Subject: RC Konami Code? Win! (nm)
Author:
Posted on: 2014-03-15 21:03:00 UTC
-
Permission Request by
on 2014-03-14 22:14:00 UTC
Reply
My agents are requesting to move into RC↑↑↓↓←→←→BA★ as part of the Department of Floaters.
The badfic I'm planning on doing first is "my love rainbowdash." (sic)
My Character Bios can be found here.
My Writing Samples can be found here.
I have taken the permission self-check which has helped me to immensely understand the inner workings of the corporation. -
RC Konami Code? Win! (nm) by
on 2014-03-15 21:03:00 UTC
Reply
-
Unfortunately, by
on 2014-03-15 22:00:00 UTC
Reply
RCs need to be signified by numbers, whether those are whole numbers, decimals, numbers with letters and other symbols mixed in, or irrational numbers, and the Konami Code contains no numbers and only two letters. It wouldn't work. Besides, the RC designation would be difficult to remember for those not in the know and would take forever to say out loud.
"Where are you off to, Buck?"
"Oh, hey there, Sam. I have to go clean out some Moldarach larva that got into an RC."
"That's a shame. Which one?"
"I believe it was RC Up-Down-Up-Down-Left... Wait, no, RC Up-Up-Down-Down-Right-Down, hold on, it was Up-Up-Down-Down-Right-Left-..."
(Sam has lost interest and is questioning why he continues to interact with Buck on a regular basis.)
We can't have that. -
Unfortunately... by
on 2014-03-15 15:37:00 UTC
Reply
I have several points of concern:
- Your introduction post is still on the front page. We generally prefer people to have been active in the community longer than one week before we give them the keys to the playground.
- The Konami Code is not even trying to be anything resembling number. Also, IMO, it's kind of an eyesore when it crops up in the midst of a narrative.
- I think Billy's backstory of chasing after an underage girl to show her that stalking is wrong is part of his badfic, but that's still exceptionally creepy. I'm not really seeing what redeeming qualities caused the agents on the mission to have recruited him. That coupled with his tendency to relapse into Suedom really worries me.
- In the first writing sample, there's a statement that the agents can't go to the Canon Library because they might get a mission and would have no way to contact each other. This is a bit silly, since if it were true, no one would ever leave their RCs. Most agents tend to settle for the low-tech method of "tracking the other one down on foot," but there are cell phones and even more futuristic communications devices to be had in HQ, too—and Bob has a Pidgey. I'm thinking carrier pigeon, maybe? Plus, what with the Laws of Narrative Irony, actively waiting for a mission would tend to make it not happen.
- In the second writing sample... that's AU, right? I mean, if Billy does enjoy badfic sincerely, and not in the sense that mocking it is fun, I really have to insist you find another partner for Bob. {= / (Note to PGs: This prompt is maybe not great? How many ways can we think of to write it in a way that shows us something good instead of worrisome?)
- Did you use a beta for your writing samples? I caught several SPaG errors, including:
-- "Man, I’m so bored!" exclaimed Billy - Missing quotation mark.
-- The hedgehog lashed out at this remark. “Are you kidding me?!" - Missing period.
-- “If you mean the fact that" - "man" should be "mean."
-- Billy was about to continue his argument when the console, in what was presumably a show of kindness - "wat" should be "was."
-- “Seriously?! My Little Pony?!” - Titles of long works, such as TV series, are italicized.
-- Too many missing or misplaced commas to account for here.
So, for those reasons, I must say Permission Denied for the time being. Hang around a good while longer, work on your agents, keep reading the Original Series and other spinoffs, and try again another time. {= )
~Neshomeh -
Understood. (nm) by
on 2014-03-15 21:43:00 UTC
Reply
-
Prompts. by
on 2014-03-15 18:45:00 UTC
Reply
The purpose of the prompts is to show an unlikely, often ridiculous situation, and ask how your characters would deal with it. So yes, it will be AU. In that specific case, it's a dual challenge: can you present your character liking badfic believably, and can you write their partner's reaction.
They're supposed to be AU. That's the whole point. Otherwise you'd also have to take issue with the one that's one partner being reassigned - "If they're being partnered with someone else, we need to see their bio, too!"
hS -
Ehhh.... by
on 2014-03-17 15:51:00 UTC
Reply
There's unlikely (meeting a robot with a paper mask) and then there's directly anathema to the purpose of the PPC. Plus, this isn't an event, like being repartnered, that you can just say never happened; this is fundamental characterization, which is the main thing these prompts are supposed to show us. Hating badfic is just about the only thing all agents have in common, so barring possession or a nightmare or other mind-altering circumstances, it's guaranteed to be OOC for every single character. What's the good in asking people to write a prompt that won't show us anything real or true about the characters?
Also, I thought making the prompt AU was optional, to allow for things like being repartnered or arguing about shipping—things that, while they absolutely can and do occur in the PPC, simply may not apply to these agents at this time. I don't think they should necessarily have to be—again, we're looking to get an idea of characterization here, so we need to see the characters in situations that could actually happen to a PPC agent. Honestly liking badfic is not a thing that actually happens to PPC agents.
The bottom line to all that is that I personally don't know if I can ever judge this prompt positively. "It's AU" alone has never been an acceptable excuse for OOCness, so the idea of PPC agents sincerely approving of badfic will always make me curl my lip. There are a few ways around this (mind control, etc.), but I'm not sure there's enough wiggle-room to make this prompt a fair one. Can't we think of something else, or at least rewrite it to make it less of a direct invitation to OOCness?
~Neshomeh -
You're behind the times. by
on 2014-03-17 17:12:00 UTC
Reply
It's been tweaked to '... love of a certain type of...', which can be as specific as the Prompted likes ("I can't help it! Urply-wilver hair just sets me off!")
hS -
Oh. by
on 2014-03-17 17:54:00 UTC
Reply
Just so we're clear, then, I'm free to judge characters negatively based on this, AU or not, right? I mean, I can see loving malapropisms because they're entertaining, for instance, but I really don't want to see agents who think Sues are great characters or find unjustified My Little Pony smut to be the epitome of literary achievement. {= /
~Neshomeh -
Um. by
on 2014-03-17 23:53:00 UTC
Reply
Given that, we might want to throw in a parenthetical '(harmless)'; otherwise, with 1/36 odds, I give it... hmm, carry the 7, divide by C... what base am I working in, again? Oh, right: 2 more permission requests before someone uses it again and says 'But it told me they had to like badfic!'
'Harmless' would serve as a test - if you don't know what that means in a PPC context, you probably need to do some more reading...
hS