#Streamline Ops | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

esper-aroon · 1 day ago

Text

This is a pretty good analysis of the referenced post, but I think it bears underlining that the thing about academia and having academic expertise is that it's less about knowing facts about your subject and more about knowing how to do research in your subject. And that's a simplification (it's not just about research!), but I'm trying to keep this short and this is the distinction I often see getting lost.

Knowing facts isn't irrelevant, but often people who haven't been in academia think of expertise in an academic subject as knowing facts. So - it may seem that it doesn't really matter whether you got your facts by attending lectures at a uni or by reading by yourself.

But the important thing is, the thing that makes academic expertise, is learning what to do with the information you read (or heard, watched, or collected), and also doing it in a scientific way. I know English speakers want to make a distinction between "science" and "academia" for some reason, but over here we call it all science. Call it the academic way if you want. The method is an essential part.

WOW.

Okay, after a night's sleep, I have decided that yeah, there is value in responding to this absolutely steaming pile of ignorant, self-centered, self-important, anti-intellectual, b.s.

It looks like a number of people in the notes were swayed, at least to some degree, by this garbage, so I think it is worth trying to show why it is nonsense.

(Also it's possible I'm still spoiling for a fight after being denied an evidentiary hearing on Friday.)

I'm not reblogging the post because folks don't need a self-aggrandizing tantrum on their dash, but I do think it is worth taking a look for yourself, in order to practice your analytical skills. Some questions to consider as you read:

(1) What is OP saying in her original post? What claims is she making?

(2) How, if at all, does the poster respond to claims OP made? What claims is the poster saying that OP made? Do these match what OP actually said? If not, (a) what techniques does the poster use to transform what OP said into the claims the poster is claiming OP made? (b) What rhetorical purpose does it serve for the poster to warp OP's claims?

(3) What affirmative claims is the poster making? What evidence or arguments do they provide to support their claims? Do they explore any of the specifics or real world implications of their claims? If not, what real world implications of their claims can you think of?

(3) What other rhetorical techniques does the poster use to bolster their argument? Do these techniques actually enhance and support the substance of their argument?

(4) Relatedly, how does the poster play into the biases of their assumed audience (tumblr users with generally progressive policies). What claims do they make to play into those biases? What evidence or argument, if any, do they make to support those claims? Are these claims by the poster reasonably related to the claims made by OP?

Now, let's explore their response in detail!

(Also obviously don't harass the poster, and I would recommend not directly engaging with them at all. Harassment is vile and makes you far worse than them. And earnest engagement is unlikely to be productive - the OP tried to engage with them politely (and even offered to help) in the notes of poster's original post. In response, the poster (1) implied that OP is an obsessive rude busybody. (2) Told OP to "Shhhhh. Chill." (in response to (paraphrased), 'hey, the advice someone else gave you is probably a waste of time and effort'). (3) And finally, after condescendingly telling OP, "Breathe. Practice radical acceptance. Know that I am here on the other side of the internet, flagrantly wasting my effort and thinking of you every second of that time," proceeded to prove that they were, in fact, "thinking of [OP] every second of that time" by searching OP's blog to find this post by OP and dumping this Arrested-Development-level demand to be taken seriously in the reblogs.)

(All of which is to say: hi, poster who was "being vagueposted about." I assume you are reading this, because you demonstrably don't have the good sense to block and move on. I'm not going to block you in advance, because I think you have the right to make your own terrible decisions, and I suspect any response you make is going to be *very* funny. See you in the notes!)

So, let's go through the poster's response, paragraph by paragraph.

They begin by doubling down on the stance that, "any sufficiently deep enthusiasm is indistinguishable from academic rigor." This, they say, is their defense of that stance. Let's see how it goes - but first, I think it's worth remembering, OP's original post is literally a single sentence long.

OP's claim, paraphrased, that the claim that "any sufficiently deep enthusiasm is indistinguishable from academic rigor" is incorrect and anti-intellectual. If we read the OP's tags, she clarifies that enthusiasm is valuable, but different from expertise.

The poster starts their defense with a long...explanation that the structure of their claim was a reference to the Arthur C Clarke's third "law" (read: sci-fi fiction adage).

*deep breath*

Ok. I'm a big a fan of wordplay as the next person. And I know from personal experience that it can be really frustrating to do some fun wordplay to make a point, and then get misinterpreted here on tumblr.com.

But. The wordplay has to make a point for it to be relevant to your defense. OP's claim wasn't "this poster did a bad job with the linguistic structure of this sentence and is not familiar with classic sci-fi." How does the "rhetorical structure" of the poster's claim support the substance of their claim???

It doesn't, is the answer. The poster explicitly asks this question later down, but then they never actually answer it. Instead, the rhetorical effect of this whole digression is just to throw out surface level references to things (Arthur C Clarke! "AI"!) that might make the poster sound more thoughtful and knowledgeable. It also creates distance from OP's actual point - as the post continues, the poster has to remind us what they're talking about. This gives the poster more control over the narrative, over what claims are under discussion.

Which leads to the poster's next paragraph: the unanswered question of why the poster structured their claim to resemble a sci-fi author's famous quote, and a baseless attack on OP.

And I think it is worth really lingering on this attack on OP. The poster claims, OP perhaps is "misreading or misinterpreting" the poster's point. But what on earth is the poster talking about? OP literally just quoted the poster's exact words and then said that they think this is anti-intellectual. What "misreading or misinterpreting" is being done?

No. Instead, this attack rhetorically sets up the poster's next couple paragraphs: not actually defending their claim as OP originally quoted, but reinterpreting their own words, providing their own special unique meaning that they will then proceed to use for the rest of the post. They are redrawing the rhetorical bounds of the conversation. Rather than defending their stance, they are redefining their stance so that it matches the defense they now want to make.

(Which is still bad. It's a bad defense and it makes me very angry.)

The poster proceeds to define "academic rigor" in a way that just means, "enthusiasm." Notice how no part of their definition includes things like critical thinking skills, building up a knowledge base, testing ideas, receiving criticism (wow I wonder why), or any expertise or action to build up and test that expertise. It's just what a person "cares very much about," how much "curiosity" they have; some inherent quality someone who "NEEDS to know." (Also hit the bell for another surface level reference - this time to Herodotus - to make the poster sound more knowledgeable.) If you actually read the poster's definition, it is entirely "idk vibes i guess."

Now, having defined "academic rigor" as enthusiasm, they successfully declare that enthusiasm is a necessary precondition of enthusiasm.

And then, we get the best paragraph of this entire tantrum of a post: "Any sufficiently deep enthusiasm is indistinguishable from academic rigor. It's like a fractal -- the closer you look, the more complicated it gets." No only is this another attempted surface level reference, this time to fractals, but just. What is this supposed to mean. At a glance, it seems like it kind of follows from the last paragraph - maybe, the more an enthusiast looks at something, the more there is to know? But the closer you look at this sentence, the more nonsensical it gets. What does things getting more complicated the more you look at them have to do with academic rigor (either a real definition or the poster's enthusiasm-based definition)? More importantly, what does it have to do with proving the point - that enthusiasm is indistinguishable from academic rigor? (You might as well say, "the further you fall down the rabbit hole, the deeper you realize it goes," except then more people would realize you are expressing straight conspiracist reasoning oops.)

Now, several paragraphs in and having firmly taken control of the rhetorical boundaries of the argument, the poster finally decides to provide some context to the original statement (and needlessly insult OP for trying to be helpful again).

The poster correctly quotes relevant parts of the discussion (although mischaracterizes their own responses as "polite" instead of "incredibly condescending and rude"). However, the poster then immediately characterizes OP's response as "muddied." Because words have objective meanings, however, we do not need to accept this characterization. OP expressed her argument very clearly. Rather, it is the the poster who claimed that OP was making an argument that she was not, which we can paraphrase as, 'passion and capacity for learning are limited to formal education at academic institutions.' It would be convenient for the poster if OP was making this argument, because it could be easy to argue against. But since OP clearly stated that she does not believe this clearly incorrect thing that the poster made up in her head, the poster claims that her response was "muddied."

The poster emphasizes this false claim in the next few paragraphs. They say, "to me she seems to be arguing that one MUST (?) receive formal training at an academic institution ("academic training" "trained expertise") in order to achieve that level of rigor." But OP simply doesn't say that. You can look at the reply the poster quoted, it doesn't say what the poster says it does.

Now, this is speculation on my part, but I think the poster really believes that OP is saying 'passion and capacity for learning are limited to formal education at academic institutions.' I think they believe this because its how they feel when they hear the (correct) statement that enthusiasm does not equal expertise. The poster repeatedly says that they think that enthusiasm for learning is the same as expertise. They throw a tantrum after receiving the slightest, politest, disagreement. They think someone giving them advice that hey, maybe its a good idea to get a basic foundation of knowledge before cold-emailing experts is a busybody who is obsessed with lecturing them. The poster simply, demonstrably, doesn't believe expertise is real, and refuses to admit that someone else might know more or better than them. If they "care very much about getting it right," how dare you say they aren't as good as anyone with "academic training," fuck you very much you elitist jerk.

This sense is emphasized by their next paragraph. First, they shift the rhetoric framework of the conversation again. The actual claim the poster says they are defending is that "any sufficiently Deep Enthusiasm is indistinguishable from Academic Rigor" (emphasis added). Now, they are claiming that OP means that no one outside of an academic context "has the capacity to learn what rigor means in their field." These are very different claims, but the poster shits between them seamlessly.

Second, they just completely misunderstand what academic rigor is. I'm sorry, you can read every book and article and (*sigh* dear god) TED talk in the world, that doesn't make you an expert, and that's not academic rigor. A large part of academic rigor is in how you critically engage with what you read. Otherwise you just end up, at best, with a bunch of shallow facts that you can "whip out at dinner parties to impress [your] acquaintances" or sprinkle as references in arguments on tumblr to make you sound smarter.

But no, the poster confirms in the next paragraph, you don't need critical thinking or training or people who will tell you that you are wrong. All you need is the information. And if you disagree, you are arguing in favor of "the ivory tower." (Take a drink.)

In the next two paragraphs, the poster pays lip service to the idea that sure, it's easier to learn in academia. But even then, they imply that somehow that's the easy route, that good learning environments create weak men, that people who are self-taught are the ones who are actually building up the critical thinking skills because someone doesn't just "tell them the answer."

Then, before the readers have a chance to absorb, wait, did you really just say that academia is really just having someone either tell you the answer or where to look for the answer and therefore unsuitable for "sincerely love to learn," (because you are, in fact, anti-intellectual), the poster then throws in a bunch of shallow buzz phrases about how higher education isn't available to a lot of people.

And I say these are just shallow buzz phrases for two reasons. First, the poster never actually engages with this lack of access. It's just sprinkled in, like the references to Arthur C Clarke and Herodotus. (For example, no, actually, "any sufficiently MOTIVATED person" can't actually access all this information that is online. You need a stable internet connection, devices to allow you to make use of that connection, to speak or read the language those materials are published in, enough time and sleep and food and goddam shelter.)

Second, this doesn't actually have anything to do with the actual claim that the poster is supposedly defending. Remember that? Remember the position the poster is arguing for? "Any sufficiently deep enthusiasm is indistinguishable from academic rigor." How does, "some people can't go to college" support that claim, specifically?

It doesn't, which is why the poster's next paragraph instead claims that OP is arguing that "those people do not have the ability to hold themselves to a rigorous standard of learning."

Which just.

Fuck you?

Because yeah, that would be a shitty opinion to hold! And you are the only person raising it! You are explicitly making the claim - fuck, perpetrating the anti-intellectual worldview - that anyone who suggests "caring about something does not inherently equal subject matter expertise" is an elitist who thinks that everyone else, ordinary people, real Americans, are stupid.

I'm gong to be honest, this is the part of the poster's claims that made me mad enough to respond.The notes include people agreeing that academics and "experts" are actually pretty elitist, aren't they, and they deserve to be "taken down a few pegs," that suggesting that you need a baseline level of knowledge or vocabulary before you can engage deeply with a subject is "gatekeeping."

The U.S.'s institutions are crumbling as they are dismantled by people that are making these exact same arguments. There is no meaningful difference in the reasoning of the poster's argument here, and the argument that "alternative medicine" hacks who never completed their medical training have sufficient credentials to run goverment agencies, and that if you bring up their lack of credentials, well, that just proves what an elitist you are.

The "worldview" the poster does not accept - is telling you not to accept - is the idea that expertise exists at all.

And because that is an incorrect and harmful worldview, the poster has to use a bunch of rhetorical tricks to hide what they are doing. And then to sell it, they throw in a bunch of words to stir up the audience's preconceptions and biases. OP's claim (again, that enthusiasm and academic rigor are not equivalent) is "racist and imperialist." Why? Don't worry about it. Something something college is expensive and inaccessible to a lot of people. All you need to remember is that these ivory-tower academics are The Bad Thing.

*deep breath*

Anyway, knowing we need a laugh to bring the mood back up, the poster then says someone on reddit criticizing your argument is an "informal version[] of the peer-review process." Besides betraying a deep ignorance of the nature of peer-review (I guess even knowing how academic processes work is also elitist?), I think this means that the poster has to be cool with my post here, right? Because I'm just doing peer review? (Because also, just to be clear: "the academic structure of the peer review is a formalized process of the very human impulse to gleefully tell other humans when they’ve stuck their foot in their mouth." No. This is just. No.)

Next, more misstating OP's original claim. The poster says, "An institution of formal learning is not a prerequisite to pursue and absorb information," which OP already agreed with in the comments of the poster's original post.

In support of this claim that no one is arguing with, the poster than makes up a "guy at the model airplane shop who seems to know absolutely everything that has ever been known about WWII planes," and asks, "why don’t we acknowledge him as a legitimate expert?" The poster implies that this is because this guy is autistic and OP is a bigot.

But the real answer is simpler:

Unless you are referring to something you chose not to link for some reason, he's made up. He's a made up guy in your brain. And OP never said anything about him, so it's really weird for you to criticize OP for not sufficiently praising him as an expert. Fanfic isn't reality.

To the extent we are talking about real phenomenons - who do you mean by "we" and what do you mean by "acknowledge him as a legitimate expert"? There are lots of people with legitimate expertise, and in my experience, they often are recognized as such. And I don't know where you live, but outside of revenge-fantasies of conservative pundits and the people who are mislead by them, most academic experts aren't exactly exhausted and prestige and praise.

'Knowing a lot about a subject' is not the same as academic rigor. This isn't a criticism or insult to people who know a lot of things, despite your weird, self-centered hang-ups. Let me be clear here, actually: I am not an academic. I am a lawyer. I know a lot about the law in the areas I practice in. I do not practice the law "with academic rigor" because that's not really meaningful. I also like to constantly learn more about the law, including in many areas I don't practice in. I am not an expert in those areas. Just as an academic who studies the law and legal practice would not necessarily be good at actually practicing the law, my enthusiasm does not mean I have academic expertise (and my academic training is rather rusty, this many years out). This is normal? My ego is not threatened by acknowledging different kinds of expertise and knowledge exist?

And perhaps most to the point - "seems to know absolutely everything that has ever been known about WWII planes." "Seems to." An important part of academia - part of what makes it rigorous, if you will - is that you actually have to prove your expertise to other experts. They are then "recognized" as experts because there is a process the public can usually trust that they don't just "seem to" know what they are talking about. If you are talking to an amateur enthusiast - how do you know you they actually have the expertise they claim to have? Because I know of some guys who are really enthusiastic about the, claim to be experts, and have a lot of strong opinions about how they have reclaimed their Sovereign Identity by not capitalizing the letters in their name.

I agree with the poster's final paragraph. I love learning. But I can't see this as anything other than a manipulative postscript, a rhetorical trick of ending on a point of agreement and mutual enthusiasm. By a person - and I can't emphasize this enough - who refused assistance in learning and threw an enormous tantrum because someone suggested hey, maybe its a good idea to get a basic foundation of knowledge before cold-emailing experts.

#i am NOT up to as exacting a post as OP wrote #so im streamlining a LOT #but the main point is: outside academia people often seem to believe that acedemic expertise is collecting a lot of facts about your subjec #and that's not the main thing #it happens - thoooo personally i feel uncomfortable calling them facts bc it has connotations of TruthTM so I like information more #and TruthTM is kiiinda anathemic to science/academia #like if sufficent amount of proof does not sway your beliefs then they're really not scientific

715 notes · View notes

terakonide · 1 month ago

Text

G/enshin's incredibly obvious and increasing "please learn how to play our fucking game--we aren't asking anymore" push through each version's big combat event is hilarious actually.

But considering that we're finally getting endgame co-op permanently next version that incentivizes heavy replayability to speed up artifact farming (WHICH I'VE BEEN SPECIFICALLY SUBMITTING AS A SUGGESTION FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS VIA FULL-ON ESSAYS), it makes sense.

#All QoL updates since Fontaine through Natlan; as well as the introduction of the artifact printing system and Imaginarium Theater;#ontop of co-op-meta queens Dehya and Mizuki being forced on unsuspecting accounts by becoming new pity breakers;#have all been pointing to a desperation on the devs to push G/enshin to become a multiplayerable online game that new people can queue into #Or in other words; the devs are desperate to force braindead toddlers that flood this game to learn how to play the game #(in addition to speeding up/streamlining/facilitating the ungodly character building and RNG artifact grinding process).#By v8.0 full-on dungeon raids will become real. Mark my words.#And to all that I say: Fucking Finally.#Terakon'sGenshinposting #kon.jpg

0 notes

mentorshelly · 1 year ago

Text

Unleashing Efficiency: The 4 Indispensable Benefits of SOPs in Business

Navigating the complexities of business can be daunting, but with well-crafted Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), your enterprise can move with precision and confidence. Let’s delve into four transformative benefits of SOPs: 1. Unmatched Consistency: SOPs are the secret ingredient to uniform excellence. They ensure every product and service meets your high standards, reflecting the reliability…

View On WordPress

0 notes

merchantservices444 · 1 year ago

Text

“Nurit 2085 Benefits: Streamlining Transactions for Enhanced Efficiency”

1 note · View note

handbellanon · 3 months ago

Text

So maybe these are dumb questions if someone actually knows what company you’re working for (absolutely not fishing for info here), but unless you’re advertising the hardware purchases as pass-through charges, and since you’re hand-entering data into a spreadsheet (no database system why??), why not consolidate orders and then you can either quote a lower price to the client or give the shipping-included price and then be able to come back and say “Hey! We were able to get a lower price! Happy surprise!!” and generate good will with the client?

Also this is more a question for your company’s IT group I guess, but why not build/modify a pre-existing database that can auto-populate the information from the previous fields and have drop-downs that only allow “correct” labor options? Yes, it’s more money and time upfront, but it seems like it would massively approve everyone’s efficiency and streamline onboarding for all future techs

I'm having a very bad week at work and got called into a meeting where a supervisor exasperatedly asked me why a smart person could spend so much time on procurement when it should be a simple process.

I just wrote down, from start to finish, what steps I took to place and document a simple order at the old job and what steps I take to place and document a simple order at the new job.

The old job was 15 steps, which is kind of a lot.

The new job is 27 steps.

#anyways in short it seems like with some up front elbow grease they could greatly streamline this #but I am also incredibly familiar with the higher ups not wanting to put out money even if it’ll save more in the long run #so commiserations op #and I hope they make it less stupid for you #IT #ordering systems

756 notes · View notes

onefootin1941 · 2 months ago

Text

In 1934, the Mauretania apartment building was designed for actor Jack Haley, who lived in the penthouse apt. with his wife for 20 years. Op Architect Milton J. Black designed the Streamline Moderne building. The Mauretania still stands at 520-522 N. Rossmore Avenue in the Hancock Park neighborhood of Los Angeles. Photo: Julius Shulman, 1940; © J. Paul Getty Trust. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles.

448 notes · View notes

alienatedbug · 2 months ago

Text

Evil Tetro au !! Okazaki/Tsuno designs

Its kinda difficult to read my handwriting so plot and design choices under the cut :3

(Ignore my spelling mistakes.. mb)

Warnings: drugs and poorly written/explained points Design

I wanted Tsuno and Okazaki to parallel each other design wise and motive wise. Okazaki has brighter, more lighter values for them to stand out compared to Tsuno’s cooler tones, darker values.

Underneath Oka’s shawl, is a darker fabric to symbolise her less ‘heroic’ Robin Hood persona they put on. (I’m not a big fan of completely wiping a character’s personality in AUs so I still wanted Oka’s more villainess tendencies). The darker colours in their lower half is also emulate this. Okazaki has a feathers throughout her design bc it looked good, I don’t really have anything to say to add. Large feathers beneath Oka is to show her Kitsune motifs- as well as this, I thought it would be quite interesting the Kitsune/feathery tails could act as a ‘cat with nine lives’ esk thing. Okazaki in this AU is an attention seeker who strives for danger to stand out from others which causes them to get into near death experiences.

Tsuno time !

Okay, the design choices are mostly random icl. I wanted Tsuno to have a more stereotypical hero suit ig. It makes more sense if you read the story part. Tsuno has a more streamlined, simple silhouette (and sharper bc shape language) as in this AU she doesn’t realllly want to stand out as this could out her ‘nightly activities’ but does anyways. Her hair to suppose to look like a ghost since like ghosts aren’t seen..(I can’t word this part well). The reversed hair, specifically the black part, is too show her dark mindset. The symbol is a moon also to symbolise her ‘nightly activities’.

What is her nightly activities you may ask? Selling drugs to the poor, shown by the strap across her body. Inside the bottles are either drugs, to illegally sell or chemicals to throw as Okazaki lmao.

Not much else other than those main design choices so off to the plot we go !!

Plot

The characters are ooc and the story is not believable whatsoever but that was the look I was going for, so don’t come after me x

This AU is (ofc) inspires by that Von post as well as the DC franchise (specifically the Gotham area).

I wanted the story to focus on perspectives, which I’m a big fan of, most if not all of the characters believe themselves as ‘correct’ n stuff. So Okazaki, being the protag is an unreliable narrator constantly, exaggerating her feats and good achievements. They act as a Robin Hood/Dark Knight amalgamation. However, as the story continues the characters that follow Oka slowly realise that Oka isn’t all that she seems.

The main plot is as followed: Okazaki goes by the name of the ‘Phantom Thief’ they travel the country to fight evildoers, to rid the country of criminals and get more street cred. As Okazaki continues to travel Japan, she slowly recruits people to her cause (E.g. Watari and Tamba).

The main antagonists are: Sasaki and Tsuno (maybe one or two more). They both have the same motivations of taking over Japan and subsequently, the world they also most definitely hate each others guts.

Now how does Tsuno do this? Tsuno, like said previously, Tsuno sells drugs. Like the type of drugs (like Arcane) which makes the people who gets addicted extremely reliant to them- this means Tsuno is able to control them more easily and can act as her lackeys. Tsuno thinks drugs are the best thing to grace the planet, but she follows Walter White’s rule of never taking the herself to not get addicted herself.

How has Tsuno able to not get arrested? Two things, the police fucking suck and she basically runs the law. In this AU, Tsuno has a goodie-two-shoes superhero facade (like Homelander from the boys) making her OP in the sense of everyone thinks she can’t do any harm whatsoever. Which is why she wears a hood, to hide her face.

—

This was very fun to write and design evil tetro characters so I will be doing this again so if you want me to design/write of the the Tetro characters feel free to ask in my inbox but rq two since I’ll be doing it in batches of two x. Thanks so much for reading if you’ve read to the end i really appreciate it <33

#tetro danganronpa pink #danganronpa tetro #tetro pink #my art !!#Evil Tetro pink #evil tetro Danganronpa pink #tetro au #okazaki hanano #tsuno manami #alien thoughts

150 notes · View notes

kagamine-gen · 5 months ago

Text

Wan☆Opo is a good producer for them, so I highly recommend their songs! ナナツナツ is also good for more easy-listening songs, but they have a few more upbeat and fast-tempoed songs too. 薬ノ願 made a very good cover of Villain with Len, and other covers as well. And I will always recommend Hikarisuyo for everything Rin!

I know a ton more songs for them too, if you want more recs. I have a MyList on NicoVideo that's 80% Kagamine-centric.

does anybody have any kagamine rin/len song/cover suggestions for me?? cause I really want to listen to them more but I can't really find any new songs of them (aside from Fake Heart) and it's kinda bumming me out :(

please leave suggestions in tags or comments!!!!

#I did this as a reblog instead of a comment so I could link the youtube channels for them #I hope these are new enough for you OP!#ひとしずぐP is another great producer #And I can't forget Giga-P #Ultra-C is so good #And so is Streamline Prism #The Kagamines are my favorite so I know a ton of songs with them!

6 notes · View notes

doubleca5t · 2 months ago

Note

FFTA is such a great game but I always hate the endgame because 3 laws at once is sooooo tedious. I love FFT but the permadeath is too hxc for me. FFTA2 is decent but Parivir is just too OP... Do you also wish we could take the pros of all three games and roll it into a game with none of the cons

I don't agree with all your criticisms but I do really wish Squeenix had kept iterating on the FFT series because I feel like they could have made something even better than the three we already have if they kept trying. For me my criticisms are more like:

FFT has by far the best narrative but mechanically feels a lot clunkier than the later installments

FFTA streamlined the gameplay a lot but the law system is more annoying than it is interesting

FFTA2 feels the best mechanically but the story is way weaker

Also both FFTA and FFTA2 probably could have afforded to be a little more difficult or at least have enemies that scale with the levels of your party because if you're addicted to doing sidequests a lot of those games become way too easy

68 notes · View notes

literaryvein-reblogs · 3 months ago

Text

Writing Notes: Editorial

An editorial - an opinion piece published by a news organization.

Types of Editorials

The vast majority of editorial pieces assume one of four formats.

News interpretation: This type of editorial attempts to frame recent news reporting in a specific light or position a recent event in a broader context. Often it will reference reported stories in the current issue of the same publication.

Persuasive editorials: Many editorials are persuasive writing pieces that start with a thesis statement or argument that the writer spends the rest of the piece attempting to prove.

Praise editorials: Some editorials exist to champion a person, institution, or work of art.

Critical editorials: Some editorial writers use the editorial format to share critical opinions of a leader, institution, policy, or work of art.

How to Write an Editorial

If you have experience with persuasive essay writing or drafting research papers, you’ll find the editorial writing process somewhat familiar.

Thoroughly research your topic. Before you start the writing process, ensure you have a thorough knowledge of your topic—particularly if it’s a complex issue. Read newspaper articles, scholarly journals, and history books to fully understand the topic and context surrounding it.

Pick a thesis statement. Your thesis statement will form the foundation of your editorial. Take the time to craft a clear, concise statement that will lead into the rest of your editorial structure.

Back up your thesis with several main points. Depending on your prescribed word count, plan to pick two to four main points to buttress your thesis statement. Expect to dedicate a paragraph or two to each of these points.

Acknowledge counter-arguments. You can concede points to the other side or spend a paragraph refuting counter-arguments, but it’s important to address alternative points of view to buttress your own argument.

Conclude with a call to action or summary of your main point. If your editorial is intended to address a problem, inform readers about possible solutions. If you want to empower your readers to learn more about the topic, provide links to resources or book titles to explore. At the end of an editorial centered on praise or criticism, return to your thesis statement and connect any ideas that remain open-ended.

Edit your work until you reach a final draft. Self-editing involves revising your editorial for quality and clarity. Read over your draft and remove unnecessary words, clichés, or sentences that distract from the central argument. Once you’ve revisited your draft for substantive issues, proofread your editorial for grammatical errors and typos.

Major newspapers typically hire op-ed columnists to provide a certain number of published editorials in a calendar year.

Some college and high school newspapers have their own op-ed columnists, who provide editorial content on a regular basis.

A great number of these publications also solicit guest editorials.

These are similar to letters to the editor, but they are usually granted a more generous word count.

A publication’s editorial board hires op-ed writers and selects guest editorials for publication.

They may reject some editorials if they touch on a needlessly controversial subject or expose the publication to legal ramifications.

In other situations, an editorial board may simply send the piece back to the writer to rework or streamline, after which they can resubmit it for publication.

Editorials can appear on TV, the radio, and the internet, but the iconic editorial format is a piece of writing that appears in newspapers or magazines.

Publications like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal are famous for their opinion-editorial pages, commonly referred to as op-ed pages.

An editorial is not a reported newspaper article.

While a good editorial article may include some original reporting, the purpose of an editorial is to convey the author's personal opinion.

Editorial writers typically write in the first person, and many pride themselves on tackling controversial topics that grab a reader's attention.

Most editorial writing is cordoned off from the news section of the newspaper, making it clear that editorial essays are not the same as news reporting.

Source ⚜ More: Notes & References ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

#editorial #writing tips #journalism #writeblr #studyblr #literature #writers on tumblr #writing reference #dark academia #spilled ink #writing prompt #creative writing #writing inspiration #light academia #writing advice #mary cassatt #writing resources

52 notes · View notes