avidd said:
I'm sorry, but first of all I cannot help but point out in wonder how it is you seem to have this idea of the tagging system as inviolable and unchanging here on a forum where there are literally countless discussions, proposals, and questions about that system. Perhaps I'm the one who has misunderstood, but as I read your repeat statements "The entire integrity of tags" does not actually exist. The "Thousand hitches and snags" have been here all along, have been discussed and voted on and have implemented changes or maintained status quo all along. There's a system, it has rules and is fairly consistent, but it has changed and accommodated and even changed back before. I just don't get a feel for what you're implying here with some broader erosion if this change, after all others, is now accepted.
Honestly in general I do not find in your posts the proper basis for argument on the issue actually at hand. Especially when it comes to your broad and confused labeling of your opposition. Who are these "People that are never satisfied"? What is this censorship are you talking about? WHO are you talking about, and why are you talking about it rather than the actual discussion more often than not? I don't even know if I should be replying to those parts given how I read the rules of participation in the discussion as laid out multiple times now, but it feels like leaving these kinds of statements unchallenged is worse. You've repeatedly come into the thread with assertions that are not only erroneous but irrelevant to that thread.
Moving on, Bridget has been tagged as male for years, but that's not a reason for her to be tagged as male going forward when the entire reason she was that way was lore context beyond "Tag what you see", context that now, in the case of Strive Bridget specifically, contradicts that presumption. As you were already told, if TWYS was the rule Bridget would have been 1girl almost all the time for those years. It's entirely because that's not actually how the system is implemented that we're having the discussion.
bakanon said:
There's no way to solve this puzzle without pissing somebody off, so IMO admins should pick the solution (not necessarily one of the ideas I propose in this post) that angers the smallest demographic involved to minimize the "collateral damage" as much as possible.
I think that's 'mostly' correct, but I'm worried about the phrasing. It seems like "Smallest demographic" is not the correct measure. There's potentially a better middle-ground where more people are pissed off, but less people are as pissed off as they could be, if that makes sense.
Though on that note, even the notion of trying to minimize collateral by making the least overall amount of anger would have problems. Primarily because from my view it seems like there are some kinds of anger that are more or less legitimate than others. If one of 'those people who were making throwaway almost instantly banned accounts to antagonize, throw around insults and make weirdo asinine assertions about the story not being what it is' on Bridget posts was 'As Angry As Humanly Possible Exceeding The Quantity of Anger Otherwise Produced By Humanity' I wouldn't say give that much more weight since, you know, they're kind of a tosser.
