Matoyak

we do if it gets to the point of having a negative impact on pacing and characterization.

That's not entirely true. While games are more sensitive to character power levels, an extremely powerful character in any narrative work can remove dramatic tension, requiring either contrivances or escalation to explain why the OP character doesn't simply solve the problem causing the dramatic tension. EGS does focus more on social aspects than straight combat, but given Grace's pacifistic, fun-loving, and over-all friendly nature, the most likely spells for Grace to get if she awakens would be social in aspect.

Didn't I say she would know it was irrational?  Sometimes feelings happen, whether they're logical or not, and I can definitely see Susan recognizing such feelings are happening, and consciously working to not let them affect her actions.

A better looking uniform than her Uryuom worker's suit.

I'll be honest, I'd forgotten there even was a Pokémon CCG, and that's far from the core aspect of Pokémon. Heck, even the anime's a small deal compared to the video games. Besides, the Pokémon CCG came out in the US in 1998, while Magic came out in 1993. Not exactly in the same year, or even a year apart. Bit much to hold hatred for Pokémon on that count, as CCGs had been around for 5 years at that point.

About 85% sure

Wait. He said 'methods'. I wonder if the term 'method' was meant in the OOP sense, which basically boils down to 'function of an object and perhaps some other arguments'. In other worse, the restriction might be very narrow - 'do not execute this algorithm on this data type'. Which, incidentally, I think has the potential to be a reasonable restriction, depending on the algorithm and data type (if you implement a sentient being, say)
I'm pretty sure that's not what was meant, but there's wiggle room for it to be that, if an author (Dan or a fic-writer) wanted to interpret it that way.

"Except that it uses object oriented programming methods that are condemned by certain religious leaders when used with things like this."
Hmm, so "object oriented programming methods that are condemned": one of:
OOP techniques in general Specific OOP techniques OOP member functions Specific OOP member functions You make a good point, @Drachefly.

Well ... Tedd did said he now knows how to make permanent transformation wand ... and Lord Tedd likely actually tried ...
Funny as it is, I suspect Dan simply don't know. The difference only appeared in Diamond/Pearl.

Also, http://waifu2x.udp.jp/ is often useful for enlarging panels in the absence of a more reliable hires version, thought I'd mention it here.

No, Dan. Just because World of Warcraft is bigger in pop culture does not mean it is the correct title for the movie. If the movie isn't about "World of Warcraft" the massively multiplayer online roleplaying game, but is instead somsething set in the world(s) that the Warcraft franchise takes place in, than "Warcraft" is, in fact, the correct title for it. Your subconscious need to add "world of" to it just because that's what you're more familiar with is wrong, and you need to tell your subconscious to go sit in a corner somewhere and be quiet.

Slim to none.

So! Even though 3 posts in a row isn't the best, here it is, from working out.
The Character Count as of the comic on Friday 3rd of June 2016: http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=2197
Show/hide
Elliot: 839
Grace: 756
Tedd: 651
Ellen: 590
Sarah: 580
Nanase: 554
Susan: 445
Justin: 411

Diane: 129
Ashley: 125
Mr. Verres: 113

Cheerleadra: 95
Raven: 86
Charlotte: 78
Greg: 77
Hedge: 66
Noah: 66
Amanda: 66
Mr. Tensaided: 61
Catalina: 57
Luke: 57
Dame Tara: 57
Jeremy: 54
Lisa: 53
Rhoda: 50

Damien: 47
Vlad: 45
George: 45
Abraham: 39
Guineas: 38
Goo: 35
Pandora: 33
Larry: 33
Melissa: 32
Not-Tengu: 30
Dex: 29
Magus: 26
Rich: 25

William: 24
Gillian: 24
Brownie: 23
Agt. Cranium: 23
Sam: 22
Andrea: 22
Helena: 21
Carol: 21
Taurcanis Draco: 21
Tony: 20
Dr. Sciuridae: 20
Ms. Mild-mannered: 20
Demetrius: 18
Chika: 18
Lil Nase: 18
Jerry: 18
Rhea: 18
Principal Verrukt: 17
Agt. Wolf: 17
Nioi: 16
SL Ellen: 16
Matt Cohen: 16
Demonic Duck: 15
Mrs. Kitsune: 15
Tom: 15
Spider Vampire: 15
Voltaire: 15
Mrs. Dunkel: 14
Akiko: 14
Dr. Germahn: 13
TC: 13
Liz: 13
Duck: 13
Boar: 13
Bill: 12
Heidi: 12
Dan: 12
SL Kaoli: 11
Fox: 11
Mr. Dunkel: 10
Rick: 10
Dying old man: 10

SL Tedd: 9
Bloodgrem: 9
Elijah: 9
SL Archie: 8
Magic Emissary: 8
Sirleck: 8
Lavender: 7
Jr. High Kid #3: 6
Susan's Mom: 6
Mr. Alephnull: 6
Gerald: 6
Whale: 6
Some Guy: 6
MNHS Science Teacher: 5
Tony's Pal (Ronin): 5
Gen. Shade Tail: 5
Commander Jaguar: 5
Lucy: 5
French Aberration: 5
Eric: 5
Arthur J. Arthur: 5
Jim: 5
Cecil: 5
New Jerry: 5

Unusagi: 4
Rat: 4
Matt: 4
Lord Tedd: 4
Female soldier: 4
Susan's Dad: 4
Curiosity: 4
Logic: 4
Principal Washington: 4
Sandi: 4
Dex's fairy: 4
Gullible fan: 4
Mullet fan: 4
Glasses fan: 4
Creepy Cloak Lady: 4
Goth alt-ego: 4
Travis-san: 3
Beta Tedd: 3
Screaming Girl: 3
Mr. Guyur: 3
Uryuom soldier: 3
Alice: 3
"The Woman": 3
Dick: 3
Ranger Simpson: 3
Max: 3
Noriko: 3
Doomed Ass: 3
Shipping fangirl: 3
Random crazy person: 3
Tom's friend: 3
Dream Teacher: 3
Beta Ellen: 2
Minion: 2
Sarah's Dad: 2
Specialist Steve: 2
Inner Tiffany: 2
Inner Susan: 2
Liz's Ex: 2
Random Cop: 2
Matt Cohen's pal: 2
Cecil's pal: 2
Good Tom: 2
Abner: 2

Original Grace
SL Mrs. Dunkel
SL Tony
Mr. Bluel
Kaoli
Mr. Kitsune
MSHS Counselor
Victor von Hip
A.D. Liefeld
Gary
Jimmy
Derek
Ashley's Dad
Cameraman Phil
Diane’s Angel
Diane’s Devil
Girl in Dr Who Scarf
Girl in Dr Who Scarf’s friend
Bartender
Barmaid
Bar Patron
Annoyed Old Guy  

You might want to look at the rules for the forum on this. Here they are.
To quote: "Certain topics are highly volatile and/or triggering for some people. Examples would be abuse, self-harm, sexual molestation or predation, serious injuries or illness, among others. It is not forbidden to discuss these but it is requested to add a content warning or note to the posts or threads these might appear in."

And now a word from our sponsor!
 

Alrighty, just noticed that Dan removed patron exclusivity on the image so here's my coloured version!

The outfit uses the colour palette from the Nanase Playing Dress up pinup.

Note: this post wil bring up subjects like rape, abuse, and torture.
People do misuse the term.  Usually either people who don't care whether someone else suffers, and don't think they should have to be courteous or respectful either, and therefore should be able to say anything they want to anyone they want; or people who enjoy seeing someone else in distress, and deliberately troll them.  Putting "Trigger warning: Food" likely is someone who is deliberately trying to distress people for whom the term is an important tool in coping with their trauma.  Or, perhaps, it's somone who know that there *is* someone within the group they're talking to who is recovering from anorexia nervosa or bulimia, both extremely serious life-threatening illnesses.
Why on earth would you assume they're not "trying to fix their problem"??  Do you honestly think that someone  who has been raped, or abused, or a veteran with PTSD, is going to be able to learn how to cope with their problem while shut away, and shouldn't be allowed out in the world unless they somehow achieve perfect mental health first?  I hope you're prepared to pay a heck of a lot more in taxes to pay for all these people you want locked away for the rest of their lives!
A trigger warning isn't a way to avoid a problem completely, it's a way to get yourself mentally prepared for having to cope with something that might cause serious distress if you come across it without warning.  It still causes distress, but it's easier to cope with if you have some sort of warning it's coming.  If someone's story involves describing how they were raped, there are likely women in the audience who were themselves raped, and for some of them, it was recently enough or bad enough that they need that chance to prepare themselves mentally, or even remove themselves from the situation, before the description starts.  No one it doesn't apply to is harmed by including the trigger warning, so why are you so offended by them?
And what business is it of yours?  You have the right to demand that someone dealing with a trauma has to tell you all about it before you'll believe that they were traumatized?  Sometimes people aren't ready to share their private mental health issues with the entire world.  Some people are so freshly traumatized by what they saw and did in the war that they can't talk about it except with their therapist(s).  And some people haven't told anyone that their father raped them every night from age six to fourteen, and they certainly shouldn't have to start wth you!
Putting a note like "Trigger warning: rape, incest" or starting a radio program with "This program contains graphic descriptions of torture" is not so heavy or unreasonable a burden that anyone has the right to dismiss and ignore it just because they don't feel like bothering.
It's like people who think they should have the right to light up a cigarette in the middle of a crowd any time they feel like it, and anyone with allergies, emphysema, COPD, or other respiratory problems, or who just wants to avoid getting cancer, well, that's just too damn bad for them, even if the smoke puts them in the hospital or the morgue.  (And yes, there are people with medicalconditions that bad, and they should be able to enjoy life just as much as anyone else.  I attended a convention back before the ban on smoking indoors or near doorways was quite so universal, with Wil Wheaten as a guest, in which he mentioned that he had a lung problem that serious, that tobacco smoke could kill him, and that was why the venue would be enforcing especially strict smoking rules.)
Now, if someone really does reply with "I'm triggered that you're triggered," then that person is a troll and a jerk.  It's that person you should be directing your ire at, not people who are doing their best to live with horrors in their past.

I really feel we need a split thread between "likely theories and speculation" and "wild theories and speculation". This clearly falls into the latter camp for a variety of in-story, out-of-story, and meta-story reasons (plus, any time a person has to go to "well, we're told anything is possible!" it likely means there isn't much for the speculation to stand on). There's been several times in this thread where this kind of divide has broken down discussion, and having two distinct spots for each of them would give a better idea about what the discussion should be about.
I propose that this thread title be changed to "Wild Theories and Speculation" or maybe "Unusual Theories and Speculation" or something to that effect, and that a separate thread titled "Likely Theories and Speculation" or "Less Wild Theories and Speculation" be created. I don't want this to be the split we had previously, between "Wild Theories" and "Mundane Theories", which just ended up being "Wackadoo ideas!" and "Too boring to discuss ideas!".

Yeah, both of these. I give benefit of the doubt on this stuff, especially for allergies. I am allergic to shellfish in an unusual way: my body can't handle the iodine contained in the sea bugs and it rejects it. Violently. (I basically end up vomiting for hours). One of my relatives decided this couldn't possibly be a real allergy (because shellfish allergy results in anaphylactic shock, nothing else, y'see), and that I merely had only ever had shrimp that'd gone bad. So in a meal they didn't inform me that it contained shellfish, thinking they'd prove their point about me not knowing what I was talking about. Hours later I was still vomiting every few minutes.

~shrug~, they both seem equally unlikely to me. This one slightly more so, truth be told. I don't care for either theory, honestly. I just think splitting the discussion into two spots with distinct expectations will help discussions from devolving into what this one did between you and Remnant.

Trigger warnings and content notes are there to protect readers and users who may suffer from trauma related to the topic. The fact that certain people mock them or deliberately misuse them in an attempt to discredit them does not change that. I have friends who benefit from and appreciate properly applied content notes and I am convinced that if properly used, they add to the safety and comfort of vulnerable users.

Isn't she?  Abby is already adorable, so it's hard to cross anyone with her and not get an adorable result.
I'm just wondering on what basis you make that conclusion.  How do *you* know whether a given person is actually prone to genuine psychological harm?  Must you actually *see* them have an externally visible panic attack before you'll believe them?  If so, that seems like a rather harsh requirement; if not, then how do you decide who you believe and who you don't?  Because frankly, I see an awful lot of people whose criteria seems to be either whether they like or dislike the person in question, or whether they themselves are bothered by the thing that the other person is triggered by.  And if you are disbelieving people who have genuine psychological harm, that's probably causing them even more harm.
Again, how do *you* know whether someone is actually allergic to something or they "just strongly dislike it"?  Do you only count people who have an *immediate*, visible, life-threatening anaphylaxis to have "real" allergies?  Or would someone who is, oh, just for an example, allergic to tobacco smoke but suffers scratchy throat, itchy eyes, and clogged sinuses for a couple of *days* after exposure but doesn't actually collapse in front of you turning blue, count as an "allergy" in your book?
I missed those tweets!  I had to avoid Twitter for a bit until I could catch up with GoT, and even at the best of times I'm a sporadic tweet-reader.  It's a pity no one seems to be keeping up the Word Of Dan thread, which was designed to collect stuff he says elsewhere....

Let's compromise and agree that EVERYONE is related to Susan and Diane somehow. They could be descendants of Raven's father's family, the blonde mistress AKA their real mother could be Noriko's cousin or something and one of Noah's parents could have been related to Susan and Diane's father, which would make them related to Noah too.
There. Now everyone's happy. [/sarcasm]

I think the problem with the idea of the aberrations' monstrous forms being a punishment is that the idea is assigning morality to Magic, an eldritch, unfathomably vast mentality that could be singular, plural, neither, or all of the above simultaneously. From what we know, Magic has a flair for the dramatic, a desire to be special( or at least to not be mainstream), and allows access to power regardless of the morality of the person seeking that power. When Magic grants power to an individual, that power is inline with the person's personality, deep desires, or bloodline affinity (Assuming Magic doesn't get confused, like in Elliot's case), though not necessarily the aspects that the person wants Magic to draw from, like when Nanase kept getting sneaking spells when she was afraid of getting outed as a lesbian. Also, in Squirrel prophet, when Magic acted to give the good guys a hint to prevent a system change, it decided to do so in an admittedly half-hearted manner, intentionally giving our heroes poor odds of success.
To me, it seems the Magic doesn't care if the heroes succeed or not, just that the events are dramatic and interesting (kinda like Pandora, but broader and with a better appreciation of natural pacing). That said, the monstrous forms of aberrations/vampires could be a consequence of that. Not as a punishment, but as a reflection of the magic users and a tool to ratchet up the drama. The monsters being monstrous makes for more interesting and dramatic events. We also have official confirmation that some aberrations only have monsterous forms when using their powers, which would allow for a degree of tension building when the action is slower and sneakier.

actually, it's after plan o: but before plan ):<