Board Thread:Wiki Improvement/@comment-7637833-20160313215658/@comment-26037781-20160319202739

Sorry, but this rule doesn't have my vote, for a multitude of reasons why, which, sure, you can vouch for me to change my stance upon this, but.

Buckle up, elegant ladies, eloquent gentlemen, lovely girls and rowdy boys alike, Sol's gonna explain all the reasons of why he's saying no, seeing he's sorta obligated to.

A. This'd effectively make it so all criticism needs to be polite and kind and all of that stuff, but the thing is. Is this?

Look,

Harsh criticism exists.

Just sheltering the populace from the general comings and goings of creative criticism won't really do much to improve them, because in the events of where they come across this in life, they'll have no sort of coping mannerism in place to help prevent that in the real world. Granted, sure, you can say that they might not be an artist in the future, but the biggest general circumstance, if any, is that this would just let people off the hook for some bad they've done.

They'll continue to expect it handed out to them when, sadly, in most general cases, it would barely even apply. Harsh criticism and satire would generally come to harm in the way of how everyone here would be able to voice their mind on something, even were it means to mock the page a little and have fun. Because which would be better with this?

To shelter one away from all the harm, expecting a good safeguard, or to take the harsh criticism, realize it exists (and let alone there'll be people like that), and level the playing field? Sure. There's gonna be cases where people will get riled up by some people going in, but while in accordance to Mantis' blog? There's something that's sorely missing. Yes, this place is like a bunch of piranhas, but that's just it. What is the mass of critique in the world, creative, politics, or whatever? If you screw up and make such a big deal about your critics, you'll go about drawing attention, and said piranhas will arrive.

Even were this rule to be put down, which, who knows? It might or might not be. Now the field has leveled out after I put some insight into this rule and gave it some thought. It will still happen regardless. You can't really expect a mass of critics to conform to the idea of giving people polite, fair criticism. Because all it does is set it for a disaster waiting to happen, where an artist is unprepared for an onslaught of said piranhas, partaking in the bloodfeast that is the artist's lack of composure, which certainly, by then, the artist should've improved by age thirteen on said composure. Even if they have anger issues or some sort of disorder (such as this), yes, I pulled that card. And honestly? I'm growing quite annoyed with how it's being used as a reason to shelter others, considering how there is quite the example of people who overcame their problems whilst still having such.

Tl;dr for reason A. This rule, despite it's well-meaning description and thought, would be undermined anyways due to the general creative criticism department, and that

Reason B. It wouldn't be fair to the satirical.

I get it, we all like to make fun of stuff, sometimes? We go too far indeed, but that's the fun, in making fun of stuff. I personally don't do it to go after a user, what would make me go after a user is if they don't treat me and others with respect, which, with Reason A, I shouldn't expect that altogether, although I try to overall act amiable until someone jumps the gun and makes a mess of something that eventually turns up with a police interrogation and someone getting sent to prison.

Now, I know there's sort of a rumor about that I love to instigate fights, on occasion?

I will dash it right here and now. I don't love to instigate fights, even though people would like to pin that on me, I love to act out the roles of comedy, and have fun while doing so. What I say isn't meant to make the slightest bit of sense, Hell, it could be me parodying something else. I make cracks at even my own characters on occasion, saying things that aren't true, or that's meant to make fun of them. I do this to my friends on occasion too (Especially Kaze), because it's all in the manner of fun. But if someone gets so offended by it? Well, so what? That's also part of the creative department. They have a right to say that they are, but if they make a mess of things? That's pretty much letting off blood again.

When I started playing Final Fantasy XIV, it gave me a unique look into how people think, and I'll use an example. It's my first time running Brayflox's Longstop, the healer loved to poke fun about how I was maining Dragoon, which in FFXIV, the common trend of Dragoons is that people tended to choose to be them because they looked cool, or that they have Dragon like armor. The concept of 'Loldragoon' was established and prevalent. I wasn't the best Dragoon back in running the dungeon since it's the first dungeon, if you aren't overleveled by the time you get to Haukke Manor, where you have access to your Job, which is a promotion to your Class. Now? I can play a thoroughly decent Dragoon, not the best, but what does this have to do with the whole thing?

Alright, so Yori went away from the keyboard to do something, we're at the penultimate boss of the dungeon, I ask Runner (Our FCmate, and fellow DPS of that run) if she had a joke to pass the time, the Healer said they had a good one, and said flat to my face "Dragoon Mains", and I myself, am a Dragoon Main. Instead of getting insulted like a whiny spoiled brat, I actually found the humor in that, because I myself just picked up the class and was learning how to use it. I made another mistake at the end where I didn't even have Limit Break on my bar, but I just took that as a lesson to be a better Dragoon, and as a result, a better player overall.

Now, when I say in the chat "I should probably have X character go against Y (the topic).", and it's usually Sol as the X character, this is to poke fun at how he loves to fight, and more so, why he does. I'm also making fun of the fact that occasionally I bump into a so called 'Hero' character that not only finds murder totes justifiable, which isn't even justice in most cases, bear in mind. But I bump into a 'Hero' character that acts heavily unlike a Hero should, unusually violent, unable to get a grip on their anger, heavily demanding of others. But to the point where 'Hero' characters would threaten to kill others? Nah.

Granted, we do get that in video games, but in some video games, the person you're playing as isn't always the Hero, despite being the protagonist.

C. Our speech is typically being limited, tossed aside, and partaken as if we're just a bunch of children, even if we act like it, we're adults, dammit.

Just, give me a second. Really? We need to make a rule regarding this just to shelter people? When adults are literally making too much of a deal that we need to have a group vote on it? I can see, words hurt, but you need to be thirteen and older to register on Wikia. The reason why people question other users' age on occasion is from how they act, and by the time you're thirteen, you start to hit puberty in the case of where you need to act like an adult. Not cry that a bunch of adults and teenagers are being mean to your page, and apparently, by that extent, they're being mean to you. Harsh criticism is many a time cited as deconstructive, but sometimes, harsh criticism compared to normal criticism can actually be what is needed on occasion to get someone to wake up and recoup their semi-lost efforts.

Here's a good suggestion, maybe the artist can act in a cool and composed way without being so insulted? So then we all don't have a bit of a piss and crapflinging fight because someone pisses their pants when things get real, but take it the complete opposite way due to aforementioned, pissing pants?

Granted, there's more than one way to skin a cat, but limiting the speech of others won't do much, because referring back to Reason A, it'd get people to expect handouts on a silver platter, and that the world is nice and that everything should respect them, but what would happen if they don't get that respect? I believe in earning it for the most part, and I do so by acting as how I should. Acting like myself. I am in no cases a jester, but with my favorite playing card, I share a name, I'm a Joker. The wildcard, my point would probably stand in the case that there could be tons of wildcards with less composure, or even more. Looking towards it, but one thing is for certain? I looked at this proposal initially, laughed, went on my way. I'm being completely honest. Granted, it probably isn't a thing to laugh at, but strongarming into the opposition won't generally solve a case. And this is definitely strongarming.

And lastly, Reason D, there are things people aren't bound to like in the world, and they'll make fun of it. This rule is basically saying "OKAY GUYS YOU CAN'T BE MEAN TO TRUMP!!" when it's pretty outspoken with some of us, he's not the greatest pick for a president, and his ideals are pretty much stupid. It'd just make it kind of fu

Yes, I'm using a political example here. Yes, I know I shouldn't bring politics, but this is to emphasize my point even more. Granted if someone says something cruel like "Why is this here? Go kill yourself, f***ot.", then yeah, that'd call for mod intervention, but that should be a private matter instead of horns blaring, going public as if we're playing a game of politics.

Oh, wait,

That's exactly what we're doing here, isn't it?

Oh well,

Those are my reasons, carry out any action or counter statement as you will, pick apart the flaws of my argument. I don't care, I'm pretty much rooted with the whole time I've written this. And it's practically three pages long, too. You can say that what happened with a number of pages isn't criticism, but why should we abide by the thoughts of a few to define a word, that's already got a myriad of explanations and examples?

Resting my case. --Sol