An Open Letter to Stacnash (feel free to ignore this)

[Jackie.Hikaru]

I loved this series so much. Season 2 can't come soon enough

 

[onehitwanda]

I loved this series so much. Season 2 can't come soon enough

Oh my God, yes.

THESE TWO MADE ME SQUEAL LIKE A LITTLE GIRL.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

And then this one that made me laugh up a lung.

God I can't wait.

 

[TheSpleen]

As someone new to interacting on here but watched this whole drama unfold but isn't one of the actors, this whole thread has me shaking my head. I'm also kinda fascinated because it's an accurate snapshot of human nature.

I feel bad for AwkwardlySet, for more reasons than one. As for Stacnash, their leaving seems to be causing even more toxicity than their being here. If I had a high opinion of SN's intelligence and didn't know how they reactive they are, I'd almost have thought they long-gamed this whole aromatic pile of crapola as revenge for getting kicked out.

Now I'm leaving this thread too.

 

[Cindy027]

I would put it a little differently, and this may just be a minor quibble over wording. People shouldn't be "stopped" from saying certain things. But if they say certain things, they lose the privilege of participating in a privately owned forum, the owners of which have the right to maintain certain minimal standards of decency.

It was a bit of an off putting remark, Chloe seems to have gotten over it, the person who said it should be able to say it no matter how unappetizing it may be. If you don't want nasty responses to your work and you want these responses removed and the offenders removed then that's censorship. This is an online literary forum not a village book club, nasty unpalatable things will always be said.

The other day I remarked, on Lit, that a book was poorly written i.e. the author is a crap writer. This is a published work bought from Amazon. I would ask is it okay for me to say that about a recognized writer and not about anyone on Lit I felt met the same standard?

 

[SimonDoom]

It was a bit of an off putting remark, Chloe seems to have gotten over it, the person who said it should be able to say it no matter how unappetizing it may be. If you don't want nasty responses to your work and you want these responses removed and the offenders removed then that's censorship. This is an online literary forum not a village book club, nasty unpalatable things will always be said.

The other day I remarked, on Lit, that a book was poorly written i.e. the author is a crap writer. This is a published work bought from Amazon. I would ask is it okay for me to say that about a recognized writer and not about anyone on Lit I felt met the same standard?

I think there's a line. I said before in this thread that I didn't think that remark by itself would merit banning SN. But I don't see the value in telling someone "you have no talent." That's a far cry from criticizing an author's work, which is perfectly fine.

I think there's a pretty clear difference between criticizing an author's work (which is fine) and attacking the author personally (which, under the site's rules, is not fine).

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I am glad you showed up AS! I was hoping to discuss this with you, but I didn't want to plague you with more unsolicited bull crap. But you're here now of your own free will, so buckle up!

First off... I don't think Stacnash bombed your stories. Maybe she did, but I don't buy it. I spoke to her on several occasions, and she didn't strike me as particularly petty or vindictive. (She made jokes about the bombings, true, but we'll get to that!)

She told me POINT BLANK after her banning that she wasn't responsible for the bombings. If she was responsible for your suffering, why wouldn't she take credit for it?

Anyway, I created a timeline of sorts, which I think could easily explain all the goings-on without any awful deeds done by any of the main players.

Here's my theory:

1) Stacnash has a group of friends on discord that she discusses erotica with.

2) She starts posting detailed (sometimes harsh) reviews.

3) I mentioned her review comment and correction in the forums.

4) AwkwardlySet chides me for caring about random reviews from non-authors.

5) Stacnash, AwkwardlySet, and NTH argue a bit. Tilan makes an appearance and sides with Stacnash.

6) Stacnash mentions the negative interaction to her discord friends.

7) Stacnash's friends read AwkwardlySet's stories and rate them low (either as an intentional bomb, or because they already have a less-than-stellar opinion of him based on his argument with SN)

8) AS understandably (although technically falsely) accuses SN of bombing stories.

9) NTH accuses SH of being Tilan.

10) SN denies both of these claims, and demands an apology from AS, as she never bombed any stories. She presents the best proof she has, but it doesn't convince anyone.

11) AS, somewhat understandably doubts her innocence, and SN makes snarky jokes at his expense (she may or may not know what her friends have done). [Assuming that she does know what her friends have done, perhaps they tell her that they'll remove their scores if she gets an apology... Idk]

12) Tilan continues stirring the pot at every opportunity.

13) AS begins requesting sweeps, and Stacnash's friends either continue bombing or at the very least, continue replacing their swept scores. (If they see their early low ratings (which represented their honest [albeit negatively-biased] opinions) keep get swept, then they might start openly bombing at that point... causing scores to tank even further)

14) NTH (still convinced that SN is Tilan) reports Stacnash's for being Tilan's alt.

15) Stacnash gets banned, without being an alt, bombing stories, or doing anything worthy of a ban.


There's a billion other ways this could have happened, but this one is my personal theory.

Perhaps I'm totally wrong, and SN is Tilan, and a score bomber, and a clone of Hitler to boot... but I don't buy it.

Why? Because SN took insults in the forums and never seemed too bothered by them. I mean, she clapped back. But score bombing? Spending that much time over such a tiny slight? I just don't see it.


Anyway, AS, I think you're a cool guy, and I hate what happened to you. But if SN was innocent (as I believe) I hate what happened to her too.

You are being more than a little naive about the personality of Stacnash. There are actual posts and screenshots that show her personality clearly enough. Also, the rest of your reasoning about who is behind the bombings makes about zero sense to me, especially in the light of other authors who are being hit by the bombings. I will refrain from entering into a deeper discussion about all of this because, as I've said in the previous post, this thread is wrong all in itself. I am not going to argue with people from our AH community on the account of one or more malicious people who have no presence here. I refuse to.
In the end, I'll just add that I do take posts about all of this somewhat personally. This isn't just some water under the bridge we are all now discussing from some distance. These people (I am still not sure if there is any plural here ) have shown a clear intention to continue their malicious bombing the moment I start posting stories again, assuming I actually decide to do it.

 

[jsmiam]

Topic: banning: only the smallish handful of people who were actively reading the thread in question during the time span between the “ban-worthy” post(s) and the replacement of the text by the moderators replacement text knows exactly what was written.

We know the mod has a mind of their own. We even argue with them from time to time. But to think a person told the mod to ban someone is implying that person has more sway than anyone not named Laurel has.

Again I will repeat I have no betta in this pond, and I didn’t even see the reviews in question (nor will I. They sounded long.)

But I’m willing to say those blaming “the reporter” for single-handedly and personally banning the ban-nee, are off base. It doesn’t happen that way.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

In the end, I'll just add that I do take posts about all of this somewhat personally. This isn't just some water under the bridge we are all now discussing from some distance. These people (I am still not sure if there is any plural here ) have shown a clear intention to continue their malicious bombing the moment I start posting stories again, assuming I actually decide to do it.

IF Stacnash (or her friends) are intentionally uno-bombing you because of personal grievances, then they can fuck right off... I don't want their friendship or their support.

But I'm just not convinced. I'm sorry.

There could be some other author who's currently holding a higher spot in the ratings because of your absence, who's cackling their ass off watching you blame SN.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

God I can't wait

*Sigh* me neither.

 

[djrip]

So a fascist is only a fascist if they self identify as such?

No, but they *really* are when they do.

 

[onehitwanda]

*Sigh* me neither.

Sorry not sorry.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

No, but they *really* are when they do.

Some people were calling themselves fascists before it was cool

(for the record, before this gets twisted, somehow... I do not support Bonito Mussolini or fascism )

 

[Cindy027]

I think there's a pretty clear difference between criticizing an author's work (which is fine) and attacking the author personally (which, under the site's rules, is not fine).

If someone writes, what is in your mind, a load of rubbish then you have a right to say you think they have no talent. This is a persons point of view, which if you don't want it heard then it's called censorship. I can't believe the site rules prevent someone from expressing their POV on author's works here, seems a bit protectionist. If I read that an author is a 'No Talent Hack' then I would assume that the person who said it found no joy in what was written. If you can say the author has bundles of talent then you should be able to say the converse.

I have read stories on here that I feel don't belong here, written by people with literary degrees that I felt were absolutely rubbish yet they were given high ratings by "friends and family". I wish someone in those instances had left an honest reviews so as not to waste my time.

The easiest way to express that a person's work is substandard is to say they have no talent, it's not a slur it is just someones POV.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

Sorry not sorry.

Last one.

 

[onehitwanda]

The easiest way to express that a person's work is substandard is to say they have no talent, it's not a slur it is just someones POV.

No, the easiest way to say someone's work is substandard is to say "your work is substandard."

"You have no talent" is a very, very different statement.

 

[onehitwanda]

Last one.
View attachment 2266484

It took me a long, long time to work out that Caitlyn's outfit is a corset.

God, I love her.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

No, the easiest way to say someone's work is substandard is to say "your work is substandard."

"You have no talent" is a very, very different statement.

I agree! Saying "you have no talent" is mean. Unnecessarily mean.

But to be fair, the author that SN said it to is not some brand new struggling author. It's a woman who has tons of success. Using hyperbole in such a case seems less cruel than doing it to a newbie.

SN was pretty damn hard on @Constories' LW story... But she didn't say anything to them that was overly harsh or personal.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Topic: banning: only the smallish handful of people who were actively reading the thread in question during the time span between the “ban-worthy” post(s) and the replacement of the text by the moderators replacement text knows exactly what was written.

We know the mod has a mind of their own. We even argue with them from time to time. But to think a person told the mod to ban someone is implying that person has more sway than anyone not named Laurel has.

Again I will repeat I have no betta in this pond, and I didn’t even see the reviews in question (nor will I. They sounded long.)

But I’m willing to say those blaming “the reporter” for single-handedly and personally banning the ban-nee, are off base. It doesn’t happen that way.

I'm the person that did the reporting, so I might as well also talk about my methodology. I messaged to the mods saying, essentially, "Tilan is doing Tilan shit again, when are you going to do something about it? And there is at least one and probably two obvious sockpuppet accounts involved, and here's why I believe they're sockpuppets." They responded something like, "please report individual posts that you think break the rules."

So, I went through the previous ten days of posts from Tilan, Stacnash, and Haubitze. I only reported the ones that were clear violations of rules; I didn't include ones where they were being argumentative or "only" doing sockpuppet shit, except for Haubitze, where I pointed out to the mods that his only interactions were to boost Tilan's actions, and he had no previous posting history besides that.

The posts that I reported for Tilan and Stacnash were ones where they went beyond arguing to insult, i.e., straight up namecalling or veiled threats. I forget the specifics of most of them, but one clear example was Tilan calling a regular poster here a product of incest a couple of times; another implied that a person deserved to be harmed IRL. I didn't keep an exact count of the number I reported, but I do know it was well into the dozens.

I also know that, while I reported fewer of Stacnash's posts than Tilan's, those posts represented a higher percentage of SN's total posts. Some of those posts are gone entirely, some have been replaced by the boilerplate "no attacks," but they were clearly seen by the mods as out of line, regardless of the association (or not) with Tilan.

Please note that this was AFTER the Tilan/Stacnash/NTH flame war in "A wish" got deleted, along with some posts by other folks getting replaced with the "no attacks" form letter. The mods had warned Tilan he was on thin ice at https://forum.literotica.com/threads/a-wish.1592902/post-97396221 as well.

I have no direct knowledge, but I have a hunch that the mods are only allowed to do things after they've been reported, and people had just kind of... stopped reporting Tilan. He'd become a fixture, most of the people he really bothered had put him on ignore, and that was that. Regardless of whether Stacnash was a sockpuppet, their presence on the board and Tilan's gleeful commentary and participation in the flame wars that ensued is what caused people, including me, to stop putting up with shit and call out bad behavior where we saw it. That (maybe) gave the mods the ammo to do something they were already inclined to do. But that's all just a guess.

Haubitze was a sockpuppet; I have absolutely no doubt of that. The fact that the mods deleted (from what I can tell) every single one of their posts, even though none of them were particularly derogatory seems to back that up. Another sockpuppet named hetero with a similar has also completely vanished, down to their posting history, as far as I can tell. SN's stuff wasn't entirely deleted, but that could be because they interacted with and were quoted by folks besides Tilan, or it could be that they got caught up in the sweep purely because of their own posting behavior and not because they were a sockpuppet. None of us will ever know for sure besides Tilan and Stacnash.

But I will say, if the things SN had said came out of the mouth of literally any other new poster? None of this furor would have happened. No one would be defending them. Their language was more genteel than some newbies', but that didn't make it any less vicious, nor the behavior any less unwelcome. Reviews, even harsh reviews, are fine. Outright insults? No.

 

[onehitwanda]

But to be fair, the author that SN said it to is not some brand new struggling author. It's a woman who has tons of success

and thus, it was either ignorance or willful pettiness for the sake of causing controversy. Either way, it doesn't paint him/her in a good light and calls his/her judgement into question.

Ultimately I write here for my own amusement. Whether some rando likes my writing or not actually doesn't matter in the end, and when the criticism leveled is of this sort:

When your work is so simple and targets tabloid readers, you can't complain when a broadsheet audience concludes that your writing is completely bereft of sophistication and effort.

my initial response is "Well, feel free to fuck off then, and enjoy your broadsheet works wherever you find them."

There's helpful criticism, and then there's fault-finding.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

I'm the person that did the reporting, so I might as well also talk about my methodology. I messaged to the mods saying, essentially, "Tilan is doing Tilan shit again, when are you going to do something about it? And there is at least one and probably two obvious sockpuppet accounts involved, and here's why I believe they're sockpuppets." They responded something like, "please report individual posts that you think break the rules."

So, I went through the previous ten days of posts from Tilan, Stacnash, and Haubitze. I only reported the ones that were clear violations of rules; I didn't include ones where they were being argumentative or "only" doing sockpuppet shit, except for Haubitze, where I pointed out to the mods that his only interactions were to boost Tilan's actions, and he had no previous posting history besides that.

The posts that I reported for Tilan and Stacnash were ones where they went beyond arguing to insult, i.e., straight up namecalling or veiled threats. I forget the specifics of most of them, but one clear example was Tilan calling a regular poster here a product of incest a couple of times; another implied that a person deserved to be harmed IRL. I didn't keep an exact count of the number I reported, but I do know it was well into the dozens.

I also know that, while I reported fewer of Stacnash's posts than Tilan's, those posts represented a higher percentage of SN's total posts. Some of those posts are gone entirely, some have been replaced by the boilerplate "no attacks," but they were clearly seen by the mods as out of line, regardless of the associaion (or not) with Tilan.

Please note that this was AFTER the Tilan/Stacnash/NTH flame war in "A wish" got deleted, along with some posts by other folks getting replaced with the "no attacks" form letter. The mods had warned Tilan he was on thin ice at https://forum.literotica.com/threads/a-wish.1592902/post-97396221 as well.

I have no direct knowledge, but I have a hunch that the mods are only allowed to do things after they've been reported, and people had just kind of... stopped reporting Tilan. He'd become a fixture, most of the people he really bothered had put him on ignore, and that was that. Regardless of whether Stacnash was a sockpuppet, their presence on the board and Tilan's gleeful commentary and participation in the flamewars that ensued is what caused people, including me, to stop putting up with shit and call out bad behavior where we saw it. That (maybe) gave them the ammo the mods to do something they were already inclined to do. But that's all just a guess.

Haubitze was a sockpuppet; I have absolutely no doubt of that. The fact that the mods deleted (from what I can tell) every single one of their posts, even though none of them were particularly derogatory seems to back that up. Another sockpuppet named hetero with a similar has also completely vanished, down to their posting history, as far as I can tell. SN's stuff wasn't entirely deleted, but that could be because they interacted with and were quoted by folks besides Tilan, or it could be that they got caught up in the sweep purely because of their own posting behavior and not because they were a sockpuppet. None of us will ever know for sure besides Tilan and Stacnash.

But I will say, if the things SN had said came out of the mouth of literally any other new poster? None of this furor would have happened. No one would be defending them. Their language was more genteel than some newbies, but that didn't make it any less vicious, nor the behavior any less unwelcome. Reviews, even harsh reviews, are fine. Outright insults? No.

I don't think you did anything wrong.

But in the same vein, I'm not convinced you were correct. And as you said:

...if the things SN had said came out of the mouth of literally any other new poster? None of this furor would have happened.

What's the judicial quote? "Better a 1000 guilty men go free, than one innocent man be in chains.." (or something like that). It'd be a damn shame if she just got caught up in the cross fire.

If I was in SN's shoes, I'd be fucking livid. But she's claiming that she isn't. Either way, I have no proof that she ISN'T Tilan, so I can't get mad either.

But, I still agree with her on some of her reviews, so I wrote this open letter hoping she'd see it. My goal wasn't to piss anyone off.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

and thus, it was either ignorance or willful pettiness for the sake of causing controversy. Either way, it doesn't paint him/her in a good light and calls his/her judgement into question.

Ultimately I write here for my own amusement. Whether some rando likes my writing or not actually doesn't matter in the end, and when the criticism leveled is of this sort:



my initial response is "Well, feel free to fuck off then, and enjoy your broadsheet works wherever you find them."

There's helpful criticism, and then there's fault-finding.

I can't fault you for having that opinion. That's the nature of reviews.

She tells you that she hates your work, and you tell her to fuck off. No harm. No foul.

 

[Euphony]

Uh... Is this from anything in specific?

My brain?

are you going to use it?

Feels like I do so regularly but I am accused here often of having none at all.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I'm the person that did the reporting, so I might as well also talk about my methodology. I messaged to the mods saying, essentially, "Tilan is doing Tilan shit again, when are you going to do something about it? And there is at least one and probably two obvious sockpuppet accounts involved, and here's why I believe they're sockpuppets." They responded something like, "please report individual posts that you think break the rules."

So, I went through the previous ten days of posts from Tilan, Stacnash, and Haubitze. I only reported the ones that were clear violations of rules; I didn't include ones where they were being argumentative or "only" doing sockpuppet shit, except for Haubitze, where I pointed out to the mods that his only interactions were to boost Tilan's actions, and he had no previous posting history besides that.

The posts that I reported for Tilan and Stacnash were ones where they went beyond arguing to insult, i.e., straight up namecalling or veiled threats. I forget the specifics of most of them, but one clear example was Tilan calling a regular poster here a product of incest a couple of times; another implied that a person deserved to be harmed IRL. I didn't keep an exact count of the number I reported, but I do know it was well into the dozens.

I also know that, while I reported fewer of Stacnash's posts than Tilan's, those posts represented a higher percentage of SN's total posts. Some of those posts are gone entirely, some have been replaced by the boilerplate "no attacks," but they were clearly seen by the mods as out of line, regardless of the association (or not) with Tilan.

Please note that this was AFTER the Tilan/Stacnash/NTH flame war in "A wish" got deleted, along with some posts by other folks getting replaced with the "no attacks" form letter. The mods had warned Tilan he was on thin ice at https://forum.literotica.com/threads/a-wish.1592902/post-97396221 as well.

I have no direct knowledge, but I have a hunch that the mods are only allowed to do things after they've been reported, and people had just kind of... stopped reporting Tilan. He'd become a fixture, most of the people he really bothered had put him on ignore, and that was that. Regardless of whether Stacnash was a sockpuppet, their presence on the board and Tilan's gleeful commentary and participation in the flame wars that ensued is what caused people, including me, to stop putting up with shit and call out bad behavior where we saw it. That (maybe) gave the mods the ammo to do something they were already inclined to do. But that's all just a guess.

Haubitze was a sockpuppet; I have absolutely no doubt of that. The fact that the mods deleted (from what I can tell) every single one of their posts, even though none of them were particularly derogatory seems to back that up. Another sockpuppet named hetero with a similar has also completely vanished, down to their posting history, as far as I can tell. SN's stuff wasn't entirely deleted, but that could be because they interacted with and were quoted by folks besides Tilan, or it could be that they got caught up in the sweep purely because of their own posting behavior and not because they were a sockpuppet. None of us will ever know for sure besides Tilan and Stacnash.

But I will say, if the things SN had said came out of the mouth of literally any other new poster? None of this furor would have happened. No one would be defending them. Their language was more genteel than some newbies', but that didn't make it any less vicious, nor the behavior any less unwelcome. Reviews, even harsh reviews, are fine. Outright insults? No.

tl;dr: You were on a mission to get rid of Tilan and you didn't care if you caused collateral damage to do so.

 

[ChloeTzang]

I can't fault you for having that opinion. That's the nature of reviews.

She tells you that she hates your work, and you tell her to fuck off. No harm. No foul.

Pretty much how I see it. I really didn't find anything offensive about Stacnash's comment on my story. A bit personally rude, yes, but our views are subjective and SN obviously isn't out to win friends. LOL. But the way I see it is honestly, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and turn comments off. I left SN's comment up, along with a few others. There's almost always something useful in most comments and there were in that one. I may not agree, but whatever, it wasn't like she called me a gook slut. LOL (I DID delete that one). As for banning SN, if they were one-bombing, fine, no problems with that but it's a hard thing to prove altho Laurel can see more than we can.....

I find this whole thread rather entertaining to be honest.

 

[onehitwanda]

I can't fault you for having that opinion. That's the nature of reviews.

She tells you that she hates your work, and you tell her to fuck off. No harm. No foul.

Ultimately, though, I said nothing - she's welcome to her opinion.

It's no skin off my nose if she's here or not, and if I find her too tiresome there's the forum ignore function.

I don't believe in banning people, everyone has a voice. I just don't need to listen to it if I don't want to.