Sorry to disrupt things a little...
Kittie Rose
Wiki is in.
The main thing is that it's inexplicably biased towards certain fans,
and against Japanese naming schemes, etc. Mockery of typical fanboys
is allowed, but not the kind of fanboys that seem to make a living out
of mericlessly defending Hasbro and jeering other kinds of fanboy.
It's tiring. And my efforts to correct it resulted in a swift and
untimely ban from A.T.T. Veteran, It'sWalky.
The community as a whole is in a sorry state - it's very difficult to
complain about ANYTHING without being labeled a Geewunner, and I
believe this man and some other veterans from this list that were once
much more admirable people highly responsible.
Here is what David Willis has done to me, personally, lately:
1) Banned me for a week,without warning for trying to unbias the
fandom page.
2) Banned me permanently, for making pages about LOGICAL FALLACIES.
Having pages like DOOMED FOREVER regarding fandom arguments are
acceptable, but when I post more objective articles like "Appeal to
Novelty", that's wrong? Not only that, he lied about their content,
claiming I was using them to attack people. If those articles were
attacking people(which were descriptions of the fallacies and how they
apply to fandom arguments, I was even getting on to Appeal to
Tradition), then what he and others have entered in other pages. He
doesn't seem to care about being a hypocrite.
3) So, I took it to his forum. Sounds like a silly idea, but it's a
good place to show that he can't defend his actions without calling on
minions. So what he does is, lock the first topic, once again worming
his way out of defending any of his actions; then deletes any further
topics pointing out what he's done.
It's kind of funny, because I first joined that forum only lightly
criticising him, even saying well done on the comic, and all that. It
was his attitude in those conversations that drove me against him and
the other Wiigiis.
The man cannot deal with real criticism. He cannot deal with people
challenging his actions. You can check the deletion logs on the Wiki,
they correspond to the date my IP was banned. And he left one thread
on the whitelabelcomics forum which also outlined what he did; people
replied before he did, so he couldn't cover it up.
Yeah, I probably should of registered on the Wiki. But I was too
afraid of being banned, heh.
I know this sounds like a personal grudge, and it is to an extent. But
apart from that, this is someone who has a lot of influence and has
used it very unwisely. People lap up what he has to say, sharing his
same opinions raging at fanboys even where there are none. The
corruption on the TF Wiki should concern everyone.
I have a few friends who share my distaste in the community, you might
have seen them around, I think one of them was banned again recently,
heh. But it's about time that some of you really knock it off before
you drain every last drop of fun out of this community.
What I'm saying is, just don't respect people because they're old and
well, respected. And this kind of nonsense has to stop. The community
is hell for some of us right now(it's certainly very authoritarian),
and is probably empty for others even if they don't realise it yet.
Make up your own mind, don't be swallowed by hype or popular opinion,
and be fair on other people's opinions, even if they criticise yours,
as long as they don't try to force you to like or dislike something.
Dismissing arguments merely because purists often make similar ones
isn't fair, nor is exaggerating fan behavior for your web comic
anything more than a strawman.
What Walky didn't care to consider is that I also use a shared IP -
his rash actions(not mine, since I received no real warnings, I
couldn't have known it would lead to a ban, technically) affect a few
other people using the same shitty mobile ISP, some of which I know
are Transformers fans. Though at least now they know not to use such a
terribly corrupt Wiki.
Incidentally, it was my bitching that got the ball rolling on exposing
that ISP and got an ongoing radio slot investigation about them. So
please don't ever tell me to stop complaining. It does achieve things,
and it's not wrong to hate things or dislike people. Hate can be a
force for chance; your anger is a gift. This might just be a shitty
little fandom and not world peace, but that's all the more reason to
save it since it's actually possible to do so. If we loose the silly
little things in life, it ceases to be enjoyable. I feel that the
wiigiis do this a lot, saying how you can't hate this because of all
the work that went into it, etc. That kind of thing is part of the fun
of being a fan, actually being able to have an opinion, and they don't
understand that.
Peace and teacups,
~ KR
Chad Rushing
>
> But I want to bring to people's attention what a sorry state the TF
> Wiki is in.
>
That kind of controversy is why I won't touch web sites like TF Wiki
with a ten foot pool (although it is occasionally useful for some
reference material).
I know that a lot of people on the Internet consider Wikis to be the
"Bible" for franchises and their related fandom. However, if I were
to ever feel a compelling desire to dump a ton of info about
Transformers onto the web, I would probably do it on a personal web
site where I made the rules and did not have to kowtow to more
"senior" fans' opinions, especially when some of those more "senior"
fans have not been Transfans nearly as long as I have.
But, that's just me as I am pretty anti-authority when I do not think
the "authority" in question is neither necessary nor justified.
- Chad
Kittie Rose
Hah, you said it. That's pretty much the problem I have with the
people running it and you didn't have to read it fully. Good to see
other people have a problem with this seniority complex.
~KR
Chad Rushing
the "authority" in question is neither necessary nor justified.
- Chad
Autobus Prime
> But I want to bring to people's attention what a sorry state the TF
> Wiki is in.
KR:
That's cool. I want to bring to people's attention what a great
state the TF Wiki is in. I love it. The sense of humor can best
be described as "colossal stupidity for intelligent people." It's
a lot like the WWFFs, really.
This is not a thing we find on most Wikis, which attempt at
neutrality, generally fail at that, but succeed in blandness. It's
innovation, and it's gotten respect from outside the TF fandom.
First, let me say that the Japanese-character problem is indeed
one that bothers me, but it's not the name situation per se. The
white lion dude, listed as Leo Prime, is also named Lio Convoy
on his page, which IIRC also redirects there if typed. No real
problem. Where this can cause trouble is in a situation where
a Japanese character and US one, nominally the same guy due
to continuity, are greatly divergent in characterization, but since
the policy is to provide one page per character per continuity,
this can get messy. In general, the JTF info at T1 could stand
some improvement. I should get to it, though I'm not an expert.
Still, I love the TF Wiki's attitude for the same reason as people
hate it. It's irreverent. I believe reverence has a place, but not
there. People who take Transformers more seriously than I do
may disagree. I love Transformers, but Shakespeare they are
not. Heck, Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare, in that sense.
His plays were the sitcom of the day. :D
KR, I understand your position, but the tone of your post says
a lot. You need to relax and watch the confrontational tone, or
you'll never get the point across. The fact is, the Wiki really is
not written by David Willis or by Wiigii exclusively, but by a
group of people who have agreed, by small steps, to write
a "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Transformers". Come in there a
crusader ready to tear down the walls, and you'll get booted
right back. Come in, lurk, observe, and try to understand,
and your influence could be huge. Softly softly catchee
monkey.
Heck, I disagree with 75% of the things Willis comes up
with (and I have a theory that he doesn't actually believe
any of them, but likes to stir up commotion) but I managed
to write a big chunk of the stuff on Teletraan-1, including
some of the offending pages people like to attribute to
Willis.
Cordially yours:
Autobus Prime
w/minicon Farebox.
David Willis
> fandom page.
You rewrote a page to attack specific fans which you named outright.
> 2) Banned me permanently, for making pages about LOGICAL FALLACIES.
> Having pages like DOOMED FOREVER regarding fandom arguments are
> acceptable, but when I post more objective articles like "Appeal to
> Novelty", that's wrong?
Because at that point you were obviously not there to contribute, as you
hadn't actually added anything so far at all to the Wiki that wasn't, in
some form, an attack. There are snarky articles on the Wiki, to be sure,
but those are written by people who've, say, written actual articles about
Transformers and contributed overall. You have contributed nothing that
wasn't in relation to your beef with Walky The Evil Overlord.
(Your beef which, judging by the, what, 30 posts to my SP! forum last night,
marks you as that same guy who's been flaming me for longer than the wiki
has existed, so I find it hilarious that you've managed to dress up your
(really boring to everyone else in the world) affairs with me in such
martyred terms.)
Yes, you hate me and I do awful things. I don't think anybody cares.
--David
www.shortpacked.com
Thylacine 2000
> Here is what David Willis has done to me, personally, lately:
And that in about one sentence represents why you were banned in the
first place.
I can already hear you, and perhaps some others, saying AHA LOOK WALKY
SENT HIS FRIEND TO ATTACK HER. This is a card behind which many
liars, bigots, and trolls over the years have tried to hide--if more
than one person resents their posting style, it can be said to be part
of a CONSPIRACY. It's actually nearly as common for people to blame
the whole of ATT as a group, with all the P.C. sissies here who don't
appreciate a good race-flame or threatening to rape female posters or
posting gibberish while drunk. The possibility of actually offending
more than one person at a time is instantly discounted. This,
politely, is bullshit--a cowardly and grossly intellectually dishonest
trick used to try to protect oneself from ALL criticism from everybody
forever. Anyone who responds, after all, can simply be said to be
part of the conspiracy!
(To anyone else here who might have been about to agree with Rosalie
re: "certain of Walky's suckup friends defending him," I would ask you
to consider that she devoted about as much screenspace on the wiki to
bashing America and Americans too. If you're an American, your
perspective on this issue must be just as craven and dishonest as you
presume mine to be. Maybe the U.S. Secretary of State tells you what
to post here! .... if we're going to actually indulge in scarlet-
letter conspiracy wack-isms, that is.)
Anyway. Rosie, from the moment you first blundered onto the TF Wiki
you were all about the personal attacks. You didn't like certain
articles, therefore you had to piss on the people who wrote them or
who you wrongly assumed to have written them, or, failing that, their
countries of origin.
So focused were you on only going there to bash people and
nationalities that when you tried to fill up space between personal
attacks by discussing Transformers content, you couldn't do it,
instead producing self-contradictory rambles such as "Hasbro is
foolish because the scale of movie toys is way off, characters like
Brawl got a mere Deluxe but should have been much larger, though Brawl
is also getting a Leader toy but he's not important enough to deserve
it." That is not a real contribution. That is the brain resting in
Neutral before revving up for the next flame.
Perhaps if you had ever taken the ~15 seconds necessary to register a
username, folks there would have gotten the impression that you cared
about either the material or the forum. Instead, you were just making
hit-and-run personal attacks from behind a shifting cluster of
anonymous IP addresses. Both your material and the way you presented
it looked utterly thoughtless. Apparently you think you are entitled
to special favorable treatment that can never be influenced by your
actual behavior.
> Hate can be a
> force for chance; your anger is a gift. This might just be a shitty
> little fandom and not world peace, but that's all the more reason to
> save it since it's actually possible to do so. If we loose the silly
> little things in life, it ceases to be enjoyable. I feel that the
> wiigiis do this a lot, saying how you can't hate this because of all
> the work that went into it, etc. That kind of thing is part of the fun
> of being a fan
Wow, it's like Forrest Whittaker's "FIND YOUR VOICE INSIDE" commercial
as written by Fred Phelps.
If your bottomless bile is a "gift," then the fact that you have now
been banned from Allspark, 2005, and the wiki should make it clear to
you that it's a gift nobody wants. Of course, you may now well say
that all of the admins on those other sites are just part of the
CONSPIRACY that has ruined the fandom. Condoleezza Rice moves in
mysterious ways.
Zobovor
> But I want to bring to people's attention what a sorry state the TF
> Wiki is in.
I'm not a very big fan of the Transformers-specific Wikipedia. (The
Transformers entries on Wikipedia proper are a little better, but not
much.) I don't like the tone in which a lot of the articles are
written and I don't like the jabs it takes at other fans. Obviously a
Wikipedia is going to become whatever the community wants it to be,
and apparently there's a large enough subset of the fandom that wants
a Transformers online encyclopedia written with a sort of HUR HUR TEE
EFFS ARE STOOPUD approach. Personally, I would have gone with a more
fact-based, informative editorial voice, but it's not my project
(although they have "borrowed" several images from my web site, so I
guess I've contributed by proxy). I don't mean to denigrate anyone
who's contributed to the project, but while parts of it are vaguely
amusing, I consider it largely useless as a reference material.
> The community as a whole is in a sorry state - it's very difficult to
> complain about ANYTHING without being labeled a Geewunner
What's wrong with being a Geewunner? Me, I'm a big fan of G1 and
always will be. I should make a T-shirt that says "GEEWUNNER"
emblazoned on the front. I'd wear it proudly.
> I know this sounds like a personal grudge, and it is to an extent. But
> apart from that, this is someone who has a lot of influence and has
> used it very unwisely. People lap up what he has to say, sharing his
> same opinions raging at fanboys even where there are none. The
> corruption on the TF Wiki should concern everyone.
I really don't expect you to take this advice to heart, but my very
best suggestion on how to deal with this problem is as follows:
Let it go.
Really. Just bite your pride, swallow your tongue, and look the other
way. I've had more than my fair share of altercations with other
members of the fandom, and while it sure *seemed* important at the
time that I devote as much effort and time as possible to stating my
case/proving them wrong/winning the debate, I look back at the time
and effort I spent and ask myself how many of my numerous unfinished
fan projects I could have completed if I'd utilized that energy a
little more efficiently.
> So please don't ever tell me to stop complaining. It does achieve things,
> and it's not wrong to hate things or dislike people. Hate can be a
> force for chance; your anger is a gift.
Yes, it's true that a passionate, negative emotional stance can lead
to a resolution to take positive action. However, I invite you to
consider whether anyone or anything in this fandom really is worth
getting so upset about. Being a fan of Transformers is supposed to be
fun, so if your resentment of other fans is interfering with your
enjoyment of the hobby, perhaps it's worth exploring alternative
recreational pasttimes?
Zob
Kittie Rose
> > 1) Banned me for a week,without warning for trying to unbias the
> > fandom page.
>
The page was already there to "attack" fans of a different kind. Why
is one okay, and not the other? I stated in the discussion page that
my edit was somewhat tounge in cheek.
You are biased beyond belief. You are the source of many of the
attitudes I poked fun at, which is why you call it an "attack" and
don't give a crap about fans you don't like being attacked. You can
dish it out, but you can't take it.
>
> > 2) Banned me permanently, for making pages about LOGICAL FALLACIES.
> > Having pages like DOOMED FOREVER regarding fandom arguments are
> > acceptable, but when I post more objective articles like "Appeal to
> > Novelty", that's wrong?
>
> Because at that point you were obviously not there to contribute, as you
> hadn't actually added anything so far at all to the Wiki that wasn't, in
> some form, an attack. There are snarky articles on the Wiki, to be sure,
> but those are written by people who've, say, written actual articles about
> Transformers and contributed overall. You have contributed nothing that
> wasn't in relation to your beef with Walky The Evil Overlord.
Everything I was editing was, in some form, an attack, to begin with.
You cannot call my edits an attack
if you do not acknowledge what I was editting to be an attack. I was
trying to de-bias the page - I did not
remove the original "Walkyisms" on those pages.
What I was editing, were pages that were mocking Fanboy type A, the
moaner. I edited it to *also* mock Fanboy type B, the merciless
defender. How the hell is one an attack and not another? Because you
say so?
As far as I'm concerned this is one of the best contribution the Wiki
could have. A biased source is not an enjoyable source. I was unable
to get a single lasting effect on the Wiki in terms of debiasing it
outside of having the fandom page rewritten(which proves, at least,
that bitching can achieve something). Articles like "RUINED FOREVER"
can exist, yet I can't make articles, for example, documenting some
fan's obsession with pigeon holing everyone that doesn't like the
movie into G1 Purists.
This is the issue here. Your wiki is biased.
Your reasoning as to why I can't make these edits is bullshit, and
down to typical elitism. It is a form of Ad Hominem as it is bringing
irrelevant personal information to the table. Just because someone
contributes doesn't make them any more qualified to poke fun at the
fandom. You remind me of the right wing extremists that think that
people should have to "serve their country" in the army before they
deserve a vote, a say in public affairs.
Whether or not I was contributing does not alter the truth of what I
was adding to the Wiki. What I WAS doing with the Wiki could have been
seen as a contribution in of itself. This is yet another logical
fallacy, and it's certainly not a reason to ban someone. You're
grasping at straws.
I'd also like to point out that the *first* thing I did, was try to
debias the fandom page. If I had not met the sheer stupidity and
resistance to seeing both sides of the coin, I would have no doubt
have gone on to be a productive member in other means.
Look at it this way; why the hell would I want to be a chummy editor
with those kind of people? I wouldn't. So your point is moot - what I
edited on that form was dictated by what you and your friends were
editing on that forum.
It is down to both you and your fellow admins and editors that I did
nothing but push for de-bias on the fandom-related pages.
Even if someone is not being productive; engaging in such childish,
trigger happy behaviour is certainly not productive. NOTHING I did was
solely for the purpose of attacking people; it was to offer two sides
to the story in the community. Even with the logical fallacies, I was
going to do "both sides" personally.
> (Your beef which, judging by the, what, 30 posts to my SP! forum last night,
> marks you as that same guy who's been flaming me for longer than the wiki
> has existed, so I find it hilarious that you've managed to dress up your
> (really boring to everyone else in the world) affairs with me in such
> martyred terms.)
You are without a doubt one of the most arrogant and childish veterans
in this community by far. Though I throw around a lot of comments like
that, I wouldn't say it on this list, which I believe has some amount
of integrity, without really meaning it and having something to back
it up with.
Deleting articles, banning people, and deleting posts is not the way
to approach someone you disagree with, nor is lying about what they're
doing. It's not surprising that I'd choose you as a figurehead for
what is wrong with this community when half of the troublesome
attitudes come from your "humour".
You have never, as far as I can see, thrown a bone to your opposition.
I don't recall making that many pots. I made one posts, which you
couldn't delete and cover up since people replied to it. You refused,
there and then to back your actions, wiping it away with . You only do
it now because your reputation might suffer the slightest smear and
you can't use force, and perhaps not even mockery to achieve your
means.
>
> Yes, you hate me and I do awful things. I don't think anybody cares.
It's irrelevant whether anyone cares, and only someone very, very bad
at arguing would use that as a point in this kind of situation. It
doesn't make you any more right, and quite frankly, quite a few people
DO care.
I am quite sorry you have no moral conscience whatsoever, but what you
do on the Wiki, and on forums harms people's freedom of expression and
enjoyment whether they realise it or not.
I'm honestly wondering. Do you not realise that what you does really
makes the fandom hell for some of us? If you don't, then I apologise
at least partly for my actions, but you need to recognise it. You
don't seem to realise that a lot of the fun of being a fan is engaging
in the stereotypical practices you list, and you and some others like
you have made it so you get lambasted, just for being a fan. There is
nothing wrong with being an overzealous, overcritical fan. There is
plenty wrong with what you're doing.
I've yet to see you display any level of responsibility with the power
you have on the Wiki, your comic, or your forum. A classic case of
abused influence - you use your history in the community to give your
opinions more weight.
If you don't ban someone on your forum or wiki, it's only because you
think you'd do better mocking them or having your minions tear into
them first.
~KR
Data Cable
> I should make a T-shirt that says "GEEWUNNER"
> emblazoned on the front.
...and "TRUK NOT MUNKEY" on the back. ;p
--
DataCable^2007 A+ Remove NOSPAM when replying by e-mail
Kittie Rose
> On Aug 17, 11:48?pm, Kittie Rose <wetfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Here is what David Willis has done to me, personally, lately:
>
> And that in about one sentence represents why you were banned in the
> first place.
>
> re: "certain of Walky's suckup friends defending him," I would ask you
> to consider that she devoted about as much screenspace on the wiki to
> bashing America and Americans too. If you're an American, your
> perspective on this issue must be just as craven and dishonest as you
> presume mine to be. Maybe the U.S. Secretary of State tells you what
> to post here! .... if we're going to actually indulge in scarlet-
> letter conspiracy wack-isms, that is.)
My god, what a nutjob you are. And so vastly incompetent to debater
that you use a form of Appeal to Emotion I haven't seen in a long
time. UNAMERICAN. Guys, she's bashing AMERICA. Just in case you were
about to agree with her -SHE'S A TRRRRIST. That's right, a TRRRIST.
And how amazingly ironic is it that you make fun of conspiracy
theorists when your entire argument is practically one to begin with!
I argued on the Wiki because I HATE AMERICA.
Never mind the fact that I WASN'T bashing Americans, at least not all
americans. I have it in for many American values, certainly, but what
I was doing on the forum was quite the opposite - trying to diffuse
anti-Japanese
I would have a much better case calling the people wanting to keep
the Leo Prime article despite the character being named Lio convoy in
his native fiction "anti-japanese".
Do you even realise that you've just committed one of the worst forms
of logical fallacy ever? Does it not bother you that your argument is
so godawful? You're not helping me like the "American" point of view
that I supposedly hate so much.
Well; at least David Willis knows who sent that "Wear Red" chain
letter to the TF Fanclub mailing list now...
"Perhaps if you had ever taken the ~15 seconds necessary to register a
username, folks there would have gotten the impression that you cared
about either the material or the forum. Instead, you were just making
hit-and-run personal attacks from behind a shifting cluster of
anonymous IP addresses. Both your material and the way you presented
it looked utterly thoughtless. Apparently you think you are entitled
to special favorable treatment that can never be influenced by your
actual behavior. "
Believe me, I would have registered, but I honestly began to get very
quickly afraid of being banned. Plus, since most people knew who I was
anyway...
If it rotated, it wasn't me that was doing it. I believe I changed it
once after the Week ban, but I wasn't going around editting random
bits of the forum with random IPs as you claim. Maybe other people
were, shockingly, making anonymous edits too? I linked a couple of
other people to that URL, there was a couple of other guys with me I
believe.
I have absolutely no idea how the material I was adding was "utterly
thoughtless". There was a hell of a lot of a thought put into it, more
than what I was replying to - as that was just reflecting the
groupthink view of the fanbase, it was scrawling down things that had
been copied from Allspark posts. I had to really think to come up with
what I said, so I had an exact perspective on what it was I was making
fun of. I had no frame of reference to work from but my own
observations.
You're just bashing it baselessly since you don't agree with me or my
methods.
"Of course, you may now well say
that all of the admins on those other sites are just part of the
CONSPIRACY that has ruined the fandom. "
You are doing this throughout your whole post, and it's very bad
method.
What you're using is a tactic called "Appeal to Ridicule", yes,
another logical fallacy(see why I was doing this series on the TF
Wiki, now?) in which you, unable to construct a valid retort, try and
make your opponent or your opponent's argument seem ridiculous.
Conspiracy nuts are some thing that's seen as ridiculous, GEEWUNNERS
another. Because I point out to the fact that David Willis DID delete
and cover up my entries and posts, I'm a conspiracy nut? You know
that's not true. You're just hoping people even worse at arguing than
you are will.
I don't get the "gift nobody wants" comment. I was banned from those
forums for openly opposing the staff. Of course THEY don't want it.
Anger is a gift because anger is non-passive dis-satisfaction which
leads to change. It is better to be banned from those boards then to
have never opposed the staff, because I have principles, things I
believe in. You're just trying to come up with clever sounding
comments instead of anything that's rationally sound.
Your argument is objectively weak for constantly relying on such
tactics. I'm not going to respond to you unless you acknowledge the
common ground of debate is to recognise formal fallacies and to base
your arguments in logic instead of goads. Interestingly enough, being
aggressive isn't a fallacy, but calling someone's argument invalid for
being aggressive is(Style over Substance).
~ KR
Kittie Rose
can discuss Transformers, and it's too hard to attract people to a new
one(I've tried). If nobody gets worked up about it, then how can
anything hope to change? It will just get worse and worse. You can say
it's not worth doing anything about; but what are you doing here if
Transformers discussion is so meaningless? I fight these ridiculous
fights because I believe in some level of freedom of expression, among
other things.
~KR
Gustavo Wombat
> But I want to bring to people's attention what a sorry state the TF
> Wiki is in.
Meh.
Communities develop their own tone, and their own set of informal
rules which everyone abides by. And newcomers who misunderstand the
purpose, and don't get the tone, and violate the informal rules are
going to have problems. And the community can only be changed by those
respected within the community -- which newcomers invariably are not
(and rightly so, since they have not contributed to the building and
maintanance of the community).
A wiki is not just a reference work, it is also a community. You
cannot expect it to be entirely objective, nor rational.
And, online communities do police themselves, or they cannot survive.
Most of the private boards use banning, but even an open forum like
ATT that cannot ban people will drive out the truly disruptive -- if
you were to post something racist or bigoted, or a series of prolonged
direct attacks on others, you would likely find that all of your posts
after are met with hostility until you get bored and leave, get angry
and leave (those are always the most fun), or have been good long
enough that people begin to accept you again.
As near as I can tell, the purpose of the TF Wiki isn't to be the
exhaustive reference work for all things Transformers, but to be a
mildly amusing and moderately informative psuedo-reference work for
the poorly constructed and oft-times contradictory official fictions
of Transformers.
It's clearly not what you were looking for. But that's no reason to
scream from the hilltops about how horrible it is, and how they are so
horrible. Go create your own, or contribute to the more neutral toned
Wikipedia articles on Transformers.
So, in summary: Meh.
--Gustavo
Kittie Rose
be fun. With all the people telling me what to like and what to hate
mocking and assaulting me for my stance on things, then punishing me
when I react, it's not very fun for me at all.
~KR
Kittie Rose
> On Aug 17, 8:48 pm, Kittie Rose <wetfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But I want to bring to people's attention what a sorry state the TF
> > Wiki is in.
>
> Meh.
>
> Communities develop their own tone, and their own set of informal
> rules which everyone abides by. And newcomers who misunderstand the
> purpose, and don't get the tone, and violate the informal rules are
> going to have problems. And the community can only be changed by those
> respected within the community -- which newcomers invariably are not
> (and rightly so, since they have not contributed to the building and
> maintanance of the community).
This isn't something you should be describing in a positive or neutral
light. That's the fault of the community for becoming clique-like -
not the person for invading.
It is not "rightly" so at all. People contributing can be for any
number of selfish reasons as well as positive ones. People should be
respected for their strength of character and resolve more than what
pieces of info fell into their lap before other people's.
~KR
FortMax
You seem to have some terms mixed up. The TF Wiki is in no way
affiliated with Wikipedia, which is limited to the wikipedia.com
address. It is a wiki, which is simply any site that uses the Wiki
software.
Also, the term "GEEWUNNER" does not mean "G1 fan" or even "fan of only
G1". I think Andrusi at the 'Spark said it best
Hi. Pop quiz.
1) Are you sane?
2) Do you acknowledge the fact that other people are allowed to
like different
things than you?
3) Do you acknowledge that there may possibly be some slight value
in the
existence of aspects of Transformers that are not G1?
If you answered "yes" to all three questions--and either you did,
or you underwent
a spontaneous personality shift for the duration of the post I'm
quoting, because
certainly the person who wrote that post would answer all three of
them "yes"--then
I was not talking about you.
There are some real problem fans in Transformers fandom who
actually exist.
They insist that G1 was a literary masterpiece (not exaggerating!)
in which all
characters showed far more complexity than they ever actually did
(not exaggerating!)
which could definitely have been adapted perfectly into a movie
with no change
whatsoever because they drew a pretty drawing (not exaggerating!)
and that all
series since then have been utter garbage that nobody in their
right mind would
enjoy (not exaggerating!) and any true fan would agree (not
exaggerating!) while
any deviation from their vision of the One True Transformers is
raping their
childhood (not exaggerating!).
These are GEEWUNners.
I don't like them.
When I complain about GEEWUNners, I am complaining about these
people.
>Because that is what "GEEWUNners" means.
FortMax
Gustavo Wombat
> On Aug 18, 3:19 pm, "David Willis" <wii...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, you hate me and I do awful things. I don't think anybody cares.
>
> It's irrelevant whether anyone cares, and only someone very, very bad
> at arguing would use that as a point in this kind of situation. It
> doesn't make you any more right, and quite frankly, quite a few people
> DO care.
I should probably know better to do this, but what the hell -- can you
provide a list of people who do care, so we can contact them and
verify your claim that people care?
Better yet, could the people who do care stand up and be counted, by
replying to this message themselves?
--Gustavo
Kittie Rose
to go there.
I don't even mind some of the fan jokes.
The problem is when you completely over do the mockery, spreading it
into whatever article it even vaguely relates to, and then refuse any
mockery to the other side of the fanbase(or Hasbro). Especially when
this mockery is already quite vicious on boards like TFW2005 and all-
spark.
When that happens, it ceases to be irreverence, and becomes bullying.
Gustavo Wombat
> On Aug 18, 7:14 pm, Gustavo Wombat <GustavoWom...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 17, 8:48 pm, Kittie Rose <wetfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But I want to bring to people's attention what a sorry state the TF
> > > Wiki is in.
>
> > Meh.
>
> > Communities develop their own tone, and their own set of informal
> > rules which everyone abides by. And newcomers who misunderstand the
> > purpose, and don't get the tone, and violate the informal rules are
> > going to have problems. And the community can only be changed by those
> > respected within the community -- which newcomers invariably are not
> > (and rightly so, since they have not contributed to the building and
> > maintanance of the community).
>
> This isn't something you should be describing in a positive or neutral
> light. That's the fault of the community for becoming clique-like -
> not the person for invading.
It's the fault of the newcomer for not taking the time to understand
the community before attempting to change it. It's really pretty
straightforward: have some respect for the people who built the
community.
It's like taking a shit in someone's living room. Sure, coprophilia
might be an excellent pass-time, but you really ought to get a sense
of your hosts feelings on the matter before you take a dump on their
coffee table.
> It is not "rightly" so at all.
It's their community. They set the purpose, the tone, and the informal
rules by which that community operate. They have that right because
they built it.
If you want a community to thrive, the people contributing to it must
feel that they have a vested interest in it -- that, in effect, they
*own* the community. They then police the community and grow the
community.
When this doesn't happen, online communities invariably degenerate
into people pushing free iPod scams or webcam shows with hot Russian
women.
> People should be
> respected for their strength of character and resolve more than what
> pieces of info fell into their lap before other people's.
People should be respected for not pissing in the swimming pool.
I'm going to stick to "Meh".
I'm also going to suggest that you just stop your little campaign. ATT
is a moderately welcoming place, and if you contribute meaningfully
people will value you and your contributions. If you simply use it as
a place to rant about the hateful TF Wiki, then people will not value
you or your contributions, and you'll just get frustrated.
--Gustavo
Kittie Rose
if you don't like them.
I also know that the term has become ridiculously abused and almost
anyone who disagrees with the way the movie, or Animated(which I
personally love so far, but I actually give a shit for other people's
freedom of expression too, you know) does things.
Most of the things you describe are at best, fringe lunatics, and at
worst, do not exist. I don't know anyone who considers G1 a literary
masterpiece, though some of the G1 and G2 comics were certainly very
well written stories.
This is what I mean. You're exaggerating things because your case
against them is too weak without throwing in a strawman. You say
you're complaining about "These people", but I don't think they are
anywhere near common enough to be an annoyance, if they do exist. So
you're almost definitely making fun of being that are not that
extreme, and exaggerating their behaviour.
Either way, even the original Geewunners don't deserve to be torn into
in the way they do. And certainly not the people putting forward
rational arguments for preservation of aspects of the original
Transformers.
~ KR
Kittie Rose
> On Aug 18, 11:46 am, Kittie Rose <wetfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 7:14 pm, Gustavo Wombat <GustavoWom...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 17, 8:48 pm, Kittie Rose <wetfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > But I want to bring to people's attention what a sorry state the TF
> > > > Wiki is in.
>
> > > Meh.
>
> > > Communities develop their own tone, and their own set of informal
> > > rules which everyone abides by. And newcomers who misunderstand the
> > > purpose, and don't get the tone, and violate the informal rules are
> > > going to have problems. And the community can only be changed by those
> > > respected within the community -- which newcomers invariably are not
> > > (and rightly so, since they have not contributed to the building and
> > > maintanance of the community).
>
> > This isn't something you should be describing in a positive or neutral
> > light. That's the fault of the community for becoming clique-like -
> > not the person for invading.
>
> It's the fault of the newcomer for not taking the time to understand
> the community before attempting to change it. It's really pretty
> straightforward: have some respect for the people who built the
> community.
The people who "build" a community ARE the new people, at least at
some stage; a community is not made up of the admins, or even the
dominant clique. That's ridiculous. You are the one who is not
affording respect to new blood.
>
> It's like taking a shit in someone's living room.
No, it's not. And it was a very bad move making this comment - because
of the sheer illogic of it, and the fact that it's such a common
argument, it shows you are not critically thinking for yourself, but
regurgitating the values of the environment around you.
There are so many reasons why it's a terrible comparison, but the main
one and the only one that I should need to mention being that you live
in a house, it is your private place of being. A forum, whatever other
claims it has, is open to the general public. Anything after that is a
*technicality*.
A community is not comparable to a house. A community is a dynamic
system of individuals communicating. A house is where you live.
What you are STILL describing is a Clique. If that's what you want,
fine. But don't pretend like it's open to the public.
Sure, coprophilia
> might be an excellent pass-time, but you really ought to get a sense
> of your hosts feelings on the matter before you take a dump on their
> coffee table.
Feelings? You're kidding, right? What about my feelings? I have no
place to discuss my ideas in the way I want without being in danger of
being seriously flamed, or if I retort those flames, being banned. Not
to mention how absolutely frustrated I feel that the "official"(or
only major one, rather) Wiki for the fandom is dominated by such
offensive and irritating viewpoints.
If you gave a crap about "feelings" you'd look at this from a
Utilitarian perspective like I do.
>
> > It is not "rightly" so at all.
>
> It's their community. They set the purpose, the tone, and the informal
> rules by which that community operate. They have that right because
> they built it.
It doesn't work like that. What you are describing is setting up a
forum in a vacuum.
The idea of being able to set a purpose and tone for a community is
crazy. Honestly, I'm not sure how you can type that and not realise
how wrong that sounds. That's not what a community is. A community is
a gathering of people with something in common - location, or
interests. It should NOT be the authoritarian, Clique-ridden cess pit
you are describing.
I get that this is becoming a very Left Vs. Right thing, socially,
personal freedoms vs. "collective" freedoms(which are bullshit since
you can't have a collective without individuals - just like you can't
have a forum without members, same nonsense).
Not to mention, you're still not JUSTIFYING anything. You're not
saying WHY it's acceptable. "It's their board" does not excuse any
misuse of that board, or make their actions ethical. It is not a base
concept - justification has to be reasoned from the ground up, which
is what you're doing. "It's their board" is a complex concept that
needs to be defended and backed, it's no different from saying "The
Bible Says So".
>
> If you want a community to thrive, the people contributing to it must
> feel that they have a vested interest in it -- that, in effect, they
> *own* the community. They then police the community and grow the
> community.
You can't own a gathering of people. It's absurd. People certainly
proport to, but that doesn't make them correct.
>
> When this doesn't happen, online communities invariably degenerate
> into people pushing free iPod scams or webcam shows with hot Russian
> women.
... you're posting on ATT, an unmoderated list.
I just have to say; well done.
>
> > People should be
> > respected for their strength of character and resolve more than what
> > pieces of info fell into their lap before other people's.
>
> People should be respected for not pissing in the swimming pool.
That's vastly relative. Or rather, it's very hard to determine who it
is that's pissing
in the swimming pool. If a forum is corrupt to begin with like I
suggest - then that's
a mute point. I'm pouring water into a piss pot.
We shouldn't see giving a bad forum as something positive, but
something negative since it's bad. Discussion will always exist in
some form
or another.
I notice that you've pretty much ignored this point completely. I have
no doubt you
will never fully address it, since it it is the one point that defeats
your argument
that nobody really has a counter for.
>
> I'm going to stick to "Meh".
>
> I'm also going to suggest that you just stop your little campaign. ATT
> is a moderately welcoming place, and if you contribute meaningfully
> people will value you and your contributions. If you simply use it as
> a place to rant about the hateful TF Wiki, then people will not value
> you or your contributions, and you'll just get frustrated.
I've made several other posts beside this, and I have no respect for
your attitude
in these closing lines.
It is one of subtly trying to force apathy on others, and it irks me
no end.
>
> --Gustavo
Overall, I am just completely and utterly disgusted at this view of
the internet. I know your argument inside out - you are not explaining
anything new to me. I just despise it and find more logical holes in
it than a philosopher's swiss cheese. It is supported by tradition, by
the concepts that are engrained in our culture but never logically
defended.
It is not my view that causes boards to turn into asian hooker pits.
It is your view that causes them to turn into fascist, clique ridden
muppet holdings. That is the ultimate reason why I dislike your point
of view so much - even if mine isn't correct, technically(which I
obviously think it is), if more people had it, the internet would be a
much fairer place.
There is absolutely nothing to be gained by absolving Administrators
of any level of responsibility. You are ultimately either denying or
ignoring the fact that power, unchecked, gets corrupt. People online
do not tend to think for themselves, do not think critically, so will
flock to forums either way. It doesn't make those forums good.
Maybe you should consider for once what's best for the most people in
the best amounts instead of what upholds your culture's values. You're
putting concepts like "Private Property" before ones like
"Responsibility of Power".
~KR
Lukas Mariman
Well, I do, for one!
Not that it really matters. Are you seriously going to count votes now?
Really... How about some decent counter-arguments instead?
Kittie's arguments, for that matter, make a lot of sense. I read several of
the TF Wiki entries, BTW, and for a while it I thought it was some parody
site...
FortMax
One of the reasons you got banned from the wiki was you kept making
personal attacks in the actual articles. The only people named in the
RUINED FOREVER page were people who created official fiction, work for
hasbro or ran official conventions, and none of them were being
attacked by text in the article. THe closest thing to personal attacks
the articles are quotes unedited quotes from A.T.T, Pat Lee's page
(all the info is absolutly true and is taken from his websites), and a
mention of OTE's (aka Floro Dery) personal attacks about how people
who don't like his work are racist from a few years back on the
Allspark.
You got banned for personal attacks, gereral flaming, and more
personal attacks in response to being banned. Also, no matter where
you are, it's generally not a good idea to direct personal attacks at
the guy running the place. Do it at a store. At least you'll be asked
to leave. At most, you'll get taken off the property by security or
police.
Walky may be a jerk at times, but it's either in jest or to people who
actually deserve it.
Gustavo Wombat
There's a difference between "built" and "build". Newcomers haven't
built anything. They may eventually build something, but only if the
existing community lets them in, if they follow community standards
etc.
Community standards evolve over time, both as the existing members
evolve, and as new members come in.
But the idea that a newcomer is as valuable to a community as the rest
of the community, and that the rest of the community should change
their ways to accomodate each newcomer is absurd.
> That's ridiculous. You are the one who is not
> affording respect to new blood.
Respect is earned, not granted.
The newcomer, by virtue of not having been there, has not earned
respect.
> > Sure, coprophilia
> > might be an excellent pass-time, but you really ought to get a sense
> > of your hosts feelings on the matter before you take a dump on their
> > coffee table.
>
> Feelings? You're kidding, right? What about my feelings?
The pre-existing community does not exist for the benefit of your
feelings.
> I have no
> place to discuss my ideas in the way I want without being in danger of
> being seriously flamed, or if I retort those flames, being banned. Not
> to mention how absolutely frustrated I feel that the "official"(or
> only major one, rather) Wiki for the fandom is dominated by such
> offensive and irritating viewpoints.
Start you own. If yours is better, people will flock to it. If yours
is equally good but from a different perspective, it will still
succeed.
> > > It is not "rightly" so at all.
>
> > It's their community. They set the purpose, the tone, and the informal
> > rules by which that community operate. They have that right because
> > they built it.
>
> It doesn't work like that. What you are describing is setting up a
> forum in a vacuum.
>
> The idea of being able to set a purpose and tone for a community is
> crazy.
All communities have a purpose. A wiki especially so (build repository
of stuff). There isn't going to be a charter in all likelihood --
although there might be -- but the purpose is generally understood on
an instictive level by the members.
Some communities are about building something collaboratively. Some
are about idle chatter among three friends about what coffee shops
have the hottest Baristas and Baristadors.
Very often, the purpose is subtle, and members may not be fully aware
of it, they may not be able to express it, but they know it anyway.
> That's not what a community is. A community is
> a gathering of people with something in common - location, or
> interests.
And clearly, you do not have as much in common with the TF Wiki
community as you thought you did. You are interested in Transformers,
but it's very clear you are interested in Transformers in a different
way than they are.
> It should NOT be the authoritarian, Clique-ridden cess pit
> you are describing.
Why shouldn't some communities be authoritarian, clique-ridden cess
pits?
That's not a totally fecitous statement. There's no shortage of online
communities on virtually any subject, don't you want the authoritarian
cliques to be hanging out in cess pits far away from you? Won't that
make the other communities healthier?
> Not to mention, you're still not JUSTIFYING anything. You're not
> saying WHY it's acceptable.
You haven't justified why it's unacceptable.
Your basic claim has been "They banned me, so they are horrible" --
well, why shouldn't they ban you?
> > If you want a community to thrive, the people contributing to it must
> > feel that they have a vested interest in it -- that, in effect, they
> > *own* the community. They then police the community and grow the
> > community.
>
> You can't own a gathering of people. It's absurd. People certainly
> proport to, but that doesn't make them correct.
Read carefully. "feel that they have a vested interest in it -- that,
in effect, they *own* the community". The key word here is feel.
And a community is much more than a gathering of people. A gathering
of people is called "a mob". A gathering of angry people is called an
"an angry mob". And, a gathering of angry people with pitchforks and
torches is called "an angry mob with pitchforks and torches"
A community is a group of people and the relationships among those
people, along with a purpose and a history.
> > When this doesn't happen, online communities invariably degenerate
> > into people pushing free iPod scams or webcam shows with hot Russian
> > women.
>
> ... you're posting on ATT, an unmoderated list.
The spammers have mostly given up on usenet, and ATT remains roughly
on-topic mostly because the community has been effective at driving
away the trouble makers even without the tools of banning.
Your point?
> If a forum is corrupt to begin with like I
> suggest - then that's
> a mute point. I'm pouring water into a piss pot.
Who are you, as the newcomer, to determine if the community is somehow
"corrupt"?
> We shouldn't see giving a bad forum as something positive, but
> something negative since it's bad. Discussion will always exist in
> some form
> or another.
>
> I notice that you've pretty much ignored this point completely. I have
> no doubt you will never fully address it, since it it is the one point that defeats
> your argument
> that nobody really has a counter for.
There's really not much of a point there.
Of course discussion will exist. The fact that the TF Wiki wants
nothing to do with you does not stop you from discussing transformers,
it stops you from discussing transformers *with them*.
> > I'm going to stick to "Meh".
Standing by "Meh".
> > I'm also going to suggest that you just stop your little campaign. ATT
> > is a moderately welcoming place, and if you contribute meaningfully
> > people will value you and your contributions. If you simply use it as
> > a place to rant about the hateful TF Wiki, then people will not value
> > you or your contributions, and you'll just get frustrated.
>
> I've made several other posts beside this, and I have no respect for
> your attitude in these closing lines.
And this is probably why you were banned from that little Transformers
wiki. You have no respect for an attitude of "Don't piss in our
swimming pool".
You have some silly notion that you should be treated like an equal to
an entire community, rather than to any old member of that community
(and even that I would question, because the people who built the
community are more important than those interlopers who drop in and
want everything done their way)
> It is one of subtly trying to force apathy on others, and it irks me
> no end.
But, perhaps I was too subtle, since you clearly didn't get what I was
trying to say. ATT is here to discuss Transformers, not the horrible
trials and tribulations of Kittie Rose and the deep indignities he or
she has recieved at the hands of the evil clique at the Transformers
wiki. Take your dispute with them somewhere else.
> Maybe you should consider for once what's best for the most people in
> the best amounts instead of what upholds your culture's values. You're
> putting concepts like "Private Property" before ones like
> "Responsibility of Power".
No, that's entirely wrong. I put the concept of "Right To Speak" below
the concept of "Right To Not Listen". A community decided not to
listen to you. You can blame the admins all you like, but if they were
overreaching, then members would flee and their community would die.
If you don't like their Transformers Wiki, create your own, it's not
so hard. Rally a bunch of like-minded people together and start
writing. And, when people like them start doing things to it, you'll
have to figure out how to handle them, and then all your pie in the
sky ideals of freedom and equality for all in this vast new
information age will come crashing down.
Build your own. The barrier to entry is basically nil.
Will it thrive, will it falter, will it stand side by side with
http://transformers.wikia.com/ -- who knows? But there is no reason
not to have multiple sites collecting information on the same topic
from different standpoints.
--Gustavo
Kittie Rose
As I said, Willis lied about the content of the Logical Fallacy pages,
but I don't think that's what you mean. Again, if my edits were
personal attacks, then so were the articles before I editted them -
not only were they in a purposely nonsensical tone, I said as much in
the discussion page directly after editting them.
Personal attacks aren't always wrong either - sometimes people deserve
to be criticised. Attacking people isn't always wrong, calling
someone's argument out just because they make them is - as I said,
style over substance. It's a logical fallacy. Some people honestly do
deserve to be attacked - but only if they have gone after others
without due cause. Why should I say nothing to people I see as causing
immense amounts of damage? I don't believe in being so very fake as
some communities are.
So there really is no excuse for this nonsense.
Whether the people he's a jerk to deserve it or not is probably not
best decided by him, or by you, for that matter. I do not think the
people he's a jerk to deserve it in the slightest, since true G1
purists and the people depicted in his comic are extremely rare these
days - given the frequency of his comic making fun of these people,
it's obvious he's extending this mockery to other people. I know for a
fact because he did the same to me when I argued on his forum, about
the plastics TF toys use, and their cost. He pulled the same rubbish
he did in his comic *purely* for the argument he made. Check out the
Shortpacked whitelabelcomic forums, and username Drael's first posts.
Not to mention, you're still defending what was initially a one week
ban without warning, and then a perm ban just for adding articles on
logical fallacies. I cannot take you seriously if you are defending
these notions. It seems blatant to me you are defending the current
institution instead of keeping an open mind, which is the same reason
why I'll never get anywhere with my "Admins should be responsible"
argument.
~KR
Thunder Fantastic!
> Hah, you said it. That's pretty much the problem I have with the
> people running it and you didn't have to read it fully. Good to see
> other people have a problem with this seniority complex.
I both understand and agree with where you're coming from here. There
are certain fans with "God" complex in our community (and likely others
as well). I don't know Walky personally but I have seen and experienced
this seniority complex myself (I've been a fan since 1986! Few can beat
that--and even if they have been fans since '84 proper, so what? Two
years make little difference since the fandom wasn't even organized
until the early to mid-90s).
I think it boils down to some fans feeling big because some consider
them TF "experts" and when reality comes along, they can't deal with it
because that's all they really have.
t.k.
Kittie Rose
> built anything. They may eventually build something, but only if the
> existing community lets them in, if they follow community standards
> etc.
If they follow community standards. So in other words you are
encouraging social conformity.
>
> Community standards evolve over time, both as the existing members
> evolve, and as new members come in.
>
> But the idea that a newcomer is as valuable to a community as the rest
> of the community, and that the rest of the community should change
> their ways to accomodate each newcomer is absurd.
But that goes both ways - you can't assign a newcomer a value until
they've had a chance to settle in. You're twisting this idea to fit
your own idealogy, much the same as the people who think it's okay to
attack G1 Purists but not people who push the idea that the movie is
perfect.
Not to mention that this is whole line of argument is a red herring
since the new comer may be entirely right to do what they're doing.
What you're saying doesn't disprove that.
>
> > That's ridiculous. You are the one who is not
> > affording respect to new blood.
>
> Respect is earned, not granted.
See, this is what gets me. You act like the admins and clique of the
TF Wiki are somehow bastions of social responsibility and wisdom, when
they're blatantly not.
People do not always give the correct respect to the respect people.
You are saying I should have to be at the mercy of people who very
often don't know what the fuck they're talking about when it comes to
the nature of a community.
No, no, no, no. Horrible reasoning.
Some basic amount of respect should be afforded to everyone. *Extra*
respect is what is earned, not granted.
Spitting out cliches as points won't particularly earn you any points
in a real debate, either.
>
> The newcomer, by virtue of not having been there, has not earned
> respect.
But the people offering the respect are highly suspect, purely from
the position that humans are herd like in nature and not always nice
to the right people.
>
> > > Sure, coprophilia
> > > might be an excellent pass-time, but you really ought to get a sense
> > > of your hosts feelings on the matter before you take a dump on their
> > > coffee table.
>
> > Feelings? You're kidding, right? What about my feelings?
>
> The pre-existing community does not exist for the benefit of your
> feelings.
Oh, but it does exist for the feelings of the admins?
Come on. Don't be a hypocrite.
>
> > I have no
> > place to discuss my ideas in the way I want without being in danger of
> > being seriously flamed, or if I retort those flames, being banned. Not
> > to mention how absolutely frustrated I feel that the "official"(or
> > only major one, rather) Wiki for the fandom is dominated by such
> > offensive and irritating viewpoints.
>
> Start you own. If yours is better, people will flock to it. If yours
> is equally good but from a different perspective, it will still
> succeed.
>
No, it won't. I'm sorry, but you have the most impossibly simple mind
when it comes to social reasoning.
I tried to set up my own forum, and it didn't work. If it does not
succeed, that does not mean it's bad. This is the same as when people
say "Oh look haters, Transformers made ONE BILLION DOLLARS how can it
be a bad movie?"
Popularity does not equate to being "Better". The fact that you even
bring this up as a point, urgh...
People will stick to what they know. Big explosions was always going
to do better than some arthouse flick. The same applies here - people
will stick with the authoritarianism they know. They're not going to
give some crazy chick a chance.
You're throwing out some of the most fundamental pillars of psychology
and sociology just to make your points.
This is, again, very bad debating.
> > > > It is not "rightly" so at all.
>
> > > It's their community. They set the purpose, the tone, and the informal
> > > rules by which that community operate. They have that right because
> > > they built it.
>
> > It doesn't work like that. What you are describing is setting up a
> > forum in a vacuum.
>
> > The idea of being able to set a purpose and tone for a community is
> > crazy.
>
> All communities have a purpose. A wiki especially so (build repository
> of stuff). There isn't going to be a charter in all likelihood --
> although there might be -- but the purpose is generally understood on
> an instictive level by the members.
The Wiki in itself is not a community - rather a community grows upon
it. The purpose of the Wiki is that - the community has no purpose but
to be a community. It should not have a purpose or tone other than
people sharing a common location or interests - which in this case, is
the Wiki itself. The fact that the Wiki is used to host this
"community" as such, is peripheral to the argument.
>
> Some communities are about building something collaboratively. Some
> are about idle chatter among three friends about what coffee shops
> have the hottest Baristas and Baristadors.
>
They're not "about" anything. They just happen to end up being
different to one another. Not to mention I don't think very highly of
most online communities anyway, at least in terms of messageboards.
> Very often, the purpose is subtle, and members may not be fully aware
> of it, they may not be able to express it, but they know it anyway.
>
> > That's not what a community is. A community is
> > a gathering of people with something in common - location, or
> > interests.
>
> And clearly, you do not have as much in common with the TF Wiki
> community as you thought you did. You are interested in Transformers,
> but it's very clear you are interested in Transformers in a different
> way than they are.
Ah, see now, this is where I want people to pay attention.
I hate to pull the "Opinion" card, but i believe it really does apply
here.
I should have been banned from the Wiki, partly because I have a
different opinion about Transformers than they do.
Honestly, if you keep making comments like this, I'm really just going
to tell you to get fucked.
>
> > It should NOT be the authoritarian, Clique-ridden cess pit
> > you are describing.
>
> Why shouldn't some communities be authoritarian, clique-ridden cess
> pits?
It's not a case of some. It's a case of most, at least in the case of
Transformers. If it was just some, it'd still be a problem as they'd
manufacture drones and morons, but at least it wouldn't be a big
issue.
>
> That's not a totally fecitous statement. There's no shortage of online
> communities on virtually any subject, don't you want the authoritarian
> cliques to be hanging out in cess pits far away from you? Won't that
> make the other communities healthier?
Actually, there are only a limited amount of Transformers forums, for
example. Most things do not have a great number of *active* forums. I
don't give a crap about a forum with "Last post: 2 Weeks ago" in it's
Chitter Chatter forum.
Transformers has: TFW2005, Seibertron, Allspark, TFFans and Bottalk.
I hate all those boards, they all have the same problems(except for
Bottalk, which is retarded for very different reasons though I still
drop in from time to time). I have to stick to boards like BWTF and
TFArchive. This isn't fair. I don't have an ACTIVE Transformers forum
available to me, with all the benefits that entails. For instance, I
can never have a thread on my fancomics like Shane Anderson has on
TFW2005.
This is something that the major forums are taking away from me. They
are not giving me anything. They are taking away from me because of
the fact that they exist in the place of much better forums. It is
insanely difficult to convince people, even haters and detractors or a
forum, to get behind a new one. #
I have not been successful, nor has anyone else.
It's not going to happen.
So what you're talking about sounds great on paper, but it's not
practical. If you continue to refuse to acknowledge this, I will cease
to debate with you.
Most boards around the same subject tend to have the same type of
moderation, even if communities claim to be seperate they still take
clues from other boards.
Memes aren't limited to Longcat and All Your Base - they include
things that change the way people think. The authoritarian tone of the
internet, post 2001, could be considered a kind of meme. It's part of,
in my opinion, the conservative backlash we've seen after the
progressive 90s.
>
> > Not to mention, you're still not JUSTIFYING anything. You're not
> > saying WHY it's acceptable.
>
> You haven't justified why it's unacceptable.
Oh, so we should just go around banning people until people give us
reason not to?
Come on. You've really sunk to a new low now.
> Read carefully. "feel that they have a vested interest in it -- that,
> in effect, they *own* the community". The key word here is feel.
>
> And a community is much more than a gathering of people. A gathering
> of people is called "a mob". A gathering of angry people is called an
> "an angry mob". And, a gathering of angry people with pitchforks and
> torches is called "an angry mob with pitchforks and torches"
>
> A community is a group of people and the relationships among those
> people, along with a purpose and a history.
A community does not need a purpose. Again, if there are, say, no
Transformers board, and I set one up, with the "Purpose" of "Discuss
Transformers", it's likely it would be a success without any
competition. I would not be setting a true purpose, just defining the
common interest for the community.
Once you set a purpose, a function, it becomes artificial. It is no
longer a community in the proper sense, it becomes a function in of
itself.
>
> > > When this doesn't happen, online communities invariably degenerate
> > > into people pushing free iPod scams or webcam shows with hot Russian
> > > women.
>
> > ... you're posting on ATT, an unmoderated list.
>
> The spammers have mostly given up on usenet, and ATT remains roughly
> on-topic mostly because the community has been effective at driving
> away the trouble makers even without the tools of banning.
>
> Your point?
My point is that I'm riling against corrupt administration, and you're
supposedly defending them.
Yet you still think this unmoderated list is appropriate. This list is
proof that it can work.
It's irritatingly ironic.
If there are more effective methods than banning - then people like
David Willis should employ them. I myself ran a forum, and used
alternate techniques. I never banned anyone permanently, and only ever
banned someone once. And for the duration that the forum was intended
to be there for, it worked. Because I talked to people, reasoned with
people, and thought of intelligent ways of dealing with people when
they couldn't be reasoned with, I ran a successful forum. That was
quite some time ago, though.
I would like to point out that not ONCE did any of the admins of
Allspark, TFW2005, EVER try to reason with me. Appeal to Force is
another logical fallacy - therefore by definition it is the opposite
of reason. Reasoning is appealing to someone's senses.
Banning someone without reasoning with them is inexcusable. You should
not ban if you have not tried any alternative.
>
> > If a forum is corrupt to begin with like I
> > suggest - then that's
> > a mute point. I'm pouring water into a piss pot.
>
> Who are you, as the newcomer, to determine if the community is somehow
> "corrupt"?
Your reasoning is entirely flawed. It makes no difference if I am a
new comer. You should not have to ask who I am.
This is pure Ad Hominem.
All that matters is the merit of my argument.
They are corrupt, because as I say, they ban people before attempting
to reason with them. Heck, another slightly tetchy friend of mine,
Spark Light, was banned from Seibertron recently, permanently, for
poking light fun at Ryan's sexuality over the "He is coming"
thing(which turned out to be fucking with the community, anyway). No
warnings, nothing. Nobody asking what the context of the comment
was(it was pretty blatantly innocent to anyone who wasn't looking for
reasons to ban someone).
*I* was banned from Seibertron for telling Fortress Maximus or some
other mod that the movie may not be aimed at his 7 year old daughter.
He was all "What you sayin' bout my daughter!?" then I was gone for
about a month. When I came back, I called out the staff publically on
their conduct, and got permanently banned for it. If you're confident
that your decisions are just, you shouldn't need to do this.
This kind of rubbish should be unacceptable. People shouldn't stand
for it. But they don't care since they're conditioned to believe these
people are Bad and Wrong and Justice is being served.
>
> > We shouldn't see giving a bad forum as something positive, but
> > something negative since it's bad. Discussion will always exist in
> > some form
> > or another.
>
> > I notice that you've pretty much ignored this point completely. I have
> > no doubt you will never fully address it, since it it is the one point that defeats
> > your argument
> > that nobody really has a counter for.
>
> There's really not much of a point there.
>
> Of course discussion will exist. The fact that the TF Wiki wants
> nothing to do with you does not stop you from discussing transformers,
> it stops you from discussing transformers *with them*.
My point is that while I cannot set up a successful TF now, if the
owners of the major boards had to pack up for some reason, then
there's a good chance a much better forum would be set up in the
place. The fact that their forums are standing in way means they're
doing something negative, not positive just because they own a forum.
Someone will always make a board if there is none.
>
> > > I'm going to stick to "Meh".
>
> Standing by "Meh".
>
> > > I'm also going to suggest that you just stop your little campaign. ATT
> > > is a moderately welcoming place, and if you contribute meaningfully
> > > people will value you and your contributions. If you simply use it as
> > > a place to rant about the hateful TF Wiki, then people will not value
> > > you or your contributions, and you'll just get frustrated.
>
> > I've made several other posts beside this, and I have no respect for
> > your attitude in these closing lines.
>
> And this is probably why you were banned from that little Transformers
> wiki. You have no respect for an attitude of "Don't piss in our
> swimming pool".
You already used that one, and I cleverly turned it around.
I don't have respect for rules for rules' sake, no. I believe in
changing things. You believe in social conformity and other such
ethically questionable concepts.
>
> You have some silly notion that you should be treated like an equal to
> an entire community, rather than to any old member of that community
> (and even that I would question, because the people who built the
> community are more important than those interlopers who drop in and
> want everything done their way)
You have the silly notion that people should be disrespected just for
being new. You're the definition of an elitist.
>
> > It is one of subtly trying to force apathy on others, and it irks me
> > no end.
>
> But, perhaps I was too subtle, since you clearly didn't get what I was
> trying to say. ATT is here to discuss Transformers, not the horrible
> trials and tribulations of Kittie Rose and the deep indignities he or
> she has recieved at the hands of the evil clique at the Transformers
> wiki. Take your dispute with them somewhere else.
Hey - look! What's that? A big shiny blue link!?
If you don't want to discuss this - then you can go away. That's the
beauty of the internet - as long as someone isn't causing some kind of
genuinely community wide upset like, say, making it unacceptable to
complain about the movie or Hasbro's plastic choices, then you can
ignore their posts.
Obviously, you are very interested in reading the trials and
tribulations of Kittie Rose. Or else you wouldn't be here.
You can walk away. I would honestly rather if you did. There are quite
enough bad debaters in this thread as it is(I count at least 3, Walky,
Conspiracy Nut, and you).
>
> > Maybe you should consider for once what's best for the most people in
> > the best amounts instead of what upholds your culture's values. You're
> > putting concepts like "Private Property" before ones like
> > "Responsibility of Power".
>
> No, that's entirely wrong. I put the concept of "Right To Speak" below
> the concept of "Right To Not Listen". A community decided not to
> listen to you. You can blame the admins all you like, but if they were
> overreaching, then members would flee and their community would die.
>
So in otherwords common ignorance and apathy is more important than
freedom of expression.
Great. More social conformity from your corner.
In case you haven't guessed, I do not believe that a Right To Not
Listen is even a right in this case, at all. People won't listen
because their "culture" and it's commanders tell them not to. All
you're doing is defending that, which is ultimately why it's more
social conformity.
And why aren't you flexing your right not to listen? You can go away
you know. If you don't like what I have to say, you can go.
> If you don't like their Transformers Wiki, create your own, it's not
> so hard.
It is. People won't go to a Wiki when one already exists. They don't
care if it's crap. It's comfortable because they know it. Not to
mention there's no reason to - it would be much nicer and easier if
this Wiki just removed the stick from it's ass. Whatever you say about
what they can do legally - it would still be the ethical thing to do.
People are not the intelligent, mature beings capable of critical
thinking you cast them as.
If they were, we wouldn't be having this argument.
Rally a bunch of like-minded people together and start
> writing. And, when people like them start doing things to it, you'll
> have to figure out how to handle them, and then all your pie in the
> sky ideals of freedom and equality for all in this vast new
> information age will come crashing down.
>
Funny, because I did run a forum before that's as you're describing
and it didn't. It only lasted a little over a year but that's mainly
because we all moved on to different things and got sick of the
community that board was part of - it had served it's purpose, a last
blast of sanity in a dying community.
So, as far as I'm concerned, I have objective proof that you're wrong.
But no doubt if I show it to you, you'll nitpick it anyway? I don't
get the feeling truth is going to convince you.
The problem is that in the current state of the Transformers
community, I could not create a new forum. People better than me have
tried, and it hasn't worked. If what you're saying is so easy, why do
all the current forums seem to date back over a year?
Why, with the legions of new fans coming in with Classics, the movie,
and news of Animated, has there not been several new boards set up and
been successful?
If you're right, it would have happened. As it happens, you cling to
what's possible in paper.
> Build your own. The barrier to entry is basically nil.
>
> Will it thrive, will it falter, will it stand side by side withhttp://transformers.wikia.com/-- who knows? But there is no reason
> not to have multiple sites collecting information on the same topic
> from different standpoints.
>
> --Gustavo
Please stop trying to sound philosophical and intellectual. You've
made so many crimes against both psychology and logic in your posts
that it's just a little insulting.
Of course, I'm not going to push this as a point, since that would be
style over substance. But it's still irritating when people do it.
~KR
Kittie Rose
I'm no good at it? I certainly don't have the skills, currently, to do
so. Someone else would have to do it.
Your argument reeks too much of lessee faire Capitalism for it to sit
at all well at me. Not everyone has the skills or resources to set up
a business, or to work their way to the top in a given society, the
same applies to a forum.
I just want to know why some of you seem to make a living out making
Stan Lee cry.
With Great Power, Comes the Ability to Ban People For Disagreeing With
You And Not Being A Complete Doormat About It.
Having the dedication and ability to make a forum or Wiki is a power
in itself - and people should be responsible with it. Some people
really work hard at working hard, but don't get there. So the people
that CAN do these things should realise that, and be responsible with
their technical knowledge and ability.
~KR
Thunder Fantastic!
> (To anyone else here who might have been about to agree with Rosalie
> re: "certain of Walky's suckup friends defending him," I would ask you
> to consider that she devoted about as much screenspace on the wiki to
> bashing America and Americans too.
Holy shit! Ban the bitch! ;)
t.k.
(thanks! I needed a good laugh)
Zobovor
>You can say it's not worth doing anything about; but what are you doing
>here if Transformers discussion is so meaningless?
It's not the Transformers discussion I find meaningless, but the
*frustration* you're experiencing over the Transformers discussion. I
know how frustrating Walky can be, and while coming here to vent your
frustrations may be cathartic, it won't make him change.
>I fight these ridiculous fights because I believe in some level of freedom
>of expression, among other things.
I sympathize with your ideals, but you're fighting a losing battle.
If what you truly desire is freedom of expression, I strongly urge you
to erect a web site over which only you possess editorial control,
rather than wasting your time expressing yourself through a
collaborative site that can be edited by any mook with five minutes
and a keyboard.
Zob
Kittie Rose
I think by the use of my real name, this guy has a grudge against me
from another board, unless I used Rosalie on one of the big ones. Just
trying to think which one. But, he specifically said the Wiki. It's
funny how people can find Unamericanness in anything these days.
"You prefer Japanese Transformers to American Transformers, and have a
problem with me forcing western naming schemes on Japanese characters.
You must be unamerican."
"You don't read my book, which is about America. Therefore, you must
be Unamerican."
"You have never been to Idaho. Idaho is a state in America. Therefore,
you are unamerican."
"You like Mark Millar more than Brian Michael Bendis. Bendis is an
American author. Therefore, you are unamerican."
"You eat jam instead of peanut butter and jelly. Peanut butter and
jelly is a typical american treat. Therefore, you are unamerican."
"This toilet seat was used by Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is no longer
the president of America, therefore this toilet seat is Unamerican."
"Your hair is purple. Americans don't express themselves outside of
the norm. You are unamerican."
"This coffee is black. Most Americans are white, therefore this Coffee
is Unamerican."
"The Statue of Liberty is French. Therefore, it is unamerican. Liberty
must also be unamerican, since it gets in the way of business."
Kittie Rose
I really don't think I'm achieving nothing. In my short time on the
Wiki I had the fandom article changed and I believe I sped up the
process of getting the Lioconvoy article.
It's better to fight a losing battle than the lose by not fighting it
at all.
~KR
Kittie Rose
get stressed out. I do genuinely get stressed out in these arguments
to the point of being ill in some cases and these exams are pretty
important in terms of deciding my life, so if I back out pretty soon
it's not because I can't hold my corner(as long as I can't be banned,
I can :) ), but I really can't afford to fail these. I hope to
interact with some of you in a better life but I'm never going to
change my opinion on admin responsibility or stop pointing it out
completely.
~KR
Onslaught Six
> (snip)
God dammit. I told you to take your medicine.
FortMax
Actually, it got moved because the BW preview pages call him "Lio
Convoy". It was at "Leo Prime" at the time because it was his only
name in anything released in English-speaking markets. If the comic
had him as "Leo Prime", it would still be at the Prime page.
Onslaught Six
> And, online communities do police themselves, or they cannot survive.
> Most of the private boards use banning, but even an open forum like
> ATT that cannot ban people will drive out the truly disruptive -- if
> you were to post something racist or bigoted, or a series of prolonged
> direct attacks on others, you would likely find that all of your posts
> after are met with hostility until you get bored and leave, get angry
> and leave (those are always the most fun), or have been good long
> enough that people begin to accept you again.
Or people get tired of arguing with you, and just ignore you. Like Rob
Cypher.
Thing is, a lot of times I think a spammy troll poster (like Cypher)
is mostly annoying and driven out not so much because the community is
sick of their spam, but rather because of some kinda fear that someone
from 'outside' the group might see it and get the impression that's
what the whole forum is about. Maybe not, but it's a running theory.
Onslaught Six
> Please link me to these personal attacks, back up what you're saying.
I was going to direct quote stuff from the time you posted it on BWTF,
but some stuff I remembered was missing. So I went into the archives
of the page to get it.
"The Anti-Fans are a group of insecure 20-30 something year olds who
believe taking a more pessimistic, corporate worshipining position
somehow makes you more mature. They operate on the larger boards,
especially TFW2005 and Allspark which have very strict moderation; so
they can get away with being very annoying without anyone attacking
them or pointing out they're full of rubbish. They seem to make a
living off mocking gripes of the fandom, because like, come on, what's
more immature than collecting children's toys and complaining about
them? Probably complainining incessantly about fans. But that's not
the point!
The most famous Anti-Fans include It'sWalky, author of the Islamic
Fundamentalist comic strip Shortpacked, Khan, and Ben Stiller. "
If that's not a fucking attack, I don't know what is.
And furthermore I'm just getting sick of this whole thing.
Thunder Fantastic!
> I think by the use of my real name, this guy has a grudge against me
> from another board, unless I used Rosalie on one of the big ones. Just
> trying to think which one. But, he specifically said the Wiki. It's
> funny how people can find Unamericanness in anything these days.
And I think that's a pretty stupid reason to try get people to go
against you in an argument. At least some people posted actual counter
arguments--but to just say "she bashed American and Americans too" is
pretty weak.
t.k.
Thylacine 2000
> *lists of alleged logical fallacies that sound mighty impressive until one notices
> that the crucial point--the accusation of long-term unprovoked personal attacks
> against people--was totally unanswered*
Rosie, you are a total fraud.
How do I know? Simple: I called your bluff two weeks ago. You had a
chance to reveal what you REALLY wanted to talk about: Transformers,
or your hatred of Transformers fans. And I'll say this much for you--
at least you were honest.
On the wiki's page about Hasbro, you wrote the aforementioned wacky
crap about "Brawl is too small and too big at the same time and either
way Hasbro sucks!" On August 7th I deleted it and replaced it with an
example of what intellectually honest criticism of a Hasbro business
decision looked like (the '86 movie hurting the brand), complete with
cited media sources and everything. And then I invited you--you
specifically--to try to rework your old material in a more logical,
less wacky flame-y fashion.
And you didn't. You didn't even try.
Instead, you ran off to another page where you could enjoy flaming
people and nationalities for another week, ignoring one warning after
another, until you finally got what you deserved.
And that is why I call "shenanigans" on your entire aggrieved-fan-
fighting-for-truth act. When asked directly to contribute factual
material in context, you freeze up, fail, and run back to flame
another day.
> I was banned from those forums for openly opposing the staff. .
You were banned for saying that the people who didn't hate the movie
designs were not just "idiots" but also were "in denial" of how
objectively bad the designs were and lying in their pretense of liking
them.
What a pity that the big bad admins of the TF wiki had to separate you
from your latest chosen targets. Like every con artist, you're great
at playing the victim. I think you only turn your computer on so you
can find new people to attack. If you really do give a shit about
Transformers as anything beyond an idiom in which you can flame
people, you've never given reason to believe it, and I for one am past
caring. You may now declare victory--you've already done far worse.
Willow Ufgood
I agree with much of what you said.
Instead of reversing the TF Wiki's annoying snark on itself, why not
just make edits that remove it entirely?
Sometimes I will remove petty snark and replace it with an actually
funny (and non-partisan) witticism. No one usually seems to mind that.
Not related to the TF Wiki, but someone needs to fix the real
Wikipedia's Leo Prime entry back to Lio Convoy.
Kittie Rose
The fact that Khan and Ben Stiller are anti-fans, and shortpacked is
an "Islamic Fundamentalist" comic strip doesn't make you think maybe,
just MAYBE, that was meant to be pretty much in jest? Just because I
have a vendetta against the Wiigii's tactics doesn't mean I have to be
serious about everything I said about them.
Not to mention, that doesn't explain the other articles, at all.
If you're sick of the whole thing, then fuck off back to BWTF and
ignore what I say there too. Nobody is forcing you to comment, and
you're just making my life more awkward.
And there's no way in hell my comments on the Anti-Fans in general are
any worse than the "normal" fan jipes which are all over the damn
wiki. If you think you're sick of "all this" - then think how I feel
about you coming here. I can't ignore you joining in on the ganging up
against my argument. Arguments should be won by logic, not numbers,
and you're making that more awkward now since you're not offering
anything to the argument. You CAN ignore this thread if you care about
it as little as you claim. Don't be so damn selfish.
~KR
Kittie Rose
> On Aug 18, 2:04?pm, Kittie Rose <wetfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > *lists of alleged logical fallacies that sound mighty impressive until one notices
> > that the crucial point--the accusation of long-term unprovoked personal attacks
> > against people--was totally unanswered*
Great, so now you're making fun of the use of logic. You have no place
in a debate.
>
> Rosie, you are a total fraud.
>
> How do I know? Simple: I called your bluff two weeks ago. You had a
> chance to reveal what you REALLY wanted to talk about: Transformers,
> or your hatred of Transformers fans. And I'll say this much for you--
> at least you were honest.
False Dichotomy. Of course I want to talk about Transformers - but
that's part of my reason for being so rallied against the people that
make it difficult for me.
I'm just sick of you now. You're viciously twisting everything and I
shouldn't even be listening to you after those "Unamerican" comments.
Maybe you're a decent guy elsewhere, but here, in this argument,
you're a joke and people should recognise it.
>
> On the wiki's page about Hasbro, you wrote the aforementioned wacky
> crap about "Brawl is too small and too big at the same time and either
> way Hasbro sucks!"
No, I was pointing out the questionability of making an obscure
character Leader class when other figures needed larger size classes.
This is an important issue as the movie toys are is are quite out of
scale. Blackout or Starscream who are more prominent would have made
more sense. If you disagree with it, then you can edit it. You don't
have to hold it against me. Honestly, this has to be the most
ridiculous reason for a grudge, ever.
Stop turning everything into a Strawman.
On August 7th I deleted it and replaced it with an
> example of what intellectually honest criticism of a Hasbro business
> decision looked like (the '86 movie hurting the brand), complete with
> cited media sources and everything. And then I invited you--you
> specifically--to try to rework your old material in a more logical,
> less wacky flame-y fashion.
>
> And you didn't. You didn't even try.
Maybe because I was 1) Banned, 2) Busy elsewhere?
Your way of assessing someone's character is the most dumbshit I've
ever heard of. Because I didn't return to article that i probably
forgot I even edited at that stage, I'm the communities biggest troll?
I know you have "Other" reasons for believing that, but using this as
a reason at all is absolutely stupid.
>
> Instead, you ran off to another page where you could enjoy flaming
> people and nationalities for another week, ignoring one warning after
> another, until you finally got what you deserved.
What the hell is your obsession with me flaming nationalities? It
doesn't help your case, at all.
>
> And that is why I call "shenanigans" on your entire aggrieved-fan-
> fighting-for-truth act.
Unfortunately, you've demonstrated yourself to be quite delusional so
it doesn't matter. Nothing you've said logically follows. I don't
enjoy flaming people. I believe in things very strongly and I fight
for him. And you write that off as me somehow being dishonest about my
motives.
As far as I'm concerned, that's fucking low.
Maybe, just MAYBE, I am telling the truth, since you have absolutely
no concrete evidence to the contrary? Do you know anything about what
real trolls are like?
You are the one launching the ridiculous conspiracy theories. Not me.
> When asked directly to contribute factual
> material in context, you freeze up, fail, and run back to flame
> another day.
So this is based off ONE encounter on the Wiki I editted and forgot
about. My main purpose on the Wiki was to try and get rid of the bias
- I don't deny that. Since other people had already been working from
the "Inside" I didn't think that would work. But at least my
"troublesome antics" DID get the Fandom page changed. I achieved
something, no matter what you say.
If there was any justice, you'd have no credibility at this stage.
>
> > I was banned from those forums for openly opposing the staff. .
>
> You were banned for saying that the people who didn't hate the movie
> designs were not just "idiots" but also were "in denial" of how
> objectively bad the designs were and lying in their pretense of liking
> them.
No, I didn't. And quite frankly, how fucking dare you even call that a
problem given that most boards are filled with people pushing pro-
movie opinions on those who don't want them. Why do you not care about
this? Why do you only care about my invented antics?
You are turning everything into a strawman. What I said was that many
people WERE in denial of how much they liked the movie, because of the
fact that Hollywood hyped everything up. I pointed out objective flaws
in the movie from a standing point of being a Transformers movie. I
never said anyone was an idiot for genuinely liking it.
This is what I hate. You turn all my positions in everything into
shit. It's funny that you complained about P.C. earlier when you're
pushing the form of P.C. that is actually dangerous - stopping people
from criticising others' taste and opinions.
>
> http://www.allspark.com/forums/index.php?act=Search&nav=au&CODE=show&...
>
> What a pity that the big bad admins of the TF wiki had to separate you
> from your latest chosen targets. Like every con artist, you're great
> at playing the victim.
You have absolutely no proof I'm a con artist.
> I think you only turn your computer on so you
> can find new people to attack.
Which you have no evidence to back. These are incredible claims.
> If you really do give a shit about
> Transformers as anything beyond an idiom in which you can flame
> people, you've never given reason to believe it
What, the fact that I write a Transformers based webcomic -
http://www.drunkduck.com/Still_Life/ (on which by the way, I
demonstrate clearly I can deal with opposing opinion; just not
immensely stupid ones), have Transformers related fanart here -
http://wetflameg.deviantart.com/ , have a Starscream Youtube series -
http://www.youtube.com/kittierose, and ANOTHER fancomic I never got to
finish(since I broke my Titanium Rodimus toy) -
http://www.truthandbeautybombs.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=10227&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0.
Why the hell would I bother to have so many Transformers toys, and
draw pictures of Transformers, and come up with stories of them if I
only cared about flaming people? Not only that - these could even be
seen as *contributions* of some kind or another, since I worked at
them, and could easily have worked on something that would have been
more fun for me but less so for Transformers fans.
Pretty elaborate con, isn't it? Or maybe, just maybe, the right
wing(forgive me if you're not, but you display all the same ridiculous
exaggerations, and you're the one that brought politics into this) nut
job is once more full of shit.
You are wrong. You made an invalid judgement call. Please accept this
and drop it.
, and I for one am past
> caring. You may now declare victory--you've already done far worse.
Oooooh. Scary. I eat children and do dirty things in the bathroom with
old hairy men called Harold. I am a whore and a witch, after all. And
a terrorist.
Thanks for the laughs,
~KR
Kittie Rose
Jesus Freak. I've been typoing far too much lately.
Gustavo Wombat
> > There's a difference between "built" and "build". Newcomers haven't
> > built anything. They may eventually build something, but only if the
> > existing community lets them in, if they follow community standards
> > etc.
>
> If they follow community standards. So in other words you are
> encouraging social conformity.
Yes.
A community can only survive with a common set of values and goals.
If you're too far from the mainstream in one community, find or create
another.
> > Community standards evolve over time, both as the existing members
> > evolve, and as new members come in.
>
> > But the idea that a newcomer is as valuable to a community as the rest
> > of the community, and that the rest of the community should change
> > their ways to accomodate each newcomer is absurd.
>
> Not to mention that this is whole line of argument is a red herring
> since the new comer may be entirely right to do what they're doing.
> What you're saying doesn't disprove that.
But, right is measured by community standards. If the newcomer is
right, then there is no problem at all, since they fit into the
community standards.
> > > That's ridiculous. You are the one who is not
> > > affording respect to new blood.
>
> > Respect is earned, not granted.
>
> See, this is what gets me. You act like the admins and clique of the
> TF Wiki are somehow bastions of social responsibility and wisdom, when
> they're blatantly not.
No, I act as if someone who comes into a community with the express
purpose of changing everything is selfish, inconsiderate, and wrong.
> Some basic amount of respect should be afforded to everyone. *Extra*
> respect is what is earned, not granted.
I've met people. They're not so good on average.
> Spitting out cliches as points won't particularly earn you any points
> in a real debate, either.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
> > The newcomer, by virtue of not having been there, has not earned
> > respect.
>
> But the people offering the respect are highly suspect, purely from
> the position that humans are herd like in nature and not always nice
> to the right people.
If you don't respect the members of a community you want to join, then
why do you want to join it? To change it?
> > > > Sure, coprophilia
> > > > might be an excellent pass-time, but you really ought to get a sense
> > > > of your hosts feelings on the matter before you take a dump on their
> > > > coffee table.
>
> > > Feelings? You're kidding, right? What about my feelings?
>
> > The pre-existing community does not exist for the benefit of your
> > feelings.
>
> Oh, but it does exist for the feelings of the admins?
>
> Come on. Don't be a hypocrite.
You don't really know the meaning of that word, do you?
> > > I have no
> > > place to discuss my ideas in the way I want without being in danger of
> > > being seriously flamed, or if I retort those flames, being banned. Not
> > > to mention how absolutely frustrated I feel that the "official"(or
> > > only major one, rather) Wiki for the fandom is dominated by such
> > > offensive and irritating viewpoints.
>
> > Start you own. If yours is better, people will flock to it. If yours
> > is equally good but from a different perspective, it will still
> > succeed.
>
> No, it won't. I'm sorry, but you have the most impossibly simple mind
> when it comes to social reasoning.
Oh, bullshit. The folks that started the Teletraan-1 Wikia really
aren't that bright so it's certainly doable if there is a need. And, a
less flippant and more informative wiki might be a good idea.
> People will stick to what they know. Big explosions was always going
> to do better than some arthouse flick. The same applies here - people
> will stick with the authoritarianism they know. They're not going to
> give some crazy chick a chance.
Perhaps if you weren't crazy, that would help.
> You're throwing out some of the most fundamental pillars of psychology
> and sociology just to make your points.
>
> This is, again, very bad debating.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
> Not to mention I don't think very highly of
> most online communities anyway, at least in terms of messageboards.
Perhaps if you were able to muster a bit more respect for them, you
would have more success in them.
> > > That's not what a community is. A community is
> > > a gathering of people with something in common - location, or
> > > interests.
>
> > And clearly, you do not have as much in common with the TF Wiki
> > community as you thought you did. You are interested in Transformers,
> > but it's very clear you are interested in Transformers in a different
> > way than they are.
>
> Ah, see now, this is where I want people to pay attention.
>
> I hate to pull the "Opinion" card, but i believe it really does apply
> here.
>
> I should have been banned from the Wiki, partly because I have a
> different opinion about Transformers than they do.
No, you should have been banned because you had no respect for the
people who had already put in a lot of effort, and were immediately
trying to make it into something else entirely.
> Honestly, if you keep making comments like this, I'm really just going
> to tell you to get fucked.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
> > > It should NOT be the authoritarian, Clique-ridden cess pit
> > > you are describing.
>
> > Why shouldn't some communities be authoritarian, clique-ridden cess
> > pits?
>
> It's not a case of some. It's a case of most, at least in the case of
> Transformers. If it was just some, it'd still be a problem as they'd
> manufacture drones and morons, but at least it wouldn't be a big
> issue.
Then build your own. This really isn't rocket science. You have
proclaimed that there is a need, then do something about it.
> Actually, there are only a limited amount of Transformers forums, for
> example. Most things do not have a great number of *active* forums. I
> don't give a crap about a forum with "Last post: 2 Weeks ago" in it's
> Chitter Chatter forum.
>
> Transformers has: TFW2005, Seibertron, Allspark, TFFans and Bottalk.
>
> I hate all those boards, they all have the same problems(except for
> Bottalk, which is retarded for very different reasons though I still
> drop in from time to time).
Perhaps the problem isn't with them, perhaps it is with you.
> I have to stick to boards like BWTF and
> TFArchive. This isn't fair. I don't have an ACTIVE Transformers forum
> available to me, with all the benefits that entails.
It is perfectly fair.
Just because people don't want to play with you, doesn't mean that you
can force them to play with you.
Learn to play well with others.
To use an analogy:
- You want to play soccer (contribute to something informative)
- You see some people playing football (The Teletraan-1 Wikia folks
here, building something snarky)
- You join in
- You start kicking the ball down the field
- They get rid of you.
- You get angry.
Who was wrong in this case? Them for trying to play football, or you
for trying to force them to play soccer?
> This is something that the major forums are taking away from me. They
> are not giving me anything. They are taking away from me because of
> the fact that they exist in the place of much better forums.
Me, me, me, me.
You don't respect what others are doing. Just because you don't like
what they are doing doesn't mean that they shouldn't be doing it.
> It is
> insanely difficult to convince people, even haters and detractors or a
> forum, to get behind a new one.
There are lots of people who think that the Teletraan-1 Wikia that you
are complaining about is trite, uninformative, and basically useless.
Wikipedia is not the right spot for such an exhaustive collection of
information about a toyline and a set of fictional storylines. Imagine
editing the entry on the real Detroit to include the information about
the new Transformers series taking place there, the odd political
structures, etc. Completely the wrong spot.
So, there is a decent case to be made for a more informative
Transformers wiki.
So, you rally support, you start building. You and your little clique
also contribute to other forums (which does mean learning to play well
with others), and quietly plug your new wiki in your signature line.
If you are a respected member of those communities, people will check
it out, and if it has enough information, start using it, and then
start contributing. This is pretty much what the Teletraan-1 Wikia
people did, and some of the people who went there said "well, this is
trite, uninformative and useless" and never returned. The new TF wiki
would have a very low bar to meet, it would have to be not trite,
uninformative or useless.
> I have not been successful, nor has anyone else.
>
> It's not going to happen.
If this is true, then there is no need for another community, which
would mean that you, and you alone, are not served by the existing
Transformers communities.
> So what you're talking about sounds great on paper, but it's not
> practical. If you continue to refuse to acknowledge this, I will cease
> to debate with you.
> Most boards around the same subject tend to have the same type of
> moderation, even if communities claim to be seperate they still take
> clues from other boards.
People copy what works because they are lazy.
Don't be lazy.
> Memes aren't limited to Longcat and All Your Base - they include
> things that change the way people think. The authoritarian tone of the
> internet, post 2001, could be considered a kind of meme. It's part of,
> in my opinion, the conservative backlash we've seen after the
> progressive 90s.
Oh, bullshit.
It has more to do with the increased availability of internet access,
and the large number of immature idiots who come online each month.
Controlling idiots and minimizing the damage that they do requires
controls in some cases.
> > > Not to mention, you're still not JUSTIFYING anything. You're not
> > > saying WHY it's acceptable.
>
> > You haven't justified why it's unacceptable.
>
> Oh, so we should just go around banning people until people give us
> reason not to?
First, I clearly meant it in a more general case. Why should a
community not determine it's own membership?
Second, you clearly gave them plenty of reason.
> > Read carefully. "feel that they have a vested interest in it -- that,
> > in effect, they *own* the community". The key word here is feel.
>
> > And a community is much more than a gathering of people. A gathering
> > of people is called "a mob". A gathering of angry people is called an
> > "an angry mob". And, a gathering of angry people with pitchforks and
> > torches is called "an angry mob with pitchforks and torches"
>
> > A community is a group of people and the relationships among those
> > people, along with a purpose and a history.
>
> A community does not need a purpose.
Sure it does.
> Again, if there are, say, no
> Transformers board, and I set one up, with the "Purpose" of "Discuss
> Transformers", it's likely it would be a success without any
> competition. I would not be setting a true purpose, just defining the
> common interest for the community.
No, that is setting a purpose. And, if the community drifts from the
purpose, to also begin discussing My Little Pony, the original purpose
would be diluted and membership would significantly change. It will no
longer be the same community.
> > Your point?
>
> My point is that I'm riling against corrupt administration, and you're
> supposedly defending them.
You don't really know what the word "corrupt" means do you? You seem
to be defining it as "opposed to Kittie Rose", which is not actually
what it means.
> Yet you still think this unmoderated list is appropriate. This list is
> proof that it can work.
Just because an unmoderated list can work does not mean that all
communities should be unmoderated. This is basic logic -- just because
some birds are black does not mean that all birds should be black.
In addition to that logical error, you also assume that ATT is exactly
the same as the other forums, and that what works here would therefore
work there. ATT pretty much operates below the radar these days. Most
of the yahoos and idiots end up on the web-based forums with their
flashy colors and silly avatars. Spammers have passed over Usenet, for
the most part, because there just isn't the traffic to make it worth
their while.
There have been times when ATT wasn't functioning as a community, but
AllSpark and such have been a shit-sink, taking away lots of the shit.
> It's irritatingly ironic.
You, along with Alanis Morisette, do not know the meaning of "ironic".
It turns out it is not ironic when it rains on your wedding day. It
is, however, ironic that no one knows the meaning of "ironic".
> If there are more effective methods than banning - then people like
> David Willis should employ them.
There are two assumptions there:
1. That an open forum has methods more effective than banning
2. That a specific person should employ the most effective methods
> Banning someone without reasoning with them is inexcusable. You should
> not ban if you have not tried any alternative.
Some people are disruptive enough they should just be dumped
immediately, and put the burden of the former member to appeal the
decision.
> > > If a forum is corrupt to begin with like I
> > > suggest - then that's
> > > a mute point. I'm pouring water into a piss pot.
>
> > Who are you, as the newcomer, to determine if the community is somehow
> > "corrupt"?
>
> Your reasoning is entirely flawed. It makes no difference if I am a
> new comer. You should not have to ask who I am.
If you don't know the community, it's unofficial bylaws and purpose,
you cannot determine if the community is healthy or not (I refuse to
use your idiotic meaning of corrupt).
Just because you cannot accept that reasoning does not mean it is
flawed.
> This is pure Ad Hominem.
>
> All that matters is the merit of my argument.
No, actually that's not true.
What matters is whether your inclusion makes the community stronger or
weaker.
> They are corrupt, because as I say, they ban people before attempting
> to reason with them.
That is not "corrupt". That is short-tempered or quick-to-action.
[snip: Stories of random bannings]
> This kind of rubbish should be unacceptable. People shouldn't stand
> for it. But they don't care since they're conditioned to believe these
> people are Bad and Wrong and Justice is being served.
And, if enough people have been banned from enough forums, there's a
whole bunch of people looking for a community that will serve their
needs. Built that community.
> > > We shouldn't see giving a bad forum as something positive, but
> > > something negative since it's bad. Discussion will always exist in
> > > some form
> > > or another.
>
> > > I notice that you've pretty much ignored this point completely. I have
> > > no doubt you will never fully address it, since it it is the one point that defeats
> > > your argument
> > > that nobody really has a counter for.
>
> > There's really not much of a point there.
>
> > Of course discussion will exist. The fact that the TF Wiki wants
> > nothing to do with you does not stop you from discussing transformers,
> > it stops you from discussing transformers *with them*.
>
> My point is that while I cannot set up a successful TF now, if the
> owners of the major boards had to pack up for some reason, then
> there's a good chance a much better forum would be set up in the
> place. The fact that their forums are standing in way means they're
> doing something negative, not positive just because they own a forum.
>
> Someone will always make a board if there is none.
If the existing forums were to vanish overnight, there would be no
incentive for the replacement forums to be any better than the current
ones are. You need the existing crappy forums to give a reason for the
next round to be better.
The fact that there aren't new forums being created and thriving
suggests that Transformers fans are being well served by the existing
options. Whether or not *you* personally can set up another forum, if
there were a need, it would be set up.
Or, is your thesis that the people who are not being served by the
current options entirely a subset of the people who cannot set up
forums?
> > > > I'm going to stick to "Meh".
>
> > Standing by "Meh".
Still very firmly on "Meh".
> > > > I'm also going to suggest that you just stop your little campaign. ATT
> > > > is a moderately welcoming place, and if you contribute meaningfully
> > > > people will value you and your contributions. If you simply use it as
> > > > a place to rant about the hateful TF Wiki, then people will not value
> > > > you or your contributions, and you'll just get frustrated.
>
> > > I've made several other posts beside this, and I have no respect for
> > > your attitude in these closing lines.
>
> > And this is probably why you were banned from that little Transformers
> > wiki. You have no respect for an attitude of "Don't piss in our
> > swimming pool".
>
> You already used that one, and I cleverly turned it around.
No, you stated that you could not distinguish between water and pee.
If you cannot tell whether community would rather play in piss or
water, you have no business being in that community.
> I don't have respect for rules for rules' sake, no. I believe in
> changing things. You believe in social conformity and other such
> ethically questionable concepts.
You don't play well with others, and then you wonder why they don't
want to play with you.
> > You have some silly notion that you should be treated like an equal to
> > an entire community, rather than to any old member of that community
> > (and even that I would question, because the people who built the
> > community are more important than those interlopers who drop in and
> > want everything done their way)
>
> You have the silly notion that people should be disrespected just for
> being new. You're the definition of an elitist.
There is a difference between disrespect, and not respecting. The
former assigns a value of less than zero, while the latter assigns a
value of 0.
> > > It is one of subtly trying to force apathy on others, and it irks me
> > > no end.
>
> > But, perhaps I was too subtle, since you clearly didn't get what I was
> > trying to say. ATT is here to discuss Transformers, not the horrible
> > trials and tribulations of Kittie Rose and the deep indignities he or
> > she has recieved at the hands of the evil clique at the Transformers
> > wiki. Take your dispute with them somewhere else.
>
> Hey - look! What's that? A big shiny blue link!?
>
> If you don't want to discuss this - then you can go away.
Ah, but my hobby is to gently provoke people to get a hysterical
response. I do this because I am a horrible person.
>
> > > Maybe you should consider for once what's best for the most people in
> > > the best amounts instead of what upholds your culture's values. You're
> > > putting concepts like "Private Property" before ones like
> > > "Responsibility of Power".
>
> > No, that's entirely wrong. I put the concept of "Right To Speak" below
> > the concept of "Right To Not Listen". A community decided not to
> > listen to you. You can blame the admins all you like, but if they were
> > overreaching, then members would flee and their community would die.
>
> So in otherwords common ignorance and apathy is more important than
> freedom of expression.
>
> Great. More social conformity from your corner.
>
> In case you haven't guessed, I do not believe that a Right To Not
> Listen is even a right in this case, at all. People won't listen
> because their "culture" and it's commanders tell them not to. All
> you're doing is defending that, which is ultimately why it's more
> social conformity.
No, you've got it wrong, again.
One of the most basic freedoms is the freedom of association,
basically the right for form groups. Without the ability to exclude
people from a group, there is no freedom of association.
A group is defined as much by who isn't a member, as it is by who is a
member.
> > If you don't like their Transformers Wiki, create your own, it's not
> > so hard.
>
> It is. People won't go to a Wiki when one already exists. They don't
> care if it's crap.
People do care that it's crap.
> It's comfortable because they know it. Not to
> mention there's no reason to - it would be much nicer and easier if
> this Wiki just removed the stick from it's ass.
I think you mean "nicer and easier for Kittie Rose".
They are not doing what you want to do, but what they are doing has
value to someone. Accept that.
> Whatever you say about
> what they can do legally - it would still be the ethical thing to do.
>
> People are not the intelligent, mature beings capable of critical
> thinking you cast them as.
>
> If they were, we wouldn't be having this argument.
I wasn't going to call you stupid and immature, but since you brought
it up...
>> Rally a bunch of like-minded people together and start
> > writing. And, when people like them start doing things to it, you'll
> > have to figure out how to handle them, and then all your pie in the
> > sky ideals of freedom and equality for all in this vast new
> > information age will come crashing down.
>
> Funny, because I did run a forum before that's as you're describing
> and it didn't. It only lasted a little over a year but that's mainly
> because we all moved on to different things and got sick of the
> community that board was part of - it had served it's purpose, a last
> blast of sanity in a dying community.
>
> So, as far as I'm concerned, I have objective proof that you're wrong.
How large was the target audience, and how much prominance did it get?
The idiots tend to find the higher profile communities, weird niche
communities are pretty easy to keep functioning smoothly. Usenet,
these days, seems to function better for beinjg low profile.
> The problem is that in the current state of the Transformers
> community, I could not create a new forum. People better than me have
> tried, and it hasn't worked. If what you're saying is so easy, why do
> all the current forums seem to date back over a year?
> Why, with the legions of new fans coming in with Classics, the movie,
> and news of Animated, has there not been several new boards set up and
> been successful?
>
> If you're right, it would have happened. As it happens, you cling to
> what's possible in paper.
No, what I said was that *if there is a need*, then one will succeed.
Do pay attention. The fact that there have been no new ones suggests
that the Transformers fans are well served by the existing options, or
that no one has put the effort into creating a new option.
> > Build your own. The barrier to entry is basically nil.
>
> > Will it thrive, will it falter, will it stand side by side withhttp://transformers.wikia.com/--who knows? But there is no reason
> > not to have multiple sites collecting information on the same topic
> > from different standpoints.
>
> Please stop trying to sound philosophical and intellectual. You've
> made so many crimes against both psychology and logic in your posts
> that it's just a little insulting.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
--Gustavo
Huffer
> On Aug 18, 10:49 am, Kittie Rose <wetfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 18, 3:19 pm, "David Willis" <wii...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Yes, you hate me and I do awful things. I don't think anybody cares.
>
> > It's irrelevant whether anyone cares, and only someone very, very bad
> > at arguing would use that as a point in this kind of situation. It
> > doesn't make you any more right, and quite frankly, quite a few people
> > DO care.
>
> I should probably know better to do this, but what the hell -- can you
> provide a list of people who do care, so we can contact them and
> verify your claim that people care?
>
> Better yet, could the people who do care stand up and be counted, by
> replying to this message themselves?
>
On Aug 18, 2:49 pm, Gustavo Wombat <GustavoWom...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I should probably know better to do this, but what the hell -- can you
> provide a list of people who do care, so we can contact them and
> verify your claim that people care?
>
> Better yet, could the people who do care stand up and be counted, by
> replying to this message themselves?
>
> --Gustavo
For someone whose feelings on the matter are simply "meh", you've
sure got a lot to say in this thread...
Well for what it's worth, I care. I'm sure their are plenty of
other people that care too. They just choose not to chime in because
they don't want to paint a bulleye on themselves, or simply don't have
the time to devote to defending themselves from the onslaught of
bullying they'll get from the Wiigii dickheads as a result. Others
have probably already left the on-line fandom for dead and moved on
long ago.
I've never been on the TF wiki site other than a very brief look
just a few minutes ago, so I really have no clue what's went on over
there. But I do know that it's moderators are mostly (if not all)
wiigii clique-ers, so it's no surprise that they're being douchebags
towards newbies. They've been hypocritical bullies for years, and it's
nice to see that I'm not the only one that sees them for what they
are. The problem is that since they have so many fellow a-hole friends
to pump up eachothers' socks, that they truly believe they are decent
people and that everything they do or say is completely justified. And
since they always outnumber any sort of opposition, they quickly gang
up and drive them away. The "Might makes right" mentality. And notice
how they come out of the woodwork to attack when one of their own is
taken to task? It's like hitting a beehive with a stick. Whoever
originally dubbed them the "hive mind" sure had their number...
All that being said, I think you should probably just leave the TF
wiki site for dead, Kittie Rose. I think it was founded by the same
assholes that are currently running it, so it's most assuredly a lost
cause. The whole site is just a giant ego trip for them anyway, so why
even bother trying to improve it when they'd take full credit for it?
But unlike Zobovor who seems to have an apathetic tone (all too common
in the fandom), I want you to know that I think everything you said
here makes sense and that you're totally in the right. People like
Willis and company are flat-out RUINING much of the on-line fandom for
any fan that doesn't fit their definition of perfection. It's one
thing if they want to ignore newbie fans, or fans they find as weird,
or fans with different opinions than their own. It's another for them
to openly mock and ridicule them. Just because they have the right to
be assholes, don't mean they should be.
But even if you don't take them head-on anymore, it doesn't mean
you still can't badmouth them from time to time. They definitely
deserve it. And don't let them turn it around on you and make you out
to look like an embittered fangirl (I'm assuming you're female here),
as it's no different than the hate and rhetoric they belch out at any
given opportunity. Best to just post on groups such as att where the
wiigii level is low. I understand not wanting to run away from a
fight, and there's nothing worse than a bully or a person that turns a
blind eye towards a bully, but there are some people that words will
never reach no matter HOW thought-out and sensible your reasoning may
be. And nothing short of a baseball bat to head would reach those
fucks.
Huffer
Personal attack or not, KR is right on the money here! It's called
retaliation, sporto. Fine, maybe it's against the rules and was
"official" grounds for KR to be banned. But chances are it was just a
scapegoat excuse to get rid of her for being a malcontent.
The short-sightedness in this fandom is disturbing. Can no one see
a spade for a spade? I understand that us being into toys and
animation makes us at least a little bit immature, but seriously, some
people need to grow up a little bit.
FortMax
The Wiki has three admins: Willis, Suki Brits (Skyblitz on the
Allspark, dunno if she's from Wiigii), and the founder who hasn't been
around in awhile since he focuses on the Hungarian version.
Also, the only time that newcomers have been given infinite ban time
are spammers, vandals (who will replace or create a page with
gibberish), or vandals who keep making personal attacks and change IP
addresses after being banned (which Rosalie did twice). Newcomers who
do things like removing the funny image captions, copy Tech Specs or
Wikipedia or write pages that don't fit the style guide are at most
given a 1 hour ban, and that's only after they ignore when someone
asks them to read the rules and style guide. I haven't seen anyone who
was actually trying to help get banned, just people like Rosalie who
seemed to be there just to cause trouble. I'm not supprised she was
banned after she kept putting personal attacks on the Ruined FOREVER
even after being told by numerous people, including Willis, to stop
and she replyed to those so her "no warnings" claim is BS.
Also, if Walky had some vendetta against Rosalie, he wouldn't have
given Hooper-X a 2-week ban for flaming her on a talk page.
Onslaught Six
You know, this pretty much 'has' been my feelings on this subject ever
since she posted about it on BWTF a week or two ago, but you're far
better at articulating it than I am. It's probably because I've dealt
with KR before that makes it hard for me to argue with her without
seeing her as this rebellious hippie using TF as a soapbox for her to
try and change the world. >.>
But yeah. Some of us are apathetic. The rest of us seem to realize
it's a futile effort, and we've mostly just been trying to get her to
realize that.
Zobovor
> But unlike Zobovor who seems to have an apathetic tone (all too common
> in the fandom), I want you to know that I think everything you said
> here makes sense and that you're totally in the right. People like
> Willis and company are flat-out RUINING much of the on-line fandom for
> any fan that doesn't fit their definition of perfection.
I don't mean to come off as apathetic. I understand that there really
are anti-fans out there who seem to get their kicks out of ruining the
fan experience for other people, and it's an unfortunate phenomenon.
My feelings on this are that if you *allow* somebody to interfere with
your enjoyment of the hobby, then you're giving way too much power to
somebody who certainly doesn't deserve it. Why get yourself worked up
into a tizzy when the people you're busy railing against are probably
*enjoying* the fact that you're so agitated?
The fandom gets bigger (as things like theatrical movies draw
newcomers to the fray) and also it gets smaller (as more message
boards are created and tiny little subsets of the fandom are
created). There's room enough on the Internet for everyone, even the
folks who only know how to be fans by mocking and deriding other
fans. Ten percent of your life is what happens to you; the other
ninety percent is how you react to it. Given the choice, why choose
to be miserable?
Zob
Autobus Prime
Kittie Rose wrote:
> Well unfortunately I've a shitload of exams coming up and can't really
> get stressed out. I do genuinely get stressed out in these arguments
KR:
I can see that. Don't. Seriously, you need to relax for your own
good,
but not just for that. Your strategy is not a winning one. People
who write diatribes and repeat the same arguments don't get taken
seriously, and eventually they end up ignored like the guy who
constantly posts the same claptrap in every thread everywhere about
surge protection and grounding.
(Aside) It's my understanding anyway that surge protectors largely
work by clamping voltage, not shunting to ground, and the plug-in
type are perfectly adequate for protection.
I'd much rather see somebody relax and participate in discussion
than to get labeled, and it's not too late. Heck, Deathy is a valued
member of the team now, with useful and insightful posts...who'd
have expected that, years ago? I don't disagree with your
complaints, either. Yes, a few people think that smart-alecky,
dismissive attitudes and creative misspellings are a substitute for
thoughtful discussion, and sometimes I get into flame-mode over
that, but you know what's a better response?
Ignore them. People who rely on inside jokes are just as closed
a system as anybody they are making fun of. Ignore them, be
polite, and continue. Act just as in real life. If you're in a
discussion about the relative merits of Stutz Bearcats and
Mercer Raceabouts, and somebody says "Ha, Bearcat
owners are all foolish chumps", what is an intelligent person
to do? Let it pass, and try to gently turn the conversation
toward more thoughtful regions, or simply walk away.
One thing I have definitely learned online is that arguing with
a fool truly does begin to make you look like one, just as the
old proverb says. Don't do it. Laugh at them and let it go,
because at the end of the day, you can get up from the
keyboard, stretch, and look out at the night sky, and those
stars are still burning like they were yesterday. Make a
habit of this, and people will even start to respect you
for it...and they'll be the kind of friends you want, too.
Don't let net.bitterness get into your cup of coffee.
Cordially yours:
Autobus Prime
w/minicon Farebox.
G.B. Blackrock
> I think it was founded by the same
> assholes that are currently running it, so it's most assuredly a lost
> cause.
FortMax has already said this, but I want to repeat for emphasis, the
folks currently running it did not found the site. The site was
founded quite some time ago, and basically neglected. I (and some
others) came upon it and brought it to the larger fandom's attention.
When it came time to select moderators, it was basically a matter of
who was willing. I probably should have stepped up, myself, but
didn't want the responsibility. Walky did, and so he got it (as did a
few others, but he seems to be the man point of contention here).
That's got a lot to do with why the tone is the way it is. He was the
one willing to take charge. It's definitely not the way I'd have done
it, but I had my chance, and I didn't take it. That's just how these
things work. If you want to make a difference, you have to step up.
My two cents,
G.B. Blackrock
Kittie Rose
self- centered Vendetta and I should hope that he should clean up such
vicious flaming. Walky doesn't have it in for me in specific, he has
it in for anyone that doesn't fit into his borderline self-brought-
autistic little world.
Quite frankly, if you're going to call me a vandal, then back it up.
The Wiki was already heavily "Vandalised" with biased, one sided views
of the fanbase. If anything, I was scrubbing out the graffitii.
At least acknowledge instead this and react out of the possibility
that I might actually be right, of your absolutely ridiculous "You're
the bad guy, and I don't even have to go to lengthy reasons like you
do with other people to explain why" way of doing things.
If I'm not winning anyone over with my methods, which are at least
based on reason, you certainly aren't winning me over. It goes both
ways. I don't cease to matter just because I'm in the minority.
~KR
Kittie Rose
People are seeing rules for rules sake, failing to see rules need to
be defended. "Private Property" is not a defense when your Private
Property has a massive effect on others who don't even use it and even
if they do are still using "The" TF wiki, therefore is still a part of
a community which should be abstract from being absolutely ruled over.
It's a less direct version of saying a Baseball bat is your "Private
Property" so you can swing it around randomly without respect for
others; but hey, I'm not ACTIVELY trying to hurt you, I just have no
respect for what your personal rights should be in this situation
since they're harder to define.
I'm sorry some of you don't understand my reasoning, but that doesn't
make it any less right. It's the only way things can work in a dymanic
system.
~ KR
Kittie Rose
that it is on the TF messageboards.
Yet people still have a problem with my aggression?
Even if I'm still being aggressive, you could at least acknowledge the
fact that I'm trying quite hard not to be.
This is why I'm immensely pissed off at 06 and am not afraid to say as
such.
Do you expect me to change my methods entirely over night? No.
O6 is so very wrong on so many levels. He wants me to be something I'm
not and will ultimately result in me winning nobody over at all since
I'll just be another little moaning worm who gets stood on. It's
because I have a backbone that I haven't been chased out of the
community entirely.
I don't think the issue here. For proof that the "You can't catch
flies with vinegar" trite is rubbish, just look at the music world.
Punk bands spitting at their fans, Rage Against the Machine and other
political bands criticising not only the government but people as a
whole for being drones. There is such a thing as tough love.
It takes all kinds of people to bring people around. I happen to be
the type that seems to be permanently Pre-Menstrual. That doesn't
make my methods wrong- you can't mount a movement being entirely
passive, never. Plus, imagine if there were SEVERAL people like me -
then people would have to listen, wouldn't they? And even if I don't
trigger the passive, the potentially aggressive may come out in
support. Not to mention what I explained earlier about assertive
arguments providing a frame of reference for the receiver knowing they
could be wrong, sticking points in their heads even if they don't
think they agree with them at the time. There are many reasons for
doing what I do.
Aggression never really was the issue here, though - it's assertion.
People actually being challenged, being told they might be wrong.
They've been raised to believe everything's a matter of opinion and
only their opinion matters when it comes to their actions.
If I insult someone, and you call my argument on it, that is the
logical fallacy of Style over Substance. I find it quite ironic that
people are openly telling me that I'm not converting people; but since
the people I'm trying to convert are all saying something similar,
surely they could use their self awareness of that to see past into m
argument.
It's ludicrous. It's an excuse.
Any intelligent person should be able to see past aggression or even
see why it's sometimes necessary. I believe very strongly in civility
up to a certain point. Walky's actions of disregard for opposing
opinion has caused a very "Mitts off" situation.
~ KR
Autobus Prime
> For proof that the "You can't catch
> flies with vinegar" trite is rubbish, just look at the music world.
> Punk bands spitting at their fans, Rage Against the Machine and other
> political bands criticising not only the government but people as a
> whole for being drones. There is such a thing as tough love.
KR:
But do they change the world? I know it's not always fun
to waste honey on flies, but history has shown that it makes
a fairly effective trap.
The power to negotiate is a greater world-changer than a
hundred books of bitter lyrics. Neither good nor evil, it is
a skill that can be greatly misused. It can be used to
deceive. It can be used to genuinely understand a person,
to help him see and understand the value of an idea.
When I go to a dealership and offer $1000 on a nice,
shiny Camaro (that has no robot mode) that is worth
$3000, does the salesman scold me for being a
cheapaft? A good one doesn't. A good one considers
why I am offering that much. Do I not trust salesmen?
(Generally, no. :) ) Do I have a certain amount in mind,
but really want a better vehicle? Am I really looking for
a $1000 car, and could I be directed to a different one
on the lot?
In the same way, we are salespeople of our particular
ideas. Those who sell well, can accomplish a lot.
Kittie Rose
activism in the 70s spun out of the music and culture of the 60s,
though people like to pretend it didn't achieve anything(the hippie
movement in of itself didn't for the very reason I'm getting at; it
was too passive, going by the logic used here, it should have been the
most successful movement, ever). The late 80s and 90s had it's share
of fairly intellectual music that while wasn't explicitly political
except in lesser known bands like Rage who I just mentioned, was still
a driving force. It is the assertion, the aggression of sources like
politically active music that starts a movement.
There would nothing to be gained by "Negotiating" with David or his
followers, or even anyone who doesn't think he's doing anything wrong.
There has to be a movement to begin with for them to realise that they
could be wrong. Otherwise, they just think they're getting asked a
dumbass question.
~ KR
Autobus Prime
KR:
Well, I am more of a grassroots sort; I think that what starts a
movement is a step. Take a step, take another, and pretty soon you
are moving. This isn't to say that a movement is entirely motion
of the self...certainly not. Indeed, I contend that the major reason
the hippies failed was their major theme: "Peace be with /me/".
You do have to have some sense of the greater good, and of human
solidarity.
We should also be careful to keep our causes and effects sorted.
Was it the activism that spun out of the music, or was it the other
way around? I believe that this is indeed the case; the social
consciousness comes first, then the music.
This is somewhat beside the point, of course. I think there would
be much to gain by "negotiating" with anybody, though I wouldn't
call it that. It's just how things are in this world. I must first
realize that I am human, with human foibles, and then that my
opponent is also human. The best way to win an argument is
not to win at all...rather than forcing your opponent to concede,
to explain your reasons in a way he can understand and accept.
In that way, your opponent may actually come to a real
agreement, one that will last, not one based on surrender, which
always carries some measure of bitterness, and the seeds of
its own destruction.
Sure, it doesn't always work...but it's always worth trying, and
even if it fails, if you know you have done all you could, and
acted with due care (which, quite frankly, we can rarely be
sure of) you know that it isn't you who have failed.
FortMax
You sure? the first thing you did at the TF Wiki was put personal
attacks on an article and start an edit war. If you had posted your
concerns about the article on the talkpage and refrained from flaming
there's a very high chance the other editors would have considered
your concerns, possibly leading to a more balanced page. If you had
acted in a civilized manner, you would have likely have been given the
benefit of the doubt about past actions.
Also, as I said before, even members of the WiiGii inner circle have
gotten banned for flaming. Walky gave Hooper-X a two week ban because
Hoop flamed YOU in a talk page.
You had a chance to make the changes in the Wiki, and completly blew
it by filling an article with personal attacks. Yes, the article had
snark before, but no names were mentioned, and it was mainly a joke
about the loud cries of "(insert new thing here) will ruin
Transformers FOREVER". It happaned with Beast Wars, Beast Machines,
RID, Armada, Energon, Cybertron, the Movie and Animated. It's
particuraly ironic as the first cause of "Ruined FOREVER" took a all
but dead line and reinvented it into a successful toy line with a
successful cartoon that even won an Emmy.
Gustavo Wombat
> I'd also like to point out how incredibly much more passive my tone is
> that it is on the TF messageboards.
> Yet people still have a problem with my aggression?
Yup. And it's pretty scary that you're more aggressive elsewhere.
> Even if I'm still being aggressive, you could at least acknowledge the
> fact that I'm trying quite hard not to be.
Try harder. Really. I'm not just being flip.
> Do you expect me to change my methods entirely over night? No.
I'm going to come down pretty firmly on the side of "yes". Well, not
expect, but certainly hope.
What I expect is that you'll either form a pattern of flaming out
every three to four months in an explosion of rage, anger and hurt and
then return two to three weeks later, or that you'll you'll have the
grand flame out, post some screed about how people don't respect you
as an individual, and then never return.
I've been here roughly eight years, I've seen both of these happen
time and time again. But, I prefer to be hopeful.
> O6 is so very wrong on so many levels. He wants me to be something I'm
> not and will ultimately result in me winning nobody over at all since
> I'll just be another little moaning worm who gets stood on. It's
> because I have a backbone that I haven't been chased out of the
> community entirely.
Lot's of people have backbones, and don't inspire vitriol. There's a
difference between having a backbone, and having agression issues.
> I don't think the issue here. For proof that the "You can't catch
> flies with vinegar" trite is rubbish, just look at the music world.
> Punk bands spitting at their fans, Rage Against the Machine and other
> political bands criticising not only the government but people as a
> whole for being drones.
Ah, the ever popular "I am an iconoclast" argument. Separating
yourself from the drones, etc, etc.
It turns out that if you are aggressive towards people, you will get a
response of aggression right back, or mockery. Aggression is usually
ineffective, unless you are in a book tower with a high powered rifle.
And, in the music world, the bands are selling a bad boy image, where
their genuine contempt is masked in a false pretension of contempt,
and where a fan longs to be able to spit on others and buys into the
whole thing to be part of that. Really, they just sell a "spitting on
people" lifestyle.
It's like Pepsi, but with spit. So, Diet Pepsi.
> There is such a thing as tough love.
Tough love, how quaint. It does require loving the person you're being
tough towards, you know? Are you saying that you love the people you
are being aggressive towards? I think not.
I'll assume you meant something else entirely.
> It takes all kinds of people to bring people around. I happen to be
> the type that seems to be permanently Pre-Menstrual.
I recommend seeing a doctor about that, one should not stay pre-
mentrual for significant periods of time, pardon the pun. Odds are
that if you haven't menstrated in several months, that you are either
pregnant, or have some other health problem, or have reached
menopause.
If this is simply a metaphor, than I recommend seeing a metaphorical
doctor.
> That doesn't
> make my methods wrong.
Ignoring the abstract notions of right and wrong, it does make your
methods ineffective.
Do you get the response that you are hoping for?
> you can't mount a movement being entirely
> passive, never.
It's fucking transformers, not a movement.
And you cannot effect change in any walk of life if you piss 80% of
people off. 40% is the maximum. 30% is probably ideal.
> Plus, imagine if there were SEVERAL people like me -
> then people would have to listen, wouldn't they?
Well, then you could create the Pre-Menstrual Transformers
Encyclopedia, which would be quite a thing of beauty to behold.
> Not to mention what I explained earlier about assertive
> arguments providing a frame of reference for the receiver knowing they
> could be wrong.
Makes most people dig in their heels, and refuse to admit if they are
wrong. No frame of reference being provided, no preparing the receiver
to know that they might be wrong, just heels dug in.
Have you met many people? They really get very defensive very
quickly.
> Aggression never really was the issue here, though - it's assertion.
> People actually being challenged, being told they might be wrong.
> They've been raised to believe everything's a matter of opinion and
> only their opinion matters when it comes to their actions.
Speak truth to power!
> If I insult someone, and you call my argument on it, that is the
> logical fallacy of Style over Substance.
No, it's called not wanting to deal with an asshole, and weighing the
merits of what the asshole might be saying, and the hassle of dealing
with the asshole, and finding that the hassle outweighs the merits.
And once that calculation is made, people will dismiss everything the
asshole has to say.
I recommend not being an asshole.
Or at least moderating down the asshole level to the point where it
doesn't quite get people to short-circuit their evaluations of merit.
And there's an inherant contradiction in your arguments: above, you
praise the fresh, raw, innovate artists who spit upon their fans, but
that itself is a style. These bands exist as little more than style.
It's a filthy, unsanitary style that spreads a variety of old-timey
diseases like consumption, but it is a style.
Most of the time, people cannot distinguish style from substance. It's
just fundamental.
> It's ludicrous. It's an excuse.
You really haven't met many people, have you? This is how people
function, it is how they have evolved to process information from many
different sources at once -- they build up a set of hueristics that
allow them to evaluate the quality of the source of that information
quickly and with good enough accuracy to pare down the information to
something they can handle.
> Any intelligent person should be able to see past aggression or even
> see why it's sometimes necessary.
It's fucking transformers. Aggression really isn't necessary, and an
intelligent person recognizes that there's really very little point in
putting up with it.
--Gustavo
Kittie Rose
> You sure? the first thing you did at the TF Wiki was put personal
> attacks on an article
People keep saying this, nobody backed it up. I challenged the general
"Anti-fan" movement, yes, and put some blatantly Tounge-in-Cheek
comments about Walky on it. I even said at the start that it was a
test to see if the had a sense of humour, since they were so adamant
that their bile was "In Jest".
> and start an edit war.
I didn't start the edit war. I made an edit, then a bunch of nitwits
kept reverting it. They're the ones that started it.
Plus, I achieved my goal of having the page de-biased. So it's going
to take a lot to convince me I did any wrong.
> If you had posted your
> concerns about the article on the talkpage and refrained from flaming
> there's a very high chance the other editors would have considered
> your concerns,
No they wouldn't considering members who had been there for quite some
time and were certainly more respected raised similiar concerns and
were ignored.
> possibly leading to a more balanced page.
And with my methods, it DID lead to a more balanced page.
You're just talking shit at this stage. You have to at least
acknowledge that with that page, I achieved exactly what I set out to,
and others had tried it "Your way" on the dicussion page, and failed.
> If you had
> acted in a civilized manner, you would have likely have been given the
> benefit of the doubt about past actions.
Not everything is about being "civil", despite what you were raised to
believe. It is silly to think people should be silly in every
situation. It is forced, and fake.
>
> Also, as I said before, even members of the WiiGii inner circle have
> gotten banned for flaming. Walky gave Hooper-X a two week ban because
> Hoop flamed YOU in a talk page.
Great; a two week ban. And I'm *Permanently* banned.
Did it not occur to you that this was probably done just so people
like you could pull it up in an argument afterwards? Come on. Walky
has absolutely minimal responsibility with his power.
>
> You had a chance to make the changes in the Wiki, and completly blew
> it by filling an article with personal attacks.
No, I got the Fandom page de-biased. I failed on the other articles,
but that's mainly because I was banned before I could achieve
anything.
Not everything is awkward smiles and handshakes. No offense, but you
seem a little bit simple minded, always rendering things in terms of
Civility vs. Personal attacks.
> Yes, the article had
> snark before, but no names were mentioned, and it was mainly a joke
> about the loud cries of "(insert new thing here) will ruin
> Transformers FOREVER".
It's not a joke. That attitude is used to bully people all over the
community.
>It happaned with Beast Wars, Beast Machines,
> RID, Armada, Energon, Cybertron, the Movie and Animated.
Many of which *did* ruin the fandom for some people. The movie
certainly ruined it for me, due to the attitudes it gave birth to.
> It's
> particuraly ironic as the first cause of "Ruined FOREVER" took a all
> but dead line and reinvented it into a successful toy line with a
> successful cartoon that even won an Emmy.
That doesn't mean everyone has to like it. And it doesn't excuse the
much, much worse attitudes of the people who oppose fanboys in any
shape or form with some of the most smug bullying.
~ KR
Kittie Rose
> On Aug 20, 8:52 am, Kittie Rose <wetfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd also like to point out how incredibly much more passive my tone is
> > that it is on the TF messageboards.
> > Yet people still have a problem with my aggression?
>
> Yup. And it's pretty scary that you're more aggressive elsewhere.
It's pretty scary if you look at what people do to warrant that
aggression. It's a surprise I haven't gone insane a long time ago.
Quite frankly, I'm not going to tone my attitude down any further. If
you have a problem with it at this stage, you're a complete pansy who
can't take any level of heated debate.
>
> > Even if I'm still being aggressive, you could at least acknowledge the
> > fact that I'm trying quite hard not to be.
>
> Try harder. Really. I'm not just being flip
How about you try harder to see why assertion and aggression are
sometimes necessary?
>
> > Do you expect me to change my methods entirely over night? No.
>
> I'm going to come down pretty firmly on the side of "yes". Well, not
> expect, but certainly hope
Then you're a complete blithering idiot. Nobody changes who they are
overnight, or should be expected to.
I'm not going to change as long as the degree of bullying that occurs
in the fandom is still there. If you want me to be less aggressive,
then take a stance against that instead of something so trivial as
someone being a bit angry at someone.
.
>
> What I expect is that you'll either form a pattern of flaming out
> every three to four months in an explosion of rage, anger and hurt and
> then return two to three weeks later, or that you'll you'll have the
> grand flame out, post some screed about how people don't respect you
> as an individual, and then never return.
>
> I've been here roughly eight years, I've seen both of these happen
> time and time again. But, I prefer to be hopeful.##
And you don't even care to consider why people are angry are hurt?
Of course you don't. Like the poster above you, you have very simple
ethics. Angry = Bad. Civil = Good.
Quite frankly it's hard to appeal my side of things to you if you have
such a poor and overly simplistic world view.
> > O6 is so very wrong on so many levels. He wants me to be something I'm
> > not and will ultimately result in me winning nobody over at all since
> > I'll just be another little moaning worm who gets stood on. It's
> > because I have a backbone that I haven't been chased out of the
> > community entirely.
>
> Lot's of people have backbones, and don't inspire vitriol. There's a
> difference between having a backbone, and having agression issues.
What about the times when they're the same thing? There is no way you
can have a backbone and NEVER be assertive or aggressive. Being
entirely calm when a flaming idiot is coming at you full force looks
ridiculous and contrary to popular belief won't diffuse their attitude
any.
Your view of an online community is simplistic, and contradicts the
few things I have achieved with my oh-so-terrible attitude.
>
> > I don't think the issue here. For proof that the "You can't catch
> > flies with vinegar" trite is rubbish, just look at the music world.
> > Punk bands spitting at their fans, Rage Against the Machine and other
> > political bands criticising not only the government but people as a
> > whole for being drones.
>
> Ah, the ever popular "I am an iconoclast" argument. Separating
> yourself from the drones, etc, etc.
Um, isn't this exactly what the Wiki does already?
>
> It turns out that if you are aggressive towards people, you will get a
> response of aggression right back, or mockery. Aggression is usually
> ineffective, unless you are in a book tower with a high powered rifle.
I would like to see you back this up.
>
> And, in the music world, the bands are selling a bad boy image, where
> their genuine contempt is masked in a false pretension of contempt,
> and where a fan longs to be able to spit on others and buys into the
> whole thing to be part of that. Really, they just sell a "spitting on
> people" lifestyle.
That doesn't explain politically motivated bands, at all.
>
> It's like Pepsi, but with spit. So, Diet Pepsi.
>
> > There is such a thing as tough love.
>
> Tough love, how quaint. It does require loving the person you're being
> tough towards, you know? Are you saying that you love the people you
> are being aggressive towards? I think not.
It's a metaphor. The point is you can't always be kind, civil, gentle.
There's a reason why we have other emotions, other ways of expressing
ourselves.
Your anger is a gift.
>
> I'll assume you meant something else entirely.
>
> > It takes all kinds of people to bring people around. I happen to be
> > the type that seems to be permanently Pre-Menstrual.
>
> I recommend seeing a doctor about that, one should not stay pre-
> mentrual for significant periods of time, pardon the pun. Odds are
> that if you haven't menstrated in several months, that you are either
> pregnant, or have some other health problem, or have reached
> menopause.
>
> If this is simply a metaphor, than I recommend seeing a metaphorical
> doctor.
>
You seem to be bad with metaphors in general, and coming up with Witty
responses to them.
> > That doesn't
> > make my methods wrong.
>
> Ignoring the abstract notions of right and wrong, it does make your
> methods ineffective.
Right and wrong are not entirely abstract from a Utilitarian
perspective.
>
> Do you get the response that you are hoping for?
Well, I got the Fandom page changed where others failed, yes. I've
even been getting emails from people reading this thread agreeing with
me. Not to mention a few replies within this thread too.
Being passive would ultimately mean I get ignored underneath the sea
of bullshit.
I'm sorry you have such ridiculously strong and thoughtless beliefs
against aggression, but I don't. I believe it to be a tool potentially
used for good.
And you don't seem to have very much respect for my point of view. You
think because yours is more popular, it's the only one that matters.
>
> > you can't mount a movement being entirely
> > passive, never.
>
> It's fucking transformers, not a movement.
>
It is a movement, against corruption of what could be a perfectly
viable communication method(message boards/Wikis etc.) It is a
movement against the idiotic notions of "Private Property" excusing
use of that Private Property to hurt who you please. It is a movement
against overly simplistic worldviews like your own. It is a move
towards genuine respect and not the fake civility you endorse.
> And you cannot effect change in any walk of life if you piss 80% of
> people off. 40% is the maximum. 30% is probably ideal.
>
Uh, just about every movement pisses 80% of people off to begin with.
Stands against racism, homophobia and other forms of minority
discrimination generally only start with the minorities and a few
supporters, with everyone else being quite annoyed they're being told
they're wrong.
Not to mention I'm not being that aggressive here at all. If you're
pissed off, it's because you can't deal with any form of heated
discussion, like I said.
> > Plus, imagine if there were SEVERAL people like me -
> > then people would have to listen, wouldn't they?
>
> Well, then you could create the Pre-Menstrual Transformers
> Encyclopedia, which would be quite a thing of beauty to behold.
>
> > Not to mention what I explained earlier about assertive
> > arguments providing a frame of reference for the receiver knowing they
> > could be wrong.
>
> Makes most people dig in their heels, and refuse to admit if they are
> wrong.
You mean like most of the people I'm arguing with in this thread?
> No frame of reference being provided, no preparing the receiver
> to know that they might be wrong, just heels dug in.
>
> Have you met many people? They really get very defensive very
> quickly.
That doesn't debunk the frame of reference idea, at all. The idea
isn't to directly convert them but to lodge the alternative into their
heads even if they are initially vehemently opposed to it.
>
> > Aggression never really was the issue here, though - it's assertion.
> > People actually being challenged, being told they might be wrong.
> > They've been raised to believe everything's a matter of opinion and
> > only their opinion matters when it comes to their actions.
>
> Speak truth to power!
>
> > If I insult someone, and you call my argument on it, that is the
> > logical fallacy of Style over Substance.
>
> No, it's called not wanting to deal with an asshole,
No, it's called Style over Substance. If you have no respect for the
common ground of Formal Fallacies in a debate, then I have no reason
to continue to debate with you. Common man's wisdom over intellectual
wisdom is bunk.
> and weighing the
> merits of what the asshole might be saying, and the hassle of dealing
> with the asshole, and finding that the hassle outweighs the merits.
> And once that calculation is made, people will dismiss everything the
> asshole has to say.
>
> I recommend not being an asshole.
I recommend being more intelligent and not writing people off as
assholes just because they believe in heated debate or acts of
assertion.
>
> Or at least moderating down the asshole level to the point where it
> doesn't quite get people to short-circuit their evaluations of merit.
>
> And there's an inherant contradiction in your arguments: above, you
> praise the fresh, raw, innovate artists who spit upon their fans, but
> that itself is a style. These bands exist as little more than style.
> It's a filthy, unsanitary style that spreads a variety of old-timey
> diseases like consumption, but it is a style.
No, they don't exist as "just a style". Rage Against the Machine are
one of the most politically active bands, ever, if not close to The
given the amount of time they've been around. They aren't literally
spitting on the fans, they're just vehemently criticising the general
public in the same way I do for buying into the system.
Of course, you feel comfortable in your prescribed pseudo-intelligent
view where these kind of bands just MUST be fake. It's not like you
need any evidence to believe such a claim.
>
> Most of the time, people cannot distinguish style from substance. It's
> just fundamental.
It's a logical fallacy no to do so. If you do so in your arguments;
you are bad at arguing. Which in turn excuses me to level all kinds of
criticisms against the people who are doing so.
>
> > It's ludicrous. It's an excuse.
>
> You really haven't met many people, have you?
More than you, from your poor social reasoning skills.
> This is how people
> function, it is how they have evolved to process information from many
> different sources at once -- they build up a set of hueristics that
> allow them to evaluate the quality of the source of that information
> quickly and with good enough accuracy to pare down the information to
> something they can handle.
Unfortunately, you're also ignoring the idea of memes and ideas that
lodge and spread even if people don't think they agree with them. The
success of a meme depends on a number of factors. But completely
passive memes tend to die out quickly.
>
> > Any intelligent person should be able to see past aggression or even
> > see why it's sometimes necessary.
>
> It's fucking transformers. Aggression really isn't necessary,
Then the snarky attitudes of this community's elite certainly isn't
necessary.
> and an
> intelligent person recognizes that there's really very little point in
> putting up with it.
>
No, that's a stupid person who absorbs their values from their culture
instead of reasoning for themselves. I'd be interested to hear why you
think this is an "Intelligent" thing to do, since it is a logically
fallacious position(this is not an opinion, it is objective).
~ KR
FortMax
> > Also, as I said before, even members of the WiiGii inner circle have
> > gotten banned for flaming. Walky gave Hooper-X a two week ban because
> > Hoop flamed YOU in a talk page.
Hoop made a singal personal attack on a talk page.
You made a personal attack on an ARTICLE, and kept putting it back
when it was removed.
The severity of the offense fits the severity of the consequence.
> > Yes, the article had
> > snark before, but no names were mentioned, and it was mainly a joke
> > about the loud cries of "(insert new thing here) will ruin
> > Transformers FOREVER".
>
> It's not a joke. That attitude is used to bully people all over the
> community.
>
> >It happaned with Beast Wars, Beast Machines,
> > RID, Armada, Energon, Cybertron, the Movie and Animated.
>
> Many of which *did* ruin the fandom for some people. The movie
> certainly ruined it for me, due to the attitudes it gave birth to.
>
> > It's
> > particuraly ironic as the first cause of "Ruined FOREVER" took a all
> > but dead line and reinvented it into a successful toy line with a
> > successful cartoon that even won an Emmy.
>
> That doesn't mean everyone has to like it. And it doesn't excuse the
> much, much worse attitudes of the people who oppose fanboys in any
> shape or form with some of the most smug bullying.
The Ruined FOREVER isn't about how it marketing changes would affect
the attitudes of the fandom but how it would ruin the FRANSHISE. As in
[insert non '80s TF line or media here] is hated by EVERYONE and is a
total failure leading to all Transformers lines and media to be
canceled FOREVER with no new toys of media being created for the rest
of eternity. The fact that this has never happened yet every new line
comes with more of the same is why we have the article.
Ruined FOREVER does not include anything other besides the failure of
the line/movie/whatever. Your dislike of some people in the fandom
does not involve this.
Also, if your actions on the Wiki were anything like you were on the
'Spark, someone disagreeing with you is not a warnable offense. If you
saw someone flaming of flamebating you, the proper response is to use
that "report" button on the post, not to flame back.
Oh, and if you want to piss Walky off, just do normal posts in the
Comic Sans font. It enrages him. :p
Kittie Rose
> when it was removed.
This is about the 5th time you've said "Personal Attack" without
backing it up. What and How was what I said a personal attack? Or are
you afraid that I might actually be able to offer a rational
explanation for my actions and you'll look like a twat for ignoring
it?
For someone that hates them so much, you're certainly not helping my
aggression levels.
~ KR
Kittie Rose
'Spark, someone disagreeing with you is not a warnable offense. If you
saw someone flaming of flamebating you, the proper response is to use
that "report" button on the post, not to flame back. "
This is presuming that the mods do anything. The mods on TFW2005 are
immensely biased, and the Seibertron ones are a joke. I remember
pointing out to Neko, the Proud Female Moderator, some of the most
blatant flaming and bullying towards a detractor, and all she said was
"What do you want me to do?". You're a fucking mod! Why are you a mod
if you don't know what to do with flaming?
Actually, what most people think a "mod" is, is lock lock delete lock
ask for someone to be banned.
That's not what a moderator is. You only have to look at the meaning
of a word. A mod is someone who's meant to get in an argument and
diffuse it by trying to reason to both sides, not throwing their
weight around like a self important little control freak. I have run a
board and this is what I did and it worked. This is how things were
done online in the earlier days too, which I'm bloody surprised some
of you don't remember since the real oldbies here have been using the
internet longer than I have.
Again, on none of the forums I was banned from did this happen. Lock
lock ban lock delete warn. That is not good moderating. I don't care
if it's what 90% of popular sites do, 90% of popular music is trash
too. Most our real life "power" people, politicians and the like, are
incompetent and corrupt, I find it laughable that you think giving
people more absolute and direct power over situations somehow makes
them more reasonable.
~ KR
Thunder Magnificent!
> No, they don't exist as "just a style". Rage Against the Machine are
> one of the most politically active bands, ever, if not close to The
> given the amount of time they've been around. They aren't literally
> spitting on the fans, they're just vehemently criticising the general
> public in the same way I do for buying into the system.
Ignoring the rest of this argument... aren't Rage Against the Machine
hypocrites for being signed with Sony Music--the biggest music machine
in the world right now? How can one rage against the system yet use it
to sell millions of albums and profit from that?
Which is not to say that one can't have political opinions and make
money. It's just that when I think of raging against the system, I feel
greed is what powers it all and having Sony pay your bills seems... I
dunno, fake. Like you're just selling the image of dissension while not
really believing in it yourself.
t.k.
(nothing against RATM but I miss Audioslave--Chris Cornell's vocals were
great).
Gustavo Wombat
> On Aug 21, 4:39 am, Gustavo Wombat <GustavoWom...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 20, 8:52 am, Kittie Rose <wetfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your anger is a gift.
Uncontrolled anger is a liability.
> > > It takes all kinds of people to bring people around. I happen to be
> > > the type that seems to be permanently Pre-Menstrual.
>
> > I recommend seeing a doctor about that, one should not stay pre-
> > mentrual for significant periods of time, pardon the pun. Odds are
> > that if you haven't menstrated in several months, that you are either
> > pregnant, or have some other health problem, or have reached
> > menopause.
>
> > If this is simply a metaphor, than I recommend seeing a metaphorical
> > doctor.
>
> You seem to be bad with metaphors in general, and coming up with Witty
> responses to them.
"Metaphorical doctor" is, of course, a euphemism for psychologist. You
know, one of those fluffy soft-science doctors.
>
> > Do you get the response that you are hoping for?
>
> Well, I got the Fandom page changed where others failed, yes. I've
> even been getting emails from people reading this thread agreeing with
> me. Not to mention a few replies within this thread too.
And, although the Fandom page was changed, you also got banned. Which
means that the sum total of your effectiveness at the Teletraan-1
Wikia was to get one page changed. You can do no more.
Had you not been so aggressive, might you have been able to get two
pages changed by now? Almost certainly.
Aggression has a very limited effectiveness.
> I'm sorry you have such ridiculously strong and thoughtless beliefs
> against aggression, but I don't. I believe it to be a tool potentially
> used for good.
But it has to be used carefully, rather than indiscrimately. I throw a
temper tantrum as well as anyone, but mine are usually effective.
> And you don't seem to have very much respect for my point of view. You
> think because yours is more popular, it's the only one that matters.
Being immediately aggressive is a social indicator of having no
respect for others. It's very hard to respect people who do that.
Humans are social animals, they interact in groups and form a common
set of social indicators which they will respond to instinctively.
Learn the indicators. This is how advertisers turn wants into needs,
this is how salesmen sell cars, this is how politicians sell ideas,
and this is how engineers pick the best design for a project --
through a careful manipulation of social indicators that have nothing
at all to do with the merits. Learn the social indicators.
> > > If I insult someone, and you call my argument on it, that is the
> > > logical fallacy of Style over Substance.
>
> > No, it's called not wanting to deal with an asshole,
>
> No, it's called Style over Substance. If you have no respect for the
> common ground of Formal Fallacies in a debate,
Nope, it's just not wanting to deal with an asshole.
> > Most of the time, people cannot distinguish style from substance. It's
> > just fundamental.
>
> It's a logical fallacy no to do so. If you do so in your arguments;
> you are bad at arguing. Which in turn excuses me to level all kinds of
> criticisms against the people who are doing so.
It's stupid to assume that people are something they are not, simply
stupid. Style and substance are tightly bound together in how people
process information. You cannot ignore one or the other and hope to
have a significant effect.
> > This is how people
> > function, it is how they have evolved to process information from many
> > different sources at once -- they build up a set of hueristics that
> > allow them to evaluate the quality of the source of that information
> > quickly and with good enough accuracy to pare down the information to
> > something they can handle.
>
> Unfortunately, you're also ignoring the idea of memes and ideas that
> lodge and spread even if people don't think they agree with them. The
> success of a meme depends on a number of factors. But completely
> passive memes tend to die out quickly.
Anger isn't a meme. "YOU'RE WRONG!!!!" isn't a meme. And, if the anger
makes people stop listening, than you cannot spread a meme.
> > > Any intelligent person should be able to see past aggression or even
> > > see why it's sometimes necessary.
>
> > It's fucking transformers. Aggression really isn't necessary,
> > and an
> > intelligent person recognizes that there's really very little point in
> > putting up with it.
>
> No, that's a stupid person who absorbs their values from their culture
> instead of reasoning for themselves.
An intelligent person reasons for themself, but also understands the
values of their culture, and knows how to appeal to those values.
--Gustavo
Kittie Rose
> On Aug 21, 2:37 am, Kittie Rose <wetfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 21, 4:39 am, Gustavo Wombat <GustavoWom...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 20, 8:52 am, Kittie Rose <wetfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Your anger is a gift.
>
> Uncontrolled anger is a liability.
Who says it's uncontrolled?
>
> > > > It takes all kinds of people to bring people around. I happen to be
> > > > the type that seems to be permanently Pre-Menstrual.
>
> > > I recommend seeing a doctor about that, one should not stay pre-
> > > mentrual for significant periods of time, pardon the pun. Odds are
> > > that if you haven't menstrated in several months, that you are either
> > > pregnant, or have some other health problem, or have reached
> > > menopause.
>
> > > If this is simply a metaphor, than I recommend seeing a metaphorical
> > > doctor.
>
> > You seem to be bad with metaphors in general, and coming up with Witty
> > responses to them.
>
> "Metaphorical doctor" is, of course, a euphemism for psychologist. You
> know, one of those fluffy soft-science doctors.
Except I'm not the one the problem is with. It's with the elitists and
bullies of the community.
>
>
>
> > > Do you get the response that you are hoping for?
>
> > Well, I got the Fandom page changed where others failed, yes. I've
> > even been getting emails from people reading this thread agreeing with
> > me. Not to mention a few replies within this thread too.
>
> And, although the Fandom page was changed, you also got banned. Which
> means that the sum total of your effectiveness at the Teletraan-1
> Wikia was to get one page changed. You can do no more.
But if I hadn't done that, the sum total of my efforts would most
likely have been nil since other people were trying to get it changed
in a more calm manner, and didn't succeed.
>
> Had you not been so aggressive, might you have been able to get two
> pages changed by now? Almost certainly.
... no. See above.
Also, I have achieved another thing, showing how other people are
absolutely pathetic at dealing with any form of heated debate. You are
still working from the presumption that aggression is bad and calm is
good.
>
> Aggression has a very limited effectiveness.
>
> > I'm sorry you have such ridiculously strong and thoughtless beliefs
> > against aggression, but I don't. I believe it to be a tool potentially
> > used for good.
>
> But it has to be used carefully, rather than indiscrimately. I throw a
> temper tantrum as well as anyone, but mine are usually effective.
>
> > And you don't seem to have very much respect for my point of view. You
> > think because yours is more popular, it's the only one that matters.
>
> Being immediately aggressive is a social indicator of having no
> respect for others. It's very hard to respect people who do that.
No, it isn't. That's one of the stupidest thing you've said yet.
Refusing to acknowledge an opposing point of view, reverting any edits
made containing that point of view, is a social indicator of having no
respect for others. What I was doing was out of respect for others
that had been bullied with the same "Humorous" line of thought that
was prelevant through the community.
I was standing up for people. You're standing up for elitists and
bullies.
>
> Humans are social animals, they interact in groups and form a common
> set of social indicators which they will respond to instinctively.
> Learn the indicators. This is how advertisers turn wants into needs,
> this is how salesmen sell cars, this is how politicians sell ideas,
> and this is how engineers pick the best design for a project --
> through a careful manipulation of social indicators that have nothing
> at all to do with the merits. Learn the social indicators.
No, I think it's you that needs to read up on your social theory, and
more than just throwing in some terminology where it doesn't really
belong.
That same kind of appeal doesn't work with people who are so viciously
set in disrespecting other people's points of view. An advertiser
generally can't make someone who hates broccoli to the core buy some,
no matter what.
>
> > > > If I insult someone, and you call my argument on it, that is the
> > > > logical fallacy of Style over Substance.
>
> > > No, it's called not wanting to deal with an asshole,
>
> > No, it's called Style over Substance. If you have no respect for the
> > common ground of Formal Fallacies in a debate,
>
> Nope, it's just not wanting to deal with an asshole.
Then I end this post here, as you seem quite adamant in pushing your
idiotic common man's knowledge over the logical form of debate.
~ KR
Kittie Rose
you would be rallied against the source of the aggression, the
aggressors, and not the aggressed. You just like defending the
institution against detractors.
~ KR
Kittie Rose
conservative people to make them look bad.
"When you live in a capitalistic society, the currency of the
dissemination of information goes through capitalistic channels. Would
Noam Chomsky object to his works being sold at Barnes & Noble? No,
because that's where people buy their books. We're not interested in
preaching to just the converted. It's great to play abandoned squats
run by anarchists, but it's also great to be able to reach people with
a revolutionary message, people from Granada Hills to Stuttgart.[7]" -
Tom Morello.
He is 100% right.
If they went Indie, they wouldn't have been able to get their records
to near as many people. They would be shouting about wanting to spread
a message but refusing to do what may have been necessary. That would
have been hypocritical.
If anything, it's RATM playing Sony.
~ K"R
Kittie Rose
Care A Lot by Faith No More) hilarious:
We care a lot about disasters, fires, floods and killer bees
We care a lot about the NASA shuttle falling in the sea
We care a lot about starvation and the food that Live Aid bought
We care a lot about disease, baby Rock, Hudson, rock, yeah!
We care a lot about the gamblers and the pushers and the geeks
We care a lot about the crack and smack and whack that hits the street
We care a lot about the welfare of all the boys and girls
We care a lot about you people cause we're out to save the world
YEAH!
And it's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it
We care a lot about the army navy air force and marines
We care a lot about the SF, NY and LAPD
We care a lot about you people, about your guns
about the wars you're fighting gee that looks like fun
We care a lot about the Garbage Pail Kids, they never lie
*We care a lot about Transformers cause there's more than meets the
eye*
We care a lot about the little things, the bigger things we top
We care a lot about you people yeah you bet we care a lot,
YEAH!
Well, its a dirty job but someone's gotta do it
And it's a dirty song but someone's gotta sing it
So there you have it. Caring about Transformers is a dirty job, but
someone's got to do it. Heheheheeh.
~ KR
Thunder Magnificent!
> Um, no it's not hypocritical at all,
So, if I want to help the world's poor, I should get rich off their
backs by working them to death in sweat shops and then use the money I
make to help them?
> He is 100% right.
Many people get into politics to change things for the better but when
they finally get elected, succumb to the decadence and power they're
exposed to--why shouldn't this rule also apply to music or other
occupations as well? Yes, you can resist--but it's not so easy when
you're actually there and the money and opportunities present themselves.
> If they went Indie, they wouldn't have been able to get their records
> to near as many people.
After selling millions of albums, people would likely still follow them
if they went Indie. But if Sony backs you, why take a pay cut?
> They would be shouting about wanting to spread
> a message
They were broken up for some time and most of the band went and formed
Audioslave, which seemed to just exist to make music. That didn't
further any goals on anyone's part, except to make money.
>but refusing to do what may have been necessary. That would
>have been hypocritical.
I understand that there's this whole "change the system from within"
idea out there but true, violent change in society has come from abrupt
action (or often reaction to the violence resulted in by believing in a
foolish idea). I think this is what the Decepticons realized--that if
they were ever going to accomplish their goals, they needed to take
radical action, not just play by Cybertron's rules and hope to change
things from within (although the Autobots likely would've disagreed with
that).
Also, your statement above is really just an attempt to further justify
your belief that you could've changed the TF Wiki from within which
seems unlikely since, as we've all discussed, the site is run by snobs
that don't take criticism easily.
At any rate, I don't care about the TF Wiki... and if you wish to
post on ATT and contribute to things in a positive light, then welcome
aboard. :)
t.k.
Kittie Rose
> Kittie Rose wrote:
> > Um, no it's not hypocritical at all,
>
> So, if I want to help the world's poor, I should get rich off their
> backs by working them to death in sweat shops and then use the money I
> make to help them?
If Sony didn't sign Rage, they would have signed another artist just
the same. It's not Rage's fault for taking a record deal that got them
greater recognition which is ultimately a bigger step than not taking
a record deal. If Rage hadn't, they wouldn't have the recognition they
do today.
Turning down a big record deal doesn't, ultimately, achieve anything,
except to appease some muppets with very simplistic ethics.
>
> > He is 100% right.
>
> Many people get into politics to change things for the better but when
> they finally get elected, succumb to the decadence and power they're
> exposed to--why shouldn't this rule also apply to music or other
> occupations as well? Yes, you can resist--but it's not so easy when
> you're actually there and the money and opportunities present themselves.
>
> > If they went Indie, they wouldn't have been able to get their records
> > to near as many people.
>
> After selling millions of albums, people would likely still follow them
> if they went Indie. But if Sony backs you, why take a pay cut?
It's not just about existing fans following them, it's about getting
new ones, continuting advertising and getting the best gigs they can.
Those things are far easier.
I don't see how continuing on the label is any different from the
reasons for taking it up in the first place. Just because they have a
foothold doesn't mean they'll be as efficent as spreading their
message if they go indie. It's not a good risk to take.
>
> > They would be shouting about wanting to spread
> > a message
>
> They were broken up for some time and most of the band went and formed
> Audioslave, which seemed to just exist to make music. That didn't
> further any goals on anyone's part, except to make money.
See, now this really pisses me off. You could say it about any band.
Just because they wanted to play music out side of Rage doesn't make
them money hungry.
Honestly, you're just buying into the bullshit that's shat out there
on the internet by clever little dicks who think they can spot a
hypocrite to make their own lack of moral stance on anything feel more
comfortable.
>
> >but refusing to do what may have been necessary. That would
> >have been hypocritical.
>
> I understand that there's this whole "change the system from within"
> idea out there but true, violent change in society has come from abrupt
> action (or often reaction to the violence resulted in by believing in a
> foolish idea).
It's not really working within the system though. They're still
directly and openly against the system, they are only playing it on
the level of using Sony's backing to reach as many people as possible.
> I think this is what the Decepticons realized--that if
> they were ever going to accomplish their goals, they needed to take
> radical action, not just play by Cybertron's rules and hope to change
> things from within (although the Autobots likely would've disagreed with
> that).
>
> Also, your statement above is really just an attempt to further justify
> your belief that you could've changed the TF Wiki from within which
> seems unlikely since, as we've all discussed, the site is run by snobs
> that don't take criticism easily.
Hmm, I'm confused. What you just said about rash action would seem to
support my beliefs Re; Change on the Wiki.
> At any rate, I don't care about the TF Wiki... and if you wish to
> post on ATT and contribute to things in a positive light, then welcome
> aboard. :)
>
> t.k.
Thanks :)
~ KR
ghos...@gmail.com
This has been the most interesting thread around these parts in ages.
Makes me want to reread the old Raksha threads.
I'm afraid I don't know much about the transwiki because I'm not
really interested in any "canon" other than G1 tech specs.
I don't much frequent any of the tf messageboards because there are
just too many people posting to get a sense of regulars. I read ATT
since it was the first real place that I could ask about japanese
translations or transformers fonts and get detailed answers.
Generally the age skews a bit higher here and I am glad since I was a
transfan since I was a kid in 85 and when I post my custom Techs here
it generally is for more the G1 crowd.
I read shortpacked but didn't know that Walky and crew were so
powerful in determining the fandom.
I listen to RATM and read Chomsky. If you, KR, want to communicate as
effectively as they do, you can either have a great sense of rhythm,
vocal control, and the ability to refine complex political and
historical events into their bare essentials like Rage or invest in a
staggering amount of research and have an extremely eloquent means to
communicate like Chomsky.
Since I haven't read your edits or read your posts on other message
boards, I will take it on faith that they are exhaustively researched
and well reasoned since you have already dedicated a few thousand
words here to defend your position. If you are still being
marginalized or bullied, I suggest starting your own wiki or website
in order to counter those who are against your view and build your own
consensus. If this is too much of an effort than you may wish to
rethink your commitment to your goals. Chomsky regularly has received
death threats in addition to having a full academic life being a
professor in liguistics in addition to his social and political
activism. Again, if you truly believe in this cause, there has to be
a commensurate amount of commitment. There are people without
internet connections or even educations that are fighting the good
fight.
The other option of course is to continue debating on these forums.
Bring out the well formed arguments and you will prevail in the face
of anger, irrationality and even apathy. You state that you have been
banned in numerous places. I'm afraid I can't judge the merits of
those bans without looking at the clamed offenses. Perhaps a point by
point list quotes of what you have written and why? I'm willing to be
convinced, I just need to see the examples, not just the argument--
that a select amount of biases wield an inordinate amount of power.
Generally when I argue, I try to use all the proof I can in order to
convince my opposition. Of course you have the proof in other message
boards (where your posts deleted or locked?) and the historical edits
from the wiki, but since you are posting your thesis here on ATT, all
that evidence needs to be here too.
I am very interested your viewpoints, but am not yet convinced. I
would love to see more proof of your claim as I am a relatively naive
party, but I am definitely more sympathetic to claims that the TF
community (and internet communities in general) are dominated by a
select few cliques.
-JB
Kittie Rose
popularity of the "TL;DR" internet meme and general laziness to care
about the truth over simpler bitesize views mean that seems to work
against me more than anything.
The problem with setting up a new wiki, or forum, is that it's not
guaranteed to be a success. In fact, it will almost definitely be a
failure. "THis is private property, set up your own if you disagree"
works in a Vacuum, but not if you factor in people's unwillingness to
budge out of their comfort zone.
~ KR
G.B. Blackrock
In fact, any *new* TF wiki set up would invariably get into disputes
with the existing one, as people inevitably steal information from
it. Even if the hypothetical *new* TF wiki were set up with explicit
standards that dictated "strict encylopedic" articles, rather than the
mild (or sometimes a bit more than mild) humor the current TF wiki
uses, such article theft would be inevitable.
Besides, although I'm reluctant to admit it, if the TF wiki *were* set
up as I'd have wanted (more "strict encyclopedia"), I'm fairly
confident that it would never have gotten to be this popular in the
first place. I'm pretty content to let them have their fun, and
simply keep my own involvement to the sidelines, coming in once in a
while to clean something up or add something important to me that
apparently few others care about.
By definition, a wiki can NEVER belong to any one person or group. It
is freely-editable. The wiki will inevitably take on the tone of the
people most involved in editing it. That's as it should be.
Thunder Magnificent!
<snip>
I didn't read anything you posted in reply. Basically, I said my piece
and let it go. Otherwise, we just end up with one of those annoying
circular arguments that happen on usenet all the time with "you're
wrong, I'm right" and "No, *you're* wrong, I'm right". Those get
tiresome pretty quick so I'm content to leave this one alone (besides, I
have better things to do with my time then argue something for months on
end while you won't come around to my point of view and vice-versa). One
good thing about these experiences, though--at least we know what it's
like to be in the U.N.! ;)
t.k.
Willow Ufgood
> In fact, any *new* TF wiki set up would invariably get into disputes
> with the existing one, as people inevitably steal information from
> it.
Isn't that perfectly legal, though?
G.B. Blackrock
Legal? Pretty much, yes, of course. Anything put on the TF Wiki
(indeed, most if not all Wikis) is considered to be under "GNU Free
Documentation License". But that doesn't mean that people don't get
upset about finding things that they wrote for one venue showing up in
another. Just because something's legal doesn't mean that it won't
lead to hard feelings down the road.
(Incidentally, it is NOT generally legal to cut and paste things from
one website to put in another. Wiki is a special example, because it
is specifically set up as an open venue.)
But I'm not talking about legality. I'm talking more along the lines
of the disputes that often happen between message boards, where one
group says "my board is better than your board." You KNOW people will
say, "Well, your Wiki is just OUR Wiki with all the jokes cut out!"
and stuff like that.
Kittie Rose
However, if anyone's interested, I'm thinking of setting up a TF forum
with some more respected oldbies(since I've only been around what, a
year and a bit I don't carry any weight) with the philosophy that you
can't really "own" a community.
I'd like to hear if anyone's interested.
~ KR
Gustavo Wombat
disrupt things a little.
It's like when someone says "I'm a nice guy" or "I try to be fair" --
if they lead with it, they don't mean it.
--Gustavo
Kittie Rose
And your post helps avoid disruption, like, totally.
~ KR
not_avai...@yahoo.com
And you think you're rocking the boat? Bwaahahahahahaa...you're just
pissing in the wind!
Gustavo Wombat
I'd say you already disrupted things (and apparently you would agree,
since you admit to it in the title of the thread), and all I'm doing
is disrupting your disruption.
--Gustavo
Kittie Rose
If you really cared about disruption, you'd be dealing with the poster
above me, not me.
But you don't. You only care about pissing on people who break your
idiotic ethical code of "Never criticise people's taste!".
~ KR
Kittie Rose
And you're just trolling. It would be nice if you went away.
~ KR
Kittie Rose
main TF boards really are run by unsavoury types. I understand the
admin of TFans has engaged in some shady business involving
"Exclusives" that he never sources.
And now this:
Ryan is a fucking scalper.
Come on.
When are people going to learn that these boards are run by shitheads
and idiots? Why don't they leap at the chance when someone else tries
to set up a new one?
I can't stress how ridiculous it was that a friend of mine got
permanently banned from the same board for making a casual joke about
Ryan's sexuality, after other people had already done so, and not even
by Ryan. His insecurity is so vast it spreads to other people.
It's *really* hard to keep a level head with all this crap going on.
It's by no means just the Wiki. That was just the part of the
community that I felt pissed at, at the time. Seibertron, Allspark,
TFans, TFW2005 are all as bad as each other. And Bottalk is just as
bad for very different reasons. But I respect it more since you
actually have a chance to say what you want. Far too many people have
been banned from the others.
I know people will say "Oh I know that, that's why I'm here." But it
doesn't change what's happening on those boards for other people.
I really want an active place to discuss Transformers, a place with
high activity, posts every few minutes. But there is nowhere like
that, that allows me to say what I want to say, that isn't run by
cliques and nazi mods, that I can feel comfortable
You can push "private property" all you like but these guys have used
their private property to deny me and others something which, no
matter how much you say we're not entitled to, should exist either
way. I'm really sad because I have some great ideas for fancomics I
wanted to share with an active community like Shane Anderson does on
TFW2005, but even if I set up an alternate account there, I wouldn't
feel comfortable. I don't think that there's any kind of sense of
humour in the community, either. It can't poke fun at itself. It's
only the elitist half of the community tearing into the non-elitist
half. I've even noticed strains of things I've said appearing in
Shortpacked.
This really has to change. You can bitch at me all you like for being
aggressive but there's a reason for it. Just because it's "only
Transformers" doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make the fandom a
better place. I could *never* show my face at a Botcon as it is, I'd
be surrounded by people I hate. As much as you can blame that on me,
I'm far from the only one in this position.
It's a sorry state we've gotten into. And I think the last thing we
need is to complain about a lack of civility - the reason there's so
much bile is that we never fully get a chance to let it out. Being
forced to respect people just makes things worse.
But it can be fixed, just not by fake means. You can't hammer some
nails just by giving the general impression of having a hammer.
~ KR
Thunder Magnificent!
>I could *never* show my face at a Botcon as it is, I'd
> be surrounded by people I hate. As much as you can blame that on me,
> I'm far from the only one in this position.
>
It's funny because everyone is usually pretty civil at Botcon. I've gone
up to people I don't even know and started conversations--I had a good
running one with a couple of fans at Botcon 05. People will be dicks on
the internet but not in person--because they don't want you to haul off
and punch them or something (which would be foolish, but...)
t.k.
Gustavo Wombat
Kittie Rose wrote:
> You certainly fancy yourself quite the saviour then.
>
> If you really cared about disruption, you'd be dealing with the poster
> above me, not me.
There was no poster above you, you started the thread, and
acknowledged disrupting things in the very title of your first post.
And you're really not sorry about it.
> But you don't. You only care about pissing on people who break your
> idiotic ethical code of "Never criticise people's taste!".
No, that's not it at all. Do pay attention.
--Gustavo
Gustavo Wombat
> I want to bring to people's attention what a great
> state the TF Wiki is in. I love it. The sense of humor can best
> be described as "colossal stupidity for intelligent people." It's
> a lot like the WWFFs, really.
I have to say, I've been to the TF Wiki recently, and it really is in
much, much better shape than it was a year ago, when I dismissively
decided it was trite, uninformative and snarky.
It's no longer trite at all, and it's very informative. And the snark
is really just down to a few fandom pages and image titles.
It's not sourced and footnoted as well as it should be (I suppose I
could pitch in here and there and start putting in the citations) and
there are a few things I disagree with policy-wise (not having a very
clearly distinctive spot for the various fandom interpretations of
ambiguous canonical events, for instance), but I can understand why
those decisions were made and respect them.
All in all, well done.
--Gustavo
Kittie Rose
I mean the "Not_available" guy, and you know it. You've seen his posts
by now, and you ignore them constantly yet pick at me for being
"disruptive".
You're a fucking hypocrite and I'm no longer dealing with you.
~ KR
Kittie Rose
Hah, see, I can have a backbone in real life too, unlike some of these
30-year-old-kids. I'd be pretty sensitive to the little bit of
dickery since these guys have spent the last year and 4 months driving
me absolutely fucking nuts.
~ KR
not_avai...@yahoo.com
Paging not_available321...Uh bitch, don't even drag me into your horse
shit. You dug your own grave, now lie in it.
Kittie Rose
I'm the one causing disruption.
This kind of hypocrisy goes on all the time online, people only pick
on who they don't like the look of, not who's actually causing
trouble.
~ KR
not_avai...@yahoo.com
UH, YOU STARTED THIS THREAD TITLED "SORRY TO DISRUPT...!"
I have no idea what you look like, nor do I care. Yeah, and thanks
for informing *me* of all people, the kind of hypocrisy that goes on
in the internetz...I'm so stupid. You will not save the internet, or
mankind with your brand of self-righteous hypocrisy...You're beating a
dead horse.
Kittie Rose
You've failed to demonstrate how my arguments are a brand of self-
righteous hypocrisy. How did I dig my own grave by pointing out flaws
with the wiki? Should nobody complain about anything, ever? That would
fit into your pathetic, insecure existence as an online entity.
You're a troll, and a dumbshit one at that. You shouldn't be
criticising anyone else's methods until you can write posts that don't
stink of GameFAQs.
~ KR
not_avai...@yahoo.com
> On Aug 26, 5:25 pm, not_available...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 26, 12:14 pm, Kittie Rose <wetfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What grave did I did? You're trolling the list, yet Gustavo acts like
> > > I'm the one causing disruption.
>
> > > This kind of hypocrisy goes on all the time online, people only pick
> > > on who they don't like the look of, not who's actually causing
> > > trouble.
>
> > > ~ KR
>
> > UH, YOU STARTED THIS THREAD TITLED "SORRY TO DISRUPT...!"
>
> > I have no idea what you look like, nor do I care. Yeah, and thanks
> > for informing *me* of all people, the kind of hypocrisy that goes on
> > in the internetz...I'm so stupid. You will not save the internet, or
> > mankind with your brand of self-righteous hypocrisy...You're beating a
> > dead horse.
>
> You've failed to demonstrate how my arguments are a brand of self-
> righteous hypocrisy. How did I dig my own grave by pointing out flaws
> with the wiki? Should nobody complain about anything, ever? That would
> fit into your pathetic, insecure existence as an online entity.
I'm doing this for fun, because I'm bored on an off-
weekend...YAWN...And I think it's safe to assume by now that you've
already succeeded in making yourself look like a fool. Yes, there are
flaws, cliques, fascist mods, dickheads, cunts, etc...in many
communities/fandoms, and that's just how it is - Reality check.
Surprise, surprise! Sure, you can point it out and scream at the top
of your lungs all day...but guess what? It ain't gonna change a
goddamn thing. You aren't a revolutionary. You're a victim of your
own bloated ego.
> You're a troll, and a dumbshit one at that. You shouldn't be
> criticising anyone else's methods until you can write posts that don't
> stink of GameFAQs.
Christ on a silver fuckin platter, "Gamefaqs?" WTF are you talkin
about? I don't play games, bitch.
I keep it real.
st4y in skool.
Onslaught Six
> Christ on a silver fuckin platter, "Gamefaqs?" WTF are you talkin
> about? I don't play games, bitch.
>
> I keep it real.
>
> st4y in skool.
I almost miss Deathy.
Almost.
FortMax
Argument loosing Bingo
KittyRose
_______B____________________I___|
________N________________G__________O_____________________________________
"My secret sources | Comparing | "We don't know so| "You
just | Bringing up a |
I can't talk about say" | stuff To Nazis | there's no reason |
love/hate | recent tragedy |
| | to argue
even | all _____" | as a distraction |
| | though I
was | | |
| | and at
length" | | |
__________________|_____________|________________ |_____O________|
_____________|
Accusations of | "True | Using fanfic to |
Mocking the |"You're pushing |
cliques or elitism | Fans" | argue against |
other guy's | an agenda" |
| | official
fiction | sig/name | |
_________O________|_____O______|_________________|______O_______|
_____________|
Claiming to have | "Safety laws |
|"All opinions are| | refusal to back |
the current popular | be damned" | |
valid and should |up claims |
mental illness | |
O |be respected even| |
as an excuse |
| | if based on
| |
|
| | faulty logic and |
O |
|
| | provable
| |
|
| |falsehoods"
| |
________O________ |_____________|________________|_____O________|
______________|
Claiming to represent | "The official | "At least I have |
empty threats | Claiming support|
the fandom as a | parties are | a life"
| of litigation | of invisable silent|
whole | lying to us"
| | |
majority |
__________________|_____________|____O__________|_______________|
_______O______|
"You made your self | "STFU" |Threatening to |using
rare excep- | "FREEDOM |
believe your position" | | leave the forum |
tions as proff all | OF |
|
| | occouranses are | SPEECH!" |
|
| | that way
| |
______O___________|____________ |_______________|_______O_______|
_____________|
Comeon... Bingo, Bingo...
FortMax
The gist of this is Rosalie nearly got me a bingo on Siph's Internet
Argument Losing Bingo card.
FortMax, who wishes it was possible to include pics in newsgrouops
like you can in most non-usenet forums