Lola Bunny's Denial: The Final Chapter?

[kamita721]

Originally Posted by Lola Bunny

Ok, finished the pinchy thing time. And by the by, this post violates the double post rule:

30 minutes with pinchy thing on left ankle
30 minutes with pinchy thing on right ankle
30 minutes with pinchy thing on left upper leg flesh
26 minutes with pinchy thing on left nipple
26 minutes with pinchy thing on left nipple

That's a lot of pinchy things all at once! *glares at Kamita*

I have given your punishment further thought and since you are clearly dissatisfied with it, I am just going to change it. The game should be fun after all, and I don't want to make it so it's not fun for you. Especially since I've come to consider you a friend. Apply that formula next time you add cusps and then you can be done.

Thanks, Bunny.

I was really looking forward that orgasm when my previous punishment expires in a few minutes; but I think I'll just give you 1 more ED*E instead.

BTW, I agree with you that the rule I added for adding tasks isn't fair when it come to ED*Es. How about we update that rule to say 'in order for ED*Es to count, the player must deny them self for at least 24 hours after the last ED*E; if the player is otherwise denied for that period, they do not need to increase their denial time.'?

I don't think this requires using another M*DIFY set, since the task of ED*Eing while in denial is different from ED*Eing when you are allowed to cum afterward.

Thoughts?

[Lola Bunny]

Originally Posted by kamita721

Thanks, Bunny.

I was really looking forward that orgasm when my previous punishment expires in a few minutes; but I think I'll just give you 1 more ED*E instead.

BTW, I agree with you that the rule I added for adding tasks isn't fair when it come to ED*Es. How about we update that rule to say 'in order for ED*Es to count, the player must deny them self for at least 24 hours after the last ED*E; if the player is otherwise denied for that period, they do not need to increase their denial time.'?

I don't think this requires using another M*DIFY set, since the task of ED*Eing while in denial is different from ED*Eing when you are allowed to cum afterward.

Thoughts?

Yay! I like it. We'll change it. Thanks for being willing to meet me halfway.

[Lola Bunny]

This post violates the double post rule.

I updated the blog with the change. Does it look ok to you the way I worded it, Kamita? https://www.getdare.com/bbs/blog.php?b=93218

[kamita721]

Originally Posted by Lola Bunny

This post violates the double post rule.

I updated the blog with the change. Does it look ok to you the way I worded it, Kamita? https://www.getdare.com/bbs/blog.php?b=93218

Minor wordsmithing:

"if you are not currently denied" -> "and you are not currently denied"

"during that denial period" -> "during that denial period".

Also, given we have the precedent that you can punish for mistakes, it feels like orgasming during the denial period also deserves a punishment; but I'll leave that change up to you.

[Lola Bunny]

Originally Posted by kamita721

Minor wordsmithing:

"if you are not currently denied" -> "and you are not currently denied"

"during that denial period" -> "during that denial period".

Also, given we have the precedent that you can punish for mistakes, it feels like orgasming during the denial period also deserves a punishment; but I'll leave that change up to you.

Made the change to the first wordsmithing, but I don't see what you want me to change on the second. They look identical to me. Help! As for an additional punishment... I would prefer to have something set so the consequences are clear. Giving out new punishments is exhausting when I'm not in the right head space for it. Let me think on it.

[kamita721]

Originally Posted by Lola Bunny

Made the change to the first wordsmithing, but I don't see what you want me to change on the second. They look identical to me. Help! As for an additional punishment... I would prefer to have something set so the consequences are clear. Giving out new punishments is exhausting when I'm not in the right head space for it. Let me think on it.

For the second one; I've been spending the past 2 weeks proofing a requirements specification for a ~7 company government contract; I might be a bit over zealous with my proofreading. The issue here is that a sub contractor for a sub contractor might not understand what this thread is about, and interperat that rule to not apply to the original ED*Es that first started the denial. In the context of this thread; probably not anything worth worrying about.

Regarding the punishment; I get that. I was trying to keep the thread fun, but I can see how that is also pushing more work onto you, which wasn't my intent. Beyond the obvious tasks you are doing for these threads, I can see that you are putting in a lot of admin effort to actually run them, and I wouldn't want to add too much to that.

[Lola Bunny]

Originally Posted by kamita721

For the second one; I've been spending the past 2 weeks proofing a requirements specification for a ~7 company government contract; I might be a bit over zealous with my proofreading. The issue here is that a sub contractor for a sub contractor might not understand what this thread is about, and interperat that rule to not apply to the original ED*Es that first started the denial. In the context of this thread; probably not anything worth worrying about.

Regarding the punishment; I get that. I was trying to keep the thread fun, but I can see how that is also pushing more work onto you, which wasn't my intent. Beyond the obvious tasks you are doing for these threads, I can see that you are putting in a lot of admin effort to actually run them, and I wouldn't want to add too much to that.

Ok. 2nd one didn't makes sense to be because your suggested verbiage change was identical to the verbiage you had an issue with. I've tried making it clearer. Let me know if that works better for you.