Jedi Council Forums - Making the Boards Safe for Ms. Traviss's Return: An All-Around Pledge of Good Conduct

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Making the Boards Safe for Ms. Traviss's Return: An All-Around Pledge of Good Conduct
sidious618 Registered: Apr '03	Date Posted: 10/18/05 5:13pm Subject: RE: Making the Boards Safe for Ms. Traviss's Return: An All-Around Pledge of Good Conduct
	I actually thought she handled that quite well. -----signature----- But in purple, I'm stunning!- Londo Mollari, Babylon 5
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Master_of_Ossus Registered: Mar '03	Date Posted: 10/18/05 5:17pm Subject: RE: Making the Boards Safe for Ms. Traviss's Return: An All-Around Pledge of Good Conduct - Date Edited: 10/18/05 5:25pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Master_of_Ossus
	sidious618 posted: I actually thought she handled that quite well. Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I have made my opinion on the matter very clear, and if you would like to argue with the points that I have made you are encouraged to do so. If, however, you would prefer to simply say "I disagree," then that's okay as well but you have to realize that the latter has no chance of changing my opinion. Now, if you would like to claim that people flamed Karen Traviss in the future, I would repeat my request to you that you quote them from when they were flaming her.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
ywingempress Registered: Sep '03	Date Posted: 10/18/05 6:39pm Subject: RE: Making the Boards Safe for Ms. Traviss's Return: An All-Around Pledge of Good Conduct
	Master_of_Ossus posted: Where, though, did she say she wasn't posting here because she was flamed? I haven't seen this statement. That was in an email to Commander5052. I think you're taking her offhand comment to "flame her" way too literally and seriously. Look at the rest of the sentence: Boba told her? Shove Ryan in front of the jet? New verp? Why are you assuming all that is literal truth? And she's hardly "continu[ing] posting on SW.com, telling people to flame her"... where did that come from!? I think you misread my point about public vs. private forums, or more likely I didn't explain it well. But what I meant to say was just because she hasn't been flamed here doesn't mean she hasn't been flamed, period. The fact is both she and Ryan have been rather viciously flamed on other forums, and it's likely they've seen those posts. So they're both only going to post in places they feel are safe. As for her hiding behind a private forum, I don't see that happening at all. She posts on her livejournal, which accepts comments from anyone. She posts on other public forums. She posts at the SW.com forums, where anyone can post. (It's only her SW.com blog where only Hyperspace members can comment.) The point is she's not discussing the article itself. And she's not going to go to forums where she's not comfortable posting. For one reason or another, she's not comfortable here. I'm not going to presume to judge what's safe and what isn't and what should make them comfortable. Perhaps they just saw the heated debates here, the fact that a few of the debaters here were flaming them elsewhere, and didn't feel safe here with those posters around (even though they behaved much more civilly on these boards). I don't know. I see SW.com blogs as different than many blogs hosted elsewhere. There are different standards in different places - for example, livejournal is very laid back in that they don't actively monitor journals unless there's overt hate, death threats, or other illegal activity. I can basically set my own rules regarding flaming on my livejournals. But on my SW.com blog, I have to remember that there's different TOS (that's terms of service) so I have to watch language a bit (I don't swear, but they'll censor lighter rude words so I have to reword those slightly) and make sure I'm not posting fanfic, etc. Any rules I make on any of my journals have to be built on top of the rules where my journals are hosted, which will differ. One can still decide rules over and above the SW.com rules for one's blog, to the point of not allowing anyone to comment at all. I also find it slightly puzzling that you seem to be going back and forth between two statements: 1) Karen's asked for people to flame her, and 2) There were no flames anyway. Are you saying both of those are 100% true? One is true? One or the other is true? I just think it's kind of weird that if you don't think she was flamed at all, why does it matter whether she "asked" to be flamed? Why even bring it up if you're sure that "the emperor has no clothes"? (eep, not a nice visual picture there in terms of SW... lol ) -----signature----- [- Amy -] RepCom Website: http://clonecommandos.net Star Wars Journal: http://order66.livejournal.com "A well-built sniper rifle is a beautiful thing. Ours has two separate levels of zoom: up-close-and-personal and hello-you're-dead." -- Sev
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Master_of_Ossus Registered: Mar '03	Date Posted: 10/19/05 1:15pm Subject: RE: Making the Boards Safe for Ms. Traviss's Return: An All-Around Pledge of Good Conduct - Date Edited: 10/19/05 1:29pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Master_of_Ossus
	ywingempress posted: That was in an email to Commander5052. I see. So, in private correspondence she said that she had been flamed, but no one can point to the flames. It's possible that Karen't tolerance of "flames" is considerably lower than that of the board in general, but in that case getting her to come back would mandate the sort of special treatment that many posters (including myself) are opposed to providing for VIP's. I'm all for making people treat them the same way that we treat other posters, but I agree with the sentiment that authors and others who come here should not expect treatment significantly better than what other posters garner. ywingempress posted: I think you're taking her offhand comment to "flame her" way too literally and seriously. Look at the rest of the sentence: Boba told her? Shove Ryan in front of the jet? New verp? Why are you assuming all that is literal truth? I'm not, but I did assume that we could take a serious statement at face value. Again, if I told you you could come into my house and paint one of my walls, but that it was big and tough to paint, what would you say when I later charged you with vandalism? Her statement basically says, "You can flame me, but I don't care." I think that presents people who are angry with her with more than sufficient justification to do what they did--which was very little, so far as anyone can tell. If the comment that people should go ahead and flame her wasn't to be taken seriously, then what was the point of that sentence? What do you think she hoped to accomplish by posting that, and how do you think that it should be interpreted? I'm actually interested, since I don't immediately see another interpretation. ywingempress posted: And she's hardly "continu[ing] posting on SW.com, telling people to flame her"... where did that come from!? Right here: http://blogs.starwars.com/karentraviss/32/comments Karen Traviss posted: Flaming merely makes me more determined to stay. I want to talk to people who enjoy Star Wars as much as I do. Again, the point is that she ostensibly doesn't care about people flaming her and flaming her only makes her want to stay more. Maybe on TFN we should have flamed her to encourage her to stay? In which case this entire thread is actually counter-productive. Karen Traviss posted: I think you misread my point about public vs. private forums, or more likely I didn't explain it well. But what I meant to say was just because she hasn't been flamed here doesn't mean she hasn't been flamed, period. So what you're saying is that by flaming her... elsewhere... random fans have convinced her to stay away from here. And so in order to get her back... people who HAVEN'T flamed her are being asked to take additional measures to help ensure her "safety?" This whole thing is making less and less sense to me as it goes on. Also, is it really fair to take what she said in private correspondence (which is by its nature not verifiable by third-parties) while ignoring her public statements in which she invites people to flame her and states that flaming her only makes her want to stick around? Karen Traviss posted: The fact is both she and Ryan have been rather viciously flamed on other forums, and it's likely they've seen those posts. To be perfectly crass, any number of SW authors "have been rather viciously flamed on other forums." Some authors have even been flamed HERE (the thread on why Mr. Denning shouldn't write again, comes to mind, as do ones regarding Dr. Curtis Saxton). IMO, Ms. Traviss should not receive special treatment that other authors do not enjoy. ywingempress posted: So they're both only going to post in places they feel are safe. As for her hiding behind a private forum, I don't see that happening at all. She posts on her livejournal, which accepts comments from anyone. Not true, at least anymore. Karen Traviss posted: I've had to disable comments for the time being on my LJ blog because this row has migrated over there. I really don't want to have to do that here as well. ywingempress posted: She posts on other public forums. She posts at the SW.com forums, where anyone can post. The SW.com forums may as well be private for the purposes of constructive criticism because, as I already demonstrated on this thread, there is no room for disagreeing with a VIP over there. You disagree with them? Banned. That in and of itself is fine--it's okay for someone not to take kindly to criticism (even if it's a tad bit immature), but what isn't okay is telling people to criticize you and then banning them when they do, and it's only made worse by the fact that many people PAID MONEY to be able to engage in such a dialogue, only to get banned when they accepted an invitation from a VIP. [quote=ywingempress](It's only her SW.com blog where only Hyperspace members can comment.)[/quote] That's true, and for which several members lost privileges that they had paid to receive after taking her for her word. [quote=ywingempress]The point is she's not discussing the article itself.[/quote] I beg to differ. [quote=Karen Traviss]So there you have it, folks. Whatever figure we opted for would have been wrong in the real world at one end of the equation or the other. Ryan and I settled for middle ground with the numbers we had to work with, and even as someone who's worked in the defence world, I could live with it in context.[/quote] What "figure" do you think she was referring to, if not the ones in the article? [quote=ywingempress]And she's not going to go to forums where she's not comfortable posting. For one reason or another, she's not comfortable here.[/quote] Again, was this from a private correspondence or from a public one? Where did she state that she was uncomfortable posting on TFN? Also, did she say why she was uncomfortable posting here? Her public comments seem to indicate that she doesn't mind flames, at all, and no one even seems to have flamed her. [quote=ywingempress]I'm not going to presume to judge what's safe and what isn't and what should make them comfortable. Perhaps they just saw the heated debates here, the fact that a few of the debaters here were flaming them elsewhere, and didn't feel safe here with those posters around (even though they behaved much more civilly on these boards). I don't know. [/quote] Nor do I. I do know that, according to Ms. Traviss' public statements, flaming her does not discourage her from posting or appearing. I also know that no one here behaved in anything that could be called an uncivil manner, here, towards Ms. Traviss. [quote=ywingempress]I see SW.com blogs as different than many blogs hosted elsewhere. There are different standards in different places - for example, livejournal is very laid back in that they don't actively monitor journals unless there's overt hate, death threats, or other illegal activity. I can basically set my own rules regarding flaming on my livejournals. [/quote] So did Karen Traviss, when she shut down comments on her LJ. And that's fine, but if our goal is to get Ms. Traviss to post again on these boards so that people can actually interact with her then it is useless. If the only way that Ms. Traviss feels comfortable posting is if no one can respond to her publicly at all, then I'm afraid that even TFN would have to say that that is not a price worth paying for her presence because it would take the entire experience away and make her "participation" on TFN merely another blog that no one could respond to. [quote=ywingempress]But on my SW.com blog, I have to remember that there's different TOS (that's terms of service) so I have to watch language a bit (I don't swear, but they'll censor lighter rude words so I have to reword those slightly) and make sure I'm not posting fanfic, etc. Any rules I make on any of my journals have to be built on top of the rules where my journals are hosted, which will differ. One can still decide rules over and above the SW.com rules for one's blog, to the point of not allowing anyone to comment at all. [/quote] That's fair enough, but SW.com's rules are apparently so constricting that no disagreement is possible, no matter how small or politely phrased. I quoted a statement that got a member's rights to post on VIP blogs revoked, and no one can find anything objectionable about it. If that is the standard which they use, then SW.com is useful for asking polite questions to authors but useless for offering constructive criticism. It's okay by me if Ms. Traviss wishes to live in an environment free of all criticism--that doesn't affect me at all (nor, for that matter, would it affect me if she decided to return to these boards). What does affect me are accusations that I and people like me chased Karen Traviss away from these boards. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. In fact, there is no evidence (except for, apparently, Karen's word for it in private correspondence) that she was flamed ANYWHERE on a board she posted on. [quote=ywingempress]I also find it slightly puzzling that you seem to be going back and forth between two statements: 1) Karen's asked for people to flame her, and 2) There were no flames anyway. Are you saying both of those are 100% true? One is true? One or the other is true? [/quote] They are both true so far as I can tell. The latter is certainly true, and there is no evidence that flaming occurred. It's possible that someone who actually flamed Ms. Traviss later had their post deleted from SW.com, but even if that's true then Ms. Traviss seems to have literally asked for it. Perhaps we should all take to flaming her over here in an effort to make her "more determined to stay?" [quote=ywingempress]I just think it's kind of weird that if you don't think she was flamed at all, why does it matter whether she "asked" to be flamed? Why even bring it up if you're sure that "the emperor has no clothes"? (eep, not a nice visual picture there in terms of SW... lol ) [/quote] I'm covering myself just in case someone actually DID flame her. Frankly, though, there is no evidence that this ever happened. No one has yet managed to find any posts, here or elsewhere, that indicate any flames at all. Indeed, things that were not even flames were DELETED and their posters BANNED from SW.com as I demonstrated earlier. That neither inspires confidence in the OS's mods/admins, nor does it indicate that anyone flamed her. Again, it's possible that people flamed her on SW.com, but on the Mythbusters scale of "Debunked, Possible, Plausible," there isn't much there. No one can dig up an example of flames, nor can we take the fact that people had their posts deleted as evidence of flames. In short: I don't know why Ms. Traviss stopped posting, here. If we take her at her (public) word, flames had nothing to do with it. This seems especially likely because no one can even find the flames. I don't want to be blamed for something that I did not do, and I certainly do not feel as if I "forced" Ms. Traviss to leave, or as if I "chased her from" TFN. I'm sorry for the people who enjoyed Karen's participation on these boards, since I realize that your experience here has been diminished by her absence. However, I stand by my statement that so far as anyone can tell, the posters here had nothing to do with it.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Havac Title: Lit Mod of War Registered: Sep '05	Date Posted: 10/19/05 2:38pm Subject: RE: Making the Boards Safe for Ms. Traviss's Return: An All-Around Pledge of Good Conduct - Date Edited: 10/19/05 2:49pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Havac
	Master_Keralys posted: There is none. I don't know how many times I've repeated that lately, but there is none - what little bit there might have been was completely destroyed by the overzealous mods at TOS. It's a sad state of affairs. Moreover, I don't think there was terribly much to begin with - anything that was said in the vein of flaming was said at other places, where she (as far as we know) does NOT go. So that line is worth dropping. But more than that is the realization that Karen was not driven away by flaming. She may have chosen to prolong her staying away because of how heated things have been, and I think all of us who've interacted with her know that she would have no desire to be caught in the middle of these kinds of discussions, much less to have people attempt to use her as a pawn, as some undoubtedly would. If I were her, I'd stay clear till this blew over and everyone caught their breaths... then come back and act like nothing ever happened - if someone brings it up, say, "Yeah, hey, sorry that caused such a mess around here," or something to that effect, and let it go at that. I think there's a general consensus at this point that nothing was done to attack her. And in fact, Havac never said that anything was done wrong - just that he wanted to clean up the way the boards became after she left, so that if she did want to come back, she could do so without it being such a madhouse. With that perspective on things, is this a "treaty" that everyone can put their names to? - Keralys Exactly, Keralys. I checked what discussion I could find -- I saw no flaming initially, just questions, Karen and Ryan acting a bit dismissive, which I think was because they knew something like this could happen and wanted to get off the topic quickly, and then they left and the argument heated up. However, after she left, the board situation has gotten very bad, with a lot of tension between the two parties. I know that I've seen her flamed -- President_Sharky trolled over to the ARC thread and ripped Ms. Traviss personally for her response. A couple others and I responded with the Fandalorian sense of humor, which didn't help and for which I apologize. Things got fairly fiery in there, so I know there is bad blood. I want to get rid of that so that if Karen wants to come back, she'll have a decent environment, and if she doesn't, the boards will still benefit. -----signature----- "Is there a captain's hat involved in this?" "I . . . don't know what department I want. I need . . . pants."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
FTeik Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 10/19/05 3:00pm Subject: RE: Making the Boards Safe for Ms. Traviss's Return: An All-Around Pledge of Good Conduct
	What exactly did President_Sharky say? I mean for four pages i'm wondering - and annoyed by the repeated accusation - WHO has been flamed WHERE and by WHOM and nothing comes up and now this? -----signature----- My first completet story: Pride's Prize: http://boards.theforce.net/message.aspx?topic=22758760 "In the Battle of Coruscant alone, hundreds of millions of battle droids saw action on the ground and in space. " Insider #86 - The story of General Grievous
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Havac Title: Lit Mod of War Registered: Sep '05	Date Posted: 10/19/05 3:43pm Subject: RE: Making the Boards Safe for Ms. Traviss's Return: An All-Around Pledge of Good Conduct
	Meh. I checked. It was all deleted. Basically, it was "Karen Traviss can't handle the criticism, she's such a hack, why doesn't she go home and cry and eat ice cream, glad we got rid of her" sort of thing. I don't remember the specifics, but it was pretty obnoxious, and definitely trolling, as he posted it in a Fandalorian thread that had had nothing to do with the debate before. Point is, both sides are feeling hostile, and they really shouldn't -- I think the 3 million number is way too low too, but I just don't think we need the anger the debate is generating in its current incarnation. -----signature----- "Is there a captain's hat involved in this?" "I . . . don't know what department I want. I need . . . pants."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
ywingempress Registered: Sep '03	Date Posted: 10/19/05 4:03pm Subject: RE: Making the Boards Safe for Ms. Traviss's Return: An All-Around Pledge of Good Conduct
	Master_of_Ossus posted: I'm all for making people treat them the same way that we treat other posters, but I agree with the sentiment that authors and others who come here should not expect treatment significantly better than what other posters garner. That's fair. And if someone thinks that the standard of respect on these boards is too low, they will not hang out here. I probably should have mentioned this before, but so far our discussion has been operating under the assumption that there is an absolute definition for "flaming". After talking to you, I don't think there is. Different people have different ideas, and it's clear that we do. But if someone thinks they were flamed, they're feeling the same way you would be if you thought you were flamed, regardless of what the actual words were. I don't think it's particularly helpful to say to the person "you weren't flamed, stop being a baby" unless you really don't think that person contributes anything useful to the community anyway. Master_of_Ossus posted: Her statement basically says, "You can flame me, but I don't care." I agree that's what she's saying. But that doesn't mean she likes being flamed. She thinks that anger is a waste of time and energy. Also, it doesn't mean that if you follow through with her "instructions", you're off the hook for other consequences. Flaming results in bans at TOS, end of story. If I told you you can come to my house and kill me and you do it, you'll still be arrested for murder. There's a level of common sense here. Master_of_Ossus posted: I think that presents people who are angry with her with more than sufficient justification to do what they did--which was very little, so far as anyone can tell. Why are people so angry? That still baffles me. Is life really so much worse because there are 3 million clones? I understand that people do like the nitty gritty details, but it should not be to the degree of anger. Just pretend there are billions... happier? Master_of_Ossus posted: So what you're saying is that by flaming her... elsewhere... random fans have convinced her to stay away from here. And so in order to get her back... people who HAVEN'T flamed her are being asked to take additional measures to help ensure her "safety?" Nope, not saying that at all. I'm just trying to explain one possible scenario of why she may not be comfortable posting here anymore. I'm not suggesting anyone do anything to get her to come back, because I don't know what, if anything, will get her to come back. I know it won't be soon. Master_of_Ossus posted: To be perfectly crass, any number of SW authors "have been rather viciously flamed on other forums." Some authors have even been flamed HERE (the thread on why Mr. Denning shouldn't write again, comes to mind, as do ones regarding Dr. Curtis Saxton). IMO, Ms. Traviss should not receive special treatment that other authors do not enjoy. I'd agree. And I don't like flaming of anyone, period. I ignore all those negative threads. Just because "other people are doing it" doesn't make it right in my books. Master_of_Ossus posted: ywingempress posted: So they're both only going to post in places they feel are safe. As for her hiding behind a private forum, I don't see that happening at all. She posts on her livejournal, which accepts comments from anyone. Not true, at least anymore. [quote=Karen Traviss]I've had to disable comments for the time being on my LJ blog because this row has migrated over there. I really don't want to have to do that here as well. [/quote] I read her livejournal daily. Comments were off for about two days. They have been on since. She would have banned the people harrassing her, but no one else. Master_of_Ossus posted: The SW.com forums may as well be private for the purposes of constructive criticism because, as I already demonstrated on this thread, there is no room for disagreeing with a VIP over there. You disagree with them? Banned. Personally, I don't see "3 million is way too few" as constructive criticism, but that could just be me. As for the rest, disagreement is one thing, hounding a VIP with comments of "what the heck were you thinking!?" is completely another. Especially when the VIPs answers and explanations are completely ignored. Master_of_Ossus posted: [quote=ywingempress]The point is she's not discussing the article itself. I beg to differ. [quote=Karen Traviss]So there you have it, folks. Whatever figure we opted for would have been wrong in the real world at one end of the equation or the other. Ryan and I settled for middle ground with the numbers we had to work with, and even as someone who's worked in the defence world, I could live with it in context.[/quote] What "figure" do you think she was referring to, if not the ones in the article?[/quote] That was weeks ago. I'm talking now. I'd like to think this almost over, but apparently it's being kept alive on one end at least. [quote=Master_of_Ossus]Where did she state that she was uncomfortable posting on TFN?[/quote] Ok, why do you think she isn't posting here anymore? [quote=Master_of_Ossus]but SW.com's rules are apparently so constricting that no disagreement is possible, no matter how small or politely phrased.[/quote] I don't know about that, I've disagreed plenty with other blog posts and I'm not even close to banned. It's how arguments are presented, not what they are. [quote=Master_of_Ossus]What does affect me are accusations that I and people like me chased Karen Traviss away from these boards.[/quote] I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that it can't hurt to take issues like this less seriously - across the map. I don't think threads with veiled insults and the intensity of the GGAR thread is healthy for the boards, that's all. It makes me uncomfortable, and it's not even my work. -----signature----- [- Amy -] RepCom Website: http://clonecommandos.net Star Wars Journal: http://order66.livejournal.com "A well-built sniper rifle is a beautiful thing. Ours has two separate levels of zoom: up-close-and-personal and hello-you're-dead." -- Sev
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Master_of_Ossus Registered: Mar '03	Date Posted: 10/19/05 5:35pm Subject: RE: Making the Boards Safe for Ms. Traviss's Return: An All-Around Pledge of Good Conduct - Date Edited: 10/19/05 5:58pm (4 edits total) Edited By: Master_of_Ossus
	ywingempress posted: That's fair. And if someone thinks that the standard of respect on these boards is too low, they will not hang out here. That certainly seems to be true of SD.net. ywingempress posted: I probably should have mentioned this before, but so far our discussion has been operating under the assumption that there is an absolute definition for "flaming". After talking to you, I don't think there is. Different people have different ideas, and it's clear that we do. That is true, but most boards also have established standards of what is and is not against the rules. As I said, earlier, if you don't consider Karen's response to Qu Klaani to be rude, then it's difficult to envision a situation in which you think anything said to Karen was rude. ywingempress posted: But if someone thinks they were flamed, they're feeling the same way you would be if you thought you were flamed, regardless of what the actual words were. I don't think it's particularly helpful to say to the person "you weren't flamed, stop being a baby" unless you really don't think that person contributes anything useful to the community anyway. Well, I never saw Karen contributing much to the boards besides page after page of Mando roleplay. [ducks] In seriousness, though, even though the precise boundaries of what is and is not flaming may differ slightly between people, there are hard boundaries that can be set above which pretty much anyone would consider it flaming and below which pretty much no one would. Frankly, if you consider ANY sort of disagreement a flame then that is within your rights, but to apply such a standard to a board that is meant to foster discussion and discourse would be to severely limit the ability of the board to function. If Karen felt that what happened to her was flaming then, quite frankly, I think she must fall into that category. Consider Qu Klaani's original query. By all accounts it was extremely respectful even though he clearly disagreed with the conclusion reached by the article. Can that, by anyone's reasonable standard, be considered a flame? I don't think so. If your boundary on flames is so low that that registers as a flame then I think you will find it difficult to operate on a BBS anywhere. Also, since Karen is no longer here to explain to us what she thought of as flaming, we must go back and re-examine the threads for ourselves. We then must each evaluate what happened and decide whether or not she was flamed. If she thinks that she was flamed during that thread, then NO ONE else has agreed with her, thus far. In such a circumstance, we must accept the fact that her standard of flaming is too low to function reasonably on this board. That would be unfortunate for those who enjoyed her presence, here, but I'm sure they'll agree that in such circumstances it really would be better for Ms. Traviss not to post here, anymore, because she will feel as if she is being flamed consistently even when others mean no offense, and this will lead to a potentially very stressful situation for all involved. ywingempress posted: I agree that's what she's saying. But that doesn't mean she likes being flamed. She thinks that anger is a waste of time and energy. Well, if she doesn't care, then why does any of it affect her? ywingempress posted: Also, it doesn't mean that if you follow through with her "instructions", you're off the hook for other consequences. Flaming results in bans at TOS, end of story. If I told you you can come to my house and kill me and you do it, you'll still be arrested for murder. There's a level of common sense here. Actually, in virtually all areas I would be arrested for the much lesser charge of manslaughter, but in all honesty this ignores the fact that assisted suicide is a hotly contested moral and legal field. More importantly, though, this is a false analogy for reasons which I will discuss below. Returning to my analogy (which I think is a stronger one) vandalism is also illegal, but if you told me to paint a wall to your house then had me charged with vandalism the fact that you invited me to do it would be a significant aspect of my defense. This has been very well established by a plethora of court-cases, including but not limited to ones involving assisted suicides. If a VIP on SW.com (where they are awarded special privileges) tells people to do something, I think they have the right to expect that this supercedes the general Terms of Service (just as a moderator can instruct someone to do something or stop doing something that would ordinarily fall outside of the TOS. This is a VERY well established pattern within the law. Instructions by officials in position to give them always supercede written laws, which is (for example) why road construction personnel can instruct people to temporarily drive on the "wrong" side of the road while they repair a damaged section on the side those drivers would ordinarily be driving on. This is also why people are expected to follow the instructions of police officers, medical officials, and fire fighters during emergencies. In the case of assisted suicide, the legal question that is controversial is WHO has the right to tell you to kill someone else. Do THEY have that right? Maybe--as is the position of proponents of assisted suicide. Clearly, at least legally, the STATE has the right to tell you to kill someone (hence the internal legal justification for soldiers engaged in offensive actions, for example, or in the case of many US states capital punishment). On SW.com, I think a reasonable person could easily make the assumption that instructions from a VIP posting on her blog superceded the ordinary terms of service. It is my assertion that a reasonable person could easily have interpreted Ms. Traviss' statements as an actual invitation to flame her. If you are willing to use such a standard, then I think it rather difficult to claim that someone flaming Ms. Traviss should have been banned for doing so if they were responding to her stating that. I also find it rather telling that NO ONE can come up with a flame from TOS, either, including the moderators and admins who banned the users in question. Frankly, this promotes the perception of impropriety even if not the reality of it. I also think it interesting that you are attempting to defend Ms. Traviss' actions by saying that she was just trying to bait people into flaming her so that they could be banned from services that they paid to receive. Frankly, that seems quite vindictive of her and I'd rather see her as being a well-meaning even if not infallible individual. ywingempress posted: Why are people so angry? That still baffles me. Frankly, who cares? I can say the same thing about the end of sporting events, people returning malfunctioning products, etc. etc. etc. It doesn't matter, in the end, why people are ticked off. The point is that they are. ywingempress posted: Is life really so much worse because there are 3 million clones? I understand that people do like the nitty gritty details, but it should not be to the degree of anger. Just pretend there are billions... happier? What would make me even happier is if the OFFICIAL STATEMENTS from LFL and their licensees made any sort of sense. It was easy enough for me to assume that the Executor was well over twice the length it was said to be by WEG and other supplements, but that didn't stop fanboys from running around claiming that it was only 8 kilometers long. It actually did make my life better when LFL changed the Executor's length to the current figure which lines up with the films. You can say that's petty of me, but it's true. ywingempress posted: Nope, not saying that at all. I'm just trying to explain one possible scenario of why she may not be comfortable posting here anymore. I'm not suggesting anyone do anything to get her to come back, because I don't know what, if anything, will get her to come back. I know it won't be soon. Then what do you see the point of any of this as being? We may as well discuss the weather. ywingempress posted: I'd agree. And I don't like flaming of anyone, period. I ignore all those negative threads. Just because "other people are doing it" doesn't make it right in my books. Nor did I claim that it did, but the precedent on this board has been established and in light of that it's very difficult to single out people here for BANNING (as a number of posters have called for) because of this. [quote=ywingempress]I read her livejournal daily. Comments were off for about two days. They have been on since. She would have banned the people harrassing her, but no one else.[/quote] And yet, that in and of itself isolated her from any criticism. Again, if that is her goal then she has succeeded. Good for her. Frankly, though, letting someone post here if they expect no criticism WHATSOEVER is counterproductive to the board's function of enabling discourse between intelligent, knowledgeable, passionate fans. If she banned people from her LJ for similar "offenses" as the banned users on SW.com committed (namely in at least one case: none), then I don't see how we can reasonably allow Ms. Traviss to continue her relationship with TFN because if that is her attitude then it is anathema to the board's function. [quote=ywingempress]Personally, I don't see "3 million is way too few" as constructive criticism, but that could just be me.[/quote] Everyone who said that viewed it as constructive criticism. They explained their positions clearly in voluminous posts, and why they felt that it was too few. A lot of people who were initially skeptical changed their minds because of those posts. [quote=ywingempress]As for the rest, disagreement is one thing, hounding a VIP with comments of "what the heck were you thinking!?" is completely another. Especially when the VIPs answers and explanations are completely ignored.[/quote] I challenge you to find a single VIP answer and explanation that was "completely ignored." If anything, though, Ms. Traviss' "answers and explanations" made things worse because IMO they showed that the VIP's were not listening to the fans (as many of their responses were picked apart in voluminous detail). [quote=ywingempress]That was weeks ago. I'm talking now. I'd like to think this almost over, but apparently it's being kept alive on one end at least.[/quote] That was Ms. Traviss' last statement on the matter of flaming, unless you have something more recent. It came after she had (allegedly) already been flamed, so it's not as if she was totally ignorant as to its effects (in fact, her statement REQUIRED her to be at least somewhat familiar with being flamed). I like to think that people in general maintain sufficient self-consistency to avoid contradicting themselves and arriving at completely new and different opinions than what they previously held without bothering to inform anybody. [quote=ywingempress]Ok, why do you think she isn't posting here anymore?[/quote] I don't know. Maybe it was taking up too much of her time. Regardless, I don't think that her public statements on the matter should be totally ignored--you yourself railed against the fact that what the VIP's said was being "totally ignored [sic]," so I don't understand why you now say that their statements can be thrown out. [quote=ywingempress]I don't know about that, I've disagreed plenty with other blog posts and I'm not even close to banned. It's how arguments are presented, not what they are.[/quote] Then by all means, point out something in the deleted post that I saved that should have been presented differently. [quote=ywingempress]I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that it can't hurt to take issues like this less seriously - across the map. I don't think threads with veiled insults and the intensity of the GGAR thread is healthy for the boards, that's all. It makes me uncomfortable, and it's not even my work.[/quote] Okay, then, but realize that this thread has to do specifically with working with VIP's. I'd be happy to discuss board policy with regard to regular members with you, but I don't see this as the proper thread to do so in. Edits: sigh Apparently I am consistently much too stupid to properly use the quote functions on this board. [slaps forehead with hand]
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_Guy Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 10/19/05 5:39pm Subject: RE: Making the Boards Safe for Ms. Traviss's Return: An All-Around Pledge of Good Conduct
	-----signature----- Perhaps I'll breed some sort of albino shouting gorilla.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
ywingempress Registered: Sep '03	Date Posted: 10/19/05 6:20pm Subject: RE: Making the Boards Safe for Ms. Traviss's Return: An All-Around Pledge of Good Conduct - Date Edited: 10/19/05 6:29pm (2 edits total) Edited By: ywingempress
	All I was trying to do was share how I see this situation and offer another perspective. As a witness to most of the events in question, I think my views are as valid as anyone's. I just wanted to point out was the atmosphere of the GGAR thread left much to be desired and were I a VIP, a thread like that showing the intensity of emotion behind a few simple numbers would make me uncomfortable. And I would rather hang out with fans from whom I'd get a vibe of having fun, and with whom I could discuss things without making it personal. If even a bit of that has come across to anyone, I've done my duty. If not... I tried. I don't have anything else to say. I could keep arguing, but ultimately it would accomplish nothing. I do think that deep down, we're in agreement more than it seems, but it's really not worth going through every detail to know for sure. Thanks for being patient with me, and take care. EDIT: Speaking of explanations being ignored or discounted... Ryan_Kaufman posted: LFL was very clear to us that no fixed number of total clones would or could be assigned. Therefore, the number 3 million (plus) does not represent the entire fighting force. -----signature----- [- Amy -] RepCom Website: http://clonecommandos.net Star Wars Journal: http://order66.livejournal.com "A well-built sniper rifle is a beautiful thing. Ours has two separate levels of zoom: up-close-and-personal and hello-you're-dead." -- Sev
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Master_of_Ossus Registered: Mar '03	Date Posted: 10/19/05 7:57pm Subject: RE: Making the Boards Safe for Ms. Traviss's Return: An All-Around Pledge of Good Conduct - Date Edited: 10/19/05 8:09pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Master_of_Ossus
	ywingempress posted: EDIT: Speaking of explanations being ignored or discounted... Ryan_Kaufman posted: LFL was very clear to us that no fixed number of total clones would or could be assigned. Therefore, the number 3 million (plus) does not represent the entire fighting force. Alright, that comment was specifically addressed by me and others in the original thread. I do not want to re-hash the entire argument, here, but I do want to point out that that statement was not "ignored" by me nor the thread in general. It was DISCOUNTED when it was realized that the conclusions it led to were the same as the ones that had already been drawn--at the end of the day it didn't change anything for reasons which I discussed quite extensively. If you wish to discuss this further, I'd ask that you do so in the original thread because this one has nothing to do with the original debate.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Quiet_Mandalorian Registered: Apr '05	Date Posted: 10/19/05 8:18pm Subject: RE: Making the Boards Safe for Ms. Traviss's Return: An All-Around Pledge of Good Conduct
	FTeik posted: So is the behavior of members of another board. It is not the point. So don't use it in your discussion of Mrs.Traviss departure. So far as I know, no one from this board has been banned over this. However, certain members here have been observed to have been conducting themselves in a manner similar to the behaviour observed at SD.Net -----signature----- Fey'la was right! Bring Asyr Sei'lar to justice!
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Master_of_Ossus Registered: Mar '03	Date Posted: 10/19/05 8:48pm Subject: RE: Making the Boards Safe for Ms. Traviss's Return: An All-Around Pledge of Good Conduct - Date Edited: 10/19/05 8:49pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Master_of_Ossus
	Quiet_Mandalorian posted: FTeik posted: So is the behavior of members of another board. It is not the point. So don't use it in your discussion of Mrs.Traviss departure. So far as I know, no one from this board has been banned over this. However, certain members here have been observed to have been conducting themselves in a manner similar to the behaviour observed at SD.Net Quote the statements you feel require their posters to be banned. Don't play this game. If you want members banned, disciplined, or told to shape up, then have the decency to let people know who you're gunning for and confront them with the evidence against them. Don't sit back and snipe at everyone and then cry foul when people ask you to back it up: be proactive and state whose behavior was foul and why you feel that way.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
ywingempress Registered: Sep '03	Date Posted: 10/19/05 8:57pm Subject: RE: Making the Boards Safe for Ms. Traviss's Return: An All-Around Pledge of Good Conduct
	Master_of_Ossus posted: If you wish to discuss this further, I'd ask that you do so in the original thread because this one has nothing to do with the original debate. You asked for an example, I gave it. I happen to disagree with the reasons you "discounted" it. And if you didn't want me mentioning it here, you shouldn't have asked. -----signature----- [- Amy -] RepCom Website: http://clonecommandos.net Star Wars Journal: http://order66.livejournal.com "A well-built sniper rifle is a beautiful thing. Ours has two separate levels of zoom: up-close-and-personal and hello-you're-dead." -- Sev
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 - Previous | Next | Reload