Messages

There is a difference between saying someone is a dick and saying someone is being a dick.

If you really, honestly believe that saying someone is being a dick once constitutes bullying then I'm afraid I'm in danger of saying 'don't be a dick'. And citing wikipedia as a set of rules for debate and discussion is laughable, you could have written that yourself 10 minutes ago. And who sets these rules for debate? I didn't sign up to it.

You do understand how wiki or in fact any encyclopedia works, right?

Any and all articulates should have citations and/or references. Those citations/references should point to your sources or evidence. If you have done a degree and completed a dissertation you have to do the same thing: show who and where you are quoting or citing and also list all references to back up any other points you have made.

Though I do not hold a degree and have never attempted to try, i understand this.

This would therefore be how you spot some one who quickly edited wiki, by checking the sources cited on the page. if there are "citations needed" then those points should be taken with a liberal pinch of salt. If you had taken the time to use the links at the bottom of the wiki page you could have found out more about the general rules of formal debate and how people approach it  

but if you need further clarification here is a starting point link to the Oxford Union,
http://www.oxford-union.org/debates/formal_debates

who are a long standing debating society (Founded in 1823) and like many societies the world over, which, as I mentioned happen to be cited at the bottom of the wiki debate page, have strict rules for formal debate most of which bare a very close similarity and differentiate an argument from a discussion or debate. but I will let you do all the donkey work to disprove that.

http://www.oxford-union.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/3074/Definitive_Rules_TT10_3.pdf
Rule 39(b)i which states

"(i) No expressions of a personal or offensive nature may be used at any meeting of the Society. The Chair may
call on any Member to explain any expression he has used; such explanation shall be received without question
as to the speaker's intention, but if unsatisfied the Chair may call on the Member concerned to withdraw and/or
apologize, and the Member concerned shall immediately and without question submit to the authority of the
Chair."

so there is just one example of what you are not supposed to do if you are discussing or debating. unless you think I made up all those websites as well as editing the wiki page

and on bullying, definition taken from taken from Cambridgeshire County Council website

http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/education/parents/welfare/Bullying/whatisbullying.htm

"Types of bullying

There are various types of bullying, but most have three things in common:
1. It is deliberately hurtful behaviour.
2. It is repeated over time.
3. There is an imbalance of power, which makes it hard for those being bullied to defend themselves."

calling people offensive names or using offensive similes can be and is classed as "deliberately hurtful behavior" and is one of the basic tools of bullying.

To quote Michael Franti

"But dehumanizing the victim makes things simpler
It's like breathing with a respirator
It eases the conscience of even the most conscious
and calculating violator
Words can reduce a person to an object,
something more easy to hate
An inanimate entity, completely disposable,
no problem to obliterate"

And this is one of the main reasons civil discussion and debate has strict rules of conduct. And why anything else is just an argument.

Jim did actually use a very similar train of argument across several posts, though- check back and you'll see. I also trawled all through that thread and can't find any post by Jim calling the guy a dick, or 'being rude'. So I really don't see what the fuss is about. And even if he had- sometimes arses need kicked (because some people are dicks), and someone has to kick them.

I'm not surprised he's left as he's been accused of bullying and now calling someone a dick on the stront thread, AND NONE OF IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

You missed this then

Hmf. As ever, you prove yourself a better man than I, TB.

Cheers

Jim

(But I still think he was being a dick.)

[ON]

Been meaning to get back to Colin MacNeil who was up for doing one, but really wanted to get Flint on as well seeing as he's the art guy. Makes it a bit tricky to arrange when he's 6 or 8 hours behind.

Oh come ON your three big roughty toughty men and between the three of you you can get the interview sorted sooner rather than later despite a little thing like time zones issues. Or are you English or something?

[am]

But calling people names because they don't agree is rude. this is especially true if one is stating that forums are places of discussion and debate because there are rules for discussion and debate which turn it in to an art form and unless you are trying to follow those rules your just arguing badly or even bullying.

Yeah, but after you're done with the attempts at rational discourse, calling a dick a dick is sometimes necessary too.  It's seldom about disagreement, which implies some sort of coherent but opposed position, it's usually about gross ignorance.  I'm all for politeness, it's essential to a pleasant society, but carte blanche to continue being a knob is taking it too far.  As some Burke once said, all that is necessary for dickery to triumph is that cranky goths do nothing.    And exposing a dick is fun.*
(*note: may be illegal in several jurisdicktions).

If I call some one a name like a dick (barring my closest friends) then I am being rude. I take the responsibility for my actions by admitting that fact and either apologizing or stating that I do not care and further stating they can Foxtrot Oscar See You Next Tuesday. I would not pretend I was engaged in debate or discussion so its OK.

I am not saying that I have not made mistakes myself, sometimes on this board, but I have learnt from them and attempted to modify my behavior accordingly. And I certainly do not hide behind excuses such as I used to post online back in the day when things where different so it is ok. That is shirking responsibility for your own actions which is poor behavior online or off line.

[stop arguing]

True but all of these generic insults don't help nail down the specifics of why you think the person is behhaving poorly. People's definition of what constitues being a dick, a fud or a fanny can vary wildly.  What is key for you, isn't necessarilly key for them,

Saying "X is being a dick" doesn't help anyone. Saying "You've failed to back up a signgle one of your assertions.  You have taken one solitary story and extrapolated that as a template for all others in the series even though, those other stories do not fit that template.  You are asserting that a fans understanding of a story is more important than the creator's vision" all may help.

(TBF, I think you/Jim/everybody probably did say all of those things and the "dick" thing was just a little bit of "oh well, we tried").

It's the same argument we use for critizing the creators; saying "This art is shit" is no good but saying "This art had unclear story telling and ignored the basic rules of anatomy and perspective" could lead the person to improve/change.

What Tip said.

If you get to an impasse then stop arguing. you may have a million valid points but if some one does not agree with them because they see it a different way then leave it there. attempting to bend someone to your POV archives nothing.

Calling people names because your being matey and its a laugh and is amusing for all involved and ok.

But calling people names because they don't agree is rude. this is especially true if one is stating that forums are places of discussion and debate because there are rules for discussion and debate which turn it in to an art form and unless you are trying to follow those rules your just arguing badly or even bullying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate

Bwa ha ha ha!

Trouble is, that wouldn't work. That's not how time travel works in the SD Universe.

Oh, I know that It was a way of saying if your going to ret con why not just pick up the story from a point before it is considered to have gone wrong and go from there? I would have rather that then the current story which I am not enjoying.

And I again say that I would have expected better of Mr Wagner, who could have done a more epic and interesting reboot than a 3 breasted woman and drunk lumpy man wonder about a bit, find bloke no one likes, who dies in a hideous manner, much to every ones satisfaction and its OK because the main guy is not really dead.

I'd be more inclined to agree with you if this was the story I'd actually read.

What did you think of, say Origins, for example? Or was that 'Old guy sits at campfire and talks about when he were a nipper then meets some of his cousins'?

LOL! I have boiled it down some due to the fact that, for me, there is very little meat on the bones of this story. Precious personality is a bit two dimensional IMO and the extra boob does nothing to compensate that. Middenface and his drunken binges I have also found a bit dull. There have also, for me, been some quite tenuous plot devices like Johnny being famous to the people who are holding Feral.

I would have rather if there is going to be a reboot, then Middenface, drunk and bitter at the loss of his pals does a quick time jump back to the No Go Job and pop a cap in Brother Sagan and tell Johnny about "The Future" before fading away. History changes, Johnny goes and punches a Teenage Feral in the nose and saves the day.

Job Done. Nothing to see here. New Stont stories here we come. Every one cheers.

To be fair I felt that SD was being a little dull way back when. I remember at the time being a bit disappointed by The Rammy and Stone Killers. 

Why I think it's fanfiction, in case you're interested:

1) It's wish fulfilment - the character we like gets lionised, the character we don't like gets a series of increasingly non-sequiter punishments designed to degrade him.

2) Threetits Nopersonality is a typical "Mary Sue" figure - new character, gets to talk down to the old character, good looking, respected and successful. Precious is a character with no faults which is very dull and very very fanfictiony.

3) Feral's character assassination ticks all the boxes - doesn't actually act like the character in question, is captured and subjected to a weird force-feeding thing which is unexpectedly fetishy and then mutilated and burnt alive in grotesque detail. This happens in fanfiction rather more than I think anyone would ever like. It's not a natural, logical or thematically appropriate death, bolted into the story with a weird dream logic.

4) There's absolutely no connective tissue between this story and the one it follows on from - it's published in the tenth year of a fairly inconsequential reboot/revival which was begun ten years after the death of the character. Nothing in the Final Solution is addressed beyond the death of the main character and a new Doghouse (which is as far from iconic as can be). Alpha had an ending - a bit off-beat and maybe not drawn to some people's tastes - but it was a definite and genuinely iconic ending. You can't really get past that unless you disavow it (which has been done before, by things like Battle Angel or Evangelion). Since it's a story that comes past the ending, it feels like fanfiction.

I think Alan Grant was probably a more important element in S/D than Wagner, even if the reverse is horribly, horribly true for Dredd...

I am inclined to agree. As I have already said most of the new SD stories of recent years IMO have been Luke warm and  bit lack luster.

The Death of Feral does smack of pandering to the majority of fans. From the forced feeding to he cutting off of his nose and the spearing with flame does go a long way to appease those who thought badly of Feral and his associated stories.

And I again say that I would have expected better of Mr Wagner, who could have done a more epic and interesting reboot than a 3 breasted woman and drunk lumpy man wonder about a bit, find bloke no one likes, who dies in a hideous manner, much to every ones satisfaction and its OK because the main guy is not really dead.

Oh, and thanks. Thanks a bunch. Now everybody knows about my grizzled old knob. 

We all knew anyway, TLS.

Is it possible to download these podcasts onto my ipod?

filip

um...yeah.. cant you put any mp3 onto an ipod?
Oh, you mean through itunes?

If you go into itunes and look up Geek Syndicate, then show all available episodes, you'll see all our ones plus a load of others. I'd also recommend Small Press Big Mouth if you have the time as its got The Whittle who stands in for us a lot.

Dont forget "Dissecting worlds" which is quite possibly one of the most Arsom pod casts ever. Present company accepted, of course.

LOL if the dyslexic misspelling gets as much fame as "Arsom" then in a round about way I will be happy. As long as Mr Wagner is not offended, of course.

There is some where a thread where I did a similar thing to Rogue Trooper "Rouge Trooper" which caused some amusement I believe.

As long as people are not rude I have no problem with anyone pointing out mistakes. Its when you get all Spelling Nazi about it without taking into account I cant actually help it. Thats when I get peeved.

Johnny Alpha should not have been killed off, simple. It was a big mistake that could not be rectified, and could it be argued that Alan Grant killed him off to spite Wagner in some way, i.e. you gave me Johnny and kept Dredd so I'll kill him off, so nah.

They brought Feral in to replace Alpha, no one could replace Alpha and Feral was an Anti Hero that had a tetchy teenage tantrum personality that was not cool. Alpha was cool, calm collected a many faceted emotional character, he was a guy that you could look up to - a father figure. Feral was like a 'Son of Johnny Alpha', but a spoilt brat that never really listened to his father, even though he admired him, hence the reason he didn't give his life willingly for Johnny. He's like Azrael was to Batman, he wanted to be like Bat's but did not have the self control or reasoning and respect for life like Bruce Wayne has. Same goes for the relationship with Feral and Alpha. Feral should not have been created, instead if they wanted to kill off Johnny they should have created a Son/Daughter of Alpha, a direct relative.

They should not have killed Johnny Alpha, let's hope this retcon brings him back and thank F**k Feral burnt at the stake, goodbye to a waste of a character.

Johnny getting killed didnt read like a spite thing but in retrospect you may not be wrong. I think the problem with Feral was that the only story worth its salt was Monsters and pretty much every other Feral tail sucked.

Ferals recent demise and in fact this whole story line seems to be written for your point of view. It's just I personally feel that Wagner could of done a far better job of it. TBH I would personally be happier if Wagner had used a drunk and bitter Midden Face to ret con the whole time line with via a time lab and left Feral well alone. It might be a more obvious way of doing it but for me the way its been done it a bit poorly done.

ppffft! You said Wanger.

Due to dyslexia, I had to get Mrs Tweak to point out what you where on about

Mr Wagner, I totally apologies for the mistake and was in no way deliberately being rude. I have dyslexia and sometimes cant see sometimes obvious mistakes. Spell check only helps so much. :S

Oh shit, I feel terrible now. No offence meant, thought it was a typo. It was funny though.

Dont worry it is funny and you have not been a Wagner about it. (see what I did there?)

I think the point James E is making is that this version of Feral seems very out of character to whats gone before. While most people are enjoying the current SD story it would seem that most of them are people who didn't like Final Solution. Fair enough, what is happening now is designed to appeal to that opinion any way. Its a ret con.

However, James E is just pointing out another POV. One in which is not quite so pleased with how the way in which the ret con is going. If you dont agree thats fine but at least respect the fact that there are other POVs rather than trying to bully him in to submission.