(06-08-2013, 03:43 AM)Luka Paluka Wrote: This is something I totally agree with and is the reason I absolutely adore roleplay, the wildcard aspect. Character's changing are what makes the hobby so much fun and I'm not disagreeing with that. A race change completely, however, is a little different to the average day in Roleplay. You wish to RP that Beatric was a Roegadyn female from the beginning, and I have nothing against that as I have said several times, as long as the stories you are involved in are aware that the history for said stories has been changed slightly.
You're not against it, but you made a big, long to-do about being against it? That doesn't work in any kind of rational world.
(06-08-2013, 03:43 AM)Luka Paluka Wrote: I've already covered this quote further up, but I didn't say at all that I expect roleplay to be as tidy and clean as a novel, and the shallow quote is incredibly out of context. You can quote and match up random words to make an argument if you wish, but it's a pretty poor attempt at a point.
This is not a road you want to go down with me. Because this is what happens when you do:
(06-08-2013, 02:50 AM)Luka Paluka Wrote: If you want to play one of these new race/gender combinations that's great, but why do you feel the need to change your already established character that is linked to many different people's stories? If I was reading a book and one day the character was a Human and in the sequel she's an Elf because the writer decided he wanted her to be an Elf all of a sudden, I'd label that poor writing.
This is where you draw a direct line from roleplaying stories to books. Right here. Your words. So...y'know, yeah. You did. You said, in no uncertain terms, that your rubric is the composition known as a novel. I said this is a poor rubric. Then! You go on to say that the changes, by the measure that you said that you were using, being suggested were what you would consider "poor writing." Right up there. In bold.
When things are in text, you don't get to backpedal when you realize that your point isn't quite as solid as you had hoped. Be glib until the cows come home. But don't try this shit.
Let's now take a look at your little barb regarding how "shallow" things are:
(06-08-2013, 02:50 AM)Luka Paluka Wrote: And, slightly off topic but I'll respond, saying "I don't mean to offend you here" followed by something clearly designed to offend someone is pretty shallow.
Edit: English fail. x)
Yep. Just as we left it. A crappy pot-shot.
My response:
Shuck Wrote:So is insinuating that someone is a "bad writer" with a smothering amount of passive-aggressiveness, then thumbing your nose at an argument that disagrees with your (frankly, strange) idea that roleplaying should be tidy and clean as a novel, and decreeing that it is "shallow."
English as a second (third, whatever) language be damned.
I'd also like to add that your entire post here has been discussed already. Retreading ground already covered serves little more than stirring the pot.
Nope, that's not out of context! That's a direct response to a statement. That you made. Referencing another statement you made (see the first quote in this series of rehashes for the reference!).
If you've got nothing to add to the conversation, save for...whatever this is, nothing is pressing you to toss these barbs out there. Nothing.
Ultimately, these responses have not been constructive. Retreading, and misplaced hostility, sure. But not constructive.
