Moderator Notices: READ THIS FIRST! Rules of behaviour

Is there a new self-published book on sale at Amazon? It sure looks meh.

https://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-De...85&sr=8-4&keywords=star+trek+deep+space+gamma

 

It's not from Pocket (or Titan) so it would have to be.

 

It’s fan fiction not authorized.

 

We should probably have a pinned "shut that shit down" thread for when people come across unlicensed stuff like this.

EDIT: I love how they credit DS9 to "Paramount Studios"

 

@trampledamage if this ever happens "Shut That Shit Down!" must be the thread title!

 

For anyone not in the know just coming into this thread, pretty much any fiction not published by Pocket Books, Titan, or Insight Editions is being sold illegally.

 

Anyone know if it's a good story?

 

I’m

I’m currently fighting my way through the worst Star Trek novel ever published (“The Price of the Phoenix”) and I’m willing to bet that one is worse.

 

I "reported incorrect product information" on volume 2 of this series on Amazon. Let's see what happens.

The author also lists a couple of unlicensed Star Wars and Batman novels.

 

Worried that the authors might steal them? They’remore and welcome with mine if I was to post one.

 

It doesn't matter, it's a legal thing. Even if you say that now, for they know you could change your mind, and the author and Pocket could then find themselves in a potential legal battle that could go on for years and cost a shitload of money.

 

More to the point, it's not about any one individual. No matter how many well-meaning fans there are, it just takes one jerk trying to lay a trap for a lawsuit, so we can't take the chance. It has to be a consistent policy, no exceptions.

Not to mention that we don't need to. We're trained professionals, and we have plenty of ideas of our own. If you have an idea for a story, that's your story to tell, if you can figure out how. Basic ideas are a dime a dozen, and any given one will surely have occurred to many different people. What makes it a story worth telling is your own personal spin on it, your own insight into how to take it somewhere that isn't basic or obvious.

 

I've merged my separate "Spoilers in a SPOILER thread into this one. This is the pertinent information repeated:

 

Quick note on resurrecting old threads.

Because the rest of the board is dealing with TV and movies, and fast-moving conversations, it's considered bad form out there to resurrect an old thread since any information in that old thread will probably be out-dated and you might as well start a new one.

In the Trek Lit forum, I handle things differently. People discover old books all the time, and the nature of literature is that subjects tend not to get outdated. So I allow old threads to be resurrected.

However, you do need to have relevant new content to post in that old thread.

So if you are searching for a subject or reading lots of threads, make sure you check the last posted date. You can post as response of to someone's joke from yesterday, but not to their joke from two years ago

 

I'll try to keep this in mind before doing any reporting of thread necromancy!

 

So we can't about Commander Riker's joke during the Farpoint Mission from 8 years ago.

Awe man, you're tough

(Sorry, couldn't resist )

 

Though in all seriousness I'm glad we're able to resurrect old lit threads. It's nice to see older reviews and comments along newer ones for books. And sometimes it's good to see what people thought of a particular book several years ago and compare that to today in light of new information that may have come out since the book has been out.

 

I've never really understood the rule against resurrecting old threads. This is the only online discussion board I've ever been part of that had such a rule. I'm glad this forum makes an exception.

 

Yeah, early on I would have a habit of bringing old threads back from the dead on other forums and was a bit surprised to find out that was frowned upon in those parts.

I admit, I'm a bit OCD and part of me is loathe to create a new thread when there is an old one talking about what I want to bring up. I just want to post on the old thread but force myself to create a new one. "Resist....reviving.....old.....thread....must create new one "

There are times it might be interesting to see what people are saying about a topic today compared to what they were saying some time ago. Have opinions changed. Look at how opinions have changed over the years about Enterprise for instance.

I guess I can see it in some cases, but I guess it'd be too complicated to make it a case by case basis. How do you decide when it's ok and when it's not? So it's probably just safer to make it sort of a blanket rule (and I guess you can still link the old thread in your new thread if you want--I think that's ok).

But good that here in the lit forum it's ok. This is one area where you might want to see older with newer thoughts about a book or comic.

 

Does anyone know what, if anything, precipitated the policies on thread necromancy? Was that in place from inception? Were there storage or other tech considerations? Were there issues with people resurrecting threads?

I'm just curious as to the precedent. As others have noted, I haven't seen this rule in place in other forums, though I could see it making some sense in a tech forum (to ensure that outdated support options weren't made to appear current, for instance).