OT from RoP Thread.

[SilentRoamer]

On 10/28/2022 at 8:11 PM, SinisterDeath said:

Valid Criticism = Not complaining about woke casting, or any derivative of ****ness. Not using all caps. Not using terms like "rolling in the grave", or "spitting on my childhood". Those kinds of "criticims" are sensationalist. They aren't in it to have a conversation. They remind me of "listening to your uncle at thanksgiving whine about politics".

 

I posted a reply to this earlier today - along the lines of how some criticisms around modern political influence working their way into adaptions can be valid - or at least expressed from a genuine opinion about the adherence to source material, apparently it needed to be approved by a moderator....

Like how the Winespring Inn looks like a Starbucks from a modern city which removes some of the differences between Rand and the other Emond Fielders, which, in my view, directly affects the plot, essentially placing modern day politics ahead of authorial intent and authenticity. 

I had to repost and star out the word above because a reply to your comment flags me for moderation approval. I never swear and always try to be respectful - I did remember that is one of the rules, so I will avoid the topic in future. 

@DojoToad I have also tried to be fair to the show but some of my criticisms do revolve around modern day politics making their way into the source material that never included them in the first place, like forcing a square peg through a round hole.

Edited October 31, 2022 by SilentRoamer

[DojoToad]

1 hour ago, SilentRoamer said:

 

I posted a reply to this earlier today - along the lines of how some criticisms around modern political influence working their way into adaptions can be valid - or at least expressed from a genuine opinion about the adherence to source material, apparently it needed to be approved by a moderator....

Like how the Winespring Inn looks like a Starbucks from a modern city which removes some of the differences between Rand and the other Emond Fielders, which, in my view, directly affects the plot, essentially placing modern day politics ahead of authorial intent and authenticity. 

I had to repost and star out the word above because a reply to your comment flags me for moderation approval. I never swear and always try to be respectful - I did remember that is one of the rules, so I will avoid the topic in future. 

@DojoToad I have also tried to be fair to the show but some of my criticisms do revolve around modern day politics making their way into the source material that never included them in the first place, like forcing a square peg through a round hole.

The world has changed and we need to adapt with it whether or not we deem the change right or fair.

 

That includes being aware of 'trigger' words and listening to the mods.  Yes, I think 'trigger' words are silly most of the time - but not always.  Just takes a little more thought and creativity to make a point while staying within the rules.

 

I'm pretty easy-going, but found myself 'triggered' some time ago when someone else was denigrating my real life religion and religion in general.  I let it go at the time, because we're all adults here and the world does include religious bigots.  Just skipped the irrelevant parts and responded to the substance as best I could.  Guess I should have reported it.  The way of the world...

 

Criticism is allowed.  Be aware of phrasing and stay on point.

Edited October 31, 2022 by DojoToad

[SinisterDeath]

On 10/28/2022 at 7:57 PM, Raal Gurniss said:

Perhaps people are "encouraged" to disappear? I mean it has been mentioned that its not safe for people to critique the show here, perhaps such people get scared off after threats of a sinister death.

[SilentRoamer]

20 hours ago, DojoToad said:

The world has changed and we need to adapt with it whether or not we deem the change right or fair.

 

That includes being aware of 'trigger' words and listening to the mods.  Yes, I think 'trigger' words are silly most of the time - but not always.  Just takes a little more thought and creativity to make a point while staying within the rules.

 

I'm pretty easy-going, but found myself 'triggered' some time ago when someone else was denigrating my real life religion and religion in general.  I let it go at the time, because we're all adults here and the world does include religious bigots.  Just skipped the irrelevant parts and responded to the substance as best I could.  Guess I should have reported it.  The way of the world...

 

Criticism is allowed.  Be aware of phrasing and stay on point.

I understand the world is changing, but I dont see that as an excuse to bury authenticity, I was discussing this with a friend of mine - my problem with the racial variety in the Two Rivers is not because the Two Rivers isn't white enough (in fact my idea of the Two Rivers folk would be that they look more like Egwene) with Rand being the outlier. My problem is that it homogenises all of the racial peoples of Robert Jordans world, there is plenty of variety, plenty of races and cultures and traditions and histories, there is no need to shoehorn in modern day equivalencies. 

Race exists - and representing it (even in fictional worlds) seems perfectly reasonable and only seems to have become an issue in recent years, where characters races are swapped for no reason  - this is even more egregious when it is done with historical figures like the recent BBC Ann Boleyn. 

I generally try to stay on point and debate the arguments and I would never get personal or attack anyone. Banning certain words however, especially ones that seem fairly innocuous, then using the words in a post which nobody can directly respond to by quoting, seems a little off to me. 

Anyway I'm not going to bother pursuing any debate on this discussion as its completely OT now. 

I think what RoP has done is prove that you can't throw billions at an adaption, and then put people with almost no experience in charge, ignore the creator of one of the most celebrated and successful film franchises of all time, have partial rights to the material, terrible writing, awful CGI in places (specifically crowd generation) and abuse of the "toxic" fandom and expect it all to work. RoP has been as much of a disappointment as HotD has been an unexpected enjoyable surprise. 

[SinisterDeath]

10 minutes ago, SilentRoamer said:

I understand the world is changing, but I dont see that as an excuse to bury authenticity, I was discussing this with a friend of mine - my problem with the racial variety in the Two Rivers is not because the Two Rivers isn't white enough (in fact my idea of the Two Rivers folk would be that they look more like Egwene) with Rand being the outlier. My problem is that it homogenises all of the racial peoples of Robert Jordans world, there is plenty of variety, plenty of races and cultures and traditions and histories, there is no need to shoehorn in modern day equivalencies. 

The arguments you've brought up, are nothing new. That topic has been discussed to death, and no one wants to beat that dead horse. Yet again. 

 

12 minutes ago, SilentRoamer said:

I generally try to stay on point and debate the arguments and I would never get personal or attack anyone. Banning certain words however, especially ones that seem fairly innocuous, then using the words in a post which nobody can directly respond to by quoting, seems a little off to me.

Lets not try and pretend like you didn't use those words in your original post. 
Consider why that word might have been flagged by the software? What type of user is most likely to use those words, and post?

Do you suppose the users who posted those words (Often in ALL CAPS) when the show was live, were genuinely looking to discuss the subject with nuance? Or do you think they were just a drive-by fart in the wind?

 

Also, May I remind you about DM's Code of Conduct?
 

Quote

III. Conflict Resolution

As Dragonmount is on the Internet, it is inevitable that drama will ensue. If internet drama happens to you, please follow the following procedures.

 

1. Notify Staff of any Issues.

 

(b) If a member has an issue with a Dragonmount Staff member’s actions as Dragonmount Staff (i.e. a problem with how a particular issue or situation was handled by the Staff member in their official capacity) please PM both the Staff member and the Staff member’s supervisor.

 

2. Keep Disputes Private. Dragonmount strongly believes that issues between members, or between members and Staff, are best resolved in private, via PM and e-mail. Keeping issues private allows the parties involved to consider the problems and possible solutions without grandstanding or worrying about “losing face”, and avoiding public disputes is thus more conducive to reaching a resolution that works for all parties involved. DO NOT call out other members or Staff on-thread; doing so is in and of itself grounds for discipline.

Tip Toeing around your complaints in thread, is just blatant virtue signaling.