GooberGoats
Re: GooberGoats
I'm just here to see guys in trilbies shitting themselves in public.
Re: GooberGoats
Thad assumes we want to have a gg conversation, which is something nobody is interested in doing anymore, so this thread is the perfect place to put funny out of context stuff.
Basically yes, Thad needs to get over himself.
Basically yes, Thad needs to get over himself.
Re: GooberGoats
It wasn't up to Ted to explain why the joke was funny, either it was funny to you or it wasn't.
Otherwise we'd all end up like mongrel feeling the need to explain all the jokes.
Otherwise we'd all end up like mongrel feeling the need to explain all the jokes.
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21391
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: GooberGoats
Is every cranky post in here today going to include a random drive-by target?
Hey... uh... Zara! Catch!
Hey... uh... Zara! Catch!
Re: GooberGoats
point of discussion:
how much of the GooberGoat anger toward females ruining their gaming experience should actually be directed at preteen boys?
how much of the GooberGoat anger toward females ruining their gaming experience should actually be directed at preteen boys?
the best kazz around
Re: GooberGoats
Doesn't that question presuppose a justified anger or a diminished gaming experience?
- zaratustra
- Posts: 1665
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:45 pm
Re: GooberGoats
Kazz wrote:point of discussion:
how much of the GooberGoat anger toward females ruining their gaming experience should actually be directed at preteen boys?
self-loathing is unhealthy
Re: GooberGoats
I am feeling really criticized here zara.
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21391
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: GooberGoats
zaratustra wrote:self-loathing is unhealthy
By this metric, I should be dead from the sheer power of unbridled hatred.
Re: GooberGoats
Okay, following a cooldown period:
While I think it was reasonable to point out that I didn't understand Ted's post, it was shitty for me to post about it a second and third time. That was completely gratuitous; I'd already made my point and I didn't need to keep harping about it. Ted, if you're reading this, I apologize.
And I DO hope you're reading this, and that you decide to stick around. Or not; whatever's best for you. If you feel like this is a place you don't want to be anymore, then that's cool too. Do what makes you happy.
While I think it was reasonable to point out that I didn't understand Ted's post, it was shitty for me to post about it a second and third time. That was completely gratuitous; I'd already made my point and I didn't need to keep harping about it. Ted, if you're reading this, I apologize.
And I DO hope you're reading this, and that you decide to stick around. Or not; whatever's best for you. If you feel like this is a place you don't want to be anymore, then that's cool too. Do what makes you happy.
Re: GooberGoats
Well, y'know, maybe it's like when I quit reading X-Men comics. You shouldn't keep doing something that makes you angry just out of habit.
This is, what, twice in six months that Ted's ragequit the boards? I hope he comes back and he's happy. But if those two things are mutually exclusive, I think being happy is the priority.
Maybe it's just this thread, man. It's like some kind of cursed artifact that just brings out the worst in everybody.
This is, what, twice in six months that Ted's ragequit the boards? I hope he comes back and he's happy. But if those two things are mutually exclusive, I think being happy is the priority.
Maybe it's just this thread, man. It's like some kind of cursed artifact that just brings out the worst in everybody.
Re: GooberGoats
"What did most people think about GamerGate?" The TL;DR is in the URL.
But as pipeski says in the MetaFilter thread where I got this link:
But as pipeski says in the MetaFilter thread where I got this link:
You can't derive "what most people think" from a survey of published material. I think about the best you can really achieve is to say "most bloggers, journalists and other people expressing their opinions in published form equated GamerGate with online harassment, sexism, and/or misogyny". But it's certainly not a poll of attitudes in the general population, or even a poll of Internet users, so I'm not sure what this survey is meant to achieve, other than providing reassurance that good voices are drowning out bad voices in the fairly small section of the media where the word 'GamerGate' is something people would have heard of.
tiny text
Re: GooberGoats
Wired: Who Won Science Fiction’s Hugo Awards, and Why It Matters
Not a single Puppy-endorsed candidate took home a rocket. In the five categories that had only Puppy-provided nominees on the ballot—Best Novella, Best Short Story, Best Related Work, and Best Editor for Short and for Long Form—voters instead preferred “No Award.”
Re: GooberGoats
It's worth reading the whole piece (Vox Day is not only indulging in cartoon-villain speechifying swearing that he's the true victor and will come back next time stronger than ever, he is actually directly comparing himself to David Xanatos). And io9 has a list of George R R Martin's Alfie Awards, meant to honor the people who would have won (or at least could have) if not for the ballot-stuffing.
And there's a new policy called E Pluribus Hugo which has apparently passed and will be the new rule going forward. It's a bunch of legalese, so head down to the FAQ to get what all of it actually means.
So ballot-stuffing is inherently more difficult -- the Puppies could easily still stack the votes and ensure one of their choices gets on the ballot (which is fine, actually!), but it's going to be a lot harder to make sure every nominee in a category is one of theirs.
And there's a new policy called E Pluribus Hugo which has apparently passed and will be the new rule going forward. It's a bunch of legalese, so head down to the FAQ to get what all of it actually means.
a. You have one nomination “point” for each category that will be divided equally among the works you choose to nominate in that category. So, if you nominate two works in a category, each will get half a point; if you nominate three works, each will get one-third of a point, and so on.
b. All the points given to each work from all nomination ballots are added together. The two works that got the least number of points are eligible for elimination. One of these works is the least popular and will be eliminated. (We call this the Selection Phase.)
c. To determine which of these two works is least popular, we compare the total number of nominations they each received (that is, the number of nomination ballots on which each work appears). The work that received the fewest total number of nominations is the least popular and now completely vanishes from the nomination process as though it never existed. (We call this the Elimination Phase.)
d. We start over for the next round and repeat the process, however, if one of your works was eliminated, then you now have fewer works on your nomination ballot. This means that each work gets more total points, since you aren’t dividing your point among as many works. For example, if one of your five nominated works was eliminated, your remaining works now get one-fourth of a point each instead of one-fifth of a point. If four of your nominated works are eliminated, your remaining work now gets your full point.
So ballot-stuffing is inherently more difficult -- the Puppies could easily still stack the votes and ensure one of their choices gets on the ballot (which is fine, actually!), but it's going to be a lot harder to make sure every nominee in a category is one of theirs.
- zaratustra
- Posts: 1665
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:45 pm
Re: GooberGoats
when you're a professional writer and you quote tvtropes unironically is the point you should just walk into the ocean until things stop mattering
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21391
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: GooberGoats
"Professional writer."
Re: GooberGoats
I must say, those two cited stories about magical water based lie punishment and the literal inability to see gender sound about as riveting as Ambien, but so does a lot of Arthur C. Clarke. That's not to say progressive politics has no place in sci-fi. Traditionally sci-fi is one of the only places "fringe" topics can be openly discussed, and you don't have to wait for Star Trek to get it. Look up Judgement Day from EC Comics in 1953, it's pretty fucking overt on it's shockingly progressive message that racism is baseless and stultifying.
Anyway, grumpy old losers get wrecked by people who give a shit for once is a good story and I'm glad it happened.
Anyway, grumpy old losers get wrecked by people who give a shit for once is a good story and I'm glad it happened.
Re: GooberGoats
zaratustra wrote:when you're a professional writer and you quote tvtropes unironically is the point you should just walk into the ocean until things stop mattering
I don't think anything Vox Day does is unironic.
Bal wrote:I must say, those two cited stories about magical water based lie punishment and the literal inability to see gender sound about as riveting as Ambien, but so does a lot of Arthur C. Clarke.
Yeah, I mean, that's the thing; there's a perfectly reasonable argument to be made in favor of pulpy old adventure stories. It's just that Torgersen et al went about it in the absolute worst way.
The other thing, though, is that the bias towards progressive, literary works isn't really as pervasive as they make it out to be. Oldschool space opera stories still win Hugos (Guardians of the Galaxy just won one; the Puppies are claiming it's proof that they weren't actually shut out, while the non-Puppies are claiming that it would have been nominated without any Puppy interference); they just aren't the only things on the menu now.
Some days I like dry, speculative SF and some days I like pyew-pyew lasers. I don't have a lot of patience for people who act superior about the former and look down their noses at the latter. As far as that goes, I can see Torgersen's point.
But I really don't see the same bias in the Hugos that he does. I think the people who vote for the Hugo Awards are, by and large, people who feel the same way I do -- some years they vote for dry, speculative SF and some years they vote for pyew-pyew lasers.
(I saw a breakdown that supported this point -- that the Hugos aren't nearly as weighted toward literary or socially significant works as their detractors claim -- but I can't find it at the moment. I'll add a link if it turns up.)
Bal wrote:Look up Judgement Day from EC Comics in 1953, it's pretty fucking overt on it's shockingly progressive message that racism is baseless and stultifying.
For bonus points, look up the phrase "You can't have a Negro."
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests