cat?
>>
No. 15124 ID: 2563d4

>>15120
This is what is known as a joke. It is a pretty common jape on the Internets, that doing anything one-handed means you are using the other one to pleasure yourself:
>00:08'42 <Indigo> only arcade machines, i can't use a controller one handed
>00:08'55 <Dikdiklauncher> Then stop wanking while playing.

This is Seven being a hostile faggot because he cannot into jokes because he has half a potato for a brain:
>00:09'06 <Seven_remote> SDF: There is this place.
>00:09'11 <Seven_remote> It is called hell
>00:09'26 <Seven_remote> Spend some time there, kthnx

Here is Indigo being sensitive to people saying things---note that SDF's communism shtick is directed at Colour for liking gamepads and also Phrix and Squeegy for joining in:
>00:23'50 <Dikdiklauncher> NOW THEY ARE SHIT ZOMBIE GOASTS
>00:24'03 <Indigo> i gotta go, i can't liten to sdf anymore
If you think Indigo has a point here I sure hope you haven't been arguing for a click-ignore-and-move-on policy for /draw/ upthread!

Here's Seven being friendly again:
>00:24'15 <Seven_remote> We can ban him!
I must have missed the part where Seven got ops.

This is a simple statement of fact:
>00:24'25 <Bluhphone> We love you indigo
>00:24'28 <Dikdiklauncher> No we don't.

This is yet more classic nonsensical threeP IRC moderation with no warning:
>00:26'33 <starburst98> you need two hands to keyboard AND mouse
>00:26'54 <Dikdiklauncher> YOU DON'T HAVE TO GLUE A HAND PER DEVICE
>00:27'13 * threeP sets mode: +b *!*@Rizon-80465191.bb.dnainternet.fi
>00:27'33 * [SDF was] kicked by threeP (this isn't /b/. quit being a dikdikhole)

(Just recently:)
>21:14 <~TG_Weaver> There was an argument, SDF got banned for being abusive even after being warned
There is no warning in the ~40 minutes leading up to that ban.
>>
No. 15125 ID: f5fe2f

The moral of this story is threeP should not have OPS.
>>
No. 15127 ID: e3f578

>>15124
Okay yeah dude I admitted it was a joke I oversaw as trolling because some people just don't like SDF too much and say he's trolling 100% of the time as a fact.
Well jokes can get pretty damn annoying though. Indigo drawing revengeart yeah okay, that's really lame, but I can understand the notion of wanting to leave.
You can only tell a joke so much before it gets annoying as shit.
>>
No. 15128 ID: f7ae22

ThreeP is the shittiest OP ever, she's banned multiple people for no reason and she posts real gore links despite Weaver saying they shouldn't be posted in #rubyquest.
>>
No. 15129 ID: 2563d4

>>15127
Sorry, casual English. The "you" in that post is supposed to be the general case, not you in particular.
>>
No. 15130 ID: 6930ef

>>15123
Maine coon, bro. The guy in the apartment next to me has one, they're pretty much the best cats ever.
>>
No. 15132 ID: 788dee

>>15130
Then the next question is: how available are they outside the USA of USA?

Also how well do they get along with dogs?
>>
No. 15135 ID: 6930ef
File 130471940155.png - (465.67KB , 640x480 , Cat-MaineCoon-Cookie.png )
15135

>>15132
I don't know about their availability outside the States (I'd assume they're not too difficult to find, since they're 'one of the most popular cat breeds in the world'), but on the whole, Maine coons are one of the chillest cat breeds, so they should get along well with other pets and so on.

They're also adorable.
>>
No. 15137 ID: f5fe2f

>>15128
>and she posts real gore links despite Weaver saying they shouldn't be posted in #rubyquest.
That's not really related to her channel moderation.
>>
No. 15138 ID: f7ae22

>>15137
She's breaking rules she should be enforcing.
>>
No. 15144 ID: a41aaf

>>15124
Maybe the assumption was that everyone already knew Indigo was missing an arm, so assumed the one-handed jokes were trolling? Then again, I'd also completely forgot that IRC had /ignore, so huh.
lolrandumb is pretty annoying though.
>>
No. 15145 ID: f5fe2f

>>15144
I had no idea Indigo was missing an arm. That doesn't make one-handed jokes trolling, though, it just makes them not very nice.
>>
No. 15154 ID: fd4aa7

>>15144
>lolrandumb is pretty annoying though.
Yeah, I don't care for any of Indigo's "contributions" either. :V

>>15145
Given >>13306 , I would not particularly assume that if he claims to be missing an arm that he is actually missing an arm.
>>
No. 15155 ID: f5fe2f

>>15154
I don't overmuch care how closely the identity he chooses to assume aligns with his actual physical situation.
>>
No. 15157 ID: 1854db

I'm kinda sick of the LACK of active ops in #rubyquest. ThreeP isn't even paying attention most of the time, it seems, and the only other op is Weaver. Of course I am also aggravated by the fact that she links inappropriate stuff.

Weaver needs to give ops to people other than his closest friends for fuck's sake. Maybe give them to people who are active in chat, have been shown to care about the community, and aren't abrasive or hotheaded? (that last one excludes me in case anyone thought I was implying I wanted ops)
>>
No. 15159 ID: f5fe2f

>>15157
I don't know that it really requires moderation beyond what it currently receives.

Also even though it's used as a community general discussion, I feel we should remember that it's really just Weaver's personal channel.
>>
No. 15161 ID: 2563d4

>>15145
>I had no idea Indigo was missing an arm. That doesn't make one-handed jokes trolling, though, it just makes them not very nice.
>>15155
>I don't overmuch care how closely the identity he chooses to assume aligns with his actual physical situation.

Guys, I have this totally legitimate medical condition where people disagreeing me makes my legs fall off. Please don't argue against me or you'll get banned for being not very nice to a disabled person. :(
>>
No. 15162 ID: 788dee

All I know about Badumb is that at first at least a few people shared my dislike for him, then his quests had some people's support AND he was a girl, and THEN he's missing an arm and I get banned from an IRC channel because me commenting on Yanks and Limeys separating England from Europe is apparently too much for him to handle.
>>
No. 15165 ID: 6930ef

>>15162
Yeah, to be honest, I don't really see how the whole Yanks/Limeys thing had anything to do with indigo at all.
>>
No. 15166 ID: 5d54a5

>>15157
Well I also have Ops, I just never sign in with it. So if you need moderation you can always ding me. I should probably make this a little more obvious by signing in occasionally but I am lazy.
>>
No. 15170 ID: 868a23

>>15166
>but I am lazy
and there's the problem
>>
No. 15171 ID: f5fe2f

>>15166
You can rig your client to sign in automatically, you know.
>>
No. 15196 ID: b6c6fc

listening to SDF's bullshit made everyone else (and I mean EVERYONE) on IRC seem like reasonable civilized individuals by comparison

if IRC didn't have an ignore feature I probably would have had to leave TGchan all together
>>
No. 15200 ID: f5fe2f

>>15196
>listening to SDF's bullshit made everyone else (and I mean EVERYONE) on IRC seem like reasonable civilized individuals by comparison
That sounds like a good reason to keep him around, to me.

Also it sounds like your sense of humor is a wee bit on the nonexistant side.
>>
No. 15201 ID: 28e94e

>>15200
Stalin made just about every other dictator in the world look tame in comparison.
That sounds like a good reason to keep him around, to me.

Also SDF is a fucking troll. We only keep him around because he's also one of our best quest authors when he feels like updating.
>>
No. 15202 ID: f5fe2f

>>15201
>SDF is a fucking troll.
No he's not. He has a sense of humor that you personally are unamused by.
These things are not the same thing.
>>
No. 15203 ID: e3f578

Annoying though
Sense of humor or no, can be really annoying.
>>
No. 15204 ID: b6c6fc

>>15200
the problem with SDF is that he doesn't know when to shut up
provide a serrious comment.
or Buhdda forbid, Apologize.

even the funniest people will get on your nerves eventually. and personally outside of his Quest I have never found SDF to be funny

>>15202
SDF is a troll because he knows his brand of humor pisses people off but continues to do it constantly and when call out on it, only increases the fervor of his "humor"
>>
No. 15205 ID: f5fe2f

>>15204
>the problem with SDF is that he doesn't know when to shut up, provide a serious comment, or Buhdda forbid, Apologize.
I don't think any of those are really things he needs to be doing, though.

>SDF is a troll because he knows his brand of humor pisses people off but continues to do it constantly and when call out on it, only increases the fervor of his "humor"
phrased slightly differently "SDF is a troll because he refuses to stop having fun when a stick in the mud whines about it".

A guy joking on the internet is a stupid thing to get mad about.
>>
No. 15208 ID: b6c6fc

>>15205
whelp I guess he's the funniest guy ever
and I'm just imagining things

I Think I'm going to go back to pretending he doesn't exist
>>
No. 15210 ID: 1854db

>>15205
If you keep doing something when someone complains, and in fact do it MORE when someone complains, it is no longer attempting to be funny. In that case... well, you're doing it to get a rise out of them, which is trolling.

Not everyone who complains about what someone else is doing is a stick in the mud, and not every joke is harmless.
>>
No. 15211 ID: f7ae22

>>15210
I don't like it when 1854db posts, he should stop posting. If he doesn't that means he is trolling.
>>
No. 15213 ID: b6c6fc

>>15211
posting it self is not the issue
it the contents of the posts

for example telling SDF to tone it down with the rape jokes is a legitimate request
telling SDF not to say anything ever again on the channel is not
>>
No. 15215 ID: f5fe2f

>>15213
I don't like people bitching about others. Does that mean that your continued bitching is in fact trolling?

Also,
>for example telling SDF to tone it down with the rape jokes is a legitimate request
>telling SDF not to say anything ever again on the channel is not
You do realize he was banned, right? And banning prevents him from saying things on the channel, and is at least by default a permanent thing?
>>
No. 15216 ID: b6c6fc

>>15215
from what I've been told bans are not permanent

regardless his ban is a result of his defiant attitude
perhaps had he been a more reasonable individual that may not have happened
>>
No. 15218 ID: 1854db

>>15211
>>15215
Nice strawman argument there guys. Good job at pointing out there are exceptions to what I said though!
>>
No. 15219 ID: f7ae22

>>15218
The majority of the time someone doing what you said is not trolling, and the exception is that they are trolling. If we went by your definition of troll, literally everyone on the site would be a troll.
The entire site was formed because of people doing something in spite of complaints, specifically SDF!
>>
No. 15221 ID: 1854db

>>15219
...okay doing something someone doesn't like (when it is reasonable to tell them to stop) MORE when they say they don't like it ISN'T trolling? Because that is what I said was trolling.
>>
No. 15224 ID: bf1e7e

>>15215

>You do realize he was banned, right?

He was banned on #tgchan for spamming NO. PANCAKES. NINE. PANCAKES. three hundred times.

He earned that ban plenty well and good.
>>
No. 15225 ID: f7ae22

>>15221
No, what you said didn't include the highly subjective "(when it is reasonable to tell them to stop)"
Weaver continued running RubyQuest even though a lot of people complained about how they didn't like it, I guess he's a troll!
>>
No. 15226 ID: 1854db

>>15225
Yes, I didn't include that, but it was implied, because fucking hell why WOULDN'T I mean that? Thus, you and Crux then pointed out that via exaggeration. And now you're just looking foolish by continuing to do so even when I have already admitted that I should've put in that exception.
>>
No. 15228 ID: f7ae22

>>15226
Your incredibly nebulous definition ends up meaning nothing because it isn't consistent, much like most other definitions for troll. This is why calling anyone a troll, especially as reasoning for a ban, is stupid. Being banned from #tgchan for spamming is a clear and legitimate reason, being banned for "trolling" is not.
>>
No. 15230 ID: e41ad5

>Hurp durp there is no such thing as trolling

Yeah. Okay. Sure.
>>
No. 15233 ID: e3f578

On one side, the guy was annoying, not necessarily trolling but it's still being annoying and I can understand people's frustrations with that
On the other, I'm annoying half the time too. Would I want to be banned because I was being annoying, "nope.". I would find that unreasonable because I wasn't being annoying on purpose.

I guess the only suitable reason for the ban would be if he's annoying a mod and if he doesn't end up stopping, and ban happens to the fucking headache stops. Almost qualifies as an abuse of power, hell it probably does, but man does that fucking mod not want a headache right now.
>>
No. 15235 ID: 2563d4

>>15226
>Yes, I didn't include that, but it was implied, because fucking hell why WOULDN'T I mean that?
Well, for one thing you might not have been the kind of tosser who hides "in accordance with my wishes" behind a weasely use of "reasonable".
>>
No. 15237 ID: f5fe2f

>>15226
adding "unless I* feel this doesn't apply" does not make it less ridiculous. In fact, it makes it more ridiculous. People generally assume the least ridiculous scenario possible in their normal interactions. Thus, people assumed that the definition you posited did not include a caveat to make it entirely meaningless even though it was also stupid without that caveat.

>>15230
That's not what anybody said and you are a faggot for implying it is.

*because "reasonable" is entirely suggestive, and thus the assumed value for it is the value assigned by the speaker.
>>
No. 15243 ID: 2eac65

>>15230
>sarcasm
Of course there is such a thing as trolling. It has a clear definition, in theory. The problem is with how much of that definition is actually observable.

The idea is that the trolls will say or do anything they think will annoy people for the specific purpose of annoying them. But there's generally no real way to tell a troll apart from an innocent person who genuinely thinks a certain way. This makes it too easy for people to dismiss differing opinions, unusual manners of speech, unpopular hobbies, theories that violate their preconceptions, and anything else that makes them mad as " a troll who's just pretending"; this, in turn, leads to them focusing more on being hostile and rude towards people that annoy them, rather than trying to understand and reason with them.

For obvious reasons, this way of thinking is damaging to a community.
>>
No. 15244 ID: e41ad5

>>15237
>Your incredibly nebulous definition ends up meaning nothing because it isn't consistent, much like most other definitions for troll. This is why calling anyone a troll, especially as reasoning for a ban, is stupid. Being banned from #tgchan for spamming is a clear and legitimate reason, being banned for "trolling" is not.

>This is why calling anyone a troll, especially as reasoning for a ban, is stupid

>You can't ban anyone for trolling, because there's no such thing as trolling, which is why saying someone is trolling is stupid.

LD was pretty clear here.
>>
No. 15246 ID: f7ae22

I didn't say there was no such thing as a troll, I said that most definitions used to identify a troll are inconsistent, and that the nebulous one I was replying to specifically wasn't an exception. The post right above yours explains the problem of claiming that people are "trolling" well.
>>
No. 15247 ID: f5fe2f

>>15244
Are you submitting yourself as a counterexample to the idea that there is no such thing as a troll, or do you seriously not see the difference between "not sufficiently clearly defined to form a basis for policy" and "nonexistent"?
>>
No. 15248 ID: 2eac65

>>15244
I believe I need to clarify. The problem with the idea of "trolls" is that it doesn't describe a person's actions, it describes their motivation for said action. The action could be anything you don't like, no matter how innocent it would otherwise be, and the motivation is something you can only assume. Essentially, trolling is a thoughtcrime, and a convenient way to demonize people.

This means that, if an apparent troll is actually doing something unpleasant, he can be judged for that without invoking trolling, and if he isn't, then there's nothing to condemn him over even if he is as ill-intentioned as you assume. Either way, condemning someone because they look like a troll to you is counterproductive.
>>
No. 15254 ID: 1854db

>>15228
>>15235
>>15237
>nebulous
>weasely
>"unless I* feel this doesn't apply"
What the FUCK? I never claimed to be the one judging whether or not something would apply! That's for everyone to decide. You guys are repeatedly misrepresenting what I say in order to discount it. Stop making such obvious strawman arguments, it makes you look like idiots.

Anyway, that thing I said? That one case where something would be trolling? Not even a definition of the term trolling. A definition restricts something to one meaning, whereas this was just an example of one of the many ways which trolling can happen. If someone is doing something MORE after someone says they don't like it, it is easy to conclude that they are doing it BECAUSE the other person doesn't like it. That's inflammatory. Provoking the other person. Trolling. You cannot deny this. It is not always CORRECT to conclude this, and sometimes asking someone to stop doing something is unreasonable. These are obvious things that I shouldn't have to state. In general, though, I think this example holds true. If it's nebulous, that's because trolling itself is nebulous. You can't nail it down objectively.

I'm not even saying SDF was trolling, mind you, or arguing that people should be banned like he was for similar offenses. Maybe that's why you guys are fighting so hard to discredit me? Personally I have no opinion on the matter. I don't care that he was banned at all. He was (in recent memory) usually annoying but sometimes amusing, and didn't contribute in any big way to the channel positively or negatively. So, no big loss, and no big gain. A resounding meh.
>>
No. 15255 ID: f7ae22

>>15254
Okay, so you're saying that everything you've posted means absolutely nothing, while also insulting people for not understanding that you're spewing words for absolutely no raisin? You've changed your position entirely and I don't even know what your point is anymore.
Pro-tip: It's not a strawman if it only doesn't represent your point because you changed your point to avoid the refutation.
>>If someone is doing something MORE after someone says they don't like it, it is easy to conclude that they are doing it BECAUSE the other person doesn't like it. That's inflammatory. Provoking the other person. Trolling. You cannot deny this.
I can deny this because you're making the false assumption that correlation means causation. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, Mr. 1854db.
>>
No. 15256 ID: e41ad5

>>15255
Alright then, if his definition falls short, what's yours?
>>
No. 15257 ID: 2563d4

>>15254
>I'm not an idiot; all you guys are idiots for criticising my argument (which I keep changing)
American proverb: If three people tell you that you are drunk, you better lie down.
>>
No. 15258 ID: f7ae22

>>15256
The one 2eac65 said.
>>
No. 15259 ID: f5fe2f

>>15254
>>15254
>I never claimed to be the one judging whether or not something would apply! That's for everyone to decide.
In other words, you want to assemble a jury composed of the entire population for every incidence, to deduce subjectively if the word "trolling" applies, rather than just using a definition that isn't horrendously flawed?

>You guys are repeatedly misrepresenting what I say in order to discount it. Stop making such obvious strawman arguments
Nah. We're providing situations under which your definition is even more clearly flawed than in the base situation. A strawman would be if we made a post pretending to be on your side that misconstrued your argument or made it appear weaker than it actually is. The things we're providing are caled "counterexamples", and are a legitimate means of contesting a point.

>Maybe that's why you guys are fighting so hard to discredit me?
No, this is the normal response to someone being wrong on the internet.

>>15256
Language is dependent on consensus, and it is intended for utility, thus the most widely accepted definition is usually the most useful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
>In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
>>
No. 15264 ID: 1854db

I give up, there's no talking sense into either of you. I just restated my original post twice over, each time it meant the same damn thing, and now I'm being accused of changing my argument. And hey, looks like crux is linking the wikipedia article that I was partially basing my claim on. Good show.
>>
No. 15265 ID: 1854db

And you know what, since apparently we're linking wikipedia, have this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>>
No. 15281 ID: 940ab2

wikipedia: n; plural of 'anecdote'
>>
No. 15808 ID: 67bfa6

>>15806

I'm done because there's nothing left for me to do in that argument. I think the other side of the argument is retarded. I have nothing to say about the Orb and it's use and blah blah. It is completely uninteresting to me.

The other side considers my argument to be retarded. They think that there's a great deal of worth in the original idea and that by trying to alter and change that idea to one's own use there's something terrible about that. I don't think so.

So we have a very basic failing to understand or care about each others arguments. Anything past this point is going to be absolutely retarded. Why on earth would I want to put up with a bunch of unpleasant little shits presenting an argument I have no interest in, and doing so in a shitty, asinine fashion? That's ridiculous. There's absolutely no reason I'd do such a thing. What kind of retard would?
>>
No. 15809 ID: 788dee

>>15808
No. What's happening here is that you are advocating the pointless overuse of a pointlessly overused McGuffin ripped from one quest and getting a fucking hissy fit when people don't reply to you with posts worded with puppies, rainbows and smiling flowers.

You are done because you have no argument other than "please be unoriginal and overuse an overused McGuffin".
>>
No. 15810 ID: 67bfa6

>>15809

Man, I was gonna be rude as hell but after writing I just don't feel like it. It feels good to talk about writing, even if it is to a slobbering mob. That's crazy.

In any case, I've got plenty of reasoning for my view. I've got four quests in mind that each use a McGuffin, each with it's own use. It's not just being thrown in for the hell of it, there's reasoning behind it and if you'd be so kind as to read it you might see as much.

So, this first quest, Masks. It shares it's name with some old quest that never really got off the ground. Whatever, they'll forgive me, I'll rewrite the name or it'll fall fall to the wayside (likely the last in all honesty). But I digress. Masks features a unique, magical setting with a lot of rules and weirdness to it. Oh, I'd better go more into detail or some jackass will say I'm being to vague or some such. Although I'm sure the longer this post gets, the more likely it is to be ignored.

Specifically, the magic to Masks has everything to do with the name. At the dawn of creation, the humans of Mask committed some terrible, unforgivable crime. This so angered the gods that they placed a terrible curse on humanity. From that point onward, every child born came with a mask on their face, a constant reminder of their eternal shame. What's more, while one might be able to take off their mask, if ever they were seen without it they would perish. Humanity was forever forbidden that simple act.

Well, as the society of Masks grew, they discovered great magic within the masks that allowed them to do all kinds of neat stuff. Chief amongst these abilities was the magic of domination. The masks were gateways to the soul and by directly interacting with someone's mask you could have complete access to their life. With a simple movement you could unmask them and doom them, or with a small ritual bind them in subservience to your will.

Throw in other things like the dark and secretive nature of the people of the setting or the backstabbing politics of the city where it'd take place and there was just a lot to tell the players. I wanted there to be a mystery to the place, that foreign feeling of being in a truly exotic and strange place. So rather than put the audience behind the eyes of the protagonist, a talented assassin who questions the nature of the world but finds himself swept along in its tides, I sought to have the players look from behind a McGuffin. This way, they'd be coming in with no prior knowledge of the setting and would have limited access to sources of knowledge. It was either that or have another amnesiac protagonist and I think we've seen enough of those.

Specifically, the McGuffin was supposed to be an item crafted by the Goddess of Fate and handed down to humanity. The McGuffin was to be passed on to a powerful merchant lord who had allied himself with the church and from there the first session or so was supposed to be a period of acclimation. The merchant lord would look on to the device with a mix of wonder and pity as the audience slowly adapted to the cutthroat world. I'd make the merchant lord somewhat likable, but he'd have a cruel streak to him as well, one that would show itself whenever I felt the audience was getting too close to him.

Then, when the time was right, I'd spring the true protagonist in, who'd assassinate the merchant lord as part of a grander scheme plotted by a rival house. The McGuffin would then fall into his hands and, after another small period of acclimation, the quest would really begin.

Now I feel like there are some good reasons behind the use of the McGuffin here. I'm allowed to slowly introduce the setting from a strangers perspective, something that would be impossible without shoving something else in the setting. I could use an amnesiac or an outsider, like I did in Showtime, but without some complicated background that allowed them to somehow use all the skills required to keep up with the protagonist in his bloody work I wouldn't be able to tell the kind of story I'd like to tell. What's more, without altering the plot a bit I'd have to miss out on that first scene with the merchant, which I like a lot.

I'm not saying it would be impossible to run the quest without a McGuffin, I can see how I could. But I feel it would be weaker.

I was gonna put all four here but this took longer than I thought. Whatever, I'm chillax at this point. Was mad, not no more. I'll wait for the next barrage of scathing rebuttals and then probably move on to the next one.
>>
No. 15811 ID: 788dee

>>15810
Nobody's complaining about McGuffins existing and being used. The complaint was HAVING THE MCGUFFIN BE AN ORB WITH "PSYCHE" IN THE NAME ALWAYS SUGGESTED WHEN SOMEONE IS TALKING ABOUT STARTING A QUEST.

Also
>chillax
Wow man like dude you're so cool like you totally like man like have to like totally use a retardese word dude like totally man because like man dude like totally the like totally best like way man like to totally like prove like you're totally calm is like dude totally like man like totally dude using words only condescending pricks and retards use.
>>
No. 15812 ID: 67bfa6

>>15811
Hey bro, you should chillax. S'cool.

S'far as I can tell there are folks that are anti McGuffin. But if'n that ain't the case then yeah. I guess I got nothin' to argue against. Huh. Shame, was lookin' forward to posting more questy stuff. Fucking Masks has been in the vault for almost 2 years. So many ideas and not enough talent to execute 'em. Ah well.

So, err, guess I really am done then. Shame I made an arse out of myself in the process. Ah well, these things happen. I'll be back when next the McGuffin comes under siege~
>>
No. 15813 ID: bf1e7e

The funny thing is that this goober thinks that the orb of infinite psyche is a mcguffin. It isn't. A mcguffin is something with absolutely no purpose outside of the narrative purpose of 'being somebody's motivation.' The maltese falcon is a mcguffin. The orb of infinite psyche is a means for the players to interact with the quest.
>>
No. 15816 ID: e3f578
 

So like is this thread also used for discussion of questions? It technically counts as discussion. You see, this video brings up important issues that I feel that tgchan needs to discuss.

Is it gay to suck a dick for money? Is it possible to be so secure in one's masculinity that one could suck a duck and be straight and neither of the two sexualities? And if your straight, would you got a boner if a dude touched your Piinis, cause we all know that when we ourself do it or a girl does, yes we get a boner?

Because this fucking video is blowing my fucking mind.
>>
No. 15817 ID: 2563d4

>>15813
Ayup.
>>
No. 15850 ID: 383006

>>15810
The question you should ask yourself is "why does it have to be a magical orb, and why does it have to be called the orb of infinite psyche?" If the answer to these questions is "it doesn't," then the arguments from the other thread come into play. It's function is useful for certain sorts of quests, but it's nature is derivative and overdone. I think the only quest where it was actually used well was Romanticar, honestly, because it was used as a device to alter the perspective of the quest, and constantly changing perspective was actually relevant to the narrative. I mean, the implication in Tozzle is that Penji has brain damage and that's why she hears suggesters. Other quests, like Cutebold Slaughter Fest or Fortune's Call just have the players interact with the character without any specific item in that actual world.

When people start a new quest that has an orb item, it makes many of the readers groan, because it implies that you are an uncreative fuck, whether or not that is true. It certainly shows that you didn't exert the minimum effort it would take to have another reason for the same effect in your world.
>>
No. 15890 ID: 2563d4

(Moving this from PONIES because the PONIES thread is actually mostly good.)

>>15882
>implying there isn't an order of magnitude difference between IRC derping and "HAY GUISE THIS IS MY LAZUREK HERE IS A PICTURE I DREW OF HIM FUCKING A CHARACTER FROM THE QUEST THAT I DREW AS FANART FOR THAT QUEST"
But hey if it really chafes you then some of them got illustrated in an oC posted in >>/draw/ . (None of them are interacting with Penji.)
>>
No. 15893 ID: bf1e7e

>>15890

>implying there isn't an order of magnitude difference between IRC derping and "HAY GUISE THIS IS MY LAZUREK

>Implying that THIS IS MY LAZUREK ever came up

See, that's the thing you're not getting. The river lazurek isn't my murrsona at all, it was originally just a faceless dude with a penis before Lucid reminded me 'no humans in the setting' so I made it a River Lazurek because A: About the same size as a human so it was an easy edit in the first picture and B: No face.

So, all in all, there IS an order of magnitude in difference between this and the tozzlesonas that 'aren't worth calling people out for,' but it is neither in the direction nor manner that you seem to think it is.

Besides, my murrsona is a taurdigrade.

Wait, it just occurred to me. Are you just projecting all of this because you're mad that somebody drew porn of your waifu with some random other character? That's some seriously Sephirothluvr262646-style crazy right there.
>>
No. 15894 ID: 2563d4

>>15893
>The river lazurek isn't my murrsona at all
I am reasonably sure it came up somewhere in the fanart thread where they were posted that it was, but fine.

>it is neither in the direction nor manner that you seem to think it is.
Great. Fine. My point that there are OCs of quest races stands either way, and the phrase "call out" was a bad choice of words because the intent was to avoid stirring up stupid drama with people on IRC being upset I told the wider site they came up with quest-race-sonas and instead here I am getting stupid drama with you. You who I explicitly picked as a concrete example to support the claim since I kind of figured from your fanart postings that you weren't exactly shamed by the premise or anything.

>hurr u mad because waifu
Uh, no. If I were mad about that there's plenty of other Aggeia porn I would be bawling about for impuning her purity or whatnot.
>>
No. 15895 ID: bf1e7e

>I am reasonably sure it came up somewhere in the fanart thread where they were posted that it was, but fine.

People have said that, but none of them were me. I just didn't care about people saying it when they weren't citing it as an example of 'bad' OC shenanigans. =V

>If I were mad about that there's plenty of other Aggeia porn I would be bawling about for impuning her purity or whatnot.

I don't think most of the aggeia porn is with any specifically-drawn character, which is the sort of thing the sephirothfan2536236972-type folks don't really care about =V
>>
No. 15896 ID: e3f578

I know there's unlikable people on the site but I don't think we have anyone that is "sephirothfan321651" bad.
>>
No. 15898 ID: 1854db

If there's anyone we should be angry about drawing their self-insert screwing quest characters, it's MrQ. His even has a bunch of abilities stolen from anime and shit.
>>
No. 15899 ID: 39a1fc

>>15893
Good job at blowing a fuse about some harmless comment and spouting ridiculous theories about waifus.
I mean image-board are full of buttmad idiots, but you're really something.
>>
No. 15900 ID: 2563d4

>>15898
That is not the discussion that went on here. (Note past tense; I don't really have anything to dispute with Seal's last post.)
>>
No. 15901 ID: 2563d4

>>15899
Good job at supporting Seal's notion that he has a hatedom out to harass him when he posts by getting unnecessarily offended on my behalf.
>>
No. 15902 ID: e3f578

>>15898
Hardly anyone gives a shit about hating on MrQ. Everything Passive-aggressive with that guy, I'm guessing because he's a friendly motherfucker from what I've seen of his posts.
Seal is like this guy everyone wants to hate on though. It's the popular thing to do. It's the bee's knees. People are just dying to find the next excuse to hate on Seal. It's a fucking pattern.
>>
No. 15903 ID: 1854db

>>15902
Well to be honest I think MrQ is a cool guy, despite the lameness of his character's concept and his inability to keep his quests going.

Seal's just incredibly rude and confrontational. Oh yeah and hateful. Very hateful.
>>
No. 15905 ID: bf1e7e

>>15903

Nah, I'm not hateful at all. You hating me =/= me being hateful.
>>
No. 15906 ID: 1854db

>>15905
Saying that someone should go kill themselves because they are whining too much is pretty hateful, Seal.
>>
No. 15908 ID: bf1e7e

>>15906

Actually I was pre-empting the end of a rant we had all heard before, but sure go right ahead thinking that.

Cirr and I are friends anyway =V
>>
No. 15910 ID: 1854db

>>15908
[2010-10-25 19:23:42] <Love_Drifter> I'm just not going to coddle somebody throwing a fit about WAAAAH NOTHING MATTERS
[2010-10-25 19:24:04] <Love_Drifter> If you can't determine your own purpose in life you are free to stop living
[2010-10-25 19:26:17] <Love_Drifter> If anyone else started talking about whiny nihilist bullshit I would treat them the same way: As non-people
[2010-10-25 19:26:53] <Love_Drifter> I don't WANT him to but if he wants to that's his prerogative
[2010-10-25 19:26:53] <Love_Drifter> yes
[2010-10-25 19:26:56] <Love_Drifter> as non-people
[2010-10-25 19:27:01] <Love_Drifter> I am not devaluing people
[2010-10-25 19:27:08] <Love_Drifter> I am devaluing sub-humans posing as people

I like logs.
>>
No. 15912 ID: abcbff

>>15910
Your holding a grudge on the behalf of someone who doesn't even care about the whole thing at this point is kind of sad.
>>
No. 15913 ID: 1854db

>>15912
What, I can't hate someone for being terrible? If Cirr has gotten over it, good for him. I can't stand that type of thinking though and thus I despise Seal as a person.

I mean I pasted that just to point out that he was being hateful and not just 'skipping to the end'. This isn't about Cirr. It's about Seal.
>>
No. 15915 ID: bf1e7e

>>15913

>I mean I pasted that just to point out that he was being hateful

Well if you want to do that you should post an instance of me, you know, being hateful. Also noteworthy: Cutting out the entire context of all of my statements (in yet another pathetic attempt to make me look bad) doesn't exactly make you look any more reasonable in this.
>>
No. 15918 ID: e3f578

>>15910
That isn't hateful; it's just kinda doushey. And a lot of people here are douches here, I think like 82% in some form, so it's rather insignificant.

Yeah Seal is a douche. So are you and you and him and me and that motherfucker over there. ESPECIALLY that motherfucker over that, that fucking douche.
>>
No. 15920 ID: f5fe2f

>>/questdis/347236
>Do you honestly believe that the only reason we don't go spiraling off into space is that the earth wants to hold us close?
Gravity is the force of the earth holding us close. I don't see why the earth would do that if it didn't want to.
>>
No. 15921 ID: 31cb7a

>>15918
>That isn't hateful
It's not exactly the height of caring to say that someone who is supposedly your friend is now below your consideration because he's gotten fucked up for whatever reason. In before context, etc. -- if the context is really so important, then post it.
>>