Extensive report criticizing Laura J Mixon's report on Requires only that you hate

[Darth Richard II]

I'm not 100 percent sure, and it's late and I'm on my phone, but I believe there was good evidence linking ROH and winterfox that was then back deleted by ROH. That is, in fact, a large part of the problem, she tried really really hard to erase her past.

I know quite a few people on the internet that use the same nick for everything and have done so fur at least 20 years, but I also know some people that change their nick every other week, so it could go either way.

As fir the authors behaving badly, I was not familiar with a lot if the ones mentioned in the report so I can only really comment on Bakker, and I still have no idea what the hell he was talking about in those posts so I can't really comment.

The whole thing really is a clusterfuck if epic proportions.

[voodooqueen126]

I was thinking of all the people who got death threats and such.

and really graphic threats of rape, often of a scatological character.

[MacPeach]

I'm not sure what point you think the Brier article made regarding pseudonyms, Kat. As far as I've been able to determine, WF/RH/BS hasn't ever denied using multiple online handles. What's she's disputed is/are some of the actions/abuses the Winterfox handle has been accused-- under the explanation of, paraphrasing: I deleted that account/handle at one point, and some of this/these happened after. 

 

But, she's never given any kind of accurate date or even range as to when she deleted it, nor any indication that she tried to defend her online persona by contacting said boards/journals whatever to suss out who was now using it to muddy her name. As well, and more importantly in my opinion, she's never given a reason as to why this person who was using the handle to further smear her then chose to collude with her and go back and delete Winterfox postings for her.

 

---

 

It's all really fascinating to me, the exposure of some nasty creature's soft under belly, the chink in Smaug's armor, whathaveyou. It reminds of scenarios where I watched the death by scandal of a political career, without the consequences.  

[Crowjack]

... Does anyone here actually use the same screen name for everything on the internet?

 

Well...yes.

[Arthmail]

This bus has so much gas, I'm surprised anyone can even fit in the seats. If there is any reason I won't use one screen name for both my westeros account and my extreme hentai accounts, its for threads like this. This shit comes back to haunt you forever and ever and while I might drop trou for some good old fashioned tentacle porn I don't want that shit bleeding back into my real fake persona here on the board.

 

 

All jokes aside, ROH is a pretty terrible person. I'll still be reading this topic when I reach my next 8 years on the board.

[ColumPaget]

nifty.  I recall thinking that the mixon report too readily conflated things like 'negative review' with 'attack' or 'threat.'  it's a specious form of argumentation that attempts to taint legitimate conduct by tying it to illegitimate.

 

Here we go again. Time and time again we see this lie advanced. Calling for someone to be beheaded or have their hands cut off for what they're written is not a review. Critiquing the author, rather than their work, calling them names and slandering them, is not a review. Attacking people who are in the way of your glorious career is not a review. 

 

 

 

it's a good article.  i'd like to see replies from mixon and her supporters, but if this article can't be answered, then she needs to give the hugo back.

 

It's not a good article, it's bullshit. I was one of the people attacked (I go it mild compared to many though). It doesn't even get the facts about what happened with me right. The article claims that she only turned on me after I argued with her online. But my first interaction with this person was them calling for me to be beheaded for something I wrote that she deliberately took out of context. I don't know the details of the rest of it, but as it's not accurate about the things I do know, I assume it's not accurate at all.

 

The people abused is all this do not have to reply to you, and you do not have the right to say that someone who spoke up when no one else would should hand their award back.

[Darth Richard II]

Well here's the thing I see a lot, people seem to think the MIxon article is about the blog. To hell with that blog(not that I disagree with what Colum says above). The point is all the other shit she got up to, and then tried to erase,

[Callan S.]

 

Well, since my job here is to moderate behavior, I'm obviously against people whose behavior on the internet veers into the distasteful territory of gleefully wishing death on people, etc. But I also think there was a group of authors who behaved pretty badly in this situation and which really left a bad taste in my mouth. When I was reading Mixon's report, when I read various links to the context for some of her reports, I felt like she wasn't reporting the whole thing or was putting a spin on it,

 

Well how is 'reporting the whole thing' measured?

 

It just seems to me a matter of concern where you are never going to get anyone whos, like, actually payed, to look into it. So the best you're going to get is some cobbled together records.

 

What would the benefit of reporting the whole thing be, anyway? That BS needed to throw around ad homenims and wish sexual assault on people because actually a tiny angel was going to die if she didn't and she didn't want to do all that? I mean, what mitigating factor are we expecting to jump out from reporting the whole thing?

 

I don't think a full report would find a mitigating factor so...you don't need one. Waiting for one, to me, just seems to be a way of giving BS a free pass.