For what it's worth

[Joe Rice]

When I first read about this I didn't like it and thought it sounded unfair. But the explanations of the various mods actually did help me make sense of it. I dunno if I'm considered one of those 5 or 6 posters, and I actually hope I'm not, critical as I've been at times; but I've also said time and again that we'd all be better off talking about stuff we like. Or at least something new we don't like.

[JeffreyWKramer]

but I've also said time and again that we'd all be better off talking about stuff we like. Or at least something new we don't like.

Sure. But sometimes the "new we don't like" is disliked in part because of how it relates to old stuff we don't like, or old trends. Dumb stuff with Leslie heaped atop dumb stuff with Alfred and Spoiler's death and Bat-dickery and such, for example. But instead of this being viewed as discussion of a distasteful trend, it's dismissed as "saying the same thing over and over."

[CaptMagellan]

I just posted this on the rumbles board in response to the previous thread in Q&A being locked. Here's my 'for what it's worth'...

What's frustrating to me, is I hadn't even been aware of that thread until after it was locked.

What's also frustrating about this whole thing is that the big thread in question yesterday...
http://forums.comicbookresources.co...ead.php?t=73084
was, as far as I'm concerned, actually going somewhere, in a polite manner during the last few pages of posts.

It had Bored at 3:00, Jeffrey Kramer, Joe Rice and a few others: honestly finding some common ground that we did agree on, isolating the area we did disagree on, agreeing on some speculative conclusions despite the areas we disagreed, and starting more respectful speculation on where the industry might be heading.

During those pages, I don't remember any name calling, bullying or rudeness. Most of us involved went out of our way to really try and understand where the other side was coming from and respond appropriately.

Also, some of us (at least I know I did) tried to bring some new arguments to the table (in my case I brought up some concerns from my field of anthropology and comparative mythology) so as not to continue to devolve into 'yes it is' 'no its not' arguments.

And the thread was closed and the rules imposed.

Gee, this sure does feel fair don't it?

[Joe Rice]

Sure. But sometimes the "new we don't like" is disliked in part because of how it relates to old stuff we don't like, or old trends. Dumb stuff with Leslie heaped atop dumb stuff with Alfred and Spoiler's death and Bat-dickery and such, for example. But instead of this being viewed as discussion of a distasteful trend, it's dismissed as "saying the same thing over and over."

Christ, man, I don't like them either. But give it a rest. Plenty of good stuff deserving your time and money. You bring up that War Games thing in half the conversations you have about anything. Whatever, it's dumb comics. There's always dumb comics. You'll feel better if you just stop reading them, even if its just to check on how bad they are.

Or you could start your own blog and bitch like crazy. But you tire yourself out and start talking about great stuff you DO like. That's the fun part.

[Joe Rice]

Cap, I'm pretty sure the interesting parts of that discussion can continue. Hell, I know Bored and I have exchanged PMs about it. The nice kind.

[CaptMagellan]

Cap, I'm pretty sure the interesting parts of that discussion can continue. Hell, I know Bored and I have exchanged PMs about it. The nice kind.

I'm sure it could and maybe it will. It's just disheartening when, during a time when those interesting parts were what was dominant on that thread, a mod comes in saying that people were complaining about the negativity, that negative posters (which I ostensibly fall under due to my opinion on DC's direction) were inappropriatly arguing and attacking people, and that the argument at this point was pointless anyway.

If the current posts and arguments did apply to that criticism (at least in the mod's mind) then it would be inappropriate to start a new thread picking up where the old one left off.

If the current posts and arguments didn't apply to the criticism, then why was the thread closed when it was finally going somewhere (even if only for a little while)?

Either way, it's disheartening.

[Donald Stone]

Christ, man, I don't like them either. But give it a rest. Plenty of good stuff deserving your time and money. You bring up that War Games thing in half the conversations you have about anything. Whatever, it's dumb comics. There's always dumb comics. You'll feel better if you just stop reading them, even if its just to check on how bad they are.
So wait, its a great thing to go on and on about stuff you like, but if you don't like it, then you're talking things to seriously and you need to give it a rest?

[CaptMagellan]

So wait, its a great thing to go on and on about stuff you like, but if you don't like it, then you're talking things to seriously and you need to give it a rest?

I think what he's advocating is to enjoy what one likes and not torture onesself over the stuff one doesn't.

Nothing more than that.

[Joe Rice]

So wait, its a great thing to go on and on about stuff you like, but if you don't like it, then you're talking things to seriously and you need to give it a rest?

Uh, no.

I mean, yeah, it's a great thing to go on and on about stuff you like. Critique it, find other meanings, discuss it, pimp it, whatever. And there's going to be plenty of stuff to dislike. I think you've missed the many times I've said that I agree that these comics are bad. But I've made my point and rarely feel like rehashing it. It's not like people that like these comics are going to read a magic post I've made and think, "Oh, wait, I've been wrong all along!" While that kind of effect is possible in discussion, it isn't in a long, drawn-out war of opinions where everyone has already picked their trench and dug in.

You need to give it a rest, I know from experience, when you keep reading the stuff you know you hate just to keep yourself worked up about it.

[Greg Hatcher]

I am at work and can't really give this my full attention till I get home. But for those that are certain that this is some sort of DC boosterism thing, I assure you it's not.

Moderators do have a bias, I admit it. Our bias is always this -- we get sick of people bitching about the rules. This is what our in-boxes are filled with. So when a complaint opens up with "You fascist bastards, what are you trying to do?" or "well, I guess the Thought Police have struck again," or "Wow, when did CBR turn into Nazi Germany?" (all verbatim from PM's and e-mails I've had in the last couple of days, and I'm not even ON either of the boards people are upset about) our first response is not going to be: Good heavens! He's right! I must repent of my draconian fascist ways immediately and overturn those nasty rules! It's usually, Oh great, more bitching. Grow up, ya whiners. Sorry, but there it is.

What really works -- and I've said this in countless e-mails and PM's for the last couple of days, so I decided to finally just post it -- is to voice your concerns politely, and give objective reasons why you think this or that policy needs changing, that we can then take to the other moderators, or Matt or Jonah or whoever. Assume going in that we are not your adversaries. Because we're not. We're the volunteers who field complaints. The polite complainers go to the head of the line, every time.

[Chuckg]

Moderators do have a bias, I admit it. Our bias is always this -- we get sick of people bitching about the rules. This is what our in-boxes are filled with. So when a complaint opens up with "You fascist bastards, what are you trying to do?" or "well, I guess the Thought Police have struck again," or "Wow, when did CBR turn into Nazi Germany?" (all verbatim from PM's and e-mails I've had in the last couple of days, and I'm not even ON either of the boards people are upset about) our first response is not going to be: Good heavens! He's right! I must repent of my draconian fascist ways immediately and overturn those nasty rules! It's usually, Oh great, more bitching. Grow up, ya whiners. Sorry, but there it is.

What really works -- and I've said this in countless e-mails and PM's for the last couple of days, so I decided to finally just post it -- is to voice your concerns politely, and give objective reasons why you think this or that policy needs changing, that we can then take to the other moderators, or Matt or Jonah or whoever. Assume going in that we are not your adversaries. Because we're not. We're the volunteers who field complaints. The polite complainers go to the head of the line, every time.

... so in the very same post where you emphatically claim that the moderators are not our adversaries, you also say that the current bad feelings between us and you are all our fault, because we're a pack of bitchy whiners.

As convincing appeals to reason and attempts to dissipate bad feelings went, yours didn't so much fly as plummet.

[Greg Hatcher]

... so in the very same post where you emphatically claim that the moderators are not our adversaries, you also say that the current bad feelings between us and you are all our fault, because we're a pack of bitchy whiners.

As convincing appeals to reason and attempts to dissipate bad feelings went, yours didn't so much fly as plummet.

That's not what I said at all. I said a non-adversarial approach is much more likely to get a hearing. But this kind of reply is exactly what I'm talking about. You make the assumption and demand I disprove it, you parse my language into something that wasn't intended, and you throw in a gratuitous insult. Clearly you're not capable of a non-adversarial approach, so, you know, why would I waste my time trying to talk to someone who's sure to discount my reply?

[MatthewC]

... so in the very same post where you emphatically claim that the moderators are not our adversaries, you also say that the current bad feelings between us and you are all our fault, because we're a pack of bitchy whiners.

I'm not seeing the contradiction. Can't both be true?

[Tom]

For what it's worth...

I apologize for my snarkiness in the previous thread. I stand by every single point I made, but there were definitely times I could have made them in a better manner.

[Chuckg]

> That's not what I said at all.

Our bias is always this -- we get sick of people bitching about the rules. This is what our in-boxes are filled with. So when a complaint opens up with "You fascist bastards, what are you trying to do?" or "well, I guess the Thought Police have struck again," or "Wow, when did CBR turn into Nazi Germany?" (all verbatim from PM's and e-mails I've had in the last couple of days, and I'm not even ON either of the boards people are upset about) our first response is not going to be: Good heavens! He's right! I must repent of my draconian fascist ways immediately and overturn those nasty rules! It's usually, Oh great, more bitching. Grow up, ya whiners. Sorry, but there it is.

How exactly is this supposed to come across as anything /other/ than what I said? You even specifically state that the bitchy whining you're referring to is from PMs and emails over the last couple of days -- you specifically state that you are quoting from PMs and emails sent to you about this topic over the past couple of days. So you can't even claim you were speaking in general, you were talking specifically about us.

> I said a non-adversarial approach is much more likely to get a hearing.
> But this kind of reply is exactly what I'm talking about. You make the
> assumption and demand I disprove it, you parse my language into
> something that wasn't intended,

So, when you called our recent complaints 'whiny bitching', you didn't intend to call it whiny bitching?

Greg, you can demand that people take a "non-adversarial" tone all you want... but until you also take that same tone yourself, you're not going to get much of a positive response.

And throwing the words around that you did is anything *but* "non-adversarial".

> and you throw in a gratuitous insult.

And what insult would that be, exactly? The Monty Python quote?

I could have phrased it "Due to your singularly poor choice of phrasing and confrontational tone of voice, your post is overwhelmingly likely to have the exact opposite effect than what you intend.", but I decided that phrasing it in a more humorous fashion would work better.

Apparently not.

You know, it's really not reassuring to see one of the CBR staff react to simply being disagreed with as a /personal insult/, angrily write off any further complaints from that source, and follow up with heated words and insulting tones. AAMOF, it's behavior fit to confirm every suspicion anyone might possibly have had about 'adversarial mods'.

> Clearly you're not capable of a non-adversarial approach,

This from the man who criticized me for allegedly making assumptions and demanding that the other party in the conversation disprove them?

> so, you know, why would I waste my time trying to talk to someone
> who's sure to discount my reply?

Because *you're* the one trying to persuade *us* that the moderators are our friends, and are open to reason. Obviously, in order to do that, you have to talk to the skeptics... and do so in a fashion that makes them want to believe you, not one that only confirms their every suspicion.

[Greg Hatcher]

I'm not seeing the contradiction. Can't both be true?

Let's not do that here, okay? Every single thread about this the last couple of days has gotten into an argument about personalities. I already closed one on that account.

[Tom]

Chuck, another post like that is a guarantee that both this thread and all future discussions on this matter will be permanently closed. We are trying very hard to explain ourselves here. Nitpickery and an adversarial tone will get you nowhere.

And trust me Chuck, none of the moderators are trying to convince you that we're your friends.

[Donald Stone]

Chuck, another post like that is a guarantee that both this thread and all future discussions on this matter will be permanently closed. We are trying very hard to explain ourselves here. Nitpickery and an adversarial tone will get you nowhere. Pointing out what the man said contradicts what else he said is nitpicky and adverarial now?

[Tom]

Pointing out what the man said contradicts what else he said is nitpicky and adverarial now?
Yes. And so is this question.

Do you have an actual question about the rules or are we going down this road again?

[Chuckg]

Chuck, another post like that is a guarantee that both this thread and all future discussions on this matter will be permanently closed. We are trying very hard to explain ourselves here. Nitpickery and an adversarial tone will get you nowhere.

As near as I can tell, the definition of 'adversarial tone' currently in use is 'not agreeing that it's all our fault for being whiny bitches'.

As near as I can figure, the root cause of this entire disagreement is the fear that some people have that some of the moderators are starting to use their mod powers not merely to enforce order, but also to suppress the free expression of points of view that might contradict their own.

Threats like the one you just made only reinforce that fear. It seems no longer possible to disagree with a moderator about *anything* without having your post immediately deemed "adversarial tone" and the thread locked.

This is not reassuring.

And trust me Chuck, none of the moderators are trying to convince you that we're your friends.

Assume going in that we are not your adversaries. Because we're not.

[Greg Hatcher]

So, when you called our recent complaints 'whiny bitching', you didn't intend to call it whiny bitching?

Greg, you can ask people to take a "non-adversarial" tone all you want... but until you also take that same tone yourself, you're not going to get much of a positive response.

I quoted examples of the whiny bitching I've been getting. None of them were from you. You are the one lumping yourself in with those folks. If you are going to be that quick to take offense at something that you had no part in, where your name was not mentioned, and claim solidarity or something with the people sending me vituperative PM's and e-mails as some kind of conspiracy victims, then yeah. I'll go ahead and count you with them and discount your points too, no matter how valid. That's the natural reaction people have to being addressed as fascists and Nazis. Do you WANT to be at the end of the line? The only reason I've been bothering with this is because people are asking me if there's some sort of anti-Rumbles conspiracy afoot -- or, more often, accusing me of being part of one -- and I know it's not true.

Okay, really gotta get back to work now, back later.

[Donald Stone]

Yes. And so is this question.

Do you have an actual question about the rules or are we going down this road again?Whats left to say about the rules?

The fact that they favor the supporters of DC's current trend and are biased against its critics? The fact that the statement said that breaking said rules (by voicing an opinion that was contrary to Paul's) would result in banning?That even complaining about the rules would result in banning?The fact that even Matt has posted that the rules are vaguely stated, then in the same post blame us for not understanding them?
Is it any wonder a group of us are having trouble trusting the mods anymore?

EDIT: Mea culpa. I accidentally edited this post when I thought I was responding to it. I think I put everything back the way I found it.
Tom

[Chuckg]

Do you have an actual question about the rules or are we going down this road again?

Question -- what is the difference between a rule that states that all posts must be 'genuine' and a rule that states that all posts must contain no points of view that the moderator disagrees with... if the criteria for what is and is not 'genuine' are purely up to the moderator, changeable at will by the moderator, and known to no one but the moderator?

And that's *not* sarcasm, BTW -- that's a genuine question.

[Chuckg]

I quoted examples of the whiny bitching I've been getting. None of them were from you. You are the one lumping yourself in with those folks. If you are going to be that quick to take offense at something that you had no part in, where your name was not mentioned, and claim solidarity or something with the people sending me vituperative PM's and e-mails as some kind of conspiracy victims, then yeah. I'll go ahead and count you with them and discount your points too, no matter how valid. (emphasis mine)

"No matter how valid?"

Greg, do you realize that you have just admitted that you will arbitrarily discard entirely valid complaints and concerns simply because of implied guilt by association of the person who is making them? And that such an attitude is completely contradictory to the idea of impartial and unbiased enforcement of rules?

That's the natural reaction people have to being addressed as fascists and Nazis. Do you WANT to be at the end of the line?

No, I want an unbiased moderator, not a person who allows his personal feelings and dislikes to determine how and to whom he does his job.

(addendum) It's a vicious cycle. Some people distrust you because they think you are moderating not so much by objective validity of situations as by assumptions and emotional bias. This angers you. And in your anger, you... discard objective validity and respond according to your assumptions about people, and your emotional bias.

A classic self-fulfilling prophecy. But here's the thing about self-fulfilling prophecies... they are self-fulfilling because after a certain point, they actually become true.

If you want people to trust you, you have to stop writing them off because you think they're bitchy whiners.

[Tom]

Question -- what is the difference between a rule that states that all posts must be 'genuine' and a rule that states that all posts must contain no points of view that the moderator disagrees with... if the criteria for what is and is not 'genuine' are purely up to the moderator, changeable at will by the moderator, and known to no one but the moderator?

And that's *not* sarcasm, BTW -- that's a genuine question.
And it's a good question because I was very unclear when I wrote that.

Paul and Jim will have to tell you exactly what that means, but for me it was about people repeatedly posting their opinions to advocate an agenda. "I'm going to keep complaining about IC until DC changes their ways." "I just want to educate people on what's out there besides rape comics." There's nothing wrong with these sentiments in and of themselves but repeatedly stating them is unneccessary. And it can't be denied that it happens because several posters have openly declared just such a thing.

[Chuckg]

And it's a good question because I was very unclear when I wrote that.

Paul and Jim will have to tell you exactly what that means, but for me it was about people repeatedly posting their opinions to advocate an agenda. "I'm going to keep complaining about IC until DC changes their ways." "I just want to educate people on what's out there besides rape comics." There's nothing wrong with these sentiments in and of themselves but repeatedly stating them is unneccessary. And it can't be denied that it happens because several posters have openly declared just such a thing.

Question -- why should people who like DC comics be allowed to state their sentiments repeatedly, but people who don't like them *not* be allowed to? In what way can this be considered anything *other* than a certain set of opinions being preferential treatment over another set?

As far as Paul and Jim telling us exactly what they mean -- so far, they haven't even come close to doing so, and given that our complaints about that lack of understanding have so far resulted only in us being written off as whiny bitches whose complaints, should be discarded, however valid they might or might not be, we're not exactly holding out much hope of that situation changing any time soon.

[Greg Hatcher]

"No matter how valid?"

Greg, do you realize that you have just admitted that you will arbitrarily discard entirely valid complaints and concerns simply because of implied guilt by association of the person who is making them? And that such an attitude is completely contradictory to the idea of impartial and unbiased enforcement of rules?

Yes, I realize that. I said it in my first post. I said moderators here have a bias and I told you what it was and why we had it. I was warning you all about it and suggesting that if you're interested in actually solving the problem, you should take it into account. That if you bury a valid complaint under a lot of accusatory stuff about how we are power-mad fascists, your valid complaint won't be addressed.


What you are asking for, Chuck, is practically robotic. We do our best. I thought it was being pretty open and fair-minded to let people know the best way to get their complaints actually listened to. Isn't that the point?

[Tom]

Whats left to say about the rules?

The fact that they favor the supporters of DC's current trend and are biased against its critics?Untrue. Overly vocal and insulting supporters will get the same treatment. The fact that the statement said that breaking said rules (by voicing an opinion that was contrary to Paul's) would result in banning?Also untrue. It doesn't say that at all.
That even complaining about the rules would result in banning?It doesn't say t hat either.
The fact that even Matt has posted that the rules are vaguely stated, then in the same post blame us for not understanding them?Can't tell ya about that one. Not me.
Is it any wonder a group of us are having trouble trusting the mods anymore?Yes, it's an eternal wonder. If we were so damn untrustworthy, why would we spend so much time explaining everything? Greg and I have spent the entire day - even though we both had to work - doing just that. And our words have gotten twisted and ignored and parsed to within an inch of their lives.

[Tom]

Question -- why should people who like DC comics be allowed to state their sentiments repeatedly, but people who don't like them *not* be allowed to? FOR THE THOUSANDTH TIME, THAT WON'T BE THE CASE.

Listen, we've all admitted the rules are unclear, but on this point we're pretty firm. It's about all behavior we find obnoxious, not just one particular point of view.

And point? As far as I know, Paul's not buying most of the IC stuff right now.

[Tom]

This is not reassuring.
Chuck, those two quotes you posted from Greg and me do not contradict each other. "Not your adversary" is not the same thing as "friend."

[Chuckg]

Yes, I realize that. I said it in my first post. I said moderators here have a bias and I told you what it was and why we had it. I was warning you all about it and suggesting that if you're interested in actually solving the problem, you should take it into account. That if you bury a valid complaint under a lot of accusatory stuff about how we are power-mad fascists, your valid complaint won't be addressed.

What you are asking for, Chuck, is practically robotic. We do our best. I thought it was being pretty open and fair-minded to let people know the best way to get their complaints actually listened to. Isn't that the point?

No, what I'm asking for is the minimum of what's expected of anybody who arbitrates, enforces order, or settles disputes in a professional context. Cops, judges, mediators, hell, even playground monitors and kindergarten teachers. You cannot let personal bias interfere with your work.

And please don't tell me it can't be done. I've been on boards where it /is/ done. Hell, the main reason Rumblers respect Watcher so much is because he /can/ do it. He does it every day. It's what makes him one of the most trusted moderators on CBR.com... even by those very same people who are otherwise suspecting 'moderator conspiracies'.

The problem here is that public trust in the moderators has become damaged. Never mind how, or why, or how irrational you think people are for doing so -- the reality of the situation on the ground right now is that it has been. This is what's wrong, and it needs to be fixed. In order for the bad feelings to stop and the suspicion to end, that trust must be rebuilt.

And it can *never* be rebuilt so long as the mods' only reaction is to keep telling us that they *demand* our trust -- and that if they don't get it, they're simply going to ignore us.

[Matt]

The fact that even Matt has posted that the rules are vaguely stated,

I believe what I said was much more like 'could possibly benefit from some rewriting'. Which is not the same thing.

then in the same post blame us for not understanding them?

Untrue. I said that I found it unfortunate that certain people, instead of doing the mature and rational thing, jumped straight to certain misconceptions without first seeking clarification of just what the posted guidelines meant.

It is a basic skill that is taught in primary/elementary school; if you have a question then you raise your hand and you ask it. It is how you learn, if you don't raise your hand then you remain ignorant, working under false schema.

[Donald Stone]

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".There's a list of guidlines one must go through before they can even begin to criticise anything coming out of DC at the moment. I see no list of guidlines one has to follow to say 'I love everything about DC right now!"

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.So, anyone who doesn't follow these specific guidlines (which proponents of the current DC trends don't have to follow) will be deleted, more than once and your punished. Complain about the rules and you're punished.

[Chuckg]

> FOR THE THOUSANDTH TIME, THAT WON'T BE THE CASE.

It has already been the case for almost a year. Why and how do you think Death Spiral was founded? Answer -- by people who had been run the heck off the DC board because you could repeat /praise/ of Identity Crisis all day, but God help you if you repeated /criticism/. And this is /not/ hearsay... I'm the founder of Death Spiral, remember? I was there.

And that was /before/ Paul's new rules. (Or, for that matter, Paul's becoming the DC board mod.)

You cannot tell people that "it won't be the case" when they've already seen the case with their own two eyes.

Well, I suppose you could /try/ to tell them, but you have virtually no odds of being /believed/.

> Listen, we've all admitted the rules are unclear,

Which means we have nothing to go on except past patterns of behavior and precedent.

Most of which *confirm* our worst suspicions, not dismiss them.

[Donald Stone]

Untrue. I said that I found it unfortunate that certain people, instead of doing the mature and rational thing, jumped straight to certain misconceptions without first seeking clarification of just what the posted guidelines meant.

It is a basic skill that is taught in primary/elementary school; if you have a question then you raise your hand and you ask it. It is how you learn, if you don't raise your hand then you remain ignorant, working under false schema.The very statement made it clear no questioning of the rules is allowed.

But since it's now being implied that I'm a child, and an ignorant one at that, I'm done.

[Matt]

And it can *never* be rebuilt so long as the mods' only reaction is to keep telling us that they *demand* our trust, and that if they don't get it, they're simply going to ignore us.

We you to act like mature, responsible adults.
Not, as certain people have in extremely recent times, like immature teenagers seeking to twist phrases and not taking responsibility for their own (in)actions.

If you behave in such a manner then we are under no obligation to address the issues of someone who is not going to attempt to productively work with us but instead waste our time by playing with semantics and 'rules lawyering'.

[Tom]

There's a list of guidlines one must go through before they can even begin to criticise anything coming out of DC at the moment. I see no list of guidlines one has to follow to say 'I love everything about DC right now!"Right. Conceded many times now and completely overexplained at this point.
So, anyone who doesn't follow these specific guidlines (which proponents of the current DC trends don't have to follow)
will be deleted, more than once and your punished. Complain about the rules and you're punished.Sorry, but this isn't the fascism you're making it out to be. You are quite free to send the moderators a PM to complain, but not allowing it to clutter up the board is fairly standard and this is more than a fair warning. You'd have to be deleted several times before you'd get a warning; next step, temp ban; next step, perm ban. There aren't many boards out there who lay it out so clearly.

[Paul Newell]

And it's a good question because I was very unclear when I wrote that.

Paul and Jim will have to tell you exactly what that means, but for me it was about people repeatedly posting their opinions to advocate an agenda. "I'm going to keep complaining about IC until DC changes their ways." "I just want to educate people on what's out there besides rape comics." There's nothing wrong with these sentiments in and of themselves but repeatedly stating them is unneccessary. And it can't be denied that it happens because several posters have openly declared just such a thing.

I don't know about Jim, but the criteria I'm using is based on experience. I read everything on both boards and, believe me, I've seen enough posts to know, when someone either has a legitimate critisism or are going into a prerehearsed diatribe by rote.

[Tom]

> FOR THE THOUSANDTH TIME, THAT WON'T BE THE CASE.

It has already been the case for almost a year. Why and how do you think Death Spiral was founded? Answer -- by people who had been run the heck off the DC board because you could repeat /praise/ of Identity Crisis all day, but God help you if you repeated /criticism/. And this is /not/ hearsay... I'm the founder of Death Spiral, remember? I was there.

And that was /before/ Paul's new rules. (Or, for that matter, Paul's becoming the DC board mod.)

You cannot tell people that "it won't be the case" when they've already seen the case with their own two eyes.

Well, I suppose you could /try/ to tell them, but you have virtually no odds of being /believed/.Sorry, no. There has been an overwhelming amount of critical posting that went on right up until yesterday. It's all still right there on the board. Negative opinions have absolutely not been censored - and they still won't.
Which means we have nothing to go on except past patterns of behavior and precedent.There have easily been 20,000 words written today alone by various moderators attempting to explain things.

[Chuckg]

Matt, this situation will never reach a productive ending until you can find a response pattern that doesn't involve arrogantly dismissing all those who disagree with you as ill-mannered children.

[Chuckg]

> Sorry, no. There has been an overwhelming amount of critical posting
> that went on right up until yesterday. It's all still right there on the board.

Tom, you are telling me that something I saw with my own two eyes -- something that I personally experienced -- supposedly didn't happen.

[snip]
> There have easily been 20,000 words written today alone by various
> moderators attempting to explain things.

No...there have been 20,000 words written today by various moderators attempting to explain why the situation is all our fault, immature teenaged brats that we are. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

> Sorry, no. There has been an overwhelming amount of critical posting
> that went on right up until yesterday. It's all still right there on the board.

Tom, you are telling me that something I saw with my own two eyes -- something that I personally experienced -- supposedly didn't happen.
Chuck, go read the threads. Negative criticism is not being censored because negative criticism is still being posted.

[Tom]

No...there have been 20,000 words written today by various moderators attempting to explain why the situation is all our fault, immature teenaged brats that we are. :rolleyes:
Absolutely untrue.

[Chuckg]

I don't know about Jim, but the criteria I'm using is based on experience. I read everything on both boards and, believe me, I've seen enough posts to know, when someone either has a legitimate critisism or are going into a prerehearsed diatribe by rote.

IOW, the criteria is your purely subjective evaluation -- based on hunches and criteria that are solely up to you to determine, that can change on a case-by-case basis, and that nobody other than you can ever know for sure.

You might as well change the wording of the rule to "I will delete any post I personally dislike or disagree with", because at least /that/ way, people would know exactly what they're getting into.

[Tom]

Matt, this situation will never reach a productive ending until you can find a response pattern that doesn't involve arrogantly dismissing all those who disagree with you as ill-mannered children.
Chuck, you were warned about an adversarial tone. Any more posts like this will be deleted.

[Tom]

Are there any more questions about the rules? Because discussions about what you all think of us personally are not going to happen.

[Chuckg]

Chuck, go read the threads. Negative criticism is not being censored because negative criticism is still being posted.

*Repeated* negative criticism, OTOH...?

Repeated positive reviews, however, are not restrained in any way whatsoever.

EDIT: Did it again. Sorry. Edited when I thought I was quoting. - Tom

[Tom]

*Repeated* negative criticism, OTOH...?

Repeated positive reviews, however, are not restrained in any way whatsoever.

That is really something you'll have to take up with Paul and Jim. Sorry to pass the buck, but I simply can't answer for them. But the repeated goal has been to allow a more balanced discussion and to be honest, I can't say I've seen that lately. To my eyes, it's been overwhelmingly negative - and I don't really like much of the IC stuff going on right now myself.

[Chuckg]

That is really something you'll have to take up with Paul and Jim. Sorry to pass the buck, but I simply can't answer for them.

Well, actually, Paul already answered in this thread -- and his answer confirmed my worst fears. The sole criteria he's using is:

I don't know about Jim, but the criteria I'm using is based on experience. I read everything on both boards and, believe me, I've seen enough posts to know, when someone either has a legitimate critisism or are going into a prerehearsed diatribe by rote.

IOW, the only person who knows exactly what standards Paul is going to be using to judge 'genuine' vs. 'non-genuine' posts is Paul, as he's making the call based solely on "I've seen enough posts to know". i.e. -- purely subjective and personal criteria.

And as I've just been told by you that one more 'adversarial' post by me will result in a 24-hour ban... and I have no more idea what you will or will not find 'adversarial' than I would have an idea what Paul would or would not find 'genuine' -- the only *safe* thing I can do now is simply stop posting here at all.

You see, this is the problem with rules that aren't precisely stated, and based as much as possible on objective standards as opposed to subjective feelings. The only way an individual poster can find out where the boundaries are is the *hard* way -- i.e., by slipping up and getting whacked. Which is about as safe as trying to navigate through a minefield when your only method of knowing where the mines are is to step on one and find out.

This is how vaguely stated rules with no objective guidelines act to suppress and stifle criticism. When you don't know where the safe zones are, when they change from day to day or from person to person or from topic to topic based on the moderator's personal feelings and biases, then the only safe course of action is to never risk saying anything except what everybody else is saying.

At any rate, I'm out of here before you get sick of listening to me and decide to just hit me with a 24-hour involuntary vacation. Here's hoping something I said today will actually be accepted.

[Paul Newell]

IOW, the criteria is your purely subjective evaluation -- based on hunches and criteria that are solely up to you to determine, that can change on a case-by-case basis, and that nobody other than you can ever know for sure.

You might as well change the wording of the rule to "I will delete any post I personally dislike or disagree with", because at least /that/ way, people would know exactly what they're getting into.

How would people be more certain about what I personally dislike or disagree with? I tend, for the most part, not to post either when discussing comics. How can people know exactly when they've never seen what I dislike or disagree with?

[MatthewC]

*Repeated* negative criticism, OTOH...?

Repeated positive reviews, however, are not restrained in any way whatsoever.


I don't understand why anyone would think there should be a balance there.

Positive reviews don't make people feel bad. Nobody reads a positive review and feels like it's saying you're a dick if you don't like something, no matter how many times people post it. Even if the same positive point is rehashed over and over, so what?

Repeated negative reviews that continue to rehash the same points, OTOH, can easily piss people off.

They just don't feel the same. They shouldn't be treated the same.

[Joe Rice]

On the other hand, it's just a comic book message board, one of many. It's not really something meant to be taken this deadly seriously. I hate the comics in question, but don't find repeating myself to be interesting. Paul Newell and I have had a bit of a back and forth history, but I see where he's coming from here. He doesn't mind criticism and has actually said mine was fine. But there are certain elements of just repeating yourself to some folks. It's dull and the moderators here have the right to bad whatever they want. Just like everyone else has the right to post elsewhere.

I cannot understand how this is such a big deal. It's an internet board to discuss comics. You can still criticize things. Just do it without going on the same rant you've gone on since ID Crisis. No one's being convinced of anything. Just discuss things you enjoy, critique things you didn't, and then move on.

[yeoman]

For what it's worth...

I apologize for my snarkiness in the previous thread. I stand by every single point I made, but there were definitely times I could have made them in a better manner.

Tom, I'll give you this. Far as I know you had nothing to do with closing the thread, and were at least willing to discuss it.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I don't understand why anyone would think there should be a balance there.

Positive reviews don't make people feel bad. Nobody reads a positive review and feels like it's saying you're a dick if you don't like something, no matter how many times people post it. Even if the same positive point is rehashed over and over, so what?

Repeated negative reviews that continue to rehash the same points, OTOH, can easily piss people off.

They just don't feel the same. They shouldn't be treated the same.

I call bullshit on that.

I get really tired of seeing the defenders of DC's current trend repeat the same stuff over and over - "Oh, wait 'til it's done, it'll turn out to be cool" or "Yeah, it's dark right now, but it's gonna turn around now", "Sure it *seems* dumb, but you have to trust there's a plot reason for it," etc. - in response to disgusting, age-inappropriate content, poor characterization, etc. The IDENTITY CRISIS defenders used these arguments, arguing that there would be a real point to Sue Dibny's rape and murder, other than to a) motivate immoral behavior in the heroes, and b) launch the mini in a sensationalistic manner. And, they were wrong. Nothing was resolved, the moral ambiguity only got worse, and the "murder mystery" made minimal to no sense. In "War Games", there was no real pay-off - at least nothing positive. Black Mask came out of it fine, a teen female character was dead after having been tortured across several issues, etc. Yet, when critics of these books and the general DC trends continue to object, and to point out the trends, we're called whiners, or "too immature to deal with reality", as if reality had anything to do with comics about folk with super powers.

So, I get just as tired of that repetitive bullshit - none of which Paul apparently thinks is a problem at all - as the DC defenders get of the arguments I and some other critics make. But, while I find it tiring and a bit annoying, I've never bothered whining to mods about it. Why? Because I don't expect that everyone will share my opinion - no matter how much I think they should! - and I don't take it personally when someone holds a different opinion than my own.

I say again - the person who gets upset or feels intimidated just because someone expresses an idea different than their own about a comic book is the one who has a problem, not the person who posted the contrary opinion. I'm responsible for I write, but I'm not responsible for the reactions others have to my writing. I don't control the minds or emotions of other people.

And, Tom... the stuff Chuck described did happen on the DCU boards when Arune was a mod. I was there.

[Pendaran]

I don't understand why anyone would think there should be a balance there.


Considering the open statements you've made on it being some higher calling of yours to make people stop complaining about things period, your view on this can hardly be called rife with nuance or free of bias as far as your defending of this policy there Matt (C that is).

As you're trying to argue it's good based on how it feels to you.

They don't feel the same /to you/, but I assure you, people like yourself do wonders for in fact promoting a feeling that yes, reading a positive review can carry a connotation of it talking down to you and saying you're a dick if you don't like something just as much as a negative one.

It merely takes the arrogance of someone involved doing so saying things like their motivations for doing it involve trying to save people from their dislikes, things such as that.

Any review can have any effect, one that happens to like something meaning it can do no wrong nor offend anyone in how it gets phrased or places exists only in your world I fear.

They just don't feel the same. They shouldn't be treated the same.

To you. And unless you have become the objective authority for sensation from on high, you lack the right to decree sweepingly that this is true for, you know, not you.

You are taking how you feel and saying it like it is objective truth.

Explain to me how a positive review can't carry the connotation of "and if you don't like this, there's something wrong with you" when it is made. You would have to argue the sheer act of liking something gives someone degrees of empathy and humility heretofore unforseen. Plenty of arrogant, condescending reviews approving something exist, as to conversations about why something is good and how people who don't like it are dumb. They'll continue to exist. That you deny that they do, or that they even happen on this board, disconnects from reality.

That you "don't understand" how these lowly perspectives you work so hard to save people from think, speaks volumes to your own perspective, and the caliber of it.

[yeoman]

I call bullshit on that.

I get really tired of seeing the defenders of DC's current trend repeat the same stuff over and over - "Oh, wait 'til it's done, it'll turn out to be cool" or "Yeah, it's dark right now, but it's gonna turn around now", "Sure it *seems* dumb, but you have to trust there's a plot reason for it," etc. - in response to disgusting, age-inappropriate content, poor characterization, etc. The IDENTITY CRISIS defenders used these arguments, arguing that there would be a real point to Sue Dibny's rape and murder, other than to a) motivate immoral behavior in the heroes, and b) launch the mini in a sensationalistic manner. And, they were wrong. Nothing was resolved, the moral ambiguity only got worse, and the "murder mystery" made minimal to no sense. In "War Games", there was no real pay-off - at least nothing positive. Black Mask came out of it fine, a teen female character was dead after having been tortured across several issues, etc. Yet, when critics of these books and the general DC trends continue to object, and to point out the trends, we're called whiners, or "too immature to deal with reality", as if reality had anything to do with comics about folk with super powers.


A friend once told me about somethig he read on the City of Heroes board about something in the proposed live action Transformers movie. SOmone responded 'I don't need realism in my giant transforming robot movie.'

[Matt]

Matt, this situation will never reach a productive ending until you can find a response pattern that doesn't involve arrogantly dismissing all those who disagree with you as ill-mannered children.

I have no problem with people diagreeing with me. It happens all the time.
However, I do have a big problem with people who don't take the proper, responsible actions that should be naught but common sense and then complain that their collective grievances aren't addressed. Which is precisely what has happened here. On top of that, several Moderators have taken an extraordinary amount of time to clarify things in a way which anyone should be to easily understand and, instead of the same people attempting to work with us, all we have received is people seemingly trying to stir up trouble.

That is not on. Not by a long shot.

This thread has long since veered far off topic and become a farce. When certain people feel like discussing or asking sensible questions about things in a mature, rational and civil manner then feel free to start another thread on this board. This one is done.