Messages

I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of a radical Christian here, and pretend there's a situation where I'd refuse someone a certain freedom that everyone else has, even though it's proven not to be harmful or detrimental to society, just because it goes against my personal preferences.

I can't do it. There are rights and types of freedom I don't want to give people, because they are bad, and make it worse for others. I do think that we should deny adults to have sex with minors, because I believe it's generally harmful, which is also consensus amongst psychologists and sociologists.

I'm not saying freedom in itself is unproblematic - freedom to carry guns, for instance, means less freedom to others (to feel safe) - but if we have a freedom that doesn't intrude on others' rights, why not let them have it? Even if it happens to go against the definition of marriage as it's written in your scripture, why not change it? What's the worst that can happen?

It's not like you haven't re-interpreted Bible passages to fit your worldviews before, so why can't a totally irrelevant and backward little paragraph be overlooked? You clearly did away with the part where you should give everything you own to the poor (which would, incidentally, be a really good rule) so why not give this one a revision?

Consensus among people who research these things is that LGBT parenting isn't worse than any other kind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting. Hence, there's no real reason to work against it, just feelings.

That restroom analogy was so pitiful it's just embarrassing. But let's ignore the fact that he's obviously a douchebag and a poor debater, and pretend he's got some really good reasons to oppose gay marriage, and... well...

Nope. There are no good arguments against gay marriage. The reasons for opposing it are traditions, religion and prejudices, none of which count as good arguments in a debate. Even if we stretch it further into the sociological field, research clearly shows that gay couples make just as good (or bad) parents and form just as good (or bad) families as non-gay people.

I don't buy that Christian dogmas can be used to justify being against gay-marriage, because Christians don't follow the Bible anyway, so why should they be allowed to pick some parts of it and suddenly get away with being reactionary? It'd be one thing if we had a religion with a neat, concise set of rules that their followers adhered to, consistently. I know, blaming Christians for interpreting the Bible selectively isn't very original, but it never ceases to baffle me. When I meet a Christian who's given away everything they own to the poor (which the Bible dictates) I'll start listening. But they'd better not mix wool and linen.

If Christians were never forced to modernize, they'd still refuse female priests, and they'd still like to stone people for the crime of having been raped, and they'd still preach in latin and demand a tenth of your money, lest you'd be damned to hell, or something. Religion must be organic, like the rest of society.

I won't struggle to find out if every author or creator of works I enjoy or plan to obtain is likeable, but if I do find out s/he's an asshole, I refuse to support it. It simply doesn't feel right to know that I'm financially backing someone that reactionary.

Orson Scott Card is a good example - like many others here, I loved Ender's game. But now I just can't feel any enthusiasm. Plus I fear the movie is going to suck anyway. 

So no, I personally can't easily separate the art from the artist.

PS:
Ascovel, I suggest you do read it before deciding if he's better or worse than half of this community, it's not a very long text.

Even though I passed out early

Hope you're feeling better now J/K...

Smello! The results are in, and the winners announced here:
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=48324.msg636456514#msg636456514

A fantastically good round, I'd say, so thanks a lot for participating and let's do it again soon!

[Hollow shell monster]

Alright, let's wrap this off. I know it's a bit early, but I have some time over and the results probably won't change at this point. I'm considering not publishing the results as it's not really necessary to see who got 0 votes and stuff like that, but if people demand to see the figures I can absolutely show them.

So, without further ado, here are the winners:

1st place:
Hollow shell monster by Mordalles. Congratulations, Mordalles, you're the winner of this Illustration Workshop, hurray

2nd place:
Snakearms in the tunnel by Kasander.

3rd place:
Summoned spiky monster by Ben and Hole-headed tree monster by SookieSock in a tie.

Well done everyone!

Jesus, the guy put three already existing words together, it's not like he invented Klingon.

Hehe, I couldn't care less, it's just fun to argue a bit.

Btw, I feel a bit uncertain about this, but what's your opinion when it comes to viewing the results? My only concern is that some people that may end up with 0 votes might feel a bit uncomfortable. An alternative is that I just declare 1st, 2nd and 3rd position. I ordinarily teach teenagers, so maybe I'm unnecessarily cautious here, but you never know.

Hey Andail, weren't there two other categories we were going to be voting on as well?

-Most helpful to other users
-Most improved piece

I have people in mind for each category.

Oh, I totally forgot.
So, let's just do the voting "manually" in here. Please nominate one person in each of the category quoted above. And I might be a bit dogmatic here, but I kind of think that having performed the "give at least one piece of c&c to everyone"-routine is a prerequisite to earning a most-helpful-nomination.

My vote for best process is Ben, because I think his collage of references set the standard early on. His final piece also stayed close to the sketches and ideas shown there.

My vote for most helpfulness would be Kasander. This one was rather tough, but I think I've noticed Kasander spending the most time advicing others.

PS:
By the way, are people ok with closing the voting earlier? I don't know why I picked one week as a deadline, but it does seem unnecessarily long. I think most people that intend to vote have done so. So if nobody objects, I'm closing voting tomorrow (Friday) around noon.

Maybe we can finish this debate now, especially the part where we make sweeping judgments about how paintings should be. People chose different approaches and that's cool. Some focused almost entirely on monster design - which I guess adheres better to the workshop premises, and some painted a whole scene, where the monster wasn't even the centerpiece (like me, which is probably why I won't get any votes, hehe), but I think that's fine.

The important thing is that a lot of people participated and felt like they accomplished something. I'd happily run/partake in a new workshop any time, because I think it's an awesome educational tool.

Hm, it was long since I read it, but I thought the episode was told via a lecture held by a female photographer or something.

I like Spirou, but would definitely rank it below Tintin, Lucky Luke, Asterix and even Iznogoud and Johan and Peewit (funny English title). And that's not bad, because I completely love all the comics on that list.
Spirou was well made and had solid, exciting stories, but I guess I miss the quick, witty sense of humour found in Asterix and Iznogoud, and the escapism in Johan and Peewit. I don't think any comics can compete with Tintin (excluding the earliest few) and most of Goscinny's Lucky Luke - they just play in a league of their own.

My favourite Spirou would be when they re-tell the discovery of the Marsupilami. I'd also like to recommend the spin-off comics Gaston, which is basically one-strip slapstick.

I could go on forever about Beligan-French comics

PS As for me and human in my picture, you could also put the blame on Andail who posted link to Frazetta's works. Those were really inspiring. Looking at them convinced me to bring monster's opponent in    

Hey! Snarky already explained I was guilty of the biggest attention-diverting crime here, and now you to tell him to blame me even more?

I personally find the human figures in most of these paintings really fitting, if not downright necessary. Especially Selmiak's monster didn't even strike me as more than insect-sized before the man showed up, and it was also impossible to understand what he was doing there. Now there's a context, a story to be read - he's gigantic and he's guarding the cave there. Or something.

Well, if it's not gratuitous as long as you can find any kind of explanation within the narrative, it'd be hard to find something truly gratuitous. Even if every darn woman in the show was depicted nude all the time (and let's not forget super fit and always with make up on), you could just say it's to demonstrate what a patriarchal and sexist society they live in.

Isn't it odd that no matter where they go, no matter how dirty or remote or run down a place they visit, there'll always be a female character there who's improbably sexy and just a cut-scene away from dropping all her clothes?

And, if you don't think the qualities you ascribe to Viserys would come across while at least letting his sister keep her undies on, I think you're trying too hard to defend it.

Hm, it seems Ben's picture can't be hotlinked, or I'm really dumb. I can't do very much until I get back from work, but if someone can either host his picture or tell me how to link it properly I can update the list.

Snarky, alright, adding hole-headed tree monster to the poll, although I'm rather uncertain the artist wants it here, considering she hasn't been posting for over a week.
I don't mind going back and adding all of the pictures, but I figured people might be upset if they don't consider them finished. So I went for those added/updated during this last week, just to draw the line somewhere. But if people want their pictures added, just say it.

PS:
Changed so that the results are only shown after the voting is closed, to make it more exciting!

Okay, here are the final versions of the digital paintings participating in this monster workshop. I've removed the artists' names and added my own titles. Everyone's entitled to vote. Voting will close on June 3th.

1. Hunted in the dark:


2. Summoning Cthulhu:


3. Final Orgie:


4. Snakearms in the tunnel:


5. The cave dweller:


6. The guardian of the bridge:


7. Sea monster:


8. Hovering monster:


9. Telling a monster's fortune?:


10. Summoned spiky monster:


11. Hollow shell monster:


12. Hole-headed tree monster:


You may chat freely in this thread, but please don't write further c&c. If an entry is missing, let me know ASAP.

Oh I read 2 pm, don't ask me why. Ofc 2 am isnt a problem. I'm thinking greenwich time btw. Either way I wont start the poll until tomorrow so it's no big deal anyway.

Miguel, I don't wanna act like some kind of dictator here, especially since I'm participating myself, so if people agree to postpone the deadline I don't really want to object. Although I would personally prefer if we didn't

Anyhow, here's my latest version. Unless anybody spots something downright atrocious in it, I'll probably consider it my final piece.

There are still unfinished parts, like most of the street and the nearer structures, and also there's a sun missing, since as you can see there are lots of yellow-ish reflections and highlights, but no yellow light source. I just couldn't be arsed to put it back. So just imagine the sun will ya?

I'm not particularly pleased with the hoverbike thingie, but motors and vehicles aren't really my field. The biggest change since the previous version is that I went for a traditional central perspective.

Apparently Spartacus has a lot of gratuitous nudity. If you want medieval-ish combat and no nudity, then Vikings would be a great choice.

I don't think anyone in here has expressed a desire to avoid nudity, full stop.

I want to make perfectly clear that I'm all for all sorts of nudity and sexual content, as long as it's not sexist objectification. I hate it when people accuse others of being prude or conservative (not that it's happening here and now, just saying) for voicing criticism when it comes to these questions, instead of understanding the real issue.

Showing people perform consensual sexual activities = fine. In my book, there are no limits here. Go crazy - as long as they're adult and everyone's aboard, I don't care if they dress each other in duct tape and have poop sex. I may not enjoy watching, but that's another thing.

Letting a girl strip while her brother eyes her up as some kind of perverted cattle inspection for absolutely no conceivable reason = not fine. It's gratuitous and calculated, just meant to garner attention. It's objectifying and we don't need it.

Quick reminder that midnight tomorrow (Monday 27th) is the final deadline. I will then take the latest version every participant has published and put it up for voting.