My vision for Flayrah is stated on our About page; to be a good source of information for members of furry fandom. I do not seek to turn Flayrah into a news site written by furs. In most cases, it will be, but I consider that largely irrelevant.
What matters to me topic-wise is furry interest, not strict relevance. This focus is not my invention; from the beginning, Flayrah accepted stories about unrelated science fiction, fantasy, technology and eccentricity. Still, if anything, I concentrated our output, partly by introducing Newsbytes soon after I became editor. Many loosely-related stories went away entirely.
Why, then, write such an opinionated piece on a topic clearly not directly related to furry fans? Because, mea culpa, I honestly felt that my argument would be of interest and perhaps even valuable to them. (Hey, we all have our delusions - and at least one person agreed! :-)
When I started writing the piece, it began as an analysis; I am not a political creature, I merely live in the USA and found my mind wandering onto the potential pros and cons of the legislation for furry fandom. However, I quickly realized that it made more sense as a brief essay, ending with a call to action. It seemed the obvious conclusion: "I think X is good for furs; Y has vowed to destroy it, so vote Z."
I had no idea that the response of the community would be so negative. As Sonious notes, there was no real precedent; certainly, when politics came up in discussions, it was divisive, but so were other topics. I expected dissent to my position, not to the act of voicing it.
The point about alienating staff who do not share my view has some validity. I was writing only of my own opinion (and labelled accordingly) but many may have seen it as an attempt to represent the entire Flayrah community. To any I inadvertently offended, I apologize. Had I seriously intended to go down that path, I would have collected the editorial board first. Perhaps once fans can elect convention boards . . .
I am less convinced by the argument that I should have taken work down once it was found to be divisive. Firstly, I am strongly opposed to removing content when you remain confident in it, and I find the concept of removing a post merely because some readers dislike the topic or are unable to control themselves in the discussion particularly offensive. Secondly, many things in this world are contentious. I knew Flayrah would survive twenty-four hours of turbulent discussion; it has handled well over a week before, and emerged stronger as a result.
Some view my preference towards allowing all viewpoints to be aired as a weakness. I see it as a strength. Flayrah is intended to serve the entire furry community; as such I am loath to be the one to decide what is or is not furry, let alone may be of interest to furs. I think this has worked well; contributors making their own decisions about what is relevant have posted many stories resulting in stimulating discussions.
Do these stories portend a change in our regular content? I don't see why. As mentioned above, I have no great interest in politics myself. Consider it a brief experiment from which strong conclusions can be drawn about the appeal of political debate to Flayrah's readership.
My vision for Flayrah is stated on our About page; to be a good source of information for members of furry fandom. I do not seek to turn Flayrah into a news site written by furs. In most cases, it will be, but I consider that largely irrelevant.
What matters to me topic-wise is furry interest, not strict relevance. This focus is not my invention; from the beginning, Flayrah accepted stories about unrelated science fiction, fantasy, technology and eccentricity. Still, if anything, I concentrated our output, partly by introducing Newsbytes soon after I became editor. Many loosely-related stories went away entirely.
Why, then, write such an opinionated piece on a topic clearly not directly related to furry fans? Because, mea culpa, I honestly felt that my argument would be of interest and perhaps even valuable to them. (Hey, we all have our delusions - and at least one person agreed! :-)
When I started writing the piece, it began as an analysis; I am not a political creature, I merely live in the USA and found my mind wandering onto the potential pros and cons of the legislation for furry fandom. However, I quickly realized that it made more sense as a brief essay, ending with a call to action. It seemed the obvious conclusion: "I think X is good for furs; Y has vowed to destroy it, so vote Z."
I had no idea that the response of the community would be so negative. As Sonious notes, there was no real precedent; certainly, when politics came up in discussions, it was divisive, but so were other topics. I expected dissent to my position, not to the act of voicing it.
The point about alienating staff who do not share my view has some validity. I was writing only of my own opinion (and labelled accordingly) but many may have seen it as an attempt to represent the entire Flayrah community. To any I inadvertently offended, I apologize. Had I seriously intended to go down that path, I would have collected the editorial board first. Perhaps once fans can elect convention boards . . .
I am less convinced by the argument that I should have taken work down once it was found to be divisive. Firstly, I am strongly opposed to removing content when you remain confident in it, and I find the concept of removing a post merely because some readers dislike the topic or are unable to control themselves in the discussion particularly offensive. Secondly, many things in this world are contentious. I knew Flayrah would survive twenty-four hours of turbulent discussion; it has handled well over a week before, and emerged stronger as a result.
Some view my preference towards allowing all viewpoints to be aired as a weakness. I see it as a strength. Flayrah is intended to serve the entire furry community; as such I am loath to be the one to decide what is or is not furry, let alone may be of interest to furs. I think this has worked well; contributors making their own decisions about what is relevant have posted many stories resulting in stimulating discussions.
Do these stories portend a change in our regular content? I don't see why. As mentioned above, I have no great interest in politics myself. Consider it a brief experiment from which strong conclusions can be drawn about the appeal of political debate to Flayrah's readership.