All posts by Sock-Eater

see? I'm with Austin - the only real admin who appears to have any problem with "bad behavior" is Misery at the moment.. so this seems like stirring ill-will.. no users are feeling threatened or bullied, so this whole thing is just absurd and attention-seeking.

in fairness, why do you think you have a higher authority than the other admins? you're just an admin yourself.. so it isn't really your job to tell other admins how to behave.

also Imperialists was banned for individual characters, much like the Caligula before it, if you use it to describe a regime rather than an individual it could be valid (and the whole point of naming it such is to avoid the idea that the ENTIRE nation is "evil", just its style of rule (which is usually formed by a usurper or rogue element in the society, who shapes a nation into a dystopic place - few "Evil Empires" start that way.. they can sometimes start beautiful and be corrupted by a single individual or group, turning it into the "Evil Empire" of fiction and folklore).

also the term may be broad but it is MUCH better than "Hostile Nation" or similar, with Imperialists you know it is talking about aggressive regimes - with terms like "Hostile Nation" you'd open doors to stereotyping akin to the "Slap a Jap" style depictions of the Japanese during WWII (yes the Imperial Japanese regime was arguably "evil" but the entire nation was not and the stereotyping did not aid.. same with Germans (again in WWII) - the Hitlerite regime was undisputedly wicked but the nation of Germany itself was a victim.. as can be any nation under the rule of Imperialists).

also, it's the easiest term for us to use - "Imperialists" relate to empires and / or military regimes - which are usually depicted as "evil" in media as far back as ancient myth.. it DEFINITELY became a major theme after the popularity of stories like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, were Imperial regimes are the set "bad guys" and the rebals are the "good guys".

less stable regimes that do not conquer other countries and focus on inner-strife or similar (many anarchist "regimes") are best placed under Terrorist or Barbarian.. unless they are shown as gaining a sufficient amount of territory via illegal and/or warmongering means.

oh, not you again - didn't you already get banned for this? can admins get to blocking this guy again.. he's clearly not learned anything.

Imperialists = regimes that favor aggressive expansion of their territories, often in defiance of established codes of war or humanitarian standards - they are often seen as "rogue states" but some have become highly successful conquerors and dominated entire star-systems.. these empires tend to be ruled either by dystopian governments (such as Big Brother) or a single, all-powerful dictator (such as Emperor Palpatine).

Imperialists would work, as it would show that the entire nation is not evil.. rather the ruling regime.

technically neither, Palpatine is the true antagonist of the entire franchise - just unseen.

Vader is the enforcer of Palpatine so by default is the second-in-line for "main antagonist".

http://villains.wikia.com/wiki/Applejack_(Bad_Apples)  <-- no you didn't.

well we should get rid of stuff like Bad Apples Applejack - that's not on KYM and is the definition of an ascended fan-fic.

well, fine, I'll just say though that there's a difference between what you see as fan-fiction and parody and without being insulting it's pretty blunt.. they get paid to do this stuff, fan-writers do not.. if your work was paid for and had actual members of franchises doing the voices and so on, then by all means your stuff would be valid.

even when they don't get actual actors in on the skits they must have permission from companies as they don't get sued when they make parodies of things like Bugs Bunny in the Nerd (actually, come to think on it, the reason they don't get sued is such depictions are legal under parody laws).. if the law itself states these things are parody, well.. there you have it.

just because it's on internet and not TV, movie or comic book doesn't mean it isn't valid and you've allowed parodies before.. a parody of a fictional character is still a parody and it's not fan-fic at all.

so there you have it.. if they are paid to do this stuff it's pretty obvious how it's not a fan-fic any more, as soon as they earn profit from it legally it's a franchise.. doesn't matter how popular they may or may not be.. also doesn't matter how much distaste you may have for that kind of entertainment, it's valid.

get rid of creepypasta and stuff like "Mario Logan Bros", by all means, leave the established stuff alone.. they earn money from it and are thus legally businesses and entitled to a place here.

00:07

so now this wiki is planning on erasing internet parody because it's "fan-fiction" while it has allowed things like South Park and Family Guy for years and they do the same thing and have plenty of warped versions of popular media characters? seems completely arbitary.

the Robbers page was written by Misery herself, who proceeded to delete it but prior to deletion it was not a One-Line article at all.. so if you're using that as a defence it begs the question : why did an admin on this wiki make such a page to begin with, then decide to delete religious-themes? (hence my hypocrite statements above).

Misery, you also wrote the Good Samaritian page on Heroes Wiki - are you going to delete that as well? you made the Robbers specifically to link the two articles, it would seem, now you've went full circle and seem to discredit parables.

unless you're saying that parables are allowed, the Good Samaritian is a bad example (and you are correct in that one sense), because of lack of story but what about the stories of the Unfaithful Servant and similar? if you get rid of those then I stand by what I said earlier.. if not, then perhaps my perception of what's going on is wrong..

because as it stands I'm hearing that this wiki will ban any parables from Jewish, Hindu, Christian or Islamic faith - even if the parables were fictional and used as a way to teach beliefs (just as modern religious-based media does)

also you never mentioned things like Passion of the Christ or Prince of Egypt, PoE I can see an argument as fiction since they took liberties by extending Moses' relationship with Pharaoh but you can't deny Passion of Christ was basically a retelling of the Bible itself, surely that clashes with the "no religious themes from core beliefs"?

Passion of Christ isn't meant to be simply "fiction", it's meant to represent the last days of Jesus and thus has more significance than simple entertainment.

anyone who would be offended by Core Beliefs in this wiki would be equally as offended with Christian media in this wiki, especially if you exclude Jesus' own parables - He invented the art of parables to teach Christian messages and most Christian media is about teaching the same messages.. to exclude the original parables (which are stories, just like myths) just because "they teach a core belief" is absurd when you allow modern takes that also teach a core belief.

yes but does Satan from Touched By An Angel really have much difference from the Biblical one? he's just a modern take.. the Satan in Passion of the Christ follows Scripture, so is a retelling of a Core Belief event.

stories like Prince of Egypt, while "fictionalized", are still modern parables and teach some Core Belief - so why say these films and series are fine but exclude Jesus' early tales?

the characters in Jesus' parables are fictional, whether or not they taught a core message, they have as much right here as any Christian media does.. since modern parables are the same, they teach the same messages Jesus did, using similar fictional characters.

also, I'm with Pendragon in saying Dragonball isn't really a series I'd use as an example of "power creep" - yes, it is silly how powerful they get but the story isn't really ruined because to be frank DB's entire story is "get more power" over and over..

the worst offences, for me, is when characters get new powers at the toss of a hat and when their weak-points are reversed or constantly altered.. like someone said above, if you have established rules on what a cosmic entity can and can not do as well as what can and can not harm them it works out fine.. comic books suffer from the fact many new authors don't follow the rules of older writers and just make stuff up.

there's also a tendency to try and "up the power" - this in itself isn't bad but there's a certain point where even the most insane series has to draw a line.. killing things like Living Tribunal, for example, is crossing the line.. and disrespectful to core canon.

"we remove parables because they are stories about core beliefs".

by that logic we should remove Touched By An Angel, Passion of the Christ and other Christian media that exist to retell Biblical tales or act as modern parables.. you can't exclude Jesus' stories while saying "it's okay to include modern takes" : sure, get rid of actual Biblical characters if you must but getting rid of the parables is wrong as they are fiction.

if your argument is "it's fiction but teaches a Christian message" then get rid of Christian media as well, if not you're basically picking straws.

she's talking about fiction, not real world - people need to remember this.. in fiction there's stuff called "relative omnipotence" AKA (absurdly powerful but has some limit).. as we are human, with limits in what we can imagine, there is NO creation that can be called truly omnipotent since humans can't understand fully the concept of infinity.. any fictional being will have limits because we, as authors, have limits in what we can create.

TLDR: she's not talking about true omnipotence, just absurdly powerful characters and when these "absurd levels of power" start to ruin a story.