Topic on Talk:Religions Based on Blaseball

This is a permanent link to the first version of this post. You can view later versions on the post history page.

1. Thank you for providing specific examples. This gives a good starting point to refactor the article, if anyone cares to do so at this point. Specifically, I think changing "bombing" to something else is a good move. It may be wise to edit out "religious violence" as a general trimming / editing just because the article itself is also rather unfocused. Someone earlier mentioned the contrast between "dominating world forces" and "mainly social clubs" that could be resolved, etc. I think there are ways forward here.

2. I do not think it is a "ridiculous amount of labor" to ask for what the specific problems are in a Wiki page. This is standard procedure for the Wiki: a look at Help:Contribution_Policies and especially Help:Critiquing_Proposals. If you are going to participate here, these are the rules we are all bound by. "Fix, don't delete" and so on.

3. I disagree with some of your conclusions. For example, "Blaseicism" being a stand-in for Torah immutability is not the only possible read: orthodoxy is common in many religions, e.g. the Christian Bible has passages in Proverbs, Deuteronomy and Revelations which all warn against the dangers of altering the Word of God. I imagine it's actually a play on "asceticism" which is a lifestyle common in many religions.

4. Even those issues which ARE a direct parody - "Ballmaggedon", for example - do not strike me as particularly troubling? Joking about religion is probably as old as the concept of religion itself. As people regularly point out, Christianity is also often a very "white" institution, and I do not see harm in punching upwards at some of the sillier aspects of it. Atheists would have a field day with this whole conversation, but I guess there are none to speak up.

I think we are all in agreement that no amount of trimming is going to satisfy people who simply do not want Religion in Blaseball to be an "un-serious" page, and it must be thrown out wholesale. At this point I'm bowing out. I believe any further engagement will just be construed as me "talking over POC voices" or similar, when I'm just asking for clarity and a less hostile read on the whole thing. Maybe someone else can implement these changes, or just delete the article, whatever.