I know I've advocated myself as something of a non-political person, or rather, one who keeps politics at arm's reach, but it recently came to my attention that our current president was recently selected to recieve the Nobel Peace Prize for his work. I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised.

Of course, I know that as soon as  cigarskunk gets wind of this, he'll have something that is supposed to be witty about the fact that Obama is getting any kind of award at all. Which should be fun if CS does, as I can then gleefully rip apart his arguments for the fallacious mess they are.

Otherwise though, I'm quite proud of the President. Only two other US Presidents have ever received the Nobel Prize, and to add a third should be a welcome morale boost, not only for the US, but for the global community. I mean really, if a group of impartial foreign judges decide that our president is worth giving such a prestigious award to, then he has to be doing SOMETHING right.

After some discussion with a new friend of mine, we poured over some of the finer details the kinds of behaviors and attitude people display while online, especially in large group settings like MUCKS, MUSHES, or even SL. What we noticed is a trend in the behaviors of others. I'll list the two most popular ones here, and why they're NOT even remotely close to the best method:

1) The Silent Treatment: This is perhaps the most egregious and annoying of all online behaviors. Silent Treatment occurs when a person attempts to show they aren't interested in interacting with you by refusing to acknowledge your existence. They have the absurdly misguided belief that by simply ignoring your comments or remarks, that they are effectively communicating a lack of desire.

They could NOT be more wrong. Not speaking does absolutely nothing to dissuade that individual. Why? There could be any number of reasons why that person isn't talking to you, and perhaps the last one on the list would be "Because I don't want to talk to you." Also, when you persist in attempting to communicate, said person will often react with anger or annoyance that you "didn't get the message", which will often result in being put on an ignore list, or threatened with action by the admins for harassment.

What. The. Hell? Is it too much trouble to simply TELL someone you aren't interested, to just say "Thanks, but no thanks?" And if the person IS genuinely harassing you, THEN put them on ignore! I've had more than a few people claim they don't want to use to ignore list, preferring to resort to Silent Treatment or threats of Admin action. Really, if you can't do something as simple as say 'no', like you would in real-life? Then you shouldn't be online.

2) "Disconnect": Another egregious behavior, is when people will DC on you for absolutely no reason, often in the middle of a conversation, or an RP, or something, right after talking to you. Now, before anyone gets angry, I am aware that some people do DC legitimately, because of poor connections or something caused them to disconnect (folks pick up the phone, signal interference from over devices in the home, etc). However, if you KNOW your connection is spotty or otherwise less than stellar, you SHOULD let people know.

Who I'm talking about are the people who decide that they're no longer interested in conversing or RPing with you, and DC as a means of escape. Honestly, that's rude beyond all knowing. You leave a person hanging, often without any idea of whether they did something wrong, or if your DC was a legit loss of signal. Most people I've talked to say that DC'ing is the easiest, most guilt-free method of escape, citing that they do not wish to tell the person they don't wish to continue, or that they aren't interested anymore.

Uh, no. That's rude in the best sense of the word. You should never just quit because you don't want to talk to the person or be around them anymore. Unless you have a really good reason (stepping away from the computer, lost signal), you shouldn't just drop them. For one thing, it doesn't help them, and two, if they find you later (very likely) you'll have to explain yourself. And lying is not a fun thing to do. So really, just be honest with the person. It's like critiquing an artist. If you wish for them to improve, you need to let them know what's wrong.


Anyway, short list I know :P But I just thought I'd let off a little steam~

Just to let you folks who are in it, the third event deadline is tomorrow, October 4th!

So, recently I saw a nice little picture by a good friend of mine  zenmigawa regarding an original take on the concept of the PCA, that being, the concept of a junior high/high school/college setting, replacing students with Pokemon/Pokemorphs. Now, I’ve been aware of his interest in this concept for some time. As I said, he’s a good friend of mine, and did a few pictures regarding this new look at the idea.

His reasoning was that, given what he heard about the state of the community (This was back during the Darius fiasco) that he wasn’t entirely comfortable entering into the project entirely. Hence, he created teachers, and wrote his storylines (The False Monarch, We Are The Trainers of Our Own Evolution, and Crystalline Memoir). Overall, he was fond of the idea of a “Pokemon School” but wanted to try a different interpretation. This leads us to the picture in question:

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2832397/

Now, shortly after seeing this picture, some other friends of mine brought up what seemed to be something akin to a flame war, and I went to check it out. Lo and behold, a slew of people arguing, and a lot of people asking that none of their characters/storylines be included in his work. Now, before anyone jumps on me, I’ll say this: your concerns over the use of your own characters are entirely justified. You’re worried about your pictures and characters being used, and incidentally being labeled as the intellectual property of another individual. So, to alleviate your concerns, allow me to make the following points:

1) Zen is not the kind of person to use characters without asking for permission first. So, if he was ever interested in using them he would ask. And if given permission, he would likely credit you anyway. He’s not the kind of guy to just rip things off, no need to worry there.

2) Zen will likely not use any of your characters anyway. This is after all, his original and new interpretation of the School. While I have heard that many people think it’s cheesy, remember, you’ve only seen 3 pictures at best. Should wait until later to judge.

3) Unfortunately, asking that your “storylines” be left out is a bit harder to do. After all, your storylines are nothing more than archetypes of ideas which are similar to other ideas. Ironically, asking that your characters remain unused means likely your exact storylines will remain untouched, but character archetypes and basic storyline concepts are completely up for grabs. If his storylines/characters were similar to your own, the most you can claim is similarity, which is hardly grounds for legal concern. But again, he's not that kind of guy, so don't worry.

4) Again, Zen is highly unlikely to use anyone’s “storylines” without permission in the first place.

5) Also, about the intellectual property issue, remember that copyright laws are MUCH more relaxed over in Japan, than in America. All those doujin comics for popular franchises that are written over there in the east? All completely and totally legal. Reason being, that, the creators of said franchise actually encourage fanwork, because they get money (royalties) for any of this fanwork that sells, and it also attracts audiences to the source material, which only furthers there revenue. So, if anything, unless Nintendo finds his material inappropriate, they won’t be legal issues.

On that note, his picture was not the place for a flame war. Having learned this lesson myself personally, I should just say that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but really, on a picture where he’s stating a tentative idea? If you all had concerns, you should’ve noted him, or emailed him directly, rather than cover his picture with your arguments, or talked amongst yourselves privately. Of course, I probably wouldn’t have suggested he post that picture at all on FA if I’d known it would’ve started such a fight.

Also, to the person who used the  pokecombatacademy account (I know for a fact it wasn’t  dh01 who wrote that) to try and tell Zen to change the name: If Zen wishes to use the name, that’s not something you can legally stop him from doing, even if you’re worried about what people will think of it. As the “community” is a loose group of artists and writers, who use a free website to share in your common interest of a franchise, there’s very little that you can do to claim legal ownership over the title. Even if Zen’s idea is removed enough from the original concept, he can still use the name, after all, it’s just an acronym. Also, why did you use the PCA account, instead of your own? Especially if it wasn't DH who posted that comment.

If you’re worried about “misrepresentation” again, it’s an original, an original concept. He likely won’t ever reference the “original” community, with the exception of characters that he has permission to use. And again he’s selling it over in Japan, or perhaps selling to interested individuals. (I myself wouldn’t mind a translated copy) It’s not stealing, it’s not hijacking, and he is not trying to rip anyone off. Knowing the guy personally, I can state with 100% certainty that, while you have some justified concerns, that overall, your response to his project is something of an overreaction.

And that’s all I have to say.

If you've been following my journals at all, you've noticed that I've lately been touching on the forgotten concept of making logical arguments, and avoiding/recognizing fallacious statements. However, after some discussion with a friend last night, I realized that the title of my journal is quite true. If you want to find fallacious arguments, look no further than politics.

Many of the logical fallacies I've mentioned are a commonplace practice in the political arena. For example, during an election, the countless attack ads all fall into the cateogry of Ad Hominem attacks, often ignoring the actual political stances of the candidates in favor of digging up any dirt or dirty past secrets, to stain the character of the candidate, ignoring what work they've done. The Straw Man argument is used on an almost daily basis by either the Democrats OR the Republicans in order to denounce the words and claims of the opposing side. Appeals to the Majority are an incredibly common practice, as are Quoting Mining (which is especially abhorrent), Argument from Personal Incredulity, False Dichtomies...the list goes on. I could spend hours.

What bothers me the most, is the absolutely enormous gap between the two sides. Basically, if you stand in one, you cannot stand in the other. And god forbid you try to stand in the middle. For example, I'm pro-choice, and all for gay marriage rights. But I supported the war in Iraq. So technically I have a foot in either camp. Of course, attempting to argue with one group means you obviously HAVE to be with the other.

Take  cigarskunk for example. Yes, I know, I've toted him around as a poster-boy for disinformation and lies for a while, but to be honest, I know of no other person who has the same political views or ideas as him, at least in the fandom, or in my own experience. Thus, lacking any other examples, I'll default to Skunk. Now, I've detailed to death all of his faults and mistakes, and then, I took the time to look over at  dncfurs and noticed a rather stark contrast in both the ideology and attitude.

Skunk preaches tolerance and open-mindedness, but if you even try to refute his statements or claims, then you must obviously be part of, and I quote him, "the usual idiots", which always refers to left-wing liberals. Even one of his own fans tried to disagree, and was accused of having changed camps. Meanwhile, over at DNC, their policy is much more open-minded, and they even state that you don't have to agree with everything they believe, as long as you believe in SOME of it.

I recently learned about how another group  gopfurs was banned, for no apparent cause or reason, making many members of the FA community confused and angry. Zalin wrote, "Evidently an admin saw a potential disaster brewing because Republicans decided to get together and meet each other." Well, I don't mean to make a Hasty Generalization, for the sake of this discussion, allow me to do so:

From personal experience, both in the fandom, and in real life, the typical Republican tends to be confrontative, hostile, and highly defensive of their perspective. Whereas the Democrats seem to be much more tolerant, willing to discuss differences in opinion, and in general seem more level-headed. Now, let's just assume that this is ALL the information an administrator has to go with. Now, they notice these two groups. Which group are they more likely to want to pre-emptively deal with before a potential flame war starts?

Now, before anyone jumps on me or tears me apart, let me state for the record that I do not condone the decision to ban the group, nor am I defending it. Offering an explaination for behavior, is not an excuse or a free pass for said behavior. And while I use a small sample group to make this determination, likely it's all the admins had to go with either.

The overall issues, stems from what seems to be an overwhelming sense of "With us or against us" menality. Having a foot in either camp will often get you reamed as being a hypocrite or someone who can't make up either mind. The political arena is always charged with his sense that there must be undying loyalty and devotion to one's side. Why can't we make our own judgments, based on our personal views, rather than blindly following a group mentality? Can I not hold both liberal and conservative, Democratic and Republican views, all at the same time?

This is probably a fruitless question, but it is one of the reasons why I try to distance myself from all political discussions. It becomes less and less about the facts, and more about attacks on personal belief and opinions, to the point that choosing one side or the other becomes tantamount to treason. Okay, perhaps that's an exaggeration, but I have SEEN political arguments become this heated. Again, I could care less whether you're pro-Bush, pro-Obama, pro-life, pro-guns, whatever. Just please, keep your statements logical, rational, and factual.

You are entitled to your opinion, and I won't argue that. You are however, NOT entitled to claim your opinion as more valid or factual than the opinion of anyone else. Do that, and I will shoot you down each and every time, even if I would agree with you.

Alright everyone, thank you for being so patient. I've had a busy week, getting paperwork out of the way so I can apply for a 30-day credential to be a substitute teacher, English, to be precise. Hopefully, I'll actually be able to teach the kids in Junior High and High School a thing or two. Anyway, here's the rest of my informative piece about logical fallacies, and at the end, I'll give you a little glimpse at the kind of people you'll likely have to deal with if you choose to take your newfound knowledge and put it to good use.

Without further delay, onto the fallicies!

Edit: The official list is 24, but one of them directly invovles a specific field of argument, one that likely would NEVER come up in casual conversation, unless you're a scientist, and your opponent is a creationist. Thus, the actual list will be 23.

14) Begging the Question
Also known as Circular Reasoning, Begging the Question is a fallacy where your conclusion is explicitly or implicitly assumed in your premise. Therefore, while the illusion of logic is presented in your argument, no proof has been made at all. Begging the Question can be done very subtly, so you MUST be careful.

15) Tautology
A specialized form of Begging the Question, a tautology when the premise and conclusion of the argument are the same. While a tautology (A = A) is true, and the repeated statement may also be true, a tautology proves nothing outside of itself. A very good example is if you notice that someone's argument is "If things were different, then things would be different."

16) False Premise
In a false premise fallacy, the conclusion of an argument is invalidated by an incorrect assumption in one of it's premises. You can't build a house on a poor foundation. Foundational bias and ad hoc reasoning usually have a false premise at their base. Which brings us to the next one...

17) Ad Hoc Reasoning (Told ya!)
Ad hoc reasoning (which means 'for this purpose') is done to salvage an argument that rests on a shaky foundation. Ad hoc reasoning attempts to address unstable or invalid portions of a failed argument. It is often used to avoid reevaluation of an arguments validity. Note that, when someone tries really hard to use ad hoc reasoning, often they use more ad hoc reasoning to explain the previous ad hock reasoning, but that's the beauty of it.

 cigarskunk once again proves what an unreliable narrator he is with this one. Note how, in any of his journals, when his claims are refutted with logic and evidence, he resorts to ad hominem and ad hoc reasoning to try and refute the counter-arguments.

18) Slippery Slope
This is one which should be at least remotely familiar to all of you. A slippery slope argument states that accepting a certain argument will lead to a chain of events that will culminate in an often fantastic, and negative outcome. The validity of the argument in question isn't addressed, merely the imagined outcome.

Moral guardians like to think that, if left to their own devices, kids will do all kinds of horrible things, engaging in ever increasingly bad behavior, culminating in criminal activity.

19) Correlation Implies Causation
Another commonly used fallacy, the example I'll present is one you should probably have all heard. In this fallacy, because two events are correlated, there MUST exist a cause and effect relationship. Usually, there is a third variable in question that is overlooked, or the two events aren't even remotely related.

Remember those studies that claim violent video games lead to a rise in criminal behavior? A shining, perfect example of this particular fallacy. Because this fallacy relies on statistics, it's easy to assume a correlation between two events. While correlations exist, yes, do NOT assume to events are related unless you have substantial evidence.

20) Creative Math
A rarely used fallacy, this occurs when someone attempts to use statistics and big numbers to make the possibility of an event occuring purely by chance to be remote, often where something like 'chance' has no place. This fallacy tends to occur in scientific arguments, but can be applied anywhere when someone tries to tell you how remote a possibility an event is.

21) Moving The Goalposts
When the rules to obtain satisfactory completion of a goal are changed just as they are about to be attained, it is referred to as 'moving the goalposts'. The trick to this fallacy, is that no matter how much you try to reach the goal, it will never happen because the goalposts are constantly being moved.

Cigarskunk once again shows his true colors. Note whenever someone disagrees with him, and appears to have solved the issue, he moves the goalposts, rendering it impossible to prove his point. No matter how often you disagree and prove him wrong, the posts will always be moved. Still, it's amusing to watch him scurry ;3

22) Just Plain Nonsense
Sometimes, the failure in logic defies easy explaination. Examples in this category require massive disconnects from reality, and the result in just plain nonsense. Simple as could be, these are also some of the easiest the point out.

23) Outright Lie
While not so much a logical fallacy by definition, the outright lie is simply deception in its purest form. Truth is simply discarded as superfluous and unnecessary in this form of argument.

While many, MANY examples exist of this, I'll refrain from giving the example right this moment, to tell you that, now that you have this new knowledge, that you shouldn't be afraid to use it. I will warn you, pointing out the fallacies people make often makes them defensive and angry.

Afterall, no one likes having their mistakes pointed out. But the purpose of this isn't so that you can attack people. It's to inform them, or better yet, to inform others. If a person is unknowingly engaging in a logical fallacy, you can help them take a better stance by making their argument valid. But if the person is KNOWINGLY engaging in the fallacy, you can inform others around them so they don't fall into the web of misinformation and lies.

I've used him so many times, that  cigarskunk doesn't need a formal introduction. He knowingly makes up stories, skews information in his favor, and makes blatant, insulting attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with his position. The perfect politican, hm?

To exemplify this, please take note of this journal: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/949984/ Now, towards the bottom, you'll find my lengthy critique of his argument. Now, I do make a few mistakes. I forgot that the 'Don't Tread On Me' was an American Flag design, but that aside, notice that I calmly and logically point out his errors. Now, take note of his following response.

THIS is the kind of behavior you'll find from people who willfully engage in logical fallacies. No logic, no politeness, no objectiveness. Defensive, hostile action. Now, this is perhaps an extreme example. But, the sense of satisfaction comes from the fact that someone will likely read it, and realize what a load of bull his arguments are. Or, that'll they see someone like him for the kind of person he is.

Note on his front page he says that: "You will find a large quantity of alternate lifestyle material in the journal section (pro-Republican, conservative, pro-America, smoker's rights) so if you aren't open minded enough to tollerate those with other beliefs and life choices, this probably isn't the area for you." Of course, note what happens when people attempt to logically engage him concerning those beliefs, and how his tolerance flies right out the window.

So then, my readers, now that I have given you the tools and weapons necessary to dissect the lies and disinformation, go forth and give it to others, and use it! Amen for rational thought! <3

Seeing as how people liked the first part, I decided to continue and take a gander at going further into how to make a proper argument. This next bit goes into detail about logical fallacies, which I touched on non-specifically in the previous section. I'll go through a handful of some of the more common or deceptive logical fallacies, so that you can avoid using them yourself (Many folks use fallacies sometimes without knowing it) and so you can point them out yourself.

What is a 'logical fallacy'? Well, it's an argument or claim that sometimes on it's premise, seems reasonable or valid, but in fact is nothing of the sort. Whether or not the arguer made the fallacy intentionally or not is irrelevant, you portrayed information in a way that only seems to validate your argument. It appears logical, and sometimes reasons from logic, hence the name. So, without further ado, I'll start at the top

Note: These fallacies and their definitions were derived from a video I found, so the credit for these isn't mine

Note #2: BIG JOURNAL IS BIG. If you're going to comment, read the whole damn thing.

1) Foundational Bias
Easily the most common logical fallacy, and the one people are most likely to fall prey too even accidentally. A foundational bias, is when you admit bias towards a certain conclusion before making an argument. The bias is not based on any evidence or logic, but is instead based on personal preference or belief. This opens the door for virtually every other logical fallacy there is.

But you say, "Aren't we all guilty of this? Aren't we all biased towards a certain stance?" Yes, we are, but note, there's a key phrase in here which separates one group from the other. One group's bias is based on evidence and logic, the other is based on personal preference and belief. If you have the evidence to back up your stance, then your bias is logical, and valid.

 cigarskunk is a prime example of foundational bias, as well as a whole slew of other logical fallacies. Check out his journals for examples, or I'll point them out to you when necessary. In this case, he admits to being biased towards a political party based almost solely on personal preference. He uses "evidence", which is often faulty or misrepresentative. When this is defeated, he then argues almost strictly from personal belief and preference.

Also, before anyone gets the weird idea that I have a grudge against the guy, I don't. What I do not approve of, is his use of fallacious arguments to try and make statements of fact about the state of the US. Even in politics, you must back up your claims with evidence and reason, of which he does almost nothing of the sort. What's worse, is that some people seem to believe him. I don't like it when people misuse information like that, so I'll be using him as my most relevant example.

2) The Straw Man Argument
Another fairly common fallacy, this one is often used purposefully. A straw man is made when you misrepresent or oversimplify your opponent's position, and then easily refute the straw man, based on that oversimplification or misrepresentation. However, you have not responded to the substance of your opponent's argument. Of all the fallacies used intentionally, this is easily the most common.

3) Hasty Generalization
A hasty generalization attempts to draw a major conclusion from a minor set of data, reaching beyond what it's supposed to be able to touch. Because, when you're making a big claim, you need BIG evidence to make that claim. Hence, a minority viewpoint is seen as validating a conclusion that would affect the majority.

4) Argument From Authority
An argument from authority involves setting up an "expert" on the subject at hand. However, the fallacy does not come from the presence of the expert, but rather in using the expert's "authority" on the subject to try and make their claims immune to criticism and to validate any claims they make on a subject. Real experts are open to the idea of criticism or counter-arguments.

5) Ad Hominem Argument
Also known as a personal attack, an ad hominem argument is where you ignore the substance of your opponent's argument, and attempt to discredit your opponent's stance by attacking the character of your opponent. This is the direct opposite of an argument from authority. Basically, by making your opponent appear to be a bad person, you try to invalidate their claims by calling into question the quality of their character. This is another commonly used purposeful fallacy, used most especially in politics.

 cigarskunk pulls this one off in spades in just about every journal where he "criticizes" the Democrats. His most egregious instance is a few of the journals involving the death of Ted Kennedy. In these, Cigarskunk claims that, because the media is going to give the Senator "sainthood" (an obvious exaggeration) that its his civil duty to demonize the man by bringing up a 40-year old driving accident: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/913224/ and http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/907754/ in order to make Mr. Kennedy out to be a monster, completely invalidating any of his political work (but because Cigarskunk is foundationally biased, Kennedy's political work is invalid from the start!) Now there are a huge number of logical fallacies in each of these journals, but since we got to Ad Hominem first, we'll use that one first.

5) Appeal to the Majority
Also known as an ad populum agument, an appeal to the majority is made when an argument is asserted to be true, simply because a large number of people believe it to be true, whether or not the evidence supports that claim or not. This is similar to the argument from authority, only replacing the "expert" with a large group of people. The fallacy here, is the assumption that people's belief in a proposition makes it valid.

Now, politics is all about an appeal to the majority, because in a democracy, we elect our government. However, the majority can NEVER "elect" the truth. Truth exists, whether we believe in it or not.

6) Quote Mining
This is one that particularly nasty. I referenced it back in my prior journal, as partial quoting, and quoting out of context. Used in academics, this fallacy is know as 'academic dishonesty'. Essentially quote mining is the rather atrocious practice of using quotes taken from relevant sources to support your claim and then using said quote(s) inappropriately or taking them out of context, often used deliberately to sow misinformation. This is right next to plagarism in the 'things-you-do-NOT-do-in-school' list.

 cigarskunk pulls this one off quite flagrantly in http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/907754/ here. In this, he takes an article relating to Mr. Kennedy's dog, named splash, and uses it to support his ad hominem attack! Only Skunk takes it one step further. Instead of using a single passage, he uses the ENTIRE ARTICLE out of context. He claims that the dog's name "Splash" somehow impeaches Kennedy's character. What he fails to mention, and what is even in the article, is that the Dog didn't belong to Kennedy originally (the original owner named the dog 'Splash because of it's breed), and that Kennedy just failed to change the name. Even when this fact was pointed out, Skunk refused to acknowledge the mistake, and ignored it.

7) Man-on-the-Street Interview
This fallacy is a combination of 'appeal to the majority' and 'quote mining', but often times a large number of other fallacies can be thrown in. The name is self-explainatory, a random person from the sidewalk is asked for their opinion, and it is used to try to prove a claim, even if the person has no idea what they're being asked about or whether their opinions are even relevant. The knowledge or opinion of a random person met on the street has no bearing in rational debate.

8) Non-Sequitur
Literally means 'does not follow', a non-sequitur is formally defined as a conclusion that does not follow from the premise(s) that are being argued. Non-sequiturs often specifically refer to arguments that do not follow from ANY logical thought. No connections can be made from these arguments to ANY form of reality.

9) Red Herring
Ah yes, the infamous Red Herring. Not so much a fallacy, the red herring is more of a distraction technique. In response to an opponent's argument, an irrelevant point is made. It can even be valid, but if it does nothing to address the issue, than it's one of these.

Cigarskunk's use of the Ted Kennedy's dog is an example of one of these. The dog in NO way related to the issue of the driving accident, nor is the accident referenced in the linked article. But Skunk tries to lead us to believe that it IS relevant. However, careful scrutiny reveals the truth.

10) Argument from Personal Incredulity
This fallacy is similar to foundational bias, because it stems not from evidence, but from personal belief. In this fallacy, someone argues that they do not personally find a premise to be likely or believable, therefore it cannot be true, regardless of any of the evidence presented. The fallacy here lies in presenting your own beliefs as evidence that a premise is true or untrue.

Once again, our favorite tobacco-smoking mammal pulls this one off in spades. Whenever he makes a claim about the faults and mistakes of the Democrats, and someone uses logical reasoning to add doubt to that claim, he doesn't even bother using evidence to counter the argument. He merely uses his personal beliefs to validate his reasoning.

11) Argument from Ignorance
To quote Dilbert: "Since when did ignorance become a point of view?" In this fallacy, the appeal to ignorance is made as an argument that a premise is true because it has not been prove false, or that a premise is false, only because it has not been proven true. To sum it up: absence of evidence, is NOT evidence of absence.

This particular fallacy is perhaps one of the biggest ones used in religion versus science arguments, primarily when dealing with God. The religion side tends to argue that because it hasn't been proven that God doesn't exist that he must exist.

12) Equivocation
An equivocation, is the misleading use of a word that has more than one meaning. Often, in the same science versus religion debates, the word "theory" is often used inappropriately. In science, a theory is "a logically coherent model well-supported by evidence". However, in popular culture, the definition of theory is more closer to opinion, conjecture, or an educated guess. Please don't confuse the two. ;)

This is sometimes a fallacy used accidentally. As we're not walking dictionaries, not every is aware of the multiple meanings of a word, and thus an equivocation can occur due to ignorance, rather than a willful attempt at misinformation.

13) False Dichotomy
Also known as "Either/Or", a false dichotomy occurs when you are given two mutually exclusive options, where if one is chosen, the other is false or irrelevant. You don't have any other choices. The fallacy is that the two options may not necessarily be mutually exclusive (or even related at all!) or there may be other, alternative options available.

Another accidental fallacy, people sometimes simply fail to recognize alternative options or do not recognize the problem with the options they give. A popular TV Trope based on this, is Failure Is The Only Option, or But Thou Must, where you are limited to only making certain choices, even if you know those choices are bad. The subversion of this fallacy ALSO has a trope! It is known as: Chose A Third Option.



Alright folks, that's a fair number of them, there's 25 in total, and I just did just over half. So we'll take a break for now! I'll do the remaining 12 in the next Journal! :3

After reading more than enough journals, and seeing a number of Youtube videos, and armed with my Bachelor's Degree in English, I realize that there's a startling number of people who try to put forth an "argument" for or against a certain point of view, but almost always go about it the wrong way. Some people don't even bother TRYING. This disappoints me to no end. And if this sounds a little elitist, IT IS. Don't claim that you're making a valid argument or statement for or against a viewpoint unless you're actually done your homework! I mean c'mon people, you were supposed to have learned this in English! It's part of how you write an argumentative essay! Did ANYONE remember this?!

Alright then, we'll do this step by step so you all remember:

1) What's the Point?
This is the reason why you're trying to make the argument in the first place. You're attempting to persuade people to like or dislike a viewpoint, or you're making a claim about a perspective on an issue. Without this, there's no argument at all. Most people have this step down pat, otherwise they wouldn't try to make a point at all. But the point does have to make sense. It's fine to take a stance, but if your stance can't be reinforced by any other steps in the process, then why are you doing it in the first place?

2) Back It Up!
Arguably the area in which everyone makes the more egregious errors. Alright, you're taking a stance on a issue. So, now you have to bring up some reasons why you're taking a stance on the issue. But, MOST importantly, you MUST have EVIDENCE to support your view! That's right, your argument won't stand up at all if your only support is that you think a certain way, therefore it's automatically correct. You need hard evidence.

Also, this evidence can NOT be based off of personal experience. Why is that? After all, you're making the point, shouldn't you have first-hand knowledge? Yes, but you're attempting to make a point and persuade others to consider your views. Since you've already taken a stance, anything you offer from personal experience is taken as biased, and therefore isn't objective. Unless the argument you're making is about your own personal habits or behaviors, personal experience should NEVER come into the picture.

Also, when using evidence, use ALL the evidence. If you find some evidence with strengthens your argument, but only in a certain context, you can NOT use it. It's like trying to equate a rise in the rate of violent crimes to the purchase of video games. Simply because the two events are occurring does NOT necessarily connect them. You can't pick and choose facts which only strengthen your argument if there's no context or basis for it.

3) Keep It In Your Pants, Shorty
When making your claim, do NOT use extreme language, especially if it's a topic in which you passionate take a certain stance, or the topic is controversial. The reason for this is, if your entire argument is made from the heat of anger, you don't appear objective or reasonable, in which case no one will want to take you seriously.

4) Acknowledge The Opposition
Almost EVERYONE I've ever seen making an argument fails this step miserably. When people want to make a claim, the natural thing to do is never mention your opposition, or to downplay anything and everything they might say that could potentially weaken your argument. But the KEY to making a persuasive argument is that you absolutely MUST consider possible counter-arguments.

Why? Because if you don't, then you're seen as biased, and you become unreliable. If you never consider the whole picture of the issue, than you're being narrow-minded. A lot of people seem to think that even making note of the existence of a counter-point as a sign of weakness in their statement. But nothing could be further from the truth.

Remember, you're only stating your point of view on the topic. By recognizing the flaws that might be inherent in your own argument, you don't come off as weakening your own statement. In fact, it makes you MORE persuasive. How so? Because you appear objective, reasonable, moderate. By considering the opposition, you can point out that "yes, these points could be correct" but you could always point out other evidence that counters those arguments as well.

5) Misquote And Die
Another egregious error. People who make arguments may be tempted to use partial facts or evidence, or to quote sources and ONLY quote what is relevant to you, and nothing else. DO. NOT. DO THIS. This is what's known as "academic dishonesty" If you do it in school, you can get in SERIOUS trouble. Outside of school, if people find out about this and see you doing it, you're liable to lose any and ALL credibility whenever making an argument ever. Really, just DON'T. DO IT. It's as bad as plagiarism.


There we go. Some good steps to making a decent argument! Remember, all things in moderation, and consider the WHOLE picture!

Heeeee! <3 Almost here! Tonight at 12:01am I'll get to see it! <3 <3 <3 Been waiting a LONG time for this one.

Anyone who hasn't heard of or checked out this movies seriously needs to do so. It hasn't been highly advertised, which is ironic considering it's a Peter Jackson film (and his stuff usually gets overadvertised up the ass!). Also, it's being directed by the guy who was going to do the Halo movie before Microsoft and Universal killed the project. Anyone who followed that should know the quality of the director.

Anyway, I can't WAIT to see it! <3

So, as of...almost a year ago, I helped do closed and open beta testing for the MMO, Shin Megami Tensei: Imagine. It's the first MMO I've ever played, or bothered wanting to play (WoW never caught my eye, and FFXI and CoH are monthly subscriptions).

However...I seem to have run into a bit of a snag. MMOs like to promote the idea of people being able to individualize, to create a character unique to them, with a unique style and personality, with a mix and match of abilities. Unfortunately, this never seems to translate well in-game.

This is the above-mentioned 'Cookie-Cutter Syndrome', wherein there is a specific build for every class, made to perfectly optimize that classes' power. Which is fine and all...until players start demanding that you meet these standards, or you never find a party. What occurs, is that every player of a class starts looking like every other player of that same class. Because without a certain set of equipment, stats, and abilities, a party won't want you, you're a waste of a slot.

The problem seems to lie with players wanting to be as efficient as possible. It gets so bad, that in my current MMO, there's a dungeon that, if the average run is longer than 5 minutes you're doing it wrong. Yeah, it's THAT BAD.

It puzzles me then. What's the point of an MMO offering options and flexibility, when the player community fixates on only what makes a character the strongest and most efficient. I'm not saying strength and efficiency are bad, but when they're the only things players care about, I believe something important has been lost.

Apparently, compared to some of the major MMOs, Imagine is quite forgiving on how far away from the ideal build you can stray. As I'm told, City of Heroes and FFXI are quite ruthless about deviation...and God have mercy if you play WoW and stray from the norm.

It makes me a bit depressed, given that I want to try and develop a character, but that players care so much about the numbers and math, that the only way they know how to play is to min-max themselves. In fact, this feels like my old D&D games, where players cared less about making things interesting and new, and more about just how far they would bend the rules to make their characters better.

So, as a means of hopefully refreshing and reinvigorating my creative muse, I've decided to use a few of my PCA characters over in the new PSR project.

As of this moment, I'm only using two:

Riou Hotaru
Tidot Montgomery

I was considering using Vosa, but decided that just two would keep me from being overwhelmed and was a safe number to use, all things aside. Though I'm sure  ceegee would've wanted to so she would have the excuse to draw the fish in a uniform ;P

So yeah, that's the jist of it. Decided to divert my attention to something which promises to give me some new content and context to work with.

Given the rather flame-esque responses in the previous journal, I'll likely remove it. Hard to discuss any topic seriously with some folks...*sigh*

ANYWAY. Since I recently purchased Galactic Adventures, I figured I'd do a little impromptu review of the expansion, for those who own Spore, but are still unsure of whether Galactic Adventures is worth the 30 bucks.

To start, in order to get GA, you need a copy of Spore installed, that's a no brainer. When you install GA, the first thing you'll notice, is that it'll likely put it's own shortcut icon on your Desktop, and a startup icon in the EA Folder you have in your start menu. What is the purpose of this? Well, apparently you are now the proud owner of two different versions of Spore. One is the vanilla copy, which you've been playing up until you may or may not have purchased GA. The other, is the same game, only with the Galactic Adventure option, which gives you access to Quickplay, and the Creators.

So, how do I rate GA? Well first, we'll go over the various upsides to using GA:

The generation of Adventures in the Space Stage is similar to the generation of creatures, vehicles, objects, etc. It's the 'procedural generation' that Spore is famous for. Indiviudal Adventure missions are .png files whose sizes range from 2KB to 5KB total, incredibly small. I honestly think the mechanic of procedural generation is incredible because it takes something so small to generate something huge.

GA adds a new mission type that Empires in the Space Stage will offer you, which is a welcome break from the rather routine and predictable missions offered in the vanilla version of Spore. Also, the fact your Captain gets his own seperate rank, gives you a sense of individual accomplishment.

The Adventures themselves are epic in scope. Some of them range in depth from simple, to complex, with any number of objectives and goals, in a wide range of choices. This also leads me to inevitably mention the biggest chunk of GA: the Creator programs. Anyone who's played Spore can likely tell you that huge chunks of time are spent in the Creators, making whatever freaks and masterpieces your heart desires. The Adventure Creator/Editor allows you to use these objects to design your own epic quest, akin to game design on a simplified scale. What you can design, is limited only by your own ability and imagination.


Unfortunately, this is where the problems for Spore begin. Because Spore itself cannot randomly design Adventures for you to perform, the quantity and quality of Adventures is ENTIRELY dependent upon player-created content. This said, there are a number of missions whose design and execution are subpar at best, lacking proper dialogue, introductions (the most easily missed component), or even proper difficulty scaling. What do I mean by difficulty scaling? Some missions are actually MUCH harder (or easier) than the rating given in Sporepedia would have you believe.

As an example, I ran into a mission that, in theory, would've been easy to complete. Sabotage an enemy facility by blowing up parts of it with grenades that the game gave to me to use, then destroy the non-violent ships which showed up. Simple enough. Until I discovered that the rather impressive throwing distance my captain possessed was not enough to get the grenade to make contact with the enemy ships. I tried numerous times, each ending in failure. Now, my problem would've been easily solved...if I possessed a piece of equipment that allowed for me to either fly up and attack the ship, or a ranged attack I could use instead. As a result, the mission was rendered unbeatable, which meant the mission the Empire wanted me to complete was put on indefinite hold.

Also, the game tends to put a preference for sending you on adventure missions, as opposed to the missions you received during a vanilla Space Stage. So, to make sure you get quality adventures, you need to manually go through all of the ones Sporepedia downloads, and decide whether they're worth keeping or not. This may also require you to go to https://www.spore.com and go through Sporepedia for missions you want to have as well. Luckily, they're easy to put in your game, but the process of finding them is tedious.

Also the same equipment that makes your Captain a badass? It's essentially superior to any of the abilities your Captain may or may not already possess. Which, for the combat abilities, makes sense. But, why bother giving your species wings, when there's a jetpack down the line which lets you get as high as the planet's atmosphere. Not to mention having a jetpack AND wings at the same time looks ridiculous. So, if you want a captain who looks aesthetically pleasing to you, you would need to know ahead of time what the equipment is, what it does, and where you equip it. Which even I don't know at this moment.

So, overall, Galactic Adventures adds some interesting twists on a part of the game that a lot of people complained about (The micromanagement whore of a Space Stage), and IMO, makes that part of the game much more interesting. There are some bad points you have to slug through. And if you're not the patient type who can sit for hours designing an awesomely epic Adventure, then the Creators aren't for you either. But, this feels like a true expansion, unlike Cute and Creepy.

My final verdict: Definitely worth the $29.95

[ ] You know how to make a pot of coffee.
[x] You keep track of dates using a calendar.
[ ] You own a credit card.
[ ] You know how to change the oil in a car.
[x] You've done your own laundry.
[x] You can vote in an election.
[x] You can cook for yourself.
[ ] You think politics are interesting.
TOTAL SO FAR: 4

[ ] You show up for school late a lot.
[x] You always carry a pen/pencil in your bag/purse/pocket.(1/2 of them)
[x] You've never gotten a detention.
[ ] You have forgotten your own birthday.
[x] You like to take walks by yourself.
[x] You know what credibility means, without looking it up.
[x] You drink caffeine at least once a week.
TOTAL SO FAR: 9

[x] You know how to do the dishes.
[ ] You can count to 10 in another language.
[x] When you say you're going to do something you usually do it.
[x] You can mow the lawn.
[x] You study even when you don't have to.
[x] You have hand-washed a car before.
TOTAL SO FAR:15

[x] You can spell experience, without looking it up.
[ ] The people at Starbucks know you by name.
[x] Your favorite kind of food is take out.
[x] You can go to the store without getting something you don't need.
[ ] You understand political jokes the first time they are said.
[x] You can type pretty quick.
TOTAL SO FAR: 19

[ ] Your only friends are from your place of employment.
[ ] You have been to a Tupperware party.
[x] You have realized that practically no one will take you seriously unless you are over the age of 25 and have a job.
[ ] You have more bills than you can pay.
[x] You have been to the beach.
[x] You use the internet every day.
[ ] You have been outside of the United States 3 or more times.
[x] You make your bed in the morning.
TOTAL: 23

Apparently I'm 23 years old, which is close to my own age, actually. (I'm 24 myself)

At the behest of  kompy, I'm going to come forward and come clean about some stuff, regarding some things that I've done when it comes to the PCA.

To paraphrase someone I've chatted with, who will remain unnamed out of the fact that, while I have no love for this individual, I have the civility to know go around dropping names of people I dislike:

"I don't give a shit about how people feel. I don't pay attention unless it actively interests me. And that I've treated people like shit, and that when it comes back to bite me, I act like a victim."

These aren't his exact words, but it's a close approximation. And for the most part, he's fairly accurate. I didn't (and still don't) really care what people think or feel about me, and I don't always take into consideration how they feel when I do something. A rather keen example, was the Journal that was posted on the PCA account which started this entire fiasco, which lead us to this point.

While the contents of said journal, could very indeed be seen as a personal attack, that wasn't the intention. It is true, I did not, in the course of writing that journal, ask for any approval on it's contents, nor stop to consider the possible consequences of posting that material. If I had, likely a great deal of the drama that occured could've been avoided, I'll admit that. I had simply desired to take a more active role in trying to make sure that the masses of the PCA community, remained informed and up to date. But then, they say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

As for treating people like shit, again I won't drop the names of said people, but they know who they are. In one instance, I was present during a chat in which a few of these aforementioned people were sitting around, and openly making terrible remarks about the quality, or rather the lack thereof, of artwork and whatnot, submitted by other people in the PCA community.

I found this rather aggravating and disconcerting. It seemed completely unfair, that these people considered themselves the judge of what was "quality" material, and had come to the belief that the artists/writers/etc that they were poking fun at, were somehow obviously no good. What bothered me the most, was that, at some time in the past, I use to be one of them. I use to partake in said ribbing on these artists, for no other reason than shits and giggles.

And I'm really not to proud of having done that. I came to a realization, that in making fun of them, which included the drawing of joke pictures and comments worded as thinly veiled insults at these people, we, who were trying to perhaps set an example for the community, were nothing more than trolls. What then really got me unnerved, was the fact that these people tried to explain their actions as "artistic criticism." That, because these images drawn by other artists weren't appealing to their sense of taste or value, that it was completely justified in making rude remarks about them, to "teach" them to do better.

Unfortunately for me, I let my aggravation get the better of me, and I said a few things I really shouldn't have said. And I do regret having said them. However, I have made no attempts to apologize, mostly because these people apparently don't want to hear it, based on the pokes and jabs they now direct at me. But, I'll do it anyway, at least because I should've done it right away: I apologize for the rude and immature statements I made about you.

Also, two people have recently returned to chatting with our group, who were previously absent. And no sooner do they show up, then they begin to dig into me, for my mistakes and screw-ups. All the while I do my best to remain stoic, and to not respond in kind. But, I find it odd, that these two come back, to a place they know I visit, despite both of them disliking to me a severe degree. I have remained civil and polite since their return. I simply believe that they need to try and act the same. They both made a choice to come back. I'm not saying that they have to like me, or act like friends. However, a measure of tolerance wouldn't hurt.

Kompy has tried to ask that I talk to them, and attempt to at least work through some of the issues. However, as they have repeatedly displayed, they have no such interest in any reconciliation at all, based on all the various statements they've made, including one inparticular: "Half the PCA's problems would be solved if you went away."

Perhaps that's true. But I'm not going to leave, I'm not going to disappear. I joined this project and community, because of Kompy. Without her, I wouldn't have found this place, which has been the source of much inspiration, and without whom I wouldn't have met some of the people that I've come to respect and admire. I suppose that, as long as Kompy remains, I have a reason to remain as well. She is one of my dearest friends, despite having only known each other for a little over 2 years or so.

Again, I'm not asking that you, those people who dislike me, and I just be best buds or anything. I'm not going to ask that you change your opinion of me, either. You don't have to like me, or the things that I do. But, if we're going to be in this community, there needs to be some amount of tolerance, if only for the sake of not creating any further drama or damage than has already been done. I'm fairly certain that  dh01 would want that, at the very least.

Edit: Also, if you feel that you really just cannot even pretend to tolerate me, then I ask that you consider the other people who are present when you go to try and make a spectacle by trying to make a jab at me. I'm fairly certain that they don't like being witnesses to drama, or flys on the wall either. So, if for no one else, think of the others, and their feelings. Because if you go and make a scene, it doesn't do anything but make other uncomfortable, and makes them not want to be around when you start something. If you feel you must, start another room so that you can say whatever you please without making it difficult for everyone else to enjoy their fun.

And I'm NOT saying that this is something that only you have to do. I have to learn to try and think more about what my actions wil mean to others and how it will impact them. And I need to learn not to let my temper get the better of me, despite how much it tempt me to do or say things that, at that moment, I'd been wanting to let out. I'm willing to work towards a change. And whether you're willing to work with me as well, I leave to you. But I will do my best to be more considerate.

As such, to everyone else, who is either indifferent to me, or who perhaps thinks of me in friendly terms, I ask you this: If you notice that I am starting to get out of hand, whether in a chat, an IM, or some other means of communication, that you take me aside and talk to me. Privately of course. No need to make a scene. And be honest, but please don't be rude. Just tell me that I'm starting to get a little overboard. I often have a bad habit of not realizing I'm repeatedly shooting myself in the foot. Also, if there's an issue you have with something I've said, or perhaps written (such as my PCA writing pieces), again feel free to contact me and discuss them. I'm more than willing to take the time to listen to your concerns. It doesn't that I'll necessarily do as you say, but I will take the time to consider what you've said, as long as you so in a respectful manner.

I want to have fun in this project as much as many of you. I admit, I've made a rather sizeable share of screw-ups along the way. Darius being one such unsuccessful experiment. However, I was rather pleased that, while you agreed his role as principal was over, that you enjoyed his character and personality, with some of you on the forums boards requesting his continued presence. While that decision isn't in my hands, it's good to know that the experience wasn't a complete and total failure. I'll do my best to work around that, and improve further. For example, the current event, Beach Field Day.

Thank you for your time, and your consideration of the abovementioned issues.

Well, I restarted my Platinum game, in order to test a new team (A practice I did frequently in D/P)...and completely forgot about my event legendaries. Now, I don't really give a rat's ass about Shaymin, except for the flower and the Micle Berry.

But Deoxys and Darkrai actually had some sentimental value...and I was in such a hurry to start over because of the fact the Secret Key wifi event ended yesterday...that I hurried through and didn't bother sending them to anyone.

So, I'm going to make a request, though I don't expect anyone to care or to accept it.

Does anyone have the Toys R Us Event Deoxys and Darkrai that you would be willing to give to me?

I will NOT be restarting Platinum, due to the fact the Secret Key can no longer be obtained, so there's no risk of me losing your legendaries. Also, I don't care about their items. I have friends who have Micle and Enigma berries. I just want the Pokemon really.

As I said, I'm just making this request because I did a very, very big stupid, and maybe there's someone who doesn't care about their event pokemon -_-

Yeah I know, I suck...

Sunday was my birthday, however, I was busy hanging out with  zenmigawa and  midekai for me to make a journal about it.

So now I'm 24

And my mother is hounding me harder than ever to find a job. She makes it sound so fucking easy ><

Ugh...

...must come to an end.

Well, it's that time for me. I'm a few days away from finishing up college, and I will have earned my Bachelor's degree. As of...Friday, I will have a 60 day deadline (2 months from Friday) to find a job, and a place to stay, and I will have to have moved out. Or, if I fail to make the deadline, I will be kicked out.

I will likely be allowed to keep the laptop that I've been using for some time, and likely at some point I will acquire a desktop. But if you do not hear or see much of me, this will be the reason why.

I promise I'm not going to just drop off the face of the Earth, but you will probably see less of me until I get this worked out.

Darius's "Rape Face"
.
.
.
.
Fear it. >:3

Well, apparently it came out/is coming out, and while I won't spoil anything for those of you who haven't played it yet, for those of you who's only source of info are game trailers and Wikipedia, allow me something to sate your appetite. It's three words:

WESKER.

BOSS.

FIGHT.







That is all >_>

You Scored as The all-round cute gay guy

YOu are a cute guy who many would die to be with..........lucky!!

The all-round cute gay guy
70%
A Big Bear
60%
S + M guy
20%
Raging Queer
20%
Straight Acting
20%
Straight Queer Basher
10%
Straight
10%

Huh, well, that does fit me quite nice. I guess I am a /bit/ bearish IRL. *looks down at himself*

Advanced Global Personality Test Results

Extraversion |||||||||||| 50%
Stability |||||||||||| 42%
Orderliness |||||||||||| 42%
Accommodation |||||||||||||||||| 74%
Interdependence |||||||||||||||| 70%
Intellectual |||||||||| 34%
Mystical |||||| 30%
Artistic |||||||||||||||| 63%
Religious || 10%
Hedonism || 10%
Materialism |||||||||||||||| 70%
Narcissism |||||||||| 36%
Adventurousness |||||| 23%
Work ethic |||||||||| 36%
Humanitarian |||||| 23%
Conflict seeking || 10%
Need to dominate || 10%

Romantic |||||||||||||||| 63%
Avoidant |||||| 30%
Anti-authority |||||| 30%
Wealth || 10%
Dependency |||||||||||||| 56%
Change averse |||||||||||||| 56%
Cautiousness |||||| 30%
Individuality |||||||||| 36%
Sexuality |||||||||||||||||||| 90%
Peter pan complex |||||| 30%
Family drive |||||| 23%
Physical Activity |||||| 23%
Histrionic |||||||||||| 50%
Paranoia |||| 16%
Vanity |||||||||||| 50%
Honor |||||||||||||||| 63%
Thriftiness |||||||||||||||| 70%

Stability results were moderately low which suggests you are worrying, insecure, emotional, and anxious.

Orderliness results were moderately low which suggests you are, at times, overly flexible, improvised, and fun seeking at the expense of reliability, work ethic, and long term accomplishment.

Extraversion results were medium which suggests you are moderately talkative, outgoing, sociable and interacting.

trait snapshot:
changeable, in the middle, suspicious, somewhat traditional, dislikes chaos, down to earth, group oriented, practical... you scored in the middle on the overall factors of this test.

Huh...well, it's somewhat accurate, if you ask me. I was kinda surprised how spot on this test was. Yeah, I see myself as somewhat middle of the road. Uncanny really. Also, who the fuck are the Pixies?!

Well, day after the shitstorm, and I'm not feeling too good. Anyway, it does seem that given last's night events, that there will be changes coming. This issue that came up was actually long overdue, and I just apparently happened to flick the lighter that started the blaze, as it were.

As it were, I would like to help in the changes that are to come. However, I won't go into this with people's prejudice breathing down my neck, especially given the almost unilateral response of "Wow, Melfice is a dick, he's been trying to screw us over." I mean, I honestly want to help, but if I'm going to be blacklisted, then I see little point.

However, I will answer a few questions and address comments that seemed to pop up with some regularity:

1) The project should be encouraging good ideas/characters/stories, not trashing bad ones.

Of course it should, that's a given. However, you can't have one without the other. Also, "trashing" isn't the right word. If you mean "trash-talking", well, people will do that whether you try to discourage them or not. And in fact, when we saw something that was problematic, we approached the writer/artist and asked questions, offered constructive criticism, and attempted to help improve their work. Sometimes we were even asked for help! Now, just because we give advice, doesn't mean people will follow it. And if they don't and continue on the path they have, what are we to do? Usually then we just shrug our shoulders, ignore them, and move on. We don't force our advice down people's throats, or force rewrites and redraws.

At the same time, I'm sure everyone has run across characters/stories/ideas that make you laugh or cringe at how outlandish and unrealistic it is, for the setting. Yes, I am saying "realism" in pokemon, but let me give you an example:

A person writes a story about a military academy, who wishes to show that it's style is better than the PCA, parachutes in a bunch of it's members and proceeds to shoot everyone.

Now, can anyone tell me this isn't the most ridiculous idea you've ever seen? This isn't even an idea anyone's done (and hopefully no one will ever do). But you can tell that there's no way you'd look at this and say "this is acceptable". It could be even worse and mention other people's characters without the other person's consent. So what do we do? We can offer advice and what not, but if the person doesn't want to do anything....Well, then we could just say "No, that's unacceptable", and move on. The problem lies, when you get say 10, 20, or more people who do this. If someone has an idea or an alternative to help, it would be quite helpful.

2) Melfice used Darius to further his own agenda.

This appears to be the most common thought I see. So, I'll make it clear. With the exception of a few times in which I was asked to play Darius personally (like his opening address), I've never had sole control over him, or made unilateral decisions regarding his actions. The new rules he came up at his opening address were talked about beforehand, as was the dress code. The uniforms? That was also a decision talked about amongst others. Also, while the "school rules" were seen as horribly restricting and creativity-quashing, it was simply meant to be part of the setting. It was a school coming under new management. There was no malicious intent on the parts of the admins.

3) What about the other admins?

To be honest, at this point  Kompy is the only remaining admin from the original 4 who still technically holds an "administrative position" Which means that she deals with all the notes, journals, faves, and submissions that you, the community, post to the PCA. She wasn't even originally desire all that responsibility, but it was given to her anyway. Under a great deal of stress, those of us who knew her tried to help alleviate her burden. So, in a technical sense, she's the only remaining "admin". However, since the other day, there's going to be some reworking.

4) The project is self-regulating, needing only a little nudge.

An art project is indeed self-regulating, of course. But then, when you deal with a community this size, what do you when people begin using other people's characters in stories/pictures/ideas, what do we do? Like mentioned above, when you have people making outrageous characters and stories, do we put them on the list? What do we do? I understand the need to not simply dump people in the gutter, but I think that, since the community has grown beyond the scope of a simple art project, that some manual regulation and quality control aren't unnecessary. I agree, an iron fist is likely too much, but just a tiny nudge here and there might not be enough, especially not as the project continues to grow.

5) "Power-gamers/god-modders"

Oy. I've been in more than enough roleplays and what not to know what this means. Well, what goes on in a private roleplay setting is private. Therefore, within that privacy, you can do what you want. That was never under any question. But then, when people try to bring in, you need to be more careful. However, in the case of Darius, I have to ask why people were making accusations of the god-modding and/or power-gaming.

Darius is the principal. He doesn't answer to the students. He was also never a villian meant to be "defeated" or "overthrown" by the students. He was meant to fill a slot left open, that NO ONE had filled yet, or offered to fill. He was designed to be a character that other characters would hate. What seemed to happen, was that, when the "fake school" people played in began to emulate the "real school" I'm sure many of you attend, it seems people took offense.

But it was never meant to squeeze the throats of artists and writers. It was meant to add a twist to the setting. And it's true, it was done without warning, without consent. But then, think about it. If every single possible idea was ran through the community, I doubt anything bad or influencial would ever happen. There would be no change.

6) "Melfice tore down other people, while making himself out to be a saint."

...If that were the case, I wouldn't have done so publicly. I went and put my name out on that journal, so people would know where to direct their questions and comments. It's a problem for me, that the admins usually always post anonomyously. If someone has a question, who do you note? Who do you approach? I admit, if I really wished to, I could call out all sorts of mistakes and stupid decisions people made. But I didn't, and I won't. I don't mud-sling. Now, I don't go out of my way to be a jerk, but I'm usually not aware of when I'm being a jerk anyway. It's a problem. I don't always know what I'm doing wrong, and unless I'm told, I don't know.

It would've been nice to have Carlito talk to me if he had all these issues. But never once did he come to me, personally, in private, and ask anything. What usually happened, was a series of shouting matches and more mud-slinging. Perhaps I should've stepped forward myself. But I admit that I really cannot read between the lines. Subtlety was never my strength. Of course, there are ways to talk to me where you can make an issue know WITHOUT being a jerk about it. I only wish someone had done that. Making a journal trying to rip me a new one doesn't really help me fix something this long after the fact.

7) "Canon?"

Okay, perhaps I did sound horrible when trying to explain that, but it has come up before. "Do I write as though <insert event here> happened?" "Should I draw this as though <insert even here> didn't happen?" It's not an uncommon question, even amongst ourselves, since even those of us trying to do admin work are artists or writers. It was my intent to come off as elitist or high-and-mighty. I was attempting to explain the delimma that arises. It's true, PCA will likely never have a hard-fast, set-in-stone, canon. But I'm sure we all have ideas we want approved. "Well, EbonyLeopard's and Carlito's comic is "canon", what about my idea?"

The idea of Canon in this sort of project is a terribly gray area, that can likely never be approached without inevitably making someone upset. And perhaps the PCA shouldn't ever have canon at all. But we've already established certain events as having happened. How do we allow the community to get in on this action, without destroying the continuity or flow of the project? An overanalyization? Probably, but am I wrong?

8) "I don't want to pick sides"

Good. I don't want to make people pick sides. I don't want people to think that I want them to hate Carlito, because he's getting people to hate me. I never wanted this to become a two sided street brawl, like it's become. I know I go on like a broken record about this, I cannot emphasize it enough. Yes, I fucked up, I won't deny that. I just refuse to let it be believed that I did it for some ulterior motive.

That said, I'm still willing to answer questions and try to help if I can. The project has hit a speed bump, but it still continues on, albeit at a slower pace for now. Let's all keep drawing and writing and contributing, okay?

Well, it seems my Journal up on PCA earlier got a nastier response than I thought. It seems  carlito has chosen to attack my earlier journal, DESPITE the fact that my journal was changed to try to be more neutral. I will NOT engage in a tit-for-tat fest with him. I will however, address his journal bit by bit, and dissect for you what is the truth (and there is truth in there) and what is hyperbole (And of that there is quite a bit) This a long journal, so be ready.

Before this goes any further I'll drop a word of warning that this journal will piss people off, make enemies, and likely incite a lot of bad feelings and drama. I'm not the type of person to pick a fight, but I'm not the type of person who's going to stand still and let bullshit get thrown all over me without retaliation either. In this journal I will name names and I will quote quotes, and may appear hostile, but in light of that, read if you like, knowing that every word that follows is truth.

I should note that, in the original transcript, I never mentioned him by name specifically, and only people in our group would know what had happened. I made sure never to use names, so as to ensure privacy. And not every word is the absolute truth. If it were, I wouldn't be writing this journal.

A recent journal posted at the Poke-Combat Academy by  melfice tried to detail the history of the PCA, the RP chats, the administration, and the decision-making. But the glaring amount of lies, omissions, and one-sided bullshit in it needs to be addressed. The journal has since been removed, but I'm sure many of you have seen it. For those who haven't, a transcript is available here, go read it first before you continue here.

Most of the "omissions" and "lies" he speaks about are not purposeful, on my part. I'm not going out of my way to slander him. I removed the journal because I was asked to remove it, and so I did, to try and avoid a blow-out. The journal was even rewritten and resubmitted. Apparently that was not enough.

In the beginning the PCA concept was created and encouraged by Ebony Leopard. KaeMantis, Kompy, and myself quickly came aboard, among many others whose omission in this list is not due to neglect but because there are simply too many to list, certainly no disrespect to the others who contributed in the early days is intended. Some are still with us, others have moved on to other things. Regardless, we were the "big four" of the PCA, contributing the bulk of the characters, ideas, concepts, and interaction. I think I can safely say that the long-running comic battle between EL and myself did more to accelerate the interest in the project than anything else at the time.

This is quite accurate, actually. A much better rendition than my history, but that's because PCA was in existence much longer than I was aware of. In fact, their comic battle was what got my attention.

Nicole, who gets referenced a lot as an offender to the rules, was meant to be a unique adversary, the "boss" villain. As such she had abilities beyond the normal (she knows moves not on a meowth's movelist and her resistances and weaknesses are off - though even then the anime, if considered canon, supports this) in order to make her a "boss" character - powerful and unique. It wasn't done as part of any power-gaming, it was done to give the PCA a strong, threatening, and hated villain who was unpredictable, the sort that not everyone can beat, it would take someone truly special, a worthy "hero". Again, I think I succeeded. Even after the initial rules were clarified she was perfectly legal, the first set of rules allowed for hybrids - "We prefer that you use actual pokemon for your characters, but poke hybrids (like mixed parent pokemorphs) are ok too." and Nicole was basically a meowth-hitmonlee hybrid, only spiritual, not physical. Later this was changed and she was indeed grandfathered in. Her abilities were already established, her character was already central to this fact, and yes, bringing her "in line" would have made for a total scrapping of her character. So yes, she flagrantly breaks the rules. But nobody has ever told me she's a bad character. Just because something breaks a rule doesn't make it bad, and just because a character is 100% within them doesn't make them a good character. As for the argument that "if you allow one exception you have to allow them all", nonsense, but I'll get to that later.

The first set of rule said mixed parents were fine, but never about mixed movesets and the fact Nikki isn't even a Normal-type. That's right, she's listed as a fighting type. Because of this, we had to create an entire clause for "Deltas" (A type-change which is found only the CARD GAME) I had no problems with her backstory, or her motivations, or her personality. I have a problem with her from a mechanics standpoint. I honestly doubt that switching her type and movelist would've ruined her. She still would have her determination, her drive, her villiany, everything. Just her mechanics would've changed.

Now fast-forward a few months. Ebony Leopard had always intended for Principal Felinduce to be "the" mewtwo, and unique, though admittedly never outright said such. In one of the first bureucratic moves by the PCA, an effort was made to clean up the legendaries and set rules as to how these supposedly unique beings were handled. It was decided that mewtwo was unique, but hold on...

Melfice had a mewtwo character of his own, a character ripped from one of the Persona videogames, that was the teacher for his character Riou. He talks very derisively in his journal about people being given exceptions lest their character be "made impossible to properly play", yet demanded he be given an exception for Elizabeth, his mewtwo, because she was too important and too established. Many alternative solutions were proposed but he refused to budge. After much argument EL gave in, there were now two mewtwos. Melfice had gotten his exception and been grandfathered in, yet he doesn't seem to mention this in his own journal.

It's true, I did make Elizabeth, back before I knew that EL wanted to have the one and only Mewtwo. I was originally under the assumption that Felinduce was one Mewtwo, and the the ORIGINAL (anime-canon) was still running around somewhere. With this in mind, I made Elizabeth. Also, she is not "ripped from the Persona series" (Persona 3 specifically), just her name, and a SINGLE OUTFIT THAT KOMPY DREW FOR FUN. Otherwise, she shares nothing in common with this other character. Also, I did not talk "derisively". It was true, I was adamant on keeping her. Mostly because a miscommunication had caused me to create a character that had been around for WEEKS. Perhaps I should've given her up. In that respect, he's right, and I'm likely a hypocrite. But it's difficult to want to give something you put a lot of investment in.

And now that we've opened that can of worms, let's go digging around and see what we find. Point number two, from the above-mentioned journal - "I won’t even go into the number of characters who were basically overly talented, and some claiming to be even better than the teacher that taught them."

Last spring Melfice pulled, out of nowhere, an attack on the PCA by his character Riou's brother Issen, a shadow pokemon who fought in death matches, was undefeated, and can apparently defeat the entire school at once, faculty included, and break the planet in half and smash it on either side of Galactus' head if he comes to visit. Perhaps I exaggerate, but only a little bit. He might have to hit Galactus twice. The attack landed several students in the hospital and tore up the grounds near the campus. Plans were made to unify to defeat this menace, only to find out that he's unbeatable, nothing anyone does will matter, and that only Riou, thanks to his divine level aura powers, training from a god-like legendary, and the collection of unique artifacts she has in her shop, is able to defeat him. Everyone else is just along to watch him basically battle himself. Keep in mind this is the person who accuses others of god-modding and power-gaming.

I should note, this event took place in our private RP group, and had no bearing on other people. Later, it's true, it did become important, but at the time, it was only important to the character involved. Also, Issen's defeat was again, a private event which originally would've taken place in a private RP, away from the school, and therefore, unimportant to the community at large. Remember, I did say that it's fine to do stories about your own characters and their lives, as long as you didn't involve others without their consent. In this instance, everyone involve consented.

Also, Issen is not nearly so one-dimensional as that, but this is not the place or time to deal with it. Suffice it to say that Issen is as deep a character as Nikki, but Issen was made at a time before the community was formed at large, when the group was only 3 people. So he made a perfect villian. As the group grew, I realized that his super-villian status would be a problem and thus, I limited his exposure. However, the "attack" was my fault, I admit. At the time, people wanted to do something spontaneous and exciting, and suddenly, Issen came to mind. It was probably a bad idea in retrospect, but I did it, and I take responsibility for it.

This same character, Riou, a sophomore, who claims he only wants to live a humble life as an artist and who has only been training to fight for two years or so (don't quote me on this, I may be wrong on the specifics, but it's certainly not a life-long commitment), claims that he can defeat the best team in school single-handedly. This same character, in a role-played fight, took on a senior rhyperior who had been built as a monster heel and had seriously injured (to the hospital with broken bones) several previous opponents. After dodging or evading (by sheer skill of course) the vast majority of attacks against him he finally took a couple hits only to take a triple Swords Dance powered Fire Fang (lucarios are weak to that, right?) linked with a Thunder Fang and not go down, all it did was make him angry. The match was effectively called, and after taking ten minutes to laugh it off, he went for sushi. This is run by the same person who accuses others of god-modding and power-gaming.

I'll point out that never once did Riou claim to be able to defeat Team Jet by himself. I remember remarking to Kompy once in jest, that if this were the video game, Riou has the movelist to beat Jet, but that was never meant to be taken seriously. I'll also note, that the fight between said Senior and Riou was scripted between me and the player of said Rhyperior. From start to finish, we knew how it was going to play out, and how it would end. Riou actually did sustain heavy injury. The reason he WASN'T hospitalized, is because it was become a growing annoyance among the players, that fights were constantly ending with hospital stays. Again also, this was a scene in a private RP group with no bearing on anyone else, so what we did in those RPs really shouldn't be a sign of my character.

This same person also pushed forward a plotline involving a serial rapist on campus and now cites both this incident and the attack on the school by Riou's brother as the need for greater security under Darius's rule, making himself both the cause and effect. Speaking of attacks on the school, I was the one he mentioned in his journal who had the idea about a rival school vandalizing the PCA grounds. This was done to setup the big homecoming Pokeball game between the PCA and their hated rivals. Anyone who has gone to an actual high school knows that such pranks are a normal occurrence, and usually end up escalating, yet it was decried as unrealistic.

The idea was to set up a series of exchanged pranks and mischief between the two schools in a plotline that I will here and now admit was lifted from an episode of Saved by the Bell. The idea was to involve everyone in some capacity, rally everyone around school spirit, and promote the "big game", the sorts of things that you do in high school. The culmination of which would be sneaking onto the rival school to steal their mascot, a feral arcanine dressed up as a heatran. Yet somehow this doesn't "focus on the PCA, and the dynamic of the students and how their feelings and affiliations affect their own decisions."

Melfice led the charge in shooting this idea down. The school's security was too tight, there's no way anyone could possibly sneak onto the school grounds to spray paint a couple of banners, replace the flag, and set a trap for whomever tried to get it down. The attempt made the security look inept, the principal look foolish, was unrealistic, and was flatly shot down and shit on. And yet here we are, with rampant vandalism that's ten times worse, easily perpetrated and unpunished. So what changed? Why was my original idea shot down while this one embraced?

Easy. This time it directly involved one of Melfice's characters, namely Principal Darius, allowing him to be in the spotlight of it all. The previous version would have left him out of it, and so it was shot down. A rival school sneaking onto school grounds to pull pranks and vandalism before the big game followed by escalating retaliation is a staple of high school life, I don't see how he gets off saying such a thing has no place in a high school setting. And now, as evidenced by his personal journals, we once again have an omnipotent, unstoppable enemy (Darius) that only Riou can save us from. Sound familiar? This is the same person who accuses others of god-modding and power-gaming, playing both the hero and villain, relegating everyone else to the position of spectator.

(Incidentally, how was the prank and vandalism committed? They had inside information from a PCA student loyal to their old school, which was the one who pulled the pranks. The trap was created by a very intelligent noctowl student at the rival school and set by a togekiss using both flight and ExtremeSpeed to get in quickly and undetected, setting the trap and leaving the scene in a matter of seconds, easily able to avoid security)

Honestly, there is so much crap here, I'm not even sure where to start. For one, I was ASKED to play Darius during his inaugural address when he took power. No one objected to it. The rape scene was again a private scene, and yes, it was my fault for using it, but at the time, Darius was a simple character, with simple motivations. Also, never was an objection raised.

As for the prank, I don't remember clearly all the details of the scene, but really, most of what Carlito has said, was not something I was aware of. When I was in high-school, I admit, I was only in one class, but there was never any mention of pranks the likes of which Carlito has described as apparently being common-place. But then, I live in California. *shrug* As for "leading the charge"? No, I wasn't. I was not the loudest voice in the room at the time.

As for me accepting the recent GLEE Club...well, that's because Carlito's prank was limited to just the RP chat group, and the GLEE Club is over the entire community. Though my acceptence of the GLEE club did NOT come unanimously (I talked to Kompy and several other people), and I didn't accept the idea just to screw Carlito over. Also, in NO way was Riou supposed to "defeat" Darius. Where is he getting this idea that somehow Riou is the protagonist of the PCA? It's true, I've used him in numerous RPs, and he was a "center of attention" in them, but again, this was just when the group was smaller, as it's grown, he's no longer nearly as central.

But now let's get to the object of everyone's hate - Principal Darius himself. When Ebony Leopard removed Felinduce from the position as principal it was partly over being told "stuff it" over Melfice's mewtwo, and partly because he was tired of having every idea he had to build a community project shot down, no matter how minor. It was a symbolic gesture. For a few weeks there was debate over who to have take the position, several suggestions were made, most ignored, in favor of Darius, originally a cooperative character of three people. But now one of them has given up claims on him, and Melfice has effectively taken control of him. Darius was created with no backstory, no motivations, and no real character at all, he was created to coincide with the special darkrai event for Pokemon Diamond and Pearl.

The idea was for him to be an evil, oppressive, hateful character, but nobody wants to deal with such a character. People are involved with the PCA to have fun, and while some rules are fine (schools have rules after all), ones that deliberately stomp on people's ability to express themselves and their characters are a bad, bad idea. Confronting people with an unstoppable, unbeatable villain is not a good way to encourage participation. Darius cannot be defeated, answers to nobody, and sees and knows all. What sort of conflict can there possibly be there? He was supposed to be temporary, an event, but that won't happen. He will never do anything to warrant removal because those who control him don't want to give up their power by proxy. The character was a bad idea and continues to be a bad idea, but he won't be fixed or removed because those responsible for such are happy with the status quo.

Wow. Just. WOW. Holy shit. This guy has no clue what went into making Darius does he? Originally, Darius was just a Board member, because I thought a Darkrai would be interesting. And the profile was half-finished. And as such, with no candidates for the slot, I offered up Darius. I was told to finish the profile, and let it be reviewed, and it was done so. And people liked it, in the group anyway. And when he was drawn and finalized by myself, Kompy, and EL (the Team MEK that would've seen in Darius credits)

As for him being purely evil and one dimensional...I admit, he started that way. But I hated that, it seemed shallow and stupid to make a character so flimsy. And it's true, he was SUPPOSED to be temporary, except we were never told when Felix was coming back. Or any timeline AT ALL. Was it a week? Could be. A month? A possibility. Never were we given any sort of indication. And since I had no idea what or when, I decided to give Darius more depth of character. Ever seen Kompy's sketches about Delalune and Darius? Or Zenmigawa's comic? DEPTH OF CHARACTER. NOT PROXY FOR ME TO USE TO ASSUME POWER! (And what "power" am I assuming anyway?! I don't run PCA!)

And there we have it. A person who has said that he is only interested in the PCA as long as it entertains him and holds the idea that his characters are the only ones that matter with everyone else along as supporting cast is in charge of the PCA's principal and now has the authority to decide what is canon and what isn't. If you want to be considered "canon", you'd best be prepared to kiss ass. Here's the thing - this is a communal project. He has no business telling anyone what is canon. People are free to contribute what they please, if it is a good idea and people like it, they will choose to interact with it, rules be damned. If it's a stupid, bad, power-gaming, twink of an idea, people will ignore it. Sure a couple of people might want to play Pokeball Z with each other in the halls with their super-Saiyan chaos emerald wielding pokemorphs, but let them. They're free to go off in their own sandbox and play, everyone else is free to ignore them. People flock to quality, whether it be writing, art, or just characters. Attempts to instill strict and harsh regulations and rules are just an excuse to cover up for bad attempts of the above.

So what can be done? Do what you want, speak up, make your displeasure known. This is a democracy - a communal art project. The PCA admins (which is realistically only two people who only confer between themselves and maybe one or two others when they feel like it) only have power which is granted to them, they aren't dictators. If you dislike the idea of Darius, dislike how he's played and who's playing him, and dislike the rules that the "canon" admins make, say so. They don't own the PCA, you do. All of you. If they won't mark your contribution in the favorites or otherwise acknowledge it, send me a note. If I think it's a cool idea, I will. Fair warning though, if I think it sucks, I'll let you know. While going along with some hardship and some drama is all part of the game, there's a line between what is good for the PCA as a whole and what is being done to stroke one person's ego. And that friends is the truth of things. If you have an idea or character that you like, you believe in, but that may not conform 100% to the rules, don't let a guy who doesn't care about your character unless it makes his look good tell you what to do with them. I'm sure as hell not.

I never stated that "canon" required kissing ass. I was in fact quite respectful as far as that goes, I believe. But again, at this point, there's nothing more to say. I apparently cannot say anything in my own defense, because I made a mistake. I overzealously took a step to try and fix what I thought was a hole forming in our boat that is this community. It was never my belief or intention to do anything simply to cause damage, or to throw punches or attacks.

At this point, you're all welcome to believe what you want. I've said my piece. As has Carlito. If you choose to believe him, fine. If you believe me, fine. If you think both sides have points, alright. If you'd rather just stay out, that's cool too. I just want you to have an informed decision. I did not just wake up one morning, and decide I was going to rule the PCA, and destroy anyone who stood against me. I like this community a lot, it's a big source of fun and inspiration for me. I wouldn't intentionally damage it. I made mistakes, big ones in fact, but never with any malicious intent. At least believe that, if nothing else.

To all my loyal readers,

I was more than a little shocked. My controversial series on the state of affairs in the school went over better than I thought. I was fully expecting to come to school the next day to find a slew of nasty emails and letters, my locker trashed, perhaps even my desk in school defaced. But the reasonable responses and insightful comments from my audience, leads me to believe that my audience actually saw through my overtly confrontational tone.

I do apologize for that tone. At first, I was merely reporting the state of affairs, but as I continued to read and write, I found myself growing more and more angry and passionate about the subject, to the point that I probably gave myself cramps with how furiously I was typing. And I did receive a talking to from the Editor-In-Chief about my language, as a well as a lecture from Vice Principal Perjan. Perhaps the only thing that saved me from suspension is the fact that I had a good track record with the paper and as a student, and this was my first serious deviation.

But all the same, I'm glad that the student body at least on some level agrees with my words. I underestimated the intellect and reasoning capabilities of my fellow students, and I assure you I will not be foolish the next time. Don't worry though, I won't likely be approaching such a hot and steamy topic anytime soon!

However, I do have a plan for my next series of articles, however. I'll be doing a series of reports and in-depth looks at a number of up-and-coming teams from each grade level!

(Same gig as last time folks, you should know the routine by now, if you don't...well, look back at the other ones)

The New and the Old Part 3: The Devil We Know & the Devil We Don't

Hello, my loyal readers. I decided that you all deserved to have Valentine's Day off from my rantings and ravings, to spend the day with your special someone, that one person closest to you. And for those of you who couldn't for whatever reason, I hope at least you did not spend the day moping. Well, I draw now to the final part of my trilogy of articles. I've been building to this one, warning you of how controversial and shocking it may be. As an added precaution, those of who willing to sit through what may cause fits of rage amongst the majority, please, find a quiet, comfortable place to sit down, where you won't disturb anyone else. What I am about to say next, will likely come across as quite confrontational and hostile. My loyal readers, please however, bear with me.

I have attended this school, for 2 years now. And I have borne witnesses to things both good and bad within the hallowed grounds of this campus. However, what tends to bother me most, and what has most recently disturbed me, even greater than the dress code outrage, or the vandalism...is ignorance, and misinformation, or rather, the willful spread of these terrible things. It started around the time Principal Aubtraum took over the school. We grumbled and mumbled, and said our peace, before school life kicked back in after the summer. When I came back, I found myself welcomed by a horrific spectacle. Somehow, Felix Felinduce was slowly be pushed up the moral and spiritual ladder, while Darius was being shoved down.

As the year progressed, it became worse and worse. People started to become louder, more insistent, and further the gap was widened. Recently, with the uniform code, the gap was not only widened to a considerable degree, the ladder between was broken, to prevent the gap from ever being closed. What do I speak of? It is simple. As the school year progressed, Felix was continually elevated as a paragon of virtue and right, while Darius diminished as the scourge of 'mon kind. At its peak, Felix was given a divine sainthood you'd think would be reserved for only the purest souls, while Darius was portrayed as little more than a greedy, power-hungry tyrant who sat in his office jerking off to the cries and howls of our suffering.

This is complete, and utter, bullshit. Felix isn't and never will be any kind of saint, and Darius is not our worst nightmare. The two of them are more alike than you would think.

That's right, I said it. Already, I'm sure a handful of you have ripped your papers to shreds for me even attempting to challenge this view. Still more of you are swearing storms, already planning in your head the hateful mail, and other things you'll likely try to do to otherwise diminish me. But I don't care. More than a few will accuse me of sucking on the Principal's dick as a favor for being handed my position. I assure you that never was, and never will be, the case. I report the truth, the cold, hard truth. And the fact of the matter is, that many of you have skewed your own views so viciously, that you don't care that I could be right.

First off, no, I was not bribed nor offered anything to write this article. This position was never given to me under the condition that I extol the virtues of the current administration. I feel no obligation, contractual, or otherwise, to shower praise upon the Principal. But that does not mean I cannot thank him. Without him, I wouldn't have this position. He could've given to any number of people, who likely would be much more qualified than I to handle this job. The Principal himself does not benefit from having me specifically in this position. Therefore, I gain nothing by lying to you. I will receive no extra credit for the content of this article, nor am I earning any form of payment at this moment.

I am typing here merely to report the truth as I see it. And the truth is, Felix Felinduce is NOT the kindly old man he is necessarily made out to be. I'll begin by listing his transgressions. First and foremost: The Dress Code. Many of you might not be aware of this, but remember your freshman year, when you received that book on PCA rules and regulations? The dress code, as it was re-enforced, was already IN the rule book, clear as day. However, it seemed Felix decided that the dress code didn't matter and that it was perfectly reasonable for children to go around school half-naked, or dressed like Saffron slum whores.

Secondly, the rather lax rules regarding the Arena. Many of you will claim that the rules as they stand now, are unnecessary limitations that only diminish the impact of battle. But honestly, does impact require that we engage in crotch-shots, and claws to the jugular? Need I remind everyone of the disastrous Team Red vs. Team Jet, David vs. Goliath, which ended in nothing short of the full massacre of Team Red, in a ridiculously over-the-top, and completely unnecessary show of force? I should hope not. For those who weren't here for that. Team Red is an up-and-coming Freshman Team, which possesses a rare energy and talent, while Team Jet is the top Senior team of the school.

Through circumstances which started in a brawl being forced by Team Jet while in the school halls (another one of Felix's gaps in judgment), it ended with an official match in the ring. While there's no evidence or information regarding the setup of the match itself, for whatever reason, neither Team would back down. While Red cannot be absolved of responsibility for getting wildly over their heads, why could Team Jet show they were the better 'mon and decline the challenge, forfeit, or refuse to fight? Was it truly necessary to physically and psychology destroy the team? Even worse, why was no move made to stop the match?! When it was clear this fight had degraded into a not a respectable Arena Match, but a street brawl, it should've been halted immediately. But Felinduce stood there, allowing it continue without as much as a nod. I don't care what arrangements were made, or extenuating circumstances existed. If this school and its rules are the property of Felinduce, it was in his power to stop them.

The fighting in the halls is in itself an issue. Even with hall monitors, it was an event which could almost be counted upon to occur daily. And what possible benefit was there for the lesser classmen to be picked on and singled out for torment by the bullies? Is there any educational value to this? Of course not!! And yet not a single finger was raised to stem this tide. I myself made the foolish mistake of engaging in such a fight, but only after witnessing the bullying of a lower classman. Regardless of the circumstances, students do NOT have the right to attempt to dominate, intimidate, or otherwise bully other students like this is some wild herd in the Safari Zone! We are civilized mon for Arceus' sake!

This next point is in itself, a more personal grievance, but for me it is troublesome. I had to work hard to earn a place in the PCA, and I'm sure that a lot of you, my readers, worked hard too. But there are some, who never tried to get in, who perhaps had no thoughts of coming to PCA. But they were allowed in, because their parents spoke to Felinduce, or had connections, and got enough strings pulled and favors turned in, to get their boys and girls into this school. While I have no personal grudge against these students, I find it somewhat demoralizing that they managed to get in not on their merits, but on the favors of the administration. What was the point of all the hard work and effort some of us put in, the strain and hours and weeks and months and years we took getting ready? Why is it fair that our struggles to achieve the standards necessary to be considered are rendered moot by the fact that anyone with connections can simply ask to get in, or possibly bribe your way in! (Money does make the world go round)

But no, the most grievous crime? The one thing I still haven't, and possibly won't forgive? Leaving us. That's right, sometime after Spring Break, Felix Felinduce and Ms. Catherine Meow left the school, leaving us in the care of two Ditto interns who took on their appearance, something that apparently even caught the faculty by surprise. I have to ask this of even the most diehard of Felinduce fans: If he is really such a wonderful 'mon, why did he up and abandon us without a word, or even a goodbye? What reason could he possibly have had for simply vanishing without a trace? And before anyone gives the explanation that his reason might be something we kids won't understand: Then why couldn't he have least had said goodbye to us? Do we mean so little that he must steal away in the dark of night to get away? He could've lied to us and said it was a vacation, and at least we would've been momentarily appeased.

Now, before any accuses me of simply spending all my time bashing Felix, I'll say this. Darius isn't a saint either. Far from it. His heavy-handed and forceful methods seem a bit rough, considering. But he has always been straightforward and forthright about his reasoning. While many of us believe he has some ulterior motive for his actions, I'll bring up the following: The uniforms are likely NOT an attempt to make a profit. For one thing, uniforms are not a reliable source of income. They're marked down significantly to make it affordable for students, and even 3 shirts are given away for free. Perhaps in the first month of the code’s enforcement, there might have been a spike in profits, but even so, as time goes on, as the demand decreases, it’s doubtful that the uniforms will may any impact in the school’s accounts, especially given how much of the school’s income comes in the form of donations, and all the money that comes from tuition and fees.

Some have cited the fact, that all the rules and restrictions in no way benefit their learning experience, or that Darius has done little to enact any policy for the student’s own betterment. But really, when did Felix ever do the same? Sure, the rules were lax and enforcement barely noticeable, but I don’t recall Felix ever creating policy designed to benefit us or our learning process. So, yes, Darius may not have done the same, but if that’s a sign of his weakness, then it must be applied to Felix as well. And really, those among my readers who are my friends, we constitute probably not even one measly percent of the student population, so while we can say that yes, Darius’ rules have not either positively or negatively affected our learning experience, we can’t say the same for everyone. I also heard at least one complaint when the new rules were first instated, that the school had become no better than a military academy. I wanted to laugh. A military academy?! Does anyone have any idea how much stricter and even more tightassed the military is? There really isn’t any comparison.

I have nothing against Felix, personally. I didn’t know the ‘mon, I’d never met him, nor did any of my family have any previous dealings with him, as some of my readers have. I am the first Hotaru to ever come to PCA. However, I disagree with the way that the school was handled then. And back then, I admit, I was too introspective and withdrawn to say how I felt. But now is different, now I’m a different ‘mon. I’m now willing to stand up and state what my beliefs are, and defend them. Even if my beliefs clash with everyone else’s

A few of my friends are confused that, given my family history of my parents attempting to make me conform, why I am advocating trying to fall into line with the system. Well, I’ll tell you, because the system and our parents are two completely different things. Our parents love us, moreso than anyone else in the world is likely capable of loving us. They attempt to guide us down a path they think will help us achieve our dreams, so that we can have the life that they perhaps never had. The teachers? They care about us, and they want us to succeed, but they do not love us like our parents, likely they never will. Plus, they are governed by a system set up by someone else that isn’t designed to love us, but to teach and educate us. Plus, unlike our parents, the system won’t compromise with us, we are not its equals, we are not its offspring. We can’t negotiate with it. It was made by someone else.

We don’t have to like the system, we don’t even have to accept it. But it won’t change simply because of that. We have to simply bear the burden it places upon us. I know that for some of you, that may be a much harder fact to swallow, but it is the sad and inevitable truth. And there is likely nothing we can do that is going to change it. For those of my loyal readers who have actually endured this entire article, please believe when I say that I personally have nothing against any of you for your beliefs. I am perfectly fine with what you believe in, and what you stand for. We all make judgments about people, I do my best to withhold until I know more. But I’m not perfect, no one is, not even our Principals and Teachers. So really, can’t we be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and not ignorantly separate them into right and wrong, simply because we don't like them. Such a simple value judgment doesn't reflect well on us students. If we want to change anything, we have to prove that we can be reasonable and respectful 'mon.