Corgana

Paramount is objectively the better brand, going with SkyDance feels like a waste.

You and I may see it that way, but Reddit does not consider it a different situation. And by Reddit I mean not only the algorithms that determine spam, but a non-insignificant amount of users at large that consistently reported small publications as spam.

As a former mod of a large community I hated that small writers and creators bloggers were lumped in with the spammers. You want to know why Reddit became generic and boring? Why the internet doesn't feel boundless and weird anymore? Because over time only large established websites were permitted to be linked to without getting immediately IP banned.

When /r/StarTrek was small and I was trying to grow it, I invited several Trek bloggers I liked to post their writings. These weren't "blogspam", they were just people who just loved writing. They would always engage with the community in the comments under their posts. Over time they all were banned and their domains were blocked from being shared by any account on Reddit.

I agree with you that the system is working "as intended" but the intent sure feels a lot like forcing anyone making OC to be platform-locked to Reddit or risk having their entire domains be labeled as "spam".

I was mod of /r/StarTrek for a decade and I have yet to see a single situation where a vague "bad writing" complaint wasn't serving as cover for a (let's just say) less socially acceptable criticism.

If you're being honest about your feelings then my advice to you is be significantly more concrete with exactly what it is you are criticizing about Kurtzman, or people are going to assume you're obfuscating your true feelings.

Let me get this straight, Paramount was recently purchased by the Ellisons yet you feel the greatest threat to Star Trek is... Alex Kurtzman? Wait wait, let me guess, you don't like how political Star Trek suddenly became this past decade?

I agree completely, and I think too many online spaces make room for cynicism not realizing that it contributes nothing, and ruins the experience/eventually pushes out of anyone who isn't cynical.

When I was a mod on /r/StarTrek we had a rule (it's also thankfully a rule here) "be constructive" which was basically "Criticism is OK but cynicism is not. If you want to present 'criticism' you need to behave like a real critic and cite examples, not just rant". And let me tell you that rule really upset a lot of folks who felt that had a right to pee in the communal pool.

I always liked this one. It's probably a top three Chakotay episode for me, not that that's saying a lot. I always love the trope of "not sure if this is the top level of reality" like TNG's Frame of Mind.

I refuse to believe that the vocal complainers of any fandom are ever anything like a majority (yes they do tend to pee in the pools of any online space they are allowed to pee in making it bad for everyone, but I digress...) However I have a feeling the C-suite folks who only care about money are seeing those complainers on Twitter and Reddit and believing they they represent more of the audience opinion than they do.

This was a sad but honestly refreshing take by RTD, usually folks just say "we love the fans!" and leave it at that.

I mean the answer is literally to just ignore online communities and make art.

I'm sure most creators would love to, but you just know the network execs are coming to RTD and saying something like "Twitter is really upset about XYZ, can you tone down the wokeness?" etc.

Is this a Piefed.social question, or Piefed (the software) question? If it's the latter, I think any tools that allow administrators to identify bots/bot-like accounts are useful. If it's the former, I say ban 'em all and keep the instance authentic (while acknowledging that my account is from elsewhere).

That's disappointing, the theater I went too was almost too loud at times but the boomings and rumblings of the Genesis Planet tearing itself apart were really crazy.

Fake fans, imo. Transporters exist.