The Twelve Labours: General Discussion

[Loksfjoer]

That is good news, looking forward to it!

[Terminal]

Contest is up a few hours early.

[PlatinumSkink]

Huh. That was... considerably simpler than I thought it'd be. Or am I just a fool who doesn't see how difficult this really is? ... Eh.

... Heh, the line between being famous and being infamous is sometimes very thin, I discover as I am brainstorming...

[Loksfjoer]

I've got a character who is perfect for this kind of torment >:)

[RomanAria]

...Oh man, if I hadn't already pledged my services as an assistant judge I would totally want to try this. But nah. Judging is probably better for me.

[shylarah]

@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]

@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.

@shylarah

Acts of infamy are permitted as long as they accrue a positive reputation as a result. A villain committing a crime in a specific fashion that people end up liking (somehow) would be sufficient for the purposes of the challenge criteria, inasmuch as a villain in the greater public eye might not be disliked/hated except by particular authorities under certain circumstances (this being a general example, not to be taken as the utter boundaries of what is permitted).

Acts of infamy were not excluded. Being infamous because of them, or any other act, was. Your interpretation of the clarification is in-line with my intention.

[shylarah]

@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.

[Terminal]

@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.

@shylarah

Not necessarily a role model or someone who is admired/praised. A person can be famous without being liked - 'well known' would aptly cover what is sought, as long as there is no overbearing negative connotation associated with it. So you are correct - being well-known is in fact sufficient.

[Habibi359]

I regrettably lack time to write a quality story that passes my standards. I could, but that would mean neglecting my exams.

However I'll put, let's say, surprisingly much effort for this challenge.

[Terminal]

I received a query today via PM asking me about the acceptable use of swearing and referring to genitalia in entries. For your general convenience, here was my response.

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

Terminal

[mdk]

So I send in my entry and then I come to this thread to talk about how I sent in my entry and notice that @Terminal has linked the rules on swearing, and uh.... well I'm not the person who asked the question about that, but damn, does it ever apply to my story in hindsight. Give "FOR KEN" a pass if wildly offensive people/language might get under your skin -- nasty people take center stage for most of the narrative. I tried some dark humor.

[PlatinumSkink]

I've got mine in. As inspiration struck, it became something that revisited a world I had previously constructed. We'll see how it fares.

[Terminal]

Twelve Hours Remain.

An Auspicious Number.

[PlatinumSkink]

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

OPRAH NO!

Um. Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuum. Uh. Khk. Hahahahaha. Gosh. That's... that's some mental imagery. I'm, uh, unsure how to review this. XD

I was amused, estranged and I don't know what. It was a funny read, though, with some real strangeness going on here. I assume it means he became famous because... … … XD

Gosh. Poor kid. What a life he has lived. And yikes. That prison sentence. Hahahaha. I'm just, um. I'll leave the review to Terminal. Know I was amused by it. XD

For Ken

... Well. That was certainly unique. And yes, that last scene made me really want to slam my hands into my desk and go all Phoenix Wright with that poor contradictory testimony. Though, yes, that was entirely intentional. So, famous for something he hated, huh? It isn't exactly supremely clear, but it was made clear he didn't exactly agree with the racism around town, so becoming a hero for them to rally under and go to war for probably wouldn't have been entirely agreeable with him, no. Haha.

It's nicely written. I'm finding myself at a loss for more to say. Randomly finding aliens on the roadside is weird, but that was intentional. I believe you got across what you wanted to. Haha.

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.

The Cook-Off

Weeeeeeeeeeell. I am afraid I must comment, it's not all that appealing to monitor someone who's constantly in a bad mood. XD

But, yeah. As far as I can see, you've definitely accomplished the labour. It was obvious how the entry was going to go from the first surprise to the last, your narrative technique is as sharp as ever. But, yes. Ethan wasn't very appealing to listen to. Especially not when he was being so very rude to the hosts or how in the last scene he started rambling again. When on TV, he could at least have been on his best behavior... But suppose that's not a requirement. Oh, well. Yeah, my enjoyment of the entry was unfortunately affected by your choice of character.

That aside, nice story. That's about that. Haha.

[Burthstone]

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.

@PlatinumSkink

Yeah, I do agree the piece does need more information as to what Locus was. As for the ending, endings are probably my biggest weakness in writing; I usually can never think of how to end it, then the deadline comes along, and I panic some awful ending together. I'll certainly take this all into consideration if I decide to re-write this later.

Overall, thank you for taking the time to read and review my piece! I appreciate it greatly, and good luck in the contest.

[Habibi359]

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

@PlatinumSkink

Success \o/

[Terminal]

I unfortunately have to announce that the results for the Twelfth Labour are being delayed.

There is, for the first time in TTL history, an issue of legitimate dissent in opinion between the judges in regards to multiple entries. We are currently hashing everything out in order to reach a consensus.

If anybody is upset by this announcement, please know that the dissent in opinions is significant in that we, the judges, are in disagreement with each other on nearly every point of note in regards to multiple stories. We cannot just throw up our hands and come to a compromise - we have a duty to you, the contestants, to be thorough and moreover fair, which requires we reach a unanimous verdict.

Results will still be announced in a timely fashion. It may take another day or two. They will be posted by Monday Morning at the latest.

[PlatinumSkink]

Oh, my. I must say I'm fairly curious on what's going on in that discussion. In any case. Take your time.

[shylarah]

@PlatinumSkink HAha, well, for me "me" and "tragedy" do rhyme, but I'm the one that says "see" and "reality" rhyme. =P Where are you from? My wild guess is Aussieland, but I am as likely wrong as not.

I came over here to say I enjoyed your story. And from the beginning, Steven felt a bit ominous. I can't put my finger on it, but I suspected he wasn't the great guy he seemed to be. Charity has a lot of power, but as this is a story and not an rp, that's not so much an issue, and you handled it well. Her changing her nature to be what was needed was the final kick in the gut. I have feels. And I may need to read Apocalypse Maiden. <3