Hate Remarks Towards Lucas Concerns

Go-Mer (before): I think (discussion involving assumptions regarding how Lucas approaches his work) would be pertinent, but no more pertinent than discussing how the way a fan approaches his work could impact their final assessment of it.

---

[b]Quixotic Sith:[/b] This part of the discussion is over. You're making a category mistake.[hr][/blockquote]No, it is -not- over, and -you- are the one making a category mistake.

 

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.

There you go. But this would mean we as posters have to watch how we word things.

 

Being polite leads to euphamisms. Euphamisms lead to flaming. Flaming leads to banning.

I'm not convinced that simply being polite about a comment makes it palatable to the TOS. It's all too easy to say "I would like to invite you to post such things at a different website, rather than posting them here," which is a polite way of saying "P****** off."

It's a murky issue, and any resolution will have to entail judgment calls about particular posts.

 

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.

I think I can agree with that. However, isn't it already required in the TOS that one not be rude?

 

In Yoda voice: No answer to this will we find.

Yes it is ElfStar which I said in the above woud mean we as posters have to watch how we word things. In forums if you word what you what to say wrong people could take it the wrong way.

 

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.

Undomiel, that would pretty much be my point in a nutshell. Politeness doesn't stifle free speech; it actually helps free speech by allowing a place for the shy and hesitant to speak without needing to fear a verbal attack. That's all. I'm a big fan of Judith Martin (Miss Manners Rescues Civilization) when it comes to how to behave socially.

 

Would a basher have to include a delicately worded apology before they state their criticism, or would a gusher have to apologize in advance to those who would not agree with their praise of whatever aspect?

I don't think Emily Post has the solution to the problem here.

 

No, it is -not- over, and -you- are the one making a category mistake.

Are you saying you intend to continue to derail the thread by attempting to justify efforts to personally attack other posters here?

Are you further saying that thematic criticisms are no different than criticisms of the character of an internet poster?

 

Once again you accuse me of "derailing" a thread to "attack" others.

Suggesting one's appraoch to the film could impact their final assessment of the film IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK.

I don't think that it is questioning anyone's character, nor implying intent.

 

Would a basher have to include a delicately worded apology before they state their criticism, or would a gusher have to apologize in advance to those who would not agree with their praise of whatever aspect?

I don't think ether one should. As long as both said word what they are trying to say right. But then what ever the person reads well...that is a hole different subject.

You could say I just don't think GL did a good job with AOTC etc, etc, you give your reason. Someone reading could take it the wrong way if it is not worte in just the right way. Or if the person reading it reads it wrong.

 

Suggesting one's appraoch to the film could impact their final assessment of the film IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK.

And again, if that is all that you were doing, it wouldn't be a problem. But it isn't, so it is a problem.

The rest of the thread has moved on and appears to be approaching some sort of accord, but you chose to raise the issue of justifying psychological assessments of other posters. That is against the nature of the thread as well as against the flow of the current conversation, so it is derailing the thread.

 

So lets just not read those and keep going.

 

And you continue to equate a discussion of one's attitude or approach to the film with: "psychological assessments of other posters".

Which is patently ridiculous.

 

Daughter of the Force,

Take for example, Quix. He speaks openly about what he believes and feels, yet no sign of "You must be braindead" will you see in his words. Being braindead is not even relevant to this discussion. [I was braindead once. In a coma on full life support. Does that have anything to do with Star Wars? Notta.] It suggests that being a fan of Star Wars requires a certain level of stupidity. That is defamatory. Unprovable. Ridiculous. Just as it is equally ridiculous to suggest that someone who doesn't like the PT must have murdered the child inside. Those are rude, defamatory statements, apparently so.

 

Would a basher have to include a delicately worded apology before they state their criticism, or would a gusher have to apologize in advance to those who would not agree with their praise of whatever aspect?

It depends on context.

For instance, in the basher's sanctuary, a prequel fan (I absolutely hate the word gusher) would have to be on his best behavior. It's like visiting someone else's home--the rules of that house are the rules. If you absolutely can't follow them--say you keep kosher and can't eat the food you're offered--then, yes, it would be prefaced with an apology. "I'm very sorry and I'm sure it's delicious, but I really can't." If an explanation is asked for, give it nicely (in other words, not "only pigs eat pigs!" or something of that ilk). If the person keeps pounding or acts insulted over a nicely worded demurral, then it's the host being rude, but it shouldn't get to that point (though a discussion of the rules of kashrut that wasn't objectionable to either party could be interesting). Personally, I'm not sure how much fun that would be for the prequel fan in question, but, hey.

Same thing for bashers on prequel fan threads, or threads that presuppose affinity with the prequels (eg, "General Jar Jar: brave or just lucky?"). In the former case, it's exactly the same as the above example (right down to me personally not being sure how much fun it would be for the basher in question, but, hey). In the latter, the tone would be to accept that Jar Jar was in fact a character in the movie and then discuss the issue at hand--did the character as presented demonstrate bravery? It's not the place to go in and say, "Jar Jar ruined SW forever!"

From the opposite point of view, if a prequel fan goes into a thread labeled "How could the love story have been better told?" then the person should say, "I really think the way Lucas chose to tell it was effective because..." but not "What's the matter with you idiots that you don't get it?" Or s/he might say, "While I enjoyed what we did see, I think the deleted scenes would have made it more enjoyable" and explain how that would address other concerns raised.

Anyway, that's my thought for the evening.

 

Undomiel:

But since we're not all as eloquent as Quix, what do you do? Where do you draw the line?

 

Daughter_Of_TheForce I said it before I think that's something all the mods would have to go over. Sense it is a thine line there.

 

You don't have to be eloquent to be polite.

 

I'm not sure how this turned into a discussion on politeness, but that is something that is already adequately covered in the TOS.

 

I'm not sure how this turned into a discussion on politeness, but that is something that is already adequately covered in the TOS.

I think politeness is all it's ever been about, in the ultimate analysis.

 

Perhaps it needs to be spelled out with more clarity? Because even some of the older, more eloquent amongst us haven't been especially careful in how they approached others or GL. Oh lordy, if I compiled all the various rude comments made by just about everyone on here, it'd take up at least 200 pages. We have to keep reminding ourselves that although we may disagree in principle on some issues, we are not just a bunch of colored bits on the screen -- they are real people behind these keyboards.

 

JG...
"Not in the least.

That's why canon arguments are so heated..."

I know. However, you must realize as a moderator of the Lit. forum and an EU fan, it is my duty to clarify what is meant to me and those of a like mind when people say "the Saga."

However, I'm not going to get all bent out of shape and tell you you don't belong on a Star Wars fan site because of your views.

On the Subject of Scrutiny of Public Figures
George Lucas and anyone else in the (Star Wars) "public eye" should be allowed to be subjected to the same scutiny which society allows for public figures.

That means that their exploits insofar as they relate to their public duties in the public eye are entirely fair game.

Now, while George Lucas is a private citizen, in terms of Star Wars fandom - an "institution" which revolves around him - the things he does for Star Wars are entirely within our domain.

And so are those he chooses to bring into his domain - his daughter, his kids in terms of naming alien species using baby talk, etc.

George Lucas as creator of Star Wars can be subjected to any and all reasonable scrutiny allowable under the terms of public scrutinty. Society has determined what is acceptable in that respect, and rewrites the terms regularly.

George Lucas as private citizen should be free from such scrutiny.

And everyone can rest assured, I'm sure, that if ever George Lucas is slandered or libeled and sees fit to sue the member of this site for slandering or libeling him, then the Administration would cooperate in any way it can to take care of the perpetrator. That much is laid out in the TOS, and I'm sure it applies to tort crimes as much as it does felonies. However, Josh or Scott or their lawyers should be consulted on that one.

 

"Perhaps it needs to be spelled out with more clarity? Because even some of the older, more eloquent amongst us haven't been especially careful in how they approached others or GL. Oh lordy, if I compiled all the various rude comments made by just about everyone on here, it'd take up at least 200 pages."

Well, that points to one problem that you're not addressing: When you see these objectionable remarks, don't just read them and roll your eyes. PM a Mod. If it really is that bad, action will be taken. That's why the TOS exist. They are not just suggestions, they allow the Mods to take action.

The answer is not to spell out more clearly what is already abundantly clear, the answer is for us to do our jobs as members of this community and report behaviour that violates the TOS.

 

And the moral of this story is - if a lawyer can figure out how to make it seem "okay", then it is okay. No moral or intrinsic social values need be applied. It is suddenly the will of the people because it passed in a court of law in California and other corporate lawyers have used it to protect their companies from irate movie stars. It can be enforced by the law, but does it need to get that far before someone says, "That's just not right." Fame does not immediately equal defamation, does it? Is this a polar society we live in? Is there no gray area of moderation?

 

I liked the old studio system where the bosses made up pretty stories and that's where it ended...

Seriously, I really don't like the trend toward treating public figures badly. It pretty much assures that only nasty people make it into the public eye, because who else would be willing to make the trade-off?

I think that physical comments are always off-base--complaining about Lucas's daughter's performance as a Twi'lek in the bar is one thing. Complaining about her weight is something entirely different.