Subject: Ensign Sue Must Die: Legendary Goodfic Nomination
Author:
Posted on: 2015-03-21 15:10:00 UTC
Making a separate thread dedicated to this.
So far, it seems that we're all in agreement that Ensign Sue Must Die is deserving of the prestigious status of Legendary Goodfic.
Let's make it official. All those in favor?
AYE!
All those opposed?
NAY!
Hey, get out of here, Ensign, you weren't invited to this party.
Has anyone ever seen a good songfic? I'd like to see tht.
I nominate "SHATTERED" (yes, the title is all in caps) by Prin Pardus for the Warriors Archive. Not only is it entirely comprised of OCs, all of them with depth and believability, but the author skillfully takes many viewpoints to weave them into an awesome story. She's the next Brian Jacques, the way she handles multiple POVs so well. And that's not even half of what "SHATTERED" consists of! A MUST-READ FOR SURE!
Since it's here, might as well use it, eh? {= )
"A Practical Guide for the Courtship of Elves, by Beren Son of Barahir" by Nerdy Nell is an awesome LotR/Silm fic that addresses all the things that annoy us about elf/mortal Suefics with a great sense of humor. I dunno if there are enough Tolkien nuts around here these days to give this the bump it needs, but I thought I'd give it a shot. In my opinion, it could serve as a textbook for OFUM, and it absolutely deserves a spot next to "Don't Panic!" and the like.
All in favor?
~Neshomeh
The decision already got a wave of resounding support in the original thread. What is this one supposed to accomplish? You are merely knocking threads off of the front page.
I'll go ahead and add it to the Legendary Goodfics, if nobody has any objections.
So it would make sense for there to be a separate thread so people can focus on that thread's original purpose, and make it clear that people are nominating. Also, I support the nomination of "Ensign Sue Must Die" as a Legendary Goodfic.
'On topic'. Have you met the PPC? We're constitutionally incapable of staying on topic.
In fact, come to think of it, we're literally constitutionally incapable - it's articles 16 and 20.
jS
Whose first thought on reading this post was to go through maxims of Constitutional Interpretation? Wait what do you mean that's not normal?
it's because the thread's starting to fall to the bottom and not everyone looks through the whole front page. Plus the agreements started coming in a little bit later, when the thread was already fairly far down the page.
...It already seems to have been decided, as seen here. That's why I called this thread into question. It being added to the page already seemed to be a done deal.
