Another WriterAction Update...
Clifford Green, one of the founding admins of WriterAction, has also resigned. What’s interesting about his resignation is the fact that he specifically chalks it up to not being able to work with Alex Sokoloff anymore.
And boy…do I ever understand that feeling.
I don’t doubt that my little cyberscreed precipitated his and Brian’s actions, although I also don’t doubt that this was a long time coming, and Clifford’s specific beefs probably don’t mirror mine. I don’t take any credit for his choices. I probably just served as an enzyme here.
Nonetheless, something’s happening behind the curtain at WA.
I can’t tell if all I’ve done is start a process where the well-intentioned admins up and quit in disgust with the institutional paranoia and reflexive defensiveness (that would be bad), or if these recent defections might open the admins’ minds to the notion that they step down and let other people be given a turn at the helm (that would be good).
Time will tell.
In the meanwhile…man, Lord Acton nailed it, didn’t he…?
In the case of the internet though the quote would have to be changed to:
Power tends to corrupt and meaningless power corrupts meaninglessly.
Negotiations are on hold and this is the story? What’s this really about, not being able to come up with a consensus on how to discipline a few “problem” posters?
Much ado about nothing.
Not Bill S.
You must have missed the two articles on negotiations I put up in the last week. Archives are to the right.
“As always, I’m here to try to untangle the truth from all of the hype…”
“In the wake of my essay on Writer Action…”
“I don’t doubt that my little cyberscreed preciptated his and Brian’s actions…”
I think one of the things that rubs people the wrong way about you, Craig, is that you’re such a self-promoter. If you would just do your thing and let your readers decide whether or not you were The Decider, it would probably go a long way towards softening your reputation.
Speaking as one of the many who breeze through your posts to get to the comments, I think the people who wrote those 526 posts after your piece had something to do with it as well.
(One clarification - as workers in the entertainment business, we should all be adept at the art of self promotion. But when there’s nothing to be gained except for ego gratification, it’s not so excusable.)
UXB:
As I wrote above:
Can’t help it if I rub people the wrong way. I call ‘em like I see ‘em.
Speaking of which, I completely agree that the many contributors made a difference.
As for ego gratification, I find none here. Actually, it’s worse! I find none to start with, AND I host a site where people can call me a self-promoter and an egotist. :)
I don’t see what’s wrong with ego and self promotion. They aren’t inheirently bad traits. Many charming people have big egos and like to talk about themselves.
For WA expatriates who can still log on to WA, or those who are WGA but have resisted its siren call, I’d like to invite your votes on a WA poll thread called Is Anything Except Libel Okay to Post?
My hope is that not only current WAers, but expatriates who have not posted on WA in a long time will come back long enough at least to answer this question, which has me genuinely torn. I have enjoyed the hell out of the no-holds barred verbal fencing which occurred on WA in the past (and for that matter, more recently on AW.) I am also aware of the raw feelings that have been engendered by unrestricted, or inconsistently restricted posting; feelings which have sent many into exile.
A lot of people are saying that on a writers’ board, there should be no limit, short of libel that would lay the board open to legal action; that with any poster who offends you without actual libel, your choice should be either to respond, to put the poster on Ignore…or to leave the board.
I hear a lot of others saying there should be definite limits beyond mere libel, but these limits need to be enforced with consistency.
I’m curious, which is the majority opinion?
Should WA members be allowed to: address other members with any kind of language or tone; voice any negative opinion of another member’s work or talent (as long as it does not rise to the level of libel — that is, what is posted is not false and does not arguably damage the other member’s employability, reputation, etc.); critique another member’s character, intellect, appearance, genitals, sexual orientation, hygiene, etc.; make fun of posters’ families (or the sexual availability or prospective deaths of same); make jokes about or angry criticisms of: Holocaust victims/lynching victims/current leaders/slain leaders/slain cops/slain criminals/slain children/aborted fetuses/dead celebrities/Matthew Shepard/women who died from abortions/doctors who perform abortions/people who kill abortion doctors/other hot-button topics? (Feel free to suggest any other restrictable topics that I’ve missed.) [Edited to add: It is understood that death threats, inducement to fraud and other illegal posts would have to be banned along with libel.]
Thanks, Craig, for providing this forum.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled posts.
P.S. - At Glenn Camhi’s suggestion, I have included with the above list of objectionable quotes, any accurate revelation of private correspondence. Such an act is dishonorable, but not illegal, dishonest or specifically actionable.
However, inaccurate quotation of private communications would be, arguably, libel, and thus excluded.
Man, for a simple poll, this is getting complicated. My respect for anyone who can do the necessary hair-splitting to moderate a forum grows ever larger…
P.P.S. - I meant, any revelation of private correspondence without permission of the author.
Sheesh.
Don’t worry, Craig. The remaining admins have told us that they have a super secret plan that will fix everything. Oh, and that nothing’s wrong. But just wait for the plan. That they don’t need anyway. Because it’s coming and you’re going to love it. But really, everything’s fine.
In the meantime, they’re hoping we enjoy the 500 new threads that they’ve started to distract us and bury the news of Cliff and Brian’s departures.
But it’s all good.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EwTZ2xpQwpA
Doug,
There’s two short term problems with your list - the first is that while it seems fairly common-sensical, it’s also rather arbitrary. These are subjects about which most people would find any jokes offensive. There are, however, people who can be funny on almost any subject, and you’re now curbing them, and there are subjects most people have no problem with that some people find offensive. It becomes a majority rule situation, in the end. For instance - by your list, an Anna Nicole Smith joke is off the table, but it’s acceptable to comment to the effect that Ann Coulter’s a good person doing good work. I’ve heard some good Anna Nicole jokes, and I also tend to share the belief that anyone who likes Ann Coulter needs a shot in the head with a cast iron skillet.
Which leads to the second - if enough people complain about Joe Dingleberry’s post on the subject of Ann Coulter’s decency, THAT gets added to the verboten list, and we end up with a situation analogous to modern day airport security. Rather than making airplanes safer, they just ban whatever it is the last guy used to try to blow one up. (Plus, now I have to stand up for someone whose views I find abhorrent.)
Once you open the subject up to a group decision, it’s all over. A website run by one person, for their own… whatever it is… then that person makes the rules, and while they may not be consistent, at least you know what you’re getting. But when a group’s making these decisions, there’s no way of knowing what to expect at any moment.
One of the eight billion posts in the original WA thread had a great comment - the poster had never seen a forum destroyed by obnoxious behavior from other posters, but they’d seen plenty of them destroyed by administrators.
And I’m sorry, but in the end, it just makes my flesh crawl when writers sit around talking about what subjects should be fit for discussion.
Josh:
I’m not trying to create a list of taboos. I’m taking topics which have caused anger and complaints on various boards I’ve been on (oh, shit…I forgot bad puns!)…and trying to see how many writers are committed to the idea that a board should have no moderation for content, even the most unpopular (except for the aforesaid libel/death threat/other legal problem posts.)
So far, the poll has been running about neck-and-neck, though this morning the Not-Anything-Goes vote inched ahead.
Have you voted yet? Or are you banned from polls too?
I still miss Josh.
Doug,
I just went to WA for the first time in god knows how long, and found I am banned from participating in the poll.
I’m sorry to hear about how the poll’s going, but not surprised, I guess. I long ago realized that the writers I actually socialize with are in no way representative of the majority of our professional peers. Happy for me, sad for screenwriters in general…
Interesting skimming through that thread. Seems to me the answer’s simple - until the content of posts veers into attepts to do offline personal or professional damage, anything oughta go. The moment the content of a post is designed to actually do someone harm or contains real threats, they oughta stepped on. That said, it’s clear Craig and others disagree, and would argue for allowing such stuff to stand, so even THAT’S arguable.
I completely agree with Josh.
Ann Coulter. Oh, Ann Coulter. So oily. So boney. Whisper sweet parseltongue in my ear. Lick my lightening bolt scar. My wand grows rigid for you. You stupefy me! Stupefy! Stupefy! Stupefy!
UXB nailed it. Craig is like a guy who erects a 100 foot tall statue of himself and insists it’s proof of his humility because he allows birds to shit on it.