wankgate | 251: back in my day wank meant something

251: back in my day wank meant something

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

that player is always on rpa being super aggro, so idk if it has to do with tfln in particular. they have a distinctive writing style and are incredibly hostile and condescending in all of their comments.

i think you're right on the money tbh. somebody who just has a shitload of time to sit around being mad on rpa about whatever they can find.

not gonna lie after reading their unnecessarily pissy responses i switched my prefs to "no malleable protags" on all my journals

i'm obviously going to be cutting off normal people too, but whatever, i haven't seen a single one i'd want to tag recently anyway

who is tav. not asking anyone to out the player i just don’t even know the character and i feel dumb?

tav is the default name of the baldur's gate 3 malleable protagonist, from what i know, anon!

thank you so much. you are my new favorite anon. we shall never meet again but i will remember you always.

i love you too, my ship in the night!

i'm ngl i get where you're coming from but letting anon dictate your preferences is some next level brainrot

it would be so easy for that to have just been someone lying and shit stirring

eh

if it were a whole canon i'd agree, but frankly i don't think i'm losing anything of value by not rping with a bunch of characters who are, at best, donut steel very special blorbos, and at worst self-inserts

plus the fact that they immediately turned around and got mad about the insinuation that they don't get smut threads definitely reinforces that they play a malleable protag, though as someone else said they could be a wol player throwing tavs in front of the train

imo it's not about the blorbos it's about you looking like a moron who believes wankgate

this happened on rpa

and again, if you can tell me what i'm missing by not tagging malleable protags...but you can't, because i'm missing nothing

it's like saying "no fandom ocs"

no i genuinely do not care about some ugly western game not tagging you, i'm just offering some good faith advice that it's a bad look to appear to take cues from anon shit. but i guess good faith tips on wg are pointless lol

i mean there have been journals from games with malleable protags for a long time that say they're not interested in those ships, this is not a new thing

and anyway it's still advocating for people to be untruthful about what they don't want to tag, which ultimately just leads to people wasting their time with tag-ins that were always going to be ignored

Re: da

(Anonymous) - 2024-06-12 20:47 (UTC) - Expand

Re: da

(Anonymous) - 2024-06-12 21:10 (UTC) - Expand

i don't tag people who write "no malleable protags" because the only people i've ever seen do that are wankgate regulars with poor takes

you aren't going to convince me to tag your tav/wol but i'm sorry if you were offended

hey now, it could be an inquisitor now that the dragon age hype has brought them back

the way my eyes rolled out of my head at a bunch of very unique inquisitors showing up on emp to beg for the nonexistent npcs to tag them

swing and a miss

totes

i'm sure there are MANY cases of rpers caring about permissions that don't directly impact them, and anyway, the polite thing to do would be to put no info in the permissions and just ghost the characters you don't care about

actually i'd be interested in a community-wide poll (that i know won't happen) about which people would honestly prefer: permissions that say "i'm not interested in your character in particular," or permissions that don't indicate, and then the topleveler just ignores the tag-in?

oh it's just a little red flag i've noticed

anon what were YOU doing at the devil's sacrament?

by golly i would never, i heard all of this second hand!

only if you have a take i think is bad and also happen to leave identifying information

do we finally have a worthy gsai successor

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Re: da

Re: da

nayrt

Re: nayrt

ayrt

Re: ayrt

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da