Jump to content

The New Circle


OddHat

Recommended Posts

Re: The New Circle

 

> I said that I dont want to hear anything you have to say. That is not the

> same thing as saying you arent worth listening to at all.

 

 

 

KS, you've told me only three times today that you do not respect me or my opinions at all, and you expect me to believe that *now*, you *didn't* mean it? Come on.

On the contrary Chuck. I meant what I said -- which was "Chuck, you have nothing to say, ever, that I am interested in hearing, ever."

 

However, what you said was: "Especially that one about how I'm not worth listening to at all."

 

I realize that idea of scope is probably lost on you, but me saying you dont have anything to say that I want to hear is not the same thing as saying that you're not worth listening to at all.

 

See, one is my personal opinion applying only to me, and the other is a global statement applying to everyone.

 

> Get a grip.

 

This is not a good way to try and show that you really didn't intend offense.

OMG, the bad man told me to get a grip! :cry:

 

> What attitude? The only attitude I have is a refusal to allow you to

> browbeat me.

 

And now we're back to the part where KS defines any criticism of anything he posts as a personal attack and claims that all of his venom, all his vitriol, all his flaming and tantrums and ranting and raving and screaming and general immaturity are merely well-reasoned self-defense and polite behavior.

Heh heh. Thats really funny Chuck. Any venom and vitriol present have been directed solely at you, and were clearly marked as such.

 

Who's immature? You seem unnable to comprehend that your input is simply not wanted by me, and any comments you make are discarded.

 

Instead of just maturely packing up and moving on, you instead go on and on in post after post.

 

Who are you railing against Chuck?

 

Your input on the character has been stated. What is the purpose of continuing to post?

 

When will the futility of this approach *ever* become clear to you?

Immediately after you stop posting.

 

> On the contrary Chuck, I offered an even exchange.

 

It was not even remotely close to even.

So let me get this straight. You and I abiding by the exact same moratorium is not even? Thats a strange way of looking at the world, Chuck.

 

> You would not respond to my posts, and I would not respond to yours.

> Thats an even exchange.

 

Not if you define "not responding" as "but I still get to post cheap shots about posts that Chuckg's already written".

Wrong, Chuck. I didnt cheap shot anything. You asked a question as to the binding of the agreement to future posts, and I stated very clearly that it applied to ALL posts.

 

It is not an even exchange where Killer Shrike can post whatever he feels like -- including fresh personal attacks at Chuckg -- and Chuckg is never allowed to talk about it. But that is what you tried to snag for yourself, under the illusion of a 'fair truce' or an 'even exchange'.

There were no fresh attacks. Your overactive imagination and general trollishness seem to be getting the better of you again.

 

> Since we dont get along anyway, and I dont care what you think, it

> wouldnt put me out any.

 

So, posting about a character that you created is -- according to you -- harassment, heckling, and persecution -- but if I openly mocked the worth of your post content, that would just be good clean fun and you'd take no offense at all?

Thats a strange interpretation of a sentence that doesnt even suggest such a thing.

 

Once again, you seem to be operating from a variant version of events.

 

Continuing to post criticism after its been indicated that it is unwelcom is harrassment, etc.

 

Is it to much to ask for you to not misquoute things, by the way? Its a technique you seem fond of. Your original question was:

 

If I told you that you never said anything worth listening to' date=' would you feel good about it?[/quote']

 

and my answer was:

Since we dont get along anyway' date=' and I dont care what you think, it wouldnt put me out any.[/quote']

 

I dont know where you are getting the mocking = fun nonsense from.

 

Well, on the plus side, at least I'm not so angry with you anymore. This is getting downright funny.

Actually, I find it more sad and pathetic that you continue to disrupt what was previously a friendly, contributory, NON CRITIQUING sharing of characters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The New Circle

 

Whoops, KS got his shot in just before I posted, let me quote for clairty.

 

(I have $5 bucks on the outcome of this shoot-out, go guys! Uh, $5 bucks that...I dunno, somebody will "win"?)

 

I dislike the concept of eating inside a theater. That's what nearby restaurants are for.

 

One of the reasons that going to the cinema has become a less desirable experience. :/

 

To ChuckG's point, FYI, I just don't eat popcorn in general, except sometimes cheese popcorn.

 

Nah' date=' theatre popcorn is barely tolerable, IMO, and that's only if it's without the artificial butter flavor. /That/ stuff makes it totally inedible. :)[/quote']

 

To JAGN, that's interesting. My wife has a sort of life-long commitment to theater popcorn as a close friend and she would always get popcorn and he passed away unexpectedly when we were all about 30, it's become a sort of tribute/ritual. As for me, I like to eat in theaters, but only once the movie starts going (it's basically about creating as much positive stimulation as possible!). And it seems the majority of people eat in them, I never thought about people who entirely don't like that.

 

Does it bother you to see other people eating there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The New Circle

 

I dislike the concept of eating inside a theater. That's what nearby restaurants are for.

 

One of the reasons that going to the cinema has become a less desirable experience. :/

 

I don't mind people eating, as long as they eat quietly and politely.

 

On one hand, I have trouble going 2 or 3 hours without something to drink. (And I don't mean booze, you wisecrackers.)

 

On the other hand, I can buy the snacks at the threatre, or a new car...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The New Circle

 

I don't mind people eating, as long as they eat quietly and politely.

 

On one hand, I have trouble going 2 or 3 hours without something to drink. (And I don't mean booze, you wisecrackers.)

 

On the other hand, I can buy the snacks at the threatre, or a new car...

I'm kind of like that re drinks. I can easily go to the theater and only get a soda if I am not hungry at all. But I ALWAYS get a soda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The New Circle

 

> A) I read from oldest to newest so I didnt even see your silly kitten pics

> until AFTER I had posted.

 

You had all night to delete your last post... remember, I didn't post again until the next day. That would have been a very nice gesture, totally indicative of a desire to let it go and make peace.

 

You didn't.

By that logic you could have gone back and deleted all of your follow on posts after I asked you to not critique the character. You know, as a nice gesture.

 

 

So, I posted a post complaining about "late hit". That and nothing more.

To which I didnt reply.

 

You still didn't.

Why should I Chuck? The post it refered to was still there.

 

If you want to play that little game, why didnt you delete your posts?

 

{brush away}

 

Thats a weak angle, Chuck.

 

> B) Posting kittens doesnt give your previous posts response immunity.

 

Ah, I see. No truce is possible until after Killer Shrike is finished talking anyway. *Then* there can be truce, but only after he's finished making all the cheap shots he wants to make, posting all the insults he wants to post, and finishing all the arguments he wants to finish.

What are you talking about Chuck? You came back and attacked some more after throwing your hands up. Take responsibility for your own actions Chuck.

 

At that point, he will generously allow the other party to continue shutting up and not posting back, while he moves on to whatever other posting fields of endeavor he feels appropriate.

That much is pretty accurate.

 

Do you have /any/ idea of what the word "compromise" means? Hint -- it's not the word where you get everything you want and the other guy gets only what you feel like giving him.

I dont feel the need to compromise when attacked. Dont piss in my cornflakes and then expect me to compromise and eat it, Chuck. You were the attacking party, I was defending myself. Desist and move along.

 

 

> C) You are the person on the attack. I was defending myself from your

> attacking posts.

 

I have never attacked you until this afternoon, after the first failed truce and the repeated personal insults by you.

Every additional post critiquing after I indicated it wasnt welcome was harrassment. Harrassment is an attack Chuck.

 

And even then, my 'attacks' have not gone beyond noting that you deal with criticism really, really poorly.

On the contrary -- I dont accept that you are worthy of criticising me. I reject your input categorically. You choose to interpret that in a broad fashion rather than accepting the simple fact that I detest you personally.

 

Let me try and emphasize again:

 

SIMPLY CRITICIZING A CHARACTER YOU WROTE IS NOT AN ATTACK.

Uninvited criticism after youve been asked to desist is an attack Chuck.

 

You see simple criticism as an attack? That is wrong. That is a problem. That is a major emotional issue you need to deal with.

Actually, it's just common sense Chuck. In polite society if someone criticises you or your work and you ask them not to, its rude. If they keep doing it, its harrassment.

 

There is no emotional impact here, Chuck. I simply reject your input. Get it?

 

> Thats similar to the monguls riding in on a city and trying to behead

> someone and then giving out kittens and claiming they were unfairly

> attacked when they are repulsed by the defenders of the city.

 

Now criticizing one of your characters is morally equivalent to the Mongols sacking a city? I can't even /parody/ this, it's so out there.

 

Actually Chuck, its called an analogy. Thats where you compare something to something else with a similar pattern.

 

So in this case we have an attacker (YOU) and a defender (ME). You attack my submission. I rebuff you. There is a skirmish back and forth. You plead for a truce and a withdrawal. I agree to the truce, so long as you dont come back. You throw up your hands and pretend that you are the victimised party and wail about it.

 

A parody would be if I assumed an identity intended to be you and proceeded to exaggerate your behavior in a humorous fashion.

 

 

Something like this would be more of a parody:

GhuckC:

 

"Your character is mega powerful, and uses Stop Sign Powers!. Thats insane! You probably dont realize this, but Invisibile, Desolid characters with Affect Physical World are difficult to deal with! Youve made a mistake!"

 

Killer Strike

 

"That is intended. If you dont like the character dont use it. Thanks for voicing your opinion."

 

GhuckC:

 

"No really. He can do things like go thru walls and stuff. And be invisible. And stick people with his sword. And fly around fast. It's WRONG!!!!"

 

Killer Strike:

 

"That's intended. Please move along."

 

GhuckC:

 

"You dont seem to understand! He can do, like, 5d6 Killing with a passing strike, and end on the other side of a wall. Thats crazy!"

 

Killer Strike:

 

"I understand. He's 1100 points. He's designed for high end heroes. If its not appropriate to your group, dont use it."

 

 

GhuckC:

 

"Stop Sign powers are illegal! You must stop the madness!"

 

Killer Strike:

 

"No, they arent."

 

GhuckC:

 

"Well, if you think Stop Sign powers are Ok, then ANYTHING is legal!"

 

Killer Strike:

 

"That doesnt even make sense. Please move along."

 

Maybe we'll cover metaphors in our next go round as ChuckG's Thread-crapping continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The New Circle

 

> On the contrary Chuck. I meant what I said -- which was

> "Chuck, you have nothing to say, ever, that I am interested in hearing,

> ever."

 

> However, what you said was: "Especially that one about how I'm not worth

> listening to at all."

 

> I realize that idea of scope is probably lost on you, but me saying you dont

> have anything to say that I want to hear is not the same thing as saying

> that you're not worth listening to at all.

 

:rofl:

 

Do you really believe that you can fake /anyone/ into believing that you were not intending to dump on me, and that you really do hold me in any kind of respect? Do you /really/?

 

I find it telling that so far, all your defenses are based on a) hair-splitting meanings of words and B) which particular hair-splits *you* choose, as if there's no other possible way to interpret things other than the way you choose to put on them. And that anybody who does so interpret has "scope" problems.

 

You sneer at me for supposedly seeing no other way than mine to play Champions, while you simultaneously see no other way than yours to behave at all.

 

> See, one is my personal opinion applying only to me,

 

Funny, I was under the impression that it was applying to /me/.

 

[snip]

> OMG, the bad man told me to get a grip! :cry:

 

OK, so the rules are, Killer Shrike can say whatever he wants, and anybody who complains about them is a baby and whiner? That's your idea of fair?

 

> Heh heh. Thats really funny Chuck. Any venom and vitriol present have

> been directed solely at you, and were clearly marked as such.

 

You know, out of all the people who could reasonably be expected to agree with the idea 'It's OK to act like a jerk so long as the guy you're talking to is Chuckg', you'd expect me to be last on that list.

 

You have a very curious and selective idea of manners.

 

> Who's immature?

 

The guy who can't seem to get his point across without repeated use of grade-school insults? The guy who reacts to a simple critcism of a fictional character he wrote as if it were an extended personal attack? The guy who's trying to redefine the Platonic Ideal of the concept "overly defensive'?

 

In short, you.

 

> You seem unnable to comprehend that your input is simply not wanted by

> me,

 

Oh, I comprehend that entirely. It's just, you don't seem to comprehend that people you dump on tend not to care much about what you want.

 

Seriously. Who told you that you'd always have it your way? This is not Burger King, and it is not an automatic mortal sin of etiquette to deny you one of your desires.

 

> and any comments you make are discarded.

 

Actually, my comments seem to be *not* discarded, but instead obsessively picked over and used as springboards for new attempts to insult, but I suppose this must be the Newspeak definition of the word 'discard' or something.

 

> Instead of just maturely packing up and moving on,

 

I love how 'maturity' is always defined as 'letting you have it your way'.

 

Everything always comes back to this -- you want me to stop talking, because for some reason, it just plain drives you up the wall. Therefore, if I don't stop talking, I must be some type of bad person.

 

Never you mind that nobody died and made you thread god, and that nobody *has* to stop talking just because you're not having fun with what they say, you simply cannot grasp the fact that just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean it has no right to speak.

 

> you instead go on and on in post after post.

 

> Who are you railing against Chuck?

 

You.

 

> Your input on the character has been stated. What is the purpose of

> continuing to post?

 

What is your purpose in continuing to post? What made all the insults unnecessary? Why can't *you* ever do the mature thing?

 

> Immediately after you stop posting.

 

Why should I stop posting? What possible reason have I to stop posting?

 

> So let me get this straight. You and I abiding by the exact same

> moratorium is not even?

 

Not if it produces uneven results.

 

> Thats a strange way of looking at the world, Chuck.

 

Consider an analogy. Person A and Person B are going to split a pizza. There is a pizza on the table with six pieces. Person A comes along and eats two pieces.

 

Person B then comes along, notices that person A has already taken two pieces, and so takes three pieces for himself, leaving person A the remaining piece.

 

Person A -- "Hey! That's not fair!"

 

Person B -- "What do you mean? There's two of us, it's a six-piece pizza, that's three each. I just took my three, you're already started on your three."

 

Person A -- "I say we take two pieces each."

 

Person B -- "That's not fair."

 

Person A -- "Hot can it be not fair? I take two, you take two! That's fair!"

 

Person B -- "But you already..."

 

Person A -- "That doesn't count! We're starting from This Point Forward! Now give me my two pieces of pizza!"

 

Person B -- "Say /what/?"

 

etc, etc. etc...

 

> Wrong, Chuck. I didnt cheap shot anything.

 

Yes, you did. I felt very offended by your comment and considered it the cheapest of shots. And you didn't have to say it. You could simply have said yes, or no, without personal editorials added on.

 

> You asked a question as to the binding of the agreement to future posts,

> and I stated very clearly that it applied to ALL posts.

 

And you went further than that.

 

> There were no fresh attacks.

 

Technically, no -- it was just you repeating the same old insult in (very slightly) different words. So, you're right, that's not "fresh".

 

> Your overactive imagination and general trollishness seem to be getting the

> better of you again.

 

Only on the Herogames forums can somebody spend two days insulting every aspect of another poster's gaming style, intellect, and manners -- and all because somebody criticized a character he posted -- and then the *other* guy is the troll.

 

*sigh*

 

I wonder about this place sometimes.

 

[snip]

> Is it to much to ask for you to not misquoute things, by the way? Its a

> technique you seem fond of.

 

Ah, and now I'm a liar and a quote-forger, too. Every time we go around, you sink further, and I stay in exactly the same place.

 

I'm still deciding whether to be angry or amused by that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The New Circle

 

> By that logic you could have gone back and deleted all of your follow on

> posts after I asked you to not critique the character.

 

But the point you're refusing to grasp is, you have no right to ask people to not critique your characters.

 

[snip]

> Uninvited criticism after youve been asked to desist is an attack Chuck.

 

No, it's not.

 

Purely and simply, it's not. You don't get to misuse the manners rules to hide your characters behind. Criticism that you don't want to hear is criticism that you don't have to read... it is *not* criticism that I have to go back and delete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest WhammeWhamme

Re: The New Circle

 

> By that logic you could have gone back and deleted all of your follow on

> posts after I asked you to not critique the character.

 

But the point you're refusing to grasp is, you have no right to ask people to not critique your characters.

 

Uh, no. Of course he has the right to _ask_. I think you're mixing up "ask" and "demand".

 

And both of you have an equal right to be rude about it.

 

KS doesn't want you to critique his character. He does have a right to express that (insofar as any of us have a "right" to post here).

 

[snip]

> Uninvited criticism after youve been asked to desist is an attack Chuck.

 

No, it's not.

 

Purely and simply, it's not. You don't get to misuse the manners rules to hide your characters behind. Criticism that you don't want to hear is criticism that you don't have to read... it is *not* criticism that I have to go back and delete.

 

You want _him_ to go back and delete something, do you not?

 

Both of you have done nothing outside your "rights". If you want to restrict the other, then you have to both sacrifice something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The New Circle

 

> Uh, no. Of course he has the right to _ask_. I think you're mixing up "ask" and

> "demand".

 

Point. He can ask. I'm free to say 'no'.

 

> And both of you have an equal right to be rude about it.

 

And saying 'no' is not rude.

 

It is not rude, it is not an offense against manners, it is not anything wrong to critique someone's character. It is a misuse of the concept of 'civility' to claim that politeness requires refusal to contradict you in any way whatsoever.

 

> KS doesn't want you to critique his character. He does have a right to

> express that (insofar as any of us have a "right" to post here).

 

It is not, however, a very reasonable request.

 

Seriously. Nobody's above being disagreed with. Nobody's sacred, or special.

 

> You want _him_ to go back and delete something, do you not?

 

Yes. I want him to back and delete an unjustified personal attack against me. He wants me to go back and delete any post of mine that he doesn't want to hear. Not the same thing.

 

> Both of you have done nothing outside your "rights".

> If you want to restrict the other, then you have to both sacrifice

> something.

 

Incorrect. I *do* have the right to expect to not be personally attacked for no good reason. And 'You disagreed with my character!' is not a good reason.

 

And I already told him what I was willing to sacrifice, in return for what I wanted him to sacrifice. He didn't want to give up a single smidgen of it, and in return, he wanted me to give up everything.

 

If you want this to reach a negotiated settlement, convince him to accept the original terms I offered, without adding on conditions and/or unfavorable personal commentary of his own. Now *those* were a genuinely mutual trade of sacrifices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The New Circle

 

a) No one here is willing to even entertain the idea that Killer Shrike's reaction to criticism did the real damage?

 

Seriously. If he at any point throughout this entire exercise could have written /one/ reply to me that was not a fresh attempt to personally attack, belittle, dismiss, or just plain act offended at the very notion of anyone posting a criticism of him that he did not first pre-approve... things would have been quite different.

 

And you would think that the ability to not go ballistic on a critic would be a minimum survival requirement for the Internet.

 

B) Ruined? Post a new character, anyone, and just keep on going without us. Don't over-dramatize, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Skaramine

Re: The New Circle

 

When you jerks ChuckG and Agent X are done fanning the flames of this napalm war, let me know. Until then, I'll be working on rounding out the Quarter, some allies/rivals for the Circle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The New Circle

 

a) No one here is willing to even entertain the idea that Killer Shrike's reaction to criticism did the real damage?

 

B) Ruined? Post a new character, anyone, and just keep on going without us. Don't over-dramatize, please.

 

A) In case I didn't make myself clear, you've BOTH been doing the damage.

 

B) It makes it hard to follow a thread when there's long post after long post about how much you two don't like each other. Guess what, we get the point, no need to explain it further. Seriously, doesn't it tell you anything that people are starting to treat you two like a (ding-dang) sideshow?

 

You've both got something to contribute to these forums, IMO, but right now you're both just plain annoying, at least on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest WhammeWhamme

Re: The New Circle

 

> Uh, no. Of course he has the right to _ask_. I think you're mixing up "ask" and

> "demand".

 

Point. He can ask. I'm free to say 'no'.

 

> And both of you have an equal right to be rude about it.

 

And saying 'no' is not rude.

 

It is not rude, it is not an offense against manners, it is not anything wrong to critique someone's character. It is a misuse of the concept of 'civility' to claim that politeness requires refusal to contradict you in any way whatsoever.

 

> KS doesn't want you to critique his character. He does have a right to

> express that (insofar as any of us have a "right" to post here).

 

It is not, however, a very reasonable request.

 

Seriously. Nobody's above being disagreed with. Nobody's sacred, or special.

 

This is cosmic law?

 

It seems reasonable to me, and I suspect others might also agree.

 

> You want _him_ to go back and delete something, do you not?

 

Yes. I want him to back and delete an unjustified personal attack against me. He wants me to go back and delete any post of mine that he doesn't want to hear. Not the same thing.

 

> Both of you have done nothing outside your "rights".

> If you want to restrict the other, then you have to both sacrifice

> something.

 

Incorrect. I *do* have the right to expect to not be personally attacked for no good reason. And 'You disagreed with my character!' is not a good reason.

 

And I already told him what I was willing to sacrifice, in return for what I wanted him to sacrifice. He didn't want to give up a single smidgen of it, and in return, he wanted me to give up everything.

 

If you want this to reach a negotiated settlement, convince him to accept the original terms I offered, without adding on conditions and/or unfavorable personal commentary of his own. Now *those* were a genuinely mutual trade of sacrifices.

 

If you're comfortable on that moral high ground, how about you expand the property and, for the first time in all the words of yours I have read, be the first to stop posting.

 

It really _isn't_ hard. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The New Circle

 

I have only two more things to say here:

 

1. We now have an outright admission from Killer Shrike that he never did intend to provide reasonable reply to the critiquing of his character, based not on any of the contents of the critique, but *solely based on the individual doing the critiquing*.

 

How, exactly, is this not unreasonable behavior??

 

2. If you, Killer Shrike, do not wish to view any criticism of your characters, but most specifically, from ChuckG, than how about you apply this simple, easy, and permanent solution: put ChuckG on "Ignore." That way, you never have to see any of his comments or critiques, and simultaneously, anyone else who actually *is* interested in ways to improve the characters ( or just general discussion or debate ), can see them.

 

Similarly, any time in the future that you see someone criticize a character you post, or in general say something you don't like, you can put them on ignore too. Pretty soon, you'll never hear anything negative about anything you post again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The New Circle

 

> A) In case I didn't make myself clear, you've BOTH been doing the

> damage.

 

In case *I* don't make myself clear, somebody needs to tell Killer Shrike that he was out of line and make him understand it, and it obviously can't be me.

 

You want to treat the symptom? Blame everyone. Eventually, everyone will shut up, and then sometime in the future somebody else -- maybe be, maybe somebody I know, maybe some new guy totally -- will disagree with something else that Killer Shrike writes, and he will tell them to shut up, he's not interested, and they'll post again anyway, and then wham, KS will go ballistic again about how 'attacked' he is and how justified he is in flaming the entire thread into a cinder.

 

And why? Because he thinks he's got a *RIGHT* to do that. Because nobody here -- except me, and apparently, I don't count -- ever tells him otherwise!

 

Why should Killer Shrike /ever/ change his behavior? You people already support him in this.

 

You want to treat the *cause*? Explain to Killer Shrike that he really doesn't have the power to redefine 'attack' as 'any criticism that I don't want to hear'.

 

> B) It makes it hard to follow a thread when there's long post after long

> post about how much you two don't like each other. Guess what, we get

> the point, no need to explain it further. Seriously, doesn't it tell you

> anything that people are starting to treat you two like a fucking

> sideshow?

 

Instead of stepping in about 100 posts ago to ask Killer Shrike to lighten up? Oh yeah, it tells me something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bblackmoor

Re: The New Circle

 

Seriously' date=' doesn't it tell you [b']anything[/b] that people are starting to treat you two like a f***ing sideshow?

 

I saw one of those in Tijuana, once. In fairness to both Killer Shrike and ChuckG, it was much more repulsive than this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The New Circle

 

Yep.

 

So, from now on, I can tell anybody to stop posting any critcism of me that I don't want to hear, and if they keep posting, it's perfectly fine if I claim that they're "attacking" me and throw a tantrum on their ass? This is the accepted board standard of behavior?

 

Or is there a codicil I missed saying '... no, that's only for Killer Shrike and his special friends, and anybody who /doesn't/ sit at the Senior Table can go suck rocks?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The New Circle

 

I'm too sick to deal with this crappola.

 

I suggest that anyone who wants to continue any discussion that does not have to do with the New Circle or other mystic NPC ideas should follow this link.

 

Thanks.

 

Now, someone, please, talk about mystic NPCs. I'll rep the first person that posts even a halfway decent character that's appropriate for this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...