I say ice cream is good. This is an opinion. We assume it to be true, and treat it as such. Obviously, if you then say ice cream is bad, we may discuss it with the aim of discovering whose opinion is more valid. But before a contradictory opinion is stated, my opinion was treated as wholly correct. Ergo, right by default.
Facts, by contrast, we assume to be incorrect. Consider, the fact that you can't lick your own elbow. People hearing this the first time will try to lick their elbows. That's because it's a fact, and we assume that any given fact is untrue until proven to be true.
I see. That's kinda what I thought too. Anyway since we agree on the important stuff I won't waste our time discussing semantics.
BTW, some people can lick their elbow, so it's not a fact. They said so in an episode of Brainiacs and then apologised for their error in a following episode.
On the curse word debate, different people are offended by different things. The point at which they become offended differs from yours. There's not much point in debating it because there's not much chance of changing anyone's long held "point at which they become offended" simply by discussing or arguing about it with them. There's also not much point in slamming someone who is more easily offended than you.
I will admit to a bit of confusion about the end on this chapter, though. The sword came deep into the story, and it had already been established by that time that Parson was subject to either or both the compulsions of the summoning spell and they typical Duty and Loyalty which all Erf units are subjected to. "Ruthlessness" was only mentioned when the sword was completed, and it was never either shown or explained as having any influence on Parson's actions. Duty was shown to influence Parson, in the explanation of why he couldn't order the casters into the portal without having them link up and try to uncroak the volcano, and the summoning spell was also shown to be able to compel Parson's actions, right from the start.
Then Ruthlessness gets discussed in the penultimate strip, and Parson starts off asking about Thinkamancy and the summoning spell, but then segues into Ruthlessness and the sword is prominently featured in the next 3 panels as Parson fiddles with it, half drawing it, etc.
When he asked Maggy to explain how Ruthlessness worked on him and rolling it up with Thinkamancy I was left wondering why they were discussing Ruthlessness instead of Duty or the summoning spell, as Ruthlessness had never been described as being a game mechanic previously.
And then he throws away the sword, as if that was freeing him up somehow, and indeed we see him break out from the control of the censor. But freeing him up from what? From the latecomer Ruthlessness, perhaps, and from the censor, once at least and perhaps permanently (especially with the comic changing venue) but what of the summoning spell, and what of Duty?
This seemed odd to me, and I just do not understand why the focus on Ruthlessness is supposed to be such a powerful expression of individuality with these other controlling factors still present. And they are still present, or Parson wouldn't still be on Erfworld.
On the curse word debate, different people are offended by different things. The point at which they become offended differs from yours. There's not much point in debating it because there's not much chance of changing anyone's long held "point at which they become offended" simply by discussing or arguing about it with them. There's also not much point in slamming someone who is more easily offended than you.
I will admit to a bit of confusion about the end on this chapter, though. The sword came deep into the story, and it had already been established by that time that Parson was subject to either or both the compulsions of the summoning spell and they typical Duty and Loyalty which all Erf units are subjected to. "Ruthlessness" was only mentioned when the sword was completed, and it was never either shown or explained as having any influence on Parson's actions. Duty was shown to influence Parson, in the explanation of why he couldn't order the casters into the portal without having them link up and try to uncroak the volcano, and the summoning spell was also shown to be able to compel Parson's actions, right from the start.
Then Ruthlessness gets discussed in the penultimate strip, and Parson starts off asking about Thinkamancy and the summoning spell, but then segues into Ruthlessness and the sword is prominently featured in the next 3 panels as Parson fiddles with it, half drawing it, etc.
When he asked Maggy to explain how Ruthlessness worked on him and rolling it up with Thinkamancy I was left wondering why they were discussing Ruthlessness instead of Duty or the summoning spell, as Ruthlessness had never been described as being a game mechanic previously.
And then he throws away the sword, as if that was freeing him up somehow, and indeed we see him break out from the control of the censor. But freeing him up from what? From the latecomer Ruthlessness, perhaps, and from the censor, once at least and perhaps permanently (especially with the comic changing venue) but what of the summoning spell, and what of Duty?
This seemed odd to me, and I just do not understand why the focus on Ruthlessness is supposed to be such a powerful expression of individuality with these other controlling factors still present. And they are still present, or Parson wouldn't still be on Erfworld.
I think he's talking about the philosophical side of ruthlessness, not as a game mechanic, but as a part of his personality. I think.
I could debate that throwing away the sword, implies that Parson is in self-control: he knows the value of the item, nevertheless he "accept" to rid free of it, because he wants to think by himself, without a magical compulsion (even if subtle and relatively weak), that stimulates his worst inner self.
While it's only the rage that make him swearing. (well, on this last point, I totally agree on the self-determination PoW, but this is for discussion's sake, right? )
Ah, but violently throwing something is often a sign of rage, and the swear word could also be a calculated, non-raging method of showing that he's free of control. After all, if his intent is to display his freedom from Erfworld's systems, swearing is a way that he can accomplish easily and doesn't involve any violent action. He says it loudly because he wants "Erfworld" to hear him.
See? This is all based on assumptions of "this action is obviously emotional, this one obviously isn't", which may very well be true, but are not necessarily true.
__________________
Check out my first creation, the Wrathling. Look at it, comment on it, help balance it, vote for it. Any help is appreciated.
3rd I think that the swearing takes away form Parson's freedom because it shows him still ruled by rage. Throwing the sword was kinda cool
Interesting point.
Personally, the throwing of the sword shocked me much much more than Parson's swearing.
Perhaps other people might react in a different fashion, but... for me... seeing Parson throw away the sword almost triggered an involutary "what are you doing???!!" from me while reading the story, while the use of the word **** hardly registered at first, since I'm so used to already substituting **** whenever I see "boop".
Because, he's been trying to get around the Erfworld word filter since he first arrived... but to actually THROW AWAY an object of usefullness and value within a wargame where it might be needed, probably went against every principle that Parson has as a war-gamer.
So, from my perspective (also being a war-gamer), it was the throwing away of the sword that broke Erfworld's hold on him, with the subsequent breaking-down of Erfworld's word-filter for that one instance, simply being an outward manifestation of how shocking the sword-throwing as an act was.
See? This is all based on assumptions of "this action is obviously emotional, this one obviously isn't", which may very well be true, but are not necessarily true.
I like your way of thinking..
Yes, with the words we try to support our PoW and so, basing on our assumptions, we can support different reasonings on the same argument.
Which is exactly the point in having a forum!
__________________
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. (W.Withman)
Things that increase my self esteem:
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiyanwang
Great analysis KA. I second all things you said
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeYounger
Great analysis KA, I second everything you said here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryu_Bonkosi
If I have a player using Paladin in the future I will direct them to this. Good job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grimbold
THIS is proof that KA is amazing
Quote:
Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost
Killer Angel, you have an excellent taste in books
I don't buy the "not in control" and "driven by rage". Maybe Parson was angry, maybe he had powerful emotions flowing trough him..
But I think the whole final comic was him being in complete moment of purpose. It was Him Vs The World. Parson Vs The Rules. He had to put all his focus into that moment, when he shattered what existed in the world of Erfworld...
It makes a complete difference between someone who "let loose" a swear word because he has been angered, injured or surprised. These swearwords are usually involountary, and I agree that they are rarely needed.
But this time, it wasn't an accidental swearword. If anything else, I don't think there have been a swearword more intentional than this one. And that's what makes it powerful.
Last edited by SolkaTruesilver : 05-30-2009 at 10:46 AM.
Yes, destroying the sword could symbolize Parson's desire to change. He wants to shake free from the bondage Erfworld has placed on him.
However, he also just destroyed a powerful tool that could help him bring peace to both Erfworld and himself.
The sword only nudges foward things you already want to do. Parson would have been better served by focusing his attention inward. It can't nudge foward what isn't there.
I don't buy the "not in control" and "driven by rage". Maybe Parson was angry, maybe he had powerful emotions flowing trough him..
But I think the whole final comic was him being in complete moment of purpose. It was Him Vs The World. Parson Vs The Rules. He had to put all his focus into that moment, when he shattered what existed in the world of Erfworld...
It makes a complete difference between someone who "let loose" a swear word because he has been angered, injured or surprised. These swearwords are usually involountary, and I agree that they are rarely needed.
But this time, it wasn't an accidental swearword. If anything else, I don't think there have been a swearword more intentional than this one. And that's what makes it powerful.
(Okay, I'm a little late to the party, that's what I get for only reading once a week)
Actaully, I'm much more inclined to forgive a curse let out accidentally on impulse than one given directly and intentionally. While it's definetely "rarely needed," an accidental curse is not given with the same intent. An intentional use of such a word is more calculated to be offensive, and it is the intent behind the use that perverts an otherwise legitimate word and turns it into a "swear word." That's probably why I tend to be more offended by such words in print (like this comic) then when dropped in conversation, because it had to be put there intentionally and with forethought and decision. It means someone is actively trying to cause offense.
However, my problem with this comic has nothing to do with the level of offense I may have taken at the use of the word, but rather with the violation of the rules of the website. I know Rich gave his justification/explanation for this, and I know there are all manner of arguments in favor of "artistic" use of foul language (which frankly, more often than not tend to be half-done excuses to be vulgar rather than true artistic expression), but the fact of the matter remains that the established rules were broken, and an exception was made. This sets the precedent that the rules here may be suspended without warning, and it means that this is no longer a safe site. I can no longer browse it on my break at work, I can't read it at home where family is present, because now I never know if the site is going to open up with something "unsafe" emblazoned across the page.
The thing is, this all could have been easily avoided. There could have been a warning included with the link. The final page could have consisted of a link to the new Erfworld site. But instead, it was put up like any other page, with no warning or disclaimer of the content.
The bottom line is, Rich has shown he is willing to bend or ignore the rules laid down on his site without warning, and that means I can no longer trust the content on this site. Truthfully, that loss of trust is the greater offense to me, and because of it, I won't be returning.
So I bid a regretful farewell to the Order of the Stick and the Giant in the Playground. It was fun while it lasted, and I'm sorry it had to end this way. Best of luck.
I too feel betrayed which is why I posted in the 1st place. I have always liked the rules this forum has and I really did not think that I would have to see that word on this site ever. Than I read the comments and felt even more betrayed that Rich would support breaking the rules.
__________________
Actors we are people pretending to be people
Thanks to Kwarkpudding for the amazing Aran Avatar
It both lampoons the idiotic usage of swearing by some "media" to try and score "coolness" points and the laughable aversion to swearing some people display (as we have seen) that rises to ridiculous heights and is irrational.
LOL you guys are acting like this was worse than anthrax. Some perspective would be nice you know.
Both Jamin and blackbird71 have provided that perspective, it is you who fail to have the perspective necessary to understand their point of view. blackbird71 stated it quite eloquently: He was here because this site was free of profanity (or at least mostly so, some people would include a few of the words allowed in a list of profanity), and he is leaving because the rules were allowed to lapse without any attempt at warning him that things had changed. A warning would have cost nothing, and (presumably) would have prevented blackbird71 from feeling like he'd been promised a certain standard of behavior but that promise was then broken. I am not offended by the occasional obscenity, but I can completely understand the position of blackbird71 and Jamin. I follow these comics while at the office during my lunch time, and I felt comfortable doing so because of the rules for posting language meant that I'd be browsing in compliance with company policies. I'll probably restrict my strip reading to home from now on, because a big "F you!" isn't in compliance. Kapish?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Roboto
I think he's talking about the philosophical side of ruthlessness, not as a game mechanic, but as a part of his personality. I think.
Mmmm, no. If it wasn't the game mechanics of ruthlessness, there would be no reason to throw the "ruthlessness" sword away. If he was simply rejecting game-given gear as a protest against being treated as a game piece then the 3D glasses and the wristband should have been chucked in as well.
It both lampoons the idiotic usage of swearing by some "media" to try and score "coolness" points and the laughable aversion to swearing some people display (as we have seen) that rises to ridiculous heights and is irrational.
Wow this offends me way more than the swear.
Why is an aversion to swearing laughable?
__________________
Actors we are people pretending to be people
Thanks to Kwarkpudding for the amazing Aran Avatar
(Okay, I'm a little late to the party, that's what I get for only reading once a week)
Actaully, I'm much more inclined to forgive a curse let out accidentally on impulse than one given directly and intentionally. While it's definetely "rarely needed," an accidental curse is not given with the same intent. An intentional use of such a word is more calculated to be offensive, and it is the intent behind the use that perverts an otherwise legitimate word and turns it into a "swear word." That's probably why I tend to be more offended by such words in print (like this comic) then when dropped in conversation, because it had to be put there intentionally and with forethought and decision. It means someone is actively trying to cause offense.
However, my problem with this comic has nothing to do with the level of offense I may have taken at the use of the word, but rather with the violation of the rules of the website. I know Rich gave his justification/explanation for this, and I know there are all manner of arguments in favor of "artistic" use of foul language (which frankly, more often than not tend to be half-done excuses to be vulgar rather than true artistic expression), but the fact of the matter remains that the established rules were broken, and an exception was made. This sets the precedent that the rules here may be suspended without warning, and it means that this is no longer a safe site. I can no longer browse it on my break at work, I can't read it at home where family is present, because now I never know if the site is going to open up with something "unsafe" emblazoned across the page.
The thing is, this all could have been easily avoided. There could have been a warning included with the link. The final page could have consisted of a link to the new Erfworld site. But instead, it was put up like any other page, with no warning or disclaimer of the content.
The bottom line is, Rich has shown he is willing to bend or ignore the rules laid down on his site without warning, and that means I can no longer trust the content on this site. Truthfully, that loss of trust is the greater offense to me, and because of it, I won't be returning.
So I bid a regretful farewell to the Order of the Stick and the Giant in the Playground. It was fun while it lasted, and I'm sorry it had to end this way. Best of luck.
-Blackbird71
When Rob sent me the script for the last page for my approval to do it, I knew that there would be reactions like this, and that I would likely lose a few readers of OOTS over it. I decided then that it was worth it, for several reasons.
First, I never promised there would not be curses on this site. I said the comics would stick to a PG-13 rating, but a PG-13 movie can include a single use of the f-word anyway. If a single plot-critical usage of a swear word was likely to offend you, you should never have been reading comics that described themselves as PG-13 in the first place. The error is yours in assuming you understood what the rules were when you did not.
Second, I am not going to be writing the Order of the Stick for the rest of my life. There will come a time when I will move on to another story, and that time will be here in less time than I have been writing OOTS already. I may wish to next tell a story that is not as family-friendly as OOTS. So I would be losing the patronage of people such as yourself at that time anyway, and it's just as well to shake a few of them out earlier than later.
And third, while I understand that everyone is offended at a different point, I frankly think that some people need to toughen up a little bit. Suck it up. It's a word. Four little characters arranged in a certain order. It didn't kill your pet. If seeing those letters one time is enough for you to swear off my website forever, then so be it. I accept that loss.
Because, see, Rob's script for the last page is actually ABOUT the difference between a simple word and true obscenity. Murdering people is an obscenity; a word is just a series of lines. Yet everyone reads a comic (two comics, actually) on this site where people get slaughtered regularly without blinking. Good for Rob for actually addressing it. He's actually taking aim at people such as yourself, so it's no surprise you're offended.
Sometimes, people NEED to be offended by art, even if that art is just a comic strip. It's good for society.
Wow this offends me way more than the swear.
Why is an aversion to swearing laughable?
What offends you more? What part exactly?
BTW, swearing can be impolite, even uncivilised and unsophisticated. It's not laughable to be against rampant swearing, but an actual aversion to it and classifying it as a deadly sin is ludicrous. That's pretty much how Southpark lampoons it with the Knights of the Order of Standards and Practices and a real evil dragon/demon being summoned by the overuse of a "bad" word. I think if you read the wikipedia entry you'd find a lot of useful insight.
I love it when Rich comes along to give his view on an issue. He can always do it so much better than I can.
And he's absolutely right. Swearing can have artistic merit given the context and motivation. It's used here to assert Parson's self control, while taking a shot at what some may call a moral dissonance in western attitudes. Shiela Broflawski, Kyles Ma from South Park, described it best:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiela Broflawski
Horriffic deplorable violence is okay, as long as nobody says any naughty words!
__________________ "They couldn't know that the points from the mainline to the siding were frozen, and the signal should have been set at 'DANGER', but snow had forced it down."
- The Flying Kipper
Pixar Fanboy of the Hinjo Fanclub
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallavast
Ya know? I think I'd about kill Rowling if she wasn't holding me hostage with that last book of hers...
I love it when Rich comes along to give his view on an issue. He can always do it so much better than I can.
And he's absolutely right. Swearing can have artistic merit given the context and motivation. It's used here to assert Parson's self control, while taking a shot at what some may call a moral dissonance in western attitudes. Shiela Broflawski, Kyles Ma from South Park, described it best:
Well, the man is a good writer. *need a thumbs up smiley*
BTW, swearing can be impolite, even uncivilised and unsophisticated. It's not laughable to be against rampant swearing, but an actual aversion to it and classifying it as a deadly sin is ludicrous. That's pretty much how Southpark lampoons it with the Knights of the Order of Standards and Practices and a real evil dragon/demon being summoned by the overuse of a "bad" word. I think if you read the wikipedia entry you'd find a lot of useful insight.
What offends me is that I somehow supported Southpark it was kinda suppose to be a joke but I am not very funny online. Also I think Rich put it petty well but let me say that as read though Erfworld I also sickened by the people melting and that is why I thought the ending was cool until the swear. I can also see how it is art but that does not mean I have to like it.
__________________
Actors we are people pretending to be people
Thanks to Kwarkpudding for the amazing Aran Avatar
Wow this offends me way more than the swear.
Why is an aversion to swearing laughable?
I think you may have misconstrued the original sentence.
Here's a sequence:
1 A mild aversion to swearing.
2 A moderate aversion to swearing.
3 A severe aversion to swearing.
4 ...
...
13 A laughable aversion to swearing.
In other words, an aversion to swearing isn't laughable /until/ it's taken to ridiculous extremes. People do draw the line about what's acceptable and what's not at different points, and indeed about what's ridiculous and what's not. But if you're many steps closer to an extreme end of the scale than a normal person, (whether you're at +13 or -13 (like the South Park episode already mentioned), you're going to find yourselves at odds with those who have less extreme views.
__________________
To speed up forum loading, you can turn off Signatures, Avatars and/or Images separately from one another. See 'Visible Post Elements' under 'Thread Display Options' under 'Edit Options' in the User CP (Control Panel). Only works once you're logged in, though.
The Giant is well thought and most eloquent. I don't like excesive cursing and have to deal with people that drop an F bomb every three words. And sometimes these people are swearing at me directly over something highly trivial in an attempt to get their own way. But there are times when a swear word is the best, maybe only way to get something across. And this is one of those times in my opinion.
What offends me is that I somehow supported Southpark it was kinda suppose to be a joke but I am not very funny online. Also I think Rich put it petty well but let me say that as read though Erfworld I also sickened by the people melting and that is why I thought the ending was cool until the swear. I can also see how it is art but that does not mean I have to like it.
I must profess, I actually find your aversion to swearing to such an extreme as to be so disraught to be offensive. The stigma attatched to this handful of words in the english language is childish and quite frankly, disrespectful in light of the facts of reality. To be so bold as to compare "people melting" to the simple use of a "curse word" is a gross overreaction. Indeed, your very actions in response to do little more then villify a simple syllable that carries no weight other then that which we grant it. There is no loss, no damage, no pain nor woe brought from the utterance of the word, nor should their be. Quite simply sir, the only reason that you are offended by the word is because you choose to be, as should you accept it for a simple syllable, it becomes no more then that.
Aww, but digging links of figurative bird flipping ruins my pun on the literal meaning of flipping a bird, that may happen to carry a phylactery, into something such as an all-devouring rift.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight Roamer
I think he did the only morally acceptable thing by killing everyone.
Sheriff of Moddingham: This thread took a major wrong turn into real world religion and politics, topics that are not permitted on this forum. It also good needlessly hostile and flame-ridden. About fifty posts have been removed from the end of this thread for review.
As you continue this topic, please abide by the Forum Rules.
__________________
Fedoruman Roland Avatar by Chris the Pontifex
Band of local heroes seeks Magic User. Join our long-running Rules Cyclopedia/BECMI game Old Ways.
I'll admit we got a bit off track, and offer my apology for my part in any hijacking.
To keep on track, I would like to bring back a question from one of my posts, which in and of itself is very much on topic. This question was intended directly for Rich:
You can justify including this page on your site any way you like, it's your site so frankly I don't care. What I would like to know is how you ever justify denying your readers the simple courtesy of an NSFW content warning? You say that you were trying to "shake out" some of your readers, but unless you were trying to do that by getting them fired, then I think you owe some of us an apology.
I'll admit we got a bit off track, and offer my apology for my part in any hijacking.
To keep on track, I would like to bring back a question from one of my posts, which in and of itself is very much on topic. This question was intended directly for Rich:
You can justify including this page on your site any way you like, it's your site so frankly I don't care. What I would like to know is how you ever justify denying your readers the simple courtesy of an NSFW content warning? You say that you were trying to "shake out" some of your readers, but unless you were trying to do that by getting them fired, then I think you owe some of us an apology.
The problem with your firing scenario is that it requires an employer absurdly strict enough to fire you for once coming across NSFW material unexpectedly, yet lax enough that reading of webcomics at work, won't merit a similar offence. There is always some risk in life.
Unfortunately any NSFW (swearing) label would have ruined the comic pacing as everyone would know what would happen ahead of time. Plus various synonyms for faeces have been used with no, or little comment.
__________________
Exalted avatar remix by Musashi
Original Avatar by Strawberries
Character is Kin from Goblins
For the life of me, I can't figure out when it became a creator's duty to protect you from the consequences of slacking off at your job.
__________________
Congratulations, you can link to TV Tropes. This does not mean you have special insight into the storytelling process, much less the author's mind. Stories don't need to fit into neat boxes, you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Giant
Spod has it right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grasilich
You not reading the comic isn't going to make this comic any less awesome for all the rest of us.
What I would like to know is how you ever justify denying your readers the simple courtesy of an NSFW content warning?
Because if there was a warning ahead of time, then the shock and the surprise would have been lessened. You (and every other reader) would have known something was coming. And that would lessen the OMG moment.
And, quite frankly, if this comic didn't get prior warning, I fail to see why the last one would.
BTW, the have been instances of "damn" "bitch" and various other swear words sprinked throught the run of OotS. There have been depictions of violence in both comics that are far worse than anything that a little four letter word can ever be. There have been numerous references (some subtle, some not) to sexual inneundo.
As Rich said, these strips are PG-13.
In a way, this is pretty darn similar to a scene from Kuffs, although there it was played for laughs.
They had one cop constantly being beeped during a swear fest. Each beep sound effect was more ludicrious than the last. Finally, after about sixty seconds of this, Christian Slater turned to the cop and said, "You may have a limited vocabulary, Ted."
The cop then paused, turned to Slater and said an unbleeped f-bomb.
The whole audience went nuts. It is, quite possibly, the funniest moment in the film. And, yes, the film was PG-13.
It's the very fact that it wasn't (and wasn't that one time only [at least for the f-word]) censored that made it so powerful. And the same principle applies here.
But you know what? Art, at least at times, is supposed to be powerful. It's supposed to make one think. And, yes, sometimes that means offending people. I, quite frankly, can think of no way that scene could have been as powerful or thought-provoking as it was there.
And the drawing of an analogy between all of the death and destruction and the realtively minor matter of cursing was a master stroke.
As far as I am concerned, Rich owes no one an apology, simply because he is adhering to the guidelines he had already set for his website.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: Erfworld 162
)
Re: Erfworld 162
Pixar Fanboy of the Hinjo Fanclub 
