I am not sure how many of the problems we're currently having are intrinsic to the page and not to the participants. Antvasima
can be perfectly polite and cooperative, but incredibly volatile, often long-winded
and tends to interpret things as part of some kind of subversive social agenda. cclospina
doesn't say much and makes hugely controversial edits — but I've run into her elsewhere and not had a problem we couldn't work out. Same for Antvasima. They're both just really... stubborn, I guess.
But there do seem to be some issues that it would be nice to have talked about.
What, for example, is the axis
of the sliding scale? It would seem to go from "mostly good" to "mostly evil," but Type I doesn't fit. Type I isn't really a set morality. If they are "anti hero classic," it seems like a bad idea to just cut
them, but where do they go? Should we call them Type 0?
If good v evil is the axis, does that argue for subjectivity? I'm honestly not sure. I wouldn't have thought so, prior to this, because it's not like any one category has some kind of set Character Alignment
, but if people are going to get into edit wars over the classification of a character because they're "not that evil" but "oh yes they are that evil," then I don't know.
Finally, does Type V need a split? It seems to be the most contentious, not to mention the largest category. It contains types that mean well but are just really horrifically extreme in their methods, and types that are totally selfish but wind up being on the side of the angels because they're pointed at greater evils. I think that's rather major.
edited 24th Jan '11 8:29:05 PM by Tyoria