Discussion Awesome / TheNostalgiaCritic

Like I said, it's a moment where Doug goes out of character to explain his issue against this movie. Also, I don't know whether the events depicted in the commercial are really happening in-universe or not, even though Malcolm approached the Critic to ask him to call for an ambulance. For all we know, he could be breaking that fake ad's fourth wall or something. Besides, in the next episode, Tamara's perfectly fine. Stop looking so much into background events like this.

I don't know how else I'm going to put Doug's passionate anger regarding this movie on this page, because I personally felt the way he was really tearing into this movie deserved to be listed as an awesome moment.

Yes, I realize Tamara's fine, that's not the point. My point was why would that be the backdrop, with Malcolm mourning her by the time Critic comes back, if you weren't actually meant to take anything from it?

Yes but we already have "it was awesome in a meta way". There's not a whole much point in adding that extra point when Critic was bitching about it so much?

I'd hardly call expressing quiet dread over the "tradition" and snarking at their over the top entrances "bitching".

Point being he didn't want to do it and "yay they're together again" is already there? It's not like I took it off completely, just saying the added bit is kinda redundant.

Okay, okay. I'll play your little game.

So, let's break this down shall we? You deleted the entry because you felt it was wrong? Correct? So you didn't agree with what was said?

So yeah. No matter how much you want to self-justify, the only reason you deleted that entry is because YOU believed it was wrong, because YOU disagreed with it. And trying to declare your opinion as fact simply isn't going to cut it.

You see, I could have done the exact same thing. I could have said that Tamara beating Critic in that video was another example of her sadistic and abusive personality and not awesome in the slightest. I could have used that for deleting the entry and replacing it with my own and made up all kinds of bullshit about how my version is objective fact.

But I did not. Why? Because unlike you, I recognised that the whole point of this section is sharing objective opinions. That just because I disagreed with what was said, I had no right to delete it, no right to say you were wrong for thinking that way. I respected your opinion and merely offered mine as an alternative way to view the situation.

You however, have not shown the same courtesy and have instead violated a firmly established rule of this site. Continue to do so and I promise you will regret it.

Luna, you're way out of line here and being rude and hostile for no reason. nononsense did the right thing bringing it in here so you have no try and claim the high ground.

At it stands it's bad example indentation, you're continuing an edit war, and you're trying to bully another user. You're absolutely in the wrong here Luna, the mods say time and time again whenever there is an edit war (and two tropers removing an example, two putting it back absolutely counts as an edit war) and you utterly ignored that and tried threatening another troper to get your way. So tell me, what firmly established rule has been violated by nononsense?

I'm commenting out the example until it gets sorted out here and I will holler for the mods in a heartbeat if ANYONE either uncomments it or deletes it until the discussion is over, not just when one person says it's over.

Ok, coming here from the forums and Ask The Tropers:

First, let's not edit war or make threats against each other.

Second, as I said in these other venues, subbullets aren't used like that, plus, the example text doesn't tell me why it should be an awesome moment. Zero Context Examples are bad even on YMMV pages.

First, you may have a point about Zero Context Example, I'll have a closer look and edit it.

How does this sound:

"The Nostalgia Critic himself gets an Awesome Moment in this episode. After being subjected to literal torture at the hands of Tamara and Malcom, he trolls them by tricking them into performing humiliating acts while pretending to be dead. Considering how sadistic and evil Tamara was shown to be last episode, this was well deserved retribution and it took serious balls for Critic to casually manipulate someone who is clearly Ax-Crazy."

Now for your next point. What rule did Nononsense violate?

Okay, I'd actually like to apologise to Nononsense here. I assumed you where the same person who deleted the entry simply because it disagreed with you. And I'm sorry you were a target for my anger.

However, that doesn't stop me from being genuinely angry. So to answer your question, "What rule did (Emeriin) violate?"

Let's look at the main page for Awesome Moments shall we?

"Note that awesome moments are subjective. What strikes one person as being awesomeness may generate a 'meh' reaction from another. Of course, you already think your example is awesome. Give the other person the same benefit of the doubt."

But apparently, he's decided to just ignore that and delete an entry for no other reason than because he disagreed with it.

And that seriously offends me. The thing is, there should never have been an Edit War in the first place. Like I said before, there are plenty of things that I don't think count as Awesome Moments or Nightmare Fuel ect. but I leave them up because I recognise that they are subjective opinions. But because one... individual, decided that that rule doesn't apply to him, we have to go through all of this nonsense when really he should just accept that some people might have different thoughts than him. And that is something I won't stand for. Call me a bully however much you want, but when I see someone trying to control the site for their own benefit, I WILL fight against that.

Please don't talk about me that way. I deleted it because it was natter firstly. There's a no natter rule on dethroning and I'm sure it's the same for awesome. I'm sorry I didn't take it to discussion but I'm not a bad person. :(

Natter is always a no-no. Moment pages are no exception.

Emeriin, you screwed up by not leaving an edit reason or bringing it to discussion.

Luna, your tone sucks and you're being aggressive and bullying. Knock it off. It doesn't matter that there should have never been an Edit War to begin with, you knowingly continued it and broke the rules.

Beating myself up for not taking it to discussion, but I did leave an edit reason?

You did, bringing up natter, and with that I can firmly say you did the right thing in that regard.

How was the example natter?

Also how is anything I'm doing bullying? If a person is in the wrong they should be stood up to.

Yes. All you did was add one line of further natter and pothole after being rude in your edit reasons while utterly ignoring the someone else's. "He was a Magnificient Bastard" is still a Zero Context Example.

So to be frank you don't have a leg to stand on here; you've been rude, insulting and bullying others from the word go and for every bit of talk about how you're fighting to stop people from controlling the site for their own benefit that is entirely what you are doing here.

As for how you've been bullying, you've been confrontational from the word go, making threats about how they'd regret going against you, being blunt and dismissive and basically going "knock it off or I'll get you banned" whilst trying to hold up non-existent rules.

Luna I'm going to be frank: the second a mod gets on and sees the tantrum you've been throwing here, you are almost certainly going to be staring at a suspension notice. You can probably avoid that with some apologizing and adjusting of your attitude, which I recommend you get started on right now.

Or don't. Watching people try to backtrack in the edit ban thread is always entertaining. Up to you.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment Drac and I'm probably going to sound hypocritical, it's not really helping the case.

But considering someone has sent a PM to Candi that has sent them packing this whole issue is toxic as hell and I'm just going to holler for a mod directly now.

If the rule was nonexistent why was it written in the first place? If a person is going to violate those rules they will regret it. I am simply the first to put my foot down. Also, I knew someone would try to paint me as a hypocrite but the big difference is that I have never deleted ANY subjective examples, because I respected the other opinion. But when someone else does it, then they're in the right? Does that mean it's okay to go around deleting entries that disagree with you?

Now as for the Zero Context Example thing, I have acknowledged that and as can be seen above, I have proposed a different example that adds more context. But I am completely in the right here. I am not continuing and Edit War, I'm trying to end it.

It was natter. Natter is and always has been fair game for deletion. You disagree with that? Prove it's not natter.

You are not in the right at all. nononsense brought it to discussion to defuse an edit war and you brought it back and utterly refuse to acknowledge that was the wrong thing to do.

For all your talk about respect and following the rules and being in the right you're the one breaking all the rules here.

Oh screw it, this will never get me anywhere.

As I said, I still FIRMLY believe myself in the right, and nothing you say will change that.

BUT, in the intrest of diplomacy, I will apologise for being rude, aggressive, openly hostile, viewing the worst of people, and paranoidly viewing everyone as an enemy. Ban me if you wish, but I ask that we do not allow people to delete entries that disagree with them. Like I said, I proposed an entry with better context. Is their any reason it can't be used alongside Tamara and Malcom's awesome moment?

EDIT: oops

Oops?

Misposted.

What did you mispost?

^^^^^ "Natter" refers to making conversations in the wiki page, and the line you added ("Unless you remember he was doing this as retribution for them subjecting him to literal torture in the Wicker Man review, in which case Critic was getting the awesome moment, reaching almost Magnificent Bastard levels of awesome in this episode." - Emphasis mine) definitely counts as a natter in that you're responding to another entry rather than simply improving it.

Also, sub-bullets aren't supposed to be used to add justification/clarification/additional context to another entry of the same scene.

But how would I "Improve the above entry without changing it and thus devaluating the opinion of the previous poster. That would make me a hypocrite. I don't want to say to someone "Your subjective opinion is wrong. Here's the REAL truth."

Expanding an entry (e.g. adding context if the original is ZCE, or highlighting a different aspect of the scene in addition to what is written in the original) will not change/devalue the opinion expressed in it.

If the entry says: "Action X in Scene Y is awesome", expanding it to say "Action X, followed by Reaction Z in scene Y is awesome" will not hold the connotation that the precious entry is somehow wrong.

Thank you. So is there anything stopping me from doing exactly that? Any advice on how to word it?

Ive edited the entry. How does that look?

For future reference, waiting three hours before adding in a disputed example is not okay. Especially since those three hours are most likely a time where the others in the discussion are not available to comment.

In case anyone is wondering at the moment Lunacorva is suspended over the edit reasons and continuing an edit war, so no resolving this issue until after they get a chance to appeal and then come back here.

I'd go with the first.

Concur

They're subjective. Unless it's something silly like just swearing, it's people's opinions.

Good point.