Talk:A-Logging

It's a start, but it could be a lot better. I'm only vaguely familiar with A-Log myself, so I'm not sure how much I could do to fix the article. While I don't want this to turn into an Encylopedia Dramatica article about A-Log himself, we need more direct comparisons to him and his actions to fully illustrate why this is discouraged.

If I might make a suggestion Champ, (and this is the only time I will ever say this), I think that this is something we'd need the /cwc/fags' help with. They're the ones who discovered A-Log, know everything about him, wrote his actual ED page, and let's be honest here; When you say the "broader CWC community", that's mostly referring to /cwc/. Why not go over there and put up an invite for them to help us define Alogging and educate the newfags? At the very least we might get some decent quotes from the anons explaining it a bit.

Just a suggestion. --Old meme 07:03, 11 May 2012 (PDT)

A couple of points...

1) "Chris's discomfort for black people [...] is arguably more from failing to understand social norms in that you don't announce to the world you're discomforted by African American rather than of the ideology of white supremacy that your average KKK member would have"

While I'm no Alogger or anything I think that his attitude toward blacks (and Jews) goes beyond merely not wanting to have sex with their women. Just at look at the way he uses the n-word. Also let's not forget Michael Snyder is ColdHearted and Mean. Also according to Mimms and Lucas Chris was always worrying that the black kids at the game place would try to steal his stuff, defintely a racist.

His hatred toward homosexuals most definitely goes beyond regular homophobia. The casual American homophobe does not supports the repeal of DADT so more homos can die nor does he wish to prevent them from buying certain brands of body spray. A typical homophobes does not wish to have homosexuals locked up and forced into reparative therapy either (I'm too lazy to dig up the chat where he advocates that but it's somewhere here on the wiki).

Now granted, these are not good reasons for inflicting boddily harm upon Chris. He's too much of a pussy to commit hate crimes, too much of a lazy ass to go and harass people Westboro Baptist style and lacks any political clout to make his hare braind ideas a reality, but I still think that you're understimating his bigotry.

2) Another argument that I can see aloggers using to justify their attitude toawrd Chris is his lawbreaking. I think that the best counterarguments would be: A) Chris's offenses are relatively minor and most aloggers would not wish physical harm upon a person other than Chris who has the same rapsheet. B) While Chris needs to be punished for his crimes, we already have the legal system for it and it's doing a bang up job. C) By advocating intentional infliction of bodily harm upon Chris, aloggers are being worse than him by supporting crimes far worse (both from a moral and legal standpoint) than anything he's ever done.

NegaCWC 12:09, 11 May 2012 (PDT)

Another nitpick: "White knights believe that Chris is capable of no wrong and try to help him [emphasis added]". I somewhat doubt that all white knights really think that Chris is completely blameless, and anyway that's not their defining characteristic. A person who thinks that Chris is much to blame for his current predicament yet also tries to stop the trolls and help Chris better himself is not a white knight? -- NegaCWC 16:43, 12 May 2012 (PDT)

• These are good points, NegaCWC and I think the fellow who added a bunch to the page addressed some of these concerns. It's a delicate issue, I want this page done right if it's going to be in the main namespace, so do you (or anyone else for that matter) think it's good to go now?--Champthom 07:37, 30 May 2012 (PDT)
• If the fellow you're referring to is me, then yes, addressing some of those points was part of the intent of my last edit. As for whether the page is ready to go or not, I'm leaning towards "not just yet". Looking at it, there isn't really much in the way of hard information there, and a lot of it is within the confines of opinions and speculation (the arguments for and against). It feels to me a little more like something you'd see on a forum and not an article that could be referenced. I think a little bit more exposition on A-log himself, at least as far as his involvement in the ongoing saga that is Chris, and how the practice of "A-logging" came into being and came to be known as such, would probably make it feel more like an article. A little bit more fact and reference to balance out the opinion and speculation, so to speak. Course, that's just my opinion, and I'm just a noob. -- Perpetual Lurker 03:56, 1 June 2012 (PDT)

• Like I said on the community portal, this is a tricky article because it doesn't exactly pertain to Chris directly in the same way white knighting does, or at least we don't have tangible documentation or anything like that of Chris responding to A-Logging. I really don't want to focus the article on A-Log, because 1) this is the CWCki and the CWCki is about Chris and not so much ancillary characters like A-Log, especially given that Chris hasn't responded to anything he's done and 2) I'm more concerned about the mindset that was popularized by A-Log rather than the guy himself.

I agree that in general, we should try to have articles based on facts and references rather than just our opinions and speculation. But I think this article might need to be an exception to the rule. The white knighting article started out as mostly dealing with the meta-topic of "Can Chris be helped?/I think I should try to help Chris" is probably one of the stages Chris trolls go through and it comes up time and again on Chris related sites. The problem with the White knighting article is that one can read it and end up thinking "Gee, Chris doesn't want help and he's not as innocent as he seems, that means he's an awful awful person and he should be punished." I think it should be pretty clear that Chris is not a spawn of Satan like A-Loggers would like to argue, it's common sense really. Maybe talking about A-Logging and what he did, merely to establish the type of behavior associated with A-Logging, would help make this more factual, with examples of A-Logging on various Chris related sites might flush it out and make it seem like an actual phenomena and less than speculation.

Ideally I want this article to serve a few goals - 1) bring up this topic, because as I said, it comes up time and again and I think it's a significant meta-topic that warrants discussion, and 2) help CWCki readers and editors not be an A-Log. People have said it and they probably have a point that people often read the CWCki and think Chris is an awful, awful person mostly because we have a tendency to exaggerate for dramatic and rhetorical purposes. This article, coupled with a "Don't be an A-Log" rule in regards to article tone, related to NPOV, would help the CWCki tremendously.

At least, that's just my opinion. --Champthom 05:01, 2 June 2012 (PDT)

• It'd be good if we could get a screencap of A-Logging from YouTube (there was some good quotes on a recent /cwc/ thread along these lines), perhaps a screencap from /cwc/ of someone A-Logging and someone replying with "HI A-LOG." _{-unsigned comment by Champthom}

• • • Y'know, we DO have a good "HI A-LOG"-type message here - someone in the Chris and Money talk page was talking about Chris's SSI and trying to get rid of it.--Blazer 06:49, 1 June 2012 (PDT)

I went in and did a major revision to this page. This was originally on my user page so I took it out and put it on this page because i think the subject matter is relevant to this particular topic on people who may think of "A-Logging" over the Michael Snyder incident. Kengel1021

• I'm not 100% certain that the revision in question, at least as it is currently worded and formatted, is wholly right for the article. Despite the potential relevance, it doesn't touch upon A-Logging at all, and talks solely about the incident on 28 October. Moreover, the points you raise are mostly in defense of Chris and his actions on that day. I can see the relevance to A-Logging, in the sense that one shouldn't A-Log Chris over this particular incident, but the reference is tangential at best. I would suggest editing your revision further to make it tie more directly to A-Logging, because as I'm reading it, I feel it belongs more on 28 October 2011 rather than here. I'll further point out that your revision isn't -bad-, per se. Just that it probably needs work to make it more relevant to A-Logging, since you believe the subject matter is indeed relevant. Again, this is only my opinion, and what the bleep do I know? --Perpetual Lurker 00:41, 9 July 2012 (PDT)

I have a feeling you are probably right about putting it under the October 28th incident. But there is more leniency regarding this page than the October 28th page regarding speculative articles and I am not sure if this would cross the line or not. Perhaps a moderator could help us here. _{-unsigned comment by Kengel1021}

• I believe the leniency here is because technically, this article isn't on the CWCki. It's more or less a collaborative rough draft until Champ thinks it's ready to go up. There's also the fact that the topic of A-Logging in general is going to be a bit subjective and speculative because, short of somehow finding actual A-Logs (or at least reformed ones,) most of what we can put is why we think Anthony LoGatto and those of his ilk do what they do. The only relevant facts we can put are about A-Log himself, and the fact that A-Logging happens. 28 October 2011, on the other hand, is all about a specific incident that is both ongoing and (in my opinion) much more significant than the A-Logging phenomenon. Still, someone more veteran than I am would be in a better position to make a call. I'm just guessing here. --Perpetual Lurker 22:55, 9 July 2012 (PDT)

• Like I said, the problem with this article is that it's mostly speculative and opinion and doesn't fit in compared with other articles, that's the main issue. It's easy to find examples of A-Logging - I could probably go on /cwc/ or browse right here on the CWCki and find someone saying something A-Logesque. I think we have an issue that we have people here on the CWCki who are A-Logs and don't realize it that they might object to some things in this article.

Anyways, I'm tempted to put it in the main namespace, but I want it to be solid, namely that it can demonstrate that this is a phenomena that actually occurs and has relevance to Chris trolling, though in this case it doesn't directly impact him. I think some people think this is an article about A-Log but I don't give a shit about him, I'm more concerned about the attitude towards Chris that's associated with him and not so much the guy himself. The wording has become too weak in this article, "Chris is incredibly gullible" lacks the bite of "Chris is a retard." I can see that people might object to calling Chris a retard, especially since we don't have this elsewhere, but he's practically a retard on a social level. He might not be a technical retard but he's a practical one, he's what colloquially would be called a retard. The wording establishes that he's an idiot who isn't entirely cognizant of his actions, establishing that it's stupid to judge him by some high standard and treat him as if he's some maniacal madman who carefully plans out how they'll hurt people. --Champthom 05:27, 10 July 2012 (PDT)

This article is extremely hypocritical, since it defends Chris on many of his flaws, yet everywhere else, the CWCki mocks him for these. This article should either be deleted, rephrased, have a talk page, or at least have an "IM WORKING ON IT!" template. The talk page would be very nice indeed --TRUEandHONESTuser 18:10, 17 July 2012 (PDT)

1) You do realize that this is a talk page? Everyone's still hammering out a lot of stuff here. 2) Yes, it's defending Chris, but it's defending Chris from A-Loggers who think that Chris should suffer immensely for his actions, not outright defending him for his actions. Yes, Chris can be deplorable and it might be unfair that Chris gets away with a lot of stuff, but in the end, we're all trying to prevent future A-Loggers/Chris-Chans from rising up and becoming targets themselves. It's not worth it.--Blazer 15:22, 18 July 2012 (PDT)

• I don't think this page is hypocritical. Ideally, we shouldn't be outright bashing Chris like A-Log does. I don't think the problem with the page but with the attitude of the CWCki as a whole. People often accuse the CWCki for A-Logging, and I think they might be right. Chris really isn't a bad person. I think we try to be fair, if he does something that warrant criticism we criticize him for it, but I think some of the times we're too over the top, usually for rhetorical purposes and I think people who don't have autism should be able to recognize this. But I think we need to have this article so we can say "Don't be an A-Log." It's one thing to point out Chris's faults, it's another thing to act like Chris is a subhuman sociopath who's worse than Hitler and deserves to die. Seriously, Chris is an idiot, he's really not a bad person. If you want to see harm befall Chris or you think he's truly responsible for all his actions, get some goddamn help.

This page frustrates me though. I think part of the problem is that a lot of you are in fact A-Logs who don't recognize the fact Chris is an idiot. The other problem is that people think this is an article about A-Log when it's more about the behavior that's become associated with him. I wish there was a term that didn't involve his name so we don't have this problem but I can't think of anything better, plus nobody would have any idea what I'm talking about.

I think we're good on the basic counter arguments, what we need are some real examples of A-Log type behavior from Chris related sites (CWCki, CWCki Forums, /cwc/, YouTube, DeviantArt, etc.). --Champthom 18:27, 30 July 2012 (PDT)