MEME PET PEEVES

(Anonymous) 2017-01-07 02:55 am (UTC)(link)

(Anonymous) 2017-01-12 05:42 am (UTC)(link)
>Meme states that top levelers should pick a prompt(s) and write out a starter
>All the current three top levels are just "I like options 3, 5, 4 and no fail sex!!!1"

great job doing what you can do in any other meme, [personal profile] ibiza, [personal profile] rocketinyourpocket and [personal profile] plainswalker

(Anonymous) 2017-01-12 05:47 am (UTC)(link)
it's a horrible way to do a smut meme really... so don't blame them

(Anonymous) 2017-01-12 05:50 am (UTC)(link)
it's a wonderful way to do any meme. sure, you don't get a thousand top levels, but you usually get someone who's dedicated enough to their concept and thread since they actually put work into it.

(Anonymous) 2017-01-12 06:05 am (UTC)(link)
it's stupid because you are so limited in how you can write a start and the types of scenes you'll end up with.

with smut it is infinitely more stupid because you are then limited in cr and gender and situation. there is going to be a disgusting lack of variety of scene that you could have

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-01-12 06:11 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-01-12 06:14 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-01-12 06:18 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-01-12 06:20 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-01-12 23:29 (UTC) - Expand

da

(Anonymous) - 2017-01-12 23:55 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-01-12 06:12 (UTC) - Expand

Re: MEME PET PEEVES

(Anonymous) 2017-01-14 07:24 am (UTC)(link)
>checks out a smut meme, finds a character that might be interesting
>clicks their journal to see if there's a kink list
>it's some of the snottiest, most pretentious shit i've ever seen, waxing poetic about basic hard no's and how they only play with characters worthy enough for their cock

i may be thirsty for doms, but jfc i'm not that thirsty

Re: MEME PET PEEVES

(Anonymous) 2017-01-14 03:50 pm (UTC)(link)
deets? you don't have to name names if you don't want to but give us a copy pasta of the most choice pretension.

Re: MEME PET PEEVES

(Anonymous) 2017-01-14 04:55 pm (UTC)(link)
Very well, if you are interested enough, my preferred sexual kinks are simple. Nothing that belongs in a toilet will be shared between myself and my partners, I'm not going to set you on fire, and any death, gore, or mutilations will not happen. Such things are reserved for my job, not my bedroom.

And yes, I am a bastard and picky when it comes to my partners.


i assume it's supposed to be an ic comment from the character, but it just makes the player look like a tool

da

(Anonymous) 2017-01-14 06:14 pm (UTC)(link)
you are a delicate little flower, aren't you?

(frozen comment) dda

(Anonymous) - 2017-01-14 18:19 (UTC) - Expand

(frozen comment) Re: dda

(Anonymous) - 2017-01-14 18:21 (UTC) - Expand

Re: MEME PET PEEVES

(Anonymous) 2017-01-14 07:02 pm (UTC)(link)
could they have phrased it like any more of a stuckup douche? the prefs are fine but i would hate to listen to this person talk irl

"i'm not going to set you on fire" i can't tell if this is an ic/ooc blur or them assuming one of other people. is that even a kink? if it's facetiousness... they suck at being facetious.

Re: MEME PET PEEVES

(Anonymous) 2017-01-14 07:40 pm (UTC)(link)
i've actually played with this person and they're harmless. the only problem is that they're a little...idk how to put it politely, maybe "stuck in 2005?" their rp style seems very dated even though they're a serviceable writer.

what you've quoted is probably just their attempt at some ooc/ic blending ~crack~ that was popular back then. most people these days take a more straight forward approach to info posts, and this player may just have not caught on.

http://bakerstreet.dreamwidth.org/3912225.html?thread=1811373857#cmt1811373857

(Anonymous) 2017-01-17 03:57 am (UTC)(link)
LINK your fucking absurdres images, jackass.

Re: http://bakerstreet.dreamwidth.org/3912225.html?thread=1811373857#cmt1811373857

(Anonymous) 2017-01-17 04:00 am (UTC)(link)
if the person they're responding to doesn't ask, they don't have to. lots of people ask. lots of people don't. it warns for being an image heavy meme. view it as top comments only if you want to avoid responses.

Re: http://bakerstreet.dreamwidth.org/3912225.html?thread=1811373857#cmt1811373857

(Anonymous) 2017-01-17 04:17 am (UTC)(link)
so which pretty white guy player that absofuckinglutely refuses to link your prompts are you? the one that gets unreasonably angry when people tell you that you're being an asshole or the other one?

Re: http://bakerstreet.dreamwidth.org/3912225.html?thread=1811373857#cmt1811373857

(Anonymous) 2017-01-17 05:05 am (UTC)(link)
neither, you flapping twatcicle. but i can read the rules, and while it's considered good manners to make images smaller and i would certainly prefer they did, it's not required. neither is linking it.

Re: http://bakerstreet.dreamwidth.org/3912225.html?thread=1811373857#cmt1811373857

(Anonymous) 2017-01-17 04:20 am (UTC)(link)
did you even click the link before getting sanctimonious? they inlined a fucking 3000x2000 image you muppet.

Re: http://bakerstreet.dreamwidth.org/3912225.html?thread=1811373857#cmt1811373857

(Anonymous) 2017-01-17 05:06 am (UTC)(link)
yes, you fraggle, if only to check if the person they'd replied to had requested linked images. they did not. while smaller images is common courtesy, it's also not mandatory.

Re: http://bakerstreet.dreamwidth.org/3912225.html?thread=1811373857#cmt1811373857

(Anonymous) 2017-01-17 07:50 am (UTC)(link)
never thought i'd see someone stanning for dumbfucks posting gigantic images, wow. i'm just waiting for you to go off on a screed on MUH FREE SPEECH RIGHTS any second now.

Re: http://bakerstreet.dreamwidth.org/3912225.html?thread=1811373857#cmt1811373857

(Anonymous) 2017-01-17 07:10 pm (UTC)(link)
you're the equivalent of a kid holding their hand in front of someone's face and screaming "i'm not touching you!"

being against the rules or not is irrelevant to whether something is right or wrong or goddamn stupud

Re: http://bakerstreet.dreamwidth.org/3912225.html?thread=1811373857#cmt1811373857

(Anonymous) 2017-01-17 04:11 am (UTC)(link)
how is this even a prompt

+1

(Anonymous) 2017-01-17 10:58 am (UTC)(link)

Re: MEME PET PEEVES

(Anonymous) 2017-01-18 12:53 am (UTC)(link)
is there a way to tell someone they literally gave you neither a hook nor a setting in their starter so you can't respond to it without coming off as a dickweed?

Re: MEME PET PEEVES

(Anonymous) 2017-01-19 06:05 pm (UTC)(link)
"You literally gave me neither a hook nor a setting in your starter so I can't respond to it [as is]."

This isn't hard.

Re: MEME PET PEEVES

(Anonymous) 2017-01-22 03:59 pm (UTC)(link)
ugh, that superboy's back

can't wait for him to tag every one of my characters should i dare to post

Re: MEME PET PEEVES

(Anonymous) 2017-01-22 08:35 pm (UTC)(link)
what's their deal? just thirsty on smut tags?