[Burichan] [Futaba] [Nice] [Pony]  -  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]
[Catalog View] :: [Archive] :: [Graveyard] :: [Rules] :: [Quests] :: [Wiki]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [Last 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 115190)
Message
File []
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, MP3, MP4, PNG, SWF, WEBM, ZIP
  • Maximum file size allowed is 20000 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 17307 unique user posts. View catalog

File 150448315298.png - (249.44KB , 500x600 , coxdis3.png )
115190 No. 115190 ID: 8e802d

Given the length and general chaos of the previous thread, I want to start fresh with a place where people can voice their concerns directly to me. A lot of readers have been unhappy with the quest as of late, and I feel the need to address these in order to make it more enjoyable. I do this entirely for fun, so I want people to have fun participating in it.

I accept responsibility for the current problems in the storytelling, and want to hear from the readers so that I can at least try to put out the fires before the quest is over. Being the author of it, I feel I have the most power to affect the direction of the quest in a positive way!

Memes and porn are still welcome, obviously.
Expand all images
>>
No. 115193 ID: be0718

>tfw Sophie will never offer you a mug of hot choclety milk
>>
No. 115195 ID: 9b8c8d

>>115190
You don't need to bash yourself for this - ultimately it's us, the readers, who choose where the story goes. I can't say I'm happy about its current direction either, but it's not really your fault.
>>
No. 115198 ID: 395c02

For now, I will be handling the moderation of Coxwette and its /dis/ thread.

This thread will have its own rules that over-ride the site's rules where applicable:

-Do not attack another poster. If you disagree with them, do so civilly.
-Do not troll. I have a low bar for what I consider trolling, so I recommend playing it safe.
-Do not attack RML. Talking about where she err'd or how she could improve is fine, but do so civilly.
-Other mods may not moderate here without my permission (for now), and are not exempt from these rules. They may still post normally, of course.


I am disappointed that it had to come to this. Above all else, TGchan must be a place where authors and suggestors can tell the stories they want to tell without being afraid of the backlash.
>>
No. 115201 ID: 416762

First, thank you for running this awesome quest in the first place! I haven't commented much before, if at all, but I've definitely followed it.

I think the biggest thing has been how this new character has been introduced. She is supposedly important in Chuck's past, but he hasn't mentioned her at all as far as I can tell. She also hasn't shown any sympathetic traits. What I know about her is that:
- she has stolen medicine, which we needed
- she left drugs for someone, which hurt that person
- she apparently booby-trapped the warehouse that Rachel... works at? I think?

She introduced herself in person by being antagonistic towards Chuck and Rachel, and has just seemed mean-spirited. All of these things add up to "hate with burning passion."

She has also been introduced during what is supposed to be a tense, desperate search for Chuck's friends while Susan fends off the Reverends, and I think people keep trying to fuck her both out of spite and because it's just, uh, been a while. It's like, a sex quest where Chuck is supposed to avoid having sex, but most TGchanners like sex, and you, RML, are really good at the sex.

That's my initial take on it, anyways.
>>
No. 115203 ID: 3cc68c

>>115201
Julia isn't inherently a terrible character archetype - not even the way she was introduced here. In fact, the manner she entered the story could ideally enhance her full effect.

But there's not much she can do. For a satisfactory story, there's really only two roles she could play: either she gets to have her comeuppance in some way, justice being served for her crimes and being a dick and obstructing us at a time of tension, giving us a sense of great catharsis; or we gradually wean her off her self-centered and self-destructive habits, get her to open up to us, and gradually help her become a better person, which would be incredibly satisfying. Ideally, a character such as this would provide both (the former kickstarting the latter).

The way we're doing now is advancing neither.

Of course sometimes you don't want to follow story conventions, and would rather go ahead and do something different, but there's a reason these things play out like this so often: the good feels it can grant, as above, but also the bad ones if she fails to deliver. A character such as this is a two-edged sword. If she doesn't meet either of the above options, she'll get away scott-free for all her dickery, leaving a bad taste to a reader's mouth. Worse still, you could give her exactly what she wants, allow her to corrupt the protagonist and leave with full satisfaction and victory, which would leave such an impact of hatred and spite that it could easily ruin even an otherwise excellent story. And, right now, we're going towards the latter.

The only thing that could save the situation would be if the reverends came in right now, giving her a real big frighten and granting us the catharsis we're looking for. But even if this happens, odds are good it'll come at a terrible price: to bring this forth we would be selling Chuck's soul, giving up what little character development he's had during this quest and returning him to square one.
>>
No. 115204 ID: 1e7aa8

>>115201
Don't forget, there's been non-stop votes across ALL of chapter 11 to break off the search and bang Lisa/Marcie/Rita/Rachel/Susanna.
>>
No. 115206 ID: 19cf99

>>115204
I'd be lying if I said I didn't follow this quest primarily for porn myself. As >>115201 said, the porn is really great and well worth waiting for.

But whenever plot, tension, danger, and character development are introduced, I'll play along. Because the story is also pretty good, and it gets me all the more involved in the events, making the eventual porn all the better too. I want to help people, save them, and for the protagonist to grow into at least a remotely decent person with some standards.

I'm sure us banging Julia will be as well drawn and technically hot as anything else. But the story gets in the way of my enjoyment: she's a far too unpleasant character, she makes Chuck too more unpleasant just by being around her (he's never looked more like a douche than in the latest update), and there's just too damn much going on around us that we could realistically consider banging her.

I hope plot prevails, and that we soon get to fuck Marcie or Davey or someone instead.
>>
No. 115207 ID: ec5ca0

>>115190
Really, I think what it comes down to is that you introduced an antagonistic character at what for many people is the dictionary definition of the WORST POSSIBLE TIME (caps for emphasis, not shouting).

We're in an extremely tense, time-sensitive situation, and suddenly this girl whom we've not really been told jack about shows up, reveals herself to be the source of several bad things that's happened recently, and shows no remorse or pity for her actions. It's much like >>115201 said; we've not been given a whole lot of reason to treat her like anything but an obstacle, especially considering the situation. Had she been introduced earlier, when things weren't so dire, I can guarantee you that she wouldn't be received quite so negatively. But as things are, we're making a snap judgement call because in-universe, we don't have time to take the long route with her, not as we are. I'm pretty sure most questers realize that yeah, there's probably some way she'd come in handy later on, but speaking on an emotional and non-meta purpose level, we've got very sickly people we need to take care of that we (the players) already know and care for, and we're just not keen on risking people we DO know for people we SUPPOSEDLY know.

Basically, she's the wrong character archetype in the wrong place at the wrong time for us to care about her as desired. We'd rather just remove her, hope that whatever befalls us without her eventual aid is not as bad as what would befall us if our known friends die. It's picking what we can surmise as the least worst option. The fact that you seem to be less than eager to go that route is causing a lot of friction.

At least, that's how it was. I'm honestly wondering if a lot of the questers are kinda just going 'fuck it, let's just do what the QM wants now and bang her' out of spite. I get the distinct feeling that a lot of the sexual suggestions (a lot, NOT all of them) are simply ways of saying 'well, I don't feel like we have much agency anymore and clearly Chuck's not intended to actually develop as a character, so whatever. It's meaningless.'

Now, do I personally feel this way? At least towards that last bit? Eh. Not sure. But from a general lookie-look at what people disheartened are saying, that seems to be about the gist of it. Might be wrong, but I don't think I'm horribly off the mark.
>>
No. 115208 ID: 3cc68c

>>115207
>I get the distinct feeling that a lot of the sexual suggestions (a lot, NOT all of them) are simply ways of saying 'well, I don't feel like we have much agency anymore and clearly Chuck's not intended to actually develop as a character, so whatever. It's meaningless.'
Looking at replies like >>827418 ? You pretty much hit the nail on the head with the whole situation.
>>
No. 115209 ID: 8e802d

>>115201
>>115203
These are valid points about Julia. There are a few things to note about my introducing her (I will try to respond here without injecting too much meta):

1) Julia has been in or around the warehouse since about Chapter 4, so encountering her could have happened much, much earlier in the quest. The fact that it didn't doesn't bother me, though.

2) I do not intend for her to be sympathetic OR unsympathetic at this point. Chuck has his opinions on her, and it is entirely up to the readers to form their own based on what they have. I have very limited control over Chuck's actions since Coxwette is based on simple majority, so my hands are tied on achieving either of the required outcomes for Julia. Hopefully the story is at least redeemable, as I would be devastated if my own writing ruined it for everyone.

3)Part of the reason for introducing her, admittedly, is as a contrast between how Chuck might have been before spending time in Coxwette and how he is now. Having associated with someone like Julia in the past offers a glimpse into that, or at least that was my intention.
>>
No. 115210 ID: 3cc68c

>>115209
Going by this, I'd say you're precisely as little at fault as I thought you'd be. I suspected 1) myself, and 2) is just good non-preachy writing. 3) could've gone down well, as said in >>115203 - it could've made for excellent contrast and showed us just how far Chuck has come during the quest, but the readers wouldn't play along.

Your own writing isn't ruining this. At the absolute worst, by introducing Julia, you just gave us a match, perhaps hoping we'd use it to light up a fireplace for some warmth, or the gas stove to get food going. Instead we set the entire bloody house on fire. We're entirely to blame, not you.
>>
No. 115211 ID: 8e802d

>>115207
I have put a lot off effort into developing Chuck as a character, but I have to balance that with giving suggesters maximum agency. It is a very fine line to walk, and your post would indicate that I am failing at both. What can I possibly do to fix this?
>>
No. 115212 ID: ee43ea

>>115211
Discounting outright retcons and simply wiping her off the story entirely, well... reverends have been brought up before: I wouldn't put it past them to show up at any possible time, and it'd remind us all about the urgency of the situation and show Julia just what we're dealing with. I can't imagine it to make her any less cooperative, at least.

Alternatively, Rita and/or Rachel could intervene. Chuck's being a bit of a dick and letting his past get to him, but that doesn't mean those two would've just vanished into background: they're still there, probably being pretty baffled at what he's up to.

And of course you could just let us knock her out after all, so that we could get the medicine and even carry her out of here with minimum fuss. Maybe reveal Chuck knew the neck-pinch move all along. But I personally feel that this ship has sailed.
>>
No. 115213 ID: 9dc26d

>>115211
Actions should have consequences. If Chuck wants to get down in the middle of a crisis, knowing full well that the very action will bring monsters down on him, let him.

Just don't let him escape the consequences this time.
>>
No. 115214 ID: 9dc26d

And you know what, I want to add that the way you're adhering to a veristic approach to the story is really admirable. A lot of quest authors just give in to doing things the hugbox way. That's fine, that's their choice. But you don't get compelling stories out of that method.

You're doing it the hard way and I thank you for it. It's the best way.
>>
No. 115215 ID: bb78f2

Julia's fine, Chuck's fine, Chuck's decision to even try to bone her now is fine considering I find tactical value in it, we'll have Rita run off with Rachel protecting her. We bone Julia, which will summon the reverends, and we get out of dodge with all the medicine when Julia is forced to flee herself. High risk, high reward.

The worst part is just HOW many goddamn suggestion posts there are in that thread, which isn't anyone fault beyond, well suggestors like me with unnecessarily long ass posts because they get so fucking goddamn into the quest.

If there's anything you or mods can or should do, I think you should be even stricter with decisions and slam fists down in the quest thread itself. With strict rules like you are allowed to vote on a letter and up to two or three sentences to make a case for it if necessary, and don't skirt around the sentence rule with a run-on or overtly long. If someone needs to defend it that hard, post their argument in the dis thread first, and put a hyperlink in the same post as the vote. I wouldn't make it ever banworthy or send warnings (since I'll probably get carried away occasionally because of passion and forget to post in questdis), just that the post would get auto deleted and the vote discarded. That will clean the thread up incredibly.

This rule should probably apply to the most popular quests on the board too. Though its probably a bunch of work so I can see why no one would want to do it.

But GOD, would it clean threads up so much, and I'm so sorry whenever I contribute to that gloat.
>>
No. 115217 ID: 8e802d
File 150449321816.gif - (1.42MB , 320x240 , 803.gif )
115217

>>115215
CONFOUND THESE SUGGESTERS!


THEY DRIVE ME TO DRINK!
>>
No. 115218 ID: be0718

>>115217
Unhand Julia, Chuck Backslide!
>>
No. 115219 ID: 8e802d

Also, to those on either side of the "Julia debate" - I respect and appreciate all of your opinions. I mean that honestly! I think it is good to form opinions on characters, and I almost never have an intended reaction that I want people to have from a character alone.

That being said, I do think it is a bit early in the scene to be reacting with this fire-and-brimstone fatalistic stuff! Characters in Coxwette (and all of my quests) often behave irrationally, particularly at first glance. This is no accident, and Julia at least serves as evidence that Chuck formed self-destructive and unhealthy relationships in his past. Please give me a chance to interpret this mountain of suggestions and progress the scene. I have gotten through worse in the past.
>>
No. 115224 ID: 36de2e

Really nice to see you decided to keep going and start a new discussion thread with some optimism. Hopefully things go better this time around.
>>
No. 115225 ID: 3ce125

I think things would have worked out a lot better if we met Julia as the prisoner the cops had captured. We'd be back at the plath house and no longer pressured to get shit done.

>>115190
Is the title image a reference to something? It kindof looks like he's crawling out of a toilet...?

>>115220
It's already been a while since we last encountered the reverends. Chuck went from the warehouse to the school and back, which should have taken quite a while considering how long it took to ride a bike around the town. Even though time seems pretty unreliable in the quest, either because of QM fiat or because of the town itself being weird, we certainly can't count on them being dead.
>>
No. 115226 ID: ee43ea

>>115220
>Is the current situation still time-sensitive?
Almost certainly.

Even if the reverends haven't respawned already (and they may have: it's actually been a while), both Chuck and Rita are wounded, bleeding, quite possibly infected - and we've got people back in the Plath house that desperately need that medicine. I'd say it's all still pretty urgent.
>>
No. 115232 ID: ee43ea

>>115231
>Ramona, who's also fine because she already got the liquor from Davey
The liquor is a temporary and also an unhealthy fix. It may have possibly run out by now, and even at the best of times wouldn't work as well as the medicine. Do you not care for the dogmom's health?

>This means that your entire sense of urgency, just like everyone else's, stands only on the possibility of the Reverends showing up.
And on the wounds. Even if they're not infected, I can't imagine even Chuck could do anything with Julia right now.

Besides, you're one of the people here that like Julia, or are at the very least willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. I'd think you would want to get the drugs off her, just to make sure she won't pass out and end up pinned on by the reverends.
>>
No. 115233 ID: 19cf99
115233

>>115231
Even if you assume the reverends won't get to us right now, the wounds are nonlethal, and Ramona is fine, the situation is incredibly tense.

Picture yourself in their shoes. It's dark, you don't know for sure what's going on, you haven't seen your brother since these monsters came, you're just here to get the last few stragglers and get back. Even if us out here, in the safety of our own homes with many days to think it through, could come to the conclusion that no one is in an immediate danger of dying, no one in-universe can be certain. Hell, even -we- don't know for sure. What if the reverends woke up already? What if Susanna is down? What if the Plath house's defenses are failing? It's not very likely, sure, but the very possibility drives the tension up.

This is no time to get lewd at all.
>>
No. 115234 ID: eef56a

>>115220

When Byron got knocked over, chopped up by everyone involved with various bladed/budgeoning instruments, and 'killed,' Susanna insisted on overturning a bookshelf on top of him 'in case he got up in the next few minutes.' And she knows a lot more about the reverends than anyone else.
>>
No. 115235 ID: be0718

>>115232
Well, it certainly would be unhealthy to have chugged all that liquor in so short a time for a recovering alcoholic.
>>
No. 115237 ID: 91ee5f

>>115232
>The liquor is a temporary and also an unhealthy fix. It may have possibly run out by now, and even at the best of times wouldn't work as well as the medicine. Do you not care for the dogmom's health?
She's being monitored by the doctor and/or her daughter. I'm pretty sure neither of them are going to let Ramona chug all of that liquor at once.
>>
No. 115238 ID: 3cc68c

>>115235
>>115237
Ramona's current condition can only be assumed. We never really checked on her, nor heard any news on her condition: we just chucked the bottles to her general direction and left right away to look for others.

It could be we were too late to begin with and she died before she even got the bottles, for all we know. Or it could be something's gone wrong since. Is anything like that any likely? No, but given the circumstances it's still far from impossible, and adds just another reason to why dallying here and wasting time is incredibly irresponsible of us.
>>
No. 115239 ID: eb2e80

How to fix Coxwette:

You're great at creating amazing and interesting stories - you know this. It's one of your biggest strengths, and it's a lot of what kept early-mid Coxwette going strong.

The problem is that you've become so terrified of taking the reins of your story (due to fears of being accused of "railroading"), that you've let the Coxwette train just completely derail itself.

We need you to get your ass back to the front of the train and get this shit on track again. Railroad it as much as you need to, and fuck the haters.

I know you can salvage this - I trust you to do so. <3
>>
No. 115243 ID: 8e802d

>>115239
No railroading.
>>
No. 115244 ID: 395c02

I don't have a dog in the general fight, but there's one thing I would recommend doing from time to time: going with the overall feeling of suggestors rather than strictly what won the most votes. Example:

WHAT ICE CREAM?
>12 votes vanilla
>8 votes strawberry
>18 votes chocolate
>26 votes for no ice cream

no ice cream wins! But, more people want ice cream than don't want ice cream. In this case, you can have the most people feel like they 'kinda' got what they want by going with chocolate.

Ideally we don't have votes like this (there'd be a "get ice cream? Y/N" vote instead), but quests are Rough Drafts and sometimes we make mistakes like this.

In these cases, chocolate ice cream goes with the "spirit" of the suggestions better than no ice cream.

You can replace ice cream with sex if you want it to apply to coxwette better. I hear strawberry sex is fantastic.
>>
No. 115245 ID: 8e802d

>>115244
I have heard multiple people have this same complaint, but I was not aware that was how quest votes work. If that is the case, I'm just not going to include sex in votes anymore.
>>
No. 115246 ID: ee43ea

>115243
Going by the latest few posts, it doesn't seem to matter: most people are pretty down with going by the clever safe cracker whisper route.

>115245
>I'm just not going to include sex in votes anymore.
Just in situations like these where it wouldn't make any sense, I hope?
>>
No. 115247 ID: e36c7f

>>115245

Different suggestion/voting systems are good for different purposes, and all have their own ups and downs. The "choose from among these options" style, for example, makes it easier to guide the suggesters and can be used to reflect the personality of the quest protagonist, but it also can restrict people coming up with ideas the author didn't consider, and has the problems associated with how the votes are counted (that votes can be split, that people will vote tactically, et cetera).

Unfortunately most choices you can make as to how you take suggestions will have an upside and a downside. You just need to get the closest you can to the feeling you want the audience to get.
>>
No. 115248 ID: bb78f2

>>115245
People still want porn, canon in-quest porn to be precise in order to explore character's sexuality
They just don't want it at the expense of story flow. Like, it makes little sense for porn to occur now, when we're not safe AND have a party around, but under the duress of the situation while we're in a more safe place like alone in a room at the Plath house?

Honestly, sex at the Plath house is practically guaranteed with almost any girl there because we've put ourselves in constant danger and have to look super fucking masculine. Geoff might get laid too, if only because the selection is slim in a stressful situation where people really might want a desperate bone. Like, if not Lisa, Penny might bone him or John. She probably won't do Chuck, considering his connection to her niece, but I could see her going "Ok, I'm bored, scared, I'm gonna fuck."
>>
No. 115249 ID: ec5ca0

>>115248
This basically. It's not a matter of no sex, it's a matter of this is the most horrible time for sex possible.
>>
No. 115250 ID: 3abd97

>I was not aware that was how quest votes work
I would point out it's not.

It's one way quest votes can work.

Authors are under no obligations to use any specific vote-interpreting scheme, nor are they even required to be consistent within a single quest (sometimes different situations call for different approaches!).

When it comes to parsing suggestions, do what makes sense, or what suits your needs, or the character's needs, or the needs of the story. There's no one size fits all solution.
>>
No. 115252 ID: ee43ea

>>115248
Once we get back, just skip everything else and make a vote on whom we should fuck.

Well, unless Julia is with us. In that case we need to first snitch on her, give her up to the cops, and tell her we lied about the safe.
>>
No. 115253 ID: 395c02

I would make "have sex?" a single vote with 2 answers, yeah. It'll slow the pace a little, but you'll see a lot less fighting, I think. Maybe.

Or, what I do is a sort of simple "If/then" setup like with coding

Have sex?
A: Yeah!
B: No!

If having sex...
A: Donkey style!
B: Dragon style!
C: Butts!

If not...
A: Fight the reverends!
B: Get that medicine!
C: Run away!



This is a bit harder on the author, but it will almost definitely put a stop to "but but more of us want sex that don't want sex" and such. It also lets the story feel more guided and forward thinking, and can actually improve the pacing rather than hurt it.


The downside is you might need more images per update, depending on how much you rely on text vs images to tell the story.
>>
No. 115254 ID: e8f4bd

>>115245
>I was not aware that was how quest votes work
They don't. Slinko's example is an exception, because it has a specific "no" option, which normally never appears.

Normally you'd have the following example:
>10x Sex
>6x Talk
>6x Ice Cream
In this case, "Talk" and "Ice Cream" are not votes against Sex. So logically you have 10 votes for "Sex", and 12 votes for "Maybe Sex".
>>
No. 115255 ID: ec5ca0

>>115254
...What? That's not how that works at all. Those 12 votes aren't for maybe sex, they're for 'something that ISN'T sex'. It's the exact opposite.
>>
No. 115256 ID: e8f4bd

>>115255
This is basic logic. Just because those 12 voted for something else, it doesn't mean they would vote for "No Sex" if it was an option. So those 12 votes may or may not be votes for or against sex.
>>
No. 115258 ID: ee43ea

>>115256
Basic logic also dictates that sex in this specific situation would be next to impossible.
>>
No. 115259 ID: be0718

>>115258
But not impossible.
>>
No. 115260 ID: ec5ca0

>>115256
It means that they desire something other than sex as the highest priority/desire, ergo, it's a tacit vote for 'no sex- at least not in this instance'.
>>
No. 115261 ID: eb2e80

>>115243
Giving suggesters complete freedom of choice is a mistake, especially in a quest like yours.

You need to have a plan and a plot in mind, then give your suggesters opportunities - through voting or whatever, it doesn't matter - to ruin your plans or come up with a better idea than what you had.
>>
No. 115262 ID: 395c02

Oh oops I didn't mean to imply my advice was the ONE TRUE WAY or anything. Obviously, you can do whatever you want! It's your quest! I'm just trying to help a little.

the if/then style would put an end to stuff like the previous 6 posts (not including raptie's), if that helps :X
>>
No. 115263 ID: eb2e80

Slinko's advice is very, very good.

Also, RML, you gotta be careful about having multiple ways to say YES and only one to say NO (or vice versa). That - and requiring a confirmation vote to "make sure" of a previous vote - ARE railroading, and in the worst possible way. It feels unfair and only hurts, it doesn't help.
>>
No. 115264 ID: 4854ef

Kinda like right now, where there needs to be a basic confirmation of things and giving people the chance to suddenly twist things around just.. Doesn't feel good.

>>115248
Guaranteed.. We had plenty of guaranteed options that ended up with mostly "talk talk talk, okay ruined the mood." Million questions sort.
>>
No. 115266 ID: 2120ee

>>115254
This is a good post, and is correct.

Saying that the 12 votes for something other than sex means the 10 votes for sex should be overridden does not make sense, because the same logic applies to all options equally.

There's 16 votes for "not talk" and 16 votes for "not icecream" by equally valid logic.

This criticism is not logically coherent in this theoretical vote, or in the vote in Coxwette.

If you accept the argument being presented, then every single vote option had more "no" votes than "yes" votes for it, by a large margin. The sex vote had the narrowest margin of this, even! Using this logic makes it impossible to accept any vote that does not have an actual majority of the votes, which makes any vote with more than 2 options basically impossible to resolve reliably.

It's nonsense.
>>
No. 115267 ID: c31aac

>>115254
this is a bad post, and is rules-lawyering number massaging.

Don't be a That Guy.

I understand the point of view, but your metaphor lacks the full breadth of how votes go.

Instead, try the following:
4 for popsicles
5 for fucking the popsicle
2 for nothing
5 for ice cream

Popsicle fucking wins, because yeah there's more for popsicles. Yer gonna get an icy dick, but that's the price you pay for sweet popsicle poon.

The five votes for ice cream and 2 for nothing don't join forces to force out the popsicle dicking, they're not the same vote and treating them the same puts a lot of extra pressure on the author to read between the lines on a lot of often rambly and incoherent suggestions.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to try to apply this standard of voting to the quest, it just causes headaches and more fighting I think. Rules lawyering is this, and rules lawyers are evil.
>>
No. 115268 ID: 9dc26d

>>115245
That's fine by me. The story is far more interesting than the sex scenes.
>>
No. 115271 ID: 19cf99

>>115268
The story IS what makes them interesting.
>>
No. 115275 ID: 9876c4

My general opinions are complicated, and I don't have the words yet.

My specific opinion is that the retcon was a good move in the instance, and will help the quest and questers move forward smoothly.
>>
No. 115277 ID: 3ce125

>>115254
I see what you're going for here: vote options can conflict with eachother in varying degrees. However I disagree that the normal situation is one in which all of them conflict equally. The more options there are the more likely it is where one of them conflicts more than the others, and the greater a problem it is. If there's just two options then there's no issue at all. If there's three options it's less likely for the vote spread to fail to represent what the majority of people want, but as you get more options it's more likely.

Basically the problem is the same that occurs in elections. If there's one candidate that's divisive but two that are not, then people who don't like the divisive candidate will have their votes diluted between the two others while those that like him will vote for just him, which means even if the divisive candidate would win a "worst candidate" election they could also get the most votes in a standard election.

Here are two solutions that can apply since this is a quest where people can state the reasoning behind their votes:
1) Don't include a divisive option when doing a strict tally of votes for options and picking the most popular one. (this is what RML decided on)
2) Look at more than pure numbers, and take into account the reasoning behind votes. (I believe this is what Jukashi explicitly stated he was doing, and Arhra may be doing this to some degree)
There may be more solutions, of course. Including a "second-favorite" vote is one but I don't think that's been used often.
>>
No. 115278 ID: 9b8c8d

>>115277
I'd suggest combining the votes in a way that makes the most sense.

In the above scenario, we've got ten votes for sex, six for talking, and six for ice cream. Now, you can talk to someone and eat ice cream. You may even be able to talk to someone while having sex with them - but only if the subject of the discussion isn't a complete turn-off. But you probably can't have sex while also having ice cream, unless you're really creative with positions.

So we've got a total of 16 votes for sex and talk, while only 12 votes for talk and ice cream. The decisive factor here, therefore, would be what is to be talked about.

It requires a bit of interpretation and improvisation but I think it could leave more people satisfied.
>>
No. 115279 ID: f0e552

I feel like I'm the only one who likes coxwettes direction here lol, I think it reminds me of those old horror exploration quests, where there are lighthearted funny bits and exciting horror bits. If anything Id say that it's the perfect meld of porn and plot, which I believe may have been the intention from the start.
>>
No. 115280 ID: ee43ea

>>115279
It's a good mix for the most part, and I like it too, but sometimes they get all messed up in the wrong way. Here and now some people tried to flip the pendulum to porn when plot was still going, and it didn't work out at all.

Better to rewind a little.
>>
No. 115282 ID: bb78f2

RML should both take the votes in accordance and what they actually want most to do.

Basically, I think the Author should have a super vote, because after making the post, the next time they allocate for making the update they might have changed their minds, going "this choice was a mistake but there's actually a decent amount of people that want it, fuck... actually, you know what fuck it I'll pick the one I'm most ok with that has the most support than that stupid choice".

I don't consider that railroading, I consider that proofreading of a sort. Since they only know what's ahead, and what they can do with each decision, that's actually pretty important. What if going through with the most popular option that was given before leads to, well a disappointing outcome, and when I say disappointing, I mean one that would make the story as a whole worse.

I mean, that'll feel awful if the author does that near an inciting incident or problem suggests are trying to avoid because they can clearly see it coming, but choosing to try and steer it back towards said incident or mistake afterward because they can't figure out how to continue the story if said incident doesn't occur. Don't do that. But if something fucking REALLY stupid is an option, despite popular demand, maybe don't do it.

Measure the stupidity of an option once votes are made and you've had time to think about consequences of each decision, then maybe decide to go with the option you like best that others like best for the story you're making.

Basically, RML, do you REALLY want to try to draw/write a believable scenario for a sex scene to occur right now? If you do, FANTASTIC, I'm sure it'll be fun! If its gonna a bitch to write and draw, and then make future decisions based on that previous decision, don't do it. And don't take the whining and arguments in here against it or the backlash you may receive into account because no one wants to deal with the consequences. Just think about what you're willing to do yourself when it comes to drawing and writing.

If Chuck REALLY will fuck Julia in the middle of this chaos, and its what you want to do, or its one of the options you're willing to do, then that's just what's gonna happen. Never go through with an option you don't actually want to do.
>>
No. 115287 ID: 8e802d

>>115282
A majority of the quest, a large majority, has been me writing things I do not want to write. Most of the time, things do not go how I want them to or how I think would be the most entertaining. Still, this is a quest and not a comic.

If I wanted to write things how I envisioned them entirely, I would just make a comic.
>>
No. 115288 ID: bb78f2

>>115287
I've always thought of it as an experience. Though I guess another way to think about it is as a tabletop with the author as the GM.

Also, the concept of making choices available of things you don't want to draw and write is alien to me. How does one do that and endure?
>>
No. 115290 ID: 9876c4

>>115287
That doesn't seem like an optimal outcome.

As questers, we're blind idiot gods, groping (often literally) in the direction of an outcome we think will entertain us. Are the options there for stuff you'd enjoy writing, and we're ignoring them, or are you intentionally not including it because it fits in poorly with our fevered ramblings?

Not intended as a rhetorical question.
>>
No. 115293 ID: 4854ef

>>115282
That's straight up railroading.

I have to say I'm disappointed that the result was a retcon back.
>>
No. 115294 ID: 19cf99

>>115293
There was no retcon. A "retcon" means taking stuff back that happened and making it undone.

Nothing had time to happen. Chuck just realized a bad idea.
>>
No. 115297 ID: 2fe26a

I'm not mad, just disappointed that the solution chosen was to take the Cox out of Coxwette.
>>
No. 115298 ID: 3cc68c

>>115293
>>115297
Patience. Cox will return to Wette as soon as the situation dictates it'd actually be in any way feasible and reasonable.

This should be right once we get back to the Plath house. It'll be full of tense, nervous ladies to be calmed down, and Chuck should've established himself as a bit of a selfless hero there by this time. He's gonna be drowning in pussy.

Don't throw it all away for Julia's sake. Instead throw Julia to the cops.
>>
No. 115301 ID: 8e802d

>>115290
Generally the choices are there, but people end up not choosing them. This is probably due to a disconnect between what I think would be the most entertaining for the story, and what the readers would do if this was a video game.

In a traditional, non-interactive story, things generally happen as a result of conflict or at least mistakes. Having every option audited by a group of 20-30 people means that courses of action that lead to conflict tend not to happen, though mistakes are occasionally made. That being said, I cannot just keep forcibly injecting conflict into the story, or that would indeed be railroading. As it stands, I end up writing and drawing things I never wanted to, and at times it feels like it drags on. Still, I wouldn't do this if I was not passionate about it.
>>
No. 115303 ID: e8f4bd

>>115245
>I'm just not going to include sex in votes anymore.
If this is the case, then I'm dropping the quest.

It's been fun 6 months following it and I'll probably still read it once it's finished, but I see no point in writing suggestions if that part of the quest is dead.

I simply wanted to see some fun and love being shared in Coxwette, just like during the early and mid chapters of the quest. It doesn't matter which Coxwette girl it is because I think they're all equally awesome, each one special with their own quirks and foibles, and love them all. If my suggestions can no longer achieve that, then what's the point.
>>
No. 115305 ID: 9b8c8d

>>115303
Pretty sure we'll get right back to that once the situation calms down a little bit.
>>
No. 115307 ID: 8e802d

>>115303
I am not excluding sex from the quest, but I will no longer be including a specific sex option in multiple choice votes. It seems to cause a lot of controversy.
>>
No. 115308 ID: 19cf99

>>115303
Porn can't come in the expense of irrationality and stupidity. It'll ruin the whole thing. And no matter what you say, in the cureent stage it'd be pretty damn irrational.

Plot is what keeps us invested in the porn. Let's not break it. We'll try again in the Plath house
>>
No. 115310 ID: 4854ef

>>115308
We'll try again and fail I bet, TG loves it's 20 questions more then anything else.

But I would at least like to get to the Plath House at this rate.
>>
No. 115312 ID: 19cf99

>>115310
Me too.

Right now it looks pretty alarmingly likely that we'll just get distracted by drugs rather than sex, which is nearly as bad. I hope Rita grows a pair and pulls us out before we actually do.
>>
No. 115314 ID: 9876c4

>>115301
Yeah, I get it. The inclination is there for questers to maximize output of reward, and minimize hardship, but that's paradoxically neither very interesting to write or read. Chuck finding his suitcase and buying up real estate, while remaining chaste wouldn't make a very good quest.

But at the same time, the darker aspects of the quest make it harder to take rash action. When you're saving women in freezers or almost getting stabbed, it's hard to elect to fuck around and go off in some madcap direction. Granted a lot of the events haven't been quite that dire, but still.

It's often hard to tell the difference between something that would lead to fun/ interesting scenes, and something that would draw a total blank. And with total freedom to act, sometimes the dumb, or even dead horse wins.

Your passion for creating this world is readily apparent, and every thread benefits from it, whatever hiccups may arise.
>>
No. 115327 ID: 9b8c8d

>>115325
1. We have a headstart.
2. This is a bigass place and there's got to be more exits. Your waifu is probably already running towards one by the time the next update comes.
3 and 4. What kind of a paranoid survivalist junkie would trap her own hidden exit route?
>>
No. 115328 ID: 19cf99

>>115325
Know what the reverends also are? Immortal. Even dumping a shelf on one barely slowed it down. And we don't have shelves here that I see.

Whether it's running away or fighting, we're hopelessly unmatched. But we've run away from them before. We should at least try before turning around to make a stand.
>>
No. 115337 ID: 1e7aa8

>>115335
Did you forget how badly injured rita and Chuck are? Or that Rachel isn't very lucid? Unless Susanna and the fuzz suddenly dropped out of the god damn sky, I highly doubt we're gonna fight one of those things and win.

Oh, and let's not forget that it might not even be one. It could be all of them.
>>
No. 115344 ID: 395c02

I really appreciate that you guys are generally being civil. I know many of you feel very strongly about things and it can be difficult to show restraint, especially online. Especially with pseudo-anonymity.

Once I feel things have cooled down and my direct intervention is no longer required, I'll back off and everything will return to normal.


But for now, an important note: There's no 'rules lawyering' here; It's purely my judgement if a post is civil or not. Being indirect or passive-aggressive while claiming you're not actually 'attacking anyone' isn't going to work this time.

Posts important to the flow of conversation that fail to be civil will be edited to avoid the confusion that occurs with deletion. Edited text will try to convey the same basic information, and will be obviously marked. Posts that aren't civil nor important for conversation flow will still be deleted.


Don't worry about reporting anyone while No-Horse-Town-Martial-Slinko-Law is in place, because I'm reading every single post.
>>
No. 115345 ID: 91ee5f

>>115344
>No-Horse-Town-Martial-Slinko-Law is in place
Well of course there isn't any horses in the town! Your a Birb! We're going by your Birb Law here!

Yeah, I know this'll probably get deleted because it's got nothing to do with what's going on. I just wanted say that! XD
>>
No. 115347 ID: 9dc26d

Didn't Chuck have a revolver earlier? If that's the only gun he's got experience with, the Tec-9's going to be a little bit of a shock. I am assuming someone like Julia would totally do the little mods that need to be made to a Tec-9 to make it full auto, so here's hoping that whoever uses it doesn't end up shooting themselves because they weren't expecting the recoil from full auto.
>>
No. 115348 ID: 9876c4

>>115347
He once had an M1911 he was particularly fond of.

Realistically, it's really hard to make a gun flip with a forward magazine, because it centers the weight. Both times I heard of it happening, it was mini-uzis.

A panicked druggie with a smg is trouble anyway, of course!
>>
No. 115351 ID: ee43ea

>>115350
We'll never get to those drugs, and I agree the brown stuff is going to make the situation worse. As things are, Julia is almost certainly the biggest danger we have here: she's loud and panicky and likely with a twitchy trigger finger. Even if you managed to get her to gun against a reverend, she'd likely spray wildly and miss more often than not. Suppressive fire will not help against an immortal ghost-thing.

Honestly, we should just take advantage of the distraction she's offering and flee down the other way.
>>
No. 115352 ID: 19cf99

>>115350
Julia is an unrepentant addict. If there's a way to calm her down without the drugs, I'll be honestly surprised. Most likely, even suggesting her we're not going to get the drugs for her is liable of setting her off.
>>
No. 115354 ID: 1e7aa8

>>115350
When the reverends were fighting Susanna at the apartment complex, they had those freaky endless needle things, on top of possibly being armed with swords or other close range weapons.

Because of this, I disagree with the aspects of your plan that involve waiting for the monsters to get close before attacking them.

We can try snapping Julia out of it, but if it doesn't work everyone *has* to run.
>>
No. 115355 ID: be0718

>>115307
Can you give us an idea of what to vote for instead then, if you're going to obfuscate it in the future?
>>
No. 115356 ID: be0718

>>115350
Using 'the brown stuff' directly on her is unlikely to begin with. Using it on Chuck who then uses carnal speech on Julia would have more success.
>>
No. 115357 ID: ee43ea

>>115356
And what happens -after- we've used it? You recall what happened the last time: we'll be completely out of it and need to ourselves be saved by a high hyena, a wounded mailman, and a hyperventilating gun-nut lunatic.

We take that stuff, it'll be nearly certain we won't walk out of this alive. No. We need to remain lucid.
>>
No. 115358 ID: be0718

>>115357
The hyena is quite capable of carrying us out and can be instructed to do so by the Speech. Susanna's been doing that for untold years.
>>
No. 115359 ID: 91ee5f

>>115356
Chuck has previously stated that he doesn't have Carnal Speech!
>>
No. 115360 ID: b15da4

>>115359
It would behoove you to read a little closer and understand that the brown stuff is Carnal Speech in a bottle.
>>
No. 115361 ID: 91ee5f

>>115360
That doesn't mean that we should take it now.

Chuck struggled to make sense of anything last time and right now doesn't seem like a good time to be disoriented!
>>
No. 115364 ID: e8f4bd

Relevant:
>>/questarch/768748
Ramona and Sally cooked a potion which supposedly temporarily induces "the speech".
>>/questarch/768974
The potion took around an hour to take effect.

Now, that potion was very difficult to make and used various ingredients. The brown stuff that we have here is just an extract of one plant. They may be both brown-ish, but I think that's as far as similarities go.
I do believe that this extract is one of the necessary ingredients for Nelson's Potion and it would be valuable to take it with us to the Plath's. But I'm very skeptical over whether this extract can give us carnal speech powers.
tldr;
Extract ≠ Nelson's Potion. Use at your own risk.
>>
No. 115366 ID: 91ee5f

>>115364
You're absolutely right!

Chuck only said that stuff in the office looks like the stuff Ramona and Sally made. Just because it looks like the same stuff, that doesn't mean it is the same stuff!
>>
No. 115367 ID: 9b8c8d

>>115366
Taking something just because it sort of vaguely looks like something else would be an incredibly thoughtless thing to do even at the best of times, let alone under these circumstances.
>>
No. 115370 ID: 8d4593

>>115360
The label on the bottle clearly states that it's the concentrated extract of a plant that acts as a source for DMT.

It would make sense that said herb would be an ingredient in the potion, especially since after ingesting it Chuck tripped hard, but that in no way means the extract itself provides the effect of the potion.
>>
No. 115378 ID: ee43ea

>>115377
I see you're still living under the impression that she could somehow stop us. That she is somehow good in a fight, a trained combatant or shooter, when all evidence points to her just being a twitchy, paranoid addict.

In her current state of being, we could snatch the gun away from her without much trouble.
>>
No. 115379 ID: ee43ea

>>115377
Also, your plan most likely isn't going to work because it relies on calming down a person who's spent years, at minimum, getting addicted on various unhealthy substances. When she needs a fix, she NEEDS a fix: you can't just calm down an addict with a hug and a few rational words. Your plan is, in short, hilariously optimistic to the point of delusion.
>>
No. 115382 ID: ee43ea

>>115381
You're the one who brought these things up at first. Therefore, you should provide some evidence to them before I do - or at least remotely credible arguments, like I already did.

You haven't yet spoken much against what we've seen in the quest: that she's just a twitchy addict. And you also clearly don't know much about addicts if you think they can just be calmed down on one of their phases, like they were children on a tantrum.

I've made my argument. Now you make yours. Don't just ask me to argue more.
>>
No. 115406 ID: ee43ea

>>115404
>Please provide evidence which suggests that she's a drug addict
Oh, I've got plenty. Of course, I've also got evidence that suggests your obvious infatuation to the accused leaves you as a thoroughly biased debator and will lead you to dismiss what I say outright. But I can always try.

>Please note that drug dealer ≠ drug addict.
Noted. Indeed you're right that a great many of the smarter dealers keep themselves entirely clean of drugs. But our every interaction with Julia shows that she's far from balanced or intelligent. And she's also bored, with nowhere to go and very few people to talk to: she'd be doing a lot of the stuff.

>Chuck shared drugs with Julia, so if they had taken anything addictive, it means Chuck should also be a drug addict.
Again a kernel of truth! It's entirely possible - likely even - that Chuck was once an addict himself. This isn't the first time it's been suggested either. He's been doing a lot of stuff with Julia. As you can see at the end of the post >>827637 he probably still entertains the thought, even if the above comment was spoken in a jest. However...

>Considering we have not observed any evidence that Chuck has a drug addiction, there is no logical basis on which to claim that Julia is a drug addict.
This one is completely wrong.

Like I said (and you implicitly agree), Chuck was likely an addict once. But he's been clean of the stuff for the entire quest - in fact, it looks like he parted ways with Julia a fair amount of time before the story even began (they talk about each other like it's been a while). He's had well enough time to wean himself off.

But Julia? She's been doing drugs that whole time. She's never tried to go clean, and in fact considers the very thought - or that Chuck himself would no longer be an addict - patently ridiculous. She still thinks he's like her, and only wants the drugs to get herself off. Hell, the only reason she wouldn't try something completely suspicious is because he won't.

Furthermore, there's the case of her ransacking the medicine of the village's only doctor. Her fist instinct on being dumped to a strange new enviroment was to go steal stuff to get her fix and hole up somewhere where no one could find her. Chuck's first instinct, by contrast, was to go get a job and to find a place to stay, to actually interact with people. I think it's a fairly good indicator to both their mental healths, and to how much other substances control their lives.

>As Chuck mentioned, Julia is experiencing a panic attack.
She's also wigging out, i.e. "become deliriously excited; go completely wild". In addition she's showing signs of irrationality, paranoia, even sociopathic tendencies. It's clear she cares about no one but herself and has absolutely no compunctions at killing people. Unlike Chuck, she's never even made the attempt to improve from any of this or seek amends.

He did some drugs with her for a while, but his life got better once he got away from her. Both Ellen and Rachel, meanwhile, are way worse off with their introduction to the bunny. She makes for a horrible acquaintance, introducing drugs to others at the drop of a hat. As mentioned earlier, she's bored, and seems to have no other means of recreation: that leads to a lot of drugs, and a lot of drugs is a sure recipe for addiction.

>Please note that panic attacks are a medical condition which is unrelated to addictive substances. Julia is also well-aware of her medical condition since she mentions that she needs Valium to calm down.
Certainly, neither panic attacks nor the plethora of other mental conditions she has hold any evidence of being born out of drug use. They may still have, though: if they have, then this case is closed and she's clearly an addict.

But if they haven't? Then it's more than likely that she turned to drugs to begin with in order to combat these physical and mental conditions of hers - whether prescribed or otherwise. But if that's the case, then when you mix up such a cocktail of stuff for one to take, ending up dependant to at least some of them is not an unlikely end result, leading her to be an addict anyway.

Maybe she's not. But even then, as you said, she NEEDS Valium to calm down. This goes entirely against your prior suggestion of trying to calm her down by other means: clearly it's impossible.

And it's pretty clear we can't go there for the stuff.

She's a lost cause.
>>
No. 115407 ID: d4516a
File 150479124226.jpg - (24.09KB , 600x451 , for your consideration.jpg )
115407

>>115381
>>115404
If this were real world, it'd be kind of a dick move to suggest someone was an addict without any truly damning evidence. But this isn't a real world - it's a story, a narrative, and those contain a few entirely different rules: they can be cleaned up to provide only the interesting and important details, a process called law of conservation of detail.

Julia does drugs. It's one of her most defining character traits. Therefore she's probably an addict. Why? Because it's more interesting, and because it's what we expect of her.

Would it make for a better story if she were an addict, and that Chuck were an addict once and is still dealing with the aftermath of that, and that now we'd have an opportunity to get her out of drugs as well and build a life outside of them? Or that, whoops, she just does drugs out of fun and with no real consequences, and that to Chuck too it was just another detail in his already sordid life? The former clearly makes for a better narrative: if it were the latter, she might as well not do drugs at all.

On the second point: the somewhat unfortunate public view is still that if you do drugs, you're an addict. Only weed has broken out of this stereotype in the recent years, and Julia does way harder stuff than that. She could still not be an addict, but that's where conservation of detail comes in: RML is an experienced and competent author, and knows to cull out pointless and unnecessary details from the story, and in a quest full of other girls and dramatic situations, Julia turning out to not be an addict after all is certainly an unnecessary detail. If it's brought up, it has the potential to be important. But it's not.

Therefore - Julia is an addict by default. It falls to you to prove that she is not, not to us to prove that she is. So far, no such evidence has been given.
>>
No. 115409 ID: ee43ea

>>115408
>a pure assumption
She did drugs when Chuck last saw her. She's doing drugs now. Therefore, it's more likely than not that she was doing drugs in between too. Still a theory rather than a fact, but it's a theory with far more credible foundation than your claim of her being no addict at all.

You keep dodging arguments and projecting your own bias back to me. I see no reason to keep this going either.
>>
No. 115413 ID: d4516a

>>115412
>As you said, the law of conservation of detail says that unimportant things should not be mentioned. And as of yet, it hasn't been revealed whether Julia is an addict or not. This means that, whether she's an addict or not is not yet an important detail.
You're corrent to some extent, but not wrong in a few key details. See, until we're proven one way or the other, it is only natural for us to assume the most likely scenario, which is that she indeed is an addict. The law here applies to not on the question of whether she's an addict or not - but rather on the question of whether her being an addict is false. It's a small but important distinction: we've given a bit of evidence that she is an addict, and absolutely none that she's not, and thus we have to go for the former.

And unlike what you claim, right now her being an addict is in fact an important detail. It will be the deciding factor on whether we can calm her down without getting her Valium, or whether we have to climb down there, very possibly putting ourselves to danger for her sake. I'd rather it were the former, just as much as you, but unfortunately, as I've argued, I don't see this all too likely.

>You want to kill Julia because she's an addict.
I do not want to kill Julia because she's an addict.

I want to leave her here because there's nothing we can do for her, and because bringing her with us would be so much worse off for everybody.

All our interactions with her have made it clear that she can't be argued with, bargained with, reasoned with, or convinced to do anything that doesn't fit her own narrow worldview. Every time we've tried, she's flipped it around to make unreasonable demands - we need to get cops to protect her, we need to try this drug first, we need to get her Valium... the list goes on. Even if we could calm her down without the drug and somehow convince (or more likely trick) her to come along, she'd be dead weight - hell, she'd be worse than that, because not only would she be unwilling to help us, but she'd also demand us to expend resources to help her out, and very likely at least try to shoot someone she shouldn't.

We didn't even come here for her, and all we've gotten from her so far is trouble: she's wasted our time, she's made getting Rachel out significantly more tricky, she's stolen medicine and nearly got Ellen killed, and now she wants us to risk our life again for her sake. This is not going to magically change if we bring her along.

It's a sad truth, but not all of them can be saved.
>>
No. 115415 ID: ec5ca0

>>115412
The problem there is that you're also assuming a few things that aren't necessarily true:

1: "it hasn't been revealed whether Julia is an addict or not."

It has not, no, but one can generally utilize context clues to figure out if someone is an addict or not. Her stated and shown twitchiness, and generally overactive behaviors COULD be either signs of addiction, as they ARE noted side effects of such (rarer, but absolutely still possible) OR they could simply be incredulous nerves. Personally, I'm not confident which it could be, but I personally tend to lean towards law of conservation of detail myself- if it wasn't important in some way, it wouldn't be noted. The simplest logic, following, is that she's an addict in need of her fix. It's not a leap of logic, considering the medium and common writing techniques within that medium.

What's more, if I'm being brutally honest, neither of you have done that fantastic of a job making a logical argument about your points. Reason being such: you both seem to be heavily using emotional arguments as opposed to logical ones; that said, >>115407 at the very least tries to make a string of logic using certifiable opinions- that is to say, something that is an opinion due to lack of proof, but has to capacity to be verified absolutely via a third party. You on the other hand are strictly using emotional arguments without any particular factual proofs. While he is answering possible 'why is she', you're not really answering 'why not' aside from 'because she isn't'. which leads into problem 2 I have with your rebuttal.

2: "You want to kill Julia because she's an addict." That, by no large stretch of the imagination, can be called factually incorrect.

It's been stated repeatedly by multiple individuals that the reason that most want to be rid of Julia is because she's proving an active obstacle to the safety and security of known (to the players, not Chuck) friends. It has nothing directly to do with her being an addict whatsoever, simply judging by what a large number of people have been saying about the current issues with her. Her being a potential addict is simply another reason thrown onto the pile. By and large the reason nobody wants anything to do with her is because she's causing Chuck to regress in his development and withholding vital life-saving medication for people who we've had the entire quest to come to know and care about. Her potentially being an addict is being used an an enhance and a proof of why it makes logical sense to ditch her; but by no means is it the cornerstone of the reasoning, and it never has been.

That said, it is a difficult thing since you have openly admitted that in large part you're fighting this so hard simply due to wanting sex as your highest priority opposed to particularly caring about story flow or logical progression. Not saying that you DON'T, but by your own statements they come in second in terms of priority.
>>
No. 115432 ID: 9dc26d

Quick, someone roll for consent!
>>
No. 115526 ID: 91ee5f

>>115525
>I don't understand why people are so afraid to face the Reverend.
Chuck and Rita are injured, Rachel is drugged, and Julia looks like she's going to run before she even thinks about fighting!

>We were able to defeat an armed Reverend 2v1 before.
That's because Susanna was with us and she's been fighting these things way longer than Chuck has even been in town!

>The last time we tried to run from a Reverend we ended up with holes in our back
That's because the Reverend only had to run in a straight line and we weren't very far away from it. Now we've actually got some distance between us.

>This time we're 4 people, drugged and with wounds, tripping over each other. Successful escape seems extremely implausible.
Fighting in that same condition seems like we'd have even worse chances of success and you answered your own question on why we're afraid of fighting.

>Why are people voting to repeat the same mistake?
We wouldn't be in this situation if people weren't trying to fuck Julia earlier! We would've already been halfway to the Plath House by now!

Besides, we not even know that it's a Reverend yet. All we know is that something made a noise downstairs. And let's not forget that Susanna said the Reverends' minimum respawn time is at least a few hours and, unless we've been standing around in the warehouse for a few hours, I don't think any of the Reverends have come back yet.

The only other person it might be is Susanna and she just stumbled in here because she's still injured.

Or it might even be Harold Pal in one of those big "I'm the real bad guy" reveal moments?
>>
No. 115527 ID: d4516a

>>115524
She honestly doesn't seem that calm to me, but I'm at least willing to give her the benefit of the doubt for now.
>>
No. 115528 ID: 3cc68c

>>115524
>she's just really afraid of going to jail
She's guilty of theft, two counts of poisoning (one of them constant and repeated, by what she says), all manner of indirect trouble, and obstruction under a dangerous situation.

Even if she's not an addict, she will go to jail by the end of the night.
>>
No. 115529 ID: 91ee5f

>>115528
She's more likely gonna be placed under house arrest, since the jail currently isn't being magically protected from the Reverends.
>>
No. 115530 ID: 3cc68c

>>115529
Fair enough, but still - she's way too much trouble to allow her to run around freely.
>>
No. 115534 ID: eda93a

None of the arguments against pushing or immobilizing Julia hold up in the slightest. At first she was useless to us, and now she suddenly has one use to us. Now you want to neglect that single utility she provides because?
>>
No. 115535 ID: 9b8c8d

>>115534
She can carry stuff and provides one more body to throw at the reverends. It's good enough.
>>
No. 115536 ID: 3cc68c

>>115534
I don't like Julia any more than you do, but I'd like to think of Chuck as a better person than to casually murder someone for a minor benefit. And even if he weren't, he needs to keep up appearances in here and wouldn't want to upset Rita with that kind of a move. Rita's a good girl.
>>
No. 115537 ID: be0718

>>115534
This quest is for casual sex, not casual murder. Also you're completely disregarding Chuck's pre-existing relationship with her, which is rude to Chuck.
>>
No. 115538 ID: 91ee5f

>>115532
>[Are you sure this isn't just your imagination?]
I said might be Susanna, I never said it is Susanna, there's a difference.

Besides, I'm just doing the same thing everyone else was doing when they said "Julia is a drug addict!" (which she's not), I'm just wildly guessing because I don't know what the fuck is going on anymore than anyone else and RML can randomly throw something/someone brand new at us again!
>>
No. 115541 ID: 0a7611

Could you fine ladies and gentlemen please(edited) stop suggesting we kill the rabbit
>>
No. 115544 ID: 36de2e

>>115541
This. RML already told you guys not to punch her, and it's not going to happen.
>>
No. 115553 ID: c2051e

>>115547
By itself, nothing.
>>
No. 115571 ID: f30433

>>115547
Could be dynamic IPs?

Also Julia has African Warlord tier connections if she got the Brown-Browns there.
>>
No. 115573 ID: 91ee5f

>>115571
>Also Julia has African Warlord tier connections if she got the Brown-Browns there.
I don't see how her getting diarrhea in Africa has anything to do with the situation right now.
>>
No. 115576 ID: f30433

>>115573
Nah, I'm referring to the drug that's made popular in Lord of War. Cocaine mixed with gunpowder. Look it up.
>>
No. 115582 ID: 91ee5f

>>115576
Ah, I see.

Sorry, I've only ever heard of diarrhea being referred to as Brown-Browns.
>>
No. 115607 ID: c31aac

>>115541
I'm glad my post has been edited this way, strong approval (edited)

(I kid)
>>
No. 115667 ID: 6509bf

I miss the link to wiki in the OP.
>>
No. 115723 ID: 8c9034

Guys.
This isn't a warehouse.
This is a distillery.
We need to realize this fact and find a way to utilize it because RML has highlighted this info MULTIPLE TIMES through clues.
>>
No. 115724 ID: be0718

>>115723
That was obvious from the illegal substances dealer and the large machinery, but how will brewing equipment stored in a warehouse help us evade the reverends?
>>
No. 115725 ID: 8c9034

>>115724
I'm not completely sure that I've clearly articulated this- they're not being stored. They're fundamentally part of the design of the building, which means there's supporting machinery and equipment.
I don't know what era this distillery is from, if it's functional, if it's powered, etc.
Copper Pots means we're in a bourbon distillery. We could get access to a lot of steam, if it's got a stirring mech or a reverend-sized sealable container we have temporary holding for one of the encroaching nightmares.
Long-run, we have a potential beacon of sin if we need a location to try and draw the reverends to later.
>>
No. 115763 ID: 3ce125

The best thing we can do with a bourbon distillery is to make bourbon in it. Long term plans, guys.
>>
No. 115767 ID: 8d7c2b

>>115763
But guys, what if we turn it into a reveyee distillery?
>>
No. 115768 ID: 3ce125

>>115767
Good idea! Let's do both.
>>
No. 115773 ID: 2b3198
File 150572640507.png - (160.40KB , 500x500 , bourbon.png )
115773

> >>115725 >Copper Pots means we're in a bourbon distillery
What if I told you that it's a gin distillery?

> >>/questarch/745268 >a bottle of gin
> >>/questarch/750261 >the Plaths used to have a gin distillery.
>>
No. 115777 ID: 8d4593

>Gin-Distillery
Gin is just malt liquor with Juniper Tea added, or Pure Ethanol diluted with water and juniper flavor.

It's the perfect alcohol to make if you have a chemistry set-up, but no fancy crops or brewing expertise. Given Nelson Plath's mention of experiments, large collection of bizarre recipes, and the weird chemicals found here, I'd have to say that this is no brewry, but rather an industrial scale laboratory.

We should come back here later with Ramona, Susana, Sophie, and Davie, to figure out what it's all supposed to do. Gin is easy to produce and was likely a secondary product of this place.
>>
No. 115782 ID: c2051e

>>115777
>Gin is just malt liquor with Juniper Tea added, or Pure Ethanol diluted with water and juniper flavor.
You are a disgusting person.
>>
No. 115784 ID: b9b4da

>>115777
This place is definitely tied to the endgame of Coxwette, with both the catacombs and alchemical implements, but we need to build up our Social Links way more before we can build a team to tackle the final mysteries of Coxwette. And by social links, I mean sleeping around.
>>
No. 115793 ID: 6dda1b
File 150576767308.png - (112.49KB , 313x403 , hmmmm.png )
115793

>>115190
>I do this entirely for fun

>>115287
>A majority of the quest, a large majority, has been me writing things I do not want to write
>>
No. 115797 ID: eda54c

>>115793
good observation!
>>
No. 115800 ID: 9b8c8d

>>115793
Presumably the small minority would well make up for the rest.
>>
No. 115801 ID: 2b3198

>>115793
I don't get what that image was supposed to represent. And those quotes are taken out of context.
The quotes do not contradict each other. As RML stated, she does the quest for fun, and writing things she doesn't want to write does not mean she isn't having fun. It simply means things often take a turn outside of how she envisioned them.
>>
No. 115837 ID: 9876c4

>>115801
I'm not really sure what he was going for, either.
>>
No. 115838 ID: 91ee5f

>>115837
You have no idea how happy I am to hear you say that!

I honestly thought I was the only one that didn't get it!
>>
No. 115847 ID: 9dc26d

"Tell your brother he's alright," is such a Chuck moment.
>>
No. 115856 ID: 2fe26a

>>115847
Hopefully not his last.
>>
No. 115860 ID: d4516a

>>831549
>seduce
Yeah, that's a great idea. Let's give the reverends a beacon to home on to right now.
>>
No. 115864 ID: d4516a

>>115862
Whatever gets us back to Plath house ASAP.
>>
No. 115865 ID: c8d2b2

>>/quest/826067
>>/quest/831533
These stories don't fully line up. Maybe she's just leaving out some events between the stalled car and Coxwette in the second story, or maybe she's making these stories up as she goes? Or maybe I'm just over-analyzing a trivial continuity error
>>
No. 115870 ID: be0718

>>115864
There's nothing more we can do to speed our return up on our front without abandoning Julia (unfortunate to some) or Rachel (unfortunately also unfortunate to some).
>>
No. 115875 ID: 9a0e80

Congrats to RML for hitting the feels button with the marriage allusions. I'd like to point out both a) we may have a Chuck Jr. on the way via Sally and b)Since the townsfolk are all conjured beings essentially, Julia is conceivably the only 'real' girl for us to end up with
>>
No. 115876 ID: be0718

>>115875
They're real people too, they're just under the town's spell. If they count as conjurations, Julia does too. And Chuck.
If Sally was born in this town after the events of its creation, maybe the Plaths are the only "real people" in this town.
>>
No. 115882 ID: bb7981

>>115875
>>115876
My theory is that Coxwette is some sort of soul trap. Anyone who died with regret (or lingering baggage) near the town gets to live in the town, forever.
Which means that everyone is either dead, or in some kind of time stasis. When Coxwette's spell is broken, they either continue the rest of their lives in this new time, or age/crumble to dust.
>>
No. 115891 ID: 9b8c8d

>>115875
How could we have a Chuck Jr on the way if none of the other people here are real?

I think they're no less real than Chuck or Julia are. Whether that means Chuck and Julia themselves are real or not, or just spirits, is another question.
>>
No. 115921 ID: 8c9034
File 150596910883.png - (43.55KB , 500x500 , 150542338807.png )
115921

>>115773
Did some sifting, Gin distilleries don't have the big copper pot stills you see in this pic. The whole thing is semantics at this point, though. All other things aside, this is definitely a reason to come back later.
>>
No. 115930 ID: 8e802d
File 150602141467.jpg - (121.78KB , 589x589 , cotswold-distillery_src_1.jpg )
115930

>>115921
Many gin distilleries, particularly those of industrial scale, do have large copper pot stills identical to those found in whiskey and rum distilleries. Pot stills and distillation columns can both be seen standing in the warehouse. Fractional distillation works much the same way regardless of the mash used.

Aside from that, Nelson Plath has been shown with a propensity for making tinctures and infusions using various herbs, and had a large stockpile of juniper gin in his house. A whiskey distillery would not make much sense.
>>
No. 115936 ID: be0718

Dude with the proxy, it's really obvious you're trying to vote brigade Julia. Nobody's buying it.
>>
No. 115937 ID: c31aac

>>115936
What he said. Stop being a chode.
>>
No. 115938 ID: 395c02

>>115937
....

I'll allow it.

NO MERCY FOR CHEATERS.
>>
No. 115962 ID: 32d29a

I say we leave the bun. Will save us a lot of headache down the line both in story and in these threads.
>>
No. 115964 ID: 722d1f

>>115962
Not happening. I'm not at all a fan of her either, but I think it's time to face facts. We're stuck with her.
>>
No. 115971 ID: 9b8c8d

>>115964
Provided she doesn't leave on her own, which I think is still a possibility. She's itchy and paranoid like that.
>>
No. 115977 ID: 32d29a

Shes stolen from the hospital. Nearly killed a character with drugs. Will be a constant source of stress against the police and drugged Rachael on a daily basis. Even if you like her or want her to be about in story, there is really no good outcome possible for bringing her to the house. People tend to not like those who cause multiple problems for family and friends. The long argument we're all having shows this and we're not even directly effected.

Imagine for instance what would happen if Davey heard she nearly killed Ellen. The only reason she wasn't beaten by Chuck is because RML pulled the author card on the overwhelming suggestion that he do so. Would anyone stop him from doing the same thing to her?
>>
No. 115978 ID: 91ee5f

>>115976
>considering she's got a car, she might play a critical part in getting out of this town.
She already said that it ran out of gas. And we've been everywhere in town and haven't seen a single gas station or another vehicle to siphon gas from, so that car isn't going anywhere.

That car is stuck here with the rest of us.
>>
No. 115985 ID: 3ce125

>>115977
>there is really no good outcome possible for bringing her to the house
What about, you know, her survival? She's not a monster.
>>
No. 115988 ID: 32d29a

Julia lasted this long on her own in a world full of monsters. Id rather take that chance of losing her than bring her to the house and bring even more trouble to those who have taken us in. Needs of the many over the of the needs of the few. In this case the few being an unstable Rabbit.
>>
No. 115989 ID: 13bcc9

She's a bad addition to the story, and a danger to the residents. Ellen would be dead if we hadn't found her and taken her to the hospital. Nothing is stopping her from trying to kill again in the Plath House.
>>
No. 115991 ID: be0718

>>115989
>trying to kill
There's a difference between murder and manslaughter.
>>
No. 115992 ID: 3ce125

>>115989
>hospital
Sophie wasn't able to actually do anything for her, due to the missing drugs. Ellen recovered on her own. We could have left her collapsed in the shop and she would have been fine. Turns out Julia was right about "ket" not being super dangerous.

also that is a SICK proxy bro
>>
No. 116005 ID: ec5ca0

>>115992
True, however the simple fact that she was willing to do it in the first place doesn't sit well with me.
>>
No. 116008 ID: ee43ea

It's entirely possible, likely even, that Ellen would've survived even without our interference. I don't know enough about drugs to say anything one way or the other. But it's pretty clear to me that it's all semantics: if she'd died, or been in a legitimate threat of dying, it doesn't look like Julia would've reacted any worse to the news. She's also no chemist or anything, by the looks of things: if she could've made a safe dose, then Ellen wouldn't have even gotten sick. And where we've been trying to cheer Ellen up and give her life a bit more fulfillment, Julia just tossed her potentially dangerous drugs and called it a day.

But I'm far more concerned of Rachel. Julia's been seeing Rachel for days - maybe even weeks now. Through her, she's had a perfect chance to make friends and integrate into the society of Coxwette. But has she? Nope, she's just been drugging the poor girl, just about every day. By all evidence it hasn't even occurred to her to do anything else: if it had, it would've been easy for her to go for it.

And then of course there's the case of Ramona, who is in a far clearer danger than either of these other girls, and who really needs Julia's drugs.

>b-but none of them is in danger of death therefore she's innocent!
She stole the ONLY DRUGS OF THE ONLY CLINIC IN TOWN. There's no way she wouldn't have thought that this action might have some consequences. There's no way she cares. Something far worse might happen, and she still wouldn't care.

Whenever there's a problem in Julia's life, drugs are the problem: drug a girl to cheer her up, drug another girl to prevent her from snitching, then drug herself to have fun and to find some fulfillment in her sad, empty life, because she just can't go out there to make friends and actually learn what she's ended up in.

I'm not saying it's impossible to change any of this, that she couldn't still come to Plath house and become a productive member of society. I'm just saying that she has a lot of sins on her back already, that it'll be an uphill climb, and that it's our moral responsibility to tell the others what she's been up to and let them decide what to do with her. If Ramona, Rachel, AND Ellen are all willing to accept Julia's sincere apologies - hell, if she's willing to apologise to begin with - I have no problem with her coming in and helping us out. But that's a big if.

Above all, naileD, please stop trying to shag the bunny. It's clouding your judgement and absolutely never going to happen.
>>
No. 116009 ID: 100607

> >>115978 >that car isn't going anywhere
Oh, but it is. You just need to use some imagination!
Did you know that cars can run on alcohol?
>>
No. 116010 ID: d4516a

>>116007
I don't know about all these new proxies - I've seen evidence that they're not permanent and keep changing - but I've been in this quest from the start and I was all for punching Julia.
>>
No. 116011 ID: ee43ea

>>116009
>alcohol
Alcohol that we're on low supply on and that Ramona needs to survive.

You would kill dogmom just to get in bed with this sociopathic rabbit? [this is going all too far.]
>>
No. 116012 ID: 100607

>>116011
[Why are you implying that we take the stuff Davey brought to Ramona?]
I wasn't implying that the alcohol is obtained from Davey. I don't think his cider has high enough alcohol content to begin with.
The only thing that crossed my mind was the possibility of using the distillery in the warehouse to produce it. It's a long-term plan.
>>
No. 116014 ID: ee43ea

>>116012
>It's a long-term plan.
A long-term plan with highly dubious odds. It's true that some alcohol can be used as fuel, but it's not used for that for a good reason - because actual fuel is better.

And even assuming it got us out of town, to another settlement, also assuming that Susanna was wrong/lying and that we're not actually trapped here, what would we gain of it? We would lose many friends we've made, a new life we've been trying to build to ourselves, and return to being losers with Julia. We would turn this entire quest into a null - no one learned shit, no one was helped out, and none of it might as well have ever happened.

[Your desire to pork Julia might be impairing your judgement.] You're trying to get us to go completely off the rails and abandon the entire premise of the quest just to be with her. You're disregarding what little character development Chuck's had to get him right back to the childish loser he used to be. And, like many people in abusive relationships, you're downplaying or ignoring her character flaws, and insisting to stick with her when everyone involved - including herself - would be so much better off if we stayed here.

You don't seem to have any real interest in following this quest through. You're just being disruptive and trying to force your own desires into it [snip]. This argument has already killed one discussion thread. So I'm saying this as nicely as I possibly can: maybe you should just let the whole quest be. You're not going to get what you want out of it, and at worst will just make it worse for the rest of us.
>>
No. 116015 ID: 32d29a

I'm not some proxy or a cheater. Hell I don't even know how to do the little link to other statements, that's how bad I am at computering.
I'm giving my thoughts on the quest, no need to get salty and declare me some sort of super hacker because you don't like my stance.
>>
No. 116016 ID: 395c02

I'm unallowing it. If you detect shenanigans going on with the voting, report it on the site or in irc. The quest itself isn't in Slinko Martial Law (for now), so any mod can act on these reports.

Don't call anyone out for cheating, even if you're 99.9% sure they're doing it. Let us handle it.
>>
No. 116017 ID: 3cc68c

I lurk the quest most of the time - I like the story but rarely find myself invested enough towards one path, or against another, to actually start voting and making arguments.

Julia is one of the few exceptions: ever since she was introduced I've been pretty bent on not letting the quest go down a route I don't like. I wouldn't find it too unlikely that she's activated a great deal of other lurkers as well. Just because a lot of people disagree with you doesn't mean there are proxies at play.
>>
No. 116018 ID: 36de2e

At this point it might just be better to limit the choices again and keep people on track until they're done throwing a tantrum over a character they don't like. The exact same points from last thread are coming up again and the sudden other things arising with it aren't doing anyone any favors. Everyone already got warned when the last discussion thread was replaced, it'd be better to move on and leave that shit there.
>>
No. 116019 ID: ec5ca0

>>116018
Although in general I agree with the idea, I feel as though this is one of those situations that won't just up and pass, simply because I feel like this is an issue that people feel affects the quest on a baseline level. So many people seem to dislike her- presuming they aren't proxies, I know I'm not one- on a core level that like one person said, it's causing people to crawl out of the woodwork simply to oppose her presence because she seems to be proving just that disruptive.

It's my estimation that until she proves to objectively be a net-positive on the story, or is removed from the story entirely by hook or crook, things will eventually cycle back around like they have now. She's becoming something of a force of nature in regards to discussion.
>>
No. 116020 ID: 3cc68c

>>116018
Our choices in the quest itself are limited enough as it is - seducing the rabbit is no longer an option, and there's no way we can actually flee the place with a car either. The most we can do is to talk to her, I guess, either convince her to be a better person or accidentally offend her enough to go away.
>>
No. 116024 ID: ee43ea

>>116023
>I'm not going to argue with you.
Really? But you did argue with me, over here: >>116012

I think you're just trying to use this way out because I'm saying something you don't like and can't deny. It isn't going to work. The only way I will stop arguing with you is if you will stop disrupting a quest that I like.
>>
No. 116027 ID: 91ee5f

>>116023
>>116024
Or both of you can take it over to the Big Dumb Arguments thread! That's what it was made for!
>>
No. 116029 ID: 36de2e

>>116020
What I mean is, make the choices we have more clear and less open to people going "okay now let's fuck over this character I personally dislike". Like, an ABC choice. It cuts off a lot of the arguing in the main thread and makes what can actually be done more clear. We had to do it last time this happened and during a chaotic event like this where this kind of suggestion in-fighting is really detrimental. Leave the more open suggestions to after we're not being chased by zombies and have free time again.
>>
No. 116030 ID: 36de2e

>>116029
Also, on the opposite side and for the same reason, it cuts out the "okay now we fuck the bunny" option too. It's another thing that can wait until we're out of the story section.
>>
No. 116033 ID: 9dc26d

>>116024
>>116023

Community college debate classes for the both of you.
>>
No. 116093 ID: d4516a

>>832967
There's no proof of anything.
There's no proof that Julia knew her drugs well enough to intentionally pick something non-lethal for Ellen.
There's no proof that Julia cared about the effects of the drug, or how lethal it would be.

The only thing we know is what happened: Julia gave a drug to Ellen, Ellen got sick, and Ellen probably couldn't have been actually killed by it. The rest is conjecture.

However, I find it pretty disturbing that you would be so quick to dismiss very real discomfort and pain just because it couldn't possibly get really bad. Julia still gave Ellen a horribly backfiring way to deal with her depression and sadness, something that only made things worse for her. Just because it couldn't cause her permanent physical damage doesn't mean it wasn't a terrible thing to do.
>"I beat her up, but I didn't break bones or kill her! So it's okay! I'm innocent!"
>>
No. 116094 ID: 4854ef

>>116093
She knew it was ket and that she wouldn't die, she figured she was just tossing her an upper.

The problem is, you are now basically pushing the angle so that she forced it in her veins personally. That is the major difference between "Beating her up" and handing off some drugs.
>>
No. 116096 ID: d4516a

>>116094
I find it a question of semantics. There's not much of a difference between shooting her up personally, and just leaving the drugs there with a full and perceived intention of being used. She still left them there, figuring Ellen would probably use them, not knowing (or caring) enough of her at all to be able to tell whether it'd be a good thing or not in the long run, and having displayed zero signs of guilt over what she did even when she heard what actually happened.

If I'm pushing the angle that Julia is some kind of a violent sociopath, then you in turn are pushing the angle that it's Ellen who is the guilty one in this scenario. Ellen is less than mentally stable, and more than likely didn't even know what she was taking (there's no evidence of Julia telling her more than "It'll cheer you up"). The only thing she did wrong was to put trust to a stranger. Julia is who gave her the gun to shoot herself with, so to speak - I'm no lawyer but she's a collaborator at the very least.

If there's a problem in life, Julia's go-to answer seems to be "Use drugs!". This is unhealthy and self-destructive, even in the case of lighter nonlethal stuff - and she's all too willing to push this mindset to other people as well. It's got more than one person hurt so far, and it's only going to go worse unless she's called out on it.
>>
No. 116099 ID: 3ce125

>>116093
She said herself that you have to take a lot of ket to die from it, and she did not give her "a lot". It is a very easy conclusion to make that she thought it was safe. That doesn't make it right, but accusing her of attempted murder, or even negligence tantamount to attempted murder, is ridiculous and has been essentially disproven.

So quit defending the obvious troll using a proxy. 7b0078 has no other posts.
>>
No. 116100 ID: d4516a

>>116099
I'm not accusing her of that. I'm just saying the rest of you don't seem to much care that Ellen was hurt anyway.
>>
No. 116101 ID: 3ce125

>>116100
>or how lethal it would be.
Yes you are.
>>
No. 116102 ID: 3ce125

Can I petition that Coxwette not have a discussion thread at all, and discussion in the quest thread itself be banned?

The fanbase obviously cannot be trusted.
>>
No. 116103 ID: 4854ef

>>116100
I care, but you are making it seem like Julia (and in your attempted methods) are trying to state that she outright attempted murder on her person.

I don't even like her and I'm just trying to push off this weird idea.
>>
No. 116107 ID: 681713

The fact that she was willing to give someone drugs so casually sours me a lot on the character, personally. I certainly wouldn't call Ellen the guilty party in such a situation whether the drugs were meant to be lethal or not. Julia has shown no particular remorse or any particular attempted understanding, and I still can't think of her as anything but a liability.
>>
No. 116108 ID: d4516a

>>116103
I don't need to accuse her of outright murder: she's reprehensible enough in my eyes as it is.

Are you still thinking I'm that other guy's proxy? I mean I guess there's no way to prove you wrong, but... I'm not him.
>>
No. 116109 ID: 4854ef

>>116108
I think you may have me confused with someone else, I haven't called anyone a proxy?

It's just yeah I do agree that so far she hasn't made a good standing of herself to.. Anyone really.
>>
No. 116110 ID: 3cc68c

>>116107
Not just Ellen - let's not forget Rachel either.

Julia has had every chance to integrate herself into the townsfolk and to make friends. Even discounting the fact that she didn't immediately go in like Chuck did, instead hiding into a warehouse, she's been actively drugging the one other person coming in, just about every day, instead of trying to talk to them. She's shown no remorse to that either, nor any attempt at trying to do anything else.

Sure, she's no murderer (that we know of), but in a tiny village like this, where everyone knows one another, and also where a bunch of puritan ghosts are threatening the lot of them, there's just no room for someone that goes to such extremes to not become a productive member of the community. Hell, going by how she accuses Chuck of "going straight," she seems outright proud of her independence and cuntery. She's inevitably going to be trouble - at the very least by forcing someone to keep an eye on her at all times, even when people would be needed elsewhere.
>>
No. 116111 ID: 9dc26d

>>116102
Speaking as part of that fanbase, [I don't know how to have an adult conversation.]
>>
No. 116112 ID: 9dc26d

>>116111
Like, in terms of [reading and following basic rules].
>>
No. 116113 ID: 3cc68c

>>116111
If a work of fiction has a sufficiently large and enthusiastic group of followers that you could call them a "fanbase," then [they think it's fine to use juvenile insulting terms in a thread already on very thin ice.]

Happens every time.
>>
No. 116132 ID: 8e802d

Advice to readers currently debating about the girls of Coxwette.

https://youtu.be/3sH95YrJKEI
>>
No. 116136 ID: ec5ca0

>>116132
I mean, to be brutally honest, they aren't debating the girls in terms of who's better or not, they're specifically debating Julie's character (as in integrity and moral standing relative to other individuals, not her design as a created fictional being) and whether it's too much to risk her continued presence around others whom we've grown to care about and don't wish harm to.

A bit more nuanced than a simple 'My waifu is better' fight like the video implies.
>>
No. 116137 ID: 9876c4
File 150649162914.png - (61.42KB , 783x529 , VisualAIDS.png )
116137

>>116136
Eh, that's basically all I'm doing. I've even made visual aids.
As in real life, morality is best utilized by those not assembling
a rodent pile.

>>116111
Preach it, Mr. Trips
>>
No. 116142 ID: 395c02

>>116102
We're fast approaching that point.
>>
No. 116144 ID: d4516a

>>116137
Rachel needs to be higher on the list.
>>
No. 116145 ID: 78717d

>>116111
>>116112
>>116113
Just put us out of our misery. We've clearly proven we don't deserve this thread.
>>
No. 116149 ID: 9876c4

>>116144
She's on it twice, at least.
>>
No. 116150 ID: d4516a

>>116149
One with a pseudopenis and one without. The former can stay where it is but the latter needs to be in top tier.

Rachel is the best girl.
>>
No. 116151 ID: 9876c4

>>116150
with the revelation that Ellen is Equusexual, some upward mobility is possible.

But then I'd have to make a list with Julia, and people would freak on me.
>>
No. 116153 ID: ee43ea

>>116151
[Most people probably wouldn't argue with Julia being at the bottom of that list.]
>>
No. 116156 ID: 32d29a

I feel like Marcie and Ellen are ones we shouldn't try being all lewd at.
The deer has a thing for Davey and we shouldn't mess that up. Marcie was special and the Reverends took that from us.
Also we should see if Ghost blow jobs are still on the table...
>>
No. 116157 ID: 395c02

[The slightly nerfed penultimate straw has been reached.]

Bans are now back on the table. If you break the rules consistently, or act particularly egregious, you will be banned from /dis/ for 2 days. If you have a random IP for one reason or another, I'll still be putting words in your mouth. And those words might start to lose accuracy if you push me.

Disagree with the things people are saying. Don't go after the person saying them. Don't bait them, and don't imply that they are somehow mentally deficient.


If you feel that an argument is not going anywhere, it might be time to agree to disagree, and let your votes do the talking. If you REALLY want to tell them how dumb they are, we have a place for that: https://tgchan.org/kusaba/meep/res/28651.html

That thread is not heavily moderated. Go nuts. Don't do it here.

>>
No. 116175 ID: c31aac

In light of the latest ruling I have one thing to say that might help bring down the level of salt that seems to have been plaguing this dis-thread:

maybe we should try to tone down the waifu war. It went from being a gag to a real-ass fight, and I think that was when we started getting truly asinine towards each other.

Like, discussion of characters is a great idea, but people seem to be fixated on the idea of this as a zero-sum game. Rather than fight over who chuck gets to bang, why not work together like ye olden days and try to bang everyone once we're out of the dangerzone.

Or perhaps even better, draw art or write fan stories of our preferred waifu getting it in whichever orifice is preferred.

There's a lot more potential in being proactive about this stuff I think, and in the interest of reducing salt and following up on that I'm already working on a cutesy romance thing with chuck and marcy.

Let's try and cut this shit down and stop making the quest unfun for everyone, aye?
>>
No. 116176 ID: d4516a

>>116175
>maybe we should try to tone down the waifu war.
What waifu war?

I honestly can't recall seeing any legitimate vitriol on the subject of whom to fuck or whom not to. At most we've got people who prefer one girl over another, but in the end it's all quite polite and we've for the most part gone with the flow and banged whoever presented themselves.

We've got far more important and flammable subject matters to argue about.
>>
No. 116177 ID: c31aac

>>116176
I suppose. It feels like a lot of people were mad in the past over it though, naz being a good example of a weirdly controversial girl.

Personally I just want to see a threesome between naz and marcie go through, that'd be rad wouldn't it
>>
No. 116178 ID: d4516a

>>116177
If there were any such arguments, then they were probably done with years ago - I don't recall them at all and honestly find it odd in retrospect that Naz would be such a divisive character.
>>
No. 116194 ID: 32d29a

Never understood the warring of whose better then who in this. Then again when I made my list it went...everyone is top. Cept demons. So I guess I can't talk.
>>
No. 116195 ID: 3cc68c

>>116194
My list is basically:
>God tier: every girl except Julia
>Shit tier: Julia
>>
No. 116201 ID: 444eb4

Well everyone in town is now in the Plath House sooooo orgy?
I'm joking by the way.
I'm not joking.
>>
No. 116202 ID: be0718

>>116201
Yeah, it's about time the "long game" got around to the lewds.
>>
No. 116203 ID: 91ee5f

>>116202
Suddenly Chuck wakes up in a pile of the only men in town and he's wondering, "How the fuck this happen?!" XD
>>
No. 116213 ID: 9b8c8d

>>116201
I'd be cool with just a girl or two. We'll see who's available and willing.
>>
No. 116221 ID: 395c02

So after talking with RML and others, I've realized that this isn't the right way to be handling this thread. I got so caught up in the idea of 'fixing' things that I forgot what my actual goal was: solving an issue between moderators.

With that in mind, I'm pulling out.

...Yes, yes, that's what he said.


This thread will still have unique rules, but the rules are now this:

Barring anything illegal or truly and completely egregious, this thread is no longer going to be moderated. No mod other than me can touch it, and I'm not going to touch it anymore.

You don't have to use the BDA thread anymore. Have fun!
>>
No. 116223 ID: 9876c4

>>116221
>Barring anything illegal or truly and completely egregious
We haven't let you down yet, give us a day or so to find something in excess of those parameters.

>>116177
Should obviously be Naz and Penny, you poltroon. :3
>>
No. 116224 ID: 3cc68c

>>116222
Since you are just about the only one here defending her, and you claim you haven't stopped doing so, what are your thoughts on the subject matters brought up in >>116093 >>116107 or >>116110 ?
>>
No. 116225 ID: 0fa45f

>>116222
A character whose sole purpose is to bait hate from the readers is almost assuredly a terrible character. She will distract from the more important matters of the plot, and detract from everyone's enjoyment for the story, and in general bring the whole thing down without adding anything of true value herself. This is especially true if she gets away with it all scot-free, something that looks to be unfortunately likely in this particular story right now, what with the blatant favoritism RML is showing towards Julia.

It looks to me like you've completely given up in making her look like anything remotely likeable, and are now just trying to bath in the "salt" of the other readers. This makes you look even more obnoxious than you used to be. It's like you already lost all arguments and now you're just trolling.

You should leave the quest.
>>
No. 116229 ID: 2474dd

>She will distract from the more important matters of the plot, and detract from everyone's enjoyment for the story, and in general bring the whole thing down without adding anything of true value herself. This is especially true if she gets away with it all scot-free, something that looks to be unfortunately likely in this particular story right now, what with the blatant favoritism RML is showing towards Julia.

She's part of Chuck's past. Apparently she's still fond of him. RML's not showing any favoritism towards ANY of the characters.

I do not like Julia but I don't think she's a terrible character. There's a distinct difference.

In terms of liability and intelligence, Julia is on par with Sally. The key difference is Sally means well and is polite while Julia is representative of Chuck's selfish past and is rude. Both are ignorant and foolish bordering on stupid, what with Julia's "I'm a crook afraid of being caught but let's give out drugs anyway" and Sally's "Let's apply sudden cold-turkey withdrawal to a long-term alcoholic".

They key difference isn't polite vs. rude, but the fact that Sally is much easier to convince to listen to us than Julia. Up until this point, Julia was a potentially dangerous wild-card.

Now that she's revealed that her gun is as empty as her head and she's basically a panic-prone mess, she's probably going to fall in line relatively easily and that means as a possible threat she's neutralized now. We just need to make sure she keeps her cover story and doesn't blow Chuck's situation and hero-card.
>>
No. 116230 ID: 9b8c8d

>We just need to make sure she keeps her cover story and doesn't blow Chuck's situation and hero-card.

I don't think this is as much of an issue as some people seem to think. All she can tell people is that Chuck was an asshole: they can make up their own mind on whether he still is, and given that he's spent the whole night running around the dark town to save them all, I'm fairly confident they'll still think highly of him.

Julia, meanwhile, is still an asshole, and blurting out stuff about Chuck's past is only going to emphasize this. She'll only shoot herself in the foot by blabbing about too much.
>>
No. 116234 ID: 2474dd

>>116230
>Julia, meanwhile, is still an asshole, and blurting out stuff about Chuck's past is only going to emphasize this. She'll only shoot herself in the foot by blabbing about too much.

Even more of a reason why we needn't waste any more time discussing her, then.
>>
No. 116235 ID: 9b8c8d

>>116234
I actually kind of hope she's going to go ahead and do that. It'll be a riot.
>>
No. 116237 ID: a363ac

quick everyone post about these kittens and Aardvarks!
>>
No. 116238 ID: a363ac

Mods are dead bring forth the kitten flood!
>>
No. 116239 ID: 67b3a8
116239

>>116225
This is what this is about. RML decides to add a pointless character on a whim for some mysterious reason, and it's wrecking this story we have all grown so attached to. It's not too late to remove this pointless character and save the quest from shitting its deathbed. It doesn't have to end on this bad note.
>>
No. 116240 ID: 33b7e7

I worry that at the point this will come up I won't be around, so I'm posting it here now.

If idea of Chuck (or any other particular person) being responsible for the reverends' depradations comes up again, an alternative explanation could be the sealing of the well. Susanna reported hearing screaming from inside the well that no-one else could hear, so there's some sort of supernatural "sound" coming out of it. There have been links between Susanna and the reverends before in terms of abilities (both are semi-immortal, both avoid sunlight, both have supernatural senses of some sort) so it's possible that whatever it was Susanna was hearing had some effect on the reverends as well, and sealing the well blocked it off.

I mean, there were quite a lot of ways to get down there. Are those entrances just for access, or are they supposed to be conduits for the town's power, somehow? The way Susanna has used magic before, it seems to need to be "anchored" somehow. Whatever's on the town needs that too. I think the clipboard needed some sort of rune made from crushed gem, too? If a design is needed as well, the effect on the town might need some sort of big design. It might have been built in underneath everything.
>>
No. 116242 ID: be0718

>>116240
Maybe we could uncap the well and take over as mayor for Susanna so she can retire outside of town, out of screaming range.
>>
No. 116244 ID: 9876c4

Some of these fucking cats are adorable.
>>
No. 116246 ID: c16eff

>>116239
OK, seriously what are you on about? Julia's been in town for ages but Chuck just didn't run into her. She stole Sophie's drugs, she gave some to Ellen and she was even out in the woods that one day. There's been a ton of foreshadowing about her.
>>
No. 116253 ID: 3cc68c

>>116251
>Julia carefully considered which drug to give to Ellen for the best effect. This is why I disagree that her choice of giving drugs to Ellen was in any way spontaneous.
From what we've so far seen of Julia, I'd say "careful consideration" is pretty damn far from her. She probably knew the effects of the drug well enough on top of her head to just give it up, entirely spontaneously in fact.
If she had legitimately considered the idea, which she's so far never done on screen, she probably would've come to the conclusion that maybe she shouldn't try to solve someone's problems with drugs.

>Ellen got to be happy.
She also got to be ill. I wouldn't consider it worth the trade myself: unlike Ellen I'm not clinically depressed, and I feel like I'd know a bit better than her.

>If I give a guy a bottle of alcohol and he gets drunk, should I apologize to him that he got drunk?
Put to context of this particular scenario, you would be enabling someone with a legitimate mental issue and giving them an unhealthy and temporary escape. Yes, you should apologise. Yes, we could blame you for it.

>I could provide several reasons why it's not logical to blame Julia for not working with the locals. Either she was afraid, she doesn't trust unfamiliar people or perhaps she simply didn't think she'd stay here for a longer period of time.
You could provide such reasons, but they'd all be irrelevant anyway. All of these applied to Chuck to an equal amount. He too had every right to be afraid or distrustful, or think he'd not stick around for long, but he didn't let any of that stop him.

>Julia does not have suggesters controlling her.
This is metaknowledge brought forth entirely outside the context of the story. Nothing within the quest itself suggests that we would be anything more than a figment of Chuck's own mind, some manifestation of he himself trying to decide what to do. Within the story itself, we simply do not exist. The entire advantage is nonexistent, and to bring it forth is foolish.

>Julia had no choice but to drug Rachel to be able to stay hidden.
She absolutely did not. Nothing but her own paranoia stopped her from talking with the townsfolk. Again, she had no particular reason not to that wouldn't also have applied to Chuck.

>As proven by the above post, Julia does, in fact, show remorse.
Guilt does not in fact equal remorse. Guilt is just a spontaneous emotion, brought forth by disapproval and meaning nothing on its own. It's something a lot of children do: their parents are angry so they feel guilty, but they don't necessarily think they did anything wrong.
Julia has shown, as said, the slightest hint of guilt. Any remorse - anything that'd suggest she thinks she did something wrong, or is seeking positive change - is yet forthcoming.

>You know, this isn't the first time that Chuck had to do something in the quest. So I don't know why you would consider this a big deal.
We've got so many better things to do. We need to get Susanna to safety, and help her do away with the ghosts permanently. We need to make sure Rita is all right, maybe patch things up with Geoff. And once we've got free time, we have so many women to seduce that A) possess actually appealing personalities that might make it fun for everyone, and B) that we have spent the entire quest to grow to like rather than dislike.
>>
No. 116260 ID: 32d29a

Im not sure being tricked into using drugs counts as being happy.
>>
No. 116268 ID: d4516a

>>116251
>>116253
>>116260
We don't even know much of the circumstances behind that deal. All we know is the consequences of it, and what Julia told us of it: Ellen could use some cheering up, then got sick.

Here's an important question, one that I believe hasn't been brought up at all. Did Julia help out here because she felt genuine sympathy and wanted to do something good? Or did she help because she saw a profitable opportunity and a chance to make some money and a new customer? Did Ellen pay for Julia for the drugs?
>>
No. 116269 ID: 9dc26d

What makes you think Julia wasn't willing to take a loss on the drugs to have a laugh?
>>
No. 116270 ID: d4516a

>>116269
What makes you think she was? You can say a lot of bad things about Julia, but I haven't yet seen any indication that she'd hurt people just for the lulz.
>>
No. 116274 ID: 3ce125

>>116253
>I wouldn't consider it worth the trade myself
Plenty of depressed people turn to drugs or alcohol to escape. They consider the lows/hangovers or occasional bad trip worth the trade, no doubt.
>>
No. 116280 ID: 3cc68c

>>116278
>Would you like me to.. reply? To all of this?
I took the time to reply to a similarly large post of yours. You could return the favor.

>The main reason why Julia stole the drugs in the first place was to get something for Ellen.
This argument is pretty neatly debunked by what you say next:

>A stranger gave you an unknown nose spray and you used it?
They were strangers to one another. They almost certainly hadn't interacted before this point, at least not to any significant degree. Nor do I think Julia would've learned of Ellen's plight in any other way, given how isolated life she lives.

No, given how she's been acting, how she tends to act before thinking ahead, I reckon Julia stole the drugs right away without any particular motivation, then decided to give some up for Ellen on a whim when they first met. It's the one explanation that matches entirely with what we've seen of her and the surroundings so far, without needing to take any other - far more tenuous and unproven - circumstances into account.
>>
No. 116282 ID: ee43ea

>>116278
>I bet everyone here's gonna scream at me the moment they read it.

Gee, I wonder. Is the theory something that would totally prove Julia was a nice person all along, instead of a borderline sociopath that never thinks things through? Even though no canon interaction with her has ever deviated from that particular reality?

Yep, turns out it was. Didn't make me scream, but it did make me facepalm a little.

So tell me - if she was so damn altruistic and immediately happy to help a sad person out, how come she's still hiding? How come she hasn't come out of the warehouse to spread joy and sunshine to the entire village? What, because depression of all things is what gets her to think of other people, get her to immediately and altruistically steal the only drugs in the entire town, potentially causing far more trouble?

>"Whoops, a cancer patient died. But I got to cheer up a sad person so everything's all right! Julia the Gladbunny away!"
>>
No. 116285 ID: 3ce125

Julia stole the drugs because she was a drug addict and needed a fix. There was no other way for her to get drugs out here.

It's that simple.
>>
No. 116287 ID: ee43ea

>>116285
B-but that would mean she was a bad person...
>>
No. 116289 ID: 477391

So she's a psychopathic moron? Good to know.
>>
No. 116296 ID: 9dc26d

>>116270
She was combative and insulting to a total stranger (Rita), lumping her in with "the rest of those hicks." That's a good indicator that she's out looking for that quick emotional high that comes from belittling and undermining the people she thinks are her inferiors.
>>
No. 116299 ID: d4516a

On a more urgent note, I hope Susanna can indeed get to the Plath House without a fuss. The fact that Chuck didn't once bring it up, despite suggestions, gives me some hope of this being the case - if it isn't, I guess we can attribute it to fatigue and blood loss, and hopefully they'll get it cleared up while we sleep anyhow.
>>
No. 116302 ID: 32d29a

Is naild the only one who likes the bun or are the other pro Julia people just quiet?
>>
No. 116303 ID: ec5ca0

>>116302
There's like two or three others, he's just the most vocal.
>>
No. 116304 ID: 9876c4

>>116302
I am pro Julia in the sense that I'm glad she exists, is an interactable character after so long dormant, and provides added conflict and background.

If we cheat ourselves out of plot elements, who really wins?
lets see how many names I can get called this week
>>
No. 116305 ID: 36de2e

>>116302
There's other people but not everyone wants to waste their time arguing in this pointless discussion thread. Just because people aren't posting doesn't mean they don't exist.
>>
No. 116306 ID: d4516a

>>116304
>>116304
>If we cheat ourselves out of plot elements, who really wins?
The thing about constructed plot elements is that many of them have only one way they can go in a satisfying manner: once you bring them up, you need to finish them up the right way.

Julia consists of two character tropes: she's the petty but completely unlikeable minor villain, who gets in the protagonist's way and that everyone can cheer on when she will get her comeuppance; and the protagonist's old associate from back in the old days, here to give contrast on what he used to be like and how much he's since changed. She's pretty limited like that, and trying to do something different with her are unlikely to work at all, and more than likely to end up being both illogical and unsatisfying.

Julia provides conflict and background, but she can only do so in a positive manner if her "arc" is concluded in the way these things should go. Otherwise it will leave a sour taste in all our mouths. With the reader-driven structure, there's a very real threat this is exactly what will happen, which is the real reason almost everyone hates her.
>>
No. 116307 ID: be0718

>>116306
You really like presuming to speak for everyone, don't you.
>>
No. 116310 ID: d4516a

>>116307
You don't need to consciously acknowledge these things, or even have ever thought about them, for them to be true. It's what runs under the hood and is the source to why she rubs so poorly on us.

It's less a matter of personal opinion, more of psychology and storytelling conventions. I'm not speaking for the entire fanbase, so much as trying to rationalize the dislike.
>>
No. 116311 ID: ee43ea

>>116306
You're thinking way too deep into this thing. Julia's just a complete cunt, is all.

>>116305
Don't want to waste time, or can't articulate their reasons for liking a character that's impossible to like?
>>
No. 116313 ID: be0718

>>116310
Poorly on you. There you go again.
>I'm not speaking for the entire fanbase
>a sour taste in all our mouths
>almost everyone hates her

I don't think you're arguing against the Julia in the thread anymore, because you and Delian have thrown in so many assumptions that there's a completely different character being argued about. But by all means, continue. Even the mods have given up on this dumpster fire.
>>
No. 116316 ID: d4516a

>>116313
Pretty sure the popular opinion on Julia is strictly negative. Delian - and you, apparently - are in the minority.

Out of curiosity - do you like Julia, and if so, why?
>>
No. 116317 ID: ec5ca0

>>116313
Actually, it makes sense enough to me. Took me a while to think about why I don't like the character, and that kinda fits when I really bother to break it all down. If I knew she'd be getting her comeuppance sooner or later I wouldn't be as against her, but there's a very really chance a scumbag like her might actually get away with it all leaves a sour taste in my mouth, and not the enjoyable fruit flavor kind.
>>
No. 116319 ID: be0718

>>116316
"Pretty sure" trying to write her off is a minority too. You and a guy with a proxy is not "popular opinion."
I like Julia because she's a wisecracking old flame of Chuck's. She's cute too. I dislike her because she's a temperamental reckless drug dealer. Imagine that, shades of grey instead of a black and white hatred/infatuation!
>>
No. 116320 ID: 3cc68c

>>116318
>They worry she will hurt their friends.
Or that she gets away with having already done so.
>>
No. 116321 ID: 3abd97

>The thing about constructed plot elements is that many of them have only one way they can go in a satisfying manner
Man, what a limited and uninteresting view on narratives in general.

Sure, in the end, you can reduce any story to fundamental elements (or tropes) but they need not be deterministic or formulaic in application.
>>
No. 116322 ID: d4516a

>>116319
If you accuse Julia haters of being just proxies, then by the same token I can accuse you of being a proxy of naileD.

>>116318
>dislike her (offensive language, stealing)
She's so far hurt Ellen and Rachel, at the very least made things inconvenient for Sophie, and entirely possibly endangered Ramona's life by neither the drugs nor the alcohol being there when she needed them.

Chuck likes all these people - outright loves one of them. From his own POV, he should have more than a few reasons of disliking Julia right now.
>>
No. 116323 ID: d4516a

>>116321
It depends on the trope. In the case of Julia, I find it extraordinarily difficult to come up with a way for the story to go that doesn't end with her receiving just desserts for what she's done, or at least understanding her wrongs and growing to be a better person, that wouldn't leave a sour taste in my mouth.
>>
No. 116324 ID: ee43ea

>>116319
Funny thing is, both of your reasons for liking Julia are probably the biggest reasons to why I despise her so.

The "wisecracking" is obnoxious, antagonistic, and a waste of time when we were trying to save people and possibly being hunted by the reverends. The "old flame" means she's distracting us from all the actually likeable ladies, the ones that drive Chuck's character development forward: instead she's at the risk of pulling him back into being a crooked asshole.

She's also hurt several of our friends and shows no regret of doing so, nor any signs of caring about anyone but herself, barring some signs of infatuation towards the man Chuck used to be, a man that might as well be dead now.

Unlike what >>116318 claims, she's not even that interesting. Just another run-of-the-mill douchebag drug dealer.
>>
No. 116325 ID: f5a07e

Why did the author decide to cram this boring, pointless character into the quest at the last minute? Why ruin a good quest like this?
>>
No. 116327 ID: 33b7e7

>>116325

Well, first, I assume you're talking about Julia, and in that case her presence was foreshadowed what is now quite a while ago, so it's hardly last minute.

Second, this is only speculation, but in terms of purpose in the plot, Julia probably appears so late so that she can be compared to Chuck and serve as a contrast between who he is now and who he started as. By acting as a sort of embodiment of his past, she illustrates the difference between the world he used to live in, and the person he used to be, with the world he lives in now and the person he is now.
>>
No. 116329 ID: 3ce125

Chuck was never as bad as Julia though. He at least had the decency to keep his mouth shut instead of insulting everyone around him. He also had the presence of mind to at least attempt to fit in when lying low in a strange town, instead of essentially living like a hobo and stealing to survive.

If I were Julia I would've scouted the town at night and maybe broken into the general store in search of something that could work in a fuel tank, which was her stated goal. That would've taken a single day. After that she should've realized she was trapped and had no choice but to "go straight". On the other hand she also seemed to be much more fearful of cops than Chuck was. Maybe she felt like she couldn't show her face at all or risk getting gunned down by backwards country police.

But really in the end the fact is she's worse than what Chuck was like when he first arrived, in basically every way.
>>
No. 116331 ID: ee43ea

>>116326
If somebody roofied me several times, I'd be pretty hurt about it afterwards even if it caused me no real physical or mental pain. I'd bring up that something could have happened to me at the time, as well as that she was trespassing on my property without my permission or trust, and could well have stolen some of my stuff. I could even bring the possibility of allergies or other less likely physical consequences that Julia had no way of knowing about.

The crime was real, the pain is real, even if there were no physical consequences. Don't try your erasure bullshit here.
>>
No. 116332 ID: d4516a

>>116326
We don't know whether there was any emotional pain because we haven't gotten to talk to Rachel in any lucid state yet.

Besides, Julia was squatting in her property and potentially stealing from her.
>>
No. 116334 ID: 3cc68c

>>116333
I told you why that does not apply in this post: >>116253
You asked me if I'd like you to reply to all of it, and I told you that yes, I would, in here: >>116280

Are you ignoring me?
>>
No. 116342 ID: 3ce125

>>116337
>maximum possible control
>The readers defined Chuck's character
Chuck was never a blank slate, and we sure don't have maximum possible control. Chuck would be acting quite erratically if that were the case.
>>
No. 116343 ID: d4516a

>>116337
If that were true, we would've punched Julia.

Hell, we probably would've kicked this whole bloody quest off with turtle murder.
>>
No. 116344 ID: 3cc68c

>>116343
Incorrect. Only one vote for killing Harold, versus two for going to the big house.

Sure would've resulted in a different kind of a quest, though.
>>
No. 116345 ID: 3ce125

Like, Chuck obviously had a filter right from the start. We did not immediately define his personality. We gradually pushed him towards being a nicer person.

He was never as bad as Julia. He had little respect for people and thought of them in insulting terms, but didn't outright bitch them out to their faces. Go on, read the start of the quest!
>>
No. 116346 ID: ec5ca0

>>116337
Like the others said, yeah we're in control of Chuck, but it's always been framed as his own thought and actions, not us being some entity that influences him.

It's for that exact reason that us having 'maximum possible control' is kinda horsehockey, to be honest. There would have been a LOT we'd have done differently if we actually had such control- we wouldn't have just let Marcie slip away from us, for one, that weird guy in front of town would probably be dead, and Julia would be a non-factor because we would've fucked off. Amongst a lot of other things.

RML is actually rather stringent with what we can and can't really have Chuck do- which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but let's call a spade a spade. She's vetoed or otherwise adjusted to unfamiliarity a good number of actions we've suggested in force. RML never intended for Chuck to be a blank slate, nor for us to have full agency. This quest is less a playground and more of a rollercoaster we can occasionally change the direction on- or maybe one of those group light-gun rides where you're still on a path, but you can shoot things as they show up. AGAIN, this is NOT by default a bad thing, and I don't want to imply it is. But we should just call it as it is on that front.

At any rate, getting off topic. Point is, that example isn't really applicable due to past proof showing otherwise, and really, Julia's just not a good person in comparison. Chuck at least tries. Julia didn't even make an attempt.
>>
No. 116347 ID: d4516a

>>116346
Personally, I'd much rather take what we got over, say, Twitch Plays Pokemon.
>>
No. 116348 ID: ec5ca0

>>116347
If only those two choices, I agree. But I feel like a better balance could be struck.
>>
No. 116349 ID: 9876c4

>>116348
Then go put on your big boy pants and create said quest.
>>
No. 116350 ID: d4516a

>>116348
With such a character-driven quest, not really. I don't think we could have much more freedom than we have right now, without risking to break Chuck's character and have him just turn to a crazy person.
>>
No. 116352 ID: 78717d

>>116341
>more than likely threaten Harold Pal with her empty gun.

This actually raises a couple questions. It might even be enough for me to build up a bit of a theory on my own. Consider the following:

Was Julia's gun empty before she arrived in Coxwette?
and
Why have we not seen Harold since the beginning?

I mean he did show up in a dream sequence... but... might that not be a piece of evidence towards this theory too? Was Harold then a GHOST?!
>>
No. 116355 ID: d4516a

>>116353
>We don't know anything at all about what Julia's character was like when she first entered the town.
Julia used to get those fits of hers all the time. Chuck himself acknowledges this.

So yeah, we kind of do know she used to be a mess.
>>
No. 116356 ID: 33b7e7

Not to dwell on gender, but in the... social circles Julia and Chuck are implied to have lived in, women are (generally speaking) less likely to display the kind of slick conman confidence that Chuck has, due to the somewhat different sets of dangers and opportunities available to them. Combine that with Chuck's background as a minor child celebrity, despite how badly it ended up for him, and I can very easily imagine that Chuck would always have been more intrinsically... let's say sociable, for lack of a better word. I wouldn't call him a conversationalist but he seems to like talking to people, or at least talking AT people. With what we know of him now, it would have been unlike him to have done what Julia has, I think.
>>
No. 116357 ID: 3ce125

>>116353
>I never said he was
You said: "The readers defined Chuck's character". Which is the same as saying he was a blank slate.
>>
No. 116358 ID: 78717d

>>116356
I don't think their gender would impact them a whole lot: even if you were to segregate, Julia could've developed into a sly seductress, or a shady manipulator behind men ostensibly in power. But it doesn't look like she did.

Although if naileD is correct and she and Chuck were identical, then I guess she would've had to be a former child star as well...

Still, in the end it's all a moot point. What matters is what we have here now: one recovering petty criminal, one unrepentant addict.
>>
No. 116359 ID: ee43ea

>>116353
>A funny story, isn't it?
Completely full of shit, too.

How the hell would she go from basically Chuck to a complete nervous wreck? She wasn't cooped up: she got to move around the woods at night - we saw her. She's interacted with Rachel and Ellen at least, if you can call what she's done "interaction". The only way would be if she were really scared of the reverends, but she had no knowledge of them until Chuck broke the news: she was still way too preoccupied about some cops, like they cared about her.

You're basically just making shit up at this point. You're completely ignoring what we've learned of her and this place, conveniently forgetting real facts, and grasping at straws and seriously thinking of the most unlikely series of impossible events imaginable, all to drive your own agenda that Julia is a good person who did nothing wrong. No one's buying it. You're full of shit and we're never going to fuck Julia. Deal with it or just stop following the quest.
>>
No. 116360 ID: 37e694

>>116349
How was that insulting? Genuine question- I just felt like a better balance could be struck. It wasn't even a particularly negative critique- or at least I didn't intend it as one.

Besides, I can't draw. Like, at all. And I'm weird in that I'd want to be half decent before I tried to make something- I personally don't feel comfortable with doing Weaver or Hif level artwork, regardless of written content.
>>
No. 116361 ID: 91ee5f

Layla mentioned that she and John had caught someone and put them in the jail cell at the police station when we went to get them. Then they said they'd bring their prisoner with them to the Plath House. I don't think we ever found out who their prisoner was.

Does anyone have any idea who the prisoner was or was it already mentioned and I missed it? Because if we don't know who it is, then we might have another new character showing up soon! Or maybe it's a character we already met and haven't seen in a while?
>>
No. 116362 ID: ae9b99

>>116361
If it is someone we met before, it is probably that one warthog very early in the story that made Susanna mad.

Most likely not thought. I assume it is a completely new character.
>>
No. 116368 ID: 9876c4

>>116360
It wasn't insulting. Greater degrees of agency have been attempted, and the fanbase was irresponsible with them.

We can and do move Chuck off the rails, but it requires consensus. Using Rita to derail Geoff's date, was popular enough to get recognized, even if the overall effect has been minimal.
>>
No. 116370 ID: be0718

>>116368
And we would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling reverends!
>>
No. 116378 ID: ee43ea

>>116376
>>116377
This meme would only work if Chuck was dating Rita at the moment, exclusively, and was legitimately thinking of jumping Julia's bones, or in the second post, the other way around. None of these are true.

The meme is easy, like you said, but you managed to completely misunderstand it anyway. You're an idiot.
>>
No. 116380 ID: 78717d

So anyone else here care about Rachel at all, and want to see a conclusion to a squatter invading her property and regularly drugging her? Or do you just want to forget about it and let the injustice pass without a comment?

It's almost like you don't think Rachel's the best girl.
>>
No. 116382 ID: 36de2e

>>116378
I've never seen one user on this website this consistently butthurt over *nothing*. Chill the fuck out and stop replying to obvious bait.
>>
No. 116386 ID: a363ac

dude its a meme chill brah.
>>
No. 116387 ID: ee43ea

>>116386
It's a forced meme, a typical format used in the entirely wrong and backwards way, its sole purpose to mine salt from the ones that dislike Julia, as if it was all on us and she weren't an objectively terrible character.

No. I will not let this stand.
>>
No. 116389 ID: c2051e

>>116387
You say that like you have any sort of power to do anything other than make yourself look like an ass. Just chill and ignore him.
>>
No. 116390 ID: 36de2e

>>116387
You reply to everything he says like clockwork and there's no reason for it. Stop being a big baby and move on.
>>
No. 116391 ID: 24bfa1

Delian, knock it off. You're just trying to antagonize people and start fights and shit.

It's not funny, and it pretty much tanks my opinion of you.

Like... I... ugh. I figured you were better than this.
>>
No. 116392 ID: 9b8c8d

>>116391
Both him and this guy >>116387 are taking this whole thing just a little bit too seriously. Just the sort of a thing that got us so heavily moderated in the first place.

Can't we all just stop hating each other and gang up on Julia instead?
>>
No. 116393 ID: 91ee5f

>>116392
Ganging up on Julia is what started this in the first place.
>>
No. 116394 ID: be0718

>>116392
And then completely de-moderated. Congratulations! A winner is you, Julia haters and debaters!
Chuck gasping for breath as he emerges from a filthy toilet bowl is a fitting thread header.
>>
No. 116395 ID: 91ee5f

>>116394
>Chuck gasping for breath as he emerges from a filthy toilet bowl is a fitting thread header.
That's what that was?

I thought he was somehow pinned to a tree and he's trying to break free!
>>
No. 116396 ID: 203d6d

>>116393
Oh, I'm sorry that I and several others decided to vote for NOT banging the drug bunny at every opportunity in the warehouse.

(On the other hand, screw that one dude who suggested beating her to death instead)
>>
No. 116397 ID: 78717d

>>116396
I just want her to apologise to Rachel and then not cause any more trouble. Then maybe we can just ignore her from there on and get to plot that's actually interesting and girls that're actually appealing.
>>
No. 116398 ID: 37e694

>>116397
I legit don't think she's that sort of person. She strikes me as the sort that stays out of the public eye as long as possible, but if she has to go loud, she takes no prisoners.
>>
No. 116404 ID: 78717d

>>116403
I think it's about time we came clean, yes. We've earned their trust. Julia must do so as well.
>>
No. 116410 ID: 78717d

>>116407
That's not how hypocrisy works, or change for that matter.
>>
No. 116413 ID: ee43ea

>>116408
Oh! I know!

Maybe we can face off the reverends together, then just throw all our dirty secrets and hidden desires at them to chase them off! Like some kind of a Spirit Bomb of sin and lewd. That stuff oughta be like kryptonite to them.

Then we can live free and happy with nothing to hide, just laughing about our embarrasments and pissing sunshine!

It'd be fucking perfect.

Or maybe Delian's just talking out of his ass again.
>>
No. 116415 ID: 9876c4

I'm not sure how you guys can be assholes amid fields of kittens and floppy hellbeasts.
>>
No. 116416 ID: 1d63c1

>>116415
It's an acquired skill.
>>
No. 116417 ID: dd3b3c

Chuck revealing his crimes publicly, especially to the police, seems kind of out of character. He's better than he was but he's nowhere near that level of repentant.
>>
No. 116418 ID: d4516a

>>116417
And I don't think anyone's trying to make Julia confess everyone what a horrible shit she's been throughout her life either. We'd just like her to owe up for hiding in someone's private property and drugging the owner, because it was a dick move relevant within the village itself.
>>
No. 116419 ID: 2120ee

Now doesn't really seem the time. It's essentially a siege. You don't want to pick at wounds in a siege.

Julia confessing her misdeeds would be right, but it would not be wise.
>>
No. 116420 ID: ee43ea

>>116419
Depending on what Rita's been saying and Rachel figuring out about the whole thing, us getting Julia to apologise might be the least bad option. Who knows what kind of trouble she'd get into otherwise.
>>
No. 116421 ID: 78717d

>>116420
>Implying she hasn't killed the witness already

Okay but even if she hasn't, she might've blabbered on about other stuff that's going to hurt our odds in a siege.
>>
No. 116425 ID: 100607

I've deleted all of my posts in cox disthreads which were creating conflict. For anyone that replied to me, I would ask that they do the same.
>>
No. 116426 ID: 100607

>>/quest/834137
I like how Sophie reveals a more human side of her here. If there ever was a doubt that she didn't have any feelings (which I don't think there was since Chuck already had some fun with her), this development surely removed it.

Sophie also reveals an anguish which plenty of doctors have, which is the extreme emotional burden of their profession, but where at the same time they need to suppress their emotions otherwise it could endanger the lives of their patients.

The critique that I would give is that Sophie might be a bit too emotional here. That's because 1) she was in the army, and 2) obtaining the drugs plus the successfully performed medical procedures should've provided a lot of relief to her.
>>
No. 116427 ID: 3cc68c

>>116426
Being in the army doesn't necessarily inhibit your emotions. It can well do the opposite: it leaves you shell-shocked and traumatized, and American mental healthcare isn't exactly the best in the world to begin with, let alone when you're stuck in some weird time-displaced ghost town. Who the hell even knows how long Sophie has been bottling all this up, just adding it into her without letting it go out.

I find her reaction perfectly reasonable and not really overreacting at all.
>>
No. 116428 ID: 3cc68c

>>116426
Also, I know this may be a bad thing to bring up since we both just deleted a bunch of our posts, but I notice there's a pretty interesting discrepancy with how you deal with Sophie's actions and emotions, when compared to how you deal with Julia's. In the former case, as here, you provide criticism and say she wasn't portrayed as well as she could have. In the latter, you instead came up with reasons and (occasionally outlandish) theories to why she behaves the way she did.

I think you could be a little bit more consistent by adopting the same methods with all the girls. Either tell me why Sophie is crying so badly, or criticize RML for how she has handled Julia so far.
>>
No. 116432 ID: 553474

>>116427
I disagree completely. Sophie's reaction is completely unrealistic and typical of the author's overdramatic way of portraying emotions. Sophie is a doctor and a professional, so if this is how she acts in a conflict as insignificant as this, she truly is a liability to the people in her care, and overall a bad doctor.

It takes a lot to move someone to tears, let alone the biologically improbable torrent dumping from her face in the last scene. Sophie wad one of my favorites, but this scene frankly shows a weak, unappealing side of her that changes my mind.
>>
No. 116433 ID: 3cc68c

>>116432
So long as she had work to do, she managed perfectly fine. Chuck was her last patient: once she was done with him, I see no reason why she couldn't vent a little, nor any reason she'd ever cry up in the middle of actual work and saving people. It makes her neither a liability nor bad at her job.

A bit of emotion aside, whether you think it's excessive or not, Sophie is the only thing even approaching a medical professional. We need some of those when we're basically in a war.
>>
No. 116436 ID: 553474

>>116433
Being that much of a drama queen just ruins any respect I had for her as a doctor and a character. It doesn't ruin the quest for me but honestly likable characters in Coxwette are dropping like flies. She isn't the only one I have felt that way about in the quest, and I just assume the artist hasn't interacted with enough people to observe how they really act. This isn't necessarily stupidity or incompetence on RML's part, just ignorance. :P
>>
No. 116438 ID: 3cc68c

>>116436
Sophie was never my favorite character, but I liked her fine, and I don't feel this is too much of a derailment of her or begging for attention or whatever. Honestly, from my perspective, you're the one being a drama queen.

The only character I don't find likeable at all in the quest is Julia. After everything we went through with her in the previous thread, Sophie giving a bit of a cry is nothing.
>>
No. 116439 ID: ee43ea

>>116436
>the artist hasn't interacted with enough people to observe how they really act
And you have? Are you some kind of a doctor, an expert of human psychology? Do you know exactly how all of them would behave, without fail?

Humans react differently under different circumstances. They're not all fucking machines that can keep on going without feeling a thing. Especially not when they've been in a war and unlikely to have gotten through it without any mental scars, and are basically in the middle of a small-scale engagement even now.

So Sophie cries. Who gives a shit. Give her a break.
>>
No. 116441 ID: 2120ee

I mean, consider the context of Chuck as a dude she got drunk and commiserated with and boned, for one. There's a bit of a different social context as compared to the rest of the denizens, a certain inherent thinness of barriers.

People don't end up in Coxwette unless they've got issues, and Sophie's got more "justification" for issues than most.
>>
No. 116442 ID: be0718

Sophie's been dealing with shit since before we got back, and since we fell asleep, and doesn't know much about the reverend threat other than that they are relentless and merciless. It's understandable she's comparing it to conditions in the war and breaking down after such a long shift. Besides, I'm just glad we're getting to know Sophie better. She's definitely a top Coxwife.
>>
No. 116444 ID: 4854ef

>>116442
We do know most of her story involves guilt, and greed given that the thing she came to America to learn medicine to help her father.. And due to all the fancy new things she could buy as a result she never came home to treat her father who died as a result, war came, she joined the army..

But unlike most, she admitted to it, we probably know most of why she's here and it didn't take a massive amount of personal issues to get to the point.

Honestly, I really do like her... And unrelated to such, why are there cat images everywhere in here?
>>
No. 116451 ID: 9dc26d

>>116444
>And unrelated to such, why are there cat images everywhere in here?
Because some nitwit decided we're a bunch of assholes that need kittens or some shit to keep us in line. Somehow.
>>
No. 116452 ID: f3c9e3

Why is everyone in this town crazy? I don't think it has anything to do with the curse.
>>
No. 116454 ID: 9b8c8d

>>116452
By my understanding, the curse likes to pick up crazy people.
>>
No. 116455 ID: b9b4da

>>116452
If you don't want to stick your dick in crazy in Coxwette, you're going to go coxdry.
>>
No. 116456 ID: 9b8c8d

>>116455
Fortunately, none of the girls here seem all crazy in that particular way.

Well, maybe Julia.
>>
No. 116468 ID: b7d7b6

Now that everyone is together, it's time for a Harvest Dinner. Also I can't stop imagining the characters as Peanut characters (y!?).
>>
No. 116484 ID: 36de2e

>Inb4 Susanna is dead and a Reverend is holding her corpse
>>
No. 116486 ID: 9b8c8d

>>116484
I don't think reverends can move in sunlight, or fit behind Susanna so well that no one could see them?

I'm also pretty sure she's been dead before.
>>
No. 116499 ID: a6af03

>>116486
chuck and geoff have been attacked in broad daylight
>>
No. 116686 ID: 100607

>>/quest/836616
A question. When Chuck gives us an option to see someone in particular, does he mean anyone?

It's not mentioned whether people already returned to their rooms or not. So if Chuck's the first to leave, then how exactly would he visit, let's say, Geoff, who just brought a blanket for Susanna?
>>
No. 116691 ID: 33b7e7

Theory time.

The "timelessness" effect on the town probably doesn't make the inhabitants immortal. Days still pass, actions cause physical changes that persist. If people do things that damage their bodies, like take drugs, it can still build up to serious problems. Thing is, that's kind of how ageing works as well, just more gradually, from lots of little things in lots of little ways. If you have the one you should have the other. But Nelson's stated intent was to keep everyone from dying, so he had to have tried to stop aging.

So lets say the town has a spell that keeps people from getting older. How would Nelson have created such an effect? He would have to have an idea how a theoretical ageless being's agelessness works. Fortunately, he had an ageless being right on hand: Susanna.

So, perhaps, is there a spell on the town that gives everyone some sort of weaker replica of Susanna's own qualities? Like, everyone has a little bit of Susanna in them? Maybe in varying amounts and maybe that's why everyone's so horny, and also on average a bit more energetic than most people? The reverends might have been busted up so bad that only that weak partial replica is keeping them alive, like it's just that with some corpse ghost draped over it? Which is what makes them so physically and mentally fucked up and why they don't seem attached to time and reality properly, because the spells on the town don't know what to do with them. Most of the magic in this quest seems to be based on carnal speech, which in turn seems to be about creating connections between things and using them. Perhaps the reverends' connection to the town is tangled up somehow so that when it realizes they're supposed to be dead it tries to get rid of them but then they yo-yo back in again? Some glitch in the town's general timelessness spell could explain their teleportation and memory losses, like it's respawning them.

By the way, I just found out recently, maybe someone noticed at some point already, did you know there's a famous chinese folk tale called "Madame White Snake" about the romance between a white snake spirit and a human dude, with a terrapin/tortoise spirit who's the antagonist? The name the white snake takes for her transformed human form is "Bai Suzhen", even, though admittedly I think the actual pronunciation of that is halfway or more to "Sujen". Still, though!
>>
No. 116701 ID: daa216

I digging the new "opening to masterpiece theater" art style.
>>
No. 116704 ID: 4c0fe7

>>116701
Was wondering when it wouldn't be lel2soon to discuss the change. I preferred the original style, but this new one is a damn sight more palletable given the tone of the adventure and Chuck's grittiness as a narrator. The cartoony aspect is not as apparent, but the rest of the thematic notes I've come to expect from Coxwette's art style are well serviced enough for me to be satisfied and curious to see what RML can do with it.
>>
No. 116705 ID: 9b8c8d

>>116704
Personally I'd see some more detail in porn, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
>>
No. 116713 ID: daa216

Nuts I meant "Mystery" by Pbs not masterpiece. Stupid multiple M named shows...
>>
No. 116898 ID: 15a025
File 150862425265.png - (24.01KB , 394x313 , WOAH.png )
116898

>>
No. 116981 ID: 5c52c6

so... it's just animal crossing with nanquest incorporated
>>
No. 116982 ID: b15da4

>>116981
That statement is redundant.
>>
No. 117000 ID: 100607

>>/quest/838326
The last update makes me feel a bit sad for Rita. Trapped in this place with such limited knowledge. Julia calling her a hick wasn't really off considering she's so easy to impress.

The funny thing is, I totally expect Chuck to use this to his advantage. I mean, there's no reason not to. The situation with other girls is more or less the same.
>>
No. 117003 ID: 9b8c8d

>>117000
>I mean, there's no reason not to.
Apart from them both being hurt, you mean?
>>
No. 117004 ID: ee43ea

>>117000
As has been discussed, trying to take advantage is likely to have poor consequences. She's not going to buy it if we try to boast ourselves, and will just take it as evidence of Julia having been correct of us being cunts.

Ditch your false hopes. This is no longer a porn quest.
>>
No. 117008 ID: be0718

>>117004
Not with that attitude.
>>
No. 117016 ID: e93346

>>117004

Friendly reminder that you have the same id in this thread that you have in the actual quest, and its not a good look to declare what kind of quest coxwette gets to be in one thread while claiming that you arent trying to do that in the quest thread
>>
No. 117017 ID: ee43ea

>>117016
Friendly reminder that whenever someone claims they are "friendly", they most certainly are not. You for instance seem to be taking this quest a bit too seriously.

And no, barring the occasional lewd scene that we all enjoy, this hasn't been a porn quest for a long while now. That's basically an objective fact, and I don't see how stating that fact - to the one person that still doesn't understand this and is heavily pushing for lewds even when they're not appropriate - is me making any sort of false declarations.
>>
No. 117024 ID: 5c52c6

>>116982
you are redundant
>>
No. 117025 ID: e93346

So how many paragraphs did you write in the quest tryong to justify your flub of confusing a character saying "im great" with an assertion of moral sturdiness before coming in here to accuse somebody else of 'taking the quest too seriously?'

I could add them up myself and just twll you, but i think you could use the self-reflection of reading your own posts
>>
No. 117057 ID: ee43ea

>>117025
I don't know. It seems to me that you're the one that's having a personal issue with another anonymous poster. Keeping track on IPs and everything. I'd say that would be taking a quest a couple levels more seriously than anything I've ever said.
>>
No. 117059 ID: 9dc26d

>>117008
That's one weird kitten
>>
No. 117060 ID: 4854ef

>>117057
You are pretty much trying to deflect from your own words right now without actually defending them, you know that right?
>>
No. 117061 ID: ee43ea

>>117060
I'm deflecting? You're the one that's got this really weird personal vendetta on one poster. When a flaw in your course of action was pointed out, instead of correcting yourself or adjusting it to face criticism you chose to be a pedant and attack the exact use of words. Like that's the only thing you can do to feebly defend against feedback. And instead of maybe toning that down, you go on to almost obsessively log down IP addresses to see who said what and to go to truly ridiculous extent to find contradictions and shit, like you were some Phoenix Wright.

Tell you what, how about you point out all those things like you said you would a couple posts ago? List us all that ridiculous shit you've supposedly found on me. You'll only prove me right: you are obsessed.

Or maybe you could realize you're being a bit weird about this, and tone it down and talk about the actual quest instead. Like what's so wrong about trying to be honest and sort of humble? What would be the faults of that plan?
>>
No. 117063 ID: 4854ef

>>117061
While I'm sure that's good and all... I'm not that guy, I just noticed someone being deflective after reading a bit, and quite defensive.

ID's aren't IP's and aren't that hard to notice on the posts.
>>
No. 117064 ID: ee43ea

>>117063
So you've got nothing constructive to say on the quest itself? Thought as much.
>>
No. 117065 ID: d0bba6

>>117064
How insecure do u need to be to attack people this rabidly over literally nothing
>>
No. 117066 ID: eef56a

>>117057

>he doesn't use /pony/

I guess that explains everything we needed to know
>>
No. 117068 ID: ee43ea

>>117065
What do you mean nothing? You started it. You attacked me first.
>>
No. 117072 ID: 4854ef

>>117068
Do you really not know how to identify posters? While our names Anonymous everyone has an ID number attached to the post (and a specific pony in /pony/ mode)

You've managed to misidentify posters several times now.
>>
No. 117073 ID: ee43ea

>>117072
I refuse to admit more than one person could be this dumb. I'll be therefore forced to come to the conclusion that you're all proxies meant to clumsily discredit me.
>>
No. 117077 ID: c31aac

please stop being rude to one another, you're going to make the kittens upset
>>
No. 117078 ID: d4516a

>>117077
Weren't the kittens added here in the first place to stop with the rudeness? So it's kind of the other way around - if anything, these assholes are giving the kittens something fulfilling to do.
>>
No. 117089 ID: 5c52c6

these ponies look ugly af
>>
No. 117099 ID: d0bba6

>>117073
Don't worry baby, only one person is this dumb and it's you. You're the idiot other people are trying to talk down. Have fun in the tantrum hole.
>>
No. 117147 ID: ee43ea

>>839008
>>839011
>>839017
We'll see. I'd like to say you're right, but I also think Julia's emergence fucked it all up irrevocably.

Now we've got all this baggage about her encounter that I feel like we should take care of but everyone else ignores (even though it'd actually be a decent way to gain sympathy points with Rita), and then need to also make her apologise to Rachel for the whole squatting and roofying thing, and make sure she gets along well and isn't causing trouble, and whatever else other bullshit. I don't want to do any of it but I feel like we must.

I cannot conceivably put to words just how much I fucking despise her for all this. Piece-of-shit junkie bunny, I wish we could retcon her out of the whole thing, then have fun with girls once more as we were supposed to.
>>
No. 117225 ID: 792ea9

we hiatus now?
>>
No. 117226 ID: 3ce125

>>117147
I get that you have a hateboner for Julia but do you also have a fetish for repeating yourself?
>>
No. 117233 ID: d4516a

>>117225
RML is often busy with other stuff. These things happen.
>>
No. 117234 ID: ee43ea

>>117226
Is there any chance you might want to engage me on any quest-related subject? Might you want to let me know why the idea of keeping it real with Rita might or might not work out, or agree with me about Julia being a shit character, or conversely reassure me that it's not going to be that bad?

Or did you just revive a days-long pointless argument for more directly engaging with me personally, like that somehow mattered to anyone and wasn't a complete waste of time for us all? I don't think I feel like bothering to do more of that myself. Do you?
>>
No. 117241 ID: c53bec

Hey guy, defusing arguments is a two way street. Just ignore the post.
>>
No. 117247 ID: b9d23c

Is the comic still going or has it stopped
>>
No. 117256 ID: 1f183c

>>117247
>>117225

i murdered RML in real life for not putting me in the quest
>>
No. 117259 ID: ee43ea

>>117256
I helped hide the body because fuck Julia.
>>
No. 117268 ID: 0427e8

>>117259
I think you will be ok if you just take a deep breath

I plan to update Coxwette as often as I can. I am sorry it has been A WHOLE WEEK since I updated last, but I have been juggling this, Trash Knight, commissions, and classwork.
>>
No. 117269 ID: d4516a

>>117268
I don't think anyone here is blaming you for prioritizing important real life stuff over mostly recreational quests or webcomics. Take your time and hang in there.
>>
No. 117270 ID: f8118f

>>117268
It's hilarious you think you can talk down to people after you ruined your own quest. And no, you will not be forgiven for Julia. By all means, take your time updating.
>>
No. 117271 ID: f30be2
File 150923235888.png - (26.31KB , 600x600 , cant-cut-fundin-g.png )
117271

>>117270
>>
No. 117273 ID: a363ac

>>117270
no
>>
No. 117277 ID: f30be2
File 150923331913.png - (1.13MB , 1911x826 , coxdis.png )
117277

>>
No. 117278 ID: ee43ea

>>117270
This, at least partially. Taking time between updates is all very well, but next update better include a line of Chuck and Rita puzzling out of who this totally unknown Julia character is, or I'm dropping the quest.
>>
No. 117279 ID: 90f3c0

>>117270
This is a bad post and you should feel bad.

And are you using a proxy? Not even brave enough to shitpost in an unmoderated thread.
>>
No. 117280 ID: 9df962
File 150923432393.png - (353.70KB , 1144x1200 , shuckschuck.png )
117280

>>
No. 117281 ID: a6af03 Locked Stickied
File 150923466103.png - (64.77KB , 500x500 , butt.png )
117281

>>
No. 117282 ID: 3cc68c

>>117279
Several people in this thread have openly shitposted about Julia. Why would anyone need a proxy for it?
>>
No. 117283 ID: c2051e

>>117279
Not him, but since someone mentioned shitposting in an unmoderated thread:

We should fuck Rita in front of Geoff right before we kill him for hurting my feelings with an imaginary punch

My opinions on the quest are more important than RML's

Anal sex with Susanna was a mistake and I'm glad it never happened AND never will

Lisa is unfuckable

We should have let people die so we could have an orgy
>>
No. 117284 ID: 3cc68c

>>117283
Our bloody vendetta towards Geoff is pretty hilarious and also perfectly in-character. I whole-heartedly support it.
>>
No. 117285 ID: ee43ea

>>117283
>>117284
I'm torn. On one hand I agree that keeping up with the stupid shit towards Geoff is funny, but on the other hand Lisa really is the second least fuckable person in this entire quest (right behind Julia), so we might as well let Geoff have her.
>>
No. 117287 ID: f30be2
File 150923577946.png - (66.29KB , 960x560 , New canvas.png )
117287

i sure do wonder why coxwette's updating speed has gone down
>>
No. 117288 ID: c2051e

>>117285
I said Rita, his sister, try to keep up
>>
No. 117292 ID: 3ce125

>>117285
WOW.

Okay now I think you have an unhealthy obsession. It's time to stop. Get help, even.
>>
No. 117293 ID: ee43ea

>>117292
How can you say Julia is even remotely fuckable?
>>
No. 117294 ID: be0718

>>117278
Please do.
>>
No. 117296 ID: c4b388

>>117287
Yeah because earning money for a skill is better than being bitched at and not earning money for a skill.
>>
No. 117297 ID: d4516a

>>117296
On the other hand, I'd love to see a fictional work in any medium that wasn't on the receiving end of a fair amount of bitching. This sort of a thing happens: I'm sure it will for Trash Knight as well, sooner or later.
>>
No. 117298 ID: c4b388

>>117297
I mean the bitching isn't as bad if you're being paid
>>
No. 117310 ID: 3ce125

Trash Knight doesn't have a discussion thread or anything like one, so it's never going to reach this level of garbage fire.
>>
No. 117313 ID: 5c52c6

>>117287
the "it's just animal crossing with nanquest incorporated" was a joke...
>>
No. 117318 ID: be0718

>>117313
you are a joke
>>
No. 117320 ID: 5c52c6

>>117318
dang
>>
No. 117383 ID: 289740

Marcie's just reached a new level of irritating; it's a tad bit fishy how fast she got over her frostbite, is it not? If this is going to go straight from this Oscar bait shit into another Julia scene, I've lost faith in the quest and the suggesters. Get to something that matters, already.
>>
No. 117384 ID: c2051e

inb4 someone unironically takes the bait
>>
No. 117386 ID: be0718
File 150939478620.jpg - (17.55KB , 480x360 , hqdefault.jpg )
117386

We should take the bait and push it somewhere else.
>>
No. 117387 ID: d4516a
File 150939537547.jpg - (101.19KB , 492x804 , kfMauQx.jpg )
117387

Why Julia is literally the only unfuckable character in the entire quest.
>>
No. 117388 ID: d0bba6

>>117387
Pedophile.
>>
No. 117389 ID: 3cc68c

>>117387
Gay.
>>
No. 117395 ID: 9876c4

>>117386
>>117387
If you're going to post ugly art, spoiler it.

>>117280
Im avin a giggle, m8
>>
No. 117397 ID: daa216

Id like to point out that one of the cat images is the Road Work guy from sim city. That is probably the greatest thing on this thread.
>>
No. 117398 ID: 9dc26d

>>117395
lol you're triggered by art that's literally for children
>>
No. 117399 ID: 79608d

For those who posted outside of Halloween, there are currently a ton of cute kittens in this thread, and it seems fitting.
>>
No. 117400 ID: d4516a

>>117399
There have been cute kittens in this thread for months.
>>
No. 117401 ID: 74901b

Does Marcie have some kind of learning disability? I am asking honestly, because if so, it isn't ethical to "get with" her. She can't properly consent. I suspect the same might be true for Sally since she almost killed her mom out of stupidity, and she didn't know how a condom works.
>>
No. 117403 ID: c2051e

Better bait this time, but still not worthy of an actual reply.
>>
No. 117549 ID: 4c6c13

I thought this series was over, not that it was still in development. Kinda happy, kinda disappointed; truly bittersweet. Cant wait to see where this goes! I was broken when Marcie was rolledback and forgot chuck. Also waiting for the obligatory intergenerational threesome ;)

(Please forgive me if I am naïve, FJ sent me...that should be telltale enough)
>>
No. 117567 ID: db884e
File 150992776046.jpg - (359.17KB , 610x610 , C9ED4899-A85B-46F1-9AE2-62D6EA10F3AB.jpg )
117567

RML better wrap this sucker up quick or the “fuck everything that moves” crowd and the “society for comic character ethics” are going to eat each other alive.
>>
No. 117570 ID: 9b8c8d
File 150993071964.png - (17.02KB , 373x330 , groups.png )
117570

>>117567
Which crowd do you belong in?
>>
No. 117571 ID: 9df962

>>117567
Just as planned
>>
No. 117596 ID: 67d7af

>>117570
Can I be both? Fuck everyone ethically?
>>
No. 117654 ID: 9b8c8d
File 151014171410.gif - (2.34MB , 427x240 , I am out.gif )
117654

>Another old asshole criminal friend to fuck everything up and derail Chuck's character

Aaaand there's the last straw. Dropped.
>>
No. 117656 ID: 91ee5f

>>117654
He just barely showed up and has not done anything other than give Chuck a handshake. How does that prove that he's an asshole?
>>
No. 117658 ID: c2051e

>>117656
Don't take bait.
>>
No. 117659 ID: 66a4ca
File 151016636958.png - (609.94KB , 800x600 , letter.png )
117659

It's a good bait tho.
>>
No. 117661 ID: 3cc68c

Meh. There's plenty enough characters in the story already, far more plot lines and quest hooks than we could possibly approach, and Chuck's own past is in my personal opinion the least interesting of them all.

I don't see the new addition bringing in anything Julia already didn't. Seems there's no point to it.

But I will reserve final judgement until I actually see him behave like some kind of a petty criminal dick or whatever.
>>
No. 117662 ID: 4854ef

Jeeze some of you.. are something else alright "Murder them, no wait probably strong get a mob to murder them, shove them out the door and watch them die"
>>
No. 117663 ID: 4324ce

I'm not a fan of him (especially since he came from this one random suggestion super early in the quest) but that's mostly just because I feel like he showed up waaaay too late to really bother with much, and it's just another complication on top of an already massive clusterfuck, whether he's friendly or not. Another moving part to keep track of. There's too many characters by this point.
>>
No. 117664 ID: 2c8807

>>117659
This gave me a good chuckle, hats off to you
>>
No. 117665 ID: 69e8ff

Coxwette DOES have a lot of characters, but the way I see it, the number of main characters has remained relatively constant. If readers had chosen to pursue and associate with different characters throughout the quest, that "main" cast of more developed characters might have been different.

I am limited in ways I can attempt to advance the story when a lot of it relies on reader input, so I am keen on introducing points of contention and conflict to give people things to strive toward and do during down time. I must urge you all not to try for "100% completion" of Coxwette if you can help it - even though there are side characters with minor missions, there is not much of a way to complete all of them while still keeping the story from stagnating.

I apologize if the addition of contentious characters has been unpleasant as of late, but I am not going to retcon them out. Chuck and the citizens of Coxwette have been in isolation throughout the nearly two years of this quest's run, so think of the leaking of the outside world into the town as a ringing of the end of the quest. Not THE end, but a step in that direction.
>>
No. 117666 ID: 3cc68c

>>117665
How come Chuck knows them all? That feels weird to me.
>>
No. 117667 ID: 69e8ff

>>117666
These are people in a similar situation to Chuck. Chuck just happened to have arrived first.
>>
No. 117669 ID: 3ce125

>>117667
That implies that they know eachother *because* they share a similar situation. ...I don't suppose you'd clarify and say what situation you're referring to?
>>
No. 117678 ID: 9876c4

>>117669
On the run, with nothing to lose?
>>
No. 117682 ID: d4516a

>>117656
I knew exactly what he would be like from the beginning. He was Chuck's friend, after all, and Chuck himself used to certifiably be an asshole who hung out with other lowlives. And now that I look at the recent updates - hey, look, I was completely right.

I hope he and Julia kill each other off.
>>
No. 117683 ID: 9dc26d

>>117666
He knows them all because it's a fever dream he's having as he bleeds out after a failed bank robbery. Charlie's had his head so far up his own asshole that the only way his brain can frame any kind of regret or desire to have done better is within the confines of a purgatory where he can be a hero and come to terms with having been an awful person.
>>
No. 117685 ID: ee43ea

>>843860
That's... not what top dog means at all.

If Chuck had any pull whatsoever in any criminal organizations, he would never have come here to begin with. He'd either have disappeared into the underground, or gotten killed by the mob for being a traitor.

This bullshit is just as bad as your previous claim of Julia being some kind of a kung fu goddess because she does drugs. If you can't keep the quest within its own confines, without applying your own ridiculous and unfounded fantasies to it, then I must once again ask you to leave the quest. It's clearly not your thing. You already said you don't like all this plot. Why are you still here?
>>
No. 117686 ID: ee43ea

>>843866
I disagree. Sometimes "old friend" means fuck-all: these two are clearly toxic and it's going to be only better for us to drop them out of our lives forever. Just let them sort it out between themselves.
>>
No. 117687 ID: 9c2d0c

I like this quest.
I think that Julia was frustrating to deal with, but interpersonal relationships are like that, and I am willing to accept that all character interactions will not be sunshine and rainbows.
New dog seems smart and p chill so far. If people could come to like Chuck, I don't see why he would necessarily be different.
Thanks for writing, RML!
>>
No. 117692 ID: 3ce125

>>117687
Agreed.
>>
No. 117693 ID: bb78f2

Jimmy is just Chuck's if he was a dog instead.
He's no different, maybe a little dumber. Just a bit more of a risk until his heart gets melted by Marcie too, then he'll just be Chuck's dogtwin.
>>
No. 117694 ID: ee43ea

>>117693
Unfortunately, we don't have the several days or weeks of time it'd take to even begin his character development, not with the reverends around plus someone for him to murder. We need to be more efficient. Jimmy-boy has to go.
>>
No. 117696 ID: bb78f2

No we got all the development we needed when we saw his ears. Jimmy is Charlie.

If you kill Jimmy, you kill Charlie. They're linked. Soul brothers... or a Tyler Durden.
>>
No. 117701 ID: daa216

So here is a question for those who read and suggest. Should we go to the attic and see if a ghost blowjob is still on the table?
>>
No. 117703 ID: be0718

>>117701
Seeing as we stand a ghost of a chance of scoring with anyone else right now, I'd say yes.
>>
No. 117705 ID: 9dc26d

Ghost Ride the dick
>>
No. 117715 ID: daa216

Well other than the ghost I still think Angela is on the table. She probably blames herself for the attack and we did almost get with her the truth or dare night. If that doesn't work out...ghost!
>>
No. 117723 ID: 99fef2

Dang, I like that side-shot of Chuck and penny, this may be the nicest angle I've seen him from yet! Nicely done, RML!
>>
No. 117724 ID: 66a4ca

>>/quest/844223
I have mixed feelings about this update. On one hand I like that Penelope gets a bit more exposure, but on the other hand, Chuck more or less locks himself out of a relationship with her by telling her that he would go for her niece.

I'm not sure why in this case Chuck's decided to tell Penelope that Marcie's the only girl for him. It feels a bit inconsistent with his character.
>>
No. 117725 ID: daa216

He told her that because people put that as their option for him to say it. So in short, our suggestions just turned Penny into a friend who sees us as a possible family member soon.
>>
No. 117726 ID: ee43ea

>>117724
Stop trying to constantly make us stick our dick into everything, naileD. It would've been a terrible idea here.

Also, I fully agree with this guy: >>117723
And also this guy: >>117715
Let's go see Angela.
>>
No. 117727 ID: 66a4ca

>>117726
Excuse me but, could you stop being an asshole? You have no right to tell others how they should suggest.

Also, it's not my problem if you're impotent.
>>
No. 117728 ID: ee43ea

>>117727
Well, it should not be my problem either if you're thirstier than a guy in the middle of the hottest salt desert, but you keep making it our problem by posting these ridiculously creepy suggestions and trying to get into everyone's pants.

I think your latest suggestion was the single thirstiest and most pathetic I've ever seen in entire Tgchan. That's an accomplishment, I suppose.
>>
No. 117729 ID: a6af03

it is pretty pathetic, but then again so have most of the twisted leaps of logic you've proposed for bedding characters
>>
No. 117730 ID: ee43ea

>>117729
For the record, I've never suggested anything related to bedding someone.
>>
No. 117732 ID: bb78f2

I like porn but only if its canon and makes sense
Need plot in my porn (or porn in my plot?). We're in the plot part.

My only argument for porn now is this:
This might be the last able time to get down right now in the quest, but even if Chuck's down to get down, I don't see any of the ladies wanting to get down right now.

Like ok, we fucked up with Rita (and she's got her butt hurt)
Marcie's injured and focused on baking (we gotta put a ring on her too)
Penny's, like, a maybe if we don't ever want to get back with Marcie and she's bored as hell and realizes that Chuck and Marcie are now better off without each other and just wants to get down for once in her life and all that will probably have to happen soon,
we should set up Ramnoa and John to gain romantic distance and minimize chances of mother/daughter fuckery being discovered
Sally's not a good idea,
Layla, yeah, like we could realistically pull that off
Sophies crying and knows we almost got Sally pregnant too (if we didn't)...
Farmer has a gun
Rachel has a hangover
Susanna's hurt and rightfully pissed at us,

So yeah, like MAYBE Ellen, Angela, Naz/Selma, Geoff or Julie's our only shot for porn in the current plot climate. Highest chance of getting laid will be Julia, Naz/Selma, and Angela.

My argument for not having porn:
It's going to be REAL fucking hard to pull off in this disaster zone and may be tonally dissonent.
>>
No. 117733 ID: 33d4be

>>117732

Not sure if Susanna's "rightfully" pissed at us. Seems equally likely to me that sealing the well could have caused all these problems as much as Chuck's meddling. Sinning attracts the reverends but it doesn't explain why the town's normal protection is gone or why two more people from the same time period have turned up so close to each other. Something's gone screwy with the spell on the town.

We need to have a solid chat with Susanna about it, but she's just so hard to get in touch with. We need Ramona and Sally to cook up some more Speech juice so Chuck can really communicate with her. She's probably gagging for a chance to use it with someone who can do it back, even if temporarily and inexpertly.
>>
No. 117734 ID: 3cc68c

>>117732
It's not that hard to get some porn done without mucking up the tone: Some comfort and closeness in trying times can always be appreciated.

My vote goes for Angela. Naz/Selma are a bit too kinky for the current too serious tone, and I'm pretty sure literally no one here wants to fuck the bunny. Besides, we'll want to make sure the kids are okay, and she might feel guilty about starting up this whole mess to begin with.
>>
No. 117736 ID: be0718

>>117732
I think Sophie's going to be feeling better when she wakes up and might want to engage in some stress relief once she sees there's no immediate or impending tasks to be done. The only obstacle to round 2 right now is that she's going to be asleep for several hours.
>>
No. 117738 ID: 3ed1c5

>>117736
Sohpie's proven unable to handle herself and remain composed. That's a train wreck we should be steering clear of and a worrisome development for the town's only medical professional.
>>
No. 117739 ID: 3cc68c

Second-hand troll posts now? Pff. Shame on you.

Find new material.
>>
No. 117741 ID: be0718

>>117739
Pff, that's like fifth- or sixth-hand by now.
(get it)
(because she's a spider)
>>
No. 117810 ID: 33cbe7

>>/quest/845131
Jeremiah chapter 13: "Lo, I will wreck you like you wrecked that underwear." More or less.
>>
No. 118001 ID: d57eaf

Is the comic still going or is on a hatuis/been cancelled
I ask this because for like 2 months ive been checking for updates but nothing
>>
No. 118003 ID: 66a4ca

>>118001
There's a new thread.
>>
No. 118194 ID: e5fd8b
File 151174941888.jpg - (109.75KB , 232x436 , Tumblr_n33hmx587W1rxbov4o1_500.jpg )
118194

I WAITED TEN THOUSAND YEARS FOR THIS STORY TO CONTINUE
>>
No. 118339 ID: df3460

As a lurker who pretty much never replies to anything, I have to say, imagining the cats in the images in this thread are saying this stuff to eachother makes this disthread a lot more entertaining.
>>
No. 118863 ID: ee43ea

So taking this to discussion instead of mudding up the quest thread itself with it even further.

>>851951
Julia is an antisocial, paranoid wreck. She has zero reason to socialize and get into trouble, even less now that literally everyone is stuck in the same building and she's got just about nowhere to hide. Jimmy is more likely to mingle about, but he's made it pretty clear his first priority is to find Julia. Once he does - in such a small place, he may already have - it's just inevitable that at least one of them will escalate the issue until it turns violent, probably lethally so.

And I say, good fucking riddance.

It's going to be a nicely self-contained clusterfuck: it won't go anywhere beyond these two in any other way apart from leaving a body for somebody else to find later. And there's absolutely zero reason we need to go in meddling with their business. Hell, seeking out Julia now may well just end up making it even worse - with us in the crossfire, having to pick sides in a conflict literally none of us give a shit about. Best case scenario they'll kill each other: even if one survives, it'll be one fucktard less for us and the village to deal with afterwards.

We must wipe our hands of the past. We must leave them alone. Focus on things that actually matter, things we are and should be involved in, and things that are both interesting and fun.
>>
No. 118868 ID: 2474dd

Actually despite Jimmy being the criminal type I don't think we have anything to worry about from him. He at least knows how to keep a low profile. All he wants is to get laid, and there's not enough Chuck to go around -- especially with suggestors actively working against it.
>>
No. 118869 ID: ee43ea

>>118868
All right, the fuck are we supposed to do about that? Should we keep on pushing on Angela even when she's made it clear she's not interested? Go fuck Rita even when her ass still hurts? Push on with this fucking penpal bullshit at the faintest and thirstiest hope of it resulting in threesome some-fucking-how?

No. Fuck you. It's not my fault if we're not bedding every woman in the quest. Hell, I'm still upset nobody but me cares about Rachel.
>>
No. 118870 ID: 33c74a

The problem is that a lot of times when the main character is supposed to be an asshole that's not cartoonishly evil, it can be hard for a lot of players to really get into that mindset since, well, most players really aren't as assholish as they might like to think sometimes.
>>
No. 118871 ID: 3cc68c

>>118868
I thought we were going to do this whole party thing specifically so that we could get laid?

Lay off with the passive-aggressiveness already, man. We're doing what we can. Just because we're not doing it your way doesn't mean we're being working against getting laid.
>>
No. 118872 ID: 9d448e

>>118870
Are we still doing the meme about how Chuck was always an asshole, still is an asshole, and totally hasn't had any genuine character development and become a legitimately better person? How he hasn't bonded with Ramona, genuinely cared of and even cried over Marcie, and doesn't think his old friends are really exhausting to be around? Nope - still an unrepentant asshole!

Because I like it when characters change for the better, letting trials and friendships mold them into decent people, and I must say it's a real fucking bummer if you say it's all in my head.
>>
No. 118873 ID: 20a6e7

>>118872
Seconded.
>>
No. 118874 ID: 3ce125

The argument that if we go talk to Rita about this we'll try to push it into a threesome is fucking stupid. That's a slippery slope argument. Obviously the majority doesn't want to push it into a threesome, so it won't happen if we just go fucking talk to her.
>>
No. 118875 ID: 33c74a

>>118872
Thats the point, though. He WAS an asshole, but to a lot of the players he's grown past that, while it seems that to RML he hasn't, which is what's causing this massive disconnect between the players and the QM.
>>
No. 118876 ID: ee43ea

>>118874
That's all very well, but if we're not looking for a threesome or something, why are we talking to her at all then? Just to ask her about some letters? Why should we care about some letters? She can bring it up to Angela on her own eventually if she wants. We don't have to get into micromanaging about every single thing for these people.

Besides, if we won't try to take it to sex, then it'll just give Smik more to whine about on how we're all working against us getting laid. I'm pretty sure he's all for taking this route to his special somehow-guaranteed threesome time.

(Really, I don't even get how this is supposed to realistically turn into anything sexy.)
>>
No. 118877 ID: 9d448e

>>118875
How can RML still think that when all evidence points to Chuck now being actually a legitimately decent person?

Perhaps she could drop by to explain her reasoning over here in the disthread? I'd legitimately like to hear it and I believe it'd be very enlightening.
>>
No. 118878 ID: 4557ad

>>118875
>>118877
You are suggesting, not authoring. If you're getting wrong info due to the author, that's valid criticism. If you're just deciding for yourself, take a good look in you fanfiction folder and say out loud "my fanfiction is not canon" a hundred times, then make sure the folder is clearly labeled as containing fanfiction, not verified canon.

Stop trying to read the author. You do not have telepathic interrogation powers. Suggest based on the quest, criticize the author if you believe there are issues caused directly by the author's error or misjudgment. Your personal preferences do not dictate reality.

Mine do. Chuck must fuck even if the world burns.
>>
No. 118879 ID: 33cbe7

>>118878
One way or another, it'll be a hot time in the old town tonight.
>>
No. 118880 ID: 9d448e

>>118878
I'm really not sure why you're pointing at me with this thing. Chuck no longer being an asshole is pretty much confirmed: it's neither a theory nor fanfiction.

The only way he could still be an asshole is if he were also mentally insane - bipolar, even schizophrenic. If you're suggesting he is, then you are the one writing fanfiction, not me.
>>
No. 118881 ID: 6cc25a

>>118878
This is well written. A lot of suggesters here seem to have a very twisted perception of characters. Personal experiences, expectations, selective memory or whatever else seems to be making them unable to perceive facts presented in the quest in an objective manner and they will make whatever illogical excuse they can think of so that things correctly fit in the boxes they have in their minds.
>>
No. 118882 ID: 9d448e

>>118878
Also, I'm not trying to "read" the author. I asked her a question - that's pretty much the exact opposite of what you're accusing me of.
>>
No. 118883 ID: ee43ea

>>851993
That's fair, but even not counting the whole penpal thing, there are a lot of suggestions both to going to see Naz and Selma to keep the party going, and to checking on Julia to make sure she's not getting to trouble. The latter has a few naysayers, the former none.

I think you'll do fine. Sorry if I seem like an asshole sometimes. Hang in there.
>>
No. 118884 ID: ee43ea

>>118881
You're one to talk - if anyone here is guilty of what you say, naileD, it's you. You've been consistently called out of doing precisely this, and there's never been any evidence of you being even remotely right.
>>
No. 118885 ID: d4516a
File 151336993727.jpg - (23.60KB , 335x352 , fgsfds.jpg )
118885

>>118881
>" A lot of suggesters here seem to have a very twisted perception of characters"
>"...unable to perceive facts presented in the quest in an objective manner
>"...they will make whatever illogical excuse they can think of so that things correctly fit in the boxes they have in their minds"
>naileD says all this

Holy shit, man, do you even get the irony? NO ONE in entire Tgchan does this shit more than you.
>>
No. 118886 ID: 4557ad

>>118880
Chuck "no longer being an asshole" is "confirmed" by your perception, regardless of how objective you think it is. You are not the author, you do not have access to the "background simulation". Even if it's "confirmed", Chuck being able to change does imply he is also able to relapse.

>>118882
>when all evidence points to
This isn't a pure question. Additional, adding a question mark at the end doesn't automatically make a comment a question.
Furthermore:
>How can RML still think
Because RML is the author. The author does whatever the fuck they want. Their character, judgment, skill, and work will be judged by the court of public opinion as is natural and inevitable. This will also undoubtedly affect the author's choices in a myriad potential ways. But the author still retains absolute dictatorial authorship.
If the author says up is down and black is white, then that is true in their work. This may render the work an abject piece of shit, but you do not decide what the author does.

You may know better than the author about the principles of writing, storytelling, and so on, but you never know better than the author about what the author dictates is happening in the story. If RML has decided this is all a dream and Chuck is actually a school anime in China, then that is so, regardless of your opinion, and it is RML's decision when to reveal this information. It would be a rather objectively bad decision, but your perception or preferences do not dictate the author's choices.
>>
No. 118887 ID: e39578

And what do we have here? In a fit of histrionics, the almighty RML absolves themselves of all guilt for this colossal waste of almost two years, shifting the blame conveniently onto the very people who made their quest a success. Fuck you, too, RML. Spoilering it and posting it in the quest thread doesn't make it any less of a middle finger to your loyal fans.

>>118886
So you agree RML's a fucking abysmal writer who lacks even a basic understanding of how character development works. Thanks mate!
>>
No. 118888 ID: 9d448e

>>118886
All I'm saying is, if it turns out that Chuck is still an unrepentant, incorrigible asshole, then it'd be some pretty terrible and poorly conveyed storytelling.

Up until RML actually does show up to confirm or deny this, though, we won't know one way or the other - so it's kind of a pointless tangent to go on about in every way.
>>
No. 118889 ID: 4324ce

>>118887
Not them, but actually, I don't even think she does. I think she's actually a very skilled writer, if Trash Knight is anything to go by.

I think the actual problem here is that she has a set characterization and story path that she wants to write and follow, and the players just plain don't want to follow that, which is what's causing all this tension. Trash Knight, as far as I can see, is very well written and engaging.

Lately, though, Coxwette has just felt like a tug of war between RML and the players.
>>
No. 118890 ID: 3ce125

RML, when you can't see a consensus from freeform suggestions an easy solution is to present a multiple-choice update with choices taken from the most popular suggestions. You have done this before and I dunno why you didn't do it this time. Like has been discussed earlier in this thread, mutually exclusive options are best.

Though personally I would've just had Chuck go to Rita with the decision already made to not try to push a threesome. That's what most of the naysayers were against, not just talking to Rita.
>>
No. 118891 ID: 2124f4

To solve some quest difficulties, I suggest not taking suggestions that are to not do something, if they suggest to do something then put a vote in for that. I'll be honest though I appreciate your hard work I do think the quest is being railroaded.
>>
No. 118892 ID: fb6306

I remember there being a reason for it, but I have forgotten the reason I stopped doing multiple choice updates. Since I've forgotten the reason, maybe it wasn't that pressing!

Thank you for the tip - I think at least for now I will reinstate some multiple choice updates for the next few, at least to get the ball rolling. At the very least, this will make it easier to determine the consensus in a given update.
>>
No. 118893 ID: fb6306

>>118888
I guess while I am here, I might as well put this to bed. Whether or not it has been successful, I have deliberately portrayed character development in Chuck. While he isn't a golden-hearted paladin now by any means, he has shown vulnerabilities and emotional attachment that he would not have been comfortable with before being exposed to people he cared about (and who cared about him).

In short, yes, Chuck has changed since the beginning. He has not done a complete about face and become a niceboy, but he's not a dirtbag anymore. Yes, part of why I introduced old friends of Chuck into Coxwette was to contrast them with who he is now, but they are also emblematic of the quest's encroaching end.

My goal was to be subtle in the ways he has changed, but I may have been too subtle.
>>
No. 118894 ID: 9d448e

>>118893
Personally I think you've portrayed him fine enough, though in hindsight, going by how some people still insist otherwise, maybe some kind of a niceness stat would've been good.
>>
No. 118895 ID: 33c74a

>>118893
And on the opposite end of that, I think I have to agree with your self-assessment that you may have been too subtle. I don't say this out of any malice, but seeing as how there seems to be several people who seem to have not gotten the message even this late into the game, possibly myself included, then yeah I think the problem was that you are so subtle that no one noticed. Or at the very least, some of what you considered to be nice, they/we considered to be simply practical or the only logical thing to do, and not necessarily done out of the burgeoning flecks of goodness in his heart, which to them meant that there was still a lot of room for personal self-improvement. Not saying that it was entirely miscible, but that you probably didn't get it across quite as well as you'd hoped. Sometimes, things need to be a little bit more obvious to get the message.
>>
No. 118898 ID: 5f2b81

I think there's nothing wrong with railroading. You're the storyteller, take control of the story. The interesting part of interactive storytelling is where the player's choices interact with the story being told, so it's a dialogue between teller and listener. If the players don't have anything to suggest, or even if their suggestions are clear but just aren't that interesting, I say the quality of the story comes before all else. I'm certain we'll all keep reading--Coxwette is fantastic. Ultimately, we're here because we love your vision and your world, not because we want to see someone else do the work in telling our stories for us. At least, I hope I'm speaking for most people when I say that.
>>
No. 118900 ID: 3ce125

Well I know *I* caught on that Chuck was nicer.
>>
No. 118901 ID: ee43ea

Look, if we're really going for Julia, let's at least not fuck her.

She's literally the only character in the entire quest that's completely unappealing. I'd rather we fuck Davey.
>>
No. 118902 ID: 33c74a

>>118898
I honestly can't say you're speaking for me. I like quests due to the interactive nature, and whenever that interactivity is mitigated or reduced, that takes away from the fun for me. If I wanted to just read a story with a cool world and not have my input reflected in the story, I would just read a regular story or a webcomic. I'm interested in her vision, but only in as far as how we could modify it to something that ALSO interests the players.
>>
No. 118903 ID: d03dd2

>>118902
If authors want to horn their egos into a story, they can make a webcomic or write a book. I don't give two shits about the author's "vision". I expect my suggestions to make a difference.

I don't know why this author in particular struggles with this, as if they are somehow special and entitled to railroad to their heart's content. That isn't what quests are about and it never has been.
>>
No. 118904 ID: 0c324b

What webcomics have you been working on RML? I'd be interested in giving them a look. (and I promise I personally will not cause/be a part of/bring any arguments with me when I look. There's too much arguing on the internet as is.)
>>
No. 118905 ID: ee43ea

>>118904
If there's something other than Trash Knight, I'd like to know too.
>>
No. 118906 ID: fb6306

>>118904
>>118905
I APOLOGIZE FOR SHILLING, but it is just Trash Knight and Coxwette at the moment. I am eager to reach the conclusion of Coxwette, as I have another quest called V-town lined up to start once it is over.
>>
No. 118907 ID: 3cc68c

>>118906
There's no need to apologise - we asked.

Looking forward to those things too.
>>
No. 118908 ID: b4f880

>>118903
That stnce only makes sense up to a point, if all you cared about was making puppets under your control dance, you'd write your own story or run your own quest.
But that isn't the case, you're trying to make a specific character in a specific setting do specific things.
That comes with other conditions, biggest of which is the understanding that you as an individual aren't making the decisions on where the story goes, other suggestors will propose other actions and the author finalises the actions in a way that integrates with the quest. Not everyone is going to be happy all the time.
>>
No. 118909 ID: e5fd8b

You should turn Trash Knight into a storyboard and try to sell it to Netflicks
>>
No. 118910 ID: daa216

I do thank you for your continued work on Coxwette even after its lost your interest.
>>
No. 118911 ID: fb6306

>>118910
I assure you, it has not lost my interest. I don't spend as much time on it as I used to because it does not make money like my other projects, and it is kind of riddled with drama as of late that has made it difficult for me to maintain morale. I am excited to progress the quest and ultimately finish it, though.
>>
No. 118921 ID: e5fd8b

When you make the storyboard though, make the knight a panda to imply he's Chinese, and make the kobolds into kitsune to imply they're oppressed Japanese, and make the other knights golden retrievers and bulldogs and heavily imply they're American and British.

Then you could try to sell it to Amazon so they'd have a China-friendly product.
>>
No. 118928 ID: 5b0d9e

>>118921
Isn't that what the comic is already? It reads like a clumsy allegory.
>>
No. 118932 ID: 17c2ee

>>118928
I thought it was just alternative historical fiction, personally.
>>
No. 118933 ID: ee43ea

>>118928
>>118932
Pretty sure it's a fantasy story, one with your usual dose of fantasy racism without any particular focus on it, and you're thinking too deep into this.
>>
No. 118934 ID: 17c2ee

>>118933
RML clearly put significant effort into staying true to medieval Slavic areas, I don't think your ignorance means I'm thinking too deep about it having historical elements.
>>
No. 118935 ID: ee43ea

>>118934
Nobody's saying she didn't do research or that it doesn't have a lot of real-world historical elements and aesthetics. But that doesn't make it "alternative historical fiction".
>>
No. 118940 ID: 33cbe7

>>118935
That is exactly what makes it alternative historical fiction. That, and the dragons/kobolds.
>>
No. 118941 ID: ee43ea

>>118940
All right. I'll bite.

Skyrim takes a lot of aesthetical cues from the Norse, the vikings, and in case of other nearby nations, stuff like the Roman Empire or the French or the Jews. Does this make Skyrim alternative historical fiction? Think carefully before you answer.
>>
No. 118962 ID: f0e552

>>118941
yes.
>>
No. 118963 ID: 3ce125

>>118962
WRONG
>>
No. 118965 ID: bb1b87

>>118963
How come?

How is Skyrim not alternate historical fiction? There's just dragons and shit, but other than that it makes a good case. And hey, Trash Knight's got kobolds too.
>>
No. 118966 ID: 33d4be

>>118965

I have some doubts you're serious but I'm going to try make the case anyway.

From wikipedia: "Alternate history or alternative history (Commonwealth English), sometimes abbreviated as AH, is a genre of fiction consisting of stories in which one or more historical events occur differently. These stories usually contain "what if" scenarios at crucial points in history and present outcomes other than those in the historical record. The stories are conjectural, but are sometimes based on fact. Alternate history can be seen as a subgenre of literary fiction, science fiction, or historical fiction; alternate history works may use tropes from any or all of these genres."

In short, alternate history fiction involves different events but under the same conditions as actual reality: that is, that the "rules" are the same. It is similar to the original understanding of science fiction, in that the idea is that the events depicted by works in the genre could really happen (or could have happened) under the same rules that we understand the real world to be running by. Obviously, the nature of a genre shifts over time, and the science fiction genre especially has loosened the reins on the idea of "rules of reality" since ideas that were once plausible have, with the development of our understanding of science, become implausible but remain in the genre due to their establishment in earlier works. The idea of psychic powers, for example, was considered credible at one point, science fiction works were based on it, and modern science fiction retains the idea of psychics as a heritage from those works even though the possibility of psychic powers has been almost entirely discredited in real life. Alternate history fiction is held to much tighter reigns, because our view of the past and what was true is much clearer than our view of the future and what might be true.

Something like Skyrim is not alternative history fiction because 1) It doesn't take place on earth at all, instead taking place on a world that's not a planet, has two moons, and whose stars and sun are holes poked in reality, so what time period/line of historical events is it supposed to be alternative to, 2) The world it takes place in has VERY different rules of reality from earth, 3) The cultures which have some resemblance to real-world historical cultures only really have a very superficial resemblance to them and 4) there is absolutely no claim made anywhere by the creators nor any evidence or implication in-game that the work is intended to be any kind of alternate history.

Trash Knight has magic (translation collar) and dragons (large solitary predators are extremely unlikely to evolve the capacity for intelligence and speech) and therefore falls under the "different rules of reality" category, which firmly displaces it outside alternate history fiction and into the fantasy genre.
>>
No. 118992 ID: e5fd8b

What does historical (in)accuracy have to do with making changes to the story for the sake of marketing and opening up the Chinese audience by pandering to their ridiculous sense of national pride?
>>
No. 118993 ID: 33cbe7

>>118992
Meeting our drama quota for the fiscal year.
>>
No. 119077 ID: fb6306
File 151400965133.png - (27.42KB , 400x400 , puke.png )
119077

>>
No. 119078 ID: e5fd8b

It looks like the smiley is eating the vomit instead of making it.
>>
No. 119086 ID: 9876c4

>>119077
I get that it's a shitpost, but shouldn't it be in regards to something?

Anyway, people should vote for Shadowban. Especially the Rachel-mancers.
>>
No. 119088 ID: ae9b99

unpopular opinion(???): Honestly, I like it best when we are given multiple choices in this quest like we are now. I don't know, it's just how I feel.
>>
No. 119091 ID: 6cc25a

Are those 3 prank options the only ones? Or could we think of a better one ourselves?
>>
No. 119093 ID: ee43ea

>>119091
Let's not pretend that you could come up with anything good anyway.
>>
No. 119111 ID: ded881

The quest is back to railroading. Why?
>>
No. 119112 ID: 9876c4

>>119111
Please inform us of all the great, game-changing ideas you have submitted recently.

Oh, do tell?

That's why.
>>
No. 119113 ID: ee43ea

>>119112
Easier to figure out what the consensus is.

If you have some actually legitimately suggestion to make within the quest itself, rather than complaining without actually offering any way to fix things, we're all ears.
>>
No. 119119 ID: 10c408

>>119111
Because the alternative is voterstuffing for porn of everyone except John, harold, davey and Geoff (who'd probably get murdered for no real reason) and nothing o consequence would get done *ever*
>>
No. 119120 ID: 10c408

>>119111
Because the alternative is voterstuffing for porn of everyone except John, harold, davey and Geoff (who'd probably get murdered for no real reason) and nothing o consequence would get done *ever*
>>
No. 119125 ID: e5fd8b

...eat the vomit
>>
No. 119140 ID: 96d056

It DOES feel like we kinda just have to work around Julia...exhausting stuff.
>>
No. 119143 ID: ee43ea

>>119140
She's not just an unpleasant person, but downright toxic. That's how it goes.

I still think we should just let Jimmy handle it.
>>
No. 119207 ID: faae4e

Whats the over/under on getting the priests, or at least one of them, involved in a lewd act?
>>
No. 119211 ID: faae4e

Or, better yet, finding evidence of lewdness they committed in life?
>>
No. 119283 ID: d3bf3c

Just wanted to say, I love Chuck's Melodic NOOO here- https://tgchan.org/kusaba/quest/src/151442503522.png Gave me a chuckle! XD
>>
No. 119292 ID: 9876c4

>>119283
Even when I'm being talked down, or denied, it's usually in an entertaining fashion.

Little features like that keep me smiling.
>>
No. 119293 ID: 50d32d

>>119207

> seduce the reverends

I like how you think.
>>
No. 120050 ID: faf392
File 151712116712.png - (229.22KB , 2048x833 , chadwette.png )
120050

>>
No. 120056 ID: d4516a

>>120050
I'm not sure whether anyone remembers that at the beginning this meme made fun of both of these.
>>
No. 120059 ID: c2051e

>>120056
If you think either side is entirely desirable and unironic, I recommend getting help.
>>
No. 120063 ID: faf392

>>120056
I am clearly roasting both sides with this, but go ahead and keep being chad
>>
No. 120066 ID: 3adb50

>>120050
>virginposters wanting to fuck naz
>not wanting to lovingly impregnate Marcie and settle down together
get your facts straight bucko
>>
No. 120107 ID: f32700

Chuck should've bought that store across the street from Marcie's, "Harold's Feed and Seed".
>>
No. 120112 ID: 9876c4

>>120050
>Short, pithy suggestions
>Constantly outvoted but continues to post
Shots fired. Oh, the Tsunderity.

>>120066
I wanted to do both. I'm so pure I should get my own Unicorn.
>>
No. 120113 ID: 2fe26a

>>120059
Chad did nothing wrong.
>>
No. 120789 ID: 69d4b9

Dropping a hot link to establish the magnitude of some ignorant dude's wrongitude: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/07/18/537257884/that-drug-expiration-date-may-be-more-myth-than-fact
>>
No. 120932 ID: faae4e

So, I don't know if this has been a point of discussion or not, and it's from a while back, but... how come such a big deal was made about coming in the dog, but practically nobody noticed when he came in the squirrel?
>>
No. 120986 ID: 792ea9

>>120932
yeah i think we dropped the ball on the whole doggy creampie. Hopefully it comes up again because I like the drama and pregnacy fetish

thats if they can procreate

also update whennnnnnnn?
>>
No. 120993 ID: b1b4f3

>>120932
Because we were distracted by Geoff and honestly getting a condom on has been a consistent pain in the ass even when specifically requested so you'll have to forgive us if the majority of suggesters are starting to get a bit tired of fighting for it.
>>
No. 121005 ID: daa216

I was sort of disappointed at how little we got to see of the squirrel boning myself. Cie la vie.
>>
No. 121933 ID: faae4e

So, uh, i have a feeling at this point that kicking the rabbit out of the room might cause her to leave the house and get killed.
>>
No. 121941 ID: f6b57a

>>121933
That'd be a net positive for a large number of voters.
>>
No. 122326 ID: dc91a0

>>>/quest/878443
Still technically rape. Sure Chuck was OK with it after the fact but that doesn't change what it was.
If Julia were to pull the same shit (even after a blatant no), it would be unfair to judge her differently for the same act carried out by both Ramona and Sally. That is unless you want to reassess your opinions of them as well.
>>
No. 122333 ID: 6543d4

>>121933
Probably. What about it?
>>
No. 122335 ID: ee43ea

>>121933
So long as she stays under the bed and shuts the fuck up, I've got no complaints.
>>
No. 122977 ID: 9c3230
File 152624767093.png - (83.19KB , 604x988 , puppesses.png )
122977

Mother's Day puppesses!!!!
>>
No. 122999 ID: daa216

Man I want to say that image is adorable, but all I can think when I see it is "We've have chuck sleep with both of them."
>>
No. 123005 ID: 8df643

> >>/quest/884232 >"It was never supposed to be this difficult."
She's right. Getting snanal wasn't supposed to be this difficult.
>>
No. 123984 ID: c1c173

‘Sit dead?
>>
No. 124152 ID: f9ef04

>>123984
Probably not. RML has been doing a lot of Trash Knight recently, as well as starting V-Town (which has been on hold for a while too). Hopefully they will get back to the snanal sometime soon but they might just be busy at the moment.
>>
No. 125485 ID: 864e49

RML? RML! RMLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!
Holy shit you're back this is incredible!
Why? You where finally free.
I'm so happy :D
>>
No. 125507 ID: 9c3230

>>125485
On the contrary, I have wanted to resume Coxwette for a long time!

>>124152
This is pretty much right. I have been busy with other things that have made it difficult to keep the update schedule I had before.

Another more minor reason was that I was becoming stressed out with the increasing pressure and controversy surrounding Coxwette updates. This time around, I might be less strictly democratic about how I pick suggestions because I really want to conclude the quest. I hope this is not too frustrating, but the volume of votes and the degree of disagreement with each major update was becoming a serious burden.

I do not want to give the impression that I hate the quest or am tired of it. Quite the opposite! Running this has been one of the highlights of my life and I am excited to give it an end.
>>
No. 126755 ID: 06fdc0

hello rml, i noticed you disabled your fa account from public viewing, are you doing okay?
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [Last 100 posts]

Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason