I have someone like this on my plurk. Lots of meme top levels advertised, lots of tag-ins to those top levels, they never get answered because the mun has already moved onto another muse they just talk about and don't play. I've recycled all the starters I gave them to other people by now.
I know someone like this and I used to keep trying and hoping because they were a great writer when you could get a thread
It's dumb but I'm kinda proud of myself for not tagging them this time. It's more of a "fool me fifty times" thing but from bow on I'm not wasting the effort on them
Yeah this is pretty much it. I'm ashamed to admit if I got a tag back on those old memes that I'd roll with it. Excellent but flakey writers are a curse I can't get away from.
when people think that smut = total change of character and has a char being ooc in dialogue. it just throws the whole mood of the thread off and the oocness makes me second guess playing because i don't feel like i'm playing against the actual character. feels more like someone just wants to play x face in y scenarios and isn't considering how they'd actually react.
enough with the rescuer/bodyguard memes. space them out. we get it. you like it. but it's not that popular and i'm tired of seeing version 5 posted when version 4 is still on the page.
same concept. save me, rescue me, protect me, be in a position where one party takes care of another, preferably with physicality. they're not exactly the same, but there's a theme, and they all get minced up and put into a handful of memes instead of an inclusive one, which is part of what's annoying about bs lately. wait a week or so and then do an inclusive meme instead of something that's similar but just a little different to the one posted 2-3 days ago.
the difference in that is the rescue/save me memes barely break 100 comments, if they get anything at all, and the texting meme was posted after tfln hit captcha. one is actually popular and wanted. the other is just someone with a craving for save me obi wan and trying to push people into tagging it. i'll tag it when it's been a couple weeks and i'm not still tagging in the other meme.
reposting the same meme is against the rules. reposting a more inclusive meme (and don't give me this shit that tfln is 'for other things' because no one fucking uses it for anything other than tfln, which is why it's a fucking tfln meme) to carry on stuff that was cut short or made harder because of captcha should be allowable. it's not the meme players fault that captcha can't be turned off after 5k.
and i never said that they were breaking the rules. i said they're doing too many similar themed memes when the last one isn't popular enough or near captcha to need it.
between that and the loyal dog/servantmaster/apprentice memes, it's just coming off like someone has a power dynamic kink and they're trying to make it a thing when it's just not a thing. it might be more of one if you gave people a break, but no one wants to tag into something that's just like the one up yesterday they didn't tag into because they're tagging one from a few days ago.
is it breaking the rules if the mod specifically said, "hey, you reached captcha REALLY FAST this week, go ahead and post an overflow if you want" and only then someone posted another tfln?
twinky androgynous PB, check. non-binary (but male bodied, of course!) fetishism, check. living fetish fuel character with a canon name attached, check check check check check.
i think the problem with bakerstreet isn't too much smut or too much shipping or the same meme posted with minor details tweaked or whatever people argue about
it's too many memes that rely on existing CR, be it assumed or through tagging a castmate
this is why i wish top level starters were the norm in memes. it's so much more convenient for establishing CR as well as knowing what the player is looking for.
MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-16 09:57 pm (UTC)(link)Re: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-19 10:14 pm (UTC)(link)+1
(Anonymous) 2016-04-20 04:29 am (UTC)(link)Re: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-20 12:35 pm (UTC)(link)It's dumb but I'm kinda proud of myself for not tagging them this time. It's more of a "fool me fifty times" thing but from bow on I'm not wasting the effort on them
Re: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-20 09:53 pm (UTC)(link)Re: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-20 12:14 am (UTC)(link)that's what will make me drop a thread, tbh.
Re: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-20 10:32 pm (UTC)(link)>people post without starters
it never fails
+1000
(Anonymous) 2016-04-24 01:59 am (UTC)(link)Re: MEME PET PEEVES
i wish more memes had that caveat
Re: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-23 11:10 pm (UTC)(link)Re: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-23 11:22 pm (UTC)(link)Re: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-23 11:31 pm (UTC)(link)Re: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-23 11:43 pm (UTC)(link)Re: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-23 11:45 pm (UTC)(link)Re: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-24 12:06 am (UTC)(link)Re: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-24 12:14 am (UTC)(link)and i never said that they were breaking the rules. i said they're doing too many similar themed memes when the last one isn't popular enough or near captcha to need it.
http://bakerstreet.dreamwidth.org/3304355.html - my rescuer, posted today (5 comments)
http://bakerstreet.dreamwidth.org/3297801.html - protector/protected, posted 20th (13 comments)
between that and the loyal dog/servantmaster/apprentice memes, it's just coming off like someone has a power dynamic kink and they're trying to make it a thing when it's just not a thing. it might be more of one if you gave people a break, but no one wants to tag into something that's just like the one up yesterday they didn't tag into because they're tagging one from a few days ago.
Re: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-24 12:27 am (UTC)(link)What's good for the goose is good for the gander
Same selfish shit, same selfish motive
Re: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 00:30 (UTC) - ExpandRe: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 01:00 (UTC) - ExpandRe: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 01:05 (UTC) - ExpandRe: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 01:11 (UTC) - ExpandRe: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 01:16 (UTC) - ExpandRe: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 01:21 (UTC) - Expand+1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 01:43 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 01:53 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 01:56 (UTC) - Expandayrt
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 02:03 (UTC) - ExpandRe: ayrt
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 02:12 (UTC) - ExpandRe: ayrt
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 02:14 (UTC) - ExpandRe: ayrt
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 02:15 (UTC) - ExpandRe: ayrt
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 02:17 (UTC) - Expandhttp://bakerstreet.dreamwidth.org/3305654.html
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 03:04 (UTC) - ExpandRe: http://bakerstreet.dreamwidth.org/3305654.html
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 03:07 (UTC) - ExpandRe: http://bakerstreet.dreamwidth.org/3305654.html
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 03:13 (UTC) - ExpandRe: http://bakerstreet.dreamwidth.org/3305654.html
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 03:16 (UTC) - ExpandRe: http://bakerstreet.dreamwidth.org/3305654.html
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 03:18 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 09:20 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 14:22 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 14:33 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 19:44 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 20:16 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 21:16 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 21:29 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 21:33 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 21:34 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 21:39 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 22:28 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 22:50 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 23:42 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-25 00:08 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-25 00:14 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-25 00:19 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-25 00:24 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-25 00:26 (UTC) - Expandda
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-25 00:29 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 22:27 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-25 00:11 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-25 00:21 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-25 00:25 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-25 00:27 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-25 00:32 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 19:38 (UTC) - Expand+1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 19:48 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 20:18 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 21:14 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 22:26 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-25 00:17 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-25 00:24 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-25 00:29 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-25 04:45 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-25 05:05 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 08:55 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-24 14:20 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-25 00:41 (UTC) - Expand+1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-25 00:48 (UTC) - ExpandRe: +1
(Anonymous) - 2016-04-25 01:24 (UTC) - ExpandRe: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-24 02:33 am (UTC)(link)Re: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-24 02:57 am (UTC)(link)da
(Anonymous) 2016-04-24 07:24 pm (UTC)(link)Re: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-25 11:40 pm (UTC)(link)Re: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-25 11:41 pm (UTC)(link)Re: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-26 03:07 am (UTC)(link)Re: MEME PET PEEVES
(Anonymous) 2016-04-26 12:43 pm (UTC)(link)it's too many memes that rely on existing CR, be it assumed or through tagging a castmate
+1
(Anonymous) 2016-04-26 01:12 pm (UTC)(link)