>>28755
>Julia is a terrible person,
Sure.
>an abusive waifu,
Nah.
>and needs to be gotten rid of as soon as possible.
Nope.

The first point doesn't justify the third, and the second doesn't really use the term properly. Would her relationship with Chuck be abusive? We don't know. We haven't been privy to any of it. Has she abused people? Yes. However, that doesn't merit capital punishment.
If Chuck's going to be a hero, he doesn't get to be a hero selectively. He's going to save whoever he can, and 'can' is very different from 'wants'. And before anyone says 'but Julia can't be saved', as far as physically rescuing her goes she can.

>>28764
You misunderstand.

>If Chuck's going to be a hero, he doesn't get to be a hero selectively. He's going to save whoever he can, and 'can' is very different from 'wants'. And before anyone says 'but Julia can't be saved', as far as physically rescuing her goes she can.
I'm mostly talking about her being removed from the out-of-character standpoint: it's not Chuck that should get rid of her, but rather the plot. RML should pull some stops to make her go away regardless of Chuck's heroism, without him having to be stained by the ordeal. It doesn't look like this is going to be the case, unfortunately.

>the second doesn't really use the term properly
It does, actually. Look at the definition of "waifu": it's a virtual, non-real girl that one would love to date. In this case she's definitely naileD's "waifu" in the very correct use of the term, someone he'd love to fuck or at least see Chuck fuck.

Now look at how vehemently naileD's been defending her. Look at all these flimsy justifications to very real crimes and abuse. "She's not as bad as you think!", "I can change her", "I don't care if she's hurt people", and what have you - all very real excuses people in abusive relationships give.

Julia is such a terrible person that it's reaching out through the screen and into real life. She's bound naileD into her charm. She's hurting him.

>>28765
From an OOC standpoint, I still don't think Julia needs to be removed by the author. People just need to deal with characters they don't like in a more genteel fashion. (For example, ignoring them, or chastising them, or fucking both of their roommates while they watch. Purely hypothetical situations, of course.)
From a meta strategy standpoint, she also isn't unmanageable to the point where she is likely to get someone else killed.
Julia has done nothing to Delian, that is all self-inflicted. It's unfortunate but understandable if your perception of the character has been tainted by one of her proponents.

The Hif Man 2017/09/27(Wed)15:11 No. 28767 ID: eda54c
File 150655027366.png - (0.99KB , 174x69 , The Hif Eyes.png )

Hello

>>28771
I imagine he's exaggerating to make a point. That being that you come off willing to risk a lot of friends' safety and security just to get into Julia's pants. Which you kind of do. Come off that way I mean. Even if that's not your intention, that's how your phrasing and general extensive attempts at exclamation come off to several individuals. Myself included.

I am now going to write a post about artistic integrity and how it WILL apply to YOUR SUCCESS as a creator.

First of all, it is very important for YOU to ever have a lasting impact, and for YOU to have fans who are truly LOYAL to your work. It is important for the way people view YOU, respect YOU, and expose themselves to YOUR work (whether or not YOU want to believe that doesn't matter, this concept has proven itself time and time again through history). Think of it like running a business, though of course this is a very different business than most other businesses and until YOUR BRAND is reaching MILLIONS (not 1 million, not 1.5 million, 2 million and beyond) YOU want to have GOOD BUSINESS. Why? BECAUSE GOOD BUSINESS BRINGS GOOD BUSINESS, and BAD BUSINESS BRINGS BAD BUSINESS. What kind of image do YOU want to have as a creator? Someone who appreciates everything from all of YOUR fans (minus hateful/racist/bigoted fans who will bring BAD BUSINESS) or someone who believes certain fans of YOUR work are less IMPORTANT than others? Do YOU want to be known as a creator who STANDS BY their work, or cowards away and tries to hide (some may say even CENSOR) when somebody points out certain aspects of YOUR work? What possible reason would ANY creator have in doing something as silencing CRITICISM, STORY IRRELEVANT FANART, or STORY RELEVANT FANART of a character or setting within their creation? That, is BAD BUSINESS. It MAKES YOU LOOK BAD. When you have a fanbase of a number that is under 5,000 (for example, this site has under 5,000 unique users). If story relevant fanart of something YOU made makes YOU SO UNCOMFORTABLE that YOU HAVE IT CENSORED, WHETHER OR NOT it is a LIGHT-HEARTED PARODY, NO MATTER THE THEMATIC CONTENT, YOU have BAD ARTISTIC INTEGRITY, which will GET YOU NOWHERE. Because guess what? The fact that YOU DID THAT will NEVER GO AWAY, because NOTHING GOES AWAY ON THE INTERNET.

How about if YOUR fans aren't satisfied with YOUR work? Do you ALTER it to fit THEIR vision, or do you keep going with the VISION that YOU had ORIGINALLY intended? Do YOUR fans PAY YOU for YOUR work AS YOU make it? Do YOUR fans pay for the work after it is COMPLETELY FINISHED? Do they pay for it AT ALL? If YOUR fans PAY YOU for your work AS YOU make it, then YES, BEND OVER BACKWARDS FOR THEM, as there is no difference between YOUR fans ACTIVELY COMMISSIONING YOU for YOUR work. If they PAY YOU after it is a finished product, then YES but WITH CAUTION so as to NOT stray TOO FAR from the ORIGINAL product. IF your fans DO NOT PAY YOU, then YOU have ZERO REASON to do ANYTHING ELSE from what YOU WANT TO DO, UNLESS YOU WANT INPUT from YOUR fans.

>>28773
I, also, LOVE to CAPITALIZE completely random WORDS in my various SENTENCES!
IT REALLY HELPS with readability, and ALSO GIVES my writing a HUGE BOOST TO IT'S rhythm!
It's NOT super obnoxious AT ALL!

All of you are unsaintly and have IQs of less than 500.

>>28774
You are just jealous that you lack Tom's MANLY PHYSIQUE.

>>28773
tl;dr

Love YOUR fans,
TRUST the love YOUR fans have for YOUR work,
---and most importantly---
STAND BY YOUR work.

Love,


The Hif Man

P.S. -- This is not a passive aggressive critical jab at any one individual on this site, those who receive my criticism do so directly, whether in public or in private. People who actually have a true passion for the things that they do on this site I, despite popular belief, have a lot of respect for. I'd hate to see behavior detrimental to popularity that can be found and brought up at any time by anyone if they so choose cause anyone who doesn't want their work to wane into forgotten obscurity to do that. Unfortunately, most don't want to hear it, why I don't know nor do I really care which is why I wrote this piece, to expose behavior that can be detrimental to success anywhere in entertainment that I have seen only grow worse here as time has passed. Follow it, and make things better for yourself and everybody who follows your work or don't.

You may resume your talks in the Coxwette discussion thread. It's not longer under heavy moderation. Enjoy~

>>28782
>Enjoy~
I would, but I'm still banned from there. naileD, who is at the very least as guilty at bringing the quest and the discussion down as I am, is not banned. He even posted a blatant bait picture that was already deleted once.

I am annoyed by this outrageous favoritism.

>>28782
BDAs should stay in the BDA thread anyway.

>>28784
I apologize. Delian was able to placate me on IRC and avoid my wrath, which gave him an unfair advantage over those who don't use IRC.

In future, I'll try to be more careful about keeping things on equal ground.

Ban is removed.

>>28787
That's less of an unfair advantage and more of a proactive stance towards ban appeals. IRC is easy to access - web clients are everywhere, not to mention it's mentioned/linked on the front page, the FAQ and elsewhere. You don't have to join the conversation, but if you don't want to use it even for contacting mods then that's your loss.

>>28788
This was the first time I heard IRC was even an option.

>>28789
I'm not here to argue but if you leave the frames on, over to the left there's a heading of "IRC" with TGChan's IRC Chat address. Just saying for future reference.

We didn't come here to rock
We only came to disappoint you
'Cause deep down in your cunt
That's exactly what you wanted us to do
You wanted us to lead you on
You wanted us to bum you out
So you could build us up
And you could knock us down

If that's what gets your dick hard
Telling people they're bad at making art

You wanted to feel cheated
I guess we gave you what you needed
So, you're welcome
Don't worry about it
Just stay on the couch
Judge what other people do
Don't do anything for yourself
I'd hate to see it happen to you

If that's what gets your dick hard
Telling people they're bad at making art
Feeling just like you're the one in charge
Pissing on my most pathetic parts

The skeleton key is a genuinely good movie.

i dont understand what people have against pineapple pizza

>>28851
I like it.

>>28851
It's a discordant clash of tastes. Pineapple is sweet and juicy, where pizza is greasy and salty. Both of them are delicious in my opinion, separately, but if you put them together they come into conflict and fuck the whole thing up.

>>120626
>if you understand how neural networks develop (both machine and natural) you can see how the amount of information they contain can easily become computationally impossible to monitor in its entirety
If you think that, you need to do a LOT more research into the fundamentals of how NNs and SLNNs work.
Because all NNs are software-based (all parameters, even for accelerated ASICs, are stored as variables. There are no physical axons or synapses or analogues) they are by definition perfectly model-able (it is the model that operates). And because the entire goal of NNs for commercial use is to produce a limited range of outputs using the minimal possible inputs, fully characterising a given NN is not a herculean task in the least.
> and so underhandedness can naturally develop unnoticed just as a part of efficiently achieving whatever they were set out to achieve.)
Please don't use Hollywood depictions of AIs as a foundation for thinking about how AIs work in reality. Movies and TV are hilariously bad at even approaching reasonable depictions of how AIs work. That's how you end up with pop-science nonsense like the "paperclip optimiser apocalypse", that assume an AI capable of extremely felxible heuristic reasoning, capable of applying that reasoning to areas far outside it's original training set, but incapable of applying that reasoning to it's own operation (and thus by definition NOT be a self-learning neural network but a static pre-trained one).

>>120634

Oh no, I didn't mean to imply that I've been paying attention to dramatizations, it was more just the basic idea for example of poorly informed but insistent executives asking for the creation of far too generalised networks because they want to find as many answers to a generic question as possible. Yes it may be quite a lot further down the line until we can make something complex enough to unavoidably depend on self-monitoring, but it doesn't seem inconceivable that we would eventually be able to create AI SDKs that can be used to create even more arbitrary SDKs such that even the most inexperienced programmers are able to create their own applications that literally do anything within the computational ability available to them, regardless of their understanding of the results that might occur. I guess I'm talking about the automation of process creation mixed with human lack of understanding, like a "child picking up a power tool" kind of situation. I understand that a lot of these will have systems that say "you can't do x or y", but that becomes less dependable an assumption if you get more experienced but nevertheless still amateur (or even unlawful) programmers creating and releasing their own less restricted SDKs that don't have as many checks involved. I just mean as it becomes easier to automate intention, if someone doesn't have due consideration of the outcomes of what they're doing then they could create things that cause significant issues for everyone else. I'm entirely for the concept of AI itself, it's just that with any increase in general automation comes increased power, and we have to ensure that people are able to use that power responsibly.

>>120640
There is no more chance of somebody accidentally creating an 'evil AI' out of ignorance than an untrained machinist accidentally creating an implosion-type thermonuclear device on a shop lathe.

The AI 'advances' of today are not magic. They are concepts developed decades ago and discarded as too inelegant or inefficient to be worth pursuing, but now are worth pursuing simply because vastly more computational power can be thrown at the problem now. Regardless of the shiny smartphone interfaces they are presented through, today's AIs are extremely special-purpose, very far from general purpose, and not 'self training'. Indeed, the current 'Deep Learning' industry is built around the dichotomy between computational devices for training (massive datacentres filled with GPUs or ASICs) and computational devices for inference (portable coprocessors that are effectively fixed-function and are the ones that actually get access to live inputs).

>There is no more chance of somebody accidentally creating an 'evil AI' out of ignorance than an untrained machinist accidentally creating an implosion-type thermonuclear device on a shop lathe.

Holy shit that sounds like the start of an amazing quest.

Bob 2018/09/11(Tue)16:56 No. 29083 ID: e52162
File 153671021637.jpg - (3.23MB , 3120x4160 , P_20180911_195429.jpg )

I argue this is hurting children's artistic development

>>29083
I think you might be onto something.

Peopl on this board are too thirsty

>>/quest/924309
Your post doesn't make sense. "tgchan hours"? And do you really think boobs equate to the penis on men? Beasts are secondary sexual characteristics. That said, yes a lot of men would near-immediately try to make their dicks bigger if they could change anything they wanted about their bodies. That, and bigger muscles, which *are* secondary sexual characteristics for men.

It just kindof sounds like you're sexually repressed, and want to push that on other people.

>>/quest/924315
As for you, I meant that ONE post that I linked. You were busy being passive-aggressive, not directing anyone to the questdis. I definitely don't appreciate words being put in my mouth either!

>>128140
I wasn't being passive aggressive, I was musing over the rules for off-topic discussion, which I don't know too well. I just have an impression from times I've seen it called out. I guess it was the passive half because I wasn't sure enough about the rules to be direct, so I just kinda

implied it. Also I don't know teegee's personal opinion on arguments is. Also I'm just not good at being direct generally.

Basically I wasn't trying to be the aggressive part of that phrase.

>>128142
Oh right, and if it was about the "shame" part I was just trying to be sympathetic about the person I was replying to's problem with not getting discussions. It took me a while to figure out how to phrase it and that was the best one.

>>128142
>>128143
Oh alright then, I misread your tone.

>>128144
And again, for the words in your mouth, that was a misunderstanding based on your misunderstanding of my attitude of being passive aggressive. I didn't realize you didn't know what I meant at the time. I'm sorry about that.

>>128147
Then I apologize as well. Directly, instead of just implying it.

>>128138
Those are frankly insulting assumptions about people and general and then me. Maybe just consider I'm not sexually repressed but maybe you're sexually obsessed and you just want to push that on people.

>>924115
>more endowed

No. Just no.

>>924157
care to elaborate? your post reads like you find the idea disgusting.

>>924297
I do. I don't see why she'd just become a slut like that. I can understand getting cosmetics like horns for aesthetical value. Being out of amnesia, discovering body modification and then saying you want bigger breasts is slutty.

Boy there's a lot of discussion thread worthy chatting here, huh.

>>924304
That's kindof a terrible thing to say, honestly. First off, quit using slut as pejorative. Wanting or liking sex should not be negative. Second off, you don't automatically start sleeping around if you get a boob job! Of course the immediate reaction when you find out you can change your body at will is to try to become more attractive. EVERYONE (well, everyone with sexual urges) wants to be more attractive.

If you like her better with small breasts then just say so.

>>924307
"quit using slut as pejorative"
Real tgchan hours.

"EVERYONE (well, everyone with sexual urges) wants to be more attractive"
No, I'm pretty sure my first reflex isn't always enlarging my penis... Dunno how you make this generalization.

>>924305
Honestly, nowadays questdis isn't actually used for Quest Discussion most of the time. These days, it's more 'Quest Hangout', where people who play the quest chill. Not that I disagree with the implications- I've been trying to start discussion in the dis thread to no avail, is all.

>>924310
yeah, I know, but I figured there was some limit to that. Like, discussing things in the quest that are immediate problems or clarifying something important. A shame your attempts haven't worked.

>>924312
You're doing the same thing you realize?

>>924313
Don't prompt me to respond then. Also false equivalence, I was trying to direct people to the disthread, and using spoiler tags. But regardless of further "both sides are bad" I'm not going to post off-topic again.

>The Great Big Boob Debate of 2019

Take it to https://tgchan.org/kusaba/questdis/res/123379.html

>>924315
Sheesh, are you so petty you can't handle being proven both wrong and a big hypocrite?

>>128153
No, not really.

Personally, i think penny should get herself redone, but i try to skirt around it since people seem to love trying to attack me for saying that sort of thing because of their "moral high ground." Maybe i am a pervert, but that doesn't make me a bad person by default. In fact, i try to give everyone the respect they deserve. It really cuts deep when people start shaming me for this.

(or maybe i am just overly sensitive, in which case i can be ignored. Lets just try to maintain the status quo)