Forum

Well, my point is more that if have issues with the show, you can voice those without being excessively mean about it.

ChibiKangaroo wrote:

The problem is, a lot of people (including myself) don't like to give "not for me" type of commentary. Occasionally I do it, but I try to stay away from it because it is not really helpful at all to the person reading your comment. It means that you are judging a show based purely on personal taste, which is automatically going to be different than the people reading your analysis. "Not for me" reviews seem kind of like cop-outs to me. I would much rather have someone not watch the show at all, or upon watching a few episodes say it is the worst thing ever and they are compelled to stop, or watch the entire thing and then say it was bad. Whenever I see the "not my taste" type of comments, it feels like I just wasted my time reading it since the person didn't give me any objective criticism/praise to help me decide if I want to watch.

You want reviews. This is a discussion thread, and we participate because we want to talk to each other about a show, not because we want to give a review to be used by people deciding whether or not they should watch a show. I think you are indeed wasting your time wandering around discussion threads for that.

dtm42 wrote:

^
It's an impossible situation. Drop a seemingly crappy show after three episodes and say it doesn't look very good, and you'll be accused of not giving it a fair go and not being able to give a properly informed decision. Stick with a crappy show till the end so that you have ammunition to fire at the show's fans, and you'll be accused of being weird because you watch shows you hate.

Some shows just somehow seem to ensure that you keep watching for some reason. There are a couple of shows that I've watched in its entirety that I didn't even like all that much (the most recent example of that is Photo Kano).

Part of Valvrave's charm is that you just had no idea what the writers were going to come up with next. That was probably enough for the people that disliked it to keep watching (not saying that that's the case for you btw).

No one is saying that a discussion thread must be free of criticism. Criticism is often what sparks the most discussion. I certainly have plenty of negative things to say about Valvrave's storytelling. But, as I keep saying, you can present criticism in a way that is open and allows for discussion. Too often do I see people go "It's terrible and this is an objective fact because I say so end of story."

Personally, like Blood- said, I don't see the problem with dropping a show early and not participate in discussion threads. And if asked, why not just say "I didn't like it so I dropped it early," and move on? I'm not a big forum poster so I don't see the point in having so much of a presence in most discussion threads though.

I think what Blood- is getting at is that people who don't like a show will go out of their way to keep watching/finish it in order to "legitimately" partake in discussion of said show. I don't see a problem with that as long as the criticism is of a neutral tone and he probably feels the same way. However, discussion threads usually don't turn out that way, so it becomes a little too heated.

Regardless, even "scathing" criticisms can be read and understood if you keep a cool head, skip over any harsh language and reply only to the main points. Sure it takes a little more effort, but I think it's the right way to discuss a topic.

yoshiyukiblade wrote:

I think what Blood- is getting at is that people who don't like a show will go out of their way to keep watching/finish it in order to "legitimately" partake in discussion of said show. I don't see a problem with that as long as the criticism is of a neutral tone and he probably feels the same way.

Basically, but I don't even require posters to adopt a neutral tone, necessarily (although I do appreciate when people don't go out of their way to phrase things in a way that's overly obnoxious). My only beef is with those posters who hate a show and continue watching for NO OTHER REASON than to hack on it with the full knowledge that doing so will rile up fans of show.

In this regard, dtm42 and ChibiKangaroo's respective presence in the SAO thread is instructive. dtm42 has bleated on a number of occasions that he "enjoyed" that thread. The reason was simple: he loved irritating fans of the show with his often ridiculously nitpicky comments. If that thread hadn't existed, he would never have continued watching after a certain point.

However, with ChibiKangeroo, while I didn't agree with a lot of her comments, I always felt that she was honestly engaging with it. When something happened that she approved of, she said so. I never for a second got a sense of, "mwah-hah-hah, I'm just here to be an irritating turd for those fools who have the temerity to be finding some entertainment value in this show." Which is all dtm42 was ever about.

@ Blood

Why don't you answer dtm's? The one where he posited (correctly) that if you say a show is awful after only watching a little of it, people will criticize you and say that you didn't give the show a full chance. I think you've been dodging that one.

Instead, you've been only engaging in personal attacks and selectively quoting and editing your responses to try and evade the consequences of the hyperbolic positions you keep staking out. By the way, although you edited your old post to hide what you said, I already reported it. I appreciate the apology, but it would have been smarter for you to just do that first rather than continuing to press the issue and then apologize later after you've thrown dozens of bombs.

As for your current question, it is clear by your responses that you hate people who are not a fan of a show being in a thread and offering criticism. (Enough that you routinely personally attack them, whether they are another user or an admin like Zac who again, had to threaten to ban you)

Also, I think you should carefully read my response as well. I asked a rhetorical question and stated that it "appears" that you don't tolerate criticism of a show in its discussion thread, primarily due to your hyperbolic attacks against the critics. What you should have done at that point is simply state that my assumption was incorrect and left it at that. What you did instead was reinforce my point with more hyperbolic personal attacks.

My overall point was that often times people will watch a show that they don't like, because they want to be part of a collective review process by the viewers/readers in the forum. They play a useful role in the discussion, by pointing out flaws and problems with a show that other people might be missing or essentially blinding themselves to because they love the show so much. I don't feel threatened by the presence of such a constant critic, and you shouldn't either (certainly not enough to engage in personal attacks). You indicated that you are threatened by such people, and I asked rhetorically whether or not you were trying to stifle criticism. Again, your response should have been to explain your position in a level headed manner, not become even more rude and derogatory.

ChibiKangaroo, what's this "should" word? I mean, what's the point of all this? I can understand Blood's point, that he would like to engage a show socially without people showing up, who have no real interest in engaging the show, just to complain about it. The history of his conflict with Zac is related to this, but you were on the "sit there and take it" side of that discussion, so I guess you wouldn't understand the grievance.

But what is your point? What is it you are after, here?

@Blood-

I don't know what "went down" in the SAO discussion thread, but I don't believe I'm seeing the same thing here really. I think the general vibe and polarizing opinions of Valvrave is that it isn't exactly what you call a "good" show, but for many of us, it's so bad that it's good (entertaining as hell) which gives an overall positive impression. I think once we establish that kind of agreement, it falls to opinion as to whether or not people end up liking it for its craziness or not.

@ChibiKangeroo - There is no question that my use of name-calling was wrong. That's why I removed them and apologized for doing so in your case. I'm letting my comments on dtm42 stand.

But the real problem here is that you communicated your point very poorly. Your initial response to me lead me and other people in this thread to conclude that you were inferring that I only expected positive comments in a discussion thread. Nothing in what I had written in anyway suggested that. It was quite clear I was referring to a very specific instance, not criticism in general.

If you had communicated effectively, your response would have been something like:

"Blood-, it is inappropriate to call someone a sociopath simply because they continue to watch a show they hate for no other reason to hack on it in a discussion thread."

Unfortunately what you wrote was:

Quote:

So I suppose you are advocating that the show discussion threads should not be allowed to have anyone in them who criticizes a show. The discussion threads should only be for people who are fans and singing its praises, correct?

No one else in this thread has made that inference. You posited a completely false inference that is not at all supported by what I wrote. So yes, it would be better if you are clear in your communication.

Last edited by ChibiKangaroo on Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:29 pm; edited 1 time in total

Yttrbio wrote:

ChibiKangaroo, what's this "should" word? I mean, what's the point of all this? I can understand Blood's point, that he would like to engage a show socially without people showing up, who have no real interest in engaging the show, just to complain about it. The history of his conflict with Zac is related to this, but you were on the "sit there and take it" side of that discussion, so I guess you wouldn't understand the grievance.

But what is your point? What is it you are after, here?

I think it is pretty obvious that my main point (which I have said numerous times by now) is that it is unnecessary and kind of silly to declare or insinuate that constant critics of a show should not be in the discussion threads.

First of all, the admins have not established a rule that constant critics cannot participate in a discussion thread. As long as people are actually talking about the show and debating its content back and forth, I am sure that is just a benefit to the site as it keeps people interested in continuing to come back and talk. Since we have used the SAO thread as an example, look at how long that monster is. It wouldn't be half that long without people constantly criticizing the show.

Second, the discussion threads are boring as hell when everyone just responds (greatest show ever) or (another good episode). It is more interesting to see a contrary opinion on a regular basis, especially if they are able to point out the flaws that other people are selectively ignoring.

Third, if you are a 3rd party who is not engaging in the debate, you are getting much more information by seeing a range of opinions rather than just only the opinions of the fans. Given that this is a discussion board open to the public, not just a private super fan board, you have to expect that 3rd parties are going to be interested in seeing lots of differing opinions, and you should be able to get along fine even if someone is constantly criticizing the show without feeling like it is a threat to you personally.

@ Blood

Again, if you were unsure about whether I was asking a rhetorical question and positing an assumption based upon your aggressive attacks, then you should have attempted to clarify before turning your attacks on me (as another person indicated shortly afterward).

@Blood It's funny that you expect people to form over-polite responses to you when you're the one swinging names and insults all over the board. Just saying.

ChibiKangaroo wrote:

I think it is pretty obvious that my main point (which I have said numerous times by now) is that it is unnecessary and kind of silly to declare or insinuate that constant critics of a show should not be in the discussion threads.

First of all, the admins have not established a rule that constant critics cannot participate in a discussion thread. As long as people are actually talking about the show and debating its content back and forth, I am sure that is just a benefit to the site as it keeps people interested in continuing to come back and talk. Since we have used the SAO thread as an example, look at how long that monster is. It wouldn't be half that long without people constantly criticizing the show.

Second, the discussion threads are boring as hell when everyone just responds (greatest show ever) or (another good episode). It is more interesting to see a contrary opinion on a regular basis, especially if they are able to point out the flaws that other people are selectively ignoring.

Third, if you are a 3rd party who is not engaging in the debate, you are getting much more information by seeing a range of opinions rather than just only the opinions of the fans. Given that this is a discussion board open to the public, not just a private super fan board, you have to expect that 3rd parties are going to be interested in seeing lots of differing opinions, and you should be able to get along fine even if someone is constantly criticizing the show without feeling like it is a threat to you personally.

And once again, as we've been pointing out, you're describing a nonexistent problem. People here, even those who like the show, are very critical of this show. I've said almost nothing but negative things about this show, despite saying that I like it. No one is asking such people to stay out of the discussion. Criticism occurs regularly.

But these critics are still engaging the show. They complain about the show because they're watching it. They're not watching it so that they can complain. There's no discussion to be had between those who engage and those who don't.

Last edited by Blood- on Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:42 pm; edited 2 times in total

CrowLia wrote:

@Blood It's funny that you expect people to form over-polite responses to you when you're the one swinging names and insults all over the board. Just saying.

No, I don't expect "over-polite" responses to me, personally. What I said was I appreciate when people who criticize a show do so in a way that can invite reasonable debate as opposed to intentionally inflaming posters who like a show.

But your larger point is taken. Yes, I definitely need to be more polite when responding to posters.

Yttrbio wrote:

And once again, as we've been pointing out, you're describing a nonexistent problem. People here, even those who like the show, are very critical of this show. I've said almost nothing but negative things about this show, despite saying that I like it. No one is asking such people to stay out of the discussion. Criticism occurs regularly.

But these critics are still engaging the show. They complain about the show because they're watching it. They're not watching it so that they can complain. There's no discussion to be had between those who engage and those who don't.

No, actually you went even further than Blood- did by stating that the type of back and forth episodic review that I was talking about (i.e. the positive remarks and negative criticism) has no place in a discussion board. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of responses which I see in series discussion threads are exactly that, short episodic reviews, and debate about those short episodic reviews.

Forum - View topic
Valvrave the Liberator (TV).

The Quintessential Quintuplets Manga Gets New Honeymoon Anime

Arknights: Rise from Ember TV Anime Announced

BLUELOCK THE MOVIE -EPISODE NAGI- Anime Film Review

Interview: Author Akihiro Nishino on Bottle George, His New Stop-Motion Animated Film

The Spring 2024 Light Novel Guide

SAND LAND Video Game Review

This Week in Games - Atlus With the Old, In With the New

The Story of Suikoden

This Week in Anime - What's Weekly Shonen Jump's Next Big Manga?

Forum - View topicValvrave the Liberator (TV).

Forum

Forum - View topic
Valvrave the Liberator (TV).