Fake Successes

[HappinessStan]

I can't say that I've been aware of this issue, but then I'm not particularly interested in huge stars, and don't look at the successes, or "successes" of people who don't interest me.

Just out of interest, though - does the offender need to be caught red-handed, need to admit that they were having a laugh, or is it at the mod's discretion? I tend not to post many successes, mainly because I get most of my addresses from other sources, or if I do get them from here then they are people who are known to be good signers and there are plenty of successes posted for them already.

Having said that, I have written several people who have been described as "difficult" on these boards, mainly to just tell them that I enjoy their work and not expecting anything back.

In a handful of these cases I've received relatively quick successes, two of them sent handwritten notes describing making the movies I referred to, and both of which were completely unexpected. If I were to post them as successes I would expect to be questioned about them and probably accused of being a fantasist and so on, but since I'm not going to the situation won't arise.

My main gripe with the feedback board is that it cheapens the forum for current users and renders the site at best unreliable as an archive for future members to not be able to debate authenticity in the feedback section, given that it is where the home page starts and leads from.

If we are discussing saving fellow board users time and money for letters and stamps then being honest with everyone who has sent a letter to John Travolta would be a start in saving a lot of paper, ink and stamps.

[chriscollector]

There are threads with lists of stars who send out pre-prints, auto-pens, and secretarials.

There is a HUGE difference in someone who is a huge fan of travolta who is happy with anything, as compared to someone posting a fake Eminem success, or one of baseballs biggest and hardest stars. At least with a "Travolta" your time and stamps will return a "signed" photo.

[khackdrums]

Just out of interest, though - does the offender need to be caught red-handed, need to admit that they were having a laugh, or is it at the mod's discretion?

The member has to be caught "red-handed" with solid proof of wrong-doing, or they have to admit they were “having a laugh”, which is just as bad. It’s funny how members say they were just "having a laugh" only after being caught red-handed. Moderator discretion is rarely used, there is usually an obvious reason why a member gets disciplined. Many try to play it off as though they are the victim. It makes me laugh.