boston_bruiser: (Default)
Voodoo ([personal profile] boston_bruiser) wrote in [community profile] ways_back_room2011-02-05 11:57 pm

A very delicate subject

Hey everyone -

So I've run into a bit of a snag with Voodoo's canon, and Cam suggested I run it past you guys in the back room. Here's the deal:

1) The rebooted Medal of Honor universe is more or less our own.

2) Voodoo's entry post takes place in July 2001.

3) The events of the game start around late September 2001.

...yeah.

The attacks themselves, if I write them up into an OOM post at all, will take place in Voodoo's second OOM post, with heavy foreshadowing in the first.

If there is enough popular discontent, I won't write up any OOM posts relating to the attacks, and just skip straight to the events of the game. But as the prelude to the attacks and the attacks themselves are heavily covered in the game's introduction, I feel that an OOM post relating to the attacks is necessary.

Let me state this as clearly as I can. I will understand completely if people say that I shouldn't write the attacks into an OOM post. That's okay. I'd be totally fine with just skipping to the events of the game. Voodoo's canon is nothing if not flexible.

If it makes a difference, Voodoo will be nowhere near Ground Zero. He will likely watch from a television set.

So what do you think?
mechanicalswans: (down)

[personal profile] mechanicalswans 2011-02-06 08:32 am (UTC)(link)
Speaking for myself, I don't see anything wrong with it. You may want to put an OOC note on your OOM posts that they involve the attacks; but basically, if it's canon, it's canon, is my view on it.

[personal profile] chanter1944 2011-02-06 08:54 am (UTC)(link)
Seconding the other comment here. You may want to add an OOC note when you post the OOMs, but beyond that, canon is canon. I don't see why it wouldn't be fine, especially if Voodoo's watching from a television set as opposed to somewhere nearer.
sdelmonte: (Default)

[personal profile] sdelmonte 2011-02-06 10:58 am (UTC)(link)
Warning notes and OOMs should work. And those of us who still find some of it triggery will just steer clear.

[identity profile] spooky-lemur.livejournal.com 2011-02-06 04:13 pm (UTC)(link)
And a fourth in the chorus of go for it just be sure to clearly mark it with warning notes so folks who might have a problem with it can avoid.
Edited 2011-02-06 17:11 (UTC)
theresnodoor: (Default)

[personal profile] theresnodoor 2011-02-06 04:53 pm (UTC)(link)
Fifthing the same sentiments here. Good for you for being sensitive and considerate about the subject, but you can do that and include it in your OOMs at the same time.
batyatoon: (NYC)

[personal profile] batyatoon 2011-02-06 10:51 pm (UTC)(link)
This. Thanks.
aberrantangels: (oh my!)

[personal profile] aberrantangels 2011-02-06 10:43 pm (UTC)(link)
Joining the chorus in favor of including the events but with warnings on the link to the OOM.