FW Mod Debate|
[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
FW Moderator Debate's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
[ << Previous 20 ]
|Sunday, March 6th, 2011|
|Friday, February 5th, 2010|
UFB: The Phantom Community
I was originally going to email the mods, but I figured here was better, since if there's something I missed, others can chime in.
I've noticed the user info for fandom_wank
don't have unfunnybusiness
listed in there among the affiliated communities. Could it be added in and/or pointed out, so the new people will know where the unfunny wank goes? (Or at least have no good excuse for not knowing).
|Sunday, November 8th, 2009|
Multiple Wank Communities
Please feel free to mock if this has been brought up before, but I didn't see any posts about it, so...
As a lurker, I've noticed some mild annoyance about the various split-off communities, like hp_cornfield, gaia_wank, etc, because it's all well and good to have a different comms for fandoms that are so prolific that every other wank is about them, but eventually they start to taper off and we're left with communities that are basically dead and wankless.
So I guess my thought is, would it be possible to have one big community for annoying fandoms? It could be like the naughty list, where bad fandoms go until they can behave themselves. When they calm down, they could come back to f_w proper like everyone else.
|Monday, October 26th, 2009|
Questions about IP addresses
So, there is this wank
which is hilarious and awesome, but has been outed on its parent page by an anonymous troll. I know that F_W's mods ban trolls, and if we know of people on F_W trolling the wank, the mods ban them (so sexy!).
My question is, is there any way for our mods to be in contact with the mods of other communities to punish these trolls who throw cold water on our fun? Is it up to us members and participants in the mocking (on the FW side!) to ask the SF_Drama mods nicely for IP addresses and then give them to our lovely mods? Did I just miss where we've discussed this before?
[edited because I can't html today. D:]
|Tuesday, October 6th, 2009|
Now that Google Books is digitizing 19th century periodicals (hooray!), the time seemed ripe for me to finally ask about this:
If the people in question were probably minors at the time the wank happened, but it was so long ago that they are not only of age but also all dead, can I still post the wank?
Con side: They were underage at the time of the wank; it's a bit tasteless to mock minors regardless of technicalities; and even if they are now over 17, they still can't come here to defend themselves, being dead.
Pro side: 16-years-old meant something quite different two hundred years ago than it does now, in terms of maturity; they are technically all older than 17 now; they're all dead, so it's not like I'm going to ruin their week; and some of the wanks really need to be seen.
Ruling please, before I go digging through 18-page forum flamewars in small print to get links for stuff I might not be allowed to post?
|Monday, September 28th, 2009|
Okay, fellow wankas, I can't decide if it's pointless to post from the pages of Oh No They Didn't
For the record, I was thinking about posting the apparent ONTD civil war
Eli Roth started over thattaways.
I'm thinking it wouldn't exactly be F_W material because wank at ONTD is always expected? That, and I suppose it's only somewhat connected to a fandom (Inglourious Basterds
OTF_wank? F_W? None of the above?
[ETA]: Okay, after much deliberation, have posted to F_W! Should be up if the mods approve.
|Monday, June 8th, 2009|
Question regarding locked content in wank reports:
I know that posting something that was originally locked is a big no-no, and I know that it's okay to cap or c/p text if it starts off public and then gets locked after it's wanked. But as I was working on a wank report, a public community entry I was planning to link to was locked. Can I still cap the now-locked entry and/or copypasta the text, even if it's locked by the time I post it to f_w? (It's freely joinable community, fwiw.) Just want to make sure I'm reading the rules correctly.
|Thursday, May 28th, 2009|
Are we allowed to link to sites on the internet where people have posted their own full names? Um, I assume so, because there's nothing against it in the rules, and I did it during Russet Doom without rebuke, but I've got a couple Myspace pages that have been implicated in wank, and they display last names, and I'd rather err on the side of caution.
|Tuesday, April 28th, 2009|
Question about locked/unlocked material
I've found a gem of a wank spanning two comms. One of the comms, being an uploads-based community, is locked. The other is public. Should I just reference the former and not link or C&P to anything in it, as it is locked? Or would C&Ping be okay, as it is a public issue, and is referenced on the other comm? Thank you!
|Wednesday, March 18th, 2009|
Her weapon? A cat. So my question is if this news tidbit about Project Runway contestant Kenley Collins throwing a cat at her fiance's head (amongst other things) and going to jail for it is wanky enough to post as a wank report on any of the communities. It also showed up on ONTD and The New York Post, but none of the comments are wanky, hence my pondering.
EDIT: Nevermind! I got too distracted by the cat-as-weapon to not properly see the unfunniness. :(
|Monday, February 2nd, 2009|
Question about locked forum wank
A pseuicide is exposed on two different forums, both with moderated membership and not publicly viewable. Several members make public blog posts about the pseuicide and about what's being discussed on the forums. Would using those blog posts for a wank report be a violation of the no locked material rule?
|Wednesday, May 14th, 2008|
I know the NSFW icons are not allowed for comment on wank comms. But I'm not sure about just word remark on a pic is allowed or not?
Can you please tell me this icon
is allowed to post on the comm or not?
|Thursday, May 1st, 2008|
Oh Great Mods,
I posted a wank about animation the other day in OTF
that didn’t get the mocking replies I was expecting. Instead of laughing at the people, they began to debate the subject that started the whole thing.
I’m here to request that I be allowed to post about the results from OFT thread without giving any links or clues as to where it came from, proving to the n00b that 2D isn’t dead and the demographic he insists think it is so, don’t. Maybe a quote or two, but definitely no names.
I await your opinion.
I was never in the fight. I posted early in both threads before they descended into such. The subject matter is interesting to me and I’ve been a member there for a bit. Basically I was intending to ignore the troll and write about the audience who are the main consumers of animation.
On my post on OFT (where there was hardly any discussion of the wank) it seems that most people prefer 2D except when, and only when, 3D might be better. Seeing the opinions being reiterated again and again, I just thought I’d ask.
I know the rules and you have spoken, I won’t reply. Thank you.
|Sunday, March 2nd, 2008|
|Wednesday, February 6th, 2008|
I was just talking to someone on some community or another about crazy people who write letters to the paper, and it made me think of this ridiculous controversy at the center of the letters page in Dayton's paper lately. The Dayton Islamic Society recently applied for permission to build a mosque in one of the snotty New Rich suburbs south of town. A little while before the zoning board turned down their application, it came out that a Baptist mega-church nearby had been stumping for support in blocking the mosque. You know the reputation Cincinnati has (or had on the 1980s and 1990s) for being a bunch of small-town crazy conservatives in a medium-sized city? Dayton wishes
it was Cincinnati and tries to outdo it by being even crazier. The sort of people who make Dayton special yowling at each other in the letters column and the paper's anonymous phone-in comment column have been amusing enough, but now the wife of the mega-church's minister has written a four-column-long letter that more or less amounts to "We did not either
say that! And if we did, well, how do you expect Christians not to bash other religions?"
I've been thinking about maybe posting something on it over at fw_offine
, but I'm not sure the lulz would translate well across mediums. While it fills me with glee and is fun in a dishy oh-no-they-di'nt way, I'm not sure that the humor doesn't depend on knowing the Dayton area. For example, the other major story in the paper about now is that Dayton is trying to figure out how to attract "a creative class" to make up for the fact that no one wants to live here any longer than they have to, but they don't seem to have worked out that making ourselves look like a bunch of xenophobic hicks isn't the way to go about doing that. I'm not sure I've found any quotes that are hilarious except for being about a situation that's so absurd.
So does the novelty of it happening in real life outweigh the srs bizness that is religious intolerance? And then, if I post it to fw_offline
which probably has all of three people watching it, does it really matter?
|Saturday, January 26th, 2008|
FW tags index?
Well, can mods please add the tags index at the community front page? Or just a link in the info page is great as well.
Also should we tag the entry with where the wank start? Fandom secret, FFR, LJ, BRPS or something like that?
It helps me to find things to read since I don't come here often ^_^
|Wednesday, December 19th, 2007|
If you want to discuss solutions to the spam problem, feel free!
|Saturday, October 13th, 2007|
FW tags format standard
Now that JF has tags I've been tagging some of favorite FW posts, but now I've paused because there really should be a standard format for tags. Specifically, I'm wondering how individual fandoms should be tagged. For example, right now Bleach wanks are simply tagged "bleach", but could be tagged "fandom: bleach", or even "anime: bleach". I'm thinking that fandom tags should be prefixed with something, so that it's easy to tell them from non-fandom tags, and that it should be "fandom: bleach", so that wanks about Bleach anime filler episodes, wanks about recently released manga scanlations, and wanks about the musicals can all unambiguously go under one tag.
Current Mood: curious
|Thursday, July 19th, 2007|
LJ admin issues
I've seen a few usernames over in the latest LJ wank that I know from here, but rather than risk bannination myself, I decided to keep quiet (especially since lots of people have already brought up points I would have made). But I think it would be a good idea if the mods here clarified whether or not members of the wank communities will get banned for taking part in the er... discussion... regarding LJ's policies. I know lots of us have LJs and therefore may have a stake in this sort of thing, and I know during Strikethrough no one was banned for it, but I just want to make sure.
Edit to clarify because I am not of the smart today: Will people get banned for commenting that post on lj_biz? And in future
inevitable LJ wanks about policy?
|Thursday, July 12th, 2007|
Hope it's okay to use this as a sounding board for the other wank communities. Feel free to delete it or Internet shout at me or whatever if I've put it in the wrong place (and it'll be taken care of in the morning, because I is going to bed right now).
Anyway, I'm having a bit of trouble deciding about whether or not I ought to post something to otf_wank.
There's a rumor going around the Internets that people on Réunion Island are using dogs as live shark bait. It turns out to be mostly not true (basically it happened once recently, the dude was charged with animal cruelty, and it turns out that there have been cases of fishermen using already deceased animals as bait but there isn't this huge epidemic of it that the rumor mongers want people to believe). The (I'd warn against following this link if you're upset by pictures of hurt animals, because they have a rather graphic photo right there at the top of the page) Snopes
page and the news story about it on National Geographic's site use a picture of a dog with a big hook through its snout, but apparently there's a strong theory that it's either a hoax or a miscredited picture of some poor dog that found bad luck all on its own. But somebody on the Dogs!Dogs!Dogs! group on Flickr gets hold of the story and posts a link to it, starting a huge fight about who the True Dog Lovers are and whether it's acceptable for people outside of the US of A to not hold American values (loud minority's opinion: no, it isn't) once someone else posts a link to the Snopes page on the story.
I find Flickr wank hilarious on its own merit, because come on, they're fighting about what people should think of pictures of someone else's pets on the Internet. And I think that the people who come right out and say "I know that this is probably isn't true, but I'm outraged anyway!" are funny. But when I find myself feeling the urge to warn people to be careful of the picture in one of the links, well...I'm not quite sure that "LOL Flickrers! But OMG, don't look at that picture" doesn't sway the balance more in favor of Your Thoughts on Dogs and Sharks and Reunions and Stuff than actual lulz.
If not that, how about the two-month long fight on the graves and cemeteries community about whether it's touching or tacky to leave things on graves?