Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: jwhouk on 06 Jan 2019, 08:46
Title: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: jwhouk on 06 Jan 2019, 08:46
New Year, New Week, New Poll!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: BenRG on 06 Jan 2019, 11:25
I expect that Roko's new chassis will look mostly like her but will just be that extra bit refined. Refined to the point where sentients with the appropriate sexual interest will have difficulty concentrating around her (much to her embarrassment). I also expect lots of minor 'quirks' (actually software issues due to over-focus on marketing and form and not enough on function).
Well, at least she'll be able to get her way a bit easier, if she adopts just the right pose!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 06 Jan 2019, 11:58
I expect that Roko's new chassis will look mostly like her but will just be that extra bit refined. Refined to the point where sentients with the appropriate sexual interest will have difficulty concentrating around her (much to her embarrassment). I also expect lots of minor 'quirks' (actually software issues due to over-focus on marketing and form and not enough on function).
Well, at least she'll be able to get her way a bit easier, if she adopts just the right pose!
Yup, a physical appearance so hot she'll find it embarrassing. (I'm still shipping Roko and Clinton.)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: celticgeek on 06 Jan 2019, 19:34
Everyone deserves a fancy butt emblem, especially Roko.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: brasca on 06 Jan 2019, 19:42
Be careful about EUA terms or you could get stuck with a Galvatron upgrade and be tormented by your benefactor whenever they want... or Spookybot.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: TV4Fun on 06 Jan 2019, 20:55
Phew, that was close. For a second there I was afraid we were going to have some drama or tension in the plot.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: DSL on 06 Jan 2019, 20:56
Counseling session or chassis sale?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Penquin47 on 06 Jan 2019, 21:48
Yesssss gimme a fancy butt emblem too!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: BenRG on 06 Jan 2019, 23:24
Our time with Lemon has, IMO, strongly suggested that the eccentricities of the series are demonstrated by all of the units produced in that batch. Melon is just turned up to eleven!
I wonder how someone with such an endearing personality got to be a counsellor, a job that normally is associated with dryer personalties? She's cute but, like Melon, I imagine she'd be wearing to know over the longer term and, as others have pointed out in the past week, that's not ideal for counselling. One wonders if the AI community have a problem with having sufficient trained personnel to the point where Lemon got the job as she was the only mildly-qualified applicant?
As for Roko, whilst I understand her impulse here, I am always slightly suspicious of the top-spec model as they can also be the ones with the least-tested components!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: brasca on 07 Jan 2019, 02:13
Our time with Lemon has, IMO, strongly suggested that the eccentricities of the series are demonstrated by all of the units produced in that batch. Melon is just turned up to eleven!
I wonder how someone with such an endearing personality got to be a counsellor, a job that normally is associated with dryer personalties? She's cute but, like Melon, I imagine she'd be wearing to know over the longer term and, as others have pointed out in the past week, that's not ideal for counselling. One wonders if the AI community have a problem with having sufficient trained personnel to the point where Lemon got the job as she was the only mildly-qualified applicant?
As for Roko, whilst I understand her impulse here, I am always slightly suspicious of the top-spec model as they can also be the ones with the least-tested components!
Well she normally cheers up nuclear reactors which would require a cheerful disposition. A better counselor would make more sense, but wouldn’t be funny so for the sake of comedy we get Lemon.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Netherdan on 07 Jan 2019, 03:59
Everyone deserves a fancy butt emblem, especially Roko.
Too bad we'll never get to see the butt emblem unless it's a detachable butt like Melon's (which would be funny if the chassis had a no-return clause in the Terms & Conditions so she would either have to keep it or buy the Classic one and have to cope with living with her own "corpse" as no one would buy it second hand)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: BenRG on 07 Jan 2019, 04:09
Jeph could just show the butt emblem as a context-free close-up that's just an image on a Roko-shaded background.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: AJ_ on 07 Jan 2019, 04:32
Phew, that was close. For a second there I was afraid we were going to have some drama or tension in the plot.
Plenty of time for drama over dealing with being in a new body, new body being not quite right. Maybe bread doesn't smell the same in the new model.
I'll believe it when I see it. Jeph has gotten very good at setting up for drama and then completely copping out on it.
Do you perhaps have an example of this? I am not trying to be argumentative here, but in my view Jeph has generally been quite good at setting events up way in advance, so I am genuinely curious which comics/set-ups you are referring to.
Keep in mind that Jeph's storylines not having the drama you anticipated is not the same as 'copping out', just that your anticipated storyline was not the one Jeph envisioned himself. Unless of course you know of Jeph planning for a dramatic storyline and then ultimately deciding not to follow through...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: DSL on 07 Jan 2019, 08:56
Copping out or simply disappointing the loud legions of commenters who read gloom, despair and agony with each building plot arc, only to have it resolve at less than peak catastrophe?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: AJ_ on 07 Jan 2019, 09:25
I wonder if new Roko will be different enough that people wont recognize her right away?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Shremedy on 07 Jan 2019, 09:28
So, is Roko's new body new-new or is it used?
And is it is used, is there a....
LEMON LAW?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 07 Jan 2019, 09:28
Roko's appearance is not going to change much -- assuming she is happy with the way she looks now.
Except for the fancy butt emblem. I kinda wish I could solve -my- problems with a fancy butt emblem.
no google dont show me that
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: rtmq0227 on 07 Jan 2019, 10:28
Copping out or simply disappointing the loud legions of commenters who read gloom, despair and agony with each building plot arc, only to have it resolve at less than peak catastrophe?
Remember that time that people were convinced we were going to see Union Robotics taken to court and fiscally destroyed? Pepperidge Farm remembers :P
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 07 Jan 2019, 11:42
Phew, that was close. For a second there I was afraid we were going to have some drama or tension in the plot.
Plenty of time for drama over dealing with being in a new body, new body being not quite right. Maybe bread doesn't smell the same in the new model.
I'll believe it when I see it. Jeph has gotten very good at setting up for drama and then completely copping out on it.
Do you perhaps have an example of this? I am not trying to be argumentative here, but in my view Jeph has generally been quite good at setting events up way in advance, so I am genuinely curious which comics/set-ups you are referring to.
Keep in mind that Jeph's storylines not having the drama you anticipated is not the same as 'copping out', just that your anticipated storyline was not the one Jeph envisioned himself. Unless of course you know of Jeph planning for a dramatic storyline and then ultimately deciding not to follow through...
Alice Grove.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: SpanielBear on 07 Jan 2019, 11:48
Phew, that was close. For a second there I was afraid we were going to have some drama or tension in the plot.
Plenty of time for drama over dealing with being in a new body, new body being not quite right. Maybe bread doesn't smell the same in the new model.
I'll believe it when I see it. Jeph has gotten very good at setting up for drama and then completely copping out on it.
Do you perhaps have an example of this? I am not trying to be argumentative here, but in my view Jeph has generally been quite good at setting events up way in advance, so I am genuinely curious which comics/set-ups you are referring to.
Keep in mind that Jeph's storylines not having the drama you anticipated is not the same as 'copping out', just that your anticipated storyline was not the one Jeph envisioned himself. Unless of course you know of Jeph planning for a dramatic storyline and then ultimately deciding not to follow through...
Alice Grove.
This burn just went back in time and set fire to Fae's apartment.
(The level of drama vs. comedy is about right for me, honestly.)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 07 Jan 2019, 13:19
Phew, that was close. For a second there I was afraid we were going to have some drama or tension in the plot.
Plenty of time for drama over dealing with being in a new body, new body being not quite right. Maybe bread doesn't smell the same in the new model.
I'll believe it when I see it. Jeph has gotten very good at setting up for drama and then completely copping out on it.
Do you perhaps have an example of this? I am not trying to be argumentative here, but in my view Jeph has generally been quite good at setting events up way in advance, so I am genuinely curious which comics/set-ups you are referring to.
Keep in mind that Jeph's storylines not having the drama you anticipated is not the same as 'copping out', just that your anticipated storyline was not the one Jeph envisioned himself. Unless of course you know of Jeph planning for a dramatic storyline and then ultimately deciding not to follow through...
Alice Grove.
Your comment did make me laugh, so well done :-D On a serious note, while I was very disappointed with Alice Grove's 'resolution' myself as well, I honestly have no idea whether Jeph had always planned AG that way or if he originally intended to do much more in terms of drama/development etc. If it's the former, then we can't really call it 'copping out', no?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 07 Jan 2019, 16:00
No, you're quite right. We can't ever really claim he's copped out. I don't seriously believe that he "cops out" of dramatic storylines myself.
I still think that there is a kernel of truth to the complaint here, and it might be interesting to explore what that might be.
It should be obvious that there's a lot that I think Jeph does well (or I wouldn't be here reading and commenting). He creates characters that resonate with people. He also creates dramatic situations that echo real-life tensions and that stimulate much discussion (and drama) here at WCDT.
What I would really like to see from QC is dramatic climax and resolution that has feels a bit more earned. We all like it when the solution to an uncomfortable situation has been found, but it shouldn't be dropped in the characters laps or it feels like a deus ex machina. Even better, it would be good if the resolution were driven by some kind of internal transformation.
Spookybot is an example that comes to mind of a conflict resolution in QC that worked better than most, but didn't quite get there in my opinion. What was good was that there was an internal transformation for both Faye and Bubbles, which obviously culminated in their relationship. But their internal transformation did not drive the conflict resolution. There was a nice moment when Bubbles went to Faye's apartment and finally explained why Corpse Witch had her over a barrel. That was a good moment, and it did "kind of" drive the resolution. But in the end, they didn't really earn it. Spookybot was dropped into their laps. I know a lot of people liked it because they felt Spookybot is cool. Hey, they are. But still, it would have felt so much better if Faye and Bubbles had put their heads together to come up with a solution themselves.
The current storyline still hasn't played out fully necessarily, so we shouldn't draw too many conclusions. But the setup is so good. On the one hand, we have the much-discussed difficult problem of Roko losing the body she is so obviously attached to. And we have Lemon, who is apparently not very good at her job. There's a lot of story potential there. And - I repeat - maybe the last comic isn't the end of this, but the problems appears to have magically resolved in four panels. It was, in my opinion, too easy. It wasn't earned. And there has been no internal transformation.
There are others that I would have to search through the archives to find, but what about the infamous Dora and Marten split up? Arguably the last time we saw conflict play out over a long period of time, and maybe the reason Jeph now shies away from it? I'm speculating wildly, obviously. But looking back on that storyline, it has kind of resolved in that they are now happily involved in separate relationships and have reconciled. That's nice. But what internal transformation have we seen? From either of them? Nothing as far as I can tell. For all I know, jealousy still lurks under the surface with Dora, even though we haven't seen it (we haven't really seen Dora much at all). Marten's ability to negotiate relationship issues hasn't been addressed as far as I can tell. He has grown in confidence, though I have no real idea what motivated that change. His aimlessness and passivity seem unchanged.
One good example of resolution a bit more motivated by internal transformation would be the conflict between Winslow and May. Winslow decided to help AIs and did some counselling. I'd like to see more of that kind of thing.
Anyway, sorry for my improperly thought through ramble.
TLDR I don't believe Jeph "cops out," but I would love to see his conflicts, which I genuinely think are well constructed, to have better-earned resolution motivated by internal transformation.
Warning: while you were typing, no-one said a damned thing. Yeah, hit that "post" button, what could go wrong?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Theta9 on 07 Jan 2019, 16:40
The words 'conflict' and 'resolution' keep coming up again (We've been here before, but last time, the discussion sort of fizzled out). A few thoughts(ketches) - and apologies that my vocabulary is very much not up to the task:
As you said, today's strip may not be 'the resolution'. Maybe this is merely the prologue to a longer arc - Jeph has done that before (Remember Faye's sister's visit? Ok, y'all can stop twitching now. Sorry!).
I'd go further and ask: What if this isn't even a 'conflict' in Jeph's mind? Maybe this arc serves as exposition. He's also done that before, if memory serves (Momo perusing the history of the evolution of AI-rights)
And what do people even mean by 'conflict'? And what do they mean by 'resolution'? This sounds to me like there's either an expectation that QC should follow some dramatic arc, like a novel, or a play - It's been fifteen years, is anybody seriously still waiting for Marten's 'Hero's Journey' to kick into high gear? - or that QC should be sort of a sequence of 'mini-dramas/novels/whatever' ("Goddamit Jim, I'm a physicist, not a critic"), with each arc conforming to some greek-theatre drama concept (Some Humanititarian please tell me what I'm trying to say. Thanks.)
And who said that QC has a plot in the 'conventional' sense? Again: Fifteen! Years! Jeph has said that he writes a few weeks ahead, and maybe he has some story-ideas for 2021 already planned - but I don't have the impression that he has a huge plot laid out, with Marten dying at age 47, heroically sacrificing himself so his comrades on the botched first manned mission to Mars can survive (Hey, mind my headcannon, would you?)
This is a slice of life webcomic. Is your life one unending sequence of dramas (dramata? Dromedar?)? Are you on one hero's journey after the other - or are you expecting there'll be only one? Or are there times where the river runs more slowly, where nothing much is outwardly happening?
TL;DR - when people talk about 'conflict' and 'resolution' - and especially about 'plot' - I'm a bit confused as to what they mean or expect.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: TV4Fun on 07 Jan 2019, 16:48
Phew, that was close. For a second there I was afraid we were going to have some drama or tension in the plot.
Plenty of time for drama over dealing with being in a new body, new body being not quite right. Maybe bread doesn't smell the same in the new model.
I'll believe it when I see it. Jeph has gotten very good at setting up for drama and then completely copping out on it.
Do you perhaps have an example of this? I am not trying to be argumentative here, but in my view Jeph has generally been quite good at setting events up way in advance, so I am genuinely curious which comics/set-ups you are referring to.
Keep in mind that Jeph's storylines not having the drama you anticipated is not the same as 'copping out', just that your anticipated storyline was not the one Jeph envisioned himself. Unless of course you know of Jeph planning for a dramatic storyline and then ultimately deciding not to follow through...
Alice Grove.
Your comment did make me laugh, so well done :-D On a serious note, while I was very disappointed with Alice Grove's 'resolution' myself as well, I honestly have no idea whether Jeph had always planned AG that way or if he originally intended to do much more in terms of drama/development etc. If it's the former, then we can't really call it 'copping out', no?
I'll call it copping out. Planning to cop out is still copping out. If you set up a dramatic conflict in your story and then just resolve it by magic (spookybot e.g.), that is bad writing, and whether you planned to write badly or not, it's still a copout.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 07 Jan 2019, 17:12
Phew, that was close. For a second there I was afraid we were going to have some drama or tension in the plot.
Plenty of time for drama over dealing with being in a new body, new body being not quite right. Maybe bread doesn't smell the same in the new model.
I'll believe it when I see it. Jeph has gotten very good at setting up for drama and then completely copping out on it.
Do you perhaps have an example of this? I am not trying to be argumentative here, but in my view Jeph has generally been quite good at setting events up way in advance, so I am genuinely curious which comics/set-ups you are referring to.
Keep in mind that Jeph's storylines not having the drama you anticipated is not the same as 'copping out', just that your anticipated storyline was not the one Jeph envisioned himself. Unless of course you know of Jeph planning for a dramatic storyline and then ultimately deciding not to follow through...
Alice Grove.
Your comment did make me laugh, so well done :-D On a serious note, while I was very disappointed with Alice Grove's 'resolution' myself as well, I honestly have no idea whether Jeph had always planned AG that way or if he originally intended to do much more in terms of drama/development etc. If it's the former, then we can't really call it 'copping out', no?
I'll call it copping out. Planning to cop out is still copping out. If you set up a dramatic conflict in your story and then just resolve it by magic (spookybot e.g.), that is bad writing, and whether you planned to write badly or not, it's still a copout.
If you set people up to believe you're interested in a genuine discussion - y'know, with folk actually engaging with each others' points n' stuff and mutual learning going on and all that - and then treat them to a bouquet of moved goalposts, equivocations and circular reasoning, that's a cop out, too.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: TV4Fun on 07 Jan 2019, 18:09
Phew, that was close. For a second there I was afraid we were going to have some drama or tension in the plot.
Plenty of time for drama over dealing with being in a new body, new body being not quite right. Maybe bread doesn't smell the same in the new model.
I'll believe it when I see it. Jeph has gotten very good at setting up for drama and then completely copping out on it.
Do you perhaps have an example of this? I am not trying to be argumentative here, but in my view Jeph has generally been quite good at setting events up way in advance, so I am genuinely curious which comics/set-ups you are referring to.
Keep in mind that Jeph's storylines not having the drama you anticipated is not the same as 'copping out', just that your anticipated storyline was not the one Jeph envisioned himself. Unless of course you know of Jeph planning for a dramatic storyline and then ultimately deciding not to follow through...
Alice Grove.
Your comment did make me laugh, so well done :-D On a serious note, while I was very disappointed with Alice Grove's 'resolution' myself as well, I honestly have no idea whether Jeph had always planned AG that way or if he originally intended to do much more in terms of drama/development etc. If it's the former, then we can't really call it 'copping out', no?
I'll call it copping out. Planning to cop out is still copping out. If you set up a dramatic conflict in your story and then just resolve it by magic (spookybot e.g.), that is bad writing, and whether you planned to write badly or not, it's still a copout.
If you set people up to believe you're interested in a genuine discussion - y'know, with folk actually engaging with each others' points n' stuff and mutual learning going on and all that - and then treat them to a bouquet of moved goalposts, equivocations and circular reasoning, that's a cop out, too.
Please give an example of where I have moved goalposts or employed circular reasoning. I expressed exactly one opinion about Jeph's writing before that post, and I don't recall setting up any goalposts or employing any reasoning. I didn't respond to dutchrvl's request for an example because Tova said basically the same thing I was going to say, except perhaps that we disagree on the definition of a copout.
It is true that most people do not live grand dramas or engage in heroic journeys, and I never said I expected that from QC. QC is a slice of life comic, and so I expect the stakes of its story to be somewhere on that scale. People of all walks of life do have problems, and when problems emerge, they are not usually instantly resolved as if by magic. If I were to open up a robotics shop without any seed capital, needing a friend to cosign on the lease, and seeming to be lucky if I got one customer on a given day, I would quickly go out of business because I couldn't make rent. If I were beholden to a shady employer because they had valuable data of mine encrypted with high-grade encryption that everyone agreed was technologically impossible to break, it is unlikely that an all-powerful robot would show up and just hand me the means to break it. Real people, when they have problems, have to exert actual effort to fix them. This is true whether the problem is large or small.
This goes to the larger point of storytelling. Most of my life is pretty boring, but on the odd occasion that something interesting happens to me, if I tell someone else a story about it, I am going to do my best to stick to the interesting part and not spend excess time on trivialities. I am also unlikely to start a story by saying something really interesting happened and then spend a lot of time on setup to something that wasn't really interesting. If you are going to tell a story, you need to make sure that you don't build up expectations that you can't deliver on. I didn't ask for QC to have a long arc that goes from one end of the universe to the other—if Jeph wants to keep his character's lives relatively mundane and focus on day-to-day things that mere mortals like us can more directly relate to, that's fine. If he wants to be totally episodic and not try to tell any long-term stories, that's fine. But Jeph has on more than one occasion now set up a problem that all rational thinking, both in-universe and out says should require a great deal of effort to solve and then either just forgotten about it (Union Robotics e.g.) or set up a ridiculous plot convenience to fix it (spookybot e.g.). Going from one anticlimax to another begins to be a little grating after a while.
Let me take the Bubbles/Corpse Witch plot as a specific example. A great many strips were devoted to the fact that CW had ensured 10 years of Bubbles' loyalty by encrypting memories that she didn't want to lose. Now let us completely set aside all real-world logic, and only look at the internal logic of the QC verse. Bubbles clearly believes that it would a functional impossibility to decrypt her memories without the key—in comic 3379 (https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3379), she says "Using current technology, it would take approximately 2 million years to break her encryption." Bubbles clearly hates her situation. In comic 3370 (https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3370), she is about ready to kill, or at least dismantle CW, and it is only the reminder of her encrypted memories that stops her. Bubbles is an intelligent, resourceful robot. Do we honestly believe she would put up with so much from CW if she thought there was ANY other way to get her memories back? In the world of comic, as established, Bubbles has absolutely no choice but to continue working for CW if she ever wants her memories back. This is further reinforced in comic 3389 (https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3389), where Station, who has been established as being one of the most, if not the most sophisticated AIs in existence, says that even he could not break the encryption in a realistic amount of time. We are told repeatedly that breaking this encryption is impossible, which means that Bubbles needs to either continue working for CW and suck up her problems, or accept that she will never get those memories back. But not to worry, two strips later, Spookybot shows up and offers to break the encryption that the most sophisticated AIs known to exist said was impossible to break. Introducing Spookybot at this point in the story is the equivalent of writing a realistic medieval adventure, and then in the last two pages having a time traveler from the future come and use advanced technology to instantly make everyone happy. It's not that it's not realistic, or that in a world full of sentient robots, I am complaining that this wouldn't happen to me, it's that Spookybot completely throws the internal logic of the QC world into question. How did Spookybot come to be? How could such an advanced AI exist and be so very clearly casual about approaching people with their powers, and remain totally unknown to everyone in the story up until now? We don't necessarily need answers to these questions, but we need to at least believe that there are answers that are reasonable. Setting up your world in one way, and then introducing an element so incongruous to everything previously established is changing the rules of the game after we have started playing.
This brings me back to the current storyline. The previous strip before this one seems to strongly indicate that Roko will have a difficult time finding a suitable new body, given that her previous chassis was discontinued, and the new model is substantially more expensive. Yet exactly one comic later, all of those problems seem to have vanished and Roko is ready to get a new body almost instantly. It almost feels like there were some pages missing there that I really would've liked to have read. Now it is possible that these few comics are meant to set up some larger storyline where Roko has to adapt to her new body and deal with the emotional impact having been separated from her old one so unceremoniously, but as I said, I'll believe it when I see it. Jeph seems to like setting up plots and then rushing the resolution of them, and this one doesn't seem any different. I do hope I'm wrong, but this is becoming a pattern.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 07 Jan 2019, 18:46
TL;DR - when people talk about 'conflict' and 'resolution' - and especially about 'plot' - I'm a bit confused as to what they mean or expect.
In storytelling terms, the term 'conflict' is quite a bit broader than what it means in everyday terms. Normally, it would mean a disagreement or fight. But in storytelling, it usually takes the form of a gap between desire and reality.
Usually, there is an external conflict and a corresponding internal conflict. For instance, take Faye, and the conflict set up by The Talk. You could say that her external conflict was that she wanted a relationship and stability. Her internal conflict was that she needed to overcome her abandonment issues. And while it's true that this is a slice of life comic, the throughline of where she was at The Talk to where she is now (in a stable relationship) is probably the most successful arc in QC.
I think that this throughline has in fact set up an expectation among the QC audience that there will be dramatic arcs within the overall setting of the daily slice of life. And I get the impression occasionally that one is being set up. Often, I don't comment on this when it appears to be magically resolved because it is always possible that Jeph is playing the long game. He certainly did that with the slow burn of the Marten/Dora relationship, where they would 'talk it out' periodically and it would kind of appear that the issue was resolved, but of course it was not. And while Jeph has resolved the external conflict of that story, the internal ones largely remain.
I think in the case of the current storyline, people have begun to expect - as I guess you've seen - that Jeph is preparing to tell a story that is a metaphor of the experience of gender dysphoria. I know at least a couple of people expressed a hope for something along those lines. The most recent comic appears to suggest that, in spite of somewhat slipshod counselling, this may not happen after all - that, to paraphrase Lemon, she will simply be fine. And HEY LOOK THERE IS A NEW COMIC it also does look as though the changes to her new body are pretty minor.
I am still holding out hope that the story might still follow through with its promise. In the words of Roko, maybe we just need to give the comic a moment here.
Do bear in mind that I am deliberately avoiding phrasing my thoughts in terms of Jeph's intentions. I am really more concerned about audience expectations and how they are fulfilled or otherwise. As one frequent poster so likes to remind us, intent is not magic.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: brasca on 07 Jan 2019, 18:49
Phew, that was close. For a second there I was afraid we were going to have some drama or tension in the plot.
Plenty of time for drama over dealing with being in a new body, new body being not quite right. Maybe bread doesn't smell the same in the new model.
I'll believe it when I see it. Jeph has gotten very good at setting up for drama and then completely copping out on it.
Do you perhaps have an example of this? I am not trying to be argumentative here, but in my view Jeph has generally been quite good at setting events up way in advance, so I am genuinely curious which comics/set-ups you are referring to.
Keep in mind that Jeph's storylines not having the drama you anticipated is not the same as 'copping out', just that your anticipated storyline was not the one Jeph envisioned himself. Unless of course you know of Jeph planning for a dramatic storyline and then ultimately deciding not to follow through...
Alice Grove.
Different webcomic and while rushed I still like how it ended.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 07 Jan 2019, 19:05
Yes, and that is fair enough. I can only speak from my personal reactions to the comics, and I am sure that my reactions are not universal.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: shanejayell on 07 Jan 2019, 19:38
"I wanted to keep your crushed head as a momento..."
MELON. NO.
Seriously.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: DSL on 07 Jan 2019, 20:27
Such a conversation starter that would be. Especially if you can get the voder to work.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: A small perverse otter on 07 Jan 2019, 21:35
"I wanted to keep your crushed head as a momento..."
MELON. NO.
Seriously.
I hold your hand in mine, dear // I press it to my lips // I take a healthy bite // Of your dainty fingertips
The night you died, I cut it off // I really don't know why // For now each time I kiss it // I get blood stains on my tie
I'm sorry now I killed you // For our love was something fine // But until they come to get me // I shall hold your hand in mine.
-- T. Lehrer.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: BenRG on 07 Jan 2019, 23:19
Poor Melon though; this further reinforces my earlier impression about how much this incident has upset and traumatised Melon (possibly much more than it has affected Roko, as bizarre as that sounds). The poor thing seems quite distraught although I can't help but laugh at the complete stream-of-consciousness of her babble and the reminder that she genuinely doesn't understand 'appropriate behaviour' at all!
Looking at the cubicle in which Roko booted up, it looks similar to the equipment in Spookybot's apartment. So, they seem to be making (or possibly growing) their own chassis. I wonder how many nodes of Spookybot are not yet embodied?
With regard to the discussion of Jeph 'copping out', I wouldn't use such an accusative phrase that implies a flaw on his part. What he has stated is that he finds some of his dramatic storylines emotionally hard to write and draw and it doesn't surprise me when he tries to resolve them quickly and without prolonged harm to his characters. I've seen comments from him on Twitter that suggest very strongly to me that he has an emotional connection with them that greatly impacts what he is able to do with them. Unlike some webcomic creators whose works I read, he literally cannot easily do them harm or even disrespect their privacy and deeper dignity. FWIW, I don't consider that a flaw on his part but part of what you need to understand to 'get' his work and the stories he wants to tell.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Jan 2019, 23:22
Real people, when they have problems, have to exert actual effort to fix them. This is true whether the problem is large or small.
Sure; but most of that effort is tedious and boring - filling in forms, visits to lawyers, and the like. In the spirit of "show, not tell" we can see that this must have happened for the setup of Union Robotics, for instance, without having it spelt out to delay a glimpse of another aspect of the characters' lives. Bearing in mind how much slower than real life this comic runs, that would make it a comic about watching paint dry.
And glimpses of the characters's lives is all we get, really, in four/six panels a day. Of course there are many ways to write even a simple slice-of-life comic; but I for one am pleased that this one is not a constant barrage of OTT tensions, arguments and absurdities like so many TV soap operas.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Gyrre on 07 Jan 2019, 23:23
It took a bit to find it, but here's George Carlin going over the misuse of common phrases (including "copping out").
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Cornelius on 07 Jan 2019, 23:26
TL;DR - when people talk about 'conflict' and 'resolution' - and especially about 'plot' - I'm a bit confused as to what they mean or expect.
In storytelling terms, the term 'conflict' is quite a bit broader than what it means in everyday terms. Normally, it would mean a disagreement or fight. But in storytelling, it usually takes the form of a gap between desire and reality.
Usually, there is an external conflict and a corresponding internal conflict. For instance, take Faye, and the conflict set up by The Talk. You could say that her external conflict was that she wanted a relationship and stability. Her internal conflict was that she needed to overcome her abandonment issues. And while it's true that this is a slice of life comic, the throughline of where she was at The Talk to where she is now (in a stable relationship) is probably the most successful arc in QC.
I think that this throughline has in fact set up an expectation among the QC audience that there will be dramatic arcs within the overall setting of the daily slice of life. And I get the impression occasionally that one is being set up. Often, I don't comment on this when it appears to be magically resolved because it is always possible that Jeph is playing the long game. He certainly did that with the slow burn of the Marten/Dora relationship, where they would 'talk it out' periodically and it would kind of appear that the issue was resolved, but of course it was not. And while Jeph has resolved the external conflict of that story, the internal ones largely remain.
I think that really does sum it up. Perhaps it's helpful, to think of conflict, here, as the elements that provide narrative tension. Tension seems to be pretty central to the western experience of art, as it's a concept you'll find everywhere. Plot derives from that, as it is what is needed to set up that tension, and it's eventual release, or resolution.
What the plot is, exactly, isn't always directly obvious from the beginning, and neither is the central conflict always immediately obvious. But I think all that has been argued pretty thoroughly in the posts above.
On the other hand, I think the point Case tried to make was also that there is not necessarily one central conflict in QC, or overarching plot. Which is probably true. We don't need to hold onto the story as it started, as that's ended; we're still in its continuity, but the story has gone elsewhere.
Do bear in mind that I am deliberately avoiding phrasing my thoughts in terms of Jeph's intentions. I am really more concerned about audience expectations and how they are fulfilled or otherwise. As one frequent poster so likes to remind us, intent is not magic.
Lesson one in literature studies, or just about: beware the auctorial fallacy. However tempting and obvious it may seem, you cannot ever know the author's intentions, unless they unequivocally state them outside of the work you're trying to interpret. And even then, that's not necessarily relevant, as the work is more important. Caveat lector: Whatever your interpretations or opinions are, they are the result of your own interaction with the work.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Jan 2019, 23:34
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Jan 2019, 23:45
Oh, and as for conflict in today's comic, I note that Roko hasn't yet had a chance to feel how well her mind integrates with this body. We all know how different samples of anything can vary just through normal manufacturing variability, so I am waiting to see how this body responds to bread, for instance. Tomorrow's comic may well be at the bakery; and even if Roko is satisfied, I will have experienced a day's (mild!) tension waiting for that answer.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: brasca on 07 Jan 2019, 23:48
You’d think if the emblem was so important Roko’s new body would have thong underpants to show it off. Those look like hot pants.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 08 Jan 2019, 00:26
It's a long time since I bothered to make a fuss about it, but people have recently become really profligate with their quoting. It actually makes it harder to read a conversation when it reaches the point that you have to scroll in a single post to find where the new bit is. Trimming quotes to the points you are replying to is not hard, makes your own contribution easier to find and place in context, and is a courtesy to other forum users. The oldest post in the block shown above as an example had been quoted nine times! Would people prefer me to turn on the facility that removes multiple quotes automatically? That has downsides too, but perhaps the result would be more like other social media in which quoting is not so easy to abuse.
What he has stated is that he finds some of his dramatic storylines emotionally hard to write and draw and it doesn't surprise me when he tries to resolve them quickly and without prolonged harm to his characters. I've seen comments from him on Twitter that suggest very strongly to me that he has an emotional connection with them that greatly impacts what he is able to do with them. Unlike some webcomic creators whose works I read, he literally cannot easily do them harm or even disrespect their privacy and deeper dignity. FWIW, I don't consider that a flaw on his part but part of what you need to understand to 'get' his work and the stories he wants to tell.
I don't follow him on Twitter (nothing to do with him - I just don't use Twitter in general). But this makes sense to me. No, I wouldn't use that kind of wording either. It is a strong characteristic of his work that probably determines to a large extent whether or not you enjoy his comics.
P.S. I don't know about other people, but I would quite like it if you did turn on automatic removal of nested quotes. I agree that removing nested quotes is easy... unless you're on a phone, in which case it's a PITA. It's also an easy thing to forget about when you're focused on the conversation.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Netherdan on 08 Jan 2019, 03:30
Roko needs to see what she paid for. IT'S BUTT LOGO TIME PEEPS
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 08 Jan 2019, 03:54
I didn't respond to dutchrvl's request for an example because Tova said basically the same thing I was going to say, except perhaps that we disagree on the definition of a copout.
On a serious note, while I was very disappointed with Alice Grove's 'resolution' myself as well, I honestly have no idea whether Jeph had always planned AG that way or if he originally intended to do much more in terms of drama/development etc. If it's the former, then we can't really call it 'copping out', no?
I'll call it copping out. Planning to cop out is still copping out. If you set up a dramatic conflict in your story and then just resolve it by magic (spookybot e.g.), that is bad writing, and whether you planned to write badly or not, it's still a copout.
premise1) All A (crows) are B (black) premise2) c is A conclusion: Therefore, c is B
Now look what you're doing instead:
premise1) Jeph copped out writing Alice Grove premise2) Jeph planned/did not plan to cop out before writing Alice Grove conclusion: Jeph copped out writing Alice Grove
See? Your major premise already contains the conclusion. That's what's called circular reasoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning), vicious circle etc.
P.S.: Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I disagree on a bunch of things, but I'm glad that my fear of 'lazy, provocative drive-by posting' turned out to be wrong. My apologies for thinking wrong of you.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 08 Jan 2019, 04:34
On the other hand, I think the point Case tried to make was also that there is not necessarily one central conflict in QC, or overarching plot. Which is probably true. We don't need to hold onto the story as it started, as that's ended; we're still in its continuity, but the story has gone elsewhere.
I think that this throughline has in fact set up an expectation among the QC audience that there will be dramatic arcs within the overall setting of the daily slice of life. And I get the impression occasionally that one is being set up. Often, I don't comment on this when it appears to be magically resolved because it is always possible that Jeph is playing the long game. He certainly did that with the slow burn of the Marten/Dora relationship, where they would 'talk it out' periodically and it would kind of appear that the issue was resolved, but of course it was not. And while Jeph has resolved the external conflict of that story, the internal ones largely remain.
True. Then again, such is life. People leave things unsaid, and then the chance to say them is gone, conflicts never get resolved etc. Don't get me wrong - I hated Lost for pretty much that reason. But that's not the expectation I have when I engage with QC. Maybe it's really just that: I'm willing to tolerate more lose ends, unresolved conflicts etc. than some other folk, because that is congruent with my experience of (un-sliced) life.
I think in the case of the current storyline, people have begun to expect - as I guess you've seen - that Jeph is preparing to tell a story that is a metaphor of the experience of gender dysphoria. I know at least a couple of people expressed a hope for something along those lines. The most recent comic appears to suggest that, in spite of somewhat slipshod counselling, this may not happen after all - that, to paraphrase Lemon, she will simply be fine. And HEY LOOK THERE IS A NEW COMIC it also does look as though the changes to her new body are pretty minor. I am still holding out hope that the story might still follow through with its promise. In the words of Roko, maybe we just need to give the comic a moment here.
Actually, I think it was just one poster who expected/hoped for a gender-dysphoria metaphor: Yours truly. (ZoeB was kind of ambivalent, iiirc) :-D
Otherwise, nothing to add, except maybe one wild idea:
I have a hunch that our perception of the comic is warped because we're not reading it the way it's 'supposed' to be read. We come here, more or less daily, read one comic, and then bicker and deconstruct that one comic for a whole day.
That's not the way you read the comic when you first discovered it, was it? Many people's first post in the introduction-thread is something like "Hi! *pant* I just finished binge-reading from start to 3271 and BOY! And there's a forum, too! Shiny! Hi guys!" That's pretty much how was for me - four days of gleeful binge-reading, and ever since ... time ... has ... slowed ... down ...
And people who buy the books don't read the comic in that page-by-page-overanalysing-for-a-day style, either.
We're perceiving the comic in a sort of bullet-time (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Time). And we use that 'extra time' to come up with endless speculations (and expectations) of how the plot might continue - some have even made a sport out of predicting the next comic. That's not how you'd read the thing if you'd read it from start to current comic - you wouldn't have the time to speculate so much.
Maybe the intensity of the "frustration of expectations (purportedly set up by Jeph)" is, to some degree, owed to us having too much time to think about what to expect next.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Near Lurker on 08 Jan 2019, 06:03
...was Crushbot's insurance that generous, or did she just make a really bad decision for an unemployed former cop?
...hell, since it was implied she got a flat payout, even if it was that generous, she just made a really bad decision for an unemployed former cop.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: BenRG on 08 Jan 2019, 06:12
...was Crushbot's insurance that generous, or did she just make a really bad decision for an unemployed former cop?
It's implied that, Crushbot's insurance was that generous. Lemon's only caveat was that most tech blogs reported that the Philomena-G wasn't worth the extra $20k but Roko felt that a near-death experience left her deserving the very best model and a butt tattoo.
I doubt that Jeph will ever let us know what it is but I'm hoping that the logo is something utterly ridiculous like a winking double-thumbs up with tongue poking out emoji or something similar.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 08 Jan 2019, 06:24
Well, call me weird or whatever but if I had the opportunity to get the same (or almost the same) body after a devastating accident, I would totally wanna keep at least a part of my former body just out of morbid curiosity. Talk about a conversation starter!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: hakko504 on 08 Jan 2019, 07:09
...hell, since it was implied she got a flat payout, even if it was that generous, she just made a really bad decision for an unemployed former cop.
Now, on the other hand, how much money does she need? Rent, electricity, water, internet. No food. Well, except bread for 'the birds'. Her salary as a part of the policeforce should have enabled her to save some money each month. Even assuming that she hasn't been a cop more than a year or two, she should be OK for a few months at least, maybe as much as a year or two depending on salary and rent. I think she sees this as her last big spending point before a longer time of being careful with money, and while the money she added for the model G could have kept her alive for a couple of months extra, she's not worse off now than she was before the accident, and in a newer body.
Speaking of rent: If many AIs have their own apartment now, shouldn't that cause a shortage of homes? We've seen both Roko and Melon&Arthur have their own places. What about all the others that have frequented Union Robotics? Some of course co-habit with humans, like Momo, May, Bubbles & Winslow with human sized bodies, and AFAIK all small bodied AIs like Pintsize. How many AIs exist in this universe anyway? How many humans?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Cheetaur on 08 Jan 2019, 07:11
I'm glad Roko is back in the real world, being a spirit must have felt odd.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: brasca on 08 Jan 2019, 07:16
Well, call me weird or whatever but if I had the opportunity to get the same (or almost the same) body after a devastating accident, I would totally wanna keep at least a part of my former body just out of morbid curiosity. Talk about a conversation starter!
You might, but Roko fainted when she was shown her damaged foot after it was removed. She might go catatonic if she saw her crushed skull.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 08 Jan 2019, 11:39
Maybe the intensity of the "frustration of expectations (purportedly set up by Jeph)" is, to some degree, owed to us having too much time to think about what to expect next.
Yes, I think that is very likely.
Thanks for all that. The only things I want to clarify are that: I, too, am fine with loose ends in a story. I also don't expect QC to contain a single, overarching narrative or something like that. My only nitpick, really (and I really am picking nits, not trying to punch huge holes in QC at all), is that sometimes when Jeph does resolve a storyline, it doesn't feel earned.
words words words that is all
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: OldGoat on 08 Jan 2019, 16:34
...hell, since it was implied she got a flat payout, even if it was that generous, she just made a really bad decision for an unemployed former cop.
Now, on the other hand, how much money does she need? Rent, electricity, water, internet. No food. Well, except bread for 'the birds'. Her salary as a part of the policeforce should have enabled her to save some money each month. Even assuming that she hasn't been a cop more than a year or two, she should be OK for a few months at least, maybe as much as a year or two depending on salary and rent. I think she sees this as her last big spending point before a longer time of being careful with money, and while the money she added for the model G could have kept her alive for a couple of months extra, she's not worse off now than she was before the accident, and in a newer body.
Speaking of rent: If many AIs have their own apartment now, shouldn't that cause a shortage of homes? We've seen both Roko and Melon&Arthur have their own places. What about all the others that have frequented Union Robotics? Some of course co-habit with humans, like Momo, May, Bubbles & Winslow with human sized bodies, and AFAIK all small bodied AIs like Pintsize. How many AIs exist in this universe anyway? How many humans?
I've followed this same train of thought. Roko strikes me as being pretty frugal by nature with only the occasional splurge. She'll be financially okay.
I suspect that whatever she's trying to tell Melon she needs to see in panel 4 isn't normally exposed to daylight. She's going to look for the logo on her butt and discover than she's now anatomically correct. This opens the door for all kinds of amusing romantic complications (which I still hope involve Clinton).
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 08 Jan 2019, 18:42
... but Roko felt that a near-death experience left her deserving the very best model and a butt tattoo.
I doubt that Jeph will ever let us know what it is ...
That was ME, trimming a quote! Sadly, I agree with BenRG. We never got to see the model sheet for Pictoria's tattoos either. At least Roko seems to approve of her new bod. So far...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Sullivan on 08 Jan 2019, 19:25
It took a bit to find it, but here's George Carlin going over the misuse of common phrases (including "copping out").
That was a lot of fun to listen to, but I think you meant to link this one.
Does anybody else think that Jonathan Banks ("Mike" in Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, also Agent Rick Dicker in Incredibles 2) sounds a lot like George Carlin?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Cheetaur on 08 Jan 2019, 20:44
Seems Roko likes what she sees. Its probably the only time we will get to see her in a bikini as well.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Gyrre on 08 Jan 2019, 20:46
Seems Roko likes what she sees. Its probably the only time we will get to see her in a bikini as well.
I hope not.
'Bot or not, Roko's hot.
(Okay, I'll stop now. ;) )
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: BenRG on 08 Jan 2019, 23:21
My guess at Roko's inner monologue:
PANEL 1: "Okay, that's Melon calmed down. Now. Moment of truth."
PANEL 2: "So, this is the Philomena-G... No; this is me! I've got to keep telling myself that!
PANEL 3 "Its... my hair feels finer. Smaller strand seeds? Touching it feels weird because of the tighter sensor grid..."
PANEL 4: "Abdominal musculature doesn't seem to have changed... *Sigh* Will I ever see human abs with my own optics?"
PANEL 5: "Well, everything seems to be here. I just can't shake the feeling that I'm forgetting something! Oh, yeah, wait!"
PANEL 6: "Oh that's hilarious! How did they license that image to use at the model logo?"
Yeah, I'm wondering if the logo for the Philomena-G is something like this (https://www.deviantart.com/moongazeponies/art/Philomena-251365721)! Cute (because of its origins) but still stylish. I also think it has the sort of general feel of which Roko would approve!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Storel on 09 Jan 2019, 00:30
Am I the only one who keeps getting reminded of a certain Muppet song by the word "Philomena"? :?
Philomena! (doo-dooo, de doo-doo) Philomena! (doo doo-doo, doo) Philomena! (doo-dooo, de doo-doo, de doo-doo, de doo-doo-doo-doo doo doo dooo, doo!)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Pilchard123 on 09 Jan 2019, 01:00
Not any more, you're not :x
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: traroth on 09 Jan 2019, 01:14
Am I the only one who keeps getting reminded of a certain Muppet song by the word "Philomena"? :?
Philomena! (doo-dooo, de doo-doo) Philomena! (doo doo-doo, doo) Philomena! (doo-dooo, de doo-doo, de doo-doo, de doo-doo-doo-doo doo doo dooo, doo!)
I still wonder who used that song first between the Muppets and Benny Hill...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: traroth on 09 Jan 2019, 01:17
Ahum... yeah, it really is a fine, nice and firm... emblem!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: DSL on 09 Jan 2019, 01:21
The "Ma Na Ma Na Song" was first used in a Swedish "sexploitation" movie (Wiki's words, not mine) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah_N%C3%A0_Mah_N%C3%A0) before it joined Mr. Henson's crew on Sesame Street. It was used by Mr. Hill a couple years later.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 09 Jan 2019, 01:33
Um... the link you provided doesn't use those words. It just describes it as an Italian film.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: JoeCovenant on 09 Jan 2019, 02:06
Okay... So Roko has slightly different looking ears... I'm struggling to see any other differences... Which begs the question... has there been a point to this little arc? (Ass branding aside!)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: brasca on 09 Jan 2019, 02:19
As Tom Servo once said, “Can’t a robot admire his own back porch without being thought a weirdo?”
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: jwhouk on 09 Jan 2019, 04:10
Compare (https://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3839) and Contrast. (https://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3913)
Truth be told, not much difference between Roko 1.0 and Roko 2.0.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 09 Jan 2019, 04:34
Compare (https://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3839) and Contrast. (https://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3913)
Truth be told, not much difference between Roko 1.0 and Roko 2.0.
New Rokko's face looks a bit more angular methinks, like she's two, three years 'older'?
Something a tiny bit different about the drawing style.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: WhyNot on 09 Jan 2019, 04:35
I was kind of secretly hoping that Roko's new body would be some sort of future tech from Alice's world. It would have been a great easter egg/crossover from a great comic.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: traroth on 09 Jan 2019, 04:38
She didn't even take a look at her new ears which are the more clearly different feature...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: traroth on 09 Jan 2019, 04:41
Compare (https://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3839) and Contrast. (https://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3913)
Truth be told, not much difference between Roko 1.0 and Roko 2.0.
It's not easy to compare. I can't remember a comic featuring old Roko with as little clothing, and new Roko is really out of any context. She could be taller or shorter, for example...
By the way, isn't she slightly blushing in the last picture?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Netherdan on 09 Jan 2019, 04:51
I doubt that Jeph will ever let us know what it is but I'm hoping that the logo is something utterly ridiculous like a winking double-thumbs up with tongue poking out emoji or something similar.
According to her smirk it might be wheat or wheat by-products themed.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: dutchrvl on 09 Jan 2019, 06:34
Okay... So Roko has slightly different looking ears... I'm struggling to see any other differences... Which begs the question... has there been a point to this little arc? (Ass branding aside!)
Who knows (well, Jeph presumably)? Perhaps Roko will have PTSD issues or issues with bodily integration? Perhaps she does not have her prior fetish and must deal with that? Or perhaps it will simply be about her slightly changed appearance having all kinds of consequences, such as in her new job, lovelife, etc.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 09 Jan 2019, 07:01
Okay... So Roko has slightly different looking ears... I'm struggling to see any other differences... Which begs the question... has there been a point to this little arc? (Ass branding aside!)
Beyond the 'fancy butt emblem' and not-being-crushed-flat-nessy, the new chassis reportedly also comes with a "slight sensory upgrade", so I see some potential for future plot-, and character development, particularly given her recent career-choices.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: JoeCovenant on 09 Jan 2019, 07:33
Okay... So Roko has slightly different looking ears... I'm struggling to see any other differences... Which begs the question... has there been a point to this little arc? (Ass branding aside!)
Beyond the 'fancy butt emblem' and not-being-crushed-flat-nessy, the new chassis reportedly also comes with a "slight sensory upgrade", so I see some potential for future plot-, and character development, particularly given her recent career-choices.
This, of course, is what I am hoping for... The *slight sensory upgrade* being the only pointer in the Lemon strips...
Interesting times... (I hope!!)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Theta9 on 09 Jan 2019, 07:38
Quote
Robot asses
Ro-butts?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: OldGoat on 09 Jan 2019, 08:13
Oh. That's Philomena G, not Philomena D (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b1AtA0yblE).
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: traroth on 09 Jan 2019, 08:48
Next step: hairstyle
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Cheetaur on 09 Jan 2019, 08:49
The other fact that other than a new body she will also get a good settlement, her being unemployed now is a windfall for her. Hopefully she can use this to help other unfortunate AI in problems like May... Looking forward to seeing Roko leap into her new career.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: DSL on 09 Jan 2019, 09:49
Um... the link you provided doesn't use those words. It just describes it as an Italian film.
Read further, and my most sincere apologies for condensing: "an exploitation documentary film about wild sexual activity and other behaviour "
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 09 Jan 2019, 12:24
Please accept, then, my own, equally sincere, apologies for taking at face value your explanation that they were "Wiki's words, not mine." I blame George Carlin. Pedantic bastard.
P.S. Seriously, though, sorry I am such a pedantic bastard. I actually thought you'd got those words from some other wiki page and posted a different one.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 09 Jan 2019, 13:57
It makes sense that Roko's new body would look very much like the old one though. It's the same brand, just a slightly more advanced model. So the general architecture, internal and external, should be mostly the same. Not a big shift like with Momo-chibi to her current chassis. Plus the fact that there is a decent amount of customizing available in models, and Roko was happy with how she looked. So it shouldn't have been difficult to order a model with the same skin tone and hair color/style as her old body.
In itself I think this is somewhat telling. This was a prime time to reimagine herself. By the way it was described Crushbot's insurance paid a cash sum high enough for the top of the line model in the same brand of Roko's old body. They could have provided her an equivalent model, but instead they gave her the cash. And with every and any option available to her Roko could have looked any way she wanted to... Yet she chose to stick with what she knows, what she's comfortable with likely. She wanted as close a match to her old body as she could. Plus a fancy butt emblem as compensation for her anguish.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Gyrre on 09 Jan 2019, 20:46
I doubt that Jeph will ever let us know what it is but I'm hoping that the logo is something utterly ridiculous like a winking double-thumbs up with tongue poking out emoji or something similar.
According to her smirk it might be wheat or wheat by-products themed.
"Certified Loaf" in extra fancy calligraphy.
EDIT: I suspect it's the nipples she's having trouble parsing. She's got a slightly upgraded sensory sweet and potentially two new nodes of heightened sensitivity. Give her a few days/weeks to get used to it.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 09 Jan 2019, 21:03
For those who questioned what new enhancements Roko's body has we can now conclude 2... and I'm not talking about detailed ears.
Oooh I know. It's the ability to change the shape of her eyes.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: BenRG on 09 Jan 2019, 23:24
Roko is a wonderfully three-dimensional character, isn't she? I love how she responds to Lemon (who, like her sister, seems to lack appreciation of what things you do and do not discuss in public). It's also a nice touch that she's having difficultly mentally connecting with her new situation (IRL, I've heard of patients who have had radical life-saving surgery having difficulty to accept their new reality, especially if their appearance has changed radically.) Personally, I think that it would be a good thing if Roko came back to talk to Lemon a few times, even if only to talk through her feelings and fears.
Combined with the more human-like ears, the 'nipples' thing makes me think that the Philomena-G is far more strongly anthropomimetic than previous models, having a lot more cosmetic touches like that. It may be interesting in future to see if the degree it is designed to give 'a human experience' may impact on Roko's reaction to things she encounters. She may even be mistaken for a human in low light conditions!
I just love Lemon in the last couple of panels. As Bubbles said, that batch of AIs are all a little eccentric and I just can't help but laugh at her surprise that Roko could see the balloon!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: traroth on 10 Jan 2019, 01:43
And with every and any option available to her Roko could have looked any way she wanted to... Yet she chose to stick with what she knows, what she's comfortable with likely. She wanted as close a match to her old body as she could. Plus a fancy butt emblem as compensation for her anguish.
"Unfortunately, you need a health scare, to re-prioritise..."
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Akima on 10 Jan 2019, 03:18
(Don't ask me how long I've been waiting for an opportunity to post this one ...)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Mark7 on 10 Jan 2019, 03:43
Note also the lack of seam lines where the various joints are. The area where the neck joins the body being the sole exception (I wonder if even this is smoothed out in higher grade models?)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: BenRG on 10 Jan 2019, 04:14
Note also the lack of seam lines where the various joints are. The area where the neck joins the body being the sole exception (I wonder if even this is smoothed out in higher grade models?)
Lots of the higher-specification chassis have this feature, most notably Bubbles and Momo's current body. To me, the real extra features on Roko's new body are the human-mimicking auricles and some secondary sexual features, both of which suggest to me that the designers' goal was 'as human as we can get it'.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: JoeCovenant on 10 Jan 2019, 04:16
Note also the lack of seam lines where the various joints are. The area where the neck joins the body being the sole exception (I wonder if even this is smoothed out in higher grade models?)
Lots of the higher-specification chassis have this feature, most notably Bubbles and Momo's current body. To me, the real extra features on Roko's new body are the human-mimicking auricles and some secondary sexual features, both of which suggest to me that the designers' goal was 'as human as we can get it'.
"More human than human" is our motto...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: dutchrvl on 10 Jan 2019, 05:53
Note also the lack of seam lines where the various joints are. The area where the neck joins the body being the sole exception (I wonder if even this is smoothed out in higher grade models?)
Lots of the higher-specification chassis have this feature, most notably Bubbles and Momo's current body. To me, the real extra features on Roko's new body are the human-mimicking auricles and some secondary sexual features, both of which suggest to me that the designers' goal was 'as human as we can get it'.
"More human than human" is our motto...
So more emphatic and selfless then? :wink:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Netherdan on 10 Jan 2019, 06:32
To me, the real extra features on Roko's new body are the human-mimicking auricles and some secondary sexual features, both of which suggest to me that the designers' goal was 'as human as we can get it'.
Oh she's gonna like her new bun zones
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: brasca on 10 Jan 2019, 06:39
Note also the lack of seam lines where the various joints are. The area where the neck joins the body being the sole exception (I wonder if even this is smoothed out in higher grade models?)
Lots of the higher-specification chassis have this feature, most notably Bubbles and Momo's current body. To me, the real extra features on Roko's new body are the human-mimicking auricles and some secondary sexual features, both of which suggest to me that the designers' goal was 'as human as we can get it'.
Even Spookybot has the neck seam. I thought they might be so sophisticated their chassis lacked that, but apparently there is a need to separate the head from the rest of the body if need be.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: traroth on 10 Jan 2019, 06:56
Note also the lack of seam lines where the various joints are. The area where the neck joins the body being the sole exception (I wonder if even this is smoothed out in higher grade models?)
Lots of the higher-specification chassis have this feature, most notably Bubbles and Momo's current body. To me, the real extra features on Roko's new body are the human-mimicking auricles and some secondary sexual features, both of which suggest to me that the designers' goal was 'as human as we can get it'.
"More human than human" is our motto...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Zebediah on 10 Jan 2019, 07:14
We’ve seen the higher-end models vent coolant through their neck seams. So maybe that’s its purpose - to give the chassis a way of venting coolant that’s slightly more dignified than having it come out their ears. Or farting it.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: traroth on 10 Jan 2019, 08:11
We’ve seen the higher-end models vent coolant through their neck seams. So maybe that’s its purpose - to give the chassis a way of venting coolant that’s slightly more dignified than having it come out their ears. Or farting it.
I'm sure Pintsize took a chassis that farts to vent coolant...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: A small perverse otter on 10 Jan 2019, 09:14
I really liked how Jeph kind of took us into one of the most degrading of the aspects of the trans experience: people asking very personal questions about your body, and whether and you'd had surgery. I particularly think it's great that he brought the whole debate about whether or not Claire has had genital corrective surgery directly into the narrative, even if only indirectly.
I hope that the next time somebody wants to speculate about Claire, they'll think about Roko's response to the question about whether or not she now has nipples...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 10 Jan 2019, 09:35
Even Spookybot has the neck seam. I thought they might be so sophisticated their chassis lacked that, but apparently there is a need to separate the head from the rest of the body if need be.
Well, humans manage that trick on a regular basis (even without a neck seam), so mayhaps it was felt that AI should possess the ability in order to blend in?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Cornelius on 10 Jan 2019, 10:28
Like so?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Storel on 10 Jan 2019, 12:39
Even Spookybot has the neck seam. I thought they might be so sophisticated their chassis lacked that, but apparently there is a need to separate the head from the rest of the body if need be.
Well, humans manage that trick on a regular basis (even without a neck seam), so mayhaps it was felt that AI should possess the ability in order to blend in?
They just wanted to be able to help out humans that wanted to get ahead.
Don't all AIs have the seams? I wasn't aware of any without them.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 10 Jan 2019, 13:48
Even Spookybot has the neck seam. I thought they might be so sophisticated their chassis lacked that, but apparently there is a need to separate the head from the rest of the body if need be.
Well, humans manage that trick on a regular basis (even without a neck seam), so mayhaps it was felt that AI should possess the ability in order to blend in?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Milayna on 10 Jan 2019, 13:55
...Even though this is a SFW comic I can't help thinking that that's gotta be Chekhov's nipples. Or maybe Jeph is just trying to say that all "unspecialized" chassis aren't necessarily Barbie dolls like May.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 10 Jan 2019, 14:00
Damn, my "it's all about the jokes" sig got changed.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 10 Jan 2019, 14:29
...Even though this is a SFW comic I can't help thinking that that's gotta be Chekhov's nipples. Or maybe Jeph is just trying to say that all "unspecialized" chassis aren't necessarily Barbie dolls like May.
chekhovsnipples.com is still free for the taking ...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: hedgie on 10 Jan 2019, 16:02
*looks at string of pics*
Case, I think that they're all more legless than headless.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 10 Jan 2019, 17:16
Agreed. Crushbot could get repaired anywhere else since he probably has insurance coverage for that too. This is business that fell onto Roko's back and is now falling into Union Robotic's lap.
Faye really should be nicer unless AI's don't care about that surly attitude of hers.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 10 Jan 2019, 21:39
Yeah, I'm wondering if the logo for the Philomena-G is something like this (https://www.deviantart.com/moongazeponies/art/Philomena-251365721)! Cute (because of its origins) but still stylish. I also think it has the sort of general feel of which Roko would approve!
Me too! (Added to Headcanon.)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: BenRG on 10 Jan 2019, 23:13
I think that this is in character for Faye. Remember how defensive she gets if she encounters people that have hurt her friends? She poured hot milk into the lap of Marten's ex, remember? Years after the event too, I think! So, yeah, being angry with Crushbot for what happened to an unreasonable degree is what she would do.
In Faye's defence, looking at that buckled back panel and realise that most of that damage was caused by the tougher parts of her new friend's anatomy as she was pulverised can't be an easy thing to do.
As for Faye's question...? What do you get a synthetic as a sympathy gift? If they knew Roko better, they'd know it would be a photographic catalogue of men's underwear, mostly because it will afford views of human abs. However, knowing Faye, it will be some kind of bizarre 'gag gift' that she bought on an impulse.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 10 Jan 2019, 23:27
As for Faye's question...? What do you get a synthetic as a sympathy gift. If they knew Roko better, they'd know it would be a photographic catalogue of men's underwear, mostly because it will afford views of human abs. However, knowing Faye it will be some kind of bizarre 'gag gift' that she bought on an impulse.
Since a fruit basket is out of the question, they might in good faith decide on a basket of baked goods, as a good alternative. Which would show us directly just what the impact of her sensorium upgrade would be.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Storel on 10 Jan 2019, 23:50
As for Faye's question...? What do you get a synthetic as a sympathy gift. If they knew Roko better, they'd know it would be a photographic catalogue of men's underwear, mostly because it will afford views of human abs. However, knowing Faye it will be some kind of bizarre 'gag gift' that she bought on an impulse.
Not a fruit basket, no, but that's in the right ballpark: you get her a bread basket! Two or three freshly-baked loaves of still-warm bread would be just the thing, no?
Edit: Hah, ninja'd!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: OldGoat on 11 Jan 2019, 00:03
If she can have a hallucinatory response to the aroma of tea, she can respond to fruit as well. Definitely no bananas, though.
Maybe a nice, ripe durian. Naw, not as a get well gift, but file that away for another arc. (What would a whiff of durian do to Spookybot?)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: traroth on 11 Jan 2019, 01:15
It's Roko's neural core which let a dent on Crushbot
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: brasca on 11 Jan 2019, 02:34
I think that this is in character for Faye. Remember how defensive she gets if she encounters people that have hurt her friends? She poured hot milk into the lap of Marten's ex, remember? Years after the event too, I think! So, yeah, being angry with Crushbot for what happened to an unreasonable degree is what she would do.
Yes, but she's grown a lot since then. Honestly, this reaction reminds me of why I never cared much for her character. Apparently her attitude didn't seem to affect business at Coffee of Doom too much, but I know I'd probably never return if she was my barista. And now that she's got a struggling business of her own she really needs to be nicer because like I said Crushbot could've had his repairs done somewhere else and he's not obliged to give them a positive review.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 11 Jan 2019, 02:54
And now that she's got a struggling business of her own she really needs to be nicer because like I said Crushbot could've had his repairs done somewhere else and he's not obliged to give them a positive review.
Yeah, honestly? He is obliged not to crush people - especially people who don't schlepp their brainboxes around in an armoured casing & can't just plonk it into a shiny new body with a fancy butt-emblem.
'Customer is King' & positive reviews and all that come way behind public health & safety as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 11 Jan 2019, 03:08
We disagree on this one, my friend.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 11 Jan 2019, 03:12
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 11 Jan 2019, 03:21
Perhaps you would be angry at Crushbot because they own a dangerous chassis? I guess I could accept that. Even though we accept risk elsewhere in life. Such as driving cars.
Otherwise, what's the point of anger at Crushbot at this time?
If someone lost control of their car after a rock hit the windshield, and someone were killed as a result, would your reaction towards that person be angry or compassionate?
Bonus supplementary question: how would you feel in turn if your anger resulted in the person inflicting self-harm?
I think that would make me pretty upset.
P.S. Oh, I should clarify. Faye shouldn't be nicer for positive reviews. Faye should be nicer because it's the decent thing to do.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 11 Jan 2019, 03:58
Perhaps you would be angry at Crushbot because they own a dangerous chassis? I guess I could accept that. Even though we accept risk elsewhere in life. Such as driving cars.
That's actually the analogy I was thinking of: I'm German (Chorus: "We know, Case!"), and we love cars, we love to drive them often, we drive at very high traffic density, and we do it legally at speeds few other countries on this planet allow. We also have rather low number of road fatalities. Comes with extensive safety regulations, driver training, etc. <- The point is that it's drilled into you to be constantly aware of your surroundings and the impact of your actions on others (In theory, at last).
There's been a debate here about (very) old drivers - when it's time that they should hand in their license, as there is no legal age-limit. On the one hand, it is a cruel statement to make, it is likely to shrink their mobility and thus their social circle at a time when loneliness becomes a health-hazard etc. On the other hand, they're handling half a ton of murder on wheels in one of the most demanding driving environments on the planet. Reaction times become longer, focussing becomes harder, eyesight weaker.
The individual and its rights and welfare must be at the core of societies' considerations - that's where all 'western democracies' agree, the heritage of the enlightenment, to be dramatic about it. In the end, 'the people' are comprised of individuals and whatever rights you take away from one, you take away from all.
Otoh, the people are also a collective of people, not merely the sum total of its individual members. At what point does the concern for the welfare of the many override the concern of the welfare and freedom of the few?
IDK, for me this is a natural consideration, the way I was raised and the discursive ideal my society - or liberal democracy in general - purports to strive towards (not always successfully, and increasingly less so, but still). It's a constant balancing act, it's the core question that most of society's problems boil down to. And I'm sometimes a bit ... surprised to see that other cultures agree on the first part, but that the second seems foreign to many.
TL;DR - Yes, he shouldn't be in this chassis, or shouldn't walk it on the sidewalk, or get a sensor upgrade or safety training or whatever. I understand he didn't intend to hurt anyone, but "With great power ekcetra ekcetra"
Otherwise, what's the point of anger at Crushbot at this time?
Anger ... there's not much point to anger, unless it fuels productive action. I'd say that it's not wrong to insist that Crushbot has a think about whether he can safely walk his chassis around people he could easily kill accidentally, and what he could do to reduce the risk to his fellow beings.
And anger is something different than cruelty, which is what you seem to be reading here? I'd say that anger can (!) be productive and instructive, when it is followed and joined by compassion and care. Being angry with someone doesn't imply shunning them forever - you can always come back, apologize, embrace etc. Of course, as you'll rightly point out, many people agree with the first part and forget about the second ... (or how addictive anger can be)
If someone lost control of their car after a rock hit the windshield, and someone were killed as a result, would your reaction towards that person be angry or compassionate?
Happens all the time over here, and at speeds you've rarely driven at. The results aren't pretty, penalties (for the rock-throwers) are severe and nobody has sympathies for the sociopaths who do that. In fact, I used to flinch whenever I saw people on a bridge over an autobahn I was riding on.
That's very different from crushing someone flat on a sidewalk because you stumbled ass backwards over a crate of bananas - a sidewalk is not a highway, people do all manner of stuff on a sidewalk, and 'people' includes e.g. children, who are widely known to come up with the most unthinkable stuff apropos nothing at all.
Bonus supplementary question: how would you feel in turn if your anger resulted in the person inflicting self-harm?
Horrible. But that's an unanswerable question and, more problematic, an unactionable one. First, you can never truly know how your words impact the actions of another - afaics, the time-evolution of the statevector of the human brain is very much an unsolved problem. Second, if you make 'Always act in such a way as to exclude the possibility of someone coming to harm, including harming themselves as a possible reaction to your actions' your maxime, you can't act at all. Which actually makes sure you're harming one person - yourself. (Sidenote: Threatening suicide for coercion is a real thing and a real problem and it's a tactic abusers use. Thank God it never happened to me, but I was in a position once where informing myself and thinking about it seemed an immediate necessity, so ... I'm sorry: While I am among those who insist that 'words have consequences', I also insist that everyone of us is ultimately responsible for their own actions (modulo illness). I'm well aware that this sentence, if read literally enough, contains a paradox. I have no better answer than: "Do what you can, that's all you can do, and all anyone can demand of you")
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; What is essential is invisible to the eye" would be the maxime I'd try to follow.
This reminds me a lot of the comic where Fae starts a dialog with Hanners with "Hi fellow crazerina". Lot of people got upset about addressing someone sufferning from OCD as "crazerina". I've lived with OCD for quite a while, and I wasn't upset. It was clear to me what she meant. There's meaner/more damaging things people have said to me than 'crazerino', and they did it with a smile and polite words and superficial concern (or simply because they didn't know better). Forcing them not to use 'crazy' while I'm around won't protect me from those.
<- Points to 'motto-quote'
I think this situation is similar: People get upset about Faye saying something crass, but forget that crass isn't the same as cruel. Note e.g. that when she says 'Nobody likes you' she adds the qualifier 'right now', which implies that in the future, people will like him again. And it's ... IDK, close to the hyperbole you use around kids?
Anyhow, my 1$ 21cents.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: BenRG on 11 Jan 2019, 04:47
Interesting point made by the guys on the subreddit today. All salvageable components from Roko's old chassis should remain hers (unless the chassis was leased or something weird but the way the insurance settlement was handled doesn't suggest that). Anyway, we know that she has a phobia about seeing her parts but it is still hers. So, how are Faye and Bubbles going to handle the bits they pick out of Crushbot's back panel? I am thinking of Faye presenting Roko with a bucket of parts and asking 'Do you want to keep these in case you need spare parts?' because... well, Faye.
I'm wondering if we're going to see the AI equivalent of an organ/tissue donor charity starting via Roko's voluntary work. It strikes me as something that no-one would have thought to have done so far, given how poor May had to go begging for bits. Maybe Bubbles and Faye could donate the mystery arm too?
Would anyone else find a long-term arc about Faye, Bubbles and Roko being the leading lights in supported healthcare for low-income synthetics?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Cornelius on 11 Jan 2019, 06:44
If someone lost control of their car after a rock hit the windshield, and someone were killed as a result, would your reaction towards that person be angry or compassionate?
Aside from what Case answered above, let me adjust that image; Someone is driving a car on the sidewalk all the time, and doesn't see an obstacle, about the same size of a child drawing on the sidewalk, reverses, and kills someone. Should we be angry at that person?
I know the idea is that their chassis is their body, and that they're supposed to be accepted as people, but let's be honest, what is the heaviest person you're likely to see on a sidewalk? And are those people likely to be clad in metal? There's a good reason to separate traffic, even if some people think it might be a good idea to mingle it and slow down traffic.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Cornelius on 11 Jan 2019, 06:48
Interesting point made by the guys on the subreddit today. All salvageable components from Roko's old chassis should remain hers (unless the chassis was leased or something weird but the way the insurance settlement was handled doesn't suggest that). Anyway, we know that she has a phobia about seeing her parts but it is still hers. So, how are Faye and Bubbles going to handle the bits they pick out of Crushbot's back panel? I am thinking of Faye presenting Roko with a bucket of parts and asking 'Do you want to keep these in case you need spare parts?' because... well, Faye.
On the other hand, Melon didn't get to keep Roko's head, so perhaps she part exchanged the wreckage towards her new body? Like some car dealers will take your totaled car for scrap, and count it towards your new purchase?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: JoeCovenant on 11 Jan 2019, 06:59
Interesting point made by the guys on the subreddit today. All salvageable components from Roko's old chassis should remain hers (unless the chassis was leased or something weird but the way the insurance settlement was handled doesn't suggest that). Anyway, we know that she has a phobia about seeing her parts but it is still hers. So, how are Faye and Bubbles going to handle the bits they pick out of Crushbot's back panel? I am thinking of Faye presenting Roko with a bucket of parts and asking 'Do you want to keep these in case you need spare parts?' because... well, Faye.
I'm wondering if we're going to see the AI equivalent of an organ/tissue donor charity starting via Roko's voluntary work. It strikes me as something that no-one would have thought to have done so far, given how poor May had to go begging for bits. Maybe Bubbles and Faye could donate the mystery arm too?
Would anyone else find a long-term arc about Faye, Bubbles and Roko being the leading lights in supported healthcare for low-income synthetics?
Interesting point... not sure if it's cogent, though.
It's a bit tricky, considering it's Sentient AIs but..
If you have a car, said car must be insured. IF your car is written off, your insurer will pay for it - and the car is no longer yours.
If you go to hospital, and a surgeon removes your leg - that leg is destroyed - it's no longer yours. (Yes, there are odd occasions when people may be allowed to be given things like kidneys stones etc if they ask after they have been removed, but generally speaking, if it's removed from your body, it's destroyed... it's no longer yours.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: brasca on 11 Jan 2019, 07:19
And now that she's got a struggling business of her own she really needs to be nicer because like I said Crushbot could've had his repairs done somewhere else and he's not obliged to give them a positive review.
Yeah, honestly? He is obliged not to crush people - especially people who don't schlepp their brainboxes around in an armoured casing & can't just plonk it into a shiny new body with a fancy butt-emblem.
'Customer is King' & positive reviews and all that come way behind public health & safety as far as I'm concerned.
Crushbot is a big AI and so is Bubbles. Now if Bubbles slipped and fell on Roko it wouldn't have done as much damage, but Roko would definitely need repairs. Do you think Faye would have the same attitude? She'd probably brush it off as accidents happening.
We don't know a lot of the details about AIs interacting with humans. It's possible Crushbot has special sensors that detect humans and animals which may lock up movements to avoid accidentally falling over on anyone, but this is not in effect when other AIs are present. Roko is alive with a better chassis than before and while you can dismiss Crushbot's feelings over the matter that doesn't change the fact that he could've chosen anywhere to get his repairs done, but is patronizing their struggling business. She doesn't have to console him, but she really should be nicer if she wants repeat business.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 11 Jan 2019, 07:25
As for Faye's question...? What do you get a synthetic as a sympathy gift. If they knew Roko better, they'd know it would be a photographic catalogue of men's underwear, mostly because it will afford views of human abs. However, knowing Faye it will be some kind of bizarre 'gag gift' that she bought on an impulse.
Since a fruit basket is out of the question, they might in good faith decide on a basket of baked goods, as a good alternative. Which would show us directly just what the impact of her sensorium upgrade would be.
Scented candles that smell like freshly baked bread rubbed on human abs.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: traroth on 11 Jan 2019, 08:31
Bread looking like human abs. It seems it exists...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Zebediah on 11 Jan 2019, 08:38
So let me get this straight. We’re letting Crushbot off the hook for nearly killing Roko, but we’re condemning Faye for potentially hurting Crushbot’s feelings?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Stoutfellow on 11 Jan 2019, 08:53
So let me get this straight. We’re letting Crushbot off the hook for nearly killing Roko, but we’re condemning Faye for potentially hurting Crushbot’s feelings?
Well, Crushbot's insurance company is making a hefty ($20K+) payout, and his premiums are likely to go up; he's done what he can to make amends and will wind up paying a stiff price. I'd say that's enough, and wouldn't expect more; if that's "letting him off the hook", so be it.
No comment as regards Faye.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: DSL on 11 Jan 2019, 09:00
So let me get this straight. We’re letting Crushbot off the hook for nearly killing Roko, but we’re condemning Faye for potentially hurting Crushbot’s feelings?
You're allowed to feel remorse, and attempt to offer condolences for, an accident that is determined to be your fault but which you did not intend. (Even if Thuh LAW and Pernicious Pedants insist we "intend" every consequence of our actions.)
Absent any indication C-bot delibarately sent Roko's chassis to Flatland, Faye's "No one likes you" is a tad bit uncalled for.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 11 Jan 2019, 09:34
I really liked how Jeph kind of took us into one of the most degrading of the aspects of the trans experience: people asking very personal questions about your body, and whether and you'd had surgery. I particularly think it's great that he brought the whole debate about whether or not Claire has had genital corrective surgery directly into the narrative, even if only indirectly.
I hope that the next time somebody wants to speculate about Claire, they'll think about Roko's response to the question about whether or not she now has nipples...
Jeph has also addressed the issue head on in a tweet.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: OldGoat on 11 Jan 2019, 10:35
Using real life vehicle insurance policies as a model - At least in any US state I'm familiar with, by accepting a settlement from the insurance company for a totaled vehicle, you give them title to what's left. Roko's old body probably isn't hers anymore. (You do hear about owners buying their junked vehicle back to rebuild it. "Total loss" just means the insurer thinks it'll cost more to repair than to replace. There may be a lot of car left. In some cases the damage may be entirely cosmetic.)
The default in any surgical procedure paperwork here in the US is that the surgeon gets to keep whatever they take out of you. Babies excepted. As my doc explained once, "That's in case it's really interesting and I want to write a paper on it."
No one has mentioned the liability of whoever the nincompoop was that left a crate of bananas on the traveled portion of the sidewalk, particularly in a neighborhood frequented by abnormally large sentient robots. Crushie's insurance carrier is no doubt investigating the possibility of subrogating to recover at least part of their loss. (Proportional liability - how much of the fault rests with Crushbot and how much with the Banana Leaver - will be discussed in pretrial negotiations and argued at court if the case goes to trial, but they seldom do.)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: de_la_Nae on 11 Jan 2019, 11:25
I don't have the energy for WCDT, but I feel like it bears mentioning that I would look askance at a *constructed* giant able to be foiled by one (1) errant crate of fruit. Like i dunno three legs, magic gyroscopes... something?
like I totally can be foiled by fruit, but i'm a product of evolution and more-or-less natural biology, i'm automatically doomed to be a ridiculously-unoptimized bag of flesh and water
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Roborat on 11 Jan 2019, 12:01
Oh please, they have to give Roko a fruit backet, it would fit their sense of humour, and would serve to welcome Roko into the group. Also, why the anger Faye? It was an accident, it wasn't Crushbot's negligence or actions that caused Roko to become one with the sidewalk.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: brasca on 11 Jan 2019, 15:37
So let me get this straight. We’re letting Crushbot off the hook for nearly killing Roko, but we’re condemning Faye for potentially hurting Crushbot’s feelings?
If Crushbot was one of those drivers who didn't have insurance and just caused a major accident I can understand the contempt, but he isn't. And it's like I've previously stated Union Robotics is a struggling business that he doesn't have to patronize or recommend to his fellow AIs unless he's cool with taking verbal abuse and Faye is just giving him what he wants.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: A small perverse otter on 11 Jan 2019, 16:56
I guess I'm a lot more sympathetic to Faye's PoV than everybody else is. Remember, the first thing Chrushbot said after they fell on Roko was "THERE IS NO NEED FOR CONCERN. SOMETHING BROKE CRUSHBOT'S FALL. THE ONLY INJURY IS TO CRUSHBOT'S PRIDE." Now, admittedly, Crushbot had no reason to know that the SOMETHING which broke their fall was actually a SOMEONE, but I can certainly see how the apparent callousness of the comment might set people off for a while.
As I see it, Crushbot was careless -- they really should have seen the crate of bananas and should have been sufficently aware of their surroundings to know that there was someone right behind them and adjust their fall. They weren't and they didn't -- and that's pretty bad. It's forgivable -- "Nobody likes you right now" really means "I'm still pissed" not "I hate you" -- but Faye's got every right to still be irritated.
(Also, didn't Crushbot used to be part of the fighting ring? If so, it's pretty likely that Faye's their friend, too. In that case, the abuse becomes more friendly grumping.)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 11 Jan 2019, 17:08
I don't have the energy for WCDT, but I feel like it bears mentioning that I would look askance at a *constructed* giant able to be foiled by one (1) errant crate of fruit. Like i dunno three legs, magic gyroscopes... something?
Okay, so a part of the difficulty of discussing this - apart from the fact that my posts from yesterday were pretty much my emotional reaction rather than completely thought through - is that this is a ludicrous situation, isn't it? I mean, I can only imagine that Jeph had Crushbot slip on a falling crate of bananas to dissuade us from taking the whole thing too seriously. That was never going to work, of course, but still...
... Someone is driving a car on the sidewalk all the time, and doesn't see an obstacle, about the same size of a child drawing on the sidewalk, reverses, and kills someone. Should we be angry at that person?
Well, yes, we should, because this person shouldn't be on the sidewalk.
Should Crushbot not exist? Eh, I don't know, it's impossible to judge. The whole situation is presented as a freakish accident. I have no idea in practice just how dangerous this chassis is. They are (apparently) repairing Crushbot's chassis, not replacing it with a safer one, so maybe it is safe and this really was just a freakishly unlikely accident. It can happen.
So let me get this straight. We’re letting Crushbot off the hook for nearly killing Roko, but we’re condemning Faye for potentially hurting Crushbot’s feelings?
You're allowed to feel remorse, and attempt to offer condolences for, an accident that is determined to be your fault but which you did not intend. (Even if Thuh LAW and Pernicious Pedants insist we "intend" every consequence of our actions.)
Absent any indication C-bot delibarately sent Roko's chassis to Flatland, Faye's "No one likes you" is a tad bit uncalled for.
I agree with DSL, but as I imagine Zebediah's post was aimed at me among others, I'll expand.
In saying "letting Crushbot off the hook," I take it that you believe Crushbot to be culpable. As it happens, I don't think he is. But not actually, that's not what I was doing. My opinion applies whether I "let him off the hook" or not.
I'm also not "condemning" Faye. I was criticising. No need to be dramatic.
TL;DR - Yes, he shouldn't be in this chassis, or shouldn't walk it on the sidewalk, or get a sensor upgrade or safety training or whatever. I understand he didn't intend to hurt anyone, but "With great power ekcetra ekcetra"
So, I've addressed this to a degree up-post. But, regardless of that, I'll happily go along with the idea that there should be some consequence to what has happened. Be that an upgrade, training, or a change in chassis. I think in the real world, they would all be good outcomes.
Note e.g. that when she says 'Nobody likes you' she adds the qualifier 'right now', which implies that in the future, people will like him again. And it's ... IDK, close to the hyperbole you use around kids?
Yes, I can see that. But honestly, I was left more strongly with the words "... and you're just gonna have to deal with that."
And yes, this is an emotional not a rational reaction, but that hyperbole did not, to me, imply that in the future people will like him again. I mentally appended to it, "for the rest of your life."
And you know what? He will have to deal with the fact that he almost killed someone for the rest of his life.
My emotional reaction to it was very heavily based on an assumption I made going in. Knowing QC and knowing Jeph, it's almost certainly wrong. But it shaped my reaction, so here it is.
I had assumed that Crushbot was traumatised by what had happened. And, whether at fault or not, was just as much in need of counseling as Roko.
But where Roko did get counseling (admittedly clumsy, but it's all about the jokes innit), Crushbot perhaps ironically got Faye's insensitive sass, with all the finesse of Crushbot in a china shop.
Can we just review the dialogue now?
Bubbles: Probably not a fruit basket, considering the cause of the accident. Crushbot: CRUSHBOT WOULD ALSO LIKE TO EXTEND CRUSHBOT'S SINCERE CONDOLENCES. Faye: You shut up. Nobody likes you right now and you're just gonna have to deal with that.
So: it's been stated outright that the cause of the accident is the fruit basket(*). What, am I overreading this statement? As someone else upthread stated, this could just as easily have happened to Bubbles, nicht wahr? She could fall on someone and kill them.
Crushbot has not retreated to a position of "well, this wasn't my fault." He is apologetic regardless. This is the right thing to do, isn't it? We're often so quick to condemn people with "faux apologies." Well, this isn't one of them.
I just can't imagine ever telling someone extending a sincere apology to shut up, unless they were guilty of something truly heinous. It's just unnecessary.
And if Crushbot does happen to be traumatised, then this will make things worse. I hope that's not the case.
I hope that all that happens is Crushbot's feeling are a little bit hurt.
No, I don't condemn Faye. She's probably still in a bit of shock herself. But I do worry that one of these days her inconsiderate words will have real consequences. Probably not this time. But one day.
Warning: you blabbed on again
I'm not taking sides.
I'm fine with someone telling Crushbot that they should have been more careful, or their chassis needs upgrades/replacement, or whatever.
And if Crushbot is indeed Faye's friend and this is sass between friends, then I take it all back.
Edit: * Banana crate :roll:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Milayna on 11 Jan 2019, 17:17
If someone lost control of their car after a rock hit the windshield, and someone were killed as a result, would your reaction towards that person be angry or compassionate?
Aside from what Case answered above, let me adjust that image; Someone is driving a car on the sidewalk all the time, and doesn't see an obstacle, about the same size of a child drawing on the sidewalk, reverses, and kills someone. Should we be angry at that person?
I know the idea is that their chassis is their body, and that they're supposed to be accepted as people, but let's be honest, what is the heaviest person you're likely to see on a sidewalk? And are those people likely to be clad in metal? There's a good reason to separate traffic, even if some people think it might be a good idea to mingle it and slow down traffic.
And this is what bothers me about Crushbot. let's skip the middleman: Say that the cars, themselves, are fully realized AI's. Well, they're people now. But does that mean we have to grant that they can just go down the sidewalk? May wanted to be a fighter jet; if she succeeded, welp, does the F-15 get to just roll into the bank now?
This gets really sticky, where the rights of fully autonomous people intersect with the reality that some of those people now have physical properties that historical civilization simply was not built to accommodate. There would need to be either radical restructuring of the physical space of the world - virtually impossible - or there would need to be some restrictions and the type of equipment that people are allowed to use; just as I can't drive a backhoe around to do my daily errands, it seems like a chassis such as Crushbot's would be, essentially, his "work vehicle".
Especially considering the body integration that Roko talked about that will cause problems of identity that has me coming down on a conservative side that I'm very uncomfortable with...but can't see any way past. If there's a "correct answer", I don't think society would have discovered it in the few decades since AI's were created.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Gyrre on 11 Jan 2019, 17:35
I really liked how Jeph kind of took us into one of the most degrading of the aspects of the trans experience: people asking very personal questions about your body, and whether and you'd had surgery. I particularly think it's great that he brought the whole debate about whether or not Claire has had genital corrective surgery directly into the narrative, even if only indirectly.
I hope that the next time somebody wants to speculate about Claire, they'll think about Roko's response to the question about whether or not she now has nipples...
Can I get a link? Jeph has also addressed the issue head on in a tweet.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: A small perverse otter on 11 Jan 2019, 17:47
I really liked how Jeph kind of took us into one of the most degrading of the aspects of the trans experience: people asking very personal questions about your body, and whether and you'd had surgery. I particularly think it's great that he brought the whole debate about whether or not Claire has had genital corrective surgery directly into the narrative, even if only indirectly.
I hope that the next time somebody wants to speculate about Claire, they'll think about Roko's response to the question about whether or not she now has nipples...
Jeph has also addressed the issue head on in a tweet.
I missed that one. Can you point me to it? (Unless you mean the "on discussoin of private parts", which I was trying to sort of call back to...)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 11 Jan 2019, 17:51
This gets really sticky, where the rights of fully autonomous people intersect with the reality that some of those people now have physical properties that historical civilization simply was not built to accommodate. There would need to be either radical restructuring of the physical space of the world - virtually impossible - or there would need to be some restrictions and the type of equipment that people are allowed to use; just as I can't drive a backhoe around to do my daily errands, it seems like a chassis such as Crushbot's would be, essentially, his "work vehicle".
Okay, so in the real world this would come down to a risk assessment, wouldn't it?
I mean, if nearly 40,000 people died this way in a single year, then obviously people's individual rights to own such machinery would need to be compromised in the name of public safety. Right? Right? (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/gun-deaths.html)
Okay, maybe not. In the case of cars, there are a comparable number of fatalities, but the utility of cars is such that we don't ban them outright, but we do require training and licensing.
If this is a freakish one-off, then I can't imagine consequences beyond reviewing the safety of the chassis and training Crashbot to prevent such accidents in future.
I do agree, anyway, that the intersection of individual rights and public safety can be a sticky topic.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Gyrre on 11 Jan 2019, 18:09
*snip* YThere's been a debate here about (very) old drivers - when it's time that they should hand in their license, as there is no legal age-limit. On the one hand, it is a cruel statement to make, it is likely to shrink their mobility and thus their social circle at a time when loneliness becomes a health-hazard etc. On the other hand, they're handling half a ton of murder on wheels in one of the most demanding driving environments on the planet. Reaction times become longer, focussing becomes harder, eyesight weaker.
I've actually put a good amount of thought into this when my best friend got hit by a septigenerian lady with terrible cataracts in both eyes. Turns out her kids (who were also her lawyers) knew and let her continue driving anyways.
Start requiring regular vision tests at age 50 (when eyes commonly start changing shape again). That way vision problems could be (hopefully) caught early. Just an annual vision test would be required. Failing to get the test would probably come with a fine, and maybe a suspended license. In the event of cataracts, the driver would of course be informed that they'd need them removed in order to continue driving. This could also catch other aging eye problems such as macular degeneration, juxtafovial retinopathy, and Drusen's syndrome.
Once a driver's eyesight was no longer reliable, then their license would be taken away.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 11 Jan 2019, 19:53
In NSW Australia, all drivers need to pass regular vision tests, but this requirement becomes more frequent as you age. It becomes annual when you reach 70 years of age.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 11 Jan 2019, 21:56
Okay, so a part of the difficulty of discussing this - apart from the fact that my posts from yesterday were pretty much my emotional reaction rather than completely thought through - is that this is a ludicrous situation, isn't it? I mean, I can only imagine that Jeph had Crushbot slip on a falling crate of bananas to dissuade us from taking the whole thing too seriously. That was never going to work, of course, but still...
Good point. I can only imagine Jeph's reaction - "Of course they were going to obsess about the plot-device ..."
Note e.g. that when she says 'Nobody likes you' she adds the qualifier 'right now', which implies that in the future, people will like him again. And it's ... IDK, close to the hyperbole you use around kids?
Yes, I can see that. But honestly, I was left more strongly with the words "... and you're just gonna have to deal with that."
<snip>
Crushbot has not retreated to a position of "well, this wasn't my fault." He is apologetic regardless. This is the right thing to do, isn't it? We're often so quick to condemn people with "faux apologies." Well, this isn't one of them.
I just can't imagine ever telling someone extending a sincere apology to shut up, unless they were guilty of something truly heinous. It's just unnecessary.
Ok, I see. I focussed more on the first part, but you're right that "... and you're just gonna have to deal with that" is ... very harsh.
I can potentially see reasons for harshness even when people are apologetic - e.g. Crushbot seems a little 'young', and there might be reasons to impress on a multi-ton teenager that their being 'young' is a luxury that their fellow beings can ill afford, and that they please grow up now before someone gets killed - but it is very harsh, true.
Personally, I read Faye's dialogue more as the exaggerated scolding a parent or caretaker would apply to a child, like "I'm really mad with you now, because you really shouldn't have done that and someone got hurt because you did, and I really want you to remember that - but I'm not going to stay mad with you forever".
But again, you're right that this is very harsh, potentially bordering on cruelty, depending on circumstances/what happened between comics.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 11 Jan 2019, 22:48
In NSW Australia, all drivers need to pass regular vision tests, but this requirement becomes more frequent as you age. It becomes annual when you reach 70 years of age.
That's a good idea - over here, people need to pass a vision test to get their licence and it's recommended to repeat the test regularly for one's own safety, but afaik, it's not a legal requirement.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: BenRG on 12 Jan 2019, 00:50
I really can't believe how impassioned and out-of-proportion this debate has got. Let me summarise in the simplest terms I know.
Faye was not being cruel or malicious. She was upset because her friend had been seriously hurt, indeed nearly killed. She was reacting to this by lashing out verbally at the most proximate cause for her own distress to hand. This is not a moral failing; it's being human.
Was it an ideal response? No, but Faye isn't an ideal woman and I challenge anyone here to claim with a straight face that, with a friend in ICU and the person whose misadventure caused that before them, that they wouldn't be salty too!
However, notice that Faye is still carrying out the repairs, apparently quite conscientiously. She may be upset but she's not vengeful.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 12 Jan 2019, 01:55
Personally, I read Faye's dialogue more as the exaggerated scolding a parent or caretaker would apply to a child, like "I'm really mad with you now, because you really shouldn't have done that and someone got hurt because you did, and I really want you to remember that - but I'm not going to stay mad with you forever".
But again, you're right that this is very harsh, potentially bordering on cruelty, depending on circumstances/what happened between comics.
Well, at this point, I'm going to assume that Faye and Crushbot have at this point got to know each other well enough that Faye knows Crushbot won't be crushed :claireface: by her remark.
BTW Ben, I don't believe the conversation has been at all out of proportion. Maybe some opinions you don't agree with have been expressed. But judging by your post, maybe you've taken what I've said out of proportion? Because I'm not feeling as impassioned as you seem to think, honestly.
I don't actually think she's guilty of a moral failing. I don't think she's vengeful either.
I did say that what she said seemed malicious. The key word is "seemed." I suspect it actually was not. But it came across that way.
We agree it wasn't an ideal response. Good. I'm quite comfortable and content with that. Like I have already said - I don't condemn her for it. It's understandable.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 12 Jan 2019, 04:12
Faye was not being cruel or malicious. She was upset because her friend had been seriously hurt, indeed nearly killed. She was reacting to this by lashing out verbally at the most proximate cause for her own distress to hand. This is not a moral failing; it's being human.
Pretty good point, actually.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: ZoeB on 12 Jan 2019, 04:51
No one has mentioned the liability of whoever the nincompoop was that left a crate of bananas on the traveled portion of the sidewalk, particularly in a neighborhood frequented by abnormally large sentient robots. Crushie's insurance carrier is no doubt investigating the possibility of subrogating to recover at least part of their loss. (Proportional liability - how much of the fault rests with Crushbot and how much with the Banana Leaver - will be discussed in pretrial negotiations and argued at court if the case goes to trial, but they seldom do.)
Wel, no one of any consequence. And even they haven't mentioned it for a while....
I've actually put a good amount of thought into this when my best friend got hit by a septigenerian lady with terrible cataracts in both eyes. Turns out her kids (who were also her lawyers) knew and let her continue driving anyways.
Well, that's alarming. What happened?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: ZoeB on 12 Jan 2019, 05:10
1) What Faye said was entirely human nature. It was also farnarkling insensitive and even cruel. Her Bad. 2) Depending on Crushbot's mental state, it could be just as psychologically damaging to him as his fall was to Roko. An accident, to be sure. 3) Examining deeds not words, Faye is trying to make things right. So not deliberately cruel. 4) Faye may have a more robust and forthright relationship with Crushbot than I've allowed for, due to past history. Chance of psychologically hurting Crushbot might be negligible, and she knows it. 5) *I* still like Crushbot. So she's wrong.
Oh and by the way - I wasn't allowed to renew my driver's licence here in Australia at age 60 as I failed the quickie eyesight test at the motor registry. Not till I got a full workup from an optometrist, and a formal letter saying I was safe as long as I had annual checkups henceforth.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: SordidEuphemism on 12 Jan 2019, 06:56
I guess I'm in the minority here. I didn't read it as an intentional expression of anger from Faye at all, but more as a Southern Grandma thing. "Bernard, nobody's gonna like you for a little while. You need to deal with that."
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Milayna on 12 Jan 2019, 07:19
...Faye's comment just looked like a statement of fact to me. Malicious? Only in that it was blunt, and social appropriateness usually calls for an annoying song and dance, I guess. Actually I smirked a little when I read it since she was actually being fair, less emotionally overbearing, than usual.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Theta9 on 12 Jan 2019, 07:46
I guess I'm in the minority here. I didn't read it as an intentional expression of anger from Faye at all, but more as a Southern Grandma thing. "Bernard, nobody's gonna like you for a little while. You need to deal with that."
Fay-Fay is a southerner, so it fits.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: OldGoat on 12 Jan 2019, 10:09
As others have pointed out, Faye has known Crushbot for some time, longer than she's known Roko and being Faye she's developed some level of friendship with him, and he with her, not unlike a doctor/patient relationship. She's a nurturing personality under all the prickle she's pounded dents and dings out and reassembled him a number of times. Any feelings of friendship Faye may have toward Roko are really quite recent. SordidEuphemism is spot on about Faye's use of southernisms.
Faye is just telling Crushbot, "Shut up and hold still," and he's receiving the message loud and clear.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 12 Jan 2019, 10:45
I guess I'm in the minority here. I didn't read it as an intentional expression of anger from Faye at all, but more as a Southern Grandma thing. "Bernard, nobody's gonna like you for a little while. You need to deal with that."
Fay-Fay is a southerner, so it fits.
Once again please, for the Non-Americans: Is this the 'tough love'-thingy we hear so much about?
Is it specific to the American south, or sort of a universal feature with local variations?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: pwhodges on 12 Jan 2019, 10:57
Here is an account of an extreme version of tough love. I was surprised to find that such a book could even exist today:
I really liked how Jeph kind of took us into one of the most degrading of the aspects of the trans experience: people asking very personal questions about your body, and whether and you'd had surgery. I particularly think it's great that he brought the whole debate about whether or not Claire has had genital corrective surgery directly into the narrative, even if only indirectly.
I hope that the next time somebody wants to speculate about Claire, they'll think about Roko's response to the question about whether or not she now has nipples...
Jeph has also addressed the issue head on in a tweet.
I missed that one. Can you point me to it? (Unless you mean the "on discussoin of private parts", which I was trying to sort of call back to...)
There was also a short tweet which I can't find in a casual search to the effect that it's none of our business what anyone's junk looks like and stop asking. I wonder if I quoted it in the wiki maybe.
EDIT: I didn't.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 12 Jan 2019, 11:12
The "parents" who follow that book should never see their children again.
It's not just parents by the way. In more than a handful of US states it's still legal for teachers to beat students.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: hedgie on 12 Jan 2019, 11:55
Ye gods. Sometimes, I swear that if I had a doomsday device, I'd use it.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Morituri on 12 Jan 2019, 12:23
Nipples.
Hmmmm.
I know Jeph doesn't usually use anything remotely sexual as a plot point, but I kind of hope that's a plot point.
Given how repressed Roko is about her bread fetish and her occasional admiration of cute boys, I am in fact hoping that occasional unaccustomed sexual sensation from nipples might ... I dunno, either prompt her to start dealing with her own needs, or at least give us some funny scenes as failing to deal with her own needs becomes just that one little bit more difficult.
And I'm not even sorry.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Case on 12 Jan 2019, 12:24
I know Jeph doesn't usually use anything remotely sexual as a plot point, but I kind of hope that's a plot point.
Given how repressed Roko is about her bread fetish and her occasional admiration of cute boys, I am in fact hoping that occasional unaccustomed sexual sensation from nipples might ... I dunno, either prompt her to start dealing with her own needs, or at least give us some funny scenes as failing to deal with her own needs becomes just that one little bit more difficult.
And I'm not even sorry.
I remember a lot of Faye's issues stemming from (or at least being exacerbated by) Sven shacking up with some chick while he and Faye were in a weird unhealthy "sometimes we bump into each other. Naked. With our crotches" thing
Oh yeah, the Pearls. I heard about them a loooong time ago, from following various atheist and liberal blogs.
This lady in particular writes about them a lot: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/authoritarian-parenting Their attitudes aren't focussed just in child abuse either: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/created-to-be-his-help-meet
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: de_la_Nae on 12 Jan 2019, 14:08
I guess I'm in the minority here. I didn't read it as an intentional expression of anger from Faye at all, but more as a Southern Grandma thing. "Bernard, nobody's gonna like you for a little while. You need to deal with that."
Fay-Fay is a southerner, so it fits.
Once again please, for the Non-Americans: Is this the 'tough love'-thingy we hear so much about?
Is it specific to the American south, or sort of a universal feature with local variations?
Tough-Love is a phrase with significant baggage, as evidenced by the 'To Raise Up A Child' hideousness and some of the darker shades of AA and pseudo-religious organizations throughout the US.
What I'm commenting on was the idea that Crushbot, whether sincere or not in his remorse, will still find people who think negatively of him or of the situation, and needs to be prepared for that. That's the message I saw in Faye's statement. With her typical rough edges.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Theta9 on 12 Jan 2019, 16:29
As others have pointed out, Faye has known Crushbot for some time, longer than she's known Roko and being Faye she's developed some level of friendship with him, and he with her, not unlike a doctor/patient relationship.
Do we know this for a fact? Supporting documentation please.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 12 Jan 2019, 17:12
I think I said this already, but if they are friends, I will happily concede everything I said. I do mean happily. I would like this to be true.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 12 Jan 2019, 17:51
Oh Christ on a bike.
I was going to say something pithy about Crushbot, but you know what, the WCDT does it again.
Fuck it, I'm done.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 12 Jan 2019, 18:03
It's been educational for me to be on the other side of this recurring debate for a change. It will change my perspective from here on.
Since I started this, I guess, feel free to address me specifically, Castlerook. I won't be offended if you tell me there's something I posted that I should not have, or some behaviour of mine I should refrain from. I'd rather know than not. Thanks.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: OldGoat on 13 Jan 2019, 00:27
As others have pointed out, Faye has known Crushbot for some time, longer than she's known Roko and being Faye she's developed some level of friendship with him, and he with her, not unlike a doctor/patient relationship.
Do we know this for a fact? Supporting documentation please.
No, no one knows about anything in-strip for fact. It's all fiction out of Jeph's noggin. Are you asking if I can support my conclusions by citing the story as presented in strip? Why, yes. Yes I can.
Crushbot did his crushing and no doubt was crushed from time to time in the robot fights at Corpsewitch's facility. That's canon.
Faye made her living repairing the crushed robots. IIRC, Crushbot was first introduced while undergoing post-match repairs. I think it's a safe assumption that Faye "treated" Crushbot (along with every other 'droid in the place) for various instances of battle damage great and small.
Most of Faye's contacts with Roko have been of a citizen/cop or even suspect/cop nature. Their first non-adversarial contact was Roko's wrecked ankle.
I stand by my conclusion - Faye has logged far more time in cordial contact with Crushbot than with Roko.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 13 Jan 2019, 01:02
Finally found the tweet.
"Dear everyone who ever asks about Claire’s junk: it’s none of your business what’s in somebody else’s pants. Stop it."
Oh Christ on a bike. I was going to say something pithy about Crushbot, but you know what, the WCDT does it again.
Fuck it, I'm done.
It's been educational for me to be on the other side of this recurring debate for a change. It will change my perspective from here on.
Since I started this, I guess, feel free to address me specifically, Castlerook. I won't be offended if you tell me there's something I posted that I should not have, or some behaviour of mine I should refrain from. I'd rather know than not. Thanks.
Same here.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Theta9 on 13 Jan 2019, 06:48
No, no one knows about anything in-strip for fact. It's all fiction out of Jeph's noggin. Are you asking if I can support my conclusions by citing the story as presented in strip? Why, yes. Yes I can.
That's what I meant. I have no prior memory of Crushbot from the fights.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: jwhouk on 13 Jan 2019, 08:16
So what is Roko's new chassis going to be like?
Pretentious like a Porsche. 9 (30%) <= Okay, maybe not quite, but that tattoo on the butt? Purple Monkey Dishwasher! 7 (23.3%) <= We need more Purple Monkey Dishwashers. That dream of being a toaster is FINALLY REALIZED! 4 (13.3%) Big Badonkadonk like a Kardashian. 3 (10%) HAH! She looks like Lemon! 3 (10%) Pigtails (and her other accoutrements) like Momo. 2 (6.7%) Attitude and glitches like May. 2 (6.7%) Worse - she looks like PINTSIZE. 0 (0%) <= Oh the pain, oh the shame...
Total Members Voted: 30
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Jakk Frost on 13 Jan 2019, 08:29
Just to throw my two cents in, Faye could have simply said "everybody's pissed at you right now" instead of "nobody likes you right now". It would have been equally chastising without being the uncalled-for harsh emotional bullying. That's exactly the kind of negative reinforcement that can lead to suicidal thoughts and acts. And I speak from experience there.
Although the bullying IS in character for Faye, so maybe this is leading to some more growth for her.
To those saying "that's just how she normally is, how she always treats her friends", that doesn't make it okay.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: OldGoat on 13 Jan 2019, 08:50
No, no one knows about anything in-strip for fact. It's all fiction out of Jeph's noggin. Are you asking if I can support my conclusions by citing the story as presented in strip? Why, yes. Yes I can.
That's what I meant. I have no prior memory of Crushbot from the fights.
And now that I've had time to look, I may be confusing Crushbot with another *bot. (He certainly fits the profile of a Robot Ring contestant.)
So, I do have to dial it back. If he is a former fighter at the "Skate Park," Faye's known him longer than she's known Roko.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Netherdan on 13 Jan 2019, 16:21
This butt does not have a Butt Emblem™ Crushbot should have Sam fix that
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Shremedy on 14 Jan 2019, 09:55
It's implied that, Crushbot's insurance was that generous. Lemon's only caveat was that most tech blogs reported that the Philomena-G wasn't worth the extra $20k but Roko felt that a near-death experience left her deserving the very best model and a butt tattoo.
I doubt that Jeph will ever let us know what it is but I'm hoping that the logo is something utterly ridiculous like a winking double-thumbs up with tongue poking out emoji or something similar.
TBH I'm surprised that bot-body manufacturers DON'T have their brand logo on the butt (a la designer jeans) by default. It would cost more to persuade them to REMOVE said logo!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 14 Jan 2019, 11:33
Wouldn't they want their logo someplace where more people would see it?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Morituri on 14 Jan 2019, 12:01
TBH I'm surprised that bot-body manufacturers DON'T have their brand logo on the butt (a la designer jeans) by default. It would cost more to persuade them to REMOVE said logo!
Truth. Many car dealerships really piss me off in that regard, bolting a badge with their name to the body of the car, which can't be removed without leaving an ugly mark and bolt holes.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 14 Jan 2019, 16:47
So have it replaced with something you like better. Sounds like an after-market opportunity to me.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: A small perverse otter on 14 Jan 2019, 19:47
TBH I'm surprised that bot-body manufacturers DON'T have their brand logo on the butt (a la designer jeans) by default. It would cost more to persuade them to REMOVE said logo!
Truth. Many car dealerships really piss me off in that regard, bolting a badge with their name to the body of the car, which can't be removed without leaving an ugly mark and bolt holes.
Yeah, I hate that. It's vandalism, and nothing short. It's *my* car, dude. I didn't give you permission to damage the car that way.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: cesium133 on 14 Jan 2019, 20:29
Here I am, detector the size of a cubic kilometer, and what do they have me do? Detect neutrinos. You call that job satisfaction? Because I don't.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Theta9 on 15 Jan 2019, 09:18
Truth. Many car dealerships really piss me off in that regard, bolting a badge with their name to the body of the car, which can't be removed without leaving an ugly mark and bolt holes.
Yeah, I hate that. It's vandalism, and nothing short. It's *my* car, dude. I didn't give you permission to damage the car that way.
I suppose they would claim that it's their car until you buy it, so they can do whatever they want prior. But it's still some serious bullshit.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 15 Jan 2019, 11:58
They shouldn't really be able to show you one car, then change it without your permission before they hand it over, surely?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Theta9 on 15 Jan 2019, 12:24
They shouldn't really be able to show you one car, then change it without your permission before they hand it over, surely?
No, what they do is, they bolt the goddamn things on as soon as they're received from the factory.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 15 Jan 2019, 12:50
And people actually buy them? Ugh. No thanks.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Zebediah on 15 Jan 2019, 16:46
This seems to be going out of style. Every car I have bought in the last 20 years has not had the dealer’s name bolted on. Instead they have had the dealer name on an easily removable license plate frame.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 15 Jan 2019, 17:13
Yes, here it's either a license plate frame or a sticker. It was a sticker (on the rear window) on my last car. I remember thinking that was a hassle. Little did I know.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Shremedy on 15 Jan 2019, 18:31
Unpopular opinion regarding Crushbot: He deserves every bit of angst he gets. Robots, while frequently given bodies appropriate for whatever jobs they do, have much greater opportunities to modify, tweak, or outright change their bodies than humans do. He has the ability -- and the personal responsibility -- to be less "musclebound" and "clumsy", for the safety of others around him! Even if he has to go into debt to make it so! His manufacturer needs a severe talking-to by Scary Expensive Lawyers about letting such an inherently dangerous product out into the wild! While comical in this context (and admittedly owing a great deal to Cartoon Physicstm), Crushbot's utter clumsiness is frightening in real world context. Had it been a human in the line of Crushbot's collapse, the result would have been tragic. Hell, it still could have been tragic, for Roko! Data recorders in airplanes sometimes fail, despite their robust design, in the face of real-world accident conditions.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Morituri on 15 Jan 2019, 18:32
Tova? I'm sorry to ask, but what nation are you in again? (Australia? Do I remember that right?)
I actually remember a random scrap of a long time ago, when my brother was getting his first pickup truck. When for the first time ever I saw cars on the showroom floor *WITHOUT* the ugly additional dealership-badge chrome.
(They weren't actually bolted here in the US; we got 'mounted' instead where the chrome badges had pegs molded into the back and they punched a hole for the pegs to go in. So, no threads and no nut on the other side. They were friction-fit and could be pulled off by hand, but then you had a car with ugly holes punched in the fender).
Anyway, it turned out that a couple years previous, somebody had sued a car dealership to either get paid for the "advertising" he was doing for them or get a replacement car without ugly holes in the fender. And he won. And after that (literally decades now) I have never observed another US car dealership putting those ugly chrome plates on their cars. These days they "badge" the license plate frames instead, and of course you can exchange those at whim.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: A small perverse otter on 15 Jan 2019, 19:27
Tova? I'm sorry to ask, but what nation are you in again? (Australia? Do I remember that right?)
I actually remember a random scrap of a long time ago, when my brother was getting his first pickup truck. When for the first time ever I saw cars on the showroom floor *WITHOUT* the ugly additional dealership-badge chrome.
(They weren't actually bolted here in the US; we got 'mounted' instead where the chrome badges had pegs molded into the back and they punched a hole for the pegs to go in. So, no threads and no nut on the other side. They were friction-fit and could be pulled off by hand, but then you had a car with ugly holes punched in the fender).
Anyway, it turned out that a couple years previous, somebody had sued a car dealership to either get paid for the "advertising" he was doing for them or get a replacement car without ugly holes in the fender. And he won. And after that (literally decades now) I have never observed another US car dealership putting those ugly chrome plates on their cars. These days they "badge" the license plate frames instead, and of course you can exchange those at whim.
FWIW, there's a local dealership up my way -- I'm in the PNW -- which still vandalizes the cars that way. I simply won't deal with them, so I can't say whether the badge is on the car before it's sold or not.
(Interpretation: PNW == "Pacific NorthWest", Washington State, Oregon, and other nearby scraps of the US. Dominated by Geeks and Nature Freaks.)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: cesium133 on 15 Jan 2019, 19:43
This seems to be going out of style. Every car I have bought in the last 20 years has not had the dealer’s name bolted on. Instead they have had the dealer name on an easily removable license plate frame.
My car came with the dealer name bolted on, and I bought it in 2015.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Tova on 15 Jan 2019, 20:22
Tova? I'm sorry to ask, but what nation are you in again? (Australia? Do I remember that right?)
I actually remember a random scrap of a long time ago, when my brother was getting his first pickup truck. When for the first time ever I saw cars on the showroom floor *WITHOUT* the ugly additional dealership-badge chrome.
(They weren't actually bolted here in the US; we got 'mounted' instead where the chrome badges had pegs molded into the back and they punched a hole for the pegs to go in. So, no threads and no nut on the other side. They were friction-fit and could be pulled off by hand, but then you had a car with ugly holes punched in the fender).
Anyway, it turned out that a couple years previous, somebody had sued a car dealership to either get paid for the "advertising" he was doing for them or get a replacement car without ugly holes in the fender. And he won. And after that (literally decades now) I have never observed another US car dealership putting those ugly chrome plates on their cars. These days they "badge" the license plate frames instead, and of course you can exchange those at whim.
FWIW, there's a local dealership up my way -- I'm in the PNW -- which still vandalizes the cars that way. I simply won't deal with them, so I can't say whether the badge is on the car before it's sold or not.
(Interpretation: PNW == "Pacific NorthWest", Washington State, Oregon, and other nearby scraps of the US. Dominated by Geeks and Nature Freaks.)
We're neighbors, Otter.
Remember Huling Brothers' Buick in west Seattle? (Yeah, THOSE (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/dealerships-closing-after-huling-bros-scandal/) guys.) They ran a radio ad campaign making a big deal out of selling Huling cars which looked an awful lot like Buicks.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Theta9 on 16 Jan 2019, 07:36
:lol: I just flashed back to Bubbles saying "it is indeed like fuck." (When Faye was heading out to buy a bottle)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Morituri on 16 Jan 2019, 15:49
I just find it wonderful and amazing that an actual lawsuit had the incredible effect of stopping cold a practice that had become a standard business practice nationwide, and which had always annoyed millions of people.
I mean, look. It was about a valid but relatively trivial issue. The customer was making an arguably "unreasonable" demand. The civil suit brought a judgment against one dealership and resulted in no change in law. The judgment wasn't even that harsh (they had to replace a fender and a trunk lid and pay a settlement amounting to about a year's car payments). The precedent set would hold only for a single district. There wasn't a notification or civil order to stop doing that officially sent to any other car dealers, even in that single district. It was just a precedent set in court, and every dealership in the country took notice of the fact that they could possibly get sued and lose, and they all stopped doing it. Bam, problem solved. By a single, somewhat unreasonable lawsuit.
It was something that had annoyed millions of people and enraged a few - but always juuuust short of the amount of annoyance or anger that would cause them to file a suit. And it only took one somewhat unreasonable man, and it was over.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: Akima on 23 Jan 2019, 16:55
These days they "badge" the license plate frames instead, and of course you can exchange those at whim.
The normal things in Australia are:
Flimsy clip-on plastic frames round the edge of the screwed-on metal number-plate.
Stickers on the inside of the rear windscreen.
Ever since the NSW government woke up to how much money they could make by charging for fifty-seven varieties of plate design, many variations have become available (https://www.myplates.com.au), but I haven't yet seen one with the dealer's name on it. If dealer proposed that to me, I think I'd insist that they pay for the plate. I've always been happy with the standard black on yellow plate.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Post by: ZoeB on 23 Jan 2019, 20:24