Card game with custom fursonas: 'Secret Names [Furry Edition]'
Editor's Note: The article contains promotion of content created by the article's author.
On a grid of 5x5 random word cards, players must find all those belonging to their species group.
There are four teams to choose from:
Both teams' captains know the layout and take turns to give clues to their teammates in the form of a keyword and the number of related cards. As each word is revealed, a character card is placed on it.
Words belonging to neither team are represented by clueless normies. Picking one - or the other team's cards - results in the turn passing immediately. A fifth card, represented by a skull, is the Social Outcast; any team picking it loses at once!
Character cards are designed with cute custom drawings by Kima Designs, who has since withdrawn from the project. Some backer levels come with the option to have your fursona drawn and printed as a custom card, to be included in all copies of the game, as well as being delivered as a Telegram sticker.
Stretch goals of the crowdfunded game include major furry convention mascots, if - and only if - cleared with their respective teams before manufacture (NordicFuzzCon, ConFuzzled and Midwest FurFest):
And a non-descript flirty, bulky tiger who for some reason is addicted to frosted cereals, and milk. Murrrr!
(Please note that this is a parody, and no anthro tiger belonging to any mainstream corporation would ever have a flirty disposition towards you.)
Secret Names - Furry Edition is slated for release March 2021, as long as enough people support the project. You can order your copy here!
An online version of the game that you can try out for free exists, too, so you can play with friends during the quarantine.
About the author
Ben Dover — read stories — contact (login required)a Humanoid Bear
You can read more of my articles here
I have comments disabled in my browser (I don't read them)
Comments
Well, that's an interesting lockdown project; looks like the tiers have been balanced for the furry population.
It seems… optimistic to suggest using convention mascots as a stretch goal without having pre-cleared it - but hey, at least they can see what they'd be getting! And I'm sure furries will be queueing up to become official social outcasts.
Not when they read what the author/creator would like to do with society's actual outcasts I'm sure...
Don't give money to the racist who posted last week:
"Self Governance? Imagine THAT! What IF the majority of the people started governing themselves and stopped using public benefits?
The majority of people would be wiped out and only the strong and smart would survive. As it should be
Short-term loss for a long-term forever gain
"UUUUH the government allowed heroin and now I'm a drug addict and Imma die"
Darwinism can't happen with government handouts
The parents who make that possible should remove their genetical heritage from society
I'm an Aryan Breeds Supremacist"
Now wait for the excuses to come.
I'm going to have to agree in part with the comment above me on this.
I didn't publish this nor had time to review it, so Dronon or GreenReaper published it. If I had reviewed it I would have bought forth objections to using this to promote products of the author.
I was fine, if wary, with Mike writing reviews to promote the works of others and video games in order to spread his thoughts about furry content he enjoyed. For one he wasn't making money off of it, so I could use that as an excuse why it is fine that he was writing articles because he technically was making nothing off the exchange. He was giving content to Flayrah, but Flayrah wasn't giving anything to him. So Flayrah wasn't *supporting* a person who promotes racist ideology in other channels.
With this article, I can no longer say that.
A naïve part of me also felt that, perhaps if he focused more time on reviewing the content of others, and not so much on his group's promoting of faux-Darwinism that somehow believes that it has to do with survival metrics of *individuals* rather than *species*, then perhaps he'd grow out of that pseudo-intellectual drivel once he realized how making content for everyone instead of in spite of some can be a healthier way to live life. When it comes to *actual* Darwinism at a *species* level, I must note that a species that kills their brothers and sister over race, sexuality, and religion has more ticks against its survival as a whole than those that embrace and love diversity and don't kill one another over such trivial shit.
However, this article makes me think those prior review articles were *not* a means to move on from the socially destructive path he found himself on and to do good for the community in a way that was not toxic. Instead, I now see them as a build up to slipping into the content he actually wanted to do: promote himself. After all, it's all about survival and promotion of the individual, not of the group or furry content as a whole. That's what happens when you let faux-Darwinism take hold of your heart.
I'm disappointed, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. When you give a faux-Darwinist an inch of power, they always take the mile. Because they always put themselves in front of others. Just because the lady goes out with you on a third date doesn't mean you get to walk from second base over the pitcher's mount to grope the home plate non-consensually. But, this kind of brazen disregard for ethics shouldn't be too surprising from a person who sleeps in the racist channels he does, I suppose.
I *did* expected better of my editor peers, though. And honestly, has me questioning my position here.
There have been other articles which can be seen as essentially promotion when they have just provided information about new projects that are being started without an associated review. For example, your announcement on the release date for The Fandom: https://www.flayrah.com/8087/fandom-documentary-release-july-3rd
So means the only issue here is that he has views with which you disagree. However, those views and this article seem to be unrelated. While it's perfectly fine to say that certain views will not be supported on Flayrah itself, it is troubling when one wants to punish people for things that they did off of their particular platform; such as when Patreon bans people because they post subject matter it finds questionable on other sites. It is not our job to police the entire world nor should we be trying to enforce some sort of moral/ideological purity.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
It's not my job to say what he does on other sites no, but it's also our job to ensure that fandom dollars are not going to organizations or political influences that are against the best interests of furs, or indeed humans in general.
It's one thing to promote hand-off styles of government. It is another to promote one that sees races as inferior based on biased metrics and to bequeath them the power to do so.
It is in my best interest to make sure that people are fully informed to where their money is going. The Fandom was not getting money from furs directly due to my review, where as this is asking for monetary support. That and The Fandom was not MY project, it was the project of another, where as this is self-promotional. So this is not an apples to apples comparison as you believe it is.
I mean I know some furs who are treating Cards Against Humanity as sus due to some of the people who worked on it. I think they should be made aware of the acts of the people who are making this card game before investing. Being an informed investor can promote better decision making.
If I had a friend who was a racist, I would disagree with him but still be his friend unless it's just that bad maybe. If such a person asked for money because he needed an operation, then I might still help him/her out on it. Am I suddenly a "supporter" of racism now?
I would think you should know your friend groups, what is this "if" I had a friend that was racist? You either have one or you don't. There is no 'if' here, unless you have one you don't know is racist at the time you assist them.
No on is in the hospital here, so this is mostly hypothetical. And no the doctor treating the person is not a 'supporter' of racism, I'm sure that have to fix up a bunch of Nazis who get into bar fights all the time. Unfortunately "do no harm" means the doctor to the patient, the patient doesn't have that oath sadly.
Interestingly your hypothetical really only works in countries without universal health coverage, and in that sense, well the person in the hospital probably voted for his bill to be just the way it is. So let them pay in pride.
I was mainly responding because of the whole "money to a person that is or was (especially was) racist, so I countered it using an example involving a fictional friend needing an operation where the money was directly necessary for it.
Though sending the person money for a fictional game having nothing to do with racism is something I don't really think is the same as supporting racism unless some law describes such behavior as is.
Actually I don't know if the necessary for it part was reflective off my previous comment here. If it wasn't then I apologize for the it being incorrect.
It's not about law more than it is about ethics. I don't think there is any law against giving racists money, but it would leave some ethical quandaries.
I think I was leaning to the idea of a law considering a person's behavior as directly responsible. If it's not in this situation, then I guess the idea that someone who is giving the person money is automatically supportive of the behavior unrelated to what's being sold is personal opinion, a debatable one likely.
Let me clarify the last bit first; your position is that of an editor - one you share with dronon. It's a role with a high level of responsibility - both in your own work and that which you edit and publish, and well over that of a contributor (who's merely responsible for the work they submit). This reflects both your long history of contribution, and also a willingness to help out with the work of others.
You do not bear responsibility for every piece published; nor for the mix of topics, or final decisions on or interpretations of policies. As editor-in-chief, the one who wrote said policies, that is my bailiwick. Given my history at WikiFur, I'm often going to look for advice and seek consensus in such areas. But not always.
As you know, Flayrah rarely refuses stories - and to me, choosing to publish this was a very simple process, revolving around the content, not its contributor. Is the topic furry? Yes. Is it newsworthy? As much as other crowdfunded projects, which we've posted a lot about in the past. Is it just a pipe dream, or a scam? Unlikely, as significant work appears to have been done already, in collaboration with others, and the project won't be funded unless a credible target is reached. Lastly, is the piece ready for publication? I found it unclear in parts, so I fleshed it out and clarified certain aspects without changing the thrust of the work. Just as I might do for any other piece.
Given your views on the author, I can appreciate that you might not have wanted to work on this piece, even if you'd had time. That is one reason we have multiple editors. The story was sitting in the queue for 24 hours (which is fine; we all have lives), and was somewhat time-sensitive, and I had a few free hours to polish and post it, so I did.
Your issue appears to be towards the personal views of the author, rather than their ability to produce and deliver a product, or indeed write a story about it. I don't think much of such statements myself, but I consider that irrelevant. Flayrah gives everyone in the fandom the opportunity to contribute - that includes reasonable coverage of their own projects, where they're on-topic, even if they may profit from it (given the cost of international shipping, I have my doubts). I'd be a lot more concerned about someone getting paid under the table to post about projects that weren't theirs. Heaven knows I get enough spam asking to pay me for "guest posts".
Honestly, I'm a little disappointed that you're backing someone who's been using proxies to grind an ax against this contributor on each of their stories - behaviour also mentioned on the page you're quoting. I fear you're letting your dislike for the author cloud your judgment. I also have no love for the de-platforming you advocate, and I will not support it here.
Apologies if this was a bit rambling - or blunt. It's exceedingly late here, so conciseness and tact tends to go out the window.
I had no issues when they were writing to promote other games from other creators, see here:
https://www.flayrah.com/8148/game-review-rikki-vikki-puzzle-solvers#comment-79116
My issue comes from the promotion of their content without disclaimer. That part has been resolved.
I believe it is the job of the press not to limit what people want to buy, however, they should be aware who those dollars are going to. Just as if you buy a Pepper Coyote record you're probably going to see some of the dollars trickle to a Bernie-like campaign. If you put your dollars here, you dollars are going to probably trickle toward a Trump-like campaign (or whatever the Spain equivalent of a Trump is). Or if you donate to Trump's "legal challenge" of the elections, most of your money will actually go toward past campaign debts incurred.
To ignore that is to hide the whole truth. Would you be for the news not publishing that Chick Fil'A had made donations to organizations against the interest of those who are gay, thus would influence their patronage? Or leave them in the dark because the media should be promoting business with no other consideration?
Guess we have to hope that people read down to the comments before they click the link in the article to realize the content of the character their cash is going toward, and feel betrayed for not being forewarned.
Yeah, and Mike sending in people from his little gang to vote down my comments is just as ethical, I'm sure.
Unfortunately for him, I have built up a reserve, and I'm more than happy to use it here.
If that's true, I hope they're not using proxies or Tor - because it's easy to find out when that has happened; and when those votes are removed (as we can't trust that people aren't voting twice), any votes cast by those who wanted to "balance things out" will end up boosting you higher, which probably wasn't anyone's intention.
Do you have any evidence that he's still a racist today?
As for giving him money, I am kinda mixed on it. Unless as described by some law or scientist, I don't see how giving the person money is the same thing as giving him money for any racist behavior unless he was using it for it and sometimes I think evidence should be required.
I also remember hearing a conversation made by someone who accused 'Flayrah' as being using personal reasons to censor other writers because some of the operators of Flayrah didn't personally agree with what the person was writing, and I can kinda see your comment as being one of those things maybe proving that person's point. What if I wanted to promote this?
Do you have any evidence that he's still a racist today?
From comment above mine:
People, as consumers, have an absolute right to know where their money is going: no ifs, no ands, no buts. If we're going to obfuscate that information from our viewership there will be a sense of betrayal and dereliction of duty if the goal of the site is to be journalistic and not just a carte blanch advertising hub.
In the essence, I cannot prevent this from being published if the Editor in Chief really wants it to be, but I can state my objection. Similar to how though most gay people don't want to support Chick Fil'A, they can't really stop other people from eating it. They can inform them about why they feel adversity, and people will either accept that or ignore it. But providing information to the consumer on what their dollars *could* be supporting is key.
I mean, if a random person ordered a sandwich, their money would probably be going toward a workers wage more often then it would go to 'gay-away' groups. But if someone is against that behavior it doesn't matter, they're not going to support the restaurant.
In this case the article ended up bringing attention to the product as Mike wanted, but perhaps too much attention and the project has already suffered adverse consequences due to the artist finding out about the statements made by Mike in those chatrooms.
So perhaps Mike should have wished we never published anything he posted here. Then he wouldn't have been lulled in by a false sense of security that, no, not everyone on the staff is 'on his side' when it comes to that behavior, and in the midst of trying to raise money though Flayrah for this project, would end up burning himself.
Oh yeah I guess I should of payed attention to that, thanks.
I think my issue was the idea of flat out censorship. If you want to warn customers in the comment section here, then that would be different. I have seen in one of your comments here that it looked like you were flat out against the person promoting the furry card thing alone, while I have seen no (apologized if I flat out missed it) evidence of the person using the money for it. Right not it seemed to be one of those stretched out things that raises my concern level.
Here was the thing I believed that kinda raised my eye:
You said you can state your objection, but if you were attempting to use it for the other operators, (let alone, perhaps even avoided publishing it yourself, maybe, I don't know for sure...) then it's still trying to prevent the creator from expressing it in article form.
I'm also not so in with the generic public reaction thing all the time. Some reactions are not justified. I don't know 100% if it's not justified here, though I've seen someone posted an interesting comment with Mike Retriever posting an agreed style comment.
So, setting aside the side that the contributor is, in fact, provably what we like to call, in technical journalistic terms, "a raging asshat", I mean, if this is self promotion, that should probably be noted somewhere.
Yup, added.
I don't have strong feelings about Mike writing stories here or promoting his own crowdfunding projects, but I feel like "contains promotion" is a bit of an understatement.
My original note indicated "see comments below for more details".
This was changed not too long afterwards.
The piece is tagged as an announcement, as is required by our contribution guidelines for self-promotional stories.
Newsletters and announcements on Flayrah should always be considered to promote the author's interests unless otherwise noted, and as such they're automatically identified as press releases to Google News. In this case, I edited it to flesh out details of the game, but it's still primarily the author's work, and so retains the tag.
(It's also possible to use this tag on work which, while not posted in the interests of the author, quotes so heavily from releases or similar material that it does not add much else - or, for example, where the story is largely an embedded trailer for a movie.)
Well, then, I've, uh, used the announcement tag wrong.
(It was in old Newsbytes, though, so, like, hardly the only problem with the tags there.)
(By the way, I'm pleading the "Rakuen rules" on this; Mike's a complete asshat, as already stated, but, you know, cool for him. We always manage to mess up these press releases, though.)
There are "Rakuen rules"?
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I figure it's like Queensbury Rules, but with more ropes.
OwO
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Those cons have policies about hate speech and probably would not want their mascots used on unapproved sale pitches by the guy who is constantly posting the N word and part of racist groups. Especially Midwest Furfest who had to do bans about groups he is in.
security@nordicfuzzcon.org
https://2020.nordicfuzzcon.org/About/RulesOfConduct.html
security@confuzzled.org.uk
https://2020.confuzzled.org.uk/attending/code-of-conduct/
https://www.furfest.org/contact
https://www.furfest.org/code-of-conduct
I'm seeing a lot of posts about the furry author being considered racist. Racism is absolutely terrible; those who promote it should really be put in their place. But we shouldn't be raging about it using sockpuppets and all that. If racism is seeping into their work, then that work would be removed as soon as possible. But issues unrelated to Flayrah or this post should be discussed on somewhere that isn't Flayrah or this post, respectively. I'm certainly not defending racism or racists, but I'd rather be reading about a nice game than learning about someone's racist behaviour.
Also, quite a few of the posts I see on the news section of Wikifur have only comments from a recurring group. Is that supposed to be the case, or do other people simply ignore (or don't notice) the articles (and their comment section) in that box?
I wholeheartedly agree with you, and that's why I commit to providing good articles to Flayrah. I want furry journalism to be of quality and reasonably upbeat. All the constant nasty commments do a disservice to the site. They make the site worse, not better, and it's a shame writers are involved in this.
No man, you clearly want it to be upbeat for some furs of a certain skin pigment and not others behind closed doors, despite how you act in the light.
At least Trump had the balls to show who he was to everyone and not play charades.
Guess that's what happens when "survival selection via governmental body" (aka fascism) fails elections, ya go back and put on your hoods. In this case that being of a golden canid instead of a ghost.
If you thought I was going to sit here and let you sell your shit to people, then I'm glad to disappoint.
Could you show me to some concrete evidence of the racism? I'd rather to see the solid facts before I make a true judgement. Please provide me with the link to some tweets or posts, or a screenshot of any. Once again, I'm not defending racism, I just want to see for myself before I make a judgement. Thanks!
https://www.flayrah.com/8211/card-game-custom-fursonas-secret-names-furry-editio...
"All the constant nasty commments do a disservice to the site. They make the site worse, not better, and it's a shame writers are involved in this."
Looked in the mirror lately Mike?
To quote your white supremacist friend "Volk" in the Furry Raiders: "Murdering n*gger babies isn't a bad thing. They're not people. So it's like shooting a wild animal."
We're supposed to stay upbeat because it happened out of sight. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Relatively few are interested enough in furry news to click and read a piece, let alone read and comment on them regularly - other than those involved in writing them. Where a story gets significant attention on social media, or is on a particularly popular topic for searches, you see more comments from returning members and visitors.
WikiFur is Flayrah's highest referrer, but that is still less than 3% of visitors. Meanwhile 32% are direct visits from, say, links in chat, bookmarks, email, or the browser URL bar, and 53% are from Google - most of whom look at particular articles about Zootopia, furry video games or Fortnite skins. You know, the important stuff.
Put simply, barely anyone has seen this story. 11 unique visits came in from Twitter, and that's about a fourth of the total. This is about what you'd expect for a new topic that has nobody searching for it - much news site traffic is from people dipping in from search (which is why it's bizarre when governments legislate to stop search engines publishing snippets).
WikiFur's front page itself doesn't have a huge amount of traffic - analytics shows most visitors coming from searches going straight to articles on topics such as e621 and Babysitting Cream. Obviously some do drop by, though, and it is busier than Flayrah.
This will definitely age well
Classic wimp-out both-sides fencesitting bullshit.
Kick out unrepentant fascists yesterday, do not waste your breath. It's what they count on. Don't give them money. Don't give them space. Don't give them the time of day.
The artist KimaDesigns withdrew with disgust after finding out about this.
https://twitter.com/DesignsKima/status/1328378323613798400
"I am going to LEAVE the card game project entirely. I'm full of work and people told me about the ideals of the person who commissioned me for it. I'M NOT FROM THE TEAM.
I feel insecure about it, I DONT WANT TO BE RELATED.
I wouldn't agreed to it from the start if I knew it."
BE LIKE THIS.
To note, the article had been updated with a link to that (by Green or Mike, my guess is Green) prior to the comment being made. Without note of update or emphasis that a change had been made.
Mike blocked on Twitter and also see a spam article in our editor's log, so he's taking this well.
Not sure why you feel the need to guess; it was in the revision log, and summarised there, as I'd do on WikiFur. You're the one editing without summarising your edits! ;-p
Perhaps I need to add a script to prompt to fill that in before save.
Seriously, do. I mean, we could have saved at least one whole chapter of that Diamond Man disaster if I'd remembered to hit the "save new revision" button once.
I think the real lesson we all need to learn here is, of course, don't start none, there won't be none.
God some of this thread only further proves how broken this website is I think.
https://www.deviantart.com/another-realm/journal/Flayrah-Appears-to-be-More-for-...
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Thank you so much for your input, Diamond Man.
We always appreciate it so much.
"Please note that this is the same website where one of the operators falsely accused me of defending CSA either due to me being against comparing a person who merely looked at CP to someone worse, against cruel and unusual punishment, both, or some other personal reason."
This is the best can you write more of these
Trump looks at a nazi rally and sees "very fine people on both sides".
Greenreaper looks at spam from a white supremacist and says "The fandom is made up of all sorts of people, and they all get to post news about their furry projects."
Just say "Flayrah welcomes white supremacists."
https://twitter.com/WikiNorn/status/1329603191130959872
Hey morons, the Nazi literally lost money due to an artist leaving the project as a direct result of this article being published. If you're team "free speech," you win, no one was de-platformed. If you're team "fuck Nazis", you win, the Nazi got fucked.
The system works. Now fuck off.
Objectively dishonest excuse.
Some outsiders had to step up for a lapse here, go gather evidence kept out of sight, go tip the artist and keep pressure on against complicity with making the fandom a doormat for self professed saboteurs. Before that happened $368 was pledged to a nazi.
Do better and stop making work to redo a fight that was settled in 1945.
I would have objected irregardless if the second comment had been made or not, and the same thing would have happened as a result. I do thank the person for their comment, but to indicate that it was the only thing stopping an entire Nazi takeover is a bit exaggerated. If you hadn't heard the US President was voted out of office and while he's behaving toward a coup, at this point he is not going to be able to maintain his power since the system need to maintain its cyclonic nature and career politicians get no benefit if people are President for life. Those millions of voters and those that got out of vote did far more to move us forward from that evil of governmental subjugation than any random furry can do from any site.
Yeah, abuse takes awhile to heal from, the trials ahead are inevitable tougher for the side of evil as time goes on due to acquiring knowledge in how evil works. It's why the CoronaVirus, in spit of its deadliness cannot react Spanish Flu numbers, in the same way modern fascists are going to have a harder time reaching Hitler numbers. We have seen how this operates, and we're better at countering it, even if some segments are dragging their feet or fail to understand its deadliness.
For example, by putting the omnibus of 'stopping evil' on single anonymous commenter whose candor was warrantedly emotional yet ineffective at targeting the issue at hand in a coherent and clear manner, you actually help make the dark side stronger. There is nothing evil would like more than a well meaning emotional person playing solo hero so they can look for emotional weaknesses to politically exploit.
Why do you think Antifaschistische Aktion ultimately failed in Germany? It was easy for the Germanic beast with the power of the press to turn that emotion into a sense of outsider fear. It's something that Trump and others attempted as well, because they have the same copies of the history books that we do, and instead can utilize what was effective for the fascist team. But ultimately Trump's failure, scarily enough, was simply his inability to command respect instead of fully relaying on fear within his own ranks. It's why he ultimately fired many, but those left behind just kept their head down for the most part. And every person you fire, and can't kill, is ultimately someone who's going to come back and sink you later. Hitler understood that, Trump did not. In a country with term limits, dictators die quick, and when dictators die, liberty shall never parish.
This generation's politicians need to do everything in their power and run on platforms of updating our legal infrastructure to curtail the powers of the executive branch and modernize more clear roles and limitations to these powers. We need to be using Trump's actions as the benchmark of our system's weaknesses and treat this like a black hat breach (along with actions of prior Presidents that paved the way for the powers Trump abused more readily than his predecessors, of course). To evaluate where the security weaknesses were to create implementations so those power abuses don't happen again.
One example would be that if a President give out three executive orders that are noted by the judiciary as unconstitional in one year's time, that the impeachment process begins without the need for a House vote (Impeachment via Judiciary). If someone is a President they should have enough concept of the constitution to know what they can and cannot executively order. If they don't they shouldn't have that job.
If Roosevelt could put going to war with Japan to a Congressional vote after the attack on Pearl Harbor, then the bar for an executive order needs to be higher than that.
We should not be having a collective freak out every four years, that means there is too much power in the executive branch, and in the Presidency. We need to get more to the legislative and judicial to check the exec before it wrecks itself, and the lives of those we care for.
But, of course, this is hardly the place for this kind of conversation. This is a comment on some dog from Spain selling some knock off of a game from the Czech Republic which he probably doesn't have permission to make money off of. Seeing as he didn't get permission from the furry cons to use their mascots before making the concept art, the odds are pretty that he didn't get permission to rip the game's concepts either.
Oh dear... I said too much.
Isn't this site supposed to be reporting? You thought it was one comment?
There's a whole network watching the nazis, collecting and sharing evidence, and doing work to fix this like contacting the artist. This site gets negative credit.
And would those individual have informed the artist had the project been kept in the dark? Mike was greedy and his greed hung himself. It certainly wasn't the intended consequence of the person who published it, or wrote it. But it is the outcome.
But given the following I think this was a positive outcome more than a negative:
1)Mike articles for video game reviews (starting in August), had people in a huff as well though. I figured it would give him something to focus on other than being a racist and maybe if he used his spare time for that he'd find it much more enjoyable then saying unfunny shit to unfunny people. It is important to note that, at that moment, I had the line drawn that as long as his items were not self promotional politically or financially then I would give a pass. I never made that line publicly known because it was never asked directly, and if one is ethical you shouldn't really need to explain to them what those lines are if they are intelligent as Mike says he is.
2)Given that it takes a while to put a project like the above together, I suspect that his video game articles were merely a dipping of the toe to see if he could ultimately use Flayrah to promote himself. This backfired spectacularly given my earlier position. And while people keeping tabs on this in the background is a big part, people were aware of Mike's reputation and affinity for a few years now.
2a) Given this toe dipping here I think he pushed more capital into his board game project in hopes of using Flayrah as a platform. If his articles had pushed and rejected at the time those first posts were made, he may have not expended capital into the project, thus giving him a false sense of security.
3)Mike's profile here says that he now has comments turned off and has verbiage that indicates he'd no longer be writing articles here and keeping it to his own site. Which makes my theory that this self promotion was his end goal the whole time seem accurate.
It may be foolish to give people a chance to get out of the hole they are in, but in the end, those who won't change will eventually use the power they are given to lash out. And like Goku to Frieza, 'those fools' will get shut down. Not by any excuse of political forces, but by their own hand.
Thanks for keeping tabs on things, have a good day.
Let's be real if we're assigning credit here, and I'm not crediting Flayrah, either. On the other hand, don't pat yourself on the back to hard.
I mean, credit where credit is due, the guy most responsible for fucking Mike Retriever was ... Mike Retriever.
(also, btw fuck off)
This kinda got a bit of my attention. I want to point out that mainly game styles has been used over and over again by several well known companies, and hopefully getting permission from great styles are not needed especially since many great games today has used good existing styles before.
I am not sure if you're on the same page when I'm thinking of video game style, and if not, then forget this message being here.
And saying Flayrah welcomes white supremacists is honest?
Fuck off. For real this time.
*publishes white supremacist*
"We didn't welcome a white supremacist and aren't dishonest"
Cool do more mental gymnastics
Patch (or whichever person from that one telegram group this probably is) are you really getting the sense that Mike is welcome here by anyone but GR?
And, let's be clear here, GR does not equal Flayrah.
Fuck, if anything, this is the most we've seen of our deadbeat dad editor in years. Ever since Inkbunny became his beloved number one son, we've been lucky to get five bucks and a card on our birthdays (and he misspelled my name on the last one!).
Yep, that's basically my point. And if this is Patch, it's pretty ironic that the guy who's lamented that he shouldn't have to field abuse from people with grudges for doing a lot of volunteer work writing fandom news/reviews, would be saying that stuff now. Like Sonious deserves to be called a white supremacist for this article's existence after he's spent the better part of this year recording and updating conventions affected by the pandemic and everything else. I know he's considering leaving over it, but I think there'd be a huge loss if he did.
But, shit, maybe that's the point. Maybe he wants to get people to leave Flayrah. Maybe just to spite GreenReaper, maybe because he thinks the writers will go to his site instead. I think more likely to happen is people just stop writing for anywhere, or diffuse out into random blogs/FA journals that few will read. DPP isn't exactly guest-writer friendly and of course has had its own issues with eroded goodwill. (I think both sides of people on the whole Sisk thing don't like him now)
Ah, yes. Tony Tiger. I am sure many shall appreciate this card.
Really this article is a Black Eye on flayrah and furry times will never publish a nazi
Remember when you were publishing Perri's stuff for a while?
And he was actually publishing their political opinions, and helping hide comments when someone criticized their views.
Perri even went to publish their stuff on Ahmar's site instead of Flayrah because Flayrah was too unfriendly for Perri's racism and crazy. But over at the Furry Times, good old Ahmar said:
Jesus H. Christ, they are coming out of the woodwork!
That's how politics and people who worry about 'power' function.
"Never let a good crisis go to waste" as they say.
All I'm thinking is, if one's worth can be measured by the quality of one's enemies ... we kinda suck.
*crosses fingers for desiring_change*
Post new comment