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.