Hazel's post
Spoiler! :
1. Back when you first mentioned you were no longer interested in writing for Joshua, you said: "If anyone objects or wants to take over for him thats fine, but Im just giving everyone the heads up." I then responded that I could use him, and later, I expanded by saying I would use him. I never asked you to write for him — I've been in that situation where you want to write for a character, but just can't. It really sucks, so I didn't have anything against your decision back then, and I still don't.
2. Oh, I'm not offended (but upset is accurate, though I've naturally had time to cool off). After having claimed Joshua as an NPC, I asked for your input out of respect for you as his original writer, to see if what I wrote was in-character. If you wanted to have nothing further to do with him, all you had to do was say so. I was honestly just trying to be polite, not force a burden on you.
Typically, when a person disowns a character, the character ceases to be theirs and the rest of the cast decides what becomes of them; the exception is if the writer submits an exit post explaining the character's absence. You've been saying from the beginning that we're free to use your characters in our post, and you invited people to do something with Joshua if they wanted, yet now, you're making it sound like I did so at my own risk. That seems... well, disingenuous, don't you think?
3. I agree that nobody needs to comment on every single post, but if you saw a post in which you were directly mentioned, how do you justify not responding to that? I don't mean to be disrespectful, of course, but doesn't that come down to poor communication? No-one here is psychic (...right?), so no-one can know what you're thinking if you don't talk to them. You could have PMed me about the matter before making a public declaration, or even just announced your intentions before taking action, like you'd done previously. Courtesy is a mutual thing.
4. Yeah, don't worry, I was here when you first announced on page five what your and Nike's intentions for the SB were. Although, all you said then was that the participants could post whenever they wanted and that there would be no requirements. I'm not sure what you mean by technicalities and perfection, since nobody here expects anyone else to be a perfect writer, as there is no such thing. Writing is a craft in which no-one is ever truly a master.
5. I speak with complete sincerity when I say I have neither corrected nor critiqued a single post in this storybook. If you feel differently, which is evidently the case, please quote the correction/critique; if I'm mistaken, then I'll readily admit that! But if I'm not, I'd like to clarify the misunderstanding. I've never questioned how you run this storybook and don't intend on doing so anytime soon.
6. I'll speak plainly. You did something inconsiderate, so I asked you why. I was blunt, yeah, but not unkind — and that was a conscious decision. I understand that my tone gives you reason to be defensive, but sometimes, people say things we don't like to hear. If you had been mindful yourself, I'd have reminded you of my plans, and then there would be no reason to have this discussion.
I apologise for being snappy, but do you understand why I reacted that way?
Nike's post
Spoiler! :
All right! Your post caught me by surprise, and I would say it wasn't your place to... jump to Hazel's defence? I'm not sure. But since you directed your post at me (and Tort, but he's already replied), here's my response!
1. I mean no disrespect, but I disagree with your mentality. I've commented on people's posts not because I want to "review" them, as you imply, but because I enjoyed them and wanted to tell the authors what I thought. There is no rule saying I can't do that, whether in the forum or this storybook itself, and rightfully so: discussing what you liked about a post is praise, not criticism. If you dislike praise, then sure, I'll refrain from praising your posts, but I've never had anybody else complain — on the contrary, people are usually grateful.
Now, I strongly suspect you're referring to Tort's last DT post when you say we shouldn't correct others on their spelling. Firstly, it's not cool to accuse two different people of something only one of them did, and secondly, he was encouraging her, not critiquing her. If either of us had said her post was garbage, then by all means, you'd be correct, and you'd even have been justified in flagging the post as disrespectful.
2. I agree! Everyone should read all other posts in the storybook, since we're all writing together. Even if two people's characters don't interact for most of the story, that doesn't mean they shouldn't support each other. Effort and enthusiasm goes into these posts, so all of them deserve equal opportunity to be enjoyed.
TinkerTwaggy and I have been the most avid in indicating that we read posts, so why aim that comment at us specifically? (Granted, you said that your comments mostly go out to us, but if you're not going to specify anyone else, it'll unfornutately come off as an accusation.)
3. Yeah, I believe PMing or tagging people for collaboration is something Tort and I have both been doing since the start. I assume you're stating this for the benefit of everyone, not just the two of us? (Again, though, it feels like you're directing this at us by tagging us.)
4. Hmm, you're repeating something you already said, so you must indeed feel quite passionately about this. If you view positive feedback as destructive criticism, that's your opinion, to which you are entitled; however, I would request that you not assume all others share it.
You've stated your hatred for commentary, and though I don't understand it, I'll nevertheless respect it and refrain from ever commenting on your posts. None of the other people have made the same claim, though, and unless they ask me to stop, I have no reason to. After all, I would feel grateful if somebody took the time to relay what they liked about my post.
I'm not even talking about actual constructive criticism — this is praise, purely and simply, and if people tell me they don't like to be on the receiving end of it, I'll be surprised but keep it to myself all the same.
5. I felt the godmoding thing required its own point, especially since there seems to be some confusion about it. Here is the most respectable (if not only) thread on the matter:
• On Godmod.
It discusses in-depth how the "God Mode" can occur in storybooks, but since most of that doesn't apply here, I think the following extract is to what you're referring.
It can also be using other characters that other people Roleplay (henceforth RP) with. In other words, if you do not RP as Legolas, then you cannot have Legolas say anything, or do anything, without the player's express permission.
When it comes to roleplays, this applies. Storybooks, however? No. I don't know whether you and Hazel have been collaborating on literally each of your posts, but if you have — meaning she wrote the lines for all of her characters and you wrote the lines for all of yours — it would explain your stance. But since you think someone's godmoding (i.e. people are writing for a character that isn't theirs), it might perhaps be worth the reminder that there is a post detailing the rules of the forum:
• Storybook Rules & Resources.
It specifically addresses controlling other writers' characters.
One thing that differentiates YWS Storybooks from traditional roleplays is your allowance to control other characters--as long as they're in-character. To accomplish this, you must respect the thoughts and intentions of the owners of other characters. None of your co-writers should ever feel like their character is written wrong. If you feel this way, be sure to talk about it! No one can fix mistakes unless they know they made one. The basic jist of this rule is to keep characters in-character. This takes practice and careful consideration. If you don't feel ready for it, feel free to request help from your co-writers! Everyone in the project generally wants things to go smoothly, so help is almost always given freely.
So, in reality, I don't see any grounds for your accusations. If someone felt their character was being portrayed incorrectly (even if that someone is you), they should have spoken up about it. Would you thus mind clarifying what exactly you mean?
Oh, and don't think I believe it's necessary to police spelling and grammar, because I don't. In fact, there's a rule for that too!
Treat this like a regular story! Use good grammar and spelling unless conceptually justified.
6. One final point: To reiterate, commenting on people's posts isn't rude just because you think it is. However, since you're the primary DM, it's your prerogative to enforce the rules you believe are necessary. If commentary on posts upsets you so greatly, I recommend officially banning it the rules - for this storybook and all future storybooks you run.
I don't believe I've been disrespectful, but I do agree that civility is always preferable. I'll defend my conduct if I don't think I acted in error, but I have no desire to antagonise anyone or question their authority.
With responses being what they are, I think it's best for any further discussion on these topics to be conducted via PM. Let's get back to discussing the storybook at hand! The HP event is in full swing, so I suspect the next step will be to start wrapping it up.
Gender:
Points: 17344
Reviews: 293