Quote:

Originally Posted by the Raptostar:
I agree with the set of rules. it's something I proposed to do long time ago, but nobody even bothered to respond to my proposal. Finally the time has arrived.

Excellent. Then, we are in agreement.

About YOUR proposed rules, I agree with them, with the exception of the time set for a character before it becomes "property" of the collective (this sounds very communist). Instead of "a story", I would say three months. It's the usual lenght of an issue, but it's more defined. A story could last also just three weeks, and if one has computer problems he couldn't even had the time to retire his character.

I think this is an adequate compromise, and one that you make many good points about. I'll wait and see what Grimm and Doc think about this point.

About the "editor" I proposed the same thing two years ago, calling him "master", and EVERYONE hated that. I think it's a necessity, but doesn't mean it has to be always the same. He could change for each story.

I think that a single editor should be voted on, and assigned for the duration of a year. If said editor fails in his/her responsibility, or, leaves, we can re-elect an Editor as needed.

About solo stories for developing periferal concepts, I agree. It's something I began to apply from more than a year now, by the time I had Euro leaving the EPS. All the Hoods/Capes war has been in solo stories. Obviously things that are directly related to Vanguard have to be presented as interludes in the main story, else many wouldn't notice.

Of course. However, this must be an interlude that will have some form of direct involvement, or impact, on the team itself (generally in a timeframe of at least a story, or two).

Grimm's post about Collins, in last issue, altough not directly related to Vanguard (just to Grimm) presented outside the main story would have been not as cool as it was.

Perhaps not. But, as we see it, unless it was to have something to do with the main story, and those characters on a whole, it should have been relegated to a solo thread.

I agree also on the prohibition for the sig lines in the story.

Thanks. Makes me crazy...

About restarting the numeration of the stories, I say NO. I hate the fact that the first issue was numbered 0, and that the current Christmas story, that is a team story, has not a number, so that next issue will be numbered 15 when it is really the 17th issue of Hero Revolution.

Interesting. I knew that you, of everyone, would have the most to say against this. Your obsession with tradition baffles me at times, Euro.

Why restarting the numbering? It's a way to say that all that went before it's not important.

Does it? In what way? To me, not only does it say that it was SO important, that we had to give it its' own finite, finished set of tales, but, that we have progressed so far beyond the original idea, as to create something inherently new. I've never understood your mindset with this.

I cna understand that the three of you, that weren't around at the beginning, have no fondness for those time, but that's different for me, and, I am sure, for others here.

For which ones? The originals? Mxy and Gooz? I think that's all that's left of the Revolutionaries, right? I think we should hear what they have to say, as well.

But, really, Grimm, Doc, and I were NOT around for the original stories (well, I was, but, I wasn't writing....just peripherally involved). And, quite frankly, since we weren't....and many others here as well were not....then I don't see a need to hold on to the original numbering.

But, I leave that one up to the consensus.

Because there are your new characters? Characters arrived and left before, and it was never a good reason to restart the numeration.

No, because almost EVERYONE has new characters here. This isn't the Revolutionaries or the MBL. It's Vanguard. It's a completely different team. And this is just one more piece of minutia to hold us back from taking the writing further into unexplored realms, free of the shackles of overt-continuity and the like.