Vox Day reports on Vox Popoli that Goodreads deleted his account and also the Rabid Puppies Group just 36 hours after he set them up.
He received this message from Goodreads:
Hello Vox,
Your account was recently brought to our attention. Upon review, we have decided to remove it from the site. A CSV of the books you shelved is attached for your personal records. You are banned from using Goodreads in any capacity going forward.
Sincerely,
The Goodreads Team
I checked Goodreads, and both accounts are gone. (There remains an older Vox Day account, where all the entries were made in 2009.)
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Ha! Now if only Blogspot would do the same.
It’s a private concern and they can do what they like. Apparently, they feel he violated ToS. Trelane will likely make much more of it, of course. But that’s life.
*SIGH* Forgot to *tick*
Lis Carey’s review of RTRH was clearly grounded in her response to the work before her, so his attempt to brigade it as a personal attack was illegitimate. I’m surprised, based on reports here of GR’s troll-friendliness, that the site admins took this step, but in light of the RPs’ actions the surprise is a pleasant one.
Surprised and delighted to hear it!
Well, well.
This is impressive. Good news, though I suppose it will be only a minor inconvenience for him.
That’s Beale, making friends and influencing people like always.
Just a tip for Day — in the future, if you’re going to set up a super secret cabal on a public website where your private group is only protected by a challenge question, make sure the challenge question isn’t something that can be answered with a simple Google search. I found out about the group’s existence on Saturday morning and was approved as an official Rabid Puppy by the afternoon. By this morning I’d seen enough that I decided to inform an admin.
I’ve posted full details, including screenshots, on Goodreads.
Great job Goodreads and Sean!
The lesson here:
Even wretched hives of scum and villainy have standards. Goodreads is a mess, but apparently not a _complete_ mess.
I’m sure this was all just part of his Xanatos Gambit to bring down Goodreads from the inside…something something SJWs always review something something VICTORY.
They’re already going on about how Mr. Beale’s banning is proof of weakness and vowing to keep up the attack. Hopefully more banhammers are going to come down soon.
“They say we were trying to manipulate the ratings, just like we said we were in our instructions to the group! How dare they accuse of of exactly what we set out to do?!
“That just shows they’re scared, or can read English.”
Amazon owns Goodreads so really to get back at them they should boycott Amazon by not buying books and removing all Castalia House novels from it. That’d show em.
I’m very surprised, given GoodReads’ general lack of moderation, but glad to hear it. The fact that a senior librarian there was bad-mouthed probably helped get action. Good on them for getting rid of this shyte.
Oooops, Didn’t notice the new post. Copying over my comment from the Scroll.
Day still seems to be showing up on the site to me (ETA: I guess this is the old profile mentioned above), but I don’t really know what “banned from Goodreads” means. If they have, it’s good to know that (after the horror stories I’ve heard about GR’s moderation, or lack thereof) they are being responsive to abuse reports.
If so, I look forward to the Sooper Genius Manly Man whinging to no end about censorship and oppression, and how he should somehow be immune to the consequences of his actions, as well as how a private organisation is obligated to give him a platform.
Day’s still an author with books in the system, so his author profile is always going to be there. He just can’t do anything with it now.
OpSec fail: The Vox-fancier who posted a comment on Sean O’Hara’s GR piece conveniently included a list of other sites where the Pups may try the same trick.
In case you don’t venture into the Christian sanctuary that is VD’s blog, they are about to go full 4gw. Pardon the colloquialism, but shit’s about to get real.
Oh, no! ANOTHER dastardly plan for world domination foiled by his enemies!
(Or, translated for the real world: Another tediously pointless prank foiled by people who find him very tiresome, indeed.)
::tickles::
Meh. Given the eye-rolling silliness of all their shit to date, I am skeptical that it will get real–now, soon, or ever.
@Sean O’Hara
Since Vlad so kindly left a link to this evil librarian who had cut off his privileges, I decided to contact him with a warning.
Oh dear Dogge. The jokes write themselves.
Thank you.
Pardon the colloquialism, but shit’s about to get real.
Oh no! Will he stomp his feet really hard this time?
@ Snowcrash:
Indeed. That’s so predictable, I can’t find anyone willing to bet against it. His self-pitying schtick is too well-known, it seems.
I was sort of hoping that the Quixotic attack on Goodreads would keep them distracted for a few weeks but I think that is somewhat selfish of me.
Lis Carey
He really is lousy at picking people he thinks he can bully, right? As the Universe moves to the Autumn of its years, there will still be a bard to sing of the day that Lis went forth and not just defeated, but humiliated, a man who thinks that he can bully people into being afraid of him.
It’s always good to see a lesson being taught…
@Stevie–
*chortle*
Oh please! Surely even VD couldn’t be stupid enough to attempt to support an occupation to enable loggers to log where there aren’t any trees to log. I mean, really?
Good. But isn’t it fairly trivial to set up a new account, all you need is a different email address? I wouldn’t assume this is the end yet.
Bookworm1398
Thank you for your words of comfort. Just when I was getting depressed you came along to cheer me up!
bookworm1398, they can also ban based on IP.
Deleting troll accounts is like whack-a-mole, and I’ve heard of problems with Goodreads from people besides Peace. A publisher harassing gaming reviews and harassing reviewers is unfortunately unsurprising. This is one of the reasons I primarily use Goodreads to identify the books in a series.
Somehow I don’t think openly gaming reviews is a good long-term strategy for a publisher, but what do I know?
*is amused*
Michael Eochaidh: Somehow I don’t think openly gaming reviews is a good long-term strategy for a publisher, but what do I know?
Acquiring and publishing good, well-edited fiction is a good long-term strategy for a publisher — but apparently one that VD has ruled out as being a possibility for him. So this is his Plan B.
@Sean O’Hara,
Thank you!
Kathodus –
They’re still on 4th Gen? The 5th Gen expansion DLC came out. War never changes but the map packs do.
@Michael Eochaidh
By this point, Amazon’s anti-fraud team should be handling this type of problem for Goodreads. (I worked at Amazon, where I did a different kind of AI work, but I had a lot of respect for the anti-fraud guys.) They were very secretive (of necessity) but I can certainly tell you one thing *I* would have done, had I been in charge of this particular episode: I’d have put a flag on all the accounts of all the people involved who were not kicked off the platform. Then I’d increase scrutiny of those accounts. So if they try to organize this effort again without using a Goodreads account to coordinate it, it’s still likely to be detected.
That said, it’s an awfully hard problem in general. Further evidence that “real” AI is very, very far away.
There is a danger in discussing VD’s tactics of putting ideas in his head. I know as an SJW that I am deeply concerned that he may realize that we are deeply vulnerable after consuming doughnuts. I do hope none of his minions get it into their heads to buy us all some tasty doughnuts and maybe a nice cup of coffee .
[It’s worth a go surely]
Thanks Sean at Goodreads. See you there>
Thanks Goodreads. Good job.
I really like Goodreads. I probably spend more time there than anywhere. But I spend time in my groups. And inside those groups we chat about our books and bargains and authors and narrators. But we don’t chat about Chorfs SJWs or the demise of Straight White Males.
I know my moderators and I am pretty certain they have a low tolerance for incivility. I know for a fact one of my Sci Fi friends is a conservative but it doesn’t stop him from recommending good books to me. We don’t fight. We just talk about what we like.
Note to Puppies – you guys realize that you are not really conservatives, yes? You are just goofy.
Just passing through to see what the latest is. I will admit this gave me a good chortle.
Ahh but SJWs tend to say untrue things, or so I hear. Obviously that means the weakness isn’t doughnuts but instead pizza and beer.
Very excited to see how quickly GR took action. That might be one of the fastest banning so ever. It was too much to hope they’d ban group members who’d participated in nasty comments on reviews.
Thanks to those who made this happen.
In the midst of posting, I see Iphinome ninja’d me, and added pizza to my beer.
I hope VD isn’t causing anyone actual pain. He looks pure clown from where I’m standing, but he aims… high.
I just found out about this post, right after writing a lengthy “here’s exactly how GR can justify banning him, as well as why they don’t have to” comment on the 1/3 scroll thread. It’s in moderation – possibly due to links and multiple blockquotes – but on the off-chance Mike’s reading this: I’m perfectly fine with it if you’d rather move the comment here than approve it there. It fits better here anyway.
Short summary: GR’s Terms give them the right to ban someone for any reason or no reason. Their guidelines on User Content (reviews, comments, etc.) allow harsh criticism of skill (“This guy can’t write his way out of a paper bag!”) but prohibit personal attacks and harassment. I also suspect that Vox was using a sockpuppet, but considering how much his VFMs sound like him, I can’t be sure. At any rate, his whine in comment 13 that he didn’t break any of their rules is somewhat… dubious.
Re: VD vs. GR
This is a bit lengthy, as it contains actual citations and links to substantiate my claims.
In comment 13 under his whiny blog post, VD says he hasn’t broken any GR rules and concludes that he was banned because SJWs. The available evidence does not support this interpretation.
If you “flag” a review or a comment on one, you have to give a reason. There are three options listed. “Spam” and “Incorrect book” are self-explanatory. The third is “Inappropriate,” and that explanation is:
The VFM comments fall under “personal attack on a fellow Goodreads member” and are thus inappropriate. The full review guidelines can be found here, and among the “not do” items is this:
Worth noting is that they explicitly distinguish harsh criticism from attacks; see the last bullet point under “allowed”:
Lis’s review, which assesses VD’s editing skills, is therefore fine. Further, in section 1 of the Terms of Service, one of the generally prohibited activities is:
Such as, say, scraping a review and sending a pack of VFMs out to attack? Section 2 specifically deals with user-created content – which covers reviews, comments, and so forth. I’m going to elide the irrelevant bits, but:
(All emphasis mine.) Now, (i) is debatable and seems rather overblown in this specific circumstance, but (v) seems to apply to pretty much anything VD says to or about people he dislikes. As far as under which circumstances GR can terminate an account, back to section 1:
(Again, emphasis mine.) Translated: “if they bloody well feel like it.”
Another forum I’ve been involved with uses the concept of “banning radiation.” People who do the “I’m not touching you” dance with the exact parameters of permitted conduct are said to accumulate banning radiation, as the mods become more familiar with them as “oh, that jerk” and finally get tired of dealing with them. Invocation of the “any reason” clause is usually not far behind.
I’m a GR member, but I’m not a mod there. I cannot say what got VD banned. However, if I had to guess, I’d say it was probably creating a group for the express purpose of harassing other users by shit-commenting on their reviews en masse. It might also be – and this is pure speculation – that he created a sockpuppet account or three. (I did see one account that made me wonder, “Is that just Vox using a throwaway account to avoid getting his author account dirty?” I have no way of knowing, though.)
I’d also have to observe that VD’s ability to read and understand rules documents appears to be on par with his ability to count to five. (Seriously, how do you miss “we can ban you for any reason or no reason”?)
Rev. Bob: Hmm. That didn’t go the way I expected. I didn’t mean to give you a head transplant while I was at it….
@Mike:
No worries on the transplant; I’m on my way to the full Santa anyway. 😉 I just wish the copy/paste hadn’t lost the links, emphasis, and formatting. Well, I trust my fellow Filers can figure that out from context. (Basically, if one paragraph ends with a colon, the next paragraph was a blockquote taken straight from Goodreads.)
Links to the Goodreads review policy (which also covers comments) and general Terms of Service are not hard to find. There’s a Terms link at the bottom of every page, and the Terms link to the review policy as a related document.
Rev. Bob: That should be fixed now.
I had a good experience with Goodreads a few years back. One of my reviews, of a book about an Eastern European country, was attracting a string of vituperative comments by someone originally from that country who disagreed with the book (actually an emigrant based in Canada); thousands of words, mostly cut and pasted from elsewhere, responding to a single point in my 400-word review. I complained to Goodreads, who suspended his account soon after, and then I deleted the comments after taking screenshots of course. I see he’s back on GR and has posted most of his comments as his own review of that book; that’s fine with me, as I am not involved.