Ugly new advertisement banner!!!

[WolfMoon]

I'd hesitate to think that the Former Owner would waste time on such a thing.

[Gothic.net]

Originally Posted by WolfMoon

I'd hesitate to think that the Former Owner would waste time on such a thing.

Except for the part where he said he was going to do so. Agreed that it is sad.

[Nike]

When I came to g.net originally, I was linked to the site from Neil Gaiman's homepage if I remember correctly. However, the link's no longer there.

And on another note, you asked for input according new features for the boards - I could live happily without any new features, but I'd like to see some efforts in keeping g.net a bit more clean - there's so much spam, trolling, hate speech going on here that it is often very annoying - and in keeping it what it is anounced to be - a "bone chilling literary culture". I think adding new feature needs a lot of time as well, time, that could be used to keep he boards cleaner.
It would have been nice to informed about why submissions are not accepted and for how long - if g.net is ever supposed to be a literary site again, or why old submissions have been removed. Just a little info, just a few lines, that would have been great.

It is sad to recieve information only in a thread like this, where you feel the need to react on rantings.

Blaming the former owner for the trolling is bit poor, since we can not see where he had stated to do so - appart from that I agree with Wolfmon - it remains doubtful that he would waste his time for something like that.

[horrorgirl]

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

Here is where TStone claimed to have a Wolverine statue:


But, the conversation was about the fact that the banners that get the most complaints are exactly the ones that actually show results, and the banners that don't get complaints also don't perform. It was about the fact that a negative response to the new AFI banner was so predictable that we actually had an office pool on how many minutes it would take before someone such as HorrorGirl would make a snide comment about it. TStone did not get a Wolverine statue, not that this is any sort of big deal, but it underlines the point being made.



Fundamentally, a guy who asks people to call him Weaselboy tried to weasel on the deal he made with Gothic.net's current owners and he didn't get his way on every little thing. A lot of people seem to think the recent rash of troll activity was his doing. It took up a lot of the moderators' time and was purely malicious. If the former ownership had put half the energy into making this site viable that they have put into causing problems for its current incarnation, it probably would not have been necessary for them to sell off any of its assets.

Eventually the moderators and owners had to get tired of him and his cronies doing everything they can to drag the site down. TStone is warning writers away from the site, yet the current owners have paid every writer they have contracted to appear on the site. What is there really to warn them about? All these folks are doing is undermining a totally ethical site because the previous less reputable owner is disgruntled about some nonsense. If people like TStone are going to continue to post complaints about fictitious problems and make wholly inaccurate assertions about the character and ethics of this site, yes, eventually we might respond. We might ask them to actually support their claims. This is the part where they start having problems because people such as TStone are so unable to logically support their false claims that they are reduced to swearing and name-calling. Don't expect a lot of threads like this, as it is not particularly gratifying to debate with people who keep dodging direct questions and clearly have no intention of attempting to work out any problem they might have. If the only thing about a person which is gothic is their love of complaining, it doesn't make sense to spend a lot of energy taking their complaints seriously.

YOU are the one who made this thread what it is. All I did was originally complain about a banner ad. You could have left well enough alone and stayed silent as usual. Instead your feathers got really ruffled and you decided to go on and on about how TStone and I are wrong and how you are right. You have turned this into some sort of pissing contest. Instead of looking like you have the higher moral ground this whole thing has made you appear to be really bitter and illogical.

So you were waiting for somebody like me to post about the ad? So....you KNEW that there was going to be a reaction to the ad and yet you put it up anyway. That really defies logic. The vast majority of the people who frequent your board think that the ad doesn't fit the site and you post it anyway. THEN you make sweeping generalizations about the people who are members here. Nice.

Plus the super neat part about all of this is that I got banned for 'being a troll'. Um....yeah.......ha!!! This made my morning. Thanks!

ah, are we on round two? The thread has been unlocked and or un-deleted?

Hmmm, well let me post my reply from last night...

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

You already admitted that you were talking more about perception than fact. .

Nope, I stated the (few) facts as I know them along with my opinions.

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

You may want to retain competent legal counsel if you don't understand libel law.

My ears are fine and the last name ain’t Prynn. You refused to remove my work, fact. The site you purchased never paid me for my (contract) work, fact. I’m of the opinion there are other writers who did not receive monies for their works, opinion (of course.) The new owners have not published any new work since the lump publication shortly after assuming control, fact. The new owners published four works from one author and made them available for viewing near the same time, fact. I think you are a twit, opinion. I could do this all day and all night, fact *slightly exaggerated.*

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

Not that anyone here is likely to waste legal time on you. If you think linking to a 290 page PDF is proving a point, you might want to try narrowing it down to a specific cite of what you believe to be pertinent or perhaps relevant caselaw.

HA! The irony is I shouldn’t have to link the copyright law to a publisher. As for case law, look up the Tasini case since much of what a select group of members post would be considered articles.

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

So, the summary of what you have to say is:
Okay, you lied about purchasing a Wolverine statue via a banner on this site.

*Smirk* Now who’s libel? I never said I bought the bust from the banner exchange; I simply alluded to it and you assumed the rest. I later went on to say I would not support this site since they’ve not supported me.

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

Okay, you admit that you believe that all the currently contracted Gothic.net authors have been paid, although you think they were paid too much

.

Hearsay, I’ve been led to believe they were paid above the market standard and you have not (as of yet) denied the query, only further amplified the myth, as such.

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

You think that the defunct management kept something akin to business records and they should have passed those over to the people who purchased some of their assets

I not only think it, I believe the IRS requires it.

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

But you think funds to pay people like writers appear through alchemical magic, so this site should only run banners which do not interest the forum members

I think a literary site should offer, well, literature. First and foremost. Make the gravy however you want after that, but this site hasn’t offered any new fiction, has provided little interaction with the members in concern to that subject, and seems more apt to want to sophomoreize my analogies whilst proffering his or her own alchemy.

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

Guess what. The former owners of Gothic.net apparently shared your view that money appeared via alchemical magic and they ended up breaking what is apparently a large number of promises to a lot of people, the current owners of Gothic.net included

.

Good thing you snuck an apparently into that statement, otherwise…

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

And you still have not answered would you have preferred that the database for these boards not be imported into the improved and faster script? Would it have been better if everyone's words and logins and profiles just disappeared? What would have been the point of preserving the site then? Have you ever contacted Gothic.net privately via email or snail mail with a professionally-worded query about this story you have just mentioned for the first time? It does not appear on the site at this time, does it? Was that story ever published?

I answered that, damnit! Permission, you should have asked for a general permission or asked the members that had an issue with the transference and continuance of previous posts to contact you so you could BOTH PARTIES come to an agreement of what could be transferred, and what could not. I PUBLICALY asked for my poetry work to be removed, and was met with nothing but contemptuous derisiveness.

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

This site is not a tease of a strip club nor is it a used car lot which dabbles in crack sales. Maybe you preferred the way this site used to be run, but the current management believes in keeping promises and not making promises until it is definite that they can be kept. Word should be bond.

Really? Well, seems like for the first few months the site was plagued by porno adds and ********** which the administration seemed slow to remove, or perhaps I’ve got taco’s on the mind and you strike me as a greasy car salesman and crack is addictive much like this current dialogue. As an aside, do the current owners also own adult sites?

Lastly, you would have me believe, you personally, that your word is bond? OK, then say aloud, “I’m a stupid twit,” and I’ll believe you.

This place has gone to complete shit since I got here. Here's a few cases:
-I have absolutely no respect for the Owners due to the harassment issue with Gruel/Bunnies/whoever.
-We don't have enough moderators to keep up with the diarreha that trolls and bots are spewing from their asses and onto our boards.
-The Owners/Admins are not currently involved nearly enough, even though they have been asked to be many many times.
-We STILL have a problem with Juan occasionally. Fucking ban his IP. Seriously.

And the spewing cesspot that once was a great home has become a whoring crackhouse for any 13 year old that can type gothic into a google search bar.

Gothicfreaks.net, here we come!

[Disfunction]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...epressios3.jpg
This is the gothiest breakfast in my books.

Dis... I luff ya!

[horrorgirl]

Originally Posted by Disfunction

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...epressios3.jpg
This is the gothiest breakfast in my books.

BUT, are they gothtastically delicious? Hmmmmm......???????

Originally Posted by Gothic.net

Fundamentally, a guy who asks people to call him Weaselboy tried to weasel on the deal he made with Gothic.net's current owners and he didn't get his way on every little thing. A lot of people seem to think the recent rash of troll activity was his doing. It took up a lot of the moderators' time and was purely malicious. If the former ownership had put half the energy into making this site viable that they have put into causing problems for its current incarnation, it probably would not have been necessary for them to sell off any of its assets.

Eventually the moderators and owners had to get tired of him and his cronies doing everything they can to drag the site down. TStone is warning writers away from the site, yet the current owners have paid every writer they have contracted to appear on the site. What is there really to warn them about? All these folks are doing is undermining a totally ethical site because the previous less reputable owner is disgruntled about some nonsense. If people like TStone are going to continue to post complaints about fictitious problems and make wholly inaccurate assertions about the character and ethics of this site, yes, eventually we might respond. We might ask them to actually support their claims. This is the part where they start having problems because people such as TStone are so unable to logically support their false claims that they are reduced to swearing and name-calling. Don't expect a lot of threads like this, as it is not particularly gratifying to debate with people who keep dodging direct questions and clearly have no intention of attempting to work out any problem they might have. If the only thing about a person which is gothic is their love of complaining, it doesn't make sense to spend a lot of energy taking their complaints seriously.

For the record, I’ve had no contact with the former owner since early last fall, and that dialog was (mostly) about contracting him to design my home page. I also like how you’ve gone and made wild accusations; from someone pointing accusatory libelous fingers just hours before, now you claim I am multiple *people* and am in cahoots with the former owner in an attempt to besmirch the new site, and furthermore, that I haven’t logically backed up any of my assertions.

FOR THE RECORD the new owners have published 6 authors and their previously published work, is that correct? The new owners have not published anything else in nearly a year, is that correct? The new owners feel that a literary site’s main source of revenue should be banner advertisement dollars, and that AFI will pay for the next Harry Shannon story? The new owners are SERIOUS about being a literary site, which is why they have only published 6 authors in a one year, have had little or no input on the arts, the genre, or anything in connection with literature, is that correct? The new owners feel some mild to medium sense of paranoia toward the previous owner and associate any outside criticisms to be generated from that venue, and do not believe I; as a PERSON, could have my own complaints and concerns as to the validity of this site being a literary hub, is that correct? The new owners question my reasoning of publishing only four stories upon inception, and publishing four more the next quarter, and four the next, so on, which would have carried you through for an entire year (and then some) with the perception of new (previously published) publications, and would have (seemingly) captured the attention of your audience for a longer period of time, is that correct? The new owners have not disclaimed paying authors above the industry standard, does this mean it occurred? Does it mean you could have afforded new fiction (and paid for previous) for a longer period of time on initial startup cost without having to rely on advertisement dollars? Is it possible, however unlikely, that had you published a quarterly zine with new work from other established and well recognized authors a larger audience could have been exposed to your advertisement clients, thus perpetuating the entire publication process?

Just some thoughts.

It seems you (personally) are wont to blame everyone else for any perceived failures you might, or might not have, experienced. The numbers, again, are; 6 authors, 7,426 members and counting.

And let’s do, while I am on this current train of thought, discuss this: You have enabled a group of people to meet and have dialog in a web board forum, and purpose we owe you our consumer dollars to click on your advertisement links simply because…of your benevolence? It’s much like dangling a tainted apple before your neighbor’s horse’s mouth, and then proceeding to beat the fuck out of it when it doesn’t feel like eating your proffered offering. We, essentially, are a third tier consumer group whom you would like to profit vicariously though by advertisement dollars, and if you want my money or any one else’s money—I suggest you offer something of substance and value, something more than a rotten apple and a whip.

That, really, is all.

[Phayte]

This picture proves beyond a doubt that I was right about Count Chocula!


http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/1...nsobits4wg.jpg

[horrorgirl]

Originally Posted by Phayte

This picture proves beyond a doubt that I was right about Count Chocula!


http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/1...nsobits4wg.jpg

I actually stored an unopened special edition box of Count Chocula in a storage place where I had to put all of my belongings. When I went to get all of my things out I found that mice had eaten through the box and had enjoyed my tasty cereal. I was devastated. True story. *nods head*

I miss Darren.

[WolfMoon]

Me too...

[Sanctus Dei]

This has to be the 2nd most boring thread I've seen tonight, if I wasn't interested in Tstone posting, I wouldn't had made it past #2. But I did.. and holy fuck... *blank stare at G-net*

And all respect has flown out the window.

I don't know what Gothic.net hoped to prove by engaging in this battle, but I do know that they've proved they think of us as nothing more then cattle.

You've insulted everyones intelligence. How the FUCK do you get the nerve to reply to this original post with we're complaing and filling your pockets with money? An office bet? You seriously don't respect you members enough that you make office bets on who is going to be a whiner?

That is some really low shit. You are talking about core members behind their backs.

You just don't fucking get it. You are the Walmart that bought the old general store. You're Starbucks that bought out the local coffee scene. You're nothing but money hungry corporate scum posing and parading around as the everyman.

You're disgusting.

Darren may not have managed this very well financially, but at least we all fucking knew that he CARED about what we thought. He cared enough to listen to his mods, the posters, the writters and the readers. It wasn't all about the bottom line for him. Darren was a human being. A great human being who did the best he could for the things he loved. You walked in here and fucked up something that MILLIONS of people had learned to love just as much.

This ranting and raving only shows how much of a non-sensical asshole you are. You're a jerk to your users, you're a jerk to your writers, and you're a fucking jerk to the people that are suppotring your ass.

Why did you have to even pretend with us? I would have respected you if you would have just been upfront and honest from the beggining about what you were going to do with this site. But you wern't. You hid behind the illusion of the former site and hoped no one would catch on about your real intentions. Those intentions being you wanted to turn this place into a banner farm. When we complained about the porn adds, you just replaced them with merchant diarrhea.

The real fucking slap in the face is that it is so now blatently obvious that you don't give a flying FUCK about the fact that all the people who made this place great are leaving. All the serious posters, the people that had class, intellect and panash are gone. You're left with a steaming pile of pre-teen puss and you get pissed when people try to scrape it off their shoes.

Fuck You. You've already fucked us.

[Sanctus Dei]

Geisha... You're my hero.

[Ben Lahnger]

Of all the posts that have been deleted en-mass from this site, I miss Geishagirl's the most.

That was really ignorant. First of all...You said you listened to some clips...only ONE song sounds the least bit like Green Day and that’s "Miss Murder." You would know that if you listened to "Prelude 1221" or "Kill Caustic." Second, you can't say the ALBUM sucks...you don't own it so you haven't listened to the whole thing. Third, you should never have anything that nasty to say about people who can make music...even if it sucks (which AFI does not) At least they can make music, unlike yourself. Until you can make music that surpasses AFI, then you can talk...until then I suggest you keep that sort of opinion to yourself.
Also, people who hate on other peoples looks, they often do it because they are insecure about their own looks. Davey happens to be lovely.
I see nothing wrong or silly about their banner. I'm not just saying all of this because I happen to love AFI. I myself embrace my own preaching’s. I don't say ignorant things about people who make it far in music, even if I don’t like it. I think the way you went about your opinion was very uncouth. They aren’t trying to be gothic! It's just an advertisement...so calm down.
Signed,
*AFI fan*

[Phayte]

Follow the fucking rules!

Go away or introduce yourself in the right forum.

I was never part of this fucking retarded Gothic.net. I'm not a fucking gay ass goth that hates on everything. I don't want to be part of this shit, I just registered to say that and that's it. So go fucking slit your Gothic wrists. Asshole.

[Jacks Girl]

Originally Posted by GorgeousEyesShineSuicide

I was never part of this fucking retarded Gothic.net. I'm not a fucking gay ass goth that hates on everything. I don't want to be part of this shit, I just registered to say that and that's it. So go fucking slit your Gothic wrists. Asshole.

So hating on people because of the way they look is a terrible thing to do, yet stereotyping people is fine?

[Phayte]

Why the fuck would you join a forum you want no part of and post? Geez I swear some people were born without brains.

I don't hate everyting.. Just fucktards like you.
I'm not Goth
And I'm not a guy

Dumbfuck...

[horrorgirl]

Originally Posted by GorgeousEyesShineSuicide

That was really ignorant. First of all...You said you listened to some clips...only ONE song sounds the least bit like Green Day and that’s "Miss Murder." You would know that if you listened to "Prelude 1221" or "Kill Caustic." Second, you can't say the ALBUM sucks...you don't own it so you haven't listened to the whole thing. Third, you should never have anything that nasty to say about people who can make music...even if it sucks (which AFI does not) At least they can make music, unlike yourself. Until you can make music that surpasses AFI, then you can talk...until then I suggest you keep that sort of opinion to yourself.
Also, people who hate on other peoples looks, they often do it because they are insecure about their own looks. Davey happens to be lovely.
I see nothing wrong or silly about their banner. I'm not just saying all of this because I happen to love AFI. I myself embrace my own preaching’s. I don't say ignorant things about people who make it far in music, even if I don’t like it. I think the way you went about your opinion was very uncouth. They aren’t trying to be gothic! It's just an advertisement...so calm down.
Signed,
*AFI fan*

I had a feeling that AFI fanatics were immature morons, and you just proved my theory.

By the way......I play bass, so I DO know how to make music. *snap*