The Gaming Den

Here it is.

This guy reviews webcomics, resorting to the common tactics of an Internet troll or harsh critic, depending on what anonymous commenter that you ask. What I funny is how in the comments sections people (whether it be webcomic artists or fans) got wound up over someone badmouthing webcomics. That is funny in a sad way to my opinion. People assume that he's serious, and get offended. Or, he could be doing it all for the lulz (most likely), so in some way, I find watching the ensuing chaos entertaining in some form, like watching a train wreck. Or, people are not getting worked up and are pretending to be offended in order to add fuel to the fire.
Regardless, I find it amusing in a 'black comedy' sort of way.
Does this make me a bad person?

Probably.

-Crissa

So, Crissa, what's your take on Solomon's rants/reviews?

Stupid. Very. Pointless. Unconstructive. Without cause or reason.

-Crissa

All his arguements are opinions, phrased as rock-solid, word-of-god truth, and that writing style pisses me off. If I disagree with you going into an article, and you write like this, it makes me move further from your opinion, and if I agree with your premise, then it makes me feel dirty that I share opinions with such a gigantic douche.

I like the 'comments' section over his writing any day, because seeing people feed the fire just makes you think "why, god, why?!" And that is probably why he's popular amongst 4chan enthusiasts.

Desden Mervolam wrote:All his arguements are opinions, phrased as rock-solid, word-of-god truth, and that writing style pisses me off.

Like Frank Trollman making a thread called "Mathematically proving that the Fighter sucks?" I mean, every party needs an indispensable meat shield that becomes obsolete at later levels! What would we do without one?

Look, many of the comics suck art-wise. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. And beyond the art itself, he has no objectivism in his reviews, even though they're phrased as if there were an objective truth in art.

And there isn't.

-Crissa

The complaining is kind of funny. I mean, what were people expecting from a blog called "Your Webcomic Is Bad, and You Should Feel Bad"? It's obviously not about any pretense of objectivity; it's about trashing a whole form of expression. As such, it's not like it's going to drive away the market for your favorite webcomic, since only people who hate webcomics (and thus weren't likely to read your favorite) read the blog.

Absentminded_Wizard at [unixtime wrote:1203411214[/unixtime]]The complaining is kind of funny. I mean, what were people expecting from a blog called "Your Webcomic Is Bad, and You Should Feel Bad"? It's obviously not about any pretense of objectivity; it's about trashing a whole form of expression. As such, it's not like it's going to drive away the market for your favorite webcomic, since only people who hate webcomics (and thus weren't likely to read your favorite) read the blog.

I hate to admit it, but the Internet would be a lot more boring place without flame wars and trolls.

The best part about the blog, is that I have yet to find an instance where the writers are actually wrong.

But Solomon contradicts himself all the time! Or does that not count?

I must have missed those. But no, they aren't actual instances of him being flat out wrong.

His basic suppositions are wrong.

So in that, nothing he writes is at all factual.

-Crissa

Crissa, don't feed the Scandinavian mythological humanoid.

Wait, what?

Find one instance (pick a random entry) where one thing he says isn't factual.

I fail to see where he supposes anything. Am I that blind?

Is this what trolling is? I always it assumed it was more... angry?

Trolling has nothing to do with being angry. It has to do with making others angry.

Yes, he doesn't say anything specifically that isn't a 'fact' - however, by supposing the subject 'good' and 'bad' and 'should' and 'shouldn't' those are fallacies which invalidate any other time he uses facts.

-Crissa

KauTZ at [unixtime wrote:1203814433[/unixtime]]

Find one instance (pick a random entry) where one thing he says isn't factual.

Anything that's an opinion.:tonguesmile:

That doesn't even make sense Bleach.

He doesn't have an opinion other then that these comics are horrible. Most of the time that's because of things that are seriously wrong with the comic. Rampant misogyny, "Rape is A-OK!", really messed up shit like that. He's really educating people on how fucked up some comic writers are when that's half of what the comic is. Is trying to tell people that those things are wrong and shouldn't be written about in such a flippant matter opinion? He's telling people that this shit isn't ok and that no-one should be supporting these people in any endeavor they pursue.

If it's not the worst part of human nature at it's finest, it's people who really shouldn't be writing and drawing. It's the same reason people on this forum critique the books that WotC put out.

Following that idea, Crissa, how come you don't get mad at Frank/whoever when they show that WotC doesn't know what they are doing? They use "good", "bad", "should", and "shouldn't". The review's even read the same way in some way. Is there something I'm missing?

Sweet, totally not trolling because you guys aren't mad, and I'm not mad either. Go Team Me!

KauTZ at [unixtime wrote:1203824804[/unixtime]]
you guys aren't mad, and I'm not mad either.

We're all mad here.

KauTZ at [unixtime wrote:1203824804[/unixtime]]That doesn't even make sense Bleach.

Unless you couldn't tell by the emoticon, you should not take me seriously.

KauTZ wrote:Following that idea, Crissa, how come you don't get mad at Frank/whoever when they show that WotC doesn't know what they are doing? They use "good", "bad", "should", and "shouldn't". The review's even read the same way in some way. Is there something I'm missing?

It's a case of Frank bias. We overlook things Frank says on the board that may be considered a personal attack because 1.) We (some of us) worship him and 2.) It's the Internet. Complete lack of etiquette and hate-filled rants are the order of the day on the Web. Most people get used to it.

I don't overlook what Frank says over anyone else, I don't get upset very easily about things that are on the internet.

However, Crissa is famous for being hateful towards people that disagree with her on even minor issues. (I'm positive that if she was in a group, and someone wanted anchovies on the pizza they were ordering, Crissa would stab that person in the neck with a fork.)

Yes: One is art. He doesn't say art should and shouldn't, he says people should and shouldn't.

And yes, I do get angry when Frank makes blanket comments. We've had very heated conversations when he's in one of his very determinist moods.

But games have science and math behind them. They have a reason and point. They make people happy. They're supposed to be accessible - at least D&D is. It is possible to know when it does and doesn't work.

Comics are art. They tell stories, they express the author's feelings. They are not meant to be accessible to everyone. They have audiences. They have stories. They grow and age and die over time. It's a new field.

The only absolutes in art are with intersections of perception and marketing. Not in whether they should exist or not.

Should trolling exist? I can see no use or beauty in it. It is beyond the rant, which can be beautiful or constructive.

-Crissa

Yeah, this guy has reviewed comics that show a disturbingly cavilier attitude about misogyny and other nasty topics. But most of the time he doesn't. He makes alot of fun of comics like PvP, whose biggest real failing is being alot more boring that you would think a comic of it's stature would be. Seriously, he doesn't make fun of most of the comics he makes fun of because they're the sign of a loathsome mind behind it, he makes fun of comics because they don't use highly polished art, or they don't have a writing style he appreciates it. Maybe he's right, I can't say that I've had much urge to read most of the comics he's reviewed, and at least one of those comics I quit reading becuase I got bored.

And really, I don't care that he doesn't like these comics. Hell, I don't read most of them. The problem is his presentation is designed to make people who disagree with him angry.

Koumei at [unixtime wrote:1203825881[/unixtime]]

KauTZ at [unixtime wrote:1203824804[/unixtime]]
you guys aren't mad, and I'm not mad either.

We're all mad here.

Bullshit. I've been angry maybe 5 times in my life. I may be crazy, but I'm not angry. Be more specific next time.

That said, the dumbness of Bleach to a large degree, Crissa to a lesser degree, and the Count to a lesser degree than that, is pretty evident.

To the Count: Crissa's tone is often insulting. And she evidently doesn't understand that she actively turns people off to her side because she is insulting and arrogant.

To Crissa: Shut the fuck up. About anything that involves an opinion. You, at every turn, actively harm the side you advocate. DON'T DO THAT. I agree with you on most issues, but listening to your bullshit makes me wish I was a right-wing nutjob.

To Captain Bleach: You don't seem to understand why people have repeatably have called you on your random anti-Frank's-rhetoric in the past. Frank may be harsh for people who don't know him, but those people can bite me. That includes you. Oh, fuck it. That is specifically directed at you.

Agreed, Count, on both points. The Internet is not serious business, so people who are easily trolled need to learn to just calm down.

And yes, I can't actually say anything without inadvertently trolling Crissa. But seeing as the Internet is not serious business, my stance on that is somewhere between "I really don't care" and "that's pretty awesome."

I did a very quick browse of the site. The first one was just a case of "I think the writing is shit" presented as "the writing is shit" and honestly, people should be used to this form of reviewing. Hell, if we put aside the "taste is an individual thing, disintegration is in the eye of the Beholder etc." talk, then usually people will know what you're talking about when you refer to poor writing or a weak plot. In general, people know what you'll mean, so it's fair to use those terms objectively in a review even though they are subjective.

The next 3, 4, 5? that I looked at, some were actually praised for their art, but the main reason for being shot down was simple: the creators displaying casual views towards paedophilia and rape, general misogyny, racism... last I checked, those were considered universal bad traits to have, and hiding behind the "It's art! I can present any kind of views here and claim they're not my own, and there's nothing wrong here because it's art!" shield only works for so long.

And yes, he said a bunch were unfunny when their goal was to be funny webcomics. That's another subjective thing that can still be reviewed fairly objectively, seeing as, even though some people break into hysterics when you tell the assaulted peanut joke, and some people won't even break a smile when watching "Bits of Fry and Laurie", for the most part people can agree on what is and isn't funny.