[007]
Stoogebie
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'d like some tropers\' opinions on this. In \'\'Berserk\'\', a dying villain is offered the choice of sacrificing his daughter to demons in exchange for being restored to full health and strength. The demons tell him that if he dies, he\'ll be dragged into Hell and suffer for all eternity. After a period of indecisiveness, he decides that he can\'t sacrifice his daughter and his soul is taken to Hell.
to:
I\\\'d like some tropers\\\' opinions on this. In \\\'\\\'{{Berserk}}\\\'\\\', a dying villain is offered the choice of sacrificing his daughter to demons in exchange for being restored to full health and strength. The demons tell him that if he dies, he\\\'ll be dragged into Hell and suffer for all eternity. After a period of indecisiveness, he decides that he can\\\'t sacrifice his daughter and his soul is taken to Hell.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Everybody is selfish, but they don\'t take the law into their own hands to kill and torture people, and generally find less violent methods to help out. That\'s the way I see understand most type I\'s, the either mostly non-violent idealistic regular person, or somebody unfortunate for various reasons, who tries and helps out a lot anyway, but doesn\'t go to extremes while doing so (if I remember correctly Shinji of NeonGenesisEvangelion was of this type in the tv-series, with the exception of the \
to:
Everybody is selfish, but they don\\\'t take the law into their own hands to kill and torture people, and generally find less violent methods to help out. That\\\'s the way I see understand most type I\\\'s, the either mostly non-violent idealistic regular person, or somebody unfortunate for various reasons, who tries and helps out a lot anyway, but doesn\\\'t go to extremes while doing so (if I remember correctly Shinji of NeonGenesisEvangelion was of this type in the tv-series, with the exception of the \\\"TakeThat MisaimedFandom!\\\" add-on movie).
As for the \\\"sliding scale\\\" the thing is that there are different fully legitimate evaluations of this. This very discussion is just a minor proof of it. And as such I\\\'m extremely uneasy with not mentioning this.
It is very important to define the boundary that keeps type III from sliding into type IV, and I only have a personal problem with type IV and V, but remember that there are plenty of vigilantes who are willing to go to what in normal society count as considerable extremes within it (imagine reading in the newspaper that somebody independently had gone around castrating or killing criminals without due process, which also in practice always leads to lots of people not guilty of the crimes to get caught along the way), even though they are comparatively tame by fiction standards, and they can be extreme JerkAss types in combination, so there are definitely many who would consider them as neutral. Then again, afaIk there are technically two different types within this category, and the other is simply extremely rude about being great people.
Regarding type I\\\'s potentially fitting anywhere (which I though was type IV\\\'s job), rather than good<->neutral it might help if you point out some examples that could be argued as morally evil? But if what you say is true, and it truly is an unbound trope, then I have no problem with it. Othervise I think that the previous range should stay.
Would you be interested in attempting to work out a reasonable solution Tyoria? The whole uncompromising and unreasonable heavy-handed cutting everywhere, regardless if it doesn\\\'t make any sense or not (several of the categories cclospina routinely cuts out are very much included amongst the characters in the category), is getting a bit tiresome to deal with, she has thus far not made much of an argument that makes me see a coherent rational for all the editing reasons, and I have tried to do various attempts at compromises, but it turns harder without dialogue.
As for the \\\"sliding scale\\\" the thing is that there are different fully legitimate evaluations of this. This very discussion is just a minor proof of it. And as such I\\\'m extremely uneasy with not mentioning this.
It is very important to define the boundary that keeps type III from sliding into type IV, and I only have a personal problem with type IV and V, but remember that there are plenty of vigilantes who are willing to go to what in normal society count as considerable extremes within it (imagine reading in the newspaper that somebody independently had gone around castrating or killing criminals without due process, which also in practice always leads to lots of people not guilty of the crimes to get caught along the way), even though they are comparatively tame by fiction standards, and they can be extreme JerkAss types in combination, so there are definitely many who would consider them as neutral. Then again, afaIk there are technically two different types within this category, and the other is simply extremely rude about being great people.
Regarding type I\\\'s potentially fitting anywhere (which I though was type IV\\\'s job), rather than good<->neutral it might help if you point out some examples that could be argued as morally evil? But if what you say is true, and it truly is an unbound trope, then I have no problem with it. Othervise I think that the previous range should stay.
Would you be interested in attempting to work out a reasonable solution Tyoria? The whole uncompromising and unreasonable heavy-handed cutting everywhere, regardless if it doesn\\\'t make any sense or not (several of the categories cclospina routinely cuts out are very much included amongst the characters in the category), is getting a bit tiresome to deal with, she has thus far not made much of an argument that makes me see a coherent rational for all the editing reasons, and I have tried to do various attempts at compromises, but it turns harder without dialogue.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Everybody is selfish, but they don\'t take the law into their own hands to kill and torture people, and generally find less violent methods to help out. That\'s the way I see understand most type I\'s, the either mostly non-violent idealistic regular person, or somebody unfortunate for various reasons, who tries and helps out a lot anyway, but doesn\'t go to extremes while doing so (if I remember correctly Shinji of NeonGenesisEvangelion was of this type in the tv-series, with the exception of the \
to:
Everybody is selfish, but they don\\\'t take the law into their own hands to kill and torture people, and generally find less violent methods to help out. That\\\'s the way I see understand most type I\\\'s, the either mostly non-violent idealistic regular person, or somebody unfortunate for various reasons, who tries and helps out a lot anyway, but doesn\\\'t go to extremes while doing so (if I remember correctly Shinji of NeonGenesisEvangelion was of this type in the tv-series, with the exception of the \\\"TakeThat MisaimedFandom!\\\" add-on movie).
As for the \\\"sliding scale\\\" the thing is that there are different fully legitimate evaluations of this. This very discussion is just a minor proof of it. And as such I\\\'m extremely uneasy with not mentioning this.
It is very important to define the boundary that keeps type III from sliding into type IV, and I only have a personal problem with type IV and V, but remember that there are plenty of vigilantes who are willing to go to what in normal society count as considerable extremes within it (imagine reading in the newspaper that somebody independently had gone around castrating or killing criminals without due process, which also in practice always leads to lots of people not guilty of the crimes to get caught along the way), even though they are comparatively tame by fiction standards, and they can be extreme JerkAss types in combination, so there are definitely many who would consider them as neutral. Then again, afaIk there are technically two different types within this category, and the other is simply extremely rude about being great people.
Regarding type I\\\'s potentially fitting anywhere (which I though was type IV\\\'s job), rather than good<->neutral it might help if you point out some examples that could be argued as morally evil? But if what you say is true, and it truly is an unbound trope, then I have no problem with it. Othervise I think that the previous range should stay.
Would you be interested in attempting to work out a reasonable solution Tyoria? The whole uncompromising and unreasonable heavy-handed cutting everywhere, regardless if it doesn\\\'t make any sense or not (several of the categories cclospina routinely cuts out are very much included amongst the examples), is getting a bit tiresome to deal with, she has thus far not made much of an argument that makes me see a coherent rational for all the editing reasons, and I have tried to do various attempts at compromises, but it turns harder without dialogue.
As for the \\\"sliding scale\\\" the thing is that there are different fully legitimate evaluations of this. This very discussion is just a minor proof of it. And as such I\\\'m extremely uneasy with not mentioning this.
It is very important to define the boundary that keeps type III from sliding into type IV, and I only have a personal problem with type IV and V, but remember that there are plenty of vigilantes who are willing to go to what in normal society count as considerable extremes within it (imagine reading in the newspaper that somebody independently had gone around castrating or killing criminals without due process, which also in practice always leads to lots of people not guilty of the crimes to get caught along the way), even though they are comparatively tame by fiction standards, and they can be extreme JerkAss types in combination, so there are definitely many who would consider them as neutral. Then again, afaIk there are technically two different types within this category, and the other is simply extremely rude about being great people.
Regarding type I\\\'s potentially fitting anywhere (which I though was type IV\\\'s job), rather than good<->neutral it might help if you point out some examples that could be argued as morally evil? But if what you say is true, and it truly is an unbound trope, then I have no problem with it. Othervise I think that the previous range should stay.
Would you be interested in attempting to work out a reasonable solution Tyoria? The whole uncompromising and unreasonable heavy-handed cutting everywhere, regardless if it doesn\\\'t make any sense or not (several of the categories cclospina routinely cuts out are very much included amongst the examples), is getting a bit tiresome to deal with, she has thus far not made much of an argument that makes me see a coherent rational for all the editing reasons, and I have tried to do various attempts at compromises, but it turns harder without dialogue.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Everybody is selfish, but they don\'t take the law into their own hands to kill and torture people, and generally find less violent methods to help out. That\'s the way I see understand most type I\'s, the either mostly non-violent idealistic regular person, or somebody unfortunate for various reasons, who tries and helps out a lot anyway, but doesn\'t go to extremes while doing so (if I remember correctly Shinji of NeonGenesisEvangelion was of this type in the tv-series, with the exception of the \
to:
Everybody is selfish, but they don\\\'t take the law into their own hands to kill and torture people, and generally find less violent methods to help out. That\\\'s the way I see understand most type I\\\'s, the either mostly non-violent idealistic regular person, or somebody unfortunate for various reasons, who tries and helps out a lot anyway, but doesn\\\'t go to extremes while doing so (if I remember correctly Shinji of NeonGenesisEvangelion was of this type in the tv-series, with the exception of the \\\"TakeThat MisaimedFandom!\\\" add-on movie).
As for the \\\"sliding scale\\\" the thing is that there are different fully legitimate evaluations of this. This very discussion is just a minor proof of it. And as such I\\\'m extremely uneasy with not mentioning this.
It is very important to define the boundary that keeps type III from sliding into type IV, and I only have a personal problem with type IV and V, but remember that there are plenty of vigilantes who are willing to go to what in normal society count as considerable extremes within it (imagine reading in the newspaper that somebody independently had gone around castrating or killing criminals without due process, which also in practice always leads to lots of people not guilty of the crimes to get caught along the way), even though they are comparatively tame by fiction standards, and they can be extreme JerkAss types in combination, so there are definitely many who would consider them as neutral. Then again, afaIk there are technically two different types within this category, and the other is simply extremely rude about being great people.
Regarding type I\\\'s potentially fitting anywhere (which I though was type IV\\\'s job), rather than good<->neutral it might help if you point out some examples that could be argued as morally evil? But if what you say is true, and it truly is an unbound trope, then I have no problem with it. Othervise I think that the previous range should stay.
Would you be interested in attempting to work out a reasonable solution Tyoria? The whole uncompromising and unreasonable heavy-handed cutting everywhere, regardless if it doesn\\\'t make any sense or not (several of the categories cclospina routinely cuts out are very much included amongst the examples), is getting a bit tiresome to deal with, she has thus far not made much of an argument that makes me see all the reasons, and I have tried to do various attempts at compromises, but it turns harder without dialogue.
As for the \\\"sliding scale\\\" the thing is that there are different fully legitimate evaluations of this. This very discussion is just a minor proof of it. And as such I\\\'m extremely uneasy with not mentioning this.
It is very important to define the boundary that keeps type III from sliding into type IV, and I only have a personal problem with type IV and V, but remember that there are plenty of vigilantes who are willing to go to what in normal society count as considerable extremes within it (imagine reading in the newspaper that somebody independently had gone around castrating or killing criminals without due process, which also in practice always leads to lots of people not guilty of the crimes to get caught along the way), even though they are comparatively tame by fiction standards, and they can be extreme JerkAss types in combination, so there are definitely many who would consider them as neutral. Then again, afaIk there are technically two different types within this category, and the other is simply extremely rude about being great people.
Regarding type I\\\'s potentially fitting anywhere (which I though was type IV\\\'s job), rather than good<->neutral it might help if you point out some examples that could be argued as morally evil? But if what you say is true, and it truly is an unbound trope, then I have no problem with it. Othervise I think that the previous range should stay.
Would you be interested in attempting to work out a reasonable solution Tyoria? The whole uncompromising and unreasonable heavy-handed cutting everywhere, regardless if it doesn\\\'t make any sense or not (several of the categories cclospina routinely cuts out are very much included amongst the examples), is getting a bit tiresome to deal with, she has thus far not made much of an argument that makes me see all the reasons, and I have tried to do various attempts at compromises, but it turns harder without dialogue.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Everybody is selfish, but they don\'t take the law into their own hands to kill and torture people, and generally find less violent methods to help out. That\'s the way I see understand most type I\'s, the either mostly non-violent idealistic regular person, or somebody unfortunate for various reasons, who tries and helps out a lot anyway, but doesn\'t go to extremes while doing so (if I remember correctly Shinji of NeonGenesisEvangelion was of this type in the tv-series, with the exception of the \
to:
Everybody is selfish, but they don\\\'t take the law into their own hands to kill and torture people, and generally find less violent methods to help out. That\\\'s the way I see understand most type I\\\'s, the either mostly non-violent idealistic regular person, or somebody unfortunate for various reasons, who tries and helps out a lot anyway, but doesn\\\'t go to extremes while doing so (if I remember correctly Shinji of NeonGenesisEvangelion was of this type in the tv-series, with the exception of the \\\"TakeThat MisaimedFandom!\\\" add-on movie).
As for the \\\"sliding scale\\\" the thing is that there are different fully legitimate evaluations of this. This very discussion is just a minor proof of it. And as such I\\\'m extremely uneasy with not mentioning this.
It is very important to define the boundary that keeps type III from sliding into type IV, and I only have a personal problem with type IV and V, but remember that there are plenty of vigilantes who are willing to go to what in normal society count as considerable extremes within it, even though they are comparatively tame by fiction standards, and they can be extreme JerkAss types in combination, so there are definitely many who would consider them as neutral. Then again, afaIk there are technically two different types within this category, and the other is simply extremely rude about being great people.
Regarding type I\\\'s potentially fitting anywhere (which I though was type IV\\\'s job), rather than good<->neutral it might help if you point out some examples that could be argued as morally evil? But if what you say is true, and it truly is an unbound trope, then I have no problem with it. Othervise I think that the previous range should stay.
Would you be interested in attempting to work out a reasonable solution Tyoria? The whole uncompromising and unreasonable heavy-handed cutting everywhere, regardless if it doesn\\\'t make any sense or not (several of the categories cclospina routinely cuts out are very much included amongst the examples), is getting a bit tiresome to deal with, she has thus far not made much of an argument that makes me see all the reasons, and I have tried to do various attempts at compromises, but it turns harder without dialogue.
As for the \\\"sliding scale\\\" the thing is that there are different fully legitimate evaluations of this. This very discussion is just a minor proof of it. And as such I\\\'m extremely uneasy with not mentioning this.
It is very important to define the boundary that keeps type III from sliding into type IV, and I only have a personal problem with type IV and V, but remember that there are plenty of vigilantes who are willing to go to what in normal society count as considerable extremes within it, even though they are comparatively tame by fiction standards, and they can be extreme JerkAss types in combination, so there are definitely many who would consider them as neutral. Then again, afaIk there are technically two different types within this category, and the other is simply extremely rude about being great people.
Regarding type I\\\'s potentially fitting anywhere (which I though was type IV\\\'s job), rather than good<->neutral it might help if you point out some examples that could be argued as morally evil? But if what you say is true, and it truly is an unbound trope, then I have no problem with it. Othervise I think that the previous range should stay.
Would you be interested in attempting to work out a reasonable solution Tyoria? The whole uncompromising and unreasonable heavy-handed cutting everywhere, regardless if it doesn\\\'t make any sense or not (several of the categories cclospina routinely cuts out are very much included amongst the examples), is getting a bit tiresome to deal with, she has thus far not made much of an argument that makes me see all the reasons, and I have tried to do various attempts at compromises, but it turns harder without dialogue.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Everybody is selfish, but they don\'t take the law into their own hands to kill and torture people, and generally find less violent methods to help out. That\'s the way I see understand most type I\'s, the either mostly non-violent idealistic regular person, or somebody unfortunate for various reasons, who tries and helps out a lot anyway, but doesn\'t go to extremes while doing so (if I remember correctly Shinji of NeonGenesisEvangelion was of this type in the tv-series, with the exception of the \
to:
Everybody is selfish, but they don\\\'t take the law into their own hands to kill and torture people, and generally find less violent methods to help out. That\\\'s the way I see understand most type I\\\'s, the either mostly non-violent idealistic regular person, or somebody unfortunate for various reasons, who tries and helps out a lot anyway, but doesn\\\'t go to extremes while doing so (if I remember correctly Shinji of NeonGenesisEvangelion was of this type in the tv-series, with the exception of the \\\"TakeThat MisaimedFandom!\\\" add-on movie).
As for the \\\"sliding scale\\\" the thing is that there are different fully legitimate evaluations of this. This very discussion is just a minor proof of it. And as such I\\\'m extremely uneasy with not mentioning this.
It is very important to define the boundary that keeps type III from sliding into type IV, and I only have a personal problem with type IV and V, but remember that there are plenty of vigilantes who are willing to go to what in normal society count as considerable extremes within it, even though they are comparatively tame by fiction standards, and they can be extreme JerkAss types in combination, so there are definitely many who would consider them as neutral. Then again, afaIk there are technically two different types within this category, and the other is simply extremely rude about being great people.
Regarding type I\\\'s potentially fitting anywhere (which I though was type IV\\\'s job), rather than good<->neutral it might help if you point out some examples that could be argued as morally evil? But if what you say is true, and it truly is an unbound trope, then I have no problem with it. Othervise I think that the previous range should stay.
Would you be interested in attempting to work out a reasonable solution Tyoria? The whole heavy-handed cutting is getting a bit tiresome to deal with, and I have tried to do various attempts at compromises.
As for the \\\"sliding scale\\\" the thing is that there are different fully legitimate evaluations of this. This very discussion is just a minor proof of it. And as such I\\\'m extremely uneasy with not mentioning this.
It is very important to define the boundary that keeps type III from sliding into type IV, and I only have a personal problem with type IV and V, but remember that there are plenty of vigilantes who are willing to go to what in normal society count as considerable extremes within it, even though they are comparatively tame by fiction standards, and they can be extreme JerkAss types in combination, so there are definitely many who would consider them as neutral. Then again, afaIk there are technically two different types within this category, and the other is simply extremely rude about being great people.
Regarding type I\\\'s potentially fitting anywhere (which I though was type IV\\\'s job), rather than good<->neutral it might help if you point out some examples that could be argued as morally evil? But if what you say is true, and it truly is an unbound trope, then I have no problem with it. Othervise I think that the previous range should stay.
Would you be interested in attempting to work out a reasonable solution Tyoria? The whole heavy-handed cutting is getting a bit tiresome to deal with, and I have tried to do various attempts at compromises.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Everybody is selfish, but they don\'t take the law into their own hands to kill and torture people, and generally find less violent methods to help out. That\'s the way I see understand most type I\'s, the either mostly non-violent idealistic regular person, or somebody unfortunate for various reasons, who tries anyway.
to:
Everybody is selfish, but they don\\\'t take the law into their own hands to kill and torture people, and generally find less violent methods to help out. That\\\'s the way I see understand most type I\\\'s, the either mostly non-violent idealistic regular person, or somebody unfortunate for various reasons, who tries and helps out a lot anyway, but doesn\\\'t go to extremes while doing so (if I remember correctly Shinji of NeonGenesisEvangelion was of this type in the tv-series, with the exception of the \\\"TakeThat MisaimedFandom!\\\" add-on movie).
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
As for the \
to:
As for the \\\"sliding scale\\\" the thing is that there are different fully legitimate evaluations of this. This very discussion is just a minor proof of it. And as such I\\\'m extremely uneasy with not mentioning this.
It is very important to define the boundary that keeps type III from sliding into type IV, and I only have a personal problem with type IV and V, but remember that there are plenty of vigilantes who are willing to go to what in normal society count as considerable extremes within it, even though they are comparatively tame by fiction standards, and they can be extreme JerkAss types in combination, so there are definitely many who would consider them as neutral.
Regarding type I\\\'s potentially fitting anywhere (which I though was type IV\\\'s job), rather than good<->neutral it might help if you point out some examples that could be argued as morally evil? But if what you say is true, and it truly is an unbound trope, then I have no problem with it. Othervise I think that the previous range should stay.
It is very important to define the boundary that keeps type III from sliding into type IV, and I only have a personal problem with type IV and V, but remember that there are plenty of vigilantes who are willing to go to what in normal society count as considerable extremes within it, even though they are comparatively tame by fiction standards, and they can be extreme JerkAss types in combination, so there are definitely many who would consider them as neutral.
Regarding type I\\\'s potentially fitting anywhere (which I though was type IV\\\'s job), rather than good<->neutral it might help if you point out some examples that could be argued as morally evil? But if what you say is true, and it truly is an unbound trope, then I have no problem with it. Othervise I think that the previous range should stay.
