Heads Up: Harper Voyager calls for unagented submissions

Um, anyway...

May is approaching. Think they'll have moved onto the next round by then?

My goodness

Well, not sure what to do here. If I take it down now, those who haven't seen it are left with conflicting opinions, and can't judge for themselves.

Of course, if a mod thinks it best, I'll take it down.

Personally, I thought it fitted in well the the general comments preceding and was clearly an extension of that.

But, I can see how some may have taken offence.

So apologies to those folk.


All I can say is that the chances of me making the 1000 mile journey to HV headquarters (New York I assume?) and camp outside their offices, in the hope of doing some employee and injury (with or without a lush lipped accomplice) are, well, zilch. Honest.


No sure what else I can offer. I do hope no one thinks the chances are anything other than zilch.

Paul

The (playful) Pacifist.(Honest)

Yeah...I'm published by HarperVoyager.

These people you're "joking" about are people I know, and have spent time with both professionally and personally. They're wonderful, funny, smart, caring people who love books and writers, and who work very hard.

I sure don't think it's funny (in fact, I think it's distinctly UNfunny), and I don't think they would, either.

Paul said:

Personally, I thought it fitted in well the the general comments preceding and was clearly an extension of that.

Click to expand...

Having read much of the thread this morning, yes, it did fit in well. That, too, should be a matter for reflection by the participants in this conversation.

Remember that your submission is an application for a working relationship with a publisher. Your potential editor is going to want to see whether you're professional, controlled in the face of difficult situations (like bad reviews), patient with the inevitable delays in the publishing process (and, sadly the evitable ones too), and have a good grasp of public/private demeanors. In other words, how are you going to be to work with? How are you going to deal with the trials of the publication process?

It's true that a fantastic book from a difficult, needy author will probably get published, but anything less than genius will be more palatable when accompanied by a (publicly) good attitude. What gets written in a text file on the author's computer and never exposed to the light of the internet is, of course, the author's own business.

Admittedly, HV have clearly underestimated the quantity of submissions they would get, and their workflow is probably hideously clogged up. That's on them. What's on the people who have submitted is how they deal with this particular sling and arrow of outrageous fortune.

Also, is this the headspace you want to be living in when you think about the possible relationship with your editor?

Paul said:

Well, not sure what to do here. If I take it down now, those who haven't seen it are left with conflicting opinions, and can't judge for themselves.

Click to expand...

This is the wrong line of thinking.

I don't doubt for a second that what you wrote - misguided and inappropriate as it is - was intended as anything other than an expression of frustration.

However, your intent does not overrule the fact that it is offensive. The general tone of fulminations and increasing antipathy towards Harper Voyager that precedes it does not excuse it. That some of the other users have gauged your intent as harmless is immaterial.

We all say stupid stuff that we regret. It happens. We just open our mouths or put our fingers on the keyboard and the words just blatter themselves out there, a stinking pile of awkward, offensive, useless poop.

We all do it. I do it all the time. Sometimes I'll be walking down the street and I will have to stop to cringe because I suddenly remember something awful that I once said to someone.

What's important, though, is that when someone points it out to you, you correct it. Don't stand around wringing your hands going "but *this* person likes it", or "but it's meant to be funny!"

We know what you wanted it to be. People are taking great pains to be polite in telling you that it isn't. Listen to them.

If you seriously, seriously, still do not know what to do, here is the quick guide:

1) Delete it. You don't need to leave a monument, and it'll only attract rubberneckers.
2) Apologise. Briefly and without reservations.
3) Don't let it get you down. Why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves back up.
4) Learn from the experience. Be polite and professional.

Well this is a private site and as such I will of course bow to whatever decision Mac or similar make.
Especially if she or similar feel this compromise the ethos of AW.

However, let me offer this. If the text is removed, then I do think all posts relating to it should also be removed. Otherwise a reader, not seeing my original post, would be forced to use their imagination as to what I said – and with the name Ted Bundy being mentioned…well, I think that would be pretty unfair.
Another issue is context.
If I posted that post cold, with no lead ins, then I could certainly see where the interpretation might be deemed unsavoury. But, as I say, I think I posted in context – re-interpreting and dramatizing a previous image, as writers are wont to do. The face of the grey suited man who died is smiling, this is one of the indicators (the use of hard-boiled noir language such as ‘lushness’ another) which points that this post is humorous - at least I intended it as such.

Finally in response to any text there will exist a subjective element. Of course I might have one intention, and someone may well interpret it differently. I don’t however, feel one interpretation of the post is automatically and absolutely correct, my own included.



As regards 'working with' an editor etc, for me, I've posted with wit, courteousness, charm, compassion and good humour throughout this thread.


Others clearly think otherwise. That's ok too.

Rooster, you make a good point about the trend of the thread, and I'll certainly consider that issue.

Paul

mygoditsraining said:

This is the wrong line of thinking.

I don't doubt for a second that what you wrote - misguided and inappropriate as it is - was intended as anything other than an expression of frustration.

However, your intent does not overrule the fact that it is offensive. The general tone of fulminations and increasing antipathy towards Harper Voyager that precedes it does not excuse it. That some of the other users have gauged your intent as harmless is immaterial.

We all say stupid stuff that we regret. It happens. We just open our mouths or put our fingers on the keyboard and the words just blatter themselves out there, a stinking pile of awkward, offensive, useless poop.

We all do it. I do it all the time. Sometimes I'll be walking down the street and I will have to stop to cringe because I suddenly remember something awful that I once said to someone.

What's important, though, is that when someone points it out to you, you correct it. Don't stand around wringing your hands going "but *this* person likes it", or "but it's meant to be funny!"

We know what you wanted it to be. People are taking great pains to be polite in telling you that it isn't. Listen to them.

If you seriously, seriously, still do not know what to do, here is the quick guide:

1) Delete it. You don't need to leave a monument, and it'll only attract rubberneckers.
2) Apologise. Briefly and without reservations.
3) Don't let it get you down. Why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves back up.
4) Learn from the experience. Be polite and professional.

Click to expand...

I disagree. What you're suggesting, to me, is a form of self-censorship based on the response of others to one's work.

If writers followed that advice, the work of many, like Joyce and Thompson, would not exist today.

Paul said:

As regards 'working with' an editor etc, for me, I've posted with wit, courteousness, charm, compassion and good humour throughout this thread.

Click to expand...

Well then, Paul, shall I email your posts to my editor at Voyager, so she can see how charming, witty, humorous, and courteous you are?

Since you think your posts are evidence of such, I mean.

How about the rest of you? If you'd like me to do so, just say the word. Since you think anyone seeing these posts will just know you're joking from "seeing you around" here, because they spend so many hours here getting to know everyone.


Let me repeat: You (and it's not just you, Paul) are "jokingly" threatening a woman I know and work with, whose company I enjoy very much. You are "jokingly" threatening another woman who went way out of her way to do me a favor in the middle of doing a bunch of other stuff; a personal favor, just because she's that lovely a woman. You are, in fact, "jokingly" threatening numerous women--and men--I know, and work with, and have spent time with.

We're not talking about "Ugh why are they taking so long?" posts. We're not talking, even, about "They hate writers and are lazy" posts. We're talking about "Ha, it'd be awesome funny to leave somebody dead!" posts, and I'd love for someone to explain to me in what fucking world that shit is acceptable, because it isn't in the one I live in, and I actually thought it wasn't in the world MOST people live in.


Funnily enough, I talked to my HV editor about this open call a few months back as we chatted about all sorts of other things, and she was so excited about it. She couldn't wait to see what came in. She was confident there would be some good stuff in there, and the idea of discovering something or someone new made her eyes sparkle. She thought this whole open call was going to be so much fun.

That's one of the women you're "joking" about physically attacking for the crime of not immediately setting aside the enormous pile of all her other work to read your submission. Because jokes like that are so funny.

You don't need to quote an entire post, by the way.

If writers followed that advice, the work of many, like Joyce and Thompson, would not exist today.

Click to expand...

I will treasure those words. Treasure them.

Stacia Kane said:

Let me repeat: You (and it's not just you, Paul) are "jokingly" threatening a woman I know and work with, whose company I enjoy very much. You are "jokingly" threatening another woman who went way out of her way to do me a favor in the middle of doing a bunch of other stuff; a personal favor, just because she's that lovely a woman. You are, in fact, "jokingly" threatening numerous women--and men--I know, and work with, and have spent time with.

We're not talking about "Ugh why are they taking so long?" posts. We're not talking, even, about "They hate writers and are lazy" posts. We're talking about "Ha, it'd be awesome funny to leave somebody dead!" posts, and I'd love for someone to explain to me in what fucking world that shit is acceptable, because it isn't in the one I live in, and I actually thought it wasn't in the world MOST people live in.




That's one of the women you're "joking" about physically attacking for the crime of not immediately setting aside the enormous pile of all her other work to read your submission. Because jokes like that are so funny.

Click to expand...

I can only ask that if my post is deleted, that all posts relating to it are also deleted.

Otherwise, a reader of AW can see what I actually wrote, and the posts preceding it.

Becasue if they couldnt access what I actually wrote, and relied on posts such as this one, then, well, that would be pretty tragic.

Gonna bow out of this one methinks

Paul said:

I can only ask that if my post is deleted, that all posts relating to it are also deleted.

Otherwise, a reader of AW can see what I actually wrote, and the posts preceding it.

Becasue if they couldnt access what I actually wrote, and relied on posts such as this one, then, well, that would be pretty tragic.

Gonna bow out of this one methinks

Click to expand...

The mods don't delete posts here unless they're spammy. You're welcome to have second thoughts and edit your own posts out, but you certainly don't get to ask that other posts be deleted too.

I think Stacia got to the core of the matter, and I don't think there's anything "tragic" about that.

I don't see anything amusing at all in your earlier post. I'm going to quote it, so that there's no doubt about which post I'm referring to:

Paul said:

The lady's full lush-lipped mouth was a line of controlled angry. But he didn't see it. All he saw was the lushness.

'Stranger. Let me buy you a drink'

He blinked at her. Him? She was buying him a drink? He quickly stuttered a yes.


Later that night, in the motel car park, as he clumsily tried to stop his innards from spilling out onto the tarmacadam ground, the image of her lush wet lips came to mind. He smiled.

Hours later a young medic wondered at the serene smile upon the dead grey suited man. The older medic strolled over, lifting the dead man's name tag up close for inspection. He gave a knowing nod.


'Yup. Harper Voyager. Third one this week'. He shook his head. 'Their own fault'.

His younger colleague nodded with understanding. Three in as many weeks. Would they ever learn.


Moments later the ambulance roared out of the car-park, soon merging into interstate anonymity.

Click to expand...

I too know people who work at Harper, and find nothing--nothing--amusing in your words. I find them creepy, and disturbing, and entirely inappropriate. These are real people you're referring to, and you're referring to them in a very unpleasant way.

If you struggle to understand how I could think that, imagine how your "story" would make you feel if it were written about someone you've worked with, who you know to be a good, hardworking, professional person, with friends and family around them. Now do you get it?

What I find doubly disturbing is that this isn't the first time you've expressed your murderous fantasies in this thread:

Paul said:

Hey Paul, where you goin' with that gun in your hand?

Hey Paul, I said, where you goin' with that gun in your hand?

oh,
I'm goin' down to shoot an ol' voyager down
You know - I caught him messin' 'round

Yeah, I'm goin' to shoot an ol' voyager down

You know - I caught him messin' 'round


Yeah, yeah.

gonna shoot that ol' voyager down, down

uh huh.


messin 'round


aint cool, un huh

yeah

messin round....


ah yeah....


down

down

down

Click to expand...

One post about killing the good people at Harper could be a poorly-judged attempt at a joke; two posts about it, and alarm bells are ringing for me.

And all because they're taking longer to read the submissions than you'd expected, when everyone with any experience in publishing knows that it takes a long time to do justice to a lot of submissions if you're serious about treating the writers concerned in a fair and respectful manner.

I hope you don't bow out of this conversation, Paul. I hope you stick around, and keep talking, because I want you to understand why so many of us have found your comments inappropriate, and I want you to consider how to do better. I recognise you're probably feeling like you're being put on the spot right now, and that this conversation is difficult for you: but please stick around and see it through. And read Stacia's post again: she made some excellent points, which I think we should all pay attention to.

Cella said:

I don't post over here regularly, just coming in on the tail end of this discussion, as articshark, and wanted to say that I took the post to be meant as a joke.

Click to expand...

It's all fun and games until someone gets their eyes poked out. Or an unbalanced human reads this thread and thinks it's a blueprint for what to do next.

Surely this applies to all users of the Internet and not just the you all's here though, right?

Click to expand...

Yes. It applies to me and to you and the rest of you alls, y'alls, y'uns and you them theres.

Love being singled out. I am a special, special snowflake. Feeling all important and shit. Thanks.

And given what you wrote next, gotta love the italics as well. Since we are speaking of condescending, let's crack open a dictionary.

Definition of CONDESCENDING: showing or characterized by a patronizing or superior attitude toward others — con·de·scend·ing·ly \-ˈ sen-diŋ-lē\ adverb

Click to expand...

Hmmm, were you being condescending by using the italics? Cause I was going for sardonic. I will work on that (see now I'm being condescending).

There is really no need to be so condescending. Bringing Ted Bundy into the conversation right out of the gate was a bit over the top, IMO. Paul's "joke" fell flat, evidently. Now everyone knows to be more cautious and hopefully those who have submitted and are awaiting responses will be rewarded with good news.

Click to expand...

It was over the top. I used it to illustrate a point. Sometimes one can be subtle about these things. But I figured using the 2 by 4 approach would illustrate that point so much better than a more subtle approach because, see point above- I don't "know" you or y'all or y'uns. I don't know if soft illustrations will work to show how joking about committing crimes against specific people isn't really all that funny.

And a comedian I heard said that it's only a joke if we both laugh. Couching assault and battery and murder crimes as a joke could be funny. In a night club where I paid money to listen to a funny dude. But on a writer's forum, with people who know the power of words and also know that crazy people out there sometimes take those words to heart, well I'm just not laughing.

Stacia Kane said:

Let me repeat: You (and it's not just you, Paul) are "jokingly" threatening a woman I know and work with, whose company I enjoy very much. You are "jokingly" threatening another woman who went way out of her way to do me a favor in the middle of doing a bunch of other stuff; a personal favor, just because she's that lovely a woman. You are, in fact, "jokingly" threatening numerous women--and men--I know, and work with, and have spent time with.

We're not talking about "Ugh why are they taking so long?" posts. We're not talking, even, about "They hate writers and are lazy" posts. We're talking about "Ha, it'd be awesome funny to leave somebody dead!" posts, and I'd love for someone to explain to me in what fucking world that shit is acceptable, because it isn't in the one I live in, and I actually thought it wasn't in the world MOST people live in.


That's one of the women you're "joking" about physically attacking for the crime of not immediately setting aside the enormous pile of all her other work to read your submission. Because jokes like that are so funny.

Click to expand...

Old Hack said:

The mods don't delete posts here unless they're spammy. You're welcome to have second thoughts and edit your own posts out, but you certainly don't get to ask that other posts be deleted too.


My point is that if my post was deleted, then information regarding it, would only come from other sources, and would therefore be an unbalanced/ or biased analysis. I state that for that reason ONLY.

Thank you for quoting the text, and hopefully others will read the prev statements.


I think Stacia got to the core of the matter, and I don't think there's anything "tragic" about that.

I don't see anything amusing at all in your earlier post. I'm going to quote it, so that there's no doubt about which post I'm referring to:



I too know people who work at Harper, and find nothing--nothing--amusing in your words. I find them creepy, and disturbing, and entirely inappropriate. These are real people you're referring to, and you're referring to them in a very unpleasant way.

The thing is this. We have to include context into this situation, otherwise our analysis is again, working on limited information. Yes, as Rooster said, the context may well have become more disparaging, I do accept that. For sure.

But real people? To me, this is the central objection I have with Stacia's quite startling comments.

If I criticise a corporation, and dramatise that corporation in the form of a 'grey old man', does that translate to threatening specific staff members with viable murderous intent? From my viewpoint, it certainly does not. I am quite shocked that it was presented in that manner. If I were to satirise or lampoon the Republican party, does that translate to specific threats of action against specific persons? Nope, to me, it certainly does not.


If you struggle to understand how I could think that, imagine how your "story" would make you feel if it were written about someone you've worked with, who you know to be a good, hardworking, professional person, with friends and family around them. Now do you get it?

My previous point addresses this. I satirised a corporation, not a hard-working individual.


What I find doubly disturbing is that this isn't the first time you've expressed your murderous fantasies in this thread:



One post about killing the good people at Harper could be a poorly-judged attempt at a joke; two posts about it, and alarm bells are ringing for me.

ah yes. The song 'Hey Joe', paraphrased. An old folk proverb/ story/ song made famous by Jimmy Hendrix. Again, songs were being used, I quoted Lou Reed, Jimmy and Bowie. Perhaps not as classy as I thought it was, but not quite serial killer stuff, at least not to me.

And all because they're taking longer to read the submissions than you'd expected, when everyone with any experience in publishing knows that it takes a long time to do justice to a lot of submissions if you're serious about treating the writers concerned in a fair and respectful manner.


In any waiting room, given time, the humour will become more jocular, even black at times. (to me, it was a light grey) such is the human condition.


I hope you don't bow out of this conversation, Paul. I hope you stick around, and keep talking, because I want you to understand why so many of us have found your comments inappropriate, and I want you to consider how to do better. I recognise you're probably feeling like you're being put on the spot right now, and that this conversation is difficult for you: but please stick around and see it through. And read Stacia's post again: she made some excellent points, which I think we should all pay attention to.

Click to expand...

Problem is, not everybody is equipt to do "e-book".

Ya know, Sarah, I really like your covers, too. I wonder what the precedent is for self-pub artwork getting picked up and used anyway? Or perhaps modified slightly whilst preserving the spirit of the original?

Paul said:

The thing is this. We have to include context into this situation, otherwise our analysis is again, working on limited information. Yes, as Rooster said, the context may well have become more disparaging, I do accept that. For sure.

But real people? To me, this is the central objection I have with Stacia's quite startling comments.

Click to expand...

What was "quite startling" about them? The fact that I didn't find you funny, or the fact that I asked if, since you're so confident they're harmless and awesome, you'd like me to share them with the people you're "joking" about?

If the idea of that "startles" you, then perhaps you ought to wonder why.


To be perfectly frank, yes, if someone makes death threats against a political party, I find that disturbing as well. Because that party is made up of people. HarperVoyager is a group of people. I kind of thought we all knew that? You're not "satirizing" them when you gleefully write about them being murdered. That's not satire. Nor is it some sort of Joycean artistic statement worthy of being passed down through generations.


You're welcome to keep insisting that you're perfectly right to post jokes about murdering people for the crime of not responding to your submission fast enough, and to keep defending yourself instead of simply saying, "Wow, sorry, I didn't think how that could come off," and then having everyone reply, "Yeah, we're sure you didn't, just something to think about in future." You're perfectly free to keep talking about how if your words make you look like a jerk then that is a terrible, terrible tragedy, because how dare anyone try to make you look bad after you threatened people with physical harm? Don't they understand that you and your reputation are the most important things in this discussion, and that it is their collective job to protect you from the repercussions of your own actions?


All you had to do was say sorry, man. It's not hard to do, and it would have ended this right there and then. But to be perfectly honest, the fact that you refuse to do so makes me wonder just how much you were actually joking.

CatherineS said:

Ya know, Sarah, I really like your covers, too. I wonder what the precedent is for self-pub artwork getting picked up and used anyway? Or perhaps modified slightly whilst preserving the spirit of the original?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure, to be honest. I'd have to ask my designer if it came to it. I'm not sure how she'd feel about modifications. They'd be welcome to the Fractured one because I made that myself.

sarahdalton said:

I'm not sure, to be honest. I'd have to ask my designer if it came to it. I'm not sure how she'd feel about modifications. They'd be welcome to the Fractured one because I made that myself.

Click to expand...

Well, she may view it in the same way that authors must swallow textual modifications before going to print. If she were to get at least partial credit (if not full) for her artwork appearing in print, that could be worth it from a publicity standpoint.

CatherineS said:

Well, she may view it in the same way that authors must swallow textual modifications before going to print. If she were to get at least partial credit (if not full) for her artwork appearing in print, that could be worth it from a publicity standpoint.

Click to expand...

Yeah she'd definitely have to be given credit. She's the designer for Inkspell Publishing and has designed loads of covers so it's not like she needs the publicity. With it being an e-book deal I wonder if we'd continue to keep our print rights, only I have the book out in paperback now. Might be nice to keep the original art on the paperback.

What will be will be. I'm a bit nervous at the thought of relinquishing control after spending so long choosing the artwork etc. They know what they're doing though.

Having never published in any form before, I have none of those issues, but certainly there must be for everyone a sense of releasing your child into the big world....you've done all you can to raise it, now it must fly on its own. Surely you already felt that the day you clicked to upload.

I'm finding the business about Paul's post all rather saddening. Please, please don't let this argument rumble on because it puts people off writing science fiction and fantasy... I've seen too many arguments that have led to good writers leaving the profession.

It'll also put HV and other big publishers off from doing open doors in the future. And for those of us who write unusual speculative fiction, it'll make it even more difficult to get our novels published.

All I can say to all the main parties in the main argument, none of whom are without fault Pax vobiscum (Latin for peace be with you).

Paul said:

I disagree. What you're suggesting, to me, is a form of self-censorship based on the response of others to one's work.

If writers followed that advice, the work of many, like Joyce and Thompson, would not exist today.

Click to expand...

You're not Joyce. You're not even Thompson.

You are however deeply mistaken about your presentation of self.

I've sent you a PM. I suggest you read it carefully.

In the meantime, I'm going to help you read more and post less.

Well as Old Hack asked me to engage, I will. But only if it is useful. So here goes.

Stacia Kane said:

What was "quite startling" about them?

I found it startling that you so vividly translated the personification of a company for lampooning reasons, into a threat (and an actual threat) agaisnt people they you personally know. People I certainly dont know, but people who work for the company I lampooned. and yes, that's what it was. Tell me Stacia, do you genuinely believe I am making actual threats against actual real individuals? Really?


The fact that I didn't find you funny, or the fact that I asked if, since you're so confident they're harmless and awesome, you'd like me to share them with the people you're "joking" about?

If the idea of that "startles" you, then perhaps you ought to wonder why.


To be perfectly frank, yes, if someone makes death threats against a political party, I find that disturbing as well.

Death threats? sigh.


Because that party is made up of people. HarperVoyager is a group of people. I kind of thought we all knew that? You're not "satirizing" them when you gleefully write about them being murdered. That's not satire. Nor is it some sort of Joycean artistic statement worthy of being passed down through generations.

Well perhaps we should leave the Joycean comparisons to literary historians... Anyway, thing is this. You believe I was not lampooning/ satirising HV. Fair enough. I state that I was.

You're welcome to keep insisting that you're perfectly right to post jokes about murdering people for the crime of not responding to your submission fast enough, and to keep defending yourself instead of simply saying, "Wow, sorry, I didn't think how that could come off," and then having everyone reply, "Yeah, we're sure you didn't, just something to think about in future."

Thing is, I did give an apology to any woh were ofended. Though it seems to have gotten lost under all these subsequent posts.



you're perfectly free to keep talking about how if your words make you look like a jerk then that is a terrible, terrible tragedy, because how dare anyone try to make you look bad after you threatened people with physical harm? Don't they understand that you and your reputation are the most important things in this discussion, and that it is their collective job to protect you from the repercussions of your own actions?

em, i assume you mean my request that my post is not deleted without the references to it also deleted? I covered that in my last post to Old Hack.

Stacia, I didn't threat anyone with physical harm. fiction is fiction. Satire is satire. If we state that a lampooning article must be taken literally, then shouldn't everyone have eaten young children back in the 1500's (or so), as espoused by Swift in a Modest Proposal?

To you, it was bad satire/ not satire. Fair nuff. We all have different tastes.

All you had to do was say sorry, man.

I did.

It's not hard to do,

it wasnt


and it would have ended this right there and then.


it didnt



But to be perfectly honest, the fact that you refuse to do so makes me wonder just how much you were actually joking.

Click to expand...

Stacia, I do hope you understand the implications of that statement.

I've already been practically called a serial killer, twice.

so far, I've shrugged it off, putting it down to various things. Not sure I could continue to do so.

Well, that's about it. I not sure if more communication on this will prove useful.

Let's move on.

CatherineS said:

I'm curious: Did anyone actually complain? Because in the context of this thread, it was clearly a joke based on the idea posed by others that we should accost the editors at conferences for more information. It wasn't remotely creepy, threatening, or anxiety-driven. It was funny. I reckon the posters here know the various personalities well enough!

Click to expand...

1. We don't discuss mod decisions because we respect the privacy of even the more boorish members.

2. You might want to go read the The Newbie Guide to Absolute Write. We're serious about what we say there.

3. When a mod responds to a member suggesting a change of behavior, there needs to be a change of behavior.


Feel free to address any complaints to MacAllister. Don't do it in thread.