WriterAction - Why It's Failing, And Why We Need It

Your post here made me go count and see if I’m in the Top 59 posters on WriterAction.

I don’t know if it’s good or bad that I am.

Seems to me you have a normal percentage of lurkers to posters. Most people won’t post unless they feel they have something to add. If someone’s already saying what’s on their mind, they won’t chime in. Why should they? Clogs up the interpipes.

Alex, I think that’s fair. However, WriterAction is a closed-group site, whereas the average forum is an open-group site.

In other words, the average forum is open to just about anyone with an internet connection, so the goal is pretty much to just attract people as they come along.

WA should be trying to bring in as many of the specific and limited pool of people from whom they draw. It’s almost equivalent to their purpose, IMO. If WA is supposed to be the “town hall” for WGA writers, and only about 300 WGA writers care about it, then it’s not the town hall for WGA writers.

Frankly, increasing the number of lurkers would be a good thing too.

WA isn’t going to be worth shit until Alex Sokoloff steps down. She’s a petty, puffed-up crank who is looked upon by the rest of the administrators with distrust and frustration. I have no idea what she’s getting out of running the place at this point, save for some kind of ego gratification that she can’t get by… I dunno…. writing something good, maybe.

She looks upon the people who post on the site with suspicion and condescension, and feels that we need her calm, adult guidance to helps us express ourselves.

When I was posting there, it was as close to a real online community of real writers that I’ve ever found. The bar was a lot higher, the intellects that roamed the corridors were much brighter. It’s a good place, and I have no idea why they let that vicious dimwit run it the way she does. A palace revolt is long overdue, and clearly the overwhelming majority of the membership and the administration is ready for it.

It’s funny - I’ve always been drawn to writing and writers because it’s long been my observation that the keenest and most interesting minds I’ve come across are almost always those of writers. Spend enough time in this town, around people like Alex and others of her ilk, and that assessment gets turned on its head.

As long as she has her claws in the place, it’s always going to be tainted, and it ain’t never gonna live up to its potential. I still get e mails every few months from various members and administrators asking me to come back, and my answer’s the same - I’ll be back five minutes after Alex Sokoloff steps down.

“But I don’t ban people from questioning me.”

No. You just libel them, then shut down the thread.

I’m one of the WA lurkers in the numbers above. I’ll half uncloak here — I’ve got something to say, but I’m not going to risk anyone’s wrath by using my name. Too many grudges and attacks on WA for my taste.

First, please, Mr. Olson, let’s not make this thread about you, too.

Second, on topic, a year or so ago an administrative incident seems to have spun out of control and twenty or so of my favorite WA posters left. A few have come back to post occasionally, but on the whole, they’ve disappeared and taken most of the joy out of WA. Maybe not coincidentally, they were the most successful writers on WA. I see their names in the trades every week. So we lost their company and their invaluable advice.

I have no idea how to get them back, but I’d be willing to support anything that might do it. If you’re looking for five people to take over the running of WA, I think the first place to look is on the “Ask A Pro” section of the Artful Writer Forums.

If you took any of those five names and put them in charge, it would accomplish two things:

Number one, it would be bringing back voices lost.

Number two, the twenty that left all seem to be part of a group, and one can only imagine that they’d bring their friends along with them.

Mr. Hoag will undoubtedly post numbers to show how vital WA is. There are a lot of posts. But they’re pretty boring compared to what used to go up there. I’m sorry, but it’s true. The same handful of people posting about everything but screenwriting and WGA politics.

Please, administrators, put aside your hurt feelings and step down. I promise you’ll have a lot more fun as members than you’ve been having as administrators.

Please.

Wow!

WA member,

“First, please, Mr. Olson, let’s not make this thread about you, too.”

I’ll do my best to resist your attempt to do so, then.

Second, on topic, the notion that the folks who contributed to the Ask A Pro section are sitting around waiting for someone to ask them to run a web page is more than a little naive. What’s needed are people who are motivated and qualified to do such things, who would derive some enjoyment from it, and who would respect the rights of the members. You need people who perceive themselves as being in service to the membership, not vice versa.

Speaking AS someone who did an Ask A Pro segment, I’d rather pull my own fingernails out. But I’d respect the hell out of someone who DID want to do it, provided they were half decent at it (Which, by the way, describes most of the people doing the work over there. I don’t think the issue is an inept staff, it’s one individual who’s poisoned the whole place.)

Mr. Olson, I clearly said the “Ask A Pro” section of the Artful Writer forums. I was not aware you did one, although I’d love to read it if you did. :)

But yes, you may be right. Maybe none of those people would want to do it. But they’re part of the group that departed to WA’s detriment, in my opinion.

I guess one of the reasons that I like the idea of having working professionals run a bulletin board is that they’ll have better things to do with their time than micromanage, and they’ll have contacts to pull in their friends in.

It’s just a thought, though. My only real concern is that the machine is broken and I wish it could be fixed. The place used to be great and now it’s not.

WA,

On one thing you’re right - they WOULD be too busy to micromanage, but my sense is it still takes a good deal of time and commitment to run such a place. It’s one thing to sporadically post, and be a part of an online community when you have the time, another altogether to run it.

But I really do think the primary issue is Sokoloff. I think if she stepped down, a lot of what’s bogging the place down would change, and you’d see a major improvement in the attitude and level of commitment on the part of the rest of the administration.

(Lastly - I did an Ask A Pro section, but when Alex went batshit on me and offered a bunch of unacceptable and ridiculous terms by which I could return, I had them remove my section. I did not want them getting any use out of my work when I objected strenuously to how the place was run. They still have it, and once she’s gone, or retracts her lunatic demands, I’ll return, and they can put it back up. And I know for a fact that I’m not the only working pro she drove out of there with her out of control behavior.)

Josh:

I think you’re confusing the WA “Member Spotlight” with the “Ask A Pro” section of the Artful Writer.

As one of the dimmer bulbs who came along after Mr. Olson left WA, I don’t know what the place was like while he was there. However, I know I miss Mr. Mazin (though it’s somewhat nicer to have him correct my mistakes and misstatements through PM rather than in public), Mr. Lowell (though he does post from time to time), the Wibberleys and others who have abandoned the place.

I believe there are still some good, solid people there (not including myself, of course) and some useful discussions, but the place is less by not having the rest around.

A reader asked me to clarify something.

I am against the way that the WA Admins refuse to allow any public discussion of their actions and decisions in regard to membership discipline.

I am also against the way they privately deliberate, which is marked by endless, circular and nearly Talmudic rumination over issues that could easily be addressed within minutes by decisive, like-minded people who weren’t bogged down by their own need for bizarre navel-gazing.

I wish someone would post an example of what those private WA admin deliberations are really like and provide concrete proof once and for all of the disdain the administrators have for their members.

Josh -

As someone who has had a few run-ins with Writer Action as well, I can assure you that Ms. Sokoloff is not the sole issue there, despite an apparent ability to create personal issues with one working writer after another. I still post there once in a while out of boredom and optimism but it’s difficult to take the place seriously for a lot of the reasons Craig mentions. Working writers I’ve directed there continually tell me they don’t have time for the place as it’s run. But the problem is more than one person, despite your experience.

Ah, Ryan, we miss you too! ;)

I admit I miss WA a little. I used to frequent the place…until the admins accused certain members of overposting. I’ll never understand that. Overposters make those places sing (as long as they abide by the TOS), and they give lurkers something to lurk about.

I like the idea of getting some a-listers in there to be admins for all the reasons WA states. I do wonder how much of a time-suck being an admin really is, though. Craig?

Well, I run this blog, plus the forum inside, plus another forum that’s smaller and private.

In the end, it takes almost no time at all. As long as your rules are clear and you’re decisive when you need to be, it’s not like a job or anything.

If I wanted to run some more programs in here, that might mean 30 minutes of time a week just thinking, and maybe another 30 minutes of doing.

When I was an admin at WA, I think 99% of the time in there was absorbed by the process of dealing with the other admins. It’s not efficient, to say the least.

John,

I’m sure you’re right. I was trying to err on the side of caution - while I had issues with a couple of admins, the only serious ones were with her, and it seemed like the others seemed hamstrung by having to cater to her.

Craig,

I’d guess WA is more responsibility than this joint as it’s much larger, and is responsible to more than just the whims of a single creator. The section where writers can critique executives and producers alone seems to me would require a decent amount of serious attention. But yeah, I don’t think it requires an entire board, and hours of meetings to keep it going. My sense is some of those people simply love doing that sort of thing, and it gives them a sense of importance.

Josh:

It’s not really much larger. WA has 2100 or so members listed, with 516 members who have actually posted.

The Artful Forum has 1,847 members listed, with about 500 who have posted.

It’s roughly the same size, although WA has been around longer and has a much larger archive.

I don’t get the sense that the admins do much of anything by way of maintaining the Executive Tracking Board, which, last time I checked, was rife with duplicate entries, poorly-ordered lists, etc.

WA has become completely formulaic. Why would I bother posting a thread on there when I can tell you exactly who is going to respond and exactly how they’re going to respond?

I don’t remember that over-posting thing but I do know that a lot of the people that left were well-rounded; not so black-and-white with their opinions and politics. Which is how it should be. And how, at the present, it isn’t.

I’m also thinking that I have no idea if I used that semi-colon properly. But screw it.

And the phrase ‘that’s an ad-hom’ should be retired. It’s as if 50 people suddenly learned what it meant so they started using it all the time.

The way I see it, Admins should be rotating. 15 admins. 5 on at a time. 3 months on, 3 months off. That’s like…6 months every other year for each set (or is it every two years?)

Of course, there should be an overall standard set of rules. But people are always going to interpret those differently so getting a mixed-bag of people will be for the greater good.

And for the record, I have tried to get people to post more or register. Several people better paid than I. Turns out they already knew about it. But not in a good way. So I’ve stopped bringing it up.

By “larger,” I meant it has a larger purview, a larger mandate. Yours is a personal blog, essentially, and it’s about whatever you want it to be about. You speak solely for yourself, and if you decide tomorrow it’s going to be about the size of the zit on your ass and all other topics are verboten, that’s your call.

On the larger subject of problems with WA beyond administrative personel, any forum for writers that curbs written expression is, by definition, suspect, limited, and essentially pointless.

I wish to speak for all that are thinking of coming out of the woodwork to agree with Josh in saying that I agree with Josh and what he’s saying.

Gary:

I think you’re right. And you’re not the first person who’s said “I’ve stopped recommending WA to friends because when they see it, they tell me they don’t like it.”

I’ve certainly stopped recommending it. I took the link down a few months ago.

Josh:

Oh. Okay, sorry, I misunderstood. On the matter of WA’s mandate, you’re exactly right. Their purpose goes beyond the identity of the admins, which is precisely why the admins should step down. The purpose of the site isn’t tied to them, but rather to the membership of the WGAw.

I think five years of doing it is enough.

Part of the major problem with WA is that the political forums get tons of traffic. You can get that stuff on RedState or Kos; I think it’s better left out of a screenwriting board and I say that (with the benefit of hindsight) as a past mainstay of those sub-forums.

Another problem not listed in the stats above is that while the top 59 posters = 75% of the posts, the top 10 of those = 25% of the posts. Thus the site is really small in terms of active participants.

Certainly heavy handed moderation puts posters off. Apart from one final complaint I never, ever complained to an admin in all the time I was an active poster there. Grown-ups should have better things to do than go running to Mommy. And you don’t tell an adult that they are not allowed to question your decisions. Just take action and move on. It’s not the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A tightly focused board for screenwriters with (possibly) just a few extra chatty style topics - sports, other forms of writing, whatever - and a total ban on religion and politics would work well. I don’t know if it is realistic to hope WA admins will give up their privately owned space, but a screenwriting board that focused on movies and screenplays and was for WGA members solely would, I think, be welcome.

Louise,

The best writers are unique minds, and see the world in unique ways. You don’t get that kind of creativity and insight on most internet forums. Telling screenwriters that when they get together they can’t discuss the subjects that are most compelling to them is absurd.

There WERE forums for movies and screenplays over there, and that’s what people discussed in those forums. There were also forums for discussing politics and religion. It worked fine.

Let writers write. If you don’t like what they’re writing, don’t fucking read it. Period. End of story.

Personally, I think the following suggestions are great: Quote: Hosting live chat events with leadership, and advertising them via email blast to all 2100 members, lurkers or not Establishing post icons for thread-starters who want that discussion to remain serious Creating a forum for newbies (and limiting posting in that forum to members with fewer than 50 posts) Creating a forum where disputes can be hashed out between users and admins Publishing the Board minutes each month Publishing the Board agenda each month Creating a �featured debate� section where two members can have at each other in a civilized fashion I’m less hot on “Eliminating forums that are… redundant to other forums on the web.” It’s true that there are other websites where you can talk about politics or food or what have you—but there aren’t any where you can talk about them with WGA members. And chatting about random stuff with your fellow Guild members seems like an appropriate activity for a virtual town hall.

Finally, I think it’s actually not a bad idea for admins to have fixed, limited terms, and to be rotated out every few years. The current admins have done (and are doing) a great job—but sometimes, I think Old Married Couple syndrome sets in between some admins and some posters. What I mean is, sometimes two people build up such a personal history that each of them overreacts to everything the other says. I think rotating admins would help cool that down a bit.

The only problem is, it’s not clear to me that there are large number of people clamoring to take on Admin duties.

Jacob:

How about just getting rid of the stupid politics forum? You can have food, sex, travel, whatever Mark Miller’s question of the week is (you know, Why Is There Pee Coming Out Of Me? and such), etc.

I can easily think of a few people who would be great admins and who would be happy to do the job once I could convince them of how freakin’ easy and non-time-consuming it actually is.

Like, say…

…you.

After doing it for a week, you’d realize that you were hardly doing anything at all.

Oops—I pasted my above comment right out of my post on WA and I screwed up the formatting in doing so. Sorry about that.

One other thing I’d add: the departure of a bunch of regular posters (many of whom now hang out at Artful Writer instead) was a huge loss to WA. But I still don’t understand why they left. Frankly, “Some of the Admins said some people were posting too much” strikes me as a lame reason for depriving me of the pleasure of so many smart and funny people’s company.

Jacob:

I can’t speak for anyone other than myself. I don’t think people left because Alex said some stupid crap (although it is amazing how she continues to say stupid crap).

I think we left because we didn’t feel like being smart and funny in service of a community we thought was being run poorly and punitively (particularly to Tim Talbott, who got a bunch of abuse he didn’t deserve, including a ban for “not taking the admins warnings seriously enough”…and I kid you not).

Once it seemed like the dynamic had become repressively parental, I was outta there. I already have parents I don’t talk to. Who needs seven more? :)

But again, that’s just my view. You’d have to ask the others what their reasons were.

Craig,

It’s either a forum for everyone, or it isn’t. Clearly, politics and writing are two completely seperate issues to you. That’s fine. Don’t engage in political discussions. But to some people, politics, culture, and the state of art and literature and the world are essential to what they do. To some people, film is a political medium, making its creation a political act.

It is by no means offensive for you or anyone else to opt out of taking part in any discussion. It’s obscene for you or anyone else to dictate what’s fit discussion matter for writers.

You think political discussions are stupid, laughable even. Good for you. I, personally, think that a forum dedicated to whatever faceless, interchangable team of hacks wrote the sequel to the remake of the adaptation of the Porky’s videogame is idiotic. However, you don’t see me suggesting that such things be eradicated from that place.

And yeah, you can say that that has to do with screenwriting, and politics doesn’t, but that would betray a pretty profound lack of understanding about the nature of writing, and of film.

Honestly, this is the kind of thinking that killed WA - the notion that there are subjects that are fit and unfit for discussion in a writers forum.

I’ll resist the urge to theorize publicly as to why you and Louise are both so determined to eradicate the politics forum for now. But it’s pretty transparent…

Josh,

I think you give far too much credit to writers as a group and screenwriters in particular; I am sure we are on average intelligent, but not more so than other professional classes.

The question is what is the forum’s purpose. If it is for WGA members only, that seems to indicate a screenwriting purpose. When you introduce other things that people care passionately about, but have nothing to do with writing, differences of opinion quickly get personalised. That can ruin community spirit. I mean, what is your, Josh Olson’s, position on the credits structure. How do you decide what concepts to develop into a screenplay. etc. That’s the kind of thing I’d like to read from you.

I left WA because of a single issue I won’t get into here, and indeed can’t, because of the confidentiality we are all bound to when we sign up for WA and which I will respect. That said, I think the problem (and I disagree that it is confined to any one person, but believe it to be a function of poor group dynamics - which are often in conflict with the personalities of some of the admins I have met as individuals and found to be very pleasant indeed) was the non even handedness of the admin decisions. The childish way Tim Talbott was persecuted was clearly the final straw for many. The permitting of ludicrously offensive ad homs against Jeff Lowell was another. That this happened right before Lowell’s career took off for the stratosphere is deliciously ironic.

Josh:

I don’t think political discussions are stupid or laughable. I really enjoy them, actually.

I just think they’re not always helpful, given the charter of a particular group.

I’m not a social anarchist. Some kind of form or rule must be applied to help nurture a community. In the case of a mirror community for the WGA, avoiding politics seems like a good idea to me, because the political discussions tend to be divisive, and the point of the mirror community for the WGA would, I think, be the opposite.

If I feel like fighting about, I dunno, circumcision…why not do it somewhere else? The providers of a discussion group aren’t obligated to allow anything to be discussed.

Every discussion group hopefully has a roster of topics that define the purpose of the group itself. Anything beyond that roster is beyond the purpose of the group, and is pointless in the context of that group.

If the purpose of a group is to “discuss anything you feel like without restraints” then it would be obscene to limit the discussion.

If the purpose of the group is more limited than it, then it would not be obscene, but obvious and sensible.

Josh - we’re cross posting.

I don’t know about “unfit for discussion”, just that it isn’t the place for them. In the AW private forums I am getting on extremely well with people who, when I was on WA, were my sworn enemies over our political differences. Looking back on it, it seems childish beyond belief. I am not in any sense saying I don’t care passionately about politics. I always have and I always will. I just don’t want to bring it into every single area of my life. Talking about writing with writers is a pleasure.

Sometimes I think you thrive on conflict per se - which politcal debate can provide, whereas perhaps your views on the craft you excel at would not?

Both of you approach the world, your jobs, and our craft in such a radically different way from me, it’s like we don’t even speak the same language. That, in itself, is no problem. Where the problem arises from is that neither of you seem willing or capable of acknowledging that yours is only one way of perceiving these things, and that mine is equally - at least - valid.

If Writer Action is strictly a forum for WGA members to discuss clearly defined WGA issues, then that’s what it should be. But clearly it’s not. To SOME of us, what we do exists in a greater context, and if you offer us a forum to discuss issues of mutual interest, you don’t then get to set limits on what those things can be.

Louise states that writers aren’t any smarter than members of any other professional class, and I don’t disagree. But as artists, we ARE, as a group - at least, theoretically - more creative than most other professions. It wasn’t lawyers who first envisioned a man on the moon. And where do you think the geniuses who came up with Craig’s beloved iPhone got their inspiration? Christ, do I really need to make the case for the unique minds of artists to people who create for a living?

Both of you seem to be of the school of the okey-doke, that says the primary job of the writer is to entertain the largest possible audience, to provide comfort and amusement and escape. That - again - is fine. But there are other ways of perceiving this stuff, and it’s ridiculous for someone from one school to impose their restrictions on someone from another, and whether you see it or not, that is EXACTLY what you want to do.

Once we agree that the forum is a place for writers to congregate and discuss things that are of interest to writers, you do not get to restrict what those subjects are.

If Writer Action is a gathering place for professional screenwriters, then I - a professional fucking screenwriter - have things I want to discuss with OTHER professional fucking screenwriters. One of those things is politics. I have views about the power and importance of film that I’m pretty certain neither of you share, and the subject of politics is extremely important to that view.

Again, we disagree. But neither of you seems to recognize for an instant that you’re imposing your definition and your view on a much larger group.

Talking about writing with writers IS a pleasure. But part of that is discussing the nature of the world we live in. Some of us write about that.

One of the great things - theoretically, at least - about a forum for professional screenwriters, is that we’re all WAY past all that Sid Field shit, and yapping about three act structure, and inciting incidents. That isn’t talking about writing. That’s talking about typing, and the internet’s crawling with sites like that.

It’s a ridiculous argument, and I wouldn’t bother with it if it didn’t matter. It made me very sad to leave WA. I thought the place had tremendous potential that was being destroyed by petty, parochial thinking. When Craig started talking about keeping it alive and fixing it, I thought, Jesus - if WE can agree on it, maybe there’s some hope. Then this shit, which is is just more petty, parochial thinking, which causes me to conclude that you don’t want to fix it, you just want it to reflect YOUR petty, parochial thinking.

But Josh,

we could have plenty of impassioned debates about the nature of writing in general and screenwriting in particular, and they could address your worship of the screenplay form as a vehicle for the higher things, without having to debate Diebold.

I mean, for example, I think STAR WARS is the greatest film of all time. I’m pretty certain we could have an exhaustive debate on that which would hit every point you make about the nature of art without getting into political minutia.

:)

“I’ll resist the urge to theorize publicly as to why you and Louise are both so determined to eradicate the politics forum for now. But it’s pretty transparent…”

Josh:

I agree with Craig and Louise, even though I doubt I share whatever secret motive you’re ascribing to them. I’m a member of two other private screenwriting boards, both of which discourage political and religious conversations. It makes the places much more collegial. For one thing, we don’t get so hopped up that we call ourselves “professional fucking screenwriters.”

You’ve made your point. You think politics should be part of a new WA. That’s great. Your determination to write post after post driving your point home because people are too (pick an adjective) to agree with you is the reason I think politics and religion should be off-limits.

And no, you won’t change my mind either, so you can save a screed. ;)

Jeff

Louise,

IN YOUR OPINION.

Boggles my mind.

You don’t have to join in. It’s really that simple. Personally, I don’t know how you can seriously talk about Star Wars withOUT talking about politics. And I’m only half joking. (Pal of mine can easily draw a direct line from Star Wars to the dumbing down of America, to Reagan. It’s a hell of a lot more interesting than dragging out the Campbell yet again, even though it’s just as obvious.)

Jeff,

My perspective may be more confrontational than yours, but mine also allows room for yours to exist.

And THAT’S the real point here. It’s fascinating how utterly set you three are on the notion that a broad based forum for any member of the WGA should only fulfill the agenda YOU think it should. Jeff, I keep hitting this point because down in my heart of hearts, I cannot for the life of me believe that anyone who writes for a living would want to keep any subject off limits to writers in ANY forum, let alone one dedicated solely to the interests of screenwriters.

None of you are gonna fix Writer Action until you recognize that “screenwriter” is a broad label, and respect that. There are obviously plenty of working screenwriters over there - many of whom you and I could both learn something from - who believe politics is an extremely valid topic for discussion. That you - or Craig, or Louise - feels somehow qualified to determine what they should discuss over there speaks to a certain commonality with the much despised Alex Sokoloff.

The issue isn’t whether or not WA members should be allowed to discuss politics, it’s whether or not anyone should be allowed to dictate what’s appropriate subject matter. I’d be just as vigorous in defending the sports forums, even though you never have and never will find me posting in them.

As for “secret motives,” there’s nothing nefarious there. I just think that in an era when the Bush administration has been thoroughly and undeniably exposed for exactly the corrupt, inept monstrosity that many of us always said it was, people who were once prone to defend it vigorously in public might prefer to limit dicussions to how peachy keen Star Wars is.

1. Politics is certainly banned from this forum. But feel free to email me should you wish to discuss it. I believe I PMed you once after leaving WA, about something else, and we discussed your last point briefly.

2. I do not in any sense want to tell WA what they can and cannot discuss. The idea that the admins would ever let that board go is a fantasy. I merely suggest, instead, what the remit should be for a new board aimed at WGA screenwriters.

I see the email doesn’t come up. intobs211@aol.com.

Louise,

This is Craig’s forum. If Craig wants to limit discussion exclusively to the subject of his mother in law’s potato soup, that’s his right. WA is for ALL WGA members, including us lunatics who think politics is part and parcel of screenwriting.

My problem with Writer Action is that it’s populated by mostly retired or simply out of work writers. Nothing wrong with not working — I usually fall in that department. But at a certain point, it became clear to me that WA wasn’t all that different than any other screenwriting message board.

The people who left should either come back to WA in force and post relentlessly about this (without engaging in personal issues -aggressive but diplomatic) or start a new board for WGA members.

Again, I am not trying to limit WA. Rather, I’m saying that the way the place is administered has led to its death as a useful forum, wherein the most successful and accomplished screenwriters by objective measurement (career success and critical acclaim) - including yourself - have been driven away from the forum. I include Ted, the Wibberleys, Jeff, Derek Haas, Craig Mazin, you, Tim O’Donnell, John Turman, countless others. Some of these still post there, just occasionally. Most very infrequently.

Is there a place online for working screenwriters and those who’d like to be working screenwriters and have met the WGA membership threshold to meet and discuss writing and how the Guild should change?

Due to joint/group admin capriciousness, clearly WA is not that place. The question for me is not “will the admins step down from WA”. We all know they won’t. The question is does anybody else want to set up something with the same entry criteria but a fairer admin policy, which does not apply sanctions based on personality issues.

Without overtly political discussions there appear to be fewer personality issues. So I submit that this would be a good limitation on any new board, not on WA proper. As Craig says, there are tons of new threads and mini-forums and not that much discussion of writing or Guild stuff.

Already the private section of AW has far more successful writers, producers and directors than participate in WA; given that I haven’t even tried to sell a script for some time I feel privileged at being permitted to participate. It’s tremendous fun and when something even mildly political… tangentially so, since there are no overt political discussions allowed - comes up, I avoid it.

Sometimes I do miss posting in WA - I read the books forum where they are giving each other horrible advice. But it’s just nothing like it was when you were posting. It’s crashed and burned with the departures of too many currently working screenwriters, and I agree with the main post that this is an awful pity and there is a need for what WA was a few years back.

Political discussions/debates can be great fun and educational, but they also tend to spill into every other discussion. And once the political line has been drawn in the sand, people can be discussing the Film By credit, for example, and inevitably someone will drop the “well, you supported the war in Iraq, so what do you know” argument.

I’m not saying WA should add a “no politics” rule, I’m just saying it’s worked well on other screenwriter boards (e.g., in the private AW forum and on WGAwriters.com).

And yes, for me, it was Tim Talbott Gate that finally turned me off of WA. The dude is seriously stupid funny, but the WA admins didn’t think so. When your sense of humor is that different from the people running the place…why hang around?

Josh:

I don’t think an ideal WA would ban political discussions. Honestly.

I just don’t think it should specifically encourage them by creating a forum called “political discussion.”

The idea of going back in force is appealing, but the truth is, the administration never responded to any group effort, so I don’t see why they’d start now. Hell, for all we know, they’re thrilled with the state of the place.

Louise,

The little I’ve heard from other people confirms what you’re saying here - WA is pretty much dead. That’s the nature, frankly, of the internet and writers. I held out a little more hope for WA because of the WGA connection, but what the hell. They all go the way of AOL’s screenwriting forum or Wordplayer, or dozens of others eventually. There’s not much you can do about it. As passionate as I am about how WA should have done things, I don’t expect to see it come back to life.

Marianne,

“people can be discussing the Film By credit, for example, and inevitably someone will drop the “well, you supported the war in Iraq, so what do you know” argument.”

Goes to stupidity and character. Not entirely invalid.

In much the same way that…. well, you know.

Josh,

As someone who used to be (and sometimes still can’t resist being) a very frequent, gleefully passionate participant in the WA politics discussions — and on your side 99 times out of 100 — I agree with the suggestion that a WGA-member forum that did not encourage political debate would be much better site.

People take politics very personally. In a sense, “politics” is a misnomer. It’s usually a debate about personal philosophies and morals, and it’s hard to remain dispassionate when someone is telling you that your moral code is not up to snuff.

Leaving aside the fact that the political discussions on WA are extremely stale and predictable, the tenor of them bleeds over into other, non-political discussions and taints the vibe of the entire forum.

If you claim that your forum exists to foster community amongst WGA members, then it’s not “obscene” to actively curtail off-topic discussions that tend to drive a wedge between guild members. It’s actually just common sense.

There aren’t many sites where guild members can congregate. But there are 20 billion other places on the web to discuss politics — and, in my experience, the political discussions on WA are not remarkably more literate or interesting.

• Michael

As a non-pro, non-WGA member, I find it interesting that WA has many of the same problems as a major message board for aspiring screenwriters which I frequent.

When the admins of that site became more hypervigilant about acceptable subject matter (and banning members who dared to break the rules), some of the most interesting and helpful posters disappeared.

It seems to me this illustrates a correlation between freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and creativity.

Louise: I have to say any mention of Star Wars immediately brings politics to mind. At least for me. Perhaps that’s why many anti-adminstration people have been calling the VP Darth Cheney.

Storytelling has always been a tool for navigating real life. I’ve know people who have said a particular film or novel changed their lives. Some who say a film saved their life. For this reason, I feel no subject should be verbotten among writers.

personally, I don’t see the need in limiting topics. If enough people want to discuss politics or sports, why not offer a thread for it? It’s natural for people to want to mouth off about the news of day.

But this is distracting from the real topic of Craig’s post. Why does WA fail so miserably as a place of debate, discussion and education for working writers on issues of primary concern to working writers?

For the most part, leadership avoids the place. Maybe they don’t want to face scrutiny or maybe they don’t want to legitimize the debate there. I wish I knew.

The administrators use their power as administrators to push petty agendas and advance personal issues. They don’t abide by their own TOS, often using their status to ‘win’ arguments and forbid rebuttal. Administrators have singled out members in the WGA political threads for expressing political views they don’t happen to agree with and have said this passionate difference of opinion was “shameful” and ruining the place for them. Administrators will forbid members from commenting on a topic, or even ban a member, and then they themselves will continue inflammatory debate on that topic, often inaccurately. Administrators engage in ad hom personal attacks when they feel like it, while forbidding it from members they don’t like. Administrators selectively repost banned or deleted posts, even editing or rewriting them as a form of public personal attack or to ‘win’ arguments. Administrators forbid members from trashing the work of other members, advocate banning for this behavior, while doing so themselves without apology, when the mood strikes them. Administrators accuse members of breaking TOS or engaging in ad hom attacks and then refuse to even point out or clarify the offense to members who desire to abide by the TOS. (I asked an admin once, sincerely, what offense they were referring to so I could avoid it in the future and I was given no answer and told that if I asked again, publicly or privately, I’d be banned.) The administrators don’t seem to know what the term “ad hom” means, and freely use the term to apply to an opinion, argument or person they simply don’t like. When someone criticizes the administration of the board, the administrators, en masse, will try to drive that person off the board. They often do this with ad hom attacks as well: ‘you don’t like it here, leave. Please leave. What have you ever done? Start your own board, this is ours.’ The board often appears (ad hom coming…) to be a place for certain administrators to use their power to play out their personal issues. Even though a few squeaky wheels continue to rail against this when it comes up (I guess I’m one), many already mentioned have left for these reasons, and far more say nothing publicly but privately are quite aware and disgusted by it. I don’t have any answers for how to fix it (it’s not with more or different rules) but I agree with Craig and others that it’s a real problem.

Turman’s right. Much of what Olson is talking about is a red herring.

When I was running for the Board in 2004, I got a call from one of the admins telling me that apparently I was “posting too much.”

See, another admin claimed that she had received some emails complaining about that.

Then another admin claimed that she had received some emails.

When I asked to see the emails (without the sender information, of course), I was told I could not. And the rest of the admins hadn’t seen them either, and they were told they couldn’t see them.

But regardless, it was important that I post less, because the two complaining admins (including, natch, Alex) felt that by frequently posting my opinions about Guild politics, I was hurting WA.

The fact that Alex disagreed with my Guild politics was, um, I dunno…just coincidence.

So let’s review.

A member of the WGA is running for Guild office. WriterAction is a town hall for WGA writers, and specifically encourages discussion of Guild politics at the site. The member does exactly what WA encourages.

And the founding admin of WA pressures that member to post less because she disagrees with the content of his posts.

Sad.

 "...people can be discussing the Film By credit, for example, and inevitably someone will drop the “well, you supported the war in Iraq, so what do you know” argument.”

   "Goes to stupidity and character. Not entirely invalid."

Think you just proved a point there, Josh.

Michael,

“People take politics very personally. In a sense, “politics” is a misnomer. It’s usually a debate about personal philosophies and morals, and it’s hard to remain dispassionate when someone is telling you that your moral code is not up to snuff.”

Well, yeah. I agree entirely. But that’s sort of the nature of any art - it’s a reflection of the personality of the creator.

But I agree with Craig - the political forums (a subject I most definitely didn’t bring up) is not the issue.

Turman,

Your litany of offenses is chilling, and brings back a lot of sour memories. Christ. It’s horrifying.

I’d add two small things to your comment:

1) When I was having my last run-in with Alex, several of the administrators wrote me privately, apologizing and offering the opinion that she was nuts and a huge pain in the ass. I never understood why they didn’t act on those convictions.

2) For what it’s worth - my last run in was precipitated by her deleting an entire thread in which people were actually engaging in friendly discourse. When the dust settled, she actually acknowledged that the discussion wasn’t a violation of the TOS, but made my return to the boards conditional upon me apologizing for criticizing her for being wrong.

You’ll notice I haven’t returned.

Craig,

I wouldn’t vote for you to represent me if you were the last candidate on earth. I thought - and said as much - that the way Alex tried to curb your comments was obscene.

And that, in the end, was why I was so frustrated with the place (and why the politics discussion is important). Writers cannot be afraid of ideas, of dissent, of conflict. It’s essential to the work, and a forum that declares itself a place for writers but stifles expression in any way is a sham.

“Louise: I have to say any mention of Star Wars immediately brings politics to mind. At least for me. Perhaps that’s why many anti-adminstration people have been calling the VP Darth Cheney.

Storytelling has always been a tool for navigating real life. I’ve know people who have said a particular film or novel changed their lives. Some who say a film saved their life. For this reason, I feel no subject should be verbotten among writers”

I do think it’s different when the discussing our perceptions of film and what we believe it says and how that fits into our world at large than it is when just having a political forum where people discuss straight politics.

But now I’m depressed to know that there’s a private section of AW that I’m apparently not good enough to take part in. It’s like high school all over again.

Craig,

I don’t totally get the point here. So the WA admins suck - who cares? It’s a private message board and it can be whatever it wants to be, right?

I don’t think the issue is fixing WA; the issue is that the WGA itself has no open forum for its members. Alex et. al. created a board and they like the way they run it. Personal issues with Alex aside, why are you trying to dress the pig? You listed some important components of a real board - why not try to get it set up at the Guild? Because I think there will never be a meaningful writer message board until the URL to it ends in “wga.org.”

If the wga reps newswriters then shouldnt a politics discussion board be a requirement for a wga member message board?

Does Josh Olson ever get tired of talking about himself?

There were a few things that were eye-opening to me as I watched WA evolve (I still check in on occasion.) 1. That in the last couple of elections, the candidates pretty much snubbed the board and that it didn’t matter at all that they did. To Craig’s point, I think they looked at the actual numbers of the place, looked at the pettiness and combative nature of a lot of the frequent posters, and said “meh.” Then won anyway. 2. The guys I genuinely thought were hilarious (Talbott, Malcolm, etc.) were considered problems. 3. That on several occassions, there was some version of “speaking as a member and not as an administrator, why don’t you just leave” directed at somebody I didn’t think deserved it. 4. Saying you didn’t like a movie or that it was inferior to another movie out at the same time — which is shit we all say when we’re sitting at lunch together — became construed as an “ad hom.”

I like WA and made some great friends out of it, and I’m kind of in the laissez-faire camp on what topics should be discussed there. It was good to have a water-cooler to talk over things with fellow writers since we don’t all go to the big screenwriter office every day. I think one of the best things Craig suggests adding — which is up on the wgawriters.com site — is the ability to flag a topic as “serious” when you start a thread. If WA had that, and “jokey” shit was deleted automatically from those threads, a lot of those discussions would be much easier to digest. Conversely, if they had a way to denote a comedy thread, then everyone could jerk each other dizzy and no one would care. Anyway…

Inquiring Mind,

Do you ever get tired of posting anonymously?

Prager:

If an official WGA board were possible, I’d agree. However, the union doesn’t want any part of it.

Discussing how to fix, dismantle, reconfigure, or do anything at all about Writer Action is to miss the biggest issue: The Writers Guild of America, West Inc. and/or Writers Guild East do not have either a joint union message board or separate message boards.

Labor law has expanded to cover what is acceptable union practice on computer message boards since WGAw nuked WGAbbs. It is possible, legally, to have a message board which protects members’ free speech rights run by a union.

WGAbbs at its best hours was ours.

It belonged to every member of the union, rich or struggling, new or old. It was the union hall open 24/7 in cyberspace. It ran under union rules, with sysops and a committee answerable to the BoD. The bbs was there to further the goals of the union as set out in the Guild’s constitution. So what constituted an ad hom or a slam on someone’s career had parameters from the organization itself.

WA is theirs.

It’s a private board, which belongs to one or more of the Admins. It’s nature can not be changed.

So, this coming election, make creation of a union message board, of the members, by the members, for the members, accountable to the members an election issue.

It seems to me there are only two problems with WriterAction:

1. At one point, WriterAction Administrators thought they could encourage more posters by discouraging those already posting profusely. This is a boneheaded but understandable mistake.

2. Sometimes the Administrators applied the Terms of Service with an uneven and often rough hand.

Everything else about WriterAction— including its political forums and writing forums— seems to me just about right.

What I like about WriterAction is in this order:

1. There is literally no better place to get a quick education on Guild issues. Even when two idiots are arguing— which is more often than not— some light seems to be shed on the underlying subject matter.

2. Writers must use their real names when expressing opinions which seems to reduce the amount of pure crap.

3. A certain level of writing proficiency is assured by the WGA threshold— which reduces (but doesn’t eliminate) the novice factor.

4. There is no better place to encourage and promulgate anti-establishment opinions.

5. There is no better place to hold the leadership of the Guild’s feet to the fire.

The fact is: there is always a limited number of posters on any board because there are always a limited number of people with loud mouths. And WriterAction will always find itself with fewer posters than it wants. Unfortunately, there is one sure fire way to encourage more members, and more vocal members on WriterAction…

A strike.

And on that happy thought…

—Robert King

Craig:

Why? I might have known at one point but I forgot - why doesn’t the Guild want a message board?

Robert:

Given your above analysis, with which I don’t disagree in any serious way, it seems refreshing the admin corps is probably a good idea, no?

Prager:

I think the union doesn’t want to deal with the hassle. They don’t want to sponsor a place where their critics can hold their feet to the fire, they don’t want to deal with union members talking shit about other union members, they don’t want to deal with the confidentiality issues, they don’t want to deal with having to censor their own members, etc.

I’d personally like to see WGAwriters.com opened up to more writers. Craig?

Ryan seems cool. Let him in. ;)

Marianne:

It might be time to open the books a bit more. We’ll make a list and check it twice.

I agree with Prager, btw, that there is no changing WA. I think the people there are happy there, and we’ve got a lot of nerve trying to tell them how to change things.

What we do need a new townhall open to all WGA members…especially right now.

I think WGAwriters.com is a great place, but it’s not my place, so I get why Craig wants to run it his way.

So where then? Somewhere new? Of course, I’m not willing to spearhead that, but I’d be willing to admin and help out in any other way that I can.

Whoops. Cross-posted. Good news, Craig. Thanks.

Dear Craig,

It seems a great idea for WriterAction to constantly refresh administrators. In fact, I like the old Florentine model: refreshing mayors every two months, and forcing them to live confined to the prison-like Bargello. No one sought power again after that.

But Writeraction is a private board; and it seems more profitable for someone to just start up another WGA board. My guess is within a year the administrators of the new board will be accused of some of the same heavyhandedness of the old board; but that’s okay. There then would be two boards to serve members.

For me the problem is that Guild angst is at a low point (oddly enough— given that we’re on the brink of an almost revolutionary time in the business); and when angst is low, writers don’t feel the need to argue up a blue streak; and so it’s easy to let the personalities of WriterAction get in the way of using it as a resource.

When the issues become pertinent again, all this administrator crap will be water under the bridge. The issues will drive people to the site. Everything else is just window dressing. Let me see if I can cram one more metaphor into that paragraph. Nope.

—Robert King

Robert:

Personally, I hate the thought of two WGA-inclusive boards, because it’s redundant and essentially divisive.

I think one is just fine. New blood in leadership would pretty much do the trick, I think.

As for the big issues, well…I disagree. 2004 didn’t seem to drive many to the site, nor did the ANTM strike, nor did the big red-shirt rally, nor did the 500 screenwriters dinner, nor did the changing of the E.D. guard, nor did the East-West deal (in all its hideous awfulness).

I think when we get close to the big stuff, WA will still be the same few people saying the same crap they always say. Just a suspicion.

It would be nice to clean the WA admin house and get it ready and fresh and new for those upcoming days. Some recruiting, some reaching out, a new attitude…

…but I’m spitting into the wind, aren’t I?

See, I can do that metaphor thingy too.

Dear Craig,

Want to really drive people to WriterAction? Get the Credits Review Committee to propose something really interesting and controversial. Credits is what got WriterAction rolling in the first place. All this other stuff isn’t as pertinent to a career as credits and a strike.

—Robert King

Robert:

If only we knew the co-chairs. :)

Credits are going to come after the elections and negotiations, but I do agree that it tends to excite people.

I guess I take issue with your very first phrase: ‘In an ideal world….’

There are so many things that go wrong in that place that it’s a hard site to start originate something. Anything, really. Geez, it’s almost like the author missed the Enlightenment….

However, if I were to play this game, I’d say ‘ideal’ has two basis vectors which describes the space one would like to play in:

1 - Allows economic collusion to extract extra-normal profits from the client/customer/whatever

2 - Provides a social release for the group in #1

Which is where things start to go wrong - “ideally,” that is - these two sets do not fully intersect; there are outliers; it is the nature of Art.

Interesting.

Still, this ‘ideal’ you speak of is more inclined to begin - ad hoc - in some Vulgate form via this fantastic new medium. I see no reason why AW couldn’t be such a site, save, it would not include some interesting members (from my perspective - lb, jo, etc.). Moreover, it would advance a rather pedestrian view of economic empowerment, which, is kind of at odds with the first principle.

Still, there is no reason why a subset of “artists” can’t collect in such a venue, and it not be WGA certified. Moreover, as it gained that most democratic of principles - a large audience - it would find… power. Really easy stuff. Stuff, dear Craig, you know well.

Best of luck,

lt

I agree with every word Robert King posted. Beautifully put.

The question is clearly how to replace the folks who run the place, and since - as has been pointed out - it’s a private joint, I’d wager the answer is, “You can’t.”

“Marianne:

It might be time to open the books a bit more. We’ll make a list and check it twice.

Posted by: Craig Mazin at July 8, 2007 3:42 PM”

CRAIG: COULD YOU, LIKE, CHECK IT THREE TIMES? YOU KNOW, JUST TO BE SAFE?

“Marianne:

It might be time to open the books a bit more. We’ll make a list and check it twice.

Posted by: Craig Mazin at July 8, 2007 3:42 PM”

CRAIG: COULD YOU, LIKE, CHECK IT THREE TIMES? YOU KNOW, JUST TO BE SAFE?

Ok, off topic maybe, but Craig I think it’s awesome that this site isn’t limited to only professional writers. I didn’t know what WA was before this thread, but it scares me to think that collectively all the professional writers could go and hang out at an exclusive site and I wouldn’t have the opportunity to learn from them. I’m attempting to write my first feature now and this site is beyond valuable to me.

To be fair to WAers having issue with me and Talbott (and others), we’re equally hated on other, much smaller boards, so it’s not just WA. Personally I get why people hate Tim, but why me?

I gotta say that political discussions are devisive (sp?). It’s really hard for us liberals to shake off the views of a conservative when they post, even if we like them. I’ve tried to resist entering political discussions cuz they bum me out, then I dive in, then i hate Craig for a week. The “no politics” rule is a good one if you don’t want people to obsessively squabble.

RE: Lurkers… the key is reaching out to them repeatedly. It took me a long time to post on WA because I thought everyone knew each other and when I made a few posts that went unanswered, I assumed it was because the board didn’t know me.

I’ve tried to get back into WA and, to me, it feels broken. Not because of Alex or the admins specifically, it just feels “done.” Which is too bad. I attribute WA and Artful Writer as huge factors in: A) teaching me about guild political issues—mostly how much i hate them, B) introducing me to wrtiers—I knew almost none before frequenting the sites, and C) introducing me to people who have been very helpful in my career.

WA was so important to me, it’s really sad that I can’t get into it anymore.

ps.

Will any of you people who like Tim Talbott admit that you fucking hated him at first?

Andrew:

Well, I’m glad to hear it, and I’m glad to have you as a reader.

I wouldn’t ever fold up shop in here because an exclusive site was cooking along successfully. This place should continue to exist for a while.

WriterAction is a fantastic site. I’m proud to be a member. The administrators have a thankless job and I thank them for stepping up to the plate.

duplicated from my post of WA:

FWIW: in the distant past, when computer telecommunications depended on “BBS” text-only technology, there was an official WGA BBS, which eventually ended for a variety of usual reasons, plus the strictures of labor and constitutional law which prevented any sort of meaningful administrative limits on the worst flames, libels, lies, and calumnies.

A fervent advocate of an online presence for the Guild since 1985, I was in the middle of storm. Well-versed in then-existing technology, I used the BBS’s cursory records to construct a user profile, using my own flat-file database.

Twenty years ago, the stats were almost identical to Craig’s observations on AW: thousands of registered users, only a few hundred who ever posted, only a few score who regularly posted, and about twenty people who accounted for more than 80% of the volume.

It may be that NO site will ever fulfill the dream.

“What dream, Carl?”

An inclusive, frequently visited, user-friendly, informative, entertaining web site that provides useful resources and links, and that is regularly visited and posted-to by at least as many WGA members as regularly vote in our elections.

Carl:

Thanks as always for the historical perspective. You might be right. Still, whenever I check in to WriterAction, I can’t help but feel like Andrus & Brooks’ Melvin Udall standing in his therapist’s waiting room, staring at the other patients, and wondering out loud “What if this is as good as it gets?”

Malcolm Spellman is a genius.

FLAT.

OUT.

(But only in the eyes of the Lord.)

How much fun when the snake begins to eat it’s own tail. Go at it Craig. Keep eating until you find the real problem.

When dementia eats the brain, what does it taste like, J.F.?

It tastes like donuts.

In the case of an upcoming tasty donut: it tastes round. And with powder sugar.

But I’ve already said too much.

Shame on you. All of you.

Reading this correspondence from the UK, I have to remind myself that what I’m reading here is the work of writers. Professional writers.

I’m a professional writer, I’m not one of the three English writers you may have heard of but I do okay. What makes us professionals? We have insight. We create characters, we see things from other people’s point of view.

I have no idea who any of these WA administrators are. No doubt they are pains in the arse, they probably have their own agendas that get in the way of doing their jobs, they’ve probably acted unreasonably. Hay - welcome to the 21st century, welcome to the world wide web, where any critical comment can be taken as a slight, and responded to at the click of a button with an ill-considered barb. And, because some of us are really good writers, our insults are pithier and hit harder than mere amateur abuse.

We’ve all written that angry e-mail or letter to the exec who just turned down our brilliant idea, but we rarely if ever send it.

Here’s my suggestion - instead of moaning about who runs the site, and posting your posts on this site about why no-one’s posting, why don’t you accept there’s a resource out there that’s available for you, and you’re all very lucky to have it, and just accept that the people who are running it aren’t perfect, but go there and say what you have to say anyway? And if it still stinks, then give up.

Andrew Feldstein,

If you are proud to be a part of it can I ask why you haven’t been participating as a poster?

“Shame on you. All of you.”

Well. I certainly feel chastised. Thanks for putting us all in our place.

Whoops. I mean — thanks for posting what could possibly be the snootiest, most irrelevant post I’ve ever read on this board.

What’s for lunch?

Round, powdered sugar donuts.

I hope I’m not being rude by commenting

A) on something I’m not involved in because I’m not a WGA member B) without reading the other 90 comments that came first

But when I tried to imagine myself as a WGA member, and asked myself if I’d want to be in a virtual Town Hall discussing Guild issues and politics, the immediate answer was… not really. I think that I, like most writers, would prefer to sit around by myself and question the decision-making process of fictional characters, as opposed to getting involved in the nuts, bolts, and paperwork of the actual real (boring) world.

No offense to the Guild intended, natch.

Mediaocrity:

Wow. If you have the same attitude toward other institutions like government, schools, law enforcement, parents, this website, hospitals, etc., then I must say…you’re the model citizen….

Enjoy Or Quit!

What a great slogan!

Keep in mind, when reading Mediacrity’s post, that screenwriters in the UK look at screenwriters in the US with envy for all the power and respect we get over here.

It’s that bad.

JF,

At the risk of…. god knows what… just wanted to tell you that I thought DOA was the one of the best times I’ve had at the flicks this year. Seriously. Didn’t even need pot. Eric Roberts’ hair alone was worth the price of admission.

Josh:

Erg. I haven’t had enough coffee yet to handle that kind of perspective.

Craig:

“ENJOY OR QUIT” — Dead on. A bit frightening, isn’t it, to consider that mindset — that a firm complaint is the most one can accomplish. No doubt a philosophy that will carry you very far in life.

Shame on YOU, Mediaocrity.

Yeah, it’s just we’ve got a Guild here in the UK that nearly destroyed itself because one of the members wasn’t liked by a whole bunch of other members. Ooh it got ugly. I stopped enjoying but I didn’t quit. But I do object to being called snooty, I thought I was merely sounding pompous.

Let’s call it “haughty” and split the difference.

It’s weird reading this and knowing that a superior talent like Tim Talbott is out there. Existing.

What does Tim Talbott’s superior talent have to do with the above posts?

I laugh.

I sit and laugh at those who don’t know.

Yet i also mentor. So here it is, information being beamed through the cyberspacial webb in a mentor-like fashion to, thush be consumed by thou’s hungry brains and used in your mouffs: Tim Talbott is, quite simply, the greatest screenwriter of all time.

And isn’t that what this is all about? Talking about ourselves? And Talbott a/k/a Talbgerg Slim?

Not many WAers posting but it’s nice to see Josh and Craig existing in perfect ever loving harmony.

Tim:

My pal William was in your film — I recently bumped into him & Sarah Kelly at the airport. Are there any upcoming screenings?

(susco@stephensusco.com)

Heh. Sarah Kelly, Tim. Heh.

What’s for dinner?

I think Art’s idea of making the creation of an official Guild message board, with admins who are accountable to the Guild, a campaign platform is closest to a practical solution.

The problem here is accountability — the admins of WA don’t ever have to answer to anyone for any reason. If the site isn’t serving its original purpose, then tough luck. An official Guild board, with specific TOS and admins subject to limited terms (perhaps even elections) and a workable member grievance procedure, could fill the role originally intended for WA.

How about this…

Forgo any and all admins.

Set up a simple message board that allows wga members who use their real/full name and password to post topics and comments. If a thread takes off, great. If it sizzles down, so be it. If it turns into a brawl, that’s okay too (and will likely increase traffic). Let insults fly! If things get out of hand, well, that’s the nature of the beast. The point is, allow each debate to develop without a priori restrictions.

A self-governing message board would be the closest thing to a viral watercooler…

I’m not in the union (nooottt yeeet) but I just wanna say … gee this conversation makes me happy.

Happy as can be and I haven’t even met the man-god named Tim Talbot, though I know his name …

Once we agree that the forum is a place for writers to congregate and discuss things that are of interest to writers, you do not get to restrict what those subjects are.

There is a substantial difference between restricting topics of discussion and removing forums dedicated solely to one or more of said topics.

Your point relies on the fact that you’re not considering any implications beyond whether you get to talk politics. I’m a writer and also a jazz musician, ergo jazz music is of interest to me, a writer. Should I demand a jazz music forum? What if I’m really interested in the food service industry? Or NASCAR? Or gardening? Or midget porn? Screenwriters can have a wide range of interests, and not all of them deserve a seperate forum on a screenwriting board. If I’ve got a midget porn script about a jazz musician seducing a gardener at a Rally’s drive-thru, then perfectly topical discussion can be had without breaking off into a new sub-forum.

Johnny,

I’m with you. It’s one thing to have someone come through and delete spam porn messages and real garbage, but the whole notion that someone is needed to monitor discussions is just kinda silly, and invariably, the people in charge start deluding themselves that the power they have is somehow earned.

Nick,

Well… no. You’re wrong, and the subject has been deemed closed. So there.

Craig,

Am I misreading some of these posts, or do you run several different web pages devoted to screenwriting?

Nick, keep talking.

Josh:

Yes. I do run a few other spots for screenwriters. Not screenwriting, but screenwriters.

How many, and why?

Nick,

There is also a substantial difference between rejecting politics from discussion and demanding forums dedicated solely to midget porn.

Don’t you think?

“Well… no. You’re wrong, and the subject has been deemed closed.”

I agree with Josh, Moderating discussions SUCKS.

I agree 100%!

What’s for breakfast?

Cat.

Deep-fried rounded cat, with powdered sugar.

But will the sugar drown out the taste of Talbotts assjuice?

You know where that cat came from, right Susco?

…right?

Anybody seen my pussy?

Josh:

I have a private area in the Artful Forum that’s basically a social hangout for my vulgar screenwriter friends, and then I have a small private board that’s similar to WA, but invitation only, with a bent toward steadily working screenwriters.

i like boards best that error on the side of less policing and rules, not more. im on a couple webgroups and far and away the one that works the best has zero rules whatsoever.

of course this assumes a certain degree of maturity which does seem to be lacking by some WA’ers, bless their heart. but i dont think any favors are done my admins trying to enforce maturity. why on earth would you give creedence to a poster you disliked? why on earth would you let someone you disrespect get under your skin? why wouldnt you just press “delete” or block certain posts or members you cant stand? if you have an issue, why wouldnt you state it plainly, and let it go? ive never understood the unwillingness to do these things, and it seems all the admining and “getting into it” always made such things bigger and worse.

on my non policed web board, im amazed how it all works out. how the assholes just get ignored, or quietly rebuked. “piling it on” to them or policing them just seems to encourage them. the WA rules as they stand and are enforced seem to block strong and opinionated posters, and “protect” sometimes more attention seeking, insecure people.

everyone can make up their own minds, cant they? i remember reading a flame on wa, towards the wibberly’s film, in fact. the way that flame was written was so venal and reactive, i made a little mental note “she’s not your people.” i dont know the flamer, i dont know the webs, but i do know what works for me and what doesnt.

im all for a board where people can state their opinions, everyone can stand up for themselves, and the wisdom of the group rules without “rules.”

Interesting.

There is also a substantial difference between rejecting politics from discussion and demanding forums dedicated solely to midget porn. Don�t you think?

Josh’s argument does not leave any room for there to be a difference. To reiterate his point: “Once we agree that the forum is a place for writers to congregate and discuss things that are of interest to writers, you do not get to restrict what those subjects are.” With an addendum, it seems, that a subject may be restricted if it fails to meet whatever arbitrary criteria you or Josh have placed on what constitutes a valid “subject of interest” to writers.

Nick,

When you figure out exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, let me know.

Meanwhile - EVERYTHING is material. If you think midget porn is germane to screenwriting, then knock yourself out. Talk about it, and if someone else wants to discuss it with you, groovy.

There’s a rather large body of writers (and other artists and critics going back several centuries) who think all art is political. Granted, if what you do is write fart jokes, you may find such a concept alien, but that doesn’t change the facts.

When there is a body of artists who believe all art is midget porn, I would then acknowledge the validity of your position that the two subjects are interchangable. But until such time - and with the Paris Hiltonification of our culture, that time will probably be sooner than any of us would like - you seem to be pretending to be ludicrously ignorant for the sake of making a point you actually know is invalid.

Lastly, if you get that I would ever argue for restricting the topics of discussion in a writers forum, you’re illiterate. I’ve made my position crystal clear. You’re arguing for the sake of arguing.

Finito.

There’s a rather large body of writers (and other artists and critics going back several centuries) who think all art is political. Granted, if what you do is write fart jokes, you may find such a concept alien, but that doesn’t change the facts.

Moliere and others managed to be political and write fart jokes.

Only a cretin thinks “fart jokes” are stupid. Stupid fart jokes are stupid.

Good ones are hysterical.

Non-comedians tend to talk in strange generalities.

No one ever says, “Gunfights are so dumb,” even though so many gunfights really are dumb.

I believe in good fart jokes. They make me laugh. And even better, they tend to piss off stodgy, unfunny, miserable people more than any other kind of joke.

That’s the icing on the cake.

Dear Nick,

Originally there was no political forum on WriterAction until the “Anything Goes” forum got filled up with so much political content that it was decided— correctly, in my opinion— to split off politics to its own sub-forum so that “Anything Goes” wouldn’t become the de facto Politics Forum.

The bottom line: midget porn and jazz music and the early fascist letters of Ezra Pound can be discussed to your heart’s content on WriterAction, and if there are enough people writing constantly about midget porn then it might even become its own Midget Porn Forum; but I think people are under the mistaken impression that the absence of a forum creates an absence of interest. It doesn’t. It only makes it harder for people who want to avoid that subject— people who, for instance, prefer midget porn over politics— to know where to go to find one and not the other.

—Robert King

“I believe in good fart jokes. They make me laugh. And even better, they tend to piss off stodgy, unfunny, miserable people more than any other kind of joke.”

Do fart jokes really piss people off? Like, “I’m going to take to the streets and sign a petition to put an end to all these darn fart jokes” pissed off?

I can see an ill-timed non-sequiter at a Daughters of the Confederacy tea party not going over too well, but I have to say, I can think of a few others off hand that are loaded with far more ammunition, as it were. Say, jokes about pedophiles. That’s always one to get ‘em going. Nigger jokes. Always choice. But farts? Really? That’s a bold declaration you’ve sounded, Craig.

I just had a particularly large and productive bowel movement.

Restricting political discussions is smart if you don’t want a never ending battle on your site. I frequent Craig’s private boards, they’re great. Threads take off, lots of discussion about lots of shit, battles between personalities are short. Everyone agrees that the “no politics” rule is a positive factor.

When we want politics, we visit WA. One of the problems with WA’s political threads now is that, IMO, there are no contrasting views. Actually, there are a couple but Craig and the handful of conservatives who frequented the overwhelmingly liberal site, all left. I won’t lie, I don’t think i’ve ever heard Craig deliver his neo-con side of a debate in a way that swayed me, but he always made good logical points that kept it interesting.

Now when I visit WA it seems like a bunch of like-minded people who wanna keep it just the way it is. I honestly believe the place was much much better when Mazin, Olson, Talbott, were their. If the folks who dominate WA now disagree, they’re in luck… because if no one does anything to shake that place up, it’ll stay EXACTLY like it is now.

Hi Holly,

Yeah, I remember that one and I remember the gal, an otherwise nice person who was very active in the guild (Valerie). She really jumped on me about Charlie’s Angels 2. She hated the movie which is her right, but I recall that she wouldn’t drop it, in spite of my trying to lighten the mood and offering her a free swing at my face.

I do remember people piling on in my defense (mostly), which speaks to your point, Holly.

I agree in general that places can usually self-police. But at WA, something is definitely broken. I’d like to see it working again. Especially as we face this strike threat.

Craig,

“I believe in good fart jokes. They make me laugh. And even better, they tend to piss off stodgy, unfunny, miserable people more than any other kind of joke.”

Apparently. Hell, just MENTIONING them drove YOU up a tree.

Josh:

Huh?

Well, I certainly started an interesting discussion on WA, so I guess there’s that.

Just to clarify, I do acknowledge that there has been some change in admins. Specifically, in the beginning, the admins were Alex Sokoloff, David Hoag, David Odell, Katherine Fugate, Steve Chivers and Clifford Green.

And now the admins are those people plus Brian Horiuchi and Richard Wesley.

I don’t know if adding two people specifically counts as “change,” but I did want to be accurate.

Personally, I’d go with fewer. I think Howard Michael Gould, Michael Gilvary, Marianne Wibberley and April Pesa would be a great group, and then maybe add a geeky type as the vBulletin nerd.

marianne - for the record, what i remember about that exchange wasnt just her not liking the movie.. it was an opinion that your movie, and ones like it, were everything that was wrong with hollywood. whatever. i think people show their true colors with every post, and the group can sort it out. i cant speak for those of you who have left (i still post there and enjoy it) but my hunch is that its gets weird and immature, as you say “broken” - when private skirmishes get policed in public by people who seem to occasionally have thier own biases, and they are enforced inconsistantly…. hell, when they’re enforced at ALL - when the mommy and daddy people are slapping some and not others, i think the whole group is diminished.

what about this as an idea, for those of you who have left? why reinvent the wheel? WA is there and in place now. we need a place like WA, and we need ALL voices there. this blog has launched a nice discussion over there about ways it can be different. i invite you to be the bigger folks, bring your bigger vision back there, and be bigger than the personalities or the politics.

because more than new administrators, more than anything, WA needs THAT - people who are willing to be bigger.

Craig,

could you share your favorite, non-stupid fart joke from a movie?

Craig,

“Huh?”

EXACTLY!

Thanks for making my point for about the 800th time.

Holly,

Just curious - is the discussion that’s been sparked over at WA being conducted by the administrators, or the membership? Because if it’s just the membership, that’s not real hopeful.

Johnny

If I can leap in before Mr. Serious does, I gotta recommend Happy Campers. A very fine and funny flick, it contains the Apocalypse Now of fart jokes.

I’ll be sure to check it out… WAIT, it’s not midget porn, is it?

So when is Josh going to have his own “ask a pro” section in the forums here?

I’m still laughing at “Why is Pee Coming out of me”.

Jesus, Craig. What’d I ever do to you?

Here’s a thought. I realize that WA is a board for screenwriters in the WGA, but is there any particular reason the board admins have to come from within the ranks of the membership? Perhaps it would be beneficial to look into hiring professional webmasters and tech-gurus to run the boards from a non-partisan (when it comes to WGA policy), third-party perspective?

I agree that Gilvary would be the perfect choice!

“when private skirmishes get policed in public by people who seem to occasionally have their own biases, and they are enforced inconsistantly”

Holly, we agree. Those biases allow administrators to engage in ad homs and trashing certain others, pretending to post “as a member” when what they’re doing is asserting their power in playing out their own personal issues. Administering is a job; it would be nice to see the same basic degree of professionalism that other internet boards have. Though maybe it’s too much to ask of a group of frustrated writers. WA is what it is, I actually don’t expect or argue for change. btw - expressing this opinion about WA causes the administrators there to repeatedly insist en masse, publicly, that I leave. But I make too many people happy by posting so it’s really a thorny dilemma for me.

Craig,

When you’re on these members only web sites you run, are you funny there?

Mank,

When he’s talking politics, he’s hilarious. Duck Soup Funny.

Olson,

The thread in WA is conducted by the membership and few admins have taken part.

So yeah, not real hopeful.

Craig,

Fewer is the way to go. Though I still like my rotation thing too.

what about this as an idea, for those of you who have left? why reinvent the wheel? WA is there and in place now. we need a place like WA, and we need ALL voices there. this blog has launched a nice discussion over there about ways it can be different. i invite you to be the bigger folks, bring your bigger vision back there, and be bigger than the personalities or the politics.

That’s nice in theory, but tough in practice when the admins delete posts and threaten to ban people.

the admins have only banned a couple of people. enoug people posting about how the place should change - if they stay well away from attacks on anyone specific, no way they’d remove those posts or ban the posters.

Mused -

Not that simple. Three of the “banned” members post here btw. The adminis have more often ‘threatened’ to ban members and often selectively forbid certain members from posting on certain topics, responding publicly to accusations made by administrators, or posting directly to certain other members, under threat of being banned. And not always in connection with ad homs. The administrators have reprinted old banned or deleted posts to make members look bad, they have even actually rewritten those posts and then posted them in quotes as if the member had actually written them. They themselves have thrown out ad homs or insulted the work of other members (supposedly a suspendable offense) without apology. I think this is why some are frustrated.

Oooh, Daddy, buy me that.

“I think this is why some are frustrated. “

That and the pert, exposed nipples from those with man-boobs …

Necessity is the mother of invention. And probably of survival. If people can’t make use of WA then it will shrivel away like an old dog’s dick. What began as a place to probe and stretch and challenge and debate and test old ideas and new ideas, has now become a place to huddle and seek reassurance that the Wizard of Oz is all wise.

Folks, I’m sure some of you will find this ironic, etc., but I just had to delete my first comment in this thread (and for attacking Josh Olson, no less).

Please remain civil. You can be as vehement as you want, but remain within the bounds of civil discussion, or I’m gonna delete your comment. Doing otherwise is just a waste of your time.

I was at work all day, so I’m going to try and catch up with responses later, but just to make something clear…

…because some people (not here) seem to be confused…

I have never created an “alternative” to WriterAction.

I do not run, nor have I ever run, any board that is accessible to all WGA members, and WGA members only. I have no board that vets members with the guild.

I have a board that is open to anyone on the internet, guild member or not, and I have a small, private board that is invitation only and not open to all WGA members.

Just setting the record straight on that.

Not being a member of WriterAction, how would you even know this? Here’s a wild concept — some of the people posting here might be full of shit.

Let me guess — the folks willing to put their names on their comments are the ones full of shit?

Craig? Josh? John? Are you guys full of shit?

“Here’s a wild concept - some of the people posting here might be full of shit.” - mental health

I once met a midget who made jazz music for German porn movies. He played the flugelhorn.

He never farted. Unless he was full of shit.

Because he was little, he was often full of shit. That’s why he farted… because he was little… he farted a lot.

It’s very encouraging to see the level of discussion this has sparked on WA - less so to see exactly how it is focussing.

Admins there are asking what more they could do.

But what’s being suggested is that WA would be greatly improved by not more, but less.

Rotating admins not by adding more, but in having fewer of the current group. Since many admins are delightful charming people, and yet the admin function is clearly wildly off, I believe it to be a group dynamic thing that has gone sour.

Admin is all that’s being focussed on but is by no means the only problem. What WA needs is less. Fewer threads about where can I repair a vacuum cleaner and restaurant ratings. No politics forum that essentially poisons relationships. More focus, simply by weeding out all the noise, on writing and the guild, on assignments and executives etc.

Here’s a question I would like answered. How many PM complaints to the admins are based on a post from a) the politics forum and b) the Just Chat forum as a whole?

I would guess that b) covers 95% of all admin compaints and a) a good 75-80% of all admin complaints. Perhaps a WA admin would confirm. In which case you wouldn’t need House to diagnose the problem.

Admins on WA are still attempting to define its relevance by sign-ups, but they come in, see vacuum cleaner threads dominant, and leave. Again, the stats can be boiled right down to - top 10 posters = 25% of total content; top 59 posters = 75% of total content.

AW was never intended to replace WA. It isn’t WGA membership only. What is amusing is some people objecting even to discussion of the town hall for writers. Of course, this person was also posting that the A-list exit was no loss and everything was peachy as other posters were putting up threads about tumbleweed.

WA right now is a glorified bulletion board with the odd discussion about screenwriting and the Guild thrown in. Nothing but pruning (of forums and admins) can change that.

Speaking of irony, “mental health”, I present your anonymity as Exhibit A. You come here to AW (which I read, but have not previously commented) and insult Craig, Josh, and others, all the while refusing to put yourself out there by doing so over your real name. Irony IS a bitch…

Whoever the anonymous dingle-berry is, here’s the thing - everyone here who was once on WA saw this stuff happen, and not just to themselves. See, for a post to disappear, it has to appear first. So when we talk about posts being pulled, we’re not just talking about our own. We’re talking, in some cases, about entire threads that were yanked because they tweaked an administrator’s garters. The threats to members were often made on the boards, where everyone could read them.

This stuff did not happen in secret, in dark rooms. It happened in full view of everyone.

Louise,

Do me a favor - please give up on the politics thing. There are an enormous number of writers over there - many of them better writers than both of us, many of them better informed politically than both of us - who LOVE the politics boards. Your need to eradicate them is a non-starter, alienating at least as many people as it appeals to. Anyone who can read could learn a thing or two from some of those posters there.

And it does remind me - I still think it’s profoundly interesting that around about the same time you decided to take a whack at a career in politics, you had all your posts in the WA Politics forum deleted.

Heh. I don’t blame you…. I wonder what the voters of Puddlington-on-the-Marsh would make of some of your more extreme views….

A few pennies worth of thoughts from an outsider:

Creation of a “Politics in Art” forum might be expedient. Discussions in said forum would be less about how I am a Democrat and Craig is a Republican, and more about how politics and art interact with each other.

It sounds like WA is the proverbial “burning house.” You can’t save the house, but you can save the people IN the house. While I am not a member of the Guild (I would like to be someday), the people who ARE in the Guild deserve a place to discuss the issues important to them as writers—with “as writers” being the operative phrase. Politics, as it relates to writing, would not be off-limits, but the focus would be on Guild issues, as well as the more tangential topics as well. Who could create such a forum? The WGA could, as others have pointed out. They would have to take a distinctly hands-off approach to the actual administration of the group, to avoid conflict-of-interest, but if they ran it, there would at least be a “higher-power” of sorts to which appeal of Alex would be possible.

Well, as I said, it’s just a few cents worth from an outsider. Take it—or leave it—for what it’s worth.

Oy! What a time I decided to drop by and see what’s happening at the Artful Writer!

In the heart of all of this passion and bickering there is a problem that a lot of people here want solved.

Here is a solution to consider:

Another Craig, craigslist, knows a bit about online discussion boards and how to create a model that manages to sputter along successfully, without wonking out and scaring off the participants.

The craigslist forums were created — evolved actually — over the course of a few years into a very successful model that manages to work even in spite of the fact that anyone can post there. Since I started posting in the craigslist forums in 2000, I was an active participant in the community-driven evolution (and had a voice in making suggestions) and have seen first hand what did and didn’t work.

Most of the moderation on the craigslist forums is done by the community, which eliminates the daddy-mommy-admin syndrome. Threads are not deleted, just moved to the Isle of Misfit Threads. “Daddy-Mommy” (craigslist staff) step in when the MODERATION gets abused, not as editorial oversite to content. Everyone gets equally offended but not to the point that they leave. Direct moderation of content does happen when someone flagrantly abuses the system (i.e. obvious spam or posts 1000 new threads for the sole purpose of shutting down the forum - yes, people do that).

Although I’m non-WGA, I’d be happy to share what I’ve observed about what works, what doesn’t work and WHY (so you can make your own decisions about the validity of a particular recommendation). I don’t know where to direct this offer of help, though - so let me know if there is interest.

Holly, I like what you say, although I think you are lucky to have boards where no moderation is better. I’ve never seen such a beast, myself.

Aaron, do you know my husband? Every time I ask him what he wants for dinner, he says “cat” and then recommends we slice our tabby into “single serving stripes.” I thought HE was the only one who joked about eating the cats. (I finally broke down and bought a cat-shaped cookie cutter and now occasionally make tofu kitty cats for dinner.)

“Do me a favor - please give up on the politics thing. There are an enormous number of writers over there - many of them better writers than both of us, many of them better informed politically than both of us - who LOVE the politics boards. Your need to eradicate them is a non-starter, alienating at least as many people as it appeals to. Anyone who can read could learn a thing or two from some of those posters there.”

Most of those yahoos are demonstrably less informed. Idiots screaming endlessly into the echo chamber.

BTW, being a better writer than you doesn’t mean a thing in the political arena. Good writing does not equate to good politics.

That Louise’s politics may differ from your own is poor excuse for your unsolicited advice.

The Blame America First shit is old on WA, and has no place here.

Man up and focus on the issue at hand — WA’s relevancy, or lack thereof. Otherwise, you should take your own advice and “give up on the politics thing.”

Greg,

All of your points have been asked and answered. The fact that some of the writers in those forums are very fine writers IS relevant, regardless of the fact that you think it isn’t. I’d suggest that if you had a better grasp of writing, you’d understand why your statement is so silly.

I’m sorry, but it blows my mind. I see a bunch of people having a conversation I’m not interested in, I ignore it. The need to have their ability to do so restricted is so utterly bizarre to me, I wonder if some of you people come from another planet. I assure you that at this very moment, there are literally millions of conversations happening that you don’t want to take part of. My advice is don’t worry your pretty head about them, and just focus on the conversations you DO want to talk about.

“The Blame America First shit is old on WA, and has no place here.”

I hate to break it to you, but the overwhelming majority of Americans seem to feel pretty clearly that the political agenda Craig and Louise - and, I gather, you - support is one that is damaging this country immensely. Doesn’t make us right, but accusing all of us of somehow being down on our country is pretty fucking offensive, jack.

I’d be happy to drop the politics thing, but it seems like every couple of hours, someone else feels compelled to bring it up.

Like the concept I described above, this one is equally simple - you drop it, and I’ll drop it. You keep bringing it up, I’ll keep explaining why your position is inane. And, by the way, antithetical to the principles this country was founded on.

But hey, why would I care? I hate America, right?

Josh,

I had “started to take a whack at politics”, as you put it, a full year before I deleted a single post on WA. That had nothing to do with it. I left WA and only realised the controversy over deletions of years old posts in long-dead threads when an admin emailed me to point it out. And then found an incredibly long thread all about me. Which I read with blinking disbelief. Wondering if they had all gone totally mad. And why on earth they even cared!

At that point several people were threatening to break the TOS and selectively distribute posts I made (under a total guarantee of confidentiality) out of context. At that point I decided that forget anything else, WA was no longer the safe place for peers it advertised itself to be and I deleted everything - political and otherwise - lock stock and barrel. Wasted several days doing it, but felt much better afterwards.

But as I say, the posts had been around for a very long time whilst I was pursuing politics and that did not affect the decision to delete.

(this will be the last time I mention the deletions on AW - because I will not be dragged into politics on this site - but feel free to email me any time you like at the address above on it)

The reason I think politcs should be banned from screenwriting forums is the same reason I deleted those first posts; you get too heated and you get into fights that devolve into personality conflict that is not worth preserving in aspic for all time. The proof of that for me is the superiority of sites like Wordplayer and in particular the AW private forums. Without politics, I am now online friends with people that cordially detested me (and vice versa) when I was on WA - over politics. There is no, I mean zero, conflict, in the AW private forums despite there being a healthy liberal-conservative balance.

It is just a far friendlier and pertinent place to be a part of. It would be great to see that extended to WA or an equivalent for all WGA members.

But I think the AW Private Forums, and correct me if I’m wrong cause I don’t know, probably have what amounts to maybe 2 dozen people? This is a lot easier to manage than 200 or 500.

I think Craig should resist sending out more invites and keep it the way it is if it’s working so successfully.

That said, I’m curious to hear about the other boards where people post. Can’t stand the format of Wordplayer so screw that one.

Any other ones worthwhile out there?

But I think the AW Private Forums, and correct me if I’m wrong cause I don’t know, probably have what amounts to maybe 2 dozen people? This is a lot easier to manage than 200 or 500.

I think Craig should resist sending out more invites and keep it the way it is if it’s working so successfully.

That said, I’m curious to hear about the other boards where people post. Can’t stand the format of Wordplayer so screw that one.

Any other ones worthwhile out there?

Consider yourself lucky, Louise.

After I was banned for not taking a WA moderation punishment seriously enough, I was not allowed to remove even a single one of my posts from their board. Initially, I thought this was because they were obsessed with finding hidden messages within my posts. Now, more than five months later, I’m stymied.

To think that they consider my words and point of view such a detriment to their utopian online society yet refuse to delete nor allow me to delete any or all of them boggles the mind.

P.S. David Hoag’s dog must be behind this - rumor has it, he’s kind of a dick.

JO-

I haven’t sensed that Craig, Louise, et al are looking to stifle dissent or discussion. They simply are looking for ways to keep the divisiveness we see in the current political climate out of discussions of writing. I wholeheartedly agree with this aim. How does the fact that I think the War in Iraq has been terribly mismanaged due in large part to the unfailing loyalty of Pres. Bush to failed subordinates (read: Rumsfeld) matter in a discussion of writing? If there’s a connection to be found, then by all means, we should hash it out in all its glorious detail. Should we debate the truth of my proposition? Again, I don’t see how it matters in the context of writing, but perhaps I’m missing something.

There is no, I mean zero, conflict, in the AW private forums…

Sounds like a pretty dull place to hang out at. What do you? Exchange recipes and compliment each other’s latest release?

In all seriousness, where does this strategy to ban all things that potentially create conflict end? How far are the supporters of this policy of a priori censorship willing to go? Folks get into heated debates over sports all the time. Is baseball taboo? What about music? I happen to hate the Beatles. Get pretty passionate about it, too. Would I be banned? Or would y’all ban music from being discussed?

Point is, if a bushy and a lefty want to bang heads over iraq, let’m. There is no, I mean zero, harm in that. Shit, the bushy might even learn something…

There is no, I mean zero, conflict, in the AW private forums…

Sounds like a pretty dull place to hang out at. What do you do? Exchange recipes and compliment each other’s latest release?

In all seriousness, where does this strategy to ban all things that potentially create conflict end? How far are the supporters of this policy of a priori censorship willing to go? Folks get into heated debates over sports all the time. Is baseball taboo? What about music? I happen to hate the Beatles. Get pretty passionate about it, too. Would I be banned? Or would y’all ban music from being discussed?

Point is, if a bushy and a lefty want to bang heads over iraq, let’m. There is no, I mean zero, harm in that. Shit, the bushy might even learn something…

Nothing is banned but politics and religion. Tough as it may be, the conversation seems to struggle on without it. Somehow.

“What do you do? Exchange recipes and compliment each other’s latest release?”

I could tell you - but I don’t want the Padrino to ban me. I’m still on double secret probation.

Mostly we discuss the deathless love of Talbott and Haas.

I guess it really depends upon what your definition of “dull” is, and what you’re looking for in the conversations you’re attempting to have when accessing a given message board. If you’re looking to yell at a “Bushy” about politics, why not visit any one of the great boards designed for that very purpose? If you’re looking to rationally discuss Nazi propaganda films of the 1930s, and how they compare to current documentary films like Fahrenheit 9/11 and the MUCH lesser known Celsius 41.11, then a site like WA might be a place for that. (I don’t know for certain, as I’ve admitted that I’m not a WGA member, and as such also not a WA member.) It’s not a question of a priori censorship, but of what discussions a given forum is designed to foster.

The Blame America First shit is old on WA, and has no place here.

You’re right. It must be Canada’s fault we invaded a county that was no threat to attack us, killed tens of thousands of there civilians, imprisoned and tortured thousands more, it’s Canada’s fault we sent our troops into battle without proper armor and / or equipment or intelligence, it’s Canada’s fault our troops are still there “fighting al qeda” despite the fact there was no “al geda” in Iraq before the invasion and the “al qeda” version that’s there now has little to do with the version that attacked our country.

And it sure as hell ain’t America’s fault that a hurricane wiped out New Orleans (actually, it didn’t, the shitty levees which broke did, but it must have been terrorists who weakened them, it can’t have been our fault) and it ain’t America’s fault we left thousands of poor people there in a wrecked NO to die in the heat and water FOR FIVE DAYS before we did anything about it, it must be Canada’s fault.

It can’t be America’s fault. We gotta blame someone else. If it’s proven that our country frucked up, we may think bad about ourselves and we can’t have that, no matter how true or honest it may be. So we gotta blame someone else. Why not Canada?

There’s already a hit song about it, we can use that!

Greg, I don’t know you but as a long time AW poster, I can tell you it’s not nice to tell those of us who’ve been flaming each other for years what has or has no place here … Craig’s been pretty clear that we can talk about anything we wish as long as we don’t indulge in personal attacks (and he’s given a lot of latitude to most of us in that regard, save one or two skirmishes that I’d best not mention) … so I hope you don’t consider this a personal attack. It’s not.

Just that I believe that the crowd who says that we can’t “Blame America” for our messes are being very irresponsible - it’s called manning up and accepting responsibility.

And actually, I do believe there’s a link to good writing and talk of politics and the arts. It’s called brains, balls and honesty. I think most average writers have one, most good writers have at least two of the above and the great ones have all three.

Back in the old days, writers were well versed in all those things (you think the writers at the Algonquin weren’t talking politics?) and while I’d prefer to sit here and make cheezy comments about the pert nipples on man-boobs (btw Craig, I love fart jokes, too) when I read your comment regarding “Blame America” I felt I had to speak out …

Don’t Blame America is so 2004, it’s the slogan that got Bush reelected, and it’s already been disproven again and again, by Katrina and many others.

So respectfully, how can you come here and tell us what has no place here, when your argument itself has no merit to speak of?

I think too much blame about WA is placed on the Admins. The admins are indeed a problem. Their biggest mistake was running off/ alienating the people who annoyed them: Olson, Mazin, Talbott, etc. Regardless what the still loyal members of WA say, these guys made the place lively. Since they left, it’s just not the same. Also, included in the group who post less are many of the A-List writers. IMO, the most important thing about WA, outside of educating folks about guild politics, is the knowledge the A-Listers provide us up-and-comers. Sometimes their advice is a simple Personal Message that says, “No matter what anyone says, don’t do that” and that PM will have saved you from a disasterous move. Sometimes you get pointers on craft. Most importantly you get to see how they’ve struggled and been fucked over so you get cynical and thick skinned before being screwed.

Anyway, these people leaving because the admins made the place hostile is the admins biggest probelm. To me, the policing only became a big deal right before everyone left.

The other problem, which is just as big is the people who don’t value the above-mentioned voices who left WA. Right now, when I visit WA it’s the same faces with the same opinions saying the same ole shit over and over. And they like it just like that.

These people complained about all of us who left. They sent PMs pressuring the Admins to do something about Tim’s “frat boy” humor or Mazin’s overt, heartless, relentless cruelty (just kidding Maz’). They found the folks who left offensive in one form or another.

These people now make up a major portion of WA and they like it just the way it is. They are as much to blame as the Admins for making WA an environment that is hostile to cool.

ps.

You guys who like an Olson / Mazin brawl haven’t seen shit if you didn’t witness the ones on WA. Alas, those days are gone because Optimus Prime and Megatron have been driven from Earth by craggy liberals.

Wow, that was a sloppily written post.

ps.

For those wondering which guy (Olson/Mazin) was Optimus Prime and which one was Megatron, just know that it doesn’t matter. Many of us rooted for Megatron.

Wow, that was an incredibly pointless post.

As was my own. I did not notice that you were critiquing your own sloppiness. My apologies.

Kevin, with posts like that you’d have been hated on WA. Then you would have agreed with my post…if you were able to decipher it. But since you aren’t an active member, you are simply hated by me—which isn’t the same. But it’s something, and it may be all you’ve got.

RE: WA… I’d like to add that Craig’s original point about bringing in new members is a huge one. If they can’t find new people who will actually post new thoughts, that place is doomed to suck.

Joshua James, I don’t know if you were trying to be funny cuz I only skimmed your post but either way, it examplifies how politics can take over a message board and drag it down.

Yes Greg Strangis is an insane neo-con just like all his fancy friends on AW, but does that make him wrong? Yes. But that’s not the point. The point is, WA is all liberal-rant all the time. I know no one’s ever gonna get rid of politics over there, but it’s a huge pocket of fat that’s making the place unhealthy.

Exemplifies.

Exemplifies.

“All of your points have been asked and answered. The fact that some of the writers in those forums are very fine writers IS relevant, regardless of the fact that you think it isn�t.”

Sorry, Josh, even you saying so doesn’t make it so. Unless you also add that some of the writers in those forums are also very poor writers. Being good may give you privilege in the workplace. But the only useful purpose for a soapbox is as a step so short people can see the parade. You sound like a short guy, Josh. Is that why the soapbox has such appeal?

“I�d suggest that if you had a better grasp of writing, you�d understand why your statement is so silly.”

Josh, Craig asked us to be civil, so I’ll save my “Go fuck yourself” for when we meet face to face. Here, I’ll limit myself to this observation: One movie doesn’t make you king of the world. While I have never claimed to have a particulary good grasp of writing, I’ll happily match resumes or earning histories with you any day of the week.

“Like the concept I described above, this one is equally simple - you drop it, and I�ll drop it. You keep bringing it up, I�ll keep explaining why your position is inane.”

Josh, take a beat and reread the thread. This was my one and only post on the subject.

“And, by the way, antithetical to the principles this country was founded on.”

Josh, no one was talking about 1st Amendment political speech in the public square, or freedom to practice religion or anything else in the Constitution. We’re talking about bad behavior on a private forum. There are fundamental differences between the two. Even a poor writer should be able to see that.

“But hey, why would I care? I hate America, right?”

Probably, but why would I care? This isn’t about you. It’s about WA.

If you guys want to discuss politics specifically, could you take it inside the forum, maybe in the “Procrasturbation” section?

I don’t want this area to get too off-topic.

To the question of membership:

There is a private area of the Artful Forum that is, in fact, just a dozen people.

Then there is a separate, private forum at another URL that has a membership of about 100 writers.

Not one problem.

Not one.

But then again, I think that’s largely because that place is invitation only.

Lastly, the WriterAction admins should let Tim Talbott delete his posts on WA. It seems to me that he authored them, and he should therefore have the right to alter them as long as he does so within their Terms of Service…and deleting would certainly be within their Terms of Service.

Hey, WA Admins…let Tim delete his posts!

Well, here’s my 2 cents.

I think banning politics from a forum is a very bad idea. Especially in a writing forum. Politics (and religion) are a part of who we are as people and yes, as writers and directors. How can anyone discuss the documentary, America’s Heart and Soul without talking about the fact that it’s a Republican borefest (see: propaganda bullshit) in response to Farenheit 911. Or that the film, JFK was made by a loony liberal (see: conspiracy theorist).

In another sense, it’s really great to know where an artist stands politically. For instance, I don’t think I’d be inclined to hire or work with a writer that believes that George Bush is a genius or that we’re “winning the war on terror” if my movie has political undertones. Nor would I want to work or hire someone who believes that Dick Cheney assassinated Martin Luther King Jr.

I tried thinking about it logically but I just don’t get the banning politics thing. I know it can be inherently divisive but who cares? I’ve read topics here that start with a serious issue and 40 posts in, a guy chimes in about his dirty pussy. Yes, it’s a little distracting (maybe a little funny) but that’s who we are. We’re dramatic, chaotic, and random.

I don’t know…my 2 cents.

“Greg, I don�t know you but as a long time AW poster, I can tell you it�s not nice to tell those of us who�ve been flaming each other for years what has or has no place here � Craig�s been pretty clear that we can talk about anything we wish as long as we don�t indulge in personal attacks (and he�s given a lot of latitude to most of us in that regard, save one or two skirmishes that I�d best not mention) � so I hope you don�t consider this a personal attack. It�s not.”

Joshua, I don’t know you either, but we’re discussing conditions at WA, not AW. Craig is a superb administrator. The admins at WA could learn from his example.

As far as blaming Canada goes, I’ve been doing that forever. Hockey, long vowels and curling on Sunday TV are proof enough that nothing good comes from Canada.

And who ever thought football played by 12 man teams on a 110 yard pitch was a good idea?

Plus, I can’t forgive Canadians for their role in the French and Indian War. I know how to hold a grudge.

Kevin:

Personally, I think it’s a bit sad that you wouldn’t hire someone whose beliefs (political or otherwise) differ from yours — you’d be passing up a great opportunity to expose them to a point of view that they simply may not have considered… and vice-versa.

It’s shameful how divisive politics have become — “You think X instead of Y, and therefore are an idiot who I don’t want to be around or listen to. We’re experiencing the death of dialogue in this country, and there’s no other phenomenoa I find quite as chilling.

I think it should be the job of people like you, Kevin, and the rest of us writers, to make sure the dialogue stays open and engaging… instead of simply “knee-jerking” people out the door.

I had 4 stocks hit 52 week highs today.

That proves I know what I’m talking about.

Stephen:

No, no. You misunderstood me or perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. If I was making a movie about the evils of George Bush, I don’t think I’d work with someone who’s ultra conservative. Not because I haven’t worked with Republicans but because “ultra” anything is a bit too much for me. The same way I don’t think I could work with someone who’s “ultra” liberal on the idiocy of Rosie O’Donnell.

I’m definitely somewhere in the middle so I really enjoy talking with people of all parties. The difference is the people that can’t have an intelligent conversation that just scream, yell, and have a closed mind. Those are the “ultras”.

Can you imagine going through pre-production, production, and post with someone who can’t be reasoned with? Talking to writers in a political forum kind of weeds out the nutjobs. Just read the threads in this site. Take Joshua James and I. Never met him before this site. We differ on a lot of things but we can still hold a civil conversation. He doesn’t fire bomb me with unwarranted and useless jibes and I don’t do that to him. We can disagree but I could definitely see us working in a professional atmosphere. Not so with the “ultras”. They like to argue just for the sake of arguing.

That’s more of what I meant.

Oh, and get some Apple stock.

Trust me.

I do — and I too prefer working with “non-ultras”. :)

What would they be called? “Subs”?

I second Craig’s call for WA admins to allow Tim to delete his posts, or to do it for him.

The WA admins were very good indeed about protecting my right to delete my posts. In particular, David Hoag, who knew why I was deleting in the first place since he is the admin I approached about it to see if it would be OK under TOS, never breached my confidence nor said a word whilst the controversy was raging (unbeknownst to me).

I am grateful to them for protecting my rights in the matter. They should allow Tim to delete his posts as well. I think there is some techincal way whereby they can globally delete his account and his posts.

After Josh left, iirc, they allowed him to delete his member spotlight. It would be great if they could put any personal issues aside and afford Tim that same right they afforded Josh and myself.

(and indeed, many other posters I know personally have been systematically deleting WA posts. It’s just that in their case, other posters have not noticed it).

Louise said:

At that point several people were threatening to break the TOS and selectively distribute posts I made (under a total guarantee of confidentiality) out of context. At that point I decided that forget anything else, WA was no longer the safe place for peers it advertised itself to be

Which brings up another serious problem with WA. The leaks. At one point, both LATimes and Nikki Finke were quoting posts, and one member deleted some posts about a manager when it became clear someone had leaked them.

This is the kind of thing admins should be policing. Not tough talk and poop jokes.

Greg,

I know you were discussing WA, but you specifically said the BLAME AMERICA FIRST is old on WA and has no place here … here being the place being where said discussion has happened, which is Artful Writer … it ain’t happening at WA, it’s happening here.

I know that to be true because I am not YET a member of the guild and yet I still get to flock here as long as I don’t displease Craig too much, and I figure Olson or Johnny will get the ax before I do, which gives me fair warning.

So basically … you’re wrong, Greg, regardless of your earning power.

And if you’re of the view that none of what’s happening in the news is the fault of the country’s leadership, you’ve got more problems than I can list.

And on that note, Stephen, would you hire someone who admitted they were racist?

Not the color of their skin, not their race or sex but their chosen beliefs … which is theirs to choose or not choose …

Holy crow … I’m defending Kevin’s point of view … and I notice Olson, Kevin and Craig all seem to have agreed more than once … tho on different things …

Joshua:

Would I hire someone who admitted they were racist? Under certain conditions. Like if they admitted that they were ashamed of the fact that they were a racist. Or if I was staffing a show, realized they were racist because they’d never hung out with a [FILL IN THE BLANK], and it’d do them some good to work with “one of Them”.

It took me 3 full minutes to realize you were joking.

I’m ashamed that I hate fat people.

Hey! My blockquotes didn’t work!!

Damn Republican conspiracy…

Ah yes, Kevin and I have had many a tussle here on the vaulted fields of AW, but we’ve also had a beer together, talked comics and made fun of the suits once at an industry event …

Plus, Kevin actually read a script of mine once, took a script, said he’d read it and actually read it … very rare … for all that I would disagree with him on in terms of writing theory and whatnot, and those things are legion, I respect a fellow who does what he said he would do.

I could work with him, you bet, though I’ve noticed that women take their tops off at auditions for his shows for no apparent reason other than to get his attention. That might be a bit distracting.

I thought that kinda thing only happened to Hugh Hefner and Tim Talbott, but apparently Kevin in in that club as well.

I thought I hated white people, but it turned out it was simply my extended family that done pissed me off.

Joshua:

If you thought the girl from my I Got A Crush On Obama girl video was hot, put on Fox News today at 6pm. They have the rights to the trailer of the new video coming out next week.

This time it’s a total of 6 girls!

See, politics can be HOT!!

Kevin:

Sorry about those 3 minutes. But I wasn’t kidding.

I had a college roommate, for one semester, who was the very definition of a white Southern racist. Picture the stereotype in your mind, and yeah — that was him. It almost came to blows when he used a very bad descriptor (I think you can guess the right one) about a friend of mine.

Then a funny thing happened. He showed up later, after more than a few pitchers of beer. There were tears in his eyes. And he apologized to me, and my friend-in-question, for what he had said earlier. He talked for hours about his parents, his extended family, the way he was raised. And how ashamed he felt when, upon arriving at college, he discovered that “those people” weren’t what he had been grown up to believe. At all. And how much it devastated him. How he felt like a horrible human being. And that he didn’t know what to do.

I believe in giving people second chances. Many others don’t, and that’s their choice. It ain’t mine.

Question for you: do you think it’s better to shun a racist, or to attempt to prove to them that their judgements are wrong?

Kevin, I was talking about the girl at the audition for your reality show whom you asked, “are those real” and she said “which one?”

Wait, we can’t even agree on hating racists? Really?

I didn’t realize we were talking about “hating” anyone. I asked Joshua a question about dealing with them.

1. Kevin, I think it’s a good idea to work with anyone, regardless of beliefs and world view, who’s good at their job and good to work with. Even if someone’s beliefs somehow contrast with the project at hand, as long as their goal is to make the project great, who cares? To dismiss colleagues for their personal beliefs strikes me as terribly unfortunate. Some of those I clash with philosophically are my favorite people I’ve met at WA. I’d work with anyone who disagrees with me vehemently about politics or religion or such, who’s talented and sharp (and preferably has a sense of humor). I’d hope everyone would. But that’s just my feeling.

2. Just wanted to address something Super Bomb said, which I think gives a false impression:

The other problem, which is just as big is the people who don’t value the above-mentioned voices who left WA. Right now, when I visit WA it’s the same faces with the same opinions saying the same ole shit over and over. And they like it just like that.

These people complained about all of us who left. They sent PMs pressuring the Admins to do something about Tim’s “frat boy” humor or Mazin’s overt, heartless, relentless cruelty (just kidding Maz’). They found the folks who left offensive in one form or another.

These people now make up a major portion of WA and they like it just the way it is. They are as much to blame as the Admins for making WA an environment that is hostile to cool.

I have no idea how many people complained about whom, but from what I’ve read on WA, the vast majority of posters who say anything about it miss the small group of great posters who have left WA (voluntarily and involuntarily) and urge their return. There have been entire threads devoted to missing various people. Even some who clashed with one or the other have been vocal about encouraging their return. I don’t know which one you are, Super Bomb, but I’m sure you’re missed too. Unless you’re Talbott. Then you’re sorely missed, and you know exactly where the sore is.

Sure, WA admins should delete Talbott’s posts if he so desires, but the occasional glimpse of his man boobs will be missed.

I think people should be able to post whatever they want to talk about on WA. Undoubtedly, that will include politics. And I imagine you can’t help but back into creating a political forum to keep things organized.

Personally, I don’t think it’s politics that’s the big WA divide. It’s humor. Slim pickings since The Exodus. (Hence the pathetic nostalgia for man boobs.)

I got hooked on WA during a Mazin-Olson smackdown over Thomas Kincaide. As I remember, that one pretty much covered art, philosophy, politics, you name it. Good times.

Corrected formatting — messed up the quote thing above:

1. Kevin, I think it’s a good idea to work with anyone, regardless of beliefs and world view, who’s good at their job and good to work with. Even if someone’s beliefs somehow contrast with the project at hand, as long as their goal is to make the project great, who cares? To dismiss colleagues for their personal beliefs strikes me as terribly unfortunate. Some of those I clash with philosophically are my favorite people I’ve met at WA. I’d work with anyone who disagrees with me vehemently about politics or religion or such, who’s talented and sharp (and preferably has a sense of humor). I’d hope everyone would. But that’s just my feeling.

2. Just wanted to address something Super Bomb said, which I think gives a false impression:

The other problem, which is just as big is the people who don’t value the above-mentioned voices who left WA. Right now, when I visit WA it’s the same faces with the same opinions saying the same ole shit over and over. And they like it just like that.

These people complained about all of us who left. They sent PMs pressuring the Admins to do something about Tim’s “frat boy” humor or Mazin’s overt, heartless, relentless cruelty (just kidding Maz’). They found the folks who left offensive in one form or another.

These people now make up a major portion of WA and they like it just the way it is. They are as much to blame as the Admins for making WA an environment that is hostile to cool.

I have no idea how many people complained about whom, but from what I’ve read on WA, the vast majority of posters who say anything about it miss the small group of great posters who have left WA (voluntarily and involuntarily) and urge their return. There have been entire threads devoted to missing various people. Even some who clashed with one or the other have been vocal about encouraging their return. I don’t know which one you are, Super Bomb, but I’m sure you’re missed too. Unless you’re Talbott. Then you’re sorely missed, and you know exactly where the sore is.

Someone asked what we discuss on these private boards if not politics…

Well, everything else basically. We talk about working with producers and execs, who’s good and who’s not.

We throw around ideas for specs and give each other feedback. We read each other’s pages and give feedback.

We argue about how the market’s changing or even if it is.

We talk about our guild leadership and the upcoming election and why no one wanted to run.

We challenge each other to online Scrabble. Craig is killer. So is Talbott. Haas not so much.

We talk about porn, pitching, television shows…but mostly, we just try to make each other laugh. Colin Goldman is wicked funny. Like a very sick-minded man.

When we get in cat-fights, the admins never have to step in. Probably because everyone repects each other, so we usually end up diffusing hot situations with humor.

That’s the problem, in my opinion, with talking politics on a big board. While I love learning from heated political debates, in a group of 100 or more, it inevitably devolves into someone calling someone else a Nazi (Godwin’s Law). You really don’t know whom you’re arguing with…so it can get ugly.

In a smaller, private arena with people who are respected friends…talking politics would probably be fine. Still, our private chatrooms are better without the politics.

When I want to debate politics, I do it in PMs. ;)

Aaron, do you know my husband? Every time I ask him what he wants for dinner, he says “cat” and then recommends we slice our tabby into “single serving stripes.” I thought HE was the only one who joked about eating the cats. (I finally broke down and bought a cat-shaped cookie cutter and now occasionally make tofu kitty cats for dinner.)

Is your husband Tim Talbott?

Because I think Tim might’ve eaten something feline.

Don’t ask me how — it’s just a hunch.

a Mazin-Olson smackdown over Thomas Kincaide

That should be displayed proudly, not hidden in a private collection.

Like a work of fine art.

Kevin,

Ay yi yi. Look, here’s all you need to understand - it doesn’t matter what you think. The fact that there are plenty of writers who DO think such discussions are pertinent IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

If you do not inherently get how politics and writing are intertwined, that’s fine. Don’t engage in the discussion. And if someone wants to take the time to explain it to you, that’s ALSO fine, but you don’t get to make the existence of such a forum conditional on your understanding.

“They simply are looking for ways to keep the divisiveness we see in the current political climate out of discussions of writing”

Why? Who are they - or anyone - to dictate that there must be no divisiveness of conflict? Do you read this forum? A discussion about the nature of daffodils ends up in conflict. It’s called LIFE. If you can’t bear conflict, I suggest turning off the TV, shutting down the internet, and taking up meditation. Full time.

“I guess it really depends upon what your definition of “dull” is, and what you’re looking for in the conversations you’re attempting to have when accessing a given message board.”

Exactly. Depends what you’re looking for. See, different people look for different things. Why are you so deadset on making every writer conform to your notion of what we ought to be and do?

Greg,

“Sorry, Josh, even you saying so doesn’t make it so. Unless you also add that some of the writers in those forums are also very poor writers.”

Why do I have to add that? It’s a given.

“Being good may give you privilege in the workplace. But the only useful purpose for a soapbox is as a step so short people can see the parade. You sound like a short guy, Josh.”

Whereas you only sound small.

“One movie doesn’t make you king of the world. While I have never claimed to have a particulary good grasp of writing, I’ll happily match resumes or earning histories with you any day of the week.”

Five movies don’t make you king of the world. Neither do ten. I didn’t make this about resumes, nor will I. That you distill it down to earning power makes it all pretty clear, though. If I didn’t know we live in completely different tribes before that, I do now.

There isn’t a writer on this forum who’s made less money than I have in the last six months. I guarantee that. You made nothing? I got that beat. And guess what? I’m still one hell of a writer. No connection.

“Josh, no one was talking about 1st Amendment political speech in the public square, or freedom to practice religion or anything else in the Constitution”

Yeah, but here’s how it works - to some of us, those principles speak to a larger philosophy, and are worth living every day.

“Probably, but why would I care? This isn’t about you. It’s about WA.”

I love how some guy comes in here, takes personal shots at me, then, when I respond, accuses me of making it about me.

No, Greg. It’s NOT about me.

It’s about you, sexy.

MH-

When you have the courage to post under your real name, perhaps people will take your critique seriously.

Kevin,

“I tried thinking about it logically but I just don’t get the banning politics thing.”

That’s because it’s completely irrational. And I DO think it’s worth noting that the majority of folks who want to do it are of the conservative bent. I think it goes to what I just said to Greg - to them, free speech is just a point of constitutional law. To some of us, it’s part and parcel of what makes us who we are.

And I know it’s a bit off topic, but isn’t it interesting how people who toss out epithets like “America-hater,” “Blame America first” are invariably the ones who want to tear apart the Constitution?

“If I was making a movie about the evils of George Bush, I don’t think I’d work with someone who’s ultra conservative. “

Well…. Maybe. I’d be tempted to try, though, just to keep the edge sharp on the thing. It’s easy to get complacent when you’re surrounded by people who agree with you.

Re: Apple - bought me some about four months ago. Sweet Jesus. Shoulda bought it after my first iPod.

The racist discussion is an interesting one, and one that’s tough to have on a public board, because it will invariably get dragged down by the slow boats, but it’s a complicated question. To some, the answer to this question is simple. To others, not so - would you work with Leni Reifenstahl? Would you work with Elia Kazan?

Does the art transcend the politics? Interesting stuff. Worth discussing in a place like WA….

Marianne,

God almighty, that sounds like the single most boring internet site in the universe. That sound you heard was half the people here falling asleep halfway through your post.

See, the majority of crap you just described is what normal, healthy people do with their FRIENDS. If you’re not having those needs filled in your real life, the internet is a sad place to look for them. I come to these places to interface with people I’d never encounter in my life.

See, I get it when some struggling writer who lives a million miles from LA comes to this sort of place. He wants to find people he can’t find outside his front door. And I get why my friend Michael spends time arguing with redneck morons on freerepublic.com - he doesn’t come into contact with people like that in his daily life. But you guys…. Jesus. I mean it. The idea of starting a forum where my friends and I come online and talk to each other seems completely perverse.

Get out of the house. Get some sunlight on your retinas. Visit your friends. Drink a beer. Jump in a pool. See a movie. Roll a drunk.

Kinda reminds me of that Second Life game, where people go into this immersive virtual reality just so they can work a different boring job, and live in a different boring apartment.

Hey, whatever floats your boat. Far be it from me to deny anyone the right to behave like a pervert on the internet, but don’t hold it up to me as though it’s some kind of paradise on earth.

Online Scrabble? AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“It’s easy to get complacent when you’re surrounded by people who agree with you.”

Amen.

well, in trying to broker some new ideas on good ole WA, i was told twice to “go start my own board.” which reiterates one sentiment, that people like it and dont want it changed.

however, there were many MORE people who were open to discussing changes. many more. which was nice.

i was floating the idea that as writers, censorship is not our friend, and perhaps we should have an unmoderated board. (thinking that changing admins might be hard, but taking away their superpower might be easier.) i was told privately by an admin that they fairly regularly get threatened with lawsuits based on posts.

which makes me sadly admit that most writers are batshit looney and not capable of the maturity to have an unmoderated board.

but to answer a question asked earlier, yes, many admins are participating in the “new ideas” threads.

Which brings up another serious problem with WA. The leaks. At one point, both LATimes and Nikki Finke were quoting posts, and one member deleted some posts about a manager when it became clear someone had leaked them. This is the kind of thing admins should be policing. Not tough talk and poop jokes.

So I’m not the only one who noticed the deafening admin silence when an administrator’s teenage son posted on WA—under his own name—and there was zero formal reaction even though the current “tacky and pointless banner” on display on WA links to a post warning everyone that allowing anyone else to use your account to access the forums is an immediately bannable offense?

As usual, the administrators cherrypick the way they want to enforce the TOS, even when the situation could not be more black and white.

My guess is that if someone on the admins’ shit list allowed Charlie Kaufman or Ron Bass to use and post with his account, he’d be immediately banned, and there would be a schoolmarm post from “THE ADMINISTRATORS” reminding everyone how serious such an offense is.

But an admin carelessly letting his kid roam free through the archives, hey, that’s not a problem.

Look, here?s all you need to understand - it doesn?t matter what you think. The fact that there are plenty of writers who DO think such discussions are pertinent IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

No, it’s actually not. There are specific forums, spread across the internet for discussion of various topics. I have no problem discussing politics in a writing forum, as I view a writer as an intricate system, in which all beliefs and philosophies are inextricably intertwined. I simply feel that if a board is designed to be about writing, the politics discussed should at least tangentially relate to writing. Attacking “bushies” and “libs”, and “hate America-types” belongs in forums like Kos, LittleGreenFootballs, etc.

If you do not inherently get how politics and writing are intertwined, that?s fine. Don?t engage in the discussion. And if someone wants to take the time to explain it to you, that?s ALSO fine, but you don?t get to make the existence of such a forum conditional on your understanding.

I am not claiming any a priori censorship rights. I’m simply saying that forums about a given topic (in this case, writing), should at least be tangentially related to that topic. What is the problem with this view?

?They simply are looking for ways to keep the divisiveness we see in the current political climate out of discussions of writing?

Why? Who are they - or anyone - to dictate that there must be no divisiveness of conflict?

I am not saying what you seem to THINK I’m saying. There will be conflict in any discussion where more than one view is possible. What I’m talking about is the vitriolic hatred that is engendered by the current political climate. It’s such that anyone who admits to being a liberal is smeared as an America-hater, and anyone who admits to not hating the President is simply an idiot.

?I guess it really depends upon what your definition of ?dull? is, and what you?re looking for in the conversations you?re attempting to have when accessing a given message board.?

Exactly. Depends what you?re looking for. See, different people look for different things. Why are you so deadset on making every writer conform to your notion of what we ought to be and do?

Why are YOU so deadset on setting up a strawman of what I’m actually saying? I’m not interested in conformity in any aspect other than adhering to what the forum is meant to discuss. A writer’s politics ARE wrapped up in who they are, both as a person AND a writer. Therefore, as far as that goes, such discussions can potentially remain on-topic. It’s when these discussion become mutual insult-fests that it ventures outside the purview of a forum for dicussion of writing.

To the WA admins,

What is the reasoning behind not allowing Tim Talbott to delete his posts?

Holly,

Seriously? They get threatened with lawsuits? On what grounds?

I apologize for the formatting disaster that was my previous post.

Brother Olson, Is everything an argument with you? Must every discussion on this site degenerate into you fending off all comers like some cliched kung fu flick? It may be satisying to you, but it’s just masturbatory and sad to this observer. And, most important, it never forwards the discussion in an interesting way. It’s just the same tired circle. Criminy…

marianne - they didnt say, im assuming libel/slander. i trust this person. if thats the case, that people really go to those lengths, then i give.

its great that smaller writer boards exsist where politics, by choice, are a non topic. it would be greater if on a large open board, everyone could discuss such things reasonably. but if there are people who would really threaten legal action against a public service board like wa, jeez. its just off my screen.

Kevin,

“I simply feel that if a board is designed to be about writing, the politics discussed should at least tangentially relate to writing”

You do NOT get to determine what relates to writing and what does not. Not for me. Not for anyone else. Only for yourself.

And, by the way, the forum is called WritER Action, not WritING Action. Grasp the difference?

“I’m simply saying that forums about a given topic (in this case, writing), should at least be tangentially related to that topic.”

That’s not what you’re saying. What you’re saying is that you, personally, need to understand how the forum is related to writing. That everyone else in there gets it is irrelevant to you. If you don’t get it, it doesn’t stand.

“What I’m talking about is the vitriolic hatred that is engendered by the current political climate. “

As opposed to the vitriolic hatred that started spewing when the subject of the Rasberry awards came up. Fuck that. You don’t get to dictate these things. Sorry.

“I’m not interested in conformity in any aspect other than adhering to what the forum is meant to discuss. A writer’s politics ARE wrapped up in who they are, both as a person AND a writer. Therefore, as far as that goes, such discussions can potentially remain on-topic. It’s when these discussion become mutual insult-fests that it ventures outside the purview of a forum for dicussion of writing.”

Again, what it boils down to is this - my response to a discussion I’m not interested in is to ignore it. Yours is to try to have it shut down. No idea why you feel that way, but to each his own, I guess.

Josh,

This forum has no politics in it. Yet you post here all the time. Even though it’s limited to writing.

So obviously you don’t really regard it as a curtailment of your free speech rights, or you wouldn’t post. QED.

Josh:

It’s amusing that while you mock others for making friends on the internet, you see nothing odd about spending your time making enemies on the internet. ;)

J

Jesus.

Yes, Louise. I do post here, when it’s a subject that grabs my interest. But this is not an open forum for writers. It’s Craig Mazin’s blog. There’s a difference. He dictates the subjects. He dictates the terms. That’s fine. IT’S A PRIVATE BLOG.

The question of whether or not politics belongs on a forum for writers is absolutely one of the stupidest I’ve ever heard. But the worst thing about it is this - even though the solution for you is simple (ignore the forum), that’s not enough. You would have it taken away from the countless writers who don’t share your opinion.

There are dozens of writers on WA who enjoy discussing politics there, who get something out of it. Maybe even something you don’t get, or even understand. Rather than just acknowledge their difference and ignore them, why do you feel compelled to take it away from them? What do you think gives you the right to determine for adult, professional writers what is a fit subject and what is not?

Seriously - I’m not the one who keeps bringing this up. A few of you folks here are obsessed with the subject. You are disastrously, heinously, criminally wrong. Drop it. Move the fuck on. This is beyond insane.

Josh-

Your sense of persecution is amazing to me. We all get it: you’re the Christian, those who disagree are the lions; you’re the blacklisted, those who disagree are McCarthy. Fine. If that’s how you want to play it, play it that way. In my opinion, the persecution is imagined, but it’s certainly your right to feel that way, and to misconstrue the intent of the people in this thread who have disagreed with you. I have read this entire thread, and I think Craig—and the rest of us as well—have simply been trying to hash out some ideas that make sense regarding the issue at hand: how to improve WA. It has digressed a bit, but at the core, that’s what we’ve all been discussing. (Well, everyone but Talbott, who’s just been interested in making us all chuckle a bit.) You have turned this into some kind of first amendment debate. It’s not that. It’s a discussion of how to improve WA.

“Well… no. You’re wrong, and the subject has been deemed closed.”

“my response to a discussion I’m not interested in is to ignore it. Yours is to try to have it shut down.”

…

Josh -

Marianne shared some information about a board that you asked Craig about. You used that as a launching pad to call participation in that board — a virtual water-cooler of working pros — “boring”, “perverse”, and then packaged it with insinuations that she should get a life. I know there’s some history there but Wow. Really? You make enough money; you should hire someone to proof your posts before they go out.

Kevin,

“You have turned this into some kind of first amendment debate. It’s not that. It’s a discussion of how to improve WA.”

Ah, irony.

Thanks for playing.

For the record - I have no sense of persecution. I have a sense that writers who are afraid of expression are Quislings of the lowest sort.

But let’s face it - it’s a purely academic discussion. Nothing anyone says here will have the slightest impact on WA. If it’s gonna change over there, it’s gonna change because it’s the natural evolution of the place.

Jeff,

Here’s the interesting thing - the friends I’ve made from hanging out in places like this are some of the finest people I’ve ever met. The world can be an extreme place. Sometimes the price you pay for bonding with the best people is pissing off the worst. I can live with it.

Josh,

again, nonsense. The politics subforum was a late addition to WA. You posted there before it existed. You posted on Wordplay which to this day has no politics. These are owned forums for writers. All of them set terms of entry - including WA.

And as others have said, it’s not really a question of banning any mention of anything politcal so much as not specifically encouraging it with a political section.

Reaching out back to the original topic, the problem with WA is politics but also a thousand bulletin board style threads and forums that have nothing to do with writing - any kind of writing. Plenty of the WAers discussing this now are posting that they invite friends, friends sign up, check in, see all the chat about non-relevant topics, feel the board is unwieldy and irrelevant, and don’t post.

In the election when Ted and Alex were both running (I voted for both, for Alex specifically because of the service she did writers in founding WA), you will recall there was huge lively discussion of Guild politics. Now there’s hardly any. It’s a question not of censorship but of relevance. Better focus leads to better results.

“If you do not inherently get how politics and writing are intertwined, that’s fine. Don’t engage in the discussion.”

“They simply are looking for ways to keep the divisiveness we see in the current political climate out of discussions of writing”

The political discussions on WA generally don’t intersect with the discussions of writing or art, at least not since I’ve been a member (since May, 2006).

I don’t mind that the political board is there on WA. I’m more annoyed with myself that I get sucked in to posting there in a vain attempt to change somebody’s mind or to try to correct their misstatements/mistakes.

But, I also can see how it might be that when new members come by and check the place out, they might be turned off by the idea of the board seeing that virtually all of the active posting is in the “Anything Goes” section and has relatively little on writing and the business (though there is some discussion).

Personally I find the business-related discussions to be more valuable, especially since it’s often stuff I can’t get elsewhere. I wish there was more of it.

Josh-

“I have a sense that writers who are afraid of expression are Quislings of the lowest sort.”

Again with the strawmen. Just stop. No one is “afraid of expression” here, Josh. Once upon a time, I frequented a few dedicated political forums. I no longer do so, as the discussions seemed to simply devolve from a discussion of issues into insult-fests. I must say though, that I have never been accused of being a member of a group that are “Quislings of the lowest sort.” Congratulations on finding an insult I’ve never experienced. That’s something, I guess.

John,

Sorry, man. But it sounds dreary as hell. And at least a couple folks who hold that up as a wonderful place are insisting that WA turns into the same thing. I’m just pointing out the whole different strokes thing. See, I have no problem whatsoever if the forum has a place for people to play Scrabble and talk about what happened on Wheel of Fortune today. I’d just stay away from those places. But when someone describes that as paradise, and tells me that we could make WA into such a place, I think it’s relevant to point out that it sounds like hell on earth, and just maybe some people want something else out of it.

And yeah, there’s history - I got no problem whatsoever with people calling me names or criticizing my shit. I have a HUGE problem with people running around in the world telling lies about me. I’m funny like that.

But like I said, the whole thing’s moot. WA ain’t changing.

Gonna resist the urge to check back into this - the subject feels beaten to death, and if I have to argue one more time why politics is a valid subject for writers to discuss, I’m gonna eat my own eyeballs.

Good grief! No one is saying politics ISN’T a valid subject for writers to discuss. The only question is whether a forum for writers should disintegrate into a forum that is almost exclusively discussing why Bush is a prick, or Hillary is the Anti-Christ.

Sorry, man. But it sounds dreary as hell.

Yes, I’m sure you’d hate it.

“I know you were discussing WA, but you specifically said the BLAME AMERICA FIRST is old on WA and has no place here … here being the place being where said discussion has happened, which is Artful Writer … it ain’t happening at WA, it’s happening here.”

A typo, Joshua. I intended to write THERE rather than HERE. So, you are right that I was wrong, but now I’m right again.

Kevin,

Okay, maybe it’s an honest misunderstanding, and if so, I get it, and you’re still a mensch.

WA isn’t like this set up here. It’s not one forum, it’s dozens of them, each one set up for a different topic. I agree entirely that the whole WA forum shouldn’t disintigrate into arguing over why Bush is a prick. But if there’s a specific forum dedicated to Why Bush Is A Prick, if it disintigrates, it disintigrates.

Anon –

“And, most important, it (Olson’s arguing) never forwards the discussion in an interesting way.”

And yet many a folk seem to reminisce about the great mazin vs olson era on wa…

Truth is, if ever so often some here wouldn’t raise their voices (of reason), and vehemently so, the rest would follow the curated creed like sheep to the slaughter. Cute, fluffy sheep lining up to be turned into bloody spaghetti. A simple “thanks for saving our souls” would be nice.

Louise –

“ This forum has no politics in it. Yet you post here all the time. Even though it’s limited to writing. So obviously you don’t really regard it as a curtailment of your free speech rights, or you wouldn’t post. QED.”

THAT, doesn’t make a lick of sense – sorry.

Show of hands how many liberals are pro banning a political sub-forum on a message board for writers…

That’s what I thought.

WriterAction is a product. Right now, it is an unappealing product, because the volume of dumb posts, both of the mundane “vacuum cleaner” and political varieties.

(Incidentally, for those of you without access, the “political” posts on WA aren’t so much discussions of politics, such as the merit of the immigration bill or the meaning of McCain’s recent campaign shake-up, but shrill, fringey Diebold - election stealing - coverup - OMFG - Halliburton - shredding the Constitution choir preaching.)

It is not about what members have the “right” to post - they have the right to post whatever the owner or owners tell them they have the right to post. The issue is whether WA’s unappealingness will rob WGA members of a powerful tool in the upcoming CBA negotiations.

But I’m a conservative and am also not for getting rid of the specific forum on WA.

In the past, I’ve started threads in the political forum of WA. They included:

A story about the Dateline NBC/Catch a Predator cases all being thrown out in Murphy, Texas (this thread generated zero responses).

A story from the town I grew up in where a student threw a banana onto the court during a basketball game (this generated lots of responses, many of which took the time to denigrate the town I live in now for some reason I can’t quite understand).

A story about the 13th man being exonerated by DNA evidence in Dallas County (one very brief, joking response).

A story about the pollution caused by the film industry. (Zero responses).

A story about the anti-immigrant proposals in Farmers Branch, Texas (two very brief responses).

A post about how so few Democrats are running in my neck of the woods (two very brief responses)

A thread about prosecution of innocent people (three responses).

A story about an Energy company accused of manipulating the market. (Zero responses).

A story about Texas being tops in wind energy production. (five responses, all jokes).

So, even when I wanted to discuss politics, I guess I didn’t pick interesting enough topics since almost none generated any sort of debate (or even comment).

Ryan -

Your threads are missing a key component necessary for lively discussion:

OMELETTES.

Live it.

Learn it.

Love it.

“WA isn’t like this set up here. It’s not one forum, it’s dozens of them, each one set up for a different topic.”

huh? There are 16 sub-forums here, and a chat feature too… No politics forum though. Or midget amputee porn forum…

Ah, you’re RIGHT GREG, you WIN by admitting that I was right and you were wrong, but little did “I” know, you were really RIGHT all along, because I took you at what you wrote and you took you at what you meant!

Dang! Can’t believe the luck. Foiled again by a wealthy neo-con, who’d a thunk it?

Well, when all else fails, I always maintain one can simply state “fuck Bush” and they’re automatically golden.

Fuck Bush - wahoo!

Now then, who is the anonymous fucker who called Brother Olson - “Brother Olson” in a post and didn’t have the decency tosign their name?

That’s MY loveable handle for him, you yella bastards …

Olson, it weren’t me … I think you should flame away at your heart’s content, you know it!

In honor of my good fortune that I’ve had as of late, I posted a very short script in my blog … y’all can see it here - Ron Howard & The Big Red Pitch

Love,

Oh no you didn’t …

RE: WA’s “forum creep”:

A quick inventory of the structure of WA reveals the following:

24 main forums, with the following main forums having subforums:

WGA Business has 5 subforums.

WGA Committees has 9 subforums, including two that have not had any new posts since 9/04

WriterAction Projects has 1 subforum, which has not had a new post since 12/04

Writing Craft has 3 subforums

The Business has 1 subforum

Just Chat and Anything Goes has 8 subforums, including politics, sports, a bulletin board and a travel forum.

Total forums and subforums: 51

A number of these subforums could be collapsed back into the main forums; that wouldn’t reduce the overall amount of material but might make it seem more comprehensible to people who are new to the site, particularly those with little experience with message boards.

I know that this is something the admins are, or at least were, concerned about, and in my adminning days we always tried to be prudent in adding new forums or subforums. So this isn’t really a criticism other than I think that what has happened is that things have gotten out of hand over a number of years, and perhaps now would be a good time to examine the internal structure of the board and do some housecleaning.

This will not be a small task, but it would not have to be done overnight, either; it could be done whenever anyone with suitable access has the time, and it need not be announced. Just go in and do it. Chances are, no one will notice anything other than there has been some subtle but welcome improvement in the structure of the board.

Johnny

“Show of hands how many liberals are pro banning a political sub-forum on a message board for writers…”

Scroll up this thread, and you will see some examples.

I’ve learned a lot from this discussion.

I’ve learned that pro-screenwriters have gobs of time to spend posting on the net.

Another incentive for breaking in.

I wonder - don’t you fine folks have dogs to walk, signifcant others to sexually satisfy, kids to bounce on your knee?

Or do you have people for all that?

:-)

I’ve learned a lot from this discussion.

I’ve learned that pro-screenwriters have gobs of time to spend posting on the net.

Another incentive for breaking in.

:-)

“ This forum has no politics in it. Yet you post here all the time. Even though it’s limited to writing. So obviously you don’t really regard it as a curtailment of your free speech rights, or you wouldn’t post. QED.”

Maybe I have a different definition of politics but I think every single thread on this forum deals with politics is some form. Hell, the way we all work and get our jobs is political.

So…anyone notice that Olson and I haven’t said anything mean to each other yet?

Olson,

You opened up a post with —

— “Marianne,

God almighty, that sounds like the single most boring internet site in the universe. That sound you heard was half the people here falling asleep halfway through your post.”

Dude, you must know that you’re starting shit when you do that. Why? I know a lot of people take shots at you, but why do you do it?

I’m reminded of the silly tale of the fellow who bought a Camry and then claimed that it was the only true thinking person’s car…when everyone already knew that was the Volvo he couldn’t afford.

Yes, yes … you’re right, Greg … poor people without money are soooo silly … oh my, that’s a good one.

Oh, these working class folk, they simply don’t understand …

Harumph … harumph harumph …

“Yes, yes … you’re right, Greg … poor people without money are soooo silly … oh my, that’s a good one.

Oh, these working class folk, they simply don’t understand …

Harumph … harumph harumph …”

Joshua, you found a point I never intended. I was going for the narcissistic angle. Like “the only good car is my car,” or “the only good coffee shop is the one I go to” or “the only city worth living in is my home town” with feeble logic to support the silly claims.

But I like your point, too. It establishes a tone of class-baiting that I’ll probably use elsewhere.

MH-

Until you have the balls to post over your real name, you should probably shut the hell up.

Well Greg,

I know you’re a more established writer than I … but when you write:

everyone already knew that was the Volvo he couldn’t afford

And then slagging on the guy’s Camry, it seems to me that what you’re really saying is:

“the only good car is my car,” or “the only good coffee shop is the one I go to” or “the only city worth living in is my home town”

So it seemed, and I could be wrong, that you’re proving your own argument right back at ya … only you’re adding the spector of - you the poor, penniless bastard, you can’t pretend to be rich like I am …

That what it seemed to me, but I could be wrong, I am just starting out, after all, and often easily distracted by pert nipples, naked and slick …

oh those man-boobs …

MH:

That’s not how I remember it. Who left because of my posts? They all appear to either still be there, or to be here. Perhaps I’ve forgotten somebody.

As to my deletions - all posts, in all forums - see above.

But it sounds like you would agree that those forums provoke unnecessary conflict that does nothing to promote collegiality amongst writers. There are conservative and liberal posters arguing for that in this thread. They include a bunch of people I butted heads with on a regular basis.

And an FYI for those who (like me) believe the WriterAction admins should respect Tim Talbott’s request to either delete all of his WriterAction posts on his behalf or allow him enough access to do it himself:

Vbulletin would indeed allow any administrator with sufficient access to delete Tim’s posts for him very quickly. There are two options; the first is much faster but has a side effect that may not be desirable (see below); the second would take a bit more time but probably not more than 10 minutes.

The first option is to access the vBulletin Control Panel and find the “Prune Threads Manager” in the “Threads & Posts” section, then go to the bottom of that section and “Prune by Username.” HOWEVER, I believe that this option will delete entire threads that that user started and so will delete other users’ posts as well.

The second option is for an admin to simply use the search function while in the forum and have it call up all posts by Tim Talbott. Then the admin can use the “select all” option and delete the selected posts. This is more labor-intensive, as I believe only 25 posts are listed per page and only a maximum of 500 at a time. However, I think this will prevent the deletion of entire threads, though Tim’s opening posts in any threads he started would then need to be manually wiped clean (i.e., leaving the post as placeholder but deleting all the text).

If the admins decide this is more work than they care to do, then they should give Tim access to the forums so he can do this himself.

In any case, Tim’s request should be granted one way or another, particularly when other members’ requests to have content removed by the admins have been granted (such as Member Spotlight threads).

I think I just worked out who MH is.

Chol.

Can somone please explain the “Brother Olsen” thing and/or J.J.’s rabid support of his fake sibling?

I find it silly.

Louise-

I’ve never been one to hide behind the anonymity of an internet pseudonym. I’m not sure I understand the psychological need that some people feel to do so.

As a WA member, I can only write from my personal experiences on the site — I don’t have any. It’s not that I don’t have questions or interesting things to say — or even in the mood to pick a fight from time to time. I just didn’t find anything or anyone of interest or any seasoned writers around willing to reach out to “baby” writers. I’m interested in hearing from anyone via my email address interested in reading/mentoring/guiding: filmwords@aol.com.

However, I’d like to add by looking through WA and other sites I do stumble on the personal websites of other writers and a few gems at that (Artful, Susco, Kevin Smith, etc., etc.)

I’m exhausted from the reading.

I wouldn’t outright ban any topic on a writers’ board. I’ve found most writers respect writing enough to not let discussions about politics or religion spill into threads where they don’t belong. The only real problem to overall board health (so to speak), as I see it, is a lot of writers go where the passion is and wind up spending 95 to 100% of their time in the politics forum.

I don’t know if this was the case on WA, but I’ve seen it elsewhere.

There must be some remedy that doesn’t involve banning topics.

MH needn’t worry. I won’t hurt her, even if she uses her real name.

Silly yes, like claiming to be “the internet”, yes …

Rabid? Me?

Now that’s just mean …

guilty as charged…

guilty as charged…

If Talbott isn’t allowed to delete his posts, then the terrorists win. I might as well burn all my books, scrap all my guns, learn French and move to Canada.

“If Talbott isn’t allowed to delete his posts, then the terrorists win. I might as well burn all my books, scrap all my guns, learn French and move to Canada.”

Too Soon!

Malcolm,

“Dude, you must know that you’re starting shit when you do that. Why? I know a lot of people take shots at you, but why do you do it?”

Actually, I wasn’t, really. I was just trying to make the point - again - that not everybody wants the same thing out of these places, and it’s kinda obnoxious when people act like theirs is the only way, and try to impose that on everyone else.

From the beginning of the internet, it’s boggled my mind how people feel the need to control discussions they don’t like, or don’t want anything to do with.

So there are some writers who find what MW described to be paradise. Awesome. It’s the assumption that that’s what we ALL want I find noxious, and vastly more offensive than anything I’ve said here.

Louise,

“does nothing to promote collegiality amongst writers.”

I would agree with that one thousand percent. A million percent. I have never agreed with anything you’ve said more in my life.

Just ponder the assumption underlying your statement for a few minutes. Think about what it is you’re taking for granted, then get back to me.

Hi David Schumacher: Since you joined nearly 3 years ago, you have honestly not found anything or anyone of interest on WA? Okay, I take you at your word… but that seems amazing to me. Of all those posts on all those threads about Guild issues, writing issues, agencies and execs, movies, screenplays, tv shows, A-list writer Spotlights, invites to weekly lunches or periodic 24-hour writing marathons, or the myriad water cooler topics, nothing has ever been of interest?

And none of the people? Most of the interesting Guild member writers here have been on WA at some point since you joined. Many still are. Most of the seasoned writers (since you brought them up) on WA have been more than willing to share their thoughts and expertise with everyone, in Spotlights (just like Craig’s terrific “Ask A Pro” series), in open discussions, and via PMs.

You mentioned reading scripts. There’s a section in WA where people can upload their scripts for comments. Have you ever taken advantage of that? If there are specific story points you’re stuck on, WA is a great place to post your problem and instantly get many writers’ suggestions. Can even just be for a line of dialogue or a gag or a better title. Slump or no slump, it’s a very generous community. Much like here.

I guess I’m not getting what it is you’ve been seeking and not finding. If you could be more specific, and perhaps make your suggestions on WA, likely others can help make it happen.

“There must be some remedy that doesn’t involve banning topics.”

On a writer’s board, no less. Yes. Otherwise, it’s just dreary irony.

Besides, banning topics (and people) has already been tried at WA, and clearly hasn’t improved it.

I thought this was America!

So there are some writers who find what MW described to be paradise. Awesome. It’s the assumption that that’s what we ALL want I find noxious, and vastly more offensive than anything I’ve said here.

Now you’re just being a pompous jackass. No one is saying “that’s what we ALL want.” Those are words you’re foisting upon us to perptuate your belief in your own persecution. Everyone’s out to get you. We all want to ban your political speech. You’re a lone mercenary for the truth, fighting the power of all of us who would censor you.

We get it.

Have fun with that.

Ironically enough, from what I’ve been able to gather, I’m much closer to your political beliefs than Louise and Craig’s. It’s not your message I find off-putting. It’s the arrogant way in which you deliver your message that rather disgusts me.

Sorry I’m coming so late to this, but I just wanted to say that this…

“I left WA and only realised the controversy over deletions of years old posts in long-dead threads when an admin emailed me to point it out. And then found an incredibly long thread all about me. Which I read with blinking disbelief. Wondering if they had all gone totally mad. And why on earth they even cared!

The reason I think politics should be banned from screenwriting forums is the same reason I deleted those first posts; you get too heated and you get into fights that devolve into personality conflict that is not worth preserving in aspic for all time.”

…is the biggest load of crap I’ve read in quite some time. They were not all “years old, long dead threads” by a longshot, that was not the reason you gave for the deletions at the time, and if you couldn’t figure out why anyone cared that you did this, then you in fact did NOT read the thread, because it was all there in black and white. Before it was yanked, anyway.

And meanwhile, this…

“We’re talking about bad behavior on a private forum.”

…coming from who it came from, is possibly the funniest thing I’ve heard all year.

Kevin Scott Bailey -

I don’t know who you are, or where you came from, but I think it’s time you take a chill pill. Not controversial topics per se, like, say, politics, but uninformed, argumentative blowhards, like, well, yourself, will destroy any decent debate. Possibly even this one.

Kevin,

Yes, exactly. Thanks for pointing out what I thought was obvious. We’re only suggesting the “no politics” notion as something that has worked in other places.

I don’t like the idea of limiting any topic at all, but it is a fact that it has worked on these other chat boards. Those boards might bore the shit out of some folks. Others might find those places amusing as well as a real resource.

Live and let live.

[quote]…coming from who it came from, is possibly the funniest thing I’ve heard all year.” [/quote]

Proof yet again that you have neither a sense of humor nor an awareness of self.

Here’s a life lesson. Don’t drag the dog poop everywhere you go. Clean your shoes and watch where you step.

Greg -

I take it that in your little metaphor, your calling me an “asshole” for rebutting you is the dog poop?

Truth is always the best defense.

Keep our fun on WA where it belongs. No one here cares.

Arthur -

I’m going to take issue with your post to Louise. No one had more conflict with her on those very issues and therefore more credibility to say here exactly what I said at the time you raised the issue on WA. Which is: If she chooses to delete her posts for ANY reason or NO reason, it’s simply none of your business. You have no grounds whatever to be indignant or demand reasons or that those reasons be the real reasons.

They’re her words. She owns them. Whether they’re years old or hours old. It makes not a bit if difference to you if she deletes them or not or if she explains herself. Don’t act like someone took a toy away from you. She deleted her old posts. I’ve done the same. How old they were, why she did — it’s simply none of your business.

Your entire post is irrelevant and ill-intentioned. It’s hair splitting on a bald head. What’s “a load of crap”? That you don’t agree with the reasons she gave for doing something that you have no standing to object to? You’re just throwing stones and didn’t have the imagination or industry to invent a rhetorical target. You may as well have posted, “I hate you Louise” because that’s all your post adds up to.

Nothing yet rising to the level of deletion, but guys, please, enough with calling each other jackasses and blowhards. Skip the name-calling, and attack the positions instead.

Turman -

I didn’t say they weren’t the real reasons. I don’t know the real reasons for sure. I didn’t claim to then, and I don’t now. I’ve made some ASSUMPTIONS, sure, but I happily agree that no one really knows why Louise did what she did except Louise. All I said above was that a) she’s doing a bit of white-washing what she did, and b) she’s changed her story as to why she did it. Those are not the reasons she said AT THE TIME, when she wandered back in, posted a brief and rather baffling explanation, and then promptly deleted it.

When someone is inaccurate or inconsistent in their positions, be it a politician or a poster, I call them on it. I’m sorry if this upsets you.

Whenever anyone, anywhere on the planet is inconsistent in their positions, you make it your business even if it’s not and you call them on it. How do you find the time? It happens a lot, be it politician or poster.

Of course you don’t and that’s a load of crap equal to any posted. Read my prior post, it applies equally to your last one. You’re saying absolutely nothing other than you don’t like Louise. I’ll alert Drudge.

But don’t be sorry (I know, you’re actually not, which is another inacccurate position you should crusade against) because it doesn’t “upset” me at all. It’s just an indefensible position about something that has nothing to do with any aspect of your life.

Arthur:

You sent me a nice letter a while back.

It’s a good letter.

Remember the letter.

“I don’t know who you are, or where you came from, but I think it’s time you take a chill pill. Not controversial topics per se, like, say, politics, but uninformed, argumentative blowhards, like, well, yourself, will destroy any decent debate. Possibly even this one.”

This is too rich. I’m the “argumentative blowhard” here? I’ve tried to focus Josh on the issue people are actually attempting to discuss here. Instead, he chooses to attack strawmen of his own creation, all the while doing so in a style so over-the-top and argumentative as to cut off any reasonable discussion. Review the thread. the first thing I typed that may have crossed any line was referring to him as a “pompous jackass.” Until that point, I had simply been trying to explain to him that the discussion wasn’t about a priori censorship, as he was claiming in his strawman formulation. He continually resorted to insults. And then you have the gall to call ME an “argumentative blowhard”? Amazing.

BTW, it matters not at all if you don’t know “who I am.” I post under my own name, have fully disclosed that I am neither a member of the WGA or (obviously) the WA. I simply have enjoyed lurking and reading here at AW. I stumbled upon the forum awhile back and had enjoyed it immensely.

I will conclude my contributions to this thread by saying that I think the ideas Craig outlined in his initial blog post were well-formulated. From reading the entire thread to this point, I don’t believe that those in charge at WA will change, but perhaps Craig’s ideas could form the basis for an alternative forum that could serve as a better alternative to what WA has become: a true “writer’s forum” serving members of the guild, without all the drama of personality—and incompetence of leadership—that it appears has consumed WA.

Could everyone please refer to Kevin Scott Bailey as “The Other Kevin”?

Stephen:

“Question for you: do you think it’s better to shun a racist, or to attempt to prove to them that their judgements are wrong?”

Well, first of all, the story you wrote about the racist roommate who came to you in tears, lamenting his prejudice has probably only happened once in the history of the world. I’m not saying it didn’t happen but I think there’s a better chance of Michael Bay directing a Charlie Kaufman script than a racist realizing his ignorance over a beer.

To answer your question, whether it’s better to shun a racist or attempt to prove them wrong…I’m not sure that I’d use the word, “better”. But in my own personal experiences, racists don’t come around after a good talking to. Maybe I just don’t have the patience that you do but it’s hard to talk to someone who believes that I’m a filthy mud baby.

But again, I wasn’t talking about someone who’s never really hung out with a black person and has some weird stereotypes. I’m not talking about your average Republican or your average Liberal. I’m talking about the hardcore racist, the bible thumpin’ Republican, and the bomb shelter Liberal. You know, the loons. Because honestly, there’s nothing to learn from these people. All they want to do is hear themselves talk.

If you want an example of these argumentative, contrary, cowardly nutjobs…just hit the Page Up button.

I was briefly on WA a while back, but haven’t been on in quite a while. My perspective is a little different, so I’ll chime in.

I don’t know from admins or board policies or the politics forum, so I’ll leave those issues alone.

I was just disappointed. I had hoped that exclusivity would have kept out the nastiness of the rest of the internet… but it didn’t. It caught whatever you want to call the disease the internet carries.

I used to think anonymity was the explanation for the ugly behavior, now I lean toward proximity.

I don’t want to censor or ban anyone… so there is an easy, obvious answer - I don’t read it much. There were more quality people there than otherwise… but really, how many personal attacks does it take to make it unpleasant? I’m sure some of you live differently, but my magic number for cruel and personal attacks I expect from anyone I spend time with is right around zero.

Holly, I quite liked your first post in this thread. You mentioned, though, that you didn’t understand people’s unwillingness to simply ignore bad behavior (I think that’s a broad and not entirely accurate paraphrase, but I hope it will do.)

I guess my answer is that people often do ignore it, just not in the way you mean. The easiest way to ignore bad behavior is not show up at all. No lawsuit threats, no complaining… just don’t hang out, even electronically, with people I don’t enjoy. So I think declining or inactive membership IS ignoring the bad behavior.

I don’t know if there is an answer. No moderation would make it uninteresting to me and too much moderation makes it uninteresting to everyone.

Going into WA the first time was so exciting to me… a connection to a bunch of people I had so much in common with (yeah, yeah, the with, it dangles… doncare). So many resources, so much of interest.

Then, digging deeper, the disappointment at how people treated each other. Writer on writer.

It was like… I dunno. Going to your first Alcoholics Anonymous meeting and hearing someone ridicule the speaker (or whatever they call it - sharer?) about his disease and another trying to sneak you a shot of peach schnapps.

*And Kevin Scott Bailey, before you get worked up about my posting anonymously, just know that my real name is not significant or interesting in the least. It’s simply that any hassle, even a small one, is not worth it. If it really upsets you, ask Craig. I’m sure he can do some internet tube voodoo and find my isp or url or jpeg or whatever.

Anonymous WA member:

“I was just disappointed. I had hoped that exclusivity would have kept out the nastiness of the rest of the internet… but it didn’t. It caught whatever you want to call the disease the internet carries.”

This is what I find the most hilarious. Or sad.

Olson has this theory, he calls it Director as Sky God. I’ll take it one step further. It’s called Professional Screenwriter as Sky God. What would make you or anyone think that a professional screenwriter would be more or less courteous than anyone else? It’s so amazing to see writers that haven’t sold anything yet suck on the teat of a professional screenwriter no matter how much of an asshole he or she is. And then defend them with their dying breath as if the pro-writer is gonna say:

“That faceless poster defended me. I gotta call my agent and get this kid a meeting!”

It’s also just as amazing when these pro-writers are called on their shit and the common retort is, “I’m a pro kid. Who are you to question me?” As if a paycheck or award nomination is a free pass to being an obnoxious prick.

Whether you put a bunch of lawyers in a chat room, or doctors, or fluffers, there are still gonna be dickheads lurking about starting trouble just because.

Trust me, this is definitely the most power a professional screenwriter will ever have. On the frickin’ internet. If a pro-writer calls someone double his size a cretin, his writing credit on The Chronicles of Riddick ain’t gonna save him.

Shit, it might even get him killed.

This all reminds me of the story of Benjamin Bush. You see, Benjamin was the best shortstop on my little league team. He was like a vacuum cleaner with his glove, had an arm like a bazooka, and could hit like Billy Hatcher in the 1990 world series if Billy Hatcher were nine and kind of a dick. See, that was the problem with Benjamin Bush, he would yell at all of us on his own team from his position at shortstop. He would say, “Haas, you suck donkey balls” or “Jesus, why is Haas batting?” or “Is Haas still on our goddamn team.” Things a typical nine-year-old dick would yell. And as good as Benjamin Bush was… you know what? Our team was in last place.

Finally, five of us got together after a game and we decapitated Benjamin Bush’s pet ferret Rufus. We left a note in Benjamin Bush’s mailbox with Rufus’s head saying he’d be next if he ever showed up at Mohawk Little League Field again. Well, I’ll tell you what… Bush never came to another game.

And what happened to the Mohawk Scorpions, you ask? What happened after we got rid of our best player, Benjamin Bush? We beat the Greenwood Hills gophers to finish in SECOND-TO-LAST place!

Think about that.

Derek:

The only thing that would’ve made that story better is if you guys decapitated the ferret and left a note that read:

How ‘bout a little head?

Marianne,

“Yes, exactly. Thanks for pointing out what I thought was obvious. We’re only suggesting the “no politics” notion as something that has worked in other places.”

“Worked” how, exactly?

If the ultimate goal is to keep everything smooth and quiet, then yeah, sure. That WOULD work. But again, you’re making assumptions about everyone else. To some people, a writers forum that discourages political discussions doesn’t “work” at all, no matter how shiny and happy some people find it.

And let’s face it - politics isn’t the issue. Clashing worldviews is, and that’s never gonna change - nor should it. The online discussion we had that drove you so bananas was NOT about politics. It was about the Rasberries.

Other Kevin,

“This is too rich. I’m the “argumentative blowhard” here?”

You’re one of ‘em, absolutely. Own it.

And welcome to the club.

I should clarify for the uninitiated - I wasn’t referring to the great pop group The Raspberries, I was referring to the sarky movie awards.

Kevin A.,

“If a pro-writer calls someone double his size a cretin, his writing credit on The Chronicles of Riddick ain�t gonna save him.”

Why you gotta go bring logic into the discussion?

“He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster… when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you…”
-Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Is it ironic that there is a raging debate on whether politics is acceptable forum fodder?

Officially signed by,

William Whitesnake Walker
(my actual real life true name)
P.S. What do you say now, Kevin Scott Bailey? I used my real true name like you.

Arthur:

I will say this to you once.

a) I came back and addressed why I deleted because a WA admin personally requested that I do so.

b) After I left WA, you and I corresponded for a little while on the issue I left over. I think we exchanged six or seven emails before the correspondence petered out; the last thing you sent me was so offensive I concluded you didn’t want to debate, and so didn’t reply to your last.

Nevertheless, you had my email. It’s exactly the same email. The body, at least, of our emails to each other were perfectly civil on your part.

You could have emailed me at any time to ask why I was deleting some posts. I would happily have told you.

Instead, you - yes, you, just you - went forum searching on threads that had been over more than two years. You found my deletions. You made an assumption that I had done them for political purposes. You posted blatant ad-hominems about me in a long thread all about me. That I was “a (expletive deleted) coward”.

That’s as clear an ad hominem as can be imagined, and an excellent example of how the WA admins only selectively apply their TOS. I thought about complaining about this ad hom. But it has always been my personal policy to advocate free speech. As a poster on WA, as some admins have publicly observed, I never complained nor requested any poster be sanctioned. I decided not to complain in this instance too.

You, however, were the coward. You had my email address. You had corresponded with me. You could have simply asked me. I would have told you, at the start, quite happily, what I told David Hoag.

Subsequently you turned into a deranged stalker. Threatening to break the TOS and to publish my posts outside of WriterAction, you started to copy some so I could not delete them.

It had never entered into my head that another WA poster would engage in that kind of behaviour. Call me naive, but I thought there was a measure of trust, no matter what our politics, on that website. Given the threats that you and another poster whom I will not name were making to distribute my posts selectively and out of context, I decided to delete everything. Not just political posts, the lot. Thousands of posts. As I went round clicking and deleting, when I checked your name on the WA board, you were “reading” the same two, three year old threads I happened to be in at the time, deleting my own posts. In other words, you clicked on me and then tried to preserve my words and deny me the right to delete them. Admins had to tell you several times that I had a right to delete. I certainly asked if that would be OK before I started doing it.

Meanwhile, in the long thread all about me, you were pathetically asking when its deletion was threatened where anybody had ad hommed me - you, who called me a “bleeping coward”.

If TOS was applied on WA fairly you would have been required to publicly delete that and you would have been disciplined. As it was, you were revealed as the cyber-stalker you are; as somebody happy to threaten to break TOS and publish private posts; and as the gutless coward who could not address me face to face and ask me why I’d deleted (at the time) just selective posts.

I had a religious reason for it. I won’t go any further; I would have been happy to tell you at the time, but not subsequent to your stalking episode. I think you are mentally unstable.

Like I said, I had started the process of being a politician a year before I deleted one single post on WriterAction, so there was no connection. The reason for the mass deletion was entirely you and your disgraceful behaviour, and that of a new poster who joined you in threatening to publish limited extracts outside the site.

I appreciate that at the time the admins warned that anybody publishing posts outside WA would be banned instantly and for life. Nevertheless, as I watched you click on my name and follow me into three, four year old threads, I clearly could not allow those posts to stand.

You’re the coward. If you’d just asked me, you could have saved about 500 posts on that ridiculous thread. You chose not to, but to indulge in ad homs, stalking and flaming. Several people other than me have now also concluded that with people like you on the board it is unsafe to leave old posts around. Major deletions have been on-going. You, personally, made mine necessary.

You really should grow up.

Josh,

You’re right. I do see collegiality as a goal. I think it helps in fostering an atmosphere where writers are willing to help each other in practical ways. It also helps in binding writers together so they can be more effective in collective bargaining.

You and Craig might disagree on politics but agree on Guild politics; seems to me that qua writer, the latter is more important. Qua voter, you have Kos. And again, I don’t suggest a total ban on political discussion, just not a forum focussing on it.

But that is one point amongst many; politics is just the worst symptom of the general lack of focus on WA. How about pruning some dead sub-forums that Denise talks about that haven’t seen posts since 2004?

“But that is one point amongst many; politics is just the worst symptom of the general lack of focus on WA. How about pruning some dead sub-forums that Denise talks about that haven’t seen posts since 2004?”

I hope you’re not referring to the “WHAT’S COOKIN’?” thread, Louise.

That thread is crackerjack!

CRACKERJACK, I TELL YOU!

Does it have any good recipes for omlettes?

Sadly, no.

I think the WA admins searched and destroyed any mention of the term “omelette” on the board.

But flank steak?

OH YEAH!

Tim:

What about GLOP? This is a topic of considerable interest to me.

I never got appropriate props for GLOP.

And for the longest time, I blamed myself.

But I was wrong.

And GLOP was right.

(SO right…)

My analyst and I are currently working through this.

You guys are twisted little pickles. I can’t believe I’m reading a discussion (between professional writers) on the hows, whos and whys in which to best stifle free expression on an internet fucking message board … full of other professional writers. In order to maintain some sense of “community” atmosphere, I’m presuming. Or is it for the sake of the children? Huh? We’re talking about writers, yeah? A bloody-minded lot. Some of the most puckered asses of cat ever to twitch and talk.

Writers!

I’m giving Louise B a pass on this because she’s British, and clearly has a kind of flirty-fascist, Margaret Thatchery understanding of the uglies, the glories and all the muddy-muckiness that must accompany free and lively speech.

But the rest of you? Bah. To keep the conversation hot, loamy and dripping with blood, there can be only two rules on a writers’ internet forum owned collectively by the writers themselves:

1) No libel

2) Be funny

And for the sake of the children, dear god, please, do try to be funny. Any other restrictions just encourage the tender-egoed milk monitor morons like you see on WA now, with visions of blacklists and virtual ruler-slaps dancing in their haughty little heads. Ugh. No wonder the Guild can’t get a fucking thing done.

“Gonna resist the urge to check back into this - the subject feels beaten to death, and if I have to argue one more time why politics is a valid subject for writers to discuss, I’m gonna eat my own eyeballs.”

When you comin’ home, dad?

Kevin Baily, you’re doing fine, man. At least you’re not a suck up.

Louise,

“You’re right. I do see collegiality as a goal.”

Unity, sure. But you’re never going to achieve collegiality. Any organization that can encompass Charles Bukowski and Sidney Sheldon is never going to be one in which mutual, professional respect exists. Doesn’t mean we can’t all fight for the same goals.

“You and Craig might disagree on politics but agree on Guild politics”

I wouldn’t be here if that were the case. This all started when I realized that this guy whose posts were riddled with his dislike of and disrespect for writers was on in a position of power in my Guild. And, by the way, the fact that his world politics are so loathsome isn’t entirely disconnected from the fact that I find his Guild politics suspect.

“But that is one point amongst many; politics is just the worst symptom of the general lack of focus on WA.”

It’s a forum for Guild members. That’s it. It doesn’t promise focus. It’s essentially a bar for writers. Again, you assume everyone wants what you want. Why not suggest they start a forum called FOCUS, and then, everyone who wants focus can post there.

I’ll start one on the merits of midget strippers, and let’s see which one draws more activity.

“How about pruning some dead sub-forums that Denise talks about that haven’t seen posts since 2004?”

Sure. Why not? I have no problem with a statute of limitations. Does anyone really ever go back and read a five year old conversation? (I would say, though, that if anyone gives a damn, the old forums ought to be archived or somesuch.)

To clarify, I never left WA over debates about the rasberry awards. I hung in that thread for several rounds and duked it out. But the admins know this. They sent me a couple PMs asking if it was cool, and I said it was.

I left because the WA admins banned Tim Talbott and discouraged others (mostly my favorite posters) from posting.

Josh

“Any organization that can encompass Charles Bukowski and Sidney Sheldon is never going to be one in which mutual, professional respect exists.”

You fascinate me. Is that really true? Can you not muster up a degree of respect for those that practice writing as a highly skilled craft (Sheldon) vs. those that practice it as art (I assume you include Bukowski here)?

Is there only one type of “good” for you?

Louise,

I don’t know if this answers your earlier question about the political breakdown of private complaints to WA admins, but at the time Josh was in the midst of his final exit an admin told me (privately) that the number one source of PM complaints to administrators was, by far, that poor victim of logorrhea, Stephanie Liss.

And without invoking Dick Cheney or Jane Fonda, Tim Talbott magically became the most feared and polarizing figure on WA. That baffling and depressing little episode did more to kill the enjoyment of WA than any legitimate debate I can recall.

I’m also pretty sure that at any moment a heated political discourse is taking place on WA, you can simulataneously find people seeking referrals on an agent or producer, or sharing emoticons with a fellow poster who has adopted an adorable new puppy.

p.s. if this clusterfuck scroll of a “comments” section was simply a thread on WA, it would be easier to read as well as more germane.

xo Casey

Louise,

I don’t know if this answers your earlier question about the political breakdown of private complaints to WA admins, but at the time Josh was in the midst of his final exit an admin told me (privately) that the number one source of PM complaints to administrators was, by far, that poor victim of logorrhea, Stephanie Liss.

And without invoking Dick Cheney or Jane Fonda, Tim Talbott magically became the most feared and polarizing figure on WA. That baffling and depressing little episode did more to kill the enjoyment of WA than any legitimate debate I can recall.

I’m also pretty sure that at any moment a heated political discourse is taking place on WA, you can simulataneously find people seeking referrals on an agent or producer, or sharing emoticons with a fellow poster who has adopted an adorable new puppy.

p.s. if this clusterfuck scroll of a “comments” section was simply a thread on WA, it would be easier to read as well as more germane.

xo Casey

This all started when I realized that this guy whose posts were riddled with his dislike of and disrespect for writers was on in a position of power in my Guild.

Don’t forget that I also hate Jews.

“Arthur:

I will say this to you once.”

Actually, prepare for a lot of repeats, folks…but go on.

“a) I came back and addressed why I deleted because a WA admin personally requested that I do so.”

‘kay…

“b) After I left WA, you and I corresponded for a little while on the issue I left over. I think we exchanged six or seven emails before the correspondence petered out; the last thing you sent me was so offensive I concluded you didn’t want to debate, and so didn’t reply to your last.”

We corresponded about the issue you and I were debating (abortion) when you left, yes. I don’t recall what I said as being so offensive. I recall ending the debate because you said you would carry a fetus to term even if the gestation period was 20 years long, and I simply didn’t believe you were making a genuine effort to envision this hypothetical, but that’s neither here nor there. It was a lively exchange, yes. Distracted me through a really dull day.

“Instead, you - yes, you, just you - went forum searching on threads that had been over more than two years. You found my deletions.”

No, what happened was that I STUMBLED upon your deletions while looking for something else (the post explaining this is still there. Look it up.). I enjoyed reading a lot of the threads you participated in because you really brought out the most delightful invective in certain people, but please don’t flatter yourself into thinking it goes any deeper than that.

“You made an assumption that I had done them for political purposes.”

No, I didn’t, I had no idea you were running for anything until someone else brought it up. My assumption all along was that you had selectively deleted all the posts where you had realized how wrong you were or how crazy you sounded in retrospect, simply because you were embarrassed of them.

“You posted blatant ad-hominems about me in a long thread all about me. That I was “a (expletive deleted) coward”.”

All right, I indirectly called you that (and btw, not in the thread you’re referring to) when I first discovered what had happened, because yes, I was that pissed about it. After that, I don’t think I called you any names, I just referred to what you had done and the reasons I believed you had done it as “cowardly” several times. Yes, mea culpa.

“That’s as clear an ad hominem as can be imagined, and an excellent example of how the WA admins only selectively apply their TOS. I thought about complaining about this ad hom.”

But you didn’t (since you were supposedly long gone by then), and apparently no one else did, which is probably why they didn’t do anything about it. And anyway, they ultimately removed the whole “The Story Thus Far” thread and never put it back, so isn’t that drastic enough for you?

“But it has always been my personal policy to advocate free speech. As a poster on WA, as some admins have publicly observed, I never complained nor requested any poster be sanctioned. I decided not to complain in this instance too.”

Appreciated.

“You, however, were the coward. You had my email address. You had corresponded with me. You could have simply asked me. I would have told you, at the start, quite happily, what I told David Hoag.”

I spoke out publicly against something that pissed me off. How is that cowardly? I didn’t email you because a) Clifford (I think it was Clifford, not Hoag) had already posted what you’d told him, and it sounded like horseshit to me, and b) I knew what I believed and didn’t want to hear you reiterate whatever measly excuse you would cough up in your defense, because what you’d told Clifford simply didn’t wash.

“Subsequently you turned into a deranged stalker. Threatening to break the TOS and to publish my posts outside of WriterAction”

Um, no, I never, ever did that. Several people were talking hypothetically about an ethical way of getting the word out about how truly nutty your posts demonstrated you to be before anyone elected you to a public office, but I was not among them.

“you started to copy some so I could not delete them.”

I thought it would be amusing to find preserve the few remaining Louise posts in one thread for posterity, because there were still a couple doozies left. I’d call that more “impish” than “deranged”, but whatever gets you through the day.

“It had never entered into my head that another WA poster would engage in that kind of behaviour. Call me naive, but I thought there was a measure of trust, no matter what our politics, on that website.”

Again, you’re talking mostly about behavior I didn’t commit, but it’s funny, it had never entered my head that someone would delete several thousand of their posts. How funny! It’s like “The Gift of the Magi” all over again!

“Given the threats that you and another poster whom I will not name were making to distribute my posts selectively and out of context, I decided to delete everything. Not just political posts, the lot. Thousands of posts.”

Again, no threats on my part, and you had already deleted thousands of posts.

“As I went round clicking and deleting, when I checked your name on the WA board,”

NOW who’s stalking? ;)

“you were “reading” the same two, three year old threads I happened to be in at the time, deleting my own posts. In other words, you clicked on me and then tried to preserve my words and deny me the right to delete them.”

No, not deny you the RIGHT to delete them. You HAD every right to delete them, and you deleted them. But when you post anything, you instantly accept the risk of being QUOTED, and thus you are instantly relinquishing the ability to COMPLETELY eradicate your words from the board. You were taking advantage of your right to delete, and I was taking advantage of my right to quote. What’s the problem?

“Admins had to tell you several times that I had a right to delete.”

And I never denied it.

“Meanwhile, in the long thread all about me, you were pathetically asking when its deletion was threatened where anybody had ad hommed me - you, who called me a “bleeping coward”.”

I didn’t call you that in that thread; that thread was started AFTER I called you that. I can show you where I called you that if you like, it’s still up there. And as to my asking where there were any ad homs in the deleted thread…No one ever had an answer.

“If TOS was applied on WA fairly you would have been required to publicly delete that and you would have been disciplined.”

Louise, I called you that once, indirectly, in the heat of anger, LONG after you had stopped posting and were in the process of completely eradicating your existence from WA. Perhaps it was inappropriate and perhaps I should have been told to delete it, but I suspect I wasn’t because it so paled in comparison to what you had done. For the record: I sincerely apologize for calling you that. I was reacting to WHY I thought you did something, and my suspicions remain, but as admitted earlier, only YOU know for sure why you did it.

“As it was, you were revealed as the cyber-stalker you are; as somebody happy to threaten to break TOS and publish private posts;”

Again…didn’t. Isn’t it a shame that the thread was removed? This would be so easy to prove.

“and as the gutless coward who could not address me face to face and ask me why I’d deleted (at the time) just selective posts.”

Louise…I had very strong reason to believe what I was accusing you of, so I spoke my mind about it. All the while, you kept silent and continued deleting away your own words, and you only responded to the whole thing at all (by your own admission) because an admin asked you to. And then you deleted THAT. I’m sorry, I just find it kinda weird that you’re calling ME the “gutless coward” in that scenario.

“I had a religious reason for it. I won’t go any further; I would have been happy to tell you at the time, but not subsequent to your stalking episode. I think you are mentally unstable.”

AGAIN, not stalking, and…wait, what? Now it’s a RELIGIOUS reason? So it’s now different from the LAST two reasons you gave? I’m having trouble keeping up with all this inconsistency. Which is it? (And I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t curious about what your religion could possibly say against posting in a message board that inspired you to devote yourself to all those deletions. But I won’t push it.)

“Like I said, I had started the process of being a politician a year before I deleted one single post on WriterAction, so there was no connection.”

I wasn’t the one saying there was. I still don’t think there was.

“The reason for the mass deletion was entirely you and your disgraceful behaviour, and that of a new poster who joined you in threatening to publish limited extracts outside the site.”

Louise, a) Please stop saying I threatened to do something that I didn’t threaten to do, and b) Wha? I was speaking out AGAINST the mass deletion. It was already well into progress by the time I even made a peep about it.

“I appreciate that at the time the admins warned that anybody publishing posts outside WA would be banned instantly and for life.”

Which is why I never considered it.

“Nevertheless, as I watched you click on my name and follow me into three, four year old threads, I clearly could not allow those posts to stand.”

For Crissake, Louise, quit flattering yourself. I was amused by the idea of confounding you by saving the remaining posts. I don’t even think it was my idea, I think someone else suggested it.

“You’re the coward. If you’d just asked me, you could have saved about 500 posts on that ridiculous thread. You chose not to, but to indulge in ad homs, stalking and flaming.”

Asked and answered. Repeatedly. Jeez, you know you could save yourself a lot of time if you’d cut down on the…what do you Brits call them? Redundancies?

“Several people other than me have now also concluded that with people like you on the board it is unsafe to leave old posts around. Major deletions have been on-going. You, personally, made mine necessary.”

I know of a couple people who stormed off the board in a huff and deleted most or all of their posts, and I don’t think they were thinking about me at the time, I think they were just in a snit. I find it childish in any case.

“You really should grow up.”

Perhaps. But right or wrong, I leave my posts standing.

Arthur Tiersky.

Fomenting personal and professional hatred towards himself since 2004.

“For the record: I sincerely apologize for calling you that.”

Accepted. If you would just accept that you could have emailed me and asked - anytime - instead of maligning me, you’d be a bigger man than I’ve been giving you credit for. Somewhere under there is an OK person. I know it.

“Now it’s a RELIGIOUS reason? So it’s now different from the LAST two reasons you gave?”

There is no inconsistency; they are the same. Just because you don’t get it doesn’t make it inconsistent.

“I suspect I wasn’t because it so paled in comparison to what you had done.”

I did nothing even slightly wrong. I wasn’t sure if it was OK to delete a bunch of posts in years-old threads under the TOS, so I PMed Hoag and asked if it was (it was Hoag). He said it was absolutely fine. This was cleared by the WA admins before I started and went on for weeks with nobody noticing or caring except you. I think I deleted a hundred fifty or so of the biggest past spats before you breathlessly announced it to the board with a rhetorical drumroll. You also (I think I recall rightly) spent quite a while saying tough, I was deceiving the admins but they could restore all the posts, so hahaha my work was wasted, etc. I had of course politely asked if it was alright before starting. Again, you simply assumed the worst.

I was surprised, Arthur. Of course I find your politics dire stuff. But I thought there was a certain basic level of respect there. I kept asking myself why the hell you didn’t just email me, as you had previously been happy to do, and do me the courtesy of finding out - if it bothered you so much - instead of ascribing to me the worst motivations of deception and cowardice.

That’s when “delete the worst rows”, my original intent, became “delete everything”. Because of you.

Since you were the one who did the searching, the announcing, the preservation, and the denouncing of me as the admin-deceiving coward, I of course was then worried about your behaviour. Of course I looked to see if you were stalking me, and of course, you were. You don’t even deny it.

As to threatening to breach TOS and distribute; you and the other poster had conversations about how best to do it, and she encouraged you to quote my posts for just that purpose.

I never, in all the time I crossed swords with you, thought so little of you as that, Tiersky. Never.

Posters on WA have the right to delete their own posts. That includes me, Josh with his spotlight, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. You may think you have a right to read all the ancient posts in years dead threads forever, but it’s never been WA policy; I know, because I asked first.

The only person unable to delete his posts is Tim Talbott and I would urge the WA admins to extend that same right to him as they offered me, Josh, and many others on the board.

Tiersky:

If I were you, I’d be deleting some of my own posts, starting with the doozy directly above.

You ever see “The Caine Mutiny”? Humphrey Bogart? Strawberries?

This is twisted, but I’m wholly intrigued by how fucked the WGA member board seems to be.

Debate isn’t an effective problem-solver, because its purpose is to win, usually by discrediting the opponent. There are things to gain through debate, but changing minds, compromise, reaching out and group hugs aren’t on the list.

Above anything else, I think board administrators, as with any governing power, need to be outstanding diplomats.

Let me get this straight: you want to stifle discussion, on a message board… for writers? The only one who could ever tell me to shut up is my old man, and I put him in the ground six years ago. If you think I put pen to paper so some corporate suck-up can pass judgement, you got another thing coming.

And don’t tell me I’m getting all hopped up over nothing. This is how it starts. First Big Brother tells us we can’t talk about politics, next thing you know, they’re rounding up all the old people and homosexuals.

I’m sorry my art, and what I choose to express about my art, and how my art relates to the worst Presidency of all time, conflicts with your fascistic ideas about what “proper” speech is. This was a free country, last time I checked.

Turn it up, man!

“Of course I looked to see if you were stalking me, and of course, you were. You don’t even deny it.”

Ummm…I just denied it repeatedly, and continue to do so. I was not following your movements (like you were mine). I was simply doing searches to see if you’d left old posts lying around, because so many of your posts were so richly demented, it seemed cruel to just vaporize them like that. It’s like executing a mentally retarded person; it’s just wrong.

As to the rest…

Again, I resoundingly deny that I expressed any inkling of wanting to publish your posts elsewhere; I did/said no such thing. The ONLY reason I quoted any of your posts to preserve them (and I think I maybe did this twice) was because it was fun to thwart your apparent attempt to completely erase your existence from WA (and I think that’s why I said “Ha ha”…not because posts can be restored or that you were trying to fool the admins, but simply because posts can NOT be completely erased by the poster, so your efforts to do this were futile, is all).

As to the rest…Look, if your claim is that you had reasons other than embarrassment to delete thousands of your posts, then I’m in no place to doubt it, even if you want to cloak them in “I had religious reasons for it” and not elaborate any further. At the time, your deletions were suspicious, your silence in the wake of the outcry was even more suspicious, and your vague eventual response that answered none of the questions being asked was even more suspicious, so…yeah, there were suspicions that I feel were justifiable. But I apologize if they were misplaced.

Now please stop saying I was stalking you, and that I threatened to distribute your posts. Both are false. Please stop reminding me that people have the right to delete their posts, as I’ve never denied that. If I’m guilty of having wrongly jumped to the worst conclusions and denouncing you for it, mea culpa, and again, I apologize. I hope we have cleared the air on this issue, as it is rather moldy at this point, and I had no desire to revisit it, I was simply responding to what I saw as an inconsistency (and still do, but I guess I “just don’t get it.”).

Friends?

Hell, at least your name is ON all your posts, unlike good ol’ Anonymous up there. Speaking of a “(expletive deleted) coward”.

Lots of people really stirred up in here …

I’ll just say more or less what I recently posted over at WriterAction:

That in my short time (since June of ‘06) on that board, I learned a lot about the guild, the craft and the business from WAers.

As an out-of-towner, I don’t know where else I would have gained that information, except by painful experience.

Craig’s AW is a great site, and I’m glad to see that some of the WA refugees/escapees set up camp here. It’d be nice if they could stop by WA too without having to apply for a visa.

As to the appropriateness of a forum for nude midget politics: I was always too busy in the dirty-French-postcard forum to visit.

Spam Bomb –

So attacking Olson means not being a suck up? Did it not occur to you that by doing so, he – KSB – sucks up to a great percentage of the contributors to this site, the curator included? It’s almost fashionable here to take a swing at JO. Not his views – but his character!

Politics don’t insult people, people insult people.

Aaron, no, Tim isn’t my husband and as for him gettin’ him some “feline,” I have no knowledge (not going there, nope, no way).

To everyone here: as a complete outsider, it actually does seem that there IS some consensus.

EVERYONE seems to agree that Tim ought to be able to delete his own posts. Perhaps the next (concrete) step would be to send a petition to the WA Admins to that effect. Not only might they then allow Tim that power he should have, but it might also send a secondary message that there is a large body of people paying attention to the WA and perhaps the Admins ought to pay attention back.

You can quickly and easily create a petition at www.petitiononline.com (I have no affiliation). I would do it for you except I’m probably the wrong person to do such a thing.

Ok that’s torn it. I’ve ordeded Infested on DVD from amazon. Josh you’ll be glad to know I bought a full price brand new copy for £20 instead of the 2nd hand version for two bucks. I feel for you Josh, and your tale of financial woe. So you owe me man, I’m putting your kids through college. Err… assuming you’ll get any share of profit from the sale…

…do you?

Wow, all these posts and lively debate. It feels like WA in here only…not.

Johnny Hartmann,

I think you suck up to Josh Olson. Which is fine. I suck up to Craig, Gilvary, Ted, and Big John Turman. So my point is, being a suck up isn’t all that bad in my opinion.

The difference between me and you is, I know the people I suck up to, i’m guessing you don’t know Josh.

Wait a minute …

if I understand it right, someone said people, tyro’s, have been sucking up to pro’s here on AW and then asking for introductions to their agents?

You can do that?

I had no idea … Holy shit, I’ve been sucking up just because I liked a person’s work, I didn’t know I could actually GET something out of it … and I’ve probably pissing off too many others … (uh Greg? Yeah, I, uh … really admire your work, dude, and by the way, you know anyone at CAA?)

Yes, bomb-bomb, you OBVIOUSLY know people, that’s why you so COURAGEOUSLY sign your own name …

By the way, I met your brother BAM-BAM at a club, he said he’s done sending you money until you get off the meth and into rehab …

Besides, those Flintstones residuals ain’t what they used to be … and Pebbles took half his estate in the divorce, which you’d know if you weren’t so messed up …

boards die.

vine.org died, gave birth to WA. Maybe it’s just time to renew the cycle and start up another board?

Few truly get to burn out, active moderation is usually to blame.

Why neglect the principle of social conformity? It works.

Probably the most successful screenwriting board, D Forum, managed to go through two incarnations and a third of a million words of on-topic discussion with no moderation (save for the occasional deleted spammer) before finally slipping away in its sleep (it even avoided the paris hilton night sweats and scat porn death-throws). It wasn’t exactly hosted in a permissive environment but it flourished because it was useful and nobody had anything to gain by trashing the joint.

If also benefited enormously from having development executives as well as writers on board.

I think if you look at the successful ifilm model, a decent gatekeeper (which they never really had) and completely anonymous posting is one proven solution. It encourages an open exchange of ideas on topics that are actually relevant and important to contributers, while sidestepping egos and flame-wars. You don’t even need to control entry that tightly, if people don’t have an online persona to chisel away at what’s the point in contributing to threads you can’t add to in a meaningful way?

Bomb Bomb -

(I can’t believe I’m answering to a guy who calls himself Bomb Bomb, what the fuck…)

Funny thing, when I agree with the wisdoms of Joshua James, or the insights of SusanC, or even with the man the myth Mazin himself (see threat on gun control), it’s okay… but agreeing with Olson is not.

If you back track this threat, it was Josh who agreed with my initial proposal to forgo any and all admins on a writers forum. Does that mean he’s sucking up to me? Or does it maybe, just maybe, mean that he and I happen to see eye to eye on the issue?

When I defend his charatcer it’s merely to restore balance. Scroll up and you’ll see Craig happily allows posts that tell JO to “go fuck yourself” or call him a “pompous jackass”. What happened to no ad hominem attacks…

Oh, and for christ’s sake, sign your name bee-otch.

On Louise, I will say this - as vigorously as I despise her politics, I was always impressed that she, of all people, never tried to have anyone shut down, and often argued for the right for people who said the worst possible things about her to keep posting. I think that’s noteworthy, and should not be lost in the shuffle. It also speaks to a kernel of something in her that belies pretty much every other thing she seems to believe in, and ought to be encouraged.

On the subject of her deleted posts - it’s clearly her right to have them yanked, but I think it’s perfectly reasonable for people to wonder - and discuss publicly - at the motivations behind such an act. That someone who’s entering the political arena wants to erase past conversations in which they’ve expressed views that many people find morally repugnant is more than a little interesting. And once you enter that public arena, your right to privacy changes somewhat.

For instance, if she were up for a gig writing a Michael Moore movie, I think it would be amusing, but not necessarily public fodder. But if you’re going into politics, and there are pictures of you marching around your living room wearing a swastika, that’s germane. One can argue whether or not Michael Moore has a right to know that you dislike his politics, but one cannot argue about whether or not the public has the right to know about the strongly held convictions of a politician. I think it’s especially germane when the views that person once held have since been thoroughly rejected by the public.

Ruari,

“I feel for you Josh, and your tale of financial woe.”

Um…. I wasn’t complaining. My earning situation this year is entirely of my own doing. I’ve turned down gobs of work, and am in the process of setting up a movie I’m directing that’s independently financed. Not only won’t I get rich off of it, so far, I’m in the hole, because I optioned the original story out of my own pocket.

If I wanted - or needed - more gobs of life altering money, I could earn it pretty quickly, and that’s without having to peddle my hot ass down on Sunset.

Bomb Bomb,

“The difference between me and you is, I know the people I suck up to, i’m guessing you don’t know Josh.”

This is such an enormous overshare, it’s probably a good thing you didn’t offer up your name. But I love how you assume that someone who agrees with me must be a suck up, and that we can’t possibly know each other because… well, why is that, again?

Sounds like WA has everything, except one of those threads on how to use ‘ad hominem’ correctly in a sentence. What mature, flame-ridden writers board does not have such a thread?

“This is twisted, but I’m wholly intrigued by how fucked the WGA member board seems to be.

Periodic squalls kick up among various people, as they do anywhere, but it’s not the norm. It is what the evening news would cover, though.

“Debate isn’t an effective problem-solver, because its purpose is to win, usually by discrediting the opponent. There are things to gain through debate, but changing minds, compromise, reaching out and group hugs aren’t on the list.”

While debate is USUALLY just about winning, it really depends on the debaters. Some people approach debate with a firm pov but are open to changing their mind or at least broadening their horizons if presented with new information, better logic, and/or a stronger emotional appeal. I’ve seen it happen countless times, and have been on both sides of it. Even on deeply personal issues. At the very least, debate can help sincere participants better understand — if not respect — each other’s pov.

Yeah, that’s not the norm unfortunately. But it happens often enough.

I think it’s important to remember that physicists believe in the Many World Interpretation to quantum physics: That in fact, there exists a near-infinitude of parallel universes, in which all other outcomes of history are possible.

Therefore, it stands to reason that in one of these universes, Louise and Arthur are happily married.

And water flows uphill.

EVERYONE seems to agree that Tim ought to be able to delete his own posts. Perhaps the next (concrete) step would be to send a petition to the WA Admins to that effect.

And while petitions are circulating, how about one that enables someone to delete a post here - or actually, just to fix my spelling?

Anon:

If could, I would. Movable Type doesn’t seem to allow that option, and while there’s probably a way to mod the code, it’s a lot harder to so in here than on vBulletin.

However, Movable Type 4 is nearing release. Perhaps they’ll have that functionality added in then.

Or to fix the above post when I forget to click on “Remember Me?”

Don’t make me drag the Simons-Peterson Management Task Conflict Resolution Study into this.

Oh shit. Too late.

Fair use, etc…

ZIP IT James Surowiecki The New Yorker October 9, 2006

…Successful boards require what Jeffry Sonnenfeld, a professor at the Yale School of Management, calls “a culture of open dissent,” where members are free to criticize the C.E.O. and each other, and where there is no artificial attempt to impose consensus on the group. This is hard to achieve, because dissenting opinions often get interpreted as personal attacks. Social scientists like to say that good decision-making groups engage in “task conflict,” fighting over the best solutions to particular problems, while bad ones engage in “relationship conflict,”interpreting differences of opinion as differences of character. But, as Tony Simons and Randall Peterson, of Cornell mention in a study of seventy top managment teams, groups that engage in “task conflict” also often suffer from “relationship conflict.” In other words, it seems you can be collegial and friendly and make bad decisions, or you can be locked in a room with people who can’t stand each other and make better decisions.

Simons and Peterson identified a surprisingly simple way out of this dilemma: trust. They found that groups whose members trusted one another’s competence and integrity were more likely to engage in task conflict without succumbing to relationship conflict. Paradoxically, the more people trust one another, the more willing they are to fight with each other.

Having read through these comments, I believe Josh, Joshua, The Other Kevin, and their kind have been superbly outwitted by Louise, BombBomb, and the facts. I sha’n’t sing O’Canada just yet; not as long as I have the right to comment on Canada’s state of suck, and then delete said comment if I so friggin’s choose.

I’m no pro, but once I am I won’t waste my time with petty crap like this. I’ve deleted comments I’ve made in the AW forum, even in Talbott’s thread… Know why I deleted my comments? It’s none of your f’n business. Know who questioned why I delted my comments? NO ONE. Why the hell should it matter? It’s called Life — get some.

You should be ashamed. Words are the hands that feed you people. First, you complain about words that bother you in some way. Then, you complain when those words are removed. Worry about your own goddam words; if other people are so ignorant, then what possible good would come out of bickering with them? You think you talk with Talbott over a beer, he’ll start sobbing, and knock back some kool-aid with you?

I apologize to Craig as I am way off topic, but I think he’s wasting his time with you people, trying to herd fire hydrants. And until WA gets its shit straight, it will continue to suffer by losing the likes of Talbott and other free thinking minds. But, maybe that’s what you want.

Why do we need WA, Craig?

“Having read through these comments, I believe Josh, Joshua, The Other Kevin, and their kind have been superbly outwitted by Louise, BombBomb, and the facts.”

You know, I hate to rush to Josh’s defence, seeing as I hate his guts and all (or do I?) but Eddie, did you attend Louise and Arthur’s wedding?

Btw Josh, I was just fucking with you. Or was I?

I don’t know any more!

Eddie,

Just wanted to let you know, while Eddie & the Cruisers, the first film, rocked the house, (Ellen Barkin, soooo hot) … great film … however …

Eddie & the Cruisers II, Eddie Lives, sucked bad on the scale of crack-ho’s servicing canker-covered donkey-dongs, that’s how bad that movie was …

So you should be ashamed, ya sellout, ya Hollywad whore, ya …

Wait, Eddie, I didn’t mean that, I really love ya babe … you’re the shit and you know it …

The rest of ya shut up … Eddie’s the MAN! You all should bow down to his greatness … you’re just picking on him!

By the way, Eddie … you know anyone at CAA you can hook me up with? Come on, do a brother a solid!

Louise,

“You fascinate me. Is that really true? Can you not muster up a degree of respect for those that practice writing as a highly skilled craft (Sheldon) vs. those that practice it as art (I assume you include Bukowski here)? Is there only one type of “good” for you?”

I’m not sure there’s a quick way to answer this that won’t create another enormous thread that goes on for a month and ends in more name-calling.

But what the hell….

First of all, there are plenty of types of “good.” You’re talking to someone who counts our own Mr. Lawton’s kung fu bikini babes epic D.O.A., the new Die Hard, and Jonathan King’s very fine, very funny Black Sheep as three of the best experiences I’ve had in movie theaters this year. On the other hand, Lives of Others made me cry like a fucking baby.

And while some people clearly get caught up in the fact that I’ve done some time as a reputable writer of semi-highbrow pseudo-art that’s beloved in France, I’m also the trash-fiend writer/director of a low budget horror movie about killer flies, of which I am tremendously proud. Every time some moron throws the label of highbrow snob at me, I laugh my ass off.

Put it this way - I came to an enormously important realization a long time ago. In the beginning of my career, if I was offered a project and saw how to do it well, I’d take it. I soon realized that there’s a difference between knowing how to make something and WANTING to make it.

I think there are huge gray areas between the two, but essentially, I think there are writers who think, “Hey, I could write that and make some money,” and writers who think, “Hey, I have to write that.” And setting aside qualitative issues, I think the two camps have several areas where their interests will conflict.

I’ve done some rewrites, and will probably do more - I have some pretty tough standards about them, but I will do them in the right situation. But I think - and I’m being REALLY simplistic here - if the Guild decided to make rewrites a major issue, and tried to eradicate them entirely (This happens in a fantasy world, yes, I know), there’d be a split between people who wouldn’t object in the least, and people who’d see their bread and butter threatened, and not be remotely concerned with any other aspect of the issue.

I think the writers on the far ends of that spectrum will very often be at odds with each other. I hope we can be spared three hundred posts explaining that things aren’t this absolute, because that’s pretty obvious, but there are two extremes, and writers who are motivated primarily by money are at one end, and writers who are motivated by the flakier desire to create what you might want to call “art” are at the other.

They will not always respect each other. The “Money” people will always perceive the “Art” people as pretentious and phony, the “Art” people will always perceive the “Money” people as hacks who’d sell out art for money in a heartbeat.

I don’t expect that to change, I don’t particularly think it needs to change, but if I can offer up a thought from someone who veers a little more towards one side of that scale than the other, my sense is that the “Money” people tend to have almost no understanding of the “Art” people and what drives them, and to assume that everyone’s motivated by the same thing.

Eh. I offer this in a rudimentary attempt to explain some things, but I expect the end result will be a host of new personal diatribes. C’est la vie.

For those who think JO is without ad hom blame, please reread the thread. I made one statement in response to him in which I referred to him as a pompous jackass—which I do not retract—and that’s what JO’s defenders choose to point out.

As for me, one thing I am most certainly not is a suckup. Even as a child, I was an incorrigible class clown, not really caring what teachers thought of me (many seemed to like me anyway, for some reason), so I would say that accusation is just a bit without merit.

(Please excuse me now, as I go bang my head against the wall for responding to this out-of-control debate/discussion/whatever-the-hell-it-is-now.)

Josh-

Your post in response to Louise was illuminative. I think much of what you wrote is intuitive to anyone who thinks much about the nature of art (whether that art is the written word, painting, song, etc.), but thanks for putting it down in black and white in such a clear way.

KSB -

You forgot “…you pompous jackass”.

Suckup.

No, actually. Telling the truth is different from “sucking up”, no matter what you might think. Josh’s post to Louise was quite good, and I said so.

Kevin,

“For those who think JO is without ad hom blame, please reread the thread”

Anyone who thinks I’m without “ad hom” blame is probably just sucking up to me, for which I will reward them by hooking them up with my agent. He loves my suck-ups, and gets all of them huge paying studio gigs. How else do you think Mazin got the last Scary Movie?

My point, at least, was not that I wasn’t guilty of flinging mud around, just that your pot is as black as my kettle.

Welcome to the dark side.

Casey McCabe - just curious. what is ‘logorrhea?’

since you invoked my name - I suppose I have a right to ask you the question. Oh - and if you’re going to invoke my name - particularly in public - then at least, please get your facts straight. I have asked for advice on how to handle things. and I’ve been called out by admins and asked to delete things. I have, yes, complained to the admins. twice.

I don’t understand quite your reason for calling my name out here - when I’ve had nothing to do with this thread- or much of anything else of late. but at least man up when you do it. and say it to my face. You have a question, Casey - ask me, please. rather than speaking something that is entirely untrue. and third hand knowledge.

you don’t like me. fine. I really don’t care. but at least get your facts straight. and from reliable sources. Stephanie

Okay, this is a HUGE gripe I have with people on the internet, and it’s something no self-respecting writer should do. It’s just embarrassing:

“Casey McCabe - just curious. what is ‘logorrhea?’”

We have this incredible tool, this great resource, and nine times out of ten, rather than look something up (or, say, buy a dictionary) some people will invariably ask a question like, “Citizen Kane? Who directed that?”

Come on, people.

Stephanie, in the time it took you to type that sentence, you could have found five definitions of the word, not to mention how to say it in Swahili.

Goes to character, your honor.

A lot of people want me to use my real name but i don’t because I can’t risk it. The risk is way too high.

I agree with K.S.B., Olson’s post was good.

I hope a new topic gets executed upon this main page, that’s for sure.

“Okay, this is a HUGE gripe I have with people on the internet, and it’s something no self-respecting writer should do. It’s just embarrassing…”

Josh -

Then thank the gods you’re not on WA now. There are entire threads devoted to such topics as:

I got a blister, has this ever happened to anyone before? What do I do?

How far can my car extend into the red zone before I get a ticket?

Why won’t Costco sell me wine before 10 in the morning?

Am I making this up? Nope.

Then there are some jerks who think it’s funny to make jokes about these kinds of posts.

Writer Action: Something for everyone complain about.

quote[/quote]

Yep. Does make me special. Doesn’t make CAA special, either.

Well, that post got royally fucked up. What I meant to say was:

“(uh Greg? Yeah, I, uh … really admire your work, dude, and by the way, you know anyone at CAA?)”

Yep. Doesn’t make me or them special. But if you’d like, I’m happy to give my friends your name.

Joshua James is the name;

Words is my game;

And artful sucking up whenever required …

Ron Howard & The Big Red Pitch

Ruari told me he’d hook me up, but I had to promise him sexual favors … my lady says sleeping with me is no favor for anyone, but I shushed her before Ruari heard about it, this is my career we’re talkin’ about, after all!

Wow Joshua, you totally got the wrong idea. I wanted you to ARRANGE sexual favours for me, not to give them to me yourself, you silly goose. Cash will do alternately… or… hmmm… How much do you love your wife…?

Also, You have any kids? My agents at CAA are hungry fuckers…

C’mon Turman. Be nice. Sure there have been some inane threads started on WA. But the guy who started them has incredibly long pubes. They tangle his thinking, along with everything else in their path….

It ain’t a question of how much I love my lady, but how much does she “love” me … I bet I can guess her response, which will entail much cursing in Japanese … and she’s samurai, Ruairi, you might not live through it … hell, you wouldn’t …

No kids as of yet … I’m the only adolescent thus far …

In other words, I’m fucked.

Hey don’t make assumptions dude! If you don’t ask, you’ll never know for sure… Tell her it’s just like Indecent Proposal, only with an overweight ugly Irish loser instead of Robert Redford. And no million dollars. Who could possibly resist?

Hi Elena!

I have a really horrible thing to say.

Should I say it?

Ostensibly, it’s in your defense.

As always, thanks for listening.

• T-Dog

Steph,

I shouldn’t have singled you out. That was wrong.

My “facts”, subjective as they are, remain correct. I didn’t man up and ask you a question because I didn’t have a question. And I have no problem saying to your face that you often use many more words when fewer would be prudent. Hence “logorrhea.” It’s not a crime or a disease. And it doesn’t really bother me. I can scroll with the best of them.

My issue isn’t with you, Steph. It’s with writers who can’t settle their own hash with words in public, and lobby administrators to do their dirty work for them. And the WA adminstrators who let this kind of private whining weigh heavier than the folks who were clearly enjoying the place as it was. Or used it as an excuse for their own junior high vendettas.

And my original point to Louise was that it is not national politics that kills a board. If people are complaining that Stephanie Liss’ overposting ruins their mood, it simply proves that people will complain about anything.

Speaking of overposting (logorrhea’s bastard step-cousin), the accusation would appear to put a person in good company around here.

Johnny wrote (in reference to Olson) — “Does that mean he’s sucking up to me?”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Oh, man…that’s rich. That made me-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

No it doesn’t. It doesn’t at all.

Besides me and you, there’s one other blazing suck up here.

ps.

Josh, “you got voice.”

Timmy, Say it, baby! Say it right now. C’mon, you know you want to. You know I want you to. Saaaayyyy it.

That’s right, nice and slow.

Uh huh. It hurts so good…..

snugglemuffins, Elena

Imda bomb -

It’s called sarcasm, sister…

Aaaaaaa.

Whoa. Once again, Josh is right.

If, indeed, it was Josh.

Too late, Elena.

I finished before I could get the venom out.

Regretfully,

Tim Talbott Pre-Pro

“…Successful boards require what Jeffry Sonnenfeld, a professor at the Yale School of Management, calls “a culture of open dissent,””

Jeffry Sonnenfeld is smarter than me. Jeffry Sonnenfeld’s ass-flap is probably smarter than me.

What I do know is in ten-odd years of raising hackles on internet forums, I’ve yet to see non-congeniality or a flame war or a bully or a personal vendetta or a surly transvestite romance-author guru with a grudge on his shoulder or a political discussion or anything else like that kill a board. Ever. The only thing I’ve ever seen kill a board for good and ever is over-moderation — the likes of which can be seen at WA.

Flame wars give off a nice romantic glow. Bullies get bullied back. Politics are always personal. Tender egos get assuaged with MSG and grilled to perfection. It’s messy. It’s ugly. And yet, the meta-discussion goes ever on. It’s not Algonquin. It’s a world-wide round table.

Embrace the anarchy, folks. These are the infinite sub-forums of our imaginations. The madman drowns in the sea of insanity in which the mystic has learned to swim, yes? And shit floats to the top, but so does the cream.

In a moderation-free zone, you’re going to have to eat a turd sandwich once in a while. I hear they go down well with a chilled chablis.

Writers. Fucking daft. The lot of you.

Dear “Anonymous”,

That was worthy of the hucksblog.

More essays please, RW

This has got to be approaching a record number of comments.

For some reason I would have thought that a good thing…

I’m Bomb’s cousin and I regret to inform you that do to the lack of respect people inhibited to him, he has gone and left.

That has left me to be here, which is cool with me. Cuz I’m down.

“WriterAction isn’t a personal site. It’s meant to be a mirror community for the WGA. We need it more than ever right now, as we head into elections and negotiations and possibly even a strike. We need an educated, engaged, connected membership.”

Mybe that’s the thing, take your issues to the public, let people speak of them openly in their blogs… maybe a lot of members feel it is a waste to spout of on issues to a closed community. I mean, go ahead and piss and moan amongst yourselves about industry matters, but wouldn’t it make more sense letting your concerns known to the very people who you’re aiming the vitriol at?

Anonymous,

“The only thing I’ve ever seen kill a board for good and ever is over-moderation”

That bears emphasizing and repeating.

The notion that a free form forum for adults needs to be moderated is one that springs not from neccessity, but from the petty egos of people who crave control.

Having some administrative person whose job it is to cut out spam, death threats, and libel (Hi, Craig!) isn’t unreasonable, but that person needs to be able to resist the urge to impose their own personal likes and dislikes on a community.

There are situations in life that require leadership, and situations that don’t. A place like WA most certainly doesn’t. It need an administration that KNOWS it’s there strictly to service the membership, and not the other way around.

PS: Fake Josh Olson made me laugh. But I do want it noted that that was the Fake Josh Olson.

Honest to god question…

Craig, you got a pretty nifty forum set up right here on AW (no, I’m not talking about the comments section, but a real message board with members list, sub-forums, avatars, the works). Why not create a sub-forum labeled “WGA” where guild members can discuss all things guildy? Simply create it as part of a private group and allow wga members only to join.

Genius… I know.

Oh, Il Padrino?!

“While debate is USUALLY just about winning, it really depends on the debaters.”

From a high-school team to politicians looking for reelection, debate is about winning. Exchanging thoughts, respecting opinions and broadening horizons is discourse. I’ve seen both, too, but I think it’s usually only a problem, when a conversation or thread isn’t sure which it is.

In any case.

So much begins at the top.

It would seem difficult to build community, as Craig’s original entry says, when moderators do things like discourage posting a lot and are mealy about the rules and serious board squabbles (the ones which actually, not imaginarily, threaten a board’s existence).

Those in charge of a community with a clear purpose don’t quite have the luxury of simply “being” that the rest of the group does. They have ideals to uphold, represent, be a continual reminder of and proactive in fostering; in this case - a writer’s union and, to that intent and in the end, those in the group are writers on the same team - otherwise it’s lost.

So, while I don’t agree with the idea that a writer’s group should limit discussion by eliminating lively forums, I do agree with much of the rest Craig has to say about how a board with a purpose should be run. It goes beyond policing libel and death threats, and it goes above mucking it up with its members.

“what kinds of things have the administrators at WA censored over the last 6 months? “

You mean, aside from the admins who were forced to take down ad homs and apologize? Not much.

Eh, “anawn” - great name by the way - craig isn’t the one criticizing anon posters. But he IS the one allowing them. See how the world keeps spinning in one direction?

People, myself included, scream at posters like “cumbomb” or whatever who launch personal attacks from the safety of their alias. Why? Because it’s fucking cowardly.

“Kind of dysfunctional to allow something and then criticize people for doing it.”

Spoken like a true Soviet.

No Exit.

Fug! Here’s a much better-moderated place with lots of the people who crap WA drove away. And they’re posting about WA in a way WA can’t or won’t.

Upwards of 300 comments and Artie is fighiting with Weezy, Josh O is the purest artist who ever deigned set foot on earth, people are hating over politics, and the balanced guys who were posting at the beginning have dropped out and gone away bemused, bored, or disgusted.

Sychophants echo their virtual master/mistresses. The dullards are confused. The smart asses smart ass off. The thin skinned stalk or crawl away while the tough guys snigger.

The milk monitors are gone. We can’t blame the milk monitors here, or too many forums, or too few live chats.

Why has WA failed?

No exit.

Hell is other people.

Guys, the Red Cross is here with blankets and hot coffee. They want to know where to set up the first aid station.

could be worse.

Another msg board (think of a Playpen, only for baby writers) that used to have some relevance will actually do reverse DNS lookups of users and ban known contributers for combining a ‘script kiddies’ isp with the ‘wrong’ version of firefox. They also do spot checks, and if your browser doesn’t match the usage pattern established in their access logs, you will be banned for ‘faking’ the browser you are ‘really’ using. Running a useful msg board simply doesn’t seem to be a priority, at least not so much as policing one.

I was just looking into how to set up IRC chat groups last week, and there’s an interesting note in the FAQs that having visible mods/admins will invariably raise the ‘temperature’ of a room and provoke more problems than they deter. I’ve never used IRC, but it predates internet forums and this advice is obviously borne of extensive experience.

Well, as someone who lurks on Artful Writer (as SunTzunami) and used to post on occasion on WA, I’d say that I find both as ways to procrastinate from writing.

When I initially joined WriterAction, I had wanted to meet more writers and a few of my friends were part of WA already. I thought it’d be so fun to be part of that “inner circle.” Initially, it was exciting to see names of Oscar winners and A-list writers lurking on the site.
It was kinda fun for a while. But most of the “hot topics” were either totally irrelevant to me or uninteresting. Also, I don’t have a dog or a baby so those threads have no meaning for me either. And my Yankees aren’t doing well so I don’t feel like participating in the sports forum.

I don’t post on AW forums either. But I come to the chatroom because the people who are on AW are far more optimistic and laid back.

That being said, I like how this site’s run. Rock on, Craig.

Wow, I totally missed this…

”As for me, one thing I am most certainly not is a suckup. Even as a child, I was an incorrigible class clown, not really caring what teachers thought of me (many seemed to like me anyway, for some reason), so I would say that accusation is just a bit without merit.”

I’m glad you brought up pre-school as your credentials. So you were the class clown, huh? Sucking up to your fellow pupils by cracking silly jokes because you had nothing else going. I was a bully. You know what we did with class clowns? We dragged’m behind the gym and burned them. With cigarettes. Right into their sweaty little arm pits. I’m not proud of it. But it did teach me one thing… boys DO cry.

”(Please excuse me now, as I go bang my head against the wall for responding to this out-of-control debate/discussion/whatever-the-hell-it-is-now.)”

Allow me…

Johnny-

Yeah, you’re real scary. I can just imagine you, sitting at your computer, using your creative juices to come up with a scenario of you as bully in grade school. I don’t believe you for one second. What I’ve found in my time wasted on message boards, blogs, etc. is that the ones who blow the hardest about what badasses they are/were are usually the biggest pussies when push comes to shove. I’ve met a few. They’re not nearly as braggadocious in person.

Here’s who I think you REALLY were growing up: you were the hanger-on, who followed the ACTUAL bullies around, kicking the kid when he’d already been beaten up. Not a lot of courage needed for that position, but it certainly provides you grist for your imagination now that you’re a fully-grown pantywaist, with an artistic IQ only slightly higher than the dullest of the dullards with whom you now surround yourself.

You are no bully, Johnny. You’re not even the bully’s brother. At best, you were the bully’s dingleberry, following him around, hanging on as tight as he would let you, and—perhaps—leaving his stench behind when he had done his business on another nervous nelly who had realized (as you had not) that it’s better to be the place the bully craps on that to be a dingleberry in the bully’s butt.

Fortunately for me, I was neither. If you knew much about the jesters of a group, you would know that, for the most part, people like them. And those who don’t, keep it to themselves, as they know that the funny guy can turn acerbic rather quickly. The bullies knew this, which—combined with the fact that I was an athlete myself—kept me from being beaten up. Of course, the bullies’ dingleberries didn’t know this, which led them to much confusion when they were reduced to piles of emotional rubble after taking on the class clown.

Have a nice day.

Gotta love message boards!

Yes, yes. Gotta love em…

Anawn: master of the non sequitur.

AW and WA are two entirely different beasts, created for two entirely different reasons. Good grief! I’ve begun to wish theat their were an intelligence requirement for accessing the internet. But alas, no. The cowardly and ignorant can access just as those of us who have captured at least some semblance of a clue over our lifetimes, and who are willing to post over our own names…

Anawn-

Congratulations. You are now the biggest idiot I’ve conversed with in this thread. A few points in response to your inanity:

“…if you’re so smart why are all the other posters here constantly attacking you?” (1) One has nothing to do with the other? Logic, much? Additionally, “all the other posters” aren’t “attacking” me. A few are. And I’ve responded. That’s how it works. Deal with it.

And then this, “If you took a little more time to read and think, some of this stuff might not go over your head.” Followed shortly by this, “And are you a member of WA?” (2) Irony, much? I’ve been candid about my non-membership in WA. If YOU had taken “a little more time to read and think, some of this stuff might not go over your head” don’t you think?

And then, finally, “[Y]eah AW and WA are different beasts therefore there is no irony in the clusterfuck that is these comments.” (3) In your initial “request”, you asked that we sub “AW” in for “WA” in Craig’s post, which implies that you felt that AW is just as bad—or something to that effect—as WA. Did you actually do your own mental exercise? Because doing so to Craig’s initial post makes no sense. AW is CRAIG’S to do with as he pleases. WA is intended to serve the writers of the WGA. If Craig wants to let the comments become an intellectual “clusterfuck”, he can. The WA is—or should be—held to a higher standard, which was the point of Craig’s initial post. He was offering suggestions on how to improve it. My comments on the WA have simply been based upon the experiences posted by members in this comment section. You would know this, if you had actually READ the comments posted here. I’ve made it clear all along that I wasn’t basing my statements on firsthand experience.

“If not, how do you even know what that beast really looks like?”

There’s a picture of it at the top of the page.

Hi, Young.

I know you as well. You lose a debate, so you leave, claiming boredom. Typical. There was nothing “metaphorical” in your initial post. You were attempting (poorly) to mock the intent of the post from you cowardly cloak (that’s ACTUALLY a metaphor) of anonymity, by saying the following:

“Here’s a fun exercise. Go back and read Craig’s blog entry that spawned all this. Except every time you see WriterAction replace it with Artful Writer.

It’s fun and illuminating!”

There’s nothing “fun” nor “illuminating” about it. You clearly hadn’t even done so yourself. The mental exercise you requested of fellow commenters falls apart from the beginning, as Craig’s initial post of the thread was a relatively clear and well-constructed critique of some of the problems within WA. Your commentary thus far, however, has been something less than that, your claims of speaking “metaphorically” notwithstanding.

“There’s nothing “fun” nor “illuminating” about it.”

Kevin, do you decide what other people get to call “fun”?

Are you The Decider?

Are you?

if so, awesome!

I wanna watch a movie. What will I enjoy…?

KevScoBa -

For a class clown you lack a great sense of humor, maybe you weren’t so popular a kid after all? Aaaanyay, I’m bored by this, and so are others… NEXT!

“From a high-school team to politicians looking for reelection, debate is about winning. Exchanging thoughts, respecting opinions and broadening horizons is discourse. I’ve seen both, too, but I think it’s usually only a problem, when a conversation or thread isn’t sure which it is.”

Sara, got it. Just semantics. You’re using a narrower definition of debate than I was. I thought you were talking about the informal debates that go on on these message boards. Fair ‘nuff, I agree with your fundamental point.

Definitely semantics, Glenn. And, I was a bit of a shit about the debate/discourse thing. I knew what you meant.

Ruairi-

Do “Anawn’s” little exercise, then get back to me and let me know how much fun you had doing so.

Johnny-

Tail between the legs and run away, huh? I must have hit you spot on. It appears that you and “Anawn” are “bored.” Or just soundly beaten. But if “bored” makes you feel better, you can go with that.

Hi Sara!

Anawn-

When you post above your name, perhaps you’ll get some respect. Your initial request made no sense, either as a literal request (which it appeared to be) or as a metaphor (as which, it makes no sense). I’m not surprised at all you stayed around. Perhaps your IQ will rise as a result, since everyone who has posted in this thread is more intelligent than you.

I thought it was funny. shrug.

Kevin Scott Bailey has precisely one google hit and I don’t think you wake up one morning and decide to start posting as ‘Kevin Scott Bailey’ so this is probably Kevin Scott Bailey’s first internet thread ever. At least Kevin Scott Bailey jumped in at the deep end.

KSB -

Yeah, you got us pegged, kiddo.

Now will you leave?

This thread is awesome! Well, back to staring at the ceiling! It’s awesome!

Fun, and illuminating!

Ah, now you try condescension. Not even THAT was very well-played, but with your previous record, what could we expect?

As for my nom de plume, it is simply my full name, as opposed to the much commoner “Kevin Bailey.” That you “googled” me at all is a bit disturbing, but to each his own I guess. For all I know, you might google random men on the internet on a regular basis.

I think you’ll find that “Kevin Bailey” is much more accomplished. Which of the many “Kevin Bailey’s” am I? Interesting question.

http://www.nhcs.k12.in.us/nhe/Title/2002.2003/BountyIDEAS/Index.htm

This one!

See, now that shit’s funny. Ruairi gets the ‘class clown’ hat.

Sorry, kiddo.

dead.

P.S. - You’re the Kevin Scott Bailey who has Craig Il Padrino Mazin’s finger hovering over the “comments shut down” button…

P.S. - You’re the Kevin Scott Bailey who has Craig Il Padrino Mazin’s finger hovering over the “comments shut down” button…

Ruairi- Now THAT was funny!

Anawn- Then you should tell the guy who was googling me that he’s not interested. And tell him to stop googling me as well. It’s impolite—and illegal in some states—to google someone without their permission. He can google himself if he wants, though, as it would be less messy and much more sanitary.

It’s easier than going to imdb. I thought since you were on the attack in a WA thread you may have been a wga writer who had eschewed the joint.

Also, when you introduce yourself with the words “I present your anonymity as Exhibit A”, you’re kind of inviting it.

Kevin Scott Bailey has to be one of the most anonymous full names on the entire internet.

If this comments section banned names and handles it would be a fraction of the size and probably 80% on topic. I wouldn’t even feel compelled to write this reply, and Kevin Scott Bailey wouldn’t have bothered to say anything at all, because he has nothing to add to the subject at hand and it simply wouldn’t be worth Kevin Scott Bailey’s time to post if he couldn’t be seen to ‘soundly beat’ another poster.

I don’t think Craig will shut down the comments here. After all, we’re just now starting to have some fun, after the ass-whipping I gave you when you claimed to be a “bully.”

BTW, I should google myself more often. I had no idea that Johnny’s doppelganger shared my name.

I googled Ruari the other night. He’s still recovering.

(and then I misspelled his name. Dammit.)

Broughcut-

When I started posting in this thread, my comments could hardly be construed as “attacking” anyone. I made clear my status as an “outsider” who is interested in remedying that status at some point. In my initial posts, I was simply responding to Craig’s blog entry. Nothing more, nothing less. As for the issue of anonymity, I post under my own full, legal name. I have respect for others that do the same, whether or not they are accomplished. However, I don’t “google” their names, nor do I run them through IMDB. This must be solely a characteristic of the narcissistic culture of the online writer. That’s not for me, thanks anyway. The content of what a person has to say IN THIS FORUM is what matters to me, not whether they have 1, 2, 3, or 30 writing credits to their name.

Broughcut-

When I started posting in this thread, my comments could hardly be construed as “attacking” anyone. I made clear my status as an “outsider” who is interested in remedying that status at some point. In my initial posts, I was simply responding to Craig’s blog entry. Nothing more, nothing less. As for the issue of anonymity, I post under my own full, legal name. I have respect for others that do the same, whether or not they are accomplished. However, I don’t “google” their names, nor do I run them through IMDB. This must be solely a characteristic of the narcissistic culture of the online writer. That’s not for me, thanks anyway. The content of what a person has to say IN THIS FORUM is what matters to me, not whether they have 1, 2, 3, or 30 writing credits to their name.

Kevin,

“I can just imagine you, sitting at your computer, using your creative juices to come up with a scenario of you as bully in grade school. I don’t believe you for one second. What I’ve found in my time wasted on message boards, blogs, etc. is that the ones who blow the hardest about what badasses they are/were are usually the biggest pussies when push comes to shove. I’ve met a few. They’re not nearly as braggadocious in person.”

Oh my fucking God.

Really? You think he was making all that up? He didn’t really torture kids with cigarettes?

What was your first clue?

Dude, do you ever get the sense that there’s an enormous jet flying over your head, and you’re so deaf you can’t even hear the engine?

Stephen-

Sounds like you and Ruairi had fun. I’ve heard some people enjoy that kind of thing…

Anawn- Get it now?

Kevin,

“When I started posting in this thread, my comments could hardly be construed as “attacking” anyone. “

Well, yeah. Except for the fact that they were, which means you’re wrong. Sorry.

“However, I don’t “google” their names, nor do I run them through IMDB. This must be solely a characteristic of the narcissistic culture of the online writer.”

It’s also the culture of “Sweet mother of mercy, who is this mental homunculus?”*

*Cue Stefanie Liss: “Josh, what is a homunculus?”

Josh-

Which was my point. He attempted to mock who I was by creating a little persona for himself.

Jets? What jets? Did they fly over your head first?

Josh, what is a homunculus?

Is Kevin Scott Bailey a pseudonym for Karl Pilkington?

Dammit. He’s fucking with us. I knew it was too good to be true.

Karl Popper, actually. Good guess, though.

Why would I fuck with anyone? I much prefer googling them, now that I’ve discovered it.

As for Pilkington, he’s a cool cat, but I much prefer Popper, when choosing between Karls.

Let’s try and get this back on topic, please. You can always hit the forums in the miscellaneous session or the chat room if you just want to chit chat.

Sorry, Craig. How do I sign up for these forums? This is just now starting to be fun.

Suckup.

“I googled Ruari the other night. He’s still recovering.”

Yes, I’m still walking with a limp.

…I sprained my ankle from running. I’m out of shape. What?

But after that, me and Susco went munting! It was AWESOME! Then we cooked and ate some children!

You think he just WRITES horror movies? you should see how he conducts research! It’s AWESOME!

Jesus Hamilton Christ,

I take one whole day to do some actual work, actual paid writing, and I miss almost hundred posts of fun and name-calling -

And not only that, no one has yet introduced me to their agent, despite the massive sucking of ass I’ve done here … well sir, I am depressed.

Uhhh…. I went into the chat room. I’m the only one there.

It’s AWESOME!

Ruairie-

It sounds like you and Susco really know how to get each other’s creative juices flowing.

Sorry Craig.

So … we should -

A) fire the Admins on WA ‘cause they suck or B) start a new WA because the WA’s suck or C) Tell Josh James to shut his hole ‘cause he’s ain’t even a damn member of the Guild (not YET), for chrissakes …

I vote for A and C

Sorry Craig.

So … we should -

A) fire the Admins on WA ‘cause they suck or B) start a new WA because the WA’s admins suck or C) Tell Josh James to shut his hole ‘cause he’s ain’t even a damn member of the Guild (not YET), for chrissakes …

I vote for A and C

It’s impolite—and illegal in some states—to google someone without their permission

er, sue me?

I’ve always wanted to say that… This thread is so fresh and exciting….

He can google himself if he wants, though, as it would be less messy and much more sanitary.

it’s quite chaotic actually. Although I just saw le kilt’s sympathy for the devil heads-up thread for the first time ever. damn it.

Nothing more, nothing less. As for the issue of anonymity, I post under my own full, legal name. I have respect for others that do the same, whether or not they are accomplished. However, I

You obviously don’t, because most these threads are archived, as are most forums and comment sections. This is either the first time you have ever posted (which seems likely) or you are a hypocritical troll.

don’t “google” their names, nor do I run them through IMDB. This must be solely a >characteristic of the narcissistic culture of the >online writer.

Not really, but if you’re on a forum frequented by many professional writers it’s polite to know what they’ve written. I’m not going to make negative judgements about a writer based on past credits, if that’s what you’re assuming I’m afraid you’re incorrect.

That’s not for me, thanks anyway. The content of >what a person has to say IN THIS FORUM is what matters to me

Precisely. If you were posting as Anonymous Coward, unable to craft a glorious posting history and chalk up wins and losses, you would only be posting about what matters to you and the community.

Either that or you would get bored very quickly.

Don’t be so quick to bash anonymous posters, although by anonymous I mean totally anonymous. The absolute worst of the worst are aggressive, persistent handles that are anonymous in all but name.

Hate to break it to you, but I wasn’t making an unsanitary messy when I had the courtesy to check what you’d written.

(sorry, Craig. I will shut the fuck back up now.)

Joshua-

I would introduce you to MY agent, if I had one, if you promised to google me first.

(I think the jets are STILL flying over broughcut’s head.)

As for my anonymity, I’ve never claimed to have posted on AW before. I post as “Kevin Scott Bailey” here. That’s my full legal name. I’ve posted as other variations of that full legal name in other forums, mostly pertaining to politics, sports, music, or books. I can’t even remember what the variations were. (kevinsbailey, kevinbailey, kevinscottbailey, kscottbailey, I’m just not sure.) What does it matter? When I started out in this thread, I never claimed to be more than I am. I newbie with some thoughts to share on Craig’s blog entry. The other stuff over the last several hours is just bullshit done for fun.

“Sorry, Craig. How do I sign up for these forums? This is just now starting to be fun.”

btw do you see where it says “ENTER THE FORUM” in big letters?

That’s where you enter the forum!

No need to thank me, R.

But I INSIST on thanking you. I may have never discovered the portal into such wonders without your wonderful generosity. How could I ever repay such selflessness?

Don’t thank me, thank him.

Confusing.

Are those jets I hear?

Josh,

“The notion that a free form forum for adults needs to be moderated is one that springs not from necessity, but from the petty egos of people who crave control.”

Hypocrisy! You fight for free speech and yet you advocate it only for one group of humanity: adults.

Not to mention, you�re advocating free speech on a board (WA) that limits its participants to those deemed acceptable. No matter how noble, you�re fighting a tertiary battle and ignoring the core problem. You can�t have free speech in a society (WGA) based on exclusion.

“The notion that a free form forum for adults needs to be moderated is one that springs not from neccessity, but from the petty egos of people who crave control.”

Indeed. Do we not live under the oppresive yoke of enough institutions which yearn to control our every turn? Must we seek them out and happily submit? Are we so Stockholmed now as to pine like school-girls to abide in concert with them?

As the world stands, I can hardly leave my underground parking garage and hang a left at Fairfax and LaBrea without breaking some law which could land me in Paris Hilton’s ex-sickbed, the sheets still clammy with the sweat of her petty narcissism.

There exists a labyrinth of legal doctrine brimming with ever-new and exquisite ways in which to dictate to us the minutest terms of our chronic existence — the penalties for non-compliance are always severe.

There is no compromise. You give up a little, you cede just a millimeter of mind-space, and those “petty egos which crave control” will slither in and swallow the place whole. Invariably, they have double-jointed jaws.

Self-moderation is the messy (but happy) alternative. It’s been attempted by a brave few and, behold, it works. There will always be mules in the mayhem, but a communal lash brought down across the noxious offender’s buttocks almost always works better than the condescending slap of a frivolous moderator, tipsy on heirarchy — and with scores to settle.

“Community” is a fluid and nebulous idea. But even Cro-Magnon understood that collective ostracism worked better than cutting off an offender’s hand. It’s a far more hellish and enduring punishment to be ostracized by the group than to be given a ruler-slap by a moderator, whose actions can be dismissed as personal. This is especially so for a writer, for whom hell on earth is knowing his words pass through the happy group, unacknowledged, irrelevant, ignored.

But then, even when the alternative is better, most people just don’t feel comfortable in a free and riotous environment. The Romans lived in terror of mob rule. And none of us can forget the first rule we of kindergarten: we must raise our hand before getting permission to piss.

Imagine there’s no hall-pass. It’s easy if you try…

Amen. Good stuff. I agree with it all. BUT did you have to paraphrase Lennon ?! Did I mention I hate the Beatles…

I don’t see the the problem limiting it to working professionals and those grafting away in the same circles who have earned a personal invite.

However, I have no idea how the WGA hope to effect ‘Action’ through a messageboard that precludes dialogue with the other half.

http://www.mediafire.com/?7tnjx2jqeow

“BUT did you have to paraphrase Lennon ?! Did I mention I hate the Beatles…”

Not a fan, eh? That’s too bad. I hope some day you will join us…

:-)

Never. Not big on boybands…

Again, KSB must only be referred to as The Other Kevin.

Kevin, you have the Bomb’s support here. But less relentless can be more effective. Watch…

The sarcastic jokes about sucking up expose an important fact about why sucking up on a random message board doesn’t work: sucking up on random message boards doesn’t work.

Unless you’re me.

I sucked up and have suck’ceeded Craig, Gilvary, Big John Turman and Joe Esterhaus liked the way i got down.

Ironically, you have to be a good writer to suck up in writing forums. And if you’re a good writer, you don’t have to suck up.

You don’t HAVE to but you should.

But if you suck, don’t suck up.

Craig, would it be impolite to ask for a new topic?

So, you’re saying, if you suck, don’t suck up, but if you don’t suck, you should suck up. I think I’ve got it! Thanks for the help!

They even allow rabble onto WA. Here are my unwanted opinions. I’ve posted 2,141 times on WA, so I have some time in grade. Granted, most of my posts were gratuitous mockings of Prii, John Edwards, and the late, lamented ANS.

1. If you’re on WA, and a thread offends you (ANS), don’t read it. How hard is that? WA doesn’t send emails. You actually have to click on a thread to read it. If you don’t like it, no clickie.

2. Asking frequent posters to go away made no sense to me. I post on other threads fifty times for every thread I start. Suddenly our major conversation starters were gone. The air went out of the place.

3. The busiest place on WA is Just Chat & Anything Goes. Well, which is it? Some folks are Just Chat. Some are Anything Goes. I got put on ignore by someone because I didn’t chat— I went. Maybe there should be a no-holds-barred section on WA.

Sorry again that I missed the WA community meeting concerning the ANS imbroglio. But not really.

L

And the death blow goes to…

Is it over?

Has it finally stopped?

Hmm…I guess I’ll get back to my Avatar: The Last Airbender marathon.

Wow. You have a private area of AW for working screenwriters and/or friends. That Josh has never been invited to. Screw your Oscar nom, Olson, what have you produced lately? Guess those noms aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

Although I’m sure glad that you straightened out for the rest of the WA members, who might have thought they were your friends, that that was a one-sided delusion.

Fuck off, WAers. You’re either on Craig’s private WGA board or you’re dead to him. Suck it up and find a friend who’s actually interested.

And don’t delude yourself about this namby-pamby ‘but I am working’ bullshit. It’s all about box office baby. Or your coolness factor. Unless you’re Josh. His box office doesn’t count for shit.

No, that’s not quite right.

There’s a private area of AW for some of my friends. Some of them are working screenwriters. Some aren’t working. Some are in TV. Some aren’t even full members of the WGA, but are associates.

It’s a small social group. It has nothing to do with Oscars or anything like that.

Then there’s another group entirely, hosted off this server and at a different URL entirely. That group is for working screenwriters, with an emphasis on A-listers, and that group is invitation only. We do happen to have a fair number of Oscar nominees, but that’s not really the sole criteria, or even an important one. The criteria there are really “Do you meet the basic requirements for this group?” and “Would you be a good addition to the group?”

Nothing more or less.

Naturally, any exclusivity is bound to breed resentment. This can’t be helped. In the end, of course, it’s an internet group. Not really worth fretting over or taking terribly seriously. It’s just a convenient way for people on deadlines to have discussions with other people who share interests…without having to leave the house or put on pants.

I leave the house without pants on all the time…

It’s just a convenient way to meet hookers while I’m on deadline.

“So, you’re saying, if you suck, don’t suck up, but if you don’t suck, you should suck up. I think I’ve got it! Thanks for the help!”

“Are those jets I hear?”

[Etc.]

KSB: You were stringing the words together pretty good higher up in this thread. I would infer, based on limited evidence, that you probably write pretty decent, entertainingly snarky dialogue, though I’d also guess your characters’ speeches tend to run a wee bit long. (But no crime there; at least you can write.)

But the tiny simulacrum of Randy Jackson perched on your right shoulder is looking faintly pained at this moment and whispering: “Gotta have a punchline, dawg.”

As discussed at length in the Epic Movie thread on this very site, merely referencing other people’s punchlines does not a joke make. And I say this in the most constructive possible spirit: I was kinda rooting for you there for a while, watching you take on the Big Guys unassisted. But the shit quoted above is getting painful to witness.

In short: Put a little English on that there ball before you return it, son. You know you’re able….

Did Craig just imply that he’s an A list screenwriter?

No, he didn’t. He said he hosts another site for working writers, with an emphasis on A-list writers.

My two cents: considering two of the movies Craig has written have generated (combined) over a half-billion in revenue, I’d say that you could accurately claim he’d be on an A-list or two.

What the fuck is? I can get seven figures for this fucking thread but the last act needs to be balls-to-the-wall.

Oh my God… I was repped by Sher for almost a year. Bringing back memories…

I would like to apologize to all my fans for losing my wind at the end of the race earlier in this thread. I hope both of you can forgive my failure…

Craig’s an A list writer in spades. Ask his accountant.

Tiersky (I’ve been away the last couple days)

I think that’s as close as you’ll ever come to admitting you were wrong, so, sure. Water under the bridge. My email (for the future) is intobs211@aol.com.

Louise,

“Craig’s an A list writer in spades. Ask his accountant.”

Oy gevault.

I think you may want to edumacate yourself as to the meaning of the term “A list writer.” It