Star Trek: Axanar

[Karzak]

Re: BigJake:

I don't see how you can turn this around like that BigJake. Questions were asked, unclear answers were offered, so more questions were asked. I'll repeat what I've said to you before: asking questions isn't indicative of any kind of hostile or malicious intent.

If anything, Terry's own admitted lack of expertise/knowledge on the particulars of taxes and accounting are the root of the issue. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's certainly not necessary for him to be so prickly about it either, nor is it necessary for you to try to mischaracterize the questions being asked as being problematic.

Re: Terry:

I'm bowing out of the discussion for now because clearly we're circling the drain on this part of it, but I don't appreciate again having my intent being impugned. Save the censure for someone who deserves it. If you don't understand why people are asking questions, you probably shouldn't be trying to characterize them as you have. I've been very forthright with my queries; there is no need to villify or taint those questions as being asked with " 'tude" or asked "with a bit of darkness behind them."

if you can't answer the questions, you can't answer the questions.

 

[BigJake]

I don't see how you can turn this around like that BigJake.

I believe you.

 

[Karzak]

I don't see how you can turn this around like that BigJake.

I believe you.

Entirely uncalled for, and generally unhelpful given the current tone this conversation is taking.

 

[BigJake]

It's not uncalled for, it's simply a statement of fact. I sincerely believe that you do not understand the problem with how you're acting. But that you can't see the problem with how you're acting does not unfortunately mean the problem isn't there. I think taking a break and looking at the conversation with fresh eyes is probably a wise idea.

 

[TerryMcIntosh]

Re: BigJake:

I don't see how you can turn this around like that BigJake. Questions were asked, unclear answers were offered, so more questions were asked. I'll repeat what I've said to you before: asking questions isn't indicative of any kind of hostile or malicious intent.

If anything, Terry's own admitted lack of expertise/knowledge on the particulars of taxes and accounting are the root of the issue. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's certainly not necessary for him to be so prickly about it either, nor is it necessary for you to try to mischaracterize the questions being asked as being problematic.

Re: Terry:

I'm bowing out of the discussion for now because clearly we're circling the drain on this part of it, but I don't appreciate again having my intent being impugned. Save the censure for someone who deserves it. If you don't understand why people are asking questions, you probably shouldn't be trying to characterize them as you have. I've been very forthright with my queries; there is no need to villify or taint those questions as being asked with " 'tude" or asked "with a bit of darkness behind them."

if you can't answer the questions, you can't answer the questions.

*shrug* Whether you know it or not, at least to me, you do come across as kind of... abrasive, and that doesn't last long with me. Either way, you're a big boy and you'll live. Be well.

 

[Karzak]

Re: BigJake:

I don't see how you can turn this around like that BigJake. Questions were asked, unclear answers were offered, so more questions were asked. I'll repeat what I've said to you before: asking questions isn't indicative of any kind of hostile or malicious intent.

If anything, Terry's own admitted lack of expertise/knowledge on the particulars of taxes and accounting are the root of the issue. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's certainly not necessary for him to be so prickly about it either, nor is it necessary for you to try to mischaracterize the questions being asked as being problematic.

Re: Terry:

I'm bowing out of the discussion for now because clearly we're circling the drain on this part of it, but I don't appreciate again having my intent being impugned. Save the censure for someone who deserves it. If you don't understand why people are asking questions, you probably shouldn't be trying to characterize them as you have. I've been very forthright with my queries; there is no need to villify or taint those questions as being asked with " 'tude" or asked "with a bit of darkness behind them."

if you can't answer the questions, you can't answer the questions.

*shrug* Whether you know it or not, at least to me, you do come across as kind of... abrasive, and that doesn't last long with me. Either way, you're a big boy and you'll live. Be well.

Again, unnecessary. And vaguely insulting in its condescension.

 

[Ithekro]

Looking from the outside of the conversation, the typed tone and use of language that you are implying, Karzak (and to a lesser extent BillJ), would come across, to me, like looking for any type of excuse to find a major flaw in the production in relation either money being used, or copyright infringement against CBS. To the point were the line of questioning would appear on the outside as an effort to fish for a way to get evidence to call up CBS and have the whole project shut down.

That is how I am seeing this continual line of questioning based on how the questions are being asked and how the responses to said questions is being treated.

I hope it is just me that is getting that vibe.

 

[ozzfloyd]

It's not just you. :-(

 

[fireproof78]

Me too.

It started out ok, but kind of took a more hostile tone that started to escalate. I'm sure it was unintentional but text can take on a whole new meaning and possible negativity implications.

Not sure where it all went wrong, but it definitely went down hill fast.

 

[Karzak]

Well I will simply reiterate that that was certainly not my intention. A lot seems to get lost in terms of tone and meaning when it comes to the written word vs. being spoken or in person, but I think everyone is reading too much in to each other's posts.

If there is any frustration or anything else nearing hostility in my comments, it stems purely from the frustration of having my words mangled and misunderstood/mischaracterized by others.

 

[BigJake]

I hope it is just me that is getting that vibe.

Nope. Although I would actually say BillJ, who actually came to the point of bringing up the supposed doctoring of numbers (although not quite actually accusing anyone) is the worse offender.

Karzak, I am indeed assuming that it isn't your intention to come across that way or to act that way, and that you want to be part of a sane and friendly and reasonable conversation. That's why I said you might want to consider adjusting something in your approach. Mistakes of this kind can happen to anyone, they're not in themselves a big deal as long as they get recognized and compensated for. It's a friendly suggestion and I'm hoping you take it in that spirit.

 

[fireproof78]

I hope it is just me that is getting that vibe.

Nope. Although I would actually say BillJ, who actually came to the point of bringing up the supposed doctoring of numbers (although not quite actually accusing anyone) is the worse offender.

Karzak, I am indeed assuming that it isn't your intention to come across that way or to act that way, and that you want to be part of a sane and friendly and reasonable conversation. That's why I said you might want to consider adjusting something in your approach. Mistakes of this kind can happen to anyone, they're not in themselves a big deal as long as they get recognized and compensated for. It's a friendly suggestion and I'm hoping you take it in that spirit.

Good advice, in general, in an online format.

The potential for miscommunication in the online format is a simple misread of intent. A phrase can carry a lot of meaning that may not be intended. It depends on the reader as well as the poster.

Karzak, I didn't think you were intentionally hostile, but that frustration started to creep up on both sides and came across the in the text. Then it escalated. *insert preferred meme here*

As BigJake said, its wise to take a step back and make sure that it can't be misconstrued, regardless of intended meaning.

 

[Harvey]

All of our sets will be real, built sets, too, unless there's a scene with something that might only be on screen for a few moments and just doesn't make sense to go to the expense of a full set. Don't get me wrong, we may have to cut a few corners and use virtual sets for a few things, depending on where the fundraising lands when the time for filming comes, but we're hoping to go practical wherever possible -- it just sells the scene better, IMHO. That said, Tobias is a magician and we could give him a twig, a pine cone, and a few strips of duct tape and it would come back as a Ferrari.

As for Klingon ship interiors, yes, the plan is for a real set and a very detailed one as we might be used to from ENT or DS9. That said, if budget demands we go virtual, which isn't preferred, then that's a sacrifice that will be made to make it happen, too.

I take it from these comments that some and perhaps many of your sets haven't been constructed yet? Since most of the funds from your second Kickstarter have been spent at this point, does that mean your Indiegogo campaign goal of $1.3 million will cover much more elaborate set construction than the $125,000 initially allocated to set construction by your second Kickstarter would have covered, or is it simply a matter of being over budget?

 

[BillJ]

I hope it is just me that is getting that vibe.

Nope. Although I would actually say BillJ, who actually came to the point of bringing up the supposed doctoring of numbers (although not quite actually accusing anyone) is the worse offender.

Why dance around the obvious? I believe in being up front with people. If I have a comment, thought or criticism, I'm going to be honest in the delivery of them.

I don't know these people one way or the other. The "we're transparent, look we publish numbers" can only carry one so far. Anyone can publish numbers that can say anything.

If what I've posted here is the worst scrutiny Axanar faces, then I think they should count themselves lucky. If it bothers them, then they may be in the wrong business because from everything I've read and seen, film making is a ruthless business.

 

[BigJake]

Why dance around the obvious? I believe in being up front with people. If I have a comment, thought or criticism, I'm going to be honest in the delivery of them.

Except note that people who are being deliberately or incidentally rude typically use just this excuse: "Oh, I'm just being honest." There are ways to be "honest" that don't have to make you look programmatically hostile or unreasonable. If you don't like being seen that way, then adjusting is an obvious thing to do. If you don't have a problem with being seen that way, of course, then you shouldn't object to a little scrutiny of your own motivations and actions in turn.

[EDIT: Some unnecessary "you"s eliminated per Maurice's advice, good call]

Your credibility is suffering badly from your approach. I'm just being honest.

 

[BillJ]

Why dance around the obvious? I believe in being up front with people. If I have a comment, thought or criticism, I'm going to be honest in the delivery of them.

Except note that people who are being deliberately or incidentally rude typically use just this excuse: "I'm just being honest." There are ways to be "honest" that don't have to make you look programmatically hostile or unreasonable. If you don't like being seen that way, then adjusting is an obvious thing to do. If you don't have a problem with being seen that way, of course, then you shouldn't object to a little scrutiny of your own motivations and actions in turn.

Okay? I've been dealing with your scrutiny of my motivations and actions since you've joined. Why would I need you to change now?

 

[BigJake]

I've been dealing with your scrutiny of my motivations and actions since you've joined.

It's just not your credibility with me you should be worrying about, obviously.

 

[BillJ]

I've been dealing with your scrutiny of my motivations and actions since you've joined.

It's just not your credibility with me you should be worrying about, obviously.

I'm worried about my "credibility" here about as much as I'm worried about my looks here. I had questions and I asked them, I also gave a look at how one outsider is seeing things.

It is up to the Axanar group what to do with various comments, whether they see them as useful or not. I tend to think Terry McIntosh and the Axanar group have a thicker skin than you seem to give them credit for.

 

[BigJake]

I'm worried about my "credibility" here about as much as I'm worried about my looks here.

If you say so. Have at it then.

I tend to think Terry McIntosh and the Axanar group have a thicker skin than you seem to give them credit for.

I tend to think Terry just told you more-or-less point blank that he was fed up with the childishness -- leastways I take such to be the implication of "In the end, and for some folks, no matter what's said they'll not be happy, pee their pants, and stomp around, so *shrug*" -- but then I'm actually reading his posts.

 

[dub]

...so........Axanar. It's neither an "ax" nor an "anar."

Discuss.