Ceilidh > Status Update

Zabet The Dark Empress of Dark Chocolate wrote: "It bothers me that book reviewing has gotten so personal and it seems to have been forgotten that reviewers are consumers....

I do not have the luxury of returning a book because it failed to live up to its promised level of entertainment. BUT I still have the right to tell everyone I know that it sucked and that they shouldn't waste their hard earned cash on a piece of tripe.

I also have a right to boycott an author if I do not like the way they speak to readers/reviewers, their personal politics, a history of plagiarism or if they once said they prefer cats to dogs - ludicrous, but it is a free country and I am entitled to form an opinion based on any information that I like. Again, I can spread this message in whatever way I wish..."

THIS! Is exactly the point. And NONE of it is going to change.

I'll take that offer.

Dear stopthegrbullies.com My name is Ceilidh and I am a book blogger. I've been called a bully, an anti-feminist embarrassment, a liar, a hater and a whole host of other things. I am offering you the chance to interview me, one of those bully bloggers you are supposedly fighting against, for your blog. You are so vocal to give your side of the story, so surely it is only fair to let us reply to your accusations and defamation? I can be reached here, on Twitter at @Ceilidhann or on www.thebooklantern.com..."

This is Brilliant.

Jim wrote: "THIS! Is exactly the point. And NONE of it is going to change.
"

Thanks Jim. And I agree, nothing is going to change. I don't think that one camp will ever successfully convince the other camp that they are wrong. However, I think the behavior displayed on the StopGRBullies site is abhorrent and has crossed a lot of lines and I do wish there was a way to shut it down.

Zabet The Dark Empress of Dark Chocolate wrote: "Jim wrote: "THIS! Is exactly the point. And NONE of it is going to change.
"

Thanks Jim. And I agree, nothing is going to change. I don't think that one camp will ever successfully convince the ..."

I think it's upsetting that it's been up for this long, considering it violates so many TOS agreements. I also wish there was a way that it could be shut down for good. Profiling people in this way with an attempt to intimidate them and belittle their livelihoods, especially with some of the levels of insults in the comments of those posts, is no way to go about it. If anything, the entire existence of this website trivializes what cyberbullying/cyberharassment are and doesn't make a case for them at all.

Ugh, I just love how many logical fallacies are in that argument. And how everything we say is just wrong. Rolls eyes...

This is for Stephanie, Kat, and Archer one of of the reasons I love your blog is that it is so informative. The reviews are well written and honest and the blog itself is insight into the YA world. I don't read it for the scandals but the for the news and reviews in general. If I wanted to read about juicy scandal I'd go to Perez Hilton or something there's enough Tomkat drama going on to fill my quota. I think it's important to inform people though of what is going on in the YA world, so kudos to you guys.

And yes, with Jim nothing is going to change. To try to satisfy both camps I've left a warning on my blog that I'm going to review honestly and that it's not meant as an attack against an author if the review is negative. However, I think when it comes to people who posted on the website these warnings aren't going to matter.

I understand that feelings will be hurt occasionally from a negative review, but when it comes down to it. It's the consumer who matters. They're buying a product and they want to know how that product performs. Providing a dishonest review is a disservice, this is one of the reasons why I don't read certain blogs. The way the review is written should not be censored either. People have different styles of writing and it should not be repressed.

And supposedly fighting bullying with bullying, I'm not going to even go there with how wrong that is. Let's just say it's as irrational as that website.

As for their legal argument. Well, it's not just defamation that they're potentially liable for that's all I'm going to say.

Zabet The Dark Empress of Dark Chocolate wrote: "Thanks Jim. And I agree, nothing is going to change. I don't think that one camp will ever successfully convince the other camp that they are wrong. However, I think the behavior displayed on the StopGRBullies site is abhorrent and has crossed a lot of lines and I do wish there was a way to shut it down.
..."

I am in complete agreement on all of your points, Zabet. There is more to say about the last one...

What I can say for now is that information-gathering is advisable and may be useful. Screen caps like the one Ceilidh posted today. Any and all relevant posts from any aspect of this saga, not just the StopGRBullies site.

YAL Book Briefs wrote: "Ugh, I just love how many logical fallacies are in that argument. And how everything we say is just wrong. Rolls eyes...

This is for Stephanie, Kat, and Archer one of of the reasons I love your b..."

Thank you. I think it's important to note that we didn't create BWN to intimidate or go after anyone. It's to bring awareness to the community and specifically protect younger, teen bloggers who are harassed by adult authors. People email us, we've never gone looking for it. But it was never to create a lynch mob. Never that.

Rose wrote: "I think it's upsetting that it's been up for this long, considering it violates so many TOS agreements. I also wish there was a way that it could be shut down for good. Profiling people in this way with an attempt to intimidate them and belittle their livelihoods, especially with some of the levels of insults in the comments of those posts, is no way to go about it. If anything, the entire existence of this website trivializes what cyberbullying/cyberharassment are and doesn't make a case for them at all."

Rose, I am in complete agreement with you. I regard the content of StopGRBullies as extremely dangerous, and many other members have voiced similar concerns.

With enough information in the right hands, the violations of TOS agreements and other legal issues can be thoroughly assessed. Gathering the relevant information is probably the best course for right now (my understanding).

YAL Book Briefs wrote: "Ugh, I just love how many logical fallacies are in that argument. And how everything we say is just wrong. Rolls eyes.....

And yes, with Jim nothing is going to change. To try to satisfy both camps I've left a warning on my blog that I'm going to review honestly and that it's not meant as an attack against an author if the review is negative. However, I think when it comes to people who posted on the website these warnings aren't going to matter...."

And supposedly fighting bullying with bullying, I'm not going to even go there with how wrong that is. Let's just say it's as irrational as that website.

As for their legal argument. Well, it's not just defamation that they're potentially liable for that's all I'm going to say.

Fabulous post, YAL! You made so many on-the-mark comments. I agree with all of them, and I certainly support Stephanie, Kat, and Archer and the other bloggers with courage to speak against the outrage.

And the logical fallacies in that StopGRBullies post are really breathtaking, to say the least... Not the sorts of argument that would work well in court, at least not in my understanding.

As I learn more about the legal aspects of all this, I am learning - as YAL said - that there are multiple areas of potential liability, for the StopGRBullies site and for those behind it. There will be more to say about these things later.

What about the reviewers who are leaving because of this website? Reviewers who have nothing to do with this? It is happening. Reviewers are dropping READING because of this website. I know that here in the USA, illiteracy is becoming a huge problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy...

So this website is contributing to the problem.

Skyla (Happy Go Lucky and Lost in Books) wrote: "Funny story. I went to a James Blunt concert and there was this guy who kept yelling "You suck!" at him when he came down into the audience to meet people and this is what went down:

James: "I would like to shake your hand *shakes hand* Anyone who has an opinion and expresses it is alright by me. What brings you here today?"

Guy: "My girlfriend made me come."

James: "Must keep the girlfriend happy. *Smiles* Do you have any request for a song you'd like me to sing?"

Guy: "You're Beautiful."

James: That's my song. *Raises eyebrow*

Guy: "Well I like THAT song. Just not any of the others..."

James: "My life is brilliant...My love is pure..."

Guy: *stands there with a goofy smile on his face*"

Aww. That's an awesome story, Skyla. I wish more people would respond with that much class to criticism.

Jim wrote: "With enough information in the right hands, the violations of TOS agreements and other legal issues can be thoroughly assessed. Gathering the relevant information is probably the best course for right now (my understanding). "

Agreed Jim, and I think so far, everyone's done an excellent job with gathering said information and sharing it, even in the scope of this conversation.

I'm personally trying to stay away from STGRB's website because I don't want to contribute any more to their counter than I have to. (And I definitely plan on writing a blog post about this this weekend. I think some of the posts speaking out against STGRB so far have been amazing.)

Rose wrote: "Agreed Jim, and I think so far, everyone's done an excellent job with gathering said information and sharing it, even in the scope of this conversation.

I'm personally trying to stay away from STGRB's website because I don't want to contribute any more to their counter than I have to. (And I definitely plan on writing a blog post about this this weekend. I think some of the posts speaking out against STGRB so far have been amazing.)..."

Thanks, Rose, and I agree with all of your points. Staying away from the site is definitely good whenever possible - I have done the same. And Ceilidh did a great thing by copying that post into this thread.

I look forward to your blog post! I agree that a lot of thoughtful posts are out there, with excellent discussions of just how disgraceful and dangerous STGRB is. Your posts and analysis are always extremely intelligent, thorough, well-written and fair. I am sure that your comments will be an important part of the big picture.

Skyla (Happy Go Lucky and Lost in Books) wrote: "I also got to hug him. It was awesome."

Great story, Skyla.

Ashleigh Paige wrote: "They're really calling themselves an underground movement? Really? Pfft.

If they graduate from that to "silent majority" like some wanky Supernatural fans are doing right now (they either do not know it came from Nixon or they do not care), this wank will be even better!..."

Well said, Ashleigh Paige.

Just doing some research this may or may not be relevant: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/t...

YAL Book Briefs wrote: "Just doing some research this may or may not be relevant: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/t..."

It certainly looks relevant to me, YAL. Very well done!

Christina wrote: "(c) The stalker either:

(i) Intends to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person; or

(ii) Knows or reasonably should know that the person is afraid, intimidated, or harassed even if the stalker did not intend to place the person in fear or intimidate or harass the person.

Boom..."

Boom, indeed.

Big boom.

I especially find it interesting that different state laws may apply, based both on where the person doing the cyberstalking lives, and where the person being stalked lives.

Also the fact that the law might be seeing things as more serious if the person being stalked is a minor.

Lexxie wrote: "I especially find it interesting that different state laws may apply, based both on where the person doing the cyberstalking lives, and where the person being stalked lives.

Also the fact that th..."

Yep, I found that part interesting as well. Especially since there are bound to be personal jurisdiction issues in these type of cases.

Lexxie wrote: "I especially find it interesting that different state laws may apply, based both on where the person doing the cyberstalking lives, and where the person being stalked lives.

Also the fact that the law might be seeing things as more serious if the person being stalked is a minor...."

Yes, indeed. Very interesting. Cyberstalking a minor = Cyberbullying. That was my takeaway from the article.

Boom.

YAL Book Briefs wrote: "Yep, I found that part interesting as well. Especially since there are bound to be personal jurisdiction issues in these type of cases. ..."

Yes, indeed.

Has anyone else noted the increasing number of authors on GR, including many that are not part of the YA genre itself, writing and commenting about how bad the STGRB website is?

I've noted at least 5 authors to date posting blog comments against STGRB (and that doesn't include one author who has actually listed a case of bullying/harassment that arose from a case of "mistaken identity" from what was posted on the STGRB website). Seems that there is a groundswell of authors who are hearing about this and saying "Oh no you don't!"


Secondly, I also note that all the anti-bullying group banners/links have disappeared from the STGRB website... Wonder if getting "cease & Desist" notices about the illegal usage of those banners gave the website creator(s) any pause for thought...

Brian wrote: "Has anyone else noted the increasing number of authors on GR, including many that are not part of the YA genre itself, writing and commenting about how bad the STGRB website is?

I've noted at least 5 authors to date posting blog comments against STGRB... Seems that there is a groundswell of authors who are hearing about this and saying "Oh no you don't!"..."

Yes indeed, Brian. I have noticed some of those, but probably not all. It may be useful to screen-cap those blog post/comments for future reference, as author rebuttals to the claims made on STGRB. We had a discussion (earlier 7/13) about the need to gather information, and documentation of posts like that may be very useful.

"Secondly, I also note that all the anti-bullying group banners/links have disappeared from the STGRB website... Wonder if getting "cease & Desist" notices about the illegal usage of those banners gave the website creator(s) any pause for thought... "

My understanding is that at least one anti-bullying site took legal action to force removal of those banners. There are posts about that earlier on this thread, including email responses to queries from at least one of those sites.

Good for them! And another form of rebuttal to claims on STGRB.

I'm late to this party by a whole lot of time, but I just felt the need to say that this entire thing is totally disgusting. They think WE'RE the bullies when they're the ones stalking personal information and whatnot? That's completely ridiculous. Ridiculous.

Also, accusing us of being cowards with screen names when they're going by things like Athena, Peter Pan, and Stitch.

Really?

I'm staying posted about this one.

It seems like the website is dedicated to making reviewers not 'attack' the authors--at least not openly.

So why not take a page from Miss Jillian Venters' Gothic Charm School and passive-aggressively troll authors instead?

Whew, okay, I just spent the last hour catching up on this comments thread and reading everything that was linked to. I scanned a whole lot of stuff, but I feel like I at least know what's going on now. I'm sick of Vanity, if that's who this is, and I'm sick of the whole author vs. reviewer mentality.

It makes no sense, on any level, to combat so-called "bullying" by stalking/harassing/making defamatory posts about the "bullies" in question. Any sane person would be able to see that, but obviously, we're not dealing with any sane people here.

I'm glad to here about the anti-bully organizations who got their banners taken down from the site. This is just madness. Pure and simple madness.

Vi wrote: "This kind of shit can legitimately get someone killed. I hope they realize that."

I left them a note on the site saying that, and they said they are writing a post which will address this later on.

Jennifer wrote: "Vi wrote: "This kind of shit can legitimately get someone killed. I hope they realize that."

I left them a note on the site saying that, and they said they are writing a post which will address th..."

Well good for them. After all, the people they've singled out have *allllllll* the time in the world.

John wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "Vi wrote: "This kind of shit can legitimately get someone killed. I hope they realize that."

I left them a note on the site saying that, and they said they are writing a post whic..."

I just want to see how they can justify posting that information. *shakes head*

Jennifer wrote: "John wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "Vi wrote: "This kind of shit can legitimately get someone killed. I hope they realize that."

I left them a note on the site saying that, and they said they are writin..."

Who's betting on the "well, they were mean so they deserve whatever's coming to them"?

John wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "John wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "Vi wrote: "This kind of shit can legitimately get someone killed. I hope they realize that."

I left them a note on the site saying that, and they sai..."

I actually live in the same city as her... :-( I hope I never meet her, because I'll have a look of horror on my face when she introduces herself.

For some reason the idea of running into her in person is terrifying and... hilarious. I guess I just have a strange sense of humor.

John wrote: "Who's betting on the "well, they were mean so they deserve whatever's coming to them"?..."

I am.

Jennifer wrote: "I left them a note on the site saying that, and they said they are writing a post which will address this later on...."

Hi, Jennifer. I am really glad you made the effort at rational discourse by leaving your note on the site. The attempt is important in itself.

The text of your exchange with the site - especially the response - could be useful for further analysis, and I hope you will save/print it. As we have discussed here, this is a time for gathering information about all aspects of the site and its 'mysterious' contributor(s).

"I just want to see how they can justify posting that information. *shakes head* "

The logical content and wording of their response will be important information. Likewise, the logical link between your query and their response.

I will be otherwise occupied for several days, checking in to GR at odd intervals. But I want to say that I appreciate your attempt at rational discourse with the site - and I think it is good to put our legitimate concerns out there in clear language.

I don't believe the 'eye for an eye' argument will be especially persuasive in a legal context. But maybe that is just me.

If they have a problem with a review they should report it to GR not set up their own bullying website. I think it's a little absurd that today they posted someone's review that was three stars. In the review the woman had been thinking of rounding it up to four stars but decided not to because the author was really rude to her outside Goodreads. How us this bullying?? I say they should thank her for actually rating the book!

(I skimmed this enormous thread so forgive me if this has been answered but people who double-space after periods almost always learned to type on a typewriter. Now word processors put extra space after the period automatically. However, it is not that common for people to do it and is definitely a warning sign that the same person is typing both comments.)

Christina wrote: "Also: After running an IP address search on the site, it appears it's registered in Scottsdale, AZ. Arizona recently voted to outlaw stalking via the internet:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/p..."

Whoops...yeah...not looking good for STGRB's

Christina wrote: "Also: After running an IP address search on the site, it appears it's registered in Scottsdale, AZ. Arizona recently voted to outlaw stalking via the internet:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/p..."

It's registered to Scottsdale because that is the HQ of GoDaddy.

Christina wrote: "Also: After running an IP address search on the site, it appears it's registered in Scottsdale, AZ. Arizona recently voted to outlaw stalking via the internet:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/p..."

Excellent work, Christina!

Any and all information about the IP address/registration, ownership, content, timeline etc. for the site will be highly pertinent to the evolving legal picture. Record-keeping and information gathering, as we have discussed, are very useful exercises regardless of how these events play out.

Stephanie wrote: "It's registered to Scottsdale because that is the HQ of GoDaddy..."

Just saw this, Stephanie. Thanks for the info. It has me wondering what liability the host incurs when substantive complaints about cyberstalking on specific site(s) are made, and no remedial action is taken by the host.

Just a thought.

I read the new post on their site, and it's absurd the things they are saying. They posted a three star review up there! Three stars, according to GoodReads means, "I liked it" or "It was alright". How could anyone consider that a hate review?

I am so fed up with people like this, I just. UGH.

Have you seen the post where they tell you if you have a question or comment you have to post to them personally you can't post it on their blog, and they choose to answer the question/comment or not. They don't want people to question their ethics or facts.

Becki wrote: "Have you seen the post where they tell you if you have a question or comment you have to post to them personally you can't post it on their blog, and they choose to answer the question/comment or n..."

LOL. Wow, if that doesn't tell people something, I don't know what will. They're probably making up their own ridiculous questions to make it seem like they have wonderful, supportive followers, and ignoring all the people who are telling them they're out of their minds. (Or one mind, as the case may still be.)

My faith in humanity is diminishing little by little.

Skyla (Happy Go Lucky and Lost in Books) wrote: "Thalia wrote: "I read the new post on their site, and it's absurd the things they are saying. They posted a three star review up there! Three stars, according to GoodReads means, "I liked it" or "I..."

If you want to remove a star because you don't the author's profile picture, or you always remove stars on Thursdays, or your spirit dolphin told you to, it's nobody's business, but yours. It's YOUR review to do with as you chose. For victims they sure are acting more like aggressors.

Emily: Accurate photo description. *applauds*

Skyla (Happy Go Lucky and Lost in Books) wrote: "but I know they are doing it because they don't want people asking certain questions publicly."

Questions such as "Why the eff aren't you in an asylum for your stalking and hateful behavior?"

Thalia wrote: LOL. Wow, if that doesn't tell people something, I don't know what will. They're probably making up their own ridiculous questions to make it seem like they have wonderful, supportive followers, and ignoring all the people who are telling them they're out of t...

Yes its absolutely ridiculous their very one sided and hypocrtical. Also theres another post that says "What you can do to help" heres a list "

1.Contact them and let them know they are not alone

2. Direct them to this website

3. Vote on reviews of their books that you like

4. Buy their books and leave honest reviews

5. Shelve their books positively on Goodreads

So they're trying to get more gargoyles on their side and want you to buy their books as well so advertising too. Wow the world is really going to the pots

Thalia wrote: "Emily: Accurate photo description. *applauds*

Skyla (Happy Go Lucky and Lost in Books) wrote: "but I know they are doing it because they don't want people asking certain questions publicly."

Ques..."

Thank you, I thought it fit.

I agree about the questions as well. They don't want anyone thinking too hard about the ethics of what they are doing, or else they will have no support at all. They just want people who will jump in line, and parrot the party line.

Oooh, Like the old game Lemmings!

Christina wrote: "Emily wrote: "For victims they sure are acting more like aggressors."

Also, that image FTW.

The message is literally, "If you leave a negative review, we post private information about you, or ju..."

Thank you.


Exactly, it's mind boggling they don't seem to understand that their behavior has consequences. Here in the US we have freedom of speech, but freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of your words. Act like mature adults and chances are your books are going to be shelved in the manner they deserve (not that people will necessarily like them, but they probably won't be dismissed out of hand either), but act like a malicious, spoiled, obsessed, stalker, and chances are there are going to be people who will chose not to reward you for that behavior, and shelve your books accordingly.

@ Skyla

True but i'm thinking thats really all they care about and the drama the comes with.

@ Christina

Wow you have it down exactly right. thats what they're doing. Yah and if you stay on our good side we won't threaten or harass you.

All that does is make me MORE wary of any author they promote. But I doubt those authors actually know they're listed on the site at all.

Maybe we can just hold out until August 2nd and everything will be taken care of, since they'll be *officially* breaking the law.

What happens on August 2nd? Did I miss something?