Hate Remarks Towards Lucas Concerns

"The problem is, you are only speaking for yourself. You are speaking from your own experience, your own set of moral values and what constitutes and differentiates "trash" from legitimate criticisms. So far, you haven't said anything that offended me even though you and I may not agree on what is and isn't good about Star Wars these days. But there are several who do not think as you do. Who are don't temper their critcisms with any form of social niceties. Who find myriad things, some entirely ridiculous, to complain about that serve only to rile up people and insult them on a regular basis. They need to read rules that tell them specifically what constitutes a legitimate criticism and what constitues trashing. It is trashing to say GL's work is trash these days. It is not trashing to say you prefer the OT to the PT. You SEE the difference? Sure you do."

What I see is hair-splitting and an ever increasing effort being made in this thread to force a set of guidelines that zeroes in on a particular group of posters with whom some of you just happen to disagree. The TOS and the guidelines laid out therein are abundantly clear about what is and is not acceptable. The kind of narrowing down of the rules that's being called for in here is aimed specifically at those users who are dissatisfied with the PT and seeks only to muzzle those members at the expense of their right to express their opinions about a topic that is important to them. That is unacceptable.

 

What's happened in this thread is that there is a simple question, and it's turned into several different debates, one of which (the basher/prequel fan argument) is not related to policy at all, or particularly related to the question first asked, which remains, Should Lucas and other people not present on the forums be entitled to the same level of respect as people who are here? Do (or should) the Terms of Service apply to all human beings equally, or only to human beings who are members here?

 

No, what is unacceptable is having to read an essay on the dangers of fat people and GL's double chin and his daughter's posterior. That's unacceptable. lol It's unacceptable to be told you must be braindead if you like the PT. It's unacceptable ESPECIALLY in light of the fact, this is a Star Wars fan site. Coulda fooled me! LOL!

 

What I see is hair-splitting and an ever increasing effort being made in this thread to force a set of guidelines that zeroes in on a particular group of posters with whom some of you just happen to disagree. The TOS and the guidelines laid out therein are abundantly clear about what is and is not acceptable. The kind of narrowing down of the rules that's being called for in here is aimed specifically at those users who are dissatisfied with the PT and seeks only to muzzle those members at the expense of their right to express their opinions about a topic that is important to them. That is unacceptable.

It's not just on your side though. It's on both sides. To say it is only side pertty much stops any hope of stoppingthe gushing and bashing. It also ends any hope of getting read of the people bash just for the sack of bashing. It also ends stops the talk about trying to figure out Hate Remarks really are wrong to say here. And what Remarks are ok.

 

"What's happened in this thread is that there is a simple question, and it's turned into several different debates, one of which (the basher/prequel fan argument) is not related to policy at all, or particularly related to the question first asked, which remains, Should Lucas and other people not present on the forums be entitled to the same level of respect as people who are here? Do (or should) the Terms of Service apply to all human beings equally, or only to human beings who are members here?"

As I stated earlier, I feel it was a loaded question to begin with. Since the only ones likely to make so-called "hate" remarks about Lucas are PT detractors, this agressive attempt to stamp out such speech constitutes an attack on the right of a particular group of like-minded members to express themselves.

 

Jedi Galadriel,

Yes, I believe so. I believe he and his family deserve the same respect we get. Unfortunately, we don't all get respect on a regular basis and neither will GL. It's okay to be dissed once in a while, but if it becomes a trend, well can you say public lynching?

 

AgentCoop

It's not just your side. But both sides. In with in both sides you hae some people who bash the hell out GL and others. You also have people bash the hell out of them for saying that. What's trying to be done is this.

1) Should Hate Remarks made to people who are not on this be forum aloud?

2) What can be done to stop those who are gushers and bashers form bashing each others posts and opinions?

3) What should be done about those who do that form both sides?

 

Just technically, on a TOS perspective, should an attack on someone not present be treated like an attack on someone who is? In other words, if poster A PM'd me to say someone wrote "George Lucas is a moron!" should I treat it the same way I would treat it if poster a PM'd me to say someone wrote, "Poster B is a moron!"

 

"Just technically, on a TOS perspective, should an attack on someone not present be treated like an attack on someone who is? In other words, if poster A PM'd me to say someone wrote "George Lucas is a moron!" should I treat it the same way I would treat it if poster a PM'd me to say someone wrote, "Poster B is a moron!""

In my opinion, no. Because, as I said way back at the start of this thread, it's too slippery a slope to say that GL or any other public figure is protected by the TOS. Now I realize that you personally disagree with discussing the artist along with the art, but that is your own perspective. For me, and a lot of others, any meaningful discussion of a work of art must allow for the possibility of examining the artist and his/her motivations. Making that off-limits is anathema to intelligent debate, in my opinion.

 

I think it's a valid idea, JG. The District Attorney for the state of California might disagree with you but this is a fan site. lol I don't know why that's so hard for some people to understand.

 

Just technically, on a TOS perspective, should an attack on someone not present be treated like an attack on someone who is? In other words, if poster A PM'd me to say someone wrote "George Lucas is a moron!" should I treat it the same way I would treat it if poster a PM'd me to say someone wrote, "Poster B is a moron!"

But are we then stating that GL is not categorically different from the rest of us? This site revolves around his (collaborative) efforts to tell a story, its derivative elements, and the successes and shortcomings therein. I think posts about him are germane (albeit I wouldn't go so far as to attempt to justify the posts offering nothing more than a one sentence "GL = idiot/fat"-type statement), but that these must be considered in context and as they occur, rather than attempting to establish an a priori rule.

 

At that point JG I would have to say you and the other mods have to figure that one out.

I was thinking more along the lines of this.

GL is a heck who can't make moives any more. He's also to fat. But yeah moron is not good ether.

But know if some one said. I don't real like how GL made AOTC. As long as the have some reason I don't a problem. If I have no idea why they don't like him then I would ask. If the posters still did not give any answer then you coudl say he was trolling.

Know if the posters does give a reason in a civil way. But gets bashed be a gusher for saying that. Well the gusher was wrong in that respect. But if the gushers Just say wel I don't really agree with I think he did a good job. That I don't have a problem with. The gusher is not bashing. He is saying he does not agree.

 

It isn't making it offlimits. You're overlooking the obvious implications. It means that if people are not allowed to call you a "Sorry, good for nothing, stuck up, scruffy looking, nerf herder" then why should they be allowed to call GL that? How does calling him that advance the cause of intelligent debate? I'm grinning ear-to-ear over here, waiting on this answer.

 

I think it would be pertinent, but no more pertinent than discussing how a fan approaches his work.

 

Oh come on people I just gave a good answer to this. oh never mind.

 

I think it would be pertinent, but no more pertinent than discussing how a fan approaches his work.

This part of the discussion is over. You're making a category mistake.

 

"It isn't making it offlimits. You're overlooking the obvious implications. It means that if people are not allowed to call you a "Sorry, good for nothing, stuck up, scruffy looking, nerf herder" then why should they be allowed to call GL that? How does calling him that advance the cause of intelligent debate? I'm grinning ear-to-ear over here, waiting on this answer."

You're making a non-argument. It was pretty much agreed upon by everyone back on page one of this thread that out-and-out insults directed at GL without any reasonable context are uncalled for. But the suggestion that such a thing be seen in the same way as flaming a fellow poster and made into a bannable offense will eventually lead to narrower and narrower standards of what is deemed to be an acceptable criticism of GL and his work. Once you unlock that door, it tends to keep swinging open.

 

But are we then stating that GL is not categorically different from the rest of us?

Pretty much--I'm talking about the point of being a human being.

An example:

AgentCoop, you disagreed with my argument. Fine. That's a fundamental right.

But if you'd followed it up by saying, "And I bet she said it because she binges on chocolate and it shows!"... well, that wouldn't be all right. That's a personal comment.

I think Lucas, as a human being (and in that he is absolutely not categorically different from anyone else), deserves the same protection.

 

Pretty much--I'm talking about the point of being a human being.

I can respect that, but like Coop just said, I think that everyone has already accepted that. The conversation seems to be using two different sets of terms - no one seems to be arguing for out and out personal attacks, since everyone seems to be in agreement that they violate the TOS. The issue seems to be gravitating towards what constitutes valid criticism, which gets murkier and murkier because it becomes much more subjective.

 

double post

 

I can respect that, but like Coop just said, I think that everyone has already accepted that. The conversation seems to be using two different sets of terms - no one seems to be arguing for out and out personal attacks, since everyone seems to be in agreement that they violate the TOS. The issue seems to be gravitating towards what constitutes valid criticism, which gets murkier and murkier because it becomes much more subjective.

Which is why Quix you JG and the other mods have to figure that one out. You leave it all those that are not mods and WW 3 will start here.

 

Surely discussing the fact he binged on chocolate and coke while writing the Star Wars epic isn't defamatory. But to follow it up with the logic that this explains his overweight, is kinda carrying the ball over the goal line and right out of the stadium. It's a blanket statement, geared to defame someone who isn't even here to defend himself. Heck, he'd probably agree with you but let's give him that opportunity or keep his rotund physique out of the conversation. It surely doesn't have any impact on the quality of his stories! It has no appreciable bearing on the FX or the plot, that is, not that's provable or apparent.

 

Not to mention that whether he's fat or thin, whether it made a difference in what he wrote at the time he was writing it or not, does not in fact change what has been written and is out there for discussion.

Basically, I keep trying to bring it back to the issue of personal attacks, because that's all we can really address in terms of policy. Is he entitled to the same protection as everyone else from personal attacks?

The question of what constitutes a personal attack is a different one entirely, but basically I think the procedural question before the court would be whether the comment in question would be considered a personal attack if it were made on another poster's creation rather than on Lucas's. That sort of thing would often be a judgment call. I think what we should decide is whether or not Lucas warrants having it looked at when people insult him.

 

Ok maybe we could look at it this why. I have two fanfic storys. Know if some one whats to say I like it. But you need a little help with grammer our spelling. I will take that as some one who who like my story and just giving me any some on how to make it better.

Know if they were to say. You are a dumb*** how can't write and you should go to hell. Well I have a problem with that. Because that person I had no right to say that to me. They also did not help me in any why what so ever.

 

Quix,

My suggestion is, if you want to validate or invalidate something someone has said about anyone (including bashers, gushers and even GL), apply the term "Polite" to it. If it was said in a polite manner and was not deliberately defamatory, then it's legitimate criticism. If it's said impolitely and/or is deliberately insulting, then it's trashing.