Yeah. And I can at least understand yelling at me over a friend, but the whole headcanon equality thing is pushes it over into insanity.
(They're pawns because otherwise they couldn't promote to queen! Why would you even make a distinction between the two groups, WHAT IS THE POINT THEY'RE ALL CHESS PEOPLE. And if there is canon backing for the other one, explain it! That's how it's supposed to work, you have REASONS for thinking things!)
In some fics I've used "pawn" to mean "the tiny soldiers on the Battlefield like WV," because they seem to be a(n under)class of their own, and they're fairly pawn-shaped. I don't really understand what distinction exactly Vanny is trying to get at, though.
People seem to really like making up weird distinctions that don't mean anything. Like agents are only government workers, or only the cloned ones, or only Derse has agents, or... And it'd be fine if only they did so in fics about that distinction, only they never seem to. It just shows up in random one sentence asides like here.
It's a pretty common reaction. And part of it's a communication thing. If a lot of people are used to carefully understating things, then when you say something, they hear something a lot worse. So, from his viewpoint, I'm one.
While I do hate that with the fury of several suns, at least they understand the basic concept of there being a right way. This is some weird canon relativity craziness.
Ah well. All fandoms have people like that. Sill, compared to Pokemon fandom, people are being remarkably chill.
Things that are not appropriate criticisms: -The way an author talks outside the fic (i.e. "bromance is an obnoxious word"). That's none of your business. Period. -Straight up insults. "Ugh" is not remotely constructive. "This is idiotic" is not constructive either.
I didn't say "Ugh, this is idiotic." Both were next to something that was deserving of being referred to with ugh and idiotic respectively, and so both were constructive. Also, the latter was referring to actions the characters were undertaking. It's not like I'd hesitate to just call the author an idiot if that's what I wanted to do.
They accurately reflect how much I objected to the author's terrible decisions.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-10-24 10:23 pm (UTC)I really like Vanny's writing actually so this is kind of disappointing.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-24 10:51 pm (UTC)(They're pawns because otherwise they couldn't promote to queen! Why would you even make a distinction between the two groups, WHAT IS THE POINT THEY'RE ALL CHESS PEOPLE. And if there is canon backing for the other one, explain it! That's how it's supposed to work, you have REASONS for thinking things!)
no subject
Date: 2011-10-24 11:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-24 11:54 pm (UTC)Wow, that guy's a total douchebag.
Date: 2011-10-25 08:33 pm (UTC)Re: Wow, that guy's a total douchebag.
Date: 2011-10-25 08:37 pm (UTC)Usually people will calm down eventually.
Re: Wow, that guy's a total douchebag.
Date: 2011-10-26 05:53 pm (UTC)Re: Wow, that guy's a total douchebag.
Date: 2011-10-26 09:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-26 01:49 am (UTC)Things that are not appropriate criticisms:
-The way an author talks outside the fic (i.e. "bromance is an obnoxious word"). That's none of your business. Period.
-Straight up insults. "Ugh" is not remotely constructive. "This is idiotic" is not constructive either.
I'm curious as to what you think of this, though.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-26 06:10 am (UTC)I didn't say "Ugh, this is idiotic." Both were next to something that was deserving of being referred to with ugh and idiotic respectively, and so both were constructive. Also, the latter was referring to actions the characters were undertaking. It's not like I'd hesitate to just call the author an idiot if that's what I wanted to do.
They accurately reflect how much I objected to the author's terrible decisions.