Recent events and policies we'd like to discuss

[Veles]

[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.  

[Janice]

Additional points to follow.

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.

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.

First of all, IMO this topic is given a chance to accumulate responses mainly because the original poster specified to NOT close it, in a tone which I don't exactly consider as positive. Second, to hear that policies are "tossed aside" only because "it's been already addressed" - okay, maybe it's just me but that is contradictory. To reinforce what Rose pointed out nice and clear: issues mentioned in the original post have all been addressed before with clear reasons why, to which no apparent objection was raised each time - thus leading to our belief that they were settled. To see them being brought out more and more is just... weird, which is why I hope you see the reason why certain people are offended the way they are: it's as if certain efforts are ignored first-hand even before the whole "intimidation" issue.

This is more to a personal amusement than anything but: if you believe someone has offended the thread posters by speaking what s/he felt, what about the tone used by the original post? Really, nobody is trying to flame anyone in particular here because they don't know who they're speaking to. When some chose to remain anonymous and some chose not to, you can't avoid a slight difference between wordings and to call that offensive is highly contradictory. Though to be honest, it's great to see everyone speaking what they truly felt instead of being hesitant about whatever consequences that might come by. Like Carolyn said, everything is growing closer even if only in a queer form.

[Kerri]

I was actually scared to post here, for fear that I might just suddenly throw a bitching fit, but I feel that I need to throw in my two cents here. I'm posting as a fellow FL owner and board member.

1.) About the General Discussions; I can't remember who actually brought this up, but I agree. The Senior Staff are the best to answer these questions, even if the topics were supposed to be opened to forum members to express their opinions. If they get to it first, who are we to bitch about them closing the topic, even if the answer they give is straightforward and answer the question? Although I feel that it might help, if you post a line at the top saying like

I would like this to be open for discussion with the other members, thanks!

It actually shows that even though you appreciate the Senior Staff actually taking the time to respond, it's a way of politely asking not to close the thread and open it to others for discussion. I'm not sure if this makes sense to any of you, since this is purely from my own personal experience.

2.) Non-TAFL fanlistings pimping; I'm on the fence for this. I feel that if the FL subject has a close connection with anime/manga, like BLEACH/Naruto/FMA games, it should be allowed. Even though it is a game, it was derived from an anime. This is just my opinion though. Similarly for adoption posts, I feel some leeway should be given as well for items closely connected with anime/manga.

3.) Off-topic Chit Chat; I'm quite content with the Off-topic Chit Chat forum now. Even though the Your Mood thread is gone, TAFL-ers are bonding over the awesome "Threads of Doom" started by Mitz, Rose and Espo. (And possibly more to come?) That's all I can ask for, since I'm making good friends on there as well.

4.) Upcoming/Pendings; I'm actually on the side of more upcomings and pendings allotted. I understand that it is difficult for the staffers to approve fanlistings or remove troubled fanlistings regularly, since they all have a life, and honestly, who doesn't? But with all the approvals coming in at the same time, and the chance to run a fanlisting that you love to death is gone because some other approvals came in first is rather unfair. I'd suggest changing it to 8 upcoming and 5 pending, but I also understand about the "collectors".

5.) The codes rule has been touched on many times, therefore I'll not mention it again.

6.) <4 relationships; Forgive me if I'm wrong, aren't teams approvable? Like from Naruto, Team 7, 8, 10 and Gai? And the divisions in BLEACH? Like 10th Division, 3rd Division etc. etc? I'm not very clear about this, but like Puff mentioned, maybe they can be approvable if the relationship was fully explained.

7.) Democracy?; The staff work for us, the members of TAFL. I think they deserve to run the network, sine all they're doing is just making sure that we get along fine, the board doesn't become spammy and there is no general malice on the network.

8.) Bias; Honestly? I feel it's rather childish and immature to actually throw a tantrum over getting rejected and for thinking that there is biasness on the network. If you actually read the rejection emails, you'll see that the staffers are making sure that the fanlistings go to the best home possible. They are doing their best to do something to benefit the fanlistings community, and you guys throw it back in their faces.

I'm sorry if I'm being a bit out of hand here, but this is my opinion and what I feel.

[Korey]

[quote name='Aerith' post='218102' date='Oct 31 2007, 10:27 PM']7.) Democracy?; The staff work for us, the members of TAFL. I think they deserve to run the network, sine all they're doing is just making sure that we get along fine, the board doesn't become spammy and there is no general malice on the network.[/quote]

Totally agree. ^_^ I think we take advantage of the staff a bit too much, sometimes. And we forget why their really there.

I think we should have "Staff Appreciation Day"! ^_^

[Lia]

I don't come around here much anymore for various reasons, and I tend to be on the fence with any message board lately, not just TAFL.  I stop by to see if anything interesting is going on, but I don't post much because I don't have much to say, and my senior year of college is more important.  To address a few things....

1)  I don't mind not linking TFL fanlistings here.  I'll be happy to link an adoption thread on the TFL boards in an adoption post here, but unless the fanlisting is for a manga/anime version of a video game, why bother?  This doesn't seem like a big deal.

2)  The code thing bothers me because I'm lazy, but it makes sense, so I don't have anything negative to say about it.  My laziness is not any reason to change anything.  ^_^

3)  Staffers work hard.  I may not agree with all of them, and I've been relatively verbal about this in the past, but TAFL is essentially an unpaid job.  Once I removed the stick from my bum (because I just stopped caring about drama and internet things, for the most part), it became much easier to suck it up and deal.  I think "suck it up and deal" has become my mantra over the past year (or so)...  e.e

4)  Seriously, the upcoming/pending is fine.  No need to mess with it.  It keeps me in check, and though I take good care of my fanlistings and (generally) build them in a timely manner (because, honestly, RL does sometimes get in the way of 'teh intarweb'), I have classes to attend, schoolwork to finish and a job to do.  Fanlistings take priority after that, and that's how it should be (at least for me, I can't speak for anyone else).

5)  Not everything will be a democracy.  The internet is not a democracy, nor are message boards.  Back to my previous mantra, I think that "suck it up and deal" is the way to go (for me, at least).  I'm not so concerned about a message board or the internet as a whole being a democracy when certain countries that are "supposed" to be a democracy don't seem to have a very good handle on that.  But politics are a different story, and I'd rather not discuss it.  So.... let's not make TAFL be about politics, ok?  Politics never make for pleasant bedfellows, and TAFL should be like a nice, snuggly duvet in the middle of winter, right?

6)  As for bias, I'm going to put a different spin on this.  Let's say that you go for a job interview, and you do your best.  You think you did fantastic.  You clearly think you're the right person for the job.  But... there are other applicants.  Maybe a few, maybe a lot.  It's the HR manager's job to find the best person for the job.  This may or may not be you.  Did you not get the job because the HR person thinks "you suck" or "doesn't like you"?  No.  It's because there was someone better for the job, and the HR manager did his/her job by selecting that person.  It's nothing personal, and I'd like to think that staffers wouldn't stoop low enough to reject someone for a fanlisting because of something personal.  I'm sure that would never happen.

And, in conclusion, maybe I'm the last person anyone would think would be defending TAFL, because I'm pretty vocal when something bothers me.  It's ok to be disappointed to not get a fanlisting, or upset that you think your fanlisting has gone on troubles unfairly, but a little maturity goes a long way.  I'm not saying anything negative about anyone here (staffer or not), but the world doesn't end if you can't run a fanlisting.  Make a shrine, join the approved one, make tons of codes and donate them to the approved one... find something else to make you happy.  I've donated codes to several fanlistings that I desperately wanted, and it made me feel a lot better.  There are always good alternatives if you take the time to look for them.

All in all, this just seems pretty trivial to me.  I'm not going to trivialize anyone's concerns (because I feel that's rude, and any concerns have a right to be addressed in some way), but I felt this would be a good time to speak my mind.  Let's leave the politics to the politicians, and keep TAFL as friendly of an environment as possible.  I believe that everyone will be happier in the long run.

[Lexa]

Please don't take this as me fanning the flames, but I know I would personally like to have the original posters come back and contribute further to this discussion.  I'd like to see if anything that we've said has made a difference or if they do have ideas for improving the areas they highlighted.  I'm not exactly sure why you're hesistating to participate?

And I'm really sorry that a few of you have felt scared to comment here.  I really hope you all know that Staffers respect your opinions and your ability to come out and say what you really feel.  We may disagree on various points, but that should never stop you from expressing your opinions. ^_^

Also, the rule about approvals and the staffer's "final say": You're right, that rule is in place to make sure that the subjects we're approving are actually worthwhile approvals, and it generally has nothing to do with the person applying.  In I/L, for example, I've rejected numerous fanlistings that were just small off-hand things (or strange things, like people's groins).  I'm not really sure why you would need an extra box on the application, though, when you could just explain it in the main comments box.  XD

[Puff]

[quote name='Lexa' post='218137' date='Nov 1 2007, 01:27 AM']Also, the rule about approvals and the staffer's "final say": You're right, that rule is in place to make sure that the subjects we're approving are actually worthwhile approvals, and it generally has nothing to do with the person applying.  In I/L, for example, I've rejected numerous fanlistings that were just small off-hand things (or strange things, like people's groins).  I'm not really sure why you would need an extra box on the application, though, when you could just explain it in the main comments box.  XD[/quote]
Probably because a lot of people will try to "fluff" up the subject and make it sound more meaningful than it really is. xD Personally, I love the "More Info" box in TFL, because I always feel the need to provide a staffer with more information beforehand. I would feel bad if my application made the staffer lose even 5 minutes of her spare time by trying to look up further information. You're the fan, so you're going to know the best resources for the said subject.

I would be perfectly happy with seeing a cap at 4 characters per relationship. It doesn't have to be 5+... Obviously, any amount of characters that can qualify as a group is too much. And for those who argued that a character group could be run instead, that's not fair to the subjects who aren't necessarily considered a group. They could just be friends traveling together -- Like on Pokemon or on Outlaw Star...

[Marie]

[quote name='Mistress Puff' post='218211' date='Nov 1 2007, 05:49 PM']Probably because a lot of people will try to "fluff" up the subject and make it sound more meaningful than it really is. xD[/quote]

But this is the exact reason that we don't allow 4+ relationships. The argument that everyone is presenting thus far is for the applicant to provide "proof" that the relationship is meaningful - but those are both variable terms. What is proof for a relationship to one person might be proof against the same relationship for someone else; something meaningful to one is not meaningful to others. Providing "proof" in this kind of situation basically just means "interpretations", and while several may be based on actual fact, they are still a form of opinion. This would put the staff in the position of approving or discrediting someone's opinions/beliefs and that's not fair to any involved.

As for the "voice" of this thread - I agree, the initial post had it's own tone that set the stage for the posts that followed, and it's obvious why people would be upset (I, for one, was one of them), but that doesn't mean we don't agree that discussion is healthy. It is; so no one should feel scared to comment here. That's the whole point of this thread still being open - in a round-about-kinda-way. ^_^

[Genevieve]

I'll throw a bit of 2 cents in about alternatives for making codes, since it was brought up that constructive suggestions were perhaps wanted, and because just about everything else I would have said has been said very well by others.

If you're making codes for a fanlisting that's for a series with a long name, just make it with the word 'series.'  It says the same thing at that point and is no longer ambiguous.  And it fits easily onto 50x50 codes.  Or abbreviate the title.  Same for songs or movies/ovas.  Relationship codes can have just one person on them if they still say "person a/person b" or "x <3 x" or something like that (cause sometimes there's not good pics of the two people together, even if the relationship is really important in the anime/manga, trust me, I know, I run a FL like that and have codes like that).

If someone donates codes to you that just say 'fan,' remember that you don't have to use them.  Sure, everyone loves getting donations (I know I do) but there's nothing anywhere that says you must take whatever is given you and use it.  You wouldn't do it if they were really snag-nasty-ugly codes.  If you like them and want to use them, just alter them a bit by putting something on them to make them not ambiguous.  I did that to codes that were made for one of my listings and they still look lovely.

There's lots of options, you seem to just be focusing on this one thing rather than all the possibilities that are out there.

[arashi]

I will use the majority of this post to address the points raised by Veles, as they were addressed to me, but I will also add additional comments to the posts made in the past few days.

I want to start off by saying that, Veles, although you chose to call me out on my statements, I am not offended in the least. I actually am very impressed that you have so boldly stated your opinion. We need more people like you around here. Makes things spicy. This is the exact behavior I welcome, not like the original posters who have raised their issues anonymously. This just further proves my point: if you want to say something, come out and say it; don't hide behind a wall to protect yourself.

I think, Veles, you have misunderstood parts of my statement. I will quote you and respond:

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.

You are quite right. The original posters posted anonymously in order to prevent themselves from suffering any "inadvertent consequences". That is the exact reason why I'm calling them cowardly. This behavior is cowardly. Thank you for proving my point. And I'll bring this up later, but I don't think I can disrespect someone I don't really know the identify of. It's kinda hard. Now, if the original posters felt that they were disrespected, they should have considered the fact that posting anonymously effectively forfeited their right to any rights a clearly named post would have granted them.

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.

Yes, you are correct. However, they have failed to think about the reason why these rules were created in the first place. These are not solutions to problems, they are merely convenient routes of being lazy and getting what they want. Not at all constructive.

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.

Yes, you are right. By my definition, had I posted anonymously, I would have a coward by my own word. But as you can see clearly, I have not, and therefore by your logic, am not a coward. But that's just technicalities. I think my reputation stands for itself. Such cannot be said for the original posters, because, well, I don't know who they are, since they posted anonymously. And by that logic, I can't really slander their character if I don't know who they are. Furthermore, this just makes their accusations of bias of staffers even worse. Because this way, staffers can't defend themselves on the same level. Do you not find this unfair? In real life, you can bring your accusations against another in public or court and that, at least, is a just forum. Can this be said for this situation? I think not.

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.

You don't have to be sorry. I said what I said knowing fully what consequences there will be, and I was fully prepared to answer to them. Like I said above, I appreciate your frankness in expressing your opinion. Had the original posters your attitude, I would've taken them seriously and responded justly to their issues. Furthermore, in response to your last point, had I known the posters personally in addition to the fact that they posted anonymously, I would treat them the same as I do now. I cannot condone their actions simply because I know them or that they are my friends. I would berate my friends if they brought upon such behavior. That is my principle.

--------------------

And a few additional comments about others' comments:

Codes rule

Genevieve has brought up a great point. I remember when the codes rule was first created, there were suggestions made by Kel about putting just "Series" on the code if the name was too long and other similar comments. So I hope people realize there was a conscious effort by staffers to not make this rule a pain in the neck. And frankly, I don't think it's that bad. Making codes is hardly back breaking, unless you have 23874383 fanlistings, But that's your conscious decision to own so many fanlistings. You should've taken into consideration the amount of work that goes into maintaining a fanlisting when you first applied.

Which brings me to the broader issue of fanlisting ownership. Fanlistings are serious business. It takes a lot of responsibility to maintain one. It might sound ridiculous that something on the internet that's for fun should be taken so seriously... but it is! Why else would discussions arise such as this? Thus, fanlisting owners should take their fanlistings seriously. And if you did, you wouldn't think the codes rule that big of a problem, because it really isn't. There are plenty of ways that have been suggested in this very thread about how to deal with the new rule. Learn to adapt.

Democracy

Let's stop kidding ourselves. TAFL isn't really a democracy. We don't really vote on anything and we don't elect individuals to represent our voice. Why is there a perception that TAFL is such? I have no idea. And I don't see what's so good about a democracy for an online network anyway. It just slows things down. And frankly, democracies don't really work that well. But let's not get into a political discussion. The point is, TAFL isn't a democracy, but hey, the system works. Let's not mess with it. The staffers aren't out for our blood. And I'm happy with that. Most people are too.

--------------------

Aaaand, one last point. I would like to echo Lexa's point. I would like to see the original posters come back and comment on our comments. Is the reason why you're hesitating to speak out because you've had too much opposition? I hope not. Because that would just prove my point further. But alas, don't let my bullying stop you from voicing your opinions. I would like to hear what you have up your sleeve.

[Larissa]

I'm not going to make a big long post about what I think about everything on this thread, because frankly it's been done in just about every other post.

I'd like to say something about the original posters. The fact is, despite all of this opposition, they haven't come back and they probably won't, at this rate. I think they just wanted to get their views heard. And they have been. Just about every staffer (and a good portion of the members) has posted and said what he or she thinks. And by now, the dead horse has been thoroughly maimed, beaten, and generally made more dead.

Everything brought up in the original post has been discussed six ways to Sunday. I think the staffers' posts have shown the staff's general opinion on the topics brought up, and it's obvious that nothing is about to change any time soon. Unless someone else has a brilliant insight, just let this topic die already. We got the point: change something. Nothing is about to be changed. (Rules-wise, I mean. I rather like how the board itself has become more friendly.)

And, as a side note? Arashi, you have gone from expressing your opinions to being downright rude. It's not so much cowardice of posting that as being downright scared of the response. For the love of Toledo, if I'd written this, I'd have posted it anonymously if THIS is the kind of response I'd get. Saying what one thinks about something is one thing. Getting angry posts from more than half of the replies is another entirely. And plenty of members who frequent these boards haven't posted out of fear. Fear happens to be a universal human emotion, and I'm not surprised in the least that it's at work here. Reply to me if you want, I've honestly stopped caring.

I'm done with this topic. The horse is dead. Just bury it in peace.

[Shaza]

First of all, Arashi I love you, but I don't think it's right on what you say with cowardice. I agree with Larissa that it is a human emotion. Also, when you are expressing your feelings it's easier for you to remain hidden behind something to say something, because there were ALWAYS be the consequences, but as much as I know about the boards, it's not really anonymous anyways since boards log in IP addresses and unless Anonymous posted under a different computer than you normally use, we already know who he/she is anyways, and maybe he/she knows this as well. When I posted that topic about the codes rule, it really took a lot out of me to post it, because I was sort of scared my opinions of it might reflect later applications and make people think I was lazy to make new codes and just darn argumentative, so I wrote it, erased it, wrote it, erased it, until I finally posted it.

I like Haley's comment "I understand that some people can push out a fanlisting faster than a mom can have a C-section" which was hilarious but true. I think a limit of 6 is quite adequete. And, from experience, I've had more than 6 pending at a time, because of late updates etc., so I think that there are some leniencies as well. Also, I don't think that TAFL is as elitist as TFL is personally. At least we have different types of owners in each genre, not like all the Batman fanlistings are owned by one person and no one else gets approved.

As for me, I could never be a staffer because 1) it takes too much work for me, and I admire these people who do it 2) reinstatement of number 1, and also because I have enough experience with running networks that I know all these little things to it. When I run my boards, I listen to suggestions, but I am by no way obligated to take on any suggestions, and I do feel sorry for the staffers who get things said behind their backs. I know on my boards, I get things said like 'Shaza is so mean, because she doesn't let us post 400x400 avatars" and so forth. And it really hurts my feelings, and I feel so bad that I just feel like just closing it down. I mean TAFL was a great idea, but its just a listing place, a very good and popular listing place which we all want to be listed on of course ^_^, but a listing place none the less. You have to follow their rules to get listed. So ya, I like how everyone said everything here, and I myself feel a bit elitist attitude here on the boards, but its only because there is a natural difference between staffers and members, that is why they are different. You give hours to trouble check etc, to get that status, so if you want to give, you get. (I don't give = I don't get ).

But ya, I like everyone's comments and I don't side with anything. But, if I might say something, I think maybe more than 1/2 of the people having problems with these rules have the problem with the codes rule, which btw, still makes no sense to me on obligation (maybe its cause most people use FLINX and other things to categorize their listings anyways). I only wish you could re-think it. Also someone mentioned that it was an old rule, and we care about it now? Its because I, for one, didn't totally understand the implications of it in the way it was worded the first time it was written. It is a rule that makes no sense to me simply by logistics of obligating something that isn't an obligation already lol. In my case, I try to abide by it, but I still don't agree. I also wish that my topic wasn't locked before I could reply, since I really felt hurt by the last line from the staffer in that post, it seemed like a blackmail to me. Please give us a chance to speak replies before locking topics. I thought I might as well just say that, since I wasn't able to in that post. And from it, I really didn't feel the urge to say any of my other opinions either, which is why I understand this post anonymously. But, who am I to say.

[Puff]

[quote name='Marie' post='218213' date='Nov 1 2007, 06:11 PM'][quote name='Mistress Puff' post='218211' date='Nov 1 2007, 05:49 PM']Probably because a lot of people will try to "fluff" up the subject and make it sound more meaningful than it really is. xD[/quote]

But this is the exact reason that we don't allow 4+ relationships. The argument that everyone is presenting thus far is for the applicant to provide "proof" that the relationship is meaningful - but those are both variable terms. What is proof for a relationship to one person might be proof against the same relationship for someone else; something meaningful to one is not meaningful to others. Providing "proof" in this kind of situation basically just means "interpretations", and while several may be based on actual fact, they are still a form of opinion. This would put the staff in the position of approving or discrediting someone's opinions/beliefs and that's not fair to any involved. [/quote]
That's true too..  I dunno, maybe it's just the initial fact there is a 3 character cap per relationship. It honestly baffles me, especially when you compare it to TFL's 10 character cap. Now I'm not saying we should open it up to 10, but at least consider 4..  It's as if we don't want TAFL to grow a little bit more. It confuses me a bit too why some might think we would see a surge of spammy relationships.

Even if the original post was anonymous, at least someone voiced their opinions, so kudos to them. I don't think things are ever going to change here as far as rules go.  But at least you can tell that somethings around the board have changed a bit.  Anyway.. I completely agree with Larissa's point -- I think this is a dead little horsey.. Things are just gonna get repeated more and more..

[Danielle]

Since the phrase "dead horse" has been mentioned at least two or three times this page, I think it's about time to bury the poor thing, horn, wings and all. (Or.... not. Eheh.)

I've stayed away from this, being the head of the network (hammer-wielder, dictator, loving mother, take your pick), so as to not seem that I'm shutting down dialog, cutting off conversation or censoring input. Since we have (as others have mentioned) all weighed in, and it is apparent that the original posters aren't keen to return and back themselves up (also since some of us seem to be getting on eachother's nerves, heh), I feel it's time to conclude this very rewarding thread.

I have decided not to weigh in on the many things that have been revisited and separately concluded many times over. TAFL's non-democracy status, other things... you guys have that pretty well figured out, and the conclusions you have reached are right and accurate. Not much else to say, there.

I would like to thank everyone who posted, staffer and otherwise. (Aside from the original post.) I found your replies, ALL of your replies, to be extremely thought-out and mature, and reading it for the first time (two or so pages into it, I came in late), I was absolutely glowing with pride in my network, my staffers, and YOU, yes YOU the viewers and participants. You guys are absolutely the best ever, and I really, sincerely, TRULY MEAN THAT.

Thank you for such a great discussion of our policies, and I hope that this thread has helped to clarify a few things for a lot of people, and shown that we are not the oppressive regime the Anons seem to think we are.

Thank you all, once again. Closing this now.