Talk:FanFiction.Net/Archive 1

message: There is absolutly no point in having the NPOV tag here. This is an encyclopedia which provides information, and that includes listing the current contreversies so people will know about the highly unpopular policies of fanfiction.net as well as general information and its positive aspects. Although many of them may not provide sources, one has only has to go the site and see for themselves that they are true. Information about the site's creators, owners, founding date, etc. have already been provided. Seperate critisms and contreversies sections must be created with extensive research done on these topics.
:WTF? That makes no sense.
:Yes, it is the subject of controversies. Even rightly, in my opinion. However, the controversies had seeped into other NON-controversy areas of the article, which I know, because I just had to edit it for exactly that in some spots. Also, even in the "Controversy" section, it was worded in a way that obviously sympatheized with the view it was describing, in several places. That's not how we do things here. I share a lot of the opinions and frankly have experienced first-hand the hideous automated bureaucracy that is ffnet to the point of eventually abandoning it altogether, but I know better than to make the article itself agree with me, when it's only intended to report FACTS, not opinions. If I hadn't fixed a whole bunch of POV stuff just now, I'd definitely tag it, and I'm tempted to do it anyway still. 
:By the way, sign your posts, or at least time-stamp them. Otherwise people have no clue how long that comment's been there without digging through the history of the Talk page! Runa27 07:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pointless

message: The problem with citing sources in this article is that much of the relevant information on FF.net such as the story guidelines, banned author-source material (such as Anne Rice) are trapped behind a login requirement which can't be directly linked. The problem with POV issues is that most of the discussions of fanfiction.net are within a realm of blogs (largely LiveJournal), internet forums, chatrooms, which are difficult, unprofessional, and nearly impossible to cite reliably for long periods of time. This is simply a difficult and gray subject like a lot of internet-only topics.
--Draxle 22:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Official sources are restricted

message: I don't really know how to source some of the information that is there.  The staff list source comes from having been on staff, from TaraLJC and Steven Savage.  The date for the founding of FanFiction.Net comes from an AIM conversation and an e-mail I had with Xing back when I was on staff.  The Anne Rice information came from a site admin and an irc chat room.  It was also confirmed by Steven Savage.  The September 12 date for the removal of RPF material comes from my own memory.  When they did that, it crashed my site at the time. :/  The cease and desist information came from Steven Savage, the fanfictionarchivist mailing list and metafandom.  I have no idea on what planet "FanFiction.Net begins a more aggressive movement to remove works that do not comply with their policies. Complaints by the authors of some of the removed works are alleged to have been unanswered by staff members." comes from because FanFiction.Net has no staff besides Xing at this time.  I could put in the nitty gritty of the staff disputes and implosion but I'm not going to.  "FanFiction.net bans songfics from being posted in the archive. Already archived songfics are required to have lyrics removed, regardless of attribution to original artist."  That was done in response to cease and desist letters being sent to German sites where they were threatening to fine websites 5,000 euro per song lyric they had even if they retroactively removed them.  This was discussed on metafandom and fanficarchivist.  The FanFiction.Net policy change was confirmed by Steven Savage.  The pedophile part in the dispute part comes from having been on staff, from Xing and Steven Savage.  Are there any more bits of information that need citing?  And how do I edit in citations that are myself or personal conversations?  --PurplePopple 10:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I removed Often this has led to uproar, such as the multiple petitions currently going around to get back script format. from the policy section.  If you want to talk about the reactions, put the reactions in the timeline with sources or put in the controvery section.  It does not belong in a statement of policy changes in the site.  It seems important to keep that part, the disagreements over policy changes, out of the sections where it doesn't belong to help make the article be more neutral. --PurplePopple 10:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy changes

message: Virtually every public forum site on the Web has debates about its policies, petitions to change things, angry users, etc. This should be an encyclopedia article with factual information - for example, who runs this site? who owns it? how long has it been around? - DavidWBrooks 22:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that's fine. I'll go add a few more things. Ambush Commander 22:35, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
The Anne rice thing dates back a few years and isn't recent.  Why is that comment in there?  The latest FanFiction.Net fannish stuff has involved the issues pertaining to songfic. --PurplePopple 20:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry but this article is too "glowing."  ff.net has way too many issues and complaints do not get heard.  Right now, the staff is going through and removing "scripted" works.  At least that's what they're calling it.  I had 6 works removed and not 1 of them was in script format but that's what they were removed for.  No staff member can be contacted and there's no method of appeal.  --drmike
I disagree on every opinion on this page.  If this is an article of FanFiction.net, why can't it contain info regarding the controversies?  I mean, I am an author in the site *and I WILL protect my identity* and I have heard complaints about many authors regarding the policies and unjustified removals.  It's more than fair and at the same time informative for anyone planning to go to the site.   (NOT a Wikipedia user) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.145.29.19 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Lets face it - the FanFiction.net users are in an uproar. And while most of us understand that the staff at FanFiction.net have to protect themselves from legal problems, they are handling it completely wrong.
I've sent in multiple complaints to the staff over at ff.net and have recieved either very rude or no responce at all. It appears that even they are getting fed up with the complaints.
In example - any ff.net user must renounce any and all ownership if a non-origional character. This is down through a written disclaimer at the begining of each story. Most authors - by the way - ignore this. However, if a disclaimer can be used for a character, why not a song?
I've sent in a calm - no aggressive - email to the staff asking that question. The responce was imediate and harsh "if you do not write it - do NOT post it". Word for word, any dispute - get over it.
It is simple, if you have a problem with them - they just don't care.
UPDATED on November 27th 2005
Myself and a few hundred other authors have thought of boycotting the fanfiction site in an attempt to take away their 'highest popularity' status. Our desision is still under dispute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hanyou1911 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't delete this topic because that would be censorship, but let me warn you: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The talk page is for discussing the content of the article, not the article's subject. Furthermore, please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~ — Ambush Commander(Talk) 03:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Far? 

message: Moving the logo inside the infobox has caused problems with the infobox's grey background and the logo's white background. I'll take a whack at it myself since I'm not exactly ignorant in image formats, but if someone who does this regularly can do it, it would be appreciated. I think setting white as the alpha should work. We might want to convert to PNG in the process. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 21:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix alpha for logo 

message: it's great exept for some of the athors that accused me of hacking someone's profile. I mean, i can't hack!
PopiethePopester 01:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's bad and good about the site in my eyes 

message: I would suggest someone email Xing and the FanFiction.Net staff about the history of the site.  I have been active at the site for a long time, and I remember some things that others most certainly do not, but I don't remember the actual dates.  For example, in the timeline section, I would add a few things: the dates of different revisions to the site, the period where the site experienced significant instability, the date the rating system was killed, the timeline of refinements to the site (adding/subtracting significant catagories, the loss of the message boards, history of articles, etc.)
I also think that the controversy should not be the very first section after the description of the page, as that immediately skews the article in the eyes of the reader (at least this reader).
Perhaps it is trivial, but it might be interesting to have a section devoted to specific parts of the site's history (For example, the "Author Wars").  Or, would such talk be better suited on individual wiki pages with links in this page?
Dooflegna 20:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "It ended up basically being just Xing about four months after that" <<<so exactly who is running the site now? If it is just Xing, then what is the 'support staff' thing? (on FF.net, there're references to a support staff crew. For example, someone in the FAQs, it says that FF.net e-mail addresses are used by the site's support staff). And there're also references to "Fanfiction.net administrators. I don't mean to pry, but maybe a little information on how the site is ran now would be nice. It's always bugged me about how there seems to be no communication between the site staff and the site users. I've been a FF.net user for ages, and i think the only one time i got a reply from the site was when i sent in a list of characters for a category that didn't yet have a character list (and the reply happened to be a one line retort telling me that i'd listed the characters wrongly since i'd put the surnames in front of the first names, as you do for Japanese names.) Yaksha 01:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Information 

message: How come Archie comics isn't on the list of authors who sent a cease and  desist letter? 199.126.166.178 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archie Comics

message: Just reading the article, I think that there are plenty of citation stickers throughout the page. I don't see a need for the sticker anymore. t.z0n3
Some of the citations are hard to cite.  I know a number of them from having been on staff.  If citations needed to be given, the staff member names could probably be found from the mailing list and from the Internet archive.  --PurplePopple 02:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations sticker

message: I was looking at an older version of this article, and it said that decorative characters were banned from Fanfiction.net. I've never heard that term used before, and the Fanfiction.net policy never mentioned it. So, could someone please tell me what a Decorative Character is?
:In English, at least, that appears to include *** (a common chapter divider), for one. Runa27 08:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Decorative Characters

message: The Mary Sue page says Fanfiction.net has a ban on self-insertions, yet I've never actually heard of this ban and this page has nothing on it that I've skimmed. Could someone clarify?--Claude 03:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-insertion 

message: A new summary of the "Cassiegate" scandal has been written up on journalfen.  Unlike the other sources, this is viewable by the public and cites many other sources that also are viewable by the public. Definitely has a point-of-view, but it's a good starting point for sources. --141.225.150.199 02:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Cassandra Claire summary 

message: The site has a new look. They got rid of the lightbulb logo altogether. Can someone get a picture of this? Starfox Pilot 17:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Look 

message: Most of the more 'hardcore' fanfic fans refer to the site solely as 'The Pit of Voles' or as 'The Pit'. Who started this name, and shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? Firefly99 16:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Pit of Voles