| Subject: Re: Episodic Quote of the Week |
Author:
~Steve-o
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 21:15:05 06/13/02 Thu
In reply to:
Kira the Snarky Evil Eppy Empress
's message, "Re: Episodic Quote of the Week" on 17:34:01 06/13/02 Thu
Ok, that's two posts from each of us on this matter. After this, I won't respond in JIM's forum. If you want to continue this conversation, you have my Email or you can continue to post here, just don't expect a response from me.
>Dang, Steve. I'm really sorry to have set you off
>this way.
Kira, just because I disagree with you and make that plainly known doesn't mean you've "set me off." Anyone who knows me knows that I'm very plainly spoken and I say exactly what I mean. I don't sugar-coat things. If you want to see this as being personal, then so be it, but I'm not treating any differently than I treat anyone else I have a disagreement with.
>My tone was decidedly not seriously defensive
Well, then, sorry I took it that way. I believe it was the phrases "tight-assed," "high horse," and "whining" that led me to that conclusion tho'.
>just trying to explain and invite you all. How many
>smilies do I have to add to get that message across?
That's a good question. How many smilies do you need to make the phrases "tight-assed," "whining," and "high horse" go over without a rebuttle?
The point is, Kira, I'm not your friend, and I don't know you well enough to judge when you're being sarcastic and when you're not. In a serious conversation, I'm going to assume you're not. If you jump into a forum to defend your good name, don't mix your belittling remarks with humor and expect people to pick between the two.
>If I prefaced my comments with this stuff, then it was
>because you were probably taking anti-soap shots, as
>you do here.
Er, no. But you did constantly accuse me of it. And when I asked you where I had done so, your reply was "let's not argue about it."
But anyway, yes, I do make fun of soaps. But I also make fun of non-soaps and bad internet comics too. I'm not selective when I make fun of bad.
>Sniping at people who enjoy a different genre from you is
>not cool.
Whu? Buh? Kira, I make fun of things that I think are bad. If you don't agree with me, that's fine. You go read it. But don't tell me I'm in the wrong for making fun of things I don't like. Are you going to tell me you've never told a Dubya joke?
>And btw, working in a fantasy realm does not de
>facto make you more elite, more critically savvy, than
>working in a websoap realm. If you treat people that way,
>you'd better expect me to correct you.
What?! When did I say it did, Kira? Or are you just saying random things as another way to make me look wrong?
>But I seriously think you were too sensitive to this,
>Steve. I'm almost sure I was just trying to act as a
>moderator between you and the others.
Actually, you were one of the few people actually contributing in the forums when I was there, so there was no moderating to be done. As for being sensitive, that has nothing to do with it. If someone feels uncomfortable in a given situation, why should they stay there? It has nothing to do with how thick my skin is, but at some point the pros had to be weighed against the cons.
>It's not a member-only system. I don't see what you mean
>by this.
Ok, if I'm wrong about this, feel free to correct me. But 99.89% of the series that you review and deal with in your news and reviews are series run by people who have signed up for your page and participate in the forums, even if that participation is limited to Series News and Updates.
>Hm, I don't remember Ford being submitted, as a matter
>of fact, but that could be my medications playing
>games with my brain cells. But here's a possibility:
>maybe, just maybe, it simply wasn't good enough (in
>the judges' opinions) to get an Eppy?
That's actually quite possible. Ford's pure crap. It sucks ass.
But your entrance form did say that you would acknowledge all entries. You didn't even acknowledge my entry.
>Anyway, I'm not the only memory-challenged person
>'round here. Eppy winner Stoney Grove ain't no soap
>opera, that's for sure, and neither is The Legacy. :)
Er... I beg to differ on The Legacy. Just because you throw spies in doesn't mean it's not a soap. That's like saying Passions is a supernatural thriller, not a soap.
And since I've never read any of Stoney Grove, I'll have to take your word on that one.
>Maybe you need to accept that this is my tone and, like,
>get less serious. You seem to have plenty of jibing on
>your forums; why must we at the Eppy be deadly
>serious?
Nobody said the Eppy had to, Kira. But again, you jumped in here and got totally defensive about someone not liking the Eppy. In between all the name calling, how was I supposed to pick out the sarcasm? And if name calling and ironic sarcasm are all you're capable of, then you shouldn't find it surprising when people don't like you.
>Man. I can't believe I'm getting tsuris for being
>pro-soap when I'm also getting angst from the websoap
>people for being anti-soap.
So then perhaps your "tone" isn't going over as well as you'd hoped.
>Well, he's someone who didn't know fantasy. And
>again, so what? Many people don't know fantasy. The
>reviewer's entitled to his opinions.
True. But picking on someone's series because of a Yahoo banner is just low.
>HUH? Are you at all aware of the nature of these
>workshops? The premise is that a few producers get
>together and offer feedback/advice on each other's
>sites. Why should I "stand by" the results of these
>assignments?
Because you organized it, you publish it, and "Professor" Kira is listed as the moderator, which means you are approving these comments before publishing them. Eppie is your magazine, right?
>They don't represent the Eppy in any way. They're just
>people offering comments, not official proclamations from
>the editorial staff.
Oh. I see. So if someone had a particularly harsh and nasty review for a series, you would still publish it?
>But I'm not going to accept your judgment that
>because one producer in this one workshop doesn't seem to
>be a fan of the fantasy genre, Kira The Editor must
>perforce believe that all fantasy-based series suck ass.
>It don't work that way, bud.
Good. Because that's a mighty long leap from what I actually said.
>Oh. My. God. It. Was. Sarcasm. Sarcasm, y'know?
>Melodrama? Humor? The stuff upon which you and
>everyone else on these forums thrive? Do you
>seriously believe I thought you were being
>cruel?! Good God, you must have an even lower opinion
>of me than I thought.
Again, Kira, I'm not your "buddy," I'm not going to read humor into a reply that calls me "tight assed."
>For which I guess I should apologize, because
>apparently I've upset you to such a degree that you
>can no longer read something by me without assuming a
>malicious intent.
Again, it's nothing personal. I take disagreements on the internet with a big grain of salt, Kira. You haven't "upset" me at all.
>I was just stating that there's no reason we can't have
>both nonfantasy types and fantasy types ... except, of
>course, the fantasy types have to actively participate.
>Like Jim is doing, Blessed Be.
And more power to JIM for doing so. Blessed be.
>I see your mentioning "us" a lot.
Ok, I apologize. I'm not intending to speak for anyone other than myself.
>Because we need to hear from you. You seem to
>think this stuff happens in a vacuum, Steve.
Um, no, but I ran an online magazine. I didn't wait for people to contribute to me, I went out and asked people who I felt could contribute.
You keep talking about these "open arms" and how you've been throwing out invitations until the cows come home and yet, I don't see it. Sure, now that I've got you riled up with an offhanded remark about you, you're jumping in and throwing out platitudes of love and acceptance, but prior to this what had you done to make things more open for non-soaps?
>But there's a limit to how much I can look at, and it
>behooves producers to become far more proactive (yuck, I
>really do hate that word) if they want to promote their
>sites.
I hate to sound skeptical here, but it sounds like you're telling me that the only way the Eppie is going to be more friendly to non-soaps is if more non-soap authors jump in and do the work for you. That sounds like a really bad way to see things, so if there's another way please do explain it to me.
>You say you don't care about hits, but c'mon,
>that's not entirely true.
Yes. Yes it is. I've been running this series for over a year now and the most fun I've had with it has been the one time I worked with JIM, and that was just because I'm a big HG fan. I've long since given up any dreams of taking the web-fiction world by storm, especially since Ford was #2 on Bitbooks since two months after it began and stayed there.
>If you didn't care, you wouldn't want us to cover your
>series
When did I say I wanted you to "cover" my series? You're almost as bad as Chris Longo was when he flamed me because I asked him not to spam my forum promoting his little community of series.
>you wouldn't have submitted to the Eppy Awards
That's not true either. If you recall, I've already told you that I submitted shortly after I left the Eppy. The reason is that I was chatting with another writer and decided that, if you were really serious about the whole matter, then you would at least write back telling me I wasn't eligible or that I lost. I never once entertained the thought that I would win. In fact, I even said in my forum that you would never reply and, if you were ever confronted about it you would feign ignorance.
Now, if I can just find a way to collect the $5 I bet.
>and you wouldn't be advertising your episodes via the
>Tidbot on the other League partner sites.
That's not true either. The reason I'm part of UH is because I've known the other two writers for a long time and it seemed like a fun idea. It still is a fun idea. But it hasn't brought me hordes of new readers and yet I'm still doing it, aren't I?
>It's the whole reason why you put your series on the Web!
>To Be Seen.
I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but that's not true either. I'm on the web because that's what I do. I write web pages all day. I have my own page because it's fun and relaxing for me to do. I put Ford on the web because it beats playing solitaire.
>Sorry, I just don't see why it's a Bad Thing for a writer
>to want hits.)
I never once said it was Kira.
>I think you're not reading the Eppy regularly enough to
>judge this.
As much as it hurts my case, I read the Eppy regularly to see if anything of interest has popped up. That's precisely why I don't make fun of the Webisodic, because I don't read it.
>Again with the members thing. There aren't Eppy
>members. This isn't a private club. If you mean our
>Featured Series, we focus quite a bit on non-featured
>sites, as a matter of fact. If you check out our
>Summer Previews, you'll see a plethora of non-featured
>series included. Ditto with the recaps.
And how many of the features involve series that don't have a Series News and Reviews forum?
>Thank you for that. 'Course, if it was done in the manner
>of Jim's "soapy-soppy" crack, I can hardly blame them for
>not jumping in, hee. ;)
Er, no. At the time I was very gung-ho about bringing new series to the Eppy. I was on good terms with many non-soap authors at that point and had pushed the idea on all of them.
>I wish you'd told me something, instead of letting the
>comments fester to the point where you now think of me as
>a bitter, twisted, evil gnome who lives to destroy every
>series that doesn't include a twin returning from the dead
>to start an adulterous affair with his half-sister.
I don't think of you that way, and I'm insulted. I think of you as an insincere, cliquish twit who blames people who don't contribute for the lack of material on her site.
>>What specifically are you offering us that would make kow-
>>towing to you and standing idly by while you call us
>>tight-assed and self-righteous worth our time?
>Errrr .... lemme get this straight: I'm the one
>who's defensively attacking? Me, not you?
>Oooookaaaay. (Backs away nervously.)
Yes. I believe I made that clear and cited the relevant remarks. See above.
>Seriously, you need to chill. out. It's a freakin'
>webzine we're talking about, not the Book of Judgment.
Well, exactly my point.
> I really don't think anything I wrote in my pretty
>lighthearted comments deserved this vitriolic
>response.
Again, see above where I quoted your vitriolic response in my vitriolic response.
>But if it did, mea culpa. I am very sorry that I made
>you feel unwelcome in the past, and all I can do is
>hope that someday I'll do a better job.
Que sera.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 