Thread Closing

[KeithD]

Well, that completely failed to address the issue--exclusionary writing invitationals on an egalitarian, open-access writing site. And the recent 750-word exercise is irrelevant to the issue. It was open to all.

It was fun, though, to ask for examples of what a poster was claiming and then closing the thread to further postings.

 

[SimonDoom]

That thread was closed?

The site owners have a right to do what they want to, but closing a thread about a perfectly reasonable subject to discuss is messed up.

If Laurel and Manu are reading this: you shouldn't do that. That was a very bad decision. Respect your members and let them say what they want as long as they abide by your rules, which the participants in that thread did.

 

[NotWise]

That thread was closed?

The site owners have a right to do what they want to, but closing a thread about a perfectly reasonable subject to discuss is messed up.

If Laurel and Manu are reading this: you shouldn't do that. That was a very bad decision. Respect your members and let them say what they want as long as they abide by your rules, which the participants in that thread did.

I might understand why Laurel would close it. She was the only one who would/could fix the problem if she agree that it existed. She read the thread, responded, and was done with the whole thing. Further comment on the thread was pointless and polarizing.

 

[KeithD]

I might understand why Laurel would close it. She was the only one who would/could fix the problem if she agree that it existed. She read the thread, responded, and was done with the whole thing. Further comment on the thread was pointless and polarizing.

Laurel didn't even understand what the issue was, according to what she posted when she closed the thread. She lumped open exercises with closed ones together and addressed them both as if they are all open events. They aren't. That's the issue. The ones at issue are closed, invitation-only events on what is otherwise an open-to-all Web site.

 

[NotWise]

Laurel didn't even understand what the issue was, according to what she posted when she closed the thread. She lumped open exercises with closed ones together and addressed them both as if they are all open events. They aren't. That's the issue. The ones at issue are closed, invitation-only events on what is otherwise an open-to-all Web site.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't think it's a good time to continue the discussion. Laurel has walked away.

 

[KeithD]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't think it's a good time to continue the discussion. Laurel has walked away.

I see no reason not to establish that she walked away both uninformed and permitting something that is contrary to the equal access the Web site has fundamentally provided its users for two decades until supporting clique events with special favor.

As noted before, though, I didn't bring this up. It was dangled under my nose in the AH as a supported activity here by someone complaining that anyone would see anything wrong with the policy.

The writers here aren't supplicants. They provide, for free, the product that makes it all possible. As SimonDoom posted, I think they should get more respect than this.

 

[NotWise]

As noted before, though, I didn't bring this up. It was dangled under my nose in the AH as a supported activity here by someone complaining that anyone would see anything wrong with the policy.

I know. Me too.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't think it's a good time to continue the discussion. Laurel has walked away.

No. I'm with KeithD on this one. Laurel can do whatever she wants and set whatever rules she wants. It's her site. But KeithD and I are not rabble rousers, and are respectful of her rules, and yet I think it's bizarre that a thread would be deleted. I'm not even sure I agree with Keith's position about exclusive events, but it's a position worth making, and it's a discussion worth having, and it's very disappointing that the Site owners would want to shut down such a conversation. That was a comparatively civilized, reasonable thread.

 

[KeithD]

Umm, I AM a rabble rouser (but I don't go looking for trouble; if it drops in my lap, though . . .) and the thread was closed, not deleted.

Any minute now, I'm expecting an "if you don't like it here . . ." post. That's the usual "I didn't go to business school" response in these situations.

 

[SimonDoom]

Umm, I AM a rabble rouser (but I don't go looking for trouble; if it drops in my lap, though . . .) and the thread was closed, not deleted.

Any minute now, I'm expecting an "if you don't like it here . . ." post. That's the usual "I didn't go to business school" response in these situations.

I don't think you'll get that. You ruffle feathers. You ruffle mine some times. But you have a point to make, and I think the Site recognizes that, even if its owners, or others, don't agree with you.

 

[jaF0]

Wasn't just edited. It was completely changed, rewritten. The original was a tongue lashing, OK finger lashing.

I thought I still had it in cache, but messed up trying to retrieve it and got the new version. Doesn't really matter since I wouldn't have been able to post it anyways.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

Just gets weirder then

OK, that she edited (or deleted and rewrote) her own post makes this thing stranger still to me.
Not that I've been contributing or posting here long, but I've only ever seen her post on a thread once before. And that was after I'd PMd her to ask her a question.
This (and the report of her original post) makes me wonder if someone in the thread PMd her to flag it as inappropriate somehow.
Which in turn, makes me wonder who might have or why.

I mean, I've read more heated discussions here regarding grammar than that particular thread was. And as Keith, Simon and others have pointed out, it's a legitimate topic for discussion. Especially since some started that particular thread by vociferously objecting to criticism elsewhere and thereby dumping their annoyance right in our metaphorical laps.

 

[NotWise]

OK, that she edited (or deleted and rewrote) her own post makes this thing stranger still to me.
Not that I've been contributing or posting here long, but I've only ever seen her post on a thread once before. And that was after I'd PMd her to ask her a question.
This (and the report of her original post) makes me wonder if someone in the thread PMd her to flag it as inappropriate somehow.
Which in turn, makes me wonder who might have or why.

Laurel and Manu both read the forums, at least from time to time, and they reply when they think it's called for.

 

[jehoram]

Another Rumination on Thread Closing

I don't know what the specific issue with your thread was, but when I saw the topic title, it got me wondering about how other threads disappear without a trace from time to time. Some of the ones I watched ... "flat chested women" and "celebrities" ... went away recently for unexplained reasons. I can guess that some of the former showed women who could be under-age, and maybe there were copyright issues with the latter, but I'm just guessing.

Which brings me to this point: if a thread goes away, we should at least be given the reason why. It's not that we have any right to this information, but if we, the posters, have screwed up, it would be beneficial for us to understand how we transgressed the rules, so we don't do it again. A simple post from the moderator "This thread is closed because ...." would be greatly appreciated, and would help the readers understand how to play the game.

 

[gordo12]

Keith is right. There was no reason to close the thread. The conversation had been fine up till that point.

What pissed me was Laurel asked for examples of Invitational Events landing on the last week of contest events. I was about to respond to that with EXAMPLES when I got to the last sentence that this thread is closed.

But for the record she could start with the Wine and Old Lace event. that landed on the last week of a paid contest and caused me to withhold an entry. I wasn't going to waste it competing with those stories and the attention the site was giving them. It's not the first. I've complained about that issue before.

It's piss poor optics. And potentially illegal if Vix's comments were any indication.

For instance we have the April Fools contest starting now: Submissions Mar 2 to Mar 20th.

And three days before the last submissions are accepted we have the On The Road private invitational landing.

You would be crazy to submit anything for April Fools after Mar 14th or so. Loss of readership, loss of view and loss of voting are the likely consequences.

As to whether people (cliques) get together to write stories I really don't give a flying fuck! But to interfere or detract from other events. That pisses me off.

I know Laurel and Manu work hard around here and I don't believe for a second there is anything going on but poorly thought out schedules. Even if they believe it doesn't affect the other event; as I stated before, the optics aren't good.

 

[Bebop3]

And as Keith, Simon and others have pointed out, it's a legitimate topic for discussion. Especially since some started that particular thread by vociferously objecting to criticism elsewhere and thereby dumping their annoyance right in our metaphorical laps.

To clarify, I started the thread in question because (as you note) it's a legitimate topic for discussion, but also because the person who made the comment I was citing specifically referenced the forums.

 

[EvelynEden]

What was the original thread about? Why was it closed?

 

[KeithD]

What was the original thread about? Why was it closed?

It was closed, not deleted. It's here:

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1518757

 

[EvelynEden]

It was closed, not deleted. It's here:

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1518757

Awesome, thanks Keith. It's a pretty startling read- in the way that I have absolutely no idea why it was closed.