(09-21-2015, 02:36 PM)Unnamed Mercenary Wrote: It was said much earlier in the thread, but I'd want ot bring it up again.
...when everything keeps getting stacked up if "would"s and "if"s, when does it end?
me: /em would trip on a banana peel and start sliding.
person2: /em would have actually moved that banana peel away, ensuring that Franz could not slip, should it have happened.
person3: /em would have moved the moved banana peel back, seeing how if person2 moved it, their evil plan to make Franz slide into the wall would be foiled.
person4: /em would have then attempted to try to once again move the banana peel to make sure that Franz is safe.
me: FRANZ IS UNSURE WHERE THIS BANANA PEEL IS ANYMORE BECAUSE PEOPLE KEEP THINKING ABOUT MOVING IT.
To me, it looks like there is no accountability for actions on either side. Which is good and bad. If something is supposed to be left so open that literally anyone can interfere with it, nothing will ever get done unless someone finally takes action. Eventually, someone -has- to take an action that other people can react to. Otherwise, we end up in endless speculation.
Again, the form begins in the present tense with a future conditional. Â If everything is a conditional, it doesn't make an awful lot of sense. Â That's not necessarily what you're supposed to do. Â You write in contestable actions in the future conditional.
It's at your discretion to know what's contestable, and that used to be fairly logical. Â Nobody is going to stop you from eating a bagel, but someone will try to stop you from setting them on fire. Â Generally speaking, you only need to use that future conditional tense for a consequence of an action that you need to be apparent when you do something. Â Like if you were eating a bagel, no one cares. Â If you were eating someone else's bagel that you plucked from the table, that might be different and you might need to say, "....fully intending to consume it in front of him," in your post.
I didn't want to add this (again, I really dislike getting on people's cases or snickering behind their backs for how they write), but the idea of someone constantly performing contestable and conditional actions is a sign of someone really wanting attention. Â It's a bit attention-whorish; there's no reason to think someone is going to interrupt your stroll to the store unless you expect it so there's no reason to "would" anything there.
It's only an issue on contestable actions, where your character turns and intends to enter the store after having an argument outside. Â You want to leave it open for the person to stop you, yell after you, run after you, etc, but they need to know you will go inside the store unless interrupted.
