...The fire still burns

Well, per the suggestions of some decent, kind-hearted people, I've elected to restructure the Golden Quill Awards so that it's obvious what my stance is. I honestly believed I could call it open and ban certain people from participating, but they were determined to get their claws into it and disrupt it if they weren't allowed on. The result is, I've been forced to be upfront about something I was hoping to keep private.

The kind-hearted well-meaning people all asked me how I'd feel if a writer I liked was excluded from participation in an awards scheme.

For the record, 

I'd accept the mod's decision without question, however much I liked that particular writer, and I wouldn't insult the mod by nominating someone I knew he or she had an issue with. I certainly wouldn't publish a private email or go here, there and everywhere to complain about the mod. I'd leave things as they were and stay out of it in order to protect my view of the writer I liked.

This is what the drama is all about, of course. Some people have been dishonest in asking me for my side of the story, then dismissed or trivialized my comments in order to protect their view of the people at issue. I wouldn't even ask if I didn't want to know because, despite what some people say about me, I do in fact have integrity.

I haven't been particularly specific when making my complaints about the people I've got problems with because I don't see a need so ruin someone's reputation. Those people can do it perfectly well themselves. The fact that their supporters/enablers see nothing wrong with such conduct says a lot about them. It's funny, I showed one such person the forum posts I took exception to. She said they were only venting their frustrations. When I showed her the same conversations reproduced outside of that environment, her comments were scathing. Mind you, she thought I'd generated them. Double standards, much?

Yes, it's sneaky to do things like that, but when people are dishonest with me and I want the truth, that's what I'll do. Why? To keep the liars out of my life. It's less hassle when I only have to deal with honest people who value integrity. I'd rather have no friends than a fairweather bunch who ditch me at the first sign of trouble. So yes, I expose them and show them what I've found, they don't like it, then I shut them out because they finally admit that they don't respect me and won't change their minds. I wouldn't have to do that if they'd simply tell me in the first place what the score is instead of trying to make me think well of them. I've actually got tons more respect for people who honestly snarl at me than those who smile, then stab me in the back. Stab me in the front if you're going to stab me, damn it!

Well a few positive things have come out of this mess:

1. I know exactly who my friends are because the people who are aware of this have polarised.

2. The liars have been exposed and shut out.

3. My contention that giving prizes to people who behave badly encourages that behaviour has been proved to my satisfaction by the very people who contend that awards programs should be separate from internet issues. They are tightly connected and affected by the awards programs. To wit, prizewinners get credibility and a licence to abuse while their targets are frozen out. Meanwhile, everybody looks the other way because it's not on their e-spaces and therefore not their problem, which facilitates this. 

4. The widespread practice of appeasement has been exposed. It's being debated in some corners. Whether this will have the desired outcome is unclear yet, but some people have been very honest about their reluctance to play internet judge and jury in such matters. I can't possibly blame them. The consequences don't bear thinking about.

I've come to the conclusion that asking those kind-hearted well-meaning people to share my views is unreasonable because it would cause them untold amounts of hassle. To me, that is the reason why they ought to take it on, because exposing and rooting this stuff out would benefit everyone. There are only a small number - between five and ten - who are actually behind all the trouble. Kicking them out of everything would solve the problem altogether if all the mods stood together. The trouble is, they won't, mostly because the matter is complicated by the fact that some of them are friendly with the members of that minority. 

So all I really want is to be allowed to have my own stance respected, even if I am the only one who takes it. I'm not going to explain this any further; the people I have issue with have done so far better than I could. 

That is all.