"Just let them Froth" Topic

Editor, are you sure it is OK with the editrixes that you are revealing their ages?

They revealed that information themselves, on TMP.

Do the people on Frothers say they are ugly? That would be surprising to me.

They mocked the looks of one of the editors, yes.

Well, Editor, their ages are news to me. Then again, I hadn't even really noticed our editrixes until you posted the interview with Claire.

But mocking their looks surely isn't the same thing as saying someone is ugly, is it? I mean, I'll mock the looks of a frat boy, but that doesn't mean I think they are ugly.

What did they mock, exactly? Her pearly white teeth? Her make-up…?

I just can't fathom anyone saying the editrixes are "ugly".

Yoohoo? Rebelyell? Over here, dearie!

We were having a discussion, at least I thought so,

Where does Lord Raglan claim the editrixes are prostitutes?

Why would it be sexist to nudge and wink over an editorial corps of twinks?

And, finally, what does Thailand have to do with anything in this conversation? That one's got me really confused. Surely you are not saying Thailand is notorious for its twinks…?

Bill,

Why don't we stick with the facts, rather than some crazy hypothetical?

Yes let's. People were talking about a sexual attack online against one of the other "editors" committed on the Frother's website, or by extension here on TMP.

You linked to this:

TMP link

A topic from back in October 2013. It is not a sexual attack against anyone. It is people objecting to Bill and expressing very strong concerns about their perceptions. Maybe they are right or wrong, but it was 1) via PM and 2) is not an attack 3) it is not posted on either TMP or the Frother's site except by you since it is a PM and 4) it is from October 2013.

Where is this public sexual online attack that has caused all of this in the last ~2 weeks? Where can it be seen? Will you or someone else please link to it so any question as to its existence can be put to rest?

Weasel,

So everyone fighting this on either side have actually gone and read the posts on that other forum that everyone is fighting over, right?

It appears not. I would like to and am continuing to ask for the attack to be linked to or quoted in their entirety.

"They said, I said, he said, someone somewhere said something like…" does not work. What is all this about, show us the attack.

We're not just getting mad because other people are mad, right?

It appears we are and it is ridiculous.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I'm just confused as to why Rebelyell would associate "gay culture" with truck-stop prostitution. Surely that's not a common association! I mean, unless one is well-informed about what truckers get up to at truck-stops.

I suppose it could just be rank prejudice, however. Some sort of homophobic assumption that gays are basically truck-stop prostitutes. But that couldn't be the case, because TMP is anti-homophobia.

Either way, it is beyond my ken.

If we're at the point where mere membership of a given site is becoming suspect, then yeah, I agree with the Bandit.

I mean, I used to post a ton on rpg.net. If someone on that forum had it out for Bill or his acquaintances, does that make me immediately suspect?

More over, if someone SAYS that something happened on rpg.net (for example), should I now be under suspicion?

Given TMP is presumably a commercial venture once money changes hands, that doesn't seem conducive to advertisers.

But mocking their looks surely isn't the same thing as saying someone is ugly, is it?

pg. 286 of the Frothers topic. I won't repeat it here.

Thanks for the link. I will go have a look. This is Frothers Unlimited UK, right? The big TMP thread everyne is on about? I guess I can find it.

I presume we can't link it or it would already be linked…?

People seem to vanish kinda quick but if I get banned for linking it, please confirm that you received my payment today for advertisement money owed.

That's the entire thread in question. It's long and I'll leave it to others to dig through.

Page 286 that the Editor mentions is here:

You boys can fight it out from here but at least if everyone is reading the same thing, it'll be over faster.

Er… This would be the comment about Editor Gwen that you are referring to on Page 286 of the FU! UK thread about TMP's assistant editor? The one that goes to some five hundred pages….?

I want to make very, very sure that I am not making a mistake here.

Because the nastiness in the comment about Editor Gwen has nothing to do with her looks, per se, and… Well… It doesn't look to me like it's sexism that is going on there. Something else, yes. Not sexism.

Am I looking at the right statement, the one on the very top of the page? And, if so, how much of this can be talked about here?

Woah.

YouTube link

And, if so, how much of this can be talked about here?

Use your common sense.

Anything that is an invasion of privacy is off limits.

Nor do I want the Frothers filth repeated here.

OK. But first of all, is it the comment about Editor Gwen we are talking about?

Secondly, if Gwen has posted the same picture of herself here, in her member page, and elsewhere on another site where she proudly and publicly makes a claim about herself, am I "invading her privacy" by bringing that claim up?

I mean, let us say, for illustration's sake, that Gwen was a martian and was happy and proud to be one. So happy and proud that she posts about this on a site dedicated to martians, saying that one of the things that makes martians great is that they can be true to themselves. And then she uses the same photo of herself, as a martian, on here as her member photo.

Am I violating her privacy to say "Good on you, Gwen! I am glad you are a Martian! I am glad TMP hires Martians! This is really cool!"

And then say to Rebelyell, the problem here is not sexism, but anti-martian prejudice?

Because really, Editor, that is one hell of a two thousand pound canary you have sitting in your front room and it is singing up a storm, for everyone to hear.

Saying, "Oh, look! It is a canary!", under these circumstances, doesn't seem "common-sensically", to me at least, to be a violation of privacy.

So I want to make sure we have the same definition of "common sense" here.

What was snipped from Weasel's post?

Cheers,

The Bandit

The direct link to the FU! UK site. Apparently, giving people directions to go there is OK, but a direct link to it is not.

Thus my comment about "common sense". NONE of his seems "common sensical" to me. :(

In fact, I rather feel I am at the Mad Hatter's tea party. I am just not sure who the Hatter is.

The direct link to the FU! UK site. Apparently, giving people directions to go there is OK, but a direct link to it is not.

This is complete garbage. Bill says someone did something terrible, there have been pages and pages and topics and topics with at least a couple dozen people arguing at various times… He chose to address it here, on TMP, in public, several times starting at least since October 2013… but we aren't allowed to cite "the bad thing" in any useful way…

Bill says: "it is the one on XYZ page on some website, go fish".

I understand "please don't repost the content here," but how are we supposed to even know if two people are talking about the same thing if it can't be referenced except in the most vague of ways?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Because really, Editor, that is one hell of a two thousand pound canary you have sitting in your front room and it is singing up a storm, for everyone to hear.

I don't care. I'm going to respect my workers' wishes for privacy.

how are we supposed to even know if two people are talking about the same thing if it can't be referenced except in the most vague of ways?

The discussion is getting a bit pointless anyway, it seems to me. Do we really need to discuss exactly how the Frothers insulted somebody?

Dan Gao wrote:

One needs only read the Original Post to realize The OFM said nothing about a "sexist attack". Are you sure you aren't an agent of Frothers sent here to act as stupid as possible to make the rest of TMP look bad?

Me, an agent of Frothers infiltrating TMP? Now I see how your kind of logic could earn you 3 stifles and 4 ignores in only your second post.

Um. OK. But if your workers are publicly posting who and what they are on, say, Google+, and saying they are proud of that and it suits them fine, and saying this while saying they work at TMP…. Then how are you protecting their privacy, exactly?

What it SEEMS like is that they – your workers – are making you uncomfortable. They don't seem to be wishing for this part of their lives to be private at all. They seem proud and open about it.

And looking at that page 286 comment about Editora Gwen… Yes, I do think it's important that it at least be brought up.

You are claiming Frothers hates women. I am sure some do. But what I see there is something entirely different. I see adolescent guffawing about something else. Mostly about the fact that you are apparently trying to hide this something else, not the "something else" in and of itself (at least in most cases that I am reading there).

Well, now this makes a wee bit more sense.

How long have frothers known about the fact that your workers are Martians? Did Lord Raglan know? Because, going back to my discussion with the disappearing Rebelyell, the snide comments make a lot more sense when one takes into consideration that many or all of your workers come from one very small and stigmatized group. A group, I might add, that is notoriously sexualized.

It doesn't make frothers' comments more acceptable, mind you: just more understandable.

But there is an easy solution to this whole thing. Why not just come out and say "Yes, Gwen may be a Martian. She is happy the way she is, at any rate, and we support her being as open about that as she likes. And I may have some other Martians on staff, too. I may not. It is really up to the editors themselves if they want to talk to you about it and not me. Ask them. You can message them. And if they find you insulting, we will ban your scraggly butt."

I mean, think of all the energy you'd save and the drama that could be avoided. All you'd need to to, from that point on, is axe gross insults.

Heck, I bet you would get an INCREASE in advertising revenue of you simply owed up to your hiring best practices.

Bill,

The discussion is getting a bit pointless anyway, it seems to me. Do we really need to discuss exactly how the Frothers insulted somebody?

You are dodging.

Why won't you clearly and directly address the question? You said someone made an attack, you've justified a whole ton of actions by citing that attack, so have other participants here – someone asked "where is the attack" and you won't link to it. If someone else believes they've found it and links to it, you remove the link.

Last week I expressed to you directly via PM and publicly in a thread that I thought it was foolhardy for you to address whatever all this is publicly, but you did, you are and it appears you plan to continue to. Well when you do that and you make claims it is perfectly natural and reasonable for people to ask the claims be supported.

You said someone made an attack but no one is allowed to see it? How is someone supposed to take that seriously?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Have you noticed the new editors have been stymied through
this whole thing

But if your workers are publicly posting who and what they are on, say, Google+, and saying they are proud of that and it suits them fine. And saying this while saying they work at TMP…. Then how are you protecting their privacy, exactly?

Actually some of the employees have been posting information about themselves that certain TMP members have thought to be 'private' and 'inappropriate,' like saying "I'm single and available." That's not the privacy Bill is protecting because it's not a big deal, as Parzival pointed out.

The privacy he's protecting are Frothers information that are sexist and malicious. He doesn't have to provide proof to satisfy anyone because he's EIC on a moderated board. In other words, he doesn't have to answer to anyone and is only doing so as a courtesy.

Frankly I think he should stop trying to 'defend' himself because he doesn't need to.

If you guys want to waste time kicking a dead horse, be my guest.

Peace,

28mm Fanatik

Frankly, I can't see an attack on page 286, or around it. I see someone comparing two publicly posted pictures on public sites and drawing an obvious conclusion. Worse, it is very clear from one of the sites that the person in the photo has no shame about what they are and are happy writing publicly about it. So happy they'll use the same photo of themselves on their professional file.

What you seem to be saying here, Editor, contrary to what Gwen herself has written, is that Gwen SHOULD feel stigmatized. That what she obviously wants to be public and accepted should be "private" and kept under wraps.

The obvious reason to hire an editorial corps full of martians is that one feels martians should be respected. When one makes believe that they are NOT Martians and censors any reference to their martianess, then one is saying that they can only be Martians if they shut up about it.

So far, it seems that at least three of your editors or ex-editors have publicly talked about this. Editor. You do yourself and them no service by trying to force the world to pretend differently.

And, in fact, it even gives the "filth" more credence and that is unfortunate.

Why more credence?

Because the unfortunate, but logical conclusion most people will come to is that if you are trying to nail shut the closet door rather than let it swing open as it will (or won't), then your association with the folks behind the door has little to do with giving them he right to move around as they wish.

28mm Fanatik, it is pretty damned clear that to the degree anyone might have a problem with the editrixes and not the Editor, this has nothing to do with the fact that the editrixes are women.

Let me make it very plain: sexism is the belief that women are somehow inferior to men. Nothing on the Frothers thread the Editor linked us to – and certainly not the comment about Gwen – sustains that hypothesis.

And yes, it is import to call a spade a spade, as it were, in this case. Sexim and the problem here are not the same thing. Women who suffer from sexism have legal recourse. People who suffer from what the problem here is DO NOT and part of that problem is the fact that they are made invisible by society.

It is NOT the same thing and it doesn't all come out in the wash.

28mm Fanatik,

Well, in the last week, I've gone from:

"I just can't care less."

To:

"Geeze why is Bill A. addressing what he calls 'rumors' on other websites, now that's all that's happening on TMP Talk… arg."

To:

"Why the heck is Bill A. shutting down posting because of an argument he's having with some random discussion board on a different website?"

To:

"Why are people being banned because of a flame war on a different website?"

To:

"How can information posted publicly by someone be considered 'private'?"

To:

"You gotta be kidding me, *no one* arguing has seen the 'privacy / sexual attack'?"

To:

"Something isn't right here because otherwise there would be more facts and answers with less blustering, or none of this would have even occurred in the first place… but either way something is not cool here."

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit,

I'm sorry your boundless curiosity will have to remain unsatisfied, but it's obvious that we reached an impasse on this topic and will just have to 'agree to disagree.'

Peace,

28mm Fanatik

Well, bedtime for me, at any rate!

Just think about what I am saying, Editor, if you will.

And Rebelyell, you can come back now, dear. All is forgiven. Especially if you let me in on that hawt gay action you seem to have found at truck-stops. ;)

Toodles!

jtipp68 – account locked he has been here since 2003
supporting member, what is it that he said that is deleted
that got his account locked WTH…

They mocked the looks of one of the editors, yes.

Someone made a statement, but that statement was in no way a "sexist attack". I would still ask anyone who is accusing Frothers of such actions to provide evidence.

I think some people just need to turn off the TMP Talk boards. Poof, no controversy visible unless you go seek it

With respect Parzifal, this approach makes no sense to me. If I am associated with a site (and especially if I have paid money to it as a supporting member) then I want to know if something unethical is going on. Turning away from parts of something because the information may be disturbing is never a good thing to do, in any walk of life, and I can't see why the internet would be any different.

Bandits last post sums this whole thing up for me. I think a lot of members have gone from not being bothered to getting more and more concerned by the Editors behaviour (blocking all those links, locking the accounts of long-standing members, refusing to comment on things that really need an answer etc etc).

Its obvious that the Frothers are stirring up trouble, but maybe some of it is justified.
BTW Zakalwe64 you're a Frothers "agent" aren't you? Connard Sage or one of the others?

Editor in Chief Bill said:

If I were you, I would pick a membername that had a more reputable ring to it…

That sounds conciliatory but my account is still locked.

…then I want to know if something unethical is going on…

Nothing unethical is going on.

That sounds conciliatory but my account is still locked.

Which one do you want unlocked?

Frothers Did It And Ran Away, please.

Bandit said:

"How can information posted publicly by someone be considered 'private'?"

A perfect example of the problem of "privacy" in our increasingly connected information society. Does the fact that someone reveals personal information about themselves online, in a context where revealing that information is relevant and necessary, mean that anyone who determinedly searches for information about them, then has the right to go around posting that information anywhere else that person interacts with others on the internet? Can revealing information available to the public, still somehow be an invasion of privacy?

I know that, if you google me, you will find information about my health issues, mostly in forums where I have discussed things with fellow sufferers. Clearly I don't regard this as a secret. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't be upset if someone collated all this information together and posted it on TMP.

Perhaps it would be better if we considered this as a question of good manners rather than privacy, and assume that if people want to talk about something here on TMP, they will, and, if they don't, it's a bit rude to keep asking about it, especially as we all have the means to go to "the other place", look, and make our own minds up.

For the record, what I've seen over there looks like a mixture of good natured, if obscene, banter, a certain amount of "TMP bashing" from people who've fallen out with Bill over the years, (a few of whom I have a good deal of sympathy with) some truly vile bigotry against the editors, and, it must be said, some apparently very genuine concern that Bill is somehow exploiting the editors. I regard that concern as honourable but likely misplaced.

While Bill could have certainly handled this whole business with greater tact, diplomacy, and guile, as has often been the case with these periodic dramas, he has still probably managed things better than I would have done (and sworn, and stamped his feet, a whole lot less ). Bill is a middle aged (no offence) gamer from New York State, who runs an internet forum and news site, and expecting him to be some paragon of virtue and wisdom, while also conforming to the social and cultural norms of the whole damn English speaking world is rather silly.

dayglowill,

None of what you said seems unreasonable.

My problem is two fold:

1) Bill chose to address whatever this is publicly with TMP on several occasions going back at least as far as 10/2013. Thus, he made it a legitimate topic of inquiry.

2) Bill's choices to claim his actions (locking member accounts, saying things he admits are rude, removing content from posts) are justified based on some attack, call it a "sexual attack" or a "privacy" attack, but no one is allowed to link to it or directly reference it, he won't confirm if someone has correctly identified it when they look for it…

Here is the thing: If you say "I'm doing XYZ, I know people are critical of it but let me assure all of you, it is justified by information I won't let you have, see, discuss or reference, just believe me, I'm justified, the justification is out there on a forum but don't link to it, talk about it or confirm it." Doing that calls your justification into question.

The more people Bill is rude to (your characterization Bill, not mine, I'm not making a personal attack), the more accounts he locks, the more times he answers reasonable questions (like: has anyone seen the 'attack' or can someone confirm X is the attack or can you confirm this link is the attack) with "just trust me" or silence, the less people will trust and the more people will transition from 'can't care less' to 'what is going on?'

That isn't any sort of threat, attack or motto, that is just how people react. Addressing a crowd by saying, "I've gotten you all together to tell you there are rumors and accusation about me, they are wrong, now, move along, move along," is akin to waving your hand and says these aren't the droids you're looking for.

Cheers,

The Bandit

spamalot's account has been locked, as he has previously been banned from TMP.

Bill,

why did you delete Weasels links from page 6 (the 7:53 p.m post)?

It seems that you are acting more and more suspiciously and only digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself.

Because I choose not to allow a link to a Frothers discussion where my staff have been persecuted and mocked.

Bill,

Because I choose not to allow a link to a Frothers discussion where my staff have been persecuted and mocked.

But you posted this:

pg. 286 of the Frothers topic.

The only difference between that and a link is with a link I know I'm reading what you intended vs, "I think I found it but am uncertain if it is what you meant."

Cheers,

The Bandit

What a mess….

Bandit.
I absolutely agree that it would have been better if Bill hadn't addressed this at all on TMP, by doing so he has effectively drawn the attention of people "here" to what is being said "there". Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

The thing is though, that I've always figured that Bill is, just like the rest of us, yours truly most definitely included, a flawed human being who sometimes, loses his temper, makes less than optimal decisions in the heat of the moment, and, on occasion, finds himself in a hole and keeps right on digging.

None of this means that we shouldn't show our editors the courtesy of not discussing their personal business here. On that particular issue I think Bill has got it right in principle, even if he has erred in practice.

dayglowill,

Look, I'm not asking anything mean, I'm not asking anything insulting or irrational and I only got into this because of how weird Bill's answers and actions are.

He did choose to bring this up "here". So it isn't unreasonable for me to ask about it. You can look at the threads, I didn't participate in any of them until they'd been going on for a while and if you locate my first post in one it was telling Bill publicly what I'd told him privately in a PM which was, "why the heck are you addressing what you call rumors and attacks on other websites, this is a distraction."

I want to be very clear, my posts demonstrate I first ignored this controversy, then discouraged Bill from giving it more fuel, then questioned why he was acting so harshly towards people and am now asking "what the heck is going on?"

I didn't come into this with some axe to grind. When was the last time you saw me post something on TMP attacking Bill? I don't generally interact with the guy, I don't generally post a lot of criticisms or questions and I normally say something like, "but it is Bill's sandbox and he can do what he wants." Because that is how I generally feel, but this is wack.

If I keep screaming at people, "I'm justified but by what you don't get to know!" as I kick people out then I'm gonna get questioning looks. Maybe how Bill feels and the motivation determining his actions is reasonable, but if you're gonna act publicly it is only natural people will question. I'm not posting any conclusions about any of this controversy, I'm asking Bill, "if you're going to claim so-and-so did something and it is out there, it only makes sense to let people look," otherwise people will stop taking you at your word.

This is no different from a debate on the Napoleonic Discussion board where someone says, "so-and-so general said XYZ," and someone else asks, "I can't find that, can you tell me where it is that he said it?" If the first guy says, "no, go find it yourself," then no one takes what he claimed with much weight.

Bill runs the site and that gives him a lot of general respect, so when this all started I just went, "whatever, this is annoying, can we move on, Bill says non-event, fine… non-event," but after all his following actions – this isn't a non-event any more.

What's the political advice for controversy: "Say nothing or say everything, in-between just raises questions." Well, something has been said, so here we are.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Mr. trouble never hangs around,
when he hears this Mighty sound,

Here I come to save the day!
That means that Anonymouse is on the way!

Yes sir, when there is a wrong to right,
Anonymouse will join the fight!

On the sea or on the land,
He's got the situation well in hand!

We know that when there's danger, we'll never dispair;
Because we know that when there's danger he is there…
On the land on the sea in the air.

We're not worrying at all
We just listen for his call
"Here I come to save the day!"
That means that Anonymouse is on the way.

When there is a wrong to right,
Anonymouse will joint the fight
"Here I come to save the day!"
That means that Anonymouse is on the way!

Getting kinda pathetic now. I am really feeling kinda sorry for this guy. To be so obsessive is clearly a sign of something deeper. I seriously hope he can get some help. Reported,Stifled and Ignored.

And he posts on Frothers:

Squeak! Mouse in the house!

Well there be any messages to pass along to our cousins at TMP, good sirs and ladies?

Not surprising.Huh? Of course this has nothing to do with Frothers.Riiiiiiiight.

Awww, what's the matter Mr. Anonymouse? Didn't you and your Frother friends like the theme song I posted just for you?

Oh well. Guess they've never heard the Mighty Mouse cartoon theme song over there…

It's a good one Ooh Rah . More original then the constant Sock-puppets LOL.

301 !

Page 8 !

(are we playing that game still?)