![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Fanlib Retrospective, Part Three
Aug. 2nd, 2008 04:16 pmOf course, despite my intent to post for the reward monies, I was continually drawn to debate on the forum for entirely rational reasons.
A protracted argument flared up repeatedly across many threads regarding "the one star bandit" (ie, someone gave my story a one star and it can't possibly be because of all the spelling errors), occasionally morphing into the crazy polite concrit is the only real concrit you flamers argument. Somehow, no one ever noticed the logical disconnect between "there's only one or at most a couple one-starring jerks" and the idea that they were the outnumbered and persecuted minority when they spoke up against it - even when expressing their outnumbered and persecuted views led to ten-page threads of people agreeing with them. Between this, the PMs, and the reviews, I soon had material for another story - in fact, nine separate chunks worth of one.
( The Rebel(s) )
Ironically, the posting of the Rebel sequence served to draw more crazy out of the woodwork, leading to a single person accuse me of, all at the same time, committing libel against forum members by showing their arguments out of context/misrepresenting the entire argument (never mind that none of the characters are identified as particular forummembers, and to recognize any individual as having made the same argument you'd have to read the argument in the original context. This was, after all, a moderately Christian place and they were well versed in circular logic), while saying I was making up the more extreme things, while saying it was wrong because I was giving my view of their arguments rather than their own words, while being outraged by later statements that the more extreme stuff involved direct quotes. Before long it entered into that special quagmire of stupid. Summarized:
Reviewer: This is terrible because it's full of strawmen, but I guess that's what you intended so it can't be fixed.
Me: No, it's a parody where I exaggerate things. If you have examples of where I actually misrepresented an argument I'd be happy to fix that.
Reviewer: No the whole thing is an attack on specific people so it can't be fixed. Also, strawmen.
Me: Uh, no. Examples?
Reviewer: There are arguments here that you don't believe.
Me: I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
Reviewer: See, I knew you were lying about listening to concrit!
Me: WTF?
Reviewer: You're frustrated, which means I'm right. Also you are an evil bitch whore who hates freedom and is just jealous.
Me: It is strangely like you did not read the story.
Reviewer: You're arguing, which means I'm right.
A protracted argument flared up repeatedly across many threads regarding "the one star bandit" (ie, someone gave my story a one star and it can't possibly be because of all the spelling errors), occasionally morphing into the crazy polite concrit is the only real concrit you flamers argument. Somehow, no one ever noticed the logical disconnect between "there's only one or at most a couple one-starring jerks" and the idea that they were the outnumbered and persecuted minority when they spoke up against it - even when expressing their outnumbered and persecuted views led to ten-page threads of people agreeing with them. Between this, the PMs, and the reviews, I soon had material for another story - in fact, nine separate chunks worth of one.
( The Rebel(s) )
Ironically, the posting of the Rebel sequence served to draw more crazy out of the woodwork, leading to a single person accuse me of, all at the same time, committing libel against forum members by showing their arguments out of context/misrepresenting the entire argument (never mind that none of the characters are identified as particular forummembers, and to recognize any individual as having made the same argument you'd have to read the argument in the original context. This was, after all, a moderately Christian place and they were well versed in circular logic), while saying I was making up the more extreme things, while saying it was wrong because I was giving my view of their arguments rather than their own words, while being outraged by later statements that the more extreme stuff involved direct quotes. Before long it entered into that special quagmire of stupid. Summarized:
Reviewer: This is terrible because it's full of strawmen, but I guess that's what you intended so it can't be fixed.
Me: No, it's a parody where I exaggerate things. If you have examples of where I actually misrepresented an argument I'd be happy to fix that.
Reviewer: No the whole thing is an attack on specific people so it can't be fixed. Also, strawmen.
Me: Uh, no. Examples?
Reviewer: There are arguments here that you don't believe.
Me: I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
Reviewer: See, I knew you were lying about listening to concrit!
Me: WTF?
Reviewer: You're frustrated, which means I'm right. Also you are an evil bitch whore who hates freedom and is just jealous.
Me: It is strangely like you did not read the story.
Reviewer: You're arguing, which means I'm right.
