#negative effect. for what op might have intended. even

[ayliffe]

fairly often i see posts on here that i basically agree with, or at least make me genuinely consider why i might think or act in a particular way, but the way they’re written makes me roll my eyes so hard that i have no interest whatsoever in liking or reblogging them. these posts often read to me as sanctimonious, condescending, and/or outright hostile, so in my mind i’m perfectly justified in effectively ignoring them.

the problem, though, is that my criteria for deciding something is sanctimonious, condescending, and/or outright hostile are i think unusually —unhelpfully — sensitive, so it’s like, does op actually sound like a dick or have i just decided they intended to come across that way? are they actually talking down to their audience or have i just subconsciously latched onto that interpretation without any real proof?

perhaps it’s worth asking whether op’s intended tone even matters if i as a reader am interpreting it differently, but i don’t think that’s particularly fair on any given op when i know i tend to assume someone’s tone is more negative than others might, even if i don’t always realise i’m doing it.

so where do i go from there? it’s useful to be aware of (one of) my biases, but i don’t really know what to do with that. i can analyse someone’s word choices and try to come to a less emotionally fuelled conclusion about how they were trying to come across, but i still have the knee-jerk reaction of “jesus christ, the way this is written is insufferable”. do i just ignore that? does it merit me deciding not to share what could be a genuinely thoughtful point? or (most likely) am i overthinking it?

[asketchyperson]

Is Toxic Better than Infect?

I had my first experience playing against Toxic this past week at a game store, and it genuinely surprised me! When All Will be One was first previewed and we saw Toxic for the first time, I think most players saw a “fixed” version of infect that was more palatable to the current player base. Infect has a pretty negative reputation in all formats, not just EDH, and Toxic felt like WotC’s way to use poison counters again without reintroducing a largely disliked mechanic. I cannot speak to its current impact in any other format, but (brace for hot take) I think Toxic might not only be better than infect, but a strong mechanic in its own right when it comes to EDH. I will present the qualifier that I only played against it in one session, but the opponent played the deck in two games and the impact was felt heavily in both. I would like to see it more to get a better feel for it, but I genuinely feel like Toxic might have some legs because it gets to fight the battle on two fronts.

The biggest difference between the two mechanics is what causes poison counters to be applied. Infect is a replacement effect that exchanges damage for an equivalent number of poison counters (or -1/-1 counters on creatures). If you are playing at a table with an infect player, that player is generally going to be the only one who has a win condition of poison counters (if there are multiple infect players at your table, Godspeed friend). For that player, each opponent essentially has a life total of 10, and they have to squeeze in just enough damage to kill everyone. 30 health points between your opponents is a lot less than 120 like a normal game, so they should have a huge advantage, right?

Well, yes and no. They do have way less leg work to do to kill a single player, but that is generally public knowledge, and it changes the behavior of the rest of the table. If everyone started a game of EDH at 10 life, decision making would absolutely be effected. If you are at 40 life and have a 5 power creature swinging at you but have a mana dork available to block that would die after combat, you will probably feel ok taking the 5 damage so you can keep the extra mana next turn. But if that same 5 damage is coming and you are at 10, you almost have to block it or you are going to lose half your life! You will block it, spend a removal spell to get rid of the creature, or you will do your absolute best to hit that player back once your turn comes around. From the start of the game, the infect player is going to be one of the first targets for just about everything, especially once the first poison counter gets attached.

The first poison counter is especially important, because it shapes how the game will look going forward. The Infect player is incentivized to continue to focus on that player because going wide and trying to kill everyone at the same time is generally less efficient and slow, so the game will devolve into a 1v1 between the Infect player and their first “Infectee” until one of them is dead, meanwhile the other two players will largely be left to their own devices. Even if the infect player manages to take out one person, they will be starting from square one with the next player if they have not found a way to chip away at them prior. An infect player may have to deal less damage to knock someone out, but they have a lot of other factors that will be working against them in the meantime.

Now let’s look at Toxic. Toxic X is a triggered ability that triggers when combat damage is dealt, and it assigns X poison counters to the damaged player. The fact that a Toxic creature gets to deal both the damage and give counters means that the Toxic player (pun definitely somewhat intended) is getting the best of both worlds when it comes to combat. The biggest strength here is that the Toxic player does not need to warp their decision making around poison counters. If an infect player is not able to get counters on their opponents, their deck essentially does nothing. A Toxic player on the other hand can handle combat almost completely normally, and the poison counters are just a threatening side effect. They also do not have to dedicate slots in their deck to cards that are focused on adding poison counters. Having cards that care about counters or proliferate is still completely fine, but it is less of a necessity than it would be for the Infect player. Toxic decks can go tall or go wide, and being primarily in Abzan colors gives them access to some of the best combat-centered spells in the game. Carnage Tyrant is already a pretty scary creature to deal with, and it’s Toxic cousin Tyrranax Rex is just as big a threat while the Toxic 4 is just gravy. Black, glistening gravy.

The Toxic player also gets the advantage of not having to dedicate all of their resources to killing one person at a time. They can spread their damage across everyone just like any other deck could, and they can spend time building up their board without looking like they are getting ready to try to one-shot someone. They also are dealing damage with the rest of the table, unlike Infect. Somebody hitting an opponent for 15 damage does not mean much to an Infect player because they do not really have a way to take advantage of it. If an opponent has 3 life left but 0 poison counters, that person is no easier to kill for the infect player than they were when the game started. But the Toxic player can lick their chops and either go in for the kill or try to make a political ally of the endangered player. Does Toxic generally assign less poison counters than Infect? Absolutely. But still being able to deal damage while also giving a couple poison counters is still incredibly strong!

Out in the wilds of your local game store, you are not likely to see a lot of Infect brews. On top of being a narrow strategy that tends to have to focus on one person at a time, the general attitude toward the strategy is largely negative. The only frequent wins caused by Infect will mostly come from a well-timed Triumph of the Hordes or Tainted Strike, and those cards are better outside of an infect strategy when they come as a surprise (targeting an opponent’s creature that is about to deal you lethal damage with a Tainted Strike so you can survive is also a wonderful feeling).

Toxic on the other hand can look and feel like your average Abzan +1/+1 counter deck, while also causing an early knockout here and there through poison. Now, I do not think the attitude of the EDH player base toward Toxic will be much better, but I also do not think anyone will be quite as threatened by it, at least for the time being. Toxic gives the space for a far more flexible game plan than Infect, and because of this, I think there is a real chance that we see some very strong brews in the future as players explore the theme.

[egglands-worst]

people "stop tagging posts with characters that have nothing to do with the content of said post" challenge. getting REAL sick and tired of it.

[kitkatopinions]

The ethics in RWBY are really weird. I mean, I’m not a professor of ethics and I don’t know much past what I’ve seen on Wikipedia and the Good Place (such a great show,) but it’s so weird to see a show that seems to switch between virtue ethics and consequentialism at random.

(Virtue ethics) may be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent.

Of course, it’s a lot more complicated and in-depth than just that, but I’m not going to get into specifics (again, I’m not qualified to do that lol.) But let’s look at some examples of these two ethical beliefs in RWBY.

“Stealing is wrong no matter what,” sounds like virtue ethics at play, and that’s how Blake saw things. That was one of the reasons that she left the White Fang, that was always framed as one of the many things that made it so they were villains, that had to be taken out. Blake regretted her acts of theft in her early life no matter how justified they were. The message is that stealing is always wrong even when you’re stealing from oppressors.

“Stealing is justified in circumstances where you feel you have no other choice,” sounds like consequentialism, if your actions are justified and have good consequences, they’re good. This is put into practice when the group illegally stole the airplane in Argus (although this is actually badly portrayed consequentialism, considering that they didn’t need to do that, but I think we’re intended to perceive it as necessary, but I’ll keep talking about that later.)

“Violence is wrong, even when it’s precautionary or reactionary,” sounds like virtue ethics, and once again, that’s directed towards the White Fang. Despite being oppressed for centuries, even Sienna’s more minor violence is framed as completely wrong, and the Faunus are lectured about how they need to stop committing acts of violence if they want equality. The Ace Ops fighting Team RWBY is meant to be perceived as wrong, despite the fact that Team RWBY had broken the law, proven themselves untrustworthy, and were trying to stop them and Ironwood from doing something that would save people.

“Violence is justified in circumstances where it’s precautionary or reactionary,” sounds like consequentialism. Since the White Fang is hurting others, it doesn’t matter what their goal is (Faunus rights,) it’s totally fine to rip them to shreds, throw them off moving trains, even kill, etc. Since Team RWBY thought it was wrong to move Atlas, they were perfectly justified in beating up the Ace Ops for trying to arrest them. Qrow is perfectly justified in fighting Clover for the same reason.

“You always need to be honest, no matter if you don’t know if you can trust someone or not and no matter if you have good reasons to lie,” sounds like virtue ethics. This is applied to Ozpin in the show, his lying is deemed one hundred percent wrong, full stop, no excuses. He isn’t treated with any sympathy and has to apologize, which is seriously and begrudgingly accepted. Our main characters forcing his secrets out of him is framed as right, their angry responses are framed as totally justified. The message is clear. Lying and mistrusting is wrong. Honesty and trust is right.

“Lying is understandable and even right if you think you have good reason to lie and if you think you can’t trust someone, and Ruby was right about Ironwood, therefore her lying was fine,” sounds like consequentialism. Ruby’s lying is framed as reasonable and understandable. She didn’t have to be honest because she was reacting cautiously instead, putting a virtue on the back burner because she thought being honest might hurt people and wasn’t sure if James could be trusted - as in, she acted in mistrust. Although Yang suggests this was wrong, the show quickly hastens to tell us that Ruby was very right, having Yang walk back on her statements, and having Ironwood turn evil. The message is clear. Lying and mistrusting should be done if you think it will hurt less people. Honesty and trust aren’t always good.

“It’s never okay to willingly sacrifice a life, you must do whatever you can to save everyone no matter the cost,” sounds like virtue ethics. This is the central conflict between Team RWBY and Ironwood in volume 7. Ruby and co considered it wholly wrong to sacrifice the remaining people of Mantle in order to save Atlas and the Mantle citizens already evacuated, they considered the idea unacceptable and we (the audience) are meant to believe they’re entirely right and that Ironwood is - with this action - turning into a villain. The Ace Ops are also seen as wrong for wanting to destroy the whale even though they know that Team JORY is still inside it, because despite the fact that it would save thousands upon thousands, it would result in the deaths of four people.

“You have to do what is right, even if it requires sacrifice,” sounds like consequentialism. Pyrrha goes to fight Cinder despite knowing she can’t win, which is framed as heroic and good. Jaune, Nora, and Ren leave their mission defending the non-evacuated people of Mantle in order to try and rescue Oscar. Our group of protagonists trap a city full of civilians in Salem’s direct line of fire and cause many soldiers to die so that they can try and evacuate the citizens of Mantle. The show frames this as the right choice that the team made in the pursuit of saving everyone they could, and the dead soldiers are a sacrifice that the protagonists couldn’t avoid and therefore aren’t responsible for.

“Being a good person who tries is the most important thing,” This feels like virtue ethics. This is applied to Team RWBY and Ruby particularly all throughout season eight. What really matters is that is that they’ve been trying. What really matters is that they’ve had good intentions. What really matters is they’ve stuck to their guns, stuck to their moral code. The morality of their actions is judged by who they are, what virtues they embody, and what they intended. Ruby is constantly assured by the people around her that she hasn’t really done anything wrong because she’s a believer, she’s kind, she’s brave, she’s optimistic, she’s well-intentioned... She - and we as the audience - are assured that she was still good, even if nothing she did was effective, even if nothing she did even helped people This is also applied to Robyn. She might steal from the government, start fights, and not fix the wall with her stolen resources, but she has good intentions and wants to help, so she’s a good person.

“Your intentions and effort aren’t important, what matters is what you do and if it helps people.” This feels like consequentialism. It’s obviously applied to Ironwood - It doesn’t matter that he’s trying to save Atlas and the evacuated people of Mantle, it still doesn’t excuse what he did even pre-bomb threat. Hacking Penny, shooting the councilman, shooting Oscar, all of that is treated as horrible in the narrative whether or not he’s doing it to try to save thousands upon thousands of lives. Even the things he was doing in V7 were considered not good enough because they weren’t helping enough people. But it also applies to the White Fang yet again. Sienna Kahn might’ve had good intentions (ending Faunus oppression,) but her actions are judged by the harm they do to others. Ilia might’ve had good intentions (again, ending Faunus oppression,) but her actions were considered firmly bad and she had to decide to change her ways in order to be redeemed. On top of this, let’s add Whitley to the pile. Whitley is treated dismissively and coldly by Weiss, but then when he does something good that helps people, Weiss is affectionate with him and starts treating him well. 

This is all very contradictory and weird. It doesn’t matter if you lean more towards virtue ethics or consequentialism, the story keeps waffling between the two and expects its audience to do the same. When they want Team RWBY to do something that might be considered wrong in the terms of virtue ethics (stealing, lying, using violence, etc,) they use consequentialism to justify it, but whenever they want Team RWBY to be morally superior to the people around them even if those people aren’t evil (Ironwood, Oz, Ilia,) they use virtue ethics to do that. Stories that include both as points of contention between characters, but both are framed as justifiable can exist and can be really good, but that’s not what we’re given. Stories that make it clear that they prefer one over the other can exist, but that’s not what we’re given either. RWBY is full of whiplash moments, where you have to go “Wait, wasn’t this framed as wrong just an episode ago?” and “Wait, wasn’t this framed as right and justified just an episode ago?” Because RWBY as a show doesn’t bother to believe in either of them. RWBY as a show is only concerned with saying what they can to make the protagonists look good, which is hard.

When you look at it, they’re bad at being consequentialists.

Let’s look at the first relevant consequentialist action I noted, where I used the example of stealing the Atlas ship to establish that the protagonists considered stealing justified and necessary, therefore morally sound. This was not only avoidable (Cordovin had given them the option of sending Weiss through and she could’ve contacted Winter as soon as her scroll was able to reach her,) but it caused a dangerous Grimm attack. As far as I know, no civilians were hurt. However, this was still an avoidable act of theft that caused negative consequences. Looking at them trapping Atlas is even messier. They do it to save the remaining people of Mantle, putting the people of Atlas (and the evacuated Mantle citizens) at risk so they can save the most people despite the soldiers lining up to die facing Salem and the possibility of Grimm getting in the city of Atlas and killing civilians before they can finish the evacuation. But you quickly realize that they literally can’t evacuate the people still in Mantle because they have no resources to do so. Then they start moving the remaining people of Mantle to the Crater where they won’t freeze to death (logical,) and JORY and the HH start trying to defend them (logical,) but then they don’t send Penny to move Atlas. They know that they can’t evacuate the people in Mantle to Atlas, have a temporary solution to the cold, and know they aren’t going to get more help in defending the civilians in their care and must take care of it themselves. But they continue to keep Atlas trapped there despite knowing that the consequence might be thousands dying. Looking at launching Amity and sending out the broadcast is even messier than that. The broadcast is ill-planned, sloppy, confusing, and hits several of the beats of Cinder’s broadcast, which kick started the Fall of Beacon. This could have terrible consequences in a world where the Grimm are drawn to negativity. People could panic, it could launch Vacuo (the last remaining fully functioning kingdom) into a state of emergency, it could cause people to lose all hope in the establishments or the Hunters themselves, it could make people go out looking for ‘maidens’ to help them. And no one should be able to just travel to help Atlas within a couple of days anyway, which Ruby seems to fully understand at times in how she frames things, but she also asks for help that logic says can’t come. This was something that might endanger people and cause mass panic and Grimm attacks, that didn’t actually do much good. In terms of consequentialism, this was a failure, this wasn’t the Right thing to do.

But when you look at it, they’re bad at virtue ethics too.

Of course, there’s the obvious. They lie, they mistrust, they steal, they’re violent. They point their weapons at Qrow in V6, Weiss points her weapon at Whitley, an untrained teenage civilian, Weiss throws a man in a dumpster for being anti-Faunus to Blake, Qrow punches a teenage body for lying to him about something important. But there’s also the fact that in V8, Ruby and Weiss and Blake don’t do much to help anyone. Ruby sends out her hopeful sounding message that could do very little (if logic means anything in this world,) and then sits in a mansion drinking tea, waiting for Nora to recover. Of course this is wrong from a consequentialist mind frame, the consequence of sitting around doing nothing when you can help save people is that those people might die. But from a virtue ethics standpoint... This action is selfish, maybe even cowardly. Ruby is meant to be selfless and brave, and remember that she’s the one who made it so Atlas civilians and the evacuated people of Mantle couldn’t escape, and then despite the fact that she’s a powerful fighter with a rare super power that can take out tons of Grimm at once, Ruby sits in a mansion and despairs that no one is coming to save her. Look, I’ve heard every excuse. It doesn’t matter if she’s wanted by the Atlas police. It doesn’t matter if she’s trying to take care of her friend. It doesn’t matter if she has no plan. The virtues Ruby is supposed to embody like kindness, bravery, resolve and selflessness would dictate that all of that has to take a backseat when she can save human lives.

This is a big reason why I’m so frustrated with RWBY. They keep waffling between these two conflicting ideas of what’s right and what’s wrong, and they’re failing to make our heroes properly fit into either category. They just then tell us that they fit. They always do what’s right for the most people and don’t look behind the curtain to see them fail to do just that. They always follow their virtues and don’t look behind the curtain to see them make excuses over and over for themselves while they expect everyone else to adhere to the standards they won’t reach for.

And honestly, fans do the same thing the show does, which is one reason why it’s so frustrating to talk to mega-stans that won’t recognize the main casts flaws while they refuse to see that Oz deserved better or that Ironwood wasn’t evil pre-end of volume 7. “Of course Team RWBY lied to Ironwood, they didn’t know if they could trust him!” “Whether or not Oz knew if he could trust them, he never should’ve lied to them.” They’ll say these things even sometimes in the same posts or comments and not even realize the problem. The show and the fans will use anything and any justification to pretend that Team RWBY was right and inculpable, but they’ll use anything and any justification to make anyone who opposes them - friend or foe - seem entirely in the wrong and at fault. That’s why Oz apologized to them, but they didn’t apologize back even though they treated him horribly. The show runners don’t care what Team RWBY did wrong, they’ve already jumped through all the mental hoops to pretend they were right.

Looking at Team RWBY through the lens of virtue ethics, they fail to meet a good standard, and looking at Team RWBY through the lens of consequentialism, they still fall short. And the show needs to stop acting like they’re inherently better than the people around them when they’re not. The show writers are using the excuses of consequentialism and virtue ethics whenever they think it can distract us from the fact that behind their fancy feel good words, they don’t know how to write good protagonists.

[luckystarchild]

I was discussing this with my writing group earlier and decided that I wanted to collect some more opinions on this, so what're your thoughts on reviews that start out with "I don't really like oc-driven/centric stories, but―" or reviews worded to a similar effect/to the same tune? Personally I just don't find them to be as much of a compliment as the reviewer thinks it is, and wish people wouldn't preface a review with such info.

Soooooo there’s a lot to unpack here. I’ll do it in stages. Sorry if this is more than you wanted... I take asks too seriously sometimes. XD

Why do these types of reviews feel insulting?

The reason these kinds of reviews might not feel so great to the recipient is because they pair a compliment with a qualifier. And combining a compliment with a qualifier is how you structure a backhanded compliment.

Example of pairing a compliment with a qualifier, AKA a backhanded compliment: “Your old haircut was terrible, but your new one is much better.”

The “but” is key here. The compliment-giver said something nice about your appearance, yes, but now you’re walking around feeling badly about the last ten years of your old hairstyle, wondering if everyone who looked at you while you had that old haircut was calling you ugly behind your back.

When someone says, “Normally I hate stories like yours, BUT...” they’re using the structure of a backhanded compliment to pay you a (hopefully legit) compliment. They’re calling you an exception. You’re writing something that’s normally terrible, but you managed to squeak by with something acceptable (against all odds).

Even though you’re an exception, you’re left wondering if other people hate your story because of its sheer concept just like the reviewer initially did. And because they used the structure of a backhanded compliment to express their feelings, you’re left feeling like you did indeed receive a backhanded compliment, even if that wasn’t the reviewer’s intention.

After all, the recipient of a review can’t read a reviewer’s tone. All they can see is how the review was structured, and when the reviewer used the structure of a backhanded compliment, that’s what the recipient feels like they were given.

By pairing the positive with a negative, the reviewer has potentially cancelled out the good, leaving the recipient to focus on the bad. And since humans are hardwired for negative bias, it’s no wonder many people come away from a compliment + qualifier feeling like they’ve been insulted instead of complimented. They can’t help but focus on the bad more than the good, the insult more than the compliment.

What are reviewers REALLY trying to say?

Next we should discuss what reviewers are actually trying to say when they leave reviews of this kind. There are two possible scenarios to consider.

Possibility #1: They’re legitimately trying to pay you a compliment, but they aren’t thinking about how you’ll receive it or what they might be inadvertently implying by using the structure of a backhanded compliment. They actually, truly believe that you would want to know that you are an exception to their reading rules, and that this fact is a high honor. You’ve done something so well, they don’t even care what genre your story is! Your work is great, and the fact that they’d normally hate it due to its genre is AMAZING. You’ve changed their minds about a genre! You defied expectations! They were determined to not like your story, but it’s too good! You broke through their preconceived notions of what they like and MADE THEM LIKE SOMETHING with your writing skill. It’s not a feat all stories can achieve, so the reviewer thinks you should wear that as a badge of honor.

Possibility #2: They’re actually paying you a backhanded compliment and are hoping you’ll get upset. They want you to know they liked your work... but they secretly still think it’s silly, or stupid, or cringe. I won’t elaborate on this opinion because I think we’ll all fill in the blanks with our own worst fears, so there’s no need for me to do the heavy lifting when it comes to this kind of horror.

Which of these things do reviewers actually intend? I can’t say. This is obviously up to the receiver of a particular review to decide. I personally remind myself of Hanlon’s Razor whenever possible: “In misunderstandings, never assume malice where thoughtlessness will do.” It doesn’t necessarily amend the hurt I might feel, depending on how the review is worded and how severe the backhanded compliment structure is... but it does help me make peace with it.

What’s my personal opinion on the matter?

I’m of two minds.

Mind the First: It’s awesome to convert someone to a genre of story they previously hated. OC fics get a (frankly undeserved) bad rap, so I understand that an inevitable portion of readers will come into OC stories predisposed to disliking them. Knowing someone clicked on my story thinking they’d hate it, only to come to love it, is pretty great. It’s like you’ve given other OC fics a chance by being a good representative of that fanfic genre.

Mind the Second: In general, using the structure of a backhanded compliment to pay someone a genuine compliment is confusing and can be an example of poor communication if it’s not worded with enough clarity. Additionally, “I thought I’d hate your story” might be true for a reader, but it probably isn’t a necessary thing to tell an author. Just because you CAN say something doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

Personal Anecdote: A reviewer once told me of my main work, Lucky Child: “I clicked on this story to laugh at it and mock the concept, because it’s sooooo cringey, buuuut... it’s actually pretty great and I grudgingly respect the work you’ve done on it.”

The rest of the review was lovely and very complimentary, but knowing they came to my story intending to make fun of it, being told I wrote for a cringe concept, that they only “grudgingly” respected me... wasn’t the best. Largely because I am secretly afraid that people feel that way, so their review was confirming something I secretly dread. “How many other people are think my concept is cringey?” I found myself worrying. And the word “grudging” made me feel like they resented me for converting them to OC stories, which made me feel... not the best.

I genuinely believe they were trying to be nice and pay me a compliment NOW, but I will admit that I was somewhat unsettled by the comment when it first came in. There were better ways they could have communicated with me, for sure. Again, Hanlon’s Razor came in handy in this instance, and now I look at that review (and reviews like it) positively. But it did take me a while to put aside the negative implications. It helps that Lucky Child gets a comment like this every few weeks, LOL. At some point I’ve gotten used to them. Now I wear them as badges of honor and love receiving them. AGAIN, THOUGH: I’ve had practice. Authors less used to that kind of comment would likely respond the way I did at the beginning.

In conclusion?

In the end, I think using the structure of a backhanded compliment is confusing as heck when what a reviewer INTENDS to do is pay a genuine compliment.

So to reviewers who want to leave remarks like these? I’d say try to structure your comment in a clear way, avoid structuring a compliment like an insult, and be sure you’re not leaving room for miscommunication. Writers are notoriously sensitive creatures (myself included), and their command of language means they’ll read VERY DEEPLY into things if you’re at all ambiguous. Clarity, in all things, is key.

Honestly? Times like these are why I wish we taught more rhetoric in schools. The MANNER in which you communicate a thought can completely negate the CONTENT of your thought if you don’t use the right rhetorical device to communicate it, and using the rhetoric of insults to convey compliments is bad use of language. Mind your rhetorical devices, people! They’re important, especially if you consider yourself a writer.

To writers who receive these comments? I’d say to write down a version of Hanlon’s Razor and to repeat it to yourself often: “In misunderstandings, never assume malice where thoughtlessness will do.” I’m not saying all reviewers who leave this kind of comment are thoughtless, of course. But I AM saying that most of the time during misunderstandings (especially ones that take place on the internet, where you can’t read tone, body language and facial expression), people just don’t realize that their words can be misconstrued for anything other than what they intended. Most of the time, they have the best intentions. But since outcome is more important than intention, that can be cold comfort for those on the receiving end of a badly communicated review.

TL;DR for Reviewers: Don’t leave comments like these if you don’t want to be misunderstood.

TL;DR for Writers: Don’t take comments like these personally, because most reviewers don’t mean them maliciously.

I hope this helps, OP. Sorry if it’s too much!!

[pixie-mask]

Bad Luck and Responsibility

Woo, volume 7 was dozy in the most frustrating way possible. One of the most frustrating aspects was Qrow, honestly only at the end and it sparked a lot of thoughts. Namely dealing with Qrow “his destructive semblance” and Qrow’s decisions.

(warning semi articulated thought process written over three days after 12am)

From what I remember (and correct me if I’m wrong) Qrow’s Bad Luck semblance is a permanently active. It also (according to his own words) randomly slides from small affects to large affects, but I’ll be damned if that is actually shown clearly.

New as far as recollections go we have seen Qrow’s Bad Luck semblance be acknowledged to have:

Destroy a chair

Cause the building he where he was fighting Tyrian to fall in on itself

Cause a rock to fall from a cave wall (and damage something I think)

Lose a card game

And that’s it, feel free to add anything. I’m also not counting any injurys he gets during fights. It’s a fight and frankly the RWBY has shown to be too fearful in showing the girls and some of the guys getting too roughed up so the adults are the ones who get beat the hell up. But with that in mind we haven’t been shown anything that equates to Qrow’s semblance having no real effect. 

Everything are things that are more coincidences that can happy to anyone.

You happy to have sat in a shitty chair

That was supposed to affect Tyrian more I think but given that was the worst looking building in a ghost town, safe to say it would have collapsed on its own

A rock fell out the side of a cave wall (like I said I don’t remember this event as clearly but I do remember ((I think)) that it was the basic cause of things) but also your in a cave one that has been used for quite a bit of mining and therefore one I would suspect have a few shaky spots, side of one wouldn’t be out of the ordinary

You lost a card game, card games involve luck true, but still anyone could have lost or maybe your just shit at cards

Which leads me to another one of the problems with Qrow’s semblance and therefore Clover’s semblance, why didn’t there semblances cancel one another out. From what we know Clover’s semblance is just a positive version of Qrow’s. Clover’s semblance has allowed him to:

Be the lynch pin for the Ace Ops special missions (what bullshit that is)

which by the way if Clover is the reason the Ace Ops are so OP then why isn’t Qrow, when he’s around, not a detriment to the team

Let him win cards

...and did it do anything other than that. Through out the volume he’s shown to be positive and confident and it gives this illusion that his semblance is always in affect but its hard the tell.

You could almost say that it helped in the Tyrian fight (with Robyn-not the one at the end) but I expect three skilled huntsmen to be able to handle that well enough. Honestly about that there was like one little moment where Qrow’s semblance kicked in but it ultimately didn’t amount to anything.

The biggest moment that came down to was the the fight of Clover vs Qrow vs Tyrian-Clover vs Qrow and Tyrian team up. This fight really set off a lot of thoughts in my head about our dumbass bird man. 

But back to this fight this was the only time that Qrow’s and Clover’s semblance canceled out. Clover stayed alive and unscathed for the first portion of the fight and at the end he was getting fucked up as one would in a typically thought out 2 on 1 fight. I don’t chalk that up to Qrow’s semblance being “more powerful” at the time.

This leads to my second thought process. After teaming up with Tyrian, Qrow delivers the punch to Clover that breaks his Aura and then Tyrian kills Clover. Qrow might have not intended the death part its still his fault, but then he goes on to blame Ironwood for this; in a rather non sensical exchange, but still. Qrow it’s bullshit to say this is Ironwood’s fault and this made me think back to the Ozpin abuse in Volume 6. Where Qrow says that no one wanted him and thinking about it we  really don’t get the idea:

Okay he’s from a family of bandits, but he doesn’t say they hated him (at least as far as I remember). They sent him and Raven to learn about hunters and huntresses to kill them better, but that’s it

Tai and Summer (for all we’ve seen and heard) were happy to have him

Ozpin trusted him

By extension Glynda and Ironwood trusted him and accpted him; Ironwood as far as to legitimately have fear of Qrow hating/doubting him and being genuinely happy about seeing him and going as far to hug him and listen to him (as little as Qrow decided to speak)

Clover was happy to be quick friends with him

So Qrow is just being a melodramatic asshole. And by the way I really like Qrow for the longest he was my favorite character so I’m so upset with this bullshit.

Tai while angry after Beacon wasn’t so mad to keep Qrow from the family, Summer (for all we know) was accepting til her death, Ozpin still trusted him and you watch his past and punched him and treated him like shit, Ironwood trusted you and was happy to have you in Atlas and even you recognized something was wrong but instead you ignored him the whole time, you made friends with Clover but aided in his death.

So it seems less like nobody wants you and more that you do horrible shit that ruins relationships and then won’t own up to it. 

I know this is a product of the writing but its still supposed to be consistent with his character and what is presented and from what we’ve seen or hear, Ironwood hasn’t been unwanted really, he’s just upset. And I understand being in an emotional state or mindset that makes you look at your relationships in a negative light, but that hasn’t been shown or even hinted at with Qrow. The only major problem he had was alcoholism and that has settled in a poorly unrealistic way.

I’d love for Qrow to have happy relationships with people in his life, but he’s pretty much the only one we’ve seen evidence of pushing people away or treating them poorly and it definitely has nothing to do with his semblance.

[ask-team-rainbow]

From Soutien and Doc's answers it seems the Program is more of a hassle than it might be worth it. Does anyone disagree with Harry's decision to make their training a public spectacle and a competition? Wouldn't pitting ops against each other in such a way encourage rivalries more than promoting friendship?

"The Program is supposed to encourage friendly competitive behavior and team coordination. But from what I've seen since we've transferred to Greece, I've seen some negative effects start to stir."

"When you start to put operatives against one another instead of having them work all on the same team, there starts to come a point where everyone will become frustrated at each other. Whether it be because someone 'didn't do their job' to remarks such as 'I can't believe you let _____ beat you', these things add up. While I agree that it's important to deliver knowledge back to our original units, I believe this method that Harry has created has many underlying problems than he hadn't intended. However, if he has faith that it will work, then I will do my best to aid him and keep tensions low."

-Alexandre "Soutien" Moreau

.

"You're too formal on paper, Alex. Gotta say it how you mean it. That fancy talk can only get you so far. Use the words you use with me."

"Anyway, what he's sayin' is that the Program is good n' all, but there's some problems. Not all of us get along when put on teams, even more so when we're out against people we know and understand better than our teammates. I almost saw Doc get in a fight with Caveira 'cause she said he wasn't doing his job right. These are things that have been happening so far. Not often, but enough to get annoying."

-Jordan "Thermite" Trace

[jupitermelichios]

Binding Safety: what the Binding Health Project study tells us

[sorry in advance for the long post, but this is important health stuff so i didn’t want to hide it under a cut where most people won’t bother reading it]

There’s been a lot of talk lately on trans/nb/gnc tumblr about a 2016 study on the health impacts of binding, after a user made a post about how choosing to bind should be a decision taken very seriously due to the serious long-term health effects, and linked to the study.

I was curious, because as someone who’s been binding for several years now, the study results referenced sounded somewhat extreme. So I went and read the study to see for myself. (Which you can access HERE, and I encourage you to read it for yourselves. It’s not as daunting to read as it initially looks provided you have a decent grasp of English). This is in no way intended to be a callout or response to that user, which is why I’m not naming them. I just read the study and realised I hadn’t seen the results being talked about. Thank you to the op for directing me to the study.

The study is pretty broad with a reasonably high level of responses (1800 people in total were used - some more responded but were excluded for being under 18). There’s a few things that might immediately jump out at you though.

Mainly, this was the first ever study of the kind, and as such, it’s intended to gather preliminary data (that is, a broad overview intended to provide a starting point for other more in-depth studies in the future). There’s a lot of questions I would say definitely need to be answered before any serious conclusions can be drawn that just aren’t covered at all. Which is fine, it’s a preliminary study, but that also means we should take care when viewing the results.

First of all, my qualifications. I’ve been binding regularly for three years now, and my degree involved some studying and inpretting of questionnaire and other study responses, so I am relatively familiar with this format of data. I am also a fully qualified first aider, so I have some medical knowledge. However I am not a sports scientist/biologist/medical professional, and three years really isn’t all that long in the grand scheme of things. As such, you should definitely consider seeking out other opinions on this study, and on binding safety in general, before making any kinds of decisions about whether to start/continue binding.

With that out of the way, here’s a run down of limitations to bear in mind before I talk about the actual results:

1. This was an online study and as such is most going to capture a younger target demographic, and also therefore people who had been binding for a shorter period of time. More than half the respondants were under 24, and the average respondant had been binding for only 2 years. The study does not report on whether there is any correlation between age and experience with binding and health impact or not, which is a question that it’s definitely worth asking. (To put it simply, I think it is likely that people who are older or have been binding for a long time are more likely to spot if the way they bind is hurting them than younger people, but I don’t have evidence for that assumption because there hasn’t been any research yet that covers that topic).

2. This is not a longditudinal study (where subjects are studied over a long period to track changes over time), and as such it is only capturing a snapshot as at the point people filled it the questionnaire. Some questions did cover before and after experiences, but that’s not the same as a long term study, and the study itself mentions this as a limitation.

3. This is anecdotal evidence with no input from medical professionals (in case people aren’t familiar with the terms, asking someone if they eat a lot of spaghetti would get you anecdotal evidence, as opposed to a researcher following someone around and recording whether they actually ate spaghetti, which would be empirical evidence. Neither type of evidence is superior, they’re just useful for different things). Self reported data is important and useful, but there’s also going to be some blindspots, and one of those could potentially be whether binding is actually the root cause of the health problems reported. (Which isn’t to say that it isn’t, just that the study didn’t try to rule other possible causes).

4. Over 80% of respondants used commercial binders (garments made specifically for the purpose of binding, purchased from a shop, rather than improvised/homemade garments, or repurposed garments intended for other things like playing sport), and so the data on other binding methods is limited, meaning the ability to compare accross different binding methods is likewise limited.

5. All commercial binders are grouped together with no distinction between the different types, but annecdotal evidence from the community strongly suggests there are major differences between binders with fastenings and elasticated binders when it comes to health

6. Respondents were asked only what they currently or most frequently bound with, not whether they had used other binding materials in the past. Many people, especially those who begin binding young, will start with something improvised before moving on to a commercial binder. Some of the health affects the study associates with commercial binders may actually be the long term result of other binding methods. (Again, they also may not be, the point is just that we don’t know)

7. There has yet to be a study of the effects of binding which compares it to wearing a bra regularly, but some of the health impacts reported have also been linked to bras, especially amoung people with larger chests. (Back and shoulder pain especially). This suggests (although obviously in no way proves) that some of the results may be related to more body shape than they are binding.

8. The study itself mentions several times that they did not cover the size of binder/level of compression people chose, or whether they were layering binders (except layered shirts or sports bras), both of which have been strongly linked to health impacts by community anecdotal evidence

There’s almost certainly more I haven’t thought of, but those are just the ones that immediately spring to mind. Again, this is not to say this study is worthless. This study is, and was intended to be, a useful jumping off point for more detailed studies.

So what does the study actually say:

1. Most people who bind report some impact on their health. These impacts can range from fairly minor (itching and overheating) all the way up to very serious (skin/soft tissue infections and rib fractures, which in can lead to more serious infections and punctured lungs respectively). The most common effects are back pain and overheating. Binding without getting side effects of some kind is extremely rare.

2. The number of days a week you wear a binder is a much better indicator of whether binding it going to negatively impact your health than how many hours at a time you wear your binder.

3. Within the limits of this study (see above) commercial binders are the most associated with health impacts, while binding methods developed for sports, such as sports bras and compression vests, are the least associated.

4. The impact of binding on mental health is generally very possitive

So what if I already bind and don’t want to stop / am considering starting to bind. Should I be worried?

This is where we’re getting much more into my personal anecdotal experience and interpretation of the results. Other people may not agree with what I’m about to say, and it’s important that we listen to those voices, especially if they come from people more qualified than me.

IMO the answer is not especially, if you’re being sensible. It definitely is a decision to consider seriously before you begin, but unless you’re doing something really dangerous it’s probably not going to do serious harm. However there are some safety steps you need to take to protect yourself. Some of these will be stuff you’ve probably seen before from the community. Some of them may be new, because there’s bits of this study which do contradict what the community thought they knew about binding safety.

Based on this study, and my own/community anecdotal evidence, you should:

1. Take regular breaks from binding. Take days off as often as you can. This is the biggest predictor of low/minimal health impacts. If you’re not going out, or if you’re not feeling dysphoric, take a day off. Binding can become a habit easily, but if it’s not necessary avoid it. Try and, at the minimum, get into a ‘if I’d be happy wearing sweat-pants or pyjamas today, then I shouldn’t be wearing a binder’ mindset.

2. Do not sleep in your binder. Even a looser or more comfortable one. (Also any bra-wearing people wearing this, don’t sleep in your bra either. It’s really bad for you). While length of time you wear a binder while awake doesn’t seem to impact health, sleeping in a binder can.

3. Bind with material that stretches. Using stiff binders, whether that’s homemade, tape/bandages/plastic wrap, or one of the velcro/hook commercial binders, is how you end up with fractured ribs and breathing difficulties. If something is able to comfortably expand with your breathing, it’s not going to break anything when you breath. If it isn’t... well, that’s how you get 8% of responses being from people who’ve cracked ribs in the past.

4. Pay attention to your body, and keep binding in mind as a possible cause for any new pain or other health problems, especially if those problems affect your chest, shoulders, lungs, or digestive system. (Your stoumach is way higher up in your body that you probably think it is, so it can be impacted by some binders.)

5. Consider athetic supports for binding. If you can/are comfortable with them, binding options which have been designed and tested by sports scientists for their impact on the body, and breathing in particular, are going to be your safest option. Consider whether a sports bra or compression vest would work for you rather than a commercial binder (and/or swap them out with a commercial binder).

6. Accept that you’re never going to be completely flat, just like most cisgender men aren’t completely flat, and don’t try to aim for that, especially if you’ve got a bigger chest. Trying to achieve an idealised body is never healthy, whether that relates to musclemass, weight, or chest size, and it’s this kind of thinking (tempting as I know it can be) that leads people to make dangerous choices.

7. Never forget that it is possible to bind so tightly that you cut off blood circulation to parts of your chest, which is how you get infections and even necrosis. Which in turn, as well as being horrible and possibly impacting your ability to have top surgery if that’s something you want, is how you get sepsis, which has a terrifyingly high chance of killing you, but especially if it’s starting right next to your vital organs. Because you’re not watching the tissue go white the way you would if you tightened something around your arm, for instance, it can be easy to forget this is a possible outcome. Bear this in mind, and choose your compression levels accordingly.

8. Wear a binder that fits. If you’re buying a commercial elasticated binder, make sure you’re picking the right size for you and only wear one at a time. The big brands like GC2B, Underworks, and Trans-Missie have size charts. Read them, and don’t order a size smaller becuase you think you know better.

9. Stretch regularly and be aware of your posture as much as possible. (Honestly this is good advice for everyone, especially extremely online people; laptops are great but their impact on posture and therefore spinal health has been pretty catastrophic). Excercises that strengthen your core muscles are also great, because those muscles help hold your spine in place. I’ve been told by way too many physiotherapists/osteopaths/chiaropractors that my lack of core strength is the root of my recurring back and neck problems, and since binding can negatively affect your spine, this goes double for those of us who bind.

10. Be aware of heat stroke and heat exhaustion, they’re real and they’re dangerous. Stay hydrated, stay in the shade, and consider not binding on hot days if possible. (Generally just avoid tight clothing and synthetic fabrics wherever you can when it’s hot, and since binders are both, that goes double for them). Also talc often has some really bad stuff in it, but some sort of anti-stick powder in your (sorry for the gendered language, couldn’t think of a good neutral alternative) cleavage and underboob areas is an absolute lifesaver on hot days, and as long as you pick something smooth and skin safe will help with itching.

11. Take the time to choose a binder that’s right for your body. It’s really easy if you’re new to binders to assume that however the first one you buy fits is normal, even if it actually doesn’t fit at all and causes you pain. It’s entirely possible to bind without pain, especially if you take regular days off, so if your binder hurts, even if it’s just mild discomfort, it’s probably the wrong size. This is one of the reasons it’s so important that folks who bind talk about their experiences, and that younger or newer members of the community reach out to more experienced members for advice and support.

Binding can have a serious impact on your health, no one is denying that, but if anything looking at the results of this study, limited though it was, suggests that there’s a lot you can do to make it relatively safe. It’s still a decision you should think through, and it requires a level of physical monitoring many people aren’t used to, but it’s not some big scary life threatening thing.

Anyway, I hope that was interesting and/or set some people’s minds at rest. I know I’ve seen that post a lot the last couple of days, and it had me worried before I went and read over the results, which again, I’d urge you all to go and do if you can (warning that it’s probably not super screen-reader friendly due to the formatting of the reports). I’m not a medical or scientific professional, so if people better qualified to interpret the study than me, or if people who have been binding for longer and have more anecdotal evidence than me, have dissenting opinions it would be great to hear them.

I’ll leave you with one last tip, which isn’t health related but which I wish someone had given me when I was starting out:

12. If at all possible, order binders from your country or at least continent, because chances are the first one you order will need to be returned or adjusted and international shipping and customs charges are a bitch, especially if you’re on a budget. The closer to home it ships from, the easier it will be to return it.

TL:DR; binding is very likely to have some impact on your health, but how serious that impact is is heavily dependant on how, and how safely, you bind. Taking days off from binding is the best way to protect yourself, and garments designed for sports are the safest binding method. However there still needs to be a lot more research done before we can draw up anything more than rough guidelines for safety, and you should therefore take care and pay attention to your body if you decide to bind.

[makeste]

1)Makeste, been reading over your latest all for one/one for all theory post, and while I think it’s intriguing, I was a bit confused over how you seemed to think that (SPOILERS POTENTIALLY) if One for All really is a more benevolent take on All For One’s Quirk- literally the same power, but used in a different way more befitting of a hero, then that meant Deku couldn’t still be All For one’s potential offspring anymore. For me, your theory actually seemed to inform this perspective, and now I

(note: once again I’ve taken all of the asks and merged them all together for greater readability, so here’s the rest.)

...and now I think it’s even more likely that deku could be a secret son and heir to All For One.

(...actually, I’m putting the rest of the ask and my response under the cut -- this got way longer than I intended lol.)

One thing that’s common amongst those ‘gifted’ with multiple quirks is that to even be capable of holding more than 1 power set, you need to have your body modified to be able to withstand the strain of more than one quirk- and thus differing bio-energies and mutations needed to properly utilise them clashing with each other within your body- if your body’s not capable of handling the pressure, it’s hinted that the damage could potentially result in a similar situation to someone eating more than 1 devil fruit in One Piece I.e you’re geography(in that you are now literally part of the landscape in the immediate area, floors and walls included, which must be hell for Ujiko to mop up afterwards) however, there are three exceptions to this- Giganto, All For One and Midoria, all of whom can wield multiple quirks, apparently in harmony with each other without suffering the negative side effects that the rest of the populace must go through to be even capable of doubling their own powers, never mind that it’s mostly involuntary and unwilling on most of the participants.

All For One goes without saying, since his body is hinted to be naturally capable of housing a ridiculous amount of Quirks, perhaps as a side effect of lacking his own ‘true’ power, but Giganto is another story- he’s the only other one we’ve seen to be capable of holding multiple powers naturally, but it’s hinted this is only because his quirk or his body structure lets him absorb/endure whatever damages normally result for wielding multiple quirks at once, and he’s still somewhat affected by the strain of it anyway. His mind is capable of rational thought, making his own decisions depending on the situation, and holding memories of his past life, all things none of the Nomu can preform- however, in exchange, it’s clear that what mind he does have isn’t very bright, as he’s easily manipulated by ujiko using just a recording of All For One’s voice, acts in a animalistic fashion, ignores social conventions like wearing clothes, and seems to have lost his humanity in exchange for overwhelming strength, ensuring he can never be a part of normal society, even though he doesn’t actually look that weird compared to some other mutations we’ve seen walking about in broad daylight.

In contrast, Midoria, despite only being capable of wielding 20% of One for All, is already starting to utilise and adapt the various powers within the quirk without any mental or physical drawbacks, beyond the teething problems of suddenly developing a new power that has different requirements to his current move set, and his fear at going though changes no-one else has, whereas All Might, even after mastering the physical aspect to its ultimate limit, never even had a hint that he could do more than just punch creatively. Part of this may be the whole spiritual thing, part of it may be that the quirk’s ‘physical’ development wasn’t exactly ready for use in that manner, but frankly, I think it means Izuku’s body is somehow, despite being naturally quirkless, suited for using multiple quirks, allowing him to wield different interlocking powers without losing any of his sanity or humanity, unlike Giganto, but exactly like somebody else.

I think I once wrote up a little mini- statement about how Izuku was more fitting as a Good Counterpart of All For one than All Might, who was simply too opposite of the symbol of evil to have any point in common beyond the role as an opposing symbol of peace. Having the exact same power as his father, and in fact being able to wield that power to the fullest extent beyond what even his mentor or the previous generations of heroes could, precisely because of his inherited genes being from someone naturally predisposed to absorb and utilise multiple quirks at once without suffering any side effects only deepens that connection between the two.

In fact, if Izuku is his son, then it means that he technically inherited his uncle’s- the ‘first’ wielder- recessive genes, being skipped over entirely by the genetic lottery just like his long-dead, yet still resurrected uncle was compared to their shared family member’s power, which wouldn’t be the only thing Izuku has in common with the siblings. Izuku’s analytical mind allows him to understand a lot about the conditions and limitations behind any quirks he witnesses in action, allowing him to formulate counter strategies like we saw in Miro’s spar, or even utilise those very same quirks to his advantage later. All For One Demonstrates a similar analytical appreciation towards quirks, though his come with the intent of understanding the power and the reasoning behind whether or not it would be beneficial for him to steal it for himself, his subordinates or turn his person of interest into a nomu. They both seem to have a mind and body capable of wielding greater strength than those around them through multiple abilities, and it seems that as Midoria gains greater control over his varied abilities, he somehow gets mentally closer to All For One, though only AFO seems to be aware of this, perhaps due to his greater expertise with their ‘shared’ quirk. Actually, if Izuku is indeed his son, and your theory is correct, then that means Izuku went through the world’s most convoluted method of inheriting his parent’s quirk, going through 10 generations and a childhood of alienation to get to the same starting point as his peers.

But yeah, to sum up, the fact that Izuku is so ‘normal’ now, despite gaining a power that we’ve seems physically and mentally ruin anybody else who had it, save one other, makes me think that Izuku may still be connected to All For One on a far deeper level than anybody else realises. Which of course means that Izuku gets the angst of being the son of his greatest nemeses, harbouring the soul, mind and powers of his greatest nemeses, and potentially being alienated from every hero in the world of the extent of this connection gets out, and everybody starts seeing him as All For One 2.0, or a means of the Symbol of Evil resurrecting himself inside a fresh, healthy young body to build his empire again. Angst for days, Boy!

okay, so let me start by saying that I’m not quite sure where this idea (which I’ve seen before) comes from that it takes a specific type of body to handle multiple quirks? from what I recall, the only evidence we’ve seen of that that is All Might’s explanation in chapter 59 about some people being unable to “bear the load” of receiving quirks from All for One. but I thought that was more about them having quirks forced on them than anything else. I got the impression that it was a very invasive and violent thing to do to a person -- basically an assault on their minds -- and that that was what messed them up for the most part. though I could be wrong about that.

one thing I want to note is that you mentioned Gigantomachia as an example of someone who can withstand multiple quirks, but I believe that was a mistranslation on JBox’s and Mangastream’s parts. Viz’s translation, which makes more sense to me, is that Gigantomachia is so strong that he was able to serve as All for One’s bodyguard even without having multiple quirks.

so yeah. I think the clashing translations caused a lot of confusion in this regard, but my current understanding is that Machia is so feared because he has ridiculously OP strength, speed, stamina, durability, etc. even without being modified like the Noumu. he’s just that fucking strong on his own, which is what makes him so impressive.

that being said, how to explain this... my interpretation is that the All for One quirk basically is the ability to withstand multiple quirks (in addition to the whole “granting” and “stealing” thing). like, that’s part of the power. it grants you the ability to handle unlimited quirks. I don’t think DNA or genetics or anything are a requirement for it. while Horikoshi does put a surprising amount of thought into having “realistic” limitations and provisos for his quirks, they’re all still basically magic to some degree. Hawks has feathers that he can telepathically control with his mind. Tokoyami has a sentient shadow that he can partially control and he can use it to fly and it can rip shit apart. Todoroki can produce ice out of literally nothing. Kuroiro can physically interact with the color black. quirks are fucking bonkers and I think we have to bear that in mind to some extent. so while All for One does no doubt have its own specific rules and caveats, I would think it’s still something that still falls under the somewhat phoned-in logical reasoning of “you have this quirk, so your body is now magically capable of handling all other types of quirks regardless of the physical nature of said quirks” with all other logic basically being handwaved accordingly.

I mean, Monoma is also capable of handling multiple quirks, holding at least four at once with no side effects whatsoever, and there doesn’t seem to be anything particular special about his own body. kid’s a goddamn twink. and yet he can “withstand” the strain perfectly fine and even has near-perfect control of his newly acquired quirks pretty much immediately upon borrowing them. he can jump from Kirishima’s hardening to Bakugou’s explosion hands in a split second and turn them off and on at will with no physical repercussions. there’s no scientific explanation for it other than it just being How His Quirk Works. I’d imagine it’s much the same for Deku. the fact that he has multiple quirks now isn’t necessarily an indicator that he must be genetically related to AFO, but what is does indicate is that he most definitely has the same quirk as him, or something very near to it.

none of this means that he can’t still be AFO’s son, mind! but the reason I don’t think it’s likely is because in my view it would come off as a bit clunky. like, from a writing perspective, it’s kind of overkill to have not one, but two overly convoluted explanations for something when just one would suffice. “Deku is AFO’s secret son” and “Deku has the same power as AFO” are both major plot twists each requiring a certain suspension of disbelief in the sense of “so you’re telling me that this kid just happens to be...” like, that’s a lot of coincidence to swallow. and past a certain point, it kind of shifts this from being a story about an ordinary kid who had a turn of fortune one day that turned out to be the start of something epic, into a story about The Son Of The Most Powerful Man In The World, Who Was Always Destined To Defeat Him And Just Never Knew It. which is also a perfectly fine story to tell! but the two ideas do kind of clash with each other, so if your goal is to tell the latter one, it doesn’t really make sense to try and insert elements from the former as well.

lol I don’t know if any of this is making sense. but basically what I’m trying to say is that I think it’s better writing to just pick one or the other. either he has this power because he’s AFO’s son, or he has it because it was passed down to him through OFA. there’s no need for both, and it makes an already complicated story even more complicated. that’s where Game of Thrones started shooting itself in the foot in its later seasons. destiny and twists of fate and such are awesome, but you have to be careful not to go overboard with it or it starts to feel forced. Deku can either be Harry Potter or he can be Luke Skywalker, but both is kind of pushing it. to borrow your phrasing, it would indeed be “the world’s most convoluted method of inheriting his parent’s quirk.” and this is just my own personal preference, perhaps, but I think the story flows better and feels cleaner if it’s just one or the other.

anyway so those are my thoughts thank you for coming to my Ted Talk. sorry for shooting down your very thought-provoking ask!! or at least it feels like I did, sob. but I do enjoy this kind of plot discussion a lot, and it’s also a particularly good way of passing the time while we wait TWO! WHOLE! WEEKS!!! for the next chapter sob so there’s that too, lol.

[readyaiminquire]

Not my president? - Understanding charisma.

Note: While I’m reworking this blog’s format, I wanted first to finish a planned series of posts on charisma that I began publishing a while back. Rather than making it a series, I figured I might well play around with a long-form format instead. This post will re-hash some of the information from the earlier post, but this time I promise it will actually reach a conclusion!

With US election campaigns in full swing, and with Democrats hoping to oust Trump from the Oval Office, the question of how Trump won at all has re-emerged. After four chaotic years, no-one Blue would want another four. Despite a laundry list of failures, scandals, and broken promises, will Trump be able to galvanise enough voters – again? Though I am by no means an expert on US politics, I feel that one area that a lot of pundits and commentators have failed to consider is that of his charisma. At the end of the day, it is Trump’s charismatic leadership that allowed him to be elected in the first place - and bear with me on this! We must really begin to look and deconstruct charisma to get to the heart of it all. Make no mistake, charisma serves a fundamentally important function within any democratic system – they would not be able to operate without it. As oxymoronic as it might sound, charismatic leadership is not reserved for the despotic, but it is a process we all engage with.

Who are our charismatic leaders? We think of Gaddafi, Stalin, the Kims in North Korea, or indeed the Ayatollahs in Iran – alongside questionable undercurrents of fooling the masses, abusing one’s power, and the creeping, assured emergence of ever more oppression. Charisma’s negative political baggage, however, doesn’t really help us to understand what it functionally is. So let’s shed all judgement, positive or negative, and instead look at charisma as a process. German sociologist Max Weber succinctly defined charisma as

“a certain quality of an individual person by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men”

In other words, charisma is a sort-of otherworldly quality that sets you apart from the masses. Authority is derived from charismatic qualities. Unlike other forms of authority, such as legal-rational authority (which relies on some sort of legal code, such as, a constitution) or traditional power (where authority is derived from something outside of the system itself, like the divine right to rule), charismatic authority comes from the very simple fact that people want to follow you.

It’s quite evident that Weber effectively sees charisma as some innate and mystical power – some sort of magic you have that makes people want to follow you. So, let’s look at Weber’s definition from a different perspective. Let’s consider charisma as something you do, rather than something you have. Charisma must always be the result of a set of rhetorical actions intended to convince the ‘common man’ that the charismatic person is indeed not common. Through such conviction, the ‘common man’ becomes a willing follower. In his book How to do things with words, J. L. Austin outlines that there are two different kinds of rhetorical actions: referential and performative. Referential actions simply describe the world, which means that it is either right or wrong. Performative actions, on the other hand, doesn’t describe anything at all and therefore cannot be right or wrong, merely successful or unsuccessful. To shamelessly steal an example from Alexei Yurchuk:

“If one makes an oath under appropriate conditions, while internally not intending to keep it, the oath is not made any less powerful in the eyes of those who accept it as such”.

Assuming you accept the above, charisma as something performed has some broad implications in the real world. But to make sense of that, we need to look at the typical Western democratic system.

Democracy comes with an awkward promise: that all people are created equal, and that the whole system is run by the people and for the people, while at the same time requiring elected hierarchies and leaders to effectively function. In other words, democracy only works because we’re willingly giving up our sovereignty to the system – something which, in most situations, might be perceived as deeply undemocratic. This tension, obviously, needs to be resolved somehow. The relationship between the State and the leader is roughly analogous with the relationship between power and authority. The State has power, and without diving far too deep into Foucault, power is inherently relational rather than what we might classify as material. Put simply, it emerges from social structures. In the case of the State, this relational power is very clear when you consider the different experiences and interactions different people – minorities, the homeless, immigrants, the privileged, and so on – have with its representatives. They all have a very different relationship to the State as an entity (anthropologists Veena Das and Deborah Poole refer to this as the ‘centre and the peripheries’, arguing that the best place to ‘see’ the State is the border at which its power breaks down). 

In the same way, the State as an entity is also immaterial – we only interact with representatives of the State (civil servants, politicians, police officers) or we see the outcome of these representatives enforcing the power of the State upon us (laws, regulation, taxes). Authority, on the other hand, is effectively the ability to ‘direct’ power. The leader of the State relates in the same way to its structure, coming to embody the system as a whole, while the structure itself maintains the overarching power relations. 

It is commonly understood that states only ‘work’ as a concept if the people within them act as if they do, something akin to the thought experiment of ‘would war end if all soldiers refused to fight?’. The leader, as the embodiment of the whole structure, begins to play a key role in maintaining this illusion. Much work has been done on this idea of ‘two bodies’. Alexei Yurchuk wrote that this set-up is traditionally very common among kings and other monarchs – in some cases very literally, with dolls being made of the monarch upon their deaths to quite literally give them a second body. The bodies a king inhabited were their ‘individual’ body, i.e. the person itself, and the second being that of the ‘office’ of Kingship, a divine-like body. It is this second regal body, in full regalia upon their throne, surrounded by servants and gold and pomp and circumstance, who is truly the king; the individual person will always simply be the person. This process is largely the same within the modern democratic state: there is the elected individual – the person – then there is the leader (president, prime minister, etc.), the embodiment of authority. 

It is here we must return to what I wrote above about voluntarily submitting. When imagined, the idea of a leader as an embodiment of authority immediately sounds inherently un-democratic; non-democratic at best. It is this tension, alluded to previously, that charisma serves to reconcile. 

It may sound contradictory, but in these cases charisma functions to dictate how – for example – a President can behave. It is what causes world leaders to attend particular events, or why they partake in completely-natural-totally-not-staged photo-ops. It’s not necessarily because they want to, or indeed because they think it’s fooling anyone, but rather because it is what the system requires the leader to do. It is, in other words, charismatic performance. Even more importantly, it is not the individual which fulfils the requirement, but rather them in the function as President. It is their second body, so to speak, which is having their photos taken beside some national memorial. This leads us to the crux of the whole situation: returning to the issue of democracy and leadership. We the people need to willingly submit ourselves to the leader’s authority. This is often done through voting. However, to effectively convince people, the leader must not only follow a particular agenda, philosophy, or give the correct promises, but they must also follow along in the ‘dance’. They must act statesmanlike (stateswomanlike?), to fulfil what we can in practical terms call ‘the minimum amount’ of charisma needed to be considered for leadership at all. In this sense, all democratic leaders are (somewhat) charismatic, by necessity.

Nonetheless, this of course highlights that charisma isn’t binary, despite often being spoken of in terms of haves and have-nots. Instead, we should imagine charisma as a spectrum: two people can be charismatic, and one more so than the other. Indeed, it also means that charisma is individually understood, that is to say, that different people are differently charismatic to different people. Despite the initial Weberian definition, it isn’t a magic spell. It is a performance, a dance, which functions as a safety-vale in Western political systems, a means to reconcile what is seemingly a fundamental contradiction. 

This, of course, has very real-world implications. Let’s turn to an example. A rather thinly veiled metaphor, if you will, but such a reduction of an (obvious) example can help give some grounding – while playing with some nuance. You have Mr Red and Ms Blue, two presidential candidates in a totally hypothetical country. Ms Blue is a well-established politician, with a strong pedigree of various political posts. She’s experienced, educated, well-spoken, intelligent, and internationally respected. Mr Red, a newcomer on the stage, has no background in politics. He is radically outspoken, blunt even, criticised for his lack of experience, his limited rhetoric. His background is as a somewhat successful businessman, a stereotype he fully embraces. He’s divisive, to say the least. I’m sure you’re seeing where I’m going with this.

Within this completely hypothetical country, you have a traditionally large working class, which used to be strong in the past but has since declined as production jobs moved overseas. The perception among this group is that they have been abandoned by the powers that be – abandoned for several generations. They feel they’ve been systematically shut out of politics, unable to make themselves heard (lack of education, money, and so on), while the politicians – across the board – have continued toeing the same line. The established body politic, like Ms Blue, doesn’t much represent, let alone understand, them. Stage right: Enter Mr Red, down a gilded escalator. His rhetoric is outrageous, his promises ridiculous, his beliefs morally bankrupt. No-one believes what he says, not really. But it doesn’t matter. Mr Red wins anyway. He wins every time. Why? Because he dances to the tune of these otherwise marginalised voters. He speaks to them, makes promises for them, and whether he intends to keep these promises or not, or indeed whether he is expected to keep them, is irrelevant. At this stage, it was no longer about his promises but rather because he acted to this otherwise downtrodden group as the State, the leader, is expected to act: he listened to their issues, spoke to them directly, in a language they could connect with, made them a part of his wider political discourse, stepped out of the ivory tower, extended his hand as a candidate for the Presidency. He at this stage fulfilled the minimum amount of necessary charisma to even be considered as someone to follow. To counterweight this, Ms Blue maintained her distance and stance, equating herself with previous ‘establishment’ politicians, and as a result became unelectable: not because of having a worse programme, or lack of political merit, but rather because she became someone impossible for these voters to follow at all. She could not have been voted for, because she didn’t dance at all.

Charisma, though a funny thing, something we’ve all heard of and often instinctively see and understand, operates in not only a perhaps more complex way when dissected, but also with much more material force. In a sense, society as we know it requires a particular ebb and flow of charisma. But even then, it is not as random or magical as often believed; instead, it is simply the result of certain actions, of convincing people that you are indeed charismatic. Weber throughout most of his career maintained that charisma cannot be learned, that it was something you were born with, though he might have changed his mind on this, as an unfinished paper (sadly only a collection of notes) showed that he intended to write a paper on learning charisma after all. This isn’t the topic here, though, but rather to understand charisma as a social performance, a dance, which lies at the heart of the Western political system and discourse. It is a force rarely considered, not often analysed, and if even invoked, done more so to paint a mystical picture of the person in question. 

The funny thing, of course, is that all leaders are charismatic, and necessarily so. Some do it better than others, of course, but without it democracy as we know it wouldn’t be able to function. Without charisma, we would all simply vote for ourselves. 

 Selected bibliography / recommended reading:

Austin, J. L. 1955. How to do things with Words (J. O. Urmson & M. Sbisàeds ). Oxford University Press. 

Das, V. & Poole, D. (eds.) 2004 'Anthropology in the Margins of the State' Santa Fe: Scool of American Research Press; Oxford: James Currey Ltd. 

Hansen, T. & Stepputat, F. 2006 'Sovereignty revisited' Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 35 

Weber, M. 1946 [1919] 'Politics as a vocation'. In Gerth, H.H. and Wright Mills, C. (trans. & eds.) Max Weber: Essays in Sociology pp. 77-128. New York: Oxford University Press

Yurchak, A. 2003 ‘The Soviet hegemony of form’ in ‘Everything was forever, until it was no more’ Comparative Studies in Society and History 45(3): 480-510

Yurchak, A. 2015 'Bodies of Lenin' in Representations vol. 2(2015) pp.116-157 215

[cameoamalthea]

So I took this Dark Core Personality test (which was less edge lord than I thought it would be) and scored 31.89% lighter than average. OP scored 26.11% darker and because tumblr is forcing me to see all the comments on this thread (not just comments directed to me based on my reblog - seriously tumblr why you do this?) I see a lot of darkness. 

I wonder how people are scoring that way? 

So I thought I’d take a moment to think about the questions. All 45 of them: under the cut

1. I deserve more than I currently have in life.

I said strongly agree, because while I’m grateful for what I have I’d like to be a bit more financially stable/to be able to pay back the family that have helped me. 

I don’t think it’s wrong to agree with some of these (average is agreeing to a lot of these things). Most things are about balance. 

It’s good to have self esteem and self worth, to say that you deserve happiness/good things/to succeed and grow. 

2. I might be willing to take a punch if it meant that someone I did not like would receive two punches.

I don’t really understand this question and strongly disagreed. Why get myself hurt just to hurt someone else. I don’t really want to see anyone get punched. It just seems petty and mean.

3. Some people have to be treated roughly because they lack feelings that can be hurt.

Again what? How could anyone even think this? Everyone has feelings that can be hurt and no one has to be hurt. That’s awful.

4. If I opposed the election of an official, I would be glad to see them fail, even if their failure hurt my community.

I was neutral on this one, because I don’t understand how an elected official failing would hurt my community. If I oppose the election of an official it’s because I think their success would hurt my community. You vote for who you think will have the best policies right? 

I don’t get it.

5. I would be willing to pay more for certain goods if other people I did not like had to pay even more.

This seems stupid, petty and unfair. I don’t see why you’d want to hurt people you don’t like...I may not like everyone but I don’t want to see anyone hurt.

6. It is important to me that I am more successful than others.

This I agreed with strongly. It’s a fault I have and I know it. I want to prove myself as ‘worthy” I guess. Good enough. Not a failure. Because I always felt like it was somehow my fault I was never adopted/treated like a daughter by my guardians. Sometimes I wonder if I’d somehow been more lovable they would have wanted me. So I think if I’m more successful than average/do something amazing, then it would be proof that I’m not worthless?

 I know that I shouldn’t compare myself to others. It’s not effective to compare yourself negatively. Life isn’t a competition and if it were a race, it wouldn’t be a fair one since we all start in different places. I should focus on my own happiness and appreciate my achievements relative to how far I’ve come not to anyone else. 

Still, if I’m honest, I have to strong agree even if I know it’s a fault.

7.I like to pick on losers.

What the heck? I wouldn’t want to pick on anyone.

8. It’s okay to lie since you never know who you can trust.

No, it’s not okay to lie. I think if you’re seen as honest and trustworthy then people will give you honesty and trust in return.

9. I can be really nasty when I take my revenge.

I don’t want revenge 

10. Payback needs to be quick and nasty.

Again, I don’t need revenge or payback. (If anything if others hurt me I need to accept that it wasn’t my fault/I didn’t disserve it)

11. I fantasize about extraordinary prestige.

This is a strong agree, unsurprisingly. I want to be loved, and prestige would mean a lot of people would like me or my work. That would feel good. 

12. I use insincere flattery to get my way.

Nope, I do use sincere flattery to be nice to people. People like compliments and it’s good to be nice.

13. I use lies to get my way.

Nope.

14. I should not have to deal with trivial matters or the humdrum of everyday life.

Isn’t the humdrum of everyday life what life is? I like life? When I was a kid I dreamed about just having a normal life. I think we should all appreciate it.

15. I have enjoyed hurting someone physically, sexually, or emotionally.

No, I would never want to hurt someone. Although I was with a girl once who liked it if I bit her and it made her happy when I did it. I don’t think that’s hurting someone if you’re making them happy. Even if it is, I didn’t enjoy hurting her. I enjoyed making her happy.

16. People see me as especially worthy of admiration.

No way, I can’t imagine being worthy of admiration.

17. I deserve to have great things come my way in life.

Strong affirmation, which is a good thing for me given my issues with self esteem and feeling like I deserve bad things/don’t deserve good things. It’s not selfish to have a healthy amount of self esteem and self care.

18. It’s okay to lie if it’s the best way to handle a situation.

I’m honestly really honest. To the point of being too blunt and hurting others feelings.

19. I honestly feel I am just more deserving than others.

Big no to this one, I don’t deserve more than anyone else and I’m sure there others more deserving than me and it’s been a lot of work not to feel like I’m I just less deserving than others 

20. It is sometimes worth taking a little suffering yourself if it means that others will receive the punishment they deserve.

Again with the punishment. I don’t want to hurt anyone. I don’t believe in punishment per se, I believe in consequences and that consequences come from the individuals actions. It’s not something I want to have happen to others, it’s something that does happen/should happen because justice and fairness demand a certain consequence to certain actions 

21. Most people don’t really care about others.

That’s not true, I can’t believe that 

22. Taking something without the owner’s permission is okay as long as you’re just borrowing it.

No, it’s not. Borrowing requires permission. Consent is the difference between what is permissible and what is criminal (note how permissible has the same root as permission). People have a right to their belongings, and even if you give it back, using it without consent is still conversion. If you take a car and go joy riding and intend to bring it back, you’ve still stolen a car.

Yes, there some things you might feel ok borrowing without asking because it’s a small thing and they wouldn’t mind, then chances are you’d be ok with stealing that thing (i.e. a pencil). Otherwise, you shouldn’t take without asking. 

23. I look down on people who unwisely share their secrets.

No, in fact I’m very open and share everything. I don’t have secrets.

24. I refrain from telling people the real reason I did something unless it is useful to do.

No, again I’m very honest and open. I want to be understood. I don’t really stop to think about what’s useful.

25. I only obey those laws that seem reasonable to me.

No, everyone is bound by the laws. Doesn’t matter if the speed limit could be faster you shouldn’t speed.

26. I often have fantasies which involve hurting people.

Big no

27. There are no right and wrong ways of making money, so much as there are easy and hard ways.

God that sounds terrible. Like they’d do anything to make money. Do you know how many terrible ways people can make money? 

28. I can get so angry that I want to hurt people.

Big no, I don’t get angry often and when I do I don’t want to hurt anyone.

29. People who get mistreated have usually done something to deserve it.

No, big no. That’s not true. People get mistreated who have done nothing to deserve it. Usually that’s how bullying works.

30. My own happiness is more important than that of the people around me.

Nope, and this is another flaw of mine. I tend to put everyone else first.

31. Compared to other bad things people do, stealing something small from a store isn’t worth worrying about.

No, it’s still stealing and it actually hurts the store’s bottom line (they keep track of items that go missing, called “shrink”) and if the store is hurt/loses money then that can hurt the people who work there (hours, even whole jobs, cut to save money).

32. Most people would probably enjoy hurting others if they had the chance.

No, I can’t believe that’s true

33. If I had the opportunity, I would gladly pay a small sum of money to see a classmate whom I do not like fail a job or exam.

Again, I don’t want to hurt people. One this seems like paying to hurt someone which is wrong. And making someone fail when they don’t deserve that. It’s not fair and it’s not right.

34. I expect special favors from others.

Nope

35. I keep track of sensitive information that can be used to hurt people at a later time.

Of course not, I don’t want to hurt anyone. 

36. I spend a lot of time looking for opportunities to achieve higher social status.

Nope, I’m ambitious insofar as I want to do well but I don’t spend a lot of time on it. If anything it makes me anxious to ask for things so even applying for jobs was hellish and I hate networking events. It feels wrong to talk to people just because you want something from them.

37.  People like me deserve more perks and advantages than the average person.

No, again, my natural state is to think I don’t deserve anything but I’m working on that. But even then, no one deserves to be treated better than anyone else, that’s not fair. 

38. Hearing others praise me is something I look forward to.

Big YES for this one! I like to feel like I’m going a good job and I need the validation. 

39.I am especially motivated towards making friends with important people.

Not really, I want to make friends with everyone because friends 

40. I avoid direct conflict with people who may be useful to me in the future.

I said yes on this because I avoid conflict in general and I don’t want to burn bridges with people

41. Those with superior talents should not hide them.

Well yeah, everyone should let their talents shine and share them with the world.

42. I am constantly looking for ways to get ahead.

I said yes, I want to do my best. 

43. I humiliate others to keep them in line.

This is wrong on so many levels. “keep them in line” Trying to control people is abusive. Hurting people is wrong and humiliating someone is hurting someone, doing it to control them is textbook abuse/manipulation. That’s terrible.

44. People who mess with me almost always regret it.

I don’t think they do and I certainly don’t try to make them regret it. Well one time I sued a car dealership for running my credit without my consent (in the face of me saying no multiple times/complete lack of consent). I wanted them to pay for that, but not just for me, because they broke the law and they should learn that’s not ok. I hope that by losing some money they would think twice about doing that to other people. But I think that’s the only time I’ve ever taken action against anyone, but that wasn’t revenge, that was ensuring the fair consequence for their actions.

45. I’ll say anything to get what I want.

Nope, I’m honest and I don’t think it’s right to say “anything” just to get what I want. That seems wrong.

[scripttorture]

1/2 Hi. I've got an enemy group who kidnaps and imprisons a spec ops type main character because they desperately want confidential information out of them, but the MC refuses to talk. This group knows torture is not very effective. They want to get it right, get the truth, and are capable and willing to donate lots of resources and time to convincing the main character to spill the beans. They have time, and the person is also much too valuable to maim, so I was wondering what combination of

2/2 techniques they might use to try and get truthful information out of them? I was thinking alternating between police style interrogations, general abuse and positive reinforcements. They use enemy allied spies posing as neutral/friendly individuals to give the main character a sympathetic ear, intending for the main character to accidentally let slip something of use. Would this work? What other options are there?

Well I think ifpossible you should be clear that torture does not work at all. ‘Not veryeffective’ can be taken to imply something might work some of the time. Andgiven the issue at hand I think it’s really important be clear.

 I think the generalsituation you’ve outlined seems perfectly reasonable for this kind of story.It’s realistic. But I’m not sure itwould be the most effective possible strategy.

 One of the big caveatshere is that actual scientific research on interrogation is woefully lacking.As a result I can’t say with certainty that one particularly thing we know can work is better than any otherstrategy that can work. The way I approach these sorts of questions is tryingto get as many ‘positive’ factors into the situation as reasonably possiblewhile minimising any ‘negative’ factors.

 Any abuse is a negativefactor. It makes it less likely that they'll gain the character's trust in anyrespect. It serves as a reminder to the character that they are 'the enemy'. Itcould strengthen the character's resolve not to cooperate purely because theypissed them off.I'm also a little wary of the phrase 'police style interrogation', not becausethere's anything wrong with it or your suggestion necessarily but because mostpolice officers don't receive much training in interrogation. The reality inmost countries is that when it comes to interrogation police officers make itup as they go along. Sometimes they're lucky enough to have someone close tothem who knows how it works but often that isn't the case.That's a big part of why I think this blog is important: these guys are lookingto us to tell them what 'works' and unfortunately a lot of fiction tells themthat the answer is 'torture'.I think the idea of having a friendly/neutral person as a spy is a good one. Ifyou can I'd suggest having two or three. Most fiction tends to use another'prisoner' in this role and that's perfectly feasible. I'd suggest that adoctor might work as well. So- suggestions. Well to start with I'd have them look for forensic evidencecarefully even if the chances of finding something that will help are slim. If this character is wearing shoes, clothes etc when they catch the MC havethem take literally everything and clothe the character in a standard uniformof some kind. If there’s any possibility of evidence from that confirming orsupporting the information they get from the MC use that in the story. Types of soil, chemical residues, plantmatter, anything at all.

 I realise that mightnot fit your story, it won’t fit every story. Some information may literallyonly exist in the character’s head. But if there is any way to use physical evidence as well I’d say do it.

 Next I’d stronglysuggest having as few people as possible on the interrogation team in the roomwith the MC. Don’t have more than two people talking to the MC regularly, thepoint is that they’re building up a relationship with the MC. If there are toomany people that’ll make it more difficult to form a strong connection with anyone individual and it’ll reduce the amount of time he spends with eachindividual.

 These people are goingto be spending a lot of time with theMC. Like forget 9-5 hours and having a family life outside. They’re going tospend hours each day every day just talking to the MC. They probably won’t evenspend most of it asking about what they want to know. They’ll be encouragingthe MC to talk about their beliefs their preferences their personal life-anything.

 They probably won’talways go in together. And I think ‘sessions’ might be in the realm of 5 hoursdaily. It’s a lot of time and itprobably isn’t going to give obvious rewards or indeed anything quickly.

 The rest of the team-the real work is in monitoring,recording, filing and cross referencing everything the MC says. An organisationwith this many resources will begetting information from other sources as well, people volunteeringinformation, paid informants, possibly undercover agents in the MC’sorganisation as well and of course hard evidence and seized materials.

 Checking that what theMC says lines up with other things they know about this organisation is massively important and a lot of hardwork.

 It’s essentially theirfact checking exercise. And if they’re serious about getting accurateinformation a lot of resources need to be there.

 They need to have agood enough cross referencing system in place that they correctly identify whenthe MC has let something slip, asopposed to when they’re lying or deliberately trying to throw these people off.

 If the character knowswhat’s going on deliberately lying at points is extremely likely. But thecharacter probably won’t be able to keep those lies perfectly consistent overmonths. The ‘bad guys’ need to be investing enough time, effort and people toanalyse and recognise the difference between lies, truth that was revealedaccidentally and genuine mistakes on the MC’s part (ie inaccurate informationthat the MC doesn’t know is inaccurate).

 Depending on how youwant to write this I think making members of the analysis and monitoring teamcharacters could be a good idea. It could help show just how much time andeffort is going into every word the MC says. It’s a less overtly violent sideof the evil organisation but one that’s potentially just as creepy anddisturbing- these people are basically professional stalkers.

 I think you shoulddefinitely be prepared to make the interrogator/s fully fledged characters. They’regoing to be spending a lot of time with the MC and if you’re not intending toskip over those months they’re going to be the people the MC interacts withmost. They’ll be doing everything they can to strike up a friendly, respectfulrelationship with the MC.

 It sounds like a stupiddetail but many real life cases have missed this- the interrogators must speak the same language as the MC fluently.

 The interrogatorsshould also have invested time in understanding the MC’s politics, culture andreligion. If something is core to the MC and can be researched/read about theinterrogators should do the reading.

 The only other thing Ican think of is a memory-aid which may or may not be helpful in your story.

 The interrogators getthe MC to tell their story of events backwards. This is something that getsused on witnesses as well as suspects. Essentially it’s difficult to tell astory backwards and inconsistencies become more obvious when comparing theforward and backward versions.

 That doesn’tnecessarily mean it catches lies. The errors could be genuine mistakes. But itgives an idea of what is accurate and consistent in the person’s memory. Ifthey’ve made something up they’ll probably get a lot more details wrong.

 From the MC’s side Ithink it’s important to remember that vanishingly few people refuse to talk.The MC could refuse to say anything they judge as ‘useful’ but that’s not thesame thing. Most people can’t sit quiet during conversations for weeks on end.

 The chances are the MCis going to engage with these interrogatorsto some degree. They’re going to get sucked in to ‘harmless’ conversationsabout sports or art or tv shows. Those conversations help build a relationshipthe interrogator can later try to use to get information.

 The chances are that inthe long term the MC is also going to let someinformation slip out. It might not be valuable or what the bad guys wantthough. But it’s difficult to keep all genuine personal information under wrapsfor months on end when you talk to someone every day.

 Broad responses aregoing to depend a lot on your MC’s personality. I think frustration and boredomwill probably be major problems: you’ve taken someone used to being active andreduced their world to a box and their social circle to may be 4 people.

 It’s going to take anemotional toll, even if it isn’t nearly so high or damaging as if they were insolitary confinement. That can also be used to encourage a strongerrelationship with the interrogators or the spies.

 Interrogation isn’tvery effective and whether it ‘works’ or not is dependent on a lot ofvariables. Even with all that time and effort on the bad guys’ part you could still realistically have the characternot give them the information they really want.

 The longer he’s therethe more likely he is to want to givethem that information and the more likely he is to have forgotten it.

 A lot depends on thecharacters themselves and how you write this. If you want the MC to give themthe information then I’d suggest strong, positive relationships with theinterrogators and/or spies, having the MC held prisoner for longer than a year(anything up to 4 sounds reasonable) and an MC with fewer strong emotional tiesto the ‘cause’.

 If you want the MC notto give them the information then I’d suggest a shorter imprisonment, 2-6months perhaps, a distrustful relationship with the spies, interrogators thatmade mistakes (like shouting or verbally abusing the MC) and an MC with strongemotional ties to the cause, which can include friends/family in the cause.

 I hope that helps. :)

Disclaimer

[bluerozzawesome]

5 OUTSOURCING TIPS FOR BUILDING A BETTER BUSINESS

On the planet where innovation and quickness are the need of great importance, IT outsourcing is increasingly getting a well known stead, particularly for beginning phase new companies and little to medium size businesses that work with restricted assets however intend to break into the tech industry in a major manner. It's a moderate, demonstrated go-to methodology that gives help to companies seeking to outfit the best of advanced advances and convey an eminent client support. 

Very regularly business proprietors are tested with correspondence issues with their merchants and battle to figure out how to construct the outsourcing business case, arrange the arrangement, and art a drawn out solid relationship with their accomplices. That as well as how might you put the eventual fate of your business in danger and spot it under the control of outsiders after you have emptied your essence into it? Outsourcing may appear as though a bet and it has possible traps, particularly if it's your first time outsourcing. 

In the relatively recent past, we shared our insights into the explanations behind IT outsourcing. This time we'll avoid the subtleties of outsourcing benefits and simply slice directly deeply: how it really completes. Here are the main five outsourcing tips that, ideally, will mitigate every one of your apprehensions, open IT outsourcing best practices, assist you with getting outsourcing directly from the beginning, and make your business tick. 

#1 GUIDELINES FOR FINDING THE RIGHT PARTNER 

Before dipping your toes in the water, set aside the effort to pick a competent and dependable contractual worker to work with. 

Make an inquiry or two for proposals 

A typical analysis against outsourcing is the danger of receiving below average work. Re-appropriate suppliers come in all shapes and estimates, and identifying the correct one methods having admittance to the correct information about expected competitors. You can begin from your own organization of contacts and get references from individuals you know and trust, normally different business people who have had involvement in companies in this field. 

Visit virtual commercial centers 

Invest energy shopping around on outsourcing locales. Online hiring administrations, as Upwork, are an incredible asset for expanding your own organization. They permit you to see the itemized profiles and arrangement of forthcoming merchants and get the input on the estimation of their work from different businesses. Tributes from earlier customers can fundamentally influence your choice when weighing one temporary worker against another, and lead you to the best one. 

Pick between an office and a consultant 

The benefits of an IT outsourcing office are self-evident. They normally enlist profoundly trained experts that can be effectively supplanted on the off chance that they don't live up to your desires. Numerous organizations likewise actualize 'balanced governance and handle the whole item advancement measure, subsequently mitigating any dangers. With so numerous gifted engineers and experienced chiefs ready, they assume the liability to check all work and resolve any issues, if things go haywire. 

Two main risks related with hiring a specialist are relying on a single engineer with nobody to check their work, and the chance of misfortunes if your temporary worker neglects to finish the undertaking. 

You can't anticipate that one designer should be 'a handyman'. Things occur. Issues come up. One potential arrangement could be getting a second opinion from an independent consultant or even two or three of them. Having somebody survey your temporary worker's work can significantly lessen the danger and spare you gobs of cash. Additionally, on the off chance that you set up your resources in one place, you may wind up having to search for another person. Specialists regularly go back and forth. Some of them may get an awesome all day bid for employment and leave you the following day. Thus, hiring a few engineers may make all the difference for you. 

In either situation, regardless of whether you settle on an office or a consultant, find out in the event that they do the advancement themselves or redistribute it to another person. Doing business through affiliates may defeat correspondence and in this manner the whole advancement measure. 

Recruit the particular skill you need 

You would prefer not to be 'a guinea pig', correct? Thus, your merchant's mastery and specific aptitudes ought to be considered into your final choice. Prior to engaging with a provider, you must be certain that there is a decent match between what you need and what the supplier spends significant time in, so their qualities line up with your objectives. Pick a legitimate organization that is entrenched in their field and have demonstrated experience working on the tasks like yours. This particularly remains constant for complex, actually refined tasks. 

The choice cycle can be dull and tedious work. Unclear occupation listings will in general draw in huge amounts of under qualified candidates, so ensure your set of working responsibilities is completely clear. Recognize precisely your key execution measurements, objectives, and desires. You additionally need to know how profound their abilities go, regardless of whether they comprehend the business, best practices and most recent tech patterns. 

Direct an interview 

Filter through all applications, slender the rundown of possible providers to 4-5 up-and-comers, and continue to the following stage, the interview. Getting a genuine vibe for a possibility's character and what they can do, is center to understanding whether they will meet your requirements. Here are a few 'dos' during the interview: 

Be explicit. Set up a couple of specialized inquiries to test the interviewee's information and aptitudes. 

Request their function on past activities. Is it safe to say that they were involved in building the entire thing or only a couple of little highlights? 

Recommend a circumstance and ask how they would react to it, or find out about issues they may have battled with previously, and how they took care of them. Watch out for warnings, for example, negative disposition, affront for clients, or inability to keep duties to convey on schedule. 

Fight the temptation to enlist the principal candidate you interviewed, regardless of whether you enjoyed them. You have to contrast them and others. 

Since you have several incredible possibilities, test them out. Allocate a little preliminary assignment that will give you an unpleasant idea of how they perform, and see who will be the best counterpart for your business. It could be a brisk model or an essential outline of a work plan. On the off chance that that basic test is a catastrophe, think about the following applicant. In any case, in the event that notably, well, bingo! You've discovered what you've been looking for! 

Start little 

Developing associations with another specialist organization begins with getting a hint of how they work. Before entrusting your brainchild to them, start with a little straightforward task to give you a thought of their exhibition and abilities. 

#2 COST CONSIDERATIONS 

Cost is another significant measurement in any outsourcing choice. Anyway, how would you try things out before you bounce in? 

Shop around 

It's not tied in with finding the least expensive seller out there, however considering the one underneath your spending plan may be tempting. Never select a supplier dependent on cost – pick something you can sensibly manage the cost of while as yet receiving esteem. Low rates won't benefit your business in any way if your task stalls out in the center. Zero in on the gains that an outsourcing arrangement can bring to your business. Shop around outsourcing destinations for the rates for the errand you need to redistribute. On the off chance that work merits doing admirably, be prepared to pay for a demonstrated provider. You don't need to binge spend, yet additionally don't hold back something over the top. Preclude the most expensive and the least valued bidders. On the off chance that a supplier is somewhat expensive, yet has a ton of positive criticism from customers, at that point he's likely justified, despite all the trouble, while a temporary worker with negative or no input might be more difficult than they are worth. Rather than consultants, agencies typically accompany an exorbitant cost tag. You can at present find a decent bargain, however. Consider new non-conventional outsourcing destinations, as Eastern Europe, that offer more affordable assets and significant levels of value. 

Pick the correct pricing model 

In the event that an outsourcing course of action offers you lower costs without compromising quality, at that point you're in an ideal situation in that business arrangement. Build up the pricing model that will urge specialist co-ops to give it their everything. 

We as a whole disdain shrouded expenses and astonishments! Utilize an in with no reservations level expense pricing model for redistributed Scrum Teams or Agile programming advancement. It's a pricing structure that charges a single fixed expense for help, instead of charging constantly. It centers around high efficiency, and offers full cost straightforwardness and adaptability to scale up or down, should a circumstance require. 

In an item or task based outsourcing model, put a high incentive on results instead of hours. On the off chance that the group you recruited can't create a yield comparable to your principles, it doesn't make a difference how much time they have spent. Start with an errand based value model to perceive how this new organization is working for you. Bind your supplier's installment to unmistakably defined venture achievements that signal fruition of significant phases of the task. Timetable ordinary registration to survey their work. It's prescribed to follow through on 20-30% of the all out cost forthright, and the rest is granted after the errand fulfillment. 

When your temporary workers show the capacity to reliably convey results, you can begin transitioning to a fixed value model. There are as yet a lot of things to be mindful of. A fixed-cost retainer works better for completely defined fixed extension extends as opposed to new businesses. With a fixed value model, you give specs at the start, have a fixed task spending plan and pay precisely what is recorded. When you go into an agreement, any progressions are unwanted and disliked. New businesses, in any case, are unstable commonly. Tags: Best Outsourcing Companies In Dubai, Dubai Recruitment Agencies

[foxstens]

it’s over and i must talk

so let’s start with the most important thing: the routes and the boys. i’d rank them like this

1. kent

2. shin

3. ikki

4. toma

starting with toma’s route was very interesting, because it showed me from the beginning that this wasn’t going to be as fluffy and romance-focused as i had thought, and that there’d definitely be things about it i wouldn’t like. the interesting part tho is that it changed my perspective of toma in the other routes. like whenever he’d show up i’d just side-eye him and wait for him to show his true colors, which ultimately only happened in shin’s route. (and briefly in ukyo’s route)

but i guess there’s no right way to experience toma’s entire thing. bc according to reddit shin’s route should definitely be either the first or the last; if it’s the first it shows you very clearly that there’s more to toma than just ‘nice older brother figure’ and thus you go into his route expecting that

however if it’s last you’ve already experienced toma’s route so you might end up even suspecting him as the culprit because you know that there’s more to him, and that there’s no way he wouldn’t play a part in this route. so it’s a weird thing

but i don’t regret starting with his route. i don’t hate the route itself, i think it’s very effective and does exactly what it sets out to do, it’s just that it has so many negatives for me. starting from the color combination to toma’s entire character and design. eh. but it’s a good starting point i think, even if it wasn’t intended that way.

then there’s ikki’s route. which is..... fine?? i kind of spent half the game wishing death on him bc.... idk why, but then i kind of warmed up to him, and i got really happy whenever he showed up in the other routes. so i can’t say there’s a lot i absolutely hate about the route, but there also isn’t much i absolutely love?

as for shin.... story-wise i really love his route, however romance-wise... i didn’t hate it but i would’ve liked it more if the mc had a personality. lmao. shin himself is pretty easy to love, he’s a pretty good example of ‘jerk with a heart of gold’ and he definitely has the best design and the best cg’s in the entire game period. 

then there’s my favourite boy. an absolute cinnamon roll i would die and kill for. kent. i found him hilarious and kind of hard to deal with at first, with his methodical and logical thinking, or sometimes overthinking even, but then as it went on i noticed that he had an actual character arc going on, and my god wasn’t it just delightful. and i guess that’s what made the romance so compelling as well, because there wasn’t really an overarching plot, i got to spend a month with this boy, seeing him put effort into this relationship, seeing him struggle and fail sometimes but still keep trying. 

he’s also probably the one that treats the mc the best, because even if he initially goes into the entire relationship with a sort of experimental mindset, and with the mc kind of hating him, he isn’t afraid to admit his faults and to apologize when necessary, even if it happens a month too late. it felt so real and relatable so much so that every single end made me cry in some way. :’)

ukyo is in a different category for obvious reasons. his route i’d put maybe on the same level as shin’s. there were some things i loved about it and some i didn’t. i do think it does a good job of wrapping up everything and explaining stuff and seeing all the characters together all happy and shit was a lot of fun. i wasn’t the biggest fan of the romance overall but it was SO FREAKING SAD it still touched my heart.

i didn’t bother going through all the choices and memories and short stories bc i’m just not that big of a completionist in this particular case, but i did read kent’s memories section and his short story and they were pretty great. altho the fact that we never got to see the mc’s dog is wack. and according to this particular short story (and shin’s route) the mc did in fact have a personality which we never got to see and that’s also wack.

the art is mostly to my liking. i really love most of the character designs and the backgrounds, while on the simpler side, really fit the overall tone of the story. basically the only complaint i have is that the characters’ fingers are as long as their faces. it’s just. why. it just takes me out of a serious scene every time i see a hand on screen ashgngjnd. i did really like the drawing style cards or whatever that showed up before every new day.

the music is....romantic visual novel music i guess. i wouldn’t say any of it is outstanding or something i’d listen to all the time on its own, but i didn’t hate either. it always fit the mood and it is pretty good overall, just not my favourite. as for the voice acting, absolutely no complaints. the voice actors were all fitting for the roles and they did their absolute best. highlights include akira ishida aka kent whose voice is flat and even except when it’s not.

then there’s stuff like the interface and the gameplay or whatever which are both fine. not too complex easy to navigate although the skipping function doesn’t work the way it does in fsn and that’s annoying. and the fact that it doesn’t tell me how long i’ve been playing is also annoying. or maybe it does i just didn’t look for it in the right place eh. and the op plays every time you open the game, which i guess would be a nice thing for some ppl but i didn’t much care for it.

that’s about all i have to say. 

7/10 might change once i read more otome vns tho 

(orion is the absolute bestest boy tho. he should’ve had a route. or better yet. he should’ve been the protagonist. lmfao) (waka best boy #2)

[bradstoneallington]

Bradstone Allington || 11 Rules of Effective Networking

Bradstone Allington presenting highly talented graduates in UK employment market. Bradstone is a distinct and knowledgeable organization, covering all levels of recruitment and career development for Accounting, IT, Human Resources, Law, and Digital Marketing.

Every topic worth covering requires its very own “top guidelines” post devoted to the topic. The necessary, and often career-boosting, subject of networking definitely makes this list. To help begin your new year of career searching off right, here are 11 guidelines of efficient networking that must direct your efforts. Create Headings

The last time we examined, ending up on the front page or your local newspaper was generally reserved for confrontations with the law or infamous op-ed pieces. Unlike these career-negative kinds of protection, reliable networking will frequently involve crafting a heading narrative to help get your story across successfully. When catching up with friends and coworkers, think about the message you want to present and wish to be shared far and wide.

Required a little motivation? Headline-worthy tags consist of declarations such as: “Joe out of work– once again.” “Marcia retooling herself.” “Jan in carpet-cleaning service.” “Paul offering brand-new financial investment cars.” “Frank has a new job.” The point is that compartmentalized nuggets of information travel rapidly and are best-suited for helping you attract the right type of attention. Consider what you ‘d like your networking message to be and adhere to the subject when connecting to potential contacts. Concentrate on the Long Game

The last thing you want is to discover yourself out of work or in need of a fast profession move just to discover your contact list has stagnated. Reliable networking isn’t an as-needed type of tool. Your contact and call lists ought to depend on date and primed to be put into action ought to the opportunity arise.

To this end, keep your expert networking game even when you may not have an instant requirement. Make sure to participate in regular industry functions and browse those connections on the routine. Even if you’re not on the market, invite associates out for a quick lunch or coffee break “simply to catch up.” You never ever understand when these types of assets will become important in bailing you out of a dire scenario. Don’t Discount Rate Online Networking

Sure, you’re quirky uncle Nick might believe that online interactions are just helpful for selfie-obsessed millennials, however savvy career go-getters understand much better. Modern expert networking platforms are a “need to” for those looking to make and keep connections within their market.

If you’re late to the celebration or have actually been concealing under a void-of-tech rock for the last years, sign up for the most common platforms to begin. LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter are all viable choices for making connections with similarly minded experts. If you’re thinking about a Google+ account, we hate to tell you however you’re a few years late to the party [insert link to newspaper article] to make a mark because realm. Remember to keep your interactions expert and separate any individual activities, or relegate those to the non-permanent (kinda) places such as Snapchat. Sign up with Groups

Anybody who’s ever been through their high school years understands the importance of being part of the in-crowd. Much can be said for different professional and industry-focused groups as you reach your adult years. Numerous occupations or subsectors keep one or more networking groups focused on your particular niche. Not just can you make brand-new networking connections, but you’ll also learn valuable new skills through first-hand advice and experience.

We’re not simply talking physical groups either. As we pointed out earlier, the development and day-to-day usage of online platforms by all levels of specialists have actually been a large advance when it pertains to connecting with your peers. Specialty groups on expert and social networks networking websites allow for specialized interests to come together and share concepts. Pay attention to those online groups that have a physical counterpart for “IRL” interactions. As a reward, look out for opportunities to contribute guidance in comments and articles as this is a terrific method to get your name out there and build your professional track record. Keep Your Work and Personal Lives Different

We touched on this briefly above but the subject is important enough to deserve a paragraph of its really own. As the old stating goes, you’re better off not blending work with pleasure. If you’ll be grabbing dinner and beverages with a colleague, prevent all night, hangover-inducing benders, or letting the subject roaming to anything uncouth. Keep those images of yourself in fighters or a swimsuit off of LinkedIn and avoid the typical pitfalls of faith and politics any location where a non-likeminded associate may stumble upon them.

Research Your Networking Circles

While we’re on the subject of joining groups to help grow your career, it is very important that you take some time to do a little research study on the specific celebration you intend on crashing. For starters, it will assist you much better comprehend the priorities of the club, network, or company you’ll be connecting with so that you can better contribute. In addition, doing some due diligence ahead of time is an excellent method of preventing running with the incorrect crowd or a group that you might not want to connect with based upon your perfects and objectives.

Rather of just counting on blindly losing consciousness service cards at an occasion or function, investigating ahead of time will let you ask appropriate and thoughtful concerns. You’ll also have a better gauge of the mood of the room and may even be able to identify prospective career-building targets ahead of time. It’s all about networking smarter, not harder, after all. Volunteer

Some of the most neglected locations of networking success are typically concealing in plain sight. Some are even disguised as causes that are already near and dear to your heart. That’s right. We’re discussing volunteer chances in your work or neighborhood.

Volunteering is a multi-faceted activity that feels great and does helpful for those on the getting end along with for your individual track record or career. Authentic relationships are often formed when individuals are working together for a typical cause. Try to determine locations that are meaningful to you personally or that might touch upon your particular profession in order to maximize your time and impact. If you’re a designer, for instance, think about among the various homebuilding charities. In short, focus on volunteer activities that touch on your career so that you’ll be a much better contributor and can help make connections in the process of doing excellent. Keep in mind to Provide, Not Just Receive

We all have that one individual in our social circle that is more than happy to let you get the supper and beverages examine however rarely, if ever, provides to nab it up on their own. While it’s simple to simply recommend splitting an expense down the middle, it’s often harder to find a balance when it pertains to the benefits of networking.

Whether you’re wanting to maximize your networking efforts or are seeking a mentor to direct your career path, keep in mind that there is constantly someone sitting a couple of rungs lower than you on the professional ladder. Keep your eye out for those in requirement of professional guidance in their own professions and karma, and appearances will typically benefit in your own efforts and successes. Expand Your Social Circle

Many times when people seek to network they focus on the attempted and true contacts in their small personal and expert group. Limiting yourself to people you currently understand, nevertheless, is a proven method to limit your networking circle and opportunities.

Be sure to work the networking grapevine by asking trusted contacts to put you in touch with other like-minded experts. Be open to accepting invitations to new events and do not be reluctant to reach out and ask second and 3rd-degree contacts if they wish to link. Chances are if you adhere to the path more taken a trip and understood, you’ll lose out on surprise gems of opportunity. Be Aware of Your Image

We’re at that point in the list where we’re going to ask you to do something uncomfortable. Initially, take an excellent tough look at yourself in the physical and metaphorical mirror. What do you see? We’re not requesting for a social review or your haircut or outfit, or for you to recognize defects. The truth of the matter is, however, that it’s hard to network if you don’t have a strong understanding of how other people perceive both your experience, appearance and profession level.

Individuals react to your image, both internally and externally. Not understanding what that image depicts suggests that you’re entering blind to most networking activities. Take a careful assessment of who and what you are and after that use those qualities to help you both make modifications and promote those attributes where you are the strongest. It’s frequently stated that people have ten seconds to make a great first impression. It only follows that effective networkers know how to make those ten seconds count. Program Grace Under Pressure

Bear in mind that strength is often portrayed finest by those who are cool, calm and collected. If you discover yourself in requirement of networking for a new task or profession course, it’s finest to maintain your composure.

Instead of rushing around and giving out cards like you’re dropping dining establishment leaflets, target your audience for networking in a methodical fashion. Avoid blast emails with various addresses on the “to” line and choose instead for tailored interaction with private contacts. Select your occasions wisely and try not to come off as, well, desperate. Practice this and you’ll be a much more appealing candidate and effective networker.

So there you have it. Our list of 11 of the top networking ideas to make your efforts more productive and efficient. Have another idea, or two, or 3, that you’ve utilized in your networking experiences? Drop us a line in the remarks and share how you’ve accomplished your own profession success through this critical tool.

Contact Bradstone Allington : www.bradstoneallington.com

[owlishwitch]

Finally came across toxicity

So I’ve been on Witchblr for around 10-ish months now, and on the whole my experience has been fantastic. People are generally wonderful. But today, I finally encountered the crummy side. If you’re following this blog you will already have seen the response to my cute little emoji spell.

But if not, here’s a rundown.

So my emoji spell was so that those of us against white supremacists in our midst could direct some energy towards defeating them. Obviously it wasn’t intended to be some kind of end in and of itself, but charitable people already know that.

On the other hand, assholes will accuse me of some kind of keyboard warrioring. Apparently, even people who believe in magic may potentially accuse me of such, even though an emoji spell is no less valid a way to do magic than any other. It may not be your kind of thing, but if you don’t think it’s going to do anything, then what about an emoji spell-- which uses symbolism, intention, and manifestation-- is any different to a traditional spell? If you don’t believe an emoji spell is capable of working, then why would you believe any other form would work?

So that brings me to my new “pal” psygothicpws - who I will not tag because they don’t deserve further attention.

First off, they call me a “fluff bunny.”

That’ll be 1 premium yike.

Baby Wiccans used to be called fluff bunnies back when I was on the message boards of Bolt.com circa 2000. The idea was that fluffies, as we called them, were here to cast love spells and play light as a feather, stiff as a board. They weren’t seen as serious in craft or in religion, and were mostly in it for aesthetic.

I’m 33 now, and over time I’ve realised just how elitist that kind of thinking is. These days, I don’t care if people wear witchy clothes and collect crystals, as long as they’re not trying to convince people not to take their prescribed medications or vaccinations. I don’t care if people “dabble” and move on. What does it matter to me? People should do what makes their short, crummy time on this godforsaken planet slightly less shit.

All that said, me being called a fluff bunny is closing a hilarious circle for me and genuinely makes me picture this person as a young teen, like I was when I used that term. I don’t know or care to know how old they actually are, because they might as well be a baby to me after what they’ve said - which I’ll get to in a moment.

So here is their initial reply to my post:

Fluff bunnies are inherently lazy. They refuse to accept that magic has a balance and it will negatively effect them. For every new positive there’s a new negative. Try and guess what side OP is on? 😂

This amuses me, considering what they will say next. It’s clear to me that they think they are on the so-called “positive” side and I am not, because I want to destroy racists. I wonder why. Could they be racist themselves?

So I posted quite a scathing reply to this BS. Their response came swiftly thereafter:

This almost makes me feel sorry for this terrible person. But considering they are repeating something Tucker Carlson said - which was SO RACIST THAT FOX NEWS MADE HIM GO ON VACATION - my empathy dries up pretty quickly.

Strange, too, that they continue to accuse me of being a “craptivist” - even though I gave my real world activism credentials in my last reply. I regularly petition my government for changes, and actively fight the fascist elements that sometimes rear their ugly heads in my country. So I mean - clearly they did not read a word I said.

Don’t be this person. They are equal parts arrogant and ignorant, which is a very unfortunate combination. Breeds a lot of bad takes. And lets neo-Nazi groups flourish in the garden of looking the other way.

Whatever “occult circles” this person runs in are clearly not the kind of circles I give a shit about, much less what they think of me.

Why do I get the feeling this person is part of a white identitarian Odinist group or something?

(Also, who the fuck are “EA Koetting” and “Varg?”)