• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request

Announcement regarding my future on FE.org

Status
Not open for further replies.
The last sentence was the only thing I didn’t agree with.
 
DominicCobb said:
The own the source rule exists for a reason. It's not just something we put up for the sake of it. We take it seriously because it is a serious matter. The site has been shut down in the past because of it. Other sites have been shut down because of it. There is no one editor's vanity that is worth more than the continued existence of the site. If you have a problem with that you are more than welcome to leave on whatever date you choose.
Click to expand...
To clarify, I completely understand the rule that requires editors to own the official source before pursuing their projects. As someone who is aware that FE.org was shut down by the MPAA one time, I don't really see a problem with this. It's the staff's methods of upholding the rules that I can't fully agree upon.
 
krausfadr said:
The last sentence was the only thing I didn’t agree with.
Click to expand...

But the last sentence’s tone is drastically altered by the rest of the post. He clearly and politely addressed the rule at issue and how that rule exists for a reason and isn’t negotiable. Anyone who can’t abide by that rule (or other crucial rules) is welcome to leave anytime, but those crucial rules aren’t up for negotiation. Things like the speed at which new edits are approved have been discussed and the moderators and admins have taken up suggestions for improvements. Likewise, they have also taken up suggestions for how to improve the wording of the rules to avoid confusion. I’m really at loss as to what the issue is here. I saw the thread in question so I’m assuming there is something that transpired in private messages.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to see you go @motleycat Enterprises inc, however I wish you'd reconsider considering you've only been privy to one side of the story. While I am sorry @krausfadr felt he was being attacked/judged, that's not entirely how it went down. And if krausfadr is amicable to it, I'm happy to share the private conversation between him, @DigModiFicaTion, and myself so people can see how the exchange actually went. Maybe DigMod and myself were more harsh than we intended and just are not seeing it, but having reread that private conversation I think we were more informative in explaining what our rationale was. Perhaps I'm wrong though.

orchidal said:
Q2 uprooted that newish anime editor ddark94 like some virtual Hans Landa. could've been done in ways less domineeringly eager to persecute through DMs with the same results surely.
Click to expand...
This actually started prior to his posting in the forum. He sent an email to the general account wanting us to add his edits to IFDB. When I explained the process — 30-day wait for new users, vetted by an academy member or established faneditor — he created his account and used the General Fanedit forum to started a thread for his dumping ground to bypass our rules. I let it slide until he started posting new edits daily and that's when I stepped in because I know you can't turn out quality fanediting work daily, it's just not possible. It was then brought to our attention he was using pirated sourced material for at least one edit, so I took it upon myself to take a look at a few of his edits. Not only were at least some of the edits using pirated material, the picture quality was subpar and never would have passed an IFDB submission. So not only was he breaking the own the source rule, he also was putting out low quality work which is something FE.org tries to avoid promoting. Once called out he promptly created a sock account to PM, not only calling me names but threatening me and my family. So please don't defend unstable individuals like that.
 
Q2 said:
Sorry to see you go @motleycat Enterprises inc, however I wish you'd reconsider considering you've only been privy to one side of the story. While I am sorry @krausfadr felt he was being attacked/judged, that's not entirely how it went down. And if krausfadr is amicable to it, I'm happy to share the private conversation between him, @DigModiFicaTion, and myself so people can see how the exchange actually went. Maybe DigMod and myself were more harsh than we intended and just are not seeing it, but having reread that private conversation I think we were more informative in explaining what our rationale was. Perhaps I'm wrong though.
Click to expand...
I'll have to see if @krausfadr is okay with this, then.
 
Q2 yes I'm completely fine if you want to share the entire exchange. My main issue is being forced to provide a receipt. In my opinion that is really crossing a line on your part. The cat and mouse issue orchidal brings up is also valid in my opinion. Another aspect here is the jargon used during the exchange. When Digmodification said I had an OTC violation I thought he was still talking about screen capture. Again please feel free to share it if you want to.
 
Please explain the cat and mouse analogy for those of us who aren't seeing it. Is it being inferred that the admin are a bunch of cats just waiting to swat the rest of us mice down for any reason they deem fit?
 
I feel you, Kraus. No one should be forced to provide proof of purchase in this case. It just doesn't seem right.
 
krausfadr said:
Q2 yes I'm completely fine if you want to share the entire exchange.
Click to expand...
Thank you. As soon as @DigModiFicaTion agrees I'll share it.
krausfadr said:
My main issue is being forced to provide a receipt. In my opinion that is really crossing a line on your part. The cat and mouse issue orchidal brings up is also valid in my opinion. Another aspect here is the jargon used during the exchange. When Digmodification said I had an OTC violation I thought he was still talking about screen capture. Again please feel free to share it if you want to.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you feel it's a cat and mouse game. It's really not. When we ask a question we like a direct answer and if we feel we didn't get that then we have to push. Sometimes that goes back and forth several times until we're satisfied. When it takes as long as it did in this instance I felt justified in asking for proof of the purchase, that's all. It's not about ego, it's about protecting the site. I've been a member here for 13 years, and admin for 10+, and I have been a major contributor to helping see the site as it moved providers, software, etc. I have a vested interest in the site and don't want it threatened or shut down because I've put ,months and months of work into it, trying to make it the best it can be.
 
motleycat Enterprises inc said:
I feel you, Kraus. No one should be forced to provide proof of purchase in this case. It just doesn't seem right.
Click to expand...
In my defense we didn't force him to do anything. We just asked that if he wanted his edit listed on IFDB that he provide proof of the purchase or it wouldn't be listed. That was all.
 
Q2 said:
In my defense we didn't force him to do anything. We just asked that if he wanted his edit listed on IFDB that he provide proof of the purchase or it wouldn't be listed. That was all.
Click to expand...
I agree that the first time you asked for the receipt this was the case. But the second time you asked for the receipt was a little different and a demand. At that point I did feel attacked and like I had to provide it.
 
(these are all broad statements, and not directed at any one side or individual)
Okay, I have no real dog in this fight, so I won't say much. I've felt dogged by one or two admins, and I've also seen firsthand the rule-breakers they have to deal with. If they can get aggressive, I get it. I moderate two decently large subreddits in my freetime, so I understand the need for moderation, and low quality content, if accepted, only lowers the ships in the harbor as they say. So for the good of the community, I think it's fair for them to swiftly and deftly deal with things. As a veteran of both the 90's .com forum boom and the subsequent 00's forum purge, this community could be so much worse.

I've had to remind well-known members about the source material rule, for example, in my direct messages. I'm no snitch so I won't name names, but I like coming here, and I don't mind hurting someone's pride or feelings if it's for integrity's sake, and the greater good of the forum/site.

Luckily the MPAA seems to have given up completely on fan/derivative works and are really hunkering down on overseas distributing servers for the time being, so I don't see the site in too much danger (though I'm sure the admins know better than I on this)

@addiesin says it best. Rules are rules. If your response to breaking a rule is to get defensive over your decision, rather than correcting and applying that newfound information, you might be the problem.
 
@TinyBreadMouse says it best when they say that @addiesin says it best. Rules are rules. If your response to breaking a rule is to get defensive over your decision, rather than correcting and applying that newfound information, you might be the problem.
 
Last edited:
I also have no dog in this fight so will keep it short. I was watching that anime thread and it smelled hinky to me from the get-go; I'm not surprised that one ended the way it did. It is a shame to hear the issues with a couple of editors; I did go look again at the rules page and in krausdafr's defense, I couldn't find any mention of a 15 day physical release requirement. I wouldn't have known any better myself were I to get a bug to edit a new movie with just digital release availability. Perhaps a revision of the rules page would clear that up?

I hope everyone can work it out, While I still feel a bit of a noob here, this has been a great community thus far.
 
@Q2 I'm completely fine with sharing the PM thread seeing that krausfadr has ok'd that. Just for clarity, this is a rare and singular case, that I'm aware of, where we would share private messages openly with non participants of the conversation. We value your privacy and do not share PMs with other forum members.

Edit:
It looks like the 15 days announcement/post was somehow lost in the software/forum migration that recently occurred. Our apologies for missing that.

Re-edit:
Found the 15 days after physical release announcement. It's a pinned thread in the Site News Area.
 
Last edited:
DigModiFicaTion said:
It looks like the 15 days announcement/post was somehow lost in the software/forum migration that recently occurred. Our apologies for missing that.
Click to expand...
It may have been one of those things we posted in the forum as a new rule but forgot to update the actual rules page. It will definitely be added to avoid future confusion.
 
I knew I read it on here somewhere, as I knew of the rule already. It was definitely listed, just not where it would have made the most impact.
 
I've never heard of it before (or just don't remember).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom