Talk:Beastfolk

Holy Shit, That List

Seriously, I had no idea that there were that many beastfolk races listed on this wiki - and I know I left off three due to uncertainty; Mothfolk, Miga and Sergals. Maybe a Beastfolk sub-category for races is warranted?--QuietBrowser (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, but you'll ahve to think about what exactly you want in there. Only D&D stuff, or something a bid wider? If going for the later, I'd split the list up into at least two parts: one D&D and one not. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I figure it's broad enough as a category to cover all sorts of races - at the very least, you'd put Pathfinder & D&D together, since they're sister gamelines. I don't know how to start a "Category: D&D-Beastfolk" page though.--QuietBrowser (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Not this shit again

Seriously, why are we going along with Lolidorf's edits? What is the point of them beyond regurgitating stale memes? Besides, I would lay good money on Lolidorf being the anon who has been starting multiple non-human-race-bashing threads on /tg/ for the last 12 hours and who's been thoroughly shut down and mocked in all of them coming here to troll 1d4chan.--QuietBrowser (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You say "we", but it's mostly just me trying to spin the strikethrough thing into something appropriately humorous, vis a vis the nod to the fact that most such arguments are frivolous at best. And as I further indicated in my edit summaries, if they really wanted to "solve" this problem they'd go for a way more effective approach than "fuck about with this one wiki page like 1d4chan is this absolute authority on all things /tg/ and not just a means of documenting tabletop resources, memes and other shit what /tg/ gets up to."

Honestly sensing a "betrayal" of unrealistic expectations on their end, imo. --LGX-000 (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You’re making a lot of assumptions. The page has not had its information altered in any way, it has just been given a bit more blam on the information presented so as to clarify the sentiment. You’re getting entirely butthurt over nothing and barking at shadows. I would appreciate you letting a fellow anon’s touch hold instead of bleating troll. You can call it stale meme all you want, it does not make it untrue,--Lolidorf (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Eh. Willing to grant the benefit of the doubt, given it DOES at least sorta work with the later half of the page. --LGX-000 (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

At the least, I'd rather we talk out the compromise if any, because I still feel like we might be overselling it. --LGX-000 (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to think the fact the page wasn't torn up and burned to the ground was worth more than a doubt benefit, but then I got anon up there saying I'm some furry falseflagger that's been starting troll breads or something. I'm more than aware of the context of furry and beastfolk, I've GM'd enough and tossed in gnolls here and there. But using gnolls in-game does not magically make gnolls not-furry, and presenting anthro versus furry as a serious distinction is, to me, against the spirit of /tg/. I know lots of people have different lines in the sand for what's furry and what's not, some people claim up and down that monstergirls and what have you are furry, etc. Hell, I've even seen people claim goblins count as furry more than once. However, I'm a reasonable guy and tired of huge internet fights and can see the use of a page like this giving other GMs ideas for races they can plop in their games for novel encounters. However further, a fair bit of newfags like to think they can skip lurking by trawling through places like 1d4chan to get in the know quicker, and absorbing those first impressions on the beastfolk page might lead to a community flooded by idiots that think they're in good company. A bit far-fetched I'll grant, so instead of trying to rewrite and unravel I left it as-is with a touch more *BLAM* and HERESY for effect. Unless 40k has gone very strange, the additions are very much in-line with the imperium's view of nonhumans as well as fairly representative of the /tg/ lolheresy mindset and the reason *BLAM* exists in the first place. All in all a rather straightforward comprise in and of itself, though I am also toying with idea of sneaking a bit of Fuklaw into the furry warrior portrait, but eh that's not terribly important. I might also be petty enough to point out the ironing of bemoaning the use of """"stale"""" memes on 1d4chan, our beloved repository of such things.--Lolidorf (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Right, figured I'd sit on this for a while and think out my responses accordingly, so before I make any further changes to the page regarding this, I'll provide the context here:

• Before anything, an apology for kneejerk presuming bad faith - I can see now that you were more or less trying to adhere to the spirit of the page's humor. It didn't help that I had to deal with what sounded like little more than actual butthurt screeching on a different page, and that person also undid my edits despite my attempts to actually compromise and acknowledge what they said in some manner. That said...
• "...presenting anthro versus furry as a serious distinction is, to me, against the spirit of /tg/." As a point of order, that was done with the idea that at some point someone will genuinely want to know what the fuss is even about, and I feel if anything that /tg/ prides themselves in knowing their shit. At the least we give 'em a bit of context and important bits to remember, if for nothing else than the sake of convenience and avoiding having to search elsewhere for an answer.
  • "Hell, I've even seen people claim goblins count as furry more than once." And that's a reason why we have those discussions to begin with; the argument exists, it'll probably continue existing no matter what, so why not try to provide some perspective, specifically one that isn't absolutely pants-on-head?
• "...absorbing those first impressions on the beastfolk page might lead to a community flooded by idiots that think they're in good company." The type of person who thinks 4chan in general would be furry-friendly territory, let alone any specific board, is probably too hopelessly naive for the site to begin with. The type of person who thinks a single page on this wiki also constitutes an accurate overview of an entire anonymous board is also similarly hopeless; at the least, one would hope newfolk are smarter enough to at least lurk the board and figure shit out for themselves, hence why I took issue with the argument that those people might be mislead - I'd rather give them at least the bare minimum bit of credit.
• "...though I am also toying with idea of sneaking a bit of Fuklaw into the furry warrior portrait." Funny as it is to image, I also did note that we risk overstating the joke. While I'm fine with the continuation of the whole "lolheresy" bit, I only suggest that we curtail it a tiny bit - at least enough that we don't cover the entire page in ugly hard-to-read-around strikethroughs, because NO ONE wants to deal with that shit.

In any case, thanks for bothering to make yourself heard, and thanks in turn for bothering to hear me out. --LGX-000 (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

As I granted, it is far-fetched to think that newfriends will all pile in here and get to thinking that being a furry is okay on 4chan. But I'm sure there's a philosophical law somewhere that could describe the unease I feel. Inches, miles, and all that. I must put a hard foot on the strikethroughs and *BLAM*s as I laid them. Furry versus anthro is not and can never be a distinction, the furry fandom encompasses all things and all should be labeled as shit (not just the porn ones) as they all go hand in hand. There are furries that can keep it separate, there are works that never crossover, but they are all the same thing. I should think the strikes and *BLAM*s are superior to me trying to do a rewrite biased in the opposite flavor, as the edits leave the information unchanged merely coloured. It's grating enough to refer to anti-furry sentiments as a meme. But I can still bother to respect the page somewhat. --Lolidorf (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)