Whoop whoop 9 hours countdown!!
jason ill be real as the thread closes within the next 3 minutes you gotta stop baiting on feu…you still gotta work on those LT weapons…
also yeah actually why the hell is this thread just randomly on a timer with no mention from whoever did it. bizarre and doesnt make any sense (not like its getting necro’d like jasonposts of the past lol)
3 Likes
and yet we keep biting. Perhaps it us the FEU citizens which need more clarity and follow thorfinn:
7 Likes
go outside
3 Likes
maybe we are but locked in a cycle of fuckery from which we may never escape. tragic.
2 Likes
The year is 2047. JasonGodwin posts have been finally generated independently through innovative AI technology by the name of Chat GPT 5.0 2 Electric Boogaloo.
Reaction baiting has become the standard in forums and media, with bad takes being only countered by worse takes.
There are no crops.
P.D.: The thread should die out by itself, considering its maker forsake it already.
P.P.D.: Potshots remain within freedom of speech (as it enters the consequence of things). Facing critique and not having it be labeled “senseless replies” is part of what people should be doing here. Disagreeing is allowed.
4 Likes
guys, I may have removed the topic timer but this never-ending dribble of off-topic spam and taking potshots at the OP is not a good way to convince me that it’s a good idea for the thread to remain open
8 Likes
Haha, Undertale tower! I love the idea!
And yeah, the Heroes’ Relics should’ve at least killed the unit using them like using the Plume in Valkyrie Profile 3.
Basically the clerics in Elran’s chapter. Exp or a vulnerary
Also the soldiers in Sheena’s: faster play or an Est
At the very least challenges the player and makes for an interesting combat scenario.
are you sure you got the correct necroposted quote
2 Likes
It’s not bait. I don’t bait people. I don’t know where people these days find the energy to be this angry all the time. I find internet debates tiresome, especially when someone wants to “win for their side” instead of trying to make the conversation go somewhere positive and constructive. It’s why I deleted my Twitter account. Maybe I’m getting old but I just don’t see the point.
I don’t know why, when I suggest changes to the gameplay formula, some users seek to turn my threads into a shouting match they can “win” instead of a respectful intellectual discussion. It feels like they’re trying to find fault in my arguments instead of forming counterarguments to them, even if these counterarguments are inherently flawed under critical observation or entirely irrelevant to the points I make. How much can you really judge one gameplay tweak in isolation from the game it’s in and how the balance of the game interacts with that tweak? Maybe it’s overpowered for archers to have 1-5 range with Vantage+ against melee weapon users, maybe it’s balanced because all Archers are frail low damage units meant to fulfill a gameplay niche besides big damage at 1-2 range. I’ve abandoned threads before when I’ve lost hope in them. I mean, just look at one of these posts. No hate intended to the maker of that post, of course.
How much of this post is really relevant to the topic of this thread? What are you even trying to say?
I don’t know what MMOs you’ve played but I’ve never seen ones where your choices matter in the way your choices matter in something like Fallout New Vegas or Disco Elysium.
Obviously, Fire Emblem is not and will never be like Fallout New Vegas or Disco Elysium. But hey, it’d be cool if a fangame or romhack experimented with letting the player make meaningful choices for the characters beyond the occasional route split and fake choices during railroaded conversations. Do I go to this village for a Cavalier or that village for a Knight? That question strikes me as rather boring, it’s decided by gameplay or personal preference. Do I make this moral choice to make the heroic Cavalier like me enough to join, or that practical choice to make that pragmatic Knight join me? Sounds slightly more interesting. Now the world is, at least to some degree, reacting to my choices. It’s almost as if this is a role playing game where the world role-plays with me and my choices matter to some degree.
Fire Emblem does not have to be a visual novel, no game with meaningful moral choices to make has to be a visual novel. Even if the moral choice is as simplistic and binary and easy to understand as “Do I harvest the child or not do that?”. Or in this case, “Do I use the cursed weapon made of dragon grandma bones and farm EXP in the innocent civilian village and Fog of Lost Souls, or not do that?”. It’s something people mocked back in Bioshock when journalists acted like it was the most intelligent thing in gaming. I don’t know why people would get so agitated over the suggestion. Surely, Byleth would never behave dishonourably and use such inherently evil weaponry crafted by inherently evil means, or command his kids to do so even if it hurts them and risks mutating them like it mutated Miklan, and Edelgard would never stand for it if you benched some of her most loyal friends for the sake of an all-Crested party. These are characters, established characters, with ideals and strong motivations and inviolable principles, and that’s a universal constant throughout absolutely every Fire Emblem game. Why, just look at how many characters in Three Houses refuse to join you on certain routes because they don’t want to murder absolutely all their friends and loved ones, or refuse to fight or damage or kill specific characters because they don’t want to be told by Byleth to be the one to finish off their freinds and loved ones. The very thought of any Fire Emblem game ever allowing you to make choices a character wouldn’t, like Marth making unnecessary sacrifices so he can farm more EXP, or a player celebrating the end of any Fire Emblem game by sending 99% of his army to suicidally attack the boss once a kill is mathematically secured after all the needless death, like some macabre fireworks display in celebration of your capacity to cheat death until there are no more consequences for senselessly indulging in it! Whether Fire Emblem puts you in control of a nameless faceless nobody Avatar character, a Lord, a Princess, some mercenary, or the world’s most secretly important seemingly nameless faceless nobody, it would simply be truly antithetical to the soul of Fire Emblem for the series to ever give players a choice between the easy mean choice and harder moral choice and let the more principled players earn a shred of the endless praise and adoration heaped upon them by the inhabitants of their worlds. Whatever was I thinking?
I probably shouldn’t have used so much sarcasm in that paragraph, it might make what I was and wasn’t joking about unclear. Maybe the sarcasm should be reserved for a separate paragraph dedicated to it? What was I thinking?
Name one Fire Emblem game where your army abandons you if you behave dishonourably. You can sacrifice units for minimal or no gain, send unarmed men to their deaths or send them to die facing impossible odds, bench units with a burning passion to destroy their enemies and avenge their loved ones just to fill your army with your small selection of personal favourites and walking sacrifices, trap an enemy archer and plink him to death for maximum EXP gain, nobody will object, nobody will leave your army in disgust or even betray you on the spot and turn red. I’ve never heard of a Fire Emblem game doing this.
However, does that matter? Fire Emblem is a franchise, a brand, an IP. They could make a racing game spinoff like Sonic Riders except with Fire Emblem characters and broken flying mechanics. They hired a Vtuber designer to draw characters for Engage and left out vital info about various characters that could have been used to tie them to a nation’s visual identity and that nation’s aesthetics and climate-influenced fashion sense. When it comes to fangames and romhacks, literally anything can happen, regardless of good taste or personal taste. Nobody can intentionally make something worse than the worst Fire Emblem romhack to already exist. Might be tough to set events to create consequences for every dishonourable and honourable thing a player can do with their army, but hey, a game like that is something I’d honestly love to experience even if some would decry it as “Restrictive” and “Not allowing them to play the way they want” without “unfairly punishing them”.
Anyone remember the Jagen thread? I suggested the possibility of a story death letting the old man Jagen symbolically pass the torch to the youth and go out on a high note instead of falling off and getting benched, a good old mentor death to motivate the hero, a beloved and timeless trope that literally never gets old, and a clever way to ensure the player doesn’t screw himself by overly relying on the Jagen for too long during maps that were supposed to teach the player tactical concepts beyond “Throw Seth at it”. And some people lost it completely. “You don’t need to do that if you balance him right!” somebody said. This isn’t about “Needing” to do something. Why attack the premise instead of the argument? No, this isn’t even an argument, it’s an idea, why attack it on unstable ground? This isn’t something I’m suggesting out of desperation because I’m somebody who can’t balance a video game. This isn’t about gameplay balance. Could be good for balance but that’s not the end goal. This is an idea one story, any story, could use. The story of my game might use it. Taking away the player’s crutch, their Jagen, their stern reliable old man mentor character, their new favourite father figure, making the player feel weaker for a map or two, perhaps a Defense map where the hero’s moping over it on his hands and knees crying and sobbing over it and how hopeless everything feels, and he needs to be protected while somebody else talks some sense into him until the timer’s over and the map goes from Defense to Kill Every Last One Of Them and the protagonist gets a buff or class upgrade representing his newfound resolve, it should hit the player harder than taking away a few extraneous Gameplay Mechanics for a bit or introducing the freshly-introduced yet renamed but also established but also self-insert Avatar’s actual mother or father nanoseconds before death. Oh no, they took my time crystal, that made undoing RNG’s negative effects on my game more convenient. Oh no, they killed whatsherface, that’s whatshisface’s mom. And she’s dying, and dying, and… still dying. Anyone remember that time Engage’s mom died for so long during her exposition scene, the screen darkened? As if their console thought the player was away from their controller?
That didn’t happen in a vacuum. That happened because for gameplay purposes, the player couldn’t lose a unit they’d invested time and EXP into just because of plot reasons, but for plot purposes, Fire Emblem parents are contractually obligated to usually die. The game was afraid, even this early on, to punish the player for relying on someone who could have been the Jagen. Even if the Avatar unlocks or inherits some special power or weapon that takes them from Weak Lord to OP Lord and New Jagen Except Gains EXP And Gets Stronger, or if the Avatar is soon joined by some new strong old character to replace the old old strong character, it could still hit the player and his emotions while lessening the blow to the player’s feelings of power and invincibility during gameplay. I believe video games can be art. I believe they can be more than power simulators afraid to let the player feel weak or on the back foot for too long. I believe art can be allowed to let the player experience feelings of discomfort, fear, even dread and loss and pain. I know because I’ve played some of the greatest games of all time. I’ve also read some of the greatest manga of all time, it’s why I believe manga can do more than praise the reader self-insert for showing up and being gifted power and importance by the plot.
Anyone here who played Advance Wars: Dark Conflict (aka Days of Ruin) remembers the death of Brenner and the impact the death of Brenner had on Will. He was a strong character. He was a useful video game function. His loss meant something to the story. To the people who felt something when playing it. I believe the game would have been lesser if its creators were afraid of alienating people who would have felt ripped off by the loss of a character they had emotionally invested into. Or invested a potentially tiny amount of Jagen EXP into, taking away a potentially large amount of EXP from other characters, but then again, AWDC doesn’t give its COs EXP so that’s a moot point. Here’s a woot point: Aeristh.
I forget, has anyone brought up Aeristh yet? That character died too, it was great writing. Pizza’s here. Time to wrap this up. Characters you like as characters and like as gameplay functions can die from plot stuff during cutscenes, it’s great, trust me. Play video games where that happened and didn’t suck if you don’t believe me. No hard feelings to anyone but I don’t get why so many threads on this site turn sour.
I grind in Tower of Valni sometimes.
10 Likes
i ain’t reading all of that
because you keep posting milk dude
1 Like
Oh yeah, that Furry game let you sacrifice your family members to power a giant cannon. That’s one of the examples of all time. It’d harm the experience if it was as afraid of hurting characters you like as the bone weapons in FE.
ill be plain, jason. and as someone who has (quite unfairly and rudely snipped at you in this thread) i do mean this with the kindest possible intention and someone sick of seeing ghost reply to everything with the same anger id expect someone whose lover just got killed in front of them.
you are full on probably the biggest thing helping to create this issue. because the only people you seem to reply to are the ones yelling at you. otherwise, as seen here in multiple threads, ltcoord, and feu with the archer talk. you seemingly don’t meaningfully engage with or even counter most posts unless they’re people like ghost screaming at you. as otherwise you just give the same response you had before those people said anything with no new substance to actually showcase that their arguments fail at best, and outright just ignore them at worst.
obviously when what you do is only talk to the guys who are already mad while blatantly often ignoring everyone else, of course people are gonna think you’re baiting
not only that, but getting your whole tangent about how people don’t get your posts. you’re again really an equally huge part of said problem with it. so much is buried in rambling and huge posts, there’s a reason they ban you for that shit on some forums. because by in large, as with here, it’s not meaningfully adding to point. instead it buries the point in other meanings at best (muddling your actual point) and at worst makes it come off like there is no point
cause plainly. heres why people generally didnt pick up for this thread for example the whole aspect of giving a moral choice as you seem to mention in this post. because the main post was centered around not wanting people’s value of a unit to be warped around. what you seemingly want to be the key fixture (making a hard choice of easier gameplay/stronger units vs narratively evil/wrong actions) instead just isn’t there at all! because you spent the whole main post on a wholly different, irrelevant subject
hell, this post is a prime example of the latter, seemingly your main point is slapped within a bunch of tangents and unneeded text that makes actually parsing the it difficult as can be because now i have to parse through a bunch of text that Doesn’t Add Anything to what you’re saying.
tl;dr the core issue of almost every one of your threads curdling is because all the point of it is missed in tons of rambling and tangents that make finding what you’re actually trying to get across very difficult.
ofc other people need to chill the fuck out too but you pretty far from blameless in the way you fail to engage with anyone but the people who you think make it curdle while ignoring anyone who actually tries giving you meaningful criticism
11 Likes
My response: beating the tangential allegations
All is relevant towards your previous reply towards my original reply in this thread, and if you want it really broken down after this double down, then I can do that.
Visual Novels (games where you believe decisions matter but only the last chapter does), “Choose your Adventure” and games in the vein of MMOs (through class storylines) and RPG games (Dragon’s Age/Mass Effect as a bad example) make the choices of such a self-insert character be considered all in character (as they are all within the selection, regardless of them being “good/evil” decisions).
These are all options in-character for them, and if they were not, they would not be an option. Simple as that. You don’t get a constant option to jump off from your starship whenever you’re talking to someone, as a rough example.
Point here is - all decisions made by a self-insert character must be made in-character. An uncharacteristic choice would break the flow of the story and how well the player is integrated to the plot (suspension of disbelief), furthermore if such a choice is forced unto them.
I have told you how other games that have more narrative leeway don’t do uncharacteristic portrayals of characters. Now I’m telling you how Fire Emblem doesn’t either. Being granted a choice altogether in multiple romhacks is a pretty big deal - and when they are impactful (as much as in Eligor’s Spear), they have to be in character to be cohesive to the story.
This is a reply to you saying “what’s the point of self-inserts if I can’t make my own choices”
They are not self-inserts. They have their own agency. They have their own objectives.
Now, Fallout New Vegas is a better example than bringing up MMO’s. My point with them is that the agency of the self-inserted character you make, what missions you do, what places you go, what you fight - is your choice, your agency. The avatar is a conduit for your choices in such games due to not being constricted to a more specific, forced plot.
FIRE EMBLEM - Code of the Black Knights: Decisive Edition (30 chapters)
So, two? Pretty much undermining the impact of that choice? Yeah, sure.
Except that is a romanticed perception of Marth (highlighted by Excemblem) for a skewed up perception of the gameplay. All what you consider “unnecessary sacrifices”, “suicidal charges” or such can also be seen through the lenses of “unexpected loss”, “misfortune” or many more. Tiki doesn’t know she has a 25% chance to hit an enemy when I’m about to send her towards an enemy with a weapon that kills her. They don’t know the boss has 80 HP and that hitting it approaches that number to a lower amount - all they know is that they’re fighting the war.
These choices of yours are not a choice for the character.
You’re grasping straws here. This is also a “gameplay-story segregation” moment if you want to entertain that thought, but just consider the blatant ignorance showcased by your words here. You’re attributing qualities of a player towards their characters - qualities that are not innate to them.
So there was this time where I didn’t check my sources and gave a link to a hack made by one of the worst people to ever touch this website. Yeah, things can be intentionally made worse. There can always be something one person can do and be way worse than anyone has ever concieved.
Brenner isn’t a resource in AW:DoR, unlike Jagens are, that’s the central issue - and also a point people made in the Jagen thread. A main point people were making was “You wouldn’t have to need to kill your jagen off if you did well.”
Brenner was a character just like everyone else was - and the point of that is that Brenner’s loss in that game has no gameplay repercussions.
You kill off the Jagen without a warning? You’re tossing out a tool in the player’s hand. The OG Fire Emblem (hardly recall whether it was 1 or 3) has the Marth Disguise situation where you get to choose who is the scapegoat for Marth to escape - giving you a choice. You lose one unit but it is a loss you have control of - and you can ditch a unit that you have made no use of.
On another line - picture Siegfried from TLP. He is the jagen that dies that you are looking for. He is a huge tool for you to clear through early chapters and sometimes gather special rewards, such as defeating Cid for his boots on a defend chapter. You have to use him to get things which would be complicated to attain otherwise - not because ‘hurr he is jagen’.
Hell, I don’t want to admit this, but you have Lonely Mirror giving you a gaiden that pits four lives on edge - letting you only rescue two and killing the other two by crushing them to death - a factor that I enjoyed myself. That chapter exhibits a PAY-OFF. I killed the character’s best friend in exchange of two other human lives, with the game pitting me at a trolley dillema.
If the lord is meant to promote at such a chapter I assure you few people are still using the jagen as a crutch by then. In fact, some hacks either try to give the jagen later utility for late game stages (Sage Jagens) or secret events to push them back into action.
I’ll be straight, 'cause I was getting pissed at the whole “mods just shutting down your threads before they even started” - but you generate more discourse than when I do when the words “Effective vs. Infantry” come up.
Half of the things you talk about hardly make any sense, and you double down on telling people that they don’t get what you say.
You go on the offensive when contested and nearly all of your interactions in FEU are threads like these.
And no. Shaming the player for using the Tower of Valni is not good design.
11 Likes
You monster. How could you???
1 Like
It’s not easy, you know.
After this came out, I was kicked out from the romhack cabal.
I’ve been rejected from every hack team after they saw Valni useage on my record.
Romhackers point and jeer when they think I’m not looking.
I’ve lose everything, my career, my friends, my dignity.
18 Likes
Damn bro wrote the entire bible up in here
4 Likes
Hi JasonGodwin7,
I hope this email finds you well.
I regret to inform you that I’m staging an intervention.
Very frequently, people do engage with your posts and give rebuttals and alternative viewpoints to your proposal. Like here:
I do remember this thread, yeah, and the issue is that you’re just assuming that your solution is, innately, clever. It is not. Nobody is obligated to be as interested in your ideas as you are. The pushback you got was because your justifications behind the ideas were flawed and relied on premises you failed to properly establish. You defined “preventing players from relying their jagen” as an inherent positive thing to accomplish, which is not necessarily true; you designed use of a jagen as “cheating,” which is both literally untrue and thus argumentatively impossible to reconcile - you feel it is cheating because you feel it is cheating. Your personal preferences for gameplay will differ from others’.
What people were arguing was that there were other approaches to accomplish the same ideas that they feel are more elegant, lead to better gameplay patterns, or are otherwise, in their minds, preferable to your proposal. Not to be overly curt, but this is an extremely natural and normal thing to happen in debates about a subject that you will experience one million times if you talk to people about topics, ever.
The issue here is you aren’t creating threads for “respectful intellectual discussion,” you’re creating threads to show off your idea and have people talk about it. I, speaking respectfully and intellectually of course, have found you generally fail to apply “critical observation” to the things people tell you, or to the things you yourself say in the first place.
See, for example, here:
Critical observation would tell you that, for the same reasons it’s somewhat pointless to try to imagine an entire game around a hypothetical gameplay system, it’s similar pointless to offer that gameplay system as a point of discussion without providing the necessary context. In either case, that is with or without context, it is entirely fair to attempt to make assumptions where the author has failed to offer information, such that you may try to imagine a context for the mechanic that will let you conceptualize it. In your example;
Or maybe I question the inclusion of this feature at all. I have to imagine what this niche they fulfill is, and in turn the rest of the game around them - is it their long range? It sure seems like it must be their long range. Is long range low damage useful in this hypothetical game? It doesn’t seem like it would be, unless there were very specific things archers are meant to take care of on the map with their long range. But then, why give them this vantage mechanic? Doesn’t that seem at odds with what their role might be? I don’t think I like this mechanic very much on paper. - and this is very typical for these kinds of discussion online. Nobody can read your mind.
Believe it or not, Jason, you are not the only developer on this forum with big, transformative ideas. My project fucks with the FE formula heavily, departs in some major ways from established FE gameplay pacing and unit design and stat design and encounter design, and even has a jagen death exactly like you described it. You may remember that, even so, I still disagreed with the points you made in your thread about jagen death, because I thought your argumentation and reasoning were wrong, as you kept describing the various gameplay benefits to letting your jagen die which, I thought, was anathema to how one should be viewing the characters in their game.
The story arguments you offered were, of course, a story by story basis - there is no discussion to be had other than “yes, we were taught the hero’s journey in high school, we remember obi-wan in star wars and greil in path of radiance, we know what the deal is with mentor death, it can be a good and useful plot beat” - so I’m not going to waste time telling you “great job!” for a relatively straight forward inclusion to a story.
So I have to wonder, then, what your goal is when you make these threads, because it is not “respectful, intellectual discussion.” My hypothesis is that you define respectful as “in agreement with me” and intellectual as “in agreement with me,” and thus what you want out of these threads is for people to read your idea and go “wow. powerful stuff. so big.” I don’t think this is a conscious decision you’re making - I think you really do believe you want to spark thoughtful debate about game theory in the SRPG space - but you’re struggling with your assessment of other people’s ability to engage with your ideas as they’re presented.
It doesn’t help that many of your gameplay decisions, even when taken in full context with another, just do not sound fun. As in, even if you think they are balanced and functional and accomplish the goals you want to accomplish as a developer, I as a player have played games with similar mechanics and found them detrimental to my experience, and thus have reason to believe they would be so for you as well. If your argumentation were better, and I had more faith in your justifications behind your decisions, it might be a different story; instead, the more you explain a concept, the worse it sounds, suggesting to me one of three things
a.) you’re just very bad at explaining yourself in these contexts and thus make your ideas sound worse than they are, which I do not believe to be the case,
b.) your ideas are consistently either built upon assumptions I feel are unfounded, or do not logically follow from the assumptions you’ve made, causing them to fail to address the problems you identify, if you even successfully identify a problem at all,
c.) you’re making up your arguments as you go along, creating a gameplay idea and then finding justifications for it after the fact.
None of these inspire much confidence in the prospect of trying to engage with your concepts in good faith on a regular basis; I remember have a discussion about archer design with you, providing several examples of how archer design can be addresses as well as reasons I don’t think other solutions are particularly effective, and you thanked me and the others in chat for our time before immediately asking the question again in another discord bc you didn’t like our answers. I’m pretty sure you then took it to the forum after the other discord was even less receptive to your ideas lol.
This is why people don’t want to engage with you in “respectful, intellectual discussion.” You do not respect the intellect of other developers, including those with more design experience than you, and that is a fatal flaw. I have, many times, genuinely tried to understand what design philosophy you’re adopting when making decisions, only to find much of what you say to be tangential rambling about a related creative inspiration, partially or even overtly conflicted design goals, strange and unfounded misreads of the opinions being offered to you, and a general background radiation of feeling like I’m reading your stream of consciousness as you think about a topic for the first time. I would attempt to engage with you earnestly, try to explain a perspective on your concepts and reasons why I believe your ideas were built on shaky ground, in the hopes that you could find some value in my ideas. However, my ideas were not “intellectual,” nor was I “respectful,” because I was no already in alignment with your rough draft.
Woe.
When you first started posting, even if I vehemently disagreed with you, I honestly did “respect” your intellect, in that I assumed you had some; I still somewhat do, even, by making this post and assuming that, on some level, there’s a chance you’ll realize why your argumentation fails. My reward for that respect was a complete lack of reciprocation, or even an attempt at such. Why, then, would I continue to offer the benefit of the doubt to somebody who won’t do the same in return? Why should I not assume that, after noting several consecutive failures to demonstrate either of respect or intellect, that the root issue is a lack of both?
There are people on this forum who are, often, overtly rude to your face; I myself have not shied from cracking a joke at your expense from time to time. I’m sure it’s frustrating; it is likely equally frustrating to devote 10x that amount of effort into trying to engage with your point, only to be either ignored completely or else given a “rebuttal” that demonstrates a complete lack of comprehension on your part. It probably sucks to be on the receiving end of; I’m telling you now that the common denominator in these threads is the way you engage with posters in those threads, not the way posters are engaging with you.
If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, start by doing the same for other people. If you’re not capable of doing such a thing, do not post; fix that part of yourself. It is a vital, vital, vital part of becoming better as a creative, and if you think that you have a uniquely valuable and especially brilliant level of insight into game design, then you will not ever become a good game designer. It is not a difficult skill to learn, but it is a necessary one, and it is one that people have noticed that you lack.
This genuinely comes from a place of perhaps misguided enthusiasm for your work. I actually, in a way, enjoy whenever you make a new thread; even if I rarely if ever agree with your points, it can lead to some discussion at times that I find rarely finds its place on the forums, which can be fun. I think you clearly want to break out of the FE mould and try something new; that’s a really good first step that a lot of hackers never take. However, I think there are several more steps you’ve left to take, and you have some kind of ego preventing you from taking those steps, and I genuinely do hope you try to calm your horses, reassess some of how you’ve been engaging with the community, and make an attempt to better engage with the good faith actors in the community.
A good jumping off point might include not relegating somebody’s point to a tangentially adjacent twitter drama that you learned about through a youtube video, and instead engaging with the text they write in the post. You know, just as an example.
Sorry if that all sounds very mean to you right now; interventions are seldom staged for the receptive and intrigued.
Warm regards,
-Xilirite
22 Likes