Questions, thoughts

Subject: Questions, thoughts
Author: Neshomeh
Posted on: 2012-05-11 15:46:00 UTC

... Okay, this got rather long and ranty toward the end. I'm gonna leave it in, but I'd just like to clarify at the outset that rantiness should not be mistaken for actual anger or anything like that. It shouldn't read as heated, but if it does, it's unintentional. Also, this is mainly talking about the conversation in this thread, not necessarily the story as a whole, since obviously I don't know what's in the story as a whole yet.

- - - -

To address the allegedly false dichotomy, if destruction is not the only means of change, but developing old stuff and adding new stuff doesn't count, then what does? Please explain.

Also, if change = "allow[ing] other people to write in a different manner," I don't see how destruction even counts. Destruction doesn't allow people to write differently, it forcibly removes options. Destruction is not change, either; destruction is the death of potential.

You've essentially decided that no one can ever again write for the Waterlily Commander or the Hydrangea. I'm not sure I consented to this. If I did, I think I'd like to revoke that consent now that I've thought it through.

Here's why I think this is leaving a bad taste in my mouth: by saving Trojie's NPC but not these two, you've made a judgement call that some people's NPCs have more right than others' to go on having potential. Trojie wrote a whole heck of a lot and her seat's barely cooled; her stuff is safe. Meg Thornton and Elvea Aure, though, they've been gone practically forever and didn't do as much, and their departments didn't catch on anyway; their NPCs are acceptable targets.

I don't know if that's your actual reasoning, but the implication still exists. I have a problem with this. If I get a life and vanish for two, five, ten years, and nobody else ever touches FicPsych again, should I expect to come back and find that someone has taken a flamethrower to the department and left everything I ever created there in ashes? When does my right to have left a piece of me behind in the world expire? What about yours, or VM's, or SeaTurtle's, or Joe's, or anyone else's?

Granted, not everything catches on, and that's a judgement call, too. The key difference is that choosing not to use something is not the same as choosing that no one can ever use it again.

So, the issue as I see it is not respect for the fictional PPC's right to change (and let's just keep our feet on the ground for a minute here and treat it as entirely imaginary and not really real), but respect for the real-world people who want to play in this sandbox. I believe the point of the moratorium on emergencies and destroying stuff was so that new people can enjoy the PPC more or less the same way their predecessors did, because that's what they've read about, and that's what they came for. If things change too much, eventually it's not going to be the PPC anymore; it's going to be something else with the same name.

And no, you don't have the right to make that decision for us. Tawaki didn't, and you don't, and no one does. If you want to make changes that affect everyone, you need to consult everyone. Surprise endings must needs take a back seat to respecting your fellows. If you want to write surprise murderdeathCHANGE scenes, that's fine, but this is not the place for it.

Now, the rest of the change in this story, the bit concerning the message, that DOES have a consent process built in. That's different. If it catches on (as it seems to be doing), that's all voluntary, and that's fine.

It's not okay to make decisions for people who aren't around to give consent, though. That's why killing off other people's NPCs bugs me. I don't think even the community as a whole has the right to do that. Ignore, yes. Destroy, no. Only the character's creator has the right to destroy it, whether they've allowed other people to use it or not. If I say you can use my apple tree, I mean you can pick apples, or sit in the branches, or maybe even take some firewood now and then; and you don't have to if you don't want to. I do not mean that you can burn it down, even if nobody picks apples from it for ten years. Right to use is not the same as right to destroy.

[/soapbox]

~Neshomeh, who needs tea now.

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

DIO: Swansong (PLUG) & Note on Message Cowrite by Huinesoron on 2012-05-10 00:08:00 UTC Reply

Okay. Deep breath. This has been a long time in the works (since the Christmas Party over on the Other Board, give or take), but here it finally is. I hope you like it.

DIO: Swansong

This is the first part of the Swan's Egg Trilogy. Parts Two and Three will be posted together in approximately two weeks time - and Part Three is the Message cowrite.

As of about three hours ago, I have contributions from PoorCynic, EllipsisFlood, EileenAlphabet, PitViperOfDoom, and doctorlit (oh, and myself). Given that I emailed about 26 people the Message, I'm hoping for at least a few more. Again, if you never received the Message (and asked to), leave your email address and I'll send it over. Saying you never got it without leaving an email address is less than helpful, certain people. :P

Final note: this story is set Right Now, so the 9th May 2012 HST. The other two parts will be set Right Two Weeks From Now. And no, the events of Swansong will not be made public knowledge. That doesn't mean people can't have found out about them - but there's no announcement.

hS

(Coming Soon...

SO: Mute Swan
PPC: Flight Of Swans
PPC Card Game: 5th Generation
Generic Surface: Battle Royale)

Can I get the Message too? by Sergio Turbo on 2012-05-13 08:41:00 UTC Reply

When you originally asked for it, I was really busy (so I barely read it), but now I have enough time to get this done in a couple of days most.

So... Can you send the Message and a basic explanation on what my Agents would be supposed to do?

My email is stginelli-snaillikethingy-gmail-littledot-commercial (Should be enough to fool those pesky bots.)
I'm sorry. by RilwenShadowflame on 2012-05-13 04:47:00 UTC Reply

This makes me as uncomfortable as it ever did. I don't think I even have words for what I feel about it.
A few notes. by PoorCynic on 2012-05-12 17:27:00 UTC Reply

I'm holding off on a full response regarding the actual content of your piece (the plot, the characterization, whether I liked it, et...il I read the final parts. However, there were two technical issues I wanted to point out.

"... Do we have any Gremlin agents, do you know?”
Are you referring to the creature of military folklore that would sabotage machinery or the specific PPC agent with that name? If it is the former (which I assume to be the case,) then the word 'gremlin' should not be capitalized.

You repeated the phrase 'out of the blue' twice in a very short amount of time. It starts in the paragraph that begins with "Nita blinked" and then repeats in the following section.

I await the remaining parts with much curiosity.

Both fixed. Ta. (nm) by Huinesoron on 2012-05-12 19:24:00 UTC Reply

ATTENTION EVERYONE by JulyFlame on 2012-05-11 20:20:00 UTC Reply

Since I've been seeing people freak out over this.

This is only canon for you if you want it to be.

You do not have to play Follow the Leader and follow Huinesoron.

What he has set in terms of meta does not have to apply to you or your agents. They do not have to apply to the agents that are next door to your agents, across the hall, diagonal to them, or above or below them.

What he has set as concerns and views for his agents, which again, do not have to apply to yours.

Jenni's perspective on the matter apply just as equally as Peter's does. As does Morgan's (she seems to react with getting drunk) as does July's ("Oh god where is the neuralyzer?") as does Denny's. (Denny's opinion, incidentally, is that this doesn't matter, if you're freaking out and breaking things and wrecking HQ, since because of this you only deserve utmost SCORN because he and his crew have to go and repair that.)

To the people wigging out who think that hS is trying to control the PPC: No, he's not. hS cringed when I called him 'Boss', even jokingly. (He probably even twitched just reading that line, knowing what I do of him.)

Believe me when I say that hS does not want control of the PPC. If you want to see how he would react to the thought, you are welcome to follow him around and call him 'O Glorious Leader' in all of your posts in reply to him. The result will be that he will run away in fear. And not come back for months. He has done it before, he will do it again if he thinks it will help. hS has about as much desire to be a leader as a sponge does. (A hint, hS: It does not help.)

This is a July reminder, to remind people that you should use your brains. If you are not using your brains, go and apologize to one another right now. Including to hS. He should not be held accountable for you not thinking for yourself (even if we told him this would happen).

This is a serious examination of meta in the PPC from a different viewpoint. What you shouldn't be getting from this is 'ohgodohnonowIhavetobeseriousandnaileverythingdownjustlikehedidohno' but 'Okay, so what? That was a neat story. Now, I wonder how my characters would think about this? Would they have the same reaction? What are their thoughts on how the PPC runs on a meta level? Do they even think there is one?'

-July, with the Cluebat which has the Nails of Knowledge embedded in it this time

... waitwaitwait. by Huinesoron on 2012-05-11 20:27:00 UTC Reply

Are... are people assuming Peter was right? Because, um, seriously: he's crazy, he's being heavily manipulated, and he is wrong in almost every particular.

Please, tell me I'm misunderstanding you, July. Tell me that's not what people are doing.

hS

Sorry to say, hS... by Cassie on 2012-05-12 11:41:00 UTC Reply

but I think July may be right.

Not everyone's going to be following the same train of thought as you in this, so they may well come to the conclusion that Peter's right. It really doesn't make it very clear at all that he's manipulated/wrong. He's clearly snapped by the end, but that can easily be interpreted as his having broken under the weight of The Truth and decided to do something about it.
Because I am not ever above saying it... by JulyFlame on 2012-05-11 20:36:00 UTC Reply

We told you this would happen.

The pacing is waaay better now. by Ellipsis Flood on 2012-05-11 13:54:00 UTC Reply

I'll wait for the other parts until I'll say something about it, but it does sound a bit like SRS BZNS right now.

Also, is it okay to go over the cowrite thing and fix a few things? (The link stays the same, in my case.)

Yes. (nm) by Huinesoron on 2012-05-11 19:14:00 UTC Reply

Just making sure... by TheScribe on 2012-05-11 13:03:00 UTC Reply

(sorry if I shouldn't post here, but I found out yesterday that my email was hacked and so now I'm trying to use it minimally.)

The cowrite is supposed to be your agents' reaction to the message, nothing more, correct?

Correct. by Huinesoron on 2012-05-11 19:13:00 UTC Reply

What they say, what they do.

hS

Thanks by TheScribe on 2012-05-11 19:20:00 UTC Reply

Due to my inability to write seriousness, it will most likely be extremely cracky.

I can't remember by Elcalion on 2012-05-11 12:04:00 UTC Reply

whether or not I replied with my email, but either way I'm keen.

cam h 86 @ hot mail . com (minus the requisite spaces)
Speaking of the cowrite... by Data Junkie on 2012-05-11 08:09:00 UTC Reply

I am most definitely interested now. Would it be too late to get in on this? I mean, I've got permission and a pair of agents that at least exist on the board. Though I'd completely understand if you'd decided that this late in, you weren't accepting any more people. I'm just asking on the off-chance that it's still possible.

Eeeeeemail, give me your eeeemail. by Huinesoron on 2012-05-11 08:13:00 UTC Reply

Then I'll email you the Message. Bear in mind you'll only have a couple of weeks.

hS

Re: Eeeeeemail, give me your eeeemail. by Data Junkie on 2012-05-11 18:29:00 UTC Reply

tidwell dot raven at gmail dot com

Alternatively, it's on the beta-reader list on the wiki.

Didn't want to include it in the first post because, like I said, wasn't sure if you were still taking people.

A special treat: Swansong Revised by Huinesoron on 2012-05-11 05:23:00 UTC Reply

The story link in the previous post has been extensively revised - so if you've already read it, you can now read it again! The changes pick up right after the party, and run through to the end.

Gratitude primarily to Neshomeh for comments given, and also to Phobos (for different comments given).

hS

Part of your addition repeats, twice. (nm) by JulyFlame on 2012-05-11 05:45:00 UTC Reply

Fixed. by Huinesoron on 2012-05-11 07:27:00 UTC Reply

Google Docs is not my friend.

hS

Concrit by Neshomeh on 2012-05-11 02:55:00 UTC Reply

I'm going to hold my overall reaction for now, much as Phobos is doing, but I do have some writerly writing comments:

I think this could be improved by giving it some more space to breathe. Everything seems to escalate really quickly, and I don't always feel that it's justified. Peter in particular seems happy to go leaping to conclusions whether he's had time to build a foundation for them or not. I could forgive him for this, given his clear mental instability later, but he seems to be right a bit too often:

- He's quick to suspect the Board is actually controlling people (this is the entire premise of the trilogy, AFAIK);

- His first guess when Nita starts acting strangely is that she was drugged (she has been);

- He doesn't take long to assume that there's some connection between the Board incident and the drug-dealing robot (granted, I don't know 100% that there is, but I'd be surprised if there isn't).

In the end, I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to be feeling suspense about these things or not. There's certainly a mystery here for the characters, but they don't stay mystified very long.

The ending also happens really quickly and leaves me wondering how to feel. Suddenly Peter has lost his mind, we go from reading his note to seeing the felled Flowers onscreen in just a few short lines, and neither Justin nor Nita seems to have an emotional reaction to what they're seeing. Justin's reactions are explicitly "emotionless," "monotone," "hollow," and "flat," and the most we get from Nita is widened eyes. I'm experiencing the event at a double-remove myself—I'm watching the characters watch it—and the effect of what should be a horrible tragedy is severely blunted.

I would have liked a lot more build-up, especially for the final scene. Seeing Justin and Peter look through the records of previous incidents, being with Peter as his mind begins to fray but (presumably) holding it together as best he can, would have helped me appreciate his final breach with sanity.

I did enjoy everything leading up to the party, though. The tone is much lighter at first, and Justin at least remains skeptical of the whole "PPC Board" thing even as he does his best to contain the situation as he sees it. The whole concept of putting a narrative to those silly shenanigans is fun—we get to see how the DIO agents involved felt about it as it was happening, and it's a nice contrast to our own perspective: we take the Board and posting on it for granted; they don't.

Of course, certain parties do wish certain other parties had paid more attention to them at the time. *g*

~Neshomeh

Thank you. by Huinesoron on 2012-05-11 03:27:00 UTC Reply

I may try a rewrite to put more between the party and the ending - to be honest, the heart of the story was always what happened on the Boards, so I probably did neglect the ending a little. The other mental block I think I had is that Nita was the primary carrier of the story - not quite the viewpoint, but close. That was I think originally a stylistic decision (it meant we weren't privy to Peter's thought processes, so his breakdown was as surprising for us as it was for Nita) but after the edits that put the Peter-Justin asides in, I should have spotted and edited.

Basically the problem boils down to one paragraph - Nita's 'So the matter rested' - and as David Eddings would be quick to point out, it's that 'a couple of months passed' that does it all in.

I shall work on it (and on the emotion at the end - and maybe even Justin's fourth-wall-directed line for Phobos). Thankee.

hS

(PS: Were he not currently in a DIA holding cell, Peter would be the first to point out that of course he was right 'too often', he's always right. But then, he's in a DIA holding cell, so don't listen to him. ~hS)
Oh bother. SPOILERS up there in my post. (nm) by Neshomeh on 2012-05-11 02:58:00 UTC Reply

Opinions and spoilers by Phobos on 2012-05-11 02:14:00 UTC Reply

I don't know where to begin. Something about this story just rubs me the wrong way. Don't get me wrong, it is very well written technically. I just don't trust where this is going.

Here are some specific reasons that I can pick out:

1) Killing off those three flowers strikes me as the same kind of thing that happened with Makes-Things.

2) The line "[...] The Head of Despatch – the third Action Department in PPC history - is dead." feels to me like it is directed, not at Nita, but at the fourth wall. It isn't exposition that needed to happen. We only needed to know that they were the head of Despatch, the rest feels like you are trying to goad us into a reaction.

Honestly, I'm kind of torn here. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt because you have been around for so long. However, I hate people giving the benefit of the doubt based on someone having been around for so long.

I guess I should give you the benefit of the doubt, for now, and wait for the rest to come out before I make up my mind.

-Phobos

Thankee for your comments. by Huinesoron on 2012-05-11 02:41:00 UTC Reply

You're right that the 'third Action Department' line is a certain level of grandstanding, but I consider it more to be Justin's utter dismay. It's as if someone turned away from the TV back in the, what, 60s? and said, "JFK's dead. The president has been shot." It's an expression of disbelief - surely this can't happen, this is an important person we're talking about!

And yes, it's like what happened to Makes-Things - but those three are completely unused characters (really - the DMFF stories are only available any more because I went and rescued them, I've never seen an Angst story, and Despatch? Not for most of a decade). I did briefly consider Peter going on a rampage through Bad Slash, killing off half their agents and the Lace... but then I stopped thinking that (and without even needing to be told!). And, of course, Swansong features the Mother Of All Get-outs - them being dead is Justin and Nita's assumption. All we know is that they're unconscious.

Plus, hey, got rid of some Yellow Roses. That's got to be worth something, right?

(No more deaths in the trilogy, I promise)

hS

It is about more than just that stuff by Phobos on 2012-05-11 03:20:00 UTC Reply

Those were the things that I could easily pick out in the story. There is more to it than that. I've got this, admittedly vague, feeling that there is something else going on here; outside the story. Like I said, I don't trust where this is going, but I am going to wait until the end to make my final decision on how I feel about it.

Also, the Department of Angst was written by Trojie, if memory serves. I recall Neshomeh drawing a picture of two Angst agents for her.

Nesh points out that part of the reason I am uncomfortable may be because you haven't just killed characters (assuming they are dead), you have killed the potential for them ever being used again. It is not a problem of the specific characters, it is a problem of concept.

Is it okay for anybody to kill off a shared character just because they haven't been used in a while?

-Phobos

And is it okay... by Huinesoron on 2012-05-11 03:35:00 UTC Reply

... for the PPC to remain in forced stasis? The heart of Swan's Egg is the question of what reality means - are the Agents and Flowers real, in any meaningful sense? If they are, what right do we have to force them to run the same paths over and again? And yes, I know that 'forced stasis' and 'Floricide' aren't opposites. :P

The PPC is not a stable system. It's metastable - and very meta - and it may well be a stable equilibrium, but by the rules of the universe, it is not stable. But it has been - nothing has been allowed to change (even Crashing Down only managed to kill one character who wasn't mine - the Wisteria, who at the time had only been mentioned once ever). So perhaps it's time something did.

... not that it will. Murderdeathkilling isn't the point of Swan's Egg, and will not happen again. The real change - if it happens - will be much more insidious, and entirely up to the writers.

hS

Re: And is it okay... by Phobos on 2012-05-11 04:58:00 UTC Reply

Why does change have to equal things being undone? Why is growth not change?

Look at some of the things that are going on in the PPC:

>Joe's work in the DoSAT Testing and Application Division

>The Postal Department has stories now

>The Kitchen has stories

>SeaTurtle has revived Intel, which hadn't had a new agent since Architeuthis

>A laundry room was added to HQ

Does none of that count as change?

On a separate note, if destruction is the only means of change, who gets to decide for the community what gets destroyed? Is anyone allowed to destroy whatever they want, whenever they want?

-Phobos

... by Huinesoron on 2012-05-11 07:47:00 UTC Reply

>SeaTurtle has revived Intel, which hadn't had a new agent since Architeuthis

Do you want to be the one to let Kyaris know that? She's part (the only part) of the previous revival of Intel - the one where I went and set up a whole system whereby people could write Intelligence Reports and tie them into the Unclaimed Badfic list. It didn't take off.

To answer your question, growth of the sort you describe is not change because it doesn't allow other people to write in a different manner. The Postal Department and Kitchen have stories (I'm positive the Cafeteria staff had a story a long time ago, but I can't trace it; I thought it was Leto's work, but apparently not), but since those agents belong to their respective authors, no one else uses them. Intel has been running all along, just without stories. Etcetera. It doesn't add anything to the experience of a PPC writer in one of the common departments, and it doesn't add anything to the lives of their agents.

But I'm not claiming destruction is 'the only means of change'; you're creating a false dichotomy there. Change is change, positive or negative. Large-scale change shakes things up, and yes, the easiest way to do that is to blow things up (although you'll be glad to note that the Aloe has had a reprieve - "You see, Lord Vader, [I] can be reasonable") - but it's far from the only way.

Remember, Swansong is only Part One. It sets the scene, little more. Real change - positive change - is coming.

hS

(I don't know, are they? Or are we doomed to never having a surprise ending because we have to ask in advance if it's okay? Or - since that's another false dichotomy - or... what?)

Questions, thoughts by Neshomeh on 2012-05-11 15:46:00 UTC Reply

... Okay, this got rather long and ranty toward the end. I'm gonna leave it in, but I'd just like to clarify at the outset that rantiness should not be mistaken for actual anger or anything like that. It shouldn't read as heated, but if it does, it's unintentional. Also, this is mainly talking about the conversation in this thread, not necessarily the story as a whole, since obviously I don't know what's in the story as a whole yet.

- - - -

To address the allegedly false dichotomy, if destruction is not the only means of change, but developing old stuff and adding new stuff doesn't count, then what does? Please explain.

Also, if change = "allow[ing] other people to write in a different manner," I don't see how destruction even counts. Destruction doesn't allow people to write differently, it forcibly removes options. Destruction is not change, either; destruction is the death of potential.

You've essentially decided that no one can ever again write for the Waterlily Commander or the Hydrangea. I'm not sure I consented to this. If I did, I think I'd like to revoke that consent now that I've thought it through.

Here's why I think this is leaving a bad taste in my mouth: by saving Trojie's NPC but not these two, you've made a judgement call that some people's NPCs have more right than others' to go on having potential. Trojie wrote a whole heck of a lot and her seat's barely cooled; her stuff is safe. Meg Thornton and Elvea Aure, though, they've been gone practically forever and didn't do as much, and their departments didn't catch on anyway; their NPCs are acceptable targets.

I don't know if that's your actual reasoning, but the implication still exists. I have a problem with this. If I get a life and vanish for two, five, ten years, and nobody else ever touches FicPsych again, should I expect to come back and find that someone has taken a flamethrower to the department and left everything I ever created there in ashes? When does my right to have left a piece of me behind in the world expire? What about yours, or VM's, or SeaTurtle's, or Joe's, or anyone else's?

Granted, not everything catches on, and that's a judgement call, too. The key difference is that choosing not to use something is not the same as choosing that no one can ever use it again.

So, the issue as I see it is not respect for the fictional PPC's right to change (and let's just keep our feet on the ground for a minute here and treat it as entirely imaginary and not really real), but respect for the real-world people who want to play in this sandbox. I believe the point of the moratorium on emergencies and destroying stuff was so that new people can enjoy the PPC more or less the same way their predecessors did, because that's what they've read about, and that's what they came for. If things change too much, eventually it's not going to be the PPC anymore; it's going to be something else with the same name.

And no, you don't have the right to make that decision for us. Tawaki didn't, and you don't, and no one does. If you want to make changes that affect everyone, you need to consult everyone. Surprise endings must needs take a back seat to respecting your fellows. If you want to write surprise murderdeathCHANGE scenes, that's fine, but this is not the place for it.

Now, the rest of the change in this story, the bit concerning the message, that DOES have a consent process built in. That's different. If it catches on (as it seems to be doing), that's all voluntary, and that's fine.

It's not okay to make decisions for people who aren't around to give consent, though. That's why killing off other people's NPCs bugs me. I don't think even the community as a whole has the right to do that. Ignore, yes. Destroy, no. Only the character's creator has the right to destroy it, whether they've allowed other people to use it or not. If I say you can use my apple tree, I mean you can pick apples, or sit in the branches, or maybe even take some firewood now and then; and you don't have to if you don't want to. I do not mean that you can burn it down, even if nobody picks apples from it for ten years. Right to use is not the same as right to destroy.

[/soapbox]

~Neshomeh, who needs tea now.

Consider your complaints registered. by Huinesoron on 2012-05-11 16:47:00 UTC Reply

I hope there will be no complaints about the murder of my characters, the heads of departments I invented. The Clover and Snowthorn are now confirmed dead.

hS
If you don't like what somebody else has done in the sandbox by Kaitlyn on 2012-05-11 16:44:00 UTC Reply

. . . don't pick it up.

hS was, in fact, the first person to really attempt to respect everyone's PPC canon. Before he turned up and started creating meticulous timelines, the PPC was pretty much a free-for-all . . . and he never suggested that the rest of us couldn't continue to treat it that way.

The PPC is just a fandom like any other. HP fanon wasn't set in stone the first day somebody whipped up a Draco/Harry fic and published it in triumph. I've had a few people borrow my characters over the years, but never, ever considered their actions binding on me -- why would I? I can't even fathom the thought process.

It's just fanfic. It's not srs business. And hS doesn't actually need your consent to play here.

-- Kaitlyn, who's recovering from a nasty bout of food poisoning and can't have tea

I know I'm still a newbie but... by Mechajin on 2012-05-11 18:14:00 UTC Reply

...Here are my thoughts:

I think hS has a point. There does need to be change, sometimes, in the form of death of characters maybe?

I don't know.

But without some form of change, people are going to get bored, there won't be any new ideas, new characters.

Yes, the Hydrangea and Waterlily Commander are dead, but that means people can make *new*, fresh characters to take their place.

If we have to ask about every change we want to make, where's the fun in all this? What's the fun in writing for a fanon, where we can't do what we want? Where we have to stick to the old, stale formula?

Yeah, the PPC is comedy at heart, but that doesn't mean we CAN'T have the odd serious thing every so-often.

Let's take a look at Bob and George, I'm sure at least *one* person here other than me has read that webcomic. It kept it's comedic beginnings all-throughout the comic, even when "serious" arcs were going on.

Of course, I'm not saying we should have emergencies where major characters die at the drop of a hat every other day.

Anyway, I've ranted long enough. It wasn't meant to be a rant. Thanks for listening, guys. :)

-- Mechajin, who would have a cup of tea, but doesn't like it, and also thinks that the joke is kinda stale already.

Input is good. {= ) by Neshomeh on 2012-05-11 19:11:00 UTC Reply

Otherwise it's just us oldbies butting heads again.

I disagree with you, but you've probably gathered that. There is one thing in particular I think needs answering, though, and that's this:

What's the fun in writing for a fanon, where we can't do what we want?

I would point out that this sounds a lot like a badficcer's "It's my fanfic, so I can do whatever I want!" Trouble is, writing has rules, and the canons have rules. Doing whatever you want can be fun, but this group here tends to take issue with writers doing whatever they want when that extends to ignoring grammar and characterization and such. {= )

~Neshomeh

Oop. by Mechajin on 2012-05-11 19:24:00 UTC Reply

You have a point there, It was meant to sound like, "If we can't change things sometimes, it's gonna get stale. Where's the fun in that?" I have to admit though, the PPC isn't a "normal" canon. It's constantly shifting. In fact, that's why I'm on hS' side in this little debate. Things can't stay in stasis. :)

(But I think I might have stated that already..)

Regarding consent to play here. by Neshomeh on 2012-05-11 17:59:00 UTC Reply

That actually is required. Not from me specifically (and my comment about revoking consent was an expression of personally not accepting that killing off other people's NPCs is okay), but that's exactly what Permission is. hS did, in the beginning, need consent from somebody to play here. We all do. In that sense, this fandom is rather different from the other ones: ours has gatekeepers, and one reason is so that people can't just come in and do whatever they want without regard for others.

"If you don't like it, don't use it" is fine, I agree with that. I do not agree with "If you don't like it, feel free to destroy it in your fic." Naturally I wouldn't accept it as fact if somebody did that to one of my characters without permission, but it would still be a slap in my face, and I'd probably not allow that person anywhere near my stuff again. I mean... if you're playing with someone else's toys, you give them back in good condition. That's consideration, politeness, respect. Right?

Whatever hS's track record is, I don't think killing off other people's contributions is respectful. Fanfic may not be srs bsns, but treating others with respect is. I presume my point on that score at least was well-made, since he did decide to take my arguments on board and change stuff. If y'all think I'm actually talking nonsense here, though, please don't act on it. It's confusing. O.o

'Course, if anybody wants to give permission for their NPCs to be killed at any time, they can do that...

~Neshomeh, who is sorry about the food poisoning—that really bites. {= (

Sure . . . by Kaitlyn on 2012-05-11 18:20:00 UTC Reply

. . . but he has Permission now, and has for many years. Nobody else gets to decide what he does with that Permission. Nobody has authority over writers with Permission.

Nor should they; the PPC isn't a cult. Permission isn't a way of ensuring that new writers are going to conform to the Board-collective groupthink. Permission is just a way of cutting down on really thoughtless SPaG errors and horrific characterisation under the PPC banner.

The authors in question are seriously, seriously gone. They've been gone for years now. The odds that they're ever going to return to these particular toys are abysmally low . . . but yes, hS has changed it anyway. Who knows why hS does the things he does, to be honest. Not I, said the fly. He is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

-- Kaitlyn, who appreciates the sympathy, and has managed to eat a delicious popsicle! Hooray, life might be tolerable again

I dunno. by Neshomeh on 2012-05-11 18:57:00 UTC Reply

The "nobody has authority over writers with Permission" part—I dunno. There have been a few cases at least where folks with Permission started doing things that seriously raised eyebrows, and make some of us cringe even to this day.

I'll say it: Agent Tawaki the were-penguin/Borg/Time Lord makes me cringe. I think he is a giant Gary Stu. I have never felt like I was allowed to say so because Boarder!Tawaki has Permission, and I have wondered for years why that's so. Why wasn't it okay to stand up and say "No, that is an abuse of the privilege you've been given—stop it"?

Do you think Permission really means we have to tolerate everything, even if it's in direct opposition to principles the group claims to uphold?

~Neshomeh

More Opinions by Mechajin on 2012-05-11 19:20:00 UTC Reply

"Do you think Permission really means we have to tolerate everything, even if it's in direct opposition to principles the group claims to uphold?"

No, Of course not. But nowhere does it say that there should be NO serious stuff.

The PPC is here for people to have fun, and write stories about a canon, just like every other fanon out there.

In fact, it's against the PPC's mission to say "I don't agree with this, so stop writing it."

We're only supposed to get irritated at fics that are BAD. Think about why there's only a department of BAD slash? Because all fics can be written well. Apart from Mary-Sue fics, of course. Unless they are parody.

...Where was I again? Oh yeah, BAD. All fics can be written well, be they serious, or silly. If you don't like serious stuff, that's cool, but you shouldn't scold people for writing it, like it or not. (That wasn't directed solely at you Neshomeh, that was directed at people who get irritated at "serious" PPC fics in general.)

I'm a newbie here, but as for the Tawaki thing, I see no reason for you not to say, "Hang on, This doesn't seem right." I've looked at said agents profile, and yeah. I'd say he seems to be a bit of a Stu.

If people got irritated at you for trying to give some criticism, that's not good. We're all equal here. Once you get permission, there's no difference between "Newbie" and "Oldbie".

Actually, there's no real difference between people with permission, or without. The people with permission have just been told "We trust you enough to write a PPC story, have fun." The people without permission can still give concrit, etc.

Right, again. Sorry if this turned into a rant, or seemed heated. Wasn't meant to be.

--Mechajin

(P.S: If you see any grammar/spelling mistakes, feel free to notify me. I don't run my forum messages through a spellchecker, etc.)

Butting in, here... by JulyFlame on 2012-05-11 19:49:00 UTC Reply

Nowhere has it been expressed that we have a ban on serious things in the PPC. Nowhere at all has that been the main concern here with Huinesoron's works.

The concern is that he is writing things that will, intentionally or not, force everyone to follow him and what he is doing.

Neshomeh was not scolding him for writing something serious. It was for writing something that shook the PPC up a great deal, did not actually inform people about- when this first came up she expressed concerns about Drama and so on. She was assured it would not be the case, and we also had a look over at one of the items involved. We were given and informed of one thing, and this presented us with something entirely different.

Now, I must apologize, because this goes against something we try to emphasis against, with regards to this statement:

Once you get permission, there's no difference between "Newbie" and "Oldbie".

Unfortunately, this is not true. Once you have permission, it only means you have permission. Nothing more, nothing less. It means you are less of a newbie. It does not automatically mean you are an oldbie. An oldbie, by any meaning, is someone who has been around. They have seen the community grow, and change. They have seen what has happened, and have been involved in those things.

Your perspective as a newbie is completely different. Please take this in the politest way possible: you do not actually know what you are saying.

I'm a newbie here, but as for the Tawaki thing, I see no reason for you not to say, "Hang on, This doesn't seem right." I've looked at said agents profile, and yeah. I'd say he seems to be a bit of a Stu.

The reason that no one said that is because when this first went on, we very much subscribed to what Kaitlyn has described. It's not our right to interfere with what he's writing. It doesn't change what the rest of us write, after all. We have no place calling him out on his agents since he has permission. And so on.

Unfortunately, if we had said something early on, we'd not have had what happened. We would not have had multiple massive ripoffs of various canon plots, nor would we have had several wrongfully overpowered agents around. We would not have the current moratorium on events and crises.

The reaction to Huinesoron's story here, for the most part, is because, if I understand correctly Neshomeh's thoughts here, she is concerned that he is doing something that is restrictive to the PPC as a whole, for the worse. This is not due to his skill or ability as a writer, or what he personally has done. It has to do with how everyone else interprets and or thinks of how they should implement it in their own stories.

The PPC is not intended to be a massive serious place. It is a loose web of strands, spin-offs connected to others, but not all of them.

People have already told me they're worried about how they're supposed to be reacting to this story of hS'. Their view of the PPC doesn't align with what he's shown here, they have said. Their thoughts on how meta the PPC is doesn't align with what he's shown here, they have said. Their agents wouldn't think like this, they have said. Now, they are worried because they think they have to follow it, since hS wrote it.

I appreciate that you've decided to speak up here, but the thing is, you have no background to base what you are saying on, and you have no understanding of the history of what has happened before to appreciate Neshomeh's concerns, or the concerns of others where this is involved.

Blah. by Mechajin on 2012-05-11 20:30:00 UTC Reply

"It was for writing something that shook the PPC up a great deal, did not actually inform people about- when this first came up she expressed concerns about Drama and so on. She was assured it would not be the case, and we also had a look over at one of the items involved. We were given and informed of one thing, and this presented us with something entirely different." Okay, that's something I didn't know about. I accept that. I do have a habit of butting into things without all the facts, yes. It's a flaw of mine. :/

As for the Newbie/Oldbie thing, you misunderstand what I am saying. I didn't mean that you suddenly become an Oldbie. I know the term quite well. What I mean is, is that time should not be an issue, in that case.

Let's say "Sam" and "John" are both people who have been given permission. "John" has been around for a long time.

A good few years, and has had permission for equally as long. (Not including the standard one month, of course.)

"Sam" has only been around for a month or so, and has very recently received permission. Therefore, they are both equal in that regard, and each one should have just as much right, etc. to give concrit.

And both their opinions should be regarded equally, new or Old.

In fact, "Sam" could well be a much better writer than "John". But just because "John" isn't the best writer, his concrit should still be regarded the same as "Sam"'s. Do you get what I'm saying?

As for the fact that people will be "forced" to follow what he's doing. Of course they don't. Look at Makes-Things. He apparently "died". But everyone just kind of Ignored that.

You are right, in that I probably don't know as much as I should. But I spent a while on the wiki, reading up on crisis' and why they are bad. The conclusion *I* came to, is because they were too frequent, and that one of them killed off a major character. That has not been done here. hS' has "killed" two minor, non-important flowers, who as far as I'm aware, haven't been touched on in ages.

If you want to use them, you can hand-wave what happened.

But I think my point from before still stands. Them dying has opened up opportunities for people to make new flowers for those departments, and therefore, make things a bit more "fresh".

But that's just my opinion, and I understand that most people here are happy with cozy regularity. (No sarcasm intended there.)

On to my next point. "Now, they are worried because they think they have to follow it, since hS wrote it."

IMO, hS writing it shouldn't have anything to do with it, that's part of my Newbie/Oldbie thing. It shouldn't matter if he's hS. it shouldn't matter who wrote it, unless they are called Jay or Acacia. At least, that's what I think.

Lemme provide some context. by Neshomeh on 2012-05-11 21:09:00 UTC Reply

First, you're right, your opinion has value whether you're old or new. This doesn't have anything to do with that, and it's not really about writing quality.

The problem here is that you don't have the background knowledge we're working from.

The Makes-Things thing: it wasn't just ignored by everybody. Like July said, we seriously were unable to say anything at the time because we were all operating under "Permission means you can do anything." That's just how it was back then. Makes-Things was effectively dead—no appearances in spin-offs or anything if they weren't set before Spring 2008—for roughly three years, until I wrote him back in. People had been muttering behind their hands about it the whole time, mind you, but nobody did anything until I did.

"It shouldn't matter if it's hS": it shouldn't, but it does. hS is what you might call a Big Name Fan, and has been for a long time. See, first he wrote the original DOGA spin-off, which is pretty widely regarded as awesome. Then he wrote stuff like The Reorganisation and the other history stories, which were also heralded as masterworks and accepted into everyone's headcanon with open arms, despite that hS very much made it clear that it wasn't expected.

After that it just never stopped. You see up there where July is saying about how hS doesn't want to be the Glorious Leader of the PPC? It's true. There was a time when many people took hS's prolific writing and general acceptance to mean that he was trying to take over everything, and I believe I was actually the one to finally stand up and tell them to stop it because they were being jerks.

So like... it's real easy to say it doesn't matter, but we're living with all this history. hS is somebody whose stuff is pretty much all accepted by everyone, so it's not much of a stretch to wonder if this is meant to be accepted.

- - - -

Unrelated to issues of context: I disagree that killing off Flowers necessarily opens up spaces for new ones. This would be true if we were talking about big, active departments that need Heads, like the DMS and Floaters, but a) nobody's going to kill them off because they are established canon characters like Makes-Things, and b) we're not talking about them; the Hydrangea and the Waterlily Commander are Heads of departments that nobody has used in years. This doesn't open the way for new stuff so much as put the last nail in the coffin of those departments, IMO.

Let me know if I can clarify any more.

~Neshomeh
Re: Blah. by Data Junkie on 2012-05-11 20:39:00 UTC Reply

I am beginning to suspect this might be something easier to sort out face-to-face. Perhaps you should come visit the IRC?

Hum. by Mechajin on 2012-05-11 20:57:00 UTC Reply

I'm not trying to start any arguments, If I am being rude, I'm *really* sorry. I'm also not much of an IRC person. but if someone wants to take anything up with me privately, my email is mechajinnanashi(at)gmail(dot)com . I just don't check it much. If I have offended/upset anyone, please tell me. It wasn't my intention. I'm not good at being tactful, etc.

(By the way, no rants/heatedness/sarcasm/rudeness intended) (nm) by Mechajin on 2012-05-11 20:30:00 UTC Reply

Yes! Finally. by Wikimaster on 2012-05-11 19:20:00 UTC Reply

I've been thinking the same way for at least a year now.
Me personally? by Kaitlyn on 2012-05-11 19:10:00 UTC Reply

I'm honestly not fussed. I'm happy to see the PPC nurture blossoming writers, as long as they're actually trying to create something of value (though I will say, Makes-things was never dead to me. Saw it in the sandbox, turned and went the other way, never gave it another second's thought).

But sure we can say something -- the recent refocus on concrit has been great. However, when we start trying to literally dictate what our fellow fanficcers are allowed to write, just because we write stories in the same loosely-connected universe, the whole thing becomes an exercise in absurdity and takin'-it-all-too-much-to-heart.

I'm torn. by Neshomeh on 2012-05-11 19:49:00 UTC Reply

Generally speaking I don't really care what anybody else does as long as they're not interfering with me or hurting people—I seriously don't want to dictate the plot of anybody's spin-off. But on the other hand, there's still the issue of using your PPC Permission to write PPC stuff, not something else entirely. If, in your spin-off, you kill all the Flowers, burn down Headquarters, and make all the surviving agents into free-floating clusters of refugees who couldn't care less about bad writing anymore because they're busy fighting the evil robot aliens from Dimension X, what exactly does this have to do with us? Why write in the PPC universe if all you really wanted to do was something different?

This is taking the idea of changing things to an utter extreme, but that's why I balk at just letting anyone do anything. No, it doesn't directly affect me because I can ignore it, and no, it's probably not going to actually hurt anyone 'cause it's just a story, but I just don't get it. If you ask for Permission to write PPC stories, I feel justified in expecting PPC stories, not "let's overturn the dining room table of the universe" stories. You can do that somewhere else—here is for PPC stuff. The universe may be loosely connected, but it is connected by certain things the various spin-offs are supposed to have in common.

So, in the end, I am just confused.

~Neshomeh

Yeah, I just don't get the emotional investment. by Kaitlyn on 2012-05-12 08:10:00 UTC Reply

If I log into the Sherlock Holmes section of A3 and instead find an X-men/Harry Potter crossover with Sherlock only peripherally present as an anonymous internet commenter . . . I roll my eyes and move on. Do I get it? Nope. Does it matter whether I get it or not? Nope. They can write what they want. It's unreasonable and a bit childish to expect that people treat my fandom exactly the way I would treat it. My opinion just is not that important. Besides, what would happen to all the delicious, delicious 'ship-wars? GONE FOREVER.

Nobody wants that. :-0

Emotional Investment by doctorlit on 2012-05-12 14:31:00 UTC Reply

Yes, some of us do have an emotional investment in the PPC. While I know that officially, we are writing fan fiction for the series Jay and Acacia created, it's different from Sherlock Holmes and X-Men and Harry Potter because we are contributing to the canon as we write. You needn't look any further for evidence than the fact that games and RPs are frequently named as canon or non-canon at their outset (AHAIRQL versus the Badfic Game), something that's would never be relevant for X-Men fans conducting an RP. There's also cases like Chliever's spinoff and "Agents" Ice and Gabriella, which have been declared non-canon by their author and the community, respectively.

There's an additional level of involvement for the PPC. I don't know off-hand if anyone still active today ever interacted with Jay or Acacia, but the fact that any of us could have interacted personally with the original authors gives the PPC a greater level of intimacy than Harry Potter fans have interacting with J.K. Rowling (and certainly a greater level of intimacy than the Sherlock Holmes fandom has with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who, so far as I know, has never deigned to answer fan questions in an open forum. I guess that "Sir" has gone to his head.)

So yes, there is a sense of emotional investment in the PPC because I have contributed to this canon, in a sense that a fanfic writer for any other continuum can't be said to have done. As a result of that, I feel a sense of responsibility towards it. And it is difficult to just ignore Huinesoron's latest story as non-canon when I've already accepted not only everything that he has written as canon, but everything else anyone has written as canon (barring situations like the above-mentioned Agent Ice, but including Chliever's stuff because I liked it and I'm weird like that).

—doctorlit, who wrote this in the half-hour just after waking up and hopes it has at least a thin patina of sensible thought

Seconding by Neshomeh on 2012-05-12 16:41:00 UTC Reply

More than a patina of sense, I think. {= )

But yeah, it's that level of involvement that does it, I think, and it doesn't just go for here. You only have to look as far as those shipping wars to know that people get very emotionally involved with their fandoms. We come to know these fictional people and places through their story, and we come to care about what happens to them—at least, we do if the writing's any good—and that extends easily to what happens to them in fanfic. As far as I can determine as someone not actually inside their heads, Jay and Acacia were emotionally involved with The Lord of the Rings, and that's why they started the PPC in the first place: it bothered them to see people getting it so far wrong over and over again, and they decided to have some fun and catharsis at the same time. I think that's probably why lots of us joined up: fun and catharsis, and you can't have catharsis without emotions.

And then, once you've been hanging around the Board and/or writing PPC stories a while, the time and energy commitment starts to add up to greater emotional investment, too. It's the same as any kind of club in that respect. I'm perhaps more emotionally involved than other people because I've been actively writing about my characters and being a part of this group for a real damn long time, and that means something to me. I have friends here, and that means something, too. I have a story to tell, I am a writer, and I can't not be emotionally invested in my work, my acts of creation. Learning to detach enough to take concrit is a hard lesson for a lot of us, ya know? It's just natural to be emotionally invested in things that you make, whether it's writing, art, songs, a sandcastle, whatever. I have heard of authors comparing writing a book with raising a child, George R. R. Martin, for one. Obviously it's not exactly the same, but the point is, creating something and being involved in its growth and development is an emotional experience.

And we're all contributing to this big shared universe, and seeing it grow and develop with each new spin-off. Part of the fun is that we're all doing it together, or at least alongside one another. Of course we're going to care what other people do with it.

That's not to say that moderation shouldn't happen, though. Like I said, you have to learn to gird your loins and hear concrit (if you want to improve), and yeah, there are things that can be interpreted differently, and that shouldn't be a basis for hatred and vitriol. I think shipping wars are silly, myself, and I wouldn't miss them if they disappeared forever . . . but then, I'm not really interested in who sleeps with whom in any sphere of my life. It's not my bag—I can let other people worry about that stuff. That's what the DBS is for; I'm more concerned with things making logical and narrative sense, so it's the DIC and DMS for me.

. . . Kaitlyn, I'm kinda wondering why you joined up. If you're not invested in your fandoms or writing at all, what brought you here in the first place? Also, what's the difference when it comes to other people being more emotionally committed than you—why does that concern you? I'm curious, because on the surface it doesn't seem to fit with "don't be so bothered about what other people do" and "don't expect everyone see things the same way you do." I'm genuinely puzzled and wanting to know.

Also, to address the bit about expecting other people to see things the exact same way: I'll be honest, if I can talk someone into seeing it my way, I will certainly enjoy that, and so of course I'll try. But I don't object to anyone honestly disagreeing with me, as long as they're polite about it, and I'm not going to go cry in a corner or anything if I don't succeed. It helps if they actually have a solid case based on facts and principles and stuff, too, just because it's easier to understand why the difference exists that way, and I like understanding. I also like being right and winning arguments, but making the effort isn't the same as expecting to succeed all the time. I don't want anyone to capitulate without actually being convinced by what I have to say. That's a hollow victory at best; it's not satisfying. {= P

So no, I don't expect everyone to see everything the exact same way I do. That doesn't mean I won't give it a shot, though.

~Neshomeh

What, nine years ago? by Kaitlyn on 2012-05-12 17:05:00 UTC Reply

I was a cute little thirteen-year-old with nothing better to worry about: fandom could take up a big space in my life then. But there's a lot about my life and priorities that has changed since I was thirteen, thank goodness.

I've mostly stuck around (lurking menacingly in the background for the most part) because hS has. It's part of his life, he's part of my life, so I keep at least half an eye on the PPC at all times.

I'm not "concerned" if other people are deeply emotionally invested. It certainly doesn't bother me, everyone has their hobbies. I watched the PPC grow from a few tiny missions on FF.N (and interacted with J&A, as has hS), so yes, I get why people feel a sense of ownership and protectiveness. I still can't relate to the pathos, but I don't begrudge anybody their strange human emotions. ;)

I'm only concerned about actual attempts to dictate what other people are allowed to write. I know that fandom can dredge up some serious ~feelings~, but those feelings don't grant either moral or actual authority over other people's work.

Makes sense. by Neshomeh on 2012-05-12 19:43:00 UTC Reply

I think you may be confusing my feelings with my reasons for acting on them, though. I felt something was off long before I actually spoke up about it, which only happened after I'd worked out why I was feeling that way and thought I could explain it. My feelings don't give me authority, I agree, but my argument on behalf of my standpoint should, if it is judged to be sound.

I did use some stronger language than I usually like to do, by which I mean I failed to qualify some of my statements with modifiers like "I think" or "in my opinion," etc. This is because I was pretty well convinced that my case was a strong one and it could support such language. However, I only get authority when I say things like that if other people agree that I'm right and that they should do what I say.

Let me try putting it this way: just as hS can't actually change stuff in the PPC if we don't agree that he can, I can't actually order people around unless they agree that I can.

If the person I'm talking to agrees that I can tell them what to do based on my argument, then I'm not sure why I'm at fault. If I've wielded the authority I've been given like a club, I should definitely be chastised, but I'm not convinced I've done that. I gave reasons for my opinion; I made a case. I can't think of a time I've ever asked anyone to take me solely at my word. I make it a point not to say anything unless I think I can back it up, and if it turns out I'm wrong anyway, I will (however grudgingly) admit it and change my stance. That requires a good, solid counterargument, though; I'm not just going to change my mind and fold without some serious convincing first.

So... where did I go wrong here?

~Neshomeh

When framed thusly . . . by Kaitlyn on 2012-05-12 20:24:00 UTC Reply

. . . no wrong at all. It's fine to raise objections, to offer concrit, etc etc etc, as long as you know that's all you're doing. It's not authority, whether or not they decide to accept it; it's just feedback, which people can choose to take on board or not (and they can do that for the reasons you're expecting, or not).

And there's nothing wrong and much right with offering feedback. I certainly wouldn't tell anyone not to argue with hS. That would be the finest grade of hypocrisy. ;)

Then I'll just say for posterity: by Neshomeh on 2012-05-12 22:01:00 UTC Reply

I'd like to know about it if the reasons I've given aren't someone's reasons for deciding to do whatever it is I've said. That way I'm not stuck thinking I've achieved something that I actually haven't, and I don't get a big head. {= )

. . . Seriously, let it be known, if anyone has ever actually done this to me, I don't appreciate it. It feels like lying, and that's near the top of my list of things that offend me.

That's me talked out, though. I think we understand each other better now, so I'm glad we did it. {= )

~Neshomeh
The best part of arguing with hS is... by JulyFlame on 2012-05-12 20:34:00 UTC Reply

...when you say something and it leaves him gobsmacked and confused for a few minutes because he wasn't expecting it.

-A July, who just wanted to offer that tidbit

See . . . by Kaitlyn on 2012-05-12 20:40:00 UTC Reply

I always thought the best part was making up afterwards. But that might not apply in all cases, now that I'm sitting down to think about it.
And the worst part... by Huinesoron on 2012-05-12 20:37:00 UTC Reply

... is when one keeps telling him off until he gives in rather than waste time getting more upset.

My son does this. ;) He's good at telling people off.

hS, carefully using 'one' so as not to sound like he's accusing anyone - which he isn't

AO3, obvs. (nm) by Kaitlyn on 2012-05-12 08:20:00 UTC Reply

Uh. Wow. by TheScribe on 2012-05-10 12:50:00 UTC Reply

(am I a horrible person for getting excited at seeing my post in there *shot*)

Um. Well. This is.

Ahem.

I think I might be in shock, don't mind me.

(Note to self-check email more than once a year and get the stupid piece written as soon as I get the message. cocoafoof@yahoo.com)
The Message by the Irish Samurai on 2012-05-10 12:23:00 UTC Reply

Now that I have Permission, I'd be interested in trying to do something for this (writing for my agents, Skeet and Amelia).

My e-mail address is samurai_ireland@hotmail.com
Hyped for the next installment! [Spoilers] by SeaTurtle on 2012-05-10 05:40:00 UTC Reply

This is a very interesting concept. Having agents discover the Board and wondering if they're just fictional (which of course they are- sorry Justin) just begs for some deep existential discussions... or not. The idea of also being influenced by another sinister power is intriguing.

I seriously don't know what to believe: is the flash patch really a contact neuralyzer? Ever since you first asked for the Message cowrite, you've stated that the entire thing has a built-in neuralyzer effect, thus lending credibility to this theory. On the other hand, I personally believe the the flash patch is just an SEP field like Justin says it is... You've done a really good job setting this situation up. Hats off to you, sir.

This does clear up some of the stuff that happened at the Christmas party. Interesting...

I can't wait for the next part. Keep up the good work!

Categorically no. by Huinesoron on 2012-05-10 07:23:00 UTC Reply

I've tried to make this as clear as I can, but it keeps coming back to haunt me: the patch-as-neuralyzer is pure Peter delusion.

Because come on. You know why most of the PPC doesn't remember the occasional fourth-wall violation: it's because we write them not to. :P But how they interpret that... depends on the agent.

(I'm worried people are expecting more of this than will actually happen. Oh, dear...)

hS

Well, it's here at last... by Cassie on 2012-05-10 08:03:00 UTC Reply

Nice reactions. :P

I'm kind of looking forwards to how everyone will react to the next piece, too - and part three's making me kind of curious, given as that's the only bit I've not seen.

In any case, g'luck, hS; looks like it's starting well.
I thought so too... by SeaTurtle on 2012-05-10 07:35:00 UTC Reply

I just wasn't sure what you were going for with this subject. Curse my impossible-link-making decision process!

Anyhoo, that doesn't detract anything from the story itself. Keep it coming!

dot. dot. dot. Oh Gog. by Mechajin on 2012-05-10 01:37:00 UTC Reply

Oh maaan! This will be fun to watch unfold!

Heh heh heh. by Ivan the Not-so-Terrible on 2012-05-10 01:55:00 UTC Reply

Two people say "We're screwed." You say "Cool!"
I like you. Nice job.

Re: Heh heh heh. by Mechajin on 2012-05-10 02:22:00 UTC Reply

Well, the Flowers-That-Be are such a massive part of the PPC. It's going to be REALLY (Caps used for boldtext) interesting to watch this unfold.

Yeah. (nm) by Ivan the Not-so-Terrible on 2012-05-10 05:04:00 UTC Reply

What. by Ivan the Not-so-Terrible on 2012-05-10 01:31:00 UTC Reply

No. Way.
TOS was meta at points, but this? Mind blown. 11 Flowers dead. Whoa.

(Note to self, finish permission. Email is uzl2s@hotmail.com)
*mindblown* by ThatOne on 2012-05-10 00:45:00 UTC Reply

I've seen other examples of meta in PPC fics but this is way different. Every other time it was used as comedy and if I was told there was a story about an agent finding the Board I would have assumed that to be comedy as well but this is really intense. I'm now going to spend the next two weeks waiting for this to be finished.