ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, July 09, 2013

Response part II

Some of the hunters have already jumped in and produced some interesting points.  One is that the Board cannot expel anyone on its own, no matter what the bylaws may say, because the organization is still governed by Massachusetts law that requires the entire membership to vote on such matters as per the original bylaws that were written in accordance with state law.  Another, and more serious issue, is that there are genuine questions about the legal propriety of the membership vote on the so-called "reincorporation".  Given how many corners have been cut and how many irregularities have been revealed in the Board's actions pertaining to me, it would not be surprising to discover that the Scalzi administration made some fundamental legal blunders in the "reincorporation" process amidst its attempt to remake the organization as a top-down California entity.

Needless to say, the legal team is already looking into this.  It is too soon to say if anything improper was done or not, but the idea that merging the entire organization with a new one, then shutting down the old one requires a lower level of membership approval than a simple amendment to the bylaws tends to strike me as a somewhat dubious proposal.  But I'm not the lawyer, it's not my opinion here that matters.  That's their territory, and while they're looking into that, I'm focused on the direct aspect of my response to the Board's report, the first part of which is as follows:
A. Violation of SFWA bylaws and policies
In this section only incidents which occurred in SFWA-controlled spaces are addressed. For the purposes of this report “SFWA-controlled spaces” are defined as:
  • Events organized by SFWA (e.g. Nebula ceremony, etc.)
  • Social events hosted by SFWA (e.g. SFWA lounges at conventions, etc.)
  • Print publications published by SFWA (e.g. The SFWA Bulletin)
  • Online spaces hosted or published by SFWA (e.g. the SFWA online forum, the SFWA blog, and any social media accounts controlled by SFWA)
1. Improper use of SFWA channels

The incident which prompted this investigation was Mr. Beale’s use of the SFWAAuthors Twitter account to distribute his blog of June 13, 2013 “A black female fantasist calls for Reconciliation.” (See Fig A.1 for the tweet and Fig A.2 for the blog entry to which the link in the tweet led. Note the #SFWApro tag at the end which shows a conscious choice to have the blog entry published through the Twitter feed.)

Here is the policy sent to members regarding use of the SFWAAuthors Twitter feed:

SFWA maintains the @sfwaauthors Twitter feed to help spread the word about members' blog posts about writing, fiction/reading (reviews, reading recommendations, etc), or publishing, or about their own writing or publishing news. If you're a member who would like to have the writing and publishing posts from your blog included in the @sfwaauthors stream, please send an email to twitter@sfwa.org.

Not every blog post is appropriate for @sfwaauthors. If a post is not about writing, or about fiction or publishing, do not mark it for inclusion in the @sfwaauthors twitter feed. (Instructions on how to mark posts for inclusion in the @sfwaauthors twitter feed will be provided when you email twitter@sfwa.org.)

Repeated violations of this policy will be grounds for removal from the feed. SFWA reserves the right to determine what posts are appropriate. Marking blog posts for inclusion that include threats or personal attacks or obvious trolling will also be grounds for removal. While SFWA does maintain the @sfwaauthors Twitter feed for the benefit of its members, ultimately the posts that appear in the feed are the responsibility of the authors of those posts, and are in no way endorsed by SFWA, nor do such posts reflect the opinions or policy of SFWA.

Mr. Beale made a conscious choice to be added to the feed (see Fig A.3). He was made aware of the guidelines (see Fig A.4 and Fig A.5) and stated in conversation on the SFWA online discussion boards that he was aware that some of the content of his blogs would likely be inappropriate (see Fig A.6). This also illustrates the fact that he made a conscious choice to have this particular blog post published by the SFWAAuthors Twitter feed.

SFWA received complaints about the tweet from several members (part 3 of this section looks specifically at the objectionable content of the entry) and it was removed from the feed roughly two hours after the tweet was first posted and between two and two and a half hours after the blog was first posted. (See part 3 of this this section for a more detailed explanation of the timeline.)

In an e-mail sent to the Board, Mr. Beale stated that the final paragraph of the guidelines show that “it is demonstrably false to claim that I have ever misused any SFWA platform.” The precise interpretation of that paragraph is a matter for the Board to decide. However, it may be noted that

a) The Twitter account is maintained and managed by SFWA
b) The Twitter handle contains “SFWA” with the permission of SFWA
I have eight points in my response already, including the Board's blatant and self-admitted, (see above), violation of the discussion forum confidentiality rules in (Fig A.6), which is a screencap of one of my posts in the SFWA forum that was reposted by the Board without my permission.  I've also referenced the Twitter Terms of Service to prove that the Twitter account cannot possibly be considered an SFWA channel, as the Services belong to Twitter while the Content belongs to me.  I've pointed out that the complaint rests entirely upon the confusion between the marking for inclusion of a Twitter-fed link to a URL and the actual blog post published on Blogger.  And, most importantly, I've demonstrated that SFWA expressly disclaims the @sfwaauthors Twitter feed as an official platform or channel for the organization.  One cannot misuse what does not exist.

The Board doesn't seem to realize Michael Capobianco, among many other members, is provably guilty of the very thing they accuse me of here.  The important difference is that the SFWA Forum is a genuine SFWA channel whereas @sfwaauthors is not.  This means they have a much stronger case for expelling Mr. Capobianco than me on these grounds.  Nor is he the only member to whom the charge materially applies.

In that vein, it would be useful to find information on other information conduits containing "sfwa" with the permission of SFWA, particularly examples of content that would be more objectionable than the text that actually appeared on the Twitter account in (Fig A.1) to the left or posts in any SFWA channel that contain links to attacks on other members.  Note that it even says right there in the screenshot: "Tweets made from this account are the sole responsibility of the feed/blog post author only. Opinions expressed within the links do not reflect those of SFWA.  swfa.org"

It may amuse you to know that despite its obvious flaws, this is probably their most concrete complaint.  It gets even worse. Considerably worse. As one hunter commented after reading the entire report: "I cannot believe anyone would be stupid enough to go any further using this document as the charge sheet against you."  And so far, we've only reached page 6 of 34.


§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. 

Labels: ,

100 Comments:

Anonymous Onefiver July 09, 2013 9:08 AM  

Thing that is going to suck most about this is that they are likely to try and pay you to leave and the offer will include a NDA. For those that are following this, we're going to miss out on being able to fully appreciate the victory. That is, if you accept it...

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 July 09, 2013 9:09 AM  

Mr. Beale made a conscious choice to be added to the feed (see Fig A.3). He was made aware of the guidelines (see Fig A.4 and Fig A.5) and stated in conversation on the SFWA online discussion boards that he was aware that some of the content of his blogs would likely be inappropriate (see Fig A.6). This also illustrates the fact that he made a conscious choice to have this particular blog post published by the SFWAAuthors Twitter feed.

Looks like they just gave you a good defense. I mean, if you warned them that you had controversial views, then they have no grounds to complain about what posts you made to "their" feed.

Anonymous VD July 09, 2013 9:21 AM  

Thing that is going to suck most about this is that they are likely to try and pay you to leave and the offer will include a NDA.

Do you really believe the individuals who put together a "comprehensive investigative report" of this quality and tried to get away with appealing to nonexistent confidentiality rules while simultaneously breaking existing ones have the wisdom to pursue a reasonable settlement in a timely manner?

They're from the John Scalzi school of gambling. If you lose, double-down. Then double-down again.

Anonymous Quick Point July 09, 2013 9:28 AM  

I'm a bit foggy at the moment, but the complaint states repeated violations are grounds for removal from the feed. Do they mention more than 1 violation?

Anonymous Mudz July 09, 2013 9:28 AM  

Events organized by SFWA (e.g. Nebula ceremony, etc.)
Social events hosted by SFWA (e.g. SFWA lounges at conventions, etc.)
Print publications published by SFWA (e.g. The SFWA Bulletin)
Online spaces hosted or published by SFWA (e.g. the SFWA online forum, the SFWA blog, and any social media accounts controlled by SFWA)


a) The Twitter account is maintained and managed by SFWA


Does 'maintained and managed' have any legal equivalence to 'hosted or published'? Doesn't look like it to me.

If not, their charge is specious. 'Noting' something, doesn't make it relevant.

For the purposes of this report “SFWA-controlled spaces” are defined as:

And what the heck does that mean? They can just arbitrate the definitions on the spot? Shouldn't 'controlled spaces' be defined either in relevant law, or already established in the fine print somewhere? (I don't really know how it's done, actually.)

How about, 'For the purposes of this report, it's defined as any comment you ever make anywhere that includes the word SFWA. Bing!'

Blogger tz July 09, 2013 9:29 AM  

What they might do is just set up sfwa-ca and try to dissolve the original with some kind of license to the copyrighted material and other IP such as the domain names but without or undoing a merger. And hope all the right rabbits hop to the new warren.

Anonymous VD July 09, 2013 9:32 AM  

I'm a bit foggy at the moment, but the complaint states repeated violations are grounds for removal from the feed. Do they mention more than 1 violation?

No, that's not relevant, they were able to remove it from the feed as per this: "Marking blog posts for inclusion that include threats or personal attacks or obvious trolling will also be grounds for removal."

The removal from the feed was legitimate. Claiming improper use of an SFWA channel is not.

Blogger tz July 09, 2013 9:33 AM  

SFWA controlled spaces where they specifically disclaim control?

The bad fictional writing is not confined to the published works.

Anonymous Toby Temple July 09, 2013 9:37 AM  

Isn't a Twitter space under the control of Twitter?

Anonymous VD July 09, 2013 9:43 AM  

Isn't a Twitter space under the control of Twitter?

Yes, it says as much in the Terms of Service. SFWA has no control or claim to it whatsoever; Twitter can delete the account tomorrow if it likes.

Anonymous Mudz July 09, 2013 9:44 AM  

Oh, right, so it doesn't even matter, since 'managed and maintained' by the SFWA is a legal lie.

That kind of does nail the coffin shut.

Blogger IM2L844 July 09, 2013 9:46 AM  

After looking back through some of the blogs I had previously read across the web pertaining to this debacle, it appears as though some housekeeping has been taking place particularly in the comments sections. Either that or I'm going mad which is a distinct possibility.

Anonymous VD July 09, 2013 9:50 AM  

After looking back through some of the blogs I had previously read across the web pertaining to this debacle, it appears as though some housekeeping has been taking place particularly in the comments sections.

I have no doubt. I imagine Mr. Scalzi and other SFWA members have been very busy with site maintenance of late.

Blogger Nate July 09, 2013 9:54 AM  

Where these by-laws written by 10 year olds?

First that say: "and any social media accounts controlled by SFWA" ... then they specifically say, "Tweets made from this account are the sole responsibility of the feed/blog post author only. Opinions expressed within the links do not reflect those of SFWA. swfa.org"

You cannot claim something is under your control... then claim you have no responsibility for it.

Anonymous Harsh July 09, 2013 9:56 AM  

Sorry, Vox, but obviously your crime is that you hurt their feelings so you're guilty. Now go stand in the corner.

Anonymous Pablo July 09, 2013 9:58 AM  

I almost feel sorry for the rabbits, all of whom will be buried by the system they faithfully believe empowers them to smite enemies such as you. They will realize too late that the system never cared about them. Or worse, they'll wonder what sleight of hand you used to corrupt their perfect system. And they'll keep scrambling and scrambling, desperately hoping to see daylight again, but ultimately lost in their tunnels.

Keep up the good work, brothers.

Blogger IM2L844 July 09, 2013 10:03 AM  

Where these by-laws written by 10 year olds?

No. They were written by middling writers trying to adopt a lawyerly persona.

Anonymous Josh July 09, 2013 10:04 AM  

Where these by-laws written by 10 year olds?

Hey, these are super serious bylaws. We know because they used bullet points. Also, they had pie charts. Super serious.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 09, 2013 10:05 AM  

Nate July 09, 2013 9:54 AM
You cannot claim something is under your control... then claim you have no responsibility for it.



clearly you are unfamiliar with, nay, incapable of grasping the ineffably superior workings of the progressive/atheist/humanist mind and moral consideration complex.

hamster wheel powers, activate!


anywho, Dr. Pournelle has a post up concerning his end of the confrontation:
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/?p=14487

Anonymous kawaika July 09, 2013 10:13 AM  

"And they'll keep scrambling and scrambling, desperately hoping to see daylight again, but ultimately lost in their tunnels."

They approached what they thought was a Gazebo; turns out, it's actually a Gunzebo. They won't be lost in tunnels, but Spartan-kicked into body mulchers.

Blogger IM2L844 July 09, 2013 10:13 AM  

hamster wheel powers, activate!

Form of Cake Eater!
Shape of Leporidae!

Anonymous Salt July 09, 2013 10:15 AM  

Mr. Beale made a conscious choice to be added to the feed (see Fig A.3).

A feed that SFWA admits is the sole responsibility of the feed/blog post author.

Under SFWA guidelines the post to Twitter has but one remedy, removal.

Repeated violations of this policy will be grounds for removal from the feed.

End of story.

The SFWA is moving into territory not covered by its charter.



Anonymous Onefiver July 09, 2013 10:18 AM  

[b]Do you really believe the individuals who put together a "comprehensive investigative report" of this quality and tried to get away with appealing to nonexistent confidentiality rules while simultaneously breaking existing ones have the wisdom to pursue a reasonable settlement in a timely manner?[/b]

I certainly wouldn't expect timely. No matter what, I expect this to drag on for some time.

I think their legal counsel will give them some good advice here about how to make this all go away quietly...or quieter, at this point. At the same time, I am often perplexed as to how these types of folks operate.

Anonymous Toby Temple July 09, 2013 10:20 AM  

Repeated violations of this policy will be grounds for removal from the feed.

End of story.


Then several members demanded expulsion.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 July 09, 2013 10:21 AM  

Let's all remember that this report was written by fiction authors and probably their best work of fiction ever.

Leftists always love their paperwork. It's not enough that they exile/kill you. They have to have documentation to justify it in order to absolve themselves of the evil they do.

Anonymous zen0 July 09, 2013 10:22 AM  

All this is one reason why I am not a "joiner".

Anonymous Laz July 09, 2013 10:31 AM  

Kinda off topic but, the rabbits are squeeling hard about Ender's game too: http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/gearing-boycott-harrison-ford-ender-game-film-203302858.html

Anonymous RINO July 09, 2013 10:50 AM  

Orson Scott Card has delivered too many feelbads in recent years. Unforgivable.

Blogger IM2L844 July 09, 2013 10:54 AM  

I am often perplexed as to how these types of folks operate.

I really think they unreasonably believed Vox would just fold like a cheap suit. It's been sort of funny to watch the liberal/progressive mindset at work since the re-election of Obama. It's as if they've been hyper-emboldened and believe everything is falling into place and all our base are now belong to them.

The sad thing is that with the exception of a few staunch opponents, they're not really too far off the mark.

Anonymous VD July 09, 2013 10:58 AM  

I really think they unreasonably believed Vox would just fold like a cheap suit.

I'm sure some did. Others figured that a bit of discomfort would be worth having me and the few oldtimers still willing to speak out against the wannabes out of the organization. All this stuff reads like non-lawyers who have received a bit of legal advice, but don't actually understand it or actually know what to do with it.

They don't understand legal logic, it's all just magic incantations to them. Which is why they have no rational grasp of the strength or weakness of their position.

Anonymous Noah B. July 09, 2013 10:59 AM  

"It may amuse you to know that despite its obvious flaws, this is probably their most concrete complaint."

Definitely, although it's clear that removal of the offending Twitter post is their sole remedy. The complaint only goes downhill from here.

Anonymous DaveD July 09, 2013 11:16 AM  

I'm eagerly watching this. I'm tired of petty bureaucrats abusing their tiny power. I want to start fighting back but don't really know how aside from just punching them. This should be instructional.

DD

Anonymous Alexander July 09, 2013 11:29 AM  

SFWA shows the world it ain't got no chili.

Anonymous Peter Garstig July 09, 2013 11:34 AM  

This should be instructional.


It's black-knighting in practice on a broader scope.

Blogger Hector July 09, 2013 11:36 AM  

Your offending blog post was replying to this: http://nkjemisin.com/2013/06/continuum-goh-speech/

Did NK Jemisin also post her link on the twitter feed? Is that why you were replying in kind?

Anonymous jack July 09, 2013 11:40 AM  

No folks. I seriously doubt T. Beale can be purchased. And, with an NDA? Please.
There just is too much entertainment in all this to be settled with money and hope it all goes away. Vox probably isn't rich enough to buy entertainment of this caliber. At least, legal, entertainment.

This whole episode may end of being the star of his blog's lifetime. I find myself wondering if he purchased life membership in the SFWA years ago with something like this in mind. His strategy may be the destruction of SFWA and rebuilding it back into something the Heinlein and Asimov would be proud to be a part of. With the strategy laid out, his tactics have been superb. They, the 'rabbits' should remember he tried to do this the civilized way by election and that did not work. I think he may be glad it did not. To have missed all this fun would have been tragic.
IMHO

Anonymous Josh July 09, 2013 11:42 AM  

His strategy may be the destruction of SFWA and rebuilding it back into something the Heinlein and Asimov would be proud to be a part of.

Wasn't Asimov a giant liberal?

Blogger Beefy Levinson July 09, 2013 11:52 AM  

They, the 'rabbits' should remember he tried to do this the civilized way by election and that did not work.

"I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly. But you... have elected... the way of... PAIN!"

Anonymous manboob July 09, 2013 11:52 AM  

jack: because you are in love with him, you give him too much credit.

Anonymous Josh July 09, 2013 11:56 AM  

OT: bad feminist "art"

http://jezebel.com/awesome-texas-abortion-testimony-poetry-if-my-vagina-717474146

Anonymous bob k. mando July 09, 2013 11:57 AM  

Josh July 09, 2013 11:42 AM
Wasn't Asimov a giant liberal?



most all sci-fi writers ( hell, pretty much anybody with a college degree ) acceded(s) to cultural Marxism to one extent or another.

Heinlein got his start as a socialist and helped Upton Sinclair get elected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein#California




Anonymous jack July 09, 2013 12:08 PM  

manboob July 09, 2013 11:52 AM

jack: because you are in love with him, you give him too much credit.

Love? No. Admire? Yes.
I look at the life work [enjoyable writing] of the likes of Heinlein and Asimov; I might deplore some of their politics. I credit reading Heinlein, at an early age, for my development into what I consider something of a rugged individualist and patriot that is horrified at what this country has become. Whatever Robert's other faults his writing can do this.

Blogger David of One July 09, 2013 12:08 PM  

There is another procedural aspect worth taking into account ...

Article IV Section 3(b) regarding "Associate and Affiliate Members"

"They may not run for office or vote in elections and may not nominate or vote for awards."

Based upon this "Associate and Affiliate Members" should have no say, compliant, call for expulsion nor voice with the Board or Officers against any Active Member (Stockholder).

Why? Because for such formally Active Members, Article IV Section 10 states: "A member so expelled shall be reinstated upon petition of two-thirds of the active membership.".

How could Active Members be so expelled through the complaints and inputs of non-Active members whom have no standing for reinstatement?

Consequently I'm am merely curious if all of the supposedly actionable "complaints" were made by Active Members or not irregardless if there is foundation for such "complaints"?

One other quick question Vox ... was the Grievance Committee or was just one of those double or triple secret committee created comprised of individuals whom have no personal nor professional conflicts of interest or encumbrances involved with these "complaints"? Especially as the Griefcom is comprised of "Bad Men and Women" and is the "hammer of the SFWA".

Blogger tz July 09, 2013 12:12 PM  

@Josh, as per the off topic, I know of no gun owner, even if they are not responsible in other ways, that puts foreign objects in the barrel.

Anonymous Stickwick July 09, 2013 12:13 PM  

Wasn't Asimov a giant liberal?

Yes, but those were the days when men of differing ideology could more or less respectfully, and without acrimony, disagree with each other. It's hard to imagine Asimov getting hysterical over a difference of opinion, or gracing his political adversaries with labels like "racist sexist homophobic dipshit" or "assbag."

Blogger Nate July 09, 2013 12:22 PM  

"@Josh, as per the off topic, I know of no gun owner, even if they are not responsible in other ways, that puts foreign objects in the barrel."

Apart from a cleaning rod... and some solvent... and lube...

oh dear...

Anonymous Jack Amok July 09, 2013 12:32 PM  

So these fools have possibly jeopardized their great re-incorporation over all this? Brilliant.


Others figured that a bit of discomfort would be worth having me and the few oldtimers still willing to speak out against the wannabes out of the organization.

They want the outfit all to themselves, but what on God's Green Earth they think they'll do with it I can't fathom. Such is the way of leftists though, preferring to be lords of the rubble than free inhabitants of the mansion. Though perhaps that's the thing right there, they have no capacity to be free inhabitants. It's quite beyond them. Their minds only grasp the concept of master and slave. And frankly they never seem to be more happy as masters than as slaves, so perhaps we just make them slaves and be done with it.

And people think these posts are about a passel of writers.

Anonymous WaterBoy July 09, 2013 12:40 PM  

VD: "The removal from the feed was legitimate. Claiming improper use of an SFWA channel is not."

These two sentences seem to be in opposition to each other. If the removal was legitimate, then it was improper use; if it was proper use, then the removal was not legitimate.

Is this not the case?

Blogger Markku July 09, 2013 12:40 PM  

It wasn't an SFWA channel. It was improper use of a Twitter feed.

Anonymous GreyS July 09, 2013 12:43 PM  

They are obviously quite lax on enforcement of those tweet rules. Similar tweet/links have been posted on that feed without any comment or repercussion.

SFWA authors ‏@SFWAauthors 4 Jun
Daniel Dvorkin: Chickenhawks? Them's good eatin'! http://bit.ly/17Yo6l3

SFWA authors ‏@SFWAauthors 5 Jun
Sigrid Ellis: Misogynist fuckwittery http://bit.ly/15Iqb0s

Tweets linking to blog posts about mushrooms, the post office, Home Depot, Aliette De Bodard writes about having a cold, another woman linking to a post about how Vin Diesel makes her get off. Pick any random dozen which violate this:

SFWA maintains the @sfwaauthors Twitter feed to help spread the word about members' blog posts about writing, fiction/reading (reviews, reading recommendations, etc), or publishing, or about their own writing or publishing news. If you're a member who would like to have the writing and publishing posts from your blog included in the @sfwaauthors stream, please send an email to twitter@sfwa.org.

Not every blog post is appropriate for @sfwaauthors. If a post is not about writing, or about fiction or publishing, do not mark it for inclusion in the @sfwaauthors twitter feed. (Instructions on how to mark posts for inclusion in the @sfwaauthors twitter feed will be provided when you email twitter@sfwa.org.)


It all ends up as everyone knows-- A Person They Don't Like wrote about A Person They Like.

Anonymous Anonagain July 09, 2013 12:48 PM  

The screenshot of that tweet was captured 56 minutes after it was posted. If I have it right, the warren was hopping mad less than an hour after you put up that link, and were already preparing their evidence. Interesting.

This provides a good example of the Leftist mentality at work. They are ever vigilant for the tiniest perceived infractions of their ideology and will immediately ring the alarm bells to signal the attack. While it goes against the nature of the Right, it must learn to seek and destroy in a similar manner, or it will ever be on the defensive and continue losing ground to these control freak fascists - not that there's much ground left to lose.

I highly commend Vox for fighting back. The Left is going to destroy everything anyway. Once they infiltrate an institution, there is no salvaging it. Their viciousness, pettiness and vileness necessitates a scorched earth policy.

Anonymous Will Best July 09, 2013 12:57 PM  

Merging to shell corporations to duck higher shareholder thresholds on amendments, buyout, approval, whatever is a time honored and allowable tradition among businesses for screwing over minority interests. Your mileage will vary by your state of incorporation but most states (if not all) take the position that the minority interests assume the risk if they don't bother to negotiate a better deal when they are buying in.

Blogger Nate July 09, 2013 12:58 PM  

People shouldn't put the word channel in a legal document if they aren't going to bother looking up to see what a channel actually is.

Anonymous VD July 09, 2013 12:59 PM  

Your mileage will vary by your state of incorporation but most states (if not all) take the position that the minority interests assume the risk if they don't bother to negotiate a better deal when they are buying in.

They can definitely do it. The question is: did they do it correctly? If they did it as carefully as this report was put together, the answer is "almost surely not".

Anonymous Anonagain July 09, 2013 1:00 PM  

Is there any mention of who captured that screenshot of the tweet?

Anonymous David of One July 09, 2013 1:00 PM  

WaterBoy July 09, 2013 12:40 PM

VD: "The removal from the feed was legitimate. Claiming improper use of an SFWA channel is not."

These two sentences seem to be in opposition to each other. If the removal was legitimate, then it was improper use; if it was proper use, then the removal was not legitimate.

Is this not the case?


WaterBoy, Salt actually addressed this in the correct context (see below) in that the worst, according to the SFWA Twitter rules, was that the tweet was to be removed ... assuming consistent application of the "rules".

The rules don't mention anything about expulsion ... it is obvious that this was is contrived targeting of a SFWA Active Member (Stockholder) in good standing.

Otherwise as GreyS and others have pointed out there would be a much longer list of "expulsions" being considered and/or pending.



Salt July 09, 2013 10:15 AM

Mr. Beale made a conscious choice to be added to the feed (see Fig A.3).

A feed that SFWA admits is the sole responsibility of the feed/blog post author.

Under SFWA guidelines the post to Twitter has but one remedy, removal.

Repeated violations of this policy will be grounds for removal from the feed.

End of story.

The SFWA is moving into territory not covered by its charter.

Anonymous VD July 09, 2013 1:04 PM  

Is this not the case?

No, the fact that you're told by your mother not to swear in the church microphone and she turns off the microphone and sends you home after you say "shit" into it does not mean that the church's microphone belongs to her.

Anonymous dh July 09, 2013 1:14 PM  

No, the fact that you're told by your mother not to swear in the church microphone and she turns off the microphone and sends you home after you say "shit" into it does not mean that the church's microphone belongs to her.

This is a good point, but is there any actual expectation or requirement that the board follows their own by laws?

Anonymous Laz July 09, 2013 1:16 PM  

True but, she's your mom and you have to obey regardless of whether she's right, wrong, or a hypocrite.

Anonymous GreyS July 09, 2013 1:26 PM  

"there would be a much longer list of "expulsions" being considered and/or pending"

And these examples haven't even reached the deletion level. It's obvious that no one is watching over that supposed "official channel" and the only reason VD's was taken down was because of personal complaint. There are no "repeated violations" by this particular member, and even if there were repeated violations, the penalty, as Salt has pointed out, is merely removal from the feed.

And if this is the best they got---!??!-- These people are idiots who let emotion get the best of them. Now they've really stuck it to themselves. It's funny to watch all the stuff everyone says about the rabberal mindset play out before your eyes.

Anonymous WaterBoy July 09, 2013 1:55 PM  

VD: "No, the fact that you're told by your mother not to swear in the church microphone and she turns off the microphone and sends you home after you say "shit" into it does not mean that the church's microphone belongs to her."

Right, she doesn't own it. But would you say she controls it? The fact that she can physically turn it off certainly implies this, and is analogous to SFWA virtually turning off your microphone.

Twitter grants control of an account to the person/organization who creates it. That control can be revoked, but it nonetheless exists until then. Saying they don't control the account is like saying you don't control your Blogger account, despite the fact that you can go in and add/edit/delete posts and comments at will.

Anonymous VD July 09, 2013 2:04 PM  

But would you say she controls it? The fact that she can physically turn it off certainly implies this, and is analogous to SFWA virtually turning off your microphone.

No, she is using it. Not controlling it. She can't take it home with her. Moreover, you need to stop pulling theoretical analogies out of your posterior and actually read the Twitter Terms of Service. They're very clear on this. They control the Services.

Saying they don't control the account is like saying you don't control your Blogger account, despite the fact that you can go in and add/edit/delete posts and comments at will.

I don't. Blogger can shut off my access to it at will. Again, read the Terms of Service.

Blogger Nate July 09, 2013 2:04 PM  

". But would you say she controls it?"

Can you claim to control something you are not responsible for?

Anonymous Sigyn July 09, 2013 2:06 PM  

OT: Josh, I have my thoughts on that literary atrocity here.

Anonymous Sigyn July 09, 2013 2:07 PM  

Can you claim to control something you are not responsible for?

You CAN, but you just kind of look stupid.

/exactwords

Anonymous bob k. mando July 09, 2013 2:23 PM  

WaterBoy July 09, 2013 1:55 PM
Right, she doesn't own it. But would you say she controls it? The fact that she can physically turn it off certainly implies this,





that's a major error in Vox's analogy: if the microphone is Twitter, your mom doesn't even know where the switch is.

she can certainly tell/make you to go home ( and thereby remove your access to the sound system ) but she can't turn the sound system off. that would be under the purview of the officers of the church.

Anonymous VD July 09, 2013 2:26 PM  

Here, Waterboy. This should suffice to answer your question:

6. Your License To Use the Services

Twitter gives you a personal, worldwide, royalty-free, non-assignable and non-exclusive license to use the software that is provided to you by Twitter as part of the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling you to use and enjoy the benefit of the Services as provided by Twitter, in the manner permitted by these Terms.

7. Twitter Rights

All right, title, and interest in and to the Services (excluding Content provided by users) are and will remain the exclusive property of Twitter and its licensors.


So, whoever signed up for @sfwaauthors had a license to use the Twitter account, not "control" of it. And one guess who the Content belongs to....

Anonymous Anonagain July 09, 2013 2:33 PM  

b) The Twitter handle contains “SFWA” with the permission of SFWA

How is this significant? Are they saying that this twitter account cannot exist without their permission?

Anonymous GreyS July 09, 2013 2:55 PM  

Well, looks like interested SFWA parties have this blog on refresh-- they just got twitter to take that down. (Much to the relief of the Scottish Football Writers Association no doubt.)

Anonymous Anonagain July 09, 2013 3:01 PM  

Well, looks like interested SFWA parties have this blog on refresh-- they just got twitter to take that down. (Much to the relief of the Scottish Football Writers Association no doubt.)

No, they don't have that kind of power. It's a technicality. The handle name was slightly changed, altering the link. Here's the updated link

Anonymous Anonagain July 09, 2013 3:06 PM  

No, they don't have that kind of power. It's was technical problem caused by a slight change in the handle, altering the link. Here's the updated link

Anonymous GreyS July 09, 2013 3:08 PM  

Ah, okay...

I thought perhaps the So Fucking What Association had gotten angry. Talk about power-- unlike the Femdweeb Society, that group has chili with twitter for sure.

Anonymous WaterBoy July 09, 2013 3:10 PM  

VD: "No, she is using it. Not controlling it. She can't take it home with her. "

Nor can I take home the golf cart I've rented. But that does not mean I do not control it while driving it on the course.

VD: "Moreover, you need to stop pulling theoretical analogies out of your posterior "

The church analogy was yours.

VD: "actually read the Twitter Terms of Service. They're very clear on this. They control the Services."

Have done. They certainly control the services and your access to them. But they also grant you access to an account which you control* to use those services. And they specifically deny having control over the content you post:

All Content, whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, is the sole responsibility of the person who originated such Content. We may not monitor or control the Content posted via the Services...

If they don't control the content, then who does?

Furthermore, they explicitly state that you have control over other facets, such as controlling whose media you see (How to control whose media you see on Twitter), and giving control* over your account to another entity (When you give out your username and password to another site or application, you are giving control of your account to someone else.).

Again, how can you give control to somebody else something over which you don't have?

Look, we can argue the semantics of this all day long, but it boils down to delegation of control. I'm merely pointing out what I see as a dead end; if you disagree, so be it.

Nate: "Can you claim to control something you are not responsible for?"

From the TOS:

All Content, whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, is the sole responsibility of the person who originated such Content. We may not monitor or control the Content posted via the Services and, we cannot take responsibility for such Content.

According to your criteria, then, Twitter does not control it either.

That SFWA chooses to pass the buck to those who use that account does not absolve them of the responsibility for it, according to the Terms of Service. And if they have responsibility for it, then yes, according to your specification they have control.

Anonymous Anonagain July 09, 2013 3:12 PM  

Talk about power-- unlike the Femdweeb Society, that group has chili with twitter for sure.

Not familiar with that particular coven.

I am sure the owner would be happy to put the SFWA fascists twitter account at the disposal of the ilk.

Anonymous Peter Garstig July 09, 2013 3:12 PM  

Anonagain: nothing of the sort. Just because one account exists that uses SFWA in their handle _with_ their permission doesn't mean that all handles of SFWA in their names need to have their permission. Kind of hard to come to this conclusion. (Unless they have a TM on SFWA, which I heavily doubt)

In any case, b) is a senseless typical leftifts notion to give some air of officiality to something that is obvious.

Anonymous WaterBoy July 09, 2013 3:12 PM  

VD: "So, whoever signed up for @sfwaauthors had a license to use the Twitter account, not "control" of it. And one guess who the Content belongs to...."

Cross-posted, see above.

Anonymous Anonagain July 09, 2013 3:18 PM  

In any case, b) is a senseless typical leftifts notion to give some air of officiality to something that is obvious.

I see. Thanks.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 09, 2013 3:22 PM  

Anonagain July 09, 2013 3:12 PM
I am sure the owner would be happy to put the SFWA fascists twitter account at the disposal of the ilk.


Peter Garstig July 09, 2013 3:12 PM
(Unless they have a TM on SFWA, which I heavily doubt)




i will give you two notice, "SFWA" is most definitely a registered mark:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:1larne.2.2


my assumption is that the most you'll be looking at is a cease and desist order.

but i am not a lawyer.

Anonymous Anonagain July 09, 2013 3:34 PM  

While SFWA appears to be trademarked, SFWAfascists is not. Easily fixed.

Anonymous WaterBoy July 09, 2013 3:46 PM  

bob k. mando: "that's a major error in Vox's analogy: if the microphone is Twitter, your mom doesn't even know where the switch is."

I understood it to be that the microphone is Twitter and my mom is SFWA. SFWA "pulled the plug" on Vox's use of the microphone (e.g., turned off the switch), as my mom did to me.

By Vox's response, I apparently got something wrong in the analogy, though....

Anonymous bob k. mando July 09, 2013 3:53 PM  

Anonagain July 09, 2013 1:00 PM
Is there any mention of who captured that screenshot of the tweet?



if you look at the blowup of the screencap, it would appear that the leftmost tab is for the Gmail account ( SFWA Authors Twitter Rep ) of whomever runs the SFWAauthors twitter handle.

so, i'm presuming it's the relevant board member / officer.





Anonagain July 09, 2013 3:34 PM
While SFWA appears to be trademarked, SFWAfascists is not. Easily fixed.




whatever. i'm not telling you to stop, i'm just answering the question you asked.



Anonagain July 09, 2013 2:33 PM
How is this significant? Are they saying that this twitter account cannot exist without their permission?



yes, they are indeed saying that that twitter handle can't exist without permission.

Anonymous W July 09, 2013 4:32 PM  

What is that green icon on that tab with the words "Things More Precious" on the screenshot?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LySMVegB5HU/UdwNMWhK7OI/AAAAAAAAAfA/Wm19n7GX2qE/s1600/FigA1.jpg

Anonymous Daniel July 09, 2013 4:43 PM  

This section doesn't just indicate that they couldn't afford a good lawyer. It indicates that they couldn't even afford a good witch doctor.

Blogger Bogey July 09, 2013 4:50 PM  

I don't. Blogger can shut off my access to it at will. Again, read the Terms of Service.

Actually that's a good point. I hope you've backed up your blog lately; by now you know nothing is beyond the horde of haters. In fact, do some back-ups of your back-ups while you're at it. All bloggers should note that their content is a very real and tangible asset and should be guarded.

Anonymous VD July 09, 2013 4:56 PM  

Actually that's a good point. I hope you've backed up your blog lately; by now you know nothing is beyond the horde of haters.

No worries. I am a digital pessimist.

Blogger tz July 09, 2013 5:09 PM  

If your mother had you speak into a dictation device, then vetted and only played back into the microphone what was approved, it would be different. If instead she declares an open "improv" and specifically disclaims prior restraint, and invites "anyone" to speak, she cannot then complain when something gets bleeped. She can say if you keep getting bleeped that your access to the mic will be revoked.

But even the removal of the tweet was for what exactly? Lots of people complained? OK, there are lots of other tweets with links to things (more on and off topic). So what standard is used to remove them? Should it be purely democratic? Sufficient "dislikes" and it disappears? Of what was linked to or the tweet content itself?

There was nothing "bleepable" in the tweet. Are there any vulgarities or profanities in the stream?

Worse, the call seems to be an Orwellian "censorship is diversity!".

Anonymous bob k. mando July 09, 2013 5:10 PM  

W July 09, 2013 4:32 PM
What is that green icon on that tab with the words "Things More Precious" on the screenshot?



it looks like a version of the Excel icon in Windows 8.

you'll notice that there is a Chrome icon in the lowbar. if Chrome ( which i haven't used ) can open .doc and .xls files natively then it's probably a local file on his computer.

notice that there's a .doc file open in the 3rd tab from the left, 'AnsibleRevision.doc'.

David Langford published a fanzine called 'Ansible' and has his own definite views on Vox:
http://news.ansible.co.uk/a312.html

Blogger hadley July 09, 2013 5:48 PM  

The twitter argument is a stretch. The fact that they may have screed up the corporate reshuffling and screwed around with the bylaws is a bit more serious. Courts take violations of the bylaws or neglect in following the proper corporate formalities quite seriously and there is plenty of law on point. Dinky outfits like condo associations or homeowners associations who cut corners constantly run into problems. For a non-standard outfit like SFWA with non-standard provisions I expect the risk would be much greater.

Anonymous VD July 09, 2013 5:54 PM  

But even the removal of the tweet was for what exactly?

Attack on another member. I have no complaints about that aspect of it. The rule was clear, as was the consequence for breaking it.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 09, 2013 6:05 PM  

VD July 09, 2013 5:54 PM
Attack on another member.




have they removed Jemisin from the feed? she did assert that you were a racist, sexist, homophobic dipshit. and she lied to do it.

do they draw a distinction for criticism? or are all critiques 'assault' for SFWA purposes? if that's the case, you can't even talk about another author unless you're orally pleasuring them.

Anonymous VD July 09, 2013 6:24 PM  

have they removed Jemisin from the feed?

I don't believe she tweeted a link to her speech, so they have no cause to do so.

she did assert that you were a racist, sexist, homophobic dipshit. and she lied to do it.

This will be pertinent in another two or three days.

Anonymous Anonagain July 09, 2013 6:29 PM  

Attack on another member. I have no complaints about that aspect of it. The rule was clear, as was the consequence for breaking it.

There's no debate there. You were guilty, the tweet was removed per the rules. But it becomes quite obvious that there are others who are not satisfied, and are pushing for more severe consequences that are not in the rules. Thus, the kangaroo court report.

Is that about right?

Anonymous bob k. mando July 09, 2013 6:30 PM  

good.

it will also be amusing if Scalzi gets ejected for 'attacks' on another member.

Blogger tz July 09, 2013 7:02 PM  

Speaking of the OT feminism non-art, Apparently both can be combined and truth is stranger than fiction

Anonymous Holmwood July 09, 2013 8:48 PM  

she did assert that you were a racist, sexist, homophobic dipshit. and she lied to do it.
That isn't the issue as I see it. A reasonable person could view Theodore Beale as a "dipshit", or even a sexist, a racist or a homophobe.

She asserted that he was "a self-described misogynist, racist, anti-Semite, and a few other flavors of asshole"

To the best of my knowledge, VD has never described himself in any of those terms, save possibly asshole.

Her statement would appear to be a flat-out lie.

This is a moderately serious thing. We tend to take people's self-descriptions in this enlightened age as being probative.

When someone lies about something as straightforward as a self-description, that's pretty bad.

Imagine me falsely asserting "N.K. Jemsin is a self-described pedophile, racist, anti-semite". That would be a viciously false statement, as far as I am aware, but a compelling one since I'd be asserting she herself described herself as a pedophile and other Very Bad Things. Please note: I do not think Ms Jemsin is a self-described pedophile or racist, or anti-semite.

I am surprised no one has raised this issue. To assert that Vox Day is an asshole is a mere matter of opinion, and one that should be protected, even honoured. To assert that he is a racist is similarly a matter of opinion. To assert that he is a self-described racist? Ah yes, something very different indeed.

Anonymous Anonymous July 09, 2013 8:50 PM  

The SFWA is full of doublethink. These people are capable of believing two contradictory things in their minds at once.

These people have conviction. They believe it's good and righteous to tear down others who disagree with them. Because they feel like they've been torn down historically, and such was wrong. To them, it's like a zero sum game--if they can tear down enough people there'll be room to raise up a few more downtrodden.

It doesn't register with them that they're creating the same environment they once rebelled against. It doesn't occur to them that young, conservative writers may feel silenced and may worry about expressing their own opinions for fear of being blacklisted in the speculative fiction community.

And when this is pointed out they drag out their straw men. "We only ask people to be polite and respectful," they say. While hurling insults, of course. But they're not only asking for others to be polite and respectful. For example, they're not only asking others to not sexually harass someone. They're asserting that harassment happened if they say it happened, damnit, and then they're giving names with a reckless disregard for how such will impact the accused individual's career and home life. They condemn without evidence, on hearsay alone, send out the internet attack dogs, then bluster about how all they're doing is asking people not to be dicks. Absurd, hypocritical, and fallacious.

Regarding the report, it seems that the SFWA can kick out any member they want. It's a private organization, and the SFWA is no more required to tolerate certain ideologies than the Boy Scouts are required to allow girls.

Addressing the thin points raised in the report with an appeal to logic will probably not go very far, though I applaud the effort all the same. Consider that the report doesn't even try to define what 'good and sufficient cause' means. It begs the question, presuming that harassment, improper use of SFWA channels, and publication of confidential material constitutes good and sufficient cause. Then it endeavors to stretch outrageous examples into those categories.

The whole thing is a joke, albeit sad.

Since I believe an appeal to reason is useless with this Board, I think the only thing that might stop them is:

1. If there is, indeed, a problem with the by-laws in regards to which version is applicable.

2. Adherence to organization's mission. Perhaps someone can show the Board is acting in a manner that veers the organization from its purpose as outlined in the organization's by-laws. Members (or the general public) can bring such information to the attention of the state attorney general, who should be empowered to enforce compliance. Additionally, a court may be able to unwind any decision that goes against the organization's purpose or changes the organization's character. I think there's a potential case here.

3. Defamation. Gould's June 13th tweet regarding the call to expel Vox "for good reason" is an example of where to start. I imagine there's quite a bit of obvious defamation floating around on blogs and forums and tweets.

4. Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Personally, I doubt there's much here, but more information may show that the Board is in breach. In regards to this, perhaps start with Mary Robinette's claim that the SFWA is ready to spend legal monies on this matter because their legal fund is healthy. I believe that claim was made by her in a comment on her blog. Additionally, it may be possible to find a breach of duty of loyalty somewhere. Possibly in regards to the Nebula awards. Do the members of the Board have a conflict of interest? Are they using their positions of power to reward themselves? If so, can such be reasonably argued?

Anonymous David of One July 09, 2013 9:25 PM  

As one of the 'peanuts in the gallery', I think your post is well reasoned and stated.

It has caused me to pause and consider your points.

Anonymous Laz July 09, 2013 9:35 PM  

"I am surprised no one has raised this issue. To assert that Vox Day is an asshole is a mere matter of opinion, and one that should be protected, even honoured. To assert that he is a racist is similarly a matter of opinion. To assert that he is a self-described racist? Ah yes, something very different indeed."

I think it's been alluded to already:

"she did assert that you were a racist, sexist, homophobic dipshit. and she lied to do it.

This will be pertinent in another two or three days."

Anonymous MikeM July 09, 2013 11:54 PM  

Apart from the very serious societal implications that this entire episode exemplifies, it is also hilarious. I totally support Vox in spite of serious theological objections to his view of God, salvation, the doctrine of sin, and the nature and character of God.

In other words, Go Get Em!

Anonymous bob k. mando July 10, 2013 12:00 AM  

Holmwood July 09, 2013 8:48 PM
I am surprised no one has raised this issue.





you're behind the curve.

this was noted in the blog post that got VD taken down from the SFWA twitter feed.

Scalzi ( outgoing SFWA president ) is the one who described VD as a RSHD, he even created the acronym. that's why i said that Jemisin was lying. true, it's likely a lie of stupidity and ignorance rather than outright malice. but she's got enough malice about everything else that we can give her credit.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts