Domino Quartz's Delightfully Quaint Random Banter Thread #248

[Peelee]

Okay, I looked up a transcript

It's not entirely a good one, lines are mostly unlabeled, but if I'm reading it correctly, what happened is that Doug called the police and reported his bike stolen, his statement was taken but otherwise, the police don't do anything other than say it was probably a kid who stole it since a burglar would have taken something more valuable, and then found the kids who had it, confronted them about stealing it, and threatened to contact the police again if they did not return what he had every reason to believe was his stolen property.

Now, the kids who had it did, in fact, say that they purchased it from a thrift store but, you know, they'd also apprently mutilated the bike so I don't think that Doug just blowing that off as a lie is unreasonable.

Ten minutes later he gets home to his parent with the replacement bike and the explanation that they gave his old bike away to a thrift store and then not a minute after that the police come down in full screaming siren mode to.. Tlk to Doug's parents about how their son has been accused of stealing a bike.

...Which is all kind of bull****. You know. Either the police are incompetent and didn't think to cross-reference the report of a kid's bike getting stolen against the report from the same day of that same kid stealing a bike or the kids he took the bike from left out almost all the details of the encounter when they filed their own report.

It gets cleared up, Doug gives the bike back, explains the situation to his parents, and then they ground him.

OK, so here's the salient facts:

Doug took the bike.

Maybe the cops did check everything out, and they discovered that the kids did buy the bike at a thrift shop (because we know they did) and so regardless of what Doug said, he did steal the bike! Yes, it was reasonable for Doug to think that they had stolen his bike. Nobody is disputing this. That is perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable is taking the bike. Like you said, Doug is eleven. He can tell his parents. He can tell their parents. He can, as he threatened to do, call the police. He took the bike.

You're seeing everything from Doug's point of view. Doug is not the only person in the show. The kids who bought the bike also exist. Think about it from their point of view. They buy a bike, and then some kid says he'll call the police on them if they don't give it to him. That kid stole their bike! And his parents grounded him for it. Does that sound reasonable to you? Because it really should.

[Rater202]

Okay, so assuming the cops are competant and that thw kids he took the bike from told th epolice of the entire encounter, we have the following issue.

The police have two reports of bike theft in one day.

One report from a child.

One report from a pair of children reporting that the child from stole a bike claiming it was his own stolen bike even though it came fro the thrift shop.

The logical next step, assuming they confirmed that the bike came from the thrift shop... would be to ask where the Thrift shop got the bike, given that there is a distinct possibility that the thrift shop sold a stolen bike based on the information available to them.

Which would have, in turn, presumably led toward going to the Funnie residence without the siren blaring like the officer is in hot pursuit of an actively dangerous criminal to see if the bike that the Funnies sold to the shop was the bike their son reported stolen or not.

I mean, Bluffington isn't exactly a big city with a high crime rate, these are probably the only two reports that came in that day. The fact that the cops come blazing down the street not ten minutes later when they did jack and **** about the earlier reported theft suggests either someone failed to do their due diligence or, worse, the bluffington police run on the lopsided arm of the law trope where the competence and usefulness of the police is inversely proportionate to how much the protagonists would benefit from such.

At the end of the day, blame for the incident falls on Doug's parents for the idiotic way they handled their idea to "surprise" Doug and to a lesser extent the officer who responded to Doug's report of theft who... I'm just gonna quote the exchange eon the transcript

My guess is it was just
some kid about your age.

But I know all
the kids around here.

Maybe not as well
as you think.

Okay, that should do it.

We'll mail you a copy
of the report in a week or so.

Skeeter:
you're going to get
the bike back in a week?

Nah, I doubt
we'll get it back.

Both:
what?

No clues, no leads, no evidence.

Son, your bike is long gone.

[Peelee]

At the end of the day, blame for the incident falls on

Doug. I do not know why you seem to have such a massive issue with "don't take stuff". Even if you think it's yours, then heyy, don't take it! You might be wrong for example, Doug was wrong!was it his fault that he was wrong? No, not at all. Did he take something that belonged to someone else anyway? Yes!

Now, sure, considering the circumstances, he shouldn't be taken into rhe system for that. Grounding him is a much more reasonable way to handle it, to teach him to NOT TAKE STUFF.

If you think it's fine to say "someone else made me do it!" when they did not actually make them do it, then you are the person the lesson for that show is intended for.

Sure, the sirens were overblown, but it it's a kids show and they're going to take some liberties for entertainment value. But if you want to complain about that anyway, i won't really say anything. But you're just dying on the hill of "it's alright if you do bad things if you just think you're justified", and I would bet everything i had if someone else thought they were justified by doing something to you, you'd be the loudest voice in the room decrying how they got away with it without punishment.

the officer who responded to Doug's report of theft

What do you want, two units working round the clock? A task force? Should they call in the CSI unit? Hey, here's a scenario from a similar incident from a piece of media, let's play act! You be the cop, tell me how you would solve this:

Victim: My old, run down, not valuable car was stolen in a parking lot that does not have any security cameras. It is currently the 90s.

I'm excited to see your detective skills here. Just let me know what you want to do and, based on my knowledge of the material, I'll let you know if you make any breaks in the case! It'll be like you're Batman (the detective side of him, not the ninja side)!

[Rater202]

I would expect the cops to do literally anything other than say "hey, you know how this is a small town with only like 12 kids your age? It was definitely one of your friends who stole your bike" and nothing much else... Then turn around and hunt him down like a serial killer when someone else reports him a sa bike thief.

Seriously, the ending narration has Doug say that he deserves to be grounded because "how could I suspect my friends of stealing from me."

Mother****er, the cop told you it was one of your friends who stole from you.

Which um, yeah. Is also the nail in the coffin to the idea that the episode was a theft moral and not one about paranoia and conclusion jumping.

That and the fact that there's literally an episode where Doug buys a rare comic from a guy in an alley, finds out that his local comic store has been robbed, and realizes that the comic he bought was the same copy that the store owner had on display, and agonizes over doing the right thing vs having something he really wants covers the theft moral much better and is much more well done.

[Peelee]

I would expect the cops to do literally anything

Again, let's play act! You're the cop. You get a report of a stolen car. What do you do? Give me an example of "anything".

Police don't have crystal balls to magically divine what happened. What do you want? For the cops to dust Doug's empty garage for prints? To bring in forensics to look for hair fibers to send to the lab? To follow up on the hot leads they have?

Pretty much the best they can do here is keep an eye out for it and issue a memo for others to do so as well. Cops aren't wizards. Again, you want to act like you can do better, then be a cop. I gave you a scenario, you tell me what you would do. Car is stolen. Still waiting on an answer. C'mon, it can be just like the comics! There's a crime! Solve it!

That and the fact that there's literally an episode where Doug buys a rare comic from a guy in an alley, finds out that his local comic store has been robbed, and realizes that the comic he bought was the same copy that the store owner had on display, and agonizes over doing the right thing vs having something he really wants covers the theft moral much better and is much more well done.

Let's take that example! Let's say Doug doesn't find out the comic store has been robbed. Let's say that instead, someone comes up, yells at Doug that it's really her comic, and Doug stole it, and he's going to call the police of Doug doesn't give it to her right now. Also, instead of a back alley, lets say Doug bought it from an actual shop. Because that's what actually happened to the other kids with the bike.

Rater, i am begging you, please imagine things from their side and see why this sort of thing is not acceptable, even if you're under a reasonable belief that the thing is yours. Because at this point, if any if you bullies from childhood said "oh well i had a reasonable belief that it was the right thing to do" then under your own arguments here then it was right and just for that person to not be punished. And I know you're not going to see it that way, because it shouldn't be that way, and I'm using it to try to explain why your absolute insistence on only looking at thr situation from one inflexible point of view and not taking in the totality of the circumstances is not a good method to determine right vs wrong. It's bordering on protagonist-centered morality.

[Rynjin]

Again, let's play act! You're the cop. You get a report of a stolen car. What do you do? Give me an example of "anything".

Eh, don't equate it to a stolen car, it's a bike; there's a lot more they can do to find a car if the owner is on the ball.

With a kid's stolen bike they have a different responsibility than finding the bike: protecting the kid. They should have asked Doug some key questions like "Where was the last place you saw it? What did it look like?" and told him to ask his parents and other people in the neighborhood if they'd seen it.

Y'know, stuff to discourage the 11 year old from wandering around the city looking for his bike.

[Rater202]

Eh, don't equate it to a stolen car, it's a bike; there's a lot more they can do to find a car if the owner is on the ball.

With a kid's stolen bike they have a different responsibility than finding the bike: protecting the kid. They should have asked Doug some key questions like "Where was the last place you saw it? What did it look like?" and told him to ask his parents and other people in the neighborhood if they'd seen it.

Y'know, stuff to discourage the 11 year old from wandering around the city looking for his bike.

As opposed to going all the way to the kid's house to take a statement and then doing nothing but saying "it was probably a kid around your age."
"There are literally only a dozen kids my age in this town and I'm friends with all of them"
"Then it was definitely one of your friends, anyway there's nothing the law can do."

Like, if you're gonna make the trip at least look at the alleged crime scene.

Meanwhile, according to Doug's ending narration after the situation was cleared up and he returned his old bike to the kids who got it from the thrift shop, Doug's parents did nothing but ground him(Not apologizing for causing this mess in the first place) and he says he probably deserved it for suspecting his friends of stealing from him... even though the cop all but outright said that his friends probably stole from him.

That's the point. The episode presents it as being a lesson on paranoia and jumping to conclusions but there are some rather significant extenuating circumstances IE "he's a literal child and the police basically fed into his paranoia" so punishing him for it feels excessive.

Especially given the lack of any indication that his parents apologized for causing the situation in the first place by getting rid of his old bike without telling him.

[Keltest]

As opposed to going all the way to the kid's house to take a statement and then doing nothing but saying "it was probably a kid around your age."
"There are literally only a dozen kids my age in this town and I'm friends with all of them"
"Then it was definitely one of your friends, anyway there's nothing the law can do."

Like, if you're gonna make the trip at least look at the alleged crime scene.

Meanwhile, according to Doug's ending narration after the situation was cleared up and he returned his old bike to the kids who got it from the thrift shop, Doug's parents did nothing but ground him(Not apologizing for causing this mess in the first place) and he says he probably deserved it for suspecting his friends of stealing from him... even though the cop all but outright said that his friends probably stole from him.

That's the point. The episode presents it as being a lesson on paranoia and jumping to conclusions but there are some rather significant extenuating circumstances IE "he's a literal child and the police basically fed into his paranoia" so punishing him for it feels excessive.

Especially given the lack of any indication that his parents apologized for causing the situation in the first place by getting rid of his old bike without telling him.

No, Doug caused the situation by stealing the bike. The police arent obligated to make their job seem more interesting than it really is just for his benefit, and Doug is 11 and so should not be trying to solve the problem at all. The problem wasnt "Doug though a kid stole his bike" the problem is that he thought the correct response was to go and take something from somebody else. If he had talked to literally anybody else who would have known better, or even just asked the kid where he got the bike from, things would have been resolved without issue.

[Peelee]

Eh, don't equate it to a stolen car, it's a bike; there's a lot more they can do to find a car if the owner is on the ball.

There can be, but that's why i specified an older, beaten up car - no GPS tracking or other location systems, for example, so the best way to figure it out is just to actually see it somewhere. Which isn't great odds.

With a kid's stolen bike they have a different responsibility than finding the bike: protecting the kid. They should have asked Doug some key questions like "Where was the last place you saw it? What did it look like?" and told him to ask his parents and other people in the neighborhood if they'd seen it.

Y'know, stuff to discourage the 11 year old from wandering around the city looking for his bike.

That's fair.

As opposed to going all the way to the kid's house to take a statement and then doing nothing but saying "it was probably a kid around your age."

Yes, how dare they not acknowledge the crummy children's bicycle theft ring. I hear they've gone international!

"There are literally only a dozen kids my age in this town and I'm friends with all of them"
"Then it was definitely one of your friends, anyway there's nothing the law can do."

A.) it was one of his friends that had it, as it turned out.
2.) "it's probably one of your friends" is not exactly the smoking gun you seem to think it is. What do you want here? For them to get a list of Doug's friends and then surveil them?

Like, if you're gonna make the trip at least look at the alleged crime scene.

Yes, i can imagine the empty garage will give them all sorts of clues. They could even deduce the bicycle is not there anymore!

Like, as i acknowledged above, they could have done things like tell Doug to talk to his parents. But you're over here complaining that they didn't do enough detective work, on a petty crime with next to zero evidence. Your sole suggestion on what to do, despite my asking multiple times for you to take the role of a cop, was "look at the crime scene". Which would almost certainly accomplish nothing except wasting everyone's time and is not communicating with Doug, which would be significantly more likely to be helpful.

[Rater202]

...Keltest. Doug's first response was "I hae been burgled, I shoudlc all the police."

the cop who came to the house to take his statement basically told him tha tit was almost definitely one of his frineds who stole his bike.

He could not talk to is parents bout it, they were not in the house.

He then sees two of his friends with his bike after they have done alterations to it that Doug describes as having "mutilated it" and thus under circumstances where it's pretty easy to assume that they would be lying about where they got it from.

The cop did not have to make their job seem more interesting. The cop should have done literally anything but put an idea of what happened in Doug's head without evidence... Or even, you know, checked to see if there was any evidence instead of just concluding that there wasn't any out of hand.

And regardless: Given that Doug never would have thought he'd been robbed if his parents had told him "Hey, we're getting you a new bike and we're taking the old one to the thrift shop" before taking his bike, his parents are the ultimate instigators of the conflict and as presented never apologize or are held to account for their part in it. Parents don't take bike, conflict never happens. Parents who punish without taking accountability of their own are bad parents.

and again: The episode was not about "stealing is wrong." Doug taking back his bike happened in like the last few minutes of the episode. The whole rest of the episode was about his growing paranoia after being, to all evidence, stolen from.

Which, combined with his closing narration saying that he deserved to be grounded for suspecting his friends of stealing from him(an idea planted in his head by an apathetic cop) not for stealing. The episode is framed as being about paranoia and conclusion-jumping, not about stealing. Insisting "he got punished for stealing" is demonstrating ignorance of the importance of narrative.

If you want to ignore the narrative, the purpose of punishment is to ensure that a lesson is remembered and that misbehavior will not reoccur. With how conscious Doug typically is depicted about his social status, the sheer embarrassment over what happened and the awkwardness of returning the bike and explaining the statiin would have bene more than adequate making grounding him unnecessary.

[Peelee]

Rater. I'm going to break it down to the absolute bare essentials.

the problem is that he thought the correct response was to go and take something from somebody else.

The lesson was "don't take things from others".

It really is as simple aa that. You are writing essays on how Doug should be excused from his actions. You would not need to, and Doug would not be grounded, if he had just not taken something from somebody else.

Because taking things from other people is wrong.

[Keltest]

Rater. I'm going to break it down to the absolute bare essentials.


It really is as simple aa that. You are writing essays on how Doug should be excused from his actions. You would not need to, and Doug would not be grounded, if he had just not taken something from somebody else.

Because taking things from other people is wrong.

To elaborate a little, you are not excusing his actions, you are explaining them. Showing where and how he went wrong is all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that he still went wrong. There were plenty of choices he could have made to resolve things without causing problems. He did not take them, he caused a problem, he did a bad thing, and got punished.

[Rater202]

You keep saying "The lesson was don't take things" but it's very clear that the episode was about paranoia.

the simple fact that you are latching not to "he took the bike back without making sure it was actually stolen" and saying that that in and of itself deserves punishment regardless of extenuating circumstances kind of supports my initial point that the way the lesson, which per the summary of the episode in Doug's closing narration was "don't suspect that your friends stole from you" was taught in a bad manner.

---

I had a friend in high school who tried to cut back on swearing by snapping a rubberband against the back of his hand every time he caught himself using a hard swear.

He had to stop after a few days because he was giving himself nerve damage.

[Peelee]

You keep saying "The lesson was don't take things" but it's very clear that the episode was about paranoia.

Two things can happen in an episode. For example, Doug could be paranoid and he could let his paranoia affect him so much he does a bad thing.

How did the episode end? Did he let go of all of his paranoia? Or did he still lock up his stuff but not let him give in and grossly overreact in bad ways again?

the simple fact that you are latching not to "he took the bike back without making sure it was actually stolen"

The simple fact that you are refusing to acknowledge that he did something wrong supports my initial point of "Rater, please understand that Doug did something wrong".

and saying that that in and of itself deserves punishment regardless of extenuating circumstances

The extenuating circumstances were "i thought it was acceptable". And he was grounded. That is a very innocuous, mild punishment! You're acting like dude was flogged at the stake or had everything else he owned given to the thrift store.

Again, if anyone else did this to you, you would be the loudest voice in the room decrying that just because someone else thinks something doesn't give them the right to just take your stuff, and then fantasize about crushing them or something.

[enderlord99]

And he was grounded. That is a very innocuous, mild punishment!

Being locked in a single room 24/7 for multiple weeks a week or more and disallowed any form of entertainment* is "innocuous" and "mild" for an eleven-year-old committing petty theft as a first offense?

No.

He clearly did something wrong, technically, but that doesn't make solitary confinement (which is what grounding is) reasonable.


*except, apparently, writing in a journal and rereading what you yourself just wrote... but does that really count?

[Rynjin]

Being locked in a single room 24/7 for multiple weeks a week or more and disallowed any form of entertainment* is "innocuous" and "mild" for an eleven-year-old committing petty theft as a first offense?

No.

He clearly did something wrong, technically, but that doesn't make solitary confinement (which is what grounding is) reasonable.


*except, apparently, writing in a journal and rereading what you yourself just wrote... but does that really count?

...Errr, most people would not conflate "grounding" and "solitary confinement". If that's what your parents did to you, I'm sorry, but that's not normal.

[enderlord99]

...Errr, most people would not conflate "grounding" and "solitary confinement". If that's what your parents did to you, I'm sorry, but that's not normal.

...What is grounding, then?

It hasn't happened to me, from what I remember, but all the descriptions I've read say it means "not allowed to leave your bedroom except when legally required, or do things you enjoy"

[Rater202]

Watch video detailing the crimes and probable sentences of Scooby-Doo Villains from the Mystery Incorporated series.

Be shocked to realize that Velma's implied love interest is guilty of crimes that by all means should have seen her die in prison several times over.

Realize that Velma's explicit love interest in the DTV movie that makes her explicitly a lesbian is an openly evil fashion designer who is responsible for the costumes used by every single criminal Mystery Inc even busted in this continuity

Realize that Velma has questionable taste in women.

[Rynjin]

...What is grounding, then?

It hasn't happened to me, from what I remember, but all the descriptions I've read say it means "not allowed to leave your bedroom except when legally required, or do things you enjoy"

It's gonna vary by family but the general rules are "can't leave the house" and "can't do electronics" for the most part. Not "we're literally locking you in your room and feeding you through a slot in the door".

You've got everybody else in the family to interact with at home, and obviously you...go to school, where you can do whatever.

Come home, you're doing chores, homework, reading, whatever but you're not playing video games, watching TV, or going out with friends.

Caveat on the "watching TV" bit in my family was "unless it's with family", so being grounded was often not that onerous for me given me and my mom had similar interests in TV, and I liked to read.

It's meant as a light punishment, not the end of the world lol.

I know some people who got it worse, but their parents were incredibly emotionally abusive and overly harsh punishments were just a more overt display of that. Now we've established Doug's parents suck, but not that they're abusive. So his grounding was likely not getting tossed in "The Hole" and fed on Nutriloaf.

[LaZodiac]

Watch video detailing the crimes and probable sentences of Scooby-Doo Villains from the Mystery Incorporated series.

Be shocked to realize that Velma's implied love interest is guilty of crimes that by all means should have seen her die in prison several times over.

Realize that Velma's explicit love interest in the DTV movie that makes her explicitly a lesbian is an openly evil fashion designer who is responsible for the costumes used by every single criminal Mystery Inc even busted in this continuity

Realize that Velma has questionable taste in women.

Hot-dog Water did nothing wrong*

*all the crimes excluded this is a joke not a serious argument

But yeah Velma's got that classic lesbian "allure of the villain" vibe.

[Rater202]

Hot-dog Water did nothing wrong*

*all the crimes excluded this is a joke not a serious argument

But yeah Velma's got that classic lesbian "allure of the villain" vibe.

So here's where my weird brain went with that realization.

Some backstory: My recent Owl House obsessions eventually lead me to a very long fanfic called Light's Song. It was started midway into season 2, before we saw exactly what kind of mom Camila was and had the details of who and what king of man Luz's father was... And it's a crossover with Supernatural, postulating that Luz was the result of a one-night stand between Camila Noceda and John Winchester, making her the much younger sibling of Sam and Dean. She ends up being raised by Bobby after Camila is murdered when she's two

Spoiler

Show

And the whole thing turns out to have been orchestrated by the angels as a means of causing a falling out between the brothers so they'd be more likely that fulfill their roles which ended up not working out because Castiel wasn't in on the plan and resurrected Luz when she was tortured to death by Supernatural!Lilith

It's better than it sounds (the author explcitly stated that they felt bad for killing off Camila after Thanks to Them came out) but while reading the day of Unity chapters at one in the morning it occurred to me that if I have the Supernatural timeline right then "getting ready for college" Luz from the epilog would be right around the plot of Scooby-Natural due tot he fic starting near the tale-end of the

Sleep-Deprived Autism Brain took over with that idea and several leaps of logic later it was "Hexsquad meets Mystery Inc" sans all reference to the Supernatural crossover that started the train of thought. I bring this up on a Fanfiction thread on another forum and someone else mentions that they have a vague AU idea regarding a Hispanic Velma based on how one of her actors was Hispanic so the idea mutates into "Velma is Luz's older sister."

My weird-ass brain suddenly remembers that discussion as I'm having the realization of Velma's poor taste in women and this exchange pops into my head.
Velma: "Wait... You're dating a girl that tried to have you dissected?"
Luz:

Spoiler

Show

[Lord Raziere]

My weird-ass brain suddenly remembers that discussion as I'm having the realization of Velma's poor taste in women and this exchange pops into my head.
Velma: "Wait... You're dating a girl that tried to have you dissected?"

joke Luz responses of mine:

Spoiler: response 1

Show

Luz: Its okay I fixed her

Spoiler: response 2

Show

Luz: your one to talk, sis after what happened with Marcie

Spoiler: response 3

Show

Luz: To be fair given the circumstances I would've done the same in her position. Like who wouldn't dissect a weird oddly intelligent golem?

Spoiler: response 4

Show

Luz: your just jealous cause mine is alive.

Spoiler: response 5

Show

Luz: I'm not taking this from someone who routinely reads Catradora fanfics

Spoiler: response 6

Show

Luz: Yes. go find your own potential polycule, I'm busy holding out hope that I can rope Charlie Morningstar and Vaggie into this if they exist.

Spoiler: response 7

Show

Luz: Yeah. I don't see how thats a problem, it means she was already into me!

Spoiler: response 8

Show

Luz: Yeah, isn't she perfect? I have it in my will that she should do it for real when I pass on!
Velma:....wait why
Luz: so I can get taxidermized of course!
Velma: WHY???
Luz: cause I'm a homestuck fan of course.

[Rater202]

Spoiler: response 6

Show

Luz: Yes. go find your own potential polycule, I'm busy holding out hope that I can rope Charlie Morningstar and Vaggie into this if they exist.

Semi-Related: There is a fic on Ao3 called A Divine (Romantic) Comedy that postulates a romance arc between Camila and Lucifer after they meet in a bar. Post Epilog Owl House*, pre-Season 1 Hazbin.

Luz is supportive of the relationship.

Charlie is not.

...Of course, Luz doesn't know that "Lucius Magne" is literally the devil yet.

[LaZodiac]

I'm currently thinking about

Spoiler: Final Fantasy 7 Remake Spoilers

Show

how good a plot-point it is in the Final Fantasy 7 remake that there's a literal, tangible force dedicated to trying to force this game to be a perfectly normal remake with no changes. There is something so delightful about evil plot-ghosts that are symbolic of the ramrod mentality of "if it's different it is bad" and that you beat them over the head with a giant metal bat until the literal concept of fate has been eradicated from the world.

I know a lot of modern media that are referencing or calling back to or are continuations of older games play around with the narrative of itself and its older forms (see Dad of Boy for a good example of that) but I don't think I've ever seen a remake of a game quite so tangibly wrestle with the literal concept of Being A Remake before... aside from the new Scott Pilgrim, funnily enough, and even that isn't quite so keen at making the meta-text actual text (an impressive feat given a character in universe is tricked into believing they've written the story of Scott Pilgrim, the film adaptation, and a major plot point for much of the show is the attempted creation of that film, a film we know exists in real life).

[Rater202]

Is "the fans are really attached to a character who only had a major role in two episodes and only has about five total minutes of dialog in the whole series" a sign of good writing or of an obsessive fanbase?

[Anonymouswizard]

Less than 24 hours until I'm off on holiday.

Well, as long as BA doesn't announce a replacement bus service.

[LaZodiac]

Is "the fans are really attached to a character who only had a major role in two episodes and only has about five total minutes of dialog in the whole series" a sign of good writing or of an obsessive fanbase?

Little bit of both. IF there's nothing to latch onto they usually won't latch onto it... but if they really like the show sometimes they'll latch onto anything no matter how little crumbs are actually there.

[TaiLiu]

It's gonna vary by family but the general rules are "can't leave the house" and "can't do electronics" for the most part. Not "we're literally locking you in your room and feeding you through a slot in the door".

You've got everybody else in the family to interact with at home, and obviously you...go to school, where you can do whatever.

Come home, you're doing chores, homework, reading, whatever but you're not playing video games, watching TV, or going out with friends.

Caveat on the "watching TV" bit in my family was "unless it's with family", so being grounded was often not that onerous for me given me and my mom had similar interests in TV, and I liked to read.

It's meant as a light punishment, not the end of the world lol.

I know some people who got it worse, but their parents were incredibly emotionally abusive and overly harsh punishments were just a more overt display of that. Now we've established Doug's parents suck, but not that they're abusive. So his grounding was likely not getting tossed in "The Hole" and fed on Nutriloaf.

That sounds really unpleasant, actually. You know these activities that bring you joy? You're not allowed to do them. Maybe this is a personality defect on my part, but I would rather be beat. Get it over with, y'know?

Less than 24 hours until I'm off on holiday.

Well, as long as BA doesn't announce a replacement bus service.

I hope you have a good holiday.

[Keltest]

That sounds really unpleasant, actually. You know these activities that bring you joy? You're not allowed to do them. Maybe this is a personality defect on my part, but I would rather be beat. Get it over with, y'know?

I mean, it's a punishment, so its not supposed to be fun. That's sort of the point. No fun for a week or however long.

[TaiLiu]

I mean, it's a punishment, so its not supposed to be fun. That's sort of the point. No fun for a week or however long.

Right. I'm saying that sounds really bad to me, and I wouldn't consider it light punishment. If I were being punished I would prefer alternatives, like physical violence.