StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Funny stuff on TFN. There's another big thread where David Pinkus (a.k.a. dp4m) is leaving as a mod, and everyone is again talking about deleting negative posts, crying about authors not posting, etc. YodaKenobi's "Revelation" review was pointed out as an example of negativity that needs to be weeded out of TFN from now on.

LINK

Isn't this just how trekkies act? Their franchise is so holy that you can't have any negative thoughts, let alone write them down, about it without being cast out as a heretic?

Have we really come to that?

P.S. Dig the new AV Poe. You always look so mean and pissed off.... I love it!

Are you banned there, Wayne?

LMAO...whatever.

Hell, it's funny to see this particular yaboo leave, and citing the shit he once just blantantly threw under the rug. Also I love how he takes another stab at people who dare to use physics.

It's like watching pissant raider in WoW leave because they aren't getting their dicks sucked off by ten year old losers.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Are you banned there, Wayne?

No, I'm still there. But I'm under "special watch" if I'mtoo negative to Traviss. I think the mod Ender-Sai told me that.

What a melodramatic and slanted post (how the hell can anyone find something to be "over the line" in YodaKenobi's review? ). Anyway, I'm glad to see him go. I had a PM conversation with him in 2006 about his inconsistent moderation (that it obviously was alright to bash authors who don't complain about it) and canon issues.

And being "too negative"? Is writing an honest review about a book which a reader found to be piss-poor being "too negative"?

Quite extraordinary. Let us see what it is, specifically, that he is saying:

dp4m wrote:Which culminated in YodaKenobi's post in the review thread about Revelation. While the post itself was about 95% okay and probably about 5% over the line the problem was that it went on about 68 paragraphs too long. While the critical process takes the path it takes, what good can come of it in this case? Yes, Revelations had a lot of problems -- and people generally expressed those issues in various capacities in 2-3 paragraphs in most cases rather than trying to escalate the entire situation with a 10000-word hatchet-job manifesto in review format. Which only led to anger and ire on the part of the DEFENDERS as a part of the escalation path stated above, which then (again) got us into a death spiral.

Wait... am I understanding this person correctly? In-depth analysis citing examples is bad, as opposed to generalised comments? And criticism is bad, because it irritates the semi-trolls who cannot produce a coherent argument and instead let loose with ad hominem/broken record flamefests whenever they sense some semblance of sanity and critical thinking approaching?

And the writer is a senior moderator?

Yet more confirmation that I should be glad I am not a member of their board, I suppose...

Looking over what he said, I found some points I can agree with but what he then does with those points is somewhat illogical.

First, he starts with:

LFL Systematically Caring Less About The Brand

So folks are clear, the canon rules haven't changed. The only difference is that LFL no longer cares about the canon and continuity.

ITA here, although he probably means something different from what I understand to be the problem.

This manifests itself in two methods:

1) LFL has a silly bit of canon which it KNOWS is silly (see: clonetrooper numbers) or it has a mistake and doesn't acknowledge it. Instead what happens is the individual authors are the ones who have to fall on their swords without one iota of backing from the higher-ups and it does no one any good.

What he is saying here is the partial truth only because KT has always defended that number and I am very sure noone at LFL forced her to.

2) LFL is taking a laissez-faire approach with the editorial content review of their authors and allowing them to change canon, minorly or majorly, if they think it will "improve the story."

If he is talking about KT here, I would tend to agree with him. However, considering the portion quoted above, he probably means people like Saxton etc.

The rest of his post is just defending Karen Traviss and whining about how the fandom is mean to the authors. Nothing worthwhile there.

BTW, who is this "Havac" guy? He comes off as being a giant douchebag who would rather sooner than later ban everyone not saying nice things about an author.

Example:

Havac wrote:

Charlemagne19 wrote:Seriously, the point isn't that it was an overwhelmingly negative post. The point is that the author took the time to substantiate his arguments, did not trash the author, and went into detail about why he didn't like it.

No, that is the point. Simply explaining why you don't like something doesn't automatically make it good for the forums.

And earlier this particular gem:

The post wasn't in the words it used individually out of line, at least not for the most part. But it created a massively negative, bandwagon-hating environment that wasn't conducive to rational, enjoyable discourse and only led to inflamed feelings on both sides and harsh arguments that nearly got the thread locked.

That guy has probably never ventured into the academic world and/or experienced honest critique.

Lord Poe wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Are you banned there, Wayne?

No, I'm still there. But I'm under "special watch" if I'mtoo negative to Traviss. I think the mod Ender-Sai told me that.

I love how they think a moderating policy is fair and sensible if you can be censored for having an undesired opinion on a single subject. Here we give you the boot if you're a racist, homophobe, or other bigot, we explain why and how you're bigotted and its straight-forward. We don't want bigots. If you cannot debate well we point out how and why at length, then we VI you. This is all transparent, the rules are all posted, the reasoning explained lucidly. There they are almost so pathetic they themselves cannot bring themselves to openly censor people or lump everyone into bigotting so they quietly hush you up off the board.

Darth Hoth wrote:Quite extraordinary. Let us see what it is, specifically, that he is saying:

dp4m wrote:Which culminated in YodaKenobi's post in the review thread about Revelation. While the post itself was about 95% okay and probably about 5% over the line the problem was that it went on about 68 paragraphs too long. While the critical process takes the path it takes, what good can come of it in this case? Yes, Revelations had a lot of problems -- and people generally expressed those issues in various capacities in 2-3 paragraphs in most cases rather than trying to escalate the entire situation with a 10000-word hatchet-job manifesto in review format. Which only led to anger and ire on the part of the DEFENDERS as a part of the escalation path stated above, which then (again) got us into a death spiral.

Wait... am I understanding this person correctly? In-depth analysis citing examples is bad, as opposed to generalised comments? And criticism is bad, because it irritates the semi-trolls who cannot produce a coherent argument and instead let loose with ad hominem/broken record flamefests whenever they sense some semblance of sanity and critical thinking approaching?

And the writer is a senior moderator?

Yet more confirmation that I should be glad I am not a member of their board, I suppose...

Its an obvious pro-Traviss screed; I don't know - maybe the FUCKING MODERATORS shouldn't cry into their milk about mean people, that is, if its against the fucking rules (which should be posted and clear and transparent) warn or ban the fuckers. But they cannot do that because the unreasonable response is by the quasi-troll Travissites. YodaKenobi was lucid and detailed in his response, if emphatic. Maybe the assholes who cannot keep their shit together when people state opinions emphatically they do not agree with should be the ones out on their ass.

Oh, but I forgot, this is just another hamfisted attempt at muzzling any criticism.

Mange wrote:What a melodramatic and slanted post (how the hell can anyone find something to be "over the line" in YodaKenobi's review? ). Anyway, I'm glad to see him go. I had a PM conversation with him in 2006 about his inconsistent moderation (that it obviously was alright to bash authors who don't complain about it) and canon issues.

And being "too negative"? Is writing an honest review about a book which a reader found to be piss-poor being "too negative"?

He banned me, I think. And repeatedly edited my posts - in mid discussion. He's always been a limpwristed, Mindless Middle, whiny bitch.

I been repeatedly banned and unbanned over "hostile statements". That and "vulgar" language, even though said complainer and senior mods uses the exact same WTF .

The board mods have been shutting down topic discussion for months.... other than mindless gushing(and of course dislike sentiment which isn't "tolerated" when its KT or VIP related), the only surviving topics are the Fleet Junkies and trivia topics.

Even mindless speculation has been fettered down recently...

And Havac has the balls to argue that this requires better "moderators"? lol.

Well it's encouraging that people on TFN went to the defence of this "negativity", and for the right reasons - a lot of the reasons raised in defence of same are unsurprisingly the same reasons I raised in protest way back when, when there was the poll on Clone numbers and they were overwhelmingly against the idiotic 3 million (anyone else notice how there's 3 million Mandos in Legacy? What a coincidence!) - and it was eliminated on the basis of author bashing, and it was pretty much explicitly stated that TFN existed to stroke the egos of the authors who graced the dirty hoi polli fandom with their presence.

I imagine TFN has become too heavily "politicali" to be worth much actual intellectual or logical discourse, be it literary criticism or anything technically oriented. They seem to subscribe to the idea that the "miss manners" mentality is of equal merit to actual substane (like alot of forums really.) and that being "critical" somehow translates to personal attacks and "excess negativity." Which is silly, because authors should expect criticism and learn to cope with it - I don't see why SW is so different.

At best i can figure they want to "keep" the authors there so they can feel "cool and important" to know someone famous, or something like that. Keeping the Authors happy and content seems to be more important to them than anything else, so naturally they'll react this way.

What really gets me is that he somehow tries to suggest that all the "excess negativity and criticism" is a big reason why "all" the authors left. He seems to lump Allston, Denning, and alot of other authors in. I also like the way he seems to suggest hidden "agendas" (Traviss gets yelled at but Stover doesn't! - Storver HAS been criticized for the Shatterpoint numbers before, yes, but he's also commented on the fact it IS absurd, and also phrased it in ways that it could be interpreted to be higher.) I dont pay attnetion to TFN, but I dont really remember Allston or Denning being overly criticized. Note also how he fails to mention other authors being "criticizaed" (Curtis most notably, but also people like Barbara Hambly, or Kathy Tyers, or KJA...)

Alot of his argument is heavily "politicla" and passive-aggressive BS designed to make the "nice guys" at TFN feel guilty for tolerating this supposed "negative atmosphere" and harshness. They're supposed to feel guilty because a mod was "foreced" to step down. Frankly, I despise emotional blackmail of that sort.

I just read this: "There's a difference in having a negative opinion, and expressing it negatively."

Connor MacLeod wrote:I imagine TFN has become too heavily "politicali" to be worth much actual intellectual or logical discourse, be it literary criticism or anything technically oriented. They seem to subscribe to the idea that the "miss manners" mentality is of equal merit to actual substane (like alot of forums really.) and that being "critical" somehow translates to personal attacks and "excess negativity." Which is silly, because authors should expect criticism and learn to cope with it - I don't see why SW is so different.

A quick glance at the various thread topics reveal that its either all trivia topics or fan gushing sentiments.

Lord Poe wrote:I just read this: "There's a difference in having a negative opinion, and expressing it negatively."

So you have to say that it sucked in like it was a good thing?

"Damn that book sucked, but boy was that some good sucking".

Lord Poe wrote:I just read this: "There's a difference in having a negative opinion, and expressing it negatively."

That can actually make some sense in some cases, if one considers the difference between constructive criticism and the "zOMG LOLz UR tEH Wrst!!!11!" type of bashing/trolling. In the latter case, the "negative opinion" is expressed incoherently and without contributing anything, and might therefore be said to have been "expressed negatively".

Not that that is anything that need to be spelled out if used in that sense, of course, or anything like how I imagine that the Newspeak-toting propaganda ministers over there use the terms...

Darth Hoth wrote:That can actually make some sense in some cases, if one considers the difference between constructive criticism and the "zOMG LOLz UR tEH Wrst!!!11!" type of bashing/trolling. In the latter case, the "negative opinion" is expressed incoherently and without contributing anything, and might therefore be said to have been "expressed negatively".

Not that that is anything that need to be spelled out if used in that sense, of course, or anything like how I imagine that the Newspeak-toting propaganda ministers over there use the terms...

See, in their forum, the YodaKenobi review was negative and negatively expressed. So you can see the benchmark...

Oh, what a sycophantic atmosphere it is at that place. Obviously, writing an honest review about a novel one didn't like is partly "over the line", but when it comes to bullying the reviewer, there doesn't seem to be a line. Obviously, one is not even allowed to say that one doesn't like the writing style of an author as that amounts to a "personal attack".

Lord Poe wrote:

Darth Hoth wrote:That can actually make some sense in some cases, if one considers the difference between constructive criticism and the "zOMG LOLz UR tEH Wrst!!!11!" type of bashing/trolling. In the latter case, the "negative opinion" is expressed incoherently and without contributing anything, and might therefore be said to have been "expressed negatively".

Not that that is anything that need to be spelled out if used in that sense, of course, or anything like how I imagine that the Newspeak-toting propaganda ministers over there use the terms...

See, in their forum, the YodaKenobi review was negative and negatively expressed. So you can see the benchmark...

Ah, that sounds like about what I would expect... Should one laugh or cry?

Ghost Rider wrote:LMAO...whatever.

Hell, it's funny to see this particular yaboo leave, and citing the shit he once just blantantly threw under the rug. Also I love how he takes another stab at people who dare to use physics.

It's like watching pissant raider in WoW leave because they aren't getting their dicks sucked off by ten year old losers.

Notice he was right there denouncing anything Saxton-related as fanon and so on. Calling Saxton misleading or dishonest was never negative (and he is HOSTED on TFN and he's an author now!) but Traviss? We all see the standard, the more an author dicks around and fluffs the ego of the fanboy online losers, the more sacrosanct they become.

Even if i didn't read the thread, i could see how we all felt about TFN by one fact. The most often used smilie in this thread is , used a total of six times. They've always made me grate my teeth, what with their pathetic pandering to Traviss, so i try to avoid the site as much as I can.

Thanas wrote:If he is talking about KT here, I would tend to agree with him. However, considering the portion quoted above, he probably means people like Saxton etc.

Probably not, since he quoted 'improving the story,' which was revealed over at TFN awhile back to be something Traviss said to justify her contradictions with the rest of the canon. Saxton has, as far as I know, never justified his actions as being for the sake of "better story" (or at all, for that matter).

TC Pilot wrote:

Thanas wrote:If he is talking about KT here, I would tend to agree with him. However, considering the portion quoted above, he probably means people like Saxton etc.

Probably not, since he quoted 'improving the story,' which was revealed over at TFN awhile back to be something Traviss said to justify her contradictions with the rest of the canon. Saxton has, as far as I know, never justified his actions as being for the sake of "better story" (or at all, for that matter).

Whoa. Wait a minute. Are you saying that idiot is actually blaming Traviss for wrecking the canon? I find that hard to believe.

Maybe someday these weenies will put down the latest EU abomination and read a real book and -GASP!- read genuine literary criticism*. Anyone who has read The New York Review of Books, Times Literary Supplement, The London Review of Books -hell, the Utne Reader will see authors and critics arguing over books in a MUCH more strident manner than these thin-skinned little crybabies could imagine.

*Unlike movie and music criticism, literary criticism is usually written by other successful authors and not parasites as in movies and music. You never see for example, Francis Coppola writing movie reviews, nor would you see Eric Clapton critiquing other guitarists. That's left to people who know nothing about movies or music. One comedian said he never understood why so many music critics had such a hard-on for Elvis Costello. That is, until he noticed that so many of them looked like Elvis Costello.