All posts by Likferd
FrenchTouch wrote: @Likferd, not necessarily, some of it is actually good, really. But sure, if you just focus on Angelz's response to criticism, your bias is gonna be massive, and that's just silly. And stupid.
Even bearing in mind how awfully he reacted to his deletion appeal being rejected, how he spammed the admins' talk pages, how he accused Empy—who was the third admin to review his work—of being biased, etc., I've put that aside and given him some tips on how to write a good micropasta. But even now he's up to his old antics of arguing everything to death. His stories wouldn't be here if there weren't any problems with them. He's been trying to strong-arm the administration into putting his pastas back up because a couple anons wrote "wow this is pretty good" on his pastas and he took it as world-class criticism. At this point all these pastas need to be scrapped. Each one took less than five minutes, so he couldn't have spent more than half an hour total. And yet he's spent days trying to goad people into liking them. It's just not working. No amount of arguing will change that.
ColorlessAngelz wrote: I remember providing a logical debate to all of these reasons before I stopped receiving any responses.
Yeah, that's kind of the issue here. Everything is a debate with you. You're so averse to criticism you didn't even realize when someone was complimenting you.
ColorlessAngelz wrote:
I have completely accepted that "The Wake Up Game" and "A Stupid Chain Letter" were below the QS, and since they are not micropastas anyway there's no need to discuss them.
However your criticisms for mytop 3 micropastas were illegitimate. You said that I Slit My Own Throat Once should be deleted because it was built *almost* entirely on shock value. I think it's amazing that such a short story can have even more to it than simple shock value, but even if it didn't, there's nothing wrong with that. People are interested, and often creeped out, by shocking things. This story is no exception.
Your criticism on "My Grotesque Nightmare" is by far the most obvious proof that you didn't have legitimate reasoning. In your criticism you clearly stated "Yeah, I get it. He's immortal or whatever." when the story has NOTHING to do with immortality, in fact, it's the literally the opposite. It prays on one's fear of aging.
Unless the person you were describing is over 140 years old, it's hard not to infer you're describing immortality.
ColorlessAngelz wrote:
As for the second half of your message here, the last sentence of your paragraph basically says "If you don't share my opinion, you're not in your right mind."
I don't need to explain what's wrong with that way of thinking.
That's not what I'm saying at all. The point is saying "Well that's subjective" when someone's trying to give you literary criticism is fucking retarded. Of course it's subjective. But we have a set of standards here that all stories must adhere to. You might disagree with them, but that isn't our problem. If you don't like these standards there's always deviantART, which has a complete lack of standards. And God, it really shows.
http://creepypasta.wikia.com/wiki/Creepypasta_Wiki:Deletion_Appeal?diff=prev&oldid=969279
Grizzly gave her input as well. If I remember correctly, she was an administrator at the time, so I just went along with her criticism and added some comments of my own. They weren't very descriptive, but neither were your pastas. I suppose awkwardness is subjective, but then again so is all writing. One man's trash is another man's treasure. But would you call Jeff the Killer superior to The Raven? Perhaps if you were a 12-year-old who has no experience with writing, but anyone in their right mind can tell one is a quality story and the other is garbage.
It's kind of difficult not to be vague since your pastas are all but two sentences, the one exception being Life of LIes. When I said you could snip the first couple sentences from just about any pasta, I was referring to how a lot of people will draw in their readers with a dramatic statement. Almost all of these look like a hook that will catch the person's attention before you dive into the pasta itself. But you cut it off there, and it just looks awkward. I've commented on your individual pastas before in the deletion appeal, so there's really no use in getting more specific than that.
The thing about micropastas you seem to be neglecting is they have to be powerfully written. You need all the elements of a proper story condensed into a paragraph or less. You don't necessarily need a beginning middle and end, but there has to be a clear narrative. All your micropastas look like the very first sentence of the very beginning of a much longer narrative. You could snip the first 1-2 sentences off just about anything on this site and it would be about as effective—or rather ineffective—as these.
Ah, I see the problem now. You indented your paragraphs. Usually that's good practice, but it screws with the formatting on this site. I fixed it for you this time, but take care to write your paragraphs normally from now on.
I deleted your pasta earlier because it had a weak plot and major mechanical issues (punctuation, capitalization, spelling, syntax). Typically stories that are posted here are a little more polished than this. Someone might try taking a crack at it, but it will probably require some heavy revision before anyone is willing to offer a critique.
Support - It could get bloated quickly, but it's worth the risk. Many good authors go unnoticed because they can't find a place to publicize their works. Maybe this can help fix that.
I think it might be OK to upload to Spinpasta, but it feels too clichéd for here.
There doesn't appear to be a link.
Edit: Never mind. Although the Writer's Workshop is generally reserved for people who want to post their own stories on this site, I'll bite. The plot, or lack thereof, is standard fare; a druggie—or some other criminal baddie—victimizes a child's parent(s) before his or her very eyes. The concept is so common that it's become hackneyed. Next thing you know, "Silly Stormie" will become a superhero just like Batman.
Spelling and punctuation could use some work. Your friend doesn't use apostrophes in contractions and has a bad habit of using comma splices (i.e., using a comma where there should be a period). Her spelling is off as well. Both are exemplified in the sentence "They where, abandoned, alone on a street corner."
Overall, this is a poor story. It needs to be heavily revised, but the plot is so weak that there isn't much to save. I'd scrap it.
It comes down to Splitters or Blood Whistle. Hell's Gallery should receive an honorable mention. Here's an excerpt from that beautiful pasta:
"A clearly depicted Adolf Hitler was having his naked body being slowly roasted with acid-tipped pokers picking off at his melting skin."
Ah, Dugong and his Hitler fetishism. Never gets old.
Steam Phoenix wrote: 1. I fail to see where those two arguments conflict. Honestly, admins need to have the better majority of the work - we are the leaders of the community. But this seems like we are trying to put responsibilities onto another group whilst almost shirking our own. How hard is it to make a site proposal, update the rules, make a few deletions, and appeal a couple of deletions when someone doesn't see a problem? It's not that difficult.
2. I never said you did. But as Deletion Appeal is oftentimes taken care of, we aren't exactly spending alot of time doing other things. I may have misunderstood your argument, I will admit. Here's the thing, though: responsibilities compile with rights. As admins, it's our job to take care of the site and improve it - that is the best thing we can do. Rollbacks should be on the look for vandalism, but I don't see them being the ones to block the vandals, which therefore means admins should also keep an eye out.
3. What I'm getting at there is that part of the reason VCROC exists is to see who could be admin. The role itself exists namely for site clean-up - which, imo, is a job for an admin. I'm simply trying to point out that said reason isn't really accurate. On that note, without the VCROC, it would take more care to select administrators because of how big a step it is up - would you have made Simba or Nommeh admins when they were only rollbacks? I wouldn't. But we made them VCROC, which, when you look at it, is pretty well the same thing.
As far as the bottom goes, I can't remember how long ago your app was, nor do I care to look. I know it wasn't that long ago, but since then, I've been thinking about these things, and I've changed alot of what I think about. I would probably oppose any VCROC app for a person who I don't think would be fit for admin nowadays because of how little difference there is between the two. Do I see the future? No, but I can take a good guess on how well someone can do even when they don't have the right. And I do admit, I was wrong when I opposed your app - you've done a good job so far, and you should keep that up.
I could write another response that would bloat this thread even further, but this is a fruitless exercise. You haven't really countered anything I said; all you've done is repeat yourself. Besides, you've already demonstrated just how far you'll go to get what you want. I mean, you underhandedly sent a message to Wikia Staff to remove a user group without notifying all the administrators first. That alone speaks volumes. I'm done with this conversation.
Steam Phoenix wrote: The difference is that his comment is a comment. The policy outlines what we do. It writes down the rule.
No, I mean frame what he wrote as a policy.
Steam Phoenix wrote:
It's almost as though you're saying "VCROC should be kept because they have responsibilities!" So does everyone else in a community at large, and as admins we shouldn't be trying to excuse ourselves from everything but deleting a couple of pages and doing a few Deletion Appeals by shoving a majority of the site clean-up onto four or so people.
I have no idea where you got the idea that having a VCROC team is "shoving a majority of the site clean-up onto four or so people." Weren't you trying to make the argument earlier that admins have to do everything?
Steam Phoenix wrote:
We should not assign responsibility to a single user group, because as it goes higher, the more it seems like a vacation. A majority of our rollbacks became inactive, and they didn't do much of jack shit at several points. In this event, with this setup, their responsibilities either go unattended to or get shoved to someone else.
You've built a strawman here. I didn't say a user group should only do certain tasks while neglecting everything else. My point is that emphasis is placed on certain tasks depending on the user group. Administrators, for instance, can revert vandalism when they see it, but that's something rollbacks should be looking out for. Similarly, while quality control is a big part of an administrator's job, they should put a lot of their time into Deletion Appeal since VCROC don't have that ability. So perhaps VCROC do 60-70% of deletions while admins get the rest and do deletion appeal.
Steam Phoenix wrote:
On that note; VCROC almost has made us not precarious enough with who is selected as an administrator (Nommeh, for example). It's not an effective tool in determining a person's value or ethics to the community. A person's value and ethics are an effective tool. It's not about reputation or who has to do what with everything. It's about doing our part. With that, the selection of an admin isn't based around who was the best VCROC - it's based around who can work hardest, figure things out, and actually do things when thrown the ropes. If that's the only reason we have to keep the right, then there's even less reason to keep it.
How has VCROC made us less cautious in regard to whom we promote? That makes no sense whatsoever. We discovered Gator was plagiarist before he had the chance to become an administrator. Nommeh was briefly made an admin, but it was for such a short time there weren't any negative repercussions.
***
This isn't an address to anything you said on this thread; it's just something extra to think about. You supported my VCROC application, saying that there "wasn't even a question." Yet a few months later when I applied for administrator, you said this:
"Part of the reason I'm opposing is that adminship is only physically a step up, but our duties and responsibilities matter as well. Our attitude matters."
You're really driving home the point that as far as user rights go, there isn't a major difference between VCROC and administrators. But your attitude towards my application reflects the opposite view. If "there's no real difference" as you say, why did you support one and oppose the other?
I would just take what Cleric said and run with it (get it?). Seriously though, his comment summarizes the wiki's attitude towards plagiarism more than the proposed policy.
Shining-Armor wrote: VCROC is literally admin. They have almost all of the power of an admin except they lack the ability to undo what they have done. A VCROC member could cause just as much damage to the site as an admin could and do so just as easily as fundamentally there is almost nothing different. As for VCROC being a stepping stone it gives users a false divide between admin and rollback as there really is no middle ground. A user going from Rollback to VCROC will experience the same shock as someone going from Rollback to Sysop because they are the same thing. Again I think this needs to be said VCROC only lack the ability to undo what they have already done and this is not a good idea.
Once again, I would agree with you for a wiki specializing in basketweaving and what have you. But historically, VCROC and admins have slightly different jobs on this wiki in particular. The undelete feature gives one the ability to do deletion appeal, an additional responsibility that a person may or may not want to do. Moreover, administrators have the ability to close threads and delete comments, which gives them complete control over articles, blogs, and the forums. You can start to see a kind of divide forming; VCROCs are concerned primarily with editing and quality control, while the task of an administrator is of a more bureaucratic nature.
Steam Phoenix wrote: The issue is, there's no real difference. Admins were doing a majority of the Quality Control and Deletions. We had literally one VCROC member and one person who could get it, and they've been moved up to adminship.
TL;DR Admins already were doing EVERYTHING.
That isn't true. Although Gator's contributions were iffy, Veronica and I were reviewing and editing diligently. Veronica apparently wasn't interested in administrator at the time, and Underscorre was gearing up to become VCROC, so a lack of VCROC members wouldn't really be an issue. In fact, with the exception of Empy, the level of VCROC activity actually exceeded that of admin activity for a while.