[@Sierra]

	I can understand the intent with writing in a particular style to convey what-have-you, but I would not go as far to consider [b]objectively incorrect grammar[/b] to be a universal technicality. I firmly believe that there are rarely times when you should sacrifice grammar for any sort of attempt to have something read a certain way. There are a plethora of grammatical tools that allow one to exercise a particular form of sentence flow. Take this as you will, but I perceive all attempts to dismiss grammar as a very obtuse approach to creative writing. If we are to judge any form of writing and hold it to any given standard, the only objective metric we have to reference is grammar. Anything beyond that is a discussion of either opinion, or genre-specific trends. It would only be productive under the pretense that we would be using acclaimed sources as reference to further contrast different levels of writing.

	While there are certainly situations where grammatically incorrect statements can be used to some success, these are few and far between. [b]Sentence fragments[/b] in particular are [i]rarely[/i] acceptable, and should certainly be used [i]sparingly[/i]. They serve a very impactful purpose, - to convey thought - but unless one can convey the exact reasoning behind fragmenting one of their clauses without offering an alternative, it's not a great idea. It can easily disrupt sentence flow if overused. I find that this is a common mistake that a lot of writers make (I would use fragments relentlessly to pretty up my writing when I was younger) along with a relentless usage of adjectives, pointless use of semicolons, overuse of commas, and this is a big one that I often still make before proof-reading, [b]redundancy.[/b] It may get a little subjective at this point, you're right about that. As mentioned earlier however, a conversation on objective writing methods is impossible. At best, citing authors that successfully execute particular patterns of writing to great success would grant some level of merit to an argument. A good example of a writing method used in poetry, one that was an objective success, would be something like Iambic pentameter.

	I certainly can't make sweeping generalizations such as 'they are all objectively poor examples of writing' in regards to every single post that doesn't adhere to the typical rule-set of grammar. If there were to be any judgement on writing level, it would certainly have to come down to a case-by-case series of examples. But I will say that, despite incorrect grammar having some application, I do not associate all attempts to explore and innovate with 'advanced' writing. I associate it with creativity.

	Admittedly though, the Advanced section is more often host to far more creative and unique ideas than casual is. I think it's been mentioned a few times already here, but where Casual is flooded with typical tropes that get recycled [i]infinitely,[/i] many advanced concepts are fresh in comparison. If there were an argument to be made for the advanced section being 'advanced' as the name implies, I think it would be in regards to its willingness to step outside of the box. I wouldn't make that argument myself, though.

	Of course at that point it's a balancing act. There are people who try to defend their incredibly poor writing by using this 'outside the box' mentality as a shield, while there are others who claim there to be no point in stepping outside the rules. To disregard either side is of course, entirely silly.

	At any rate, I think it's more important to fully understand martial arts before attempting to fashion something new. The same can be said for any practice.