Texas Furry Con 2004
COM!!!!!!!!!!!! --Reddie 08:34, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
TITLE HERE ZOMG
- The official site name is Something Awful. That's where all the content is, anyway. -- Verix 10:15, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- 'k, I was totally not sure what to redirect to and it was all very confusing to me (because I am stupid) --Xax 10:18, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
"...to stop the site..."
The intent of the thread was not to "stop the site" as the line I removed stated. The intent of the thread was to show yet another "omg gross" furry thing on their forum for people to gawk at. Like anything furry, though, retards come in and fuck up their shit.
When a LiveJournal community is usually linked to on the forums, for example, the invasion is not to destroy the community. Rather, I guess you could call it an animalistic marking, or just bully-esque insult. When a mass flood of "YOU FURRIES ARE FAGGOTS" comes, they just want to insult people then pat themselves on the back for a job well done on the Internet for doing it. It's not to destroy what's happening.
Just wanted to clarify before I angered Alfemeta. (I think I spelled your name wrong, sorry!) --Verix 05:18, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... this page attracts trolls...
Perhaps it should be locked like Sibe's entry is?
- Unless we get a series of sustainied attacks, this page isn't a problem. The odd revert isn't a problem. Far better to be open to edit then constantly locking/unlocking. Don't forget to sign your messages. :) -Nidonocu - talk 15:20, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Edits by 126.96.36.199
- All except for the part about Lowtax being annoyed. He never really stated his annoyance with how the forum had turned, as far as I know. --Verix 22:26, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Edit by Redcard
I removed the list of suspected SA goons. I know personally three of those people on the list who would not consider themselves "SA Goons" nor would appreciate being listed in a McCarthy type list . Further, the previous definition could potentially have included ALL furries in existance as we are all either accepted or not accepted on the SA forums, regardless of if we joined there or not. Either way, the listing of people can be considered NPOV. Redcard 04:51, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)
- Your reasoning makes sense. Though, the following questions come to mind: 1) What if someone openly admits to being a goon? 2) What if the person is indeed a goon and has caused problems at conventions (or on this Wiki?). Your thoughts? --Dmuth 13:37, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- MY thoughts are that 1) We should not give them MORE attention because they simply desire it, and 2) It should always be up to convention staff to decide whether a person is a problem causer.. likewise, it should be up to the administration here to decide if people cause trouble here. There exists, in both situations, methods to handle trouble makers. Oftentimes when a list like that is made public and people are told that "these people are troublemakers", then the public and people tend to cause more trouble than the "trouble makers." It's better if we just let the administration here and at cons do their jobs without getting in their way by "outing" the "undesirables." Redcard 10:30, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)
- (Let's try this again, since my first comment seems to have vanished)
- Redcard's unique interpretation aside, this seems to me to be the best approach:
- 1. If someone admits to being a goon, they can document that on their User page or it can be noted (with attribution, of course) in the article about them. Heck, if there are enough of them, we could even create Category:Furry Goons
- 2. If someone, goon or not, causes problems at a convention or on WikiFur it can documented factually and in an NPOV manner in the article about them. As far as giving convention organizers "advance warning" of trouble makers, I assure you that they do not turn to WikiFur for that information. Lines of communication for that exist elsewhere.--Duncan da Husky 17:16, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
What is a Goon?
Just for clarification, is there a difference between a "Furry Goon" and an "SA Goon"? If so, are we confusing matters by using similar terms for what are actually two different types of people?
It seems to me there are two different types here. The ones I have always thought of as "SA Goons" are the furry-haters who go trolling, vandalising, and so forth, such as is described in the article Goon. Yet later in the Something Awful artile, we see: "A "furry goon" is someone who is actively involved with both the Something Awful Forum and the Furry Community." This sounds to me like it could be describing a furry fan who also likes Something Awful and will laugh along with them to a point when they target furries, but who probably would never endorse, much less engage in, the sort of activities the "furry hater" goons are known for. A very different sort of person. It should come as no surprise that someone who fits the latter description would be offended at being equated with the former.
Could that terminology confusion be what's behind the current flare-up over Mix? Whether it is or not, I think it would be a good idea to get our terminology pinned down. --mwalimu 15:04, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I do not believe there is a difference. It's been pointed out elsewhere that not all goons (some say a small minority, actually) are the ones who do the trolling, vandalizing, etc. Based on that, I always considered a "furry goon" to simply be a fur who is also a goon. As for furs "targetting" other furry resources, it's already happened before from people within our own community. I do not see how the chances of this would be any different for a "goon" versus a "furry goon". --Dmuth 15:51, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- In Taren's LJ, Mix admits having an SA account, although he contends that this doesn't make him "affiliated with them" (thus apparently in his view, not any sort of 'goon', furry or otherwise.)
While the link added is revelent to the topic, it will eventually be rendered non-existant. Two things will happen. Either GBS will be made private (that does happen occasionally) or it'll be purged from being inactive and sent to the Forum Archives while is only accessible if you pay for it. So, to prevent a future 404 page, I think it should be removed.
- I don't see that the possibility (or even probability) of a link going dead in the future is a reason to remove it now. Right now it provides very relevant information that is available nowhere else. If you have reason to believe that it'll soon be inaccessible, it would be appropriate to summarise the relevant portions of the thread (in fact, this might be appropriate in any case, as it currently runs to seven pages), but I don't see any real harm in leaving the link. I mean, wow, a 404 on the Internet - that's sure going to make people think WikiFur is unreliable! *grin*
- In addition, a proportion of WikiFur users are Something Awful users (not currently including myself, I might add :-), so even if the topic was moved to the archive, it would be useful to retain the link for them. I find it unlikely that a general discussion board would be made private, but in that case, the same argument would apply. --GreenReaper(talk) 13:49, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)