Shared Post: Magic Confusion, LOTR, and Shining

Sharing this post from J. D. Nyle (with permission, of course). After going through this, I actually recommend that you read his novel even more. For those who haven't read Neostriker: Shining, scroll to the bottom for important terms and definitions. Now for the post, though it's probably easier to read on his blog at http://neostrikershining.blogspot.com/2015/11/magic-confusion-lotr-and-shining.html :



Society today has an interesting practice when it comes to words and meanings. They change the definition of something but then try to imply it was always the case. For example, the definitions of “witches” and “magic” are being changed while the creators imply that it was always this way. I find it interesting and terrifying because of the implications of changing these definitions can have.

When you take something that is by nature evil, such as magic, and then strip away the elements that make it evil, you have something completely different. Even though you may end up with the same word, the substance that makes up the word is now completely different. However, if you were to go back in time, people would not accept your "new definition" because it would not correspond. While you may be able to "re-cast" the old word to fit your new definition, you cannot impose your new definition on old interpretations of the word. The fact that you had to change the definition means that you understand they are different. Hence, what we must be careful of is that when we teach our children the concept of "good magic," they might not be able to distinguish the old definition and therefore think what is evil to be okay.

Definition of Magic

Now what does this have to do with Neostriker? There were no witches or apparent magic in Shining. As for my next novel, there won't be witches yet, but there will be magic according to what I have determined to be its original meaning. Magic is the use of evil spirits (or evil nature) to do "your will" with the twisted notion that you have power over them. In the new and modern confusion, you can see traces of this definition present. The problem is that authors did not properly convey this when they wrote their stories and their influence made it even worse.

By “authors”, I'm referring to the likes of J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis. When you read their stories, they indicate that their meaning for "magic" is different, but they never explained why or how it's different. So when new authors recall their stories, these new authors remember that, "since those guys used magic for good, it must be okay." In these minds, magic is a tool and the evil stems from the purpose it's used for. A recent series I saw that followed this line of logic was BBC's Merlin. However, this isn't what Tolkien or Lewis had in mind when they used the word.

For the old and venerable authors, magic is how the humans described what they saw but could not rationally explain it. The analogy would be that if we took a flashlight to medieval times, they would not be able to understand the concept of electricity and therefore it would appear as "magic". In Tolkien's case, there is a section of the Fellowship of the Ring that explains it's advanced science that we would be unable to comprehend.

Now it could be said that Tolkien failed to easily convey the difference between the "magic" that corresponds to my earlier definition and "magic of nature". For example, powers that are intrinsic to the nature of the being can be considered as okay and as a tool. In this case, Gandalf as the wizard (or Tolkien's equivalent of angels) is okay, but a normal human who studies to become a warlock is not. This is because, even in the magic of nature, there is evil when one tries to grasp for it, such as the One Ring from Lord of the Rings.

Problem 1: Grasping

When you look at the One Ring, I recall it being referred to as a "magic ring", and that is key. We often assume that its power is simply to make one invisible. However, that doesn't make sense when you read the "Ring Monologues" each character has when presented with it. In fact, both Isildur and Sauron had the ring but never turned invisible. The ring's power was actually to amplify an aspect of the nature of a character to the point that it corrupts. Hobbits are described before as already good at hiding and so invisibility makes sense. Sauron was powerful and so the ring granting him even more power makes sense. Gandalf mentions that he would initially use the ring to help his magic for good but he would eventually become worse than Sauron. The thing is that evil happens when a character tries to grasp for the Ring or, in Sauron's case, all of the rings. However, when the ring comes to a character, they are eventually able to get rid of it, with the exception of Isildur. Those who grasped: Sauron, Boromir, and Gollum. Those who didn't grasp: Bilbo, Frodo (until the end), Gandalf, Aragorn, Faramir, and Sam. The ones who grasp are seeking magic to do their will, but those who didn't were able to overcome their own desires for the good. In this sense, you can say magic is the tool for the author to develop his characters, but you should still never grasp for it.

Something N. D. Moharo says is that "tragedy occurs when someone does something they were not supposed to or not do something when they were supposed to." This falls in line with what I am saying about grasping. For example, if I'm driving and want to make a turn, I need to check to make sure there is no one in my way. Even if I really want to make the turn now, I must wait and allow the right moment to come. Otherwise, I might hit someone. That would have happened because I turned when I wasn't supposed to; I grasped at the ability to turn instead of waiting for my turn. One problem with magic as I defined it is that you are trying grasp for something to happen instead of letting it happen (more on that in my novel).

Problem 2: Calling of Evil Spirits

The second problem with magic is the calling of evil spirits. Evil spirits don't change. Hence, the only reason why evil will help you is if they believe you will cause a greater evil. Therefore, the use of magic will lead to evil unless you are able to break from it.

This part of the traditional definition is perhaps played with the most. When authors say that their definition of magic is that it’s a tool and of the nature of the character, that can be okay. However, if that’s the case, they cannot use spells or enchantments. The nature of spells indicates that another spirit is being called and therefore contradicts the idea that magic is part of the nature of a character.

The second aspect authors may play with is by suggesting that spirits can change. However, there is a philosophy that probably stems from Thomas Aquinas or Aristotle and Buddhism (if I'm interpreting the idea of reincarnation correctly) where spirits cannot change unless they have their own body. It's interesting because it could mean that the test of the angels was that they were given bodies. In fact, it could be that C. S. Lewis was onto something when writing the Magician's Nephew in that "angels" actually had their own world with a morality similar to our own and its time finished before our own world began (or maybe they existed before the dinosaurs). Anyways, hence the old understanding of magic is that evil spirits will always be evil, hence summoning them is evil.

Problem 3: Possession vs Inspiration

The third problem with magic is what essentially becomes possession. This occurs when you seek a spirit's power and they give it to you, linking you to them. You may think you are in control, but slowly and surely, you surrender one part of yourself after another. In stories, it'd happen like this: "I cannot do that now, but if you do this, then you'll have that power." Sometimes authors are nice and blatantly write it as "surrender your soul and you will have all the power you want." Now let's mark a distinction. Evil spirits possess; good spirits inspire. That's important because that's how it applies in Neostriker.

When I wrote Shining, I didn't have this full understanding of magic. As a result, you get an idea that it's the Asens that give David his powers, but it's supposed to be that they guide David to manifest and grow his own spirit. I actually determined this when preparing for my next novel (still trying to figure out a good name for it) so when I went back to edit Shining for publication, I tried to hint towards and explain this logic properly. The funny thing is the misconception actually makes sense in Episode 11 and is completely appropriate. In that episode, an evil spirit/Dark Power starts the process of "surrender for power". To contrast, Zel as a good spirit only assists, guides, and protects. With inspiration, there is still fullness of freedom in your actions, and nothing is sacrificed except for perhaps your ego.

Something you must be careful of is the nature of possession. Throughout human history and the cultures of the world, no one is able to free himself from possession. It always requires someone else or God to intervene. This is because of three things: 1) the evil spirit is more powerful than you simply by nature otherwise you wouldn’t use them; 2) The spirits can convince you that they are part of your mind and hence the actions are your will; 3) Only those siding with the powerful Good Spirit (aka God) can cast them out.

Summary and Closing

In summary, Old Magic is the use of evil spirits (or evil nature) to do "your will" with the twisted notion that you have power over them. This old meaning indicates the three things evil of magic: Grasping for something you shouldn't be; Calling upon evil spirits; and what amounts to as possession. Therefore the opposite of magic is: patience and self-sacrifice, the avoidance of evil spirits, and inspiration.

Not too long ago, N. D. Moharo, in a mutual exchange of ideas, brought up in my mind that people are skeptical about the idea of the Holy Communion changing from bread to the body of a God but they practice something very similar when it comes to definitions. I saw this to be true when I was playing a demo for a game and I came across the concept of good witches. I originally meant to cover the evil nature of witches but magic was the first step. However, I do hope you appreciated this insight not only into the philosophy of magic, but also the look into the process of writing Neostriker: Shining. If you want a more clear explanation on how Neostriker is advocating the defeat of magic, feel free to say so.

J. D. Nyle

Terms and Concepts

P.S. For those who haven't read Neostriker: Shining, here is a brief explanation of the terms used:

    David is the main character of the story who has the ability to don special armor and become a "Neostriker". It's revealed halfway through that this armor is a manifestation of his own spirit/soul called "neo" and therefore the term "Neostriker" means "Spirit Striker".

    Asens are also revealed halfway through to be spirits. Zel is the Asen who helps David grow and become more powerful.

    The Dark Power is the source of evil and hence, for the purpose of this essay, can represent magic.

For those who want to read Shining, I shared the entire story here on blogspot. You can find the links to each episode/chapter at http://neostrikershining.blogspot.com/p/full-story.html or click "Full Novel" on the top bar

I also shared half of it on Wattpad if you would like to read it on your tablet. If you like the story, please tell your friends. I would totally love to publish a hardcopy version to make it easier to read but I need support. At the moment, the only thing I can add to it is a page for each episode devoted to how I designed the chapters, characters, and ideas that changed. Unfortunately, that alone isn't enough to convince publishers that it will sell so I need some vocal support. Maybe we need a twitter campaign #publishNeostriker

Concerning Beauty

To the low in self-esteem,
    It's amazing the things we do in the pursuit of beauty. The funny thing is that "perfect beauty" is never truly obtainable except by accepting yourself as you are. Yes, this sounds cliché, but let me explain it by using a certain well-known anecdote.
    It is certain that you have heard the phrase, "Beauty is in the Eyes of the Beholder." This is certainly true, but why? The quick answer would be to define Beauty as "The Proper Order of Things." Yes, that may sound weird, but it is the answer. When you look at someone and consider the beautiful, it's because you see the combination of features in the correct order and proportions. Consider this chart I grabbed from LifeHacker:

What this chart indicates is that there a certain hairstyles that match and flatter certain shapes of faces. Now will this aesthetic change? Probably. Why? Because what we associate to be the correct order tends to be what we see the most. So if some model with a square face becomes popular with a very short haircut, that will influence our perceptions of beauty. The word "influence" is important because it hints towards how we developed our sense of beauty: through our experiences in childhood.
    When we are children, we are heavily influenced by what we see, whether on television, magazines, or our parents. The style you like the most is probably the one your parents had while you grew up. For example, my mother had long hair for most of my life, but when I encountered a woman with really short hair, it scared me or I felt repulsed. However, the more time I spent with her, the less apprehensive I would become, and when her hairstyle changed, I was confused. So if you want a hint about what sort of people would find you the most attractive, find the people who had parents like you.
    This concept of influence is another reason why I object to makeup on women and airbrushing in magazines. Even as adults, we are influenced by what we see. Hence, if we only see these "perfect models," it corrupts our sense of beauty to something that isn't real. I often tell my lovelier other half that I like seeing her without makeup and that it was important to see it early on in the relationship. Women often have a reasonable objection: "if he cares so much about what I look like, there's a problem." Of course, the counter is, "Since you care so much about how you look by putting on a fake face, there's a problem." I also ponder that if "Women are the fairer sex," why do they need makeup or show cleavage? The answer is they don't need makeup or to show skin.
    I mentioned that it's important to see the face without makeup early in the relationship, and I hinted to the reasoning. The longer you go without showing your true face, the more likely he will be apprehensive when he sees it, especially if you use a lot of makeup. This is because the first impressions have solidified and the proper "order" in his mind for you is what he has seen the most. But when he sees your real face in the beginning of the relationship, he can then say "That is the proper order for her. I like the way she naturally is." Lastly, if you can feel comfortable with your "flaws" around your beloved, then you'll feel more beautiful yourself which leads to a better beauty that others will notice. So yes, "Beauty is in the Eyes of the Beholder," and the one you want to impress the most is yourself but that is done by accepting yourself as you are.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

P.S. In this letter, I only covered visual beauty. There are other things that aren't so much visual as they are representative, such as a smile. While a smile is what you see, it's also something you can hear because the voice sounds different with a smile than a straight face or a sad one. While some people can adjust their smiles to be the most flattering, the natural smile evokes joy and when your friends see that, they feel happier as well. This "happiness" is also considered a thing of beauty because we see that as the proper order of things in pleasant circumstances. So if you smile more, you will also feel more beautiful.

Language Theory

To the Communicators,   

    Undoubtedly you have heard over and over that it's harder to learn a new language when you're older than when you are younger. I can say that it makes sense for a number of reasons, and I can even give some analogies as to why that is the case. However, I want to discuss learning a language in general as we did with our primary language.

    When we were toddlers, as we did not have the ability to comprehend, we were allowed to eavesdrop and listen to people speaking all the time. This allowed us to subconsciously learn the different sounds we can make.

    However, when it comes to understanding someone, speed is key. Not only the speed at which the other person speaks, but the speed at which you can translate what was said. It's often not recognized as such, but our brains actually translate from our "primary" language to our imagination. This is why when someone says "pink elephant" you "immediately" think of one. Your brain did a translation of the words and converted it into the image. This might also explain why abstract thinking can be so difficult to teach and learn. Also, the reason why learning a second language is hard, at least by the current methodology, is because we go through an additional translation process. This slows down our comprehension speed.

    Perhaps the biggest thing that aids in our comprehension speed is the phrase "predictive analysis". You may have heard that with computers and artificial intelligence, but it's actually what we practice when we listen. The most famous example is when couples are able to confidently and accurately finish each other's sentences. When we are able to predict what is about to be said, that allows our brains to comprehend much faster. This is also why when we encounter some words we don't know or a pronunciation we are not familiar with, our comprehension drops.

    This is why lectures need to be slightly slower than normal conversation. It's also why if it's too slow that we fall asleep. When we cannot predict what is going to be said next, we need time to comprehend it. However, if we get to the point where we do know what is being said, holding it in our fast memory too long is just exhausting. This is because what happens is our brains are telling us the same predicted word over and over again which breaks the string of words you had already understood. In other words, by speaking too slowly, it actually creates more work for the listener to comprehend.

    To be fair, the mind does offer a few tricks into understanding things we don't know. The one we are familiar with is context. Take the name Nick for example. When there is no context, the mind assumes that someone saying the word "Nick" is calling a person (or a dog) but in the context, "I made in the nick of time," a person named Nick will rarely assume he's being called. This is because the context helps clue in the meaning of the sentence. Likewise, by reading the context, one is able to assume what the meaning of an unknown word is and progress. Context also happens to be the key for "predictive analysis".

    Because the context is the key to understanding something, that is why it is not enough to repeat vocabulary when learning a language. By practicing sentences and grammar, you are able to learn context of the phrases and better predict them when someone is talking to you. I often find myself having to listen to a conversation twice, and I figure out that I knew the words but I couldn't comprehend them fast enough to understand the sentence the first time. The more you practice, the more you are able to sort and grasp the individual words and sentences. By doing this, you speed up the translation process to your brain and develop your predictive analysis and with those taken care of, you are on your way to mastering a language.

    Anyways, that is enough theorizing today. Hopefully you find this useful if you are studying a new language. If you think it is lacking, then feel free to send me a comment.

Happy Communicating,

N. D. Moharo

Relationship Fights: Avoiding and Recovery

To the Battle-Torn Lovers,

    Fights with your significant other are bound to happen. There's a saying that the people we hurt the most are the ones closest to us. However, the more the problems that arise are dealt with without fighting, the better. How can we avoid escalating these problems into "battles"? What can be done afterwards? I actually recently found the answers to the first question and its amazing how obvious it should be.

    I just saw a program about scolding and the first step for "good scolding" was as follows: Confirm the Facts. So many of the "fights" I had with my lovelier other half lately could have been avoided if she asked me if her conclusion was correct before acting up. This is because we as a society have an unfortunate tendency to mistake thoughtfulness for thoughtlessness. One example was she cooked dinner but concluded I didn't appreciate it because I didn't say "Thank you." What we eventually found out was that I kept saying what I thought to mean "Thank you for the meal," in her native language but it didn't. Hence, the stress and conflict could have avoided if she asked, "Do you appreciate my cooking?" instead of concluding that I didn't and become cold (note: she's a fantastic cook).

    Something that should be avoided is the assumption the other knows what he or she did wrong. This is because we feels most of our actions are justified until we are proven wrong. Remember the story about cooking? I tried to say thank you in her native language because such efforts tend to be the best received. I failed but that was because the phrase I used was translated as "Thank you for the meal" in the language course I was listening to. I should have tried saying both in English and her language, but I didn't know that until she pointed it out.

    Another thing to avoid is stopping the communication. The point of fights is to communicate what your are feeling, but if one side stops it, then there is nothing that can be done but determine the relationship is over. I cannot think of a more damaging blow to the communication between a couple than hanging up the phone or walking away in the middle the other's explanation. It does not matter if the explanation is good or bad. When you sever the communication, it is YOU who burned the bridge because by doing that, you just expressed that you do not care to listen to the other. If this happens, QUICKLY APOLOGIZE! Otherwise there will be no confidence you can ever communicate properly and your relationship is over. If you do not care to listen, it shows that you do not care to love.

    Speaking of Love, that is truly the key to not only avoiding the fights, but also the recovery from them. I could ramble on about how "love is putting the other's needs before your own" but I've already explained that in a few of my letters. This time I'll explain the Love Language theory in how you can express your love to your beloved and have it well-received. There's a book by Dr. Gary Chapman that claims we all have a Love Language. This is how we express and receive love primarily. Remember how I mentioned about speaking in your beloved's native tongue, the theory is the same here. Even though you are saying the same thing, it won't mean as much as when said with the primary language of love.

    So do we have to learn French? Not at all, unless your beloved is French with a certain love language. Dr. Chapman lists 5 languages that we speak and they are as follows: Words of Affirmation, Quality Time, Acts of Service, Gifts, and Physical Touch. Let's divide those and very briefly explain what they mean.

Words of Affirmation: Positive feedback. When someone does something, they like to be praised for their good work or effort. A woman may want to hear she's beautiful and thanks. A man may want to hear good job and thanks.

Quality Time: These are the people who want your attention. Just being with them but buried in your phone would actually be worse than not being with them. They may not know what to do, but they know they want to be with you.

Acts of Service: Surprise breakfast in bed is the most famous example. These people respond greatly to receiving what may appear to be trivial acts such as making their coffee in the morning.

Gift Giving: This person loves Christmas Gift Exchanges. Not only do they feel the saying that it's great to give, they also like to receive. The gifts don't necessarily need to be expensive. They can be letters, a flower, or even a couple pieces of chocolate.

Physical Touch: Hugs. If they see something cute, they likely want to hug it. Warm touching is what these people respond to the most. They are also very sensitive to being pushed away, especially if they are trying to hug you.

    It is important to know these languages because it will help drastically when your spouse says, "I don't feel like you love me anymore," even when you say the words "I love you" every morning. This would be because words are not his or her love language but maybe gift giving is. The reason why we don't know this when we are dating is because we naturally do all five. While it would be great to continue to do all five, it's most important to focus on the top two or three that your loved one communicates with.

    Dr. Chapman also points out that everyone has a "Love Tank" that needs to be filled through these Love Languages. Something that should be noted is that after a fight, the Love Tank can get near to empty and if it stays down there too long, that's when threats of break ups start to happen. Something you really don’t want to do is tell your beloved that you don't love him or her. Therefore it is crucial that you try to communicate with the Love Languages after or during a fight. For example, if Physical Touch is the primary language for both of you, Hug. This is why you may have heard of the term "Make-up Sex," it works for some people because of the language. You may have heard that it's important to give each other some time to organize your thoughts, but only do that after you've convinced each other you still love one another through those languages. Words may not be enough. As I mentioned before, you do not want to sever communications and it's more the case when you both are low in your Love Tanks. It's also not going to help if Quality Time is the primary or secondary language.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

P.S. The Love Languages don't apply just to romance but also to our daily lives with friends and relatives. Try using them and see how much your relationships grow.

Does the World Lead to Happiness?

To the People of the World,
    I ask you to consider the messages of the world. Do those things actually lead to happiness? Or do they actually conflict, leading only to confusion and eventually despair? Take for example the content of movies and prime television. Here, we can see that as long as it makes you "happy" it's perfectly fine to cheat on your wife and have an affair. Switch to the news and we see that having an affair can cause a man to lose everything he owns.
    Consider the World's opinion on sex. Do the people who follow the message for free sex end up happier than those who practice a more "traditional" way? In the world's way, it preaches that you can never be satisfied while the other says you can. In this sense, they both are true. In the way of the world, where you let your sex drive take control, there will always be that dissatisfaction and thirst for more. The reason is not only because of the psychological studies many have shown sex to be like a drug in this case, but because in that way you never find what you truly want. Love. The so-called "traditional" method of sticking with one spouse through good times and bad emphasizes that Love is the goal of man. This is why you can be satisfied with just one person.
    I mentioned before in my previous analysis on impatience that Love is "to will the good of another, even at your own expense," or as it was said in Frozen, "putting someone else's needs before yours." There's this interesting phenomenon where the people are at their happiest when they serve with love. I don't need to tell you how many of my friends say their best experiences were volunteering in a third world country. There are even a few Youtube videos that end with something along the line. Why is this?
    I am actually currently reading a book to help explain someone's work on the Body and Sexuality. One theory that sounds really nice stems from the Judeo-Christian belief of Man being created in God's image. I know I've heard that many times with little meaning. I've heard that's the source of Man's dignity but that doesn't mean much to the modern world. However, there was one connection the book made that was very interesting, "God is Love." If God is Love and Man is made in the Image of God, then that means the ultimate goal of Man truly is to Love.
    Is there proof to this concept in nature? If we consider the nature of man, we would reach that man is a social animal. This is proven through not only how we reproduce but how dependent we are on each other's skills and knowledge. I may not be able to farm, but I can develop programs to make it easier to farm. However, if there weren't farmers, then I wouldn't be able to develop those programs. In order for us to reach our highest potential, we are dependent on others and there is nothing wrong with that.
    Consider also how different we act when we feel loved versus not loved. With the latter, we consider suicide but with the former, we are "full of life." Love gives us life, but only to us, but to those around us. A woman in love's smile is enough to brighten any cloudy day. I came home from a bad day at work and my love's smile got me laughing along that I didn't care about the problems I had anymore. Did I need sex from her? No, just her loving face was enough to make me happy.

    So I leave you with this to consider. With Love being so crucial to our lives and the World having a twisted perspective that actually diminishes it rather than grows it, we ought to be careful when accepting its recommendations. Sometimes Good triumphs and the Good Movies get acclaimed, but that isn't often. I have found that in most "Critically Acclaimed" films, there is something that twists the concept of love, particularly the objectification of women. If you want to know if a movie has something like that with few spoilers, I use the website Plugged In which divides the content into categories of content. I may not always agree with what they is positive or negative, but the division is always helpful.

 With Love,

N. D. Moharo

Concerning Ideologies

To the People,
    You may recall I wrote to you before expressing my idealogy. In there, I described it as "Idealism with relation to Reality" to symbolize that I strive for ideals but accept the reality of the failures and that some people will strive to oppose them. I also pointed out that I would not consider myself a conservative nor a liberal.
    The current situation is even more true as I have come to realize these terms are relative names that mean different things in different places. For example, the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan is considered the "conservative" party. Meanwhile, "conservatives" in Ireland are okay with things that "conservatives" in America wouldn't be. Why should I associate myself with a label that would misrepresent my ideals in a different places? By coming up with a statement that people don't think of, it forces people to actually examine my thoughts and ideals and perhaps we can have a conversation.
    Another thing I learned recently is that coming up with names doesn't help, especially as we stereotype people with them. Why should I call anyone in a debate anything but his or her name? I certainly have complaints against both the Republican and Democratic Parties of the U.S. but just because one person associates with either doesn't mean much unless they are a politician. What someone pointed out was that when we labeling people, then we start to narrow our focus instead of trying to see the big picture of how everything fits together. This is partially because we then try to either stick with the association or prove we aren't. Either way, we become distracted from the main conversation and there will not be any progress.
    So have my ideals changed? They are still taking shape and there are things I can still learn. What I want you to take from this is to join me in trying to break from the chain of "labeling" and instead focus on addressing the subjects at hand.

Peace,

N. D. Moharo

Information about the Gaming Blog site

So this has been on hold for a while. There is still the intent to start another blog site focused on gaming though circumstances kept us from launching when I expected. However, we are still accepting applications through our google form if you are interested in joining the writing team. Here is some information about our policies and goals


About Reasonable Gaming

E3 2015 gave a glimpse into a nasty part of the gaming community. Combined with the recent Gamergate scandals and so on, there is a need for a sanctuary for "Reasonable Gamers." This blog will not be relaying gaming news but rather opinions and game reviews. The goal is to encourage proper discourse in conveying our likes and disappointments. As such, the policies center around these ideas.

Policies

• As we are not an official organization and will not be represented at conventions, you are free to be anonymous, meaning you can write under a penname
• Improper language is not tolerated. If you include bad language or swearing, they will be edited or removed.
• Comments will begin as slightly moderated to ensure no spamming of offensive material
• As much as we prefer good writing, it is not a requirement
• We do value integrity in your posts. Please only share what you have written
• Do not use this site as a means to promoting controversial ideals. This site is so that all gamers can find some peace and interesting ideas instead of being preached. The mainstream sites like IGN and Kotaku do enough of the latter.
• Currently no plans to monetize anything on this blog. If the idea comes up, it will require a majority
• All writers are seen as volunteers and so any dismissal will be notified before termination and given the reasoning for termination.
• Men and Women are equal and anything that promotes the objectification of one or the other may result in termination
• Staff should also treat each other with respect. Failure to do so may also be grounds for termination
• You maintain the rights to the content you write. If you want to share it on other sites and blogs, go ahead. We would appreciate a share link to this site though

Ideals

• Mission Statement: Encourage proper discourse in conveying our likes and disappointments
• Gaming should be a pleasant experience and opinions should revolve around ideals of enjoyment
• Nothing Controversial or too political in order that this site may stay a sanctuary to those just interested in gaming
• No console war garbage
• No harassment of other gamers
• No harassment of the staff

If you would like to join the staff, fill out the following google form. Note that you will need a Google account in order to write for us since this is through Blogger.