Vote now in wave 1 of the FEOTM Reboot!
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.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.
The last sentence was the only thing I didn’t agree with.
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 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.
I'll have to see if @krausfadr is okay with this, then.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.
Thank you. As soon as @DigModiFicaTion agrees I'll share it.Q2 yes I'm completely fine if you want to share the entire exchange.
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.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.
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.I feel you, Kraus. No one should be forced to provide proof of purchase in this case. It just doesn't seem right.
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.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.
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.It looks like the 15 days announcement/post was somehow lost in the software/forum migration that recently occurred. Our apologies for missing that.