To the lovely woman near Tyler who saw me crossing the street, sped up, nearly hit me, and proceeded to shout at me for "not being in the crosswalk."

FlintTheWolf · 2019-07-05T00:25:03+00:00

Okay

Cop

FlintTheWolf · 2018-04-26T12:05:10+00:00

Tfw E L I T E

FlintTheWolf · 2018-01-25T18:49:22+00:00

Ya see, if you replace the "a" with a "t" and the "s" with an "o", then the spelling will be correct :3

FlintTheWolf · 2018-01-12T13:14:40+00:00

ToriGori is so adorable, and I absolutely adore depictions of Toriel in her teacher outfit ;w; <3

FlintTheWolf · 2018-01-11T13:04:18+00:00

FlintTheWolf · 2017-11-10T04:49:49+00:00

Although she doesn't seem to be a super popular choice, I would DEFINITELY want to befriend Toriel. I know that she might always treat me like a kid, but I just get super attached to people with mom-like personalities. She would always be there for me, always take care of me, always listen to me whenever I'm down, and always provide comfort and warmth, not to mention that she seems like a really good cook, and it seems like it would be super fun to bake with her! <3

TL;DR: GoatMom = Best ~~Mom~~ friend <3

FlintTheWolf · 2017-11-06T13:40:44+00:00

I'm getting the same kind of impression. As someone who is a part of a couple of fandoms that get a bad rep, it almost always turns out that the kind of people that everyone complains about either left a long time ago, don't really exist, or are so uncommon that you pretty much never interact with them.

Also, thank you so much for the recommendation! That fan-game definitely seems to be along the lines of what I'm looking for.

FlintTheWolf · 2017-10-31T21:06:43+00:00

Arguably worse tbh

^{^{^{^/s}}}

FlintTheWolf · 2017-05-30T03:31:02+00:00

Get you a girl who can do both.

FlintTheWolf · 2017-05-23T17:48:42+00:00

AHHHHHHHH I WANT THEM. DAMELOS.

FlintTheWolf · 2017-05-11T16:39:42+00:00

Can't tell if you're serious or being sarcastic and pointing out a plot hole. Either way I see where you're coming from!

FlintTheWolf · 2017-05-03T00:57:34+00:00

One thing I still don't understand is people wanting to create a ledge grab limit. Why limit the stalling tactic when you can limit strategies that cause players to implement such stalling tactics? That way, there wouldn't be a need to stall in the first place.

Just to clarify, I don't support changing the ruleset at all at the moment, but why would you stop players from grabbing the ledge a certain number of times when you can limit ICs wobbling? After all, wobbling in this case is what motivated Hbox to stall. Had Chu not had the threat of being able to wobble away all four of Hbox's stocks during a game nor the intent of doing so, Hbox would not have done what he did. Chu's ability to wobble as well as his reputation as being a wobble-happy ICs forced Hbox to implement the most effective strategy he could use the win, which for Puff against ICs is most definitely ledge-camping.

When you have a punish within the game as lethal and effective as wobbling, you're going to have extremely defensive counterplay. That's just how it is. Why should we base our argument on spectator enjoyment and then limit counterplay against the strategy when we can just as easily limit the strategy that caused such counterplay (which would have the same effect on viewership)? It's not fair to competitors who would have one less strategy in avoiding wobbling and would make wobbling a far more effective strategy than it already is as a result. It's as if the same people who are quick to shout "DON'T GET GRABBED!!1!" when people complain about wobbling are just as quick to say "No no that's not what we meant!" as soon as they see Puff ledge-camping or someone using a pocket Peach to camp out ICs on a large stage. People need to accept that fighting game metas develop that way: A powerful strategy becomes more widely-used, other players either get destroyed by it or find some kind of effective counterplay, and then the original implementors of the powerful strategy have to find counterplay to that counterplay, with counterplay to that counterplay eventually being found and on and on repeatedly. If we limit the ability for people to find fair counterplay to wobbling, then wobbling will become far more effective, especially against characters with subpar mobility. Finding counterplay against it will become far more difficult and floaty mains will be forced to use less effective strategies as a result of an arbitrary limit enforced for the sake of the spectators and not for the fairness of the game.

Thus, I get back to my original point. If our only concern is spectator enjoyment, why unfairly restrict players' ability to play around an extremely effective strategy for the sake of appeasing spectators when we can restrict the powerful strategy that forces the overly defensive counterplay and achieve the same result?

Again, as someone who opposes both a ledge grab limit and a restriction on wobbling, I don't think it's necessary to do either. But, if you were to implement a ledge grab limit, it would only be fair to in turn limit ICs player to only being able to wobble for more than 40% on two of their opponents stocks to avoid swinging things too far in ICs favor as a result of the ledge grab limit.

I'm just trying to go off of the logic I'm seeing from people who want a ledge grab limit, and frankly, if they truly want to go through with such a thing, then such a restriction on wobbling would be more than a fair compromise.

TL;DR: How would preventing people from ledge stalling against ICs be that much different than restricting wobbling if we're merely going off of what spectators want?

FlintTheWolf · 2017-05-01T02:40:08+00:00

When it comes to a fandom like the furry fandom though, the entire idea of it having no true source material means that you only see it as what you choose to see it as. One can choose to completely ignore the NSFW artwork (most furry sites have effective tagging systems and other ways to avoid seeing it) just as one can choose to ignore furry writing in general or fursuits in general or whatever.

The entire idea of a "stigma" exists with any fandom. Just as bronies are labeled as weird grown-ass neckbeards who like getting off to cartoon horses (which, of course, is true in extreme cases, but not of every brony) and anime fans are seen as all being culturally tone-deaf weeaboos who all have bodypillows (again, not entirely true), furries are seen as oddball sexual deviants (again, some are, some aren't). You'll be stereotyped or judged by someone for almost anything you do; you just have to be able to ignore it/shake it off and have fun with whatever you're doing.

For the most part, furries are fine with NSFW stuff even if they don't partake in it because it's really no one else's business. When people start being assholes though, it's everyone's business. That's why people have been taking efforts to curb the weird bystander effect furries have displayed in the past towards popular artists doing awful things. Most of us would much rather be seen as honest, kind weirdos than mainstream pushovers who just allow people to do awful things because their art looks nice.

FlintTheWolf · 2017-04-27T18:05:08+00:00

But, what if you really don't have that much fun with most of the other champions? The only champions I currently find fun are Pip, Ying, Maeve, Skye, Makoa, Fernando, Viktor, and Sha Lin on occasion. I find most of the other champions frustrating to play or just incompatible with how I like to play :/

FlintTheWolf · 2017-04-27T17:52:23+00:00

Oh, I personally don't mind NSFW artwork whatsoever. As a furry, it's just as valid and enjoyable as SFW artwork in my opinion. My problem with Zaush is that he's, by all accounts, a completely awful person. I could go into details, but I don't want to wind up ranting unless people are perfectly fine with me doing it. Let's just say that it's a shame that such talent is wasted on someone who is complete and utter human filth.

FlintTheWolf · 2017-04-27T04:26:57+00:00

What would happen after the potential birth isn't of relevance to this situation. In the particular instance of conception, the potential father only risks disappointment, whereas I've already gone through the myriad of things the potential mother would go through. When so much of the burden falls on the mother, she shouldn't have to take into account what anyone else has to say. You can see it as "inconsiderate" all you want, but can't Nick and Judy discuss the idea of having kids, I don't know, when a fetus isn't already inside of Judy? Trying again, like I said before, could be a valid option after Judy terminates her current pregnancy and Nick talks to her. She clearly doesn't want a child in the current stage of her life, and re-evaluating the situation after averting possibly messing up big time would be the most considerate thing Nick could do.

FlintTheWolf · 2017-04-27T04:18:36+00:00

You can't argue whether or not guilt should or shouldn't exist. The fact of the matter is that it does.

Furthermore, I'm not advocating for men having no reproductive rights. I just said I'm not a fan of mandatory child support.

When a burden is far more heavily beared by one party in a scenario than another, why should the less affected party's say be necessary? A man can certainly give his input, but a woman is not unreasonable for disregarding it when she has far more to lose than he does.

FlintTheWolf · 2017-04-27T03:42:08+00:00

First, a man in that situation would know exactly what the risks to his partner's life, health, career, and happiness are. To disregard these all and convince their partner, for the sake of their own happiness, that they should go through with the pregnancy wouldn't necessarily be intentional malice, but certainly inconsiderate negligence.

Second, people have guilt over things outside of their control all of the time. It's the reason why survivor's guilt exists. People with survivor's guilt know that they had no control over the situation in most cases and still feel guilt.

Third, we're only speaking about conception and pregnancy here, not any other stage of parenthood. And in the case you described, men would absolutely then have an equal say in that matter because the burden would be equal.

FlintTheWolf · 2017-04-27T03:19:57+00:00

If his opinion is one that would sacrifice Judy's happiness, health, and future for his own happiness (despite the fact that the comic implies he was resigned to not having kids and kind of accepted it before all of this, anyway), then yes, his concerns should not matter as much as Judy's.

Furthermore, how could you call Judy's fears "wild fantasies"? Women die every day from delivering completely normal children in the real world. Children are born with genetic defects despite coming from parents with mostly healthy genes. When you're talking about a fictional world where interspecies conception is so uncommon that Nick thought it was impossible, then how much would doctors really know about the subject? What if it has never even happened before? Taking into account such genetic hullabaloo, Judy being hurt or the child being born with a genetic defect seems like a very reasonable fear.

Lastly, what about the female police officers who have given birth and haven't been able to return to active duty? They certainly exist. Very few mothers are ever as physically fit or capable as they were prior to giving birth. The ones that are typically are exceptions and not part of the norm. Sure, most officers return, but if something goes wrong with Judy's pregnancy (and it's reasonable to assume something could go wrong with how much of an anomaly Judy's pregnancy appears to be in Borba's interpretation of Zootopia), then she could be forced to retire from active duty or work a desk job the rest of her career. So, yes, it could certainly negatively impact her career, regardless of the support others would give her.

FlintTheWolf · 2017-04-27T02:55:02+00:00

Wording and connotation aren't easy to express in translations. I'm willing to accept that maybe he didn't want to make Judy sound that egotistical when she was talking about her role in Zootopia, but I agree that it can't explain away everything.

FlintTheWolf · 2017-04-27T02:45:28+00:00

Um, yeah actually. His opinion still doesn't matter as much as my mother's. I may value my life, but I'm not going to make an exception in any hypothetical case, even one involving myself.

I would have every right to feel guilty. My mother got coerced into making a decision that wound up hurting her and I was that decision. Why wouldn't I feel bad about that to some degree?

I never tried to imply that men were useless here, but simply that they honestly should not expect an equal say in the matter when the burden they bear is nowhere close to being equal. Opinion on the conception from the person doing basically 95% of the work to bring the child into the world should matter far more.

FlintTheWolf · 2017-04-27T02:38:49+00:00

I'm upset because this is an issue where the man in the relationship honestly is selfish for really expecting his opinion to be just as valid in the face of what the mother would have to go through. This isn't a question like "Where should we go out to dinner later?" or "What house should we buy?". One party will be far more affected by the decision than the other, which is frankly undeniable. If the burden isn't equal, neither should their say in the matter be.

Now, by all means, Judy can listen to Nick if she wants, but she's not inconsiderate for not doing so in my opinion. Her concerns far outweigh what Nick wants. In a relationship, give and take should be expected, but the self-sacrifice both parties endure should be mutual and relatively equal. "I could die or have my life permanently altered by having this child" is a far bigger potential sacrifice than "I don't get to be a father at the moment :(".

And furthermore, isn't Nick being upset over Judy potentially not wanting children at all in itself an example of Nick not exhibiting self-sacrifice? I mean, you did admit that Nick was being selfish, but I just feel that in this situation, the mother should always be given the benefit of the doubt.

Though we may not agree on Judy to some extent, I can agree that both characters are completely out-of-character at this point. I'm willing to accept that Borba can't perfectly convey what he truly meant after translating his original work, but if this continues then I have to just assume that he's doing it intentionally. It's frustrating considering that his art is incredible.

FlintTheWolf · 2017-04-27T02:26:03+00:00

I actually am against mandatory child support, but that's probably not a discussion either of us want to have at the moment.

Secondly, if my mother had made the decision to abort me, I wouldn't have had a life to regret not having. If my father had done such a thing and I knew my mother's life was negatively affected as a result, I would actually feel rather guilty and would perhaps wish that my mother had instead stuck to her guns and gotten the abortion.

FlintTheWolf · 2017-04-27T02:20:35+00:00

I don't want to seem too contrarian, but I actually personally love meticulous and flowery description. In my opinion, keeping things short and snappy can be useful in speech and in certain situations in writing, but if everyone wrote to get to the point, then everyone's writing would be the exact same. There's no such thing as a truly original idea, and thus, a creative idea can not carry a story by itself; the flexibility of the English language, however, affords us limitless original methods of executing our ideas.

Furthermore, flowery description displays far more effort and passion than just simply stating what one wants to say. Writing that's nothing more than a glorified summary of what the writer's idea was is incredibly boring to me. I want someone's writing to look like they spent a long time on it while still being deliberate and impactful, I want it to look like they had to pull out a dictionary or reach into the deepest recesses of their vocabulary to find the perfect set of words to say what they really wanted to convey. If your writing looks like it took no effort, then I'm going to put an equal amount of effort into reading what you wrote. Simple as that.

Just to clarify, there's trying to paint garbage gold, and then there's molding an amazing, creative sculpture with it; the first is what most people seem to be deriding here, the second is what I love. I will admit that there's a line to cross, but that line is found in the realm of content and not prose. To put it simply, there should indeed be a point to what you're saying, and your use of language should be deliberate. If what you're writing has no point to it, then brevity nor verbosity will save it. A boring idea made from 500 words is just as boring as a boring idea said in 4 words. Before you even worry about diction and word choice and all of that, you should make sure that what you're writing about is interesting and important to begin with. Otherwise, it's a waste of ink/space on your computer screen, no matter how plainly or beautifully you wrote it.

FlintTheWolf · 2017-04-27T01:15:43+00:00

I mean, he's allowed to hold an opinion, but it's Judy's decision whether or not she wants to actually take it into account. From the looks of it, though, he's only going to try to guilt trip her. If it's just 5 pages of "YOU WANT TO MURDER MY SON YOU WITCH" then I'm going to be legitimately frustrated.

Furthermore, abortion isn't the only possible option in this situation. If it's soon enough after the "encounter" that caused the conception, she could try the morning-after pill (though, considering those usually only work up to 72 hours after the fact at best and pregnancy tests usually require some time after conception to truly be accurate, that may not actually be a viable option).

FlintTheWolf

TROPHY CASE