[ SECRET POST #1588 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1588 ⌋


Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________

02.


__________________________________________________

03.


__________________________________________________

04.


__________________________________________________

05.


__________________________________________________

06.


__________________________________________________

07.


__________________________________________________

08.


__________________________________________________

09.


__________________________________________________

10.


__________________________________________________

11.


__________________________________________________

12.


__________________________________________________

13. [repeat]


__________________________________________________

14.


__________________________________________________

15.


__________________________________________________

16.


__________________________________________________

17.


__________________________________________________

18.


__________________________________________________

19.


__________________________________________________

20.


__________________________________________________

21.


__________________________________________________

22.


__________________________________________________

23.


__________________________________________________

24.


__________________________________________________

25.


__________________________________________________

26.


__________________________________________________

27.


__________________________________________________

28.


__________________________________________________

29. [repeat]


__________________________________________________

30.


__________________________________________________

31.


__________________________________________________

32.






Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 07 pages, 160 secrets from Secret Submission Post #227.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 0 - repeats ], [ 1 2 - posted twice ],
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments and concerns should go here.

Comments

[kitty-wake.livejournal.com]

Well, I, for one, found our conversation quite interesting. Do these anons have something against two people having a little chat about an interesting - if not terribly historically accurate - computer game?

[ariseishirou.livejournal.com]

I know who at least one of them is based on the reference and it's because she's a stan of the game. Simple as that, really. Umbrage because someone has noticed something she likes has flaws. Your usual internet bawwwwing.

With the other I have no idea. Poor reading comprehension, I suppose. In that case I recommend she not look for any reviews of the game, because a number of them were far less kind to it than we were.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Even if what you say is true about the one you suspect (and how can you even be sure when it's anonymous?), from what I've observed of you in this comm, the fact you always come off like a holier-than-thou, pretentious dipshit probably has more to do with it. And I didn't even like this game, FYI.

[ariseishirou.livejournal.com]

I know it is, given an action outside of F!S that immediately followed ;p

Ah yes, nothing more pretentious than stanning for Cowwa Doody on a public forum. I often sit down with the works of Chaucer and a glass of merlot between repawns. If only you plebes could play such cerebral games, tsk tsk.

You may want a thicker skin, in future. It will go a long way to helping you on the internet.

[(Anonymous)]

You don't need to play "cerebral" games to act like a pretentious twatwaffle. You can do so by being way too serious about the mainstream games you do play. And hell, the snotty SJ pandering you do here regularly is enough to get on anyone's nerves.

You may want to get off that horse sometime before you get altitude sickness. And not repeating the exact same line from another comment tends to go a long way, too. Sorry, it wasn't that good a retort. 3/10 at best.

[ariseishirou.livejournal.com]

"Snotty SJ pandering"? What? Are you that anon who was all "women are objectively more beautiful, I know because I and some people I know think they are"? That's not SJ pandering; that's a remotely functional knowledge of art history and what the word "objectively" means.

Or was it all those threads where I pointed out that if you're going to rule out "retard", you might as well rule out "moron" and "idiot" because they have the same linguistic roots? And that "fag" is fast becoming a term of solidarity in many circles?

Or was it where I mentioned that freedom of speech does not protect one from criticism of that speech?

High horse? What? Repeating the line from another comment? What? Where? 3/10? You think I'm trolling?

Is this a case of mistaken identity, do you not actually read what I post, or do you know what any of the words you say mean?

[(Anonymous)]

Nah, I mean your brown-nosing people like pyrat_xo in the last post.

High horse? What? Repeating the line from another comment? What? Where?

The one you deleted, dipshit. But I've been tracking this thread, so I have the e-mail notif. Yes, I do have an account, but I prefer posting anon on this community because confusing you people is hilarious.

And no, you're too uptight about fannish hobbies to make a decent troll. I just think that retort was not good enough to warrant using twice. Or even once, to be honest.

[ariseishirou.livejournal.com]

So... one comment on one issue agreeing with someone you disagree with is "snotty SJ pandering"? Which is, incidentally, what I referenced with "freedom of speech does not protect you from criticism" line, but reading is hard.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree yet again, I thought it was rather clever myself. Obviously. But the response I did end up giving was more to the point. And yes, I know you do.

Honestly, I'm really not. You've chosen to take it that way because you have absolutely nothing intelligent to say about this matter, but "waaaaahhh the Social Justice brigade stole my signs!!!111" is such a brilliant non-sequitur it stands in for content in the minds of some. Including you, it would seem.

Suuure smells grudgewanky up in here all of a sudden. I have fun with my hobbies the way I interact with them. It's a shame you don't.

[(Anonymous)]

Well hey, it doesn't protect you, either, so I guess it's all good then. But yes, agree to disagree. Because you really don't have much of a point either besides "I didn't like this for reasons that have nothing to do with the game's intention anyway." Sorta like complaining about the choice of paint on the Teacup Ride at Disneyland. But hey, if being hypercritical of everything is that much fun to you, who am I to deny you that?

And I have fun with my hobbies, too. But hey, go ahead and keep assuming that I don't just because I find playing more entertaining than critiquing.

Bye!

[ariseishirou.livejournal.com]

No, it certainly does not! But as you can see, I'm all too happy to discuss and defend my positions in these matters. Despite being far from the only person who thinks that bad voice acting detracts from a game overall, I haven't played it, so you might be right that it has nothing to do with the game's "intention". Honestly if you think that's hypercritical, don't read any reviews about games, nor the opinions of anyone who didn't like something you enjoyed. The world is a bleak place like that, full of critics and people with different opinions.

I too find playing more entertaining than critiquing! But critiquing is also fun, and my roommate is using my PS3 right now. Well hey, that's common ground for us!

See how easy it was to have content to your objections instead of "baw the SJ brigade"? I hope you carry this knowledge with you into the future.

[(Anonymous)]

Ok, maybe not "bye" just yet.

If it's just the quality of the acting itself, yes, it is not stellar. I'll agree to that, and I apologize for the snap judgement if that's the part you were actually complaining about. What sounded to me like SJ pandering was complaining that the VAs were not the same nationalities as the characters they were portraying. Which is a...ridiculous complaint, to say the least, in a game whose entire style -- and this is way more evident if you've played it -- is cartoony and over the top and hardly meant to be even a shot in the dark at a realistic portrayal of WWII. It's the Rule of Cool cranked Up to Eleven, so bemoaning that the voice actors aren't as authentic as they are in other games is just laughable at best, and sounds like SJ bitching at worst.

And no, I don't read game reviews in general. Because most tend to be extremely nitpicky about the parts of the game that are not at all important to me (such as voice acting and graphics and online features and historical/regional accuracy). I rent and play firsthand and decide for myself what I want to ultimately drop purchase money on. Much less annoyance that way.

[ariseishirou.livejournal.com]

Well it... was the part I was complaining about, yes. Of course there are those people who do accents that are not their own extremely well, like Hugh Laurie from House, but in this case not so much (based on that clip) hence the "chain-smoker from Delaware" comment. There was no "SJ bitching" in there, trust me. You've misjudged me entirely on those grounds - I think discussion is important, and criticism shouldn't ever be shut down, but that cuts both ways. I'd never try to silence or shame someone who claimed someone had gone to far in policing someone's desire for political correctness either, for example. Dogpiling? Also bad. Two people having a discussion is more productive, and I had the goddawful misandrist "hth" crowd as much as anyone.

I do intend to play it, and shortly (it's on my list right after Uncharted and KZ3) so that I can appreciate the style. I've heard bad things; but I've also heard it's underrated. I'll have to see for myself, I guess.

I've found a few game reviewers I really like and I feel are fairly honest. I have more than a few critically-panned "guilty pleasure" games myself though ;p Like Army of Two the one Extra Credits is always shitting on. Sure it's mindless and dopey, but it's fun, damnit.

[(Anonymous)]

In that case, sorry I misjudged you. I've been observing a rise in that behavior recently, with a concentration in this comm, it seems, and with the internet it's hard to discern whether that's the person's actual intent or not. I tend to assume people have the worst intentions, especially in regard to that aspect of fandom because until yesterday, there's been not much in the way of opposition to it. Again, sorry I jumped to incorrect conclusions.

[(Anonymous)]

In that case, sorry I misjudged you. I've been observing a rise in that behavior recently, with a concentration in this comm, it seems, and with the internet it's hard to discern whether that's the person's actual intent or not. I tend to assume people have the worst intentions, especially in regard to that aspect of fandom because until yesterday, there's been not much in the way of opposition to it. Again, sorry I jumped to incorrect conclusions.

And sorry if this posts twice, LJ is having epic lag.

[ariseishirou.livejournal.com]

No, it's fine, I could have responded to clarify instead of snarking, but again: internet. Intent is sometimes hard to discern. To clarify: I think the social justice movement has good intentions, but their methods leave something to be desired. But critics of the movement also have a dangerous tendency to conflate complaints about methods (e.g., dogpiling, which is bad and deserves to be complained about) with flaws in message (and there's nothing flawed about trying to be considerate and inclusive). Shaming and ridiculing someone for someone who made a statement in ignorance does not educate them. It riles them up, makes them resentful, and encourages them to take sides with the people who have a problem with the message, not the methods.

That goes both ways though, too.

[ariseishirou.livejournal.com]

Alright, now that I've actually read the thread where you and pyrat_xo get into it on yesterday's F!S (as opposed to the only part of that whole discussion I had read, where I "snottily brown-nosed pyrat_xo" by... having them comment on my comment and compliment my icon) I have got to admit that you seem like have serious issues.

Your behaviour was worse than I have ever seen from the "SJ brigade" as you call it; worse, leaping down my throat over an unrelated discussion about voice actors because someone you'd screamed at hysterically for several hours had the gall to make one comment at me is not cool.

You've taken the anti-SJ brigade down so many notches in my estimation I don't even know where to begin. Your patently obvious same!anoning in order to attempt the same dogpile tactics you supposedly abhor is hypocritical and pathetic.

I respect you for apologizing, and I could have behaved better myself, but if this is any example of your own behaviour, please never associate with me again.

[(Anonymous)]

Hi. Not the same anon in this thread, but one of the multiple (yes, multiple) ones that was arguing with pyrat_xo

Did you hack the site so you can see IP addresses on that post or something? Are you psychic? Or are you just arrogant enough to assume there's only one person out there who could possibly have issues with what that poster was saying?

[ariseishirou.livejournal.com]

And you just happen to have such a deep and abiding interest in an obscure and critically-panned video game to the point that you'd check the thread for days in a row to hop in on a discussion you just happen to be tangentially involved in.

I'm not stupid, anon. Writing styles aren't that difficult to discern. Your comment here is proof that even if you aren't same!anoning, you're one of original!anon's friends - as she's let you know about the conversation - and she's not just attempting the same dogpile tactics she claims to abhor - paradoxically, hypocritically, and disgustingly (because I actually loathe bullying) she's actually dogpiling.

Please don't talk to me again unless it's about fandom. I have nothing more to say to you, you loathesome hypocrite(s).

[ariseishirou.livejournal.com]

Ahem. And now a dramatic reading of "brown-nosing people like pyrat_xo.

Anonymous says: "And you don't get to dictate how other people respond to your writing. Dealwithit Dot Jpeg."

I respond: "Yep, pretty much. Fics might be free, but so is criticism. After all, the nature of gift-giving implies reciprocation. Semi-colon three."

Pyrat XO: "LMAO A+ ICON. And also IA with this thread. Etc."

....At some point later, as my only other response to an anonymous on the thread: "But we're reading fanfiction in the first place, so clearly we've already got more than enough time on our hands. Semi-colon, lower case p."

Ohhhh the brown-nosing, the brown-nosing to pyrat_xo, who responded to something I'd said with a compliment about my icon! The brown-nosing inherent in no response! The entire conversation, with reference to how much time we have on our hands for our nerdy hobby, drips with pretension!

I gnash my teeth in anguish at your accurate and incisive interpretation of the events!