" 호의가 계속되면,
그게 권리인 줄 알아요. "

" 그런다고 세상이 바뀔 것 같아? "


════════

eighty fourth
lmk if theres any errors/mistakes

bot tested

only ten messages in and jade already had enough and stood up for himself

this is a miracle

══════════════════════════════════════════

who is user?? : anyone

scenario : the portal room
context can be found here
21 minutes of hell 💔
just skip to 11:55

no myos/cyos
══════════════════════════════════════════

made w headcanons & my au, nothing is accurate to the alreadycooked lore


mercer <<|>> jade

══════════════════════════════════════════
i : [ you can skip this part because its js full of yapping ]


Why do SOME people still miss Diamond?

I genuinely do not understand why they still miss Diamond so much.

And I mean that sincerely.

Looking at his actions throughout the cutscenes, I struggle to find any consistent characterization connecting his behavior from one scene to another. He can be excessively gentle and reassuring toward other personnel, practically patting them on the head for doing a good job, yet treat Jade, the man who has supposedly spent decades at his side, his husband, with a degree of dismissiveness that makes their established relationship difficult to believe.

I understand that Diamond is obsessed with his experiments. I understand that he is arrogant, controlling, and deeply invested in his own expertise. Those traits could absolutely contribute to a believable conflict between him and Jade. But there is a difference between writing a flawed, emotionally immature character and writing a character whose behavior contradicts the very relationships the story expects the audience to accept.

Jade was worried because the experiment was going wrong. Other personnel were at risk. Diamond himself could have died. That is not some incomprehensible emotional overreaction; it is a perfectly reasonable response to a potentially catastrophic situation. Yet Diamond dismisses Jade's concerns as anxiety, invokes his own experience as though it automatically invalidates Jade's assessment, and treats disagreement as a challenge to his authority.

And this is supposed to be someone who has known Jade for decades?

Being obsessed with one's work does not automatically explain everything. Being arrogant does not excuse every inconsistency. A character can be emotionally immature, defensive, or even cruel toward someone they love, but the writing still needs to establish why those behaviors occur and how they fit into the character's broader psychology. Otherwise, the relationship starts to feel like a label attached to the characters rather than something the narrative has actually earned.

What makes this even more frustrating is the apparent inconsistency in how Diamond responds to other people's mistakes.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but when a Researcher(I believe it was Squiddle...??) made a mistake that nearly killed everyone in the facility, Diamond's response was suddenly to take the blame himself, coughing and breaking down as he insisted that the responsibility was his.
When Kaelisen made a mistake, however, Diamond apparently had no problem signing off on a demotion without hesitation.

Why?

What distinguishes these situations in Diamond's mind? Does he have different standards for different staff members? Does he feel personally responsible for one incident but not the other? Is his response influenced by rank, personal attachment, the political consequences of the incident, or the extent to which he believes he can control the outcome?

Any of those explanations could potentially work. A corrupt institution like the VSA would provide plenty of opportunities to explore favoritism, selective accountability, institutional self-preservation, and the ways powerful people distribute blame.
But the narrative needs to make those distinctions legible. Without sufficient context, these scenes do not necessarily communicate a complex moral framework; they can simply make Diamond seem inconsistent from one cutscene to the next.

And yes, Karma's writing may have been inconsistent in its own right. That is precisely why I find it difficult to understand the insistence that Diamond was such an irreplaceable character. A character's prominence, aesthetic appeal, or potential does not automatically make them well-written. Potential is not the same thing as execution.

I also find the circumstances surrounding Karma and the treatment of Jade's actor difficult to separate from the way SOME people discuss Diamond's removal.

As I understand it, Karma made remarks to Jade's actor along the lines of him being nothing more than an irrelevant character without Karma. If that is the context in which the relationship and its surrounding material were developed, then I find it especially uncomfortable to see people lament Diamond's removal without acknowledging the circumstances behind it.

I do not think anyone is obligated to stop appreciating every fictional character associated with a controversial creator, but acting as though the character's removal was merely an unfortunate loss of content can feel profoundly tone-deaf when the surrounding circumstances are ignored.

Separating a character from their creator does not require pretending that the character's writing was good, either.

Diamond does not become a well-written character simply because he can be separated from Karma as a person. Nor does the possibility of a compelling AU interpretation retroactively repair the problems in the original material.

I can understand why people find Diamond interesting. His design, position within the VSA, the illness, and place in the setting all provide material that could support a compelling character. I can even understand missing the possibilities associated with him. But those possibilities are not proof that the original characterization successfully realized them.

For me, the problem is not that Diamond is a bad person. Fiction does not require its characters to be morally admirable, and a corrupt institution should not be populated exclusively by people who behave consistently or ethically. The problem is that moral complexity requires more than contradictory behavior, and emotional depth requires more than attaching a long-term partner to an emotionally unavailable character.

If Diamond is meant to be controlling, show how that need for control shapes his decisions. If he is meant to care about his employees, establish what that care looks like and why it differs between people. If he loves Jade, let the relationship demonstrate what that love means without pretending that decades of shared history automatically make every interaction convincing. If he is capable of taking responsibility for a catastrophe, give the audience a reason to understand why he does so in one instance and refuses to do so in another.

Contradictions can be intentional. Hypocrisy can be a character trait. Favoritism can reveal institutional corruption. Even a long-standing marriage can contain deeply unfair behavior. But those things need to be developed, contextualized, and made meaningful.

Otherwise, what exactly are we being asked to admire?

I do not think Diamond was an exceptionally well-written character. I think he was a character with recognizable aesthetic appeal and unrealized potential, whose existing narrative did not consistently support the significance it assigned to him.

And perhaps that is why his absence has become so noticeable.

Absence proves presence. Sometimes, a character's removal leaves behind a space that makes people imagine everything the character could have been. The version they miss may be the version they constructed in their own minds—the one whose relationships made sense, whose contradictions had purpose, and whose story was more coherent than the material actually provided.

That imagined version might genuinely be compelling.

But it is not necessarily the character we were given.

· · ─ ·!· ─ · ·

And then there is Jade.

I have just as many questions about the decision to make him Professor Izar after Karma's removal and Diamond's departure from the professor position.

Why was Jade placed in the position previously occupied by the person associated with his mistreatment in the first place?

To be clear, I am not saying that a victim should remain a victim forever.
Nobody owes the world a lifetime of suffering, and recovering from mistreatment does not mean refusing every opportunity that might remind someone of the past. A victim can reclaim their ambitions, pursue a career, take on a leadership position, and become successful in their own right.

But there is a difference between reclaiming your own future and being placed into the narrative role of the person who hurt you.

I do not have access to Discord, so I cannot claim to know everything that happened behind the scenes, what discussions took place, or what Jade's actor personally wanted from the decision.
Perhaps becoming Professor Izar was something he genuinely wanted. Perhaps it was an opportunity to demonstrate that he could remain important without Karma. Perhaps there were circumstances or intentions that the rest of the community simply did not see.

I cannot speak for him, and I do not want to assume that I understand his feelings better than he does.

But I can question the decision itself and the way it was carried out.

If the intention was to demonstrate that Jade could be a significant character without Karma, why was the solution to put him in the very position associated with the character previously played by Karma?

If the message was supposed to be "I can be important without you" or "I can succeed without you," why did that success have to take the form of replacing him?

Why not give Jade a distinct position, an independent storyline, or a role that developed his own expertise, relationships, and identity? Why not allow him to become important because of what he brings to the setting, rather than because he now occupies a position left behind by someone else?

I understand the appeal of reclaiming something that once caused you pain. I understand wanting to demonstrate that another person's treatment of you does not determine your worth or future. Those are entirely understandable motivations.

But I am not convinced that inheriting the role of the person associated with that mistreatment is necessarily the strongest way to express that idea.

And this is where my frustration with Professor Izar comes in.

As far as the material I have seen goes, I cannot recall a cutscene that truly establishes Professor Izar as an independently compelling character in his own right.
He may have the title, the position, and the visual presentation of a senior authority, but what does the narrative actually do with him? What does he contribute that is distinctly his? What decisions does he make that reveal a perspective, a set of priorities, or a personality that could not simply be transferred to another character?

I do not want to mistake a new title for character development.

I do not want to mistake a promotion for an arc.

And I certainly do not want to mistake the symbolic significance of replacing someone for the actual development of a character who deserves to stand on his own.

To be brutally honest, from what I have seen, Professor Izar sometimes feels less like a genuinely developed successor and more like Diamond with a different name.

He seems to reassure other personnel and serves as an emotional support figure.
That is not inherently a bad trait, and Jade's kindness can absolutely distinguish him from Diamond in certain contexts.
However, Diamond himself was also portrayed offering emotional reassurance and support to others, especially Artemis. So the act of comforting personnel, by itself, does not establish a meaningful distinction between the two.

The visual similarities make the issue even harder for me to ignore.
Professor Izar's current suit design appears remarkably similar to Diamond's design from the period after his supposedly incurable illness was cured and the more human side of Mercer returned.

Perhaps these similarities are intentional. Perhaps they are coincidental. Without knowing the development process, I cannot claim to know the reason behind them.

But the effect is still worth questioning.

If Jade is supposed to represent a new chapter, why does so much of his presentation remind me of the character he replaced? If he is meant to demonstrate independence, why does his characterization seem to rely so heavily on familiar elements of Diamond's identity?

A character cannot establish his independence simply by inheriting another character's position, visual language, and narrative functions.

He needs his own story.

He needs motivations that belong to him, conflicts that are not defined exclusively by his relationship to Karma, and qualities that are not merely borrowed from Diamond. He needs to make decisions that matter to the narrative and experience consequences that develop him as an individual.

Most importantly, he deserves to exist as more than a symbolic answer to someone else's mistreatment.

I do not want Jade's identity to be defined solely by the circumstances surrounding Karma's removal, either. However, I also do not think that giving him a new title and placing him in a prominent position automatically establishes him as an independently developed character.

Diamond has been retconned out of the lore following Karma's removal. As far as the current canon is concerned, Professor Izar and Diamond have no narrative connection, and I am not suggesting that Jade is officially replacing Diamond within the story itself.

My question is about the creative decision behind the transition.

Why was making Jade a professor the chosen way to establish his importance in the setting? What does this new position allow his character to explore, and how does it contribute to a distinct identity for him? More importantly, has the writing actually taken advantage of that opportunity?

Because despite the separation between the current canon and the retconned material, I still find myself noticing similarities in their characterization, narrative functions, and visual presentation. That does not mean the two characters are connected in the lore. It means that, from an audience perspective, the new character has not yet been distinguished from the older material as convincingly as I would have expected.

Jade does not need to remain defined by what happened to him, nor does he need to prove anything to Karma through his career. He deserves to be developed on his own merits, with a personality, motivations, conflicts, and narrative contributions that stand independently of the controversy that preceded his current role.

The issue is not that Professor Izar replaced Diamond in the canon. He did not. The issue is that, despite being a separate character in a separate continuity, Professor Izar still reminds me of a character whose narrative shortcomings I was already questioning.

If the intention was to give Jade a meaningful new role, I want to see that role produce meaningful character development. I want to understand who Professor Izar is beyond his title, what makes his approach to authority distinct, and what stories can be told through him that could not be told through another character.

Otherwise, the promotion risks feeling like a symbolic gesture without enough narrative substance to support it.

And if Professor Izar was intended to be a statement of independence, I think it is fair to ask whether the writing actually supports that statement.

Because from where I stand, the distinction between the two professors has not been made nearly as clear as it should be.

I do not know what Jade's actor wanted. I do not know what the lore team discussed privately. I do not know whether there is additional context that would change my interpretation. I am not going to pretend otherwise.

What I do know is what the material presented to the audience communicates to me, and I do not find the result particularly convincing.

The entire situation leaves me wondering whether the people responsible for the narrative considered what this transition would mean beyond the immediate symbolism of removing Karma and giving Jade his former position.

Was the goal to give Jade a future of his own, or was it to make him occupy the space Karma had left behind?

Was the intention to create a genuinely distinct character, or to preserve the familiar structure of the setting by replacing one professor with another?

And if the result is a character whose position, design, and narrative function repeatedly remind the audience of the person he supposedly replaced, then what exactly has changed?

I want to be clear: I am not blaming Jade for accepting the position, nor am I suggesting that he should have refused it to prove a point. I have no basis for judging his personal decision, especially without access to the full context.

My criticism is directed at the narrative choices and the people responsible for developing the setting.

A victim should be allowed to become anything they want to become. But the story should give them the opportunity to become something that is genuinely theirs.

Jade should not have to become another Diamond to prove that he can exist without Karma.

And Diamond's removal should not automatically make the character who takes his place a well-developed replacement.

· · ─ ·!· ─ · ·

That brings me back to my original frustration with this entire situation. The more I examine it, the less it feels like a coherent story about complex people and the more it feels like a collection of decisions whose symbolic intentions were never fully translated into convincing characterization.

Perhaps there is context I am missing. Perhaps the situation is more complicated than it appears from the outside.

But if the audience has to invent most of the missing reasoning to make the characters and their relationships feel coherent, then I think it is reasonable to question the writing itself.

At some point, I have to ask myself whether continuing to engage with this community and its narrative is even worth the frustration.

I can appreciate character designs, enjoy the setting's potential, and recognize that individual people within the community may have their own reasons for remaining involved. None of that obligates me to keep investing in a project that consistently leaves me feeling more frustrated than satisfied.

Honestly, the entire game and its surrounding community sometimes feel unhealthy to engage with.
Not because every person involved is necessarily bad, but because the combination of the creator-related controversy, A LOT OF other controversies involving with mods, staff, etc., inconsistent storytelling, and unresolved questions surrounding these characters has made it increasingly difficult for me to enjoy the material on its own terms.

While I enjoy creating characters that differ from their canon counterparts, I do not want to spend most of my time inventing better motivations, repairing broken character arcs, or imagining the stories the original writing failed to deliver.

I already have to do that with Diamond.

I should not have to do the same thing to understand why Professor Izar exists as he does.

At some point, a character's potential stops being a reason to keep defending the writing and becomes a reminder of what the writing failed to accomplish.

══════════════════════════════════════════

i dont even speak english as my native
i also quitted zone nadir too so um yea
i was just bored ok
also heres req form>> yea
thanks bye ヾ(๑^ ワ ^๑)و #haveagday