[Return]
Archived Thread

File 130123759223.jpg - (60.78KB , 600x600 , 33c79f279d5dbbbb6d92070343ae55e4.jpg ) [iqdb]
6647 No. 6647
I haven't been here too long but I've noticed a few people moaning about bad write-ins so i have a question.

What makes a good write-in?

From what i can grasp good write-ins are in character, don't use meta knowlage amd don't try to story-jack, but is there any more to it then that?

What seperates a good write-in from an average or bad one?

No. 6649
This is one of those idiotic questions that could simply be learned through careful observation, you know. Sooner or later, you'll intuit the knowledge on your own.

Also, don't make shitty threads.
No. 6653
The stuff that you're asking about can't be taught; it's a function of community mores, which are hard to pin down in words in the first place, and it varies so wildly from story to story that the only way to be on top of it is to learn it for yourself. This is why we tell people to "lurk more", which is what you should do.
No. 6657
Something that might not be readily apparent is that a good write-in should make considerations for the supposed free will of other characters.
Many 'bad' ones are considered as such because they assume or outright dictate that a character not under the control of the audience act a certain way. Stipulations like "If X does Y" are better, but even then write-ins should at least attempt to stick to the same base format as the other options. Meaning that if your options are
[] left
[] right

you shouldn't need a paragraph of text for your write-in.
No. 6658
>>6657
>Stipulations like "If X does Y" are better

Absolutely wrong. Those sorts of votes are the worst pieces of shit I have ever seen. Not only are you assuming the characters will act the way you are voting for, but you are forcing the writer person to account for the idiotic shit you vote in. It's like trying to vote for two different fucking things at the same time, with the idiotic stipulation that "if x does y, then I actually wanted this to happen instead." It doesn't work that way.

I cannot believe someone would be retarded enough to think those are good votes.
No. 6659
mmmmm.... maybe it would be a good idea to write a write-in only story for myself and see things from the writers POV.
Learning from your own mistakes is good, learning form those of others is better still.
No. 6660
>>6658
>writer person

What are ya, underage? If done right such votes saves everyone time as to avoid a pointless second vote. The worst kind are the arrogant supposedly super perfect votes as if you're off the mark, bad shit happens.

And for your information, it's either Writer, Author, or writefag.
No. 6661
>>6658
I don't understand why we need such animosity. Calm down a bit, please.

>Not only are you assuming the characters will act the way you are voting for,
You make an educated guess as to what will happen and try to clarify how you'd like the character to act if that's how it happens.

>It's like trying to vote for two different fucking things at the same time
That doesn't even make sense. You pick a thing, and if what you guess might happens happens you put in what you'd like the response to be. It's not like you're voting [x] Got to the right, but if it leads to a bad end, go to the left. It's [x] Go to the right, and if we happen to bump into Y, tell them "X".

>It doesn't work that way.

Except it does, quite frequently. The reason it does is because within a story it can be completely reasonable to expect something or other to happen, and accounting for it is equally reasonable.
No. 6662
>>6661
>>6660
not >>6658, but I can't stand those writeins either. I find them to be the only thing worse than actually voting for multiple things at once, which is surprisingly common (For an easy example, see ALL of the voting in HY's stories).

>If done right such votes saves everyone time as to avoid a pointless second vote.
I'd say that most of the time if the "if x then y" condition was not applied, the writer wouldn't ask what to do in another vote, and would simply do their own thing. Unlike in the WUIG days, updates are lengthy and thus tend to account for a large amount of in-story time, often including where the "if x" would/did take place.

And even if the "if x" did save time, why is this a good thing? Why try to "save everyone's time"? Do you consider the voting to be a burden? If so I'd imagine you'd prefer a strict short story format with no voting whatsoever.
No. 6663
>>6662
Mainly in regards to writers who seem to take 1+ weeks to do an update, such a thing may help flesh the upcoming one out, making the next wait easier.

And when they're done right they acknowledge certain possibilities. An example would be a vote in the lumberjack story in /youkai/, where the MC noticed something unusual next to him while he was trying to get back to sleep. Someone decided to vote on getting up (to see who it was) and a sub choice if it was Aya (Heroine/love interest) to get back to sleep. And things worked out just well.
No. 6664
>What makes a good write-in?

First things first. There are a few things you have to ask yourself:

-Does it make sense to have a write-in?
This is not as obvious as it might seem. For a choice like [x] Left or [x] Right it may seem plain that voting [x] Up is generally not going to get you anywhere. But for choices with a little more subtlety, it can be hard to discern if there's any other course of action besides the ones presented.

-Does the author want a write-in?
If no, then forget it. You are much better off commenting on your feelings/the direction you want things to go than trying to force something.

As pointed out, things like being in-character, not using metaknowledge and taking the story on a wild tangent are critical as well.

I'll have to agree with the crowd in this thread that is against 'if' votes. As a writer, it could often be seen as an attempt to cover all the bases, which is sometimes against the point of the choices. As a reader I dislike seeing anything too complex, as it often has parts that are weak or schismatic (people pick and choose). They are not always bad and can usually be molded/ignored when writing but still are things I'd prefer not to see. The best write-in votes are straightforward in nature.

>But wait! I really want to make sure that character x is treated in manner y, if not I'd like the protagonist to do something different!
No doubt. I can understand that feeling, I know I've often wanted certain things to happen but how things turned out were different and I made the wrong assumptions. Well, there is a good solution to that. You can always either by the nature of the write-in itself or by an accompanying line(s) of comment make your feelings known to the writer. Chances are, if your desire to do something is congruent with the actions and direction the story is headed, it may be included by the author anyways. That is assuming that the author actually bothers to take that kind of stuff into account, but I believe most would due to the nature of this medium.

So even if you couldn't get your write-in to win, elements of it or your more general desires can still have a chance of being incorporated.

This is still something you pick up with time and experience and in summation shouldn't expect a good write-in to always succeed or be an end-all. Also, evidently enough, my opinion does not necessarily reflect how every reader/author things which is why it's good for these things to be said or explained in each story.
No. 6665
>>6661
>You make an educated guess as to what will happen and try to clarify how you'd like the character to act if that's how it happens.

The voting is done at the end of a snippet because these stories are reactionary. We shape and mold things as they come, not before. That is my major issue with these shitty votes.

>That doesn't even make sense.

To follow your analogy, it's more like [x] Go left, if something I don't like happens on that path, turn the fuck around and go right immediately.

It's trying to both have your cake, and eat it too. Like I said, that shit don't fly.
No. 6667
>>6665
> [x] Go left, if something I don't like happens on that path, turn the fuck around and go right immediately.
Yeah, it could happen. But I've never seen a vote with a reversal like that.
No. 6668
>>6667
See
>>6663
[x] "Wake up. If it's Aya, go to sleep. If it's not Aya...

Now, granted, I haven't actually read that story so I don't know if I'm missing any crucial details, but it's that sort of dumb shit we're talking about.
No. 6669
>>6668
But why is that bad?
I can understand if it's going down a path and turning around if something bad happens, but going back to sleep if it's somebody you trust is pretty logical...and like he said, that worked out well.
No. 6670
>>6669
indeed I find "reversals" pretty damn silly while "extensions" are more useful.
No. 6671
>>6669
Can you not see how those sort of votes are essentially voting for two separate clauses at the same time? Or are you honestly asking why voting for two different things is bad?

If you cannot understand how this undermines the entire voting system, then I have nothing further to say to you.
No. 6672
>>6671
So...you're not only right, you're so right that you don't even need to explain why because the people that disagree with you are obviously retarded?

The ultimate objective of voting is to get the opinion of Anons for how the character should proceed, so why shouldn't they be able to make choices based on the circumstances as the situation unfolds?
Again, that's not to say they should be able to avoid bad things happening, but in cases like the Aya thing where it's a situation where there's nothing stopping the character from going back to sleep, and no reason not to go back to sleep, what exactly is the problem?
I'm asking because from what I've seen you haven't actually explained why, just stated that it is so and those that disagree with you are stupid. Which is a pretty terrible way of going about things.
No. 6673
>>6672
The problem stems from the fact you are still, essentially, voting for two separate things. No matter how you word it, no matter how logical it is, you are still voting for two things with one vote. Since we seem to be stuck on this Aya example, I'll spell it out for you plain and simple. The vote breaks down as such.

[x]Wake up if isn't Aya
-[x]Don't wake up if it is.

Do you understand the idiom of having your cake and eating it? I cannot explain this to you any simpler. Voting for two separate things at the same time completely undermines the entire choice system, and should not be done.

>The ultimate objective of voting is to get the opinion of Anons for how the character should proceed, so why shouldn't they be able to make choices based on the circumstances as the situation unfolds?

I understand. However, with these "if" votes, you are preempting that. You are voting for shit that hasn't actually happened yet. Granted, its sometimes justified because the clues will be there, but still.

>you haven't actually explained why, just stated that it is so and those that disagree with you are stupid

That's because this is one of those deep rooted beliefs that shouldn't actually be questioned. I don't see anyone around here seriously wanting an explanation on why actions and emoticons are unwanted. This isn't any different.
No. 6674
>>6673
you're looking at it the wrong way, the vote was made that he gets up to see what's going on, but the second part details how he reacts to a certain detail. If it wasn't Aya, then it'd be up to the author how that's dealt with.

It's basically checking the tires after pulling over upon hearing a weird noise, and if there's nothing wrong? You resume driving.
No. 6676
>>6674
No, borrowing your analogy the choice would be something like '[x]continue driving' or '[x]stop'. What you're trying to do is have the best of two very different choices with none of the downsides. Choices are choices because you can't do everything.
No. 6677
File 130156135939.png - (237.51KB , 692x1441 , 1284172369941.png ) [iqdb]
6677
>From what i can grasp good write-ins are in character, don't use meta knowlage amd don't try to story-jack, but is there any more to it then that?
You got that right. But that is not all, what is missing is the joke and the overall cleverness of it. You need to realize the situation, the persons that are around, the mood and the things that have been said and deliver the best possible answer, question, quote or so on. Making it fit with the situation and the wording is not easy but if done right it can have a great impact on the story.

It can act as a mood improvement and "wanting to write more" for writers. Because we all know that Writers are fickle creatures who live off praise, votes and discussion. If one of those is lacking the writer gets moody and will wander between different mindsets:
Angry - Why do they not vote! Why are others getting more votes, why does this story get discussion because its shit, etc....
Negotiation - Asking your readers what is wrong and how you can improve, trying to form a connection with your people.
Desperation - This is a most interesting state. It is formed in long rants, threats to stop writing and overall insulting your readers for not being up to the story. Some writers vary between state one and 3 often, short times of writing, quitting, then again rantings.
the "I don't give a fuck state" - they don't care.
But i am degressing.

Overall, in the past and the beginning there used to be many people here who could deliver that. They just had it in them to do it, to form the phrasings and words that fit the situation. For an example: QWL's story in /eientei/ had those people that would write in, because they had that knowledge too, to make the situation better with a write in. Another fact was that the mood was frisky, it was overall more happy and people tended to not take themselves and the stories too serious. You could say it was the best condition for good write ins.
No. 6678
What I’ve got so far:

While the statements in the OP avoid a stupid write-in they do not garantee a good one, for that a good indication of mood, pace of the story and the logic behind the decision are needed.
In the "noises while asleep" example it works because it's logical and fits in with the story despite having an if statement and that it's flawed logic or assuming that characters and events will play out a certain way that make if statements fail as they try to write the story for the writer. That said reversal if statements can seem like voting for 2 things at once and should not be used.
Oh and don't be afraid to put a joke in if the moods right.

Tl;DR: Don't assume things your character doesn’t control and mood and pacing dictate the mood of the write-in.
No. 6679
>>6673
>Do you understand the idiom of having your cake and eating it?

The point of that idiom is that having cake and eating all of your cake are mutually exclusive. If you want one, you can't have the other.
It doesn't apply to the situation being referenced because there's clearly no good reason not to be able to choose between both.

>>6676
Choices are choices, but this is clearly a case where YOU CAN.
Specifically because there's nothing to stop both from happening, and for the audience no reason to choose that first option if it's the person in question.

Why do we have votes? Because Anons opinion is part of moving the story forward. Not having stipulations where it is logical and practical to do so is just...goddamn silly.
Especially for the reasons you're outlying here, which just plain don't make sense.
No. 6680
>>6679
>It doesn't apply to the situation being referenced because there's clearly no good reason not to be able to choose between both.

There is a "good reason," see, and it is beyond your control; that's the writer persons decision. If he makes a seemingly stupid set of choices that leave one wondering why you don't just do both, there is probably some reasoning behind it. You can't just cheese your way out of it with some shitty vote that effectively says to do them both. It's either one path, or the other. That is the entire purpose of choices.

You can regurgitate the definition of that idiom all you want, but you clearly have no idea of how it applies.
No. 6681
>>6680
Isn't the whole idea of a write-in to choose an option that is not given, a hidden third choice, as in life there is rarly only the options laid out in front of you.

For example your hungry and you look in the freezer and see nothing but a frozen pizza, a pack of burgers and some frozen burger buns. But what's stopping you from going to the shop to buy somthing else or cooking 1 burger and half the pizza.

Nothing at all.

So why should it in a CYOA.

This ability to adapt to and accept unseen options is what seperates CYOA's from video games which give such choices.
No. 6682
I'm sorry, but has anyone else noticed that this guy all of the sudden started popping up telling people they were "retarded newfags" for wanting use write-ins that cover multiple situations? What I find funny is that is how things have worked since the beginning. And its only now that he rears his head?

To that guy:
There has been some discussion in the past about what kinds of write-ins are good and bad, but there has never been a consensus or even a major opinion displayed on the matter. I am getting this out of the way here so I can make the point that no matter what your argument is, or how right or wrong you think you are, you have no right to be playing the "he disagrees, so he must be stupid or new". If you go back through the archives pretty much every single story has the kind of options you seem to hate. Some good, some bad. Few of which get a second glance unless they take up half a page. Yet here you show up acting as if everyone that does so is indeed both stupid and new, and must be retarded for not understanding your "flawless" logic. Your logic is apparently so flawless that you don't even have to explain why you are right, and everyone who has the audacity to disagree with you simply "doesn't get it".

If you want to try sparking a change, well, thats fine. But being an insufferable prick while doing so isn't. And from the sounds of this discussion, a certain other story where (someone I presume to be) you reared your heard, and from what I have seen from pretty much every story I have read on these boards (which is a lot, by the way) , I would have to say that your opinion isn't really shared by most people here.

Let's see if we can't work out what your issue is, and why it seems to turn you into a foaming-mouthed jackass.

You seem to dislike choices that have any sort of logical adjustment within then. IE: "I want to do this, but if this happens I want to respond with this". You also seem to dislike any choice at all that blends two different options. For instance if the options were

[_] Talk to person A
[_] Talk to person B
[_] Make toast

And we had a write-in that had:

[x] Talk to person A while [x] making toast. [x] Try to include B in the conversation.

From what it sounds like so far, this would make you want to murder a puppy.

Now, I've heard some good arguments made against write-ins that assume too much. If the write-in look too far into the future, and bases a bunch of actions on something that may or may not happen, then suddenly 90% of the write-in won't apply when the author makes the protagonist fail the first step (usually spectacularly). This comes from anon trying to control the actions other than the protagonist, assuming they have direct control over the protagonist when the writer might be taking choices as suggestions, or assuming that just because they say the character does something that the character is actually capable of it, or able to execute the action flawlessly every time in every situation. This sort of thing also can cause extra stress on the writer's part when he has to decide whether to let a stupidly ambitious write-in through, or potentially suffer backlash for ruining the "awesome" moment.

That shit I just mentioned is flawed, and causes problems. You'll note I stated why it is logically flawed, and what the negative ramifications are for the readers, and what the negative effect is on the writer. Lets take a look at your argument.

You say we can't include what basically amount to "if statements", but never really make it clear why, and what the negative impact is. You even say that it doesn't matter if it makes complete and total sense, that doing that kind of thing in and of itself is apparently blasphemy (again, despite the fact we make good use of it in pretty much every story). I'm going to go ahead and quote a few things and respond directly, otherwise this is going to be even more ridiculously long. This might be out of order what is logical for arguing the point, but man, your little quips are just scattered all over, and there's so much to scratch my head at:

>That's because this is one of those deep rooted beliefs that shouldn't actually be questioned. I don't see anyone around here seriously wanting an explanation on why actions and emoticons are unwanted. This isn't any different.

Who's deep rooted beliefs are we talking about here? Yours? Or are you saying that it is the majority point of view? And I would say there are people seriously wanting an explanation because, oh I don't know, people directly ASKED you. I'd say thats a pretty fucking clear indication that we want an explanation.

> I understand. However, with these "if" votes, you are preempting that. You are voting for shit that hasn't actually happened yet. Granted, its sometimes justified because the clues will be there, but still.

Here's what you don't seem to understand: In the format used for stories here, choices come very infrequently. In some stories it might be several pages, sometimes hours of in-story time that passes. The stories are not reactionary, since we can't stop reading a sentence halfway through and interrupt the story to interject how we would like to respond in a given situation. Because of this, if we have an inkling that something might happen, we will leave a simple contingency. This is because, if the situation changes, the original choice might be the exact opposite of what we want.

Here's a simple example for you:

You're sleeping in your house when you hear something downstairs. Think it is a burglar, you grab your gun from a lockbox and silently head down the stairs.

It is at this point that you are given a choice:
[ ] Call them out. Warn them you have a gun so they leave.
[ ] Shoot them while they don't know you're there.

Now, on the surface this doesn't seem so bad, but say we chose the latter option. One thing about shooting someone is that you usually have to look at someone to do it. In the process you can generally identify the target, and then choose whether or not to pull the trigger. In this case however, we have declared our intent to just pretty much turn the corner and shoot regardless of what we see.

Congratulations, you just shot your friend. What was he doing there? Fuck if you know, because he is dead.

This is the kind of situation the "IF" write-in was made for. Instead of just blindly choosing the option, we can go

[x] Turn the corner, gun drawn. If its someone you know, ask them what they're doing here. If its a burglar, shoot em.

or we could even adapt this to add a clause like [x] If they seem to have a gun, shoot them. If they seem unarmed, scare them off.

In this case, we didn't make any real assumptions about what was going to happen. We didn't make choices we didn't get to yet, because if this were a CYOA, we wouldn't GET choices between our first choice and our friend dying, as its really only two or three seconds. We made simple, logical, and believable assessments of the situation, and provided for contingencies that were very likely. We showed thought beyond "lol, I choose option B because B has guns in it".

Not only that, but something else interesting occured in this example. We, the people voting and writing in are well aware that the write-in may be to our disadvantage. By hesitating that instant to identify the target, we may put ourselves at greater risk. We aren't stupid for not noticing it, rather it is an accepted and expected risk. The same for any write-in. We are always aware that such stipulations can go badly simply because we decided to be careful.

But you know what? Its better than the alternative of having the protagonist walk into the room, see his friend, aim the gun after seeing his friend, and pull the trigger. The protagonist isn't a robot. He doesn't follow one command regardless of if it is appropriate to the situation. Why would the write-ins be any different?

The other thing you need to realize is that most writers here see choices as "idea" options. They are options there for giving a few sample routes the story could take, and letting them see write-ins. If a writer doesn't want write-ins, they will say so, or provide rules. Look at the Kogasa-centric story "The Game". There we were aware that it was a choice-only system, and stuck with it. Each writer may have different policies on it, and instead of shooting your mouth off telling us we're stupid for doing so, perhaps we should leave it to the writer to decide if they approve of such things?

> Do you understand the idiom of having your cake and eating it? I cannot explain this to you any simpler. Voting for two separate things at the same time completely undermines the entire choice system, and should not be done.

See, the funny thing is I can at least see where you are coming from on the other thing. I can see where you might think there are issues with "if statements". But this is probably the most idiotic statement I have ever seen on these boards. And let me tell you, I have read a lot of idiotic things here.

To start with, I don't think you are fully grasping the concept of "mutually exclusive". See, the thing is, things only conflict if they, you know, actually conflict. Just because you choose to do two different things doesn't mean that the options have some magical polarity that prevents them from coming within ten feet of each other.

Take the above example. Lets say that we don't think its really cool to be shooting someone without even giving them a chance to leave. We can actually choose both options without there being any logical conflict. We can go down the stairs, identify the target, line up the shot, THEN warn them. Not only are those two options not mutually exclusive, but they are actually sort of expected to go together.

So lets go to a way earlier example, and Touhou-ify it. Say you're in a room with Alice and Marisa. The options given to you are:
[_] Talk to Alice
[_] Talk to Marisa

Now, I would kindly like you to explain what is stopping us from doing both. Conversations do not take that long, there is no 45 second time constraint saying that we can't just talk to one and then the other. Or hell, better yet, why not just combine the two.

[x] Talk to Alice and Marisa.

Not only does this give the readers the opportunity to pursue both dialogs (which wouldn't be mutually exclusive), but it actually makes a hell of a lot more sense. What would it even mean to chose only one? If we chose Marisa are we juts going to completely ignore the fact that Alice is there? Are we going to leave the room with Marisa, leaving Alice sitting there contemplating why no one wants to talk with her?

This is what we call the "non choice".

When a writer is done with an update, they need a break point. But if they don't provide an option, there is likely to be less discussion, and therefore less motivation fuel. So a writer will leave a choice that isn't actually a choice. Either option will result in a discussion with both. But the problem is that it puts a slant in one direction that incites supporters of routes into getting their option. Sometimes this is justified because the writer might actually do what I said above, having poor Alice sit there completely ignored while we gab-up Marisa. This, again, is why we have write-ins. Its our way of going "Uh.... that makes no sense, so here's what we think could improve it" and the writer goes "Oh wow, thank you, I was so tired from writing the update, I didn't really give a shit about the options because I assumed you would write-in if they weren't sufficient."

That is what happens most the time when you see incredibly simple updates. There are exceptions, but in general if an option seems too simple, it just might be.

I'm really not sure how close to the post limit I am, so I'm going to cut if off here. To be completely frank, judging by your behavior thus far, your response is likely to be "Nuh uh! Its stupid, and you're stupid for disagreeing with me". But at least now we can see you have been given a comprehensive explanation of why you are both wrong, and a jackass.

PS: No I don't write stories here, but after wasting that many words on that jerk-ass, I'm starting to think it might be a better use of my time. Sorry if got sidetracked anywhere. Its hard keeping something this long coherent when there's just so much stupid to kill .
No. 6684
Speaking as a writefag, whether a write-in is good or bad is entirely up to how the writer implements it. Bad writers take write-in completely at face value and end up with something they didn't want to write. And the reader can tell. Good writers use a write-in to advance the story in a new direction.

For example, in Fragmentation of Memories, there was a write-in that ended up with Sanae revealing a major secret that the protagonist had been hiding for most of the show. Though it happened through a believable narrative device, it was also totally unexpected, so it's not like the voters knew that would happen as a result of the vote; it was solely in the hands of the writer. A lesser writer would simply have written it as something innocuous, or even a cause for embarrassment, and then carry on with his original plan.

Granted, for some stories it's appropriate to take paragraph-long write-ins verbatim. Alek's speeches in Ace Combat Gensokyo could be seen as a sort of hijacking, but the writefag rolled with it so well that it became a prominent feature of the story.

Nested options, or contingencies, are no worse than normal write-ins. In fact, they assume less on the part of the writer and may give him ideas for the update he hadn't expected. Bad writers are afraid to be pigeonholed by this kind of write-in, usually because they had anticipated a set outcome as the inevitable result of any of the given choices. I understand this because I've been through it.
No. 6685
>>6682
>I'm sorry, but has anyone else noticed that this guy all of the sudden started popping up telling people they were "retarded newfags" for wanting use write-ins that cover multiple situations? What I find funny is that is how things have worked since the beginning. And its only now that he rears his head?

Indeed. It certainly wasn't like this before. Similar arguments popped up in the past, but they were few and far between, and definitely not to the frequency that we have reached by now. It's fairly clear to me that it's just the one guy, a veritable That Guy in the /tg/ sense, being as vocal as he is while hiding under the Anonymous label, rather than a group of like-minded individuals. Maybe That Guy decided that being a vocal naysayer would somehow preserve the integrity of this site and its stories, but he's making the overall feel of the site that much less enjoyable, the community that much less inviting. Perhaps that's what he wants, exclusive club and all. I can't say that's good for maintaining or increasing the level of activity that we all want for votes and updates, but maybe he holds a different logic.

All I can say to the poor guy is to make some liberal use of the "Hide Thread" function that exists on this site, just four buttons to the right of that [Reply] link on the opening post of every thread. It's easier to ignore things that you hate, than to take the effort to vent your hate by shitposting all over the boards and insulting everyone who disagrees as a newfag or fucking idiot. Leave everyone else to enjoy whatever they want to take part in. Fairly simple.

Polite sage for going off-topic.
No. 6686
>>6682
Holy shit are you mad. As much as you wish to paint me as a raving madman, I suggest you reflect upon the way you present yourself. A 2000 word response filled with flawed logic and numerous insults does not make a perfect case.

>>6685
>Indeed. It certainly wasn't like this before.

It hasn't been a problem in the past precisely because this site had less populace. With a strange influx of trash visiting the site now a days, something must be done. If calling them worthless pieces of shit stops them from making even one more post with an emoticon in it, I consider it a good deed done. Even better if they feel less welcome to come back.
No. 6687
>>6686
I'd say it makes a better argument than a 20 word post with nothing but flawed arguments and insults.
No. 6689
>>6686
Nice ad hominem there. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
No. 6690
>>6687
Quantity over quality, at this point? I didn't respond with a staggeringly long response because I simply do not give a shit. If he's so mad that he'll write a response that damn long just to call me some names and state some opinions, there is clearly nothing I can say that will sway him, as he's already made up his mind about me. Fair enough, no?
No. 6691
>>6686
>strange influx of trash

As if your shitposting isn't the trash itself.

If something must be done, use the Report function or complain on IRC. Don't be the vigilante who thinks that shit can be cleaned up by smearing more shit into it.
No. 6692
>>6690
The issue is primarily that your posts lack either of the two. You have no quality to your argument, and apparently can't even be bothered to try and properly contest your points because...they're self evident?

Truth be told, if you don't give a shit I'd suggest you stop posting, by doing so you make it increasingly clear that you do give a shit, but lack the skills necessary to articulate your viewpoint properly.
No. 6693
>>6686

>flawed logic

Nice examples. You sure did prove me wrong there.
No. 6694
>>6691
>As if your shitposting isn't the trash itself.
*shrug* who knows :P

Oh wait, I do. It's people who do stupid shit like that. Why shouldn't I just call them out on it? I've seen people justify this with the fact it will make them more likely to get angry or whatever, but really now; who cares if they do. They are just trash.

>>6693
Why should I bother responding with a lengthy post when your argument essentially trivializes down to "No, your wrong, and an asshole to boot!" Unlike you, I do not mind being "wrong" enough to write a majorly overblown post filled solely with my opinions.
No. 6695
>>6694

See, the difference is I gave reasons and examples to prove my points. Maybe if you would do the same and explain the logic behind your claims, you might be able to sway people. But you don't.I didn't say you were wrong because I thought so. I told you why you were wrong. Your response actually sounds like you're describing your own posts.

You hop into threads, insult people, start arguments, and then fly off smugly complimenting yourself on a job well done. You're convinced that you're helping, but all you're doing is disrupting stories that people are otherwise enjoying.

You call the people that emote bad, and yes, it is annoying, but they don't derail threads. You do.
No. 6696
>>6694
>when your argument essentially trivializes down to "No, your wrong, and an asshole to boot!"

If this is you,>>6658 then that is precisely what you did, have done and likely will continue to do.
You don't explain why what you think is justifiable, you just continually assert that it is and everyone who disagrees with you is a moron.
No. 6697
>>6695
Well what can I say to that. You have me pegged dead to rights. I'm utterly astonished you managed to intuit my entire character lumped into one sum sentence based solely on this thread. Congratulations.

Seriously though, don't be ridiculous. As bad as an attitude as you believe me to have, I would never purposely hop into a terrible thread just to start shit, or derail. If you missed the memo, this entire thread is nothing but pointless bitching and some retard asking a stupid question. The retard in question being OP, of course.

>>6696
Aren't you missing the subsequent posts that explain, however poorly, why I say those things?
No. 6698
>>6697
No, I really don't. I see someone else try to argue for you, and that's about it.
If you tried to explain it, then you've done so to such a poor degree that it is indistinguishable from statements that your argument is so self evident you don't need to explain it.
No. 6699
>>6698
Fair enough. I've never pretended to have amazing and elaborate diction, nor the inclination to convince others with my personal opinions.
No. 6700
>>6697

> Seriously though, don't be ridiculous. As bad as an attitude as you believe me to have, I would never purposely hop into a terrible thread just to start shit, or derail.

I'm not saying thats what you do. I'm saying your intent to clear up the "trash", as you put it, may be noble to you, but the actual effect is ruining the days of not only the people you consider trash, but also anyone that happens to be standing nearby. What makes matters worse is your definition of "trash" is, well, lets just say you like to take liberties with the english language. You target people that probably don't deserve it.

And you know what? OP didn't deserve it. He didn't put it as eloquently as he could have, but he was trying to legitimately start a dialog that you, of all people, should have been the first in line to hop on, what with your opinions on write-ins.

> Aren't you missing the subsequent posts that explain, however poorly, why I say those things?

I really don't think he is. If you ever attempted to explain your logic, you failed to do so in a way that I could really even recognize as anything other than "incessant bitching". The post he linked was a real gem, that one, and pretty much illustrates exactly what I'm talking about.

I didn't say this before, but I know you probably think 2000 words (I'll have to take your word on that) probably seems like a big number to you. Thats a lot of words. But when you are dealing with concepts like this, you need to express yourself in more than obscenities and strings of "I'm right and you're wrong". you need to prove your point, not just state it. Otherwise, why are you even posting? Do you think we will change our minds if you just sit there telling us we are wrong without saying why? My post was a bit excessive, but dammit, there is just so much to cover on the subject and I was trying, as calmly as I could despite your previous shit-posting, to explain the concept in such a way that you could maybe explain your logic in a way I could get behind.

Think of it this way: at least I spent the effort trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, even if I was being insulting.
No. 6701
>>6694
>Why shouldn't I just call them out on it?

You want to call people out on using emoticons or whatever else? Great. Politely tell them that such things are discouraged, provide some helpful suggestions on how to improve their writing, and direct them to the "How to Survive" thread. Done. There is absolutely no need to engage in open hostility over something as easily ignored as a text emote.

What isn't easily ignored are those posts of yours that scream at people with absolute rage for what little justification you can offer. Justification which typically amounts to throwing around generic insults which disrupt the threads entirely. If you cannot contain your rage enough to maintain some level of humility, you really have no business posting at all.

But hey, what do I know?
¯\(ºдಠ)/¯
No. 6702
>>6700
> OP didn't deserve it.

I'll have to disagree with you. OP is the person who deserved it most. Not only did he make a worthless shit-thread, but he made the grievous affront of making it a thread about write-ins.

More importantly, you and I both know that no matter the logic used, no matter the people arguing, absolutely nothing will change our respective views on our opinion. We'll continue having this same tired topic until the site dies. Why the hell should I bother trying to explain myself every time we do; especially if we start off in such a terrible manner?

>>6701
I refuse. I will not coddle scum. If those worthless dregs cannot lurk long enough to tell what is okay and what isn't, it isn't my job to hold their hands and politely show them. If they come here posting like retarded pieces of shit, that's how I will refer to, and treat them.

But hey, if you want to be nice to a poster who's even more worthless then Random Anon, you do that. I won't judge.
┐(´~`;)┌
No. 6704
>>6702
That's nice, but you're wrong.
No. 6706
File 130160859732.gif - (37.29KB , 289x237 , Misc-Do_not_feed_the_trolls_(2)_jpg.gif ) [iqdb]
6706
Wonderful my first thread and it's descended into this....
Can I get a mod to close this or at least clamp down on the (obvious by this point) troll before this gets any worse. I don't think reasoning and arguing is going to do any good anymore.
No. 6708
>>6706
If you are rightfully ashamed of your terrible shit-thread, you should simply delete it.

>>6704
That's nice, but what am I wrong about?
No. 6709
>>6707
Roughly speaking everything you've said in this thread thus far.
I would go so far as to say that you're of the same caliber shitposter as Random Anon.
No. 6710
>>6702
> Why the hell should I bother trying to explain myself

I don't know. Maybe because you're going around harassing people for not conforming to your opinions how things should be done? And if you haven't noticed, people haven't exactly been appreciating it? I'm not sure who you really think you're helping. It certainly isn't helping the quality of the site.

> I'll have to disagree with you. OP is the person who deserved it most. Not only did he make a worthless shit-thread, but he made the grievous affront of making it a thread about write-ins.

So.... again we have a situation where you say something is wrong, but fail to explain why. OP posted something on GENERAL DISCUSSION, pretty much the most seldomly used board that was designed for exactly this kind of thing. And you are on his case for asking a legitimate question about something that you, your-fucking-self, has said is an issue.

And no, the "Why even bother" excuse doesn't work when you're still fucking talking. The thing is, you honestly can't come up with a response. So you decide to play the "I don't give a shit" role when you clearly do. No anon, it isn't you who is too smart for this discussion. It is this discussion which is too smart for you.

Let me make this clear for you. We don't share your opinions. Even those of us who might agree with a decline in quality don't appreciate your hijinks. We think your comments are annoying, and distract from enjoyment we would otherwise be having in every thread you rear your ugly head in. I do not believe, for one second, that you have been here nearly long enough to be talking about "an influx of trash", because from where I'm sitting, you're at the very top of that wave of trash, on a surfboard made of fail.
No. 6711
>>6708
I am not ashamed in myself, simply in the hypocrisy of a troll and disappointed in those that feed him. all the on topic posts have been quite educational and this has been genuinely helpful. It doesn't matter what you say you can't get me to conform to your guideline's by starting petty arguments.
Oh and I’m going to keep this open so when everyone finally gets sick of you, the mods can find your IP and take out the real trash.
No. 6712
>>6710
>It certainly isn't helping the quality of the site.
Neither is another pointless discussion on everybody's opinion on write-ins.

>So.... again we have a situation where you say something is wrong, but fail to explain why.

"More importantly, you and I both know that no matter the logic used, no matter the people arguing, absolutely nothing will change our respective views on our opinion."

I'm pretty damn sure this counts as an explanation. I would even go so far as saying it's a decent one. I would think that the inclusion of these sentences immediately following that statement would draw your eyes to them. I was wrong, apparently.

Now fuck off with your soapbox preaching. This thread has been nothing but two worthless faggots whining and bitching back and forth between each other. There is no "we" here. It's just me, you, and some other guy interjecting comments in the interim.

Also, if you truly were here for as long as you profess to have been, you would realize that though this place is GENERAL DISCUSSION, this isn't the right place for it. That's blue.
No. 6713
>>6712

You might have a point if you weren't going into people's threads and shitting them up.
No. 6714
>>6713
He might have a point if he actually expressed himself in a way other than he has been.

>More importantly, you and I both know that no matter the logic used, no matter the people arguing, absolutely nothing will change our respective views on our opinion.
That's not an acceptable justification for this behavior. Not even close. If anything, this is a reason for you to have not posted in the first place.

Hell, if you had just popped in and said "I disagree" that would be the end of it, but you just had to be such an insufferable prick about it.
No. 6715
> Also, if you truly were here for as long as you profess to have been, you would realize that though this place is GENERAL DISCUSSION, this isn't the right place for it. That's blue.

The thread, as it was originally created, was fine for general. There is nothing wrong with a serious discussion on how to make good write-ins on general. When you turned it into a crusade against write-ins, well, maybe then. Maybe.

I love how you talk about soapboxing when you came into someone's thread, raged about how much you HATE write-ins and pretty much made discussion impossible. You shat up this thread specifically to get your own opinions out there, then kicked and screamed when people told you to stop. That is about as "soapbox" as it gets.

Also, the reason you probably think I'm a newfag for thinking of general as general is because you are retarded and fail at making correlations. If I didn't even think of blue when it comes to making threads, it means that I've been here so long, that blue is still a novelty board to me (as I'm sure it is to many, judging by it's current content).

I've been here long before there was a blue, and long before we got the replacement site, and even before the first site. You think this is bad? Try following stories on /jp/. That would make you appreciate what we have here, and the importance of maintaining a healthy community that doesn't have to worry about assholes like you fucking shit up because they can't handle someone having different opinions.

I'm not even pulling the oldfag card here. I'm just saying that you're making claims about an influx of trash, and quite honestly, other than great story purges when blue first came around, the site isn't THAT much different. Its gotten better in some ways, worse in others. Like writers dropping like flies. Oh yeah, and people like you who seem to miss the early days of blue when people thought they could be assholes to assert their opinions on others.
No. 6719
It is incredibly depressing that some of the posts in this shitstorm are as big as some story updates.
No. 6720
>>6719
And took less time to pop up, too.
No. 6723
Ha ha, oh wow. You guys are funny.

Anyway, good write-ins are usually unprompted. A lot of really good write-ins pop up when someone gets a "oh hey, wouldn't this be cool instead?" moment. Some writers play mind games with you, secretly trying to make you think outside the box and come up with the real answer via write-ins. There aren't a lot of them though, and they should knock that out. No, I never did get over that part of RAAN and it still bugs me today.

When a writer is asking for write-ins, it gets a lot tougher to be creative with a story that isn't strictly your own. What situation are you in? Are you in danger, lost, making out, killing time? What kind of story is this, and would or wouldn't be appropriate? Think of how the characters act around you. What are their motivations, their personality? Think about your character, how they've acted before, behavior you want to establish, goals you want to see accomplished, information you want to learn.

Realize that if you're presented two or more worrisome options, the author (hopefully) is doing that for a reason. This is something that is creating conflict, and you should feel anxious about what to choose. Consider the aforementioned when considering what to choose. There should be hints to inform your decision. You shouldn't feel obligated to "find the best solution" by making a crafty write-in that avoids the conflict. At best, the vote looks about as awkward as it would be to see play out, and at worst the author punishes you for not manning up and making a firm decision. Realize that sometimes going with the options listed is far more difficult that coming up with a good write-in.

As for all this "if" statement discussion, I've never been a fan of it. It presumes too much for my taste and takes control of the story out of the hands of the writer, and they're already giving us a lot of control. I'm a strong proponent that if you need to clarify what you'd like to see happen in certain conditions, say it in a comment outside the vote. Keeps the vote clean and focused, but promotes thought and discussion. Authors like to know that you're thinking about their story enough to plan and consider things. As a reader, I appreciate it too because it offers some insight I might have missed.

tl;dr lol opinions
No. 6724
>>6723
>Some writers play mind games with you, secretly trying to make you think outside the box and come up with the real answer via write-ins. There aren't a lot of them though, and they should knock that out.

As opposed to the Attention whores that do similar just to get more attention?

Though putting it into a comment might not work as the writer may say "should have put that into a vote"
No. 6725
>>6724
>though putting it into a comment might not work as the writer may say "should have put that into a vote"

Quite true, but I won't read anyone that's not paying attention to their readers.
No. 6739
>>6724
>Though putting it into a comment might not work as the writer may say "should have put that into a vote"

Who the fuck would do that? A writer who doesn't listen to his readers outside of their strict votes is a terribly shitty author.
No. 6746
>>6739
>>6725
I could understand if it was one of those crazy ramblonic essay length posts with absolutely no vote at all present, with a lot of those it's all just thought process, and it can be hard to discern what the actual conclusion the person reached was without a little blurb at the end to say
[x] Do this thing
No. 6747
>>6746
>with absolutely no vote at all present

Regardless of how well thought out, substantive, and ridiculously insightful something may be, a post without a vote doesn't (shouldn't) count outside of convincing others to think that way and influence their vote. Waxing philosophical is great and all for sparking discussion, but without casting your vote in support of your bizarre machinations, it amounts to a hill of beans.

There's a comment to be made about the relationship between someone's ability to articulate their reasoning/justification for a vote and their worthiness of consideration by a writer, but yeah.