(Post a new comment)

	warchio 2004-12-22 11:20 pm UTC (link)
	What about reproducing entries from communities that are friends only or that you have to be a member to see? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	loki 2004-12-22 11:24 pm UTC (link)
	Communities have usually been fair game in the past, since all you'd have to do to see it is join the community. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

phosfate, 2004-12-22 11:39 pm UTC

(no subject) -

sorchar, 2004-12-23 01:05 am UTC

(no subject) -

loki, 2004-12-23 02:06 am UTC

(no subject) -

starfish, 2004-12-23 03:26 am UTC

(no subject) -

altoidsaddict, 2004-12-23 03:41 am UTC

(no subject) -

starfish, 2004-12-23 03:57 am UTC

	phosfate 2004-12-22 11:25 pm UTC (link)
	Don't forget that posts locked after they're fwanked are still considered to be in play, though it isn't cool to copy anything from them made post-lockage. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	eljuno 2004-12-22 11:27 pm UTC (link)
	And the only way to prove the locking/unlocking is the fine ol' F_W screencapping tradition, so people, get ready... (Reply to this)(Parent)

	eljuno 2004-12-22 11:29 pm UTC (link)
	Aaand, I seriously thought that icon was snickery!Conor, damn you, lyrics... (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

eljuno, 2004-12-22 11:30 pm UTC

(no subject) -

loki, 2004-12-23 12:16 am UTC

(no subject) -

eljuno, 2004-12-23 12:23 am UTC

(no subject) -

loki, 2004-12-23 02:08 am UTC

	ladysorka 2004-12-22 11:35 pm UTC (link)
	I presume that when you say "originally flocked" that the post is fair game if the OP unlocks their post? Because the wording their might be a tad funny. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	ladysorka 2004-12-22 11:35 pm UTC (link)
	there, even (Reply to this)(Parent)

	sepiamagpie 2004-12-22 11:45 pm UTC (link)
	that's exactly what I'm saying. If it's ever public, have at it. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	darkwitch666 2004-12-22 11:36 pm UTC (link)
	I say if we ever run out of things to point and laugh at, we reconsider the rule. :P (Reply to this)

I think there's a difference...

nerd_4_hire
2004-12-22 11:53 pm UTC (link)

IMHO, there's a difference between directly wanking a locked post, and wanking a public splooge festival that started because someone *else* did something wanky -- like blabbing a locked post. If there's a *public* flamewar or splooge festival happening elsewhere, I think it should be fair game to link to it, regardless of whether the people in the flamewar are engaging in unethical behavior or conduct that violates FW's ToS. In other words, a flamewar taking place elsewhere should not be barred from getting wanked because the behavior of the people in the flamewar on another board doesn't conform to FW's posting standards. That'd be kinda like saying "since FW has a policy against trolling, it's a violation to post links to any wank that involves someone getting trolled." There goes just about every splooge festival on the page.

Holding the FW community itself and the posts therein to certain standards of conduct is fine, but wank is wank, and if the wank is public, it should be fair game for mocking.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: I think there's a difference... ashenmote 2004-12-22 11:58 pm UTC (link)
	Well said. subscribes It was just a little confusing here because it was a journal on JF and a member of F_W (however short) that was linked to. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: I think there's a difference...

eljuno
2004-12-23 12:00 am UTC (link)

That pretty much boils down to my opinion, too.

Direct repost of Flocked material: Verboten.

Link to nothing but direct repost of Flocked material: No way.

Link to wank going on about or near direct repost of Flocked material: Wank on.

It's just those first two that fall into the pit from which there is no return, and I think this PARTICULAR case is in the second category.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: I think there's a difference... -

darkwitch666, 2004-12-23 12:04 am UTC

Re: I think there's a difference... -

wankprophet, 2004-12-23 12:16 am UTC

Re: I think there's a difference... -

backfromspace, 2004-12-24 08:44 am UTC

ladybirdsleeps
2004-12-23 12:24 am UTC (link)

If that was a sample of the proposed wording of the rule, I don't like it. I think it needs to be clear what we're allowed to do regarding linking to reposted locked material, linking to material that was posted before/after something was locked, linking to locked community posts ...

Bulky, but someone can probably boil it down into only a few sentences, and it will prevent posts like the Heidipatrol one.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	ymfaery 2004-12-23 02:18 am UTC (link)
	If a post was originally flocked, has always been flocked snip bracketed phrase..., and so shall it be evermore... don't post it. Pretty please. You don't think that's clear enough? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

mpoetess, 2004-12-23 02:27 am UTC

(no subject) -

ymfaery, 2004-12-23 02:48 am UTC

(no subject) -

mpoetess, 2004-12-23 02:57 am UTC

(no subject) -

sepiamagpie, 2004-12-23 03:01 am UTC

(no subject) -

ladybirdsleeps, 2004-12-23 02:53 am UTC

	iczer6 2004-12-23 01:29 am UTC (link)
	I always thought that the rule was that posting FL stuff = Not Cool, if something gets FL after the wank, or if post is a public one about something that was or is FL = Still Cool. [IMO I'm against FL post because aside from the rudeness and breach of privacy there's also the whole 'people not friend to this journal or comm can't read it' deal]. Icz (Reply to this)

[from a discussion in chat]

funkyhelix
2004-12-23 01:56 am UTC (link)

"Basically a rule of allowing it exposes everyone to having their friends list combed through for wanky locked posts with the possibility that they could be published. It's a matter of consent. Creating an entire journal to post flocked entries that are not yours exposes everyone to risk and strips away the consent and privacy of the person whose trust has been violated. Given the size of fandom_wank, with a precedent of allowing the HeidiPatrol situation to reoccur, there will most likely be a rash of similar journals posted by vindictive people."

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[then expanded]

funkyhelix
2004-12-23 02:03 am UTC (link)

"A rule of allowing reproduced locked posts to be linked on fandom wank exposes everyone to having their friends list combed through for wanky locked posts with the possibility that they could be published on a mock journal and then wanked.

Consent is not given by the original poster for that material to be reproduced and it was published in good-faith that it would remain at the original publication site. Their privacy has been violated and by willingly allowing such posts to be linked on fandom_wank, the community becomes an accomplice to the privacy violation.

Given the size of fandom_wank, with a precedent of allowing the HeidiPatrol situation to recur, there will most likely be a rash of similar locked entries posted to freshly-minted journals and then linked to fandom_wank. To allow one instance of this to occur is giving a permission slip for it to occur again. And again.

Some people come to fandom_wank to see people they hate burn and if they can lend a hand with a few choice locked posts, they certainly will. Remember what your membership consists of before passing a blanket rule that could come back to bite you on the ass."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: [then expanded] -

kannaophelia, 2004-12-23 01:45 pm UTC

esseilte
2004-12-23 02:13 am UTC (link)

I do agree with the 'no posting locked stuff' - after all, someone should be able to be an idiot behind closed doors if they want, it's doing it on the front lawn that deserves to be pointed and laughed at.

When something is locked afterwards, I'd say that's a bit different. I'd be tempted to say 'Tough luck, should have locked it to begin with', but I don't think people should be encouraged to get new stuff from behind the locked entry. That's just a bit tacky, and possibly mean since you'd need to be on the person's friends list to do it.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	ravenclaw_devi 2004-12-23 02:48 am UTC (link)
	Well said. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

darkwitch666, 2004-12-23 01:03 pm UTC

kannaophelia
2004-12-23 01:43 pm UTC (link)

Another expression of support for the rule, here.

after all, someone should be able to be an idiot behind closed doors if they want,

If I couldn't vent to my flist or ask their advice when I get into a mess online, I'd go insane. And yes, my public posts tend to be more restrained. (Only not always because I tend to be on the emotional side.) It is different to public posts.

That's just a bit tacky, and possibly mean since you'd need to be on the person's friends list to do it.

Although possibly not for much longer...

(Reply to this)(Parent)

msmanna
2004-12-23 04:24 pm UTC (link)

So what happens in cases where the wank is *about* someone posting the contents of a locked LJ post or private e-mail, rather than the material being posted on one of the f_w groups?

F'rex, there was the OMGDEATHTHREATS! Aja kerfuffle way back when, which started with people circulating the mock Very Secret Diary which was originally taken from a locked LJ entry, and then finally linked from f_w. Or any number of MsA-insanity related stories which have stemmed from people lifting posts from her Sooper Sekrit membership-vetted Groups.

Would those now be those now be out of bounds because they involve repostings of private posts/mail?

I know this was asked above, but I don't think it was really answered.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

wankprophet
2004-12-23 04:58 pm UTC (link)

My take: simply put, there's primary wank and ancillary wank. If someone else reposts f-locked materials and wank springs up around that, then that wank is fair game. Neither f_w nor any of the related wank communities are being used as the primary distributor of the f-locked materials. The stuff is out there, it generated wank, mock on. OTOH, as just happened, somebody reproduced an f-locked entry in toto for no other apparent purpose that to have it wanked on f_w. This is no better than simply C & P-ing an f-locked entry directly to f_w. F_W is essentially being used directly to violate the person's privacy. Hiding behind a sock really, really doesn't cut it as a loophole, and stinks of grudge-wank. So basically, unless there's other pre-existing wank surrounding the reposting of f-locked materials, it's just a no-no. It's going to be interpretive if someone really tries, but -- for the most part,anyway -- f_w members and mods aren't stupid. We can recognize the smell of manipulative wanker in the morning.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

snacky, 2004-12-23 07:15 pm UTC

(no subject) -

deoridhe, 2004-12-23 07:33 pm UTC

(no subject) -

snacky, 2004-12-23 07:52 pm UTC

(no subject) -

wankprophet, 2004-12-23 08:45 pm UTC

(no subject) -

snacky, 2004-12-23 10:35 pm UTC

(no subject) -

nerd_4_hire, 2004-12-23 11:18 pm UTC

(no subject) -

snacky, 2004-12-24 12:00 am UTC

(no subject) -

backfromspace, 2004-12-24 09:24 am UTC

(no subject) -

ymfaery, 2004-12-23 08:39 pm UTC

(no subject) -

skrike, 2004-12-25 06:49 am UTC

(no subject) -

wankprophet, 2004-12-25 07:24 am UTC

(no subject) -

skrike, 2004-12-25 06:56 pm UTC

backfromspace
2004-12-24 09:05 am UTC (link)

There's a lot of talk about privacy going on here I'm not terribly comfortable with. Privacy is all well and good and it's a perfectly valid reason, but I don't think it's the reason. Not talking about stuff posted behind filters means discouraging gossip, which has a long and fine tradition here.

I always thought the reason was because we're here to laugh at people behaving badly, not at people. If the thing we're laughing at is reproduced and we can't see the original, then there's no assurance that the person actually did anything worth laughing at. Gossip isn't forbidden, but it should be gossip. Quoting only works if it's verifiable; if the post is friendslocked, there's no way to verify it. It's just way too easy to abuse; misquoting, quoting of context, creative editing, spindoctoring. Original posts can editiorialize all they want, but it's the links that matter; friendslocked posts (obviously) aren't publically viewable. Without access, you rely on someone else's interpretation of what's important to know and see, and that's just not acceptable here. We make up our own minds.

(Reply to this)

	backfromspace 2004-12-24 09:52 am UTC (link)
	You know what? Now that I've thought about it more, I don't think this needs to be a rule. All the stuff I mentioned in other comments is about bias and grudge wank, and we already have a rule against that. And an expectation of privacy is something that should absolutely be encouraged but by no means enforced. It isn't our place to make people be trustworthy friends. (Reply to this)(Thread)

funkyhelix
2004-12-24 05:21 pm UTC (link)

I want it in the guidelines just because I can see a dozen more journals popping up to do the same thing. There are some major bnf wars in HP, LotR, the comic fandom, and RPGs. I can easily see F_W getting hit by several heidipatrol hit and runs, if nothing is said.

And the masses are stupid. Because you know some will get the self-policing beat down, and then other will go with a 'she's so wanky she deserves it.'

Frankly, the spirit of F_W was always point and laugh. Not to create the actual wank, which is what happened with the heidipatrol thing. FW was led there with bread crumbs for the sole purpose of beating her up, and deserved or not, it sucks that the mods pretty much let it happen.

Fandom Wank should be filled with tools, not be a tool itself.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(no subject) -

phosfate, 2004-12-27 02:51 am UTC