Creature of Mad Enthusiasms

The official (non-sock) one, the official ~~SMOF~~ sock one, the porn one, the sock one that admits it has multiple posters under one sock, the moderated non-sock one, and... something. I closed the tabs and can't claim I'm interested in reopening them.

'Cause I've never seen anonymity used as a club or a wankfest in my 25 years in fandom, oh no...

Although at this point my attitude towards "But I can't say my name or clowns will eat me!" is "you go right on thinking that. More free books for me."

Edited Date: 2009-05-07 02:44 am (UTC)

From:

wendymr.livejournal.com

Disclaimer: I am a reviewer for

cot_reviews.

Let me say, first of all, that I have no problem with anyone setting up a comm or LJ to review fics nominated for the awards. The more fics get reviewed, the better. But this:

the latest stakes its claim to fame specifically as the non-sock comm.

That astounded me, honestly. Yes, there are sock comms around, but

cot_reviews, mentioned by name in the post advertising the new comm, is definitely not a sock. The mod and all reviewers post under their usual LJ nicks and the author of each review is identified.

I suspect it was just sloppy writing on the part of the mod of the new comm, but it did appear that several review comms were being included in that and other criticisms - such as needing to agree with the mod on what makes good fic. That's certainly not the case at

cot_reviews, and it wasn't the case at Tossed either from what I saw. Disagree with the way existing review comms do things, by all means, but at least be clear on how each operates!

From:

but [info]cot_reviews, mentioned by name in the post advertising the new comm, is definitely not a sock.

I know. And I know that y'all have the right to *not* review something that you couldn't honestly cheer about, which is terribly useful. ILMN and OW both had "good review only" policies, and there were times when I couldn't just pretend I hadn't received *any* of the books I was supposed to be reviewing!

From:

box-in-the-box.livejournal.com

who_anon has already called for the WHAAAMBULANCE in response to your post.

From:

When have I ever cared what a bunch of mice squeak about?

From:

box-in-the-box.livejournal.com

Just thought it might amuse you. :)

From:

after some of the cot_tossed reviewers put aside anonymity and were then attacked, sometimes viciously, for weeks on end (and are still often brought up negatively), i can't really blame them. or the people who stayed anon.

especially since an author for whom i left a critical but encouraging review for is STILL messaging me on AIM to try and convince me that her story is a work of genius. i can see wanting to stay well clear of that nonsense.

From:

biichan.livejournal.com

after some of the cot_tossed reviewers put aside anonymity and were then attacked, sometimes viciously, for weeks on end (and are still often brought up negatively), i can't really blame them. or the people who stayed anon.

Word.

From:

All these years in fandom have taught me that the anonymity never lasts and that the fans are 10x angrier about revealed anons than they are about non-anons saying the exact same thing.

From:

IAWTC

Yesterday I was told by a black author that she can't risk publishing her book reviews under her professional name because they include critiques of racism and she believes, especially post-RaceFail, people's reactions would srsly damage her career as an author. I've seen her reviews. They're mild and polite. There're crazy reactions from people, including Big Name Authors. Pseudonymity is a necessity for some people for excellent reasons.

From:

Pseudonymity is a necessity for some people for excellent reasons.

*Pseudonymity* or *anonymity*? Different concepts.

If there's one trope I've seen play over and over in fandom, going all the way back to Star Wars, is that the fans were more upset about revealed sock commentators by a major factor than they were about negative reviews in the first place. Part was the inevitable shock of finding out that a friend was stabbing them in the back under cloak of anonymity, and a lot of it was the attitude of "if you're going to say that by writing *we're* open to any and all scrutiny, how come *you're* an exempt special snowflake?"

Pseudonymity is different in my eyes because so many people online use pseudonyms as identities. It's not so much the question of "is that your real name" as "does x stand for a person, and does that person stand for what they think?" If there's a background and a history, it doesn't matter if that's the same name that's on someone's driver's license. (Sock puppetry doesn't count as a pseud because the whole point of the sock is to have no history.)

she believes, especially post-RaceFail, people's reactions would srsly damage her career as an author.

Three comments there, to be expanded later because I have to get to work:

1 - There's a long history of authors using different pseudonyms for different types of writing. Who does she write for; what is their opinion on the subject and what do they offer their writers in terms of backup?

2 - Despite all the anger and resolutions to "never buy the work of X again!" I'm honestly wondering how much RaceFail is going to impact those author's bottom lines. I've seen a lot of righteous anger that burns itself out within a publishing cycle.

3 - One thing I have *never* seen is anonymous reviewing end well. Can't think of a single instance, whereas I've seen plenty of (read: all but about two) anon things flaming out.

From:

a lot of it was the attitude of "if you're going to say that by writing *we're* open to any and all scrutiny, how come *you're* an exempt special snowflake?"

I think that's the heart of the matter right there, and that's exactly why, as you say, these things are never going to end well.

From:

In what way is an idea or a series of ideas, such as a review, less open to scrutiny when it's presented without a name/pseudonym attached?

From:

By being anon, the reviewer is not taking responsibility for his/her statements, and the reader inevitably asks why the reviewer saw the need to disown those statements. It raises a lot of questions about motivation, reliability, etc.

From:

By being anon, the reviewer is not taking responsibility for his/her statements

I don't understand. What "responsibility" is specific to non-anonymous reviews?

the reader inevitably asks why the reviewer saw the need to disown those statements.

This reader doesn't. This reader is more interested in engaging with the ideas than the personality behind them.

It raises a lot of questions about motivation, reliability, etc.

The motivation for posting any review in an accessible form is to enable it to be accessed by people who want to read it, no? It doesn't force anyone to interact with the ideas in the review unless they choose to do so.

Why do you believe an anonymous review is usually more or less reliable than a review from a pseudonymous reviewer or a review from a legal-name reviewer? And, if you don't, what question of reliability did you mean?

I realise this comment will possibly appear argumentative to you but it's not intended that way. I honestly want to try to understand your pov because it's so different to mine.

From:

Just to bring an example: When you see one of those full-page ads in the paper supporting or condemning something, you look to see who signed it. If it's a list of people you recognize and respect, you tend to give it credence. If there are no signatures, you might scratch your head and say, "Well, they might be right, or they might be a bunch of wackos with an axe to grind." Yes, you can "engage with the ideas," but you're likely to try to do that by seeking more reliable, non-anonymous opinions and information.

Even if the anon reviewer has no axe to grind, the very act of being anonymous raises the question -- you're starting from a compromised position. WIth reviews, the only way for me to assess the fairness of a reviewer is to go out and read the reviewed fic and then evaluate the review -- which defeats the purpose of a review, which is to guide people toward fic they might want to read. (At least, that's my purpose in reading them, and I imagine many others as well.)

From:

I don't rly agree with your first example. I think I'd be more likely to google for additional facts than take someone's word for X because even acknowledged experts tend to have personal biases that don't necessarily coincide with mine. But I understand that many people are swayed by personalities and rhetoric as much or more than facts and also that many people would dismiss anons in those circumstances out of hand.

WIth reviews, the only way for me to assess the fairness of a reviewer is to go out and read the reviewed fic and then evaluate the review -- which defeats the purpose of a review, which is to guide people toward fic they might want to read. (At least, that's my purpose in reading them, and I imagine many others as well.)

::nods understanding::

I can see how that might be especially true inside a community context, such as fandom, where a reader might know more of a reviewer than merely their reviews.

I have yet to find a reviewer who reliably likes the same fiction as me, in any context, so I tend to favour description in reviews over opinion reviewing if I'm seeking fiction to read although I do enjoy reviews which critique too when I'm engaged with the critique in its own right (whether or not I've read the work being critiqued).

Thank you.

From:

I think I'd be more likely to google for additional facts than take someone's word for X because even acknowledged experts tend to have personal biases that don't necessarily coincide with mine.

I think in many cases it's a combination. You try to inform yourself as best you can, but in the end, some issues are too complex for the layperson to judge. But at that point it becomes a stupid analogy for fic reviewing because fic reviewing is not global warming. So....never mind. ;-)

From:

Why do you believe an anonymous review is usually more or less reliable than a review from a pseudonymous reviewer or a review from a legal-name reviewer?

I believe anonymous reviews are less reliable because if the review is coming from an anon instead of an established name (real or pseud) you don't know if the review is what the reviewer really thinks or if it's an attempt to spike a writer the reviewer has a grudge against/cramp a writer the reviewer considers too tough competition/or is even simply a means of causing wankery in the fandom for the puppeteer's amusement. (The Jundland Wastes reviewer was guilty of the first two, repeatedly. She was eventually outed because people could match her negative reviews to people who'd disagreed with her or edged her out to get published.)

There's also the question of a track record; when it's an unknown number of people using the same sock name/pseud, you have no idea if Review A, which you agreed with, is really tied to Review B, which was judged by a different person's criteria. (For example, there was a Post reviewer who I found an almost 100% accurate barometer for me. If he loved a movie, I'd hate it, and vice versa. After a while it didn't matter if he called himself Tom Shales or Constant Reader; I knew what to expect and how to scale my reaction accordingly. If it had been Tom, Dick, and Harry all writing under the same name, I would have not been able to rely on the reviews.)

From:

fyrdrakken

Hmm. It can't be judged in the context of the poster's other previous and later words, because it can't be connected to their work under their more common name(s).

That can be a benefit when someone wants just that piece of writing judged on its own stand-alone merits, without readers being affected by their own knowledge of the writer's other work and views and personality. (That halo effect, where people tend to bump up their assessment of how well someone they like does everything and downgrade their opinions of the accomplishments of those they dislike.)

The downside of course being that readers don't go into it with the advance warning that the author is a known dumbass who's expressed some horrendous opinions in the past and who may have learned from the previous resulting dogpiles how to camouflage their own less acceptable thoughts on the matter. Or that they're known to be intelligent people with earned credibility on this topic and others, who may be inadvertently streamlining some of their arguments because they're used to everyone being so familiar with the ground they've already themself covered. Or that they earned a bad rep in their brash n00b days that they haven't been allowed to outgrow even though they've genuinely matured since then.

From:

So... you're saying the main, erm, let's call it a "disadvantage", as you see it, is that an anonymous review would have to be judged on its own internal merits? Cos that doesn't seem a suitable cause for hand-wringing to me... but possibly I'm being obtuse (it has been known)?

From:

fyrdrakken

That was me thinking out loud, so to speak.

Like I noted, an "advantage" in terms of getting rid of the halo effect -- which cuts two ways, in terms of the unpopular with something intelligent to say getting heard on their statements' merits rather than automatically dogpiled by their enemies, and in terms of BNFs who may have grown lazy discovering that they don't get an automatic chorus of enthusiastic agreement when their name isn't attached.

A "disadvantage" in terms of the reader not having that baseline awareness of the author's known biases and previous statements, and of the author being able to make disingenuous statements under the cover of anonymity. (I think that latter is edging towards the border between true anonymity and sockpuppetry. Not actually saying what they honestly feel and are merely hampered by fear of retribution from speaking under their own name, but rather deliberate manipulation of public opinion through calculated dishonesty.)

From:

That all seems reasonable to me, yes.

From:

deliberate manipulation of public opinion through calculated dishonesty

Oh, I LIKE that! It sums up my opinion quite tidily of socks in general... and it's hard to see what the "good" of a sock puppet can be when you've seen the bad of socks and anons. (Including the anon meme; as far as I can tell from people talking about it, it's not at all mean to people except the people it's mean to, and it's not at all going to turn on the people who love it, except for the times that it does.)

Or, to say it shortly: when posting anonymously is too wanky for Fandom Wank, it is well past what a reasonable fan would consider reasonable discourse.

ETA: The only reason I haven't replied to your comments is I don't want to type IAWTC that many times. :)

Edited Date: 2009-05-07 10:36 pm (UTC)

From:

fyrdrakken

I'm definitely playing devil's advocate here -- I don't doubt that you've seen anonymity play out in horrifically wanky ways in fandom many times in the past, as it gets used as a cover for grudges and as anonymice get outed. But I'm also in agreement with the premise that sometimes an author comes with too much baggage for anyone to pay attention to their message if their name is attached, and that anonymity is another layer protecting someone from retribution for their statements on- or offline.

And I'm seriously vested in the premise that a longstanding pseudonym counts as a genuine identity. (I just googled FyrDrakken vs. my RL name again to check my results. That's six pages of FyrDrakken results all of which were me (I got tired of scanning and didn't check the later pages) and nine pages on my RL name that weren't me before I quit reading.) It's definitely worth noting that we all make the distinction between a "genuine" pseudonym/fanname/userID and a sock puppet.

From:

In what way is an idea or a series of ideas, such as a review, less open to scrutiny when it's presented without a name/pseudonym attached?

I agree with a lot of what

stoplookingup says in this thread; it's an accountability issue. Yes, you can look at a statement and say "this is persuasive" and "this is not" - but at the same time, you don't know if a sock is taking advantage of shucking their name to perpetuate a personal grudge. Or if they want to game the fandom because they don't give a damn about what they say; they're going to pop up in another identity and prod in the other direction just to get everyone else to jump. (Via a good friend, I was front row for the Rat Patrol meltdown in which one very dedicated puppeteer created thousands of socks and swarmed it.)

Also, I notice that the people who feel free-est to be vilest in comments are the ones who are going anon, in any blog on the web.

Hang on - I've got a *lot* of reading to catch up on now!

From:

I think that's the heart of the matter right there

In a nutshell, yeah.

From:

drho.livejournal.com

While it's awesome that it's safe for you to share your thoughts, it's not safe for everyone. I don't think it excuses rudeness at who_anon or anywhere else, but, when people are tracking pseudonyms to real names and posting addresses online, I think anonymity is a legitimate option. The ideas are important, regardless of the source.

The only consequence to the racefail writers that posted personal information or defended questionable practices might be bruised egos, quickly soothed by friends or sycophants or Hugo awards. However, the consequences to authors and readers of color and fandom as a whole is much worse. Backlash on top of the original fail.

Edited Date: 2009-05-07 02:39 pm (UTC)

From:

when people are tracking pseudonyms to real names and posting addresses online, I think anonymity is a legitimate option.

Except that when people are that dedicated to finding out who someone is, anonymity is a short-term option. I haven't known a lot of sock puppets who managed to hold onto their identity for all that cosmically long.

The ideas are important, regardless of the source.

I'd love to agree in theory, but I've got friends in LoTR fandom and have heard about their difficulty, and a good friend was in Rat Patrol before the sock brought it down. One person, just one puppeteer was the source of both offense and defense AND the lurkers supporting both in email. (The LotR puppeteer created hundreds; the RP puppeteer created thousands. This is, incidentally, why I remain convinced that the anon meme has maybe a dozen people actually active in it, tops.)

When you don't know who is spouting the idea; if they mean it or if they just mean to make trouble, it does make a difference. Especially if someone is hiding behind their anonymity to dogpile someone they have a grudge against. Hear about the Dead Sea Scroll guy? He socked one of his own opponents; went online under a close pseudonym and "made" his hated opponent "confess" to being a plagiarist, among other crimes.

*Extremely* important to know the source of that idea!

From:

drho.livejournal.com

When there is a real risk of offline harassment, the choice is being silent or being unsafe. I'm glad posting your real name isn't a problem for you and admire people that take the risk, but I would rather not know a name or pseudonym, if it means that people wouldn't participate in fandom or speak out.

I don't suggest every anonymous thing is worth reading or that it shouldn't be kept in perspective, but the same can be said for posts with names attached. As we all know, posting under a steady name doesn't stop grudges or lies or generally sucking the fun out of fandom. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for compassion or change or apologies or actual responsibility, named or not.

I see what you're saying about abusing trust or ulterior motives, but people have been accused of elaborate sockpuppetry even when their identities were clear, their tones mild, and their messages heartfelt. I wouldn't blame them for not trusting anyone on the internet with their legal identity or for keeping interests under separate accounts.

Edited Date: 2009-05-08 04:02 pm (UTC)

From:

the same can be said for posts with names attached

That's very true.

At the same time, I can't help but think about offline harassment, this fortnight before MediaWest. MediaWest is where a lot of the Beauty and the Beast war was fought in person.

From:

*Pseudonymity* or *anonymity*? Different concepts.

That overlap. "Anonymous" is a popular pseudonym. ;-P

If there's one trope I've seen play over and over in fandom, going all the way back to Star Wars, is that the fans were more upset about revealed sock commentators by a major factor than they were about negative reviews in the first place. Part was the inevitable shock of finding out that a friend was stabbing them in the back under cloak of anonymity, and a lot of it was the attitude of "if you're going to say that by writing *we're* open to any and all scrutiny, how come *you're* an exempt special snowflake?"

"Friends" backstabbing is, indeed, painful but, as you so neatly summarise, the pain is from the stabbing and the failure of anonymity not from maintained anonymity. It's also entirely possible to review/critique work without backstabbing or friendship being involved. An idea or a series of ideas, such as a review, is clearly not less open to scrutiny when it's presented without a name/pseudonym attached (which I presume is why you put that opinion into the hypothetical mouths of some other fans via " " instead of claiming it yourself). ;-P

As you know, you and I have different social models of fandom in our heads. You have far more "friends" (to various definitions of "friends") and more investment in them than I do. ::shrugs::

1 - There's a long history of authors using different pseudonyms for different types of writing. Who does she write for; what is their opinion on the subject and what do they offer their writers in terms of backup?

Backup for authore committing RaceFail or authors pointing it out?

2 - Despite all the anger and resolutions to "never buy the work of X again!" I'm honestly wondering how much RaceFail is going to impact those author's bottom lines. I've seen a lot of righteous anger that burns itself out within a publishing cycle.

The status quo does tend to be most successfully defended by relying on human inertia, yes... unfortunately for any people on the disprivileged end of the status quo.

3 - One thing I have *never* seen is anonymous reviewing end well. Can't think of a single instance, whereas I've seen plenty of (read: all but about two) anon things flaming out.

You should read more widely (from about the eighteenth century onwards). ;-P

Comment conclusion
I understand that you're mostly thinking and talking about intra-fandom behaviour in your original post but you then widened your examples to include all reviewing and, no, in that context your points aren't valid beyond a small subset of people including yourself but excluding almost every reviewer I know whether professional or amateur. And I know you were told similar before by more than one person in response to your previous similar post on this subject.

From:

To go backwards,

And I know you were told similar before by more than one person in response to your previous similar post on this subject.

Yes, but I obviously don't agree. While it's intra-fandom that prompted the post about anonymity, I'm not the only fan who's in fandom and reviews both within it and outside of it, considering that half the work listed above came from recommendations or comments from people *within fandom* pointing me in the right direction outside of it. So I don't think it's that small a subset of people who straddle the line.

On the other hand, yes, I'm chasing two hares; one my experiences within fandom and the other my experiences in what is essentially a different type of fandom.

Backing up to the beginning:

"Anonymous" is a popular pseudonym

*bronx cheer* You know what I mean. A screenname is a pseud, but it's also an identity (to the point that Pers got her book personalized to her screenname because I brain-farted on her "real" one.)

It's also entirely possible to review/critique work without backstabbing or friendship being involved

Agreed wholeheartedly. But it has been my consistent experience that anons feel free-er to be nastier simply because they're anonymous... to the point that I made a public retraction about Tossed when it turned out I was wrong predicting them doing that.

you and I have different social models of fandom in our heads.

We've been in different fandoms. Different fandoms, different cultures, different countries, etc. But the fandoms I go back in go back a very long time, and cover different fringes as wide as media, costuming,print, and online. And I've seen the same tropes playing out in all of those *plus* in completely different arenas - mystery fandom, children's book collecting fandom - heck, someone sent me an article about sock puppetry among Dead Sea Scroll scholars! It's all gone to give me a rock-solid belief that there are certain things that are just inherent in humanity that will play out the same ways regardless of the catalyst.

Backup for authore committing RaceFail or authors pointing it out?

In this instance, I was thinking of the author you cite who feels that she is not safe to state her opinions on racism under her real/writing name. Would the site/publication for which she reviews give her backup? Would it defend her, would it give her PR help if one of her reviews was turned into a firestorm?

Because if they wouldn't, I can certainly see why she'd pick a different pseudonym to write those reviews under. But I don't see one writer with multiple noms de plume as the same as a sock puppeteer. The former is often reacting to the market, such as Jo Rowling hiding her gender, while my experience is that the latter is trying to get the chosen area to react to *them.*

yes... unfortunately for any people on the disprivileged end of the status quo

*nods* I'm not saying there *shouldn't* be a reaction/consequences, especially for the people who were posting names and addresses. It's just... once again, I've seen a lot of boycotts fizzle like a damp firecracker. And it's so terribly easy to mistake the couple of hundred of people who are involved online with the many thousands of people who are also part of sales and ratings, etc.

You should read more widely (from about the eighteenth century onwards). ;-P

A palpable touch! *another bronx cheer*

That said... if today's cell phones had been around two generations ago, there would be no more questions about the grassy knoll.

To be more serious, neither anonymity nor a sock name is any kind of defense in a world where people are determined to "out" people to the point of names and addresses.

From:

While I agree with some of the individual points you're trying to make, you aren't managing to construct them into a valid all-encompassing argument as you appear to believe you're doing.

Me (for context): I know you were told similar before by more than one person in response to your previous similar post on this subject.

You: Yes, but I obviously don't agree.

I can't force you to acknowledge hundreds of years of reviewing history, clearly, but not doing so is making you repeatedly appear foolish in public. Your choice though. ::shrugs::

From:

I am learning a lesson from this post. It's not the one I'm supposed to be learning, but it's sinking in.

From:

some of the cot_tossed reviewers put aside anonymity and were then attacked, sometimes viciously, for weeks on end

I know; I predicted that the moment I found out about

cot_tossed, having seen the *exact same thing* playing out in at least four other fandoms, going back 30 years to Star Wars and the fanzine "Jundland Wastes" which also claimed that it had to be anon for honesty. (Only instead of suggesting how to vote, it was telling people what fanzines to buy, back in the days when people could beggar themselves printing something that didn't sell.) And the fury when people found out that someone who was sweet to their face had, as usual, taken the opportunity of a blank name to stab them in the back repeatedly was more epic than anything Who has ever kicked up. Because in the end, the sock *always* gets unveiled, and not always on their own.

What I haven't seen is that amount of bitterness about anyone who's talked about fanfiction under their own screenname. Even the person messaging you on AIM - are they attacking you viciously for weeks or dogpiling you with their friends? Because from here it's sounding like they're annoying but nowhere near the anger that's raised by socks.

From:

dbskyler.livejournal.com

Um, in exactly what way did

cot_tossed stab anyone in the back, repeatedly or otherwise? Is writing an honest but negative review an attack? I know some fanfic authors were viewing the reviews as attacks, but in my opinion that was exactly the problem.

From:

I thought the phrase "more epic than anything Who has ever kicked up" made it clear that I was talking about Jundland Wastes, and their anon reviewer who used that anonymity to take out personal grudges and (because she was also a writer) try to spike the competition.

However, it is true that several authors have said that whichever Tossed editor reviewed their story obviously hadn't read it, and in one case openly said so. If you haven't read the story, you can't give an honest review, negative or positive.

From:

dude. cot_tossed did not stab anyone in the back. they wrote reviews, none of which were mean-spirited or grudgey, and certainly none of which cost anyone any money. the reviews were for fics which had been nominated for awards.

plus, let's be serious here. the cot_tossed sock is not properly a sockpuppet. real sockpuppets keep their identity secret; they're not just trying to be anonymous, they're trying to fool people into believing they're someone other than who they are. cot_tossed was always honest about the fact that they were a joint account for many reviewers; they didn't go outside of their own space (except to answer a few questions at the meme), but stayed at their own comm and wrote reviews and that's it.

none of the cot_tossed reviewers were "unveiled" by anyone but themselves, and there are still plenty of them who were never unveiled, probably because they saw what happened to the others who did reveal themselves. and it's cool if you haven't seen that kind of viciousness directed at people who've talked about fic and the show under their own screenname, but the worst attacks *i've* seen have been.

i also believe the worst cot_tossed stuff was directed at people because of grudges from before cot_tossed was ever formed, and it was simply being used as an excuse to attack certain individuals. but of course, that's probably also why some of the reviewers went anon in the first place.

and yeah, they person on AIM hasn't been dogpiling me or attacking me for weeks on end, but let's be serious -- i am not a BNF. i'm not going to have people caring if i said this or that enough to do things like that, because i am not a name in fandom. so it's really not a fair comparison. but who knows, even someone as unknown as me could get unlucky -- i just happened to get someone who doesn't really have an LJ friends and who is obsessed with making me think their work is better than i think it is, not trying to make other people in fandom think i'm a troll, an asshole, a liar, mentally ill, or any of the other things i've seen leveraged at fans by grudgewankers.

From:

dude. cot_tossed did not stab anyone in the back... the worst cot_tossed stuff was directed at people because of grudges from before cot_tossed was ever formed, and it was simply being used as an excuse to attack certain individuals. but of course, that's probably also why some of the reviewers went anon in the first place

As I say in the comment above, I thought the phrase "more epic than anything Who has ever kicked up" made it clear that I was referring to Jundland Wastes at that moment. However, if I've read your comment right, you've just said that some reviewers used the anonymity of Tossed to take out personal grudges against other authors, which pretty much proves the point I'm making right there.

As does pointing out that what you've said under your own name isn't half as rough as what happened when anons got unmasked. That's what I've been saying since I knew about Tossed - that every other anon reviewing site caused epic wank and hard feelings, far moreso than saying an honest if negative opinion under your own name. Your own personal experience is also making my point.

From:

However, if I've read your comment right, you've just said that some reviewers used the anonymity of Tossed to take out personal grudges against other authors

wow. no, you read that about as wrong as possible, actually. i said other people took the opportunity to rake a few fans over the coals after those fans publicly stated they had been part of cot_tossed. the coal-rakers were just using those fans' involvement with cot_tossed as a convenient excuse to attack them. so, pretty much the exact opposite of what you're trying to make it look like i said.

As does pointing out that what you've said under your own name isn't half as rough as what happened when anons got unmasked.

like i said, i am not a BNF, and yet i still have managed to get a grudgey fanwriter who's following me across media. someone who is known to most of LJ fandom, giving their honest opinions of the show, fic, fandom, etc. is a hell of a lot more likely to get grudgey people following them around or attacking them. just because i wouldn't necessarily go anon personally to review fic doesn't mean that no one else could ever have a good reason to do so. i'm not a fan of all the anon stuff happening in fandom right now, but i'm not going to tell people that because i've experienced fandom in one way they're obliged to experience it that way too.

From:

pretty much the exact opposite of what you're trying to make it look like i said.

I'm not trying to deliberately twist your words; I'm saying what it looked like to me. "If I read it right"... and with clarification, I did not read it right.

However,
i'm not going to tell people that because i've experienced fandom in one way they're obliged to experience it that way too.

When I've watched history repeat itself in almost the exact same way for multiple decades and multiple fandoms, I've got good reason to say "all my experience says this is how it's going to end." At some point I'm going to have to find my first post when I found out about CoT Tossed because I accurately predicted then what would happen - and I was told I didn't understand fandom. Now that it has happened, I'm told I don't understand fandom. I'm predicting that if the other anonymous review communities have traffic they are also going to have identical meltdowns and hard feelings, which probably just goes to show that I'm the ego that ate Manhattan and expect everyone to dance to my tune because it's so obvious that I don't understand fandom.

The lesson I've always taken from this is that going anonymous is a really bad idea that will lead directly to a lot of hard feelings and harassment when the anon's identity is known. The lesson that I see being taken is that unmasking is a really bad idea that leads directly to a lot of hard feelings and harassment... which skips the weak point that identities can be outed as well as revealed. I've seen plenty of that too.

Whatever. I've seen routes to fans writing reviews that lead to a lot of pain and heartbreak. I've seen routes to fans writing reviews that lead to a lot of free stuff. I believe in stating opinions openly and taking whatever lumps come from that, so I have and I have. No one is obligated to agree with me or believe I know what I'm talking about.

Even when I say "X is going to happen" and it does.

From:

I'm not trying to deliberately twist your words; I'm saying what it looked like to me. "If I read it right"... and with clarification, I did not read it right.

sorry, didn't mean to be snappy with my comment there, but i was. apologies. but i was confused how anyone who had actually read the cot_tossed reviews could think that they were being used as a way to take out grudges on the authors. the reviews were all really fair, even the ones i didn't agree with.

i remember the post you made when cot_tosed first opened up, saying that the anonymous reviewers would be found out and there would be a wankstorm. the thing is, no one "outed" anyone, the people who were unveiled chose to reveal themselves, and at least half the cot_tossed reviewers are still anon and i don't see how they won't remain so. cotafterdark has never been unveiled, and has never had wank attached. and i don't think anyone's going to care about these new anon comms and who's "really" writing the reviews, because i doubt any big names are involved. so i just don't see it as the wank as an inevitable consequence of the anonymity -- i do think it was related almost entirely to previous grudges against a couple of the people involved. obviously we're just going to continue to disagree about that point.

From:

obviously we're just going to continue to disagree about that point.

Agreed. :)

From:

msp-hacker.livejournal.com

The difference between Reviewing the Evidence and Fandom is that Fandom will bury an ax into your back, then get all of their friends to join into the party with their own sharp implements. Only the really sucessful or those who do things for free are able to be that level of crazy about their work.

From: