The Comic Bloc Forums

Go Back   The Comic Bloc Forums > The Town Hall > ComicBlogs: The Voice of the People

ComicBlogs: The Voice of the People Everyone gets a blog, subscribe to others' blogs, get feeds, and more!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 21st, 2006   magicspoon is offline   #65
magicspoon's Avatar
magicspoon
Eye See You

 
joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,825

Default

No, spoon, I was not saying that it was coincidental and that the participants of the previous thread weren't commenting on the behavior of you-know-who. We weren't solely commenting on his behavior, but it was certainly included in the parody... which was a commentary on certain board behavior/trends that was being made harmlessly and ridiculously (arguing about bringing back the late Tom Mix or the late William S Hart to star in a film?).


What I was saying was that the insults and mockery in this thread, directed at Dover Demon and his behavior are clear and deliberate. It's far from the first or only time where DD is concerned, and - for that matter - it doesn't just happen to DD.

Yet, this is accepted; in fact, implicitly endorsed by the mods' presence and lack of censure toward said behavior... there are no lectures about bullying, no remarks about being disappointed in the posters engaging in that behavior here, or statements that mockery will not be accepted. Dover Demon and his behavior, both, are being mocked and insulted nakedly and plainly, and that's clearly okay.

On the other hand, a thread that while - yes - was, in part, addressing the behavior of another, more "taboo" poster, was broad and commented generally on people who are for and against bringing characters back from the dead. It did not have "gluvs" in it. It did not solely exist for the purpose of belittling another poster, as the comments in this thread have solely existed for. And, yet, it was locked and the posters who participated were scolded.

That's what I'm saying. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying you're a Nazi or any such nonsense... it's your board to do as you see fit, anyway... you can even change my post to read "I'm a fluffy bunny", if you so choose, and it's your right to do so... but nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that how you all are dealing with this much more obvious dogpile, versus how you dealt with the far vaguer satirization of the previous thread is wildly inequitous and not in the least bit fair.

Not that you need to be fair. It's just ridiculous to act offended at the suggestion when such a naked example exists.


Also... who's attacking mods? Is questioning a decision or a perceived trend of decision-making an attack? I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't go hunting for sh*t to stir up; I've got plenty on my plate in real life, right now. If I have something to say, there's a viable reason which I can outline, as per above. I like making friends, not enemies; but I also have the type of character which compels me to speak, rather than roll over, when I feel something's not right... which really isn't all that often, frankly.
ddf
crawfordcrow View Post


Actually, no. The two are completely unrelated. This is where you have to get past the part of my not being a robot. There are other differences between this and that, that are more beyond the actual similar facts of the threads themselves.

Hyperbolic boasting is much different than the other 'parodied thread trends'.


You guys have an inability to accept that you've been caught, and throwing that back in the mods faces continually is what I'm referring to. It's not rolling over - it's accepting you're wrong.
 
"Habagase, Get in the Room!"
http://www.harmoniousgrid.com/
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2006   evilscratch is offline   #66
evilscratch's Avatar
evilscratch
The Hepatic Horseman

 
joined: Jan 2005
Location: Birthplace of Elvis, Baby!
Posts: 4,789

Default

 
Raising a glass to Mike (Argent).
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2006   crawfordcrow is offline   #67
crawfordcrow's Avatar
crawfordcrow
Toffee Hammer Horseman

 
joined: Sep 2004
Location: Hearts and minds.
Posts: 6,503

Default

I, too, am sensitive to derailing Demon's thead. If you feel maligned, Demon, please say so, and I will stop with the thread drift.

Actually, no. The two are completely unrelated. This is where you have to get past the part of my not being a robot. There are other differences between this and that, that are more beyond the actual similar facts of the threads themselves.

Hyperbolic boasting is much different than the other 'parodied thread trends'.


You guys have an inability to accept that you've been caught, and throwing that back in the mods faces continually is what I'm referring to. It's not rolling over - it's accepting you're wrong.
ddf
magicspoon View Post

Been caught? Criticizing the actions/attitude of another poster... even "that" poster? Like I said, of course we were. Just as several people, including mods, do here every single day.

Perhaps this is what I've failed to grasp... are you saying that because we have been told to not wantonly bait a certain poster, that we are also forbidden from criticizing any actions or behavior on that posters' part? I didn't realize that was part of the mandate.

I'm not being facetious... I mean, there is a huge difference between just dropping "gluvs" comments in random spots, and actually addressing/criticizing/satirizing something brought by that poster. It's the difference between going from thread to thread, randomly saying "You're such a Dover Demon" (apologies to Dover for using him as an example), and actually reacting to an opinion or behavior that Dover exhibits, as he exhibits it.


The Tom Mix thread was no different from the time-honored "Remember... Everything's Geoff's Fault!" thread. It was almost exactly the same kind of thread, tone-wise. It addressed a general trend, was undoubtedly sparked by the thread or post made by a particular poster (there had to be some individual who posted the "last straw" thread that inspired the parody), and yet directly targeted no one and remained broadly satirical.

It, effectively - as our British friends would say - "took the piss out of" the behavior being lampooned therein, and was freakin' awesome. (And is, also, by the way, the more accurate answer about the "type of fun" being missing from the boards. ...There is nothing wrong with parody like that! It's valid commentary, more civil and fruitful than direct insults or combativeness, and is infinitely more effective in making points than long-winded, dry, lawyerly posts like the ones I've made above.)


I'm not half as arrogant as people seem to like to paint me, lately (an odd assertion I've been hearing lately, seeing as how I've strived to get to know so many people here, even ones who've repeatedly turned their noses up at me). I'm more than aware of my shortcomings and am quite willing to accept when I'm wrong. I bite the heel of my hand on a daily basis, knowing that I've f***ed up. Even here. But, in this particular instance? You're right; I won't admit being "wrong" in this circumstance... not from a child-like inability to own up to my own actions or shortcomings, but because - in this case - I don't believe that I am. I'm open to evidence to the contrary, but I've seen none, and thus cannot feel right "admitting" it. We were being critical of something (or things) that other posters brought to the board, and were well within the boundaries of generally accepted form.

Of course, since it's your house/your rules, I can accept that you've decided we were wrong, which is all that ultimately matters, I suppose. Although it becomes harder to second-guess what things that others do which may or may not be acceptable for me, then.


As for the robot thing... I'm well aware you're not a robot, 'spoon.

Are you as aware that "Horsemen" refers to about twenty people, the vast majority of whom I doubt you've ever had an issue with in their entire time on the board? All I ask is that you don't distribute the rancor intended for one or three posters across them all, by association.

As a matter of fact, I'm thinking of encouraging a couple of the "bad spotlight" folks - myself included - to change our User Title, so that we don't keep dragging the Horsemen down with us. They're good people and stand for something admirable, which is more important than my need to be counted as one of them.
 
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2006   J-Liv is offline   #68
J-Liv's Avatar
J-Liv
Frappuccino Jedi

 
joined: Feb 2004
Location: Henderson, Nevada
Posts: 3,522

Default

I gotta agree with crawfordcrow here. not all the horseman are the same.

some are good people.
ddf
Old School View Post

Ya know Lance...ya really gotta work on the phrasing, bro. I know you meant that to be a compliment to some people, but, as phrased, there's gonna be a lot of people who aren't gonna take it that way....

-J
 
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2006   cookavich is offline   #69
cookavich's Avatar
cookavich
404Error Horseman

 
joined: Oct 2005
Location: The Department of Mysteries
Posts: 3,096

Default

I'd be scared of my pimp. He would want at least three quarters of what I would make pleasuring women. If I were his client, he would become a very wealthy man.
ddf
Dover Demon View Post
I guess if Rob Schneider can make it in "the biz"........
 
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2006   magicspoon is offline   #70
magicspoon's Avatar
magicspoon
Eye See You

 
joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,825

Default

I, too, am sensitive to derailing Demon's thead. If you feel maligned, Demon, please say so, and I will stop with the thread drift.




Been caught? Criticizing the actions/attitude of another poster... even "that" poster? Like I said, of course we were. Just as several people, including mods, do here every single day.

Perhaps this is what I've failed to grasp... are you saying that because we have been told to not wantonly bait a certain poster, that we are also forbidden from criticizing any actions or behavior on that posters' part? I didn't realize that was part of the mandate.

I'm not being facetious... I mean, there is a huge difference between just dropping "gluvs" comments in random spots, and actually addressing/criticizing/satirizing something brought by that poster. It's the difference between going from thread to thread, randomly saying "You're such a Dover Demon" (apologies to Dover for using him as an example), and actually reacting to an opinion or behavior that Dover exhibits, as he exhibits it.


The Tom Mix thread was no different from the time-honored "Remember... Everything's Geoff's Fault!" thread. It was almost exactly the same kind of thread, tone-wise. It addressed a general trend, was undoubtedly sparked by the thread or post made by a particular poster (there had to be some individual who posted the "last straw" thread that inspired the parody), and yet directly targeted no one and remained broadly satirical.

It, effectively - as our British friends would say - "took the piss out of" the behavior being lampooned therein, and was freakin' awesome. (And is, also, by the way, the more accurate answer about the "type of fun" being missing from the boards. ...There is nothing wrong with parody like that! It's valid commentary, more civil and fruitful than direct insults or combativeness, and is infinitely more effective in making points than long-winded, dry, lawyerly posts like the ones I've made above.)


I'm not half as arrogant as people seem to like to paint me, lately (an odd assertion I've been hearing lately, seeing as how I've strived to get to know so many people here, even ones who've repeatedly turned their noses up at me). I'm more than aware of my shortcomings and am quite willing to accept when I'm wrong. I bite the heel of my hand on a daily basis, knowing that I've f***ed up. Even here. But, in this particular instance? You're right; I won't admit being "wrong" in this circumstance... not from a child-like inability to own up to my own actions or shortcomings, but because - in this case - I don't believe that I am. I'm open to evidence to the contrary, but I've seen none, and thus cannot feel right "admitting" it. We were being critical of something (or things) that other posters brought to the board, and were well within the boundaries of generally accepted form.

Of course, since it's your house/your rules, I can accept that you've decided we were wrong, which is all that ultimately matters, I suppose. Although it becomes harder to second-guess what things that others do which may or may not be acceptable for me, then.


As for the robot thing... I'm well aware you're not a robot, 'spoon.

Are you as aware that "Horsemen" refers to about twenty people, the vast majority of whom I doubt you've ever had an issue with in their entire time on the board? All I ask is that you don't distribute the rancor intended for one or three posters across them all, by association.

As a matter of fact, I'm thinking of encouraging a couple of the "bad spotlight" folks - myself included - to change our User Title, so that we don't keep dragging the Horsemen down with us. They're good people and stand for something admirable, which is more important than my need to be counted as one of them.
ddf
crawfordcrow View Post
the difference of parody and good natured ribbing, is that, I assume, you like Geoff.
 
"Habagase, Get in the Room!"
http://www.harmoniousgrid.com/
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2006   crawfordcrow is offline   #71
crawfordcrow's Avatar
crawfordcrow
Toffee Hammer Horseman

 
joined: Sep 2004
Location: Hearts and minds.
Posts: 6,503

Default

the difference of parody and good natured ribbing, is that, I assume, you like Geoff.
ddf
magicspoon View Post
Well, of course I do, 'spoon. But, Geoff wasn't being parodied in that thread. People who blame him for everything were. ...In other words, it was a satire/parody/critique of posting behavior. ...Just like the Tom Mix thread.
 
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2006   magicspoon is offline   #72
magicspoon's Avatar
magicspoon
Eye See You

 
joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,825

Default

the tom mix thread had different origins. to say otherwise would do you a disservice.
 
"Habagase, Get in the Room!"
http://www.harmoniousgrid.com/
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2006   crawfordcrow is offline   #73
crawfordcrow's Avatar
crawfordcrow
Toffee Hammer Horseman

 
joined: Sep 2004
Location: Hearts and minds.
Posts: 6,503

Default

the tom mix thread had different origins. to say otherwise would do you a disservice.
ddf
magicspoon View Post
My feelings toward the poster in question are well-documented, 'spoon. But, there was no personal attack in play. If I don't like someone, am I unable to react critically to what they say or do? That's what I'm failing to grasp here.

I'm not fond of the individual. His behavior was partially the target of the satire. All true. I can't speak for the poster who actually started the Tom Mix thread, but I am quite sure this is true for him, too.

However, instead of taking a cheap shot or calling his behavior stupid, he, then I, chose to satirize his - and others' - behavior, a la Everything's Geoff's Fault, to set it in a different light.

Because we aren't fond of him... or because of the history that exists there... does that mean that we can't react critically to his actions or statements, from hereonin?

That's my honest question. You're right about the underlying attitude toward that poster; I'm not denying that for a second. So... does that negate our ability to say anything critical about what he does? (And you know I don't simply mean taking random pot shots.)
 
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2006   magicspoon is offline   #74
magicspoon's Avatar
magicspoon
Eye See You

 
joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,825

Default

deliberate attacks on other posters aren't allowed. it's one thing to respond to something you don't agree with (argument wise) or when that poster is doing something genuinely objectionable, racist, sexist, hateful, etc - but just taking the opportunity to take, what is in all consideration a more deliberate potshot over a random thread in random junk is a different thing.
 
"Habagase, Get in the Room!"
http://www.harmoniousgrid.com/
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2006   crawfordcrow is offline   #75
crawfordcrow's Avatar
crawfordcrow
Toffee Hammer Horseman

 
joined: Sep 2004
Location: Hearts and minds.
Posts: 6,503

Default

deliberate attacks on other posters aren't allowed. it's one thing to respond to something you don't agree with (argument wise) or when that poster is doing something genuinely objectionable, racist, sexist, hateful, etc - but just taking the opportunity to take, what is in all consideration a more deliberate potshot over a random thread in random junk is a different thing.
ddf
magicspoon View Post
Well... the whole point to me is that I didn't feel it was "attacking another poster", but that it was being critical of a poster's assertions. It was making a point about specific behavior exhibited by that poster and others, and never got remotely personal toward any individual. It was clearly satirizing an attitude, rather than a person.

I mean, if I came out saying "gluvs gluvs kozy koop" or "here's a thread about how my daughter made another poopy today", that's personal. Even if I were to narrowcast a parody of some posters' obsession over certain characters by, say, pretending to fixate on heroes with blond afros... that's pretty pared-down and specific to one obvious poster's tendencies.

But, the Tom Mix thing was broad and legitimately applied to behaviors exhibited by many posters, as did the Geoff's Fault thread. You can find a wealth of thread titles that were similar to the one being parodied in the Mix thread; his thread was just the most recent.



Not only does this concern me, insofar as not being certain what sort of otherwise-legitimate commentary will now be considered "over the line" when it comes to do with certain people... but, with all of this, I'm also growing worried that this automatic "assumption of worst intentions" will continue extending. I'm afraid that I'll make some satirical remark about - I don't know - swimming, or something, and get censured because, unbeknownst to me, that poster had made a recent reference to swimming.
 
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2006   magicspoon is offline   #76
magicspoon's Avatar
magicspoon
Eye See You

 
joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,825

Default

Actually no. It only doesn't apply with people that have no idea of the history of the forums. To anyone that's been here a while, it was an instant flag.

That's kinda my whole point - you got busted bro.
 
"Habagase, Get in the Room!"
http://www.harmoniousgrid.com/
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2006   crawfordcrow is offline   #77
crawfordcrow's Avatar
crawfordcrow
Toffee Hammer Horseman

 
joined: Sep 2004
Location: Hearts and minds.
Posts: 6,503

Default

So, because it's known that I don't care for this individual, anything I say about what he does or says will be viewed as a personal attack, rather than a critical one of his actions?
 
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2006   evilscratch is offline   #78
evilscratch's Avatar
evilscratch
The Hepatic Horseman

 
joined: Jan 2005
Location: Birthplace of Elvis, Baby!
Posts: 4,789

Default

deliberate attacks on other posters aren't allowed. it's one thing to respond to something you don't agree with (argument wise) or when that poster is doing something genuinely objectionable, racist, sexist, hateful, etc - but just taking the opportunity to take, what is in all consideration a more deliberate potshot over a random thread in random junk is a different thing.
ddf
magicspoon View Post
There is a thirteen, nay 16, year old girl who will never come here again. The bloc is secure thanks to the Special OP's Team.
 
Raising a glass to Mike (Argent).
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2006   crawfordcrow is offline   #79
crawfordcrow's Avatar
crawfordcrow
Toffee Hammer Horseman

 
joined: Sep 2004
Location: Hearts and minds.
Posts: 6,503

Default

In the immediate moment, though I hate to say it, that's beside the point, Chris.

I really need an answer to my last question, in order to know what I'm allowed to say without getting rained on.
 
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2006   Warren Worthington is offline   #80
Warren Worthington's Avatar
Warren Worthington
Rexually Active

 
joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,450

Default

So, because it's known that I don't care for this individual, anything I say about what he does or says will be viewed as a personal attack, rather than a critical one of his actions?
ddf
crawfordcrow View Post
I had that same issue a few weeks back. The problem is, I wasn't only reprimanded for being critical of something a poster said, it was done by a poster that happens to be a horseman, even though I have seen this only once by one of them and quite often from mods.
I hate to think that just because I had issues with a certain individual in the past, I have to treat whatever they say with kiddie gloves. I also hate to think that people think whatever I say about that person stems from my dislike of that person.
So I agree with Crow here. The problem here is assumption. And if people can't....not make assumptions, it'll result in problems in the future, IMO.
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2000-2008 Comic Bloc All characters and titles are © by their respective owners.