Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Think for Yourself, Schmuck! => Topic started by: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 03:49:09 PM

Title: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 03:49:09 PM
Awesome!!!

First, let's do Common Walls!
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 21, 2012, 04:00:48 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 03:49:09 PM
Awesome!!!

First, let's do Common Walls!
That's still kinda not finished, isn't it?
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 05:04:06 PM
meanwhile cuddles, you should post the text you collected for your Intermittens issue, just in case somebody wants to lay it out . . .
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 05:06:51 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 21, 2012, 04:00:48 PM
That's still kinda not finished, isn't it?

Perhaps --- but I don't think anybody's gonna declare it "done". As soon as there've been no new submissions for a week, I'd say that's a good indicator that we're out of steam on it. Also, having a "first draft" pamphlet is often what we need to see what the project is missing.

Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 05:08:07 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 05:06:51 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 21, 2012, 04:00:48 PM
That's still kinda not finished, isn't it?

Perhaps --- but I don't think anybody's gonna declare it "done". As soon as there've been no new submissions for a week, I'd say that's a good indicator that we're out of steam on it. Also, having a "first draft" pamphlet is often what we need to see what the project is missing.
It's LMNO & Nigel's thing.  They should say when it's done.

And I'm not out of steam, not yet.  I wasn't aware we had a deadline.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 21, 2012, 05:21:29 PM
Uh, yeah. I still have stuff I want to write for that.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 21, 2012, 05:23:10 PM
It's just been a very busy week.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 05:29:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 05:08:07 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 05:06:51 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 21, 2012, 04:00:48 PM
That's still kinda not finished, isn't it?

Perhaps --- but I don't think anybody's gonna declare it "done". As soon as there've been no new submissions for a week, I'd say that's a good indicator that we're out of steam on it. Also, having a "first draft" pamphlet is often what we need to see what the project is missing.
It's LMNO & Nigel's thing.  They should say when it's done.

huh, I thought it was a collaborative board project, my bad.

Anyway, starting to put together a layout draft =/= writing deadline


layout & design can have a big impact on content, it's not something you should save for the very end IMO
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 05:32:14 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 05:29:30 PM
huh, I thought it was a collaborative board project, my bad.


It is.  But it's being run by those two, as editors.  It's like an intermittens, except it's a book.  It's nowhere near book length yet, and as far as I know, we are not in the habit of making decisions for intermittens editors without even their consent, and I think the same applies here.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 21, 2012, 05:34:07 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 05:29:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 05:08:07 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 05:06:51 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 21, 2012, 04:00:48 PM
That's still kinda not finished, isn't it?

Perhaps --- but I don't think anybody's gonna declare it "done". As soon as there've been no new submissions for a week, I'd say that's a good indicator that we're out of steam on it. Also, having a "first draft" pamphlet is often what we need to see what the project is missing.
It's LMNO & Nigel's thing.  They should say when it's done.

huh, I thought it was a collaborative board project, my bad.

Anyway, starting to put together a layout draft =/= writing deadline


layout & design can have a big impact on content, it's not something you should save for the very end IMO

Yes, it's a collaborative board project, and no, you may not take it over.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 05:49:16 PM
excuse me?
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 21, 2012, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 05:49:16 PM
excuse me?

You're excused.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 05:53:10 PM
 :roll:
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 05:54:59 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 05:49:16 PM
excuse me?

What part isn't being understood?
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on February 21, 2012, 05:55:50 PM
I didnt see crams post as an attempt to take over the project.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: The Rev on February 21, 2012, 05:56:42 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 21, 2012, 05:55:50 PM
I didnt see crams post as an attempt to take over the project.

Me either.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 05:57:52 PM
I can't see how it could be taken any other way.

Please enlighten me.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: The Rev on February 21, 2012, 06:00:18 PM
Just looks to me that he was excited about the new project ITT and was offering ideas and support.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 06:02:04 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 21, 2012, 06:00:18 PM
Just looks to me that he was excited about the new project ITT and was offering ideas and support.

Looks like he was saying it was out of steam and time to publish.  Determining those things is the job - actually, the only job - of the editors.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 21, 2012, 06:02:39 PM
Lady Gogira, if you want to do anything with Common Walls, you will need to (out of common courtesy) talk to LMNO, as he started the thread and is the de facto project editor, as well as gaining consent from the individual contributors. I doubt that anyone would have a problem with you doing something with it, but that'll avoid any ruffled feathers.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 06:03:27 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 21, 2012, 06:02:39 PM
Lady Gogira, if you want to do anything with Common Walls, you will need to (out of common courtesy) talk to LMNO, as he started the thread and is the de facto project editor, as well as gaining consent from the individual contributors. I doubt that anyone would have a problem with you doing something with it, but that'll avoid any ruffled feathers.

LMNO and I already have an arrangement (CC).  He can speak for me, I think.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on February 21, 2012, 06:05:09 PM
He said that a week without more might be an indicator that the contributors are running out of steam. Hes throwing in opinion in not making a rule or even an actual deadline. It might have been better for him to add some other statement or another to the effect that he wasnt in charge of the project so it would probably have to be asked in the appropriate thread if the project was done but he didnt. But i dont see anything in his post but suggestions.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 21, 2012, 06:06:23 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 21, 2012, 05:55:50 PM
I didnt see crams post as an attempt to take over the project.

Perhaps it wasn't. But he overstepped his bounds in saying that it was out of steam and giving LG the go-ahead on a project someone else was spearheading, and I wanted to be very clear that it is not his place to make editorial decisions.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: The Rev on February 21, 2012, 06:07:45 PM
I'm done with the project.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 21, 2012, 06:09:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 06:03:27 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 21, 2012, 06:02:39 PM
Lady Gogira, if you want to do anything with Common Walls, you will need to (out of common courtesy) talk to LMNO, as he started the thread and is the de facto project editor, as well as gaining consent from the individual contributors. I doubt that anyone would have a problem with you doing something with it, but that'll avoid any ruffled feathers.

LMNO and I already have an arrangement (CC).  He can speak for me, I think.

I would assume that LMNO would probably handle the individual contributors in terms of publishing it as a group project; I just threw that in there because if LG wants to pull individual pieces she'll want to contact the person who wrote the piece.

When it's done, it would be awesome, IMO, if LG wanted to add her artwork and do the layout. But that's up to LMNO.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 06:11:06 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 21, 2012, 06:05:09 PM
He said that a week without more might be an indicator that the contributors are running out of steam. Hes throwing in opinion in not making a rule or even an actual deadline. It might have been better for him to add some other statement or another to the effect that he wasnt in charge of the project so it would probably have to be asked in the appropriate thread if the project was done but he didnt. But i dont see anything in his post but suggestions.

Yeah.  The suggestion to publish without even consulting the editor.  Then QG raised the obvious objection, and he continued his suggestion.

I think we need to lay down a few ground rules, here, if we're going to have collaborative projects.  Just call it a suggestion of my own, if you will.  The first ground rule I'd propose that the editor does the editing.  The second ground rule is that the editor decides when it's done. 

I'd never fucking dream of swooping in and publishing someone's intermittens before they were ready to publish it, and that's precisely what was "suggested".
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 06:12:58 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 21, 2012, 06:07:45 PM
I'm done with the project.

And here we go.  First one down.  The fucking thing will be tatters and rags by next week.

Another PD project crashes in fucking flames.  Thank you so very much, Cram.  But isn't that a small price to pay for your fucking relentless self-promotion machine?
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on February 21, 2012, 06:16:01 PM
I agree with you roger. Obviously if cram suggested cdgasm was done i would also go- err dude no. But i wouldnt think he meant anything by it.

Also its been over a week since someone posted in common walls? Its only tuesday...
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 06:16:20 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 05:06:51 PM
As soon as there've been no new submissions for a week, I'd say that's a good indicator that we're out of steam on it.

(http://i.imgur.com/YYyAB.png)

Hmmm.... not seeing the part where I declared the project over and seized it for myself.

but I understand it's more fun to jump up my ass and act like I'm trying to steal Nigel's project, so I forgive you for poor reading comprehension


Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 06:12:58 PM
Thank you so very much, Cram.  But isn't that a small price to pay for your fucking relentless self-promotion machine?

riiiiiight, suggesting that we think about layout = self promotion

collaborating on this just ceased to be fun
yeah, I'm done here

enjoy
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: The Rev on February 21, 2012, 06:17:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 06:12:58 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 21, 2012, 06:07:45 PM
I'm done with the project.

And here we go.  First one down.  The fucking thing will be tatters and rags by next week.

Another PD project crashes in fucking flames.  Thank you so very much, Cram.  But isn't that a small price to pay for your fucking relentless self-promotion machine?

I'm not quitting because of Cram. I am quitting because it's no longer fun. I don't enjoy territorial pissing contests, and the only reason I ever join in a project is because it sounds like fun.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on February 21, 2012, 06:18:17 PM
I havent started with it- so i might have a bit to contribute. And anyway i dont think charley meant anything with his post other than just that. Maybe he ran out of stuff. But anyway im going to stop trying to be a peacemaker here and let cram and charley speak for themselves.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 21, 2012, 06:20:25 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 06:16:20 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 05:06:51 PM
As soon as there've been no new submissions for a week, I'd say that's a good indicator that we're out of steam on it.

(http://i.imgur.com/YYyAB.png)

Hmmm.... not seeing the part where I declared the project over and seized it for myself.

but I understand it's more fun to jump up my ass and act like I'm trying to steal Nigel's project, so I forgive you for poor reading comprehension


Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 06:12:58 PM
Thank you so very much, Cram.  But isn't that a small price to pay for your fucking relentless self-promotion machine?

riiiiiight, suggesting that we think about layout = self promotion

collaborating on this just ceased to be fun
yeah, I'm done here

enjoy

On it's own, your suggestion was just a faux pas.

But given your history, it seemed appropriate to step up and say something about boundaries.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 06:23:18 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 06:16:20 PM
it's more fun to jump up my ass and act like I'm trying to steal Nigel's project, so I forgive you for poor reading comprehension

How very fucking kind of you.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 21, 2012, 06:28:50 PM
Why is our project suddenly "Nigel's project" when it's flounce time?  :?
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: LMNO on February 21, 2012, 06:38:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 05:06:51 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 21, 2012, 04:00:48 PM
That's still kinda not finished, isn't it?

Perhaps --- but I don't think anybody's gonna declare it "done". As soon as there've been no new submissions for a week, I'd say that's a good indicator that we're out of steam on it. Also, having a "first draft" pamphlet is often what we need to see what the project is missing.

Not to speak for Nigel, only for myself:  If you can leave it open ended, with the ability to add as much stuff as we want at any moment, why the hell not?  I'm not done with it, and I'm not going to stop until I think I've said my piece.  But if you want to keep adding onto whatever drafts you want to create, go for it.

I mean, after I had started the Spider Project, something like a dozen more pieces showed up; but I didn't declare them invalid.  The project simply grew.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 22, 2012, 01:59:14 AM
OH GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE???
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 02:00:44 AM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 22, 2012, 01:59:14 AM
OH GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE???

What?  It's just PD.  We have to do this every 6 months or so.  It's kind of a rule.

2004/2005, now THAT was a brawl.  Lasted TWO FUCKING YEARS.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 22, 2012, 03:52:28 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 06:11:06 PM
I'd never fucking dream of swooping in and publishing someone's intermittens before they were ready to publish it, and that's precisely what was "suggested".

Designing layout drafts ≠ publishing. Where precisely did Cram suggest that?

You're out of your gourd.


Quote from: Nigel on February 21, 2012, 06:28:50 PM
Why is our project suddenly "Nigel's project" when it's flounce time?  :?

Because you accused Cram of trying to take it over.

I think he was just trying to get the creative juice from the writing to intermingle with that of the design.

But I guess it's time for needless drama by assuming the absolute worst in people.



See you guys in a few months, or whenever you get tired of ginning up strife in your own community instead of your enemy's.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 22, 2012, 05:22:44 AM
Quote from: Net on February 22, 2012, 03:52:28 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 06:11:06 PM
I'd never fucking dream of swooping in and publishing someone's intermittens before they were ready to publish it, and that's precisely what was "suggested".

Designing layout drafts ≠ publishing. Where precisely did Cram suggest that?

You're out of your gourd.


Quote from: Nigel on February 21, 2012, 06:28:50 PM
Why is our project suddenly "Nigel's project" when it's flounce time?  :?

Because you accused Cram of trying to take it over.

I think he was just trying to get the creative juice from the writing to intermingle with that of the design.

But I guess it's time for needless drama by assuming the absolute worst in people.



See you guys in a few months, or whenever you get tired of ginning up strife in your own community instead of your enemy's.

I am not sure if you are really the most appropriate person to inform another user they are "out of their gourd". ;)

Cram has a fucking history with regards to appropriating other people's creativity. So when he starts to get proprietary about other people's projects/work, I decided I'm not going to remain politely quiet anymore just because he's Mr Popular. No matter how charming I may find him, personally.

As for stirring up strife in my enemy's territory, you have no fucking idea.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 22, 2012, 08:19:59 AM
Quote from: Nigel on February 22, 2012, 05:22:44 AM
Cram has a fucking history with regards to appropriating other people's creativity.

:cn:

Are you sure you're not thinking of Yatto's Intermittens disaster?

What exactly did Cram do to earn this reputation as a thief?


Quote from: Nigel on February 22, 2012, 05:22:44 AM
So when he starts to get proprietary about other people's projects/work, I decided I'm not going to remain politely quiet anymore just because he's Mr Popular. No matter how charming I may find him, personally.

Proprietary? Cram?

:lol:

You think he was making moves ITT to sell work that isn't his? Posting about stealing other people's work on the same forum as the would be theft victims.... so you're also calling him a dumbass. I'd consider posting about the use of other people's work where it's damn near impossible for them to miss it as an implicit request for permission.

Not asking explicit permission before starting drafts is one thing, but accusations of "taking it over", "proprietary", and "saying that it was out of steam" are unfounded. You're twisting his words into paranoid, incredibly insulting interpretations.

When Cram talked about projects running out of steam, it seemed pretty clear to me that he was referring to how it typically goes around here. After a week of no posts, things do tend to lose momentum. Seeing how the thread in question had posts within a day—how could he have possibly been suggesting that the project had indeed run out of steam? So not only is he a known thief and a dumbass, but retards have a better sense of time than him.

Got it.

I think you and Roger both overreacted and are now trying to rationalize it for your egos, rather than eat your words to reflect the truth.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Freeky on February 22, 2012, 10:34:29 AM
I'm gonna back Nigel and Roger on this one.  Even if it was accidental, he was pretty much speaking as if he were the go-to guy for the project. 

So either there's something to that, or ZOMG MIND LAZORS.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 22, 2012, 10:55:06 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 10:34:29 AM
I'm gonna back Nigel and Roger on this one.  Even if it was accidental, he was pretty much speaking as if he were the go-to guy for the project. 

So either there's something to that, or ZOMG MIND LAZORS.

You're taking it out of context. Cram's doing that out in the open, which is a critical difference. In collaborative efforts you don't privately submit your writing to everyone first for their approval—you just post it. In the same way, Cram just grabbed the editor role and Roger and Nigel acted like it was an irreversible crime that requires character assassination.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Telarus on February 22, 2012, 12:53:48 PM
[As a previous intermittens layout-guy] I find nothing wrong with suggesting that layout get started early in the proccess.


That is the only comment I will make on this issue.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 03:51:51 PM
Quote from: Net on February 22, 2012, 03:52:28 AM
ginning up strife in your own community instead of your enemy's.

I am told that is the highest form of Discordianism.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 04:17:01 PM
Quote from: Net on February 22, 2012, 10:55:06 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 10:34:29 AM
I'm gonna back Nigel and Roger on this one.  Even if it was accidental, he was pretty much speaking as if he were the go-to guy for the project. 

So either there's something to that, or ZOMG MIND LAZORS.

You're taking it out of context. Cram's doing that out in the open, which is a critical difference. In collaborative efforts you don't privately submit your writing to everyone first for their approval—you just post it. In the same way, Cram just grabbed the editor role and Roger and Nigel acted like it was an irreversible crime that requires character assassination.

That's because we're EVIL, Net.  We're bad and wrong, and we do this shit for cheap kicks.

We're the VILLAINS.

muhahaha
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 22, 2012, 04:20:57 PM
Net, I think that either you have no idea what you're talking about, or you're letting your hard-on for Roger get in the way of reason. I don't think that Cram is an idiot at all, but I do think that for some reason, on some level, he just really doesn't understand why certain things aren't actually OK, like reposting other people's work on his website without asking (which he just did the other day, and when politely called on it, responded with "I'll take it down if you want"), or selling copies of Intermittens (full of other people's work) for beer money.

A history of appropriating behavior makes it reasonable to draw a clear boundary. There are a couple of people I won't work with and don't want closely involved in projects I care about, specifically because of their tendency to appropriate other people's work.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 04:22:28 PM
Nigel, Net isn't interested in the actual facts of the situation.  It's "ROGER BAAAAAAAAAD!"

I could be arguing against slavery, and he'd defend the slave owners.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 04:23:24 PM
Quote from: Net on February 22, 2012, 10:55:06 AM
In the same way, Cram just grabbed the editor role

The editor role had been filled.  But that doesn't count, right?
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: AFK on February 22, 2012, 04:36:08 PM
Meh, I think Cram was just trying to help keep things moving, didn't see him trying to poach anything.  Just trying to lend a hand.  A pretty experienced hand I would say.  He really has been the lifeblood to a lot of stuff around here.  I think things are being blown WAY out of proportion, which I suppose is part of PD's charm.  I really don't think dumping on his character is necessary, he's been very straightforward with his intention. 
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Rev on February 22, 2012, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 04:36:08 PM
Meh, I think Cram was just trying to help keep things moving, didn't see him trying to poach anything.  Just trying to lend a hand.  A pretty experienced hand I would say.  He really has been the lifeblood to a lot of stuff around here.  I think things are being blown WAY out of proportion, which I suppose is part of PD's charm.  I really don't think dumping on his character is necessary, he's been very straightforward with his intention.

I agree.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 22, 2012, 04:44:25 PM
Quote from: Twid,  not Billy on February 22, 2012, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 04:36:08 PM
Meh, I think Cram was just trying to help keep things moving, didn't see him trying to poach anything.  Just trying to lend a hand.  A pretty experienced hand I would say.  He really has been the lifeblood to a lot of stuff around here.  I think things are being blown WAY out of proportion, which I suppose is part of PD's charm.  I really don't think dumping on his character is necessary, he's been very straightforward with his intention.

I agree.

I like Cram. I'm not dumping on his character. He's also really good at getting projects going, or at least taking them and running with them. But he's done some questionable things and I am not going to be shamed for talking about them as a form of explanation for why I found it reasonable to lay a strong boundary with regards to a project.

I can be the bad guy if that's what you want, but that doesn't change my reasons for thinking a boundary is appropriate.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 05:26:21 PM
Well, I suppose "hijacking a project" is "helping out", if you're one of the cook kids.

Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: Freeky on February 22, 2012, 05:30:53 PM
Quote from: Net on February 22, 2012, 10:55:06 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 10:34:29 AM
I'm gonna back Nigel and Roger on this one.  Even if it was accidental, he was pretty much speaking as if he were the go-to guy for the project. 

So either there's something to that, or ZOMG MIND LAZORS.

You're taking it out of context. Cram's doing that out in the open, which is a critical difference. In collaborative efforts you don't privately submit your writing to everyone first for their approval—you just post it. In the same way, Cram just grabbed the editor role and Roger and Nigel acted like it was an irreversible crime that requires character assassination.

I don't get what you're saying.  LMNO already had the editor role, as was already said.  Now, I may be just a teensy bit on the sensitive side about such things, but until LMNO weighed in I saw it as usurpation. 

At the very least, Cram's post wouldn't have been so inflammatory if he had said "We should see if everyone thinks Common Walls is ready for this!" and have not said what he did in response to "Isn't it kind of not done?" because it wasn't his baby to begin with.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 22, 2012, 05:31:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 05:26:21 PM
Well, I suppose "hijacking a project" is "helping out", if you're one of the cook kids.

No, fuck that.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 05:32:27 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 04:36:08 PM
Meh, I think Cram was just trying to help keep things moving, didn't see him trying to poach anything.  Just trying to lend a hand.  A pretty experienced hand I would say.  He really has been the lifeblood to a lot of stuff around here.  I think things are being blown WAY out of proportion, which I suppose is part of PD's charm.  I really don't think dumping on his character is necessary, he's been very straightforward with his intention.

OKAY, FUCK IT.

I will now test this fucking hypothesis by "lending a hand" whenever and however I see fit, with no fucking regard or respect for anyone else.

And I'm going to be straightforward as hell about it.

But, of course, he IS the "lifeblood" of PD, and all creativity that happens here, so I may not be a good control subject.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 22, 2012, 05:33:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 05:26:21 PM
Well, I suppose "hijacking a project" is "helping out", if you're one of the cook kids.

Fuck that especially because the cool kids can get away with it. 
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: AFK on February 22, 2012, 05:43:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 05:32:27 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 04:36:08 PM
Meh, I think Cram was just trying to help keep things moving, didn't see him trying to poach anything.  Just trying to lend a hand.  A pretty experienced hand I would say.  He really has been the lifeblood to a lot of stuff around here.  I think things are being blown WAY out of proportion, which I suppose is part of PD's charm.  I really don't think dumping on his character is necessary, he's been very straightforward with his intention.

OKAY, FUCK IT.

I will now test this fucking hypothesis by "lending a hand" whenever and however I see fit, with no fucking regard or respect for anyone else.

And I'm going to be straightforward as hell about it.

But, of course, he IS the "lifeblood" of PD, and all creativity that happens here, so I may not be a good control subject.

Okay, if you need to go on with the exaggeration thing go ahead but it's pretty clear what I specifically said and I stand behind it 100%.  I didn't say he was the life blood of everything.  I said he was the lifeblood of "a lot".  And I think that is true. 

But if it makes you feel better I think you are the lifeblood of a lot of stuff around here too.  I kinda figure that goes without saying.  But Cram was the one getting dumped on in this thread for what was, at best, a misunderstanding.  He deserves a hell of a lot better than that.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 05:45:39 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 05:43:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 05:32:27 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 04:36:08 PM
Meh, I think Cram was just trying to help keep things moving, didn't see him trying to poach anything.  Just trying to lend a hand.  A pretty experienced hand I would say.  He really has been the lifeblood to a lot of stuff around here.  I think things are being blown WAY out of proportion, which I suppose is part of PD's charm.  I really don't think dumping on his character is necessary, he's been very straightforward with his intention.

OKAY, FUCK IT.

I will now test this fucking hypothesis by "lending a hand" whenever and however I see fit, with no fucking regard or respect for anyone else.

And I'm going to be straightforward as hell about it.

But, of course, he IS the "lifeblood" of PD, and all creativity that happens here, so I may not be a good control subject.

Okay, if you need to go on with the exaggeration thing go ahead but it's pretty clear what I specifically said and I stand behind it 100%.  I didn't say he was the life blood of everything.  I said he was the lifeblood of "a lot".  And I think that is true. 

But if it makes you feel better I think you are the lifeblood of a lot of stuff around here too.  I kinda figure that goes without saying.  But Cram was the one getting dumped on in this thread for what was, at best, a misunderstanding.  He deserves a hell of a lot better than that.

Naw, RWHN.  I'm the VILLAIN.  The Bad Guy.  Obviously, I did what I did simply to impede the LIFEBLOOD OF PD.

I'm done fucking arguing about it.  Believe what you want to believe.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 05:48:58 PM
Oh, and I won't be getting involved in any more arguments over creative control or any other shit like that, unless it's an actual admin decision.  I'm not paid for this fucking grief, so I'm not tolerating it.

I'm also not taking part in any more so-called "collaborative" efforts.  The stuff that is in Common Walls stays, but from now on, I'm not getting on board with ANY group project, because apparently that means handing it over to whomever decides to fucking seize it.  Er, I mean "help it along".

That is all.  You may now continue explaining why Cram is a fucking saint, and everything I do is fucking evil & wrong.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on February 22, 2012, 06:04:03 PM
Quote from: Twid,  not Billy on February 22, 2012, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 04:36:08 PM
Meh, I think Cram was just trying to help keep things moving, didn't see him trying to poach anything.  Just trying to lend a hand.  A pretty experienced hand I would say.  He really has been the lifeblood to a lot of stuff around here.  I think things are being blown WAY out of proportion, which I suppose is part of PD's charm.  I really don't think dumping on his character is necessary, he's been very straightforward with his intention.

I agree.

I disagree.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Rev on February 22, 2012, 06:04:59 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 22, 2012, 06:04:03 PM
Quote from: Twid,  not Billy on February 22, 2012, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 04:36:08 PM
Meh, I think Cram was just trying to help keep things moving, didn't see him trying to poach anything.  Just trying to lend a hand.  A pretty experienced hand I would say.  He really has been the lifeblood to a lot of stuff around here.  I think things are being blown WAY out of proportion, which I suppose is part of PD's charm.  I really don't think dumping on his character is necessary, he's been very straightforward with his intention.

I agree.

I disagree.

You would.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 22, 2012, 06:10:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 22, 2012, 04:20:57 PM
Net, I think that either you have no idea what you're talking about, or you're letting your hard-on for Roger get in the way of reason. I don't think that Cram is an idiot at all, but I do think that for some reason, on some level, he just really doesn't understand why certain things aren't actually OK, like reposting other people's work on his website without asking (which he just did the other day, and when politely called on it, responded with "I'll take it down if you want"), or selling copies of Intermittens (full of other people's work) for beer money.

A history of appropriating behavior makes it reasonable to draw a clear boundary. There are a couple of people I won't work with and don't want closely involved in projects I care about, specifically because of their tendency to appropriate other people's work.

With all due respect, I have worked and studied in the creative industry for a number of years which have involved many collaborative projects.  Especially on the web, "hey here's what I did with your work, let me know if you'd like me to take it down," is an acceptable way to pitch an idea. With the visual arts it's sometimes the only way to pitch an idea—language won't cut it.

I can understand how not asking directly could rankle you as an author, but posting about it openly in the same subforum that the project occurs in is an implicit request for permission.

Cram might have been a little improper about it, but your reaction has been disproportionate. Do you kick people in the nuts when they accidentally step on your toes?


Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 05:26:21 PM
Well, I suppose "hijacking a project" is "helping out", if you're one of the cook kids.



He was going to fly the hijacked project right into his private slosh fund, without a doubt.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on February 22, 2012, 06:13:17 PM
Quote from: Twid,  not Billy on February 22, 2012, 06:04:59 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 22, 2012, 06:04:03 PM
Quote from: Twid,  not Billy on February 22, 2012, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 04:36:08 PM
Meh, I think Cram was just trying to help keep things moving, didn't see him trying to poach anything.  Just trying to lend a hand.  A pretty experienced hand I would say.  He really has been the lifeblood to a lot of stuff around here.  I think things are being blown WAY out of proportion, which I suppose is part of PD's charm.  I really don't think dumping on his character is necessary, he's been very straightforward with his intention.

I agree.

I disagree.

You would.

Sometimes you gotta go, "Self, what's up? What's going on here? Do you even know what you're on about?"
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:13:57 PM
Quote from: Net on February 22, 2012, 06:10:06 PM
Cram might have been a little improper about it, but your reaction has been disproportionate. Do you kick people in the nuts when they accidentally step on your toes?

Do you call people "slut" for sleeping with whomever they please, then brag about having a harem a year or so later?

Was your reaction to being called on that disproportionate?
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Rev on February 22, 2012, 06:14:50 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 22, 2012, 06:13:17 PM
Quote from: Twid,  not Billy on February 22, 2012, 06:04:59 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 22, 2012, 06:04:03 PM
Quote from: Twid,  not Billy on February 22, 2012, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 04:36:08 PM
Meh, I think Cram was just trying to help keep things moving, didn't see him trying to poach anything.  Just trying to lend a hand.  A pretty experienced hand I would say.  He really has been the lifeblood to a lot of stuff around here.  I think things are being blown WAY out of proportion, which I suppose is part of PD's charm.  I really don't think dumping on his character is necessary, he's been very straightforward with his intention.

I agree.

I disagree.

You would.

Sometimes you gotta go, "Self, what's up? What's going on here? Do you even know what you're on about?"

Do we ever really know?
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 22, 2012, 06:16:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 05:45:39 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 05:43:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 05:32:27 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 04:36:08 PM
Meh, I think Cram was just trying to help keep things moving, didn't see him trying to poach anything.  Just trying to lend a hand.  A pretty experienced hand I would say.  He really has been the lifeblood to a lot of stuff around here.  I think things are being blown WAY out of proportion, which I suppose is part of PD's charm.  I really don't think dumping on his character is necessary, he's been very straightforward with his intention.

OKAY, FUCK IT.

I will now test this fucking hypothesis by "lending a hand" whenever and however I see fit, with no fucking regard or respect for anyone else.

And I'm going to be straightforward as hell about it.

But, of course, he IS the "lifeblood" of PD, and all creativity that happens here, so I may not be a good control subject.

Okay, if you need to go on with the exaggeration thing go ahead but it's pretty clear what I specifically said and I stand behind it 100%.  I didn't say he was the life blood of everything.  I said he was the lifeblood of "a lot".  And I think that is true. 

But if it makes you feel better I think you are the lifeblood of a lot of stuff around here too.  I kinda figure that goes without saying.  But Cram was the one getting dumped on in this thread for what was, at best, a misunderstanding.  He deserves a hell of a lot better than that.

Naw, RWHN.  I'm the VILLAIN.  The Bad Guy.  Obviously, I did what I did simply to impede the LIFEBLOOD OF PD.

I'm done fucking arguing about it.  Believe what you want to believe.

You don't have to be a villain to be mistaken.

But you do have to be an asshat to dig in your heels rather than just admit you had it wrong.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on February 22, 2012, 06:17:07 PM
Quote from: Twid,  not Billy on February 22, 2012, 06:14:50 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 22, 2012, 06:13:17 PM
Quote from: Twid,  not Billy on February 22, 2012, 06:04:59 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 22, 2012, 06:04:03 PM
Quote from: Twid,  not Billy on February 22, 2012, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 04:36:08 PM
Meh, I think Cram was just trying to help keep things moving, didn't see him trying to poach anything.  Just trying to lend a hand.  A pretty experienced hand I would say.  He really has been the lifeblood to a lot of stuff around here.  I think things are being blown WAY out of proportion, which I suppose is part of PD's charm.  I really don't think dumping on his character is necessary, he's been very straightforward with his intention.

I agree.

I disagree.

You would.

Sometimes you gotta go, "Self, what's up? What's going on here? Do you even know what you're on about?"

Do we ever really know?

Maybe in a quick moment of clarity, but I suspect that is fleeting.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:18:16 PM
Quote from: Net on February 22, 2012, 06:16:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 05:45:39 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 05:43:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 05:32:27 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 04:36:08 PM
Meh, I think Cram was just trying to help keep things moving, didn't see him trying to poach anything.  Just trying to lend a hand.  A pretty experienced hand I would say.  He really has been the lifeblood to a lot of stuff around here.  I think things are being blown WAY out of proportion, which I suppose is part of PD's charm.  I really don't think dumping on his character is necessary, he's been very straightforward with his intention.

OKAY, FUCK IT.

I will now test this fucking hypothesis by "lending a hand" whenever and however I see fit, with no fucking regard or respect for anyone else.

And I'm going to be straightforward as hell about it.

But, of course, he IS the "lifeblood" of PD, and all creativity that happens here, so I may not be a good control subject.

Okay, if you need to go on with the exaggeration thing go ahead but it's pretty clear what I specifically said and I stand behind it 100%.  I didn't say he was the life blood of everything.  I said he was the lifeblood of "a lot".  And I think that is true. 

But if it makes you feel better I think you are the lifeblood of a lot of stuff around here too.  I kinda figure that goes without saying.  But Cram was the one getting dumped on in this thread for what was, at best, a misunderstanding.  He deserves a hell of a lot better than that.

Naw, RWHN.  I'm the VILLAIN.  The Bad Guy.  Obviously, I did what I did simply to impede the LIFEBLOOD OF PD.

I'm done fucking arguing about it.  Believe what you want to believe.

You don't have to be a villain to be mistaken.

But you do have to be an asshat to dig in your heels rather than just admit you had it wrong.

Thing is, I don't think I had it wrong. 

Thing is, I could state that slavery was wrong, and you'd argue in favor of it, because it's me that's making the point.  You know this as well as I do, Net.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:21:06 PM
Also, I seem to remember you, Net, having a VERY different opinion on the subject, when it came to "your" fliers.

:lulz:
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 22, 2012, 06:23:33 PM
Quote from: Net on February 22, 2012, 06:10:06 PM

With all due respect, I have worked and studied in the creative industry for a number of years which have involved many collaborative projects.  Especially on the web, "hey here's what I did with your work, let me know if you'd like me to take it down," is an acceptable way to pitch an idea. With the visual arts it's sometimes the only way to pitch an idea—language won't cut it.


I notice that you ignored my even tempered post in order to further ignite Nigel and Roger's temper.  That's okay, I'm still going to contribute to this conversation.

With all due respect to you and your profession, this is not graphic art work, this is a writing based work, so pitching ideas via language is the only way to do things.  Perhaps some people wouldn't want their work to be published, as it might be used later as "Permission was given before, so I'll just use this without permission now" reasoning.  I recall Yatto did that with Cain and Roger's work.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:28:09 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 06:23:33 PM

I notice that you ignored my even tempered post

Well, you're legally female.  Net doesn't think there's any need for a single standard.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 22, 2012, 06:33:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:28:09 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 06:23:33 PM

I notice that you ignored my even tempered post

Well, you're legally female.  Net doesn't think there's any need for a single standard.

Perhaps, but I'm still willing to see what he has to say to that.  I'm a big fan of letting people make themselves look like assholes, you know?  :lulz:

Also, I think he's riling up you and Nigel on purpose.  He doesn't seem to like either of you very much, and seriously, you guys are pretty easy to get angry.  All oone has to do is ignore the facts, and it's all "Oh look, there they go again!" 
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:36:30 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 06:33:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:28:09 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 06:23:33 PM

I notice that you ignored my even tempered post

Well, you're legally female.  Net doesn't think there's any need for a single standard.

Perhaps, but I'm still willing to see what he has to say to that.  I'm a big fan of letting people make themselves look like assholes, you know?  :lulz:

Also, I think he's riling up you and Nigel on purpose.  He doesn't seem to like either of you very much, and seriously, you guys are pretty easy to get angry.  All oone has to do is ignore the facts, and it's all "Oh look, there they go again!"

Angry?  I always enjoy it when Net thinks he can join up in a dogpile of myself or Nigel.  He won't do it any other time, of course.

Angry in general?  Yeah, you're right.  I should work on that.

Best way to do that is to walk away.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 22, 2012, 06:37:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:13:57 PM
Quote from: Net on February 22, 2012, 06:10:06 PM
Cram might have been a little improper about it, but your reaction has been disproportionate. Do you kick people in the nuts when they accidentally step on your toes?

Do you call people "slut" for sleeping with whomever they please, then brag about having a harem a year or so later?

Was your reaction to being called on that disproportionate?

No, my reaction was quickly owning my mistake and asking for forgiveness.

What was your reaction to being called on slandering Lys as a pedo (for using the word "girl" in a brag about getting laid)? At least I've stayed away from outright libel and have the spine to own up to my errors.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:39:13 PM
Quote from: Net on February 22, 2012, 06:37:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:13:57 PM
Quote from: Net on February 22, 2012, 06:10:06 PM
Cram might have been a little improper about it, but your reaction has been disproportionate. Do you kick people in the nuts when they accidentally step on your toes?

Do you call people "slut" for sleeping with whomever they please, then brag about having a harem a year or so later?

Was your reaction to being called on that disproportionate?

No, my reaction was quickly owning my mistake and asking for forgiveness.

quickly? :lol:

And by the very own standard you set, you are one huge fucking hypocrite.  Your definition of the word "slut", for example.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:39:53 PM
Oh, and see, Freeky?  You're a woman, so he won't respond to you.   :lulz:
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 22, 2012, 06:41:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:36:30 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 06:33:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:28:09 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 06:23:33 PM

I notice that you ignored my even tempered post

Well, you're legally female.  Net doesn't think there's any need for a single standard.

Perhaps, but I'm still willing to see what he has to say to that.  I'm a big fan of letting people make themselves look like assholes, you know?  :lulz:

Also, I think he's riling up you and Nigel on purpose.  He doesn't seem to like either of you very much, and seriously, you guys are pretty easy to get angry.  All oone has to do is ignore the facts, and it's all "Oh look, there they go again!"

Angry?  I always enjoy it when Net thinks he can join up in a dogpile of myself or Nigel.  He won't do it any other time, of course.

Angry in general?  Yeah, you're right.  I should work on that.

Best way to do that is to walk away.

Probably so.  Let them think they've won, but you're the real winner in that you don't have a day in which you court a cardiac event.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 22, 2012, 06:43:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:39:53 PM
Oh, and see, Freeky?  You're a woman, so he won't respond to you.   :lulz:

I noticed.  :lulz: 


Is it true, Net?  Is it because I'm a chick?  I'm gonna believe it if I keep hearing from Roger but not anything from you.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:43:52 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 06:41:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:36:30 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 06:33:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:28:09 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 06:23:33 PM

I notice that you ignored my even tempered post

Well, you're legally female.  Net doesn't think there's any need for a single standard.

Perhaps, but I'm still willing to see what he has to say to that.  I'm a big fan of letting people make themselves look like assholes, you know?  :lulz:

Also, I think he's riling up you and Nigel on purpose.  He doesn't seem to like either of you very much, and seriously, you guys are pretty easy to get angry.  All oone has to do is ignore the facts, and it's all "Oh look, there they go again!"

Angry?  I always enjoy it when Net thinks he can join up in a dogpile of myself or Nigel.  He won't do it any other time, of course.

Angry in general?  Yeah, you're right.  I should work on that.

Best way to do that is to walk away.

Probably so.  Let them think they've won, but you're the real winner in that you don't have a day in which you court a cardiac event.

More than that:  The current board ethic seems to be "If you post content, you are ceding control of it".

I am adjusting my posts accordingly.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 22, 2012, 06:47:29 PM
I think Net is the only one who's said that.  The others were defending the idea of someone taking control as editor, I think.  The idea, mind you.  The circumstances are a bit stickier than that.*



*my interpretation.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 22, 2012, 06:47:45 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 05:31:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 05:26:21 PM
Well, I suppose "hijacking a project" is "helping out", if you're one of the cook kids.

No, fuck that.

Yeah, real even tempered, Freeky.


Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 06:43:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:39:53 PM
Oh, and see, Freeky?  You're a woman, so he won't respond to you.   :lulz:

I noticed.  :lulz: 


Is it true, Net?  Is it because I'm a chick?  I'm gonna believe it if I keep hearing from Roger but not anything from you.

Enough said. I have real life business to attend to, rather than defend myself from the buckets of libel Roger likes to splash around in whenever he can't cop to a mistake.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:48:03 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 06:47:29 PM
I think Net is the only one who's said that.  The others were defending the idea of someone taking control as editor, I think. 

I fail to see any difference, to be honest.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:49:11 PM
Quote from: Net on February 22, 2012, 06:47:45 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 05:31:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 05:26:21 PM
Well, I suppose "hijacking a project" is "helping out", if you're one of the cook kids.

No, fuck that.

Yeah, real even tempered, Freeky.


Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 06:43:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:39:53 PM
Oh, and see, Freeky?  You're a woman, so he won't respond to you.   :lulz:

I noticed.  :lulz: 


Is it true, Net?  Is it because I'm a chick?  I'm gonna believe it if I keep hearing from Roger but not anything from you.

Enough said. I have real life business to attend to, rather than defend myself from the buckets of libel Roger likes to splash around in whenever he can't cop to a mistake.

Short answer:  Yes, yes I am a misogynist prick who also believes, by the way, that women with multiple partners are "sluts", and men with multiple partners are bragworthy.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:51:41 PM
Freeky, you will also notice that he never actually responded to your original post.

:lulz:
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 22, 2012, 06:52:24 PM
Quote from: Net on February 22, 2012, 06:47:45 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 05:31:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 05:26:21 PM
Well, I suppose "hijacking a project" is "helping out", if you're one of the cook kids.

No, fuck that.

Yeah, real even tempered, Freeky.

I was being emphatic.  Come on, guy, let's not twist shit around.

Quote
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 06:43:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:39:53 PM
Oh, and see, Freeky?  You're a woman, so he won't respond to you.   :lulz:

I noticed.  :lulz: 


Is it true, Net?  Is it because I'm a chick?  I'm gonna believe it if I keep hearing from Roger but not anything from you.

Enough said. I have real life business to attend to, rather than defend myself from the buckets of libel Roger likes to splash around in whenever he can't cop to a mistake.

I want you to defend yourself, your own posts, though.  I don't really care if it is because I'm a chick that you're ignoring me, I want to know better your position on things.  It's called COM MUN I CA TION. 
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 22, 2012, 06:52:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:51:41 PM
Freeky, you will also notice that he never actually responded to your original post.

:lulz:

Yeah, I noticed that, too.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: AFK on February 22, 2012, 06:54:19 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 06:47:29 PM
I think Net is the only one who's said that.  The others were defending the idea of someone taking control as editor, I think.  The idea, mind you.  The circumstances are a bit stickier than that.*

*my interpretation.

I only jumped in because I think Cram is getting a raw deal.  I think the guy just wanted to jump in and help, my reading of his posts was talking about getting a layout together that would be open-ended so new things could be incorporated.  I didn't read anything anywhere that implied he was going to take the whole thing over and do it all himself. 

The easy thing would've been to say, "No thanks Cram, we got it.", instead of "No Cram, you can't come in and take it over."  And then proceed to paint Cram as a thief which is what a few posts in this thread have done. 

Dude deserves more benefit of the doubt than that. 
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:59:35 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 06:54:19 PM
I only jumped in because I think Cram is getting a raw deal.  I think the guy just wanted to jump in and help,

Cram didn't respect LMNO enough to let LMNO edit his own project.

That's about the best spin that can be put on this.  And that's what it all comes down to, isn't it?  Respect, or the lack thereof.  Posting Cram's poem to 23AE without permission, then acting like Cram was out of line for mentioning it, is another good example.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 22, 2012, 07:02:02 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 06:54:19 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 06:47:29 PM
I think Net is the only one who's said that.  The others were defending the idea of someone taking control as editor, I think.  The idea, mind you.  The circumstances are a bit stickier than that.*

*my interpretation.

I only jumped in because I think Cram is getting a raw deal.  I think the guy just wanted to jump in and help, my reading of his posts was talking about getting a layout together that would be open-ended so new things could be incorporated.  I didn't read anything anywhere that implied he was going to take the whole thing over and do it all himself. 

The easy thing would've been to say, "No thanks Cram, we got it.", instead of "No Cram, you can't come in and take it over."  And then proceed to paint Cram as a thief which is what a few posts in this thread have done. 

Dude deserves more benefit of the doubt than that.

Yes, but think on these:

How many people are arguing or have argued in this thread, total? 

How many people actually argued that Cram was outright trying to take control, in a blatant fashion, with no nod to maybe it was just a misunderstanding? 

How many people are on one side of this debate, and how many are on the other side?  Who are the people on each side? 

What were the things said earlier, what is being said now, and how did it get from point A to point B?
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 07:13:04 PM
Okay, I've said this once already, and I'm only going to say it once more.

For me, the argument is over.  It is clear to me that author/editorship or control of resulting material is not respected at this time at PD, in general or in particular.  It is also clear to me that the prevailing belief is that if you post it, you are giving permission for people co-opt it. 

I'm not going to fight this anymore.  Period.  I would, however, advise authors/editors to be thoughtful before posting your work here, as it may no longer be de facto yours (for example, some shitneck might put some clip art on it, and then claim it belongs to him.  This has happened.).

That being the case, I'll be posting any of my own work to hard drive while deciding what to do with it.

Exceptions: 

The work in Common Walls stays.  No more will be added.

Nigel, I will email you the rest of "Little Orange Breaks Bad" as I complete it.

There.  Now you guys can have the board exactly the way you want it.  I don't want to hear any crying about it, though.  If it's a stolen content issue, please refer it directly to Cain or ECH.



Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Rev on February 22, 2012, 07:18:25 PM
Roger, you win. See the lame joke in OKM.

This is just a fucking difference in opinions and I personally am fed up with all this stupid shit.

Fuck it.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 07:21:07 PM
I don't see that anybody won.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Rev on February 22, 2012, 07:24:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 07:21:07 PM
I don't see that anybody won.

Doesn't fucking matter to me anymore. I will never again participate in a group project. I will never again get tangled up in bullshit like this. PD loses.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: AFK on February 22, 2012, 07:27:50 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 07:02:02 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 06:54:19 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 22, 2012, 06:47:29 PM
I think Net is the only one who's said that.  The others were defending the idea of someone taking control as editor, I think.  The idea, mind you.  The circumstances are a bit stickier than that.*

*my interpretation.

I only jumped in because I think Cram is getting a raw deal.  I think the guy just wanted to jump in and help, my reading of his posts was talking about getting a layout together that would be open-ended so new things could be incorporated.  I didn't read anything anywhere that implied he was going to take the whole thing over and do it all himself. 

The easy thing would've been to say, "No thanks Cram, we got it.", instead of "No Cram, you can't come in and take it over."  And then proceed to paint Cram as a thief which is what a few posts in this thread have done. 

Dude deserves more benefit of the doubt than that.

Yes, but think on these:

How many people are arguing or have argued in this thread, total? 

How many people actually argued that Cram was outright trying to take control, in a blatant fashion, with no nod to maybe it was just a misunderstanding? 

How many people are on one side of this debate, and how many are on the other side?  Who are the people on each side? 

What were the things said earlier, what is being said now, and how did it get from point A to point B?

All I know is I read a couple of posts that more or less accused Cram of trying to steal this project for his own, right after he said that he had interpreted it as a collaborative project.  And honestly, after going through the main thread again it isn't clear to me that any particular people were claiming ownership on the layout of the project, until the question actually came up. 

I mean, the way these things have happened before is that a thread like the main thread happens, and someone comes along and just puts it together.  That is how the BIP came together.  It wasn't like LMNO said at the beginning. "So guys, I'M going to put this stuff together when we're all done."  He just did it.  And thank fuck he did because it came out great!

That's why I say, at best, this was a misunderstanding that Cram was trying to take over.  But it gets a little too far, IMO, when people post things like, "and no you can't take it over."  It didn't have to get contentious. 
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 22, 2012, 07:40:08 PM
That may, but you can't say it wasn't a faux pas to suggest we do it right now before the project has even peaked.

QuoteBut it gets a little too far, IMO, when people post things like, "and no you can't take it over."  It didn't have to get contentious.

As for this, it didn't get contentious until people started jumping on Nigel for it.  Cram could have taken it in stride, but instead said "excuse me?" (which strikes me more of someone who didn't expect someone to call him on his shenanigans rather than honest puzzlement).

And Nigel very clearly stated her reasons for saying what she did, in a calm manner, so it isn't like she started it.
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: LMNO on February 22, 2012, 07:42:42 PM
Hey, everyone,

I think I need to apologize for the way this thread has gone.  I'm afraid I wasn't on the board when this started going down. If I had been, I would have answered in the same way:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 21, 2012, 06:38:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 05:06:51 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 21, 2012, 04:00:48 PM
That's still kinda not finished, isn't it?

Perhaps --- but I don't think anybody's gonna declare it "done". As soon as there've been no new submissions for a week, I'd say that's a good indicator that we're out of steam on it. Also, having a "first draft" pamphlet is often what we need to see what the project is missing.

Not to speak for Nigel, only for myself:  If you can leave it open ended, with the ability to add as much stuff as we want at any moment, why the hell not?  I'm not done with it, and I'm not going to stop until I think I've said my piece.  But if you want to keep adding onto whatever drafts you want to create, go for it.

I mean, after I had started the Spider Project, something like a dozen more pieces showed up; but I didn't declare them invalid.  The project simply grew.


For the record, I've worked with Cram on a few things, most notable the CTC, and even if our views on C(K)optright/Left don't always align, I never once thought he was hijacking or stealing ideas in the way that's been implied.  Part of his talent include layout and publishing, and I think he was simply eager to lend a hand in whatever way he could.

Also for the record: I consider Roger a friend; I consider Nigel a friend; I consider Freeky a friend; I consider Charley a friend; I consider 000 a friend; I consider WHN (formerly RWHN) a friend; and I consider Cram a friend.  I appreciate my friends speaking up when they think something odd is going on, and I appreciate my friends wanting to help move projects forward.

I truly regret any static that has occurred.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: AFK on February 22, 2012, 07:46:47 PM
Oh look who's trying to hijack this thread with his even-handed diplomacy!  Who do you think you are mister man???
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: The Rev on February 22, 2012, 07:47:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 22, 2012, 07:42:42 PM
Hey, everyone,

I think I need to apologize for the way this thread has gone.  I'm afraid I wasn't on the board when this started going down. If I had been, I would have answered in the same way:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 21, 2012, 06:38:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 21, 2012, 05:06:51 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 21, 2012, 04:00:48 PM
That's still kinda not finished, isn't it?

Perhaps --- but I don't think anybody's gonna declare it "done". As soon as there've been no new submissions for a week, I'd say that's a good indicator that we're out of steam on it. Also, having a "first draft" pamphlet is often what we need to see what the project is missing.

Not to speak for Nigel, only for myself:  If you can leave it open ended, with the ability to add as much stuff as we want at any moment, why the hell not?  I'm not done with it, and I'm not going to stop until I think I've said my piece.  But if you want to keep adding onto whatever drafts you want to create, go for it.

I mean, after I had started the Spider Project, something like a dozen more pieces showed up; but I didn't declare them invalid.  The project simply grew.


For the record, I've worked with Cram on a few things, most notable the CTC, and even if our views on C(K)optright/Left don't always align, I never once thought he was hijacking or stealing ideas in the way that's been implied.  Part of his talent include layout and publishing, and I think he was simply eager to lend a hand in whatever way he could.

Also for the record: I consider Roger a friend; I consider Nigel a friend; I consider Freeky a friend; I consider Charley a friend; I consider 000 a friend; I consider WHN (formerly RWHN) a friend; and I consider Cram a friend.  I appreciate my friends speaking up when they think something odd is going on, and I appreciate my friends wanting to help move projects forward.

I truly regret any static that has occurred.

Well said, and back at you as a friend. I'll be at the Bar, where the cool kids never go.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 22, 2012, 07:49:38 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 07:46:47 PM
Oh look who's trying to hijack this thread with his even-handed diplomacy!  Who do you think you are mister man???

Let's string him up and leave him for the Dark Empress to play with.

:wink:
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 07:50:05 PM
Well said, LMNO.  As far as I'm concerned, I have stated my position (my post at the bottom of the last page).  Argument's over, in my book.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Cramulus on February 22, 2012, 08:17:52 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 22, 2012, 04:20:57 PM
selling copies of Intermittens (full of other people's work) for beer money.

that's never happened, btw
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 22, 2012, 08:32:40 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 22, 2012, 08:17:52 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 22, 2012, 04:20:57 PM
selling copies of Intermittens (full of other people's work) for beer money.

that's never happened, btw

I know it didn't happen, because there were pages and pages of very upset people pissed at you for saying you were going to do it, explaining to you why it would be wrong to do it, and explicitly stating that you did not have their permission to make money off of their work.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Cramulus on February 22, 2012, 08:36:49 PM
you're thinking of lysergic, who wanted to sell them at his friend's magazine stand in Melbourne
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 22, 2012, 08:45:17 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 22, 2012, 08:36:49 PM
you're thinking of lysergic, who wanted to sell them at his friend's magazine stand in Melbourne

If I am mistaken about you saying you were going to sell copies of Intermittens, then I am truly very sorry, because I have based my reactions to you and avoidance of contributing to your projects entirely on behavior which I consider misappropriation, and that (along with reposting other people's writing without asking) is one of the occurrences that raised a red flag for me. If that wasn't you, and you never mentioned selling copies of Intermittens, I sincerely owe you a huge apology, because that's no minor accusation in my mind.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Cramulus on February 22, 2012, 08:53:15 PM
Thanks Nigel, I appreciate that.


eta: IIRC we did have some hot discussion about if/how to monetize Intermittens, and once we passed through the seasons of discord and confusion, the end result was agreement - ultimately, nobody would try to monetize or sell anything, and we'd all be really explicit about licenses so as to avoid future permissions issues.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 22, 2012, 10:44:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:59:35 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 06:54:19 PM
I only jumped in because I think Cram is getting a raw deal.  I think the guy just wanted to jump in and help,

Cram didn't respect LMNO enough to let LMNO edit his own project.

That's about the best spin that can be put on this.  And that's what it all comes down to, isn't it?  Respect, or the lack thereof.  Posting Cram's poem to 23AE without permission, then acting like Cram was out of line for mentioning it, is another good example.

Respect?

:lulz:

Fascinating lecture, Roger. A perfect blend of hypocrisy and incoherence.

You're comfortable with nasty libel if someone pisses you off, like calling Lys a pedo, or trying to make me out to be some kind of wicked misogynist. I'm on good terms with all of my ex-girlfriends and reconciled with Nigel regarding my offensive comments towards her. You seem to want to dig up drama to have someone to dehumanize, which sometimes you seem to relish more than being in accord with the truth.

It didn't work on Cram and it's not going to work with me either. I know I'm a decent human being no matter how high you ratchet your FoxNews-style politics of personal destruction. I've made plenty of mistakes here and owned them. Lately, you seem incapable of self scrutiny and it's only a matter of time before that shit catches up with you.

"Posting Cram's poem to 23AE without permission, then acting like Cram was out of line for mentioning it, is another good example." WTF? Is this early onset dementia? The return of your brain eating virus? Maybe you should get that checked out, for serious, that doesn't look like a normal set of typos.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 22, 2012, 10:50:53 PM
He meant Cain's poem.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Placid Dingo on February 22, 2012, 11:05:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 07:21:07 PM
I don't see that anybody won.

QFT
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 11:41:40 PM
Quote from: Net on February 22, 2012, 10:44:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:59:35 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 06:54:19 PM
I only jumped in because I think Cram is getting a raw deal.  I think the guy just wanted to jump in and help,

Cram didn't respect LMNO enough to let LMNO edit his own project.

That's about the best spin that can be put on this.  And that's what it all comes down to, isn't it?  Respect, or the lack thereof.  Posting Cram's poem to 23AE without permission, then acting like Cram was out of line for mentioning it, is another good example.

Respect?

:lulz:

Fascinating lecture, Roger. A perfect blend of hypocrisy and incoherence.


Given your history, you have zero moral authority to comment on hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 11:42:54 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 22, 2012, 10:50:53 PM
He meant Cain's poem.

Of course.  But why allow an obvious typo to get in the way of ragging on an illness someone had?

Net is absolute scum, so his opinion isn't really of any consequence.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 22, 2012, 11:53:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 11:41:40 PM
Quote from: Net on February 22, 2012, 10:44:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:59:35 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 06:54:19 PM
I only jumped in because I think Cram is getting a raw deal.  I think the guy just wanted to jump in and help,

Cram didn't respect LMNO enough to let LMNO edit his own project.

That's about the best spin that can be put on this.  And that's what it all comes down to, isn't it?  Respect, or the lack thereof.  Posting Cram's poem to 23AE without permission, then acting like Cram was out of line for mentioning it, is another good example.

Respect?

:lulz:

Fascinating lecture, Roger. A perfect blend of hypocrisy and incoherence.


Given your history, you have zero moral authority to comment on hypocrisy.

Yes yes, I'm inhuman scum and your rage is never misdirected.

Carry on.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 11:56:17 PM
Quote from: Net on February 22, 2012, 11:53:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 11:41:40 PM
Quote from: Net on February 22, 2012, 10:44:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 06:59:35 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 22, 2012, 06:54:19 PM
I only jumped in because I think Cram is getting a raw deal.  I think the guy just wanted to jump in and help,

Cram didn't respect LMNO enough to let LMNO edit his own project.

That's about the best spin that can be put on this.  And that's what it all comes down to, isn't it?  Respect, or the lack thereof.  Posting Cram's poem to 23AE without permission, then acting like Cram was out of line for mentioning it, is another good example.

Respect?

:lulz:

Fascinating lecture, Roger. A perfect blend of hypocrisy and incoherence.


Given your history, you have zero moral authority to comment on hypocrisy.

Yes yes, I'm inhuman scum and your rage is never misdirected.

Carry on.

Oh, my rage may wander, but I knew you were scum when you decided that the flyers I had written were YOURS (not "ours"), because you slapped some clip art on them.

Your opinion hasn't meant shit since then, and your actions have only confirmed my lack of regard for you.

But what the hell are you complaining about?  You spend loads of time trying to vent your ancient, dusty butthurt, so I decided to oblige you, because it amuses me.

You're not "inhuman", you're just a worthless human.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 23, 2012, 12:27:19 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 11:56:17 PM
But what the hell are you complaining about?  You spend loads of time trying to vent your ancient, dusty butthurt, so I decided to oblige you, because it amuses me.

:lulz:

I'm the one who dug it all up to rehash yet again. Righto.

You were capable of understanding that the layout work was the only thing I was laying claim to, and you agreed that I should have a say about their use. We both agreed that those flyers are dead, but I see you conveniently forgot that in order to demonize me.

It amuses you to dehumanize people over misunderstandings and settled conflicts, that much is clear.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2012, 12:33:27 AM
Quote from: Net on February 23, 2012, 12:27:19 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 11:56:17 PM
But what the hell are you complaining about?  You spend loads of time trying to vent your ancient, dusty butthurt, so I decided to oblige you, because it amuses me.

:lulz:

I'm the one who dug it all up to rehash yet again. Righto.

You were capable of understanding that the layout work was the only thing I was laying claim to, and you agreed that I should have a say about their use. We both agreed that those flyers are dead, but I see you conveniently forgot that in order to demonize me.

It amuses you to dehumanize people over misunderstandings and settled conflicts, that much is clear.

1.  You're the one who followed me around PD for the last few days, spoiling for a fight (particularly in Danjan's thread).

2.  Nope.  You said they were YOUR fliers, and refused the idea that they were OUR fliers.

3.  Again, I'm not dehumanizing you.  It's possible to be both a human and an utter scumbag; you are proof of this.

4.  And as for you comment about "respect", I respect lots of people.  Just not you.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 23, 2012, 12:56:50 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2012, 12:33:27 AM
Quote from: Net on February 23, 2012, 12:27:19 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2012, 11:56:17 PM
But what the hell are you complaining about?  You spend loads of time trying to vent your ancient, dusty butthurt, so I decided to oblige you, because it amuses me.

:lulz:

I'm the one who dug it all up to rehash yet again. Righto.

You were capable of understanding that the layout work was the only thing I was laying claim to, and you agreed that I should have a say about their use. We both agreed that those flyers are dead, but I see you conveniently forgot that in order to demonize me.

It amuses you to dehumanize people over misunderstandings and settled conflicts, that much is clear.

1.  You're the one who followed me around PD for the last few days, spoiling for a fight (particularly in Danjan's thread).

2.  Nope.  You said they were YOUR fliers, and refused the idea that they were OUR fliers.

3.  Again, I'm not dehumanizing you.  It's possible to be both a human and an utter scumbag; you are proof of this.

4.  And as for you comment about "respect", I respect lots of people.  Just not you.

1. Where was I spoiling for a fight in Danjan's thread? It sounds like I really rattled my saber there, so go ahead and repost my horrible provocations for all to see.

2. My version of your fliers. And yes, you agreed I deserved a say about how they are used and you agreed that they are dead.

3. :lol: I'm not dehumanizing you, I'm just saying you have absolutely no value as a human being. Whatever happened to your deep respect for dictionary entries?

4. Because I stood up for my rights as a graphic artist, and that's wrong.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2012, 12:58:38 AM
Quote from: Net on February 23, 2012, 12:56:50 AM

3. :lol: I'm not dehumanizing you, I'm just saying you have absolutely no value as a human being. Whatever happened to your deep respect for dictionary entries?

No, I said you're a worthless human being.  There's lots of those around.


Quote from: Net on February 23, 2012, 12:56:50 AM
4. Because I stood up for my rights as a graphic artist, and that's wrong.

Because you're a thief.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 23, 2012, 01:02:06 AM
Quote from: Net on February 23, 2012, 12:56:50 AM


3. :lol: I'm not dehumanizing you, I'm just saying you have absolutely no value as a human being. Whatever happened to your deep respect for dictionary entries?

dehumanize or dehumanise  (diːˈhjuːməˌnaɪz)

— vb
1.    to deprive of human qualities
2.    to render mechanical, artificial, or routine

human  (ˈhjuːmən)

— adj
1.    of, characterizing, or relating to man and mankind: human nature
2.    consisting of people: the human race ; a human chain
3.    having the attributes of man as opposed to animals, divine beings, or machines: human failings
4.    a. kind or considerate
   b. natural

worthless  (ˈwɜːθlɪs)

— adj
1.    without practical value or usefulness
2.    without merit; good-for-nothing


Not that you'll grant it any merit at all, for reasons you aren't sharing.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 23, 2012, 01:25:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2012, 12:58:38 AM
Quote from: Net on February 23, 2012, 12:56:50 AM
4. Because I stood up for my rights as a graphic artist, and that's wrong.

Because you're a thief.

What did I steal, Roger?

Oh that's right, I posted the flyers in the same thread they were taken from and you never felt wronged and even complimented my shitty designs until I decided to dissociate myself from your crazy ass. You finally agreed that I do have rights in laying out your writing and said I deserved a say in the use of that work. We both agreed that the flyers should die.

I should have known you wouldn't keep your word and would trot out your paranoid version of events when it suited you.


Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2012, 12:33:27 AM
1.  You're the one who followed me around PD for the last few days, spoiling for a fight (particularly in Danjan's thread).

I didn't even post in Danjan's thread, you're seeing shit that isn't there. Like I said, you're out of your gourd.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2012, 01:29:32 AM
Quote from: Net on February 23, 2012, 01:25:12 AM

Oh that's right, I posted the flyers in the same thread they were taken from and you never felt wronged and even complimented my shitty designs until I decided to dissociate myself from your crazy ass. You finally agreed that I do have rights in laying out your writing and said I deserved a say in the use of that work. We both agreed that the flyers should die.


What's any of that got to do with them being "your" fliers?  That's why I wanted them to die, Net.  I didn't want to be connected to you in any way, not after you claimed they were yours, and after you spent page after page shrieking "SLUT!" at Nigel.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2012, 01:30:09 AM
Freeky, he won't answer you on account of Paul of Tarsus.   :lulz:
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 23, 2012, 01:39:14 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2012, 01:29:32 AM
Quote from: Net on February 23, 2012, 01:25:12 AM

Oh that's right, I posted the flyers in the same thread they were taken from and you never felt wronged and even complimented my shitty designs until I decided to dissociate myself from your crazy ass. You finally agreed that I do have rights in laying out your writing and said I deserved a say in the use of that work. We both agreed that the flyers should die.


What's any of that got to do with them being "your" fliers?  That's why I wanted them to die, Net.  I didn't want to be connected to you in any way, not after you claimed they were yours, and after you spent page after page shrieking "SLUT!" at Nigel.

I never claimed those fliers as my own.

Also, I earned Nigel's forgiveness and even shared a magnificent hug with her not too long ago.

You're grasping at straws here.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 23, 2012, 01:41:37 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2012, 01:30:09 AM
Freeky, he won't answer you on account of Paul of Tarsus.   :lulz:

I'm gonna have to look that up, I'm not up to date on my Bible myths.  :lol: 
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2012, 01:43:07 AM
Quote from: Net on February 23, 2012, 01:39:14 AM

I never claimed those fliers as my own.


You said "My fliers."

I said "Don't you mean 'our fliers'?"

You said, "No, they're mine.  Do you know how hard it is to find free clip art, blah blah".

Thread still exists.

Incidentally, Nigel may forgive you...It doesn't mean you're still not a shit and a hypocrite for what you said.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2012, 01:45:01 AM
Anyway, this is getting boring (even the hilarity of you being unable to respond to Freeky, cause she's a girl), so I'll leave you to your impotent rage.

G'night, Corky!
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2012, 01:45:41 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 23, 2012, 01:41:37 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2012, 01:30:09 AM
Freeky, he won't answer you on account of Paul of Tarsus.   :lulz:

I'm gonna have to look that up, I'm not up to date on my Bible myths.  :lol:

He's the misogynist prick that wrote the last chunk of the bible.  Spent all his time explaining what a woman's place was.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 23, 2012, 01:52:15 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2012, 01:45:41 AM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 23, 2012, 01:41:37 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2012, 01:30:09 AM
Freeky, he won't answer you on account of Paul of Tarsus.   :lulz:

I'm gonna have to look that up, I'm not up to date on my Bible myths.  :lol:

He's the misogynist prick that wrote the last chunk of the bible.  Spent all his time explaining what a woman's place was.

Ohhh. :lol:
Title: Re: Re: Your Very Own Holy Book (TM)
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2012, 02:12:13 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 06:12:58 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 21, 2012, 06:07:45 PM
I'm done with the project.

And here we go.  First one down.  The fucking thing will be tatters and rags by next week.

Another PD project crashes in fucking flames.  Thank you so very much, Cram.  But isn't that a small price to pay for your fucking relentless self-promotion machine?

For what it's worth, the above went too far inre: Cram.  My apologies.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2012, 02:16:57 AM
That being said, I'm out.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2012, 04:01:29 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 22, 2012, 08:36:49 PM
you're thinking of lysergic, who wanted to sell them at his friend's magazine stand in Melbourne

I found the thread. http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,20615.0.html

It's exactly what I remembered it being. The basis for my original objection stands.

I want to clarify that it's not a single damning event, it's that discussion in addition to a cumulative impression gained from a number of situations in which people have expressed having had their materials used without authorization. Things blow over each time, but that negative impression sticks, and I'm left with a pretty strong sense that leaving anything undefined puts it at risk for misappropriation.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 23, 2012, 05:01:38 PM
Alright, dickholes,

I started a thread offering what I hoped might be a useful service for folks based on what I'm good at. I specified in the OP that everything would be checked for proper redistribution permissions before going forward with a project, because even though I hate the idea of things related to any religion (fake or no) being copyrighted I respect the people on this board enough to try not to step on toes. And what do you do? You shit it all up with interpersonal drama that I have no part of. Not only that, but you manage to work yourselves into a fucking conniption fit to the point where multiple people are now threatening to stop participating in projects. After all the whining about lurkers and the boards dying and people not hauling their own weight around here.

MAYBE IF YOU COULD KEEP YOUR GODDAMN DRAMA IN CHECK WHEN PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO DO NICE THINGS, YOU MIGHT GET TO HAVE MORE NICE THINGS. ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PEOPLE IN QUESTION HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR INCESTUOUS CLUSTERFUCK OF OLD GRUDGES AND PERSONAL DISTASTE FOR ONE ANOTHER.

yesimad
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: AFK on February 23, 2012, 05:17:37 PM
We're one of THOSE families Gogira.

We shout at each other a lot. 

We bitch about stupid stuff.

We like to poke at each other's squishy underbellies.  (LMNO doesn't complain)

It's been that way as long as I've been here and that's a long time.

Granted, there are periods where it seems to be a bit excessive.

Anyway, I guess that's a common wall right there, eh? 
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 23, 2012, 05:21:25 PM
Maybe its because we're one of those families that our creativity has dropped off... a 5 page thread of creativity, and a 9 page thread fighting over the creative thread.

Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on February 23, 2012, 05:24:11 PM
I think gogira has a point. I dont think were less creative just that board meltdowns direct all of the energy elsewhere. I try to avoid getting involved in any drama. But there i go clicking the thread again to see if its stopped yet.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 23, 2012, 05:28:12 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 23, 2012, 05:17:37 PM
We're one of THOSE families Gogira.

We shout at each other a lot. 

We bitch about stupid stuff.

We like to poke at each other's squishy underbellies.  (LMNO doesn't complain)

It's been that way as long as I've been here and that's a long time.

Granted, there are periods where it seems to be a bit excessive.

Anyway, I guess that's a common wall right there, eh?
I know stuff like this is pretty much unavoidable in online communities, and I'm not mad that it's a thing. I just wish people could compartmentalize the drama better so it doesn't get in the way of productive things.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: AFK on February 23, 2012, 05:33:44 PM
Can't disagree with any of that. 
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 23, 2012, 05:41:24 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 23, 2012, 05:24:11 PM
I think gogira has a point. I dont think were less creative just that board meltdowns direct all of the energy elsewhere.

That may be so, but what's someone supposed to do if something goes down regarding something they're involved with that they're not comfortable with?  Especially when they have good reason to feel uncomfortable?  Suck it up?

I'm not one for taking my ball and going home because it's pointless and dumb and the people who say stuff like that are always returning to normal posting habits pretty quickly, but if that's what you're saying then I think I really will be avoiding collab projects.  And that makes me sadface and upset.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Cramulus on February 23, 2012, 05:46:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2012, 02:12:13 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 06:12:58 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 21, 2012, 06:07:45 PM
I'm done with the project.

And here we go.  First one down.  The fucking thing will be tatters and rags by next week.

Another PD project crashes in fucking flames.  Thank you so very much, Cram.  But isn't that a small price to pay for your fucking relentless self-promotion machine?

For what it's worth, the above went too far inre: Cram.  My apologies.

thanks, sincerely

but - what about the accusation that I'm out to steal the project?

Quote from: WolfShitneck on February 21, 2012, 05:56:42 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 21, 2012, 05:55:50 PM
I didnt see crams post as an attempt to take over the project.

Me either.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 05:57:52 PM
I can't see how it could be taken any other way.

Please enlighten me.

because I'm still trying to figure out why I got flamed for suggesting that maybe we should start talking about design. That kind of suggestion is not inappropriate for ANY project*. It's a real stretch to call that an act of theft. And it's become a platform to air out overblown drama about how I steal everybody's content.

So while I appreciate your acknowledgement that you went too far in calling me a "fucking relentless self-promotion machine", that's only a slice of the bullshit ITT, and frankly I'm still kinda sore.



*and if those kinds of suggestions are now off-limits for anybody but the "editor", then collaboration really is dead here


Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on February 23, 2012, 05:48:53 PM
No if someone has concerns about something they should be voiced. I think on my end when this happens ill make an effort to keep whatever im doing going rather than just quietly observing whats going on.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 23, 2012, 06:12:56 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 23, 2012, 05:41:24 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 23, 2012, 05:24:11 PM
I think gogira has a point. I dont think were less creative just that board meltdowns direct all of the energy elsewhere.

That may be so, but what's someone supposed to do if something goes down regarding something they're involved with that they're not comfortable with?  Especially when they have good reason to feel uncomfortable?  Suck it up?

I'm not one for taking my ball and going home because it's pointless and dumb and the people who say stuff like that are always returning to normal posting habits pretty quickly, but if that's what you're saying then I think I really will be avoiding collab projects.  And that makes me sadface and upset.

The thing is, what people are yelling about here is stuff that's WAAAAAY before my time, and obviously has nothing to do with the Your Very Own Holy BookTM in any way, besides being triggered by one of the posts in that thread. If you've got business yelling at people about things, then the yelling needs to happen. It just shouldn't happen to the detriment of new projects that are unrelated to the drama.

Ideally, it would have been nice to see someone attached to Common Walls come in and tell Cram that he was stepping on toes, and could he maybe not do that, and then have this big explosion in a call out thread somewhere else so the rest of the productive thread could have moved on.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Doktor Howl on February 23, 2012, 06:18:48 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 23, 2012, 06:12:56 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 23, 2012, 05:41:24 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 23, 2012, 05:24:11 PM
I think gogira has a point. I dont think were less creative just that board meltdowns direct all of the energy elsewhere.

That may be so, but what's someone supposed to do if something goes down regarding something they're involved with that they're not comfortable with?  Especially when they have good reason to feel uncomfortable?  Suck it up?

I'm not one for taking my ball and going home because it's pointless and dumb and the people who say stuff like that are always returning to normal posting habits pretty quickly, but if that's what you're saying then I think I really will be avoiding collab projects.  And that makes me sadface and upset.

The thing is, what people are yelling about here is stuff that's WAAAAAY before my time, and obviously has nothing to do with the Your Very Own Holy BookTM in any way, besides being triggered by one of the posts in that thread. If you've got business yelling at people about things, then the yelling needs to happen. It just shouldn't happen to the detriment of new projects that are unrelated to the drama.

Ideally, it would have been nice to see someone attached to Common Walls come in and tell Cram that he was stepping on toes, and could he maybe not do that, and then have this big explosion in a call out thread somewhere else so the rest of the productive thread could have moved on.

Please see my response to your and LMNO's post in The Waiting Place, up in Apple Talk.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Doktor Howl on February 23, 2012, 06:19:38 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 23, 2012, 05:46:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2012, 02:12:13 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2012, 06:12:58 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 21, 2012, 06:07:45 PM
I'm done with the project.

And here we go.  First one down.  The fucking thing will be tatters and rags by next week.

Another PD project crashes in fucking flames.  Thank you so very much, Cram.  But isn't that a small price to pay for your fucking relentless self-promotion machine?

For what it's worth, the above went too far inre: Cram.  My apologies.

thanks, sincerely

but - what about the accusation that I'm out to steal the project?

If TGRR was alive today, he'd also extend an apology for that, too.

But since he isn't, I'll take the liberty of doing so.  I am sorry.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Doktor Howl on February 23, 2012, 06:22:54 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 23, 2012, 05:48:53 PM
No if someone has concerns about something they should be voiced. I think on my end when this happens ill make an effort to keep whatever im doing going rather than just quietly observing whats going on.

Yes, but the concerns can be voiced in something less than a loud monkey screech.

And they don't have to accelerate from zero to thermonuclear explosion in 4 posts.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Cramulus on February 23, 2012, 06:26:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 23, 2012, 06:19:38 PM
If TGRR was alive today, he'd also extend an apology for that, too.

But since he isn't, I'll take the liberty of doing so.  I am sorry.

Thank you Dok, I appreciate that a great deal.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 23, 2012, 06:44:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 23, 2012, 06:22:54 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 23, 2012, 05:48:53 PM
No if someone has concerns about something they should be voiced. I think on my end when this happens ill make an effort to keep whatever im doing going rather than just quietly observing whats going on.

Yes, but the concerns can be voiced in something less than a loud monkey screech.

And they don't have to accelerate from zero to thermonuclear explosion in 4 posts.

Damn right, Dok.

Hell, that's a really good moment to use a private message, IMO.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on February 23, 2012, 06:49:32 PM
Yeah if it threatens to start spagging up a thread its probably better to use pm.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Eater of Clowns on February 23, 2012, 06:51:55 PM
That's it!  I want all my content pulled from the project!   :evilmad:
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Doktor Howl on February 23, 2012, 06:54:41 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 23, 2012, 06:12:56 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 23, 2012, 05:41:24 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 23, 2012, 05:24:11 PM
I think gogira has a point. I dont think were less creative just that board meltdowns direct all of the energy elsewhere.

That may be so, but what's someone supposed to do if something goes down regarding something they're involved with that they're not comfortable with?  Especially when they have good reason to feel uncomfortable?  Suck it up?

I'm not one for taking my ball and going home because it's pointless and dumb and the people who say stuff like that are always returning to normal posting habits pretty quickly, but if that's what you're saying then I think I really will be avoiding collab projects.  And that makes me sadface and upset.

The thing is, what people are yelling about here is stuff that's WAAAAAY before my time, and obviously has nothing to do with the Your Very Own Holy BookTM in any way, besides being triggered by one of the posts in that thread. If you've got business yelling at people about things, then the yelling needs to happen. It just shouldn't happen to the detriment of new projects that are unrelated to the drama.

Ideally, it would have been nice to see someone attached to Common Walls come in and tell Cram that he was stepping on toes, and could he maybe not do that, and then have this big explosion in a call out thread somewhere else so the rest of the productive thread could have moved on.

Just so you're aware, this is a call out thread.  Your original thread was split, per your request.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 23, 2012, 07:19:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 23, 2012, 06:54:41 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 23, 2012, 06:12:56 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 23, 2012, 05:41:24 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 23, 2012, 05:24:11 PM
I think gogira has a point. I dont think were less creative just that board meltdowns direct all of the energy elsewhere.

That may be so, but what's someone supposed to do if something goes down regarding something they're involved with that they're not comfortable with?  Especially when they have good reason to feel uncomfortable?  Suck it up?

I'm not one for taking my ball and going home because it's pointless and dumb and the people who say stuff like that are always returning to normal posting habits pretty quickly, but if that's what you're saying then I think I really will be avoiding collab projects.  And that makes me sadface and upset.

The thing is, what people are yelling about here is stuff that's WAAAAAY before my time, and obviously has nothing to do with the Your Very Own Holy BookTM in any way, besides being triggered by one of the posts in that thread. If you've got business yelling at people about things, then the yelling needs to happen. It just shouldn't happen to the detriment of new projects that are unrelated to the drama.

Ideally, it would have been nice to see someone attached to Common Walls come in and tell Cram that he was stepping on toes, and could he maybe not do that, and then have this big explosion in a call out thread somewhere else so the rest of the productive thread could have moved on.

Just so you're aware, this is a call out thread.  Your original thread was split, per your request.
It was, and I'm glad for that, it just would have been better if it happened before spagging up the other thing for four pages.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Doktor Howl on February 23, 2012, 07:22:32 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 23, 2012, 07:19:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 23, 2012, 06:54:41 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 23, 2012, 06:12:56 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 23, 2012, 05:41:24 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 23, 2012, 05:24:11 PM
I think gogira has a point. I dont think were less creative just that board meltdowns direct all of the energy elsewhere.

That may be so, but what's someone supposed to do if something goes down regarding something they're involved with that they're not comfortable with?  Especially when they have good reason to feel uncomfortable?  Suck it up?

I'm not one for taking my ball and going home because it's pointless and dumb and the people who say stuff like that are always returning to normal posting habits pretty quickly, but if that's what you're saying then I think I really will be avoiding collab projects.  And that makes me sadface and upset.

The thing is, what people are yelling about here is stuff that's WAAAAAY before my time, and obviously has nothing to do with the Your Very Own Holy BookTM in any way, besides being triggered by one of the posts in that thread. If you've got business yelling at people about things, then the yelling needs to happen. It just shouldn't happen to the detriment of new projects that are unrelated to the drama.

Ideally, it would have been nice to see someone attached to Common Walls come in and tell Cram that he was stepping on toes, and could he maybe not do that, and then have this big explosion in a call out thread somewhere else so the rest of the productive thread could have moved on.

Just so you're aware, this is a call out thread.  Your original thread was split, per your request.
It was, and I'm glad for that, it just would have been better if it happened before spagging up the other thing for four pages.

For us, that's considered a fairly rapid recovery.  We've gone 50 pages in three hours, arguing about free market economics in a thread about music.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 23, 2012, 07:30:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 23, 2012, 07:22:32 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 23, 2012, 07:19:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 23, 2012, 06:54:41 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 23, 2012, 06:12:56 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 23, 2012, 05:41:24 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 23, 2012, 05:24:11 PM
I think gogira has a point. I dont think were less creative just that board meltdowns direct all of the energy elsewhere.

That may be so, but what's someone supposed to do if something goes down regarding something they're involved with that they're not comfortable with?  Especially when they have good reason to feel uncomfortable?  Suck it up?

I'm not one for taking my ball and going home because it's pointless and dumb and the people who say stuff like that are always returning to normal posting habits pretty quickly, but if that's what you're saying then I think I really will be avoiding collab projects.  And that makes me sadface and upset.

The thing is, what people are yelling about here is stuff that's WAAAAAY before my time, and obviously has nothing to do with the Your Very Own Holy BookTM in any way, besides being triggered by one of the posts in that thread. If you've got business yelling at people about things, then the yelling needs to happen. It just shouldn't happen to the detriment of new projects that are unrelated to the drama.

Ideally, it would have been nice to see someone attached to Common Walls come in and tell Cram that he was stepping on toes, and could he maybe not do that, and then have this big explosion in a call out thread somewhere else so the rest of the productive thread could have moved on.

Just so you're aware, this is a call out thread.  Your original thread was split, per your request.
It was, and I'm glad for that, it just would have been better if it happened before spagging up the other thing for four pages.

For us, that's considered a fairly rapid recovery.  We've gone 50 pages in three hours, arguing about free market economics in a thread about music.
Good point. I think I'm a little more sensitive about it than I should be because this is the second time I've accidentally sparked an argument between TGRR and Cram, and I really love both of their output. Like, way more than I want to say because I don't want to get in a brown nosing situation. It's got me in a very "Mommy, daddy, stop fighting!" place, which is pretty idiotic primate behavior to begin with.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Doktor Howl on February 23, 2012, 08:22:32 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 23, 2012, 07:30:40 PM
Good point. I think I'm a little more sensitive about it than I should be because this is the second time I've accidentally sparked an argument between TGRR and Cram

Those two spags would argue if you hanged them with a brand new rope.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 24, 2012, 12:02:47 AM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 23, 2012, 06:12:56 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on February 23, 2012, 05:41:24 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 23, 2012, 05:24:11 PM
I think gogira has a point. I dont think were less creative just that board meltdowns direct all of the energy elsewhere.

That may be so, but what's someone supposed to do if something goes down regarding something they're involved with that they're not comfortable with?  Especially when they have good reason to feel uncomfortable?  Suck it up?

I'm not one for taking my ball and going home because it's pointless and dumb and the people who say stuff like that are always returning to normal posting habits pretty quickly, but if that's what you're saying then I think I really will be avoiding collab projects.  And that makes me sadface and upset.

The thing is, what people are yelling about here is stuff that's WAAAAAY before my time, and obviously has nothing to do with the Your Very Own Holy BookTM in any way, besides being triggered by one of the posts in that thread. If you've got business yelling at people about things, then the yelling needs to happen. It just shouldn't happen to the detriment of new projects that are unrelated to the drama.

Ideally, it would have been nice to see someone attached to Common Walls come in and tell Cram that he was stepping on toes, and could he maybe not do that, and then have this big explosion in a call out thread somewhere else so the rest of the productive thread could have moved on.

Uh

That's exactly what I did. In my first post in this thread.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 24, 2012, 12:19:34 AM
Pardon me... my second post.

I explained my reasons for my reaction, and my reasons still stand. Including the incident that occurred last week, which is not at all before your time, LG.

There is this matter of principles and ethics, and I made the decision when I saw that last week that should Cram make any attempt to co-opt or give himself any reason to feel entitled to any pet project of mine, I would not remain silent. For one thing, as much as I do like him and appreciate his initiative and drive, I think Cram has a right to know how his inappropriately proprietary behavior towards other people's work has affected how people view him. I do not know how many times people here, including Cain, have said "Do not use my work without permission", but little things like lifting someone's poem for your own website without asking are really, actually, super uncool and disrespectful, even (or perhaps especially) if that person is an insider here and not a random Facebook discordian.

I would really appreciate it, and would have a lot more trust about posting my work here, if more people were willing to speak up and say that it's not cool to use or sell other people's work without permission. I would really like it if that was the consensus here. If that's not going to be the consensus, and the consensus is that I'm making much too big of a deal about it, then I am uncomfortable participating in group projects unless they have a clear leader, and that leader is one of the few people here who HAS spoken up about respecting other people's work. I want to know that for them that principle is clear, and not muddy or confused.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: East Coast Hustle on February 24, 2012, 01:34:46 AM
I don't know anything about any of what most of this thread seems to be about, but I do know that I don't think it's cool to use or sell anyone's work without their permission. That should be the default community standard here.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 24, 2012, 01:48:59 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 24, 2012, 01:34:46 AM
I don't know anything about any of what most of this thread seems to be about, but I do know that I don't think it's cool to use or sell anyone's work without their permission. That should be the default community standard here.

Good; I was already assuming I could add you to my list of people I'm comfortable collaborating with, but it's good to see you spell it out.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 24, 2012, 02:03:10 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 24, 2012, 01:34:46 AM
I don't know anything about any of what most of this thread seems to be about, but I do know that I don't think it's cool to use or sell anyone's work without their permission. That should be the default community standard here.
I don't think that was ever a question?

I was definitely very slack about this in the past, but since joining the community I've been trying to track down authors and add proper citations to the things I've made based on their preferences, and I've asked before starting any new things. And I would never try to sell someone else's stuff. Ever.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: EK WAFFLR on February 24, 2012, 02:34:30 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 24, 2012, 01:34:46 AM
I don't know anything about any of what most of this thread seems to be about, but I do know that I don't think it's cool to use or sell anyone's work without their permission. That should be the default community standard here.

So much this.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Placid Dingo on February 24, 2012, 02:52:38 AM
Quote from: Waffle Iron on February 24, 2012, 02:34:30 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 24, 2012, 01:34:46 AM
I don't know anything about any of what most of this thread seems to be about, but I do know that I don't think it's cool to use or sell anyone's work without their permission. That should be the default community standard here.

So much this.

What I'm Feeling is getting people frustrated (at any cost, me) is that nobody is disagreeig with this.

It would have been so easy to say 'hey Cram, cool that you're keen but don't forget that this is LMNO/Nigels baby, and they really get to make the call on when it's ready.'

I mean even IF Cram was about to try to swoop in and take over (which I don't believe) would this have been any worse a way to say it? I think both halves of the ShrodingerCram (the half taking over the project and the half not) would have just backed off.

I know that maybe you could say that we should be able to understand  where people come from but we have a track record of being very very bad at that, and devolving into screeching when a little diplomacy would have gone a long way.

Nigel, I appreciate what your concerns are, and while I have different standards for how people use my work, I'm very aware of the need for autonomy a individual has over their own work. But theres a lot of ways to avoid this mess, and if you don't like PMing (which again is cool) then could you please maybe tone down the inflamitory factor in things like this?
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 24, 2012, 04:04:55 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on February 24, 2012, 02:52:38 AM
Quote from: Waffle Iron on February 24, 2012, 02:34:30 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 24, 2012, 01:34:46 AM
I don't know anything about any of what most of this thread seems to be about, but I do know that I don't think it's cool to use or sell anyone's work without their permission. That should be the default community standard here.

So much this.

What I'm Feeling is getting people frustrated (at any cost, me) is that nobody is disagreeig with this.

It would have been so easy to say 'hey Cram, cool that you're keen but don't forget that this is LMNO/Nigels baby, and they really get to make the call on when it's ready.'

I mean even IF Cram was about to try to swoop in and take over (which I don't believe) would this have been any worse a way to say it? I think both halves of the ShrodingerCram (the half taking over the project and the half not) would have just backed off.

I know that maybe you could say that we should be able to understand  where people come from but we have a track record of being very very bad at that, and devolving into screeching when a little diplomacy would have gone a long way.

Nigel, I appreciate what your concerns are, and while I have different standards for how people use my work, I'm very aware of the need for autonomy a individual has over their own work. But theres a lot of ways to avoid this mess, and if you don't like PMing (which again is cool) then could you please maybe tone down the inflamitory factor in things like this?

Whoa, dick fucking move, sir.  I applaud the complete and total lack of reading comprehension that it must have taken for you to come to the conclusion that it's all Nigel's fault.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: LMNO on February 24, 2012, 04:59:57 AM
Freeky, he didn't say that. At the risk of getting involved, a nuance has developed, and I believe Nigel may have said that her reaction in the relevant incidence may have been over the top.

Please don't take the position that he is dismissing a strong woman's voice. Because I think that he is simply pointing back to TGRRs post in Waiting Room.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Placid Dingo on February 24, 2012, 05:25:29 AM
Shit, thanks LMNO.

I didn't realise that that discussion had happened as such which leaves me as the dicknozzle poking a dead argument. I apologise.

I only named names because I was talking about a specific instance and felt it would be cowardly to discuss the comment without having the respect to address the poster directly.

If it hadn't been quoted I'd redact the post, but I know that's frowned upon so I'll leave it.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 24, 2012, 05:30:18 AM
I, in turn, am sorry for jumping on you.  I'm quite ready to let this drop, only I felt it would be disloyal to not say something, because Nigel wasn't the only one being inflammatory.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: LMNO on February 24, 2012, 05:31:30 AM
I truly think this has become toxic. Everyone apologizes to everyone, because we all got overly monkey, regardless of initial intentions.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Placid Dingo on February 24, 2012, 05:32:31 AM
Freeky I see how I worded things poorly.
I mean (and this really shouldn't, thinking about it now have been addressed to anyone specifically) that its nicer when peoples comments aren't worded in a way that people will predictably be upset by, not that Nigel or anyone else is responsible for inflaming things.

Edit; just saw your comment. Thanks, and agreed. I don't know why I jumped into this mess so late.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 24, 2012, 05:33:54 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 24, 2012, 05:31:30 AM
I truly think this has become toxic. Everyone apologizes to everyone, because we all got overly monkey, regardless of initial intentions.

There yer go agin, spoialin mah funnin.  Ptui.


(You're right, though.)
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: LMNO on February 24, 2012, 05:36:18 AM
Yuh kin hav bettur funnin wit da cabbages.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 24, 2012, 05:40:29 AM
I was about to commend you for your passable midwest accent, but then I remember you go to Montana sometimes.

:lulz: 
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: LMNO on February 24, 2012, 05:52:38 AM
Annual recon with the enclave of Big Gay Cowboys.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: kingyak on February 24, 2012, 05:55:43 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 24, 2012, 05:52:38 AM
Annual recon with the enclave of Big Gay Cowboys.

IGRA (http://www.igra.com)?
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 24, 2012, 05:56:52 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 24, 2012, 05:52:38 AM
Annual recon with the enclave of Big Gay Cowboys.

During which time people go missing, and then turn up a week later covered in glitter? 
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: LMNO on February 24, 2012, 05:57:51 AM
Amateurs. We'd never be caught on camera.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Freeky on February 24, 2012, 06:05:44 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 24, 2012, 05:57:51 AM
Amateurs. We'd never be caught on camera.

Ninjas have nothing on LMNO and his crowd. 

Just another reason why LMNO and his band of Big Gay Cowboys are a cut above the rest of us regular freaks.  8)
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: EK WAFFLR on February 24, 2012, 11:21:07 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on February 24, 2012, 02:52:38 AM
Quote from: Waffle Iron on February 24, 2012, 02:34:30 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 24, 2012, 01:34:46 AM
I don't know anything about any of what most of this thread seems to be about, but I do know that I don't think it's cool to use or sell anyone's work without their permission. That should be the default community standard here.

So much this.

What I'm Feeling is getting people frustrated (at any cost, me) is that nobody is disagreeig with this.

It would have been so easy to say 'hey Cram, cool that you're keen but don't forget that this is LMNO/Nigels baby, and they really get to make the call on when it's ready.'

I mean even IF Cram was about to try to swoop in and take over (which I don't believe) would this have been any worse a way to say it? I think both halves of the ShrodingerCram (the half taking over the project and the half not) would have just backed off.

I know that maybe you could say that we should be able to understand  where people come from but we have a track record of being very very bad at that, and devolving into screeching when a little diplomacy would have gone a long way.

Nigel, I appreciate what your concerns are, and while I have different standards for how people use my work, I'm very aware of the need for autonomy a individual has over their own work. But theres a lot of ways to avoid this mess, and if you don't like PMing (which again is cool) then could you please maybe tone down the inflamitory factor in things like this?

Just to clarify. I don't know any of y'all enough to take part in this recent feast. I just wanted to echo the sentiment I quoted.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: AFK on February 24, 2012, 11:49:58 AM
Here's my thing, and this is just me speaking,

Now that we've had this thing, perhaps now is a time to make a new list of current active authors laying out what they are okay with in terms of how their work is used.  So not just the usual stuff about whether or not we want attribtution, whether or not our stuff can be used in pamphlets, etc., but a new category of work being used in works that will be sold, whether they are sold to support pd.com or if the measly pittance of profits will be pocketed by the editor or editorial crew.

I would also suggest to anyone who has any notion that they would ever want to use their stuff in the future for commercial gain, perhaps not post it here.  ONe must remember, this site isn't only seen by all of us, but visitors as well.  I personally don't give a fuck.  My work here is under a pseudonym that I would never, ever publicly acknowledge or link to my real name.  I write this stuff because I enjoy it, I enjoy sharing it with y'all and whatever number of eyeballs see it when it is published.  I don't give a fuck if a spag makes a couple of bucks off of my stuff, it isn't any skin off of my back.

But, I do understand others not wanting that to happen.  So let's all lay it out somewhere in a reference thread and move on. 

In addition, when we start threads anywhere that we think might turn into a project, let's lay that out from the beginning.  "I think this will turn into something and I and I alone will put it together".  In other words, if collaboration isn't welcome from the rest of the gang, let's make sure we lay that out very explicitly.  That way, we don't stomp on people and dissuade people from wanting to engage in projects. 

Just a few cents, take them for what they are worth.  If you are Canadian, I guess they probably aren't worth all that much at all. 
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: AFK on February 24, 2012, 11:50:55 AM
And maybe that thread of who's comfortable with what should be in this forum where a lot of the source material tends to reside. 

Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Placid Dingo on February 24, 2012, 12:04:43 PM
Actually QGs done a good job of putting That all together in the kopyleft thread.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Telarus on February 24, 2012, 12:45:38 PM
I'd like to clear something up about Intermittens, as one of the first people to work on the thing as an actual collaborative product. I was layout editor for Issue 1.23, so while I had Cram's ear as content editor I saw an entirely different side of the monetization concept than everyone else, mainly because I had 'a stake' in Issue#1.23-as-an-item.

Whenever Cram discusseed possible monetization with me, it was always from the position that anyone who contributed content or skillset to Itermittens-as-a-whole would get exactly '1 share' (after costs) of any resulting income.


I'm still disappointed that Intermittens failed to become an income stream for the community.


Now, in my opinion, the public discussion was de-railed from the above by the fact that Intermittens was also going to be available free-for-no-charge on the website, and that there was really no way for the editorial-pirate-crew to functionally control third parties printing and making a profit from selling physical copies (which is what Lysergic assumed he could do, from the terms of the Intermittens license, which was "anyone can make one" flavored).

The two ideas simply weren't compatible. The fact that that blowback landed on Cram, as 1st editor, is really weaksauce, IMHO.

That said, I really like how we've moved on to discuss possible future works, and wanted to point out a past trap (as I saw it) with the incompatibility.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: AFK on February 24, 2012, 01:18:21 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on February 24, 2012, 12:04:43 PM
Actually QGs done a good job of putting That all together in the kopyleft thread.

It's kind of buried in that thread though, it isn't easy to find or decipher especially since there are so many inactive posters lumped into the list.  I'm just suggesting maybe a different, more easily accessed locale. 
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: LMNO on February 24, 2012, 01:40:59 PM
Or, we could ask the individual contributors of a thread at the time plans are being made.

I mean, I didn't remember what I said yesterday, much less several years ago when the Kopyleft Authors thread was made.  I'm glad QG bumped it though, because it needed revising.

I mean, posting "Are there any objections to collecting this into a non-profit printed collection? KOPYLEFT CHECK" with a follow up of direct PMs to the authors involved isn't that hard to do, and it allows the people who don't want their stuff used to say so in a simple and non-dramatic manner.  No assumptions are made, and permission is asked in the moment.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: AFK on February 24, 2012, 01:43:07 PM
Or that. 
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2012, 02:07:01 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 24, 2012, 04:59:57 AM
Freeky, he didn't say that. At the risk of getting involved, a nuance has developed, and I believe Nigel may have said that her reaction in the relevant incidence may have been over the top.

Please don't take the position that he is dismissing a strong woman's voice. Because I think that he is simply pointing back to TGRRs post in Waiting Room.

Whose?

:judge:
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: LMNO on February 24, 2012, 02:44:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2012, 02:07:01 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 24, 2012, 04:59:57 AM
Freeky, he didn't say that. At the risk of getting involved, a nuance has developed, and I believe Nigel may have said that her reaction in the relevant incidence may have been over the top.

Please don't take the position that he is dismissing a strong woman's voice. Because I think that he is simply pointing back to TGRRs post in Waiting Room.

Whose?

:judge:

Some spag who got lost in the desert.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2012, 03:00:33 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 24, 2012, 02:44:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2012, 02:07:01 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 24, 2012, 04:59:57 AM
Freeky, he didn't say that. At the risk of getting involved, a nuance has developed, and I believe Nigel may have said that her reaction in the relevant incidence may have been over the top.

Please don't take the position that he is dismissing a strong woman's voice. Because I think that he is simply pointing back to TGRRs post in Waiting Room.

Whose?

:judge:

Some spag who got lost in the desert.

He was a romantic, off looking for some doomed hero.

But there is no room in the New Century for romantics.  On the other hand, he took Knuckles with him, so he probably made it a good distance before being run down like a dog.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: LMNO on February 24, 2012, 03:02:06 PM
Javelina bait, basically.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2012, 03:11:50 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 24, 2012, 03:02:06 PM
Javelina bait, basically.

If the body thieves didn't get him first.  There you are, sheltering from the heat under your dead vehicle, and suddenly & out of nowhere, cracked leather boots appear on all sides of the vehicke around you, and then faces wearing unfriendly grins look under, at you.  And then, well, the scene fades to black, out of kindness and sensitivity to our younger viewers. 
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2012, 03:41:41 PM
Quote from: Telarus on February 24, 2012, 12:45:38 PM
I'm still disappointed that Intermittens failed to become an income stream for the community.

It still could.

But here's the thing:  Absolutely firm ground rules have to be established, works have to be included by permission, the editor has final say as to what goes in, and the fate of whatever tiny proceeds may occur must be uniform for all issues.  My suggestion is that they go towards board maintenance.  Lastly, it has to be understood that once something is ready for layout, permissions are final and irrevocable.

Though I say "must", these are the suggestions that I'd like to advance.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 24, 2012, 03:45:44 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 24, 2012, 04:59:57 AM
Freeky, he didn't say that. At the risk of getting involved, a nuance has developed, and I believe Nigel may have said that her reaction in the relevant incidence may have been over the top.

Please don't take the position that he is dismissing a strong woman's voice. Because I think that he is simply pointing back to TGRRs post in Waiting Room.

Nope. Cram denied ever saying that he was planning on selling intermittens for profit, and I said that if I was mistaken I owed him a huge apology, because that is not a small accusation. But then I found the thread in which he said it, so there is no need for me to back off.

Placid Dingo, for a reminder of how the conversation actually went, reread the first two pages of this thread. My exact words:

Quote from: Nigel on February 21, 2012, 05:34:07 PM
Yes, it's a collaborative board project, and no, you may not take it over.

Given the stunningly recent misappropriation of Cain's poem, combined with not-so-distant past actions, I may have been a little blunt, but certainly not, in my opinion, "over the top". I don't think it was an illegitimate concern that Cram might decide to take over publication or start posting pieces of it on 23ae. He said "Excuse me", I said "you're excused" and then my next post was:

QuoteLady Gogira, if you want to do anything with Common Walls, you will need to (out of common courtesy) talk to LMNO, as he started the thread and is the de facto project editor, as well as gaining consent from the individual contributors. I doubt that anyone would have a problem with you doing something with it, but that'll avoid any ruffled feathers.

A whole bunch of other people, many of whom are not involved with the project, inserted themselves, some reasonably, others less so, but I don't really think it's appropriate or correct to try to tar me with the "over the top" brush when I've been very careful to calmly state my concerns and the reasons for them.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: LMNO on February 24, 2012, 03:46:59 PM
Apologies for the misuse of language on my part.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 24, 2012, 03:52:55 PM
Thanks.

Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 24, 2012, 03:56:59 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2012, 03:41:41 PM
Quote from: Telarus on February 24, 2012, 12:45:38 PM
I'm still disappointed that Intermittens failed to become an income stream for the community.

It still could.

But here's the thing:  Absolutely firm ground rules have to be established, works have to be included by permission, the editor has final say as to what goes in, and the fate of whatever tiny proceeds may occur must be uniform for all issues.  My suggestion is that they go towards board maintenance.  Lastly, it has to be understood that once something is ready for layout, permissions are final and irrevocable.

Though I say "must", these are the suggestions that I'd like to advance.

There was no reason it can't, if someone is willing to do the work necessary, in advance, to ethically (and legally) do so.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2012, 04:01:05 PM
In fact, a proposal for ground rules:

1.  All works must have the permission of the author...This is given by each author posting in an accumulation thread.  No person other than the author of an article may post that article in the accumulation thread, under any circumstances (you cannot volunteer someone else's work).  The authors understand that the work may be sold in hardcopy, pdf, nook, kindle, whichever.  The layout date is announced once established, and once that date hits, the author may not retract permission.  Retraction of permission must occur in the accumulation thread.  If any member of the board is banned for some reason between granting permission and the accumulation date, the permission is automatically considered to be revoked.  Flouncing does not, in itself, revoke permission.

2.  The editor determines which work goes into the issue.

3.  The editor - or anyone else publishing/selling it - must donate all revenue above cost to the maintenance of PD.

4.  All work is used by permission.  The author maintains all rights to the material for any purpose other than its inclusion in the issue (ie, it's in the issue by permission, the editor - or anyone else - does not gain any further rights to the material).

5.  All authors are entitled to one copy (or PDF?) of the issue, should they so desire.  Shipping costs, if any, are the responsibility of the author, not the editor.

6.  The author assumes responsibility for copyright violation issues, should plagiarized work be turned in.  As far as I know, this has never happened, but the editor has no reasonable way to know, and the author does.

7.  If the issue is sold for profit, no person, not even the editor, may post the intermittens issue on the internet in its complete form (fair use/blurbs excepted) for two years after the issue is released, except by the agreement of the editor, all authors, and anyone else involved layout, etc).  After two years, it may be posted in its entirety (only), by any contributing member.

8.  Once chosen, the editor may not be changed without that editor's permission, unless that editor is gone or out of contact with PD, for more than 90 days.  Once a new/replacement editor has been chosen, a new accumulation date must be set.

9.  These rules (or the final form of them, as decided by everybody), will be posted in the OP of the accumulation thread, so there's no misunderstandings.

10.  Should, by some dint of the Free Market™, an intermittens issue somehow sell some ungodly number of issues, there will be no restructuring of revenue.  We'll just have Faust buy Ireland and use it as a server room.

Suggestions, criticisms?
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 24, 2012, 04:04:24 PM
I think that all sounds completely reasonable.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2012, 04:06:21 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 24, 2012, 04:04:24 PM
I think that all sounds completely reasonable.

Sure.  And if the issue is simply going to be given away as free fliers, PDFs, etc, that would be noted as well, and wouldn't affect any other rules.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: AFK on February 24, 2012, 04:14:41 PM
I think there should be a caveat to #3 in the instance that an editor is publishing a volume that is solely composed of their own work posted on PD.  In that case, IMO, they should do whatever they see fit with the profits.  But as soon as you include any work other than your own, the profits could go to PD.

Another caveat, IMO, that should be discussed is if a cohort of PDers, ALL, decide they want to share/split profits.  So if you have 5 spags putting something together that contains only work written by those 5 spags, I think it would be reasonable for them to keep and split those profits by whatever agreement they come up with.  But same as above, if you use a work by anyone other than those 5 spags, or if one spag doesn't agree, then the profits should go to PD.  Or they just should avoid selling them alltogether. 
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2012, 04:17:51 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 24, 2012, 04:14:41 PM
I think there should be a caveat to #3 in the instance that an editor is publishing a volume that is solely composed of their own work posted on PD.  In that case, IMO, they should do whatever they see fit with the profits.  But as soon as you include any work other than your own, the profits could go to PD.

Another caveat, IMO, that should be discussed is if a cohort of PDers, ALL, decide they want to share/split profits.  So if you have 5 spags putting something together that contains only work written by those 5 spags, I think it would be reasonable for them to keep and split those profits by whatever agreement they come up with.  But same as above, if you use a work by anyone other than those 5 spags, or if one spag doesn't agree, then the profits should go to PD.  Or they just should avoid selling them alltogether.

Oh, absolutely.  I was referring to Intermittens Issues.  Anyone that wants to use their own work can write any book they like, and any temporary cabal can do the same.

But we should keep it out of Intermittens, as that sort of arrangement almost always goes sour. 

From experience, you have no friends in publishing.  They may be your friends, and you may publish together, but while doing so, there is no "friend".
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 24, 2012, 04:18:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2012, 04:06:21 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 24, 2012, 04:04:24 PM
I think that all sounds completely reasonable.

Sure.  And if the issue is simply going to be given away as free fliers, PDFs, etc, that would be noted as well, and wouldn't affect any other rules.

That seems easy and straightforward.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: AFK on February 24, 2012, 04:21:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2012, 04:17:51 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on February 24, 2012, 04:14:41 PM
I think there should be a caveat to #3 in the instance that an editor is publishing a volume that is solely composed of their own work posted on PD.  In that case, IMO, they should do whatever they see fit with the profits.  But as soon as you include any work other than your own, the profits could go to PD.

Another caveat, IMO, that should be discussed is if a cohort of PDers, ALL, decide they want to share/split profits.  So if you have 5 spags putting something together that contains only work written by those 5 spags, I think it would be reasonable for them to keep and split those profits by whatever agreement they come up with.  But same as above, if you use a work by anyone other than those 5 spags, or if one spag doesn't agree, then the profits should go to PD.  Or they just should avoid selling them alltogether.

Oh, absolutely.  I was referring to Intermittens Issues.  Anyone that wants to use their own work can write any book they like, and any temporary cabal can do the same.

But we should keep it out of Intermittens, as that sort of arrangement almost always goes sour. 

From experience, you have no friends in publishing.  They may be your friends, and you may publish together, but while doing so, there is no "friend".

Agreed on all counts. 
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Placid Dingo on February 24, 2012, 10:12:30 PM
Nigel; I get what you're saying.


Everyone; maybe a good idea would be a standard IM lisence that is required to go in the back of any Intermittens work produced from this date forward that outlines the previous. That way there's some standards already explicit for production.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Placid Dingo on February 24, 2012, 10:15:42 PM
If it can be jpg'd too that would be swell. So I can say 'Hey [spag] I woul like to use [work] for the Intermittens project [number x].

If you're cool with doing so and are happy with the conditions [link to PDF-image-plaintext] let me know.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Triple Zero on February 25, 2012, 12:21:16 AM
I don't like rule#7. I can understand how it can be appropriate for certain publications but it's got no place in ground rules, as this is the 21st century and it's perfectly possible to sell hardcopy and offer PDF downloads for free, see Lulu.com for example.

Of course this is just my opinion, but since there's good chance that I won't be contributing anyway I don't get much of a say in it.

Well there's those photos I took. But I'd be quite happy if anyone would use those black-n-white iron fence pics for anything, so in those cases I'd go along with just about any proposal anyway.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Doktor Howl on February 25, 2012, 03:27:27 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 25, 2012, 12:21:16 AM
I don't like rule#7. I can understand how it can be appropriate for certain publications but it's got no place in ground rules, as this is the 21st century and it's perfectly possible to sell hardcopy and offer PDF downloads for free, see Lulu.com for example.

Of course this is just my opinion, but since there's good chance that I won't be contributing anyway I don't get much of a say in it.


This is pretty much opinion-based.  Everybody ought to speak their piece.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Placid Dingo on February 25, 2012, 06:28:09 AM
#7 I agree with Trip, if Only because the logistics of agreements like that are sticky. But I guess it could be maybe the editors choice to hold it off for two years.

I'm excited by this conversation.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Telarus on February 25, 2012, 08:18:04 AM
I think Dok is making a distinction between "free" Intermittens (freely available on the web), and a possible Intermittens Print Edition (seperate issues, different formatting.... and a 2 year moratorium on each work-as-a-whole going to the "free" mode).

I really like the distinction, and all of the other suggestions in this thread. I think for Print Editions, moving away from pure kopyleft into a CC-type animal would be a good idea (that way, the "free" version could include a non-commercial clause).


Man.... Really good stuff Rog.
Title: Re: Common Walls Debate
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 25, 2012, 10:31:01 AM
I love Intermittens, but it is what it is, a creative outlet for a forum. If we want to have any success with a pay print version, I think we would have to consider making more than a creative outlet for a forum. I mean, we'd actually have to have job responsibilities, deadlines, regular output... all stuff that we tend to get a little lax about when its just a 'project' here.

We would need to consider our audience... who are we trying to sell to?

Are we trying to sell to Discordians? If so, which Discordians? All Discordians, or only those who have a philosophy like the PD.com cabal?

Are we trying to sell to non-Discordians? How are we going to market it? what would their expectations be?

Past issues of Intermittens have been completely creative, moving to a profit-print model means a lot more consideration. If we're aiming for Discordians in general, editors will have to consider the pieces from that perspective. There are lots of Discordians who might subscribe to a Discordian 'zine, but the reputation of PD.com might limit that audience. There are lots of non-Discordians that might subscribe, but they'll likely be looking for something more polished and less WOMP'd.

I'm basing these opinions on responses I've gotten from Discordians and non-Discordians about past issues.

Of course, we can say "Fuck em! They'll like what we give them"... but in that case, I think it becomes an effort in futility to waste the time, energy and resources (not to mention potential future legal issues if someone tries to swipe our stuff).

Once we're really talking about a commercial enterprise, success will depend on us balancing the order and disorder into something that looks like a publishing Machine ;-)

IMO, of course.

ETA: Also, need to consider if we will need to create a Non-Profit org to handle the income. If so, we'll have to have people in 'official' positions.

I don't want this to come off as a negative post... I'm all for supporting any kind of creative projects here ;-) However, I think these are realistic issues we will need to address if we want something like this to succeed. Hell, it might even grow from Intermittens to a general Discordian publishing house in time... as long as we build it right from the start.