I know about DrDeth and spoilers, and his post wasn’t about that. Am I missing something else (wouldn’t be the first time)? It’s not like he’s the first in that thread to refer to actors’ previous roles as if everyone should know and watched the previous show. If anything, he is highlighting the problem of doing so.
Itchy trigger finger, maybe?
There was an issue where DrDeth was complaining about other posters referring to characters based on roles they had performed in other series. (Mostly referring to Gonzalez as Adama.) There was a debate over the issue and DrDeth was told people could do this if they wanted to.
So it appears he made a post to satirize the idea by referring to characters using obscure earlier roles they played.
So satirical criticism is bad in Café Society now? Olmos as Adams I know, but there have been many references in other threads which I needed to deduce from context or skip over because I didn’t know the previous role, even though the show was popular. Was the previous discussion heated, and ITD is trying to stop a derailment before it starts?
Not necessarily heated but DrDeth was derailing threads with his “corrections” and was told to stop.
Here’s the complaint thread - facts is facts - About This Message Board - Straight Dope Message Board
I was fine with what he posted in the current SHIELD thread - but since I didn’t know any of the references I didn’t bother reading his post. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander I suppose, but for me it just made his post nonsense. Since I don’t think the Adama references caused confusion for any reader I don’t see them as equivalent.
There was a discussion of this issue in ATMB after I gave DrDeth a mod note to stop chastising posters for using Adama in the Agents of Shield thread. It was derailing the discussion and becoming problematic.
With reagrd to this new note, I don’t think there is a need to overgeneralize this one note, in one thread, to one poster regarding a specific issue. Satire is fine. Potentially derailing a thread by bringing up an issue that had been discussed and resolved is not. It seems fairly clear that DrDeth made this recent post to either make a point, to dredge up the issue or to irritate people. None of of that is ok in this particular thread.
I hope that clarifies where I was coming from and why the post was brought to my attention.
I missed that previous discussion, which makes the note make more sense. But I see his point. My wife, who enjoys SHIELD, would not get the Adama reference. Personally, any reference to characters on L&O, CSI, or NCIS, to name a few, would fly completely over my head if there want enough context. I’m pretty sure I’ve done it too, but I’ll be rethinking it going forward.
Without rehashing the original debate (please god no…), the issue was becoming a distraction even though everyone knew who folks were referring to when they said “Adama”. If there had been legitimate confusion it would have been a different discussion, I suspect.
It was petulant threadshitting - the issue had already been resolved, this was just his way of not dropping the issue (notice that all but 1 references [and quotes] to Olmos’ character are as Gonzalez in that latest thread, so it’s not like the issue wasn’t dying down anyway).
When it’s satirical criticism of mod decisions? Yes, definitely. When it’s being done to deliberately hamper conversation? Seems kinda jerkish to me.
There’s a difference between doing it because that’s the name you think of when you see the character, and doing it as a passive aggressive way to get back at people.
But does it foster conversation if a reader doesn’t know the previous character? Are we all expected to know every popular character on every popular show? I know that I’ve referred to characters by previous roles in the past, and I know I’ve ignored posts where others did the same when I didn’t get the reference. This just put 2 and 2 together for me and made me realize that maybe I shouldn’t be doing that.
I’m not asking for any new rules and I’m certainly not going to bang a drum for this. It’s just that now I realize, IMNSHO, that using the characters’ names from the show under discussion shows more consideration for the readers of that thread.
If one is confused one can ask for clarification.
If you use the name of the character from the show, there’s going to be some people who don’t get who you’re talking about. Particularly, as was the case where this nonsense started, when it’s a character who was just introduced in the last five minutes of the latest episode. Doubly so if you referred to him by the actor’s name, instead of the characters.
People are not required to know every popular character on every popular TV show, but neither are people required to post as if they’re speaking to an audience of perfect tabula rasas. It’s okay to assume a certain level of pop culture knowledge in your audience, and it’s okay to occasionally miss a pop culture reference. It’s not a big deal in either case.
You’re arguing a point I’m not arguing, then. Maybe it’s my fault for quoting your whole post instead of the part I was responding to.
My point was that you were treating his behavior as one thing rather than another. If he had been just using a common name that some people didn’t know, there would be no reason for mod intervention. People would just say “Who is that” or post the name if they figure it out (Googling if necessary). Or, yes, just ignore the post, if it’s inconsequential.
What you choose to do doesn’t matter to me at all. I admit I tend to look up names if I don’t remember them–unlike in real conversation where I’d probably just describe them and wait until someone says “You mean Julie” or whatever. (This happens a lot, as I don’t remember names.)
As for figuring out names in context, I guess I don’t find this to be that big a burden. I have to do it often even if you are using the character names, as I don’t remember them. It takes a few times for names to stick for me. But, hey, if it bothers you, by all means treat others the way you want to be treated.