3. and 4. I don't hang out around msg boards or other places enough to state either way. I'm more of a lurker.
5. The undeserved preferential treatment of one group or individual over others. Preferential treatment is all right in cases like disabilities, or extenuating circumstances. But if it's based just because you like the person, then there's a problem. Similar to nepotism.
6. Yes. Those having to do with romantic pairings. Multi-chaptered works over one-shots. Those featuring popular characters.
7. I don't write much, but if I did, I suspect I'd get more of a response if I wrote about a romantic pairing. There's more community support (betas, recs, groups, readers).
8. Yes. Because I liked their writing in other works, and wanted to see what else they wrote. If I'm losing interest in the fandom, but still like that writer's works, I'll keep up with the series or check in to see what else they've done. Because they were recc'ed, and I didn't have the time or patience to search out for new fics of unknown quality.
9. If so, then I wasn't aware of it. I'm aware that I'm an obscure fan in one of internet's largest fandoms. I've been around fandom in general for a long time, but it's only recently that I've started participating.
10. Yes. People end up getting reputations--as BNFs, as ranters, as crazed fangirls, as the meta people, etc. Then there's all these accusations about cliques and secret cabals. Basically, a visit to fandom_wank will show you more status wars than you'd ever want to know about.
Wank: 1. Depends on what you mean by wank. I've seen some shifting definitions. If we mean strong arguments, and making mountains out of mole hills via misunderstandings, then it happens. It's part of dealing with people. If you mean full out flame wars, and blowing things out of proportion, like some of the Harry/Hermione contingent, then it's not acceptable.
2. If it's the second defintion, then it's already too far. I'd say it's gone too far when people start using the ad hominem attacks.
3. No.
4. Yes.
5. No. At least, I hope not. I've been involved in some disputes that got pretty heated, but I hope I've never crossed the line.
6. Once. Then it got really out of hand. Now my M.O. is to just to duck and run for cover. Fandom's a hobby, so why would I put up with unnecessary unpleasantness? Right now, I'm pulling back from HP fandom until things calm down.
Flaming: 1. When there's nothing helpful, or when the reviewer starts using ad hominem attacks or insults. There's a difference between, "I found the characters to be unrecognizable, because of a, b, and c," and, "OMG, your characters suck. Did you even read the books? I hope you never write again."
2. No.
3. Partially. That, and due to waning interest, and struggles with the story itself. The story was very bad.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-09-03 02:06 am (UTC)3. and 4. I don't hang out around msg boards or other places enough to state either way. I'm more of a lurker.
5. The undeserved preferential treatment of one group or individual over others. Preferential treatment is all right in cases like disabilities, or extenuating circumstances. But if it's based just because you like the person, then there's a problem. Similar to nepotism.
6. Yes. Those having to do with romantic pairings. Multi-chaptered works over one-shots. Those featuring popular characters.
7. I don't write much, but if I did, I suspect I'd get more of a response if I wrote about a romantic pairing. There's more community support (betas, recs, groups, readers).
8. Yes. Because I liked their writing in other works, and wanted to see what else they wrote. If I'm losing interest in the fandom, but still like that writer's works, I'll keep up with the series or check in to see what else they've done. Because they were recc'ed, and I didn't have the time or patience to search out for new fics of unknown quality.
9. If so, then I wasn't aware of it. I'm aware that I'm an obscure fan in one of internet's largest fandoms. I've been around fandom in general for a long time, but it's only recently that I've started participating.
10. Yes. People end up getting reputations--as BNFs, as ranters, as crazed fangirls, as the meta people, etc. Then there's all these accusations about cliques and secret cabals. Basically, a visit to fandom_wank will show you more status wars than you'd ever want to know about.
Wank:
1. Depends on what you mean by wank. I've seen some shifting definitions. If we mean strong arguments, and making mountains out of mole hills via misunderstandings, then it happens. It's part of dealing with people. If you mean full out flame wars, and blowing things out of proportion, like some of the Harry/Hermione contingent, then it's not acceptable.
2. If it's the second defintion, then it's already too far. I'd say it's gone too far when people start using the ad hominem attacks.
3. No.
4. Yes.
5. No. At least, I hope not. I've been involved in some disputes that got pretty heated, but I hope I've never crossed the line.
6. Once. Then it got really out of hand. Now my M.O. is to just to duck and run for cover. Fandom's a hobby, so why would I put up with unnecessary unpleasantness? Right now, I'm pulling back from HP fandom until things calm down.
Flaming:
1. When there's nothing helpful, or when the reviewer starts using ad hominem attacks or insults. There's a difference between, "I found the characters to be unrecognizable, because of a, b, and c," and, "OMG, your characters suck. Did you even read the books? I hope you never write again."
2. No.
3. Partially. That, and due to waning interest, and struggles with the story itself. The story was very bad.
4. No.