The other end of the scale...

Mark II Permission Request by raffitz on 2010-09-14 23:25:00 UTC Reply

Even though the request is Mark II, the characters are actually my beta version, much better than the ones I posted last time (I haven't got the slightest hint on why I discarded them). Here we go, then.

Agent Leroy Marks
Species: Human
Home Continuum: World One
He suffers from a "mild case"[SIC] of kleptomania, and is undergoing experimental treatment under the supervision of FicPsych. His behaviour is often reminiscent of borderline personality disorder.
He is tall, broad-shouldered, Caucasian, facially unattractive. His hair is light and his eyes are green.

Agent Quentin Travis
Species: Human
Home Continuum: World One
He is nice, kind and often suspicious of his partner.
He is not very tall, but his other dimensions make up for it (summarily, he's fat). His skin is dark and wrinkled, his hair totally white and his eyes are brown.

Now the writing sample: Linky Link

I agree with the others. by Sister-to-the-Queen on 2010-09-15 10:09:00 UTC Reply

I'm sorry, but I find that your agents are woefully lacking in endearing qualities. And in personality. Marks strikes me as nothing but a highly unstable individual, liable to go flamethrower-crazy at any moment, and Travis seems, well, a non-entity. I simply couldn't find any depth in there.

Oh, and on a side note, your writing sample contains several punctuation and capitalization errors.

Where did the link go? by Aeidhryn on 2010-09-15 21:16:00 UTC Reply

Or did you hide it because of all the scary critics?

...
To use the blunt language that is popular around here, some of you guys seem erring on the side of harsh.

Seconding Sedri. by Neshomeh on 2010-09-16 22:50:00 UTC Reply

I'm not in the habit of giving bad news for the sake of it, but sometimes people need to be told no, and occasionally the first time doesn't take. Like Sedri, I try to be respectful about it--but all the same, if the original members had wanted anyone to be allowed to write stories and call them part of the PPC, they wouldn't have started the Permission-Givers.

I think I understand that your issue was mainly with SttQ jumping on the bandwagon after the fact, but if you have a concern in the future, it would actually be more helpful to immediately state clearly who and what you're referring to so the addressee (and anyone else) can review what they said and decide whether they agree with you or not. It's hard to agree or disagree with you, let alone make improvements, without knowing exactly what you're talking about.

~Neshomeh

Be more specific in the future. Gotcha. (nm) by Aeidhryn on 2010-09-17 00:28:00 UTC Reply

We try to be nice about it. by Sedri on 2010-09-16 07:30:00 UTC Reply

Tactful, always, and polite. However, there's no point giving criticism if it's so carefully couched so as not to hurt feelings that it never gets the message across. It's a hard balance to strike, but if we didn't keep firmly on our line of standards, we'd be letting the PPC itself fall, and we care too much about this community as a whole to do that. It's still tough. I never like telling people there's something wrong with their story, and I hate denying Permission.

Around here, I generally work from the assumption that everyone cares about their writing enough to get it right, even if that means swallowing some unpleasant criticism, or even starting again from scratch. If it's any help with perspective, I've often been told that I'm being too nice.

Good. Diplomacy is always good. by Aeidhryn on 2010-09-16 22:12:00 UTC Reply

One review was fine, but all three, esp. with S-t-t-Q's on the end, was a little surprising. Or maybe I'm just biased, seeing as I'm a newbie too.

I agree with what you say.

Although, it's not much help with perspective.

The other end of the scale... by Sedri on 2010-09-17 00:02:00 UTC Reply

I see what you mean, but after reading the second request and the denial, I didn't want to leave Neshomeh as the only one standing up to say there were problems. It's no fun being the 'bad guy', and people tend to be more willing to believe that there are problems when more than one PG says it. That's what I meant by perspective - if you were a PG and you knew someone's request had to be turned down, you'd have to do so. I'm sure you wouldn't enjoy it. No one dies.

I wouldn't enjoy what because no one dies? by Aeidhryn on 2010-09-17 00:31:00 UTC Reply

I get your point. But see the question above.

... No. How did that get in there? by Sedri on 2010-09-17 04:39:00 UTC Reply

I'm stumped. I have absolutely no idea how those three words got attached to the end of my post. I certainly didn't type them, and though I sometimes have text on my clipboard that can accidentally be pasted in, it's always URLs or the like. I've been thinking back through the whole morning, and there's no reason I would have typed that nor that it could have been copied from a webpage by accident. I haven't read those words this morning at all. So... That's worrying. Quite so. Not to sound dramatic, but I wonder if it could be another hacking attempt.

To answer your question, then - no. But you must've guessed that. And thanks; I'm glad to get my point across right. Confusions are awful.

Confusions= not good. (nm) by Aeidhryn on 2010-09-18 02:16:00 UTC Reply

Re: Where did the link go? by JulyFlame on 2010-09-16 00:17:00 UTC Reply

Neshomeh and Sedri have the right of it, Aeidhryn, as Permission Givers. They are trying to explain what is wanted and desired for permission.

Sister-to-the-Queen doesn't have the right to be so critical, however, especially without any constructive commentary to help whatsoever.

Sister-to-the-Queen, you shouldn't be poking holes in other people's writings so much after others have already addressed it.

You are coming off as rude and condescending, as well as a tagalong. No one likes an unhelpful critic.

Hey, um... by Sister-to-the-Queen on 2010-10-05 09:35:00 UTC Reply

I only just saw this post, after scrolling through the pages. I know it's late, but I'd just like to say that I realize what I've done (too late, I know) and that I'm tremendously sorry about it. It still hasn't stopped bugging me. I wish I knew how to make amends for it, but I don't. I am indeed what you say, and I'm sorry.
Re: Where did the link go? by Aeidhryn on 2010-09-16 22:09:00 UTC Reply

Erm, thanks for the explanation, but let's leave it at that before we have to all arm with anti-flame shields

When I said "give it some extensive thought"... by Neshomeh on 2010-09-15 02:27:00 UTC Reply

I meant the "extensive" part. Nine days is not extensive.

Again, the issue is good taste and your agents not being in it. Actual psychological problems are not funny--especially if you intend to use them as an excuse for bad behavior, which is incredibly not okay. I recognize the desire to do something different, but you have to find a way that doesn't fly in the face of our sensibilities.

I suggest that you go read the wiki article on insanity very carefully, then re-read the Guide to the PPC, the Original Series, and a few more series, paying special attention to the application of the word "insanity" and how various aspects of the organization, such as FicPsych and the armory, are treated.

~Neshomeh

I'd just like to support Neshomeh here by Sedri on 2010-09-15 04:08:00 UTC Reply

...because she's quite right. I can see that you certainly have made an effort to do this differently, but I'm afraid you're just not there yet. Take your time - the PPC isn't going anywhere, I assure you.

As an addition to the above list, I'd also suggest that you spend some time reading some non-PPC stories, be they (good) fanfiction or published novels. It might help.