Anger : TunnelRatatat436
Fill in the blank.
(These videos are of a fictional nature depicting a community's grief and are not intended to be taken as threatening to others)
::::: 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!!!
::::: Help get LGPedia back online!!!!! <== ACT TODAY!!!!!
::::: Welcome to new Web Series Today blog "authors". <= PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!!!
If you want to become an "author" on Web Series Today please read: http://tinyurl.com/becomeaWSTauthorFor 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
Argentina
Australia
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Egypt
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hong Kong
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Jamaica
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
Maldives
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Republic of Korea
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sudan
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Venezuela
Vietnam
Virgin Islands, U.S.
Posts
If this series of grief stage videos is simply a vehicle for expressing animosity and vaguely threatening intentions toward the LG15 Creators, I think the source should be asked to reveal themselves rather than hiding behind the "TunnelRatatat436" alias.
ReplyDeleteIf this person is not willing to do this, or to explain why there is something here of critical or constructive value beyond animosity, I'm not sure we should continue promoting the series on this blog.
Obviously, one of the admins of this blog invited this person as an author, so if that admin wants to contact me via email to fill me in on what this about, please do so.
Lighten up, Q. This is obviously just someone who is expressing their opinions on LG15 and The C's. I don't see it as threatening ... obsessive MAYBE but not harmful.
ReplyDeleteIf this blog can be used to express the positive feelings of the community towards the C's, why can;t it be used to express the negative?
It's all relative, man.
Your comment was refreshing Q.
ReplyDeleteThe negative here at LG15Today is seldom constructive and dominates any sincere positive content LG15 related. I rarely ever come to this blog any more because of the disturbing level of animosity towards the show and the creepy way that some people love to hate it.
Anon, (second comment here), if you are going to reply to something I post, be courteous and reduce confusion of misattribution by signing some sort of name.
ReplyDeleteMy remarks cover the entire series, currently comprised of two videos with an implied plan of at least five. The essentially anonymous name "TunnelRatatat436" sounds like it's about gunfire or a hit in a tunnel. The first video ends with a message that "Revenge is Sweet" depicted in the style of letters cut out of a newspaper, traditionally used for mailing anonymous threats. It's ambiguous, and could be taken as a threat, or could be taken as mocking of perceived or anticipated failure. Doing this anonymously is cowardly.
There's no content to the critcism. The current video basically says "You Suck", "You Fail", "I'm laughing", and continues the theme of the stages of grief. Again the reason for grief is ambiguous - is it a threat implying a future loss or is it about failure of the LG15 shows? Again there is no thoughtful criticism.
Someone might argue that presenting these expressions of animosity in a video with music and a couple of pictures is more artful than merely writing an anonymous "You Suck" message. I would say not much.
Let me be clear here. I'm not saying a thoughtful negative remark or critique or satirical portrayal is unfair as a part of the spectrum of opinions on this blog.
I am saying, as I have said many times before, that anonymous jibes without thoughtful content are unwelcome here.
But in addition to that, this series is vaguely threatening, which begins to impinge on the issue of "doing harm" to the target and audience. It is harmful to threaten someone because it may provoke fear, or the beginnings of fear and discomfort. If something "does harm" or harrassing or is simply profane or abusive, we delete it from this blog.
If someone thinks something is poorly done, they should explain why, say how it might be better, and have the guts to sign their opinion and expose their thinking or lack of it to all.
Reserve the anonymous comments to information-only. If it contains an opinion, sign it. And keep threats, even vague ones, out of it.
From WIkipedia :
ReplyDelete"The tunnel rats were American, Australian and New Zealand soldiers who performed underground search and destroy missions during the Vietnam War."
Dude is prolly just a Nam Vet, a veteran of foreign war. Do your research, yo.
As for anonymity, would you call the PM of CiW a coward? Would you call JEromy a coward in his early days? It's called a curtain, you don't have to run an ARG to use one. It's the internet, get used to ambiguity.
As for your interpretations of the video, I will assess that is just your opinion of art. How many people so how many different things when they look at the Mona Lisa?
"I am saying, as I have said many times before, that anonymous jibes without thoughtful content are unwelcome here."
Then why does this blog allow anonymous commenting?
I don't see this as threatening or harmful, just someone expressing their feelings. I mean we're at the anger stage of grief recovery, of course it is going to be out there. But there are still a few stages, including acceptance.
I respect your right to express your opinion, anonymously or otherwise, even if I do not agree with it.
That is the beauty of free speech
- Bobby D
I meant saw, not so. Common mistype, or something.
ReplyDelete"Then why does this blog allow anonymous commenting?"
ReplyDeleteIt's debatable whether we should. The reason for doing it is to encourage people to post comments and share information without the barrier of a forced login. If we could remove the "Anonymous" option without removing the "Name/URL" option (which does not require login, but gives you a field to fill in), that would be an improvement. Blogger does not support removing one without removing the other.
My personal preference would be to go ahead and turn anonymous commenting off at this point to eliminate the confusion it generates and encourage people to own their opinions. Most of the people who comment here are regulars who could easily create a sign-in, and if someone really wants to be anonymous or remark separately from their usual nickname, they can always create a new identity.
Anonymous commenting being allowed on this blog does not mean it is an open invitation to use this blog as a platform for anonymous abuse.
The thing about free speech is that it has limits. The expression, "Your freedom ends where the next person's nose begins" comes to mind.
ReplyDeleteI have already explained the difference between this video series and the kind of signed thoughtful negative expressions that are welcome here.
"The tunnel rats were American, Australian and New Zealand soldiers who performed underground search and destroy missions during the Vietnam War."
Wow, and you don't think that reference reinforces the notion that these videos are vaguely threatening?
The first video has the comment from Greg with URL www.lg15.com (who I believe is Greg Goodfried, one of the people the video is aimed at as a cofounder of EQAL):
Greg said...
"errr, this was kind of scary."
Note - he's not complaining about being criticized, just reacting to the vague threat in the video.
Then tunnelratatat comes on and copies some quotations about Art, as if this series qualifies.
Elevating these videos by comparing them to the Mona Lisa, or works by Picasso or Warhol is just silly. They would need infinitely more skill and thought in the execution to justify them on that basis.
There are those of us that have a beef against the C's...for some reason or another. But this video is just ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteCalling it "art..." that requires that some thought be put into it. As has been said, this is just basically a "You suck" message in video form. Oh, wow, they used a bunch of preset effects on the C's picture! Therefore, it must be art!
They didn't even have the thought to put in a decent description. Why the anger? What about? If they were to make a vid about that (as a few have), or post about it, that might be something worth watching. Thoughtful criticism is one thing, useless flaming is another.
I'm not going to comment on the whole anonymous and threatening thing, just because 1) This video is ridiculous, and even if the person were to be man enough to put a name to the "anger" (not criticism), it wouldn't make the video any less stupid, and 2) I didn't see the first video, thus I missed the violence hidden message.
its pretty obvious this was made by grant steinfeld, because he gets blamed for everything.
ReplyDeleteseriously though ... whoa.
Q, this blog has always supported anonymous commenting, it's one of the few blogs I know of that allows it and I personally consider it something to be proud of.
ReplyDeleteThis is a community blog, and if I have a vote in the matter then I would vote a big N O for turning off anonymous commenting.
Also, why does someone being a veteran of Vietnam make them threatening? I understand that the job description might not be the most gentle, but thats what soldiers do. They fight, and sometimes they kill. I think that was a rather unnecessary statement that could be considered offensive to those who serve our country and who have family or friends that serve our country.
Just my two cents.
Also, this video was pretty lame, but thats just my opinion. Obviously someone had to have liked it or they wouldn't have made it. We don't support people trashing other peoples work here, do we?
ReplyDeleteAlso, on a third note (I know, I need to stfu and go away) I don't think it is very fair of you to threaten someone with being banned from posting on the blog unless they reveal who they are, Q. Ironically, because you find the videos threatening. No one should be forced to give out personal information about themselves if they do not wish to, that is their right to privacy.
ReplyDeleteBesides, how do you know TunnelRat isn't just Tunnelrat? Why the assumption that it's a sockpuppet account?
Greg Gallows, You made several unfair mischaracterizations of what I said.
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"Also, why does someone being a veteran of Vietnam make them threatening? I understand that the job description might not be the most gentle, but thats what soldiers do. They fight, and sometimes they kill. I think that was a rather unnecessary statement that could be considered offensive to those who serve our country and who have family or friends that serve our country."
No no no, I did not mean to imply that by being a veteran someone is threatening. Not at all. I meant to imply that someone adopting the name "TunnelRat" a nickname for a particular group of brave soldiers who specifically performed dangerous search and destroy (tunnel bombing missions), they are associating themselves with that specific kind of military activity. I would be surprised if this person is actually a vet. My guess is that he or she is just trying to appear tough/cool/dangerous by naming themselves after that group.
Both my father and step-father served in Vietnam, and I have the highest respect for those that serve in the military.
Reply to Greg G. continued...
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"Also, on a third note (I know, I need to stfu and go away) I don't think it is very fair of you to threaten someone with being banned from posting on the blog unless they reveal who they are, Q. Ironically, because you find the videos threatening. No one should be forced to give out personal information about themselves if they do not wish to, that is their right to privacy."
1. I did not threaten to ban someone unless they reveal who they are. I said we should not promote this particular series for the reasons spelled out in detail above, without a compelling reason.
If I had "threatened" to ban them, it is not equivalent to the "threatening" nature of the videos - and it is not ironic at all. You are comparing exclusion from a blog to personal harm, which is a bogus comparison.
2. I did not ask for personal information about anyone.
I wrote:
"I think the source should be asked to reveal themselves rather than hiding behind the "TunnelRatatat436" alias.
If this person is not willing to do this, or to explain why there is something here of critical or constructive value beyond animosity, I'm not sure we should continue promoting the series on this blog."
"Revealing themselves" (i.e. by their name or usual alias in the community) is one of two options I suggested. If the videos were given an owner and put into context as to their intention and meaning, a constructive dialog could ensue about the merits of the owner's opinion. As it is, there is no value here, and good reason not to promote this work here.
3.
You wrote:
"Besides, how do you know TunnelRat isn't just Tunnelrat? Why the assumption that it's a sockpuppet account?"
Because it is a brand new YouTube account (created 5 days ago with just 2 videos), and this person obviously has a history with the show.
Greg G. wrote:
ReplyDelete"Q, this blog has always supported anonymous commenting, it's one of the few blogs I know of that allows it and I personally consider it something to be proud of."
I've explained my position on anonymous commenting. It should be used for mainly-informative comments or minor reactions. Opinons should be owned or they are extremely devalued, and anonymous commenters create confusion in these threads, and make discussion and resolution of differences of opinion difficult.
Too often, people here use the anonymous option to argue or attack something, and I consider that a misuse and a detriment to this blog.
I feel the detriments outweigh the convenience, but that's just my opinion - not something I am trying to impose on anyone else.
For the reasons explained above, and due to the lack of any satisfactory response from the source to my initial comment a day ago, I have removed these TunnelRatatat436 videos from the blog. They are available on YouTube for anyone interested in viewing them.
ReplyDeleteI'm leaving the article here so that others can read the comments if they wish, and add their own views.
Sorry Q, but since ModelMotion is not around to intermediate as the head Admin I am going to re-add the video, because I think that your removal of it is unfair and biased.
ReplyDeleteThe only response to your comments I have is that they are simply your opinions, and you are speaking for an entire community.
ReplyDeleteIf you dont want these videos here, then make a poll and put it to a vote, that is the only fair way of handling this situation.
I added a link to the video itself in the post, so that those unfamiliar with the subject matter may catch up and be involved.
ReplyDeleteYeah, that unilateral choice there Greg, was not exactly what I had in mind when I agreed to restore this discussion thread. Those who want to find the video can look up the user's name on YouTube easily enough.
ReplyDeleteThe point, which you seem determined to undermine, is that we are discussing why we should or should not promote this work on this blog. At this point we are not promoting it. You want that reversed? Address the issues I raised in the first comment or get the video source to do so.
So the link is being removed. It should not have been put back in this manner. Please do not initiate another editing war on this blog.
Okay, I have exchanged emails with the source of this series, TunnelRatatat436, and believe I have the information I need to bring this to a resolution.
ReplyDeleteI am taking this person at face value, accepting his word as to his intended message, including a clear disavowel of any intention to threaten anyone.
By resolution, I mean restoring the video series to the blog with an added explanatory note of some kind, and insuring that TunnelRatatat436 may continue as an author on the blog.
Please be patient as I confer with a few people to confirm the details.
Once again..WHO MADE YOU the AUTHORITY. Where is the Subtle Knife when I need it.
ReplyDeleteLordGreyStoke, it's an imperfect situation. I have tried to consult with Modelmotion at all stages starting with the first comment on this post and continuing with multiple emails, and he has failed to reply so far.
ReplyDeleteI am doing the best I can to bring this to a good resolution that the community will be satisfied with as quickly as possible.
Your distortions and attacks are not helping anyone.
By the way, LordGreyStoke, would you like to be added as a blog admin?
ReplyDeleteHello everyone,
ReplyDeleteI 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.
Thank you tunnelrat and thank you Q.
ReplyDeletethank god, at least for once a threat on youtube about someone else's videos did not lead to actual bloodshed.
ReplyDelete[/drama]
let's find something else to have fun with now.
Someone, necessarily either the author, or someone with admin status at the time on this blog, edited the disclaimer in the post to read:
ReplyDelete(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.)
I am editing it now so that it again matches what has been posted by the author on YouTube.
(These videos are of a fictional nature depicting a community's grief and are not intended to be taken as threatening to others)
TunnelRatatat436 has changed the description on the first video in the series "Denial" on YouTube to read
ReplyDelete(These videos may contain rapid movements which could be deemed threatening to people with IQs of 436.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO23EVuCOWA
It is very depressing that ONE man...that being QtheC can destroy a society's openness and freedom.
ReplyDeleteThe overwhelming majority of the community has agreed on the restoration of these videos. PLEASE respect the community and leave them alone.
ReplyDelete