Talk:Sage Freehaven

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search


"Hey, if Sage Nadia can edit her own article, why can't I?." You both can,... but "Also, LOL DRAMA. :D" and "(/wooo/)" is not precisely historical/informative "data" (really,)...

A for Sage's article, you can see we started to edit/clean up that... article, so it reads more like a Wikifur entry. By the by, you have made points about your involvement in the whole Fchan matter; If you want/wish to added it here, we can compare and reconcile the differences, because, as it reads right now, I can't make heads or $#@%#! tails of the whole "FchanTakeOverDepartureReturnVision" thingie/point =P - Spirou 05:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

/wooo/ IS the technical title of 420chan's wrestling board, so technically, it IS historical/informative data. I'm sure you're capable of going to 420chan and looking it up to make sure.[citation needed] Sage Freehaven 05:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, like /b/, /wp/, etc,... My mistake, I thought it was just an onomatopoeia, will add it back in - Spirou 06:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sage Nadia question[edit]

It's regarding the following : "Others believe that Sage was a title for former Fchan administrator Sage Freehaven, and not part of a name. However, there is no proof available that confirms or denies this theory." As Sage Freehaven, you can directly confirm or deny if this was the case or not, and the information added in instead of a {{fact}} tag - Spirou 06:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I can't truly confirm it -- it seems to be the belief/theory of several other people, spurred on by the fact that people initially thought the Sage portion of Sage Freehaven was a title. Sage Freehaven 09:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am the only one who can confirm or deny that little tidbit. Believe me, I wish it was not so, but since I have already denied it, so it is kind of a lost point. I mean, really, my whole page is a matter of She says, he says. Assumptions, and taking what I say on faith. Or going against what I say on lack of faith. We never documented anything major.
--Sage Nadia 11:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, most of your WikiFur article is "you say", seeing as how it's mostly written by you (granted, I did add a LITTLE something, but most of the article as it stands right now was written by you, last I checked). I'll own up to writing my article, but at least I didn't put a bunch of self-serving bullshit in it; if I wanted to, I could have probably made it worse than my Encyclopedia Dramatica article (which already takes a dig at me writing my WikiFur article). The only reason I wrote it is so that someone didn't do what you think most of us are probably trying to do to yours -- fill it with "lies" and "slander" and "mistruths". Everything in my article is the truth, and if someone adds something to it that requires a citation or fact-checking, I'll be the first one to own up as to whether or not it's the truth. I'm not so paranoid/insane as to hide things from people or actively deceive people.
Sage Freehaven 12:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, I am not trying to make myself out to be a saint or a sinner. I am writing what is truth from the viewpoint of the person who did it. You all have no idea what we really did, or how we did it. You were not part of the process. You were always on the outside looking in.
I am aware, some of my decisions were not the best. I know I made a lot of enemies. I knew this step by step that eventually you would try to come back and bite me.
Truth is, I do not care. I never cared for any of it. I never cared for Fchan, or the supposed power people think I want, or respect, or anything like that. It is a fly by night furry porn site, you know? Who cares about what anyone thinks, as long as the fanboys get their porn, we should all be happy.
Only, I knew you and eventually those who you associate with would try to pull this. I never really trusted you. We had different ideas of what is and is not acceptable. Keeping records is something I do, only not for the public to look at. So, no citations.
I would like to say I am sorry that I took her away from you. But like I said, shes a furry porn site, nothing more.
--Sage Nadia 13:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If you didn't care for it, then why the hell did you offer to run it -- and why did you KEEP running it for over two-and-a-half years? And as far as "those who [I] associate with", I had nothing to do with them taking the initiative and editing your article to make it less NPOV (Nadia's Point of View) and more NPOV (Neutral Point of View). I was pointed to the editing, agreed with what they were doing, and decided on my own to help edit it to make it more neutral. I mean, seriously -- please don't even try to imply that I was the leader of some sort of conspiracy to edit a self-serving story about you on a wiki about furries that, in all likelihood, won't even be around in a decade.
And there's no need for you to dredge up old communications, either -- I owned up to everything on your article. I said, outright, than you volunteered to run fChan and (when I was confident I couldn't run it anymore) I handed you the title of full-time site administrator, and when I came back, I didn't want to return to fChan in any capacity. Like I said above -- unlike you, I'm willing to own up to my actions without surrounding the explanation with a thick layer of bullshit.
Sage Freehaven 13:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I ran it because I knew what would happen if I did not.
As the article says. My original plan was to cause the system to implode upon itself. Kind of a self destruction thing. You do not remember, in the beginning, you almost banned me because I did not appreciate the whole non-respect for artists thing going on at the time. Less than a month after I took over, something happened which reminded me of another similar situation. In that situation, another community was faced with the impending disappearance of another network and in response many others tried to build clones of it. Not only was there a battle amongst them all to be the new and improved replacement. There was also a significant lack of structure and rules.
When I took over, fchan, it was the model of near perfect anarchy. There was no respect for anyone. The only rule was, what Sage Freehaven said is law, and his usual only thing ever said was "Gadget Hackwrench = cool" and "Shut up and Fap", which sadly is often attributed to me, not you where it belongs.
I wanted to change that and stop the inevitable clone wars should I have destroyed the system and build a *chan system that violated the very nature of a *chan. I kind of like taking on the impossible after all.
It is not about owning up, or not owning up. You and I both have differing opinions and viewpoints of what happened. Human nature, any time you have more than a single person, you will never get a perfect picture as both will never agree.
See, I am not a simple minded girl. Everything I do has more than one reason. It is often a conglomeration of hundreds of reasons all rolled up into one. The action taken is based on the projected worst possible outcome. Sort of how one plays Go or Chess. You always think at least twenty moves ahead. Call it what you want, really, please do. It gives me something more to talk with you about.
--Sage Nadia 20:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You say we have "differing opinions and viewpoints of what happened". While that may be true, I'd also like to say that you didn't tell me anything about your plan to make Fchan "implode upon itself". You never shared your plan with me. EVER.
And don't try and say Fchan was "anarchy" when it wasn't -- under my administration, not only could you express a negative opinion of an artist's work, you could do so without fear of being banned just for HAVING an opinion that doesn't fellate the artist's e-penis in the first place (if you did take it too far, however, I banned your ass). You consider that "anarchy" and disrespectful; I consider it precisely the opposite -- people had enough respect for both Free Speech and the artistic process to call out and criticise bad art while celebrating (and, in several instances, simultaneously criticizing) good art. If artists can't learn to take a little criticism, no matter how harsh, then they need to STFU and GTFO the Internet, because not everyone is going to be their friend and e-fellate them just because they can put lines on paper.
And you know why there's a lack of rules on imageboards besides Fchan? Because most normal imageboard users don't want to be bogged down with having to read a litany of "DO THIS OR YOUR BANNED" edicts from the Admins, then have to confirm five times before posting that they did read the rules. Most imageboards work well with the ruleset of "No CP, no viruses/trojans/other harmful stuff, and keep content limited to the board's theme". I equate Fchan in the form it's in now to FurAffinity Lite -- seriously, the only difference between Fchan and FA is the fact that you have to register at FA to see the porn.
Oh, and I know you didn't bring this up, but as far as trolling goes on Fchan -- yeah, it was annoying having to deal with trolls (mod panels on imageboard software should really be a bit more user-friendly), but for the most part, it was actually amusing when a troll came in and tried to disrupt things.
I've grown to love the "imageboard culture", and I think I understand it way more than you ever will. Fchan is no longer an imageboard, it's...honestly, I don't know what the hell it is. But if you hate Fchan so much and think it should be allowed to implode upon itself, why don't you? may not be ALL about the art, but it functions quite well, and I enjoy seeing the drama that pops up there (being a former /b/tard helps a lot in that regard); several imageboards also have furry subboards, one can always use anonIB to make a furry board, and several furry-centric imageboards would likely pop up on the off-chance Fchan died off. Of course, THOSE imageboards likely won't have a DNP list, won't censor Free Speech, and won't cowtow to artists when they whine for their stuff to be taken know, the exact opposite of everything Fchan does today. (Okay, maybe they won't ignore EVERY artist -- there's still the globally-understood SexyFur Rule, after all.)
Sage Freehaven 21:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If I never shared my plan with you, EVER? Then, how much other things did I never share with you, or others? Truth is, you have no idea, and neither do they. You all sit there, at your keyboards, and try to tell others what I was doing, or thinking. You even try to tell me what was going on in this thing I call my brain. No offense intended, but you are in no way qualified to even attempt to understand what is going on in here. You only know, and will ever know, what it is I tell you.[citation needed]
Oh yes, it was anarchy. Sorry if that is a sore spot with you.
Freedom Of Speech - the warcry of the oppressors everywhere. I demanded respect for artists. Criticism was discouraged. Outright flaming criticism was removed. Multiple offenders were banned. Constructive Criticism was never discouraged. That means, criticism with the intent of helping another understand what is wrong and helping explain it to them in a way that helps them learn and grow from the experience. Big difference you should learn:
Bad = "Oh Man That Sucks"
Good = "I don't know, the background just seems a bit off to me."
Best = That background looks a bit off. The perspective is a bit skewed, and I think the colors need a bit more contrast. Perhaps a bit of bleaching as it gets farther away helps with adding in atmospheric perspective." And so on.
Freedom of Speech has limits. Unless you want to tell me things like the classic: "Shut Up Man! You're infringing om my freedom of speech!" is also perfectly acceptable.
And, you only need to confirm once. Math Y'know. Not all that hard is it?
--Sage Nadia 22:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Freedom of Speech has limits. Unless you want to tell me things like the classic: "Shut Up Man! You're infringing om my freedom of speech!" is also perfectly acceptable. | Actually, yes, I do think it's acceptable. I think all forms of criticism, no matter how unfounded, unsubstantiated, or unwarranted they are, should be acceptable simply on the basis that it's someone's opinion, and no one's opinion should be censored even if it's offensive. If you're easily offended, you can skip past the text that offends you and read someone else's opinion / stare at pretty pictures and jerk off.
And as far as respect for artists goes -- my respect for any artist is based on their abilities and their attitude towards their art. DCRabbit, for instance -- I respect him a great deal because not only does he draw some very nice-looking porn, but he continually berates himself and pushes himself to get better. Sadly, Fchan harbors artists that don't want to hear "this is good, but it could be great if you did this and this" -- they all want to hear "YOU FUCKIN' ROCK MY SOCKS RIGHT OFF" or similar such boundless praise. And there's a ton of artists out there that could stand to hear "You suck, and don't post your art again until you've taken at least one remedial art class", but never will because that would HURT THEIR FEELINGS BAWWWWWWWWWWW, and God knows we can't have hurt feelings in the furry community, because that might lead to OMFG DRAMA~!
I'm not going to make excuses, either -- my art sucks out loud. I freely admit it; hell, it's part of my "Artist Information" on my FA page now. But at least I recognize my art is bad, I try to improve it with each new pic I do, and I ask SPECIFICALLY for criticism. Most other artists would note the FA admins and try and get someone banned for even offering a tiny amount of constructive criticism.
If you think opinions and ideas should be suppressed just to keep people happy, you're wrong. There are very rare, very specific instances in which speech should be censored -- the limit I go with, personally, is if speech is intended to cause harm to someone, such as asking for someone to be killed or yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. But beyond that, any idea, opinion, or belief should be allowed to be expressed. I'm of the belief that every person has the right to express themselves, but nobody has the right to be offended.
But hey, you run Fchan. You're the one that sets the rules, and I respect that -- you run your site as you see fit. All the same, don't be surprised when people see what you do with the site as compared to actual imageboards, then express their opinions of your site, your userbase, and you yourself.
Just try not to cry too much when people call you a bitch.  :)
Sage Freehaven 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Originally i didn't want to post anything, but with the fervor with which you defend your views makes me think you're actually not just writing it to get a reaction, but DO believe these things. As such and for any random passersby:
We are not censoring opinion, we are restricting vocabulary and behavior. English is an extremely versatile and useful language. You can express many ideas and concepts in many different ways. You can do it in a descriptive and respectful manner. You can completely and absolutely diminish a person without ever sounding like a little kid that just escaped from 8th grade. Or you can delve into the worst fecal vocabulary that your memory offers and deliver your opinion with as much skill as a cave-man.
Here, let me demonstrate:
"Goddamn, you asshole. This bullshit isn't worth my time, but the massive stupidity you're spewing onto this wiki makes it seem that you actually are so fucking dumb to believe what you write. Now, for you and all the little idiots who, slavering for every little bit of furry drama, e-stalk you even to this little talk page:"
Same thing as the first paragraph here. Both express exactly the same opinions, only one has a bunch of added on barbs and hook to make some of the weaker readers e-butt-hurt, without adding anything of value. The original one would be allowed on fchan, the quote here not. Forbidding the second one would not in any way represent a censoring of opinion, but would help a lot in keeping the drama levels down.
Lastly, just for the record: I semi-regularly do run off artists on crit who need some serious rethinking of the direction they're heading, causing them to baww on their FA page, or delete their stuff in a /ragequit. That kinda thing is very much what i wish crit to be and it is slowly evolving to that. I simply don't want it to happen in a way that doesn't also give those who can improve a real chance to do so.
Xenofur 00:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Restricting what words one can and cannot use is also a restriction on Free Speech, albeit a very creative one. Lemme turn your example around -- if I think someone's an asshole, under your guidelines, I couldn't call that person an asshole. I would have to say something along the lines of "I don't think you're very nice, and I'd like to suggest ways you can better yourself so you can come off as less abrasive and confrontational in the future."
While that may be alright to type out, most people tend to type in much the same way they talk to people. So the above sentence is pretty much a load of garbage and a waste of breath, whereas calling someone an asshole is clear, concise, straight to the point, and perfectly understandable by most people.
If someone can't take being called an asshole, that's their problem, not mine. Either they can learn to not be offended by my language, or they can stop being an asshole so I won't have to call them that. It's that simple.
...and yes, I admit, this was a good damned excuse to be able to say "asshole" a lot while carrying on a legitimate discussion; nevertheless, my point stands -- if you make the decision to bar certain words from being said simply on the basis that someone might be offended, how do you decide what's truly offensive when people are offended by different things? (Myself, I'm offended whenever anyone tries to censor something or someone for no good reason. :)
Sage Freehaven 00:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Semantics. Example: I created the name Sage Nazia, which you and your friends use quite frequently. You consider it an insult to me. I consider it a complement. Because every single time you use it as an insult, you are using a name I gave you. So, to me it has the opposite effect of what most intend. I also gave you all Sage Nerdia, but is rare to ever see it in use.
Also, you claim to hate censorship in any form. Then you claim I am editing the past. So you then try to censor what I say by removing what I say and using a more politically correct version of your own in place. Enlighten me, I am confused?
--Sage Nadia 01:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's face facts, a public Wiki isn't the place for people to write self-serving bullshit about themselves -- if you really want to talk about everything you say, do, think, feel, and believe on a Wiki, make a personal Wiki and do it there. The point of this Wiki is to give people an unbiased look at the furry community, and by allowing you to write your own article without any oversight as to the legitimacy of said article or its contents, WikiFur has allowed you to shape peoples' opinion of you and your actions. If you're going to have a Wiki article about yourself, include both the good and the bad parts about yourself, not just the parts that make you look good.
For instance, I recently added a section to my WikiFur article about the phrase "Goddammit, Freehaven" that links to a CYD forum thread. Said thread could be considered to be a tad embarassing and unflattering to me, but I chose to link to it because it pertains to the subject of the origin of that infamous phrase.
I'm not trying to censor you -- you're free to present facts about yourself all you want. But you also have to understand that other people have also experienced things that concern both Fchan and yourself (under whatever name you want to use, Noriko), and they have just as much right to offer their take on those experiences on your Wiki article as you do. If you don't like it, ask for the article to be deleted and locked so it can't be recreated. Otherwise, get over it and get used to the idea that you can't control what everyone says, thinks, or does about you, no matter how hard you want to think you can.
Sage Freehaven 01:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Think about it. After the page was unlocked, it has been being edited with more thought than before. There are things added which do make me look in a far worse light than I would like to have seen, but they are accurate. There are also other things which are not accurate, and make me look bad as well, but because they are placed in a compare and contrasting style of opinion, I have made no attempt to edit them. I do not care if you try to make me look bad. Just do it objectively. And for whatever deity sake you wish, have them use better composition, and include citations. I can not use citations of personal thoughts, desires and experiences, because I never documented why I did what I did. Otherwise I would.
--Sage Nadia 02:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The only reason those things were added was because the WikiFur staff finally decided to let common sense reign and ask that the article be rewritten with a more neutral point of view, rather than letting self-serving statements you'd written about yourself stand unchallenged.
And the only reason you haven't tried to edit the new additions to your article away is because those changes would be rolled back when it was discovered you tried to edit them away.
Like I said, Noriko, if you want to write down recounts of your own personal experiences in a Wiki-style environment and make sure no one can edit them, you should consider setting up a personal Wiki.
Sage Freehaven 03:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep telling yourself that. The page was locked only for a short time intentionally. I did not wish it locked permanently. I wanted it locked to stop the stupidity that was becoming prevalent by both sides. I asked for intervention, not control.
--Sage Nadia 03:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's do a little experiment. Go to your local police station, walk up to any police officer in duty in there, and call him an asshole. Then let's see if the "i was only using my right to free speech" thing flies in court or if they think that your "opinion" is merely an "insult".
Anyhow, you're using a slippery slope fallacy here. You bring a very clear example, and then express worry about edge cases, based on the handling of the clear case. To make it clear: I believe in in dubio pro reo. That means i only act in clear cases and in unclear cases default to allowing it. I've recently also taken steps to ensure that the concept is clear to the other mods. Xenofur 01:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I never said Free Speech was meant to be used everywhere. I've said before, not all speech should be censored. But in that same vein, there are limits as to where and when usage of specific speech is appropriate, and when you cross that line, you have to own up and take responsibility for your actions. If I walked up to a cop, called him an asshole out of the blue, and DIDN'T expect some sort of repercussions from it, I'd be a complete imbecile. With the right of Free Speech comes the responsibility of using it wisely and appropriately.
And I'm not aware of a slippery slope argument here, but then again, I'm pretty shitty when it comes to arguments, so what the fuck do I know. Still, I admit it's nice to hear you're actually giving consideration to what is and isn't offensive before actually deleting someone's comments.  :)
Sage Freehaven 01:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have to say something here:
And you know why there's a lack of rules on imageboards besides Fchan? Because most normal imageboard users don't want to be bogged down with having to read a litany of "DO THIS OR YOUR BANNED" edicts from the Admins, then have to confirm five times before posting that they did read the rules. Most imageboards work well with the ruleset of "No CP, no viruses/trojans/other harmful stuff, and keep content limited to the board's theme".
Fchan has 9 Rules: fchan rules
4chan has how many?: Rules & Forget not the FAQ
They would be one of the definitions of what a *chan is.
--Sage Nadia 01:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of the rules written there are written for newcomers to imageboards; once you get deep into "imageboard culture", most people tend to let all but the three rules I suggested (and, on furry boards, the SexyFur Rule) fade into the background of their mind as they see how the board(s) they frequent works...unless, of course, the rules are shoved in their face every time they want to make a post.
Sage Freehaven 01:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
We like to make things fairly idiot proof. We assume anyone coming to Fchan is possibly quite new. We also did away with that Click here to verify agreement with rules ages ago. You should keep your intelligence current.
Also, forget not that 4chan ran banners until recently that said "Follow the Rules of be Banned" --Sage Nadia 02:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You know what happens when you assume...  ;)
And I didn't know that -- I have this nice little program called Adblock, after all.
Sage Freehaven 03:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually no, I do not know what they say. Enlighten me with your assumption of my knowing something. --Sage Nadia 03:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)'ve never heard that old saying? Really? Ha ha, OH WOW. Christ, I heard that back in GRADE SCHOOL. And if you're that interested in knowing the saying, well, Google's available 24/7.
Sage Freehaven 22:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The saying is, "when you assume, you make an ass of you and me". The implication is that making the assumption is foolish. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nadia, you didn't make a chanboard. Fchan is simply nothing more than a FA/DA clone. And you completely act like you accomplished something because of it. I could make an Fchan - exactly the way it is now without all that "planning" it took. Mohey Pori 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. --Sage Nadia 22:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The really funny thing is, she didn't even make Fchan at all -- Dr. Pon did. She just went and did all that crap she did to it once I let her have it.
Sage Freehaven 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I never claimed to have made it. Only to have rebuilt it in the manner I wanted it built. --Sage Nadia 01:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Stop that third person crap, Noriko. It makes you sound stupid.
Sage Freehaven
Okay, that is funny. You just censored what I said. --Sage Nadia 02:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I didn't. I merely corrected your grammar -- third-person pronouns are used to refer to someone who is NOT yourself. I changed it to the proper first-person pronouns. Outside of that, I didn't change anything else in the sentence, therefore your original statement remains intact. Thus, no censorship.
Sage Freehaven 03:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
So you made it more politically correct? Perhaps I wanted it displayed that way. Perhaps that is actually how I think. By editing it, you may have tried to play grammar elite over me, but you have done not but censor my own right to express myself how i choose. You have, in effect, been a hypocrite. --Sage Nadia 03:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sage didn't edit Noriko's comment to make it "politically" correct, he did it to make it grammatically correct; there is a difference, however miniscule/nonexistent she may think it is.
And if she constantly thinks of herself in the third person, she may have more problems than he thinks.
He again states that he didn't censor her statement, he simply made it grammatically correct by changing the two third-person pronouns (which are used to refer to outside third parties) to their proper first-person pronouns (which are used to refer to oneself). The remainder of her statement remains word-for-word intact, and he remains adamant that he is not a hypocrite -- just a knee-jerk grammar Nazi.
And yes, Sage did get a kick out of writing a whole section in third person, if just to show Noriko how absolutely stupid it sounds to refer to oneself and others in the third person for no real reason.  :)
Sage Freehaven 22:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't edit other people's words, or their arrangement. There are very few good reasons for doing so, and doing so just to try and prove a point is just rude. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Spoilsport.  :P
Sage Freehaven 23:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)