these arenât rules but know that theyâre particularities of mine that ought to be explicitly addressed (and by following me without discussing alterations, youâre accepting these as terms of agreement):
one. yes, i have âfavoritesâ. there are people here Iâve written with longer and have more meaningful relationships with in and out of character. i feel it is an obvious, natural exchange rate to say how much i talk to someone ooc -> how much i write with them ic. this isnât to say you have to talk to me ooc in order to write with me or get replies. this isnât a push for you to chat with me. if iâm being so honest, i donât have the energy for it. my nature is to be quite reclusive and hermit-y. i donât tend to chitchat much. this is simply to say the favoritism, by this metric, is not any reflection on how i feel about you ooc (or ic) if i donât immediately respond to you (ic or ooc). there are people I have known and written with for over a decade here. i think itâs more than fair to assume my interactions with them will look and feel different than those I havenât had the fortune of knowing as well! i am open to expanding my community and donât want my higher ratio of interactions with certain writers to suggest i am somehow inaccessible or unwelcoming to new(er) writing partners.
two. this is the blunt one we all pretend doesnât exist and i think itâs silly and dishonest to suggest otherwise: i have writers i like the writing of more than others. there are styles of other writers/muses that i feel blend well with my writing/muses. i tend to write with writing/muses i mesh well with or writing/muses that attracts/inspires me. this isnât to say that just because i donât interact with you much means i donât like your writing/muses. anyone i follow i want to write with. but, just as we have favorite authors/books, i also have favorite writing partners. thereâs a tiny handful of people i follow but have never (or almost never) written with but very much adore their muse(s)/writing. some people i follow but donât think our muses/writing work well together but I still admire! so!
three. i will reply to threads YEARS later. my lack of a reply doesnât mean im not interested in a thread. some threads i have an immediate concept for how to reply, others I donât. some I have the energy or headspace for, some I donât (this is especially true for longer, meatier threads: I like them a lot, but I tend to have to do them in long bouts of time). this energy can oscillate. sometimes I can reply several times in a week to the same thread. sometimes that same thread I wonât then reply to in months or a year. my lack of a reply almost always has nothing to do with my interest in a thread. if the time inconsistency in replies bothers you, please reach out to me, and I will try to accommodate by providing a time range on when a reply might be done. if my inconsistency or urge to reply to things months/years later TRULY bothers you, we might not be a match partner wise! and thatâs fine!
four. I like writing intermeshed, singleverse as feasible as possible. I know not everyone in the rpc is on good terms with each other. so I try to navigate this singleverse desire with that in mind (I donât want a muse of one writer clashing worlds/narratives/mentions with another writer through my replies (even if itâs just a background or scene setting character inclusion or name drop) if those two people either donât follow each other or arenât on good terms). so i tend to be strategic about intermeshed singleverse by only doing this with people I know all follow each other. if I ever do a name drop or mention of another character that makes you uncomfortable, please reach out. I will edit the mention out of the reply and steer clear of the dynamics/muses/etc that you (for as minimal or severe reasons) donât vibe with. if I mention another muse in a thread with you that isnt yours, im not trying to force a three person thread (3+ person threads are explicitly asked for, not thrown at you without first pitching). when possible, I like to include othersâ muses in my narration when relevant. it doesnât mean im not interested in your muse. I like the intermeshed nature of discussing or infusing other muses into my replies. I think it makes threads and dynamics feel less quarantined and more realistic (one on one threads that stay as a single branch that has no effect on other interactions of that muse/world, to me, feel⌠pointless and entirely unrealistic). singleverse is something iâm very interested in so if that concept seems itâll lead to tension, I might not be the writing partner for you! and thatâs fine! if it bothers you that greatly, reach out. I am willing to keep your muse out of the intermeshed hotpot of singleverse if you have great reservations. thatâll require chatting/plotting/discussion so I know how to handle and build our musesâ dynamic.
five. this is, imo, my pettiest one that I recognize is illogical but nonetheless feel: if most of our interactions are you reblogging moodboard stuff I reblogged for my muse that you then reblog for your muse that has nothing to do with a dynamic of ours, I feel reduced to a resource blog of yours at that point. generally, I donât love when I curate/find quotes/gifs/etc to reblog that I feel resonate deeply with my muse only for someone to reblog that from me and make it about their muse. I recognize this is emotionally irrational of me. you can reblog and do whatever you want. Iâm not your dad. but I am letting you know I feel some type of way about it! also, I know I have literally done this to others. I am a hypocrite!
