Complaining: Bias Steamroller

Cleaned wicks H-Z.

Then we're pretty much done.

Bump; are we already done?

Okay, I remind you that this thread was started because of complaining, yet the pro wrestling examples that have nothing to do with complaining. Now on the Ring of Honor page HighCrate tells me to look at this thread. So what changed since I posted on the previous page? Because none of the removed examples were instances of complaining. Even the WCW example on the bias steamroller page itself, which mentioned a plot twist almost spoiled, was mentioning an objective fact. Screaming "But whose side is he on?" Right before a betrayal does make a betrayal a little less shocking.

But I didn't put the WCW example back. I had to look on the history tab for it. What I did do is add the best examples I could think of, making sure to elaborate on them, and cross wick one from the ROH page that had not been deleted yet. I looked on the history tab of the bias steamroller page to make sure I wasn't just putting back the same examples as accused and saw that each entry was better explained than the previous. In the case f the ROH page I did simply remove the %, but I've already made my case on this thread on why those examples were fine and further elaborated on them anyway just to make sure they wouldn't be tampered with, not that it worked. There was no "complaining" in the bullet point entries to fix, and apparently explaining the examples in more detail doesn't count as "fixing" either.

But it's not just pro wrestling. All the sports examples are gone, as if someone has a bias against running commentary. Why exactly? Color's job is to better explain events to the audience, to educate, not proselytize. When one goes so far as to let their bias dictate their work it becomes especially noticeable. The very first example of this trope I saw listed on this site was a color commentary examples and I was able to correctly guess what the trope page was about. Now if some of the listed examples are wrong, if so and so really doesn't always support New Zealand players more heavily then someone else, I guess that could be complaining about the one time he did, but I have yet to see that kind of reasoning used.

Those entries were commented out for insufficient context.

From the Bias Steamroller description:

If the critic has a strong bias against or in favor of a genre, style, director, actor, or what have you, and they allow that acerbic vitriol or blind admiration to fill their review, they're driving a Bias Steamroller. The review often stops being about the work and becomes about the element that inspires the bias; essentially boiling down to "I love (or hate) A; since work B has A in it, I love (or hate) work B; therefore you should (not) watch it."

Questions that need to be answered for an entry to have full context:

1. Who is the critic?
2. What element ("genre, style, director, actor, or what have you") are they biased for or against?
   1. Corollary: Establish that this is a known bias that persists across multiple works, and not simply a dislike of the way that element was implemented in a particular work.
3. What work or works are they reviewing?
4. Do they let their bias for or against the element from Item 2 derail their review to the detriment of discussion of the work ostensibly being reviewed?

Now let's take a look at the deleted entries and see what would need to be added for full context (continued in further posts).

edited 27th Feb '18 7:39:06 AM by HighCrate

1. Who is the critic? Steve Corino. Good so far.
2. What element ("genre, style, director, actor, or what have you") are they biased for or against? They are biased toward ROH and against "other companies" (vague). They also apparently have "favorites among the wrestlers," but this entry can't be about that because Examples Are Not General. For that to count, we would have to know what wrestlers they are biased toward and get full context for each.
   1. Corollary: Establish that this is a known bias that persists across multiple works, and not simply a dislike of the way that element was implemented in a particular work. Nope. We are asked to simply take the entry's word that an actual bias exists. Insufficient context.
3. What work or works are they reviewing? Wrestling? I guess? We need specific examples.
4. Do they let their bias for or against the element from Item 2 derail their review to the detriment of discussion of the work ostensibly being reviewed? Don't know. The entry doesn't say.

edited 27th Feb '18 7:39:16 AM by HighCrate

1. Who is the critic? Caprice Coleman. Good so far.
2. What element ("genre, style, director, actor, or what have you") are they biased for or against? They are biased against Bullet Club.
   1. Corollary: Establish that this is a known bias that persists across multiple works, and not simply a dislike of the way that element was implemented in a particular work. We get the sense that this is the case, but since the entry gives no specific examples, it's not actually established.
3. What work or works are they reviewing? Dunno. Wrestling? Need specifics.
4. Do they let their bias for or against the element from Item 2 derail their review to the detriment of discussion of the work ostensibly being reviewed? Don't know. Entry doesn't say.

1. Who is the critic? Matt Taven. Good so far.
2. What element ("genre, style, director, actor, or what have you") are they biased for or against? No clue.
   1. Corollary: Establish that this is a known bias that persists across multiple works, and not simply a dislike of the way that element was implemented in a particular work. Can't be done without establishing the element he is supposedly biased for or against.
3. What work or works are they reviewing? Wrestling? Dunno.
4. Do they let their bias for or against the element from Item 2 derail their review to the detriment of discussion of the work ostensibly being reviewed? No idea.

This also has the complainiest tone of the three. You could say that it's objectively the worst.

So, in order for a Caprice Coleman entry to stay, for example, I would have to list specific ROH television shows, pay per views and such he did commentary on, specifically those in which Bullet Club appeared on and those they did not appear on? Pay per views apparently isn't clear enough on what is being reviewed but if I typed, say, Death Before Dishonor year/numeral would that do it? Would multiple works be like ROH on SBG#_, __Anniversary Show, Campions Vs All-Stars__?

Does arguing with Kevin Kelly over Bullet Club getting everything The Cabinet does not when none of the Cabinet are in the match they're calling count as derailing? Obviously it does to me, but since we're here might as well get that out of the way.

I don't know how Complaining About Complaining got to needing all these specifics. Commentators not hiding bias when talking about whatever topic is really all the information I really think is needed, akin to such and such character wears classical garb, uses traditional weapons, is said to practice the blah art when adding an example to Ninja. If all the overwhelming amount of examples are "stupidly used", "particularly inaccurate", "egregious", "Did Not Do The Research" etc, then we might have a "complaining" problem but breaking down each entry to hit enough bullet points on what it really means to be a ninja isn't really the response I would take to a complaining issue. I would just remove the complaining.

But if I did hypothetically add all that information about Coleman would I stop being redirected to this thread? It'd be annoying to renew my subscription to ROH ahead of schedule just to figure exactly what was said when just to end up back here, or even on schedule just to see everything deleted.

For full context to be in place, it should be possible for someone who doesn't know anything about the work to read the entry and know that the trope applies. That currently isn't the case with this entry. From the perspective of someone who doesn't know wrestling, it's poorly-written and confusing. Let's break it down:

"He hates all things Bullet Club." Good so far. What is the bias? The bias is against Bullet Club. Great.

"CHAOS can replace its members to keep going as long as they want, so long as they remain successful but Bullet Club are just beating a dead horse." What does this mean? Who are CHAOS, and what does it mean for them to "go on as long as they want"? I thought we were talking about Bullet Club. What does it mean that Bullet Club are "beating a dead horse"? What does CHAOS replacing its members have to do with a bias against Bullet Club? Who is saying that it's okay for CHAOS to replace its members? The entry? Caprice Coleman? Someone else? What is going on here?

"If Chaos cheats he will describe their actions accurately but everything they do is worse when done by Bullet Club." How does Chaos cheat? How does he "describe their actions accurately"? How is his description of Bullet Club's actions different than his description of Chaos' actions, and how does that constitute a bias?

"It doesn't matter how many people not contracted to ROH are on ROH pay per views, unless they are Bullet Club members." Why does it matter, and to whom, if people not contracted to ROH are on ROH pay-per-views? Who are these "people"? Wrestlers? Coaches? Commentators? Ring girls? Why does it matter more if they are Bullet Club members? According to whom?

The problem isn't that there's not enough information there. The problem is that the information that is there is not being presented clearly, in such a way as to establish why it's relevant and make logical connections between the ideas being presented. It's all a big confusing jumble. It's possible that it could be rewritten to be more clear, but I can't really help you do that because I can't parse what it's trying to say.

edited 4th Mar '18 11:48:14 AM by HighCrate

TBH I feel like we're playing 20 questions with this trope and have made the criteria so oddly spefitic and hard to match it's been strangled to death.

Especially since we're arguing "what is the reason for the bias?" when bias often doesn't have a reason and it purely do to subjective dislike of something.

Nobody is asking about a "reason" for a bias. Where did you get that from?

Disregaurd that part I misread at like 2AM.

Still though. My point still stands we may have gone from extreme to another and gotten to picky about what counts as an example and how it should be written.

The standard for context has always been "can somebody who's not familiar with the work tell that it's an example?" That's not specific to this trope, it's universal to the wiki. I don't think that insisting that examples meet the wiki's standard for context is too strict at all.

edited 6th Mar '18 9:01:34 AM by HighCrate

TBH I know all of jack about wrestling and I still got the just of that example they listed

Where are we now?

Going to call this done.