Sunday, 6 September 2015
Discussion: Konatsu's New Technique + Lesbian Shard Akane
KNT: Man, if it had one more vote then KNT would've been getting an update alongside LS Akane and Love Pendant Akane. Oh well!
I think it might be about time for Konatsu to use the technique on another male character. Doctor Tofu maybe, or Ryoga? Maybe Mousse? What do you guys think?
Lesbian Shard Akane: So, this is a pretty newish thread. Plenty of ways it could go, I suppose. Show Ukyo being seduced by Akane throughout the night. The only question is whether it's deliberate or not. I think it would be funnier if it was accidental.
As always, I'd love to hear what you think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd say that for LSA both Akane and Ukyo should both be really conflicted with what their doing. While the last thread's established that Akane has adjusted her perspective to accept that she wants women, she hasn't yet embraced the idea of taking what she wants, so she'll keep getting ideas but also keep going "What am I thinking," and "She'll never go for it," and "I can't do that, what'll she say about me in school?" Meanwhile Ukyo mind has probably been hit with a sort of saphic resonence cascade thanks to Akane's kiss and the shard, so that she's feeling constantly building desire, and keeps trying to pretend she's not feeling it.
ReplyDeleteThat sounds about right for both of them. And "sapphic resonance cascade," huh? That's a great phrase.
DeleteIn terms of the options, I guess that translates into number 2, yes?
For Konatsu, I'd definitely say either Mousse or Ryoga, given that Akane and Shampoo are already under the spell.
ReplyDeleteThose are both good choices, yeah. Also, perhaps a follow-up - or even just a tease - on what happened with Ukyo and the kunoichi?
DeleteI just looked over the fifty-vote rule, as your comment didn't fit with how I thought it worked. But now that I've read the rule again, I think I actually have even less understanding of how it's supposed to function.
ReplyDeleteWell, the idea is supposed to be that if a thread hits 50 votes it's a guarantee that I'll be updating it sometime in the next few weeks. So I reset the vote total to zero, leave the tiebreaker alone. If it gets any more votes that week that take it past 50, (for example, 51) then I start counting those after the reset (so, that would become 1).
DeleteDoes that make more sense? If so, how would you like me to word it in the rules?
Okay, I think I'm on the same page as you now. So how would getting to fifty have changed the vote total? Do you mean it would have gotten an *additional* update on top of the update for the most votes? Knowing the answer to that would influence how I would suggest that the rule be rephrased.
DeleteThat's right, an additional update.
DeleteDarn. If I had realized that I would have been more calculated in my votes for it. Oh well. Good to know going forward, at least.
DeleteAs for rewording it, could this sentence possibly worded a little less technically?
Following the deduction of all relevant threads, calculating the winner will be conducted as usual.
And if it isn't too much of a hassle, perhaps you could include an example scenario for the rule in action? Though if not, I certainly understand.