I Don't Know Whether You Have Intentions To Respond To My Last Reblog, But I Ask That You Read It And

I don't know whether you have intentions to respond to my last reblog, but I ask that you read it and can I please also ask you to remove the maintags from your initial post or at least edit it to not vague and alienate me and other people who your post is written to be aimed at even thought they haven't done anything to be disregarded with hostility? I ask sincerely, thank you

(I did intend to respond but got caught up with life stuff.)

I will not remove the post in general or from the main tags for the following reasons.

Analyzing a “character moment” that isn’t actually a character moment and describing the “character” as negative is the same as calling the creator negative. It has been a problem for a while and is affecting the creators.

There are way too many Joel fans specifically who have it out for Scott the creator. I understand that you are not one of them, but that does not excuse the words and actions of those who have called Scott rancid things in “defense” of Joel. If you feel alienated by one poster, imagine how awful Scott must feel being alienated by thousands of posters that call him awful things just for being harmlessly himself with his friends. I understand that receiving hate is part of the job, but the amount Scott receives is disproportionate to the rest of his peers, and we all know why.

“Not having done anything to me personally” is not a reason for me to not be very upset with people who are mistreating someone, especially if they are being incredibly unfair in their judgement. Judging by your reblog, you seem to have no idea how awful and aggressive people have been towards Scott. There’s no civility from them, and being civil about the situation isn’t working or going to work.

If people are going to put Scott hate in the main tags, intentional or not, they’re going to get a response in the main tags. If you don’t like it, you can block me. That’s fine, but you don’t get to excuse talking negatively about Scott, or, for that matter, anyone else, by referring to a decision as a “character” when you’re just talking about a decision that the real person made of themselves. That’s incredibly hurtful and alienating. Just because you had innocent intentions doesn’t mean you didn’t say something incredibly hurtful.

I WILL alter the post to be more general and make a note that I have done so, but I hope you understand that you can’t analyze a “character moment” that is out of roleplay if you’re just going to call “one of the characters” worthy of being killed 5 times for being playful with his friend. That wasn’t cool. Your whole analysis was basically pushing that Scott is an instigator and Joel is a victim. I understand that that wasn’t your intention, but it definitely came off that way what with how you insisted that Joel should be allowed to kill Scott repeatedly despite them being relatively even. Maybe it was just bad luck on your end, but you villainized a person who has been repeatedly taken out of the context that he’s teasing his friends and then villainized irrationally as a person.

top ten ways of saying "i love you" without saying "i love you"

10. "I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU EVEN IF IT'S THE LAST THING I DO."

9. "you used corruption, believing in me? how beautiful."

8. "thank you for being a victim of my shallow emotions."

7. "tell me, you fool. if i continue to regress, will i get to ever meet you again?

6. "if all i can do as a human is to believe... my god. my universe..."

5. "for all that it's worth, i was telling the truth when i said i enjoyed working with you."

4. "if it's for your sake, i don't mind being locked in this eternal maze."

3. "under different circumstances, we could have been great rivals. or perhaps even friends."

2. "at last, we meet."

"it means i'm going to save you no matter what."

Collection of alien stage GIFs from the latest video

+ breakdown

107 notes View Post

burdigel

5 months ago

Theories and Headconnans Pt. 28

So this weekly theory stems from the purposeful similarities and differences between a moment in Third Life and Wild Life. That particular moment in session three of Wild Life and session five of Third Life that resulted in a sacrifical death between Ren and another blonde, traumatised players. Which include Jimmy and Martyn respectively.

Beginning with Ren's sacrifice to Jimmy in Wild Life, this death was mainly a transactional death to regain his yellow status in exchange for undying loyalty soaked in the blood of Renthedog. An animal commonly characterised as loyal or faithful to friends or someone(s) trusted. This death unified some fraction of the Bamboozlers and the Renwood Mount and could symbolise new beginnings as Ren's returning season after Double Life. Back in Third Life, the Flower husbands were known as enemies of Dogwarts and with this sacrifice for a life, it could be known as rebuilding a bridge burned with war and detest.

This death mirrors the tragic moment in session five of Third Life where Martyn executed Ren before reborning as the Red King and bringing harvoc to the players as a red name. Losing his first life to Grian's unsuccessful-successful TNT minecart trap, Ren swore vengance to the Desert Duo as a red name who are able to initiate violence upon any life but risk being permanently dead. Regardless of this gamble, Ren was slayed by his Hand (Marytn). One of his most trusted allies who was also by when Ren orchestrated each war and battle against the Desert Alliance.

These then connects with Jimmy and Martyn who both teamed as the Big Dogs relating the trio of dogs and loyalty and making the webbing of teams, allies and enemiess across all seasons even more complicated.