Archived Discussion ComicBook / SonicTheHedgehog

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

SynjoDeonecros: Okay, whoever keeps editing both this page and the Word of Gay page to keep saying Rotor being gay was an Ass Pull and not at all obvious needs to stop it. First of all, Ken never said that the relationship in the comic was going to be obvious, just that he thought Rotor being gay was an obvious choice. Second of all, it wasn't an ass pull; he set up plenty of subtle yet noticeable hints about Rotor's sexuality and his partnership with Cobar, most notable being Rotor stating he had a close, personal relationship with Cobar in the first issue, and Cobar not only calls Rotor "my dear" when responding to Rotor's suggestion of using time travel in the fourth chapter, but he also emphasized that he called Rotor that not just out of respect, but out of affection, as well. It may not have been too obvious (and, indeed, it couldn't have been too obvious, thanks to comic censors), but it was as blatant as he could make it, at the time.

Seriously, stop with the Justifying Edits; it's not funny, anymore, it's not contributing a damn thing to the site, and it's starting to border on trolling. Other than the Wild Mass Guessing, no one is accusing anyone of anything; all that's been said is that there are Unfortunate Implications about what happened to Rotor and Cobar in "Mobius: X Years Later", from what is known of the series. That's it. So whoever keeps on trying to shoehorn in their own bias with these edits, when they're not supposed to, needs to stop it.

Greenygal: Definitional query (from a different editor): should Unfortunate Implications cover a case like this, where the information necessary for the implications to be unfortunate is a non-canonical intention of the previous author that the relevant author didn't necessarily know about? It seems maybe a little broadly applied.

SynjoDeonecros: It doesn't matter if the new writer knew what the previous writer had intended or not (and, I'm sorry, but considering the new writer stepped in halfway through the arc, I have a hard time believing the previous writer didn't give him at least some idea of what he intended for the series); part of the very definition for Unfortunate Implications is that the writers started out with one thing, and varying circumstances resulted in their intentions meaning something more horrific to the reader/viewer than the writer realized. In this case, it doesn't matter if Ian Flynn knew about Ken Penders' intention to make Rotor and Cobar gay lovers; after Ken announced his Word of Gay, Ian's swift and brutal treatment of the duo when he took over took a darker turn than he intended for some readers. I don't see how it's being broadly applied, in this case. And again, why is everyone saying that the relationship is non-canonical? Because it was confirmed by Ken after he left? Must I remind everyone about all of the obvious if subtle hints inside the comic itself that demonstrated this? Or that Ken had announced his intentions to make a Sonic character in the comic months in advance? Frankly, the Word of Gay here was just confirming the canonization of the relationship.

Greenygal: I'm saying it's non-canonical because the characters having a romantic relationship is not in the book; author intention doesn't count in a work-for-hire multiple-author situation like this. (Whether it counts in a single-author-owned source is fuzzier, but that's not what we've got going here.) Penders apparently hinted as strongly as he could get away with, and I absolutely applaud him for it, but that still only leaves the characters, canonically, as having a close relationship of indeterminate variety. It's subtext, it's author intention, you want to call it quasi-canon or some such I won't argue, but it's not actually canon till the book says it or shows it. (You know, around when hell freezes over.)

SynjoDeonecros: Okay, I'll agree to that. Still, that doesn't change the fact that, by the very definition of the trope, the Word of Gay reveal, quasi-canon or not, gives Ian's treatment of the characters when he took over Unfortunate Implications that neither writer intended. It would be the same if say...a new writer to the Gargoyles comic came in and wrote a story having Staghart killed in front of Brooklyn's eyes shortly after the original writers announced their intention to make them an official couple. Plus, Ian is notorious for being harsh on the characters that he admits to hating (like his constant abuse of Drago Wolf), which just makes the implications even more unfortunate.

Greenygal: I think I just feel that there should be some point in Unfortunate Implications where the writer (or the editor, or the publisher, or whoever) could have stopped and rethought. So it's one thing to kill a gay character without considering whether you are contributing to an unfortunate fictional pattern, even if you yourself have no agenda, and another to kill a character of no canonical sexuality that you may not have known another writer intended to be gay. But you obviously disagree, so okay. (And trying to make that distinction does leave us in the position of having to read the author's mind, even if it's for information and not motivation.) That said I'm still a bit dubious about the current entry; if you don't want it to sound accusatory I'd change the "officially this was because" part, because it's suggesting a conscious alternative motive (presumably of homophobia).

SynjoDeonecros: Um, yeah, isn't that the point of Unfortunate Implications? That the circumstances of the event gives the reader a darker, more sinister interpretation for why it happened? In this case, that interpretation is the implied conscious motive of Bury Your Gays. Think about it: Ken announces months prior to the incident that he intends to make a Sonic character gay, then sets up several subtle-yet-logical hints that said gay couple is Cobar and Rotor (and for those of you who are going to argue that they were too subtle to be taken that way, if you're male, you try telling a straight guy "your dear", and emphasize that you're saying that out of "affection", and see if he doesn't take it as being hit on by a gay guy). He leaves halfway through the series, Ian takes over, and what is the first thing he does with the comic? Have Rotor and Cobar tortured and Cobar killed by the bad guys. Not only tortured and killed, but tortured and killed in a backhanded, afterthought manner, with the bad guys sniggering into their hands in delight and talking about how it was "a true pleasure" to do so. Combined with his refusal to acknowledge the implied relationship between the two characters either way, and his notoriety for downright abusing characters he doesn't like in the comic instead of giving them proper Character Development (like he does with Drago Wolf, whom he has quite loudly voiced his hatred for, and specifically stated he only digs the character out when he wants the guy to be a punching bag for the heroes), and the interpretation that he has a problem with the relationship and/or Ken's depiction of it is quite strong. And you can't even hide behind the theory that Ian didn't know about their relationship, as he's hinted on his own Q&A boards that he himself is a follower of Ken's message board, making it a little difficult for him not to have known about it. Like it or not, the Unfortunate Implications label is valid to the letter, here, so whoever keeps on making Justifying Edits trying to discredit it needs to really stop it.

• Wait, wait, wait, now you're trying to imply that Ian Flynn did this consciously now? You were saying the opposite earlier.
  • No, idiot. I never said that he did or did not consciously did this; what I said is that it didn't matter if he did or not, that the entire point of "Unfortunate Implications" is that the reader interprets the scene from the information available about it, both from the source and from behind the scenes, as having a different, more sinister connotation than the writer might have wanted to imply. In this case, the brutal and almost flippant treatment of the characters' torture (culminating in Shadow and Lien-Da feeling almost giddy over Cobar's death), coupled with the knowledge that the previous writer wrote them as a gay couple, the notoriety of the current writer's abuse of characters that he, personally, doesn't like, and his refusal to comment on the Word of Gay in either direction (almost as if he's trying to avoid the issue, altogether), gives the reader the impression that the current writer has a problem with the characters and/or their relationship, regardless if he intended that or not, hence the Unfortunate Implications trope does apply, here. My statement about Ian likely knowing about the relationship, as he's immplied in his Q&A session that he does follow Ken's work and his message board is meant to quash the arguments that the trope doesn't apply, because "he didn't know about the relationship" as both wrong and inconsequential to the argument; in simpler terms, if Ian is following Ken's stuff as he suggests he is in his own Q&A, he wouldn't have not known about it, and regardless if he did or didn't know about it, or if he even meant to imply that he hates on it or not, doesn't change the fact that the scene has a darker, more bigoted and spiteful tone to it for any reader who knows about the Word of Gay and Ian's refusal to comment on it and his legacy of mistreating characters he doesn't like, a tone that, depending on the reader, can span from a simple hatred for the characters themselves to outright homophobia. Whether or not he knew about the Unfortunate Implications, or put it in there intentionally, doesn't change the fact that it's there, so arguing about it is pointless and needs to stop, since it's bordering on trolling, at this point. Plus, as I said above, the continuous Justifying Edits over it just add to the implications, giving the impression that, if Ian isn't the one who is hating on and/or homophobic toward the Word of Gay, his fans certainly are.
    • You're saying there's an implied conscious motive and that there's a chance that Ian could have known about it, and that you doubt Penders wouldn't have made it known. Combine that with your tone and there's a clear bias in your words and an attempt at a value statement.
    • Woah, woah, woah, wait, I doubt that Penders wouldn't have made the relationship known? Am I missing something here? He did let it be known for some time that he was making a gay character, and it was known for a good amount of that time that it would be Rotor. There's no "doubt" about this, at all, unless you're on the side that says the hints he gave during his run on the story were "too subtle" to be taken as Word of Gay. Then again, someone else on here kept on making Justifying Edits to that effect, and that person seemed to stop shortly before you started on this, so that makes me wonder, too...
    • And again, read what Unfortunate Implications means before you start getting on your high horse about this; the scene, as it's written, in light of what we know about the writer and the previous writer's intentions for the characters in question, implies that the writer had darker motives for writing it how he did. Does that mean that he did? No. Does that mean that he intended it to come out that way? No. Does it matter if he did or didn't? No. Why? Because that's what reader interprets from it. If this was a straight couple, and the torture/death scene happened to them, then the implication would be that the writer didn't like the couple, and decided to have them die for his ship. And it doesn't matter if the characters were revealed to be a couple in-book or through Word of God, the fact that it was known to the fans that the previous writer intended for those characters to be together, and the new writer decided to tear them apart in such a brutal fashion, for whatever reason, makes the reader tend to think that the new writer didn't like the relationship, even if he wrote it like that for completely different reasons. The fact that Ian refuses to comment on the Word of Gay either way, neither confirming nor refuting it, only reinforces that implication, giving the reader the impression that he did know about the relationship and did kill it off, and is trying to avoid culpability. Did he actually know about it? Considering that he himself has said he follows Ken's previous writings and message board, it's unlikely that he wouldn't have known about it, but even if he didn't, and we believe he didn't, that doesn't erase the implication that the scene gives that he did. So, like it or not, the trope is valid, and will stay, so please, for the love of all that is holy, stop making Justifying Edits refuting it. I'm tired of cleaning it up, it's getting to the point of trolling, and I've half a mind of reporting you to the site owners for trolling on this.
    • I'll debate this when you're not constantly going back and editing your comments. Whatever.
    • There's nothing to discuss; you're arguing that Unfortunate Implications doesn't apply to this, because the writer himself never intended it, the exact definition of the trope. It doesn't matter what the writer's intention for the scene or the characters is, only the implication the reader gets from the scene by the scene itself and any other information both in-comic and behind the scenes at the time the scene was made. In this case, it doesn't matter if Ian knew if the characters were gay or not, or even if he intended two write the torture scene to imply that he did and was homophobic towards it, or simply did not like the characters in general; the fact that the reader knew that the characters were meant to be gay, that the torture was written in a way that was cruel and abusive toward the characters (like Shadow talking about how it was a "true pleasure" to torture Cobar to death with a smirk while Lien-Da was giggling like a schoolgirl into her hand in the background), that Ian has a habit of treating characters he didn't like badly in-comic, and that Ian refuses to make any sort of comment about the Word of Gay either way, neither refuting nor confirming it, gives the reader the impression that he had a problem with Rotor and Cobar, up to and including disliking them as a gay couple, and that he wrote the scene to quash them, regardless if he intended to write it like that or if he even knew about them being a couple or not. Plus, since Ian's refusing to comment on it either way, how do you know he didn't intend to write it like that?! Face it: you're arguing against the definition of the term "implication" with your own implication. You have no evidence that proves Ian didn't know about it or write the scene with the implication in mind, and you're ignoring the fact that the implication doesn't need him to know about it or intend it to be written like that for the implication to be formed and applied. The trope is valid, and thus it stays. Any more Justifying Edits or arguments about it from you, and I'm reporting you to the site owners for trolling and article vandalism.
    • Let me get this straight, you're going to report me for arguing about it? Here? When the purpose of this is to debate or talk about this kind of thing? What you're doing is also conjecture and hearsay, based on your own extrapolation and interpretation of events. Yes, Unfortunate Implications relies on subtext, but not when you're pulling together isolated incidents and attaching a bunch of interpretation about the man's morality. And no, you don't have any evidence that he DIDN'T know about it either, and personally, there's Ken's and Ian's mutual statements that they didn't come into contact with one another or talk about ideas at any time. And yes, your argument is WILDLY inconsistent, going back and forth between being accusatory and saying that this is like unto Death of the Author. In fact, the current entry reads VERY much like you're insinuating that this was DELIBERATE. I'm sorry, and I won't touch editing this, but my opinion STANDS.
    • I was going to report you for making any more Justifying Edits like you have been, since it's been bordering on trolling; ever since both Word of Gay and Unfortunate Implications were put on the main article, both you and some other person keep on making smarmy comments about how it isn't accurate, how me or whoever else agreed with it is biased, and how it should be gotten rid of. If you and that other guy think it's so inaccurate and should not be on here, why don't you just delete it? You guys were really turning the main board into a discussion board with your edits, which is why I was getting tired of cleaning it up. Second of all, you still refuse to understand the basis of Unfortunate Implications; if an actor had a DUI before he could finish up his show's season, and his character is shortly thereafter killed off in a gruesome manner, but there was no evidence to suggest that the two were related, would you still not get the impression that they were? If what Ian did to Rotor and Cobar happened to a straight couple that Ken had insinuated in his boards that he intended on making their relationship canon, would you still refuse to believe that the implications given by the scene was that Ian had a problem with that relationship, and wanted to end it? Seriously, I'm betting that, if this was Sally and Sonic that this happened to instead of Rotor and Cobar, you'd be going around touting about how Ian was trying to break them up in a spectacular fashion because he didn't like Sonic being tied down or something, much like how he's being accused of keeping them apart, right now. The behind-the-scenes stuff doesn't have to be directly linked with each other for it to contribute to the Unfortunate Implications; the coincidenc of them happening in such close proximity actually adds to the subtext, implying a connection, which is where I'm going, with this. And again, you're arguing that they had no contact whatsoever, with either each other or each other's work, when Ian himself has implied otherwise, on his board; he mentions reading Ken's previous comics and his message board, in a few of his Q&A sessions, and considering that Ken tries to give as much Word of God as he can on his message board, I find it highly unlikely that he wouldn't know about his plan to make the characters gay, even if it was in the same indirect way the fans knew about it. And I've been very consistent with my argument; I have always stated that Unfortunate Implications applies here, because the circumstances surrounding the characters and the scene, both in-comic and behind the scenes, gives that implication, and it doesn't matter if Ian knew about it or intended to write it like that or not, since it wouldn't change the implication being given by the scene. Again, how many fans still accuse Ian of not wanting Sonic and Sally to stay a couple, even after it's been revealed Executive Meddling forced him to keep them separate, and he never had a choice in the matter? What if it was only implied that Ian hated Drago Wolf, but then, after he killed the character off after several issues of abuse, he went on record to say that Drago was one of his favorite characters? Would his statement to the contrary lessen the impact of the implications? I don't think so; if anything, it would just add to the implications by insinuating that he was lying. I never, ever stated in any way that he was doing this on purpose; all I've ever stated was that the Unfortunate Implications suggest he did, and I even went back on a few of my posts about it and changed it to broaden the implications to include a simple general dislike for the characters. So I'm sorry, but I think you're delusional, and you're only fighting this because the implications is dealing with a gay Sonic couple, which both doesn't exist and shouldn't be accused of anyone of getting rid of (the Unfortunate Implications your and the other guys' arguments against this and Word of Gay imply that you are even more of a homophobe when it comes to Sonic than Ian is implied to be), and while I will hold you to your promise not to make any more edits, I will still retain my warning to you to report you for trolling if you break it.
    • The thing is, the way it's written approaches being condemnatory, and the other fact is that whenever there's a chance that something might not be the way it looks, people will include notes about it. The fact is, the story where Cobar died was written nearly four years ago, and when Ken Penders made his declaration, no one knew who the character was. No one found out it was Rotor until October of 2009. You could say that Ian figured it out himself, but that's conjecture. You could say that Ken could have told him or notes were passed on, but that's conjecture. And yes, the characters wring their hands and snicker evily - because they're BAD PEOPLE. Lien-da has taken sadistic pleasure in doing what she does before, and under other writers. Furtheremore, don't put words in my mouth - I am a Sonic/Sally fan, but I'm not naive enough to think that the story has to or always will go my way about it. And Drago Wolf is a minor character, and one whose very despicable... if he's wrong for treating Drago as a butt monkey, then I can do what you're doing and say that the television show Beast Wars has Unfortunate Implications because Waspinator is abused in a similar light and acts mentally challenged... when it's more like he's just a comedic Igor type. Furthermore, Ian has used Marine, a character he is openly stated as hating, in a positive, though comedic, light, and not done what you said. And furthermore, Ian's statements about it not being worth mentioning also refer to him not considering it important or for the book to be the place to approach those issues. If you're going to leave this as Unfortunate Implications, do it with some kind of qualifier that it might not be what it looks like, or at least take away the extremely bitter and negative slant it has, because it's showing a clear bias against the current writer based entirely on CONJECTURE and seeing things that aren't neccessarily there. EDIT - And for the record, I am not a homophobe, I have never been a homophobe, and I VEHEMENTLY reject the implication. I will admit, I didn't see the subtext until edits pointed it out, but at the time, I was doing it because I legitimately felt it seemed like it came out of nowhere and felt like an Ass Pull. You're making value statements about people who aren't treating this story like it's untouchable and sacred, and that's not fair at all.
    • First of all, read my assessment of the entire torture sequence in the Comic Book page; yes, it would be in character for Lien-Da to grin and giggle in ecstasy at the pain of others, but not Shadow, especially in his depiction in the comic. His depiction is pretty much as a stoic Knight Templar who thinks he's fulfilling his promise to Maria to make the people of Mobius happy by forcing his tyrannical dystopia on them, and treats the other hero characters with the same knowledge of the unaltered timeline with less malice, merely imprisoning them rather than torturing them. In fact, Rotor and Cobar are the only characters that are given this kind of treatment in the entire series. In short, there was no reason for Shadow to torture those two or to show any sort of Affably Evil joy over it, not unless Ian wanted to do two things: show just how evil Shadow was (which was pointless, since, as I said before, it goes against his established characterization in the comic, plus we were shown not two pages earlier just how much of a despot he was), or to show his dislike for the characters and/or a part of their history, and to get rid of them so he wouldn't have to deal with them, anymore. Second, it's interesting that you mentioned Waspinator; the writers were originally going to kill him off, in the second season, but saved him because he was popular with the fans. They eventually grew to like him, and he got his own characterization, with the Butt-Monkey treatment as part of his fate. In other words, they integrated Waspinator's abuse logically into a part of his characterization instead of doing it out of malice. Besides, Waspinator wasn't nearly as tortured in the first season as he was in the later ones. With Drago Wolf, though, no one likes him; not Ian, not the fans. In that case, there's only really two things you could do to the character: force-inject some characterization into the character to make them less of a Scrappy, or have them Put on a Bus for the rest of your run or outright kill them, to save everyone the trauma. Ian is refusing to do either of those. He's simply abusing Drago for abuse's sake. Totally different scenario than Waspinator. As for Marine, she's a Sega-created character who was only in a tie-in story to Sonic Rush Adventure. Do you really think that Ian was nice and friendly to her by his own accord? Of course not; he was likely forced to by Sega to write her in a positive light. It's similar to why he didn't do much with Silver during the storyline; Executive Meddling prevented him from doing any real character development for him, less they did any future games with him. Finally, do you really think that Ian, who has no qualms with loudly announcing his opinions on any aspect of the comic, especially which characters he likes/dislikes, would keep silent about his opinion on the relationship because he thought it was irrelevant to his stories? I don't think so, which is why I say his refusal to comment on it only furthers the Unfortunate Implications; this is exactly the kind of thing he'd likely to comment on, and him not commenting on it either-way seems more to indicate that he doesn't want to piss people off with his answer. Oh, and let's not forget this little tidbit: Sega approved of the relationship, as long as it was kept low-key, namely to avoid the homophobic backlash that had been given on this site ever since Word of Gay was added. And, considering that the writers need Sega's seal of approval for every story they submit to the comic, do you think it isn't likely that they would've told Ian "Look, we can see what you want to do with these characters, but y'see, we had already made a deal with Ken to make these characters homosexual, and we don't think this kind of treatment of them is appropriate for that. We had him keep the relationship low-key to avoid controversy, and the way you have them depicted in this series would just add to that controversy, so we're going to have to ask you to rewrite their parts to tone those implications down"? And while Ken officially confirmed it was Rotor in 2009, the comic the torture scene appeared in was written in 2006, not even two years after Ken's run on the series ended. And the suspicions about the gay couple were already flying back then, with most of the fans leaning toward Rotor, so it wasn't like it was a secret even back when it was first written. I'm sorry, but I have far more evidence to support my position than you do, so why don't you just shut up and accept that it's there, it's accurate, it's relevant, and it's not going away? And, in case you haven't noticed, the previous Unfortunate Implications descriptions were far more subtle and ambiguous than it is, now, and you still complained about it, constantly. Obviously, you won't be satisfied with any sort of editing to it unless it's a total deletion. So sorry, but screw you; it's staying where it is, as it is.
    • Don't you SEE AT ALL WHAT YOU'RE DOING? you're assuming things and creating maybes and what ifs to bolster your position. You're characterizing Sega and dictating what you THINK they might have done, just like what you did with Ken, and what you did with Ian. This isn't writing, or analysis, it's TABLOID SPIN. And you've been waving a hell of a lot of authority and ownership about this whole thing and personally insulting and condemning my character and threatening me. I've only expressed my opinion about what you're insinuating and the problem with it, but threatening mod intervention, calling me a homophobe, and saying "screw you" is going WAY over the line. Can we PLEASE get someone else to make a ruling on this, because this won't get us anywhere.
    • Oh, so you refuse to believe what Ken says in his own freaking message board about the relationship and Sega's approval of it, and refuse to believe Ian's own freaking words about his hatred and treatment of characters he doesn't like, just to accuse me of being biased? Screw you. You're the one taking things out of context, and putting a tabloid spin on things; I'm just reporting it how it is, from the information provided by both the comic itself and both writers, and you're over there merrily sticking your fingers into your freaking ears and pretending to not listen. Didn't you even check out the link provided in both Word of Gay and on here? Apparently not, if you're still refusing to buy it as anything other than my "biased ramblings". Yes, i can see what I'm doing; I'm smacking down a troll who has absolutely no evidence to back up their idiotic Justifying Edits, and trying to stop them from spamming this page, the Word of Gay and Bury Your Gays pages, and the Wall Banger Comic Book page with said edits. Looking back on the edits I had to make to compensate for your stupidity on here, and the number of valid links to Ian's and Ken's own statements on this to back my position up, I have no doubt that the moderators would agree that I'm right in putting Word of Gay and Unfortunate Implications as tropes on here. All you have is your stupid homophobic rant against it - and yes, it IS homophobic, what with the amount of effort you keep putting into bitching about how "you can't take the characters as gay, it's too vague", and "Ian didn't know about the relationship, so he can't have put it in intentionally, so stop saying he did", especially when there's proof to discredit the former, and there's evidence to suggest the latter is wrong and, regardless, whether or not it is wrong is irrelevant given the basic definition of the term Unfortunate Implications. Continue to bury your head in the sand, if you want, but my threat still stands: you try to spam the main pages with your edits, you get reported for trolling and page vandalism.
    • You're still refusing to discuss this without threats, and trying to cast me as a prejudiced villain. Do you realize how dishonest this is? Whatever. I'm going to try to get a third party in here so we can try and settle this.
    • Why should I, when you've done nothing to encourage me to do so? This whole thing didn't even start until you started the edit war on the main page, Word of Gay, and Bury Your Gays, and I went through days of cleaning up your Justifying Edits before finally putting my foot down and begging for you to stop it. I did everything I could to get you to stop, in a nice and polite manner, and you have refused every step of the way. You've accused me of making accusations about Ian that I wasn't even making (as I said, I'm not the one implying that he doesn't like the characters, the comic and the circumstances surrounding it behind the scenes are), you have blatantly ignored all of my attempts to calmly explain why the tropes were valid, and now you're accusing me of making everything I've said and linked to about Ken, Ian, and the Word of Gay up, despite giving ample enough evidence, including links to Ian's board confirming the Word of Gay, to support my position. You, on the other hand, have done nothing to prove your point, just demonizing me and my opinions as delusional Fanwankery with virtually no evidence to support your position provided whatsoever, and until recently you still continued to make the Justifying Edits. What is there to discuss? You are acting like a spoiled, homophobic brat who can't handle that their precious comic may have a canonical gay couple in it, and that maybe their lord and savior Ian Flynn might have a problem with it that is supported by his recent actions in the comic and his reaction to it outside of it, and you won't be satisfied with any compromise whatsoever except me admitting defeat and having both Unfortunate Implications and Word of Gay deleted from the page entirely. You've tried turning the freaking main page into your own little discussion board against their inclusion, instead of simply deleting it if you thought it was wrong, and from what I'm reading in the edit history of this site, you're doing it for every single trope added on here that you disagree with. You're just an edit-happy troll, and you've just pissed me off for the last time. Prepare to be reported, asshole.
    • You never calmly did ANYTHING. First off, you're calling a moderate back and forth that we BOTH participated in on page (I'm willing to admit I was at fault in those cases), you've assumed things about me and called me names, and took offense at an IDEA as personal insults, not to mention conflagurating and putting words in my mouth JUST LIKE you're doing now with me seeing Ian as my savior and wanting certain parts of the page deleted when I've clearly stated up above that I'd be satisfied with rewording the tone of the article to begin with. You say I refused compromise when you never offered it beyond edits you took upon YOURSELF to make and long overdrawn posts telling me how wrong and bad a person I am.
    • Bull. Don't you dare try to make yourself out to be the injured party, here. I tried to edit the wording of the article in the past, and what did you do? Bitch about it, like you've always done, because you don't agree with it and want it removed. What have you done with these latest posts? Accused me of making up the Word of Gay, despite links to Ken's own message board showing I did not, and putting words in Ian's mouth with his dislike for Drago Wolf, which is well-documented as being something he himself has actually stated. You've constantly refused to acknowledge the Unfortunate Implications example as anything but fanwank delusion that never happened "because the writer didn't intend to write it like that", even though he doesn't need to intend to write it like that for it to be Unfortunate Implications, something I've continuously tried explaining to you without success. You are severely lying through your teeth about everything you've done on here, and exaggerating everything I've done on here. This Edit War wouldn't have even started had you just left well enough alone, or at least simply deleted the articles if you didn't agree with them, like is required on here, instead of continuing with your Justifying Edit bitch fests. Most of my edits on this manner on all the pages involved are one of two things: either deleting your complaints, or rewording the posts in question to be more clear and less/more ambiguous, given the context, so as to avoid this kind of shit. And who is being hypocritical here? Yes, you said you were okay with it being there, if it was reworded to be less hostile eventually, but the moment I refuse on the grounds that I've already tried that, several times, and still got bitched out for it by you, you go back to accusing me of making shit up and implying you want it all removed, again. You go back to insisting the tropes are inappropriate and need to be gotten rid of. Screw you. I'm willing to drop this, I've been willing to drop this for a long while, and I have tried to acquiesce to a compromise with youf or a while, and you just refuse to drop it unless you get your way. You are a troll, disruptive and with an air of homophobia with your edits. You will never be happy unless the tropes in question are not listed on this article, and all references in them about this article are deleted. You blatantly refuse to look at the links I posted to the Word of Gay itself, and decry it as bullcrap I made up. You've made far more assumptions about me than I have about you. If anything, you are the problem here; you started this, and you've kept it going regardless of the number of times I've tried to get you to stop it. The only thing I can say is an improvement with you, is that as long as we argue about this here, you're not making your stupid Justifying Edits on the main board. I'm sick of cleaning up after you, I'm sick of arguing with you, so shut up and stop making the Justifying Edits.
    • Ugh. Just. Whatever. I am NOT dealing with this anymore.

Janitor: I'm gonna lock the page for a while.