![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
edenfallingYeah, ff.net trolls again. This time it's a person going by the name explodinghead (http://www.fanfiction.net/u/4223091/), who I will give credit for being more thorough than hir compatriots -- either ze went back through the comments in my own previous posts about this stupid, stupid pissing match they are trying to have with me and noted all the fics that I myself identified as being in second person (...except "Seasons of Cloud and Shadow (Like the Deserts Miss the Rain)", for some reason), or ze actually opened every single fic I have posted on ff.net and commented on the ones in second person. Both those options are signs that these people have way too much time on their hands, no sense of proportion, and a continuing inability to recognize that second person =/= interactivity, but whatever.
All the "reviews" are basically form letters. The only difference from one to the next is a slight variation in the first line, which baffles me -- if you have a form letter, why not just paste the form letter? Why try to make it seem "personalized" for each fic? It does not in any way disguise the fact that you are spamming me and have not actually read the stories in question nor paid any attention to the fact that a bunch of them are already "upload[ed] on a different site."
The reviews (all received on 1/3/13) read as follows:
Please note that you-based fics are in violation. I suggest that you delete this, and upload on a different site.
Thank you for your time.
Entries not allowed:
5. Any form of interactive entry: choose your adventure, second person/you based, Q&As, and etc.
explodinghead
Member of Eliminator
That particular one is for Ring the Changes, which is a Homestuck fic about Rose and Roxy bonding over their shared love of wizard slash, and Roxy asking Rose to beta-read her fanfic of Rose's as-yet-unfinished-in-the-beta-timeline epic series The Complacency of the Learned.
The first line variations are as follows:
Ring the Changes (2012): Please note that you-based fics are in violation.
Prayers to Broken Stone (2009): Please note that this you-based fic is in violation.
Parseltongue (2003): Please note that you-based fics are in violation.
Along the Way (2007): Please note that your you-based fics are in violation.
Knives (2005): Please note that all you-based fics are in violation.
Wherein Two Moirails Make the Best of a Stolen Afternoon (2012): Please note that you-based fics are in violation for interactive behavior.
Stories are listed in order of "reviews" received. Note that the last one FINALLY states outright their objection to me, which is their false conflation of second person with interactivity. As I have said before (and apparently will be saying until I am dead, for fuck's sake), second person is not inherently interactive. It can easily be used in the service of interactivity, but it is not, in and of itself, any more interactive than first or third person -- which are, of course, interactive in the sense that they require a person to read them and imagine the story to life in her or his own mind. In that sense, ALL fiction is interactive.
In the sense which I believe ff.net means, however -- wherein a writer solicits reader feedback to direct the story -- none of my work on ff.net is interactive in the slightest. Which you can easily tell by the way that all the stories above are complete and, in fact, explicitly say that they are complete in the metadata ff.net itself attaches to each file. But apparently logical thought is too hard when there is a badly phrased rule that can be used to bludgeon writers and make trolls feel self-righteous.
*sigh*
I am still feeling tired and fed-up with the general futility of the universe, but I dunno, maybe I should ask ff.net for a rule clarification again. Hell, maybe I should update "The Guardian in Spite of Herself" and ask the readers of that fic to also petition ff.net for a rule clarification...
No, that's a bad idea. That would inevitably derail into flame wars.
I will maintain my moral high ground, such as it is, and let the trolls continue to illustrate their own pettiness and inability to understand the definition of interactivity without my help.
-----
ETA, 1/31/13: Aha! I have discovered the reason for the slight wording variations in the form letter. Apparently ff.net has a primitive anti-spam measure in place that flags copypasted private messages (and presumably also copypasted reviews) sent within five minutes of each other. I assume explodinghead was going down a pre-chosen list of my stories and reviewing them as fast as possible, which would logically require a non-form letter to avoid tripping the anti-spam alert.
Which is funny since the "reviews" in question are actually spam. :-/
All the "reviews" are basically form letters. The only difference from one to the next is a slight variation in the first line, which baffles me -- if you have a form letter, why not just paste the form letter? Why try to make it seem "personalized" for each fic? It does not in any way disguise the fact that you are spamming me and have not actually read the stories in question nor paid any attention to the fact that a bunch of them are already "upload[ed] on a different site."
The reviews (all received on 1/3/13) read as follows:
Please note that you-based fics are in violation. I suggest that you delete this, and upload on a different site.
Thank you for your time.
Entries not allowed:
5. Any form of interactive entry: choose your adventure, second person/you based, Q&As, and etc.
explodinghead
Member of Eliminator
That particular one is for Ring the Changes, which is a Homestuck fic about Rose and Roxy bonding over their shared love of wizard slash, and Roxy asking Rose to beta-read her fanfic of Rose's as-yet-unfinished-in-the-beta-timeline epic series The Complacency of the Learned.
The first line variations are as follows:
Ring the Changes (2012): Please note that you-based fics are in violation.
Prayers to Broken Stone (2009): Please note that this you-based fic is in violation.
Parseltongue (2003): Please note that you-based fics are in violation.
Along the Way (2007): Please note that your you-based fics are in violation.
Knives (2005): Please note that all you-based fics are in violation.
Wherein Two Moirails Make the Best of a Stolen Afternoon (2012): Please note that you-based fics are in violation for interactive behavior.
Stories are listed in order of "reviews" received. Note that the last one FINALLY states outright their objection to me, which is their false conflation of second person with interactivity. As I have said before (and apparently will be saying until I am dead, for fuck's sake), second person is not inherently interactive. It can easily be used in the service of interactivity, but it is not, in and of itself, any more interactive than first or third person -- which are, of course, interactive in the sense that they require a person to read them and imagine the story to life in her or his own mind. In that sense, ALL fiction is interactive.
In the sense which I believe ff.net means, however -- wherein a writer solicits reader feedback to direct the story -- none of my work on ff.net is interactive in the slightest. Which you can easily tell by the way that all the stories above are complete and, in fact, explicitly say that they are complete in the metadata ff.net itself attaches to each file. But apparently logical thought is too hard when there is a badly phrased rule that can be used to bludgeon writers and make trolls feel self-righteous.
*sigh*
I am still feeling tired and fed-up with the general futility of the universe, but I dunno, maybe I should ask ff.net for a rule clarification again. Hell, maybe I should update "The Guardian in Spite of Herself" and ask the readers of that fic to also petition ff.net for a rule clarification...
No, that's a bad idea. That would inevitably derail into flame wars.
I will maintain my moral high ground, such as it is, and let the trolls continue to illustrate their own pettiness and inability to understand the definition of interactivity without my help.
-----
ETA, 1/31/13: Aha! I have discovered the reason for the slight wording variations in the form letter. Apparently ff.net has a primitive anti-spam measure in place that flags copypasted private messages (and presumably also copypasted reviews) sent within five minutes of each other. I assume explodinghead was going down a pre-chosen list of my stories and reviewing them as fast as possible, which would logically require a non-form letter to avoid tripping the anti-spam alert.
Which is funny since the "reviews" in question are actually spam. :-/
(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-05 05:19 am (UTC)Authors with too many OCs. (1 is too many)
Stories that are pretentious.
Stories with descriptions of hair color."
(and many more)
And I'm just sitting here going, "uhhhh, yeah, dude, you carry right on with that...." Anyone who can't tell the difference between 'original character' and 'mary sue' is not someone to take advice from.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-05 05:40 am (UTC)Authors who think they have a fan-base: FAIL. I think there are people who often like my writing. I know this because they have reviewed my stories and said so. I am sorry for, you know, paying attention to reality.
Authors with too many OCs: FAIL. Not only do I use OCs all over the place for minor things like, I dunno, shop clerks and other necessary background roles; not only do I use OCs to fill in world-building gaps when writing stories set in different time periods or among groups we don't see in canon but which must logically exist; not only do I use OCs to act as the villains in plots where the canonical characters need an opponent and no canon character makes sense; but I have committed the gravest sin of all and written a whole massive AU series centered on an OC! Who is also female! Horrors!
Authors who don't respect constructive criticism: Oh, tricky, tricky! I would say I pass, but I have a strong suspicion explodinghead would disagree. We are most likely running into a problem of clashing definitions.
Authors who don't like grammarAuthors who are defensive: Another tricky question of clashing definitions. Oh, explodinghead, you are a sly one!
Stories that have nothing to do with the fandom: Heh. I always write stories that have something to do with canon, but that is not at all the same as having to do with fandom. I mean, judging by Narnia fandom, Calormen might as well not exist, but judging by canon it is a huge country with lots of people and a culture that lasted thousands of years.
Stories that are pretentious: FAIL. I freely admit to this one.
Stories with descriptions of hair color: FAIL. Not in an especially noticeable way, but I have mentioned that people have brown (or black, or blonde, or pink, or even blue-green) hair at various points. I do that for the same reason that I occasionally mention things they are holding or clothes they are wearing. It is useful for sketching a scene and establishing a rough image of a character in readers' minds.
Reviews that have nothing to do with the story: Now, I pass this one with flying colors, but I am afraid I have to say that explodinghead fails it on the evidence of hir own "reviews" to my fics. :-(
Reviews that don't give a way to improve, but say "this could be improved": I have never done this, and to be fair, that annoys me too.
Reviews that insult the writer. (Ex: You're fat, you're ugly): Ditto the previous response.
Reviews that say the story is bad simply based on pairings, genre, etc.: Ditto the previous response.
Anything that/who breaks the rules: And here we again run into that pesky problem of clashing definitions, where I can assert with a perfectly clear conscience that I have not broken any of ff.net's rules, despite what explodinghead obviously thinks.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-05 05:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-05 05:45 am (UTC)(Argh, LJ ate my response to the item about not liking grammar. Stupid LJ.)