Has anyone else drawn the ire of story critic Stacnash? 🤣

[Kelliezgirl]

TOS as in Terms of Stacnash?

It would appear so. Nothing like a moralizing self appointed hall monitor...

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Obviously it does going by the amount of moralists in the comment section.

They really go for that Old Testament women are subservient to men stuff.

Fair enough, not so much here in the AH from what I've seen.
Of course, the trolls are realizing they have no power so they are looking for something else to legitimize their silliness.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Maybe we can form a lit version of the breakfast club.

Dear Trolls,
We accept that we have to waste time reading your comments about whatever we supposedly did wrong. But you're crazy if you think you can tell us who we are.
You see us as you want to see us… In the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions. But what we found out is that each one of us is a brain, and an athlete, and a basket case, a princess, and a criminal… Does that answer your question? Sincerely yours, the Breakfast Club.

 

[lovecraft68]

It would appear so. Nothing like a moralizing self appointed hall monitor...

We had a hall monitor here, would keep reporting anyone for anything.

Then they left the site when someone pointed out one of their story ideas encouraged underaged-which it did-and they removed all their stories and went home.

Karma and all that.

 

[Djmac1031]

Dear Trolls,
We accept that we have to waste time reading your comments about whatever we supposedly did wrong. But you're crazy if you think you can tell us who we are.
You see us as you want to see us… In the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions. But what we found out is that each one of us is a brain, and an athlete, and a basket case, a princess, and a criminal… Does that answer your question? Sincerely yours, the Breakfast Club.

 

[lovecraft68]

Dear Trolls,
We accept that we have to waste time reading your comments about whatever we supposedly did wrong. But you're crazy if you think you can tell us who we are.
You see us as you want to see us… In the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions. But what we found out is that each one of us is a brain, and an athlete, and a basket case, a princess, and a criminal… Does that answer your question? Sincerely yours, the Breakfast Club.

We need to double down on that and all get together and do this.

 

[lovecraft68]

????? Were we together????

He's talking to everyone. Now that his crush has been revealed he'll go sulk and drown in the sorrow of unrequited love.

This has turned into one the all-time best threads in recent memory.

Like AMD said, Drink!

 

[pink_silk_glove]

The best part about living rent free in your head is all the empty space.

Proving my statement.

 

[lovecraft68]

Meh. A troll is someone with antisocial tendencies who mitigates their pain by inflicting it on others. They tend to look for a comfortable playground with easy targets, someplace they can feel superior. They’re only truly effective with exceptional insight and brutal honesty. Sadly, I only have the latter.

More projection. You're consistent today.

 

[SyleusSnow]

OP: Yeah I got stacnashed two months ago. Up until then I was unaware of the person.

Seems she mostly likes my work... she left a slew of mostly positive anonymous comments on individual stories before droping The Big Review and Final Verdict on one of 'em.

As everyone points out, it's only one person's opinion... and a person who has admitted they themselves don't write.

I replied with thanks and though I'm flattered that anyone would critic my writing in such depth, my filthy stories hardly merit such scrutiny. I'm a fledgling writer dabbling in smut... not an MFA sumitting literary works to The New Yorker or The Paris Review.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

At least I’m not losing sleep over someone who ranks AGs in tier 4, and my self-esteem isn’t flailing over random nobodies.

More gaslighting.
You seem really obsessed with defending this "random nobody".

 

[lovecraft68]

At least I’m not losing sleep over someone who ranks AGs in tier 4, and my self-esteem isn’t flailing over random nobodies.

Neither is anyone else here. It's a discussion and poking fun at them.

I think your issue is the general consensus that people who don't write anything of their own shouldn't be taken seriously when critiquing someone else.

It's why I never pay attention to movie critics, very few of whom-if any-have ever gotten behind a camera and directed a movie. We all have a "Liked, didn't like it opinion" but to post actual critiques is hubris.

There's this dickhead Critical Drinker on YT who has a large following because he speaks incel and racist to like minded hyenas. He's always bashing movies and directors. Well, credit where its due, he funded an indy movie based on one of his meh action novels and it...sucked to high heaven because everything he called out Hollywood for is exactly what he did.

You run your mouth then decide to try and show people how it's done, you better be good. That's why most people like you don't do it. Don't like your own crap tossed back your way.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Blah blah. There’s no real discussion here. Some, like me, think she deserves credit for the time and effort she puts into those reviews, regardless of their actual substance. Some feel flattered she ranked them high. And some can’t get over the rejection (or is it projection?). Just get a tourniquet already. It’s getting serious.

And the same tired nonsense.
You really should get over this and move on. Losing sleep over an internet nobody isn't healthy.

 

[Comshaw]

After meandering through this thread as it progressed, I just had to go take a look at Stacnash lists to see what all the hubbub is about. The interesting thing to me is the judging (using only one story of each author) as to the experience, quality of work and readability of those authors in total. Why? I can see judging one story and calling it crap, or the best thing I ever read, but to judge a writers entire set of works on one sample is idiocy. While s(he) might think they are being a consummate critic, the reality is by judging a thing (an author's entire catalog of work) by a single story they show just how arrogant and biased they are.

I worked for a city for 30 years and I heard people complain about "lazy city works". They would drive by a work site and observe a worker leaning on a shovel. The total time for their observation was 10 to 30 seconds but according to them, that's all that worker did all day. Or they would see the crew sitting drinking coffee. Again, the total observation time was in seconds and according to them, that's all the crew did all day. They didn't know, or really care that the crew was taking a 15 minute break after wading around in muddy water or sewage for the past 2 hours fixing broken pipes. The parable of the three blind men and the elephant applies to situations like this.

I think they need to re-evaluate the structure of how they do their reviews and what their supposition is from those reviews.

My two cents worth on the subject. Now I'll just fade back into my dark corner and do as I always do, observe.

Comshaw

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Some feel flattered she ranked them high. And some can’t get over the rejection (or is it projection?). Just get a tourniquet already. It’s getting serious.

See, this is what I don't get. While there is truth in your words, why in the world do you feel you can say those words and pretend to be above it all? You are by far the biggest snowflake I have ever seen on this website. You have created ten different accounts, published and then took down your stories several times, while constantly whining and flaming everyone and everything.

I even remember a period of your constant wailing on the forum about Laurel keeping you prisoner and not instantly deleting your stories and account. Finally, Laurel obliged, and you were gone. And then you came back. Ten times or so. I don't want to misinform, so please let us know the exact number of this incarnation of yours.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

After meandering through this thread as it progressed, I just had to go take a look at Stacnash lists to see what all the hubbub is about. The interesting thing to me is the judging (using only one story of each author) as to the experience, quality of work and readability of those authors in total. Why? I can see judging one story and calling it crap, or the best thing I ever read, but to judge a writers entire set of works on one sample is idiocy. While s(he) might think they are being a consummate critic, the reality is by judging a thing (an author's entire catalog of work) by a single story they show just how arrogant and biased they are.

I worked for a city for 30 years and I heard people complain about "lazy city works". They would drive by a work site and observe a worker leaning on a shovel. The total time for their observation was 10 to 30 seconds but according to them, that's all that worker did all day. Or they would see the crew sitting drinking coffee. Again, the total observation time was in seconds and according to them, that's all the crew did all day. They didn't know, or really care that the crew was taking a 15 minute break after wading around in muddy water or sewage for the past 2 hours fixing broken pipes. The parable of the three blind men and the elephant applies to situations like this.

I think they need to re-evaluate the structure of how they do their reviews and what their supposition is from those reviews.

My two cents worth on the subject. Now I'll just fade back into my dark corner and do as I always do, observe.

Comshaw

One of my Dad's friends works for TexDot. His favorite joke is how he had a terrible day at work because all their tools broke, so they had to lean on each other all day.

That said, it's also interesting to note that the vast majority of the stories for his 1 and 2 star authors have the red H.

As one of the lawyers in my office likes to say, free legal advice is worth exactly what you paid for it. Lit reviews are probably similar.

 

[SyleusSnow]

After meandering through this thread as it progressed, I just had to go take a look at Stacnash lists to see what all the hubbub is about. The interesting thing to me is the judging (using only one story of each author) as to the experience, quality of work and readability of those authors in total. Why? I can see judging one story and calling it crap, or the best thing I ever read, but to judge a writers entire set of works on one sample is idiocy. While s(he) might think they are being a consummate critic, the reality is by judging a thing (an author's entire catalog of work) by a single story they show just how arrogant and biased they are.

Fun analogy, Comshaw! Delivering a judgement based on a single story is indeed unfair. I believe the person does look at one story for some writers, but in my case they read and commented on 5 or 6 (the comments were anonymous, but based on timing and writing style, it very much seems like the same person).

Anyway, I don't want to give any more oxygen to the person. I suspect they live off attention.

 

[AG31]

She looks in the mirror.

I'm a troll? How come you say that?

 

[Voboy]

You seem really obsessed with defending this "random nobody".

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

 

[pink_silk_glove]

That said, it's also interesting to note that the vast majority of the stories for his 1 and 2 star authors have the red H.

As one of the lawyers in my office likes to say, free legal advice is worth exactly what you paid for it. Lit reviews are probably similar.

The exact same value of the Red H.

 

[iwatchus]

That said, it's also interesting to note that the vast majority of the stories for his 1 and 2 star authors have the red H.

As one of the lawyers in my office likes to say, free legal advice is worth exactly what you paid for it. Lit reviews are probably similar.

But is it the ratings or the reviews that are more dubious.

 

[AwkwardMD]

You have to ask.

Maybe someday before I call it quits here I'll give them one. AMD will need a cigarette afterwards and not from the story, but the excitement of shredding me.

I've read your work. I think you'd be surprised.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

At least I didn’t pull them over ratings

I'm not entirely convinced of that.

throw around false accusations without a shred of proof...

I showed plenty of proof. You can keep ignoring it the same as you do with most other things that don't suit you.

The second was after I got banned, when some loser with a vendetta insisted he had proof Stacnash was my sock puppet.

For what it's worth, I never for a second thought you and Stacnash were the same person. I am not sure what exactly happened when you were banned, but the failures of moderation on Lit forums are plentiful.

It's also worth noting that among all the facets of Stacnash's personality, you latched onto the worst one - the nasty troll. You could have joined her in reviewing and commenting on stories instead. Even if the moderator was unjust in his ruling, he did catch a troll.

 

[lovecraft68]

I've read your work. I think you'd be surprised.

That's nice of you to say. I appreciate it.

 

[lovecraft68]

I'm a troll? How come you say that?

She's not talking to you, it was aimed at someone else.