Complaints and discussions longer allowed

[Alan2099]

Matt, as you've repeateldy asked this be moved hee, I'm doing it.

I have a big problem with the current way the ID Crisis board is run and the way the Death Spiral has been treated.

I appreciate and respect negative criticism, whoever it may come from, if for no other reason than a board with all positive criticism would be boring.
However, Jim and I are going to start enforcing a new rule that the criticism needs to be a) genuine, b) about the work and not the people who enjoy the work, c) coming from someone who actually bought and read the book, and d) appropriate to the specific work being discussed and not some oft-repeated diatribe about "grim n gritty" or "rape comics".
Apparently, according to the new rules, you can no longer complain about something you don't like unless you specifically buy the issue and complain soley about that particular issue. If the entire DC side of comics is getting dark, you can't say any thing about it. It has to be about the specific issue that you've bought.

Which initself makes no sense. There are plenty of things I've read but not bought because I didn't want to support the book, but was curious about what people were saying on the subject.

Apparnelty I'm no longer able to do that. If somebody posts something along the lines of "Did you see Batman #8768? Batman kills a person and drink all their blood while raping their dog!" (as an example) I can't comment on how horrible an idea that is, because I didn't buy it.

I can't comment on how in 15 other books that month, other heroes are drinking people's blood and raping their dogs, because it's doesn't tie in directly, and heaven forbid I even suggest that things are starting to get darker. That's not allowed either apparnetly.

Even if I did post something that was related soley to that one specific comic I bought and didn't like, it somehow has to be a "genuine" critisism, whatever that is.

Any complaining about these rules will also be automatically deleted and given the same consideration as flouting these rules.
So, after creating some rather ridicloud rules, they can't even be discussed.

Now, after all that, somebody brought that to the attention of the rumbles board, and naturally people didnt like it and started talking about it.

Which was all pretty much deleated since it was off topic or some such excuse, all while being told, "We have the rights to our opinions", except now we don't have anythign we can DO with our opinions except have them.

On the Rumbles board they were off topic and delated. We can't talk about them in the specific forum they apply to, anywhere else we're no longer the community the discussion would apply to.

Matt, you said that
Venting to your peers accomplishes nothing except riling up anger which ultimately does no one any benefit at all while the problem remains unaddressed.
That right there is a load of bull in itself. We're already upset or we WOULDN"T be needing to vent in the first place, and deleating all the posts that say this is even making people more upset.

Venting is a GOOD thing. It makes people feel better to let of steam. That's why it's called venting. What you're trying to do is the exact opposite. You're trying to keep everything bottled up so that nobody gets to vent and they just end up leaving or outright exploding.

People can not like rules. It's fine, when you step in and tell them they can't even talk about rules they don't like, ... well, can't you see where the problem there is?

Further popping in with statements like
Again, if you have a complaint about a given policy then please address to the appropiate channels where the concern may be raised and discussed. Otherwise little to nothing can be done about it.
Only gets people more upset. That sounds like something a machine would say and takes the humanity right out of the discussion.

Furthermore, most people already know this anyway. That's not the point. They weren't trying to bring it up the channels. We were just talking about it. Venting. Letting off steam in the one place that we thought was relatively safe to do so.

Honestly, with the way post have been pounced on, moved, and deleted recently, there are a lot of people that don't have faith in the forum staff anymore and actions like yours in the Death Spiral topic and the new rules in the ID crisis section are only making things worse.

[Donald Stone]

Not that it matters to our Overlords, but I agree with Alan.

[yeoman]

Agree, hell I'm amlmost ready to nominate him poster of the year.

[Dee3]

Okay , look I don't want anyone getting banned over this I can see pauls point as well as I can understand where he is coming from. I don't really think that the rumblers have an agenda per say.

I really do not want the Death Spiral therad to go the way of the dodo I kinda enjoy having a place to vent how I feel with out being attacked which is why I came here to CBR.

Isn't the point of this place to be a safe haven for all opinions even if they are negative?

[Paul Newell]

Negative opinions won't be deleted and are welcome to the IC Board...It'll only be when things start getting repetetive or start bedgering other posters will any action be taken.

The "line drawn in the sand" isn't at the start line.

[Absalom]

Originally posted by Paul Newell

Negative opinions won't be deleted and are welcome to the IC Board...It'll only be when things start getting repetetive or start bedgering other posters will any action be taken.
Yeah, but if the "positive" posters start getting repetitive arguments, or start bedgering the "negative" posters, will you treat them the same way ?!?

[yeoman]

Negative opinions won't be deleted and are welcome to the IC Board...It'll only be when things start getting repetetive or start bedgering other posters will any action be taken.

The "line drawn in the sand" isn't at the start line.

This is contradictory to what I saw posted.

appreciate and respect negative criticism, whoever it may come from, if for no other reason than a board with all positive criticism would be boring.
However, Jim and I are going to start enforcing a new rule that the criticism needs to be a) genuine, b) about the work and not the people who enjoy the work, c) coming from someone who actually bought and read the book, and d) appropriate to the specific work being discussed and not some oft-repeated diatribe about "grim n gritty" or "rape comics".

Any criticism that violates those quidelines will be automatically deleted. If a poster winds up getting multiple deletions, they'll get a warning. If they ignore the warning, they'll get a temporary ban. If they ignore the ban, it becomes permanent.

Any complaining about these rules will also be automatically deleted and given the same consideration as flouting these rules.

I'm not particularly happy that it's had to come to this, so let's not spoil it for everybody, OK?

This post denotes that any Critisim breaking those rules and any complaing would be delted and a warning sent.

That pretty much means that it is outlawed in the entirty.

it also outlaws any discussion of the larger direction of DC comics in a negative light.

[yeoman]

Yeah, but if the "positive" posters start getting repetitive arguments, or start bedgering the "negative" posters, will you treat them the same way ?!?

Yeah, if someone posts "I havn't read it yet, but that sounds awsome," will the post be deleted at the poster warned?

[Matt]

Thankyou for your input into this matter.
It is currently being discussed by the Moderators as a whole.

However, it would seem to me that the major concern over these guidelines stems from a misunderstanding about their context and taking certain phrases too literally.

To clear up any misunderstandings please understand the following;
* Criticism is certainly allowed. Open discussion is fantastic and welcome. However, statements such as 'X and/or Y sucks' without qualifiers are simply a waste of time. Please take the time to explain why you dislike something.
* Every person is an individual and many will not share the same tastes as you. It is a general rule of the entire CBR Forums that debates be not taken to personal levels; keep the debate/discussion on the subject at hand and not who you may be in discussion with. Personal insults will not be tolerated.
* Stick to the specific work being discussed and try not to make reference to such tired phrases as "grim n gritty" or "rape comics". Making such broad generalisations and comments makes one self appear less than articulate. Please cite specifics with which you may be unhappy with, without resorting to cliches.
* Do not try to argue about a story or issue you have not read first hand. Arguing from a position of ignorance is never a good idea. Have first hand evidence, it is the only reliable way. Do not base your own opinion on the account of someone else, since second hand descriptions can often leave out otherwise important details.

The aim of the guidelines seems to be quite fair, there to stop what has happened in the past - needless, consistant badgering and near abuse of anyone that has posted that they enjoyed (or disliked) a particular story. Posters will always have differing opinions and there is a right and a wrong way to argue both cases.

Remain polite and civil at all times, make your points in the same manner. Everybody is happy. No problem.

[Z-man]

* Do not try to argue about a story or issue you have not read first hand. Arguing from a position of ignorance is never a good idea. Have first hand evidence, it is the only reliable way. Do not base your own opinion on the account of someone else, since second hand descriptions can often leave out otherwise important details.

If that were the purpose of the rule, then the rule should say that. As it stands, the rule requires the complainer to purchase the book, which essentially makes every arguement involve the phrase "Well, you bought the book, therefore the story's working."

[Matt]

I repeat, the main concern over the posted guidelines appears to be a misunderstanding about their context and taking the spirit of them too literally.

Relax. Be happy. The world is a good place.

[Paul Newell]

This is contradictory to what I saw posted.



This post denotes that any Critisim breaking those rules and any complaing would be delted and a warning sent.

That pretty much means that it is outlawed in the entirty.

Well seeing that there has been lots of critisism in the past that doesn't break those rules, how does it include it?

it also outlaws any discussion of the larger direction of DC comics in a negative light.

Well seeing as we've had several threads about it already that have accompliched absolutely zip apart from causing a circular argument and everybody's views are already very well known....Why would we need more? Besides, there's always Death Spiral for that.

[Paul Newell]

Yeah, if someone posts "I havn't read it yet, but that sounds awsome," will the post be deleted at the poster warned?

Well seeing as I never get any complaints about those posts...And only expect to get "point-proving" ones...Then probably not.

[yeoman]

Well seeing that there has been lots of critisism in the past that doesn't break those rules, how does it include it?

Because the rules are vague enough, especially the "genuine" quilifier, that any negative post would be called on it.

Beyond that, these rules are one sided in that they exist only to protect those that spew praise for DC, while punishing those that dislike the current direction by arbitrailiy deciding which of those posts are worthy of being on this board.

Well seeing as we've had several threads about it already that have accompliched absolutely zip apart from causing a circular argument and everybody's views are already very well known....Why would we need more? Besides, there's always Death Spiral for that.

Haven't you heard? Off topic threads are a wanted species on Rumbles.

[yeoman]

* Stick to the specific work being discussed and try not to make reference to such tired phrases as "grim n gritty" or "rape comics". Making such broad generalisations and comments makes one self appear less than articulate. Please cite specifics with which you may be unhappy with, without resorting to cliches.

Now, clearify this point for me. If I say "I don't like OMAC for these points, and it just furthes DC's current rend" that would be against the rules, because I made a statement about DC's current trend without going into detail on the individual parts of DCs current trend that I dislike.

WOuld the above be true?

* Do not try to argue about a story or issue you have not read first hand. Arguing from a position of ignorance is never a good idea. Have first hand evidence, it is the only reliable way. Do not base your own opinion on the account of someone else, since second hand descriptions can often leave out otherwise important details.

So, say, if someone details an issue of Birds of Prey, or Legion, and I remark how awsome that sounds, without having read it, it is, in fact, against the rules? Regardless of how much detail I go into on how that fits what DC should be doing.

The aim of the guidelines seems to be quite fair, there to stop what has happened in the past - needless, consistant badgering and near abuse of anyone that has posted that they enjoyed (or disliked) a particular story. Posters will always have differing opinions and there is a right and a wrong way to argue both cases.

You;ll have to excuse me if I fail to believe this will actually be used against those that praise the comic and badger those that disliked it.

[Matt]

I would remind all interested in this thread that posts should remain civil and polite at all times.
I would also remind all involved to read what has already been posted and take that into account when they take the time to make replies of their own.

For example;
Because the rules are vague enough, especially the "genuine" quilifier, that any negative post would be called on it.

Please refer to the statement I personally posted before. This matter has been addressed. The main concern over these guidelines stems from misconceptions about their intention. These have been been cleared up and are readily understandable.

Beyond that, these rules are one sided in that they exist only to protect those that spew praise for DC, while punishing those that dislike the current direction by arbitrailiy deciding which of those posts are worthy of being on this board.

This matter has been addressed. Complaints had been received concerning certain posts and the behaviour of some people. These guidelines have been introduced to ensure that debate is open without certain people being open to badgering and abuse simply for liking or disliking a given story or issue.

Haven't you heard? Off topic threads are a wanted species on Rumbles.

Such a statement, while literally true, is unwarranted since the 'Death Spiral' thread is currently not under consideration of being moved or deleted as has been stated multiple times now.


In future, I suggest that if a user has concerns over any Forum policies that they first contact the Moderator in question (via either PM or E-Mail) in a polite and civil manner, detailing their uncertainties. Immediately raising it as a seemingly important issue, without first gaining details and specific information from a reliable source, does everyone little benefit.

Alternatively, this very Forum exists as a direct line for Moderator enquiries. If you have a question then feel free to post it here.

I should also point out the following from the overall CBR Forums Guidelines:
It should be noted that these are only general guidelines and not specific rules and regulations. In other words, Moderator discretion is always in effect and Moderators are not present to enforce rules but instead to keep their respective forums running smoothly in whatever manner they see fit.
In short, the written form/letter of even given rule or guidelines comes a distant second to the spirit of it. 'Rules lawyering' will get any one who attempts nowhere.

[Peter]

The "line drawn in the sand" isn't at the start line.

It certainly sounds like it.

For a start we're not even allowed to talk about something we haven't seen first-hand.

Now Paul, you and I (being Aussies) are at least a fortnight to a month behind all the American buyers in terms of what we've actually seen first hand. Going by your rules the two of us can't even post at all. What, I have to wait until a conversation is dead and buried before I can join in, because the book won't come out in Australia for a month or two?

Some things deserve criticism. And negative criticism no matter what, what you're righting against, is no different to positive adulation no matter what.

Seriously -- "genuine criticism"? What classifies as "counterfeit criticism"? If you read something that doesn't work or you really don't like, bam, that's a genuine criticism. I -- and my fellow Rumblers -- IIRC have never done the "You liked this story, well you're a depressed pervert!" attitude, so no problem there.

Stipulation (c) is where we start hitting problems. If I flick thtough something and see that it's crap, why the heck would I then spend money on it? If I hear, "Hey, Willington turned Leslie Thomkins into a child murderer!", why the heck can't people respond until they've read it themselves? What, if people had read reviews of the Austen Superman issue where a woman is raped to death in an all-ages comic, they're just not allowed to respond until they've read it themselves?

I mean heck, you *have* to realise that anybody with any criticism would get immediately shot down with, "Well you bought it so you must have liked it"?

And (d) -- so if an orchard keeps putting out rotten and sickly apples, you're only allowed to talk about the apples? The sad fact is, there's a trend in DC at the moment, and as a lot of individual stories fit into that trend, said trend should be open game. There's no reason why it shouldn't be.

And as for the rest of it, heck, *this* conversation would probably earn me a temp-ban on your board, seeing the "You can't talk or complain about the rules!" stipulation there.


I repeat, the main concern over the posted guidelines appears to be a misunderstanding about their context and taking the spirit of them too literally.

Then more thought should've been put into writing them in the first place, or they shouldn't have been written at all. Paul is quite explicit in explaining how the rules are going to work -- either he meant it, or he didn't. As many people have pointed out, it all sounds very 1984, with any kind of criticism (or even discussion of the rules!) being grounds for punishment. He explicitly states that, I mean c'mon, tell us that he doesn't. It's *right there*.

And if Paul *didn't* mean that, then why the heck did write those rules in the first place?

[Matt]

For a start we're not even allowed to talk about something we haven't seen first-hand.

Talking about a specific comic book issue you have not read yourself is never a good idea to begin with. Descriptions given can often be steeped in all sorts of bias to appear far more grand or dire than actually depicted.
For example, here's a possible description;
"Well, you see. There's these two damn hippy liberal types who don't believe in their government. They have a kid and guess something bad is gonna happen to their home. So they basically tell their people's leaders to go to hell and send the kid away anyhow. What a pair of wankers."

Which is, as an example, just one slant which could be cast on the origin of Superman.

However if you come across an account of an event in an issue which sounds somewhat dire to yourself ... then you may wish to preface that by "If that happened as it sounds..." or "If your description is accurate..." without jumping immediately to the conclusion that the account given is 100% accurate then you don't come off quite as irrational as you may well otherwise.

Seriously -- "genuine criticism"?

This question has been addressed. Please see earlier posts.

Stipulation (c) is where we start hitting problems. If I flick thtough something and see that it's crap, why the heck would I then spend money on it?

Please refer to earlier clarifications within this very thread.
It does somewhat annoy me when earlier points must be repeated multiple times. I hate having to repeat myself.

And as for the rest of it, heck, *this* conversation would probably earn me a temp-ban on your board, seeing the "You can't talk or complain about the rules!" stipulation there.

There is a great deal of difference between complaint and questioning or seeking clarification. I see this as questioning, which is one of the purposes of this very forum.

I would have appreciated if people had PMed Paul or Jim before coming to their own conclusions, then most of this would most likely not have been necessary.

with any kind of criticism

As has been stated both in the original guidelines Paul posted and in this thread, that is a misconception that some people hold. It is far from a hard and fast rule.

And if Paul *didn't* mean that, then why the heck did write those rules in the first place?

He wrote them to put hold to the myriad complaints he, as a Moderator, has received about the posting habits of certain users. While the guidelines he submitted may well benefit from a slight rewriting to make them clearer, it is not his fault that certain forum users have constructed misconceptions about their intention or failed to clarify their meaning before coming to the afore mentioned conclusions.

As far as I am concerned, the intent of Paul and Jim's guidelines are quite sound and welcome. Their intent has now been clearly explained for all to see and all misconceptions should be dismissed by this stage.

To clarify, one last time;
All opinions are welcome, they lead to a healthy discussion on events. However, there is definitely a right and a wrong way to get your opinion across. CBR aims for polite and civil discussion and exchange of ideas - we will not tolerate personal insults or unproductive posts such as 'x & y sucks! rape comics! bleh!' Please refer to specific incidents which have your disaproval since making overly broad statements can reflect quite badly on a Poster's image.

[Paul Newell]

Now, clearify this point for me. If I say "I don't like OMAC for these points, and it just furthes DC's current rend" that would be against the rules, because I made a statement about DC's current trend without going into detail on the individual parts of DCs current trend that I dislike.

WOuld the above be true?

Not at all. It would be a fair and genuine comment based on your opinion. The rules would come in if the next post was:

"I heartily agree! Blah blah blah, DC's going downhill, blah blah blah, death of Blue Beetle, blah blah blah, Wonder Woman killing Maxwell Lord, blah blah blah, Leslie Thompkins, blah blah blah, Sue Dibney's rape, blah blah blah, Crap comics, blah blah blah!"

Then the next 20 posts consist of "Yes it is!", No it isn't!"

The first post would be fine to stay, the ones after them would be against the "rules" and would be deleted. Both the for and against.

Go look at the Infinite Crisis Preview thread. People that posted negative comments like Joe Rice and Jeff Kramer had their initial comments left in and undeleted. I thought they were fine, whether I agree or disagree with the sentiment and deserved to stay. It was just the tangent that sprang from them that caused the complaints.

[Paul Newell]

Yeah, but if the "positive" posters start getting repetitive arguments, or start bedgering the "negative" posters, will you treat them the same way ?!?

If everyone is behaving themselves and people start sniping about the "Death Spirallers", yes they will. Courtesy is expected from both sides.

[Paul Newell]

It certainly sounds like it.

For a start we're not even allowed to talk about something we haven't seen first-hand.

Now Paul, you and I (being Aussies) are at least a fortnight to a month behind all the American buyers in terms of what we've actually seen first hand. Going by your rules the two of us can't even post at all. What, I have to wait until a conversation is dead and buried before I can join in, because the book won't come out in Australia for a month or two?

Where do you get your comics from? I'm really surprised at that delay as the Sydney shops usually have their comics on the shelves by Wednesday/Thursday.

As to myself, if you go look, I've never commented on the storylines at all as I've never read them and I'm waiting for the trades. At the moment my role is essentially helping the board to run smoothly gathering information for those wishing it and helping answer peoples questions with whatever knowledge of comics from DC's past and continuity that I possess from reading them for 30+ years. Jim's currently reading and commenting until I get my hands on things.

Seriously -- "genuine criticism"? What classifies as "counterfeit criticism"? If you read something that doesn't work or you really don't like, bam, that's a genuine criticism. I -- and my fellow Rumblers -- IIRC have never done the "You liked this story, well you're a depressed pervert!" attitude, so no problem there.

Rehashing old critisisms for some sort of "agenda" is not what I consider genuine.

Stipulation (c) is where we start hitting problems. If I flick thtough something and see that it's crap, why the heck would I then spend money on it? If I hear, "Hey, Willington turned Leslie Thomkins into a child murderer!", why the heck can't people respond until they've read it themselves? What, if people had read reviews of the Austen Superman issue where a woman is raped to death in an all-ages comic, they're just not allowed to respond until they've read it themselves?

Why would they need to respond anyway?

I mean heck, you *have* to realise that anybody with any criticism would get immediately shot down with, "Well you bought it so you must have liked it"?

People buy comics all the time and don't realise it until after that they hate it. I'm still kicking myself for purchasing that godawful JLA issue with Superman having an "Iraq War" dream sequence and JLA-Z. :)

And (d) -- so if an orchard keeps putting out rotten and sickly apples, you're only allowed to talk about the apples? The sad fact is, there's a trend in DC at the moment, and as a lot of individual stories fit into that trend, said trend should be open game. There's no reason why it shouldn't be.

When it gets to the point where that topic overrides all others and people feel they are being harassed for liking something, won't post or go to a board to discuss what they liked, then it becomes a problem. The topic has already been discussed to death without actually going anywhere or anything new being said and its affected the board. See my last answer to Yeoman, some comment will be allowed, but when the round robin discussion starts up again, that's when it crosses the line.

And as for the rest of it, heck, *this* conversation would probably earn me a temp-ban on your board, seeing the "You can't talk or complain about the rules!" stipulation there.

It's off topic.

Then more thought should've been put into writing them in the first place, or they shouldn't have been written at all. Paul is quite explicit in explaining how the rules are going to work -- either he meant it, or he didn't. As many people have pointed out, it all sounds very 1984, with any kind of criticism (or even discussion of the rules!) being grounds for punishment. He explicitly states that, I mean c'mon, tell us that he doesn't. It's *right there*.

Critsism is still allowed, just certain types of critisism.

And if Paul *didn't* mean that, then why the heck did write those rules in the first place?

Matt said it perfectly.

[JeffreyWKramer]

* Stick to the specific work being discussed and try not to make reference to such tired phrases as "grim n gritty" or "rape comics". Making such broad generalisations and comments makes one self appear less than articulate. Please cite specifics with which you may be unhappy with, without resorting to cliches.
As opposed to those who use such new and brilliant arguments as "things are always bad before they get better" and "just wait and see." And, I guess things like noting a "women in refrigerators" sort of story would also be invalid on the DCU and IC boards?

The aim of the guidelines seems to be quite fair, there to stop what has happened in the past - needless, consistant badgering and near abuse of anyone that has posted that they enjoyed (or disliked) a particular story.
Would someone like to point to instances in which this has actually happened - as opposed to some poor, oversensitive soul being upset because someone didn't share his or her opinions? Can anyone point to examples of someone saying "I really enjoyed SNOT-MAN #426" and a bunch of people responded with a barrage of comments along the line of "Get a brain, loser. SNOT-MAN #426 was the worst book released since the creation of the printing press, and anyone who likes it is an inbread loser with bad breath. Get off these boards."

I also see targeting specific sorts of opinions for special "treatment" under a rule or policy as inherently *unfair.* Especially when the opinions in question are of a sort the moderator in question has repeatedly expressed distaste and disdain for.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Well seeing as I never get any complaints about those posts...And only expect to get "point-proving" ones...Then probably not.

So, the point is, if someone complains, it's a problem. So, if people had complained about the attitudes of the so-called "positive" posters - people who often violate your stated rule #2 in their insinuations about the motives and intent of the so-called "negative" posters - then that would have made you do what exactly?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Rehashing old critisisms for some sort of "agenda" is not what I consider genuine.

In other words, having a stance you personally disagree with and making arguments referring to that stance is not legitimate. Groupthink is a wonderful thing, eh?

You do realize that applied outside the arena of comics, such a POV would completely prevent discussion of political and religious issues, civil rights issues, etc. Great modeling for social discourse!!

[JeffreyWKramer]

This question {genuine criticism}has been addressed. Please see earlier posts.

Which posts, precisely? I've seen no guidelines for what constitutes "genuine" criticism, except apparently arguments Paul and some DC boosters don't like are considered non-genuine.

As far as I am concerned, the intent of Paul and Jim's guidelines are quite sound and welcome. Their intent has now been clearly explained for all to see and all misconceptions should be dismissed by this stage.
So, as written, if someone read someone else's issue, or a scan, or read it in the store, or read a display copy or read it in the library, it wouldn't be okay for them to comment? Because that's literally what Paul's rules say - they have to have *bought* and read the book in question.

If that isn't what is meant, then the rules are not "sound" by any stretch of imagination.

[JeffreyWKramer]

And as to Paul's addition to the rules:
EDIT: If you want to report posts to "prove a point", they will be ignored.

So, what would constitute a report to "prove a point" as opposed to having a legitimate complaint? By what guideline will such reports be judged worthy or unworthy?

[Matt]

As opposed to those who use such new and brilliant arguments as "things are always bad before they get better" and "just wait and see."

'Wait and see' may not actually be bad advice when you think about it.
I have read numerous stories where I believed it would be an overall bad story yet when I concluded reading the entire tale, it was actually quite good. Certainly, parts of a story can be quite bad yet the overall story arc can end up being surprisingly entertaining. Feel free to criticise whatever you like yet it may be wise not to jump to conclusions.

And, I guess things like noting a "women in refrigerators" sort of story would also be invalid on the DCU and IC boards?

I do not see why. As Paul has pointed out quite plainly in his own posts, criticism is quite welcome. However, persistant and needless hammering home of the same point over and over is not.

Would someone like to point to instances in which this has actually happened - as opposed to some poor, oversensitive soul being upset because someone didn't share his or her opinions?

It has happened. However, due to Moderator Guidelines and the fact that any problem posts have been deleted it is somewhat impossible to prove. Both Paul and Jim have received numerous complaints from other users and have had to merge, split, move and delete posts accordingly.

I also see targeting specific sorts of opinions for special "treatment" under a rule or policy as inherently *unfair.* Especially when the opinions in question are of a sort the moderator in question has repeatedly expressed distaste and disdain for.

As Paul has said, we expect civility from all sides. There is no bias here except for that which is falsely perceived to exist.

That being said, we will not have any user being bullied or pressured into not posting by the posting attitudes and habits of any other user. All sides must feel free and welcome to post their opinions and, recently, this has not been happening in relation to IC and related stories. These guidelines, as clarified here numerous times now, are in place to address that.

By now I expect that all misconceptions have now been cleared up since they have been explained at length now, multiple times. No one is censoring anything with these guidelines and all opinions are still more than welcome. The Moderators of the IC Forums merely wish those opinions to be posted in a particular manner which restricts very little if anything at all.

As I have said previously, the main concern seems to stem directly from misconceptions some users have formed about these guidelines. Those misconceptions have now been cleared up. So get to the IC Forum and get posting your opinions, good or bad!

And try asking the appropiate Moderators about any concerns you may have about any policies, decisions or whatever before jumping to conclusions, ok? It tends to avoid all this sort of thing.

[Matt]

So, the point is, if someone complains, it's a problem. So, if people had complained about the attitudes of the so-called "positive" posters - people who often violate your stated rule #2 in their insinuations about the motives and intent of the so-called "negative" posters - then that would have made you do what exactly?

As with all things, it would be treated on a case-by-case basis.

I should point out, once again, that when people try to 'rules lawyer' it tends to annoy me. I will make it clear once again; Moderators act using general guidelines, not hard and fast rules. There is no law book, no rule book, no great volumes consisting of the CBR Constitution. 'Rules lawyering' simply will not get anyone anywhere. Similarly, trying to play with semantics will get people nowhere.

Which posts, precisely? I've seen no guidelines for what constitutes "genuine" criticism, except apparently arguments Paul and some DC boosters don't like are considered non-genuine.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=1902581&postcount=9
Please refer to it carefully. It does clear up any misconceptions you should have. In particular, the first point I make should assist in working out what a 'genuine' criticism is. Paul has also made comments on this in his own posts.

So, as written, if someone read someone else's issue, or a scan, or read it in the store, or read a display copy or read it in the library, it wouldn't be okay for them to comment? Because that's literally what Paul's rules say - they have to have *bought* and read the book in question.

As I have mentioned, and I am getting quite tired of having to repeat myself yet again, some people are taking the written rule too literally. Instead of becoming unduly worked up, again as I have mentioned, it would have been a much wiser move to have instead approached the appropiate Moderators at the time to seek clarification.

[Paul Newell]

So, the point is, if someone complains, it's a problem. So, if people had complained about the attitudes of the so-called "positive" posters - people who often violate your stated rule #2 in their insinuations about the motives and intent of the so-called "negative" posters - then that would have made you do what exactly?

Anyone who posts something that breaks these guidelines or intentionally leads to a breaking of the guidelines will get the same treatment, either on the "positive" side or the "negative" side.

[Tom]

And as to Paul's addition to the rules:


So, what would constitute a report to "prove a point" as opposed to having a legitimate complaint? By what guideline will such reports be judged worthy or unworthy?
I think the posters trying to prove a point will know exactly what Paul's talking about.

And by what guideline will these be judged? The moderator's own. You guys all want a written constitution when it's been explained over and over again that the mods are the final arbiters and free to use their own judgment. It's always been this way.

[Tom]

Which posts, precisely? I've seen no guidelines for what constitutes "genuine" criticism, except apparently arguments Paul and some DC boosters don't like are considered non-genuine.

Genuine:
"I didn't like this issue and here's why."

Disingenuous:

"Grim and gritty! Rape! DC's not getting my money! What's wrong with people who like this?! I'm just fighting the good fight and trying to make comics better!"
Repeat 30 times.

If your criticism is part of a larger agenda and if you've stated it repeatedly, then there's no further need to restate it.

[Paul Newell]

In other words, having a stance you personally disagree with and making arguments referring to that stance is not legitimate. Groupthink is a wonderful thing, eh?

Who knows, group think swings both ways, y'know. Neither version is for the best. As to a stance, the only thing I disagree with is people being pissed off and avoiding the IC Forum.

You do realize that applied outside the arena of comics, such a POV would completely prevent discussion of political and religious issues, civil rights issues, etc. Great modeling for social discourse!!

What does that have to do with a message board about comics?

[Tom]

In other words, having a stance you personally disagree with and making arguments referring to that stance is not legitimate. Groupthink is a wonderful thing, eh?Try re-reading, JWP. That's not what he said at all.

[Paul Newell]

And as to Paul's addition to the rules:


So, what would constitute a report to "prove a point" as opposed to having a legitimate complaint? By what guideline will such reports be judged worthy or unworthy?
"This thread breaks the rules because its commenting on a trend, even though it's talking about something completely different and I just want to play rules lawyer and make a mockery of you and your rules.

Yours sincerely..."

[Tom]

So, the point is, if someone complains, it's a problem. So, if people had complained about the attitudes of the so-called "positive" posters - people who often violate your stated rule #2 in their insinuations about the motives and intent of the so-called "negative" posters - then that would have made you do what exactly?
Oh for Christ's sake. This isn't a confirmation hearing and you're taking this way too seriously. Lemme clue you in on something: NO ONE EVER COMPLAINS ABOUT THE "POSITIVE" POSTERS. They don't generally insult the other posters with their opinions and they don't generally take over entire threads and spend page after page loudly making the same points over and over, driving everyone but a few stalwarts away.

If any of you had read the announcement with a clear head, you'd see that there are multiple stopgaps before a potential banning. In fact, a poster would pretty much have to beg to be banned under those rules.
Just post. You'll figure out what is and isn't acceptable when posts get deleted.

[JeffreyWKramer]

What does that have to do with a message board about comics?

Why do rules for talking about comics differ from those for talking about other topics?

If the person has the "agenda" of wanting to promote better comics, and encourages people to not buy books they dislike just for the sake of keeping a complete run of a book or something like that, then how is that any less kosher than a different person encouraging people to not buy books that present characters in a manner that person dislikes, or one encouraging people to not buy books featuring content that particular person objects to. Much of the time, if a person has an opinion more complex than "I like x" or "I don't like x", there is some agenda or goal or intent behind the expressed opinion.

[JeffreyWKramer]

As I have mentioned, and I am getting quite tired of having to repeat myself yet again, some people are taking the written rule too literally. Instead of becoming unduly worked up, again as I have mentioned, it would have been a much wiser move to have instead approached the appropiate Moderators at the time to seek clarification.

Words have meaning. "Buy" has a specific meaning. If it isn't intended, then what is intended should be written. Given that we're talking about rules here, clarity is important, to avoid misunderstanding.

And, I did contact you and Paul both. I heard back from you a couple hours later, never heard back from Paul at all. As I posted in Death Spiral, meanwhile I thought it a good idea to post the link to his rules in Death Spiral, so people who might not notice his own sticky wouldn't post in a manner which would unintentionally violate said rules. Could I have waited until I heard from someone? Sure, but I chose not to, because I didn't want to wait and see if people got screwed over by suddenly-changed rules.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I do not see why. As Paul has pointed out quite plainly in his own posts, criticism is quite welcome. However, persistant and needless hammering home of the same point over and over is not.

So, it is indeed only certain arguments which have been made before, and which Paul and a few others dislike, which are targeted. Other arguments which have been made before - for years, in case of the WiR stuff - are perfectly fine.

Glad to know.

That being said, we will not have any user being bullied or pressured into not posting by the posting attitudes and habits of any other user. All sides must feel free and welcome to post their opinions and, recently, this has not been happening in relation to IC and related stories. These guidelines, as clarified here numerous times now, are in place to address that.


Are we talking actual bullying, or are we talking about what people feel? Because, those are not necessarily the same thing. If someone is bullying, that's obviously bad, but if someone is uncomfortable posting a divergent opinion from someone else, or some other group of posters, that isn't the fault of the other poster(s).

If I state that I didn't like the latest issue of JSA, and why I dislike that, and part of that dislike is the extent to which the issue is a bunch of stuff crossing over to other IC-related books (all true sentiments on my part, btw), it's not my fault if someone who did like that issue or who likes crossovers feels unwilling to post because he has a different opinion than mine. If someone can't enjoy a book just because someone else doesn't enjoy it, the enjoyment-impaired individual is the one with the problem.

[Tom]

If I state that I didn't like the latest issue of JSA, and why I dislike that, and part of that dislike is the extent to which the issue is a bunch of stuff crossing over to other IC-related books (all true sentiments on my part, btw),
Then you are perfectly within your rights and within the boundaries of the rules.

If you post 30 more posts in the same thread rehashing the original point, if you start making snotty comments about the types of people who enjoyed the issue, if you start injecting criticisms that have nothing whatsoever to do with the book being discussed, then you are not.

[Paul Newell]

Why do rules for talking about comics differ from those for talking about other topics?

If the person has the "agenda" of wanting to promote better comics, and encourages people to not buy books they dislike just for the sake of keeping a complete run of a book or something like that, then how is that any less kosher than a different person encouraging people to not buy books that present characters in a manner that person dislikes, or one encouraging people to not buy books featuring content that particular person objects to. Much of the time, if a person has an opinion more complex than "I like x" or "I don't like x", there is some agenda or goal or intent behind the expressed opinion.

If either agenda ended up pissing off a majority of people to the point of driving them away, then neither is kosher.

[Alan2099]

Well, the current agenda here has already driven me away.

And for the record, I really do think DC is trying the grim and gritty route and I'm NOT going to wait and see. If somebody stands there adn starts punching me in the mouth, I'm not going to wait and see if he stops or if he suddenly descides to give me a thousand dollars when he's finished. I'm leaving.

if you ask me, the "wait and see" approach is even worse than calling the comics Grim and gritty or rape comics. At least the negative people have things to back up what they say. The "wait and see" crowd are posting on comics without even having a preview blurb to back them up.

[Paul Newell]

And, I did contact you and Paul both. I heard back from you a couple hours later, never heard back from Paul at all.

Unfortunately I was away most of the day as I was minding my little girl. When I came back the questions you asked were also asked here publicly and I answered them here.

[Tom]

Well, the current agenda here has already driven me away.

And for the record, I really do think DC is trying the grim and gritty route and I'm NOT going to wait and see. If somebody stands there adn starts punching me in the mouth, I'm not going to wait and see if he stops or if he suddenly descides to give me a thousand dollars when he's finished. I'm leaving.

if you ask me, the "wait and see" approach is even worse than calling the comics Grim and gritty or rape comics. At least the negative people have things to back up what they say. The "wait and see" crowd are posting on comics without even having a preview blurb to back them up.
Thank you for perfectly summing up how adversarial a simple discussion about comic books has become.

[JeffreyWKramer]

If either agenda ended up pissing off a majority of people to the point of driving them away, then neither is kosher.

So, the people expressing their opinions are responsible for how other people react to those opinions, and for the feelings of other people.

And, exactly what "majority" of people have been driven away by any opinions expressed on IC/DCU boards, or any others?

[Paul Newell]

So, it is indeed only certain arguments which have been made before, and which Paul and a few others dislike, which are targeted.

It's actually more than a few others. It's more like the "majority".

Are we talking actual bullying, or are we talking about what people feel? Because, those are not necessarily the same thing. If someone is bullying, that's obviously bad, but if someone is uncomfortable posting a divergent opinion from someone else, or some other group of posters, that isn't the fault of the other poster(s).

The expression I've seen most is "jumped on when I post why I like it". In other words they feel like they will be targeted. Sounds sorta like bullying to me.

[JeffreyWKramer]

It's actually more than a few others. It's more like the "majority".

So, you're telling me an actual, numerical majority of the people posting on the IC and DCU boards have expressed distaste for certain opinions, and that the motivation for your actions in devising these rules is because you and this majority have decided that certain minority opinions shouldn't be expressed on those boards.

The expression I've seen most is "jumped on when I post why I like it". In other words they feel like they will be targeted. Sounds sorta like bullying to me.

So, the determination of bullying has nothing to do with what someone actually does, but instead, what someone else says they feel. Sounds like some people need to accept that the whole world won't agree with them.

Actual bullying, when demonstrated, is a bad thing, but holding people responsible for what other people feel or do seems pretty ridiculous. If I decide to not post on the Music board because I like the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Crocker, Alex, Howy and DDM all say they dislike the RHCP, seems to me that's my problem, not the problem of the Music Board or Crocker, Alex, Howy and DDM.

[Paul Newell]

So, the people expressing their opinions are responsible for how other people react to those opinions, and for the feelings of other people.

When they go on and on and on and on and on and they annoy other people who feel they could do better things with their time, you betcha. Sorta like dealing with the office bore or going to a chick flick mega-fest with your significant other. you be polite but you prefer to avoid the whole situation.

And, exactly what "majority" of people have been driven away by any opinions expressed on IC/DCU boards, or any others?

People who would prefer not dealing with the office bore or going to a chick flick mega-fest with their significant other.

[Tom]

So, you're telling me an actual, numerical majority of the people posting on the IC and DCU boards have expressed distaste for certain opinions,
No. You are being willfully ignorant here, Jeffrey and you know it. This isn't a Rumbles fight so stop trying to score points. As has been pointed out REPEATEDLY to you, it's not the opinion that's the problem, IT'S HOW IT'S EXPRESSED.

[JeffreyWKramer]

People who would prefer not dealing with the office bore or going to a chick flick mega-fest with their significant other.

Gee, I sure haven't noticed that a majority of people on those boards have stopped posting. Got any numbers to back that up?

[JeffreyWKramer]

No. You are being willfully ignorant here, Jeffrey and you know it. This isn't a Rumbles fight so stop trying to score points. As has been pointed out REPEATEDLY to you, it's not the opinion that's the problem, IT'S HOW IT'S EXPRESSED.

Okay, so an actual, numerical majority of people on those boards have expressed distaste for - and left over - certain arguments and how they are made?

Oh, and Tom, good thing you didn't post that on Paul's board, as you're violating that rule about talking about the posters and their motives and character.

[Paul Newell]

So, you're telling me an actual, numerical majority of the people posting on the IC and DCU boards have expressed distaste for certain opinions, and that the motivation for your actions in devising these rules is because you and this majority have decided that certain minority opinions shouldn't be expressed on those boards.

Not at all. Negative opinions are still welcome, it's more the methods of delivery.

Sounds like some people need to accept that the whole world won't agree with them.

Yes, it does.

Actual bullying, when demonstrated, is a bad thing, but holding people responsible for what other people feel or do seems pretty ridiculous. If I decide to not post on the Music board because I like the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Crocker, Alex, Howy and DDM all say they dislike the RHCP, seems to me that's my problem, not the problem of the Music Board or Crocker, Alex, Howy and DDM.

All depends if Crocker, Alex, Howy and DDM go on and on and on and on about it , I guess.

[JeffreyWKramer]

All depends if Crocker, Alex, Howy and DDM go on and on and on and on about it , I guess.

So, if every time a thread about the Red Hot Chili Peppers came up, they said they don't like that band, and I thus felt unwilling to say I liked the band, that would be their fault, and they'd be considered bullies?

[Tom]

Okay, so an actual, numerical majority of people on those boards have expressed distaste for - and left over - certain arguments and how they are made/I'd have to say yes. It's the same people over and over making their comments in the threads and that pool has gotten much smaller.
Oh, and Tom, good thing you didn't post that on Paul's board, as you're violating that rule about talking about the posters and their motives and character.Good one, Jeffrey! You sure showed me. Now all the mods will be forced to reconsider their stance.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Good one, Jeffrey! You sure showed me. Now all the mods will be forced to reconsider their stance.

No, it's quite clear that some mods aren't gonna do that.

[Tom]

So, if every time a thread about the Red Hot Chili Peppers came up, they said they don't like that band, and I thus felt unwilling to say I liked the band, that would be their fault, and they'd be considered bullies?
No, if every single time you mentioned the Chili Peppers, the same dozen people post the same diatribe over and over again about how much they suck and that there's something wrong with people who like their work*, then they'd be considered out of line.

*Something you yourself have done on many ocassions regarding current DC output.

[Tom]

No, it's quite clear that some mods aren't gonna do that.
Here's a quarter. Buy some sarcasm.

[JeffreyWKramer]

No, if every single time you mentioned the Chili Peppers, the same dozen people post the same diatribe over and over again about how much they suck and that there's something wrong with people who like their work*, then they'd be considered out of line.

And of course, it's only been the critics who have done that sort of thing in regard to IC.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Here's a quarter. Buy some sarcasm.

Nah, but thanks. I've got plenty of my own.

[Tom]

And of course, it's only been the critics who have done that sort of thing in regard to IC.
Of course?

No one has said that negative critics are all bad and positive critics are all good, but it's the overwhelmingly negative criticism that's bringing the quality of the board down.

[Tom]

Nah, but thanks. I've got plenty of my own.
And this is why posters simply don't deserve explanations from the mods. You will always immediately think the worst of us, respond with snark, take everything personally, and try to lawyer it up.

[Paul Newell]

Gee, I sure haven't noticed that a majority of people on those boards have stopped posting. Got any numbers to back that up?

Hey, show me yours and I'll show you mine.

No, unfortunately I don't, which means you win with your lack of evidence over mine.

I just have several people PMing me about it, several people complaining about it on various threads or telling other posters not to worry about the 5 or 6 guys constantly complaining, a couple of people stating that they now avoid the IC board because of its overwhelming negativity or just complaining about its negativity in general. Some in the public goodbye thread one prominent member posted because he was sick of fighting the constant negativity. A couple of people comparing them to the official DC boards in negativity.

But then, I was never anal enough to gather these remarks as "evidence" nor do I have the inclination at this time of night to really bother doing it.

[Alan2099]

I've always loved the little irony of people complaining about other people complaining.

[JeffreyWKramer]

And this is why posters simply don't deserve explanations from the mods. You will always immediately think the worst of us, respond with snark, take everything personally, and try to lawyer it up.

Yeah, that's always been the case with everyone.

No, wait, myself and others have sometimes backed up decisions by you and Matt and other mods which some other people haven't liked. But, those critical of mod actions tend to get this mod gangpile.

[Tom]

Yeah, that's always been the case with everyone.It's been my experience that it's the case 9 times out of ten. It's certainly the case here.
No, wait, myself and others have sometimes backed up decisions by you and Matt and other mods which some other people haven't liked. But, those critical of mod actions tend to get this mod gangpile.
And how is this not snarky?

Your gangpile consists of 3 mods answering questions on a board specifically designed for posters to ask mods questions.

[Arrjay]

Again, if you have a complaint about a given policy then please address to the appropiate channels where the concern may be raised and discussed. Otherwise little to nothing can be done about it.

That sounds like something a machine would say and takes the humanity right out of the discussion.

Oh the humanity!! It does sound kinda machinistic though. I'll second that.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Your gangpile consists of 3 mods answering questions on a board specifically designed for posters to ask mods questions.
And, when people post criticism of mod actions elsewhere, either the stuff gets deleted or they get gangpiled and told to post here - or to keep it to PM.

[Tom]

And, when people post criticism of mod actions elsewhere, either the stuff gets deleted or they get gangpiled and told to post here - or to keep it to PM.
Which are in fact part of the rules. What's the complaint here? That you can't bitch about the mods everywhere you want and anytime you want? This board and direct PMs are the only two acceptable ways to bring things to moderators' attention.

[JeffreyWKramer]

So, what have we learned so far?

The problem with DC's books and editorial direction has nothing to do with the books or direction itself, but rather that some people don't like these things, and that in expressing this dislike, they offend some other people.

So, the problems are the opinions of the minority and the manner in which they're expressed.

We've also learned that those who suggest that people who enjoy comics featuring rape as a plot device and teen girls getting tortured to death have the moral high ground on the DCU and IC Forums at CBR, and that those who object to such content in all-ages superhero comics shouldn't dare to question the taste of people who like comics about rape and the torture and murder of teenage girls for fear of offending others.

We've also learned that those who post something on message boards are responsible for the feelings and emotional reactions of other people on the boards.

Any other big lessons?

[Tom]

Any other big lessons?Yes. Two things.

1. You completely and willfully ignored all the painstaking explanations that the mods gave you in their "gangpile" for an explanation that you find much more personally satisfying since it makes the mods out to be bad guys and you don't have to actually examine or own up to your own actions because everything is everyone else's fault.

2. Posters don't deserve explanations from moderators.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Yes. Two things.

1. You completely and willfully ignored all the painstaking explanations that the mods gave you in their "gangpile" for an explanation that you find much more personally satisfying since it makes the mods out to be bad guys and you don't have to actually examine or own up to your own actions because everything is everyone else's fault.

Yes, these explanations about how we should read between the lines of posted rules, rather than taking the words to mean what they say, and these claims of nonexistent numerical majorities, and how I'm responsible for the emotional reactions of other people.

Sorry, I don't find such explanations particularly convincing or useful.

2. Posters don't deserve explanations from moderators.
Or respect, apparently. And yes, it goes both ways. But the problems don't always start with the posters.

[Alan2099]

There's a saying that comes to midn right now, I just wish I could remember where I heard it.

"If everybody is against you, you just might want to check and see if you're on the right side."

[Tom]

Yes, these explanations about how we should read between the lines of posted rules, rather than taking the words to mean what they say, and these claims of nonexistent numerical majorities, and how I'm responsible for the emotional reactions of other people.

Sorry, I don't find such explanations particularly convincing or useful.So you decided to make an explanation up out of wholecloth. Whatever works for you, Jeffrey.

[Tom]

There's a saying that comes to midn right now, I just wish I could remember where I heard it.

"If everybody is against you, you just might want to check and see if you're on the right side."
I got a better one.

"Can't fight City Hall."

[west3man]

My thoughts...

1) CLARITY:
A -When someone doesn't understand something, telling them that it's clear (without providing clarification) is a mild jab and is likely to provoke a negative response.

B -If someone is expected to follow rules, but they find the rules to be unclear, it is not a constitution that they want, necessarily. It's clarity. That's a reasonable expectation, in my opinion. Treating it as if it's unreasonable is likely to provoke a negative response.

C -The "spirit" of a rule isn't always apparent. Telling people that the rules will become clear as posts are deleted is problematic because it's easier to notice something's presence than its absence - particularly past posts. It feels like a no-win situation and is likely to provoke a negative response.

3) DO UNTO OTHERS:
Everybody slips up, but as a rule, if you don't want people exhibiting certain behavior it helps if you don't - particularly in the same thread where you're criticizing such behavior. Doing so is likely to provoke a negative response.

4) CHARACTER:
When someone gives reasons for having a certain opinion but his or her entire post is reduced to a mischaracterization, leaving the individuals reasons and points unaddressed, that is offensive and likely to provoke a negative response.

5) OPINIONS PLUS:
Sharing opinions, but topping them off with statements like "and anyone who likes this kind of thing must be a pedophile" is offensive and likely to provoke a negative response.

6) ASSUMING THE WORST:
Assuming mods or posters, in general, are undeserving of an explanation or the chance to offer one is likely to provoke a negative response.

[JeffreyWKramer]

So you decided to make an explanation up out of wholecloth. Whatever works for you, Jeffrey.

What exactly did I make up? Some people got pissed about the opinions of some other people and how strongly those opinions were expressed, those pissed folk complained to a moderator who shared their POV, the mod came up with some poorly-written rules designed to prevent said opinions from being expressed in the same manner or in any frequency, the people targeted by this action took umbrage with the mod action, the intent behind it and the vagueness of the rules, and the mods tell them "this is the way it is, deal with it."

What part of that is mistaken?

[Alan2099]

Tom, this is the first time I've ever ran across you on this board, so I really don't know, but is hthis how you usually act? This is the kind of behavior I'd typcially report to a mod for being rude posts.

I mean, while I may not agree with the others people who post here, or even the people who made and support the new rules, the rest of them have at least been more or less civil and piolite without trying to be directly insulting or condacending.

Maybe it's this one topic that's ticking you off, I dunno, but typically you don't gain much by telling people that they're are wrong, you're right, and you don't have to explain why. It's plain arrogant and insulting

[JeffreyWKramer]

Tom, this is the first time I've ever ran across you on this board, so I really don't know, but is hthis how you usually act? This is the kind of behavior I'd typcially report to a mod for being rude posts.

In my opinion, Tom's generally a pretty even-handed guy, no more likely to be snarky than the average person on CBR, considerably less so than me and a fair number of other folk. This general topic - and questioning of Mod activities in general - seems to irk him a fair bit, though.

[DarkBlade]

I'd guess that it's more exhasperation with something that should be simple, but people are making difficult.

But obviously, I'm not Tom. Nor do I live in the same cluster of the ModHiveMind(tm).

[Tom]

In my opinion, Tom's generally a pretty even-handed guy, no more likely to be snarky than the average person on CBR, considerably less so than me and a fair number of other folk. This general topic - and questioning of Mod activities in general - seems to irk him a fair bit, though.
Because the mods go out of their way to explain things to the posters - something they're not really required to do - and it leads to ever more nitpicking, lawyering and snarkiness, and all explanations given are either summarily ignored or not good enough.

It happens every single time.

[Tom]

but typically you don't gain much by telling people that they're are wrong, you're right, and you don't have to explain why. It's plain arrogant and insulting
I guess it's a good thing I didn't do that, then.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Because the mods go out of their way to explain things to the posters - something they're not really required to do - and it leads to ever more nitpicking, lawyering and snarkiness, and all explanations given are either summarily ignored or not good enough.

And that couldn't possibly, ever have anything to do with the nature and/or quality of the explanations, vs. the posters being just a bunch of horrible, ungrateful folk.

[Tom]

And that couldn't possibly, ever have anything to do with the nature and/or quality of the explanations, vs. the posters being just a bunch of horrible, ungrateful folk.
Jesus, Jeffrey. You couldn't possibly be doing any better to prove my point.

You got your explanations. You don't like the explanations, and now we're just gonna talk about what big meanies the mods are.

I'm out.

[Greg Hatcher]

And that couldn't possibly, ever have anything to do with the nature and/or quality of the explanations, vs. the posters being just a bunch of horrible, ungrateful folk.

No. That's not the complaint. The complaint is that we spend more time EXPLAINING OURSELVES than any other message-board site I've seen on the net -- this entire BOARD is for that purpose -- and when we do, the response is usually that we're lying, or pushing some hidden agenda, or some other conspiracy theory. And while I am hesitant to step in here considering that the last time I did, I lost an entire day dealing with the resulting explosion... but I do want to point out that the trend from posters seems to be more about making a big public martyred deal out of it than actually focusing on the problem. I've fielded every single complaint I've had in the last week by explaining myself, expressing annoyance at being vilified for something that A) I didn't do and B) know for a fact was not done with sinister motives, and closing with, all that being said, I'm listening. This is your big chance to lay it all out for a supermod who has no emotional investment in the complaint. Make your case. But make it objectively, give me actual reasons that I can take to ________ and make a case for __________ being overruled. In reply, the silence has been deafening.

I and many other moderators here are always willing to listen. All we ever ask is that we not make a big public show-trial spectacle out of it. I don't think that's unreasonable. But what we have experienced, many times, is that if posters can't have a big sprawling show trial, they lose interest.

We really don't rule with an iron fist. Mostly what we do is field complaints. We prefer to do it as quietly as possible so as to avoid a lot of outside rubbernecking. When we get a lot of complaints about the same subject or the same group, generally there's some kind of rules change. It's always done on the basis of 'greatest good for the greatest number,' whether you guys believe it or not. So if a group of people have a problem with the rules change, the same option is open to you. PM or e-mail. Make your case. If you think one moderator is being unfair, try another one. Avoid drama. These things are just common sense. Don't make more of it than it is.

[yeoman]

Not at all. It would be a fair and genuine comment based on your opinion. The rules would come in if the next post was:

"I heartily agree! Blah blah blah, DC's going downhill, blah blah blah, death of Blue Beetle, blah blah blah, Wonder Woman killing Maxwell Lord, blah blah blah, Leslie Thompkins, blah blah blah, Sue Dibney's rape, blah blah blah, Crap comics, blah blah blah!"

Then the next 20 posts consist of "Yes it is!", No it isn't!"

The first post would be fine to stay, the ones after them would be against the "rules" and would be deleted. Both the for and against.

Go look at the Infinite Crisis Preview thread. People that posted negative comments like Joe Rice and Jeff Kramer had their initial comments left in and undeleted. I thought they were fine, whether I agree or disagree with the sentiment and deserved to stay. It was just the tangent that sprang from them that caused the complaints.

Actually, that second post is even more in line than the original. It agrees with the original points and goes into detail of why DC's current trend sucks.

[yeoman]

Oh for Christ's sake. This isn't a confirmation hearing and you're taking this way too seriously. Lemme clue you in on something: NO ONE EVER COMPLAINS ABOUT THE "POSITIVE" POSTERS. They don't generally insult the other posters with their opinions and they don't generally take over entire threads and spend page after page loudly making the same points over and over, driving everyone but a few stalwarts away.

Isn't that exactly what heppened with the Identity Crisis threads, the fallout of which made a number of us decide the DC boards weren't wroth it, and which was likely the impetus behind starting Death Spiral as a way to complain about IC somewhere where we wouldn't be called social retards for actually daring to dislike the book?

In fact, here's a good example. It's a positive thread that goes out of it's way to look down on those hating DC:

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?p=1903929#post1903929

[yeoman]

Genuine:
"I didn't like this issue and here's why."

Disingenuous:

"Grim and gritty! Rape! DC's not getting my money! What's wrong with people who like this?! I'm just fighting the good fight and trying to make comics better!"
Repeat 30 times.

If your criticism is part of a larger agenda and if you've stated it repeatedly, then there's no further need to restate it.

How is it disingenous if we actually feel that DC is being grim and gritty and wonder who would want to even make comics like that?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Isn't that exactly what heppened with the Identity Crisis threads, the fallout of which made a number of us decide the DC boards weren't wroth it, and which was likely the impetus behind starting Death Spiral as a way to complain about IC somewhere where we wouldn't be called social retards for actually daring to dislike the book?

That's okay, though. They're positive posters who promote quality discussion.

[Phrozen]

I got a better one.

"Can't fight City Hall."

That is pretty funny considering it was first used to describe the very corrupt Tammany Hall. So, the mods want to compare themselves to a corrupt political machine. I can see the resembalence.

[Alan2099]

It goes right along with the "Line in the sand" comment that was used at the Alamo.

[JimmyDee]

And that couldn't possibly, ever have anything to do with the nature and/or quality of the explanations, vs. the posters being just a bunch of horrible, ungrateful folk.Wow. Someone likes to be dramatic.

[west3man]

Wow. Someone likes to be dramatic.
I honestly don't understand the idea that the person who responds to negative WITH negativity is the ONLY one who deserves criticism.

It goes right along with the person who hit first complaining because he got hit back.

[JimmyDee]

So a friend pointed this thread out to me, finding it rather humorous, knowing how I'm something of a message board voyeur and like watching these types of melt downs take place. So I read it.

One side of it was helpful, another side of it was funny.

Frankly, I'm not quite sure I understand why this is being discussed publicly. The fact that the CBR folk are discussing it publicly is both a plus, as it shows their willingness to discuss an issue posters have (or in this case mainly one), but it's also a negative because they're willing to disccuss an issue that seems mostly one poster is having an issue with.

From an outsider looking in, who's read every post here, I'm not quite sure what the problem is other than nitpicking and strictly defining every word in a sentence. This "issue" (in a world that sees a city lost in two days and a war taking place, I find this to be barely an "issue") is something not unique to CBR. I've found these very same sorts of fights on all major forums around the Internet in the 7 years I've been an active part of Web communities (I spend most of my time on an active Mazda car forum, actually). This seems to happen about once a year, with a handful of posters freaking out about minor and mostly inconsequential details. It gets heated for a week, then people either give up or move along. And most of them time those who move along come back at some point.

What I've seen is a number of moderators try, quite hard, to explain policy, who are greeted with rather sarcastic remarks and melodrama (not to say that the moderators haven't lost it a bit here and there themselves, but they don't seem to maintain the same levels of drama). It seems like this has been discussed to death, so is there really anything more to be discussed? We seem to be spending more time disecting the methods of conversation than actually having a conversation.

Me, I'm going back to work now, well, not before I stop by the Mazda forum to see who lost their cars in street races last night. That's always amusing for five seconds.

[JimmyDee]

I honestly don't understand the idea that the person who responds to negative WITH negativity is the ONLY one who deserves criticism.Because life's not fair, young man, and because it was a funny, melodramatic comment.

[west3man]

The fact that the CBR folk are discussing it publicly is both a plus, as it shows their willingness to discuss an issue posters have (or in this case mainly one), but it's also a negative because they're willing to disccuss an issue that seems mostly one poster is having an issue with.

[snip]

From an outsider looking in, who's read every post here, I'm not quite sure what the problem is other than nitpicking and strictly defining every word in a sentence.
You've read every post but think it's something that mostly one poster has a problem with... and you don't see what that problem is?

[west3man]

Because life's not fair, young man, and because it was a funny, melodramatic comment.
Life didn't make that comment. You did.


Nevermind.

[JimmyDee]

You've read every post but think it's something that mostly one poster has a problem with... and you don't see what that problem is?Wow, more nitpicking. You pick two quick comments to focus on to continue arguing, while ignoring the rest. Isn't the Internet fun?

Sure, I read and understand englishg and read everything Jeffrey's posted. I understand the words in his sentences. I comprehend the sentence structure. Maybe I should have said I don't understand why this is such a huge issue for him. I don't understand why there have been SO many posts about this. This just doesn't seem like the kind of thing that needs to go on for pages and pages, as the explanation is right there.

[JimmyDee]

Life didn't make that comment. You did.


Nevermind.WOW! That's hillarious! Thanks for the laugh.

[west3man]

Wow, more nitpicking. You pick two quick comments to focus on to continue arguing, while ignoring the rest. Isn't the Internet fun?I guess I could just say, "Life's not fair, young man," but that wouldn't help.

I read every word. I just didn't feel the need to respond to every word.

[Greg Hatcher]

Okay. Jimmy's right. This is farcical. I'm closing this one. If anyone wants to try again, feel free to try a new thread without the sarcasm, but be aware that the explanation's probably not going to change. If you feel you are being treated unfairly and want to lodge a protest, PM or e-mail.

[Matt]

Personally, I am greatly disapointed by some of the attitudes displayed in this thread.

Various Moderators took a great deal of time to explain things quite clearly and yet all that was received was unproductive, sarcastic comments mixed with a liberal amount of semantics.

I also am annoyed that when the Moderators take the time to answer concerns we get accused of 'gangpiling' or 'backpedaling'. We are answering enquiries to our best ability, what else would you like us to do? Ignore you completely? Tell you to sod off?
Tell you what, if certain people persist with certain attitudes I won't lose any sleep taking option two.

And all of this could have been easily avoided if certain people had just bothered to seek clarification before deciding to act like a chicken that just had it's head chopped off. If you have a concern then contact a Moderator, or make a post on this board, before jumping to often completely irrational conclusions. It is not rocket science.

Anyhow, this matter is now closed. Clarification has been sought and it has been given - multiple times now.