Discussion Headscratchers / WorldWarZ

Understandable, and I will do. However, since I'm short on time, I'll just address the edit reasons.

Regarding the alleged aggressiveness and rudenss of it. Yes, I admit my response to Mr. Death likely fell into that, and I apologize for my role in it. However, I would say that from my point of view, it was not more severe than (at least what I saw as) an attack on my person.

Dr. Death alleged that my bullet point was simply an excuse to insult Mr. Brooks. That is abundantly not so. In particular since the actual insult against Mr. Brooks- such as it was- took up a fraction of a paragraph length post, where I reiterated the problems with Yonkers, including lack of aerial recon amongst others. In accusing me of doing so, I saw Dr. Death's response as falsely trying to allege I was merely ranting about Brooks personally. Which in turn involved painting a false portrait of my post content, and my own conduct and character as a whole.

Ad-Hominem's recognized as a logical fallacy for a very good reason, and given the *extremely* selective rationale, I could only assume willful misrepresentation. Hence why I re-edited the entries in, and gave a detailed rationale for doing so to rebutt the allegation I viewed as libelous (even if it was overly aggressively so). From what I could observe, my response was roughly equal in tone to the edit given by Dr. Death, only with a better and factual explanation rather than justifying the deletion of an entire set of entries because of a sentence segment in one.

• Edit. Now have time to finish*

Simply put, my reply might have been rude (perhaps too rude), but it was based on fact: the main accusation Mr. Death hurled at me is demonstrably false (that I was going *beyond* the book to insult the author, and so was no longer talking about the book). If need be, I can copy the transcripts of the reasons for editing to prove this.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what the issue of my choice of words regarding Brooks is about. Simply put, the stated reason here is that you are not sure if calling the author an idiot is acceptable and that you "doubt it" is. To be honest, I do not know how I am supposed to react. I'm willing to listen, but all snark and defensiveness aside I'd like some advice on how to proceed.

Let's be blunt here: what's the dilemma exactly? It's pretty much a solid fact that Max Brooks is militarily illiterate and has little grasp of what he wrote in terms of the performance of modern technology and tactics on the battlefield. What's worse is that he's refused to acknowledge said ignorance and has doubled down on it (as shown by things like his post-publishing record defending it like his performance on the episode of Deadliest Warriors). It's easily to churn up plenty of supporting evidence for this, and I could easily write a doctoral thesis on the matter. Should we somehow *avoid* mentioning this, and act as though his opinion is as valid as that of any?

I doubt it, especially given other material on this very Headscratchers page ripping into Brooks and the "logic" behind things like Yonkers, which to the best of my knowledge hasn't caused anything like this amount of trouble. Which brings me to my next point:

Is it a matter of "language"? It's ok to effectively call Brooks an idiot by compiling reams of issues with his writing and positions, but actually using the words "Brooks is an idiot on military matters" trips a line that should be avoided?

Again, completely aside from the debate, I'm legitimately bedeviled here. I realize that I probably went too far somewhere(s), but I'm a bit puzzled as to the where and how I have. That's why I'd sincerely like to ask for help on this. Any advice would be much heeded and much appreciated.

At least get my handle right. It's Mr Death, not Dr Death.

I looked at the edit, and the first thing that caught my eye was "Brooks is also AN IDIOT". This whole page has been subject to straight up creator bashing for a long time, so that's what I took this as.

These pages are for pointing out logical inconsistencies within the narrative. They are not about talking about how the author is an idiot. There are reasons given within the narrative for what happened at Yonkers. Those reasons are already listed on the page, and I saw your posting as ignoring that in favor of just saying Brooks is an idiot again.

My sincere apologies for the misnomer, Mr.Death. Names aren't usually my strong suit, and I wrote the initial response *very* quickly before I had to go out with the family. When i returned, I continued off from where I had begun. Will edit to fix this.

However, that still leaves me with a bone to pick with you. By your admission,

A: Headscratchers is for pointing out logical inconsistencies within the narrative. Unfortunately for your position here, my posting was primarily dedicated to pointing out the logical inconsistencies within the narrative, like somehow not seeing the chain swarm with choppers in the air, and the extreme lack of munitions in spite of (and the character being interviewed claiming or implying it was an excuse created after the fact) a lack of supply problems. Any and all Brooks bashing was a far second to pointing out that the in-universe reasons given for the failures of Yonkers cannot stand even slight informed scrutiny. it does not stand up and serve well even for pointing out logical inconsistencies in the narrative because *there are so many* that often contradict themselves, there can be no other explanation other than that it was from heavy handed and sloppy use of authorial fiat, which means that it cannot be fully discussed without it lapping outside the usual bounds of keeping discussions within the narrative.

B: The first thing that caught your eye was the "Idiot" line, and ergo you "saw" my posting as ignoring that in favor of saying Brooks is an idiot. Simply put, you saw wrong. End of dispute. While I did indeed crib greatly on the full reasons why, my posting was primarily focused on the story, and the reasons given within. The Idiot line was even in reference to the quote given by his author avatar (If I remember Correctly) saying how a shot to the head is really the only reliable way to put them down.

The fact that you somehow saw it as ignoring this in favor of calling Brooks an idiot *just because* - it caught you eye first indicates one thing. You decided to libel me without even *reading the full context* (and yes, I am all too happy to provide the context of the edits made). I do not appreciate being insulted and charged, especially not on false grounds. Hence why I responded scathingly and fully to your stated reasoning: Septimus Heap claimed it was rude and aggressive, and he was most likely right. However being falsely charged and having one's character come under attack on false grounds in a way that is equally rude and aggressive warrants such a response, and I did not let it degenerate into *just* a flame war; I fully and accurately stated my reasonings and the terminal problems with yours.

If you had simply limited yourself to talking about the "Idiot" line as wrong or surgically deleted it alone, I would have been forced to concede your point and this entire fight would have not happened. However, you did not do that. You deleted an entire part of the discussion well beyond the little inkling that had to do with the calling of Brooks; you were libeling me by falsely accusing my post of not contributing to the narrative discussion and cast false insinuations by extension against my personal character. In doing so, you were indeed doing what I accused you of, and brought the response upon yourself. "Rude" and "aggressive" as it might have been, it was also true, and your disclosure here only goes to support that.

The honesty is much appreciated. We all make our mistakes, and I'm happy to admit that this one was a bipartisan one on both our parts that got started off by that extension. However but the bottom line is that the main bulk of this controversy is centered around a tiny segment of the text which has been blown out of proportion to somehow be *the* defining trait of the passages in question. Even with it removed or otherwise cut down according to whatever suggestions you have in mind, it would not seriously affect the rest of the content. I'd be perfectly happy to do exactly that, which is why I've aasked for advice in good faith.

On that note, I would earnestly like to know how authorial character should be addressed. Simply put, Brooks made mistakes, including several that stand as practical defamation against several all-too-real people in the present and past. This alone would not be newsworthy; god only knows how many problems there are with early writings and what have you. But well after the fact, and doubtless after the critiques became known he has in fact *doubled down* on his accusations, even going so far as to affirm them and their "accuracy/realism" in interviews and on events like his appearance of Deadliest Warrior.

Considering the narrative content and what it serves to defame, and how that intent is so closely tied to both Brooks's own behavior and the narrative's composition, it seems to me that any logical argument would by necessity do *something* to address Brooks's claims and role. What I am asking is *how* that should be handled, given the controversy of the Idiot line.

I have been waiting for days for a response here, in a well-intentioned effort to adhere to the instructions and discuss matters before re-adding. However, if there are no replies, how can I assume that the discussion is ongoing?

I've played as much of a part as I can under the circumstances. Unless there's a new reply, I can only assume that whatever the controversy was has been resolved, or at least is no longer an issue that warrants continued discussion. I await and will gladly accept any replies, but I won't wait indefinitely.

If you can express the point within the context of the narrative and without going to the, "Brooks is an idiot!" well, then go ahead.

Thank you for the response. I will re-add. However, a few caveats.

A: To the best of my knowledge, I have expressed the point*s* in the narrative context, and I have recieved no indication or advice from anyone as to how I have not.

and

B: While the idiot line is too far, Brooks' (rather poor) conduct deserves some form of address. I will tone down and focus the response (once again), but on some level the lack of credibility his "headshot is the only reliable way" quote and others like it have will be addressed.

If there is nothing else, I'm glad we could all get this out of the way.

Since over the time that has elapsed since this controversy it has become clear that this was a case of selective enforcement at its' very worst and both Septimus Heap and Mr Death have not challenged or subjected synonymous edits in the same way they harassed myself and my like edit here, I will be withdrawing compliance with this.

It is unfair, factually inaccurate, and has been proven and supported by other edits here. If you wish to make a complaint, you cannot do so without challenging the other edits. So in light of that, I have no reason to comply with an unfair order to pull my punches and not describe Brooks as plenty of others have described him as.

Nope, we were just hoping you'd gotten the picture and would go away. No, the author's "poor conduct" does not "need" to be addressed. Go write a review if you want to complain about him. You don't get to "withdraw compliance" just because a few months passed without someone else adding something they don't agree with.

Headscratchers is not for insulting authors.

Wiki suspension issued for Turtler.

Alright; I know this controversy has been going on far longer and bloodier than it should have been. I know it has been draining for me, and probably has been for the rest of you.

But that said, I'm going to try and start off on the right foot going forward. I hope it will not be too long, but if it still is I'd appreciate tolerance and especially critiques (because I am working on it).

To start with:

"Nope, we were just hoping you'd gotten the picture and would go away."

I want to address this first and foremost, because I think a few changes might've helped us a lot, and could help others in the future.

The first time anybody specified exactly which rule I was violation and how it could've been fixed or avoided, I was already suspended and even banned. That knowledge would've helped nip this in the bud early, but by the time I knew it it might've been too late for other tropers to learn from it for use on here.

I understand that the way you explained it can work for many, and I'm not saying this to try and deny my (large) responsibility in this. But I think spelling out the exact rule and violations of it would help solve problems like this earlier and better.

I realize it is more hassle, and I know it wouldn't cure everyone. But I do think it would help several otherwise good people out. I know I can be oblivious at times, and I know I'm not the only one.

As for the rest... if they won't follow after it's told in plain English.. they don't have an excuse when the hammer drops.

Take that as you will, but that's just the main thing I felt I had to address. I have other criticisms, but that one is probably 90% of it, so if you want to "Tl;Dr" to the bottom it wouldn't be a problem.

"You don't get to "withdraw compliance" just because a few months passed without someone else adding something they don't agree with."

I think this point boils down to misinterpreting my post.

I know my posts tend to be long and prime TL:DR fodder. I can sympathize with people who might just skim, and that's a big reason why I'm trying to fix it. But when in doubt don't hesitate to ask me what I mean and I'll try to break it down.

To make a long story short: I never thought I could remove compliance for that reason, I never claimed I could, and even if I could I wouldn't want to. It's bad logic, bad discussion, and bad debating that I wouldn't do to people I hate. Nevermind anyone online.

I tried to detail my actual reason for it above; I know now that it is still wrong, but it wasn't *that* nonsensically wrong.

"No, the author's "poor conduct" does not "need" to be addressed. Go write a review if you want to complain about him. Headscratchers is not for insulting authors. "

Agreed, but It was never my intend to "just complain about him", much less insult him. Believe it or not, I'm actually a fan and if I did do a review it would probably contain more gushing than complaining.

Its just that a lot of the issues that arise on this page tend to touch on his flaws, not his strengths; I've gone to bat defending Brooks on this very page (about how IMHO he "got" Israel/Palestine in this book).

It's just that liking someone doesn't mean thinking they're flawless or never criticizing them (I'd argue the opposite), it is possible to address criticism of the author properly on here (as other posts show), and that was one thread in comparison to the umpteen on Yonkers.

The problem you pointed out- was that the that the language went too far (specifically the "I-word") rather than the entire segment being broken.

And had I known what I do now back then, I would've worked to make sure it wasn't a problem.

As it is, I'm interested in trying to do that. I'd like to re-edit and "fix" the troubled comment segment so that it can be shorn of any rules violations while still bearing evidence to what my opponent and I said.

But to try and avoid any problems, I'll post a draft on here so that- if you guys would want to- we can proofread it so that it can be "cleared" before I re-add it. I'd start on the version arrived at by the discussion we had earlier (that removes the idiot) and we can go from there.

But until then, I'm probably going to take a rain check on this page for a while to wrap things up so that if the worst comes to worst I'll have my affairs in order.

Thank you for the patience, and I'm sorry if this is still too lengthy. Any feedback or suggestions you can give would be much appreciated.

Right then: here's the draft, for future reference. Are there any other rules it runs afoul of or things that need to be changed? =============================================================

• I don't know what point you're trying to prove here, but whatever it is it doesn't change the fact that all of the above is pretty much indefensible and stupid on both a meta and narrative level, and indefensible even in-universe.. Yes, Brooks emphasizes that. Brooks is also woefully ignorant in many ways. He has frequently dropped the ball on a *number* of times on military basics, not the least of which being the effects of shrapnel being able to mimic a headshot (in the sense that *the zombie's head gets mulched*) quite reliably. It completely forgoes how even PR Ops in the military work, and the officers and grunts in charge have absolutely no reason whatsoever to conclude that the job was done quickly if they had sent even one chopper up ahead to see the chain swarm.
  • Did you conveniently forget the lines that suggested that the grunts knew exactly how moronic and dumb the entire operation was handled? I don't know what point you're trying to prove here.
    • The point is that the grunts knowing how moronic and dumb the entire operation was does not actually *justify* the moronic and dumb writing of said operation. The criticism of Yonkers stands, for it involves the author willfully abusing at least a century and a half of military doctrine in order to prove a sloppy partisan point. That does not serve as a valid, in-universe reason for the military collectively dropping the ball at Yonkers. The only reason the grunts have a reason to complain is because the battle was staged *to give them* a reason to complain. There is no valid in-universe reason for the monumental failure of Aerial Recon *and* logistics *and* basic defensive doctrine *and* magical inept candy shell artillery *and* military organization *and* human nature. One or two might be excusable, but all of the above leaves no possible explanation beyond severe ignorance of the military on the writer's part, because the reasons given in-book contradict each other multiple times, and don't stand up to much scrutiny at all.