Forum: Author Hangout

I'd suggest responding that it was in the codes, there was a warning in the story description & you can't help it if they choose to ignore what's there for them to see.

That's what I put in my blog. I'm not going to respond directly to the reader—no point.

bb

I'm not going to respond directly to the reader—no point.

Rather than no response, and tacitly agreeing with him, I'd suggest he stay off the site, since he's likely to encounter many other thing he's disgusted by, since they're normal parts of belonging to civil society.

@dochollday

I have always wondered how many beginning story tellers stop writing because of those bullies.

That's the whole point in this kind of rant: they (homophobes, racists, etc.) are trying to drive normal conversations away, so the only ones left are those who agree with them.

Instead of abandoning the site, the actually make me want to write MORE of the same!

I have always wondered how many beginning story tellers stop writing because of those bullies. Heck I have even thanked writers who's stories I have no intentions of reading. Just the act of sharing deserves that much.

I've already heard from someone in response to my blog entry on this to say he as a reader has as much exasperation with comments like the one in question as authors have.

I'm not a new writer and I've got a thick skin, but even if I were just starting I'm pretty sure one nasty note wouldn't stop me, but it's still shocking to have this kind of thing come out of the blue.

The story's download count (not high to begin with) has spiked in the last 12 hours, and the score has dropped a little, so perhaps it will be a 1-bomb target for awhile.

bb

would there be value to having group-endorsed blog posts?

Good idea, Lugh. However, if the idiots don't read the codes and cautions preceding the story, why would they read the group posts.

There is also the situation that many readers are not interested in the writer blogs.

Musing--would there be value to having group-endorsed blog posts? Not necessarily suggesting the software changes to have a multiauthored post.

I'd certainly sign a caution to those who won't read.

I would too, as I'm sure you've all noted by now. ;D

Red61544 --I agree with the advice you gave BB about him letting it go. I do question the accuracy of your labeling the reader a troll. Although, your advice on how to deal with a troll is also good.

To me a reader who contacts you one time about something is a disgruntled, angry reader; even if the reader makes disparaging remarks, is in the wrong, and is an idiot.

To me the label troll is only appropriate when applied to a reader who attempts to contact you repeatedly after you make it clear you wish no future contact with them.

BB -- Has that reader contacted you multiple times? If not, courtesy to your readers suggests that you at least acknowledge having received and read their email. How nice you treat that reader is a matter of personal judgment.

To me the label troll is only appropriate when applied to a reader who attempts to contact you repeatedly after you make it clear you wish no future contact with them.

Trust me, REP, as one who's encountered this kind of hate mongering, it'll continue. I've seen it happen repeatedly. On the flip side, ignoring it isn't likely to discourage him either. In short, there's nothing you can do to disuade him. Instead, about the only option that works--as most websites eventually learn once trolls start impacting their appeal--is to start banning those readers, and requiring log-ins with actual names, so everyone recognizes who's spouting their hated in a public venue. To not do so is to risk the thousands of readers the trolls victimize--simply because no one will stand up for them!

is to start banning those readers, and requiring log-ins with actual names,

Overall, I agree with you.

The only problem is that a registration does not guarantee the person registering is doing so using their real name. If I were to register as John Snodgrass, then people would be upset with John, but since I am actually Harry Ponce, I will not be affected by their comments. If I get kicked off the site I can always reregister using a different name and email address.

The only problem is that a registration does not guarantee the person registering is doing so using their real name. If I were to register as John Snodgrass, then people would be upset with John, but since I am actually Harry Ponce, I will not be affected by their comments. If I get kicked off the site I can always reregister using a different name and email address.

I wasn't saying it's a perfect cure, but after watching Trolls infect one site after another, I've observed that it's about the only way to control it. You don't require a name, but associate a given pseudonym with a physical address--even if it's only an email address. By being able to block that user, and all his permutations, you can limit their vile. Otherwise, if anyone can claim to be anyone else to spout their hate, diminishing the original authors well-earned reputation, the site becomes no help to anyone.

It's a drastic step, but it's usually only undertaken as a last ditch method. Alas, if the 1-bombers get too aggressive, about the only solution I can see it to ban scores entirely, or at least reduce the 10 star system with a 4 star system (where a 1-vote has less of an impact, much closer to the more reasonable scores have).

@REP

My reader stopped contacting me, and I suspect he 1-bombed me in retaliation for letting a bit of hot air out of his ego.

Alas, there must be a price for living in a civil society, and the charge is often public shaming. If people can't behave in a civilized manner, it's up to the other members of the community to apply social pressures for the benefit of everyone.

That approach has fallen into disrepute, but it seems to apply to the current virtual world. If left alone, the internet is becoming a cesspool of inflammatory extremest views.

I agree whole heartedly. When people can say anything they want to say without fear of repercussion for unwarranted insult to another person, we have a problem. User names support this type of unacceptable behavior.

If there was a way to trace these types of comments back to the person who makes them and hold them accountable for their comments, then a lot, but not all, of the problem would end.

BB -- Has that reader contacted you multiple times? If not, courtesy to your readers suggests that you at least acknowledge having received and read their email. How nice you treat that reader is a matter of personal judgment.

I've only heard from this guy once.

My default is to reply to every note, directly or in my blog if the writer is anonymous. Doesn't matter whether the note is praise or criticism. The only time I haven't replied is where the note invited me to trade "real" stories about the themes of my stories, and even then only when the reader persists past my standard "It's all fiction, I made it all up, the story is the whole story" line.

In this case, I'm not going to reply because thanking someone for taking the time to share his vile homophobic drivel seems a little---odd.

bb

because thanking someone for taking the time to share his vile homophobic drivel seems a little---odd.

A reply does not have to be a "Thank You".

You can always tell the person what you think of them and their opinions and you can tell them you do not care to discuss the matter further with them.

I did that to a reader about two years ago who was telling me in a very derogatory tone that I had a number of well known and commonly accepted "facts" wrong. I explained to this reader using some biting words that his facts where valid here on Earth, but may not be so on another planet. My reader stopped contacting me, and I suspect he 1-bombed me in retaliation for letting a bit of hot air out of his ego.

A reply does not have to be a "Thank You".

You can always tell the person what you think of them and their opinions and you can tell them you do not care to discuss the matter further with them.

Fair enough. I always thank a reader for taking the time to write, hence the "thank you." But if responding itself is a form of respect, I don't care to show respect to a person who wrote the garbage this guy wrote. He doesn't deserve it.

Given the terms in which he delivered his view, I doubt any response would be productive, so no point in sharing my views with him.

I acknowledge it's pretty much of a no-win situation, which is why I elected to blog my response rather than write to him. There's reason to respond directly, I agree, but in this case I don't care to dignify what he said with a response.

(My nose really isn't as high in the air as this sounds. Really it's not. I am holier than he is, however ...!)

bb

The saying goes something like: 'Don't judge a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes.'

There is a big difference between angry words and hateful words.

The saying goes something like: 'Don't judge a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes.'

There is a big difference between angry words and hateful words.

I hope you are not asserting I have to attend x number of Westboro Baptist Church demonstrations before I can conclude this writer's speech was hateful.

His first sentence was angry. Apparently he was taken by surprise by the MM material because he either had not read or did not pay attention to the warnings.

The remainder of his message was hateful. Straight-up hateful.

The "holier than he is" remark was a joke and I should have tagged it as such. A bad joke, as my wife points out frequently about my jokes.

bb

I hope you are not asserting

Nope! I was trying to say I did not know specifically what your reader said. Therefore, it would be wrong of me to be critical of any decision you chose to make. My recommendations were only made based on a generic angry reader comment, not a hate filled reader.

As far as Westboro goes, all you need to do is look at the signs they carry and listen for one minute to tell that they are a hate group. If I ever went to where their church is located, I would stand on the porch of the gay pride house that is right across the street from the church and wave at those going in to worship.

If I ever went to where their church is located, I would stand on the porch of the gay pride house that is right across the street from the church and wave at those going in to worship.

What would be better is to get a bunch of people, prepare signs like God is love and Jesus taught to love each other with suitable quotes from the Bible, and set up a picket line in front of the church to make it hard for them to get in.

Ah yes. Poetic justice. Unfortunately, that type of bigot has their own interpretation of what those messages mean, so the intent may not be clear to them.

Nope! I was trying to say I did not know specifically what your reader said. Therefore, it would be wrong of me to be critical of any decision you chose to make.

Got it. No worries. Here's the reader's text. The first two sentences (not one, as I said earlier) arguably are the words of an angry reader. The remainder of the message is hate. For what it's worth, he'd fit in nicely with the Westboro Baptist Church crowd.

BEGIN QUOTE
Hate male on male. Should have put in tags. Find it very disgusting and against natural order of things. Men that do that should be denutted and cocks cut off for the safety of the rest of the world so they can not pass on the fag gene!
END QUOTE

bb

My question is how do we as a society define the natural order of things. People like your reader are obviously not aware that many of the 'greats' of the past were in or condoned same sex relationships.

Furthermore, what gives this person the right to decide that others behavior is inappropriate and why does this person feel they have the right to decide on what punishment is suitable for someone violating their narrow moralistic code. Yeah, that does sound like the Westboro crowd.

I have to consider the possibility this man feels an attraction to other men, and wants to deny it. If so, then his hate is probably self hate focused outward in the form of moralistic rants about the sexual act itself, which is what he fears he will someday do.

It's probably best to avoid considering the motives of people you don't know

To a certain extent that is true. However, if you want to understand why a person does or thinks things you need to postulate possibilities. A chain of 'if' statements will lead to a conclusion, however if any 'if' statement is false then the conclusion is probably false.

I am not disagreeing with what you say. There are practical limitations on doing things as you describe. The only meaningful dialog you can have with someone is a face-to-face discussion. It is easy for someone to make false claims in emails, letters, and posts. You have no way to identify those misrepresentations. At least in a face-to-face discussion you can read the other person's body language and that will give you at least some indication as to the person's veracity.

Angry feedback from a reader is often the reader venting without addressing the real reason they are angry.

No offense intended DS, but it sounds as if you are saying it is wrong for a writer to guess at why a reader is upset when they get angry feedback and the reason for the reader's anger is not clear.

Trying to understand that anger before one responds to the reader is what I was talking about. It is the first step in instigating meaningful dialog with the reader. Without an understanding of why a reader is venting their anger at you, you don't stand a chance of resolving the real issue.

You can call that telepathy or anything else you want, but I suspect all writers do it before responding to an angry reader.

It is obvious that we disagree and I doubt either of us is going to convince the other that they are failing to understand the situation. Shall we agree to disagree and let the question go?

Furthermore, what gives this person the right to decide that others behavior is inappropriate and why does this person feel they have the right to decide on what punishment is suitable for someone violating their narrow moralistic code. Yeah, that does sound like the Westboro crowd.

An argument based on morals or doctrine is futile (ex.: Westboro). It's ironic, sort of, but unless this guy lives in the back of beyond (and he might---his email alias suggests he's from the South) it's virtually certain he knows and interacts with (not-yet-out) gay folks even if, like Justice Kennedy, he were to claim and believe sincerely he doesn't know anyone who is gay.

The only hope I see is that as everyone sees and interacts with gay men and women, and the whole LGBTQ XYzZ (that last is a joke, deal with it) spectrum and discovers how human we all are, folks like this reader will feel less threatened (if that's what they feel now) and see less reason to believe such folks are evil. And we'll get past the bathroom wars, one hopes.

Note I didn't say anyone's going to like anyone, necessarily, but then that's a minor detail. OTOH, maybe they will. You never know.

bb

The only hope I see is that as everyone sees and interacts with gay men and women, and the whole LGBTQ XYzZ spectrum and discovers how human we all are, folks like this reader will feel less threatened (if that's what they feel now) and see less reason to believe such folks are evil. And we'll get past the bathroom wars, one hopes.

As more semi-closeted people come out as LGTBQ, more come around. That's what ultimately converted the Bushes & Cheuneys, eventually learning close members of their families aren't the 'monsters' they've always maintained gays to be.

There is a passage in Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" that pretty much sums up the problem our society has with sexual preference and other things.

The Moon's convicts have revolted against the Earth Authority and the people are in the process of forming a Congress and establishing the laws they will live by. I don't recall the exact quote, but an elderly man who was shipped to the Moon for fomenting revolution against his government says, "It never ceases to amaze me at the number of people who want us to pass laws that will protect their neighbors from themselves."

Our world would be a far better place if we all focused on living our lives the way we feel is right for us and ignore our neighbors so they can live their lives the way they wish.

The paper on the study put forward the theory that the gene that results in male homosexuality increases fertility in females.

So if you want children, marry a woman with a gay brother? Sounds good.

bb

Actually to persist, the gene would have to impact reproductive success. Even if it was beneficial to society as a whole but reduced the reproductive success of the individuals with the gene, it would still fade.

Then there's the gene for sickle cell anemia (SCA). If a person has SCA, their reproductive success is lowered.

However, the gene is recessive, meaning it has to come from both parents for SCA to occur. If a person has one "normal" gene and one gene for SCA, that person's reproductive success is improved because she has become more resistant to malaria than a person with two "normal" genes.

Therefore, SCA persists even though it lowers reproductive success.

Even if SCA lowers absolute fertility in the individual, where malaria is endemic, your chances of surviving to reproductive age is lower without SCA.

The New York Times reports:

As recently as 1973, the average lifespan for people with sickle cell disease was only 14 years. Currently, life expectancy for these patients can reach 50 years and over.

I think you're confusing SCA with the gene for SCA. As noted earlier, you need two copies of the SCA gene to actually have SCA, and having SCA lowers the chances of reaching reproductive age.

However, having just one SCA gene is adaptive, because, as you said, a solitary gene increases resistance to malaria. But these carriers don't have SCA; the just have a gene for it.

The best thing you can do with a troll is ignore him! Without someone with whom to argue, trolls simply wither an die

Sorry, I've heard this argument over and over, and I've seen ZERO evidence anywhere which supports it. Rather, he'll be encouraged whether you agree or disagree with him, because it puts you into a neat little box. Rather than an author writing about universal experiences, you become with gay yourself, or a 'homo lover', and thus a blight on humanity in your own right.

Whatever he does, you'll feel your sense of dignity return after sending him something like that.

We take different approaches to this, although I see your point.

As for my dignity, while it's often others who are judges of whether one's dignity is intact, from my point of view it is, and I'll stick with the blog post and this discussion.

Cheers,
bb

No matter how futile it may be (it obviously is in this instance), I prefer to respond as if there was some element of doubt in their intentions. Not for them, but so I feel comfortable I have exhausted all possibilities of a rational outcome.

Actually, I agree with that assessment. You don't want to pick a fight with someone unreasonable, as YOU'll look like a jerk and come off as an ass. Your posting the blog comment was probably best. Rather than personally confronting him, you're signaling to the SOL community that you don't share his opinion (as if any normal person would think that), and then you drop the whole topic. The WORST thing for an author is to publicly rant about someone's opinion (like a bad review).

Your posting the blog comment was probably best

I did do that, but the comment you are replying to is Ross at Play's.

bb

It's strange he would specifically state "[you] Should have put in tags", where the story was tagged appropriately. My interpretation--previously--was that he specifically sought the story out because of the tags. Either he doesn't know how to read/interpret, or he didn't get very far into the description.

Did he saw whether he was a fan (i.e. someone likely to trust your story content without fully checking the story out first)?

I'm pretty confident he didn't bother with the description, and probably didn't check the tags, either. If you start at the story's index page, i.e., you got there without seeing in the "New Stories" or author listing, you won't see the description or the tags unless you click the "Show Story Details" link.

He's not a fan known to me.

bb

Lastly, any chance we can resist the urge to mess with the voting system further? If you opt to allow readers to vote for your story, you have to accept that not everyone is going to award you a 10. If scoring was opened up on all the classic stories ever written, there would be 1's awarded. So what? At least the system is being honest. Scoring is by its nature subjective, deal with it.

My main objection with 1-bombs isn't the reader's opinion/protest-vote, but rather with the greater value 1 votes get given the current 10 point scoring system. If everyone votes in the 5 to 10 range, then a single 1 vote has a greater impact than 9 tens. A better solution would be to limit the power of each 1-bomb by limiting the range of scores, like Amazon does, to only 1 out of 4 stars. That way, a 1-star has a minimal impact on the overall score and actually helps the book as people view the votes as being more authentic since they represent a variety of opinions.

The real question is would an author rather only get the straight 10's, or would she/he rather get the honestly awarded 1 as well?

Personally, I have no problem with an "HONESTLY" awarded vote of 1. I haven't posted many stories, but I have noticed that within an hour or so of posting a new story, someone has 1-bombed it. I suspect that there is someone out there that gets some perverse pleasure out of 1-bombing all authors regardless of their story's quality, content, or other quality.

Then you have the hate mongers. They 1-bomb a story without reading it because it is about something they dislike or because it is by an author they don't like.

Yes this is all based on my suspicions for I don't know who the 1-bombers are or why they 1-bombed a story. However, these types of things happen too frequently to be just coincidence.

Probably more pedantry to mention the normal (bell) curve where the mean (like average) score has a standard deviation

The Gaussian Distribution Curve:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

has some faults, one of which is it ignores a lot of the abnormalities that occur in human reactions. Also, it's application to anything depends a lot on you having a large enough source points and the source points aren't biased in an unusual way. All of these points are issues with any statistical analysis.

Take a statistical analysis of the answers to question of people in the street and compare that to the same questions to people leaving a Republican Rally and those leaving a Democrats Rally, and you get three very different results due to the biases of the people.

The issue with statistical analysis of SoL scores is the low level of source points in relation to the universe relevant to the story being evaluated.

One story posted in 2005 has a score of 9.61 from 1,529 votes and 248,390 downloads. That means the score is from only 0.616 percent of those who read the story, assuming all the downloads are different readers and not a few people reading it hundreds of times.

Another story posted in 2011 has a score of 9.11 from 7,695 votes and 2,470,280 downloads. That means the score is from only 0.312 percent of those who read the story, assuming all the downloads are different readers and not a few people reading it hundreds of times.

While a third posted in March 2016 has a score of 8.53 from 491 votes and 11,382 downloads. That means the score is from only 4.314 percent of those who read the story, assuming all the downloads are different readers and not a few people reading it hundreds of times.

A fourth story posted in 2010 has a score of 9.23 from 2,794 votes and 25,327 downloads. That means the score is from only 11.032 percent of those who read the story, assuming all the downloads are different readers and not a few people reading it hundreds of times.

When you compare the score with the relative number of readers who voted, how relevant does the score become when it shows the great majority of readers don't think enough of the story to register a score for it. Does the higher score of 9.51 from 6 out of a every 1,000 readers mean it's a better story than one with a score of 9.23 from 110 out of every 1,000 readers. It's all way to subjective to mean much to anyone.

Lazeez has a number of blog and news entries on the scoring system, about how it works and why it's that way. I see little point in going much further with this type of discussion on scores.

edit to break up on paragrpsh to be mroe readable.

Consider five 10's and one 1 vote on a scale of 1 to 10. The median value is 5.5 and the average is 8.5, thus the 1 vote pulls the average down by about 33.3%. In a similar manner consider five 4's and one 1 vote on a scale of 1 to 4. The median is 2.5 and the average is 3.5, which means the 1 vote pulls the average down by about 33.3%.

It seems as if the scale makes little to no difference in the effect a 1 vote has on the average score.

Hi, just wanted to point out that the median in a sample 10-10-10-10-10-1 is 10. The median is the value that separates the high half of the numbers from the low half. The high half would be 10-10-10, and the low half is 10-10-1. With an even numbered sample, the median is calculated as the mean of the two middle values: (10+10)/2=10, for an uneven numbered sample, it is the middle value.
The same goes for your 4-4-4-4-4-1 example; the median would be 4.
The median is very robust against outlier data, an advantage over the mean when the population contains contaminations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median

three different calculations in mathematics

I never heard of 'mode'. While I can visualize the concept, I can't think of any practical application where the result would be meaningful.

If a story is so bad that the majority of votes are 1, the rest of the scores would probably be low also. The mean and median would both be low also if that were the case.

it is very useful for measuring how skewed a data set is.

I can see how that would be helpful when applied to a data set. If I understand your point, you are saying that in a data set that is influenced by outside factors, the mode would be offset from the mean and median values thereby signifying that there is an outside influence affecting the discrete values.

Some time back, I commented on my manner of voting. I said I start with 5 and then go up or down according to how I perceived the subsequent installments of a story. I recently realized that I made one minor error in that statement. I actually start with Good and on the SOL histogram, Good is 7.

Since most readers rely on the description and content codes to select stories to read, they will select stories that appeal to them. Since that selection criteria predisposes a reader toward liking the stories the select, they will probably rate the story as good or higher on the scale. That is probably why there are so many 7, 8, 9, and 10 votes on the histogram. Since there are only three values above 7 and six below it, the voting for a good or better story places the votes in the upper third of the rating scale.

As a fat old man of 70, I doubt that I will be getting into statistics. I'm more than happy to accept an informed opinion.

Never though that you did. I made a jest and forgot the happy face.

The bimodal normal distribution is also known as the brassiere curve.

"He slid his hand under her bimodal normal distribution" somehow doesn't have quite the same flow...

bb

You want 1-bombs? Just let your protagonist forgive his cheating wife/girlfriend! Works like a charm.

I do not forgive for their sake, but for my own. It's what I offer to negotiate my future peace of mind.

People--especially religious Christians--keep saying that, but they insist on forgiving someone publicly, which translates into tacit permission/acceptance of their behavior. If you forgive someone to clear your own mind, then you don't announce to the world. People who publicly forgive are looking for public brownie points, and are using their own personal slights to win public favors. In short, it's a short-sighted trade-off for acceptance among their friends.

If you need to clear your mind by forgiving someone, then everyone should do it, but you don't go before a court and request the judge forgive a felon's crime!

But I agree with your 'giving permission' argument. If you oppose the idea of casual flings, then state outright, early on, that if someone cheats, you'll walk out. The caveat, though, is if you cheat you accept whatever punishment the other chooses and don't bitch and moan or beg forgiveness. After all, you knew the repercussions just as much as they did!

Everyone has their own lines in the sand, and you've got to draw your own, and keep refreshing it so the lines don't get washed away over time.

There are a large number of very good, ethical lawyers in this country. Unfortunately, there are a number of lawyers who use tactics that I consider to be unethical.

Manufacturing, hiding, or misrepresenting evidence to get a guilty verdict and attacking the victim of a crime to get a not guilty verdict are two of the more reprehensible tactics that I feel are unethical. Unfortunately, in a court of law, those and other tactics are common practices.

As I recall the case, Ron Goldstein was a waiter at a restaurant Nichole frequented, and there was no personal involvement between him and Nichole. Nichole had left a personal item at the restaurant that night, and Ron offered to drop it off at her home after he got off work.

If there had been a personal involvement then I suspect that either the defense or the prosecution would have used it in the case.

Furthermore, how did the detective's investigation account for blood from the scene of the murder being found in OJ's vehicle?

Earlier that day OJ had met with Nichole and Ron at a school recital for one of his and Nichole's younger daughters

The comment was in response to the detectives investigation indicating their having a personal relation, friends or lovers, that was not brought out in what I recall of the trial. What I recall of the trial, Ron was her waiter on one or more occasions, and that was the extent of their relationship.

I suppose it really doesn't matter at this point. I doubt either of us know everything that actually happened. I know I have forgotten most of the details of what I read.

The only thing I really remember is the media turned it into a circus, and since then court trials have become sporting events with the lawyers jousting with each other and the crowds outside cheering them on.

True, but I don't recall them being televised, especially as a live program.

Thanks. OJ was the first I was aware of being televised, but I don't watch much TV so I probably just missed them.