Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

You know Canucks hockey has become toxic when...

Rate this topic


Dazzle

Recommended Posts

D&D alignment system is flawed.

I prefer the one that was in Robotech.

 

Good (Principled, Scrupulous)

Evil (Miscreant, Aberrant)

Selfish (Unprincipled, Anarchist)

 

The logic was if you were true neutral you'd never go anywhere, or do anything.

 

Principled  
---------- 

Principled characters are generally the strong, moral character.
Rick Hunter and Lisa Hayes are of principled alignment; with the highest
regard for other's lives and well being; truth, and honor.

Principled characters will...

1. Always keep his word.
2. Avoid lies.
3. Never kill or attack an unarmed foe.
4. Never harm an innocent.
5. Never torture for any reason.
6. Never kill for pleasure.
7. Always help others.
8. Work well in a group.
9. Respect authority, the law, self-discipline, and honor.
10. Never betray a friend.
11. Never break the law unless conditions are desperate. This means no
breaking and entry, theft, torture, unprovoked assults, etc.

 

Scrupulous
----------

Scrupulous characters value life and freedom above all else, and
despise those who would deprive others of them. This is a person who is
sometimes forced to work beyond the law, yet for the law; and for the
greater good of the people. These are people who are driven to right
injustice, and will always _attempt_ to work with or within the law whenever
possible. Roy Fokker would fall into this alignment.

Scrupulous characters will...

1. Keep his word to any other good person.
2. Lie only to people of selfish and evil alignments.
3. Never attack or kill an unarmed foe.
4. Never harm an innocent.
5. Never torture for pleasure, but may use muscle to extract information
from criminals or evil characters.
6. Never kill for pleasure; will _attempt_ to bring a villain to justice
alive no matter how vile he/she may be.
7. Always help others.
8. Attempt to work within the law whenever possible.
9. Bend and occasionally, break the law when deemed necessary. This means
they may use strong arm techniques, harass, break and enter, theft, and
so on.
10. Distrust authority.
11. Work with groups, but dislike confining laws and bureaucracy (red tape).
12. Never betray a friend.

 

 

Unprincipled
------------

This _basically_ good person tends to be selfish, greedy, and holds
his/her personal freedom and welfare above almost everything else. He/she
dislikes confining laws, self-discipline, and distrusts authority. This is
the guy who is always looking for the best deal, associates with good and
evil characters, is continually tempted to lie and cheat, and hates himself
for being loyal and helping others. The beautiful, but self-absorbed, Lynn
Minmei is unprincipled.

Unprincipled characters will...

1. Have a high regard for life and freedom.
2. Keep his word of honor.
3. Lie and cheat if necessary, especially to those of anarchist and evil
alignments.
4. Will not kill an unarmed foe, but will take advantage of one.
5. Help those in need.
6. Not use torture unless absolutely necessary.
7. Work with a group, especially if profitable.
8. Never harm an innocent.
9. Never kill for pleasure.
10. Dislike authority.
11. Never betray a friend.

 

 

Anarchist
---------

This type of character likes to indulge himself in everything. He
is the insurgent, con man, gambler, and high roller; the uncommitted
freebooter seeking nothing more than self-gratification. This character
will at least consider doing anything, if the price is right. These people
are intrigued by power, glory, and wealth. Life has meaning, but his has
the greatest meaning. Laws and rules infringe on personal freedom and were
meant to be broken. An anarchist aligned person is always looking for the
best deal; and will work with good, selfish, or evil to get it; as long as
he comes out of the situation on top. The anarchist is continually
teetering between good and evil, rebelling, and bending the law to fit his
needs. Annie "Mint" LaBelle is an example of an anarchist.

Anarchist characters will...

1. May keep his word.
2. Lie and cheat if he feels it necessary.
3. Not likely to kill an unarmed foe; but will certainly knockout, attack,
or beat up one.
4. Never kill an innocent (but may harm or kidnap).
5. Not likely to help someone without some ulterior motive (even if it's
only to show off).
6. Seldom kill for pleasure.
7. Use torture to extract information (not _likely_ to torture for pleasure).
8. Not work well in a group (this is the cocky loudmouth who is likely to
do as he damn well pleases).
9. Have little respect for self-discipline or authority.
10. May betray a friend.

 

 

Miscreant
---------

This self-serving, unscrupulous character is out only for himself.
Power, glory, and wealth, position, and anything that will make his life
more comfortable is his goal. It matters not who gets caught in the middle,
as long as he comes out smelling like a rose. This person will lie, cheat,
and kill anyone to attain his personal goals. Khyron is a perfect example
of a miscreant.

Miscreant characters will...

1. Not necessarily keep his word to anyone.
2. Lie and cheat anyone, good or evil.
3. Most definitely attack an unarmed foe (those are the best kind).
4. Use or harm an innocent.
5. Use torture for extracting information and pleasure.
6. May kill for sheer pleasure.
7. Feels no compulsion to help anyone without some sort of tangible reward.
8. Work with others if it will help him attain his personal goals.
9. Kill an unarmed foe as readily as he would a potential threat or competitor.
10. Has no deference to laws or authority, but will work within the law if
he must.
11. Will betray a friend if it serves his needs.

 

 

Aberrant
--------

The cliche that there is "No honor amoung thieves" is false when
dealing with the aberrant character. This is a person who is driven to
attain his goals through force, power, and intimidation. Yet the aberrant
person stands apart from the norm with his own personal code of ethics
(although twisted ethics by the standards of good). He expects loyalty from
his minions, punishing disloyalty and treachery with a swift, merciful
death. An aberrant person will always keep his word of honor and uphold any
bargains. He will define his terms and live by them, whether anyone else
likes it or not. Breetai and Exedore fit this category.

Aberrant characters will...

1. Always keep his word of honor (for he is honorable).
2. Lie to and cheat anyone not worthy of his respect.
3. May or may not kill an unarmed foe.
4. Not kill (but may harm or kidnap) an innocent, especially a child.
5. Never kills for pleasure.
6. Not resort to inhumane treatment of others; but torture, although
distasteful, is a necessary means of extracting information.
7. Never torture for pleasure.
8. May or may not help someone in need, depending on the situation.
9. Work with others to attain his goals.
10. Respect honor and self-discipline.
11. Never betray a friend.

 

 

Diabolic
--------

This is the catergory where the megalomaniacs, violent, and most
despicable characters fall. This is the cruel, brutal killer who trusts no
one and has no value for anyone or anything that gets in his way. Aberrant
aligned characters find these unhonorable people just as revolting as a good
aligned character. General Dolza fits this description.

Diabolic characters will...

1. Rarely keep his word, for he has no honor.
2. Lie to and cheat anyone.
3. Most certainly attack and kill an unarmed foe.
4. Use, hurt, and kill an innocent without a second thought and/or for
pleasure.
5. Use torture for pleasure and information.
6. Kill for sheer pleasure.
7. Likely to help someone only to kill or rob them.
8. Not work well in a group (consistently disregarding orders to do as he
pleases).
9. Despise honor, authority, and self-discipline.
10. Associate mainly with other evil alignments.
11. Betray friends (after all, you can always find new friends).

 

 

  • Cheers 1
  • Haha 1
  • Wat 2
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ajax- said:

“Players obviously will hear things that come out in the media,” Green said. “And I think with our market, sometimes you hear things that are flat out not true. And we've heard a lot of things lately that are going on inside our locker room that are fabricated. They're made up. Whoever is saying them are lies. We've got a close group in there.

"There was something about Horvat and Miller yesterday, which is ridiculous. These two guys sit in the room (next to each other). They're good friends. They get along, they care for each other. There's zero rift at all between anyone of our team. They're a close-knit team. They want to win. They don't like losing.”

 

Not sure why we couldn't give this one a pass given this comment.   I agree that we as fans, know  very little about what's going on in the dressing room.   One thing i've hoped for but hasn't happened yet, publicly anyways, is a closed door meeting with players only, usually that means there could be something that needs hashing out, but sometimes just to get things back on track it helps as well - either way i'm sure 99% of what is been floated around on the boards these days is supposition.   Friedman was awful to watch as a fan when he was cutting his teeth in our circuit think during the WCE days...he'd lean right in and ask the most boring things of the athletes, for whatever reason it worked with them, and he's gained their trust too.   He doesn't reveal his sources (players) and if he says Miller and Horvat are having a spat maybe then i'd believe it.   Not Sekeres or pretty much anyone else though. 

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Sekeres is definitely a douche bag but there's no doubt iMac is a bootlicker.

 

He's been Benning/Aqua's PR man since Benning got the job. I'm not saying he's a "bad guy" or anything because I don't know him personally but an unbiased reporter, he is not.

 

That said, iMac definitely dunked on Sekeres here lol.

I feel he's very unbiased but doesn't buy in to the crap and clickbait that some "reporters" rely on.  I mean, this isn't all sunshine and roses bootlicker stuff.  As fans, things are volatile out there right now and we're struggling to find answers.  We're all hanging in here but it's difficult...there's bound to be some speculation/talk/trying to figure out "why".  Because there's no real rhyme or reason for this team to be where they are...no one expected this.  So we do have moments of lashing out and grabbing on to something in fits of frustration.  But it's the media's job to give us good information and not make stuff up because it'll get hits.  I believe there are some "reporting" on the team out there who'd rather we're in total disarray because it gives them content.  I'd prefer them weighing in on versus creating drama.

 

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Provost said:

Folks should go look at the entire thread, it isn't what it seems like one tweet out of context.

Sekeres was bemoaning the fact that Sportsnet has decided to cut costs by broadcasting coverage mostly from Toronto and not even having the reporters come out to attend games.  How can they have any useful insight when they aren't within a thousand miles of the team.

The Toronto-centric approach is something we all complain about.  I am super glad I don't have to listen to Sekeres anymore but in this case he is actually arguing on our behalf for better coverage... not having a personal fight with MacIntyre.

I mostly stopped watching TSN due to the Toronto only nature of it.  Sportsnet started doing great regional programming, then they slowly got rid of it and became a Toronto channel as well.

I long for the days of Sportspage when the guys were actual reporters who were plugged into the local sports scene including high school/college... and not just some talking heads who read stuff online and regurgitate talking points from Ontario.

The thread from Sportsnet basically says, suck it out West... this is the way the future is.  20 guys covering the Leafs at the expense of anyone coverinng other teams.

It's not out of context when iMac himself responds in a way that is decidedly combative. There's more that is going behind the scenes for him to respond like that, instead of diplomatically answering in a normal way.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, JM_ said:

yup there's more there that what Provost is attempting to support. Sekeres does the kind of crap all the time, slips in some BS he knows will get re-tweets. I'm sure he'll try to play innocent on it, but he was slapped pretty hard so maybe he'll go back under his rock for a while.

 

i accept cary elwes GIF

That's the thing for me.....if he were simply making mistakes, he'd learn over time.  He's intentional.  He throws something out there that, in the moment, is believable but probably has little credibility to it.  Hits, that's his aim but he's often off target.  And I'm tired of him.

  • Vintage 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, JM_ said:

yup there's more there that what Provost is attempting to support. Sekeres does the kind of crap all the time, slips in some BS he knows will get re-tweets. I'm sure he'll try to play innocent on it, but he was slapped pretty hard so maybe he'll go back under his rock for a while.

 

i accept cary elwes GIF

Bonus points for Robin Hood: Men in Tights. 

  • Cheers 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

That's the thing for me.....if he were simply making mistakes, he'd learn over time.  He's intentional.  He throws something out there that, in the moment, is believable but probably has little credibility to it.  Hits, that's his aim but he's often off target.  And I'm tired of him.

me too, he plays to the worst instincts of a fan base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

That's the thing for me.....if he were simply making mistakes, he'd learn over time.  He's intentional.  He throws something out there that, in the moment, is believable but probably has little credibility to it.  Hits, that's his aim but he's often off target.  And I'm tired of him.

Yes.  Problem is it's like that simple exercise when 20 people in a room sit in a circle - one statement is given to the first one, whispers it into the ear of the one next to him, and with best intentions (which pretty sure Sekeres and a few others on the CDC do not have, agendas of some sort) it goes around and by the time it gets to the first person again at best it's a similar message, and often it's just out of control.    Feels like the spin doctors are doing a great job on this forum at the moment too. 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, -DLC- said:

I feel he's very unbiased but doesn't buy in to the crap and clickbait that some "reporters" rely on.  I mean, this isn't all sunshine and roses bootlicker stuff.  As fans, things are volatile out there right now and we're struggling to find answers.  We're all hanging in here but it's difficult...there's bound to be some speculation/talk/trying to figure out "why".  Because there's no real rhyme or reason for this team to be where they are...no one expected this.  So we do have moments of lashing out and grabbing on to something in fits of frustration.  But it's the media's job to give us good information and not make stuff up because it'll get hits.  I believe there are some "reporting" on the team out there who'd rather we're in total disarray because it gives them content.  I'd prefer them weighing in on versus creating drama.

 

I agree that there has been some irresponsible "reporting" over the past few years and a lot of that comes from Sekeres.

 

And iMac is obviously a better "journalist" than Sekeres, Sekeres really isn't one and I'm not sure why anyone even listens to him.

 

But my opinion on iMac still holds :P

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JM_ said:

yup there's more there that what Provost is attempting to support. Sekeres does the kind of crap all the time, slips in some BS he knows will get re-tweets. I'm sure he'll try to play innocent on it, but he was slapped pretty hard so maybe he'll go back under his rock for a while.

 

i accept cary elwes GIF

I said nothing about the background and don’t like Sekeres either.

 

What I said is look at the larger conversation which was with a producer at Sportsnet and calling them out about no longer having people broadcast regionally and just hanging out in Toronto instead.
 

You can not like Sekeres and still agree with his point.

  • Cheers 1
  • Wat 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Provost said:

I said nothing about the background and don’t like Sekeres either.

 

What I said is look at the larger conversation which was with a producer at Sportsnet and calling them out about no longer having people broadcast regionally and just hanging out in Toronto instead.
 

You can not like Sekeres and still agree with his point.

who cares where someone is sitting to do iMac's style of coverage? the show is actually better than its been in a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Provost said:

I said nothing about the background and don’t like Sekeres either.

 

What I said is look at the larger conversation which was with a producer at Sportsnet and calling them out about no longer having people broadcast regionally and just hanging out in Toronto instead.
 

You can not like Sekeres and still agree with his point.

Here's the thing: you can not like Sekeres and see that he provoked iMac, who in turn responded the way he did. Contrary to your explanations, it is not "out of context" when iMac responded in a hostile manner. This overall message of Sportsnet being Toronto-centric, if that was the original intention, was clearly lost in the larger story. I find it rather ironic that it is you who doesn't see the bigger picture. If things were not tense, whether it was misunderstanding or otherwise, iMac would not have lashed out at Sekeres.

 

We can also not like Sekeres and see that his choice of words/language was provocative. You can literally see it.

 

You can also like Sekeres and literally see that all of the above is still true.

  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Here's the thing: you can not like Sekeres and see that he provoked iMac, who in turn responded the way he did. Contrary to your explanations, it is not "out of context" when iMac responded in a hostile manner. This overall message of Sportsnet being Toronto-centric, if that was the original intention, was clearly lost in the larger story. I find it rather ironic that it is you who doesn't see the bigger picture. If things were not tense, whether it was misunderstanding or otherwise, iMac would not have lashed out at Sekeres.

 

We can also not like Sekeres and see that his choice of words/language was provocative. You can literally see it.

 

You can also like Sekeres and literally see that all of the above is still true.

You are just inventing stuff that you don't know about "happening in the background" to make a narrative.

How about MacIntyre was just being a good company guy who was defending his multi-billion dollar employer's best interests and Sekeres hit a nerve with how hypocritical he has been after decrying Toronto-based media bias for years and then becoming one and actually defending it.

Of course things are tense, almost everyone locally including the best broadcasters like Don Taylor have been fired by TSN and Sportsnet in order to save a few bucks on their coverage.  There are a small handful of guys left who kept their jobs mostly because they were cheap or they are "company" yes men.  That is a larger context for you, much more so than the fact Sekeres is trash... which is a "small picture" part of the whole context of what is happening in the industry and why guys are at each other's throats.

The "larger story" I mentioned was for folks to read the entire series of the exchange so they understood what the snippy fight was about.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, -DLC- said:

 

What is wrong with what Sekeras said? He went on saying that to put them up in hotels and travel to Toronto isn’t cheap and most likely no different then going to Columbus, he said doesn’t Rogers have studios in Vancouver lol Sekeras made some great points and when he tweeted that out IMac never even answered the question….If IMac wasn’t drama too he wouldn’t of responded at all…. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Provost said:

You are just inventing stuff that you don't know about "happening in the background" to make a narrative.

How about MacIntyre was just being a good company guy who was defending his multi-billion dollar employer's best interests and Sekeres hit a nerve with how hypocritical he has been after decrying Toronto-based media bias for years and then becoming one and actually defending it.

Of course things are tense, almost everyone locally including the best broadcasters like Don Taylor have been fired by TSN and Sportsnet in order to save a few bucks on their coverage.  There are a small handful of guys left who kept their jobs mostly because they were cheap or they are "company" yes men.  That is a larger context for you, much more so than the fact Sekeres is trash... which is a "small picture" part of the whole context of what is happening in the industry and why guys are at each other's throats.

The "larger story" I mentioned was for folks to read the entire series of the exchange so they understood what the snippy fight was about.

 

On 11/27/2021 at 10:41 AM, Provost said:

Folks should go look at the entire thread, it isn't what it seems like one tweet out of context.

Sekeres was bemoaning the fact that Sportsnet has decided to cut costs by broadcasting coverage mostly from Toronto and not even having the reporters come out to attend games.  How can they have any useful insight when they aren't within a thousand miles of the team.

The Toronto-centric approach is something we all complain about.  I am super glad I don't have to listen to Sekeres anymore but in this case he is actually arguing on our behalf for better coverage... not having a personal fight with MacIntyre.

I mostly stopped watching TSN due to the Toronto only nature of it.  Sportsnet started doing great regional programming, then they slowly got rid of it and became a Toronto channel as well.

I long for the days of Sportspage when the guys were actual reporters who were plugged into the local sports scene including high school/college... and not just some talking heads who read stuff online and regurgitate talking points from Ontario.

The thread from Sportsnet basically says, suck it out West... this is the way the future is.  20 guys covering the Leafs at the expense of anyone coverinng other teams

Haha, Provost, this is entertainment. You were the one talking about the so-called bigger story and how the Twitter quotes were basically taken out of context.

Oddly enough, you completely glossed over the manner at how Imac responded to Sekeres. Better still, you have condoned how Sekeres called Imac "a diarist", which many people in this thread have mentioned was problematic/provocative. You've also accepted the perspective (not necessarily reality) that Imac could be a company guy (or a Canucks lackey).

 

On the other hand, I have NOT taken any such position. I have merely said that there is toxicity surrounding Canucks hockey, and I demonstrated it through the exchanges of Imac/Sekeres. There is OBVIOUSLY a bigger story between the two, especially since Imac chose to take this publicly (as did Sekeres).

 

If Sekeres had intended to rile up Imac, he did his job. Imac obviously saw the need to respond in a hostile way. But wait, you've taken Imac's response as some kind of proof that he's a 'company man'?

 

You claim not to defend Sekeres, but you sure are doing a whole lot of it with ZERO proof. Show some quotes that suggest that Imac was overreacting, given how his NAME was brought up into this discussion. Was Sekeres REALLY going to bat for Imac? If so, why didn't he make this discussion about how sports journalists can't do their job?

 

Here's the breakdown of events: Sekeres LITERALLY (through text) provoked the situation, which Imac responded to in a hostile way. I already mentioned in my original post that I think there's some kind of misunderstanding between the two. So what narrative am I spinning?

 

You sound like you're trying really hard to defend Sekeres without saying you are defending Sekeres. :rolleyes:

Edited by Dazzle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CarbonNaded said:

What is wrong with what Sekeras said? He went on saying that to put them up in hotels and travel to Toronto isn’t cheap and most likely no different then going to Columbus, he said doesn’t Rogers have studios in Vancouver lol Sekeras made some great points and when he tweeted that out IMac never even answered the question….If IMac wasn’t drama too he wouldn’t of responded at all…. 

Carbonnaded, are you Matthew Sekeres? I think you don't know what you're talking about ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...