A Short Treatise on Dickriding

[PancakeBrah]

Everyone "dickrides" to an extent. 'Dickride' is just simple minded shorthanded for preference. For instance, I think Black/Vulgar/Dullwahavoidboyha are just top notch writers. Whys sometimes, too. I will click their Open Mics 100 percent of the time, and if I leave feed it's almost always positive. Is that "dickriding"? No. Their styles and technical ability are just simpatico with what I'm looking for as a reader. And if they post in Discussion, I take note and appreciate it more because of my respect for them as writers. Almost as a look into the mind of superior writers. Same goes for Bags/GoW/Aero. They're my favorite "battlers" (such a corny term). Every single member on this site has a preference; it's not the same as mine, mine is only an example. But the logic extends and applies to each user. I'm not "dickriding" shit. It's a derogatory term used by inferior writers/battlers to try and create some unfair caste system that supposedly represses their actual 'superior' underrated traits. Inferior writers or posters posit that anything posted by one Netcee's member that's positive towards the presupposed elite is dickriding. But in all reality, the presupposed elite is presupposed elite for a reason. Any time you say someone is "dickriding" you're actually demeaning yourself. If you take this site seriously as a hobby, which I think a very high number of users do even if most will never admit it, you should strive to be "dickrode". Quit being an idiot and elevate your writing. I guarantee that if you were elite in any category you wouldn't complain about this retarded concept.

[Objective]

I look upon dickriding as excessive praise or going into defensive mode for another person abit faster than what would be considered normal. Dickriding to me is placed like this: normal>dickrider>stalker. Simply saying that someone is great at what they do isn't dickriding per se, but if you're saying it a lot or out of the blue it's obvious dickriding. That's me tho'.

People sometimes do say that people are dickriders for weird reasons tho'. Over the years of being on different boards I've yet to be called a dickrider even though I have given props to several people.

[Aesthetic]

Get off my dick nigga; I can see this is directed at me.

Very subliminal, very tricky.

[PancakeBrah]

Originally Posted by Objective

I look upon dickriding as excessive praise or going into defensive mode for another person abit faster than what would be considered normal. Dickriding to me is placed like this: normal>dickrider>stalker. Simply saying that someone is great at what they do isn't dickriding per se, but if you're saying it a lot or out of the blue it's obvious dickriding. That's me tho'.

People sometimes do say that people are dickriders for weird reasons tho'. Over the years of being on different boards I've yet to be called a dickrider even though I have given props to several people.

It's a presupposition and benefit of the doubt, usually deserved.

[Ghost1]

Amen. Me an destro da gawd tryed to tell dem.folk last year!

Rip BROKE LESNAR :(

[Certain]

There is some truth and some semantical argumentation here. For instance, when zygote posts something completely weird that barely even rhymes, he can get away with it because we all know he basically can write however he chooses. His off-kilter approach to a given piece, then, is intentionally manipulative of a well-informed diction and mechanics base.

However, no writer should be above reproach. No one here has earned that.

[Split]

I agree with whoever has the best opinion because of my god given ability to win

I tend to agree w/ whoever's right, and whoever's right tends to be the same 6 people becuause 29% of this site is legally retarded

This thread will be dickrode.

[Aesthetic]

Commence Dickriding @Meth @Whys Ways @Sharp Nine @PancakeBrah @zygote @Vulgar @...the Munster @2 Beautiful @Adonis @Aero @Allen Knight @anime_boners @Artemus @Atheist @Badweather @BlackListedNews @Boredom @Brian Bryan @Camp Bell @Cashius @Cereal_Killa @Certain Serpent @Coup @CymbiCort @Darth Yoda @Defiant @Destroyer @detour @Diode @Dope @Elwats @Figurative @Frank @Frank Metts @Genocide @GKillaZ @God Of War @hate monger @Hush @IamBenT @ill nik-A @Immaculate @Innovator @J. Metts @Jim Blaze @Just C

[PancakeBrah]

Originally Posted by Certain Serpent

There is some truth and some semantical argumentation here. For instance, when zygote posts something completely weird that barely even rhymes, he can get away with it because we all know he basically can write however he chooses. His off-kilter approach to a given piece, then, is intentionally manipulative of a well-informed diction and mechanics base.

However, no writer should be above reproach. No one here has earned that.

Explain my semantical arguments to me.

Zygote is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I rate Zygote highly, but not top tier. He has an emotionless style I can't reconcile with his expert technical ability. But he has built equity. Equity in that we know he is a top notch technician, so when he drops a piece that "barely even rhymes" we know it's on purpose, and it's a purpose of the piece. Your argument seems almost petty.

[Split]

Aesthetic is mad because he has to host all his files through Free Mason encrypted Google documents

Ok Aesthetic.

Calm down.

[Aesthetic]

Originally Posted by Split Eight

Aesthetic is mad because he has to host all his files through Free Mason encrypted Google documents

No I got anonymous niggas to do that for me; real talk, I jsut use my internet for this depressing ass site.

[Aesthetic]

Originally Posted by Meth

Ok Aesthetic.

Calm down.

Get off my dick nigga

[Certain]

Originally Posted by PancakeBrah

Explain my semantical arguments to me.

Zygote is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I rate Zygote highly, but not top tier. He has an emotionless style I can't reconcile with his expert technical ability. But he has built equity. Equity in that we know he is a top notch technician, so when he drops a piece that "barely even rhymes" we know it's on purpose, and it's a purpose of the piece. Your argument seems almost petty.

The semantics are in the word "dickride." It means different things to everyone. I think what people want to avoid is the feeling that voters entered a thread already knowing whom they would be voting for.

Battlers are the ones who complain about this the most, but I think it's a much more difficult line in open mics because individual punchlines aren't there to be judged on their own merits and styles are so much more varied. Personal taste simply matters more in voting on a topical battle.

I've said in the past that your style probably is my favorite on the board. Even though I have no interest in voting for anything less than the verse I prefer in a battle, that does cast me as a biased voter. But we're all biased voters. We all have styles we prefer, and it's impossible to separate them from quality.

Take your Writing Challenge League battle with PiE. His verse was more unique, more fleshed out and more impressive as it related to the challenge. But I connected more with your verse. I seriously thought about voting for PiE because it seemed like the logical answer, when I laid the facts out on the table. But I enjoyed your verse more and enjoy your style more because it's better. You're the better writer, and the better writer usually wins.

Then take Mike Wrecka's battle against Pinot Grij. I like Pinot Grij's style much more than Mike Wrecka's because he's on another level as far as mechanics and clarity. But Mike Wrecka did exactly what a writing underdog must to win a topical battle: He came with a very strong take on the topic. He did the same against me. He knows how to turn the tables, and he's proven it over and over again. That's its own skill.

I think the important thing is to acknowledge why your favorite writers are your favorite writers, to then address how they can improve and be mindful that they are not always on their games and to finish by giving fair consideration to writers whose styles you don't like as much.

[Split]

If you give props when you don't legitimately like something you are pathetic

Dickriding in the OM is nonexistent, people with bad things to say get shamed away by other feeders. We need more criticism.

[Certain]

Originally Posted by Aesthetic

Commence Dickriding @Meth @Whys Ways @Sharp Nine @PancakeBrah @zygote @Vulgar @...the Munster @2 Beautiful @Adonis @Aero @Allen Knight @anime_boners @Artemus @Atheist @Badweather @BlackListedNews @Boredom @Brian Bryan @Camp Bell @Cashius @Cereal_Killa @Certain Serpent @Coup @CymbiCort @Darth Yoda @Defiant @Destroyer @detour @Diode @Dope @Elwats @Figurative @Frank @Frank Metts @Genocide @GKillaZ @God Of War @hate monger @Hush @IamBenT @ill nik-A @Immaculate @Innovator @J. Metts @Jim Blaze @Just C

You just tagged BlackListedNews.

[PancakeBrah]

Originally Posted by Split Eight

If you give props when you don't legitimately like something you are pathetic

Dickriding in the OM is nonexistent, people with bad things to say get shamed away by other feeders. We need more criticism.

The open mic is the worst in terms of criticism on this site. You'll rarely if ever see a truly negative feed. The only form of negative feed is lack of feed.

[Certain]

One thing to consider is that no one will take your advice if it's all negative. When I give feedback to someone who isn't very good, I try to use that to explain how they can develop their strengths by addressing their weaknesses. Let people know that they can get better, then give them a template to do it. Otherwise, you're just being mean.

[Darth Yoda]

if I don't feed I don't like