|
Post by Dalton on Oct 24, 2003 14:49:36 GMT -5
Nan, I was just thinking, that back when I used to read Blake's 7 fan fiction (eons ago) - anyway, I could always tell when it was really true to the characters because I could hear the actors speaking the lines as I read them. I'm REALLY looking forward to reading your work now. And everybody else's - guys, I'm saving reading until after next week, Goddess knows I'll need something to cheer me up PB (Post Buffy). Let the weirdness in, Anne Davis
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Oct 24, 2003 14:50:42 GMT -5
Don't hammer me. I'm only thinking. I was among those who REALLY wished I didn't have to know SMG is of the opinion Buffy loves Spike but is not "in love" with him, because I cannot conclude other than events in the yet-to-come final episode have allowed her to keep that opinion. To me, it IS/WAS a spoiler, and it depresses the hell out of me. I contributed a post I considered neutral making the following points: 1. We use "spoiler" (and its cognates) to refer both to (a) info on/within an episode that constitute details of that eposide one who has not yet seen it may find diminish the surprise and impact of that episode; and also for (b) comments completely external to the episode that give information on upcoming developments in episodes or the series as a whole (such as news stories, interviews with cast, interviews with Joss/the writers, and so on). The two uses are very different, and I wish we could distinguish between them in our posts by using "spoiler" ONLY in the second (b) sense, and calling unseen-details in the first sense (a) "episode related" or some such, on the assumption that once a person has seen the episode in question, such details/discussions lose any dubious status as spoilers altogether (as those in the second sense do not). 2. I reiterated that the board is spoiler-free in its founding principles and asked everybody to observe this. Neither of these points in any way singled Ellie or her post out, though I will not dispute that they are what prompted them. With so many newbies new-delurkers among us, I thought the second point worth restating, and the first point had not, that I recall, ever been made before at all. I do not see how any of this (on my part at least) warranted Ellie feeling dissed and angrily stomping off. And I did not see any other post doing anything but wish the original post, being in some people's view (including mine) at least marginally "spoilerish" (second sense), could be removed, which we do not have the power to do, except much later by appealing to one of the ScoopMe editors to do this for us. In other words, I don't see that Ellie's reaction was justified by anything she apparently was reacting to. It upset me. It still upsets me. I don't have any answers but I do have an observation. When somebody complains on this board, it seems to typically center around neglect. Either somebody feels that his/her posts have been ignored or not prompted sufficient discussion to make him/her feel noticed and appreciated; or they feel personally slighted or insulted by someone else's comments. I assume that at least sometimes, this feeling is well-founded; but sometimes it isn't. My point here is that I don't remember anybody complaining of TOO LITTLE diversity, too much YES MANNING, and other artifacts of their opinions being given TOO MUCH weight and importance by other posters. Those complaining are those needing reassurance of their self-importance. Sometimes, but not always, they are the newest among the posters--who need to be reassured they are welcome and their opinions taken seriously. Naturally they need to have confidence that they are appreciated, and that others' seeming slights are just mistakes or thoughtlessness (as in the infamous case of Steve Martin's dog and David, about which he behaved so splendidly). I think all of us need to have thicker skins and not be easy to affront. I think we all need to assume the goodwill and good nature of others until conclusively proven otherwise. I think we need to be less needy, looking anxiously for confirming responses to shore up shaky self-confidence. I think, in short, we need to be able to suck it up and deal. If we have inadvertenly given affront, we need to apologize (as happened yesterday). If we have been hurt, we need to say so and expect apology or explanation. What we do not need is for somebody to decide they have been disrespected (when they are the one who has given injury or affront), not try to make things right, and depart the board in a huff. I am neither the most sensitive or considerate of people, or of posters. Although I try to never criticize a person (as opposed to an idea) directly, I don't agonize over whether some reader might take exception or take personally something I've said. I expect people to come forward in fair dealing and honesty and deal with me on that basis, as I try to deal with them. I am not likely ever to be one of those who worries they're being ignored, and not because I'm a founding S'cubie but because that's how I am. I intend to be with this board a long, long time--till everybody knows all my jokes and stories and is heartily sick of hearing them yet again. I want it to be as friendly and as happy a place as possible for everyone. I think a part of that is either not bringing, or discarding as quickly as possible, whatever baggage of low personal self-esteeem to the discussions here. It's an equal playing field only if the players are equally willing to stand tall and take their lumps, if necessary. To be a *mensch* and contribute whatever one has, whether that be one liners, witty double entrendre, analysis, essays, happy songs, groan-inspiring poetry, or whatever. In our diversity is our strength. But only if we let it be. Now go ahead: throw shoes. I can take it.
Nan Dibble
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Oct 24, 2003 14:53:07 GMT -5
Almost 500 posts again already and I haven't read any of them. Being on the west coast is a definite disadvantage when a 3-hour time difference on "Buffy nite" means I can't read anything until midnight eastern time (sigh). So, apologies if anyone said anything to me in this Part - I won't be able to read it anytime soon (maybe in the summer*L*.) Part 28 is ready. Go get'um.
Alexandra K.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Oct 24, 2003 14:53:39 GMT -5
This in specific response to Kerrie's post: Ellie suggests in her last post that the S'Cubie board is not equal. From my own observation I can see that it is not a united board, No, not entirely equal. Not much is. But anyone who specifically says they want a response of one kind or another usually gets one--unless nobody can think of something to say. We don't agree--but we are, by mutual understanding, polite about it. ...the fact remains that there is definitely a hierarchy of "newbies" and "oldbies" ... this distinction becomes important when so many new and old posters are talking about the SITs, ... and how newbies should know their place. The implication is ... new "S'Cubies" should know their ... if they want to be accepted. Did ANYBODY imply that? Ever? Usually, if I'm a newcomer, I'm a little quiet for a short time, then I start letting myself be heard. When Patti was a newbie she jumped right in. (I think Patti was a newbie for about five minutes.) Patti, did anybody tell you to "mind your place?" Second, there is a distinction between casual posters and prolific posters. Absolutely. Personally, I fit somewhere in between. ...prolific posters may get more posisitve attention and a looser reign than the less prolific posters. I suspect that this can be intimidating to the casual poster... for Ellie, some people may have complained about her spoiler post ... before reading her explanation/apology, which most people did not seem to acknowledge. ... Ellie then concluded that people had not accepted her apology/explanation. ...perhaps a little bit of discretion is required when people make mistakes. We are usually pretty kind to people who make mistakes. Were we too harsh this time? I know people are not going to like what I have to say and some, perhaps, will think that I am getting above myself ... I really do not like the fact that Ellie has left. I am worried about the reasons for it. ... maybe some soul-searching about why Ellie left is in order. I will also say, up-front, that I will be offended if people trivialise my concerns (which is different from disagreeing with me). To me Ellie's leaving suggests an underlying problem with this board. I am not now, never have, nor will I ever trivialize a serious concern from anyone. Feelings are valid and must be acknowledged. If feelings were hurt, that must be addressed. I believe I will write to Ellie and ask her to return. At a guess, a lot of this is coming from hyper-emotionalism prompted by the imminent demise of the show and the intensity of the last few episodes.
Diane U
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Oct 24, 2003 14:55:10 GMT -5
Well, I'll be brave and take a chance on causing more offense and take a stab at explaining. ellie posted a post with a quote from SMG, on her opinion about how Buffy did/did not love Spike. Some thought this was spoilery and posted "warning others" type posts and reminding about spoiling. I can't exactly remember who said what. I think ellie did post a "oops" type of post, that maybe no one responded too . . . I'm not 100% sure I trust my memory on that, but I'm not going back to wade through all that stuff and confirm. Anyhow, ellie felt mistreated - the whole thing hurt her feelings and she seemed to feel she was being treated unfairly compared to others. So she posted that she was leaving the board. From a "fray-adjacent" perspective, it seemed like a misunderstanding and over-reaction on both sides. I respect all the people involved and really feel it could have been worked out, but on the other hand, I respect ellie's right to bail if it felt that bad to her.
Spring Summers
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Oct 24, 2003 14:55:42 GMT -5
Blast the no-edit. Of the four last paragraphs, I intended to Kerrie's quotes in italics. Grr. Since I'm not in the middle of the controversy, I'm still going to write to Ellie.
Diane U
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Oct 24, 2003 14:56:20 GMT -5
Sorry. I WROTE it with paragraph breaks between every point. I don't know what else to do - should I try doing double or triple paragraph breaks? Gail Freeman
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Oct 24, 2003 14:56:52 GMT -5
//Dave revealed: 'Dawn shot her with a crossbow' by accident. Just wanted to add that before horror rose unbidden.//
Or so Dawn said. We were led to believe that she'd just run away before. So Dawn could be lying. It might not have been an accident. The girl might hate cats and was attempting a little crossbow training on a moving target. First she set the cat on fire so it would move really fast .....
David Crenshaw
|
|