|
|
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:
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. 
Which is exactly what we wanted. To get everyone's attention and say "hey, enough is enough. we need to fix these problems."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Quote:
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.
Well, this wasn't my intention. And, I don't want anyone to agree just to keep us from withdrawing. The choice of us to leave was to help keep this from becoming an argument. I just figured if we couldn't find an agreement, that it would be a more peaceful solution for us to depart. That's all.
But, hey, thanks for the kind intentions. Now get off my lawn....
And, Grimm....since I don't understand the wrestling comparison, I'm going to assume that using "Michaels" in reference to me was some form of jab.
You bastard.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
Actually, it was a compliment, but if you'd rather a jab I can edit to agree with you being Nash. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Nash? Is that the guy that played Sabretooth in X-MEN? Why can't you people use analogies I'm familiar with?!
|
|
|
|
|
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:
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.
Don't you think, though, that the main reason for all the constant arguments is simply because we didn't have any agreed-upon rules before? Most of the arguments in question seemed to be on the same old, tired subjects, anyway, which the guidelines cover.
How about this: We get the rules/guidelines in place, and then let's see how it works. If we fall back into the same old arguments, then we may need an editor. For now, though, let's try to trust each other's judgment. Call it a trial run, or something. I think it will show that we can use the "honor system" when we have established guidelines in place that we agree on. Any clarifications of the actual guidelines can be discussed as a group.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
Here's another idea for a guideline which I feel strongly about: Quote:
- 7.) I think we also need another guideline which protects the characters we've created from anything drastic/irreversible being done to them without our permission. IE: killed off, crippled, sent into another dimension from which there is no return, et cetera. This kind of thing can really screw up plans for one's own character, irregardless of whether those plans are short range or long range. If someone want to make a drastic change to a character not created by himself, it should be a common courtesy to check with the person who created the character in a PM or in chat. Most of us do that already, but we all know it hasn't always been done. This wouldn't apply to characters whose creators are long gone, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,081
... 10000+ posts
|
|
... 10000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,081 |
Quote:
How about this: We get the rules/guidelines in place, and then let's see how it works. If we fall back into the same old arguments, then we may need an editor. For now, though, let's try to trust each other's judgment. Call it a trial run, or something. I think it will show that we can use the "honor system" when we have established guidelines in place that we agree on. Any clarifications of the actual guidelines can be discussed as a group.
I like this idea. A trial run, in my opinion, would enable us to write a couple of stories under the agreed upon guidelines to see how/if they work. After that, we can have a discussion concerning how well they worked and make an official vote to keep/lose them.
Also, I think we need to set in place a system for amending said guidelines, like TTT's #7. It's important that, like the US Constitution, we are able to adapt to the times...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,645
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,645 |
Quote:
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.
I think the only one who keeps reading the stories and doesn't post in them is Kristogar.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Quote:
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.
Don't you think, though, that the main reason for all the constant arguments is simply because we didn't have any agreed-upon rules before? Most of the arguments in question seemed to be on the same old, tired subjects, anyway, which the guidelines cover.
How about this: We get the rules/guidelines in place, and then let's see how it works. If we fall back into the same old arguments, then we may need an editor. For now, though, let's try to trust each other's judgment. Call it a trial run, or something. I think it will show that we can use the "honor system" when we have established guidelines in place that we agree on. Any clarifications of the actual guidelines can be discussed as a group.
Oh, I see what you mean now. I must've misread what you said earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Nash? Is that the guy that played Sabretooth in X-MEN?
Why can't you people use analogies I'm familiar with?!
Ehhh, close enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Quote:
The Time Trust said:
Here's another idea for a guideline which I feel strongly about:
Quote:
- 7.) I think we also need another guideline which protects the characters we've created from anything drastic/irreversible being done to them without our permission. IE: killed off, crippled, sent into another dimension from which there is no return, et cetera. This kind of thing can really screw up plans for one's own character, irregardless of whether those plans are short range or long range. If someone want to make a drastic change to a character not created by himself, it should be a common courtesy to check with the person who created the character in a PM or in chat. Most of us do that already, but we all know it hasn't always been done. This wouldn't apply to characters whose creators are long gone, of course.
How exactly does this apply to anything in our writing? I mean, the guidelines were built around pre-existing problems. Who has, at any point in this universe, changed any character permanently without someone's permission? And, how do you define "permanently" in this fictional universe?
I could very easily kill off Grimm in one sentence, and then, turn around, and bring him back to life in the next? So, how does this apply, generally?
And, even if someone DID change a character permanently (however that's suppose to happen), then, what would stop us from going "Umm, no, that didn't happen", and just ignore that entire instance?
Clarify please.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
And he woke up and it was all a dream.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 980
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 980 |
Quote:
Alright, if Pro is Kevin Nash, Grimm is Scott Hall and thedoctor is HHH, then who's X-Pac and Shawn Michaels?
Come on, everyone knows that I'm Michaels... 
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: Aug 2001
Posts: 980
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 980 |
Oh, and rules suck.
And because I know this would be Danny's reaction: Wankers.
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: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920 |
He'd say "You, mates, are wankers" and then TTT would say "How aboot that, eh?" and then I'd say "ANDALE! ANDALE! ANDALE!" and then JD would say "I'm gay!" and so on...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
And Grimm would say "Certain Doom!!"
And I would say "KHAN!!"
And so on, and so forth...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
And somewhere in there my roommate would post his 'Krypton is doomed' pic. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,900
notnotnotnotnotnotnotwedge 2500+ posts
|
|
notnotnotnotnotnotnotwedge 2500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,900 |
And after all that I'd say "Yes, I see."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,081
... 10000+ posts
|
|
... 10000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,081 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
And somewhere in there my roommate would post his 'Krypton is doomed' pic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Clockwork.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,421
1000+ posts
|
|
1000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,421 |
So, are we going to vote, or this issue has been settled the usual way, forgetting about 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 |
I think we should revise them a bit with the points raised in discussion, and then once we've got the final version worked out here, we could post it in the FAQ before "Vanguard #15". (Grimm could do that by editing his initial post in the FAQ thread.) I'm somewhat surprised (though not really) that there's been no discussion of the #7 guideline that I added -- I'm assuming by the silence that there's general agreement with it? In the past there was a great deal of argument on that point, so maybe everyone assumes it's been debated upon enough already? Does anyone know why I'm suddenly ending all my sentences with a question mark?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,081
... 10000+ posts
|
|
... 10000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,081 |
Quote:
The Time Trust said:
Does anyone know why I'm suddenly ending all my sentences with a question mark?
I'd started noticing the trend, but had decided not to say anything about it in hopes that it would eventually correct itself... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Quote:
The Time Trust said:
I'm somewhat surprised (though not really) that there's been no discussion of the #7 guideline that I added -- I'm assuming by the silence that there's general agreement with it? In the past there was a great deal of argument on that point, so maybe everyone assumes it's been debated upon enough already?
What? No discussion?
I'm sorry....did you miss the top of the page?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus:
How exactly does this apply to anything in our writing? I mean, the guidelines were built around pre-existing problems. Who has, at any point in this universe, changed any character permanently without someone's permission? And, how do you define "permanently" in this fictional universe?
I could very easily kill off Grimm in one sentence, and then, turn around, and bring him back to life in the next? So, how does this apply, generally?
And, even if someone DID change a character permanently (however that's suppose to happen), then, what would stop us from going "Umm, no, that didn't happen", and just ignore that entire instance?
Clarify please.
I would still like to hear what you have to say about this...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948
4000+ posts
|
|
4000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
Somebody stop him before he cripples our takeover. . .Uh, I mean, Hi, Danny.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948
4000+ posts
|
|
4000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948 |
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Prometheus said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus:
How exactly does this apply to anything in our writing? I mean, the guidelines were built around pre-existing problems. Who has, at any point in this universe, changed any character permanently without someone's permission? And, how do you define "permanently" in this fictional universe?
I could very easily kill off Grimm in one sentence, and then, turn around, and bring him back to life in the next? So, how does this apply, generally?
And, even if someone DID change a character permanently (however that's suppose to happen), then, what would stop us from going "Umm, no, that didn't happen", and just ignore that entire instance?
Clarify please.
I would still like to hear what you have to say about this...
Are you serious?
I guess you are. You weren't really around during issue #10 when the PSI-Unit characters I created were each killed off one-by-one without anyone even bothering to ask me if I had plans for them or anything. This very issue was argued ad nauseum on more than one occasion (the infamous "That's bullshit, Grimm" conversation that I don't really want to bring up again), and I think other than Cowgirl Jack and NotWedge, you're probably the only one who isn't sick of hearing about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
The Time Trust said:Are you serious?
 Are you for real? Are you being serious?
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Captain Sammitch said:
Quote:
The Time Trust said:Are you serious?
Are you for real? Are you being serious?
Someone's been reading a little too much B Team stuff. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Am I ever NOT serious? Well...okay...yeah, most of the time, you're right. I'm not.  But, seriously, I wasn't around for the debacle (or, was I, and I simply ignored it? I sincerely don't remember) of the Psi-Unit. However, from what I have heard about it, I thought it was a group consensus that the MBL were the focus, and main team of La Perdita. And, therefore, the Psi-unit were killed off, seeing as their function had become obsolete when the Revolutionaries claimed the island as their home. But, hey, thanks. This is the kind of clarification I'm talking about. But, I have to ask, if you were so against it, why didn't you "bring them back to life", or, "that never happened"-the-post? It is all fiction, after all. Just curious...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142 |
 You CANNOT be serious!!
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 |
Quote:
Prometheus said:
Am I ever NOT serious?
Well...okay...yeah, most of the time, you're right. I'm not.
But, seriously, I wasn't around for the debacle (or, was I, and I simply ignored it? I sincerely don't remember) of the Psi-Unit. However, from what I have heard about it, I thought it was a group consensus that the MBL were the focus, and main team of La Perdita. And, therefore, the Psi-unit were killed off, seeing as their function had become obsolete when the Revolutionaries claimed the island as their home.
But, hey, thanks. This is the kind of clarification I'm talking about. But, I have to ask, if you were so against it, why didn't you "bring them back to life", or, "that never happened"-the-post? It is all fiction, after all.
Just curious...
There was no group consensus. It just sorta happened. One member was killed off by one random poster, another was killed off by another, and so on. I think (judging from what some of those posters told me afterwards) that it was just one of those situations where people just sort of assumed that it was okay to use the PSI-Unit members for death scenes -- there was no discussion about it until it was too late. Since they were dead, I can now no longer use them except in "Times Past"-style solo stories. And I've since moved on, I should mention, and have adapted the PSI-Unit deaths as part of Axel's background story, so it's not a specific situation that I ever want to bring up again -- just the general idea of respect for the creators of the characters is something that just WAS NOT THERE at the time and which NEEDS TO BE in order for something like this not to happen again.
As far as why I didn't just say "it didn't happen" and bring them back? Well, I guess that's part of my integrity as a writer -- I've never been someone to disregard someone else's story posts and I thought my bringing the team back to life would have looked really cheap and would have made the situation between the posters and myself even worse. At the time I was seriously thinking of leaving after issue #11 and was making plans to do so (Euro knows all about this, since he was the guy I bitched all my grievances to at the time), but then issue #11 became such a wonderful issue and the posters all began getting along with each other a lot better that I no longer wanted to leave.
Since then, though, I've been hesitant to introduce any new characters due to fears that someone will decide to use them in a way I wouldn't want them to be used without bothering to ever check with me about it (except after the fact). Thus, the 7th guideline is an important one to me -- I think it would be an important one to anyone who'd had the same thing happen to them.
Oh, I should also mention that, mostly due to the discussions about all this that I raised several times in the talk threads/chats, there has been a great deal of improvement in this area already. What I mean by that is that I've since had posters ask me if it was OK to use and/or kill off a character of mine in their story, and I've not yet encountered any problems since then. Still, a guideline such as this will hopefully keep the "courtesy call" in peoples' minds when this comes up again.
Hope that clears things up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Quote:
The Time Trust said:
There was no group consensus. It just sorta happened. One member was killed off by one random poster, another was killed off by another, and so on. I think (judging from what some of those posters told me afterwards) that it was just one of those situations where people just sort of assumed that it was okay to use the PSI-Unit members for death scenes -- there was no discussion about it until it was too late.
Oh, good Gob. I don't want to start a fight, but here it more than likely comes.
No one said anything to you about it until afterwards? Not true. We told you that we didn't like the Psi-Unit and would prefer for them to meet their end in that issue. To that you replied, "Don't kill Axel. I have plans for him." You may not have liked it, but you agreed to it before the team was wiped out. And there was a majority consensus in the group that the Psi-Unit was something that we wanted to deal with less and less.
Now, I'm not saying that we weren't being assholes about it because, to an extent, we were; but we didn't go behind your back and do it. Also, I think it's important to note that we have grown and matured groupwise since then. We've come to respect each other and our creations more to the point that we try not to misuse other peoples' characters or even misuse our own.
I have no objection to this rule. I think it is one that we've pretty much been following for about a year now. Having it written down for us and newer writers, if there ever be any, is a good idea.
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: 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 |
I believe that we, more or less, informally adopted the rule after the last big blowup anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
Whatever, Doc. You remember it completely differently than I do, but KNOW that nobody ever once said to me that "We want to kill the PSI-Unit." Neither those words or anything resembling them were ever spoken to me until AFTER they began getting killed off, which by that time I felt I had no recourse but to save the one member I cared most about: Axel.
Anyway, the past is past. Can we just move off from this stupid old argument? We're never going to agree on who said what to whom when, because memory is very selective.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,081
... 10000+ posts
|
|
... 10000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,081 |
I'm in favor of adopting guideline #7. If we've already "unoffically adopted" it (as Grimm says), then wouldn't it make sense to 'officially adopt' it, as we're doing with a lot of the other 'unofficial rules' we've had in this forum over the years?
Just a thought... for what it's worth...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948
4000+ posts
|
|
4000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948 |
Can we institute a "no British people" rule?
Thing is- I can’t spell or type. I spell so badly my spell check doesn’t even know what I was trying to spell. And I have five Eisners HAHAHAHHA!!
-Brian Michael Bendis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,421
1000+ posts
|
|
1000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,421 |
I think Chewy's right. If there is no need for rule 7, there is no need also for the others.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,421
1000+ posts
|
|
1000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,421 |
The destruction of the Psi Unit, of the Circus and the injection of the Patogen to Walker are all circumstancies that shown a lack of respect for each one works. Luckily those times are behind, but there is no need to try to "lessen" it.
They were all done without talking to the "creator" of those concepts, even when, and if, it was a decision of the majority.
|
|
|
|
|
