(Post a new comment)

	sagralisse 2003-06-26 03:00 pm UTC (link)
	Damn... the original anon post sounded pretty reasonable to me. What'd you go and jump all over him for? You guys got history or something? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	ingrid 2003-06-26 03:48 pm UTC (link)
	Word. The canon-whores in my fandom are nowhere near as reasonable and soft-spoken. Sorry, Percy. The wank is in the response. Over-the-top much? (Reply to this)(Parent)

oxydosic
2003-06-26 05:47 pm UTC (link)

I agree. While the post may not have been something Percy or some of the others wanted to hear, it was pretty darn polite. It was a dissenting opinion, not a flame. It could have been responded to with constructive debate instead of having a fit.

I also don't find it particularly in good taste to bring your personal issues with someone over here to try to get the gang to point and laugh at them for you. I equate that to the people who go, 'so and so wronged me, you all go spam/threaten/harass them for me!'

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

uniquesnowflake
2003-06-27 12:23 am UTC (link)

I have no personal issues with this person, first of all. He did something stupid. If it would have been in another journal, I would have reacted to it about the same.

Also, I would expect that the fandom_wank folks are mature enough not to go mass-spam/threaten/harass anybody. Even though this clearly wasn't my intention.

It was not a dissenting opinion. It wasn't even an opinion referencing my original post. So why would I want to have a constructive debate focused around what was, when you get down to it, somebody ranting about a completely unrelated topic in my journal?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

uniquesnowflake
2003-06-27 12:12 am UTC (link)

Not a history with this particular person, but I do have a history of people coming into my journal and using it to "vent" about things. Which I do not appreciate. I do enough venting there as it is.

It would have been entirely different if actually WAS reasonable or polite.

He did not even respond with opinions based on my opinions, or even my entire post. That is what made me angry.

Dissenting opinions I can handle easily.

People not even addressing the actual topic at hand when they're telling me why I was oh-so-wrong? I can't stand.

Like I said, if he had actually been on-topic, I would have treated him decently. As it was, this is not the case.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	ichigatsu 2003-06-26 05:37 pm UTC (link)
	???? I always thought trolls were more, I don't know...abrasive. And stupid. Not reasonable and calm and offering what sound like well-thought out responses even though the other person is talking trash to them. (Reply to this)

	penelope 2003-06-26 06:59 pm UTC (link)
	An anon post does not make someone a troll. You are showing more potential for that career. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	uniquesnowflake 2003-06-27 12:09 am UTC (link)
	It was most certainly not the anon post that caused him to be troll-like. It was his antagonistic "venting" all over my journal (while completely not understanding even the basic meaning of my original post) that did. (Reply to this)(Parent)

mrbimble
2003-06-26 08:24 pm UTC (link)

Percy, you said: If you had actually sounded your opinions in a decently intelligent way, I might have respected them; I respect people when they disagree with me on my journal all the time.

Oh, well, if you do, this certainly wasn't one of those times.

Seems to me that you only want to discuss things with your friends. Then, dearie, I suggest you friends-lock your journal. 'Cause, you know, this IS the Internet and all sorts of people float on by.

Your so-called troll posted a reasonable and polite comment in your journal. You, dear one, behaved like a troll - better yet, like a spoiled little kid.

Then you drag the entire thing over here and expect us to flame him into oblivion. Uh, sorry, but fandom_wank isn't neither a hivemind, nor a WMD to be launched whereever you prefer.

He was right, you were wrong. Look in the mirror next time you call someone "wanker", won't you?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

uniquesnowflake
2003-06-27 12:07 am UTC (link)

No, I did not expect you to flame him into oblivion. I thought what he did was rather funny, and I assumed some others might agree. In fact, if everyone would have started a flame war in my journal with somebody I was trying to get RID of, I think I would have been overtly upset by this.

Oh, and I'm sorry if I missed the memo, but when did treating other people like an idiot and telling them you'll "break it down" for them because you felt the need to vent and rant, while being entirely and completely off-topic of the ORIGINAL post, "polite" and/or reasonable?

It didn't seem very polite or reasonable to me.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

feenix
2003-06-27 02:17 am UTC (link)

The point is, though, that the tides of the Internet flow two ways. You can rant about shit, but if you leave it out in the open, people will rant about it to you. It's one of those things that people seem to forget about the internet so often: You have the freedom to be a bitch, but everyone else has the freedom to be a bitch to you. Sorry.

Fortunately, LiveJournal and other companies that run the LJ platform (MindSay and JF are the two I'm familiar with) allow you to restrict who sees what. That's the beauty of turning off anon comments, friends-locking posts, or making them private. You tell only the people that you want to tell. A little effort, but it saves you from looking like you do now.

In conclusion (and God forgive me for the cliche):
You say you a gangsta, but you never pop nuttin'
You say you a wanksta and you need to stop frontin'
-50 Cent, "Wanksta"

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

uniquesnowflake
2003-06-27 06:45 am UTC (link)

Well, like I said, I leave my journal as non-friends-only because I don't want only people who have decided to friend me to read it.

Because I don't like to have LJ friends for fandomy reasons- and how else is anybody supposed to know what kind of a person I am like?

Making my journal "public" doesn't mean making my journal a public venting board for off-topic things, and I think people have entirely missed my point.

Assuming what my rather mild and vague comment about SugarQuill was about and then telling me "if you don't like it, don't use it" (which I already said I was going to do in the original post...beyond the fact that his reprimand to me about SQ was WAY off the mark of why I was annoyed): Pretty wanky.

Goading me into responding in as many different ways as possible with things like "before you beat me down" and "if you want to continue this": Pretty wanky.

Spouting off at the mouth about canon this and canon that and why he thought my views were wrong about this subject...while not even having the vaguest clue what I was talking about: Prtety wanky....And thus,

Spouting off at the mouth about something completely off-topic in my journal (public or no- "But it's public!" is a lame excuse for things like this) because you felt the need to vent and rant: Pretty wanky

The fact that I didn't know the person, had never met or heard of the person in my life, had never invited somebody on over to use my journal as a pedestal to tell me why I sucked for saying the SQ sucked, and who had already insinuated I insulted them with the "if you think I'm cowardly", etc. comments: Even wankier.

His decision to make a journal so that I or people on my friends list could come over and flame him, assuming me or my friends were immature/stupid enough to mass-flame somebody of so little import to us, which was even stated in his only post (which came off as pretty damned egotistical to begin with): Pretty wanky.

I'm not saying I didn't bite his ankles off for doing it in a very over-the-top way and I should have been a bit nicer, but I really don't see why he was somehow "polite" about it, or why I should have debated with him and not told him I wasn't interested. I'm just baffled that nobody could see that he was definitely asking for it (and this is a vague it) with said behavior.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

mydarkstar
2003-06-26 09:56 pm UTC (link)

Houie, are you okay? You seem to have been going off disproportionately quite a bit lately. As the others said, the "troll" comes off as being rational, reasonable, and calm; you respond with incredible rudeness, screaming insults, and accusations. Your response here is classic:

But you appear to be male, so I will have to chock it up to some sort of testosterone poisoning before I start throwing around the big "W" word.

Sorry, dear, but it appears that if anyone has a case of "testosterone poisoning" here, it's you.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	dawnjosephine 2003-06-26 10:33 pm UTC (link)
	To echo the point- Houie, I'm worried about you too. Try to get a break from the stress, if you can. Feel free to drop me a line, if you would like to talk. (Reply to this)(Parent)

uniquesnowflake
2003-06-26 11:57 pm UTC (link)

I fail to see how telling somebody off constitutes as "testosterone poisoning".

He left comments that had nothing to do with my original post whatsoever because he wanted to vent at somebody. Equally, he said quite a few things that were anything but polite and reasonable. I also seem to think that nobody bothered checking his one and only journal entry.

I'm sorry, but if it somehow makes me an asshole for telling somebody off for A: barging into my journal like they own the place, public or not, and B: equally, coming in there as if I am somehow "lesser" than you BECAUSE of my opinions. I had nothing to explain to this person which I did not know about my opinions, and equally, I do not appreciate goading LJ posts in personal journals.

So, no, as opposed to what everyone else seems to think, I don't think I over-reacted or anything. There's a difference between offering a countrary opinion (from someone on my friends list or not- many people who comment on my journal and disagree with me aren't on my friends list, but I don't snap at them) and doing what this person did which was very antagonistic, especially seeing as they ONLY did it to vent at someone. Perhaps I did rise to the antagonism, but I don't appreciate people like that at all.

There's a big difference between being a generally bitchy person and being unnecessarily mean to a person. I can see recieving negative comments about my own behavior if I had, say, spammed his journal or the like; but I merely dismissed him and told him to leave.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

mydarkstar
2003-06-27 12:42 am UTC (link)

No one's saying you're being an asshole, Houie. Well, I didn't, anyway. But it's one thing to tell an anonymous poster that his opinions are unwanted and entirely another to scream at him and then come over here to try to expose him as a "wanker" when he/she's merely said something that you disagree with. As I said, no one's called you an asshole, but I think we all agree that if anyone in this debate is wanking, it's not Anonymous. And besides, I think it's an automatic sign of wank when a wank is rejected and the person who posted it feels the need to respond to every comment arguing that they are TOO right, and you people just don't UNDERSTAND, etc. No, we understand perfectly: This guy cheesed you off for whatever reason - and frankly, I really don't see what he/she said that elicited your rather extreme reaction - and now you're trying to get us to pat you on the back for it. Which is your prerogative, but don't get all snitty at us for not playing along.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

uniquesnowflake
2003-06-27 12:54 am UTC (link)

I'm not getting snitty with anybody, as far as I have seen.

And I wasn't trying to get anybody to "pat me on the back".

Like I said, I just thought it was a bit funny, what they did.

I didn't think I was getting overly defensive. I responded five or six times to people.

Fifty would be over-reacting. Five or six is explaining a position a bit better.

Like I said, I'm not getting snitty. I just don't think some people knew what the source of my annoyance was; which was not because the user was anonymous.

But after this, I won't respond anymore, Twi. Because unlike what you seem to think, I don't feel need every action I make validated. Nor am I really losing any sleep because some people didn't quite get what upset me about it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

alden
2003-06-27 05:49 am UTC (link)

Well, said troll was a bit off topic, but I have to say I agreed with her/him as far as the Sugar Quill goes. (Oh, and here's the SQ announcement if anyone's interested.)

Really, though, I hate it when people assert that having a public journal is *asking* for randoms to spout off in the comments. I mean, I don't have anything against friends-locked journals, but I just don't appreciate being told I should either A) hide behind a security ranking, or B) be told I'm an exhibitionist.

Not that my journal is interesting enough to get trolls, or even randoms. But still.

Er... and now I'm totally off topic. Sorry.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

uniquesnowflake
2003-06-27 06:52 am UTC (link)

The orginal SQ policy changes are pretty wanky themselves.

"Our site is more canon than YOUR site, and we only accept GOOD writers. So due to OoTP and how the mood of the books changed oh-so-much, we aren't accepting any NEW writers until the end of the summer! In other words, you can't possibly know ANYTHING about how to interpret the new canon unless you're an experienced writer and you've had MONTHS to digest one -single- book!"

Honestly.

But SQ has always been that was, hasn't it? It's just worse, now.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

alden
2003-06-27 08:59 am UTC (link)

I'm honestly not all that into HP fanfic, and I don't write it, so I guess I didn't pay much attention to that aspect of the policy changes. The thing I *did* think was wanky about SQ was all the damned shipping, but I know I'm pretty much alone in that opinion.

There was some good wank in the Ask The Professors thread, when NarcissaM asked them to take her fics down and the loads of people, including mods, jumped all over her for it. I would've made it my first F_W posting, but alas, they apologised to Narcissa and deleted the thread. ~sigh~

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

pyratejenni
2003-06-27 06:10 pm UTC (link)

The thing I *did* think was wanky about SQ was all the damned shipping, but I know I'm pretty much alone in that opinion.

Nah, you're not. I think the hysteria over who's paired up with whom is rather silly. If JKR does do the rumored eighth book that tells what happens to everyone after Hogwarts, chances are everyone will wind up with perfect strangers, book-wise. :P

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mrbimble 2003-06-27 07:11 pm UTC (link)
	well, and quite frankly, how many people from high school actually marry and stay married? a boarding school situation might be a little different (I went to public school in the States), but still... in my RL experience, most of the HP cast of characters would end up in relationships with 'outside the book' people. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	alden 2003-06-28 02:22 am UTC (link)
	Oh, how I will celebrate if that happens! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	rann 2003-06-29 01:36 am UTC (link)
	"Our site is more canon than YOUR site, and we only accept GOOD writers." Isn't this the site that only allows the fanon ship of Ron/Hermione? (Reply to this)(Parent)

quinctia
2003-06-27 07:19 pm UTC (link)

You are asking for random comments, or you wouldn't make it public. Why is it public? So people you haven't hand picked can see it. Why are the comments turned on? So people you haven't hand picked can respond. Most people out there are looking for an ego boost whenever they post anything. They want to be petted on the head and told they are right.

I don't mind debates in my journal, that's why I get amused whenever someone is like "OMG I DON'T KNOW THIS PERSON AND THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION WHO THE HELL DO THEY THINK THEY ARE????"

There are many ways for a random lj member to just find your journal. If you make a public post, expect a public response. I don't expect message board posts to go devoid of scrutiny, and I don't expect my website or my journal to do so either. The journal is just easier to respond to than my website, that's all.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

uniquesnowflake
2003-06-27 07:33 pm UTC (link)

Um. Hello. I already said that A: they didn't even respond to my post in an on-topic way, which is what initially annoyed me,

and B: psychologically speaking, your "ego-boosting" assumption is completely incorrect. People don't have public journals for an ego-boosting. If so, then all people would have to have an LJ because they want an ego boost, which would mean that everyone who has comments enabled, period, wants an ego-boost- which is entirely not the point of LJ, seeing as it's very message-board like, and it is a community which you can search for people like yourself because humans are cliqueish by nature.

I want people to respond to my journal as much as the next person, whether they're like me or not, because I like to make new friends. I don't want people who I've never met to stand on a pedestal and tell me what I should think about such-and-such, even though I never mentioned such-and-such in my journal, and they're assuming everything about anything that I said.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

quinctia
2003-06-27 08:46 pm UTC (link)

Wasn't I replying to Alden? *confuzzled*

People offer lines of reasoning and opinions based on their manner of thinking, anyway. It doesn't really matter if you don't think it's related. The reply I saw to your livejournal post didn't really seem highly irrelevent. It's not like the person popped up and said "since you don't like this, then you obviously hated the last season of Survivor, so you suck."

So you are protesting a bit much, especially since I wasn't addressing you. Just lighten up a little. ;)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

mirabellawotr
2003-06-27 10:34 pm UTC (link)

So you are protesting a bit much, especially since I wasn't addressing you.

You were replying to his post, on a topic that he introduced; I think there's a good argument to be made that he has every right to weigh in on your comment. (That argument, by the way, would be your own: You are asking for random comments, or you wouldn't make it public.)

For the record, I think the assertion that people post looking for ego boosts is silly. I read my friends' posts so that I can keep up with their lives, and I made entries in my LJ to allow them to do the same for me. I have public comments enabled because I have friends who aren't on LJ. If I wanted an ego boost, I wouldn't have public comments enabled at all, and would lock my posts so they would only be viewable to people I knew would pat me on the back. I'm not denying that some people do post for exactly that reason, but to say that most people do is inaccurate and unfair to a large number of people you do not know.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: quinctia 2003-06-28 03:16 am UTC (link)
	Why? Most people are stupid. Thought this community proved that. Sorry. Being v.v. insulting to the angst-ridden netspeaking kiddies is so awful. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	alden 2003-06-28 04:46 am UTC (link)
	This community, or this community's featured wanks? ; ) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: quinctia 2003-06-28 06:13 am UTC (link)
	laughs The wanks. ~~I hope~~ (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: mirabellawotr 2003-06-28 06:38 am UTC (link)
	Maybe you need to figure out who exactly you're talking about. Are you trying to insult the "angst-ridden netspeaking kiddies" and just insulting the rest of us en passant, or are you pretty much insulting everyone? Because from where I'm standing it looks like you're doing the latter, and sorry, but when you insult people they're allowed to take exception to it. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re:

quinctia
2003-06-28 08:05 am UTC (link)

In my reply to another, I said that I thought the wank that is regularly posted in this community proved that a lot of people out there are stupid.

I'm not insulting everyone, else I would have said all people are stupid, right? I mean, unless the English language is gaining some new meanings that I never was clued in on. The majority of people apparently also would enjoy seeing a sequel to Tomb Raider and The Fast and the Furious. That doesn't mean everyone wants to see them, hell no.

But if most means everyone, please tell me now so I never make the error again. And maybe someone should contact Webster's?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

alden
2003-06-28 02:19 am UTC (link)

Just to clarify a bit, the comment in question operated on a false assumption about Percy's original post, which is why I'm saying it was off-topic.

The Sugar Quill announcement covered quite a lot of proposed changes at the Sugar Quill. Percy was referring to the decision not to take on any new HP fanfiction until the end of the summer, and the statement that SQ beta-readers were reserving the right not to beta pre-Order of the Phoenix subject matter fics anymore. The troll assumed that Percy was actually referring to the SQ's decision to close The Empty Classroom, which is a shippers' forum. Hence the OT-ness. No, the post wasn't completely irrelevant; it was about SQ, and it did address fanfiction. Still, the Percy=Upset HP Shipper assumption rankles.

Um... also, I know you were replying to my post about public LJs, but... doesn't your protest about Percy responding to that reply contradict your original argument? How can you take issue with *anyone* responding to your very public comment? ; )

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: quinctia 2003-06-28 03:21 am UTC (link)
	Oh he could definitely reply. I was just wondering why he felt I personally was referring to him. Thought I clicked the wrong "comment" link at first, actually. ^^; (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	uniquesnowflake 2003-06-28 10:43 pm UTC (link)
	You're not begging, no, but I think a great deal of the time when people complain about it, they feel like their privacy has been invaded I was? Um. No. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Re:

alden
2003-06-28 02:00 am UTC (link)

Yes, yes, yes. I'm asking to be mugged every time I go out in public, too. Me and my risky public behaviour.

I do actually know that people *can* get into public LJs, and it's a *possibility* that someone might read something I write and decide to leave an upsetting comment. It wouldn't necessarily shock me, but I refuse to be told I'm asking for it because I have a public journal.

Dissenting opinions are fine; I wasn't saying, you know, 'No Dissenters In My LJ.' I just don't see how trolls, or upsetting randoms, can justify their behaviour by asserting that anyone with a public LJ is practically begging to be spammed by idiots.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re:

quinctia
2003-06-28 06:21 am UTC (link)

You're not begging, no, but I think a great deal of the time when people complain about it, they feel like their privacy has been invaded. You have opened yourself up to all sorts of people's $.02, and you just kinda gotta chill and deal with it. Some people aren't going to be articulate to be entirely nonoffensive, might have a tone you don't "get" the first time around, etc, etc. A majority of the time when I see things like this, the person has overreacted. I've done it myself, on a smaller scale. Just depends on the circumstances.

But yes, I think everything's a lot simpler and easier on yourself if you just assume you might get some not-so-positive feedback on ANYTHING you put out in public, i.e., the internet, and then be nice and pleased when you don't. ;)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	uniquesnowflake 2003-06-28 10:42 pm UTC (link)
	You're not begging, no, but I think a great deal of the time when people complain about it, they feel like their privacy has been invaded Um. No. (Reply to this)(Parent)

rann
2003-06-29 01:35 am UTC (link)

I'm of two minds on the subject.
On the one hand, yes, I'm putting my thoughts out in a public place for all to see, and thus, that sometimes invites criticism and so on.
On the other hand, it is MY journal, and not a discussion forum. Sometimes when I'm venting about something, I'm okay with hearing people dissent, especially if it's friends who I know will discuss things calmly. But when someone I've never heard of sweeps in and starts telling me how wrong I am, it can raise my hackles a little bit.
In the end, what I'll usually do is, if I really don't like a comment, I just delete it. If I have to, I ban the poster. Because even though, ultimately, yes it's a public journal and yes, to put your thoughts in public invites critique, I'm running a journal, not a discussion forum. In a discussion forum, it would be really really bad taste to delete a post just because you disagreed with it. Journal, not so much.

(Reply to this)(Parent)