Thor's "Thematic" Section

[Antvasima]

I am perfectly fine with splitting Bigby's page into two separate continuities though, the much less extreme "Wolf Among Us" version, and the thoroughly amoral, tribalist, and social Darwinian "Fables" version.

 

[DaReaperMan]

I can definitely understand why the long thematics section was inappropriate, and as such I have removed it, but not brief accurate personality summaries and character-defining quotes. That is entirely relevant to the identities and portrayals of the characters as a whole, and I don't want us to get in the business of acting as whitewashing apologists for genuine evil just because some fiction authors (including Bill Willingham, who systematically used Bigby Wolf as the voice of the author) have the attitudes of ideologically amoral and sociopathic social Darwinian political extremists.

Taking the whole "let's be entirely neutral" approach too far regarding genuine evil reads like "So you want to torture thousands of children to death for sport or due to general supremacism. Would you settle for just torturing them all into comas instead to meet us halfway?" to me.

Which, I repeat, has no place on a profile. You replaced an objective truth(that he's the main character of the series) with a subjective one(that he's an "ideologically tribalist and social Darwinistic sociopathic protagonist"), which blunty put, is a pretty damn good way to piss of fans of his character coming from either games or comics, and seeing as I've been consuming a bit his comic content lately, it annoys me more than anything.

(On the subject of a profile split though, I've already made the canonicity split thread and am just waiting for some things to be calced to finish off his game profile.)

 

[SamanPatou]

I can definitely understand why the long thematics section was inappropriate, and as such I have removed it, but not brief accurate personality summaries and character-defining quotes. That is entirely relevant to the identities and portrayals of the characters as a whole, and I don't want us to get in the business of acting as whitewashing apologists for genuine evil just because some fiction authors (including Bill Willingham, who systematically used Bigby Wolf as the voice of the author) have the attitudes of ideologically amoral and sociopathic social Darwinian political extremists.

Taking the whole "let's be entirely neutral" approach too far regarding genuine evil reads like "So you want to torture thousands of children to death for sport or due to general supremacism. Would you settle for just torturing them all into comas instead to meet us halfway?" to me.

Standard explanations of a character's identity and personality are perfectly fine and have always been featured in our profiles through the summary section or the quotes.
The problem emerges when we go too far in injecting our personal views or interpretations, considering it is not our job.

We may, idk, add links to blogs and pages which explore these characters, their authors and so on in a more professional and dedicated way, if we like our users to explore these characters farther than just a "versus"-perspective, but we can't claim to do this job ourselves and especially not in this way.
It is totally possible to also convey facts without justifying some things, but right now we are grossly going overboard with the topic.

 

[Antvasima]

Which, I repeat, has no place on a profile. You replaced an objective truth(that he's the main character of the series) with a subjective one(that he's an "ideologically tribalist and social Darwinistic sociopathic protagonist"), which blunty put, is a pretty damn good way to piss of fans of his character coming from either games or comics, and seeing as I've been consuming a bit his comic content lately, it annoys me more than anything.

(On the subject of a profile split though, I've already made the canonicity split thread and am just waiting for some things to be calced to finish off his game profile.)

It is an accurate summary for anybody who pays close attention to the ideology and running themes of both Bigby and Fables as a whole, and the core issue is that the vast majority of humanity are matter-of-fact indoctrinated by sufficient amounts of propaganda regardless of the source, whether it is through social media, news pundits, campaign speeches, or entertainment media, so if they digest sufficient amounts of it that systematically glorifies psychopathic mindsets into ideals to strive towards, I don't think that cowardly completely sweeping this fact under the carpet just to avoid pissing off any of the people who have become the most fanatically indoctrinated into fanboys of these ideals is the proper way to socially tackle the problem, as that just allows malevolent propaganda to run rampant without even any complaints about it.

Also, TV Tropes has been far more indepth critical of Bigby's characterisation as an evil ideal to strive towards, and general voice of the author power fantasy for Bill Willingham, who is a far right extremist, than I remotely was in our own wiki page, and it is still doing well.

 

[Antvasima]

Standard explanations of a character's identity and personality are perfectly fine and have always been featured in our profiles through the summary section or the quotes.
The problem emerges when we go too far in injecting our personal views or interpretations, considering it is not our job.

We may, idk, add links to blogs and pages which explore these characters, their authors and so on in a more professional and dedicated way, if we like our users to explore these characters farther than just a "versus"-perspective, but we can't claim to do this job ourselves and especially not in this way.
It is totally possible to also convey facts without justifying some things, but right now we are grossly going overboard with the topic.

If you look at Thor's current profile page, what is actually currently said there is extremely tame and to the point. Just because I am honestly explaining my viewpoints here in this discussion thread doesn't mean that I think that it is appropriate to go to anywhere near such elaboration within our wiki pages.

 

[DaReaperMan]

It is an accurate summary for anybody who pays close attention to the ideology and running themes of both Bigby and Fables as a whole, and the core issue is that the vast majority of humanity are matter-of-fact indoctrinated by sufficient amounts of propaganda regardless of the source, whether it is through social media, news pundits, campaign speeches, or entertainment media, so if they digest sufficient amounts of it that systematically glorifies psychopathic mindsets into ideals to strive towards, I don't think that cowardly completely sweeping it under the carpet just to avoid pissing off any of the people who have become the most fanatically indoctrinated into fanboys of these ideals are the proper way to socially tackle them, as that just allows malevolent propaganda to run rampant without even any complaints about it.

Which has no place on a profile about a half-wind Werewolf's power level. Let people reading Bigby's comics come up with their own conclusions to his personality, I'm not telling you that you're WRONG for viewing him that way, I'm saying to not put it on a profile to avoid pissing people off because this is the internet, and people will make beef over a character's personality being misrepresented in their eyes.

Also, TV Tropes has been far more indepth critical of Bigby's characterisation as an evil ideal to strive towards than I remotely was in our own wiki page, and it is still doing okay.

TV Tropes is a joke, Ant. It's wrong on many, many things very, very often. It also shuts down criticism on it's site. It's like trusting Wikipedia for a page that's only sourced with recent books on a conflict that supposedly happened a century ago.

 

[Antvasima]

Which has no place on a profile about a half-wind Werewolf's power level. Let people reading Bigby's comics come up with their own conclusions to his personality, I'm not telling you that you're WRONG for viewing him that way, I'm saying to not put it on a profile to avoid pissing people off because this is the internet, and people will make beef over a character's personality being misrepresented in their eyes.

His personality is not misrepresented. He is extremely blatantly a borderline genocidal tribalist and extremely amoral, completely ruthless, might makes right social Darwinist imperialist without the slightest hint of guilt over his enormous crimes, and who is extremely willing to commit far greater atrocities if it is in the slightest self-serving interest of his extremely small self-perceived "tribe". He has repeatedly explicitly stated this himself over the span of the series, although since the author extremely enthusiastically approves of such policies, it has been systematically presented as if such sentiments are perfectly reasonable and admireable. And again, us just cowardly sweeping these facts under the carpet is extremely morally irresponsible.

Also, our pages should be both about the personalities, story thematics, power levels, and abilities of characters, even if the last two mentions are handled more indepth.

TV Tropes is a joke, Ant. It's wrong on many, many things very, very often. It also shuts down criticism on it's site. It's like trusting Wikipedia for a page that's only sourced with recent books on a conflict that supposedly happened a century ago.

That was not my point. I responded to your complaint regarding that I should avoid pissing off people brainwashed into thinking that Bigby is a cool ideal to strive towards by giving an example of another more prominent site that has been perfectly fine despite pointing out plenty of thematic flaws in Bigby's portrayal.

 

[DaReaperMan]

His personality is not misrepresented. He is extremely blatantly a borderline genocidal tribalist and extremely amoral might makes right social Darwinist imperialist without the slightest hint of guilt over his enormous crimes and who is extremely willing to commit far greater atrocities if it is in the slightest self-serving interest of his extremely small self-perceived "tribe". He has repeatedly explicitly stated this himself over the span of the series, although since the author approves of such policies, it has been systematically presented as if such sentiments are perfectly reasonable and admireable. And again, us just cowardly handwaving these facts is extremely morally irresponsible.

Ant, this is very ironic coming from you for a lot of people. People do sorta leave the site because of some of the things you do and say. I know you mean well, but people do not go to us for an idea on a character's personality. Anyone nerdy enough to be running through this wiki is also nerdy enough to throw crap at you for what they see as misrepresenting a character.

I don't really care, people don't know me and aren't going to be flinging shit my way, but they will inevitably throw it your way. Let me restate: I know you mean well Ant, but we're a battleboard at the end of the day, leave the personality descriptors and whatnot to the series' own wikis.

Also, our pages should are both about the personalities, thematics, power levels, and abilities of characters, even if the last two mentions are handled more indepth.

They definitely aren't about the personalities or thematics of characters, Ant. If people want to know about the personality of a character, this is the page they'll look at. I'm fairly certain a battleboard indexing site is one of the last places people are gonna go to get a feel for a character beyond their power level. Our summaries are to give the starting story of a character and their role in the series they're in, not their morality as you see it.

I'd recommend talking to the folks at Fables Wiki to change his personality section there rather than do it on the page here where literally only hard-core nerds and a guy who finds it annoying to place controversial personality traits in a summary are going to give a damn.

That was not my point. I responded to your complaint regarding that I should avoid pissing off people brainwashed into thinking that Bigby is a cool ideal to strive towards by giving an example of another more prominent site that has been perfectly fine despite pointing out plenty of thematic flaws of his portrayal.

TV Tropes does get a lot of shit, the difference is nobody can really say it to their face like we can here at VSBW.

 

[Damage3245]

So far we have five staff members being against this addition to Thor's page, and only one being in favor of it.


Unless the vote situation changes drastically, I think we know what direction this is heading.

 

[Antvasima]

Ant, this is very ironic coming from you for a lot of people. People do sorta leave the site because of some of the things you do and say. I know you mean well, but people do not go to us for an idea on a character's personality. Anyone nerdy enough to be running through this wiki is also nerdy enough to throw crap at you for what they see as misrepresenting a character.

I don't really care, people don't know me and aren't going to be flinging shit my way, but they will inevitably throw it your way. Let me restate: I know you mean well Ant, but we're a battleboard at the end of the day, leave the personality descriptors and whatnot to the series' own wikis.

They definitely aren't about the personalities or thematics of characters, Ant. If people want to know about the personality of a character, this is the page they'll look at. I'm fairly certain a battleboard indexing site is one of the last places people are gonna go to get a feel for a character beyond their power level. Our summaries are to give the starting story of a character and their role in the series they're in, not their morality as you see it.

I'd recommend talking to the folks at Fables Wiki to change his personality section there rather than do it on the page here where literally only hard-core nerds and a guy who finds it annoying to place controversial personality traits in a summary are going to give a damn.

TV Tropes does get a lot of shit, the difference is nobody can really say it to their face like we can here at VSBW.

Well, I still do think that we should provide rather brief summaries of character personalities and story thematics in our pages, at least where it seems especially warranted, such as for characters that are especially morally admireable or completely ethically despicable, with this fact somehow treated as something laudable and empowering by the authors.

And given that I am the main person who has guided the direction of this wiki for almost 11 years now, and it has grown to around a 100 times the popularity it had when I first came here, I think that I have a history of usually good judgements in this regard, and as long as we do not go overboard with elaboration, this issue seems harmless.

Also, I find it irresponsible and insufferably restraining to be forced to do absolutely nothing and completely shut up about these types of extreme moral transgressions, so given all the enormous amounts of good work I have purely altruistically done for this community for no payment whatsoever, I think that I have earned this very small liberty.

So far we have five staff members being against this addition to Thor's page, and only one being in favor of it.

Unless the vote situation changes drastically, I think we know what direction this is heading.

I already removed the thematics section long ago, and the current character description is extremely brief and harmless, so that seems like a very moot point.

 

[Damage3245]

I already removed the thematics section long ago, and the current character description is extremely brief and harmless, so that seems like a very moot point.

Not if there's disagreements on it, which there are currently are.

 

[LegendariumOfLies]

I think we are exaggertating and overcomplicating the issue more than it needs to.
The issue that Ant was trying to address that Thor, as with many comic book characters, has had his ideals and personality drastically change throughout the years depending on which author gets to screw with it. This does affect battleboarding as one of the main questions people ask on Versus Threads is,"What would be the first thing this guy do in character?"
All we really need to do is attach a note at the end that says, "Thor's personality varies wildly depending on which author is wrting for him. It should be clarified by the poster which version of Thor that is being used. If not, his classical Stan Lee personality will be assumed" or something like that.

 

[Antvasima]

Not if there's disagreements on it, which there are currently are.

The disagreements were for the old section, and that has been fixed. I have yet to see a coherent rational complaint about the current text.

Also, I updated my last post with important additions, and given all of the moral leeway I went out of my way to give you in the past, I do not at all appreciate that you are giving me a hard time here.

 

[Antvasima]

I think we are exaggertating and overcomplicating the issue more than it needs to.
The issue that Ant was trying to address that Thor, as with many comic book characters, has had his ideals and personality drastically change throughout the years depending on which author gets to screw with it. This does affect battleboarding as one of the main questions people ask on Versus Threads is,"What would be the first thing this guy do in character?"
All we really need to do is attach a note at the end that says, "Thor's personality varies wildly depending on which author is wrting for him. It should be clarified by the poster which version of Thor that is being used. If not, his classical Stan Lee personality will be assumed" or something like that.

Thank you. What do you have in mind more specifically, pertaining to the current brief text in Thor's summary section?

 

[Damage3245]

The disagreements were for the old section, and that has been fixed. I have yet to see a coherent rational complaint about the current text.

Also, I updated my last post with important additions, and given all of the moral leeway I went out of my way to give you in the past, I do not at all appreciate that you are giving me a hard time here.

Why is a lack of neutrality and clear bias not a rational complaint for you? It's in our very rules? Multiple users here are voicing complaints, so it wouldn't hurt to consider their perspectives:

It is important to remember that all staff members, regardless of their rank, have a responsibility to act in the best interests of each verse by prioritizing accuracy and quality above personal preferences or biases. Staff members should strive to approach the evaluation of content revision threads with an open mind and a willingness to consider the perspectives of others.

And regarding your latter point, I don't see the point in bringing up moral leeway in regards to myself; that's a borderline Ad Hominen attack considering you should be addressing the argument and not the person making the argument. I don't want to give you a hard time over this Antvasima and I'm approaching this concerned with solely the topic at hand, so extend me the same courtesy please.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Well, I still do think that we should provide rather brief summaries of character personalities and story thematics in our pages, at least where it seems especially warranted, such as for characters that are especially morally admireable or completely ethically despicable, with this fact somehow treated as something laudable and empowering by the authors.

And given that I am the main person who has guided the direction of this wiki for almost 11 years now, and it has grown to around a 100 times the popularity it had when I first came here, I think that I have a history of usually good judgements in this regard, and as long as we do not go overboard with elaboration, this issue seems harmless.

Also, I find it irresponsible and insufferably restraining to just do absolutely nothing and be forced to completely shut up about these types of moral transgressions.

It's pretty overboard to call the main character of the setting an "ideologically tribalist and social Darwinistic sociopathic protagonist" to me Ant. Especially when he should probably be acting worse seeing as he's from the dark ages where people killed eachother for superstitious nonsense.

It's fiction, everyone creates their own story, and sometimes those stories don't have morally good and evil characters as the main character and villain. Take the good with the bad and don't worry about it, seeing as there's literally a meme running around that characters are portrayed as killing machines in versus debates when they're pretty chill in their verse, there's definitely more wrong than just Bigby being an ass lol

Thank you. What do you have in mind more specifically, pertaining to the current brief text in Thor's summary section?

"Thor's portrayal and moves vary between one author to another, thus his first move should be decided in the thread itself by stating which author is writing Thor. If none is stated, the Classic Thor written by Stan Lee will be assumed"

I think that covers it

 

[LegendariumOfLies]

Thank you. What do you have in mind more specifically, pertaining to the current brief text in Thor's summary section?

I think its mostly fine, but I would move this:

Through his history Thor has most prominently been portrayed as extremely noble, brave, responsible, heroic, altruistic, idealistic, and compassionate, although certain writers have severely distorted his character, or depowered and humiliated him.

To a Notes Section and would say:

Through his history Thor's personality has varied depending on the writer. As such, Machups should clarify his personality for Standard Battle Assumptions. If no clarification is made, then Thor's personality will be assumed to be the one from Stan Lee's Classical Era

 

[DaReaperMan]

I think its mostly fine, but I would move this:

To a Notes Section and would say:

This blows mine out of the water, nice work

 

[The_Impress]

Oh is this wrt the skill level/personality of comic characters in vs threads?

 

[Theglassman12]

Yeah I don’t really see the point in this thematic section, it has no bearing on the actual purpose of the profile which is to provide facts on what Thor does in fights. If it’s to establish some character flaw with him that’s relevant to the fights that can just be slapped onto his weakness section.

 

[Antvasima]

Why is a lack of neutrality and clear bias not a rational complaint for you? It's in our very rules? Multiple users here are voicing complaints, so it wouldn't hurt to consider their perspectives:

Again, it is impossible to be neutral regarding moral issues. Either you choose striving towards being good or gradually descending into evil. That is how it fundamentally works. Going halfway regarding the issue by completely avoiding to mention either virtues or vices is taking a very non-neutral stand of complete amoral ambivalence instead.

And regarding your latter point, I don't see the point in bringing up moral leeway in regards to myself; that's a borderline Ad Hominen attack considering you should be addressing the argument and not the person making the argument. I don't want to give you a hard time over this Antvasima and I'm approaching this concerned with solely the topic at hand, so extend me the same courtesy please.

You are giving me an extremely hard time over a currently extremely brief and harmless summary that I went to extremes with compromising about without any corresponding response from you whatsoever, so I do not see how you are showing me much courtecy or understanding at all here.

 

[Nierre]

Legend's write up looks fine to me TBH. It doesn't have unnecessary extra info that reeks of bias like the OG thematic section had, with all due respect.

 

[Antvasima]

It's pretty overboard to call the main character of the setting an "ideologically tribalist and social Darwinistic sociopathic protagonist" to me Ant. Especially when he should probably be acting worse seeing as he's from the dark ages where people killed eachother for superstitious nonsense.

It is factually accurate, given that these traits are very explicit, but I can remove "sociopathic" if you wish. Taking extreme pleasure in casually thrill-killing thousands of talking sentient beings, and never having any conscience problems whatsoever about it, along with his outspoken ideological absolutely ruthless imperialistic social Darwinism, does very much qualify though.

It's fiction, everyone creates their own story, and sometimes those stories don't have morally good and evil characters as the main character and villain. Take the good with the bad and don't worry about it, seeing as there's literally a meme running around that characters are portrayed as killing machines in versus debates when they're pretty chill in their verse, there's definitely more wrong than just Bigby being an ass lol

We do not indoctrinate others with ideological malevolence. I don't really see how writing brief "FRA" voting text segments are morally comparable to marketing wholesale malevolent ideologies to readers in general.

"Thor's portrayal and moves vary between one author to another, thus his first move should be decided in the thread itself by stating which author is writing Thor. If none is stated, the Classic Thor written by Stan Lee will be assumed"

I think that covers it

That seems more suitable for the standard tactics section than the personality and history summary section.

 

[The_Impress]

Ant no offense but you have like, weirdly rigid perception of these characters and like, situational morality.

If you want me or some of us to now do personality writeups on files (as a part of Standard Tactics or smth) we can do that, but the Thor one wasn't very indepth and based on like, very specific interpretations of the runs and writers.

 

[Damage3245]

Again, it is impossible to be neutral regarding moral issues. Either you choose striving towards being good or gradually descending into evil. That is how it fundamentally works. Going halfway regarding the issue by completely avoiding to mention either virtues or vices is taking a very non-neutral stsnd of complete amoral ambivalence instead.

That's a fine personal belief to take Antvasima, but it's not wiki policy. We don't proclaim that neutrality is non-existent in our rules page.

You are giving me an extremely hard time over a currently extremely brief and harmless summary that I went to extremes with compromising about without any corresponding response from you whatsoever, so I do not see how you are showing me much courtecy or understanding at all here.

I don't think you can claim I haven't been willing to compromise in any way when I posted a rewritten version of the summary earlier in the thread to try and accomodate what you wanted added to the profile but without the biased wording.

 

[Antvasima]

I think its mostly fine, but I would move this:

To a Notes Section and would say:

Thank you, but again, the summary section is intended for brief history and personality summaries, and the standard tactics section for battle tactics.

 

[Antvasima]

Yeah I don’t really see the point in this thematic section, it has no bearing on the actual purpose of the profile which is to provide facts on what Thor does in fights. If it’s to establish some character flaw with him that’s relevant to the fights that can just be slapped onto his weakness section.

Legend's write up looks fine to me TBH. It doesn't have unnecessary extra info that reeks of bias like the OG thematic section had, with all due respect.

Please check the current version of Thor's page. I removed the thematics section long ago.

 

[Antvasima]

That's a fine personal belief to take Antvasima, but it's not wiki policy. We don't proclaim that neutrality is non-existent in our rules page.

It is very illogical to believe that amoral ambivalence equals neutrality...

I don't think you can claim I haven't been willing to compromise in any way when I posted a rewritten version of the summary earlier in the thread to try and accomodate what you wanted added to the profile but without the biased wording.

Please recheck the current version of the page. I think that it is mostly extremely harmlessly and matter of fact worded, so the uproar here seems extremely exaggerated, but I suppose that I can compromise even further by removing the extremely brief author comments if it is deemed absolutely necessary.

 

[The_Impress]

And like, I don't wanna pull the card but... you don't really work on the stats side or P&A side or page creation side or cosmology side at all, at least in researching or formulating revisions.

If I was a Jason Aaron Thor fan, or a Mystique fan, or an Emma Frost fan, and put in the work on the page, I would prefer if the page wasn't twisted to make some statement on some writer that I just didn't want to make at all. If it gets more context added to it in-verse, or revised to add more stats or different revisions, that's game, that's a part of VSBW, these kinda reviews aren't.

Page creators barely have autonomy for putting on gargantuan effort as is, I think tacking on a bureaucrat's personal opinions on their works, that the original creator may not be nearly as passionate of, OR even disagree with, shouldn't be a part of VSBW :v

Like I don't think the original page creator or anyone revising her did it while acknowledging the character was like, a rapist or smth like that, whatever that summary mentions.

 

[Antvasima]

Ant no offense but you have like, weirdly rigid perception of these characters and like, situational morality.

If you want me or some of us to now do personality writeups on files (as a part of Standard Tactics or smth) we can do that, but the Thor one wasn't very indepth and based on like, very specific interpretations of the runs and writers.

Well, again, I have been very willing to compromise here, and have shortened down and modified the text to extremes. I am just unwilling to not see any reciprocal willingness to make any concessions whatsoever from the opposing side of this discussion.

 

[Antvasima]

And like, I don't wanna pull the card but... you don't really work on the stats side or P&A side or page creation side or cosmology side at all, at least in researching or formulating revisions.

If I was a Jason Aaron Thor fan, or a Mystique fan, or an Emma Frost fan, and put in the work on the page, I would prefer if the page wasn't twisted to make some statement on some writer that I just didn't want to make at all. If it gets more context added to it in-verse, or revised to add more stats or different revisions, that's game, that's a part of VSBW, these kinda reviews aren't.

Page creators barely have autonomy for putting on gargantuan effort as is, I think tacking on personal opinions on their works, that they may not be nearly as passionate of, OR even disagree with, shouldn't be a part of VSBW :v

I can obviously agree with not mentioning specific authors, but not with completely ignoring character personalities and portrayals to the point of turning the characters into nonexistent empty personalities that only have a bunch of power levels.

Also, I have placed the by far greatest amounts of work of anybody in this wiki's history towards the overall maintenance of our wiki and wellbeing of our community.

 

[The_Impress]

I can obviously agree with not mentioning specific authors, but not with completely ignoring character personalities and portrayals to the pointo of turning the characters into nonexistent personalities that only have a bunch of power levels.

As said, I am fine with mentioning, and even writing for these personality evolutions as a part of Standard Tactics, but like, they should be researched far better and not just... based off a few runs and inadvertently making comments on the writing

That's a valid compromise I think.

 

[LegendariumOfLies]

Again, we are far over-complicating this issue. If people disagree with how Ant wrote a Character Summary for a moral, political, authoritial intent, or whatever fancy word reason you want to use, just put a CRT that changes it and require it to have one vote from staff.

"What if the verse doesn't have supporter?" Tough shit. That is a systematic issue on this site. If you don't like it, become a supporter of an outdated verse.

 

[DaReaperMan]

It is factually accurate, given that these traits are very explicit, but I can remove "sociopathic" if you wish. Taking extreme pleasure in casually thrill-killing sentient thousands of talking sentient beings, and never having any conscience problems whatsoever about it, along with his outspoken ideological absolutely ruthless imperialistic social Darwinism, does very much qualify though.

Then that is a Standard Tactics thing, noting directly that Bigby is far more likely to outright kill someone due to finding a thrill in doing so, or in his weakness section, that he finds thrill in the hunt so may not immediately go for the kill.

The quotes on his profile also show his darker personality pretty well! There are multiple ways to show a character's personality on a profile without making the Summary seem biased, quotes and the Standard Tactics section being the main parts of it. We don't need personality sections when we aren't a wiki based on that stuff, we're a wiki recording the incredibly nerdy subject that is powerscaling characters, personality rarely matters outside of Standard tactics.

We do not indoctrinate others with ideological malevolence. I don't really see how writing brief "FRA" voting text segments are morally comparable to marketing wholesale malevolent ideologies to readers in general.

And you're free of sin, then? I can't stand editing this crap out anymore Ant, you're an extremist. You deal in morally good absolutes and damn everything else. I'm telling you, that if you want this sort of thing on a profile, this isn't the site to use, because nobody looks here for that sort of thing, people use the franchise's wiki, so talk to the people who run that.

Also, I have placed the by far greatest amounts of work of anybody in this wiki's history towards the overall maintenance of our wiki and wellbeing of our community.

and this is a VERY dickish thing to say. You claim you're not a dictator, so stop acting like one and using your history to defend it.

 

[Antvasima]

As said, I am fine with mentioning, and even writing for these personality evolutions as a part of Standard Tactics, but like, they should be researched far better and not just... based off a few runs and inadvertently making comments on the writing

That's a valid compromise I think.

The standard tactics section seems far better suited towards combat-related information, whereas the summary section is where we have generally explained the basic background and personality of characters.

 

[The_Impress]

"What if the verse doesn't have supporter?" Tough shit. That is a systematic issue on this site. If you don't like it, become a supporter of an outdated verse.

Marvel has what, 4 versewides ongoing as well as many more revisions that are currently ongoing, and 600+ pages that constantly require edits every single month.

Supporters don't need a living nightmare of a rogue editor to add to that. This isn't the only page with mass edits as of recent.

Most supporters would much rather see this addressed rn, rather than another CRT that gets put on the backburner, ESPECIALLY because this isn't... a CRT issue? There was no CRT that changed the summary, it was done randomly. Closest to this is an HR issue but yknow

 

[The_Impress]

The standard tactics section seems far better suited towards combat-related information, whereas the summary section is where we have generally explained the basic background and personality of characters.

Then in the Explanation section?

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

I'm pretty much in full agreement with Damage on this.

 

[Antvasima]

Then that is a Standard Tactics thing, noting directly that Bigby is far more likely to outright kill someone due to finding a thrill in doing so, or in his weakness section, that he finds thrill in the hunt so may not immediately go for the kill.

The quotes on his profile also show his darker personality pretty well! There are multiple ways to show a character's personality on a profile without making the Summary seem biased, quotes and the Standard Tactics section being the main parts of it. We don't need personality sections when we aren't a wiki based on that stuff, we're a wiki recording the incredibly nerdy subject that is powerscaling characters, personality rarely matters outside of Standard tactics.

Well, I suppose that I can clean up his summary section then.

And you're free of sin, then? I can't stand editing this crap out anymore Ant, you're an extremist. You deal in morally good absolutes and damn everything else. I'm telling you, that if you want this sort of thing on a profile, this isn't the site to use, because nobody looks here for that sort of thing, people use the franchise's wiki, so talk to the people who run that.

I am far from free of sin, but I am at least striving towards being as nice as I can manage by striving towards some rational moral ideals, and I have altruistically worked for over 40,000 hours with a job that gives me no money and very limited joy simply because thousands of people here need my help, and I genuinely do not think that elaborate ideological brainwashing is comparable to writing brief "who would win" text segments on a message board.

and this is a VERY dickish thing to say. You claim you're not a dictator, so stop acting like one and using your history to defend it.

No, it is matter of fact truth, which you should know yourself, and I have usually gone to extremes with being helpful, kind, and reasonable, even if I feel very strongly about this specific issue.

 

[Antvasima]

Then in the Explanation section?

Well, I suppose that might work, but I still think that people are largely overreacting here, at least regarding the current state of Thor's page in particular.