He has seen us brothers. Hide all the pictures of his wife. AmbullFucker
- Shit, flee! Flee into the mildewy corners from whence we came!
Evidence of Aaron being a fa/tg/uy
Someone editing the page wanted proof that he's popped up on /tg/ on the odd occasion, so here it is. Took me all of three minutes to find it.
Direct link to an archived post he talked in: http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/13422964/
Direct link to a pic he posted in said post, proving his identity: http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/13422964/images/1294370168263.jpg
"Namefags defending ADB" (aka context for recent edit wars)
Head over to /tg/
What do you see ?
- >defending ADB at all costs by incorporating the criticisms into the article
- Sorry buddy, posting a reply on a general thread where you're talking to yourself doesn't really cut it. For an example of how to let /tg/ decide, look at how Triacom kicked my ass. Basically, leave the page be, come back in a couple hours, I will edit it myself. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
So if I could get an explanation as to why this anon feels a need to satisfy an anti-ADB slant to the point of undoing edits that don't slam the dude as hard as they want, that'd be cool. As I've noted in multiple edit summaries, I'm not even disagreeing with the notion that ADB isn't looked on as favorably as he used to be, as was the case with the article itself pre-edit war; add to that the fact that anons have targeted this page and started similar edit wars over what amounts to a personal vendetta before, and you'll see why I'm skeptical of this. I mean, besides the fact that what's being written in reads like it was typed by a hyperventilating mouthbreather. --LGX-000 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, nice personal attacks. Really proves you right.
>Waahaha wahha Anon is on a vendetta.
No. Anon is updating a bit the outdated memes on 1D4chan, which were slammed by ADB himself for being outdated (See first and second image of the gallery ffs). Right now ADB (which I personally do not believe is a bad dude and I think is prose is fine) is being shat upon repeatdly on /tg/, topics after topics, since several years already. The wiki hence must reflect that /tg/ is mocking ADB instead of trying to pretend he is as loved as Abnett (for example).
1d4Chan is /tg/ wiki. For less memeries, alternatives exists(Such as Wikipedia, Lexicanum, etc...). But ADB is arguably repeatedly writing OC donut steel characters while pushing "modern" social issues in 40k. Those are facts, that both parties of the debate agree on. Wether this is good or bad doesn't matter, what matter is that /tg/ is making fun of it. --This unsigned comment was made by 220.127.116.11 (talk). Four tildes, ya jackasses.
- As far as I can tell, the only thing that's seriously being said ("haha he should be fired" not counted) is that he's not very self aware and he pisses people off unknowingly, which seems to be in the article already. Either way, why don't you leave the article the fuck alone for the time being, screencap all applicable parts of the thread(s) (since you felt the need to play a little game in the new 40k General), then come back and we can do something fucking civil. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- The edit being fought overs are :
-Gallery Images which are screencap of ADB's posts -Gallery Images which are screencap of /tg/'s opinion on some of ADB's works -A single gallery Image poking fun at ADB writing using a fanart which is accurate representation of ADB's Character -Banners warning that just like Ward in his time, ADB is a new punching bag for /tg/ and that hence everything written here shall be taken as skub.
- You can't really complain about personal attacks after claiming I must be some sort of redditor/Facebooker for undoing the edits and then making the complaints less overtly vitriolic - and again, I've actually acknowledged those in some manner, and the article already noted that /tg/'s turned on him long before. Insisting that we're "vandalizing" the article and "defending him unconditionally" while ignoring those points, as you can imagine, does you absolutely no favors at all, and insisting that we take this to the talk page even as the edit summaries that explained our changes go ignored makes you seem like you're infinitely more pressed about this whole thing - at the least there's a considerable air of dishonesty about your stance, especially considering the screencap of "someone" trying to force the edit war discussion into a thread. --LGX-000 (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
>You can't really complain about personal attacks Yes I can.
>Insisting that we're "vandalizing" the article Removing relevant contribution because of emotional bias is vandalizing --This unsigned comment was made by 18.104.22.168 (talk). Four tildes, ya jackasses.
- ...and writing in attacks on "normiebook posters" into the article and ignoring acknowledgments of those contributions' contents isn't "emotional bias" or "vandalism"? --LGX-000 (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
t. I keep removing the banners and the gallery because some anon hurt my namefag ego. Making fun of normiebook is also peak /tg/
- I mean sure, if you want to look all the more sanctimonious for crying about personal attacks, then go right ahead.
- The very thread you linked is treating the whole ADB discussion as a gigantic derail, which by all appearances it seems to be, not to mention the derision towards what looks like reaches being made on the ADB-hater's (or haters') part - and that just makes this edit war you started look like an attempt to drag the skub here directly instead of "just" noting it in the article. Not to mention said edit war still hinges on the idea that we're defending ADB from criticism, which we've already shown to be blatantly false. We're just not into the idea of the page being used as a soapbox for someone's hateboner - that gets in the way of the ol' "sacred /tg/ memeries" as much as anyone trying to shill for ADB. --LGX-000 (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Explain how the edit you are reverting don't fit ? Line by line.
>This article is about something that is considered by the overpowering majority of /tg/ to be fail
Do you actually browse /tg/ ? Also touched upon in the article, even more so because fallen from grace
>This article or section is EXTRA heretical. Prepare to be purged.
Waifu-ism, believe chaos is gonna win
>ADB think your nonsense is easy to ignore
Adb talking about 1D4chan is relevant on his article on 1D4chan
>Dare you enter ADB's Magical Realm ?
Funny ADB screenshot edit that originated on /tg/
>OC DONUT STEEL.
Most of ADB criticism in one picture
>ADB Waifu > Ur Waifu
Related to the previous image, in making the Waifu even more snowlfake
>/tg/ on Spears of the Emperor
Screenshot from /tg/ talking about ADB
>Diversity Quotas in Your 40k
Actual screenshot of ADB, illustrating points in the article. maybe moved up ?
>Based suit saying no to female Custards. ADB is big sad
>Just like you, ADB hate painting and doesn't play the game
- I think you're 100% missing the point mate. The problem isn't that I or LGX loves ADB (although I am a big fan of Master of Mankind and Helsreach), it's that you're not willing to compromise and you're edits are dirtying up the article. You posted on /tg/ (which is a great way to solve an argument, like I said), but instead of making a new thread, you derailed two (I actually tried to reactivate one by posting my criticism of him, which was promptly ignored and shut down). You're butthurt and you want to trash this article to make yourself feel better. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Due to your unwilingess to address any of the specific points above (which is a line by line discussion about the edit your are blindly reverting), it seems that you are projecting the butthurt and are in fact not interested in the discussion, prefering instead draping yourself in some justice-boner, (as evidenced by your namefaggotry and your profile description) and are only interested in having the last word, irrelevant of the quality of the contributions by others. People like you are the reason 1d4chan has a bad rep.
Moreover, you put up a screenshot of the dead thread. If you were to link the actual thread, you could see /tg/ actual discussion is... less in your favor. more specifically https://boards.4channel.org/tg/thread/67678942#67679512 --This unsigned comment was made by 22.214.171.124 (talk). Four tildes, ya jackasses.
- I will check out the thread.
- If you're ready to talk it's much better than an edit war.
- I find those templates absolutely unnecessary. In fact, before you, I haven't seen a single flame war, and it seems like generally, /tg/ complains about him, but doesn't give a shit. He is not a new Ward that everybody hates , he's not a meme that is espoused in every thread. If you'd like to add in additional general information about why he's disliked, that's totally reasonable. As of right now, you're making it impossible for anybody to compromise with you because you revert things before they can be fixed.
- As far as the gallery goes, I really have no issues with it. /tg/ seems to be consistent (with outliers like that one guy who is deffo a /pol/lack from that DM guilty pleasure thread from like a week ago) that diversity is not a problem in any setting, and can often improve it, but that ADB shoves it down the readers' throats to the point where it kills the interest in the characters, and, in some cases, reduces them to tokenism. Either way, we can discuss every single picture if you'd like, but just please stop spamming edits. It's actually fucking ridiculous, and I'd like to get something else done but this is eating up my attention, which seems like it should be a very easy fix to me. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Everything seems to have simmered down, but while I'm here...
>"here's proof that ADB flame wars are all over /tg/ in this section of a thread that just happens to have started today!"
- Again, not even disputing that he's much more disliked, but that's a shit argument for the point no matter how you try to spin it. It looks even more so considering the transparent attempt to force this Talk Page argument into general threads... That and going so far as to post Kracked's public profile in one of those threads in order to fish for support, thus contributing to a derail and pretty much manufacturing skub on the topic. Terrible form.
- The flame war template's been removed, but the point remains. Now if you'd just pulled proof from archived threads, I'd be far less skeptical - and you've realized where burden of proof is and are willing to do that much, so fair enough.
>Diversity Quotas in Your 40k
- Titling an image "Image:QuotasInYour40k.jpg" and presenting it in an entirely loaded manner. Totally unbiased posting there. That dishonesty aside, I won't object, though his statement that he's doing so to make it more 'realistic' should at least be factored in.
ADB himself is acknowledging that he is making on purpose non-white characters when they could have been white. Quota being good or bad is not the subject of the discussion here.
>/tg/ on Spears of the Emperor
- Post was capped from the current flamewar, is one person's post being posed as "/tg/'s opinion" despite not quite getting unanimous agreement, and more or less this just cycles back to my first listed point. Would not keep.
Then nothing get written ever because /tg/ is not monolithic. If you skim trough the threads you will though realize that most opinions are negative and will touch upon character design or activism. His prose is actually being perceived as neutral to good. --This unsigned comment was made by 126.96.36.199 (talk). Four tildes, ya jackasses.
>Dare you enter ADB's Magical Realm ?
- The thread you so helpfully cited on this tweet brings up the very likely possibility of it being a fucked-up joke (possibly about video game morality, iunno about that though) that went over someone's head rather than an actual statement and/or absolute proof of what he actually thinks. Also in that thread, calls for proof of "jungle fever" aren't substantiated well enough. Looks dubious at best, wouldn't keep.
>Just like you, ADB hate painting and doesn't play the game
- Another thinly veiled shot at people disagreeing with you, plus the screenshot itself says that he only hates painting minis, but doesn't mind doing scenery. As for not playing the game, see same screenshot. Ignoring the preference for Fantasy (which, whatever), "hasn't played 40k much since 4E" =/= "never played 40k ever", and there's probably a good chunk of the fanbase who hasn't actually played but is really into the lore, so it's dumb to single him out for that.
- The "Chaos will win" thing COULD justify it, but I'm not entirely sure of that. Though as for the idea of "waifus in 40k are heresy"... I'm inclined to think that ship's sailed. Also say a Super Crown post and a few more waifu pics not long after initially typing this, fucking lul.
- Would be willing to leave it, but this ALSO sorta cycles back to the first point; more pertinently, as Kracked said, he's no Matt Ward, just that he isn't as loved as he used to be. The Ward hate is leagues apart from this, even with his "fall from grace".
>Most of ADB criticism in one picture
- A picture that doesn't really provide much context as to the criticisms, at least not in comparison to screenshots of the guy's own words. I'd toss it.
I woudln't as the artstyle is typical of fanfiction, the subject typical of fanfiction, yet it is from ADB's novels. --This unsigned comment was made by 188.8.131.52 (talk). Four tildes, ya jackasses.
>Based suit saying no to female Custards. ADB is big sad
- Totally unbiased btw. The reasoning given wasn't even particularly anti-quota, looks more like "the minis are designed to match the lore, let's not create additional work" from what little the screenshot provides. Probably worth keeping, though.
>ADB talking about 1d4chan
- Also fine since it's on topic, its only crime that it was included in a series of edits that read as being buttblasted; granted we're in the process of walking that back now. Though I am curious about the screenshot next to it now, reading it more carefully seems like he's talking more about old/forced memes wrt "repetition as the humor instead of being a means of presenting humor" thing.
On a final minor note, some of the typing for the captions has really bothersome grammar mistakes that sorta feed into the whole "too buttmad to type right" air that the whole thing gave off to me. Sounds unfair now that we're actually working together on this thing, but that's genuinely what it read like, and it doesn't do much for the article. Hopefully this covers everything. --LGX-000 (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
>Sounds unfair now that we're actually working together on this thing
Feel free to leave. Grow a skin. Switch off your screen, idk. You are the one that feel assmad. You are deleting stuff you disagree with. Not creating value or fun content. English is not my native language, hence feel free to correct any grammar mistakes.
Moreover, while KrackedMynd is conscious of his bias (and at least half conscious of his morally superior boner), YOU, LGX-000, seems to think you are fair and unbiaised. Spoiler kiddo : you aren't. The sooner you realize it and that you are aware of your own bias, the faster you'll become an adult.
In order to trigger a laugh, you need to convey absurdity, suffering. Laughter is a natural reaction to externalize that. Ever laughed at wikipedia ? probably not. It's because they are tone-neutral. At dead baby jokes ? probably yes. Because it's suffering externalized. The easiest way to convey suffering or absurdity is by adding a persona to the words. To give them an inherent bias. And to make it obvious. So that the reader can understand the suffering, the absurdity, and laugh at it.
/40k/ is plastic army men. You should not take it seriously. It's absurd. So an easy laugh trigger is to take all of it hyper seriously in an hyper triggered way. If you were on /tg/ back during the ward hate, you'd realize that it was mostly a meme. No one was "seething" with rage like 1D4chan would suggest. People would simply houserule a lot more, and tournament were just a joke.
Overall, content on /tg/ should be one (ideally both) of those two :
All of the submission left are either informative or funny. If there is one you don't understand in particular, I can explain the joke to you as you may lack the reference (given that you apparently got into 40K with BL, which is relatively recent) --This unsigned comment was made by 184.108.40.206 (talk). Four tildes, ya jackasses.
- >...the whole "too buttmad to type right" air that the whole thing gave off to me. Sounds unfair now that we're actually working together on this thing...
- The full context of the quote, from the paragraph literally just above your response, specifically in regards to the typing. Second language I can get, but you really need to work on that "reading" thing. It also helps not to plant your response right in the middle of mine.
- >YOU, LGX-000, seems to think you are fair and unbiaised.
- Lmfao nice try. I've never once said that I was free of bias during this entire discussion, and I wasn't the one humoring the pretense of being free of emotional bias while undoing someone else's edits. What I don't get is why you're projecting that onto me. Anyway, on the subject of the fail template...
- "Then nothing get written ever because /tg/ is not monolithic. If you skim trough the threads you will though realize that most opinions are negative and will touch upon character design or activism. His prose is actually being perceived as neutral to good."
- Not the point. I'm saying that screenshot originated from a thread that originated today and got derailed due in part to this discussion, so it's not exactly irrefutable proof, and the way it was introduced into the discussion didn't help matters. As I mentioned before, find enough proof that people before today were taking issue with the Spears of the Emperor (which I don't necessarily doubt, this IS a 4chan board we're talking about), or just start an honest thread on the matter and see where it goes, and I'll be less skeptical.
- >the "ADB criticisms in one picture" pic
- Again, my problem was the lack of context. To quote you:
- "I woudln't as the artstyle is typical of fanfiction, the subject typical of fanfiction, yet it is from ADB's novels."
- See how easy it is to actually back up an argument for a change? If you'd led with that, there'd be that much less argument over the fact.
- >the fail template is my opinion
Yes, just as it's your opinion that it belongs there because of /tg/ turning against him... yet you assert that "His prose is actually being perceived as neutral to good", so... Besides, I'm not arguing for monolithic resentment in any sense of the word.
- "/40k/ is plastic army men. You should not take it seriously."
- I don't. My reaction to the initial string of edits was fixing what I believed to be the work of someone else taking things too seriously, based on the fact that they had no prior edit history, and the responses to those edits only furthered that perception. Spare me the sanctimonious comedy lectures.
- "When was it implied that heresy is a bad thing ? It's just an in-universe meme. /d/ and /tg/ goes far back."
- I never said or implied it was a bad thing, just that I'm not sure I would've kept it in - my opinion, in other words.
- "/tg/ having a fuckhuge backlog/greytide and not playing the game is a super common trope."
- That's my point. It's super common, yet somehow one specific guy doing it is a problem?
- "Grow a skin."
- >"Oh, nice personal attacks. Really proves you right."
- ^Literally you earlier today. I care less about being personally attacked than I do people bringing their problems with editors into the article.
- "In that thread ? That image has been around since Repentia release. It even was posted on facebook. Lurk Moar."
ADB is joking on several level :
The perception that if you are a good boy you should be rewarded
The perception that if you are a good person it's okay to do wrong things (like owning a sex slave)
Then the tg poster is joking him(her)self on several levels too
Abadon wokeness in chosing serena williams (by name) instead of let's say, an unammned model or a more conventionally beautiful model. ADB is married, and yet he explicitly evoke sexual desire for an another woman in a public space (twitter).
The new repentia models being a miss in term of design, as a simple color swap made this particular render look like serena williams
And yet you continue to revert descriptions to unfunny ones.
- I'm going to try not to feed my over inflated ego too much, but here goes
- LGX probably is biased. I mean that in the way that fucking everyone is biased. As far as his edits are concerned, he's most definitely not. Sometimes, I have trouble keeping my bias outside, but usually, I don't, even when it matters to me. Hell, literally today LGX corrected me on a topic that does induce flamewars, and, like a functioning human being, I fixed the problem and moved on with my life.
- As far as my "moral superiority" goes, which seems to be based on the SoB meme on my user page, That's The Joke. Also, while I'm talking about myself, which I, of course, love to do, what's with posting my user page on the boards? I haven't bothered to look at it (since it's been used against me before and literally no one on /tg/ could give a shit), but it's almost certainly negative, so that's a definite WTF situation.
- Aso, in case you didn't notice between us and the threads you derailed, you're not that funny. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I did not post your user page anywhere, that's an another anon. I don't really care about what others think of others.
> you're not that funny.
One of my personal contribution in this very thread got a "my side", the Serena Williams of Battle caption was the name of the general following the first release of the image which got a lot of positive reaction as well, etc...
- I don't care to humor the stance 'That's just, like, your opinion, man', being an obivous cop out. But that aside, comedy tends to be subjective, what people find funny varies, and we could have that argument as to WHAT for months on end with no resolution. That said, I've also noticed you've kept some of those reversions in, so I gotta be doing something right.
- Also, are you seriously comparing (you)s from a thread? Is this what we're doing now after crying about egobooing? --LGX-000 (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
If it's better than what i've written, of course.
Well, when being accused of something related to personal taste (what is funny), calling in third parties is not innapropriate. My other options would have been to either ignore (valid) or to "NO U" (weak). --This unsigned comment was made by 220.127.116.11 (talk). Four tildes, ya jackasses.
- The implication being "if you have to ask if you're funny..." And anons on 4chan are the least reliable means of validation ever, for pretty obvious reasons. E: Nevermind that, again, there were more than several responses criticizing you "positive support" for missing a "being rewarded for doing the bare minimum" joke that felt obvious to them. I'm still not sold on that rationale.
- ...And now I'm being told that my opinion on something as subjective as humor is objectively wrong by someone who thinks derailing a 4chan discussion counts as a more objective measure. Hilarious. It genuinely seems like you're just trying to get their way at this point, considering the focus on this specific page's 'humor' and absolutely nothing else. --LGX-000 (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)