The online behavior of Comic Book Professionals

[jsg2295]

Yes that is one side of it. What about my other post? I'm more curious about that...

Maybe you both should just PM each other and just post the results later.

[Ari Gold]

The Wednesday on Twitter comment is an interesting example, since we could look at that in the context of Kylum123's previous interactions with Wacker, including Kylum123's 29 (so far) posts in this very thread and their history elsewhere on the board.

As compared to the 39 from Ben Smith? We had a back and forth last night, it pumps up the post count . . .

And because I've criticized Marvel in the past, and he doesn't like it he's allowed to simply call me "REALLY obnoxious"? OK.

How about this one:

What's really absurd is when a guy hiding behind a fake name calls me a "coward". Heh.

SW

Did I ever call you a "coward"?

Mr. Mets, should I be sharing my personal info. on the site or not? Does it somehow get me more credit on CBR?
Just in case:
As I've shared in the past when prompted by Mr. Wacker.
My name is Ari Gold. I live in Houston, TX. I shop comics primarily at Bedrock City, though sometimes at Third Planet as well. Wanna be LinkedIn buddies?
EDIT: I sincerely don't believe people should be encouraged to post their personal info. on this site.

[ShaggyB]

On some level, I think this thread breaks the rule about specifically discussing posters.

sure it does. But it really comes down to a do we let people talk about it or do we squash it. We decided to bend the rule and let it be discussed in a thread instead of derail other threads. Are you suggesting that we should reconsider and delete the whole thing?

[Mister Mets]

So then the rule doesn't apply if people are being rude to us first? That is interesting logic...

I'm not talking about the rules.

I don't want get into a discussion of the rules. Those are usually handled internally. It's time-consuming, a distraction, and a comparison of how Wacker and Slott are treated relative to other posters requires a public airing of private grievances, as well as a discussion about comments that got people banned, which allows the once-banned party an opportunity to get more exposure for a comment that was determined to be out of line, and inappropriate for these boards.

The thread's about Wacker and Slott's behavior online, and whether it's appropriate. I think an important part of determining that is to view their comments in context.

[Chris S.]

As compared to the 39 from Ben Smith?

Yea I actually think the Ben Smith thing is interesting. His comments toward me were very much flame bating and disrespectful and yet nothing was said of that. Does he agree or disagree with Mets again?...

[Chris S.]

I'm not talking about the rules.

I don't want get into a discussion of the rules. Those are usually handled internally. It's time-consuming, a distraction, and a comparison of how Wacker and Slott are treated relative to other posters requires a public airing of private grievances, as well as a discussion about comments that got people banned, which allows the once-banned party an opportunity to get more exposure for a comment that was determined to be out of line, and inappropriate for these boards.

The thread's about Wacker and Slott's behavior online, and whether it's appropriate. I think an important part of determining that is to view their comments in context.

I'm not saying that the people that started the debate aren't wrong, but as we've said numerous times in here two wrongs don't make a right. I think both parties deserve a warning. I wonder how many warnings Wacker has received for flaming though...

[Raphael Edwards]

And because I've criticized Marvel in the past, and he doesn't like it he's allowed to simply call me "REALLY obnoxious"? OK.

I'm hoping Wacker deviates from the trolling back and forth with whoever and such, but him calling you obnoxious is pretty minor man.'

[ShaggyB]

As compared to the 39 from Ben Smith? We had a back and forth last night, it pumps up the post count . . .

And because I've criticized Marvel in the past, and he doesn't like it he's allowed to simply call me "REALLY obnoxious"? OK.

wasnt that a reference to what you had as your signature for awhile there? Im pretty sure you had a sig that was incredibly condescending to the point of an admin discussing why it should be removed with you. Its not as if you are squeaky clean in this....

Speaking of which see your PM box.

[Mister Mets]

As compared to the 39 from Ben Smith? We had a back and forth last night, it pumps up the post count . . .

And because I've criticized Marvel in the past, and he doesn't like it he's allowed to simply call me "REALLY obnoxious"? OK.

How about this one:


Did I ever call you a "coward"?

Mr. Mets, should I be sharing my personal info. on the site or not? Does it somehow get me more credit on CBR?
Just in case:
As I've shared in the past when prompted by Mr. Wacker.
My name is Ari Gold. I live in Houston, TX. I shop comics primarily at Bedrock City, though sometimes at Third Planet as well. Wanna be LinkedIn buddies?
EDIT: I sincerely don't believe people should be encouraged to post their personal info. on this site.

I'm not criticizing you for the 29+ posts. I was just noting that those are part of the context of Wacker's response to you.

As for your personal infor, Wacker doesn't seem to like anonymous critics. Especially those he believes are harsher on the internet than they would be to his face.

Others on this board have presented arguments in favor of anonymous criticism.

Wacker can encourage others to post their personal info. And others can ignore his advice.

CBR does have a preference for real names. It's one reason we have a limit on handle changes unless it is to something based on your real name.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com...dated-02-08-11

[Ari Gold]

wasnt that a reference to what you had as your signature for awhile there? Im pretty sure you had a sig that was incredibly condescending to the point of an admin was discussing why it should be removed with you. Its not as if you are squeaky clean in this....

Speaking of which see your PM box.

That's cool.
I had my sig as a while "I dropped Marvel comics because of Stephen Wacker" with a link to one of the posts where he was particularly jerky or something.

Eventually, y'all told me that each time I posted with that sig it was an affront to SW and a call for him to respond in kind, so I removed it.

You just asked me in PM to again ignore Wacker. I have him on ignore and rarely reply directly to any of his posts . . .

[ShaggyB]

That's cool.
I had my sig as a while "I dropped Marvel comics because of Stephen Wacker" with a link to one of the posts where he was particularly jerky or something.

Eventually, y'all told me that each time I posted with that sig it was an affront to SW and a call for him to respond in kind, so I removed it.

You just asked me in PM to again ignore Wacker. I have him on ignore and rarely reply directly to any of his posts . . .

good to hear, might be a good idea to add the whole dont follow his posts after that. The point of the ignore function is too ignore the other person not look and see what they said anyway.

[Ari Gold]

I'm hoping Wacker deviates from the trolling back and forth with whoever and such, but him calling you obnoxious is pretty minor man.'

Yeah, that's fine. It's just that Mr. Mets wants posted examples of SW being X, Y, or Z yet no requests are made when SW calls out anyone else. Just inconsistent is all.

[Chris S.]

You just asked me in PM to again ignore Wacker. I have him on ignore and rarely reply directly to any of his posts . . .

See and this brings it back to my point. Why should Wacker's behavior be allowed if other posters have to ignore it? That seems like it is crossing a line to me, and that is especially true if a Mod is telling someone to ignore him.

Sorry Shaggy I like you, but that just seems odd to me...

[Ari Gold]

good to hear, might be a good idea to add the whole dont follow his posts after that. The point of the ignore function is too ignore the other person not look and see what they said anyway.

Fair enough. But if he's going to call me a liar, and it's going to just sit there, I feel it's in my best interests to respond.

EDIT: It truly has helped. Once in a while though it rears its head where he's just on the board blitzing anyone that criticizes a book he's on, and it becomes harder to ignore. But again, in general I rarely interact directly with Mr. Wacker.

[Ari Gold]

See and this brings it back to my point. Why should Wacker's behavior be allowed if other posters have to ignore it? That seems like it is crossing a line to me, and that is especially true if a Mod is telling someone to ignore him.

Of course it is, if it was any other regular poster nobody would be expected to simply ignore & absorb that treatment.