fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3058 ]

[ SECRET POST #3058 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3058 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 042 secrets from Secret Submission Post #437.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

DA
If it is a pressure campaign then we ought to start paying attention, they don't form out of nothing. There is nearly always a real grievance at the heart of them. Maybe there is something about the way the Fandom Secrets community treats anons that we could do better.

I think that's very likely true, but I don't think the way that F!S treats anons came out of nothing, either. A lot of it came out of specific experiences. Like, the reason that posters are dismissive of anons is not just because they (the posters) are assholes. And ceaseless trolling is not a great tool to change those perceptions.

That circle has to be broken though, and the only way to break a vicious circle is for those with the power to not exercise it to make things worse. In this case that means Case has to be the one to pull back, because the aggrieved people cannot do so without giving up the thing that gives them concerns. It seems counter-intuitive, I know, but hurt people will never be able to be the ones to pull back and stop acting out and the only way to do it is to stop the thing that causes it in the first place. Case has to give a little, and those who keep on saying that all anon are same anon have to be slapped down, then the people with a grievance will be able to work back themselves.

What are your thoughts on this, anon crusader?

http://fandomsecrets.dreamwidth.org/1216702.html?thread=838041790#cmt838041790

I think THAT... is a URL.

And that was an obvious sidestep. No counter-argument to be found I suppose.

No, that is answering exactly the question asked. Not my fault you weren't clearer about what you intended. Intent is not fucking magic. Tell you what, you be a sport and summarize what the URL is pointing at and I'll give you my thoughts on your summary.

Whether or not you're rules lawyer anon, you certainly are A rules lawyer. Not worth the effort. See ya.

But the anons aren't the only hurt ones. dethtoll's not assuming that all anons are trying to troll him out of malice, he's assuming that because one or several anons spent like a fucking year incessantly trolling him. when a user or group of users keeps making the same critique of named posters across several different threads and days, people don't just assume it's stalking because they're dicks; they're assuming that because someone fucking stalked jaybie until they had to delete their account and we don't want that to happen again.

And obviously, it's not as though anons can just ask other anons to stop trolling, in the same way that we can ask named users to change their behavior. But can you at least understand that this shit comes out of a history? If named users should pull back on assuming that all anons are all the same, I think it's reasonable to say that anons should also pull back, if not on trolling, then at least on being pissy about the assumptions that users make.

(of course, I suspect this is where the argument goes sideways, but w/e)

Nice try, sameanon

INJUSTICE. INJUSTICE.

I bet you're secretly a named user. Name privilege! NAME PRIVILEGE.

Quit replying to yourself to try and start wank, nobody is buying tonight.

But I swear I'm not the anon up there! Unless I was? OH NO, who am I.

I looked death in the face last night, I saw him in the mirror, and he simply smiled

He told me not to worry

He told me just to take my time

AND THEN I REALIZED DEATH WAS ME

AND I WAS CASE

and we are all sameanon

Re: NAYRT

(Anonymous) - 2015-05-20 06:17 (UTC) - Expand

In fairness, Case seems to have learned from two nights ago when he backed himself into a corner over breaking his own new rule. He's been pretty responsive tonight, so if we get more of that then it might be over sooner rather than later. A little humility from a mod goes a long way in generating goodwill.

It's confusing to me that you say that, because from my point of view, this is pretty much how he's always been.

person not affected by issue says things seem to not affect them

film at 11

person who has no idea who or what the other person is presumes things about them and believes that they can speak on their behalf

privilege checking at 12

Breaking news, hypocrite invokes "privilege checking?"

Well, I mean, I suppose I'm not affected by the issue, but I do see what he says and does, and it's always seemed at least reasonable to me, if it didn't seem right. And he's always seemed quite receptive and humble. I'm honestly not sure I see how that depends on perspective.

I love how you talk about this like he can't see it. SO PRIVATE. SO SECRECY. SUCH PLOTTING. MUCH AFOOT.

If Case wants to join the conversation he is more than capable, he doesn't need you white knighting in an attempt to start trouble.

They're trying to be as snidely insulting as possible so they get Case to step in and defend himself. Doubtful he'll take the bait.

i didn't see anything snide in that.

if anything i saw an anon actually complimenting case and giving useful concrit

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3058 ]

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT

Re: NAYRT