Rater's Ridiculously Rambunctious Random Ranter #229

[Mystic Muse]

So, I had this discussion with a friend a few years ago: If you could have the full "Superman" package or something similar, but you have to (temporarily )shift into the form of a (healthy) little kid to do it, sort of an opposite "Shazam" situation, would you take that deal?

I'm going to say "Yes" despite the drawback.

There's a heeeeeeell of a lot of good I could do with Superman's powerset without turning into a tyrant.

Flying the giant trash heap currently in the ocean into some distant star to incinerate would help out a lot of things for example.

[Peelee]

I'm going to say "Yes" despite the drawback.

There's a heeeeeeell of a lot of good I could do with Superman's powerset without turning into a tyrant.

Flying the giant trash heap currently in the ocean into some distant star to incinerate would help out a lot of things for example.

So we're just gonna start polluting stars now too?

[factotum]

Well that knocks out all systems originating in the UK, then, which I think is a shame.

I'm beginning to think you have some serious beef with the UK considering how often you denigrate our history, our cooking and what-have-you. Did a Redcoat harm some ancestor of yours, or something? Or are you just sad because you live in the second-best Birmingham?

[LaZodiac]

Spoiler: ...Centaurs

Show

You are contractually obligated to tell me where this is from so I can stay up till 5 in the morning binging it because it looks rad as ****.

...I don't know what the purpose of this post is...

So, I had this discussion with a friend a few years ago: If you could have the full "Superman" package or something similar, but you have to (temporarily )shift into the form of a (healthy) little kid to do it, sort of an opposite "Shazam" situation, would you take that deal?

Presenting an example of someone ****ing a bonfire as a comedic way of showing your point is incorrect.

I mean yeah absolutely. Oh no, I have to... pretend to be a child. That's like the exact opposite of bad.

[DataNinja]

You are contractually obligated to tell me where this is from so I can stay up till 5 in the morning binging it because it looks rad as ****.

Opening the image separately on its own leads me to the Gunnerkrig Court page. Didn't even need to get to the reverse image search.

[LaZodiac]

Opening the image separately on its own leads me to the Gunnerkrig Court page. Didn't even need to get to the reverse image search.

In my defense I didn't think that was a thing that I could do.

Also I'm realizing I should probably read this. I've seen it get bandied around as good a couple times, specifically by the creator of Monster Pulse. Anyone else have any thoughts on it?

[DataNinja]

In my defense I didn't think that was a thing that I could do.

I've got to earn my name somehow, don't I?

(And I've also heard good things about it, but no personal experience or deeper knowledge.)

[Rater202]

To answer my own question... Yeah. I'd do it.

Completly honest, my vision of "power" is "I am so powerful that my physical appearance doesn't matter so you get a child."

I blame Digimon.

In Season 3/Tamers you've got the repeated imagery of the human partners becomes a glowing ethereal spirit that exists within the Digimon partner and in Season 4/Frontier the final bad guy's initial form is literally a child and casually dismantles two of the most powerful Digimon in the franchise the second he shows up.

[Fyraltari]

So we're just gonna start polluting stars now too?

Please, the sun alone represents 99% of the solar system's mass, even if we throw every single milligram of heavy metal on the Earth and converted every single drop of petrol on the Earth into plastic before throwing that as well, it wouldn't even be a blip in the sun's chemical make-up.

[BisectedBrioche]

In my defense I didn't think that was a thing that I could do.

Also I'm realizing I should probably read this. I've seen it get bandied around as good a couple times, specifically by the creator of Monster Pulse. Anyone else have any thoughts on it?

Fantastic comic, great arcs. I have the first trade print in hardback (although this was before art evolution).

Only complaint is that I felt very unwelcome on the forum back in the day (the author doesn't like TV Tropes for some reason, and made that clear with an ableist insult; that was years ago, mind you, and it hasn't stopped me reading it 3 times a week for several years).

[Bartmanhomer]

To answer my question... Yeah. I'd do it.

Completly honest, my vision of "power" is "I am so powerful that my physical appearance doesn't matter so you get a child."

I blame Digimon.

In Season 3/Tamers you've got the repeated imagery of the human partners becomes a glowing ethereal spirit that exists within the Digimon partner and in Season 4/Frontier the final bad guy's initial form is literally a child and casually dismantles two of the most powerful Digimon in the franchise the second he shows up.

Digimon Season 1 and 2 is the best in my opinion.

[Rater202]

...I'm not seeing the correlation between TVtropes and anything that could be considered a disability.

If the author of the comic is going to insult Tvtropes it should be in a way that makes sense instead of being offensive for the sake of being offensive.

Digimon Season 1 and 2 is the best in my opinion.

Season 2 was a trainwreck of excessive executive and editorial interference by people who had no idea how to tell a story: The writers of th series were forbidden from giving Daisuke/Davis any character development whatsoever for fricks sake, when he was supposed to be the main character!

The only reason Digimon Adventure 02 didn't just abruptly stop without an ending is becuase the writers all threatened to walk out unless they were given a season where they could just do whatever the Hell they wanted with limited oversight.

By the end of the season, they just didn't care anymore, which is why the final bad guy turned out to be this one guy from the first season who'd already been killed twice and he was defeated by a bunch of children shouting out loud what they wanted to be when they grew up(complete with the main characters mentioning dreams that had never been so much as hinted at)

The original Digimon Adventure("Season 1") is always going to have a soft spot in my heart, but the only reason Season 2 isn't the worst season is becuase most people consider Digimon Xros Wars: The Brave Young Hunters Leaping Through Time to be separate from the rest of Xros Wars/Fusion.

Like, they don't market Digimon to kids anymore. Brave Young Hunters killed the market for the franchise among its primary demographic. Digimon media is mostly marketed now to people who would have been children when the early seasons were on but now want something

The general consensus I've seen is that Tamers/Season 3 is the best season. Personally, I think Savers/Data Squad is up there but a lot of people don't like it since it depicts Digimon that were heroic in previous seasons as the bad guys(Ignoring that Digimon are species and not individuals and that every season except for Adventure, Adventure 02, and Adventure Tri is an alternate continuity.)

[enderlord99]

The only Digimon thing I've seen is the movie, and the only part I even vaguely remember from it is the bizarre pseudo-framing tie-in where some kids accidentally went to the wrong movie because some signs got switched around.

[Anonymouswizard]

Isn't Digimon just Shin Megami Tensei for kids?

I'm all seriousness, I never got to watch the episodes in order as a kid, and going back to Adventure didn't spark my interest. Tamers/Savers did, but I've still not finished either because I decided to watch YuGiOh instead (and och, have to suffer through three episode card games).

[Bartmanhomer]

...I'm not seeing the correlation between TVtropes and anything that could be considered a disability.

If the author of the comic is going to insult Tvtropes it should be in a way that makes sense instead of being offensive for the sake of being offensive.

Season 2 was a trainwreck of excessive executive and editorial interference by people who had no idea how to tell a story: The writers of th series were forbidden from giving Daisuke/Davis any character development whatsoever for fricks sake, when he was supposed to be the main character!

The only reason Digimon Adventure 02 didn't just abruptly stop without an ending is becuase the writers all threatened to walk out unless they were given a season where they could just do whatever the Hell they wanted with limited oversight.

By the end of the season, they just didn't care anymore, which is why the final bad guy turned out to be this one guy from the first season who'd already been killed twice and he was defeated by a bunch of children shouting out loud what they wanted to be when they grew up(complete with the main characters mentioning dreams that had never been so much as hinted at)

The original Digimon Adventure("Season 1") is always going to have a soft spot in my heart, but the only reason Season 2 isn't the worst season is becuase most people consider Digimon Xros Wars: The Brave Young Hunters Leaping Through Time to be separate from the rest of Xros Wars/Fusion.

Like, they don't market Digimon to kids anymore. Brave Young Hunters killed the market for the franchise among its primary demographic. Digimon media is mostly marketed now to people who would have been children when the early seasons were on but now want something

The general consensus I've seen is that Tamers/Season 3 is the best season. Personally, I think Savers/Data Squad is up there but a lot of people don't like it since it depicts Digimon that were heroic in previous seasons as the bad guys(Ignoring that Digimon are species and not individuals and that every season except for Adventure, Adventure 02, and Adventure Tri is an alternate continuity.)

Well I actually enjoy Digimon Season 2. Season 3 was pretty decent.

[LaZodiac]

Fantastic comic, great arcs. I have the first trade print in hardback (although this was before art evolution).

Only complaint is that I felt very unwelcome on the forum back in the day (the author doesn't like TV Tropes for some reason, and made that clear with an ableist insult; that was years ago, mind you, and it hasn't stopped me reading it 3 times a week for several years).

When does the art hit art evolution because I read the first two chapters and I'm dying inside. It isn't that the art is bad necessarily it just feels like Antimony is a Bratz Doll. Lifeless and unblinking, and kind of horrifying to look at.

Also don't take this the wrong way but "when does it get good"? Because first impressions are hard to shake and my first impression of this is that... it sure exists.

TVTropes is bad in that some people incorrectly use tropes as a barometer of value, ie; this uses x tropes so it is bad, or good, or whatever. It engenders the idea of only giving the most surface layer reads of things- categorizing the tropes present without understanding why they are present and ignoring the actual details. That's probably why he dislikes it.

...I'm not seeing the correlation between TVtropes and anything that could be considered a disability.

If the author of the comic is going to insult Tvtropes it should be in a way that makes sense instead of being offensive for the sake of being offensive.

The general consensus I've seen is that Tamers/Season 3 is the best season. Personally, I think Savers/Data Squad is up there but a lot of people don't like it since it depicts Digimon that were heroic in previous seasons as the bad guys(Ignoring that Digimon are species and not individuals and that every season except for Adventure, Adventure 02, and Adventure Tri is an alternate continuity.)

Brioche is saying that they USED an abelist slur when talking bad about TVTropes. Context makes it clear it was probably the R slur. And I have to imagine that even if he does still dislike TVTropes, he would say so in a more nuanced way than that now.

Digimon Tamers is truly the best, and it is a shame that Digimon is so... up its own ass a lot with Adventure 1 worship and little else.

[tyckspoon]

Isn't Digimon just Shin Megami Tensei for kids?

No, that would be Devil Children

When does the art hit art evolution because I read the first two chapters and I'm dying inside. It isn't that the art is bad necessarily it just feels like Antimony is a Bratz Doll. Lifeless and unblinking, and kind of horrifying to look at.

The big round face stays for quite a while, although it does get significantly more animated - you could check in around chapter 6-8 and see if that works for you better. Otherwise the more current version of the art style doesn't fully develop until.. looks like about Chapters 18-20 (The topic of the chapters also moves away from the 'whacky hijinx at Mysterious Boarding School' thing around then, not coincidentally. It's more 'mysterious hijinx with varying degrees of ominous foreshadowing, subtext, or just plain text at Ok We Might Just Be Evil Boarding School.')

[Anonymouswizard]

No, that would be Devil Children

I've guessing you haven't played Devil Children?

'Let's make a series for kids! It'll be exactly the same as normal, but even more horrific as the main characters are now about 10 instead of an ambiguous late teens/early twenties!'

[LaZodiac]

The big round face stays for quite a while, although it does get significantly more animated - you could check in around chapter 6-8 and see if that works for you better. Otherwise the more current version of the art style doesn't fully develop until.. looks like about Chapters 18-20 (The topic of the chapters also moves away from the 'whacky hijinx at Mysterious Boarding School' thing around then, not coincidentally. It's more 'mysterious hijinx with varying degrees of ominous foreshadowing, subtext, or just plain text at Ok We Might Just Be Evil Boarding School.')

The art does get better around chapter 18, yeah. Though the site has suddenly broken for me so I cannot read more.

When does the writing generally get good, as an aside?

[tyckspoon]

I've guessing you haven't played Devil Children?

'Let's make a series for kids! It'll be exactly the same as normal, but even more horrific as the main characters are now about 10 instead of an ambiguous late teens/early twenties!'

The Shin Megami people don't really grok the concept of 'for kids', yeah.

[Tvtyrant]

In my defense I didn't think that was a thing that I could do.

Also I'm realizing I should probably read this. I've seen it get bandied around as good a couple times, specifically by the creator of Monster Pulse. Anyone else have any thoughts on it?

It's quite good, the art moves away from Pennydreadful to Princess Mononoke around chapter 10 I believe, and it is quite stunning as the series goes on. Most the characters are likable but realistically flawed, while some of the characters are unlikable but realistically flawed.

[Fyraltari]

TVTropes is bad in that some people incorrectly use tropes as a barometer of value, ie; this uses x tropes so it is bad, or good, or whatever. It engenders the idea of only giving the most surface layer reads of things- categorizing the tropes present without understanding why they are present and ignoring the actual details. That's probably why he dislikes it.

That's like saying wikipedia is bad because it engenders thz idea that reading up on encyclopedia page on a subject makes you an expert. Some people may act like that, but it's hardly the site's fault. Hell, even has a page pointing out that you shouldn't judge a work by it's trope list.

[Anonymouswizard]

The Shin Megami people don't really grok the concept of 'for kids', yeah.

Yeah. Strangely I think Devil Children might have worked better if it was aimed at an adult audience. Would have allowed them to keep more moral ambiguity in there.

[LaZodiac]

It's quite good, the art moves away from Pennydreadful to Princess Mononoke around chapter 10 I believe, and it is quite stunning as the series goes on. Most the characters are likable but realistically flawed, while some of the characters are unlikable but realistically flawed.

I'll keep it in mind. I'm still a little hesitant to read because the first two chapters are very... dry, in a way that I just didn't like. It feels weird, and I have trouble articulating my issues with it.

That's like saying wikipedia is bad because it engenders thz idea that reading up on encyclopedia page on a subject makes you an expert. Some people may act like that, but it's hardly the site's fault. Hell, even has a page pointing out that you shouldn't judge a work by it's trope list.

I mean that's a valid complaint of Wikipedia.

Anyway, while I personally don't find either site to be bad, I do understand why people dislike them.

[Rater202]

Isn't Digimon just Shin Megami Tensei for kids?

Technically, it's Tamagatchi for boys.

"...It's not a digital pet, it... It's a digital monster! And if you don't take proper care of it it'll turn into a useless slug that can only attack by throwing its poop, becuase this is Japan in the 90s and little boys love poop jokes."

"And all the human-looking ones need big muscles with huge arms. And Belts. Except for the girls, they need to be hot."

"And they need to be a little scary so... Ooh, let's imply that some of the cyborg ones are someone strapping robot parts onto zombies"

"And obviously they need to turn into bigger, stronger monsters if you take care of them properly..."

"Wait, doesn't that last one sound like Pokemon?"

"That's not out yet, despite what a generation of American children on the playground will come to say, our franchise and that one were developed completly independently."

And then X and Y came out with Mega Evolution and everyone pointed out the irony of Pokemon ripping off Digimon

[Xyril]

I mean that's a valid complaint of Wikipedia.

It's a valid complaint of how Wikipedia is used. I think that's an important distinction. I mean, legally and ethically, there are certainly situations where a guy who sells something, or gives something away, should probably be held accountable for how his product is misused because he knows or reasonably should know that most people will be misusing his product.

However, you need to weigh all of the facts before you hold Wikipedia's feet to the fire. Consider what steps they might take to prevent misuse? The disclaimer might not seem like much, but it is notice. Perhaps they could do more comprehensive education about critical thinking, checking sources, etc, but do you really think that would be effective? In fact, such resources abound (both produced by wikipedia and by third parties), but I am guessing the sort of folks who read a wikipedia article and assume (or pretend) that this is all there is to know on a topic aren't the type to do their due diligence, even if those resources are an annoying popup every time you use wikipedia.

In fact, pedantic Wikipedia "experts" existed prior to Wikipedia--they simply used Encarta or other digital encyclopedias on disk, or physical encyclopedias before that. All Wikipedia has done is make the same sort of information available cheaply and to the masses. This raises another important question: Does the misuse of wikipedia outweigh the legitimate usefulness?

[LaZodiac]

It's a valid complaint of how Wikipedia is used. I think that's an important distinction. I mean, legally and ethically, there are certainly situations where a guy who sells something, or gives something away, should probably be held accountable for how his product is misused because he knows or reasonably should know that most people will be misusing his product.

However, you need to weigh all of the facts before you hold Wikipedia's feet to the fire. Consider what steps they might take to prevent misuse? The disclaimer might not seem like much, but it is notice. Perhaps they could do more comprehensive education about critical thinking, checking sources, etc, but do you really think that would be effective? In fact, such resources abound (both produced by wikipedia and by third parties), but I am guessing the sort of folks who read a wikipedia article and assume (or pretend) that this is all there is to know on a topic aren't the type to do their due diligence, even if those resources are an annoying popup every time you use wikipedia.

In fact, pedantic Wikipedia "experts" existed prior to Wikipedia--they simply used Encarta or other digital encyclopedias on disk, or physical encyclopedias before that. All Wikipedia has done is make the same sort of information available cheaply and to the masses. This raises another important question: Does the misuse of wikipedia outweigh the legitimate usefulness?

The rest of my post has me say I don't personally find either site bad. I'm not holding Wikipedia or any of these websites, or even Encyclopedia's like Encarta over the fire for anything. You're correct in that it's how it is misused that is the problem. I don't disagree with that.

[Bartmanhomer]

It's a valid complaint of how Wikipedia is used. I think that's an important distinction. I mean, legally and ethically, there are certainly situations where a guy who sells something, or gives something away, should probably be held accountable for how his product is misused because he knows or reasonably should know that most people will be misusing his product.

However, you need to weigh all of the facts before you hold Wikipedia's feet to the fire. Consider what steps they might take to prevent misuse? The disclaimer might not seem like much, but it is notice. Perhaps they could do more comprehensive education about critical thinking, checking sources, etc, but do you really think that would be effective? In fact, such resources abound (both produced by wikipedia and by third parties), but I am guessing the sort of folks who read a wikipedia article and assume (or pretend) that this is all there is to know on a topic aren't the type to do their due diligence, even if those resources are an annoying popup every time you use wikipedia.

In fact, pedantic Wikipedia "experts" existed prior to Wikipedia--they simply used Encarta or other digital encyclopedias on disk, or physical encyclopedias before that. All Wikipedia has done is make the same sort of information available cheaply and to the masses. This raises another important question: Does the misuse of wikipedia outweigh the legitimate usefulness?

People post anything on Wikipedia whatever it's accurate and/or made up. It's really not the best source on the internet, unfortunately.

[LaZodiac]

People post anything on Wikipedia whatever it's accurate and/or made up. It's really not the best source on the internet, unfortunately.

They also have extreme curation efforts to ensure the information is actually correct. It's not the same as actually studying a subject, but it is useful as a source.

[Bartmanhomer]

They also have extreme curation efforts to ensure the information is correct. It's not the same as actually studying a subject, but it is useful as a source.

Yes and that as well. I rarely use Wikipedia for any reason.