User talk:OriginalPrankster

From 1d4chan
Jump to: navigation, search

Hey, I'm making this page to address some points you've brought up because I don't think you have a good understanding of 1d4chan or its users, and I want to clarify a few things:

  • "For a while now, I've noticed a trend both here and elsewhere of users new and old getting very antsy about making sure they're all cool and progressive and suchlike, bulldozing anything that they think might make them look otherwise in the eyes of anyone who happens to be looking."
Really? Because I haven't really noticed. Sometimes somebody new will show up and try to edit pages to make them more PC, and those pages are usually reverted really quickly. I've undone many of those edits myself and they crop up fairly often that if you watch the recent changes page (which is usually where I hang out on this website) that you'll see them come and go a lot. Sometimes a few changes stick for a bit, like in the Salamanders article where after an editwar and a long discussion a compromise was reached where everyone agreed that the joke was used so many times it was no longer funny. That being said the joke didn't vanish, it was just used less and in cleverer ways and there's even an image on that page that says fried chicken is the Vulkan's tenth relic! Also that KKK joke started because look at how that Apostate Cardinal of Nurgle is dressed, not to mention it never says that people who enjoy those jokes are members of the Klan, rather it uses them to help further the jokes about their skin colour. I've also watched every single edit that was made to the Salamander's page, if I wasn't fine with the jokes then I wouldn't have argued to keep the fried chicken, and I certainly would have reverted the other ones as well.
  • "This brings me to another point: the people who pull this shit don't do compromise, not really."
Somebody hasn't visited the Drowtales page. At a point there was an editwar there, it's gone now and we're reaching a good compromise both on what the article is and how to expand it as we go along. Even SaltyMan, one of the main causes of the editwar is happy enough with the compromise. If you're talking about something else here or another user, then I guess I misread that.
As the self-admitted other main cause of said editwar, I can confirm this. If even a stubborn ass like me can compromise, your whole conspiracy theory is blown out of the water. --Newerfag (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "They can't be bargained with: in the end they will accept nothing less than total dominion;..."
Honestly this is one of the reasons I like this site a lot, because enforcing only your view onto pages is enough to get you banned. If you look at my talk page you'll see that there are users besides me (and I'm presuming you) who are aware that some people like to try and make this wiki fit their tastes and their tastes only, but here the wiki comes out against people like that. For a good example of that look at the user Asorel, who was told to stop by an admin, then they made a new account called Forgefather, did the same thing, and were eventually stopped by an admin again (or they finally decided to leave, I'm pretty sure it was an admin though).
  • "please don't delete this shit or block me or anything like that because if the Internet's taught me anything that shit just makes the other guy into a martyr. I don't want that shit."
Luckily for everyone involved, speaking your mind isn't a bannable offence on this wiki, that I know of anyway. Fighting dirty against somebody (resorting to personal attacks as a quick example) or refusing to work with the community are bannable offences that I know of, and you haven't done either of those. -- Triacom (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
> Fighting dirty against somebody (resorting to personal attacks as a quick example)
You mean like how you and Crazy Cryptek called anon a pedophile for not thinking that loli (fiction, fantasy, inanimate, immaterial, scribbles on a piece of paper) somehow holds an equivalency to child pornography when you couldn't win an actual argument, even when the book that started the whole mess is not and was never intended to be pornographic?
Exactly, in retrospect I'm definitely not happy I did that, however where I am that's what the laws state. Also I didn't do it because I couldn't win an argument, I did it because the anon disgusted me and that's what the laws in my country state they would be if they looked up that sort of stuff (I also never claimed that series was pornographic, no clue where you got that from since I said that I thought there wouldn't be stuff like that in that series). Incidentally I can't say I was losing the argument but I've already gone over that point enough and on more relevant pages. -- Triacom (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Further, you seem to be confusing what my intent was, which was not to paint those users as some kind of suber ebil SJW megahitlers or whatever. I kind of suspected this would happen, but at that point I was just trying to get what I wanted said put down and clarify any quibbles later; this is also why I put a request to any passing moderators to not reflexively banhammer. My intent was to point out why this flamewar (unfortunately, because I will readily admit that this has become a shitstorm) would have relevance to the wiki as a whole and an actual motivation beyond "someone is wrong on the internet" syndrome. Specifically, I was trying to point out that butthurt of the sort shown by Crazy Cryptek and yourself has in several cases been the warning sign for others (not just through direct action but also through the unwitting attraction of fanatical shitheads) turning a politically-neutral community into a leftist hugbox, and that anyone who's experienced that in the past would be inclined to lash out to prevent it from happening again. (Rightist fanatics seem to make their hugboxes from scratch instead for some reason.) I didn't intend to imply that it was flat-out happening, just that it looked like it might be happening, and taking into account other tiny flashpoints one could be forgiven for erring on the side of caution. That's it; things are happening that look like the impending signs of fuckination, this is what fuckination does, therefore trying to push away said signs of fuckination has a sane motivation.OriginalPrankster (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
What has been happening so far has not been the rule for this wiki, merely the exception. Were that the case, it would have been infinitely more obvious and be visible across numerous pages- and would have also been opposed by other parts of the community, as Triacom and Cryptek aren't even the most influential members in it. As an aside, I consider myself apolitical, and am increasingly regretting my failure to wipe the page out when I had a chance, because at this rate there is no way in hell anyone is going to be convincing anyone else. Now let's all do the smart thing and drop the subject, and never talk about it ever again. --Newerfag (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't blank the page Newerfag. Wikifag's said that they don't like that when Asorel/Forgefather were doing it and I agree. Slap the delete tag on there if you will (I'm certainly not going to miss the page as I agree it's not related to /tg/) however blanking it does nothing at all. The anon's already stated that removing the blurb has made it so that they're not going to have anything to do with the editwar, and the only editwar that was there of late is because somebody was taking off the editwar tag too early. -- Triacom (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's a funny thing OriginalPrankster, normally when you barge into someplace and start calling people SJW's, they'll think your intent was to come in and call them SJW's. You could easily avoid that by simply not doing this, as well as not write an extra post about how the people on this site are trying to make everything PC when the example you use was changed because the joke was no longer funny. "I was trying to point out that butthurt of the sort shown by Crazy Cryptek and yourself has in several cases been the warning sign for others turning a politically-neutral community into a leftist hugbox..." What? That's one hell of a conclusion to jump to. Also if you didn't want to imply that this was happening, maybe you shouldn't state that you think something like it was with your whole PC talk and also the talk about how people on this wiki can't reach a compromise. I don't make edits on the main page to seek validation for others, I don't make edits on the talk page so that I can be comforted or reassured by others, and I can't think of anyone on this wiki who dos that either. -- Triacom (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
To add to that, neither Triacom nor myself even has the power to block you or whatever, so that little part of your spiel just makes you seem insane. If you're going to fling shit and make ridiculous accusations, use your own account instead of trying hiding behind an IP. It's awful cowardly of you to call someone a forumfag simply for taking responsibility for their own words. And let me be completely blunt here, you need a long, long rest from the Internet if you see SJWs and liberal agendas in every shadow.--Newerfag (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
That comment wasn't directed at either of you, it was directed at anyone who does have that power and felt like dishing out hotpocketry while I was too busy sleeping to reply. While I admit that's unlikely, I've seen it happen elsewhere enough that I felt it necessary, even though I didn't actually expect it to happen. And for the umpteenth time, I am not the same person as the anon and the collective insistence on crying sockpuppet when more than one person disagrees with you (I saw it with the Drowtales shit too) is getting tiring. OriginalPrankster (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The anon confirmed that, and in retrospect it was a bad assumption based on my own inability to tell you and the anon apart. I shall say that much, and I apologize for that. --Newerfag (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh the irony...[edit]

As fate would have it, I seem to have ended up in a dispute on another wiki with someone who really was espousing the same extreme views that you were warning us against, and in an attempt to make him see reason I have found that your own commentary on the Transformers page helped me phrase my objections far better than I could (in a sanitized version of course, Fandom doesn't do profanity). I just wanted to let you know so we could all have a good laugh about me having to take the same "extreme" response I had been compelled to question earlier; take that as you will. --Newerfag (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Link? That shit sounds like comedy gold. OriginalPrankster (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Can't seem to find it right now, but the short version is that through my own sheer stubbornness I forced a compromise in which he made an extremely shortened version of what he wanted to add and got him to personally see to it that nothing more was added to the article so affected. --Newerfag (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


I was reading over the Transformers talk page, and one thing in particular jumped out. You and anon attacked Cryptek and Triacom in spite of the fact that they're productive users of this wiki and have been for years. Anon isn't even man enough to realize that accepting the people you love doesn't make you a pushover, but you may just be worse. Why? Because you act like some right-wing limp-dicked bitch can speak for the opinions and culture of everyone of /tg/. You do get that there's nothing everyone on /tg/ agrees about, right? Hell, even Ward has his defenders. And furthermore, you pretend that all liberals are feminazi tumblrinas, without realizing that most of the opinions tumblrinas hold AREN'T EVEN REALLY LIBERAL. Why do you assume you're the only user here who really gets /tg/ culture?

Re: Sandbox pages[edit]

They could stand to be cut back some in comparison to the current state of the articles, and the relevance to /tg/ section might be workable (although it's liable to be a hotbed for sperging, so idk how descriptive we can really be), but for now I'm not seeing any real MAJOR objections IMO. --LGX-000 (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


For your information, my main pet peeve with the page is that people get too passionate about it, and on their zeal to add stuff or make it better they go entirely the wrong way and either add misinformation (such as the "Cultural Marxism" bullshit which I know to be little more than paranoia) or focus on everything except their direct influence over RPGs.

If I sound strident and possessive, it is only because I have grown distrustful of the ability of others to attempt objectivity on a subject that's progressively turning into a dog whistle and an article that can't follow its own advice of "ignore them". In it's current state, I believe the article is the best it can possibly be and see little value trying to dissect every possible manifestation of how it can appear, partially because I fear those symptoms might become overly broad in description and fail to distinguish the real thing from other, more harmless phenomena. --Newerfag (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

While I don't quite have the time to produce a full rebuttal atm, I submit as a counterexample to your revised post (as opposed to your original post that you realized was just a reflexive braindump and not actually an argument three hours after the fact) that I have in fact been attempting to keep the symptom list narrowly defined because of your exact fear. Note the hedging to the effect of "this isn't itself damning, look closer before making a decision" in the first subheading. OriginalPrankster (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will simply wait and see, and if any of those do look like they cast the net too wide in spite of said hedging, I shall correct it to the best of my ability. And yes, I know, I posted the first version without properly thinking it through and have no intention of defending that version. Newerfag (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Having seen your post on AssistantWikifag's page and made my reply to it explaining my thought processes leading to my overreaction, I would like to ask which parts of the page make it come off as "oh this is a thing people say to be mean and it doesn't even matter so why are you even here?" I have tried to describe the phenomenon as best as I can without falling prey to the common fallacy of attributing more power to them than they actually possess, and have tried to make the point that bad business decisions apparently geared at them are less a matter of politics and more about attempting to appeal to a wider audience. I don't deny that they exist, but there is a very fine line between "this is how the trend has had an impact" and "ZOMG THE SJWS ARE RUINING OUR HOBBY", and I have seen enough examples of the former turning into the latter for my tastes to view it with mistrust.

If there is some way that we could better coordinate on this matter instead of incessantly acting at cross purposes, I would like to do so. My only vested interest in this matter is to ensure that in avoiding one extreme the page does not condone its opposite extreme. If that premise is not unobjectionable to you I will be willing to help. --Newerfag (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Ewen Cluney's Faggotry[edit]

You make a good point, but would you be willing to let me have this one? JackalRobot (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for Approved Cartoons t. a movie and TV guy