Messages

1

General Questions and Discussion / Recent events and policies we'd like to discuss

« on: October 31, 2007, 10:04:43 PM »

[quote name='Chisa' post='218054' date='Oct 31 2007, 08:32 PM']I hope you don't feel as if I'm attacking you (because I most certainly am not  ^_^) but I can't help but address some of your points.

I must disagree with this; I can't find any alternative solutions in the original post; 'alternative suggestions' being defined as 'compromise' in my books    The extra information box idea was posted by Mistress Puff, not the original posters. I also cannot find any alternatives voiced about the 6 upcoming/ 3 pending rule. An alternative suggestion would be, for example, telling us what exact numbers they would like the numbers to be raised to. As for the codes, asking for the word 'fan' to be allowed is simply asking for the rule to be lifted altogether (though actually, codes with only 'fan' on it are allowed in certain categories. We did not ban the word 'fan' altogether, we simply want the codes to not be ambiguous).

If you are the only applicant, you will be approved, so no, we don't have the ability to reject anything without explaining ourselves ^_^ You are also always free to ask as to why the application was rejected as well, though I'd imagine the staffer would tell you the reason regardless (i.e. applying for a manhwa, series is too new, unapprovable subject for x reason, etc.)  As for the box idea, the thing with that is, as I mentioned before, is that it grants us the "god-status" that nobody wants, to allow us to determine whether the 4+ person relationship is legitimate or not. If we approve Person A for a 4+ relationship, but rejected Person B for a 4+ relationship just because we don't find it legitimate despite whatever proof Person B may have provided -- it honestly wouldn't be fair to any of you. The box idea (extra information field) itself is fine for helping the staffer with URLs and whatnot like at TFL, but for the 4+ relationships, it simply wouldn't be fair.[/quote]

On the contrary, I don't feel attacked at all.    

In response, I went back to recheck the input box suggestion, and you are absolutely right.  I could have sworn I'd read the input box in the original post, but apparently not!  At the same time, it was the original post that inspired the idea, and I still think it's a great idea that should be considered.    I still stand by the others though.  They don't mention an exact number, but they suggest that it be raised.  It would be hard to tack an ideal number on these, I would assume (mind you, as I stated earlier, these particular rules don't bother me) and I think that part of the reason they leave it open like that is for the network to discuss it.  However, I don't want to make excuses for the original authors because I don't know if that was their intent.  Meanwhile, for codes, it's not really lifting the rule altogether to allow the word "fan" to be in place, in my opinion.  I think the most important part of a code is using a picture that actually reflects the subject.  I can understand why simply "fan" is not allowed on, for example, a series fanlisting, because a series can be reflected by characters, places, items and whatnot.  I realize that the word "fan" isn't banned altogether (and looks very nice with subjects a lot of the time, too! although I think it would be really awesome if the TAFL rules listed all the categories where "fan" is not allowed to be the only word (it gives examples on the actual rules page, but does it list all of them?).  

Meanwhile, staffer-wise, I again put up my sad little disclaimer that I have never been and am not a staffer and I realize that I therefore don't know much about them or what they go through, what they are and are not allowed to do, etcetera.  The reason that I made that claim is because of this on the TAFL rules page:

The staff has final right to not approve a fanlisting.
Inappropriate or ridiculous subjects can be refused by the staff. Please be sensible when applying for a fanlisting.

If a relationship doesn't have any foundation (which, proof could be provided with Puff's nifty idea), can't the staffer(s) reject it, regardless of how many applicants there are?  But again, I am not a staffer, and I don't know how things operate behind the scenes, so to speak.  It's a bit depressing that the input box idea allows for more complications.  I would think that the approval for a legitimate 4+ relationship (with proof) would be easier with the input box thing there, especially if there are people on staff that can vouch that the relationship exists after having watched the anime, read the manga or what have you.  But I realize how that can be unfair too as you guys haven't seen/read every anime/manga in the world and can't approve things based on that either.   :/   I want to thank you for that little epiphany, because I wouldn't have had it if you hadn't poked me here.  

2

General Questions and Discussion / Recent events and policies we'd like to discuss

« on: October 31, 2007, 08:01:05 PM »

Alright, so I've been trying to stay away from this thread, because I have a couple strong opinions and several of the responses to the initial post also amuse me.  Most people might as well have wrote *ditto's Chisa* because that's what most responses are, except that they're in different tones.  However, it's great to see that this thread has received the attention that its original posters wanted - positive or negative, it's feedback at least.  

Of course it would receive negative feedback.  That's why this thread is posted anonymously, because the authors already considered all outcomes.  I'm not surprised to see so many angered responses from staffers; calling anyone biased, intimidating, or generally saying that someone thinks highly of themselves results in negative feelings.  Personally, I don't feel that the staffers are biased, because whenever I have questions or comments, they always answer mine, just like they answer anyone else's, in the same tone they always use.  Meanwhile, as for whether they are intimidating, I am personally intimidated by this board often, which is why I don't post frequently anymore.  Not because of the way any staffer responds to me in particular, but mostly because I'm not as into anime as most people here are (names like Naruto, Darker and Black, Bleach, etc - popular anime often posted here, and I'm not that familiar with them).  I don't feel as though I fit in, but since this is an anime/manga board, it's pretty easy to see why.  ^_^

Before I go on, there is something that I feel the need to point out.

[quote name='arashi' post='218022' date='Oct 31 2007, 03:38 PM']Furthermore, I think that because you do not reveal your names, you actually don't have that much support behind your accusations. If you had a forum of individuals backing up your claim, you would proudly reveal yourselves. By guising your post as "discussion" and posting anonymously, you are trying to gauge and gather "support", thus effectively saving your own behinds from any inadvertent consequences.

Lastly, I would like to conclude this portion of my post by saying, if you so strongly believe in your claims, why do you not do anything constructive towards your ends? Instead of whining about "unfair rules", such as you claim, why don't you suggest alternatives or solutions to the "problems"?
--
And lastly I just want to say how disrespectful you have been. For all the the time and work that TAFL Staffers have put in, how dare you try to slander their character? Shame on you.[/quote]

I'm sorry Arashi, but I feel that you are the one who is being disrespectful.  This topic is posted anonymously because they fear bias from staffers and fellow board members.  If TAFL didn't welcome this, this topic would have been closed well before you had the chance to post and the Anonymous account wouldn't exist in the first place.  I don't feel that they are at all cowardly because they had the guts to post this where everyone could see, staffers and board members and strangers alike.  And you're right about the "effective saving" of themselves from any "inadvertent consequences."  They already pointed this out as the reason they're anonymous in their original post.

They do bring up alternatives to the situations they describe - an extra information box in the application form so that relationships between more than three characters can be described and documented and proved.  For 6 upcoming and 3 pending, they suggest the numbers be raised.  For codes, they suggest that the word "fan" be allowed.  

And if I'm not totally illiterate, I think it looks like you're trying to slander their character with your claims of "cowardice" even though you considered being anonymous yourself and therefore cowardly by your own definition.  I'm sorry that I singled you out in particular, but of all the posts I've read in this thread, I was most offended by yours.  I can't help but wonder if your tone would be different if you knew the authors of the thread personally.

--

So anyway, about the points that are brought up in the original post.  Honestly, I don't care about any of the board related things since I'm not really an active poster here, though I do read the boards frequently.  What I'm interested in are the network rules that are brought up for discussion.  I also don't apply often here since as I said before I'm not as into anime, so 3 pending isn't so bad, but I do agree that the number is rather low.  If I were into more anime I'd probably be applying for a lot more things...  and I disagree with some of the responses stating that this would give collectors a better chance, because staffers always give the fanlisting to the people who care about the subject most - the best applicant possible.  Right?  Since collectors apply for popular subjects and don't really give a flying crap about them, I don't see why weeding them out is such a problem.

Relationships-  I agree.  There are legitimate relationships out there between four or more characters, although as it was pointed out a lot of these can be applied for under characters (meanwhile a lot of them cannot, thanks to the group rule).  A secondary textarea for more information about the relationship would make it easier for the staff to sift through them.  If nothing is written in it without any legitimate proof of the relationship actually existing, why can't the staff simply ignore it or reject it?  The staff already has the ability to reject anything they want without having to explain themselves, so I don't really see the problem here.  Disclaimer: I am not a staffer at either fanlisting network and I also don't have a life, so I obviously have no idea what staffers have to go through at all.  I freely and openly admit that.  

I also don't have much of a problem with the 6 upcoming rule, but again if I were into more anime/manga, this could be a problem.  If anything, I most agree with you on the codes rule.  Admittedly, I don't like codes with simply "fan" on them and always write the subject on the codes; it just looks nicer to me.  But I understand why you would want to write "fan" on some, especially for long songs or episodes, or long series names.  It doesn't look good when they're abbreviated and it doesn't look good when they're written out in full because then there's basically no more picture left.  It would be awesome if the code rule could at least lift the "fan" ban on 50x50 codes (though maybe require that at least one of them have the actual subject matter on them?), because often times they're too small to squeeze text on there.  At least 75x50, 100x35, 100x50 and onward have more width and room to write down things like , even if it is only a couple more pixels.

Though, there isn't any use in hoping that the code rule be changed, because it's already been addressed several times and apparently isn't changing anytime soon, if ever.  What I'm grateful for is that the layout rule that had first come in addition to the codes rule was lifted.  That rule was ridiculous compared to the codes rule, in my opinion, and Sasa's post (for those of you who remember) showed that.  Most importantly, it showed that TAFL staff does care about the community and does what they feel is best for it.  In all honesty I was rather dumbfounded at the phrase "TAFL is not a democracy" when I read it, because even though it's not a democracy, it seemed as though the network rules that were brought up weren't even considered, and it seems that they should be.  Obviously a single opinion doesn't have to cause a complete and immediate change, but the feeling I get is that the criticism concerning network policies were glanced at and tossed aside as "already addressed."  I understand not wanting to repeat yourself or budge on the matter, but still, it makes the authors look insignificant in the eyes of the community, especially with the "my way or the highway" attitude - which may or may not be the entire reason the authors feel intimidated in the first place.

Anyway, my post is long enough, so I'll just leave it at this.  I'm sure I'll go down in flames for daring to agree with the authors at all, let alone stand up for them, but at least I finally posted.  Yay.