::::: Welcome to Web Series Today "collaborative environment"
::::: Help get LGPedia back online!!!!! <== ACT TODAY!!!!!
::::: Welcome to new Web Series Today blog "authors". <= PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!!!

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

The Ballad of QtheC (Part 1 of 436) - Milowent

Unless you have been following the recent dramarama on the lg15today blog, you will have little use for this slice of ridiculousness.


  1. MEEP-MEEP! geet outta mah way, sheish!

  2. meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep!

  3. meep, meep, meep, meep, MEEP, MEEP, MEEP, MEEP!!!!!!!!!!!


  5. the MEEPsy-MEEPsy-SPIDER...
    ...GOES MEEPer-MEEP-eroo!

  6. if yer happy and ya know it MEEP your hands....MEEP, MEEEP!

  7. MEEP, MEEP, MEEP- meep, meep, meep - MEEP, MEEP, MEEP!

  8. here's MEEP'in AT YOU KID!

  9. "don't you MEEP at me!"

  10. "Why, I'll MEEP at you if I wanta!!!:P"

  11. MEEP....................................................................................................................................................................................................!

  12. "Meep!"
    ...ERR - "...hit 'N sunk!"

  13. "thats just MEEParious!!!"

    "I know,..think I just wet my pants..."

  14. .........ME...........EP!

  15. ..........ME-EEEEEE-EEEP!

  16. You're gona "MEEP, MEEP, MEEP!"

  17. ...and we all MEEP together!

  18. meep - A - tui-MEEP!


  20. Given modelmotion's comment on the previous post on this subject, I am hoping the end of all of this is near. The videos should be put back up.

  21. It's fascinating that the quotation you highlighted, and examples of past conflicts you showed glimpses of do nothing but reinforce and remind me of exactly why the choices I have made here are both correct and consistent with those I have made in the past.

    Let's look at the quotation you posted with the title "QtheC opposes censorship - april 6, 2008"

    "If someone is going to take the bold step of presuming to delete the addition someone else has made the effort to make to the LGPedia, it is not too much to ask for a sensible explanation and/or suggestions for alternatives (rather than simple negation). Contributors should be encouraged, even if the contributors do not exactly "fit" previous expectations or patterns. ~ QtheC"

    This expresses exactly my view and my approach.

    So, in the case here, we are talking about a contributor to this blog, who made a posting that was problematic. Did I simply wipe it out with no discussion or opportunity to address the concerns or did I work to explain those concerns, get them addressed, and seek an alternative, so that work could be restored?

    Sensible explanation. Check. (over and over again - though you will debate its merits ad infintum)

    Suggestions or alternatives. Check. (took the time to request and consult with the author to ask questions about his intent and to explain the reasons for adding a disclaimer so he could provide the wording).

    Thus I avoided simple negation and insured the work could remain on this blog, bending over backwards to do so while making this passing gesture of addressing the very real and serious issues I raised.

    The matter was reasonably settled with a reasonable if imperfect compromise, thanks to my efforts in the face of hugely hateful and disruptive tactics by some, and exactly in the spirit of the passage you highlighted. Exactly. To imply otherwise is pretty bizarre. It shows me you and your cadre have taken yourself so far out of touch with a normal way of thinking about things that you can construct any reality you wish. To hell with what I was really doing and trying to accomplish - you're just going with the noise and nonsense. Down with the evil dictator! Right.

    This contributor, likely seeing the spirit of unrest that was ready to boil out of the IRC cauldron, a member of the IRC faction it seems, and knowing full well what would happen, destroyed this simple compromise I worked hard to put in place. He decided after all the conflict we had already seen to alter the already thin assurance of the disclaimer, replacing it with mockery. He thus proved himself insincere in his assurances, confirmed my perceptions about the nature of the hostility underlying his work, and to be more interested in generating conflict than in having his work displayed here.

    That was his choice. To sew seeds of discord in this community, for no good reason other than mal intent. Has he attempted to communicate to me any concern with the original compromise, was there any prior expression to me that he was unsatisfied and wanted it changed or felt forced into it? Any sincerity attempt at all to find a solution if he was unhappy? No, there was none. Again, that was his choice, and it was not made out of concern for the feelings of this community - but rather the opposite.

    Why would you support this kind of hostile action?

    And in your now firmly entrenched bias, because you happened to decide that the reasons for the removal in the first place were not your reasons, and all the drumming and noise and misuse of loaded words like Tyranny and Censorship, you are too blinded to call the author on his malicious manipulations of this community's feelings. Instead, this anger has been misdirected at me.

    The incredible self-reinforcing bias and increasingly irrational noise and hurtful viterpuration I have witnessed from this small loud IRC-centric part of the community has been stunning.

    You are not listening, not thinking, and not addressing the issues I raised, and have worked so hard to communicate. Good people, I've known for months online, have egged each other's misunderstandings on and lost their minds and their civility. You've forgotten there is a larger community served by this blog than this tightly knit clique of old hands.

    It's been a bit scary to watch.

    I think there's this feeling that I don't share some common view you have cooked up. You know what, I don't, because I usually stay away from the IRC drama lately. Well, I was there for a few hours yesterday, and it was eye opening. Nor am I a regular on Anchor cove, where many of you share information. I have ties to and am listening to a wider span of the community, and the noise in the IRC is only one part of the whole.

    Half a dozen to a dozen people in one chat room, revving each other up and spurring each other's anger and frustration, and no one able to carry on a simple conversation or look at an issue from alternate viewpoints. You guys are not the whole of this blog's audience or more than one faction within this community of LG15 viewers, and your created reality about me and my motivations is fantasy. It's a product of spin and sarcasm and some extreme notions that place mob rule above other better forms of leadership - it's people blowing up and emoting. Forget about what is actually happening what I have actually tried to accomplish, and the reasons for it. Take any mistakes I may have made along the way and twist and magnify them and assign intention to me and labels that are wildly counter to my actual views.

    I remain, as always, sincere about trying to do the right thing, and taking everyone's views into consideration, not just the ones that happen to agree with my own. I am willing and able and do seek compromise, but I do so thoughtfully, trying to find a way to reconcile conflicting and opposing views with my own, without sacrificing either in the process. I know the world is imperfect, and compromise is necessary to move forward.

    But what you have displayed? It's mobocracy, not democracy, by a small angry mob. Look at the comments on this video so far. Kind of sums up the situation nicely. A handful of people, making noise with no more time for thought or meaning.

    I'm just shaking my head, sadly, and trying to find a glimpse of hope for some independence of thought, some compassion, a relaxation of the anger, and fair mindedness. When it has come, it seems to come from other sources, quieter folks not so eager to enter a noisy conflict, not so entrenched, more willing to see an honest effort for what it is, even if they don't fully agree in all particulars.

    People from other segments of this community? They appreciate what I do for them, the little ways I help people on a daily basis. My profile board on LG15.com is filled with thank-yous. I'm friendly, usually making light of a situation when I can, doing what I can to help people, even when they stumble or make mistakes, or are a little rough around the edges. I try not to make a habit of mocking people or spreading hostility, though I have done these things at times in my own anger and frustration in self-defense. I'm not perfect, but I am trying to do the right things for the right reasons. And I persist in this course no matter how much ugliness is thrown my way, and how often I am maligned.

    And if this loud and frustrated segment of this community is so wrapped up in it's own sound and fury not to see that right now, that's just a shame.

    This blog serves a wider community. Work to find a solution that satisfies the needs and concerns of everyone, even those you disagree with, and you will regain my respect and my wholehearted support.

    Otherwise, the matter remains settled, as unsatisfying as it may be to some. I repeat - this is not the result I worked so hard to deliver or what I wanted. Exactly as I stated in the quotation you chose to display.

  22. I just read Virginian9000's comment, and going to read and carefully consider Modelmotion's post now.

  23. these are my absolute last words on this drama.

    i see my video was posted on lg15today, which i suspected it would be, though i didn't request it. apparently someone believed it was of interest.

    qthec, you refuse to listen to consensus, as the various screenshots in the video demonstrate. you have adopted a unilateral approach to a drama of your own choosing and creation and fail to listen to reason. i am not going to rehash the many many responses, both calm, and heated (like those from lordgrey).

    i have corresponded with a number of people, and far more than 2/3rds agree that your actions in removing these videos were inappropriate.

    when faced with such consenus, you suddenly claim this is "mobocracy" (nice coinage, btw :-) and "IRC factions" instead of democracy.

    this is exactly what modelmotion talks about when he speaks of consensus and community -- and if he disagreed, i think he would speak up at this point.

    when, for example, joe, who i've never seen speak a bad word of anyone, says that the disclaimer you negotiated (unilaterally) was dumb, that's saying something.

    i tried to make light of the situation in the video, because i'm done with it. i understand the videos have been reposted by another admin. if you choose to ignore that consensus, that is up to you.


  24. oh, i see mm did speak up. my post was written not knowing that. may pax lg15todayana return.

  25. milowent said...
    "i have corresponded with a number of people, and far more than 2/3rds agree that your actions in removing these videos were inappropriate."

    Ah, the "community concensus" as determined by Milowent. I guess that's it then. Okay, let's accept that as the prevailing view, however uninformed or confused the people polled might be about all the issues, and however improvisationally this polling was conducted. I think it's reasonably accurate.

    Just one question though, how did you satisfy the concerns under the "Do No Harm" ideal of those who were in the minority view (or the minority within the minority), according to your estimates? Or did you just disregard those concerns because your majority did not share them?

    It's yay or nay, right Milo, your definition of the only two options, with no effort at any complete solution, to serve the entire community, because you and a few others did not care about the minority view.

    You failed here with your railroading approach in the guise of "community concensus" using the popularity of voting on things - it's just another form of the kind of power grab, assertion of will, that you all have been screaming about - and the standards of responsibility in sharing and promoting content on this shared resource have been reduced as a result.

    The result is wrong, and the way it was decided is wrong, though well intended.

  26. To Q's point, there's a difference between a democracy - in which the majority rules with no consideration for the minority - and a republic - in which a majority generally prevails but with written rules to protect the minority. (And of course the US is a republic.) It appears this blog has rules as enforced by an admin, and QtheC feels that he was enforcing those rules in protection of the minority.

    Or maybe this has nothing to do with the debate. :/

  27. Let's be a little more explicit about the gamesmanship (insincere dishonesty to manipulate this community) I mentioned by TunnelRatatat436.

    In order to get his videos restored to this blog, he voluntarily agreed to add a clarifying disclaimer as to the intent of his series - in a very friendly email exchange with me, which I went along with, noting the complete contrast to some of his online comments I had read, such as asking if I was "buttsore" in reply to a comment I left on one of his YouTube videos.

    To confirm the email address I was confering with matched the blogger ID, I asked TunnelRat to log in and post a short comment on the blog, just acknowledging our conversation. He did:

    "TunnelRatatat said...
    Hello everyone,

    I just wanted to let you guys know that after speaking with QtheC in private I believe we have came to a civil resolution.

    I have assured him I mean no harm, and he has stated that he will take my word on this.

    September 28, 2008 4:08 PM


    and he added the disclaimer to the videos on YouTube while I put them back on the blog, with no complaints.

    "(These videos are of a fictional nature depicting a community's grief and are not intended to be taken as threatening to others)"

    Then, about midnight that night, TunnelRat changed the disclaimer to joke versions on all three blog entries and one of the YouTube videos.

    "(The videos in this series depict angry bunnies and should not be viewed as threatening to carrots. What can we say..we are cheesy cats.)"


    "(These videos may contain rapid movements which could be deemed threatening to people with IQs of 436.)"

    Now, I'm all for a good joke, and can appreciate humor given in a spirit of fun. But not knowing the source and his motivations, and given the obvious turmoil that had finally settled down on this blog, this calculated and deliberate demonstration of insincerity can only be viewed as malicious and intended to bring more conflict and strife, toward me personally, and really to the community this blog represents.

    Now it seems members of this community are having some fun interacting with TunnelRat, and joining in a shared spirit of mockery and ill will.

    CdnMatt and LordGreyStoke, to name two, were having a good time over a message from TunnelRat that said:

    "My motivation is expression. I am a bit aghast at how one can become so taken aback by a cat with a slice of cheese on its head. I KNOW a mouse(or a rat) could find this provacative..but..We are men and not mice..are we not? However..when the cat was away..it seems one mouse did play. A mouse that loved the fruit known as supurgillu. In any event sir, we must move through the stages. Will you walk with me on this journey?"

    For those that don't know, the "supurgillu" is a reference for a Quince, obviously directed at me.

    Now there's no cleverness here, no great ruse pulled off. I knew of course when I accepted TunnelRat at his word as to his assurances that it was a risk. I did not insist on knowing his real identity as might have bean reasonable depending on a judgement of the level of threatening implications in his videos. The threats were vague, not specific, and I acted accordingly.

    But accepting that risk, sticking my neck out as I did, seemed like the right thing to do, to give him as fair a chance as possible in order to reach a compromise and satisfy the community's desire to see this work reposted, while addressing the concerns about the content.

    And now, with those assurances entirely mocked and negated, their insincerity confirmed, still there is no outrage in this community? Even if you felt the disclaimer unneccessary, do you condone this intentional deception and the conflict it has engendered?

    It's clearly unacceptable to me, and it should be to everyone here. It's just very very unfortunate that a couple of the other community leaders are so intent on having their way, that they are willing to continue to ignore the hostility and threatening implications of this indivdual.

    And when I see those in this faction, now asserting themselves on this blog, who share this hostility to the concerns of this community, and toward the Creators of LG15 and revel in it, I really have to wonder what sort of people I am actually dealing with.

    Spiteful, manipulative, childish, selfish, mean, and irresponsible seem to fit. Are these the qualities you want asserting themselves here on LG15 Today? I don't.

    You want to "play along" with TunnelRat? Just be wary of who you are getting involved with. This is not a nice game.

  28. Geez, does it really take a thousand words to say, "I'm right and everyone else is wrong?"

  29. The words "democracy" and "republic" tend to be loaded words within the political spectrum. We have previously described how the blog works and neither "democracy" or "republic" would accurately describe that process. We think it is better to look at each poster as an individual who has been granted a right to post based on an acceptance by them of personal responsibility for their post. If a poster either deliberately or inadvertently post something that does harm then the post is treated accordingly. For example, if it contains copyright infringement then the post may be edited. While we want each author to feel free to post what they want we also want them to be accountable to the community. That is in interactive process and it is intended to consider both minority opinions and majority opinions. We try to listen to all the feedback we get from the community but in the end the blogspot needs to go with what seems "reasonable" given the nature and intent of LG15 Today. This may be a new way of thinking to some who have grown up in societies with a particular view of the World and their own personal opinion of how a society is "supposed to work." However LG15 Today grew out of the notion of individual freedom that developed on lonelygirl15 comments and it is set up in a way where we attempt to maintain those values by following one simple principle: "do no harm", as oulined previoiusly.

  30. That all sounds good to me.

    Of course censorship is a loaded word too, and that gets thrown around a lot here. One person even threw out fascism. :/

  31. "That is in interactive process and it is intended to consider both minority opinions and majority opinions."

    And how did that happen here, Modelmotion, given what occured, and Milowent's approach to a resolution?

  32. I've been thinking about this whole disclaimer thing, and I've come to the conclusion that they're absolutely worthless.
    The fact that TR originally consented to a disclaimer could be considered worrisome. Every crook in the world will lie and say they're honest, right?
    The fact that TR rejected the disclaimer shows me that they don't really give a shit about any of this. They aren't hiding anything.
    Myself, I prefer a regular ol' wolf to a wolf in sheep's clothing.

    Disclaimers also tend to kill the whole TiNaG concept. LG never used a disclaimer in their videos. Though none were considered threatening, they certainly were misrepresenting themselves in the beginning.
    CiW seemed a tad threatening, yet an entire sub-culture was built around it. No disclaimer there.
    Opaphid never had a disclaimer.
    When Maddy and Adam were shot, I never saw a notice that said this is fake.
    I watched the TR videos. Just two minutes of mostly still shots with a bit of Dylan thrown in. Not great videos imo, but I could never consider it threatening. Maybe it's just 'too' vague for me, I dunno.
    What I see seems more like a personal vendetta than a race to save the C's from an invisible assailant. Q saw a threat. Q tried to act and was put down. Now Q is angry and wants to be right.
    One person making decisions for the masses. One person adding and deleting based on their one opinion. That seems more threatening to me.
    But what do I know...I'm anonymous.

  33. Qtec if you are not satisfied with the current "resolution" as you call it you are totally welcome to continue to make your case. Perhaps you can find a better way to articulate your opinion. The same is true of anyone else who wants to continue this debate.

    Please note that attacks on others, including the integrity of TR do not move the process forward since they send L.O.V.E into a bit of a tizzy, so please base any discussion purely on the content of the videos as presented.

    On the other hand many eagerly await the next video in the series.

    Now, what is the next step?

  34. "On the other hand many eagerly await the next video in the series."

    I think I will just wait. I think this has been discussed to death.

    But that's just me :)

  35. I just pray it doesn't involve pudding.

  36. Well since you didn't answer the question, Modelmotion, I guess thats your way of saying you don't care that Milowent's version of "community concensus" ignored the minority concern, and failed to serve the entire community.

    I guess the next step is hypocrisy?

    Let's see how this ideal of "community concensus" actually operates.

    It's pretty amazing to see Modelmotion talking about "attacks on others," given that he has sat back idly through all this recent controversy, supplying content for LordGreyStoke's rants (albeit highly muddled by LG422) from the wings ... I think it's fair to call these rants attacks, and possibly the three videos made about me as well. Certainly harsh and highly biased criticisms. But why is the blog administration (other than me) not concerned about this blog being used this way, despite numerous people in the discussions objecting to what was going on?

    Now, for comparison, consider
    this article that was removed by Modelmotion in January from the blog because the "community is outraged" (the community in this case being the buzzing hive of the IRC joining Modelmotion for a drama-chat after bombing him with mass private messages)

    Deleted Article (comments are still there):

    Original Article (copied to an off LG15 Today blog - this is the blog Milo included in his video):

    In that article, I discussed what happened when I went into the BreeFM chatroom to voice an objection to the mocking that was being done on the air of a community member that was not present to defend himself.

    Compared to these recent rants, my article is very mild, discussing what happened in a straight forward way, and raising the issue of "Community Standards" in relation to this blog. The problem was that article described a popular community member behaving badly... and then the IRC Drama faction got all riled up about it labelling it a "personal vendetta" and calling for it's removal from LG15 Today.

    Yet, now LordGreyStoke's far far more extreme antics and these other videos are okay? Really? The objections from members reading those rants don't matter I guess, since LordGreyStoke is a part of the IRC Drama faction, and I avoid it, there's no chance of his rants being considered unacceptable by "concensus."

    And our "Community Standards" have taken a huge hit as a result. I just happened to be the one in the way this time.

    These are the questions I raised in that January article:

    "And more generally, what are our concepts of what is 'in-bounds' or 'out-of-bounds' when it comes to criticism of creative works, either by individuals, or by those who aspire to professional productions, or by true professionals? parody vs. personal attacks, advice vs. flaming, puerile or off-color humor vs. PG-13, anonymous jabs vs. critiques given by a known handle, public comments vs. private messages?"

    It's too bad we didn't set any standards.

  37. Qtec, attacking me will do nothing to further your cause. If you can articulate a coherent argument to support your contention that the TR series does harm within the context that has been previously described then let's hear it.

  38. We also invite anyone else who has an independent position of whether or not the TR does harm to present it here but please stick to the facts of the video as they are presented by TR.

  39. "TunnelRatatat said...
    Hello everyone,

    I just wanted to let you guys know that after speaking with QtheC in private I believe we have came to a civil resolution.

    "I have assured him I mean no harm, and he has stated that he will take my word on this."

    If Q did state that he'd take TR's word on this, then why is a disclaimer so necessary?

    ...and...when will the videos be re-uploaded here?

  40. QtheC, you keep invoking milowent's vote, yet milowent voting did not have an outcome on this. As stated, any "harm" was not clear or substantial, and in this case community input was as important as anything.

    Please do not accuse modelmotion or others with hypocrisy.

    Bring up something 10 months ago is hardly relevant to this discussion, but in that case you brought a small situation and blew it up out of proportion, claiming people had personal vendettas and such. There was immediate outrage to this, and the blog was removed. There were also different versions of the story as I recall. I was one of those calling for that post to be removed, and I wasn't even in chat at the time, and was not participating in "mob rule", otherwise apparently known as disagreeing with QtheC.

    Q, we can have this conversation privately if you'd like. To claim hypocrisy because this matter was resolved in a way you disagree to is uncalled for.

  41. ctrlaltdelete the videos were uploaded to Youtube but you can find them embedded on LG15 today here:


  42. Virginian9000,

    Milowent's polling was his basis for claiming "community consensus" and was used to justify returning the content to the blog without addressing the concerns raised. This isn't good leadership, it's just an assertion of will.

    A comment on the article I posted on this blog in January, "Community Standards" was shown in Milo's video. It failed to represent the span of reactions (go read the comments at the link above to the article.) for example:

    "Anonymous said...
    After reading the blogs and especially the chatlog posted on Perky's blog, it's pretty obvious that a personal attack against a long-standing community member was being aired on BreeFM, and that the people in chat were completely condoning it.

    I commend you QtheC for voicing the truth. YOU were attacked for simply stating that such a cruel personal attack had no business being on the air or anywhere.

    January 12, 2008 11:34 AM"

    "mary said...
    i've read the blogs, and it seems clear from the unedited log from irc that the original "personal attack" was performed by MicFranXon.

    i was really saddened to see that after Q took a serious concern about what was going on to the chat, he was told that if he didn't like it he should stop listening.

    i agree with anonymous above me, and i think it's really sad that not only did members of the breeniverse engage in communal acceptance of the attack of another member, but when Q pointed out that it wasn't ok to do that, he was told that said member was "actively obnoxious" and that Q should take *his* problems to PM, while MicFranXon could air *his* on the station.

    January 14, 2008 8:16 PM"

    The article was removed from the blog by Modelmotion for the reasons I posted earlier, but again, read the comments.

    "modelmotion said...
    I have no idea what you were thinking bringing this personal vendetta to the blog but the community is outraged. You know how reluctant I am to pull anything but due to the numberous protests I received I invited everyone to chat and there was pretty much a unanimous voice from the community that the post was totally inappropriate and inflammatory and I have to agree with them.

    Please refrain from future abuses of the blog.

    January 10, 2008 11:03 PM"

    So it appears that Modelmotion then felt that the article was a "personal vendetta" and "totally inappropriate and inflammatory."

    "milowent said...
    it would seem that the content complained of is not normally stuff that should be on lg15today. i know there's no written guideline for that kind of thing, and rules are made to be broken, but anything very personal to me (like a specific rant or opinion piece) i would either post on my blog or anchor cove.
    January 11, 2008 7:01 AM"

    Now read the article itself, and compare what was said about it vs. what it actually said.

    The hypocrisy lies in the way this article was removed, the reaction in the comments of Modelmotion and Milowent and others compared to these same individuals lack of reaction to the far far more egregiously "inappropriate and inflammatory" posts by LordGreyStoke recently. Why haven't you condemned these, Virginian9000?

    It's a bad joke really. I posted a serious article after encountering abuse within the community for speaking out against the public mocking of a member of the community. That article was labelled as it was and removed from this blog under the "community concensus" / IRC drama process as I described. And now we have LordGreyStoke's ranting abuse, and these same previous proponents of that prior article's censorship do not blink. It's hypocritical. In fact, they apply that label to me. Milowent's choice to include an image of the external blog where the "Community Standards" article resides is ironic, given his video's intended message.

    The reason this is relevant now is that it illustrates the weakness and inconsistency of the "community concensus" ideal in actual use. It's an ideal that doesn't best serve the needs of this community, and the reduction in standards we have seen during this recent flare up show this.

    You are welcome to email me if you would like to discuss this further.

  43. Modelmotion wrote:
    "If you can articulate a coherent argument to support your contention that the TR series does harm within the context that has been previously described then let's hear it."

    I have tried to do this already, but will endeavor to do so again in even more detail soon.

  44. Great song and vid, Milo :)

  45. Qtec, we have not had any complaints about any LG422 video. Now someone did send a copy of a video created by yourself but we have not had time to review it yet.

  46. MM, I think you know I was talking about more than videos. Just honestly compare the nature and tone and "inflammatory" nature of LG422 rants to my article from January that was deemed content not fit for this blog. It's absurd to tolerate his approach and condemn the "Community Standards" article.

  47. Specifically, compare

    "The Censor Strikes Back"


    "Community Standards"




If you want to become an "author" on Web Series Today please read: http://tinyurl.com/becomeaWSTauthor

For more detailed information about Web Series Today please read: Web Series Today:

For other info contact: [email protected]

Join the discussion: http://www.tinyurl.com/webseriescommunity