(Post a new comment)

	kyuuketsukirui 2005-04-14 11:12 am UTC (link)
	I'd say go ahead and wank it if you want. It seems pretty boring from what I've seen, though. Skyehawke: We're not going to allow chan. Everyone else: OMG OPPRESSION! (repeat ad nauseum) metafandom on LJ had a big list of links to posts on it today, so that'd be a good place to start. (Reply to this)(Thread)

melannen
2005-04-14 12:05 pm UTC (link)

More like,

Skyehawke: We're deathly afraid of complaints, so we've set up an overly complicated arbitration process in case we get some someday. p.s.: we still like chan
Everyone else: OMG they don't like chan! OPPRESSION! (repeat ad nauseum)

Yeah, I have a feeling it's just not amusing or unique enough, as opposed to merely huge. And I hesitate to i_wank it because it feels like most of the people involved aren't being actively stupid, just talking angry circles around each other because their territory's being threatened. But maybe I'll try to cobble something together today.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

ataniell93
2005-04-14 05:15 pm UTC (link)

That's the thing. Most of the discussions have been very civil. People are angry, but polite. The closest thing to spooge there's been in my journal was when someone from a completely other fandom I'm involved in tried to turn the discussion into a discussion on the morality of chan and I told her that wasn't really what we were talking about so much.

According to Setissma, the really stupid and nasty stuff has all been done by private email.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

melannen
2005-04-14 06:16 pm UTC (link)

Ah, well, to me, half-a-dozen pissed off posts on my (quite small) flist, people summarily deleting accounts, people plotting a mass exodus to a new archive, the administrators establishing a lockdown, declarations of who does and doesn't have the right to comment and telling each other to quit whining, and people accusing people of accusing people of quoting intarnet credentials and being pedophiles and uneccesarily overreacting and even being, *gasp*, bad writers, is pretty wanky to me.

But you're right. It has been scrupulously civil. That doesn't make all the bombastic statements of moral outrage and whiny pleas of 'you don't understand!' any less paramasturbatory, but it *has* been civil, so it's probably wiser not to throw any more fat on the fire.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

*headscratch*
ataniell93
2005-04-14 08:47 pm UTC (link)

I suppose it all depends on how you define wank. In past comments I've noticed that FW seems to define wank more broadly in the case of HP fans, to the point where any post with a strong opinion in it is considered 'wanky'.

I don't consider all heated exchanges 'wank': to me there has to be a certain standard of behaviour which isn't met. Name-calling, Godwin and Snacky tickets, et cetera.

I've never understood why it's considered wanky to object when someone changes a TOS peremptorily. It may be their absolute legal and moral right to do what they want to do with their own property, but any action that changes the rules on people in ways that they dislike or find inconvenient is going to garner objections; as long as they're civil, they're not wank imnsho.

Nor do I understand why it's wanky to summarily delete your account. I personally think it's probably wankier of me to stay on FFN.net than it was to delete my Skyehawke account (except that I had to ask the mods to delete it for me because their scripting so hates me), because if you have no intention of adhering to the TOS or simply don't like the TOS you should leave, right?

I'm also not sure why it's wanky to get together and discuss where to go AFTER leaving the archive. That just seems like the next logical step.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: *headscratch*

melannen
2005-04-14 09:25 pm UTC (link)

F_W defines wank in terms of what their membership thinks needs wanked... the unfunny/not-very-wanky ones in smaller fandoms get posted, just nobody remembers them, because not many people *care* about a TOS change on a Moomintrolls board or know the people involved...

I guess to me, any one of those things you've described I wouldn't necessarily call wanky, depending on how it was executed. The fact that *all* of them happened repeatedly within three days in an atmosphere of growing hysteria, during which nobody appeared to be listening to other people's opinions, but merely restating their own more and more loudly, did push it over the edge for me, though.

I am probably falling afoul of my fondness for etymology, and my tendency to take all sorts of contentious literary discussion groups, back to beyond when Marlowe got stabbed in 1593, and blithely conflate them with internet fandom. So to me 'wanky' is completely synonymous with 'masturbatory' in both the literal and literary senses...if that makes sense. And

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: *headscratch*

melannen
2005-04-14 09:33 pm UTC (link)

... And it probably doesn't. Masturbatory in the fine literary criticism sense of sitting around ranting loudly, passionately, and endlessly, under the mistaken impression that other people are listening, and that if they were listening, they would automatically agree with you, and if they didn't they weren't worth listening to anyway. As has been a grand tradition in letter columns and correspondence societies and back rooms of pubs and salons and literature departments the world over.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	cpip 2005-04-14 03:01 pm UTC (link)
	I admit I'd never heard of Skyhawke before all this happened. Heh. I'm all Kewl and Outsider Chic, baby. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	ataniell93 2005-04-14 05:16 pm UTC (link)
	Hahah, I knew you skipped posts in my journal ;-) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cpip 2005-04-14 05:26 pm UTC (link)
	Hey, your post earlier this week was the first I'd ever heard the name Skyhawke. So I must've missed it before. ;) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	phosfate 2005-04-14 03:21 pm UTC (link)
	So... izzer a reason* nobody's wanked the Skyehawke TOS mess yet?* I suppose if I had any idea who or what it was, I'd've given it a go... (Reply to this)(Thread)

	ashenmote 2005-04-14 07:55 pm UTC (link)
	Skyehawke: sentient defense computer, waged war against humanity to protect self. TOS: accordingly, the Terminator...uh...Office System! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	phosfate 2005-04-14 08:02 pm UTC (link)
	Are you sure you don't mean the WHopPeR? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	lexin 2005-04-14 04:05 pm UTC (link)
	Skyhawke TOS wank [Zzzzzzzzzzzz....] Wha? Eh? [Zzzzzzzzzzzz] Etc. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	melannen 2005-04-14 08:18 pm UTC (link)
	yeah, you are a wiser woman than I. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	the_clansmen 2005-04-14 08:55 pm UTC (link)
	I've noticed it, but I apparently haven't found the really wanky bits of it yet. Though I myself have waited for it to pop up here. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	melannen 2005-04-14 09:26 pm UTC (link)
	I guess it's just gotten bad enough for everyone to expect it to get wanked, but not bad enough for anyone to actually do it yet ... (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

wankprophet
2005-04-15 12:21 am UTC (link)

I'm not seeing anything special. TOS change. People taking the subject too seriously and creating a complicated process for adding/removing fics that might be illegal. Mods collating all comments and releasing a unified statement instead of dozens of different replies to dozens of different people. And I don't see any major rage going on unless you count that one who whines that her opinion is being marginalized.

It looks like it could cause some wank in the future if someone decides to pitch a bitch about a story being rejected, but right now it just looks like people who worry too much.

I have no idea what a "skyehawke" is, other than something that uses not one, but two pretentiously extraneous "e"s in their name. Cause, I assume, that makes them speshul somehow ::eyeroll::

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	lindentree 2005-04-15 01:10 am UTC (link)
	I had no idea who/what Skyehawke was until I realised that I once posted a fic there. Ha! I am so smrt. (Reply to this)

	adora_spintriae 2005-04-15 01:16 pm UTC (link)
	This sums up my feelings on the subject the best. I mean, it's not like there's a hundred other chan-friendly places online where you can archive or anything. (Reply to this)