Subject: Oh, on the subject of bad reviews and bullying
Author:
Posted on: 2022-11-20 09:23:27 UTC
I've found [a couple of])(https://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/bullying-goodreads/) good articles – they are about a (thankfully defunct) "watchdog" group that policed Goodreads reviewers through cruel means, but I find them especially applicable to fanfiction readers and reviewers as well. I've even cited a few choice quotes into the third FAQ page on the wiki.
I've placed a delete notice on this page and the associated image file (which I suspect to be unattributed or traced), but so far no action seems to have occured yet. The character's name is also not authentically Japanese at all, but I digress.
On a more lighthearted note: as flames are given the literality treatment and used as a weapon in TOS, what if spam (here or wiki) are turned into literal cans of SPAM and used as an item in the PPC-verse?
Just caught some more all by myself! The perp going by Kahran042 was a repeat offender and they've now been blocked indefinitely.
I admit the latest "contribution" (now reverted) made me laugh, though. Who says juvenile insults can't be funny?
~Neshomeh
I could've sworn I've seen at least the third one in one of those self-published "insults for kids" books from a decade ago. I think I've seen the first two somewhere as well, even if the first one seems poorly formatted. ("No? Good," might have worked better than "No. Good." But that's just me.) The last one's just bad, though. It flows poorly, the answer's long enough it drains the punch from the punchline, and it's redundant with the IQ one above (not to mention intelligence jokes are pretty sad to see in 2022). Shameful, they really can do better. At least Y'gatha Mesome had some effort put into it. And was actually kinda neat.
Also, judging by this account's editing history, they seem to believe all agents are self-inserts - which does clarify why they seem to view attacking OC's as some grand, masterful Take That towards the PPC as a whole. After all, from their perspective, if they think all Agents are the authors, then by attacking the Agents they also get to insult (and make some goofy little internet 'you'd be better off dead' comments towards) the authors as well. Which is kinda ironic considering how the PPC's shifted over the years and how writing characters works, but eh. According to a quick Google search, they're from TV Tropes. Which does explain the lack of research, among other things. It does seem at least some of their gripes are towards older, kinda weird passages like the bit at the bottom of the 'Snape' article, judging by their edits there, but still, geez.
It is, to me at least, genuinely quite annoying that these folk (mostly TV Tropers, because of course) still don't bother actually checking out the source of the strawman they love so much. I really would like to see someone just. Address their concerns directly, you know? It's petty and almost cowardly, this. Not fun to think about, and things like this always end up clinging in my brain the wrong way.
Maybe looking through a troll's edit history was a mistake.
-OrangeFox, wondering if they can mold this into Interlude material out of spite
Well, I also did a short internet search on this troll—and I managed to find his real name, so... yeah, not gonna share that.
However this gives me an idea—perhaps, on the TV Tropes review page or somewhere we can have a link to the Board for an “ask us more questions, we’ll try to address your concerns” sort of thing? That way maybe some of them, if they actually care to ask us, can and will?
—Ls found the PPC via TV Tropes
They don't stand out much, though. The Board link is labelled "HQ." It might be good to call a bit more attention to both, with additional distinction between discussion of the setting and discussion of the community. Does TVT allow section headers?
~Neshomeh
I’ll see if I can figure out how to do that.
I also would like to add something to the reviews page, along the lines of “ask us questions here”.
Oh, and the TOS link is old.
—Ls has not used his TV tropes account much yet
It looks like the reviews page is for, well, reviews. I don't know if it has a "sticky post" function—and even if it does, I'm not sure posting on the review page to say "this isn't actually a review, it's a link to our community forum," is a good look. We don't want to come off like we're demanding that people talk to us before they're entitled to an opinion, you know?
~Neshomeh
Do you think it’s a good idea to message the troll from earlier, asking him to not vandalize our wiki? Or would that just cause more drama?
—Ls
There's no point. He's clearly not inclined toward reasonable discussion. Anyway, unless he makes a new account from a different IP, he can't vandalize the wiki anymore.
Re. review, it's still a little sus to review a thing you're part of, IMO, but I guess you could comment on what drew you to the community in the first place, favorite spin-offs, stuff like that? It would be nice to have something there apart from that one screed.
~Neshomeh
I disagree about the 'sus' bit--it's kinda impossible to review the PPC as an outside observer--most people who like it end up joining. Though I should definitely note that in my review.
--Ls
Just within the community, there are more members who don't write than ones who do, including an unknown number of lurkers who read without even posting. Outside the community, it's a given that most people read stories without commenting, and the activation barrier to making a comment is far lower than to joining a community—especially a community that plenty of people assume is a group of Internet bullies. I think it follows logically that there are more people who enjoy the PPC than people who join the PPC.
~Neshomeh
I've found a couple of good articles – they are about a (thankfully defunct) "watchdog" group that policed Goodreads reviewers through cruel means, but I find them especially applicable to fanfiction readers and reviewers as well. I've even cited a few choice quotes into the third FAQ page on the wiki.
I think this passage is especially relevant to us:
[B]ullying is not a synonym for argument, disagreement or pejorative reactions. Bullying is not a synonym for disliking someone, or for thinking their work is rubbish. Bullying is not even a synonym for saying so, publicly and repeatedly, in a place where that person can hear it – although that’s certainly unpleasant. Bullying is when someone with a greater position of power and/or possessed of greater strength repeatedly and purposefully attacks, harasses, belittles and/or otherwise undermines someone in a position of lesser power and/or possessed of lesser strength.
I don't think the average PPCer has more power/strength than the average fic writer. We also don't campaign against them, individually or en masse, in their private spaces.
And I agree with Meadows' concern about diluting the meaning of the word "bullying."
Thanks for sharing!
~Neshomeh
especially when the site is trying to cut down on bashing these days.
-Yuki, who is a troper herself.
Hence, my proposition in the other reply.
I’m not really sure how wiki admin-ship is bestowed, but... I nominate Ki No Shirayuki as wiki admin! ...if she wants it, of course.
As far as I know, the active wiki admins are Nesh, hS, and doc. But it seems like they often don’t have enough time to get around to spam maintenance.
She edits a lot, and is good at combatting (well, reporting) spam that we seem to get a lot of, and I think she’d make a good admin.
—Ls isn’t making an unnecessary thread again!
It’s really funny, if we can figure out how exactly it works and where it comes from.
And, uh, wasn’t there a spam-reporting thread a few threads down? Maybe you could’ve put this there?
—Ls