Emperor Fuckshit

Yeah, I meant 40-man rosters in the sense of "secondary rosters" (i.e. the roster that all players with major league deals must be on unless waived).

BM does not have 40-man rosters yet, but really I find that to be a lot more minor of a detail than some people seem to think. I remember being excited when OOTP first introduced them, and then it was "huh...this doesn't really change anything". Then it was "oh crap I just lost half my AAA team to minor league free agency".

To me, having accurate roster rules and limits is pretty important. I mean, there's a reason that they exist in the real world (i.e. to prevent talent-hoarding and to appease the player's union) and their existence adds a considerable strategic element for GMs. Plus, there's nothing really unrealistic about considerable turnover in the high minors due to MLFA (and if you just weren't trying to re-sign those guys, then it's not really the game's fault).

BM is O.K. if you just want to play a quick and dirty simulation of the present day, but the lack of a secondary roster and the inability to have minor leagues properly simmed and managed detracts even from that. And that's quite apart from any questions related to DIPS modelling.

Or you get tired of there never being a decent roster set for OOTP.

The default set seems fine this year. What problems are you experiencing with it?

Admittedly this was the first year I didn't buy the game (going back to like 2002), but last year's was pretty sparse at the lower levels if I remember correctly.

Well, I didn't buy last year, so I'm not sure. The roster set this year is really very good. I follow the Red Sox very close, and the reproduction of their players is really rather good across the organisation (with errors becoming rather more common around the A ball area).

Does BM still not support 40 man rosters?

Or you get tired of there never being a decent roster set for OOTP.

The default set seems fine this year. What problems are you experiencing with it?

Mogul is quite nice if you're a fan of baseball simulators, but you don't want to play a game that's actually good.

cock-sucking witch.

JOEY!

We had a prom at the end of Sixth Form. Can't remember where it was held. I didn't go. I didn't go to my graduation ball, either. That's "traditionally" held at York Racecourse, but it was moved to campus for this year and some tedious prannocks kicked up a middle-class fuss. I didn't go to my graduation, either, come to think of it.

Fuck la spectacle.

the publican has developed a uniquely effective strategy for dealing with pimps and prostitutes. he tells them to go away.

lol the "casual" facing the camera on the far left is in a coma for some reason.

and that magazine cunt is a cunt.

NO not rabbit friend, broke leg.

eta:

anyone know the name of film in which jimmy stewart is in it and he has broken leg? not "rear window". or "vertigo". really like to see the way jim stewart is act when has broken leg (pretend).

thx.

As far as music about history goes --

Million Dead. You might well know them already, but they were a fantastic post-hardcore band who dealt with a lot of political and historical themes. Some rarities from their pre-LP days with an historical bent include "Come on, Sharon" (about the Sabra/Shatila massacres); "The Edison Address" (dealing with the history of music as a revolutionary instrument); "I Am Become the South" (basically an analogy comparing the relationships between the First World and Third World and the individual and the state -- some historical references); and "Reformulating the Challenge to Archism" (includes a kind-of semi-rap about formative contributors to anarchist thought).

Their first full-length includes "I am the Party" and "Charlie and the Propaganda Myth Machine", both of which contain references to Eastern Europe under Soviet hegemony. There's also "Relentless", a song about the very pitch and yaw of historical transformation -- also includes some references to 9/11. The album ends with "The Rise and the Fall", which refers to the evolution of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Their second album features more casual/glancing historical refs -- from the Icarus-Daedalus story to the Sorbonne riots and a bunch of points in-between.

Billy Bragg. Sure you know about this guy. "Between the Wars", "Days Like These" (both U.S. and U.K. versions), "The World Turned Upside Down", "Nicaragua...", "The Internationale", "Jerusalem", "A Pict Song", etc..

Minutemen. Some good stuff that was then somewhat contemporary and now feels historical. "Vietnam" (guess the topic there), "Untitled Song for Latin America", "Joe McCarthy's Ghost", "Song for El Salvador", "West Germany", "The Politics of Time".

Probably some other bands too...

Any sitcom that goes beyond the 5-7 year mark is on too long, depending on the quality of the writers. Friends, Seinfeld, Frasier, Married...with Children, Everybody Loves Raymond, Scrubs, M*A*S*H immediately spring to mind. I really can't think of a single sitcom that I would watching year 9 and think, "Wow, this show is better than ever."

"Seinfeld" probably wasn't at its peak by the final season, and the last ever episode struck me as a huge anti-climax and disappointment. But I think it was still basically a "good show" at its termination -- i.e., it deserved a '1' on my patented 0-1 rating scale. "The Puerto Rican Day" is an excellent episode from very late in the final run, for example, and whilst obviously on the tail-end of the basic bell curve, the final series is very good TV comedy.

I thought I covered this? You talk about Lisa's speech about giving thanks for consistent quality, subverted by Bart's "what else is on." It's a good ending, especially compared to Homer shooting Marge with a blowgun or various other "screw the audience" jokes that Al Jean seems to enjoy.

Oh, right. As I worked further down your post, I realised that this was probably what you meant.

Anyway, here's an alternative reading of Bart's line at the end: the line isn't an "aw shucks" admission of ephemerality by the writers; but is rather a prescription of correct viewing practice. All through the episode, the "tension" is provided by critical viewership of "Itchy and Scratchy." It's made quite clear during the Q&A session that one of the main "problems" with the "nerdy" fans is that they watch too carefully (Homer: "Why would a man whose shirt says 'genius at work' spend all of his time watching a children's cartoon show"). The audience's critical mindset is not only problematic, it's unwarranted since T.V. is "supposed" to be a medium enjoyed casually without being chewed over. At the end of the show, the tension is resolved as the writers' view of how television should be consumed is returned to hegemony. Bart's reaction to the I&S show (combined with Lisa's) is a blueprint for how the writers would want fans to react to "The Simpsons" -- "be positive if you can, be negative if you must but -- please, God -- don't think too much." "Over"-analyzing the show can lead to critique that is eloquent and well-substantiated. During the course of the episode, the writers have proved themselves unwilling to/incapable of addressing such criticism -- hence the conflations, lazy straw-men and personal attacks.

I really don't think that holds water because the commentary was so obvious fans wouldn't be offended.

Well, that's how a number of snpp.org editors read the character. And I think that the point would be for it to be "obvious." It's a cartoonish reduction of a practice often performed un-cartoonishly. It's a giggling reminder that "hee hee... we can and will do this if we want." Maybe it'll be done self-consciously at first but, later, who knows...

I agree that Roy also serves the purpose of a parallel with Poochie in order to extend the allegory. But I don't think it's too fanciful to suggest the above dual purpose.

No. It's a satire. A composition in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn. I don't want a "respectful" and "evenhanded" debate, because that isn't funny. In this case the vice appears to be obsessive fans.

But by this formulation then any satire -- no matter how unconvincing the arguments put forward or how undeserving the "target" -- is positive. The whole problem with the episode is that it attacks a tiny minority of (powerless, harmless) people; does so in a way that conflates those people with others who don't share the traits being ineptly "attacked"; and does so in a way that is obnoxious, panicky, defensive, sneery, etc..

For me, good satire doesn't necessarily need to be "balanced." "The Day Today" never ran a sketch which revealed that, actually, news broadcasters work as hard as they can and deserve credit for doing a tough job under a great pressure, etc.. But TDT did at least present its "side of the case" accurately. It took the piss out of things which were actual practices of the majority of news broadcasts. It aimed itself at a deserving (powerful; malevolent; large-scale) target. And, notably, the TDT crew were not one of the "sides" of the debate (apart from insofar as the contributors were all consumers of news programming). The "Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show" episode is an exercise in self-defense rather than disinterested bludgeoning -- that's probably the root of its satirical problems. Good satire doesn't have to and shouldn't have to abandon any hope of portraying its targets accurately whilst extracting "lulz."

Because they sneerily attack the group that even the show's fans hate.

Whilst conflating that group with the entirety of the internet fanbase. ("Registering my disgust throughout the world"; the early test-screening scene). And the group of "hardcore fans" (as represented in the Q&A session scene) is basically an irrelevant group that -- as you say -- isn't even taken seriously by the rest of the internet fans.

Almost everyone on SNPP thought the comments weren't aimed at them, and were glad to see "worst episode ever" fans taken down a peg.

The fans on SNPP were "glad to see" a tiny and irrelevant minority of the fanbase attacked, because the fans on SNPP (or the editors at least) were thrilled to play some tiny part in an episode and were aware that, if they criticised the show, they'd be laughed at and identified with the CBG. In fact, some SNPP editors actually expressed their "appreciation" for the 'sode by noting that it "hit a little too close to home!!!!!!" or that "you sure got us good!!!!!!" or whatever. Ultimately, I think the majority of SNPP editors are maybe not too bright.

I just don't get how you see this as a slap at the fans and not a criticism of corporate culture.

Probably all the attacks aimed at the fans. Yes, there are attacks directed at "the network." But... so what? How does that diminish all of the energy expended in shouting down the fanbase? Why are you presenting this as an "either/or" dynamic? The elements of the episode which are critical of the network feed into the expression of self-defense by way of a "hey, don't look at us"-type argument.

Even if there's a few cheap shots, I see this more as a recognition of the fan's importance more than an appeal for the fans to shut up. Again, satire.

CAMDEN-NOODLERS

(n.) 1. People who visit Camden Market and, upon being spoilt for choice by a huge variety of cuisine from all over the world, start joylessly shovelling noodles into their stubbly, woolly-hatted heads, barely even aware what the little foil tray in front of them actually contains. 2. Comedy fans on the internet.

To me the only way that the "acknowledgement"/"attack" distinction would work would be if the episode shyed away from making didactic conclusions. It doesn't. Between the assertions that "we don't owe you anything; if anything you owe us" and "we're still providing you with quality entertainment after all these years" and the pompous rhetorical questions as to "what right do you have to critcise the show?" we're left with no uncertainty as to where the writers' sympathies lie. Now, you could argue that these are intentional caricatures. But, in order to be caricatures, they must at least have a solid basis in the writers' genuine opinions. Consider the way that the two sides of the argument are stacked up: in the "supportive/passive" corner we have all of the members of OFF (the show's "sympathetic" characters) and a relatively eloquent expression (Lisa's closing speech). Bart is even taken out of the character to defend this line of argument, making straight-faced, somewhat sophisticated, pro-authority comments. Now look at the "criticial" side of the debate: fat, ugly nerds with stupid voices who have no lives!!!! And no articulate expression -- in fact, an expression so inarticulate that it became a catch-phrase for that very reason.

The show makes conclusive comments; it has an agenda. It's not speculative. I don't see how regarding the show as a mere "acknowledgement" can be anything other than a purely semantic differentiation.

I'm tired of this conversation! Let's talk about something else! I'm going home!

That's unfortunate. Now I won't have any more opportunities to insincerely whip myself up into an unwarranted frenzy like my idol the Comic Book Guy. Since that, as you've so trenchantly observed, is my real motivation.

I looked up nadir to make sure it meant what I thought it meant. Even if I believe everything you wrote, here and on your blog, it's not the nadir of the show. In addition to not being the lowest point, the fact that at this point the show was still capable of satirizing anything tells me it was still pretty far from the bottom, even if it's actual message can be interpreted by some as insulting to fans. Maybe it was a turning point, but I maintain the real problem didn't even happen until a year or so later.

Nadir = "the lowest point." I believe that episode to have been the worst episode of the show ever broadcast. That doesn't necessarily mean that every episode afterwards was as bad. I'm not even labelling the show a "turning point" -- I don't think that the show's transformation from efficacy to uselessness necessarily needs to be seen as a linear narrative.

In re: the bolded part. I'd much rather see the show become entirely a-political than witness it take on undeserving "targets" in a sneery, inept, and obnoxious fashion.

As I said, if you compare it to what was coming out during the worst period of the simpsons, it comes out looking great. Homer ends up exactly where we started and we all learn a trite lesson that gets subverted at the end.

I don't believe this to be true. I don't think that any other episode of the show is anywhere close to being as reprehensible in terms of the ideas about culture that it presents. For me, that's far more important than any narrative or joke-based concerns.

What "trite lesson" are you talking about, and in what way is this "subverted at the end"?

I didn't say you were wrong: I do think there are some pot-shots taken at the very extreme edges of the "fan-dom." But in the same way, what purpose does the character of Roy serve if the episode's sole purpose was to bash fans?

I offered some commentary on my blog post regarding the way in which the Roy character could be seen as a "troll" directed towards sections of the fanbase. A popular criticism of the show at the time was that it lacked sensible narrative and/or consistent characterisation. Introducing a character without a back-story (or present-story, I suppose) would obviously serve as a tongue-in-cheek "baiting" of that criticism.

I'm not denying that the episode is to some extent concerned with the capacity of shows to survive over the long-term via the insertion of new characters, etc.. I just feel that those elements are vastly subordinated to attacks on the fan-base and are, in any case, far less interesting than the political expressions contained within the episode.

Also, you mention the "pot-shots taken at the very extreme edges of the "fan-dom"". But don't you think that by addressing these "extreme edges" in such a lengthy and public fashion, the writers are suggesting that such fans are a serious "problem"/issue? They're essentially conflating (at least) two elements of the fan-base together, and knocking down the arguments of the "extremists" whilst simultaneously making attacks at the wider fan-based ("what do they owe you?"; "we should be grateful"; "on the internet registering my disgust"; etc.).

If you yourself acknowledge that the behaviour of the fans represented in the episode reflect at most the fanciful obsessionalism of a few at the "extremes", then don't you think that the episode is disingenuous, defensive and panicky, or at least incredibly smug?

It really just seems like in your article you're just trying to work yourself into a frenzy over details

Like those NERDS at the Q&A session!!!!!! I AM the Comic Book Guy!!!!! Which "details" would these be?

.. ignoring the fact that the episode ends with the television being turned off and Bart saying "what else is on?"

[...]

From Cohen's "we were eating fried chicken" to the mumbled assent of the writers to the name "Poochie" being good, the writers look like idiots across the board. Maybe not as bad as my personal favorite where Roger Meyers throws a mug at a writer singing "fair Harvard," but singling out the fans treatment as dimwitted losers misses the point that the writers are depicted just as poorly.

I interpreted the former as just a cutesy attempt on the part of the writers to display some self-awareness as regards the show's ultimately ephemeral nature.

As for the latter, "The Simpsons" writers are happy enough to take lukewarm shots at themselves, sure. But if they were really a self-effacing bunch without major egos or a belief in their own abilities, then how do you explain the whole of the rest of the episode? Why would they be so willing to publicly and sneerily attack those who criticise the show? Why would they (by proxy, of course) insist that "if anything, [the fans] owe [us]?" and to baldly state, through Lisa's mouth at the close, that the show is still in rude health?

A couple of winking gags that -- ho, ho -- us writers enjoy junk food and come homogeneously from privileged backgrounds hardly makes up for the content of the rest of the episode, does it?

And the lack of originality is re-enforced by Roy's sudden appearance on the show.

As I've said above, I don't think that this is the intent of this element of the show. Or, at best, it's another example of that which I've talked about immediately above -- an attempt to basically brush-off criticism with a "hey ho, I suppose we've made some mistakes but, hey, it's a tough job and we're still the best around so fucking shut it, fatty" attitude.

What you see as an authoritarian attempt to eliminate criticism could just as easily be viewed as a recognition of its fanbase. Back when the Simpsons would actually target an issue (before South Park gained the exclusive rights for that sort of thing), it meant something to be worth being a target.

Why would they choose to "acknowledge" that portion of the fanbase by attacking, misrepresenting and trying to silence it? The show has been viewed as an attack by pretty much all observers from both sides of the fence. There really are no shades of grey. At some point, doesn't this become a purely semantic differentiation without material significance? The episode "acknowledges" the show's internet fanbase in the same way that "The Day Today" "acknowledges" broadcast news. Surely the content of the presentation matters more than the way it's arbitrarily termed.

Saying that the characters don't address the real issues and are just vapid nerds ignores one of the central aspects of the show: that nearly everyone in Springfield is a moron. It's worth noting that the writers took existing characters like Homer's college buddies and Comic Book Guy to be the stand-ins for the Itchy and Scratchy fans: they could have launched a mean-spirited straight out attack on new and unknown characters, but connected the story to minor characters the fans would recognize.

And yet it's clear whose side the show's one "intelligent" character is on. And even Bart gets some relatively eloquent, forceful and straight lines in defense of the company line. There is never anything so much as a semi-intelligent equivalent expression of "the other" argument.

I really think the fact that the episode could still be called a "satire" and not just a "cartoon" means that even if there are some warning bells, we're a long way from the bottom of the well.

I'd take non-satirical stuff over bad satire any day. This is why I'm not rubbing my hands with glee at the prospect of that Zucker brothers film about how Michael Moore is a big fat liberal dummy.

neeeeeerds

(Though thanks for providing me with something to read.)

Those nerds! They like the treks through a stars!

(Also: yr most welcome, Cloudy. That's a couple of years old and some of the haughtier bits make me cringe. But I think it's still basically "correct.")

I'm all for Simpsons bashing, but calling Itchy, Scratchy and Poochie the nadir is missing the mark by a LOT. A twenty minute tirade against the show's fans? Wasn't it at least as much a commentary on the mindset that long-running shows need new characters to stay fresh? Plus, it had a reasonably well-constructed story and didn't end with a series of increasingly stupid non sequiturs. Plus it has at least a few lines that are pretty good.

I don't think it's missing the mark at all. That episode is the first which suggests a self-righteous desire to insulate the show's writers from criticism, and is an episode which just generally espouses a right-wing, sneery and ultimately deleterious attitude towards the "industry" of artistic production. To me, the episode is suggestive of an underlying noxious attitude amongst the writing team. That's far more serious than -- and perhaps also facilitates -- individual dumb jokes, inconsistent characterisations and poor narratives.

The episode is obnoxious, misguided and scarily authoritarian. To me, it having "a few nice lines" and a "reasonably well-constructed storyline" (the latter of which I'd dispute to some degree anyway) are vastly less important considerations.

If you're interested, I wrote a long-ish piece on the episode here.

e: As for the idea that the show was "at least as much about" the issue of long-running shows attempting to stay fresh by adding new characters -- there are several scenes which wouldn't be necessary if that were the case. The Q&A session with the I&S fans and the Bart-Comic Book Guy "argument" are the two most obvious. The show ends on a Lisa speech which basically serves to elucidate the writers' views regarding the fanbase-creators relationship. The show was widely interpreted at the time as a commentary upon postings at "The Simpsons" newsgroup pages. I think the intentions are pretty obvious. And, in any case, the content relating to the fan-creator relationship and the politics of artistic production are much more interesting than the (in any case slighter) stuff about long-lived TV shows attempting to stay fresh.

ee: Just to further flesh-out my last point -- "Vanity Fair" described the episode as "a meta-celebration, a tongue-in-cheek rebuttal to everyone who claimed that the quality of The Simpsons had declined over the years." The "Planet Simpson" web-site saw it as "the most contentious and direct counterattack The Simpsons ever unleashed on its fans." Quotations from snpp.org contributors as reproduced in the article I linked to show that they knew what the score was. The episode had a clear intent.

By being conceived of and casted, "Friends" outstayed its welcome.

"The Simpsons" is an obvious and good choice, no matter how vigorously ApSham will fuck me as a result of my naming it. I don't think it's possible necessarily to mark an exact beginning of the decline or a time when the show went from being essentially worthwhile to essentially useless, but there were a number of slowly-realised, negative changes which eventually robbed the show of any of its merit.

Part of its decline had to do simply with the show's success. As it built up a wide fanbase and an extensive canon, the show became besieged with a tendency towards smug, pleased-with-itself self-referentiality. It also became increasingly difficult to take the show seriously as a satirical force as it plastered the visages of its characters all over any tatty merchandise it could get a hold of and, perhaps even more seriously, got into bed with the Fox network. The attempts to explain such moves away via regular on-screen references to these phenomena didn't really do much to sweeten the pill -- as some music critic commented in relation to a later Pistols album, shamelessness isn't a virtue. The show's growing mainstream fame also enabled the producers to rope in whichever big-name guest star they felt like at every turn, frequently without any regard for the appropriateness of the casting decision. Obviously, some of the choices led to fantastic running narratives (Kelsey Grammar most obviously), but most seemed to be just a way of contriving some kind of spectacle around otherwise unremarkable episodes (Tony Blair, Ricky Gervais, probably countless others).

Ultimately, it seems that -- particularly under Ian Maxtone-Graham -- the show's writers just felt that they could do no wrong. The "Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show" episode consists of basically a twenty minute tirade against the show's fanbase, and is one of the absolute nadirs for OFF. The "animated sit-com" feel -- complete with subtle narratives, consistent and nuanced characterisation and big, booming trad gags -- was slowly eliminated in favour of a non-sequiturish "show me the funny" style which perhaps reflected a desire to "keep up with" shows like "South Park" and "Family Guy". A lot of people point to the "Homer's Enemy" episode as a point at which any attempts by the show's writers to glean pathos from situations involving the family were basically exhausted -- Homer, at that point, was an obnoxious jerk who deserved whatever he got.

I think that "Family Guy" is the Platonic ideal of a show that should've stopped at one season. At the time, a lot of its devices seemed genuinely fresh and exciting -- the chronology-leaping cutaways, the openly tokenistic nature of the plots and characterisations, the Stewie character generally. Especially after more writers began to be employed, though, the show developed a kind of grating obnoxiousness very very quickly. What seemed innovative soon became passée, and the writers just couldn't re-invent the wheel appropriately or switch to a more trad style. It didn't help that a million imitators/competitors popped-up soon afterwards. And, whilst the show had always made a big deal about how "un-PC!!!!!" it was, those elements seemed to rise to the fore very quickly during season four or so. The writers' self-involved jubilation at how SHOCKING they were being by breaking so many (non-existent, tedious) "taboos" became the hardest thing about the show to stomach.

e: The final series of "A Bit of Fry and Laurie" was weak as piss, but I'm not sure to what degree that coiuld've been foreseen.

Shit, you posting Smiley Culture popped Tippa Irie up in the related videos. Amazing talent, forgot all about him.

[posts awesome song...]

Holy shit, that Tippa Irie song is insanely good. I played it like a million times yesterday. It's "officially" the British equivalent to "Juicy." Also, Keith, is that you playing guitar in the video? HAHAHA you have a beard!!!!!!!!

Nothing can stop Ernie Hudson. He's seen shit that'll turn you white!

What -- turpentine?

Smiley Culture's bigger hit was

That Bizzle track is awesome. I should really check him out properly -- I know I'd probably like it, so... Alkala was O.K.; he has some good rhymes but his voice feels kind of generic to me. The last video (with Riz) was really good, though. Who does the second verse? I like the rap/electro blend. There seems to be a lot of that around at the moment from what I've heard -- grime & so on. It's not what I'm used to -- I generally prefer the East Coast style of understated, funky basslines. But I think I could get used to the more layered stuff.

Right, I'm going to go and figure out the "Police on My Back" bassline now.

At least Craig David doesn't rap in that. Or at least not up to the point I stopped watching -- Kano's flow wasn't doing a lot for me. The Foreign Beggars thing was pretty good though. "Post 9-11 Blues" was kind of cringe in places but "if I haven't shaved / they won't sit with me on the bus" is awesome.

My own contribution is

, Craig David,

To access the site you should have to phone a number and shout "BUZZ ME UP!" like it's a block of flats.

Oi! Dan! Wot you call this?

Why have you got me spittin' on this?

I don't usually spit on tracks like these

But it's just the start and I'm startin' to like it

also, wtf is with "garage" music? can i put my car in it and maybe an old dart board i don't use anymore?!?!

e: wait, that's dumb. i don't own a car.

Something in the world needs to be called "Pseuds on Ludes."