Grab a story that has both negative and positive reviews then this can be a debate.

I'm afraid that you've lost me? What exactly are you proposing?

I'm afraid that you've lost me? What exactly are you proposing?

Sorry, I meant to say get one story that has all positve reviews, one that has all negative, and one that is a mix, and see if the author has affected by the reviews. After all, isn't this debate about having too many 'sugary' reviews?

My opinion is that people are taking this subject a bit too seriously. :P

My opinion is that people are taking this subject a bit too seriously. :P

Ditto. To me, you don't need to some type of theory for reviews, reviews just happen. Accept that there are a lot of postive reviews and concrit doesn't always need to be condescending. That's my opinion anyway.

A real review, the one that points out every good/bad angle in a story, is a pile of opinions in my eyes. To use Pie's idea, Person A reads a review and says that it's the greatest thing ever while person B says that it's no good. Person C thinks the review was so-so and goes on with their day. So, if you're seeking the answer to the question "is this review sincere"...it depends on the POV.

Since Twilight is my fandom, I'm going to use that as an example. A story that a whole lot of readers say to be oh-so-awesome, I would deem mediocre and you would say to be no good. Does that mean that I am wrong and you are right? No, because you don't think the same as I do. Reviews are one of the most subjective things you can stumble upon and it isn't possible to put that into a formula. It'd be the same as trying to define someone's personality through numbers. :P You also aren't able to find out whether or not a reviewer was truthful or is simply doing things 'out of the goodness of their heart'.

You'll just have to hope that those people who praise your story anonymously aren't the same. :P

In reference all this slightly more heated discussion taking place in here...my wild guess is that choosing this topic was simply Kelvin's try to engage people in a conversation and it worked. :P You're getting worked up over nothing, dears. :)

In reference all this slightly more heated discussion taking place in here...my wild guess is that choosing this topic was simply Kelvin's try to engage people in a conversation and it worked. :P You're getting worked up over nothing, dears. :)

Maria-

No one is getting worked up over anything. Disagreeing with Kelvin (or anyone for that matter) does not equate to getting worked up over anything. It is merely disagreeing. There has been no name calling, swearing or character assassinations.

Though, I am slightly curious to to know every time I present a reasoned argument, I am accused of getting worked up? As far as I am concerned, the RedBotton thing has been decided by the Admins and is in the past. It does not pervade my posting and I am capable of discusing other topics.

Or maybe I am mistaken and you weren't referring to me?

Though, I am slightly curious to to know every time I present a reasoned argument, I am accused of getting worked up?

I was agreeing with some of your posts while some seemed a little too prickly. :P I said that only because it seemed like Kelvin's thoughts and words were taken too seriously and the tone of the conversation was slightly more than just disagreeing with someone. My post wasn't directed at you directly just so you know. :)

*shrugs* Just a feedback from an outsider, and if I was wrong to say what I said...my apologies. :)

*shrugs* Just a feedback from an outsider, and if I was wrong to say what I said...my apologies. :)

No problem. That's the trouble with this medium. It's difficult to read tone, which leads to all of us allowing past events to color our perception of current events. I very much include myself in that fault. :)

No, right now I'm trying to find if there is something bridging the two.

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for Kelvin but I think it may qualify. I know a writer, in a rather obscure fandom, whose writing leaves a bit to be desired. She has some very good ideas for stories, but her execution of said ideas is lacking. When she first began writing I gave her a review, privately, pointing out some of the ways in which she could make her story flow/read better. She wasn't rude, but it was clear from her response that she didn't really want to know how she could improve. I came to the conclusion that what she apparently wanted was a pat on the head along with a good puppy. I can do that. So now when I review her stories I don't offer any suggestions, mostly I just say good chapter/story. If I offer anything beyond that I usually find it necessary to word the observation in such a way that it can be read as complimentary even if I don't mean it that way. So while my reviews of her stories aren't "dishonest" they're not exactly honest either.

If not, debates would be a simple as 1+1=2 That's a fact. No debate there and only a madman would try to do so.

I can't resist this one...okay I could, but I choose not to. ;) I can debate this and can prove that 1+1=3. I have 1 apple. Pie has 1 apple. Kelvin has 1 apple. Pie gives me her apple and Kelvin gives me his apple. 1+1=3(the amount I now have) ;)

Got beautiful answers easy to work with. Don't think I have yours, though. You were occupied with disagreeing with the topic's wording...may have missed your answer somewhere.

You did actually.

How far should you go when encouraging someone to keep writing?

My answer:

Let me rephrase my response--There is no should about it. There are no standards for reviews, nor will there ever be any if there is a God.

In yet another set of words- People 'should' go as far as they want to and leave as many reviews as they wish.

Wondrous. That's nuts, but it's spot on the topic.

Yeah, well you know me. Freedom for the masses and all that stuff. :D

Oh, that's rich. I should ask someone, who does that, for an explanation. My bet is that they're doing it absent-mindedly.

When I add something to my Favourite Stories, I subscribe to it. Sometimes, I don't think about the fact that it's a oneshot/ complete. *shrug* When I really like something, I hit all four buttons underneath the review box no matter what. Force of habit, I guess.

The thread was inactive far too long, and now that everyone's attention has been glued to it, I do encourage soliciting ideas for new debates in our chat.

I do have an idea for a discussion topic. Recent events made me think about this. What real purpose, other than hit counts for the site, do FF.net fora serve? Should FF.net have stricter guidelines that limit fora to writing related topics only? If you could redesign the fora section or set and enforce rules, what would you do?

Well, since I'm currently writing an essay on the subject, I'll put this out there for people to respond to. Keep it civil, please.

God does not exist, at least not in the traditional Judeo-Christian sense. That concept of a higher power is a logistical impossibility. However, it is impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of God without being omnipresent, omnipotent, or omniscient oneself.

how to make FFN a better place

As impossible as Mr. Dormant finding his God, there.

Ah! Nooo!

Wait! D:

Because like...

I fail to see the need to worship a god. We're all gonna 'die' at one point in time, so does it matter whose god is real? We'll all find out eventually.

No takers on my questions?

I do have an idea for a discussion topic. Recent events made me think about this. What real purpose, other than hit counts for the site, do FF.net fora serve? Should FF.net have stricter guidelines that limit fora to writing related topics only? If you could redesign the fora section or set and enforce rules, what would you do?

Well, I would say no, simply because it builds all these friendships and communities that you can't really form anywhere else on FFN.

/two cents

I do have an idea for a discussion topic. Recent events made me think about this. What real purpose, other than hit counts for the site, do FF.net fora serve? Should FF.net have stricter guidelines that limit fora to writing related topics only?

Originally, I think the intent was for the fora to be used for writing-related topics only. But fan fiction, I think, has a social connection that many other art forms do not. All fan fiction writers are drawn by a common love/obsession with a certain previously-created universe; unlike books or movies, fanfic writers must create their own audiences and their own pedestal to display their work on. With such a large site as FFN bringing all of these like-minded people together, it was almost inevitable that the forum function would soon be used as a meeting place for people with certain ideas about fan fiction. What the admins didn't anticipate was the sense of community that those ideas would present the fan fiction writers with, which is what led to the post deletion fiasco this last November. Think about this place, how so many of us are friends on Facebook and Skype and the phone. How could you have guessed that a general forum would attract such friendship, such bonds? You couldn't have. It's human instinct. Pack mentality. We found a bunch of people similar to us and a place to talk to them...rules or not, I'm not surprised that the forums evolved into what they've become now.

If you could redesign the fora section or set and enforce rules, what would you do?

Perhaps extend the search function to enable users to search through forum posts where a certain user or story is mentioned. I guess that'd be more of a general site change, though...

Fanfiction pioneers.

Dang it, you people! D: Always moving on before I'm ready... Aw well. I don't care.

If He does not exist, you apply some moral standards and live a healthier life. If He exists, you win.

Although that's a lot smarter than saying there's no difference, there's no such thing as religious insurance. If you read much of the bible you find out pretty darn quick that you're either all in or you're not in at all. :/ That's because the idea of being a Christian in the first place is having the desire to be changed into what God wants for everyone. If you just want assurances, that means that you don't wanna change yourself.

Hehe... ^_^'

What... -_-' No, I just pointed out that you aren't saved by randomly deciding to believe in God merely for your own benefit. I never said that it's impossible to seek and discover God, which, if I did, wouldn't prove anything.

Although it's not really the simple belief that saves you either, or we wouldn't have self-proclaimed Christians who run around saying, "I've been baptized with the Holy Spirit! That means I have a free ticket to heaven and I don't have to pay for anything I do now because Christ died for my sins!"

Which is a common way of thinking I guess... I can see where it comes from, but since the idea is to stop sinning they have to get over it sooner or later.

I don't believe in the existence of a soul; ergo, I don't believe in the afterlife.

Our mind and body are essentially one unit - one can't survive independently of the other.

/deep two cents

That makes sense I think, since I didn't believe in the afterlife until I believed in souls. Although I don't think you can say certainly that the mind can't be independent of the body since it's such a difficult thing to grasp onto.

It's plain impossible to disprove the existence of souls anyway. Stating your view of the matter doesn't make it deeper or shallower since it doesn't give the other party much to think about.

Oh, well...

People, remember that, according to the law of Legal Burden of Proof, "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges", so, if you're confirming or negating the existence of a god(s) or souls, spirits, etc, then, you should tell us why you are so certain about it; otherwise, an argument pertaining such a very sensitive topic can be trashed away quite easily.

For instance, I do believe in God, as I'm a Deist, however, I'm no one with the power to confirm the existence of that god in which I believe. It's important to remark, as well, that believing in something and that something actually existing are two very different things. The former is easily demonstrable as it is a belief, while the later requieres conclusive proof in order to be accepted as a fact.

Just wanted to clarify that.

It's plain impossible to disprove the existence of souls anyway.

Brings to mind the Cosmic Teapot argument. I could claim that there is a microscopic teapot in orbit between Mars and Jupiter, start an entire religion devoted to its worship, and who would you be to disagree? Burden of proof lies with those who wish to prove God's existence. We don't believe something exists by default; there has to be some sign of its existence in the world.

Problem for the religion debate is that religious sorts offer up things like the world's very existence as proof of God's existence, and the discussion veers in the direction of what values you use to interpret the evidence one way or another. In the case of religion, blind faith.

Basically, what Rib Eye said.

• Forums are not to be used to post stories.
• All forum posts must be suitable for teens.
• The owner and moderators of this forum are solely responsible for the content posted within this area.
• All forum abuse must be reported to the moderators.