Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Polls: Iberian (Results), Musicals (Dec 15th), 1952 awards (Dec 21st), 2006 (Dec 23rd), Directors (Dec 31st)
Challenges: Forum Lists, Documentary, Canada
World Cup: Round 2 schedule, Match 2H (Dec 16th), R3 preparation (Dec 30th)
Film of the Week: The Silent Partner

New Official List Discussion

Post Reply
User avatar
nimimerkillinen
Posts: 1704
Joined: Dec 30, 2011
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Contact:

Re: New Official List Discussion

#3681

Post by nimimerkillinen » December 5th, 2018, 7:27 pm

said before but personally it makes this much less fun place if lists can be dropped but then again im in that minority that would like all versions of current lists to be official too

mathiasa
Posts: 2044
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

#3682

Post by mathiasa » December 5th, 2018, 7:52 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 6:38 pm
mathiasa wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 6:09 pm
And while I would never accuse you of a power move, I also don't think it was a reasonable decision, maybe it's because I have no idea what you mean by appropriate distribution of lists. I'm also a bit confused that you first say that the decision involved no personal bias but at the end you say that you personally would leave that list out.
Appropriate distribution of lists means we don't want a dozen horror lists, for an extreme example. There should be lists that cover different areas and important sources, but we want to avoid redundant lists or overrepresentation of a certain subject. In this context it means, as I said earlier, that three Italian lists is "too much." If the list we're replacing were not timeframe restricted then it would be more clearly redundant. To me, being timeframe restricted makes it less valuable, not more, because the timeframe as a timeframe doesn't bering particular perspective, it just allows for more things while excluding a bunch of Italian cinema. You(I think it was you) compared this earlier to the silent lists or decade lists, but the silent lists are as much about a movement and style as they are a time frame, and all of those have decades as their only restriction. A best films of the 90s is not the same kind of restriction as best US films of the 90s, or best French films of the 70s or whatever.

I think you misunderstand the difference between personal preferences and individual decisions. Of course as a mod I make a choice based on what I think is right for the site, based on guidelines from Marijn, discussions with the other mods, discussions on this forum, reading feedback posted in every blogpost and on the other forum, and probably other unconscious influences. When I said I'd choose to leave the list out given the choice of two of three, that's what I meant. Taking all those things into consideration and understanding that no choice will make everyone happy it is the choice I believe is best for the site. Maybe other people would take all that same wide ranging feedback and come to a different conclusion. In that sense it is "my" choice.

That's not the same as personal bias or personal preference. I personally may or may not like specific lists. I personally, if the site was purely for my own pleasure, would unadopt a bunch of lists that I think are bad or don't interest me. I would not worry about balance or having lists for everyone, I would not worry about one list having a big cutoff while another has a smaller one, or about having lists with bad sources just because the subject matter interests me. I'd also dump lists more often when something better comes along, and that would in turn lead me to highlighting lists that are absolutely fundamentally flawed but are still good enough for now just because it gives me something to work on. But the site is not my personal playground, I don't make list choices based on what I personally want to see. In fact I try very hard to avoid having my personal preferences play a role in list selection beyond how my preferences have lead me to view the value scope, breadth, depth and source. And even that has, at this point, been shaped more by all of the external feedback I mentioned in the other paragraph than by what my opinions were when I joined ICM.
In this case I don't understand your argument about the appropriate distribution of lists as a reason to remove/replace the list, because this does not further the diversity of the site, instead, as has been shown by other users, it's increasing the redundancy. It can only be a reason, as you write in this reply, why the list isn't included as a third Italian list. In your previous post however, it looks to me as you were explaining why the list got replaced in the first place. But it's really only the timeframe restriction, or was there anything else?

Yes, it was me who made the comparison to the silent era, which of course was deliberately exaggerated to make my point which I have expatiated in subsequent posts, explaining why the period chosen is not arbitrary. Do you think the panelists who've consciously opted for this timeframe restriction were all idiots who didn't know what they were doing? This is the impression that this decision, and how it is handled, has left on me.

Thanks for your explications concerning personal and individual. Just to make clear: I did not accuse any mod of being biased, I was simply unsure what you meant.

Are Marijn's guidelines publicly available?

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2041
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#3683

Post by Onderhond » December 5th, 2018, 7:54 pm

OldAle1 wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 6:42 pm
I seem to recall a discussion about the box office list, maybe a year ago, where someone was arguing pretty passionately that it in fact did belong here and that maybe we needed even more representation of mainstream blockbusters. So I'm sure there would be complaints if that would go.
It's one of the few lists on ICM that I reference a lot.
mathiasa wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 6:34 pm
In this way the period is marked at both ends by Neo-Realism.
So it's not an actual country list ...
Last edited by Onderhond on December 5th, 2018, 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mathiasa
Posts: 2044
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

#3684

Post by mathiasa » December 5th, 2018, 8:00 pm

Onderhond wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 7:54 pm
So it's not an actual country list ...
Exactly, it's not a country list as defined in the context of icm, that's what I already wrote in an earlier post, one or two pages ago.

mathiasa
Posts: 2044
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

#3685

Post by mathiasa » December 5th, 2018, 8:15 pm

I created a table to give a cursory overview of the importance/popularity of the Italian lists. I excluded the new one because it's brand new and had therefore not a long time to get prominent.

Criteria 101 Grande Cinema
Mentioned on Wikipedia's article on Italian Cinema :thumbsup: :down:
Having its own entry on the English Wikipedia :thumbsup: :down:
Having its own entry on the Italian Wikipedia :thumbsup: :down:
Featured on Mubi
:thumbsup: :down:
Added to Letterboxd
:thumbsup: :down:
Added to imdb
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:


It could be that I have made mistakes, if so please let me know.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2041
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#3686

Post by Onderhond » December 5th, 2018, 9:47 pm

mathiasa wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 8:00 pm
Exactly, it's not a country list as defined in the context of icm, that's what I already wrote in an earlier post, one or two pages ago.
Maybe I got confused somewhere, but isn't that a good reason to scrap it?

72allinncallme
Donator
Posts: 1828
Joined: Nov 13, 2016
Contact:

#3687

Post by 72allinncallme » December 5th, 2018, 10:00 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 6:47 pm
Nopros wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 6:22 pm
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 5:48 pm
If you feel I've missed something important that I'm not addressing please quote me or PM me and I'll try to reply. I will go back and read the posts I've missed at some point, though.
Will you reconsider removing a well liked list?
I am considering everything people have posted, yes. Will that lead me to change my mind, I don't know, it's not looking like it. It is leading me to think in certain ways about how we make decisions and how we adopt lists, and perhaps that thinking could lead me to change my mind, but I am not currently on the fence about the decision. I still think it's right decision (it's also not my decision, it's a group decision I support). I also don't think this list is some wildly popular list. Every list has some people liking it and people who will be disappointed by its removal. Even the Martial arts list replacement, probably the least controversial replacement we've made, had complaints.
How goes that old verse again?
«An inuit might have many words for ‘snow’
But a mod have twice as many for ‘no’ »
————

Sounds like a done deal in my book. I’m very dissapointed to say the least. With bugs that never gets fixed, everlasting betas and a terrible search system, the only thing that speaks positive about iCM is the gaming aspects. And when the court you’ve been playing on gets demolished every other new list update, there is no good reason to keep on playing.

And to be blunt. With so many different lists nominated by iCM users, you guys chose a list not on those polls to make official. Shows a lack of respect for the users imo. Not to mention the poll itself. It’s not so much a poll as it is a private survey for you mods. Democracy is absent and I don’t like it.

You guys knew that it would be upsetting to a part of the userbase as well, to not only remove a couple of lists, but one with a lot of value. Even though one might think it’s awkward it is a genuine list with genuine attributes. It’s not outdated and it’s not getting replaced aka same/equal source. A completely different list goes official and the old list gets axed.

Dropping by in the afternoon saying that two lists were going to get booted and then get absent (not just you Joachimt, the other mods too) and not excpecting any «shitstorm» sounds rather naive in my book. How do you expect us not to try to draw any conclusions when left on our own? That said, the tone probably felt a little hostile (my own included). I should’ve handled it nicer. Any anger was directed to the decision you guys made though and not you as persons. Thought that went without saying, but I guess it never hurts to make sure of that.

So one last time, you guys are wrong about axing the Italian list. I hate it when you make any official lists unofficial, but I can to a certain extent understand it if your reasons are good. But not here. Your reasons are simply not good enough.
I’m going to shut up now.
Last edited by 72allinncallme on December 5th, 2018, 11:52 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 103
Joined: Sep 30, 2016
Contact:

#3688

Post by Darth Nevets » December 5th, 2018, 10:03 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 5:48 pm
I'll be honest, I'm only reading some of these posts because there's a lot of back and forth and rehashing the same things over and over and I have work to do. If you feel I've missed something important that I'm not addressing please quote me or PM me and I'll try to reply. I will go back and read the posts I've missed at some point, though.

1. I see complaints about losing checks and while those are things to consider on a wide scale in terms of unadopting or replacing lists, they are not arguments against unadopting or replacing specific lists. That is not going to convince me or any other mods to change a decision. Neither are some of the attacks that act like this is some power move or involves personal biases rather than a reasoned decision based on what we think is appropriate for the distribution of lists (not checks, lists) on the site. I do understand that some people like the list for exactly what it is and therefore want it kept. I know this is not a decision that will please everyone. In the context of the site as a whole I think unadopting it is the right choice. If no Italian list were official and I was asked to choose two of the three it would be the one I would leave out. Not everyone would make the same choice, and I know some consider this a false choice, that all three could be adopted, but it is not at the moment how we look at the slate of official lists. You can disagree with our decisions and even argue for us to change our minds without making up motivations for our decisions.

2. Re: communication. Maybe we should just not post anything here about adoptions? Every time there's a round of adoptions we take different tacks in how we reveal them. The fact is, our posts here are not the official adoption communication announcement, that's the blog post. Our posts here about adoptions are us sharing things with the community we are members of. It's increasingly clear over the many rounds of adoptions that (at least some) people hate slow reveals or teases. At the same time just blunt posting "these lists are coming" when the lists may be (an unknown number of) weeks away and we don't have a target day for adoption just leads to "when are the lists coming" complaints in addition to the usual grumbling about lists. My current thought is we should not send out adoption requests until icons are made and the blog post is written, post here when adoption requests are made as a semi-official pre-anouncement and not before. There are flaws in our communication on several issues, but that's because we don't have any official policy of what to say or when/where to say it. We are as open as we feel is appropriate at any given time. Maybe we need to discuss internally how, when, and about what we should make public posts. I don't know that this will be better in terms of being responsive, but it might be better in terms of not getting these posting storms of replies and less possible misunderstandings.

This post is entirely my own and has not been discussed with the other mods or represent the site, though I will be bringing up some of these issues.
Since I have no desire to cause distress lets have some basic discussions on why the new list is added. I have no horse in this game, the new list is much closer to a bronze, and I won't lose a check.

1. In an universe in which no Il Grande list exists one could theoretically and rightfully say the list that covers more years would be a more appropriate list in choosing only one. However since 4/5 of the movies on filmtv's list are already on the IGC Italian list it adds almost nothing, at most it encourages lesser Italophiles to dig in by making a bronze easier to get. The 101 list adds to Il Grande by focusing on Italy's Neorealist era, and the hottest period for the country internationally. In fact 101 pairs with the filmtv list in the same way, one giving an overview of the entire output and the other for heavy cinema. In point of fact the pair chosen works least, because they do the same thing (as represented by the overlap) with IGCI even including films from a year later. Realistically you could argue that 250 is too much for one country and that filmtv should replace that list instead, such is the baffling nature of this decision. Every other conceivable option makes more sense, but none quite as much as nothing.

2. I'll be milquetoast and note an abundance of communication is not the problem. As diplomatically as possible its fair to say the opaqueness of the process (voting by ranking by unordered excel sheets, the nature of the minority ultra userbase willing to struggle through that skewing results, tabulations kept private, the nature of lists adopted, the possibly political tampering of votes, the "interpretation" of results in private) is bad in general. To skip out on all this (massively flawed) process and declare a new list by fiat that replaces another is much worse.

These are the questions that should be asked in order of importance, and would improve the site for the people outside us ultras.
1. Are people seeing movies on this list without encouragement, especially the non-checks.
2. Is the subject matter something that needs addressing (urgently) on ICM (Anime was a big yes, Road movies a no, does Luxembourg need a top 1000 list).
3. Does the list appropriately address the need, does it have too few or too many choices. (100 martial arts films is good, but not 100 action movies logically).
4. Is the source a great expert on this subject (I'm looking at you BFI lists of American films -- we don't have enough checks in the USA on icm yet)
5. If a list is a replacement for a bad list, ensure the new one is better. If the Livejournal Russian list needs to die, say so outright and don't worry about an immediate replacement (one will be ferreted out eventually).

mathiasa
Posts: 2044
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

#3689

Post by mathiasa » December 5th, 2018, 10:20 pm

Onderhond wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 9:47 pm
mathiasa wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 8:00 pm
Exactly, it's not a country list as defined in the context of icm, that's what I already wrote in an earlier post, one or two pages ago.
Maybe I got confused somewhere, but isn't that a good reason to scrap it?

We had discussions about different official lists before, as to where/how they should be classified, never with any suggestion that the particular list should be slacked. The 101 list would both fit the misc and Institutes tabs, but putting it there would confuse users, because of the list's name.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2041
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#3690

Post by Onderhond » December 5th, 2018, 10:34 pm

mathiasa wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 10:20 pm
We had discussions about different official lists before, as to where/how they should be classified, never with any suggestion that the particular list should be slacked. The 101 list would both fit the misc and Institutes tabs, but putting it there would confuse users, because of the list's name.
Personally I wouldn't be against lists highlighting film movements, but currently there doesn't even seem to be a tab to put it under. Except for Misc of course, but that's a bit of a trash can right now. I'm not familiar with all the lists and their boundaries, but as far as I know there aren't any Nouvelle Vague, Taiwanese New Wave or Mumblecore lists either ... again, not against going in that direction, but seeing the stance of the mods that doesn't seem to be on the table right now?

mathiasa
Posts: 2044
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

#3691

Post by mathiasa » December 5th, 2018, 10:46 pm

Onderhond wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 10:34 pm
mathiasa wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 10:20 pm
We had discussions about different official lists before, as to where/how they should be classified, never with any suggestion that the particular list should be slacked. The 101 list would both fit the misc and Institutes tabs, but putting it there would confuse users, because of the list's name.
Personally I wouldn't be against lists highlighting film movements, but currently there doesn't even seem to be a tab to put it under. Except for Misc of course, but that's a bit of a trash can right now. I'm not familiar with all the lists and their boundaries, but as far as I know there aren't any Nouvelle Vague, Taiwanese New Wave or Mumblecore lists either ... again, not against going in that direction, but seeing the stance of the mods that doesn't seem to be on the table right now?
The list does more than just highlight a film movement, it encompasses at least three different ones.

Also, the list could be under Institutes, at it was compiled in collaboration with three significant institutes: Italy's Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Cinecittà Holding and the Venice Film Festival.

Also, I've just realized that the critics tab is not only for individual critics. It would therefore also fit this category.

Last of all, while I agree that it's not a typical country list, the boundaries of the categories are not strictly defined, therefore country should remain a legit option.

I really don't see how we could scrap a list for its categorization when it fits four tabs.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2041
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#3692

Post by Onderhond » December 5th, 2018, 10:54 pm

mathiasa wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 10:46 pm
I really don't see how we could scrap a list for its categorization when it fits four tabs.
Because it only seems to fit any of the four categories after some semantic wrestling.
If the current boundaries of the tabs are ill-defined, I'd say it's time for stricter definitions so these tabs actually mean what they imply. Country = all films from a certain country, institute = 1 institute, critic = 1 person and Misc is just something I'd throw out altogether. It's the first time I'm actually looking at these tabs and they make no sense at all.

mathiasa
Posts: 2044
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

#3693

Post by mathiasa » December 5th, 2018, 11:04 pm

Onderhond wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 10:54 pm
mathiasa wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 10:46 pm
I really don't see how we could scrap a list for its categorization when it fits four tabs.
Because it only seems to fit any of the four categories after some semantic wrestling.
If the current boundaries of the tabs are ill-defined, I'd say it's time for stricter definitions so these tabs actually mean what they imply. Country = all films from a certain country, institute = 1 institute, critic = 1 person and Misc is just something I'd throw out altogether. It's the first time I'm actually looking at these tabs and they make no sense at all.
All these years nobody had any beef with this issue, it was Fergenaprido and I who brought it up - after the decision to drop it was already made. I don't see any semantic wrestling. If you were serious you would have issues with quite a lot of other lists as well (already the second list under the critics tab, 100 Best British films, wouldn't fit). You certainly have to agree that at least for Misc there is no semantic wrestling, right? So we have at least one tab that we both agree is spot on. That's enough, a list can only be in one cat.

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 4431
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#3694

Post by sol » December 5th, 2018, 11:13 pm

Fergenaprido wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 4:37 pm
At the very least I would say you were overreacting to uncertain news from the start, and things escalated from there. I do think your sentiments are valid, though; I think you would have a better time convincing the mods and others here if you took a less aggressive tone.
Thanks for the response, Ferg. Just to clarify a couple of things:

1. When I responded with a milder tone the day before, the mods did not reply to what I had to say. I felt compelled to use a stronger tone in order to be heard, but no, it was not my intention to be aggressive. I certainly understand that not all of the list mods can be active here all the time - but I wouldn't recommend making controversial decisions without someone being around to discuss the fallout from them.

2. It was actually your suggestion that prompted me to conclude that the Action! was likely to be replaced. tehe As it turned out, we were both jumping to conclusions since the replacement lists were not among those we voted for. But how were we to know? Better communication could have easily resolved the situation quickly and that is what I would like to see moving forward.

I admit that I overreacted to uncertain news - but of course there should have never been uncertain news in the first place. Not when it comes to list removal. This is a change that I would like to see moving forward.
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 5:48 pm
There are flaws in our communication on several issues, but that's because we don't have any official policy of what to say or when/where to say it. We are as open as we feel is appropriate at any given time. Maybe we need to discuss internally how, when, and about what we should make public posts. I don't know that this will be better in terms of being responsive, but it might be better in terms of not getting these posting storms of replies and less possible misunderstandings.
Thanks for that, Peaceful. That's all that I hope to achieve with my contributions on this thread: an improvement in communicating going forward to avoid speculation and misunderstandings.
72allinncallme wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 10:00 pm
Dropping by in the afternoon saying that two lists were going to get booted and then get absent (not just you Joachimt, the other mods too) and not excpecting any «shitstorm» sounds rather naive in my book. How do you expect us not to try to draw any conclusions when left on our own? That said, the tone probably felt a little hostile (my own included). I should’ve handled it nicer. Any anger was directed to the decision you guys made though and not you as persons. Thought that went without saying, but I guess it never hurts to make sure of that.
I agree with -- and second -- absolutely everything in this paragraph. :poshclap:
Former IMDb message boards user /// iCM | IMDb | My Top 500+ Favourite Films /// Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2041
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#3695

Post by Onderhond » December 5th, 2018, 11:17 pm

mathiasa wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 11:04 pm
If you were serious you would have issues with quite a lot of other lists as well (already the second list under the critics tab, 100 Best British films, wouldn't fit).
For me the second one there is 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, but I agree that 100 Best British films wouldn't fit under a critics tab, even if a single critic compiled that list. If you're going to have extra restrictions beyond what the tab implies, it shouldn't be there or there should be clearly marked subsets. I wouldn't expect Onderhond's post 2000 Chinese sub 275 checks genre and commercial cinema list to become official either.

And like I said before, imo the Misc tab shouldn't even be there. But I'm not really surprised, ICM seems to have a lot of trouble with stricter categorizations. Can't even hold a musical poll on a film site without people trying to smuggle in Simpsons episodes ...

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 5718
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#3696

Post by xianjiro » December 5th, 2018, 11:27 pm

mathiasa wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 2:46 pm
flaiky wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 2:23 pm

"And did you notice that the decade lists seem all to be confined to a range of merely ten years? THE FUCK IS THIS?????? fix this asap please!!!" (sarcasm)
Clever wit, not sarcasm.
SpoilerShow
Thus, the main difference between wit and sarcasm is that, as already stated, sarcasm is hostility disguised as humor. It is intended to hurt, and is often bitter and caustic. Witty statements are usually in response to someone’s unhelpful remarks or behaviors, and the intent is to unravel and clarify the issue by accentuating its absurdities. Sarcastic statements are expressed in a cutting manner; witty remarks are delivered with undisguised and harmless humor.

- https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... hink-again
We need to replace :sarcasm: with a :clever_wit: :)

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

mathiasa
Posts: 2044
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

#3697

Post by mathiasa » December 5th, 2018, 11:43 pm

Onderhond wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 11:17 pm
mathiasa wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 11:04 pm
If you were serious you would have issues with quite a lot of other lists as well (already the second list under the critics tab, 100 Best British films, wouldn't fit).
For me the second one there is 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, but I agree that 100 Best British films wouldn't fit under a critics tab, even if a single critic compiled that list. If you're going to have extra restrictions beyond what the tab implies, it shouldn't be there or there should be clearly marked subsets. I wouldn't expect Onderhond's post 2000 Chinese sub 275 checks genre and commercial cinema list to become official either.

And like I said before, imo the Misc tab shouldn't even be there. But I'm not really surprised, ICM seems to have a lot of trouble with stricter categorizations. Can't even hold a musical poll on a film site without people trying to smuggle in Simpsons episodes ...
Ah, yes, my bad, but you can take the LGBT list instead, it has the same composition of panelists as the 101.

Whether Misc should be there or not - it is there. And I think it's helpful, you can't expect every premium list to fit into somewhere. I don't think the cats are meant to lend a "right to exist" to the lists they contain, they're really nothing more than a help to more easily find a respective list, not? At least I never cared about those tags and it took me quite some years to even notice them.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 28936
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#3698

Post by mightysparks » December 5th, 2018, 11:44 pm

I haven’t looked into the Italian lists so don’t really have much of a comment there, but I’m also in the camp of only removing or replacing lists with outdated or questionable sources. From what I’ve read I don’t really think the reasoning applies, it’s like having a ‘top euro horror’ list and then going well it doesnt cover all of horror so we’re going to replace it with a ‘top horror’ list. I love big inclusive lists, but I also love having a few smaller subcategory lists whether that be genres or awards or eras etc. In some ways I wish all lists (other than personal, filmography, everything on Netflix etc) were official just so that ‘quality’ lists were easier to find. I don’t really think there can be too much of anything, everyone is on icm for different reasons and focusing on different parts of cinema. When I see a film on lots of lists I assume it’s something worth seeing, even if they are lists I don’t like it means this film has some kind of importance to some part of film or film watcher.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 21306
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3699

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » December 6th, 2018, 12:13 am

72allinncallme wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 10:00 pm
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 6:47 pm
Nopros wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 6:22 pm


Will you reconsider removing a well liked list?
I am considering everything people have posted, yes. Will that lead me to change my mind, I don't know, it's not looking like it. It is leading me to think in certain ways about how we make decisions and how we adopt lists, and perhaps that thinking could lead me to change my mind, but I am not currently on the fence about the decision. I still think it's right decision (it's also not my decision, it's a group decision I support). I also don't think this list is some wildly popular list. Every list has some people liking it and people who will be disappointed by its removal. Even the Martial arts list replacement, probably the least controversial replacement we've made, had complaints.
How goes that old verse again?
«An inuit might have many words for ‘snow’
But a mod have twice as many for ‘no’ »
Well, yeah. I don't want to get anyone's hopes up that this decision is reversed because I'm don't see that happening. But that doesn't mean complaints haven't been heard or won't have an effect. If the only reason to complain is about this specific list, then you're likely to be disappointed. If the complaint is broader about how we make decisions and communicate them and the way we consider replacements, well I think there the discussion has an effect. I (personally) can and do change my mind on things if they're reasonably argued, but I don't do so quickly. My opinions on what should be official and how the site should be structured are not the same as when I joined as a member and they're not the same as when I became a mod, but those perspective changes come not only from discussions and reading, but also time for reflection and considering all perspectives.
And to be blunt. With so many different lists nominated by iCM users, you guys chose a list not on those polls to make official. Shows a lack of respect for the users imo. Not to mention the poll itself. It’s not so much a poll as it is a private survey for you mods. Democracy is absent and I don’t like it.
It wasn't in the poll because the list didn't exist when we ran the poll. The Brazil list wasn't in the poll because we had already decided to adopt it. The other four options are lists that did well in the poll. The poll results will be released when we finalize the adoptions. The poll was absolutely our primary (though not our only) consideration in this round of adoptions.
Dropping by in the afternoon saying that two lists were going to get booted and then get absent (not just you Joachimt, the other mods too) and not excpecting any «shitstorm» sounds rather naive in my book. How do you expect us not to try to draw any conclusions when left on our own? That said, the tone probably felt a little hostile (my own included). I should’ve handled it nicer. Any anger was directed to the decision you guys made though and not you as persons. Thought that went without saying, but I guess it never hurts to make sure of that.
Yeah we'll be avoiding that in the future, but to be clear, I replied when I saw the posts. Joachim's post here was him wanting to let you guys know something, not an official communication. We found out about it, and the replies as we visited normally, so there was no reason for us to expect to find any uproar.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 5718
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#3700

Post by xianjiro » December 6th, 2018, 12:31 am

Had a good post get lost in the extra step related to posts have been made in the meantime thing - not really sure how or why it got lost, but it did and that was some time ago. I'm NOT a fan of that in this software. When I hit submit, I don't want an occasional "are you sure" step. GRRRRRR.

I know some of what I had written has been explained so I won't try and recreate that.

Will address communication though. Simply put, I can't believe anyone didn't suggest the unadoption of a list - based on past experience - would not generate emotional, heated, and even well-thought responses and thusly should be handled accordingly. The way it was handled this time was less than ideal, hell, I'll say less than appropriate. If the choice is this or waiting for the official blog post, I'll wait. Don't have any issues with people sharing hopes and fears, but we know as soon as as the list adoption message went out people would be interested.

Shit. My first attempt was so much better ...

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#3701

Post by Ebbywebby » December 6th, 2018, 12:50 am

flaiky wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 2:23 pm
Well I shouldn't really speak on anyone's behalf, maybe they all understand and have no problem with the comments here, but I meant cumulatively, over several pages now, there's the sense of an 'attack' even if it's not personal slurs. As someone who also does occasional 'work' for the forum (the polls) and receives minimal thanks, my sympathy kicked in. These comments in particular felt unnecessarily heated to me:

"I think it's incredibly disrespectful for the mods to randomly start removing Official status ... at the moment I feel like deleting my iCM account."
"Are you trying to piss everybody off or does it come naturally?"
"Piss poor job from you guys to realizing it so late."
"And did you notice that the decade lists seem all to be confined to a range of merely ten years? THE FUCK IS THIS?????? fix this asap please!!!" (sarcasm)
"I hope you guys are real proud." (sarcasm)
"not conforming to the taste of those in power"
Add "I think it is imperative for someone from the list mod team to apologise."

This intensity of this debate bewilders me, but I just keep reading it.

mjf314
Moderator
Posts: 10797
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3702

Post by mjf314 » December 6th, 2018, 1:00 am

The 100+1 Italian list focuses on, in the words of the original source, the "period from 1942 to 1978, perhaps the most luminous years of our film industry." (see the spoiler for the full description) The list may focus heavily on certain important movements, but the source doesn't say anything about focusing exclusively on certain movements.

100+1 full descriptionShow
One hundred films. One hundred films selected from a 36-year period, from 1942 to 1978, perhaps the most luminous years of our film industry. One hundred films integrated in a program that wants to recount many things and to a diverse audience: elementary, middle and high school children, who know nothing or next to nothing about the best of Italian cinema. And even less how cinema could still today help them learn about and understand their country.

They are the beneficiaries of this project. Not us specialists or the usual filmgoers, but the most often ignored and overlooked. Our committee has compiled this list for them – a list that is open, perfectible and certainly not exhaustive – of the first 100 films to bring to the collective attention. Not simply because they are the “best,” the most beautiful, the most important, or the films that made history, or because this is the only period to take into consideration. On the contrary. Because we believe they are the most useful in re-opening an interrupted dialogue. They are in a sense a provocation, which we hope will serve to stir things up and help face a problem of increasing urgency.

It is useless to hide behind the obvious. The historical distance that separates the young and very young from our older films is enormous and destined to grow exponentially. How could it be otherwise? Except for rare exceptions, almost always tied to a highly restricted number of titles and genres, our classics are seen rarely and poorly on television. What remains are festivals, showcases, well-deserving restored prints – in other words, the cultural circuit, which certainly does not reach a large number of people. There is home video as well, also destined for film lovers, and in recent years various companies have done a truly excellent job of recouping these films. But beyond that?

One hundred films with which to start over then, in order to make available to all, beginning with students, a patrimony that should belong to each and every one of us – just like art, literature or architecture. Yet cinema, of extreme importance in the second half of the 20th century, has always been forgotten or relegated to the margins of our educational programs. Except for the few times it manages to sneak in through the window by way of initiatives of the few teachers who, circumventing rules and obstructions, as art teaches us to do, show films to their students for a variety of reasons.

Naturally, our undertaking is an enormous one. In order for this project to become operative we must locate the prints, acquire rights and decide through which channels to present in schools these and, we hope, many other titles. But that is not all. For the films of that era to become once again familiar we must prepare the groundwork, inform, present films and filmmakers, links movies and trends, and train teachers to use cinema in a different manner.

For this reason we must discuss more than just the “list” that we have fashioned here. We must amass ideas, resources and energy to this project in all its complexity if we believe that the memory of our cinema deserves to be passed on. This is not only an Italian problem, but in Italy it is particularly dramatic. For the wealth and variety of our films. For the dramatic conditions in which it subsists. For the patrimony it represents not only at home but throughout the entire world. In this sense, Italy and its cinema could even be considered a pilot case. And what if for once we were the ones to set an example?
84 of the 100 films on the FilmTV list are from the period 1942-1978, so the FilmTV voters agree that 1942-1978 are the most luminous years. Based on these numbers, the two lists seem to have a similar focus.

I think the FilmTV list is an obvious choice for adoption. The number of new official checks is completely irrelevant, imo.
It's a ranked list (unlike the other two), and based on a poll of 109 experts, which makes it perfect as an introductory guide to Italian cinema.

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#3703

Post by Ebbywebby » December 6th, 2018, 1:02 am

Nathan Treadway wrote:
December 3rd, 2018, 4:42 pm
72allinncallme wrote:
December 3rd, 2018, 4:29 pm
What will be removed? Action and one of the asian-lists?
And could a kind soul link the three confirmed lists :)
Road
Cannes
Independent
Perhaps add the others into a single, clickable post?

User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 103
Joined: Sep 30, 2016
Contact:

#3704

Post by Darth Nevets » December 6th, 2018, 5:12 am

Ebbywebby wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 1:02 am
Nathan Treadway wrote:
December 3rd, 2018, 4:42 pm
72allinncallme wrote:
December 3rd, 2018, 4:29 pm
What will be removed? Action and one of the asian-lists?
And could a kind soul link the three confirmed lists :)
Road
Cannes
Independent
Perhaps add the others into a single, clickable post?
Road
Cannes
Independent
Brazil
Italy
Sixth is still unconfirmed.

User avatar
nimimerkillinen
Posts: 1704
Joined: Dec 30, 2011
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Contact:

#3705

Post by nimimerkillinen » December 6th, 2018, 6:19 am

Onderhond wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 10:34 pm
mathiasa wrote:
December 5th, 2018, 10:20 pm
We had discussions about different official lists before, as to where/how they should be classified, never with any suggestion that the particular list should be slacked. The 101 list would both fit the misc and Institutes tabs, but putting it there would confuse users, because of the list's name.
Personally I wouldn't be against lists highlighting film movements, but currently there doesn't even seem to be a tab to put it under. Except for Misc of course, but that's a bit of a trash can right now. I'm not familiar with all the lists and their boundaries, but as far as I know there aren't any Nouvelle Vague, Taiwanese New Wave or Mumblecore lists either ... again, not against going in that direction, but seeing the stance of the mods that doesn't seem to be on the table right now?
why not tho, i dont know about making websites but adding a new tab is probably not very hard? sounds like great idea
again, i think there should be at least 5 list for every major (personally would prefer many more) country so this came as shock

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7026
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#3706

Post by Gershwin » December 6th, 2018, 8:35 am

There should be at least more differentiation than just five or six tabs. It can be quite hard already to find some of the official lists. For instance the complete names should really show up in a search, which isn't the case now with lists with longer names. I think many parts of the website need a revision, especially the progress page and everything under "lists".
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2041
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#3707

Post by Onderhond » December 6th, 2018, 8:45 am

Gershwin wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 8:35 am
especially the progress page
I feel list progress and list discovery should be different pages. I like the progress page, but don't see the point of the tabs there. It's really about progress, not discovery of lists. What is lacking is a good list discovery page. Currently the list overview page is a weirdly ordered paged affair that offers no useful functionality to segment or narrow down on lists, apart from that incomprehensible filter thing (which never seems to work for me, probably because it accepts some kind of format I'm not aware of).

I honestly feel it would be good to ask the ICM community if there are people with knowledge of websites (UX designers really) that want to help out in their spare time. At the same time maybe find an icon designer who can make new icons in a matter of days rather than weeks.

User avatar
nimimerkillinen
Posts: 1704
Joined: Dec 30, 2011
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Contact:

#3708

Post by nimimerkillinen » December 6th, 2018, 11:11 am

Onderhond wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 8:45 am
Gershwin wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 8:35 am
especially the progress page
I honestly feel it would be good to ask the ICM community if there are people with knowledge of websites (UX designers really) that want to help out in their spare time. At the same time maybe find an icon designer who can make new icons in a matter of days rather than weeks.
i wouldnt mind having generic icon to be announced for all lists that dont have icon yet and make then official when the list itself are decided :)

mathiasa
Posts: 2044
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

#3709

Post by mathiasa » December 6th, 2018, 12:43 pm

I'm glad that with mightysparks a mod weighed in with a considerate perspective.

peaceful said it was a group decision. Is it public who belongs to the mod group who decides adoption? peacefulAnarchy, joachimt, WalterNeff, anyone else?

tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3306
Joined: May 18, 2011
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#3710

Post by tommy_leazaq » December 6th, 2018, 1:34 pm

When the source is reputed and list is constrained purposefully, I don't think there is any need to remove it. Also I don't remember any discussion of unadopting this list like we had for IMDb Horror. So I would really like the mods to reconsider the decision.

I guess one of the main reasons for the Italian list getting the axe is because of its name. "One hundred and one film. One Country" seems to give us the taste of the best of Italy. But when we realize its only for the 35 years or so period, it looks bad. Had the name be something more narrowed like " The Golden Age of Italian cinema" or "Italian New Wave" or something else, I guess it would have stayed through. Now its like French New Wave list is getting replaced by 100 greatest French films of all time.

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 7033
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#3711

Post by Lonewolf2003 » December 6th, 2018, 2:26 pm

I have to confess I was one that supported the decision by the mods for removing the list, but after reading mathiasa explanations behind the scope of the list I'm less sure it's a correct decision. A beter title for it sure would help.

User avatar
WalterNeff
Donator
Posts: 2946
Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Contact:

#3712

Post by WalterNeff » December 6th, 2018, 2:43 pm

I generally don't support removal of lists, but I let the majority decide. I believe our communication around the entire process has been poor. I am just one voice in the wilderness.

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 2703
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#3713

Post by Fergenaprido » December 6th, 2018, 2:52 pm

mathiasa wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 12:43 pm
I'm glad that with mightysparks a mod weighed in with a considerate perspective.

peaceful said it was a group decision. Is it public who belongs to the mod group who decides adoption? peacefulAnarchy, joachimt, WalterNeff, anyone else?
Mighty and Adam are the mods/admins/owners of the forum, but neither are the mods on icm itself.

It was posted in one of the blog posts a few years ago: https://www.icheckmovies.com/blog/community/
In our previous blog post, we stated that we wanted to involve you, the iCM community, more. The first part of this shift towards are more community-driven website has already been taken: we appointed seven moderators to help us with handling lists. They make sure that toplists are kept up-to-date, but also select which lists to adopt. Their efforts are a huge help for us, as it leaves us more time to focus on developing iCM.

So who are these illusive toplist moderators? Well, here they are, in alphabetical order:

DreCosby
joachimt
Knaldskalle
mjf314
PeacefulAnarchy
SanderO
WalterNeff


We chose these users because they have consistently been a great help in keeping our lists up-to-date. Note that more moderators may be added later, although we don't plan to have more at this time.
This was before Erik and Piet left, and I don't recall if Marijn added more mods after their departure.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 21306
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3714

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » December 6th, 2018, 2:54 pm

mathiasa wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 12:43 pm
I'm glad that with mightysparks a mod weighed in with a considerate perspective.

peaceful said it was a group decision. Is it public who belongs to the mod group who decides adoption? peacefulAnarchy, joachimt, WalterNeff, anyone else?
mjf, beavis, knaldskalle and also DreCosby though he doesn't participate much in adoption discussions.

mathiasa
Posts: 2044
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

#3715

Post by mathiasa » December 6th, 2018, 4:05 pm

Glad to see so much support and to see that the decision wasn't unanimous.

Thanks for the infos about the mods, I was particularly intere :satstunned: sted in whether mjf was involved. From what has been said by two mods so far about the reasons for the removal of the list, there seems to be a contradiction between the posts of peaceful and mjf:

peaceful says the list needs removal because the timeframe restriction is awkward, while mjf points out that the new list also focuses on those "most luminous years". If that timeframe is legit and even acknowledged by the the new list, then logically, the reason to drop the list falls away.

@mjf: I didn't mean that the list specifically targets the different movements, but it's that those movements made those years so luminous. You can't have luminosity without a source of light.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 21306
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3716

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » December 6th, 2018, 4:11 pm

mathiasa wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 4:05 pm
Glad to see so much support and to see that the decision wasn't unanimous.

Thanks for the infos about the mods, I was particularly interested in whether mjf was involved. From what has been said by two mods so far about the reasons for the removal of the list, there seems to be a contradiction between the posts of peaceful and mjf:

peaceful says the list needs removal because the timeframe restriction is awkward, while mjf points out that the new list also focuses on those "most luminous years". If that timeframe is legit and even acknowledged by the the new list, then logically, the reason to drop the list falls away.
I think you're straining there. I don't see any contradiction. The timeframe is legit, but explicitly restricting a list to that timeframe makes it less interesting from a user perspective. As mjf said, that timeframe is covered plenty by the new list through natural merit, there's no need for making it an explicit restriction and shutting out a more well rounded view of Italian cinema.

Edit: Since everyone is so fond of dumb analogies: The vast majority of great films are directed by men. Would there be any point in having a list of "The best films directed by men"? The criteria is legitimate and they did direct most of the best films. But why exclude the films that aren't directed by men? It feels petty and insecure to make a list that just further emphasizes an emphasis that will already come out naturally. It's a restriction that adds little insight and only leads to loss.

mathiasa
Posts: 2044
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

#3717

Post by mathiasa » December 6th, 2018, 4:39 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 4:11 pm
mathiasa wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 4:05 pm
Glad to see so much support and to see that the decision wasn't unanimous.

Thanks for the infos about the mods, I was particularly interested in whether mjf was involved. From what has been said by two mods so far about the reasons for the removal of the list, there seems to be a contradiction between the posts of peaceful and mjf:

peaceful says the list needs removal because the timeframe restriction is awkward, while mjf points out that the new list also focuses on those "most luminous years". If that timeframe is legit and even acknowledged by the the new list, then logically, the reason to drop the list falls away.
I think you're straining there. I don't see any contradiction. The timeframe is legit, but explicitly restricting a list to that timeframe makes it less interesting from a user perspective. As mjf said, that timeframe is covered plenty by the new list through natural merit, there's no need for making it an explicit restriction and shutting out a more well rounded view of Italian cinema.
You're saying I'm straining, I can't see it: I think you're forgetting the context of the other Italian list, Il Grande Cinema Italiano, which with its 250 movies did just that, giving a rounded view of Italian cinema: it has a timeframe from 1905-2011 (which is wider than the new list). It may seem less interesting to those who made the decision, but looking at the reactions here and the support the list has outside icm (as summarized in my table above) does not permit a fair judgement as to which list will be deemed more interesting by the users (even more so including your argument of appropriate distribution as a consideration).

In the beginning, you wrote that the timeframe, or its strict implementation (can't remember) was "awkward", the way you phrase it now (that there is simply "no need" for such a restriction), is more comprehensible. But I think this is even a graver violation of the guidelines, at least according to what I've always read from you guys (as it does not include any of the reasons always given for a withdrawal).

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 2703
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#3718

Post by Fergenaprido » December 6th, 2018, 4:44 pm

Okay, my official guess for the last official list is the TSPDT 1001-2000 list, with my second guess as one of the two women directors lists, and third guess the European Film Awards winners.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 21306
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3719

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » December 6th, 2018, 5:12 pm

mathiasa wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 4:39 pm
PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 4:11 pm
mathiasa wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 4:05 pm
Glad to see so much support and to see that the decision wasn't unanimous.

Thanks for the infos about the mods, I was particularly interested in whether mjf was involved. From what has been said by two mods so far about the reasons for the removal of the list, there seems to be a contradiction between the posts of peaceful and mjf:

peaceful says the list needs removal because the timeframe restriction is awkward, while mjf points out that the new list also focuses on those "most luminous years". If that timeframe is legit and even acknowledged by the the new list, then logically, the reason to drop the list falls away.
I think you're straining there. I don't see any contradiction. The timeframe is legit, but explicitly restricting a list to that timeframe makes it less interesting from a user perspective. As mjf said, that timeframe is covered plenty by the new list through natural merit, there's no need for making it an explicit restriction and shutting out a more well rounded view of Italian cinema.
You're saying I'm straining, I can't see it: I think you're forgetting the context of the other Italian list, Il Grande Cinema Italiano, which with its 250 movies did just that, giving a rounded view of Italian cinema: it has a timeframe from 1905-2011 (which is wider than the new list). It may seem less interesting to those who made the decision, but looking at the reactions here and the support the list has outside icm (as summarized in my table above) does not permit a fair judgement as to which list will be deemed more interesting by the users (even more so including your argument of appropriate distribution as a consideration).

In the beginning, you wrote that the timeframe, or its strict implementation (can't remember) was "awkward", the way you phrase it now (that there is simply "no need" for such a restriction), is more comprehensible. But I think this is even a graver violation of the guidelines, at least according to what I've always read from you guys (as it does not include any of the reasons always given for a withdrawal).
The new list is new. It came out in August. Its lack of widespread distribution is due to that not some democratic widespread judgement that the Venice list is better. Il Grande Cinema Italiano is a book, and books generally have a much higher threshold for notability than Institutions for things like wikipedia, they're also harder to source for users. If you want to argue that we should get rid of that list (and all the other random book lists we've added over the years) you could probably convince me but I think the fallout from that would be much more widespread.

A restriction that serves little purpose but to be exclusionary (and cowardice because oh no we might choose a controversial pre 1942 film or a couple of recent films) is awkward. I'm phrasing it differently because of the context of your questions, but there's nothing inconsistent or contradictory there.

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 7033
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#3720

Post by Lonewolf2003 » December 6th, 2018, 5:35 pm

PeacefulAnarchy wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 4:11 pm
mathiasa wrote:
December 6th, 2018, 4:05 pm
Glad to see so much support and to see that the decision wasn't unanimous.

Thanks for the infos about the mods, I was particularly interested in whether mjf was involved. From what has been said by two mods so far about the reasons for the removal of the list, there seems to be a contradiction between the posts of peaceful and mjf:

peaceful says the list needs removal because the timeframe restriction is awkward, while mjf points out that the new list also focuses on those "most luminous years". If that timeframe is legit and even acknowledged by the the new list, then logically, the reason to drop the list falls away.
I

Edit: Since everyone is so fond of dumb analogies: The vast majority of great films are directed by men. Would there be any point in having a list of "The best films directed by men"? The criteria is legitimate and they did direct most of the best films. But why exclude the films that aren't directed by men? It feels petty and insecure to make a list that just further emphasizes an emphasis that will already come out naturally. It's a restriction that adds little insight and only leads to loss.
I’m pretty sure there would be alt-right people who would actively support and promote a list like that in response to Directed by Women lists. :lol:

Post Reply