(Post a new comment)

	hugsnkisses 2003-03-25 09:39 pm UTC (link)
	bwhee. (Reply to this)

	sagralisse 2003-03-25 09:42 pm UTC (link)
	Number 3 is a VERY BAD IDEA. Extra threads are fine. Busybody mods running around telling people where to post are horribly annoying. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	phosfate 2003-03-25 09:45 pm UTC (link)
	I never like saying this, but I agree with Wossname. Number Three is a bit thick. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	embitca 2003-03-25 09:50 pm UTC (link)
	Do you think it's a bad idea that people should think before posting? I think as a group the mods agreed we're not interested in deleting posts unless they're coming from trolls. If people really want to make a new post, they're free to do so and the number of comments themselves will probably determine whether it was really necessary or not. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

phosfate
2003-03-25 09:58 pm UTC (link)

Do you think it's a bad idea that people should think before posting?

*dies laughing* Do you think it's a good idea to use that sort of "Do you think wife-beating is acceptable, then?" rhetorical strategy?

If people really want to make a new post, they're free to do so and the number of comments themselves will probably determine whether it was really necessary or not.

I do not disagree. But coming on the heels of the last thread ("That's not a new wank!" "It is so!" "Shut up!" "You shut up!"), the implications of #3 can be seen as interfering rather than helpful. And rather redundant after #2.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

embitca
2003-03-25 10:03 pm UTC (link)

*dies laughing* Do you think it's a good idea to use that sort of "Do you think wife-beating is acceptable, then?" rhetorical strategy?

Possibly not, since I was really trying to point out that #3 was a suggestion not a command.

I do not disagree. But coming on the heels of the last thread ("That's not a new wank!" "It is so!" "Shut up!" "You shut up!"), the implications of #3 can be seen as interfering rather than helpful. And rather redundant after #2.

I can see your point, but I think we'll wait and see what the consensus is from a larger number of posters. I expect this thread will fill up quickly over the next few hours.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	dawnjosephine 2003-03-25 09:50 pm UTC (link)
	I agree, number 3 is a bad idea. pokes it with a stick (Reply to this)(Parent)

	coreopsis 2003-03-25 09:43 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you for getting all this down in one place. (Reply to this)

	stubbleglitter 2003-03-25 09:58 pm UTC (link)
	weeps with joy and relief Thank you, thank you. It's too bad we've had to come down to having rules (gasp! on a list as subversive as this? say it ain't so!), but it's become necessary. Let's all have a lovely renaissance of the ol "point-and-laugh" prime directive, shall we? The most terminal crime of all is not being funny. g (Reply to this)(Thread)

	lcsbanana 2003-03-25 10:04 pm UTC (link)
	If we would just institute public flogging...! Oh for the days. (Reply to this)(Parent)

sagralisse
2003-03-25 10:22 pm UTC (link)

It's too bad we've had to come down to having rules (gasp! on a list as subversive as this? say it ain't so!), but it's become necessary.

Yes, when your group gets this big, you have to have rules about the number of threads that members can post. Because if everybody posted what they wanted, it'd be too much. [GASP] People would start leaving! And if people left, it'd go back to being an icky, pathetic small group again. That would be a very bad thing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	stubbleglitter 2003-03-26 12:36 am UTC (link)
	It would indeed be a bad thing. Look how awful it was when f_w just started and there was only a small group of the absolute ickiest! Thank god people joined and stuff and used f_w as a place to pick on everybody who ever told them their icons sucked! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	bohicamouse 2003-03-25 10:16 pm UTC (link)
	Hee, I felt all inspired. (Reply to this)

	Iconseseses cageyklio 2003-03-25 10:31 pm UTC (link)
	Don't forget there is also the icon community Actually, that's icons. (Reply to this)

	mauralabingi 2003-03-25 10:38 pm UTC (link)
	points laughs (Reply to this)(Thread)

	phosfate 2003-03-25 10:45 pm UTC (link)
	nods (Reply to this)(Parent)

funkyhelix
2003-03-25 11:11 pm UTC (link)

Part of what made F_W so funny and cool, was the lack of moderation. We all said what was on the top of our heads. We could say we were individuals, because that's what we were.

Moderation means a set of rules that we as a new cohesive group must follow, with leaders in charge of directing our steps.

I thought we weren't a pack with a hivemind?

Because really, if that's the direction we're heading in... that's not the spirit Fandom Wank started with, and it's not one that I would continue to follow.

Just my two cents.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	dawnjosephine 2003-03-25 11:47 pm UTC (link)
	Total agreement on those points. If this community is going to be moderated for anything other than ToS-breaking trolls, I?ll just show myself to the door and wait for the un-moderated version of f_w to come out. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	raisedbyhyenas 2003-03-26 12:33 am UTC (link)
	Hear, hear. What eez zis...mod-er-ay-shun? Boot the trolls and let the rest of us have fun, for godsake. (Listen! You can almost hear Te & Co. laughing at us RIGHT NOW!) (Reply to this)(Parent)

sorchar
2003-03-25 11:33 pm UTC (link)

Honestly? I don't care for #3. If a post is OT, or just not wanky, it won't get much play, and it'll die.

#2 is iffy, I think, if someone's made icons for the community. What about saying, "If you make icons that might be of interest to the whole community, please post them in

fandom_lounge, but you can link the post here?"

#1 I'm all for. Any mention of her, even this one, feeds her delusion that we're obsessed with her, and she's not really all that wanky, just annoying.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	anatsuno 2003-03-26 12:09 am UTC (link)
	Wordy McDictionary. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	My two cents... ymfaery 2003-03-25 11:58 pm UTC (link)
	...or should that be three since there's three things? Hmm. #1: no problem, although I'm curious about what happens if she generates new wank? (Assuming that's possible, that is--everything started to sound the same after a while.) #2: to be honest, I don't see why the two "extra" fandom communities were formed. But YMMV. #3: ack. (Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: My two cents...

cesare
2003-03-26 12:47 am UTC (link)

I started the "two extra" communities, and said why in the post announcing them. But since you ask, the reasons are:

Chaya thought a community devoted to hate and ranting would be funny, so I made Fandom_Rant, so named because Haters_Unlimited was too long a name.

Sometimes things are funny, but not wanky, so they don't get posted on FW; and some people don't like posting on FW because of the stupid kerfluffling over it. So I made Fandom_Lounge. The name is courtesy of Mirabella.

I have spare codes and no friends to give 'em to, so I figured I might as well use them.

I didn't make them so that people could point at FW posts and say "Wouldn't that fit better on Fandom_Rant?" or "Take it to Fandom_Lounge." They don't exist to be a garbage can for stuff that would get modded off FW. They just exist.

I have no idea what will happen with the Rant group, it was just a funny idea. I sort of expect the Lounge to either get picked up by a totally different group of people than FW, or die off. They're there if anyone wants 'em, that's all.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: My two cents...

ymfaery
2003-03-26 01:05 am UTC (link)

I think I remember the post/comments where the idea for fandom_rant was mentioned. And it does sound funny, actually, because then you can just go off and be all unreasonable and full of hate and whatnot. And too bad about the length limit. ^_-

I think it's the fandom_lounge I was wondering more about. And the way the mod seemed to have decided to direct people there for the icons and such, but that's a different matter entirely. And like I said, YMMV.

(Dang, for a self-proclaimed lurker I've been posting a lot these days.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: My two cents...

cesare
2003-03-26 01:19 am UTC (link)

When someone asked me if the Lounge could be used for icon and banner posts, I said yes-- but I thought they were just asking a random, in-general question about what was permitted on the Lounge.

Now that I'm looking at the question again, I see that they asked if they could "designate" the Lounge for those type of posts, so that's bad on me for not thinking about exactly what they were asking. I did not realize the question was going to lead to making the Lounge the Designated Icon/Banner dumping ground.

I don't think it's a good idea to banish icon &c posts from FW. Let's face it, we on FW create a lot of stuff-- icons, graphics, banners-- it's a whirlwind of frivolous creativity here. And we all get a lot of mileage, camaraderie, and fun out of our icons and pics and random fun creations. So why send that stuff elsewhere?

If people WANT to use the Lounge for that, fine with me, but I don't want anyone to HAVE to take stuff there. That just seems lame.

I don't like things that are lame.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

lulinda
2003-03-26 01:44 am UTC (link)

One person's wank is another person's non-wank.

But to tackle the list backwards....

3. It's much easier (and better for the community, IMO) to just ignore posts that you might not consider wanky than it is to start imposing rules as to what should be posted.

2. I like the icon posts cause funny icons are part of what makes F_W so great. And I think

fandom_lounge was set up to be more than a place for socializing.

1. In regards to the Stormfreak stuff, I'd agree that the less said about her the better, but that should be a choice for individual members. Deleting Sagralisse's post went a bit too far, IMO. I think it sets a bit of a bad precedent. I'd also say that deleting the post about her would feed her ego as well cause she gets to huff and puff and say, "They're so afraid of ME that they'll delete any mention of me...." Or something like that.

Anyways, I've wanked enough. Back to the mocking.

(Reply to this)

	snuh 2003-03-26 01:53 am UTC (link)
	(Am I the only person having problems seeing comment links?) 1. Whatever. She's boring. Don't care. 2. It makes sense to me for f_w icons to be posted IN f_w. 3. No. No no no. Especially the "If you're commenting on a currently active wank, it can probably go in the comments for that thread." part. If you don't like it scroll past it. (Reply to this)

sorchar
2003-03-26 01:56 am UTC (link)

Lulinda has a good point, about SF's probable reaction to the deletion of Sag's post.

Truthfully, that bothered me. I thought that we were only going to delete posts by trolls. If we start deleting posts by actual, contributing group members based on whether we think they're worthwhile, things are going to get ugly, fast.

And man, when we set our minds to being wanky ourselves, we sure as hell do it to the nines, don't we? Maybe it's from observing the wankiness of others that we've learned to do it so well.

(Reply to this)

lulinda
2003-03-26 02:26 am UTC (link)

(I tried to stop the meta.....but the meta beat me.)

Can't reply directly to Sorchar's comment so have to do a bit of C&P.

Truthfully, that bothered me. I thought that we were only going to delete posts by trolls. If we start deleting posts by actual, contributing group members based on whether we think they're worthwhile, things are going to get ugly, fast

Word.

Also, I thought the mods had agreed to talk things over before deleting stuff? I seem to recall that from the group emails.

(Reply to this)

	backfromspace 2003-03-26 04:24 am UTC (link)
	Response to lulinda Funny, I thought that too. The rules don't bother me, but I think you went about this the wrong way. -another mod (Reply to this)