# Will the bitching stop?



## Baron (Aug 24, 2010)

Once again a minor spate of bitching has broken out about the changes to WF under new management.  Needless to say, it's in the poetry forum.  Below is a link to an independent review of WF as it was before the changeover.  It hits on all the reasons I gave for the near death of this site, only a few months ago.  Since then the site _has _ changed and the changes have brought life to it.  No apologies will be made for that.

Review of writingforums.com​


----------



## Kat (Aug 24, 2010)

There is no possible way to statisfy everyone. The bitching will never stop. That is just a fact of life.


----------



## Baron (Aug 24, 2010)

iDrew said:


> Rob, bet you were tempted to title this thread: ‘Drew - Shut Up!’
> 
> So who’s ‘freewriter’ then?  If they was to call themselves that on this site it would be an oxymoron (I’ll resist the cheap pun) but I would guess he/she is a member, yeah.  I’m suspicious and I’m not sure how much, if any, creditability should be given to this.  The language smacks of self promotion.
> 
> ...


 
You're still here.  Nobody has been banned for making negative comments.  I wouldn't dream of telling you to shut up, Drew.  I notice that you don't think that little of the site that you've stopped posting.  

As far as it goes, I think that review is an accurate comment of what the site was like then and what almost killed it.  The problem with site's that have inconsistent, or zero, moderation is that they end up attracting only a certain kind of member and drive away others.  I recall a teenage member complaining about the language in a thread in the lounge.  She was told by one of the admin at that time that she could "f" off if she didn't like it.  

I don't think anyone seriously wants to go back there but people have to have something to protest about.  I don't think it's a good idea to forget that this is a writing site and it's writers that we want.  That means those who don't need to use colourful vocabulary as well as those who think it absolutely necessary.  It's in the social areas of the site that those people get driven away if the site is not consistently moderated.



Kat said:


> There is no possible way to statisfy everyone. The bitching will never stop. That is just a fact of life.



I know it but I think people have short memories.  This site was all but dead when Trent and I bought it and nobody was doing anything other than complain about it.  Reviving it meant getting rid of the reasons that it got that way.  That's back to applying the guidelines that have always existed on this site.


----------



## KangTheMad (Aug 24, 2010)

There is drama everywhere. You can't escape it, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and rightly so. What can be done to help though is people should not post purely negative posts like "OMG, your poem/song sucks. It should be burned and removed from this site!!!111!!!1" or "WF sucks, and the Admins suck too. They just cause trouble for us, they are stupid idiots!"

If you have something to say, at least make it nice, or put in some constructive criticism/suggestions as to how something could be done better.

Now, I've not read iDrew's posts, and from what he said and taking a quick look in Poetry, I suspect they have been removed. So I may just be a blathering moron here, lol.


----------



## Baron (Aug 24, 2010)

KangTheMad said:


> There is drama everywhere. You can't escape it, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and rightly so. What can be done to help though is people should not post purely negative posts like "OMG, your poem/song sucks. It should be burned and removed from this site!!!111!!!1" or "WF sucks, and the Admins suck too. They just cause trouble for us, they are stupid idiots!"
> 
> If you have something to say, at least make it nice, or put in some constructive criticism/suggestions as to how something could be done better.
> 
> Now, I've not read iDrew's posts, and from what he said and taking a quick look in Poetry, *I suspect they have been removed.* So I may just be a blathering moron here, lol.



Nothing has been removed.  Such rumours are grossly exaggerated.


----------



## Kat (Aug 24, 2010)

I have been here longer than most. I remember the way it was in the beginning with Crispian. And then I remember the way it was when I came back. It is closer to the way it was in the beginning but there are some things that I think have gotten lost that we aren't better for. 

I think that everyone who has been here awhile has an emotional investment in this site. They all have a direction they would like to see it go. But no one is going to agree on that. 

In the end it's your site. You run it how you see fit. And you will just have to harden your shell when it comes to complaints.


----------



## Baron (Aug 24, 2010)

Kat said:


> I have been here longer than most. I remember the way it was in the beginning with Crispian. And then I remember the way it was when I came back.* It is closer to the way it was in the beginning* but there are some things that I think have gotten lost that we aren't better for.
> 
> I think that everyone who has been here awhile has an emotional investment in this site. They all have a direction they would like to see it go. But no one is going to agree on that.
> 
> In the end it's your site. You run it how you see fit. And you will just have to harden your shell when it comes to complaints.


 
That is what we were aiming at and I realise that it's still a work in progress.  I've been getting some advice from Chrispian.  If people want to complain about the site as it is then they're free to do that, within reason.  If their complaint is that they want a return to the anarchy that was destroying it then they need to bring their heads out into the sunlight.


----------



## KangTheMad (Aug 24, 2010)

Baron said:


> Nothing has been removed.  Such rumours are grossly exaggerated.


 
*shrugs* I personally haven't seen these comments, so I won't be making any judgments. Even if I did, I'd be keeping them to myself.


I agree though that the site was much worse before Baron took over. The Lounge was not a pretty place, and several members would routinely laugh and make fun of a certain teenage member. I took part in that, I'm not proud of it. It happened though on a routine basis.


That would not fly now, bans would probably be handed out.


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 24, 2010)

Baron said:


> Once again a minor spate of bitching has broken out about the changes to WF under new management. Needless to say, it's in the poetry forum.


 
How ironic. The thickest-skinned group on the entire site, and they're bitching.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 24, 2010)

I love this site. Sometimes you have to put up with the bad to get the good. I'm only new and couldn't possibly comment on how it was previously ran or the confrontations that took place, but the way it is run now is all that matters. Maybe some people can't let go if they were really offended or feel they were victimized in some way previously, and that's fair, but I get the feeling it wont return to that (If it ever really was) which can only be a good thing. As I said I'm new but, it can't be helping in any way to be bringing up the past, so just help make it better as a community... I know I'll be here for a long time anyway, and I'm grateful this site exists. It's quite a safe haven for me, so thanks for that WF Team!


----------



## k3ng (Aug 24, 2010)

The forum will never be the same as whatever it was. I too have been here longer than most and have witnessed this place go through many phases. I'm with Kat. Run the damn thing the best you can and bah to the whiners.


----------



## Edgewise (Aug 24, 2010)

k3ng said:


> The forum will never be the same as whatever it was. I too have been here longer than most and have witnessed this place go through many phases. I'm with Kat. Run the damn thing the best you can and bah to the whiners.


 
Never mind the fact that a forum without members is nothing more than a modestly tall skyscraper with one occupant.  Which is to say that a forum consists of its membership, not its ownership.   And a forum of full of sycophants is only a little bit less absurd than a membership-less forum; it is, however, equally pointless.

And now somebody is going to bleat that somebody should go somewhere else.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 24, 2010)

How will comments like that help the situation in any way? It just adds to the problem for these guys. Atleast they are trying.


----------



## Edgewise (Aug 24, 2010)

Bruno Spatola said:


> How will comments like that help the situation in any way? It just adds to the problem for these guys. Atleast they are trying.


 
I have had a long relationship with "these guys", preceding the recent change in ownership by several years.  I have had a longer relationship with WF (the forum, not former management).  Let's just say I would have preferred "those guys" keep their hands off my favorite forum.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 24, 2010)

> Let's just say I would have preferred "those guys" keep their hands off my favorite forum.


 
And to help your "favorite forum" you leave negative comments that are of no help on it? I understand you don't like some things that have changed under new management, that's fair, but there's no need to make it worse.


----------



## Edgewise (Aug 24, 2010)

Bruno Spatola said:


> And to help your "favorite forum" you leave negative comments that are of no help on it? I understand you don't like some things that have changed under new management, that's fair, but there's no need to make it worse.


 
And how am I making it worse?  By expressing a negative opinion?  Perhaps you would prefer we all think happy thoughts and sing koombayah?  Like I said, sycophancy is absurd in a venue created for the purpose of discourse.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 24, 2010)

Your opinion is of no significance, the way you word it is. Why don't you tell them what should be done if you have all the answers, because anyone can give a strongly worded opinion.

Would you rather we send everyone with a bad story to Guantanamo bay? Maybe pomposity is the way forward in your eyes for the future of this forum, but being helpful is the way in mine and, it appears, the majority's too, including "these guys."


----------



## Edgewise (Aug 24, 2010)

You need it spelled out then.  Fine.

1.  The quality of a forum is predicated on the quality and diversity of its constituent members.  If you want a quality forum, stop clutching it to your chest as if it were a private possession.  Your house is worthless if there is nobody living in it.

2.  People are going to bitch and it is their right to bitch because, again, a forum full of yes-people defeats the purpose of a forum and, again, a member of a forum has a right to complain about the nature of a forum because their stake in the forum, as forum members, is no more or less important than anybody else.  So allow them to bitch without being told that their bitching amounts to nothing and that they belong elsewhere.

Crystal?


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 24, 2010)

I disagree with everything you say, so I guess I'm not one of these yes-people. Is it really so black and white for you? "Sycophants" and "Bitchers." 

Seriously, you should run for president.


----------



## BitofanInkling (Aug 25, 2010)

Never. Whenever I try to change my forum for the better, someone complains.


----------



## Edgewise (Aug 25, 2010)

Bruno Spatola said:


> I disagree with everything you say, so I guess I'm not one of these yes-people. Is it really so black and white for you? "Sycophants" and "Bitchers."
> 
> Seriously, you should run for president.



Note that I did not create that particular dichotomy.  Criticism of the management here is called "bitching".   Maybe you forgot to read the OP.  I think most of the formerly longtime members who have been banned since the new management took over would agree that the expectation of all members is to refrain from criticizing Baron and Co.  They have made it clear that the forum is for them and theirs, the ultimate result of which is a community of yes boys and girls.  Rob's other forum, Ambience Artists, illustrates that in spades.   And I have made it clear that this expectation is not only unhealthy but unreasonable, and unfitting given the nature of a forum as a format.  You don't have to agree with me or the management or anybody else.  Which is a part of the point I have been trying to make.  Your take is as valid as anybody's, but not to the exclusion of other opinions.

President?


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 25, 2010)

You need it spelled out? (Deja Vu?)

I've been very clear, I'm not sure what else I can say that would clear it up further.


----------



## caelum (Aug 25, 2010)

No reason to get personal.  Everyone has a right to believe what they want, and people are going to disagree.

I honestly can't think of much to bitch about.  Look at the bigger avatars, for one thing.  There isn't any extreme censorship here, WF isn't any more exclusive, there are new users coming all the time, there's been a crackdown on trolls (which was overdue), and more.


----------



## Baron (Aug 25, 2010)

The fact that people continue to post here despite the fact that they think the changes to the site are so terrible speaks volumes.

The aim of the staff is to get this forum back to what it was at the outset.  We've gone a long way to achieving that and the site is active again as a result of that.  At the time it changed hands it was straining for that last breath.  Most of the posts were either related to its demise or just plain flame wars.  Yeah, it's a terrible thing that we chose not to leave it that way.

I'd also like to point out that the staff mentioned in the review that I linked to in the OP does not include those members of the old staff who are still with us.  Those who were a problem are no longer with the site by their own choosing.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 25, 2010)

I wasn't getting personal, I was just repeating a previous comment but I apologize. I just think it's a bit disrespectful to post negative comments on a site that, it would appear, has changed for the better. That's all I'll say on it.


----------



## caelum (Aug 25, 2010)

My comment wasn't directed specifically at you, Bruno.  Just the overall tone.  Things getting a little heated.


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 25, 2010)

> I honestly can't think of much to bitch about. Look at the bigger avatars, for one thing.


Oh, like, _wow_.


----------



## Edgewise (Aug 25, 2010)

Bruno Spatola said:


> You need it spelled out? (Deja Vu?)
> 
> I've been very clear, I'm not sure what else I can say that would clear it up further.


 
Read the edit of the post you were responding to.  PM me if you have questions.


----------



## caelum (Aug 25, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> Oh, like, _wow_.


 Ox isn't known for his sense of humour.


----------



## Edgewise (Aug 25, 2010)

Baron said:


> Those who were a problem are no longer with the site by their own choosing.


 
Funny.  Malone was banned.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 25, 2010)

Some people think the royal family are beings called Annunaki from the constellation Draco...nutters.


----------



## Edgewise (Aug 25, 2010)

Bruno Spatola said:


> Would you rather we send everyone with a bad story to Guantanamo bay? Maybe pomposity is the way forward in your eyes for the future of this forum, but being helpful is the way in mine and, it appears, the majority's too, including "these guys."


 
I missed this nugget.  And you completely missed my point.  I have come to realize that you are a waste of time.  Cheers.


----------



## Baron (Aug 25, 2010)

Edgewise said:


> Note that I did not create that particular dichotomy.  Criticism of the management here is called "bitching".   Maybe you forgot to read the OP.  I think most of the formerly longtime members who have been banned since the new management took over would agree that the expectation of all members is to refrain from criticizing Baron and Co.  They have made it clear that the forum is for them and theirs, the result of which is a community of yes boys and girls.  Rob's other forum, Ambience Artists, illustrates that in spades.   And I have made it clear that this expectation is not only unhealthy but unreasonable, and unfitting given the nature of a forum as a format.  You don't have to agree with me or the management or anybody else.  Which is a part of the point I have been trying to make.  Your take is as valid as anybody's, but not to the exclusion of other opinions.
> 
> President?


 
You got up the noses of a lot of people on Ambiance because you thought that you could use the same flame tactics in debate as was common here at the time.  So of course Ambiance and it's members are at fault because most disagreed, not with what you had to say but the fact that you needed to resort to flaming to say it.  Those tactics among many of the members here are the cancer that brought this site down and that review clearly shows the truth of my words.

Nobody has been banned for expressing opinions.  That's fatuous.  People have been banned for flaming, after repeatedly ignoring staff warnings.  Those bans have also been progressive, a permanent ban being given only when shorter bans didn't get the point home.  Neither I nor the rest of the staff are here to be targets.  If people have something to say they're free to say it.  Nobody is stopping you having your say now so this whole thread disproves your argument.  However, when people start flaming the staff then action will be taken, as with flaming against any member of this site.


----------



## Baron (Aug 25, 2010)

Edgewise said:


> Funny.  Malone was banned.


 
With good reason.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 25, 2010)

I didn't miss your point, because I don't think you have one. When you make exaggerations (Singing kumbaya), I make them too. You missed my point but I don't "Bitch" because it doesn't "Help." I think Baron has said everything, but you seem to not want to know. I've said all I have to say, no point talking now so lets just end this facade. That all probably just makes me a "Sycophant"


----------



## qwertyman (Aug 25, 2010)

Baron said:


> Nobody has been banned for expressing opinions. That's fatuous.


 
I was.

http://www.writingforums.com/writing-discussion/114000-reaction-finding-voice-thread.

#
Baron, I didn't know you had another site. 

Why on earth did you take this site and turn it into just another Writing Forum?


----------



## Tom (Aug 25, 2010)

Sometimes it's not that you express your opinion, it's the way you go about it.

There are going to be things that we disagree on and that we debate over, but I think everybody here, being writers an' all, can understand that pleasing everybody is a near impossibility.

There are going to be good aspects and bad aspects, but they're neighbours, and if you can't deal with the bad things you miss out on the good things. It's life, for crying out loud, so we should stop the bitching and get on with it.

Tom.


----------



## Baron (Aug 25, 2010)

qwertyman said:


> I was.
> 
> http://www.writingforums.com/writing-discussion/114000-reaction-finding-voice-thread.
> 
> ...


 
Perhaps you'd rather the way it was with all activity focused on flaming in the lounge and hardly any activity in the creative forums?  The simple answer to your question is "because this is a writing forum (once again)".

You weren't banned for expressing an opinion you were banned for ignoring staff.

There's a line that gets crossed when expressing an opinion becomes being a trouble maker just for the sake of it.  Society generally frowns on the latter and the forum community is no different.  If people take that road then there are inevitable consequences.  If you can't do the time don't do the crime.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 25, 2010)

Can we sing kumbaya now please? I'm getting restless.


----------



## Eluixa (Aug 25, 2010)

Characters make the book and some have disappeared. And while I see some born, I still feel the loss. I want to feel the drumming of my heart when what is thought, is said, without the resignation of someone that thinks they are probably counting their remaining days here. This site was a ship sinking, because the owner did not care about it, or us. Yeah, it's havoc when you think you're going down and it was messy. I am grateful for the save. I am. I am grateful for new faces, new thoughts. I would like to write and speak freely though, for adults, relying on my own good judgement, and not tiptoing to avoid blackening my name. Being that I am neither a flamer or much of a cusser I am still scrunching my eyes at what I worry is an invisible, but taught line. 
So it seems to me that M'Lord is somewhat conservative. That's the way the cookie crumbles. He took it upon himself to try and breathe life back in, and bravo. I am grateful for M'Lords participation and care even so. 
I would that we be honest and open and brave and that M'Lord shows courage in the face of us for at our bestest, we are unweildly.


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 25, 2010)

qwertyman said:


> I was.


 
You were banned for advocating that the rules be ignored.

http://www.writingforums.com/writin...eaction-finding-voice-thread.html#post1372944

That way lies anarchy.


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 25, 2010)

Eluixa said:


> Yeah, it's havoc when you think you're going down and it was messy.


It's just me and my filthy mind.


----------



## Baron (Aug 25, 2010)

Eluixa said:


> Characters make the book and some have disappeared. And while I see some born, I still feel the loss. I want to feel the drumming of my heart when what is thought, is said, without the resignation of someone that thinks they are probably counting their remaining days here. This site was a ship sinking, because the owner did not care about it, or us. Yeah, it's havoc when you think you're going down and it was messy. I am grateful for the save. I am. I am grateful for new faces, new thoughts. I would like to write and speak freely though, for adults, relying on my own good judgement, and not tiptoing to avoid blackening my name. Being that I am neither a flamer or much of a cusser I am still scrunching my eyes at what I worry is an invisible, but taught line.
> So it seems to me that M'Lord is somewhat conservative. That's the way the cookie crumbles. He took it upon himself to try and breathe life back in, and bravo. I am grateful for M'Lords participation and care even so.
> I would that we be honest and open and brave and that M'Lord shows courage in the face of us for at our bestest, we are unweildly.


 
This site was never meant to be solely aimed at adults.  You can see that by reading the rules and guidelines which have changed little since Chrispian owned the site.  There's still a wide amount of leeway in the creative forums as long a a disclaimer is used.  

The fact that Yusef was absent when he owned the site doesn't really account for the behaviour of those who still used it.  It's a red herring and the assessment made in the review that opened this thread has more insight to the real problems at that time.  That's why we're at the place we're at now and will continue in a like direction.

Internet communities are constantly changing, that's the nature of the beast.  People leave and occasionally they come back.  New members come in and the character of the community begins to change.  For all that, WF will always be WF.


----------



## Baron (Aug 25, 2010)

Drew, you're not a member of Ambiance and never have been.  You know nothing at all about that site so I really don't know why you keep bringing it up as if it's something bad.  The site is completely different to WF.  It was originally set up by professionals for professionals.  It isn't a writing site.  It's for people in all areas of the arts and theatre.  Membership is expanded to include other than just professionals now but it's still by invitation.  The site is strictly members only.  

The truth is that much of what you write in these posts is just sounding off without knowledge and demonstrably lacking observation or the ability to observe what's actually happening.  There is minimal censorship in the creative forums and we're not tolerating trolls.  The hard shell that you speak of envelopes your own head because the only time I've really played it hard is when people have got totally out of line.  

I've invested time and money into this site to build it up as a writing community again, not to make it a haven for trolls.


----------



## qwertyman (Aug 25, 2010)

I was banned for advocating one of the basic princilples of litererary criticism - discourse.

I agree that all critiques should be balanced and constructive and the OP is entitled to that courtesy - not so the critic. His/her views must be open to challenge. If you remove that right you degrade the process; it's fundermantal.



			
				Baron said:
			
		

> You weren't banned for expressing an opinion you were banned for ignoring staff.


 
I did what I was told. I stopped commenting within the thread on this subject and moved it to Writing Discussions. 

If your saying, I was ignoring staff by raising the subject for discussion, so be it. But I find that sinister and is tantamount to banning me for holding an opinion.


----------



## Eluixa (Aug 25, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> It's just me and my filthy mind.


 
You would find that. #-o


----------



## Baron (Aug 25, 2010)

iDrew said:


> The ‘hard shell’ refers to something Kat said.
> 
> 
> What did you expect - I'm just a dumb blonde Essex girl after all!


 
Do you dance around your handbag?


----------



## Sam (Aug 25, 2010)

I fail to see the issue here. You're being asked to put a disclaimer on your work and tone down the language in the non-creative sections. Oh, God, the horror! You can't use a curse word to demonstrate your feelings. What ever will you do! Heaven forfend that you have to put a little message above your work that states it has language or mature scenes in it. It just ruins the entire ambience of it, doesn't it? What a load of crap. 

I've sold fifty copies of my revised novel in the last few weeks. No fewer than ten people approached me and said: "I appreciate the notice you put in the author's foreword". I added a disclaimer which said: "Scenes of violence and language of an explicit nature is present throughout this novel. Discretion is advised". It had no bearing on my readership. It only informed them that they couldn't give the novel to their thirteen-year-old son/daughter. And they're not my intended audience, in any case, so I really see no harm in warning people. 

I think people here are looking for something to complain about. They seem to forget that this site was moribund before Rob purchased it. When I logged on this morning, there were _three _pages of posts for me to peruse. In the old days, you were lucky if you got three pages a week. Before you start knocking the site, you might want to visit our sister site, dot org. They have the bleeper machine already in-use. Every curse word is replaced by asterisks. And there's not a whimper about it.


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 25, 2010)

Q. How can you tell if an Essex girl has been using the word processor?
A. There's white correction fluid all over the screen.


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 25, 2010)

Sam, I hope for the readers’ sakes that the verb tenses throughout the novel are more correct than the one in the first sentence of the disclaimer.


----------



## J.R. MacLean (Aug 25, 2010)

For what it is worth, I'm inclined to agree with qwertyman.


----------



## Baron (Aug 25, 2010)

J.R. MacLean said:


> For what it is worth, I'm inclined to agree with qwertyman.


 
About what?  All qwerty has done is gripe about being banned.


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 25, 2010)

Baron said:


> All qwerty has done is gripe about being banned.


I might be wrong, but perhaps J.R. MacLean may have been agreeing with querty's statement that a critic's views must be open to challenge.

If that was what he meant, I agree. Even if it wasn't what he meant I still agree with querty.




qwertyman said:


> I agree that all critiques should be balanced and constructive and the OP is entitled to that courtesy - not so the critic. His/her views must be open to challenge. If you remove that right you degrade the process; it's fundermantal.


----------



## columbo1977 (Aug 25, 2010)

Well..... I was here before the change but to be honest I stayed pretty much in the Critique part so didnt see all the problems. I will say however that I find this to be a very good forum and visit almost daily now. The management seem to do a good job or moderating it and keeping things civil, the only people who seem to have a problem are the ones that seem to like igniting more arguments.

Critique is always welcome, beating someone down who is only trying to get help with thier work is not... (an oppionion, not a reflection of what i see here)

I would suggest that this post has gone as far as it can and from a moderation point I would be tempted to just lock it and move on.

But thats just me 

Graham


----------



## J.R. MacLean (Aug 25, 2010)

Now I'm inclined to agree with both Ox and Qwerty. In this instance, that is.


----------



## Baron (Aug 25, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> I might be wrong, but perhaps J.R. MacLean may have been agreeing with querty's statement that a critic's views must be open to challenge.
> 
> If that was what he meant, I agree. Even if it wasn't what he meant I still agree with querty.


 
The guideline isn't about discussing critiques it's about derailing threads and flaming.  Qwerty and JR are both aware of that.  Once again you're earning that title.


----------



## JosephB (Aug 25, 2010)

It's perfectly possible to "challenge" a critics view by simply offering an opposing opinion. There really is no reason to make it personal by directly challenging another member. I posted and critiqued in the Workshop for years and folks mostly stuck to this very simple way of doing things. For the most part, it was a great atmosphere and a pleasure to post and critique there. No one held back or beat around the bush either. The expectation was that that the author would take or leave things as he saw fit. It's really not that complicated.


----------



## Baron (Aug 25, 2010)

J.R. MacLean said:


> Now I'm inclined to *agree with* both *Ox* and Qwerty. In this instance, that is.


 
I'm not sure that there's any treatment available for this.

I found a picture of qwerty...


----------



## J.R. MacLean (Aug 25, 2010)

JosephB said:


> It's perfectly possible to "challenge" a critics view by simply offering an opposing opinion. There really is no reason to make it personal by directly challenging another member. I posted and critiqued in the Workshop for years and folks mostly stuck to this very simple way of doing things. For the most part, it was a great atmosphere and a pleasure to post and critique there. No one held back or beat around the bush either. The expectation was that that the author would take or leave things as he saw fit. It's really not that complicated.



I think a critique can be critiqued in a way that might be enlightening for all involved. You may specifically critque a certain sentence for certain reasons and I may specifically disagree for certain other reasons. There is nothing personal involved and the writer has two viewpoints on that sentence to consider. Doesn't one want one's ideas to be challenged in a reasonable way? They are only ideas after all. Not to be allowed to refer the opinions of others (if that is what we are discussing) seems rather limiting.


----------



## Foxee (Aug 25, 2010)

J.R. MacLean said:


> Not to be allowed to refer the opinions of others (if that is what we are discussing) seems rather limiting.


 I don't think that referring to another person's critique or commenting on it in the course of your own critique is a problem at all. The problem comes in when it becomes a debate and the OP suddenly has to sift through pages of opinions that don't much resemble critique anymore. That's when it's better to take the commenting to writing discussions...or debate if you feel that strongly about it.


----------



## Baron (Aug 25, 2010)

J.R. MacLean said:


> I think a critique can be critiqued in a way that might be enlightening for all involved. You may specifically critque a certain sentence for certain reasons and I may specifically disagree for certain other reasons. There is nothing personal involved and the writer has two viewpoints on that sentence to consider. Doesn't one want one's ideas to be challenged in a reasonable way? They are only ideas after all. Not to be allowed to refer the opinions of others (if that is what we are discussing) seems rather limiting.


 
As I mentioned earlier, the issue isn't about reasonable discussion, it's about derailing and flaming.  As long as discussion within threads remains reasonable it really isn't a problem.  Where the real difficulty arises is that far too often people take exception to a critique of their critique and it just descends into a ping pong match of personal attacks.

Edit:  and what Foxee said


----------



## JosephB (Aug 25, 2010)

We're talking about the same thing, I think, JR. For example:

Joe: "There's too much description in your opening paragraph. I don't need to know that there are roses in the garden."

JR: "I think the amount of description is about right. Roses require a lot of care, so specifying that says something about the character."

Nine times out of ten, that would do it. Unless I got my feelings hurt and decided that I just had to argue with you or otherwise defend my comments. That's where things usually go wrong. 

I'm even annoyed when the OP defends every little thing -- "Well, I did it that way because... blah blah blah." A little of that goes a long way.

What I'm saying is, it's usually best to simply offer an opposing opinion and leave it at that. Then it's up to the author to think it through and decide.

EDIT: Heh. While I was jumping back and forth from other things, Foxee and Baron responded too. So, what they said, more or less.


----------



## NathanBrazil (Aug 25, 2010)

Here's an example of what I think is out of line as far as critiquing and responding to critiques:

Sorry, Sam W. Some of your comments are in here as well.
http://www.writingforums.com/writers-workshop/111647-time-without.html

I agree that discourse is important. But in this thread things went too far.

Add: I'm fairly certain that this happened before the changeover.


----------



## chimchimski (Aug 25, 2010)

This is exactly why I don't get deeply involved with critiquing, people get turned inside out.  I mostly review in private... 
I am a peacful person and wish others were as well.  As writers, we should offer a respectful critque and that critque should be recieved in the spirit it was given. Nothing more, nothing less.  Shouldn't it be that way?  Oh, come on guys...let's enjoy this site.  I am so glad for the changes I have seen, I plan to stick around here. The WF has been given a second chance, I hope we get on board and simply respect the rules and new direction.


----------



## JosephB (Aug 25, 2010)

Hey, Chimi! Glad to see you back.


----------



## Kat (Aug 25, 2010)

It's not an adult site. And truthfully there is probably more adult content then there was in the beginning. But if Baron wants to take it back to the way it was in the beginning then it won't be an adult site. No foul language, no adult themes, and don't kick the babies. That worked fine, it was what it was and you knew it and posted accordingly. So if your piece wasn't appropriate then you posted elsewhere or privately workshopped it. 

I'm not defending Baron because I think that this place has lost a lot with banning Malone and Lin. They both had incredible insight to offer. 

But in the end it is his site. If he wants to take suggestions then good for him. If he doesn't, and comes on complaining about bitching, then he better learn to thicken up his skin. People are going to bitch. Either he takes the comments into consideration or he doesn't. He's got a plan and a direction to take the board, and he seems to be doing a good job taking it that way.


----------



## Baron (Aug 25, 2010)

Kat said:


> It's not an adult site. And truthfully there is probably more adult content then there was in the beginning. But if Baron wants to take it back to the way it was in the beginning then it won't be an adult site. No foul language, no adult themes, and don't kick the babies. That worked fine, it was what it was and you knew it and posted accordingly. So if your piece wasn't appropriate then you posted elsewhere or privately workshopped it.
> 
> I'm not defending Baron because I think that this place has lost a lot with banning Malone and Lin. They both had incredible insight to offer.
> 
> But in the end it is his site. If he wants to take suggestions then good for him. If he doesn't, and comes on complaining about bitching, then he better learn to thicken up his skin. People are going to bitch. Either he takes the comments into consideration or he doesn't. He's got a plan and a direction to take the board, and he seems to be doing a good job taking it that way.


 
I don't complain about people bitching.  Didn't you know?  I apparently arrange for them to disappear.

The reason for posting this was inspired by the bitching but if you read any of the discussions before the purchase then you'll know that I expected that there would be a few skirmishes along the way.  Certain people made their feelings pretty clear then.  The reason for posting was to give people an opportunity to vent if they wanted to and to remind members of where we've come from.


----------



## Sam (Aug 25, 2010)

NathanBrazil said:


> Here's an example of what I think is out of line as far as critiquing and responding to critiques:
> 
> Sorry, Sam W. Some of your comments are in here as well.
> http://www.writingforums.com/writers-workshop/111647-time-without.html
> ...



That was an example of someone coming in all high and mighty and calling someone else's work crap without offering a single piece of proof to back it up. In fact, in her first post she states that she only read two lines, yet she felt somehow qualified to comment on the piece in its entirety. That's the kind of "critique" that annoys me to no end. I don't mind a critique that points out problems, but when you start telling a person that they'll never be published if they don't do such and such, that's where the problems arise. I have no right to tell anyone their work won't be published. That's arrogant and downright bad manners. Even if the writing is suspect, there are lots of novels out there like that. Who am I to say someone else's won't join that list? 

For that reason, I defended Tom's work. It was before the changeover took place.  If I did that now I would receive a warning for derailing Tom's thread. Back then, though, the site was still _in extremis. _I know I overstepped the boundaries, but there was no-one there to enforce the rules. That's where WF has changed. The rules are being enforced now. The moderators are working together to ensure everyone's time here is enjoyable. For that to happen, certain sacrifices have to be made. That's always the case when a new person comes into the fray. 

Rob's shelling out money from his pocket to run the place. That means his in the final say. That's the way any business runs. And I _still_ don't see what the issue is here. Haven't we got a forum that's bustling with activity right now? Aren't the creative sections inundated with copious amounts of work? Aren't we getting replies and critiques faster than we've ever gotten them? Yet, everyone seems to be fixated on an inconsequential matter of works needing a disclaimer and language being asked to be toned down outside the creative sections. I mean, WTF? Do you really live for typing the f-word on your keyboard?


----------



## JosephB (Aug 25, 2010)

Baron, you'd be a lot better off just ignoring posts like the one that inspired this thread. You're not getting anywhere with any of this. I'm sick to death of all this rehashing. I know where we've come from and I don't need to be reminded. And new members likely don't care. Just let it go, man.


----------



## Baron (Aug 25, 2010)

Come on now, Joseph.  Drew deserved to be given the opportunity to get her views "out there" rather than tucked away on the poetry forum.  We all know that most people on the site are afraid to venture there because of the wild beasts which lurk in the dark recesses.


----------



## Foxee (Aug 25, 2010)

The poetry forum is a jungle. gohn, I think it was, had a really funny poem about that but I can't remember the title. It proved just how dangerous a poet could be.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 25, 2010)

I guess the pen is mightier than the... I think the rolling of eyes is audible.


----------



## Baron (Aug 25, 2010)

Foxee said:


> The poetry forum is a jungle. gohn, I think it was, had a really funny poem about that but I can't remember the title. It proved just how dangerous a poet could be.


 
There's also a very poisonous spider there, which lays in wait for the unsuspecting and incautious.


----------



## vangoghsear (Aug 25, 2010)

I don't see why moderators enforcing the rules *that we all agreed to abide by when we joined the site* should be accused of being sycophants.

Are we expected to _not _follow the rules in our moderation?  How exactly do we do that?  How could a system like that be fairly applied?  Do we only follow them in dealing with some members who are willing to follow them, but maybe accidentally broke one?   What about the others members who for some reason find themselves 'above' having to follow the rules because they feel breaking them is somehow within their personal liberties?   How far should we let that go?  

Until the rules are changed, they _are _the rules.  We try to apply them with discretion, but geez, some of you guys still push the boundaries.

Now someone pass out the lyrics to Kum Bay Yah, I'm tired of some of you slackers not singing.


----------



## KangTheMad (Aug 25, 2010)

_Kumbayah, my Lord, someone's praying...

do do dee doo dum...something something..._


----------



## vangoghsear (Aug 25, 2010)

KangTheMad said:


> _Kumbayah, my Lord, someone's praying...
> 
> do do dee doo dum...something something..._


You see, it's this slack attitude I'm on about!


----------



## KangTheMad (Aug 25, 2010)

Fine. *googles for ten seconds*

Kumbaya as done by Peter Paul & Mary *shudders*

_
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya 

Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbayah 

Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya 

Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya 

Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya 

Someone's sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya​_
​


----------



## vangoghsear (Aug 25, 2010)

:thumbl: 

Now we're talkin'!

\\/


----------



## Gumby (Aug 25, 2010)

And here's a little pixie dust to help with the peace and love and all that junk.


----------



## KangTheMad (Aug 25, 2010)

*dances and prances, laughing and trying to catch the pixie dust*


----------



## qwertyman (Aug 25, 2010)

Just when you thought it was all over...



Foxee said:


> ... The problem comes in when it becomes a debate and the OP suddenly has to sift through pages of opinions that don't much resemble critique anymore.


 
If posters don't agree on a critique - it doesn't resemble a critique? 

I can't feel very sorry for the poster for sifting through comments people have taken the trouble and time to make. We are talking about literary criticism, different views will arise and the opportunity to dispute, agree or in any way create a discourse, should not be denied. 

That's my opinion, but I know I don't pay the rent....Anyway hats off to you Baron for opening up this thread for the bitches to be paraded. (Which reminds me, I was cautioned for usiing the phrase 'wet beaches' in a French accent.) 




			
				Foxee said:
			
		

> That's when it's better to take the commenting to writing discussions...or debate if you feel that strongly about it.


 
Which is exactly what I did and got banned for it! I could quote from the PMs, but they were made in confidence and anyway nobody is interested. Blah blah blah.... yawn...zzz


----------



## KangTheMad (Aug 25, 2010)

qwertyman said:


> Just when you thought it was all over...
> 
> 
> 
> If posters don't agree on a critique - it doesn't resemble a critique?



I believe what Foxee is trying to say is that when someone disagrees with a critique, and it turns into an ugly argument where the two posters are attacking each other in the posts, then it becomes a problem. 

There is a link here to a thread asking for critique. It is a perfect example of how critiques can go wrong. Beyond the first or second posts by both people, the argument over the critiques wasn't being helpful at all to the OP, it was two people getting in an argument, plain and simple.


----------



## Foxee (Aug 25, 2010)

What Kang said. 

It's actually pretty easy to understand.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 25, 2010)

I'm surprised we aren't at Defcon 1 with all the sour grapes clogging up the thread.

I don't even know what that means but it sounds good.


----------



## Baron (Aug 25, 2010)

iDrew said:


> Give me strength.  I did say ‘an enforcement of a new moral code’ was more of an issue for me than the language.  I shall simplify for the hard of understanding:



There is no new moral code.




iDrew said:


> I don’t swear in threads or replies.



So you're making a noise just for the sake of it.



iDrew said:


> But still, if this system had been in place over two years ago I would never had joined. This is not the interpretation of the rules in place at that time.



Read the review in the link that I posted in the OP.  This is exactly the time that it was written.



iDrew said:


> The goal posts have shifted therefore I feel it not unreasonable to draw attention to my feelings on this.



No, they fell down and were left lying there for a while.  Now they're back up again.




iDrew said:


> So you all think I’m a stupid cow - like I care.  Being a stupid cow is still preferable to being a blind sheep.  But hey, ignore me I know nothing, Rob said so - so it must be true.



You are what you eat so that rules out stupid cow as you're vegetarian.  Vegetables are not renowned for being sentient life forms.  That is, unless they're Triffids.


----------



## Like a Fox (Aug 25, 2010)

I really think that's enough negative energy for now.

Everyone here should go to YouTube, search _Double Rainbow_ and think about the more important things in life. 

OR

Look at this cute spider.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 25, 2010)

The kid is not my son.


----------



## Baron (Aug 25, 2010)

Like a Fox said:


> I really think that's enough negative energy for now.
> 
> Everyone here should go to YouTube, search _Double Rainbow_ and think about the more important things in life.
> 
> ...



[video=youtube;YwTGGHaCHAE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwTGGHaCHAE[/video]


----------



## qwertyman (Aug 26, 2010)

KangTheMad said:


> I believe what Foxee is trying to say is that when someone disagrees with a critique, and it turns into an ugly argument where the two posters are attacking each other in the posts, then it becomes a problem.


 
That is the presentable version. 

The rule in place is: when someone disagrees with a critique, and it turns into an ugly argument where the two posters are attacking each other in the posts, then it becomes a problem.

Personally, I would allow the ugly argument, it made this site different and edgy. 

Who did it harm? You can dance around your handbag or you can clatter somebody with it - toughen up, it's only a handbag. 

However, the argument is about the right to dispute a point - without smouldering handbags.

How do you like the new avatar? It's not me, I wouldn't be seen dead using that hair product.


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 26, 2010)

qwertyman said:


> The rule in place is: when someone disagrees with a critique, and it turns into an ugly argument where the two posters are attacking each other in the posts, then it becomes a problem.
> 
> Personally, I would allow the ugly argument, it made this site different and edgy.
> 
> ...


 
You’d have made more impact if you’d said the right to disagree is inherent in every form of discourse, not just those about writing.

And you’d also have made more impact if in response to those here who might say “Take it to Writing Discussions,” you’d said, “But what’s the point of that? That would be like two members of a real workshop taking their dispute across the road to the pub, where none of the other members would be able to listen in and learn.”

Why didn’t you think of saying that, querty?


----------



## Baron (Aug 26, 2010)

qwertyman said:


> That is the presentable version.
> 
> The rule in place is: when someone disagrees with a critique, and it turns into an ugly argument where the two posters are attacking each other in the posts, then it becomes a problem.
> 
> ...


 
It's what validated that review and drove a lot of good people away.


----------



## JosephB (Aug 26, 2010)

qwertyman said:


> That is the presentable version.
> 
> The rule in place is: when someone disagrees with a critique, and it turns into an ugly argument where the two posters are attacking each other in the posts, then it becomes a problem.
> 
> ...



Did you ever stop to think that maybe no one gives a crap about your "ugly argument?" That's a good bet, if it's anything like this one -- which is basically 5 people trying to explain something to you over and over and you not getting it.

If memory serves, your "edgy" arguments are a boring tit for tat with you hammering the same point over and over, trying to be clever, and getting nowhere. 

Critiques should be about the story, not your ridiculous side argument with OX or whoever. 

Who does it harm? All the people who must waste their precious time scrolling past your nonsense. 

Critiques are not about you and your ego. So take it to Writing Discussions or The Lounge or wherever where it can be more easily ignored.

Is that edgy enough for you????


----------



## qwertyman (Aug 26, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> You’d have made more impact if you’d said the right to disagree is inherent in every form of discourse, not just those about writing.
> It's a given, I didn't think it needed saying, but maybe you're right!
> 
> And you’d also have made more impact if in response to those here who might say “Take it to Writing Discussions,” you’d said, “But what’s the point of that? That would be like two members of a real workshop taking their dispute across the road to the pub, where none of the other members would be able to listen in and learn.”
> ...


 
It wasn't an option, they deleted my post. If I didn't move it to Writing Discussions, I would have been unable to moot my disagreement. As it happens, I couldn't anway.



			
				Baron von Strangelove said:
			
		

> It's what validated that review and drove a lot of good people away.


 
I'm not sure, but I think I know what your saying. Why didn't you just tell them to put their handbags down, surely that's better than banning discourse? 

As for driving good people away, I'm staggered. What are they going to do when they get their first rejection letter? 

The rattiness and ego-puncturing wasn't directed at the OP. So who did it drive away?

 There's a lot of very perculiar priorities being displayed here.


----------



## Baron (Aug 26, 2010)

JosephB said:


> Did you ever stop to think that maybe no one gives a crap about your "ugly argument?" That's a good bet, if it's anything like this one -- which is basically 5 people trying to explain something to you over and over and you not getting it.
> 
> If memory serves, your "edgy" arguments are a boring tit for tat with you hammering the same point over and over, trying to be clever, and getting nowhere.
> 
> ...


 





qwertyman said:


> It wasn't an option, they deleted my post. If I didn't move it to Writing Discussions, I would have been unable to moot my disagreement. As it happens, I couldn't anway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Point proven, Joe.


----------



## qwertyman (Aug 26, 2010)

Three points made, none answered.


----------



## KangTheMad (Aug 26, 2010)

qwertyman said:


> That is the presentable version.
> 
> The rule in place is: when someone disagrees with a critique, and it turns into an ugly argument where the two posters are attacking each other in the posts, then it becomes a problem.
> 
> ...


 
Actually, it doesn't. 

I disagreed with a critique in This thread. No argument spawned over it, no harm was done. I gave a valid reason (in my opinion) as to why some of the stuff should stay instead of go.

There wasn't a problem.

What is a problem is when there comes a substantial disruption to a thread. i.e, an ugly argument. If you find yourself offended or angry at someone else, don't argue in another person's thread about it, take it to PMs or a moderator. 

Oh, your idea about keeping the place tense and edgy. . .No, just no. WF is supposed to be a friendly community. Contrary to what you think, there WERE rules set in place before the ownership change, nobody really enforced them though. If people want tense and edgy, they shouldn't be coming here for something. If they do, they should go to a political rally, or an abortion clinic, wave a sign and scream stuff.

You say that you were banned for voicing your opinion. Well, you've been doing it for seven pages now, and you are still here. Something in your argument lacks.

This thread has been going on for seven pages now, of *moderators, Admins, members, and the owner of the site* trying to explain a simple point to you. I will simplify it further.

*There are RULES designed to keep this place friendly, and where people can be critiqued without any unneeded drama.*

If a member dosn't agree or follow these rules (which are not super strict OMG Kim Jong Il is running this site, everything is sooo f'n strict!!!111!!!1), then the moderators and admins have the right to several things. They can give the member a warning, remove/edit the post, try and talk to the member and explain things ect. If none of those work and a member continues to be a problem, a small, three day ban can be handed to the member. If the problem persists even then, the ban can eventually be upgraded to a perma-ban.

Which part do you not understand? Better yet, you can direct quote from The Rules on what part you think is pointless/you don't understand if you want.


----------



## qwertyman (Aug 26, 2010)

Kang you're cherry picking.



qwertyman said:


> I agree that all critiques should be balanced and constructive and the OP is entitled to that courtesy - not so the critic. His/her views must be open to challenge. If you remove that right you degrade the process; it's fundermantal.


 
That is the only point I want to promote the rest is responding to others' comments.



			
				qwerty said:
			
		

> Personally, I would allow the ugly argument, it made this site different and edgy.


 
Personally: a view held exclusively.

For the benefit of doubt:
I understand why 'ugly arguments' should be excluded and I hear the voice of reason. I don't expect it to change and I can see offense could be given. 





> Why didn't you just tell them to put their handbags down, surely that's better than banning discourse?


I was expressing a personal opinion and I gave three reasons for holding it. What are you getting so up-tight about? You don't want me to have a personal preference? 
*


			
				kang the mad said:
			
		


There are RULES designed to keep this place friendly, and where people can be critiqued without any unneeded drama.

Click to expand...

* 
Forget about 'ugly arguments' I'm not fighting that cause. Just remember that writing is a subject people get passionate about. I don't care about being banned.

Go back to the top quote - that's all I care about. Are we clear now?


----------



## Baron (Aug 26, 2010)

qwertyman said:


> Three points made, none answered.


 
All your points have been answered but you're not taking it in.


----------



## Edgewise (Aug 26, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> You’d have made more impact if you’d said the right to disagree is inherent in every form of discourse, not just those about writing.
> 
> 
> > Out of the context (sorry Ox), but for me that is the bottom line and the chorus keeps on missing it.


----------



## JosephB (Aug 26, 2010)

Except that no one is saying you can't disagree. 

The format that most people here seem to prefer, and the one being promoted, is one where the critiquers primarily address the author -- not each other. It's perfeclty fine to offer an opposing view -- and of course things tend to shift and build based on previous comments. 

This about not getting into side discussions and arguments that aren't directed at the OP -- when the main point of a post is to disagree with another poster. That's what the chorus is saying. You may not agree, but they aren't missing anything.


----------



## KangTheMad (Aug 26, 2010)

qwertyman said:


> Go back to the top quote - that's all I care about. Are we clear now?



Yes, you are. There is only a problem when two critiquers start getting at each other, calling names and being rude ect.


----------



## Edgewise (Aug 26, 2010)

JosephB said:


> Except that no one is saying you can't disagree.
> 
> The format that most people here seem to prefer, and the one being promoted, is one where the critiquers primarily address the author -- not each other. It's perfeclty fine to offer an opposing view -- and of course things tend to shift and build based on previous comments.
> 
> This about not getting into side discussions and arguments that aren't directed at the OP -- when the main point of a post is to disagree with another poster. That's what the chorus is saying. You may not agree, but they aren't missing anything.



Why would you want to compartmentalize the reviewing and editing process by limiting dialogue to the author and each individual reader?  I agree that in certain cases heated arguments between the readers can steal the show from the work, especially when they become personally nasty, but definitely not in all cases.  Charged discussion related to the aesthetics of a given piece, or even aesthetics in general, is an essential part of any creative format and should not be limited to two individuals.  The results might invite bad feelings, but imo wounded pride is a small price to pay for what are potentially helpful, and certainly interesting, revelations.


----------



## Baron (Aug 26, 2010)

Edgewise said:


> Why would you want to compartmentalize the reviewing and editing process by limiting dialogue to the author and each individual reader?  I agree that in certain cases heated arguments between the readers can steal the show from the work, especially when they become personally nasty, but definitely not in all cases.  Charged discussion related to the aesthetics of a given piece, or even aesthetics in general, is an essential part of any creative format and should not be limited to two individuals.  The results might invite bad feelings, but imo wounded pride is a small price to pay for what are potentially helpful, and certainly interesting, revelations.


 
If you take a look at what happens in practice the only time that threads invite attention from the moderators is when they involve flaming or if they become derailed.  Preventing both is the point of the guideline.  When any discussion stays on the topic of the OP and doesn't involve flaming there is generally no moderator intervention.  People are arguing ideas here instead of taking into account the way the process is actually applied.

Qwerty's grievances originated with him trying to turn a creative thread into an argument about his right to argue.  Of course the staff put a cap on this.


----------



## KangTheMad (Aug 26, 2010)

Edgewise said:


> Why would you want to compartmentalize the reviewing and editing process by limiting dialogue to the author and each individual reader?  I agree that in certain cases heated arguments between the readers can steal the show from the work, especially when they become personally nasty, but definitely not in all cases.  Charged discussion related to the aesthetics of a given piece, or even aesthetics in general, is an essential part of any creative format and should not be limited to two individuals.  The results might invite bad feelings, but imo wounded pride is a small price to pay for what are potentially helpful, and certainly interesting, revelations.


 
In theory and on paper, its a good idea.  But once you get outside of your close friends or co-workers, people can get offended easily, or take things personally, and they will usually reply in kind, resulting in one of those "ugly arguments".

Nobody is saying you can't debate, hell, we have a section devoted to just that.

Brings me to one last thing. Arguing and debating are two different things. 90% of the time, it is an argument that happens instead of a debate in the Critique threads when people disagree.


----------



## Baron (Aug 26, 2010)

I think all that needs to be said has now been said.  This thread is now closed.


----------

