Discussion History Main / BlondeBrunetteRedhead

\\\"We have, like, three rules, and \\\"don\\\'t use the first-person\\\" is one of them. It\\\'s not a lot to keep straight. If you can\\\'t even bother to follow one of the very few rules we have, why should it be assumed on good faith that your contribution has merit to it?\\\"

This is EXACTLY the attitude I was talking about.

I have seen contributions with both merit and an unnecessary use of \\\"this troper\\\". For example, something along the lines of \\\"<series> has this several times. The ones that jump out at this troper are...\\\" The rest of the paragraph legitimately belonged. Yet someone came along and deleted the entire paragraph just because it had \\\"this troper\\\" in it, when it could\\\'ve been easily reworded to \\\"<series> has this several times. For example...\\\"

Also, I am not getting angry at editors who try to fix it \\\"because they didn\\\'t handle it with their delicate kid-gloves\\\". I\\\'m irked because the fixing is done with [[HomeImprovement Tim Taylor\\\'s]] idea of \\\"repair.\\\" A dishwasher that cleans plates and then flings them across the living room is a bigger problem than a dishwasher that simply won\\\'t wash. And \\\"not using delicate kid-gloves\\\" is a ridiculous understatement, it\\\'s more like \\\"burning down the whole city trying to roast a turkey because you tried to light the oven with rocket fuel.\\\"

\\\"We have, like, three rules, and \\\"don\\\'t use the first-person\\\" is one of them. It\\\'s not a lot to keep straight. If you can\\\'t even bother to follow one of the very few rules we have, why should it be assumed on good faith that your contribution has merit to it?\\\"

This is EXACTLY the attitude I was talking about.

I have seen contributions with both merit and an unnecessary use of \\\"this troper\\\". For example, something along the lines of \\\"<series> has this several times. The ones that jump out at this troper are...\\\" The rest of the paragraph legitimately belonged. Yet someone came along and deleted the entire paragraph just because it had \\\"this troper\\\" in it, when it could\\\'ve been easily reworded to \\\"<series> has this several times. For example...\\\"

Also, I am not getting angry at editors who try to fix it \\\"because they didn\\\'t handle it with their delicate kid-gloves\\\". I\\\'m irked because the fixing is done with [[HomeImprovement Tim Taylor\\\'s]] idea of \\\"repair.\\\" A dishwasher that cleans plates and then flings them across the living room is a bigger problem than a dishwasher that simply won\\\'t wash. And \\\"not using delicate kid-gloves\\\" is not the same as \\\"burning down the whole city trying to roast a turkey because you tried to light the oven with rocket fuel.\\\"

\\\"We have, like, three rules, and \\\"don\\\'t use the first-person\\\" is one of them. It\\\'s not a lot to keep straight. If you can\\\'t even bother to follow one of the very few rules we have, why should it be assumed on good faith that your contribution has merit to it?\\\"

This is EXACTLY the attitude I was talking about.

I have seen contributions with both merit and an unnecessary use of \\\"this troper\\\". For example, something along the lines of \\\"<series> has this several times. The ones that jump out at this troper are...\\\" The rest of the paragraph legitimately belonged. Yet someone came along and deleted the entire paragraph just because it had \\\"this troper\\\" in it, when it could\\\'ve been easily reworded to \\\"<series> has this several times. For example...\\\"

Also, I am not getting angry at editors who try to fix it \\\"because they didn\\\'t handle it with their delicate kid-gloves\\\". I\\\'m irked because the fixing is done with [[HomeImprovement Tim Taylor\\\'s]] idea of \\\"repair.\\\" A dishwasher that cleans plates and then flings them across the living room is a bigger problem than a dishwasher that simply won\\\'t wash. And \\\"not using delicate kid-gloves\\\" is not the same as \\\"burning down the whole city trying to roast a turkey.\\\"

\\\"We have, like, three rules, and \\\"don\\\'t use the first-person\\\" is one of them. It\\\'s not a lot to keep straight. If you can\\\'t even bother to follow one of the very few rules we have, why should it be assumed on good faith that your contribution has merit to it?\\\"

This is EXACTLY the attitude I was talking about.

I have seen contributions with both merit and an unnecessary use of \\\"this troper\\\". For example, something along the lines of \\\"<series> has this several times. The ones that jump out at this troper are...\\\" The rest of the paragraph legitimately belonged. Yet someone came along and deleted the entire paragraph just because it had \\\"this troper\\\" in it, when it could\\\'ve been easily reworded to \\\"<series> has this several times. For example...\\\"

Yes, there\\\'s a lot of instances of \\\"this troper\\\" in worthless Natter. But there are also plenty of instances of perfectly good examples with easily-removed \\\"this troper\\\" uses in them. Don\\\'t make sweeping generalizations (especially not about the \\\'\\\'people\\\'\\\' who use \\\"this troper\\\" - RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment, please) because that\\\'s how crap like racism gets started.

Also, I am not getting angry at editors who try to fix it \\\"because they didn\\\'t handle it with their delicate kid-gloves\\\". I\\\'m irked because the fixing is done with [[HomeImprovement Tim Taylor\\\'s]] idea of \\\"repair.\\\" A dishwasher that cleans plates and then flings them across the living room is a bigger problem than a dishwasher that simply won\\\'t wash. And \\\"not using delicate kid-gloves\\\" is not the same as \\\"burning down the whole city trying to roast a turkey.\\\"