Subject: I strongly disagree.
Author:
Posted on: 2011-11-11 02:22:00 UTC
In my opinion, trying to define humor, and what humor we can use, is an extremely dangerous--and likely to fail--proposition. I'm not advocating we go full-on No Standards No Practices, but trying to write down a set of rules on what jokes we ARE allowed to make rather than what we AREN'T is almost certain to end in disaster.
Or, at least, in extremely repetitive and stale humor.
We're moving this discussion here, from the PPC wiki's main talk page; we decided it'd make more sense to have this on the Board, where it will be easier to to follow and be more immediately accessible, and easier to clarify things.
Please join in the discussion once you've had a chance to read through, because it's important for the whole community, and not just in terms of improving the wiki.
I realize a lot of the Sue/Stu pages are stubs, and if those don't get expanded on by the writers who made those pages, then I guess I wouldn't have a problem with deleting them.
What I would have a problem with is deleting a Sue page that does contain detailed and entertaining information, but does not fit the community's definition of "notability or prominence."
Most especially of all, I would hate to have our users feel like they aren't allowed to write interesting, detailed Sue pages in the future only because that Sue is not seen as notable or prominent by our community. I am not at all comfortable with creating and enforcing some rule about what missions contain a villain that meets some acceptable definition of "important."
I feel like I'm not explaining myself well. What I'm trying to get across is that it wouldn't be fair to tell PPCers that some of their mission targets don't meet the proper badness level to warrant a page. If someone wants to make a page for each of their Sues/wraiths/whatever, and they can create an interesting and fun-to-read article as a result, I say more power to them. I hope I'm making sense.
This is basically my view and you summed it up better than I did. >_>;
My general rule: If you make a page, make it a good page. I would PREFER to see those stubs expanded, but I would not be so so sad if they went away. But I would be sad if things that were fun to read and interesting went away because of a 'if some of them are bad, all of them need to go'-type decision.
I know that probably won't happen but once again: Where to draw the line of importance, if all of these pages DO have to do with the PPC, HAVE appeared in published missions, etc.
If we could put problematic articles into that category, then anybody who had some time could go over them and give them a bit of polishing.
You could have a space in the tag for the reason it needed revision; and then whoever went over it properly could remove the tag when the article got straightened out.
It would also let people who just incidentally noticed problems with an article tag it for other people to fix, if they didn't have time to do it themselves.
I think I can make that happen pretty easily, actually. I'll get back to you.
~Neshomeh
Incidentally, I know how to work the wiki pretty well, so if anybody wants to recruit me to help out, feel free. I can't be on the chat much nowadays, but e-mail me at lisa450 at yahoo dot com. Things should calm down during winter break, after Thanksgiving. I don't have school then and should have time to do some editing.
The template is Needs Work.
Articles with this template on them will be listed in the category Articles That Need Work.
If anyone thinks this is a bad idea or could be done better, now's the time to speak up!
~Neshomeh
I sincerely doubt that I'll have anything new to add to this conversation, but I guess I should still pitch in a little something. I'll try to do this point by point.
REGARDING THE TONE OF THE WIKI
As Chatvert said, ‘The issue with the tone of the wiki might be due to the common misperception that snark/humor is equivalent to flat-out being mean.” The wiki has a lot of snark. I think that the nastiest of it – you know, any bits where we come off as just being cruel – could be cleaned up in the interest of being diplomatic.
Of course, you have to remember that the missions have a lot of snark too. Look at the Original Series again; it has quite a few harshly humorous moments. We are a very sarcastic bunch of folks.
I don’t think there’s any way we’re going to avoid coming off as being elitist writing snobs to someone somewhere. This is the internet we’re talking about. Haters gonna hate, and trying to please them is just going to end up being a waste of everyone’s time. All you can do is shrug your shoulders and say “I’m sorry you feel that way.”
REGARDING BADFIC AUTHOR PAGES
Eh… we probably don’t need these. I’d delete ‘em.
REGARDING SLAIN SUES AND STUS
I would keep some of the slain Sue/Stu pages, but only the truly notable ones. The PPC’s most prominent rogues, if you will. Sues and Stus that really stood out for one reason or another. Of course, once you get away from famous ones like Celebrian or Enoby, the problem of what defines a Sue/Stu as being ‘notable’ arises.
Personal example: I have made one Slain Stu page myself, which was for the Sandwich!Stu. I felt that he fit the definition of ‘notable,’ what with being an animate human-sized blue plate special. The others my agents have encountered were fairly typical in their construction, so I didn’t feel they merited pages.
Some other examples of being ‘notable’ (from this Boarder’s POV): being unintentionally hilarious above and beyond the norm, threatening the stability/existence of an entire continuum, or killing an agent during the mission.
REGARDING REDLINKS, STUBS, AND UNEEDED PAGES
I think the wiki has a few pages that can be excised outright (do we really need a page on Cornelius Fudge?). Redlinks should be de-linked and pages with redundant information should be merged. Not really that much else to add. We don't need to cover everything; just the stuff that is directly connected to the PPC.
REGARDING THIS DISCUSSION
Seriously, guys and gals. It’s a just a wiki. Take a deep breath and relax.
I agree with pretty much everything here.
I write Sue/Stu pages for my slain Sues and Stus because I purposely LOOK for the most ridiculous fic to tackle. Sue that defeats Ganondorf with Pig Latin? Sue that just casually kicks over a cage that the Hero of Time couldn't break out of? Stu that is a wolf Assassin's Creed assassin that knocks out bus-sized dragons from Spyro? Sue that goes so far as seducing an Archdemon from Dragon Age? This is sort of why getting rid of the slain Sue/Stu pages bugs me: I wouldn't delete Sandwich!Stu because it's notable to me. But where to draw the line?
In the subject of stubs, you're right. There are stubs that can probably be deleted... but there are also stubs that can be expanded.
I PEER INQUISITIVELY OUT INTO THE CROWD, LOOKING FOR PEOPLE WHO LIKE TALKING ABOUT BADFIC TRENDS IN THEIR FANDOM AND WOULD DO IT ON THE WIKI.
INQUISITIVELY...
PEERING...
We can collectively come up with a set of criteria for which pages are notable enough to stay. Things like "Is this Sue the best example of a concept? (the Sandwich-Stu is probably the best example of what can go wrong with bad description)" or "Did the Sue have a significant lasting effect on an agent? (Alanna can be said to have created the emotional train wreck that is Agent Derik)" would be good places to start.
Once we have the criteria, we can form a committee of three or four boarders that can go through the Sue pages and see which ones the criteria apply to and which ones they don't apply to. They can mark the ones that don't fit as Candidates For Deletion, and post a list on the Board so their authors, if they want to archive their Sues elsewhere, have a chance to move them.
I would recommend that Boarders who created the pages not be on the committee or, if they are, that they not be allowed to vote on their own pages. Conflict of interest and all that.
Since a lot of people are referencing this FAQ, there are a couple of things I have to say and suggest.
As I understand it, some wiki contributors are making covert insults at the Suethors via the wiki, and this FAQ may be in danger of contributing to the problem. I will freely admit that in the PPC FAQ, there is a satirical and condescending tone in some of the answers to the questions and complaints. However, I don't think that this is necessarily uncalled-for.
The FAQ: For Other People is somewhat different from other articles in that it is reactive, not proactive. It's not going out of its way to offend badfic writers. Instead, it is a response to badficcers asking the same questions and/or making these same complaints repeatedly. Thus, it operates on the assumption that the people reading the FAQ are the ones posing the questions/complaints, which are themselves much harsher than any of the answers it gives.
This being the case, perhaps a disclaimer would be in order, to the effect of:
CAUTION: This FAQ assumes that you are a fanwriter who has launched one of the following questions and/or complaints. If you read through the questions and none of them apply to you, you may be looking for a different FAQ. [Insert links here]
To further warn people, we could also rename it to "Frequently Addressed Complaints."
If you have further suggestions, I would be happy to hear them. In order for them not to be lost among the other sub-discussions on this topic, I suggest that suggestions for improving the FAQ: For other people should take place on the FAQ's "talk" page here.
Cheers,
Araeph
I think renaming it "Frequently Addressed Complaints" makes sense. That's definitely more accurate.
I've put up some thoughts on the Talk page to get started. Come on, guys, don't leave this all to me. I'm talking way too much in this thread already.
~Neshomeh
I replied on that page and also would be interested in reworking some of the text to comply with modern, less-defensive PPC standards.
Overall the page comes across as a bunch of things that have been lifted out of a forum-defense out of context. I think that a lot of the points are valid and good, but also require some refocusing as well as some exploration of what the PPC on whole is: not a society of 'writers who know better than other writers' but a group of critics who refuse to suspend their disbelief when something ridiculous, unintentionally horrifying, or canon-breaking happens in a fic.
Besides, Nesh needs to be leant a hand. Her reworking of the Mary Sue page is going great so far, and making her do all the work is no good. >n>;
Another vote for not getting rid of the "Slain Sues and Stus" pages. I like them - they're fun, and I know I've discovered a bunch of interesting missions from browsing these pages, and it can be good reference. On the other hand, I agree that not every Sue/Stu needs their own page - only especially egregious, unique, or interesting ones - but I don't think we should get rid of them completely.
As for badfic authors, I didn't even realize we had pages for them, other than - again - particularly egregious, unique, or interesting ones. Cassandra Claire and Squirrelking, for example, are useful and, I think, important pages. These are people that are big enough names with an important enough history that they really are part of fandom at large, and thus significant to us. Other pages, though, like "Sparacus" and "The ender of lives," don't contribute much of anything to the wiki. Those no one would miss. But adding more "badfic authors" pages, if done at all, should only be done with extreme discretion, and only if it would actually contribute usefully to the general store of knowledge.
I could see an exception in her case, since she's known for writing goodfic as well as bad. "The Very Secret Diaries" were pretty popular back in the day (I don't know how well known they are now).
At the same time, just glancing at her page, I think it's one where the tone definitely needs to be improved if we keep it. Any takers who know more about her than I do?
~Neshomeh
Not gonna jump in on the wiki, because there are walls o' text like whoa, but I'd like to say that I agree with getting rid of the Slain Sues page. Honestly, they sort of come off as gloating, and it's always annoying when I click what I think is going to be an actual PPC character, only to get a Sue.
Also, I can smell drama brewing from here (and see some of it forming already), and I'm going to go on record now as saying that if any of it leaks into my channel I will start kicking and won't stop until either the drama is gone or everyone but me is. PPC2 was created to be a no-drama-zone, and while that's not always been successful, I'd appreciate it if it stayed as drama-free as possible.
This happens because a lot of them were poorly listed, slapdash, their titles don't have a standard format, they were not written to the same standard as missions, etc. etc.
The fact that you find them annoying seems to be an artifact of their poor maintenance, not because they are somehow inferior or worthless content to cover. Neshomeh is already making steps to correct this lapse of quality, and I'm going to immediately join in on it all.
Truth be told, somebody often needs to be annoyed by things for them to fall under scrutiny, and therefore, be brought up to quality.
Methinks you're maybe missing my point. I find them annoying because (in my opinion at least) there is absolutely no point to them, and with the little Gaia avatars and a lack of any indication in the article's name that it's a sue, it's very easy to mistake one that I don't recognize the name of for a new agent or whatever.
To expand upon why I think they're pointless, if I want to know about a sue, I'll go read the mission they're in, which will be far more entertaining than any article on the sue could ever be, because missions have actual character interaction. Having a page for a sue just strikes me as bragging along the lines of "Hey look how terrible this character that I killed was!"
I had a brain fart while reading Dann's post, but I've had a good night's sleep and I'm wide awake now, and I don't get it. Where is this hypothetical future drama coming from?
~Neshomeh, seriously confused.
Well, for one thing, I don't think I've ever seen a serious discussion in this community that didn't cause a little bit of friction, if not full-blown drama, and I've already seen the friction happening, which usually means drama's not far behind.
For another thing, there's already multiple people avoiding the main IRC channel (or in one case, the entirety of the Blizted server) just to avoid certain people. I have no idea if this is related to the wiki or not, but the timing of it makes me think at least part of it is. Add to that that I've already seen people complaining about either other people or just feeling down because of what's going on with the wiki, and I'll eat my hat if something doesn't blow up soon.
Friction doesn't lead to an explosion unless someone throws gunpowder on it, I think.
Would I be out of line if I requested that IRC drama stay out of my PPC Posting Board? We're being civil here, so let's all keep it that way, okay? Please?
~Neshomeh
I believe that merging pages to get rid of unnecessary stubs is a good idea. As Nesh said, narrowing the content does improve the quality of the wiki. It is like distillation. You get rid of the stuff you don't need and that leaves you with the stuff you do need. As a lover of fine spirits, I can tell you that it does make for a better product in the end.
I am all for eliminating red links. If you can't be bothered to write a missing article, then don't make a link to it. If you just need a break of a day or two before making a new article then, by all means, link away. Just make sure you do come back and write that article or remove the link. Either way.
The offending bit of the Fandom article has been fixed. I am willing to help fix other problems of that nature (after November) if someone will point them out to me.
I will agree that the Badfic Authors page needs to go. 'Nough said.
My stance on the Slain Sues and Stus page is a bit more complicated. I think that we need to get rid of a fair number of the Sue and Stu pages that are on there, because they are pretty much all the same thing. What I would keep are Sues and Stus that are unique, memorable, or had a major impact. Celebrian would stay (because of her legendary status), as would Alumia (because she required the PPC to exorcise an entire planet) and some others.
I do not think that getting rid of these Sue and Stu pages is denying our history, as some of you have said. The missions are still on the Complete List of PPC Fiction. If you want to know about a Sue, I would suggest reading a mission. Missions have all of the information of the article, plus witty banter and a story. Besides, we have lots missions in other things, as well. You are missing out on a world of wacky hijinks if you only look on the Slain Sues and Stus page. The CLoPPCF should be the go to spot for that sort of thing, in my opinion.
As I was writing this, it was brought to my attention that some of the Sue and Stu pages don't even have any links in them at all (looking through just the A's, B's, and C's, I get more than 1 in 5 being linkless). So there is no chance of using those pages to find a mission. You would need to go to the CLoPPCF (or somewhere else) anyway.
... and not much time to have it.
The suggestion to remove all or some of the Slain Mary Sue pages bothers me. I think after the PPC canon (agents and such) these are the most important items on the wiki. You can not find this information elsewhere. Sure, you can read a mission. But that's a silly argument. You can also read a mission if you want to know more about a particular agent. The whole point of a (short) wiki article is that you don't have to read a (long) mission.
Slain Mary Sue pages are part of the purpose of the PPC wiki. Taking them away is one step towards making the wiki irrelevant.
Another argument that was given to remove Slain Mary Sue pages is that "these are not our characters". Well, neither are canon characters. There are pages on canon characters on the wiki. If the "these are not our characters" logic was followed consistently, these pages would need to be deleted too.
I have no stance on the Badfic Author pages. It depends on how they are done. I do have a stance, however, on using the names of the authors on the Killed Badfic list. It's called "giving proper credit". They wrote the thing and I am attributing it to them. I've already elaborated on this point on the talk page of Killed Badfic a few years ago.
Before I go back to work, I'd like to say that if the decision falls towards removing the Slain Mary Sue pages (though it doesn't like that at the moment), I'd like to get some advance warning so I can copy the ones regarding Sues I've slain and take them elsewhere.
A lot of the Sue pages without links are yours. Would you mind correcting that when you have time?
Also, I'm not sure I understood you right. Do you mean to say that even if the Boarders voted not to include author names on the wiki, for reasons I've outlined or others, you would still add them anyway?
~Neshomeh
To my knowledge, it was never put to a vote whether to add author names on the Killed badfic list or not. There was discussion on it on the talk page of Killed Badfic.
If the discussion came up on the board, I would put in my opinion. If the vote then fell towards "no adding names" I would reconsider whether I actually still want to add to the list of Killed Badfic. I don't think I would edit the wiki in ways that go against majority vote. But that doesn't mean I would want to edit the wiki in ways that I think are wrong.
If it helps to sway the argument towards keeping Slain Sue pages, I will start adding links to fic.
I brought it up again on the wiki with the aim of some decision coming out of it. Since that doesn't seem to be catching on there or here, maybe I'll figure out how to make a poll on Google or something if that's what it's going to take to get more new opinions.
Adding links may or may not help the Sue articles debate. Have you seen Data's and Cassie's opinions on the subject? But, my primary concern in the matter is that whatever we decide, the pages we have end up doing what they're supposed to do with some consistency. As far as I'm concerned, the wiki should be a gateway to external content as well as having informative and entertaining content of its own. That was July's original aim when she made it, as I recall. (July, correct me if I'm wrong!)
~Neshomeh
Now I am a little confused. Are we talking about getting rid of the pages titled and dedicated to a certain author that details that author's misdeeds, or are we talking about not listing the author's name on the Claimed/Killed pages in association with the fic that was sporked?
I agree with getting rid of the first (except maybe someone like Squirrelking, who was a troll anyway), but not the second.
It's two separate but related discussions, one about articles about authors, the other about listing the name of the authors on the Unclaimed/Claimed/Killed Badfic pages. See Killed Badfic's Talk page for both sides of the debate about the latter.
Personally, I'm generally for getting rid of author pages and totally for getting rid of names on badfics, mostly because of the movement to focus on the writing, not the author. My part is laid out in full here.
~Neshomeh
We were originally talking about individual Author pages, as well as the Badfic Authors category. IndeMaat then brought up an older discussion about Author names being used on the Killed Badfic list, which I don't believe ever got resolved.
We are now talking about both issues.
Sorry for the confusion.
I think there is a difference between a Sue page and an Agent page. Each Sue only shows up in one mission (with a few exceptions), most Agents show up in multiple missions (though reading their missions is a far better way of getting to know an Agent than reading their wiki page, that could be a very long process for some Agents).
Missions are the purpose of the PPC. If you stop reading them in favor of the shorter Wiki article, that is one major step toward making US irrelevant.
If someone wants information on a particular Sue, chances are very good that it is one that they killed (and know exactly which mission it is in) or it is a legendary Sue.
(On a side note about debate: Saying "you can not find this information elsewhere" and following that up by telling us exactly where else you can find that information does not help your argument.)
Of course there is a difference between an Agent page and a Sue page. But if there reason to delete a Sue page is Because there is enough information on her elsewhere, then why not apply the same logic to Agent pages? Some of the missions Sues appear in are very long. A wiki article is a short summary of the thing. I happen to like summaries. Not as a substitute, but as a tool to help me find out if I want to know more.
If someone wants information on a particular Sue, chances are very good that it is one that they killed
Why would someone want to know more about a Sue they killed themselves? They already know all there is to know about that Sue. Those Sue pages are written for other people, who have not had time yet to read the mission, but you don't seem to see it that way. I guess you yourself don't read Sue pages and can't imagine why others would want to read them. I'm also guessing that you are one of those people that think that if you don't find it useful no one else finds it useful either.
Thanks for the debate advice. Here's one from me: your opinion is not fact. It also helps debate if you acknowledge that you are not the measure of all things.
I am, personally, very bad with remembering things like names. Just a few days ago, I was saying "Pretty in Pink" meaning "Agony in Pink". I generally only reference things that I have read. I have read all of TOS, for example. I remember the one where Jay and Acacia pose as handmaidens and give the Sue a bouquet of poison ivy or something similar. I can't remember the name of that mission. With mission summary pages or Sue/Stu pages (and I do think it would be cool to find a label for pages on other kinds of mission villains) I can quickly look that info up by searching through nice short summaries.
This is the situation where I would much prefer to read a short wiki page than a long mission (or 26). And I think this is a perfectly valid reason to be reading short summaries.
I wouldn't really like for people to be reading summaries to just avoid reading the missions, but they are very handy for reference.
The idea that people would stop reading missions to hear about Sues and just read the wiki instead... I'm not going to lie, that seems really weird to me. Aren't we all HERE to read the missions? Personally, I think I can trust this very awesome community to keep doing what it's been doing since TOS came out.
Also, assuming that people will only want to read about legendary Sues is also a bit strange, considering we've already got tons of confessions that people want to read these pages because they're interesting to them, help them find more material, and help them think more about understanding Sues.
Personally, I write the pages for the Sues I cover because chances are when I write a mission, I will not be able to get all my thoughts on the Sue in question down. Whether the fic is too long, or I have to sacrifice some depth for pacing, or for whatever reason, I can always explain enough to charge and kill the Sue but perhaps not as much as I would like. Being able to go back and analyze the Sue, link all of the badfic concepts the Sue invokes to other pages (and therefore to other Sues!) is a unique function of the wiki, and one that I think should not be overlooked.
To continue the 'this is our library' metaphor, the slain Sue pages are supplemental material. Thumbing through a library card catalog by topic or author, one may find the original material (the missions), encyclopedia entries and critical essays on it (the Slain Sue pages and the Agent pages), Author biographies (the user pages), recent periodicals (the front page) and more. And not only that, by searching any ONE of these things, one should be able to find the rest of the related material.
If I went into a library, looked up a subject I liked but found only one entry on it, I would take it to the front desk and ask where I could find more. If the librarian said 'well, we DID have supplemental material, but we didn't think you'd want to read it' or 'we did have some, but we didn't think it was worth reading,' I would probably eat my hat.
I would like to clarify my position on the Mary Sue article issue. What I am hearing from a number of people is "Missions are too long. This is easier." One problem I have with this is that it is like reading the Cliff's Notes for a book. Yes, you know what happened, but reading the book is still going to be a far better source to get the information from.
The other problem I have with this is that we don't have pages for every other kind of mission. You don't find pages for specific exorcisms, disentanglings, or anything else. Just Sues and Stus. I understand why that is (characters vs ideas), but again, if you only look at this list, you are missing a large portion of what we do. And we have enough problem with that as it is. You will recall that we had at least one person leave the community because everything else was being completely overshadowed by Sue missions (I didn't agree with them leaving, but it happened). We have gotten slightly better about that, but I still see a mentality of "I have to find bigger, badder Sues/Stus to spork" rather than "I have to find terrible fic to spork." (This is especially relevant if your Agents are in Floaters, but that is a separate rant.)
Also, I am not assuming anyone wants to read about legendary Sues. I am assuming that the Sues that are likely to get referenced are from Legendary Badfics, are unique in some way, or made an impact on the community as a whole.
While you, personally, may write an article to give further thoughts on the Sues, everyone else seems to just be copy/pasting information straight out of their mission. They aren't adding new information to it at all, and I don't believe they can ever be made to do so.
I think you may have stretched the library metaphor too far here, but let I will try to make this explanation fit in to it. People aren't thumbing through the card catalog (I don't think we have an equivalent of that, come to think of it). They are browsing through a stack of loose leaf paper, in the corner of the library, onto which someone has photocopied excerpts from books. It isn't helping them find anything, because a lot of those pages don't even say what book they were copied from.
If you ask a librarian for more information on a subject they are likely going to direct you to the book (mission), rather than photocopied excerpts with no sources. I would be appalled if they gave me that as supplemental material.
There are better places to find the information.
Like this.
Or this.
... where are you hearing from people that 'missions are too long?' I haven't heard any such thing here. I think what's been said that reading about the Sues/Stus is fun and an interesting directory to what's been done before, and a fun way to find missions.
And if you can't find other missions that way... well, you can change that! The biggest barrier I think to people editing the wiki is fear... but why? Really, if you think there should be pages on individual Sue-wraiths or other stuff... add them! That's just adding MORE interesting PPC things to read. I don't really see how getting rid of content is the answer here. If you think the content is uneven... add more content. There's nothing stopping anyone.
Unless the point is that you assume people will be too lazy to write such content. But it can't be both ways: do we WANT more content and thus more links, or do we just want to ax all of the extra content because we don't want to add more? There's no competition in my mind.
It's not right in my mind to get rid of content because of a lack of trust that people will add more. The whole wiki is a work in progress and relies on the trust that people will add to it. If you can't trust the community to drive a community-driven effort...it defeats the whole purpose of having a wiki at all.
And once again, there is always ongoing maintenance on the wiki. That stack of loose leaf paper? We're making it into card catalogs and directories all the time. Like, I understand what you're saying... but I still am not convinced that the Sue and Stu pages are worth eliminating.
I've heard it from a number of people. Not in those exact words, but the sentiment is fairly clear to me. "The whole point of a (short) wiki article is that you don't have to read a (long) mission." That was in IndeMaat's post. That is as close as I have seen to anyone saying it outright. I can't think of any more off the top of my head.
The biggest barrier to people editing the wiki is them having no desire to edit the wiki. How many times have you and Nesh asked for help editing? How many guides have been made to make it easier to edit? None of it is getting more people editing the wiki because they don't want to edit it.
That is not me having a lack of trust. That is me learning from history.
I am not in favor of adding articles for every exorcism, disentanglement, and whatever else. Because, like most of the Mary Sue pages, they are just going to cover the same things over and over again. How many times do we need to read "She was X Subtype. She had Y hair. She was killed in Z way" or "Characters X and Y were possessed. The agents exorcised them"? Adding more useless pages is not the answer to having too many useless pages.
The answer for this is to examine and analyze Sue Subtypes, rather than each individual, cookie-cutter Sue (because, honestly, most Sues in each subtype are the same person with a new paint job).
In the end, I don't think the problems on the wiki can be fixed by throwing more words at them. I think that in order to make our wiki-tree grow in better directions, we need to prune it a little. Quality over quantity. That is the on-going maintenance we should be doing.
True, I said: "The whole point of a (short) wiki article is that you don't have to read a (long) mission."
But that was in response to you claiming that people should read missions instead of wiki articles. And though I would love that everyone would read all the mission I ever wrote, I am not going to assume they will. I'm also not assuming that people will forgo reading missions because there is a short wiki article in stead. People read missions because they love the missions. Wiki articles are not a substitute.
For some reason you think that a wiki article could be a substitute for reading a mission. Further more, you think this is wrong, and would like to make it impossible for people to read a short summary on a Sue. You pretty much seem to demand (without actually saying "I demand") that people read PPC missions. That can't be in the spirit of this community. Or at least, it shouldn't be.
I'm also guessing that you are one of those people that think that if you don't find it useful no one else finds it useful either.
I have an issue with the argumentum ad hominem tactic you're using here. What purpose does this serve to make the case that Sue pages are useful?
Your opinion is not fact. It also helps debate if you acknowledge that you are not the measure of all things.
Where did Phobos present his opinion as fact? As I read his posts, I see a lot of "I believe," "I think," "in my opinion," "if," etc. If you're referring to particular individual statements where he said "this is so" without evidence, what are they, and is it possible he did not mean them in that light, given the general tone of his other statements?
For some reason you think that a wiki article could be a substitute for reading a mission. Further more, you think this is wrong, and would like to make it impossible for people to read a short summary on a Sue. You pretty much seem to demand (without actually saying "I demand") that people read PPC missions. That can't be in the spirit of this community. Or at least, it shouldn't be.
Now I'm just confused. Phobos is wrong to expect that PPCers are in the PPC to read PPC missions?
Also, I repeat, Phobos is not suggesting that we get rid of ALL Sue pages. (Data Junkie is, and Cassie seems to take that position, too, but that's beside the point.) We don't even have articles for ALL Sues as it is, and unless a lot of people decide making them is important and start working on it, we're never going to. I don't understand why the idea of not having a page for every Sue should be upsetting enough to warrant implying that Phobos is going against the spirit of the community by thinking so.
I haven't yet seen a case for why every single one of these pages is indispensable. Sometimes fun, yes; sometimes useful, yes; but every single one, an indispensable contribution to the wiki, worth defending to the extent of calling bad faith on someone who partially disagrees? How so?
In regards to both of the posts I'm quoting, all the "you" language is unnecessarily inflammatory, which is definitely not in the spirit of the Board Constitution. Please stop it.
~Neshomeh
The Slain Sues pages :
1) People have expressed interest in them
2) They have to do with the PPC, you can't get the information found on them anywhere else. Not even missions in some cases, as some PPC writers use them to explain more about the Sue/Stu that they couldn't add in their mission.
3) People have said they have found them useful.
We have been paring down useless pages. But considering they do the three things above... I don't see them as useless. Just because some of them aren't as good doesn't mean that others didn't have hard work put into them, and if you delete them all, I guess all that hard work goes down the drain. It's not 'quality over quantity.' That implies that all of them are terrible, are just bulk roughage, and having none at all would improve the quality. When that simply isn't true, considering how many people HAVE found worth in them. In fact, it might be little bit disappointing to people (at least to me, anyway) who DID put hard work in writing about slain Sues, to hear it all called worthless.
And the answer isn't 'throwing more content' at things. That implies that the people actually editing the wiki are going to pile on content with no care involved. As somebody who edits the wiki, hearing somebody suggest that I'd 'throw content at something' to fix a problem is slightly troubling to me.
I'm sorry. I see your points they make sense, but weighing the options in my mind, but I just still don't agree.
I question the basis of points 1 and 3. Yes, people say they have interest in these pages, and that they have found them useful. I want to know, which articles have they read and found useful. I believe it can't be the ones that are a few sentences long or the ones that have no links. Over a quarter of them have no links. Take out TOS and Legendary Sues (all Sues that would be safe from deletion) and the percent of the remaining articles that are linkless climbs to over 33%.
Some of the articles are informative and useful, I am not disputing that. There are a few people who put actual work into Sue pages. However, a number of pages are still just glorified stubs. I counted five sentences over three sections in one article and I wasn't even looking very hard for an article like that.
Also, I know that you add more information than can be found in your missions, but I don't think anyone else does. I am willing to be proven wrong, however, if you have an example.
As Neshomeh pointed out in her reply, I have never said that we should get rid of them all. I have always said that we should keep the ones that are from Legendary badfics, the ones that are unique, and the ones that had an impact on the community. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
I will, however, apologize for implying that the people who currently edit the wiki would throw content in carelessly. It was not my intention to imply any such thing. I believe you and the rest of the major editors are doing a good job.
What I meant by my statement is that your standard answer of "add more content" isn't how I believe we should fix this problem. Adding more pages, that will likely have the same issues as the ones we already have, is just going to compound the problem. We need a way to do this that isn't going to leave you and Nesh having to fix a few hundred pages, when deleting fifty would have solved the problem.
He isn't suggesting that we get rid of all Slain Sue pages. To quote his original post: "I think that we need to get rid of a fair number of the Sue and Stu pages that are on there, because they are pretty much all the same thing. What I would keep are Sues and Stus that are unique, memorable, or had a major impact." Emphasis mine.
I will add that I agree that many Mary Sues are barely distinguishable from each other as raw descriptions, so I don't mind if we don't have pages for all of them. I mean, we already don't have pages for most of the slain Sues out there; it doesn't bother me. I wouldn't even mind getting rid of most of mine, since I think only Archir and Spidey3000 are particularly unique or impactful, and I could always discuss the others on my own site if I feel like it. However, since I don't mind either way, I'm not voting for or against removing some. (I'm firmly against removing all of them.)
~Neshomeh
I've now gone through the Slain Mary Sues category and tagged all the ones without external links. Some of them I do know right where to find links for, and will add them at my earliest convenience (unless someone beats me to it), but I'd be much obliged if others would join in the effort of hunting down links for linkless pages. Especially if they're your pages, 'cause that will be really easy for you. {= D
~Neshomeh, who is going to bed now.
The only agent pages that were deleted were the ones that had absolutely no evidence to them as to ever appearing in a published PPC work-- and Nesh and I researched pretty thoroughly. I would say those Sue/Stu pages don't need to go, they just need links to prove they happened.
PREFERABLY all Sues/Stu pages should be written in an amusing, interesting way that links to their mission and explores their (awful) concepts for the entertainment of all. Though in the past, standards have been lax... My point is that they aren't 'all the same' and unimportant because they're Mary Sue pages, they're 'all the same' because a lot of them are short or a bit lazy. Or at least for the minor Sues.
I think this falls under the general rule of of, 'when you edit, don't be lazy: just go crazy!' :D
I wouldn't delete them myself, though beefing them up might be a task in of itself. Thoughts, anyone?
The only agent pages that were deleted were the ones that had absolutely no evidence to them as to ever appearing in a published PPC work...
Did you mean 'agent'? I can't find what you were replying to, so I thought I'd ask. However, regardless: some articles on the Wiki are original work. Some examples:
Catastrophe Theory
Cycle Theory
Sara Laison
All three of these articles are my own work, and part of my personal PPC canon; however, none of them have been referenced in any of my stories (I don't think). I'm positive there are other things on there which aren't from stories (Existence of the DIO, most of Multiverse Theory... again these are things I had a hand in, because that's what I know about). What makes something less important just because it's not from a mission?
Way back when the Wiki was new, a lot of things were created on there rather than being pulled in from outside. I'm disturbed by the implication that some of that is being removed because... well, I don't even know why.
hS
Speaking only for myself, I don't want to live in a world where anyone can put anything on the wiki can call it part of PPC canon. If an agent page was added before someone asked for Permission, for instance, I think we'd be quite justified in deleting it.
The theory articles I understand—there isn't really room for that sort of thing in a mission—but presumably those ideas came from somewhere, and it would be nice to know where. I'm not going to delete something like that, but I will slap No Links on it, because I'd love more information about it.
As for agent or other character pages, does Agent Cold, for instance, really need his own itty bitty stub article? Not that bit characters (I assume he's one from somebody's spin-off somewhere) shouldn't have a place on the wiki; and that is why I started the Glossary of PPC Characters, which is where a lot of one-line articles ended up getting redirected.
~Neshomeh
There's a false assumption in here - that things need to come from somewhere. Catastrophe/Cycle/Multiverse Theory are based on things I observed across the scope of the PPC - not things that can be specifically highlighted (and insofar as they can, they're mentioned on the pages).
Elsewise, I sometimes throw bits of information which are set in stone but not used on the Wiki. Sara is one of those - she's not in the PPC, but she's related to three characters and has information that affects those characters. Should I delete that information? Repeat it three times? Or write a story specifically to shoehorn her in?
(Please note that I'm not actually worried about my stuff -- I'm just using it as examples because I know where it is. It's other people who might be in the same situation I'm concerned about)
hS, who has finally got some of his mission links back on the Wiki
I think things do need to come from somewhere, and that those articles do, in fact. Catastrophe and Cycle in particular point to certain specific external points in their support, and I suspect Multiverse Theory does, too. For instance, the line "This may be identical with the fifth dimension named 'probability' by the Flowers" seems to me to be a reference to the Playscriptes. QED.
I will rescind my comment about slapping No Links on them; the internal links lead to pages where external links on the subjects can be found, so in their case that's good enough. I might ask for a source for statements like "Cycle Theory is an opinion held by some Agents of the PPC, particularly in the Infrastructure Departments," though. Does that refer to Agent Sambar, mentioned further down? He's just one guy, though; where is the evidence to suggest that other agents agree with him?
That sort of statement really, really needs to come from somewhere. Imagine if it was "Some agents hold the opinion that Mary Sues are really cool." If we're really only talking about one guy (who probably got arrested by the DIA for doping on glitter), it's really not cool to pretend it's more than that.
I'm not going to insist that something like Sara's page be deleted, but I don't think it would harm anything if it was. It isn't going to stop being part of your characters' history if it isn't on the wiki, and I don't think it's information that most people would miss. I could be wrong, of course.
ANYWAY, yay for stories! I'm glad if that's all sorted out now. {= D
~Neshomeh
between something that probably appears as a theme or concept in your work, and a lot of agent and concept pages that were written and then abandoned because the author did not then actually write their spin-off.
You have actual products. I think we can trust that the concepts you've put there have something to do with the PPC in general instead of just being 'might-have-beens' or dead-end stubs that are only tangentially related to the PPC (as Nesh cited earlier, such as a whole page for a canon because somebody has glasses that sort of look like a canon character's)
It would be OPTIMAL if those pages were linked to the works, or even just back to you, had citations, or were expanded and discussed, or even incorporated into new works. I actually was inspired by your idea about Cycle Theory and I'm going to write new bit of work with a new team that has a character who is sort of hurt by the concepts inspiring Cycle Theory.
But yeah, I think you're fine hS.
Pages for canons aren't 'only tangentially related', especially not when it's information that supplements and informs others.
Just because there are no missions, doesn't mean it shouldn't have a page on there.
Having other canons shown on the wiki, even when we don't have missions for them yet, helps us indicate different trends as far as fic goes, and what sorts are out there, not to mention people making references to it within the context of the PPC.
I say if they're already there, expand them and discuss them. But more certainly shouldn't be added unless they're really important to us.
Say, if a book becomes the next Twilight or Harry Potter, spawns its own badfic trends, and then becomes important to us, PLEASE! I personally would love the community to watch out for PPC-related concepts in real life and new works and add them to the wiki to build awareness and perhaps inspire more missions and other material we can all read and enjoy.
But for things with relatively little notability, such as an anime series that means as much to the PPC as any other series, isn't particularly influential or more-so than many others... I personally wouldn't add new pages on it until we have missions and reason to discuss it.
Trigun is a fun anime, by the way. :D
Firstly, yeah. Some of the wiki is starting to feel a bit snobby. This is Not Good.
On the matter of what the Wiki should contain: Bytes are cheap. I don't think that we should be removing every article that isn't directly related to the PPC just because it isn't directly related to the PPC. The PPC is part of fandom - other parts of fandom appearing on our Wiki is not Inherently Bad.
On the other hand, I am not going to go to the PPC Wiki to find in-depth analysis of the meta-religion in The Wind in the Willows. The hypothetical 'you' are welcome to write it, but it's not going to get much attention.
It can be a bit hard to find things on the Wiki - this I acknowledge fully. However, this is a problem that the big Wikipedia handles rather well. (I can get from, say, President Gerald R. Ford to Battlestar Galactica (the spaceship) in a half-dozen clicks.) Props are due at this point to Aster, who has been doing a lot of fairly thankless work towards cleaning things up, connecting them, etc.
There is precisely one type of article that I believe should not, under any circumstance, appear on the Wiki: Articles concerning PPC canon that has not yet been posted. Agents who have not yet made appearances, technology that has not yet been used, etc. This is writing the headlines before launching the product- the Wiki is here to make PPC Canon easier to find, not to be the authoritative source thereof.
As far as badfic-author pages go, I think we need to be very, very careful. Is it inherently wrong to have a page saying "so-and-so wrote fics X, Y, and Z"? I don't think so. But it's very, very easy to go from there into author-bashing, which is inherently wrong.
I haven't bothered to read the various pages mentioned as needing revision (yay for work), but guess what? It's a wiki! There's an edit button!
Concerning redlinks and/or stubs: If a page has been redlinked for multiple years, or a stub hasn't been touched in that long, it's pretty obvious that nobody cares about the material enough to write a page. I'd be inclined to be careful about deleting agent stubs, especially for old main-character Agents, but if a redlink has been redlinked for multiple years, I really have no problem with it getting removed.
tl;dr: It's a wiki. It's meant to be a work in progess. Some stuff should definitely be re-worked, other stuff should be allowed to slide into deletion. I really don't see why this needs to be a Serious Issue.
I mean, us being insulting on the wiki is kind of serious and we should quit it, but that doesn't make a Serious Issue. I think it's appropriate to draw attention to things that need work, since it is a work in progress. The more people working on it, the more progress can be made. {= ) Also, a decision like "let's not have articles about authors anymore" can't be made by just a few people in isolation—if that's even the conclusion we come to. It kind of has to be agreed to (or not) by the community.
To address the concern about deleting things, I don't think we have been removing just anything that isn't directly related to the PPC on principle. For instance, the last article I deleted was "Cloister bell," and that was only after copying its one line of content to the TARDIS page, where it is be more likely to be seen. Incidentally, by "we" I basically mean me and Aster here; I'm not aware of anyone else doing this sort of thing. You have to be an admin to delete things, anyway.
Also, I meant to respond to something July said in her last reply on the Talk page. Things that don't (or didn't) have missions in them or agents from them, like the Twilight series, are not necessarily unrelated to the PPC, and no one's contending that they are. Twilight was the subject of lots of discussion by PPCers, and that makes it relevant. Something like the Trigun article, on the other hand, which only exists because I once made a reference to Vash's sunglasses in another article and thought I should explain myself, doesn't really have any bearing on anyone else's PPC experience, and would not leave a hole in my heart if we got rid of it. I can always link somewhere else from Agent Cameo's page. So, that's the difference between relevant and not relevant, as I see it.
~Neshomeh
I trust people to use good judgement when it comes to trimming/removing articles on the Wiki. So far, it's worked pretty well.
(And I only said "Serious Issue" because it was in the title of the opening post.)
Because I'm a dork and it didn't occur to me until after I hit "Post" that you were referring to the title of the original post, and I feel silly.
All I mean is that I don't think anyone's going overboard with the seriousness right now; we're just discussing things, and that's okay.
~Neshomeh
...except another vote for keeping the Sue and Stu pages. As various people said, they're fun to read. And there are plenty of missions I would never have found if it weren't for those pages.
I'm also in favor of at least keeping the Cassandra Claire page in some form.
So it's come to the board. Okay, let's get started.
Honestly, I wasn't even aware that there was a badfic authors page until it was brought up on the Wiki.
Honestly, I think the Badfic Authors page itself, as well as the pages it links to, are all very poorly done as it is. I'd understand why you'd have a badfic author page and links to those kinds of pages if you had more infamous people like ComixNix or Peter Chimaera whose badfics are inseparable from the authors who wrote them, but the way it is now just doesn't work. I'd be game for voting it out completely on the principle that it (and all the pages on it) are all more or less very poorly done. The fact that it goes against the mission of the PPC is another motivation, and I'd even go so far as to say that the fact that we haven't got very many pages for badfic authors is also another reason why we're better off without it.
However, I don't think it's a good idea to get rid of the Slain Mary Sues page. At the least, I agree with the sentiment that the page should be renamed "Slain Sues and Stus" or something along those lines, but those pages in my opinion are some of my favorite pages on the whole wiki. It's fun reading about Sues we've slain in the past, and to take it away is possibly denying our past, as was mentioned by Lee. So I say we keep the Slain Sues pages on that.
As for the whole thing about the "Mary Sue" page itself... My suggestion is actually something I'm surprised nobody's thought of yet. I propose that we take out the page for "Gary Stu", and copy/paste that article's most relevant information onto the "Mary Sue" page. That I think reinforces the fact that a Gary Stu is really only a part of the concept that is the Mary Sue.
Well, those are my thoughts on the key issues here. Take it away, guys.
Basically, I'm redoing the whole thing from scratch. It's pretty disorganized as it is right now, so I'm aiming to streamline it as well as do some new things, like discuss the controversy over using the term at all (and why we choose to keep doing it). I also think the various Sue subtypes should have their own pages rather than be lumped in the main article, so each type can be discussed in depth.
I'm curious about which bits of the Gary Stu page you think are most relevant, though. It might help me out. This is a pretty tough project, trying to cover this topic in a way that is comprehensive, clear, and concise.
~Neshomeh
Though, I don't see any references to 'warping canon', though that could be another wording as 'isn't treated reasonably by the setting, people, etc.'
I personally would add the phrase because it's used so often in missions and in our chatting. "This sue is warping the canon,' etc. Just to make it clear that that's what warping canon means: making the world and its established treat something with special consideration that it otherwise would not.
I spotted that myself at one point and then forgot about it. I'll figure something out. Thanks!
~Neshomeh
See it here: http://ppc.wikia.com/wiki/Sandbox
This is only my first pass at it, as I say, and I could use some help finding good references for some of the concepts I mention. They don't have to exactly match what I say (a child of any childless character works just as well as a daughter of Jack Sparrow, if we can't find one of those), but generally in the ballpark would be good.
Also, of course, is there anything really important that I missed, or have I said anything wildly off-base, or have I screwed up in some other way? Let me know and tell me how I can fix it!
~Neshomeh
On the current Mary Sue page there's a quote by someone named GAFFer. I really liked it and I feel that it gets the opinion about Mary Sues across. Do you think it would be alright if that quote was in the new page?
Besides that I like what your draft looks like so far.
. . . Heh. I'm so old.
GAFF stands for God Awful Fan Fiction, which was a sporking community until it got full of trolls and went somewhere else, and then died. I think. I was never involved, myself, but there were plenty of PPCers who were also GAFFers back in the day, as I recall. We definitely heard about a fair number of badfics through them.
Now let me tell you about the time I had to walk to and from school, uphill both ways in the snow . . . .
But in all seriousness, people not knowing what a GAFFer is anymore is one of the reasons I didn't include the quote in the rewrite. (The big one is that it's really long, and a quotation that long just looks incredibly awkward.) I do like it, though, and I'm trying to come up with a way to keep it around somehow. Maybe a "Sue Testimonials" sub-article, or a section in the Talk page, or something like that? Any suggestions?
~Neshomeh
It looks good so far. If you need it, one of the Sues I killed was the daughter of Jack O'Neill and Samantha Carter, of Stargate fame. (Who had given her up for adoption, but had since married and had more children...) If you need the daughter of canon characters, she might do.
I remember that one. That'll definitely work.
If you spot anything else you can think of something to go with, sing out!
~Neshomeh
So if I, say, edit that in, do you want me to change Jack Sparrow to Jack O'Neill and link to the Stargate page?
But yeah, that's exactly what I did. {= ) I just don't want to open the page directly to other editors while it's still in the Sandbox.
I also added a reference to "Not Russians" in the bit about characters instantly liking the Sue when they should be suspicious. That guy is the most egregious example of that I can think of at the moment.
~Neshomeh
I have another example from my missions that fits. My third mission, "A Beautiful Man," was about a Sue who's only goal seems to have been to hook up with Dr. Horrible. (Would fit with 'falls in love with a canon character.)
Of course, I'm sure there are other people who've done missions with that. So if any of you are reading this, give examples! I already have two on the Sue page, and I'm sure other people have some example of this kind of Sue they'd love to have linked.
That Stu... I will never forget his complete ignorance of radio waves or hacking...
If I find any more examples of stuff in the article I'll link 'em here.
It's hard to find a character any less likely to have children.
I am slowly working on a mission that will result in Kelok and Unger adopting a four year old clone of Sherlock Holmes.
I have been wanting to touch the page for a long time, but as it contained our Mary Sue definition that our FAQs and our missions are based on, I did not, because I thought that it was best to wait until it came under community discussion (in other words, NOW). It's the definition we ALL have to follow, after all.
I also agree various Sue subtypes should have their own pages. There are many trends that each subtype has that are unique and deserve mention. On a lump page, they can't get that.
I think the Gary Stu page should be kept; Gary Stus often have different trends and goals than their female counterparts. But they should get the same treatment as the Sue page, with their subtypes linked off and explored. Aslan knows we have found enough Stus to find some repeatable patterns and subtypes in all of them.
In speaking of the 'lump' page... what was the origin of the page? I wasn't here when it was made, but it read like a bunch of journals, board posts, and other things sutured together to make more of a long collection of essays than a definition and analysis of Sues. Out of curiosity, what's the history?
Various things tacked on by various people over time, that is. Looking at the edit history, I find that the original content was just this:
A Mary Sue is a type of character in a work of fanfiction. Often the idealized self-insert of the writers (known as Suethors), Mary Sues are considered by their creators to be perfect in every way. Common traits of Mary Sues include
•oddly colored eyes or hair •bizarre names •connections to Canon characters, either family or romantic
The true indication of a Mary Sue, however, is if they change the focus of the canon to revolve around them. A Mary Sue is always a sign of bad writing.
The male version of a Mary Sue is sometimes called a Gary Stu or a Marty Sam.
There are many different varieties of Mary Sues, all with different strategies for getting control of the story: Emo!Sues, Bubbly!Sues, Goth!Sues, Evil!Sues, Possession!Sues, and many others.
I have noticed a problem of - not quite snobbiness per se but more disdain - rearing its ugly head on the wiki. Definitely agree with the suggestion to remove the Badfic Authors page. I mean, c'mon...we've likely all written badfic in our early days, myself most definitely included; would we like being personally pilloried for eternity on the interweb because we didn't know how to write when we were twelve?
The issue with the tone of the wiki might be due to the common misperception that snark/humor is equivalent to flat-out being mean (there is a thin line between the two and it is not trod upon lightly). Given the earlier example stated on the talk page - "This is what creators think the vast majority of fanon looks like sometimes. And they are absolutely right." - really denigrates the good portions of fandom/fanon. As an MLP: FiM fan, a lot of some really great stories are entirely predicated on well-done, non-intrusive fanon. (Then again, fanon/fandom quality may have much to do with the average age of those active in the creative portion of the fandom. Many bronies active on the creative end are college-age or older. A:tlA and Harry Potter, for example, seem to have a lot of tween/early-teen fans who quite honestly don't know what they're doing writing fic.)
I hate to say it, but even though our "job" is to accentuate the negative in fandom, we really look like a bunch of catty bitches when we don't make note of the positive as well. Worse, we look like hypocrites, since we're essentially writing fanfic ourselves. Or even "fan"-fic of fanfic.
Granted, if an author finds out we eviscerated their fic, they will understandably be sad and hurt. But if we alter the tone of the wiki to be a little more positive and welcoming, while maintaining the good-natured humor that is a PPC trademark, maybe we'll get one communicating with us, and honestly looking for feedback. The way it is right now will likely just turn people off.
Fandom is great. Fandom, as a whole, is awesome. We're all parts of fandoms. So why disdain those who partake in what we purport to love - even if they are just plain bad at it? Love the sinner, hate the sin, people. Or at least tolerate the sinner.
Soapbox hereby dismounted.
I'm going to be lazy and say I think Chatvert's summed up my feelings on this issue, too. The wiki may well be the primary exposure of our community to curious outsiders so it should be as welcoming to them as possible and I'd rather it give an overpositive (is such a thing possible?) picture of PPC than swing in the other direction.
I'm not saying it should be some kind of bizarro-PPC where it's all about goodfic instead of badfic since badfic is what the PPC is there for, obviously.
OK, I can't really talk much regarding this matter, but here's my two cents.
The PPC as a whole was centered around good-humored poking at holes within bad fanfiction, but, as noted within the earlier discussion, it seems to be the fact that this is slowly turning toward what could be described as "snobbery", in a few cases.
I think part of the problem seems to be that there aren't clearly defined boundaries as to what could constitute as good humor and what counts as soap-boxing, negativly-focused deconstruction. For example, even after trawling through multiple other works of PPCers on assignment, I still haven't fully nailed down the subtle humor some have inserted into their works and may not understand why they works.
Perhaps if what sort of humor we can utilise within our works were to be CLEARLY defined and, reltivly speaking, adhered to, it might make life for writers a heck of a lot easier. This could allow them to ensure that their writing remains within good tate and within the confines of the PPC Constitution.
In my opinion, trying to define humor, and what humor we can use, is an extremely dangerous--and likely to fail--proposition. I'm not advocating we go full-on No Standards No Practices, but trying to write down a set of rules on what jokes we ARE allowed to make rather than what we AREN'T is almost certain to end in disaster.
Or, at least, in extremely repetitive and stale humor.
The point I was making was that we ought to seriously examine what we consider to be our humor, not to limit us to a pre-approved list of Yakov Smirnoff jokes. What's funny to someone may not be funny to someone else, but we don't have to be mean-spirited, whatever we do.