[003]
StarformDCX
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
to:
Regarding the claim about \"pushing the diverse [sic] legacy heroes aside\" is it just Riri and Amadeus (who still have Champions to appear in, even if they\'re losing their solo books)? Because Jane Foster\'s Thor was always going to die, while Miles and Kamala are still going to be starring in solo series of their own in the Fresh Start era. Moon Girl isn\'t going anywhere either.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
\"You\'ve already admitted what you\'re doing. The YMMV page was huge with a bunch of lengthy blogposts and diatribes trying to justify the gay fanbase reaction.\"
That statement is clearly connecting me to all the entries about the gay options that were trimmed down. So if you weren\'t saying that I added them, your choice of wording was extremely bad because that was how it ended up.
How am I ranting? I cited your specific statements and what they were implying. I even stated that I hoped those weren\'t your actual intentions. Also, I never said that I was being treated as lesser on this page, I said that the game developers did so while playing into homophobic tropes, the complaints toward which you described as \"petty\" regardless of reasoning.
You brought your opinion into this when you stated that complaints about the m/m options look petty no matter what reason is given. I quote, \"Frankly, they look petty either way.\"
Before the issue was brought here, the entry was essentially: \"gay male players objected to issue x and issue y. Patch 1.08 corrected these issues by taking action z.\" That is a statement of fact. It is not a commentary on whether or not those objections were legitimate. It is not \"fluff.\" It is not \"justifying\" those objections. It is not \"natter.\" It is a statement of fact that avoids unnecessary ambiguity which would result in avoidable misunderstandings. I am having a lot of trouble seeing how that violates the guidelines you just stated, and I already compromised by trimming down my original wordiness.
However, making it more ambiguous, as you are insisting on doing, would lead to misunderstandings. Leaving ambiguous, as you are insisting, would be actively guideing unfamiliar viewers to a specific judgement on the validity of the objections. It would lead unfamiliar viewers to the specific judgement that you have already stated you hold. Again, I quote, \"Frankly, they look petty either way.\"
That statement is clearly connecting me to all the entries about the gay options that were trimmed down. So if you weren\'t saying that I added them, your choice of wording was extremely bad because that was how it ended up.
How am I ranting? I cited your specific statements and what they were implying. I even stated that I hoped those weren\'t your actual intentions. Also, I never said that I was being treated as lesser on this page, I said that the game developers did so while playing into homophobic tropes, the complaints toward which you described as \"petty\" regardless of reasoning.
You brought your opinion into this when you stated that complaints about the m/m options look petty no matter what reason is given. I quote, \"Frankly, they look petty either way.\"
Before the issue was brought here, the entry was essentially: \"gay male players objected to issue x and issue y. Patch 1.08 corrected these issues by taking action z.\" That is a statement of fact. It is not a commentary on whether or not those objections were legitimate. It is not \"fluff.\" It is not \"justifying\" those objections. It is not \"natter.\" It is a statement of fact that avoids unnecessary ambiguity which would result in avoidable misunderstandings. I am having a lot of trouble seeing how that violates the guidelines you just stated, and I already compromised by trimming down my original wordiness.
However, making it more ambiguous, as you are insisting on doing, would lead to misunderstandings. Leaving ambiguous, as you are insisting, would be actively guideing unfamiliar viewers to a specific judgement on the validity of the objections. It would lead unfamiliar viewers to the specific judgement that you have already stated you hold. Again, I quote, \"Frankly, they look petty either way.\"
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
\"You\'ve already admitted what you\'re doing. The YMMV page was huge with a bunch of lengthy blogposts and diatribes trying to justify the gay fanbase reaction.\"
That statement is clearly connecting me to all the entries about the gay options that were trimmed down. So if you weren\'t saying that I added them, your choice of wording was extremely bad because that was how it ended up.
How am I ranting? I cited your specific statements and what they were implying. I even stated that I hoped those weren\'t your actual intentions. Also, I never said that I was being treated as lesser on this page, I said that the game developers did so while playing into homophobic tropes, the complaints toward which you described as \"petty\" regardless of reasoning.
You brought your opinion into this when you stated that complaints about the m/m options look petty no matter what reason is given. I quote, \"Frankly, they look petty either way.\"
Before the issue was brought here, the entry was essentially: \"gay male players objected to issue x and issue y. Patch 1.08 corrected these issues by taking action z.\" That is a statement of fact. It is not a commentary on whether or not those objections were legitimate. It is not \"fluff.\" It is not \"justifying\" those objections. It is not \"natter.\" It is a statement of fact that avoids unnecessary ambiguity which would result in avoidable misunderstandings. I am having a lot of trouble seeing how that violates the guidelines you just stated, and I already compromised by trimming down my original wordiness.
However, making it more ambiguous, as you are insisting on doing, would lead to misunderstandings. Leaving ambiguous, as you are insisting, would be actively guide unfamiliar viewers to a specific judgement on the validity of the objections. It would lead unfamiliar viewers to the specific judgement that you have already stated you hold. Again, I quote, \"Frankly, they look petty either way.\"
That statement is clearly connecting me to all the entries about the gay options that were trimmed down. So if you weren\'t saying that I added them, your choice of wording was extremely bad because that was how it ended up.
How am I ranting? I cited your specific statements and what they were implying. I even stated that I hoped those weren\'t your actual intentions. Also, I never said that I was being treated as lesser on this page, I said that the game developers did so while playing into homophobic tropes, the complaints toward which you described as \"petty\" regardless of reasoning.
You brought your opinion into this when you stated that complaints about the m/m options look petty no matter what reason is given. I quote, \"Frankly, they look petty either way.\"
Before the issue was brought here, the entry was essentially: \"gay male players objected to issue x and issue y. Patch 1.08 corrected these issues by taking action z.\" That is a statement of fact. It is not a commentary on whether or not those objections were legitimate. It is not \"fluff.\" It is not \"justifying\" those objections. It is not \"natter.\" It is a statement of fact that avoids unnecessary ambiguity which would result in avoidable misunderstandings. I am having a lot of trouble seeing how that violates the guidelines you just stated, and I already compromised by trimming down my original wordiness.
However, making it more ambiguous, as you are insisting on doing, would lead to misunderstandings. Leaving ambiguous, as you are insisting, would be actively guide unfamiliar viewers to a specific judgement on the validity of the objections. It would lead unfamiliar viewers to the specific judgement that you have already stated you hold. Again, I quote, \"Frankly, they look petty either way.\"
