Cracking on other people's dolls where do you stand?

Falcongirl - They have posted a threat of physical violance towards me, which is possiable to sue over. As is using my band width illegally by hot linking, because I do use my site as a business and my photos are my intellectual property.

 

I think the only people who can address this one is the people who actually contact people and tell them that their stuff is being snarked about. It's not something anyone else can refute or explain, because we have no idea what their motives are for doing it.

It is also not something that can be directly 'blamed' on the people who are doing the snarking (unless the so-called 'concerned friend' is also one of those people-in which case, you'd still need to take it up with that person rather than the community as a whole.) So, unless someone here actually does it and can tell us why they do it... I think both sides of this debate will remain in the dark on that one.

 

And maybe the person snarking thinks the faceup they are complaining about is making the world an ugly place. Maybe the person being complained about has been nit-picking the complainer to death for years until they snap and start to complain about it. I don't know, since I don't post there -- but from the sound of it, neither do you, and thus, you don't know either.

Perspective is relevant. "I don't like that" isn't objectively and universally mean. It never has been. It never will be. There are situations in which it could be! ...it just is not objectively, universally mean. There are places where it's not acceptable to say that. This is one of them. Breaking the rule to say that is disrespectful (of the rules/mods/etc.) and potentially rude. The conditions here are not what they are in the outside world.

Not having enough money sucks. The snarkers did not cause that. Not having enough time sucks. The snarkers have precisely nothing to do with that, either. Not having seen something until it was sold out really sucks! ...and the snarkers didn't do that, either. Plenty of things already make the world unpleasant that are not the responsibility of 'the bad guys', and if the debate board is any real sampling of the population, people don't cope terribly well with those things either and need to find a bad guy to demonize, and start making up 'the rules of how it should be or you're a meanie poopy face!!!'

Again, what if someone was scammed, and that is what they are snarking about? Are they the ones making the world suck? I would call that a big no -- I'd call the scammer the one doing far worse. You also sorta dodged that note about motives, and it is fairly relevant.

Realistically, the only way someone will ever go through life never hearing someone disagree with them is to deafen themselves, is the thing. It isn't victim blaming to point that out. It really is just reality.

 

I think there's a fairly high risk that people will talk. Gossip, whether well-meaning or ill-intentioned, gets around, and it's just downright silly not to blame person who said the offensive thing when it's so easy for stuff to leak. You can't expect a forum that just anyone might sign up for to be a really private place where nothing will leak out. And I don't think it's accurate to call it one.

This forum being talked about has the same amount of privacy as DoA, no? Yet when it comes to DoA, people say "It's the doll owners' fault for posting their pictures online where anyone can see, because it's so public!" And when it comes to unnamed forum, people say "It's such a private forum, so no one has to take the same responsibilities as if it were public!" It strikes me as wanting it both ways... That forum is just as public as DoA is.

 

Incorrect again. "Man, I want to punch her in the face." or "I would smash that doll into a zillion pieces if I ever saw it in person!" != a direct threat. "I am going to punch her in the face, here's when and here's where." is a direct threat. Both of those might qualify you for a protective order depending on whether you got a judge who takes the term 'direct threat' very liberally, but it doesn't entitle you to any other action than that unless the threat is acted upon. Unless you are in fear of personal danger and can prove to have a valid reason for it, you would probably be laughed out of court even trying to get a protective order based on that statement. Yes, it's possible to bring a suit, if you want to waste time and money and get slapped with their lawyer fees when it's tossed out of court.

Again, hotlinking to your site is not illegal unless they are profiting from it or infringing on your intellectual property by copyright infringement or fraud. I invite you to go talk to legal counsel if you think otherwise. It would actually be illegal for them to do anything /but/ hotlink to your photos, because they are your intellectual property. If it's on the internet, they can link to it, but they can't re-post the images without your express permission.

I don't know where you're getting this information on what is and what is not "legal". I'm sorry you're so misinformed.

 

"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Honestly, I think this quote is something we (especially Americans, having freedom of speech as a constitutional amendment) need to take to heart a bit more when it comes to stating opinion.

 

Yeah, but we're not talking about how the world sucks in terms of money and time. We're talking about how the world sucks in terms of people saying nasty things to each other. If no one did that, no one would have to "grow a thick skin" about it.

Re scammers-- there are people on this board saying that not all the snark is directed towards scammers. And saying "but SOME of these people are bad!" doesn't address that some of them aren't. I care a lot more about the people who didn't do anything bad, who didn't "ask for it" in any way other than posting a picture that others thought was ugly. Does that address your point?

 

Sorry it you personally have been insulted. There are people on there who do talk about people, yes. Saying no one was, wasn't right and I'm sorry. But it has been pointed out several times now that it is frowned upon, discouraged, and those doing it often get reprimanded. This is not a lie. There aren't judgments made about people based on the look of their doll. If any opinion is formed about the person its usually based on personal experiences with the person or things they have said in posts.

Hot linking on The Site is also not allowed and gets stopped quickly and hasn't even been done by a newbie in quite sometime so this seems to be a very old grudge you are holding onto.

 

I absolutely see your point, but I disagree that it is the same. If the pictures were not posted, there would be nothing for people to dislike. So, nothing negative would be said, and no feelings would be hurt. This is not a 'chicken and egg' situation- the start of the cycle is with the picture, weather you consider that fair or not. However, if people didn't post pictures at all, we would be back to the dull, boring world I mentioned before. I certainly don't blame people for posting pictures (I do it myself, after all)- I just feel that when you click the 'submit' button, you should do it in full understanding of the potential consiquences.

Also, in the last post of yours I replied to, you directly asked about the people who passed on that people's dolls were being talked about- and that was what I addressed.

In the end, I actually agree with you- it all goes both ways. I have said before that I don't agree with saying anything online that I would not say to someone's face, and for the very reason you mentioned- anything posted online has to be considered public, and could potentially be leaked. It does not change the fact that people do not always like other people's work/dolls/art/writing, however, and just as I don't blame people for posting their pictures in public places, I also think it is unfair to blame people for hurt feelings when they did not intend others to read them.



As for security settings, the other forum has moderated membership, just like DoA. So not just anyone can sign up- new members have to be approved by the admin, and as there is only one admin, not everyone gets on. ( It really is a very small community- especially compared to the size of DoA! ) You cannot view the threads there unless you are a member, just like you cannot view the galleries here if you are not a member. So yes, I think they do have a very similar level of public access.

 

Actually, to see any posts on the other forum, you would have to actively sign up, a process which is not instantaneous, and then go looking around. It requires initiative on the person's part to find anything. They are not going to stumble upon it in a Google search.

I guess I am just really curious as to what you mean when you say they need to take responsibility for saying something mean on the internet. They are not denying they say mean or snarky things. They are allowed to say these things. What more responsibility is needed to be addressed?

 

blissfulchains, yes it means it will not show up on Google Images as far I as know. Since the threads link to other threads-- and the photos themselves are not directly linked or posted using BB codes on the-forum-that-shall-not-be-named-- you will not be able to stumble across it on Google Images.

 

Yep -- it does. I do think there are people who simply run out of patience with aspects of the hobby -- some take breaks, some will go vent, some will leave the hobby. (I tend to get swallowed whole by work in cycles that prevent me from getting overwhelmed, but I could definitely see it happening if I didn't -- and breaks or venting would then be required once in a while.) That is not something I consider especially mean-spirited, and I do see it very differently than I see someone who goes looking for people to poke fun at and mock.

I guess I don't really see it as a big evil. I see it as something that isn't allowed here, but is a fairly natural part of most conversation -- so it will find itself a home somehow.

In terms of the thicker skins, there are some people who are wounded grievously simply by someone else not being as excited by something as they are -- there really are some people who need to develop some coping skills, pronto. Some people will freak out at 'I disagree'. There truly are people with utterly unreasonable thresholds for offense out there, and there are plenty of them here in my personal opinion. I wouldn't go up to them and point at their faces and say, "You, you are a self-important twit with no sense of perspective!" (and for the record, I don't think that of the person to whom I'm responding at all) while frothing at the mouth.

Basically, I just don't see this as a black and white issue in any way. I can see too many people who wail about being victims far too easily, and also people who are just plain obnoxiously rude, for any clear lines that I could even call a generalization.

 

Yes. Images on DoA can be tracked back here. To DoA. Which is not a snark forum. The "snark forum" discussions, if relevant, post links to DoA threads but do not repost images or hotlink directly to images here. (If a new user does this because they don't know the rules, trust me, they get read the riot act.) So it would be impossible for Google images to pull up an image of your doll that would lead back to its having been posted on the snark forum. The picture isn't actually there. The only images posted there are images that the members themselves took and have ownership of, like images of our own dolls. The most recent image I posted there, for example, was of our new dog, which I rescued from the local shelter. (Shockingly, despite using "snark forums" I am capable of doing good.)

Blissfulchains, you are welcome to view the snark forums, and me, however you wish. I have not asked at any point that you view me as "nice and innocent." That would not be in character for me -- and it certainly would not be an accurate description of me. I'm a human being, not an angel. The only thing I think anyone has "asked" -- albeit in insinuated form -- is that perhaps you sit back and consider how unrealistic your expectations are regarding how the rest of the world should behave to suit your delicacy. You may be a sensitive soul, but your soul is not the only one that lives in this world, and the world cannot form itself around your needs. Ignore what makes you unhappy as best you can, but understand that it's really all you can do. You cannot expect everyone else to stop doing something on the off chance that you might hear about it somehow and that it might hurt your feelings.

 

I think anyone who would say something about someone else's doll must be pretty rude. No one has the right to say something bad about a doll someone loves. I understand not liking a certain doll, or brand of doll, but you can't just tell the person who does like it that its ugly or stupid. If you don't like the doll or the faceup don't get one like that for yourself.

 

If the snarking happened in say email, who's to say it wouldn't get forwarded to the party being discussed? It could still get out and be made public. So your argument that its ok in email isn't really valid either. That forum is no more private than DOA, but its no more public. Less so since the images being discussed aren't directly linked there. I'm not really sure what you are looking for there.

Yes, snarkers should take responsibility for what they say and I stand behind everything I've said there. I can take what I dish out as they say. But people who post blurry photos and chunky paint jobs can't expect only praise just because they have this really expensive doll.

 

See, I think this is a bit contradictory, myself. If a snarker says something knowing full well that they might as well say it to the person's face, how is it unfair to blame them for hurt feelings when it does, in fact, end up being said to the person's face? The snarker said it knowing the person might hear it; then the person did hear it; how is the snarker not responsible for that?

From my perspective, a lot of people have responded defensively and with excuses that deflect the blame towards the target. And I think that does put an unfair burden on the target not to be targeted, when the point of being a target is that you didn't choose to be targeted. Ultimately, the issue of whether they're cool with being mean isn't what's at stake here, at this point, now that we've established that. The issue is about the deflections.

I know that at first glance it might sound like "who started it?" is a bit of a playground question, but it actually isn't, when you consider that blaming the target is a problem that extends far beyond doll snark, into some very serious situations. And the same bad arguments (so-and-so took a risk, therefore they asked for it) are used there as well. And if the arguments are valid in one place, they're valid in another. People need to take questions of whose actions are responsible for [negative consequence] seriously, no matter the context, because it's a serious philosophical question to consider.

 

...are you talking in the general sense of "you", do you not actually read my posts before you start condescending to my supposed sensitivity, or am I actually being that unclear that a debate forum is for posting what I think about the issue, which is basically just what I'm doing?

 

It could, but when I trash fanfic in front of my friends, I only send it to two people, both of whom I know well enough that neither of them would do that. I don't know who's signed up for an unnamed forum. I don't trust them all, and I don't know who they're friends with. I do not consider it a risk to say things just in front of people I trust (who would no more forward an email than they would playback a phone conversation) the way I consider it a risk to post stuff in front of total strangers.

Actually, if they've just posted it in a Nice Place (tm) like Den of Angels, they can. They put it in a place where they wanted people to either be nice or not say anything at all. Taking it out of that safe place they put it in is not really in line with what it's fair for them to expect. (This is where someone predictably says "The world's not fair" and I say "and snarkers are the ones making it that way".)

 

Hm. I don't see defensiveness, I see a lot of pretty calm statement of fact. 'Making excuses' and 'deflecting blame' also implies that the parties making those calm statements of fact feel some sense of guilt. I think it's pretty obvious that that is not the case. None of the 'pro-snarkers' are shying away from accepting responsibility, but at the same time we are asserting, quite rightly, that it is responsibility shared with the people who post the offending pictures who are not, in any way, victims.

I sense that you are just dying to make a rape analogy. Don't go there. There is no comparison, and even the whiff of that sort of implication stinks like week-old roadkill.

 

I sense that you are putting words in my mouth. Also that you get upset when any abstract philosophy resembles any other real-world issue.


ETA: Leaving the debate now, since I'm getting pretty tired of the assumptions being made about me. Apologies to those of you whom I was getting on well with, especially (but not limited to) Guide, who has been really awesome about reassessing my purpose instead of just getting snippy.