Trouble in our Lit community

[Roxanne Appleby]

So, tell me again: Why does this website maintain a totally laissez-faire policy that allows a disturbed individual to continuously malign and harass some of the best and most popular authors until they remove themselves and their work, and also allows an obsessive psychopath over on the GB to go on for months stalking and threatening a bright and good-hearted individual like our friend Kxxxx?

I just can't quite recall the rational for that policy. Something about he same reason we allow people to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater?

 

[DesertPirate]

So, tell me again: Why does this website maintain a totally laissez-faire policy that allows a disturbed individual to continuously malign and harass some of the best and most popular authors until they remove themselves and their work, and also allows an obsessive psychopath over on the GB to go on for months stalking and threatening a bright and good-hearted individual like our friend Kxxxx?

I just can't quite recall the rational for that policy. Something about he same reason we allow people to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater?

Simple answer, they hide behind freedom of speech.
They don't want to make the calls is closer to the truth.
A simple code of conduct based on decency would work.
Enforcement is the hard part.

 

[scriptordelecto]

It's like I commented on another thread earlier; there's a great deal of difference between having the freedom to express your opinions and actively targeting others. If I wanted to be harassed and abused, I'd stay at work all of the time. I'm very disheartened that several people that I consider friends have been driven from this community because nothing was done to protect their rights.

It's rather like being sued by the burglar who broke his leg climbing into your window to rob you.

 

[TE999]

So, tell me again: Why does this website maintain a totally laissez-faire policy that allows a disturbed individual to continuously malign and harass some of the best and most popular authors until they remove themselves and their work, and also allows an obsessive psychopath over on the GB to go on for months stalking and threatening a bright and good-hearted individual like our friend Kxxxx?

I just can't quite recall the rational for that policy. Something about he same reason we allow people to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater?

Unfortunately this is the price we must pay to keep these forums open to a free exchange of ideas and philosophies.

There are always those individuals will exploit said freedoms to suit their own twisted needs--but they can be effectively dealt with by isolating them.

Continued responses to their diatribes and vilifications by the more fragile and thin-skinned among us only feed their warped egos and encourage them to press even harder.

IMHO we need to place said individuals on ignore and forget their schoolyard taunts and feeble attempts to bring this site to its knees.

We have lost some good people--that I will grant you--but I for one will not be frightened off by the ravings of the small-minded and ignorant.

My $ 0.02.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I don't think it's useful or correct to talk about the "rights" of users of this website, actually. The site belongs to its proprietors, and they have the right to maintain any kind of policy they want. Users have the right to frequent the website, or not. Authors have the right to post stories here or not.

IOW, it's not a matter of "rights," except on the part of the proprietors. They also have the right to impose light-touch policies that maintain a very basic level of civility, and protect readers and authors from abuse, harassment, stalking, etc. Or to not impose such policies.

In addition, should they adopt them they have the right to enforce such policies any way they want, even arbitrarily and with no "due process" if they choose - it's their website. That's freedom is important, because it means they need not worry about recriminations should some individual perceive that they are behaving that way, even if they are actually trying to act in good faith. They could tell that individual, toughski-shitski, buddy - if you don't like it, start your own website.

So what I'm talking about isn't really "rights," but reasonable policies that promote the interests of the proprietors of the website by enhancing the experience of its users, including authors, readers and forum members. I don't understand why the proprietors don't choose to adopt such policies.

 

[3113]

I don't know all the details, so I can't rightfully comment, but I'm guessing that the feeling is that "ignore" should solve the problem, and if the stalker manages to follow the person beyond this site, so that the "ignore" feature doesn't save them from such people, that said person would take other action. Say legal action (though don't ask me what; I don't know what laws are in place to protect someone being stalked/harassed on the internet).

Now, I'm guessing that site owners don't want to get involved with policing it and dealing with every argument over ever insult. That their original intent was that the ignore feature would solve such disagreements, and there'd be no need for them to interfere or police the forums.

That said, if there is harassment going on beyond the ignore feature--that is, the ignore feature has not done it's job and the perpetrators keep harassing, then I do think the site owners should step in a do something. Abusing the freedom of speech we have here, using it to harass, stalk and abuse people, makes that freedom of speech, well, moot. Because such freedom of speech is being used to destroy the other person's freedoms.

So, I'm sorry, TE999, but I have to disagree. Putting up with disagreeable people who exploit their freedom of speech is, indeed, the price we pay for freedom of speech. But it's absurd to say that people who use their freedom of speech to rob others of that same freedom is a price that must be paid to maintain our freedom. That just doesn't make sense.

Saying that we can piss where we like shouldn't include the freedom to piss in the well where everyone gets their drinking water. Poisoning that well means that everyone eventually leaves, and the site, this site, dies and then what the fuck good was it's "freedom of speech" policy?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I don't know all the details, so I can't rightfully comment, but I'm guessing that the feeling is that "ignore" should solve the problem, and if the stalker manages to follow the person beyond this site, so that the "ignore" feature doesn't save them from such people, that said person would take other action. Say legal action (though don't ask me what; I don't know what laws are in place to protect someone being stalked/harassed on the internet).

Now, I'm guessing that site owners don't want to get involved with policing it and dealing with every argument over ever insult. That their original intent was that the ignore feature would solve such disagreements, and there'd be no need for them to interfere or police the forums.

That said, if there is harassment going on beyond the ignore feature--that is, the ignore feature has not done it's job and the perpetrators keep harassing, then I do think the site owners should step in a do something. Abusing the freedom of speech we have here, using it to harass, stalk and abuse people, makes that freedom of speech, well, moot. Because such freedom of speech is being used to destroy the other person's freedoms.

So, I'm sorry, TE999, but I have to disagree. Putting up with disagreeable people who exploit their freedom of speech is, indeed, the price we pay for freedom of speech. But it's absurd to say that people who use their freedom of speech to rob others of that same freedom is a price that must be paid to maintain our freedom. That just doesn't make sense.

Saying that we can piss where we like shouldn't include the freedom to piss in the well where everyone gets their drinking water. Poisoning that well means that everyone eventually leaves, and the site, this site, dies and then what the fuck good was it's "freedom of speech" policy?

Echoing my previous post (which cross-posted with yours), there is no "freedom of speech" on this website, because it's not a "democracy." It's a piece of private property owned by its proprietors, and they can allow or disallow any speech that they choose.

You are correct that it's clearly not in their interest to allow themselves to be dragged into every dispute, but on rare occasions a particular pattern of abuse rises to a level where it seems to me that it is in their interest to intervene. Presumably losing popular authors is about as clear an example as can be imagined, because at some level good authors willing to give away their material is the lifeblood of this website (not that there seems to be any shortage of these). It seems to me that allowing pychopaths to go on for months threatening and stalking is also not in the proprietors' interersts.

Probably there are few times a year when some decisive action would make a big difference to the quality of this website and the experience of users, and it's probably not hard for the proprietors to discover and distinguish these cases. That's why I don't understand the absense of such action.

 

[BlackShanglan]

So, tell me again: Why does this website maintain a totally laissez-faire policy that allows a disturbed individual to continuously malign and harass some of the best and most popular authors until they remove themselves and their work, and also allows an obsessive psychopath over on the GB to go on for months stalking and threatening a bright and good-hearted individual like our friend Kxxxx?

I just can't quite recall the rational for that policy. Something about he same reason we allow people to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater?

I think it has more to do with this:

Literotica Discussion Board Statistics
Threads: 549,134, Posts: 25,448,547, Members: 895,205

Imagine trying to police that.

 

[caprine]

I have to...

I don't think it's useful or correct to talk about the "rights" of users of this website, actually. The site belongs to its proprietors, and they have the right to maintain any kind of policy they want. Users have the right to frequent the website, or not. Authors have the right to post stories here or not.

IOW, it's not a matter of "rights," except on the part of the proprietors. They also have the right to impose light-touch policies that maintain a very basic level of civility, and protect readers and authors from abuse, harassment, stalking, etc. Or to not impose such policies.

In addition, should they adopt them they have the right to enforce such policies any way they want, even arbitrarily and with no "due process" if they choose - it's their website. That's freedom is important, because it means they need not worry about recriminations should some individual perceive that they are behaving that way, even if they are actually trying to act in good faith. They could tell that individual, toughski-shitski, buddy - if you don't like it, start your own website.

So what I'm talking about isn't really "rights," but reasonable policies that promote the interests of the proprietors of the website by enhancing the experience of its users, including authors, readers and forum members. I don't understand why the proprietors don't choose to adopt such policies.

aggree with Roxanne here. I aslo agree with 3113. Freedom of speech ends when that freedom is hurting (or taking away rights) of others. The site belongs to the owners who have the rights, not the submitters to the site.

 

[sr71plt]

Isn’t this all getting a little over-the-top Wagnerian opera? This is a porn story site, not the halls of a de Medici palace.

First, the centerpiece of this site is its story board, not this forum (sorry all you story-underachieving drone cyber yakkers). The site owners are just a little busy getting all of the stories pushed through every day of the year, and, as has been pointed out here ad infinitum, once they start being babysitters on the forum (and we all seem to realize that this crowd craps all over the carpets without fulltime nannies), there would be no pleasing anyone either and no convenient place to stop tossing people out of here. They clearly tell you what to expect here on the posted forum terms of use. The only way they could solve the continuing, natural problems of this forum is to yank it off the Web site.

Second, what happened last weekend was all pretty equal, as far as I could see. It hinged on the results of the Survivor’s story contest, which as far as I can see has been just as ruined by manipulators and cheaters and cabalers as all of the other contests here have been. (Which doesn’t claim that there isn’t good use a Lit. author can get out of posting to a contest—just that winning such a contest has precious little to do with comparably good story writing—or following the rules of the contest for that matter, apparently).

BFW’s claims pass the sniff test with me, and he obviously worked hard and honestly (and naively) and within the rules, and I can easily believe—by watching the general behavior here—that he was cheated out of a win by forces bent specifically to do that. (I don’t know who was involved, and don’t need to know). And I saw him gangbanged throughout the year on the Survivor’s contest board—yes, for being a little obnoxious, but gangbanging him didn’t help that a bit. Unfortunately, the flip side of that is that he’s obviously needy and naïve and making much too big a deal over the whole thing. I have little idea if he targeted the right people with his satire, but I think he has a right to feel hurt and rave a bit and, from the reaction to his satire, I do believe he probably hit some legitimate targets who just mistakenly assumed they could get Scot free away with their “let’s group together and bang him” exercise. I’m having a little “good for him” reaction here on this, even though every time I’m about ready to say it, he posts some really stupid comment.

He isn’t the inventor of the “let’s satirized him” mode here. The other “force of evil” fingered here has been mocked by name in stories by the forum “regulars” and has had both his own posting name and that of one of his alts slightly altered and used to parody him. So there aren’t too many white flags flying on that point here either. Responding to bad behavior with equally bad behavior wins no medals in heaven or justifying praise here on earth.

And the “other” force wasn’t lying when he posted that he’s treated no one here any worse than he’s been treated in the way of direct comments and scheming. Just ignoring his obnoxiousness when it appears and not taking him seriously or letting him get your goat is a viable option—little attempted here. Again, no bother queuing up in the medals line.

There are a lot of bitches and bastards here on all sides of any issue—and some say they are proud of it and seem to act here in ways they wouldn’t even dream of trying at home. Not two many guiltless posters that I can see. But that’s life on an Internet chat board, and helps make it all interesting.

Third. DK and SW and whoever else has gone (although SW hasn’t gone the last I checked) have done so because they decided to do so. No one forced them to do anything and I certainly didn't see anything going on here last weekend that indicated that they simply "must" head for the exits. If they can’t take criticism and parody (and in many cases countering of behavior they are also exhibiting on the board), they should think twice about stepping out in the spotlight as a writer—certainly about being a frontrunner in anything (isn’t anyone watching the political campaign dynamics now going on?). And if they just pull out of a board like this without taking into account where their readers are going to continue the connection, they don’t care all that much about the connection. They certainly don’t have any rights to having a shrine built for them on the board and posters “oh woeing and mournful trilling” over their absence twice a day. It was their choice. When it gets Wagnerian, it begins to smell a lot like orchestrated grandstanding—and continued gamesmanship. Sorry they went, but they were behind the wheel when their car drove out of here. And the car knows the road back too.

Threads like this give me the impression many here think they can manipulate a change in the forum policy. Fat chance on that. This isn't the first time someone who some have thought were indispensable here picked up their marbles and walked off--with no policy change. Maybe we should be rethinking the idea that any author/poster is indispensable here (or should volunteer to be or be made the object of brinkmanship negotiation on that understanding).

 

[TE999]

I don't know all the details, so I can't rightfully comment, but I'm guessing that the feeling is that "ignore" should solve the problem, and if the stalker manages to follow the person beyond this site, so that the "ignore" feature doesn't save them from such people, that said person would take other action. Say legal action (though don't ask me what; I don't know what laws are in place to protect someone being stalked/harassed on the internet).

Now, I'm guessing that site owners don't want to get involved with policing it and dealing with every argument over ever insult. That their original intent was that the ignore feature would solve such disagreements, and there'd be no need for them to interfere or police the forums.

That said, if there is harassment going on beyond the ignore feature--that is, the ignore feature has not done it's job and the perpetrators keep harassing, then I do think the site owners should step in a do something. Abusing the freedom of speech we have here, using it to harass, stalk and abuse people, makes that freedom of speech, well, moot. Because such freedom of speech is being used to destroy the other person's freedoms.

So, I'm sorry, TE999, but I have to disagree. Putting up with disagreeable people who exploit their freedom of speech is, indeed, the price we pay for freedom of speech. But it's absurd to say that people who use their freedom of speech to rob others of that same freedom is a price that must be paid to maintain our freedom. That just doesn't make sense.

Saying that we can piss where we like shouldn't include the freedom to piss in the well where everyone gets their drinking water. Poisoning that well means that everyone eventually leaves, and the site, this site, dies and then what the fuck good was it's "freedom of speech" policy?

Excellent and well reasoned points 3--I expect no less from you.

I agree that things are getting out of hand and something needs to be done. I am just concerned that putting the owners and managers of this site in the role of thought police will be ultimately self defeating--in the sense that others could run afoul of the majorities sensibilities and be similarly excluded--and the site would go down anyway but more slowly.

I do think, as has been expressed by others on these threads, that there should be some basic code of conduct established by management for all posters on this site regarding outright vilification and harassment. Continued violations of this code would bring expulsion. This would not impair their freedom of speech--just their ability to express it here at the expense of others.

I always fear the 'slippery slope' of policies targeting individuals, hence my previous post--but in this case I agree that something should be done. I will freely admit all are not as immune to jibes and taunts as others of us--but a stiffening of backbones may be necessary to deal with these individuals.

 

[cantdog]

I don't know all the details, so I can't rightfully comment, but I'm guessing that the feeling is that "ignore" should solve the problem, and if the stalker manages to follow the person beyond this site, so that the "ignore" feature doesn't save them from such people, that said person would take other action. Say legal action (though don't ask me what; I don't know what laws are in place to protect someone being stalked/harassed on the internet).

Now, I'm guessing that site owners don't want to get involved with policing it and dealing with every argument over ever insult. That their original intent was that the ignore feature would solve such disagreements, and there'd be no need for them to interfere or police the forums.

That said, if there is harassment going on beyond the ignore feature--that is, the ignore feature has not done it's job and the perpetrators keep harassing, then I do think the site owners should step in a do something. Abusing the freedom of speech we have here, using it to harass, stalk and abuse people, makes that freedom of speech, well, moot. Because such freedom of speech is being used to destroy the other person's freedoms.

So, I'm sorry, TE999, but I have to disagree. Putting up with disagreeable people who exploit their freedom of speech is, indeed, the price we pay for freedom of speech. But it's absurd to say that people who use their freedom of speech to rob others of that same freedom is a price that must be paid to maintain our freedom. That just doesn't make sense.

Saying that we can piss where we like shouldn't include the freedom to piss in the well where everyone gets their drinking water. Poisoning that well means that everyone eventually leaves, and the site, this site, dies and then what the fuck good was it's "freedom of speech" policy?

I am not, personally, being fucked with. I have the person and one alt on ignore.

The fucking with, which 'goes beyond,' is, it would seem, a matter of PCs and feedbacks. I am happy to imagine that, with thousands of posts to this website every month, the site owners manage to read a tithe of them.

But god damn! How can they conceivably read all that, an still review stories in the submission queue, and all the rest of it? Do you imagine they are mentalists?

Really. What has this person and his alts done?

Made some unpleasant comments, I suppose. Made some votes.

I just don't see what the fuss is about. Ignore him! Ignore his alts! Go on with your life. DG Hear advocates discovering the real life identity of this asshole, and ruining their life. Whatever for? What crime can merit that?

I have had comments which attacked me. Me, personally, not the stories. I did not fly off the handle. I was never remotely tempted to abandon the site.

The whole controversy seems surreal, overblown, exaggerated.

So people post to his thread! So what! They must have wanted to! They must have decided, at some level, to legitimize his thread, if they posted responses to it. If they did, they have no beef.

For me, the idea of discovering the rl address and identity of this person, with a view to damaging them somehow, is MUCH less moral than anything I know of which this person has done, here on the site.

DG Hear, in other words, has offended more.

For Christ's sake, people! Grow up. Grow some hide.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Isn’t this all getting a little over-the-top Wagnerian opera? This is a porn story site, not the halls of a de Medici palace.

First, the centerpiece of this site is its story board, not this forum (sorry all you story-underachieving drone cyber yakkers). The site owners are just a little busy getting all of the stories pushed through every day of the year, and, as has been pointed out here ad infinitum, once they start being babysitters on the forum (and we all seem to realize that this crowd craps all over the carpets without fulltime nannies), there would be no pleasing anyone either and no convenient place to stop tossing people out of here. They clearly tell you what to expect here on the posted forum terms of use. The only way they could solve the continuing, natural problems of this forum is to yank it off the Web site.

Second, what happened last weekend was all pretty equal, as far as I could see. It hinged on the results of the Survivor’s story contest, which as far as I can see has been just as ruined by manipulators and cheaters and cabalers as all of the other contests here have been. (Which doesn’t claim that there isn’t good use a Lit. author can get out of posting to a contest—just that winning such a contest has precious little to do with comparably good story writing—or following the rules of the contest for that matter, apparently).

BFW’s claims pass the sniff test with me, and he obviously worked hard and honestly (and naively) and within the rules, and I can easily believe—by watching the general behavior here—that he was cheated out of a win by forces bent specifically to do that. (I don’t know who was involved, and don’t need to know). And I saw him gangbanged throughout the year on the Survivor’s contest board—yes, for being a little obnoxious, but gangbanging him didn’t help that a bit. Unfortunately, the flip side of that is that he’s obviously needy and naïve and making much too big a deal over the whole thing. I have little idea if he targeted the right people with his satire, but I think he has a right to feel hurt and rave a bit and, from the reaction to his satire, I do believe he probably hit some legitimate targets who just mistakenly assumed they could get Scot free away with their “let’s group together and bang him” exercise. I’m having a little “good for him” reaction here on this, even though every time I’m about ready to say it, he posts some really stupid comment.

He isn’t the inventor of the “let’s satirized him” mode here. The other “force of evil” fingered here has been mocked by name in stories by the forum “regulars” and has had both his own posting name and that of one of his alts slightly altered and used to parody him. So there aren’t too many white flags flying on that point here either. Responding to bad behavior with equally bad behavior wins no medals in heaven or justifying praise here on earth.

And the “other” force wasn’t lying when he posted that he’s treated no one here any worse than he’s been treated in the way of direct comments and scheming. Just ignoring his obnoxiousness when it appears and not taking him seriously or letting him get your goat is a viable option—little attempted here. Again, no bother queuing up in the medals line.

There are a lot of bitches and bastards here on all sides of any issue—and some say they are proud of it and seem to act here in ways they wouldn’t even dream of trying at home. Not two many guiltless posters that I can see. But that’s life on an Internet chat board, and helps make it all interesting.

Third. DK and SW and whoever else has gone (although SW hasn’t gone the last I checked) have done so because they decided to do so. No one forced them to do anything and I certainly didn't see anything going on here last weekend that indicated that they simply "must" head for the exits. If they can’t take criticism and parody (and in many cases countering of behavior they are also exhibiting on the board), they should think twice about stepping out in the spotlight as a writer—certainly about being a frontrunner in anything (isn’t anyone watching the political campaign dynamics now going on?). And if they just pull out of a board like this without taking into account where their readers are going to continue the connection, they don’t care all that much about the connection. They certainly don’t have any rights to having a shrine built for them on the board and posters “oh woeing and mournful trilling” over their absence twice a day. It was their choice. When it gets Wagnerian, it begins to smell a lot like orchestrated grandstanding—and continued gamesmanship. Sorry they went, but they were behind the wheel when their car drove out of here. And the car knows the road back too.

Threads like this give me the impression many here think they can manipulate a change in the forum policy. Fat chance on that. This isn't the first time someone who some have thought were indispensable here picked up their marbles and walked off--with no policy change. Maybe we should be rethinking the idea that any author/poster is indispensable here (or should volunteer to be or be made the object of brinkmanship negotiation on that understanding).

Nobody actgually cheated on the Survivors' Contest. The winner did something that I consider unethical, but within the rules. A rule has now been instigated to prevent it from happening in the future, but it was legal until now. I don't know what would be meant by manipulators and cabalers. I just wrte and post dirty stories and poems, hundreds of them, and enter them in the aforementioned contest. If it's enough to win, fine. If not, t's no big deal. I will continue to write dirty stories and not compromise their quality, or lack of same to win a contest, now will I conspire with anybody to do so.

As for BFW, he wasn't cheated out of anything. Personally, I believe he should have won, instead of coming in second, but rules are rules. He has posted some rather obnoxious comments, mostly directed at the moderator of the contest, and I believe I may have objected to this, but I mostly ignored him.

I have two questions to ask. How can you stalk or threaten somebody on Lit.? I will never believe that some wild-eyed maniac porn writer is going to come and firebomb my house or abduct my grandchildren or make faces at me, or anything else. How can somebody stalk me if I put him or her on iggy?

 

[Handprints]

No-one has mentioned it on this thread but, were I the owner of a site such as this one, I expect my lawyers would be briefing me relatively frequently on the strengths and weaknesses of the "freedom of speech" defenses I might be called upon to employ in court at short notice. I've also no doubt that those same lawyers' advice would be to avoid anything which might, however hyperbolically, be characterised as censorship on the forum I own, in case that behaviour comes back to bite me when I'm defending the existence of my larger site.

Hope that's of use,
H

 

[3113]

For Christ's sake, people! Grow up. Grow some hide.

In the adult world, actions have consequences. In the real world, if these people said and did what they say and do online there would be consequences. But being on line, with alts and the rest, they believe that they are free of consequences and can do whatever they like. And if we let them do what they like, we show everyone that they're absolutely right.

I think that you should reap what you sow. Grown ups accept that.

Again, I haven't been reading this shit, I haven't all the detail and information, so likely I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. I don't know what shades of black/white/gray are involved or if anyone is more sinned against than sinning. What I do know is that if people are getting away with murder, than something ought to be done. And blaming the victims is not the way to go. It's not enough to say, "people shouldn't go down dark alleys, if they get killed it's their own fault." That's tantamount to saying that the bullies should be allowed to run everyplace they like, and we'd all better get used to getting beaten up, because grown ups get beaten up.

I don't buy that. Grown ups don't let bullies beat anyone up. That's what grown ups do.

 

[sr71plt]

Nobody actgually cheated on the Survivors' Contest. The winner did something that I consider unethical, but within the rules. A rule has now been instigated to prevent it from happening in the future, but it was legal until now. I don't know what would be meant by manipulators and cabalers. I just wrte and post dirty stories and poems, hundreds of them, and enter them in the aforementioned contest. If it's enough to win, fine. If not, t's no big deal. I will continue to write dirty stories and not compromise their quality, or lack of same to win a contest, now will I conspire with anybody to do so.

As for BFW, he wasn't cheated out of anything. Personally, I believe he should have won, instead of coming in second, but rules are rules. He has posted some rather obnoxious comments, mostly directed at the moderator of the contest, and I believe I may have objected to this, but I mostly ignored him.

I have two questions to ask. How can you stalk or threaten somebody on Lit.? I will never believe that some wild-eyed maniac porn writer is going to come and firebomb my house or abduct my grandchildren or make faces at me, or anything else. How can somebody stalk me if I put him or her on iggy?

A specific rule doesn't need to be specifically broken for an action to be bad form and nasty--and for me not to give a little cheer when the target gets a bit of his own back. Especially if I hear a squeal of surprise from someone who thought they'd got away with something because they technically stayed within the rules (and because they were part of the crowd that matters here).

Again BFW's description, in general, passes the sniff test with me--which is all that matters to me--even if I think he was being a baby about it from time to time.

As far as manipulation, if you've entered any contests, you've noticed how frequently and how massively votes are being stripped from your entries--and how the rating usually significantly changes as a result. These adjudged invalid votes didn't take a wrong turn from somewhere on their way to the drugstore--and logic will tell you that incidental board readers don't sit on a story and stroke away at the voting button (or run from office to office at work voting something either up or down).

I think for starters, the Web site should do away with cash prizes altogether. It seems only to bring the worst out of people.

I think it's hard to avoid noticing you're being stalked on these bords even if you use the ignore button (and, yes, I think Scouries stalked DK--I would have just erased about half of his postings if this were my Web site--which, of course, it isn't). Primarily, other people post about what was said (and it's hard to resist going back and checking it out when you are the one who was targeted), and it's hard to avoid seeing quotes from people you've put on ignore in postings by people you haven't.

Don't be too quick to discount the personal approach of a genuine stalker on the Internet. On another Web site (where I used my true name) I once had an admirer say they'd bought a plane ticket and name the hotel they were coming to and saying they simply had to see me. The police told me that someone with that name did register there--and skeddaled back out of town when the police paid them a visit.

 

[sr71plt]

No-one has mentioned it on this thread but, were I the owner of a site such as this one, I expect my lawyers would be briefing me relatively frequently on the strengths and weaknesses of the "freedom of speech" defenses I might be called upon to employ in court at short notice. I've also no doubt that those same lawyers' advice would be to avoid anything which might, however hyperbolically, be characterised as censorship on the forum I own, in case that behaviour comes back to bite me when I'm defending the existence of my larger site.

Hope that's of use,
H

Sorry, but the lack of policing of copyrighted material reposting on this Web site tells me these folks don't ever have a lawyer look at what's here.

 

[starrkers]

What DG HEar did in starting his thread is actually in contravention of Rule 5 of the Forum Rules. "Do not threaten anyone". Yet it remains up.
I don't doubt the owners of this site are far too busy with the story side (ie the main event) to be bothered much with this sideshow. But they should have moderators appointed to see the rules are enforced. That, or dispense with the rule book totally - unenforced rules are window dressing only.

The Survivor Contest thing has blown out of proportion. The runner up has been accusing others of banding against him under an alt to beat him in the contest. This is patently false and petty. Why it was taken seriously is beyond me. The winner joined the site in August last year, posted one poem immediately and posted nothing else till midway through this year.

He/she then posted many stories from October onwards, joined the contest on December 29 and was duly named winner with a phenomenal number of points.

It seems fairly obvious to me they saw the contest and how it was run, saw an opportunity, hoarded stories and poems rather than posting as they were completed.
It wasn't ethical, but it was legal.

 

[sr71plt]

In the adult world, actions have consequences. In the real world, if these people said and did what they say and do online there would be consequences. But being on line, with alts and the rest, they believe that they are free of consequences and can do whatever they like. And if we let them do what they like, we show everyone that they're absolutely right.

I think that you should reap what you sow. Grown ups accept that.

Again, I haven't been reading this shit, I haven't all the detail and information, so likely I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. I don't know what shades of black/white/gray are involved or if anyone is more sinned against than sinning. What I do know is that if people are getting away with murder, than something ought to be done. And blaming the victims is not the way to go. It's not enough to say, "people shouldn't go down dark alleys, if they get killed it's their own fault." That's tantamount to saying that the bullies should be allowed to run everyplace they like, and we'd all better get used to getting beaten up, because grown ups get beaten up.

I don't buy that. Grown ups don't let bullies beat anyone up. That's what grown ups do.

I think my main point is that the bad behavior isn't one-sided. I don't see anyone flapping around with wings in connection with what's going on with this.

 

[starrkers]

I think my main point is that the bad behavior isn't one-sided. I don't see anyone flapping around with wings in connection with what's going on with this.

I agree with your assessment.

 

[sr71plt]

What DG HEar did in starting his thread is actually in contravention of Rule 5 of the Forum Rules. "Do not threaten anyone". Yet it remains up.
I don't doubt the owners of this site are far too busy with the story side (ie the main event) to be bothered much with this sideshow. But they should have moderators appointed to see the rules are enforced. That, or dispense with the rule book totally - unenforced rules are window dressing only.

The Survivor Contest thing has blown out of proportion. The runner up has been accusing others of banding against him under an alt to beat him in the contest. This is patently false and petty. Why it was taken seriously is beyond me. The winner joined the site in August last year, posted one poem immediately and posted nothing else till midway through this year.

He/she then posted many stories from October onwards, joined the contest on December 29 and was duly named winner with a phenomenal number of points.

It seems fairly obvious to me they saw the contest and how it was run, saw an opportunity, hoarded stories and poems rather than posting as they were completed.
It wasn't ethical, but it was legal.

You're assuming it's one person and that it isn't a combination of existing posters--which was BFW's claim. (He also claims he was informed that was going to happen). I don't know the truth of that, but I don't doubt that it would be done here so I'm not going to assume it wasn't done--and I don't think anyone can make an assumption either way based on what is available to us.

 

[Pure]

further the handprints' comments,

(these are totally unofficial comments, representing my views only)

this is a free speech website. i think its basic architecture is sound, namedly.

1) unlimited free speech areas, and 2) moderated subareas.

roxanne is essentially calling for moderation of the AH, an area of category 1), perhaps by Laurel. that's what imposing decency/civility entails. you simply can't say 'free speech but no insults'.

IF there were genuine stalking and threats, that would be another matter. but continual negative comments, reviews, even insulting comments continually posted to someone's stories are not really stalking. i'm more talking about a stream of extremely abusive or threatening PMs and/or emails.

i don't think rox has addressed the point made by several posters. IF someone is merely 'abused' in a certain person's own thread, devoted to publicizing themselves and friends, why does that someone hang around. is there any evidence that a particular abused writer is bothered when she starts her own threads, or contributes to others.? i don't know the answer, but it's plain to me, having read the main thread in question, that its detractors have been feeding it with dozens or hundreds of postings. since many of those postings are themselves abusive, one would expect counterabuse, and so on.

it's of course a valid proposal to have a moderator of AH, though i don't think laurel wants the job. at the same time i don't have a feeling of a surge of sentiment on this matter. can roxanne find a couple dozen like minded AH persons who want moderation for civility?

 

[starrkers]

You're assuming it's one person and that it isn't a combination of existing posters--which was BFW's claim. (He also claims he was informed that was going to happen). I don't know the truth of that, but I don't doubt that it would be done here so I'm not going to assume it wasn't done--and I don't think anyone can make an assumption either way based on what is available to us.

My contention is the persona joined the site four months before BFW and posted a poem. If it was a combination of existing posters they must've been psychic.
It's a ludicrous allegation.

 

[sr71plt]

My contention is the persona joined the site four months before BFW and posted a poem. If it was a combination of existing posters they must've been psychic.
It's a ludicrous allegation.

Not really. Alts can be banked. (I have a never-used one banked "just in case." Don't you?) And there seemed to be a suggestion of that having been done on a related thread yesterday). Yes, I think some folks here spend a whole lot of time scheming and cabaling. Sorry, just evident in what I see. Lots of bored people finding a venue where they can be bigger than their real lives are.

 

[Smarmy_and_Sappe]

(these are totally unofficial comments, representing my views only)

this is a free speech website. i think its basic architecture is sound, namedly.

Bollocks! This is not a free speech website, certain things are banned. For instance, one cannot write about "snuff" sex, or sex with a minor. (Thankfully)

This has nothing to do about free speech. Free speech does not cover libel and slander.

Yes, I think this forum needs to be moderated, and several users brought to account for their behavior.