@RomanAria Raia actually did this IC. Well. Not quite hates, but pretty far down. She is a naytheist...and she ended up the avatar for a goddess (long story). So yeah, she loathes that. ^.^

By the way, @TErminal, my understanding of the words "famous" and "infamous" are that one /generally/ has a positive connotation, and the other is overwhelmingly negative, but that technically famous means, in essence, "well known". So someone who is infamous may be famous because of that. So while you note that you did not say infamous, that simply means we are not limited to deeds of infamy. Granted, your clarification after makes clear that negative fame is not sought, the word famous itself does not exclude that interpretation. *word nerd and pendant, feel free to tell me to shut up*

Anyhow, I might just do this, depending on Termite's verdict there (I'm not sure which way I'd prefer to go at the moment), though I can likely do either. Maybe not /well/, but I can do them passably.

@Terminal But it does exclude negative fame overall -- as in, everyone knows you and you are universally disliked because of it. It might /possibly/ exclude villains that are seen as dashing and handsome but still questionable (Loki comes to mind, in the MCU, though he wouldn't fit this theme -- and he also has a positive regard in the fanbase. Or Joker in the Suicide Squad, as most people understand he was completely mistreating Harley and it was a messed up relationship). You want someone seen in a positive light overall, which is not the only way of being famous. If you want an infamous person with a positive reputation, go with Robin Hood. He's the classic hero of the people if not the law. But for the other way, I mean someone like...to go to extremes, let's say Hilter. Famous? Most certainly. Would I say I like him, admire him, want to mimic him? A resounding no.

So you want a luminary, a role model, one who is admired and imitated and praised, not merely someone who is well-known, correct? If so, I don't feel that famous adequately covers this meaning.

Refer to the rules.

In-Depth Elucidation [+]

In a general sense, swearing is not Fonz Cool and so is vaguely discouraged but not actually against the rules - that said, there is more leeway for use of swearing In-Character if it makes sense. So yes, damning the world to hell is perfectly acceptable in-character. That said, there is an upper limit. Certain words - particularly racial epithets and other derogatory slurs - are very strongly discouraged. There is faint leeway in their use as long as it makes sense contextually and has a clear place in the narrative, but their mere usage would give you a higher standard of performance than other posters since the judges will be scrutinizing your entry more closely to ensure the usage of those particular swears is appropriate and necessary. It would provide grounds to toss out the entry (not even to be listed in the submitted entries list) if there was ambiguity.

In regards to genitalia, simply referring to them and describing them as-is, is not against the rules anywhere as far as I am aware. Using the anatomically correct means of referring to body parts is wholly correct and beyond incrimination - and if anybody calls you out on that, I will back you up.

It is the manner in which genitalia are described, particularly in regards to the usage thereof, that is more strictly held against. Certain things, like describing getting kicked or shot in the crotch, is acceptable. In fact, describing in grisly and gory detail how genitalia might be destroyed is acceptable as long as it is understood that the description is not intended for use as erotic media. If it is apparent that somebody is describing junk being viciously torn into bloody shreds just to get a kick out of it - it would be in extremely poor taste and I would almost certainly toss the entry out without a second thought. It is contextually sensitive. Use your better judgment.

Describing specific innocuous functions such as waste excretion is acceptable up to a point - you will notice the inclusion of people urinating themselves in terror in a rather large swath of common and higher literature. Again, as with the previous example, if it is apparent that people are doing it for any reason other than enhancing the storytelling aspect of an entry, I will almost definitely throw it out for lack of good sense and taste.

As an extension of both of those rules - NSFW material is not permitted on the guild, full stop. This is due to the site's vague and general classification as a (kind of) family friendly, general-consumption realm. If you questioned the moderation staff proper, I expect that few of them have actual problems with explicit, mature content of a sexual nature as long as it is kept within reasonable boundaries and is contextually appropriate given the narrative at hand. That said, the policy is in place due to laws governing online sites in certain areas of the world - so I will not post sexually explicit content. That is kind of why there is an apparent double-standard between acceptable levels of violence and acceptable levels of sexual content - it does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Mods, it merely reflects the rules the Guild Itself has to follow.

That does not mean I will not accept sexually explicit content, but it does mean that you would have a few extra hoops to jump through. For one thing, you would not be permitted to display the story on the site. In order to even submit it, you would have to put it in a drop-box or other similar file-sharing site and then send me a link with a clearly labeled disclaimer/warning indicating that the link leads to NSFW, explicit material. I would be reposting that link with the same (and probably additional) disclaimers. Additionally, your mere choice to include NSFW material in your entry would give you a higher standard of performance than everyone else, since the judges will be carefully scrutinizing your entry to ensure that the material in question is both appropriate and necessary in the context of the story.

Also in a more general sense, one of the judges is allegedly a minor in their current nation of domicile and so I would probably throw the entry out just to avoid having to find another judge who can legally read the stuff.

tl;dr: Use your better judgment.

-Terminal

I'm just going to type down my thoughts after reading the entries that weren't mine.

Closure [+]

I believe this story would have benefited from a bit more information. I see what's going on, she became famous for killing someone she was close to because he was a demon or something, when it was entirely an accident. But, that last paragraph ended so very quickly, and I'm not entirely sure who exactly she put a knife through. A little too many commas there. Hm.

But, yes. Your method of telling a story is fine, I just would have liked to know a little more and see a more properly expanded last part. That's the part that the whole labour was about, after all, I'd like to hear a bit more of it. That's that.

I'm just going to type down my thoughts after reading the entries that weren't mine.

And she was quoted as saying... [+]

... Hm. Does ”me” and ”tragedy” rhyme? It certainly doesn't according to my mind, but since I was recently wrong about ”see” and ”reality”, it made me question reality.

… Haha, get it? Because it was my pronounciation of the word ”reality” that I questioned, and...

… Pffth, taha, hahahahahahaha... XD

You made me laugh. Good job. Though, there's too little circumstance that say that the person saying it actually hates what she got famous for, so you likely won't win, but... I laughed. That's a win enough, right? XD