Jump to content

Oli!

Members
  • Content Count

    738
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

184

About Oli!

  • Rank
    TODD HOWARD

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Still here, still doing the thing!
  2. Plenty of Stormblood roleplay rolling, with plenty more to come!
  3. Still here! Gearing up for some new things quite soon.
  4. How have you gone this long without knowing about the best part of the boards?
  5. I'm going to sidestep 99% of this conversation and present an untouched and often overlooked way of getting roleplay and breaking the Clique Lockout. Making a Linkshell with a reasonably unique RP hook that addresses something you want to do! If you make a network with the promise of engagement of a specific / interesting facet of the world, provide people with a reasonably easy way into it, and regularly deliver on the network's stated promises and content, you will have all the RP you could ever want (and probably more). Alternatively, you could always join one of these networks, because there are many. Adventuring, training, crafting, Voidsent-slaying, yeah, lots. One or the other will likely work for you, I'm nearly certain of such. Something something "if you build it, they will come."
  6. Keeping an eye out! Also, remember to take a look at the Discord link! If we have trouble finding you, that's a great way to ping someone to get you added.
  7. Things are ticking, and plots are rolling! Check out what's been happening in the Plots tab!
  8. Invites are going around! We started off our first big set of plots today! Murder, secret letters, potential Mhigan betrayal, GOOD STUFF. We also have a discord now! Please do not abuse the link.
  9. Oliwat believes he's a nice guy with decent opinions.
  10. I mentioned your intent at the bottom of my post. It is possible to recognize both intent and diction, and the way that one may not serve the other readily. Please note that argumentation is not synonymous with aggression. I never said that I was implicated in them. I will nonetheless argue this points because I do not find them to be rational or conductive, and will therefore point out the damage that they do in hopes that you may think differently when it comes to dealing with the other side of the debate. I have engaged the other side on this topic as well (and have even done so about a page back). Lore is not subjective. If lore says the sky is blue, then the sky is blue. The only way that this becomes subjective is if one delves incredibly far into skeptical philosophy, at which point any sort of definition becomes meaningless in the first place. Lore can be ambiguous, at which point it becomes interpretative, but the words that are present on a page still have objective meaning. Some lore, meanwhile, is not within the realm of an "unreliable narrator" at all. We have things that have been told to us by the developers, whether through talking to us, or through what happens during the game itself; these things are called Word of God, and stand as they are until changed or retconned later on down the road. We are all aware of the premise. It is impossible not to be aware of the premise through the act of doing the activity, unless one's perception of their actions is extremely lacking, and I highly doubt that anyone on this board is that unaware. Not everyone has a personal stake in this matter; my stake, for instance, is mostly academic. Cross-examination is not necessarily a bad thing on its own; there are those that use it for improper purposes, of course, but to disregard the entire idea of cross-examination as something negative is improper. I acknowledged it in my post. I merely pointed out that it can, and has, been pointed in the opposite direction, even within this very thread. This unfortunately does not change the generalized statement in which one side of the debate is implicated for the poor view that the greater community has of this website. As I said at the bottom of my prior post, I don't think that your attempt was very successful in communicating this thought. Who in this thread on the opposite side of the argument have you asked in regards to their opinions on lore compliance, and what about them makes you sure that they are taking roleplay "too seriously"? As for whether or not I think that building a bridge is possible, I do not think it is. I have stated such before; both opinions are diametrically opposed, and arguments in this vein have been going on for literal years.
  11. Literally false In the one true version of the movie he is definitely a Replicant I love Harrison Ford with all my heart but he is freakin' wrong on this one
  12. That's an extremely flimsy connection, not gonna lie. Not saying it's wrong, because anything can be right in the realm of things we don't know, but I wouldn't consider a shared title to be befitting of the position of "major evidence." At best, it's supplementary.
  13. Here we have our main point of evidence that the Au Ra are not only draconian but are in fact direct decedents of Bahamut and Tiamat, based on the matching titles/genders. It is also not a stretch to think that when Azim and Nhaama “returned to the heavens,” they were in fact dragons that flew off into the sky. There are, however, still a number of issues with this theory that need to be cleared up. Your main point of evidence doesn't make sense to me. This is the story of how Bahamut became a primal, there's no connection to the rest of the argument here.
  14. Only some people here are saying they won't acknowledge it. Some of us haven't offered any personal takes on this at all. This is a projection of an opinion onto people under the assumption that they should have it because they enjoy lore compliance, which is inaccurate. All that some people wish of others in this thread is the acknowledgement of the fact that Inferrence does not equal Lore, which is another recurring train of thought in this thread. Lore Compliance is not a perception. It is a sliding scale of objective relevancy that is decided upon by how many times one's character concept falls outside of defined lore guidelines, as well as how important said guidelines are compared to others. The only subjective portions of it are how many times a character must break the lore in order to lose compliant status, and how important the broken lore is. If your character breaks the lore less times than mine does, you may objectively state that your character is more compliant than mine, plain and simple. "We're all writing fanon" and "your character's existence is a lore-break" are meaningless statements and arguments, because they are a required premise in order for any arguments on compliance to take place. It does not follow to turn a premise against an argument that requires it, especially when both arguments do. It does not make a difference within the context of the debate, because it is a starting point without any alternative. As for "peer pressure," you are once again assuming that pressuring is appearing in this thread just because it happens in other places. I could just as easily say that going outside of the lore brings with it a communal pressure to get anyone to accept anything, because that sort of mentality appears often among people with this mindset. Honestly, this whole paragraph is madlib-able. This is another projection. No one even brought this up until you did. This assumes the worst about people that do not follow your own mindset. Alternatively, what's causing a perceived hostile environment is the blaming of one portion of a community for all of said community's problems, regardless of what that portion is. Another projection. People are not necessarily taking roleplay "seriously" by being lore compliant and asking for lore compliance. Many people that are lore compliant spend their time pissing around and playing comedic relief characters. This entire post has been filled with random assumptions of people whose mindset you haven't even asked about or gathered enough information on to even make these assumptions. It is entirely possible to see "an opportunity, rather than a wall" when it comes to working within lore guidelines. I could even make the argument that this passage implies a believed lack of creativity among people who enjoy compliance, and that it, again, implies that said people are not welcoming or open minded, or even care about whether or not the other person writes well. I honestly don't think your words are doing a good job of building the bridge between people you're advocating for, here.
  15. This is an ongoing issue with this discussion. There is a repeating thread of mentality that says that people that follow the lore very tightly are not "welcoming," are not "flexible," live to "tear others down," or do not have "fun." Why must this be brought up almost every single time someone says that something is not definite, and is instead a player interpretation, regardless of whether or not they actually state what their level of lore compliancy actually is?
×
×
  • Create New...