- Location
- Australia
Turnabout is fair play, while I do think it's the height of stupidity to do so there is something quite satisfying about seeing the Others be stolen from.
A Sword Without a Hilt: A Song of Ice and Fire/D&D 3.5 Crossover
- Thread starter DragonParadox
- Start date
-
- Tags
- a song of ice and fire a sword without a hilt d&d 3.5 dungeons & dragons 100% high octane dragon fuel ave corvidae battle action dragon diplomacy best sister bureaucromancy delicious soul-stuff dragon dreams come true dragon ta'veren greatest uncle hubris is a coward's word in defiance of gods and men mammon's folly mutually assured mage's disjunction qm murderhobo top tier coatl
Turnabout is fair play, while I do think it's the height of stupidity to do so there is something quite satisfying about seeing the Others be stolen from.
So I've thought about this and the issue is that if I see people getting upset and seriously fighting in the thread over the story I created and the discussion that derived from it I get upset and demotivated and the fun just goes out of writing ASWAH for me. Maybe it's just selfish of me but I can't deal with this kind of conflict connected to something I love and enjoy. You and @TalonofAnathrax say there is nothing I can do about it, but if that is the case then it's just going to keep happening and I'm genuinely not sure I can write in that atmosphere. I feel helpless and angry and sad over what's been done and said and it's just one ball of 'do not write'.
If it were something I could address than I would try to address it but as is I just feel like a broken record saying 'be kind, be thoughtful , let's just have fun etc...'
- Location
- florida
Can you speak to a moderator? I believe it's their job to deal with thread conflicts that get out of hand. Though I may be mistaken. I am also not sure what the knock on effects of drawing them here may be. Mods have always been quite here.
I don't think this is a matter for a moderator. They would just infarct everyone involved and move on and from their perceptive that makes sense. It would be unreasonable to expect a moderator to read fifteen thousand pages of discussion and then come up with some kind of perfect solution.
- Location
- India
- Pronouns
- He/His
Reading the recent discussions, I am like what the hell?
Things were going on like a polite debate and then as usual @Crake could not resist making a very vile personal attack against @Azel without any reason whatsoever. I am wondering, did not @ Azel write up that character discussion with DP's permission? I would have thought that having the qm's permission and approval to write something would imply that maybe what he is writing is aligned with how @DragonParadox sees Viserys' character.
And then everyone started to unfairly gang up on @Azel by saying that he is taking everything personally. He is already showing the height of politeness by not expressing his urge to punch @Crake in the face. If I were in Azel's place , I definitely would have posted something that would get me banned.
@Azel and @Crake, if you guys dont like each other why dont you just ignore each other in the thread. Or you can just go the distance and block each other. @Azel, I cant speak for other people but I , personally , do not want you to keep silent and stop contributing to the thread. Your posts are very interesting and taught me a lot about D&D rules and how to combine and munchkin them in various creative ways. In my opinion , you and DP are the victim here with everyone ganging upon you even when it was not your faultand then DP getting sad and not getting the motivation to write.
P.S. In a more humourous note, I just realised that I made you out to be the Taylor Hebert of this thread, while DP being Danny Hebert.
Things were going on like a polite debate and then as usual @Crake could not resist making a very vile personal attack against @Azel without any reason whatsoever. I am wondering, did not @ Azel write up that character discussion with DP's permission? I would have thought that having the qm's permission and approval to write something would imply that maybe what he is writing is aligned with how @DragonParadox sees Viserys' character.
And then everyone started to unfairly gang up on @Azel by saying that he is taking everything personally. He is already showing the height of politeness by not expressing his urge to punch @Crake in the face. If I were in Azel's place , I definitely would have posted something that would get me banned.
@Azel and @Crake, if you guys dont like each other why dont you just ignore each other in the thread. Or you can just go the distance and block each other. @Azel, I cant speak for other people but I , personally , do not want you to keep silent and stop contributing to the thread. Your posts are very interesting and taught me a lot about D&D rules and how to combine and munchkin them in various creative ways. In my opinion , you and DP are the victim here with everyone ganging upon you even when it was not your faultand then DP getting sad and not getting the motivation to write.
P.S. In a more humourous note, I just realised that I made you out to be the Taylor Hebert of this thread, while DP being Danny Hebert.
- Location
- France
Phew. Gone back and reread this latest keruffle. Not fun, not fun. Let's avoid having more in the future.
As best I can tell, it can be summarized as follows:
EDIT: Rereading my post, I've fallen guilty to exactly the same I thing was complaining about : my suggestions that you stop taking things so personally are partly springing from old arguments in which I thought you were overreacting at something that wasn't an attack.
I certainly didn't mean to agree with Crake's criticisms of your writing, or with the suggestion that you were "evilly" shoehorning in your vision of the character when you were co-QM. I'll admit that I was afraid of that happening back in the day, but it didn't pan out and your stuff was solid overall.
On the other hand, I have been saying the following for years now, in saltsplosion after saltsplosion:
But yeah, you do have a tendency to counterattack when you feel attacked (and when you are attacked). This is understandable, but I trust you'll also understand when I say it increases saltsplosions. Offer a polite chance to explain their rude statement, ask for an apology, something like that!
I don't know. I'm not a saint. But I still think that as a rule of thumb, it's best to try to stay as calm as possible when attacked online.
It's unrealistic to expect people to forget all about your previous positions when you're telling us about your view of the character and your views on morality. All we can do it try to avoid sliding back into old arguments as much as possible. This isn't something you can do alone, but it's something to keep in mind.
[shrug]
Regarding you personally... Maybe try deescalating things sometimes?
For example, a quick skim back through the argument brings up this point in which the argument could have deescalated, but instead escalated. @Crake made a rather rude accusation (you becoming co-QM just to push a certain vision of Viserys' character, forcing shitty moral choice moments, etc) and said you two were never going to agree on this "is Viserys a good person" issue. You could have simply accepted the fact that you'll never agree on this, and directly addressed the rather shitty "why didn't you stay QM if you wanted to push your evil agenda" comment, explicitly deescalated, and asked for an apology. Instead, the discussion starts going into bullet points, "why the ad hominem attack" (which I bet Crake didn't really get, because I'm pretty sure Crake doesn't consider what they said an ad hominem attack), and seems to want to dive deeper into the roots of this argument. But there's no way that will work out! It hasn't worked out in the last five saltsplosions! You two have fundamental moral disagreements.
Obviously this all relies on a rather charitable view of Crake's positions. Giving him a chance to explain and participate in deescalating doesn't matter if all he wants to do is punch, of course. But Crake's next few posts all seem to suggest that a long saltsplosion really isn't what they want either.
As best I can tell, it can be summarized as follows:
- Azel gives information about Lucan
- This then shifts into an effortpost about Viserys and the will to power
- Crake doesn't like it, disagrees, but adds in a rather rude suggestion which probably shouldn't even have been said(I'll be charitable and say it's probably coming from half-remembered statements about the moral choices and plotlines Azel said he wanted to put into the Conclave arc to clarify Viserys' morality and ideals)
- I'm being charitable here to point out another interpretation of this rather aggressive and personal comment, which could have led to a more polite, less personal end to this mess (assuming Crake was also charitable and didn't immediately escalate, and/or apologized). Reminding him that DP was in full agreement with what you were doing as co-QM, and that Crake must be misremembering or misinterpreting something, etc.
- Azel is offended, escalates, argument turns into nitpicky bullet points
- Now obviously they're remembering every single previous argument. The nitpicks have turned into "why do you always do this" and "why are things always so unpleasant when we argue", etc
- @Azel thinks @Crake is being deliberately disingenuous and simply aiming to try to make himself look good. Crake accuses Azel of misusing his old position as co-QM. Azel responds in kind (Crake's role as "canon Omake world editor" is brought up, etc). Peak salt is achieved.
- DP turns up, is sad, everyone else feels sad for our woobie QM
- Not having a Viserys morality debate in the first place (stopping at Lucan)
- Not bringing back the old "you're the evil co-QM who twists this quest into morality arcs I don't like" mess
- If it had to be brought back, not re-debating it all again. It's possible to acknowledge a disagreement, to state that you think the other person is wrong (even to ask for a polite apology in these circumstances, IMO), and then to avoid re-litigating the original mess that you know you won't agree on.
- At this point, it's become obvious that the way other thread members perceive Azel is not something he's doing deliberately. "Helpful advice" can't help when the problem is 50% remembered grudges, and when the rest is obviously not being done on purpose (although starting morality debates to school everyone was done on purpose... But what was the point about posting this?).
Please don't. Mods will probably just lock the thread and issue some threadbans. They're here for rules violations, not online couples therapy. That's exactly the outcome DP wants to avoid.
May I suggest that it's quite possible that Crake's final personal attacks are wrong and rude, and yet for you to still be taking some of the earlier posts rather personally?
EDIT: Rereading my post, I've fallen guilty to exactly the same I thing was complaining about : my suggestions that you stop taking things so personally are partly springing from old arguments in which I thought you were overreacting at something that wasn't an attack.
I certainly didn't mean to agree with Crake's criticisms of your writing, or with the suggestion that you were "evilly" shoehorning in your vision of the character when you were co-QM. I'll admit that I was afraid of that happening back in the day, but it didn't pan out and your stuff was solid overall.
On the other hand, I have been saying the following for years now, in saltsplosion after saltsplosion:
Well, I haven't been literally saying those words, because I often don't share your definition of "attacked" (which is probably why I tend to suggest that you deescalate more). But yes, of course people remember the things you argued for in the past. These things are often quite similar to one another (because obviously your opinions haven't changed without reason) and so there's a real risk of people sliding back into relitigating old arguments, and everyone involved ought to be making sure that it doesn't happen.
But yeah, you do have a tendency to counterattack when you feel attacked (and when you are attacked). This is understandable, but I trust you'll also understand when I say it increases saltsplosions. Offer a polite chance to explain their rude statement, ask for an apology, something like that!
I don't know. I'm not a saint. But I still think that as a rule of thumb, it's best to try to stay as calm as possible when attacked online.
I am genuinely confused right now. I didn't say any of this stuff, and I'm not sure why you think I did. When were you called a monster? When was your empathy even brought up? I thought this was about different views on the morality of Viserys' actions. I could be confused or have missed some implied stuff, I guess.
It's unrealistic to expect people to forget all about your previous positions when you're telling us about your view of the character and your views on morality. All we can do it try to avoid sliding back into old arguments as much as possible. This isn't something you can do alone, but it's something to keep in mind.
I certainly don't expect you to stop participating. "Everything slightly controversial" was brought up by absolutely nobody AFAIK (unless you think that Crake saying "arguing with you isn't fun" meant "you have to shut up forever" for some reason). At most, you could say that I'd like to see fewer morality debates unrelated to what's going on in the actual story - but that's not even specific to you personally, I'm just sick of them in general at this point.
[shrug]
Regarding you personally... Maybe try deescalating things sometimes?
For example, a quick skim back through the argument brings up this point in which the argument could have deescalated, but instead escalated. @Crake made a rather rude accusation (you becoming co-QM just to push a certain vision of Viserys' character, forcing shitty moral choice moments, etc) and said you two were never going to agree on this "is Viserys a good person" issue. You could have simply accepted the fact that you'll never agree on this, and directly addressed the rather shitty "why didn't you stay QM if you wanted to push your evil agenda" comment, explicitly deescalated, and asked for an apology. Instead, the discussion starts going into bullet points, "why the ad hominem attack" (which I bet Crake didn't really get, because I'm pretty sure Crake doesn't consider what they said an ad hominem attack), and seems to want to dive deeper into the roots of this argument. But there's no way that will work out! It hasn't worked out in the last five saltsplosions! You two have fundamental moral disagreements.
Obviously this all relies on a rather charitable view of Crake's positions. Giving him a chance to explain and participate in deescalating doesn't matter if all he wants to do is punch, of course. But Crake's next few posts all seem to suggest that a long saltsplosion really isn't what they want either.
Last edited:
- Location
- florida
I dont really know what to say.
Azel feels attacked. Personally. Which he has been. Here and in the past. I know I at least said some truly fucking awful things in the past.
I also know mods have ways to deal with things besides giving out infractions. Warhammer fantasy quest has a banner condemning personal attacks for example.
Edit:
I'll attempt to read the room for once and drop this line of dialogue at your and Talons request. I hope you feel better. Maybe take the day off. Drive out somewhere. Quarantines a hellhole.
Last edited:
Crake
I AM THE STORM THAT IS APPROACHING
- Location
- USA
Yeah it was too far. I do have basic empathy. I am more likely to walk back something I've said rather than escalate, yet have to now force myself to terminate further remarks in fear of doing exactly that if people insist on being openly hostile in return.
What can I be expected to do if someone wants an apology yet also can't be bothered not to salt at maximum threshold while doing so? Just not say anything, or apologize regardless of any recurring hostility, basically. I have ceased to care at this point however, I have honestly never understood the whole line of "everyone is ganging up on me, I'm not allowed to share my opinion" just based on disagreeing with another person in a public format. Whereby any disagreement is perfectly acceptable evidence that there is a conspiracy or motive for silencing someone's opinions, when the only evidence I can find is that no one here is afraid to share a dissenting opinion.
- Location
- United Kingdom
Would it be ok if we just dropped this? I can only speak for myself, but seeing you guys rehash this is making me really uncomfortable. This quest is one of the few things keeping me sane during the mess that's going on right now, so please can we move on to some other topic.
Last edited:
- Location
- India
- Pronouns
- He/His
And to add to what I have said before, isnt this argument about Viserys' character. I ask, though, who cares? No, seriously, Who. Fucking. Cares? This is not my literature class, where I have to worry about the characterisation of every fictional character because it will be asked in my exams and my grades depend on it. No, I read this quest because it is awesome, funny yet serious, glorious yet sombre, light yet dark and a whole lot of other positive adjectives that I dont have the time to write, and this story is a spot of relaxation and enjoyment in my otherwise very stressful life. It is about a group of awesome people trying their best to make the setting noblebright when it is hell-bent on becoming grimdark. Is Viserys an evil tyrant? I dont know and dont care. All I see is a badass character trying to do their best to make some positive changes in this world. Yes he has character flaws, but who doesnt? And morever he is being written by a human being (DP), who like all human beings is inherently flawed. And that is perfectly fine. I dont care how moral his actions are. He is certainly better than literally Satan, that fatass child-killer on the throne, Essosi magisters , Westerosi morons (nobles and Seven fanatics), the bandits in the forests, the rapists on the Wall, and Tywin Lannister.
Everyone has different interpretations about Viserys' character. That is nice. But why dont you guys all keep it in the privacy of your mind, instead of making controversial posts and then getting butthurt, when someone doesnt like your interpretation and tells it to your face. And if you dont like other interpretations, then dont fucking start an argument about it, just ignore that person. Its not like if you win an argument by defeating all your opponents with random insults, @DragonParadox will suddenly change his writing style to one that you prefer just to appease you. So if this isnt a competition, then why the fuck are you people all up in arms about it. And @TalonofAnathrax , just leave @Azel alone for a bit. Why do you feel the need to keep justifying your comments on him. Every post you are directing to him sounds like you are trying to say sorry but hiding more condemnations of Azel's character inside it like a sneaky politician. Just stop , okay? You are digging the hole farther and farther. You might have have good intentons, but you are. Not. Helping.
Nobody wants a fucking morality debate. Why cant we just have some badass people doing badass things without going into all this unnecessarily heavy topics.
Everyone has different interpretations about Viserys' character. That is nice. But why dont you guys all keep it in the privacy of your mind, instead of making controversial posts and then getting butthurt, when someone doesnt like your interpretation and tells it to your face. And if you dont like other interpretations, then dont fucking start an argument about it, just ignore that person. Its not like if you win an argument by defeating all your opponents with random insults, @DragonParadox will suddenly change his writing style to one that you prefer just to appease you. So if this isnt a competition, then why the fuck are you people all up in arms about it. And @TalonofAnathrax , just leave @Azel alone for a bit. Why do you feel the need to keep justifying your comments on him. Every post you are directing to him sounds like you are trying to say sorry but hiding more condemnations of Azel's character inside it like a sneaky politician. Just stop , okay? You are digging the hole farther and farther. You might have have good intentons, but you are. Not. Helping.
Nobody wants a fucking morality debate. Why cant we just have some badass people doing badass things without going into all this unnecessarily heavy topics.
- Location
- Germany
A well honed unfamiliarity with Worm ensures that I have no idea what you are talking about.
This implies that we do have the ability to disagree on something without that having effects. But we are all sitting in the same boat, so when the question comes up to go right or left, there's no way to compromise. The boat must go in some direction and even stepping away from the helm doesn't change that it will do so.
Everyone opining on the matter of character interpretation can affect the course. To stand aside in silence is tantamount to agreeing with this change. So I tried to politely point out issues with the argument put forth, even acknowledging that I'm annoyed and maybe not quite as neutral as I should be. Mea Culpa for not being a saint either.
In response I got effectively told to fuck off.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Bulletpoints and asking why I was personally attacked was the most polite way to respond to that. If you believe I could have handled that better, fair enough. Should I have avoided calling that behaviour out? Maybe, but no. I've already swallowed a great deal right then and there, as evident by my later response to the worst of it.
Whatever. Again.
Me not in mood to be put on trial for my manifold misdeeds all the time.
- Location
- India
- Pronouns
- He/His
I believe you were perfectly in the right to say what you said. You are not obliged to be Gandhi. Please dont leave this quest again. It is my heartfelt request.
- Location
- Germany
- Location
- United States
Also:
This is wrong.
This is what peak salt looks like:
They just leave it sitting there? Doesn't it get contaminated?
- Location
- The Netherlands
huh, so that is where we teleport all this threads salt to, good to know.Also:
This is wrong.
This is what peak salt looks like:
- Location
- France
That's arguably not very nice to DP... Or to Azel, actually. Danny is mostly well-meaning but out of his depth and rather ineffectual, and Taylor is bad decisions in human form propped up by excellent combat tactics and Determinator status. She means well, I guess?
[screeches externally]
Argh. This wasn't what I was going for at all. Sorry @Azel. I don't want to sneakily condemn your character here.
Good point. Let's save the morality debates for days in which DP asks us about morality, yeah?
AFAIK we've already settled all the background morality debates one way or another (mass summoning, etc).
Wait, is that a real place? An actual mountain of salt? What's the scale of this thing?Also:
This is wrong.
This is what peak salt looks like:
- Location
- Germany
This is just over 200 million tons of waste salt from potash mining. This is just a large garbage dump.
- Location
- Germany
- Location
- United States
How the fuck. A garbage dump of nothing but salt? What a waste.
I've been thinking about how we got here... I know dangerous stuff
It seems to me that at least part of the reason spirits ran so high was the concern that the omake would be canonized which would have far reaching implications for the quest, player choice and my own plans for the quest. Obviously I did not canonize it when I had the chance to read it (for those very reasons), though I enjoyed it greatly, but by then a lot of the damage had been done.
So I think we should take a bit of a more formal approach in how omakes are declared canon. My proposal is thus, when someone has an omake they wish to see made canon (obviously not crossoovers future perspectives etc...) they should be sent to me via PM and only posted after I made the decision on it. That way we won;t have omakes of unknown but presumed canoonicity around while I'm not around to address the matter.
Does that sound fair to everyone?
It seems to me that at least part of the reason spirits ran so high was the concern that the omake would be canonized which would have far reaching implications for the quest, player choice and my own plans for the quest. Obviously I did not canonize it when I had the chance to read it (for those very reasons), though I enjoyed it greatly, but by then a lot of the damage had been done.
So I think we should take a bit of a more formal approach in how omakes are declared canon. My proposal is thus, when someone has an omake they wish to see made canon (obviously not crossoovers future perspectives etc...) they should be sent to me via PM and only posted after I made the decision on it. That way we won;t have omakes of unknown but presumed canoonicity around while I'm not around to address the matter.
Does that sound fair to everyone?
Maybe if it's declared noncanon, it can still be posted, but with a big "Not canon" banner in the title?
Of course, I enjoy all omakes posted in this thread and am honored to have inspired them. This is just about what get made canon.
- Location
- United Kingdom
@DragonParadox Could that be added as a banner to the thread so that it's obvious to everyone.
Crake
I AM THE STORM THAT IS APPROACHING
- Location
- USA
You could also be the person who actually posts them, that way there's no ambiguity of intent whatsoever.