jerry_ds_girl
2003-05-18 05:25 pm UTC (link)

Windy, you rock! The same things I was thinking, only described so concisely. F_W, as I see it, is a place to point and laugh at the ridiculous things people do. I think some of them don't understand that anything they put on the internet has a potential six billion or so readers--and if I do something stupid, I'm one of the first ones to own up to it and say, "God, that was idiotic."

Being able to laugh at oneself is the key, I think.

(Reply to this)

sagralisse
2003-05-18 05:42 pm UTC (link)

Loved it!

However I don't agree that she who shall not be named was treated unfairly here. We just don't have the proper facilities for handling her plutonium-enriched wank. When we try, we risk causing a containment vessel failure and a meltdown.

Thousands were exposed to carcinogenic gasses last time... it was very bad.

No matter how tempting she may be, we just need to recognize our own limitations.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	ereshkigal 2003-05-19 01:16 am UTC (link)
	Don't you mean the carcinogenic spam? 'Cause really, that's the only problem I had about it all. Bitching and pointing and laughing and name calling and even personal grudges and so forth, that's all fine. However, nobody likes spam. Nobody. Spam is so evil I doubt even Satan would inflict it on a poor unsuspecting soul. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	misswindy 2003-05-19 04:11 am UTC (link)
	I don't agree that she who shall not be named was treated unfairly here. I do. Hell, I'll admit I haven't always been fair to people on F_W either. It happens. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sagralisse 2003-05-19 04:22 am UTC (link)
	I suppose your entitled to your opinion. Do you, by any chance, have a different screen name? I don't remember you being around during any of the relevant shitstorms. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

misswindy
2003-05-19 04:59 am UTC (link)

I suppose your entitled to your opinion.

Thanks. I think "your" entitled to yours, too. That is, IMHO, the point of this whole F_W endeavour.

Do you, by any chance, have a different screen name?

I've been Miss Windy everywhere in fandom since 1997 and have never gone under any other name anywhere. So, nope.

I don't remember you being around during any of the relevant shitstorms.

Oh, jeez, I certainly didn't participate during the shitstorms with Stormfreak as she's my friend, and the reasons why should be obvious. I also didn't participate in the shitstorm(s) against Thamiris, with whom I'm not close, but is someone I like and respect. But for the record, I've been on F_W way, way longer than you have. Matter of fact, not to get into a pissing contest, Sarah T's post on my LJ where she talks about "I realize you're an idiot because you speak a second language", which has been much-detailed here, was the inaugurating post on the original F_W back on LJ.

If you can't remember, I dunno what to tell you. None of this really means anything, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. It's all good.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sagralisse 2003-05-19 05:02 am UTC (link)
	Ah. Well I was confused about your qualifications to judge your friend's treatment on fandom_wank. Now I'm not. Thanks! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	sorchar 2003-05-19 06:49 am UTC (link)
	I think the combination of SF and FW is just too volatile for most of us. G (Reply to this)(Parent)

pyratejenni
2003-05-18 05:44 pm UTC (link)

I think MissWindy's overreacting.

I'm on BFS, and the majority of posts are vents or rants or about people excusing poor grammar and spelling on English not being their first language, why DeathEaters are suddenly nuthin' but horndogs slavering after Snape's ass and when did Voldemorte become a Sex Ghod, the appeal of interest, why don't authors listen to their betas and questions about why rape is used as a plot device and misogyny in slash. Yeah, there was the post about authorwank that MissWindy went on about, but so far, that's the exception rather than the rule.

Ripping people's fics and not letting the authors defend themselves? That might be an argument against it -- if the authors were more inclined to actually defend their stories rather than throw temper tantrums when they receive any kind of less-than-stellar review.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	pyratejenni 2003-05-18 05:47 pm UTC (link)
	Argh. That should be, "the appeal of incest". I know what the appeal of interest is. checks 401(k) nervously (Reply to this)(Parent)

ingrid
2003-05-18 06:48 pm UTC (link)

That might be an argument against it -- if the authors were more inclined to actually defend their stories rather than throw temper tantrums when they receive any kind of less-than-stellar review.

So? What gives with this need of a tantrum-free safety net for fic reviewers? Real life critics aren't afforded that luxury, and why should the mere specter of an artist's hissy fit deter a true critic from voicing their opinion, whether it is challenged or not, in any form, from dumbass screams to thoughtful disagreement.

Sorry, but I have about as much respect for "safe", unchallenged criticism as I do for feedback requests that specify "Say only nice things, please" -- which is, not a whole lot.

In fact, I don't see much of a difference. YMMV, certainly.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

hopeluthor
2003-05-18 07:34 pm UTC (link)

I'm with Ingrid on this one, one hundred percent. The authors that BFS is punting around put their work up in public, and are thus subject to public response; BFS, on the other hand, wants to publically mock said authors, and yet, be immune to public response. I may be a critic of f_w, but the community members here are big enough to stand by, and stand behind, what they say, which is a big, whonking step up from creating a public, "secret" group that stands in the corner like a bunch of fourth graders, sing-songing, "We're talking about you, but you don't get to hear what we're saying."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	lasayla 2003-05-18 07:37 pm UTC (link)
	Pssst! You misspelled 'sekrit'. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	hopeluthor 2003-05-18 08:03 pm UTC (link)
	D'ohhhhhh! I get thirty lashings from a giant squid for that, I don't I? SEKRIT SEKRIT SEKRIT! (Reply to this)(Parent)

pyratejenni
2003-05-19 03:27 am UTC (link)

So? What gives with this need of a tantrum-free safety net for fic reviewers?

Someone else already gave the community owner's reason in the first post, I think, for BFS's reason. Also, it may not be the temper tantrums themselves, but the seeming trend reported in GAFF threads recently of tantrum-throwers to react with abusive private emails, tracking down people on instant messenger systems and at least on FF.net, filing false abuse complaints against stories by the reviewers.

Having been through something similar (though not about fan fiction)dealing with that kind of crap gets old after a while.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	hopeluthor 2003-05-19 05:05 am UTC (link)
	So basically, you guys want to abuse people, but you don't want to get abused back. Well, at least you're honest. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	pyratejenni 2003-05-19 05:16 am UTC (link)
	confused Since when is telling someone their story sucks abuse? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

hopeluthor
2003-05-19 06:32 am UTC (link)

From the FAQ for the group:

5) Discuss specific authors in friends-locked posts.

Now, the very generous reading of that would be that you're sitting over warm cups of tea, constructively examining specific authors' faults. That line used to read "Discuss specific badauthors in friends-locked posts," and the site had at least one massive flame that used to be publically accessible wherein the author of the post pasted a letter she actually wrote to someone on FFN, calling them stupid, abusive to the English language, etc., etc., which I would characterize as abusive. So it's not a completely unreasonable assumption that that's now going on behind closed doors.

That's another problem with hiding behind friends-lock: people will assume the worst, and you can't prove it's not true.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sajasma 2003-05-19 09:38 pm UTC (link)
	Hi there. BFS member here. Authors get ripped to shreds in those friends-locked posts, which is why their friends-locked. shrugs I won't deny it. It's our method to avoid getting TOS'sed by LiveJournal. goes back to sharpening claws (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sajasma 2003-05-19 09:38 pm UTC (link)
	Er "they're" not "their." Sigh, I need coffee. (Reply to this)(Parent)

misswindy
2003-05-19 04:08 am UTC (link)

Ripping people's fics and not letting the authors defend themselves? That might be an argument against it -- if the authors were more inclined to actually defend their stories rather than throw temper tantrums when they receive any kind of less-than-stellar review.

That's... a broad generalization. Fanfic writers are such a hugely diverse group of people that forbidding ALL of them from responding on the basis that they "might" react negatively is very illogical.

Also, like I said, the irony is that there are people that *I* consider badfic writers on that group. Do you get to rip *each other*'s stories apart? If that's the case, everybody should sign up!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

pyratejenni
2003-05-19 05:04 am UTC (link)

That's... a broad generalization. Fanfic writers are such a hugely diverse group of people that forbidding ALL of them from responding on the basis that they "might" react negatively is very illogical.

You're right, it is a broad generalization. I'm used to reading stuff from the GAFF links and the Mary Sue Report posts, and those are the authors that tend to react the way I said. I think the better writers just go, "Yeah, whatever." Mea culpa.

Also, like I said, the irony is that there are people that *I* consider badfic writers on that group. Do you get to rip *each other*'s stories apart? If that's the case, everybody should sign up!

I dunno -- it hasn't come up! To be honest, I'd be both at an advantage and at a loss: I only have two stories posted anywhere, and one's a WIP, and on the flip side I'm helplessly confused about a chunk of the newer fandoms, especially the anime ones. So I'd probably be asking more questions than making useful comments. Could probably dig up some snarky comments, though, regardless. :P

(Reply to this)(Parent)

kannaophelia
2003-05-19 05:32 am UTC (link)

Also, like I said, the irony is that there are people that *I* consider badfic writers on that group.

Of course there are. Someone who has posted a very nasty rant there herself specialises in piling subclauses on each other until her sentences stretch half a page and any sense or syntax is completely lost, turning minor characters into Mary Sues, and writing highly sexualised eleven year olds who would be overly articulate for adults. And hell knows, I might be considered a badfic writer myself, even though I can't help hoping not. You never really know what the people who don't say anything to you are thinking, or saying behind your back.

Do you get to rip *each other*'s stories apart? If that's the case, everybody should sign up!

I don't know if I have the energy, even if it would be a blow on the side of the angels.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

sajasma
2003-05-19 09:41 pm UTC (link)

Also, like I said, the irony is that there are people that *I* consider badfic writers on that group. Do you get to rip *each other*'s stories apart? If that's the case, everybody should sign up!

You know, that would be kind of fun, in my own havoc-loving opinion. Granted, I don't think everyone who is a member of BFS is a particularly excellent writer. Hell, I'm not very good myself. Sadly though, only BFS members would be able to read them and the posts couldn't get wanked of FW. *sob!* Where is God?!?!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	But.. but... this isn't really a wank! misswindy 2003-05-19 04:10 am UTC (link)
	Just sort of a "Yay! Go us!" A long one. A really long one. Oh, hell. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: But.. but... this isn't really a wank! sagralisse 2003-05-19 04:25 am UTC (link)
	Well, that would be wanking using a broader definition, wouldn't it? Are you doing okay on batteries, hon? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: But.. but... this isn't really a wank! misswindy 2003-05-19 04:41 am UTC (link)
	Well, that would be wanking using a broader definition, wouldn't it? I was kidding. Are you doing okay on batteries, hon? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you trying to be bitchy, or cute? I sincerely can't tell. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: But.. but... this isn't really a wank! pyratejenni 2003-05-19 05:06 am UTC (link)
	OMG! It's turning into a semi-serious discussion!/i> Noooooooooooooooooo! hides under the desk (Reply to this)(Parent)