Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page 1123...next »

Hey sorry for the late response, anyway I just wanted to like uh, tell you that the page is revised.

mmmmmmmh i forgot about you lol

by Everything4404Everything4404, 13 Oct 2018 14:38

I've fixed the article to the best of my ability. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the story or writing. It's equally interesting to me.

Now this might seem like narcissist confidence but I have been bored or disinterested in other works of my own making.

I need to see what's boring about it, if you will. The plot is manageable and doesn't seem to be overly boring to me. It's pretty interesting, with the scientific measurements and etcetera.

Also I've added more facts about the item.

The 'X' inside the rating module cancels whatever vote you have made.

by drSteffiedrSteffie, 02 Oct 2018 14:48

Okay. How do I un-rate or whatever? I can rate - but it makes it worser
i just want to rate 0

Also I don't see how this is just un-interesting. I can see how it's a little bit boring but really, I don't know how to make it any more fun. I'll try again.

by Everything4404Everything4404, 29 Sep 2018 16:32

I don't think the inclusion of SEPIA contributed to this article at all. You could really just replace them with any generic antagonist and it'll be the same. I also think tacking on even more addenda isn't the issue; it's about making the Item and the usage of it interesting. Without accomplishing that, all you're left with is a bland piece.

Also, rating your own work is considered bad P.R.


No signature defined.

by DrSupposeDrSuppose, 29 Sep 2018 16:23

I've fixed the writing to the best of my ability.
I've also changed the backstory about SEPIA.

Should add I transcripts?
I kind of forgot some stuff.
Should I add more addenda?

Should I add more?

I have to say, the appendix being twice as long as the rest of the report felt like a drag at times, but the original concept was strong enough to pull me through to the end. +1

by MobaineMobaine, 29 Sep 2018 15:30

Please take more time in fleshing out the actual concept. The paragraph describing the item is shorter than half of my thumb.

by MobaineMobaine, 29 Sep 2018 15:23

I was thinking that maybe i should scrap the "scientist made an anomaly to kill an anomaly" concept and instead put it in SEPIA.

I'll try to fix the writing, and tie up the "speculation" with the report.

also, the function is pretty much what the machine is all about. By trying to explain the machine further, you don't get to the point. And academic writing gets to the point.

EDIT: I'm changing the concept and putting it in the context of SEPIA.

by Everything4404Everything4404, 29 Sep 2018 15:03

Added a rating module.

It's been a while since anything was posted about anti-anomalies. Sedition Is Both Ways was the last one talking about it. This is right up SEPIA's alley and I'm always interested to read more about it. That said, this article's academic writing is poor and in general need of a clean-up. The multiple addenda after the description are jarring if it's trying to get me hooked on the item's function. I'm rather more curious about the Item itself.

The part I feel was most wasted was the speculation at the bottom, which felt so very loosely tied with the rest of the report. Awkwardly enough, it's better written than the actual report.

I'd like to see a rewrite of this, though I'll have to downvote it as it is.

by Garden ManGarden Man, 29 Sep 2018 12:43

Oookay.

I mean, I'll answer all these questions later on with a tale.

I've created the page.

As i said.
I will keep out of this if you decide to post it. For me an item must explain the item, and even if the answer is just "We don't know." There has to be an answer.

The other inconsistency is that your Doc dose not seem to be happy about having archived his goal to avenge a loved one, nor proud to have proven himself as a scientist, nor concerned about what he created. His hate for ALL paranormal is still in the air.
Dose he know that people died to get a hold of him? Dose he know that he will be used, from now on, to make anomalies do the bidding of the CI, making him responsible for a lot of harm others will endure?

If i think to much about it, than there are just to many holes that were not filled by the article.

Try your luck.
Maybe i am just wrong. That always is a possibility.

I mean, the only thing inconsistent is how the scientist changes tone throughout the transcript and where did the scientist get his anomalous fuel from?

There's nothing really wrong with the article.

You're thinking too much about the tale.

If you think it is ready, post it.
No need to ask permission.
For me this item has some flaws in it that keep it back. I would not vote on it.
There is never a guarantied of what is going to happen once you post it.
The only thing that you can count on is me not interfering. It seems you have not quite figured out the world around your item. I would write that stuff down before i send my things out.
Inconsistencies in the world of your item may show up as cracks later if not figured out beforehand.

Just be warned, sometimes there is nothing gained by posting something other than the confirmation that someone is still there and it may vanish from the site within 2 weeks.

I would not say it is ready, but what do i know? Tales succeeded in the past that i would considered unfit and tales and items i backed have faded.

Just find something that works as anomalous fuel and can be used by the scientist.

The shadow demon should be again, a ghost-like anomaly. It's not really a ghost but not really human. Plus other several anomalies could be found haunting the house also, but are harmless.

… although just forget the harmless anomalies.
The ghost anomaly should be recurring so-
wait..
no the scientist isn't supposed to be a murderer?

Also, I won't be making any tales before I post the article.
anyway… do you think it's currently ready enough to be posted on the main site?

Ask someone for permission, if that's required.
continuing on………. I mean, the only flaw of the article is the transcript. That's all. The transcript isn't really a crucial element of the story. It's just a device to clear things up about the questioning. And to make the story seem longer.

The anomalous fuel was kind of difficult to get into the hands of a normal scientist.
There are 3 things, known to me, he could use for this (only counting the sandbox), "Tumor of evolution"(a lot of that stuff exists, but it would try to eat him), "Sugar Cube"(Easy to find and replicate, but would most likely screw with the machine if exposed to extradimentional energy) and finally "Peanut-Butter-Swamp".
He would have never found that out if the plot had not called for it, but it is the only commercial grade anomalous substance the Insurgency ships out in large quantities (and once you find out what it is made from you would not want to eat it anymore).

With ghosts you have the problem of individuality. Pinning your hatred for a gigantic group of people/things on one bad example is just not (rationally) justifiable.
An LED lamp exploded in my house so LEDs are bad. If we are going the "completely irrational hate" route this concern vanish of course.
Pinning it on a shadow demon, dose not fix the problem of wanting to kill everything paranormal. In this story the machines only intended purpose was to kill one demon (to hopefully get everything back to normal).
Also, as you may or may not have noticed, i tried to write it so that the existence of the shadow demon itself is in question. This might have gotten unnoticed in the way it is written, but i tried to spin this in a way that he never went to get butter. He killed his wife in an alcohol fueled outburst of insanity, before eating her and than fully spiraling out of control in the hunt for something other than himself to blame.

My little story should have given you everything you need to write your version.

Once that one reaches a v0.5 i will read it and try to integrate your idea into a version 0.8 of my story. In the best case scenario you complete a v1 before me, but should that never come to pass, my story may one day reach the main site.
Just keep in mind that these stories are just to understand the character and improve an interview transcript.
I think i will leave it as is, until creativity strikes again or i just really want to go hunt grammar errors.

Sounds good.
I read it, and it has some grammar mistakes.
The peanut butter is uhh, inconsistent with the article I wrote. It's supposed to be anomalous waste, or matter.

"I Can't Believe It's Butter" could be fuel for the machine before the Chaos Insurgency used their own stuff.
I mean, you could set it pre-containment of the butter.

Plus it's supposed to be a ghost-like anomaly, not some demonic shadow. Just say the house was haunted but the ghost never manifested until now.

Sure.

I wrote up a little something. It is still in an unpolished stated and given enough time i could get it ready, but for now i let it sit for today.

You can read it if you want, but in its current state I was actually sucked into it a bit to much.
I wrote the thing in a hurry, with almost a bit to much of me as an author becoming one with your doctor.
Building a wormhole/story while drunk , angry and murderous. Writing that from POV kind of sucks you in and spits you out (don't worry no alcohol was involved in the actual writing process). Not sure if it has the same effect if you just read it.

Even if you say that "This is all wrong, that is not my character or idea at all" it is fine.
I had fun writing it, but trying to fix a piece that comes from an angry, violent and drunk POV will take an author who's heard is not currently spinning (getting into character for writing dose sometimes leave you to hyped and confused to think straight).

I just did not want to leave you waiting.

The Demon in our Room V0.7

Okay.

I just want my transcript to be a comprehensive piece that's one, not uhh… where the scientist changes tone mid-transcript.

page 1123...next »
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License