|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Gentlemen and Lady: -As the past month or so has shown, we seem to have a problem here. That problem is the lack of organization, and group-mentality that should be prevalent in the progression of our fiction. This disorganization has lent itself to crossed-wires within the story, and, to our own foul moods. It has begun to bring us down; the weight of pre-planning and personal domination, strangling the joy we should be feeling from the sheer amount of creativity that the minds of this board produce. I'm not the only one that has noticed this. The arguments over what character should be where. The number of characters in use for each poster, and the dominance of personal themes within the group story. Grimm and Doc have been talking to me about it for quite awhile now. The reality of a solution, and the only one that can conceivably work, is to have Ground Rules for the forum. Yes, yes...I know that it has the capability of " restricting imagination" if too overly enforced or detailed. However, it is the only real solution to our problem. With a bare basic set of guidelines, there would be much less debate over certain issues. Thus, Grimm, Doc, and myself have come up with a proposal. One that I ask you to seriously consider. We have come up with a set of guidelines that would not only facilitate a better understanding of the paths that can be taken within this group-ensemble, but, would help eliminate the clutter that, honestly, drives writers away. It is, as follows: Quote:
- 1.) One character per writer in the main story. Period.
- 2.) Any character that is left "unattended" for more than one (1) entire story, and is not removed or secured in any manner, shall become the immediate "property" of the group, until such a time when the creator of said character returns to deal with his/her creation. It's called group writing for a reason.
- 3.) Personal sub-stories are to be limited to Solo Threads. The Vanguard is a group story. A group idea. As such, delving into the personal history and solo sub-story of a character in the middle of a group tale is detrimental to the flow, pacing, and creativity of the writers you are working with. Create a solo thread. Create a million solo threads. Whatever. The main idea, here, is to clean up the amount of extraneous fluff added into a group story, that serves to enhance, focus, or force attention on the personal issues of a single character, or writer.
- 4.) Vanguard is about Vanguard. Yes, the EPS are interesting characters. Yes, The Order, the Asylum, the Hoods/Capes, Psi-Unit, and The Pantheon are ALL interesting characters. And, yes, they should be delved into and explored.......in solo threads. The use of them within the main story is not in question IF they have something to do with the main overall plotline of the story itself (as seen in #14). Whatever devious task Walker is scheming over, or, what the Scion's favorite color happens to be should, in all respects, be covered in solo threads. Even if it means ongoing solo threads. Whatever. The main purpose of this main story is to be about Vanguard. They are the spotlight. They are the stars.
- 5.) The use of the support staff in the main story is limited to the logical use of their intended purpose of creation (i.e. Huerta is a Psychiatrist, Grissom is communications/security, the B-Team are comedy relief, etc). If Charlie's the mechanic, then, let Charlie be the mechanic, and develop her personal life in a solo thread. If Miss X is so mysterious, and Nuriko so cool, then let's see more of that....in a solo thread. Vanguard is about the first-tier characters that we have individually chosen to write.
- 6.) Will everyone PLEASE stop using their sig-line in the story? This may not be an issue with the new boards, but man it always bothered me. Breaks the motion of the story....
Understand, we bring this to you with the idea and intention of improving our standards of writing, and the group dynamic between the myriad of cultures that this forum represents.
Now, given that I'm sure there will be a multitude of debate over the minutia of my wording, or conflicting ideas on what makes "more than one character", and all that, let me say that I'm damn sure that you are all incredibly intelligent people. You all know exactly what I'm talking about here.
Thus, and it saddens me to have to say this, but, Grimm, Doc, and I have come to an agreement.
We need this done. Whether to the letter, or, at least in nature. We need this done. For the future of our fiction here. And, we just aren't prepared to deal with the excessive confusion anymore.
So, if there can be no agreement reached, and we see that things are not going to change, then, the characters of Grimm (the Asylum, the Pantheon, Vengeance), Adem Different (Dirk Bell, the B-Team), and Ozzy Baxter (Turkish, The Order) will all be removed from the stories permanently, and will therein be relocated to a brand new story thread. This thread will consist of moving the characters into an "international office" branch of Vanguard, where the stories told shall have no ties to what you guys are doing.
That way, we will all be happy. You will have your conglomeration of mess, and we will have the type of freedom we wish to be able to tell stories, without having to worry about every last detail of someone elses character.
Don't read this the wrong way. My tone of voice should be coming across as neutral as possible. This is not a threat. It is, merely, a solution.
***************************
And, while I have your attention:
Suggestions:
1. -The Heroes Revolution has evolved considerably from its inception. Needless to say, we all stand on the crux of a new story dynamic with all of these new characters. Let's take a moment to understand that it started with the Revolutionaries. Then, it became the MBL. Now, it's Vanguard.
Our suggestion is, start the story titles over.
The next issue should be "Vanguard, Int. #1: STORY TITLE".
This gives us a clean-break from all of the old storylines (as tied up in #14), and begins us again, with a fresh new breath, a fresh new focus, and a sense of direction for the stories. And, at the same time, saves from having to toss out the entire universe.
It's a new age for the Vanguardians in the story. Let's make it a new age for us, as well.
2. -I say that an "Editor" is appointed. Someone with the final say in certain matters. Someone that will be given the responsiblity to decide if the guidelines are being infringed, and, have the power to correct such errors (i.e. moving personal posts from the main story into solo threads, making judgement calls on the use of characters, and how it might affect the stories, etc.) Someone the group decides is a fair, and balanced judge of character.
These two are just suggestions.
*************************
So, you have read the proposal.
Consider it. And take into account what we are asking, and what we are trying to communicate.
We look forward to your responses.
-Prometheus
-Grimm
-thedoctor
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,392
[insert non-dated reference here] 10000+ posts
|
|
[insert non-dated reference here] 10000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,392 |
Sounds like a bloody corporate takeover...
Hmm. Y'know, I agree with a couple of these points as well as the spirit they're presented in, though my instincts are to disagree with others. Some seem directed at me personally, though that's probably more of an indication of my egotism.
I dunno. I've got to think about this...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,645
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,645 |
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
I agree also on the prohibition for the sig lines in the story.
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. Why restarting the numbering? It's a way to say that all that went before it's not important. 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. It doens't even makes sense doing it now, when Vanguard is around from the last spring. If we would change again the name, relocate the team, give it a new purpose, I could understand the restart of the numeration (but I would still be contrary), but doing it now, why? Because there are your new characters? Characters arrived and left before, and it was never a good reason to restart the numeration.
For me, the number is the sign of how long a history carry on. Breaking the numeration, that is the tangible sign of it, to me seem just stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,645
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,645 |
Quote:
This gives us a clean-break from all of the old storylines (as tied up in #14)
All?
Like the Priest/Danny plot, the evil MBL plot, The Left Hand/Mandelovian plot, the Grimm/Collins plot... without mentioning things we have yet to see like Mick wedding and more.
There is no clean breack, LUCKILY. The universe did not ended in issue 14, and will not restart with 15. Vanguard is still the same, metas are still hated in most of the world.
It's true that a big load of stuff (unresolved plots) have been cleared away, but that was mostly the stuff of a poster that has left the board. The stuff of who is still writing is still intact, and in need of being put to fruition.
Last edited by The Eurostar; 2004-01-03 7:06 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
You know, these here rules are a nifty idea. But inevitably, there are gonna be differences of opinion... Quote:
1.) One character per writer in the main story. Period.
 How did I know it would come to that?  One character? Do you mean we can only have one active team member, or do supporting characters just no longer mean anything to anyone?  :
I can understand all the other rules, and they're good ones. And to be perfectly honest with you, yeah, I've got a little bit of selfish motive here. I happen to have created two very good characters here (some of the best characterization I've done yet, thanks to some help from some of you), and now I'm gonna have to let one of 'em be relegated to some hellish reserve status or put on some damned JSA-esque F-Troop? Or even worse just dropped into literary limbo?
I honestly think I've demonstrated by now that I can play ball in the context of the issue at large without 'weighing down' the story with my own subplots (which, when they are introduced, are generally unobtrusive and fairly self-contained, or else have a constructive impact on the general plot). When I've used multiple characters as in this past issue, they were both important participants without either having to be the 'star' of the story. I just don't see what the major malfunction is here.
All I'm saying is that both Phil and Leslie have become valuable characters in this continuity - as evidenced by the number of people willing to write one or both of them - and I would be very disappointed if I had to get rid of one of them just to satisfy 'the rules'. I just wanna tell stories with you guys, and I'd prefer to bring both my characters along for the ride. I'd at least like to try and negotiate this, if that's not too much trouble.
Other than that, I think your ideas for new rules are very well thought out. They free us from potential entanglements, whether it's the tendency of asshole writers such as myself to lord it over the story with our own subplots or the tendency of other individuals to BSAMS this universe by dragging in pointless details from the distant past (or other continuities that happened to be by the same writers) and then nitpicking about them.  But if you really wanna do this democracy thing, and you really want this to work as a team, then I suggest you put each of these up to a vote, since you're gathering our opinions. Granted, three people's opinions are going to be a lot more balanced than the opinions of one (even though Grimm is Pro ), but IMO they're still not representative enough to call gospel until everyone else has at least had their say. In that case, thank yo ufor making these a proposal rather than coming in and saying THESE ARE THE RULES... in which case there would be absolute mayhem. (Not that I mind a little mayhem, but in this case that might not be so hot.)
Anyhoo, I think we're off to a good start, but I'd be lying if I said I agreed with you guys on all the details. Sorry, but you know me. So let's talk it over a bit more first, please. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,645
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,645 |
I believe that what They are meaning is that each poster should have just an active meber, not just one character in the story, or not just Leslie, but also the B team, Quantos, Euro's kid, Shirley should be dumped.
And that, I am sure, it's not the intention of the three amigos.
I don't think having Leslie NOT labeled as "regular member" should prevent you from telling the stories you want. I also think that if for a story you want to use Leslie in mission instead of Phil, that wouldn't break the rule of "one character for each poster".
Last edited by The Eurostar; 2004-01-03 4:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Axel Templar:
Sounds like a bloody corporate takeover...
Hmm. Y'know, I agree with a couple of these points as well as the spirit they're presented in, though my instincts are to disagree with others. Some seem directed at me personally, though that's probably more of an indication of my egotism.
I dunno. I've got to think about this...
There was nothing presented designed to pinpoint one specific writer. If you notice, I use my own characters as an example, as well.
I look forward to hearing your overall response.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,900
notnotnotnotnotnotnotwedge 2500+ posts
|
|
notnotnotnotnotnotnotwedge 2500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,900 |
I'm not really sure how this would apply to Drake and Drax. My plan all along has been to replace them eventually once Drake's illness coimes to its conclusion. I suppose I could change things a bit and switch over to my new character in the Christmas story. Then I could write a "solo" story with the conclusion for Drake and Drax (others could join in if they wished). I was planning on something and it could cause Drake to decide to leave if I tweek things a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920 |
I have no problem with any of the rules (most don't affect me anyway) and I think the stories would be a lot better if we did things that way, but I do think you're being too drastic on this. I think each rule should be up for debate instead of being a "take it or leave it" situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Quote:
Like the Priest/Danny plot,
Can be resolved in a solo thread.
the evil MBL plot,
Solo thread, until it impacts the entire team.
The Left Hand/Mandelovian plot,
Ditto
the Grimm/Collins plot...
Solo.
without mentioning things we have yet to see like Mick wedding and more.
Solo special.
There is no clean breack, LUCKILY. The universe did not ended in issue 14, and will not restart with 15. Vanguard is still the same, metas are still hated in most of the world.
This is, of course, your opinion. I disagree completely.
It's true that a big load of stuff (unresolved plots) have been cleared away, but that was mostly the stuff of a poster that has left the board. The stuff of who is still writing is still intact, and in need of being put to fruition.
Yes. Outside the main storylines.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leslie Smith:
One character? Do you mean we can only have one active team member, or do supporting characters just no longer mean anything to anyone? :
You know exactly what we mean by this. We've talked about it at considerable lengths in the Talk Thread. Don't play stupid.
I can understand all the other rules, and they're good ones. And to be perfectly honest with you, yeah, I've got a little bit of selfish motive here. I happen to have created two very good characters here (some of the best characterization I've done yet, thanks to some help from some of you), and now I'm gonna have to let one of 'em be relegated to some hellish reserve status or put on some damned JSA-esque F-Troop? Or even worse just dropped into literary limbo?
It's called a "Solo Thread", Phil. It's what we use to express massive amounts of personal stories, and ideas, without cluttering up the main thread. I don't really care which character you use, Leslie, or Phil. But, as we stand, there can be only one in the main group. It's up to you to choose which one you would like to use each adventure.
Other than that, I think your ideas for new rules are very well thought out. They free us from potential entanglements, whether it's the tendency of asshole writers such as myself to lord it over the story with our own subplots or the tendency of other individuals to BSAMS this universe by dragging in pointless details from the distant past (or other continuities that happened to be by the same writers) and then nitpicking about them. But if you really wanna do this democracy thing, and you really want this to work as a team, then I suggest you put each of these up to a vote, since you're gathering our opinions.
A vote will more than likely come. But, as we see it, we've tried "democracy". It's left us nothing but this constant bickering and confusion.
These rules are, simply, no different than the ones that we used in the TOMBLverse. And, we had very, very little problem whatsoever while under these guidelines.
In that case, thank yo ufor making these a proposal rather than coming in and saying THESE ARE THE RULES... in which case there would be absolute mayhem. (Not that I mind a little mayhem, but in this case that might not be so hot.)
Well, it is a proposal. We aren't forcing anyone into this. If the consensus is that an agreement can not be reached, then, we will simply remove ourselves from the fiction. That way, everyone will be happy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Quote:
Originaly Posted by NotDrax:
I'm not really sure how this would apply to Drake and Drax. My plan all along has been to replace them eventually once Drake's illness coimes to its conclusion. I suppose I could change things a bit and switch over to my new character in the Christmas story. Then I could write a "solo" story with the conclusion for Drake and Drax (others could join in if they wished). I was planning on something and it could cause Drake to decide to leave if I tweek things a bit.
Drake/Drax is no different than Mick/Mxy, Danny/Hal, or Adem/Jym. It's all one character, and there is no conflict therein. Thus, you have nothing to worry about.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Quote:
Originally Posted by the late Mxy:
I have no problem with any of the rules (most don't affect me anyway) and I think the stories would be a lot better if we did things that way, but I do think you're being too drastic on this. I think each rule should be up for debate instead of being a "take it or leave it" situation.
The debate angle has been tried. And with no conclusion, or final say ever available, it's left us nothing but bad attitudes. This was our only option left, thanks to the inability of democracy to work feasibly within this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,081
... 10000+ posts
|
|
... 10000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,081 |
Quote:
One character? Do you mean we can only have one active team member, or do supporting characters just no longer mean anything to anyone? :
...I happen to have created two very good characters..., and now I'm gonna have to let one of 'em be relegated to some hellish reserve status or put on some damned JSA-esque F-Troop? Or even worse just dropped into literary limbo?
I honestly think I've demonstrated by now that I can play ball in the context of the issue at large without 'weighing down' the story with my own subplots (which, when they are introduced, are generally unobtrusive and fairly self-contained, or else have a constructive impact on the general plot). When I've used multiple characters as in this past issue, they were both important participants without either having to be the 'star' of the story. I just don't see what the major malfunction is here.
All I'm saying is that both Phil and Leslie have become valuable characters in this continuity - as evidenced by the number of people willing to write one or both of them - and I would be very disappointed if I had to get rid of one of them just to satisfy 'the rules'. I just wanna tell stories with you guys, and I'd prefer to bring both my characters along for the ride. I'd at least like to try and negotiate this, if that's not too much trouble.
We've talked about this before, Phil, and I believe I let you know the dangers of this particular brand of thinking. First of all, your point comes across as making you sound as though you, of all the writers here, are best able to handle a balancing of more than one character simply because you haven't been involved in past universes (where such rules were made) and thus cannot make similar errors, like completely monopolizing a story with your own subplots and characters. (I've been guilty of this in TOMB stories, so I know what I'm talking about.) However, I also have the good fortune to know you both as a person and as a writer, causing me to realize that this is not the case. However, try to see the logic at work here:
1.) As a collaborative group, the MBL (in its initial inception) has been around since the late '90s. As such, we've had a unique opportunity to work together throughout that time, and, as such, study each others strengths and weaknesses. We've learned what works and what does not. I remember laying down some rules in the original TOMB stories that helped us out quite a bit: no sigs, one character per poster, and setting a cap on membership. This helped create a tone in stories like "Malvana's Song" and "Hunt for Anninistrio'r" that, in my opinion, we've only just recently begun to emulate in these stories. They were fun, because they were not bogged down with too many characters and too many posters wanting to accomplish too many things with their own characters. It was about a group of posters telling a group story. And it was fun!
2.) I know that you shudder at "devolving" Leslie down to a "reserve" status, but consider your options. Is it fair to have three posters committed to work on only their main characters, setting aside all other plot and character ideas that they have, but to have another poster parading around with more than one character in the main story? I'll answer for you: it's not at all fair. As a group, we must not only write well other characters within that group, and respect the limitations other writers have placed on us, but we must also limit ourselves in order that we may all have the same freedoms as writers. Father of American governmental philosophy John Locke said that, "My freedom to swing my fist ends at the other gentleman's nose," meaning that you must limit your own personal freedoms so that the other members of this community may enjoy the same freedoms.
3.) Don't think that just because you are not now planning on dominating a story with the use of your two characters that you are incapable of doing it altogether. Once again, it's something I've done before. Take it from one who's been there.
Quote:
...(even though Grimm is Pro )...
No, no... Gooz is Pro. Grimm is Pro's bitch. There's a difference...
Quote:
...but IMO they're still not representative enough to call gospel until everyone else has at least had their say.
Hence the phrasing as a "proposal," rather than a "so-shall-it-be-written-so-shall-it-be-done" style. This is kinda like how they do things in Congress, if I recall high school government correctly.
"I'm just a bill, yes, I'm only a bill... and I'm sittin' here on Captiol Hill..."
...or, if you prefer...
"I'm an amendment-to-be, yes, an amendment-to-be... and I hope they're gonna ratify me..."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1
living in 1962 15000+ posts
|
|
living in 1962 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
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.
Would this be the post where I showed that Collins had been moving against the team in secret for months, directly linking back to several previously unresolved plot threads from previous issues? Do you not consider that a direct link to Vanguard? the current Christmas story, that is a team story, has not a number
Yes, it does. It's HR Christmas Special #1.
Last edited by Grimm; 2004-01-03 5:18 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1
living in 1962 15000+ posts
|
|
living in 1962 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
No, no... Gooz is Pro. Grimm is Pro's bitch. There's a difference...
Damn skippy! I mean, uh, hey, wait a minute! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 980
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 980 |
 Just bringing this over the poo.
Have you ever looked into a mirror and wondered if behind it was another world, the same... but totally different?- Reflection (2002) UTOPIAN PRODUCTIONS
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
I think a little clarification might be in order. There seems to a little bit of miscommunication. What we are saying is that we need to clean up the clutter in the middle of the stories.
I think a ban on Interludes will help that. If the team is off in Oz battling the Wicked Witch and her flying monkeys, we don't need a post in the middle of it about Kit back in Perdita scratching his balls. It breaks up the flow of the story. It's something that we need to move away from.
This is not to say that we can't do character development in the main stories. We just shouldn't make the stories suffer because of it. As I've said before, and I think some of you agree, the beginnings and ends of stories are the best place for that sort of thing. The main purpose of the story has yet to get into gear or has been resolved by those points. Prologues and Epilogues will still be available for all of us to do whatever set ups or development we need in a place that doesn't affect the flow of the story.
As far as the relaunching of the stories with a new title and number, it is not about forgetting what happened before. It has to do with 1. That 14 wrapped up a lot of old business as well as introduced a lot of new faces, 2. it also brought in a new era as far as Vanguard's visiability in the world and possibly the world view on metas (though there will never be a full consensus), and 3. the name Vanguard will give more focus to the team atmosphere that we want to push over the more individual character driven one more than a title that no longer describes the team that is now assembled. The third reason is the one that I and Grimm are most concerned with. Vanguard as the name will be more of a signafier of the team spirit and attitude that we want to inject more of in the stories rather than self seriving posts that we've all been guilty of making. What's the name of the book that the Justice League appears in? The Justice Society? The Avengers? X-Men? The names of the teams appear because those books are about the TEAMS. That's why we feel Vanguard #1 would be a better title now than the old Hero Revolution.
I do think we need an Editor. One moderator not to go through and delete posts he or she doesn't like, but someone to make sure that the flow of the story isn't interrupted by interludes. "This doesn't fit, so I'm going to copy and paste it to it's own thread or a thread made specifically for this kinda thing." Not someone who can veto a story idea, but maybe someone who can remind us that "this guy was killed in Pro's last post, so I don't think that he'll be drinking moonshine and playing the spoons in the next post." Nothing intrusive. Just a referee type to keep the rules for us trouble makers.
I'm glad most of you haven't seen this as a "we'll take our toys and go home" assault upon you guys. We just wanted to make it clear that if we couldn't all talk this out and come to a majority conclusion that we were willing to apply these rules to ourselves in seperate stories with anyone who would talk it out. Since we're all conversing, there's no problem of that happening. This also isn't a take it or leave it proposal either. We are willing to work on rules that we all feel are enough to keep us from going wild, but not constricting enough to prevent us from writing.
I, personally, would also like to hear your ideas on what powers and limitations should we give an editor should one be elected.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
I do think we need an Editor. One moderator not to go through and delete posts he or she doesn't like, but someone to make sure that the flow of the story isn't interrupted by interludes. "This doesn't fit, so I'm going to copy and paste it to it's own thread or a thread made specifically for this kinda thing." Not someone who can veto a story idea, but maybe someone who can remind us that "this guy was killed in Pro's last post, so I don't think that he'll be drinking moonshine and playing the spoons in the next post." Nothing intrusive. Just a referee type to keep the rules for us trouble makers.
I'm glad most of you haven't seen this as a "we'll take our toys and go home" assault upon you guys. We just wanted to make it clear that if we couldn't all talk this out and come to a majority conclusion that we were willing to apply these rules to ourselves in seperate stories with anyone who would talk it out. Since we're all conversing, there's no problem of that happening. This also isn't a take it or leave it proposal either. We are willing to work on rules that we all feel are enough to keep us from going wild, but not constricting enough to prevent us from writing.
I, personally, would also like to hear your ideas on what powers and limitations should we give an editor should one be elected.
I'm a cantankerous nitpicking bastard!!! Can I do it??? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
2.) I know that you shudder at "devolving" Leslie down to a "reserve" status, but consider your options. Is it fair to have three posters committed to work on only their main characters, setting aside all other plot and character ideas that they have, but to have another poster parading around with more than one character in the main story? I'll answer for you: it's not at all fair.
You arse! I thought you meant ELIMINATE one of my characters. I just wanted to keep Leslie around in the HQ helping Quantos or Grissom or whoever and jump in if Phil were to be incapacitated somehow.
Geez! John Locke. Like we care.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,081
... 10000+ posts
|
|
... 10000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,081 |
Quote:
Geez! John Locke. Like we care.
You're just jealous 'cuz I'm the philosophy major and can actually put things that I study onto these boards and sound intelligent! >:)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
You're just jealous 'cuz I...can actually put things that I study onto these boards and sound intelligent! >:)
Pfffffffft! That's because it's philosophy! No wrong answers!
Besides, nobody wants to know about the evolution of sonata form, non-tertian harmonies, or principal composers of the baroque period anyway. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1
living in 1962 15000+ posts
|
|
living in 1962 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1 |
Back to the points of the thread, please.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,645
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,645 |
Quote:
So, if there can be no agreement reached, and we see that things are not going to change, then, the characters of Grimm (the Asylum, the Pantheon, Vengeance), Adem Different (Dirk Bell, the B-Team), and Ozzy Baxter (Turkish, The Order) will all be removed from the stories permanently, and will therein be relocated to a brand new story thread. This thread will consist of moving the characters into an "international office" branch of Vanguard, where the stories told shall have no ties to what you guys are doing.
So, you don't understand my tie to tradition, but instead of just moving away, you want to start an "international" branch of Vanguard?
Seriously, I don't mind changing the name. Putting Vanguard to replace Hero Revolution is a good thing, IMO. Just NOT to the restart of numeration.
Why?
If you were to propose to NOT have a numeration, I would not have any good objection. But since you want to put a 1 after the name Vanguard in the new thread, I ask, why? Numeration is just that: it tell how many stories have gone the team through. And they are 16, counting the Special and issue 0. You could restart the numeration, but that will be just a lie.
So, I say, ok to the renaming, and no to the renumebering. FOR ME, next issue should be "Vanguard Int. issue 15: title name".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,645
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,645 |
Quote:
There is no clean breack, LUCKILY. The universe did not ended in issue 14, and will not restart with 15. Vanguard is still the same, metas are still hated in most of the world.
This is, of course, your opinion. I disagree completely.
OK, but let's see, what the world has seen, through Strikeforce produced footage, is that the war with Naecken has been fought just by the Strikeforce, that was presented as composed by only non-metahumans. It was total bullshit, but that's what the world at large thinks.
Don't get me wrong, I am for establishing a common acceptance of metas among the world (at last legally, as the mind and hearts of peoples cannot be won so easily), but that moment has not yet arrived. At last, no one has started to write in that direction. I haven't, because first I want to see the evil MBL plot resolved. Having them going around to make terrorist acts in the name of liberation for the metas, and having the nations of the world stopping discrimination toward metas AT THE SAME TIME wouldn't make for a good story, I think. Surely that wouldn't happen in the real world. I don't know if Vanguard will simply beat them up at some moment, or there will be the start of a metahumans civil right movements to affirm that rights in a non-violent way (a thing that could be born from the Christmas parade at la Perdita), but in any case it will take more than a story to see metas accepted in the rest of the world.
To begin, it needs that the world knows about the effort of the metas community in the Antarctic War. And since nor the Strikeforce or the EPS would have that goal, it should have been Vanguard to film what was happening. They didn't, so the world, THIS time, doesn't know. Next time maybe they will have someone with a movie camera, and things will goes differently. As I had Otto or someone other at the bar saying, Vanguard has still to work on their public relation department. That's a thing I will try to cover in future stories.
To stay on topic, as per Grimm request, I'll recap here my take on the three amigos proposal:
Quote:
Rules, Eurostar's flavour:
1.) One Vanguard member per writer in the main story.
2.) Any character that is left "unattended" for more than three months, and is not removed or secured in any manner, shall become the immediate "property" of the group , until such a time when the creator of said character returns to deal with his/her creation.
3.) Personal sub-stories are to be limited to Solo Threads. Long term plotting regarding Vanguard is limited to epilogues at the end of the main stories (or to posts at the beginning, if the story allows that). Interludes are not allowed.
4.) Vanguard is about Vanguard. Other concepts are to be delved into and explored.......in solo threads. The main purpose of this main story is to be about Vanguard.
5.) The use of the support staff in the main story is limited to the logical use of their intended purpose of creation (i.e. Huerta is a Psychiatrist, Grissom is communications/security, the B-Team are comedy relief, etc), or for creating plot devices (i.e. Lil'Jo is kidnapped and Vanguard run to save him).
6.) Stop to the use of the sig-line in the story posts.
As for the suggestions, I say yes to the changing of thread-name to "Vanguard, Int.", and no to a restarting of the numeration.
About the editor, I think it could be a good idea. It should be elected for a limited period of time (six stories could be a good compromise), had the role of pointing out behaviors distant from the rules, mistakes etc. At first he could say that in the talk thread, explaining his motivations, wait for an answer and then judge and act consequently.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
The rules do not seem unreasonable to me, but I have a few questions.
1. When you say one character per story, do you mean one main character? Let's say we no one has 'Earl' as the character they are writing about. Can we use 'Earl' as a secondary character?
2. I think having background information on a character is important, but I agree that too much is not good. But what's the limit? How much is too much -- when do I need to take the material to a solo thread?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,645
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,645 |
From my pont of view, to answer your fiorst question, one poster should have just one member of Vanguard, and then can introduce secondary characters, like the B team meber, Quantos, Eddie etc. Thw writing about them should regard their interaction with the story in the main issues, while everything else should be put in solo threads.
For the second question, I think everything that has to be adressed by Vanguard, sooner or later, it could saty in the main story, while what regard just the single character should be in solo threads. For example, I put the dialogue of Euro with Saros in the epilogue of last story because the future actions of saros will have an impact over Vanguard, while I have kept Arturo Ghiorzo, a new nemesis for Euro, just in my ongoing solo thread, because I plan to have him to fight just Euro, without involving Vanbguard in it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banshee Jack:
The rules do not seem unreasonable to me, but I have a few questions.
1. When you say one character per story, do you mean one main character? Let's say we no one has 'Earl' as the character they are writing about. Can we use 'Earl' as a secondary character?
Excellent questions.
I believe the best way to express what we are wanting is to use Phil as an example. Phil's main character is "Phil Smith". He has also chosen to create a female counterpart in the form of "Leslie". Now, as each story begins (or, as he needs) Phil the writer will have to decide if he wants to use "Phil" or "Leslie" as his main character. I personally see no problem with either, as long as it isn't both at the same time. Same thing with TTT. He can either use Mason Templar, Axel, or, Doc Quantos as his main character. Gooz can either use Sam, or, Priest. And, etc., etc.
If by "secondary characters" you are referring to your latest use of Bri and Leslie together (which I quite enjoyed, I must say), then, I see no real problem with that either. Just not in the main "field missions".
Am I making any sense? Grimm? Doc? Someone want to help me out here. What is it I'm trying to say?
Quote:
2. I think having background information on a character is important, but I agree that too much is not good. But what's the limit? How much is too much -- when do I need to take the material to a solo thread?
When it becomes an enormous flashback sequence, or, entire interludes on nothing but the character's origin, or, personal dealings. Data presented in a main story thread, that really has nothing to do with the story at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
I believe the best way to express what we are wanting is to use Phil as an example.
 Always somebody trying to make an example of me.
Quote:
Phil's main character is "Phil Smith". He has also chosen to create a female counterpart in the form of "Leslie". Now, as each story begins (or, as he needs) Phil the writer will have to decide if he wants to use "Phil" or "Leslie" as his main character. I personally see no problem with either, as long as it isn't both at the same time.
So, two can't go on the actual mission? Could I use Leslie in a support-type role in the HQ, on a wire with the team, like we've been doing with Grissom?
Quote:
If by "secondary characters" you are referring to your latest use of Bri and Leslie together (which I quite enjoyed, I must say), then, I see no real problem with that either. Just not in the main "field missions".
Yeah, that's what made me ask that last question. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142 |
Alright, if Pro is Kevin Nash, Grimm is Scott Hall and thedoctor is HHH, then who's X-Pac and Shawn Michaels? And does all of this make Sammitch Shane Douglas?  Quote:
I think a ban on Interludes will help that. If the team is off in Oz battling the Wicked Witch and her flying monkeys, we don't need a post in the middle of it about Kit back in Perdita scratching his balls. It breaks up the flow of the story. It's something that we need to move away from.
Maybe you don't think we need that, but I say any post about balls being scratched couldn't possibly hurt the overall story any group is trying to tell.
And that's terrible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,392
[insert non-dated reference here] 10000+ posts
|
|
[insert non-dated reference here] 10000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,392 |
Thanks for clarifying things a bit more, Pro -- some of the "rules" are still not specific enough for me, but we're getting there.
For instance, you say:
Quote:
5.) The use of the support staff in the main story is limited to the logical use of their intended purpose of creation (i.e. Huerta is a Psychiatrist, Grissom is communications/security, the B-Team are comedy relief, etc). If Charlie's the mechanic, then, let Charlie be the mechanic, and develop her personal life in a solo thread. If Miss X is so mysterious, and Nuriko so cool, then let's see more of that....in a solo thread."
Does this mean that, under the new rules, I wouldn't have been able to post the short flashback scene where Chance and Charlene kinda "get it on" the night before the mission in which Chance died? If so, I seriously object -- writing that short flashback in a solo thread separate from the main story would've diluted any emotional impact when she learned of Chance's death later on. Clarify please.
Also, when you say "Personal sub-stories are to be limited to Solo Threads" I wonder whether the mission Dr. Quantos sent Chance on when the team went to Mandelovia would thus be out of the question under the new rules. Issue #14 was an anomaly in many ways (such as using multiple characters in the main action, bringing back former team members no longer being used by their posters, etc), but that mission (finding Quantos' daughter) could not have been done at any other time. I don't see how it distracted from the story at all, considering the fact that each of the team members in Mandelovia were each doing their own thing there, anyway.
Also, going back to rule #1 again:
Quote:
One character per writer in the main story. Period.
This isn't very self-explanatory, as the subsequent questions posted by Jackie and others has shown. I'll use #14 for another example, here. I killed off Chance halfway through the story, and he was my main character. Does this mean I have to sit out the rest of the story under the new rules? Or can I do what I did and continue writing the story with my new character (in this case, Axel)? If not, what exactly is the problem? Clarify, please.
As far as your suggestions go, I'm not at all convinced at the logic for restarting the numbering. It really doesn't add anything to the stories, and it takes away the practical numbering system which make it easy to keep track of the stories. God, if there's one thing I can't stand, it's when a series with the same character or characters (such as Aquaman, Supergirl, Legion of Super-Heroes, etc) has multiple issue #1's! It's so pointless! They always use the "clean break" reason for it, too, but it just causes confusion [example: "Euro fought that guy in issue #3." "No he didn't -- Euro was in space during issue #3." "No, I mean the original numbering!" "You mean the old universe?" "No, I mean the new universe, but the numbering we had before we restarted the numbering!" "Oh. Well, this is confusing. Maybe we should restart the numbering again." "Sigh."]. Let's be pragmatic and continue the numbering we have now, whether or not we call it "Hero Revolution" or "Vanguard International"...
As far as the idea of "editor" goes, well, I can see this getting really out of hand really easily. It's too authoritarian and dictatorial for me to accept. And I don't think this group needs one. Saying we need an editor is like saying we can't trust each other to follow the rules. The honor system will work just fine, thanks. The rest of the stuff is just typical moderator's duties.
I do think that the person who begins a team story should have the responsibility (like that of a "gamemaster" in a Role-Playing Game, changing each story) of moving the story along when it needs to be moved along and of mentioning in the talk thread when someone strays out of acceptable territory as defined by the guidelines, but not to the point where we get someone editing other peoples' posts without their permission and shit like that. Let's treat each other like adults, please. A person's writing is a very personal thing, and I don't know anyone who likes their stuff edited or cut out without notice. If it becomes a big enough problem to do some cutting (such as real disagreement between the posters and the guidelines), it should be hashed out with the group and the poster in question in the talk thread rather than just decided upon by one or three persons. We've been able to come to such a consensus in the past, and I'd rather we argue violently in the talk thread than just have everything decided for us without our input.
One final thing I've got to say -- I don't like ultimatums, nobody does, and they're a poor way to get ones message across when dealing with others on an equal basis. It's a form of message board extortion which doesn't work so well in a group like ours. In fact, it took a great deal of willpower to not simply lash blindly out at that. The truth is, though, I do agree with the guidelines in principle (though with the caveat that I need more clarification and discussion on how they actually work), and as everyone knows I've always advocated the unofficial ones we've had.
This post may sound harsh, but it's as harsh and honest as the original post in this thread, so don't take it personally.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Quote:
Thanks for clarifying things a bit more, Pro -- some of the "rules" are still not specific enough for me, but we're getting there.
For instance, you say:
5.) The use of the support staff in the main story is limited to the logical use of their intended purpose of creation (i.e. Huerta is a Psychiatrist, Grissom is communications/security, the B-Team are comedy relief, etc). If Charlie's the mechanic, then, let Charlie be the mechanic, and develop her personal life in a solo thread. If Miss X is so mysterious, and Nuriko so cool, then let's see more of that....in a solo thread."
Does this mean that, under the new rules, I wouldn't have been able to post the short flashback scene where Chance and Charlene kinda "get it on" the night before the mission in which Chance died? If so, I seriously object -- writing that short flashback in a solo thread separate from the main story would've diluted any emotional impact when she learned of Chance's death later on. Clarify please.
No problem.
The use of Chance's personal life flashback was fine. It was neither intrusive, or, dominating, and gave something to your character without taking away from the story.
The fact that you killed off Chance in the middle of the story was also fine, and, well done. That gave you the opportunity to either, write other characters, and help progress the main plotline, or, introduce your new main character into the action.
However, instead, you took an enormous amount of room in the main story itself to progress a personal plotline between a secondary supporting character, and a new character you decided to not even bring into the main fold. It broke up the pacing of the main story, and served to enhance nothing in the group dynamics.
Quote:
Also, when you say "Personal sub-stories are to be limited to Solo Threads" I wonder whether the mission Dr. Quantos sent Chance on when the team went to Mandelovia would thus be out of the question under the new rules.
Quote:
I don't see how it distracted from the story at all, considering the fact that each of the team members in Mandelovia were each doing their own thing there, anyway.
Exactly. There was nothing intrusive about that, since it was involved within the main action, and, in the end (Chance's death) involved the entire group.
Quote:
As far as your suggestions go, I'm not at all convinced at the logic for restarting the numbering. It really doesn't add anything to the stories, and it takes away the practical numbering system which make it easy to keep track of the stories. God, if there's one thing I can't stand, it's when a series with the same character or characters (such as Aquaman, Supergirl, Legion of Super-Heroes, etc) has multiple issue #1's! It's so pointless! They always use the "clean break" reason for it, too, but it just causes confusion. Let's be practical and continue the numbering we have now, whether or not we call it "Hero Revolution" or "Vanguard International"...
I don't like the re-numbering system in comics all the time, either. But, they have a point when it comes to allowing new readers (or in this case "writers") to join in on a pseudo-ground-level. And, I must remind everyone that I am speaking for two other people, as well (Grimm and Doc). The "renumbering" part, I don't care either way. The "retitling" part I am for, as I think it would help clarify the intent of our stories.
Quote:
I do think that the person who begins a team story should have the responsibility (like that of a "gamemaster" in a Role-Playing Game, changing each story) of moving the story along when it needs to be moved along and of mentioning in the talk thread when someone strays out of acceptable territory as defined by the guidelines, but not to the point where we get someone editing other peoples' posts without their permission and shit like that.
I don't neccessarily remember saying that stuff would be edited 'without permission', and shit like that. But, we need a go-to decision maker that can cut through all the bullshit that certain writers tend to pile on in the main story, that serves only their own devices.
Quote:
Let's treat each other like adults, please.
If this was sincerely true of this forum, would the three of us be approaching you all in need of these guidelines? Would we have to point out the disrespect that flows between writers and the material in which they take advantage of? Of course not. So, really, this line of thinking is purely defensive on your part, and in no way relates to this group of writers, or the topics addressed within this thread.
Quote:
One final thing I've got to say -- I don't like ultimatums, nobody does, and they're a poor way to get ones message across when dealing with others on an equal basis.
At what point was this an "ultimatum", TTT? I proposed the issues that three of us are uncomfortable with. I expressed, in very clear terms, that IF the majority does not agree with our views, that we would simply save everyone the hassle and remove ourselves from the stories. If our material does not work evenly with everyone elses, then, wouldn't it be best to step back to avoid more problems? How are you, or anyone, losing anything if we leave? If everyone rejected our thinking, then, that means that they have no need of our writing input in this universe. Simple as that.
Quote:
It's a form of message board extortion which doesn't work so well in a group like ours. In fact, it took a great deal of willpower to not simply lash blindly out at that.
Any dramatically emotional responses, to such a logical expression of ideas, is simply a perspective I don't understand.
Quote:
The truth is, though, I do agree with the guidelines in principle (though with the caveat that I need more clarification and discussion on how they actually work), and as everyone knows I've always advocated the unofficial ones we've had.
This post may sound harsh, but it's as harsh and honest as the original post in this thread, so don't take it personally.
I rarely take what anyone here says "personally". I crave brutal honesty, as long as those who give it are prepared to accept it in return.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,392
[insert non-dated reference here] 10000+ posts
|
|
[insert non-dated reference here] 10000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,392 |
Quote:
However, instead, you took an enormous amount of room in the main story itself to progress a personal plotline between a secondary supporting character, and a new character you decided to not even bring into the main fold. It broke up the pacing of the main story, and served to enhance nothing in the group dynamics.
Oh, I'm fully aware of this and criticized myself in the talk thread with the same reasons you just said. In retrospect, I should have put the whole Axel/Agent X thing in another thread, but by the time I'd realized that Axel couldn't join the team until he was ready (which will take a while), the thing was pretty much set up and had to follow through, for good or ill. As I said, issue #14 broke all the rules. Circumstances also happened so that I was offline for about a week and a half and all I could do in the meantime was conclude the Agent X thing that I'd set up in the Mandelovia part of the story. It may have not been the right thing to do -- and I wouldn't do it that way in the future -- but it's done. No going back now. And hey, I had Axel interact with pretty much everyone left behind on La Perdita, so I threw in as much group dynamic as was possible without actually tossing Axel right into Antarctica with the team. Oh well. At least Mxy liked it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,392
[insert non-dated reference here] 10000+ posts
|
|
[insert non-dated reference here] 10000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,392 |
Clarifying my use of the word "ultimatum": Quote:
Thus, and it saddens me to have to say this, but, Grimm, Doc, and I have come to an agreement.
We need this done. Whether to the letter, or, at least in nature. We need this done. For the future of our fiction here. And, we just aren't prepared to deal with the excessive confusion anymore.
So, if there can be no agreement reached, and we see that things are not going to change, then, the characters of Grimm (the Asylum, the Pantheon, Vengeance), Adem Different (Dirk Bell, the B-Team), and Ozzy Baxter (Turkish, The Order) will all be removed from the stories permanently, and will therein be relocated to a brand new story thread. This thread will consist of moving the characters into an "international office" branch of Vanguard, where the stories told shall have no ties to what you guys are doing.
That way, we will all be happy. You will have your conglomeration of mess, and we will have the type of freedom we wish to be able to tell stories, without having to worry about every last detail of someone elses character.
Don't read this the wrong way. My tone of voice should be coming across as neutral as possible. This is not a threat. It is, merely, a solution.
That's where ya lost me, Pro. If you hadn't included that, I'd have been a lot more receptive to your proposal. It's only my opinion, of course -- others may feel differently about it. That's all I have to say on that. I don't care to argue about the dictionary definition of "ultimatum" -- it's a gut reaction I have to this kind of thing more than anything, and I think it weakened your overall message somewhat. But on the other hand, its challenging tone got everyone's attention, so it wasn't all bad.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1
living in 1962 15000+ posts
|
|
living in 1962 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Kristogar: Alright, if Pro is Kevin Nash, Grimm is Scott Hall and thedoctor is HHH, then who's X-Pac and Shawn Michaels?
I think Pro's closer to Michaels than Nash. My opinion. . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1
living in 1962 15000+ posts
|
|
living in 1962 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
I believe the best way to express what we are wanting is to use Phil as an example. Phil's main character is "Phil Smith". He has also chosen to create a female counterpart in the form of "Leslie". Now, as each story begins (or, as he needs) Phil the writer will have to decide if he wants to use "Phil" or "Leslie" as his main character. I personally see no problem with either, as long as it isn't both at the same time. Same thing with TTT. He can either use Mason Templar, Axel, or, Doc Quantos as his main character. Gooz can either use Sam, or, Priest. And, etc., etc.
If by "secondary characters" you are referring to your latest use of Bri and Leslie together (which I quite enjoyed, I must say), then, I see no real problem with that either. Just not in the main "field missions".
Am I making any sense? Grimm? Doc? Someone want to help me out here. What is it I'm trying to say?
I feel that's an accurate description. I can see where newer writers might not have understood the statement, but the older guys should have no trouble as they've done it before with MBL and TOMB.
Quote:
I don't like the re-numbering system in comics all the time, either. But, they have a point when it comes to allowing new readers (or in this case "writers") to join in on a pseudo-ground-level. And, I must remind everyone that I am speaking for two other people, as well (Grimm and Doc). The "renumbering" part, I don't care either way. The "retitling" part I am for, as I think it would help clarify the intent of our stories.
As far as the renumbering, it doesn't matter to me. The retitling, however, I feel is extremely important. The Hero Revolution title is extremely broad, and the stories within are as well. I feel that by retitling the series with the team name, it will help us to refocus on the team and clear away some of the clutter. We don't want to wipe out or get rid of the extraneous stuff, there's a lot of really cool ideas there, but we need to move our attention away from all of that and put it back on the team itself.
Last edited by Grimm; 2004-01-05 2:24 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1
living in 1962 15000+ posts
|
|
living in 1962 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
TTT: As far as the idea of "editor" goes, well, I can see this getting really out of hand really easily. It's too authoritarian and dictatorial for me to accept. And I don't think this group needs one. Saying we need an editor is like saying we can't trust each other to follow the rules. The honor system will work just fine, thanks. The rest of the stuff is just typical moderator's duties.
No sir. With all due respect, the honor system is not and has not worked for some time in these stories, as is well documented by the constant arguments in the talk threads. Were the honor system working, we would have never felt the need to make this proposal in the first place.
We need someone, preferably someone outside the group who is unbiased, to come in and make judgment calls on these sorts of things. Where to find this person, at present, I do not know.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920 |
I agree with everything you say, Pro, except the "ultimatum" (let's just call it that, I can't be arsed to think of the right word). You say everyone would be happy if you guys left the main story and started a new one... I think it'd be exactly the opposite. It'd be a great loss for the team, a gigantic loss, and I'm sure everyone here feels that way. I'm afraid that in the end people here would say they agree with your proposal even if they didn't so you guys don't leave. I don't know if that's the case, but if it was it wouldn't be a pretty scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
