299 réponses à ce sujet

[Gwtheyrn]

iamthedave3 wrote...

VoodooDrackus wrote...

Gwtheyrn wrote...



Definition of "Plot Hole" from Wikipedia:
     A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot,
or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the
plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of
characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no
apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in
the storyline.

And you skip over the most important part of that definition:
"While many stories have unanswered questions, unlikely events or chance occurrences, a plot hole is one that is essential to the story's outcome."
That is relevant since so many people are using plot hole loosely to try and invalidate a great journey/story.

Yes, which is why the star child's existence is not necessarily a plot hole - though it does open up possible retrospective plot holes and poses at least a half dozen questions - but the Normandy flight IS a plot hole, as is the presence of squad mates on the ground on the Normandy post-crash.

There's a series of events implied there that defy explanation and which the story provides no answers for, which goes against prior characterization and defy common sense at multiple junctures.

I don't know. The Star Child seems both to be an essential part of the outcome and completely lacking in any acknowlegement of his/its existence prior to appearing. An absolute, completely unknown showing up at the end with no explanation or foreshadowing would seem to fit the definition.

[frylock23]

EsterCloat wrote...

Because certain individuals, instead of debating the merits of the ending, think insulting the actual people on the other side of the argument as proper conducive dialogue. As if insults are going to invoke shame on their target instead of just anger and more insults.These people seem to not think things through.

There is a school of thought in a lot of different debates that use this as a legitimate debating tactic these days. Rather than debating the topic itself on its own merits or lack thereof, they attack the ones making the opposing argument and try to de-legitimize them, isolate and destroy. If you can make your opponent seem less credible, then you win by default without ever having to actually address their actual concern. This is usually done when there is no real way to win against their argument itself either because the topic in question is solely one of personal opinion like this is or because the person making the attack has no means of effectively countering the opponents' arguments at the time of the attack.

In this case, this is a matter of strict opinion, so the only way to attempt to win is to delegitimze the opponent by making them seem less credible by either smearing them or by drawing them off and making them seem unhinged or angry. Unfortunately this is the tactic that has been chosen. As I said, this is a popular topic and you see it throughout a lot of public discourse, particularly political discourse, if you pay attention.

[Cazlee]

Gwtheyrn wrote...

iamthedave3 wrote...

VoodooDrackus wrote...

Gwtheyrn wrote...



Definition of "Plot Hole" from Wikipedia:
     A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot,
or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the
plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of
characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no
apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in
the storyline.

And you skip over the most important part of that definition:
"While many stories have unanswered questions, unlikely events or chance occurrences, a plot hole is one that is essential to the story's outcome."
That is relevant since so many people are using plot hole loosely to try and invalidate a great journey/story.

Yes, which is why the star child's existence is not necessarily a plot hole - though it does open up possible retrospective plot holes and poses at least a half dozen questions - but the Normandy flight IS a plot hole, as is the presence of squad mates on the ground on the Normandy post-crash.

There's a series of events implied there that defy explanation and which the story provides no answers for, which goes against prior characterization and defy common sense at multiple junctures.

I don't know. The Star Child seems both to be an essential part of the outcome and completely lacking in any acknowlegement of his/its existence prior to appearing. An absolute, completely unknown showing up at the end with no explanation or foreshadowing would seem to fit the definition.

There are enough clues present atm in the catalyst's speech to logically work out 90% of what he's about.

[Gwtheyrn]

frylock23 wrote...

EsterCloat wrote...

Because certain individuals, instead of debating the merits of the ending, think insulting the actual people on the other side of the argument as proper conducive dialogue. As if insults are going to invoke shame on their target instead of just anger and more insults.These people seem to not think things through.

There is a school of thought in a lot of different debates that use this as a legitimate debating tactic these days. Rather than debating the topic itself on its own merits or lack thereof, they attack the ones making the opposing argument and try to de-legitimize them, isolate and destroy. If you can make your opponent seem less credible, then you win by default without ever having to actually address their actual concern. This is usually done when there is no real way to win against their argument itself either because the topic in question is solely one of personal opinion like this is or because the person making the attack has no means of effectively countering the opponents' arguments at the time of the attack.

In this case, this is a matter of strict opinion, so the only way to attempt to win is to delegitimze the opponent by making them seem less credible by either smearing them or by drawing them off and making them seem unhinged or angry. Unfortunately this is the tactic that has been chosen. As I said, this is a popular topic and you see it throughout a lot of public discourse, particularly political discourse, if you pay attention.

So, in other words, politicians are finally evolving into a higher form of life: Trolls?

[Gwtheyrn]

Cazlee wrote...

Gwtheyrn wrote...

iamthedave3 wrote...

VoodooDrackus wrote...

Gwtheyrn wrote...



Definition of "Plot Hole" from Wikipedia:
     A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot,
or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the
plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of
characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no
apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in
the storyline.

And you skip over the most important part of that definition:
"While many stories have unanswered questions, unlikely events or chance occurrences, a plot hole is one that is essential to the story's outcome."
That is relevant since so many people are using plot hole loosely to try and invalidate a great journey/story.

Yes, which is why the star child's existence is not necessarily a plot hole - though it does open up possible retrospective plot holes and poses at least a half dozen questions - but the Normandy flight IS a plot hole, as is the presence of squad mates on the ground on the Normandy post-crash.

There's a series of events implied there that defy explanation and which the story provides no answers for, which goes against prior characterization and defy common sense at multiple junctures.

I don't know. The Star Child seems both to be an essential part of the outcome and completely lacking in any acknowlegement of his/its existence prior to appearing. An absolute, completely unknown showing up at the end with no explanation or foreshadowing would seem to fit the definition.

There are enough clues present atm in the catalyst's speech to logically work out 90% of what he's about.

Only if chasing your own tail around in circles is your idea of a good time.

[ed87]

Just take a seat in the Illusive Man's chair and see all this for what it really is. The petty nature of human beings. Other creatures allow the strongest to have the last say, but we just talk ourselves to death and pray for a consensus

[iamthedave3]

Gwtheyrn wrote...

I don't know. The Star Child seems both to be an essential part of the outcome and completely lacking in any acknowlegement of his/its existence prior to appearing. An absolute, completely unknown showing up at the end with no explanation or foreshadowing would seem to fit the definition.

That leans it more towards being a Deus Ex Machina. You could even say it is one in the literal sense (it has god-like qualities). A plot hole is more like the Normandy crash. The events that are required for that crash to occur are what create the narrative inconsistency that leads to a genuine plot hole. For it to occur Joker needs to pick up the members of your squad who just got shot by Harbinger, get back into orbit, get ordered to retreat, get to the relay, go through the relay and then get caught by the explosion. As many people have pointed out, though, that goes against his characterization throughout the entire series and there's no possible reason in the story itself for why the Normandy would be out there.

So that's a plot hole. Even the pro-enders who have tried hard to explain it have never come up with a good explanation. Most just view it as a wash and ignore it. You could come up with an explanation on your own, but that won't have anything to do with in-game information, because there isn't any. That's what makes it a genuine plot hole. The only way to even explain it is to make something up.

The star child, however, could always have been present, but up until now we had no way of knowing it was there. So it isn't a plot hole, it's just that there was never a point where it could have been shown to us. It could open retroactive plot holes for ME 1, for example, but that depends on what it means when it says it is the citadel.

It's still BAD, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't fit the definition of an actual plot hole.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 01 avril 2012 - 01:14 .

[Cicero.me]

Darn I saw this thread and thought it was about Ender's Game. Maybe it should be about Ender's Game. Go Ender!



I support Ender as Star Child.

Also, I apologize for thread hijacking.

[Cazlee]

Gwtheyrn wrote...

Cazlee wrote...

Gwtheyrn wrote...

iamthedave3 wrote...

VoodooDrackus wrote...

Gwtheyrn wrote...



Definition of "Plot Hole" from Wikipedia:
     A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot,
or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the
plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of
characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no
apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in
the storyline.

And you skip over the most important part of that definition:
"While many stories have unanswered questions, unlikely events or chance occurrences, a plot hole is one that is essential to the story's outcome."
That is relevant since so many people are using plot hole loosely to try and invalidate a great journey/story.

Yes, which is why the star child's existence is not necessarily a plot hole - though it does open up possible retrospective plot holes and poses at least a half dozen questions - but the Normandy flight IS a plot hole, as is the presence of squad mates on the ground on the Normandy post-crash.

There's a series of events implied there that defy explanation and which the story provides no answers for, which goes against prior characterization and defy common sense at multiple junctures.

I don't know. The Star Child seems both to be an essential part of the outcome and completely lacking in any acknowlegement of his/its existence prior to appearing. An absolute, completely unknown showing up at the end with no explanation or foreshadowing would seem to fit the definition.

There are enough clues present atm in the catalyst's speech to logically work out 90% of what he's about.

Only if chasing your own tail around in circles is your idea of a good time.

That's not true. You just have to take all he says, draw logical conclusions, then piece all the conclusions together. This is part of why I'm a pro-ender.  I know the starchild is very important and has a good story behind him. I'm still trying to work out the crucible so I can finally decide on the last 10% of the puzzle. 

Edit: well it's more like 20% left not 10%

Modifié par Cazlee, 01 avril 2012 - 01:24 .

[TheBlackPigeon]

SaleemRa wrote...

I dont get all the insults? K so you like/dont like the ending or how it was written, good for you. Anti enders call pro enders hipster etc, pro enders keep saying you dont "get it", for what? Everyone has different tastes. Some ppl like curry others dont life's like that.

Instead of ragging on someones opinion, post lots on why you like/dont like it. All these "questions" to the pro enders are really the Anti's trying to show off perceived "intelectual superiority" as well since your literally calling the Pro's out to verbally spar with them. Your being just as "hipster" or whatever as the the guys who said you dont "get it".

To the Pro's - enough already with the "you dont get it" jabs. Internet forums are not a good communication tool, ppl cant really guage what your saying since there is no body language etc. You know the Anti's dont like it so stop already, just say you like it and what you like about it and be done.

Personally I like the endings but I dont think that there is anything to "get". I like them because of the reasons I mentioned in this thread (pg 20 btw). If Bioware keeps the endings I'll be fine with it - not the end of the world. If they change it great, another reason to play again. Either way I spent a lot of money on this game so I WILL get my money's worth out of it and be entertained.

The end of the day YOU and only YOU can control how much you enjoy something - its the reason why some ppl can enjoy crap movies or poorly written pulp fiction. Everybody stop getting your knickers in a twist!

We're just building up hype for our eventuall Hell in the Cell match at Wrestlemania.

[AlexXIV]

No I explain to you since you 'don't get it' OP. The ending is badly done. Probably a bad idea from start, also badly executed. Even if it would not lead everything ME ad absurdum, so disregarding the content, it is executed poorly. There is no reason to like the ending and every reason to hate it. People who 'make themselves like it' just use some sort of fanfiction, meaning they ignore/change the ending they got to be happy with it. Because the ending as it is sucks for everyone. That said, people who still feel the need to come here and troll those who want Bioware to fix it can only be either fanboys/girls gone bad or someone who has interest with Bioware. Meaning they protect Bioware for money or for misunderstood loyality.

We want Bioware fix it for ME and for Bioware themselves. Because sooner or later more and more people will learn about the plot and the ending and there is only one possible way to judge it. It fails on many layers and levels. I dare say it could only have been worse if a 5 years old wrote it. There are no two opinions on ME and the ending. There are just people who deal with it differently. Some ignore, some deny and some are upset. And some conclude they have to defend Bioware, some think they need to attack Bioware and some actually go the middleground and submit constructive criticism.

However in the end, the product is on the shelves, Bioware got the money, they won't spend money on something they have already sold. Because it is all about business and nothing else. Even worse for those who think they are fans or that being fan means something to anyone, including Bioware. You are just a number to them and not even one that counts.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 01 avril 2012 - 01:23 .

[PSUHammer]

Militarized wrote...

While I concede that liking or not liking the ending is technically subjective, I'm also of the opinion that the people who DO like it have either not played ME1 or ME2 or do not have good critical thinking skills. Mostly what I hear about it is that it is "deep".... which isn't subjective in my opinion, it isn't deep. Which shows a lack of being read IMO.

But I'm an openly admitted ahole so that's just me.

LOL...funny!  To your point, I would add that there are also people who just don't care enough to really think about it all that much.  I know people who don't even know there is a controversy as they don't go on forums or read game magazines.  People on forums tend to be the more passionate fans who devote more of their time contemplating things like the meaning of the endings, lore, etc.

People insulting others on forums is a mix of preceived anonymity and low self esteem.  I say low self esteem because if you feel the need to lash out at someone, personally, because they disagree with you, it's because you are not confident enough in your own logic or abilities to articulate.

Person A:  "I like this"
Person B:  "I don't like this because a, b, c, etc."
Person A:  "Yeah?  Well you're a douche because you aren't reinforcing my own beliefs or world view."

Modifié par Hammer6767, 01 avril 2012 - 01:46 .

[Cicero.me]

AlexXIV wrote...

No I explain to you since you 'don't get it' OP. The ending is badly done. Probably a bad idea from start, also badly executed. Even if it would not lead everything ME ad absurdum, so disregarding the content, it is executed poorly. There is no reason to like the ending and every reason to hate it. People who 'make themselves like it' just use some sort of fanfiction, meaning they ignore/change the ending they got to be happy with it. Because the ending as it is sucks for everyone. That said, people who still feel the need to come here and troll those who want Bioware to fix it can only be either fanboys/girls gone bad or someone who has interest with Bioware. Meaning they protect Bioware for money or for misunderstood loyality.

We want Bioware fix it for ME and for Bioware themselves. Because sooner or later more and more people will learn about the plot and the ending and there is only one possible way to judge it. It fails on many layers and levels. I dare say it could only have been worse if a 5 years old wrote it. There are no two opinions on ME and the ending. There are just people who deal with it differently. Some ignore, some deny and some are upset. And some conclude they have to defend Bioware, some think they need to attack Bioware and some actually go the middleground and submit constructive criticism.

However in the end, the product is on the shelves, Bioware got the money, they won't spend money on something they have already sold. Because it is all about business and nothing else. Even worse for those who think they are fans or that being fan means something to anyone, including Bioware. You are just a number to them and not even one that counts.

Really though be realistic. Fanfiction changing the ending is actually far more enjoyable then being spoon fed an ending by BioWare. If one needs to have some contrived ending to conclude a story then they have the imagination of a computer. I did not enjoy the ending, but you unilateraly stating that the ending sucks merely because a lot of other people also thinks so is entirely myopic. It is laughable that just because one did not like an ending they feel that they deserve another ending to "amend" the story. Oh and in regards to your last paragraph; it reeks of consumer greed and ignorance which as I hope you know is actually responsible for most of the woes of modern economies. 

[Barict78]

Cicero.me wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

No I explain to you since you 'don't get it' OP. The ending is badly done. Probably a bad idea from start, also badly executed. Even if it would not lead everything ME ad absurdum, so disregarding the content, it is executed poorly. There is no reason to like the ending and every reason to hate it. People who 'make themselves like it' just use some sort of fanfiction, meaning they ignore/change the ending they got to be happy with it. Because the ending as it is sucks for everyone. That said, people who still feel the need to come here and troll those who want Bioware to fix it can only be either fanboys/girls gone bad or someone who has interest with Bioware. Meaning they protect Bioware for money or for misunderstood loyality.

We want Bioware fix it for ME and for Bioware themselves. Because sooner or later more and more people will learn about the plot and the ending and there is only one possible way to judge it. It fails on many layers and levels. I dare say it could only have been worse if a 5 years old wrote it. There are no two opinions on ME and the ending. There are just people who deal with it differently. Some ignore, some deny and some are upset. And some conclude they have to defend Bioware, some think they need to attack Bioware and some actually go the middleground and submit constructive criticism.

However in the end, the product is on the shelves, Bioware got the money, they won't spend money on something they have already sold. Because it is all about business and nothing else. Even worse for those who think they are fans or that being fan means something to anyone, including Bioware. You are just a number to them and not even one that counts.

Really though be realistic. Fanfiction changing the ending is actually far more enjoyable then being spoon fed an ending by BioWare. If one needs to have some contrived ending to conclude a story then they have the imagination of a computer. I did not enjoy the ending, but you unilateraly stating that the ending sucks merely because a lot of other people also thinks so is entirely myopic. It is laughable that just because one did not like an ending they feel that they deserve another ending to "amend" the story. Oh and in regards to your last paragraph; it reeks of consumer greed and ignorance which as I hope you know is actually responsible for most of the woes of modern economies. 

One Cannot leave the end to a Trilogy To The Consumers Imagination, Espscially if CLosure was promised. If I had wnated to IMAGINE the End to Something i would have bought a new D7D tabletop adventure , no i wanted to be Told a good story with a good ending and have that ending Fleshed out by the inherient media that it is : A VIDEO game hence VIDEOs is it called an Imagination Game? no its a Video Game. and they DID promise us closure ill remind u again not that wed have to imagine closure or i wouldnt have bought it in the 1st place.

[Versidious]

Cicero.me wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

No I explain to you since you 'don't get it' OP. The ending is badly done. Probably a bad idea from start, also badly executed. Even if it would not lead everything ME ad absurdum, so disregarding the content, it is executed poorly. There is no reason to like the ending and every reason to hate it. People who 'make themselves like it' just use some sort of fanfiction, meaning they ignore/change the ending they got to be happy with it. Because the ending as it is sucks for everyone. That said, people who still feel the need to come here and troll those who want Bioware to fix it can only be either fanboys/girls gone bad or someone who has interest with Bioware. Meaning they protect Bioware for money or for misunderstood loyality.

We want Bioware fix it for ME and for Bioware themselves. Because sooner or later more and more people will learn about the plot and the ending and there is only one possible way to judge it. It fails on many layers and levels. I dare say it could only have been worse if a 5 years old wrote it. There are no two opinions on ME and the ending. There are just people who deal with it differently. Some ignore, some deny and some are upset. And some conclude they have to defend Bioware, some think they need to attack Bioware and some actually go the middleground and submit constructive criticism.

However in the end, the product is on the shelves, Bioware got the money, they won't spend money on something they have already sold. Because it is all about business and nothing else. Even worse for those who think they are fans or that being fan means something to anyone, including Bioware. You are just a number to them and not even one that counts.

Really though be realistic. Fanfiction changing the ending is actually far more enjoyable then being spoon fed an ending by BioWare. If one needs to have some contrived ending to conclude a story then they have the imagination of a computer.

I'm sorry, did you just say that if you don't like fanfiction at least as much as you like canon then you've got no imagination? I for one do not find fanfiction satisfying precisely because it is not canon. If, within the context of the fictional universe in question, something did not actually happen, then I am unlikely to find that as satisfying. It's like a story within a story - it requires you to doubly suspend your disbelief.

Cicero.me wrote...
It is laughable that just because one did not like an ending they feel that they deserve another ending to "amend" the story.

It's laughable how? We have paid money on the basis of a promise that was not fulfilled. Whilst I may not be willing to take the matter to court, I am certainly willing to express my displeasure to the artist and request that they redo the commissioned work in the spirit to which I subscribed.

[Barict78]

I guess we made too much sense so he took off lol

[Noatz]

Put quite simply, pro enders keep trying to argue logically without having any credible logical basis to do so.

Its like taking a sword and waving it in the air in front of who they are arguing with, then saying you have slain their words and that you win.

[Documental]

One side is going "Rargh rargh rargh" and the other is going "Blargh blargh blargh" and both end up taking ****e at times.

I can see points from both sides but when they both come together, it just gets messy.

[Tehzim]

Most of the more moderate people have stopped posting, either because they get ignored or they've just decided to go quiet until PAX. I still post but I'm waiting for PAX.

[Fuzzfro]

If they make a new better ending it will please the people who want a new ending.

And the people who like this ending don't have to buy the DLC and I'm sure there will be an option to chose to have the original ending before the start of the game too.

[AlexXIV]

Cicero.me wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

No I explain to you since you 'don't get it' OP. The ending is badly done. Probably a bad idea from start, also badly executed. Even if it would not lead everything ME ad absurdum, so disregarding the content, it is executed poorly. There is no reason to like the ending and every reason to hate it. People who 'make themselves like it' just use some sort of fanfiction, meaning they ignore/change the ending they got to be happy with it. Because the ending as it is sucks for everyone. That said, people who still feel the need to come here and troll those who want Bioware to fix it can only be either fanboys/girls gone bad or someone who has interest with Bioware. Meaning they protect Bioware for money or for misunderstood loyality.

We want Bioware fix it for ME and for Bioware themselves. Because sooner or later more and more people will learn about the plot and the ending and there is only one possible way to judge it. It fails on many layers and levels. I dare say it could only have been worse if a 5 years old wrote it. There are no two opinions on ME and the ending. There are just people who deal with it differently. Some ignore, some deny and some are upset. And some conclude they have to defend Bioware, some think they need to attack Bioware and some actually go the middleground and submit constructive criticism.

However in the end, the product is on the shelves, Bioware got the money, they won't spend money on something they have already sold. Because it is all about business and nothing else. Even worse for those who think they are fans or that being fan means something to anyone, including Bioware. You are just a number to them and not even one that counts.

Really though be realistic. Fanfiction changing the ending is actually far more enjoyable then being spoon fed an ending by BioWare. If one needs to have some contrived ending to conclude a story then they have the imagination of a computer. I did not enjoy the ending, but you unilateraly stating that the ending sucks merely because a lot of other people also thinks so is entirely myopic. It is laughable that just because one did not like an ending they feel that they deserve another ending to "amend" the story. Oh and in regards to your last paragraph; it reeks of consumer greed and ignorance which as I hope you know is actually responsible for most of the woes of modern economies. 

According to your logic, why do we need a video game at all? Or a book? We can just make up our own stuff. It is not about spoonfeeding, it is about experiencing a story, a story not you, but someone else wrote. It doesn't need to be everything like I want. There are alot of things in the whole franchise I don't agree with. But the conclusion is imporant. If they want it to be open and left for imagination they should just have showed how we destroy the Reapers and then let the credits roll. But honestly, the three choices we have are all stupid and break with everything the game and the protagonist stands for. It is as if written by someone who has no clue about ME at all. Hell maybe they copy pasted it from some other fiction, wouldn't be a precedent. Anyway, this ending takes more than it gives. They should just have ended it a Marauder Shields.

[Torrible]

http://www.blistered...bate-para-rene/ 

[Cicero.me]

Fuzzfro wrote...

If they make a new better ending it will please the people who want a new ending.

And the people who like this ending don't have to buy the DLC and I'm sure there will be an option to chose to have the original ending before the start of the game too.

I hate to be a pessimist, but I highly doubt that people are going to satisfied no matter what Bioware does.


Also, I am sorry for my lack of clarification earlier. I do not hold fanfiction above story canon. However, I hold my own personally created endings or stories above anything good or bad that Bioware could possibly give me in regards to Mass Effect 3's ending. If there are preconceived notions on how the story is supposed to end then people will be disappointed no matter what usually.

Also, just like in offline debates; the moderates usually get trampled by radicals and extremely vocal critics. I still post so as to offer another perspective for the few people who enjoy debating dissenting opinions.

 

According to your logic, why do we need a video game at all? Or a book? We can just make up our own stuff. It is not about spoonfeeding, it is about experiencing a story, a story not you, but someone else wrote. It doesn't need to be everything like I want. There are alot of things in the whole franchise I don't agree with. But the conclusion is imporant. If they want it to be open and left for imagination they should just have showed how we destroy the Reapers and then let the credits roll. But honestly, the three choices we have are all stupid and break with everything the game and the protagonist stands for. It is as if written by someone who has no clue about ME at all. Hell maybe they copy pasted it from some other fiction, wouldn't be a precedent. Anyway, this ending takes more than it gives. They should just have ended it a Marauder Shields.

I have heard this response before. I specifically mentioned ending because I hold the journey far more importantly than the ending. If the first 95 percent of a story is good; I do not need something to conclude it.

Modifié par Cicero.me, 01 avril 2012 - 02:31 .

[Documental]

Torrible wrote...

http://www.blistered...bate-para-rene/ 

Dude that link is brilliant.

[Aurvant]

The Pro-Enders use an Alinsky model of debate that dictates that the way to win the argument is to separate and polarize their opponent, use passive aggressive tactics to undermine the opponents character, and then use an assured tone of intelligence or superiority.

First they make their blanket statement of admiration of something but offer no context. Then they state an observation of disbelief that someone could disagree. Then, when someone does, they make subtle insults by using charged words like "mob" or "groupthink". These terms are mean to section off their opponent to make them appear out of the mainstream.

The opponent has no real defense to this. They are immediately put on the defensive, but it's just a trap. By becoming defensive the pro-ended can just prod at them with a smug sense of intelligence and just make the anti-ender appear stupid or uneducated.

This is evident in their other charged phrase of "you didn't get it". It's a backhanded way of saying "I'm smarter than you" and it'll make people upset.

This is why there is animosity.