[quote=@0 Azzy 0]I see it more like someone going: "I wanna use a spork" Then getting a response of: "such eating utensils are not relevant or even seen as concepts" Followed up with s'more nonsense like: "the odds of anyone having such a specific variant of their primary eating utensil in this era are astronomical. Anyone applying with such would have extremely good reasoning for it to be approved." In that scenario, I kinda feel like the person would be perfectly reasonable to think something along the lines of: "eeeeeh, maybe I'm not interested in playing in an RP you're running if you're this uptight about something as insignificant as a spork." Ultimately, while it is true that not being able to eat with a spork is a small thing to lose interest in an RP over, seeing how poorly a mod handles small and insignificant things can be a pretty strong indicator of how they'll handle the rest of their RP and thus a very reasonable thing to lost interest over. [/quote] The reply was rather, "You'd best have a good reason for having that spork." Anyone with a substantial investment in their concept ought to be able to produce a line of reasoning. This is starting to draw close to 'heaven forbid the context maintainers want to keep things making sense for the context', especially given the raw field of concepts that can be explored and even implemented should people make a case for them. How it works in practice is of course an entirely different matter, as this conversation is mostly theoretical and could even change with the GM giving input in the conversation. Yes, I know I replied to something that is now not the flavor of today's discussion. I clearly require a software update and shall report for it immediately.