What doesn't kill us makes us stronger

[pink_silk_glove]

Yes, given that you conceded the underlying point.

No, that was not the underlying point. You are splitting hairs on some tiny technicality between the two example comments to sidestep the actual point that one can most often glean genuine info from troll comments if one can read them from a neutral perspective. If you can find that neutrality, the trolling won't be an issue no matter how rampant and degenerate it gets. : )

 

[Katie_Mae]

So these were real comments then.



So did all of this stuff really happen?

First, the first comment was then not constructive at all (which you claim that it was) since it was inaccurate. Like 100% inaccurate. Of course commas belong in quotes before tags and not periods. Yet since it was so polite somehow that makes it constructive?

How did TWO commenters both arrive at the same wrong conclusion about your dialogue? And how can one of them be constructive and the other not?

Those two comments were not real comments, but they were inspired by events which have happened, not to me and not about my story.

I have described two hypothetical situations. The first situation is where the author was grammatically correct but used an outdated convention for the dialogue. The first critique was factually correct in this instance.

The second hypothetical situation, is one in which the dialogue was correct and followed modern convention, and in which the first critique did not exist. In this hypothetical situation the first critique (the polite one) was never posted. The second critique is, in the second hypothetical situation, the only comment which comments about the dialogue. Which I stated in my comment.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Those two comments were not real comments, but they were inspired by events which have happened, not to me and not about my story.

I have described two hypothetical situations. The first situation is where the author was grammatically correct but used an outdated convention for the dialogue. The first critique was factually correct in this instance.

The second hypothetical situation, is one in which the dialogue was correct and followed modern convention, and in which the first critique did not exist. In this hypothetical situation the first critique (the polite one) was never posted. The second critique is, in the second hypothetical situation, the only comment which comments about the dialogue. Which I stated in my comment.

Then your point is irrelevant because TWO different posters would not find the exact same complete inaccuracy in a story. One might for sure but never two.

What if? What if? What if? What if something that can't happen happens? You can't prove or disprove anything with that argument.

 

[Katie_Mae]

You have dismissed 100% of your "troll" comments.

As you know, some of the troll comments I have agreed with. I wouldn't consider agreeing with a troll comment the same as dismissing it.

As to the two that were to vague for me to fully understand, I haven't dismissed them as such, I just don't have enough information on them. If I get other, similar comments, then this will help me to build up a bigger picture to understand. However, I haven't gotten any other comments along the same vein so I've not (yet?) been able to do so.

As to the ones I found factually incorrect, I didn't dismiss them simply because they were written rudely. I read them, looked at the feedback and decided not to adopt it. Which I've done with politely written comments too. To continue the analogy from the hypothetical comment above, I wouldn't go and change grammatically correct commas to periods just because a random troll said I should.

 

[Katie_Mae]

Then your point is irrelevant because TWO different posters would not find the exact same complete inaccuracy in a story. One might for sure but never two.

What if? What if? What if? What if something that can't happen happens? You can't prove or disprove anything with that argument.

I presume you're talking about the first hypothetical situation here. Can you explain what you mean by this?

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I presume you're talking about the first hypothetical situation here. Can you explain what you mean by this?

All right. I'll clarify. First (hypothetical) comment very politely stated that the dialogue was difficult to follow due to the grammar formatting. Second (hypothetical) comment very rudely stated that the dialogue was difficult to follow due to the grammar formatting. The (hypothetical) conclusion stated that the grammar was in fact perfect after all. TWO independent commenters would not arrive at that same 100% false conclusion about the grammar to the point of being confused by it, at least statistically speaking it would be 1 in a billion or so. So your entire hypothetical situation bears no weight whatsoever in this discussion. It never happened and it never happened because it basically can't happen. We need a hypothetical example that is reasonably possible to happen.

As you know, some of the troll comments I have agreed with.

Hold on a second.

I've never once received a troll comment which was useful. Either because they were factually incorrect, telling me something I already knew, accidently praising me, or so vague to be useless.

If you agreed with the troll, then it's not a troll, is it? Unless you troll yourself. What is a troll? Combative hate spew. You can't agree with it, unless upon reflection you realize that it's right, but obviously that's never happened to you since you've never found one to be useful.

You'll need to straighten out your arguments before we can continue this discussion.

 

[Katie_Mae]

All right. I'll clarify. First (hypothetical) comment very politely stated that the dialogue was difficult to follow due to the grammar formatting. Second (hypothetical) comment very rudely stated that the dialogue was difficult to follow due to the grammar formatting. The (hypothetical) conclusion stated that the grammar was in fact perfect after all. TWO independent commenters would not arrive at that same 100% false conclusion about the grammar to the point of being confused by it, at least statistically speaking it would be 1 in a billion or so. So your entire hypothetical situation bears no weight whatsoever in this discussion. It never happened and it never happened because it basically can't happen. We need a hypothetical example that is reasonably possible to happen.

Thank you for clarifying.

In the first hypothetical situation, the dialogue used an outdated convention. The reason some commenters found it confusing is because modern stories aren't written like this. It wasn't incorrect, per say, just not current or typical.

This hypothetical situation is based on a real life situation on a story by the writing group. In the real life situation, more than one commentor was initially confused by the way the writing group author had structured the dialogue. One of them was very rude about it, the other one was me and I tried to be more constructive. Though there may be a 1 in a billion chance, the real life situation happened.

If you agreed with the troll, then it's not a troll, is it? Unless you troll yourself. What is a troll? Combative hate spew. You can't agree with it, unless upon reflection you realize that it's right, but obviously that's never happened to you since you've never found one to be useful.

You'll need to straighten out your arguments before we can continue this discussion.

My arguments are straightened out. It appears your definition of a troll differs from my definition.

I don't base if a troll is a troll based on if I agree with them or not. I consider a troll comment a comment said nastily and in a way that attacks the author and/or is intended to cause hurt.

I have read troll comments about my work in which I agree with what they've said about my work. Not because "on reflection" I found them to be true, but because I was aware of the flaws before they posted.

For example, if a troll went and posted on one of my stories:

You are a useless piece of fucking shit! this story is full of fucking typos and I can't believe you'd post this piece of shit with all these fucking typos. You should go and kill yourself you worthless whore

This is what I would consider a troll comment. The criticism about my story is that it has typos- which I agree with. However, I knew the typos were there before the troll comment, so I don't agree the stories have typos because of a troll.

The comment isn't useful because I already know there's typos, I already know typos drive some people batty and I already know that they can turn people off stories, piss them off and cause snarky comments. I already know some people think you should not post a story on lit that contains a typo. The troll comment doesn't introduce new info about my story.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

This hypothetical situation is based on a real life situation on a story by the writing group. In the real life situation, more than one commentor was initially confused by the way the writing group author had structured the dialogue. One of them was very rude about it, the other one was me and I tried to be more constructive. Though there may be a 1 in a billion chance, the real life situation happened.

You still need to clarify because the conclusion to your hypothetical situation (that apparently is actually real) you said that the dialogue was in fact NOT punctuated incorrectly at all.

Finally, the original commentor comes forward. They explain to you that you frequently finish dialogue with a comma inside the quotation marks, followed by a dialogue tag. They state you should have used a period in these instances, and the fact you used a comma confused them.

You explain that what you've done is grammatically correct, they refuse to believe you.

Yes, comma within IS grammatically perfectly correct.

TWO people would never independently be confused by PERFECT dialogue grammar. One person can see a flaw that isn't there at all, but it's just not possible for TWO people to see the exact flaw that isn't there at all.

The comment isn't useful because I already know there's typos

But the 'troll' doesn't know that you already know that. Which makes it no different than if it were a polite critique pointing out the typos. So there is value in the comment as it confirms that you have to be more careful with your proofreading. Yet you found no value, hence it is dismissed.

 

[WCSGarland]

You still need to clarify because the conclusion to your hypothetical situation (that apparently is actually real) you said that the dialogue was in fact NOT punctuated incorrectly at all.



Yes, comma within IS grammatically perfectly correct.

TWO people would never independently be confused by PERFECT dialogue grammar. One person can see a flaw that isn't there at all, but it's just not possible for TWO people to see the exact flaw that isn't there at all.



But the 'troll' doesn't know that you already know that. Which makes it no different than if it were a polite critique pointing out the typos. So there is value in the comment as it confirms that you have to be more careful with your proofreading. Yet you found no value, hence it is dismissed.

Hell, even in professional publishing houses, there are always books that make it through with typos. If you already know there are typos, how is it that a comment that tells 'you should eat shit and die because there are typos' has any value?

 

[Katie_Mae]

Yes, comma within IS grammatically perfectly correct.

TWO people would never independently be confused by PERFECT dialogue grammar. One person can see a flaw that isn't there at all, but it's just not possible for TWO people to see the exact flaw that isn't there at all.

The comma at the end of dialogue example was the SECOND hypothetical example, not the first. In the second hypothetical example there was nothing wrong with the dialogue formatting, it was grammatically correct and used modern convention. Only ONE (1) person commented. Which is what I stated initially, and have already re-stated once.

Lets re-visit the second hypothetical example. What I initially posted:

Consider the second critique as an isolated comment on a story which contains no errors in the dialogue formatting, no TOS breaches and no other comments indicating issues with reading the dialogue. You read your story ten times over, post on the forums asking and have a third editor look it over. Everyone says your dialogue is fine, and no one has issues reading it.

You DM Laurel who responds (!!!) and tells you that nothing you've written is against the TOS.

Finally, the original commentor comes forward. They explain to you that you frequently finish dialogue with a comma inside the quotation marks, followed by a dialogue tag. They state you should have used a period in these instances, and the fact you used a comma confused them.

You explain that what you've done is grammatically correct, they refuse to believe you.

As you can see, in the second hypothetical example there is only one commentor.

Then when you appeared to erroneously think the second example had two comments on it I posted this:

The second hypothetical situation, is one in which the dialogue was correct and followed modern convention, and in which the first critique did not exist. In this hypothetical situation the first critique (the polite one) was never posted. The second critique is, in the second hypothetical situation, the only comment which comments about the dialogue.

I don't know how else to clarify that in the second hypothetical situation, only one person was confused by the dialogue.

But the 'troll' doesn't know that you already know that.

And so what? I don't find it useful to be told stuff I already know.

So there is value in the comment as it confirms that you have to be more careful with your proofreading. Yet you found no value, hence it is dismissed.

But I don't need the confirmation, I already know. There is no value in telling me what I already know

I, personally, have never received a troll comment which I found useful. I should say, I've received very few troll comments to begin with. I already knew the story wasn't proofread. It doesn't confirm anything, I already know I'm lazy and can't be arsed.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

As you can see, in the second hypothetical example there is only one commentor.

Then when you appeared to erroneously think the second example had two comments on it I posted this:

No, this is the first time that you have been clear that your two examples are from two completely different stories. I was not erroneous in my interpretations, or at least any error on my part was due to your confusing presentation.

But fine, continue to find excuses to dismiss all value in rude or troll comments. You do you.

 

[Actingup]

Thanks all for the contributions! In a perhaps vain attempt to push the fire back into the fireplace, some clarification....

When I posted:

"Just a thread, if others are interested to join, to celebrate the slings, arrows, and brickbats received in comments. Not the constructive criticism, not the headscratching stuff (might be better for other threads), but the stuff that was written to make us slink into our corner."

...I was intending that people define themselves what they consider unconstructive from their perspective, without seeking universal consensus on the issue. I could have been clearer. Just post something that you consider to have been more about targeting you rather than something useful.

Or not...

 

[Erozetta]

Here's another:

by Anonymous user on 03/12/2025
Strange premise.
Much too short.
Sex is automatic/mechanical.
Two stars.


(Would I have gotten more stars or fewer stars if I'd made the strange premise and automatic/mechanical sex longer? The strange premise being a woman cucking her boyfriend in a way that demeans her because he gets off on it. Only, the guy he chooses this time turns the tables to show her that her boyfriend is a piece of shit.)

 

[SimonDoom]

I received this one to my first Loving Wives story, back when I was new and had no idea how nasty it could be:

What the fuck is wrong with you?

My skin definitely thickened after the experience of receiving comments to that story. I suppose I'm grateful for that, in the long term. Comments don't bother me any more.

 

[Actingup]

Here's another:

by Anonymous user on 03/12/2025
Strange premise.
Much too short.
Sex is automatic/mechanical.
Two stars.


(Would I have gotten more stars or fewer stars if I'd made the strange premise and automatic/mechanical sex longer? The strange premise being a woman cucking her boyfriend in a way that demeans her because he gets off on it. Only, the guy he chooses this time turns the tables to show her that her boyfriend is a piece of shit.)

Mechanical sex is its own wonderful thing anyway!

(if anybody doesn't know this clip and song - please take a moment to watch. It is absolutely sublime IMHO)

 

[Erozetta]

Mechanical sex is its own wonderful thing anyway!

(if anybody doesn't know this clip and song - please take a moment to watch. It is absolutely sublime IMHO)

It's so sublime it appears to be blocked in the US

 

[ElectricBlue]

I received this one to my first Loving Wives story, back when I was new and had no idea how nasty it could be:

My skin definitely thickened after the experience of receiving comments to that story. I suppose I'm grateful for that, in the long term. Comments don't bother me any more.

Valid question though, eh?!

 

[Actingup]

It's so sublime it appears to be blocked in the US

Dammit! Does

work? Bjork, "All Is Full of Love", anyway.

 

[Erozetta]

Dammit! Does

work? Bjork, "All Is Full of Love", anyway.

That one works.

 

[SimonDoom]

Valid question though, eh?!

I don't bother with introspection in this space.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Moving away from stancash (18 hours and still no comment, I'm going to be mad if it never posts, lol) and speaking generally.

She can’t, at least not on the Stacnash account. She got banned from the forums in record time for being an asshole and potentially an alt troll.

 

[NoTalentHack]

It feels like a Who's Who? of active Author's Hangout posters.

There’s a reason for that, mostly because Stacnash is a troll trying to rile shit up while hiding behind “criticism,” and likely an alt of someone who posts here regularly.

 

[jsmiam]

Would it be too much to ask people to acknowledge up front whether they are involved in sidebars and/or any other forms of communication with our infamous reviewer? Including private messages, but also being part of the (alleged?) discord or otherwise off-site chat group too. Or phone, or even carrier pigeons. Seems fair right? Over time, Some “stacnash defenders” have acknowledged and some have not. Some have been cagey. And some have changed their answers over time. Everyone should be transparent.

Me, no. None. FYI I did get a review myself, largely of the “I’m a terrible writer” variety, with just a dash of non-negativity in one aspect thrown in. (I’m not a defender, but I’m fine with the negative review. If anyone out there writes a 1000 word review I’ll (probably) give it a read).

Speaking of correlations: I’ll put on my tin foil hat to fit in with a couple folks here. Is their any correlation between the stacnash secret society and people who get invited by that (I forget who) person who arranges all the “by invitation only” author’s challenges? I can’t help but wonder.

 

[StillStunned]

Would it be too much to ask people to acknowledge up front whether they are involved in sidebars and/or any other forms of communication with our infamous reviewer? Including private messages, but also being part of the (alleged?) discord or otherwise off-site chat group too. Or phone, or even carrier pigeons. Seems fair right? Over time, Some “stacnash defenders” have acknowledged and some have not. Some have been cagey. And some have changed their answers over time. Everyone should be transparent.

Me, no. None. FYI I did get a review myself, largely of the “I’m a terrible writer” variety, with just a dash of non-negativity in one aspect thrown in. (I’m not a defender, but I’m fine with the negative review. If anyone out there writes a 1000 word review I’ll (probably) give it a read).

Speaking of correlations: I’ll put on my tin foil hat to fit in with a couple folks here. Is their any correlation between the stacnash secret society and people who get invited by that (I forget who) person who arranges all the “by invitation only” author’s challenges? I can’t help but wonder.

That sounds a bit farfetched. "I got a bad review, so anyone who gets a positive review must be part of a secretive clique."

 

[ElectricBlue]

Speaking of correlations: I’ll put on my tin foil hat to fit in with a couple folks here. Is their any correlation between the stacnash secret society and people who get invited by that (I forget who) person who arranges all the “by invitation only” author’s challenges? I can’t help but wonder.

Having had a altercation with Blackrandl (the invitational organiser) a long time ago, I don't think so. Very different styles of writing, and different behaviours and agendas. Blackrandl is within Literotica obviously, but I got the sense that Stacnash is more an outsider, circulating in some other collective of which Lit is only a part. Just a sense of that, nothing concrete.