ROBUST discussion

Claudine asks: "WTF is up with some of these larger than life websites with their censorship!"

I think that's real simple. The net empowers anyone with a keyboard. But not everyone has a contribution to make that is satisfying, for instance by being amusing or informative. So, to express themselves, they find a reason to control everyone else. It's a negative "contribution" in the minds of people with our inclusive outlook, but in their minds they're keeping the conversation "clean" or "on topic" or whatever.

Agreed. I have been "shamed" for posting a theme topic under themes on another board. What?? oh, only the moderator can post themes, except that now there are other members posting themes and I'm afraid to repost. Who knows.. .they might put me in the stocks!

I think online interaction poses a problem about 'being present'. For example the other night I went to the pub with my mates, and I was in a tired, lethargic mood. I was quite happy to sit there with them, drinking my Guinness, laughing at their jokes, following the conversation. I didn't say much at all, wasn't in the mood, but I was undoubtedly present and had a good time with my friends.

Online, you can't do that - to 'be present' you have to express an opinion. And so it gets really heated occasionally. And so people think we need rules, as if a little heat was a bad thing.

Yes those poor souls who moderate websites who hate lurkers. I like to watch, sue me (insert heavy eyerolling here).

Here I was under the impression that the thought-police were after anyone who HAD a thought. If the person was intelligent enough to think for themselves - they were suspected of terrorism.

On the topic of those ridiculous buttons - you know the ones:

What I love is that people - like that one entity that 'downvotes' me everywhere I go on the AF - think an anonymous vote will affect any kind of change in my posting habits. That's a pretty small stick to wave around. Barely visible, really.

Sjm wrote: "On the topic of those ridiculous buttons - you know the ones:

What I love is that people - like that one entity that 'downvotes' me everywhere I go on the AF - think an anonymous vote will affect ..."

The thing is, when someone makes a complaint against you, and there are some who do nothing on Amazon except try to find someone to complain about, Amazon takes the number of votes on those buttons into consideration in deciding on the stringency of their action.

In short, in Amazon's opinion, the truth doesn't matter, only popularity is important.

That's what makes Amazon barrowboys, quite unsuitable to have such a profound influence on the course of literature.

I see. I have already mailed them twice to ask them to get rid of the Yes/No buttons altogether (leaving the ignore and other buttons alone). My reasoning to them is that the buttons aren't being used to indicate if the post content adds to the discussion, but to express an opinion of the post or poster. Further, the buttons, misused in this way, are creating an atmosphere of animosity on the boards. They've been working on my request for weeks now, so they must be giving it some deep thought.

Today I noticed for the first time that someone reported a review I posted in March. This person commented on a review that I did because she/he was highly offended I used the word heathens. It was all tongue in cheek of course. And I am highly amused my review, which the author loved on here btw, was so offending.

A long time ago I read on the Amazon forum a poster's theory about why the up/down buttons are there. It went something like this: if it weren't for the buttons, people would post arguments back and forth. Giving them the option to argue by way of the button helps keep the threads friendlier.

Yeah. Right.

In my view it's just the opposite. The anonymity of those buttons creates a faceless war zone. By owning opinions, people are at least less inclined to be nasty or will at least be appropriately called out for ignorant behaviour.

I agree with Sue's version.
Identifiability = responsibility = good manners

Just for the record, I don't agree with what I posted. I think the buttons have the opposite effect, egging people on to bicker among themselves.

Sometimes for some mild amusement I take a wander through the comments that follow Yahoo news articles. They have the same system with liking or not liking a comment. It is astounding what pisses people off, from the mundane to the valid.

Ah, yes, the comments sections. I'm amazed by the contortions some people go through to turn reports into something political. There could be an article about flowers not being as fragrant this year or a slowdown in new gadgets coming to market, and someone will post that it's Obama's fault, someone else will counter that it's Bush's fault, and then someone will insist it's terrorism which is the fault of the (fill in the blank) Party.

So, the other day someone posted you-know-where, asking if anyone could suggest fiction dealing with the underground railroad. I replied, with a link to the product page for a novel I wrote years ago about the underground railroad. It's now available only from used book sellers, starting as low as one cent. I get nothing from a sale. Still, I got voted down as not "contributing to the discussion" even though the discussion was about fiction dealing with the underground railroad. I removed my post.

Apparently, my sin was having written the book. Someone else could have mentioned the book and been acceptable to the forum police.

I give up.

I stick out my tongue in their general direction on your behalf. They are a bunch of "empty headed animal food trough wiper[s]" (do I really need to say where this quote is from?).

Patricia Sierra wrote: "Apparently, my sin was having written the book. Someone else could have mentioned the book and been acceptable to the forum police."

Being a writer is now "arrogant" on Amazon. It's the revenge of all those people you were at school with whose names you can't remember. Amazon has put them in power over the creative. I think it's terribly amusing, because the bookburners Amazon have empowered have already visibly dumbed down the Amazon fora both sides of the Atlantic, and now Amazon, a bookseller (!) is in a position where a customer like Dog Lover (a woman who admits publicly that she needs two sets of Cliff Notes to read Ulysses, a book written in English, for chrisesake) is putting on airs of being too refined to share a forum with mere live writers.

I thought it was just the Indies they hated, but the book in my post was published by Avon. I guess they hate writers no matter how their books get published.

I would need more than two sets of Cliff Notes to get through Ulysses.

Sjm, I had to Google the quote to find the source.

Patricia Sierra wrote: "Sjm, I had to Google the quote to find the source."

If it isn't written in KJB or WilltheShake, chances are about seven out of ten it is MP.

An entire generation, or two, was inculcated with the belief that British Comedy is Best by the Monty Python Show. And rightly so.

... and Faulty Towers, of course.

Fawlty Towers is not quite as quotable as Monty Python.

Ah the best in British humour.

Patricia, those forums are FUBAR. It's like being back in high school again, lumped in with all the unlovable unlikeable kids who were just never popular enough for the cliques that ran the playground.

Ignorant at best, spoiled brats at worst, ignore the lot of them. Being successful enough to have been published is revenge enough.

Sometimes I swear bad readers are wannabe authors who cannot stomach the fact that there are people out there making it.

It's not that I expected anything better out of them. I stayed away for weeks, perhaps months, after my previous experience on that forum (Amazon took down my free-book offer, making it seem they were finally spelling out their stance on such offers, then they let others continue to post freebies). I got curious about what was under discussion these days, so went back. I'll probably wander back from time to time, to read, not post. However, I will be putting a new title in the Kindle Store soon. I'll post that, then duck and run. The post might survive all of two minutes before enough people report me and get it taken down.

About MP: I've been exposed to very little of their humor. Quotes probably fly right over my head daily.

Oh Patricia, do yourself a favour and watch all episodes of Monty Python and then go out and watch the movies. Life of Brian is hysterically funny.

Patricia Sierra wrote: "However, I will be putting a new title in the Kindle Store soon. I'll post that, then duck and run."

Don't do it, Sierra. What will happen is that the forum scum, Blaiz, Bridget Ruth, Dog Lover, will be waiting for you, will report you to Amazon, and that Amazon, having given you one warning, will ban you permanently.

You're a rational, decent person; you consequently expect Amazon to react rationally. That's not how it works at all. Amazon simply doesn't care about you. What Amazon does is to react to any complaint by a customer. That is what underlies Dog Lover's remark, "I find you... totally out-of-touch with the fact that I spent approximately $6000 dollars on books last year." It was clearly spelled out on the UK forum last year that if any customer takes offense, then the writer must have given offense; the customer is never, ever, wrong. The customer doesn't have to say what she took offense at, merely that she did.

Some clerical assistant will ban you. There is no hearing, no appeal, no way back.

It's an impossible situation. Walk away.

I don't care if they ban me. What would I be losing? If I don't post, it's the same as being banned.

The warning they sent didn't involve publication announcements. It was the giving away of free books, which was odd because I was using Amazon's "gift" button when doing the giveaways. Of course, some forum members (even after being told the facts) decided I must have been giving the books away off-site.

Sooner or later there must be a cessation of all these stupidities. I don't see Amazon making an amnesty for the banned -- they simply don't have that sort of grace -- but you'll still be there to take advantage of the change of policy. There's nothing to win by confrontation right now.

Then where do I announce my new book?

Here. Goodreads has 4.5m visitors. Kerra, who comes here, has a radio show. Ask her if she want to introduce your book. Go find the readers of your other books, invite them to form a reading group with you for your new book. Vicki, who comes here has an Irish readers group; discover your mother was Irish (if it's good enough for Mrs Obama, whatever her first name is, Shevaughn of the Black Irish maybe, it is good enough for you). Join Kindleboards; they have very liberal promotion policies. You're surrounded by a dozen reviewers. Open your eyes, look around you.

Oh dear. You're talking about interaction with others. I'm allergic to that. When I used the word "announce," that's what I meant.

By the way, my ancestors were Irish. And French. Don't let the Sierra name fool you. I had to get married to get that.

If it's any help, I put a (clearly labelled) promo up for my book last week on the Amazon forums - got the odd blahblahblah complaint post but no official hassle, and most were actually supportive.

Think it's just luck whether the usual suspects are around that day or not..,

Good luck!

James, it may be luck but I have a feeling from browsing those stupid threads there that there are certain authors being targeted over and over. It's sad. Books are the stuff of life for me and I hate that people out there can be so stupid about it.

It's true that some authors do enter that forum wearing a target. It's mostly the same group that takes potshots at them, but also a separate group that can be counted on to support authors. Some promo threads I've seen get replies from neither group. I agree with James that the reception may depend on who's around the day the thread is posted.

Looks like I'm forced to take Andre's "announcement" advice. Amazon has made it official: no more book promos in the Kindle forum -- but they've created a forum for authors and, if any show up, their readers. This link goes to for forum announcement:

http://tinyurl.com/4xq6d7e

I guess that will make life a little easier in some ways (no excuse now for people to bash the authors talking about themselves and their works).

Amazon's announcement uses the phrase "shameless self promotion" (in quotes in their announcement). I don't know who is being quoted, but including that phrase was low class IMO.

As it happens, several authors have used that phrase, and it has been used in catch-all thread titles.

Here's a link to the new authors' forum on Amazon (the link above was to the old forum, where the announcement was placed):

http://tinyurl.com/6ka96ro

Amazon has swept a lot of old threads from the Kindle forum over to the new one. It makes it look like the new forum is more active than perhaps it actually is.

Patricia Sierra wrote: "Looks like I'm forced to take Andre's "announcement" advice. Amazon has made it official: no more book promos in the Kindle forum..."
I've opened a thread to discuss Amazon's wonderful generosity:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/5...

Sjm wrote: "Amazon's announcement uses the phrase "shameless self promotion" (in quotes in their announcement). I don't know who is being quoted, but including that phrase was low class IMO."

No class, no grace, no loyalty, no discrimination. Plenty of greed, though.

Andre Jute wrote: "Patricia Sierra wrote: "Looks like I'm forced to take Andre's "announcement" advice. Amazon has made it official: no more book promos in the Kindle forum..."
I've opened a thread to discuss Ama..."

...he said with sarcasm dripping nicely.