Re: ENT Forum Mediation Thread--Please Participate
Posted by NX-01 Plumber:
First let me say that I'm a late-comer to this thread and haven't read all of it (it's too damn long and time's a-wasting). I did seem to notice that there is an ongoing debate about some posters who derive satisfaction from watching a show they do not like and posting about their dislikes on a continuous basis. Well, I just thought I'd add my two-cents' worth of opinion to this. I respect the work that the mods are putting into making this a kinder and gentler forum, but they are sorely underestimating the amount of irritation that some posters are generating. Their posts are repetitive, unoriginal, boring and otherwise pollute the actual discussion between those who genuinely liked the show and those who quite as genuinely didn't. We all know what these posters will write before they hit the reply button. They will hang their arguments on the weakest excuses because they decided (before the first episode was aired it seems in some cases) that they were not going to enjoy ENT. At some point, the total amount of unabated and unabatable negativity they generate should be equivalent to trolling. I look forward to intelligent criticism about the show (and I agree wholeheartedly that there remains much room for improvement), but "criticism" from people who never bought into its premise and whose only wish is for the show to die a quick and nasty death is just not acceptable since there can be no debate and all they foster is resentment from those who genuinely wish ENT to improve and fit better within their personal conception of Star Trek.
To quote Abraham Lincoln, "Criticism is the mother of improvement, but one-trick dogs are sons of bitches."
As part of all this, we need to not only stop questioning others' motives and motivations for watching and/or participating, we need to stop
assigning them, as well. Not one person here 'knows' that another was prejudiced against the show before even seeing it, unless that person comes right out and says so. They don't 'know' that a person's sole reason for coming here and criticizing the show is to create an uncomfortable or combative atmosphere.
Lest we forget, when there are participants here who don't think the show is all that and a bag of chips, they can be just as easily annoyed, can just as easily resent the members who unceasingly praise the show, as well; it creates no less a hostile environment to unswervingly express one's devotion without ever debating one's reasons. Saying over and over
and over and over that ENT is the best
Trek series yet created, or even the best television series of any kind
ever, without entertaining serious debate over one's reasons, is no less pathological and no less provocative, indeed no less 'trolling,' than the actions and attitudes of the members that these same people would have silenced, and of whom they feel no compunction whatsoever in demanding rationalization for their choices. Those who have made almost a religion of praising ENT are no less repetitive, no less boring, no less unoriginal and no less polluting of
actual discussion, yet because they are "good fans" who enjoy the same show as the other "good fans," they are granted significantly more leeway and understanding, even support. "
Bilbo of The Shire has every right to be here because he
always gives the episodes an
A+; he's obviously a fan, and you're not because you have yet to give it anything but an
F. Sure,
Bilbo limits his discussion to "So good I almost peed myself," every time whereas you make points about where the episode had plot holes and how bad the acting was and give 'advice' on how it could have been done better, but at least he enjoyed it, and you don't and
never will."
Just because you're a
positive fan doesn't mean you have all the answers, and it certainly doesn't mean that you aren't just as irritating as the people you denounce. If the critics are expected to keep their opinions about their fellow members quiet, however, and the zealots can do the same, then no one has a right to expect anyone else to leave simply because of the choices he's made or because he exercised his right to express his opinions. One-liners from either end of the spectrum, especially when they are the
same one-liners, are where I think the bulk of the ill will is generated; they usually contain nothing substantive and are often intended, and pretty obviously, to dismiss someone else outright without 'breaking the rules', and the 'positive' fans have just as many guilty parties as the critics.
If you don't agree with someone's ongoing criticism of the show,
do something positive about it. Don't expect them to justify their choices unless you are prepared to justify yours, as well, because they have just as much right to ask what it is about the show that you find so well-done, so entertaining, so professional, that you would devote an hour of your time to watching it and more hours coming here to discuss it; when you ask why they dislike the show, be prepared to explain
in just as much detail what it is that you find likable. Not just "Bakula's hot" or "It has great fx" or "Porthos barked" or "Because it's so much better than VOY," because every one of those reasons has a counterpart in the critics which has been dismissed outright.
Do you see how ridiculous this is? How unsupportable? How unnecessary? Discussion and debate require different viewpoints, or else it's all just group masturbation.
Posted by Dennis Bailey:
...As I said, the behavior is unusual enough to be more interesting than the criticism.
The 'behavior' is no more unusual than the constant praise and support lavished by some who never explain why they believe the show is such a well-done and entertaining classic. Watching the shows, I find it extremely unusual that some people can give
A's and
B's to what I see as tired, repetitive, amateurish, plotless and pointless stories that would never survive a freshman creative writing class. I find it unusual behavior that a person can post in a grading thread that they saw little of real substance or integrity in a story and yet they give it a
B+; that's like me saying the steak I got at Outback was burned on one side, raw on the other and contained a large amount of gristle, but because it's Outback I'll give it 4 stars out of 5. I find it unusual behavior when some insist that the show be judged only against its own efforts and that anyone who compares it to other shows on the air currently or in the past, and find it wanting, is unfairly criticizing it. I find it
extremely unusual behavior (well, sadly it's not that unusual here
) that a person with no real-world knowledge or insight about another poster feels he has the right to assume and to claim that this poster has preconceived biases and no potential whatsoever to accept any improvement in the show; talk about preconceived bias
.
Frankly, I can't believe this discussion has gone on as long as it has; the simple answer is: Don't tell anybody else what to think, and don't expect anybody has to justify himself or his choices. If you don't like what they have to say, either offer a counter-argument that supports your own position, in the hopes that you might actually change their opinion, or move along; no one has the right to question the motivations of anyone else here.
