I thought this was a touching tale actually, and was surprised when the 'towers fell' as i read it. Very nice. Its also somehow allegorical, but i can't quite place my finger on the lesson learned. Beautiful story! Their deaths and incomparable talents will be mourned, i am sure, tragic as their passing was. (I can only imagine how many lives were lost that day.)
I can also see the Sidjirian architectural technique being taught in the future, despite the futility of it all. I can see neo-sidjirianism.
Go to Comment
I have to use this somehow.
I had been thinking about this, not specific co-dependant brother builders, but a post that doesn't just present a moment in time to be used. Your story gives us the all the information we need to understand the ambition of the character, the social view of thier works and the evntual consequences of what will happen. But your plots hooks suggest a use of the general concepts. By providing us with a complete time line, you give us the option to insert the characters at any point during the time. The magic itself is like an item.
Plot Hook: To aid in a rebellion, the hero must try and sow a rift between Sid and Jir in order make the evil over lord vunerable
I really like the idea of inherent magic of some sort, the magic that is based on the fact that a person wants or needs something to work, rather than based on study or practice of 'magic'. Cool idea and a lot of flavor in the story as well truly an entertaining post.
I won't say it isn't heavy handed or harsh. The fact remains that I know of a small chunk of great authors that have left or took an extremely long break because of the outcome of these type discussions.
As mentioned, the hope is that there won't be much need for it. Your tangible fear :) of the message is warning enough that most will comprehend. It is more of an acknowledgement of what has happened in the past and what will not happen in the future. This also now serves as a tool to link to in order to dissuade any of these types of discussions. As far as those articles, I am still undecided and much will depend on the Strolenati. Emotion in these things are the enemy, not necessarily the topic. However, many are unable to separate the two and that is the danger in these types of topics.
Bottom Line: It will be up to the Strolenati to determine if the Hammer is required. If the Hammer becomes necessary to maintain peace and tranquility, this rule serves as the justification.Go to Comment
FYI: I did indeed take a long break from Strolens at one point, so long I am reading my own subs and it seems a different voice wrote them than my own, however, it was not due to any voting and/or arguments. I started a family and was busy. Now I'm struggling to keep my house and busy, but strangely less busy than I was before. I may not pick back up my former level of activity, and am unsure of my voice, but I am back, and glad to be here.
This article is scary. The name, the tone. The message, intent and application aren't, but damn. Reading this gave me a sense of impending doom, fear of the Hammer's retribution. I'm curious though, with articles such as Silv's and Mourn's and a few others about how to vote and act here, will we be allowed to discuss voting practices when the subject is so blatantly brought up or are those types of submissions now discouraged?
In any case, I'm not sure if this is a neccesary implementation. Only because it sounds harsh compared to how lax the Citadel has always been. Just remember what old Unlce Ben said, with great power comes great responsibility.
Strolen, am sure these aren't fun things to post and that people must look to you full fill a role that you didn't ask for or imagine when you started this site. Thanks, seriously, for stepping up and asking for a higher standard of the site that carries your name. IGo to Comment
((The fact remains that I know of a small chunk of great authors that have left or took an extremely long break because of the outcome of these type discussions.))
Go to Comment
A request for clarification: is the commentor him/herself allowed to mention why they voted they way they did, as long as it is voluntary? If I give a low score to something that needs obvious improvement, I may be tempted to include a statement like "I normally vote a 3 or less on something with this many grammatical errors" -- in addition to any suggestions I might have to improve the submission itself. It's OK with me if that is now a Hammer Offense, but I would like to know in advance.